Dispassionate Liberal: January 2008

1/31/08

Picking Sides

I'm in a new place inside my head -- an undecided voter.

I haven't been undecided since Spring of 2004. I've been rooting for John Edwards for a long time, first to be the Democratic nominee, then Vice President, to run again, and most recently to become the Democratic nominee all over.

His values, positions and style have been my own. The areas where he and I did not agree were few and often trivial.

Unlike the assumptions of the ever despicable Dick Morris, neither I nor any other Edwards supporter I've gotten to know "can't decide who they dislike more: blacks or women." Who we dislike are asshats like Dick Morris, and trusted Edwards to slap them around for us.

I was an Edwards supporter before Hillary decided to run, and before I even knew who Barack Obama was. Come on Dick, why not just come out and call us bigots, ignorant Neanderthals who'd never support a .... [I can't even type the words.] This was a new low, even for Morris.

Indeed, Bill Clinton's lack of judgment in ever confiding in someone who's vomit inducing perspective approaches the very worst example of 1850 prejudice is one strike against Hillary in my book.

Make no mistake, however. Bill Clinton's professional positives far surpassed his lapses in personal associations and judgment -- and Hillary is not Bill.

I'm undecided between Hillary and Barack. (I'm not about to consider a Republican, no matter how many interesting -- or goofy -- ideas Huck or the Blimpster come up with). I like, even admire both Clinton and Obama a great deal.

Neither are perfect, both are exceptionally good -- and the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. George Lakoff makes some interesting points in his analysis of Hillary's policy driven approach versus Obama's emphasis on vision and inspired leadership. In Edwards I felt we had both. Frankly, I can't decide which is better.

So, in the mean time, I'm listening to both very carefully, and intend on holding each to their pledge to John Edwards that fighting poverty and closing the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue. The stranglehold corporate greed and incompetent cronyism have wrought on this nation must stop at all cost.

I'm persuadable and have over a month before I have to vote in an election where I can still pick Edwards since he's on the Ohio ballot. Convince me why I shouldn't go with my heart and waste my vote in protest.

1/30/08

[+/-]

Never Trust a Republican (Part 78)

[+/-]

Thank You Senator Edwards

[+/-]

Florida Thoughts

At least McCain didn't sleepwalk through his speech tonight.

I forgot about the FEC thing, McCain being hamstrung by spending limits since agreeing to federal matching funds. With Rudy's endorsement of McCain tomorrow, John should wrap up the northeast (all but Mass.) next Tuesday with winner-take-all NY, NJ being huge prizes

Romney and McCain probably will split California fairly even, and that's the best Romney will do on Tsunami Tuesday. Illinois favored either 9iu11ni or McCain right along, and there are few other good prospects for Romney's path to the nomination in any of the 2/5 States outside of Massachusetts. This means he'd have to run the table in Ohio, PA, Indiana and Texas, after Tsunami Tuesday, and Romney is running no better than third in Ohio, TX and PA (no decent data for IN).

[See Real Clear Politics and Wiki for polling date]

Actually, Huckabee looks better in some of the big midwest states, including MO, and of course Ark and OK which go on 2/5, and the South, (Tenn & Georgia) belong to Huck (Alabama is a tie between Huck and McCain). As long as Huck stays in (and probably has already cut his deal with McCain) Mitt has no real path to the White House anymore.

Together, McCain and Huckabee can keep Romney from the nomination and Huckabee complements McCain as a running mate down the road. Neither one of them have seen a wacky idea they didn't think deserved a fair hearing and wouldn't say, "Hey, let's give that a shot."

Eliminate the IRS? Why not? A Republican introducing a public works project ... to build a space elevator for nuclear waste disposal? Sure. Bo..., bom...bombing Iran to show South Korea (and France) who's boss? Sounds like a plan. Nuking Hanoi just for old time's sake, something you always wanted to try? Priceless. Replacing the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments. Ha--tcha, cha cha! Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State? Hells yess. Occupying Iraq until the Sun runs out of fuel? No problemo.

Looney Tunes, both of them. A perfect match.

Romney's done, Limbaugh and Hannity and their gang will go ballistic and give McCain zero free air, especially since 9iu11ni is stealing Reagan's legacy and going to hand it to McCain right at the Reagan Library -- hallowed ground these two apostate Rino's are going to desecrate. In '96, the Right-wing noise machine compensated for the absence of a well financed campaign by Bob Dole (and didn't really have it's act together). John McCain will go dark until August in Minnesota -- and have no help from the usual suspects.

Meanwhile, the Dems are set up to fight, bicker, (oh, and campaign of course) and even have a rules debate at the convention itself over what they should do with the assholes in FloriDUH who always find a way to screw up an election ever since 1860 when not a single Floridian GOPer cast his ballot for Abe Lincoln. In a world without writers, this will be go-to reality TV. The Dems have all the cash, and will get all the air-play.

BTW, in a beauty contest that doesn't count, again Hillary beats the GOP winner by big numbers, this time by over 20%. Funny when she doesn't cry or run unopposed, she doesn't do as well as tonight. Now that Bubba has gotten the word to chill (and if he doesn't, the Kennedy machine has more chits to cash in than the Clintons ever dreamed) I can't see Hillary being nearly as effective or entertaining as she was with the Big Dog off his leash.

That, and it's just smarmy for her to try and seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, especially the Michigan ones where the competition wasn't even on the ballot. If that's the kind of integrity she's representing, she's going to lose people who are on the fence. She's certainly not attracting any wavering Edwards people. In fact, the Kennedy endorsement is probably the most effective political endorsement I've ever witnessed, both in it's well orchestrated timing and delivery, and in it's actual influence on the election.

...Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party, said Kennedy's endorsement could give union households, including those backing former North Carolina senator John Edwards, license to "shift their progressive leanings" over to Obama. And he said it could allow Obama to tap into the power the Kennedy name holds in Hispanic communities...

I'll leave the cat-fight to others, because realistically, that's not how one should pick between the extremely qualified and inspirational democratic field. I get that she needed something to recapture all the momentum that's been going Barack's way -- big time -- since the days before S.C. right through Barack's entrance into the House Chamber for the SOTU like a conquering young hero back from taming the Hun and all but ready to take the emperor's thrown.

I know this. With 22 States on the line Tuesday, it's going to be a hell of a week, and not for the GOP since they've picked their loser already. The Democrats will still be close enough that Texas and Ohio will matter in March, and Pennsylvania will matter in April and Indiana will matter in May, and ... hey? When does Puerto Rico vote?

1/28/08

[+/-]

Democratic Response To SOTU

In a word: Pathetic.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius of course walks a tightrope as a Democratic Governor of a Red State ... but Come. On. Her response was a study in High Broderism, the Kumbayah nonsense that worries me so much about the only person who got a Presidential welcome in the House Chamber this evening -- Barack Obama.

This is closer to the proper response,

"Mr. President, how dare you? How dare you pretend to be a leader on Global climate issues? How dare you claim fiscal responsibility, or any kind of responsibility with the management of this nation that you and your administration have displayed?

How dare you blame public schools and the hard working teachers that staff them for your failure? How dare you claim to be a leader for the humanity of African nations and leave the legacy of New Orleans, the gulf coast, and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in your own nation?

Mr. President, you are a failure and will go down in history as the worst President ever.

Let this speech tonight be a reminder of why it is so important to have a Democratic President and a massive majority in Congress! Never again ALLOW THESE PEOPLE Control of anything. Please, for the good of the nation, leave not one of them standing in a position of government."

My respectful response to this joke of a President: Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass, Dickhead -- and take your pet troll Cheney with you.

I mean, really Governor Sebelius, even Obama himself had a much stronger response than you offered. She talked of the President joining the new majority of Americans. As if, lady.

Did I miss the memo? Did we win something. Congress is hostage to the GOP's record number of Senate filibusters and the Blue Dogs in the House. The C-Plus Augustus who talks of making health care affordable still wields a veto pen dripping blood-red ink from canceling medical coverage for kids.

