Centerfield

You have to hand it to Bush, this was a masterstroke, politically - the opposition split exactly down the middle on how to react to Bush's nomination.

Posted by: Simon at September 29, 2005 11:49 AM

If I may quote my comment to last week's Roberts Confirmation Prediction Post:

65+, no problem.

I guess 79 in favor, 19 against.

What do I win if I'm closest? A chance to guest-blog on Centrist Coalition?

I am da man! Woo-hoo, baby! (Strains elbow patting self on back).

(Yes, 79+19=98. I guessed 2 abstentions. Can't be perfect).

Posted by: Oberon at September 29, 2005 11:55 AM

Oberon-

I'm sold- you win hands down. Now can we get your prediction on the 08 presidential race?

Posted by: kreiz at September 29, 2005 12:22 PM

I for one have no problem with a guest blog slot. If Rick is too busy to set it up, Oberon, you can go ahead and compose it, and then email it to me at gooblers8@yahoo.com, and I'll post it as a guestblog from my slot. If you decide to do this, be sure to give me a heads up that it's coming, as I don't check my yahoomail that often.

Posted by: bk at September 29, 2005 12:23 PM

Screw the '08 race, I want a call on next week's futures market!

Nice call, Oberon.

Posted by: Tully at September 29, 2005 12:35 PM

Since you asked, my prediction for President '08 is...

wait for it...

Al Gore.

Actually, my first guess is Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. But I'm 100% serious that Gore could very well take the White House in 2008. You heard it here first.

Hmm. Maybe that'll be the topic of my guest-post.

Posted by: Oberon at September 29, 2005 12:46 PM

Yes, my prediction last week (something like 40-60, IIRC) was way off. I expected the democratic response to be far more coherent and organized.

Posted by: Simon at September 29, 2005 12:56 PM

I was off on that as well. Honestly, I felt there was more of the "Unsilent Minority" then there actually turned out to be. Congratulations for the Democrats who were reasonable.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 29, 2005 01:02 PM

Somehow we managed to have two different vote counts in the same post (77-21 in the title; 77-22 in the body of the post), both of which are wrong. The actual tally is 78-22, and the roll call results are available from the Senate here.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at September 29, 2005 01:02 PM

Silly Simon. As Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Seriously, the Dem leadership in the Senate has little power to force their members to do anything. Once it was clear that (a)Roberts would be confirmed and (b) this was a bad place to pick the filibuster fight, the members and the leaders probably agreed it was up to each Senator to make his or her own decision, based on principles, politics, whatever.

Posted by: Oberon at September 29, 2005 01:13 PM

Thanks for the link, JD. I was about ready to get on that.

If anyone finds out what Evan Bayh said for why he voted nay, please let me know, and then we can analyze whether it's his way of inching to the left for '08, or if he really means it.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 29, 2005 01:15 PM

This is why the only Republican that could possibly lose the '08 election is Dan Quayle.

The Democrats were split 50-50 on Roberts. Those voting against were either opposed to his "ideology" or didn't get a feel for his "feelings." Those voting for come from red states.

If the Nays control the Democratic Party, they lose the great middle of America.

If the Yeas control, half of the voters won't show up on Election Day.

This could change over the next three years (3 years!) if the Democrats come up with a philosophy, a message, a plan that is more substantial than "Grrr... I so dislike Bush." But they won't.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at September 29, 2005 01:16 PM

Simon's right that it was a perfect move by Bush politically -- not just splitting the opposition, but also keeping his base pretty happy without setting off alarms in the mass middle.

Posted by: Oberon at September 29, 2005 01:17 PM

As for Evan Bayh voting Nope, I think it's pretty clearly aimed at a presidential run. Only the activist base cares enough about stuff like this to switch their support to another candidate.

But it doesn't matter, because it's incredibly hard for a senator to become president because they're always voting and never governing. (Hence, President Gore.)

Posted by: Oberon at September 29, 2005 01:26 PM

Next prediction: Bush names O'Connor's successor this afternoon to build on the momentum and, yes, to replace DeLay as the lead story. Tomorrow at the latest.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at September 29, 2005 01:26 PM

Justice DeLay, anyone?

Posted by: Oberon at September 29, 2005 01:27 PM

Well, my guess is that most Dems chose to blow this one off because they see Roberts as a replacement for Rehnquist; a con for a con, as it were; it wasn't really changing the Court balance that much. So they kept their powder dry.

It's the next nominee who's going to be really interesting.

Pass the popcorn, please.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 29, 2005 01:35 PM

I have a comment here at Volokh giving my impressions on what the lesson of the Roberts nomination should be.

Posted by: Simon at September 29, 2005 02:35 PM

Oberon- Wasn't Al Gore that plumpish professor dude with a scraggily beard? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Posted by: kreiz at September 29, 2005 03:07 PM

Although Gore won the popular vote in 2000, post-election analysis showed a surprising and dramatic win for Bush in the scraggily professor category.

Posted by: Oberon at September 29, 2005 03:14 PM

Actually, I'm going to somewhat side with Oberon here. I think that Al Gore has an excellent shot at the Democratic nomination. Whether or not he can win the general election is dependent on whether or not the GOP can leave behind this image of scandal (whether real or not). Even more importantly, is whether or not the GOP gives in to the white Christian Conservatives within the party and leads with a Frist (highly unlikely at this point...lol), Allen, Brownback, or Huckabee (an ordained Southern Baptist Minister). If McCain wins, then it's another story.

Could Gore beat Hillary for the nomination? IMHO, he absolutely could. Hil has staked out numerous positions that have drawn the ire of the (dominant) left wing of her party. Maybe there are more moderate Dem's than left, but the left has the money and turns out in the primaries. I firmly believe that Hil's vote against Roberts was an attempt to appease the left wing of her party. The Gore's and Clinton's could certainly not be considered friends and I'm sure she hears the footsteps behind her. She's pro-Iraq war. He is absolutely opposed. If we are still in Iraq in '08, that will be THE issue.

As far as the bearded professor thing. No one cares. Remember how he got on a workout regiment and a diet before 2000? He'll do it again and the scraggly look won't matter to anyone but white Christian Republican conservatives.

Posted by: AR at September 29, 2005 03:48 PM

But I'm 100% serious that Gore could very well take the White House in 2008. You heard it here first.

Can we take the guest blog offer back? ;-) Sorry Oberon, but I'm just not feeling it. My wholly unscientific opinion regarding Big Al. People will remember him as the guy who lost in 2000. Why was 2000 so close, two guys who the American public was lukewarm on. I also think Al got some positives in the election but he'd been in the public eye for the previous 8 years as Bill's VP. I just don't see it.

Okay, at least he doesn't scream;-)

Posted by: c3 at September 29, 2005 07:20 PM

Nobody has yet mentioned his great endorsement of Howard Dean. Al Gore is not a winner. If he had won his home state, there would not have even been the whole Florida debacle.

I hope Gore doesn't run in 2008. If he keeps doing stuff like that, I might get overwhelmed with pity and cast him a sympathy vote, and I don't really want to do that.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 29, 2005 11:40 PM

It's going to be Hill vs McCain or Guliagni. If the country is going to be dominated by one party then it is best if the Pres is more to the middle of the spectrum. Fear of losing to Hill will be enough to keep the far right in-line and there really isn't a strong candidate from the far right that can win.

Posted by: djok at September 30, 2005 12:14 AM

It's going to be Hill vs McCain or Guliagni. If the country is going to be dominated by one party then it is best if the Pres is more to the middle of the spectrum. Fear of losing to Hill will be enough to keep the far right in-line and there really isn't a strong candidate from the far right that can win.

Posted by: djok at September 30, 2005 12:15 AM

I must respectfully disagree with the "loser" comments. Does anyone remember Richard Nixon?

Posted by: AR at September 30, 2005 01:37 PM

Centerfield Flashback:

Tea Leaf Reading: Lining Up the Opposition

Contrast with Friday's WaPo article on the confirmation.

The Senate Democrats' 22 to 22 split illuminated the influence that presidential politics and red-state, blue-state considerations play in a party struggling to end nearly a decade of unbroken GOP control of Congress. Among those opposing Roberts were presidential aspirants who typically veer to the center but now are eyeing the liberal activist groups that will play key roles in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting states in 2008. They included Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). Also voting no were two senators facing potentially tough reelections next year in states with powerful left-leaning groups: Maria Cantwell of Washington and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Maryland's Democratic senators voted against Roberts.

Democrats voting for Roberts included several facing reelection contests next year in states that Bush carried twice: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. These and other red-state Democrats who backed Roberts pose the biggest challenge to liberals hoping for a united party front if Bush nominates a staunch conservative next.

(Side note: The Kos "fall offensive" on Dem centrists was due on September 5th. We're still waiting.)

Posted by: Tully at October 1, 2005 11:54 AM

Whoever the dem nom is, if that person gets the nom with solid left support that overcomes weakness with democratic moderates, that nominee will get his or her clock cleaned. The only sort of dem nom I can envision winning the Presidency is one who has solid moderate dem support, enough to overcome the left and make it go along. Of course HC is a bit of a wild card on that count. IMO she has staked out firmly moderate positions as a senator, and has been geting a pass from the left.

Oberon, supposing Gore runs, are you expecting him to run to the left of HC? Or are you expecting a reinvention as a sober wizened voice of experience, running for the center from the get go?

Posted by: bk at October 2, 2005 08:07 PM

Now, let's hear Oberon out. After all, Gore has already won one Presidential election by 537,000 votes, barring the Gang of Five. More importantly, during the late Katrina Unpleasantness, he was out rescuing people while the Supreme's Pick W was being...W.

Fun Presidential Trivia; there are three other times where the popular vote winner was cheated out of...ahem...deprived of the electoral vote. In two of them, the popular vote winner went on to win the Presidency. Who wants to name the third instance?

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 4, 2005 11:30 PM