Good morning, Nevada and all of Dean country

51.
Monica Smith
Thu, 01/03/08

Reply to this

Richardson is sending his supporters to Obama.  

+++

Where's the link for this ?  I can't find anything (Yahoo, Google search engines) to back up your statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/politics/03voices.html

For Democrats, Too Many Good Picks; For Republicans, an Easier Path

AMES, Iowa

...

For months now, many Democrats here have been in a state of happy paralysis, luxuriating in what they say is an unusually strong set of candidates and plenty of attention from them.

Instead of the usual voter complaints about choosing among unattractive options, there are meditative conversations about Senator Barack Obama’s freshness versus Gov. Bill Richardson’s international résumé versus John Edwards’s commitment to the underprivileged versus the historic prospect of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s becoming the first female president.

...

“If Barack Obama and John Edwards were together on the ticket they would have my vote in a second,” said Cecelia Kemmerer, over lunch. It was only her first day out of the house since neck surgery several weeks ago and she gasped with effort through many of her answers. But “I will be at that caucus if I have to crawl,” she said.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trio3jan03,1,6390699.story?track=rss

51 on previous thread:

http://bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=9B4F2F64C8E78F48C15123DC01563496?diaryId=3050 

WEll, lets see.............I have a choice to make tonite.  Watch the Iowa corkesses on CSPAN or watch Forrest Gump......................................

Ill take my chances with Forrest....................

If just one of the media neglected candidates had stepped up to the plate, voters would have had fewer choices and fewer people would have been intimately involved in the electoral process.

5.

Thanks.

6.

I'll be working my second job tonight.

Happy Thursday, BFA!

********
I'm staying completely out of the frenzy that is the Iowa caucus and I too appreciated Rich's post last thread. I remember 2004 all too well. While I was not one of the Perfect Storm, my heart was in my throat from over here and I had already written letters to Iowa and New Hampshire. It was beginning with letters to South Carolina and elsewhere.

When the day after the Iowa caucus and Faux was trumpeting to all and sundry that Howard had gone nuts with the scream, I think that I understood then that Howard's candidacy had been marked for destruction by the MSM and their controllers.

It made me all the more determined to show up at our American Dems Abroad caucus here where I was going to vote for Dean no matter what. I dragged my spouse along ... and he joined me in supporting Dean. We were not alone. Dean was a clear winner in our caucus here; Kerry came in a far second. So our split delegation, with majority Dean, minority Kerry moved on to the regional caucuses. At the regional level, the Kerry-ites had it, but our strong Dean delegation went on to the national with every intention of voting for him ... until he asked them not to.

But here, Dean was supreme.

And he still is so far as I'm concerned.

The People's Parade By Linda Milazzo
January 3, 2008, Pasadena, CA

(PHOTO) Linda Jaffe leads the way with giant preamble banner https://www.pdamerica.org/Image/news/pre...

Impeachment activists rise up in Rose Bowl Parade

On New Years Day, thanks to the 2008 White Rose Coalition (WRC), a GIANT rendering of the Preamble to the Constitution was carried at the end of the Rose Parade by American patriots in the PEOPLE'S PARADE FOR DEMOCRACY. Accompanying the Preamble was Backbone Campaign's famed chain-gang bobble-heads of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice, adorned in prison garb with chains and teeny balls. See a video of Bobble Heads in action. ...full report: http://pdamerica.org/articles/chapters/c...

Here's how the Iowa caucuses are playing over here right now.

===================
A state in suspense: too close to call for both parties in Iowa
After a year's campaigning, presidential candidates scramble to get out the vote as final polls show dead heats on each side
Ewen MacAskill in Des Moines
Thursday January 3, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

Republican and Democratic contenders to replace George Bush in the White House go into tonight's first real test of public opinion with final polls showing both contests in a dead heat.
Tens of thousands of volunteers scoured Iowa yesterday for potential voters, as the candidates issued their final appeals in one of the most open and hotly contested campaigns of the last 100 years.

