Did Hillary's % of the vote increase but the % of "lesser" Democratic candidate NOT increase in ANY State Senate or US House district? And if so, might that State Sen. candidate or House candidate not have been good, and nothing Hillary did could have helped? I honestly don't know. Those aren't rhetorical questions!

*Just what IS a coat tail effect? Is it something verifiable?* (It always strikes me as a pretty damn nebulous and thus potentially unhelpful concept, frankly. But I might just be slow.)

I'm assuming it's described as a phenomenon that's grounded in subjective perception mostly. Maybe not. Is it more or less: When candidates "lower" on the ballot are presumed to be benefiting in the number of votes cast for them in light of an increase in the number (or percentage?) of votes in a re-election of a major candidate "higher" on the ballot (and of the same party, obviously) over that major candidate's previous effort.

I'll be curious to read the article and see if it finds a nexus (sp?) tween this mov't and the Religious Right, which of course is endlessly investing in shaping a new generation of social and fiscal far-rightwing adherents.

Now...back to the streets. The GOP GOTV operations are relentlessly underestimated by progressives, election after election.

[Got an error message. Can't tell if comment posted]

Thanks for the feedback on both Ford and on the definitions of terms!!!

I cross-posted on dkos, and there's some interesting comments there, too (also interesting what a small % of the comments are dedicated to trying to take a stab at defining those terms!)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/26 /18041/998

(Hope it's not bad form to link to another discussion on a another site--i.e., to maybe drive traffic away from from MyDD (that's not my ultimate intention--it's just to have discussion!) but, I assume that whether it's dKos or MyDD, we're all in this together...it's all one be "Netroots structure." (grin))

Thanks for the feedback on both Ford and on the definitions of terms!!!

I cross-posted on dkos, and there's some interesting comments there, too (also interesting what a small % of the comments are dedicated to trying to take a stab at defining those terms!)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/26 /18041/998

(Hope it's not bad form to link to another discussion on a another site--i.e., to maybe drive traffic away from from MyDD (that's not my ultimate intention--it's just to have discussion!) but, I assume that whether it's dKos or MyDD, we're all in this together...it's all one be "Netroots structure." (grin))

Let's hope things go our way in the Show Me State. It's good Big Dog was there raising dough. We still have several weeks. Here's hoping that our ground operations and last-minute pushes are better than the GOP's! It's too soon to write off the big MO.

i have always preferred mydd to dailykos, but this has become a stronger preference recently, because mydd has a cleaner interface--it is more readable; its colors aren't jarring (the orange on kos screams: stay back--just as the orange of a road construction sign or biohazard sign is meant to); the diaries don't come so fast and furious, and as a general rule the site has a higher percentage of diaries that are substantive. my suspicion is that a lot of the topics and news on mydd are on dkos, too. but "over there," i miss them. they're buried in what has become genuine cacophony. here, they're more likely to be spotted, i think.

so, i'm not sure what the exact changes r that r coming, but, i hope they don't make the site less venerable and less approachable.

Wes' lack of experience really showed and very soon after he jumped into the race. I heard him speak several times and met him three times. I came away each time thinking that Wes was damn smart, would make a good president, and--at the end of the day--actually had the best policy proposals (many of which were genuinely more progressive than his rivals'). To re-read some of those policy papers, especially on health care, taxation, and a new federally-led American volunteerism is to believe more strongly than ever that America missed a golden opportunity to set the nation back on the right track by electing Wes Clark to be President. But, from each of those encounters with Wes, I also came away thinking he was too untried and inexperienced as a candidate, as a campaigner. Sadly, it's often true that the best choices for who should govern are not always the most "winning" choices in terms of the ruthless and exhausting game of electoral politics, especially at the national level.

Importantly, I also never ceased to be reminded by each of these encounters with Wes that the SAME thing happened with me relative to Gore in 2000! (This despite the big differences between the candidates on many levels.)

I met Gore the same number of times in 2000, once in a special hour-long, closed-door meeting with about 40 other LGBT Dem leaders and thinkers from across New York state. I was ON FIRE for Gore in many ways: he was shatteringly intelligent, which came across in person especially strongly (intelligence is seldom translated well into the world of sound bites).

But, he just proved to be a horrible campaigner.

Somewhat to my own surprise, I'm increasingly gravitating towards Hillary.

First of all, she's more likely to actually run, I think, than Wes or Gore--certainly more so than Gore. Also:

Inthe context of the post-Bush republic voters will face in '08, I think Hillary may be exactly the palate (sp?)-cleanser Dems and huge segments of Independents and swing-voters may want.

The nation will be in a sorry state. The Bill Clinton years, in retrospect, might look more golden than ever, especially in terms of just sheer COMPETENCE.

Hillary is constructing a persona and record of COMPETENCE and of a sort of matriarchal strength that, importantly, resonates as fairly masculine and practical, not homemaker-ish (a la Liz Dole), or stereotypically (in the unjust sense) feminine (e.g. the awkwardness and even dilettante-like quality of Condi Rice). Also, after four more years, the extremism of Bush will be, I hope!, genuinely recognized as extreme. Extreme and profoundly un-american in its impracticality. What Hillary may be best represent at that point, especially since she's positioning herself as a moderate, is a comforting commonsensicalness America will be thirsting for.

Finally, Hillary is more likely, I think, to make the Right overplay their hand. Many wingnuts go apoplectic at the mere mention of her name. And screeds about Vince Foster murders and lesbianism will not endear an American electorate exhausted by Bush extremism with Republican commentators sounding extreme in their attacks.

But, who knows. Maybe American will want unity more than anything. That seems to be the conventional wisdom. (I'm not sure about that, though. My bet is going to be that America won't be selecting the President based finally on a "Who can unify us?" concern but a "Who can get the job done/get us out of these messes?" concern.) If so, Hillary may not be the best choice.

Edwards might be the sleeper. I don't know. He proved to be a poor debater but a overall good campaigner. His rhetoric on the notion of an America that rewards wealth, not work, seems to have the potential to resonate DEEPLY with huge segments of the population. He's white; he's a man; he's attractive; he's Southern; he's successful; he created a large network of donors who are still committed (not that Hillary hasn't created the same thing; but, Gore's donors seem very gun shy).

So, in this poll discussed above, as in the current one, I voted Not Sure. There are so many variables, and it's so many, many, many political lifetimes between now and 2007, let alone 2008, that I think it's very difficult to be fully intellectually honest relative to any deep conviction right now for a particular possible nominee. Vague preferences I can understand. But for unshakeable certainty about a particular choice right now, I just don't think it reflects reality as it is right, which is a landscape dominated by too many unknowables and variables at this point.

Santorum is an impish punk, a lightweight and an ego-driven fool

drive him into the ground; drive him into the ground; drive him into the ground

he is a curse, a bane, a threat to the Republic of the United States of America

By NOT praying at a gov'tal meeting is anyone harmed, is anything relative to goveranance (sp?) NOT acheived? No! So, to insist on it is to insist on something unhelpful, unnecessary, unconnected from governing. It's like insisting on jumping-jacks before a meeting, and getting all upset when you're told that it's a waste of time. DUH! Of course it is!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/1/15436/56881

Right now though, I do feel for the hundreds or thousands still walking home (according to BBC World News).

Apparently, not many copies of "A to Z" left on the shelves.

See the William Martin Chavanne comments under the glossary entry for "Christian Right"

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/glossary/glossary.htm

Also, some representative of the Coors family, since they've been helping bankroll the Religious Right for decades.