The Election of Barack Obama

The election of Obama is a very important step forward for America. It fulfills the best promises of our nation, that a person rises and falls on the merits of their own ability regardless of skin color or heritage or sexual affiliation or religious affiliation. Well maybe not sexual affiliation just yet. I think the most important part about electing an African American to the presidency is that he was the best man for the job. I could not have voted for him if he did not meet that requirement.

Obama truly ran a race designed to be as free of sleaze as he could make it. He largely succeeded at this and in doing so has provided hope that others will follow in this path and run on issues and problem solving. Obama allows our country to breathe a giant sigh of relief that Bush, despite his best efforts, has failed to totally destroy the country.

Obama has a big win and a solid mandate to follow through on his policy proposals. I hope he chooses to get that health care done first. There is a lot on his plate including the closure of Gitmo. Not to mention the massive economic issues he must deal with.

Obama though is not perfect. He seems to be very much focused on moving forward without dealing with the sins of the past. I hope i am wrong about that because i think it is truly important that we deal with those who have so disgraced us in the eyes of the world. It is not enough to simply work to undue what they have done, we need to provide a disincentive to ever try and do it again. Accountability should be the watch word. Sadly i dont see obama following through on this, but i hope i am wrong.

So congratulations to everyone who worked their asses off to get him elected and to america for having the good sense to vote for him. He was truly the best choice, the best person for the moment. Now the work of governing and fixing our problems begins.

Read more...

Prediction Post

Because all the cool kids are doing it.

* 58 Democratic Senate seats
* 40 Republican Senate seats
* 263 Democratic House seats
* 172 Republican House seats
* 353 Obama Electoral Votes
* 185 McCain Electoral Votes
* 52.1 Obama Popular Vote Percentage
* 47.5 McCain Popular Vote Percentage

Read more...

Obama Should Govern From the Left

As the prospect of an Obama victory becomes more likely many commentators are feverishly penning articles that demand Obama respect, (1) this is a center right country, (2) everyone is really just voting against Bush, (3) "bi-partisanship", (4) the dangers of liberal over-reach. All of these arguments are designed to do one thing, make sure that Obama does not actually govern as *Gulp* a liberal. Obama was never going to be a kucinich or sandersesque leftist but he is solidly left of center and, apparently, this is very scary. There is no reason for him to hide his non-conservativeness or govern in a manner other than that which he promised to govern. Obama has promised to govern from the left and it is the correct thing to do.

What has Obama promised to do?

Favoring aggressive action to control greenhouse-gas emissions, he is open to considering nuclear power and has explicitly credited Republicans for promoting market-oriented approaches to environmental problems (and he has attracted the scorn of some on the left for doing so). A sharp critic of No Child Left Behind, he has spoken favorably about merit pay for teachers. Offering an ambitious health care plan, he would not require adults to purchase health insurance. His goal is to make health care available, not to force people to buy it--a judgment that reflects Obama's commitment to freedom of choice, his pragmatic nature (an enforcement question: Would those without health care be fined or jailed?), and his desire to produce a plan that might actually obtain a consensus. And, while he would raise taxes on the very richest Americans, he is hardly anti-business; indeed, he proposes to eliminate the capital gains tax for start-ups and small companies.

and for another take,

He’s running on a platform that promises universal preschool, dramatic cuts in carbon emissions and investments in clean energy infrastructure, health insurance that would be affordable for all, comprehensive immigration reform, substantial labor law reform, large new spending on K-12 initiatives, and tax reform to make the federal code much more progressive overall.

Is it really the suggestion of the arguments in the intro that Obama not follow through on these proposals? I think that to make the case that Obama should not actually do the things he has promised requires a stronger evidential showing than has been produced so far. In order to prevent Obama from enacting his promised initiatives we would need clear and convincing evidence that the American public is not supportive of them. I don't see that evidence.

Let's look at one issue in particular that many of the people who make claims about "bi-partisanship" want to see both sides get together and work out a new plan and not the one Obama campaigned on. If we look at two recent polls on the issue we find first a CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 12-16, 2008 where 50% of respondents support fundamental changes and 35% support complete overhaul. To give some direction to this fundamental change we can gauche the attitudes of voters on universal coverage. On this topic an ABC News/Washington Post Poll from June found 66% supported coverage for all even if it meant an accompanying tax increase. Obama's position where he advances coverage without ending the employer based system fits squarely into the majority opinion in these two polls. Clearly people want the type of reform Obama is offering. If Obama's position already has solid majority support why should he let it be watered down and altered?

This finding is not limited to health care alone. A brand new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that when asked, "whether you agree or disagree with each of the following candidates on the issues that matter the most to you" 60% of them agreed that Obama is in alignment with them on the issues matter. If you do not like a poll as a basis for governing then consider that on Tuesday we have an actual election with the goal of deciding who we want to lead the country.

Elections are to determine the direction we want our country to go in. Voters have a choice between McCain and Obama and their myriad different policy positions. Some have argued that this election is not a ratification of Barack Obama and his policy choices at all but a simple repudiation of Bush. This argument makes the fundamental mistake of distinguishing Bush from the actions of the party which he lead. The Republican Party controlled every branch of government from 2000-2006. During that time frame we did not see the Republicans in either the house or the senate standing up to Bush and opposing the governing decisions that the American people are rejecting. The Republicans never sought to regulate the banking industry, the never sought to close Guantanamo, they opposed withdrawal from Iraq, they opposed S-CHIP, they were more than willing to support Alberto Gonzalez and the politicization of the DOJ. Bush was supposed to be the standard bearer for the conservative movement and his presidency will be the biggest failure in American History and the Republican party has held his hand all the way down.

The general point is that the American people are rejecting the failure of the Republican party in governance. If you really dont want to connect that failure to an ideological issue fine, but realize that there policy attitude has not changed. They will continue to advocate the same failed policy proscriptions without cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush. This will make working with them nearly impossible. Why would a President Obama compromise with the group that lead us headlong into this mess and refuses to change? Make no mistake the Republican's left in Congress after this election will not be the most moderate and interested in helping a president Obama.

So what does the political world look like on Wednesday if the gurus at ABC News are right? They all announced their guesses Sunday morning, and the average of their projections is 352 electoral votes for Obama plus a pickup for the Democrats of 24 seats in the House and 7 or 8 seats in the Senate.

If this happens, the upshot is that both parties get moved to the right. Most of the Democratic pickups will be in centrist states and districts, which will move the Democratic caucus moderately toward the center. At the same time, it will remove these centrist states and districts from the Republican side, which will make the GOP caucus not just smaller, but even more conservative than it is now. As a touchstone, the Republican Study Committee, the hardcore conservative wing of the House GOP contingent, currently represents a little over half of their total strength. After Tuesday they're likely to represent nearly two-thirds, which means that the rump of the House Republican caucus remaining after Tuesday is likely to be almost entirely in the hands of the most faithful of the movement conservative faithful. These true believers are not likely to give in quickly to the notion that hardcore conservative ideology needs a bit of freshening up if the party wants to regain its competitive edge. On the contrary, they'll probably double down, convinced that they lost only because John McCain and George Bush abandoned the true faith that America truly yearns for.

It is hard to image that the American people really want a president Obama who caves to the people who represent the exact thing they threw out of office. The American people want competency and success after eight long years of failure. That means simply delivering on what Obama has promised them. If Obama takes his plans, ratified and supported by the voting public, and executes them every thing will be fine. If instead he tries to moderate them and fails then his ideological background or governing from "the center" will be meaningless in the eyes of voters. We know the conservative plans don't work so why would we continue to use them? Obama should go with his natural instincts, left of center governance.

Read more...

The Turn Out

The biggest crap shoot of this election is foing to be the turnout. Who ultimately shows up to vote will determine who is elected. There is one potential model where Obama wins big and none of the mccain voters turn out. This would leave us short of the record turnout that some people have predicted. It is also possible depending on the lack of enthusiasm for mccain versus the fear of an obama presidency. McCain and the gop have done a very goood job trying to make sure that their base fears Obama.

People have evaluated his ads based on the idea that he is trying to scare the undecideds away from voting for obama but this tactic also works to scare your base into voting. Make them so fear the opponent that even though they dont particularly like you the fear of the other guy is so great that they just cant take the risk of letting him win. Here is the turnout discussion from last nights hardball.



I do have to take issue with the assertion that McCain is running his GOTV efforts in ohio and the other traditional battleground states. 538 did the work of actually visiting the offices in the battle ground states.

Offices in Troy, Ohio were closed on Saturday October 11. With perfect coincidental timing, two elderly women dropped by to volunteer but found the office shut. At Republican state headquarters in Columbus later the same day, one lonely dialer sat in a sea of unoccupied chairs. In Des Moines on September 25, another empty office. In Santa Fe on September 17, one dialer made calls while six chatted amongst themselves about how they didn't like Obama. In Raleigh this past Saturday, ten days before the election with early voting already open, two women dialed and a male staffer watched the Georgia-LSU game. In Durango, Colorado on September 20, the Republican office was locked and closed. Indiana didn't have McCain Victory offices when we were there in early October.

When the offices are open, they have reduced hours. We can confidently plan to get evening good-light photographs of a town after we visit the local McCain office, because we know it will be closing by 5 pm, as the office in Wilmington, North Carolina was this past Sunday. The plan is, get to inevitably closed/closing McCain office, get an hour of photos near sunset, then visit the bustling local Obama office.

It coming down to the wire. It appears Obama has done everything possible to take this thing. One day till election time.

