There is a great clamor out there, swelling up over the amber waves of grain, across the purple mountains majesty, and above the fruited plain. And it is for one thing and one thing only: another blogger with nothing better to do than to serve up a day's set of links.

Well, great clamor, you can simmer down now (mixed metaphor alert). Because here's the interesting stuff my Google Reader found today. I may not be able to work any of these bullets into a column, but that doesn't mean that they're not interesting. It only means that I've got a mental bloc going! So, enjoy:

-Murtha's campaign warchest is going to charity. More specifically, "the John P. Murtha Foundation, established to create a center for public service at the University of Pittsburgh's Johnstown campus..." Consolation for Mark Critz, the Democrat looking to replace Murtha? He gets $5k from Murtha's PAC.

-In other PA 12 news, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette snubbed the Democratic nominee, Mark Critz, by endorsing his primary opponent. Bit of background: the PA-12 special election is being held to fill Murtha's seat for the remainder of the 111th Congress. At the same time, voters will also choose party nominees for the November election for the 112th Congress. It's for the latter contest that the PG has snubbed Critz. The editorial board writes:

While both candidates were well-informed, Mr. Bucchianeri was direct and straightforward in his answers, while Mr. Critz, on controversial topics, was hedged and cautious. Ryan Bucchianeri may be the underdog in this matchup, but he has earned the Post-Gazette endorsement.

In a sign of where the editorial board's politics are, it endorsed Tim Burns for the GOP primary - but still endorsed Critz over Burns for the Special Election!

I like newspaper endorsements because they assume that the readers care. At one point in time, I presume they did. But do they anymore? Of course not. Yet newspapers everywhere still make them. I find that charming (for some reason). I imagine some poor undecided voter out there desperately talking to friends and neighbors trying to figure out whom to support. Then, he buys a copy of the PG at the gas station, and suddenly the lightbulb comes on. Yes, says this undecided voter, I will vote against Mark Critz in the primary but for him in the special. Thank you, PG! Thank you!

-With Joe Sestak closing the gap in the Pennsylvania Senate race, the DSCC is sending money to Arlen Specter. It's nice to know that in a world of strife and turmoil, some things never change. Arlen Specter may have switched parties, but he is still a drain on congressional campaign committees! (Quinnipiac finds Sestak closing the gap now, too!)

-This is what type of year it is going to be: Ron Paul's kid is going to defeat the GOP establishment candidate in Kentucky. That's the biggest reason to watch Sestak. Voters everywhere - in both parties - are pretty pissed off, and they are looking to back outside-the-box candidates. Prediction: the 112th Congress is going to be a wild one. What's the over/under on the number of freshmen who are carrying around the 10th Amendment in their breast-pocket? I'm going to say 20.

-Gallup still has the parties tied on the generic ballot. A few years back, I had pulled together their historical generic ballot stuff, but that old data is now lost on some old computer. Suffice to say, a tie is very rare - and historically it has not meant a tie so much as a huge GOP blow-out. Still, I wouldn't read the whole world into it. All the stuff I talked about last week about contextual problems in comparing elections from the 1950s to today applies also to the generic ballot. We're going to build a predictive model of the 2010 election on the generic ballot from 1958? Ummm...no. At a minimum, I say predictive models must be built on elections that were held after the Beatles broke up. So, 1970 or later. And also, I think Gallup has made some changes in the wording of the question over the years. I have never been terribly persuaded by generic ballot numbers, but still it is noteworthy that the parties are tied.

-For somebody who does statistical analysis, Nate Silver sure does get himself into a lot of controversies. Well, he's in another one - this time over the UK Parliamentary elections. He's been going back and forth with Robert Ford over the best way to model them. See here for Silver's model, here for Ford's. Here is Ford's critique of Silver. And here is Silver's critique of Ford. Silver likes to airdrop into technical situations where he does not have much background but still tell everybody what is going to happen. Sometimes he's amazingly accurate, sometimes he's ridiculously inaccurate. I'm reminded of that line from Seinfeld: "You're eating unions, you're spotting dimes...I don't know what the hell is going on!" If he's getting pushback from scholars, that's a sign of something. Still, I can't help but like the guy. He's got guts - and for a detailed, in-the-weeds back and forth over votes-to-seats in the UK, it's one hell of a show!