"Both races are getting tighter as the caucuses get closer," pollster John Zogby said. His poll, which is updated daily, showed Barack Obama gaining 2% overnight and Hillary Clinton dropping 2%, putting the Democratic frontrunners on 28%. John Edwards polled 26%, which, given the margin of error, amounts to a dead heat.

The Republican race is equally unpredictable, with Mitt Romney eating into Mike Huckabee's lead. The poll put Huckabee on 28%, Romney on 26% and John McCain and Fred Thompson on 12%. McCain has done little campaigning in Iowa, concentrating instead on New Hampshire, which holds its primary next week. He has enjoyed a resurgence in New Hampshire and is rising in the polls in Iowa, where he arrived last night for some belated campaigning. Polls suggest many potential caucus-goers will make up their minds tonight.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33193...

Of course, here's another story from the States which leaves many shaking their heads. The hate mail is unacceptable, of course, but this individual does not come off as a sympathetic figure.

I've seen some strange injuries on ski slopes and one does not always have to be going at a high rate of speed to do some real damage to oneself or to a third party. But this lawsuit does seem to be more than a bit exaggerated, IMHO.

And merely being on a ski slope is a situation where one implicitly accepts certain risks.

=====================
Skier sues boy, 8, who 'clipped' him
Ed Pilkington in New York
Thursday January 3, 2008
Guardian

A 60-year-old man who is suing an eight-year-old boy who knocked him over on a ski slope in Colorado was forced to leave his home over Christmas after being bombarded by hate emails when the story circulated on the internet. The incident occurred a year ago on a run in Beaver Creek but the two sides' accounts of what happened differ greatly.

The man, David Pfahler, a former teacher who works for Reader's Digest in Pennsylvania, says in the lawsuit that the boy slammed into him at "a high rate of speed" and that he was knocked to the ground. He tore a ligament in his shoulder and required surgery and "extensive" physical therapy, and is claiming $75,000 compensation for the medical costs and lost holiday time.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33193...

rich^kolker
Thu, 01/03/08

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Good post Rich.................yes 4 years ago was one of the biggest disappointments in mylife.....bigger than ruining my first pair of PF flyers in 1963 while trying to jump across a muddy stream..............the ad said they would make me run faster and jump higher then....

i shant be voting this year...........a first......out of protest....however I agre aboiut Edwards....they all stink in my opinion, just Edwards a bit less.................

Not wishing to offend over sensitive types here about Obama, i wont comment on him..as it appears any critique of this man will warant all types of accusations I am sure................to hell with that..hes a phoney candidate and I dont buy his song and dance.............Hillary is just as bad and the same can be said for her uber sensitive supporters................so much for free speech i see..........

To the surprise of few ...

==================
Musharraf delays election by six weeks
· Troops will stay on streets to maintain order, he says
· Main opposition parties will participate in vote
Julian Borger in Islamabad
Thursday January 3, 2008
Guardian

President Pervez Musharraf said yesterday that troops would stay on the streets of Pakistan's tense cities at least until a new election date of February 18. Parliamentary elections, intended to provide a transition to democracy after more than eight years of military rule, had been scheduled for January 8, but a controversial six-week delay was announced by the country's election commission.

The commission blamed riots in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination for the postponement, saying 11 of its district offices had been damaged or destroyed, along with ballot boxes and other election material, particularly in Sindh province, the base of her Pakistan People's party.

Another factor for the delay was the onset of the Muslim holy month of Muharram, due to begin next week and last a lunar month. It has in the past been the occasion of friction between Pakistan's Sunni majority and Shia minority.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33193...

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1699639,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Barack Obama's Iowa campaign often looks like it's all about the youth vote. The senator's rallies on college campuses draw big, enthusiastic crowds. His campaign gear — understated silk-screened silhouettes on "ringer" t-shirts — is by far the coolest on the trail. So intense is the magnetism between Obama and undergrads that David Yepsen, venerable political columnist of the Des Moines Register, wrote a half-serious piece in which he worried that out-of-state students at Iowa colleges might flood Thursday's caucuses, swept away by Obamamania.

But Obama is surely too smart to rely on first-time voters to put him over the top. You don't go from the Illinois state legislature to the front ranks of presidential politics in four years by chasing phantoms. And the dream of a surging youth vote is nowhere more phantasmagorical than in square old Iowa.