Read more...

New No on 8 ad

This i think is one of the better ones.



Getting Obama out there against it is a good idea. Make sure that anyone voting for him knows he does not support this. in california he is up by 20 points so i doubt this can drag him down. Everyone should know that this is nothing more than codifying discrimination and they need to remember that when they vote and live with it after wards.

Read more...

Obama, 9 votes

Compare the story of the rather sad McCain GOTV and volunteer efforts with this video from the obama cmapaign,



If there is one thing that people should take away from the obama campaign is that the media people in it were incredible. I cant actually recall a visual or media screw up like say, mccain's green screen.

so can you get 9 votes?

Read more...

Sad, Sad, Story

But the other story, the story on which we've had a running eight-week exclusive in 36 separate On the Road pieces and counting, is that John McCain's ground campaign is just not happening. It hasn't been happening, without Sarah Palin there might be four or five volunteers across the entire nation left, and now, per Mosk's piece at WaPo, it looks like it will be happening even less.

Head over to 538 and read the tragedy that is McCain's ground game at work. Look at the photo's by Brett Marty and tell me you dont feel bad for the people in the photos.

Read more...

Stop Cherry Picking PollS

I hate it when people cherry pick one poll to support their narrative. i hate it that pollsters write narratives when they release their numbers. A single poll is not all that valuable. That is why 538 and pollster and the other polling sites deal in aggregate polls. one poll is just not reliable enough on its own. the more polls that cluster around a value the more reliable. Picking one lone poll that shows obama tied with mccain in tennessee is not worth reporting on. just stop.

Read more...

Determinist v. Free Will

As the campaign winds down there is going to be an ongoing narrative war. There will be two camps, the determinist and free will. The determinist camp will be supporting the idea that no matter what events happened in the campaign mccain was going to lose and that the macro factors such as general anger at Bush and Republicanism were most important. the free will camp will hold that McCain was in this campaign and that he, more than any other republican could have overcome the macro factors because of his unique campaign branding. these people look at the tactics and strategy employed by mccain and use those as the determining factor of the election.

I tend to come down in favor of macro factors setting up the playing field tilted in obama's direction to the point that mccain needed to run a flawless race with obama running an average or bad campaign. Just the opposite has happened. McCain has run a terrible race. Many will assert that mccain has not actually run a bad race, they will point to the numbers coming out of the convention and during the summer as an indicator. This is a flawed argument because the numbers coming out of the convention fit in line with historical trends coming out of conventions. Also, the polling during the summer has never been a particularly great indicator of where the race is going to end up and that held true here.

Instead McCain made a series of highly visible and very poor choices. He made the choice to run to the right in an attempt to salvage his "base". He ran as a pure conservative after the primary in defiance of his brand name. He made the conscious decision to embrace bush instead of creating separation. McCain figured at the time that he could win on an experience versus change argument and that by throwing bush under the bus he would be making too great a concession towards change. McCain proceeded to run a fairly traditional Republican campaign on matters of national security and taxes. The when it came down to crunch time after a fairly forgettable summer he picked sarah palin.

Palin was a terrible pick. She was a complete reversal on the one consistent message mccain had, experience. McCain needed to present a perfect image to the voters to separate himself from the macro factors that weigh down genric republicans. he not only failed to rise to this challenge but ran away from it and into the arms of his party hardliners. Then he failed in his response to the financial crisis making himself look erratic and foolish.

So McCain had a mountain to climb at the beginning of the election. It was not an impossible climb but it was a really tough climb. In the end he has put his foot wrong one too many times and it is doubtful he recovers. Be careful of anyone who attributes things solely to either the macro or micro factors because the truth is in the middle.

Read more...

Obama's American Documentary

People are calling this several things, "The Ad", "The Informercial", but really this thing plays more like a ken burns documentary than an ad or an informercial. the production values and the stylings and the tone scream documentary. By the way, Obama can narrate very well. Its 27 minutes long and it feels like the documentation for the obama campaigns goals and values. I cant say how many people it will convince to vote for him but i dont think it really hurt his chances.

Some people have really gone contrarily and said it was too good, too well made. This is pretty weak. Olbermann and maddow both brought this up and i really could not have disagreed more. If Obama had a couple more it would certainly be a pbs mini series called, the american experience.

McCain of course followed up with a heavy attack ad buy. i cant help but tink this turned people off especially given the stupid "yet" added to the end of an ad attacking obama for not having enough experience.

Read more...

McCain and the Press Coverage

Politico has a story up on the press coverage of the election. Specifically they are addressing the issue of bias in media coverage. The entire post is very interesting and worth a read. Look particularly at the premise of the piece contained in the first line, "thats not balanced". This is a major signal that one group is upset that the stories run are not perfectly equal in tone and tenor. Here is happens to be coming from the McCain campaign.

