Category: The Dish

A reader writes:

Regarding your recent expectations-setting post about Clinton’s lead in absentee ballots: the recent California Field Poll (considered the best in the state by many), Obama is now running dead even with Hillary Clinton on mail-in voters– which they assert as 43% of all votes cast–32% to 31% in Obama’s favor. According to their poll however,  Hillary leads precinct voters (57% of all votes cast, according to Field Poll) 40% to 31%. I think this is spurious, however, as I believe  DTS (commonly known as "independent") voter turnout may be higher than than expected (13% of all voters, according to them). And, funny thing, Obama is beating Hillary in this category by a whopping 54% to 32%.

This is also a race between two Californias, the familiar North/South dynamic. Hillary wins LA (29% of the state) 42% to 34%, while the SF Bay Area (26% of the state) goes Obama 41% to 31%.

I’m a precinct captain in San Francisco.

The energy on our side here is fantastic; the volunteers I see everyday and voters I’ve spoken with represent an incredible microcosm of the population as a whole. I cannot give you much more than a limited sampling based on my own data, but expect Obama to win the Bay big, perhaps bigger than even the above poll shows. We may not be able to eke a win out of California, but it’s going to be closer than anyone imagined even 3-4 days ago. We may even pull this one out, doing what was, until recently, widely regarded as close to impossible.

Pollster.com’s poll of polls:

Clinton is now running a campaign on the same basic message as Obama. She’s been following him from, er, Day One:

To chants of "Yes, she can!," a variation on her chief rival’s campaign slogan, Hillary Clinton rallied thousands of supporters and a smattering of Hollywood celebrities at Cal State Los Angeles on Saturday … At one point, she asked the crowd, "Are you ready for change?" According to press accounts, Obama asked the same question in a Saturday afternoon speech in Minneapolis.

"Yes, we can" vs. "Yes, she can." There you have the key difference between the two campaigns.

California dreamin‘:

The Field Poll, a prominent California poll, yesterday had Sen. Clinton, who formerly had a huge lead, in a 36%-to-34% statistical dead heat with Sen. Obama. Sen. McCain has an eight-point edge over his next closest competitor, Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. Significantly, the poll has Sen. McCain statistically tied with Sen. Clinton in a hypothetical matchup, suggesting Democrats’ lock on the state and its 55 electoral votes — critical to their hopes for the White House — could be picked. Sen. Obama bests Sen. McCain in a hypothetical face-off by seven percentage points.

I’m traveling across country to Wisconsin today for a long-scheduled speaking trip to Appleton. Blogging will be a little spotty. They don’t have Wi-Fi on planes and my airport connection is a quick one.

The Swiss government issues an official judgment that says what few AIDS groups in the US dare admit:

During effective ART [anti-retroviral therapy], free virus is absent from blood and genital secretions. Epidemiologic and biologic data indicate that during such treatment, there is no relevant risk of transmission. Residual risk cannot be scientifically excluded, but is, in the judgment of the commission, negligibly small.

More here. They support responsible, careful negotiated sero-sorting as a means of HIV-prevention. Gay men have figured that out already, of course. It’s just AIDS Inc that hasn’t.

Jim Giles takes a look at the genetic basis for voting preference:

Twin studies suggest that opinions on a long list of issues, from religion in schools to nuclear power and gay rights, have a substantial genetic component. The decision to vote rather than stay at home on election day may also be linked to genes. Neuroscientists have also got in on the act, showing that liberals and conservatives have different patterns of brain activity.

(Hat tip: Julia Whitty.)

The Super Adventure Club faces some free-speech activism online.

I never saw the point of it myself. I blog for the hell of it, to express myself, and to figure out the world as I go along, the best I can. The idea of blogging to tilt elections seems ridiculously quixotic to me. If the argument makes sense, people will respond to it eventually. Eventually. Not in time for a primary.

Oh, and they pay me now.

Unlikely but not impossible, Ross argues. If it were just the conservative elite and talkshow base, it could happen. But the GOP is still bigger than that, much to the regret of some.