dorsetwest.com

Had he lost this month's election to Bruce Lunsford, Mitch McConnell apparently was all set for a new career as a stand-up comedian. Because a good portion of his speech at the annual convention of the Federalist Society would have had any other group rolling the aisle. The FedSocs, however, took it all seriously. The part about how Barack Obama should be bipartisan, something McConnell has been so very good at. The part about how Obama should govern from the center, defined, of course, by McConnell and the crew that gauges the center with a heavy thumb on the scales. And the funniest part of all, about how Obama shouldn't appoint judges based on ideology.

Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones writes:

McConnell argued that Senate Democrats had completely distorted the confirmation process. He recalled that in 2001, two of Obama's legal advisers, the Harvard law professors Cass Sunstein and Laurence Tribe, suggested changing the judicial nomination hearing process to take into account political as well as legal philosophy. Much to his chagrin, he said, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) held hearings on the idea, including one titled, "Should ideology matter?"

At those hearings, McConnell claimed Schumer and other [D]emocrats said it would be important to have "ideologically moderate" judges on the bench, which McConnell took to mean judges who sympathized with certain groups rather than sticking to the law in front of them. He bashed Senate Democrats for holding up Bush's judicial nominees when Bush was doing nothing but sticking with the ancient criteria of ensuring that his nominees were competent and intelligent jurists. With a look of horror, McConnell quoted Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who said during the nomination hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, "Whose side is he on?" (Of course, the Federalists and their Republican allies also ask that question of GOP judicial nominees, particularly on the issue of Roe v. Wade, but that, apparently, is not an ideological question but simply a legal one in this crowd.)

McConnell observed that Obama has said one quality he would seek in a judicial nominee is empathy, a view that McConnell derided as "unorthodox." He warned that Republicans would not sit quietly if Obama nominated judges based on ideology — i.e., which side they're on — as opposed to fealty to the law (at least the law as McConnell sees it). "We can't countenance a process where judges would favor one side in litigation," he roared.

He related this whole routine deadpan.  

As if the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did not spend their entire presidencies doing their utmost to pack the federal courts with extremist ultras, some of whom would, among other things, reverse decades of public interest legislation like child labor prohibitions, block environmental regulations as unfair "takings," reject civil rights not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, and generally rule in an "originalist," "textualist,"  or "strict constructionist" manner.

Looking ahead in 1988, an internal report of Reagan's Department of Justice report - The Constitution in the Year 2000: Choices Ahead in Constitutional Interpretation - stated:

There are few factors that are more critical to determining the course of the Nation, and yet are more often overlooked, than the values and philosophies of the men and women who populate the third co-equal branch of the national government--the federal judiciary.

As Dawn Johnson wrote in the August 2002 Washington Monthly:

To hear Republicans tell it, senators shouldn't take into account such factors as the details of one's judicial philosophy or views on particular legal issues. (If they do so, critics accuse them of "Borking.") Former Reagan and Bush administration officials Douglas Kmiec and C. Boyden Gray both testified to this effect last year before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Gray put it most succinctly: "Should ideology matter? I can answer in one word: No."

Of course, ideology was precisely the reason GOP senators often gave for blocking President Bill Clinton's nominees, declaring them to be too "liberal." It is an odd sort of hypocrisy: President Bush recently renewed his pledge to continue to appoint "conservative" judges in the model of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. What at least some Republicans seem to have in mind is a constitutional double standard that would allow only a Republican president to consider the views of judicial nominees--and not a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Obviously, it's not ideology per se that McConnell objects to in making court appointments. Just the ideologies that the Federalist Society members find objectionable. And when the approved FedSoc ideology that seeks a return to a pre-FDR view of government regulation combines with narrow corporate interests, the joke's on us.

As the Center for Investigative Reporting observed four years ago in Bush Judicial Nominees Bring Close Corporate Ties to the Bench:

The investigation reveals that more than a third of President Bush’s nominees to these federal courts – 21 of 59 nominations since 2001 – has a history of working as lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of the oil, gas and energy industries. Eighteen of the 21 have been nominated to the Appellate Courts in the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and District of Columbia circuits where those same industries frequently battle over cases with huge financial interests at stake. These five circuit courts are at the forefront of establishing judicial precedent on matters involving conflicts over natural resources. The placement of the nominees suggests an administration strategy of nominating corporate friendly judges in circuits where they will make the greatest impact. In many cases, these same corporations and industries are also major campaign contributors to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.

