DC didn't exist in 1787. They did foresee a federal district, however, in Art. 1.

The general argument is that the national government must be responsible for its own maintenance and safety, rather than relying on the loyalty and good character of a state (not an objection to be taken lightly back then).

It's also a prestige thing - everybody wanted it, nobody wanted anyone else to have it.

Why do ignorant fools insist on sweeping generalizations of huge, disparate groups of people?

Reminds me of Douglas in 1860, after he figured out that he had lost and that the South was going to secede. He toured the soon-to-be Confederacy trying to reverse the events that he had helped set in motion.

He failed, of course.

A one-term pledge implicitly concedes that there is danger in a McCain presidency and that the candidate himself feels compelled to assuage the public over it.

If you're going to make the "unrepresentative of the will of the people" argument, winner-take-all is off the table. You can't have it both ways.

Two notes from a political science perspective:

12 days is a ridiculously long time frame.

300 is a ridiculously small sample. The Moe is between 5 and 6% at 95%.

That's debatable. When you go down the turnout road, you tend to stop at a convenient road instead of folowing it to its end, which is that any turnout short of 100% is, by definition, unrepresentative of the will of the people.

Was the Clinton campaign unaware of the number of delegates allocated to Idaho?

His visit was quick because he's campaigning for the general election. PR, as you may remember, does not have electoral votes.

It's quite obvious that you did not understand what he was saying. He was deriding Zogby, not praising it.

The poster did not say that. This is trolling.

That would be more like "strong on offense."

That's asking for trouble. Cop-killers, I imagine, tend to drag the ticket down.

Gravel might be able to rope him in.

When he talks about dodging sniper fire near the Weser River, let me know.