http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html

Meh, this graph would argue against my point since Obama hasn't actually lost much support. The closing gap has come from Hillary gaining.

Hillary looks set to win Indiana though. The only person who thinks she is losing is Zogby, and he's mentally retarded.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/in/indiana_democratic_primary-639.html

dajafi wrote:
Part of me thinks this is simply a cyclical thing--like the Tories winning in England this week.

Just for reference, that was the local elections at the weekend, so council level, not parliamentary level. And in no way related to elections for the regional executive bodies (The Scottish Parliament, NI Assembly and so on). Oh, and it was only the council elections in england, because we've had them in scotland already (using an entirely different voting system, Single Transferable Vote - Yay- but Labour did try to deliberately screw that up so people mightn't think it was a good way to vote, when toothless idiots from Roscommon can manage just fine voting with it, but I digress).

For those that are interested, Labour currently in recriminating meltdown, with many mps saying that this is all the fault of crazy Broon and his out of touch budget in 2007, but anyhow they knew that taking money off really poor people in an attempt to give it to the middle class was a really, really bad idea. Even though they all cheered when that particular budget was passed.

I briefly worried when I saw that a tory had been made mayor of london, fearing a return to the bad old government of the 80s when Irish (and other suspected terorrists) were banged up for 21 days without charge on suspicion of doing something kind of bad, the british arms industry could rely on goverment help to sell to whichever regime they wanted to to make obscene profit, a willingness to bend the rules to accomodate british industry no matter the cost to the environment, and plenty of young moneyed pricks in the city of London wandering around pretending they're Douglas in Wall Street.

Oh, wait a minute.

Wizlah wrote:

dajafi wrote:
Part of me thinks this is simply a cyclical thing--like the Tories winning in England this week.

Just for reference, that was the local elections at the weekend, so council level, not parliamentary level. And in no way related to elections for the regional executive bodies (The Scottish Parliament, NI Assembly and so on). Oh, and it was only the council elections in england, because we've had them in scotland already (using an entirely different voting system, Single Transferable Vote - Yay- but Labour did try to deliberately screw that up so people mightn't think it was a good way to vote, when toothless idiots from Roscommon can manage just fine voting with it, but I digress).

For those that are interested, Labour currently in recriminating meltdown, with many mps saying that this is all the fault of crazy Broon and his out of touch budget in 2007, but anyhow they knew that taking money off really poor people in an attempt to give it to the middle class was a really, really bad idea. Even though they all cheered when that particular budget was passed.

I briefly worried when I saw that a tory had been made mayor of london, fearing a return to the bad old government of the 80s when Irish (and other suspected terorrists) were banged up for 21 days without charge on suspicion of doing something kind of bad, the british arms industry could rely on goverment help to sell to whichever regime they wanted to to make obscene profit, a willingness to bend the rules to accomodate british industry no matter the cost to the environment, and plenty of young moneyed pricks in the city of London wandering around pretending they're Douglas in Wall Street.

Oh, wait a minute.

Sometimes I think it would be fun to be one of those cranky old aristocrat Tory type who goes into mourning every Jan 30.

TenuredVulture wrote:
Sometimes I think it would be fun to be one of those cranky old aristocrat Tory type who goes into mourning every Jan 30.

Well, yeah. You'd have an estate in scotland, shedloads of money, and a guarantee that not only would you never be cut out of the political process, every poxy little whim would be given attention out of all proportion to its importance. Border collies everywhere would cheer your name.

Wizlah wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
Sometimes I think it would be fun to be one of those cranky old aristocrat Tory type who goes into mourning every Jan 30.

Well, yeah. You'd have an estate in scotland, shedloads of money, and a guarantee that not only would you never be cut out of the political process, every poxy little whim would be given attention out of all proportion to its importance. Border collies everywhere would cheer your name.

Not to mention, I get to cultivate at least one eccentricity. And drink claret.

Here's a very detailed analysis of Obama's prospects in NC tomorrow.

I hope it's right, but this feels a little homer-ish to me, like when I make statements such as "Rollins, Utley, Howard and Burrell could combine for 150 home runs and 500 RBI."

dajafi wrote:Here's a very detailed analysis of Obama's prospects in NC tomorrow.

I hope it's right, but this feels a little homer-ish to me, like when I make statements such as "Rollins, Utley, Howard and Burrell could combine for 150 home runs and 500 RBI."

It's going along with the same thinking that I was going for I think about undecideds breaking back to the person they supported initially (well among other reasoning for that margin).

That said, I'm pretty sure that person's on crack. 17% would be insane. I think something sort of real changed in the past few weeks. We'll see tomorrow I suppose.

In GOP news, the only thing that happened today that matters as far as I can tell is Jindal has officially lept into the veepstakes through the Kristol op-ed, then not completely shooting down the idea himself when asked.

He's young (36), smart as hell, and isn't white. Those have to be three pluses in his column during considerations. Dunno if he completely passes the ready to be president test. He's no more experienced than Barack Obama at this point.

jerseyhoya wrote:In GOP news, the only thing that happened today that matters as far as I can tell is Jindal has officially lept into the veepstakes through the Kristol op-ed, then not completely shooting down the idea himself when asked.

He's young (36), smart as hell, and isn't white. Those have to be three pluses in his column during considerations. Dunno if he completely passes the ready to be president test. He's no more experienced than Barack Obama at this point.

I think Jindal is a bad choice. First, he's got a big task in LA. If he succeeds, he's on everyone's Presidential shortlist, still at a young 44. But if he leaves now, he'll engender a lot of resentment for leaving a job largely undone.

Probably, but what are the odds of him succeeding in Louisiana? It's like fixing New Jersey.

Has Obama's success shown us to strike while the iron is hot?

I guess the big question is if Jindal can run for veep without resigning as governor, and I think the answer is yes, since Obama isn't going to resign from the Senate. And if he does run without resigning, does he completely screw himself longterm in the state if McCain loses? He doesn't have to face reelection till 2011. I can see how that'd be really tempting for him.

GOP seeks order to primary chaos

The Ohio Plan

Might have linked to this, but the top article is new. Interesting discussion in light of what the Dems are going through.

jerseyhoya wrote:That said, I'm pretty sure that person's on crack. 17% would be insane. I think something sort of real changed in the past few weeks. We'll see tomorrow I suppose.

Maybe not. Drudge leads off today with "HILLARY FACES '15-POINT DEFEAT' IN NC."

It's spin. I mean it's possible, but if they're setting the bar for bad at 15, then they're really probably expecting to lose by quite a bit less than that.

What's the deal with Dennis Prager? My friend has been yelling at me for years about how I should listen to him because he's so impartial, but his April 28th show was a total hatchet job on Obama.

I'm no expert and I haven't even been paying as-close attention as earlier this year, but it seems to me that the polls showing that the Clintons were closer in NC included pretty low guesses of what percentage of the primary electorate African-Americans would comprise. The state population is something like 25 percent African-American, and it seems safe to assume most of those who vote are registered as Democrats.

My totally uninformed guess is they'll account for about 40 percent of the vote today, will go something like 85-15 for Obama, and give him around 56-58 percent overall.

Indiana is the question mark. The Clintons should win, but not by as much. And given that NC is a bigger prize, Obama should net at least a dozen or so delegates for the day.

Heres a funny story. I actually did a bunch of work for the Elon Poll when I was in college. We were doing polling work before the 2000 election, and we spent a few days making lots of phone calls. Most people would blow you off, but eventually you'd get answers out of people. My 8th or 9th person of the night was actually the funniest person I ever interviewed. We went through a list of like 12 questions related to the candidates. We get to the end, which is where the tough questions are, which is by design. I tell him I only have 2 more questions for him. He says thats fine, and I ask him the final question, and he says "you know, before I go, I should just tell you that everything I just told you is completely different from how I actually feel, but your answers you provided for me to choose from are crap, so why should I take it seriously? I know who I'm voting for, my reasons might not be rational, but they are my reasons. Trying to figure it out by pigeon-holing me with multiple choice answers doesn't tell you anything. I know you're just doing your job, but its a pretty pointless job"

I was dumbfounded. But amazed. That guy was awesome.

dajafi wrote:I'm no expert and I haven't even been paying as-close attention as earlier this year, but it seems to me that the polls showing that the Clintons were closer in NC included pretty low guesses of what percentage of the primary electorate African-Americans would comprise. The state population is something like 25 percent African-American, and it seems safe to assume most of those who vote are registered as Democrats.

My totally uninformed guess is they'll account for about 40 percent of the vote today, will go something like 85-15 for Obama, and give him around 56-58 percent overall.

Indiana is the question mark. The Clintons should win, but not by as much. And given that NC is a bigger prize, Obama should net at least a dozen or so delegates for the day.

According to the 2006 estimate, blacks were 21.7% of NC's population, so 40% would probably be a bit high for black % of the electorate though I guess not out of the question. I think 35% might be a bit of a better guess. Each 1% shift in turnout is worth about half a percent in the total vote if you figure Hillary will win 60% of the white vote and 10% of the black vote.

My Hillary doing better in Indiana than Obama in NC thing is looking pretty bad at the moment as he stemmed the tide on that Wright thing and now folks are talking about gas taxes and whatnot. Be interesting to see the results come in tonight though.

Edit: And that (.65x.4)+(.35x.9)=.575, so that's a 15% win. So, um, maybe I'm the one on crack and that guy from yesterday was dead on.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:What's the deal with Dennis Prager? My friend has been yelling at me for years about how I should listen to him because he's so impartial, but his April 28th show was a total hatchet job on Obama.

I've never really read or listened to the guy, but this is the first line of his Wikipedia page.

Dennis Prager (born August 2, 1948) is a Jewish American syndicated radio talk show host, columnist, author, ethicist, and public speaker. He is noted for his conservative political views and for his study of the consequences of secularism in the 20th Century.

So, uh, yeah doesn't seem all that impartial.

I'm putting this out there, in all seriousness.

The Bush/Cheyney regime -- and all those they represent, have left a lot in their wake. The Supreme Court is loaded up now. Patriot Act, Executive orders, treaties ignored or pulled out of... and economic problems, huge debt, a massive military situation/costs -- so whoever goes in next to the White House will be saddled with quite a bit and unlikel to do anything too much earth shattering.

But here's my question -- let's say either Dem wins. What becomes of the neo-cons? Do they just wait it out for 4 years figuring "that poor suckah is so loaded down with our baggage he won't be able to do anything anyway", or do they have further preparations for the next 4 years? If one things has been clear about the move to the right, the evangelicals, the neo-cons... it's that they think ahead. They have long term planning processes and anticipate things out ahead. What's in store for us, not like these guys are just going away because W, their best puppet since Ronnie, is about to be forced out, with a really low approval rating I might add.

What happens if a Dem takes office?

And -- is there any way shape or form, that we could see another "attack" on US soil, within a month or two of election to where they would try to "delay" the process to keep continuity when we're under seige? I doubt it now, but wasn't so sure a year and half ago?

I don't think they are a big fan of McCain and he's not as maleable as W, but I think they figure they can make it work wit him for 4 years. I don't believe we'll have anything approaching honest elections again, so the Dems have to win large.

I would add -- the obvious but I haven't seen it remarked here yet -- if Hilary were to win the White House, that would mean we'd have had 12 years of Bush, and 12 years of Clintons. 24 years is 1/3 of most people's lives ... that's scary as heck to me!

Regarding the neocons, there are only two things one need keep in mind:

1) They're always wrong
2) Being wrong never catches up with them

Read "Rise of the Vulcans," by James Mann, and you'll see that these people didn't come out of nowhere; they had the same bad ideas, applied somewhat differently, in the '70s, '80s and '90s as they did in this decade. (I'm referring here mostly to foreign policy, but the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Addington views on a "unitary executive" have been equally consistent.)

It would be a bit overblown to refer to them as parasites who jump from vessel to vessel, but that's fairly close to the mark. They detested Kissingerian "realism" 35 years ago, just as they detested James A. Baker 3d in the '90s and through to today. They were sure Gorby and the Commies were just trying to get us to lower our defenses before they let fly with the nukes. They're fundamentally non-"conservative" in that they don't let things like empirical, discernible data get in the way of their preconceived ideas, and they don't have the understanding that Grand Plans of governments generally tend to crumble upon contact with reality.

The only reason they never screwed the country as badly as they did under the current dimwit is because Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush41 all had some powers of independent discernment and/or a broader ideological range of advisers than Dubya, who instinctively equates all disagreement with disloyalty. My hope--and, to be honest, my hunch--is that the Republicans will have learned from this mistake and won't soon nominate again anyone as weak, uninformed, and incurious as Bush43... though there are those who believe that McCain is far more of a neocon than Bush was. The press figures most often identified as neocon in orientation--William Kristol, David Brooks--were huge McCain guys in 2000.