My questions is this: when people find out who Guiliani really is, being that he's so far ahead in the polls, where will his supporters look? I'm thinking since McCain and Romney have the endorsements, organization and money to campaign 1 of the 2.

I continue also to read a lot of comments to the effect that the Democrats need to opt for someone more conservative, who can win over "red states" and conservatives in "swing states."

That is a foolish trap for Democrats to fall into. The red states are almost certain to vote Republican. Why risk the bank trying to win votes you almost certainly cannot win?

The "conventional wisdom" often seems to be that a candidate needs to get more conservative in order to win. That ignores the realities of the political landscape. The political objective of the Democratic Party should not be to target the red states or conservatives. The target is the swing states, and within them--and perhaps even in some red states and blue states, the target is those who are not ideologically aligned at all but choose a candidate based on other factors--mostly having to do with the personality of the candidate.

I've been following and analyzing Presidential politics for a long time. Nationwide, roughly 35-40 percent are aligned with the more "conservative" political views and the Republican Party. Roughly 35-40 percent are aligned with the more "liberal" views and with the Democratic Party. Of the remaining roughly 20-30 percent who actually decide the elections, a small percentage have views of sufficient complexity that they cannot be conveniently categorized as "conservative" or "liberal." A much larger percentage vote on the basis of such personal characteristics as the personality and charisma of the candidate, and based on who can do the best job manipulating them with images, spin, etc. Sometimes these "swing voters" may be heavily impacted by some single issue that strongly motivates them or is directly significant to their lives personally or their state. Sometimes it may be economic realities. Last November, the war in Iraq carried a lot of weight.

So for both parties, the best strategy is to find someone who appeals primarily to the base on values and issues, and who can appeal to the swing voters in swing states on personal characteristics--maybe also someone very strong on a particular issue that heavily impacts some of the larger swing states, like Ohio and Florida, especially.

The Democrats do not need to try to become like the Republicans. They need to be true to who they are and find a standard barrier who can communicate that effectively and be likeable in the process. That is the appeal of either Obama or Edwards, as contrasted, in my opinion, with Hillary Clinton, who does not begin to have her husband's charisma and personability. Obama has the additional advantage of being very well-versed, and very sincere, in talking about faith and values. Again, Democrats don't need to convert to Republican values. They just need to learn how to articulate their own values.

Look at the last several Presidential elections. Among the Democrats, who won and who lost? Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry all lost. Clinton won twice, and Carter once. (I believe it was the hostage situation in Iran more than anything that caused Carter to lose to Reagan.) There were not really large ideological differences between the winners and losers here. There were husge personality differences and differences in the capacity to connect with the ordinary person. Dukakis, Gore (at least on the campaign trail), and Kerry were all considered stiff, lacking in personality and charisma--smart but not able to connect with the average person. Carter and Clinton, especially the latter, were much more personable and capable of relating to people. I should throw JFK into that mix as well, as yet one more case in point.

So if the lessons of history apply, then the most electable would be Obama or Edwards. It does not matter how Obama would play with Southern white males! The Democrats aren't going to win those votes anyway. It's foolish to build a strategy on trying to win those votes.

The real question, given the political landscape as it is today, is what Democratic candidate will be most able to hold onto the blue states and to win over the swing voters (who vote mostly based on personal characteristics rather than issues) in Ohio and/or Florida.

And take note of the possibility that some southwestern states like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado may also be in play--to a large degree based on the rising number of Latino registered voters. And those who think hard-line anti-immigrant stands will play well in these states are clearly not paying attention to the polls and the voting. The majority in these states do vote for border security, but do not vote for hard anti-immigrant rhetoric and actions. Most want both border security and fair treatment of immigrants who are already here--documented and undocumented. And there will be a backlash among Latino voters against anti-immigrant hardliners. McCain would fair well among them and certainly lock up Arizona. The other Republican candidates may find themselves in a struggle for these states. Bottom line there: I think if the Democratic candidate can get as much as 75 percent of the Latino votes in any of these states, he or she may win that state.

All you staunch conservatives responding and insisting the Democrats need to get more conservative to win: Don't worry. You're not the target anyway. We already know how you're going to vote. So your opinion about the Democratic race really doesn't matter much anyway, does it?

Conservatives are revealing their true hand. They have wanted to pretend their voting was about values--conservative social views. Yet, Giuliani, who does not subscribe to the values upon which they allegedly base their vote (anti-abortion, anti-gay), he is apparently their man for 2008. More telling is that Giuliani is a fiscal conservative--a believer in unrestrained laissez faire capitalism and huge tax cuts for the wealthy. McCain, on the other hand, holds to conservative social values, while being a little more moderate fiscally. It goes to prove what I've said all along. Conservatism is not about values. It's about money.

On the Democratic side, I grow weary of people calling Obama a "rock star," talking about his "lack of experience," and talking as if he is not a substantive candidate. Obama has thus far been among the most concrete, substantive, and sensible political candidates I've ever heard. People need to read what he has written, rather than being swayed by media images. He also has a lot of relevant experience, even if not as much WASHINGTON experience. Washington experience is not what we need in a President. That's why the President assembles a huge Cabinet of people who have that experience. What we need is a President who exercises sound judgment and good sense, is concerned about the well-being of all the people (and not just the wealthy ones), and knows to gather the best team of people and listen to them, while being the one who takes the various options presented and exercises good judgment in deciding which to pursue. There is no particular time in Congress or some other government position required to be able to do that.

Actually, most of the patronizing and dismissive remarks made about Obama seem to smack of racism, if you ask me. If you want to dismiss the man, stop talking in generalities and cite specific instances in which he has demonstrated being ill-informed or has exercised poor judgment. Dismissing people with generalities is the stuff of which prejudice is made.

Aussie view,

To be more specific, they state elsewhere on their website: "The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."

And while there is nothing wrong with that agenda in my view, obviously one would not necessarily look to such a group for unbiased commentary on this subject matter.

Koz - your link is also troubling for me.
"While economic freedom is not the sole determinant of a state's wealth, the correlation is strong."
Whilst I haven't analysed the data in any great detail, from what I can tell the correlation is weak or even negative,
when you compare economic freedom with GDP levels. This gain/loss in GDP that the report refers to, well that may be another story but it's one I don't understand. How did they work out how much is gained or lost by economic freedom? Why not compare economic freedom with actual GDP rather than this other measure that is not at all well explained? I would think they don't do that because it won't come to the conclusions that they would like to see. I'm also interested in the Delaware GDP figure - seems quite high to me, i had always though Connecticut was no.1 (DC being the highest without being a state). I can't find any source which has Delaware as no.1 or even close to being no.1.

"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-profit conservative think tank" - i guess it's no surpise they came to these conclusions.

Zookie: You avoided discussing your distortions of history yesterday after they were pointed out.

Stop being a revisionist!

oil export
oil revenue
unemployment
trained judges
telephones
internet
tv stations
radio stations
newspapers
cars
education

What if they don't give a damn about those things which are OUR "metrics of success?"

We did wonderfully using measures like those in Vietnam. But, that isn't what the Vietnamese cared about. It was what we cared about.

Trickle Down Democracy is as valid as your pal Laffer's Trickle Down economics.

The Iraqis will handle the material things themselves, after they take care of their centuries old grudges. The metric there should be, 0 U.S. GI's in the middle.

Who is making and enforcing the law of contracts? Presumably that would be the government.

And contractual law, while quite important, cannot be an efficient substitute for all regulation. The basic problem, as described by Ronald Coase among others, is one of transaction costs: for certain matters it would simply be too costly for all the affected parties to enter into a contract.

So, capitalism depends on more than just contract law. It also depends on all the other laws and public institutions necessary to maintain a free, competitive, and low transaction cost market-based economy. Capitalism in that sense is not the same thing as an absence of government and regulation, and indeed assumes that some amount of government and regulation is necessary.

The tricky part, of course, is figuring out exactly how much government and regulation we need. And for the reasons we have discussed, neither "always more" or "always less" is going to be a good answer.

Yes, I do see your point. I was going to mention this in my earlier post, but it was long enough and I didn't have time. Not everything in Iraq is going badly. In some ways, life in Iraq is better now than it was before the war. There's independent media, there are some services which are more available now than before, etc.

But just as it would be wrong to say that all news out of Iraq is bad, it's wrong to ignore the bad news. And there's a lot of bad news. You can't ignore the body count. You can't say "Well, people are dying left and right, but they have better Internet access now, so on average it's okay." It doesn't matter how nice your life is otherwise, if you're constantly in danger of being killed or injured by a bomb.

anarchy is not the opposite of socialism. capitalism is (sort of) and it is maintained by contract law. I think it is very well-established that government "crowds-out" the private sector. this is an economic term and there is a mountain of evidence of this phenomenon. It is not a good bet and I will take that bet anytime.

but you have admitted that government and regulation in the extreme are harmful? there is hope for you yet.

KOZ,

I think there is a very complicated relationship between the amount and nature of a government's involvement in an economy and economic growth. But somewhat obviously, both extremes (complete anarchy and complete socialism) are not likely to be conducive to maximizing economic growth. So, it is a good bet the optimal pro-growth state lies somewhere in between these extremes.

DTM, yes, the Dems are the party of the rich, despite their hopes to portray themselves as the champiosn of the little people. but that was not the point of that chart. It was to show that economic freedom has real consequences. It must be compared to averages to make this analysis.

do you honestly believe that higher taxes and regulations leads to higher income? alert kruggman, he has a third reader. It is so easy to get you Libs into indefensible positions when you take your wild-eyed assumptions to their logical conclusions. but if you don't FEEL that way, I guess you must be correct.

I guess you didn't see my post a while back explaining the electricity problem. they only pay about 3cents for all you can eat. they have been buying AC units, big sceeen tvs, etc. Hence the increase in demand overall. the country as a whole was mostly destroyed in gulf I and your friend didn't lift a finger to fix it.

then you lurch into body counts - fine. lets watch them. Could this be a measure of Iran ramping up its operations over time? Or just the most beneficial for the enemy to use their resources on.

Next you cite attitudes and confidence. not exactly the hard numeric measures I was looking for.

Now I am looking at your report. US troop fatalities. It goes up and down but is mostly steady around 60 or 65. not increasing. british and coalition are almost non-existent. they have the good side of the tracks.

Iraqi police killed monthly has seen dramatic declines from a high of 304 to the current 68, smells like victory.

attacks on gas pipelines down substantially from a high of 30 per month to 5 per month.
index of political freedom and press freedom - near the top for the region

oil export - prewar 2.5 best recent 2.34
oil revenue - 2003 0.2 B, most recent 3.44

unemployment from 50-60 down to 35-40

trained judges - from zero to more than 800

telephone from 800K to 8M
internet - 4000 to 200K
tv stations - zero to 54
radio stations - zero to 114
newspapers - zero to 268
cars - 1.5M to 3.1M
education - 5.7% increase in enrollments in elementary, 27% increase in high school

this is exactly the kind of numbers I requested.
I think you can see my point, it is not all gloom and doom over there. why has not one person discussed the numbers I just revealed for the US to digest? If you insist on only counting bodies, you will fall into the media and enemy's grasp. If you want to knwo the truth consider the alternative measures and balance them.

I took a quick unweighted average of the per capita GDPs for the "Red" and "Blue" states as listed in that chart. I got the "Blue" states at about $6000 more than the "Red" states in per capita GDP (which is about 18% more).

Hmmm.

The Brookings Institute has some extremely detailed statistics on Iraq. Here's a link to the archive, which lets you see weekly numbers. Each document has historical data in addition to new data. I looked at the January 29, 2007 data, because I couldn't get the February data to download.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm

A lot of the charts show the increasing deadliness of the insurgency. The number of multiple-fatality bombings was 69 in December 2006, compared to 11 in December 2004. Numbers killed and wounded in the attacks increased similarly. Page 20 is very informative; it describes the daily and weekly numbers of attacks. Over that 2-year period, daily attacks increased from 77 to 185.

Now let's talk quality of life. Hour of electricity per day was 7.8 in January 2007 and 9 in January 2005. In Baghdad, it was 4.4 in January 2007 and 9.0 in January 2005. Those numbers fluctuated over the years, but they overall haven't improved since 2003. Unemployment has been fairly constant. Other factors aren't charted over time, so it's hard to get a comparison.

The Politics section of the document describes that attitudes towards US troops worsened in 2006 (approval of attacks on US forces increased 14% overall), and confidence in security forces plunged in that time.

So, basically, things in Iraq haven't gotten better over time. Some factors, like the number and deadliness of attacks, have gotten worse. Others, like hours of electricity and unemployment, have stayed pretty much the same, below pre-war levels. The people of Iraq have grown to dislike the US occupation and the US-backed government more over time. All of these statistics lead to the conclusion that our presence in Iraq is not helping the country, and that we are losing the war.

It is not the profit margin that makes government so expensive. It is the unproductive behavior. Not relying on market forces to price investments and make strategic moves is why we don't trust government to do anything right. examine the goverment response to Katrina (except coast guard) and compare to private industry's abilites. Examine the government furnished health care given to the army and compare to any HMO. compare the ROI of your social security account to your 401K average. the list goes on and on. it is simply ludicrous to believe the government is better at things than the private sector. we are willing to give up some efficiency when a dirty job needs to get done, as in the military.

Minimally acceptable is not the norm in private businesses. this is typical of soviet systems or more well-known, waiters who include their tips. Most businesses want to build the business based on good performance and their reputation. It is this responsibility to the stockholders and the motivation to make it good that works. not some assumed sense of doing right by your fellow man. this is precisely why Marxism failed - a fundamental mis-understanding of human motivation. the market is so successful because it relies upon each individuals ability to perceive what is best for them. all these signals are translated into a price, a fair price based on every person deciding for themselves if it is worth it. It is not possible to create a price for someone else. but this is what so many Libs always try to do - minimum wage, prescription drugs, etc.

Now that I have your attention, JD, could you please refrain from making psycho death threats on this blog? As a rule, whenever we find ourselves using the words, "...the first against the wall" we ought to shut our fat traps right there. You obviously have it in you to be an adult, so why not elevate the conversation, rather than pissing on it? Back and forth is great, death threats are a useless waste of time and energy.

Glad to see Dame Edna is well known in America! To be fair, William does at least tend to play fair when arguing, but I never agree with anything he says.

My reference was to the Dame Edna line about William being "as welcome as a fart in a phone booth."

The above post was with reference to William's post at 3.25pm.

People in Red states prefer more economic freedom," said NCPA Senior Fellow Devon Herrick. "The pay-off is that they enjoy higher economic growth

http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2005/20050629nr.html

The 10 highest ranking red states enjoyed $3,837 in extra per capita income, while the 10 lowest ranking blue states lose $3,205 per person relative to the average state.

this is the hillary plan - take your money and spend it on something else.

Aussie: He reminds me more of Dame Edna!

William, your writings remind of a politician from my own country, who you may or may not have heard of (probably not, but she did get a lot of publicity around the world) called Pauline Hanson. Check her out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson

Gilmore for Halloween!

William for his toady!

oops, Tancredo should have been 9, and Paul 10.

2008 CANDIDATES LISTED BY STRENGTH (ELECTABILITY) IN A GENERAL ELECTION

Just my take...my reasons were pretty much discussed in my previous post. Unfortunately, Richardson's Mexican heritage may hurt him, so I put him second. But Richardson's political resume is the strongest out of any candidate, R or D.

DEMS:

1. Edwards

2. Richardson

3. Biden

4. HRC

5. Dodd

6. Obama

7. Dennis Kucinich

GOP:

It is hard to place Guiliani since I am not sure how much his personal issues and liberal views and baggage will hurt him. It seems a lot of conservatives are apparently willing to overlook those things. But are they really? Against Bredesen or Warner Guiliani would be destroyed, but neither of those two Dems are in the race.

The GOP line is also harder since it's hard to gauge how turned off swing state voters are from born-again type Republicans. They may be pretty turned off, but against a Dem who turns them off more, like HRC or Obama, they may go for a Southern conservative.

Interestingly enough, in a Huckabee vs. Edwards race, I think Huckabee would win.

1. Duncan Hunter - he's actually quite electable. He's a strong conservative, but doesn't give off that "fire-and-brimstone" Jerry Falwell type impression that a lot of Southern conservatives do.

Since he is from CA, he would be a unique and fresh choice. A conservative from a liberal state.

2. Rudy Guiliani - though it's hard to predict how this might affect conservative turnout. If disaffected conservatives in swing states stay home, Rudy's electability would instantly evaporate. But, I think Dems are afraid of Rudy.

3. Mike Huckabee - Huckabee is a Southern Republican, but a relatively moderate one. Again, Huckabee is a hardliner on abortion and gay marriage, but weak on immigration and other issues. But since the Dem candidate will be too, I think conservatives would stomach Huckabee.

I was tempted to give McCain this spot. His pandering to the religious right will not hurt him as much as some think, since most voters don't follow politics think early before an election.

I still think McCain would be able to appeal to swing state voters, though less than in 2000.

I was also tempted to give Jim Gilmore this spot, but his resume is rather thin, and he is a polarizing figure.

4. John McCain

5. Jim Gilmore - appeals to conservatives more than a lot of other candidates, and would galvanize GOP turnout. He would also appeal to economically conservative moderates.

