A few weeks ago, I wrote a post here claiming that Mr. Greenwald had once suggested that polling data was unreliable. I received quite a drubbing thence from Glenn, and others of the pile-on persuasion. I admitted that I could not find the reference, these blogs not being conducive to extensive researching and me, at work, not having the time to go through months of posts with a fine tooth comb. I took back the remark and apologized, and forgot about it. I was pretty sure I had read it, but lacked the proof to back it up.

This afternoon while looking for an old post of mine, I inadvertantly found the post I was referring to..."Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters" September 27, 2007...

Wherein, the following remark by GG:

I" say it is "baffling" because it is hard to understand why someone would want to become a political journalist and then spend most of their time engaged in this sort of petty, substance-free chatter about which campaign has inched ahead and which one has fallen behind every day. It's all transparently baseless and meaningless. Look at any of the polling data or the predominant conventional wisdom for the last several elections months before the first primary vote was cast and, in retrospect, it all ends being completely misinformed.

I post this just as much to vindicate, as to make a point. I myself have noted that its a better idea to approach one's critics with finesse (and also admit to getting carried away and hitting the publish button in haste, when a few moments of reflection later I wish I hadn't). Even a clock can be right one hour a day, and even a brilliant mind like Glenn's can err or misremember. What better reason for civility?

Casual--I was reacting to your opinion that the decline was caused by doe-eyed US reporting. I never thought your opinion was the PEW study (?????). They provide no rational for the decline--I offered that it could be complex, just discussin n theorizin....no worries

LWM, you misnderstood my post. but its ok

I was initially excited when I read Glenn's post, but I remember reading Oberweis's name in an NYT article about various state struggles that the GOP was basically giving up on. "Short of Funds, G.O.P. Recruits the Rich to Run" 11/26/07 --. Oberweis was apparently asked to run by the GOP simply because he could finance his own campaign; so it would follow that that GOP was cutting its losses there and didn't expect much. That doesn't diminish the fact that an overwhelming majority of Democrats were moved by the current toilet-level state of this country to vote. I think that IS heartening, and as Glenn said, should be the foundation on which Democrats finally find a healthy opposition party voice.

MorrisShepard, I know that you're making a different point. But I just wanted to point out that Obama supported Joe Lieberman during his re-election bid in '06 against Ned Lamont.

I can admit when I'm wrong, and I probably didn't phrase my argument that well. You're right; its quite a stretch to say that they "cut their losses" and I went too far in that argument and I certainly hadn't researched the issue as well as you had.

And certainly, there is a difference between giving up on a district and not being able to do better than run a second stringer (a battle scarred veteran-loser of no less than three previous primaries, obviously not a bathing beauty as far as Republicans go) and hope for the best based on party loyalty in a red district. From my perspective, however, the Democratic triumph is less a vindication of widespread antipathy for the Iraq war, immunity, etc., than it is the product of a very un-sexy Republican candidate. Given the numbers 53%-47%--I would guess that Democrats had more success at getting out their base than Republicans. Although its possible that the illusory "independents" played a role.

What do you make of the margin of defeat?

Ps. Glen, you've never made a positive remark about any of my postings, though I am collecting a sizeable number of strike downs. I'm thinking of starting a blog called "Glenn Greenwald Hates Me".

Another thing. Some of us are not professionals, we are not lawyers or academics, I myself just started university at the tender age of 39 after a lifetime of failed activism. I work full time and have a full academic load at night. I consider myself lucky to be able to do my homework, read most of the New York Times, and sleep and eat. I rarely have time to do a lot of research before I post here, but I do like to share my ideas with people, especially because I don't very many people who are political or very knowledgeable about politics.

Speaking for myself (but also reserving the right to say "we" in the name of any other who cares to share the affiliation), I come here to hone my reasoning skills and learn. I do that by coming up with an idea, based as it often is on inspiration and casual knowledge of a subject, and hope for the best. I do often learn from the experience of being responded to. I sometimes think, 'well they're right, I didn't think about that hard enough'.

But I've said it here before and I'll say it again. UT, Salon, Digby and all of these-- this is a very small conversation. The mainstream of people do not care about these issues, most of the things discussed here would sound like no more than gobbledygook to them. Knowledge is powerful, but only a delicacy reserved for the affluent if it isn't shared in a spirit of moving EVERYONE forward. I think I've said this better here, than I have before. I hope that people consider it for a moment, before dismissing it.

Point taken.