With that said, I was deeply disappointed to see ConnScript take the bait on Pew’s recent map of relative political party advantage across the United States, in the post “Death of the GOP?” (the same goes for Politico’s equally breathless Josh Kraushaar). While the numbers don’t lie, they can be interpreted in total ignorance of historical context, leading people to the false conclusion that the Republican Party is in its death throes. Just look at the numbers.

The fact is that Democratic Party identification has been higher than Republican Party identification for decades. As seen in this graph of party identification from 1939 through 2009 , Republicans have outnumbered Democrats only one time since the Great Depression, a brief blip around the 1994 “Republican Revolution.”

Moreover, according to the more reputable American National Election Studies (the academic standard for party identification, which, in the opinion of many, uses a superior measure of party identification), Republican identification has never reached 30% since those studies began in 1952, while Democratic identification has never fallen below 32% during that time.

Finally, among all Gallup respondents identifying with a political party, the percentage identifying as Democrats has stayed well above 50% in every single poll since World War II.

The lesson: When you see polling data showing that Democratic identification is higher than Republican identification throughout the country, do not declare the death of the Republican Party. Republicans have been the minority for as long as polls have been taken, since the 1930s. Yes, this includes the Republican revival of the late 1940s and 1950s, the Nixon landslide of 1972, and, most notably, the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. Just as the solid Democratic advantage in those years did not signal the death of the Republican Party at that time, these Pew numbers do not signal the death of the Republican Party at this time.

Party fortunes go in cycles. After the then-disastrous losses of the Democratic Party in the 2002 midterm elections, many hasty pundits declared the death of the Democratic Party. Now, after two terrible election cycles for Republicans, we see the same foolish rush to eulogize the Republican Party. It’s understandable, in a way, but that doesn’t make it accurate or legitimate. We are already seeing strong signs of Republican life as the party lands top recruits for the 2010 elections, and stands poised to take back the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia. Whether Republicans are revived over the next two years or soon after, I have no doubt that we will be mocking in future years the rush to declare the Republican Party dead at this time (and then ignoring history all over again once the next shift in party power, however small, takes place).

Perhaps some of you will disagree. That’s fine. But if you are going to use numbers such as Pew’s to justify your speculation that the Republican Party is dying, you need to put those numbers in historical context. History shows that a Democratic advantage in party identification is almost without exception in the modern era, and it often conflicts with current and imminent political realities. As such, it is a miserable indicator of party vitality.

From the Anchorage Daily News:

“Finally, a question: Will Sarah actually move Outside, or just spend so much time out there that she’s not eligible for next year’s PFD? Citing a “very reliable” real estate dealer, a NYC blog is reporting she and Todd have been looking at houses around Hampton Bays on Long Island. “It seems that she started looking at smaller houses and has now graduated to looking at larger homes. Her husband is said to like the good fishing on Long Island. Perhaps the speculation about her planning a position with right wing Fox news is correct too,” writes Lily Loring on www.Gothamgirl.info.”

Everyone’s been scrambling to figure out why Palin made the strange decision to up and quit in the middle of her term as Alaska’s governor. Well, here we just might have the first clue into why she did it. Here’s the scenario…
Palin realized it was going to be incredibly difficult to conduct an unofficial campaign for President in either 2012 or 2016 as governor of far-away Alaska. Plus, it was going to be an awful messy and risky proposition to primary Alaska’s popular Republican Senator, Lisa Murkoswki, in 2012. Regarding Alaska as incompatible with her political ambitions, she decided to move to New York sometime in the next year, take a job with Fox News or some other conservative outlet where she could remain in the spotlight, and sit tight until the right Senate or Governor’s race came up (after all, they’re all Democrats). If she were able to get elected to one of those positions, she’d be well-placed to pursue a national campaign when the time is right.

Sound far-fetched? Well, that would have been my first reaction when Bobby Kennedy or Hillary Clinton decided to look at houses in New York.

