I'll second this. The best part of MyDD is people thinking seriously and cold-bloodedly about how Democrats can be effective. Matt and (especially) Chris always had a healthy respect for how effective Republican frames and ideas could be, even as they detested them, and all the new writers should strive for that, because it makes you more effective in fighting them. This isn't a place to go to get fired up; this is a place for cool strategizing about how best to achieve our goals.
Regarding your habeas question, it's a good start, but you might get better results if you asked the following: "The government says Farouq Hosni [in reality, he's the egyptian minister of culture; I picked him as a generic-sounding Arab name] is a dangerous terrorist. Hosni was captured in Afghanistan, fighting against American troops, etc etc, more detail here." Then you could ask questions about this fictional case, in order to suss out attitudes without divorcing them from the context of "threatening foreigner" that most people will think of when evaluating terrorism.
Quibble: if you follow the link, you'll see that this is a multiple-response question, where people can give more than one answer, so the same people may be giving more than one of these responses. You can't say that 35% of people would fall into that category of "focus on getting U.S. troops out of Iraq" without looking at the data more closely--the real number is probably lower.
"I don't know how this impacts traditional polling techniques, but I am curious."
Full disclosure: I work at a polling firm. Right now, the default assumption is to simply assume that excluding them won't matter, due to some combination of a) The wireless-only people are more or less similar to the population with landlines that we can reach, b) The wireless only people are less likely to vote and c) There aren't enough wireless-only people to be important. Moreover, wireless-only is only one of the problems that cause sampling to not be truly random; others include people who work nights, low response rates, call-screening, and so on.
The problem is that all these other problems are getting worse as well (response rates are low and dropping, call-screening is on the rise, etc.) So over the next, say, 5 years, there's going to be a lot of development in the field. The place it's farthest along is Zogby, which currently uses email-based polling and heavily weights the data it gets based on a ton of demographics. This sort of approach will probably get more and more common. Of course this introduces its own problems...we live in interesting times.
Regarding your second choice, I think you're slightly misinterpreting Chait. What he means is that the verbal tactics used by prominent netroots activists--for example, the use of "chickenhawk"--are (in his opinion) not internally consistent or legitimate; he sees them as not being "fair play" in the intellectual debate. The netroots response, meanwhile, would be "Who cares? The goal isn't fair intellectual debate, the goal is to win." That's what Chait means when he says propaganda--using arguments not for their own sake, but rather for the pursuit of political power.
I don't agree with this perspective, just wanted to shed a little light on it.
It's because of the U.S. Senate. The idea that tiny, disproportionately conservative jurisdictions get just as much representation as larger, more liberal areas is frankly ridiculous--and the idea that you need 60 votes to pass anything in this chamber is beyond ridiculous. This kind of archaic government structure is why the U.S. doesn't have universal health care or an equal rights amendment--it's a lot easier to stop things than it is to pass them. In the long term, we should aim to eliminate the Senate, curb its powers sharply, or at least get rid of the filibuster and apportion Senators by population. Right after we deal with all these damn pigs flying around.
Don't you think these numbers will start drifting downwards after the Iraq war ends? Remember, in peacetime, military spending is mostly invisible to the average person (nobody spends time thinking about the budget).
Yes, but Edwards realized that he got it wrong and apologized--sincerely, and early (more than a year ago--before most of the Dems who voted for the war, certainly). You can doubt whether or not it was sincere, but think of it this way--if Edwards does get in, he's going to know who put him there--and it will be, to a large degree, people who opposed the Iraq war. He'll be forced to listen to us, much more so than Hillary would be.
But that assumes that TV will always have a similar role in campaigns to the one it does today. Will that be true in, say, 20 years? We only want to have to have this fight once. Just giving out the money is much simpler than artificially tying campaigns to one form of media (esp. one which might or might not be on its last legs).