I'm sure whoever the nominee is they will pour big resources into NM, CO, and VA because they have GOP Senate seats in play in winnable states. I also think SD and MT will are targets of opportunity because of Tim Johnson's recovery (a good story, voters lap that up) and MT has a Democratic Governor and two Dem Sens (Baucus up for re-election) -- no reason it shouldn't be in play for President.

Oops...I wrote Virginia twice but only counted it once for electoral votes so the scenario above is accurate.

Obama takes NJ, NY, and all of New England. DE, MD, DC, and Virginia. Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin. Out west he takes California, Oregon, and Washington. And Hawaii. Add Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia.

Total: 271 delegates

That's losing Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and not winning a single mountain or southwest state other than Colorado.

When I lived in Chicago there was a guy running for Alderman named Piech who handed out peaches at his campaign stops. I think the Board of Elections made him stop.

I don't have a problem with people making home baked items for friends and family even if it's a technical violation of a rule but professional catering for voters funded by any candidate opens up all kinds of problems.

You are exactly right about Obama not undercutting the Kerry/Edwards ticket with his charitable Iraq comments. As for Obama not having the same classified materials as Edwards and Clinton at the time that COULD be a factor in trusting both Edwards and Clinton on this matter if 1) either had bothered to read the classified Iraq NIE in '02 and 2) the classified intelligence made more of a case for war. In fact neither read the '02 Iraq NIE and the NIE was filled with caveats and footnotes on the weakness of the intelligence not found in simple briefings and declassified summaries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn /A44837-2004Apr26?language=printer

There are 55 electoral votes on states neighboring the Democratic block of MN, WI, IL, and MI that share  similar characteristics in terms of demographics and economic issues that are ripe to be flipped. Look at an electoral map and you see a big blue Illinois in a sea of red. It doesn't have to be that way if Dems do well in the Midwest.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image: 2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.pn g

Hah! Of course you should.

It takes 2 seconds to say "source: John Edwards campaign" or add a disclaimer "Here is some interesting data from the JRE campaign".

It's not your work. By not passing along the proper attribution you substitute your credibility for the credibility of the real source of this data. That misleads the reader in many ways that should be obvious.

It would have been better if Jerome disclosed that all of this data came from a John Edwards press release:

From the WaPo: "the John Edwards campaign yesterday e-mailed reporters four graphs drawing on data from The New York Times, Bloomberg.com, CBS Evening News, and other public reports to counteract the impression that Edwards "has invested the most in Iowa," according to campaign spokesman Eric Schultz, when he has, in fact, made considerably smaller purchases of advertising air-time in the state than his rivals. Recent polls show the race in Iowa to be a three-way dead-heat."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/12/29/from_edwards_campaign_some_e xp_1.html

A majority of Democrats oppose them!

Nice ass backwards logic and dismissive attitude towards, ya know, the actual people in our society.

A majority of DEMOCRATS oppose mandates and including a plurality of their biggest advocate, Sen. Clinton.

Solution? Press forward with mandates!

Obama is more in-touch with the American people on this issue, more in touch with Democrats on this issue, and mandate advocates still slam Obama for not espousing the Tao of the Mandate. People don't want them! Somehow the shorter route to improving our healthcare system is pushing something on voters that they don't want? Do I need to make a picture of a kitten with a copy of the Edwards &  Clinton plans with the caption "I CAN HAZ MANDATE? DO NOT WANT!!"

People don't like being told what to do in a free society, therefore mandates are unpopular. Maybe in the Kingdom of Wonkery you can wave a wand and make mandates milk and honey but not in a democracy.

Since when did "Fighting Liberal" mean fighting to ram something down the throat of Democrats that they don't want?

Clear data emerges to show Obama's plan is more popular and thus more likely to find political support and it's used to indict Obama for obstructing health care reform! Mandate fetishists are truly through the looking glass on healthcare.

Newsflash: Germany covers 99.8% of their people and allows roughly 1/2 the people to opt out of the system. Few do. The 0.2 percent who opt out shouldn't be a concern in a free society. That the direction we're headed  in under Obama's plan, 99.8% coverage with better care at lower cost. The horror!

From Obama's website, his answer.

HB 854 -- OBAMA VOTED PRESENT BECAUSE A BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Obama Voted Present On The Floor And In Committee On A Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victims' Court Records; Illinois Press Association And Obama Argued That The Bill Was Unconstitutional. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed, only to be opened for public inspection if good cause is shown. Under the bill the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state's attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case. If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause. The State Journal-Register reported, "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they're found not guilty. And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve." [91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99]

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200 7/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.p hp

You don't govern in 5 second soundbites. I live in  Florida and the GOP state legislature routinely passed measures when Jeb Bush was Governor that were found to be unconstitutional in the FL courts. It was all about posturing and politics and accomplished nothing other than wasting a great deal of time and a great deal of money fighting (and losing) in court.

The tough thing to do is stand up for the Consitution as a legislator and say "we can't do this", not throw up your hands and say "let the court figure it out".

I wrote a rudimentary diary on the history of 'present' votes in the US Congress that has more information.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/21/121 733/17

The funny thing is that Hillary Clinton has Reps. Anthony Weiner and Joe Crowley out questioning the propriety of voting "present" and they themselves have voted "present" in the US congress, specifically in a 1999 House resolution condemning President Clinton for granting clemency to 17 FALN members. SEVENTY TWO members of the House voted "present" on that bill to protest the clear intent of the bill to embarrass Bill Clinton.

Just two weeks ago Clinton national co-chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz voted "present" on the House resolution praising Christians and Christmas.

Senator Leahy and Kennedy are always voting "present" to advance nominations and legilation through the calander without implying endorsement.

This is more smear politics from Hillary Clinton.  They could care less about "present" votes. They just want to get "Obama, sex, kids" into the news cycle just like they wanted to get "Obama, cocaine, drug dealer" into the news cycle.

Lacked the balls to get in the race.

Illinois Planned Parenthood working with the Illinois state legislators. Crazy!

It's laughable that Obama is getting attacked for not visiting Europe. Obama made a high profile trip with Sen. Lugar dealing with arms control and made stops in the Ukraine and Russia. He was scheduled to meet with Tony Blair in London on the way back travel problems in Perm, Russia delayed their trip.

I guess it's better to be knocking back chocolates in Geneva and Brussels instead of actually visiting the countries where there is conflict.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-oba ma_to_visit/