Seward's Folly

America has made some pretty shrewd land acquisitions over the years — Manhattan, the Louisiana Purchase and so on.

One of the best may have been the one that took place on this date in 1867 — when William Seward, secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, purchased Alaska from Russia for about 2 cents an acre.

That doesn't sound like much — and, in 2012 dollars, it isn't — but it was the equivalent of $95 million in 2005 dollars. Clearly, it was a considerable sum in 1867, nothing to sneeze at — especially the bottom line, which added up to $7.2 million at the time.

Critics called it "Seward's Folly" and "Seward's Icebox." They couldn't see the benefits of the acquisition, but Seward had the last laugh. Alaska has proven to be richly endowed with resources like gold, copper and oil.

Seward, who died in 1872, was asked once what he felt had been his greatest achievement as secretary of State. He didn't hesitate.

"The purchase of Alaska," he replied, "but it will take the people a generation to find it out."

Anticipating Super Tuesday

There's always a Super Tuesday in America's presidential politics — at least in modern times.

Presidential primaries are, as I have mentioned here before, relatively new phenomena in American politics — historically speaking.

Before Jimmy Carter made a point of entering every primary that was being held in 1976 (which caused a bit of a fuss back then), candidates would choose to enter some primaries and not to enter others.

After Carter was elected president, more states opted to hold primaries in both parties, and candidates felt obliged to enter all or most of them.

Somewhere along the line, each party's leadership happened on to the notion of holding several primaries on a single day, creating a Super Tuesday that would unofficially separate the presumptive nominee from the pretenders.

There are both pros and cons in this, and it is not my intention, on this occasion, to argue in favor or against having a Super Tuesday. That decision has been made for this presidential election cycle, for good or ill, and we're going to have one tomorrow.

So my objective is to anticipate what is likely to happen. More delegates will be up for grabs on Tuesday than have been committed so far:

• Georgia (76 delegates): Newt Gingrich represented a House district in northwest Georgia for 20 years, and he appears to have an unshakeable lead among the Republicans there.
  
  If Gingrich wins his home state, it will be only his second win in the primaries — and both will have been in the South. He won't have established himself as a vote getter in any other region.
  
  I don't know if his campaign will continue after tomorrow, but even if it does, I really don't think he will be much of a factor the rest of the way.


• Ohio (66): This is really the big prize. Although Ohio is not the most delegate–rich state that is voting on Tuesday, people pay attention to the results there because Ohio is a large state and what happens there is often seen as a national barometer.
  
  And, in fact, Ohio does have a reputation for being a national bellwether. What's more, no Republican has ever been elected president without winning Ohio.
  
  Thus, it is an attractive target. Victory there could have significant implications for the rest of the GOP race.
  
  As late as last week, polls showed Rick Santorum with a narrow lead over Mitt Romney. But I'm inclined to think that Romney's win in Saturday's Washington state caucuses — a state in which Romney's campaign didn't expect to do well originally — could give him the momentum he needs to win Ohio.
  
  Romney seems to sense as much. As CNN reports, the former Massachusetts governor appeared confident as he campaigned in Ohio during the weekend.


• Tennessee (58): Santorum may lose Ohio — I think he will — but his message is stronger than Romney's in the conservative South, and my sense is that he will win the Volunteer State handily.
  
  If Romney is the Republican standard bearer, though, I see most, if not all, the states in the South voting for him — as they did when John McCain — and, before him, Bob Dole — was the nominee. Romney will need to work to win over Southern Republicans, but he won't have to work too hard to get their votes this fall.


• Virginia (49): With only two names on the ballot — Romney and Ron Paul — this could be a deceptively lopsided primary.
  
  I was discussing this with my father the other night, and he observed that Paul would win his usual 10% of the popular vote. That's probably an exaggeration. I expect Paul to be a little more competitive in Virginia than that — I mean, there must be some voters in Virginia who would like to be voting for Santorum or Gingrich, but neither is on the ballot so they have no alternative but to vote for Paul if they wish to record their dissatisfaction with the apparent nominee.
  
  Nevertheless, I do expect Romney to win by a wide margin in Virginia.


• Oklahoma (43): I grew up in the South. Most of the time, I lived in Arkansas, but I also lived in Tennessee (briefly). As an adult, I have lived mostly in Arkansas and Texas, but I lived in Oklahoma for four years.
  
  Many people consider Oklahoma a part of the South, but I don't. To me, a Southern state is any state that was part of the United States when the Civil War occurred and chose to fight on the side of the South. Oklahoma did not join the Union until the 20th century.
  
  Oklahoma is every bit as conservative as any traditional Southern state, though, and that could certainly be bewildering at first glance. There are, after all, more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the state. But, in many cases, Democrat has a more middle–of–the–road definition in Oklahoma than it does anywhere else, and the truth is that Oklahomans have only voted for the Democrats' presidential nominee once in the last 60 years.
  
  Sometimes their support is a bit tepid, but more Oklahomans vote for the Republican than the Democrat. Every time.
  
  Consequently, if Romney wins the nomination, I think he can count on Oklahoma's support in November — but I don't think he can count on Oklahoma tomorrow. Only registered Republicans will be voting, and they are a decidedly conservative bunch in Oklahoma.
  
  There was a definite evangelical influence in Oklahoma politics when I lived there, and I have no reason to think that has changed. My sense is that Santorum's anti–abortion, anti–contraception fervor will resonate with Oklahoma Republicans, and I expect him to win the Sooner state.


• Massachusetts (41): I've heard nothing to indicate that Romney won't win the state where he served as governor.
  
  He beat McCain in the 2008 primary, and I expect him to win easily tomorrow.


• Idaho caucuses (32): This one bewilders me. Idaho held a primary four years ago but switched to a caucus, which tends to appeal to party activists more than casual participants.
  
  The 2008 primary offers no clues to how Idahoans might vote. McCain won it with 70%. Paul received 24%.
  
  But Idaho is a rock–ribbed Republican state. Three–quarters of its state senators and more than 80% of its state representatives are Republicans, as are Idaho's governor and both of its U.S. senators.
  
  No Democrat has won Idaho since 1964, and, in most elections, Democratic presidential nominees cannot count on the support of as much as 40% of the voters on Election Day.
  
  I feel confident in predicting that the Republican nominee will win Idaho this fall, but I don't have a clue who will win there tomorrow.


• North Dakota caucuses (28): North Dakota is as much an enigma to me as Idaho.
  
  It has roughly the same history of supporting Republican candidates — albeit not as decisively — although, to be fair, it was fairly competitive in 2008.
  
  Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that the Republican nominee will win North Dakota in November. Who will win it tomorrow is less certain.


• Alaska district conventions (27): I haven't heard any poll results from Alaska, and I am unaware of any campaign appearances that any of the Republicans have made there.
  
  But Alaska is like North Dakota and Iowa. It is likely to vote Republican in November. Of the 13 presidential elections in which it has participated, Alaska has voted Republican in 12.
  
  Alaska does seem to have something of a libertarian streak so it wouldn't surprise me if, in a four–way race, Paul might be able to win Alaska.


• Vermont (17): Vermont was once a reliably Republican state.
  
  In the 19th century, Vermont routinely gave at least 70% of its votes to the Republicans. In the 20th century, it never voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt, even though it had four opportunities.
  
  But the Democrats have carried Vermont in the last five presidential elections, and they probably will again. Vermont leans to the left these days — it gave two–thirds of its ballots to Obama in 2008. Even its Republicans, who have a lot more in common with retiring Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe than they do with most of the Republicans who are seeking the presidency, are more centrist than most.
  
  My guess is that Vermont's Republican primary will have a fairly low turnout and that Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, will finish on top.

If one of the candidates can win half of the states that are holding primaries or caucuses tomorrow, that candidate can claim to have won Super Tuesday.

But if no one wins more than three, it will be inconclusive.

Ted Stevens Dies in Plane Crash

A couple of years ago, I wrote a lot about former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens — his unsuccessful fight against ethics charges, his last election campaign and the protracted ballot counting in Alaska that left the outcome up in the air for a couple of weeks.

Stevens, of course, lost the 2008 election by nearly 4,000 votes and returned to Alaska, presumably to live out his days in retirement after serving in the Senate longer than any other Republican. And I haven't written about him since.

Even though he was 85 years old on the day Alaska finished counting its ballots, most people probably assumed his retirement would be a long one. He was elderly, but he was in good health and, the reasoning continued, there was no reason why anyone should think he would not be around for awhile.

But it was not to be.

He died during the night in a plane crash in his home state. As I write this, details are trickling in. At the moment, it appears that nine people were on board the plane and five, including Stevens, were killed. Former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe also was on board the plane, but there has been no word yet about his fate.

In the wild and untamed regions of Alaska, about the only way to travel from one place to another, even in those few months of each year when snow is not on the ground, is by air. That's a fact of life. There are people in Alaska who make their living running air taxi services, and anyone who ever watched the TV series Northern Exposure in the 1990s knows how crucial air travel was in those days — and still is — for postal carriers.

And it's another fact of life that plane crashes happen in Alaska. I'm not talking about the huge jets that cross the globe routinely every day. I'm talking about small, private planes, and they go down for all sorts of reasons.

It is said that Stevens' plane was brought down by bad weather. Sometimes, I guess, the vast Alaskan horizon can play tricks on even the most experienced pilot. And not all the pilots who try to travel through portions of the state, much of it still frontier, are as experienced as they should be.

Alaskan plane crashes don't always take the lives of prominent people, but sometimes they do. Stevens and his first wife were in a plane crash in 1978. Stevens' wife was killed; he was injured. Six years earlier, Rep. Nick Begich, the father of the man who unseated Stevens in 2008, was killed along with House colleague Hale Boggs, who served on the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

And, in what may have been the most notorious Alaskan plane crash, humorist Will Rogers was killed 75 years ago this Sunday.

Alaska is a rugged land. It took rugged people to settle it, but no one, no matter how rugged, can conquer it.

A plane ride in Alaska has never been routine, even if a skilled pilot could make it seem so. Stevens represented the state in the U.S. Senate for 40 years. In all those elections, he must have known the risks involved in statewide travel.

That is probably little comfort to Stevens' family on this day.

But that's the way it is.

Governor Palin Steps Down

I've never really been sure how I felt about Sarah Palin.

Granted, I had my doubts about putting a former mayor and a first–term governor a heartbeat away from the presidency (although it wouldn't exactly have been a first for America — that sounds a lot like Calvin Coolidge's political résumé when he ran in 1920).

But I also had my misgivings about making someone who spent much of his adult life working as a community organizer the 44th president of the United States. So when I went to the polls last fall, I voted for Ralph Nader and left the decision (which I had come to regard as a foregone conclusion, anyway) in the hands of others.

And, although I hope for his success, as I have mentioned here before, I feel that Barack Obama is a polarizing president. He evokes strong reactions in both his foes and his supporters.

But he isn't the only one.

The same, it seems to me, is true of Sarah Palin. Last year, everyone I knew had very definite ideas about Sarah Palin — more definite than the ideas I had about her. I thought she made some mistakes. I disagreed with her on some issues. But, when the election was over and members of the McCain–Palin campaign staff seemed intent on blaming her for their defeat, I thought she was being made a scapegoat. I felt the election was irretrievably lost when the economic meltdown occurred — and that was not Palin's fault.

Frankly, it has bothered me this year to see some (not all) Democrats trying to deflect criticism by attacking Palin. I think that kicking someone who is down is unseemly for winners.

That may seem a little inconsistent, since I have written in this blog that I think the Bush administration, which was much maligned in its final months in power, should be investigated. But, that, I think, is a different matter. George W. Bush held the presidency for eight years. Bush's actions and the actions of his subordinates directly contributed to the weak economy we have today and the poor image we have beyond our borders. An investigation is the only way to establish the mistakes that were made and on which levels so they can be prevented from happening again.

Palin, on the other hand, was not elected to federal office. She and John McCain lost by a wide margin. They were put in the unenviable position of having to defend a discredited incumbent from their own party. Guilt by association may not have been the only reason they lost, but it was way up there on the list.

Nevertheless, Palin is, as I said earlier, a polarizing politician, and I cannot think of anything that demonstrates it better than the reaction — from the left and the right — to her decision to resign.

In the last few weeks, as Palin has prepared to step down as governor of Alaska today, there has been much speculation about her plans. Will she write a book? The answer appears to be yes. Will she go on a speaking tour? At the moment, that seems likely but it is less certain. Is she planning to run for president in 2012? That one remains unanswered for now.

And many pundits have said that leaving office in the middle of her term will work against her if she is planning to ask first Republican voters and then voters in general to trust her with the presidency.

But leadership really is a funny thing in a democracy, isn't it? When you look at the men who have been president of the United States, the majority of them have been lawyers — but they've come from all walks of life. The man who today is regarded as the patron saint of the Republican Party spent much of his life prior to the presidency performing in movies. The man who was president before that had been a peanut farmer.

Career soldiers have become president on several occasions, but I think all of them rose above the level of enlisted men. My grandfather's favorite president had been a college professor. Both occupations require leadership skills, but they aren't often thought of as ones that will prepare you for the unique demands of the presidency.

But leadership is an intangible. What it comes down to, I guess, is whether enough people feel they can trust a person to handle whatever may come up in the next four years. And it's almost impossible to guess what the next four years may hold.

Well, normally that is the case. But I find it hard to believe that the candidates in last year's presidential election didn't realize that the economy and unemployment would play major roles in the next four years. So 2008 may have been an exception to the rule.

But to get back to my original point — do you suppose that, nine years ago, either Bush or Al Gore thought for one minute that terrorist attacks would dominate the agenda through nearly all of the four–year term they sought? If they ever entertained that notion for a second, it's a surprise to me. I don't recall either man mentioning terrorism in that campaign.

One thing that Bush and Gore had going for them in the 2000 campaign, though, was the fact that they were both officeholders. Gore had been vice president for nearly eight years. Bush had been governor of Texas for nearly six years.

It certainly seems to help a presidential candidate's prospects if he/she is holding an office when asking the voters for their support, but it isn't unheard of for someone to run for president while not holding office. Reagan had been out of office for several years when he was elected president. So had Richard Nixon. So had Carter. And many other out–of–office politicians have sought their parties' nominations over the years.

But if Palin does so, she will be the first one I am aware of who chose to resign her office rather than finish her term.

Maybe, if one is from Alaska and wishes to be nominated for president, it makes sense to shake the shackles that keep you in Alaska and prevent you from doing the things that can build important connections in the Lower 48.

That doesn't concern me as much, though, as her comments today regarding freedom of the press. She spoke highly of the concept of freedom of the press, then she slapped the media, telling reporters that her successor "has a very nice family, too, so leave his kids alone!"

Now, I am not defending the fact that Palin's family has been dragged into the public discourse. But, to be fair, I think her real argument is with David Letterman.

And it made me uncomfortable the way she allied herself with America's troops at the expense of the press. She scolded reporters in her farewell address: "How about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up?"

Maybe it is my background in journalism that makes me feel this way, but I got a Nixonian impression from Palin's last speech as governor, a sort of a "This is my last press conference ..." sensation.

Well, back in '62, Nixon encouraged the press to "think about what you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."

I don't think today was the end of anything for Palin — except her tenure as governor. I don't think we will be missing anything.

But if Palin wants to be president, she needs to learn — as Nixon never really did and his combative vice president, Spiro Agnew, certainly never did — that a cordial relationship with the press is preferable to an adversarial one.

Trying to Figure Out Palin's Motives

Today is Independence Day.

In some places, there may be writers who are reflecting on the 233rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it seems that nearly everyone is speculating instead about what Sarah Palin's announcement yesterday that she intends to resign as governor of Alaska really means.

I guess it is inevitable that some people see her decision as a precursor to a presidential campaign in 2012. The arguments, both pro and con, are compelling, but none are persuasive — yet.

• In Palin's home state, Erika Bolstad of the Anchorage Daily News writes that the announcement "did nothing to shake what GOP pollster Whit Ayers called the 'lightweight' monkey on her back."


• Be that as it may, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek writes that, in Palin's speech, he heard the opening shots being fired in the 2012 campaign for the presidency.


• Jay Newton–Small offers, in TIME, some reasons why he believes Palin made this move, but he acknowledges that "[i]f her goal is to position herself for higher office, the stagecraft and timing of her announcement left Republicans scratching their heads."


• Jim Geraghty of National Review didn't hear the opening shot of the race for the GOP nomination. Geraghty observes that he was skeptical about Palin seeking the presidency in 2012 before yesterday's announcement, and he is even more skeptical now.
  
  "[T]he moment she expresses an interest in a presidential bid," he writes, "every rival, Republican and Democrat, will uncork the ready–made zinger: 'If elected, would she serve the full four years, or quit sometime in the third year again?' "

That will certainly be an effective argument — assuming Palin does not, as I wrote yesterday, seek another office in Alaska in the interim. But if she does run for the House or the Senate, even if the campaign is unsuccessful, it will, at the very least, give her an opportunity to polish her response to that kind of criticism.

• And Geraghty is quick to point out that he doesn't think the door to the presidency is completely closed for Palin. He cites three examples from recent history.
  
  "People thought Richard Nixon was through after the 1960 election. When Ronald Reagan failed to dislodge President Ford in 1976, people thought he had blown his best chance at the presidency. People thought Bill Clinton destroyed his political future with an endlessly long–winded speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention."
  
  It is worth noting that, in spite of those initial public verdicts, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton each went on to be elected president twice.


• Ed Morrissey writes, at Hot Air, that it was "easily the most bizarre resignation I've seen, and just about senseless."
  
  He adds that "[t]he lame–duck explanation was the most incoherent part of the entire statement." In fact, he contends that she "destroyed her own credibiity in a single day."


• Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times observes that, even for an "unconventional politician" in changing political times, it's a tough move to comprehend. Is it a timeout or a flameout?
  
  "On the other hand," he writes, "in this political age, 60 months ago who'd have predicted a little–known state senator out of the Chicago political machine with a proclivity to vote 'Present' would be a U.S. senator, let alone the White House occupant?"

But, if some observers are bewildered by Palin's decision, others are not.

• John Batchelor is certain, in The Daily Beast, that yesterday's announcement makes Palin the front–runner for the 2012 nomination.


• On the other hand, Jazz Shaw is absolutely convinced, at Pajamas Media, that Palin has committed "political suicide."


• Dan Balz of the Washington Post sees it as further evidence that "one of America's most unconventional politicians" is "following an unpredictable path to an uncertain future."

Well, truth be told, the future is uncertain for everyone. After all, a year ago on Independence Day, how many people outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin? Today, the whole country knows who she is.

For that matter, things are changing rapidly in America, and the conventional wisdom is not proving to be as valid as it once was.

It was once thought that a college education was a ticket to a lifetime of security, but today you will find as many college graduates as high school dropouts seeking employment in low–paying jobs.

It was once thought that newspapers could survive any economic downturn, but today the news business is collapsing before our very eyes, and it is quite likely that, before the year is over, there will be major cities across America that have no newspaper at all.

So who knows what will happen? Who can say, with any certainty, that he or she knows what is going through Palin's mind or whether her strategy (if that is what it is) is correct?

Time will tell. A mere 24 hours after Palin's out–of–the–blue announcement is not enough time. Let's give it more time and see what happens.

Palin's Bombshell

As far as I can tell, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's announcement today that she will resign in three weeks and Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will become governor at the Governor's Picnic in Fairbanks was a complete surprise. It certainly seems to have caught everyone off guard.

I have found no indication that there were even a few rumors swirling around before Palin made the announcement, but, as KTUU reports, there have been rumors recently that she would not seek re–election next year. I have seen no hints that anyone suspected she might be planning to step down, though. Must be a real jaw–dropper.

There will be plenty of speculation in the days to come.

Is she preparing for a White House run in 2012? I'm not sure. I know she's working on a book, and it's possible she plans to use it as the springboard for her campaign. She certainly wouldn't be the first to do that. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Sure to fuel speculation that Palin is setting her sights on 2012 is a comment from a "Republican source" that is being reported by Mark Preston and Peter Hamby of CNN. The source told Preston and Hamby that he thinks Palin is "mapping out a path to 2012."

If she is thinking about seeking the presidential nomination, it would be a good idea to be raising some campaign funds. In the last few decades, the party that has not occupied the White House has been inclined to draw a crowded field of candidates. He (or she) who hesitates may well be lost.

What are her other options?

Well, part of the problem is that Alaska is so remote and the media outside the state give little attention to its elected officials, even the year after its governor ran for vice president.

A U.S. Senate seat is up in Alaska next year. The incumbent is Republican Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed in 2002 by her father to take the seat he vacated to become governor. She won a full term in 2004 with 58% of the vote, but she hasn't always been popular.

Could Palin be thinking about challenging a fellow Republican for that nomination? I don't think so. I've seen no indication that she is displeased with Murkowski's work as a senator — but I've heard nothing about Murkowski's plans.

And, of course, the House seat is up. The incumbent, Republican Don Young, has represented Alaska in the House for 36 years, but he faced a tough time in the 2008 election. Young recently turned 76 and may be thinking of retirement. If he does retire, Palin might be thinking of running for the vacant seat.

Or she may be thinking about pursuing a career outside politics.

What do you think she will do?

Missouri's a Bellwether No More; Stevens Concedes

Today was one of those days for which the phrase "when hell freezes over" was created.

And, until this year, Missouri seemed to be the inspiration for the word "bellwether."

The last time Missouri voted for the losing candidate in a presidential election was 1956 — when the state supported Adlai Stevenson against President Dwight Eisenhower. And before that, you had to go back to the turn of the century to find the last time Missouri supported the losing candidate.

It only happens once in an average lifetime so if you have young children, they might live to see the next time that Missouri doesn't vote for the winner. But, unless you plan to live another 50 years or more, don't count on witnessing it yourself.

I don't know why Missouri didn't vote for Ike in 1956. The voters there supported him four years earlier, and he faced the same opponent in 1952. Perhaps the people of Missouri at that time were concerned about his age and the state of his health.

If that was the case, those concerns were not part of the equation half a century later. McCain is older than Eisenhower was, and he's had a couple of well-documented battles with cancer.

Anyway, today, more than two weeks after the election, Missouri was finally declared for McCain. The Republican nominee carried the state by 3,632 votes.

There was another "hell freezes over" moment today.

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, who has represented Alaska in the U.S. Senate for four decades, issued a statement conceding to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.

"My staff and I stand willing to help [Begich] prepare for his new position," said Stevens' statement.

It's been more than 30 years since Alaska sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate.

Two other Senate races remain unresolved — in Minnesota and Georgia. If Democrats prevail in both of them, the party will have its "filibuster-proof" majority.

A runoff is scheduled for Dec. 2 in Georgia. Former President Bill Clinton was in Atlanta to campaign for the Democratic candidate today.

And, in Minnesota, a state-mandated recount began today — but observers say it could continue until mid-December.

Stevens Looks Like a Goner

CNN hasn't made a projection yet — perhaps it will sometime this evening — but it's nearly 7:30 p.m. Central time (which means it's about 4:30 p.m. in Alaska), and, based on the latest news from Alaska, it looks like Sen. Ted Stevens' 40-year Senate career is coming to an end.

When the day began, Alaska still had approximately 24,000 ballots to count. As I write this, the Anchorage Daily News reports that election officials have counted roughly two-thirds of those ballots, and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich's lead has grown from 1,022 votes when the day started to 2,374 votes.

If it's true that only about 8,000 votes remain to be counted, that means Stevens would have to receive about 5,200 of them to win the election.

In other words, a candidate who hasn't even received 50% of the nearly 300,000 votes that have been counted now must receive nearly two-thirds of the ballots that are left.

It's far from over, though.

"Today's count should pretty much decide the race," reports the Anchorage Daily News, "although there will be overseas absentees to count over the next couple days and a likely recount in early December."

But don't spend too much time pondering that word "recount." The "filibuster-proof" majority should remain a possibility.

"Since the state moved to mostly machine counting, recent Alaska recounts have resulted in little change in the final tally," writes the Daily News.

Incidentally ...

I know it's fashionable these days to blame anyone else for your loss at the ballot box.

But let's be clear about this. Stevens brought this defeat on himself.

There was nothing anyone — George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, even Ronald Reagan himself — could do to prevent it.

Is The End in Sight for Stevens?

The Anchorage Daily News reports that there are 24,000 ballots left to be counted in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The state hopes to be finished counting those ballots on Tuesday.

Mark Begich, the Democrat who is hoping to replace Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, widened his lead on Friday — but his advantage is a mere 1,022 votes. There are still far too many ballots uncounted for Begich to claim victory.

Once those ballots are counted, more may be resolved than simply an election.

McClatchy Newspapers observed that this may have been "the worst weekend of [Stevens'] professional life."

The senator, says McClatchy, "faces only bleak prospects: maybe losing the U.S. Senate seat he has held for 40 years, and a secret vote by his colleagues on whether to oust him from the Senate's Republican conference."

Such a meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, but McClatchy suggests the vote may not take place that day because some senators are saying they want to wait for all the votes to be counted.

If Begich wins the election, any such action by the conference would be unnecessary.

Begich Takes Lead in Senate Race

The Anchorage Daily News cautions that Alaska must "count roughly 35,000 more ballots over the next week" — so, presumably, anything could still happen — but Democrat Mark Begich has taken the lead over Republican Ted Stevens by a little more than 800 votes in the Senate race.

The latest tally, which was reported at 7:30 a.m. (Eastern), showed Begich with 132,196 votes and Stevens with 131,382 votes.

That is where things stand after the state Division of Elections added roughly 60,000 "absentee, early and questioned" ballots to the total on Wednesday, the Daily News reports.

It appears that it will be next week — at the earliest — before the final result is known.

The Daily News quoted the state elections chief as saying that "most regional elections headquarters will count their remaining ballots on Friday. But the most populous region, based in Anchorage, won't count its ballots until either Monday or Wednesday."

Even so, a spokesperson for the Alaska Democratic Party told the newspaper that Begich's supporters are "cautiously optimistic" about the lead.

Alaska is one of three states with an as-yet unresolved Senate race. In each state, a Republican incumbent is seeking a new six-year term, and each one was leading after the votes were initially tabulated on Nov. 4.

If Democrats win all three seats, they can put together the three-fifths "filibuster-proof" majority they openly desired during the campaign.

Assuming that Begich is able to hold the lead, then, in order to reach the number Democrats desire, Al Franken must overtake Sen. Norm Coleman in the recount in the Minnesota race, and Jim Martin must win a Dec. 2 runoff with Sen. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia.

If Begich, Franken and Martin all emerge victorious, Democrats will need to keep independent Joe Lieberman and socialist Bernie Sanders in their caucus to achieve the three-fifths majority.

But if they fall short of their goal, Democrats will have to decide what they want to do about Lieberman, a former Democrat who has caucused with Senate Democrats for the last two years (allowing them to maintain a somewhat brittle majority) but supported Republican John McCain in the presidential race.

Politico.com reports that some Democrats in the Senate have been making behind-the-scenes efforts to permit him to keep the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

An ironic angle to the story, write Ryan Grim and Martin Kady in Politico.com, is that Lieberman is backed by his home-state colleague, Chris Dodd. In the 2006 Senate election in Connecticut, Dodd supported Ned Lamont, who won the Democratic primary over Lieberman, forcing Lieberman to run (and eventually win) as an independent.

One Senate Democratic aide told Politico.com that Democrats "don’t want to start off a new era with retribution," but other Democrats apparently aren't as conciliatory.

The 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee reportedly has told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, that he will leave the Democratic caucus if he is stripped of his chairmanship.

Politico.com says "a number of options are being considered that would allow [Lieberman] to keep his chairmanship and remain in the caucus but still suffer some sort of penalty."

On that matter, John Nichols says, in his blog in The Nation, that it would be "smart politics" to keep Lieberman in the Democrats' caucus — for now.

Lieberman remains valuable to the Democrats, Nichols suggests, until such time as the three-fifths majority is no longer possible.

That would be the prudent thing to do. The fate of the "filibuster-proof" majority could be up in the air until nearly Christmas.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the recount in Minnesota could drag on until mid-December.

"Recount junkies will be able to view updates daily on a website the secretary of state's office will construct," the Star Tribune reports, "and all recounts will be conducted in public places."

Another Senate Pick-up for Democrats

Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith has conceded to his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley, who has built a lead of about 50,000 votes with more than 90% of the ballots counted.

Counting independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have caucused with the Democrats for the last two years, the Democrats have a 57-40 advantage with the outcomes in three Senate races still undetermined.

Here's how things stand at the moment in those three races:

• Alaska — Incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial a week before the election, leads his Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by less than 5,000 votes.
  
  That's with 99% of the precincts reporting.
  
  However, the Anchorage Daily News reports that "[s]till to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots."
  
  Clearly, a 4,000-vote lead might not hold up if about 50,000 ballots haven't been counted yet.


• Georgia — Incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss leads with nearly 50% of the vote, but state law says he has to receive 50% plus one vote. With 99% of the precincts in Georgia reporting, Chambliss is less than 8,400 votes from his objective.
  
  The fly in the ointment for Chambliss was an independent candidate who received about 3% of the vote. That translates to more than 125,000 votes. Chambliss led his opponent head to head by just under 120,000 votes.
  
  So, even though Chambliss leads Democratic challenger Jim Martin, he's apparently going to have to win a Dec. 2 runoff to retain his seat.
  
  It is likely that some of the independent's supporters will not vote in the runoff. It is also possible that some of the people who supported Chambliss or Martin the first time won't participate the second time.
  
  However, because Chambliss came so close to the votes he needed the first time — and I presume a voter will only be eligible to vote in the runoff if he/she voted in the general election — I think Martin will have to persuade some of Chambliss' original supporters to switch to him if he is going to have a chance of victory.
  
  Perhaps Martin can accomplish that by arguing that, with the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Georgia needs to elect a Democrat to the Senate in order to have any real voice in the federal government.
  
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution anticipates that both John McCain and Sarah Palin — who carried the state on Tuesday — will come to Georgia to campaign for the senator during the runoff. I expect the Democrats to make a similar effort on Martin's behalf.


• Minnesota — Incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman leads comedian Al Franken by 221 votes out of nearly 2.9 million counted. An independent candidate drew 15% of the vote.
  
  Coleman's margin was so small that it will apparently trigger a state law that requires a recount. "Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one-half of 1%," reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
  
  Less than one-half of 1% would be about 14,000 votes — which means that Coleman's lead clearly is narrow enough to trigger a recount.

So there you have it.

Three Senate races in which Republican incumbents lead narrowly — and in which circumstances exist that could hand victory to their Democratic challengers.

When the final results are known, a decision apparently will need to be made by the Democrats about what is to be done with Joe Lieberman.

Ryan Grim writes at Politico.com that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell — who narrowly survived in his own bid for re-election on Tuesday — has been trying to get Lieberman to join the Republican conference.

Lieberman apparently has been bargaining with the Democratic leadership over his future as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Chairmanship assignments will still be the domain of the Democrats, whether they win those three remaining seats or not.

Lieberman, of course, was once a Democrat and, although he supported John McCain in the presidential election, he did so almost exclusively because he supports the Iraq war and he is a close personal friend of the Arizona senator.

On most issues, however, Lieberman agrees with the Democrats, so he has continued to caucus with them, even after switching to independent status when he was rejected for re-election by the Democrats in his state two years ago.

Grim warns that Democrats may hold a secret vote on Lieberman's future in their caucus. Such a vote, I'm sure, won't occur until we know more about the Senate races in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota.

Following the 2006 elections, Democrats needed Lieberman and Sanders in order to establish a majority in the Senate. Will they still need him — to achieve greater control over that legislative body?

With a sweep of those last three races, the Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority they've been coveting — but they can only do so if Lieberman and Sanders continue to caucus with them.

But if even one of the Senate seats remains in Republican hands, the Democrats will fall short of the three-fifths majority.

And then Lieberman may not be viewed as necessary.

To be continued ...

Loose Ends

Votes are still being counted in the election, but we're almost through that process and most of the decisions have been made.

• This morning, Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States. That much has not changed, nor will it change.
  
  Obama has about 11 weeks to prepare to take the oath of office on January 20. But he can begin to implement the promise of "change" almost immediately by naming his top advisers and his choices for his Cabinet — and conferring with them on the issues that deeply and directly affect Americans right now.
  
  Those who are tempted to sit back and smile with smug satisfaction over the election of a black man as president have missed the whole point.
  
  To his credit, Obama appears to see beyond the symbolic importance of the election. He "gets it" — or, at least, his words in his victory speech imply that he does.
  
  "This victory alone is not the change we seek," he said last night, "it is only the chance for us to make that change."
  
  True democracy guarantees the right to participate — not the right to succeed.


• Now that the votes have been cast — and most have been counted — can it honestly be said that it made a difference which candidate the Democrats nominated for president?
  
  In an election in which the Democrats appear to have won the White House by about 6-7 million votes and expanded their advantage in both the House and the Senate, did it matter whether a black man (Obama) — or a woman (Hillary Clinton) or an Hispanic (Bill Richardson) or a white Protestant (John Edwards) or a Catholic (the vice president-elect, Joe Biden) — occupied the top spot on the ballot?
  
  I'm inclined to say no — that, in 2008, it was much the same as it was in 1992. Perhaps, with the economic meltdown in September that was practically foretold the month before when job losses were one-fifth greater than expected and the creaking economy lurched toward collapse, it became a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would win.
  
  It's still the economy.
  
  And that always tends to favor Democrats.
  
  Was there anything John McCain or Sarah Palin could do to reverse the outcome?


• The Senate races have produced some astonishing results.
  
  As expected, the Democrats have made gains, and they will remain in the majority — whether independent Joe Lieberman and socialist Bernie Sanders caucus with them, as they have for the last two years, or not.
  
  But the oft-stated goal of achieving a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate appears to be out of reach now.
  
  None of the four races that I wrote about last night have been resolved yet, but it looks like the Republicans are leading in all of them, and only one — the race in Oregon — appears to have a significant number of votes still to count.
  
  Republican incumbents in Minnesota and Georgia may have survived by razor-thin margins — but Republican Sen. Norm Coleman may be facing a recount in Minnesota, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss may have been forced into a December runoff with his foe in Georgia.
  
  Alaska's Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial last week, may have been re-elected, but it's not quite over.
  
  Late polls indicated that Stevens' opponent enjoyed a comfortable (for a Democrat) lead, but it's possible that, while the rest of the country was making history by electing a black president, Alaska voters may have made some history of their own.
  
  Even though Alaska's governor was not elected vice president, it is my understanding that this could be the first time in American history that a senator has been convicted in federal court and then re-elected by the voters of his state. With 99% of the precincts reporting in Alaska, Stevens leads by less than 4,000 votes.
  
  But, reports the Anchorage Daily News, "Still to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots. The state Elections Division has up to 15 days after the election to tally all the remaining ballots before finalizing the count."
  
  We may have to wait awhile longer before we know if Stevens has been returned to the Senate.
  
  Perhaps, in the final week of the campaign, Alaska's voters grew tired of being laughed at, had enough of seeing their governor ridiculed and then being told they couldn't re-elect an 84-year-old senator who had been convicted of corruption charges.
  
  So, perhaps, those voters have sent their own message of "Yes, we can."

The Ego Has Landed

Following his conviction in his corruption trial on Monday, Sen. Ted Stevens is due to resume his campaign for re-election in Alaska on Wednesday, reports the Anchorage Daily News.

Even though both of the candidates on the national Republican ticket, John McCain and Sarah Palin, called on Stevens to resign Tuesday.

"Stevens, 84, faces a challenge of historic proportions with just one week before the election," write Sean Cockerham and Don Hunter in the Daily News. "He'd be the first convicted U.S. senator ever elected, on appeal or not."

Due to the rather unorthodox nature of Stevens' race against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, voters can't be blamed for being unsure about a few things.

Tom Kizzia of the Daily News tried to anticipate and answer all of the readers' questions.

For example ...

1. Can Stevens run for re-election, even though he's been convicted of a crime? Yes.


2. If Stevens is re-elected, can he keep his Senate seat if he loses his appeal? That depends on his colleagues in the Senate.


3. If it is necessary to replace Stevens, how would his successor be chosen? That's uncertain because the law was changed twice in 2004 and, while the two laws agree to a point, there is some uncertainty about an interim appointment.

Stevens isn't due to be sentenced until January 26.

In his initial statements following his conviction, Stevens sounded like a man who believes the jury was a voting group that didn't get the message and he was trying, once again, to win the jurors over. He was angry, defiant, as he proclaimed, "I am innocent!"

"Uncle Ted" hasn't lost many votes over the years.

If Stevens believes he can pull it off on appeal by being the political infighter he's always been, who can blame him?

He has carefully cultivated an image of bringing home the bacon for his constituents, an image that may still play well in Alaska, with a weak economy and oil prices dropping dramatically in recent weeks.

Voters may conclude his seniority means economic clout for the state — and that may be especially true of Alaska natives, who represent about one-sixth of the state's population and depend on many of the projects Stevens has supported over the years.

Common sense would suggest that the voters would not send an 84-year-old man back to Washington for six years, especially since it's not even clear he would be allowed to remain in office a week after the next president is sworn in.

But stranger things have happened in American politics.

Alaska's Senior Senator is Indicted

Ted Stevens has been in the Senate longer than any Republican who is currently serving in that exclusive body.

He took office on Christmas Eve 1968 — the Alaska governor appointed him to fill the unexpired term of the deceased Democratic incumbent. He ran for a full term on his own in 1972 and was elected.

Stevens has been there ever since.

In his last two elections, Stevens received 78% of the vote (in 2002) and 77% of the vote (in 1996). In fact, in Stevens' career as a senator, he has never received less than 66% of his state's votes.

When this election year began, it would have been hard to imagine any seat that was more secure for either party than Stevens' Senate seat appeared to be for the Republicans.

Granted, the Alaska voter pool isn't that big. In each of Stevens' last two elections, there were fewer than 250,000 Alaskans who participated.

In terms of geographical area, Alaska is the largest state, but its population ranks 47th.

In fact, if Alaska were a city, it would rank in the top 20 in total population — but just barely (slightly larger than Baltimore, slightly smaller than Charlotte, N.C.) — and you could almost squeeze two Alaskas into my home city of Dallas, Texas.

So it's fair to say that the Alaska voter pool is limited. It's Republican. It's conservative. It ought to be solidly in Stevens' corner — as it has been for four decades.

But, tonight, Stevens appears to be in trouble.

1. He's been indicted on seven counts of making false financial disclosure statements, reports the New York Times.
   
   It is alleged that Stevens concealed $250,000 in gifts (that's approximately $1.09 for every Alaskan who voted in the 2002 Senate race).


2. Like just about any other politician who finds himself in this kind of trouble, Stevens insists that he's innocent, says Politico.com.
   
   "Stevens, who was already facing a tough re-election campaign this fall, now finds his five-decade political career in serious jeopardy," writes Politico.
   
   I don't know how "tough" the campaign looked before. The Anchorage Daily News says the indictment has blown the Republican primary race "wide open" — and we're talking about a race Stevens was leading with 70% in the polls last week.


3. National Review was quick to join the chorus of those clamoring for Stevens' resignation.
   
   "Stevens is of course innocent until proven guilty of the crimes with which he is charged," wrote the Review. "But even if he committed no crime, the facts that have emerged over the course of the federal investigation into his personal finances are damning enough on their own. The indictment was just the last straw."

It's still hard to imagine Alaska electing a Democrat to fill Stevens' shoes in Washington. Alaska has earned its reputation for supporting Republicans — for president, for governor, for the Senate, for everything.

But 2008 may turn out to be the exception that proves the rule.

Assessing the Senate Races

If you're looking for insightful analyses on the races for the presidency, the Senate and the House, you can't go wrong if you consult Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Today, he's provided us with an update on the races for the Senate.

Party control of the Senate, he observes, has changed hands six times since 1980. "This is no longer a rare event."

Sabato has come to the conclusion that "2008 is virtually certain not to generate a seventh such shift."

As I've mentioned before, a big part of the reason is that these senators were elected in 2002. It was the midterm of George W. Bush's first term as president. Normally, midterms go against the party that occupies the White House, but the country was only a year removed from the 9-11 attacks and Bush was pressing for the authority to go to war in Iraq.

So the Republicans won a lot of seats in the Senate. And, as a result, they have twice as many seats to defend as the Democrats do in this election cycle -- when gas prices have risen about 36% in a year, the war is unpopular, and Bush is a lame duck.

All the Democrats are seeking re-election and only one, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, appears to be in a close race. Most observers, Sabato included, believe Democrats will retain at least 11 of their 12 seats.

The Republicans have to defend more than 20 seats, and a handful of their senators are retiring (including Larry Craig of Idaho, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska).

Due to the death of one senator and the retirement of another who was not scheduled to be up for re-election this year, Republicans have to defend two more seats -- in Wyoming and Mississippi, where the voters will be electing two senators at the same time.

Sabato says Wyoming Republicans should be able to hold both their seats, but the seat formerly held by Trent Lott in Mississippi is currently a tossup.

In Mississippi, Gov. Haley Barbour appointed Rep. Roger Wicker to succeed Lott. Sabato says Wicker has a "50-50 chance" of holding the seat for the Republicans in November.

In assessing the 11 most competitive Senate races this year, Sabato concludes that Democrats will pick up four seats and two seats currently held by Republicans are tossups (Alaska and Lott's old seat in Mississippi). Thus, a six-seat gain is possible for the Democrats.

In Alaska, longtime Sen. Ted Stevens "is mired in a major corporate scandal involving pay-offs and bribery," writes Sabato. But "[h]e has not been indicted and may be able to clear himself."

And, as Sabato observes, "it is too early to call any November election for an Alaska Democrat."

None of the Democratic seats are currently likely to shift to the Republicans, according to Sabato, not even Landrieu's seat.

Louisiana lost a lot of Democratic votes when a large number of blacks had to leave New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Sabato points out, but he concludes that the state is leaning to Landrieu. "This might be a tight race in the end, but it isn't starting that way."

It's not all bad news for Republicans, according to Sabato. They might not be picking up any seats, but there are a few they may be likely to hold, even if it turns out to be a Democratic year.

In Minnesota, the home of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman "is beatable," Sabato writes, "but it is uncertain whether the new convention-crowned Democratic nominee, comedian Al Franken, can do it.

"Franken has been found to have had a substantial number of overdue tax bills in various states, and some of his off-color satires from past years have not sold well in this more politically correct era."

Franken might still have a struggle on his hands if former Gov. Jesse Ventura opts to run as an independent -- a move he's been mulling lately.

Ventura won't win the Senate seat, Sabato says, "but he's the ultimate wild card."