The event will be held on Sunday, January 18thin NW DC about 3 blocks from the Dupont Circle metro entrance at:

Stars Bar and Bistro 2120 P Street, NW

• From 8:30pm to 10pm will be cocktail hour 
• 10PM the entertainment will begin and go on until we all get tired.

So join fellow Obama supporters and Democratic activists Sunday night for some music, laughs and drinks and help support our efforts.

If you RSVP by the end of Thursday, tickets are $20, or$25 thereafter and at the door.

For more information and to RSVP go to Blue Catapult

Blue Catapult is a Political Action Committee that supports Democratic challengers running for Congress and certain freshman Democrats. This past cycle we supported winning Senate candidates Mark Begich (AK) and Jeanne Shaheen (NH), House candidates Frank Kratovil (MD), Dan Maffei (NY) and just elected for a second term, Jerry McNerney (CA). Blue Catapult is all-volunteer and most of the money the PAC gets is distributed to candidate campaigns.

With the swearing in of the 111th Congress on Tuesday, change is already beginning in Washington. Over the past two years a number of critical pieces of legislation passed the House of Representatives, but were filibustered in the Senate, vetoed by Bush, or did not even come up for a vote as their ultimate fate was already known. That is about to change.

Over the next few weeks the House will pass bills that were blocked in the 110th Congress, and as they go on to the Senate, most of them will pass there as well. They will then be sent to the desk of President Barack Obama where they will be signed and become law. The forthcoming stimulus package and financial bailouts may get most of the attention, but a small revolution will be taking place in less heralded bills that will make changes that will affect the lives of many people.

Some Examples:

The “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” (H.R. 11) will be passed this week by the House. These bills are a response to the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in which the Court ruled, 5-4, that Ms. Ledbetter could not sue her employer for discrimination in pay because the suit would be filed more than 180 days after the first act discrimination took place, even though she had not learned of the facts of discrimination until much later. This bill makes it clear that the 180 day clock begins with each act of discrimination. The bill passed the House 225-199 last year but failed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. It is expected to pass easily in the Senate this year.

Two bills vetoed by President Bush will come up again in the next few weeks and should pass again with the presidential signature expected. The “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act” will be reintroduced shortly. passed by both chambers twice, but blocked by Bush, this bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support and conduct research with human embryonic stem cells regardless of the age of the cells, and with some ethical requirements that need to be met. While President Obama is expected to accomplish much of this through executive order, the Congress will codify it into law in fairly short order.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) not only needs to be reauthorized, but bills to extend health insurance to more children of low-income workers passed Congress twice and were vetoed twice by Bush. Whether as part of an expansive health care program or as a smaller bill, expect this to pass within the first six months especially since the new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, was a chief sponsor when he was in the House.

These changes are beginning now, with the start of the 111th Congress. There are many other bills that are aimed at improving the lives of many Americans and bettering the country will now have the opportunity to be passed by Congress and signed into law by an enlightened President. I look forward to seeing the progress that will be made this year.

Josh has noted below that Harry Reid has placed the responsibility of job losses due to the potential bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler at the feet of the Republicans for blocking the bill to loan about $14 billion to the companies.  Worried about the economic consequences of a GM bankruptcy (as well as Bush’s legacy), Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has announced that he will do something in order to make certain that the automakers do not enter into bankruptcy. Most reports have Paulson intending to allow TARP funds to be used in some way to make certain that the auto companies don’t crash before the end of they year. While the funds won’t be delivered right away — it could be as early as this weekend or take over a week — it will be out of TARP and there won’t be a “Car Czar” and there won’t be a plan that puts a greater burden on workers than management. This sounds like the plan that the Democrats had requested from the White House weeks ago.

It is rumored that Republicans heard from the White House on Wednesday that if the bailout bill did not pass, the President would take action. In a sense that meant the No vote for those Republicans was a free vote — they could say they were against wasting taxpayer funds, but at the same time not worry about the economic consequences of the auto companies going under. In the meantime it seems like the Republican Senators from southern states were more willing to protect the interests of foreign-owned auto manufacturers in their home states. There is also an element of union busting as the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate hinged on demands of the auto workers cutting their wages by “a date certain.” Since the UAW actually made real concessions during the early stages of the process, including getting rid of the job bank that continued to pay workers when positions were not available, it seems like the Republicans decided that it was more important to blame the workers than the management that had made the plans that avoided real restructuring for years.

