On election day itself, the DNC can spend time and money on the “knock and drag” — it will have a pretty good idea, down to the individual voter, who it needs to turn out in order to be competitive in House districts.  Republicans have access to the same technology, but there are doubts within the party about whether the RNC has the metabolism and structures to build votes like the Democrats. Republicans in places like Ohio are just this cycle beginning to focus hard on the early vote. Democrats have been doing this for several cycles.

In several states, parties can figure out quite easily who has voted and who hasn’t. No one knows precisely who a person has chosen, but targeting strategists use formulas to guess.  Let’s assume that seven out of every ten first-time voters who chose Obama will vote Democratic this year if they vote at all. So if Democratic operatives, canvassing a precinct, see that 20 people who fit this category have cast their ballots, they’ll assume that they’ve netted at least 8 votes. These formulas tend to be conservative.  How would the DNC know that these people voted for Obama in 2008? The party has been tracking these voters religiously for months. Many of them self-report to call-takers.

The DNC’s better organization and funding than its GOP counterpart is one of those things that will provide small advantages to Democrats in close races. If its a landslide, it’ll make no difference, but if its a nail-biter, look to their use of voter rolls and get out the vote efforts to make the difference.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes that it simply gives Democrats a more defined target:

Republicans don’t need a Contract or a Pledge. Their base is energized. The Democrats aren’t. A Pledge that doesn’t increase the information content about the Republican brand.-The folks who are going to vote arguably know Republicans stand for the stuff in the pledge because Republicans have been talking about this stuff since the beginning of the cycle. Arguably, it gives Democrats more of a defined target, something that they can reach out with two fingers, poke eyeballs, and redirect to. Arguably-ably, a more substantive governing document, had the Republicans been able to produce such a creature, would have made it harder for Democrats to demagogue.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, meanwhile, has already gotten the ball rolling on that process, poking some pretty worrisome holes in the new GOP road map:

You’re also left with a difficult question: What, exactly, does the Republican Party believe? The document speaks constantly and eloquently of the dangers of debt — but offers a raft of proposals that would sharply increase it. It says, in one paragraph, that the Republican Party will commit itself to “greater liberty” and then, in the next, that it will protect “traditional marriage.” It says that “small business must have certainty that the rules won’t change every few months” and then promises to change all the rules that the Obama administration has passed in recent months. It is a document with a clear theory of what has gone wrong — debt, policy uncertainty, and too much government — and a solid promise to make most of it worse.

Of course, Republicans didn’t just release the Pledge for fun. They’re responding to some pretty serious charges that all they’re good at is saying ‘no’ to Democratic overreach, and now that the prospect of governing is within their grasp, they want to remind voters that they haven’t forgotten how. ”The key for the electorate is which party has the better plan to create jobs and grow the economy,” GOP pollster David Winston tells Chris Cillizza at The Fix. “If you don’t have a jobs and economic plan, why would the electorate give you the responsibility of governing?”

Senata Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (WDCpix)

Moments before midnight on Friday, Marc Ambinder blogged at The Atlantic about some of the “juiciest revelations” in “Game Change,” a behind-the-scenes book on the 2008 presidential campaign by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. According to the authors, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was bullish on Barack Obama’s chances at becoming the first African-American president because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

The White House immediately leaped to Reid’s defense, but for Republicans, this was manna from heaven. The National Republican Senatorial Committee blasted out three press releases on Reid’s “embarrassing” secondhand quotes. “For those who hope to one day live in a color-blind nation,” said NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh, “it appears Harry Reid is more than a few steps behind them.” On Sunday, after no Democrats had stepped out to criticize Reid, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele rebounded from a tough week of attacks on his extracurricular book tour by demanding that Reid resign as Senate majority leader.

[GOP1]“If the standard is the one set by the Trent Lott incident,” said Steele, referring to the speech that felled the then-leader of Senate Republicans in 2002, “where he was wishing happy birthday to Strom Thurmond and talked about him as a possible president at the time, you know, 1948 or whatever, compared to calling a candidate for president, you know, light-skinned, Negro… there is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it — when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism.”

The comparison between Reid and Lott, and the suggestion that he needed to resign his leadership post, was echoed across the Sunday shows by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and on Twitter and blogs from party activists. “Reid is simply getting a taste of the medicine he has so eagerly dished out to others,” wrote the blogger Patterico. “Unacceptable,” tweeted Ryan Frazier, an Aurora, Colorado councilman who’s one of the GOP’s leading African-American candidates for Congress. “Democrat Harry Reid should step down as Senate Leader.” One goal was to weaken Reid for a 2010 re-election campaign that’s flagging despite months of TV ads on his behalf. Almost as important, Republicans were attempting to do what they have had trouble doing since the rise of Barack Obama: to make the Democrats sweat and suffer for a perceived racial gaffe and to get revenge for Lott’s downfall. On Sunday, Democrats and other analysts struggled to see the comparison, pointing out the history that made Lott’s remark so damaging and the politically incorrect-but-accurate thrust of Reid’s remark. But Republicans stayed on message.

“The media covered up [Reid's] statement for nearly two years,” argued Michael Zak, a conservative writer who penned the “GOP Heroes” section of the RNC’s website, built to highlight the party’s African-American leaders of the past. “Had a Republican made such a racist statement, the media would have reported it immediately. As for whether Senator Reid should resign, both Barack Obama and Harry Reid called for Trent Lott’s ouster for a remark less offensive than Reid’s ‘Negro dialect’ remark.”

This isn’t the first time that Republicans have tried to recreate the Lott controversy and bring down a Democrat. In February 2005, then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean joked that Republicans couldn’t fill a room with non-white members “unless they invited the hotel staff in.” Mississippi Republicans sprang to action, sending their African-American leadership out to demand Dean’s resignation. “Ask the Democratic party do the same thing to Dean that Republicans and other Democrats did to Senator Lott,” said Charles Evers, an African-American GOP activist and veteran of the Civil Rights movement.

But a contrast between Lott and any other politician is hard to make. When Lott made his remarks–unlike Reid, he did it in front of video cameras–he added that a Thurmond presidency would have prevented “all these problems over all these years.” Lott’s office was unable to explain what “all these problems” were. In the following days, two more instances of Lott waxing nostalgiac about Thurmond’s segregationist 1948 presidential bid surfaced. By comparison, Republicans like Steele have not produced more evidence of Reid racial slip-ups, focusing instead on his hypocrisy for criticizing Lott in 2002. Even Zak agreed that Lott, a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens who left the Democratic Party during the Civil Rights era, had a credibility problem when he tried to combat charges of racism.

“A statement by Trent Lott was one of the reasons I decided to write my history of the GOP,” said Zak. “At a Capitol Hill meeting with some Young Republicans I attended in the late 1990s, he said his all-time favorite Republican was Jefferson Davis. Of course, Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, as were nearly all the leaders of the Confederacy.”

Clay Steinman, a professor of media, humanities, & cultural studies at Minnesota’s Macalster College who has analyzed the how racial imagery influences voter and consumer decisions, criticized Republicans for comparing Lott’s statements with Reid’s. “That denies the significance of Lott endorsing Thurmond’s segregationist campaigns,” said Steinman. “It’s not sensitive to history.”

According to Steinman, Reid’s comments, however clumsy, were borne out by the experience of non-white candidates. In 2008, an Indian-American candidate named Ashwin Madia ran for, and lost, an open House seat in Minnesota. The National Republican Congressional Committee ran ads that portrayed Madia with noticeably darker skin than he really had. “Reid’s general sentiment was consistent with what we know about how people respond to bodies, and skin color, and accents,” said Steinman.

What research there is about voters and racial identity backs up Steinman’s take on Reid. A 1993 study by Nayda Terkildsen found that white test subjects were more favorable to light-skinned black candidates than dark-skinned candidates. In 2009, a study led by University of Chicago Prof. Eugene Caruso found that liberals who supported Obama said he was “best represented” by a photo in which he looked lighter; conservatives who opposed Obama said the opposite, picking a darker photo. “Liberals, who are going to think that Obama is generally good and generally American, may have these subtle associations linking him to the concept of white, which is reflected in their representativeness ratings,” Caruso explained. “The opposite would be true of conservatives.”

While there’s less research about the effect that candidates’ dialects have on voters, Reid’s remarks haven’t yet been challenged on that count. “Reid implied that Black English is lesser than standard English and that it’s therefore good that Obama doesn’t use it in public,” argued John McWhorter, an African-American scholar in linguistics whose work has been embraced by conservatives, in an article for The New Republic. “This is not about whether black people have to sweat to speak standard English; it’s about whether Black English is as good as standard English. Most of America black as well as white is at the exact same point in understanding vernacular speech and its proper evaluation as Reid is.”

On Sunday night, Republicans kept up the pressure on Reid, demanding that he explain how, at least, his comments didn’t reveal a jaundiced view of race in America. “The implication seems to be that in Reid’s view, if the President had darker skin and had a ‘negro dialect’ then he might not have been as well positioned to win the Presidency,” Walsh told TWI. “So he should explain what he meant because on its face it is in fact a racially insensitive statement.”

Still, Republican strategists told TWI that the party was ill-positioned to do much more damage to Reid. The senator had defended himself with political cover from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Rev. Al Sharpton. And the details of the Lott scandal might not bear scrutiny in a way that hurts Reid. In 2002, as the incoming Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Steele called Lott a “compassionate and tolerant statesman” whose apologies were enough to save his job.

“I know Trent Lott personally,” said Steele in 2002, “and I know that this is not his intent. But it’s still unfortunate. And I think he needs to apologize a little bit more.”

The White House was also dissatisfied with Craig’s handling of political appointments, believing that Craig should have spent more time working with the Justice Department and with Congress to force through some of the president’s most eagerly awaited principals, like Dawn Johnsen, whose nomination to be head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel still languishes. The issue of nominations is especially sensitive for the president, a constitutional law lecturer in his former life.

My colleague Daphne Eviatar has reported extensively on the parliamentary machinations keeping Johnsen bottled up in the Senate.

From the report itself, John Yoo’s Office of Legal Counsel memo — and the lightning-fast reporting of Spencer Ackerman, Marc Ambinder and others on Friday — we now know that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, aware that ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might come back to bite them later, sought the drafting of a legal opinion that would approve the president’s secret surveillance program and shield them from later attack.

The fact that the White House sought the assistance of Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo in the OLC, though is itself evidence that the White House was trying to get around, rather than comply with, the law.

As I’ve noted before, legal memos justifying an unreasonable or inaccurate legal position don’t necessarily provide a “golden shield” for the executive.

Yoo, after all, was known when he was hired as the Berkeley law professor and staunch Federalist Society member who held theories on executive power that were far outside the legal mainstream. And the memos and academic analyses he then proceeded to write were so extreme and so mischaracterized law and history in an effort to reconcile conservative “originalist” principles with his own aggressive view of an all-powerful president as Commander-in-Chief that they’ve been characterized as an “outrageous theory of presidental dictatorship” by Yale University law professor Jack Balkin and as “simply hooey” by Marty Lederman at Georgetown (now in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Obama administration).

The inspectors general report details how Yoo and the administration ignored parts of the FISA law that conflicted with his theory, for example, and made the outrageous argument that a warrantless search doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable” searches and seizures because it can’t be “unreasonable” for the president to authorize it in wartime. Why it’s “reasonable” to prevent even secret judicial review of such searches is never explained.

For an academic to hold extreme views of executive power, of course, is arguably a matter of academic freedom, and even a form of creative theorizing that one might admire. (Although some of Yoo’s Berkeley colleagues, such as economist Brad DeLong, among others, have described his theories as reaching so far beyond the bounds of creative academic theorizing as to be simply dishonest and undeserving of that protection.)

But Yoo’s memos at OLC were not part of an academic exercise; they were making policy. Setting aside for a moment the potential culpability of Yoo himself, the more important point here is that, as the inspectors general report makes clear, the White House specifically sought him out and excluded his superiors, ignoring the usual chain of command in the Justice Department, apparently because they knew that John Yoo would give them the legal opinions that they wanted to hear.

That is not the purpose of the Office of Legal Counsel, as Dawn Johnsen, the Obama nominee to head that office has repeatedly made clear, along with more than a dozen other alumni of that office.

As Johnsen wrote in a law review article describing the ten “Guidelines” that should govern the Office of Legal Counsel: “OLC should provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the administration’s pursuit of desired policies … In short, OLC must be prepared to say no to the President.”

That the president and vice president apparently chose someone who they knew in advance would not say no to the president is more than an abuse of that legal office; it strongly suggests an intentional and unlawful abuse of executive power.

The latest news accounts that Attorney General Eric Holder is leaning toward appointing an independent prosecutor suggest he may finally be starting to reach the same conclusion.