Todd, I don't understand how you calculate net change.  I might be dense but it seems that the numbers of the various candidates do not consistently subtract the same columns.  In some cases, they do not add up at all.

Clinton's numbers are in case in point:
Clinton    51/43    49/42    46/45    +7

51-49=2 and 51-46=5
How do you come up with a net change of seven, please?

Notice that in 1950 and 1952, the last repeating tidal-wave according to you, there was an unpopular war in Korea.  May be, the unpopular war in Iraq will give us a repeated gains in 2006 and 2008.

It seems to me that the Republicans cannot save themselves.  They will have to rely on our errors.

Nominating a presidential candidate that will unite the divergent interests in the Republican coalition would be the first step in snatching defeat from victory.

Romney has a super committed donor base consisting of former colleagues, family friends, and Mormons.  Unfortunately, it is also comparatively small.  I suspect that Romney contributors have the highest share of maxed out donors.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Romney has the best campaign management.  If that perception is correct then his campaign will adapt and overcome.

PS: I am also wondering how the troubles in the global financial markets will affect fundraising.  Since Democrats have a greater number of small donors, one should suspect that the Republicans will fall further behind as their core donors are getting hammered on Wall Street.  In terms of primary candidates, that should affect Giuliani and Romney the most.

Adding new and improved candidates to the Republican field will not decrease the dissatisfaction of Republican primary voters.  Dissatisfaction with the field is in the end merely a symptom for dysfunctional Republican government and the bankruptcy of right wing ideas.

We are witnessing the collapse of spin.  Unfortunately, the spin machine, although discredited, remains in place.

If personalities motivate the Republican base at all then it will be their distaste for some of the Democratic candidates.

Does anyone have data on his post-election popularity in Connecticut?  I am wondering how voters are responding to his aggressive defense of Bush and the war.  

Thanks a lot for your excellent analysis, Owen.  In light of your findings, one has to suspect that the supporters of subsidies are better organized than the opponents, which shouldn't surprise us as multi-national corporations are the number one beneficiaries.

Is there anyone out there organizing family farmers and ranchers?  What can we do to support them?

In the spirit of organizing, I am wondering if essays such as this one, would be worth a press release to make sure that MSM journalists notice the wonderful resources that you have compiled.  While I am not holding my breath, I can very well imagine that NPR might carry a story on this topic.

Because polls rely on sampling populations randomly there is always a chance that the sample is wrong, which means it is not representative of the population.

It's like flipping a true coin heads ten times in a row.  It isn't likely but possible.

Typically, the chance of getting a non-representatice sample is five percent, which means that one out of twenty polls is bound to be wrong.  That assumes that the pollsters have done a perfect job in the first place.

The confidence interval indicates the probability that a sample is representative.  Most of time, the confidence interval is 95%.  Hence one out of twenty polls is bound to be wrong.

While the mainstream media does a pretty good job reporting margins of error, journalists usually fail to disclose the confidence interval.

Thanks, Melissa.  That's great advice.  As a father, I cannot afford to donate that much time but I might assign my students bill coverage on a blog.

May be, you could write a number of case studies that illustrate how you collected information.  These case studies could become the teaching curriculum for new bloggers.  

Business schools like to teach their MBA candidates with case studies and I use them to teach foreign policy.  It's a great way to relate complex knowledge and to give students perspective.  

In light of your post, it seems to me that there are a lot of people could benefit from your experience as well.  Who knows, even a journalism class might benefit from your case studies.

Congratulations, Melissa!

In your experience, what is the best way to acquire information about the legislature's work?  What lessons have you learned that would be useful for a new state politics blogger?

. . . that Falwell's antics raised a lot of money.  If you are targeting a niche population then going red-eyed makes a lot of sense.

It's horrible theology but good for business.

The Christian tradition provides a lot of resources to people who are interested in equality, hope, and alleviating poverty.

Of course, most of the people that are joining reactionary churches will never be with us.  Fear motivates them.  At the same time, presenting them with an alternative will reduce their stridency and a few of them will join us.  That might be enough to put us over the hump.

Finally, there are a lot of Christians who are liberal.  Guys like Shane are organizing them and that's an important contribution even if there were zero conversions of fundamentalists.

I would love to see what your take about that question, Matt.  It may be correct that Hillary is unstopable.  On the other hand, everyone said that she would inevitably be the top fundraiser and we all know how that turned out.

Regardless, we may have to adapt to a Hillary candidacy.  If Hillary gets elected, which concessions can we extract from her?  Is she going to get on top of health care, housing, or higher education inflation?  Will we finally get universal health insurance?  Is she going to move public campaign financing?  What about union rights?

What prospects are there to push a progressive agenda if Hillary gets nominated?  What issues have the best chances of success?

I would be very interested in your thoughts.  It would be even better if Hillary did a guest post about her relationship and commitment to the progressive issue.

It would be wonderful if you issued an invitation to her.  Then it's up to her to decide if she wants to demonstrate some commitment.

When America suffered from stagflation and the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, Ronald Reagan transformed politics by offering Goldwater's agenda for change.  Reagan exploited the incumbents weakness to redefine American politics.

Republicans benefited from that transformation for decades.  Now that Bush has biffed security policy and alienated the middle class, we need to redefine American politics on our terms.

For all her assets, Hillary Clinton is merely running for president.  I am looking for leadership.  May be, Hillary should reread her honor's thesis about Saul Alinsky.  This is an Alinski moment that can change America for a long time.  One of the candidates has to make it happen.

. . . that Iowa Republicans oppose the war.  Since many of the soldiers are coming from small town America, Iowa will have more soldiers in Iraq than the average state.

Add to that the fact that Iowans tend to be economic populists, Iowa Republicans are more likely to be small business people than Wallstreet speculators and the sentiment against imperial wars makes perfect sense.

In other words, Iowa Republicans tend to be the descendents of William Bryant Jennings' Democrats.  There are opportunities for another John Tester.

Thanks for bringing us up to speed, Dan.  I am wondering, what are the goals of progressive agriculture policy?  And how can we create win-win solutions with farmers and ranchers?

In other words, what are the substantive goals that require open rules?

If you could, please, educate us about the strategic goals for this session and the long term that would empower us to lobby our elected officials better.