The Birthers New Game

Dave Weigel notes how a new smear campaign launched from the right wing echo chamber has exploded across the usual media dumping grounds like Drudge and Fox News. The reports claim that Newark Mayor Cory Booker doesn't live in Newark. In fact, they go on to claim that he's never lived there and that his neighbors have never seen him around.

It's a rather fanciful tale, but the warning flags about these claims should come up from the byline on down.

For starters, let's look at who's peddling this particular story. It's Joel Gilbert, a director who's best known for putting together birther conspiracy films about how President Obama isn't an American citizen and should not be president. He's now doing the same thing with Cory Booker (another African American politician at that). It's meant to be disruptive, but it doesn't take much to rebuff this kind of transparent smear job that's worthy of James O'Keefe.

Substantively, these claims about Booker not living in Newark can't pass the smell test. Booker's presence in Newark is well documented on social media - especially Twitter. There are hundreds of messages relating to hyperlocal activities of Booker and his neighbors in Newark including helping out neighbors around the corner when the power went out during Hurricane Sandy. In particular, there's this exchange.

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/statuses/263990447205122048

Local media reports and national media outlets followed the reporting and provided photos and interviews with those who stayed over at Booker's Newark home or came by to recharge phones, etc. It was widely reported. For instance, Huffington Post carried this story as part of the larger context of what people were doing to cope with the storm's effects. Time had a similar report, indicating that 12 of his neighbors crashed at his place, getting food delivered and watching kid-friendly DVDs.

Now, we've got Steve Lonegan aligned right wing media outlets peddling a smear about how Booker isn't a Newark residence. In fact, we've even got political operative Dick Morris pushing this nonsense and going beyond it to claim that he's got a plan to deny Booker a seat in the Senate based on lack of residency.

Politicker indicated that Booker gave his neighbors free reign to use an entire floor, including kitchen and bathroom, complete with photos. That's from November 2, 2012.

An easy Internet search disproves this nonsense, but that's actually besides the point. Lonegan and the right wing are trying to delegitimize candidates in any way, shape, or form. Birther and conspiracy theories all fit into the strategy to undermine their political opponents. It makes it easier to attack their political achievements when claiming that they aren't legitimate either. Putting this out there with less than 24 hours to go before the special election is meant to give Booker little time to counter the smear and take Booker off message.

It all comes at a time when Lonegan's long-shot chance at winning is getting longer. Lonegan's supposed closing rally in the polling is just that - supposed. He hasn't come any closer than double digits in any polls, and a few are indicating that Booker has regained a significant and comfortable lead.

Part of the reason that the spread has grown is that Booker has rightfully called Lonegan and his fellow travelers as the extremists as they are. Lonegan didn't help his cause any when he got Sarah Palin to stump for him. That only burnished his extremist credentials.

Lonegan's attack ads also attempt to throw every conceivable buzz word at Booker, even calling him corrupt. It hasn't worked, but it only shows that Lonegan is a one-trick pony who can gin up interest only by whipping right wingers into a frenzy.

While that can help rally the base, it wont peel off independents who are flocking to Booker and reinforces the fact that Lonegan is a tea party extremist who's comfortable with shutting down government and threatening default in order to extort the kind of defund/delay/destroy Obamacare demands that his fellow travelers in the House and Senate are pushing.

Lonegan is all kinds of wrong for New Jersey, and wrong for the country. Tomorrow's election should seal that fate.

Polls open in New Jersey's special election tomorrow at 6 am through 8pm.

Cross Posted at LGF

Stunted

Over the weekend, five of the Democratic party candidates for NYC Mayor spent the night in public housing in Harlem at the request of Al Sharpton. They included Christine Quinn, Bill DelBlasio, Anthony Weiner, Bill Thomspon, and John Liu.

Democratic candidates Christine Quinn, Anthony Weiner, Bill de Blasio, William Thompson Jr. and John Liu spend 12 hours with a host family at the Lincoln Center Houses, located on East 135th Street Between 5th Avenue and Lennox Avenue.

The candidates slept on sofas, air mattresses and sleeping bags in the apartments, some of which were without air conditioning on one of the hottest days of the year.

On Sunday, Christine Quinn discussed the conditions of the apartment she spent the night with the NY Post.

“The apartment I stayed in had a bathroom that was covered with black mold,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. “It was the worst I’ve ever seen. When the city of New York is the landlord, this is unacceptable.”

Quinn was one of five Democratic candidates for mayor who accepted a challenge from the Rev. Al Sharpton to spend a night in a public-housing complex.

The candidates say they wanted to highlight condition in city-run public housing. About 3,100 residents live in the East Harlem project.

All emerged from the overnight stay with claims that all would fight to improve the conditions.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe any of them when they say that they would work to improve conditions.

You see, all of them have been in a position to not only understand the conditions, but to actually fix them.

Christine Quinn is the current Speaker of the New York City Council. As such, she can hold hearings, address budgetary concerns, and demand changes at the New York City Housing Authority which oversees public housing in the City.

Bill Thomspon and John Liu are the former and current City Comptroller, respectively. As such, both could investigate the Housing Authority for mismanagement of city resources, failures to enact reforms on spending, and demand changes in how the Housing Authority operates.

Then, there's Bill DelBlasio, who's the City Advocate. In that position, he's able to gather and collect complaint data about public housing and demand change.

Finally, there's former Congressman Anthony Weiner who could have addressed the matter while in Congress and sought more funding or reforms in the Housing Authority to get local politicians to demand improvements and change.

All five share the failed opportunities to fix the Housing Authority and poor housing conditions while they were in their current positions. Now that all five are seeking the mayorality, they are willing to say or do anything to get the votes of those living in the projects.

None are deserving.

All failed to do what needed to be done when they had the chance to act, but since votes are on the line, all are speaking out about the deplorable conditions. Anyone who spent any time in these projects would have known this - anyone who spoke or responded to constituent letters would have heard the horror stories.

What we had was a photo op that will be quickly forgotten once the votes are counted. That's not how it should be, but there it is.

Anthony Weiner Announces Run For NYC Mayor

Anthony Weiner, who was last seen sending inappropriate photos of himself to women and had to resign from Congress, thinks that enough time has passed and that he can and should be mayor of New York City.

He's released a video indicating his intentions, while addressing that he's made mistakes.



