Politics, U.S.

Dingell has kicked his chairmanship campaign into high gear, while Waxman flies under the radar.

Klain's career in lobbying ended in 2005, making him eligible as Biden COS. See also: More transition names

McCain mute on Obama in Sen. Saxby Chambliss rally. See also: McCain thought Time guys were jerks

Clinton and Obama meet at transition headquarters in Chicago, as the President-elect's advisers push her for secretary of state. See also: Clinton's no comment

Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to Obama's transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration.

Dem Party chair says the Washington culture is 'a little tough sometimes." See also: Dean unlikely health sec

Looking at the same data I did when diagnosing the conservative "secular problem," Karl Rove concludes: Then there were those who didn't show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren't suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant. Rove's recommendation is for Republicans to do more "to draw out the more religiously observant" -- in other words, suck up more to Christian conservatives. But that is a very narrow, politically foolish reading of the data. I had also noted that the secular vote had become larger than the weekly churchgoing vote. But Rove ignores two other key pieces of data. 1) Obama earned more support from weekly churchgoers than past Democratic candidates. 2) McCain earned less support from secular voters than George W. Bush. Obama built a stronger religious-secular coalition by offering ideas that appeal to both camps, not by crude pandering on religious matters. Bending over backwards to pander to conservative Christians will only further worry secular voters that conservatives don't properly prioritize issues that are most important to good governing. But trying to come up with conservative ideas that can appeal across religious lines is a much harder task than staying in the conservative comfort zone of telling their base what they want to hear. UPDATE: One final thought: Obama got 8.5 million more votes than McCain in beating him 53% to 46%. Squeezing 4.1 million more votes out of your base doesn't solve your problem. To put a fine point on it, if you only count the states where Obama received 53% or more, he still gets enough electoral votes to win -- 290, 20 more than needed. Goosing the base won't get those states back.

Palin centers discussion on vague mentions of 'reform." See also: Steele's in for RNC chair

What's the first step? Zach Wamp, Pejman Yousefzadeh, Tim Griffin, Drew Westen, Phil Musser, Daniella Gibbs Leger, Jim Leach and more in The Arena.

On Fox News Sunday, leading House conservative Mike Pence looked at the success of ballot initiatives that deny equal marriage rights as evidence that conservatism remains healthy in America. Discussing how the Republican Party should move forward, Pence told host Chris Wallace: ...you build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, a belief in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. You look at those social issues, Chris -- you know, there were three state referendums on marriage. All three of them carried -- I think in Florida, California and Arizona. You know, the vitality of the conservative movement around the country is very real. Which told me, conservatives still don't accept the depth of their "secular problem" -- a problem that just got worse. Before the 2006 midterm elections, I wrote in Wait! Don't Move To Canada! that "...there are an equal amount of voters who attend services at least weekly as there are voters who seldom or never go. It is true that regular churchgoers trend Republican and the 'seldom of never' group trends Democratic, but that means you could just as easily say Republicans have a 'secular problem.'" At that time, to the extent that both problems existed for both parties, they were roughly equivalent problems based on the presidential exit polls in 2004 and 2000. But after the 2006 elections, the conservative "secular problem" became the bigger problem. Based on Pew Research Center exit poll data, I then wrote: Democrats crushed Republicans among secular voters, broadly defined as those who attend church seldom (favoring Democrats 60% to 38%) or never (67% to 30%). Republicans retained strong support among those who attend church more than weekly. But among those who only go weekly -- the larger portion of the religious vote -- the Republican lead shrunk from 15 points to 7. In short, Republicans failed to be competitive among secular voters, while Democrats were at least competitive among regular churchgoers. And since the secular vote is roughly equal to the regular churchgoing vote, according to the last several national election exit polls, that means Republicans and their conservative base have a far bigger secular problem than their rivals have a religion problem. Now, after the 2008 presidential election, the conservative "secular problem" looms even larger. Why? 1. The secular vote Is bigger. Unlike the previous two presidential election, the secular vote -- defined as voters attending religious services seldom or never -- is bigger than the weekly churchgoing vote. Secular voters were 44% of the electorate in 2008, a touch higher than the 43% from 2004. Meanwhile weekly churchgoers composed 39% of the electorate, down from 42% in 2004, and now trailing the collective secular vote by 5 points. 2. The secular vote has moved even farther away from conservatives. In 2008, Sen. John McCain received 39% support of voters who seldom attend religious services, and 30% from those who never go. Both numbers represent a 6-point drop from what Bush received in 2004. 3. Liberals have a stronger religious-secular coalition. President-Elect Barack Obama, whom more than 60% of voters consider to be "liberal," ran stronger among weekly churchgoers than Vice-President Al Gore or Sen. John Kerry. Obama received 43% of the vote from voters who attend religious services weekly or more than weekly. For Kerry, those numbers were 41% and 35%. For Gore, it was 40% and 36%. Obama's positions on hot-button social issues are no different than what Gore and Kerry ran on. In fact, he talked about ending division between "gay and straight" more regularly than his predecessors. But Obama's outreach to religious voters was more consistent. And Bush's failed conservative policies hurt religious voters just as much as secular voters, providing an opening for Obama's message of active government, and proving that you can forge common ground between religious and secular voters without sacrificing liberal progressive principles. For conservatives to cling to the slim victory of California's Prop 8 as evidence that America is a "center-right" nation is more self-delusion. Yes, gay marriage remains a bridge too far for most Americans as of today. But the basic principle of equal rights for gays is embraced by the majority -- in the 2004 exit poll a broad majority supported either gay marriage or civil unions. Further, if conservatives want to prevent young voters -- two-thirds of whom support Obama -- from remaining liberal Democrats for their rest of their lives, hating on gays is not exactly the best way to do it. Most importantly, for conservatives to cling to opposition of gay marriage exposes their strange prioritization of issues. The economy is reeling, we face a myriad of foreign policy threats -- problems created or exacerbated by conservative policies -- and instead of owning up to your failures and coming with new ideas to fix the problem, top of your list is stopping somebody else from getting married? That sends exactly wrong signal to secular voters, as did the comical attempt by conservative congressional leaders in 2005 to meddle in the affairs of Terri Schiavo -- that conservatives consider writing their specific religious views into law as more important than doing something to improve the quality of life for all Americans. The first step always is admitting you have a problem. Conservatives clearly have not gotten there yet.

The importance of today's meeting between Barack Obama and George W. Bush cannot be understated. Let's think back eight years to the White House meeting between President Bill Clinton and President-elect George W. Bush. According to James Moore's book, Bush's War for Reelection, Bill Clinton gave George W. Bush the five priorities for his administration. First was bin Laden; second was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the third was North Korea; the fourth was Pakistan-India and finally Saddam Hussein. Remember, this was back in 2000. Bush said, "I think you've got your priorities wrong. I'm putting Saddam at the top of the list." (I wonder where we would be if Bush actually paid attention and went after Osama Bin Laden from day one. ) I'm not saying that President Bush is as wise or insightful as President Bill Clinton was. On the other hand, President Bush is not stupid. He is driven by ideology but he is not stupid. Therefore, whatever insights he decides to give to Barack Obama should be taken into consideration. I hope that Barack Obama takes his advice into consideration. Who knows, in a fit of sanity, President Bush may actually give nonpartisan thoughtful advice.

Getting 60 Democratic Senators would be nice, but it is no guarantee of preventing filibusters. You still need to hold 60 Senators, of any party, to overcome each cloture vote on an issue-by-issue basis. So with Dems only having at least 57 senators (with three seats still up in the air), what are the prospects of beating back conservative filibusters? Here is an admittedly crude analysis. Consider: there are 10 Republican senators representing states that Obama won. Martinez (FL) Lugar (IN) Grassley (IA) Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Ensign (NV) Gregg (NH) Burr (NC) Voinovich (OH) Specter (PA) These senators represent states that affirmed Obama's platform and -- so long as individual agenda items are well argued -- may be reluctant to be seen as obstructing the public mandate, especially in a time of economic distress. They should receive maximum pressure from those of us in their states. At the same time, there are 12 Democratic senators representing states that Obama lost. Lincoln (AR) Pryor (AR) Landrieu (LA) McCaskill (MO) Baucus (MT) Tester (MT) Nelson (NE) Conrad (ND) Dorgan (ND) Johnson (SD) Byrd (WV) Rockefeller (WV) One one hand, these Senators generally want to see Obama's agenda succeed, so the Democratic Party's prospects in their states can further flourish. On the other, any backlash against a particular idea may prompt them to break ranks and highlight their "independence" to their constituents. The bottom line is as it was: we have to continually make our case. Nothing is assured. We cannot forget what we have learned about framing debates, distilling arguments, and honing messages that are compelling to the broader electorate. We will have to guard against distortions of policy details, and be prepared to get in the weeds without getting lost in the weeds. We will have to remain engaged at the grassroots level, and not allow the conservative movement to regain momentum. Democracy doesn't stop between elections.

Today at 10 AM ET, The LiberalOasis Radio Show was broadcast on WHMP-AM in Western MA. My special guest was Campaign for America's Future Senior Fellow Bernie Horn, who discussed his new report "Congressional Elections Deliver A Progressive Mandate." The audio podcast for the show is here: (iTunes / XML feed / MP3). Video of the opening monologue, also about the mandate, is below.

The latest edition of The Week In Blog is up at Bloggingheads.tv, featuring myself and William Beutler of Blog P.I., discussing Obama's mandate and conservative soul-searching. Watch it below.

...my election predictions were pretty good.

Some propose raising spending limits to reflect the modern-day costs of running for office.

Democrats have narrowed to two top choices: NY Fed. Chairman Timothy Geithner or former Clinton Treasury Sec. Lawrence Summers. See also: Dodd

She has signaled she has no intention of fading quietly from the national scene back into arctic anonymity.

DeMint is said to be angry with McConnell for tolerating a convicted felon in the GOP caucus.