Hey Indiex

If you could take the time to read all the posts, maybe you could have taken the time to actually respond to the actual content and arguments that people posted instead of name calling. Or is it "arrogant" of a "shithead" like me to actually want to debate the merits of the issue?

Posted at July 18, 2008 11:20 AM in response to Group Runs Newspaper Ad Demanding Hillary Be On Ballot At Convention

I make those kind of mistakes even when it hasn't been a long day... no worries

Posted at July 17, 2008 11:56 PM in response to Group Runs Newspaper Ad Demanding Hillary Be On Ballot At Convention

Yeah... that explains his terrible performance in the Illinois primary where he only got 65% statewide, and his embarrassing performance on his home turf in the southside of Chicago where he could only manage 85% in the 1st district and 87% in the 2nd district.

Sure, we'll probably have to move Illinois to a "lean McCain" state soon.

Posted at July 17, 2008 5:10 PM in response to Group Runs Newspaper Ad Demanding Hillary Be On Ballot At Convention

Clinton is not automatically on the ballot in Denver. In fact, Obama is not automatically on the ballot in Denver.

There is no "ballot" at a national convention - rather names are placed in nomination and delegates vote as they choose.

In order for a name to be placed in nomination, a candidate must submit nominating petitions signed by at least 300 convention delegates AND a signed statement from the candidate consenting to have their name placed in nomination.

Delegates cast their vote by registering it with the state delegation chair (these days done with an electronic vote on the convention floor). Delegates can vote for whoever they want - a candidate who has been placed in nomination, their mother-in-law, and anything in between.

Senator Clinton will only have her name placed in nomination in Denver if she wants to. This is her decision, not the decision of some marginal group of bitter supporters who are ignoring Clinton's clear statement of support for Obama as the party nominee.

Posted at July 17, 2008 5:05 PM in response to Group Runs Newspaper Ad Demanding Hillary Be On Ballot At Convention

Markcaldicott claims that "... if Hillary doesn't get a vote for her nomination at the convention, that will be the first time in history that a person with elected delegates isn't honored with a vote at the convention. That is outrageous."

Not only is it outrageous, it is an outright lie.

In 2004, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Wesley Clark and Al Sharpton all won elected delegates -- and no of their names were placed in nomination.

In 2000, Bill Bradley won elected delegates, and he released his delegates, urged them to vote for Gore, and did not have his name put in nomination nor receive any votes.

Please get your facts straight and stop lying before you make these kind of stupid claims.

And for anyone who missed it, Obama does have the support of the majority of convention delegates -- -- because he won far more delegates than Clinton AND a large majority of superdelegates have pledged their support to him.

If Hillary supporters want some exercise in ego gratication by having her name placed in nomination that is one thing, but they need to put down the crack pipe if they think there is any chance the convention delegates will change their minds (especially while Obama continues to be beating McCain.)

Posted at July 17, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Group Runs Newspaper Ad Demanding Hillary Be On Ballot At Convention

I'm not sure that your analysis of the numbers works. While conservatives will probably come home to McCain in the states you mention, those numbers in total popular vote are more than offset by the large margins Obama will run up in California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, VT, CT, NJ, Hawaii, and probably MN,WI, Washington State, and several other states.

Coupled with larger African-American turnout (that should give Obama a greater vote total than Kerry in urban areas and in a number of southern states, even if he doesn't win them), a more enthusiastic Democratic base, and being more competitive in states Kerry wasn't (Kansas, Montana, Indiana, North Dakota, Virginia, etc) -- it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where McCain is 3-5% ahead in popular vote while Obama is winning the EV.

There are very few states (TX, KY, TN, OK, UT, WY, ID, WV, AZ, SD) where McCain seems likely to run up the kinds of margins that would make that happen - and of those states, only TX and TN are very large and it isn't even clear Texas will be a blowout as big as the past since their hometown boy isn't on the ballot. Unless McCain somehow breaks away huge in FL, NC, SC, GA, MS etc and closes the margin in traditionally Democratic states, the math just doesn't work.

