Well, the election is of some interest to many of us. But if you want to write about something else, what's stopping you?

Kevin,
You need to calm the masses. How about a picture of Inkblot?

I'm writing a long, analytical essay on the question how many superdelegates can dance on the head of a pin.

Nice of you to finally acknowledge the win Kevin.......

Some people are writing about how Wyoming and Mississippi won't count since Hillary won't win them.

Is there any site which gives a total vote count (not a delegate count) based on only "blue" states and swing states, i.e. omitting states that the Democrats don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in November?

I don't care which Democratic primary candidate does better in states that vote 60% Republican every election, so I'd like to know if someone has filtered out that "noise" anywhere.

TIA

You could mention that Bush is trying to sneak his "enduring relationship with Iraq" past Congress.

Tomeck,

To some extent I agree with these people, but I think this definitely cuts both ways. Hasn't Obama been winning some states like Oklahoma, South Carolina that are negligibly likely to vote D in November too?

I'd like to see which candidates fare best in states the Ds actually have a shot at, I think it's very relevant.

For someone who writes the front page of a website called the Washington Monthly, you don't seem to care much for this politics thing.

Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, after already winning CAL, NY, NJ, and likely will take PA, but Chris Matthews will sneeringly ask on tonight's "Hardball" when is she going to drop out and stop hurting the Democratic party. Because, you know, he cares so much about the party.

Well, yeah...

You've got Obama planning to go negative on Clinton.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/what_experience_obama_to_agres.php

You've got the discussion of Clinton wrapping up the racist vote in Ohio.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_crucial_racist_vote.php

You've some indication that Rush had a small impact in Texas, along with Bill Clinton's interview with his guest host.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_Rush_effect.html

For me though, I think I'd like to turn my attention to McCain, so I'll flog my new site.
http://www.yawnmccain.com

Kevin- you seem a little grouchy today! I remember when you were very enthusiastic about a prolonged primary season followed by a brokered convention.

I don't care which Democratic primary candidate does better in states that vote 60% Republican every election

...Mark Penn, is that you?

Getting all 40% of those Democrats to turn out in Idaho or Alaska this year could produce a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, or at the very least a Lieberman-proof majority.

Is there any site which gives a total vote count (not a delegate count) based on only "blue" states and swing states, i.e. omitting states that the Democrats don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in November?

As I posted on a previous thread, that info doesn't address whether McCain could beat either Dem in such states in a general election. In other words, a blue state that goes for Clinton will go for Obama in a general election, and vice versa, and the same holds true for swing states leaning Dem, based on the polling we have so far. That may change in some of the swing states after yesterday.

I don't care which Democratic primary candidate does better in states that vote 60% Republican every election, so I'd like to know if someone has filtered out that "noise" anywhere.

Those states that are still polling overwhelmingly for McCain over a Dem candidate in a general are "noise." Those that have traditionally gone Republican but are polling for a Democrat over McCain this time in head-to-head matchups (that's X vs. McCain, not the rather useless measurement of Clinton vs. Obama) are very much not noise. This year has the potential to do some serious purpleizing (if I may make up such a word).

SP on March 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM:

For someone who writes the front page of a website called the Washington Monthly, you don't seem to care much for this politics thing.

Nah; Kev's just not interested in flagellating a deceased equine.

I just posted about how American primaries make me have more compassion for the Lebanese parliamentary system... And I used the word mishegas to describe all of it, ours and theirs.

Personally, I'm looking for more blah, blah.

Not like the election matters or anything.

"Getting all 40% of those Democrats to turn out in Idaho or Alaska this year could produce a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, or at the very least a Lieberman-proof majority."

Maybe, hopefully. My hope is that the Dems pick up three Senate seats and then realize that they don't have to give Lieberman a committee chair anymore. Lieberman gets pissed and starts caucusing with the Reps. And the media can all stop pretending that Lieberman is not a Republican.

The only solution is a ticket of either Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton, with some power sharing understanding. Now if they could get thir fucking egos under control and see this, we could get somewhere.

Anything else is going to KILL us against McCain, in addition to making a good fracttion of Dems pissed off at the situation.

And, even as an Obama supporter, I don't see why he can't be a powerful Veep in the Cheney mold sans warmaking.

Thems the FACTS.

Well, you certainly don't seem to be.

Lieberman gets pissed and starts caucusing with the Reps...

...who tell him he's just another winger now and to pipe down with all the demands to be fawned over and lionized. Then, next time I run into him at (Not Reagan) National, I can laugh in his face again, this time even more satisfyingly.

SURFING THE CAMPAIGN-OSPHERE....OK, OK, Hillary won Ohio and Texas but still trails Obama in the delegate count. Blah blah blah. Got it. Is anyone writing about anything else this morning?

