Brendan, I don't think your link about NPR bias and the Groseclose/Milyo study is working. All I'm getting is a webpage with a giant blowfish.

Brendan, thanks for the Canadian election post in your feed. I was an uber-nerd in college for following Canadian politics, and even did a symposium presentation on it.

Maybe I'm reading too much into the numbers Penn gave, but why would have only mentioned "two Democrats in the last 90 years?" After all, 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) was elected, and then reelected in 1916. Maybe Penn was trying to hyper inflate the challenges faced by a Democratic incumbent in order to bolster his argument. 2 Dems/90 years = 1 victory every 45 years. On the other hand, 3 Dems/100 years = 1 every 33 years. (Although, technically Wilson was re-elected in 1916, so it's 3/95 = 31 2/3 years). I understand not wanting to go too far back and then include the Cleveland administration, and on and on. But at some point, it becomes obvious you're trying to cherry pick your numbers to win your readers over.

It seems to me that David Brock's mission is more personality driven than politically driven. Up until 1997, he was a smearmonger for the right. Once he changed political stripes, it didn't seem as though the way he operated changed.

It's not education - it's experience that matters, Mr. Lessenberry. I've come to so many employers that want experience, that I've been turned away for people who have either just a high school degree (and 15+ years experience) or a bachelor's degree who did the same job in a different location before seeking newer opportunities. I've got a Master's, and I apply for jobs where I'd be the cat's ass at what I do, but unless they see X-years experience, your advanced degree is a waste of your time and money. The educated are leaving this state and should because the rhetoric isn't matching the results.

Brendan, You're in Michigan. We don't sell "soda" in this state. It's called "pop" here. You've been here long enough, get with the lingo. Second, because the event is sponsored by the AARP, do you think there will be any discussion about the state's attempts to tax seniors' pensions? I know it's about national issues, but the AARP here has been pretty vocal about it, and it is a hot topic right now.

Brendan, I thought Obama had to change some of his positions, like once being in favor of a single-payer health care system and then opposing it when he ran for president. If I'm not mistaken, the Clinton campaign ran a video clip of him making these comments to a local union supportive of his Senate run. Second, doesn't this article kind of fly in the face of previous arguments you've made about fundamentals? If the economy was doing so well, why didn't Gore blow Bush away in the general election? Aren't you pinning Gore's loss somewhat on the media then, and not on the man himself?

Brendan, who on this planet even remotely thinks Jeb Bush would be a viable candidate? Am I the only one thinking how the Bush name brand is still poison?

There seems to be a lot of blogs out there on the left that were shredding Reagan's legacy on the cusp of his 100th birthday. Some writer at the WaPo listed five myths of his presidency, and the one that stands out the most was trying to convince readers his approval rating only averaged 52%, thus diminishing his popularity. Never mind the fact that his approval was in the 30s up until 1983. Or the fact that he beat Jimmy Carter 51%-41%, and Mondale 58%-40% in the popular vote (or that Reagan won all states but Minnesota - a state he lost by 3000 votes). I don't know, it's kind of sad. Conservatives, for their faults, do canonize him beyond what he deserves. He wasn't a saint, nor infallible. After all, how could Reagan simultaneously end the Cold War with the USSR if communism was an inherently flawed economic system to begin with? For what it's worth, I would have voted for Reagan if I could have. Then again, I don't vote anymore.

Brendan, Is part of the reason Dan Quayle never recovered from his image as a bumbling doofus because he never did anything (or enough) to raise his profile during the Clinton presidency, whereas then-Sen. Clinton did while Bush was in office? Did it also hurt Quayle that the economy did well while Clinton was in office (fundamentals)?

I wonder how good the economy was when Lincoln was campaigning for reelection. Knowing Brendan, he's got a chart for that.

Sorry Mr. Lessenberry, but I chose not to vote. I chose not to because... ...the more educated you are about elections, the more you understand how meaningless your vote is. ...the party I'm supposed to support is full of people who have either very extreme and intolerant views, or have just completely lost their mind. Voting for the other party is simply out of the question. ...I have a Master's Degree and can't even get so much as an interview for jobs I'm qualified and over-qualified for. ...even if you have an education, no one's going to offer you a job anyway. And they wonder why so many college educated people have left the state. It's not like there's a shortage of us around here. ...even if the state politicians go along with the experts and fund higher education to appropriate levels, all we'll have are more job-seekers with advanced degrees with nowhere to go. Do you think any of these high paid "experts" would be willing to give me their job if they're wrong? (Doubt it) ...as each year passes by, it seems as though the state just isn't worth investing in anymore. Sorry if I sound bitter, but as much as I love Michigan, if I could have, I would've left a long time ago.

Oh come on, everyone makes a gaffe. I'm not an Obama supporter, but he doesn't really think John Boehner is an 'enemy' like the Taliban, (even though in reality, Obama and Boehner are 'enemies' politically).

Oh, and thanks for the bingo cards. I promise you in no time flat, I'll be the uncle all the kids hate the most.

Brendan, do you think the Tea Party has hurt Senate candidates in blue states (e.g., Linda McMahon) who hasn't associated his or herself with them?

Thanks for the bingo chart, Brendan. With your permission, can I print a handful of them off and give them to my nieces and nephews as Christmas gifts?

The Hill column was just awful, by the way. How many working class families with union ties are sitting around the kitchen table at dinner time talking about Elizabeth Warren? Sometimes a man just needs to see the forest for the trees and realize that not all of your ilk knows the same people inside the beltway.

Brendan, is it possible that some people who answer "don't know" really could care less either way?

Goldberg's article seemed to be more of a pat on the back for himself. I think I'll read the book anyway, but I hope he does a better job of explaining the historical context of fascism. It is not, as Maher put it, "when corporations become the government."

Leave it to Brendan Nyhan to suck all the fun out of football.

How may primaries have been decided by one vote? If I'm a betting man, I'd say none. Even if there is one, it was obviously a rare occasion. So if I'm a Dem/Rep wanting to vote for a weaker candidate from the other party, then go ahead. No harm. I'm personally glad we have open primaries. Voters should be allowed to choose their next leader regardless of party.

I agree mostly with the above comment. Sarah Palin isn't politically savvy, but she is very Sarah-savvy. She knows she's a draw. (All but the first, second, and fifth sentences could be attributed to a handful of Democratic politicians too, e.g., Al Sharpton). Why would she ever want to be President? It's only $400,000 a year. She couldn't handle three full years of being the Governor in Alaska, where she made over $100k annually. She could probably make more hosting a talk show in less than two years what she could make if she served as President in eight years. Not to mention additional endorsement deals, book deals, and public speaking/appearance engagements she'll cash in on.

I'm asking if there's a correlation between a President and a state Governor's popularity in off-year elections. Clinton, a Democrat wins in 1992, loses the House and Senate in 1994; here in Michigan, John Engler, a Republican, carried the state for Governor in '94. In 1996, Clinton carried Michigan, despite Engler's victory two years prior. Do Governors like Engler of the opposition party suffer losses of support in off-year elections (i.e. Presidential election years) which helps the incumbent President?

Bah, sorry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/20/AR2010062003006.html?hpid=topnews