Tjuncle's list of 5 things that could disrupt the election are all unfortunately distinct possibilities. What alot of folks probably don't know is that the chances of a faithless elector(s) swinging the election one way or another are very real. In just about half of the states there is no binding mechanism to insure that electors vote in accordance with the results of their state's voters preference.

In a scenario where one of the other issues pops up (litigation, glitches. etc.) some enterprising elector/electors might try to "interpret" the will of the "true" majority of their voters and take it upon themselves to right what they see as a "wrong" decision by state officials or some court.

I don't think there is anything anyone can do about an attack or the aftermath. I believe concerning the right wing steeling the election the only real defense is a huge voter tunout an a landslide for Kerry. Call me an optimist but I believe both are possible, a clear mandate is our only real hope against these idiots

>>Are the voters stupid? It is not considered politically correct to point out that an awful lot of voters don't have a clue what they are talking about.<<

Yep. My personal belief, as I always say to everybody on and off-line, democratic countries get the leadership they deserve 75% of the time. Stupid is as stupid does. You don't like what's going on, don't blame the leadership, blame your next door neighbor!!

Have you read articles where interviewed people actually rationalize away Bush's failings? Or how they interpret his debate performance? There's a LOT of people out there who don't actually like the fact that Kerry can use BIG words and know what they mean! He can't be trusted because of that. . . :-)

BTW, this problem has been around since the first democracy in Greece. The aristocrats at the time complained there were too many ordinary citizens involved in the political process mucking things up. The founding fathers probably thought they could get around that problem with our model of republican democracy. But stupid citizens always seem to somehow create problems no matter what. . . ;-)
I can't remember now if it was Thomas Jefferson or John Adams who said an informed, educated citizenry is the key to a strong democratic country. In this day & age of instant-gratification entertainment and "spin-free" zones, that is harder than ever. . . :-(

From this site you can link to the letter they sent to Sinclair

www.mediamatters.org/items/200410190004

Media Matters for America Underwrites Sinclair Broadcast Group Shareholder Demand
First Step Toward Legal Action Against Sinclair Calling for Immediate Access to Equal Airtime To Balance Partisan Attack Film Stolen Honor

(WASHINGTON, DC, October 19, 2004) - Media Matters for America (MMFA) announced today that it is underwriting the costs of a shareholder action, demanding that Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., provide equal time to those "with views opposed to the allegations" in the anti-Kerry film Stolen Honor, which Sinclair plans to air between October 21-24, in prime time, on all 62 of its stations reaching up to 25 percent of U.S. TV households.

At 10 a.m. today, a letter from Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street firm with clients who hold stock in Sinclair, was delivered to the CEO of Sinclair, David D. Smith, and the company's board of directors, demanding that they immediately "provide those with views opposed to the allegations in the film an equal opportunity to respond." If an answer to Glickenhaus' demand is not received by close of business today, Tuesday October 19, additional remedies, including an injunction in a court of law prior to the first scheduled airing of Stolen Honor October 21, may be sought.

"Our mission is to thwart conservative misinformation in the media and ensure that the media offer the American public fair and balanced access to news and information," explained MMFA President and CEO David Brock. "We determined a stockholder effort is the strongest remaining course of action to force Sinclair to reconsider its decision to air Stolen Honor."
Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street investment firm holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, is taking action against Sinclair on behalf of its clients holding shares in Sinclair. General partner Jim Glickenhaus mounted the action based on Sinclair's CEO and directors having a financial obligation to shareholders.

"We are not partisan. We are investors," Glickenhaus explained today. "Sinclair's decision has caused harm to the value of our investment in Sinclair. We believe Sinclair must give equal time to an opposing point of view. Otherwise the company is placing its future and the value of our investment in jeopardy, by putting the renewal of its FCC licenses at risk, alienating local advertisers, and opening itself up to libel suits against the company."

Since Sinclair's decision to air Stolen Honor became public on October 9, the company's stock has fallen nearly 13 percent, as of the close of the market yesterday, October 18, wiping out nearly $90 million in shareholder value.
MMFA's action is the latest in a series of grassroots actions aimed at forcing Sinclair to reconsider its decision to air Stolen Honor. On October 12, MMFA made available to the public the list of the top 20 mutual funds and six pension funds with investments to Sinclair. As a result, shareholders have called their fund managers, demanding immediate divestment of Sinclair stock as a protest against Sinclair's plans.

"We felt that by underwriting the legal costs of Glickenhaus & Co.'s actions, we are sending a message to Sinclair's board and CEO that will make them stand up and pay attention," Brock explains. "Glickenhaus & Co. is a respected firm whose interests are in maintaining shareholder value for its clients."

This action may be heard in a state court prior to the first scheduled airing of Stolen Honor, if Sinclair does not accede to the remedies set forth by Glickenhaus & Co. on behalf of their investors.

This predictive map was made using the following assumptions.

- Voters who already have made a choice will stick to it
- The undecideds will break 2:1 for the challenger (Kerry)
- If Nader is on the ballot, he will get 1%; otherwise 0% (was 2.74% nationally in 2000)
- The minor candidates such as Badnarik, Cobb, etc. will get 1% of the vote (was 1.01% in 2000)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/pred/

That is the most optimistic projection for Kerry I have ever seen. If North Carolina were truly close, John Edwards would move there.

A problem with the predicted electoral map referenced above is the assumption that undecideds would break 2 to 1 for Kerry; a nice hypothesis but untested. The hypothesis does not seem to take into account that many of the undecideds may decide not to vote, and the 2 to 1 assumption is probably overly optimistic in any event, particularly in states where Kerry is not now strong, such as in the South, including North Carolina.

It's definitely the very best case scenario but it makes me feel good and it's a possibility.

Laguy - actually that 2:1 break assumption has been tested pretty well:

"there is some hard data on how the undecideds break. Nick Panagakis analyzed 155 elections, specifically looking at polls taking two weeks before an election. In 127 cases, the challenger got most of the undecided vote. In 9 cases the undecided vote was split equally, and in 19 cases most went to the incumbent.

Panagakis' study was done in 1989, but it has been updated recently by Chris Bowers. He studied polls and elections from 1976 to 2002 and examined the differences between the final polls and the actual vote. On the average, the undecideds went for the challenger 2:1."

Certainly no guarantees there, but it is indicative that undecided voters tend to favor the challenger over the incumbent far more often than not. Interestingly, a pure least squares regression analysis of all the polls for the last 30 days comes up with nearly the same result.

Phoenixguy: Panagakis did not look at presidential elections, if I read him properly. This is not insignificant because the reasons for being undecided in a highly publicized presidential election may differ from local and state elections, where the challenger is often a real unknown, relatively speaking. Also, I don't believe Panagakis concluded the ratio was necessarily 2 to 1 and would remain so irrespective of whether the incumbent eventually won the election by a landslide (such as Bush in Missisippi will) or lost in a landslide (Kerry in Mass.).

Chris Bower concluded, based on non-presidential data that about 58 percent of the incumbents pick up more than 1/3 of the vote. Indeed he spoke of some weakening of the incumbent rule since the time of Panagakis's article (could it be that with CNN, the internet, and so forth, the nature of the undecided voter, who previously may have been undecided due to lack of accessible information, has changed?).

I still believe it takes a leap of faith to accept as a general matter the 2 to 1 rule, adopted by the electoral map website referenced above. And perhaps this was a bit obscure, but my original comment on this (posted above) was meant to suggest the 2-to-1 hypothesis was untested with respect to Kerry, since I believe presidential elections, and particularly this one, are unique, i.e., different from local and state elections in many ways.

Having said this, I believe a very good case can be made that barring some dramatic news development or campaign blunder Kerry will get the majority of the undecided voters. I just think it is unjustified to assume he will get around 2/3 of them, particularly in places like North Carolina, where the majority of decided voters appear to be clearly in Bush's camp. I would, however, be more than happy to be wrong about all this.

Regarding "reasons for being undecided in a highly publicized presidential election may differ from local and state elections, where the challenger is often a real unknown, relatively speaking", you may have a point. On the other hand, Americans can be amazingly ignorant on political matters (spare me the flames please, I was born and raised here in the US and know a LOT of my compatriots couldn't care less about politics). Maybe "undecideds" tend to go for the challenger when all they know is they don't really like the incumbent, or the economy, or the weather today, and they don't know anything about the challenger, so at least he's a chance for an improvement? I don't pretend to know the answer, but this would certainly make an interesting dissertation for some political science major.

While I do find it interesting to see if all of this has any real predictive value, which technique is a better predictor, etc. Come election day I don't imagine people will be voting one way or another because of what the advance polls said. One political bombshell and the whole country could become a bunch of "flip-floppers".

http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-supporters-are-wildly-misinformed.html
BUSH SUPPORTERS ARE WILDLY MISINFORMED

From Judd Legum’s blog, excerpted from the PIPA study:

75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.

72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.

72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.

69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.

60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. (An additional 19% think Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Gallup had 62% on this question.)

58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.

57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected.

56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.

55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.

http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/info/press/releases/2003/100203_pipa.htm

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) is a group of social science researchers who study public opinion on international issues; it is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6562575?rnd=1098687953734&has-player=true

Fear and Loathing, Campaign 2004

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson sounds off on the fun-hogs in the passing lane
By DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON

Voters Still Split Sharply, and Evenly
Cultural values, more than the economy, are dividing the country between Bush and Kerry as the fissures seen in 2000 resurface in dramatic fashion.

The Los Angeles Times has a story today that explains why this election is so much more emotionally charged than previous ones. It is not about economics, but part of a cultural war. A new LA Times poll shows Bush doing well among lower and middle income whites, whereas Kerry leads among whites earning more than $100,000 a year despite his promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year. As president, Bush has enacted big tax cuts for the rich but the rich are voting for Kerry. What's up here? The same poll shows that 2/3 of the people who attend a house of worship at least once a week are voting for Bush, whereas 60% of those who attend religious services less than once a week are voting for Kerry, in part because these voters recoil at Bush's constant use of religious imagery. Lower income whites like Bush's proposal to ban gay marriage but only a quarter believe his policies have been good for the economy. In contrast, affluent whites who have benefitted the most from the Bush tax cuts believe Bush's policies have hurt the economy. In short, far more than in previous years, economic policy is taking a back seat to cultural issues. The real divide seems to be between deeply religious lower income, lower education, voters living in small towns and rural areas who have conservative values on abortion and gay marriage versus higher income, higher education, secular, urban voters who have progressive views on cultural issues. Maybe James Carville was wrong: It's NOT the economy, stupid. With this background and the fact that eight of the nine Supreme Court justices are past the traditional retirement age of 65 and four of them have been treated for cancer, it is likely that the choice of who the next president will nominate to the Court will weigh increasingly heavily on the minds of many voters as we approach election day. For more on this issue, see this story also, in the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll26oct26.story

Republicans for Kerry

One of the many strange hallmarks of Election 2004 is the numerous Republican groups which have formed to organize support for Democrat John Kerry's campaign. There are also, of course, "Bush Democrats" around, but they're far less organized, and if my colleague Patrick Mulvaney's crawl around the internet is any indication, far fewer in number than their counterparts.

President Bush's extremist agenda, his Administration's skyrocketing budget deficits and his dishonesty in the run-up to war are the main reasons cited by longtime Republican voters for abandoning their party's nominee. The choice is simple to voters like Mitch Dworkin, who explains in an article on the Republicans for Kerry 2004 site that, "Bush and most of his Administration represent an extreme faction of the Republican Party and are out of touch with the American people."

There are numerous groups and organizations to check out to get a sense of the unusual number of Republican and conservative groups opposing President Bush in the upcoming election:


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?pid=1938

My vote for Kerry is not just a vote against Bush. A vote for Kerry means Cheney GONE, Rumsfeld GONE, Wolfowitz GONE, Ashcroft GONE, Rice GONE and it will also mean O'Reilly PISSED, Hannity PISSED, Rush PISSED. All of the above mentioned were angry people to begin with, and they are angry now, and they will still be angry after nov 2, 2004, but I want this country to smile again.

Speaking of O'Reilly, I was channel surfing last night and stopped to watch him show off his program's new logo. He was was simply gushing over the damn thing. And what was so great about it. It was a plain American flag with the words NO SPIN printed in block text beneath it. Sheesh!

Speaking of no spin, I don't suppose anyone saw his reaction to Bush's spin on Kerry's comments regarding the missing explosives? I wish I had; that would have been something to see.

To recap: weapons inspectors told the government about tons of weapons being stored somewhere in Iraq. A year later ... oops, they're gone! Kerry claims that the "Commander in Chief" must take responsibility for the fiasco. After a couple of days thinking it over, Bush strikes back at Kerry for criticizing US military personnel serving in Iraq. Huh? What kinda lame spin is THAT?

I was a little worried that this story may have been printed befor it's time like the CBS thing, but it's looking like the ducks are lined up.

Explosives

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

“We can stick it in those and make some good bombs.” a soldier told our crew.

There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn’t identify, but box after box was clearly marked “explosive.”

In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name “Al Qaqaa”, the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren’t secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

“We weren’t quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn’t appear that this was being secured in any way,” said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. “It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents”.

Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/alfrankenshow/index.php

BUSH SALUTES UNDECIDED VOTERS

This is a hoot

http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

So, why are you attacking our troops?

I can only speak for myself but I attack our troops because they are minions of the great satan and
Allah hates them

News from the Votemaster

Today's harvest is 39 polls in 18 states. In most states the winner didn't change, but we have motion in two key states. The most recent poll in Ohio, Zogby's tracking poll, puts Kerry a tad ahead there, 46% to 45%, well within the margin of error. Other Ohio polls are mixed. Rasmussen's tracking poll puts Bush 4% ahead but the LA Times poll puts Kerry 4% ahead. Let's call Ohio a tie. Which way it goes will almost assuredly depend on the turnout Tuesday, especially among younger voters. Could OSU elect the next president? It is not out of the question.

