The Power of Cook County, Illinois

Monday, March 24. 2008

The Power of Cook County, Illinois

In the race for the most popular votes in the Democratic Party's presidential primary contests, Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton is about 711,000 votes -- not including Florida or Michigan -- according to Real Clear Politics.

Of Sen. Obama's 711,000 popular-vote lead, 650,000 -- or more than 90% of the total margin -- comes from Sen. Obama's home state of Illinois, with 429,000 of that lead coming from his home base of Cook County.

That margin in Cook County represents almost 60% of Obama's total lead nationwide.

Interestingly, Sen. Obama's 429,000-vote margin in Cook County alone is larger than the winning margin of either candidate in any state.

Chicago Dems still know how to support their candidates better than anyone else in the country...

Update: Some readers have questioned the accuracy of the vote totals quoted here. As one of the commenters pointed out, the confusion stems from the fact that Cook County's voting results are reported in two different places.

Here are the results for Cook County, outside of Chicago: (pdf file)

Obama 281,183
Clinton 153,984

Here is the data for Cook County inside of the City of Chicago: (pdf file, page 6)

Obama 462,503
Clinton 160, 650

The total for Cook County:

Obama 743,686
Clinton 314,634

I hope that helps to clarify things.

Update II: One of the diarists at MyDD makes fun of the data cited here, but MyDD is wrong. Punch 10...

Update III: It's kind of humorous, but MyDD's diarist updates his post to say, "The New Editor has just updated their article somewhat, but still does not mention the HRC margin of victory in New York."

After mocking the original claim that Obama's Cook County, Illinois, margin of victory was 429,000 -- erroneously writing that the margin was "less than 130K," and that the claim of 429,000 was "a lie" -- the MyDD diarist declares that proving the original claim correct was simply 'updating the article somewhat.'

Datz rite. Punch 10...ya know

Update IV: The same diarist has apparently posted the identical post at Daily Kos -- complete with mockery and incorrect info. Datz rite. Punch 10 ...

Posted by Tom Elia in Politics at 14:12 | Comments (73) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I suppose it would be in bad form to ask how many of those Cook County votes for Obama were cast by voters who were still alive?

#1 Shannon Love (Homepage) on 2008-03-24 18:26 (Reply)

I quote Rich Rostrom on the Volokh Conspiracy re: dead farmer votes, and it's a well documented fact that this is not presently an influential category of the electorate (the Repubs would've been all over 'em in 2000 and 2004): "Could we please drop the "dead vote in Chicago" line? I judge elections in Chicago (for about 30 years) and I've never seen any sign of "cemetery voting". (I'm a Republican, so I would object.) The Daleycrats haven't needed to steal any votes for decades anyway."

#1.1 Koyaanisqatsi on 2008-04-02 23:04 (Reply)

Why not go right to the source, since the numbers reported here are incorrect anyway?

http://www.voterinfonet.com/results/020508/SummaryReport.pdf

#1.2 Tom Hayes (Homepage) on 2008-04-03 11:01 (Reply)

I think the confusion stems from the fact that Cook County's total vote is reported at two different sites.

The site that you correctly point to (for Cook County, outside of Chicago):

http://www.voterinfonet.com/results/020508/SummaryReport.pdf

Obama 281,183
Clinton 153,984

Here is the data for Cook County inside of the City of Chicago:

http://www.chicagoelections.com/dm/general/document_200.pdf

Obama 462,503
Clinton 160, 650

The total for Cook County:

Obama 743,686
Clinton 314,634

That's where the 429,000 number comes from...

I hope that helps clear things up.

#1.2.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 11:34 (Reply)

Well, at least his home county voted for him. If it didn't, I would be worried.

#2 N Kaiser (Homepage) on 2008-03-24 18:27 (Reply)

C[r]ook County sure helped the bootleggers son and landslide Lyndon. Sounds like Hussein got some of the same mojo.

#3 RKV on 2008-03-24 18:33 (Reply)

#1, You beat me to it. I think we can probably realistically halve that 492,000 figure

#4 Saul Goode on 2008-03-24 18:35 (Reply)

In Chicago, they vote early and often.

#5 rightguy on 2008-03-24 18:48 (Reply)

Yeah, this is about as good a sales pitch to the superdelegates as Hilary can hope for. "Do you want a candidate elected by the corpses and crackpots of Cook County?"

#6 JEM on 2008-03-24 19:04 (Reply)

The Early and Often, and Lately Deceased - so Obama has the Zombie Vote, interesting demographic.

#7 DirtCrashr (Homepage) on 2008-03-24 19:11 (Reply)

Interesting numbers too bad it doesn't matter. it's kind of silly to talk about this dead people stuff. This whole nomination thing needs to end so you can start crapping on mccain which would at least have a point. and by the way florida and ohio have a lot worst voting records than illinois.

#8 Brian Burke on 2008-03-24 19:27 (Reply)

OK..I'll bite...how does Ohio have a "worst" voting record than Illinois?

#8.1 Saul Goode on 2008-03-24 20:33 (Reply)

http://www.radosh.net/images/hillarysale.jpeg

#9 Brian Burke on 2008-03-24 19:30 (Reply)

http://lolegag.com/?p=257

#10 Brian Burke on 2008-03-24 19:31 (Reply)

Impressive, unless you subtract out Hilary's NY and Arkansas vote, just to make it an even comparison

#11 bill on 2008-03-24 19:46 (Reply)

How much of Hillary's total is from New York?

It is very misleading to cherry pick data and point out the home state of only one candidate.

Why don't you compare Obama's total without Illinois with Hillary's total without her home of New York (or is it Arkansas? or both?)

#12 JimmyS on 2008-03-24 19:56 (Reply)

The point I was trying to convey is how powerful the Cook County Dem Party is when compared with other, much larger entities.

If Cook County was itself a state, it would be just behind Wisconsin in size -- 21st overall -- yet its popular vote margin for the party's favored candidate has been larger than that of every state in the country during the 2008 primary season.

In 2004, John Kerry's margin of victory in Cook County over George W. Bush was 842,000 -- larger than the margins of victory for either candidate in every state except for CA, TX, and NY.

#12.1 Tom Elia on 2008-03-25 15:59 (Reply)

Also, is it suggested that these people from IL and Cook County won't vote for her in November? What exactly is the point?

#13 bill on 2008-03-24 20:06 (Reply)

I don't know if I suggested that.

Cook County Dems will vote for the Dem nominee by a margin of about 40%, if the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections are any indication...

#13.1 Tom Elia on 2008-03-25 15:48 (Reply)

May be that's why Obama can't disown his pastor (yet)?

#14 Candide on 2008-03-24 20:20 (Reply)

For an in-depth analysis and personal witness, please check out my blog entry:

http://thereisnosantaclaus.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-media-wont-tell-you-about-obama.html

#15 thereisnosantaclaus (Homepage) on 2008-03-24 20:34 (Reply)

So Illinois accounts for 90% of the margin --- and Georgia for 50%; Virginia for 40%; Maryland for 30%. Using %ages for a margin is misleading.

#16 pete on 2008-03-25 02:39 (Reply)

(writing as a citizen of Cook County)

Obama is wildly popular in Illinois in general and Cook County in particular, even though Hillary Clinton was born here and went to high school here.

I don't think there's anything suspicious at all.

#17 zbicyclist on 2008-03-25 08:31 (Reply)

Clinton's margin in NYState is just over 300K, while her margin in FL (where both were on the ballot) is just under 300K.

So if you added the state where both appeared and excluded both candidate's home state, you end up with a difference of maybe 85K votes.

Not exactly a popular vote landslide, but consistent with the claims that the Obama campaign was targeting delegates, not voters.

#18 Ken Houghton (Homepage) on 2008-03-25 14:33 (Reply)

Well, Chicago's 2.72 m are 35% black and I guess that's one way to get out the black vote.

#19 Dave on 2008-03-25 15:46 (Reply)

(May be that's why Obama can't disown his pastor (yet)? )

I think it has allot more to do with Donald Young.

#20 Jaqueline on 2008-03-26 03:56 (Reply)

The idea is that Obama got a 639,109 lead in Illinois which is 89% of his 717,086 total lead (which is beside the fact that if you count every state including FL, MI, IA, NV, ME, and WA, places that either are not counted or haven't released totals, Obama only has a 204,227 lead). But that isn't the correct way to do the math, and so it is unfortunate that has been spread around the media. This is all research on my own, and I haven't read it elsewhere, but here's why it is wrong, assuming we stick with the 717,086 lead number:

In Maryland he has a 218,454 lead. That's 30% of 717,086! But 89 +30 > 100, so that's why the math is wrong.

To properly determine Illinois's influence, here is what you do.

Illinois = 1,318,234 Obama votes
Total Obama Votes = 13,355,209 votes
So Illinois is 9.87% responsible for his total votes, and thus, 9.87% responsible for his lead.

Stat source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

#21 Zack Scott (Homepage) on 2008-04-01 16:31 (Reply)

These are disjoint numbers and need not add to a 100. Mistake to add them together. What percentage of the lead is the vote difference in MD or IL? Nothing wrong in saying 90% of the current lead is the same as the vote difference in IL.

This is what I don't understand: for Cook county, I found there are 1.3 million registered voters for 2008 and 42% of them voted in the primary, that is 546,000 which I assume will include both democrats and republicans. Where is the 429,000 vote lead coming from?

#21.1 pm317 on 2008-04-01 20:35 (Reply)

Those figures are incorrect -- for some reason, the Cook County Web site is not updated.

Cook County, Illinois, accounts for more than 50% of Illinois' total vote, which was just under 2 million in the Dem primary...

#21.1.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-01 21:06 (Reply)

The Cook Co. Board of Elections and the Chicago Board of Elections are two separate entities...even though the city is part of the county. So you probably need to take the totals from both. (Hope that makes sense).

#21.2 Anonymous on 2008-04-02 17:36 (Reply)

That does make sense. Thanks!

#21.2.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-02 23:10 (Reply)

Once could argue the oppsite for Clinton in AK & NY.

#22 Anonymous on 2008-04-02 16:48 (Reply)

For crissakes... The "popular vote" is a meaningless measure, since caucus states are WAY under-counted. A huge state with a caucus contributes far less "votes" than a small state with a primary. Does that make any sense? No - that's why we use DELEGATES rather than "votes."

#23 Bill on 2008-04-02 16:53 (Reply)

So in other words, even if Obama got no votes at all in Chicago, he'd still be in the lead?

#24 neil on 2008-04-02 17:10 (Reply)

Not if you include the Florida vote totals.

#24.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-02 23:07 (Reply)

Why don't you compare the Cook county margin with, gee, I don't know, another county? If you don't know why that might be sensible, aside from the whole apples to apples thing, you probably aren't too clear on the statistical properties of diversely distributed heterogeneous populations. Let me see if I can't illustrate. What is more represenative of the US electorate: A) A randomly chosen state, B) A randomly chosen county, C) A randomly chosen city or D) A randomly chosen person. Or I'll do you one better: Which is more likely to contain groups with significantly different voting proclivities, with respect to candidates for national office: A) A state, B) A county of the same size, or C) A city of the same size. If you feel smoke coming out of your ears, its conceivable you're catching on.

The next worthwhile question is whether or not popularity amongst people who know you best is a good or bad thing, but let's get the basics down first.

#25 Majorajam on 2008-04-02 18:07 (Reply)

Thanks for stopping by, I've learned so much!

I look forward to your next visit when I can add to my knowledge base...

#25.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-02 22:55 (Reply)

Have you? Because the only way to salvage your analysis, would be to present some equal metrics for Hillary, as many people here have pointed out to your stone deaf ears. But you haven't done that. Conversely, you could aggregate multiple not even necessarily contiguous counties in which Hillary got a disproportionate share of the vote, and compare that to Obama over the same metrics. Haven't done that either. Hmm...

Perhaps the problem is comprehension afterall, so let me spell it out for you. The underlying feature you're not controlling for is contiguous space. As it turns out, the greater the contiguous space the higher the probablility it contains diverse geography/economy/topography, the more likely you are to capture some of the different groups that make up the broader heterogeous electorate. As it is, your factoid is little more than an invitation to cast doubt on Obama's vote margin based on highly specious innuendo. But perhaps that's the point afterall, and hence your intrasigence?

Well, in any case, I think it's time you put down your keyboard and went home to get your shine box. Let's see if we can't discover your true vocation.

#25.1.1 Majorajam on 2008-04-03 07:58 (Reply)

Thanks for the help! Perhaps you'd like to be my first customer -- I'll bet you have lots of shoes...

#25.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 09:24 (Reply)

This is without a doubt stupidest bloviating rant I've read in months.

It's rambling circularity is majestic in its imbecility. A truly herculean effort in expending many words to say nothing.

Well done, Majorajam!

#25.1.1.2 Neutral Observer on 2008-04-03 17:02 (Reply)

#25, your premise that the author should compare apple to apples is not correct. He is not showing the "sample" distribution from across America. All he is showing is "if we set aside the huge vote majority from one county, the rest of the country in its entirety seems more or less balanced between the 2 candidates" - and don't ask why Cook county majority be set aside. He is not advocating that. This was a pretty simple straight forward observation about how one small geographical region has such an influence. There is no statistical correlation implicit or explicit in the article. So, I see no reason for your spouting off, except to perhaps show off your knowledge?

bonus Q: do you even wear shoes?

#25.2 Sagar on 2008-04-03 13:36 (Reply)

Hey Sagar,

Don't alienate my potential shoe-shine customers!!

#25.2.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 13:56 (Reply)

By your logic, if you took away the votes from a populous part of New York, wouldn't Obama have a wide lead in the popular vote?

#26 Purple State Pundit (Homepage) on 2008-04-02 19:29 (Reply)

I guess conspiracy theories make sense when that's all that's left to justify a candidate.

And they say Obama supporters are obnoxious.

#27 Ben on 2008-04-02 20:18 (Reply)

To which conspiracy theory are you referring?

#27.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-02 22:57 (Reply)

So Obama carried Cook County by more than Clinton carried the entire state of New York?

Pretty big number there.

They are obviously more impressed by their senator than the citizens of New York State are of their own senator.

#28 Rick W on 2008-04-03 00:49 (Reply)

Your numbers for Cook County are way off. Please correct your data:

http://www.voterinfonet.com/results/020508/SummaryReport.pdf

#29 EJ on 2008-04-03 10:35 (Reply)

Those numbers are incomplete -- as one of the commenters here pointed out, Cook County's results are broken up into two reporting entities...

#29.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 11:17 (Reply)

Thank you for the update.

It is clear to Chicagoans that Cook County politics are very different than Chicago City politics.

We also see this argument, that Rush Limbaugh echoed, as ignoring the fact that HRC won NY by around 300,000 votes.

#30 EJ on 2008-04-03 12:58 (Reply)

As a Chicago native, I would argue that any difference between the politics practiced in Chicago and those in the rest of Cook County is pretty minimal.

As I noted, Sen. Obama's margin of victory in the 2008 primary Cook County is not only larger than that enjoyed by Sen. Clinton in all of NY state, but it's larger than the margins in every other state, too.

#30.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 13:07 (Reply)

Cook County is blue-collar moderate, and Chicago is a more diverse liberal crowd.

BOTH vote DEM, but I would say the difference is a tad more than "minimal."

You can't compare Wicker Park to Oak Lawn.

#30.1.1 EJ on 2008-04-03 13:29 (Reply)

Degrees of differences...

#30.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 13:33 (Reply)

In Illinois every vote gets counted. Just to be sure sometimes they get counted six or seven times.

#31 M. Simon (Homepage) on 2008-04-03 13:15 (Reply)

No wonder why Bill Clinton is losing his temper lately he thought he had the dead vote wrapped up in Illonois. Mayor Daily and his henchment have to be licking their chops thinking of all the patronage that will be coming their way if one of their own becomes President.

#32 ronnor on 2008-04-03 13:32 (Reply)

It looks like you are going to have more traffic on this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/3/1347/60016/670/489542

#33 ElginCANDE on 2008-04-03 13:39 (Reply)

---When I read this, it rang a bell as to something else I'd read recently.
I wish I could remember where I read it. (Perhaps at NRO's "Campaign Spot" where Jim
Geraghty has been posting from Obama's book. )

It was discussing Obama's "community organizing" years. I believe it said he worked
with ACORN (?), but I know it said he was active in voter registration drives.

I swear I remember it saying he brought in hundreds of thousands of new voter registrations.
That's a LOT of new voters. Also could help explain his "healthy" margin in Cook County.

I guess, with the history of Cook County, one wonders whether that huge margin of his is made of "real votes".

Sorry I couldn't be more specific.

#34 JeanneB on 2008-04-03 13:39 (Reply)

Cook County is overwhelmingly a Dem stronghold -- the margin of victory is really a sign of that reality, not proof of widespread fraud...

#34.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 13:46 (Reply)

Good point . . . Hillary people were starting to think it was all a VAST LEFT WING conspiracy against her :o)

#34.1.1 ElginCANDE on 2008-04-03 13:55 (Reply)

It's mostly about the power of the Cook County machine -- but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of funny business going on...

#34.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 13:59 (Reply)

When I was an election judge in Chicago in the 1970s we received an envelope with 5 absentee ballots, all voting straight Democratic and all marked in green ink. Multiply 5 votes by how many precincts and you get how many fraudulent votes?

#35 Mark on 2008-04-03 13:55 (Reply)

This gives us a good chance to review what it really means for Hillary.

Take away Illinois, and Obama still has the lead in popular votes, delegates, states, and money.

While Obama had a high % in Cook, lots of people voted in Illinois, it's a big state. He won by a 31.9% margin.

Here are the 50+% margin states:

Obama has won many states by wide MARGINS (not percentages): Hawaii (52%), DC (51.5%), Virgin Islands (82.3%), Idaho (62.3%), Alaska (50.5%).

Hillary has not won a single state with over a 50% margin.

Let's look at the 40+% margin:

Obama: Kansas (48.2%).

Hillary: Arkansas (43.8%)

Here's the 30+% margin:

Obama: Dems abroad (33.3%), Nebraska (35.4%), Illinois (31.9%), Georgia (35.3%), Minnesota (34.2%), Colorado (34.2%).

Hillary has not won any states in this range.

And the 20% margins:

Obama: Mississippi (24.5%), Wyoming (23.6%), Vermont (20.7%), Virginia (28.2%), Maryland (24.9%), Lousianna (21.8%), North Dakota (24.6%), South Carolina (28.9%).

Clinton: Oklahoma (23.6%)

And the 10% margins?

Obama: Wisconsin (17.3%), Alabama (14.4%), Utah (11.1%)

Clinton: Ohio (10.4%), Rhode Island (18%), New York (17.1%), Massachusetts (15.5%), Tennessee (13.5%)

And, just so Hillary people don't call me out on it, here are the under 10% margin categories:

Obama: Missouri (1.4%), Connecticut (4.1%),

Clinton: New Hampshire (2.6%), Texas (with Hillary's Limbaugh 9% of the voters) (3.5%), California (8.3%), New Jersey (9.9%), Arizon (8.0%), New Mexico (1.1%)

This makes the point: Obama wins by much higher margins across the US than Hillary, and Illinois wasn't even in the top ranks.

