Political Prognostications

I was up there in Washington, DC (Our Nation's Capital) this weekend, and got to hear some good political thinking from some Operatives. Hopefully their Prognostications will be a feature from here to the election, so long as they keep talking to me.

Anyway, here's the roundup:

Louisiana- Jindal's defeat was due, in the consensual opinion, to shading the difference between Blanco's pro-life position, except in case of rape or incest, and Jindal's no-exceptions on rape position. In Louisiana anti-abortion except in case of rape or incest counts as a moderate stance, I guess. As one of my informatns says, "a slight shading of difference on the rape and incest issue hurt Jindal among suburban women." Another says, rather darkly, "It would be interesting to see some real numbers on that, plus numbers on the racist factor."

How could Dean win the general election?- Considering the results of the 2000 election, how could a Democratic contender get a winning number of electoral votes?

One of my informants, who is a wizard at the numbers, shares the following information:
Electoral factoids to chew on:

"A total of 12 electoral votes have shifted from blue country to red country as a result of the 2000 census.

If the electoral map of 2004 had been in place in 2000, red would have won 283 electoral votes.

NH has recently moved from the lean red to lean blue category, -4 for blue.

PA and IA are now lean red; NM solid red.

Red winning in 2004 with 307."

Democrats on Iraq- What are they thinking? Frederick Kagan, an Interventionist Neo-Con Hawk whom no one could accuse of shilling for the Democratic National Committee, had an op-ed in the Washington Post today saying that, all things considered, the major Democratic candidates weren't that weak when it came to Iraq.

Myself, I think Fred is whistling a happy bipartisan tune that doesn’t have an ending. I don’t think, in the end, that what he observes amounts to much. I think I see him mentally contrasting Democratic candidates with the anti-war people in Europe, and thinking, “Man, what a bunch of Anti-Saddamites!” But what he quotes is electioneering fluff. Sure, it’s not George McGovern. But the important words, the words that describe what any of these chaps would do as President, have been and continue to be conspicuous in their absence. They will be thrust into a Crisis Situation, and they don’t seem to acknowledge that. Instead they tip their hat to the “War on Terrorism” and then move on to comparing W to Herbert Hoover, or some old chestnut like that.

One of my informants agrees, adding that "all of the criticisms offered by the Dems relative to Iraq do not, taken together, add up to an alternative policy. They are just ankle biting. Dean just happens to be the most ferocious of the ankle biters. In the right circumstances (e.g. total meltdown in Iraq) he could get a hold of Bush he could do a lot of damage with his message."