They post every poll they can find, as does http://www.pollster.com/ . You can look there to check them, they have mostly the same ones.

BTW, I hate Fox as much as anyone, but their polls seem ok. For evidence, see how their measure of Bush's approval compares to the average of all polls: http://www.pollster.com/FoxPollsterBushApproval.php . Their a little high, but not way off. FWIW, my guess is that whatever bias they have is not intentional, but due to relatively more liberals hanging up when they hear it's a Fox News poll.

Posted at May 1, 2008 2:04 PM in response to TPM Polls - Fair and Balanced?

The official counts do include servicemembers who die outside Iraq ("out of theater"). See the iCasualties page on this, http://icasualties.org/oif/Outoftheater.aspx , for a list and explanation.

Posted at May 1, 2008 1:45 PM in response to True Number of US fatalities in Iraq and candidates silence

Thank you, this is awesome!

Posted at April 24, 2008 10:29 AM in response to ...You Might Be an Idiot

I would say anything under 57-43 for Clinton, together with a double-digit Obama win in NC, and a less than double-digit Hillary win in Indiana and the "superdelegates to Obama" move we've all been waiting for occurs. She may stay "in" but she's done.

Posted at April 22, 2008 7:41 PM in response to Margins of Victory (corrected)

No, that would be 5 extra points for Clinton, and 3 for Obama, net extra margin of 2. If everything else you say is right, she wins by 7 or 8, something like 54-46.

Posted at April 22, 2008 7:32 PM in response to Hillary might win by 11pt!!! 56-44

I haven't read the book, but I don't get precisely what Matt is saying about unilateral/multilateral preemptive military action without U.N. approval. I agree that a "Concert of Democracies" is a bad idea, and I was against the Iraq invasion. I also think military action without U.N. approval is generally a bad idea, and should be used only as a last resort. But to rule it out entirely is insane. I would certainly support it if it was the only way to keep Iran from getting Nukes, Russia and China wouldn't go along, and it seemed militarily feasible at a "reasonable" cost. I'm all for aiming for international law to replace anarchy, but you can't act as if it exists before it does.

Posted at April 21, 2008 1:07 PM in response to Foreign Policy After Bushism

Oh, it's great to see how many "liberals" here think of disadvantaged fellow human beings as "clay eating" and "mouth breathers". Oops, I forgot it's ok if they're white.

P.S. I'm an Obama supporter.

Posted at March 31, 2008 5:54 PM in response to SurveyUSA: Hillary Ahead 2-1 In Kentucky Primary

"If every state held the same type of primary, Obama would be leading by about the same margin in popular votes as he currently does in delegates."

Until the last sentence, I think this is a reasonable, well-argued post, although I don't entirely agree with it. But this statement doesn't follow, and is almost certainly untrue. Obama clearly does better in caucuses, for reasons both organizational and demographic. He did better in the Texas caucus held on the same day as the primary. He did much better in the Washington caucus than in the "beauty contest" primary two weeks later, which remarkably had more than twice the turnout in spite of being meaningless. If all the caucus states had held primaries instead, Hillary would very likely be in much better shape, both in terms of popular votes and delegates. She might even have the nomination locked up, especially considering that it was his victory in the Iowa caucus that really launched Obama.

By the way, I'm an Obama supporter.

Posted at March 19, 2008 7:32 PM in response to Popular vote question

"If Obama wins, Democrats will back him."

I'm an Obama supporter, but this is just not realistic. Sure us latte sippers will, but many white and Hispanic working and lower middle class Dems will not. Your idea of party loyalty among older generations is greatly exaggerated. Ever heard of "Reagan Democrats"? Especially when a black man is the candidate. I think Obama can win, but it will be a *tough* battle.

Posted at March 12, 2008 9:36 PM in response to Why Obama people should vote Hillary

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this for a second. I'm 41, and also voted for Obama. The educated, upper-middle class part of our generation may be somewhat post-racial, but the kids I grew up with in a lower middle class neighborhood in Queens, New York sure as heck aren't! Our generation, along with the Boomers may be a bit better than the current over 65s, but there are millions of racists among us, many quite overt and "old fashioned." I do sense a real improvement among the latest generation, basically those now under 25 -- if anyone approaches being "post-racial" it may be them. But I'm quite sure even they are hardly all sweetness and light Ebony and Ivory. Naivete is not going to help in November in a race in which race will be a *huge* factor.

Posted at March 12, 2008 9:28 PM in response to Ebony and Ivory - My Generation is "Post-Racial"