John Edwards reminds us that now is no time to be complacent, to simply wait out this destructive man with nothing to lose. We have to take the fight to George Bush and all he represents. So far, we've only taken a first step, or maybe two with a shuffle backwards.

"And in the chamber of the House of Representatives where the president speaks, even though this Congress stopped listening to him a while ago, they will still applaud and cheer him. The truth is that Washington is out of touch with what's happening across the country. Between now and January of 2009, Democrats must stand up to this president, stand up for what's right, so he does not continue to forget about the middle class in this country."

Whether Edwards wins the nomination is immaterial to me at this point. He's right, I agree with him. I like his style (and I'm not talking about his hair), because he recognizes that the struggle to right the wrongs in our nation is a fight to the death.

Obama did have his Kumbayah moment at the end of his response:

We see half the country tune in to watch, but know that much of the country has stopped even listening. Imagine if next year was different. Imagine if next year, the entire nation had a president they could believe in. A president who rallied all Americans around a common purpose.

However, at least Barack got in his digs in the beginning, a slap across the face of the Miserable Failure that stood petulantly as usual at that podium where so many of his betters have spoken -- including the guy who tests the microphones.

Tonight was President Bush's last State of the Union, and I do not believe history will judge his administration kindly. But I also believe the failures of the last seven years stem not just from any single policy, but from a broken politics in Washington. A politics that says it's ok to demonize your political opponents when we should be coming together to solve problems.

Sadly, as far as I'm concerned, as Paul Rosenberg said, "It's not a case of bringing a knife to a gunfight, it's a case of brining a plastic yogurt spoon to a nuclear war." Barack just doesn't get the simple fact that the ideology epitomized by the Bush regime can never again be allowed to have any influence whatsoever in our foreign or domestic policy.

Hillary, I have to say, hit it out of the park.

Domestically:

President Bush had one final chance tonight to acknowledge what the American people have known for years: that the economy is not working for middle class families. Unfortunately, what he offered was more of the same - a frustrating commitment to the same failed policies that helped turn record surpluses into large deficits, and push a thriving twenty-first century economy to the brink of recession.

On Iraq:

The Administration brandishes many numbers. The one I'm most focused on is that 2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq. And the humanitarian situation remains devastating.
President Bush isn't satisfied with failure after failure in Iraq; he wants to bind the next President to his failed strategy by unilaterally negotiating with the Iraqi government about the future of the U.S.-Iraq security relationship, including the possibility of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

And she nails the real problem, George Bush just doesn't give a shit about anybody.

After seven long years of this Presidency, I am committed as President to solve problems, not ignore them.

Thank goodness no one's ever mentioned Kathleen Sebelius as a possible presidential candidate. Unlike Hillary and Edwards --- and to a lesser degree, Obama, the Governor just doesn't have any balls.

[+/-]

Your Brain Is Weird

1/27/08

[+/-]

Memo to the Clintons: Democrats Aren’t Republicans (or Independents)

by shep

The most salient feature of the Republican Movement is that it is authoritarian based. By that I mean that it is made up mostly of people who are animated by the compulsion to follow their leaders and defeat their enemies. Explicit proof of this fact, beside the well-established social science, can be found in the presidency of George W. Bush.

In six short years, we have watched Republicans abandon every so-called principle that supposedly motivated their political behavior prior to that time. While they practically pissed themselves at the sight of Janet Reno (of all people) and jack-booted UN thugs in black helicopters (of all things) they have enthusiastically defended the Bush/Cheney expansion of the police state, including secret government kidnapping, torture and indefinite detention of American citizens, secret electronic spying on Americans, and the near destruction of Habeas Corpus and other Bill of Rights protections.

In a single presidential term, they moved from shamelessly persecuting and impeaching a popular president for prevaricating about consensual oral sex in a (politically-driven) civil suit, all ostensibly in fervent support of the rule of law, to re-electing a president who’s vice president orchestrated a conspiracy to expose an entire clandestine operation working against weapons of mass destruction proliferation in the Middle East. This after deceiving the public into a disastrous war of aggression, occupation and nation-building, ostensible to thwart weapons of mass destruction proliferation in the Middle East. Speaking of which, this is the same Republican Party and George W. Bush that savaged the Clinton Administration for…wait for it…unnecessary aggression and nation building in Bosnia and Kosovo.

From “small government” and fiscal discipline fanatics, to supporting the most inefficient, spend-drunk, corrupt, government-expanding government in US history, under complete Republican rule. From denouncing “activist judges” to cheering a narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court as it regularly ignored and corrupted the clear language of the US Constitution (starting, literally, before George Bush was even inaugurated). The “party of the military” that slandered a decorated war hero just to maintain their grip on power, the list goes on and on.

Which brings us to the salient difference with Democrats: Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, value principles such a truth and justice more than they value winning. They are also crappy followers.

Which is a natural short-term disadvantage against an unprincipled adversary (the very crux of the human struggle: civilization against the more savage) so dishonest, divisive Atwater/Rovian politics may actually have some utility in the general campaign against the Republican candidate, if more cynically-minded Democrats (still talking to you Billary) choose to use them against Republicans. Independents, the folks who’s political choice is to choose neither of the only two governing parties, seem particularly susceptible to those backward, transparent appeals to blind dislike and even hatred (Passive-Aggressive, anyone?). But they have no use and no place in a Democratic primary and will continue to drag your candidacy and most certainly your legacy into the mud.

So keep it above board until the general. It will give you both your best shot at winning the nomination of your party. And if you don’t, you can always turn the Big Dog loose on the Republicans on behalf of candidate Obama. Some liberals might even secretly cheer you on, against their better nature, for the good of mankind. It’s a sad day for civilization.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

[+/-]

Which 60's Icon Do You Choose?

[+/-]

What Crawled Up Bob's Butt?

1/26/08

[+/-]

Quotes That Make You Say, "Pffttthp!"

The Suspenseful:

The major “news” outlets - with ZERO percent of the precincts reporting, a mere four minutes after the polls closed - have projected Barack Obama the winner of the Democratic primary in South Carolina.

In related “news,” the New England Patriots have been declared the winners of the 2008 Super Bowl.
~CorrenteWire

The Insightful:

As long as negative campaigning works — and it's worked pretty effectively ever since Og defeated Ug 56-55 for the presidency of the Olduvai Gorge Mammoth Hunting Alliance — we'll keep seeing it.
~Kevin Drum

The Analytical:

Obama's analysis is completely upside-down--the problem is not that both sides are equally to blame, but that only the right is actually fighting a coordinated culture war as Gramsci defined it. It's not a case of bringing a knife to a gunfight, it's a case of brining a plastic yogurt spoon to a nuclear war.
~Paul Rosenberg

Burned Out On Hillary:

And man, my blogging is sucking this week. Sorry.

~John Cole, Updating us on his new
vacuum cleaner purchase

Disappointed In Edwards:

Maybe it’s time to go back to anime pron of LOLcats. Or YouTubes of me skritching me nuts.
~Kevin Hayden

Bitter:

"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88."

~Bill Clinton

Clueless and Obsessed:

The thing is, Israel really is the driving issue in the Presidential debate.
~Atlas Juggs

A Fair Assessment:

If she set out to lose South Carolina as badly as possible, she certainly succeeded.

~Captain Ed

Almost "Getting" It:

Or maybe I am just totally wrong on all counts.
~Steaming Pile of Dog Excrement

How Soon They Forget Alan Keyes?

The best rhetorician I have seen (my B.A. is in Rhetoric and I say this as a compliment) since Ronald Reagan.
~Instalinker Fav, Classical Values
Channeling Bill Bennet

JàgerBlogging:

So. Hillary came in second, handily beating Edwards. Now, did she lose badly enough to still win? Or is her second place finish strong enough to be a loss?

~VodkaPundit DrunkBlogging
And making more sense than most analysts

Blind Leading The Stupid:

According to Fox News, exit polling shows that he did well among voters who favor the war in Iraq and think the economy is in good shape. Clearly, Edwards needs to remain in the race so his message will be heard.
~Powertools

Teh Stupid Leading Nowhere:

In his weekly radio address, President Bush said, "On Monday night, I will address the American people about the state of our union. I will report that over the last seven years, we've made great progress on important issues at home and abroad.
~The C-Plus Augustus

Eeeww!

If-I say if--ex-senator Rick Santorum is going to say that instead of being caught in bed with John McCain he would rather be caught in bed with anybody--absolutely anybody--with Barack Obama and a Labradoodle--with Hillary Rodham Clinton and a Weimeraner--with John Edwards and a Chihuahua--he should first get a room.
~Brad DeLong's all too vivid imagination

[+/-]

South Carolina: Game Day

As we await the verdict from South Carolina on the new direction for the free world (if that doesn't scare you, nothing will), I'm pondering the inescapable conclusion that the dynamics of this election season utterly defy traditional political analysis despite more people than ever before weighing in on the results.

A veritable army of "newsy" types are covering every aspect of this race, and no doubt more than four years ago. New cross-over organizations like Politico.com have emerged that appear with equal frequency on the net and on network TV. And traditional sources are providing so much in the way of detailed information they've had no choice but to supplement their coverage by referring to their internet presence for even more information and analysis.

The political Blogosphere has grown dramatically and since more of it is diversified. Instead of seeing a large section of the progressive 'sphere dedicated to this year's Howard Dean they have spread their activism and analysis in several directions -- painting a broader picture than before.

There are more polling outfits taking more polls. There are more places that analyze all the polls. There is more participation in the open platform political blogs like KOS, MyDD, BooMan Tribune, and new sites for the advanced political junkie like Open Left. Local and regional open platform political blogs are more prevalent and more sophisticated as well, and often compete for the same readership.

The candidates all have a much more impressive internet presence, giving access to the minutiae of policy positions to more people than has ever been possible. And driving so much of this interest in the media and blogosphere of course is the fact that there are more viable candidates on each side of the aisle than anyone can remember at this stage of the game.

This is all translating to massive interest and more importantly, unheard of voter turnout. The fact that all of this is turning conventional wisdom on it's ear should be no surprise, and the catastrophic failure of the punditocracy to even come close in calling the New Hampshire primary has made this thing even more interesting.

Suddenly, this thing wasn't the ninth inning with one side having a massive lead, but tied up in the 10th, and the rules have changed. Now it's more like tennis where you at least have to win by two, and only can score when you're serving into your opponent's home court. We're at "deuce," and Hillary is serving in South Carolina. Obama will get no points (but the lead in elected delegates) for winning in what has become his home turf unless he wins by double digits.

And the real home team, John Edwards, throws this analogy out the window since a strong showing by him in the state where he was born, a state he won in '04, a State where the economic chasm could hardly be more tailor made to his populist message would be "surprising."

The Republican are also defying traditional logic. John McCain was through, a has-been and broke last summer. Huckabee was a nobody that came surging out of his Iowa win and suddenly money didn't matter, it was message and momentum. The same things that made John McCain unviable were now being ignored going into New Hampshire on Mike Huckabee's coattails since he could take Iowa without cash and a big staff and the blessing of the party bosses. More than we'll ever know, John McCain's frontrunning position is due to Mike Huckabee's early success.

And the GOP still has a race, a tight one with bigger stakes at each stage since so many of their contests are winner-take-all. Rudy 9iu11iani is making a Custer-like stand in Florida and is finally a factor (less of one than he'd like) in the GOP selection process. However, it has increased interest for no other reason that even though there are fewer official candidates than just a few days ago, it's more competitive than ever.

Florida is even getting some play for the Democrats, even though it's not the contest the Florida Democratic Party had hoped for when they broke the rules and moved up their date. But for the Republicans, the winner will most likely get only about one-fourth of the votes and win by just a point or two.

I await with baited breath the demands for a recount of the Florida Republican Primary. It's close enough there to require a new word for the sense of irony to fully ferment this eight-year-old "whine."

And by the way, I confess. It was me who started the rumors that if John Edwards' destiny does not include living in the White House, he would be the best Attorney General in our lifetime.

[+/-]

For The Love Of God, End The Strike!

1/25/08

[+/-]

A Moment Of Zen

[+/-]

Eve Of Destruction

While a certain nameless blogger believes "Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party," and is not alone in his thinking, the difference in the way the old party mechanism structure was transformed is a far cry from the manner in which ...

George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues. ~Peggy Noonan, WSJ (H.T. FDL)

Nooner gets the breath of Bush devastation right, the fact that Brand GOP is no longer a viable commodity. The rats leaving the sinking ship is further testament to Bush's scorched earth policy.

Moreover, Bush is leaving the country, and not just his party a smoking ruin. Clinton did no such thing.

Interestingly enough however, is the style differences. Clinton's "sin" was the triangulation, a willingness to adopt GOP framing and even co-opt their policy positions in order to conduct the people's business when dealing with a Congress controlled by the other side. George W. Bush has grown even more petulant and stubborn when faced with even the tepid resistance offered by Pelosi/Reid -- never considering any form of compromise.

Come on, the guy even vetoed health care for kids -- one of those bipartisan thingies Broder and the rest of the Village Idiots so admire..

You don't have to like Bill Clinton or his wife. But don't sit there and tell me he "destroyed" the Democratic Party when you see the decimation Bush Rule has wrought on the GOP.

But think of all the hate
There is in red China.
Then take a look around
To Selma, Alabama.
You may leave here
For four days in space,
But when you return
It's the same old place.
The poundin' of the drums,
The pride and disgrace.
You can bury your dead,
But don't leave a trace.
Hate your next door neighbor,
But don't forget to say grace

And tell me
Over and over and over and over again, my friend,
You don't believe
We're on the eve of destruction.
Ah, no, no, you don't believe
We're on the eve of destruction. ~The Byrds

[+/-]

Here Take This, But don’t Tell Your Mom

Cross Posted at American Street

Hurray! We're all gonna get Paid!

Remember when your Dad or Grandpa (or perpetually drunk uncle you'd only see on holidays) would slip you a couple of bucks and tell you with a wink not to tell anyone where you got it -- and "Don't spend it all in one place," even though it really wasn't all that much to spread around? The stimulus package coming out of Washington is kinda like that.

Now that money really isn't much in a 13 Trillion dollar economy. $150 Billion is like a penny on the dollar in an economy this size. The stuff you grab at the checkout counter to make the correct change instead of digging through the fluff in your pocket. That's what Washington says will make all the difference.

As Shep points out, we got the money from the same place we have been right along, our Chinese loansharks. (That's why Dad told you not to mention it to Mom.) Up to our eyeballs in hock, we go to the same well one more time. Meanwhile, the biggest cause of our pockets holding not much more than fluff and a penny or two goes on and on and on.

We not only are putting our young men and women in harms way as targets in a perpetual occupation -- we're going to make their generation pay for both the war and my new iPhone. Awesome! A twofer!!

Krugman is predictably not happy, and for good reason. Republican ideology trumped good sense. The myth that these guys are fiscally responsible stewards of the economy simply means that the vast majority of Americans know nothing about politics or economics.

Of all tax and spending stimulus options that CBO examined, the only two that it found would have a large "bang-for-the-buck" as effective stimulus and act fast to boost the economy are the unemployment insurance and food stamp provisions. Both could start injecting more consumer purchasing power into the economy within one to two months. The planned tax rebate checks, in contrast, are not likely to be sent out until June.
***

The unemployment insurance and food stamp provisions apparently were rejected by House Republican leaders, who reportedly said that the inclusion of spending measures would be unacceptable to the House Republican Caucus and would derail the package. Such a stance reflects the elevation of ideology over sound economic reasoning.

Lemme get this straight. Pelosi et al. caved in to some conservative bluster because they threaten to obstruct the bill on ideological grounds -- and the Dem leadership agrees to their blackmail in fear of themselves being labeled obstructionist? As we see every day, the ruling coalition is not the Democratic Party, but the Blue Dogs Plus the GOP. The Republicans may be the party of fear, but we're represented (and I use the term loosely) by the party of wusses.

The Street Insider goes on to say, "Economy.com found that for each dollar spent on extended UI benefits, $1.64 in increased economic activity would be generated" and another $1.73 per doller spent on Food Stamps. But for a dollar in lost revenue handed over to the accelerated depreciation portion of the Stimulus Package (the business tax-cut), "only 27 cents" of boost would be realized.

Despite this evidence, the package apparently contains at least $50 billion in business tax cuts while excluding unemployment insurance - the single measure most focused on the people hardest hit by the downturn - and food stamps.

Oh, and the States would lose revenue too on items pegged to the federal and state tax codes -- and they don't get an offset.

Look, I know that any legislation made in haste is going to have problems. But even at a glance, this thing is Teh Suck!

But Oooh! Looook! Shiney!!!

Sorry uncle George. But I AM going to spend it all in one place.

[+/-]

Here’s the Plan

1/24/08

[+/-]

Shorter Rudy 9iu11ni

1/23/08

[+/-]

With All Due Respect

1/21/08

[+/-]

Rudy Goes Boom!

[+/-]

MLK,3 to Edwards: Don't Give Up the Dream

From The John Edwards Blog:

Saturday afternoon, Senator Edwards met with Martin Luther King III, Martin Luther King, Jr's first son, at the King Center in Atlanta. Please see attached and below a note to Edwards from King.

January 20, 2008

The Honorable John E. Edwards

410 Market Street

Suite 400

Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

[Emphasis added]

Today more than most days I was reminded that the struggle, the message, the fight, the movement for social justice and equality is profoundly greater than any one person or political campaign.

It is certainly bigger than the political ambition of a one-term junior Senator from North Carolina. John is a leader in much more than the political sense. He is the moral light of the Democratic party.

Some may argue that he is being selfish to stay in the race, that his only roll is spoiler or kingmaker, that it is folly to believe he will make a difference, let alone "win." I would counter that his message, his fight against poverty and a system rigged against the very people from whom it derives legitimacy, the hope represented by his struggle is bigger than him -- and that it would be selfish to quit.

This morning my daughters and I attended a truly magnificent event. Here in Toledo, Ohio, in celebration of the vision of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on a cold winter's morning the collective representatives of everyone who makes up our community gathered together in one place, in one time, in testament to Dr. King's promise and hope.

Only on this day, set aside to focus on our unity, our strength through our diversity, gather together our elected representatives and clergy from every denomination and every religion, the business community and educators, students and members of each branch of the armed services, residents originating from the four corners of the world and people who lived here their whole lives, young, old, rich, poor, black, white, asian, gay straight -- everybody.

And at the end, we joined hands, together, and sang as one.

...when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives. -- MLK,3

[+/-]

For Rudy, It's The Delegates, Stupid

Wanna know why Rudy 9iu11ni is still smiling, one thing the gas bags on TeeVee never make clear? Rudy can run the table in his home turf and be up 258 to zero in just these five states by Tsunami Tuesday.

1/29	Florida	57	Delegates	--	WINNER TAKE ALL
2/5	New York	101	Delegates	--	WINNER TAKE ALL
2/5	New Jersey	52	Delegates	--	WINNER TAKE ALL
2/5	Connecticut	30	Delegates	--	WINNER TAKE ALL
2/5	Deleware	18	Delegates	--	WINNER TAKE ALL

Right now, Florida is a four-way tie and Rudy is in the lead by one point -- but he only has 21% of the total support of those expressing a preference.

If he only gets 25% in each of "his" states, he can walk away sole owner of their 258 delegate because the other 75% will be divided between the Ron Paul Blimpies, and the three guys who have actually won something so far, Romney, McCain and Huckabee.

That plus a lucky pick up of one or more of the four other states with winner-take-all contests where 202 delegates are at stake, along with a plurality of the rest of states going on Feb. 5th who award delegates as a proportion of the vote count -- Rudy could easily be WAY ahead of the pack -- proclaimed a genius, come-back kid number 3 and frontrunner in one day.

It's the media's dream come true.

In fact, as long as Rudy captures his base states, needing only a pathetic 23% or so to "win" while resoundingly rejected by the vast majority of New York, Florida, Jersey, Deleware and Connecticut Repubicans; McCain could win all the other winner-take-all states (W.Va., Mont., Utah, Ariz., Missouri), split the other Tsunami Tuesday states and still be behind Rudy.

And McCain won't win Utah. That's Romney's.

Let's do the math, just for fun. (**Source RCP -- CNN has different delegate counts awarded to date.) Delegate Awards based on latest poll data from USA Election Polls. Numbers below represent latest polling percentage of total delegates per state.

(Note, the Arizona poll is obviously old, showing Rudy winning instead of McCain -- which won't happen. Some of the other smaller states did not include Huckabee, let alone Paul, and were done prior to Huckabee's surprising rise -- and some states never have been polled at all. Numbers are rounded leaving fractional arithmetic errors we can ignore.)

"W"=Winner Take ALL	.	Tot	Mitt	Huck	McCain	Rudy	Paul
TOTAL AWARDED TO	DATE**		59	40	36	1	4
Florida	1/29	57-W	0	0	0	57	0
Maine	2/1	21	3	.	1	2	.
California	2/5	173	29	22	42	19	10
New.York	2/5	101-W	.	.	.	101	.
New.Jersey	2/5	52-W	.	.	.	52	.
Georgia	2/5	72	10	22	13	6	0
Arizona	2/5	53-W	.	.	.	53	.
Alabama	2/5	48	4	12	11	2	1
Oklahoma	2/5	41	3	13	12	5	1
Colorado	2/5	46	4	2	5	9	0
Illinois	2/5	70	10	15	8	16	2
Utah	2/5	36-W	36	.	.	.	.
Missouri	2/5	58-W	.	.	.	58	.
Arkansas	2/5	34	2	20	3	3	1
Delaware	2/5	18-W	.	.	.	18	.
Minnesota	2/5	41	2	1	9	11	1
Tennessee	2/5	55	.	.	.	.	.
Massachusetts	2/5	43	.	.	.	.	.
Connecticut	2/5	30-W	.	.	39	.	.
West.Virginia	2/5	30	2	0	10	9	0
Alaska	2/5	29	.	.	.	.	.
North.Dakota	2/5	26	.	.	.	.	.
TOTAL	AFTER	.	Mitt	Huck	McCain	RUDY	Paul
TSUNAMI	TUESDAY	.	165	147	189	422	21

Even if Arizona were to pick McCain -- Rudy is still ahead 369 to McCain's 242. Rudy's advantage is that unlike Romney and Huckabee, everybody knows him. McCain and Rudy did not have to be introduced to the American public. Of course, now that introductions are over, the race is on. Huckabee is sure to do well in Tennessee and Romney will clean up in Massachusetts where we have no polling data.

But that doesn't bring 9iu11ani down or help the the guy most likely to catch him, McCain. Worse news, the next big contest after Feb 5 in Ohio, where Rudy's ahead by 16%, although he's way behind in Texas that same day, March 4. But it's Huckabee plugged in right now to take that winner take all state.

But there's always movement, for instance, it looks like McCain has found a weakness in the soft underbelly of Rudy's home turf, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Florida is of course the key to Rudy's demise. If someone edges him out there, even by the slimmest of hanging chads, he gets zero delegates and has no momentum or media buzz (not any good buzz anyway) going into Tsunami Tuesday. If he loses NJ and CT on Feb 5th, my chart's inaccuracies become to large to ignore because that switches NJ's 52 delegates -- putting Rudy and McCain in spitting distance of each other. Take FloriDUH out of the mix, awarding those 57 delegates to anyone but Rudy and McCain becomes the dominate player.

