Top five best pundits

By Jennifer J. Foster

There are positives and negatives to listening to election results on cable news. You make tradeoffs, grudgingly accepting the presence of the annoying, insulting blabbermouths and ignoring their remarks while waiting on the smart people to get another turn.

Here are my personal top five:

Gloria Borger: Brilliant and flawless, her background as a journalist lends incredible perspective to her political analysis. I love listening to her.
James Carville: He is known as The James. What more can I say?
Donna Brazile: A former Clinton Administration official,she’s a no-nonsense, bottom-line pundit who makes no bones with her analysis. She cuts through the mess and won’t hesitate to call a fellow pundit when the you-know-what gets too deep—which is often, especially when the Worst 5 are around.
Jamal Simmons: A spokesman for Barack Obama, his unflappability is his best quality. No matter what, you can’t upset Jamal. He is an eloquent professional and the best among the presidential candidates’ emissaries.
Kirsten Powers: She’s a combination of Donna Brazile and Jamal Simmons. Intelligent, assertive and well spoken, she’s one of the best pundits the Democrats have.

Honorable mention: John King. Incoming election results and all the spin can blur the mind of even the keenest political armchair quarterback. The fog is cleared when the words are translated into pictures. Enter King and the Magic Wall. He engages the visual learners among us and delivers the news on a platform anyone can understand. That’s key during an election that has drawn record numbers of people—including plenty of political newbies—not only to the polls, but also to the intrigue of elections.

In a few minutes, the top five pundits to mute when you see their mugs.

The bitterness factor

By Jennifer J. Foster

CNN’s exit poll returned interesting numbers on what pundits are calling “the bitterness factor.“

While 70 percent of Obama votes would support Clinton if she was the nominee, only 48 percent of Clinton voters said they would support Obama if he was the nominee.

More than three out of 10 Clinton voters say they would be more likely to support McCain in November than Obama.

CNN’s best pundit, Gloria Borger, noted how early in the process, Democratic voters indicated general satisfaction with all of their choices. These numbers indicate a “hardening in these camps” that “does not portend well for the general election.“ To keep the nomination contest from blowing a wide hole in Democrats’ chances to beat McCain in November, the nomination has to be resolved in a way that preserves a sense of fairness among the losers; otherwise, supporters of the losing candidate will likely feel alienated at best and angry at worst. They could stay home for the general or vote for McCain out of spite.

Jeffrey Toobin discounts the poll, noting that a similar feeling was reflected in 2000 between George W. Bush and John McCain. “She’s behind,“ Toobin said. “So it’s no surprise that (her supporters) are irritated and grouchy.“

One other interesting note from the exit poll: Clinton’s take of the African-American vote is down to 8 percent in Indiana, and 6 percent in North Carolina. This is stunning for a woman who is married to the man who was once called “the first black president of the United States.“

Still awaiting results from South Bend.

First numbers from Indiana

By Jennifer J. Foster

First numbers from Indiana show Clinton leading Obama 66 to 34 percent, although it’s only about 3,600 votes.

Why is U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill undermining exit polls and “all the underlying data?“ I think exit polls so far show good news for Obama: He’s splitting moderates evenly with Clinton in both states; he’s even with her among Democrats who say they have been affected by the downturn in the economy; and—this is the most interesting thing—more of his voters indicate a willingness to support Clinton if she is the nominee than her supporters indicate a willingness to support him if he is the nominee (more on that later!), thus lending credence to his argument that she more closely reflects McCain-type values.

The split is now 64-36 with 3,500 votes in. Polls are still open in Western Indiana, which includes the Chicago suburbs and the Evansville area. Both are expected to be Obama strongholds, so the numbers will kick up for him in about 45 minutes. Until then, one place that offers us a good indicator of Clinton’s strength will be her returns from South Bend, as CNN’s John King noted earlier on the Magic Wall. Home to Notre Dame, South Bend is home to plenty of Catholic voters, and Clinton waxed Obama among that demographic in Pennsylvania. If she can run up big numbers there and in other conservative parts of the state, it will likely seal her win.

