casequ's Blogtag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/casequ//22862008-10-04T02:46:27ZMovable Type Pro 4.21-encommercial ideastag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2218872008-10-04T02:46:27Z2008-10-04T02:46:27Z2 alternate campaign ad ideas called "central front":1. "Who convinced John McCain that Iraq, and not the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, is the central front in the war against terrorism?"[clips of terrorism experts like Richard Clarke saying Afghanistan-Pakistan is where the terrorists...casequ 1. "Who convinced John McCain that Iraq, and not the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, is the central front in the war against terrorism?" [clips of terrorism experts like Richard Clarke saying Afghanistan-Pakistan is where the terrorists who attacked and are planning and capable of another attack are hiding out etc; clips of McCain asserting that bin Laden himself thinks Iraq is the central front] "How much weight will Osama bin Laden's words carry over US counter-terrorism policy if John McCain is elected President?"
or
2. [animated depiction of US troops surrounding bin Laden's cave in Afghanistan, bin Laden and his deputies nervously silent and praying inside, then a sudden pullback of troops (think the scene of orcs pulling out of Mordor to meet Aragorn outside the black gates) as Bush announces invasion of Iraq, bin Laden peeking his head out of the cave to see no sign of US forces, rejoicing] "John McCain cites Osama bin Laden's assertion that Iraq is the central front in the war against terrorism as proof that US forces must stay in Iraq indefinitely. Is bin Laden really the best person to make that determination for us?" ]]>
Palin repeats bridge lietag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2132452008-09-04T11:42:36Z2008-09-04T11:42:36Zcasequ
support the bridge before canceling it. But the relevant question isn't simply whether she changed her position on the actual construction of the bridge. She isn't just saying that she was against construction (she isn't actually saying that at all, though she is implying it). She's saying that she rejected ("thanks but no thanks") the appropriation of federal money because Alaska would pay for its own bridge if it wanted one. And that is a clear and total lie. She never said "no thanks" to Congress in any way. She never rejected the appropriation (in fact she wasn't yet governor when Congress appropriated the money, and, as has been noted, she supported federal funding when campaigning), and when she canceled the bridge, she didn't somehow return the money to Washington. Instead she diverted it to other state projects (the money was ultimately not earmarked specifically for the bridges due to the national outcry): "Canceling work on the bridge will free up about $36 million in federal funds that may be used on other Alaska transportation projects, the governor said." Furthermore, contrary to the second part of her claim, that Alaska would pay for a bridge itself if it wanted one, Palin canceled the project because Congress wouldn't appropriate any more money for the bridge that Alaska apparently did want, and the state wouldn't pay the balance itself: "'Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,' Palin said in her statement....The governor made the decision 'simply because the project wasn't a prudent use of state funds,' said Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow." Palin's entire claim, repeated tonight, is a lie. By the way, there are actually two "bridges to nowhere." The status of the other one, the Knik Arm Bridge, is unclear, but this same article indicates that, at least as of September 24, 2007, it hadn't been canceled, though work on it also hadn't begun. The point is that inasmuch as Palin has reversed course on the bridges, it has only been to cancel state funding, not in any way to reject or return federal money.]]>
Popular Votetag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1988312008-06-05T06:38:57Z2008-06-05T06:38:57Zcasequ
posted about the final math, including a paragraph saying that Obama won the popular vote unless you count Michigan and don't give Obama the uncommitted votes, I think this point needs to be emphasized more clearly to end any question about Obama's legitimacy as the Democratic nominee going into the general election. The mainstream media seems to have settled on the idea that Obama won because he played by the rules and that Clinton's claim that she won the popular vote is at least plausible (on CNN last night Wolf Blitzer showed 3 different ways of counting the popular vote and concluded that in 2 of the 3 Clinton did indeed win, without comment as to which of those 3 was most accurate). But it is not plausible. Any reasonable tally of the popular vote, even in the light most favorable to Clinton, shows that Obama won. According to RealClearPolitics, Obama was the clear winner of the popular vote without counting Michigan. Setting aside the fact that the Michigan primary was not a legitimate reflection of voter preferences, let's assume that the 328,309 people who voted for Hillary did intend to vote for her over all the other candidates. Then she leads the cumulative popular vote by 176,465 (including the caucus estimates). Let's round that up to 180,000 to allow for possible favoritism towards Obama in the caucus estimates. There were 238,168 votes for uncommitted in Michigan. On top of that, we learned at the Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing that there were approximately 30,000 write-in votes that could not be counted. Let's round that down a little since it was only an estimate and say that there were about 265,000 votes for someone other than Clinton, Kucinich, Gravel or Dodd. Is it reasonable to assume that over 180,000 (68%) of those votes were intended to go to Obama? According to the exit polls, had all the candidates been on the ballot, Obama would have received 35% of the total vote. 594,398 votes were cast altogether in the Democratic Primary (not including write-ins). So according to the exit poll, he should have received 208,039 votes. But only 79% of those votes would have come from the uncommitted total. That's 164,351. Again, let's round down a little to favor Clinton, especially since exit polls are not always accurate. Let's say 160,000. So he still needs 20,000 votes. In the exit poll data, the columns showing where the intended votes came from all add up to 100% (for example, Obama would have received 18% of his votes from Clinton's total, 1% from Gravel's, 2% from Kucinich's, and 79% from uncommitted's). So it obviously doesn't include the 30,000 write-in votes. Were 2/3 of those intended to go to Obama? Since the exit polls show that Obama would have received almost 3 times as many votes as Edwards (35-12) if they'd all been on the ballot, it's more than reasonable to assume that 2/3 of the write-ins were for Obama, even if we assume some write-in votes were for non-candidates, some for Bill Richardson (who apparently would have only received just 1% if his name were on the ballot), and some for Joe Biden, who had already dropped out. In sum, any reasonable tally of popular votes, even in the light most favorable to Clinton (counting all her Michigan votes even though the exit polls show that she wouldn't have received them had the other candidates all been listed, rounding all numbers in her favor), shows that more people intended to vote for Obama than Clinton. Some Clinton supporters may still argue that Obama himself needlessly removed his name from the Michigan ballot and that only actual votes for him should count. But when talking about the popular vote, the value we are considering is voter preference, irrespective of the actions, wise or unwise, of any candidate. It would be difficult to argue that on the one hand people are being disenfranchised by not having their votes counted in an unofficial primary, but that on the other hand people in that primary could not possibly vote for a given candidate. By any reasonable estimate, more of the people who voted in all the Democratic Primaries intended to vote for Obama than for Clinton, and his legitimacy as the Democratic nominee is therefore not tainted by the popular vote. This is, I think, very important going forward.]]>