Repudiating the Bush Era

Almost before the echoes of Barack Obama's Grant Park victory speech had died away, pundits and the blogosphere began to keep score about the effectiveness of his transition. In a way, a presidential transition is like a political spring training that gives the incoming manager and his team a chance to prepare and set the tone for what amounts to a four-year long regular season. Every transition presents opportunities for an incoming Administration to put together a game plan to deliver hardball policy ideas to give the new team an early lead in the beginning of the regular season. One danger the new team faces during the transitional pre-season is being suckered by the other side into playing for keeps before opening day. With President-elect Obama’s Cabinet and White House policy team largely in place, and the maneuvering over various economic bailout options mostly behind us, it’s time for some preseason analysis of the management decisions the Obama team has made.

This upcoming season is a particularly important one to get ready for because the new president is taking office during a political realignment. Realignments are rare events in U.S. politics, occurring only about once every four decades; the 2008 realignment is only the sixth in American electoral history. During and after a realignment, the old political truths–and the standards for judging presidential transitions–that appeared axiomatic during the preceding era no longer apply and the President-elect has to manage the process with an acute sensitivity to what the times demand.

As we indicated in our book, Millennial Makeover: MySpace, You Tube and the Future of American Politics, all political realignments are produced by the coming of age of a large, dynamic generation and the emergence of a new communication technology that effectively mobilizes the rising generation. All realignments give American politics an extreme makeover. However, because they are caused by different types of generations, either "idealist" or "civic," not all realignments are the same. Consequently, the standards for judging the success or failure of a presidential transition vary from one type of realignment to another.

Idealist generations, like the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), whose coming-of-age produced a realignment centered on Richard Nixon’s “law and order” campaign of 1968, try to impose their own personal morality on the country through the political process. Political debate in eras dominated by idealist generations often tends to focus on social or moral issues, not economic or foreign policy concerns. Because idealist generations are highly divided, ideological, and uncompromising, during these types of realignments, the most successful transitions are those that advance the ideological goals of the new president and his winning team.

The current realignment however, is a "civic" realignment, produced by the political emergence of America's newest civic generation, Millennials (born 1982-2003). Civic generations react against the efforts of divided idealist generations to advance their own moral causes. They expect their team to unify the country, focus on reenergizing political and governmental institutions and using those institutions to confront and solve pressing national issues left unattended and unresolved during the previous idealist era. The transition efforts of President-elect Obama should be measured against this set of expectations, not those of an idealist era like the one just ended.

Honest Abe's and FDR's Transition Lessons for Barack Obama

Previous civic realignments occurred in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln and in 1932, when the Millennials' civic generation great grandparents, the GI Generation, put Franklin Roosevelt in the White House. It's no coincidence that these civic presidents, along with George Washington, top all lists of our greatest presidents. All three led the United States in resolving deep crises by inspiring and guiding new civic generations and creating, revitalizing, and expanding the country's civic institutions. It is this high historical standard that will set the bar for history’s evaluation of Obama’s presidency, making his preparation for the new season all the more challenging.

An incoming president during a civic realignment must avoid exacerbating the national crisis that he will soon inherit but also avoid being tied to the failed policies of the outgoing Administration. So far, President-elect Obama has been able to maneuver through this political thicket as deftly as Lincoln and FDR did after their own realigning elections.

Southern states began seceding from the Union within days of Lincoln's election. Lincoln attempted to reassure the South that he would do nothing to tamper with slavery in states where it already existed, but he could not keep secessionist states in the Union without acceding to their demands to permit slavery in new territories. That would have required him to reject his own principles and those of his Republican Party, something he was unable and unwilling to do.

The outgoing Democratic President, James Buchanan, argued that secession was unconstitutional, but also that he had no power to prevent it. Consequently, he did virtually nothing when the seceding states took control of federal institutions throughout the South and blockaded Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Lincoln waited until South Carolina actually fired on Fort Sumter before he announced his intention to use military force to relieve the federal garrison there. Not being precipitous or overly anxious made it easier for Lincoln to prepare for, rally, and lead the country in the war that followed.

The transition between the Administrations of Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt was far more strained. In contrast to Buchanan, Hoover made a number of post-election attempts to persuade or, in the view of pro-FDR historians, entrap Roosevelt into endorsing Hoover's monetary and fiscal policies. Hoover presented to FDR an offer to share power in the public interest, but what he really wanted Roosevelt to do was commit to killing the New Deal before it even started. In letters to conservative Republican senators, Hoover said that if the president-elect agreed to what Hoover wanted, "he will have ratified the whole major program of the Republican administration; that is it means the abandonment of 90 percent of the so-called new deal." More specifically, Hoover wanted his successor to renounce, among other things, aid to homeowners unable to pay their mortgages, public works projects, and plans for the Tennessee Valley Authority. FDR studiously avoided making any policy commitments or even responding to the outgoing president's efforts to contact him, going so far as to claim that a secretary had misplaced a letter to him from Hoover. FDR's ability to preserve his political independence and policy flexibility made the historically high-scoring first 100 days of his presidency possible.

Obama Is a Good Student of History

Both the Bush Administration and the Obama team seem to be well aware of the rocky Hoover-Roosevelt transition during which an already bad economy worsened. Both Obama and Bush wanted to avoid open conflict and strained to be, or at least appear, cooperative on issues such as the auto company bailout and the use of TARP funds to stabilize the nation’s financial system. This approach fits the promise of Barack Obama to avoid excessive partisan confrontation. It fits the desire of the Bush Administration to shape a historical record as positive as possible.

It is also clear, however, that Obama is attempting to follow in FDR’s footsteps by seeking to avoid collaborative policy making or commitments to continue any Bush Administration policies. For example, Obama’s economic team has resisted overtures from the Bush Administration to coordinate more fully on a financial sector rescue package or endorse the release of the second tranche of TARP funds. Instead, the Obama team has kept its focus on the next political season by pushing Congress to quickly pass an Obama-designed stimulus program even before January 20, 2009.

From the beginning of the transition, Obama and his team have repeated the mantra that the United States has "only one president at a time,” a nice way to say, “wait until spring training is over and the regular season starts before we start playing for real." Based upon the professionalism and historical sensitivity he has demonstrated during the transition, his team should be not only a pennant contender, but also one capable of winning the World Series of a civic realignment.

Over the past week the number of Hispanics/Latinos in Barack Obama's administration jumped to 7 individuals, an historic number, with the appointments of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar and U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis.  Even before this week, Obama was already receiving praise for setting a record of top Hispanics in the Cabinet (full First Read Cabinet Census listed here).  The number of senior Latino staff to the White House might increase once again, if Adolfo Carrion is in fact named to head the White House Office of Urban Policy.  The Latinos named to the administration so far, and their posts: 

- Gov. Bill Richardson (NM), Secretary of Commerce
- Nancy Sutley (of an Argentine mother), Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality
- Moises "Mo" Vela, Director of Administration Office of the Vice President
- Luis Caldera, White House Military Office
- Cecilia Muñoz, Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
- U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO), Secretary of the Interior
- U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Secretary of Labor

Additionally, Rep. Xavier Becerra was approached for the position of USTR, but it is reported that he decided to remain in the House of Representatives.  Rep. Becerra and others have been asked by the Spanish-language media if they feel that the number of Hispanics named is "sufficient," which completely misses the point of what these appointments mean.  As stated by Rahm Emanuel, "diversity wasn't the driving force here....most importantly, the quality is of a single standard.  We wanted to make sure that we got a great staff of seasoned people - both on the policy front and political front - who knew their stuff."  What we celebrate is not that Hispanics are filling some sort of quota, we celebrate that the new administration is inclusive and receptive of talent, regardless of background and ethnicity, and we celebrate that the Latinos being named are leaders who have excelled in their respective fields.   We celebrate that Latinos are not only a growing demographic, but that it is finally out in the open that they are also a part of the most talented pools of leadership in the United States.

As Simon has stated, these appointments mean that Democrats - and President-elect Obama - are working to build a very 21st century, and potentially durable, coalition.  They are discovering the new electoral map of this new century, and employ the latest and potent tools to engange the American people.  Obama particularly engages the Latino community through his Spanish-language updates and press releases on the inauguration, and through the Spanish translation of all his press releases and weekly address.  

NDN congratulates all of the Presidential nominees, particularly our friends and collaborators - Rep. Hilda Solis is a longtime friend of NDN's and provided important support to our affiliate Latino voter mobilization campaign, Adelante 08.  Gov. Richardson and Sen. Salazar are also longtime friends and formed part of NDN's founding advisory board. The nomination of our fellow Latinos not only demonstrates the power of the Latino vote, it is a reflection of the reality of our nation's demographic makeup and reflect's our nation's true mixed racial and ethnic identity.  We congratulate President-elect Obama's commitment to reflecting the talent that comes from this racial reality in his Administration. Moreover,  these appointments are proof of our community's abilities - these Latinos are also the most qualified people for the job. 

NDN got some fun attention over at Townhall today, where Don Lambro gnawed on Simon's argument (originally posted here, and featured in The Hill yesterday) that the GOP is looking at a long road back to anything resembling power. Townhall, for the uninitiated, is one of the leading right-wing news sites-- something like a conservative answer to the Huffington Post.

Lambro accused Simon of "irrational exuberance," brushing off geographic, demographic, and hard electoral realities, and falls back on the old saw that "we still live in a center-right nation." To Lambro, I say, quit falling back on your saw, and fall on your sword, instead!

The simple fact is that, compared to Republicans, Democrats are playing on a field that is much larger-- and growing.

The GOP is seriously limited by geography-- they are increasingly competitive only in the South and upper Rockies.  In the next Congress, three-fifths of Senate Republicans will come from those two areas. Obama proved that Democrats can win without winning the Deep South, while picking up three states in the new progressive south-- Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.  The GOP will need to find a new part of the country to win, and it's not looking good for them anywhere.

Even more ominously, Democrats represent a large, diverse, and growing demographic coalition, while the Republican coalition is homogenous and shrinking. In particular, Hispanics and Millenials both voted for Obama by a 2:1 margin this year. Neither of these demographic groups carried any electoral significance 25 years ago (we Millenials weren't even born!), and are positioned to become serious political forces in the 21st century.

Lambro also marshals historical references to shore up his argument, but his analogies are bogus. While some have compared 2008 to 1964, it seems far more appropriate, given the current state of the economy, to compare this election to 1932.  And if I may, I'll call Lambro's attention to the congressional election of 1934, when the Democrats picked up nine seats in the House and ten in the Senate. In 1936, Dems sealed the deal as they maintained their majorities in congress, and Roosevelt won all but two states. En garde!

And as for Lambro's favorite old saw, I'll pass that question to Hoover Institution fellow Tod Lindberg. Says Lindberg, the idea that we live in a center-right nation is dead. Welcome to a center-left America. 

Of course, events could change these patterns and shift these trends, but the way things are going, Simon's "coroner's report" was anything but irrational exuberance.

Thanks to Mike Hais and Morley Winograd for their help in putting this together!

NDN is proud to host the Honorable Luis Alberto Moreno, President of the Inter-American Development Bank and former Ambassador of Colombia to the United States, to discuss "The Current Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Latin America." This briefing will take place on Thursday, December 11, at 3 p.m. at NDN, 729 15th St., NW, 1st Floor.

Please RSVP as soon as possible. The event is open, but space is limited. Refreshments will be served. Please visit our Web site to view past events with the Ambassadors of Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, and the Vice President of Panama.

Talk about a paradox: just days after Americans made history by electing the first black president, the AP reports that threats against a president-elect spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than any president-elect ever before. And in New York, seven teenage thugs in Patchogue replicated a shameful page of what we'd like to call "history" by forming what one prosecutor called a "lynch mob." Why are people bent on hate? More importantly - how do we fight ignorance and intolerance? A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." A wise friend once said, "the same people who hate immigrants and immigration reform hate Latinos, and hate other races, and the people who hate these groups are the same who speak out against women's rights, and against choice, and against gay rights...." Arguing that any one group is better or worse than another constitutes hate speech, and hate speech has consequences.

A New York Times editorial this week, The High Cost of Harsh Words opens with the name of our column - words have consequences. And Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, is learning that the hard way. Seven teenagers were arrested and charged in the fatal stabbing last Saturday of Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorean immigrant, on a street in the Long Island village of Patchogue. Local lawmakers in Suffolk would speak out complaining about immigration, but Levy went farther - he founded a national organization to lobby for crackdowns. He went on "Lou Dobbs." He sought to drive day laborers from local streets, yet rigidly opposed efforts to create hiring sites. Even as tensions escalated in places like Farmingville, a hot spot for anti-immigrant resentment, Mr. Levy parroted extremist talking points, going so far as to raise the alarm, utterly false, that illegal immigrants' "anchor babies" were forcing Southampton Hospital to close its maternity ward. He now denounces racist hatred, yet his words have made him a hero to white supremacist hate groups, and certainly contributed to the atmosphere that allowed these men to feel angry enough to want to kill another human being, and protected enough to think that they could get away with it.

It's difficult to tell whether Levy even cares about the responsibility he bears in relation to this crime, immigrant advocates assailed him for having poisoned the atmosphere. Some called for his resignation, and with tactless self-pity, Mr. Levy complained to Newsday that the killing would have been a one-day story anywhere but his home turf. He insists that people have a distorted picture of him, but "Mr. Levy needs to realize that distortions cut both ways." Some white supremacists hide behind the alleged legal status argument - alleging Lucero was "illegal," so what if he was? If you think that his legal status excuses taking his life, then you are a racist. Then where do we draw the line? Is the life of a thief, an adulterer, or an unscrupulous wall street executive also expendable? And to further make the point - these thugs didn't stop to ask for papers before attacking, which would put you, or me, or anyone at risk. The murder is just the tip of the iceberg - it's not a "story" when Hispanics are assaulted and beaten, but don't die, or when rocks or other items are thrown at them in places like Suffolk around the country, or when a Latino family's house burns down because two teens thought it would be "cool" to throw firecrackers into the house and see the family scurry out.

Where is the outrage against the cruel murder of an Ecuadorian man? I applaud Peter Applebome, Angela Macropoulos, and Kirk Semple of the New York Times for reporting on it, but what about national news, national networks? Why isn't Lou Dobbs talking about this war by the middle class, against the Hispanic middle and poor class? Oh yes, he's against illegal and legal immigrants, I almost forgot. Where is the Hispanic Bill O'Reilly, angrily mobilizing mobs to speak out against this horrible crime? That's a rhetorical question, it would be awful for Latinos to fuel the fire by drawing additional racial divides - the idea is for no group to predicate division, but rather hold Dobbs, Beck and O'Reilly and people like them accountable for all acts like this murder, because words do have consequences.

On the day these men killed Mr. Lucero, they were identified by witnesses as having battered two other Hispanics earlier in the afternoon. What if the story had been the other way around, and a group of Latinos went out hunting for a U.S. born high school boy, or a "frat boy?" What kind of coverage would that story receive? Dobbs would have dedicated a month's worth of programming to it. And what kind of justice would those murderers get? I sincerely doubt a gang of Hispanics would get off on a first or second degree "manslaughter" indictment (only one of the seven attackers is charged with murder). A very unfair double-standard still exists, and it's appalling. Make no mistake, these weren't young kids who didn't know any better, they were a gang as defined in the U.S.: "a street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes the involvement in illegal activity." And to be clear, assault - which doesn't even involve putting a hand on someone, battery, murder, are all illegal activities.

Murder is murder - manslaughter means you didn't intend to kill. A requirement of murder is that a person acts with intent to kill and knowledge that their actions will result in someone's death. And the police reports that this gang was out to - self-describedly - "kill a Mexican," and they stabbed the guy - they beat him, and then they stabbed him - let's not confuse things, they were out to kill. And if they can do this to another man for no reason, what's not to say that these same men would be just as willing to assault a woman just because they can, or a child? They are a menace to society, as is anyone who thinks like them. One of the killers, Chris Overton, 16 years old, is awaiting sentencing in another case. He pleaded guilty to burglary in another fatal attack in May 2007 in which a 38-year-old East Patchogue man was shot dead when a group of teenagers robbed his home. A neighbor found the victim, Carlton Shaw, dead in his backyard, his 3-year-old son sleeping on his chest.

But the Lucero murder was fueled by hate, and it's up to each community to not allow these crimes to go unreported, underreported, or unpunished. Let us not forget; now Levy plans to have a scholarship for children in honor of Marcelo Lucero, and that's all well and good, but I care more about what he personally is going to do to admit his rhetoric was hateful and unacceptable, and to change the atmosphere in Suffolk. Remember Luis Ramirez? The Mexican man who was also killed by another high-school age gang in Shenandoah, PA? The picture above is of Ramirez just before he died...let's not forget, and let's not allow hate crimes to become a "fact of life," let's stay vigilant in our communities to avoid adding another name to the list of victims.

In the past 24 hours, NDN has helped to shape the post-election narrative. Here are some of the highlights from the recent election analysis:

Simon was featured in a fantastic piece by Thomas Edsall in the Huffington Post:

There is a substantial body of thought among Democrats, however, that Obama's victory accurately reflects transformations in the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of voters. Because these transformations are rooted in the voters themselves, and not in political strategies, they are likely, from this perspective, to be enduring. One of the strongest proponents of this approach is Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democrat Network.

"When I was born in 1963 the country was almost 89 percent white, 10.5 percent African-American and less than 1 percent other. The racial construct of America was, and had been for over hundreds of years, a white-black, majority-minority construct, and for most of our history had been a pernicious and exploitive one," Rosenberg writes. "Today America is 66 percent white and 33 percent 'minority'.'' According to Rosenberg's assessment, Republican wedge issues will no longer work. "This strategy - welfare queens, Willie Horton, Reagan Democrats, tough on crime, an aggressive redistricting approach in 1990" will prove ineffective in "the new demographic realities of America."

Simon also had a great quote in McClatchy, which appeared in a plethora of papers across the country, that touched on similar themes:

"The Republican playbook that worked for them for a generation, that's become an anachronism," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network. "There's a new voting population, new coalitions, new issues, new media. The Republicans have been fighting the future. That is one of the reasons why they are in trouble. They've gotten on the wrong side of history."

He also weighed in in Wired about Obama's thoroughly modern candidacy:

"He's run a campaign where he's used very modern tools, spoke to a new coalition, talked about new issues, and along the way, he's reinvented the way campaigns are run," says Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the nonprofit think-tank NDN, and a veteran of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. "Compared to our 1992 campaign, this is like a multi-national corporation versus a non-profit."

Simon's analysis was also featured in USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle (twice, here and here), the Boston Globe (twice, here and here), the Houston Chronicle (twice, here and here), the Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury News, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 

Simon wasn't the only member of the the NDN team in the mix. New NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais had an excellent quote in this MSNBC article about the importance of the youth vote:

Through a steady stream of texts and Twitters, experts agree Obama has managed to excite young voters by meeting them where they live — online.

“This is a group of people who are constantly checking in with everybody else in their circle to make a decision,” says Morley Winograd, the co-author of “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics” and a former adviser to Vice President Al Gore. He defines Millennials as ages 18 to 26.

“This is a generation that doesn't tend to think about asking experts for opinion," Winograd says. "They tend to ask each other, and then that becomes the truth.”

Winograd says that means no decision is made without dozens of e-mails, texts or Facebook messages to check whether an idea works for the whole group — anything from “Where should we hang out tonight?” to “Who should we vote for?” — which could explain why Millennials so firmly latched onto Obama’s message of unity, he says.

“They are naturally inclined to be unified,” explains Michael D. Hais, who co-wrote “Millennial Makeover” with Winograd. “It’s the way they were reared; they were reared to believe that everyone has a role to play, everybody is the same and everybody should look for group-oriented solutions.”

They also had a featured post on the front page of the Huffington Post, and appeared in the Examiner and NewGeography. Additionally, Michael was quoted in the Herald Tribune.

Finally, Rob was quoted on the election in two Irish newspapers, the Independent and FinFacts.

Just a few years ago, I would not have thought this day was possible.

I remember election day in 2004 as one of the worst worst of my life; after watching Bush and his cronies destroy everything they touched for four years, I didn't understand how anyone could vote for him, let alone the majority of the country. It made no sense. It is no exaggeration to say that that day nearly destroyed my faith in our democracy, and as the administration continued to methodically strip away rights and regulations and transform the Judicial branch into an appendage of the Executive, I basically assumed that it was game over, and gave up.

The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor describes what I was feeling as political fragmentation: "the individual citizen is left alone in the face of the vast bureaucratic state and feels, correctly, powerless. This demotivates the citizen even further, and the vicious circle of soft despotism is joined." I felt that there was nothing I could do to change anything, and so I stopped trying.

But the interesting thing about this feedback loop, and the thing that Senator Obama helped me realize, is that as Taylor says, "there is a potential vicious circle here, but we can see how it could also be a virtuous circle. Successful common action can bring a sense of empowerment and also strengthen identification with the political community." Simon has written about Barack Obama's virtuous cycle of participation, and I can personally attest to the truth of that analysis. And I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way; watching the reactions that others have had to Obama's candidacy has been hugely inspiring in itself.

I don't agree with Senator Obama about everything, and I don't think he will single-handedly save American politics. I definitely have no illusions about the enormity of the challenges that still lie ahead on the path of progress. But even so, the simple fact that he is likely to be the next President of the United States makes me believe that real change is at least possible.

And if things don't go well tonight, hey, there's always Costa Rica.

There's always a lot happening here at NDN, so in case you missed anything, here's what we've been up to in the last week:

NDN's Election Analysis - With the race drawing to a close, NDN has focused its political analysis this week. Simon had a popular essay on the Huffington Post last Friday: Keys to the Fall: Obama Leads, McCain Stumbles. Simon reprised this argument with a blog post on Saturday: Still No Evidence that McCain is in This Thing. Writing again on Monday, Simon speculated: Could This Be A Ten Point Race?

Yesterday, we released a compendium of NDN’s best political analysis from the past several years. These memos and essays cover the main arguments coming from NDN: The end of the conservative ascendancy and the dawn of a "new politics," the emergence of new voting groups like the Millennials and Hispanics, the power that a whole array of new media and technology tools are unleashing into our democracy, and old-fashioned number crunching and analysis on everything from the role of independents, the economy and video in the elections. We've also included some of our analysis from the election of 2006, a day that saw the end of the conservative era, and set the stage for tomorrow's election, which will mark the beginning of a new one.

Millennial Makeover Authors Join NDN as Fellows - NDN is excited to announce that Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, authors of the best-selling book Millennial Makeover, have joined NDN as Fellows. Morley and Mike are two of the most insightful and prescient interpreters of the profound demographic shifts taking place in our country today. NDN has a long history of working with Morley and Mike; they co-authored a seminal 2006 paper, "Politics of the Millennial Generation," for our affiliate, the New Politics Institute, and have spoken at several NDN events, including one in March about the Millennial transformation of American politics. They are an important and tremendously impressive addition to the NDN Team. To read bios of Morley and Mike, please click here.

NDN has long argued that Millennials, along with Hispanics, are becoming core elements of a new, sustainable 21st century progressive coalition. To learn more about how these demographics are changing the face of American politics, read our reports, "Hispanics Rising II" and "The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation."

NDN Breaking Through - NDN has been a major player in shaping the narrative surrounding the 2008 election. Here's a recap of our press from the last few weeks.

Simon's election analysis was recently featured in the Financial Times (11/4), the Arizona Republic (11/4), and The Hill (11/3), on NPR (11/4/08), and in DemFromCT's daily poll roundup on DailyKos (11/1), which linked to his front-page Huffington Post (10/31) article, as well as in Newsday (10/27), the Arizona Republic (10/26), and the Huffington Post (10/28, again). He was quoted in the VIBE cover story, "The Tipping Point" (10/14) about the historic implications of the rise of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. Dan Balz quoted Simon in the Washington Post after the third and final presidential debate (10/16). Simon also provided analysis of the election in the Independent (10/22), Reuters (10/22, as well as here on 10/17), and in several more featured posts on the Huffington Post (here, 10/21, here, 10/22, and here, 10/17). His election commentary also aired on radio stations across the country (10/22), and he was featured on WAMU's "Power Breakfast." Finally, Andres was featured in the Wall Street Journal (10/31) speaking about the increasing importance of early voting.

Our work on Hispanic issues has garnered widespread attention in the last few weeks. Our recent polling on immigration reform was featured in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal (11/1). Ron Brownstein quoted Simon about demographic shifts on MSNBC's "Road to the White House." Simon hit on similar themes involving the Hispanic electorate and the country's changing electoral map in the San Francisco Chronicle (10/26), Bloomberg (10/26), the San Francisco Chronicle (10/13), Bloomberg (10/17), and Hispanic Trending (10/9). Andres also talked about the importance of the Hispanic electorate in the Latino Journal (10/12), and our recent immigration poll of battleground states was featured in a diary on DailyKos (10/16).

On the green front, Michael was featured in the Council on Foreign Relations (10/30) discussing energy prices and cutting carbon emissions, and had a featured post about dealing with climate change in a troubled economy in the Huffington Post's Green section (10/22). Rob was featured in Grist (10/28) speaking about clean infrastructure and a second economic stimulus.

NDN also remained a strong voice on the economy: Rob was quoted recently in a big story in the New York Times (10/22) and the International Herald-Tribune (10/21) about the Treasury backing the consolidation of banks, was featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer (10/14), and had this excellent quote in the Washington Times (10/17).

Finally, NDN also made several TV appearances recently. Our event with Simon and Joe Trippi was broadcast on C-SPAN, Simon went on BBC World News to discuss the election (relevant section begins at 1:40), and Andres appeared on several Nevada TV channels, including Fox and ABC, condemning illegal voter suppression tactics targeting Hispanic voters.

Miami, FL - No matter how hard I try, I'm finding it terribly difficult to put my feelings about Election Day into words.

Bittersweet? Cathartic? Humbling? I'm at a loss.

Don't get me wrong. Either certainly suffices when describing single aspects of this epic campaign, but neither adequately sums up the rollercoaster we've lived, breathed and analyzed for so long. I feel confident that what I see is historic, but I can't quite find the words to describe it.

When I first went to see Barack Obama as a potential candidate - after he had filed to form his exploratory committee - his gifts were as evident as the growing interest surrounding his possible candidacy. It wasn't as obvious then as it is now, but his candidacy was aided by converging themes (many of which NDN has taken a serious look at) that have reshaped American politics, allowing Obama to ride the moment and add serious weight to his vision for change.

Having been in South Florida for the past six weeks, I can tell you that there are some amazing things happening. As others have said here before, the lines at early voting sites were incredible and often remained hours into the night so that each voter could cast their ballot.

Echoing NDN, voters are meeting the conservative challenge. They want to finally halt the Conservative Ascendancy and usher in a new politics where one side isn't the only side.

By recognizing that sentiment in America's changing demographics and communicating it through new technologies, we now see the potential for an Electoral Map that is poised to deliver an enduring majority to Democrats. (Adam Nagourney has more on this in his piece from today's New York Times.)

Consider Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, perhaps even Arizona. All of these states are being contested because of large populations of Hispanics, a continuously powerful force in our political future. Take these states alone, and with the Core Democratic States of the past four presidential cycles and you have 304 Electoral votes. Add in states like Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and you have 335. (That seems to be Obama's floor.) Consider states like Virginia, North Carolina, and others and the map just gets more blue.

The map is reflecting a lot of things, many of which I heard at early voting sites, on the radio stations, and in local shops. Everyone talks about how historic this election is and how we're ready for something better.

What will stick with me, however, is not just the desire for change. It's the look of people in lines who don't complain, who don't object to waiting under the hot sun or in the rain. It's the look of a proud privacy and patience which I've seen from many, much like the family below who posed for a camera man after casting their ballot seven hours after they arrived.

Perhaps right now this is a tough feeling for some to transcribe, but you know it when you see it.