Over the last few months, candidate advocates – in the improbable quest to prove that their candidate is the only true Democrat – have created narratives about the other front-runners.  I summarize them as follows:

What are the attributes of recommended diaries, compared to those that fail to make the list?  

To shed some statistical light on this question, I analyzed 471 consecutive diaries, isolating the quantifiable factors that were associated with making the recommended list.

John Edwards continued his string of impressive debate performances tonight by standing head and shoulders above the rest of the field.  While each candidate had his/her strong moments, Edwards was the most consistent performer, and is really beginning to separate himself from the pack as the only candidate with the passion, experience, and sincerity to be a true advocate of progressive causes.  As a bonus, he also comes off as being, by far, the most electable.

 

I assumed that the lazy, inaccurate red-state/blue-state meme would fade away as the 2004 election receded from our memories.  Instead, it seems to have congealed into conventional wisdom.  Hardly a day goes by without a diary alluding to "red state values" or differences in family income, crime rates, birth rates, etc., between the states (the other side is just as bad, of course).

Such state level analysis - a mere artifact of our peculiar electoral system - contradicts public opinion data, spits in the face of statistical literacy, and cheapens discourse on both sides of the blogosphere.      

This program is continued on side B of the cassette. . .

Much of the DLC/centrist strategy is informed by a single fact of public opinion: far more Americans self-identify as "conservative" than "liberal."  For example, see this much-discussed new study.

To see why reliance on this factoid is overly simplistic and likely counterproductive, follow me across the jump into the realm of political science. . .  

On tonight's Larry King Live, Rummy breaks the following news: