The first presidential primary is still more than 5 months away, but around here it may as well be next week.  If you're new to mydd one of the first things you will probably notice is all of the presidential candidate diaries.  If you're a long time veteran around here, then you must have noticed the geometric increase of candidate diaries.  It's been quite a flood.  People either promoting their favorite candidate, or bashing their least favored or posting horse race information and analysis.  In either case, if you're planning on joining in on the fun there are some rules that you need to follow.  For now I'm just going to go over the rules for commenting.  This diary will cover commenting on primary polling diaries(that is, diaries that contain polling information and analysis only).  Please see Part I for rules on commenting in promotion diaries.  If you haven't read it, you should, or else this diary won't make much sense.  Also, I'll post a candidate diary diary[sic] rules soon.

The first presidential primary is still more than 5 months away, but around here it may as well be next week.  If you're new to mydd one of the first things you will probably notice is all of the presidential candidate diaries.  If you're a long time veteran around here, then you must have noticed the geometric increase of candidate diaries.  It's been quite a flood.  People either promoting their favorite candidate, or bashing their least favored or posting horse race information and analysis.  In either case, if you're planning on joining in on the fun there are some rules that you need to follow.  For now I'm just going to go over the rules for commenting.  I'll post a candidate diary diary[sic] rules soon.

All of these rules are based on my recent observations.  I don't know what happens if you break these rules, but that's because i've never seen anyone do it. Therefore, I assume that the punishment has to be bad.  Like forced-to-look-at-pictures-of-Dick-Chene y-naked bad.  That or some other torture that violates "quaint" geneva convention treaties.

Before going further, it will be easier to learn the commenting rules when you figure out where you stand in the Presidential primary standings, or, as I like to call it, your posting personality.  This is because, depending on who you are supporting, your commenting rules vary. So if you figure it out now, you don't have to learn as many rules on commenting in the candidate diaries.(Work smarter, not harder!)

It's that time of year again.  All of the candidates are trying to get in that one last fundraising push before the end of the quarter so that they claim lots and lots of support.  While I'm not going to discourage anyone from donating to their favorite candidate(I encourage it!) I would ask you to also consider donating to progressive infrastructure.

This is a riff on what Chris Bowers always talked about, The One-Way Flow of Progressive Movement Money.  To Summarize, we give all of our hard earned money to our democratic candidates who then give it to consultants who either treat us with disdain or as an ATM.  Meanwhile the flow from the party back to progressives is rare. (Notable exceptions are blogad purchases by most presidential campaigns and Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund)

Moved by the problem and the fact that the people in power would like to keep it that way,  I have made a pledge to myself to do what little i can with my meager dollars to be part of the solution.  This year I have made a pledge to match any money, at least dollar for dollar, I donate to a campaign or party organization(DNC, state party, DSCC, DCCC, etc..) to a progressive organization.

Note* This is my first "meta" diary and I already hate it!

Matt Stoller just put into the "Breaking Blue" the following problem.

Every single diary on the recommended list is a 2008 Presidential candidate themed piece of work. I don't know how to deal with this but it's very annoying and drowning out the other good stuff. Thoughts?

I agree with him that this is an annoying problem.  There's a lot more to be done than just the 2008 race presidential race.  However, the irony is that Matt's own actions have exacerbated the problem.

In the latest rasmussen reports poll released today, the results of the top 3 were:
Clinton 34 (35)
Obama   26 (26)
Edwards 15 (14)

(trendlines are from the previous week)
Let me first start by saying that the poll title is pure snark.  Hence the "quotes".  While Hillary has dropped 1 point and Edwards has gone up a point, in reality, there has been no movement.  1 point in either direction is not relevant.  What this does show is a very stable national race.

As Rasmussen points out

Among Presidential hopefuls, this is the fifth straight week that Clinton has been at 34% or 35%. She has been within three points of the 35% level in fourteen of the last 15 weekly updates.

Stability is found throughout the numbers for all candidates. This week is the fourth time in five weeks that Obama has been at 25% or 26%. While the newcomer to national politics enjoyed a brief expansion of support heading into the first debate among Democratic hopefuls, he has generally been in the mid-20s. Obama continues to do better than Clinton among independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary.

Edwards has consistently been in the mid-teens (eleven straight weeks within three percentage points of the 15% mark). Other polls and anecdotal evidence suggest that Edwards is leading in the first caucus state, Iowa. Obama is from neighboring Illinois and might also do well in Iowa. If Clinton continues to hold solid leads in the national polls but does poorly in Iowa, it is likely to dramatically shake up the race.

I think the stability that this shows is relevant for gaging whether or not the debate last night had any impact.  All of this polling was done pre-debate.  All of next weeks numbers will have been conducted post-debate.  If next weeks numbers show any statistically significant movement it will likely be because of the debate and, of course, the post-debate spin.

UPDATE: I added a poll option to indicate no change.

It seems that whenever I feel like the MSM is finally catching on to the right-wing spin machine, I get a huge dose of Reality.  The latest example is the latest cover story of Time magazine.  The name of the article is "How the Right Went Wrong".  Most of the article is essentially a eulogy to a dead conservative movement complete with the picture of it's father, Ronald Reagan, crying.  The problem is that stuffed in there is still signs of a potential rebirth because of it's ability to perpetuate narratives.

This is the second part of a series.  You can find the first part here.

There are probably as many different definitions of progressive as there are Senators who'd like to be president.  In spite of the fact that bloggers, intellectuals, and politicians all declaring themselves to be progressive, there doesn't seem to be a common definition of what it means to be a progressive.  This leaves progressives open for the criticism that "progressive" is just another word for "liberal".  If a progressive movement is to last, we must define ourselves to voters before Conservatives do.

There are probably as many different definitions of progressive as there are Senators who'd like to be president.  In spite of the fact that bloggers, intellectuals, and politicians all declaring themselves to be progressive, there doesn't seem to be a common definition of what it means to be a progressive.  This leaves progressives open for the criticism that "progressive" is just another word for "liberal".  If a progressive movement is to last, we must define ourselves to voters before Conservatives do.

Importance:
Why is it important to define ourselves? There are several reasons.  One, I just mentioned.  If Americans don't learn from us what a progressive is, they'll learn it from a conservative.  If that happens Democrats will start dodging the work "progressive" like they do "liberal".  If people think of progressives mostly in a positive light, then Politians will embrace it.  The goal of which is so that politicians start arguing who is more "progressive" in democratic primaries.  The way Republicans argue who is more will argue who is more "progressive" in Democratic primaries the way Republicans argure who is more "conservative" in theirs.  This would be an infinite improvement over the "liberal" label where politicians don't even put the word anywhere on their campaign's website.

Another reason is that we can help make Democratic politicians lives easier.  When someone asks why they're a Democrat or what they believe in they can parrot the same talking point.  I'm a Democrat because 'X'.  Right now Conservatives have us beat on this aspect.  Ask a Conservative why he's a Conservative and he'll say either "I'm a Conservative because I believe in free markets with limited government" or "I believe in family values" or some variation on those 2 themes.  Ask a Democrat why they're a Democrat(or progressive or liberal) and see how many wildly different answers.  If you don't believe me, Google the following "Why I'm a Democrat" and compare that with "Why I'm a Republican".  Switch out the words with Conservative and Liberal and Progressive and you'll see that RepublicanConservatism is well defined in the minds of it's supporters.

One thing to understand when defining progressivism is not to define it by issues.  It needs to be defined as a philosophy.  If you define progressivism as a group of issues it does not convey conviction.  For instance if you say progressives believe in raising the minimum wage, fair trade, and Universal Healthcare and somebody asks, "why" your only answer would be "um... because".  You have to have a reason that you support different issues.  Even if your underlying philosophy is the "Vulcan philosophy" that The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few at least you can answer, "I support Universal Healthcare because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".