While nobody really enjoys the fact that taxpayers funds are being used to bail out companies, the fact is that there are Senators who thought it was important to create TARP to assist financial institutions, but not so critical to help a major U.S. manufacturing industry whose failure would mean the loss of hundreds of thousands, of jobs and have serious economic consequences. These Senators — mostly Republicans — who voted for the financial services industry, but against American manufacturing, show us that for them people who make money by having money are more important than people and companies who actually make things. This is a tragic end to the American Century.

Twenty-one senators (18 Republicans and 3 Democrats) voted FOR the financial bailout back in October, but voted AGAINST the auto bailout.

Republicans: Bennett (UT), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK), Coleman (MN), Corker (TN), Ensign (NV), Grassley (IA), Gregg (NH), Hatch (UT), Hutchison (TX), Isakson (GA), Kyl (AZ), Martinez (FL), McCain (AZ), McConnell (KY), Murkowski (AK), Thune (SD)

Democrats: Baucus (MT), Lincoln (AR), Reid (NV).
NOTE: Reid voted against on procedural grounds to be able to bring up bill again. (Source: MSNBC.com’s First Read)

I mused about what could be done about the vacant Illinois Senate seat earlier, but some other developments have occurred just in the past day.

• While the Illinois General Assembly will meet next week ostensibly to pass a law creating a special election to fill the Senate vacancy. The problem is that Blagojevich could just avoid signing the bill until the new GA session that begins January 14th and the process begins all over again including the normal delay in which the Governor could sign or veto the bill.  Then the Special Election would probably take place about 2 months after that at the earliest at a cost estimated at over $30 million, and it is not known yet whether it would include a primary election round. National Democratic leaders do not want a Special Election process because under these circumstances a Republican could win the seat even in the very blue state of Illinois. Republican Representative Mark Kirk, who has successfully passed as a moderate in a district that voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama, has already announced interest in the race.
• If Blagojevich does try to appoint a successor to Obama in the Senate, there are a few roadblocks. First, all 50 Democratic Senators have signed a letter telling Blagojevich not to appoint a Senate replacement and that if he did, they would “determine whether such a person would be seated,” although whether they could legally do that is unclear. But another bureaucratic stumbling block for Blago is that the Illinois Secretary of State must certify the appointment by the Governor. The current occupant of that office, Jesse White, could simply refuse to certify any appointment.
• Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (who is also one of many of Blago’s enemies) has stated that she may use the Illinois equivalent of the nuclear option — request that the Illinois Supreme Court declare Blago unfit for office and remove him until he can prove that he has regained his “fitness.” Madigan is waiting first to see if the Illinois legislature actually can do anything, but if they can not, Madigan is ready to act. Will this work?
  

  The state Constitution doesn’t explicitly indicate an officeholder can be ousted by the court or by impeachment if that person faces criminal charges. Instead, the Constitution uses terms such as “failure to qualify” or “disability” in laying out causes to impeach someone.

  The Supreme Court rule allowing justices to wade into the issue of gubernatorial fitness is even less defined, saying only that the court has authority to determine “the ability of the governor to serve.”

It seems to me that the last option, having the Illinois Supreme Court use its powers, however vague they may be, to remove Blagojevich from office seems like a nice, neat solution. It will also give the Illinois General Assembly time to finish the impeachment process as it is unlikely that once removed, he will be able to prove he has regained his fitness. Also it would mean that the Lt. Governor in that time would be Acting Governor and could name Obama’s replacement in the Senate. Pat Quinn would have to make a an outstanding choice after all these events. Plus by avoiding the Special Election millions of taxpayer funds would be saved.