If McCain wins Florida -- it's all over. Rudy won't catch him and Romney can't. Huckabee's Dominionists will revolt either way and probably stay home come the general election anyway, and the GOP can't win the presidency without the evangelicals. So all this is academic -- as is Huckabee's candidacy -- it was South Carolina or bust with him (unless he get's Florida).

Obviously this is an approximation of the broadest kind and is in no way a realistic projection of the final results and ignores a substantial undecided voters -- but it give pause to show that state-by-state, disregarding national polling numbers, Rudy 9iu11iani CAN NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED -- Especially if he gets Florida.

Florida, FloriDUH, FLOR-I-FUCKING-DUH!

Fortunately for us Democrats, Rudy the asshole will be crushed by frontrunning Hillary (Obama or Edwards ... not so much). The difference is Hillary's edge in the Greater New York Area for the electoral college edge. Obama and Edwards would have to fight Rudy on that home turf much harder.

1/20/08

[+/-]

We Must Be In Trouble...

...if Maureen Dowd gets it.

Just when I'd given up on MoD's juvenile analysis of political machismo as the touch-stone of American politics and pretended she still was behind the NY Times' old pay-wall, fittingly ignored -- she comes up with this winner.

Maybe if the president had spent the trillion he squandered on his Iraq odyssey on energy research, we might have broken the oil addiction.
Now it’s a race between Iraq, stupid, or the economy, stupid, to see which one will usher out W.
The country is engaged in a fit of nativism and Lou Dobbsism, obsessing about the millions of Mexicans who might be sneaking across the border when billions in foreign money are pouring into Citigroup. You figure out what might be a bigger problem.
The national boundaries that really matter are the financial ones: Who’s going to own the American economy?

If you want the unbridled scare-the-crap-outta-you take on the economy's prospects, read the Agonist ... at least there's some valuable, if rather bleak advice on which hatches to batten down.

Who’s next in this ongoing financial trauma? Clearly more pain is in store for Wall Street and commercial banks, but we haven’t yet come to the realization that some of these financial institutions will not survive. This will happen, and you will definitely know when that day arrives because it will be the cause of serious damage to the stock market.
***

...But we are talking of a bailout in the trillions of dollars under worst case circumstances, and worst case circumstances have become the norm in this market.
Nor is time on the side of the U.S. government. The ratings agencies are already hinting that down the road, if nothing is done about social security and other growing federal entitlements, the U.S. will lose its Aaa rating. This may happen earlier than many suspect.

Somewhere in all this mess the U.S. stock market will collapse. At the moment the stock market is already in a correction, worrying about an economic recession. What it really should be worrying about is something much worse – a complete collapse of the credit markets globally, leading to a depression that will last 3 – 5 years. Once that is understood, the Dow will be trading well below 8,000.

So hold on to your job, whatever that may be. Pay down your debt and watch your expenses. Monitor the credit and market risks in your investment portfolio, and if you have any real concerns, U.S. Treasuries earning 2% will be a lot better than stocks or bonds that might collapse in value. As of now, the four horsemen of the apocalypse are mowing down the big players, but the little guy will be in their sights eventually.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE Indeed.

1/19/08

[+/-]

Ok, Are You Following Along?

Hillary wins Nevada, sorta.

Obama wins more Nevada Delegates, somehow.

Both cry foul on voting shenanigans.

All the selected delegates from Nevada can all change their minds at their State Convention in April -- by which time everybody might be so damn sick of these two that John Edwards could be the winner with only 5% of the vote. (Hey, could happen. And winged Macacas could emerge from my backside too.)

According to Tweety, Hillary beat expectations by (this is fun) winning after being favored to win in the polls. Shocking! Chris Matthews also ended the "who's more like Bobby Kennedy" debate between Edwards and Obama partisans today by declaring Bill Clinton would be the scrapper, the bull in the White House china shop in a Hillary administration -- just like RFK. Oy!

On the GOP side, Romney wins Nevada, but half of the folks voting for him were Mormons, so it doesn't count.

If you take away all the Mormons who voted for Romney, he still would have won, but it that doesn't count since he was the only one besides Paul who actually campaigned there. It only matters if you count delegates, in which case you'll see that Mitt is ahead more today than he was yesterday.

Ron Paul beat John McCain in Nevada, which is making my head hurt because that means that the GOP frontrunner de jure was beat by the Blimpies. [Factoid: Ron Paul - 3 Delegates, Giuliani - 1]

It doesn't matter because he only did so well, because, um ... he actually tried. Besides, the M$M is holding out for Rudy's turn at frontrunner in FloriDUH. Fear the Rudy.

The GOP frontrunner de jure is of course McCain, who won South Carolina only because Grandpa Fred (who's done, come on already) siphoned off votes from Huckabee's evengelical base and lags behind Romney in delegates -- cuz Tweety says so.

Seriously why do we bother.

If ever I needed a moment of zen, it's now.

To that end, gaze upon the current flag of South Carolina and ponder why its crescent moon looks more like the flag of Pakistan than the Stars-n-Bars of the Confederate South -- and what it would look like if Huckabee stuck it up Giuliani's ass (a flag poll stuck up Romney's butt would be redundant.)

[UPDATE: Thanks to Jim in the AmSt Version of this post, the ratio is the same, but the numbers are different. Blimpie 6, 9iu11iani 2,]

[+/-]

Your Blog Soon To Get More Readers

[+/-]

Not Good

Most of you know that Duncan Black. PhD. (aka Atrios at Eschaton) is a full fledged Doctor of Economics. He's been saying, "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" way too much lately, and he's not gloating over George Bush's approval numbers.

If?
If Ambac and MBIA lose their top ratings, billions of dollars of muni bonds will be downgraded, and the guarantees that have been sold on mortgage-related securities such as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, will lose value.
"The destruction of the bond insurers would likely bring write-downs at major banks and financial institutions that would put current write-downs to shame," Tamara Kravec, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, wrote in a note Friday.
Kravec cut her rating on Ambac and MBIA on Friday because she thinks that ratings downgrades are "highly probable" now.
And Ambac is downgraded.

While he doesn't go as far as Mort Zuckerman, who's been worried for a while and repeated his warning on the McLaughlin Group today by predicting that we are going head on into the worst recession since the Great Depression and will last over a year, housing taking several years to recover -- but I doubt if Duncan would disagree.

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart is much more analytical than Duncan's blogish entertainment, and less shrill than anyone on the McLaughlin shout-fest. In fact, he's quite the internet guru on all things economic. Bondad has a knack for explaining the economy in basic English, complete with charts and graphs that I never can grasp except their steady drop-off to the right.

Here, he cuts to the chase.

So, the basic overall economy situation is not good.

The employment report indicates that employment growth is slowing. This indicates businesses are not confident about the future.
Christmas sales were OK, but not great.
The consumer is hemmed in by rising oil and food prices
The Federal Reserve is hemmed in by high gas and food prices.
The financial sector is still dealing with the fallout of the sub-prime mortgage mess and probably will be for the foreseeable future

In short, things do not look good right now.

I don't know, but maybe Atrios does have the best advice. Just hang on baby, cuz the ride is going to get bumpy.

(But don't worry, I'm sure they'll figure out a way to blame this all on the Clintons.)

1/18/08

[+/-]

How'd They Miss That?

[+/-]

There Must Be Something In The Water

[+/-]

New Places To Look

Cross-Posted At American Street

The information superhighway has re-opened one of my favorite rest stops. I'm sure you'll be as happy as I am that The Editors and Sifu Tweety are again conducting seminars at The Poor Man Institute. (H.T.: Avedon, Mistress of all good linky stuff.)

The token liberal at Faux Noise, Alan Colmes has a blog -- and in this episode we get a different take on the Pantload than seen by our beloved Blogtopians who've been eviscerating the guy who put the "moron" in Oxymoron. Alan shares his hate mail from Holocaust deniers and other assorted freaks after his interview with the author of Liberal Fascism. It's a hoot. Like reading Free Republic with a narrator.

At Open Left, David Sirota uses the analogy of Indiana Jones exclaiming, "They're digging in the wrong place," to describe how Americans longing for change won't find it in our federal institutions, national corporate media or presidential election contests. But there's hope, and one of them is David's own, brand new nationally syndicated newspaper column.

Speaking of the "laboratories of democracy" found in our 50 State Capitals, Sirota points those of us (most Americans by a 2 to 1 margin) who want real universal health care guaranteed by the government to our state legislatures as the most promising place to get things done in this area.

In a move making health care lobbyists quiver, Washington state Sen. Karen Keiser (D), chairwoman of her legislature's powerful health committee, this week introduced the nation's most far-reaching universal health care proposal. Her legislation is the American West's version of a parallel Wisconsin initiative, and the replication suggests this model may begin building the universal health care system our country wants.

The plan is simple: Employers and employees pay a modest payroll tax in exchange for full medical benefits, with no premiums. Patients never lose coverage and pick the doctors they prefer. And for the spendthrifts, here's the best part: According to an analysis of the Wisconsin proposal by the nonpartisan Lewin Group, the plan would save middle-class families an annual average of $750 on their existing health care bills. In all, the state would save almost $14 billion over the next decade.

All politics is local folks. The conservative movement that's nearly destroyed this country wasn't brought into existence by a sweep of Ronald Reagan's magic wand (no matter what Barack Obama thinks). By concentrating on local elections for school board, city councils, county commissioners and up through the state legislatures, the GOP could count on a deep bench of greedy little psychopaths bending over backwards to do the bidding of their financiers on K-Street until they were deemed completely devoid of moral turpitude and loyal enough to jump through any hoop Tom DeLay, Inc. told them to.

We can build an Army of Davids that will send Professor Instalinker into spasms the same way. (Without the greed, trickle-on-you economic snake-oil, and irresponsible societal attitude of course.)

Finally, a place I've been hanging around at for a few years since being banned from Dean's World for having an opinion, Dean's (soon to be ex-) wife, Rosemary Esmay -- The Queen of All Evil -- a former Bush apologist who now is voting for Hillary has exposed Mike Huckabee's sodomite fantasies. No really. After reading this, you won't want to touch the Huckster with a ten foot pole.

Got any fun new way stations on the intertubez you'd like to share?

[+/-]

What If They Commissioned A Poll

... and everybody refused to answer?

Just a thought, since now that John Edwards has taken aim at the corporate media for ignoring his message that corporate America abuses it's power, he's been rewarded by being excluded from Survey USA's polls.

One way to express your displeasure is by joining in the JOHN EDWARDS MONEY BOMB TODAY. (Hey, if the Ron Paul Blimpies can do it, why not John?) Everything up to $250 will be doubled!! Bonus!

But the Edwards Money Bomb isn't what I wanted to talk about this morning. I thought I'd preview a bit of the upcoming weekend news while we wait for the Friday Document Drop (we're due, hasn't been a good one in a while), and which of these stories will bury the latest Republican scandal (tsk, an ex-GOP congressman/lobbiest funding terror groups -- I guess they were running out of crooked GOPers who still had jobs in government).

For instance, in the next 48 hours or so. you will:

Find out which old curmudgeon will claim victory in South Carolina over all the other old bald white guys who already won a Republican primary and why anybody cares. (Ooo, I can hardly wait!)

Know which Democrat will hit the jackpot (hint, he's not running for president) and who will roll craps in the Nevada Caucus, (If John Edwards wins, the "long-shot beating the odds" metaphors will be even lamer than anything you just read.)

See if you can afford a new iPhone (or a donation to John Edwards) with the check Bush is sending you as part of the economic stimulus package he's paying for out of the tip Saudi King Abdullah left our C-Plus Augustus on the nightstand for services rendered.

Push the number of signatures on Robert Wexler's petition to Impeach Cheney over a quarter of a million, putting hearings (with teeth) back on the table -- and from which no "executive privilege" can prevent enforcement of subpoenas. Let's get to the bottom of some of the shenanigans.

So, while we wait and surf the web, ticking away the hours until we know more than we know now, I'll leave you with Mark Kleinman's observation on the tireless work former President Bill Clinton has done on behalf of his wife campaign:

Sometimes, a man who gets caught cheating on his wife tries to make up for it by giving her jewelry. I think this is the first time a two-timing husband tried to give his wife the most powerful position in the world instead.

Wow. I think later today we might also find out if Bill hands Kleinman his head on a platter.

1/15/08

[+/-]

Dick Morris Is Still A Silly Little Man

What this guy doesn't know about politics is stunning for someone described as "a shrewd expert on polls and trends." Dick Morris, the "genius" behind Clintonian triangulation strategies opines that it's "Time For Edwards' Exit."

He manifestly can no longer win - but he helps Hillary Clinton if he stays in the race and boosts Barack Obama if he pulls out.

Okay, Dick. Let me try this one more time. I'll type slowly so you can follow along even with a toe in your mouth.

Hillary is ahead in the polls.
No candidate has over 50%, but Hillary is closer. (see item 1. above).
If Edwards quits now, neither Obama nor Hillary will get 100% of his supporters.
Since Hillary is ahead (again Mr. Poll expert, see item 1.), she can receive less of John's support than Barack and still beat Obama.
If no candidate receives over 50% (2025 delegates), the delegates Edwards controls at the convention will decide who wins if he pledges them over instead of letting the fates (or the democratic process ::cough::) decide.
Obama may need ALL of John's delegates to win, but Hillary may only need a fraction of that support.
If Edwards decided to quit now, the result would be exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Hillary would get "some" but maybe just enough of Edwards' supporters to win.
Conversely, Obama would also get "some," but probably not enough of Edwards' supporters to win.
There is no evidence that all of Edwards supporters are anti-Hillary. Indeed, the anti-Obama sentiment among many Edwards supporters quite disturbing to be honest.
Buy. A. Clue.

Besides, what are you going to say if/when Edwards wins Nevada since it's a dead heat, or South Carolina which he won in 2004 after you and your ilk in the punditocracy said he was dead you overpaid gasbag?

Everybody has what counts, delegates. Everybody might have a win going into Tsunami Tuesday. I suppose you thought Hillary was done and bought new open-toed sandals for dancing on her political grave the night before New Hampshire. Flake.

Man that idiot gives me the creeps. Somebody check his paperwork and see if he really ever was a democrat. I can't wait until Karl Rove and Dick Morris team up on a book deal or get their own reality series: Dicking Over The American Political System For Fun And Profit.

Holy cow, the non-superdelegate count is almost even between the three of them, so just STFU and let's see what happens.

[+/-]

Get Off My Lawn!

1/14/08

[+/-]

Diving Deep For Dem Delegates (State Poll Analysis)

Be warned, this it more wonkish than anyone who isn't getting paid should ever write. I have no idea what possessed me except the chance to predict the future. Follow me as I work through the democratic primaries state-by-state.

According to my calculations, after Tsunami Tuesday once all the elected and Superdelegates are counted, Clinton will have AT LEAST 928(54%) on the morning of February 6th. Barack Obama can count on a minimum of 569 delegates (33%), and Edwards will have no less than 220 delegates (13%) going into Louisiana and the rest of the country. Again, this is a MINIMUM total with several states ignored for lack of data.