Awaiting results in Indiana

By Jennifer J. Foster

I love election days.

Most polls have just closed in Indiana, and the first raw vote totals are just seconds away.

It’s kind of like having to endure the interminable wait on Christmas morning, as you sit upstairs while your parents get the videocamera ready.

The last polls before voting began showed Hillary Clinton with about a four point lead over Barack Obama in Indiana, which had been a dead heat as the candidates made the turn off of Pennsylvania. As Obama dealt with the Jeremiah Wright controversy, polls showed her closing what had been close to a 20-point lead for him. She gambled and split her time between the Hoosier and Tarheel states, since North Carolina offers 115 delegates to Indiana’s 72. Will it pay off? Losses in both states will likely be the last nail in the Clinton campaign coffin.

On the other hand, if Clinton wins both contests, it will be a clear sign to Democratic delegates—super and “pledged”—that there are serious cracks in Obama’s electability argument.

Convention wisdom is that the candidates will split the states, Obama taking North Carolina and Clinton holding Indiana. Both will live to fight another day.

First raw totals seconds away ... Whoo hoo!!

Why Grimes missed the vote

By Jennifer J. Foster

In response to a listener’s question, State Rep. David Grimes says he had some “personal business I had to take care of” that required him to be out of town Thursday afternoon. He said he had made his plans a week in advance, after reviewing the schedule of events for Thursday. Grimes said he was at the Capitol “all morning long, making sure there was nothing there that would require my attention,“ keeping an eye on the calendar for the afternoon session. Grimes said he then left to attend to his out-of-town business.

At 1 p.m., Grimes said, when the House came back into session, Grimes said that House leadership changed the calendar to bring up HB 787. “It was not supposed to be there,“ Grimes said.

“That’s something that happens on occasion,“ Grimes said about missing votes. “I’m in that chair all the time that I need to be in that chair. One vote wouldn’t have changed (the outcome),“ he said. “My vote wouldn’t have made a difference ... there’s nothing I can do to change it.“

Grimes went on to say that had he been in attendance, he would have voted no on the bill.

“(Double-dipping) is a serious problem that we have,“ he said, adding that his position on the issue has been made clear to everyone involved.

But I’m still wondering why Grimes was voted “present.“ Since he was out of town, someone else had to have voted his button, and that’s a violation of House Rule 32. Unfortunately, it isn’t the first time it’s happened ... these House members seem to be chronically unable to keep their fingers off of other members’ buttons.

So, my follow-up question for Rep. Grimes would be this: If he knew he was going to be out of town for the afternoon session, why didn’t he have his machine locked out so that no one else could vote on his behalf?

Here’s a helpful post from Doc’s Political Parlor on locking and unlocking legislators’ voting machines. It details the procedure legislators use to lock and unlock their machines—when they choose to do so. It also says that everyone assumes that everyone else is OK with voting everyone else’s machines, unless someone specifically objects.

I dare say we’ve reached the point in Montgomery that we need to have a look at changing the automatic nature of the “unanimous consent” provision that allows legislators to cast votes for others. I know it’s done for convenience, because there are times when legislators must be in negotiations with their colleagues or members of the Senate on bills in process—or they may just be in the water closet.

But provisions exist for legislators to submit what we in the Florida Legislature used to call “votes after roll call.“ For example, had he locked out his machine before he left Goat Hill Tuesday, Grimes could have submitted a no vote on HB 787 when he returned to the Capitol. That would have been more useful information for Grimes’ current (and prospective) constituents; they wouldn’t have had to wonder why he didn’t take a position on the bill, and they’re perfectly capable of determining whether an occasional trip out of town negatively impacts their representation in Montgomery.

Alabamians deserve to have the best information on how their elected officials are representing them in Montgomery; expecting members to cast only their own votes is the most basic expectation they could have.