As you may know by now, the last 24-hours have been an exceptionally trying time for Iowa. With the deaths of four boy scouts in western Iowa, the exceptionally flooding on the Cedar River (which now claims parts of Waterloo, Cedar Falls and Cedar Rapids) and the closing of barge travel on the Mississippi, there is an escalating tragedy unfolding before us. It's not just about Iowa, it's about all of us and the future of this nation.
This article only begins to highlight the tragedy which is Cedar Rapids, a city very close to my heart:
'Uncharted territory' as city floods in Iowa
"We're just kind of at God's mercy right now, so hopefully people that never prayed before this, it might be a good time to start," Linn County Sheriff Don Zeller said. "We're going to need a lot of prayers and people are going to need a lot of patience and understanding."
For all of you unfamiliar with the area, those buildings in the middle of the river are City Hall and the surrounding are all downtown. Cedar Rapids is a city of 120,000.
Another highlight of the problems yet to come:
Midwest flooding could push prices of food higher
"It's clearly a panic situation," said Gary Rhea, president of Risk Management Partners, a marketing firm here.
Survey what's happened yourself:
Maybe the Linn County Sheriff is right, we should pray.
Now, it's easy to solely blame the failures of the Bush administration. At best a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina should have created the call to update and modernize American infrastructure - but that obviously did not happen. The bridge collapse in Minnesota is just further proof that not only is American infrastructure cracking, the Bush administration has taken a hands off approach to the problems of American citizens.
Senator Obama has a plan, from what I can tell, to address both the atrocious response and continued incompetence of the Gulf Coast rebuilding, but I urge him now to look at Senator Clinton's infrastructure plans and adopt them as well. Among the ideas that can compliment Obama's comprehensive plan to professionalize and depoliticize FEMA:
- Establish a $10 billion "Emergency Repair Fund" to address the backlog of critical infrastructure repairs.
- Provide $250 million in "Emergency Assessment Grants" to the states to conduct immediate safety reviews of their high-priority, high-risk infrastructure assets.
- Form a commission to carry out a comprehensive assessment of our engineering review standards so that we better prioritize needed repairs on bridges and roads.
Friends, this an issue that should be among our forefront issues - the well being of this nation depends on it. So, I urge you - for the sake of the Katrina and Midwest flood victims and yourself - write Senator Obama, ask him to adopt Senator Clinton's plans as part of his own and let us rebuild an America that can withstand the hardships ahead of us.
Update: Both Obama and Clinton have put up links to the Red Cross. Whatever you can give, please help out those in the Midwest. The Red CrossEarly today, I wrote a diary about this subject that ultimately made the argument that Clinton does not do better in closed verses open primaries and in fact, according to the mean of both groups, does better in open primaries. dbrown correctly argued in response that I had omitted the possibility of other variables that could affect the means and bias the data. So, this is another attempt at the same argument - with a variety of controls in place.
Here's the data from the original post:
"But how can we know? Simple, we need to look at open verses closed primaries (I can't work with caucus data because they're inherently skewed and fail to provide numbers verses percentages) in which Clinton and Obama are in direct competition (to try to avoid any significant Edwards, Biden, Dodd or Richardson data mixing in). That leaves us with Super Tuesday, the Potomac Primary and the others that have come since Edwards dropped out. The Null Hypothesis in this case is that there will be no significant difference between open and closed primaries in which Clinton and Obama go head to head as evidenced by mean Clinton vote percentages.OK, so here are our states arranged by open and closed primaries with open primaries listed first (Clinton percentage is given afterward in brackets):
Open Primaries (Super Tuesday Forward):
* Alabama [47.1%]
* Arkansas [69.7%]
* California (independents vote for whoever) [51.9%]
* Georgia [31.3%]
* Illinois (is weird but effectively open) [32.9%]
* Massachusetts [56.2%]
* Missouri [48%]
* New Jersey (primaries are closed to opposite parties; independent free for all) [53.8%]
* Tennessee [53.85%]
* Utah (independent free for all) [39.2%]
* Virginia [36.7%]
* Wisconsin [40.7%]Closed Primaries:
* Arizona [50.5%]
* Connecticut [46.6%]
* Delaware [42.3%]
* DC [24.0%]
* Louisiana [35.6%]
* Maryland [36.7%]
* New York [57.4%]
* Oklahoma [54.8%]Ok, now to calculate the means and SDs of each group.
