Schmidt Agonistes Game Change - The Movie

UPDATED: 11-March-12

This weekend, HBO will broadcast a highly promoted dramatization of Game Change – John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s novelization of the 2008 presidential campaign. I read the paperback version and am looking forward to seeing the docudrama.

I posted a review of the book in December 2010 and will extract a few observations here that may (or may not) be relevant to the broadcast.

Game Change - Book Review and Blog Backwash

When I received an e-mail invitation from Trish Collins to write a review of Game Change for TLC Virtual Book Tours, I eagerly accepted (once I determined that Trish was not some advanced form of automated spam). I was intrigued by the concept of a book tour in the "cloud" and appreciate the opportunity to participate. Moreover it was a good excuse to read a book that I knew about, was interested in, but missed with its initial hard cover publication earlier this year.

The best way to review a book is to read it without any preconceived notions. To simply pick up a book, open the cover, dive in and form an opinion without first being influenced by what others think. That was impossible with Game Change.Extensively excerpted before publication, it was widely reviewed in mainstream media, praised and reviled across the blogosphere.

The authors claim to offer a unique inside view of the 2008 presidential campaign. This was a topic of intense interest and the focus of my blogging efforts here and at Donklephant. As such, I entered the world of Game Change lugging a trunkload of preconceived notions.

Carrying that load of baggage, I am not going to approach this review by walking directly through the front door masquerading as an objective reviewer. Instead I'll just beg The Reader's indulgence as I circle around back, sneak in through a side entrance and drag all this excess baggage with me.

Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, promises an "insider" perspective informed by two years of hindsight and developed from extensive interviews of anonymous sources close to the 2008 campaigns. By contrast, my perspective of the election was that of an outsider with an agenda trying to understand the meaning, motivations, and in a small way even shape the outcome of the 2008 presidential election from this obscure corner of the blogosphere. Here I noted and commented on many of the strategies, spin, and narratives promoted by the very campaign insiders who were the sources and characters featured in this book. Comparing and contrasting their perspective with mine as documented on this blog is what I found most compelling about Game Change.

First, a note on the books central stylistic conceit, the omniscient narration that makes the book so readable, while simultaneous raising doubts about its credibility. Harper-Collins promoted the book as “a sweeping, novelistic, and ultimately definitive portrait” of the 2008 race. Sweeping? Certainly. Definitive? History will be the judge. Novelistic? Indeed, and there is the rub.

Is a docudrama a documentary? Can a historical novel be history? Game Change is a novelization of the 2008 campaign. In the first paragraph of the first page of the prologue we are confronted with the central dilemma of this narrative choice.

"Barack Obama jerked bolt upright in bed at three o’clock in the morning. Darkness enveloped his low-rent room at the Des Moines Hampton Inn; the airport across the street was quiet in the hours before dawn. It was very late December 2007, a few days ahead of the Iowa caucuses... Obama always slept soundly, like the dead. But now he found himself wide awake, heart pounding, consumed by a thought at once electric and daunting: I might win this thing... as Obama sat there in the predawn stillness, the implications of the events he saw unfolding hit him as never before. He didn’t feel ecstatic. He didn’t feel relieved. He felt like the dog that caught the bus. What was he supposed to do now?"

Barack Obama is alone in his room in a motel in Des Moines - and yet we are treated to every detail of his actions and the very thoughts and emotions inside his head. So... exactly who did Halperin and Heilemann interview to glean these detailed insights? Certainly this paragraph grabbed my attention and drew me into the story - exactly as intended. It also flipped an internal switch of recognition - not as a journalistic report on the election, but rather as a novel.

This is docudrama, and on that level, this book works exceedingly well. When finished, I appreciated the read as a well crafted dramatization of the 2008 campaign. In a new afterword for this paperback edition, the authors defend their journalistic/creative decision:

"Equally perplexing were the qualms in some quarters concerning our reporting methods. From the outset, we knew that if Game Change achieved any substantial degree of success, we would be held to high standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy - and we conduct ourselves throughout the research and writing of the book determined to exceed them. In grating our sources anonymity and rendering the narrative in a omniscient voice, we were doing nothing novel; we were following in a tradition of countless esteemed non-fiction writers." (P 438)

Perhaps. But I nevertheless found it to be more akin to a novel "based on a true story" than a non-fiction report. Undoubtedly there are truths to be gleaned in these pages, as with any good novel. But when I put the book down, I was not sure whether I should consider it anything more than a page-turning pot boiler.

Rather than considering the value of the narrative on stylistic term, let us take the measure of this book using another scale, one suggested by the authors' themselves. In the Author's Note that precedes the prologue the authors explain their purpose:

"We have tried to address the multitude of vital questions that daily journalism (and hourly blogofying) obsessed over briefly and then passed by, or never grappled with in the first place. How did Obama, a freshman senator with few tangible political accomplishments, convince himself that he should be, and could be, America's first African American president? What role did Bill Clinton actually play in his wife's campaign? Why did McCain pick the unknown and untested governor of Alaska as his running mate? And who is Sarah Palin, really?"