The other state where we have a change is Michigan. According to the latest poll there (Zogby's tracking poll) Bush and Kerry are tied at 47% each. However, two other polls (Rasmussen and Mitchell Research put Kerry ahead by 6% and 1%, respectively). All in all, by gaining Ohio and having Michigan be tied, Kerry makes a net gain and now leads in the electoral college, but neither candidate has the required 270 electoral votes it takes to win.

Ellis Henican had a very insightful column yesterday that is relevant to the Rasmussen poll I cited yesterday in which 1/3 of the voters weren't sure the election would be fair. Henican said the banks execute millions of ATM transactions every day, giving the customer a printed receipt if requested, and get them all right all the time. Not a margin of 1%, no recounts, but 100% right all the time. Why can't we make a voting system that is 100% right all the time? It would seem to me that the right way to do this would be a touch screen machine that asks the voter to make choices for the various offices in a language chosen by the voter (with audio output if desired), and when all done prints a paper ballot the voter can personally verify and deposit in the ballot box. The computer total would be available instantly after the polls close but in the event of a challenge, these paper ballots could be optically scanned or even hand counted. I can't believe a system like this is infeasible and it would certainly help restore faith in the electoral process.

But the problems aren't only technological. There may be deeper forces at work. Today's New York Times reports that tens of thousands of absentee ballots in Florida's heavily Democratic Broward County have mysteriously vanished. The county says it mailed them but the post office says it never got them.

Several lawyers have contacted me about the issue of what to do if you show up to vote and the election officials say you are not registered. Here is the procedure. First, be absolutely sure you are in the correct precinct. If you are in the wrong precinct, in most states, your vote won't be counted. If you are not 100% certain of your polling place, go to www.mypollingplace.com and check. Alternatively, call the toll-free number 1-866-OUR-VOTE or your county clerk. If you are sure you are in the correct polling place and the officials claim you are not registered, ask for a provisional ballot and fill it out correctly. You are entitled to one by law. Politely, but firmly, insist on being given a provisional ballot.

Today's Washington Post has an excellent story dealing with the issue of whether the polls are accurate. The basic problem is that the vast majority of people refuse to participate, so the sample is no longer random. Surveying mostly elderly, lonely, or bored people can bias the results. The Post reports that one caller apparently was so fed up with telemarketeers and pollsters that he attached a device to the telephone that made such a loud noise it damaged the pollster's eardrum. Even response rates for exit polls on election day have dropped to 50%. This information goes a long way to explaining why the polls are so erratic this year. But in all fairness, the final 2000 polls weren't so hot either. Eleven of the 15 national polls just before the election predicted Bush would win the popular vote by a margin of 2% to 6%. Ultimately, Gore won it by 0.5%.

Legal news: A U.S. District Court judge in Cleveland killed an effort by the GOP to remove tens of thousands of Ohio voters, largely minorities from the voter rolls, but a judge in Cincinnati has granted a temporary restraining order in a related case. See Rick Hasen's Election Law blog for more on these stories.

Stupidity news: One of Kerry's electors in Ohio, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is a congressman. Unfortunately, the constitution forbids federal office holders from being electors. It is possible that if Kerry wins Ohio, Brown's right tocast an electoral vote will be challenged in court. Whoever picked a constitutionally ineligible elector needs to get his or her mental software ungraded to the latest release.

Sleeper news: A Rasmussen poll taken Oct. 26 in Arizona puts Libertarian party candidate Michael Badnarik at 3%. When the pollsters actually ask about him, he does surprisingly well. He might end up canceling out the Nader factor by appealing to disgruntled Republicans who support a balanced budget and small government and are appalled by the current deficit and power the Patriot Act gives the government to snoop on people's lives.

How political involved is your college or alma mater? Take a look at university hits page. Note that there is no correction for size here, just the raw hit count.

Earlier I pointed out a number of prominent conservatives supporting Kerry, such as President Eisenhower's son, John, a lifelong Republican. I said that if any prominent liberals supported Bush I would mention them, too. OK, I'll keep my promise. Several readers pointed out that former NYC mayor Ed Koch, has endorsed Bush. Some people also pointed out Sen. Zell Miller, too, but he is certainly not a liberal and has been voting with the Republicans in the Senate for years, so he is barely even a Democrat.

