Why do they hate Americans?
In Pennsylvania, e-mails appeared linking Democrat Barack Obama to the Holocaust. "Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, Nov. 4," said the electronic message, paid for by an entity calling itself the Republican Federal Committee. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake."
In New Mexico, two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for a Republican lawyer who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens.
"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."
Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state of Pennsylvania include leaflets taped to picnic benches at Drexel University, warning students that police would be at the polls on Tuesday to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses.
In his Jewish neighborhood, Stalberg said, fliers were recently left claiming Obama was more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, and showed a photograph of him speaking in Germany.
In Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.
Posted by Judith at November 3, 2008 06:10 AMImpact of Cell Phones on Polls
We've heard several times this election that cell-phone only users are more apt to vote Obama, but they are being missed in most election surveys. The difference has been estimated to make a 2-3% difference in the total number.
This Pollster report, linked above, says that the national difference is now about 4.2% for Obama. Nate Silver finds a similar result here (look to bottom for his latest cellphone comparison chart).
So what impact does this difference have on state polling? The Pollster report notes that state polling generally does not include cell phones. (In fact, I'm going out on a limb here and saying that state polling may never include a realistic cell phone sample. That's because unlike with landlines you can't figure out a cell phone users locale by the area code/prefix. You can make a guess as to the general area by the area code, but even that is often wrong as people no longer bother to change their cell phone number when they move due to the disapperance of long distance charges on cell phones. So, while using cell phones in a national poll is feasible, in a state poll it's going to be much harder because many of the people you call won't even be in that state anymore.)
So, Pollster generates some state-by-state charts showing the impact of adding 2% and 4% to Obama's margins based on the cell phone effect. What this does, of course, is turn a race that isn't that close (311 electoral votes + 40 or so toss-up votes) in the current Pollster model into a major landslide.
We'll know more late on Tuesday.
Keep in mind, though, that every pollster knows the classic story from 1936 when Literary Digest predicted a landslide victory for Alf Landon based on mail-in subscriber responses and a phone poll. Alas, in 1936 the depression had caused a large number of people to give up optional things like magazine subscribtions and telephone lines, so it was FDR in a rout. The communication method chosen can very much affect the polling results.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 06:11 AMIn Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.
These tactics have always been there, but in 2008 with youtube, the internets, and an energized left they are now being broadcast as news the moment you hear them. The tactis have helped to influence a lot of people away from the Republicans. At the same time, their effectiveness is now infinitesmal for the same reason.
Meanwhile, in many surveys Obama is coming out with record-high favorability ratings for a first time Presidential candidate. This demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the smear campaign, but also vindicates his decision to keep his own campaign above the fray. Sure, he could have pointed out that McCain and Palin's past "associations" are far more "troubling" than anything Obama or Biden has, but that would have distracted from the message the swing voters want to here.
People like Bush and McCain have talked endlessly about "reaching across the aisle", while simultaneously calling their opponents every name in the book -- but Obama has backed his words up with action. His respectful treatment of McCain and Palin means that huge numbers of independents are voting FOR Obama, not just AGAINST McCain.
What Obama has done is not just win an election by a landslide -- he's done it in a way that will allow him to govern effectively by broad consensus.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 06:23 AMI got up an hour early this morning (my body does not recognize daylight savings time) so I turned on "Morning Joe." (The best thing about his show is the bumper music...)
I have to wonder if these assholes and thier pundit guests actually stay stupid on purpose, or if they just pretend to be stupid.
One of them actually said that "Obama voted present in Illinois State Leg to hide the fact that he is really, really Liberal." Then the other ones agreed or offered some other BS reason for voting present. Not a single one of them brought up the reason for this even though it has been explained endlessly throughout this race.
He voted 'present' as does anyone in the Illinois Legislature, when there was a piece of legislation that he would be willing to support, just not with the particulars in it as brought to the floor to vote on. It is not difficult to know this. Also, I have not seen a single fucking reporter look at other Illinois state legislators to find out how many 'present' votes that they have which would have put that whole line of (un)reasoning to rest. (Obama camp should have put some memo out with that information.)
Then Palin came on MSNBC and I simply cannot listen to her screeching lies anymore so I changed it to the SPAN. The goddamned callers who were making their way onto the air this morning on CSPAN were just as frightening as the fucking pundits on MSNBC. Do we not have a way to force our electorate to be educated? I know, I know, that goes against voting rights but sheesh - we live in a country of fucking idiots.
Sorry. I know that the majority of our country are not really idiots. I just happened to listen to a bunch of them already this morning and it is not yet 7am.
Damn.