Adjusted Chart of Delegates Through Tsunami Tuesday

Distributing uncommitted voters via same percentage of those expressing preferences based on state polling data. (Probable delegates awarded in parenthesis):

Table Of Tsunami Tuesday Delegates

Date	State	Del	S.D.	Clinton Poll(Del)		Obama Poll(Del)		Edwards Poll(Del)		Unknown Not Awarded
1/3	Iowa	45	11		14		16		15
1/8	N.H.	22	8		9		9		4
1/15	Mich	128	29	0%	-	0%	-	-	-	100%	(157)
1/19	Nev	25	8	36%	(9)	34%	(9)	30%	(7)	-	-
1/26	S.Car	45	9	35%	(16)	49%	(22)	16%	(7)	-	-
1/29	Florida	185	25	0%	-	0%	-	0%	-	100%	(210)
2/5	Alab	52	8	58%	(34)	31%	(18)	11%	-	29%	(17)
2/5	Alaska	13	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	(18)
2/5	Ariz	56	11	41%	(27)	23%	(15)	-	-	36%	(24)
2/5	Ark	35	12	65%	(22)	19%	(7)	16%	(6)	-	-
2/5	Calif	370	70	53%	(195)	32%	(119)	15%	56	-	-
2/5	Col	55	16	48%	(26)	27%	(15)	25%	(14)	-	-
2/5	Del	15	8	41%	(9)	17%	(4)	-	-	42%	(10)
2/5	Geor	87	17	39%	(33)	41%	(36)	20%	(18)	-	-
2/5	Idaho	18	5	39%	(7)	42%	(8)	19%	(3)	-	-
2/5	Illinois	153	32	25%	(46)	50%	(93)	-	-	25%	(46)
2/5	MO	72	16	47%	(32)	27%	(20)	26%	(20)	-	-
2/5	N.Jers	107	20	51%	(65)	17%	(22)	-	-	32%	(41)
2/5	N.Mex	26	12	-	-	-	-	-	-	100	(26)
2/5	N.York	232	48	55%	(154)	17%	(48)	-	-	28%	(78)
2/5	N.Car	91	19	38%	(35)	30%	(27)	32%	(29)	19%	(21)
2/5	N.Dak	13	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	(21)
2/5	Okla	38	9	46%	(17)	20%	(8)	34%	(13)	-	-
2/5	Tenn	68	17	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	(68)
2/5	Utah	23	6	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	(23)
Tot	Del	-----	-		750		496		192	--
Pct	Del	-		45%		30%		22%

Note, the percentages are not the polling percentages, but the effective distribution of support when undecided votes follow the known trends.

So, where'd I come up with this voodoo?

Keep Reading to see my sausage recipe.

In this episode I go beyond the simple arithmetic of multiplying national polling data with available delegates to see where we are and where we might end up. I've worked up through Tsunami Tuesday (Feb. 5th) so far, and then later will get to later contests. So far the data, especially on Edwards, fits nicely with national trends I'm using to make sure I'm not all wet.

The good folks at Wikipedia are keeping track of the state-by-state primary polls for us, and now that I've spent the weekend updating both my computer software and my brain's hardware, I think I can try and make some use of all that data, and more importantly present it to you in a way we both can understand without consulting a statistician.

Real Clear Politics is also doing journeyman work nationally and pretty much logs every poll out there and keeps a running average of the national polls. Another source that cuts through some of the white noise is USA Elections Polls who have compiled the Feb. 5th Tsunami Tuesday races in one place and keeps track of the big states with all the juicy delegates -- and just about everything else too.

One glance tells us that while all this data is useful, there are serious problems reaching any conclusions without really diving into the numbers. Using the national polls as a benchmark, we see John Edwards holding in the mid to low teens, slightly lower than he was before Iowa and New Hampshire. Now we all know that when dealing with individual contests nation-wide it's foolish to base any conclusions just by that data, especially when we have large undecided/unknown numbers in the mix -- let alone those margins of error.

It's the undecideds that will turn this thing one way or another. What did Olbermann call it, the Keith rule? The margin of error multiplied by the percent of undecideds equal a poll that doesn't tell you anything reliable? Something like that.

Now, the trick is to predict not just who will win, but how. With three viable candidates, the chances that nobody gets to the magic number, 2025 delegates, increases the chances that there's a spoiler/kingmaker role to be played. With Edwards at the bottom of the totem pole, it's his role I'm focusing on to either "prove" or debunk my idea that if he were to quit running, Hillary could seal up her win by just receiving a small fraction of his supporters. This gets us half-way there. (I know, this is a long post, but it's a long season with lots of states to go.)

NATIONAL POLLING DATA

CNN's Poll (pdf) asking who would you "support" if it were a two person race pushes Hillary over 50% by 3 points, exactly the polls margin of error. The poll is striking for it's certainty. 3 points is a low margin of error, but registering only 2% with no opinion it unheard of. The poll may indeed be accurate, and reflective of what will eventually happen, but it's not asking who you will "vote for" but who you "most likely will support." I don't know if this makes any difference and how hard people were "pushed" to answer, but every other national poll has from 10% to 20% unknown. Maybe this is CNN's attempt to crush MSNBC and the Olbermann Rule in one fell swoop.

Even with CNN's poll included, RCP's average remains at 11.8% undecided, Edwards pulls in 13.2% in the average of the national polls, which fits with where CNN has him (12%), with the only "outlier" being USA Today/Gallup at 20%. This is not out of line with my state by state analysis. I have Edwards at 13% of the delegates awarded by Feb 5. At that rate, if he holds steady, Edwards will command about 526 votes at the convention. That makes him a player.

For the sake of trying to be reasonable, I'm not simply going with RCP's average numbers, but throwing out the outliers for our base line numbers, what we'll use to compare the other data to make sure it's in the ballpark. That means that Edwards national numbers stand at 11.5% (5 points down from the data I was using Friday) when I throw out Gallup, and the undecided are
14% when I get rid of CNN's preposterously accurate number of people who have made up their minds. Again, this checks out with the state by state data.

If you add up Edwards support plus the undecided vote, that leaves 25.5% up in the air if John quit today. That's about 895 of the 3512 non-superdelegates. Only Gallup (go figure) has Clinton and Obama's support even at 33%-33%. I believe that their track record of over sampling in favor of Obama (actually undersampling Hillary's support) is the stuff of legend since they had him beating Hillary in New Hampshire by 13 points (so did Zogby). All the other polls have Hillary up between 4% and 15% (RCP average 7.4%)

A 50-50 split is the most optimist result Obama could get of the undecided/Edwards vote. Since he trails in the Superdelegate endorsements 177 to 72, even if all of Edwards 28 superdelegates went to Obama, he loses. Obama needs ALL of Edwards elected delegates, the ones he has now and the ones he's going to get to win, at least under this broad brush look at the national polling data.

EARLY STATE DELEGATE ANALYSIS

MICHGAN 1/15 (0)

A beauty contest. You wolverines really blew it.

Vote Mitt! Confound the Opposition!

NEVADA

1/19 (25) [New Poll out today! Keep reading]

This caucus is almost a black hole. The most recent polling data is six weeks old and while ARG still had Richardson at 2% and Dodd and Biden at 4%, Hillary was an amazing +27% to win (Cl-45%, Ob-18%). Edwards at 14% was at the threshold the DNC rules requires to award a candidate any state's delegates -- 15%, the same place he was in the same poll last October (with Clinton at 51% and Obama only at 11%).

This state is truly in flux with Dodd, Biden and Richardson out and the Cullinary Union endorsing Obama. (The grape vine tells me there are a lot of rank and file SEUI members still endeared to Edwards for marching with them during their strike.)

Despite the volatility, since Edwards has remained steady without campaigning there, and the anti-Hillary/Obama votes represented by the combined 10% that was going to other candidates added to the 10% unsure mean I can predict with confidence that again the very least Edwards will get is the DNC required 15% of the Nevada vote, or at least 3 delegates.

Working with the tightest poll numbers so far (Cl-45% Ob-18% Ed-14%) that still leaves about 23% undecided/unknown. The candidates respective portion of the voters with

known

preferences works out to and effective split of CL-58.44% Ob-23.38% Ed-18.18%.

Distributing ALL the delegates according to the tightest/latest poll leaves a delegate count of Cl-14, Ob-7, Ed-4.

I'll be using this method throughout the rest of the states where Edwards at least is polling in the double digits.

[BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! The race just got a whole lot tighter -- tied in fact, at least statistically. According to the very, very latest poll, it's Clinton 32%, Obama 30%, and Edwards 27% -- in a caucus where anything can happen. Effective percentage after distribution of unknowns: 35.96% 33.71% 30.34% with a delegate division of 9, 9, 7, or 9, 8, 8,
(HT - Bowers).]

SOUTH CAROLINA

1/26 (45)

It's certain that Obama will win, and win big in certain states, and this could be one of them. He's still looking good in South Carolina at 40%-42%, hitting 50% in Survey USA(pdf), beating Hillary by 7%-20%. But Edwards is campaigning hard. The table of the Wiki data awards Edwards zero out of S.C.'s 45 elected delegates, putting his support at 14%, just below the 15% threshold cusp. But the poll they use (Rasmussen) still has Richardson in the mix at 2%. All the other January polls have Edwards in the 15%-16% range with other/unsure between 2% and 11.7%.

Let's give John the benefit of the doubt in the State were he was born and was in 4th place at this stage but still won in 2004. I'm putting him at 15% and thus winning 6 of the S.C. delegates next week.

Applying the methodology from before, their effective percentage becomes Cl-34.88% Ob-48.84% Ed-16.28%. (even better than I thought.)

TSUNAMI TUESDAY

UNDER-POLLED STATES

According to USA Election Polls, of the 17 states where we have polling data, Edwards is safely above the DNC's 15% threshold in 5, within the margin of error in 3 more, plus New Mexico(26) is completely up for grabs since Richardson was dominating his home state and only Clinton was polling (barely) above 15% as of the last poll there in September. The data the Wiki is using to awards delegates is 10 months old, and even then had Richardson polling at 33% right after he officially announced. That info might as well have been from the last century.

Utah(23)

Supposedly there is an ARG Poll for Utah cited by both Wiki and USA Election Polls, but good luck finding it, and note the poll is almost a year old -- completely worthless. Best to declare it a non-contest or use the national polls as the baseline.

Tennessee(68)

Obama and Edwards are tied in the last poll -- which is from last March and is also virtually useless.

Likewise the Arizona(56) data is too old to be much use, and while it consistently had Clinton winning, Edwards has been anywhere from 2nd at 18% to fourth behind Al Gore. I'm leaving these states alone as far as handicapping the results let alone John's viability.

Idaho(18)

No polls since July. Calculating that poll divides up the unsure Clinton 39.24%(7), Obama 41.77%(8,) Edwards 18.99%(3). This state is a Republican stronghold, and when Gore was put in the same poll Clinton and Obama were still tight but switched places. The difference with the national polls in this small state should not affect the outcome too much in the likely event that things have changed since summer there.

STATES RECENTLY POLLED

Colorado(55)

Nobody has done a poll in the home of the August convention since September, but that beats the data for the spring and summer polls of the states listed above. With data this old, the latest national polls would likely be as accurate as ARG's Poll(pdf). Applying preferences to the unsure in the survey, the effective support is Clinton 4%(26), Obama 27%(15), Edwards 25%(14) -- I awarded Obama and Clinton an extra delegate each to account for national trends.

Georgia(87)

The are fresh polls in Georgia, and Obama, Clinton, Edwards have been steady at 1,2,3 respectively since summer. While it looks like the folks doing the Wiki awarded some remainder delegates to Edwards as a son of the South, I distributed them to the other two in line with the national sentiment. Clinton 38.75%(33), Obama 41.25%(36), Edwards 20.00%(18)

Arkansas(35)

was polled(pdf) between Christmas and New Years that had Clinton at 57%, Obama at 17%, and Edwards at 14% with 12% other/unsure -- which didn't make it into the Wiki. Were it not for the fact that Edwards is barely viable there, I would have put Arkansas in Hillary's home turf column and wrote it off. At it stands, their effective percentages after uncommitted distribution are Hillary-65% Barack-19% John-16%, getting 22, 7 and 5 delegates respectively.

Missouri(72)

Depending on where the Biden/Dodd/Richardson vote goes, Edwards could squeak out one of his few second place finishes in this bell-weather state. The last poll(pdf) had Obama and Edwards just one point apart, behind Hillary by five points. Clinton 49%(32), Obama 27%(20), Edwards 26%(20).

Oklahoma(38)

another state where Edwards beats Obama according to the December Sooner Poll(pdf). Adjusting for uncommitted voters, the state breaks Clinton 45.95%(17), Obama 20.27%(8) 33.78%(13)

HOME BASE STATES:

ILLINOIS (153), NEW YORK(232), NEW JERSEY(107), CONNECTICUT(48), N.CAR.(91)

Both Hillary and Barack will see good numbers from their regional support base on Feb. 5. It's doubtful that Edwards will meet the 15% threshold either in ObamOprah's Illinois or New York, New Jersey or Connecticut, the tri-state area any popular New Yorker can usually count on. Edwards is only polling in the single digits in all these states. Wiki's numbers will suffice and Edwards gets no delegates there.

North Carolina(91)

, sadly, is not the exclusive turf of John Edwards. In fact, the last poll (pdf) from December) has him in second place behind Clinton, but not as far back as he was in November(pdf). Clinton 38.27%(35) Obama 29.63%(27) Edwards 32.10%(29), but things could change if the kids in Chapel Hill start hitting the pavement for John.

CALIFORNIA (370)

The big prize Tsunami Tuesday of course is California, and I'm surprised that there still isn't much out there in the way of polls. Maybe it's just too expensive to sample the Golden State. Note that while Barack Obama, John Edwards and John Kerry descended on South Carolina, Hillary Clinton got on a plane for the West Coast where she's been dominating all the polls. Edwards placed at 13% and 14% in two pre-Christmas polls, but Survey USA's (pdf) early December poll had him at 16% in a contest just between the "Big Three," which is why I initially guessed Edwards receives 59 of California's 370 elected delegates. Hillary takes away half of them, leaving Obama with about 34%.

Using the latest poll (Survey USA Mid Dec.-pdf), and distributing the uncommitted as before, we end up with an effective distribution of Clinton-53%(195) Obama-32%(119) Edwards-15.05%(56). He's just barely viable in this poll where his rating is 14% before looking at undecided and gaining only one point by "doing the math," but with Wiki using the The Field Poll(pdf), and it's whopping 42%unsure/other, I've got to be closer to reality than their figures where Edwards only comes in at 13% and eliminated by them.

For what it's worth, when I use Wiki's numbers -- because of the huge pool of unsure voters -- Edwards effective percentage actually goes up to 18%. I'll stick with the more conservative and poll -- but there's no way Edwards gets shut out of California.

Adjusting undecided votes and the 15% threshold.

By the end of Tsunami Tuesday, Wikipedia only has Edwards with 147 (regular) delegates based on their 15% threshold and just taking the latest state poll numbers without assigning uncommitted voters. Just a straight data drop. I've looked at each state more carefully and believe this is a more accurate representation of what will be the state of play by Feb. 6th. Even with 5 states completely incalculable, Edwards should get significantly more delegates that you would think at first blush.

Now I hate to pick a fight with Wikipedia, since it represents the collective wisdom of the online community, but cutting off the delegate award for him when he's just a hair under 15% in old polls or ones with significant percentages of undecided voters is folly. Think about it. Since an election does not have a box marked "unsure", for Edwards to be at 15% or below, Obama and Clinton would have to share over 85% of the actual vote (splitting 43%/42% or one getting even closer to 50%) to keep Edwards nonviable in any particular state.

I know us social scientists leave "doing the math" to the engineers and astrophysicists, but if you want to keep calling it Political "Science" and not Political "Theater", you got to do the homework.

Antiwar.com Original

What Mark"s Reading

Proud Realist

Facebook Badge

Contributors

Contact Me

Followers

My Blogroll

OHIO BLOGS

TOLEDO BLOGS

BLOGS I RECOMMEND

American Streeters

1/31/08

1/30/08

1/28/08

1/27/08

1/26/08

1/25/08

1/24/08

1/23/08

1/21/08

1/20/08

1/19/08

1/18/08

1/15/08

1/14/08

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

RealClearPolitics

Pollster.com

Blog Archive

Older Archives