One of the latest Clinton campaign talking points making the rounds is that if the Democratic primary had been run using Republican delegate allocation rules, she would be winning.  However, I had never seen the campaign produce an actual attempt to break this down by state and analyze it.  And considering her campaign's track record with understanding the rules (California winner-take-all?  Crying over the Texas prima-caucus?), well, color me skeptical.  A few diaries have been floated here with state breakdowns, but all that I have seen have committed egregious errors, such as counting every state as winner-take-all (very few truly are), or failing to understand the very different district-level rules used by the Republicans.  

So, I decided to crunch some numbers and do it myself.  The details are below the fold, but the final tally is that Obama would be holding an 82-delegate lead going into the West Virginia primary.  Another Clinton talking point shot down by the cold hard sniper fire of truth.  

OK, I'm just having a little fun with the ol' crystal ball here, and decided I'd see what's in store for us over the next 4 years:

(See extended copy.)

Well, that's how we'd say it here in Brazil, anyway.  

Really, though, anyone who wants to make millions should immediately begin printing up bumper stickers that read "Don't blame me - I voted for Kerry."  For some reason I have the feeling that there just might be a great demand for these in the coming months and years.

I recall being chilled to the bone back in 1992 when Rush Limbaugh uttered this line.  At the time he was beginning to make a name for himself as a "commentator" for the right, and had been mercilessly attacking Clinton throughout his Presidential campaign.  

After Clinton won, Rush was on some cable show (must have been CNN, but now I don't actually recall which) and was asked snidely by the host, "so, Rush, I guess the party's over now, huh?"  It was a moment of gloating over the utter demolition of the Bush Presidency.  Rush merely stared back and deadpanned, "not at all ... this is just the beginning...."  It was chilling.  With that one phrase, he completely rewrote the frame of the election.  He was declaring war on Clinton.  Clinton's victory meant nothing to Rush except that he would now be Rush's biggest and most prominent target - and that was the beginning of the party, not the end.

Watched the election from Brazil.  The media here was incredulous that the US could elect Bush, and now I have to spend the next four years just like the past 18 months, apologizing profusely for being an American.  

Brazil just finished their mid-term election this past Sunday.  95% of the votes were counted and tabulated by midnight and the rest before sunup.  Turnout was massive, because voting is OBLIGATORY.  Every precinct in this country the size of the US uses exactly the same voting system, which is controlled by the Federal Electoral Court (Justiça Eleitoral), NOT a private company (Diebold, etc.).  On "Bom Dia Brasil" (Good Morning Brazil) the commentator was summarizing the winners and losers of the election, and noted that the real winner was Brazilian democracy, which operated cleanly, smoothly, and with negligible levels of fraud.  He added, wryly, tomorrow (meaning Tuesday) we will see a contrasting version of democracy (referring to the US).  How right he was!

I posted an entry early this morning as a center for compiling a thorough Kossian debunking of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group's smear program, entitled "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media", to be broadcast tonight.  Apparently, it got lost in the early morning rush of diaries.

If you would like to contribute to this effort, or just keep tabs on it, please follow this link.  Also, please recommend the diary there if you think this is a worthy effort for others to see. Do NOT recommend this diary, however -- only the one at the link above.  

I'll be out until about 7:30 EDT, at which point I will update any volunteered diary links.  If there are none by then, well, then I'll go watch GLOBO or something, I don't know.

Because it is now clear that Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc. will not be deterred from running their hour-long smear of John Kerry, I think it is important to set up a center for debunking it, similar to the ones set up for the second and third presidential debates, where individual Kos members selected specific questions to transcribe, analyze and correct with the truth.  

Although I think there is a very high possibility that this program will backfire on Sinclair, the Kos community needs to be prepared for other media organs to provide extra publicity and raise the profile of this smear, just as was done with the Swift Boat Vets for Lies.  Please look in the extended entry if you would like to help out this effort!

