• comment on a post Strange Bedfellows over 8 years ago

    Kudos to the Christian Coalition for making the connection to the "common carrier" model in their press release!

    (mild) jeers to the Save the Internet coalition for never mentioning it in their ads/publicity/releases.  Looks like the Christian Coalition knows their marketing & framing better than we do.

  • comment on a post We Will All Win, Eventually over 8 years ago

    What a feeling, huh?

  • comment on a post Blue Nation over 8 years ago

    I like these 3-D maps that represent each county's population by height.  This one puts the Bush and Kerry counties together in one map, and you can see the contrast: red covers a lot of ground but stays low, blue is limited to small areas but towers way above the red field.

    These maps still distort, because counties of different size have bars with cross sections proportional to their land area, so the same county would appear to have a different volume depending on its land area, even if it had the same height.  Height is the variable they're actually using, but when we look at 3-D shapes, volume is what we intuitively see.

    Still, the distortion is much lass than the usual red-blue maps, and the advantage is that unlike with cartograms, these maps visually demonstrate the contrast between sparsely populated red and densely populated blue in a way that gets through intuitively.

  • comment on a post I'm Looking over 8 years ago

    Actually, Russ Feingold could use your help now, even if he isn't asking for it yet.  We're independently starting grassroots "draft Feingold" organizations all over the country.  Is there one in your state or region?  Join, or start it.  The Dean grassroots started seriously in January 2003, well before most of the country had ever heard of him, and six months before his official announcement.  This is the exciting part.

  • comment on a post The Video Joe Lieberman Doesn't Want You to See over 8 years ago

    Are there DVDs of this video available?  In mass quantities?

    For the Dean campaign, some grassroots groups organized their own canvasses and dropped off DVDs they duplicated on people's home PCs using money raised online, totally outside the campaign, and managed to boost Dean's vote significantly in the precincts they did it in.  Unfortunately it was too little too late (the project didn't even start until after New Hampshire).

    If the campaign is making DVDs of this video, and willing to send them out to grassroots supporters, they'd be great to distribute door to door.  If the campaign can't afford to do that (timewise or moneywise) but someone can make a DVD, a grassroots group could raise money online to knock out thousands of copies very cheaply.

    Anyway in CT wanna work on this?

  • That still doesn't make sense.  The Democrat is running as a write-in for the Democratic primary right?  If he gets enough write in votes he becomes the Democratic nominee and is on the ballot in the general election.  The Green candidate is running write-in in the general election, right?  Or is he running in the Democratic primary?  Is that even allowed, if he's registered Green?

    Again, unless the Green candidate is running in the Democratic primary, there's no competition for write-in votes: only one candidate is campaigning for write-in votes in the Democratic primary.  So I really don't understand what you're talking about.

  • It's a long established, well understood issue.  The "save the Internet" coalition seems to think people will view it as arcane because it relates to the Internet, so they frame it that way, and that's a shame.  We need to frame it as something Congress already understands quite well:  Common Carrier

    It's a simple principle: Those who carry the traffic must treat everyone's traffic neutrally, for the good of our economy.  It applied to the railroads, it applied to the telephone companies, and now for the same reasons it should be applied to the Internet.  We already made the great conceptual leap of moving this model from the railroads to the telephone companies, long before there was an Internet.  Doing that a second time, this time from telephone to internet (which are much closer to each other intuitively), should not be a major conceptual leap for legislators.

    Tell them you want common carrier protection for the Internet.  It won't be arcane to them at all.

  • If you can believe it there is a Green candidate running as a write in as well which will make it harder for Dertinger to get the necessary votes to get on the ballot in the general! Thanks guys.
    I don't understand.  There's a Green candidate running as a write-in for the Democratic nomination?  Can you even do that as a registered Green?

    If you can, and there is, then it's bizarre, but on the other hand, that candidate will be the Democratic nominee if they win, so who cares?  And if the Green is running as a write-in for the general, then how does it affect Dertinger's ability to win the primary as a write-in?

    So, either way, I'm a bit confused.  Clarify?

