I'm sorry, FreeRider, but, as he says, the burden of proof is on you, not on Edwards. Edwards doesn't have to prove is innnocent to you; rather, you have to prove he is guilty. Yes, you have goood logoical conclusions, but they could be better if you fix your logical fallacies. It's entirely possible for your conclusions to still work if you fix your logical fallcies. Not that I agree or disagree with them.... it's just you have too many "holes" in your argument.

Posted at August 9, 2008 2:02 AM in response to Edwards: "If You Want To Beat Me Up -- Feel Free"

Sorry for not adding this, but remember, McCain only has a 52% vs 48% satisfication rate among Republicans.

Posted at June 21, 2008 3:08 AM in response to Obama Sends Key Staffer To Indiana -- Is State Really In Play?

There's another reason that Obama is in Indiana - to strengthen his hand in Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky.

Posted at June 21, 2008 3:07 AM in response to Obama Sends Key Staffer To Indiana -- Is State Really In Play?

Actually, if you look at most Senator's record on bills making out of committee, most of them also have a poor rating. I doubt bills reporting out of a committee in the Senate is a true sign of success or failure.

In fact, according to govtrack.us, the most sucessful senator is Orrin Hatch, and even he has trouble getting bills reported out of committee.

Posted at February 20, 2008 1:09 PM in response to Obama Supporter Stumped On His Accomplishments

I agree the polls got it mostly right. They got the Republican side right, and they get Edwards and below on the Democratic side right.

The big losers aren't polls or pollsters, but rather, the Mainstream Media, who shoved their own self-righteous BS into voters. It's about time they got served.

Posted at January 9, 2008 12:06 AM in response to How Could the Polls be so Wrong?

Great Analysis. I agree. However, I just want to add that, whoever gets third place in Iowa, is a pretty much a goner. The question now is, who is least likely to get third place?

Posted at January 3, 2008 8:15 AM in response to Happy Caucus Day!

I want to point out that, during 1992, no one ran in Iowa because Tom Harkin was the "favorite son" candidate. Thus, New Hampshire become the key state. Bill Clinton managed to make his second place win in New Hampshire look good.

In any case, the Democratic Party of 1992 isn't exactly the same pary of 2008. For one thing, the Southern Realignment is over. None of the top three candidates are from the Deep South, and the party as whole is more ideologically coherent now than it was in 1992.

Posted at January 3, 2008 7:48 AM in response to Happy Caucus Day!

That's a possibility. But it makes me wonder if this year will be a 2004 repeat, where whoever wins Iowa gets a large enough boost to win New Hampshire.

Posted at January 3, 2008 6:26 AM in response to Happy Caucus Day!

1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Hillary

or

1. Edwards
2. Hillary
3. Obama

All three still neck-to-neck in both cases, with only very few percentage points apart from each other.

Posted at January 3, 2008 6:25 AM in response to Happy Caucus Day!

As a person living in the Bay Area of California, I have experienced none of these problems.

In fact, I think most people living here would consider such problems as "severe" and would require immediate attention.

Posted at November 10, 2007 2:01 AM in response to Question for Paul Krugman: Why Does the DC Metro Suck?