The problem with your analysis is you don't actually demonstrate how the approval rating correlates with overall confidence on the war. Most conservatives who are still supportive haven't fluctuated. Instead, the one issue that Bush can lose traction with them about is immigration. So I have no doubt that the pattern you see is real, but you ought to compare it to polls about the war before you make this assertion.
Currently I have both, but as my roommate is moving out and I want to live alone at the next place...I've given serious thought to abandoning a ground line...(assuming I can get Internet through cable or something).
So I read this article with interest, but Matt's got an awesome point.
Except I really don't know how to say this...it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This "disconnect" means that youths and Hispanics are becoming far less reliable voters. Polling aside, the sort of "pump-up" phone calls also don't reach cell-only types.
Now...the other part of the survey that is revealing is that young renters are really likely to rely on cell phones. This is also bad news, because renters move more commonly than homeowners and means they are less likely to register at their new place.
This is not so surprising given the fundraising data from Barack Obama's camp. (Lots of small donors who didn't give much individually who can then be pumped for cash later.)
Credit Edwards (and Edwards) for realizing quickly how this campaign is going to go. You have Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Then you will have one day in wwhich the rest of America might nominate a winner.
Fact is, Edwards did well in Iowa last time, is doing well in Nevada and South Carolina. Trippi's job isn't to raise money, it's to figure out how to solve the campaign calendar. Retail politics is popular in Iowa and New Hampshire and therefore done quite extensively. But in Nevada particularly there is probably a conventional wisdom that the majority of campaigning should be done by TV. Trippi needs to figure out a way to energize the netroots so that Nevada is the linchpin of his strategy.
If Edwards wins both Iowa and Nevada....the only person who can beat him is Clinton with an awesome performance in New Hampshire. Otherwise, Edwards is the nominee, as crazy as it sounds.
Yeah although the reason for the 11-7 shift is easy. 11 to 1 most people are on their lunch hour and eager to read the middle of the day dirt...by 2 or so people are coming home from school or classes in college...and then it just increases until late at night.
Out here on the West Coast though...2am means you are posting and reading a bunch of dead threads. (wink)
Recently I learned that Verizon has started to punish it's lower income customers of DSL by reserving it's best rate for those who sign up for a year. As a renter, I can't do that...but moreover, it's economically nonsensical. Yearly contracts were necessary for cell phones because there was no other way to gauge market share. But with hardwire you don't need yearly contracts. Verizon has made me feel very, very used.
But I'm not an idiot either. Once the Vonage case is over, I suspect all major telecoms will start bundling and redlining customers ad nauseum.
But in the debates and other public venues, you can expect Obama to challenge him and Hillary on the whole "vote" thing.
People forget that, even though the campaigns are at full-bore, the debates have yet to start. And the worst part of it is...six months of debates before Iowa means lots of pot-shotty comments from Mike Gravel, Al Sharpton, etc. It's not all bad though, can't wait to see Tancredo use the immigration cattle prod on his colleagues.
Polls on caucuses are always a bit misleading because usually the fringe candidates will swap their people at the last minute.
Kucinich proved extremely valuable to Edwards doing this last year. The real question with the race this tight is who DK gives his votes to this time...Edwards out of loyalty...or Obama as someone who is far more in the ethanol camp and a far more strident anti-war vote.
Uh you have a bi-racial candidate and you think there would be substance?
Does anyone talk about Tiger Woods' actually game on golf. No it's about the "damn there's a black (and Thai) guy playing the whitest of white sports".
Moreover, this is exactly like what happened in '99 with Bush. The big money didn't want to have the candidate cast in any particular light other than the favorable one he had naturally by being "Junior". He ran on "tax cuts" for what, a year?
It won't be long before Obama reveals himself, and then he will either rise to the top or fall apart.
I'm going out on the limb here that the Obama symbol is really a reference to a sun rise over an agricultural field.
I know his supporters here will cringe, but it's an all too obvious reference to his symbiotic relationship with ADM and there desire to market ethanol. The sunrise implies there will be an ascendant use of the product and a psychologically reassuring measure.
The only thing that matters for progressives is that the votes happened. The weathervane slice of the Republican party will bend as the election nears. Every vote that takes place is an opportunity for change.
Upon trying to think of a good reason why this should be the title (since there seems to be no central nexus like Credit Mobilier and the Teapot Dome or even Abscam)...I found out Merriam Webster had me beat already.
"Lèse-majesté" (or "lese majesty," as it is also styled in English publications) comes into English by way of Middle French, from the Latin "laesa majestas," which literally means "injured majesty." The English term can conceivably cover any offense against a sovereign power or its ruler, from treason to a simple breach of etiquette. "Lèse-majesté" has also acquired a more lighthearted or ironic meaning, that of an insult or impudence to a particularly pompous or self-important person or organization. As such, it may be applied to a relatively inoffensive act that has been exaggeratedly treated as if it were a great affront.
It's not that the investigations into corruption are minor, but that monarchs have for a long time used Lese Majeste to can those getting too close for comfort.
I'm sticking by my predictions from years earlier. If Romney gets the GOP nod it means the real power think it's a losing effort because both the economy or Iraq can tolerate no more lipstick. If the Republicans have a shot winning nationally we will see Chuck Hagel, Rudy Giuliani, or Duncan Hunter win it first.
The Dems would trounce Romney for this reason, but otherwise face a likely 2000 redux going head to head with a DLCish type against a Hagel or Giuliani. McCain, Allen, and Santorum would be excellent "heir apparent" picks but for the fact that 2006 changed the face of the GOP.
In fact the assumption made is that the Democrat president in 2008 would see Congress controlled by Dems too! Think about the other situation Dem Prez and GOP in charge of at least one house of Congress. The Republicans would be all too glad to break off the steam lever on the locomotive and cause the President, the government, etc. all to derail on their watch by Iraq.
What people are ignoring is that it's true Bush isn't going to end the war on his own. But the next President actually will probably pull the plug in one way or another...unless he or she genuinely believes that victory (real victory) is at hand before they run for reelection.
Moreover, the Republican Senators who are defecting now on the resolution are all hearing the footsteps from their 2008 challengers. Depending on how it plays out, the GOP Senate might be so tattered by the end of the year that the Dems will get their big prize. But Reid's issue is that he's relying on incrementalism to get what he wants...and that may backfire. Keep in mind too, before Bush leaves office he wants bombs over Tehran.