I am surprised I haven’t read more this week about how much Barack Obama owes his victory in the presidential race to Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Sure, Obama has charisma, eloquence and a message of hope on his side. But Dean had the vision of how to manage a national campaign involving thousands of ego-driven politicians and prickly volunteers that prepared much of the ground for Obama to walk.

Many Americans remember the former Vermont governor only for the “Iowa scream” that seemed to single-handedly derail his 2004 bid for president (Not true, but that’s how a lot of people recall it). But in that campaign, Dean pioneered a lot of the Internet fund-raising techniques that Obama mastered this year to break all money records for a presidential election.

After Dean took charge of DNC in February 2005, he made two promises: Democrats would take control of Congress in the 2006 elections and the White House in 2008. He said that would be possible only by challenging Republicans directly in traditionally “red” states on issues such as health care, high-paying jobs and alternative energy. He rebuilt the DNC’s spending machine to direct more resources into every state and to specifically target the “Intermountain West” (from Montana to Nevada) because changing demographics meant new voters would be more likely to support Democrats. 

In 2006, Dean guided the national party to identify six issues of concern to the entire country and did a remarkable job of convincing individual Democrat candidates to use those issues as the themes of their campaigns. Of course, this strategy was the same concept as Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America that propelled Republicans into control of Congress for 12 years. The only difference was Dean didn’t try to force every Democrat candidate in every race to commit to the national party’s position on all six issues.

And Dean’s version worked just as effectively. While Democratic gains were expected in 2006 given the unpopularity of the Iraq war, few observers took seriously Dean’s goal of regaining both houses of Congress at once.

As of today, everything has worked out pretty much as Dean said it would, much to the chagrin of Republicans. Dean’s loss to John Kerry in the 2004 primaries might have been the best thing to happen for the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton.

Everywhere I go these days, people tell me they are expecting big things for Democrats on Tuesday, even in the home state of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. They point to polls showing that Democratic candidate Barack Obama is within striking distance here in Arizona, as well as the hefty fund raising that the state Democratic Party has done this election cycle.

But, as counterintuitive as it sounds, the heavy turnout expected for Tuesday plays in favor of Republicans in Arizona, especially incumbent officials in races where name recognition will heavily influence who wins.

Tribune writer Dennis Welch explains some of this in his story today about how the early ballots returned so far reflect the large voter registration advantage that Republicans have in Maricopa County.

In fact, Maricopa County Republicans make up nearly 46 percent of the returned early ballots, while Republicans make up just under 40 percent of the total number of county registered voters. On the other hand, registered voters who fall in the “other” category make up only 19.6 percent of the returned early ballots, while they are 27.8 percent of all registered voters this year.

So Maricopa County Democrats, who must have independents swing their way to take away elected offices from Republicans, will have to count on an even stronger turnout on Tuesday to overcome the Republican early voting advantage. Sure, there are Republicans who will to vote for Obama and perhaps even Democrats in hotly congested congressional races. But history tells us such voters revert to party patterns as they move further down the ballot, especially with candidates that have higher name recognization than the challenger from the other party. That’s good news for Republican lawmakers and other incumbents such as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

Greg Patterson, one of Arizona’s most popular political bloggers, has gone out on a limb and predicted that Arizona Republicans will have a surprising number of victories on Tuesday. I’m not going that far, but I do think Republicans will fare better than conventional wisdom is proclaiming on the street. For example, I previously have said I don’t believe Democrats can take control of either chamber of the Arizona Legislature.

BOB BARR (LEFT) AND RALPH NADER

Political junkies looking for special entertainment can catch a couple of the third-party candidates for president tangle Thursday afternoon, as independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr are scheduled to debate in Cleveland. The sponsor, The City Club of Cleveland, says Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party also will attend the event, which is supposed to start at 1:30 p.m. Thursday, Arizona time.

Both Barr and Nader waged a heavy three-week campaign in September and early October through the mainstream media and YouTube videos in an effort to join at least one of the three debates between John McCain and Barack Obama. But they were ignored by the major campaigns and no outside political pressure was applied. So much of the public was denied at least one opportunity to hear a few alternative views to the typical Democratic-Republican tango.

Steve Siton, the Barr’s campaign communication director, was excited when I spoke to him about Thursday’s debate and the possibility of getting at least a little national attention. He also claimed that McCain’s campaign, at least, is clearly worried about the impact that Barr might have on Tuesday’s general election.

“About damn time, isn’t it?” Siton said. “For two weeks now, Bob Barr has been the tie-breaker covering the spread between those other candidates in the battleground states. John McCain shows up wherever we go. I can get Sarah Palin to your town faster than the RNC (Republican National Committee).”

Siton said a news release from the City Club expected C-SPAN to broadcast the debate. But the event wasn’t listed on C-SPAN’s daily schedule, so it’s possible such a broadcast could delayed until the middle of the night. If you want to be sure to hear it live, Restore the Republic Radio is promising to carry it as an Internet audio feed, and the sound quality was quite good when I tuned in briefly today.

Now I know why Arizona Democrats are so enthusiastic about the Nov. 4 election. The Republican Party’s edge in registered voters has slipped to less than 100,000 people, or 37 percent of the total number of registered voters compared to the Democrats’ 34 percent. As reported today by Paul Davenport with The Associated Press, Democrats have moved above 1 million registered voters for the first time ever. Just four years ago, Republicans held a 40 percent to 35 percent advantage.

The biggest swings include the 3rd Congressional District (home of Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.) where Republicans actually have lost about 500 registered voters since 2004, while Democrats have added about 5,000; and in the 5th Congressional District (home of Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz.) where Republicans have lost a whopping 10,000 registered voters while Democrats have picked up about 9,000. (The GOP still has the largest number of voters in both districts).

Of course, both major parties have lost a huge number of voters to minor parties and unaffiliated independent registrations. The portion of voters registered in the “other” category (which excludes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and now the Green Party), has surged from 17 percent in 2000 to almost 28 percent now.

But independents tended to vote for Democrats in 2006, which is why that party unexpectedly picked up additional seats in the Arizona Legislature and Mitchell defeated former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. All signs point to independents doing the same this year. This reinforces my expectation that Arizona will send more Democrats than Republicans to the U.S. House for the first time since 1966. But I still believe there aren’t enough viable Democrat candidates for that party to take control of either chamber in the Legislature.

The Valley’s National Public Radio affiliate, KJZZ-FM (91.5) recently invited me into the studio with morning news anchor Dennis Lambert for an interview about three Arizona ballot measures: Proposition 100, an constitutional amendment that would ban any taxes on the sale of real estate; Proposition 101, another amendment that would guarantee anyone’s right to pay for private health care from their own pockets; and Proposition 201, which would mandate 10-year warranties on new home construction. The interview was presented today during NPR’s Morning Edition, at about half of the length of the entire conservation (which is rather generous for a broadcast interview).

These initiatives are widely seen as “less sexy” than a constitutional ban on gay marriages or the measure pushed by the payday loan industry; and the details can be complicated. While the Tribune Editorial Board has taken a stand on all of the measures, I sought to give a balanced explanation about what they would do and outline the strongest arguments provided by those for and against them. Listen for yourself and let me know how I did.

I was stunned to hear a campaign advertisement from Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., this afternoon taking credit for fighting the $700 billion bailout package and standing up to President Bush on the issue. The ad doesn’t appear on his campaign Web site, but I heard it on KFYI (550AM) just after 2 p.m. today. It’s an obvious reference to Shadegg’s vote Monday against an earlier version of the bailout, which the House did reject. The radio ad’s language invoked an ongoing campaign theme as Shadegg the reformer who challenges the Washington establishment.

The ad was a complete surprise because it aired a couple of hours after Shadegg voted with a House majority to approve the latest version of the bailout and send it on for Bush to sign into law. The second half of the ad did include some thoughts similar to what’s in that news release about reforms such as increasing the federally insured amount for individual banking accounts and easing the rules on “mark-to-market,” or how banks and other lenders must value the physical assets used as collateral on loans. But the overall tone of the ad was the $700 billion bailout was bad for America and Shadegg stood by his constituents when he worked against it.

This would be a ready-made attack ad for Shadegg’s election opponent, Democrat Bob Lord. “He was against it before he was for it.” Only, Lord did the exact same thing, through his public statements, since he couldn’t vote on the measure.

  
From upper left: SARAH PALIN (www.johnmccain2008.com), GWEN IFILL (AP photo) and JOE BIDEN (AP photo).

Gov. Sarah Palin will safely exceed expectations by coming up with some original answers to at least a couple of questions, and probably a good ‘zinger or two. Voters will like her again, like they did after her convention speech. But it will be obvious when she’s forced to retreat to talking points.

Sen. Joe Biden will work hard to avoid any stupid gaffes, which means he won’t be as passionate as he can be in a stump speech. Don’t look for recycled talking points, but all of Biden’s hard punches will be directed at John McCain as the head of the ticket, not Palin.

Moderator Gwen Ifill will ignore the tempest in the teapot of the past couple of days and do her typically efficient job of managing the debate. The McCain camp attacking Ifill doesn’t make sense to me because Ifill never tries to make this type of forum about her. She’s not going to try to embarrass Palin or Biden, but give both candidates an equal opportunity to make their best case for the voters.

 
            JOHN SHADEGG                                           BOB LORD

The candidates for the 3rd Congressional District have been firing back and forth this week over the $700 billion bailout package, in part because of this blog.

The campaign of Republican incumbent John Shadegg began the tussle with a news release Wednesday referring to my post Monday about Lord, the Democratic challenger, sending out a strong statement opposing the bailout package as the House vote already was going against it. Shadegg’s campaign picked up on the fact that Lord spoke out only after the bill already was doomed.

“What courage it must have taken for Bob Lord to decide he was against the bailout bill after the vote was taken,” Shadegg campaign manager Sean Noble said. ”I can see him now:  With C-SPAN on the TV, a press release supporting the bill in one hand, another press release opposing the bill in the other, Bob courageously decided to issue the release opposing the bill after the vote. I can’t imagine the pressure he was feeling.”

Noble’s quote is a somewhat subtle reference to this story from the Associated Press on Monday, which implied Arizona Democrats Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords were prepared to vote either way, depending on whether their votes would help House leaders push the measure to passage (In the end, they both voted no).

Lord shot back today with a news release referring to a comment by him published Sept. 23  in the Phoenix Business Journal raising questions about a lack of oversight in the Bush administration’s original proposal.

“When you vote with President Bush’s House leadership 98 percent of the time, maybe you even pick up Bush’s bad habits, like not reading the newspaper,” said Andrew Eldredge-Martin, Lord’s campaign manager. “The American economy cannot afford more of the same failed Bush economic policies that got us into this financial crisis, and Arizona cannot afford John Shadegg’s blind support of Bush’s economic agenda. Arizona deserves better.”

I hadn’t seen Lord’s original quote, but he didn’t appear to be opposing the $700 billion bailout as a concept. His comment at the time focuses solely on who would be watching how the Treasury secretary uses the money. That’s reinforced by Lord’s new willingness to support the bailout in the latest version approved by the Senate Wednesday night.

“It’s clear we need to take action, I think the plan now before the House has improved and will provide needed economic stimulus,” Lord said in a second news release today. “However, our job is not done yet.  We have to be vigilant with oversight  of the Treasury and serious about accountability on Wall Street. We have to keep people in their homes. Most of all we need to end the disastrous Bush economic policies that got us here in the first place.”

Of course, Shadegg could wind up supporting the package as well, considering how far the stock market droppped Monday when the House rejected the earlier version. Principled public opposition appears to be eroding as people realize what happens on Wall Street affects the pension funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans.

     BOB LORD

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, sounded pathetic today when he blamed the defeat of President Bush’s $700 billion bailout for Wall Street on a floor speech from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But Democrats like Bob Lord aren’t looking much better when they test where the winds are blowing and then pretend they are taking a strong stand on the hottest issue of the moment.

Lord, the challenger in the Fifth Congressional District, sent out a last-minute news release claiming the bailout has been wrong since it was first proposed a week ago. But Lord’s news release was delivered, at least to my e-mail box, at 10:53 a.m. Monday as the bailout package already was going down to defeat and the stock market plunging in response.

By contrast, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has been objecting for days to the Bush administration proposal and issued his own news release rejecting the new compromise version on Sunday afternoon, more than 12 hours before the vote took place.

Lord isn’t the only Democrat in making a political calculation about whether to support a plan that Wall Street desperately wants but has the public hopping mad. Every single House member from Arizona cast their final vote against the measure today. I can see Reps. Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords making a safe play, as they have serious Republican challengers this year. But I wonder how Reps. Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva will justify voting against their own party’s leaders and with Reps. John Shadegg and Trent Franks?

      RUSSELL PEARCE

I wasn’t able to attend Thursday’s legislative candidate forum for District 18 in Mesa. But reading between the lines in Tribune writer Sonu Munshi’s coverage, I think Pearce still wishes he was running for Congress this fall instead of the Arizona Senate.

Pearce seriously considered challenging incumbent Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in the primary because Flake has been a proponent of immigration reform that would provide an opportunity for otherwise law-abiding immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally to remain here. But Pearce found out when he tested the waters that running for Congress is a whole different ballgame than running for the Legislature. Access to cash, and lots of it, is much more important in a congressional campaign, although some East Valley Democrats want to believe I don’t know what I talking about.

Flake’s warchest is well-stocked and Pearce learned he would have a tough time matching it. So Pearce ran for the Legislature again, and even took public campaign funds to help fend off the heavy attacks from business-friendly critics.

Meanwhile, Flake isn’t taking any chances and he has launched a new fundraising tool called the Pork Parade. Technically, the site is supposed to be devoted to building support against pork-barrel spending and earmarks. But given its emphasis on the use of Twitter and its relative lack of content, the real purpose likely will be to build up Flake’s personal image and gather contact information for future donation appeals, ala Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.