  • Massachusett's deadline has passed.

    We have a two step certification process here.  Signatures must first go to city & town clerks, who keep the voter rolls for their cities/towns.  They certify signatures on the petitions, stamp them, then you take those and turn them in to the state, which certifies the total (but unless there's a challenge, doesn't get involved in certifying individual signatures).  There's some time for challenges and appeals at the local level before you have to turn the sheets in to the state.

    So, that means we have three deadlines: The deadline to turn petitions in to cities & towns; the deadline for cities & towns to finish certifying and let you get the petitions back from them; and the deadline to turn them all in to the state.

    June 6th is the last of these, the deadline to turn everything in to the state.  The first deadline, to turn petitions in to cities and towns, was May 9th.  Obviously, if a candidate hasn't done that, they won't have anything to file with the state later on, so effectively, we already know if there's a Republican filing for the ballot or not.

  • comment on a post Time To Hit the Campaign Trail over 8 years ago

    I'm skating the edge of broke these days (grassroots organizing doesn't pay very well!) but I talked to and emailed everyone I could think of that I know in Philly.  One's a Penn student who said she'd write the college Democrats.  Hopefully I got you at least 2 or 3 more of those 100 votes you need.  Good luck!

  • comment on a post Nine Candidates for Internet Freedom over 8 years ago

    This isn't your complete list, is it?  You know Ed Markey (D-MA) has been leading on this, yes?  (not that he has any challenger this year, or if he does, it won't matter)

  • Thank you for your comment!

    I did think of that, though it fell off the list of things to mention in my already too-long post :)  However, from what I was able to read and hear about, it probably wasn't high enough to be very significant.  East Texas is an exception, I think, in that it's close enough for a day trip.  If several hundred evacuees from east Texas voted in person, that would certainly be "a lot".  But it doesn't really affect the percentages much.

    Let's say 20 full busloads of 45 people each travelled from east Texas to vote in person.  That's a lot of people to make that trip!  But...
    15,000 / 173,000 = .0867... rounds to 9%
    15,900 / 173,000 = .0925... rounds to 9%

    If I saw anything that indicated many thousands of displaced voted in person on election day, I would've thought about it more seriously.  Do you think that was the case?

  • Thank you for your comment!

    I did think of that, though it fell off the list of things to mention in my already too-long post :)  However, from what I was able to read and hear about, it probably wasn't high enough to be very significant.  East Texas is an exception, I think, in that it's close enough for a day trip.  If several hundred evacuees from east Texas voted in person, that would certainly be "a lot".  But it doesn't really affect the percentages much.

    Let's say 20 full busloads of 45 people each travelled from east Texas to vote in person.  That's a lot of people to make that trip!  But...
    15,000 / 173,000 = .0867... rounds to 9%
    15,900 / 173,000 = .0925... rounds to 9%

    If I saw anything that indicated many thousands of displaced voted in person on election day, I would've thought about it more seriously.  Do you think that was the case?

  • Neither.  It was "law" only for the telcos, but it was FCC policy until recently for the rest, I'm pretty sure.

  • turner, what you're saying about Lakoff sounds vaguely familair - I've heard him say something like that too - but it's very far removed from the central thesis of Moral Politics, which is what Chris is referring to.

    That said, I think Chris didn't get it quite right, either.  It's an oversimplification that leads to misunderstanding.  Lakoff says Americans have two common moral models of how families work, and all Americans know both models.  He says that liberal politics come from reasoning about politics through metaphor to one of those models, while conservative politics come from reasoning about politics through metaphor to the other model.  But he explicitly says that some people use one model for their family life, while viewing politics through metaphor to the other model.

    So, two key points: According to Lakoff,

    1. All of us are familiar with both models, and capable of viewing family through either of them.
    2. Which model we use as a metaphor for reasoning about politics isn't necessarily the same one we use for our own family life.

    In fact, he says "Reagan Democrats" were mostly people who used the liberal moral model for politics and the conservative one for their family life, and Reagan knew how to take advantage of this by making the metaphor explicit and causing them to take what they knew about family into politics.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads