Reid-Blago Story Turns Bloggers' Brains to Mush

The brains of some of my favorite bloggers are turning to mush over the report that Harry Reid called Rod Blagojevich to lobby for his favored candidates (and against his disfavored candidates) to fill Obama's open Senate seat.

First bmaz attacks Harry Reid for even lobbying Blago.

Harry Reid has threatened to use the Capitol Police to forcefully haul Roland Burris off the Senate floor should he try to enter because he feels Burris is tainted by Blagojevich's shady machinations of the open Senate seat. Only it turns out that Reid is the one smack in the middle of Blago's machinations, not Burris. And it would appear he is on Pat Fitzgerald's wiretaps doing so.

"Blago's machinations" - deciding among the various contenders - were perfectly normal and legal until he attached a pricetag to the seat. The governors of New York, Delaware, and Colorado engaged in similar "machinations" to fill their states' open Senate seats. It's highly likely Reid shared his opinions on the leading contenders with those governors too. So what's different about Illinois? Yes Blago's phone was being tapped, but how was Reid supposed to know since it didn't become public until after Reid's calls?

Then Nate Silver echoes Harry Reid by asking Is Jesse Jackson Jr. Electable? That's a perfectly valid question, but Silver adopts a completely bogus methodology to analyze it, using this poll:

Candidate      DEM      Indie      GOP
Jackson, Jr.   36%       14%        9%
Duckworth      29%       19%       12%
Jones           2%        3%        6%
Madigan        17%       23%       37%
Schakowsky      8%        9%        5%

What's wrong with this poll? All of the listed candidates are Democrats. The only thing this poll can tell you is how these candidates would rank at the outset of a Democratic primary campaign in 2010. The poll would only be valid if all 5 candidates - and no others - entered the race. And since only Dems can vote in an Illinois Dem primary, the preferences of I's and R's are completely irrelevant.

You cannot use this poll to measure how one of the Democrats would fare at the outset of a general election campaign against a Republican, because that campaign would feature one Democrat (not 5) and one Republican (who would have a name). So why did Silver commit polling malpractice by trying to extrapolate from a primary to a general?

Thankfully Chris Bowers brings some sanity to the discussion:

if Reid and Senate Democrats are motivated at least partially by "electability," to what extent is that "electability" based on fear of Illinois not backing another African-American, even after Barack Obama and Carol Mosley Braun previously held this seat? It is fairly obvious that played a role... It is also kind of funny that Reid considered Tammy Duckworth more "electable," even though she couldn't win a Democratic-leaning congressional district in Illinois despite receiving more DCCC backing in 2006 than any other Democratic candidate. She barely even won her primary.

One of the major problems here is the corruption associated with the concept of "electability" itself. Not only is it anti-democratic, but in truly retrograde fashion it reinforces oppressive cultural perceptions--such as African-Americans being unelectable, and Democrats needing to turn to veteran's in order to shore up foreign policy credentials--rather than challenging them. To a large extent, the Constitutional method of appointing Senators, rather than holding special elections, is itself to blame. Additionally, the lack of intra-party democracy and top-down elitism of our political process is also to blame. None of these problems would have occurred if we had simply held an election, and engaged in the radical experiment of letting the people decide.