My question: do you think that even if Clinton loses (by say 1-3%), she "wins" big in the expectation game here? Or does the fact that Obama won the first two states mean that Obama still has the big mo'?
Of course, if Clinton actually wins, then it's a whole new race. I'm leaning towards Texan's side here for now -- Obama pulls it out barely.
Very interesting stuff. I can still see a tactical Obama victory, because the college towns and more affluent areas (Obama territory) have not reported to the extent that the blue-collar areas have (Clinton country). However, if Clinton loses by only 3% or so, she can (or at least try to) claim a victory.
This is a good point. Obama must have been hoping to keep Manchester closer than it turned out, but he is winning some of the areas he should have expected to win (like Portsmouth, which HAS reported).
I'm following the town-by-town returns closely, and if I had to guess at this point, I'd say Obama wins by about 3-4%, because of the towns that have not reported yet. So a victory of sorts for both Obama and Clinton.
Why is it that the Clinton numbers are based on "registered voters", but the Obama numbers are based on "adults"? I suppose this could be a misprint, but it is like this on every one of the SurveyUSA numbers for this poll (including in the crosstabs).
If the Clinton numbers are indeed based upon registered voters and Obama's on adults, then it's comparing apples to oranges. I think we need some clarification from SurveyUSA, at least.
I think you may have been examining the incorrect chart in the Pew study when you commented about the self-identification of young white evangelicals.
The percentages you cite refer to Bush's job approval numbers of that group. The Republican identification numbers currently stand at 40% Republican (not 45%), down from a high of 55% in 2005. This group never had anywhere close to 87% Republican ID -- that was instead the job approval number for Bush in 2002.
Well, if you look at it from the end of 1973, it looks that way. But we had over 300K troops in 1970 before gradually falling to the limited number you note in 1973, before finally (2 years later) getting everyone out. So it took a lot of time. Obviously we were not at full troop strength in 1973, so it's not the correct analogy to Iraq now. 1970 is a better analogy.
The point is, it's not so easy as just snapping one's fingers and getting the troops home. It requires an orderly withdrawal which takes a bit of time, probably close to a year at this point, given how deep we've committed ourselves there.
Given that withdrawal was gradually accomplished over several years, and it even took 2 years to pull all the troops out after the N.Vietnam non-offensive aggrement, how can you come on here and claim that the withdrawal was accomplished in less than 2 months?
I don't disagree that we should start the withdrawal tomorrow. But claiming that we can get all of the troops out within 6 months without any residual forces for at least a few months after that simply betrays a lack of understanding of basic military operations.
I think we do need to look at this honestly. 1 day is all it takes to get the wheels in motion, and that's the important thing...but at the same time, it's true that it would take close to a year to actually, physically pull all of our divisions out of Iraq. I think this is what Clinton and Biden were talking about.
And I had one somewhat related question that's no doubt been tossed around but I'll bring it up again: anyone from CT-4 or know a bit more of Chris Shays think there's any chance of him switching parties? It seems to make perfect sense -- his district is trending blue; he's in tight races every year despite being popular; he's the most liberal Republican in Congress, more liberal than several Democrats. Switching to the Dems would put him in the majority and probably make it easier for him to maintain his seat in future elections.
It's relevant here because CT-4 has a Democratic PVI and would be another seat that, if Democratic, would likely stay that way for a while.
As an aside, it looks like New Hampshire may very well be the most dramatic red-to-blue state in the nation in the last few years.
Not only was it the only state to vote for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004, but both incumbent Reps. are tossed (Carol-Porter is a HUGE upset -- I can't believe it happened) and it looks like the huge GOP majorities in the State House and Senate will be decimated.
Well, the idea to divide Iraq into three countries is a very bad one, for several reasons (oil distribution, opening the door for wholesale ethnic cleansing, major Turkish resistance to this idea, etc.). But at least Ford is offering an idea -- Corker just has a stock response on that.
Though I think Ford is wrong with this division idea, the fact that he's willing to take a stand while Corker is not is a telling sign of each one's fitness to be a United States Senator.
What the Republicans understand is that their funding streams will be serverely cut off if they lose one or both houses of Congress, so why not spend the cash now?
Meanwhile, Dems will have funding streams open as a result of taking control. So they have to think long-term here about how much easier it will be to replenish that cash after the election if all goes well. (On that note, it seems that those Dems that are potential committee chairs would be the most receptive to this initative).
I agree, but the point is to look at which seats are the most vulnerable now, whether it is in a blue-leaning or red-leaning district. Some of the "red" seats on the list very well might be better "low-lying fruit" than the "blue" seats because of the personalities running and the pecularities of the district.
The idea of diverting resources from low-lying fruit now because of hypothetical thinking that they will be harder to defend in the future is the idea I have a problem with. Let's focus on winning now, and worry about defending 2008 seats AFTER this election, not now when we are trying to gain those very seats.
The big difference is that Dean's 50-state strategy is based upon directing adequate resources to building long-term infrastructure that can help Democrats down the road.
This idea of diverting resources to Democratic challengers in bluer districts on the basis of hypothetical musings about the future difficulty of holding the seats is nothing like that idea. This is like spending 2006 cash to help 2008 incumbents win, without knowing now whether those 2008 incumbents will even need the cash.
This makes little sense, unlike the idea of building up a solid infrastructure that has a great chance of helping in the future and is not based upon hypothetical predicitions of the future.