home

More On Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Glenn Reynolds and PW, Jay Cost of RCP explains that pundits bloviate and voters decide:

I agree that Clinton is more likely to lose than win. I also do not necessarily disagree with these low estimates. However, I disagree with the way these estimates are occasionally presented. There is sometimes an implication that these are precise predictions - when in fact a prediction like this must be very imprecise. This is why I was so vague in offering my own estimate last week.

There are reasons to expect imprecision in this kind of situation. Precision depends in part on the number of variable factors that create that which we are predicting. The more things that must happen for the prediction to come true, the less precise it is. . . . We can make a prediction of what will happen, and we should predict that Obama is more likely to win than Clinton. However, there are so many factors that will go into who wins the nomination that speaking more precisely than this becomes quite problematic.

Exactly.

< Gene Lyons On The Democrats' MI/FL Problem | Move On's False Petition >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More On Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The real problem with these estimates (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    is that HRC now has to be not just ahead on some metric or metrics - she has to be far enough ahead to quell the Obama supporters' insistence that he's already won and that she's stealing the election.  It's hard for me to imagine how she can pass that threshold unless a live boy etc situation is reported - she would have to be ahead on all metrics even with FL and MI disenfranchised.

    No one can win without the superdelegates. (none / 0) (#37)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    Pledged delegates only matter if you get to the magic number. Otherwise, it's up to the superdelegates. There is no "stealing" involved.

    I don't understand why so few people seem to be willing to admit or accept this.

    Parent

    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#41)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    The party is more important than the candidates, and the presumption that Obama has won isn't dismissible by referring to any arguable metric.   50.5% won't cut it.  We have to be able to look back in eight years and not want to kill our fellow Dems, and lacking a totally clear victor the estoppel has taken root.  (Hope I used the word of the day right.)

    Parent
    How about this metric? (none / 0) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    HRC has more Democratic voters. Shouldn't that count for something?

    We also need to deal with Florida and Michigan in some way that doesn't discount their delegates.

    Mainly, I think that all the voters should vote before we decide. Obama may well be the nominee, but I don't see any reason to end it now.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#66)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM EST
    How about Big Tent stops deleting (censoring) my comments?

    Also, the more protracted this battle is, the bloodier the nominee is in November.  Clintonites continually say Obama is fighting back because he's afraid of losing the race, but in reality he's fighting back to end this.  The math is clearly in Obama's favor right now, but somehow we should just ignore this because basically "anything is possible, ya never know".  Well, if Clintonites want to wager Clinton's hopes for the democratic nomination vs the hopes of a dem being in office come 09, then more power to them.

    Parent

    Unresponsive to reality (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    "The math is clearly in Obama's favor right now"

    Duh.  But you're making a straw argument with "pretending".

    And your "in reality" is just a random opinion - that and backing it with some data or logical argument will get your post not banned.

    And since Obama's lead exists in large part as a result of the disenfranchisement of two pretty critical states, really it's Obama wagering Nov for Aug.

    Parent

    Deliberately ignoring the point. (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:44:28 PM EST
    Obama hasn't won and can't win without the superdelegates.

    Just like Hillary.

    I'm out. Thanks for welcoming a newbie! I enjoyed the discussion.

    Parent

    Stop calling (none / 0) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    people Clintonites and you might avoid getting deleted.

    Parent
    If super-delegates wanted to end this (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:33:29 PM EST
    they would, and they could -- by all committing right now.

    You ought to think about why they don't -- and they won't.  Too many unknown unknowns with your candidate, including his delegate count.  It's the downside of the caucus exploitation strategy.

    The caucus states must keep recaucusing, starting over at every stage, from now until June.  None of those local delegates is bound and can flip any time at the county and state levels, until the national delegates in those states finally are selected.

    With the revelations of recent weeks about your candidate, a lot could change.  That campaign said that a massive number of super-delegates was going to declare for him a couple of weeks ago . . . but then the revelations began, and that became only a "rumor" . . . and the super-d commitments slowed to a trickle ever since.

    They could end it now, but they don't, and they won't, because your candidate has issues still unresolved and perhaps still unknown.  It's not because of Clinton.  It's because of Obama that this race continues.  (And that's in addition to his inability to close it up three times now.)

    Parent

    That's not entirely true (none / 0) (#70)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    Another thing people seem to miss is that "the superdelgates" are not some monolithic block.  They are a bunch of individuals.  The elected delegates matter a lot even without the magic number because the more of them a candidate has the fewer superdelegates they need.  As things stand now Hillary needs a lot more of the superdelegates to win the nomination than Obama does.  That is a huge advantage for him that Clinton supporters seem to ignore in talking about the superdelegates deciding the nominee.  Clinton could "win" the majority of the superdelegates and still lose the nomination.

    Parent
    This Thread is Already (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    Too contentious at this point.

    Good riddance to this thread (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    Also:

    This primary bites.

    I hate it.  I hope I don't end up hating both candidates, and the whole blogosphere, and a bunch of my fellow citizens.

    The quantum mechanics of this race!! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    In the formalism of quantum mechanics, the state of a system (race) at a given time is described by lots of complex known and unknown function, and more generally, elements of a complex vector space. This abstract mathematical object allows for the calculation of probabilities of outcomes but never an exact outcome.

    And of course (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    an important quantity in quantum mechanics is spin.

    Parent
    Feynman formulation provides a different view (none / 0) (#46)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:18:31 PM EST
    e.g. - but umm I don't think this is too topical.

    Parent
    Theory of uncertainty (none / 0) (#53)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    In layman's term.. you cannot tell the state of a particle with certainty.. at a given time you can either tell the position or the momentum.. but not both!!!
    As soon as you tell the position, its momentum changes, and if you tell the momentum its position changes.. how true !!

    Parent
    so many factors to consider (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:16:20 PM EST
    but the hurry up and quit crowd of Obama supporters want to bag this thing.

    The longer it  lingers the longer we get to look at him that his pedigree isn't presidential.

    I think it is worth repeating, being ahead doesn't make you a winner until the end of the game.

    OBAMA  is not there yet.

    Heh. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    If Obama is so certain of being the nominee, why are he and his supporters pushing so hard for Hillary to quit?

    Let the people have their say!

    indeed. (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:33:45 PM EST


    Parent
    see my reply # 76 (none / 0) (#98)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:22:01 PM EST
    I believe Obamamama's comment was deleted before,
    but it's baaaaak!

    Parent
    How long this lasts isn't the issue (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by barryluda on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    To me, the real issue comes when it is decided whether it's Clinton or Obama who becomes "our" nominee.  If it's still "us" after that then we'll be OK, whether that happens now, right after PA, in the 11th hour, or after a few days of hard fought -- but fair, and by the rules -- haggling for the delegates.

    So, predicting where this will end might help some delegates decide what to do, which is fine.  And I guess it's fun.  But beyond that doesn't really matter.

    In any event, we should all shut up about whether one or the other should drop out (that includes me).  They should drop out or not whenever they want.  We should play by the rules, and not make them up as we go along (even if the rules suck, now's not the time to change them).

    We should also do whatever we can to remain civil and keep our eye on the end goal, which remains preventing a continuation of the disgraceful policies of this administration.  It's very disheartening to see polls showing Clinton and Obama supporters who would prefer to see McCain than the "enemy" democrat in the White House.  I'm hopeful that's just a passing feeling that goes away after we choose "our" nominee.

    What nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    It was one unnamed and unsouced adviser, now it's advisers.
    And I am a Clinton supporter, and I'm not part of some conspiracy who wants to see Obama destroyed.
    You are talking nonsense.

    Misspellings due to outrage (none / 0) (#78)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:50:39 PM EST
    Obamamama, you owe us all an apology, IMHO.

    Parent
    Well, let me just (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    say that I was pretty excited to see what Jay Cost has done -- namely provide a spreadsheet to do all the "what if" calculations one could ever want for the upcoming elections.

    It really does prove VERY useful to have this spreadsheet available, with all the relevant info he provides alongside.

    It's actually interesting to see in detail just how much the ultimate outcome depends on so many genuinely unknown variables.

    It is well done (none / 0) (#95)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:39:14 PM EST

    The effort he put into it is amazing :)

    But in almost every scenario, it still comes down to super-Deez,

    ie who has the numbers inside the Party heirarchy.

    In theory, and by the Rules, the Super-Deez, like everyone else, have the right to a free vote on their own personal judgement.

    Nobody else is forced to vote a certain way.
    Whether caucus, closed or open, participants had a right to vote for the candidate they preferred.

    But not the Party officials, they aren't allowed to.

    What is the problem with letting the Super-Deez have the same right to vote for a candidate as they choose?  

    I don't understand why they should be pressured to vote according to the math? (And skewed, well-known biased math at that, with no resolution about relative importance of which specific metrics to include/exclude or weight etc)

    So, why don't we just change the rules to say "Super-Deez aren't allowed a free vote at all, they must vote according to the math"

    (once we first agree on which math we think is the right one)

    And if it will come down to who has the numbers inside the Party heirarchy, and they just spin whatever math after the event to justify it, to make it "appear" legitimate etc. well.. then they may as well come out and do that now, or straight after the next round in April. Just start trickling super-Deez to come out publicly over the next few weeks, and end it.

    But some of the opinion polls, are indicating a majority want them both to keep going to the end, which forces continued negative and bitter campaigning etc.  So the Super-Deez may feel forced to wait till the end, then play mind-games with the math to justify what they wanted to do all along.

    Heaven help any Super-D who chooses to vote their free choice, like millions of other voters did, and ignores the math <grin>

    Parent

    And precisely. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST


    And he hit the nail on the head. (none / 0) (#60)
    by AF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Jay Cost is smart (none / 0) (#2)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    No doubt about it. Probably the overall best data analyst I've seen this cycle. Though his analysis of Obama's speech was pretty bad.

    His data analysis is always good though.

    His speech analysis (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    This is the first time I've come close to seeing my view expressed by someone who gets paid to express their views, and I will be reading a lot more Cost going forward.

    It is therefore reasonable to ask what he did - empowered as he was as a high-profile, long-standing parishioner - to change the viewpoint of Wright and Trinity, and whether those efforts were successful.

    What was missing, as I've pointed out several times is Obama -- he addressed us to let us know that he knows what Wright said was wrong and divisive, he also addressed us to let us know that we are wrong to focus on what Wright said -- what he has not done is turn around and address the community of which he says he belongs.

    There is a paragraph in MLK's "I have a dream" speech that begins:

    But there is something that I must say to my people,

    This is the paragraph that does not exist in Obama's speech, and Cost is right to bring it up.

    Parent

    The problem with Cost's analysis of Wright (none / 0) (#38)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    Is that it's based, like most analysis on Wright, of unproven assuptions. I've not seen a single comprehensive discussion of Wright on either side of the issue (in the MSM anyway) that is well supported.

    It was very strange to see a DATA analyst, analyse a speech based on a series of assumptions that were unsupported by any evidence.

    In any case I'll leave it at that. He's a very smart analyst when he sticks to analysing data and not opinions.

    Parent

    I admit (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    He sees the speech as a data analyst would, as a series of components, and it would seem trite to apply a race speech matrix to Obama's big speech.

    Parent
    Imprecise from a stats pov (none / 0) (#8)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    "The more things that must happen for the prediction to come true, the less precise it is."

    Pedantic, but: if one knows the individual uncertainties sufficiently well, it doesn't matter if there are many.  It's also important to note that uncertainties do not add linearly - they typically add in quadrature (sqrt(a*2 + b*2)) so any single big uncertainty dominates.

    Depends (none / 0) (#40)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:10:59 PM EST
    You could view it as the joint probability of a series of independent events - for example, the probability of calling a coin toss correctly 4 times in a row - which is the product of the probability of each individual event. In that case, the more predicitions, the likely you'll be right.

    The language isn't exactly mathematically precise.


    Parent

    um - "the LESS likely you'll be right" (none / 0) (#42)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:13:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Drunkard's walk (none / 0) (#49)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    More likely you'll get to the expected ratio...  Or, adding lots of uncertainties gets you a certain Gaussian.  Then one can worry about adding anti-correlated uncertainties.

    But as I say above, it's the significant delta in 50+delta% that Clinton needs which makes these estimates esp. bad (given the MI/FL disenfranchisement).

    Parent

    Address the substance (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    No more ad hom attacks, from me or you.

    I have cleaned yup this thread.

    Harley is suspended for the day. He can not comment any more today at this site.

    Pundits today (none / 0) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    here we go... Dodd is calling for the superdeez to make a decision once PN, NC and IN have voted.

    Here's MSNBC again...  The Repubs are strong in FL, Obama won't win there, so they need to resolve MI. (???)   Clinton is looking in to the camera and saying 'I'm going to wreck the party'... 'what do you do with someone like that?'

    Now I'm mad so I am going to go work on my Clinton supporting bona fides and go have a beer.

    Is That the Same Dodd (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:43:06 PM EST
    who said Obama was a better choice than Hillary because of her Iraq war vote, which was the same as his Iraq war vote?  Which beg the questions of why he ran against someone who he believed was a better choice (since his rationale for choosing Obama over Clinton would also lead one to choose Obama over Dodd) and since he knew he was less qualified than Obama to be president, when will he be returning all those campaign contributions?

    Parent
    Did Dodd Apologize (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:52:35 PM EST
    Did he ever say "I apologize for voting for the war."?

    Did he believe he was voting for a war.

    I'll have to check his floor statement.


    Parent

    From Dodd (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    "...I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it's very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can't be the nominee of the party. I think that's a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are. But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion. And in the absence of doing that -- and that's not easy and I realize it's painful -- but the alternative, allowing this sort of to fester over the months of June, and July and August, I think are irresponsible.  (Bolded part to address BTD's stance on Pelosi's non-neutrality)

    Parent
    That Does Not (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:36:56 PM EST
    Support the fact that Pelosi has pretended to be neutral in a very obviously dishonest way. Dodd has the luxury to campaign while Pelosi does not.

    Parent
    I think this is the kind of statement that (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:58:40 PM EST
    ends up really getting on the nerves of voters who do not agree that there is a conclusion that is foregone.

    It would have been fine for him to say that at the conclusion of all the primaries, the party "leadership" (in quotes because I think they really have not earned the right to be called "leaders") should assess the situation and make their individual decisions, as superdelegates are supposed to do, and see if there is a consensus on a nominee.  To turn this into some kind of superdelegate caucus would be a huge mistake.  Huge.

    Speaking as just an ordinary citizen who would like to have the strongest nominee possible going up against McCain, I really do not have a problem allowing the process to play out.  We've seen what a bored media can do in the lull between primaries, seen the kinds of things that bubble to the surface, and had an opportunity to see how the candidates handle adversity.  In my opinion, the rounds go to Clinton because she is going up against the other candidate and nearly the entirety of the media and still, her numbers are good - I think there's a reason why he cannot kill her off, and it isn't that she's a monster.

    I cannot see the wisdom in giving in to someone else's foregone conclusion before the primaries have concluded.  And given then Obama looks - to me, anyway - less and less substantive a candidate, one person's "festering" is another's "testing."  I would prefer for Obama to be found wanting before he is crowned the nominee than on election day in November - but that's just me.

    Parent

    So by one measure... (none / 0) (#54)
    by PaulDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    the popular vote, which while interesting is hardly persuasive for choosing the nominee because of the huge differences in votes between primary and caucus states.  

    The fact remains that in terms of pledged delegates there is almost no way that Clinton will overtake Obama.  

    If you want to use the popular vote totals - including the totals of the non-sanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan - as an argument for the superdelegates to nullify the outcome of pledged delegate contest and throw the nomination to Clinton - that of course is the Clinton campaign's prerogative.  

    Of course the turmoil that would cause - even if that gambit were unsuccessful could in itself be severe since we wouldn't have a nominee until August.  Were she successful it could rend the Democratic party in two for a generation and that the fact that possibility doesn't seem to bother people is horrifying.

    Obama has gotten undue support because of the (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    caucuses, when it's obvious he would have done worse in primaries. So you want superdelegates to take this into account by weighting primaries more? Have I got that right?

    Parent
    "Rend the party in two" (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    That seems rather extreme to me.

    Parent
    Especially since 62% of Americans... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    want the candidates to keep going.

    Parent
    Again... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:36:49 PM EST
    the metric is not pledged delegates any more. It's the superdelegates. They are there to choose a nominee when the peoples' will is unclear.

    Since it is a very close race, all the people should be heard, then the superdelegates should make their decision.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:39:28 PM EST
    If Obama suffers a McGovern-like defeat in November, that will also be very damaging for the long-term prospects of the party.

    If Obama wins the nomination by instructing his delegates to vote in lockstep to exclude two pro-Clinton states, that will also be very damaging for the long-term prospects of the party.

    Amazing how people think the only scenario that could hurt the party is where the superdelegates don't vote according to the Obama campaign's notion of how they should vote.  But literally any scenario where Obama emerges as the nominee will be life-affirming and great for the future of the Democratic Party.  It's silly.

    Parent

    frankly, the democratic party (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:38:09 PM EST
    has for a long time now been the infected appendix of the american political system.  it's useless and able to do more harm than good to the body politic.  tear it up and let it go.


    Parent
    And The GOP? (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST
    Since you will be voting for McCain, your comments are starting to make sense.

    Not exactly sure though how you could have supported Clinton, a typical mainstream Dem, considering you liken her to festering pus.

    Parent

    not Clinton (none / 0) (#93)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:32:18 PM EST
    but the party itself is a ridiculous mess.  this is not the first time i've felt that way and it's why i am not a democrat.  fwiw, i do not vote for party. i vote for what i consider to be the best person. to do otherwise puts party above country.

    my choices have been for some time, Clinton followed by McCain, trailed by Obama.  however, as i learn more about Obama, my third choice now is nobody.


    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    I guess that I am ignorant, or have a different perspective, because WJC, HRC, BHO all seem emblematic of the party to me. If anything my problem is that they are all right of center, given that the center itself has moved to the right.

    Parent
    Obama: (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it's like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright," Sen. Barack Obama told a group of fundraisers in New York on Thursday, according to a pool report.



    that did it... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:58:42 PM EST
    I now believe.  

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    If it's not a baton, it's a Bataan.

    Parent
    No doubt, it is that bright light shining (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:09:15 PM EST
    down upon the heads of the masses, making it easier to see their checkbooks...

    This man is a giant ego in great danger of learning how far and how hard he can fall, and what is so unfortunate is that the pain from that is going to affect everyone.

    Parent

    Is he trying to antagonize veterans? (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    ::grins::

    Parent
    In ear, similar to: my parents (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:16:55 PM EST
    met and fell in love due to Selma march.  He taught con law, not history.

    Parent
    Is this topical? (none / 0) (#89)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    Is this?

    "I want to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his extraordinary leadership. At a time when Washington is divided in old ideological battles, he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. Not only has he been a remarkable leader for New York -he has established himself as a major voice in our national debate on issues like renewing our economy, educating our children, and seeking energy independence. Mr. Mayor, I share your determination to bring this country together to finally make progress for the American people."

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    It was off topic.

    No more off topic please.

    Parent

    More On Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment