One of our biggest joys is to get our FREE issue of Sabato's Crystal Ball, the e-newsletter by University of Virginia Political Scientist Larry Sabato and his staff. We encourage you to sign up for your own copy here. Sabato's articles are so well-written, fun, and enlightening to read that the San Diego Union-Tribune has run them uncut as pieces in its Sunday Insight section.
We're combining two issues covering John Kerry's running mate sweepstakes and an evaluation of the Presidential race. We're giving you chunks but you should read both newsletters totally by going to the links.
ON JOHN KERRY'S VICE PRESIDENTIAL PICK: Sabato writes in this week's edition:
- The name of the game is the Electoral College, and the VEEP Lotto winner surely will be someone who can bring a chunk of electoral votes to the Democratic column, right? Yes, if the process is rational. Right away, this filter eliminates loads of great candidates, whose states are already a lock for the Democrats or whose states will probably go Republican even with them on the ticket.
Go to his full text (the above link gives you the website) if you want to see who he has eliminated and why. But in the end he comes down to : Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, LA Senator John Breaux, ex-MO Rep. Dick Gephardt, WV Senator Jay Rockefeller, NM Gov. Bill Richardson, and ex-Ga Sam Nunn (WILD CARD).
Sabato goes into detail about the pluses and minuses of each of these, but we're most intrigued by the idea of wildcard Nunn, and he writes:
- The wild card would make for a fascinating race in the Peach State. At one time the king of Georgia's political mountain, Nunn has been out of the news since leaving the Senate in early 1997. Does he still have the old magic? Could he force Bush to spend real money in a dark-Red state? Would his encyclopedic knowledge of foreign and domestic policy--not to mention the national security issue--outweigh his vote against the 1991 Persian Gulf War (reinforcing Kerry's own anti-war vote)?>/ul>
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
Great link - I've signed up for the newsletter.
On the jobs picture, the 308,000 jobs added in March, an average of 171,000/month for the last six months, isn't all that "stunning." I'm hoping the next figures will show this to be a rising trend rather than just an aberration :-)
The reason the March number doesn't impress is that it overlooks a few significant factors.
One factor is that we need about 137,000 new jobs each month, 1,640,000 per year, just to compensate for the increase in working-age population. That makes the real average net gain for the last six months about 34,000. At that rate, it's going to take nearly six years just to make up for the 2.4 million jobs lost so far in this administration (and we'll only be at break-even).
Another factor was mentioned by Greenspan - 85,000 workers run out of unemployment benefits each week, 340,000 in March alone. That's 200,000 per month more than did the same in September 2000.
The jobs picture is still a long ways from being rosy.