While the specific dynamics of November’s election are not yet known, University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato is wasting no time in making bold assertions. To say nothing of the fact the first African-American was elected President of the United States, he maintains 2008 was no ordinary election. 2008 was just the tip of the iceberg – a dramatic shift of political coalitions, likely ushering in an extended period of Democratic control, according to his new political anthology, “The Year of Obama: How Barack Obama won the White House.”

To be sure, when the most-quoted political scientist in the land speaks up, people listen, but has the good doctor misdiagnosed ailing Republicans’ present predicament?

Before arriving at the intricacies of Sabato’s argument, it’s worth explaining the rather amorphic notion of political “realignment,” particularly given the state of reporting on the matter. A political realignment is a dramatic and enduring shift in voters’ loyalties and fundamental perceptions of the parties in government. We have witnessed three such instances: the 1896 election with the emergence of a national campaign, the 1932 election following the nation’s greatest financial disaster to date, and the 1980 election marking the meteoric rise of social conservativism.

The political landscape for 2010 and beyond, as Sabato sees it, will create a lasting Democratic majority, due in part to three giant demographic shifts: The intense preference among younger voters for the Democratic Party is unlikely to fade, with more than 2-1 voting for Obama; accelerated minority voter participation largely benefits Democrats; and professionals – those with post-graduate degrees – have begun to self-identify as Democrats in large numbers.

Read More →

Republican Jim Tedisco conceded the special election to fill Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s vacated House seat to Scott Murphy yesterday, thereby giving Democrats their second Congressional victory post-November, but most importantly, a reason to cast Republicans – namely, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele – in a less than competent light.

After rebounding from a series of gaffes and provocative interviews, Steele saw NY-20 as a means to change the narrative. He elected to up the ante and raise the profile of the race by investing large sums of money in the race, transferring $280,000 to the New York Republican State Committee, which is to say nothing of the $1,000,000 transferred to the financially-strained Hill committees.

The RNC transfers aside, Steele invested his own personal capital and celebrity in the hopes of assuaging committee members’ fears they elected the wrong guy for the job. Steele bet it all – his reputation and unclear future as party chief – on Tedisco, and now all he has are the shoes on his feet and the shirt on his back.

Read More →

Wisconsin University Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse is reportedly marrying a long-time commenter on her blog.

After four years of sparing in the comments section, exchanging several emails, and a few weekend rendezvous, Althouse announced her whirlwind romance in typical Althouse fashion, an emblematic photo essay.

While engagements are generally joyous occasions, not all of Althouse’s fellow bloggers are rejoicing in her impending nuptials.

Upon learning of the news of Althouse’s engagement, The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan ironically adopted the mantle of the marriage brigade, crassly writing, “Ten days of emailing … and she was ready.”

Sullivan, a gay man with a committed partner of 5 years, is one of the most outspoken advocates for marriage equality, a proponent of the notion that all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, are inherently equal. This concept of equality, then, should confer the rights of marriage, proponents of gay rights argue.

Not so, says Sullivan, at least when this concept of marriage equality is applied to what he ostensibly views as frivolous heterosexual unions. Sullivan’s shrewd opposition to Althouse’s marriage is merely a disingenuous excuse for gay rights activists to flex waning political muscle in the wake of Prop 8’s passage.

Ironically, Sullivan is guilty of the same crime of his most socially conservative opponent: He now considers it his responsibility to validate, and likewise invalidate, the unions of others.

It takes a real egotist to make the news of another’s engagement about one’s self. At this rate, Sullivan would wear a white dress to Althouse’s wedding.

Shame on you, Andrew. Your comical egotism aside, the spiteful rhetoric – “OMFG” – likely won’t build the coalition of support necessary for the federal government to recognize your cohabitant as your husband.

Read More →