Elections are fun!

October 15, 2008 9:49 AM

Welcome to The Sacramento County Republican Party. The official website has removed content calling for Obama to be waterboarded. But it still contains fake quotes supposedly from Obama's memoir. In this political climate, 33% of voters do not identify Obama as Christian, and 8% believe he is Muslim. Yet, the polls predict a landslide, hinted at by early voting. McCain needs something spectacular, and he may be regretting his decision to invoke Bill Ayers in tonight's debate; and perhaps other things.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 (1600 comments total)

“I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.”

Maybe I can forestall a political flamewar by making this into a grammar flamewar. Does this actually scan?
posted by GuyZero at 9:57 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Threatening a U.S. Senator? Isn't that... Terrorism?

*waits patiently for The Sacramento County Republican Party to be rounded up & sent to Gitmo*
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:58 AM on October 15, 2008 [5 favorites]

i have the feeling that if mccain doesn't bring it up obama will
posted by pyramid termite at 10:00 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

The last link is a CNN piece on the Alaskan Independence Party. I've wondered for a while why this group hasn't been brought to the fore by the media, and it's interesting to see what CNN has to say about them.
posted by boo_radley at 10:02 AM on October 15, 2008

God I can't wait for McCain to be a footnote to history.
posted by mattbucher at 10:03 AM on October 15, 2008

Is this gonna be tonight's debate thread?
posted by ericb at 10:03 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Rarely is the question asked: Progressive-Equally-Scary-Commie???
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:04 AM on October 15, 2008

33% of voters do not identify Obama as Christian

Pretty interesting that he still gets a landslide. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "identify" and "Christian".
posted by DU at 10:04 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

he may be regretting his decision to invoke Bill Ayers in tonight's debate;

I don't think he understands the point of a whisper campaign. The problem with leveling nonsensical, truth-stretching accusations directly to your opponent is that he gets to refute them just as directly. Not only that, but by making it clear in advance, he's given the Obama campaign half a week to prepare remarks.

I mean, he clearly understands that "You don't say that out loud!" when you're figuring out a game plan. But appeasing some riled up supporters is all it takes for him to spell out his plans. Does he really want them watching tonight?
posted by almostmanda at 10:06 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

the polls predict a landslide

Hell, even Karl Rove thinks it's going to be a big win for Obama.
posted by EarBucket at 10:07 AM on October 15, 2008

33% of voters do not identify Obama as Christian

Pretty interesting that he still gets a landslide. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "identify" and "Christian".

I would get a big kick if he were to win in a landslide and there winds up being a chorus of misinformed voters who feel that they were awfully progressive to have voted for that nice Arab Muslim man.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:07 AM on October 15, 2008 [15 favorites]

The official website has removed content calling for Obama to be waterboarded.

Wow, thats positively tame. Alot of posters over at FreeRepublic are already making vague threats against Obama's life or hinting that there may be another secession/Civil War if he wins. Kudos to the Sac Repubs for only wanting to horribly torture Obama. They're obviously the moderates in this election.

Another interesting thing I've noticed on those websites are a total rejection of polling data. CBS had a poll yesterday that showed Obama +14 nationwide (which even I think is an outlier), but regardless the rightly blogs were full of posts about how polls are being manipulated by libural elites to demoralize True American Patriots.

I think the real antipathy against polls goes deeper on the Right, however. If you think about it, extreme Rightism (or extreme Nationalism or Fundamentalism of any kind) takes a very dim view of people's opinions. Opinions are something that are supposed to align with Authority (God, the State, the King, the Pope, etc.) not something that you're supposed to, you know, just have on your own.

Rightist leaders (I'm thinking specifically of Bush here) pride themselves on "doing whatever is right" even when almost everyone (90% of the world and 75% of America in Bush's case) disagrees with them. People's opinions are immaterial to God's/the Leader's/the King's Will.

I remember reading another poster on FreeRepublic who once said that he or she "dreamed of a world without polls". I was startled at how shockingly revealing that statement was.
posted by Avenger at 10:08 AM on October 15, 2008 [18 favorites]

While McCain supporters touted Obama as a secret Muslim operative, McCain revealed his own secret identity.
posted by The Straightener at 10:10 AM on October 15, 2008 [11 favorites]

I'm really looking forward to McCain's concession speech -- that is, if he gives one. Given their history of coping with facts, there's a good chance the McCain-Palin ticket will simply declare victory and show up for the inauguration regardless.
posted by grounded at 10:10 AM on October 15, 2008 [31 favorites]

Who is Batman?
posted by EarBucket at 10:10 AM on October 15, 2008 [32 favorites]

I don't think Ayers will come up tonight.
posted by Tehanu at 10:10 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Another interesting thing I've noticed on those websites are a total rejection of polling data. CBS had a poll yesterday that showed Obama +14 nationwide (which even I think is an outlier), but regardless the rightly blogs were full of posts about how polls are being manipulated by libural elites to demoralize True American Patriots.

Well Christ, that poll was conducted by CBS and The New York Times. Both avowed enemies of the state, what did you expect?
posted by octothorpe at 10:12 AM on October 15, 2008

Waterboard Obama?