6. Tommy Thompson - a relatively moderate Republican, but there's no way he gets the nomination. However, in this list, we are dealing with electability in a general, not the primary.

7. Mitt Romney - his Mormonism, constant flip-flopping, limited experience, liberal record, liberal quotes, and home state (MA) will all hurt him.

8. Sam Brownback - too extreme on social issues to win. He apparently is opposed to abortion even for the life of a mother. Also, he has no charisma.

8. Tom Tancredo: At this point, Tancredo is too extreme to be elected (except maybe against Obama.) But in the future, when the consequences of illegal immigration like crime start affecting a lot more average Americans and not just people in the SouthWest, there will be a huge backlask against illegals, and Tancredo may likely become an electable candidate.

9. Ron Paul - a weird, libertarian Republican who often sides with Dems. Lost much of whatever support he may have had by siding with Dems on the "cut n run" resolution.

If you disagree with this list, I would be glad to hear comments.

kingofzouk--"Roo, you can't simply provide a snapshot of numbers if you are trying to establish a trend. you could compare the numbers to other countries in the region. Let's compare Iraqi unemployment to Palestein unemployment for example."

Right, I was indicating that strict figures would require a lot of work and that relying on polls of Iraqis is probably fine. You may be interested in knowing that I am generally leaning towards 'slightly better off' for parts of the country although current developments might wipe that away in short order. But there are certainly some alarming numbers there too, ones that require no historical context.

koz--"I am not saying that lower taxes definitively causes employment growth, but a correlation is evident and motivating. If you don't like my correlation find something that shows the opposite and we will evaluate. but are you really trying to say that higher taxes will encourage employment?"

That is an entirely too black-white view. Taxes are only a portion of the overall financial aspect of job growth (along with the recently-popular health care, regulations etc.) which is only a portion of the overall picture. I am sure you are aware of the non-financial boom mechanics.

I was trying to look for info but I could not find anything about what *kind* of jobs are being created, hopefully not just service industry stuff (the U.S. seems firmly headed towards a neo-feudalist master-servant society.)

kingofzouk--"I think the situation at Walter reed effectively shows what a future under government run healthcare (or anything) will look like."

I do not, particularly since here we are dealing with privatisation.

I am of the school that a nonprofit government entity is always better for two reasons:

1. No profit margin requirements equals cheaper.
2. The government should have an interest in the well-being of its citizens. A corporation does not so the minimally acceptable is the norm.

I will gladly acknowledge that these--particularly the second maxim--are not always the case in the U.S.

kingofzouk--"the military has clearly chosen the commander of the installation as the villian. It is his job to oversee compliance of contracts and overall post effectiveness."

Oh, absolutely, and there is certainly blame to go around. But contrast this, for example, to a privatised but government-overseen social security program and re-examine your argument.

When are you going to answer my question?

Saudi Arabia's unemployment reaches 30 percent
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030305/2003030513.html

you said - "Unemployment is very disconcerting, around 20-25% nationally with as much as 40% in the higher-educated demographics and elevated in youths."

Are we winning the war inside Saudi Arabia, relatively speaking?

some numbers for Iran:

"First, unemployment is especially high at 34% among the 15-24 year olds who officially constitute 25% of the labor force; it is 22% for men and 41% for women. "

doesn't look like that particular measure is going to make your case. care to try another?

Rudy is too liberal for the Republican base. Romney is too Mormon. McCain is tied too closely to the outcome of the war in Iraq. Brownback would be my choice for the Republican nominee. Brownback appeals to the Christian right for his pro-life and anti-stem cell stance. He appeals to those who oppose the war in Iraq. If Brownback can find some funding, I could see him as the Republican nominee.

Continuing my previous post:

Dems and liberals were foolish to drool and fawn over Obama when he really didn't merit it. Even if you all like him, that was a dangerous tactical mistake, since it caused all of the strongest Dem candidates to lose heart and leave the race or not join it.

I mean, think about it: Bayh, Warner, Bredesen, Sweitzer, Easley...ANY ONE of those men would have been an absolute shoo-in. Red states would go for them over RINO Republicans, and they would be almost inevitable victors.

The field the Democrats are left with now is much weaker. There is no moderate Southern or Western Dem in the Clinton mold in the 2008 field. Remember, Clinton won easily in 1992 and despite being quite liberal was easily reelected in 1996 over a more conservative and popular Republican than any of the current 5 GOP frontrunners.

If Bredesen or Sweitzer or Easley or Bayh or even Warner was in the race, NO REPUBLICAN currently running would have been able to beat them.

If Sweitzer was running, he would take MT, CO, NV, NM,SD, ND and possibly WY even against McCain.

That's 28-31 electoral votes right there. Plus, Sweitzer would lock down ALL of Kerry's states and probably take IA and OH, which have been trending somewhat blue lately.

Bredesen would likely have taken quite a few southern states, especially against Romney, McCain or Guliani. In fact, against any of those 3, I could see the entire South going blue if Bredesen or Easley were running.

Even Warner would likely take VA and WV, as well as IA and OH and maybe NM and NV or CO.

Bayh would have taken IN and OH for sure.
------------------------------------------

Right now, I think the strongest Dem candidates are Edwards and Richardson. Because of concerns over illegal immigration, Richardson will suffer from his Hispanic heritage. Terry Nelson and Co. will find some way of bringing it up.

Most Southerners are not attracted to Edwards since he has swung left like Gore, but he is a Protestant, unlike Romney or Guiliani. He is also white, unlike Obama.

Edwards would seem an acceptable alternative for people who would want to punish the GOP for nominating a liberal RINO and/or straying from conservative values.

Obama, on the other hand, is not. I mean, come on, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Give up on him.

That SC state senator was right when he said if Obama was nominated, the Dems would lose "the presidency, senate, house, governorships, state houses, everything."

Don't forget about "Down ticket" races that will be affected by the presidential nominee. Obama or HRC as the nom would devastate Dem chances in conservative or moderate areas.

