<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Edwards Endorsement</title>
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/</link>
	<description>Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Bonnie</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537573</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 19:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537573</guid>
					<description>How about Elizabeth Edwards as Secretary of Health and Human Services in an Obama administration?  I like the idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>How about Elizabeth Edwards as Secretary of Health and Human Services in an Obama administration?  I like the idea.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: LongHairedWeirdo</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537571</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 18:08:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537571</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;This is just one poll, but it suggests that Clinton’s “advantage” among white working class voters is a mirage. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

The key thing is, her advantage is among white working class folks *who are voting in the Democratic primary deciding between two Democrats*. Plus, her better polling in the primary just means that, if they're choosing between her and Obama, and have chosen/are eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, they prefer her. 

It's partially self selection, partially a non-random sample, and it's partially the wrong statistic. I mean, all of them are choosing to vote in the Democratic primary (self selection), some don't have a choice which primary to vote in (non-random sampling). And, the measure we want is &quot;will win more votes (from this demographic) when John McCain is the other choice&quot;, not &quot;who wins when (Clinton or Obama) is the other choice.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>This is just one poll, but it suggests that Clinton’s “advantage” among white working class voters is a mirage. </p></blockquote>
	<p>The key thing is, her advantage is among white working class folks *who are voting in the Democratic primary deciding between two Democrats*. Plus, her better polling in the primary just means that, if they&#8217;re choosing between her and Obama, and have chosen/are eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, they prefer her. </p>
	<p>It&#8217;s partially self selection, partially a non-random sample, and it&#8217;s partially the wrong statistic. I mean, all of them are choosing to vote in the Democratic primary (self selection), some don&#8217;t have a choice which primary to vote in (non-random sampling). And, the measure we want is &#8220;will win more votes (from this demographic) when John McCain is the other choice&#8221;, not &#8220;who wins when (Clinton or Obama) is the other choice.&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: uncledad</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537570</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 16:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537570</guid>
					<description>unrelated but if any of you have not not seen this it is priceless. seems youtube keps taking it down but it is back up now, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVDuNfdsPXE</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>unrelated but if any of you have not not seen this it is priceless. seems youtube keps taking it down but it is back up now, enjoy:</p>
	<p><a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVDuNfdsPXE' rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVDuNfdsPXE</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: felicity</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537568</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 15:43:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537568</guid>
					<description>&quot;That they are suddenly so essential now seems a tad irrational.&quot;  It's Hillary who is a tad irrational,  In tandem with her tad irrational husband, the couple together are flat-out bonkers. It's time for the consumate narcissist and his nurse Ratchet  to be put out to pasture.  Their 'racing' days are not-so-sadly over.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;That they are suddenly so essential now seems a tad irrational.&#8221;  It&#8217;s Hillary who is a tad irrational,  In tandem with her tad irrational husband, the couple together are flat-out bonkers. It&#8217;s time for the consumate narcissist and his nurse Ratchet  to be put out to pasture.  Their &#8216;racing&#8217; days are not-so-sadly over.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Sophie in VA</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537565</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 13:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537565</guid>
					<description>It's ironic:  Bill and Al's anthem was Fleetwood Mac's &quot;Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.&quot;  While the latest incarnation of Team Clinton motors around singing &quot;Don't Stop Thinking About --  Yesterday.&quot;  How sweet it was . . . . 

This current cycle is turning into a choice between &quot;mourning in America&quot; for the lost glories of the past, versus picturing ourselves in a greatly altered world (due, in no small part, to our own behaviors) and figuring out how to just deal with it.  Our politics swim in a vast flotsam of 3rd-world imports, crumbling infrastructure, militarism, and memories of cheap energy -- that most of our leaders simply refer to as &quot;our American way of life&quot; that &quot;we will fight to defend.&quot;  

And nobody who actually thinks that way is going to be voting for a &quot;change&quot; candidate.  No matter who their running mate is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>It&#8217;s ironic:  Bill and Al&#8217;s anthem was Fleetwood Mac&#8217;s &#8220;Don&#8217;t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.&#8221;  While the latest incarnation of Team Clinton motors around singing &#8220;Don&#8217;t Stop Thinking About &#8212;  Yesterday.&#8221;  How sweet it was . . . . </p>
	<p>This current cycle is turning into a choice between &#8220;mourning in America&#8221; for the lost glories of the past, versus picturing ourselves in a greatly altered world (due, in no small part, to our own behaviors) and figuring out how to just deal with it.  Our politics swim in a vast flotsam of 3rd-world imports, crumbling infrastructure, militarism, and memories of cheap energy &#8212; that most of our leaders simply refer to as &#8220;our American way of life&#8221; that &#8220;we will fight to defend.&#8221;  </p>
	<p>And nobody who actually thinks that way is going to be voting for a &#8220;change&#8221; candidate.  No matter who their running mate is.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Doug Hughes</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537564</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 11:49:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537564</guid>
					<description>Assume for the sake of argument that Clinton OR Obama can beat McCain. The question becomes who would best bring about the kind of change we want in the next 4 years. That's the significant question - not who can beat McCain - but who will change the country for the better. 

I agree with Obama; Clinton or McCain are more of the same, with a different brand on their ass (or elephant). I can't promise anyone that Obam WILL be better, but I prefer to give him a chance than to continue the way we are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Assume for the sake of argument that Clinton OR Obama can beat McCain. The question becomes who would best bring about the kind of change we want in the next 4 years. That&#8217;s the significant question - not who can beat McCain - but who will change the country for the better. </p>
	<p>I agree with Obama; Clinton or McCain are more of the same, with a different brand on their ass (or elephant). I can&#8217;t promise anyone that Obam WILL be better, but I prefer to give him a chance than to continue the way we are.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537562</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 07:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537562</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;Four ABC News Reporters Collaborate To &amp;#8220;Report&amp;#8221; The &amp;#8220;Shocking News&amp;#8221; Of John Edwards&amp;#8217; Endorsement Of Barack Obama&lt;/strong&gt;

Question: WHY Does It Take FOUR Mainstream Media (&amp;#8221;MSM&amp;#8221;) Reporters To Announce A &amp;#8220;Has-Been&amp;#8217;s&amp;#8221; Endorsement Of A Presidential Hopeful?
The headline tonight at ABC News&amp;#8216; &amp;#8220;Political Radar&amp;#8221; SCREAMS: &amp;#8220;Edw...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><strong>Four ABC News Reporters Collaborate To &#8220;Report&#8221; The &#8220;Shocking News&#8221; Of John Edwards&#8217; Endorsement Of Barack Obama</strong></p>
	<p>Question: WHY Does It Take FOUR Mainstream Media (&#8221;MSM&#8221;) Reporters To Announce A &#8220;Has-Been&#8217;s&#8221; Endorsement Of A Presidential Hopeful?<br />
The headline tonight at ABC News&#8216; &#8220;Political Radar&#8221; SCREAMS: &#8220;Edw&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Pug</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537556</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 02:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537556</guid>
					<description>Why has this Quinipiac poll been such a highly guarded secret.  I've been arguing for months that the so-called Reagan Democrats don't vote for Democrats, even white ones like Hillary.  That's why they're called Reagan Democrats, duh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Why has this Quinipiac poll been such a highly guarded secret.  I&#8217;ve been arguing for months that the so-called Reagan Democrats don&#8217;t vote for Democrats, even white ones like Hillary.  That&#8217;s why they&#8217;re called Reagan Democrats, duh.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: jamie</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537555</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 01:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2008/05/14/the-edwards-endorsement/#comment-537555</guid>
					<description>The interesting number there is the McCain unfavorable. There would seem to be a lot of work to do on a very easy target</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The interesting number there is the McCain unfavorable. There would seem to be a lot of work to do on a very easy target
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
