Latest Polls Show The Blue States Solidly Behind Clinton

Donald Trump is having trouble trying to keep some of his red states in the fold (Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina). Hillary Clinton doesn't have that kind of problem with states normally considered blue states.

The chart above reflects the latest polls in 10 blue states -- California, Virginia, Oregon, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island. Clinton leads in all of them, and is expected to carry them rather easily in November. That's good, because it allows her to put more emphasis on the swing states.

NOTE -- You can click on the state name to get the poll dates, sample size, and margin of error.

April 26th States Make Their Presidential Preference Known

Yesterday's five-state primary turned out to be a big night for Hillary Clinton, as she won four out of the five states. She won big in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. She also won a closer victory in Connecticut. Bernie Sanders rather easily won Rhode Island.

Here are the results for each state:

CONNECTICUT
Clinton...............52%
Sanders...............47%

DELAWARE
Clinton...............60%
Sanders...............39%

MARYLAND
Clinton...............63%
Sanders...............33%

PENNSYLVANIA
Clinton...............56%
Sanders...............44%

RHODE ISLAND
Clinton...............43%
Sanders...............55%

But the important part of the night was what happened with the delegate totals. Here is how that stands, with some of Tuesday's delegates still to be determined (according to NBC News):

Primary/Caucus Delegates
Clinton...............1594
Sanders...............1297
difference...............297

Total Delegates
Clinton...............2117
Sanders...............1330
difference...............787

That means Hillary Clinton just needs to get 266 more delegates to win the nomination, while Bernie Sanders needs 1,053 more delegates. There are now 10 states left to vote (plus the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico).

PPP Survey - Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, R. Island

Public Policy Polling has released its final surveys of four of the states voting today in Democratic primaries -- Maryland, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Their numbers, except for Maryland, look a little better for Sanders than some previous polls have shown. They have him four points ahead in Rhode Island, two points behind in Connecticut, and ten points down in Pennsylvania.

That means Sanders could win Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware (which has not been polled). But the victories, if they happen, would just be moral victories -- and he needs to do much better than that. The truth is that to have a shot at the nomination, he needs to win 70% of the delegates in the remaining states -- and he will come far from doing that in any of the April 26th states.

Today's voting will just get Clinton closer to the Democratic nomination, and make it much harder for Sanders to compete.

Bernie Trails In Connecticut, Maryland, And Pennsylvania

Quinnipiac University Poll (April 12-18) 1037 likely voters

Emerson College Poll (April 10-11) 356 likely voters

Monmouth University Poll (April 18-20) 300 likely voters (5.7 point moe)

Public Policy Polling (April 15-17) 492 likely voters (4.4 point moe)

NBC 4 / Marist Poll (April 5-9) 775 likely voters (3.5 point moe)

Washington Post / Univ. of Maryland Poll (March 30-April 3) 539 likely voters (5.5 point moe)

Monmouth University Poll (April 17-19) 302 likely voters (5.6 point moe)

Franklin & Marshall Poll (April 11-18) 510 likely voters (5.3 point moe)

Fox News Poll (April 4-7) 805 likely voters (3.5 point moe)

Quinnipiac University Poll (March 30-April 4) 514 likely voters (4.3 point moe)

Harper Poll (April 2-3) 603 likely voters (4.0 point moe)

After the crushing defeat he suffered in the New York primary, Bernie Sanders chances of winning the Democratic nomination grew much slimmer. He would now have to win about 70% of the delegates in all of the remaining states to reach the magic number of delegates (2,383).

Five more states will go to the polls to vote next Tuesday (April 26th) -- Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. I'm not aware of any viable polls released for Delaware and Rhode Island, but the three states with the most delegates at stake have been polled -- and it doesn't look very good for Bernie. He not only won't get the required 70%, but will probably lose all three of those states.

Currently, Hillary Clinton has an average lead of 7.5 points in Connecticut, about 21.7 points in Maryland, and about 15.8 points in Pennsylvania. The Sanders campaign simply cannot afford to lose those three states, or even finish even with Clinton in them. That would just push Clinton closer to the nomination, and Sanders further from it.

