Taegan Goddard passes on word that Tom Ridge, once Pennsylvania’s governor and putatively contemplating running for Arlen Specter’s seat representing that state in the Senate, is a resident of Maryland for the purposes of federal tax and lobbying filings.

Do these sort of things matter in statewide elections?   Is anyone otherwise disposed to vote for Ridge going to be dissuaded by the notion that he’s a carpetbagger?

Rather obviously, Ridge has strong ties to Pennsylvania.  But he moved to Washington for the Homeland Security post a few years back and stayed in its suburbs to cash in as a lobbyist.  Obviously, he’s not going to commute from Pennsylvania to K Street every day.

Rick Santorum represented Pennsylvania in the Senate while living in Leesburg, Virginia; at least Maryland and Pennsylvania are contiguous. Indeed, most Senators and Representatives reside in DC or its suburbs, maintaining their legal residence in their home states only as legal fictions.

George H.W. Bush spent years in Texas before moving to DC but maintained his “Texas” residency by virtue of a Houston hotel room.  Dick Cheney ran for Vice President from Wyoming, where he grew up and which he represented in the House of Representatives, even though he was living in Texas running Haliburton.  Hillary Clinton was twice elected to the Senate from New York even though she came from DC via Arkansas via Chicago.

Former Pennsylvania governor and Department of Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge is considering running for Arlen Specter’s seat in the Senate, Roll Call reports (via Taegan Goddard).

Very interesting.  With Specter in the race for the Republican nomination, it was expected to be a two-way rematch with Pat Toomey.  Now, there’s speculation that former senator Rick Santorum may run and there appears to be a Draft Ridge movement.

Toomey would have almost certainly defeated Specter for the nomination, which is why Specter decided to switch his party label to Democrat.  Specter would almost certainly beat Toomey in a general election matchup.  Santorum would have a better shot but my sense is that, like Toomey, he’s too socially conservative for today’s Pennsylvania.   Ridge, on the other hand, would be formidable indeed.

Ralph Nader says that Barack Obama “talks white” and ignores “black issues.”

“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

The Obama campaign had only a brief response, calling the remarks disappointing.

Asked to clarify whether he thought Obama does try to “talk white,” Nader said: “Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law,” Nader said. “Haven’t heard a thing.”

I’m reminded of Charley Pride’s recounting of how often he was asked in the early days, “Why you don’t sound like you’re supposed to sound?” Of course, that was in the 1960s.

It’s not at all clear why black candidates have a particular obligation to talk about “black issues.” Indeed, as a major party nominee, it’s his job to forge a broad consensus on issues that appeal to Americans as a whole. Running as “the black candidate” and focusing mostly on the issues Nader wants him to would ensure he’d lose. Certainly, those issues haven’tNader much good.

Elsewhere, Ed Morrissey notes the irony of Nader trying to tell a black man how to talk black and that the focus on Obama’s race continues to come from those on the Left and Eric Kleefeld reminds us that this is, after all, Ralph Nader we’re talking about.

John Hawkins lists 24 candidates that John McCain might conceivably pick as his running mate with synopses as to the pros and cons of each. I’m rather sure the eventual choice is on that list, as there’s nobody that I’ve heard of who isn’t. Indeed, there are several people I haven’t heard of on it.

Frankly, the available choices are rather uninspiring. There are good reasons for bypassing each of McCain’s big name opponents (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee) and there aren’t a lot of Republican governors who already come with name recognition.

The Vice Dog Edition OTB Caption Contest^TM is now over.

(AP Photo/The White House, David Bohrer)

The Winners:

First: FormerHostage – Hey, it could be worse Rex. That poodle next door is dressed up like John Edwards.

Second: McGehee – “Kal-El — I am your father!” “NOOOOOOOOO-O-O-O-O-O!!!!!!”

Third: Bithead – “I sense something. A presence I’ve not felt since… FOOD!!!!”

Honorable Mention:

Maniakes – When asked for comment, Rick Santorum said, “I told you so.”

JOhn425 – SuperDog: “You CANNOT smell Kryptonite! You farted!”

FormerHostage – And our owners wonder why we crap on the rug!

Rodney’s Bottom of The Barrel

“STFU Jawa breath”

Q: Why is SuperDog smiling
A: Pinned ‘I have Coprophagia’ sign on DarthDogs back

“OK Agreed then, If you don’t hump Lois Lane’s leg I won’t sniff Amadala’s butt.”

