Presidential election may be up for grabs

[Drag]

See Florida 2000 for voter suppression.  Purging 50 000 voter form the voting rolls for being convicted felons even though 25000 of them were not and then turning them away from the polling stations.  
This ACORN thing is being used as a talking point by the Rush Limbaugh types.   The truth is far different.  ACORN's way of paying by registration to its staff is wrong, but they also have to submit every single filled registration card.  So if someone decides not to actually do the leg work and register actual voters, the best ACORN can do is fire them, and flag the cards as questionable.   It then is up to election officials to disqualify the registration and prosecute.  Inefficient but necessary because of historic shenanigans in US elections.

 

[Drag]

As to the only fraud being from Democats and ACORN, I bring your attention to a Mr Xavier Suarez who was ousted as the Mayor of Miami by the courts in 1998 for absentee voter fraud.  In 2000 he was the head of the Republican Party Executive Committee of the Miami-Dade county and responsible for their absentee balloting effort.  In a state that went to Bush by less than 500 votes this is highly suspect.  Those that live in glass houses....

 

[Kirkhill]

To all concerned:

I bring this recent post of mine to your attention -

This is my greatest concern.  I alluded to it in the comments on the US election.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people are becoming too heavily invested in the political process.  They are no longer willing to "play up, play up and play the game".

Western Democracies function because people accept the peaceful transition of governments.  They must accept that all candidates are reliable, honourable people that, while they have different views on policy, they are all equally committed to the well being of local society and will do nothing to damage that fabric.

When that trust erodes how far removed are we from Kenya?

The woman that faked the attack by an Obama supporter.  Obama supporters macing a McCain office because they believed they were stealing signs.  White thugs planning to assassinate Obama....................and many more.

All indicative of the break down of civility. 


The young, radical left has always preached against the hypocrisy of society that allows people to exchange pleasantries, smile, shake hands, with people with whom they violently disagree.    And yet it is that very hypocrisy, that willingness to suspend disagreements and adhere to convention in the interest of "peace, order and good governance" that permits western democracies to survive.

My concern is that that is also the weak flank of civilization.

If society can be polarized, as it has been (and maybe it is a natural progression) then it becomes harder to see the "opposition" as "one of us".

And that way lie dragons.....

While I particularly criticize the left for promoting a course of action that I believe contributes to the breakdown of civility,  and to that I would add their desire to dismantle institutions (of which the voting system is one) it doesn't serve anybody's cause if we of the more conservative bent resort to their standards.

If, at the end of this election, a significant portion of the population believes that there was fraud and that that contributed to an invalid result then I reiterate that I am concerned that the US could become ungovernable.  There is not a long step from riots in opposition to judicial decisions to nationwide riots in response to electoral decisions.

Perhaps we all need to temper our language and engage in some civil hypocrisy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is John Ibbitson’s analysis of the state of play in the last few days of the election campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081029.wcampaignmccain30/BNStory/Front

Does McCain have the mo'? In a word, no

JOHN IBBITSON

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
October 29, 2008 at 8:18 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — Drudge was ecstatic. “Trick or treat,” the conservative website proclaimed Wednesday. “Gallup says Obama +3.”

Pollsters Rasmussen and GWU/Battleground had the same results.

“Two of the last three nights of polling show a closer race than was found in the previous month,” Rasmussen observed in its analysis, though it added that it would take another day of tracking to determine whether the results “reflect a lasting change or statistical noise.”

To bolster this race-is-narrowing scenario, Bill McInturff, pollster for Republican presidential nominee John McCain, released a memo based on the campaign's internal polling data.

“All signs say we are headed to an election that may easily be too close to call by next Tuesday,” he concluded.

Expected gains for Democratic nominee Barack Obama among African-Americans and young voters would be offset by increased turnout among rural and less-educated voters galvanized by Mr. McCain's campaign, he predicted.

In particular, “Wal-Mart women,” those with no college education and household incomes below $60,000, are “swinging back, solidly,” Mr. McInturff reported.

So should Mr. McCain's supporters start to get excited? In a word, no.

Unquestionably, the situation for the Arizona senator in late October has stabilized and even started to improve. The RealClearPolitics compendium Wednesday had Mr. Obama ahead by six percentage points. Last weekend it was as high as eight points.

There is a direct correlation between financial news and Mr. McCain's fortunes. Before the market meltdown, last month, the two campaigns were essentially tied. When the markets went south, so did the Republicans.

But whenever those markets show signs of rebounding, as they did this week, Mr. McCain's numbers move up a bit.

The selection of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential candidate, though it has put off much of the general public, unquestionably jolted core Republicans awake. The Republican get-out-the-vote machine is in much better shape today than it would have been without her.

And America is a nation with a large number of to-the-death Republicans and Democrats. Most elections are won or lost by only a few percentage points.

Nonetheless, it would be a serious mistake to conclude from a few national polls that Mr. McCain's campaign has momentum in the final week. For one thing, polling in this election has turned into voodoo.

The number of registered Democrats has increased dramatically. But how should they be weighted in samples? Should registered Democrats become a larger part of the sampled population? Or should pollsters stay with traditional numbers? What about young voters? Are they really going to turn out, even though they never have before?

How pollsters ask such questions can wildly influence the result, which is why Pew Research released a poll Tuesday that put Mr. Obama ahead of Mr. McCain by 15 points, even as Gallup was declaring the race had closed for all intents and purposes to within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics and other polling compendiums show a race in which Mr. Obama enjoys a significant and stable lead, though if previous elections are anything to go by, that lead should narrow somewhat over the final weekend.

That's at the national level. But elections are decided state by state, which is the reason why so many analysts, including this one, remain convinced that the race is as good as over. Mr. Obama continues to lead in every state that John Kerry won in 2004 and many that George Bush won.

His lead is above the margin of error in Nevada (7.5 percentage points), according to RealClearPolitics, New Mexico (8.4), Colorado (8.3), Iowa, (11.4), Ohio (5.8) and Virginia (7.4). If he took none of the other battleground states, most of which have him narrowly ahead, Mr. Obama would still have 311 Electoral College votes, 41 more than he needs to win the election.

And the number of battleground states continues to increase. Mr. McCain now holds an aggregate lead of only five percentage points in Arizona, his home state. He has a similar lead in Georgia.

Further proof that the situation is not improving for the Republicans: They appear to be facing a down-ballot rout. The conviction of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens on corruption charges has the influential Cook Political Report predicting the Republicans will lose between seven and nine Senate seats, with an outside chance of losing 10, along with up to 30 seats in the House.

“This cake looks baked,” Charles Cook, publisher of the Cook report concludes. And that was the situation before Mr. Obama aired his half-hour infomercial in prime time last night.

There is one factor working in Mr. McCain's favour. In elections, undecided voters tend to vote for the challenger over the incumbent, and Mr. Obama is so far ahead, and seems so unassailable, that he could appear to those voters as an incumbent. But according to Gallup, only 4 per cent of likely voters are undecided.

The reality is that the situation for Mr. Obama is actually improving. After all, with each day that passes, the chances of a game-changing event that rescues Mr. McCain diminish.

Five days.

I think Obama’s support peaked (at about McCain + 5 to 10%) at around the time of the credit crisis. It cannot, I believe, go anywhere but down. But while McCain’s support is rising, it is not rising far or fast enough nor is Obama’s falling enough.

I suspect Obama’s half hour infomercial was a mistake and will give McCain 1% in the polls. Americans like an underdog and Obama is acting, à la a Paris Hilton type celebrity, like the rich top-dog – a bully kicking sand in the face of the 97 pound weakling (for those who remember the old Charles Atlas adverts in the Saturday papers. It reminds lots of Americans of why they dislike Obama and why McCain is a “good guy” – just lke them. But I’m not persuaded that Obama’s big, last minute error will do enough.

Too bad, McCain is the better choice for these times – especially for Canada.

As Ibbitson says: “Five days.”

 

[GAP]

More's the pity, but I do agree with your assessment.....too bad for Canada.

 

[Rifleman62]

It sure will be interesting 18 to 24 months from now if Obama wins. Not only does he not have any foreign policy experience, he lacks legislative experience as well. With Democrate majorities in both the Senate and Congress it will be a tug of war bettween the legislative and executive. Can Obama control Nancy Pelosi? I think not. She has her own agenda.
Off the wall, and I mean really off the wall, I find it peculiar that Obama has focused his entire life to be President. Joined the correct groups, church, associated with individuals, voted "present", all to get votes. There is finally some controversy as to where all his contributions have come from (and McCains somewhat). I have never believed all these millions and millions of Americans were sending in $10/$20.
I do not know who is behind curtain with influence/money grooming Obama. It is like the movie.
On US radio news. local talk shows, financial analysts are saying the markets will be unstable for up to 18 months, watching what Obama will do.
If Obama can control his Party/Pelosi, he may turn out to be very radical (here they are saying Socialist/Marxist). Depending on what he does, he may be impeached, not by his Party, but by the People DEMANDING their Representatives impeach. Then things will get interesting with the race card.
Off the wall, I know, but my feeling. No I am not a conspiracy theory believer.

