The Gallup polling organization released their numbers showing party affiliation by state.

Missouri

% Democrat/Lean Democrat – 48.8

% Republican/Lean Republican – 37.9

Dem-Rep gap (pct. pts.) – 11

Number of interviews – 7,904

The numbers for Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina are very similar to those for Missouri. It’s interesting to note that Obama carried three of those four states (we’re the exception). Gallup’s methodology:

State of the States: Political Party Affiliation

…In 2008, Gallup interviewed more than 350,000 U.S. adults as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking…

…This large data set provides the unique ability to give reliable estimates of state-level characteristics for 2008. Each sample of state residents was weighted by demographic characteristics to ensure it is representative of the state’s population.

In order to rank the states on partisanship, Gallup analyzes “leaned” party identification by state. This measure adds partisan-leaning independents to the percentage who identify with either of the parties. Thus, the Republican total includes Republican identifiers and independents who lean Republican, and the Democratic total likewise includes Democratic identifiers and independents who lean Democratic…

I don’t doubt that Denise Coleman seriously wants to win the Democratic nomination for St. Louis mayor. She attended the mayoral forum with her stump speech ready and spoke about her reasons for running and about what inspired her. Unfortunately, her rapid fire delivery comes across like rote recitation. Even when she spoke of the death of her nine year old daughter, it sounded like part of a memorized list. The pain she described must have been real, though.

This is Coleman’s first run for public office. I admire her, as I admire anyone who puts herself out there for altruistic reasons. She just has work to do on her delivery.

Smith is impressive. Ain’t it a shame, then, that she has the one-incident rule to contend with.  

Photo of David Pearce from ony of his numerous 2008 campaign mailings. He never did change that tie.

David Pearce (r – advocate of automotive deer hunting), newly minted senator representing the 31st District, is shocked, I tell you, shocked, that the money for capital building projects at universities appropriated by raiding the resources of MOHELA isn’t really there.

1/29/2009 11:49:00 AM

Red ink could sink UCM renovations

Jack Miles

Editor

…Pearce said the news came “as a total shock,” but he has a clear idea where to go from here.

“Obviously, where I go is to try to convince the governor it was a bad decision,” he said…

Uh, the bad decision was the one you made when you voted to gut MOHELA as a back bencher in the House despite the warnings from then Attorney General Jay Nixon and the Democratic minority in the General Assembly:

Attorney General Jay Nixon’s Statement on MOHELA’s Elimination of Student Benefit Programs [5/27/08]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

…In response, Attorney General Jay Nixon released the following statement:

“During these difficult economic times, too many middle-class families are getting squeezed out of a college education.  Unfortunately, these Missouri families were delivered yet another crushing blow last week, and now students will be forced to pay higher monthly loan payments.  With tuition skyrocketing at our colleges and universities, this was a major step in the wrong direction.  

“When Gov. Blunt raided MOHELA’s assets, the one thing he assured us was that it would cause no harm to Missouri students.  It was obvious — at least to those of us who fought the MOHELA raid from the beginning — that Missouri students would end up paying the price.  And now they are.

“I believe a college education is a key to achieving the American Dream, and I am more committed than ever to creating a pathway to a four-year degree for every Missourian who is willing to work hard and play by the rules.  We must put the dream of a college degree within reach for every Missouri family…”

A retired banker and member of the MOHELA board from 1993 to 2007 tried to warn the General Assembly:

They can’t say they weren’t warned

By John Greer

04/10/2008

…Finally, I tried to bring at least some measure of reality to the proceedings – based on my more than 30 years as a banker and more than 13 years as a member of MOHELA’s board. I told the committee that stripping $350 million out of MOHELA would put the institution immediately into the red. I said that MOHELA would lose millions of dollars the very first year after the plan was approved – and every year after that. I believed that the plan would divert assets from MOHELA’s core mission of enhancing access to higher education for all eligible Missouri students and, worse, that it would threaten MOHELA’s very existence.

No one listened…

And they didn’t listen, David Pearce included:

Journal of the House

First Regular Session, 94th General Assembly

SIXTY-NINTH DAY, Monday, May 7, 2007…

…THIRD READING OF SENATE BILL

SS#6 SCS SB 389, relating to higher education, was taken up by Representative Bearden…

On motion of Representative Bearden, SS#6 SCS SB 389 was truly agreed to and finally passed by the following vote:

AYES: 091

Avery

Baker 123

Bearden

Bivins

Brandom

Brown 30

Bruns

Cooper 120

Cooper 155

Cooper 158

Cox

Cunningham 145

Cunningham 86

Day

Deeken

Dempsey

Denison

Dethrow

Dixon

Dougherty

Dusenberg

Emery

Ervin

Faith

Fares

Fisher

Flook

Franz

Grisamore

Guest

Hobbs

Hoskins

Hubbard

Hunter

Icet

Jones 89

Jones 117

Kelly

Kingery

Lembke

Lipke

Loehner

Marsh

May

McGhee

Moore

Munzlinger

Nance

Nieves

Nolte

Onder

Parson

Pearce

Pollock

Portwood

Pratt

Quinn 7

Richard

Rucker

Ruestman

Ruzicka

Sater

Schaaf

Schad

Scharnhorst

Schlottach

Schneider

Schoeller

Self

Silvey

Smith 14

Smith 150

Stevenson

St. Onge

Stream

Sutherland

Thomson

Threlkeld

Tilley

Viebrock

Wallace

Wasson

Wells

Weter

Whorton

Wilson 119

Wilson 130

Wood

Wright 159

Yates

Mr Speaker

NOES: 064…

Representative Cooper (120) declared the bill passed.

[emphasis added]

What they were going to do was quite clear:

Summary of the Truly Agreed Version of the Bill

   SS#6 SCS SB 389 — HIGHER EDUCATION

   This bill changes the laws regarding higher education and the

   powers of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA).

LEWIS AND CLARK DISCOVERY INITIATIVE

MOHELA is authorized to transfer assets, as specified in the bill, to the newly created Lewis and Clark Discovery Fund. MOHELA must distribute $350 million of its assets to the fund no later than September 30, 2013, and moneys in the fund may be appropriated by the General Assembly only for capital projects at public colleges and universities and to the Missouri Technology Corporation to identify opportunities for commercializing technologies at these institutions. Any college or university that knowingly employs a registered sexual offender will be ineligible for capital projects funds.

After an initial distribution of $230 million to the fund, the Department of Economic Development will allocate a percentage, within the limits specified in the bill, of the state ceiling for private activity bonds to MOHELA for at least the next 15 years. If the total distribution of assets is not completed by MOHELA by September 30, 2013, the ceiling dollar amount received by MOHELA will be reduced by the percentage of the $350 million not yet distributed. MOHELA moneys cannot be used to pay state debts. Immunity from personal liability is granted to members of MOHELA for certain decisions.  MOHELA is authorized to issue bonds to fulfill its obligations regarding the transfer of assets to the fund and may establish or invest in financial aid programs that provide student grants and scholarships…

“…I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

What we have in this mess is a republican House back bencher voting the party line after the General Assembly was warned in hearings that bad things would happen – and now he’s in the Senate expressing “shock” about the mess to which he contributed.

David Pearce is definitely future republican presidential candidate material.

Claire McCaskill will get to chair a new subcommittee under the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (chaired by everybody’s favorite, Joe Lieberman). This subcommittee, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contract Oversight, will be responsible for overseeing all federal contracting. Quite the plum for McCaskill, who will be able to draw on her previous experience as auditor.

Press release below the fold in full.

January 29, 2009  

LIEBERMAN ANNOUNCES NEW HSGAC SUBCOMMITTEE

MCCASKILL TO GET CONTRACTING GAVEL

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., Thursday announced he is creating a new, ad hoc subcommittee to oversee federal contracting. Committee Member Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., will chair the new Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight.

“Management of federal contracts is one of the greatest operational challenges facing the federal government,” Lieberman said. “Spending on federal contracts rose to an astounding $532 billion last year. And for years the Government Accountability Office has listed government contracting on its list of programs at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or in need of comprehensive reform. This is a problem area that needs as much oversight as we can possibly muster.

“So, to more fully address the array of problems with federal contracting, I am establishing this new subcommittee with pride and great expectations. With her background as a prosecutor and state auditor, Senator McCaskill has unique investigative experience that will be crucial for this new subcommittee. I am certain that she will approach her new responsibilities with unmatched vigor to improve the value of all the taxpayer dollars devoted to federal contracting.”

McCaskill said: “Last year we made major strides in contracting accountability by establishing the Wartime Contracting Commission, and while I look forward to those investigations, we all know that outrageous contracting abuses occur in every facet of government. I can’t wait to get to work saving huge money for taxpayers. They deserve it.”

HSGAC has had a longstanding interest in reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the area of federal contracting. The Committee has held numerous hearings on contracting problems within the Department of Homeland Security, waste in Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction programs, problems created by private contractors in war zones, and the rapid increase, government-wide, in contracting for goods and services.

In the 110th Congress, the Committee marked up major contracting legislation introduced by Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., and Lieberman, and co-sponsored by McCaskill. Many of the measure’s provisions were enacted in 2008 and 2009 as provisions of Defense authorization legislation.  