Open:
No. of observations: 12
Minimum: 31.3
Maximum: 69.7
Range: 38.4
Mean: 46.779
Std. deviation: 11.158 (Skewed toward Arkansas)Closed:
No. of observations: 8
Minimum: 24
Maximum: 57.4
Range: 33.4
Mean: 43.488
Std. deviation: 11.147 (Skewed toward DC)Ok, they're not nearly normal (they're actually skewed in opposite directions), but it's fairly obvious that there isn't a huge difference. If we were to pretend that these represented nearly normal distributions and ran an analysis of variance (ANOVA) we would get as a final score: .7685. (Findings are generally considered significant when the score is lower than .05)."
Awesome; that's all we need, right? Not exactly - this data is useful only if we can sufficiently prove that only variables are not being mistakenly forgotten. So, we need to recycle the null hypothesis:
There will be no significant difference between open and closed primaries in which Clinton and Obama go head to head as evidenced by mean Clinton vote percentages in two demographically similar areas that utilize the two different systems.
How might we prove that one? Simple, we need to find two demographically similar areas (not necessarily states) with similar turnout voting at the exact same time under two systems: one open primary and one closed primary. Super Tuesday is the best time frame to pull from to control for the fact that John Edwards is not longer in the race, minimize the chance of Obama momentum skewing the data and increase the possibility of sampling multiple areas.
Now, the moment of truth - which area did I chose? Drum roll...The Ozarks! Luckily, the entire area voted during Feb. 5, shares a unique, interstate cultural unity and has two open primaries and one closed represented. To ensure relatively even distribution between populations in the three states one major city is included in each grouping of counties: Joplin, MO; Fayetteville, AR and Greene County, OK (excluding Tulsa County).
So, to give you specific areas and some numbers:
Arkansas: Benton, Carroll, Crawford, Franklin, Madison and Washington Counties.
Combined Democratic Vote: 41,308
Mean Clinton Percentage of Vote: 75.165% (normal only when divided into population size categories - small towns verses large towns)
Missouri: Barry, Christian, Lawrence, McDonald, Newton, Stone and Tanny Counties.
Combined Democratic Vote: 34,551
Mean Clinton Percentage of Vote: 63.375% (nearly normal - see statistics below)
Oklahoma: Adair, Craig, Cherokee, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, Ottawa and Rogers counties.
Combined Democratic Vote: 37,621
Mean Clinton Percentage of Vote: 64.75% (nearly normal)
Actual Individual State States:
AR Stats:
No. of observations: 6
Minimum: 68
Maximum: 82
Range: 14
Mean: 75.167
Std. deviation: 6.4936 (Absolutely useless unless we want to discuss large cities verses small cities in the three states)
MO Stats:
No. of observations: 8
Minimum: 58
Maximum: 68
Range: 10
Mean: 63.375
Std. deviation: 3.2486 (Skewed slightly toward the left)
OK Stats:
No. of Observations: 8
Minimum: 60
Maximum: 69
Range: 9
Mean: 64.75
Std. deviation: 2.6049 (Skewed slightly toward the left)
MO and OK are our best sets of data despite being a little skewed, and as before, their means are far too close to have any level of significance. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Speaking in the most general terms without statistics getting in the way, it appears that OK's closed primary slightly benefited Clinton verses MO's open primary. However, while I controlled for a variety of factors, there's no realistic way to replicate exact demographics or populations without creating a hypothetical control state that was simultaneously running two systems at the same time with the two primaries running independently of each other. Some might argue that Texas will be a good model to test, but I contend that since Texas allows early voting, it's not a truly reliable system to use.
Sorry again, Clinton supporters. I tried to find something, but I really didn't have a lot of hope since party crossover has never been successfully attributed to a candidate's loss.
As some of you might know, I've been crunching numbers and by chance saw some interesting things in the tendencies of voting electorate - not surprisingly, most people either found this uninteresting or simply don't like math. Frankly, me either, but I was friends with a Director of Institutional Research awhile back who convinced me you can enjoy it if the results mean something to you. That inspired me to continue working with this data.
A question I see raised a lot is that of Obamacans: Republicans and independents registering as Democrats to vote for Obama. Is there any significance? Well, being a fan of statistics, I'm going to search for a statistical significance. My null hypothesis (for those other nerds out there) is that there is no significance in the 2008 Democratic primaries that can be attributed to party crossover.
But how can we know? Simple, we need to look at open verses closed primaries (I can't work with caucus data because they're inherently skewed and fail to provide numbers verses percentages) in which Clinton and Obama are in direct competition (to try to avoid any significant Edwards, Biden, Dodd or Richardson data mixing in). That leaves us with Super Tuesday, the Potomac Primary and the others that have come since Edwards dropped out. The Null Hypothesis in this case is that there will be no significant difference between open and closed primaries in which Clinton and Obama go head to head as evidenced by mean Clinton vote percentages.
OK, so here are our states arranged by open and closed primaries with open primaries listed first (Clinton percentage is given afterward in brackets):
Open Primaries (Super Tuesday Forward):
Closed Primaries:
Ok, now to calculate the means and SDs of each group.
Open:
No. of observations: 12
Minimum: 31.3
Maximum: 69.7
Range: 38.4
Mean: 46.779
Std. deviation: 11.158 (Skewed toward Arkansas)
Closed:
No. of observations: 8
Minimum: 24
Maximum: 57.4
Range: 33.4
Mean: 43.488
Std. deviation: 11.147 (Skewed toward DC)
Ok, they're not nearly normal (they're actually skewed in opposite directions), but it's fairly obvious that there isn't a huge difference. If we were to pretend that these represented nearly normal distributions and ran an analysis of variance (ANOVA) we would get as a final score: .7685. (Findings are generally considered significant when the score is lower than .05).
There is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Now, as dbrown points out below, there is an omitted variable bias which I will get at tomorrow (and include this entry with the updated one). Basically, the problem is that I'm comparing states with no control. I probably won't be able to fix that, but I'm going to think through how to get at it tonight. Suggestions would be appreciated.
Sorry fellow Clinton supporters, it looks like it makes no difference and that she's doing better in open primaries. Caucuses might still be a valid battle to fight, but unfortunately, this is not the line of argument we want anymore. I'll do an analysis of Obama's momentum tomorrow to see if we can find anything there.
Trends - they're a favorite talking points. Well, I've gone through my share and attacked a few, but I was doing research for a separate diary when I found some very interesting data in the process that somehow has gone unnoticed.
I was looking at data about party affiliation over time, when I found an interesting chart from Wikipedia derived from registered voters in 2004. That is, among the 169 million registered voters at the time, 72 million (44%) were Democrats, 55 million were Republicans and lastly, 42 were independents (decline a party or third party). That seems right, but I wanted more and found a nice seven point scale that the Center for National Election Studies has used since 1952 which can be found here: http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/ text/tab2a_1.txt Self-identification might be a better means of analyzing how people vote than their party affiliation.
I took the liberty of running some analysis on the data from 1980 on and here's some statistics jargon if you would like it (numbers given are percentages of the total population surveyed; apolitical responses are excluded due to their small weight and lack of likelihood to vote):
Strong Democrat Analysis:
Mean: 17.92
SD: 1.382
Weak Democrats:
Mean: 19.077
SD: 2.62
Independent Democrats:
Mean: 13
SD: 2.04
Independents:
Mean: 10.85
SD: 1.344
Independent Republicans:
Mean: 11.615
SD: 1.386
Weak Republicans:
Mean: 14.385
SD: 1.2609
Strong Republicans:
Mean: 11.923
SD: 2.2159
I lump the groups into three separate categories: Democrats (Strong and Weak), Independents and Republicans (Strong and Weak). Ultimately, these are our relative averages of the general electorate.
Democrats:
Mean: 37
SD: 3.2404
Independents:
Mean: 35.462
SD: 2.6336
Republicans:
Mean: 26.308
SD: 2.2504
But do they turn out in these numbers? Long story short, no. Here's the turnout based on exit poll data from elections 1996, 2000 and 2004 complied from LA Times and CNN Data (numbers given are percentages; older data is difficult to find).
Democrats:
Range: 6
Mean: 40
SD: 2.1909
Independents:
Range: 8
Mean: 23.167
SD: 3.4559
Republicans:
Range: 4
Mean: 36.333
SD: 1.5055
From this data, you can see a disparity between the general electorate and the actual voting electorate - Democratic voters exceed their general electorate proportions but only slightly. Republicans, despite being the smallest population, constitute the second largest percentage of voters in the election and the most reliable in terms of turnout size. Independents, despite being the second largest group in the general electorate, tend to trail both sets of party-affiliated voters and are most unreliable in terms of turnout size.
