Why do you like him so much?  He's an incredibly corrupt lifelong Democrat.

To ~16 points from ~9 points.

. . . Could he become the 21st century equivalent of Harold Stassen?  He seems like the personality type to me.

Romney is awful - one of the worst governors we've ever had - but still better than Obama.

It must be a typo in the release. I'm assuming it's 19%.

2895 more votes have come in - Miller is leading by 1440, 49566 to 48106.

Shouldn't that be Tancredo 19% with leaners?

If there's a uniform swing of 4 percent among the absentees, Miller holds on to his victory by a couple hundred votes.

How did Anchorage vote on primary night?

Does that mean that Bloomberg steals almost all his votes from Obama ?

Yes, but it's Zogby.

D.C.  I don't see why anyone would want to live in Detroit, including people who live in Detroit.  And I'd be an anarchist and bring a handgun into D.C. because they're banned.

Okay - third question - does Perot still run?

(Significant, because he'd then be the only pro-choice candidate).

Why does Clinton not want to run for reelection?

Texas, bizarrely, leads in the poll, despite TX governor being a rather boring race. I voted Connecticut, because I want to see how McMahon is doing.

Sharron Angle?

50-state landslide, which is why your scenario is absurd.

Ah, the days before 1996, when Rupert Murdoch was incapable of beaming his mind control rays out of every television in the nation. Unfortunately, after the conclusion of Dukakis' second term, and the creation of Fox News, we've only elected Republicans, beginning with Bob Dole.

Blue states are my states.

I actually hope Castle loses - if he wins, you might as well support the real Democrat.  All Castle would be good for is voting for the Republican leadership and possibly boosting the chances in DE-AL with his coattails.

Bill Weld was a very popular governor, and look where that got him.

How would the election go with two pro-choice candidates, with a Democrat who is arguably more conservative on fiscal issues than the Republican?

Background?

Kirk also supports carbon rationing.

I'm keeping my yellow avatar.

I'm not arguing anything, I'm explaining what I perceive to be the psychological background of a worldview, in order to answer the OP's question in a roundabout fashion.

Warning - wall of text:

Liberals and socialists do not take into consideration who is responsible for creating wealth when they decide how to reapportion it according to their own wishes.  The measure that liberals and socialists use to determine how much a person deserve to have wealth given (key word) to them is the perceived level of victimhood that any given person has.  The level of victimhood is determined by any number of factors, including class, race, education, employment status, type of work, age, location, and others.  Socialists use class as the primary determinant of victimhood, liberals tend to use other factors before class.  The greater the perceived victimhood of any given person, the more they deserve to have wealth given (key word) to them.

The reason why I cite "given" as a key word is because they do not consider it a legitimate concept that a person can earn wealth.  One can only deserve wealth.  They see no great practical or moral differential between earning a paycheck from a private corporation, and accepting a government handout.  Because of all these factors, if any person makes more money than what left-wingers determine they deserve according to their respective victim status, they are automatically a bad person (although some leeway is given to themselves and to those who agree with them).  If one already makes greater than their victim status allows, and they want to pay fewer taxes, they cross the line from being bad to being evil.  Any ideology that says that those who have high victim status should receive less wealth is evil.  The reason why this is the case is that they see politics as a means to achieving the adequate degree of "social justice" necessary such that those who have the highest victim status are adequately compensated.  They see no difference between hurting those who have victim status, and not helping those who have victim status.  They therefore (for example) see no differential at all between hanging a sign saying "whites only" outside one's shop, and opposing an entitlement program that overwhelmingly favors racial minorities.  This is why conservatives and libertarians are invariably and regularly accused of being "racist" by the left, along with other familiar charges like "you must hate poor people" and "you're just all tools of the corporations!"

This also explains some of the odder positions of the modern left, for example on merit pay for teachers.  Accepting that merit pay is a good thing requires acknowledging that people who have greater skill and work harder should earn more wealth, which challenges their entire worldview.  Tenure pay, on the other hand, is completely consistent with their worldview, as people acquire more victim status the older they get, and also the longer the period of time they have been "forced" to work.  The previous example also explains some of their love of discrimination lawsuits - since people cannot truly earn a promotion and therefore higher wealth, but merely deserve it, promotions should be given first to those with the highest victim status - those who have worked the longest.  If the person who has worked the longest is passed over for a promotion, that means the boss is a bad person.  If the person who has worked the longest is a minority and/or female, then the boss is racist and/or sexist.  A third example would be mandatory drug sentencing laws, and mandatory "hate crime" sentencing laws.  Liberals can maintain consistency with their philosophy while opposing the first and supporting the second, since they perceive the first as hurting those they perceive to be victims (ethnic/religious/sexual minorities), while they perceive the second as helping those same victims.  A fourth would be the position I pointed out in this thread - Muslims are a religious minority and therefore victims while Glenn Beck is a bad person and a racist.

Other political philosophies can also be explained in terms of this worldview.  Moderates, whether "moderate conservatives" or "moderate liberals," share a similar philosophy, but tend to choose a narrower set of determinants for victim status, and tend to allow that skill and effort can increase one's victim status.  Conservatives are simply the exact opposite of liberals - they turn liberalism on its head by declaring the liberals' oppressors to be the victims and (to a lesser extent) the liberals' victims to be the oppressors.  This is why conservatives are right where liberals are wrong, wrong where liberals are right, and take the exact same [seemingly] hypocritical positions, except in reverse.  Libertarians reject victim status entirely, and argue that all people should be treated equally before the law, that nobody "deserves" anything more than any other person, and that wealth should be distributed according to whoever earns it with the greatest level of labor or skill.  This is why libertarians criticize business more than conservatives; besides the fact that libertarians are more likely to criticize corporate welfare, conservatives afford business victim status while libertarians do not.

The next post will be something along the lines of "lol strawman."  This is biased, certainly, and all left-of-center people certainly do not believe all of what I just wrote, but most certainly do believe most of what I just wrote, though they would certainly phrase it in a way biased towards their own worldview, which is their right.  I do know that I am right about liberals, however, since I used to be one.