Posted by Anjha at November 3, 2008 06:46 AMObama's low use of negatives (with NO personal smears or attacks) was a high risk strategy at the tail end of the Rove Era, and in conjunction with McTurd (naturally and quite predictably) running as bad a multi-front personal smear campaign as I can recall. If it works it will be regarded as a very brave and unorthodox move. I will say the GOoP senate race ads I have seen across the country are as viciously negative (100% personal smears, fabricated lies) as ever.
The worst Obama did was call McCain "erratic". And show a clip (literally without comment) of Palin winking to the nation as a symbol of McCain's appalling judgment and opportunism.
Yet Repubs have been screaming up and down that Obama has run a very negative campaign, but that the MSM won't "call him" on it. Their "specifics" are so vague I simply can't even understand what they are referring to. Apparently pointing to McCain's record of Bush-support is unfairly "negative".
Posted by euzoius at November 3, 2008 06:56 AM"Remember New Hampshire"
This is the bullshit meme coming out of the corporate media. They are already looking for the excuse to explain away the stealing of the election.
We need to combat this pre-emptively.
The media is saying shit like "we were all wrong during the NH primary." "Remember New Hampshire, the polls might be showing Obama up, but we were all wrong." "The polls do not mean anything, remember New Hampshire."
Personally, I think that New Hampshire was the set-up for exactly this thing. New Hampshire was strange and I looked at the data fairly closely. There were funky numbers coming out where the machines counted the votes. I do not think Hillary stole it, I think that she might have been a vicitim of it too.
The GOP had every reason to keep the primary going (had Obama won NH it might have ended the primaries right away) and the GOP needed an example to point to to explain away the theft of the General if the polls showed what they do now.
I am really worried about this. We must make sure that our ground game is good. We must make sure that we have a ton of exit polls to point to after the fact, we have to make sure that every single inaccuracy in the machines are reported and investigated. We cannot allow them to steal this.
I do not like what I am hearing this morning. "Polls are wrong."
I brought it up right after the NH primary and told husband back then, that night, "they are going to use the results here and the 'inaccuracy' of the polls to steal the General Election."
I called it then and it seems to be happening now.
Posted by Anjha at November 3, 2008 07:15 AMAnjha - a majority of your country are not idiots? Let's hope so, but a mere four years ago a majority of them - 62 damn million - voted for Georgie Boy.
Posted by Colin at November 3, 2008 07:32 AMThis is the bullshit meme coming out of the corporate media. They are already looking for the excuse to explain away the stealing of the election.
As the classic song goes ...
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
Look, HuffingtonPost has an article up summarizing the pundit's predictions. Every single one, on the left and the right, has an Obama win with 300+ electoral votes.
So why are they talking about New Hampshire? Well, consider this:
1) It is in the interest of the Republican campaign to pretend this election is close. Otherwise their people get discouraged and they lose even more downticket races.
2) It is in the interest of the Democratic campaign to pretend that the election is close, otherwise they suffer from complacency and don't win all the downticket races they might.
3) It is in the interest of the media types who interview the representatives from the Democratic and Republican campaigns to hype whatever infinitesemal chance McCain has. Otherwise, they have to admit the whole thing is over and then have all this empty air space to fill. Of course, they *could* focus on the election post-mortems now -- which have already started, you'll notice -- but since both campaigns want air time and neither will admit it is over, the early post-mortems won't fill enough air space.
Why New Hampshire in particular? Because Obama himself keeps mentioning it in order to motivate his people.
2000 was stolen, sure. In one state, by a tiny margin, after tons of Republican effort.
2004 was possibly stolen. In one state, by a bigger margin, after tons of Republican effort.
2006 was not stolen, despite tons of Republican effort, because it wasn't close enough and because counter-measures were in place.
2008 will not be stolen. The margin is huge as are the counter-measures.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 07:37 AMObama's last speech of his historic campaign will be in Manassas, VA tonight. Manassas is the site of the First and Second Battles of Bull Run in the (last) American civil war.
And Virginia is perhaps the biggest symbol of the country's emerging transition away from destructive conservatism and specifically Bushism.
I think that's a great place for his last speech before the voting. Although I seem to remember Gore having a last speech in Miami FL on election morning in 2000. Is that right?
Posted by euzoius at November 3, 2008 07:47 AM...but a mere four years ago a majority of them - 62 damn million - voted for Georgie Boy.
I stain we will not be able to wash away for a long long time.
Sure, Anonny, but you forgot:
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down.
I understand that the talking heads need shit to keep talking about. I was actually fascinated last night, watching "Race for the White House" wondering how anyone could come up with so many different ways of saying/asking the exact same thing. I get that. But I also know that these assholes will stop at nothing to retain power.
Cheney and Bush know that if the Dems get power then they will turn over every stone and unearth all of the illegal crap that these jerks have done.