The McCain campaign would very much like for the stories about the election to be "balanced". Balance is a term of art that means every time you mention a negative thing about mccain you have to cancel it out with one about obama. This of course fails to take into account a situation where one candidate, mccain, is far more negative than the other. McCain has been almost exclusively negative personal attacks since the convention. The only exception might be this socialism stuff he is floating although that is so dubious and lacking in support it really is a personal pejorative. The McCain people are upset because the stories actually reflect reality,

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

No, i call it the truth. The truth is that mccain has been more negative and more personal this election cycle. his attacks have not only lacked effect the have lacked merit. Having been informed of both of these issues McCain has not opted to go the traditional route of apologizing or defending and pulling the ad. Instead what he has done is push on with discredited ads in the face of press opposition. The politico crew call this, the mccain backlash.

One is McCain backlash. The Republican once was the best evidence of how little ideology matters. Even during his “maverick” days, McCain was a consistent social conservative, with views on abortion and other cultural issues that would have been odds with those of most reporters we know. Yet he won swooning coverage for a decade from reporters who liked his accessibility and iconoclasm and supposed commitment to clean politics.

Now he is paying. McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout.

Since then the media often presumes bad faith on McCain’s part. The best evidence of this has been the intense focus on the negative nature of his ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs on radio and in swing states.

Now you can certainly take issue with he idea that Obama's ads have been as dirty and untrue as mccain's ads have been. Obama has stayed on policy, attacking mccain relentlessly on policy and on his policy reactions in the campaign. The part about the media assuming bad faith on McCain's part is certainly true. I dont want to give the politico crew too much credit because they really do try and carry mccain water in a couple places,

It is not our impression that many reporters are rooting for Obama personally. To the contrary, most colleagues on the trail we’ve spoken with seem to find him a distant and undefined figure. But he has benefited from the idea that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext. That’s why Obama’s long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was basically a nonissue in the general election.

Journalists’ hair-trigger racial sensitivity may have been misplaced, but it was not driven by an ideological tilt.

Rev Wright was a nonissue because it was not an issue. It became an issue because of race. Politico is making the assertion that had it been a white pastor and a white candidate we would be seeing all wright all the time and we know thats not true. See sarah palin and her witch hunting pastor. The truth is that many of the attacks were raced based. anything having to do with his middle name is a racial thing.

Politico finishes the piece with a look at the systemic biases institutionalized in the media and i think this is possibly the most important section.

Beyond the particular circumstances of McCain v. Obama, there are other factors in any race that almost always matter more than the personal views of reporters.

The strongest of these is the bias in favor of momentum. A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever). And a candidate who is perceived to be doing poorly tends to have all events viewed through this prism.

Not coincidentally, this is a bias shared by most of our sources. This is why the bulk of negative stories about McCain are not about his ideology or policy plans — they are about intrigue and turmoil. Think back to the past week of coverage on Politico and elsewhere: Coverage has been dominated by Sarah Palin’s $150,000 handbags and glad rags, by finger-pointing in the McCain camp, and by apparent tensions between the candidate and his running mate.

These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank. Indeed, there was a spate of such stories when Obama’s campaign hit turmoil after the GOP convention and the Palin surge.

For better or worse, the most common media instincts all have countervailing pressures. Countering the bias in favor of momentum is the bias against boredom. We’ve seen that several times this cycle — an outlying poll number being pumped to suggest big changes in a race that is basically unchanged. There’s a good chance you’ll see this phenomenon more in the next week.

Then there is the bend-over-backward bias. This is when journalists try so hard to avoid accusations of favoritism that it clouds critical judgment. A good example were stories suggesting Palin held her own or even won her debate against Joe Biden when it seemed obvious she was simply invoking whatever talking points she had at hand, hanging on for dear life.

Finally, one of the biases of journalists is the same one that is potent for almost all people: the one in favor of self-defensiveness. That’s why, even though we think ideological bias is pretty low on the list of journalistic maladies in this election, it is not viable for reporters to dismiss criticism out of hand.

I am loathe to run through each of these things one at a time. It suffices to say this stuff is true. it is one of the times that media people actually tell you what they think and why they run a story. They admit here to cherry picked polls to try and create artificial news. They admit to relying on the gossip and process stuff instead of focusing on policy. Everything the press is routinely criticized for is in this last section.

Politico seems to be hanging their hat on the simple proposition that reality says one campaign is winning and the other is losing. They luck out here in a way because even if mccain was actually winning with these tactics he would deserve just as much scrutiny. Sure we might see fewer process stories but i doubt it. Reporters just love that stuff too much. instead of negative wardrobe stories we might being seeing stories on how palins look was helping mccain. his ads however would still be 100% negative. if the presss covered the negativity different because he was winning that would not be right. The entire talk of balancing stories is something that needs to go away. Politico crew sums it up best when they say,

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

Read more...

Todd Incident Reveals Media's Race Beliefs

If we have learned one thing from this election cycle it is that race has not gone away. the racial fault lines of our country have simply been covered over with a thin veneer of media and societal denial. Race is an important topic for discussion in this country and it needs to be addressed. One of the areas of particular importance is in the media. the coverage different events receive based on the color of the protagonist or antagonist in the story.

From The Debate Link

As the echo of Ashley Todd's false claim of being assaulted by a Black Obama supporter fades into the political background, I found in interesting to observe how the incident was racialized. There did not seem to be any doubt amongst the commentariat that this was an effort to spark a racial response in the electorate. But Ms. Todd's actions were not seen as a signifier or example of White character as a whole. Her accusation was not something "they" (White people) do. It was a "callback" to a bygone era, or it was an aberration from general White practice.

Contrast that to how, for example, the fictive claims in the Duke Lacrosse case, or Tawana Brawley, were treated. They were racialized as well, but unlike Ms. Todd they were used to make broad, sweeping statements about what "they" (Black people) do with regards to putative racism -- namely, just make stuff up. It was not seen as exceptional, or aberrational. It was a valid measuring stick from which to look at all claims of racialized White-on-Black violence.

The instinct, I feel, in Ms. Todd's case was the proper one. Take note of how race is being used by the perpetrator of the fraud to create a certain reaction, and condemn those who exploit that sentiment without proper verification. But don't impute the event wholesale onto the entire race. White folks do not want Ms. Todd's frame-up to become the standard by which we are measured. But fair is fair -- if we want the benefit of the doubt, we have to give it when faced with parallel situations on the other side of the racial divide.

Pay close attention to the discussion going on in countdown. Fast froward to the 2:05 mark to hear the historical argument straight from Eugene Robinson.



One of the reasons that this became so linked to the historical acts is that it fit the narrative too perfectly. It was readily apparent to anyone who read to kill a mockingbird in high school. Of course in real life there were precious few people willing to stand on the side of african americans accused of such crimes. Instead there would be lynchings, mob "justice".

When David makes the comparison between this case and the Duke Lacrosse case he is revealing one of the major racial faults in the country. White people really dont see racism as such a societal problem anymore while african americans do. A Gallup survey from July found

About two-thirds of white Americans (63%) say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way society treats blacks, while more than one-third of black Americans (35%) say the same.

Gallup dug deeper into race relations in August with a poll that found 51% of whites ,59% of Hispanics, and the vast majority of blacks 78% view racism as widespread against blacks in the United States. These numbers, as striking as they are barely scratch the surface. Looking at four issues in particular the divide is clear,

On all four issues, blacks are more likely than whites and Hispanics to see racial discrimination as a major factor. In fact, a majority of blacks say racial discrimination is a major reason each problem is occurring.

Among Blacks the percentages of those who thought racism was a major problem was 64% for education, 71% for income levels, 57% for life expectancy, 80% in prison rates. If you throw in the people who thought it was a minor factor you get 89% education, 92 income level, 85 life expectancy and 91 percent of blacks who think racism is a problem in prison rates. Compare this to whites where only 32% 35% 25% and 44% found racism to be a major problem. Aggregated the number of whites who perceive racism as a problem climbs to 68 76 62 and 77 for the four categories. The numbers are clear, whites dont think racism is as big an issue as blacks. There was of course big split in partisan id with dems perceiving more racism indys less and republicans the least. this corresponds with the higher levels of african americans in the dem party.

The reason that these numbers matter is that the people who control the media and determine story lines cover things generally from a white perspective. The white narrative is the dominant one in the media. The media is aware that black people perceive high levels of racism and this conflicts with their own views that there is much less racism and that where it does exist it is less of a problem. Thus they will tend to discount black claims of racism just as the villagers did in the boy who cried wolf.

I agree with David that we should not generalize from one incident and apply that broad brush to the larger racial groups. Race is a nuanced an volatile issue. the media's handling of it is a disaster in that it generally discounts black and liberal views on the racial issues in this country. Black people perceive racism in this country and instead of simply dismissing the claims and assuming the voting rights act took care of it the issue should be addressed head on and the concerns evaluated. that is the only way to move forward.

Read more...

Shame to Increase Turnout

Shankar Vedantam of the WaPo takes his turn reporting on turnout effects highlighting the famous (or infamous) shaming experiment. As part of the experiment several versions of a letter were sent to different groups. The letter contained increasing levels of information on the voting habits of the target and targets neighbors.

"

These were the most homely pieces of direct mail in the history of direct mail," said Green, who works at Yale University. "They were sheets of computer paper. They had no graphics and used block courier type. They are the exact opposite of the slick four-color mailings that campaigns send out."

Homely though they were, the letters had a powerful effect. The control group's turnout rate was slightly less than 30 percent. Among those who received the "civic pride" letter, turnout was 6 percent higher than the control group's. Among those who were told they were being studied, it was 12 percent higher. Among those who were shown whether they had voted in the previous election, the turnout was 16 percent higher.

And telling people what everyone in the neighborhood had done the previous Election Day -- and letting them know that they would be similarly informed about the current election -- boosted turnout by 27 percent.

The effectiveness of snitching on neighbors exceeded that of live telephone calls and rivaled that of laborious, face-to-face canvassing, the political scientists wrote in an article published in the American Political Science Review this year. Direct mail costs peanuts compared with other techniques.

I have mixed feelings on this experiment. While i applaud the idea of getting more people to vote i have to believe that we care about intent. By doing this type of mailing we are essentially coercing people into voting with the threat of a public shaming. these people are being coerced into voting. something about that just seems wrong in a society founded on the right to vote. Every right comes with the ability to not exercise that right if a person chooses.

On the other side is the fact that democratic societies rely on the voting public to keep them strong. if people do not participate in the process then politicians will not be held accountable. people will be further turned off of politics as a result of seeing those same politicians go unpunished for ignoring the people. Maybe we need to provide a little incentive for people to use their right. Social pressure is an effective tool in curbing behavior found unacceptable in society. Smoking is down as a result of not only greater education but a stigma attached to it. Not voting has that same stigma which is why people lie about voting. Now though they cannot get away with that.

Some countries even require that people vote or suffer some form of actual punishment. i cant see that ever happening in the states if only because certain interests would prefer that people not vote. This notification letter might be as close as we get.

Read more...

Mail in Voting on the rise

The LAT contains a piece on the rise of mail in voting in California,

At least 40% of the state's registered voters already have decided they want to vote by mail, according to data compiled Friday by the California Assn. of Clerks and Elected Officials. The percentage is expected to grow as Tuesday's deadline to apply for a mail-in ballot approaches.

California isn't the only state where voters are eschewing a trip to the polls. A majority of voters prefer their mailbox over the ballot box in Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, according to the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Portland, Ore.

Twenty-eight states allow residents to vote by mail without the excuse -- sickness, disability, being out of town -- that traditional absentee ballots have required.

My personal opinion is that vote by mail and absentee voting is the way to go. It allows people to take their time voting and research the propositions and other candidates. It reduces time pressures that occur on tuesdays, like work or babysitters or simple apathy. Voting by mail also make challenging voters at polls much more complicated as voters who register for absentee ballots must be registered to vote. You cant just show up and demand to vote. Despite the big pluses the system has its detractors,

The increasing popularity of voting by mail in California and elsewhere has prompted some election experts to question whether convenience should trump concerns about ballot secrecy, fraud and the complications of processing mail-in ballots. The growing debate is leading some registrars and voting-rights advocates to call for a renewed discussion about how far the state should go to promote voting by mail.

"Some would like to see California become entirely a vote-by-mail state," said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan voter-education group. "I would suggest we take a closer look at it."

Some experts said that residents who vote at home may be more susceptible to coercion by spouses, friends or co-workers to vote a certain way. They also worry that those who cast their ballots early could miss important campaign developments that might have changed their vote.

The phrase grasping at straws comes to mind. With every advance comes the idea that we are sacrificing some essential part of community or Americanism. People talk about some sense of community being built at poling places but my own experience is that most people vote in schools or other places in a non communal way. they get in to vote and get out back to work. People talk about getting rid of caucuses yet Caucasus are the perfect example of the type of community building advocated here.

The idea that people are going to be coerced because they have the ballot delivered to their house is absolutely absurd. Are husbands going to steal their wives ballots and fill them out? Are parents going to nab their kids ballots from the mail then force them to sign the "under threat of perjury" line? I really really doubt that. The fears of intimidation are way overblown.

The allegation that people are going to miss campaign events that would change their minds sounds plausible. Most people are not changing their minds once they are made up. 90 in 100 people vote based on self identified partisan ideology. very few people are truly undecided and these people would still be free to hold onto their ballots till the end.

Over all i think the pros out wiegh the cons for vote by mail systems. every state should adopt at least a partial system letting those who prefer to vote from the kitchen table do so.

Read more...

McCain:Pop Quiz if Elected

Surprise! John McCain has informed us that there will be a test if he is elected.

“I have been tested,” McCain said, with a certain gritted-teeth look at the state fairgrounds in New Mexico. “I’m gonna test them. They’re not gonna test me.”

Of course who exactly he will decide to test is up for debate. I put my money on Iran or maybe Cuba.

Read more...