Agreement On Watered-Down Senate Gun Bill

The picture above is of one of the memorials erected after the Newtown shooting massacre. I show it here again just to remind everyone what the gun bill pending in the Senate is really about. It has nothing to do with confiscating any guns, creating a gun registry, or abridging the Second Amendment. It is simply an effort to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them (as much as possible), criminals or the dangerously mentally ill -- in the hopes of preventing the kind of mass shootings that happened in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, and many other states.

And it looks like there is now a little bit better chance that a gun bill could actually be passed by Congress. A couple of senators (Manchin and Toomey) have reached an agreement on the background checks part of the pending Senate bill. And they think that a majority of the Senate could accept this compromise, including at least enough Republicans to get it passed. The agreement is in the form of an amendment which will water down the background checks a bit. It will rehire background checks on gun sales, including all internet and gun show sales, but it excludes the sale of a gun by a private citizen (not using the internet or at a gun show).

Personally, I think this still leaves too big a loophole to avoid a background check when buying a gun. All a criminal or dangerously deranged person needs to do is check the newspaper classifieds and go buy their weapon from a private person (many of which could care less who's buying their gun as long as they get what they want for it). But it may be the only thing that could get through Congress this year.

This is what passes for compromise these days though. Congress thinks that doing a little toward solving a problem is better than nothing. For me, it is just another instance of putting a band-aid on a problem that needs much more serious care (just like was done with health care reform -- where they put some patches on a broken system, instead of throwing it out and going to a single-payer system that would not only cover everyone, but do so at a cheaper price).

That's my opinion. What's yours? Is the watered-down gun bill a good bill -- or just the only thing that could squeak through Congress this year?

NOTE -- The NRA has come out in opposition to the watered-down Senate gun bill. But that is to be expected. They don't really represent gun owners anymore. They simply shill for the gun manufacturers these days, and those gun makers don't want any kind of law that might reduce the number of guns they could sell -- regardless of who is buying those guns.

Strict Gun Laws Do Prevent Gun Deaths

One of the favorite arguments of gun-lovers is that stricter gun laws don't prevent gun deaths. For instance, they love to point at the high rate of gun deaths in the large city of Chicago -- but usually don't account for the large population of the city and the state of Illinois. The truth is that the state is in the bottom 20 states in terms of gun deaths, mainly due to some fairly strict gun laws. The map above shows the prevalence of gun deaths in the states. The ten states with the highest gun deaths are in red, followed by the next ten in orange, and the middle ten in yellow. The twenty states with the lowest gun deaths are in green, with the dark green states being the ten with the lowest prevalence of gun deaths.

Note that the red and orange states are generally those with the weakest gun laws, while the green states are those with the strictest gun laws. The map was compiled by the Center for American Progress to illustrate the findings of their new study on gun laws and gun violence. What they found was that the ten states with the weakest gun laws had over twice as much gun violence (actually 104% more) than the ten states with the strictest gun laws.

The NRA will hate this study and do their best to demonize it, and the congressional Republicans will ignore it to play to their base, but the results show the real truth -- gun laws do work to lower the number of gun deaths. And that is all President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do with their very reasonable and constitutional proposals to tighten gun laws -- namely, closing the loopholes in background checks so that everyone trying to buy a gun must get one, increasing the penalties for gun trafficking, and banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and large volume ammunition clips (proposals that are all supported by a majority of the American people).

The bottom line is that no one wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, or restrict in any way their right to own a firearm. That is unquestionably guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But restrictions on the type of firearm that can be legally owned, and the ability of the government to require a background check on people trying to buy a gun, have been held as constitutional by the Supreme Court -- and there is no legitimate reason not to pass these laws and save thousands of American lives.

------------------------------

The state of Connecticut has just passed stricter guns laws for that state. Here's what the folks at Think Progress want you to know about the new Connecticut law:

1. It has bipartisan support. Certainly more Democrats than Republicans supported the bill, but the vote in the state House was 105 to 44, with 40 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats voting for it. Earlier, the Senate voted with only 2 of the 22 Democrats opposing the law. Nearly half of Connecticut Senate Republicans voted for the measure.

2. It expands the state’s assault weapons ban. Connecticut already has an Assault Weapons Ban in place, but the new law will add over 100 new types of guns to the banned list. Among these is the Bushmaster AR-15 gun, which is what the Sandy Hook gunman used in his horrific killing spree. People who already own such weapons will be permitted to keep them, but must comply with new registration standards.

3. Magazine clips will be limited to 10 rounds. Connecticut’s new law will immediately ban the sale of any large-capacity magazine clips that hold more than 10 rounds. Gun owners who’ve already purchased high-capacity clips will be grandfathered in, but they register any extended clips they have, if they plan to keep them. And they can’t bring those bigger clips around with them; the new law requires that any extended magazines still on the market be used only in a private home or at a shooting range.

4. All gun and ammunition sales will require a background check.Effective immediately, every single sale of a gun or of bullets in the state of Connecticut must include a background check. Universal background checks are probably the most widely supported measure in Connecticut’s new gun law; nationally, background checks have 92 percent support.

5. Mental health isn’t left out of the equation. Not every measure in the new law intends to regulate firearms; the bill also includes expanded funding for mental health research, and allows for greater training on mental health issues for Connecticut’s teachers. The bill also creates a council in the state with the express purpose of determining how schools can be more safe, and when mental health records should block someone from being able to purchase a firearm.

NRA Should Have Remained Silent

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been promoting a gun culture for years now. They have gone far beyond just protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans to own guns -- to promoting a culture that worships guns of all kinds (including assault weapons) and opposes ALL laws that would affect who can own guns, what kind of guns and ammunition (and clips) they can own, and where they can carry those weapons. And they have spent huge sums of money to spread their "guns for everyone" propaganda, and to intimidate any politician that would support reasonable restrictions. The result is a society where anyone, even those who shouldn't have guns, are allowed to have an easy access to any kind of gun they want.

We see the effect of this in the Connecticut school tragedy -- and in scores of other mass shootings across the nation. When that tragedy occurred, the NRA had nothing to say. What could they say? It is obvious to any reasonable person that their opposition to reasonable gun restrictions, including effective background checks with all gun sales, is a major reason that sick individuals are able to get guns so easily and kill innocent children and adults in one mass shooting after another. The NRA even went so far after the Connecticut tragedy to discontinue their twitter account and take down their Facebook page.

Well, the NRA is back -- and they are as out of touch with common sense as ever. On Thursday they put up a new Facebook page, and on Friday their clueless leader (Wayne LaPierre) held a news conference -- and it quickly became apparent they are still spouting the same old nonsense. LaPierre blamed a whole host of things for the Connecticut shooting (gun laws, movies, video games, TV, media journalists, liberals, hurricanes, etc.) -- everything except the easy access to guns. And his cur for the mass shootings is just more guns, everywhere, even in our schools.

He even proposed putting an armed policeman in every school, completely ignoring the fact that having one or more armed officers didn't deter the mass shootings in Columbine, Virginia Tech, or Fort Hood. He also ignored the fact that this proposal would cost over $5 billion just in salaries (which doesn't include the cost of training, insurance and other benefits, pensions, etc.) -- at a time when the government says it is so broke it must cut funds for teachers and other school employees, not to mention school lunches for poor children, Food Stamps, unemployment insurance, environmental programs, and a whole host of other things.

The NRA leadership would have been better off to just continue their silence. All they did was show once again that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent American children and adults on the altar of their personal god -- the gun. They should be ashamed.

Killing Children Is Always Wrong

This nation mourns the senseless slaughter of 20 children in Connecticut, and well it should. There is never an excuse for the murder of innocent children. But we should remember that while we mourn the deaths of American children, our own government sends drones to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians in other countries, and many of those are very young children. Is this really any different from what happened in Connecticut? The only difference I can see is that it is being done by our government, making all Americans equally guilty of the murder of children. Isn't it time to demand our government stop this?

A Remarkable Memorial Speech

On Sunday, President Obama went to Newtown (Connecticut), and gave one of the best speeches of his life. I am posting the text of that wonderful and heart-rending speech here for those of you who might have missed it, or those of you who would like to read his words and remember for a second time. Here is what our president had to say:

To all the families, first responders, to the community of Newtown, clergy, guests, scripture tells us, “Do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, inwardly, we are being renewed day by day.

“For light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all, so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven not built by human hands.”

We gather here in memory of 20 beautiful children and six remarkable adults. They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America.

Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts.

I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief, that our world, too, has been torn apart, that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you. We’ve pulled our children tight.

And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide. Whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown, you are not alone.

As these difficult days have unfolded, you’ve also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice. We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch. They did not hesitate.

Dawn Hocksprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Russeau, Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy, they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances, with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.

We know that there were other teachers who barricaded themselves inside classrooms and kept steady through it all and reassured their students by saying, “Wait for the good guys, they are coming. Show me your smile.”

And we know that good guys came, the first responders who raced to the scene helping to guide those in harm’s way to safety and comfort those in need, holding at bay their own shock and their own trauma, because they had a job to do and others needed them more.

And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do, one child even trying to encourage a grownup by saying, “I know karate, so it’s OK; I’ll lead the way out.”

As a community, you’ve inspired us, Newtown. In the face of indescribable violence, in the face of unconscionable evil, you’ve looked out for each other. You’ve cared for one another. And you’ve loved one another. This is how Newtown will be remembered, and with time and God’s grace, that love will see you through.

Hearing The Same Tired Old Excuses

In the wake of the mass shooting in Connecticut of 20 kindergarten and first grade children (and six female school employees), we are hearing the same few people calling for something to be done to tighten our gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of people known to be dangerous -- and we are hearing the same old tired excuses for doing nothing (or even making weapons more available).

One of the most popular of these excuses is that phrase that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I'm really getting sick of hearing that nonsensical phrase. No one is saying that guns magically kill people all by themselves. But it is a fact that guns do make it much easier to kill people, especially large amounts of people. Does anyone really believe that as many people would have been killed if the perpetrator has been forced to use a different weapon (knife, sword, hammer, etc.) in Connecticut, Wisconsin, Colorado, Arizona, or any of the other places where mass shootings have occurred? Of course not, it is far easier to kill a bunch of people with a gun than with any other kind of weapon.

They also tell us that anyone intent on killing someone can find a weapon to carry out their deed. And they point out that a Chinese man used a knife to slash about twenty Chinese students and their teacher on the same day as the Connecticut massacre. But the fact is that none of the victims in China have died, and all of the victims in Connecticut have died -- that's a big difference. A person has a much better chance to outrun or avoid other types of weapons (or defend themselves in some way).

Then we hear that there are fewer deaths by guns in states that have a large number of guns. That one is just an outrageous lie. The simple fact is that the more guns are available, the more they will be used to take lives. A similar defense is the one saying guns are necessary for self-defense. But the guns kept in a home are far more likely to be used to murder a family member or friend, to be used in a suicide, or to accidentally kill someone, than they are to protect someone from harm.

We also hear that if only more of the victims had guns they could have stopped the mass murder. But Mother Jones studied 61 mass murders over the last few years (involving five or more deaths) -- and they found that not a single one of these had the murderer being stopped by someone in the crowd having a gun. In a few instances, the shooter was shot and killed -- but only after he had run out of ammunition or stopped the shooting for some other reason. The simple fact is that more guns doesn't make anyone safer.

Perhaps the stupidest argument is that making guns harder to get won't stop criminals from getting guns, since they will just break the law. Well, duh! Isn't that the very definition of a criminal -- someone who breaks the law. Using this kind of simple-minded reasoning, then we shouldn't have any laws at all -- because criminals will just break them. You don't do away with laws because criminals break them. You make the price for breaking them so onerous that criminals will think twice before doing it.

And finally we hear that restricting gun ownership in any way would be a violation of the Constitution's Second Amendment. This is not true either. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to own and use a gun is not absolute. Not everyone has the right to own one, and cities and states can restrict where and how guns are carried and used. I personally believe in the Second Amendment, and I believe it gives law-abiding citizens the right to own a firearm. But I also believe sensible regulations must be in place to protect the public from dangerous individuals.

It is time we have a national debate over gun laws and restrictions -- and anyone who opposes that must love their gun more than the lives of their fellow (and innocent) citizens, including children. What kind of country are we, if we can't even have the debate?

About The Victims In Connecticut

The following facts are from CNN:

The medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, speaking at a news conference in Newtown, said that all of the victims died of gunshot wounds, and the manner of death was homicide. The seven bodies he examined personally had three to 11 wounds each, he said.

“I believe everyone was hit more than once,” Carver said.

 He said the "long weapon" was used in the shooting, and that the weapon caused all of the wounds that he knew of.

He didn't say what that weapon was, but a law enforcement source has previously said that the gunman was found dead next to three guns: a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer.

Eighteen of the victims at the school were described as female; eight were male. Twenty-six people died at the school, excluding the gunman. Twenty were children; six were adults. All of the adults killed were women.

 Here are the names of those killed at the school, as provided by state police. 

Charlotte, 6; Daniel, 7; Rachel Davino, 29; Olivia, 6; Josephine, 7; Ana, 6; Dylan, 6; Dawn Hocksprung, 47; Madeleine, 6; Catherine, 6; Chase, 7; Jesse, 6; James, 6; Grace, 7; Anne Marie Murphy, 52; Emilie, 6; Jack, 6; Noah, 6; Caroline, 6; Jessica, 6; Avielle, 6; Lauren Russeau, 30; Mary Sherlach, 56; Victoria Soto, 27; Benjamin, 6; Allison, 6.

Nothing Will Be Done

I'm sure you have by now heard of the shooting in the Connecticut elementary school -- where six adults and 20 children (most of them in kindergarten or first grade) were killed in a senseless rampage by a lone gunman. To call this a tragedy is a gross understatement. I was tempted to say that there is never an excuse for killing children (and that would be true), but that statement would infer that there might be an excuse for killing innocent adults (and that would not be true at all). There is never any excuse for the killing of innocent citizens of any age.

Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence in the United States, and no state or community is immune to this kind of tragedy. Here, from Think Progress, are the mass shootings that have occurred just this year:

December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.

September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.

August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.

July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.

May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.

April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.

April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

And remember, those were all done this year, and 2012 is not all that unusual.  Several of these kinds of shootings happen each year. Some of them have many victims and others only have a few victims, but all are tragedies. And this is not a new thing that has just started happening in this country. I remember when a gunman entered a cafeteria in Killeen (Texas) in 1991, killing 23 people and wounding another 20. That was more than twenty years ago.

As I watched the TV accounts of the Connecticut shooting and perused the comments of social media users, I heard the same thing being said -- that it is time to have a national discussion about our gun laws, and how we could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I agree with that. But haven't we heard those same sentiments expressed after each of these tragedies in the past few years? And yet, that discussion is never held, and our gun laws are being loosened -- not made more restrictive. And I expect we'll see the same thing this time. After a few weeks, the outrage will die down and both state legislatures and our national Congress will get back to the job of making guns more easily accessible to everyone.

And that will happen because that is what the National Rifle Association (NRA) wants to happen. The NRA spends a ton of money each year promoting the notion that tragedies like this either cannot be prevented or can only be prevented by even more people owning and carrying guns in our society. And that NRA propaganda has been very effective, because we can expect many people to parrot one or both of those arguments in the coming weeks -- including legislators and other elected officials. Too many elected officials are running scared these days -- afraid that the powerful NRA will spend money to defeat them if they even try to discuss the issue of more restrictive gun laws.

There have been a couple of rather pathetic attempts at restricting gun ownership in the recent past. In 1994, during the Clinton administration, a ban on the sale of assault weapons was passed. This addressed only the future sale of these weapons, and did nothing about those weapons that already were owned by American citizens. And even that law expired in 2004, during the Bush administration, and no effort to extend it has been able to even reach the floor of either branch of Congress for a vote. So that effort has to be called an epic failure.

Then there is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, also passed in 1994. This law made it a requirement for licensed gun dealers to not sell a firearm to anyone without first clearing them through a federal background check (which would deny a gun sale to a felon, a fugitive from justice, a person with a dangerous mental illness, or anyone convicted of domestic abuse). This was a good idea, but the law had enough holes in it to make it virtually useless. 

First, many states have dragged their feet on reporting persons with dangerous mental illnesses. Second, even if a person could not pass a background check, they could still buy a firearm -- just not from a licensed dealer. They could buy the weapon from a family member, friend, or acquaintance, they could buy the weapon from a gun show, or they could simply check the classified section of nearly any newspaper for people wanting to sell weapons. None of those sources are required to do a background check.

Will there be a national discussion after this most recent tragedy, and will it result in needed and effective restrictions of gun ownership? I hope it can, but I must admit that I doubt either will happen. The NRA is too powerful, too many people have bought into the propaganda that any restriction on guns (even a sensible one) would violate their "rights", and too many politicians put their jobs before doing the right thing to save innocent lives. I know that's a sad assessment of where we are as a nation, and I wish it wasn't true. But I believe it is the truth. 

Dems Have Good Chance Of Holding Senate

A few months ago, the Republicans had high hopes of flipping the Senate from Democratic to Republican control. And many pundits thought they could do it. If that happened, it could end any hopes President Obama had (even if he was re-elected) of improving the economy and the jobs situation in this country. With control of both Houses of Congress, the Republicans could probably force a continuation of Bush-style "trickle-down" economic policy giving huge new tax cuts to the rich, and cutting government help for all other Americans.

Fortunately, it looks like the Republican hopes of a senate majority are dimming. The latest polls show the Democrats have a good (and still improving) chance of retaining their senate majority. Here are the latest polls in the most closely contested senate races:

CONNECTICUT
Public Policy Polling
Murphy (D)...............48%
McMahon (R)...............42%

FLORIDA
Quinnipiac Poll
Nelson (D)...............53%
Mack (R)...............39%

MARYLAND
Gonzales Poll
Cardin (D)...............50%
Bongino (R)...............22%
Sobhani (I)...............21%

MASSACHUSETTS
Rasmussen Poll
Warren (D)...............48%
Brown (R)...............48%

NEVADA
Public Policy Polling
Berkely (D)...............48%
Heller (R)...............44%

OHIO
Quinnipiac Poll
Brown (D)...............50%
Mandel (R)...............40%

PENNSYLVANIA
Quinnipiac Poll
Casey (D)...............49%
Smith (R)...............43%

Romney Moves Closer To GOP Nomination

The GOP nominating process marches on, as Willard Mitt Romney won another 5 states last night. Here are the results from those states:

DELAWARE (99% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............16,057  (56.59%)
Newt Gingrich...............7,659  (26.99%)
Ron Paul...............2,984  (10.52%)
Rick Santorum...............1,676  (5.91%)
Others...............0  (0.00%)
TOTAL VOTES...............28,376

CONNECTICUT (96% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............36,690  (65.74%)
Ron Paul...............7,903  (14.16%)
Newt Gingrich...............6,034  (10.81%)
Rick Santorum...............4,035  (7.23%)
Others...............1,148  (2.06%)
TOTAL VOTES...............55,810

RHODE ISLAND (99% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............8,228  (63.31%)
Ron Paul...............3,088  (23.76%)
Newt Gingrich...............789  (6.07%)
Rick Santorum...............734  (5.65%)
Others...............157  (1,21%)
TOTAL VOTES...............12,996

PENNSYLVANIA (99% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............286,272  (56.90%)
Rick Santorum...............97,560  (19.39%)
Ron Paul...............66,053  (13.13%)
Newt Gingrich...............53,216  (10.58%)
Others...............0  (0.00%)
TOTAL VOTES...............503,101

NEW YORK (91% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............93,669  (62.22%)
Ron Paul...............23,787  (15.80%)
Newt Gingrich...............19,520  (12.97%)
Rick Santorum...............13,574  (9.02%)
Others...............0  (0.00%)
TOTAL VOTES...............150,550

As expected, Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) swept all five states and took most of the delegates (but not quite all). That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that even though no candidate can now keep Romney from winning the nomination (although it will likely take him another month to clinch it), there is still a strong anti-Romney segment of Republican voters out there. These voters are not yet ready to fall in line and accept Romney as their candidate.

The five states that voted yesterday were likely going to be Romney states -- even before Santorum suspended his campaign. And yet, 34.26% of Connecticut voters, 36.69% of Rhode Island voters, 43.10% of Pennsylvania voters, 43.41% of Delaware voters, and 37.78% of New York voters all voted against the presumptive GOP nominee.

MSNBC.com led with the headline last night that Romney had kicked off his general election campaign. That seems a little premature to me. It looks like he still has work to do in getting his own party behind him. I still think many of the anti-Romney voters could vote for a third party or just stay at home on election day in November.

A Gift For All Democrats

Today should be a great day for Democrats everywhere -- a day that they get one of the best gifts they will receive this year.   What is it that is so great?   Listen to this.

Erika Masonhall, a spokeswoman for Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), told the media,   "After many thoughtful conversations with family and friends over the last several months, Sen. Lieberman made a decision about his future over the holidays which he plans to announce Wednesday."   Lieberman has a press conference scheduled for 12:30 pm (EST).   Another anonymous aide of the senator said Lieberman is going to announce that he will not run for re-election in 2012.

This is good news since it's been a long time since Lieberman acted or voted like a Democrat anyway, and his decision will allow the citizens of Connecticut to replace him with a real Democrat -- one that will vote with the party and the president.   Lieberman had been saying recently that he thought he could be elected to another term in spite of the fact that his poll numbers have recently plummeted in his home state.   It looks like that was just bravado and he has seen the writing-on-the-wall.

It's a shame that he couldn't have retired sooner.   He is one of those senators that was involved in killing the public option when the health care reform bill was being debated.   He has also been a big supporter of banks and credit card companies, and helped to water down the re-regulation of the financial industry.

Those kinds of things were bad enough, but Lieberman embarrassed himself and the Democratic Party (who he still caucuses with on Capitol Hill) when he refused to support Barack Obama in 2008.   He actually went to the Republican National Convention and offered support for the McCain/Palin ticket, and then campaigned for them.

Lieberman should have been thrown out of the Democratic Caucus long ago, and it's a relief that we won't have to worry about him any more after the 2012 election.   It would be nice if he spent his remaining time in the senate actually voting for Democratic causes, but I'm not going to hold my breath.   He sold out to the corporations a long time ago.

Connecticut Voters See The Light

Many Democrats across the nation were shocked when the people of Connecticut re-elected Joe Lieberman to be one of their United States Senators.   This mistake was compounded when "Traitor Joe" actually appeared at the 2008 Republican Convention to support John McCain for president.   Lieberman has been allowed to caucus with congressional Democrats, but his popularity among rank-and-file Democrats across the nation remains very low.

But there is good news.   It looks like the good people of Connecticut has finally come to their senses.   According to a new Public Policy Polling survey it looks like Connecticut voters are ready to kick Joe to the curb.   It is still a couple of years before he must run for re-election (2012), but Lieberman has a long way to go just to get his numbers into decent territory, let alone up enough to give him a chance to win again.

Just look at these numbers for Lieberman.   I think George Bush, as unpopular as he was, didn't have numbers this bad.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF JOE LIEBERMAN'S JOB PERFORMANCE?

Approve...............31%

Disapprove...............57%

Not sure...............12%

WOULD YOU WANT TO REELECT OR REPLACE JOE LIEBERMAN IN 2012?

Reelect...............24%

Replace...............66%

Not sure...............10%

WHO WOULD YOU VOTE FOR IN THE FOLLOWING MATCH-UPS?

Joe Lieberman...............19%

Chris Murphy (D)...............39%

Peter Schiff (R)...............25%

Undecided...............17%

Joe Lieberman...............17%

Chris Murphy (D)...............37%

Jodi Rell (R)...............29%

Undecided...............16%

Joe Lieberman...............33%

Chris Murphy (D)...............47%

Undecided...............20%

Connecticut Police Raid Animal-Fighting Ring

Last Sunday, the Shelton Police Department raided a Connecticut home where animals were being pitted against each other in fights, while spectators placed wagers on which would win the fight. The police arrested 19 people and charged them with animal cruelty and illegal gambling. The police and Connecticut Department of Agriculture also confiscated 150 animals.

Normally when a raid of this kind occurs, the animals in question are either fighting cocks (roosters) or a fighting breed of dogs. But this raid didn't involve either of those. The vicious animals involved in these fights are pictured above. That's right. They are saffron finches (pictured) and canaries.

I have to admit, I didn't even know finches and canaries could be trained to fight. And that anyone would be interested in betting on them even if they could be taught. But, the older I get, the more I learn. Police Sgt. Robert Kozlowsky said they'd never seen or heard of this before. He went on to say, "This is new to us. Finches are much easier to keep under the radar than roosters because they make less noise and they wouldn't arouse suspicions if someone had a lot of them."

All of those arrested were from Brazil. Evidently finch-fighting is bigger in that country. Kozlowsky said the police were tipped off about the illegal gambling, and conducted a month-long investigation before conducting the raid.

So I guess it would behoove us to be careful the next time we go bird-watching or hiking or camping. We might run across some of these "fighting birds".