I agree -- the weird rules, with small states voting first, are designed to allow someone with less name recognition than a former first lady to win the nomination. If *anyone* had to compete in every state, including the largest, all at once, no one new could ever run for president; it'd be far too expensive.

It may be a little strange that Republicans are allowed to vote in some state primaries, and caucuses might well give some extra weight towards candidates who can really motivate their bases, but that doesn't sound so bad to me.

Posted at June 3, 2008 4:14 PM in response to What if? How the Democratic Party dodged a bullet this week

Margin of error is essentially 1 / sqrt(number of people polled). With 500 people polled, that comes out to 4.5% which is the # quoted above (not 7%).

Posted at May 2, 2008 11:30 AM in response to Poll: Obama Ahead By Seven Points In North Carolina

Zogby did the best of all, in PA, as I recall.

That being said, the polls have been very unreliable in this election so far.

Still, good news for Obama.

Posted at May 2, 2008 10:20 AM in response to Zogby: Obama Ahead By 16 In North Carolina, Tied In Indiana

The momentum shift *is* palpable, but it will fade, like it always has. Obama has dealt well enough with Rev. Wright to put it behind him. Some people will never vote for Hillary, and some will never vote for Obama. That's life.

What is also clear is that for the super-delegates to overrule the elected delegates, Obama's support has to *collapse*. And despite all the spin, doing better in PA than expected for all of this season except for the last 4 days isn't a collapse -- he did well here against amazing demographic odds. Getting a majority of the delegates in TX isn't a collapse. He may lose a few percent in IN and NC due to the proximity of the Wright flap to the election, or perhaps not, but that, too, isn't a collapse.

And he'll beat McCain, as well. McCain has all the energy level of Bob Dole in '96, but without Dole's genuine wit and intelligence.

Posted at May 1, 2008 3:05 PM in response to Quinnipiac: Hillary Runs Stronger Than Obama Against McCain In Big Three Swing States

Actually, the group isn't targeting Clinton's core demographic. By targeting "single women", it is getting a group heavily overrepresented with students and African American women (who have a significantly lower marriage rate than white women).

So, why is a group filled with Clinton supporters trying to register one of the few subsets of women voters who are most likely to be *Obama* supporters?

That'd be an interesting question, if they were really registering this group, but instead, they seem to be generating confusion among them about whether they're really registered.

To me, it looks like this group of Clinton supporters is actively trying to suppress voter turnout among African American women, students, and other young women voters.

How low can these folks go?

Posted at April 30, 2008 8:34 PM in response to North Carolina AG Opens Investigation of Robo Calls

Exactly. Right now, we're occupying a country, supporting a government that in reality is little more than another Shiite militia, albeit one with the strongest ties to Iran (via ISCI, previously known as SCIRI).

This government, being backed by both Iran and the US, is hardly likely ever to survive at the hands of either the Sunni or Shiite Iraqi nationalists who will take over if the US should ever leave.

So, when the analyst author talks about Iraq being a "must win," he/she is being foolish, for if you define victory as this government surviving after its foreign support leaves, that's pretty much unimaginable.

In other words, we're not even on the right track to "victory."

Posted at April 19, 2008 9:43 AM in response to Today's Must Read

Clinton said:

"I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience.

I live in Pittsburgh, and while people here aren't exactly bitter, they know they know that when the steel industry collapsed, there were winners and losers, and the winners did nothing to help out the losers. Instead, steel workers were told that they had made bad career choices.

In reality, the picture is a lot more complicated -- the steel industry was sacrificed to steel companies that were diversifying and treated steel production as a cash cow, rather than something that needed investment; to unions that viewed steel as a source of unending wealth rather than agreeing to more flexible work rules; and a government that provided little investment help for the industry, while the governments of our competitors provided lots of subsidies.

The result is that some people had to scramble really hard to find new livelihoods. For the most part, the area has recovered from its state in the late 70s, but I don't doubt that some people are still a little bitter about the way that the steel industry was sacrificed.

So, I think Obama's a lot closer to understanding what people here think than Clinton. My prediction is that the harder she hammers on this, the more out of touch she herself looks.

Posted at April 12, 2008 4:05 PM in response to Hillary Hits Obama: "Pennsylvanians Don't Need A President Who Looks Down On Them"

I also tend to discount a 28 point swing over such a short period, but it is possible that a combination of the Casey endorsement and the utter bizarreness of her meeting with Richard Scaife has moved her numbers down somewhat.

Posted at April 2, 2008 9:10 PM in response to Poll Gives Obama The Lead In Pennsylvania

I have very few expectations from the Democrats, and I do believe that the Republicans are worse.

But this bill is *so* bad that the Democrats' refusal to even criticise it, much less mount a filibuster, is just too much for me. If they're willing to sign off on getting rid of habeus corpus review for US citizens detained by the DoD on Rumsfeld's say so alone, then, really, how much better *are* they?

Posted at September 27, 2006 7:08 PM in response to Dems Disappoint

Marty Lederman wrote an excellent summary of the bill, and why it is *so* awful.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/#115936476757604275

Read it and weep.

The Dems have gotten my last donation until they grow a spine. I wrote a letter to Sen. Specter (there's really no reason to waste a second letter to my other Senator), but I'm not optimistic. Although Specter can at least spell Habeus Corpus :-)

Posted at September 27, 2006 7:02 PM in response to Dems Disappoint