GOTV in Baton Rouge

[cross posted at E Pluribus Unum]



I just wanted to take a few moments to tell you about the excitement in Baton Rouge about getting out the vote now in the last 72 hours before the election.

This past Wednesday, Obama HQ in Baton Rouge had an organizational meeting that was kicked off by gathering several dozen people to watch Obama's infomercial. Following that, the local organization asked everyone to find four people to each take a two hour shift during the upcoming weekend.

A word about this simple technique: it is what distinguishes the Obama ground game from almost all others that came before it. In the past, the conventional way of getting volunteers was for it to be organized from the top down. In Obama world, the grassroots volunteers find others like themselves to pitch in.

Miss Julie and I went to work and were able to find eight of our friends (in addition to us) to each take a shift making phone calls and canvassing through Election Day.

Our first day was Saturday when we called for two purposes: Finding yet more volunteers (shelf life of volunteers is relatively short) and calling to remind people to vote on Nov. 4. We were pretty good at this already, having done it last weekend at a local house party organized by MoveOn. At that event we were calling to find volunteers to work in Virginia; this time it was all local to East Baton Rouge parish.

Lots of people say they hate making phone calls like this but honestly, the way it was organized, it was very easy. The trick was to get started and get your momentum going. Once you're going, don't stop. In this way, the time passes quickly and you meet some terrific volunteers and you also talk to some wonderful people on the phone. Lots of enthusiasm all around. And the best part? It keeps you from fretting about every little wobble in the polls, and every silly story in the press. And you're part of history.

I went in again yesterday, Sunday, and spent another two hour shift phoning. Miss Julie will do the same on Monday (I can't -- I'm having a root canal in the morning). In the meantime, our friends have been phoning and some will even be canvassing on Tuesday.

Bottom line: it isn't too late to volunteer. Anyone reading this should consider doing whatever you can on Monday and Tuesday. Call your local Obama HQ -- now! -- or visit my.barackobama.com for details on who needs your help in your area.

Do it, even if it's for an hour or two between now and the election. You really can change the world -- one person at a time.

Lemme Get This Straight

Despite having a postponement for the Independence Day recess giving hope to freedom loving bloggers, when the Congress gets back in session the Senate will be proceeding on the FISA revisions that gives President Bush exactly what he wants, no doubt capitulating to his demand that we won't be safe and can't fight terrorists unless the Telecommunication Giants are given immunity for spying on Americans illegally.

This move was in no small part deemed a procedural requirement by the Democratic Leadership, Mr. Ried and now you Mr. Obama (yes you ... ), due to the necessity of getting other business done without more GOP obstructionism:

• like Senator Dodd's housing bill (which will be vetoed) and,
• the new GI bill (which will be vetoed) and,
• attaching Gulf Coast and Midwest flood recovery funds to the usual off-budget War Supplemental (which will be vetoed) and,
• attaching an extension of unemployment benefits to the War Supplemental (which will still be vetoed) and,
• fixing Medicare so doctors don't get a pay cut (which might just become law)

We give up on FISA's repudiation of the Fourth Amendment, and in exchange the Republicans will still call us weak on terror and the GOP Congress Critters can blame President 23% for no GI Bill, no relief for flood victims, no more unemployment benefits and maybe see doctors throughout the land re-bill their Medicare patients for lost fees and up their rates to everyone else to make up the difference -- giving what's left of the Republicans in Congress (the few, the proud, the very afraid) a legitimate means of distancing themselves from Still POTUS Bush.

Feh! The Potomac Village is a place where only lies have any currency whatsoever. The powerful and their entourage trading in what can be foisted on rubes who have no clue and zero interest in their world.

You know, for all my frothing at the infuriating way Washington has been so completely ass-backwards about so much for so long, with what's coming down the pike economically it really doesn't matter what those pompous pontificators do, and it's sadly clear that Cheney's oil gambit in Iraq, the one Rupert Murdoch ventured would bring $20/barrel crude has failed, miserably.

A Saner Head On FISA

I'm not sure I agree with Neil the "Werewolf" on this one, but it's nice that he's trying to console us. I do feel a bit better, but I'm not buying into this statement:

This bill is basically the same kind of garden-variety corruption one expects from Congress -- protecting wealthy interests at the expense of ordinary folk. That's why it's a bad piece of legislation. But Congress passes junk like that all the time (the farm bill, lots of defense appropriations, not bargaining hard with Big Pharma, etc) and it's not the end of the world. And that's why I'm writing this post -- I don't want people to lose perspective and think that this is too much more than just another garden-variety bit of corporate corruption. It's a lot closer to the tax breaks for ceiling fan importers that it is to torture.

It's a bit more troubling than all that Neil, a few more basic principles and American freedoms are at stake here, don't you think?

And the problem is broader than Neil paints with his singular focus on the imperative that we must replace George Bush and his entire criminal enterprise from the executive branch -- and of course than requires that anyone with an "R" after their name is no longer welcome at any White House Bar-B-Q's. (No, seriously. Forget about the post-partisan crap about retaining someone like Gates at DoD or any similar "enlightened" nonsense. They ALL have to go.)

Neil begins with the simple premis that , "This is a legislative precedent that emerged because Steny Hoyer decided that it would be good business to sell the telcos the immunity they wanted in exchange for campaign contributions." But that doesn't reveal the whole picture. Hoyer would never have been placed in such an untenable position, knowing he would be labeled as a bought and paid for hack by even well-meaning analysts like Neil if the Democrats in the House weren't hamstrung by the turncoat Blue-Dogs who vote with the GOP on damn near everything that matters, and thus as loyal to Bush as John McCain.

Now I don't know if these DINO's will have an epiphany when Barack Obama takes the oath of office, or will have some enlightenment shoved down their throats. But I do know that haveing the equivalent of 40 or so Joe Liebermans filling space in the Democratic Caucus and marching in lock-step with the remnants of Tom DeLay's outfit is THE principle reason Congress as an institution is despised more than anything, ever.

So thanks Neil, I do feel a bit better, but I'm looking for more than merely an inauguration ushering a new era. I'm looking for a purge.

Sadly, I'll probably be disappointed on both counts. But in the true spirit of a Cleveland sports fan and apostle of St. Wiley E. Coyote and the Church of Never Say Die, that certainly doesn't mean I'll accept the notion that the Perfect is the enemy of the Good.

Thank You Democrats

At least the 105 128 of you (thanks Larry), including my representative Marcy Kaptur, who stood firm against the lawless imperialism of the Bush administration and voted no on giving the Telecoms immunity in the FISA bill. (The yeas and nays are here, HT Hilzoy.)

Thanks as well to the sole republican brave enough to buck his party and vote against this travesty as well, Timothy V. Johnson (R-Illinios-15).

This vote effectively split the Democrats in half, 105 128 patriots who stood up for the rule of law against 128 105 capitulators, including the leadership, Pelosi, Hoyer, Emannuel. Those 105 128 are going to need all the help they can get. I'm not sure the Act Blue idea of punishing those who followed the leadership's cue is as important as supporting those who did the right thing -- cuz they're going to need it.

Or maybe they're just in safe enough seats they can afford to hold the liberal line. I know that the core Northern Ohio progressives, (Kaptur, Kucinich, Tubbs-Jones) are in no real danger of losing their seats, and Blue Dogs like Zack Space, a Democrat in a very conservative district, was never going to go along with anything that even hinted he was "soft" on terrists. None of this should be a surprise.

The reason is simple. other than the bumper-sticker mentality that has been mastered by the fear-mongering GOP, this issue simply doesn't resonate with the public at large. They don't know, like you should, why FISA matters so much.

Since all signs still point towards another wave election, and possibly a '32 type realignment, funding the liberal wing of the party may not be all that productive right now, but it's advance thinking (as the blogosphere always seems to do), putting in place a new framework to push for new leadership, or at least a new direction for 2010, and remaking the very sole of this nation by 2012.

Maybe that's even too short-sighted. The GOP spent 40 years institutionalizing the politics of fear and loathing.

I probably am conditioned by the loathing to loath sending up challengers against every Democrat who won't toe our progressive line as Glenzilla and the Kossacks advocate. My reflexes are even more attuned against dis'ing the party's nominee for his silence -- since just six months ago my rallying cry was Silence Is Betrayal.

John Edwards, recalling MLK's message of resistance to war:

As he put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal -- not only of one's personal convictions, or even of one's country alone, but also of our deeper obligations to one another and to the brotherhood of man.

That's the thing I find the most important about the sermon Dr. King delivered here that day. He did not direct his demands to the government of the United States, which was escalating the war. He issued a direct appeal to the people of the United States, calling on us to break our own silence, and to take responsibility for bringing about what he called a revolution of values.

A revolution whose starting point is personal responsibility, of course, but whose animating force is the belief that we cannot stand idly by and wait for others to right the wrongs of the world.

And this, in my view, is at the heart of what we should remember and celebrate on this day. This is the dream we must commit ourselves to realizing.

To quote words even more familiar, while the Democrats struggle to gain a true majority, one both filibuster and veto proof, before they can solidify their gains, while they are still vulnerable enough not to take the progressives for granted . . .