Data taken from:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Point: what does this mean for Hillary's electablility? Numbers say she has to win over 60% of the vote (meaning by a 20% margin) in each of the upcoming elections.

Problem: she hasn't won a single state with that kind of margin, not even her home girl states of New York or Arkansas. And, that was when she was inevitable, and before Bosnia, Nafta, Ireland, not paying her bills, Watergate take 2.

Advise: donors, stop wasting your money. The probablility of her winning is generous when stated at 5%.

#36 Kiku on 2008-04-03 14:21 (Reply)

Actually, take away Illinois and add Florida, and Hillary leads in the popular vote...

Add Florida and Sen.Obama's popular-vote margin is roughly equal to his popular margin in Cook County...

#36.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 14:37 (Reply)

How about we subtract Canada, add West Dakota & North Atlantis, then divide by Mexico?!?!

This is just silly stuff. I can't wait for Hillary to go away.

#36.1.1 Willy on 2008-04-03 15:03 (Reply)

Correction:

Hillary did win Arkansas and Oklahoma with over 60% of the vote, ie. a 20+%.

Arkansas was her home state.

Donors, stop wasting your money.

#37 Kiku on 2008-04-03 14:33 (Reply)

Interesting numbers. Are we seeing another Kennedy-Nixon "win" in the making?

#38 Ardmoor on 2008-04-03 14:57 (Reply)

"It is clear to Chicagoans that Cook County politics are very different than Chicago City politics."

Only in the fact that there's less dead bodies available to vote in the rest of the county. Otherwise, corruption only seems to increase when you go from city to county to state. DuPage isn't much better, unfortunately, or I'd move. But then they still have slightly lower taxes...

#39 plutosdad on 2008-04-03 15:04 (Reply)

This is ridiculous. Clinton keeps screaming popular vote because she can't win caucuses. Why can't she win caucuses? Because it takes dedicated supporters and an efficient campaign. She has neither.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the game and use popular vote as the measuring stick because the caucus states would have held primaries if they had been told up front that the popular vote would matter.

#40 Dawn on 2008-04-03 15:04 (Reply)

"Add Florida?"

Look, I lived here and voted. At the polls there were two self-professed Clinton volunteers manning the Democrat table outside. I said some good things about Bill Clinton and they assumed I was in on the fix and assured me there was a huge effort in place to get Clinton voters out, and that the delegates would be seated (wink wink!).

When I told them I was an Obama supporter and thought their scheme was unfair you would have thought I'd stolen their teddy bears...

Of course, I reported all that to the DNC and Gov. Crist, for what it is worth.

So, no, you can't count Florida.

-chris blask

#41 Chris Blask on 2008-04-03 15:50 (Reply)

Unlike Michigan, I believe both Obama and Clinton were on Florida's ballot, right?

Didn't both candidates adhere to the no-campaigning rule?

What is wrong with get-out-the vote efforts?

#41.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 15:57 (Reply)

The dupes at MyDD are not "diarists." They are *diarrea-sts*!

#42 chicopanther on 2008-04-03 16:18 (Reply)

hmmm, isn't there another Democratic candidate who is from Illinois? Who was actually born in Chicago/Cook County no less?

Hint: Its a she!

#43 jt (Homepage) on 2008-04-03 17:28 (Reply)

Excellent observation! Are you a detective?

#43.1 Tom Elia on 2008-04-03 17:46 (Reply)

I suppose we could point out the proportion of Tennesee's vote that went for Gore in 2000....Less than for Bush. If Gore had won Tennesee, Florida would not have mattered.

#44 Don Meaker (Homepage) on 2008-04-03 19:52 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Monday, March 24. 2008

The Power of Cook County, Illinois

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Monday, March 24. 2008

The Power of Cook County, Illinois

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites