...of the time, and 100% wrong the other 50%. That is, when he's right, he's spot on, but when he's wrong, he's on Planet Ayn Rand in the Eighth Dimension.
Obviously, true believers like Ron Paul can never be made a permanent member of the progressive coalition (although it would be nice to get those (like Paul) who wear a major party's label for convience to wear a D instead of an R). But people with libertarian leanings, but who aren't seeing black helicopters in the bushes and actually believe the government should fund things like public schools and roads, can be moved into our camp.
...because of his Iraq war support. Even if we were, he's way out there. The line needs to be somewhere between him and Hillary Clinton, who is also in the "pro-war" camp, but isn't in the "pro-Bush" camp like Lieberman.
Especially the second. Right now, broadband is provided via existing cable and phone company lines. The government would need to string up a third set of wires to compete with the other two. Unless you consider WiFi "broadband", which it's usually not, really.
Because the Alaskan congressional delegation (and the majority of the people of Alaska) likes it. Hawaii and Alaska have a thing going-in matters that specifically affect either state, they vote as a block.
It makes small changes harder but big swings easier.
Let's take a theoritical state with two districts. Without gerrymandering, one district is 60 R 40 D, and the other district is exactly 50/50. With gerrymandering to favor the Republicans, both districts would then be 55 R 45 D. Which works fine for the Republicans, until there is an 8 point swing towards the Democrats. Under the non-gerrymandered districts, one district becoms 52 R 48 D (and stays Republican), and the other one becomes 42 R 58 D, and turns Democratic. But, under the new, Republican gerrymandered districts, both districts become 47 R 53 D, and go Democratic.
The problem is that they weigh by party, and lately a lot people have stopped calling themselves Republicans!!!! They finally realized that this was wrong, and changed the weighing system, by adding Democrats and subtracting Republicans (or more precisely, it looks like they are going to anaylze thier long term trends to see if there is a shift).
From thier homepage today:
"One of the major methodological disputes among public opinion pollsters involves weighting data by Political Party. All agree that partisan affiliation is one of the best indicators of voting intentions and perceptions of the President. However, some firms and academic researchers believe that party affiliation changes on a regular basis. At Rasmussen Reports, we do not. We, along with many others, believe party affiliation is generally stable and that people switch their allegiance only rarely.
This view is supported by data and by common sense --how many people do you know that switch political parties on a regular basis?
The challenge for a polling firm is determining the proper partisan mix for a polling sample. What percentage of Americans are Republican, Democrat, or unaffiliated? What are the "right" numbers?
Beginning this past Sunday, Rasmussen Reports Job Approval updates are based upon data using a slight modification to our targeting and weighting process. From this point forward, we will set our partisan affiliation weighting targets based upon survey results obtained during the previous three months. These shift only modestly month-to-month, but the change could be significant over a long period of time.
Based upon the past three months, the current targets are 36.6% Democrat, 33.5% Republican, and 29.9% Unaffiliated. These targets will be updated monthly. Previously, our weighting targets assumed an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.
We have adopted this system because we believe it allows us to maintain the day-to-day stability needed to follow trends while adjusting periodically for any substantive shifts in partisan affiliation (see trends in party affiliation).
The practical impact of this revision is modest in the current environment. The new approach will result in the President's reported ratings being a point or two lower than they would have been under the old system.
Data in the table to the right shows month-by-month Job Approval averages using the new weighting methodology. Each month's number is based upon interviews with approximately 15,000 American adults. The full month average for April will be released tomorrow (Monday). At that time, we will also update our month-by-month summary of shifting party affiliation among the general public."
...due to population growth in Utah, they are going to get a fourth seat anyways in 2012. Except instead of a new one, it would come from another state that is shrinking, or at least growing slower than the average.
However, this strikes me as being unconstitutional, and could backfire with Utah getting restricted and DC losing thier seat. I think we need another consitutional amendment to make this happen (which means it's not going to).
The real news in that Rasmussen poll is that, in a generic presidential race for 2008, Generic D beat Generic R by 12 points!!! That's a lot. I think, in the real world, what that means Anybody-But-Hillary beats Anybody-But-McCain. Our goal should be that neither of these two get nominated. I know for sure McCain probably beats all comers.