He's got nearly $5 million in a campaign warchest that he can use to inject himself into the middle of what has otherwise been a bland race. All that money can make people who want to forget about his indiscretions choose him over the other candidates in the race, which includes Christine Quinn (NYC City Council Speaker), Bill Thompson (former Comptroller who nearly beat Bloomberg last election), John Liu (current Comptroller), Bill de Blasio (Public Advocate), Sal Albanese (former Councilman) on the Democrat side, and Adolfo Carrion (former Bronx borough president), John Catsimatidis (owner of Gristedes supermarkets and real estate developer), Joe Lhota (former head of the MTA), and George McDonald (businessman).

But they shouldn't.

There's a good reason he had to quit Congress. He engaged in wholly inappropriate acts, and he showed poor character and even worse judgment. There's no reason to think that he's changed or that he wont show similarly poor judgment going forward?

The sad thing is that his wife, Huma, would make a far more compelling and extraordinary candidate than Anthony. Or most of the rest of the race.

At this point, the polling shows that Lhota leads the lackluster field on the Republican side, but things are more spread out in the Democratic race. While Christine Quinn leads all of the recent polling, her edge will be cut significantly by Weiner's entry. Behind Quinn, it's essentially a tossup between de Blasio, Liu, Thomspon and Weiner, with nearly 30% undecided.

It takes 40% to avoid a runoff, and unless we start seeing candidates drop out, it's going to be hard to avoid a runoff with this clown circus of candidates.

Massive Corruption Sweep Busts Politicians Trying To Rig Republican NYC Mayor's Race

Earlier this morning, law enforcement carried out  a massive corruption sweep in NY, with multiple arrests of local politicians.

State Sen. Malcolm Smith and city Councilman Dan Halloran were arrested this morning on charges they were plotting to rig this year’s mayoral election through fraud and bribes.

The pols allegedly formed an alliance built on cash payments and fraud to get Smith — one of the state’s top Democrats — placed on the GOP mayoral ballot, sources said.

FBI agents arrested them both at their Queens homes shortly after 6 a.m.

“I have no idea,” Halloran, in handcuffs, told a Post reporter when asked if he knew why he was being arrested.

Others arrested includeBronx Republican Chairman Joseph Savino and Queens GOP Vice Chairman Vincent Tabone, and they are all being accused of trying to rig the mayoral election.

As alleged, Senator Malcolm Smith tried to bribe his way to a shot at Gracie Mansion - Smith drew up the game plan and Councilman Halloran essentially quarterbacked that drive by finding party chairmen who were wide open to receiving bribes. After the string of public corruption scandals that we have brought to light, many may rightly resign themselves to the sad truth that perhaps the most powerful special interest in politics is self-interest. We will continue pursuing and punishing every corrupt official we find, but the public corruption crisis in New York is more than a prosecutor's problem."

The 28-page complaint offers up a bunch of juicy details, but it boils down to money for access:

Council member Halloran was to receive $20,500 while Tabone and Savino received $40,000 in bribes with a promise of $40,000 more.

If Halloran's name sounds familiar, it's because he was a blowhard who alleged that Sanitation workers purposefully slowed down snow removal during the blizzard a few years back. Investigations found no evidence of any kind of slowdown. And the FBI had already been investigating Halloran when they sniffed out the potential bribery for ballot access plan.

Smith's name should sound familiar as well, as he was part of the breakaway Democrats in the State Senate who gave temporary control of the Senate to Republicans in a coup against Democratic leaders. Smith joined a group of independent Senators, earning himself and his staffers a pay raise in the process. Smith's defection also enabled Gov. Andrew Cuomo to maneuver and exploit the divisions in the Senate to advance his own agenda with less opposition - including on matters like the same sex marriage act and the NYS SAFE Act.

Not only does this scandal threaten the disrupt the political balance in the State Senate, but this scandal threatens to upturn the entire Republican campaign for NYC mayor, as key behind-the-scenes officials are involved and it's entirely possible that others could find themselves perp-walked. Tabone has been working for the campaign of John Catsimatidis.

These people are instrumental in getting the campaigns of multiple candidates off the ground and working support for candidates already in the running. It could potentially derail existing campaigns for those who are in the race and indirectly helps those Democrats who are already in the race, including Democrat City Council honcho Christine Quinn.

Expect Tabone and Savino to flip on Smith and Halloran who are the big fish in this particular scandal in exchange for less time behind bars.

On Yesterday's Historic Israeli Elections

Yesterday, Israelis went to the polls to determine the new makeup of the 19th Israeli Knesset. All 120 seats were up for grabs, and while Israeli pollsters largely predicted that current Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu's Likud bloc would retain its plurality in the Knesset, that margin would shrink and his current coalition government would see a shakeup. Currently, Netenyahu's coalition is Likud 27, Yisrael Beiteinu 15, Shas 11, Jewish Home 3, Independence (barak's party) 5, and UTJ 5.

Boy were they ever right about that.

The results are in, and there's a huge shift in the political landscape - much of it is personality driven.

Likud, which formed a bloc vote with Yisrael Beiteinu, won 31 seats (compared with 42 under the old grouping). Habayit Hayehudi had 11. Religious parties Shas maintained their 11 seats, while UTJ picked up two seats to 7 from 5. Arab parties combined for 12 seats (10% of the Knesset).

Yair Lapid, who formed a new political party for this election, exceeded all expectations and won 19 seats, making him the head of the second largest bloc in the Knesset.

Labor came in with 15 seats, Meretz and Hatunah with 6 each. Kadima, which had been formed by Ariel Sharon out of disaffected Likud and Labor, managed to scratch out two seats (early reports yesterday had indicated that they would have been shut out of the Knesset altogether). Exit polling by Channel 1, 2, and 10 all indicated that Kadima would be toast and underestimated the Arab vote

Lapid could choose to either form a government with Netenyahu or lead the opposition.

This gives Lapid tremendous sway over how Netenyahu's government will address outstanding issues that are critical to Israel's economic and social progress, including the Tal Law reformation process, economic and social opportunities, and the peace process that has all but ground to a halt.

Everyone and their grandmother is giving Lapid advice on how to proceed. After all, his choices will affect how the new coalition government is cobbled together. It could land Lapid with a major cabinet position and sway over policy.

That's precisely what Israel needs - someone who will address the issues pragmatically and integrate the Haredi into Israeli society. The Tal Law is at the forefront of that debate, and it's past time for the religious community to better integrate into Israeli society - not only with military service (or government service of some form), but to better integrate into the Israeli economy.

While the Israeli economy is a tremendous incubator of technology and medical advances, the Haredi community is largely on the sidelines. Getting that untapped pool of knowledge and insight into the economy would greatly expand economic opportunities for all.

That's part of Lapid's goal and mission, although some are seeing it as a combative effort to eliminate longstanding exemptions for the Orthodox. I think that's the wrong view on this issue. Mandatory service of some form will help unify Israeli society whereas the current exemptions only lead to further stratification.

At the same time, the new government will have to address the fact that the peace process is in a holding pattern. That doesn't sit well with armchair diplomats who think that Israel's intransigence is the reason there isn't a 2-state solution, but the problems extend beyond Israel's political situation to the fact that the Palestinians aren't exactly seeking a 2-state solution as Hamas reminds everyone on a regular basis. They have no intention of seeking peace with Israel or recognizing Israel's rights to territories either inside or outside the 1948 or 1967 borders.

The current Israeli position is to essentially do the minimum needed to work with the Palestinian Authority on issues and address Hamas only if Hamas and the other terror groups fire mortars or rockets at Israel. The Gaza disengagement showed Israel's polity just where Hamas' intentions lie. Even if Fatah seeks a peace deal, it would not address the situation in Gaza unless you're going to recognize that there's a de facto 3-state solution (Hamas' Gaza, Fatah's West Bank, and Israel).

All the other issues that flow from the still present schism between Fatah and Hamas are the main reason Israel has no reason to address a peace deal. They have no one to negotiate with. Only when the Palestinians resolve their own internal politics - and accept Israel's rights to exist, can the other issues begin to get addressed through negotiations (and I'd prefer that they be done in back channels where there's a greater flow of dialogue, than in publicly held negotiation sessions that generally lead to meaningless gestures and posturing that sets back the process).

Egypt's Military Moves To Block Impact of Islamist Elected President

Egyptians faced a choice between bad and worse when they had to choose from an Islamist aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and the former foreign minister from Hosni Mubarak's old regime. Turnout was anything but strong, but the Islamist, Mohamed Morsi, won the election.

The military, however, has a different plan. They're now acting to minimize the impact of the election, and are once again acting in their own interests rather than allowing the popular will to decide.

In a two-hour news conference, members of the ruling military council made no reference to the election results that by early morning showed Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood had defeated Ahmed Shafik, a former Air Force general and Hosni Mubarak’s last prime minister, in the runoff to choose Egypt’s first democratically elected president. The ballots were counted in front of television cameras and party observers in polling places around the country to preclude fraud, and independent observers concluded that Mr. Morsi had won by a margin of about 4 percentage points, or about a million votes.

The election officials will not formally confirm the results until later in the week, however, and Ahmed Sarhan, a spokesman for Mr. Shafik, insisted on Monday that the general was the true winner and the Brotherhood had “terrorized” voters. He offered no evidence, and both the state-run and unofficial media reported that Mr. Morsi had a decisive lead in the vote count.

The ruling generals had stunned Egyptians on the eve of the vote by dissolving the Brotherhood-dominated parliament and claiming all legislative power for themselves in an apparent attempt to foreclose the possibility that Islamists control both the presidency and the legislature.

Though they acted under the veneer of a court ruling rushed out last week by a panel of Mubarak-appointed judges, their power grab erased their promise to turn over all power to elected civilians by the end of this month, and both liberals and Islamists denounced the move as a military coup. The court ruling dispirited Brotherhood supporters, energized Mr. Shafik’s backers, and led many Egyptians to expect that either the psychological effect of the takeover or more direct intervention would push Mr. Shafik to the presidency.

In the aftermath of Mr. Morsi’s victory — - considered an upset by many, despite the Brotherhood’s proven popularity and political clout — - the generals sought Monday to reassure the public that they had no intention to re-establish another military-backed autocracy, although they did not back away from their effective seizure of legislative power.

“Trust the armed forces,” two representatives of the military council, General Mandouh Shahin and General Mohamed el Assar, repeated many times over the course of the news conference. “We don’t want power,” both also said repeatedly, citing the presidential election as proof of their good intentions.

Despite their seizure of the parliament, they promised a grand celebration at the end of the month to mark their formal handover to the new president.

They insisted that the legislative authority they had claimed for themselves was “restricted.” Although they acknowledged that they would have a monopoly on all lawmaking powers and control of the national budget, they said that the new president — presumably Mr. Morsi — would retain a veto over any new laws. The president will also name the prime minister and other cabinet officials.

The generals insisted they regretted shutting down the elected parliament, which they described as one of their proudest achievements since they took power at the ouster of former President Hosni Mubarak. They were forced to close the legislature because of the court’s ruling, the generals said.

It's a situation that Egypt has seen before. It's how Gamel Nasser came to power and it's how power was retained under both Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.

Popular election of the government simply isn't tolerated. The military will allow a veneer of democratic institutions, put the ruling junta is seeing to it that power will remain in the hands of the military.

I can understand the apprehension of allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to hold power considering their interests in expanding Islamic law and revisiting social and political decisions ranging from the rights of women to the Egypt-Israel peace accords.

However, the military should be subordinate to the civilian control. As it stands, Egypt's military is acting just as any other junta would do. They're acting to preserve their own power and that actually increases the chances of another round of violence.

The military is doing itself and the Egyptian country a tremendous disservice, even as it acts to minimize the power of the Muslim Brotherhood. The actions to limit the Brotherhood's power will backfire and lend the group legitimacy it is undeserving. It would be far better to allow the group power in the interim, with civilian governmental institutions to protect the rights of all Egyptians than to try and block the group's impact.

At the same time, the military needs to do more to stabilize the security situation in Sinai, from which another deadly attack on Israel was launched. One Israeli Arab who was working on a security fence were killed and several others were injured. Israeli military forces then responded to the attack and engaged terrorists in a gunfight.

A force from Golani immediately arrived at the scene, a gun fight ensued and a bomb carried by one of the terrorists exploded. Two terrorists were killed in the gunfight and the IDF believed that a third terrorist was also involved in the clash, who they believed to be in Sinai.

Following the attack and fearing additional attacks, the IDF moved a number of Merkava tanks up to the border to help protect against additional infiltrations. The tanks were removed immediately after the IDF confirmed that all of the terrorists had been accounted for and none remained inside Israeli territory.

The decision to move the tanks up along the border was done in consideration of Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt which forbids the deployment of Israeli tanks in the area. IDF sources said that the deployment was done as the attack was still unfolding and that it was part of a defensive posture.

The deploymnet of tanks to the border is a technical violation of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, which prohibits tanks in the border zone without consultation, and that was just as likely the goal of the terror attack as the deaths of as many Israelis as possible.

The disintegrating security situation in Sinai is yet another threat to Israel's security as much as it harms Egypt's economy by reducing the tourism dollars that flow to Egypt's coffers.

Wisconsin Gov. Walker Holds On To Job In Recall Election

Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, held on to his job in yesterday's recall election. His win has more to do with how people view a proper use of recall elections than any of the policy choices he made or getting out the vote.

The results had nothing to do with the GOP or President Obama (which exit polls found to still be favored over Romney in November, even as both aren't seen as getting the job done on the economy), but rather that most Wisconsin voters didn't think that a recall was warranted over policy differences/preferences. 60% saw recalls as warranted only in cases of official misconduct. That was the real issue here. Walker came into office saying that he'd change how things were done - and while ending union collective bargaining was a huge change, it's a policy position - not official misconduct.

Sixty percent of Wisconsin voters in today's recall election say recall elections are only appropriate for official misconduct, according to early CBS News exit polls. Twenty-eight percent said they think they are suitable for any reason, while nine percent think they are never appropriate.
Today's recall election in Wisconsin pits Republican Gov. Scott Walker versus Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in a rematch of their 2010 race. According to the early exit polls, 6 percent say they decided on their candidate in the last few days, with 93 percent saying they made up their minds before that.

The recall effort was brought about mainly in response to Walker's plan that restricted collective bargaining rights for public union workers. Today, 52 percent of Wisconsin voters in the early exit polls said they have a favorable view of unions for government workers, while 43 percent have an unfavorable opinion of these unions. Among voters in unions households (public or not), 69 percent view these unions favorably.

On the issue of collective bargaining, 50 percent of Wisconsin voters say they approved of the recent changes to state law that limits collective bargaining for government workers, but 48 percent disapproved of these changes.

Other exit polls break down the consequences going into November further, and it only reinforces the fact that it will be a money battle all the way to the end.

Egyptian Runoff Election Will Pit Ancien Regime Against Islamists

For most Egyptians, this will be a contest between the old guard versus the Islamists and they will have to choose the lesser of two evils. Hosni Mubarak's former prime minister versus a candidate for a party banned by Mubarak for decades.

It was clear as early as Thursday night that a plurality of votes went to Mohamed Morsi, the American-educated engineer nominated by the Brotherhood, the secretive 84-year-old revival group that became the wellspring of political Islam around the world and already dominates the Parliament.

But only Friday morning did it appear that second place would go to Ahmed Shafik, a former Air Force general who briefly served as Mr. Mubarak’s last prime minister. A late entry into the race, Mr. Shafik was a dark horse campaigning on promises to use a firm hand against the protests and lawlessness that have prevailed since Mr. Mubarak’s ouster. He presented himself as a strong check on the rise of the Islamists. Of all the candidates in the race, Mr. Shafik came closest to promising a restoration of the old order and aroused vocal support and threats of a “second revolution” if he should win.

Mr. Shafik’s law-and-order message resonated with voters, helping him to overtake the two candidates previously considered, along with Mr. Morsi, to be the front-runners. One was Amr Moussa, a former foreign minister under Mr. Mubarak and former head of the Arab League, who had offered a softer but similar message. In the final weeks of the race, Mr. Moussa’s support appears to have all but collapsed in favor of Mr. Shafik.

Ahmad Sarhan, a spokesman for Mr. Shafik, said voters had rallied to the candidate because he promised to “save Egypt from the dark forces,” referring to the Brotherhood and more militant Islamists.

The leading candidate with a plurality of the votes was Mohamed Morsi, who was one of the Muslim Brotherhood's candidates. He will face off against Ahmed Shafik.

Do Egyptians want a clean break with the old Mubarak regime and all that baggage or do they want to give power to the Muslim Brotherhood, who had been banned and persecuted by Mubarak for more than 30 years. The Islamists have said that they would not impose strict Islam on the country, but there are many inside the country who have their doubts. These same people have no love for the old regime and its former officials.

So, what will Egyptians do? Hold out hope that Morsi delivers on economic improvements and keeps the promise that the Muslim Brotherhood wont impose Islamist doctrine on Egyptian society, or will they vote for Shafik so as to deny the Muslim Brotherhood that possibility all while giving the old regime a new breath of life by turning over power to the former Prime Minister.

For most Egyptians, this is a no-win scenario considering that they have to choose between the possibility of an Islamist regime or the old regime, which was incapable of dealing with the economic crisis and that attempted to brutally suppress the protests against Mubarak.

Egyptians Go To Polls To Elect New President

It's a historic day in Egypt. Today is the first day of a two-day election to determine the next president of Egypt and for the first time, it doesn't involve Hosni Mubarak and there are multiple candidates with a chance of winning. The fact that polling is all but nonexistent, no one really knows who will come out on top:

In the run-up to the ballot, there have been no reliable opinion surveys, nor is there a permanent Constitution to set the president’s duties and powers. But the vote is widely seen as crucial in choosing a leader to influence Egypt’s course for decades to come.

About 50 million Egyptians are eligible to vote, and four or five of the candidates are seen as plausible contenders.

From the Islamist side, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh has campaigned as a relative liberal while Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood has offered a more conservative vision.

Two candidates held positions under President Hosni Mubarak, deposed 15 months ago as the Arab Spring began to stir revolt in many parts of the Arab world — the former prime minister, Ahmed Shafik, and Amr Moussa, a former diplomat and elder statesman.

A fifth candidate is the Nasserite, Hamdeen Sabbahy, a poet-turned-populist who is campaigning as a political descendant of the leader of the Egyptian revolution of 1952, President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

The ballot represented a remarkable break with the traditions of the Mubarak era, when presidential elections simply confirmed the ruling elite in a land that for decades has been used to power exercised by presidents drawn from the military after centuries of highly centralized rule.

Since the fall of Mr. Mubarak, the military has continued to play a dominant role in steering the transition.

If the leading vote-getter doesn't get sufficient votes, there will be a runoff election in June.

The problem is that the military continues to throw its weight around and it remains to be seen whether they'll abide by the results of the elections should Morsi or Fotouh win. While the military claims that they'll relinquish power by July 1, Fotouh has a pretty good chance of winning, primarily because he's got the support of Islamists as well as moderates, but Amr Moussa may be preferred by the diplomatic elites, who see Moussa as a known quantity.

The candidates are trying to stress the need to work on economic development and restoring law and order but one of their fallback positions has been to question the Camp David Accords with Israel.

Egyptian candidates have repeatedly called for a review of the Camp David Accords that has brought a cold peace between the two nations.

That the candidates have repeatedly mentioned Israel is a relief valve rather than constructive engagement of the problems facing Egypt. The peace deal with Israel has been beneficial to Egypt, and mentioning Israel is simply meant to deflect attention from the real problems facing Egyptians today. That includes a stagnant economy that is ill-equipped to deal with social mobility, entrenched elites, and lack of opportunities.

Israel's Netanyahu Forms Coalition Government With Rival Kadima

Israeli politics can make for strange bedfellows. The Knesset is made up of 120 parlimentarians, and to govern, one must be able to get a majority of Parliament. In the last election, Likud was given the opportunity to form a coalition government (in Israel's history, no single party has ever garnered sufficient seats to form a government on its own). It did so, but only barely.

The need to create coalition governments means that minority parties can hold tremendous sway in the coalition governments - the religious parties for example can threaten to leave the government if their policies aren't enacted/followed, for instance).

A few times in Israel's history, the two biggest parties have joined together to form a unity government - particularly in times of need.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes this was the right time to form a unity government, and that gives Netanyahu the numbers in the Knesset to take a policy stance that might push some of the minority parties to bolt. It convinced rival party Kadima to join in a unity government so that there is no need to hold new elections to form a new government.

No elections, Kadima joins government: In a dramatic move, the Likud and Kadima parties agreed on a unity government early Tuesday, averting the prospect of early elections.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Kadima Chairman Shaul Mofaz finalized the surprising unity agreement hours before the Knesset was expected to approve its own dissolution and set September 4th as the date of the next elections.

PM Netanyahu announced that Kadima’s Mofaz will be appointed deputy PM and minister without portfolio, while also being included in Israel’s security cabinet. Mofaz told Kadima members the party will likely get more portfolios later on, apparently in 2013. As part of the deal, Kadima will also chair the Knesset’s Economics Committee.

The move was also a tactical ploy by both Kadima and Likud - the two biggest party blocs in the Knesset to thwart the ascension of a new party headed by Yair Lapid. For Kadima, the move prevents a potentially serious blow to the party's standing in the Knesset. For Netanyahu and Likud, the move strengthens its hand in dealing with a variety of issues, including the contentious move to expand the mandatory draft to include all Israeli citizens, eliminating the exclusion for the ultra-orthodox.

UPDATE:
Some US media outlets are playing the angle that the coalition unity government deal is designed with Iran in mind. That completely ignores the fact that the deal opens up the opportunity to reform the IDF and undertake other economic policy reforms that it could not do if the religious parties were able to force new elections.

Putting Iran's Elections Into Context

Iran's carrying out elections and the results wont really shed all that much light on who wields power in the country. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei basically picks and chooses who runs through the Guardian Council. There are hardliner factions, including those who have backed Khamenei's previous chosen one - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who is term-limited and can't run for a third term as President).

The election basically pits what media outlets refer to as Ahmadinejad's faction versus Khamenei's faction.

Iran's supreme leader urged Iranians to vote in large numbers as the country held parliamentary elections Friday, saying a high turnout would send a strong message to the enemies of the nation in the nuclear standoff with the West.

The balloting for the 290-member parliament is the first major voting since the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2009 and the mass protests and crackdowns that followed.

It is unlikely to change Iran's course over major policies — including its controversial nuclear program — regardless of who wins, but it may shape the political landscape for a successor to Ahmadinejad in 2013.

That's not really accurate.

While Ahmadinejad has tried to expand his power, Khamenei slapped him down. There was an incident where Ahmadinejad attempted to sack a minister, but Khamenei restored the minister to that post within days. That's a reminder of where power really lies in the country and should be a message that media outlets really take away from the kabuki play of elections.

Iran's mullahs get to pick and choose who runs for office, and they do so with the blessing of the Supreme Leader. If the mullahs don't like the candidate - they don't even get on the ballot.

Opposition leaders, including Mirhussein Mousavi, are under house arrest. Mousavi had run against Ahmadinejad in the disputed elections and lost. Massive protests erupted across Iran and it was violently suppressed, leaving the opposition groups under arrest and the watchful gaze of the Iranian security forces loyal to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.

Taken as a whole, the elections really don't indicate who runs the country or whether the Iranian regime is shifting policies since the power is dictated from the same person - Supreme Leader Khamenei.

Even opposition groups in Iran recognize this - that the statements coming from Khamenei about voting in the election as a poke in the eye of the West (US) is just propaganda to prop up canddiates that have been selected to run by the same cabal that has run the country since the 1979 revolution. It's not change - it's rearranging deck chairs.

Iran's economic situation remains dire and Khamenei is using all manner of tactics to ensure that his power is preserved. At the same time, Iran's political and religious leaders are invoking the crisis with the West over Iran's nuclear program as a way to get out the vote, even though most Iranians are far more concerned over their economic situation.

Palestinians Threatening To Abrogate Oslo Accords and Other Arrangements With Israel

The Palestinians, particularly Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, is once again threatening to abrogate the Oslo Accords and the successor security arragements made with Israel so as to curry favor with Hamas as Fatah and Hamas try to reconcile their longstanding differences.

Mohammed Shtayyeh, member of the Fatah Central Committee and one of the Palestinian Authority negotiators with Israel, was quoted Sunday as saying that the Palestinians may cancel the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel.

Meanwhile, some PLO and Fatah leaders have privately criticized Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for agreeing to incorporate Hamas into the PLO.

At least three senior officials in Ramallah have voiced strong reservations over the decision, a Fatah official told The Jerusalem Post. He said that those who were opposed to the move were worried that Hamas would replace Fatah as the dominant party in the PLO.

One official was quoted as saying that Abbas was paving the way for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to take control not only over the PLO, but the entire West Bank as well.

Shtayyeh's comments were published by the London-based Asharq Al Awsat newspaper.

This was not the first time that a senior PA official had talked about the possibility of abrogating the Oslo Accords.

The comments came less than 48 hours after Hamas and Islamic Jihad agreed to join a temporary leadership of the PLO that would prepare for new elections for the organization's two key bodies - the Palestine National Council and Executive Committee.

In response to a question about Israeli settlements, Shtayyeh said: "If Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu insists that there is no difference between the settlement of Abu Ghneim [Har Homa] and Tel Aviv, we won't distinguish between Ramallah and Jaffa."

The Palestinian Authority hasn't held elections since 2005, when Hamas and Fatah split the vote and ending up fighting a civil war that left Hamas in full control over Gaza while Fatah maintained civil administrative control over the West Bank. The Palestinians continue their attempts to revise history by claiming that Oslo didn't recognize Palestinian rights to territories, but they continue to avoid recognizing Israel's rights to territories, including historic claims to Jerusalem that extend back hundreds and thousands of years.

Hamas is not ruling out running in elections that may be held in 2012. They think that they might win in a landslide. That may be wishful thinking on their part considering that Hamas has shown an inability to do anything other than carry out attacks against Israel and find reason to blame Israel for all that ails the Palestinians. It can't do anything constructive. While Fatah remains open to concerns about corruption, Palestinians living in areas controlled by Fatah are able to move about more freely and have far more economic opportunities than those in Gaza. It doesn't seem likely that people living in the West Bank would consider voting for Hamas, unless they're looking for a more violent confrontation with Israel and an end to the peace process.

Yet, Hamas must think that they've got support to make such claims. Indeed, looking back at the 2006 election results, and one sees that Fatah maintained support only in a few select West Bank cities, while Hamas generated support elsewhere. That dynamic isn't likely to change even though the economic situation is worse now in Gaza than before the elections.

Despite the worsened economic conditions, Hamas wears that with a badge of pride - all in the cause of fighting Israel's existence and undermining Israel's right to exist at every opportunity. They portray the fight and the lack of economic opportunity as sacrifices that must be made in the fight against the Zionists.

Hamas celebrates a 3-year anniversary since the start of Operation Cast Lead, when Israel went after the Palestinian terror group after hundreds of rockets and mortars slammed into Israeli cities and towns. They refer to Israeli war crimes and genocide, even though by Hamas' own admission the vast majority of those killed were Hamas terrorists. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of civilians killed were not purposefully attacked by Israel, but were rather used by Hamas as human shields so as to inflate the body count and inflame Palestinian passions against Israel. At the same time, Palestinians look the other way as those Hamas rocket and mortar attacks were themselves war crimes as they purposefully targeted civilians so as to maximize the body count. To Hamas, there are no Israeli civilians - all are worthy targets.

Clashes Erupt in Tunisia Following Election Disqualifications

Clashes flared anew after the independent elections commission disqualified candidates that had been declared winners. That's a black mark on what had been largely peaceful and successful elections.

Violence broke out Thursday night in the city and province of Sidi Bouzid over election disqualifications. On Friday, protesters again clashed with security forces, who used tear gas to disperse the crowd, according to the state news agency Tunisie Afrique Presse.

Authorities imposed a curfew in Sidi Bouzid between 7 p.m. and 5 a.m. following the clashes, state media said.

The clashes erupted after independent commission disqualified some candidates for seats that had been won by the People's Petition, which is led by Hachemi Hamdi.

Hamdi owns a satellite television station based in London.

Tunisia's election commission Thursday had declared the moderate Islamist Ennahda party the winner of the weekend poll, taking 90 of 217 seats in an assembly that will write a new constitution, state media reported.

The party won 41.5% of the vote while its nearest rival, the secularist Congress for the Republic, won 30 seats, according to the Tunis-Afrique Presse.

The People's Petition party won 19 seats despite the invalidation based on financial irregularities. Note too that the People's Petition is closely aligned with the ousted regime of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. The violence is being carried out by those who supported the ousted regime and whose votes are being disqualified by the independent commission setting up a new government.

Separating itself from other Islamist parties in the Middle East, Ennahda claims that it would protect womens' rights.

Since its victory in Sunday's vote, Ennahda has sought to reassure secularists and investors, nervous about the prospect of Islamists holding power in one of the Arab world's most liberal countries, by saying it would not ban alcohol, stop tourists wearing bikinis on the beaches or impose Islamic banking.

But despite the reassurances, Ennahda's victory is causing concern in some parts of Tunisia, who fear the party could later change its policies, our correspondent says.

Ennahda leader Rachid Ghannouchi has previously compared his party's views to Turkey's government, but that's a worrisome situation given that the Turkish government under Erdogan has been backsliding on human rights and freedoms while Islamist positions are increasingly being adopted.

However, the most pressing issue for Tunisians is the awful economic conditions which precipitated the ousting of Ben Ali. There, Ennahda is calling for tax reform and stock sales to spur the economy.

The election results break down as follows for the 217 seat Parliament:
Ennahda won 90 seats.
Two left-leaning parties won second and third place: the Congress for the Republic (CPR) obtaining 30 seats, and al-Takatol 21 seats.
In fourth place was the People's Petition, with 19 seats.

Tunisia Counts Votes From Historic Elections

Tunisia, the first of the Arab countries to overthrow longtime dictators, despots, and autocrats, carried off the first free election since they deposed Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. They're counting the votes and it would appear that there was huge turnout for the elections. Observers think that there was 90% turnout, and that includes a large diaspora vote.

Most forecasts point to the Ennahda party emerging with the biggest share of the vote, an outcome that worries secularists and could be replicated in other Arab states when they hold their own post-Arab Spring elections.

Tunisian radio read out voting figures obtained from districts in the northern town of Beja and other areas that showed Ennahda in the lead, with the center-left Congress for the Republic Party (CRP) also doing well.

Ennahda said its own polling suggested the same. Parties are allowed to have representatives present during the counting process. Partial results are expected later Monday and final results Tuesday.

"The results are very good for Ennahda. We don't want to give details but it's clear that Ennahda has enjoyed a level of success that in some cases equals the results of the voting abroad," an Ennahda official said.

Ennahda, citing its own, unofficial tally from votes cast by the large Tunisian diaspora before Sunday's election, said there were indications it had won half the vote abroad.

"Ennahda was first in all the foreign polling stations," its campaign manager, Abdelhamid Jlazzi, told a gathering of party workers. "We got more than 50 percent."

The 217-seat assembly Tunisians are electing will sit for one year, re-write the constitution, choose a new interim government and set dates for parliamentary and presidential elections.

So who exactly is the Ennahda party or the CRP? Ennahda considers itself to be a moderate Islamist party and the CRP is a center-left party that has significant support.

Ennahda has attempted to show that it is a modern and moderate Islamic party.

n all three countries, Islamic groups have proven to be most organized, topping opinion polls and setting the political agenda, but have also taken pains to present themselves as progressive and democratic. Ennahda is running a female candidate who wears the head covering favored by Islamists as its candidate in the capital of Tunis and its leaders have repeated stressed its fealty to democracy.

“All the values of democracy and modernity are respected by Ennahda. We are a party that can find a balance between modernity and Islam,” its leader, Rachid Ghannouchi, told Reuters in an interview on Monday, rejecting critics’ accusations that the party’s moderation is a cover for extremist views.

These elections are only the beginning of a political process to form a new constitution and political process. I would expect significant political maneuverings to put in religious protections for Muslims and non Muslims, and even some attempts to marry some Islamic law to democratic ideals, but the religious components will take a back seat to the real issue facing the Tunisian government - improving the economic situation for millions of Tunisians who overthrew Ben Ali because the government was unresponsive to the dire economic conditions. The government will have to focus on improving economic conditions and if it fails to put a political solution in place that generates economic growth and economic opportunities for advancement, this new government will find itself voted (or thrown) out of office.

UPDATE:
It appears that Ennahda has won at least 30% of the votes and is going to be in a position to form the new government along with several liberal-leaning groups.

The party, Ennahda, won at least 30 percent of the votes cast on Sunday, and party officials told a news conference the party had come out ahead in nearly every voting district. Ali Laredi, a top official of the party, said it expected to receive possibly more than 50 percent when the final results are tallied.

Calling his party “the most modernist” Islamic political movement in the Arab world — meaning the most committed to principles of democracy and pluralism — Mr. Laredi predicted that it would now “lead the way” for others around the region.

Ennahda officials were already beginning discussions to form a unity government with the four or five other more liberal parties that were expected to get representation in the constituent assembly, which is to draft the constitution.

Millions of Tunisians cast votes on Sunday in the election, which was widely watched as the possible pioneer for votes in Egypt and Libya, where longtime autocrats were felled by uprisings energized by the Tunisia revolution.

Democrats Choose Mark Weprin To Run For Weiner's Vacated Seat

New York City Democrats have chosen former state assemblyman Mark Weprin to run for the seat vacated by disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced there would be a special election earlier this month and there has been much speculation over who would run.

Weprin is heavily favored to win the seat, which covers parts of Brooklyn and Queens.

A former New York City councilman, Weprin ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to be comptroller in 2009.

He was elected to the Assembly in 2010 after serving in the City Council for eight years.

Weprin is the son of former Assembly Speaker Saul Weprin (who took over that position when then Speaker Mel Miller was convicted on mail fraud charges).

So, there is a certain amount of symmetry to this decision.

South Sudan To Become World's Newest Nation

The Sudanese government led by Omar al-Bashir will accept the vote enabling South Sudan to split off and establish a new nation.



All this is a good start for South Sudan, which has been hit by decades of violence, civil wars, and repression, but there are huge hurdles to overcome. Much of the country lives in extreme poverty and economic and social infrastructure is wholly inadequate.

Still, South Sudan will need to rely on its northern neighbor as the main oil pipeline from the Southern oil fields must travel through Sudan to generate much of the income needed by the country to get off its feet.

Chicago Politics: Emanuel Back on the Mayoral Ballot

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff, wanted to run for Mayor of Chicago. That would seem to be straight forward since Emanuel is from Chicago but nothing is really that simple. Several of his political opponents filed a lawsuit against Emanuel appearing on the ballot because they claim that he did not comply with a state statute requiring his presence in Chicago for a year prior to the election.

The question is whether he lost residency when he moved away from Chicago to serve as Chief of Staff for President Obama.

Emanuel’s attorneys are expected to use Lampkin’s dissenting opinion to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court. In today’s ruling, Hoffman wrote: “We ... order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or if, necessary, be removed) from the ballot from Chicago’s Feb. 22, 2011.”

Emanuel had won two previous rulings — by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and a Cook County judge. The case was appealed to the appellate court, which handed down the ruling before noon Monday.

Opponents have argued Emanuel is not a resident of Chicago because he rented out his North Side home while serving as chief of staff to Obama. The renter —Rob Halpin — refused to allow Emanuel to move back in after Mayor Daley’s announcement last year that he would not seek re-election. Halpin briefly ran for mayor himself.

His opponents in Chicago may have a point if he doesn't meet the necessary residency requirements as Illinois law requires candidates for municipal offices be a resident of the city for a year prior to elections. Emanuel, who resigned as White House chief of staff last year to run for mayor, was challenged on the issue by several Chicago residents. It becomes a timing issue, and whether he was a resident of Chicago for the year necessary to qualify or not.

The Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision found that Emanuel didn't comply with the statute. Emanuel probably figured that he didn't lose residency because he never intended to give up his domicile - and thought he could simply return to Chicago without having any problem with the time. However, when he stopped renting in Chicago that was used as a defining date by the court to rule that he had given up domicile.

The problem is that Emanuel continued paying property taxes on the Hermitage house property, had an Illinois drivers license, and otherwise made no actions that would indicate he gave up his residency (from the decision):

At all relevant times, including the time he was in
Washington, D.C., the candidate continued to pay property taxes for
the Hermitage house, continued to hold an Illinois driver’s license
listing the Hermitage house as his address, continued to list the
Hermitage house address on his personal checks, and continued to
vote with the Hermitage house as his registered voting address.

I don't understand how they could have ruled the other way, and to me the dissent's opinion is the more persuasive. This is typically the kind of standard that would show that a taxpayer did not give up domicile or residency and was therefore subject to tax by a given jurisdiction.

The majority's framing of the opinion shows that they ignored the very provision that they were ruling upon:

The issues in this appeal distill essentially to two: whether
the candidate meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have
"resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the
election" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008)), and, if not, whether
he is exempt from that requirement under the Election Code
provision stating that "no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost
his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on
business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008)).

Even if the court mistakenly found against Emanuel on the first part - that he didn't reside in Chicago for the applicable time, he was still protected by the second part - he should not have lost residence by reason of business of the United States. He was the President's Chief of Staff and working in furtherance of the business of the United States.

I don't think it's an overreach to say that the Chief of Staff is a position doing the business of the United States. He's the right hand man for the President of the United States. You don't get much closer to the business of the United States than that.

Yet, it should be clear that both sides knew that all the lower court rulings were never going to be the last word. This was a case destined for the state supreme court.



Today, the Illinois Supreme Court has made an initial ruling to put Rahm Emanuel's name back on the Chicago mayoral ballot. They have yet to decide whether to take Emanuel's appeal of the Court of Appeals decision issued yesterday that said that Emanuel was ineligible to run for Mayor since he was not in Chicago for the requisite time period.

Less than 24 hours after an Illinois appeals court bumped Rahm Emanuel off the ballot for Chicago's election for mayor, the state's supreme court put that ruling on hold and ordered the city to include his name on any ballots being printed.

"The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago," the Supreme Court said in a one-page, unsigned order.

The court said it acted after receiving legal briefs from Emanuel and from his legal opponents who claimed he was unqualified because he did not meet residency requirements of state law. Today's order left unresolved whether the state's high court would take up the entire case on a speeded-up basis, but the order gave Emanuel the rapid relief he was seeking -- to keep his name on the ballot.

Stay tuned.

Historic Partition Vote Ends In Sudan

Will Southern Sudan vote for partition? That's the question that will be answered as the votes are tallied in the region and around the world.

There's also the question of defining a border between Sudan and the southern territory and addressing the natural resources and population centers that dot the prospective border.

New York and New Jersey Voter Turnout Lags National Midterm Averages

Maybe it was the lack of meaningful and competitive statewide races, but New York and New Jersey lagged the national average for the midterm elections. The figures provided by George Mason University are preliminary and don't count the absentee and provisional ballots, but the New York and New Jersey figures are pretty close to where the final numbers and percentages will be.

Election Day Results Show Resurgent GOP And Democrats Licking Wounds

Just two years after some were writing off the GOP after being battered in the 2006 midterm elections and then in the 2008 general elections, the GOP has regained control of the House with a resounding and convincing win.

What exactly does that mean though. It's expected that the GOP will pick up more than 60 seats - quite possibly up to 64 seats, depending on a couple of close races. That gives Republicans a strong majority in the House.

John Boehner will be the next Speaker of the House, with Nancy Pelosi moving into the minority.

The Senate went about as well as should have been expected for Republicans. They picked up six seats with three races still pending.

In both instances, the outcomes come close to matching my own predictions yesterday - 68 seats in the House and 7 seats in the Senate.

Does this mean that Republicans have a mandate? Hardly.

People are voting against Democrats and considering Republicans the lesser of two evils. They see government spending run amok and promises broken. They want to see spending reined in and some credibility reestablished (though some local races are thoroughly baffling - see that under-investigation Charlie Rangel won reelection in a landslide despite being under a monstrous cloud of ethics, legal, and tax woes that could see him kicked out of office).

Apparently, throwing the bums out didn't apply to Rangel, but that was an exception more than the rule. People aren't in a charitable mood and the economy is playing a large role in that.

If the newly formed Republican majority can't get its act together in short order to put together a coherent economic policy and work with the Democrats who control the Senate (where Harry Reid appears to have held on to his seat over Sharron Angle), and President Obama, things will get ugly going into 2012 and the general elections. Chief among the issues are expiring tax cuts, economic policy, and those will trump whatever socially conservative agenda that the right wing Republicans hope to push through the House. They wont get anywhere with a Senate controlled by Democrats, but they make take up enough issues (like abortion restrictions, pushing intelligent design/creationism, and junk science on climate change) to encourage their constituents and backers.

Democrats will have to content themselves to holding on in the Senate and winning several key races in state capitals. New York was one of the few bright spots along with California. In New York, Andrew Cuomo handily defeated Carl Paladino, whose rambling and disjointed speech following the results again showed just how ill-suited he was to the job he sought. Downticket races also broke for Democrats as Eric Schneiderman and Thomas DiNapoli both overcame strong challenges. It looks like Paladino's putrid campaign and odious positions made it tougher for the Republican challengers to overcome the stench in the statewide races. Still, the State Senate is still up for grabs, but Republicans say that they've regained control of that chamber.

Connecticut's governor's race was tight, but Republican Thomas Foley won there. Linda McMahon fell to Dick Blumenthal in the Senate race to replace retiring Chris Dodd. That's something of a surprise given that Blumenthal repeatedly lied about his military service, but McMahon turned off voters because of her background in professional wrestling and its related scandals. Still, Democrats have to be thankful that Blumenthal won out or else the job of holding on to the US Senate would have been much more difficult.

The oddest race of the day has to go to Alaska though, where the write-in ballot is the winner in a three-way race. The write-in candidate, incumbent US Senator Lisa Murkowski, lost the primary to a tea party candidate:

The Alaska Senate race was headed for another nailbiter in the rematch between Sen. Lisa Murkowski and tea party favorite Joe Miller as supporters from both sides prepared Wednesday for a potentially prolonged ballot count.

Write-in ballots held the lead in the hotly contested three-person race late Tuesday, a potentially good sign for Murkowski's long-shot effort to keep her job.

"They said it couldn't be done," she told supporters Tuesday night. "We said if it can be done anywhere, it can be done in Alaska, and let's prove the rest of the country wrong. And we're doing that tonight."

No U.S. Senate candidate has won as a write-in since Strom Thurmond did it in 1954. But with nearly 99 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, write-ins had 41 percent of the vote.

Miller, who beat Murkowski for the GOP nomination in August by just 2,006 votes, received 34 percent. He sent supporters home early from his campaign's Tuesday evening party, then returned to his hotel with his family.

Democrat Scott McAdams had about 24 percent and all but conceded Tuesday evening.

That would be a potential repudiation of Sarah Palin in her own backyard, but other Tea Party luminaries did manage to win, including Rand Paul in Kentucky.

UPDATE:
Nate Silver has been blogging up a storm about the election results and his thoughtful comments about the potential outcomes and statistical analysis is a must-see. He figures that the most likely outcome of the election is that Republicans pick up between 64 and 66 seats in the House, which is a stunning win for Republicans. That the Democrats managed to hang on in the Senate is a lesser achievement given that the Democrats had a built in advantage given the nature of the seats that were at stake to begin with. Still, the Republicans cut that margin to near razor-thin majority. The Democrats will hold at least 52 seats, unless the Democrats lose both Washington and Colorado, which is unlikely. Connecticut continues to be a most curious race, with ballot issues in Bridgeport and slow reporting being major issues.