 

[observor 69]

Ya you're right it sure will be interesting.
Obama makes decisions by seeking advice from those highly qualified and regarded in their area of expertise.
McCain makes decisions on the spur of the moment, Sarah Palin for example.
Ref your disbelief/innuendo in Obama's ability to raise campaign money, watch all politicans adapt his many people small contribution model. That's how Harper did it here in Canada.

 

[a_majoor]

I found it very interesting to see a poll where something like 72% of Canadians supported Senator Obama and would vote for him if they had the opportunity.

In 12-18 months things will be very different under an Obama Administration.

How many Canadians will be supportive if the big tax and spend program triggers a deep recession in the US (killing our export market)?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the Administration tries to renege on NAFTA or uses other isolationist ploys in an attempt to salvage unionized American jobs?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the CF is being called upon to help out with the many bushfire (or larger) conflicts triggered by tinpot dictators reacting to perceived lack of American resolve and weakness? (Especially if our own national interest compels us to go?)

Let's see what thee polls say then?

A congress which does not see itself beholden to the Obama administration will induce more instability in the legislative process, while continuing questions about the nature of Senator Obama's funding (fictitious names and address') ACORN (the numbers of fraudulent registrations traced to ACORN in many states is astounding; yet ACORN is the recipient of over $800,000 of Senator Obama's money). I suspect there will be a great deal more instability as investigations are launched to determine the sources of the campaign contributions and the voter registration process, while the Obama administration spins wildly trying to suppress or explain away the discrepancies. The GOP can keep the pot on the boil by having Governor Palin constantly appearing in high profile events; people will already be looking ahead to the next administration.

We will live in interesting times.

 

[Redeye]

If the Republicans want to make a good run at the White House in 2012 (since it looks like 2008 is a foregone conclusion - but you never know...), then I think they need to make Sarah Palin disappear, quickly.  She's an embarrassment, and she's the reason a lot of GOP types are either voting for Obama or will stay home it seems.

Will Obama actually abrogate NAFTA?  I doubt it.  He'll realize that things like proportionality clauses are important to US interests and will need to be preserved.

I'm a fairly conservative person myself, but the American right (especially its religious zealots) really disturb me.

I found it very interesting to see a poll where something like 72% of Canadians supported Senator Obama and would vote for him if they had the opportunity.

In 12-18 months things will be very different under an Obama Administration.

How many Canadians will be supportive if the big tax and spend program triggers a deep recession in the US (killing our export market)?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the Administration tries to renege on NAFTA or uses other isolationist ploys in an attempt to salvage unionized American jobs?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the CF is being called upon to help out with the many bushfire (or larger) conflicts triggered by tinpot dictators reacting to perceived lack of American resolve and weakness? (Especially if our own national interest compels us to go?)

Let's see what thee polls say then?

A congress which does not see itself beholden to the Obama administration will induce more instability in the legislative process, while continuing questions about the nature of Senator Obama's funding (fictitious names and address') ACORN (the numbers of fraudulent registrations traced to ACORN in many states is astounding; yet ACORN is the recipient of over $800,000 of Senator Obama's money). I suspect there will be a great deal more instability as investigations are launched to determine the sources of the campaign contributions and the voter registration process, while the Obama administration spins wildly trying to suppress or explain away the discrepancies. The GOP can keep the pot on the boil by having Governor Palin constantly appearing in high profile events; people will already be looking ahead to the next administration.

We will live in interesting times.

 

[observor 69]

I found it very interesting to see a poll where something like 72% of Canadians supported Senator Obama and would vote for him if they had the opportunity.

In 12-18 months things will be very different under an Obama Administration.

How many Canadians will be supportive if the big tax and spend program triggers a deep recession in the US (killing our export market)?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the Administration tries to renege on NAFTA or uses other isolationist ploys in an attempt to salvage unionized American jobs?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the CF is being called upon to help out with the many bushfire (or larger) conflicts triggered by tinpot dictators reacting to perceived lack of American resolve and weakness? (Especially if our own national interest compels us to go?)

Let's see what thee polls say then?

A congress which does not see itself beholden to the Obama administration will induce more instability in the legislative process, while continuing questions about the nature of Senator Obama's funding (fictitious names and address') ACORN (the numbers of fraudulent registrations traced to ACORN in many states is astounding; yet ACORN is the recipient of over $800,000 of Senator Obama's money). I suspect there will be a great deal more instability as investigations are launched to determine the sources of the campaign contributions and the voter registration process, while the Obama administration spins wildly trying to suppress or explain away the discrepancies. The GOP can keep the pot on the boil by having Governor Palin constantly appearing in high profile events; people will already be looking ahead to the next administration.

We will live in interesting times.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. "  ;D

 

[muskrat89]

She's an embarrassment, and she's the reason a lot of GOP types are either voting for Obama or will stay home it seems.

An embarrassment to you perhaps, and/or your circle of American friends. On the contrary, almost every right-of-center person that I know, and have talked to - actually feels better about voting for McCain, because of Palin. I'm not sure what you are basing your statements on, but I am just not seeing it.

I'm a fairly conservative person myself, but the American right (especially its religious zealots) really disturb me

Probably in the same way that the Canadian left disturbs me....  of course it is moot, since I don't live there.

 

[tomahawk6]

Palin was in Missouri today and had 7000 pack the house.Biden was also in the state but only drew 500.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U67Eg-3jP5k&eurl

 

[Drag]

+1 for Baden Guy and Redeye.  Maybe there is something about Palin that appeal to the right in the US.  While I consider my self a centrist right on some issues, left on others there is nothing about her, or the McCain campaign that would appeal to me if I was voting in the US election.   They have not said anything that would appeal to me intellectually,  While I agree with McCain on more issues than I agree with Obama on
Just repeating "Ayers", "abortion" and "Joe the Plumber" ad nausea does not actually make for an intelligent conversation with the electorate.  The old McCain that stood up to the fringe elements of his party would have been interesting, but the current incarnation seems stale and out of ideas.  McCain of old vs. Obama would have actually been fun to see.  They stooped to a new low today with Joe the Plumber endorsing McCain by callling him a "Real American."  This is a desperation tactic on the level of the Elisabeth Dole adds.

 

[tomahawk6]

McCain IS a real American Hero. Obama is an autocrat in waiting.

 

[Drag]

I would not have had a problem with "real American Hero" because that is what McCain is.  He said " Real American."  That implies Obama is not a "real American."  Why?  Is it because he has a funny name?  Is it because he is black?  That what that implies to me.  McCain did not even bat an eyelash.  From what I have seen in the campaign, McCain's style is more autocratic than Obama.  At least with the way his campaign was run.

 

[Bane]

Another Marxist rag endorses Obama...
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1


I wonder when the USS Barak Obama will roll out?
;D

 

[2 Cdo]

Another Marxist rag endorses Obama...
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1


I wonder when the USS Barak Obama will roll out?
;D

Probably the same time as the USS Jimmy Carter! :blotto:

 

[Redeye]

Well, she's an embarassment to me in the sense of sharing the conservative label, but beyond that other than fact that the thought of her winding up in the White House is actually very scary to me.  Nothing about how she has carried herself in the campaign process has given me any confidence that she has the "right stuff" to do the job.  John McCain I have less concern about, but one has to look at the whole package and I think the GOP made a fatal error in selecting Sarah Palin.  By virtue of being married to an American, I have had the chance to discuss the election extensively with them.  I'm interested to know what it is about Palin that makes people feel better about her.  She seems in every interview to be way out of her league, and the fact that particularly for her part her stumping seems more about smearing Obama (in ways that look to me both desperate and laughable).  I would have felt more comfortable with McCain (and I didn't mind the guy at first, pre-Palin) if he had a VP that was a solid, well-educated, well-spoken political veteran.  A populist who seems in over her head just doesn't give me much faith, I guess.

An embarrassment to you perhaps, and/or your circle of American friends. On the contrary, almost every right-of-center person that I know, and have talked to - actually feels better about voting for McCain, because of Palin. I'm not sure what you are basing your statements on, but I am just not seeing it.

Probably in the same way that the Canadian left disturbs me....  of course it is moot, since I don't live there.

 

[Rifleman62]

Redeye, please explain the Bush Doctrine. Palin was asked this question. Can you answer?

 

[Redeye]

Redeye, please explain the Bush Doctrine. Palin was asked this question. Can you answer?

In its simplest and most commonly known form - it's essentially a policy of preemption - the justification of launching a war on a foreign state in response to the threat of attack (including attack by non-state actors) staged from that country.  It was the idea that justified the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 - that there was a threat of future attacks from the region and therefore the US made a decision to dispose of the regime which harboured the threat.  The same idea (with the now mostly discredited "proof") was used to justify the invasion of Iraq - though then we saw the idea of promotion of "regime changes" added, with a view to promoting democratic governments (something which I believe is doomed to fail in most of the world - democracy is not a commodity, it cannot be exported).  That was a pretty rough question to ask anyone without preparation, I agree, but the entire interview seemed equally awkward.  I'm not going to form my opinion on someone based on one single question.  No one asked Obama or Biden the same question that I know of and I don't know how they would have responded, so I have no direct basis to compare.  Nevertheless, I find that both Obama and Biden are infinitely more polished and well-spoken.  I have a lot of respect for John McCain as a man, for what he has done for his country, but I don't think he is the man to carry the country forward.