Espeically now that the Republicans have nothing else to do.

But it should NOT be confused with persons who plan to vote for Obama in November. Not at all. The religious rightwing and other radical groups have been organizing an effort to re-register Republicans to ensure he's the nominee for 2 years.

The Wright debacle has only fueled it.

This, and given that Obama has been unable to win ANY big electorate states that any Democrat will need ranging from New York and Mass to California and Florida, proves he has no chance as a nominee. (what any objective person can admit to themselves, not to be confused with Obama's unhinged supporters).

However to me the most telling thing is that Obama continues to forge on with his scorched-earth campainging KNOWING he has not a shot in Hell at defeating McCain. It's very telling of his commitment to the things Democrats and the middle-class want and need desperately. However it is NOT any surprise to those of us familiar with his track record in Illinois.

The Limbaugh Democrats?

this makes me nervous

Rightfully so. In spades.

about the state of partisan politics in this country that there could be "Limbaugh Democrats".

However, I live in PA, and listened to a lot of people on the nightly news smugly noting that, though it was painful, they crossed over to help their Republican party in the general election.

It turns my stomach. I'd settle for that level of damage.

Staskeiwicz relies on reports from "[o]fficials in Perry and Northumberland counties in central Pennsylvania" to support his claim that Republican voters are heeding the advice of Rush Limbaugh to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic primary process as long as possible.

yeah, with a 25 point lead in PA among REAL Democrats as if she'd need them. And that's why it's Obama that's been out there all over hells half-acre singing up people to re-register.

God, but Obama is a fraud . May he rot in hell.

It only adds to the bandwagon effect, which in Pennsylvania and everywhere else has been both anti-Republican and pro-Democrat. mcCain will be a formidable candidate anyway, so it is stupid for Republicans to sign up in hopes of changing the outcome. They do more harm to their cause.

But with Hillary at 49% disapproval and 44% trustworthy in the polls she is a guaranteed loser to McCain (although I will vote for her enthusiastically).

There is a good chance Obama can overcome his bad week and still be competitive.

There is no interest in the Republican primary. Why not switch to get in on the action? With both Rush Limbaugh and Barack Obama suggesting the switch (for different reasons) a stampede is to be expected. Some people do it anyway but not this many. Obama has a very smart campaign. He knows what he is doing.

Obama has an economy speech scheduled at the famous Cooper Union in New York City and is certain to put forth some new ideas.

Who knows? He might even announce that he wants Michael Bloomberg for Vice President. Both Obama and Bloomberg are fed up with the partinsanship. One of Bloomberg's formative books is "Johnny Tremain". which is readily available on eBay and elsewhere. It is quite a story and fills in part of the HBO series on John Adams.

"Obama has been unable to win ANY big electorate states that any Democrat will need ranging from New York and Mass to California and Florida"

While Florida is a state that is important for a candidate to win it's pretty easy to assume that NY, Mass and Cali would vote for pretty much anyone on the democratic ticket. Those are 3 solidly blue states, McCain has no shot at them.

If you want to make an argument about electability you might want to focus on the electoral value of the states that could go red or blue and who has a better shot at winning them. Otherwise you might appear ... unhinged.

But with Hillary at 49% disapproval and 44% trustworthy in the polls she is a guaranteed loser to McCain (although I will vote for her enthusiastically).

So is it going to be 59% the next time you spam that tripe?

Actually on a bad day I'd say it's really about 33%. And at this point I can assure you Obama's is far higher than that. Probably at least 65%. At least outside of Berkeley.

The latest poll (rasmusson)on realclear politics shows a 10% hilary lead in PA.

Registration drives are good for the party and democracy; they put ordinary people on the street to engage with other ordinary people. They get people involved. Some of the registrants are first-timers, some are sincere moderates, and some are cross-over would-be foils. They are all engaged though, and that's at least half of what a healthy democracy is all about. ...now if we could just get them all informed in a rational way. Doesn't look like these message boards are helping.

Yes, I know. She had a 23% lead before Barrack Obama and the religoius right re-registered almost 1 million Republicans.

While Florida is a state that is important for a candidate to win it's pretty easy to assume that NY, Mass and Cali would vote for pretty much anyone on the democratic ticket. Those are 3 solidly blue states, McCain has no shot at them.

Yeah, you just ignore history and all the evidence to the contrary. Have a good bottle of strong tequilla handy on election night, and stay far away from those of us who told you so for your own saftey.

"This, and given that Obama has been unable to win ANY big electorate states that any Democrat will need ranging from New York and Mass to California and Florida, proves he has no chance as a nominee. (what any objective person can admit to themselves, not to be confused with Obama's unhinged supporters)."

Just because Obama didn't win these states in the primaries doesn't mean he wouldn't win them in the general election. The thought that New York or Massachussetts is going to go Republican in November is bizarre. And it's probable that the Democratic candidate, no matter which it is, will California. For that matter, if Clinton is the nominee, she would win Illinois, even though it went solidly for Obama in the primaries.

The Clinton "big state" talking point is a bit over-baked, as it presupposes a strict correlation between primary results and general election results. That there is little direct correlation is so obvious that you have to suspect that the people who advance the argument are being intellectually dishonest.