By all means, if this is the case, Democrats would only need to meet the mean turnout rate and split the independent vote to keep the presidency in all three elections. What happened in 2000 and 2004 that hurt that so significantly? Let's examine Party Loyalty and which way Independents tend to lean. (NOTE: LA Times has a weird outlier from 1996...I've excluded it so I can keep something resembling normal distribution and frankly, it's weird when it comes to the Independent Numbers)
Democratic Party Loyalty (percentage of Democrats that voted for the Democratic nominee):
Minimum: 84 (CNN - Clinton '96)
Maximum: 89 (CNN - Kerry '04)
Range: 5
Mean: 87
SD: 2
Republican Party Loyalty:
Minimum: 80 (CNN - Dole '96)
Maximum: 94 (LA Times - Bush '04)
Range: 14
Mean: 90
SD: 5.7
Thus, Republican Party Loyalty appears to be higher than Democratic but slightly more erratic (and skewed toward Dole's awful showing in 1996). What about independents?
Independent Votes for Democrats:
Minimum: 43 (2 instances; CNN - Clinton, LA Times - Gore)
Maximum: 49 (2 instances; Both for Kerry)
Range: 6
Mean: 45.8
SD: 3.0332 (too skewed to mean much)
Independent Votes for Republicans:
Minimum: 23 (CNN - Dole)
Maximum: 49 (LA Times - Bush '00)
Range: 26
Mean: 43
SD: 11.203 (skewed toward awful Dole showing)
Independent Votes for Third Party Candidates (Specifically Perot):
Minimum: 3 (2 instances - both 2004)
Maximum: 17 (CNN - Perot '96 (LA Times had him at 50)
Range: 14
Mean: 7.6
SD: 5.7271 (Skewed toward excellent Perot showing in '96)
Moral of the story: Without a third party candidate, independents break in relatively even patterns between the two major parties. However, they land on both sides of the divide - Going to Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
What does Obama or Clinton need to win come November?
- Democrats at or above their average mean (a strong base).
Implications:
- So long as the Republicans maintain stronger Party unity than the Democrats, Democratic numbers do not necessarily give us an edge. - Independent votes can easily sway an election; it's a matter of motivating them to show up and vote for you. However, that is difficult to do and predict.- The eventual nominee will need to unite the party immediately at or right after the convention and then work on independents.
Thoughts?
"Oh Ken, you can use facts to prove anything. 33% of all people know that." - Homer Simpson
In my college statistics class, I remember there are two cardinal rules of statistics: (i) you should do all you can to reduce bias and (ii) guard yourself against your own bias. Basically, what my dear professor was getting at was to avoid extrapolating or editorializing on data. Chances were that your collection method was already flawed beyond the point of hope, but you might still pull some gem out of a data set by not making things worse.
Lately, I've seen no end to the surplus of both sides of this primary breaking rule two. Compounded with the sampling error that pollsters inherently have, this is a dangerous combination. Let's look at some recent polls:
SurveyUSA Poll:
Obama +10 in NC
Obama 50%, Clinton 40%
Sample: 580 LV
MoE: +/- 4.2%
Poll predicts relatively good chance of an Obama victory. For our purposes, it's safe to say that from this data set. But wait! That's just this data set and - while it is following conventional sampling rules - it's not necessarily true; New Hampshire demonstrated that fairly clearly that otherwise good polls can miserably miss the actual result. Our good friend sampling error has almost everything to do with that. Is this poll most likely correct? Yes but not necessarily. We can doubt what the definition of a "likely voter" is and that participants were truly chosen randomly, but this approaches absurdity real quick.
With this in mind, let us take a look at preliminary GE polls - Obama vs. McCain, Clinton vs. McCain. Already, we have the traditional doubts. But furthermore, we have a brand new problem - can polls taken in February be used to predict an outcome in November? I think the answer to everyone is obviously no. The intricacies of this election far exceed what a simple "If the general election were held today..." question can encapsulate. The steps required to go from point A were a candidate is ahead in general election polls in a primary to point B were that candidate is necessarily more electable than a rival require much more information than what one poll can present and is simple extrapolation.
Now, as a final point to this diary, keep in mind that pollsters are in the business of extrapolation and, as our good friend Mr. Zogby demonstrated, any one of them can be biased. So, in short, I would advise both sides of the primary to state your opinions but don't pretend to have hard proof - it's like the front pagers remind us, "only actual numbers matter."
I'm worried about this general election. Sure, the Bush administration has created the same favorable conditions for a Democratic victory that his father did, but that is not enough to launch either of our candidates into the White House. McCain is the deadliest threat the Republicans could field, and now that Romney is gone, his nomination is almost certain. Could our worst fears be realized though: can McCain coalesce the Reagan coalition?
The Reagan Coalition had been the cornerstone of Republican philosophy since his first election in 1980 bringing together neocons, the religious right, war-hawks and blue collar workers - the deadliest faction to the Democrats. Granted, Reagan had a degree of luck in assembling all of these - he used Bush Sr. to appeal to moderates and capitalized on fatigue with LBJ's Great Society's costs for blue collar workers. It was a masterstroke that built Reagan, but the fact that he only transfered money from social programs to the military did not hurt him at all. Indeed, Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984 with his coalition.
Granted, comparing Reagan and McCain is a rather difficult task: they are a study in rather odd similarities and differences. Both failed to capture the the Republican Party's nomination in their first campaigns for it; both took heavy criticism for certain ideas ("voodoo economics" and immigration reform). But the stark difference is that McCain ran to the left of his competitors (as to contrast with Bush) while Reagan ran to the right of Bush Sr. Fundamentally, they should be considered as members of different wings of the Republican Party - McCain's the less popular of the two. Oddly enough, though, McCain has built a rather strange, winning coalition; CNN accurately points out that there is no typical McCain supporter. But we do know this: hard line conservatives don't necessarily like him.
I don't really think that's a major problem for McCain though if takes Huckabee as his VP; combined they represent over 34 years of high-level government experience and can pull moderates, war-hawks, the religious right and independents together. What about neocons and blue collar workers?
Huckabee will unsuccessfully attempt to pull neocons, and he might get a few but not the numbers Bush could pull. I'm most worried about blue collar workers: if Obama or Clinton threaten to raise taxes back from where Bush put them, it might cause a backlash that heavily favors McCain, despite his flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts.
Combine McCain's building strength with the sheer embarrassment that the DNC is going through and the small but vocal presence of hardcore Clinton and Obama supporters who will not vote for any Democrat but their candidate, McCain might manage a new Reagan Coalition. We should all be worried now; if McCain builds momentum in office and turns the economy around combining his plans and Huckabee's, we might have another eight years of a Republican president.
Sometime in 2004, immediately after Kerry lost, the Democratic Party decided something was fundamentally wrong. Yes, something was indeed wrong! But instead of looking within, we found an excellent, plausible explanation: the nation was divided!
"Yes," we thought, "That surely explains it. There are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. We are so bitterly fighting for that middle ground." Hook, line, sinker. I went with it, just like every other Democrat I knew.
The pundits were even talking about it; Bush had such a pressing job in front of him! He had to contend with a divided nation, that - or so the narrative describes - repaid him for his conservative agenda by delivering a Democratic Landslide in 2006.
I have seen many an example of this from both the Obama and Clinton camps, and I've had enough. This "divided nation" (or as I call it, red-blue state theory) is totally bogus in the face of logic, and if we keep talking about it as if it's real, it'll only hurt our chances of winning in November.
The nation has been divided - and much more bitterly than this - since 1796 when the Democratic-Republicans hit the mean streets in 1796 born from the Jefferson-Hamilton rivalry. The Federalists had a few rounds with them until they dissolved and another party faithfully took their spot. Hell, we even had a Civil War - something far more extreme than whatever the current divide is.
Now, the fundamental conclusion that the red-blue state divide theory draws is that there exists a cultural division within the nation: blue areas are generally progressive, red areas conservative. These two areas are coming into increasing conflict and that is becoming particularly clear in Washington. After all, Supreme Court nominees are more hotly debated, passions are running high, etc.
All right, let's deconstruct that idea.
First, for red-blue state theory to be true, these two cultures must have been developing for quite sometime to be entirely distinct. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Several "blue states" went for Reagan in overwhelming numbers in 1984; eight years later several "red states" and those Reagan "blue states" swung to Clinton in 1992. In fact, the current trend has only been clear for two presidential elections - both of which have had the same Republican candidate. It could simply be that this candidate appeals to the right coalitions within the right number of states to uphold his place in office.