The Thursday Contest is already hungry again.

America’s greatest journalist, Radley Balko, has an excellent piece on why a Clinton II Presidency would differ very little from the Bush II Presidency.

For seven years, the left has been up in arms about President Bush’s aggressive foreign policy, his secrecy, his partisanship, and his expansive claims on executive power. It’s odd, then, that they’re prepared to nominate Hillary Clinton to carry the party into the 2008 elections.

[...]

Then there is Hillary Clinton on the issues. Cato Institute President Ed Crane recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times pointing out that when you strip away the partisan coating, Mrs. Clinton’s grandiose, big-government vision is really no different than that envisioned by the neoconservatives so loathed by the left. Clinton, remember, not only voted for the Iraq war, she still hasn’t conceded she was wrong to do so, and has made no promise to end it any time soon.

[...]

Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government’s ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing “decency” standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.

[...]

What about secrecy and executive power? It’s difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband’s administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious “executive privilege” claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests—claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking.

Hillary Clinton herself went to court to keep meetings of her Health Care Task Force secret from the public, something conservatives were quick to point out when leftists criticize Vice President Cheney’s similar efforts to keep meetings of his Energy Task Force secret.

Read the whole thing.

Personally, my Election 2008 nightmare is one in which next November, the country is forced to choose between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Both persons are, by personality and inclination, more authoritarian than just about anyone else in the field. Both are smart enough to take advantage of the past two decades of increasingly consolidated presidential authority to bolster their own power. Both seem to think that the threat of military force is the end-all be-all of American diplomacy. Both have little regard for individual liberty.

And both of them are the current frontrunners.

Congressmen running for re-election routinely tout all the money they’ve brought to the district and presidents love to personally hand out disaster relief funds during election season. While unseemly, that’s just the way the game is played. Marisa Taylor and Kevin Hall report that something a little more fishy has been going on, though, in recent years:

Top Commerce and Treasury Departments officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy. Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings — all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

The House Oversight Committee is investigating whether the White House’s political briefings to at least 15 agencies, including to the Justice Department, the General Services Administration and the State Department, violated a ban on the use of government resources for campaign activities. Under the Hatch Act, Cabinet members are permitted to attend political briefings and appear with members of Congress. But Cabinet members and other political appointees aren’t permitted to spend taxpayer money with the aim of benefiting candidates.

[...]

Administration officials denied that any Treasury and Commerce events were orchestrated to help the Republican Party win elections. The officials said White House aides who briefed the departments were careful not to encourage the appointees to act on behalf of the Republican Party on government time.

Given the Politicization of Everything that has been an ongoing trend during the last quarter century or so and that has been taken to a high at form by Team Rove, it’s more than reasonable to start with the assumption that something not quite right was happening here. Indeed, the only reasons for skepticism is the vagueness of the report and the relative infrequency with which this reportedly happened.

If Rove figured out as early as July 2001 that some advantage could be reaped from giving political strategy briefs to appointees at Commerce and Treasury, it’s really odd that he would only do it nine more times over the next six years.

Otherwise, a couple of things should be kept in mind. First, before anyone gets their hopes up too awfully high, remember that violations of the Hatch Act are subject only to administrative penalties up to and including removal from office; it is not a criminal act.

Second, it’s perfectly legal for appointees (and most other federal employees for that matter) to “campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections.” Moreover, Senate-confirmed appointees and employees of the Executive Office of the President have been, since 1993, exempt from the general Hatch Act provisions prohibiting “engage in political activity while on duty, in a government office, wearing an official uniform, or using a government vehicle.” Indeed, that’s why Karl Rove can be paid from the public treasury while plotting political strategy.

This sort of thing, though, is more dicey:

In the months leading up to the 2002 election, then-Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Bush’s former campaign finance chairman, made eight appearances or announcements with Republican incumbents in districts deemed by White House aides either as competitive districts or battleground presidential states. During the stops, he doled out millions of dollars in grants, including in two public announcements with Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican in a competitive district.

[...]

In 2006, Evans’ successor, Carlos Gutierrez, and his aides also made public announcements with several Republican congressional incumbents, including in the battleground states of Missouri, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Weeks before the 2006 election, Gutierrez and Congresswoman Wilson announced $3.45 million in grants for Albuquerque organizations. Also in the weeks before the election, a deputy secretary and Republican Sen. Rick Santorum announced that the department would be investing $2.25 million in Philadelphia.

The same year, then-Treasury Secretary John Snow and Santorum announced an award of millions in tax credits to Pennsylvania organizations. Santorum later lost his seat.

Snow and his aides also made appearances in 2006 with Republican incumbents or doled out grants in Virginia, Iowa and Ohio, states seen as crucial to the GOP retaining control of Congress.

Presuming those monies were allocated by Congress, politicizing their announcement is within the bounds of the law. The Hatch Act does not allow employees, even political appointees, to “use official authority or influence to interfere with an election.” It’s more than a stretch, though, to call handing out previously approved grant money at a rally for the incumbent Congressman interference. Indeed, no one would have batted an eye if Wilson made the announcement herself and a cabinet member wasn’t there.

Still, regardless of the technicalities of the Hatch Act, this is at least as unseemly as renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to big donors or making otherwise legal fundraising calls from the wrong room in the Vice President’s office, as Bill Clinton and Al Gore were criticized for doing during the 2000 campaign. It’s funny how quickly the things that were objects of scorn when done by opponents become good ideas when parties change office.

Hillary Clinton is the front-runner to follow John Kerry as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. Over the weekend, she displayed a similar penchant for getting into trouble for flubbed jokes.

Ian Bishop explains in a cover story for the New York Post:

Hillary Rodham Clinton left caucus-goers here yesterday believing that Bubba had given her a baptism by fire in how to deal with “evil and bad men.”

Clinton’s quip, made during a morning rally with about 500 Iowans, drew 31 seconds of straight laughter and applause that left little doubt among attendees that she’d made a joke at hubby Bill Clinton’s expense.

The one-liner came in response to a question shouted at the former first lady from the audience asking whether she had the mettle and experience to deal with evil and rotten men – like terrorist Osama bin Laden and the tyrants of North Korea and Iran. Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know “what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men.” She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner. Her nod and the ensuing eruption of laughter had rally-goers convinced she was talking about her husband, whose Oval Office affair with intern Monica Lewinsky exploded into the Sexgate scandal and led to impeachment proceedings.

“She was talking about Bill being a bad man. There was no doubt whatsoever,” said Tyrone Williams, 55, an engineer from nearby Bettendorf, Iowa. His sentiment was the interpretation echoed by many other attendees interviewed by The Post. “That was good,” Williams added with a chuckle.

Later, during an afternoon press conference, Clinton deflected questions about the intended target of her jab. But when told that her quip had left the impression it was Bill, she said, “Oh, come on. I don’t think anybody in there thought that. I thought I was funny. You know, you guys keep telling me, ‘Lighten up. Be funny.’ You know, I get a little funny and now I’m being psychoanalyzed.” Initially, she explained, “I repeated the question because the gentleman . . . listed quite a number of some of the worst actors in our world today, including Osama bin Laden. I was thinking to myself, ‘I think I could do a pretty good job.’ “

The Politico’s Ben Smith goes way to far in psychoanalysis.

It was revealing because — asked about dealing with evil men like Osama bin Laden– her mind seemed to go to her domestic enemies. It’s absurd to suggest that she thinks Bill is evil like Osama. But Kenneth Starr? Rick Santorum? Her joke suggests that she buys into the notion that American and Middle Eastern “zealots” are cut from the same cloth, an idea that dovetails with her belief that there was (and is) a right-wing conspiracy to destroy the Clintons.

Now, I don’t doubt that Clinton is a bit conspiracy minded, taking legitimate disagreement over the issues and standard political maneuvering way too personally. In the present instance, though, she just told a somewhat obvious and cute joke.

Denying that it was at her husband’s expense is characteristic of another man she’s trying to follow, 2000 nominee Al Gore, who displayed a bizarre need to lie about trivial things. It makes no sense and undermines not only her credibility but her attempt to humanize herself with the public by being funny.

To Hillary and the audience to whom she is trying to appeal, Bill Clinton is a “bad man” in the sense of being something of a scoundrel. Even his staunchest enemies on the right don’t believe he’s “evil” in any meaningful sense; surely, his wife doesn’t think that.

Here’s a 2:37 video from FOX News including the joke and her reaction to press questioning of it.

Elsewhere:

• Ezra Klein doesn’t “understand why a Clinton’s every action triggers mass episodes of idiocy among our press corps.” (Perhaps it’s because they have earned a reputation for dishonesty?)
• Duncan “Atrios” Black agrees, “Only our lunatic beltway press could imagine that when Hillary Clinton referred to “evil men” that she was referring to her husband. Do these people live on this planet?” (Apparently, it’s a very crowded planet.)
• RightWingDuck: “It really gave me a feeling of confidence to know that if the president of Iran cheats on Hillary, that she would be able to deal with it – no problem.”
• Taylor Marsh: “Once again, without even showing up Bill was center stage, but this time the joke was on him. Hillary demurred, playing coy, saying she was only trying to take advice and loosen up, but now she was being psychoanalyzed. Perish the thought. But it was a leap the audience made in a stand up routine that encouraged the journey.”
• Joe Gandelman: “Another example of how American politics and the news media that covers it invariably veers away from issues.” (But isn’t credibility an issue? Character?)
• Billy Hollis: “I don’t think she was aiming anything at Bill. I think she was doing her ‘vast right-wing conspiracy is always out to get me’ routine. But then she realized she had just said something that could be interpreted in more than one way. And rather than get herself tangled up talking about something she never, ever wants to talk about, namely Bill’s bad side, she just went with the flow and let humor defuse the situation.”

Rick Santorum’s re-election defeat has had one previously unexplored consequence: the end of free candy for Senators.

With Democrats back in control of Congress for the first time in years, much is changing in the nation’s capital, including a longtime tradition in the U.S. Senate: the “candy desk.”

For a decade until his defeat last year, Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, stocked the desk with donations from home-state candy makers including Hershey Co. and Just Born Inc., maker of Hot Tamales and Peanut Chews. With Mr. Santorum gone, the desk, which is dipped into by many members, has been turned over to Sen. Craig Thomas, a Republican from Wyoming. But his state is better known for bison than bonbons — and that’s a big problem.

Ethics rules forbid members accepting gifts worth $100 or more a year from a single source. One exception covers items produced in a senator’s home state — so long as they’re used primarily by people other than the senator or his staff. The provision was crafted to allow senators to offer visitors home-grown snacks, such as Florida orange juice or Georgia peanuts.

Yes, Pennsylvania still has its requisite two Senators. You’d think the candy makers could pony up some goodies for them, too, right? But it’s not so simple:

As it happens, relying on Pennsylvania wasn’t an option. Mr. Santorum’s successor, Bob Casey, is a Democrat, and the candy desk has by tradition always been located on the Republican side of the Senate chamber, in a heavily trafficked area near the exit to the elevators. The state’s other senator, Arlen Specter, a Republican, already has a choice seat toward the front.

We’ll see how the Senate adapts to this monumental development.

þ: Taegan Goddard

Robert Gates has been confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of Defense by an overwhelming 95-2 vote.

Update: Here’s an odd one: “Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Jim Bunning, R-Ky., voted against Gates.” So, the two No votes came from Republicans? One of whom has just been resoundingly defeated and the other of whom has been tabbed one of “America’s Five Worst Senators” by TIME magazine? I wonder what their rationale was.

Andrew Sullivan: “National Review is touting Rick Santorum as U.N. ambassador. You cannot make this stuff up.”

Indeed. As a general rule, politicians who are badly defeated in their re-election bids are not ideal candidates for controversial appointments. The NRO gang loves, Santorum, though, with Kathryn Jean Lopez having touted him for SECDEF less than a month ago. Should a Supreme Court vacancy open up, I suspect his name will circulate yet again.

At least Santorum has the good sense not to run for president.

Despite a draft movement with throngs of supporters numbering in the single digits, Rick Santorum has ruled out a presidential bid.

Don’t expect to see Sen. Rick Santorum’s name on the 2008 presidential ballot. “Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not,” Santorum said yesterday on The Michael Smerconish Show on WPHT-AM (1210). “My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in ‘08.”

Even though he lost his Senate seat last week by 18 points to Democrat Bob Casey Jr., some supporters hoped he would still fill the social conservative niche on the Republican ticket. William J. Bennett, the former U.S. secretary of education and national drug czar, had predicted a “draft Rick Santorum” movement, citing a lack of conservatism on the part of the current GOP front-runners, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Bennett is apparently consuming some of those drugs he was trying to keep our kids from using. One does not go from getting trounced in one’s bid for re-election to the Senate to the presidency in two years. (Unless you’re Abraham Lincoln and there’s a four way race.)

via Taegan Goddard

Absent some dramatic turnaround in the numbers in Virginia or Montana, which I don’t expect, the Republicans will lose the Senate. They have already lost the House; the only question is by how many seats.