If you haven’t heard this already, you have to check it out. The highlight comes around 3 minutes in.

With Sanford effectively sidelined, one must wonder whether there is anyone else out there with the principles and the record to be what Sanford could have been in 2012. Presumably, someone who could carry the message of fiscal conservatism as well as Sanford was capable of doing could tap into that groundswell of support Sanford was starting to attract before his career went down in flames.

So who could that candidate be? I pose that as an open question, but I do have a suggestion. And he comes from the same state as Sanford: Senator Jim DeMint.

While DeMint is often blunt, and gets himself in the news even today for risky comments about Obama’s healthcare plan, he has many attractive qualities.

He is a bona fide fiscal conservative who has been outspoken on this issue since his election to the Senate in 2004, taking strong public stands against the bailouts and reckless spending of both the Bush and Obama administrations. Indeed, the National Journal ranked him as the most conservative U.S. Senator in 2008. While this might not be good for his general election prospects, Republican primaries tend to focus on establishing authentic conservatism and this rating would go a long way in attracting primary votes.

Additionally, DeMint has extensive experience as a U.S. Representative, and he is almost certain to be reelected in 2010 to a second term in the Senate. DeMint also has foreign policy credentials, serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I want to be clear about this: I am not saying that DeMint is an ideal candidate to take on Barack Obama and win in the 2012 elections. Judging by his record of exceptional conservatism and controversial statements, DeMint would be a terrible general election candidate. Also, a South Carolinian is not what the GOP needs at a time when it is being criticized as a regional party. What I am saying is that, at the present time, there is no clear and authentic voice for fiscal conservatism sure to be engaged in the 2012 Republican primaries, now that Mark Sanford is out of the running. The GOP needs to have that voice on the campaign trail and in the debates, communicating a message of true fiscal conservatism and holding his rivals’ feet to the fire. As far as I can see, Jim DeMint is one of the most qualified Republicans to do this.

My first thought – Just watched Leahy and Sessions open the hearings. Leahy was good, but Sessions was lights out. I have not before heard such a penetrating and reasonable critique of Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. He managed to go right for the jugular on her views on race and ethnicity without going over the top and without sounding angry and calling names. If – and that’s a big if – Republicans can continue to oppose Sotomayor with the good arguments and temperament just displayed by Senator Sessions, they may be able to put a big dent in the vote count against Sotomayor.

UPDATE: Sen. Orrin Hatch is using Obama’s history of judicial nomination voting to blow apart his administration’s handling of the Sotomayor nomination. He outlined the three criteria Obama gave for developing his opposition to California’s Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American conservative, including evaluation of whether the nominee used only the law and not personal feelings to make decisions, review of outside speeches and articles in addition to judicial decisions, and putting aside personal characteristics such as race and gender to focus only on the judicial philosophy of the nominee. This is a win-win approach for Republicans, because it means either that Obama is a hypocrite or that their opposition to Sotomayor is legitimate. Like Sessions, this was very, very effective, and I would recommend catching video of these two statements if you missed them.

The Indians are not a bad team. At least not on paper. After all, many picked them to win the AL Central or Wild Card and even go to the World Series going into the 2009 season. While I didn’t agree with this prediction at the time (honestly, it’s true), it was not a silly expectation, especially in a division as bad as the AL Central (no, I don’t believe in the Detroit Tigers).

Yet the Indians are underperforming – again. Remember that the Indians were the fashionable pick to win the American League pennant in 2008, yet they flopped so badly early in the season that they had to trade C.C. Sabathia to the Brewers for prospects and only managed a .500 winning percentage because of a second-half, no-pressure run. In fact, the Indians have only had two winning seasons in Eric Wedge’s six years at the helm, with 2009 unlikely to add a third.

You could blame it on a low payroll. (Although division rival Minnesota has thrived with a similar payroll.) You could blame it on injuries. (Although Cleveland was horrible in April and May, before they started getting hit with injuries.) Or you could blame it on a manager and his staff that have presided over several teams playing well below their potential and defying the expectations of experts year in and year out, in a consistently subpar division no less. (Yup, that’s the winner.)

