tamarinne

OK Cupid studied a huge subset of their members and came to some really interesting conclusions about Republicans, Democrats, and how Republicans cohere but Democrats don't (also some cool stuff on social/economic views by age, and some really cool graphs, and... oh, just go look at it:)

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/

Thanks for the link, melebeth !

"We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained."
-- Roland Burris, on Senate opposition to his appointment by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789468.pdf

You would have thought that one governor in jail at a time would be enough.  I take some small consolation from this:

"In a conversation with Harris on November 11, the charges state, Blagojevich said he knew
that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but “they’re not willing to give
me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.”

Hopefully it will continue to not implicate Obama.

Ugh.  How did we end up with the most corrupt politicians in the country?

ETA: More quotes from documents I haven't seen yet, in an article on Slate:

ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants ... are telling him that he has to "suck it up" for two years and do nothing and give this "motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him."

According to the indictment, "Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but 'they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.' " (Senate Candidate No. 1 seems to be Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama.) In another passage, Blagojevich fumes that if Obama doesn't show him some love, he'll appoint a person Obama doesn't want. Obama comes off as good as he could possibly have hoped for: He's behaving well even when you don't think anyone is watching.

A few days ago, Rick and I were pondering crowded polling places, early voting, and the effect of the latter on the former.  As we are wont to do, we were speculating wildly in the absence of any data.  Today at lunch, I decided to do some research. 

( Voter turnout math geekery )

For the first time in it's 161 year history, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president.

gobama!

melebeth showed this to me, and I had to share.  The woman who wrote this article says: "I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama.  However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries."   So she went into the congressional record to take a look at what both Obama and Clinton had accomplished during their time in Washington.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

I haven't yet done the exercise the author suggests of going and looking for myself, but I'd like to do that - and to include McCain in the analysis.

I came across this quiz which asks you to rate your feelings on 11 hot-button issues, and then tells you how the platforms of the various Democratic and Republican candidates correspond to your views.  A couple of caveats - we're talking platforms, not necessarily actual policy; and I have no knowledge of how their formula works or how they weight the positions of the candidates.   Still, it was an interesting exercise.  I came up tied between Clinton and Obama, which pretty well summarizes the decision I'm trying to make; and Giuliani was far and away the best match for me among the Republicans - which, again, sounds just about right.