"In the governor's view, it's completely and totally inappropriate," said Julie Soderlund, a Schwarzenegger spokeswoman.

Spin, spin, sugar. In other words, "not everyone found this offensive, but The Governator's word should probably be followed."

But he defended his Web site. "I'm aware of the content," he said. "Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things."

MacGlashan said he would "consider people's complaints" before taking any action.

Spin me right 'round .. would you consider waterboarding patriotic, or torture? Or is that also something you're leaving open to interpretation? Apparently The Governor's complaint was enough.

But to be fair, the Dems also sound ... less than realistic.

Democratic party officials condemned the GOP site. "It's exactly the kind of vile, repugnant politicking that has relegated the California GOP to an afterthought in California politics," said Roger Salazar, spokesman for the state Democratic Party. "Even the top of their ticket would be disgusted by this display of dishonesty."

"Afterthought in California Politics?" Yes, I realize California is strongly Democratic in the broad term, but there are whole sections of the state that are very Republican. Are those sections an afterthought, too? And "display of dishonesty?" It's a crude effort to rouse the public, not dishonesty. "We don't agree with and/or like that guy, let's attack him!" is not being dishonest, it's rabble-rousing.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:17 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

As scary as this whole pile of shit is, it is nothing compared to how scary it would be if it actually worked.
posted by paisley henosis at 10:20 AM on October 15, 2008

It seems like Obama is baiting McCain to bring up Ayers, and it seems like McCain has taken the bait. If he is stupid enough to follow through on this, Obama gets the chance to make a well-rehearsed, decisive refutation of McCain's accusations, and McCain will be playing into the recent public image of him as a mean-spirited whiner who would rather attack his opponent than say something constructive. If McCain has any sense, he will let it drop.
posted by mai at 10:21 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

Also interesting that Republicans now do believe that waterboarding is extraordinarily cruel. Not to mention punitive, not informative--notice they don't want him to talk, they want him to shut up.
posted by DU at 10:23 AM on October 15, 2008 [16 favorites]

Get ready for the big debate switcheroo tonight. McCain won't bring up Ayers - in fact, he'll paint Obama as the uber-negative candidate, talk about how he's run more negative advertising than McCain, he'll accuse Obama of thuggery in regards to ACORN, and he'll call for a more civil campaign. He'll dole out a lot of straight talk, and he'll talk about honor, and about victory in Iraq, and his judgment on the surge, and all that stuff.

No Ayers. Just pure, unadulterated John McCain superhero POW bullshit. And Obama, I'm guessing, will be a little flat-footed because he'll be expecting a complete hit job.
posted by billysumday at 10:24 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

Isn't threatening a US Senate with assassination or torture a federal crime? You can't say anything about plotting to kill the doofus in office, surely there is something against doing this?
posted by Mastercheddaar at 10:26 AM on October 15, 2008

If McCain has any sense, he will let it drop.

McCain has sense (or I used to think so). What he doesn't have is a base with sense. They want to run on blood and fear like in 2002 and 2004. But it's 2008 now and ISLAMOATHEISTTERRORISTGAYSAREKILLINGOURBABIES isn't going to work.

The dynamic predicted before this election began is playing out: McCain has to run as a rightwing nutjob to get the base turned out but as an independent to run against Bush. This is an impossible task, so he must choose only one. He's made his bed and is now lying in it.
posted by DU at 10:29 AM on October 15, 2008

This is an impossible task

McCain as HAL.
posted by cortex at 10:30 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

My uncle is a whale in the Sac GOP, the kind of guy who donates enough money and time and cultivates enough contacts that Arnold shows up to his dinner parties.

Uncle GOP is voting for Obama this year.
posted by jamaro at 10:31 AM on October 15, 2008 [17 favorites]

Who is Batman?

Equating McCain with The Penguin is completely unwarranted.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:32 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Hell, even Karl Rove thinks it's going to be a big win for Obama.

He's been wrong before.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:32 AM on October 15, 2008

McCain has to run as a rightwing nutjob to get the base turned out but as an independent to run against Bush. This is an impossible task, so he must choose only one. He's made his bed and is now lying in it.

He's trying to do both, and he's failing at both.
posted by Tehanu at 10:32 AM on October 15, 2008

This Rolling Stones article on McCain (was it linked here) is pretty fascinating.
posted by chunking express at 10:33 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

Rolling Stones article on McCain

Sympathy for the Devil?
posted by ob at 10:38 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

This op ed piece blew me away... a first-hand report of Bill Ayers' sterling character and good works... in today's Wall Street Jounral fer crimeny sakes.

McCain might as well just give up now.
posted by emmet at 10:38 AM on October 15, 2008 [7 favorites]

Democrats need to push back against this anti-ACORN B.S. that's floating around the MSM. They hire people to register voters, and sometimes those registrations are erronious. But there's really nothing they can do, other then stop registering people. Obviously some registrations are going to be wrong, and sometimes people will fill out more registrations in order to cheat ACORN. But ACORN has no choice but to turn in the bad registrations, because the law requires it. They do put cover letters on registrations they think are bogus, but they are required by law to turn them in.

The alternative would be to cease registration entirely, which is exactly what the republicans want.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on October 15, 2008 [6 favorites]

I don't think Ayers will come up tonight.

If he does -- Obama Pre-Debate Memo: We're Ready For Ayers.

“Honoring the pre-debate tradition, Barack Obama's campaign is out with a memo on Wednesday raising the expectations for John McCain to ungodly heights. But in addition to setting the stage for tonight's affair, the Illinois Democrat did something peculiar: he allowed a peek into internal strategy.

Spokesman Bill Burton lays out -- in no small measure -- how he believes the debate will proceed.

‘Just this weekend, John McCain vowed to 'whip Obama's you-know-what' at the debate,’ he writes, ‘and he's indicated that he'll use Bill Ayers to attack Barack Obama... Senator Obama is going to use the debate to discuss his plan for the economy. That's what he's been doing this entire campaign.’

Such a prediction may appear, at once, over-simplistic and optimistic. But the Obama campaign has seemingly been engineering this scenario for the past week. Indeed, if John McCain brings up Ayers in tonight it may be because he was goaded into doing so.
Following the candidate's second debate, both Obama and Joe Biden chided the Republican nominee for not making the personal character attacks he made on the stump to Obama's face. Since then, however, polling data has shown voters recoiling from McCain's use of Bill Ayers in political attacks. The Arizona Republican is left in a quandary: don't bring up the former '60s radical and risk being seen as squirmy and afraid; or bring him up and get bashed by Obama for not talking about the economy.

As Burton writes: ‘But after two debates in which John McCain didn't mention the middle class once -- and after his campaign declared openly that they want to turn the page on talking about the economy -- the real question is not how many attacks McCain can land in the debate, but whether he can finally communicate a vision to turn this economy around.’”

posted by ericb at 10:41 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

I hate to link to Politico but this is a funny little article about how people are believing the crazy right-wing crap that said about Obama but they're voting for him anyway:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

posted by octothorpe at 10:43 AM on October 15, 2008 [9 favorites]

mattbucher: "God I can't wait for McCain to be a footnote to history."

Say what you will about him, but I think he's already made a big enough mark to not go down as a footnote. 30 years in the Senate, a Vet, a POW, Presidential candidate multiple times, etc. A bit far from a mere footnote.

Avenger: "I remember reading another poster on FreeRepublic who once said that he or she "dreamed of a world without polls". I was startled at how shockingly revealing that statement was."

Well, I dream of a world without polls as well. I think there are too many people who don't bother making up their own minds, but just follow the polls. I am sure there are people who only like Obama because he's the frontrunner, and I am sure their are Republicans who will motivated to vote by this same fact. Both seem like stupid reasons to vote to me.

Just like the stock market going up or down based on news reports, I think politics suffers from this same self fulfilling prophecy. The polls say it's so, so it becomes fact.

I also have a huge damage with exit polls. I think they should be illegal.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:43 AM on October 15, 2008

You know, I laugh at those people who were wondering what was going to happen "in the ghetto" if McCain won. I think the real danger is from the "Falling Down" conservatives. What will the whackjobs do if Obama wins?
posted by Ironmouth at 10:44 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

More fun with the base. I suspect the guy at 00:31 is going to get his milkshake drunk.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:45 AM on October 15, 2008 [10 favorites]

I think McCain will focus on convincing moderates, rather than appeasing the far-right. I mean, if he "wimps out" and doesn't attack Obama's character with the terrorist BS, the far-right is still more or less obligated to vote for him, right? If he continues to come across as petty and uninspiring, undecided voters will increasingly break the other way.
posted by snofoam at 10:47 AM on October 15, 2008

Spin, spin, sugar. In other words, "not everyone found this offensive, but The Governator's word should probably be followed."

In Schwarzenegger's defense, he's probably sincerely disgusted by this stuff. He's been intensely frustrated by the provinciality and narrowness of his own party's state legislature representation. He knows that the Republican party can never take a leadership role in California state politics without significantly broadening its appeal, and this kind of nonsense is incompatible with broader appeal.

The California Republican party is a parochial, right-wing, relic. Schwarzenegger himself would have never been elected if he had had to run in a primary in which the voters were that party's narrow base.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:47 AM on October 15, 2008 [7 favorites]

I used to feel sorry for John McCain. I used to say that he was the only Republican I would be happy to vote for. Those days are over.

He has squandered all my goodwill in the same way that his buddy W did after 9/11. The moment has passed, and his time is up. I don't even want him in the Senate anymore. He's fucking crazy and he makes bad decisions.

If I had my druthers, he'd retire now and spend his remaining years spending his SECOND wife's (you know, the one he called a cunt) money on frivilous things... like starting an investment banking firm.
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:47 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

If he does -- Obama Pre-Debate Memo: We're Ready For Ayers.

I know they're ready, but I also think McCain, while making some bad mistakes right now, will not make that one tonight.

It'd be nice if I was wrong, because I think it is probably the very worst thing he could do.
posted by Tehanu at 10:49 AM on October 15, 2008

Spiders for Obama.
posted by swift at 10:49 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

When republican spinsters start talking Obama landslide they want Dems to think it is in the bag so anyone a bit lazy will figure they don't need to take the time to vote. It also serves to further rally the base.

GET OUT THE VOTE!
posted by HyperBlue at 10:50 AM on October 15, 2008 [6 favorites]

I think the real danger is from the "Falling Down" conservatives. What will the whackjobs do if Obama wins?

DFENS.
Start from day 1 blaming Obama and the dems for anything and everything that goes wrong, from a drop in the DOW to a hangnail.
posted by inigo2 at 10:50 AM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

I think McCain will focus on convincing moderates, rather than appeasing the far-right. I mean, if he "wimps out" and doesn't attack Obama's character with the terrorist BS, the far-right is still more or less obligated to vote for him, right? If he continues to come across as petty and uninspiring, undecided voters will increasingly break the other way.

I think this is right on target.
posted by ericb at 10:52 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

There is a metric I apply to candidates for national office. I call it the Mondale Unit.

A candidate whose MU approaches one has little or no charisma. He is incapable of inspiring anybody to self-sacrifice. His campaign exists -- even to his own partisans -- purely as token opposition. In general, when comparing candidates running for the American presidency, the candidate with a lower MU is going to win.

Somebody whose MU is zero -- who has no Mondale in him whatsoever -- could talk you into walking into a burning building singing a happy song, and you'd thank him for the opportunity. Presidents of the 20th century with vanishingly low MUs would include FDR, JFK and Reagan.

Despite the way I'm talking, this isn't a specific value of a candidate's electability -- it's a dominant influence on that electability, a synthesis largely of the perceiveable qualities of the candidate himself. It is related to his charisma, but is defined not only by that but by the quality of the campaign around him, and innumerable intangibles.

You can even use this in a fantasy-football way, hypothetically running, say, McGovern against Bob Dole.

In modern politics, a candidate's MU is a changeable value as the candidate learns how to campaign or begins flailing against slipping odds. For example, Hilary's MU was lower in December 07 than in May 08, though it was never as low as Barack Obama's MU. The MU becomes a fixed value only after their exit from national politics -- Hilary's MU has been sliding downward slightly now that she's at least making a game attempt at campaigning for Obama.

Kerry's MU rose as the Republican smear machine did its work on him. Al Gore's MU, weirdly enough, dropped in the waning days of the campaign, but it wasn't adequate.

Obama's MU is vanishingly small (can you think of ANY American candidate who inspires unsolicited propaganda from so many popular artists?), and McCain's is the highest of any Republican's since Bob Dole's, although he looked much better in the earlier primaries. Come the debate tonight, the winner will not be the one who performs the best rhetorically or stays the most meaningful or truthful. It's the guy who impresses the most Americans that they could put up with seeing him on TV regularly, talking about policy, for the next few years.

It's been said that Americans, above all, vote for a President they could have a beer with. I don't think that applies to either of these candidates. Then again, I never pictured Ronald Reagan chilling with a brew and his buds, either.
posted by ardgedee at 10:52 AM on October 15, 2008 [16 favorites]

That video from Al Jazeera is hilarious.
posted by chunking express at 10:52 AM on October 15, 2008

I also have a huge damage with exit polls. I think they should be illegal.

You want it to be illegal for a free citizen to walk up to another free citizen and ask them a question they're entirely free to ignore.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:53 AM on October 15, 2008 [19 favorites]

From electoral-vote.com on why Obama may be spoiling for this issue to be brought up:

McCain's Transition Chief Lobbied for Saddam Hussein

The person charged with planning the McCain administration, William Timmons, lobbied for Saddam Hussein in an effort to get the international community off his back. Obama challenged McCain to talk about William Ayers to his face at the debate tonight and McCain accepted the challenge. What was Obama thinking? Maybe he will bring up Timmons and point that he (Obama) was 8 years old and living in Indonesia when Ayers was planting crude bombs but McCain knowingly chose Saddam Hussein's lobbyist for an important job in his campaign. There could be fireworks if Obama brings this up.

posted by spock at 10:53 AM on October 15, 2008

I also have a huge damage with exit polls. I think they should be illegal.

Why? I think they should be mandatory. At this point, they are the only remaining sanity check on the vote. Until we have paper trails on our votes, we need external monitoring.
posted by phooky at 10:54 AM on October 15, 2008 [11 favorites]

This is why Democrats can't win national elections. It just supports your own self-satisfied conceit to not allow the Republican to distort, lie and defame.
posted by tkchrist at 10:54 AM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

"Falling Down conservatives"

Yes.
posted by DU at 10:56 AM on October 15, 2008

Democrats need to push back against this anti-ACORN B.S. that's floating around the MSM. They hire people to register voters, and sometimes those registrations are erronious.

Or "fraudulent".
posted by Kwantsar at 10:58 AM on October 15, 2008

>I think the real danger is from the "Falling Down" conservatives. What will the whackjobs do if Obama wins?

>>DFENS.

No, no; the correct answer is DPENS.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:58 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

I guess I don't hang out in enough right-wing forums since this is the first time I've seen the bumper sticker "The only difference between Obama and Osama is BS." Nonsensical and offensive, but rather funny, actually.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:00 AM on October 15, 2008

Democrats need to push back against this anti-ACORN B.S. that's floating around the MSM. They hire people to register voters, and sometimes those registrations are erronious. But there's really nothing they can do, other then stop registering people. Obviously some registrations are going to be wrong, and sometimes people will fill out more registrations in order to cheat ACORN. But ACORN has no choice but to turn in the bad registrations, because the law requires it.

Oh, stop bending over backwards for those radicals. Let's be clear: if you offer a service collecting paperwork from people, and that paperwork is filled out incorrectly, then you are to blame. I don't want to hear any excuses about "legal requirements to submit the paperwork anyway". This is why I want to see people hold the US Post Office accountable for their share of bad voter registration forms. They've been awfully quiet. What do they have to hide?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:01 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

going to get his milkshake drunk

How satisfying would it be to see Obama deliver that line to McCain? I think there should be one last debate on 11/5, just so these two can say everything they actually WANT to say...

Still, I'd be surprised if McCain actually brings up Ayers and, if he doesn't, Obama may just let him stew. Either way, Obama will be prepared to deal with it -- he's not been caught flat-footed on many issues so far, especially those with this much press coverage.
posted by Pantengliopoli at 11:02 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

New McCain slogan: Obama Puts Hollywood Before America!

Looks like someone's not going to take Dennis Hopper's betrayal lying down.
posted by scody at 11:03 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

Rolling Stones article on McCain

Sympathy for the Devil?

You Can't Always Get What You Want.

In McCain's case, he just wants to finally outrank his father. This is his last chance and it seems highly likely that he never will.
posted by matteo at 11:03 AM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

Are there plausible October surprises that could flip the results at this point (knock on wood)? If terrorists attack, that ruins the one thing that has been okay. If Bin Laden is caught, who needs someone who's better at homeland security. If the market goes up, we're still going to be getting a constant stream of data supporting the notion that the wider economy is doing poorly. If Monica Lewinsky comes out of retirement to give him a blow job, maybe. But really, what events could happen that would turn this around?
posted by snofoam at 11:03 AM on October 15, 2008

I hate to link to Politico but this is a funny little article about how people are believing the crazy right-wing crap that said about Obama but they're voting for him anyway:

That made my head asplode. And it's fascinating to compare that to this NYT article on the views of some Southern voters.
posted by lord_wolf at 11:04 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

From the NY Daily News Piece on scenarios for a McCain upset:

6. A Terrorist Attack
The unspeakable would benefit the Republican by shifting voter fears from financial security to personal safety. Even the most cynical players on both sides pray that won't happen.

I think that's given the Wacko Right a lot more credit than they deserve.
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:04 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

When Bush was put into office by judicial coup, our conservative friend were quite bullying about it. Suck it up, they said. You lost, now live with it.

Dollars to donuts the day after Obama wins the election, they find some self-proclaimed redneck in a pickup truck filled with rifles and explosives driving toward Washington, and, when they pull him over, he tells them that Obama and ACORN stole the election.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:05 AM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

I was wondering what that "Hollywood" business was. I got a voicemail message from a McCain volunteer that was so rushed I couldn't understand it, but "Hollywood would repeated in it twice. It sounded like this:

ThisismarilyncallingforjonmccainobamaputsHOLLYWOOD beforepresidencywheneconomywastankinghejustsat whilebillswerepassednayinalsecurity whoisobamaHOLLYWOOD.

We replayed it four times trying to understand why the word Hollywood kept jumping it. It seemed unrelated to everything else.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:09 AM on October 15, 2008 [5 favorites]

"Dollars to donuts the day after Obama wins the election, they find some self-proclaimed redneck in a pickup truck filled with rifles and explosives driving toward Washington"

That's a fairly safe prediction, seeing as how it already happened -- just replace "Washington" with "Denver".
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:10 AM on October 15, 2008

It seems like Obama is baiting McCain to bring up Ayers, and it seems like McCain has taken the bait. If he is stupid enough to follow through on this, Obama gets the chance to make a well-rehearsed, decisive refutation of McCain's accusations, and McCain will be playing into the recent public image of him as a mean-spirited whiner who would rather attack his opponent than say something constructive. If McCain has any sense, he will let it drop.

Why? There is photographic evidence that Obama actually took part in Weather Underground activities. Just look at the picture and be terrified of an Obama presidency!
posted by NoMich at 11:11 AM on October 15, 2008 [11 favorites]

And it's fascinating to compare that to this NYT article on the views of some Southern voters.

I hate those articles. Some reporter goes out and finds the most racist voters they can, in the southeast, and it makes it seem like that's the dominant reason those states swing Republican. It's one reason, for sure, but it's terrible reporting. Those people are everywhere.
posted by Tehanu at 11:15 AM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

cjorgensen: "I also have a huge damage with exit polls. I think they should be illegal."

ROU_Xenophobe: "You want it to be illegal for a free citizen to walk up to another free citizen and ask them a question they're entirely free to ignore."

Yes.

As it is done now at least.

Often, by the time I get to vote, I already know the results of the election in my state based off these polls. I'm not looking for suspense, don't think somehow the outcome has been spoiled like knowing the ending of a movie, but I do want to preserve the integrity of the vote.

How many people choose not to bother to vote because they know it's a hopeless cause for their candidate? How many people in California choose not to vote because they already know the electoral outcome has been decided before they even get to cast a vote? Talk about your vote not counting.

Exit polls deprive people of their voice.

I also don't think any state should release the results for three days after the election, and think all polling places should close at the same time and open at the same time.

You're free to do all the polling you want, ask whomever whatever you desire. Just stay away from me while I am conducting my civil responsibility. And you're right, I am free to ignore the person, but honestly don't think I should have to. They have no right to be there.

Just as I think it's a bad idea to interview a juror during an active trial. Pretty much the same thing. I think exit polls are manipulative and misleading. They are part of what gave us the Florida fiasco.

If there were decent ethics involved in this kind of polling I wouldn't mind. A reasonable and respectful distance from the polls, not reporting the results until the poll closed, and accounting of what their margin of error is (how many times did they call it for the wrong candidate, etc.). Also, these pollsters are not unpolitically motivated. Many are associated either directly with a campaign or special interest group. Forgive me if I don't trust them to be unbiased.

Even the ones that are supposed to be independent probably aren't truly. Many are unpaid volunteers working for various news organizations. I just don't see how you can trust the data.

Fortunately, there is data I do mostly trust, called a vote count. Let's just wait to see what it says. I don't see why we need insta-polls and predictions. A candidate doesn't win based on what people say as they leave the polls, and it's an election, not a fortune telling event.

So in the interest of preserving fair elections I do think exit polls should be outlawed.

Besides, it's nobody's business that I'm voting for Obama!
posted by cjorgensen at 11:17 AM on October 15, 2008

The unspeakable would benefit the Republican by shifting voter fears from financial security to personal safety.

On the contrary, I'd be even more determined (if such were possible) to vote for Obama. One of the worst attacks on American soil happened on their watch, with warning, and not only did they fail to prevent it they didn't even lock the doors AFTER the horses were stolen.
posted by DU at 11:17 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

ardgedee: Come the debate tonight, the winner will not be the one who performs the best rhetorically or stays the most meaningful or truthful. It's the guy who impresses the most Americans that they could put up with seeing him on TV regularly, talking about policy, for the next few years.

Is it sad that I think this is the most accurate description I've seen of how Americans choose their president?
posted by threeturtles at 11:17 AM on October 15, 2008

This is why Democrats can't win national elections. It just supports your own self-satisfied conceit to not allow the Republican to distort, lie and defame.

What? We only have one national election, and Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy, etc won and it looks like Obama will win.

I just hope the democrats don't go back to their Kerry/Dukakis/Mondale nominating ways in 2016.
posted by delmoi at 11:17 AM on October 15, 2008

Which John McCain will show up to debate?

Start from day 1 blaming Obama and the dems for anything and everything that goes wrong, from a drop in the DOW to a hangnail.

Plus a Republican zeal for the separation of powers, checks and balances, and limits on executive power.

Just look at the picture and be terrified of an Obama presidency!

He's got a weapon!

The only difference between Obama and Osama is BS.

Doesn't that imply that one of them's a straight talker and the other one's a bullshitter?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:22 AM on October 15, 2008

I just hope the democrats don't go back to their Kerry/Dukakis/Mondale nominating ways in 2016.

I, too, hope they never nominate anyone besides Obama.
posted by lostburner at 11:23 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Exit polls The Electoral College deprive[s] people of their voice.

ftfy
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:26 AM on October 15, 2008 [10 favorites]

I'm certainly not counting my chickens in regards to McCain losing at the moment. I genuinely admired the man during the 2000 election cycle, but have been more and more disappointed with him in the ensuing years. During this election, he has made bad decisions after bad decisions, chosen a vice presidential candidate who is ill-prepared for the job, and moved erratically from one strategy to another. I confess, I can't recall the last time a Republican candidate for President has seemed this ill-prepared - indeed anti-prepared, if there is such a word - for office (and I'm counting Bush, who we at least knew had evil geniuses pulling his strings).

No, no matter how far ahead Obama might be in the polls, it isn't far enough ahead to make me feel its safe to stay home on election day. It isn't enough for Obama to win, the win has to be so enormous and decisive that there is absolutely no question but that he won. In fact, I won't feel that we're entirely safe from a McCain/Palin presidency until Chelsea Clinton is sworn in in 2017.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

Yesterday was the last day for Oregonians to register to vote so the student government at Portland Community College had (obviously well-trained) volunteers going around campus asking people if they're registered to vote. If anyone on campus had given them fraudulent info on their voter registration forms, would the GOP be up in arms to say that the student government was at fault? Of course not. Then why is everyone so quick to condemn ACORN? Isn't it the same scenario?
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

I read a particularly bizarre exchange between a door-to-door canvasser and a potential voter here:

“I don’t want to sound like I’m prejudiced,” Ms. Mendive said. “I’ve never been around a lot of black people before. I just worry that they’re nice to your face but then when they get around their own people you just have to worry about what they’re going to do to you.”

Ms. Vance responded: “One thing you have to remember is that Obama, he’s half white and he was raised by his white mother. So his views are more white than black really.” She went on to assure Ms. Mendive that she was so impressed with Mr. Obama the person, that she failed to notice the color of his skin anymore.

It's a tactic you don't often see used by the liberal set: Rather than immediately admonishing someone for their prejudiced belief, you play it to your favor.
posted by schroedinger at 11:31 AM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

Aw, Jesus fuck. I just read the NY Times article lord_wolf linked to.

*sigh*

I'm a seventh-generation Alabamian who is voting for Obama. It is the first time I am voting for a Presidential candidate with such enthusiasm. I like the man, I like his policies, and I see him as a way forward out of the horrible morass that ignorant mouth-breathers like those quoted in the NY Times article (and the politicians who pander to them) have led my nation into. There's a lot of good people down here, and we're really fucking tired of fighting the battles of the last generation. God bless Barack Obama, God bless America, and God save Alabama from itself.

Now I'm gonna go take a shower.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:31 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

ACORN, which most conservatives had never heard of before conservatives made it the bugaboo of the financial crisis. Now they're making ACORN their catch-all socialist terrorist election-stealing bad guys.

What do you expect when you try to help poor people? In American, that IS Socialism.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:35 AM on October 15, 2008

It's a tactic you don't often see used by the liberal set: Rather than immediately admonishing someone for their prejudiced belief, you play it to your favor.

There seem to be a number of lifelong Republicans and not so liberal people volunteering for Obama right now, so I think it a lot of cases it's probably more honesty about their own prejudices than playing to someone else's.
posted by Tehanu at 11:35 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

Let's also make sure to remember that as recently as 2006, McCain was a vocal supporter of ACORN.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:44 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

How many people choose not to bother to vote because they know it's a hopeless cause for their candidate?

As many as choose to on the basis of that information, as is their right.

How many people in California choose not to vote because they already know the electoral outcome has been decided before they even get to cast a vote?

As many as choose to on the basis of that information, as is their right.

Talk about your vote not counting.

In both of these instances, assuming what was reported was accurate "My vote doesn't matter" would be an accurate statement of the facts on the ground. Not some terrible bugbear that we mustn't mention, but the plain and simple truth.

The idea that you can improve the integrity of an election by denying people accurate information that they'd like to have seems ludicrous to me. More information that's accurate can only improve people's decisions over (Vote for A, vote for B, vote for other, stay home), not harm it. More (accurate) information gets you decisions that are more in line with the voter's actual interests as they understand them.

You don't like the decisions that some people make when they receive a particular variety of accurate information. You don't like that, knowing that the presidency is already decided, some people in CA or HI might stay home instead of voting -- that staying home is, under those circumstances, more consonant with their interests as they understand them than going to vote is. But what people do with information is fundamentally none of your business.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:46 AM on October 15, 2008 [5 favorites]

Am I the only one who thinks "Weather Report" each time I see "Weather Underground"?

And wondering, if only for a split-second every time, why Obama's association with early jazz fusion would be such a bad thing??
posted by LordSludge at 11:48 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Drinking game suggestions? Anyone?
posted by lunit at 11:49 AM on October 15, 2008

Avenger: "I remember reading another poster on FreeRepublic who once said that he or she "dreamed of a world without polls". I was startled at how shockingly revealing that statement was."

Well, I dream of a world without polls as well. I think there are too many people who don't bother making up their own minds, but just follow the polls. I am sure there are people who only like Obama because he's the frontrunner, and I am sure their are Republicans who will motivated to vote by this same fact. Both seem like stupid reasons to vote to me.

You know who else wanted to get rid of the polls? Hitler.

Wait. That might have been the Poles.
posted by Bonzai at 11:51 AM on October 15, 2008 [24 favorites]

From the NYT article:

“I’ve always been against the blacks,” said Mr. Rowell, who is in his 70s, recalling how he was arrested for throwing firecrackers in the black section of town. But now that he has three biracial grandchildren — “it was really rough on me” — he said he had “found out they were human beings, too.”


Change comes, but sometimes it's slow.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:52 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

Do people really only go to the booth to vote for President? There are lots of other things to cast a vote for or against on your ballot, many of which will affect you at a more personal level than the presidential race.
posted by maxwelton at 11:53 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

Sips
My friends
Middle class
Tax cut
Experience
Jobs
Health care


Shot
Ayers
Radica
McCain obviously avoids contact with Obama
Obama mocks something McCain just said
posted by Tehanu at 11:54 AM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

God damn I am a genius. My coworkers and I just has this brilliant idea. Stay with me.

