Chilly

Just got back with my bottle of Captain Morgan's. Whenever Obama says "Bush", I'm taking a drink, and whenever McCain says "friend", I'm also taking a drink. If my posting is incoherent tonight, I apologize in advance.

Better kick Derrick Dockery off the team, then. Even still, Gresham is a Sooner, not a Longhorn, hence my comment...

Proof MCCain is erratic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX29aF1UjWY

I'm intentionally being difficult here. Think of it as payback for the Texas conversation. +1

Yeah, I agree that term limits would overall be a good thing, but you're asking career politicians to basically end their careers.

A bit obvious, no?

2.5/10

Feel free to prove me wrong. A fan of Judis and Teixeira?

You mean he's not going to win by going after states that aren't in play? I never thought of that before!

Naw, there were more than just a few people not sold on Bush. Completely agree with the rest of your post.

No way it'd get enforced for people running for re-election though, adding to the incumbency advantage.

So, just because a state has voted Republican in recent elections, means that they should get a 20+% advantage there? But, to humor you, lets take a look at some past election results. The number is advantage in percentage points the Republican candidate had over the Dem candidate: 2004 - 22.87 (Governor of State was running) 2000 - 21.32 (Governor of State was running) 1996 - 4.93 1992 - 3.48 1988 - 7.72 1984 - 27.5 1980 - 9.74 Yeah, that 15-20%+ is super realistic.

I think its a terrible idea. Forcing candidates to resign causes vacancies at huge posts, requiring costly special elections, and tipping the balance of power one way or the other temporarily (not the way people voted for it). In addition, you are punishing a district by removing their voice because their candidate has higher ambitions. And yes, on important issues, candidates such as McCain and Obama will still fly to DC to vote. Officeholders already spend a good 1/3rd to 1/2 of their time campaigning and fund-raising anyway.

I love irony.

Do you have any evidence that he *should* win that state by more than 10 points, other than the election results of a popular governor of the state? I have valid evidence (Party ID) that says he shouldn't. Well, you don't seem to get it.

Let me rephrase, then. Expecting McCain to come close to a Presidential Candidate who was a popular governor in his state, when the results weren't inline with general Party ID, is unrealistic.

Do you happen to know which state Bush was the governor of, by chance?

I'm so confused. What does this have to do with war, and even still, how does that apply to McCain who was called for the Surge?

Let's review the conversation: 1.) You said it shouldn't be "that close". 2.) I pointed out that the Republican lead is currently slightly higher than the Party ID advantage (and around historical Party ID averages). 3.) You again claim it shouldn't be "that close". What about part #2 didn't you understand?

That's not erratic behavior, that's called campaigning from behind in the midst of a crisis that's about to kill you.

Party ID in Texas isn't nearly that far off, it's been around a 10% difference between responders to the first part of the question. The gap becomes even more narrow when you take into account leaners to be about equal. How bout you go open a textbook instead? You might realize that realigning elections are based off of coalition groups, which haven't changed all that much this election.

HBD!

Don't know much about politics in Texas, eh?

I freaking LOVE the pick of Jermaine Gresham in the 3rd round. Given that I'm a Longhorn, that's saying something.

Oh yeah? Hows that?