Or, perhaps, the stupid theory. Actually, "Theory" (the lit-crit version) is so divorced from reality that it is a saving grace of ours that we don't talk about it.

I wonder if these guys simply don't like people becoming well-known and taken seriously even though we didn't run the same gauntlet they did - didn't pay our dues, as it were.

The apparent decease in dem vs. repub is within the MoE - remember the MoE is defined on the individual percentage, and when there is a binary choice the MoE on the % lead is about double the quoted MoE. No story here.

The story, it would seem to me, is that 40% identify as democrat and only 19% identify as independent. It seems that a lot of former independents now consider themselves to be democrats!

It helps raise the dough :-)

Blogspot is all screwed up. Same problem with Aravosis and Digby.

This is just so very weird to me. We should not nominate ivy-league types like, for example, George W. Bush (Yale and Harvard B-school) or Bill Clinton (Yale) or John F. Kennedy (Harvard). They don't have a "sense of normalcy".

Now I went to grad school at Harvard, so maybe I'm not normal enough to post here? Perhaps the fact that I did my undergrad at Berkeley, which, indeed, is "a largest state college around here", makes me more normal? Or is it inherently necessary to have attended a second-tier school for moderates to like one?