The arrest and indictment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is becoming a tragic farce, with the transcripts of the wiretaps that are in the indictment showing a man completely unaware that there was anything wrong with his obviously corrupt behavior. But despite the fact that he has been indicted, Blagojevich will still be Governor and still, under Illinois Law, can appoint Obama’s successor. Blagojevich’s self-serving vanity means that despite the storm over his head, he may still try to appoint someone to the Senate seat that Barack Obama vacated. So there are various ideas about what can be done to prevent Blagojevich from filling this vacancy:

• The General Assembly should start impeachment proceedings against Blagojevich, but this will obviously take time even on a fast track process. Blagojevich is despised by both Democrats and Republicans in the General Assembly, so the impeachment should be able to go through quickly. However, one of Blagojevich’s few Springfield allies is State Senate President Emil Jones, who will hold the office through the end of the year. While it may be stupid to prevent the impeachment from moving forward, Jones could do that as he is at the end of his political career and would have hoped to be one of the potential Senators that Blagojevich could have appointed.
• The sole sitting Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, suggested at a news conference today that the Illinois General Assembly immediately meet and pass a law requiring Senate vacancies to be filled by Special Election rather than Gubernatorial appointment. Since there will already be a Special Election for Rahm Emmanuel’s seat sometime in March, it would mean ramping up the process statewide. The problem with this solution is  that it would cost millions to hold a statewide election and Blagojevich could veto the bill, meaning it better pass by a veto-proof margin.
• But even if the general Assembly does take action, the result will still take time and Blagojevich could still appoint someone over the next few days. In such circumstances, does the Senate have any power? The U.S. Senate can have the power to expel a member from its membership, but they may not be able to refuse to seat someone who is nominated by a Governor to fill a vacancy. in the Supreme Court case Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) it was determined that the chambers of Congress could refuse to seat an incoming member only if they do not meet the requirements set forth by the constitution: age, citizenship and residency. Now theoretically they could seat and then immediately expel a new member, but that would be dangerous precedent.

The  Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, has stated that Blagojevich should temporarily give up his powers of Governor until the situation is settled. That would, of course, give Quinn the power to make the Senate appointment, but Quinn is generally considered to be somewhat of a reformer, and is a good environmentalist, so he might make a decent choice. He and Blagojevich do not have a good relationship, so it is doubtful this option would be executed. The best path would seem to be for the General Assembly to meet immediately and expedite impeachment proceedings with the hope that Blagojevich does not appoint anyone beforehand. But with his sense of entitlement my guess is he will try to wield as much power as possible every last second he can — all the way to prison.

UPDATE: Illinois Senate President Emil Jones has announced that he will call the legislature back into session as soon as possible to change the law so that the Senate seat could be filled via a Special Election rather than gubernatorial appointment. However that may mean waiting until Monday, and a law not being passed until around next Wednesday, and then the bill gets sent to the Governor who not only can veto it, but take his time to veto it. In other words we still have about two weeks that Blagojevich can use to appoint someone. Of course no self-respecting person would accept and appointment from the Gov now — though there are probably a lot of shameless folks in Illinois who may still want the job.

Reports right now are that the Democratic congressional leadership is negotiating with the White House over a $15 billion bailout plan that is designed to help the auto companies through March. I watched large portions of both the Senate and House hearings on a potential bailout for the Detroit Automobile Manufacturers this past week and came away with a few observations:

• Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, December 4th, Moody’s chief economist, Mark Zandi, discussed how important it was to offer the full bailout due to the layoffs and economic distress that would be caused by allowing companies to enter bankruptcy. However he had two other points that made bankruptcy seem like a potentially viable option. First, the main argument that the auto executives and others of their supporters have been using to gain congressional support to stave off bankruptcy is that consumers, out of concern for the future of their vehicles, would not purchase cars from a company in bankruptcy. Well Zandi suggests that to counter this problem, the government could “guarantee warranties on any new cars sold by the Big Three while they are making their way through bankruptcy.” In other words, the government has a much less expensive option than a full bailout — if the warranties are guaranteed then that removes the worry by consumers that their warranties will not be honored. This does not address the whole problem but does lessen the concern about what would happen to these companies while they were being restructured under Chapter 11.
• On the side of supporting a bailout are both key committee chairmen, Barney Frank of the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd of the Senate Banking Committee. In his opening statement to Friday’s hearing in the House, Frank made the compelling argument that allowing the Detroit Auto Companies to enter bankruptcy would have a broad, harmful impact on the economy as a whole — “[B]ankruptcy is the ability to walk away from debt. The fact is that while we have this serious job loss, we continue to have a serious credit crisis in this country… And a permission to these three large entities to stop paying their debts — that’s called bankruptcy — would greatly exacerbate the credit crisis.” Frank is right in that bankruptcy is a debt forgiveness program, although Chapter 11 bankruptcy is as much about reorganization and debts are not washed away, but those who are owed money from these firms would be getting much less than the total of their billing. The consequences of this would not just be critical for teh credit market, but also for all the businesses that rely on the auto industry for their survival.