Several people commented that Hawaii is colored weak Bush when it should be barely Bush. This is simply because Hawaii doesn't have enough pixels. If you have any spare pixels, please donate them to Hawaii.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

 Rupublicans go "under the Radar" in rural Ohio

 Mr. Gore wound up losing Ohio to Mr. Bush by only 165,019 votes, even though Democrats in 2000 pulled their candidate and most of his advertising out of the state six weeks before Election Day. Because of overlapping media markets, both Democrats and Republicans say, that move also might have cost Mr. Gore West Virginia.
    Mr. Kerry hasn't repeated that mistake, and Democrats say they have another advantage that Mr. Gore didn't have — a much higher intensity of animosity toward Mr. Bush.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-115211-1609r.htm

Please excuse my enthusiasm, If Bush wins I'm pretty sure I'm headed for relocation to some camp in the mojave so I'm trying to have fun .

Clueless People Love Bush
Studies show Bush supporters are misled on Bush policies and the news

by Molly Ivins
 
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1027-34.htm

THE OCTOBER SURPRISE, REPUBLICANS UNVAIL THE GOLDSTIEN A.K.A. BINLADEN TAPE NOW THAT WE ALL KNOW HE IS ROOTING FOR KERRY LETS VOTE FOR BUSH!!!!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041029/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_bin_laden!

LEST WE REMEMBER

Yeah, where did John Kerry get the crazy idea that Bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora? 

Well, funnily enough, from the Bush Administration.  But that was back in the day, before they launched their full-scale war on observable reality. 

Here are the old facts - carefully hidden on the front page of the Washington Post on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - under the headline U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight - Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error.


The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan’s mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

Yet another set of facts they are trying to erase from the collective memory of the American people.  Here are the new facts we’re supposed to replace those old ones with, as helpfully provided by the president this evening:

"Unfortunately my opponent tonight continued to say things he knows are not true, accusing our military of passing up a chance to get Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. As the commander in charge of that operation, Tommy Franks has said: It’s simply not the case. It is especially shameful in the light of a new tape from America’s enemy."

I mean, why would Tommy Franks, who was in charge when Bin Laden got away, lie about it?  Just because he went to high school with Laura Bush?

But, of course, Tommy Franks was not in charge of the decision to divert resources from Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.  And Tommy Franks, who Bush keeps trying to hide behind, was not in charge of the decision to order Richard Clarke to try to pin the blame for 9/11 on Iraq on Septmber 12, 2001 - since there were “no good targets in Afghanistan”.  Tommy Franks was never the commander-in-chief. 

So John Kerry is not ‘shamefully’ attacking the commander on the ground for that failure - he’s attacking the commander-in-chief.  That’s you, you weasel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62618-2002Apr16&notFound=true

REPUBLICANS FOR KERRY

Bob Smith, former New Hampshire senator:

"Smith, in a letter released Thursday by the Kerry campaign, praised his former colleague as a Democrat “who crossed the aisle to forge a bipartisan coalition in the Senate to balance the federal budget."

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.  Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

Russell E. Train, the EPA administrator under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford

"It strikes me that the environmental record of this administration is absolutely appalling,” Train said. “It represents a radical turning back of the clock."

Elmer L. Andersen, former Minnesota governor:

As taxes for the wealthy are being cut, jobs are being outsourced if not lost and children are homeless and uninsured, this administration is running up the biggest deficit in U.S. history—bound to be a terrible burden for future generations.  This imperialistic, stubborn adherence to wrongful policies and known untruths by the Cheney-Bush administration—and that’s the accurate order—has simply become more than I can stand.

Merrill “Tony” McPeak, retired Air Force general:

"We are in a very deep hole in Iraq,” McPeak said. “The first rule holds: When you are in one, stop digging.  The man does not know that we’re in a hole over there,” he added. “... The worst mistake a statesman can make is not to be in touch with the real world because that sin is paid for by our sons and our money. We simply have to get rid of this guy."

William Milliken, former Michigan governor:

This president has pursued policies pandering to the extreme right wing across a wide variety of issues and has exacerbated the polarization and the strident, uncivil tone of much of what passes for political discourse in this country today

Among others.  And listen to real life people who voted for W in 2000, but are now voting for Kerry.

http://www.errolmorris.com/html/election04/election04_main.html

SAVE US FROM THE WOLFS

A little while ago on CNN, a Wolf we should really be afraid of, Blitzer, asked a campaign spokesman for Bush what he made of Bin Laden’s ‘apparent reference to Fahrenheit 9/11’ in his video news release - when he mentioned that Al Qaeda never dreamed that the ‘commander of the US forces would spend time listening to a child discussing her goat, butting’ before reacting to attacks on thousands of American citizens.  Since when is a reference to reality necessarily a reference to a documentary that incorporated footage of that reality?  Footage which is, by the way, freely available on the internet - and which Bin Laden could not have seen if he misunderstood so badly what Bush was doing while he was not reacting on 9/11.