###  

As always, some interesting bills are making their way through the process in Jefferson City. There was a flurry of bills relating to election law:

HB 462  – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake  – CoSponsor:  McNeil, Margo

   Allows any registered voter who is eligible to vote in a particular

   election to do so by absentee ballot

   HB 0462 — (LR# 1198L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)

HB 463 – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake – CoSponsor: Low, Beth

   Allows municipalities and other political subdivisions to conduct

   elections using instant runoff voting procedures

   HB 0463 — (LR# 0139L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)

HB 464 – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake – CoSponsor: Colona, Mike

   Prohibits any elected or appointed official or employee of the state

   or any political subdivision or its staff from lobbying for one year

   after leaving office or employment with a certain exception

   HB 0464 — (LR# 0551L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)

HB 466  – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake  – CoSponsor:  Harris, Belinda

   Allows any registered voter who is eligible to vote in a particular

   election to do so by absentee ballot

   HB 0466 — (LR# 1197L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)  

[emphasis added]

When compared to HB 462 – HB 466 appears to reserve unrestricted absentee voting for state races:

“… Each election authority shall deliver an absentee ballot to each registered voter of this state for each primary or general election in which the voter can vote for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, attorney general, state representative, and state senator. Such absentee ballot shall be delivered as required in section 115.287…”

Hmmm. Then there’s instant runoff voting:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 463

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ZIMMERMAN (Sponsor), LOW, ROORDA, WALTON GRAY, TALBOY AND MORRIS (Co-sponsors).

0139L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 115, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to instant runoff voting.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 115, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 115.438, to read as follows:

           115.438. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

           (1) “Continuing ballot”, a ballot that has not been exhausted by the instant runoff vote;

           (2) “Continuing candidate”, a candidate who has not been eliminated by the instant runoff vote;

           (3) “Exhausted ballot”, a ballot upon which all of the choices have been eliminated or upon which no more choices are indicated;

           (4) “Instant runoff vote”, a procedure of voting as described in this section that requires a candidate to receive a majority rather than a plurality of the votes cast for a particular office before the candidate takes office, and that allows voters to elect a candidate by casting ranked-choice ballots in the event no candidate for a municipal or political subdivision office receives a majority of the votes cast for such municipal or political subdivision office;

           (5) “Ranked-choice ballot”, a ballot that allows voters to vote for candidates and to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office in the event an instant runoff vote is required after the votes are first counted under this chapter.

           2. Any municipality or political subdivision may conduct instant runoff voting as established in this section. No candidate for any such office shall be nominated or certified under this chapter unless such candidate has received a majority of the votes cast in the election for such office.

           3. Ranked-choice ballots may be used for all elections for municipal and political subdivision office. If the voting system used by a municipality or political subdivision cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each office, then the election authorities may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter’s ability to cast a write-in vote for a candidate.

           4. Votes for all candidates for office shall be counted and recorded as provided in this chapter, and shall be certified in the following manner:

           (1) If a candidate receives a majority of the first choices after the first count of votes under this chapter, that candidate shall be certified as the winner;

           (2) If no candidate receives a majority after the first count, the candidate who received the fewest first choices shall be eliminated and each vote cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter’s ballot. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be certified as the winner;

           (3) If no candidate receives a majority of votes from the continuing ballots after a candidate has been eliminated and such candidate’s votes have been transferred to the next ranked candidate, the continuing candidate with the fewest votes from the continuing ballots shall be eliminated. All votes cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked continuing candidate on each voter’s ballot. This process of eliminating candidates and transferring of votes to the next ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots;

           (4) If the total number of votes of the two or more candidates credited with the lowest number of votes is less than the number of votes credited to the candidate with the next highest number of votes, those candidates with the lowest number of votes shall be eliminated simultaneously and their votes transferred to the next ranked continuing candidate on each ballot in a single counting operation;

           (5) A tie between two or more candidates shall be resolved in accordance with this chapter.

           5. No exhausted ballot shall be counted in further stages of the tabulation. If a rank
ed-choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked-choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter’s vote shall be transferred to that voter’s next ranked choice.

           6. Any election dispute regarding the implementation of a limit of the number of candidates on a ballot under subsection 3 of this section shall be first appealed to the secretary of state for a final order, and thereafter may be appealed to any court of competent jurisdiction. All other election disputes shall proceed as established in this chapter.

           7. All statutes and regulations governing voting procedures and ballots under this chapter shall govern instant runoff voting and ranked-choice ballots.

I’d hate to have to work a recount using IRV ballots…

Absent a true mandate in an election (at minimum that’s 50% of the vote plus one) I sort of like the present system. If a candidate wins a plurality and not a majority then they just might (that’s the important word) take into consideration of views of those who didn’t vote for them.

Let’s face it. We deal with “ballot fatigue” (the tendency for some voters to vote the top race on the ballot and leave the rest blank) in elections now. Does anyone think that most voters are going to stick with the IRV process all the way through a ballot? I don’t think so.

Nothing exceeds like excess.

Previous coverage: The last of the Bourbons

When I first read this I thought it was an Onion spoof:

It’s the Economy, Girlfriend

…Once it was seen as a blessing in certain circles to have a wealthy, powerful partner who would leave you alone with the credit card while he was busy brokering deals. Now, many Wall Street wives, girlfriends and, increasingly, exes, are living the curse of cutbacks in nanny hours and reservations at Masa or Megu. And that credit card? Canceled…

And they have a blog:

…This whole messy ordeal has advanced my Botox start date by at least two years.  Like every other DABA girl, the economy was wreaking havoc on my relationship and youthful good looks.  Phone calls went unanswered, Hamptons invitations un-extended, plans canceled (including, but not limited to, expensive opening night tickets to the ballet, which were scalped instead of being graciously offered to me and a galpal), and so forth and so on.  Until – the horror of all horrors – my FBF lost his job, which I guess technically downgrades him to just my BF…

This has got to be an Onion scam.

In the last eight years the previous administration of idiots and incompetents enabled all this. And the republicans want it to continue.

S’ils n’ont pas de pain, qui’ls mangent de la brioche.

The economic stimulus package:

H.R.1

Title: Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (introduced 1/26/2009)      Cosponsors (9)…

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 46

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

     H R 1      YEA-AND-NAY      28-Jan-2009      6:11 PM

     QUESTION:  On Passage

     BILL TITLE: Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year ending 2009…

—- YEAS    244 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

Skelton

—- NAYS    188 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Graves

Luetkemeyer

dday at Digby’s place:

Not One Republican Vote

…I don’t know how you can come away from this sideshow thinking anything but that Republicans are determined to have their Great Depression and that they openly wish failure upon the United States, or at least no economic recovery for anyone who needs it. Americans seem to have gotten that message too; it’s why Democrats have a 24-point generic ballot lead at this point for the next election…

[emphasis added]

Ike Skelton (D) voted “yes”. Think about that.

Not one republican vote. Not one. Post-partisanship is just a pile of useless bullshit.

There is no such thing as a republican moderate. All they have left are right wingnuts and party hacks.

Evidently he was not interested in being distracted by “the global war on terror” before 2001.  

Statement by Senator Christopher Bond (R-Missouri)

Following is a statement from the Senate’s closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.

On Friday, February 12, 1999, I voted to convict President William Jefferson Clinton on both counts of the Impeachment Articles brought by the United States House of Representatives charging that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. My reasons follow….

…It is precisely in good times, with the President high in the polls, that it is incumbent upon the Senate to exercise very thoroughly and carefully the responsibility under the Constitution to make the difficult decision on whether the President has committed high-crimes and misdemeanors warranting his removal from office. If we are to have a government of laws and not of men and not of public opinion polls, then we must judge the President on the evidence presented to us. I believe that the acts that he committed constitute high-crimes and misdemeanors warranting his conviction…

[emphasis added]

What had been going in the world before that time?

It was Friday, February 26, 1993, and Middle Eastern terrorism had arrived on American soil-with a bang.

And immediately after?

Lessons From The USS Cole Bombing

It appears that global terrorism was an issue.

That was then, this is now:

EXCLUSIVE: Holder assures GOP on prosecution

Eli Lake

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

…Eric H. Holder Jr.’s confirmation as attorney general is speeding toward approval thanks in part to his private assurances to a key Republican senator that he does not intend to prosecute intelligence agency interrogators for their actions during the prior administration.

The assurances, reported by Sen. Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican, to The Washington Times on Wednesday, went beyond Mr. Holder’s earlier public testimony in which he said he could not prejudge his actions regarding cases he had not seen.

“I believe [Mr. Holder] will look forward to keep the nation safe and not look backwards to prosecute intelligence operators who were fighting terror and kept our country safe since 9/11,” Mr. Bond said in the interview…

[emphasis added]

What will the children think?

Others say a few things about the issue brought about by this sudden change in attitude from Kit Bond:

Kit Bond is Full of It

Holder Aide: We Made No Special Promises to Bond

Did Holder Promise No Prosecutions?

The definition of a “two-tiered justice system”