I'm curious to know thoughts here regarding the overseas vote, and how it will affect the 2004 presidential race.  US Citizens living overseas are eligible to vote in the state in which they last resided.  For example, my wife and I, though living in Brazil for 18 months, are eligible to vote (and registered) in the state of Missouri, an important swing state.  However, no polling of the state will ever pick us up or factor in those like us.  Even if we were living in the US, my wife would never be included in a likely voter poll, because she has never voted in the US before (only gaining citizenship earlier this year).

Is there any relible data (or even unreliable) on the breakdown of overseas votes?  Does anyone know how many of these will be in swing states?  It seems to me that there might be a significantly larger number of registered overseas voters this year than in previous years.  For once, we have a tangible vested interest in the election results.  It might mean that we won't have to keep following the statement "I'm an American" with the obligatory "I'm sorry."  I can't count the number of people who've warily asked whether I support Bush, breaking into relieved smiles upon hearing the contrary.  

This certainly has affected more overseas Americans than just me.  Any ideas on how many are registering (and in what states)?

I posted the first section of this here about 6 months back -- then between classes, a Master's thesis, a new baby, three (yes, three!) new jobs -- well, posting at dKos didn't seem to be very high on the list of priorities.  Anyway, I see that my previous diary entries are no longer here (must be a time-limit?), so I thought I would just repost the whole thing.  Hope you find it worthwhile.  Feel free to comment positively or negatively as you feel led!

The Necessity of International Law, Part 1: The Failure of National Sovereignty

One of the biggest drawbacks of intensely polarized political debate is that it shortens and narrows the scope of discourse.  Instead of examining what is best for the advancement of the world or for development during the next century, we end up looking only at our own national (or partisan) interests in the next election, and rarely beyond.  World events and trends are grotesquely distorted to fit this tunnel-perspective.  One need only look at the aftermath of the grisly Madrid bombings as an example of this.  Rather than look for a true solution to a cycle of violence stretching over decades (or even centuries), partisan interests have dictated only how to spin the news to one side or another's rhetorical advantage in November 2004.  

I thought the dKos community might be interested in how other countries with non-sycophantic press agencies report world events.  This article is from the Correio Braziliense and it was published on Friday morning.  I had to translate it myself because BabelFish seems to mangle Portuguese much more incomprehensibly than any other language, so it took a bit of time (I'm also studying for an exam and writing a thesis).  So, keep in mind the time frame here: the attack occurred on the 11th, and this was printed the morning of the 12th - PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.  Note the no-nonsense headline (can you imagine CNN or CBS running this headline?) and the straightforward reporting (declarative sentences instead of "critics claim" spin-mongering).  Please, oh please, American reporters, learn a lesson from these folks!!

Please forgive any typos or stilted language construction.  I've been in Brazil for 10 months, but I am very, very far from mastering this wicked tongue known as Portuguese.  I tried to translate it into as natural sounding English as possible, but in the cases where I was unclear about the meaning, I translated it literally with a note in brackets showing my best guess as to what it means.  I did not, however, "sex it up" in any way.  It really is as punchy and in-your-face in the original as it reads here.  It's a real breath of fresh air.    

I'm looking for some good solid information (on the web) regarding delegate counts by state for previous primary years (1996 and earlier).  Thegreenpapers.com has great stuff for 2004, 2002 (congressional stuff), and 2000, but nothing that I can find earlier than that.  

Does anyone know of anything?  Thanks for the help!

As far as Democratic primary strategy goes, Edwards has gotten what he needs, a 1-on-1 showdown with Kerry.  Unfortunately, the super Tuesday states are lined up against him.  Kerry's lead is about 300 delegates.  Edwards needs, at minimum, to split evenly the delegates from Super Tuesday.  If he gets further behind, it is over.  If Edwards can split them, he will be able to close the gap a week later on southern Tuesday.  Then it will be a race.  If Kerry continues to do what he's done so far (50-55%), then he is the nominee.  (Short and sweet this week.)  

What I think the candidates should do now (or Democratic "strategery"):

Please see full entry below.  Comment and/or critique at your pleasure.

Just a couple of random thoughts on this nugget of CW from previous primary elections: run left (or right for Repubs.) during the primary, run to the center during the general.

This is what Dean did.  Although he is a centrist not that different from Clinton in terms of policy, he made news as an "angry leftist."  While some of this was media-propelled spin, it was also calculated on Dean's part to increase his support for the primaries.  It worked up to a point.  But then what happened?

Electability.  The ugly 12-letter word.

The fact that so many Democratic voters became so concerned about beating Bush made "run left in the primaries" a kiss of death.  The primary voters wanted a reasonable centrist, not a liberal.  So, ironically, they picked a liberal who appeared more middle-of-the-road over a centrist who appeared to be too liberal.  Had Dean run to the center, or at least begun clearly shifting to run on centrist positions back in December (when his support was peaking), he might have made the transition just as most voters began paying attention.  Instead, he rode the wave to the top and then crashed into the rocks.

Just because it's conventional, doesn't mean it's wisdom.

Kerry - Kerry did what he needed to do.  He beat Dean and Clark in the Southwest, and finished in a very tight third in OK, winning 5 states and gaining delegates in all 7.  Although he didn't get the knockout punch (7 wins), he is still cruising to the nomination, unless a clear alternative to Kerry emerges in the form of Edwards.  All-in-all he met, but did not exceed, expectations.  This week, there will be more negative press on Kerry, but he will still win Michigan handily.  There is little polling data on Washington and Maine, but with momentum, he should be able to take both of these states, too, with Dean likely as a strong second.  TN and VA next week will be very interesting.  Odds for nomination 1:2 (unchanged).

I used to live in the Kansas City, MO metropolitan area, and I recall that an interesting feature of Missouri's primary election is that party registration is not required.  One simply shows up for the primary and is asked "Democratic or Republican?" and handed a ballot based on his/her response.  

With Bush running uncontested, there is the likelyhood of significant Republican crossover to the Democratic ballot - either because of dissatisfaction with Bush or just to mess with the Dems.

Do you think this crossover will significantly skew the results in Missouri?  Last I had heard, Kerry had a large lead here, and this probably won't change -- however, how do you think the crossover votes will break?  In favor of Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, someone else?

I'm curious to know the dKossian opinions.

It looks like McCain is breaking ranks... this could get very interesting soon.

Story here on Yahoo.

How I think each candidate can still win the nomination and the odds for each.  This was posted originally in a comment thread, but has been slightly revised and submitted here for posterity (whoever that is).