come on man (or woman as it may be)

the half/half system is far easier to count that the old 3/5ths system.  

Imagine the fractions involved in counting 3/5ths of the delegates, that math is way to hard for me.

</ snark>

That's one sentence, and makes no reference to the 2007 bill that he coauthored.  And what exactly is the actual plan here?  This is precisely the lack of detail that the Senator is constantly getting himself into trouble for.

And if he's mentioned this consistently in his stump speeches, how is it that it has been reported on by any of the thousands of news sources inculded in the Lexis-Nexus database?

well funded Democratic party and union movement.

This is the problem and where we disagree, I want to build up the party around a core ideology.

You're suggesting that we need to have primaries that are basically celebrity deathmatches in order to put forward an agenda.

The overemphasis on candidates is killing the party.

I would note that of the two remaining, I think that this is a far greater problem for Obama than Clinton.

And as far as unions opposing this you're only partially right.  Nothing in what I've written prohibits PAC contributions for labor unions.  It's targetted at individual donations. Its the guys that max out that are the problem.

A system in which candidates do not drive turnout is possible.

Nothing in what I've stated precludes the DNC from engaging in 527 type expenditures to increase Democratic turnout.

If you have a Democratic message (currently we don't) then the DNC can act as a proxy for the eventual nominee.

BTW, that's a bogus argument that you're making about the theoretical influence of donations.  

It drowns out the voices of working people, and it takes their issues off the agenda, and instead we engage in this mindless culture war bullshit that has no effect on people's lives.  Men and women are loosing their jobs, because the government refuses to make business play by the rules.  And children die everyday, because their parents can't afford healthcare.

These things matter to me, and believe you me, they are very real for those who experience them.

I think that the current system greatly weakens the party, because it places the emphasis on candidates, which means that we get a content free election.

That drives voters away, and is a large part of what's driving the anti-system bias that happened in the 2006 elections, and threatens to wipe out Democratic gains in 2008.  In short, the problem is that voters are voting against incubments, not for a candidate.  That's not a system that builds up the party organization.

As for the charges of socialism, I would suggest that we counterattack and ask why the GOP is so anti-social as to suggest that the opinion of a small minority with vast amounts of wealth should drown out the voices of the millions of Americans who work for a living and scrape on by.

I agree, but that's not something that we can do through the party, that requires legislation.

And that requires 60 Democratic Senators and 0 defections.  A tall order to say the least.

What I'm suggesting is something that the party can do to limit the influence of money without involving the government.  

Dr. Dean is on the way out, and I think that this would be a tremendous legacy.

We need change, because this is what working people have been getting:

Video

That smokestack was all that what left of the factory where three generations of my family worked. Now it's gone.

All that remains is a contaminated lot that's going to have to be paved over to keep the poison inside.  It's a metaphor that has more meaning that I'm comfortable with.  We need change, and that isn't just rhetoric.  It's a recognition that the American people have been sold a lie in the form of the neo-liberal economic policies that have become popular within both parties.

Free trade and deregulation have only lead to the devastation of the middle class.

This is important.

Everyone needs to know what the "discount window" is, especially now that changes to bankruptcy law have thrown so many working families out the window.

Have you crossposted this to Daily Kos?

Hmmm.

So how are Bob Rubin and Rubinomics positioned for 2008? All too powerfully, one suspects. The Hamilton Project will continue to turn out centrist policy papers trying to signal boldness with scant resources. Rubin will continue promoting his grand bargain to cap social insurance, raise taxes, offer token benefits, and further liberate global private capital. He will continue to have unparalleled influence with Democrats, and to receive an adoring press.

In presidential politics, Rubin is personally close to Hillary Clinton, but this trader covers his bets. His son, Jamie Rubin, is a major Wall Street fund-raiser for Barack Obama. His former deputy chief of staff, Karen Kornbluh, is Obama's chief domestic policy adviser, and Rubin is also close to Obama's chief of staff, Steve Hildebrand, who used to hold the same position for former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, another Rubin ally.

Note that Daschle has now endorsed Obama, this is the Rubin effect.

I think that Obama's been deeply influenced by Robert Rubin and the Hamilton Project, and I honestly think that an Obama presidency would do greater harm than a Clinton presidency precisely because Obama is given a pass on hard questions about his economic policy.

The Hamilton Project is the new DLC (Now with more Rubin!) and Obama is drawing his economic policy from them.

When a candidate receives a union endorsment one of the principal advantages that they receive is union staff on release to work field for the campaign.  So if Edwards gets a Culinary endorsment, then he can shift his paid staff out of state and maintain staff levels, because he's will get union staff on release.  So he doesn't need to have as many paid staffers in state.

Edwards is perceived as the frontrunner for all but the AFT and AFSCME which are possibilities for Clinton. And the SEIU is seen as a possibility for Obama.

Vox,

NV comes before NH in January.

Because of the schedule this year, SC and FL, might force NH back past NV.

My take is that something has happened here with an endorsment from Culinary.

Either they've decided, or have the Edward's campaign has gotten word that CUlinary isn't going to endorse.  They might be going on strike soon, and the media attention that being able to get presidential candidates to come out and walk the picket line could put a lot of pressure on employers.

Do you think that Repubicans are going to be willing to go to the caucus and change their registration to Democratic?

Because you have to be a registered Democrat to participate in the caucuses.

Statistically speaking the aggregate number you give (N=426) gives a margin of error of +/-4.75 meaning that the 95% of the time we can say that the strenght in Iowa is.

Clinton 22.25-31.75
Obama   17.25-26.75
Edwards 17.25-26.75

Its also highly doubtful that these less likely caucus voters will show.  The represent less than a 4th of the aggrate N, but they make it appear that Clinton and Obama are much stronger.

I found the electability question interesting.

[Candidate Name] is electable.
DEMOCRATS ONLY
          Str Agree Agree Disagree Str Disagree

CLINTON    24.4     54.2   16.9      4.5
DODD       2.7      27.2   50.7      19.4
EDWARDS    32.5     52.2   12.1      3.2
OBAMA      22.4     58.6   13.4      1.6
RICHARDSON 10.4     47.1   32.0      10.4

These are very good numbers for Edwards, and very bad numbers for Dodd and Richardson.