You should probably check your own math before lecturing others. The margin of error applies to individual percentages -- e.g., if 51% of voters say they're going to vote for Obama and the m.o.e. is 3%, that means the true percentage who are planning to vote for him may be as low as 48% or as high as 54% (within a 95% confidence interval, etc.) Similarly, if 47% say they're planning to vote for McCain in the same poll, the true numbers for McCain may be as high as 50% or as low as 44%. If the confidence interval limits overlap at all -- as they clearly do in this (made-up) example -- then yes, the race is a "statistical tie."

... but this line puzzles me, and if it means what I think it means, disturbs me as well:

We could argue over whether "intelligent design" should be taught in our schools as an alternative to evolution, and overlook the fact that the rankings of American schools have already dropped to twenty-first in the world in the teaching of science and twenty-fifth in the world in the teaching of math.

Are you really trying to say that "ID vs. evolution" is a distraction from the serious business of science education? It's not; it's one of the central discussions in the field. We have in this country a large, vocal, and influential group of people who want to replace one of the foundations of biology education with a pseudoscientific fairy tale. The pushing of ID is one of the main reasons the US is doing poorly in teaching science. ID is a fancy coat of lipstick slathered on the pig of creationism. Unfortunately, it's also proven to be pretty persuasive to school boards. Sneer at the ID crowd all you want, but we trivialize them at our peril.

Some of the worst people I've ever known have also been the nicest. Masters at smiling at you while they slip the knife into your back.

Politeness is a virtue; all other things being equal, the polite person is far preferable to the rude one. But when all other things aren't equal, politeness alone does little good. The friendly, neighborly people of Abilene share a good bit of responsibility for the mess we're in today, and if they get their way in November, that mess will continue for at least another four years. With their hospitality they may do good for individual Americans; with their votes they have harmed all Americans.

When they wake the hell up and want to rejoin the land of the free, they're welcome to come on board. Until then, to hell with them. Sorry, was that rude of me?

Most MBAs wouldn't recognize historical symbolism, religious or otherwise, if it bit them on the ass. They picked a flower name because ... hell, it's a flower, and chicks like that flower thing, right? Seriously, I think that's the extent of their reasoning.

... how do you feel about the fact that your party has clearly entered into a criminal conspiracy with the manufacturers of electronic voting machines to steal the election? Early voting with electronic machines all over the country has shown many votes being flipped from Obama to McCain, never the reverse; this cannot possibly be due to chance error. Are you proud of your party for trying to steal an election they cannot win fairly? Are you proud of yourself for trying to cover up this conspiracy by blaming (or crediting, depending on your point of view) racism for causing voters to lie about their intentions to pollsters? Do you feel this is putting "country first?"

I've always wanted the chance to ask a Republican party operative these questions. Please reply if you can. I'm sure your answers will be very illuminating.

There are about 2000 languages spoken on the African continent. Next time you want to comment, maybe you should learn something about the subject first.

The guy you thought you saw in 2000 never existed. He's never been a straight-talking maverick. He's never been a moderate. He's never been not George W. Bush. He's pretty much always been a self-serving, cynical, mean-spirited hack. In 2000 he thought the best way to get ahead was to pander to the moderates; in 2008 he thought the best way to get ahead was to pander to the right wing. (If we're lucky, of course, he will have been wrong both times.) He has never in his life had a shred of principle, from the day when he betrayed his country by making propaganda films for the North Vietnamese right down to today.

Speaking as a guy, I don't understand the fuss about either of the Palins' looks. Both of them strike me as reasonably attractive, but no more. Apparently we've grown so used to ugly politicians that even "moderately good looking" equates to "smokin' hot" in that world.

I can think of only two really beautiful people who have been associated with national politics lately: John Edwards and Michelle Obama. Other than that, the field of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and their families hasn't offered much in the way of eye candy. There are some lookers at the lower levels (House of Representatives, and state and local politics.) I suspect that being too good-looking is actually a liability when it comes to Senatorial and Presidential politics -- it's unfair, but we tend to suspect very attractive people of lacking gravitas. Sorry, Sarah and Todd and your fan clubs, but you're not going to break this trend.