Like how the shift in momentum to Hillary may make it harder for Barack to win the necessary votes in other states, because people will see Hillary has a chance to win and therefore be more motivated to vote for her? Why is no one writing about that?

Dkos diary

mod shortstop up.

...wait, wrong site.

Let's see, other topics besides US politics: Russian presidential elections; upcoming Iranian parliamentary elections; Israel's military action in Gaza; Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq; Kosovo; Elections in Cyprus; upcoming Spanish elections in March; Ditto for Zimbabwe; Trouble in South America and on and on.

But for Americans i suppose none of this matters.

What good does it do to check "remember personal info" here?

I agree with Hillary, people haven't all made up their minds so the contest should continue without all the MSM doing their "now we'll tell you what people REALLY mean" crap! There MUST be other stuff to write and talk about...let's consider IRAQ where a relative (her daughter's fiance went in December)says "It's NOT PRETTY" over there!

Yes indeed. The tediousness of this election, and especially of the Obamamaniacs and their "Hilary is evil" continuous diatribe, is quite unbearable. I fully expect this from the Republicans in the Fall, but really guys... we're on the same side... remember. So please lighten up.

Check around. There's clear evidence that Rush et al talked many Republicans into voting for Hillary to have an easier opponent (and doesn't that tell you who would be the better Democrat running?) As for Ohio: since there are so many shenanigans there in favor of Republicans, isn't it worth suspicion that someone would tilt the vote to Hillary for the same reason as above?

So please lighten up.

Sorry, but no.

Recommended reading:

Obama and Clinton: Who's More Likely to Confront Global Warming?
By Paul Rogat Loeb
www.truthout.org
Tuesday 04 March 2008

Global warming is by far the most important issue of our time. In a nutshell, Loeb argues that both Clinton and Obama have good policy positions on dealing with global warming, and either one would be greatly preferable to McCain. However, but he thinks Obama would be more likely to successfully mobilize the public support that will be necessary to seriously address the problem.

Is anyone talking about how much of Hon. Sen. Clinotn's margins were augmented (or lessened) by GOPers who thought that their race was over, so they might as well through a spanner into the works?

Check around. There's clear evidence that Rush et al talked many Republicans into voting for Hillary to have an easier opponent (and doesn't that tell you who would be the better Democrat running?) As for Ohio: since there are so many shenanigans there in favor of Republicans, isn't it worth suspicion that someone would tilt the vote to Hillary for the same reason as above?

Perhaps someone should publicity thank Mr. Limbaugh and his dittoheads for their contribution in making Hilary -- the new "comeback kid". And remind them that when Hilary is president she will "richly reward" them for their contribution.

New topic:

George Bush gave a speech about how the US should reduce its oil consumption. The kicker is that he had the self-awareness to observe that his 20-car motorcade wasn't helping.

This wasn't written this morning, but it's important:

The Gaza Bombshell
After failing to anticipate Hamas's victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

How come my other comment went to moderation and didn't appear?

I blogged about changing my view of the Lebanese parliamentary system after following the ins and outs of our primaries this year. The Lebanese system looked needlessly complex and indirect to me but now I'm getting it that ours is pretty complicated, too.

[Apologies Leila. It was held because of the links and the moderator missed it. I just published it. --Mod]

Shortstop,

I think you're actually agreeing that the type of information I'm looking for would be relevant, you're just disagreeing with some of my suggested approaches towards calculating this info. If I've got that wrong, please let me know.

I'm very willing to accept your revisions, e.g. define "noise" in whatever reasonable way eliminates states that it will be damned near impossible for Dems to win in November, account for as much purple-ization as we can hope for, etc.

If there's existing state-by-state polling data which could be dispositive towards sorting that out, then yes please let's use it.

All fine by me that's great, let's get the numbers as close to accurate as we can.

What I'm saying is that for those of us who have a real job and therefore insufficient time to aggregate this data on their own, wouldn't this be a great and very relevant piece of information to have in getting closer to answering the "electability" question from a purely pragmatic standpoint?

So once again, is there some hard-code political junkie blogger out there who has performed this valuable service of slicing/dicing the primary results in this way?

I know of at least 3.5 people who would be interested in seeing it.

Thanks.

Not sure if the above is clear so here's a follow-up.

IOW, get us to some form of projected electoral results in November.

If there are already decent state-by-state polling results with Clinton vs. McCain, Obama vs. McCain out there, then maybe this is done in which case it would be interesting to compare this to what is going on in the primaries vis-a-vis delegate counts.

If not, then use past history as a reasonable proxy and establish some set of red/blue percentages which defines "unlikely to change" in 2008 and weed out the noise, and yes as you point out weed it out in both directions by all means.

Hope this clarifies what I was asking.

Thanks.