AR - Huckabee might make a run for it.
CT - Dodd is unpopular now in the state, but provided Rell's decision not to run holds, he's probably safe.
DE - Remember this seat will be open in 2010. Provided Mike Castle doesn't decide to run (I believe he's actually been close to retiring for several cycles), it's a safe seat however.
ND - If Dorgan retires, it's probably a loss.
I agree on CA, IL, CO, and NV however.
On the flipside, for the Republicans, I count one open seat which should flip our way (KS, with Sebelius), four unpopular incumbents (AZ, NC, FL, KY), two seats that should fall our way with retirements (PA, IA), and three that could work out for us (OH, NH, MO). So we're talking about up to 10 seats falling our way if Obama is a marginally competent president.
So, yeah, I'm pretty optimistic even if we lose a few
It's older, and has less black people. It also doesn't have an economy doing quite as badly as Michigan. And the Appalachian portions of the state are far more conservative than most areas of Michigan (outside of the Grand Rapids area).
Do I think McCain can win the state? No, but it's probably a better bet than Michigan now.
But the Hispanic numbers are frankly, fucking impossible.
14.8% of the U.S. population is Latino, but around 25% of that is probably undocumented immigrants. This whittles us down to 11.1%. Then you have to factor in Latinos are more likely to also be legal immigrants than non-Latino whites or blacks, and a disproportionate number of Latinos being young, you'd be lucky if Latinos make up 10% of the eligible electorate.
13% is just damn foolish, unless you think white Americans are going to stay home.
And met Chris Shays in person once (to his credit, he came out to a union strike line and actually said something mealy-mouthed in support of a just settlement).
And I'm struck watching this ad at the number of black faces. Shays actually lives in Bridgeport, the city with the large black population, and not the lily-white suburbs which make up most of the rest of the district.
Even though he's historically gotten very little of the black vote in the district, I can't help but wonder if this ad is an attempt to shave off more of the black vote in the district than he normally gets.
Is that Boren's own father, a former Senator, endorsed Obama, and it was widely reported that the younger Boren wanted to endorse Obama as well, but didn't feel free to while the contest was still ongoing. So this is quite clearly not about a conservative Democrat unhappy with Obama - It's just political posturing.
You're drawing conclusions about polling in a state which has only had two polls taken of it in the past two months, both of them from Rasmussen. While we cannot judge how accurate Rasmussen is as a pollster for this season yet, in the majority of states they've been showing better numbers for McCain than SurveyUSA or the more minor pollsters.
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is doing worse in Nevada than New Mexico, or even Colorado. But there's no reason to assume yet that Nevada won't be a swing state yet again.
As I said "the real issue are the poor who make too much for Medicaid." Most uninsured are found in this hole, making too much for it, but in jobs which either don't offer health insurance, or offer insurance so expensive they cannot afford to take it.
I fail to see how having a mandate for these people will help. If they cannot afford insurance, they need subsidies, not a mandate. The only people mandates would work for are young, mainly male, and stupid - those who think they can get by without insurance until they get older. Ultimately, this group is small, and the effect they have on other's health care costs is minor. If they want to be dumb and not take insurance, that's their choice.
I've always been a supporter of single-payer health insurance. The primary problem in the U.S. is not that people are uninsured, it's that our health care is twice as expensive as other industrialized countries. So many people not having insurance is merely an affect of the high price. Much better to simply pay for everyone from a payroll tax on employers, and have no individual fees other than maybe some copays.
The two plans are virtually identical, minus the mandates. They both could, however, lead to single-payer eventually. Provided the new government plan is cheaper (it should be, considering Medicare is), more and more employers will dump their existing coverage and begin paying the payroll tax to be in the national plan instead. If private insurance can't find a way to compete on cost, then it will go extinct.
On the subject of mandates, I just don't think they're needed. For one thing, the uninsured using emergency care is a relatively small part of cost escalation currently. Secondly, as a male just exiting my 20's, despite what some people might think, few young people I've known, if they were offered health insurance through their job, would turn it down. The real issue are the poor who currently make too much for Medicaid. I have no idea how much of the health insurance burden they'd pay - would it be $50 per month or $200? Regardless, not including a mandate means that we can go back and tinker with subsidizing lower-income people more until we reach the right balance.
Ultimately, the only mandate I'm fine with is a mandated payroll tax on employers though.
You've been doing so well Jerome, and your little "one vote changed everything" comment really shot the unity train to hell.
Even getting 2/3rds of the delegates under Clinton's best-case scenario is essentially impossible, because:
1. SD and MT are going to have roughly split pledged delegate votes. This would be the case regardless of Obama's margins, and even if he lost.
2. The majority of the Michigan uncommitteds were already de facto Obama delegates.
3. John Edward's Florida delegates are likely to endorse Obama overwhelmingly, just as his SC, IA, and NH delegates did.
4. This leaves the superdelegates, who even in Obama's rough weeks have continued to break overwhelmingly for him since February. Given the above caveats, Hillary would probably need closer to 3/4ths of the remaining superdelegates.
Would it be impossible. No, because Obama could always implode this week, triggering a SD flood. But the exact same thing could happen under current conditions.
Honestly, I don't see why you're waving this bloody shirt. I think, on legal grounds, you're correct that the result on Michigan was the worst possible, but it's not constructive to act like even under her best-case scenario her chances would have improved much.
When you dig into the CNN exits, Hillary won pro-statehood voters by an over 60% margin, but the two tied among pro-commonwealth voters.
That's weird, but not that weird, given I believe Hillary said something supportive of statehood prior to the election. The odd thing is pro-statehood voters made up 60% of the electorate. Commonwealth voters, only 35%. This is nothing like their support among the general public in PR, where they are roughly evenly matched, with commonwealth voters slightly more predominant.
So yes, coupled with the very low turnout, this doesn't seem like a truly representative slice of Puerto Rico. That said, even if the pro-commonwealth voters turned out in proportion to their segment of the population, Obama would have still lost by a 28 percent margin.
A certain kind of people get attracted to complaining on the internet...trolls essentially. They are self-selecting the environment that works for them. Their volume online shouldn't be given as evidence of their numbers offline.
This week that the DNC has completely different issues than the Obama campaign, even though they both seemed to be closer in agreement than either was with Hillary on this issue.
Obama no longer really needs to have MI and FL penalized. Even if they are seated fully, and his margin shrinks, he's still going to be ahead, and win enough superdelegates to become the nominee - because all but a handful of Michigan uncommmitteds, who have already been selected, are essentially Obama supporters, meaning any decision which leaves uncommitteds ultimately ends up giving most of them to him. However, insofar as a solution can be made which would allow him to cinch the nomination with the superdelegates in his pocket next week, he's willing to take it.
On the other hand, the DNC wants a penalty to remain in place because Michigan and Florida violated the rules. If they were seated in full, it would signal the DNC was toothless, and there is no reason to follow its wishes in the next presidential election. So the DNC is more concerned with taking half the delegates away, and less concerned with modifying the ultimate make up of the delegate spread.
The essential point is I believe it is the DNC, not the Obama campaign, which is the principal obstacle for the delegations to be seated in full as is. Obama has no realpolitik reason to oppose full seating now, and the DNC has every reason to.
While some of the other Obama supporters are attacking you, I noticed the tone of this post is discretely different from former Obama criticisms.
1. It isn't about Obama's perceived "electability" problems.
2. It's worded in such a way as to hope Obama becomes a better candidate.
Personally, while I disagree with you that this is a major issue, and I think you're unwittingly doing more to blow something up which hasn't gotten a lot of coverage, I don't have any issue with this post. I hope you continue to be constructively critical of Obama after he becomes the nominee. I just hope you continue to stay away from posts which highlight Obama's weaknesses without offering advice. The point of the site is neither to be a cheerleader for Democrats or a neutral bystander of the election, but to help Democrats win.
In Wisconsin, no one but Rasmussen has shown McCain ahead since January. And Rasmussen was the only pollster to look at Wisconsin in May at all. I'm presuming whenever SUSA gets to polling again they'll show yet another Obama margin in the low single digits. And Hillary has run slightly worse in most polling there.
Michigan is similar, although it's been polled even less. Rasmussen is the only pollster which has ever shown McCain ahead there, and his margin in their last two polls has been 1% - well within the MOE. Again, Hillary has run slightly worse in most polling there.
McCain is probably ahead in New Hampshire though.
Anyway, this isn't a bad place for Obama to be overall. It doesn't look like he'll have to play as much defense in Oregon, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania as Kerry did. He's had a consistent lead in Iowa (which Bush took), and a narrower but almost as consistent lead in Colorado.
Anyway, with a bit of consolidation work in the upper midwest, he comes to 264 electoral votes. Then all he needs is one sizable state (Ohio or Virginia most likely), or two small states (choice of New Hampshire, New Mexico, or Nevada) to win. Hell, he could even win with one of the small states and get one of Nebraska's electoral votes. It doesn't seem like a ridiculously high bar to me.
The anti-Obama talking point has been much of the plains and the mountain west, until Oregon (everything besides Utah IIRC), has had caucuses and not primaries. This, along with the fairly close results in the Washington and Nebraska "beauty contests" was enough to make some people (largely Clinton supporters) suggest Obama didn't really have a strength in the west, just a strength in caucuses.
With Oregon, this rationale started to creak, and I think next Tuesday, it will collapse.