So by that very standard, did this book succeed? As one of the "blogofyers" of the election, I'll approach the question on exactly the author's terms. By directly comparing how the author's omniscient insider historical "political player" perspective on these very questions compared to my contemporaneous outsider "D-list" blogger perspective.

"How did Obama, a freshman senator with few tangible political accomplishments, convince himself that he should be, and could be, America's first African American president?"

GAME CHANGE: "Getting to Yes"

Within Obama’s operation, “the options” became a code phrase, a reference to three live possibilities: launching a presidential run, bolstering his stature in the Senate with an eye toward the VP slot in 2008, or returning to Illinois to run for governor—with a presidential bid so far remaining at the bottom of the option pile. (P 32)

Like Obama, the pollsters in the room had been grappling with the issue all year long. Time and again they would hear in their focus groups expressions of unease about Obama’s greenness and his barren résumé. “He’s too new,” ­people would say. “Why doesn’t he wait fours" "Why doesn't he just take the vice presidency?" "He doesn't know about foreign policy." (P 118)

Powell had his own questions for Obama, but the main one was: Why now? You don't have much of an experience base, Powell pointed out. You're new to the Senate, you have an interesting but limited resume from before that. So again, why now? I think I might have what the country needs today, not four or eight years down the line, Obama responded. I think it might be my time. (P69)

He formally launched his campaign six weeks later, on February 10, 2007, on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois... The speech he delivered laid out all of the themes that would carry through 2007 and beyond... "It's time to turn the page." (P 74)

DIVIDIST: (February 11, 2007)

"Barack used the word "generation" at least 12 times in the 20 minute speech. Apparently he is building his campaign on on a foundation of Baby Boomicide. One has to ask - why the generational focus? I submit, that this is a realistic political calculation by a young, self-assured, very smart, very ambitious politician, who understands that his path to the presidency requires a stepping stone as Vice-President. A key element in the selection of any Vice-Presidential candidate, is to identify what constituency they bring to a ticket. From a purely political perspective, it is interesting to ask - Exactly what constituency does Barack Obama bring to a Democratic ticket... Barack can bring a generational constituency, if he can mobilize a demographic block that historically cannot even be bothered to vote, then Barack would be a formidable addition to any Democratic ticket. This is a campaign to capture that constituency and trade it for a spot on the ticket."

I never believed that Obama considered his run to be a serious effort to win the presidency in 2008. His resume was just too weak. My perspective was exactly the perspective of the focus groups described in the book. I thought this was always a campaign to cross the stepping stone of a vice president role on the way to a presidential run four or eight years hence. But if the peek that the authors of Game Change offer us into the mind of Barack Obama is accurate - he ran only to be president and only to win. The VP role was never the objective. On the question of his motivation, I did not see from the outside what the authors say was in his head. History would indicate they were right.

"What role did Bill Clinton actually play in his wife's campaign?"

GAME CHANGE: "Two for the Price of One"

"Backstage, Bill paced back and forth, taking their old friend Terry Shumacher about the uphill climb they were facing. We could turn this around if we had the traditional eight days between Iowa and New Hampshire. he said. "I'm just not sure we have enough time" The first-person plural was no slip of the tongue. For a year Hillary had been content to keep her husband at arms length, but now she pulled him close. Nobody knew New Hampshire the way Bill Clinton did...

While Hillary was trying to dance delicately through a minefield of racial sensitivities, Bill was working the remote Western and northern part of the sate. At a townhall meeting at Dartmouth College, he uncorked the argument that he and Penn and been longing to make for a year. Horse voiced and finger wagging, he ripped into Obama's claim of antiwar purity and the media's claims of letting those claims go unchallenged.... Give me a break" the former president moaned. "The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've seen!"...

It was after ten o'clock when the excitement finally washed over the room. The networks had certified Hillary's win. The candidate came and hugged everyone. "I felt it all day," she said. Bill boasted how his "fairly tale attack" had been pivotal to the outcome - it had held down Obama's margins in Hanover. (P 178-189)

DIVIDIST: (January 30, 2008)

A Fairy Tale for Our Time
Long had the House of Clinton practiced the ancient arts, honed their dark craft and schooled in the political weirding way. Long had the Lord King Clinton ruled over the Land of the Dems and held the people entranced under a spell of power and guile.

“Behold your Queen” King Clinton exclaimed “For I am passing my power to her and she shall rule over you as did I. Accept her and love her as you loved me.” And the Dems were afraid and did bow before them.

The children of the Dems flocked to the hero Obama and said “You must free us from this curse!” and so he went forth to battle the Queen of the Hill. And it came to pass that the great hero broke the spell and set free the serfs of Iowa and Carolina. The peasants pledged fealty to the hero and said “We will be your army, and we will be called the Obamites.”

And the scribes and town criers sang his praises and told of his great deeds and of his victory and prophesied the death of the dark Queen until the day came that she cried out in anguish and defeat. But the King unleashed powerful wizards of special interest and once again cast his spell on the people of the Hampshires and Nevada and Lo! The people saw the Queen was not dead.