Second, red-blue state theory necessarily postulates that citizens are 100% black and white on issues with no shades of gray. A pro-lifer is a pro-lifer is a pro-lifer; they will always vote Republican. This is simply not true: while this may be a huge consideration, this assumes that a pro-life businessman and pro-life farmer will vote the same way. However, what if the issue of farm subsidies comes up. This may change how the farmer votes verses the businessman - i.e. red-blue theory is too simplistic to compensate for individual opinions and concerns.
Third, red-blue state theory postulates that Republicans and Democrats are two separate camps that can agree on very little and vote against the other's interest. Two examples of the opposite: Jim Leach (R-IA) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Jim Leach was the former Congressman of Iowa's Second District, voted one of the most centrist Congressmen in Congress previous to losing his reelection bid to Dave Loebsack in 2006. Likewise, I think Joe Lieberman is infamous enough around this site that I need not elaborate. The point is this: red-blue state theory fails to comprehend these individuals and presupposes that bipartisan action cannot exist, unless some mysterious messiah comes to unify the parties (which would be theoretically impossible under this particular postulate).
Fourth, red-blue state theory ignores the fact that a large chunk of the nation does not vote. No presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984 has solely received 30% of the electorate's vote. That being the case, this theory could only directly apply to the voting population, but then falls apart based on my last three arguments.
I could continue, but I think I've made my point. Ultimately, I argue, the problem is really just fatigue with the current president's reliance on his own vision without much consideration for the people (see Bush approval ratings). Obviously, the current red-blue divide is already fading, particularly with the idea of McCain being the Republican Presidential nominee - redrawing the political map after eight years of general consistency.
This talk of unity is just as hollow as the theory that required it to be brought to the forefront. No Democrat or Republican is going to risk their political career - or frankly bother with the narrow road they would have to travel - to make some effort to appease both parties. That's a sure fire way to end this country real fast - so let's just go back to the real issues at hand and stop touting some inherently divisive theory that only makes our position weaker among the general electorate. We aren't divided, don't need unifying; we just need a president who can effectively make decisions and isn't too stubborn to change course when a mistake has been made.
The New York Times endorsed Clinton as did the Des Moines Register (which I read regularly when I lived in Iowa), Quad Cities Times, Myrtle Beach Sun, Denver Post, etc. But wait, Obama got the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, [South Carolina] State, etc. ad nauseum. Who did Edwards get? I honestly don't remember; I have endorsement fatigue.
I want to speak briefly about Senator Edwards, because I think he has a defining moment forthcoming. He was always my second choice; I loved his passion for discussing and addressing poverty. He proudly proclaimed that he was against Washington lobbyists, and while I know he could not rid Washington of them, I thought he might at least dent them. The fact that he recognized that special interests had run amok was very encouraging; it meant that someone could at least see sense and recognize part of the problem in Washington.
That is exactly why I don't think he will and certainly hope he doesn't endorse. What is the particular difference between a lobbying position and an endorsement? After all, they serve the same purpose; they try to persuade someone in a biased manner. Both undermine the judgment of the voter, and ultimately, I see no essential difference.
I would hope that Senator Edwards entrusts his supporters to make a decision based on their convictions, the same with Governor Richardson. So, I wish we would all take a second to realize that endorsements are actually subverting our own judgment when we allow them to sway us completely. Take each with a grain of salt and for God's sake, please realize that supporting someone due to a particular endorsement is no better than voting solely due to a lobbyist's argument. You're better than that.
I hope this particular diary was unnecessary; please assure me that this didn't need to be said.
· McCain: Afghanistan Not a "Major Conflict" (Jonathan Singer)
· McCain Press Pool Goes Commando (Tracy Joan)
· Schumer: 60 Dem Senators Possible (Josh Orton)
· Jindal Out (Josh Orton)
· Scalise and Kennedy Shilling for Big Oil (DailyKingFish)
· IA: Grassley and Christian conservatives at odds (desmoinesdem)
· Richardson tells McCain to stop whining (fbihop)
· OR-SEN: New DSCC/IE ad in Oregon (karichisholm)
· NM Dems GET the netroots; GOP not so much (fbihop)
· Louisiana House 2Q Fundraising #'s (DailyKingFish)
· OR-SEN: Merkley's Netroots Nation video (karichisholm)
· AK-Sen: New Begich Ad (Matt Browner Hamlin)
