About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Stats


  • Check Google Page Rank

« More on "Survivor" and race | Main | Is "Battlestar Galactica" must-see national security TV? »

October 11, 2006

Comments

mw

Enjoyed your post. I've been thinking about and posting on Divided Government for a few months on my blog Divided We Stand, United We Fall.

I've also been wrestling with the same question regarding how to pick a presidential candidate to maintain a divided government result. The best I have come up with so far, is to just stack rank my favorites in both parties, and support the best candidate in the right party to maintain a divided state. An optimal result is a split congress in 2006, which leaves a free choice for president (if you assume imcumbents are mostly re-elected in 2008).

Given the name of your blog, and considering your politics, you might be able to make use of my new logo. Just give me some attribution if you use it. mw

Peter Hodges

The Democrats controlled the Presidency, Congress and the Courts literally from Roosevelt to Johnson and while some may not have been pleased with their policies (winning WW II, Social Security, Civil Rights, Miranda, Griswold, Roe), they never, never, never displayed the total ethical breakdown that is the signature of the neo-con apotheosis.

It is not true that all politicians are the same or that all politicians will pursue the same goals given the same opportunity.

pbh

The comments to this entry are closed.