After all the good polls for Ohio, Rasmussen helps snap us back into reality.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

Read recently that Florida governor Crist has said that if the Democratic Party wants to hold another delegate selection event (I think caucus this time??) for the 2008 Democratic National Convention that he would support it.

As we all know, currently all of Florida and Michigan's delegates have been stripped from attending the national convention in Denver because the two state's contests were moved forward without permission from the National Party.

Would this be the best solution to the issue - hold revotes in both states sometime this spring so that fully accredited delegates from both states can attend?

The American Health Care system is in crisis, no one on here will deny that premise.

The root of the problem is that the demand for health care services outstrips the supply of health care providers.

In our current market-based system, the result of this gap between supply and demand is the rationing of services based on ability to pay the market price for such services. Millions of Americans no longer can afford that price, creating the crisis we are in today.

Yet if we look at nations that provide Universal Health Care to their citizens, there remains a crucial problem of the state health services being able to supply the demand that exists for such services. The problem of supply and demand still exists, but rather than ration access based on ability to pay, it is rationed on a more equitable first-come first-serve basis. The lack of suppliers of services, however, does mean that delays in service are not uncommon and, on occasion, can prove fatal to those who must wait their turn in queue.

But is there another way to approach this issue? If the problem is supply, would not the best solution be to increase the supply of providers of health care to meet the demand, not simply change the method of access to health care?

I think there is.

Looking at the vote data coming in from Florida, HRC is floating between 48 and 51% of the vote.

This raises I think an interesting question.

I posted a diary a couple months ago about a poll I was running at the off topic forum of a gaming website for a company that specializes in Historical Strategy/War Computer games.

In general, the forum is something around 95% male, mostly between 18 and 34. Most would come from middle to upper-middle income families, and among the Americans, probably 90% of European descent. Basically, these are the younger end of the stereotypical suburban voter.

Well the poll has closed and the results are in.

And they are more than a bit interesting.

So I'm reading the NYT article on Huckabee posted on the front page. And while the emphasis on his characterization of Mormonism is the focus of attention, there was an absolute pearl of information on p.8 of the article for whoever the Democratic nominee is to beat him over the head in the campaign.

So Reed and Pelosi have announced that unless Bush accepts a timeline for troop withdrawl, the Congress will not fund the $50 Billion request.

Has anyone been thinking about what we should be doing to prepare for a complete shutdown of all government in the event neither Pelosi-Reed nor Bush can find a way to get a bill that both sides will support?

If the standoff drags on, and the result is a government shutdown as happened at the end of 1995, what do we need to have prepared to ensure that the public supports the Congressional Leadership rather than the President in the inevitable "blame game" over who is causing the deadlock.

So the House Foreign Relations committee has passed a resolution labelling the atrocities committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia between 1915 and 1921 as genocide. The vote split party lines, and has pissed the Turks off.

Everyone sees the Turks as the evil ogre, and the Armenians as the innocent lamb.

Unfortunately, no one has explained why the Ottoman government launched the forced evacuation of the Armenians from the Eastern Anatolian front in 1915. And perhaps if there was more an awareness for why that decision was made, there might be some understanding of why the Turks feel they are being treated more than unfairly in this debate.

I'm a moderator for an OT forum for a gaming website that specializes in strategy/war games. I decided to run a poll to see where the American members were leaning in terms of their initial thoughts regarding voting in 2008.

In general, the forum is something around 95% male, mostly between 18 and 34. Most would come from middle to upper-middle income families, and among the Americans, probably 90% of European descent. Basically, these are the younger end of the stereotypical suburban voter.

Now this is not a scientific poll. It is anonymous, but it does not have a huge number of replies.

The results are interesting, to say the least

As seen on the front page, Senator Reid has said the Democratic leadership in the Senate will "Never Give In" on the question of tying funding for military operations in Iraq to a timetable for withdrawl.

The lines are drawn.

To end debate in the Senate and vote to pass a bill requires 60 votes (currently, I believe this could be changed by a majority vote, much as the Republicans threatened to do with their "nuclear option").

If President Bush vetoes, it requires 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House of Representatives to override the veto. This means approximately 17 Republican senators (assume Lieberman will not support a veto override) and approximately 60 Republican Representatives (and that is if no Democratic Representatives vote no on overriding the veto).

If the veto can not be overridden, either a compromise of some sort must be reached, or the result is deadlock.

But does Bush really have to worry about stalemate and no spending authorization passing to continue funding operations in Iraq? Does deadlock over the appropriations bill mean troops will have to withdrawn from Iraq because of lack of resources?

Quite likely, no.

The decision by the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to 4.75% to pump liquidity into the credit markets may have a serious blowback effect as the US$ continues an accelerating decline in value.

And the Saudi government has announced it will not lower its interest rates to match the US decline, which in effect means it may be ending a decades-long policy of pegging the value of the Saudi Riyal to the US Dollar. and in turn could lead the Saudis and other holders of US-denominated securites to start selling their holdings to ensure higher returns on investment in other areas, such as the Eurozone.

Today over 85% of registered voters in Turkey went to the polls to elect a new Parliament. These were early elections, called because of the dispute between the ruling moderate Islamic AK Party and the opposition over electing a new Turkish President. The AK Party candidate was blocked by a combination of politicians and military leaders who fear an AK Party President would threaten Turkey's secularist institutions.

The Polls have closed, the voters have spoken. And the results....

For those who may not follow the news outside our current quicksand adventure in Iraq, there is a growing dispute between Estonia and Russia that is beginning to grow out of control. And as Estonia is a member of NATO, should something truly serious happen, all our attention might just get drawn away from the sands of Baghdad to the marshes of Narva.

there has been some talk on here about how with the House now in Dems hands, the move towards launching an impeachment of Bush should be considered.

I am not going to say that impeachment should be taken off the table of options. The launching of an impeachment trial is always a prerogative of Congress.

However, there should be some very sober calculations undertaken by the Dem leadership before committing to any impeachment option. The last thing we as progressive Dems are going to want is a situation where Bush can paint himself as a martyr for the Republican party.

I really am starting to think that the exit poll data ban should be strengthened further. While the national media may not be reporting these "unconfirmed" numbers on individual state races, I think having them circulate just around the internet is bad - expecially for those races that still have several hours to go. Why should there be a warning sign halfway through the races for Republicans to try to get the last gasp of GOTV knowing they might be down about 2

I've watched Lou Dobbs on CNN on occasion, and I just saw him give a speech on C-Span2's Book TV (to be repeated 9AM Sunday for those interested). Is he someone that should be considered a potential ally to reversing the absolute mess that this administration has led us to?

This is an update on the poll I'm running on a gaming website.  I am a moderator for a Off Topic forum for a strategy computer game game producer. Probably around 30% of the posters on the forum are Americans, so I decided to run a little poll to see what their voting plans are for this election cycle. Now this is an unscientific poll to be sure, but given the demographics (almost all male, most suburban, most of European-descent, most heterosexual, and a large subgroup of whom are "libertarian" in their political views) the results gained so far are quite interesting, and to my mind unexpected - especially as a similar poll I ran in 2004 saw the result a 2:1 preference for Republicans over Democrats among respondents

I am a moderator for a Off Topic forum for a strategy computer game game producer. Probably around 30% of the posters on the forum are Americans, so I decided to run a little poll to see what their voting plans are for this election cycle. Now this is an unscientific poll to be sure, but given the demographics (almost all male, most suburban, most of European-descent, most heterosexual, and a large subgroup of whom are "libertarian" in their political views) the results gained so far are quite interesting, and to my mind unexpected - especially as a similar poll I ran in 2004 saw the result a 2:1 preference for Republicans over Democrats among respondents.