In all polling, but especially this year, the challenge of predicting who will vote makes it hard to figure out exactly what the polls mean at this stage of the race. Different turnout models (national and state) vary in terms of key factors such as % of the electorate that is African-American, how many new and young voters will be brought in this year, what is the accurate party ID % to include in the polling mix, how enthusiastic is each party's base, etc. These days I think looking at each poll's internals is essential to making comparisons or looking for trends. From what I can tell, that accounts for a lot of the movement in some polls and the differences between many state polls and national polls.

Posted at July 14, 2008 2:42 PM in response to Obama Secures Lead In Crucial Swing State Of Michigan

He's not mad about FISA, he's just another PUMA troll who is looking for any excuse to attack Obama... take a look at his comments ... and one of his favourite blogs "Taylor Marsh"

Nuf said

Posted at July 10, 2008 11:30 PM in response to Report: Bush Officials Not Happy About Possible Obama Speech At Brandenburg Gate

No mention of Bob Barr or Nader in the Rasmussen poll-- (maybe they're in the cross-tabs that you've got to pay to get)

I suspect that Barr will be somewhat of a factor in Montana -- Paul placed second there with 25% and ran ahead of McCain, and the state has plenty of "sagebrush rebellion" types who kept the west Republican for so long. If he mounts much of a campaign, this would be one of the states where he could have an impact.

Nader got 6% in 2000, but that was probably because Gore wasn't contesting the state so progressive Dems felt free to cast a bit of a protest vote. Nader dropped to 1% in 2004 -- even though Kerry wasn't contesting. I doubt he'll be much of a factor in Montana this year - although in a close race, even a few hundred votes could be a problem.

Whatever the outcome, I love the fact that the McCain will have to play defense and possibly lose states like Montana -- every dollar he spends there is one less dollar in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, etc.

Posted at July 3, 2008 2:16 PM in response to Poll: Obama Leading In Red State Of Montana

As a complete non-believer, I've got no problems with government dollars going to religious-based institutions to preform non-religious work.

Over and over again in my work I've seen the value of religious groups willing to do work that the private and NGO sectors are not doing - developing housing in abandoned inner city neighbourhoods, providing health care in African villages, reintegrating released prisoners back into the community, etc.

The issues for me (constitutional and otherwise) are threefold:

1. There should be no preference for religious groups to compete for funding over other non-profit organizations - the playing field must be even for all. Unfortunately part of the Bush initiative has been to force federal agencies to target funds to religious groups. And when religious groups get funding, it must be understood that any religious group has an equal opportunity for funding -- meaning than Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Buddhist, Rastafarian, Baha'i, Santeria/Camdomble, Hindu, Scientology, Taoist, Jain, Shinto, Sikh, MCC (a gay church), Ethical Society, Zoroastrianism, LDS, and every other faith organization has the opportunity to compete for funding. (I'm not sure the American public is truly ready to see tax dollars going to a Wiccan food bank or a Sikh health clinic.)

2. The activity must be completely separated from religious practice - no religious test for participation or employment, no discrimination, proselytizing or preaching, no imposing religious dogma on programs (for example, lying about the effectiveness of condoms), etc. Tax dollars should come with a zero tolerance test for faith intrusion into the funded programs.

3. Religious organizations must be held to the same standards of accountability, performance, reporting, fiscal dislcosure and probity, transparency, etc as all other groups receiving funding.

The government has no business funding or otherwise supporting religious institutions -- but it does have a role to play in funding essential services that may require the active involvement of organizations with roots in a community, the ability to mobilize a volunteer base, and existing infrastructure to deliver services effectively. Sometimes these requirements will give a faith-based organization an advantage in competing, sometimes not.

(A larger question that needs to be asked is if the government's failure to do ensure people have housing, health care, nutrition, etc means that non-profits have been forced to pick up the slack and perform work that should more appropriately be done directly by government.)

In a diverse society, this atheist has no problem recognizing that religious organizations are an important part of the structure of communities and can be partners with government and other NGOs in providing important services.

Posted at July 3, 2008 12:01 PM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

There is an elected atheist in federal office -- Congressman Pete Stark from California "came out" a while back as an atheist - hardly evidence of wide public acceptance, but Stark deserves credit for speaking up.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:13 AM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists