Barack Obama or John McCain

[Evan Burton]

Hi Craig,

Despite the polls, the majority of the media and public opinion (especially outside of the USA and including Russia) that Obama is near a 'lock' bar a catastrophe - you are unwilling to accept that and mock others who are merely stating the obvious.

I don’t know about your interpretations on 'critical thinking', but in Ireland we call your thinking 'Asal Logic'. It appears there are enough people on this forum pointing this out to you, so I personally will refrain from doing so again.

But every cloud has a silver lining, so take comfort in the fact that not only do you impress some of us with your resolve, but if by chance McCain does win, you were among the minority of people in the world (those countries following or aware in some degree of the US election) who predicted it. Who knows, maybe in four years time CNN will ask your permission to broadcast the 'Craig Lamson Poll of Polls' - Just a thought.

Steve

Although I disagree with Craig's assessment, I have to defend his post. As I pointed out in a post, there was an instance where all the polls pointed one way and the actual winner was another (I am unsure if there is any claim of vote rigging, but I do not think so). Now, I do not think this will be the case; I believe Bush has turned the majority of people towards a democrat; I think the time has finally come for America to choose a black President; I think that the McCain / Palin ticket - although having a number of pluses - has more negatives, and the the negatives on the McCain side outweigh the negatives on the Obama / Biden side. Just my opinion though, and as I said, I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to US politics.

[Craig Lamson]

Hi Craig,

Despite the polls, the majority of the media and public opinion (especially outside of the USA and including Russia) that Obama is near a 'lock' bar a catastrophe - you are unwilling to accept that and mock others who are merely stating the obvious.

I don’t know about your interpretations on 'critical thinking', but in Ireland we call your thinking 'Asal Logic'. It appears there are enough people on this forum pointing this out to you, so I personally will refrain from doing so again.

But every cloud has a silver lining, so take comfort in the fact that not only do you impress some of us with your resolve, but if by chance McCain does win, you were among the minority of people in the world (those countries following or aware in some degree of the US election) who predicted it. Who knows, maybe in four years time CNN will ask your permission to broadcast the 'Craig Lamson Poll of Polls' - Just a thought.

Steve

Well quite frankly Steve, I nor a good percentage of the folks in America don't give a tinkers hoot about the opinions of the world outside the USA when it comes to the election of our next President.

Critical thinking involves more than just noding agreement with some opinion poll manufactured by the MSN like a good little lemming. In this case it involves actually looking at the polls and the basis of the results. Doing so give one a quite different take on the actuall situation. It appears critical thinking is well beyond you.

zerOBAMA was a woeful UNDERperformer in the primary polls, generally running many point behind his poll numbers inthe actual results. Don't be suprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Hi Craig,

I don’t know about your interpretations on 'critical thinking', but in Ireland we call your thinking 'Asal Logic'.

Steve

Here I must defend Craig. "Asal" translates as "donkey", if I am not mistaken, whereas in the U.S. the donkey is the symbol of the Democratic party, and Craig is not a Democrat.

Craig is a proponent of Elephant logic, like the logic of the circus elephants who follow the lead elephant round in circles, to the great amusement of everyone.

Thats a good one Ray, maybe you will be able to work inthe re-education camps should we be unfortunate and zero wins.

[Craig Lamson]

Hi Craig,

Despite the polls, the majority of the media and public opinion (especially outside of the USA and including Russia) that Obama is near a 'lock' bar a catastrophe - you are unwilling to accept that and mock others who are merely stating the obvious.

I don’t know about your interpretations on 'critical thinking', but in Ireland we call your thinking 'Asal Logic'. It appears there are enough people on this forum pointing this out to you, so I personally will refrain from doing so again.

But every cloud has a silver lining, so take comfort in the fact that not only do you impress some of us with your resolve, but if by chance McCain does win, you were among the minority of people in the world (those countries following or aware in some degree of the US election) who predicted it. Who knows, maybe in four years time CNN will ask your permission to broadcast the 'Craig Lamson Poll of Polls' - Just a thought.

Steve

Although I disagree with Craig's assessment, I have to defend his post. As I pointed out in a post, there was an instance where all the polls pointed one way and the actual winner was another (I am unsure if there is any claim of vote rigging, but I do not think so). Now, I do not think this will be the case; I believe Bush has turned the majority of people towards a democrat; I think the time has finally come for America to choose a black President; I think that the McCain / Palin ticket - although having a number of pluses - has more negatives, and the the negatives on the McCain side outweigh the negatives on the Obama / Biden side. Just my opinion though, and as I said, I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to US politics.

I'm curious Evan, as an outsider exactly what to you consider the positives and negatives of each candidate?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

That's a good one Ray, maybe you will be able to work in the re-education camps should we be unfortunate and zero wins.

You might be on to something here Craig. I see that Biden is already denying that Barack is a communist, a sure sign that he really is one. And note that Biden's first name is Joe, which means he was named after Joseph Stalin:

Biden Angered By Tough Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

[Len Colby]

Again we are NOT looking for polls where McCainis in FRONT Len, but rather where he is at least within the margin of error.

Even if we ignore the fact that you moved the goalposts, I never said that all every poll had him beyond the MoE, vast majority indicate his margin is beyond it. RCP bases hit current average on the last 16 polls, of those only 2 indicate Obama’s lead is with in the MoE and only 5 with in the combined MoE

Of course your cursory google once again fails to investigate the samle weighting.

As I showed in my last post and show again below even republican accept a 7 – 9% advantage for Democratic identifying voters. It is not an error that no one but you noticed but rather a reflection of reality.

Sheesh mrgoogle, even the Russian election observers can see what right in front of their eyes, but not mrgoogle.

Stung by international criticism of its presidential and congressional elections, Russia is striking back by sending a team of observers to monitor the U.S. presidential poll on Nov. 4.

Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman with Russia’s Foreign Ministry, says Moscow will have eight election observers attached to a monitoring mission conducted by the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

....

"A preliminary report prepared by the group, after studying U.S. media coverage on the NBC, CBS and ABC television networks since September, has concluded Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has a “hidden advantage.”

I can’t see it? I acknowledged it. Look back at what I wrote:

"Four of the big five TV news networks seem to tilt towards Obama but the most popular one Fox much more blatantly tilts towards McCain."

In case you failed to figure it out the “four of the big five TV news networks” not including Fox were CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC. Your study only looked at the latter three. That said I’d have to see the report to judge its validity, you blindly accept a report of it’s finding because it tells you what you want to hear.

Thanks so much for proving what I have been saying ALL ALONG was exactly true. Rather than rebute your latest diatribe line for line, lets just note a few things.

I was correct that the polls are oversampling dims to reps and by the range I stated.

Wrong the polls are showing that more people say they currently lean Democrat than lean Republican. Not at all surprising considering how unpopular Bush is and that more people will vote for Obama than McCain and more people will vote for Democratic candidates for House and Senate than Republican ones.

I was correct about the historical dim/rep percentages in the last presidental race.

You said historically, you didn’t specify 2004. In 1976 and 1980 the Democratic advantage was 15% If you average the 1984 – 2004 presidential elections there was 2% advantage for Democrats in elections were they lost the popular vote and 4% in the elections were the won it. It’s not surprising they would have a bigger lead in an election their candidate is expected to win by a larger margin than 1992 and 2000 and with out the complication of strong independent candidates. Also this is unsourced info from a GOP study, if there was any fudging of the numbers it would be to undercut the Democrat's advantage. Even so the difference this year 9% vs 4% is not enough to explain Obama’s lead.

I was correct that even the Mc Cain camp was complaining about the weighing.

No you were wrong, once again. They complained about weighing of a single poll, the LA Times one, which gave the Dems a 17% advantage. They argued that 9% was more reasonable. They averaged 10 polls (not including the LA Times one or ones taken by Newsweek or Rasmussen) taken May 7 – June 18 and came up with an average of 9.3% and argued for a difference of 9%:

“In addition, the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent. Given the large sample size, that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification”

That’s in line with or greater than Newsweek (9%) and Rasmussen (6.3%) All 14 polls average 9.6%. Even blatantly pro-GOP Fox News gives the Dems a 7% lead this year. Note than the 11 polls in the GOP report are from earlier this year when Obama’s lead was less and other Democratic candidates were not doing as well as now so a shift in their parties direction would be expected. RCP’s poll averages for “the first two months of 2008” ranged from McCain up 2.7% to Obama up 5.5%, for May 7 – June 18 Obama up 0.7 – 4%, over the last month Obama’s lead has ranged 4.3 – 8.6%.

As far as I can tell, no one else is saying what you are.

"I did give the historical and empirical data as I said it did. That you missed it is your problem."

Please point to the post where you gave “the historical and empirical data”

"I was also correct with the data I posted for the Newsweak poll. In case you missed it the second part SHOWED the sample weighing, and shows WHY the "as of today" numbers were skewed. Where I failed was to assume that mrgoogle would understand. BIG mistake."

Yes, you gave the correct percentage, however you continue to misunderstand the question they were responding to (or the significance of their answers). People responded how they were leaning at the moment they were replying to the poll rather than how they had voted in past elections or how they were registered. This is merely a reflection of the fact every poll shows, since the economic meltdown and most before it more people will vote Democrat. That’s why each of the 14 polls we’ve looked at shows a 6.3 – 17% advantage for Democrats and why even Republican / pro-Republican sources show it to be (or argue that it is) 7 – 9%.

"I was correct to point out that the oversampling has no basis in reason."

If you were correct someone besides you would be saying this. But you are wrong, the reason for the Democratic advantage in party ID is that more people will vote for that party’s candidates. Even Republicann sources are saying this. If you believe it has "no basis in reason" you should tell Public Opinion Strategies the GOP polling political strategy firm which argued in June the gap was 9%. Take a look at the resumes of the people who wrote the report and their associates, all faithful Republicans all far more qualified than you. Ditto the people who do the polling at Fox. Heck with your superior understanding of polling they'll probably give you your own show.

"You were unable to offer any evidence to the contrary yet you now claim this oversampling is "reasonable". Simply amazing, but to unexpectied seeing the hole you have dug for yourself."

You remain confused if the poll samples had 9% more respondents who said they were REGISTARED Democrats than Republicans or historically tended to vote Democrat than GOP you’d have a point. But rather they were asked which party they were leaning toward at the moment.

"And finally I was correct when I stated your "question" about who knows more about polling is STILL irrelevent."

No, it’s quite relevant because you have yet to: 1) offer a reasonable examination for such a blatant “error”, 2) show that anyone else believes what you do or 3) explain why seeming no one else does. There is however a simple explanation for all three, you’re wrong.

"You just can't win this one mrgoogle, quit while you are ahead."

LOL - You should take your own advice, you sound like the “truthers”, alterationists and hoax believers who after misinterpreting the available data declare that their theories have been proven correct but can’t cite anyone with relevant expertise who backs them up.

We are going in circles, unless you can give reasonable replies to some of the following points there is no reason for me to waste anymore time replying any further.

• Explain your objection to polls showing an average 9.6% percent advantage in current party identification for the Democrats when even a GOP polling firm working for McCain argued it was about 9% and even openly pro-McCain/GOP Fox said it was 7%.
  
• Cite someone, hopefully with demonstrable expertise in polling, who agrees with your position.
  
• If you can’t, explain why anyone, even you should accept your “analysis”.
  
• Cite an occasion in the US since 1948 when every major poll showed one candidate would win but he lost.
  

zerOBAMA was a woeful UNDERperformer in the primary polls, generally running many point behind his poll numbers inthe actual results.

I only remember this happening in NH can you cite other examples?

[Craig Lamson]

Again we are NOT looking for polls where McCainis in FRONT Len, but rather where he is at least within the margin of error.

Even if we ignore the fact that you moved the goalposts, I never said that all every poll had him beyond the MoE, vast majority indicate his margin is beyond it. RCP bases hit current average on the last 16 polls, of those only 2 indicate Obama’s lead is with in the MoE and only 5 with in the combined MoE

I did not move the goapost, this has ALWAYS been my claim. Learn to comprehend what you read mr google. Yoi also missed the fact that REMOVING the undue weighting is waht moves the polls eto even or wihtin the margin of error. It appears this agrument is simply too much for you to understand even though the concept is really quite simple

Of course your cursory google once again fails to investigate the samle weighting.

As I showed in my last post and show again below even republican accept a 7 – 9% advantage for Democratic identifying voters. It is not an error that no one but you noticed but rather a reflection of reality.

No, what you showed is that they acknowlege the polls show a sample weighting in the dims favor, not that they accept it. You really ARE a piece of work mrgoogle.

Sheesh mrgoogle, even the Russian election observers can see what right in front of their eyes, but not mrgoogle.

Stung by international criticism of its presidential and congressional elections, Russia is striking back by sending a team of observers to monitor the U.S. presidential poll on Nov. 4.

Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman with Russia’s Foreign Ministry, says Moscow will have eight election observers attached to a monitoring mission conducted by the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

....

"A preliminary report prepared by the group, after studying U.S. media coverage on the NBC, CBS and ABC television networks since September, has concluded Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has a “hidden advantage.”

I can’t see it? I acknowledged it. Look back at what I wrote:

"Four of the big five TV news networks seem to tilt towards Obama but the most popular one Fox much more blatantly tilts towards McCain."

In case you failed to figure it out the “four of the big five TV news networks” not including Fox were CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC. Your study only looked at the latter three. That said I’d have to see the report to judge its validity, you blindly accept a report of it’s finding because it tells you what you want to hear.

No, you actually wrote this as a lead to your out of context quote (sheesh you even do it to yourself...)

"As for your earlier claim that Obama is the media anointed candidate that is not entirely true or relevant."

Lets review the logic of the misquoter, mrgoogle. Its not 'entirely true" the media is inthe tank for Obama, but by his own admission the vast majority of the MSN support is for OBAMA. Amazing stuff there mrgoogle. I suggest you put the shovel down, you are approaching China.

Thanks so much for proving what I have been saying ALL ALONG was exactly true. Rather than rebute your latest diatribe line for line, lets just note a few things.

I was correct that the polls are oversampling dims to reps and by the range I stated.

Wrong the polls are showing that more people say they currently lean Democrat than lean Republican. Not at all surprising considering how unpopular Bush is and that more people will vote for Obama than McCain and more people will vote for Democratic candidates for House and Senate than Republican ones.

No, what your limited cognative ability fails to let you see is that the polling does not set the weighting, the pollsters do PRIOR to running the poll. When a pollster polls more dims than reps FROM THE ONSET, is it suprising that the relsults show more dim support IN THE POLL? It is simply amazing that this very basic point is flying righjt over your head. Maybe thats what happens when you let google think for you.

I was correct about the historical dim/rep percentages in the last presidental race.

You said historically, you didn’t specify 2004. In 1976 and 1980 the Democratic advantage was 15% If you average the 1984 – 2004 presidential elections there was 2% advantage for Democrats in elections were they lost the popular vote and 4% in the elections were the won it. It’s not surprising they would have a bigger lead in an election their candidate is expected to win by a larger margin than 1992 and 2000 and with out the complication of strong independent candidates. Also this is unsourced info from a GOP study, if there was any fudging of the numbers it would be to undercut the Democrat's advantage. Even so the difference this year 9% vs 4% is not enough to explain Obama’s lead.

Well I think I did , but I'm not going to quibble. The fact remains the 2004 is historical data AND its the most recent presidental election. Facts are facts mrgoogle.

I was correct that even the Mc Cain camp was complaining about the weighing.

No you were wrong, once again. They complained about weighing of a single poll, the LA Times one, which gave the Dems a 17% advantage. They argued that 9% was more reasonable. They averaged 10 polls (not including the LA Times one or ones taken by Newsweek or Rasmussen) taken May 7 – June 18 and came up with an average of 9.3% and argued for a difference of 9%:

“In addition, the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent. Given the large sample size, that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification”

That’s in line with or greater than Newsweek (9%) and Rasmussen (6.3%) All 14 polls average 9.6%. Even blatantly pro-GOP Fox News gives the Dems a 7% lead this year. Note than the 11 polls in the GOP report are from earlier this year when Obama’s lead was less and other Democratic candidates were not doing as well as now so a shift in their parties direction would be expected. RCP’s poll averages for “the first two months of 2008” ranged from McCain up 2.7% to Obama up 5.5%, for May 7 – June 18 Obama up 0.7 – 4%, over the last month Obama’s lead has ranged 4.3 – 8.6%.

As far as I can tell, no one else is saying what you are.

Well if you can't find ANYONE else then it appears that mrgoogle is also a failureat..googling. Heres a second article about McCain camp complaining about weighting.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20...putes_post.html

Clearly you don't have a clue about weighting.

"I did give the historical and empirical data as I said it did. That you missed it is your problem."

Please point to the post where you gave “the historical and empirical data”

2004 is historical data and Rassmussen is empirical data. They are in my past posts. Learn to read.

"I was also correct with the data I posted for the Newsweak poll. In case you missed it the second part SHOWED the sample weighing, and shows WHY the "as of today" numbers were skewed. Where I failed was to assume that mrgoogle would understand. BIG mistake."

Yes, you gave the correct percentage, however you continue to misunderstand the question they were responding to (or the significance of their answers). People responded how they were leaning at the moment they were replying to the poll rather than how they had voted in past elections or how they were registered. This is merely a reflection of the fact every poll shows, since the economic meltdown and most before it more people will vote Democrat. That’s why each of the 14 polls we’ve looked at shows a 6.3 – 17% advantage for Democrats and why even Republican / pro-Republican sources show it to be (or argue that it is) 7 – 9%.

No, you are simply CLUELESS mrgoogle. Put down your shovel, climb out ot the hole and then sit down ans shut up. This is WAY over your head. The dim/rep/indie ratios are PRE-DETIRMINED before the pollster makes the first call. They throw the respondents so the results FIT their "special sauce" weighting. The answers you see in the question ARE A DIRECT RESULT of the oversampling of dims...as preplanned by the pollster prior to the start of the poll. Sheesh mrgoolge

"I was correct to point out that the oversampling has no basis in reason."

If you were correct someone besides you would be saying this. But you are wrong, the reason for the Democratic advantage in party ID is that more people will vote for that party’s candidates. Even Republicann sources are saying this. If you believe it has "no basis in reason" you should tell Public Opinion Strategies the GOP polling political strategy firm which argued in June the gap was 9%. Take a look at the resumes of the people who wrote the report and their associates, all faithful Republicans all far more qualified than you. Ditto the people who do the polling at Fox. Heck with your superior understanding of polling they'll probably give you your own show.

Boatloads of people are saying it, as a guick goolge shows. But do you expect the MSM to report that the poolsters THEY hired are skewing the results? That you don't understanmd how poloing works is really not my problem. The logic of your reply is beyond unbelievable.

"You were unable to offer any evidence to the contrary yet you now claim this oversampling is "reasonable". Simply amazing, but to unexpectied seeing the hole you have dug for yourself."

You remain confused if the poll samples had 9% more respondents who said they were REGISTARED Democrats than Republicans or historically tended to vote Democrat than GOP you’d have a point. But rather they were asked which party they were leaning toward at the moment.

More mrgoogle ignorance on display. There were not 9% more respondants. The POLLSTERS DECIDED to use 9% more dims than reps. The results of the poll REFLECT this decision. Its not rocket sciennce to see that if you decide use 9% more dim responces that the poll most likely reflect a 9% lean to dms. I would think that is self evident, unless of course you are a "dim"

"And finally I was correct when I stated your "question" about who knows more about polling is STILL irrelevent."

No, it’s quite relevant because you have yet to: 1) offer a reasonable examination for such a blatant “error”, 2) show that anyone else believes what you do or 3) explain why seeming no one else does. There is however a simple explanation for all three, you’re wrong.

No, as we can see the "wrong" party here is YOU.

"You just can't win this one mrgoogle, quit while you are ahead."

LOL - You should take your own advice, you sound like the “truthers”, alterationists and hoax believers who after misinterpreting the available data declare that their theories have been proven correct but can’t cite anyone with relevant expertise who backs them up.

We are going in circles, unless you can give reasonable replies to some of the following points there is no reason for me to waste anymore time replying any further.

• Explain your objection to polls showing an average 9.6% percent advantage in current party identification for the Democrats when even a GOP polling firm working for McCain argued it was about 9% and even openly pro-McCain/GOP Fox said it was 7%.
  
• Cite someone, hopefully with demonstrable expertise in polling, who agrees with your position.
  
• If you can’t, explain why anyone, even you should accept your “analysis”.
  
• Cite an occasion in the US since 1948 when every major poll showed one candidate would win but he lost.
  

zerOBAMA was a woeful UNDERperformer in the primary polls, generally running many point behind his poll numbers inthe actual results.

LOL! I gues you simply can't accept defeat like a man. Maybe your name should be mrsgoogle.

I only remember this happening in NH can you cite other examples?

When I get the time, I'll look it up for you...maybe.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

When I get the time, I'll look it up for you...maybe.

perhaps while you're looking up things, you can find something in the McCain-Palin/GOP platform concerning immigration reform... seems to me Angry John and Sweet Sarah are both running from this Southwest-US issue at a rapid clip. A "weighty" subject I'd say, is turning your tail to the US electorate the best idea?

Looks like Indiana is going "DIM" -- that has gotta be a mega size heartburn for ya, eh?

Edited October 26, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

...

When I get the time, I'll look it up for you...maybe.

perhaps while you're looking up things, you can find something in the McCain-Palin/GOP platform concerning immigration reform... seems to me Angry John and Sweet Sarah are both running from this Southwest-US issue at a rapid clip. A "weighty" subject I'd say, is turning your tail to the US electorate the best idea?

Looks like Indiana is going "DIM" -- that has gotta be a mega size heartburn for ya, eh?

Indiana dim? I don't think so, but if thinking so makes you feel better , more power to ya.

Mac SUCKS on immigration.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

zerOBAMA was a woeful UNDERperformer in the primary polls, generally running many point behind his poll numbers inthe actual results. Don't be suprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Sorry to disappoint you Craig, but the actual numbers from the primaries prove EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your theory:

polling numbers from the primaries suggested no presence of a Bradley Effect. On the contrary, it was Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton -- who somewhat outperformed his polls on Election Day.

On average, Barack Obama overperformed the Pollster.com trendline by 3.3 points on election day.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

As a wise man once said Don't be surprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

This CNN article was emailed to me today from a colleague, whom with 'glee' pointed out that articles like this published on American websites support the growing census of opinion regarding the US election - "If Obama loses this election, how can the USA preach to other countries about democracy?"

I thought it was worth adding to this thread.

Thanks - Steve

CNN Article:

Experts who have examined the allegations against ACORN have concluded that there is no significant threat of voter fraud. For the fraudulent registration forms to turn into fraudulent votes, they would have had to get through the election officials' vetting systems and make it onto the voter rolls.

Next, someone would need to arrive at the assigned polling location with valid identification that lists the same name and address as the fraudulent registration. (This is fairly difficult to do if you're dead or named Mickey Mouse.)

Then, having passed all these hurdles, that someone would cast a vote that will cost him or her 10 years in jail. Just find me someone willing to spend 10 years in jail just for a chance to vote for Obama or McCain?

Let's look at the facts. ACORN labeled as "suspicious" the fraudulent registration forms a few of its paid volunteers submitted. Moreover, ACORN delivered them to election authorities under that heading. ACORN offered to help election officials pursue prosecutions against those who filled out the fraudulent forms.

The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system.

Ask yourself how likely is it that someone would go through the effort and risk of submitting multiple false registration forms, find an accomplished forger capable of producing IDs of sufficient quality to trick election officials, and then spend Election Day racking up a couple extra votes at the potential cost of spending a decade in jail?

A simple cost-benefit analysis tells us this is not a reasonable or significant threat. The real threat here is the Republican Party using attacks on ACORN as a calculated strategy to justify massive challenges to the votes cast in Democratic-leaning voting precincts on Election Day. And this is what is truly outrageous, but where is John McCain's concern when it comes to people being harassed at the voting booth?

The same Republican Party shouting "Voter fraud!" is also furiously trying to prevent Ohio from registering voters at early voting sites and suing to shut down some early voting sites in Indiana.

Just as the GOP will use the so-called "Bradley effect" to explain away voting irregularities it created through voter suppression, it will use allegations of voter fraud to cover its efforts of voter suppression.

McCain and Republican candidates up and down the GOP ticket don't want increased voter turnout.

Let them sputter and fret. A swelling of the voter rolls strengthens our democracy. The more eligible voters we have participating in the process, the stronger we are as a nation -- and the more accurately the results on November 4 will reflect our nation's choice for president.

We must be vigilant in protecting people's right to vote, not vigilant in suppressing it. We must be vigilant that new voters aren't threatened, harassed or turned away. And we must be vigilant that resources like voting machines and poll workers are distributed appropriately to accommodate the projected influx of new voters.

Finally, we must be vigilant that this election, unlike 2000 or 2004, doesn't return conspicuous voting irregularities, and that those irregularities aren't left unchallenged.

We must be vigilant in the protection of our democracy because the way things are going in the United States right now, democracy may be the only valuable left in our national treasury.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Donna Brazile."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27...ref=werecommend

[John Simkin]

Gary Younge's article in today's Guardian is also worth reading on this issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...rs-barack-obama

As the sun rose over Soweto on South Africa's first democratic election in 1994, the Mwale family were too busy with practical matters to ponder the historical resonance of the day.

Following rumours that a white supremacist group was going to poison the main water tank, they boiled the water and cooked a huge pot of mealies. The day before, during early voting, granny had waited seven hours to cast her ballot for Nelson Mandela and the kids had to bring her food. Now it would be granny's turn to come to the rescue.

I recall walking with the mother of the house, Esther Mwale, in silence at 7am through zone 9 of Meadowlands, the morning fog slowly lifting to reveal that people had ironed their best trousers and put on their sturdiest shoes for the day. All dressed up for democracy.

The two hours Esther spent queueing to vote somehow served as a dignified, humane response to the horrors of apartheid. After his wife, Ruth First, was killed by the regime, African National Congress militant Joe Slovo said: "The most effective punishment is to force those who did it to live in a democratic South Africa." And here it was.

But if long lines of black people at polling stations showed the promise of a fledgling democracy in South Africa, the prospect of similar scenes next week will illustrate a failing democracy in the US. A longstanding, systematic, legal and political campaign to suppress the vote in Democratic areas combined with the shambolic, shameful neglect of the electoral infrastructure could yet cause chaos on an unprecedented scale.

In short, come next Tuesday, the issue may not so much be who votes for whom, but who gets to vote and whose votes get counted. A recent CNN poll showed that 42% of voters are not confident their vote will be accurately cast and counted - almost three times the figure four years ago. With the record numbers of newly registered voters will be a record number of lawyers on both sides. If it's close, the courts may once again pick the winner.

The popular response to such an unpopular outcome is not difficult to imagine. According to the Washington magazine The Hill, police across the country are preparing for unrest. Swat teams will be on standby in Oakland, California. The Democratic secretary of state in Ohio now has protection from death threats after she refused to make a list of 200,000 newly registered voters available to Republicans.

Some of this mayhem stems from a noxious blend of officiousness and incompetence. In Jackson County, West Virginia, people have been hitting the touch-screen for Barack Obama and finding they have voted for John McCain. In Florida they are testdriving the third ballot system in three election cycles. Election workers are struggling. Those who thought they would vote early and avoid the queues are waiting in line for three hours.

Added to the technological flaws with machines and lack of technical training for those operating them are technocratic electoral laws that aren't fair, don't work and in any case aren't being heeded. According to the New York Times, tens of thousands of eligible voters in six battleground states have been illegally removed from voter rolls or will be prevented from voting in ways that violate federal law. In Wisconsin, one in five voters' names on the registration database did not completely match names on other state records, including four of the six former judges charged with overseeing the elections. Both presidential candidates may have been wasting their time wooing Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher - aka Joe the plumber - at the last debate. He is registered as Worzelbacher, and therefore may find himself ineligible to vote.

While this is happening everywhere (Jackson county is 98% white and voted for Bush in the last two elections), it is compounded by a protracted Republican effort to disenfranchise Democratic voters under the guise of combating voter fraud. Voter fraud is a serious issue. The trouble is it barely exists. In the six years since the Bush administration has made it a priority, barely 100 people have been convicted and fewer than 200 have been charged. The overwhelming majority were either people who thought they were eligible but weren't (immigrants, felons etc) or those registering fictitious people.

"If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant," Richard Hasen, election law expert at the Loyola Law School, told the New York Times last year. "But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent."

But that hasn't stopped Republicans trying. Five of the 12 US attorneys who were fired last year, in the scandal that led to the resignation of US attorney general Alberto Gonzales, were axed because they refused to pursue the issue of voter fraud with sufficient vigour. It also explains the Republican attacks on the community group Acorn, which pays people to register voters in low income and minority areas. Some of Acorn's workers made up names. That should be and has been condemned. But there is no evidence that it has resulted in a single fraudulent vote ever being cast since Acorn began its large-scale voter registration drives four years ago.

While attempts at voter suppression are partisan in intent they are racial in effect. The Democrats have not won an election without the black vote since 1964. The most effective and crude way to undermine their base is to minimise the vote in black areas. This is precisely what happened in Florida in 2000, where Republicans lowered the threshold for inclusion on the "purge list" of ineligible voters. By the time they were done, African-Americans accounted for 88% of those purged, even though they only comprised 11% of the actual electorate.

The practical consequences of this interference, manipulation and, at times, intimidation is twofold. It disenfranchises people who either don't have the time, inclination or wherewithal to stand up to officialdom. And it creates huge lines while others stay and fight. A Democratic party survey from 2004 found half of the state's African-American voters in Ohio reported some problems at the polls on election day. On average, black voters waited in longer lines than whites, were more likely to be asked for identification when they got there and felt more intimidated.

This year will be worse. Obama's strategy has hinged on registering huge numbers of new voters. Overrepresented among them are the black, the young and first-time voters. For at least six months this eventuality has been predictable. And yet electoral officers around the country have declared themselves entirely unprepared. Just as in South Africa 14 years ago, the huge turnout we are seeing in early voting, and which will undoubtedly come on election day, marks a celebration of a historic moment in the nation's democracy. But the long lines and their demographic composition will mark not dignity but disorganisation and discrimination.

It remains one of the paradoxes of this election that black America may yet get a president before black Americans have fully secured their right to vote.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

listen to Nader's talk given on Sept. 26th - which can be found on the internet! [or any of his recent talks, or those of McKinney]. The two main Parties - that are really only one - have gotten us in this mess and are not the way to get out of it [it being as broad as you are aware of how deep the **** now is...]

Actually Nader bears a great deal of responsibility for the current mess, because he knowingly facilitated Bush's grab for power.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

With the two bought-out branches of the American Corporate Party how are we ever going to make any REAL progress - all we can do is avoid extreme horrors [like Bush] for 'ordinary horrors' like Clinton et al.

Well if you asked me to name a politician who sold out, Nader is the first name that comes to mind. Imagine running as the Green candidate arguing that Gore is not green enough. Nader is a smart guy, therefore he knew exactly what his candidacy would accomplish -- siphon votes away from Gore. He also knew that his candidacy would serve NO OTHeR PRACTICAL FUNCTION.

They say that Nader enjoyed a burst of prosperity around that time, supposedly a result of some unexpected success in the stock market, but his personal finances, offshore accounts, etc., might be worth investigating.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Peter,

Would you please elaborate on this comment for me: "The life expectancy of African Americans in the United States is about the same as that of people living in China..."

Thanks - Steve