The Senate results are precisely as I predicted Sunday, although I had revised my prediction in the CNN bloggers pool to reflect late indicators that George Allen would hold his seat. I was right the first time. My wild guess on the House of 20 Republican losses looks to be off by around 10.

That I’m not surprised doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed. Late polling trends gave me reason to hope that Allen, Talent, and Burns would all hold their seats and there was even an outside shot that Michael Steele would pick up the open seat in Maryland and that Lincoln Chafee would rally in RI. Of all those, Steele’s is the loss that is most disappointing, as he was a solid candidate who would have injected new blood into the Senate delegation. I’m not sad to see Allen or, especially, Burns go in and of themselves, although the consequences of their losses will be devastating to the GOP.

Some quick thoughts through bleary eyes:

- Several House races lost through individual scandals involving Delay, Foley, Weldon, Ney, Sherwood, and others are low hanging fruit that should be easy to recapture in ‘08. Still, it will take either an incredibly popular presidential nominee or Hastertesque ineptitude on the part of Pelosi and company for the GOP to retake the House two years hence.

- The Republican leadership in both houses should, of course, be replaced with fresh faces. They have failed and must be held accountable. Newt Gingrich, who accomplished much more, had the good grace to resign for much less.

- While Republican scandals, the war, and other issues set the stage for this turnover, moderates are the key. Most of the Republican moderates–i.e., those in states that trend Democrat–lost. Most of the Democrats who won, by contrast, were Blue Dog moderates. The running of war veteran, family values candidates was the key to the Democratic victory, not the ideology of the Kos Kids.

- That’s going to make it very interesting for Pelosi and Reid. Not only are they going to have to ride herd on a delegation that’s less ideologically liberal than they’ve had in a while, there are fewer so-called RINOs to pick off. That’s going to make governing hard, especially in the Senate.

- There are no good losses. While there is a silver lining in that the GOP will have to find its soul again, it’s mighty hard to climb back into power against incumbents. As tough as Pelosi and Reid are going to have it, their position is much more enviable than that of their Republican counterparts.

- We’ll soon see if Pelosi, Murtha, Hastings, Frank, and company are as bad as the GOP propaganda machine painted them. If they are, they’ll give the Republicans a fighting chance in ‘08. Given political prudence and checks and balances, my guess is they prove comparatively innocuous.

- Along those lines, Republicans should pray for the impeachment hearings to commence.

- Pelosi may be many things but she’s not an idiot. She’ll stave off any such attempts that are in the offing.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt is still drinking the Kool-Aid, simultaneously spinning this loss as not a big deal and arguing that the reason for the wipeout was that the Republicans weren’t heavyhanded enough in governing and listened too much to the likes of McCain and Graham. Unbelievable.

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias thinks the conventional wisdom, including mine, is wrong on the “moderates” point:

It’s true that a few races have seen culturally conservative Democrats winning conservative districts but beyond Health Shuler there really aren’t very many clear-cut examples of this. The overwhelmingly predominant trend has been for moderate-to-liberal districts in the Northeast and Midwest to dump faux moderate Republicans in favor of fairly orthodox progressive Democrats. It’s regional realignment backlash, not a new Democratic thrust into Dixie.

Chris Bowers agrees and is more specific:

Mark down House victories in NH-01, NH-02, NY-24, FL-22, PA-07, PA-08, IA-01, IA-02, CO-07, AZ-08, KY-03, CT-05, CA-11, MN-01, and NY-19. Now someone tell me again how the new wave of Democrats is overwhelmingly conservative with these districts and reps making up the majority of the new class.

I’ll defer to Bowers, especially, in his knowledge of individual House races. My sense, and presumably the CW’s, is based on a few Senate races where moderate Democrats picked off seats in Purple (VA*, OH, and MO) and even Red (MT) states, Lieberman’s triumphant rebound in CT, and as a few high-publicity House races where military veterans and the like were recruited.

Certainly, Yglesias is right that most of what happened last night was moderate Republicans losing in competitive Blue/Purple districts. Absent an absolute tidal wave such as 1974, that’s pretty much what always happens. Low hanging fruit is always picked first.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum has a pretty good list of the contributing factors to the Republican loss: Iraq, Katrina, Schiavo, the economy, sleazy campaigning, and extremism. Indeed, I’ve cited most of them myself. Steve Benen agrees and says “It’s a solid list, of course, but I don’t think it was any one factor — it was all of them, and then some.”

I think Benen goes a bit too far, though, when he says, “With this in mind, yesterday wasn’t just a defeat for Bush and the Republican Party; it was a repudiation.” I’d say instead it was a stern rebuke. [Update: So would WaPo, which used the word in its A1 headline to their election roundup story.]The Republicans governed as if they were a two-thirds party when they were a fifty-percent-plus-one party. They got greedy, corrupt, and sloppy.

With the exception of Iraq, though–which was actually pretty far down the list in the exit polls–there was not a major policy issue, let alone a governing ideology, that was decisive this election. It was a demand for competent, accountable leadership, not a mandate for a New New Deal or an enactment of the Kos Manifesto.

*Many might quibble with my characterization of Virginia, which has two sitting Republican senators and a strong tradition of electing Republicans as “Purple” rather than “Red.” I have lived here for the past four plus years, though, and would just say that Virginia is essentially two states: A traditional Southern state which is overwhelmingly Republican in the rural areas and leans Democratic in the urban areas and the fast expanding DC suburbs and exurbs of Northern Virginia. Moderate Democrats have won the last two governor’s races (incumbents are not allowed to succeed themselves) and Democrats have long been competitive in the Senate.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin spins it as a conservative non-loss:

The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed. “San Francisco values” may control the gavels in Congress, but they do not control America. Property rights initiatives limiting eminent domain won big. MCRI, the anti-racial preference measure, passed resoundingly. Congressman Tom Tancredo, the GOP’s leading warrior against illegal immigration–opposed by both the open-borders Left and the open-borders White House–won a fifth term handily. Gay marriage bans won approval in 3 states. And as of this writing, the oil tax initiative, Prop. 87–backed by deep-pocketed Hollywood libs, is trailing badly in California.

It’s true that America is not San Francisco liberal and that the voters just about everywhere are leery of gay marriage. I agree that the results last night were not a repudiation of conservative ideology (although I agree with Drum that the Schiavo stunt hurt at the margins) but punishment for Republican failures in leadership and personal morality.

Still, of course conservatism lost. Whether voters intended it or not, the end result is that for the next six years conservative Senators like George Allen, Rick Santorum, and Conrad Burns will be replaced by less conservative counterparts. Even relatively liberal Republicans like Linc Chafee at least caucused with the conservatives in deciding the leadership of the chamber and each and every committee chair. As a result, conservative measures will be less likely to pass for the next six years. If another vacancy opens on the Supreme Court, a Sam Alito or John Roberts will be unconfirmable leaving conservatives stuck with–at best–a Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony Kennedy type. Woo hoo!

I’ve finally managed to get set up at the CNN election party on a borrowed laptop (long story). Lots of televisions and other bloggers, although the cacophony of sound from the latter is drowning out the audio from the former. No closed captioning as of yet for the suddenly hearing impaired.

I’ll be posting updates as events warrant.

(530): CNN is reporting exit poll results showing 80-odd percent of those surveyed have confidence in the election counting process. Here’s betting that number will go down in the next few days.

(538): RedState’s Mike Krempasky’s internet connection has suddenly gone away. I suspect Democratic dirty tricks. Blogger suppression!

(546): Well before the polls have closed across the state–let alone in the Panhandle–RedState has called the Florida Senate race for incumbent Ben Nelson over Katherine Harris. A bold call but quite likely correct.

(608): EXIT POLL RESULTS. Take with a huge grain of salt:

Democrats leading:
Virginia 52-47
Rhode Island 53-46
Penn 57-42
Ohio 57-43
New Jersey 52-45
Montana 53-46
Missouri 50-48
Maryland 53-46

Republicans leading
Tennessee 51-48
Arizona 50-46

(648): Major connectivity issues with aforementioned laptop have been resolved via CNN IT crew via substitution of yet another loaner laptop, install of Firefox, etc.

It occurs to me that “blogger party” wherein actual blogging is taking place is an oxymoron.

(653): Polls are about to close in several states, notably Virginia with its tight Senate race between George Allen and Jim Webb. Numbers should start hitting the airwaves soon.

