My gut hunch is that this poll is at the favorable edge of the margin of error.  I wouldn't be surprised if the true state of the race there was essentially tied.  Which is still a great place to be, in Montana!

Not just for Alaska's EVs, but it will send a much broader message of inclusiveness to rural/small state/libertarian types.  Plus great photo ops, the media will love it (hasn't been visited in decades), and down-ticket races.

"Of course John McCain is a patriot and a hero who served his country bravely, and suffered terribly for it.  No one has ever said otherwise.

But this country has many veterans who are both patriots and heroes, and not all of them would be good as Commander in Chief.  Patriotism and bravery are important traits, but they aren't the only important traits.  Executive experience.  Diplomatic ability.  And most of all, good judgment.

It's fair to ask what kind of Commander in Chief would be, and that in no way diminishes his service to this country during the Vietnam War."

Are you serious?  PA hasn't had a McCain-leading poll since April, which was Strategic Vision that I do not trust (check their history).  Poblano  (in my opinion, the best poll analyst freely availabe) has PA at +10 for Obama.  Where oh where does "toss-up" come out of this, except wishful thinking?

That DoE projection is hypothesizing that the offshore moratorium is allowed to expire in 2013 (as it's set to, unless extended).  They estimate first oil in 2018, max rate a few years later.

So 5 years is about how long an offshore project would take, except it might currently be longer because of bottlenecks in the supply chain, especially drilling ships.

10 years is the estimate I've usually heard for ANWR, I think because some of the work can only be done in the winter when the permafrost is frozen.

It's more of choice between drilling and using 30% less oil, or not drilling and using 40 or 45% less, or not drilling, still using 30% less, and shipping hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to pay for it.   The world's big fields are in decline.  We're on plateau for now, but by the time ANWR/offshore come online I don't expect that to still be true.  And producers are using more of their oil domestically, so the oil available for export is going to decline faster than total production.

The other issue is where the money goes.  Right now we're sending 1.7 billion dollars overseas EVERY DAY.  If we could keep, say $300 million of that within our borders (divided among nat'l and state gov'ts, oil company employees, and oil company stockholders), that would do a lot to improve our balance of trade, and thereby reduce the damage to the dollar.

I used to be opposed to expanded drilling, but I now think that the time has come.  It won't do much to lower prices, it's true.  But it could ease the difficulties we're going to face as we transition our energy systems, and it would strengthen us economically.

peace,
lilnev

I've actually thought that Obama should give her another shot at EPA.  She struck me as a very level-headed person who was trying to protect the environment, because that's the job title and something she believed in.  Of course that didn't work out under Bush, where the job description was really "deflect criticism while we eviscerate environmental protections for the benefit of our friends in industry".  But if she was given a chance in a forward-thinking administration, I think she'd be excellent, unfortunate party affiliation notwithstanding.

If she tries to continue fighting after Obama has passed the delegate threshold, her supers will start deserting her.  I don't think many of them have the desire to keep dragging out the fight.  Every day she keeps it up, she'll be losing ground.

She's a smart woman, so I'm sure she realizes this.  She maximizes her gains by getting behind Obama as soon as he crosses that threshold (power within the party, a potential future candidacy, her public image and approval ratings, etc).

peace,
lilnev

What is wrong with you people?  Chuck Norris could beat up all these "celebrities" at the same time!

Ah, damn, I miss Huckabee.  Any chance at veep?

Why?  Because the only reason to talk about the popular vote is to make a moral argument about the "will of the electorate".  That argument loses all moral force if it's based on a number that clearly doesn't represent the will of the electorate.  You can either toss out MI completely on the grounds that we have no meaningful information about the will of the electorate, or you can use an estimate based on exit polling (the "who would you have voted for if these names had been on the ballot" question).  The latter is imperfect, but at least intellectually honest.  Claiming that the will of the electorate as expressed by the popular vote is a moral mandate, and then claiming that exactly zero people in MI wanted to vote for Obama, is not.

Are we back to the "big states not named Illinois" metric again?

Hey, this one's a bargain!  Only $25,000 per couple for VIP treatment.  The dinner in Bellvue WA was $33,100 apiece.

This from Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself, the guy whose name is on the frickin' bill limiting individual contributions to $2300 per election.  What a maverick!  I'd really like to see the DNC put out an attack ad skewering him on this.

Tempted to make a "Hussein" joke here, but I'm afraid it might be taken the wrong way....

That's probably more like "refuse to answer", which wasn't an option on this touch-tone poll.  Some people who've already voted might feel that it's inappropriate to answer after casting a secret ballot.

I tried to make it my computers background, but icons really don't show up well against it.  Oh well, I'll leave it up for a few days anyway.