A Fun One To Watch.

California holds its Republican Senate Primary on June 8^th. The winner will take on Senator Barbara Boxer in the fall for what some analyst see as a potential fifty-first, majority-making seat for Republicans. The primary race is also notable for another reason: Some of the strangest poll numbers this cycle, with double digit swings in both directions.

Poll	Date	Sample	Fiorina (R)	Campbell (R)	DeVore (R)	Spread
PPP (D)	5/21 - 5/23	417 LV	41	21	16	Fiorina +20
SurveyUSA	5/21 - 5/23	612 LV	46	23	14	Fiorina +23
R2000/Daily Kos (D)	5/17 - 5/19	400 LV	22	37	14	Campbell +15
PPIC	5/9 - 5/16	411 LV	25	23	16	Fiorina +2
M4 Strategies (R)	5/12 - 5/16	600 LV	28	33	15	Campbell +5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ca/california_senate_republican_primary-1120.html

On The Sestak Scandal.

The Joe Sestak-White House scandal is worth following because it is destined to end in one of two dramatic ways:

1. If Sestak was offered a position in exchange for dropping out of the primary race, this would constitute tampering with an election, bribery and a number of other federal and state crimes. In this case, some one at the White House is in deep trouble. It could go very high up. With a Republican AG in office in both Pennsylvania and in Virginia (Sestak's DC metro residence), this could become a story-of-the-decade type deal.

2. If Sestak was not offered a position, or it was not linked to dropping out of the primary race, then Sestak repeatedly lied about serious accusations against the White House on the primary campaign trail. How could the White House continue to publicly support him for the remainder of the 2010 cycle with a straight face? Answer: They probably couldn't.

World Cup Countdown!

This year's World Cup promises to produce some political-correctness fueled white lies by the media concerning the host nation of South Africa. Things are actually pretty bad there. You can bet that you will not read anything like this in American papers. (H/T: Citizen Renegade)

Politics Vs. Policy.

We have been watching the Rand Paul/Rachel Maddow/Civil Rights Act drama unfold over the past week. For those who have not been paying attention: Paul accepted an interview with Rachel Maddow last Wednesday following his primary victory and was subsequently baited into a conversation about the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the law which outlaws racial discrimination in public places). Paul said that he thought the Act went outside of Congress’s constitutional authority by forbidding discrimination even in privately owned businesses. Basically, Paul argued that stopping the government from discriminating was a legitimate power of Congress, but that stopping private entities from doing so was not. Paul went on to make a comparison to gun rights: He argued that the government should never restrict gun possession, but that if a private business wants to forbid weapons on their property, then they should be allowed to do so.

Our thoughts:

First, this was political amateur hour on Rand Paul’s part. He really messed up by both going on a national, liberal TV show and by playing it straight when he answered that question. Polls released right after the primary showed him with a huge lead over his Democratic opponent. He could probably have taken a Caribbean vacation for the next several months and rolled to victory. The one singular thing he can not afford to do is a have a series of foot-in-the-mouth, over intellectual gaffes like this. Even with a victory in November (which is still very likely), he will have marginalized himself among fellow Republicans. Politics is about more than just winning elections. You need friends to get things done once in office.

Second, from an intellectual and policy perspective everything that Paul said was absolutely correct. Paul, of course, was not at all supporting or condoning racism in any way. He was merely saying that the government should not dictate social conduct standards to private businesses. Or in simpler terms: “let jerks be jerks.” This hands-off approach to governing is exactly what more Republicans need to adopt.

Rand Paul has shown that he “gets” policy. Let us hope he gains a better understanding of politics very quickly.

Pac-Man 2010.

Google celebrates Pac-Man's 30th birthday with a playable Pac-Man game inside the Google logo on their homepage. It was a different world in 1980 when this game first came out and Ronald Reagan took the White House.

Well Played, A Series.

Today we launch a new series for the rest of 2010: Following each major primary election day we will analyze the results and examine the candidates' video ad campaigns. We will crown a winning ad and a runner-up based not only on quality but also how things turned out at the polls.

The runner-up for Tuesday, May 18 is "The Switch" from newly minted Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Nominee Joe Sestak:



And the win goes to..."Honor" from newly minted Kentucky Republican Senate Nominee Rand Paul.

But we need to give you some background on this ad. First, Paul's Republican primary opponent Trey Grayson launched a website called "RandPaulStrangeIdeas.Com." Then Grayson put out a series of poorly conceived web and TV ads, including the following, which seems to scoff at the mere thought of Paul being able to win:



Paul responded directly with our vote for the best of Tuesday's video ads. If we were an undecided Kentucky Republican, watching the juvenile and condescending video from Grayson combined with the following response (especially the last 10 seconds) would probably sway us into Paul's camp:

(Edit: The Paul "Honor" video was removed by his campaign following the election and does not seem to be available anywhere. In short, Paul spoke directly to Grayson and said that the previous ads were "a lie" and "dishonored" Grayson.)

More On "Anti-Incumbency."

Sean Trende over at Real Clear Politics published an article this morning entitled 2010: Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Liberal or Anti-Democrat? It goes along with our contention that 2010 is not simply an "anti-incumbent" year.

Trende accurately notes that "anti-incumbency" is the story line currently being pitched by the Democrats...just as Republicans did in 2006. He goes on:

Nevertheless, I don't think it is likely that this will be a generalized anti-incumbent election. The reason is pretty simple: We don't have "anti-incumbent" elections in this country. Stu Rothenberg noted in 2006 that the closest we've come in the past fifty years to a generalized anti-incumbent election was 1990, when six Democrats and nine Republicans lost in the general election, and in 1978, when 14 Democrats and five Republicans were defeated that November.

Finally, he concludes:

The historical record provides no support for 2010 being a generalized anti-incumbent year; the elections to date this cycle in major statewide races certainly don’t support this scenario either. The real question is whether moderate or conservative Democrats who oppose the Beltway Democratic agenda will be given cover from angry voters, or whether the electorate will thoroughly clean house this fall. That’s where the difference between a bad Democratic year and a debacle of historic proportions can be found.