The reason this matters is that from here on out the media’s idiotic discussion of how this tape influences the election could well itself influence the election.

Two things they could do instead of drawing connections between Bin Laden and Michael Moore that might be more appropriate: showing Bin Laden’s speech in a split screen with Bush saying that he had no idea where Bin Laden was 6 months after 9/11, and that he didn’t really care; and pointing out that contrary to everything they have been saying since the tape showed up Al Qaeda has not once released a tape warning of attacks before an attack.

A little later on CNN, a military expert said this about Bin Laden’s ability to communicate more effectively to the American people than Bush is to the Arab world: “We’re not even in that game - the Arab Street doesn’t hear our messages.”

Well, earlier today researchers at Johns Hopkins released a study showing that a conservative estimate is that 100,000 Iraqis have died since Bush launched his war on an Arab country that posed no threat to us and had no ties to the people who attacked us.

Maybe the Arab street hears our messages loud and clear - and it’s us that doesn’t hear them too well.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5qWDoyceuDI&refer=us

BIN LADEN SHOULDN'T BE ON TV--HE SHOULD BE IN A JAIL CELL OR A GRAVE

The Bush administration will try to use this video to drum up fear. One of the cable channels just reported that the video was “setting off alarm bells” in the administration about a possible attack. But since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? There was no video before 9/11. Almost nobody who didn’t see the August 6 PDB knew that bin Laden was intent on striking inside the U.S.

Bin Laden shouldn’t be on TV, he should be in a jail cell or a grave. Bush promised to get him dead or alive, and then dismantled our ability to track him down. The fact that bin Laden is on TV right now is the ultimate indictment of Bush’s weakness in the face of terror, his inability to keep his focus on destroying enemies who attack us.

Remember:


In the second half of March 2002, as the Bush administration mapped its next steps against al Qaeda, Deputy CIA Director John E. McLaughlin brought an unexpected message to the White House Situation Room. According to two people with firsthand knowledge, he told senior members of the president’s national security team that the CIA was scaling back operations in Afghanistan.

That announcement marked a year-long drawdown of specialized military and intelligence resources from the geographic center of combat with Osama bin Laden. As jihadist enemies reorganized, slipping back and forth from Pakistan and Iran, the CIA closed forward bases in the cities of Herat, Mazar-e Sharif and Kandahar. The agency put off an $80 million plan to train and equip a friendly intelligence service for the new U.S.-installed Afghan government. Replacements did not keep pace with departures as case officers finished six-week tours. And Task Force 5—a covert commando team that led the hunt for bin Laden and his lieutenants in the border region—lost more than two-thirds of its fighting strength.

The commandos, their high-tech surveillance equipment and other assets would instead surge toward Iraq through 2002 and early 2003.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-politics&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52673-2004Oct21.html

Fatal Attraction: A New Study Suggests A Relationship Between Fear Of Death And Political Preferences

This research is based on the idea that reminders of death increase the need for psychological security and therefore the appeal of leaders who emphasize the greatness of the nation and a heroic victory over evil.

To test this hypothesis, Jeff Greenberg, a professor of psychology at the University Arizona in Tucson, Sheldon Solomon (Skidmore College) and Tom Pyszczynski, (University of Colorado, Colorado Springs) and their colleagues conducted an experiment that is scheduled to appear in the December 2004 issue of Psychological Science.

For their current research, the scientists asked students to think about their own death or a control topic and then read campaign statements of three hypothetical political candidates, each with a different leadership style: "charismatic" (i.e. those emphasizing greatness of the nation and a heroic victory over evil, as described above), task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Following a reminder of death, there was almost an 800 percent increase in votes for the charismatic leader, but no increase for the two other candidates.

"At a theoretical level," the authors wrote, "this study adds to the large body of empirical evidence attesting to the pervasive influence of reminders of death on a wide range of human activities. These findings fit particularly well with prior studies showing how mortality salience leads people toward individuals, groups, and actions that can help enhance their self-esteem. People want to identify with special, great things, and charismatic leaders typically offer the promise of just that."

What can voters do to ensure that they make choices in a rational way, based on political qualifications and the positions of the candidates? They may need to monitor efforts by candidates to capitalize on fear mongering and make a greater effort to vote with their heads, rather than with their hearts, and be aware of how concerns about death affect human behavior.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041027141726.htm

GAME, SET, MATCH

Former US weapons inspector David Kay on Newsnight with Aaron Brown tonight:


DK: Aaron, about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it which, obviously, I would have preferred to have been there, that is an IAEA seal. I’ve never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

AB: Was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

DK: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives ... 

AB: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

DK: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker, and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through, and there were others there that were sealed. With this one, I think it is game, set, and match. There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken. And quite frankly, to me the most frightening thing is not only was the seal broken, lock broken, but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean, to rephrase the so-called pottery barn rule. If you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.
Kay also noted this: “I think it’s important, this loss of 360 tons, but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.”

Video Proves Post-War Presence of Explosives

The Bushies can’t seem to get it right. The weapons of mass destruction they said were there, weren’t, and now it seems the explosives they say weren’t there, were, and what’s more there’s video from an ABC News affiliate to prove it. To make matters worse the Republican spin is all messed up: Rumsfeld is suggesting the explosives were moved before US troops arrived; his deputy undersecretary of Defense John Shaw claims the Russians moved them, and Rudy Giuliani blames it all on US troops. John Edwards responded: "Our men and women in uniform did their job. It's George Bush, the commander in chief, who didn't do his job.”

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

So much for the October surprise of Osama being captured or killed just days before the election as so many (even Kerry's wife) had predicted. . . ;-)

Never believed for myself that was on the table because that would be giving WAY too much credit for this mostly incompetent administration.

What I don't understand is how the pundits could say this falls into the Bush camp's advantage? WTF? Here is this guy basically taunting the "leader" of the free world. The tape's existence is like a little kid saying "nah nah, you can't catch me. . ." :-)

Then, he even disses the pres in effect saying while he was reading about a little girl being rammed by a goat, they were ramming airplanes up Bush's ass!! LOL!!

And I'm supposed to think that Bush can do a better job of taking this guy on?? Sorry, not on my vote. . .

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/247753p-212149c.html

"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush." He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It sure is great for Bush that he didn't manage to apprehend Bin Laden when he had the chance. Because of that, Bin Laden is around to give him little gifts before the election.

I guess you're right explorer.

That's sad. The people DESERVE to get fucked over. Three years from now, the country will be saying "what were we thinking?" but hopefully I'll be chilling with a permanent residency in Canada or Spain by then, laughing my ass off at these red-state idiots. . .

I wouldn't assume Georgie is a lock for king yet.
Sure, fear generates votes but the gang that couldn't shoot straight has squandered it's good will and credibility among all but the most gullible. I still say Kerry in a landslide, I believe the polls are not even close.

What if your boy Kerry does not win? Will you be one of the sore losers pushing for a court action?

Regardless of who wins, we all lose if it's a close one, and the lawyers get involved.

If there has to be a recount in 1 or 2 states, Bush gets it. The Republicans have the lawyers, the $$, and the ultimate trump card, the Supreme Court. . .

My fear is Kerry will be a sore winner, like Gore was: wins the election but has the result overturned by the Supreme Court. OTOH, (and this is wishful thinking) maybe Rehnquist will be unable to serve by then, leading to a 4-4 tie in any litigation over the election. 4-4 ties revert to the lower court decision (in the last election that would have been the Florida Supreme Court, at least with respect to the court decision the Supreme Court overturned).

Actually, the Democrats have as many quality lawyers ready to help them as the Republicans do; maybe more. The potential problem for the Democrats is with the Republican stacked federal courts, not the resources or lawyers.

PUNDITS SPIN OSAMA TAPE FOR BUSH

Disgraceful.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410300002

But, as Media Matters notes, don’t believe the spin:

The basis for most of these assessments is the assumption that Bush’s opinion poll numbers would likely climb with terrorism back in the news. Yet a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted October 28 and October 29 and released late Saturday, showed Bush’s support falling three points, from 50 to 47 percent. Kerry’s support was unchanged at 45 percent. An article about the poll on FoxNews.com noted: “Polling was conducted Thursday and Friday evenings, so about half of those interviewed would have had the opportunity to hear reports of a new tape from Usama bin Laden.” And according to Salon.com’s “War Room,” Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg told reporters in a call on the afternoon of October 30 that voters split 46-36 in favor of the view that the bin Laden tape makes them think Bush “took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and diverted resources to Iraq."

Also see Josh Micah Marshall’s post on poll reaction.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003860

And let’s not forget Bush has already stated his indifference to Osama’s capture.  The US should have never diverted resources and funding from the war on terrorism and the capture of Osama bin Laden.  Osama’s presence is a reminder of Bush’s failure.

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/notconcerned.html

HOW MUCH HAS YOUR STATE SPENT ON IRAQ?

Courtesy of The Center for American Progress, state by state costs for the Iraq war.  The Center also “contrasts each state’s share of the bill in Iraq with its share of federal funding for other national priorities, such as homeland security and the No Child Left Behind initiative.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=229415

How much has your state spent on Iraq?

For example, my home state of Hawaii (where Al Gore gave an electrifying speech last night) has spent $472.1 million, while only
receiving $72m for federal homeland security and $109.5m for NCLB.

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/30/news/index1.html

In Ohio, the battleground state spent $5.7b on Iraq, yet received only $240m for homeland security and $659.4m for NCLB. 

Tjuncle posted on Thursday:

[quote]
Henican said the banks execute millions of ATM transactions every day, giving the customer a printed receipt if requested, and get them all right all the time. Not a margin of 1%, no recounts, but 100% right all the time. Why can't we make a voting system that is 100% right all the time? It would seem to me that the right way to do this would be a touch screen machine that asks the voter to make choices for the various offices in a language chosen by the voter (with audio output if desired), and when all done prints a paper ballot the voter can personally verify and deposit in the ballot box.
[/quote]

Actually, a coworker of mine worked as a software developer at one of the clearinghouse corporations for electronic transactions. At this one, in the mid-west, he said the nightly error rate was such that the corporation had some $300million dollars in circulation "shoring up" the problems.

Effectively, some large number of transactions are perenially upgefucht, so that they use "lubricant" money to clear the transaction while flagging the errors for human attention. The transaction appears smooth to the mortgage payer, or ATM user, or WFE, but they are on the phone for a few days straightening things out behind the scenes.

Personally, I like the idea of a printed but optically scannable (perhaps using the "check font" that banks print routing numbers in) receipt that can be manually examined and then submitted to the box.

Problems I see are the size it would require to be verifiable (lots of old folks, so it will have to be "normal sized" print) and the storage -- people will tend to fold them, or otherwise make them harder to manage.

On the electronic side, see above. The overriding problem, though, is one of authority. If there's an electronic and a paper form, which one is authoritative?

If you just use the electronic form for "informational purposes" but consider the paper form authoritative, then you've re-invented the exit poll.

Frankly, I'd like to see a "standard ballot reader". You've got a series of "booths" which will help you make a standard ballot, print it out, but you feed your SB into a single reader that verifies it is legible, stamps it as an official, accepted ballot, and shoots it into a locked metal box.

This means you can print your ballot at home, if you'd like -- as long as the reader can read it, it's official. It also means no "hanging chads" -- if the reader can't read it, it shoots back out at you immediate and you go back to a booth and make another one.

The official ballots remain paper, the candidates can wait until tomorrow to find out who won. But the number of people required is much lower.

Dem Enfranchised Gnomes

>>>PUNDITS SPIN OSAMA TAPE FOR BUSH

That's rich. From my perspective, Osama showing up on video just reinforces the point that so far Bush's "war on terror" hasn't managed to kill problem child #1. I didn't use the words "kill or capture", because I don't want to see that piece of shit safe in a jail cell. And as for killing him - we should do it as hush-hush as possible and deny any knowledge of it having happened. But no, they'll make a big production of it and make him martyr #1 for zealots for the next 50 years.

I would just hand him over to the Saudis, and see what they do.

The scary part is, Osama made some very true and accurate points on his tape. Of course, all he forget to say on tape was "you misssssssseeeeedddd meeeee" to the Bush crowd.

Just a reminder to everyone that my prediction has been if Bush is up by less than 5 points in the final polls and if he comes in at less than 50%, he will lose the popular vote.

Of course, he could still win the electoral college vote.

POWELL VS. BUSH ON IRAQ

From Newsweek:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6370591/site/newsweek/

Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general who stays in touch with the Joint Chiefs, has acknowledged this privately to friends in recent weeks, NEWSWEEK has learned. The insurgents have effectively created a reign of terror throughout the country, killing thousands, driving Iraqi elites and technocrats into exile and scaring foreigners out. “Things are getting really bad,” a senior Iraqi official in interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s government told NEWSWEEK last week. “The initiative is in [the insurgents’] hands right now. This approach of being lenient and accommodating has really backfired. They see this as weakness."

This, from Powell, contradicts Bush’s cheery assessment of Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/16/bush.iraq.ap/

"I would just hand him over to the Saudis, and see what they do."

Explorer, my first reaction was "That's beautiful, they'll behead him and because they're the heart of Islam nobody can say anything." But then I thought about it. As I understand it, the Saudi royal family has a tenuous hold on power as is. Them executing Osama would run the risk of triggering a full blown popular uprising in Saudi Arabia. I seriously doubt they'd take him. They're much better off if the Islamic radicals are attacking us nonbelievers.

If Osama is captured by the U.S., he would likely be taken to an undisclosed location and never be heard from again, like the other high-level terrorists from his organization that have been captured.

Actually, this does raise an interesting point. I believe if Bush wins the election (vomit) and then stumbled into Osama, Osama's last days would be at an undisclosed location. However, I don't pretend to know the answer to whether Kerry would handle things differently (e.g., a trial, Guantanamo, etc.).