Edwards may not be great, but out of the current Dem candidates he is the strongest, followed by Richardson.

He IS still from the South, and even conservative Southerners will go for him over Romney or Guiliani. McCain is hated by most Republicans, and they would vote for a reasonable Dem just to screw him.

I know someone already did, but I would like to give my take on some match-ups as well:

-Edwards vs. Romney: Edwards locks up all of Kerry's states. Some people seem to think Romney would take MI since his dad was from there, but there is nothing to indicate that belief is more than idle speculation. Against Romney, Edwards also takes WV, AR and possibly LA since those are conservative states that like moderate Dems.

I think that CO, NM and NV are inevitably trending blue. Bush barely took those states, in a VERY red year. In Co I think it was 51-49, and in the others, IIRC it was even closer.

Hispanics in these states will not be excited by a black guy (obama) but will be excited by Richardson, a Hispanic.

Edwards-Richardson would be a strong ticket.

OH and IA are also trending blue and will probably go for any Dem in 08 EXCEPT Obama or HRC.

So basically, against Romney, if Edwards chooses a conservative and more experienced VP, he takes OH and IA, and either the South or Mountain West, and maybe part of both.

Having Richardson on the ticket would also give Edwards a good shot at FL.

Edwards vs. Guliani:

This one is harder. Conventional wisdom
suggests that Guiliani would take some of Kerry's states, but I don't know if that's true. Also, conservatives, especially down South, are unwilling to stomach Guiliani and may find Edwards an acceptable alternative.

But I think Guiliani is a very strong candidate. I just don't want him to be president. We may as well vote for a real Dem instead of one pretending to be an R.

Richardson vs. Romney: Richardson takes most of the interior west and most of Kerry's states. Romney may take a couple of states in the upper midwest, like WI and MI. This race would come down to the South, which I think would stomach Romney over a Hispanic, pro-amnesty Dem.

On the other hand, Romney is anti-gun, while Richardson has a concealed carry license and is NRA endorsed.

Other races, such as McCain-Richardson, McCain-Edwards, Guiliani-Richardson are too complicated to discuss in this post without turning it into an essay.

Roo, you can't simply provide a snapshot of numbers if you are trying to establish a trend. you could compare the numbers to other countries in the region. Let's compare Iraqi unemployment to Palestein unemployment for example.

I am not saying that lower taxes definitively causes employment growth, but a correlation is evident and motivating. If you don't like my correlation find something that shows the opposite and we will evaluate. but are you really trying to say that higher taxes will encourage employment? Have you been reading kruggman again? you should know better. If you examine tax policy in europe, the Irish situation also supports this thesis.

I think the situation at Walter reed effectively shows what a future under government run healthcare (or anything) will look like. fill out the forms and wait 6 months. then fill out some more forms. consider what Canadians wait for to get a surgeon. the privitization of the military has been going on a long time due to the nature of reassignments every 2-4 years in the active service. contractors are simply more knowledgable and retain information. some contractors cut corners but this is usually not in accordance with the contract. we have contract law to deal with this. sometimes the cheapest company is not the best choice.

Are you saying you like government run health care and wish to blame the private company for the problems? the military has clearly chosen the commander of the installation as the villian. It is his job to oversee compliance of contracts and overall post effectiveness.

One additional thought: it amazes me that people continue to claim that non-black Americans would not vote for Obama because he is black. Obama is very popular with non-black voters in Illinois, and does extremely well in particular with the suburban voters around Chicago. Those are precisely the same people he would need to vote for him (people in suburbs throught the Midwest and West) to win the general election.

So, for whatever reason, this appears to be a complete nonissue for Obama.

A few random thoughts:

1) In my experience, lawyers are subject to much the same treatment as members of Congress: as a class they are unpopular, and yet people tend to like their own lawyer/member of Congress.

2) Giuliani clearly seems to be the most formidable general election candidate, and I think that is why Republicans are rallying to him (understandably, they don't want to lose). It will be interesting to see if any of the other Republican candidates can stop this process.

3) It is getting a bit sad when all Chris has to pump up Edwards's chances is unverifiable claims about a straw poll he took of his Republican friends. The real story about Edwards is that he is in far more serious trouble than a person who was on the 2004 ticket should be at this point.

William--You know, it is commendable that you try very hard to think that you are not racist and would, possibly, want to not be one.

However, you are. The sooner you come to terms with this and do your best to understand and overcome the reasons for it, the better it is for you. Good luck.

kingofzouk--"It's no coincidence that the states with the lowest tax rates are leading the U.S. in employment growth."

Your National Review link pretty much collapses at the point where Michigan becomes the runt of the litter because of its taxation policies. It could not be, say, the car and heavy fabrication industry being in the process of pretty much completely failing?

However, we could try to examine your claim without this, ah, ingenious analysis. First, as proper scientists, we must assume that correlation does not equal causality and set forth to prove that it is indeed specifically the taxation issue driving job growth. I look forward to the documentation you will submit.

I didn't have time to read all the comments, so sorry if this one is similar to some above.

Andy R - good matchups and analysis.

Golgi, it is correct that out of the current 6 viable Dems in the running (HRC, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd) that Edwards is the greatest threat to the GOP's chances.

Here's why. As someone pointed out, what we select in presidential elections is the face of our nation for 4 years.

You may think that Americans are yearning for a minority president or a woman president but that is not the case. That is simply idealistic liberals engaging in GroupThink.

That's not to say a minority or woman can't win. But it will be more difficult.

I don't think the majority of Americans are willing to vote for a black man. That's not because they are racist (in the true sense of the word.)

They don't say "Hey, he's dark, I'm not voting for him."

But I think a lot of white, Asian, Native American and even Hispanic Americans are concerned over what would happen if a black man was elected president.

Would black people react the way they did after Dinkins was elected NYC mayor? Would they go around thinking they "owned" the country.

In truth, the race issue still exists in this country not because whites are racist, but because black people keep demanding special treatment and benefits as "reparations" for slavery.

As long as African-Americans continually demand to be treated better than everyone else, this will foster resentment not only among white people, but among Asians, Native Americans and Hispanics.

Even many liberals oppose giving African-Americans unfair benefits like affirmative action.

Even in liberal states like CA and MI, bans on A.A. passed by huge margins.

In MI in 2006, the affirmative action ban passed by 58%. Considering that MI has a lot of African-Americans, who probably almost all voted against the ban, the percentage of white who voted to ban AA is probably like 70 or 75 percent of MI's white population.

Basically, it's not because Obama is black that people will be wary about voting for him.

It's because most, if not all, black politicians, are continually striving to get unfair benefits for African Americans, at the expense of everyone else, both financially, academically, societally, etc.

Also, Obama's Muslim roots will seriously damage his chances.

Regardless of what the consensus is on Kos's forum, in real life, Obama is a VERY weak candidate.

kingofzouk--"give me a link to iraqi standard of living numbers."

http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm

Of course we would also need something from before the invasion.

My gut feeling is that financially speaking, things are averaging out simply because of the influx of cash--be mindful that the comparison is with a sanctioned country. Sense of security has clearly declined in parts of the country.

Unemployment is very disconcerting, around 20-25% nationally with as much as 40% in the higher-educated demographics and elevated in youths.

"you make a great American Lib with those kinds or arguments"

I'll take that as a compliment! ;-)

I promise you I did a search of Australian sites on the web and couldn't find any studies at all. So I don't think I can 'win' this argument so I'll leave it at that.

Just one thing to note, kiwis are New Zealanders, not Australians.

P.S. Post at 2.50pm was myself.

Tarheel, While a lot of seasoned campaign gurus are taken, what about Dean's crew? Trippi and Blank, they're not gone unless I missed something. Please enlighten me if I did.

And, I don't think Gore would have a bit of trouble raising money.

Who is Rove going to help for the Repubs?

Seems like not everyone is taken.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

kingofzouk--Are you aware that as the result of attempts of privatisation a company called IAP Worldwide Services is in charge of handling the operations at Walter Reed?

One country - Israel, perhaps Kuwait, UAE, Qutar, Jordan

to really consider your arguments I will need to know how you measured chaos? was this based on NYT editorials? Please provide a link indicating the skill level of terrorists, the boldness. the number of factions allying with others.

give me a link to iraqi standard of living numbers.

without any of this data your answer can be deemed only non -responsive. I don't think it is too much to ask for some real measures that do not rely solely on your opinion.

When are you going to answer my question?

Hih, it just amuses me to no end when someone says 'electoral math' with the same connotations as 'quantum field theory and waveform analysis.'

"1. Iraq has a steady and solid government in place that doesn't threaten its neighbors and doesn't harbor terrorists.
2. Countries that support terrorism will be marginalized or eliminated.
3. US citizens won't have to be afraid at home or while travelling abroad."

Thanks for clearing that up. In that case, I know exactly what I'll do when I find out that we won the war in Iraq: Nothing. Because I'll be long dead.

Name one country in the Middle East that doesn't threaten its neighbors or harbor terrorists. Even our Middle Eastern allies threaten their neighbors and harbor terrorists. So if that's your exit criteria, and we can't leave Iraq until that's the case, we're going to be occupying Iraq for decades.

As for your question: We've lost the war in Iraq because the situation has gotten steadily worse over time. Some post-invasion chaos was to be expected, but we haven't been able to stem that chaos in the several years we've occupied the country. The insurgents keep getting bolder and more skilled. And factions in the Iraqi government are allying with factions of insurgents. That's a civil war.

We've been in Iraq for years. The standard of living for Iraqis has steadily declined over that time. (It's declined most sharply for the huge numbers of Iraqis who have been killed.) We're no closer to your goal of a solid, peaceful government than we were in 2003. Because we haven't made any progress, it's not worth continuing to waste our money and the lives of our soldiers in Iraq. We have lost the war. (Alternately, we won the war after ousting Saddam, and we've lost the occupation. The result is the same.)

1. Iraq has a steady and solid government in place that doesn't threaten its neighbors and doesn't harbor terrorists.
2. Countries that support terrorism will be marginalized or eliminated.
3. US citizens won't have to be afraid at home or while travelling abroad./

--we're goinng to eliminate entire countries and then we'll never be afraid agian.... jeezua christ what kindergarten do you go to??

Aussie, that depends on the meaning of the word "is". you make a great American Lib with those kinds or arguments. but really, i do want to thank the great country of australia for being america's best friend of all history and standing by us no matter what. It is a testament to your elected leadership.

If you really want to win this according to your own measure, provide a study which shows what other kiwis think about barristers, not just you. Otherwise you just fit nicely into the category of loud-mouthed lib with more opinion than fact. You seem to have found the right place to call home on this blog.

Thanks for the data, Blarg. Granted it is a bit old, but I am still surprised - I would have expected Rudy to have better numbers than that in NY. Looks like he has a lot of work to do to take NY no matter who his opponent is. I am surpised he's doing so well in NJ and PA though. Still I'd take the word of New Yorkers over them as they should know him best.

Why am I the one who is always recieving demands to answer questions. have you answered one of my questions yet? since I am such a good sport, I am willing to play your game, but do note that you Libs never seem to come back with your witty repartee when you lose on the facts, you simply dissappear.

I think this information has been well-travelled but to review:
1. Iraq has a steady and solid government in place that doesn't threaten its neighbors and doesn't harbor terrorists.
2. Countries that support terrorism will be marginalized or eliminated.
3. US citizens won't have to be afraid at home or while travelling abroad.

It may not be immediately clear that this has happened as it was when Japan singed a surrender document. I am more than willing to consider any measures of effectiveness you wish to apply to Iraq. It is not just a question of body count though, you can add oil production, electricity availability, free press start-ups, economic growth, police trained, cell phones sold, unemployment, etc.

so far I have not seem any cut and runners admitting to a non-biased method of determining a success? so I could just as easily query you - "What are your measures which have convinced you this is a loss or heading for one?" try to make them something we can actually measure and then the numbers may actually be available.

so there it is, one simple question. will anyone respond?

Zouk - let me walk you through this even slower. Here is what was written:

"It's a fact: Trial Lawyers are almost UNIVERSALLY thought to be a drain on society and among the dregs of useful professions."

Last time I checked, America doesn't equate to the universe. I obviously wouldn't have commented on the standing of lawyers in my own country if he was talking about only America, but he wasn't doing so. I never implied Americans believed the same, quite the opposite actually. All I was saying is that maybe such views are not 'universal'.

Another thing, seeing as you are always going on about 'facts', your source didn't prove this 'fact' as I didn't see anything in the study which asked "which profession is the biggest drain on society?". I know I am being pedantic but you have to be if you want to use the word fact.

By the way, thanks for the outback reference, hilarious stuff.

ut I did find that even when confronted with unbiased facts, there are many Cons who will still not concede such an obvious point, preferring to rely upon feelings. fine for opinion but not matters of fact.'

problem is, facts have a liberal bias. an inconvenient truth.

It's no coincidence that the states with the lowest tax rates are leading the U.S. in employment growth.

What a concept, lower taxes and get a booming economy. not according to Dems.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmRmOWE2NDE5NDE4ZTRkMGY1NTEwYmYyNzgxODVkYTI=

I'm still waiting for your answer, Zouk. You ask what we'll do when we've won the war. Before I can answer, I need to know what it means to win the war in Iraq, and the Global War on Terror. (Or whatever it's called now.)

For your consideration:

"But the scandal at Walter Reed should also send a warning to private citizens whose security and freedom Staff Sgt. Shannon sacrificed so much to defend: Never let government control your health care. Already, the three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards -- have vowed that they will enact a "universal" health insurance program. Such a program, of course, cannot be created without government mandates and subsidies, which mean government control.

Head that way, and eventually we will all find ourselves waiting in line for treatment that never comes in the civilian version of the Walter Reed outpatient program. Unlike Shannon, and the other heroes at Walter Reed, however, we will not have purchased the bureaucrats' indifference with blood shed on a battlefield. "

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=walter_reed_government_health_care&ns=TerenceJeffrey&dt=03/07/2007&page=2

guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned.guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned

aussie, I will type slowly since you seem to have gone off into the outback somewhere.

the initial point to be made was whether lawyers are respected by americans or not. you said they are highly respected as barristers are where you're from. you implied we would think the same. when I posted outside polling info that confirmed Americans don't think highly of lawyers, you confused the issue and began to compare the professions of the various candidates. fine, but do you at least concede that trial lawyers are scum? to think otherwise would be un-american.

"It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and the reason that early frontrunners tend to win their party's nomination -- at least in recent political history."

Who had ever heard of Bill Clinton until the 1992 race was well under way? Also, remember that at this point in the 2000 cycle, most Americans were only dimly aware that George H.W. Bush even had a namesake. The only examples that really support your thesis are *maybe* John Kerry and a couple of Vice Presidents, who get to run in the primary as if they were incumbents.

Vice Presidents aside, the eventual winners tend to be people whom most voters had never heard of in the very early stages. Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., Jimmy Carter. All guys that came out of nowhere.

As you can see there are very few Dem arguments that stand up to the facts, if the facts are ever admitted into evidence. the day before we discussed the value of the social security trust fund. Many Dems were surprised that these represent no actual assetts. those pesky facts. Any of you Libs ready to consider some actual facts on global warming, on min wage, on social security, on war?

yesterday was particularly enjoyable because that no-name ignorant coward mostly stayed away or was ignored. those guys who offer nothing but insults deserve to be continually ignored and shunned. I will stick to this from now on as I suggest the rest of you do to purge this pest from our midst.

but I did find that even when confronted with unbiased facts, there are many Libs who will still not concede such an obvious point, preferring to rely upon feelings. fine for opinion but not matters of fact.

Blarg, this data you cited is pretty old...

Aussie View: Here's a link to a poll of New York State voters. It's a month old.

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/70205023&SearchID=73271237191027

Here are the results for one-on-one matchups:
Hillary 53%, Giuliani 32%
Hillary 55%, McCain 26%
Obama 42%, Guiliani 31%

Posted by: Blarg | March 7, 2007

Zouk - that poll tells me that trial lawyers are more trusted than senators...therefore the fact that Edwards served only one senate term must be a positive compared to someone like McCain...? They also rank equal with business execs, well that counts out Romney too I guess. Oh, and what was your man Rudy's old job...don't tell me he was a *gasp* trial lawyer????!!
Hmmm.....nice one zouk, you've stumped yourself again mate.

'Rosie O'Donnell says she began being treated for depression after the Columbine school shootings and hangs upside down for up to a half-hour a day to improve her mental state.

Maybe she should hang a little longer. It doesn't seem to be working.'

What a moron you are...

Yeah, and keep quoting the Wall Street Pravda. It's not like they're influenced by big companies with fat contracts in Iraq who want to see the war go on forever...

Thanks for the link Koz. I thought my previous link was enough for Aussie, but perhaps he missed it.

As for Kevin...your apology is accepted.

Now that's its been brought up. How about Al Gore entering the race? Al versus Hillary. That would pose some interesting scenarios involving who Bill thought was most qualified to be president. His former VP or his wife? Yes, tarhee1, it does just get more interesting. The polls you posted were super. Something concrete to discuss rather than political spin and philosophy. And wonder of wonders, they related to this article.

KOZ, you're back to posting documented statistics. That's when you're at your at your best, or a least tolerable. Your tax law arguments yesterday were very convincing because they were backed by IRS documentation.

'It is clear to me that edwards and clinton II will say whatever they think the audience wants to hear to obtain approval. Sad. and obvious. '

Riiiight-- but not Flipfloppin Mitt, Double Talk Express McCain, or Born Again Rudy?

You are laughable pretentious and hilariously partisan.

Zouk, how do we know when we've won the war in Iraq? Or, for that matter, the Global War on Terror?

Aussie View: Here's a link to a poll of New York State voters. It's a month old.

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/70205023&SearchID=73271237191027

Here are the results for one-on-one matchups:
Hillary 53%, Giuliani 32%
Hillary 55%, McCain 26%
Obama 42%, Guiliani 31%

I don't think Vilsac would think that the polls meant nothing.

From the WSJ today:
Some higher-ranking members of Shiite and Sunni militant groups fled to Iran and Syria respectively...more than a thousand families are back to their homes ...hundreds of militants have been killed, more hundreds arrested, and dozens of weapons caches discovered and destroyed. The frequency of attacks has declined drastically, and the terrifying scene of bullet-riddled bodies has become a rarer incident.
...We hope the troops and the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009754

what will you surrender-crats do once we win this war? answer - pretend that's what you wanted all along. It must be dizzying to keep reneging on so many statements.

dochi you are correct. When there are 8-10 candidates on each side, head to head polls 18 months before the general election are idiotic (except to the pollsters, who are raking in the $$ and laughing all the way to the bank).

Truth Hunter, I agree in part but don't see a late entrant into the race being able to compete. By that I mean compete for money and members of the organization that supports the candidacy. I've never seen so many experienced campaign gurus and workers snapped up so early in the process. Every day one more campaign veteran joins someone. Today, Loeffler to McCain. Gore may have some feasibility because of his email lists. But a lot of them are already committed to others. I suppose if someone drops out those staffers become available. But that's usually too late in the process to launch a campaign. Doesn't the well eventually run dry for donors (money) and campaign staff?

Rosie O'Donnell says she began being treated for depression after the Columbine school shootings and hangs upside down for up to a half-hour a day to improve her mental state.

Maybe she should hang a little longer. It doesn't seem to be working.

Eight of the 23 professions rated this year elicit significantly different honesty ratings from Republicans and Democrats. Democrats are more positive than Republicans about the ethics of college teachers, psychiatrists, journalists, lawyers, and senators. Republicans have a more favorable view than Democrats of clergy and policemen.

Lawyers and journalists barely beat out Senators as the most unethical profession. Used car salesman still on the bottom.

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2006/december/page.jsp?itemID=29117737

does this mean its now a fact? sounds pretty accurate to me.

All meaningless chatter now about polls etc. Most Americans are too ignorant to even know what city Rudy was mayor of.And what of the fact that we'll still have 100,000+ killers (yes,killers, not PC but it's what we train them to do so accept it.) still bogged down in Iraq in 2008? All the Dems have running are gutless cowards and Repubs cheering for more blood.And niether side gives a rats-as* for all the ignorant working peons.

"It's a fact: Trial Lawyers are almost universally thought to be a drain on society and among the dregs of useful professions. You should realize that it DOESN'T MATTER if it's true or not. It's the perception of most voters, and I doubt it's changing before Nov 08."

Doesn't sound like a 'fact' to me - just sounds like your opinion or what you hope to be the case. In my country, trial lawyers (or barristers as we call them) are very much respected.

I try to keep che-isms to a minimum but Slate is running a story about the PATRIOT act provision that enabled the indefinite 'interim' U.S. Attourney placements.

Apparently someone in Sen. Arlen Specter's staff inserted the language WITHOUT THE SENATOR'S KNOWLEDGE and at the request of the Justice Department--specifically one of the current replacements.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161260?nav=ais

It is seriously pretty messed up. Would or should it be a crime for a non-elected staffer to insert language into legislation that the elected official is not aware of?

Sorry, Kevin, if the view of most of America is at odds with your preferences.

It's a fact: Trial Lawyers are almost universally thought to be a drain on society and among the dregs of useful professions. You should realize that it DOESN'T MATTER if it's true or not. It's the perception of most voters, and I doubt it's changing before Nov 08.

Of course, this is relevent for those who feel that Edwards makes a good nominee.

PS Note that I resisted insulting you. Too bad you don't have similar discipline.

Has there been a poll done of NY likely voters for a head to head Clinton v Giuliani? (or any other match ups involving these two) That would be interesting. As a dem fan (although unable to vote) I am worried about Giuliani if he gets the nomination, luckily that's a big if.

I am interested to see what happens in NY if he is nominated though. If Hillary is nominated and runs against anyone else, then she wins NY. If she is against Rudy I still think she wins due to NY being a democratic state. But what about Rudy, for example, against Edwards in NY? If NY goes republican then the dems can forget about the white house.

I really hope Gore decides to run, he is the man.

Loudon, it seems we are not the only ones.

koz and tarheel still seem to think Rudy G will be the GOP nominee. Let us know when you get back to the real world, k?

Tarheel, Even more interesting than the Rudy vote is the Hillary vote. NJ also knows her very well and she ties with McCain and loses to Rudy.

While CC's poll is interesting, it is also old(Feb). At the pace the campaigns are moving, mind-changing things happen every day (like Semla last Sunday).

At such a pace, many will flame and burn out before next year. Look for second stringers to move up as overexposure kicks in with the MSM-boosted leaders.

Which will give fresh latecomers Newt and Al an opening to totally upset the numbers come fall.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

This is a useless exercise at this point.

The NRC slime finders are not even in play yet. They are so conflicted because they don't know who to dig dirt on given the motley cast of characters the Repubs are seeing.

Also, they have no idea whether the conservatives will remain true to thier core principles and stay home, or demonstrate their normal politically expedience, hold their nose and support someone who likes defense contractor's boats but mouth's their conservative agenda.