Frank’s argument is compelling, but the question to me still is who is going to buy Detroit’s cars over the next year? First there is the general downturn in the economy, meaning fewer people will be purchasing new automobiles. Second, even if the Three American auto companies do change their ways and develop better products, we are years away from those vehicles making it to the market. It is, as is well known, not a recent phenomenon that Detroit’s cars have been losing market share for years. From Zandi’s charts used in his Senate testimony,market share for GM, Ford and Chrysler has dropped from about 75% in 1995 to less than 50% today. Default rates on auto loans are at record levels, at 4% and rising, which leads to the question as to whether lenders will be so willing to grant auto loans to people in the current credit crunch. As Zandi wrote in his opening statement:

Vehicle sales will eventually return to their underlying annual pace of 16 million units, but only when the job market stabilizes, credit flows more freely, and the pent-up demand is worked off. It could well be two decades or more before sales return to the 17 million unit sales pace that prevailed during the first half of this decade.

Two decades! Can we afford to wait that long? The funds that are part of the bailout are loans, expected to be paid back over 10 years. Under current economic conditions — and the expected environment over the next few years, where is the inflow of capital that will allow these companies to pay back these loans? Who is going to buy their cars?

The growing number of reports that claim that Hillary Clinton is being seriously considered for Secretary of State in the Obama Administration make the possibility real.  But the motivations behind this choice are at first puzzling. While Hillary Clinton is easily smart ad savvy enough to take on the job, her Senate career has been more focused on domestic policy. On paper there are a number of candidates who are more qualified than her, such as the oft-mentioned Bill Richardson or John Kerry. But Hillary Clinton is well known by numerous world leaders and is probably the person with the most cache worldwide that Obama could nominate in an Administration that has made repairing the U.S.’s reputation in the world as a major foreign policy goal. Bill Clinton still has an excellent reputation in most of the world both because of his presidency and his global work with his Clinton Foundation. Much of this goodwill would most likely transfer to Hillary.

The problem is that Hillary has her own power base and, much like Colin Powell in the Bush Administration, she can’t be fired. If she goes rogue, the Obama Administration would have to grin and bear it. For her to be happy in the job, Hillary Clinton will need to be a major player in not just promoting the Obama foreign policy but also in creating it. There is an honest question about how well she would represent a policy that she may disagree with.

But the thinking behind this appointment is most likely originating from Obama’s admiration for Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, about how President Abraham Lincoln placed competitors in his cabinet. Back in May Obama was praising the book and speculation of Hillary Clinton in his cabinet was already being mulled in the punditry after Obama’s own musings:

It came in response to a question
from a man named Mike, a “50 year” resident of Pompano Beach. “I want
to know if you’d consider everybody who is a possible help to you as a
running mate,” he said. “Even if his or her spouse is an occasional
pain in the butt.” Obama laughed. No names necessary; he seemed to get
the drift. “Ah,” he said. “I’m… well, look.” Pause. Smile. Applause.
“Look, look, look,” he said, quieting the crowd. “We’ve got more work
to do. Two more weeks to go. So I don’t want to jump the gun.” Then,
suddenly, he warmed to the idea:

I can tell you this. My goal is to have the best possible
government. And that means me winning. So, I’m very practical in my
thinking. I’m a practical guy. One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln.
Awhile back, there was a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin
called ‘Team of Rivals,’ in which she talked about how Lincoln
basically pulled all the people he’d been running against into his
Cabinet. Because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was,
‘How can we get the country through this time of crisis?’ I think that
has to be the approach one takes to the vice president and the Cabinet.

It should be noted that Kearns Goodwin’s book argues that the Lincoln strategy was not only successful,  but by the end of his presidency these former rivals admired and loved the 16th President. Whether a similar result is possible in the 21st century with the 24 hour news cycle remains to be tested.

But there is another book that may also play a role in the decision to put Hillary Clinton in a prominent position in the Obama cabinet — Hardball by Chris Matthews. In this book, which first came out in the 1980s and was revised in 1999, Matthews outlines some of the rules or strategies of politics. the most relevant for this discussion is “Keep Your Enemies In Front of You.” In that chapter, Matthews explains why James Baker, the 1980 campaign manager for George Herbert Walker Bush’s first run at the presidency, was named Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan. By placing Baker in the most prominent of roles, Reagan’s success was mandatory for Baker to be considered a success. By choosing Baker, Reagan also made certain that his Vice President had a greater stake in his success. And it was an effective strategy as Baker is considered to have been an excellent Chief of Staff.

As for Hillary Clinton, if she becomes Secretary of State, her success and Obama’s success becomes intertwined when it comes to foreign affairs. Keeping her “in the tent” rather than on the outside may remove someone whose every word in the Senate would be scrutinized for criticism of Obama. And there would also be no distracting speculation as to whether she would challenge Obama in 2012.

But would she be a good Secretary of State? Hillary Clinton certainly has the intellect for the job, and her personality can be diplomatic when the situation calls for it. While she may not have the breadth of experience of a Richardson or Kerry, she certainly has more than enough to be qualified for the job. But what we do not know is her world view in the sense of how she sees the way the world works. She spent much of the primary campaign defending her Iraq vote and she seems to understand the important role of diplomacy, and she gave an interesting speech on Foreign Policy in February, but it was more a laundry list of what she would do as President than one with overarching philosophy of international relations. But that could be a plus in that it will be Barack Obama’s world view that she represents.

Hilary and bill CLinton did do a lot of campaigning for bama over the past few months so maybe there can be real cooperation now that the process is over. Hillary Clinton is an interesting choice if Obama makes it — I just hope it is also a successful one.

The CBS News Horserace blog posted a faulty analysis of the exit polls from election day. In the analysis, their polling expert, Jennifer De Pinto, wrote:

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

Now if De Pinto had simply explained the problems with using the exit polls and stated that we couldn’t draw full conclusions about the final vote if Hillary had been the nominee, then it would have been an interesting analysis of those folks who voted on election day who think that they would have voted for Hillary Clinton instead of John McCain. But by implying that these numbers show that Hillary Clinton would have won the election by a wider margin, a narrative has been created that others are repeating, including by David Shuster on MSNBC Thursday afternoon.

The problems with such a conclusion?

1. This analysis has Hillary Clinton with 52% of the vote and McCain with 41%. In the actual vote count, Obama has 53% to McCain’s 46%, so the question is what has happened to the 5% difference in the McCain vote? We don’t know from the post whether these people are simply undecided or voting for a third party. The undecideds could split evenly or go more for one candidate or another, so we really don’t know the margin.
2. These numbers are based on Exit Polls from election day. Over 31 million people early voted, or about 25% of the total of total presidential votes. We know that the early vote favored Obama by wider margins than of those who voted on election day. How do we know? A CBS News poll that shows the early vote went for Obama by a wide 57-38%. These more loyal Obama voters were not part of the Exit polls and their responses could easily change the outcome.
3. We don’t know where those Hillary Clinton crossovers live. If these voters are in California and other states where Obama won by double digits, it certainly would not have affected the outcome. Would Hillary Clinton have won North Carolina or Indiana? I would be skeptical, especially because of the next point.
4. Republican turnout was lower than expected. For example, Obama actually received roughly the same number of votes in Ohio as did John Kerry, but McCain received over 300,000 fewer than George W. Bush did in 2004. It is feasible that with Hillary Clinton at the head of the Democratic ticket, Republicans would have been more motivated to vote — and vote against a Clinton.
5. Hillary Clinton, having ended her quest at the end of the primary process, did not have to endure several months of negative commercials by the Republicans and associated groups. We do not know what kind of effect this propaganda would have had.

Now I want to emphasize that had Hillary Clinton been the nominee I think she would have won as well, and I for one would have voted for her. But this is about accuracy in reporting and poll analysis, and in this instance the CBS Horserace blog fails.

Does anyone else get the funny feeling that we’re going to discover very soon that the $700 billion has been spent and no one is quite sure what it got spent on? — Carrie Dann, MSNBC’s First Read

If you remember back to September when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was explaining to us why he needed $700 billion in taxpayer funds, he explained that:

The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy.

When the bill, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (PL 110-343) was passed in early October, it created the Troubled Asset Relief program, or TARP. TARP had two main pieces, a troubled asset purchase program and a troubled asset insurance program. Treasury was also given the power to inject capital directly into financial institutions and to directly help homeowners to help forestall foreclosures. The asset purchase program was expected to be the biggest piece, as Treasury would buy up high risk mortgage-related assets, often at high discounts,  in order to stabilize the portfolios of financial institutions and create incentives to revise mortgages so that they don’t face default. Also, the hope was that once these assets stabilized, that Treasury could then sell them back on the market, thus making a profit for the government and thus the taxpayer.

Yesterday Paulson stated, in essence, “Never mind.”

Over these past weeks we have continued to examine the relative benefits of purchasing illiquid mortgage-related assets. Our assessment at this time is that this is not the most effective way to use TARP funds…

Instead Treasury is injecting capital directly into various financial entities, such as American Express, now that it has been characterized as a bank, as well as into the credit card, auto loan and student loan industries. Of course there was that purchase of another stake in AIG. One of the many concerns is that if this is direct capital injection, what assets do the taxpayers get in order to recoup losses. What we have been getting is “preferred stock.” This stuff is only a good purchase if everything works out well and the stock rises. It may be better than nothing, but it still isn’t the plan that was sold to Congress.

The key issue is still the home foreclosure problem, and it is unclear how billions of taxpayer dollars injected into these various financial entities will actually address that. Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, focused on thisafter Paulson’s announcement:

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) said Wednesday he was disappointed Mr. Paulson was scrapping the asset-purchase plan. “I think he’s wrong not to use it that way,” Mr. Frank said…

“Using some of the TARP money to reduce foreclosures was not only contemplated in it, it was one of our major focal points,” Mr. Frank said. It’s unclear just what, if anything, the Bush administration will be able to do to help stem the tide of foreclosures.

There has been some progress on the foreclosure issue, but not as much as there could be. Citigroup has taken the leadin the private sector. The second largest U.S. bank has announced that they will stop foreclosures when borrowers have enough income to afford a reworked mortgage. Citigroup plans on contacting 500,000 borrowers over the next six months to rework their mortgages at lower interst rates that they may be able to afford. This is the attitude that other major financial institutions need to follow. Another example is IndyMac, which Paulson referred to in his own remarks.

FDIC Chairman Bair has given us a model, in the mortgage modification protocol she developed with IndyMac Bank. Through the end of October, the FDIC has completed loan modifications for 3,500 borrowers, with several thousand more modifications currently being processed. These modifications have reduced payments for participating homeowners by an average of $380 month, or about 23 percent.

That seems to be the most effective strategy overall. Reducing payments so that they become affordable means  these assets stay as assets and not liabilities.  The modified mortgages also help when it comes to getting the credit market flowing again as these loans become less likely to default, improving the health of bank’s overall portfolio.

Went to the polls around 11:00AM to stand in line with my friend Paul as he waited to vote. The  location was active and the line went out the door. Both Democrats and Republicans were represented among the people electioneering outside the line, with one woman telling people to vote for her father who was running for a judgeship. Between getting in line, and then waiting in the lines inside (basically voters here need to wait in four lines in order to cast a ballot), it took about an hour. The line was shorter when Paul left — probably closer to 35 to 40 minutes from that point.

The election officials I spoke with said that the line had been steady since morning, but the wait was never too bad as 48% of the voters at that precinct had early voted. Reports from Charlotte are that because of high early voting, there are many locations where there is little waiting:

Voters at many local precincts reported waiting as little as five minutes to vote. They can thank the record 2.6 million people who stood in voting lines for hours during the state’s early voting period. At noon, the Observer received reports of no lines at the Greater Mount Moriah Baptist Church in uptown, Westminster Presbyterian church in Myers Park, and St. John’s Baptist Church in Elizabeth.

Officials at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Precinct 1, reported that two-thirds of registered precinct voters, 1,000 of the 1,501, had already cast their ballot. Many voted early.

Whether you think no lines is a good or bad occurrence probably depends on what you think it means. As of now most are chalking it up to the tremendous early voting of NC citizens.

What are others seeing in their regions?