Too bad you didn't give up your day job, Mr. McConnell. Comedy's loss.

• • •

The Overnight News Digest is posted and includes the story, Aides: Obama plans to nominate Clinton.

With 46 percent reporting, it's down to a measly 136 votes.

Of the big Democratic counties, 36 percent are in St Louis County, 42% in Hennepin County, and 30% in Ramsey.

If you follow that link, you'll see that a bunch of counties don't even start counting until the 24th, and a bunch are waiting until December to do their recounts. So this thing won't be over anytime soon.

Yeah the markets didn't like it, but the markets need to grow up and stop freaking out at the drop of a hat. No one in Washington, serious Washington, is saying that we're just going to let the auto industry die. What we're saying is that we're not going to rush things and just hand over cash like it's Chrismas (even though it is). The Democrats have simply given the auto industry two weeks to come back and present a plan that will work. That's hardly unreasonable. And it's exactly what Wall Street should want Washington to do. Not hand out money that will be blown through in weeks, and wasted. But rather, come up with a real plan to fix the industry's woes.

By taking our survey, you help us get an overall idea as to who are readers are, and this helps us sell advertising, which helps us eat. So please click here and take the survey. Thanks. (Oh yeah, and it's anonymous.)

And if you've already taken the same survey on another blog, just click our survey link, and it will automatically add you to our results as well (provided you have your cookies enabled). I just did it over at TPM, clicked for Josh's survey and it automatically added me to his since I just took it here.

I'm taking it myself right now. Be forewarned, it gets a bit bitchy if you don't answer EVERY question, and it won't tell you why it's not proceeding to the next page (question 10 comes to mine). Okay, question 46 just gave me pause.

Waiting for the final number, but the Dow is down over 444 right now, which means it will close below 7600. On CNN, Ali Velshi just reminded us that just over a year ago, the Dow was over 14,000. It has lost almost half of its value since October of 2007. And, it's lost about 10% over the past two days.

The great thing about polls is that sometimes they're all over the map. Check out the latest trifecta in the LA-04 race, which pits Democrat Paul Carmouche against Republican John Fleming.

First, the independent poll, from SurveyUSA:

SurveyUSA for Roll Call. 11/17-18. Likely voters. MoE 3.9%

Fleming (R) 47
Carmouche (D) 45

Close race, this one. In fact, Fleming's own internals show it even closer, although they also show him ahead:

Public Opinion Strategies (POS) for John Fleming. 11/17-18. Likely voters. MoE 4.9%

Fleming (R) 43
Carmouche (D) 42

OK, so this is a deadlock with a Fleming edge, right? Not so fast: Carmouche's internals show him up big:

The Kitchens Group for Paul Carmouche. 11/18-19. Likely voters. MoE 4% (11/6-7 numbers)

Carmouche (D) 48
Fleming (R) 37

Hmmm. The strangest thing about this poll is that it pegs black turnout as  lower than either Fleming's internals or the SUSA poll...but nevertheless gives the 'Mouche an 11-point lead.

Bottom line, consider this a tossup. If Carmouche does wind up winning big, so much the better.

On the web:
Paul Carmouche for Congress

Making endangered animals more endangered:

For more than 30 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service have reviewed any federal plans that could potentially protect endangered animals or plants. Under the administration's proposed rule, these independent scientific reviews would no longer be required if the agency in question determined that its activities would not hurt the imperiled species.

It's a twofer, angering environmentalists and also showing a nice anti-science side.

Of course the conventional wisdom-mongers think it's bad for Obama to go to Georgia to campaign for Jim Martin. Of course, they do. But, it doesn't matter what they think because Obama is constantly redefining the conventional wisdom. And, Obama is always so far ahead of the punditocracy, it's amusing.

Cillizza explored the issue today: For Obama, it may not make sense to head to Georgia as it would be painted by Republicans -- rightly, so -- as a partisan act inconsistent with the president-elect's post-partisan message. And, if Martin winds up losing, which conventional wisdom suggests he will, then some of Obama's luster will have worn off before he even takes the oath of office.Rightly, so? Give me a break. Lest we forget, all those Republicans engage in partisan acts every single day. For Christ sakes, the RNC already started trashing Eric Holder, which Cillizza's paper deemed worthy of page 3 article. So, the GOP launches partisan attacks on Obama's nominees and that's okay. But it's somehow wrong for Obama to campaign for a Democratic Senator. I just love when political writers intimate that there is something wrong with politicians being politicians. What's Obama got to fear? That David Broder will echo the complaints of the Republicans who say Obama is being too partisan. Who cares? What do they want Obama to do? Endorse Chambliss?

Obama actually has political capital. If he can help Martin, he should. But, it should be a sheer political calculation based on insuring the passage of the Obama agenda with that 60th Senate vote:But, with Democrats currently holding 58 seats, Sen. Norm Coleman's (Minn.) margin over entertainer Al Franken narrowing and polls showing Martin within shouting distance, the pressure on Obama to make a visit to get Democrats to 60 seats in the 111th Congress is sure to increase.

"When you're President of the United States it pays to remember who your friends are," said one senior Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president-elect. "Thinking Barack Obama has anything to risk by campaigning for Jim Martin is like most conventional wisdom -- just plain wrong."It is just plain wrong.

If Obama can help, he should. And, he probably will in many ways. What matters is having the votes to pass the agenda for change that the American people are expecting. We are much more likely to see that with Jim Martin in the U.S. Senate than Saxby Chambliss. And, while that may not comport with the purveyors of the conventional wisdom, it's all that counts.

MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell interviews Markos on Thursday afternoon. Not only did Markos make all the important points about why Joe Lieberman represents the status quo, but his good-natured and eminently reasonable tone also helped puncture the myth that so-called "liberal bloggers" are beside themselves with fury and outrage.

Happy Birthday to Vice-President-elect Joe Biden!

Birthday wishes and whatever else you feel like talking about...

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, thinks he's the president of the United States. He's thought this for a while. Unless Obama wants the US military freelancing at running its own government from the Pentagon, Obama should give Mullen the boot and explain to the rest of the military leadership that America is not a banana republic, and they didn't get elected to office.

Mullen, and his oversized ego, are now freelancing publicly with the media (again) in an effort to pressure Obama into not withdrawing from Iraq. Last time I checked, it wasn't Mullen's call if and when and how we withdraw from Iraq. And more importantly, I'm pretty sure trying to publicly pressure your boss is really bad form, generally, and kind of reeks of a bit of a coup when your boss in the president and you're an admiral living in a democracy.

Then again, this wouldn't be the first time Mullen appointed himself lord overseer of the entire US democracy. You may recall that it was Admiral Mullen who, back in July, publicly opined that Obama's Iraq plan was "dangerous." (Gee, wonder who Mullen was trying to get elected.) Then there was the time, last April, that Mullen seemed to question whether it was wise to hold the presidential election at all since the new guy might have a different opinion about Iraq. Anybody else get the sense that Admiral Mullen would be happier living in North Korea, or at least John McCain's America?

Chris Cillizza has the scoop:

Barack Obama has cut a new 60-second radio ad in support of former state Rep. Jim Martin's Senate campaign in Georgia. In the ad, which was obtained by The Fix moments ago, Obama thanks everyone who voted for him on November 4 and then adds: "The elections aren't over....I want to urge you to turn out one more time and help elect Jim Martin to the United States Senate."

A radio ad is not a personal visit by the president-elect but Martin's campaign will gladly take it.

It's good to see Barack Obama willing to put his name on the line, even if only in a radio spot rather than an actual campaign visit, on behalf of Jim Martin. He doesn't have to do it, but his willingness to do it underscores his determination to be a party builder. What's more, it's good to see Martin embracing Obama, which undercuts the notion that Obama or the Democratic brand are somehow weak in some areas of the country (notably the South).

The latest polling out of the race shows freshman Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss leading Martin, though narrowly, and this contest remains very much in play. But two weeks out from election day, the Martin campaign can really use our continued support. So if you can, head over to the MyDD Road to 60 Act Blue page and make a contribution to Martin's campaign efforts today.

Tags: GA-Sen, Georgia, Senate 2008, Road to 60, Barack Obama (all tags)

Last year:

During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn't work?

The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. "I'm a Marine," Pace told them, "and Marines don't talk about failure. They talk about victory."

Pace had a simple way of summarizing the administration's position..."Plan B was to make Plan A work."

And now, as the White House scrambles to get a Status of Forces agreement signed:

Q: I just have a quick one on Iraq. The Hill is being briefed on the final agreement. What happens if the Iraqi parliament does not approve it on Monday -- or Sunday or Monday? Do you have to then go to the U.N., or what happens there?

MS. PERINO: Well, our focus is on Plan A, and trying to get Plan A to work, which is to get this agreement done...

Q: So you don't think there's any Plan B that's going to take place?

MS. PERINO: We think we're on a good trajectory right now.

Once again, with lives on the line, the White House is flying by the seat of their pants.

I was convinced yesterday to run numbers for finalists depending on the most likely outcomes. These aren't the only possible outcomes, since crazy stuff might happen in OH-15 or VA-05 to deprive us of expected victories in those two districts, but assuming that the only real question marks left are MN-Sen and CA-04, here are the finalists:

Scenario 1: 57-40 Senate, 257-176 House

With a score of just 5 (the lower the number, the better), the finalists would be:

nycwahoodem
gtiso
Buzzdainer

Scenario 2: 56-41 Senate, 257-176 House

With a score of 5, the winner would be:

Dynamic Dora

Scenario 3: 57-40 Senate, 258-175 House

With a score of 5, the finalists would be:

nycwahoodem
gtiso
Buzzdainer

Scenario 4: 56-41 Senate, 258-175 House

With a score of 6, the finalists would be:

roonster
joxerdaly

You can get more information, including the formula for determining the finalists, here.

So once we have the final congressional tally, we'll know the finalists. And at that point, it'll come down to the popular vote tie-breaker. And remember, the popular vote numbers are still being adjusted as new votes get added to the tally.

This contest ain't over just yet, but we're getting close to crowning our best guesser wisest political prognosticator.

Once all numbers are in, we'll publish everyone's results, ranked in order, so that we can see how we all did compared to each other. And the thousands who did better than me will be able to lord it over me for the next two years -- until the 2010 contest wipes the slate clean and we can play all over again.

Update: There was an error in the script, these results are being re-tabulated. There's hope for some of you still!

Update II: Okay, the finalist list has been updated. There was an error in the results tabulation script.

Update III: And yet more edits. As pointed out in the comments, Dynamic Dora is the sole winner in Scenario 2. I had included the runner-ups by accident. Of course, for poor Dynamic Dora to win, both Franken and Charlie Brown would have to lose. That doesn't sound like fun.

They're counting away. The latest:

By the end of the day Wednesday, the mandatory statewide recount -- triggered when the Election Day results gave Coleman a lead of less than 0.5 percent -- slashed Franken's deficit from 215 votes to 174, with about 18 percent of the ballots having been reviewed. The figures represent a compilation of recount data reported to the secretary of state and gathered by the Star Tribune [...]

In Duluth today, that advantage further shank [...]

With 14 of the 18 "Eagle" [scanning machine] precincts counted through this morning, Franken had gained 59 to Coleman's 25, a net gain of 34 for Franken from the previously uncounted "arrow" votes.

According to the Star-Tribune, which has a cool little map tracking vote changes and challenged ballots by county, the Coleman lead is down to 163 votes with 24% reporting.

So the deficit is coming down as the votes are counted. When they're finished, they'll turn their attention to the challenged ballots, like this one invalidated as an overvote, but challenged by the Franken campaign since the intent is clearly for Franken:

As obvious as this one might be, word is that most challenges are pretty frivolous. And given that the Coleman campaign is being more aggressive in challenging ballots (having challenged 240 to Franken's 172), that might be yet another source for vote gains during this process.

Meanwhile, MN Publius has an update from the Franken campaign on yesterday's count:

* 26.5% of the ballots were hand-counted - and the ballots that were hand-counted represented a sample that disproportionately consisted of Coleman votes by a 3.3% margin. In other words, the first ballots counted tended to be from redder piles.