Palin v. McCain: Republican Rumble

The McCain campaign has become a microclimate of the GOP. Constant discord and strife, infighting and circular firing squads. The epicenter of this most recent fight is blame over McCain's failing campaign. One side wants to blame palin for being incompetent and a complete drag on the ticket. The other side blames the McCain team handlers for not letting Palin be Palin. It all kicked off with a report by politico's ben smith

Even as John McCain and Sarah Palin scramble to close the gap in the final days of the 2008 election, stirrings of a Palin insurgency are complicating the campaign's already-tense internal dynamics.

Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image — even as others in McCain's camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain's decline.

"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.

"I think she'd like to go more rogue," he said.

Smith goes on to outline the palin camps frustration over her very restrictive treatment and the McCain camps counter charges of her complete and utter unreadiness. Palin essentially sees the writing on the wall and wants to make sure her career and political future is not destroyed by being tied to McCain. Personally i think that ship has sailed. However Plain clearly does not and just as clearly the McCain team wants to make sure she becomes the top line reason for the loss. They are attempting to generate conventional wisdom that blames palin for dragging everything down.

Instead of triggering denials and push back that everything is peachy keen in McCain land Cnn ran with the story and included more quotes from McCain aides and Palin stalwarts detailing the campaigns inner battle.

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."

A Palin associate, however, said the candidate is simply trying to "bust free" of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged roll-out.

McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls -- recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent -- "irritating" even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan.

A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

This is simply the explicit stating of things that some were observing under the surface. MSNBC's Chuck Todd commented on the apparent lack of chemistry between the two after the recent brian williams interview.

"When you see the two of them together, the chemistry is just not there. You do wonder, is John McCain starting to blame her for things? Blaming himself? Is she blaming him?...We are at a critical juncture inside this campaign for the McCain folks and that is who is trusting who? You have got people worrying about their reputations. Now you are wondering do the candidates trust the staff? Does the staff trust the candidates? This is a dangerous time in a campaign that is behind."

The underlying story here is clear. The McCain people think that Palin has no idea what she is doing and is undercutting and creating distractions. They view her as incompetent and someone who needs to be tightly controlled to minimize the damage. They are right about that. Palin has failed in just about every attempt to answer substantive questions. She draws attention to her inexperience and captures the news cycle with stories that put mccain on the defensive.

But two sources, one Palin associate and one McCain adviser, defended the decision to keep her press interaction limited after she was picked, both saying flatly that she was not ready and that the missteps could have been a lot worse.

They insisted that she needed time to be briefed on national and international issues and on McCain's record.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

The crux of the problem is that you cant blame palin. She has her political future to think of. From every indication she is confident in her abilities. She truly believes that she should be given more room to do what she wants and she is going to make that room. She was picked by the McCain people to be the VP and that alone should give her a self belief. No the people responsible for this are McCain, Black, and Schmidt. This is possibly the best quote of the entire cycle and it shows exactly why those three people are responsible.

After that first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff — gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates. One tape in particular struck Davis as arresting: an interview with Palin and Gov. Janet Napolitano, the Arizona Democrat, on "The Charlie Rose Show" that was shown in October 2007. Reviewing the tape, it didn’t concern Davis that Palin seemed out of her depth on health-care issues or that, when asked to name her favorite candidate among the Republican field, she said, "I’m undecided." What he liked was how she stuck to her pet issues — energy independence and ethics reform — and thereby refused to let Rose manage the interview. This was the case throughout all of the Palin footage. Consistency. Confidence. And . . . well, look at her. A friend had said to Davis: "The way you pick a vice president is, you get a frame of Time magazine, and you put the pictures of the people in that frame. You look at who fits that frame best — that’s your V. P."

Schmidt, to whom Davis quietly supplied the Palin footage, agreed. Neither man apparently saw her lack of familiarity with major national or international issues as a serious liability. Instead, well before McCain made his selection, his chief strategist and his campaign manager both concluded that Sarah Palin would be the most dynamic pick...

The next morning was Thursday, Aug. 28. Salter and Schmidt drove Palin to McCain’s ranch. According to Salter, the senator took the governor down to a place where he usually had his coffee, beside a creek and a sycamore tree, where a rare breed of hawk seasonally nested. They spoke for more than an hour. Then the two of them walked about 40 yards to the deck of the cabin where the McCains slept. Cindy joined them there for about 15 minutes, after which the McCains excused themselves and went for a brief stroll to discuss the matter. When they returned, McCain asked for some time with Schmidt and Salter. “And we did our pros and cons on all of them,” Salter told me. “He just listened. Asked a couple of questions. Then said, ‘I’m going to offer it to her.’ ”

There is no way that the McCain people are allowed to complain about Palin being uniformed. They knew she was uninformed. They picked her for the same confidence on display right now. Viewing the Charlie Rose interview they admired her tactic of latching onto pet issues and never letting go. They knew everything they needed to know about sarah palin before they picked her and not only didn't they care about the flaws they admired them. They were right that she was a dynamic pick and she does look good. It just so happens that the other things like policy matter too. Her strengths have been weaknesses and her weaknesses have been fatal flaws. Palin has been who she is but it turns out that who she is is not what the McCain camp projected they were getting.

It was all there but it took someone better than schmidt mccain and co to see it. Now they are repenting at leisure a marriage they made in haste as the pick they thought would put them on top has instead begun to tear them apart. Palin will continue to fight for her personal future and set the stage for her dream 2012 run against Huckabee and Romeny. The McCain loyalists will continue to paint palin as the backstabbing diva who cost them the race and dems everywhere will sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.

Read more...

News from Iraq on SOFA

Periodically is do a post on the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq that provides the legal framework for our presence and has been under negotiation for several months. Last week it looked like a deal had been done between Bush Co and al-Maliki that covered the central sticking point of Iraqi Legal jurisdiction over american soldiers. The deal had to go through several phases of approval before it could become law and one was the Political Council for National Security. Apparently it was a no go. McClatchy reporting,

Fearing political division in the parliament and in his country, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won't sign the just-completed agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, a leading lawmaker said Friday.

It appears that the same sticking points that have been holding up the agreement all along went unsatisfied in the eyes of the Political Council. There are a number of political reasons for these failures including the Iraqi political classes unwillingness to associate with the americans before the upcoming elections next year. The politicians are trying to balance the appearance of working with the americans with being the tools of iran. This has lead to an impasse with the result that al-Maliki now has to go back to the UN to get the mandate renewed for the coming year or risk the US being unable to perform operations within the country.

Here is a 15 minute in depth expose on the situation from al-jazeera english.

Read more...

I am Spar..Joe the Plumber!!

Really, it had to be done.



Now Compare



Cmon, this entire economic strategy built around Name the Occupation is about the most stupid and juvenile thing yet. It is beneath the dignity of a serious political campaign, luckily mccain is not running a serious political campaign. Serious political campaigns deal with issues and the concerns of voters, neither of which mccain addresses.

McCain has been running around telling people the center piece of his campaign is the economy. Clearly this is a laugh line. The center piece of the mccain campaign are lies innuendo and smear currently being spread by robo calls. Go over and read the NYT preview of the mccain campaign article. This pretty much sums up the mccain campaign

After that first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff — gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates. One tape in particular struck Davis as arresting: an interview with Palin and Gov. Janet Napolitano, the Arizona Democrat, on “The Charlie Rose Show” that was shown in October 2007. Reviewing the tape, it didn’t concern Davis that Palin seemed out of her depth on health-care issues or that, when asked to name her favorite candidate among the Republican field, she said, “I’m undecided.” What he liked was how she stuck to her pet issues — energy independence and ethics reform — and thereby refused to let Rose manage the interview. This was the case throughout all of the Palin footage. Consistency. Confidence. And . . . well, look at her. A friend had said to Davis: “The way you pick a vice president is, you get a frame of Time magazine, and you put the pictures of the people in that frame. You look at who fits that frame best — that’s your V. P.”

Could you ask for a more shallow and incompetent way to pick a running mate? Truly this explains why palin spent 150K on clothing, she was picked to look pretty distracting viewers from her filibuster and lack of knowledge. I mean they knew about the abuse of power investigation and ignored it. This validates every thing said about how the gop operates, they live to win campaigns and not to govern.

Read more...

This is a two party system...

I was reminded of this today...



Brilliant stuff.

Read more...

Obama Cmpaign Robo Calls

Obama has his owm Robo Calls out there to fight those of John McCain.

Here's a script:

Hi, this is Jeri Watermolen, calling for the Campaign for Change. I live in Green Bay and, like you, I've been getting sleazy phone calls and mail from John McCain and his supporters viciously -- and falsely -- attacking Barack Obama. I used to support John McCain because he honorably served our country -- but this year he's running a dishonorable campaign. We know McCain will continue many of Bush's policies, and now he's using George Bush's divisive tactics. In fact, he hired the Bush strategists whose attacks even McCain once called hateful.

Barack Obama will turn the page on these negative politics and stand up for the middle class. That's the change we need, and it's why I have changed my mind about John McCain. Join me in voting for Barack Obama. Paid for the Campaign for Change, a project of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, 608-255-5172, and authorized by Obama for America.

People want to know if robo calls work and i think the answer is that no they do not. People just dont listen to the calls. Calls with volunteers are the only call method proven effective. However that is hardly the point of these calls. The point is that now anyone mentions robo calls obama's will be included because of the need for balance. Obama will be able to get his message attacking mccain for being sleazy out in the free press echo chamber and now millions who would otherwise never been exposed to them are. It is similar to what mccain has been doing with his video press releases.

Read more...