Apologies for the short diary, but it's a pretty good sign when our candidate is up by five in a state that went to Bush by 20 and 25 percent in 2000 and 2004 respectively.

I know it's just three electoral votes, but I think it's a sign of the shifting electoral map, both in terms of geography and demographics.  Obama won the under thirty vote by 27 points.  I know that it is common to have some degree of increased conservatism as people grow older, but it sure seems like a bad sign for republicans long term.  Unless they actually become the party of small government and stop scapegoating minority groups like gays, atheists, etc (both things we democrats should hope for, even if it dilutes our majority), I don't see how they'll stay viable into the coming decades.  That may be a slightly extreme extrapolation from the results of a single poll in early July, but the poll shows a 30 point swing from the last election.

Hooray, but perhaps more importantly, check out the cross tabs.  I think these results really call into question yesterday's results showing Obama up only 1% Minnesota.

Wisconsin: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=42f97d63-cc9e-473b-86bc-11f7fc 09d3ae

Minnesota (yesterday):
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=b9f93545-a19e-4e8d-909c-59b605 0c0d5e

Pay close attention to the preference among voters between the ages of 18 and 34; they go for Obama by 20%.  Compare this to the Minnesota poll released yesterday that had the same age group in Minnesota split between the two candidates 48%-48%.

Now obviously we can't say for certain which poll is more correct, but given the numbers out of Wisconsin (and the state's proximity to Minnesota geographically and culturally) and the prevailing preference nationally for Obama among younger voters, I'd second StudentGuy's assessment of yesterday's Minnesota poll as being one of the more blatant outliers.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118 e05b74

I think it's interesting to look at the polls involving Liebermann as McCain's running mate.  The Huckabee/McCain duo outperforms the Liebermann/McCain duo in every match-up.  I'm just surprised more dems don't buy into the idea that Liebermann is anything but a republican, but shrug yay for shrewd voters :)

Because some people forget what we're fighting for, I guess I have to copy/paste the damn "Learn about NARAL" from their website (beneath the fold).  Link to their easily found website:

GO TO THE WEBSITE AND DONATE:
http://www.naral.org/

Just out of curiousity, how many of you just lost your ability to rec diaries and rate comments?  I'm really curious whether this was some sort of reaction against Obama supporters (prompted, perhaps, by the presence of something like 4 pro-Obama/unity diaries this past weekend).

I'm not trying to start any conspiracy theories, but I would be pretty turned off if that's the way Jerome and company want to run this site.  Does it really matter?  Not really, I suppose, but I would lose a lot of respect for the proprietors of the site.

You could really clear this up for me by explaining that it was a technical difficulty or even what it is that I and so many others recently did wrong, Jerome, Todd, or Jonathan.  And if this is some childish way of disempowering Obama supporters or trying to get us to leave, fine, message received loud and clear.  Good luck staying relevant if you stifle people who don't agree with you.

That was kind of an alarmist title, and I don't have any kind of answer, but I'm really curious what other people think?  Don't you think some diarists just turn out so much content that's almost comically illogical in its support of one democratic candidate over the other?  And they seem constantly to be online.

Completely aside from the absolutely massive amount of content, both in terms of diaries and comments, I have a hard time understanding how could someone prefer one of these candidates to the absolute and complete exclusion to the other if they're interested in politics?  They're so similar in so many ways.

Anyway, maybe I'm just sleep deprived and/or paranoid, but I was curious if people knew whether this sort of thing has financial backing somehow.

I'm sure everyone knows this, but somehow I keep seeing people talk about how terrible Hillary/Obama is and how they won't vote for Hillary/Obama if he/she steals the election from it's rightful owner Hillary/Obama, so I just thought I'd post the obvious:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/m ccain.judges/index.html

Now goddammit quit planning on staying home or voting for McCain if your candidate doesn't win the primary!  Keep fighting now, but please think of the children! Why won't someone please think of the children?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/pol itics/22age.html?hp

So this is an article that's about a week old, and I included it more as an example than anything else, as if anyone isn't aware of the age-related demographic split between the candidates.  It got me wondering though:

What effect would the super delegates giving Clinton the victory have on the future of the democratic party, given how heavily young voters trend toward Obama?  Do you think they'll stay politicized and continue their support of the democratic party?  Will they forget/forgive?  Perhaps when they get older will they see things the same way old folks do now, or would the future old people still disagree with today's old people?  Damn, I think I wandered into time travel there...seems to happen a lot.

I'm genuinely curious how people see this election in the long run from a "10,000 miles up" view affecting the demographics of the democratic party in years to come.  We can argue all day about Bosnia and Wright and all the other bullshit that pervades this site, but maybe someone is interested in taking a break and  talking about this from a more analytical standpoint regarding the future of the democratic party.

Hello?