You would think the global recession might have had a humbling effect - especially in a place like Las Vegas. Not so. Despite the fact the city has been devastated economically by the recession, the tanking real estate market and the state has seen its unemployment rate skyrocket to 12.6%, the Las Vegas Sun reports a consortium of hotels on the strip is dialing up the city's largest ever fireworks display to ring in the New Year.

The show will last just over 7 minutes and cost $500,000. Where's that money coming from? Room taxes.

Wall Street clearly didn't learn its lesson in 2009. Apparently, neither did Vegas.

In an editorial titled, "Failed State," the New York Times this morning calls on New Yorkers to vote out the entire State Legislature next year, saying Albany added "fiscal incompetence" in 2009 to its decades-long creed of "scandal and irresponsibility."

The only solace is this: The entire Legislature is up for re-election in 2010. And unless there is a sudden turnaround — and, so far, we see few signs of it — New Yorkers have no choice but to vote out all the lawmakers and start over.

There's been a fair amount of excitement in the rightosphere regarding the January 19, 2010 special election to fill the seat of Senator Ted Kennedy. The race pits Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley against Republican state Senator Scott Brown. The cases for GOP optimism are pretty well spelled out in Jim Geraghty's piece at National Review.

There's some truth to these arguments, as Massachusetts isn't as monolithically Democratic as most make it out to be; the real power brokers in the state are the Independents, who make up a near-plurality of the electorate. Hence, Republicans have been able to elect a number of GOP Governors over the last few decades (and in a straight-up match up with Deval Patrick, would probably be poised to do it again in 2010). Jim Ogonowski's near-win in MA-05 in 2007, during the depths of anti-GOP sentiment in the country, gives further proof of the state's willingness to embrace the right kind of Republican (ie a non-Southern, non-conservative Republican without ties to the religious right). In a lot of ways this is the flip of Southern states, which are thoroughly Republican at the Presidential level, but are more politically diverse at the state level.

On the other hand, this is a state that hasn't elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972, when it re-elected Edward Brooke – an extremely liberal Republican (at least by today's standards). And you can tell a lot about this race by what the parties are doing. Or, more specifically, what they aren't doing. I guarantee that with the passage of ObamaCare on the line, the NRSC is polling the state; the fact that we haven't seen any leaked polls or advertisements going up tells you that there isn't much evidence that Brown has much of a chance here. And let's not exaggerate the state's diversity, as there are hardly any Republicans at all in the Massachusetts statehouse.

Nevertheless, in the absence of any polling done in the past month, I embarked on a little thought experiment. One of the interesting things about the 2009 Governor's races was how similar the movements in the states' electorates were. In Virginia, the Republicans' share of the electorate increased by 12% from 2008 to 2009; in New Jersey it was 10%. In Virginia, Democrats were at about 84% of their 2009 level; in New Jersey it was 93%.

In both states, the Democrats' share of the Republican vote dropped by about 50% (50% in Virginia, 56% in New Jersey), and their share of the Independent vote dropped about 66%. The Democrats' share of the Democratic vote was pretty stable; up 1% in Virginia and up 2% in New Jersey.

So what if we see a similar trend going into Massachusetts in 2010? Let me say before I go forward with this that I developed this methodology before I'd looked closely at any of the numbers, and without any real understanding of how the outcome would play out. I was kinda surprised.

I used the CNN exit polls for 2008 – the electorate was 43% Democratic, 17% Republican and 40% Independent. I took the average of the electorate shifts in New Jersey and Virginia, and applied them to the 2008 Presidential election in Massachusetts. If Massachusetts experienced similar shifts, it would have an electorate that's 38% Democratic, 19% Republican, and 42% Independent. This isn't farfetched, as the 2004 electorate was 39% Democratic, 16% Republican, and 44% Independent.

The bigger shift comes in the voting patterns of these groups. In 2008, Obama won 88% of Massachusetts Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 57% of Independents. If we apply the same methodology here (average of the % swing we saw in New Jersey and Virginia), we come out with an electorate where Coakley wins 90% of Democrats, 4% of Republicans, and 38% of Independents. Again, this isn't terribly off of 2004 for Republicans and Democrats; with swaggering Texan Bush at the top of the ticket, Kerry won 94% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans. The big difference comes among Independents, as Kerry won this group with 54% in 2004.

In any event, if we take a 38%D, 19%R, 42%I electorate and have Coakley win 90% of the Democrats, 4% of Republicans and 38% of Independents, we come out with an exceedingly close 51.06-48.9% Coakley win. I did not expect that.

Now, for three caveats. Obviously, Independents in Massachusetts are probably more liberal than Independents in New Jersey or, certainly, Virginia, so they might swing less. But that's baked into the pie somewhat by using 2008 as the baseline, where they voted more for Obama than NJ and VA Independents did to begin with. And remember, oddly enough, Independents swung more toward Republicans in New Jersey than they did in Virginia.

The other two caveats are more important. Gubernatorial elections are, generally speaking, less partisan than Senate or House elections. They're therefore more prone to partisan swings. Hence, Democrats hold the governorship in Wyoming, while Republicans hold the governorship in Rhode Island. Because of this, the partisan swing since2008 may be less pronounced when a federal race is involved.

Finally, Bob McDonnell, and to a lesser extent Chris Christie, were strong candidates who had something of an established statewide persona. Scott Brown? Not so much. He may be a perfectly capable public servant, but it isn't a great sign that Wikipedia couldn't find a picture of him to put up on their race status entry.

So at the end of the day, you can still place me pretty firmly in the “will be stunned if Brown wins” category. That said, I wouldn't be bowled over if the race was much closer than it should be, perhaps in the 54%-46% range.

Many thanks to Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation for just beating the December 31 deadline for the dumbest comment of the year award. Regarding the failed terror attack on Flight 253, Vanden Heuvel writes:

I believe the lesson is that we need to end as quickly as possible the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and call for an end to permanent war against Islamic terrorists.

Because the terrorists will stop trying to kill us if we do these things, right? You would think that if the last decade has taught the world anything - from 9/11 to London to Bali to Madrid to scores of other places around the globe - it's that laying down our arms and giving the Islamic terrorists a big hug will not achieve the preferred outcome.

These people wanted to kill us yesterday, they want to kill us today, and they will want to kill us tomorrow (and every day after that) until either 1) we cease to exist or 2) reform-minded Muslims finally stand up and take their religion back from these violent lunatics.

To think otherwise is to indulge in a fantasy - and an exceedingly deadly one at that.

Newly declassified docs show Margaret Thatcher as a woman with "high standards, a short temper and a taste for whisky."

GMAC in discussions for a third goverment bailout in the $3-4 billion dollar range. A year or two ago that actually seemed like real money. Now, sadly, it's just chump change.

Today I rise in defense of President Obama's  love of golf. Michelle Cottle of The New Republic has written an ignorant, superficial and odious little piece this morning, slamming the President for his "dangerous obsession" with the game.

Cottle obviously doesn't think much of the game of golf, so she spends what little intellectual firepower she can muster arguing why Obama should give the game up.

Cottle's only legitimate criticism is that golf can be a dangerous game for presidents from a public perception standpoint, especially when duty calls. As she points out, there's nothing quite as visually jarring as an image of a president fiddling about on the links while something, somewhere goes up in flames.

But that doesn't mean Obama should be forced to quit the game.  It just means he has to be smarter and more acutely aware of how a particular situation might look politically while he's out on the course.

As to Cottle's assertion that golf is a "dying sport," she clearly doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. Cottle cites the 2008 NGF report to make the claim that golf has been "on the skids for nearly a decade." That's interesting, since the 2009 NGF report states as its first bullet point that the number of golfers since 1990 is up 16% and that one of the problems facing the industry is that so many courses have been built in the last decade to accommodate demand that with the recession there is now an imbalance with supply.

The truth is that golf's popularity has exploded over the past decade - in no small part thanks to Tiger Woods. The PGA Tour's ratings did suffer when Tiger was off rehabbing his knee, and it will almost certainly suffer this coming year as he's off rehabbing his marriage and his image.

The other obvious driver of golf's popularity - as with any recreational sport that requires disposable income - is the economy. People are less inclined to shell out $50 or $100 for a round or drop $250 for a new 3 wood when times are tight. Corporate sponsors, the lifeblood of the PGA Tour, have also tightened their belts during the global recession. So the golf industry has suffered as a whole over the last couple of years because of the economy.

But it's absurd to suggest that any of this means golf is "a dying sport." To the contrary, the NGF 2009 reports 90% of "occasional golfers" (not even hard core linksters) are "passionate" about the game. The NGF concluded that given that level of positive intensity, demand for playing golf will remain stable and there is still room for expansion.

Lastly, Cottle berates Obama for playing a game that "remains largely the province of reasonably affluent white guys." While I generally agree that anything that serves to reinforce the Achilles Heel of Obama's image - that he's an out of touch elitist - isn't necessarily a good thing, I have two problems with Cottle's argument.

The first is that she misunderstands how mainstream golf is today. While I won't take issue with her characterization that golf remains a largely white, affluent sport, Cottle clearly has never been to a muni course on a weekend in places all across America where blue collar folks of all shapes and sizes come out in droves to play. They may not have the fancy clubs or shirts - indeed, some may not be wearing shirts at all - but they love the game and the relaxation of strolling the fairway drinking a Budweiser as much as anyone.

The other problem with Cottle's "it's a white guy's sport" argument that instead of taking a positive - dare I say liberal - view of Obama's participation in the sport and how it might inspire young black kids to play golf and further break down racial barriers, Cottle suggests Obama should shun the sport.  By this logic, Obama shouldn't play tennis, or polo, or squash, or lacrosse, or any sport that doesn't fall within Cottle's predetermined parameters of ethnicity and class. In other words, he can stick to playing basketball.

The bottom line, though, is that President Obama should be able to relax however he sees fit without getting blasted with inane carping from the peanut gallery. The guy likes to play golf. Shut up and let him play.

Since 1993, only Mother Teresa (1995 & '96) and Laura Bush (2001) have topped Hillary Clinton in Gallup's annual survey of the country's Most Admired Woman. This year, Clinton -- a former First Lady and U.S. Senator, and now Secretary of State -- edges Sarah Palin to keep the crown, while President Obama runs away with the Most Admired Man label for the second year in a row.

Trailing Clinton (16%) and Palin (15%) are Oprah Winfrey (8%), Michelle Obama (7%), Condoleezza Rice (2%) and Queen Elizabeth II (2%). Margaret Thatcher, Maya Angelou, Angela Merkel and Elin Nordegren Woods each received 1%.

Coming closest to Obama's 30% was George W. Bush (4%) and Nelson Mandela (3%), with all others at 2% or less.

"Obama's similar performance to last year's is notable considering the declines in his approval and personal favorability ratings since he took office in January," notes Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones. "Bush finished second again this year, after winning the honor from 2001-2007."

Like his wife, 1% say they most admire Tiger Woods, despite the couple's recently publicized marital troubles.

The survey was conducted Dec. 11-13 of 1,025 adults with a margin of error of +/- 4%.

As a father of four including a three-month old baby, I hope there's a special place in Hell for these two.

Jumping ahead one election cycle, Rasmussen has a new survey out (500 LVs, 12/28, MoE +/- 4.5%) looking at Sen. Ben Nelson's (D) potential vulnerability should he seek a third term in 2012. Few have had a higher-profile role in the health care debate, with Nelson proving to be the last holdout for Democrats in getting 60 votes to bring bills to the floor and for passage.

Rasmussen matches Nelson up with Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who would be seeking a second full term next fall.

2012 General Election Matchup
Heineman 61
Nelson 30
Und 4

In that hypothetical contest, Nelson may be in trouble regardless of how he votes on health care when the final bill comes back from conference. But when asked who they would favor if Nelson voted against the final health care bill, the gap does narrow to 10 -- 47 to 37 in favor of Heineman.

The poll also found that by a margin of 62-17 percent, Nebraskans opposed a deal Nelson secured that would see the federal government pick up new Medicaid expenses brought about by the legislation.

Nelson has a 40 percent favorable rating, while 55 percent view him unfavorably, including 34 percent who say very unfavorably. Forty-seven percent say he's handled the health care issue poorly, compared to 6 percent who say excellent and 20 percent who say good. Forty-two percent say Nelson has been too supportive of President Obama's agenda. Obama has a 38 percent job approval rating in the survey.