Should Wedge and his staff (especially Willis) be fired? Cleveland fans sure seem to think so. But whether you’re inclined to agree or disagree, I’d ask this question: How bad do the Indians have to be for Wedge to be axed? Would it be enough for them to enter the All-Star break with the same promising team essentially in tact and be the worst team in the American League? I think that would be a fair bar. Yet Mark Shapiro does not think so, and he continues to go to the mat for Wedge no matter what happens: sticking with Kerry Wood as closer after two consecutive blown saves, several more besides, three losses, a 5.47 ERA, and an ugly 1.56 WHIP; a 2-8 record in their last ten games, including a lost series (near-sweep thanks to Wood) against Pittsburgh; a sub-.400 record.

Jerry Crasnick has an excellent article up on ESPN.com today about the Indians horrific performance since they nearly made the 2007 World Series, and it brings home the point that the Indians have been inexcusably bad, about as bad as they could possibly be with so much talent on their roster, over the past one-and-a-half seasons. At some point, Shapiro has to swallow his pride for hiring the then-35-year-old Wedge in 2003, realize that loyalty has a limit and it takes a backseat to results, and give Wedge the boot. Even if he or you don’t think that it’s Wedge’s fault, at least look at the way that other horrible teams have responded to a managerial change (Jack McKeon with the 2003 Marlins, Jim Tracy with this year’s Rockies) and at least see if this helps turn things around. What’s the worst that could happen – the Indians could end up the worst team in the American League? Oh wait, that’s what they are now. And this team’s shows no signs of improving, given that they have squandered every walk-off, return from the DL, painful loss, bench-clearing brawl, and managerial ejection opportunity to turn it around this season.

Wedge has had six-and-a-half promising seasons to make something of this club, and he has failed badly. I ask again, quite simply, what would it take for him to lose his job?

I’d like to hear more from this guy.

ConnScript Update: Round 5 – Steele at 79, Dawson at 69 and Anuzis with 20 votes.  Steele is only 6 votes shy of winning the RNC Chairmanship.

Anuzis, the candidate I actually preferred, has dropped out.  A good portion of his support came from the blue states so I would expect that it would now gravitate towards Steele.  Unless Dawson can twist enough arms to force a seventh ballot, Michael Steele is the new Chairman of the RNC.

ConnScript Update: I know nothing.  It’s probably best if I stop live blogging at this point.

Blackwell has just endorsed Steele. This is surprising given that Blackwell ran as the conservative alternative to Steele.  It’ll be interesting to see if Blackwell’s supporters follow his endorsement.  I suspect most of them will.  Steele should break 70 on the next ballot.  I’m surprised Anuzis is still in this thing.  Perhaps he is waiting to play kingmaker and endorse Steele to put him over the top.

ConnScript Update: Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is dropping out.  Expect much of his support to swing to Katon Dawson.  This would put Dawson tantalizingly close to the magic number – 85.

UPDATE: ROUND FOUR: Looks like most of the Duncanites went to Dawson (not terribly surprising). Dawson’s way up to 62, with Steele trailing slightly at 60. Anuzis improved his standing considerably, from 24 to 31, and Blackwell remains stuck at 15.

To respond to Connscript’s update, I think part of it may have been a Southern thing. But more so, I would say, it was probably a committee thing, i.e. Dawson’s a member and Steele is not. Most of Duncan’s support appears to have been institutional, therefore it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that they opted for an insider over an outsider, an agent of stability over an agent of change. Which begs the question, what about Saul Anuzis’ supporters? Are they also going to switch to Dawson because he’s a state chair like Anuzis? I would say no, because the support for Anuzis seems to be largely based on change, not so much in policy as in infrastructure/technology. I don’t think Anuzis’ camp will split cleanly in one direction, but I’d expect them to break more for Steele than for Dawson.