Over and over, people here at dKos have been repeating the canard that "people want to vote for the winner" and that therefore, the perceived leader in the polls come election day will pick up more votes.  

This does not make sense.  Who votes this way?  Is this what happened in 2000, 1996, or 1992?  As I recall, Gore, Dole and Perot all seriously outperformed their poll numbers come election day, even though all 3 were perceived to be "losers."

I think that this perception must be based on the primaries, where partisan voters are trying to find a candidate that will win the general election.  Therefore, a candidate that begins to win early primaries may gain this "vote for the winner" support in later primaries, such as Kerry did this year.  But this is because "winnability" is a quality looked for during the primaries.  In the general election, this is no longer important, and the idea of voting for a winnable or electable candidate becomes nonsensical.

There is, however, a danger from being a perceived loser going into the election, and that is that some supporters may not turn out to vote.  This "vote for the winner" idea, however, unless there is data somewhere to support it, is not a factor.  Anyone who would vote based on who "looks like they are going to win" is much more likely to be sitting out the election.  If someone has some actual numbers to show this, I would be willing to change my view.  Otherwise, please, for the love of (insert preferred deity here), stop repeating this idea in every single open thread or polling thread!!

Prior to 2000, a mathematical scheme called the Nelson Model was worked out using the score of the Super Bowl and the occurrence of an Olympic boycott as a way to "predict" the outcome of the Presidential Election.  Predict is in quotes, because the scheme was, of course, done after the fact.  You could dismiss it as a fun way to play with the numbers.  However, in its first "test" in 2000, it was eerily prescient.  How does it "work" and what does it predict for 2004?  Check the extended copy!

Today, I sent in my and my wife's absentee ballots.  We are registered in the state of Missouri, though living in Brazil and therefore not counted in any poll of the state.  Kerry is now ahead of Bush 2-0 in this important state!  

However, I do ask that if any Kossacks are living in the KC area, please help make sure that our ballots (and all the absentee ballots) actually get counted!  With all the shenanigans going on in NV, OH, OR, etc., I am certain that the big MO is not immune.  I did make sure there were no hanging chads, so that won't be a problem, but you never know what they'll try to do to disqualify the strongly pro-Kerry overseas voters.

An informal poll of my immediate family living in Missouri gives the following results:

Kerry/Edwards  100%
Bush/Cheney    0%

Poll of 5 likely voters conducted 10/11-10/14
MOE = off the charts

(For the record, 2 of these 5 voters voted for Gore in 2000, 2 were for Nader and 1 didn't vote.)

Some of you might be getting tired of the large number of anecdotes people post on this site, but I just had to add one of my own.  This past weekend, in a conversation with my mom, the discussion turned to the subject of the debates.  She asked if I had seen them (since I am here in Brazil) and I replied that I had only been able to listen.  She laughed and said that it couldn't have been the same without seeing Bush's face.  

Now, my parents have been Democratic voters as long as I can remember, so no surprise there.  However, she then commented about her sister, who could easily be classified as Bush's base: strong Christian consevative, against abortion, gay marriage, etc. (All the wedge issues.)  My mom said that my aunt commented dejectedly to her following the first debate (unsolicited, mind you): "you know, I'm just not that sure about Bush anymore."  That doesn't mean that in the end she won't vote for him, of course, but if my aunt is now reasonably in the undecided column, Bush is so toast.  Even his base is losing confidence.  The best part: They live in Missouri, swing-state central and most reliable bellwether of the nation as a whole.

There are a few phrases regarding tonight's "town-hall" debate that have been repeated so many times here on dKos they have become CW (conventional wisdom).  Obviously, given the size of the dKos community, they are not universally believed, but there do seem to be a great number of people repeating these phrases over and over in open threads or debate-specific threads.  Some of these, to me, appear to be flat wrong, and here's why:

I just wanted to give my opinion on how the debates seemed from someone who only listened to them and didn't see any images, body language, etc.

I thought the Presidential debate was a Kerry slam-dunk from the very first question given to Bush.  The question was something about whether or not the country would be at greater risk of attack were Kerry to win (obviously inspired by Cheney's well-publicized comment).  There are a couple of ways he could have answered this either affirmatively or negatively that would have worked fine.  Instead, he immediately said "I don't think he's going to win.  I'm going to win."  Wow.  From that childish outburst on, he went from bad to worse.  Even without seeing any of the scowls or smirks, it was clear he was on the defensive, didn't know how to answer any of the questions, and was just completely outclassed.  Anyone who thinks he "won on substance" was under the influence of a substance.  Apparently the images only reaffirmed this impression.

In the VP debate, I thought Cheney scored a narrow win because of his Zen-like ability to lie through his teeth, while sounding calm, rational, intelligent and logical.  He has an incredible efficiency for lies.  With just 16 words, he can say 20 lies.  If only he had used his powers for good instead of evil.  This kept Edwards on the defensive at several points because there is simply no way to answer 2 minutes of lies in 90 seconds (or 90 in 30) and still make your own points.  I think here that the body language may have made more of a difference, as many people have commented on the contrast between their respective on-camera demeanors.  Without seeing that, Cheney came across as measured and calm, while Edwards seemed to be a bit off-balance and defensive.  Nonetheless, he never put Edwards away decisively, and if his lies are actually being called out in the media, that will hopefully negate somewhat the power they had during the debate.

Just my observations.  Agree or disagree as you please.

One thing I've seen mentioned here is that one of the many rules added to the the so-called town-hall debate (SCTHD) is that all of the questions have to be submitted in advance, and that the moderator is supposed to cut off the person if they deviate at all from their pre-written question.  What a joke!

How about this idea: Kerry's first response should work in a mention of this, and a request that he will accept any and all questions those attending would like to ask him, regardless of whether it was submitted beforehand.  He can then express his hope that the President will do the same, because the issues facing this country are too important to be constrained in any manner.

This will work because: 1) Kerry is smart enough to think on his feet in case a few zingers DO come his way; 2) Bush will be forced to respond!  What would he say?  If he grudgingly agreed, score 1 for Kerry for backing him into a corner and -10 for Bush when someone asks a real zinger.  If he refused, score -20 for Bush for again appearing petulant and whiny.  If he only scowled and stared and refused to respond, score 370+ electoral votes on November 2 for Kerry.

This afternoon, CNN International ran a short "fact-checking" segment that purported to correct some of the misstatements made during Thursday's debate.  In their quest for a mythical "balance" between the candidates, they mentioned two "misleading statements" for each, along with the correct information.  

How do you think they did?  Please check the extended comments for a description of CNN's commentary.

I hope all of you who engaged in debate-night drinking games are recuperating well from your hangovers this morning.

To any of you unfortunate enough to have had to drink on the phrase "mixed messages", we offer our condolences and prayers for a speedy recovery from your alcohol-poisoning induced coma.  Next time, sip, don't gulp!

Posted for entertainment value only, with apologies to the Daily Show, who had the original concept.

In Kerry's speech in Detroit yesterday, he brought out a new line of attack, calling the Bush Administration the "Excuse Presidency" for its refusal to take responsibility for the economic problems of the last 3.5 years, instead blaming everyone and everything else.

This line of attack is absolutely brilliant.  Why?  Because it has no defense.  The only possible ways to deny the charge are to either take responsibility for the problems (thus, admitting that there ARE problems) or to make yet another excuse, both of which play directly into the attack.  "Bush is STILL making excuses," etc.  It is a line perfect for the debates.  

Don't expect to see either of these two responses from the Bush Administration, however.  They will instead go to the third option, which is roughly: "9/11, 9/11, terror, flip-flopper, 9/11, terror, terror, orange alert, 9/11, flip-flopper, TAX CUT!"  In a debate setting, however, changing the subject like this will probably still look like just another excuse.

Whoever thought up that line, nicely done!  Now, repeat it as much as possible!