If not us, who? If not now, when? ~RFK

Support the 105 128, and fight the capitulators. You want to send a message? This is how.

Just A Great News Day

There is no better champion for universal health care than John Edwards. Of all the candidates he came out first with the most comprehensive plan. Nobody can hold a candle to him on this issue -- except his wife.

Obama Says He's Partnering With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care

Meanwhile, Gramppy McSame, in an effort to prove his learning curve is a flat line, is trotting out his gas tax holiday gimmick again, which was so roundly rejected by the public just a couple of weeks ago. McCain also added to his list of "senior moments" by referring to Putin as the President of Germany, not Russia. Chuck Todd nailed it when he said age doesn't matter for politicians -- unless it shows.

On McCain, it shows. He got busted busted on denying he said what he said about the news coverage of Hillary too. This guy's pathetic, but so are the press who are giving him a pass on this lie.

On the legal front, ScottBot McClerrator is being summoned to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, which should just add fuel to the fire to bolster Dennis Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment he filed against our C+ Augustus.

On the campaign trail, Obama is up by six points over McCain, hot on the heels of what looks like a Hillary bump. McCain is facing real problems in Ohio too, and I for one am glad to add to his troubles.

No wonder Republicans are so grumpy and having no fun right now.

[Big Hat Tip to Memeorandum, without which we wouldn't have gotten all this good news.]

I Can't Go On Reading From The Muckety-Mucks

I can't read or blog about any more Clinton postmortems. And there's a ton of them today. Before I started blogging, if a columnist was a wanker, I just stopped reading their drivel. Now I feel an obligation to ingest the nonsense of the Versailles Villagers just to write about what's wrong about them.

I got as far as Broder's third paragraph before I realized I had been sucked in by the old codger, telling me that he too is weary of the Klinton Kabuki. The Crown Prince of comity and enforcer of decorum among the Village Elders is sporting a woody for 10, no-holds-barred free-for-all Town Hall style debates between McCain and Obama because they will somehow by-pass and undermine the "muckety-mucks" (his words, not mine) who rule the Potomac Courtiers without even a hint that he's aware just how Teh Suck his boy McSame does in traditional debates, and that there's no way, no how John "Ace" doesn't completely melt down in a spittle-flecked rage in at least one of them -- probably more. Moreover, the lack of self-awareness, that Broder himself is one of those despicable "muckety-mucks," enough is enough.

So don't read Broder. Your day will be just that more pleasant for it. And don't even have the stupidity of reading Maureen Dowd taking delight in Hillary's defeat either, reveling in the idea that she lost because she's too good. No really. Hillary is so good at acting, according to the Village's Queen of Mean, that she takes on too many roles, some of which are inconsistent. Thus those of us in "fly-over country" get confused, and really -- everything Hillary did was wrong, especially listening to Mark Penn.

Glutton for punishment that I am, I read Mark Penn's post-postmortem as well. Dumb move. Don't do it. The stupid burns, true. But Hillary's pet buffoon mixes stupid with strawmen scapegoating, failure to take any responsibility whatsoever, and blames (of all things) a lack of funding and not the strategy and resource allocation he himself was so exorbitantly paid to screw up, This microtrend polling expert mentions caucuses, but glosses it over, talking about Hillary winning the high turnout primaries but losing low turnout caucuses without noticing that he could poll the primary states easier than the caucus states and therefor probably gave her more accurate intelligence there but likewise passed on his ignorance about the caucus states, yet packaged it as information.

You get the feeling Penn wasn't writing an honest opinion piece designed to actually explore any real reason Obama won and Hillary lost. When one of the campaign's largest creditors blames her lost on not raising enough money, when she raised more money than anyone ever has before (except Obama), I think he just wants to get paid and is sending the message to any future clients that if you want to win, you better raise an exorbitant amount-- and give it to him. Nice work if you can get it, Mark (until you're exposed as the fraud you are,)

There are a bunch more Villagers weighing in on Hillary's last days as presidential candidate (this cycle), but I can't go on. Each one so far was worse that the one before. That and I'm certain my brain is being eaten alive by all the insipidities on display.

29 Down and Counting

Via Political Wire:

Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) "has scheduled a noon press conference on Thursday, and GOP insiders say the veteran lawmaker is going to announce his retirement from Congress, effective at the end of this year," The Politico reports.

Last Republican to leave, please turn out the lights in your caucus room. We won't be leaving a light on.

With All Due Respect

Via Reddit:

Fuck Heath Ledger: 27 American troops and 394 Iraqis have died in 2008 (icasualties.org), most were younger and never had a limo ride.

And from the Department of: What Do We Do Now That Freddy Quit?

Ron Paul is the candidate of last resort in Louisiana -- Blimpies stack the deck in Bayou Caucus Call.

"The biggest surprise to come out of Louisiana's GOP delegate process thus far involves Ron Paul, the Texas congressman mounting a quasi-libertarian campaign that has been defined by its grassroots organization. Dore says the Paul campaign dropped off a 'whole slate" of delegates about two weeks ago " a surprise showing that wasn't expected.

Evidently, the Paulites were the only campaign to drop off a whole slate of delegates.

From personal (strictly anecdotal) evidence, on the campus of the University of Toledo, reminiscent of "...a Dead Head sticker on a Cadillac..." -- I was cut off in traffic by a late model Mitzubisi that had some Death Metal radio station bumper-sticker, a University parking pass, and a cardboard cutout "Ron Paul R[ƎVO˩]UTION" sign in the back window.

Conclusion: Blimpies are young and drive like shit.

Be afraid.

[And yes, if it didn't come through on your browser, the bracketed characters spell "LOVE" backwards.]

And a warning to the Blimpies: Be Careful What You Wish For.

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

"If I could take you by the hand and lead you into the promised land, I would not do it. If I could take you be the hand and lead you into the promised land today, someone else could take you by the hand tomorrow and lead you back out."

These are things people who are in favor of changing the society should keep in mind during this campaign and after it. Follow and support Ron Paul as far as he can go this year, whether that is the White House or the Republican convention Don't change to supporting someone who isn't what we want, but can win.

For now and for the future remember that you are seeking and working for change, not for an individual leader. A leader cannot do it for you. For the future it is important to work to bring about the changed and a better society. If you cannot find a candidate you want, run yourself. If you cannot do that, recruit someone to run who can. Remaking an era is not a job for one man or for one year. If you want a better world, you must create it

If that doesn't work, take some "X" and just roll with the flow you lovable maniacs. That approach worked out so well for us John Anderson supporters in 1980.......

Um, not so much, actually.

You'll learn. I grew up and stopped smoking dope, so you can figure it out too. Once you guys finish off sucking the helium out of your stupid balloon (that looks as much like an ad for Revlon lip stick as a political statement), the grown ups will show you how politics really works.

But keep the faith for now, cuz you're doing wonders for fucking the GOP out of any hope in hell of winning this election. At least we on the left know how to keep Dennis The Menace on the sidelines -- and broke, all the while co-opting his entire platform.

Rudy Goes Boom!

A couple of posts back I made the argument that Rudy 9iu11ni will likely be ahead of the GOP field after Tsunami Tuesday, and that winning FloriDUH on top of that will make him very formidable indeed.

Of course, that was precipitated by the notion that New York, being a winner-take-all state like Florida, as well as New Jersey were his base, home states he would "naturally" win.

What a difference a new poll makes.

McCain has the support of 36 percent of New York Republicans, compared to 24 percent for Giuliani, who led McCain 48-15 just one month ago.

Kevin Drum charts the drop, a steady slide since the "Shag Fund" was first revealed.

Rudy, meet Gary. Senator Hart, meed Mayor 9iu11ni.

America, remember back when you figured this election would be between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, say about 4 years ago, maybe even 8?

Sorry to keep you waiting.

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.

The Hillary Two-Step

This gets to the heart of my problems with Senator Clinton.

What we have heard, instead is this: She voted for the bill authorizing the Iraq War, but didn't mean it. She voted against the bill that inserted inspectors into Iraq but forced Bush to come back to Congress to get war authorization, but she always wanted to limit the president's authority. She voted for the Bankruptcy Bill but was pleased it did not pass. She touts her experience but has not indicated what it is she actually did that confirms that experience. She suggests she is the only one prepared to deal with a terror attack, but never indicates what her expertise is in that role. She says that executive experience, managing departments, is critical... but does not indicate that she has ever done it.

And all of this is consistent with my biggest beef with her on a comparably trival matter -- how she voted on Flag Burning. It was the first time I saw this BS in action from her, and I had expected much better.

My first indication that Clintonian triangulation was the very essence of Hillary's ambition was her vote against a Constitutional Amendment that would allow Congress to pass a legitimate law criminalizing flag burning, and then she voted for a clearly unconstitutional law criminalizing flag burning that is in obvious conflict with the unmodified First Amendment without the Amendment that she just voted down.

My head still swims with that one.

Pandering to everyone and standing for nothing is a feature, not a bug of Hillary's approach to politics. And yet, I still like her and trust her to do the right thing when push comes to shove. I look at what she's done in her life, her clear liberal bona fides, and I know when she's not in campaign mode she'll do the right thing, and even when she's pandering I'm one of the groups she tips her bonnet to. Don't ask me why. This is purely a gut thing.

She absolutely makes me nuts sometimes. A lot of the times. My Mom had a similar effect on me. Maybe that's why I trust her in the end. Like Mom, I know she only has my best interest at heart.

It's exactly the opposite vibe I got from our Republican Presidents over the last 40 years (except maybe Ford). I always had the feeling that Nixon, Reagan and especially the Bushes gave a rats ass if people like me lived or died, or what kind of horrors we faced just getting through the day as long as they and their fat-cat friends were doing okay.

Unlike John Edwards, who I'm absolutely convinced would make the best choices if he were POTUS; I need to be reminded that in the end, Hillary doesn't completely suck. As for Senator Obama, I still need to be sold that he knows what the hell he's supposed to do if we put him in charge -- and will know if and when his advisers are giving him bogus info.

I honestly don't know whether it's better to have a liberal leaning technocrat like Hillary or an inspirational "Reaganesque" leader like Obama (as long as he rejects supply-side economics for Pete's sake -- and stays awake at cabinet meetings). Neither are as qualified as Richardson or as dedicated to fixing the structural problems we face as Edwards. I see both Hillary and Barack as content with the system as it is, and thinking they can simply steer it in a new direction. It's that kind of thinking that leads to Newt Gingrich becoming Speaker of the House and the end of any hope for change -- but at least they'll steer us away from the abyss we may have already crossed into.

Edwards will still be on the Ohio ballot come March, and like I did in 2004, I will proudly vote for him. This time, it will probably make more of a difference than it did then since his continued involvement could put him in control of the others' fate. But come November, alas, I'll most likely be fighting to elect one of his rivals. I just don't know which one I'd rather get behind. I suppose I don't really have to choose, do I?

What's fun is that if Barack wins the nomination, he's probably claimed the mantle of the candidate who's most "Reganesque" from all the GOPers trying to out-Gipper each other right now. You can debate all day what Reaganomics was since he raised and lowered taxes. You can fight over his death-squads and the consequences of arming future terrorists against his credentials as a cold-warrior. But no one disputes his claim to fame as the Great Communicator -- and only Barack Obama can be cast in that role today.

When it comes to policy, Reagan was a disaster and I pray Obama understands this. But when it comes to telegenic image, Barack has got that star-quality down. He's saying to all those disaffected Reagan Democrats that rejected Clinton long ago, "Come on home." Like Ronnie, he can point behind the crowd to some fictional city on the hill, and everyone will turn around and look. The man is absolutely captivating.

If Hillary wins the White House, and doesn't deliver on universal health care and get us the hell out of Iraq, I will be so damn pissed. The ONLY thing she'll have going for her as an incumbent is that the alternative is a fucking Republican, and I've no doubt I'd back a decent primary challenger to her, if only to keep her in line. If she's smart, she'll make sure both Barack and Edwards are part of her administration so they don't run against her again -- cuz I know she'll piss enough of us off to want to back either John or Barack in 1012.

Attention Obama/Reagan Apologizers

St. Ronnie was an asshole.

That is all. Feel free to move about the blogosphere.

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,]

There Must Be Something In The Water

In this week's Michigan Primary, those voting for the Democratic "uncommitted" slot outnumbered Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani and even Mike Huckabee. Indeed those candidates combined total is less than the combined total of all "uncommitted."

If you combine the Democratic and Republican "uncommitted," John McCain only beats those strange people who went out in the snow to cast their official vote for "none of the above" by 2,000 votes.

Conclusion? Something is very wrong with the people in Michigan, at least from this Buckeye fan's perspective.

Yes, I "get" the anti-Hillary protest vote Michiganders cast because the State's favorite candidates weren't on the ballot. If Obama and Edwards had been there and the primary mattered, Hillary would have been humiliated -- or at least in a real battle, and turnout would have tripled. But explain to me what kind of graduate from the Ted Nugent Survivalist Training Camp & Bistro brave the elements to flip the lever for people who aren't even running, like Tom Tancredo (457) or Sam Brownback(351). let alone the 18,506 who said -- anybody with an "R."

Seriously, why bother?

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?

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.

1. Hillary is ahead in the polls.
2. No candidate has over 50%, but Hillary is closer. (see item 1. above).
3. If Edwards quits now, neither Obama nor Hillary will get 100% of his supporters.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Obama may need ALL of John's delegates to win, but Hillary may only need a fraction of that support.
   
7. 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.
   
8. Conversely, Obama would also get "some," but probably not enough of Edwards' supporters to win.
9. 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.
   
10. 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.

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.