ConnScript Update: Well, I clearly blew that one.  We’re now locked in a Dawson – Steele match.  I wonder what led Duncan supporters to Dawson.  Was it a Southern thing? An inside deal?

ConnScript Update: Current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan has dropped out.

Who benefits? Steele.  The momentum is clearly on his side.  Dawson and Anuzis might pick up a few votes, but at this point in the race there is Steele and everyone else.

UPDATE: ROUND THREE: Steele pulls ahead with 51 votes and Duncan drops to 44. Looks like Duncan is fading away. Emerging? Katon Dawson jumps from 29 to 34, likely making him the primary competitor for Steele (as predicted by Yours Truly). Anuzis stays put at 24, indicating he has stagnated, while Blackwell drops from 19 to 14. Apparently, Blackwell’s game plan is to stay in for five rounds, but why is he wasting anyone’s time? From the movement in the numbers it would appear that Blackwell and Duncan voters are lining up now with either Dawson or Steele. Probably not a uniform movement from either camp, as Blackwell supporters could be alternatively swayed by Dawson’s social conservatism or Steele’s outreach potential while Duncan supporters may have been motivated initially by loyalty and now are free to vote their preferences.

As for Round 4, look for a two-way battle to take shape between Steele and Dawson, as Duncan, Anuzis, and Blackwell lose ground and credibility.

UPDATE: ROUND TWO: Wow. Duncan and Steele are tied at 48, on the second ballot. Huge disappointment for the Duncan folks.

Little movement elsewhere. Dawson bumps up one to 29, Anuzis up two to 24, Blackwell down one to 19.

Questions: Who drops out? (I’m looking at you, Ken Blackwell.) Does the net gain among the bottom three mean a few Duncan supporters voted their heads the first round and are now voting their hearts, for good? What’s the reaction to the Steele insurgency? Will he gain on pure momentum, or will we see movement toward a Steele alternative? (If so, my guess is Katon Dawson.)

ORIGINAL POST: The first round of balloting is in, and there were some rather big surprises.

Out of 168 ballots cast (requiring a majority of 85 to win), incumbent Chair Mike Duncan received 52 votes, with former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele coming in a close second at 46. Trailing behind them were SC Republican Chairman Katon Dawson with 28, MI Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis with 22, and former OH Secretary of State Ken Blackwell with 20.

These first round results have to be a big disappointment for the Duncan camp, and a boon for the Steele camp. Judging by Politico’s estimates last night, Duncan was expecting to fall between the high 40s and low 60s, while Steele was expected to win about 40 votes on the first ballot. Duncan barely cleared his minimum, while Steele easily exceeded expectations and nearly caught Duncan. It would certainly appear that Steele has the momentum going into the second round of voting.

What’s left to be seen, though, is whether the supporters of the other candidates are influenced by that momentum when, inevitably, switching their votes to a more viable candidate. The alternative is that they could see the Duncan-Steele face-off as a contest between conventional and moderate conservatism (whether the moderate label fits Steele or not).

Of course, it also remains to be seen whether second-tier supporters and possibly unimpressed Duncan supporters rally behind Anuzis, Blackwell, or Dawson as a Steele alternative. Don’t count those guys out. Perhaps Blackwell would be a good compromise. As an African-American, like Steele, his selection would signal a move toward expanding the GOP base. He’s also a midwesterner, thus satisfying concerns about the GOP becoming a Southern regional bloc. On the other hand, he, unlike Steele, is a darling of the social conservatives.

Anything could happen. Stay tuned for updates.

Fear: Ken Blackwell gets voted in as Chair. I don’t understand how this political hack ever got as much buzz for Chair as he did. And to a lesser extent I fear Mike Duncan getting returned as Chair. I have no reason to be impressed with his performance heretofore, nor any sense that he’s suddenly going to give the party the direction it needs and has needed while he’s been in office.