To begin with, the youngest demographic — voters 18 to 24 — is by far the hardest slice of the electorate to organize and deliver. Ask Howard Dean. In 2003, his surging Democratic campaign captured the imaginations of young liberal voters, many of whom donned orange hats to go doorbelling for Dean through Iowa neighborhoods. Come voting time, the under-25 crowd cast an estimated 3.9% of the ballots. In other words, they vanished.

That should have been no surprise.

...

A hard job becomes even harder in Iowa because the state has relatively few young people to court. According to Census data, Iowa has the 13th highest median age in the country.

And then there's the fact that Iowa chooses candidates by caucusing.

...

The Obama campaign is well aware of all this. Some of them are veterans of the Dean campaign, after all. My colleague Michael Grunwald asked an Obama official not long ago if they were really counting on the student vote. "Oh no," he answered. "I saw that movie in 2004."

So if Obama is not banking on a transformation of youthful enthusiasm into reliability on caucus night, why make it look like that's the plan?

Nostalgia may have a lot to do with it.

There will almost certainly be more people 68 to 74 caucusing on Thursday than those 18 to 24. But those old folks were young once, and if they were Democrats, they were swept up half a century ago in the youth-oriented campaign of John F. Kennedy. An even larger number will undoubtedly come from the 58 to 64 demographic, with their fond memories of political engagement on college campuses in the late 1960s and early '70s.

A candidate who seems to fire the hearts of today's young people will find a warm welcome in the collective memory of older Democrats. And beyond nostalgia, there are key constituencies in the Democratic party that are temperamentally attuned to the idea of organizing on campus: school teachers, college professors, Hollywood (which markets primarily to the young) and philosophical small-D democrats who favor greater participation of all kinds.

Barack Obama will be happy to have all the student turnout he can get. But the prize is not the votes, but the brand. The image of the new and charismatic candidate is a powerful marketing tool for a would-be Democratic candidate. Campaign young — but organize gray: that's the real winning strategy.

...

Good to see that some in Iowa are protesting the illegal occupation in Iraq.

===============
Demonstrators held after Iowa anti-war protests
Daniel Nasaw in Des Moines
Thursday January 3, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

At least 10 anti-war demonstrators were arrested yesterday during protests in Des Moines over the lack of debate on the war on Iraq in the election campaign.

The protestors, ranging in age from 23 to 76, were taken into custody after briefly occupying the campaign offices of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney. Most were held by local police, though some were released with a caution.

The protests were part of a coordinated effort by peace activists to raise the issue of the Iraq war in the campaign.

Earlier this week, the group - a loose coalition of Catholic peace activists and veteran anti-war demonstrators - occupied the Des Moines office of Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.

They pledged a similar demonstration today at the campaign office of another candidate.

The decision to protest at Obama's campaign office displays the dissatisfaction among some on the American left with the leading Democratic presidential candidates' stances on the war in Iraq.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33193...

And, as part of that *some on the American left* (and proud to be!!), I salute the war protesters.

************
And, looking ahead to New Hampshire already, here's a video for Reed and other Gravel supporters.

The outsider
GuardianFilms’ James Ridgeway follows Mike Gravel, the septuagenarian former senator snubbed by mainstream Democrats, as he trudges through the New Hampshire snow in his bid to make a dent in the primaries

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/200...

Here's something to think about ... and mull over quite a lot: Selfish versus Unselfish Capitalism and its effects on our psyches.

=================
Selfish capitalism is bad for our mental health
The growth in relative materialism over the past 20 years is taking a heavy toll on the wellbeing of English-speaking nations
Oliver James
Thursday January 3, 2008
Guardian

By far the most significant consequence of "selfish capitalism" (Thatch/Blatcherism) has been a startling increase in the incidence of mental illness in both children and adults since the 1970s. As I report in my book, The Selfish Capitalist - Origins of Affluenza, World Health Organisation and nationally representative studies in the United States, Britain and Australia, reveal that it almost doubled between the early 80s and the turn of the century. These increases are very unlikely to be due to greater preparedness to acknowledge distress - the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established.

Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political economy. An average 23% of Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians suffered in the last 12 months, but only 11.5% of Germans, Italians, French, Belgians, Spaniards and Dutch. The message could not be clearer. Selfish Capitalism, much more than genes, is extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so toxic?

Readers of this newspaper will need little reminding that Selfish Capitalism has massively increased the wealth of the wealthy, robbing the average earner to give to the rich. There was no "trickle-down effect" after all.

The real wage of the average English-speaking person has remained the same - or, in the case of the US, decreased - since the 1970s. By more than halving the taxes of the richest and transferring the burden to the general population, Margaret Thatcher reinstated the rich's capital wealth after three postwar decades in which they had steadily become poorer.

Although I risk you glazing over at these statistics, it's worth remembering that the top 1% of British earners have doubled their share of the national income since 1982, from 6.5% to 13%, FTSE 100 chief executives now earning 133 times more than the average wage (against 20 times in 1980); and under Brown's chancellorship the richest 0.3% nobbled over half of all liquid assets (cash, instantly accessible income), increasing their share by 79% during the last five years.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33193...

... 

Not wishing to offend over sensitive types here about Obama, i wont comment on him..as it appears any critique of this man will warant all types of accusations I am sure................to hell with that..hes a phoney candidate and I dont buy his song and dance.............

+++

"Obama,

... 

Not wishing to offend over sensitive types here about Obama, i wont comment on him..as it appears any critique of this man will warant all types of accusations I am sure................to hell with that..hes a phoney candidate and I dont buy his song and dance.............

+++

"Obama,

15.

"Obama, i wont comment on him...hes a phoney candidate and I dont buy his song and dance..."

+++

Mike -

You just contradicted yourself (won't comment, then ya comment). 

Enjoy Forrest Gump -- great movie, as is Hot Fuzz and Great Debaters.

(sorry for the 21, 22, 23 hiccup posts -- blog acting up again ?)

Bloomberg

"I am not a candidate."

Thanks again, putzCo ... leaving the biggest mess ever with unprecedented global badwill and economic recession on the way, after inheriting global goodwill at a high point and a budget surplus.

Why anyone would WANT to inherit this mess is practically beyond fathoming. But, if someone competent and committed to unselfish captialism and common sense foreign policy does, we may have a prayer.

Otherwise, what is this handbasket and where are we going so fast?
=================
Oil at $100 a barrel, gold at record high, pound at all-time low: markets begin 2008 in turmoil
· Turbulence seen as start of things to come
· Rate cuts more likely on both sides of Atlantic
Larry Elliot, Economics editor
The Guardian, Thursday, January 3, 2008

The price of oil broke through the $100-a-barrel barrier for the first time last night as fears of a recession in the US plunged the world's financial markets into turmoil on the first day of trading in 2008.

Traders, jittery following the five-month-long credit crunch, saw the cost of crude on New York's futures exchange rise $4 a barrel as the impact of a plunging dollar, a cold snap in North America and unrest in two members of the Opec oil-producing cartel - Nigeria and Algeria - led to speculative buying.

Gold rose to record levels as investors took fright at the prospect of recession in the world's biggest economy, while shares on Wall Street dropped sharply in response to the weakest performance by US manufacturing in more than four years.

Seen as a safe haven during times of turbulence, gold rose by 3% yesterday, with the spot price jumping to $860 an ounce and thereby surpassing the previous peak hit more than 27 years ago during the inflationary surge that accompanied the start of the Iran-Iraq war.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/...

Edwards is directly challenging the status quo and is the only candidate doing that.

as one that finds the status quo unacceptable I am going to stand with him

Kenya is fast disintegrating into chaos, I am very sorry to say. We know and have worked with many good Kenyan nationals. No one deserves this and good people least of all.

My husband is especially shaken. Although I've never been, he has, has visited many of the villages as well as the Masai Mara, and knows some of the *players.* For a time, we thought that we would both go last summer on the occasion of a global conference of one of the NGOs he has volunteered for and then stay on for a proper visit, but we were unable to fit the conference, etc. into our schedules.

====================
Kenyan police battle Odinga supporters
Reuters
Published: 03 January 2008

Shots ricocheted around Nairobi streets and smoke billowed over slums as Kenyan police battled thousands of anti-government protesters trying to march to a banned rally today.

After hours of skirmishes all round the city, the opposition called off the rally against the disputed re-election of President Mwai Kibaki, saying it wanted to save lives. But it scheduled another public meeting for next Tuesday.

From dawn, riot police were out in force as the city slowly transformed into an all-out battleground.

"This is dictatorship now," protester Julius Akech shouted, in the latest bout of unrest in a week of tribal and political violence in which more than 300 Kenyans have been killed.

Opposition leaders defied police and set off from their headquarters for the rally against Kibaki's continued hold on power in Kenya, East Africa's biggest economy and an ally of the West in its efforts to counter al Qaeda.

[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/afri...

Phil, if I were in Iowa, and had to make a choice today, I would first stand in Dodd's corner and, if he didn't make the 15%, as appears unlikely, I'd join you in the Edwards corner.

Hillary's Kyl-Lieberman vote did her in for me completely, I'm afraid, as least insofar as caucus and primary support are concerned.

My heart remains with Howard and Al.

To Iowans who read this; Phil, Lenny, Darrell, or any others:  a great opportunity is presented to you.

Phil is a keen, veteran observer on this blog.  Despite our differences, I typically accede to his wise counsel.  He said a legislator who voted in support of the authorization to invade Iraq should not become the next Democratic presidential nominee.

I ask that you, just as you did 4 years ago, caucus today for a candidate who neither voted nor supported this capitulation to the administration's puny, PNAC-endorsed plan for world hegemony.  You have my appreciation. 

Thanks again, putzCo ... leaving the biggest mess ever with unprecedented global badwill and economic recession on the way, after inheriting global goodwill at a high point and a budget surplus.

It was the sort of global goodwill that had 19 people plan for three years to commit suicide to kill 3,000 Americans while we went to work.  Boy, they just loved us so.  That darn Bush, he spoiled it all.  And by the way the recession of 2001 began BEFORE he took office.  Nice economy to inherit.  March of 2001 the tech bubble burst and your retirement accounts lost 30% in one month, and 6 months later 9-11.  And from that economic rubble we have 4.7% unemployment, 3% inflation, and the Dow back to all time highs.  It is time for a change.   

32.

There's essentially two streets in America:

Wall Street

Main Street

Talking about the former is not the same as talking about the latter.

Edwards and other dem candidates are correctly focusing on Americans living on the latter street.

Home heating oil delivery prices in eastern Massachusetts are averaging $ 3.49 a barrel currently.

Tom

why is there a War Party?

the one Howard challenged?

what are the underlying forces that work against the peace and justice that Howard desired?

Obama may well end up being the nominee because he never voted for the war, but Edwards has grasped the underlying reality.

I want a President that knows it isn't about him. and that this struggle is the one that gave birth to the Democratic Party of our better angels 

we can't have peace until we have justice

liberty and justice for all that is the promise of our flag

Obama can get us there too if we push him, Edwards is at the front.

$ 3.49 a barrel

I'll buy that!

I think you meant gallon :-).

Natural Gas isn't quite as bad as oil this winter, but we are taking a hit.  Walking around the house in a set of sweats is perfectly comfortable, and cheap. 

35.

... 

I want a President that knows it isn't about him

...

+++

Phil -

I agree with that phrase, that's why I'll be voting for Obama in the MA dem primary on Feb 5.

Well Fox, I see that you still have your head stuck back up where the sun don't shine.

Enjoy the view.

The 19 people who allegedly implemented 9-11 were here on the ground in the good old USA for several months during which this totally biased, incompetent and politically motivated bunch let them do as they would, no matter how many warnings they got from Sandy Berger, from Richard Clarke, or from the CIA. Hell, they even went on vacation in August and paid no attention to intelligence that was just about as clear as intelligence ever is.

Yes, sirree, putzCo ARE to blame.