While my allegory in early 2008 did not predict the outcome correctly (I still thought he would wind up as Clinton's VP), I think it did a pretty good job of picking up on the sense of the race. While the dramatic staging and particulars to be found in Game Change is entertaining, I can't say that there was anything particularly new about Bill's role in the campaign that I did not see (at least at a general level) and comment on at the time.

GAME CHANGE: "Pulling Away and Falling Apart"

She thought Obama wasn't qualified to be commander in chief. And she thought the Republicans would destroy him in the fall, preying on his inexperience and insubstantiality, prying him open and disemboweling him. That morning her campaign had released a new ad in Texas that went direct to those points. Titled "3AM" it was concoction of Penn's drawn from a script he'd drafted a few day earlier on his laptop in a file called "gamechangers"...

There were sleeping children, the sound of a phone ringing , and a question: When an international crisis hits, who do you want picking up the receiver in the Oval Office? A shot of Hillary, assured and calm, phone to ear, provided the answer; Obama's name was never mentioned. Even so "3AM" was the first ad the Clintonites had run that challenged Obama's fitness for office...

After more than a year of battling Obama she'd concluded he was a cipher. In prepping for their debate a week earlier in Cleveland, she had argued with her staff over whether she should call him a "blank slate". We have to make people understand that he's not real." Obama's vast crowds , his wild-eyed devotees - it was a kind of mass hysteria." (P 230)

DIVIDIST (April 7, 2008):

Embracing Billary
"What is this 3 AM ad really all about? What does the "Clinton is ready on day one" meme really mean? The Clinton campaign code word is "experience". The McCain campaign uses the same word while the Obama campaign prefers "judgment". But neither the words "experience" or "judgment" capture the gestalt of that ad or its meaning.

The ad is being repeated because it is effective. It is effective for the simple reason we know exactly what we are getting with a Clinton administration. Net, net - it is not Hillary Clinton's experience we are talking it about. It is our experience with Team Clinton. We have already experienced eight years of a Clinton administration, and for most Americans, it was a good thing. Even more so in contrast to the subsequent eight disastrous years of the Bush administration. We had more peace, more prosperity, more rationality, better currency, better economy, and a better standing in the world. What's not to like?

After eight years of the mind numbingly incompetent, anti-intellectual, disingenuous, and incoherent Bush administration, it is easy to be nostalgic for a competent, smart, predictable, and articulate Clinton Redux. Even if it is a team effort. Especially if it is a team effort. And if a little bit of ruthless, cutthroat duplicity is part of the package? I am good with that. A far more dangerous delusion, is that there will be no duplicity in an Obama administration.

In contrast to the Clinton's, a prospective Obama administration is a cipher. There is simply not enough experience there to see it as anything but an unbreakable code whose meaning is fundamentally unknowable. Now I like Obama. I like the way he talks, and I like the way he thinks. It is easy to feel very good about an Obama presidency. That does not change the fact that no one can know what an Obama presidency will bring. He might be a great president. He might be a disaster.

By the time that 3AM ad ran, I was in full advocacy mode for Hillary Clinton on this blog. I didn't believe a Republican could win in 20o8, and very uncomfortable with turning over the White House to a President with as little executive experience as Barack Obama. Comparing these descriptions, there is little or nothing in the Game Change "insider" account about Bill Clinton's role in the campaign that I was not seeing reported from the outside at the time. However, the synchronicity of the two accounts, even the similar syntax, does beg an interesting question - Was I simply seeing the same thing as the Team Clinton campaign, or was I so sympathetic to the campaign, that I was simply picking up the messaging of Team Clinton and channeling it on the blog?

"Why did McCain pick the unknown and untested governor of Alaska as his running mate? "

GAME CHANGE: "Sarahcuda"

"The plan was always for McCain to shock the world his vice-presidential pick. For weeks his top advisers had been dreaming and scheming., touching bases and laying groundwork, secretly readying an announcement at once unconventional, unexpected, and unprecedented, which would throw the press and both parties for a loop and redraw the political map. The surprise that McCainworld intended to spring was a running mate named Joe Lieberman.

But then something happened on the way to the Republican convention in St. Paul - and presto chango, there was Palin. McCainworld's core conviction was that McCain's VP choice had to be a game changer. The campaign assumed... the three quarter of the electorate who were telling pollsters the country was on the wrong track and blaming the GOP would punish McCain at the polls. If McCain's running mate selection didn't fundamentally alter the dynamics of the race, it would be lights out.

That Sunday, August 24... Schmidt and Davis then placed a new option on the table: Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin's name had been on the longest of the long lists, but that was it. Davis told McCain that if he wanted to consider the governor of Alaska, he needed to phone here that night and ask her if she'd be willing to be vetted - and arrange to meet with her, pronto. McCain was impassive, but agreeable. "I'll call her." he said... On the evening of Wednesday, August 27, three days after McCain phoned Palin, she arrived at the airport in Flagstaff, Arizona...

Culvahouse spoke to McCain by phone. Overall the lawyer was impressed with how Palin handled herself, but he advised McCain that, compared to the alternatives, there were more potential landmines with Palin. "What's your bottom line?" Mc Cain asked. "john, High risk, high reward,." Culvahouse said. " You shouldn't have told me that. I've been a risk taker all my life."...

... although McCain didn't know much about Palin, what he knew, he liked. She reminded him a lot of himself: the outsider's courage, the willingness to piss all over her party . (He loved that she'd taken on that pork-barreler Ted Stevens, whom he despised.) He saw in Palin a way of seizing back and amplifying his own message of change - real change, not the bogus Obama version. "Trust your gut, John." Cindy told him, and McCain knew that she was right. McCain walked up to the deck outside his cabin, where Palin was waiting, and offered here the job."

DIVIDIST: August 26, 2008 & August 31, 2008

Back and Blogging
Biden will help give Obama credibility and he will be a very effective campaigner for Obama. However, the choice does leave McCain an opportunity to make a play for disgruntled Clinton supporters by selecting a woman for VP. There are plenty of good choices, Whitman, Fiorina, Hutchison, or my favorite - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. It would be a smart move, but I doubt he will take my advice this time.

Pondering Palin
First, I never believed McCain would do this. But I am glad he did. Now, we have the potential of a real race. Palin could very well turn out to be a mistake. She could easily wilt under the kleig light glare of a national campaign. She may indeed have been inadequately vetted, which just means the real vetting is going to take place by the American people between now and the election. Which, by the way, is exactly how Obama was vetted during the primary season. McCain may indeed have made a rash decision, and she may prove to be a disaster to his campaign. But with a conventional Republican white bread choice, McCain was going to lose this anyway. Now the Republicans have a chance.

Elections are the only vetting process that matters. Obama clearly did not/does not have enough experience to justify becoming President based on his resume alone. However, he put himself in the spotlight of a campaign in front of the American people and convinced them (at least the Democrats) that he is ready to be President. That is the way Democracy works. He overcame his deficient resume with the voters. If selecting our leaders was only about resume, we would not need elections.

Sarah Palin will now go through the same process. Her resume is not appreciably better or worse than Obama’s. But she will now have to pass muster under an intense media glare in a campaign pressure cooker over the next two months. Then voters will decide if she is qualified to be VP with a resume no better that Obama’s. I don’t know how she’ll do. I hope she does well. We’ll see."

The narrative in Game Change relating the details of exactly how Sarah Palin was plucked from relative obscurity to find herself standing on a grand political stage next to John McCain is fascinating. However, I found little or nothing in the book about the rationale, the potential risk and reward, or even the likelihood of inadequate vetting for the Palin pick that was not already in the public discourse at the time and discussed on this blog. New details and a compelling narrative? Yes. But as far as any previously unknown revelation or insight into the decision or the process that was not apparent at the time? I didn't see it.

"Who is Sarah Palin, really?"

I am not going to quote anything from my blog on this question. First I don't think I've ever tried to answer this particular question, and moreover, I'm not even sure what it means. In 2008, as a sitting governor with a good handle on energy issues, I thought she could help McCain get elected, and with four+ years as VP, grown into a potential presidential role (Actually, I initially thought the same thing about Obama as related above).

Now - after having quit as governor, and capitalizing on the unrelenting media obsession by becoming a media star, I don't think that path remains open to her. Frankly I think she far prefers the new path she has cut for herself. She is playing the hand she was dealt, and playing it well.

That said, I don't know that Game Change answered that question either. They do offer a number of interesting anecdotes and observations - here one from the original publication, and another from the new Afterword:

"Seconds in Command"
The truth was, the McCain people did fail Palin. They had, as they promised, made her one of the most famous people in the world over-night. But they allowed her no time to plant her feet to absorb such a seismic shift. They were unprepared when they picked her, which made her look even more unready than she was. They banked on the force of her magnetism to compensate for their disarray. They amassed polling points and dollars off of her fiery chrisma, and then left her to burn up in the inferno of public opinion" (P 415)

"Afterword"
"With the exception of Obama himself, no one underwent a greater life change after the 2008 election than Sarah Palin. In July 2009, she abruptly quit the Alaska governorship, claiming cryptically that "only dead fish go with the flow," thereby trading in endless battles her state's legislature and series of expensive lawsuits for a glamorous career as a well-paid speaker, bestselling author, Fox News commentator, and Republican royalty-maker. Though Palin resisted immersing herself in the serious policy issues about which her lack of knowledge remains her greatest weakness, if she aspires to the presidency, she has kept her had in politics with cleverly timed endorsements and frequent flash communications to her fans through Twitter and Facebook. Even as polls have shown that majorities of Americans doubt her qualifications to serve in the Oval Office, she towers over every other Republican figure as a media magnet and rallier of the conservative base." (P440)

True and True. Well written and cleverly phrased. But if assessed against the objective the authors themselves set out to accomplish - to "address the vital question of... who is Sarah Palin?" - and to do so in a manner that was not addressed by contemporaneous media or bloggers at the time of campaign? A shot and a miss.

Perhaps others are finding something new and revelatory in these pages. I did not.

Look, the book is an enjoyable read, and well worth the investment in time and money for this new paperback edition. I recommend it. But in terms of the standards that the authors set for themselves, the book fails.

Finally, I cannot conclude this review without commenting on one tawdry and unforgivable aspect of the book - the treatment of Elizabeth Edwards.

It is clear that this book was anonymously sourced primarily by the operatives, campaign staff, aides, and professional politicos who managed the major campaigns. While not all emerged unscathed, to the extent that any sympathetic characters are to be found in Game Change - it is these campaign operatives. Whether they deserve that treatment is another matter. To a large extent, the authors reported their stories, through their eyes, and unsurprisingly, they told stories that made themselves look good. In the process, most of the politicians, candidates, their spouses, and competing campaign staff are made to look bad.

An artifact of the authors reliance on these sources is that the book often comes across as catty, petty, cynical and mean spirited. Nowhere more so than with Elizabeth Edwards. I won't excerpt the offending parts here, you can read them in the New York magazine article.

Now I didn't know her, I didn't know anyone who knows her, and I don't know what she was like to work for or with. That said, this is a woman who was working in the pressure cooker of a presidential campaign while dying of cancer and learning that the idealistic political crusader that she thought she was married to was, in fact, an empty suit and a narcissistic, lying, cheating shyster.

The book portrays her as a shrill, borderline insane, screaming banshee. If you cut through the novelistic embellishments and compensate for likely self-serving sources, her reported offenses distill down to being obsessed about her husband's campaign, and occasionally yelling and cursing out the campaign staff. Poor babies.

In the timeframe covered in the book Elizabeth Edwards is confronting the end of her marriage, her dreams and her life during the course of a presidential campaign. She deserved a more sympathetic and fair treatment. To that end, I'll leave her the last word - her last public words - a message she published on facebook as I wrote this review:

" You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces -- my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. There are certainly times when we aren't able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It's called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn't possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know."

Rest In Peace Elizabeth Edwards.


Thanks to Trish and TLC Book Tours for the book and the opportunity to read and write this review. Check out the tour home page linked here. Sorry about being a little late, I made up for it by running a little ridiculously long.

The Game Change Virtual Tour Calendar and Reviews:

Monday, November 15th: Social Sense

Wednesday, November 17th: Deep Muck Big Rake

Wednesday, December 1st: Marathon Pundit

Thursday, December 2nd: Divided We Stand United We Fall

Monday, December 6th: Ruby Slippers

Monday, December 13th: Whiskey Fire

Wednesday, December 15th: Rude Pundit

Thursday, December 16th: Booker Rising

Friday, December 17th: Chaotic Compendiums

Tuesday, December 21st LitBrit

Tuesday, December 21st Cogitamus

EDITS & UPDATES: - Fixing typos as I find them, and adding links to other reviews as they are completed.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Coalition of the Divided - 2010 Edition

I started this list during the 2008 election cycle, initiated a "Coalition of the Divided Blogroll" in the sidebar, and expressed my good intentions of keeping a running list of COD members for future election cycles. Well, with the road to hell being paved as it is, I never quite got around to it for the 2010 midterms - until now.

This is being thrown together at the last minute, and with the expanded interest this cycle I know I am missing many links and coalition comrades. Better late than never. The blogroll is over there in the right sidebar ====>

The Dividist promises to add any overlooked Coalition of the Divided members to the blogroll and to this post. Membership is open to anyone writing in a vaguely positive way on the subject of divided government. Fair warning, inclusion on this list will make it easy to identify the backsliders and the disingenuous. You know, backsliders like this guy. The Dividist will be watching.

The 2012 Presidential Election season kicks off on Wednesday, and we will begin the 2012 COD blogroll shortly thereafter. Really.

Interested? You too can join this glorious movement and march in solidarity with the many millions thousands hundreds tens of your brothers and sisters standing shoulder to shoulder in the Coalition of the Divided! Just write anything linkable vaguely favorable to Divided Government and let me know where to find it in the comments or via e-mail. I will add it to this list, link you, blogroll you, favorite you, digg you, friend you, tweet you, paint your house and walk your dog.

The United Coalition of the Divided - 2010 Election

A Minority of One - Steve Chapman	League of Ordinary Gentlemen - Mark Thompson
Allan Bevere	Libertarian Examiner - Trevor Bothwell
American Maxim - Jason	Library Grape - Gherald
American Scene - Conor Friedersdorf	Library of Economics - Arnold Kling
Anatreptic - Anne	Malnutured Snay - Malsnay
Ann Althouse	Matt Lewis
Bipartisan Rules - Commissioner	Minneapolis Star Tribune - Kevin Hassett
Bonzai	Monkey Cage - Andrew Gelman
Brookings Institute - Jonathon Rauch	Mystical Paths - Akiva
Business and Media Institute - Dan Kennedy	Newsweek - Daniel Stone & Andrew Romano
Cato Institute - John Samples	Orange County Register
Charles Rowley	Paleoconservative
Chicago Tribune - Steve Chapman	Poligazette - Michael Merritt
CNN Politics - Julian Zeliner	Postmodern Conservative - Peter Lawlor
Commentary - Jennifer Rubin	Prudent Investor Newsletter - Benson
Conscience of a Centrist - Matt Mazewski	Q and O - Bruce McQuain
Crossed Pond - Rojas	Q and O Blog - Bruce McQuain
Daily Beast -Tunku Varadarajan	Race 4 2012 - DaveG
Daily Caller - Ed Ross	Reason - David Harsanyi
Daily Caller - Henry Miller	Reason Hit & Run - Nick Gillespie
Daily Dish - Conor Friedersdorf	Red Hampshire - Steve Vaillancourt
Disloyal Oppostion - J.D. Tuccille	Redst8r
Downsize DC - Jim Babka	Right Thinking from the Left Coast - Hal
E-Vigilance - Alan Ricketson	Rockford Register - Chuck Sweeny
Econlog - Bryan Caplan	Ryan Christiano - Facebook Fan
Electoral Vote Predictor - Rattlesnake	Shrink Wrapped Blog - Psychoanalyst
Ella's Deli - Ross	Small Government Times - Gene Healy
Erie Times - Pat Howard	South Bend Seven - One of Seven
Fear and Loathing in Georgetown	The Beacon Blog - Jonathon Bean
Fiscal Times - Bruce Bartlett	The Bobo Files - Bobo
Fishermagical Thought	The Economist - W.W.
Folloseus Flaps Dental Blog - Flap	True North - Gary Gross
Forbes - Bernie McSherry	True/Slant - Ryan Sager
Free West Radio - Dale Williams	U.S. Senate - Susan Collins
Great Options Trading Strategies - Brad Castro	United Library - Jason Pye
Harvard Crimson - Pat Toomey	US News - Mary Kate Cary
Hayride - Macaoidh	U.S. Senate - Pat Toomey
Horse Race Blog - Jay Cost	Washington Examiner - Stephen Slivinski
Hot Air - Ed Morrissey	Washington Post - Michael Gershon
Hot Air - Karl	Washington Times - Armstrong Williams
Janet Cutrona - Facebook Fan	What should Be - Kevin Bliss
Jeffersonville Evening News - Kelly Curran	Will Wilkinson
John Batchelor	CSM - Costas Panagopoulus
Las Vegas Sun - James Moldenhauer	Bloomberg - Kevin Hassett
U.S. Senate - Rand Paul	My Thought World - Chad
Volokh Conspiracy - Ilya Somin	Harvard Crimson - Peyton Miller
Power and Control - M.Simon

The United Coalition of the Divided - 2008 Election

411 Mania - Enrique	New Editor - Tom Elia
8 Short Years - Chris J	NY Daily News- Michael Goodwin
Ambivablog - Amba	NYT - Bill Kristol
Ashbrook Center - Jule Ponzi	OC Register - Alan Bock
Atlantic - Clive Crook	OOOH, Nuance! - Madam AB
Atlantic - Ross Douthat	Outside The Beltway - James Joyner
Augusta Free Press - Rick Gray	Patri' Peregrinations - Patri F
BeliefNet - Crunchy Con	PI - Dick Polman
Betsy's Page - Betsy Newmark	Philosophy Talk - Ken Taylor
Bone In The Fan - Brad	Poli Gazette - Michael Merritt
Bosque Boys - A Waco Farmer	Positive Liberty - Jason Kuznicki
Bottom of the Ninth - Amber	Positive Liberty - John Babka
Cantankerous Gentleman - Crank	Power and Control - M. Simon
Capital Games - Pete Davis	QandO - McQ
Castle Arrgghh! - John	Race 4 2008 - Michael Stubel
Cato@Liberty - Brink Lindsay	Ragged Thots - Robert George
Cato@Liberty - Stephen Slivinski	Reason - Jacob Sollum
Charter of Dreams - Christopher	Reason - Jonathon Rauch
Classically Liberal - CLS	Reason - Matt Welch
Club For Growth - Andrew Roth	Reason Hit & Run - David Weigel
Confluence - River Daughter	Reason Hit & Run - Jacob Sollum
Coyote Mercury - James Brush	Red Blue Christian - Allan Bevere
Crossed Pond - Rojas	Red State Eclectic - Laura Ebke
Current Word - Jim Mathies	RLC - PB Lumel
Cynical Nation - BNJ	Right Thinking Left Coast - Hall
Daily Dish - Reader 1	Rossputin.com - Ross
Daily Dish - Bruce Bartlett	Scrivener.Net - Scrivener
Daily Dish - Reader 2	Sun News - Denny Clements
Disloyal Oppostion - J.D. Tuccille	Taxman Blog - Gordon Gekko
Divided We Stand - MW	Time/CNN - Jeff Kogler
Donklephant - Alan Carl	To The People - Cicero
Dyre Portents - Dyre42	ToddSeavey.com - Todd
Eunomia - Daniel Larison	Townhall - William Wilson
Fat Triplets - Seth	Trading Goddess - Muckdog
Feehery Theory - John Feehery	Two Pennies - David Wright
Gay Species - Stephen Heersink	Uncorrelated - Mick Stockinger
Hell's Handmaiden - The Maiden	Volokh Conspiracy - Ilya Somin
Holy Coast - Rick Moore	WaPo - George Will
Hot Air - Ed Morrissey	WaPo- Robert Samuelson
Liberty Forged - Jesse	Wa. Monthly - Bill Niskanen
Mike the Actuary - Mike	Washington Times - Steve Chapman
Moderate Voice - Pete Abel	Weblog - Thomas P Barnett
Muck & Mystery - Back 40	What Should Be - K Bliss
MVDG Gaszette - MVDG	Whirled View - Pat Sharpe
My Thought World - Ted West	WSJ - David Gaffen
National Journal - Jonathon Rauch	WSJ - Donald Luskin
	WSJ - John Fund

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

How to vote for divided government. (Hint: It is not about splitting tickets)

UPDATED & REVISED: NEW VERSION POSTED HERE: 01-March-2016

Shankar Vendatum at Slate gets his Greek wrong and tries to explain a paradox that does not exist. To whit - Why polls show that Americans distrust Republicans more the Democrats, but are going to vote for Republicans over Democrats in the mid-terms anyway. Along the way, he touches on a subject near and dear to my heart.

"One explanation for our paradox is that Americans want divided government. If we have gridlock with one party in charge, perhaps we would have more legislative movement if power in Congress were divided?

This might make sense as a national storyline, but it doesn't make sense in the real world, because wanting divided government doesn't tell an individual how to vote. If you are a voter in, say Pennsylvania's 8^th District, would you vote against Democratic incumbent Patrick Murphy in order to get divided government if you weren't sure how people in all the other congressional Districts were going to vote? If you liked Murphy, would you say you are going to vote against him just to get divided government? For one thing, if people in other districts voted against Democrats, you could get divided government even if you voted for Murphy. Wouldn't it make more sense to stop worrying about how everyone else votes and simply pick the candidate you like?"

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There is no reason to over-think and over-analyze this. You don't have to worry about how anyone else is going to vote to know how to vote for divided government. In any given election cycle the "divided government" vote is obvious and "fall off a log" easy to figure out. This is how you do it:

• First, you have to understand the definition of divided government in the context of the US Federal government. The political science definition of Divided Government in this context simply means one party does not control the executive branch and majorities in both legislative branches.
• Second, you need to understand the reasons why you want a divided government end state. I outlined my reasons in the post Voting By Objectives. Your mileage may vary.
• Third, you need to appreciate that you are in a sliver of a minority of the electorate, and you are voting to achieve the end state of divided government, not by splitting your vote, but by voting in the manner that is most likely to achieve that divided government end state.
• Finally, by taking a clear eyed look at that current partisan pre-election state of the executive and legislative branches, the divided government vote will almost always be completely obvious.

To show how easy this really is - here off the top of my head are two decades of divided government votes including the current and next cycle:

2012 - Barack Obama
2010 - Straight Republican
2008 - John McCain
2006 - Straight Democrat
2004 - John Kerry
2002 - Straight Democrat
2000 - Al Gore
1998 - No DG vote as one party rule was not a possible outcome
1996 - Bill Clinton
1994 - Straight Republican
1992 - George H Bush

You win some, you lose some, and there will be circumstances where there is no specific divided government vote, such as in 1998. If the divided government vote is not obvious, if reasonable people can argue about what the correct "divided government" vote should be, then it is likely there simply is no "divided government" vote for that election. In that circumstance, the moderate/libertarian/independent/dividist voting block (should one ever come into existence) would go "free agent."

I hope that helps Shankar. Let me know if you have any questions.

UPDATE: 25-October-2010

Andrew Gelman at Frum Forum is also trying to help Shankar understand "The Rationally Irrational Voter":

"...in his eagerness to explain undesirable political outcomes as the product of irrationality and “unconscious bias,” Vedantam is missing the point. To start with, a small swing of 10% of the vote would result in a large swing in the political outcome. To take the example above, if you like Patrick Murphy, you can vote for him, and if you prefer his opponent, you can cast your vote the other way. No problem. But there are lots of people in the middle. Preference for divided government may be only a small factor, but it can be enough to swing some votes...

I’m not saying that preference for divided government explains all or, necessarily, even most of the anticipated vote swing in 2010. But don’t be so quick to dismiss the idea. What disturbs me in Vedantam’s otherwise interesting article is the oh-so-quick move to explain away uncomfortable political trends with psychological explanations. Whether the argument is that whites voted for Obama because it made them feel good about themselves, or that people are planning to vote Republican in 2010 because “our unconscious bias favors action over holding steady, regardless of whether that makes sense,” my response is: Maybe so. But let’s consider some more direct explanations first."

Occam's razor informs us that the simplest explanation is often the best explanation.

Preference for divided government can indeed swing votes.

It definitely swings this vote.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Happy new year, good riddance to the Aughts, and best wishes for the Dividist Decade to come.

Here my appreciative extended family models their favorite holiday gift. The picture encompasses a wide range of political and religious affiliations, including half a dozen Christian denominations, two or three Judaic disciplines, secular humanists, animists, agnostics and a Druid. Among them you'll political liberals, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents and a Whig. See if you can spot the Driud Whig, the Ron Paul gold standard conspiracist and the kool-aid drinking Obama apologist.

Dividist^® apparel makes a thoughtful gift for any occasion, but will be particularly appreciated during the decade to come.

As we reflect on the decade just passed, and look forward to the decade and election years ahead, a friendly reminder: Seven of the last ten years have been under Single Party Rule in Washington D.C.

One question... How did that work out for you?

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

President Barack Obama - Let the healing begin.

Congratulations to Barack Obama, the Democrats, and David Axelrod. It was a brilliant campaign, well executed, and a historic result in which all Americans can take pride. The story of Barack Obama is indeed a story that could not be written in any other country in the world.

Obama's victory speech was thoughtful, stirring and conciliatory:

"Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long... while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress... And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn-- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too."

I was inspired by the sentiment. This morning, in a spirit of reconciliation and unity, I turned my browser to the biggest and most influential Democratic bloggers and thinkers, in order to better understand how Obama and the Democrats will reach across the divide, listen the values of those who did not vote for him, and unify the country.

Meteor Blades - Daily Kos

"...healing cannot occur unless the crimes that have brought our nation to such a ruinous condition - morally, economically and politically - are investigated thoroughly and a proper penalty imposed. Most importantly, the bent machinery that allowed, nay encouraged, those crimes must be rebuilt with safeguards so that they never occur again. That's not vengeance. It's justice."

Thanks MB, truly a pitch-perfect follow up to Markos Moulitsas Zúniga's warm and embracing message of change and hope for a new post-partisan America:

"...we have an imperative to take advantage of a historic opportunity to break the conservative movement's backs and crush their spirits."

I learned that unity is certainly possible, if only the 48% who did not vote for Barack Obama accepts the mandate delivered by the 52% who did.

Paul Krugman - "Mandate"

"In this election, Obama proudly stood up for progressive values and the superiority of progressive policies; John McCain, in return, denounced him as a socialist, a redistributor. And the American people rendered their verdict."

Chris Bower - Open Left

"...this is the progressive movement's mandate. A mandate to end the war. A mandate for universal health care. A mandate to solve the financial crisis even if it means nationalization and harsh measures against Wall Street. A mandate to repair the environment. A mandate to restore the middle class. A mandate for a truly free and open media. This is our mandate."

Think Progress - "A Progressive Mandate"

"A mandate for progressive change exists. In a memo released today, the Center for American Progress Action Fund writes, “Obama ran on the most progressive platform of any presidential candidate in at least 15 years, including a promise of universal health care coverage, a dramatic transformation to a low-carbon economy, and a historic investment in education.”

John Judis - "America the Liberal"

".... If, on the other hand, Obama and the Democrats take the advice of official Washington and go slow--adopting incremental reforms, appeasing adversaries that have lost their clout--they could end up prolonging the downturn and discrediting themselves... That's not the kind of change that America needs or wants"

Jim Vandehei - "A New World Order"

"Democrats have the capital in a headlock, holding more power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue than they have had for at least 32 years (Carter) and, more realistically, 44 years (Johnson). Obama seems ready to press this advantage. The best early clue of his ambitions: he wants sharp-elbowed Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel to run his White House."

Glen Greenwald - Salon

" The most important aspect of this Tuesday's election is to finalize their humiliating repudiation and to bury them for what they've done."

Big Tent Democrat - Talk Left

"The new Democratic majority is a progressive electorate. It wants Democratic and progressive change. The notion of a "Center Right" Beltway Agenda is not what they want. Democrats must respect this. If they choose to instead adopt a Broderite agenda, they will be voted out of office..."

Matthew Yglesias - "The Mandate"

"People want Obama to implement his agenda, and his agenda is a progressive one — cutting carbon emissions, expanding access to health insurance and early childhood education, making the tax code more progressive, and spreading the wealth around building broad-based prosperity."

It is going to tough, but I firmly believe that Barack Obama will indeed unify the left with the far left, pull in the moderate left, and be the President that speaks clearly for the entire sweeping 52% mandate they represent.

Finally I'd like to extend congratulations to my moderate, centrist, libertarian, and conservative blogging brethren who embraced Obama's rhetoric of change and hope.

You got it!

Divided and Balanced.™Now that is fair.
I, for one, welcome our new Democratic Party Overlords.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, unity, 2008 election , mandate, Divided Government