Now, Joe Scarbarough is going on and on and on about how "Obama underperforms." Which all of us know is bullshit, because he has not underperformed. Every post-mortem analysis has shown that he overperforms.
He is pointing to CA. What he forgets to say about CA is that early voting actually doomed Obama because everyone sent in ballots for Hillary and then the polls started changing. Obama might have won CA if it weren't for early voting.
This article helped ease my fears, but just because I am paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get me.
In reference to euzious above, WA Po compares Obama using Cheney's own words in a playful humorous ad to McCain using Rev Wright as "proof" that both campaigns are going negative. What a bunch of crap!
Obama is not going negative, he is more positive than any campaign I have ever seen.
Posted by Anjha at November 3, 2008 07:50 AMObama's last speech of his historic campaign will be in Manassas, VA tonight. Manassas is the site of the First and Second Battles of Bull Run in the (last) American civil war.
Really? That is SOOOO perfect.
That will mean that the Second American Gilded Age started with Reagan's first post-nomination speech in Philadelphia, MS, in 1980 and ended with Obama's closing campaign speech in Mansassas, VA.
For those not in the know, Reagan chose the tiny town of Philadelphia, MS at Trent Lott's suggestion, as a signal to racists that he was on their side, and his speech was full of code words to reinforce that message. From the wiki link:
Philadelphia is known as the site of one of the most famous race-related crimes in American history. In 1964, three civil rights workers were murdered by white supremacists in Philadelphia.
You can't tell me that Obama isn't fully aware of what he's doing in Manassass. He has a better sense of history and his role in shaping it than any politician in memory.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 08:03 AMRepubs think accurate references to their candidates' actual voting records is "going negative". As are references to endorsements by their actual political allies (like the monster Cheney).
And that this "negativity" equates with their nonstop false personality smears--"Unfit for office! Unfit! Mysterious Negro!"---and perjorative false simpleton sloganeering---"socialist!" "communist!" "radical!" "friend of terrorists!"
And WaPo performs the fake "equivalency" spin on command.
Posted by euzoius at November 3, 2008 08:08 AMHi Anjha,
I'm only a little less paranoid than you are. But I try to bring my fellow lefties back into reality from time to time otherwise we can think these battles aren't winnable -- and they are.
Joe Scarbarough -- ignore him. His track record on predictions isn't as pathetic as Bill Kristol's, but it's close. Look up what he said about Obama's chances when Obama declared his candidacy.
The WaPo article really doesn't make an equivalency argument between the Wright ads and the Cheney ads. It's a dealing-beating, committee-drafted article that uses the standard newspaper "upside-down pyramid" style of organizing paragraphs of not-necessarily-connected news nuggets. In one paragraph they report Obama issued a new Cheney ad. In the next they report McCain's allies are running Wright ads. No big deal.
Regarding what the leaders of the world want, look again at Obama's endorsement list and at his advisers. A large block of the leaders want Obama -- and are fearful of Palin. Of course this means he won't be very progressive, but we knew that.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 08:12 AM"dealing" should be "deadline" in last post.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 08:14 AMThe battlefields of First and Second Bull Run are right outside Manassas, VA, (and of course those battles were called First and Second Manassas by Confederates, who named battles after the closest town).
They are among our more perfectly preserved and beautiful civil war battlefields with many monuments (I've toured them both a couple times), but I believe they are now at risk because of the greatly expanding development of Prince William county in Northern Virginia.
Anyway, a town outside of two of the most famous battles of the Civil War (both Southern victories, BTW) is pretty hard to characterize as "not the Real America" or not the "real Virginia" as the loathsome McCain camp did at one point. Robert E. Lee's army, of course, was named the Army of Northern Virginia, for the benefit of McCain's "knowledge".
Posted by euzoius at November 3, 2008 08:23 AMWell, technically, anything that doesn't kiss McShame's ass IS negative...because TRUTH is never the measure of any campaign ad...the difference is between pointing out the "negative" reasons not to consider an opponent and out and out slime and character assassination as practiced by REPUGS...I so want to be able to say that, once again, I AM PROUD to be an AMERICAN...tired of feeling like I have to apologize for the past 8 years!!!! We're doing all we can...signs/conations/calls/e-mails/letters to editor...more involved than in all our nearly 70 years...now let's see the young'uns pick up the pace...
I turned on CNN here in Tempe, Arizona, and low and behold the first thing I hear today is "Obama, Wright, 20 years, rebellious, Etc. www.goptrust.com."
McCain and the RNC are lowlife scumbags, and after they lose this election in disgrace, I will do everything I can to stop republicans from re-election here in our district.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 3, 2008 09:17 AMInteresting discussion on the Diane Rehm show this morning about state ballot initiatives. Some were wondering if the high African-American turnout would help pass gay marriage bans, as African-Americans tend to be more socially conservative.
I'm also wondering how the CO ballot initiative defining a fertilized egg as a person is affecting the race. I think it's too extreme for most people. It criminalizes abortion and could criminalize some fertility treatments and birth control. I'm thinking people are going to stand in line no matter what the wait to vote on that one, so it may drive up participation on both sides.
Posted by CG at November 3, 2008 10:24 AMI'm also wondering how the CO ballot initiative defining a fertilized egg as a person is affecting the race.
All polls say that this measure is getting obliterated. Two years ago the wingnuts were plastering the whole state with the anti-gay-marriage initiative collateral, but this year you hardly see it mentioned.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 10:45 AMWhere oh where has little jj gone?
Oh where oh where can he be?
You remember jj. Predicting a McCain win, then asking us to archive his message.
Tons of polls coming out today based on weekend polling. The nationals are ALL showing shifts to Obama. For example, Marist now up 9 from +7. Fox/OD, which was an outlier at +3 now back to +7, with 2/3rds indicating discomfort with Palin.
I've suspected for a while that the conventional theory of undecideds breaking mostly for McCain was wrong. Sure, he seemed to pick up a few these past couple weeks, but those were probably discouraged Republicans, not true undecideds (and poll data showing party ID seemed to confirm that.
However, the true undecideds tend strongly to bread for the challenger. The exception was 2004, when the extensive coverage of the last-minute bin Laden tape caused undecideds to break for the known, safe option.
But with that exception, undecideds in this case are unhappy with the status quo but for whatever reason are struggling to commit to the challenger. One of the things Obama has done right -- and continues to hammer in ALL his negative ads to this day -- is tying McCain firmly to the status quo.
In this situation the majority of undecideds will walk into the booth and think "nope, I can't live with 4 more years of this crap", then sigh and vote for the challenger, hoping. The indecisive voter, in a year where the economy is bad, almost always will take the possibility of improvement over the certainty of the status quo.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 11:05 AMlast post: "break", not "bread" argh
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 11:07 AMSo Liz "Donuts for McCain" Sidoti has a story out today about McCain's possible comeback. While she acknowledges his chances are "remote", she clearly hopes it can happen somehow.
No surprises there, this is standard fare just before any big competitive event. There were similar stories about the Charger's chances just before getting stomped by the 49ers in 1995, even though they were 18 point underdogs and simply didn't have the defensive talent to compete.
What WAS funny is that while I was googling Sidoti's name, to be sure it was the same person who gave donuts "with sprinkles" to McCain, I found that one of the top searches on Google with her name is "Liz Sidoti liberal".
Now, this is seriously hilarious. Various reporters can be shown to have a lean one way or the other over time. Nedra Pickler, for example, seriously hated John Kerry in 2004 and now seems to feel likewise about John McCain. Liz Sidoti has an extremely obvious affection for McCain and distrust of Obama, and it shows in every story she writes. Yet still, somehow, a substantial number of wingnuts think she is liberal.
Now that Fox' last poll has Obama up 7 I'm sure they think Fox is too liberal too.
Posted by Anonny at November 3, 2008 12:10 PMDamn, I listened to Michelle Obama speak in Las Vegas. It was lovely, tearful, heartfelt, warm - just a beautiful talk.
I contrast that with McCain - fucking dick is on the teevee lying and still claiming that "Obama investigated Joe the Plumber." The friggin Republicans are still talking about how terrible Obama is even after the people have proven over and over again that they do not buy McCain's BS.
Enough already John McCain. I hope that after tomorrow I am never forced again to listen to a John McCain speech.
Posted by Anjha at November 3, 2008 01:14 PMMy dad just stopped by. He was born in 1934 in the foothills of the smoky mountains in Tennessee. Luckily the army brought him to the [Liberal] Pacific NW in the 1950s...even so it was not uncommon to hear racial slurs in my house growing up.
Dad stopped by and said that he "voted for Obama."
A couple of months ago it was "I might just have to vote for that black guy." Today it was "I voted for Obama. I am a Democrat. I've always voted Democrat."
It was truly awesome.
So much for the old white voter "coming home" to John McCain.
Posted by Anjha at November 3, 2008 01:25 PMIt seems to be a given to support Israel if you are Right Wing (unless you're part of the anti-Semitic bunch). It is also essential that you hate socialism. This is odd, in view of the fact that in Israel is found the institution of the Kibbutz, which is socialism if anything ever was!
Anjha - 1934, eh? That's the year I was born. Thanks for making me feel really old!
Posted by Colin at November 4, 2008 08:45 AM