Reality check for McStupid, aka Fox Mulder:

by Mark Silva

President Bush's approval rating has reached a new low in the newest Reuters/Zogby Poll -- with just 24 percent of those surveyed approving of Bush's job performance. That is down from 29 percent last month.

It is lower than the latest register of Bush's approval rating in the Gallup Poll -- 32 percent in Gallup's newest October survey.

The newest gauge arrives as President Bush prepares for a press conference in the West Wing this morning -- at 10:40 am EDT -- and as the president prepares to fend off an override of his veto of an expansion of children's health care on Capitol Hilll tomorrow.

Public approval for the job that Congress is performing -- 11 percent in the new survey -- matches the all-time low that Reuters found last month.

"Deepening unhappiness with President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress soured the mood of Americans and sent Bush's approval rating to another record low this month,'' Reuters reports today.

"The Reuters/Zogby Index,'' which measures the mood of the country, also fell from 98.8 to 96 -- the second consecutive month in which it has dropped. The number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped four points to 66 percent.

"There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them," pollster John Zogby said. "They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

President Bush's "approval rating" has dropped to an all-time low 29% in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, USA TODAY Washington bureau chief Susan Page reports this morning. Opposition to the Iraq War, which is at a new high, has further cut into the president's standing, Page writes. She adds that:

• Bush's support is eroding among Republicans: 68% approve of him, down from an average 92% in his first term, 82% in his second. Nearly 4 in 10 Republicans say the immigration debate, which ended in defeat for Bush's overhaul proposal, caused them to lose confidence in him.

Meanwhile, The New York Times' Caucus blog says recent polls suggest that Vice President Cheney " has replaced Dan Quayle as the most unpopular vice president in recent history."

 ENJOY THE FALL, FOX;)))

Keep kiddin' yourself, there, foxie;)

December 20, 2007

71% of Americans Disapprove of George W. Bush's Handling of the Economy

While 66% of Americans disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job overall, 71% of Americans say they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 32% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 66% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 28% approve and 71% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 31% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 66% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 27% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 72% disapprove.

While Bush's overall approval among Republicans is at 65% (67% in November), 51% of Republicans approve and 45% of Republicans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy. In November, 70% of Republicans approved of the way Bush was handling the economy and 25% disapproved.

A total of 64% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse and 65% are undecided if the national economy is in a recession. A total of 35% rate the national economy as excellent, very good, or good, compared to 48% giving the same ratings in November.

$ 3.49 a barrel

I'll buy that!

I think you meant gallon :-).

...

+++

rich -

yikes ! (I wish it was the price for a barrel !)

Thanks for correcting me.

Yeah, I recently had the choice between fixing something on my car or filling up my oil tank with a delivery -- I chose the latter.

My income level is too high to be elegible for Joe Kennedy's Citizen Energy Citgo-subsidized oil deliveries.

I'm just glad I have a wood-burning stove in my living room.  That helps a bit, as well as wearing long johns.

It was a balmy 5 degrees Fahrenheit this morning here.

From the previous thread.

47.

Monica Smith
Thu, 01/03/08


DODD: This is not an auction. And I think that candidates and campaigns that do it just contribute to the cynicism that a lot of people have about politics.

MITCHELL: Well, assuming that the people that want to cast their vote for you in the caucus tomorrow night are really committed and passionate about you, Chris Dodd, what happens assuming you don't reach the 15%. To be realistic, then what do you do on the second round?

DODD: Well, that's their business. That's not my business. And that's the point I'm making here.

----


DODD: Well, that's their business. That's not my business. And that's the point I'm making here.

What a guy!

and for foxie, let's connect those dots really closely re. Republican support for Bushie:

AGAIN, FROM THE DEC. 20 ARG POLL ABOVE: 

While Bush's overall approval among Republicans is at 65% (67% in November), 51% of Republicans approve and 45% of Republicans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy.

In November, 70% of Republicans approved of the way Bush was handling the economy and 25% disapproved.

 FACTS TALK AND BULLSHIT WALKS, FOXIE, BUT HEY, KEEP IT UP....YOU MAY HAVE THE DISTINCTION OF BEING BUSHIE'S LAST, LONELY SUPPORTER, LOL!