* In Hennepin County (Minneapolis), 29.5% of ballots were counted. Among those ballots, Franken received only 49% of the two-way vote on Election Night, but netted 16 votes in the recount. In the portion of Hennepin County not yet counted, Franken received 62% of the two-way vote on Election Night.

* In Ramsey County (St. Paul), 17% of the vote has been recounted, with Franken netting 26 votes. In the portion of Ramsey County not yet counted, Franken received 59% of the two-way vote on Election Night.

* In St. Louis County (Duluth), 16% of the vote has been recounted, with Franken netting 41 votes. In the portion of St. Louis County not yet counted, Franken received 62% of the two-way vote on Election Night.

The Franken campaign has different numbers than those officially released since they have observers tallying the votes as they are counted. Throw in the state's official numbers, and all these competing numbers create a great deal of confusion. So for now, all that is important is that the deficit is narrowing, and that if this rate holds (no guarantee, of course), then Franken will narrowly win the race.

Gee, the "bipartisan" proposal to cut the fuel efficiency program came from a group of "auto-state senators" - anybody surprised?

Why don't we just cut AIDS research, LIHEAP, and incubators for premies while we're at it? Are you people insane?Aides to a bipartisan group of auto-state senators say they have reached a compromise to speed emergency loans to Detroit's Big Three car makers.

Republicans and Democrats plan to present the proposal at a mid-afternoon news conference Thursday. But it was not immediately clear whether the compromise plan could draw enough support to get through a reluctant Senate.

It temporarily would divert to troubled automakers money from a program that currently finances the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. The aim would be to cover their immediate expenses.Temporarily my ass. Why don't we temporarily cut corporate welfare? Why don't the auto execs temporarily stop flying on their ridiculously expensive corporate jets all over the country? The spirit of Dinosaur Dingell lives on.

Back in June, Barry Ritholtz over at The Big Picture complained that "U3," the Bureau of Labor Statistics' official rate of unemployment, the one that gets reported by 99% of the megamedia and the blogmedia, is just not accurate.

It has, over the years, slowly excluded many of the factors that USED to go into how the US reported unemployment. Hence, there has been a gradual decrease in the Unemployment rate that has occurred regardless of what was happening in the Jobs market.

U3 is now comprised in a way that merely repeating it without a slew of caveats borders on fraud.

As of the beginning of this month, that bordering-on-fraud unemployment rate had risen to 6.5%.

This statistical slipperiness began in the Reagan years, when government-gathered data on a broad range of matters besides unemployment were diluted, rejiggered and sometimes vanished altogether in an effort to keep the public disinformed. Beginning in the Clinton era, however, the BLS began also to report "U6." This broad gauge of unemployment includes everyone out of work and looking, workers who are not looking but would like a job and have sought one in the recent past until they became discouraged, and people who have settled for part-time employment but would work full time if they could find a full-time job.

As Daniel Gross at Slate observed, "The U6 is sort of the summa of job angst, a shorthand tally for the aggregate of job-related frustration."

It's not the BLS's fault the media don't report U6. The number is readily available every time the new unemployment numbers come out early each month. For October, the U6 was 11.1%. Last year at this time, it was 7.9%. Is U3 or the unofficial U6 the more realistic? Depends on what you seek to measure. Ritholtz argues the best approach would be for the media always to report both numbers. That suggestion would probably be met with demurrers that including both would confuse audiences. Nonsense, obviously.

Whichever figure you prefer, the grim consequences are all around us. In June, the U3 figure was 5.5%. That month, 404,000 Americans filed unemployment claims. It had become so tough for Americans to find work that Congress passed an emergency 13-week extension of unemployment benefits in July to help keep more of them from sliding into one of those U6 categories.

The situation hasn't improved. As Kai Filion at the Economic Policy Institute writes, last week, an additional 516,000 workers filed for unemployment benefits. That's the highest level since September 2001.

As anyone who has lived on unemployment benefits knows too well, it's tough sledding. But not as tough as going without. And, if Congress doesn't act soon, many Americans will be going without.

Over 890,000 unemployed workers already have exhausted their 13-week extension, and another 1.2 million are projected to exhaust benefits by year's end. Without these benefits, the Congressional Budget Office finds that about 50% of the long-term unemployed fall under the poverty line. Congress should act swiftly to extend benefits for another seven weeks in all states, and an additional 20 weeks (for a total of 33) in states with unemployment over 6.0%.

In all the talk of bailing out this company and bailing out that industry, workers who aren't working deserve some buckets too. Otherwise, it's dead certain the ranks of the frustrated, discouraged and the impoverished will swell. This will make no never mind to the majority of Republicans in Congress. Which is just one more reason to be delighted that fewer of them will be seated there come January.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/17-19. Likely voters. MoE 4% (11/10-12 results)

Chambliss (R) 51 (49)
Martin (D) 45 (46)

The Election NIght results of this race were 49-46 Chambliss. The poll last week, when asking respondents who they voted for on Election Night, came back 49-47. Today, that number is 52-44. That means that the likely voter screen is stripping out many Election Night Democratic voters, accounting for Chambliss' gains in this poll.

This, of course, is the danger in the special, especially in a red-leaning state like Georgia -- that many people who turned out for Obama won't turn out for Martin in a special. And given that many of those Election NIght voters are more casual voters (like young voters), this is a real factor.

Still, special elections feature funky turnouts, and Democrats have been recently successful in winning special elections in some seriously Red districts. This Senate race is higher profile than many of those low-interest House special elections, but fact is, the race is tight enough that the victor will win this thing on the ground.

On the web:
Jim Martin for Senate
Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

p.s. Why hasn't Obama used his email list to fundraise for Martin?

• Would Sarah Palin like to have you visit Alaska? You betcha!

  Gov. Sarah Palin is personally inviting Americans from all over the country to visit her home state. Well, sort of. Letters bearing her picture, on letterhead that reads “Office of the Governor” and encouraging people to sign up for a free Alaska travel guide, have begun reappearing in mailboxes around the nation as part of an appeal from the Alaska Travel Industry Association.

  Gawd, will this woman ever get out of our lives?

• Today is the last day to vote for Burnt Orange Report's David Mauro to receive a college scholarship.
• Another repudiation of a Bush administration policy:

  A federal judge has ordered the release of five Algerian terror suspects who have been held without charges almost seven years at Guantanamo Bay.

  U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon said Thursday that the five men could not be held indefinitely as enemy combatants.

• For the serious political junkie only: watch the Minnesota senate race recount here.
• Now that he's successfully led the country into its worse economic crisis in decades, George Bush is willing to sign an extension of unemployment benefits. Now watch this drive.
• Beau Biden, the son of Vice President-elect Joe Biden, deployed to Iraq yesterday.
• Bill O'Reilly really is a dope...from November 18th:

  "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman was certified the winner in his race against Al Franken today. Coleman won by a mere 215 votes. But about 400,000 voters in Minnesota rejected Franken, while voting for Obama. They crossed the ticket to support Coleman, a stunning statistic.

• Oh brother:

  Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber,” has signed a deal to write a new book entitled “Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream.” To capitalize on his recent fame, Wurzelbacher is planning to release it on Dec. 1 – less than two weeks from now. The New York Times reports that the book “will address Mr. Wurzelbacher’s ideas about American values.”

• Google.org has published a "how it works" and a letter to Nature in advance of publication to describe how their flu trends search engine works. An excellent blog write-up from Technology, Health and Development is here. For a previous Daily Kos write-up on google.org see Google.org: A Better Way For Philanthropy?

  Click here to track flu trends in your state. - DemFromCT

• The Free Republic and other conservative blogs have turned that college scholarship contest into an ideological proxy battle. Okay, if they want to try to sabotage Burnt Orange Report writer David Mauro's chances for the award, then that just gives us further incentive to help one of our own win the scholarship.

  The contest ends tonight, so take ten seconds and vote for David Mauro -- kos.

Yesterday I wrote about the great gains in Salt Lake County in Utah, but couldn't do a side-by-side comparison since AP hadn't updated its numbers. Well, they're updated, so I'm posting the comparison maps so we can marvel at what progress looks like:

2004:

2008:

The glowing county is Salt Lake, and notice how neighboring Summit County also turned blue. Mouse over every neighboring county, and they've all become less Republican. Sure, some of the gains are marginal, but it's all progress as long as it's moving in our direction. And the 80,000-vote swing in Salt Lake County will be the foundation upon which the rest of the state is gradually worked.