It was conducted in early June. For some reason, the story was updated today. Look at the two references to "the previous poll in mid-May" in the story, and then look here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

For some reason, the story was updated today, but it is a repeat poll.

All I am trying to articulate is one variation on the non-Christian and / or non-white coalition that I have repeatedly argued is the future of the Democratic Party, and indeed the future of the country as a whole. Toward a Pluralist Strategy presents the case perhaps as well as any other post I have written on the subject. The specific and, I admit, somewhat crude example I used of combining the Dean and Jackson voters is more of a nucleus of that idea.

I don't see any other demographic trend offering progressives anywhere close to the same level of opportunity that a coalition of non-whites and / or non-Christians does. Those are both high growth demographics, and they have formed the backbone of the coalitions used by the most progressive members of Congress time and time again. I don't know how this coalition gets formed, and I certainly don't want anyone to be a "junior" members of the coalition. What I do know, or at least strongly believe, that forging this coalition is the key to a progressive governing majority.

For a while, I thought Obama was a step in that direction, but I don't anymore. And not just because of McClurkin.

That was nasty, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that. However, I made that comment after you said you would ban me, so it's immaterial in terms of debating what went down.

I never said that I would ban you unless you continued attacking front pagers. I said "goodbye," as in I was done with the thread. Apparently, you took that as meaning that I would ban you, and decided to go off in a blaze of invective, which you then decided to continue on the front page here. Perhaps it was simply a misunderstanding, but perhaps not...

The thing is David, your quote for which you are now sorry is not isolated. I am reminded of these other quotes of yours about bloggers. Here is one such comment:

The fence-sitting of the bloggerati smells to me like a fear of losing traffic.

And here is another one:

And if you're not doing something for fear of straining your relationships with people in power, friends or not, it's time to reevaluate your priorities.

This is classic trolling behavior. You are impugning the motives of those who have not endorsed your favorite candidate, and implied a hidden agenda. You have used such lines to attack bloggers in general before. I was not the first case. On at least three occasions now, you have stated that all bloggers who have not endorsed are simply afraid to do so. I wasn't the first case, and it wasn't just after you thought I had already decided to ban you. And these two quotes are not the only examples, either. And if you were really sorry, you would have retracted those past instances where you impugned all bloggers.

You have a tendency to argue that anyone who has not endorsed your candidate has a hidden agenda for doing so. That has always been a bannable offense in my book. And you have done it a lot. And then, you only apologized after throwing further invective on the front page of the blog with which I am still associated above all others. You didn't seem to be contrite at all until now, and even here you don't really apologize."However, I made that comment after you said you would ban me, so it's immaterial in terms of debating what went down." Yeah, you sound really sorry for once again implying that people are not endorsing Edwards because they are afraid and have hidden agendas.

You also have a tendency to throw out invective, and attribute stances to people without asking them. You admit in this diary that you "inferred" my position on the embassy. Well, you did more than that. When I told you what my position on the embassy was, you then stated I had changed my position. So, apparently, it was impossible for me to state that I was against the enormous embassy. In your book, no matter what I said, I was always in favor of it, even though I never said that. Nice.

Quite frankly, I don't think you are acting in good faith. And yes, I didn't think you were doing so before the argument, so there was "pent up" stuff." You are constantly baiting people along these lines. If Jerome doesn't want to defend me, fine. But your record speaks for itself. These are not the only examples, either. I'll keep pulling up more as long as you imply your innocence. You impugn motives, claim hidden agendas, attribute positions falsely, throw out invective, and then claim innocence. You are just not acting in good faith.

Since I made two posts in one day at MyDD. Wasn't intentional--it had been agreed I would do this endorsement a couple of days ago.

Still, I have to say, it feels really good. I miss this place.

A. Jerome didn't help build up Open Left.
B. I deleted Matt's comment on Jerome when I saw it. I have seen no similar action taken on Mizner's diary, or on Jerome's original attack on us.
C. You are right, Jerome can run the blog anyway he wants. I said so in the diary.
D. I'm not moderating anything here. I'm just offering suggesstions.

One thing I will say is that front page posters are attacked, a lot. The personal attacks are far more frequent against us. If we tolerated those, we would be tolerating about half of all personal attacks on blogs this size or smaller. It wouldn't cut down the attack very much.
As far as the objections to personal attacks against front-page poster being taken more seriously than those against other commenters, those worries are very much unwarrented. The "especially" comes in simply in that I notice the ones against me quicker. If you want to speed up the banning process, do something bannable that I will notice right away.

Part of the problem for smaller websites is that they attract a lot of the commenters who have been banned at Dailykos. A significant percentage of our pool of commenters comes from people who were banned there, and are looking for somewhere else to spread their bile. We tend to be troll magnets.

And this is relevant to what I wrote how, exactly? But thanks for dropping by to make a general attack on my new venture. Very productive.

And I always found you to be a very productive commenter who didn't engage in personal attacks. We don't have the same opinion on the primaries, but you are a good guy to have around.

It is not just a tremendous amount of work. What I did on MyDD is, without exaggeration, my life's greatest work. I dumped everything I had into this site for over three years. So yes, it matter to me. It matters to me a lot. And if you think it is petty for me to object when I am attacked in a front page post here, I think you greatly underestimate what I put into this site emotionally, physically, psychologically, and intellectually. It was my very being. It was who I was, and it changed my life forever.

And can you really say that telling me I am in favor of continuing the occupation of Iraq, attributing a position to me that I never agreed with (a massive American embassy), telling me I am dense, and then saying I hedge my writing based on what Clinton staffers think of me is productive? There may have been an argument to be had, but it was lost in the tone and the invectives. The same thing happened in this latest post. No one commented on what he wrote--the comments were all negative about me. I think that pretty much sums up the message that gets through in Mizner's writing.

Wonderfully substantiated comments.
Can you actually find any flaws in my polling analysis, or do you just not like it because the numbers are not what you want to see?

Did you even even read the paragraph you are responding to?
Another nice comment, though. I'm a sucker who isn't very smart.

Considering that you have been warned four times, and have a mojo of only 1.1, I don't think you are in a position to talk to others about moderations.

I explained it all in the announcement post:

I am thrilled to be working with Bill Richardson on this issue. While this ad is not an official endorsement of Bill Richardson's candidacy, it is an endorsement of his no residual forces plan for Iraq. It is an endorsement of his leadership on the issue. It is an endorsement of the need for a public debate on how many troops Democrats plan to leave in Iraq, what those troops will do, and how long they will stay in Iraq. Every Democrat should be aware of all candidate plans for residual forces in Iraq before they decide who to support in the primaries. Just because a candidate says he or she will end American military involvement in the war in Iraq does not mean that he or she is actually proposing to end American military involvement in the war in Iraq.