Fox wrote "It is time for a change."

Not for you though.  The economy is humming for the wealthy investor class, as summarized here:

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%.

" . . . .

"In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

" . . . .

"Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call 'death taxes' for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. (It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservatives behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.)

" . . . .

"The most recent findings on income inequality come from the New York Times' analysis of a November, 2006, Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income has grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Furthermore, the Times author concludes that only the top 5% made significant gains ($1.53 for each 1979 dollar). Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."

" . . . .

"Another way that income can be used as a power indicator is by comparing average CEO annual pay to average factory worker pay, something that Business Week has been doing for many years now. The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options;. It was at 411:1 in 2005. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe.

" . . . .

"It's even more revealing to compare the actual rates of increase of the salaries of CEOs and ordinary workers; from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account."

Some final thoughts on Iowa from Mark Blumenthal:

1) We Have No Idea Who Will Win. Yes, despite tens of thousand of interviews, polls of every shape, size and method and our own fancy charts featuring regression-derived trend lines of varying degrees of sensitivity, the only thing we can say with confidence is that the Democratic and Republican races are close. It is hard to know much more than that given the small margins and, more importantly, the huge variations in the kinds of likely caucus goers sampled.
link

2) Methodology Matters. That conclusion has been the theme of virtually everything I have written about the Iowa Caucuses this year. As we learned from our Disclosure Project, no two pollsters select and define the "likely caucus goers" exactly the same way, and the differences in their methods are directly related to the vote. On the Democratic side, it has long been clear that John Edwards does better in polls that include bigger percentages of past caucus goers, and more recent surveys show Hillary Clinton and especially Barack Obama doing better as the samples include more first-time caucus goers.

Polls always show some differences due to pollster "house effects," differences that are usually more about how hard interviewers push uncertain voters than about how they select likely voters. But in the case of the Iowa Caucuses, differences in method produce huge variation in the kinds of voters selected as likely caucus goers. And what is truly surprising is that those differences appear to be growing in the final round of surveys (and speaking of the Des Moines Register survey, I'll have much more below).
link

3) Our Regression Estimates (and Poll Averages) Don't Help. They don't help, that is, in providing a more precise estimate of who may be ahead or behind. What Charles Franklin's trend lines do, and do very well, is provide the best possible summary of the combined wisdom of all the public polls in the race. Since those polls are all over the place in terms of the kinds of people they are sampling, however, that combined wisdom may be off the mark.

Our colleagues Gary Langer and Jon Cohen, directors of polling for ABC News and The Washington Post respectively, wrote an op-ed over the weekend with "tips for decoding election polls." It is worth reading in full, despite their advice to "avoid being seduced by averages" (Langer also blogged a similar warning about "getting sucked into the horse race clutter"). They argue that "a collection of good and bad polls" will not provide a "better estimate" than one good poll. In theory that's true. In reality however, especially when we look at general election polls, the differences among polls are usually not much more random than the "margin of sampling error" would predict. That is why, our averages and those posted by RealClearPolitics, were more "accurate" in Senate and Governor races in 2006 than those from individual polls.

But in the case of the Iowa Caucuses, the warning about averages from Langer and Cohen is probably right. Polls are measuring different kinds of people, and those differences are producing results that vary far beyond the statistical margin of error. Our current regression estimates are incredibly close, with only a point or two separating Clinton, Obama and Edwards among Democrats and Huckabee and Romney among Republicans. However, those estimates essentially split the difference among the various methodologies. If the consensus guess about the best way to "model" the turnout is wrong, then the averages will be wrong too.
link

4) So What Do We Know About the Horserace? The Democratic race is now obviously a three-way contest between Clinton, Edwards and Obama and between Huckabee and Romney on the Republican side, with a (though that would be what one former colleague of mine calls the "duh" finding). But we know more than that.

On the Democratic side the variation in the composition of the likely electorate tells us the likely story of the race. We just don't know the ending yet. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder put this as succinctly as I've seen anywhere:

The c.w. on second choice comes from four recent polls --