(658): CNN.com:

The exit polls — by a consortium of broadcast networks and The Associated Press — showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.

It strikes me as incredibly unlikely that corruption is more important to people as an issue than the economy, terrorism, or an ongoing war. Granted, voters are irrational. But I’m not buying it.

(703): Dick Lugar, which would be a great name for a porn star, has been declared the winner in Indiana. This was, shall we say, not unexpected.

(706): Socialist Bernie Sanders has carried Vermont, winning the seat held by turncoat Jim Jeffords. I am pretty sure there was a Republican and a Democrat vying for the seat as well but am unable to confirm that.

(720): Watching CNN coverage of the E-lection Blog Party. It looks incredibly lame. Who wants to watch people typing on their computers? BlogStock, indeed. Lots of coverage of the coverage of the coverage at CNN’s Situation Room blog.

(740): The “blonde in leather working for CNN” is Jacki Schechner. Her phone number is confidential. As to the other “hot broads” in attendance, you’ll have to contact them directly.

Along those lines, Mary Katharine Ham is finding it difficult to blog while sitting in a coffee lounge chair in a red dress.

(810): Watching television news without sound is, strangely, not much less informative than the usual way.

(813): MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE ALERT: Who you gonna call? NewsBusters:

Not waiting for voters to finish their work, at least one CNN producer has begun referring to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi as “Madame Speaker.” CNN’s Dana Bash revealed at about 4:20 on the Situation Room how “Nancy Pelosi came into the Capitol this afternoon. Our producer Ted Barrett bumped into her and jokingly said ‘How are you, Madame Speaker?’ She smiled ear to ear and said ‘I like the title,’ but quickly caught herself and said ‘Not yet.’”

The close races continue to be, er, close:

VA SEN [35.28% IN]
ALLEN 392,816 49.39%
WEBB 392,854 49.39%

That’s about as close as it gets . . . .

(824): Jerome Armstrong knows the House candidates a hell of a lot better than I do. It’s amazing how many of these guys are totally off my radar screen.

(827): MSNBC is calling Pennsylvania for Casey over Santorum. Despite a late surge in the polls, that’s no big shocker, either. Of course, it’s unlikely we’re going to get any of those anytime soon.

(836): CNN has called NJ for Menendez over Kean. That’s also not a huge surprise, although it was a race that the GOP held out some longshot hopes for. Interestingly, the numbers show Kean ahead, albeit with only 5% reporting.

(838): Matt Sheffield says that CBS jumped the gun on Santorum, calling before the polls closed.

(846): NBC projects Democrat Sherrod Brown defeats DeWine for Senate in Ohio. Ditto on the surprise factor.

(851): Bill Bennett is really packing on the pounds. Apparently, gluttony is a virtue.

(859): Via McQ: The things you miss without sound:

Britt Hume just explained that unlike past elections when they had access to raw voting data from key precincts in key Congressional races, this time they won’t. That’s because now the vote goes to a counting house and is then released later as a whole. That means it will be more difficult to predict races early and it will be much later in the night before it is done.

Also, Dan Drezner explains the potential impact of the Britney Spears divorce announcement on the elections.

(912): CNN’s calling it for Lieberman over Lamont. Even Kos knew that was happening, though, by this point.

(916): CNN and others are using a particularly unkind shot of Rick Santorum, presumably getting the bad news.

(921): CNN TV is calling Maryland for Cardin over Steele. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if that were the result–Cardin’s the favorite and it’s a blue state–but it strikes me as going out on a limb this early. It’s a hold for the Dems if it works out that way but one of only two (longshot) chances for a GOP pickup, along with NJ, which was also a hold.

(926): Bill Jempty reports that things are not looking good for the GOP in FL-22, with Clay Shaw trailing badly.

(927): CNN is projecting Whitehouse over Chafee in Rhode Island. Again, somewhat expected but a race where the Republican incumbent was making a late surge.

(930): Fox has followed suit.

(939): Kevin Aylward polled the bloggers hanging out here at CNN Coffee Central as to our predictions several hours ago (before any races had been called). Few went out on any limbs, myself included.

(1007): Still a nailbiter in VA with 91.53% in:

R- ALLEN 1,042,414 49.82%
D- WEBB 1,024,756 48.98%

Fox has Talent winning in Missouri. That’s a big hold.

(1027): The pace in VA is maddeningly slow. Only another 1 percent in, although Allen seems to be pulling away just a bit.

(1032): Looking over the Maryland numbers (Steele-Cardin) with Krempasky and the numbers are mighty tight–within a percentage point–with only half the vote tallied. That’s odd for a race that was called hours ago. Still, neither of know the precincts very well.

(1112): The networks are all calling the House turning over to the Democrats. A formality, really, but a milestone.

More interestingly, WaPo has pulled back their call of Maryland for Cardin. My gut is that he still wins, but the numbers so far are looking good for Steele.

(1121): Kate O’Beirne (hat tip Krempasky) says that Virginia has already counted their absentee ballots and that they are already reflected in the totals, answering a question we had. If so, it’s looking like a narrow win for the GOP–likely enough to keep the Senate, given that Corker is almost surely going to beat out Ford and that Burns is better than even to win in Montana.

(1133): OTB calls Tennessee for Corker, a Republican hold.

(1142): JD Hayworth has apparently lost. That’s something of a surprise, at least to me. To the folks at The Onion, too.

(1145): Fox has called FL-22 against Foley/Negron.

(1209): Just finished a longish interview on CNN Pipeline with Rob Bluey and Ed Morrissey. We’re pretty much on agreement that the Republicans brought their losses onto themselves, should have fired Denny Hastert, and that George Allen has run an awful campaign. Rob thinks this may be a good thing because it’ll put the conservatives in charge of the House GOP delegation, whereas Ed and I think losing is always bad. Further, I argue that the reason conservatives did better than moderates this go-round is because the latter ran in Blue states, not because they weren’t conservative enough.

(1220): Drudge has Webb winning VA with 100% in. The state so far has Allen ahead with 99.18% in. Not sure of the status of absentee ballots at this point although, presumably, there will be a recount either way.

(1226): Drudge has now pulled back and has the VA official numbers again. Those haven’t been updated in several minutes and still have 20 precincts outstanding.

Oddly, CNN still has Webb ahead slightly although he has never led with 99.26% in. Not sure if they’ve got advanced knowledge or are making a mistake.

(1232): Never mind: For some odd reason, VA has switched the places of Webb and Allen on their website rather than just updating the numbers.

(1234): Fox has finally projected Corker as the winner in Tennessee, about an hour behind OTB.

The Conventional Wisdom has the Democrats picking up somewhere between 20 and 30 seats in the House and between 4 and 7 in the Senate, enough to win the former and to make the latter a nail biter. Still, there a professional pundits and pollsters willing to go out on a limb making predictions well outside those ranges.

John Harris notes that there is a phenomenal variance in the ballots in WaPo’s annual Outlook Section contest.

Mary Matalin, a Republican who has been at this game for years, is obviously very smart when it comes to elections. So, too, is Paul Kirk, a Democrat who has been at it even longer. It is a bit odd, then, that when asked for their most coldly objective expertise on the question of who will control the House after Tuesday’s voting they would differ by 34 seats. What would we make of doctors who differed so wildly in their perceptions? Cancer, says Kirk. The flu, says Matalin.

With rare exceptions, Republican professionals are a bit over-optimistic of the chances of their party pulling out close races (Dick Wirthlin, Mary Matalin, Kellyanne Conway, and Montgomery Blair pick an Allen-Talent-Corker sweep). Ditto the Democrats (Paul Kirk thinks it’ll be a Webb-Ford-McCaskill sweep). Tucker Carlson is the lone holdout, a conservative commenter who picks a Democrat sweep.

Then there’s American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer. He predicts that the GOP will actually hold on to the House and lose “no more than two” seats in the Senate. He’s even got Rick Santorum–down by double digits in the weekend polls–pulling off a comeback because he is “famous for being a strong closer while Democrat Bob Casey Jr. is known for having blown a huge lead in a previous statewide race.”

Harris gives some plausible reasons for these disparities among seasoned pros, ranging from people voting their heart over their head to not wanting to publicly go against the people paying their salaries.Those are all reasonable enough.

I think, too, that there’s a simple risk-reward calculation going on here. Making a wildly outrageous prediction and being proven right will make these folks look like geniuses and get them invited on television more, whereas throwing a Hail Mary and missing has essentially no consequence. Conversely, playing it pretty close to the conventional wisdom and being right has virtually no upside; you’re just in a big pack with dozens of others who did the same thing.