You wanna cinch this election for Obama? Obama only needs to do one thing: Buy the rights to two episodes of Little House on the Prairie. Where Mary breaks her glasses. And later the one where she goes blind. The two saddest episodes of any TV show ever. Then he needs to buy three hours of prime-time one and half hour for each episode. Instead of any campaign ads he simply has a half hour fire-side chat call-in after each episode. Obama would then comfort Americans with this giant nation wide cathartic therapy session.

I swear Bin Laden would turn himself in after seeing Mary telling Pa she'd gone blind.

Obama:
"We have a call from... Pakistan?"

Bin Laden:
"Hello? Sniff... "

Obama:
"It's... it's okay. It's gnna be alright...go ahead caller."

Bin Laden:
"First time caller here... sob."

Obama:
"It's okay Pakistan. America is here to help."

Bin Laden:
"Mary... she going to be blind now? By the great profit, blessed be his name, this seems so unfair..."

Obama:
"She has Pa. And Ma and Half Pint. You have us. We here for eachother during this time of world crisis."

Bin Laden:
"Will... she... will Mary get into the special school... for the little blind children!? Oh sweet Allah, may his justice and love be upon us, please tell me WILL SHE FIND A HUSBAND!"

Obama:
"With the love and support of her family and community... yes... the answer is yes. Mary will start a family. it will be tough. But, Pakistan?"

Bin Laden:
"Sniff... I am still here."

Obama:
"I promise you we are all in this together and together, with th greatness of America, we shall see that Mary, Pa and Ma and Half Pint will thrive even through the most dire of circumstances. With Obama/Biden in 2008 THE NELLIE OLSONS OF THIS WORD WILL NOT PREVAIL! I Promise you.

Now pleases stay tuned, if we win on Tuesday, the following Wednesday we will run a special episode of Little House on The Prairie. Mary's wedding."
posted by tkchrist at 11:56 AM on October 15, 2008 [63 favorites]

tkchrist:
Good plan, but you made an error. It's the Republicans who worship "the great profit."
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:58 AM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

Holy crap, Tehanu, is this drinking game called "Who Can Get Alcohol Poisoning First"?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:59 AM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

The best part? all the pundits and all the polls show that the independents and undecided detest name calling and want issues addressed so that the more the GOP continues the sniping, the better things go for Obama.
As fort ACORN--here is what is behind it all

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/10/10289_the_acorn_controversy.html
posted by Postroad at 12:01 PM on October 15, 2008

As a Sacramento resident who lives in McGlashan's district I am disgusted at this. I just wrote my first letter (since 3rd grade) to an elected official. Roberta McGlashan just motivated a voter to get off his ass.
posted by Big_B at 12:03 PM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

I see Obama every time
I'm in Hollywood
If he could be there all the time,
Man, you know he would.
He's always at Universal Studios
Enjoying all the rides
And I saw him touring Paramount
And bothering the guides.
He's often at sitcom tapings
Laughing and applauding
As he plans a presidency
Won by ACORN's election frauding.
You see him in the wax museum
Staring at the stars
And then its off to the Hard Rock
To goggle at guitars.
You will see Obama on Vine Street
At the Mann Chinese Theater
And then it's off to Musso and Franks
Where's he's a frequent eater.
He's written several screenplays
To pitch to CAA
And he likes to drive his Porsche
Down the Golden State Freeway.
He'd be happy to be president
And if it happens, good,
But he'd be antsy in the White House
As he'd miss Hollywood.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:03 PM on October 15, 2008 [7 favorites]

Do people really only go to the booth to vote for President? There are lots of other things to cast a vote for or against on your ballot, many of which will affect you at a more personal level than the presidential race.

I cannot favorite this enough.
Feel like your vote for president is worthless? I know you've got at least 1 house member to vote for, a 1 in 3 chance there's a senator to vote for and god knows how many local offices to vote for. And how about those issues? Wanna pass some school levees? Statewide smoking ban?

The president doesn't put in the order to get your road repaved, folks.
posted by cimbrog at 12:08 PM on October 15, 2008 [12 favorites]

ROU_Xenophobe:

You're presuming unbiased unmanipulated accurate information.

Also, exit polls should have no influence on how a person votes, (yes, in my opinion) yet they do.

The information that you find so valuable to people shouldn't (again, my opinion) have anything to do with how a person votes.

This is an election. It's something that we, as a nation, should be deciding together, not some people in Maine and Florida before California and Hawaii even get to weigh in.

Exit polls are too screwed up, inaccurate, biased, and uncertain to have any real value.

They will call a poll for a candidate based on what replies they get, regardless of whether the information they have is truthful or even complete.

Again, I point to Florida.

Exit polls serve no purpose other than to provide the media with something to report as it's happening. They are disruptive, invasive, and dishonest. I think the process is too important not to get right. If this means we can't have the results before it's actually over I don't think anyone is harmed by this. Wouldn't it be a shame if the election was decided by votes the cast?
posted by cjorgensen at 12:08 PM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

How many people choose not to bother to vote because they know it's a hopeless cause for their candidate? How many people in California choose not to vote because they already know the electoral outcome has been decided before they even get to cast a vote? Talk about your vote not counting.

Exit polls deprive people of their voice.

Nah. If anyone actually does stay home because of polling (and I'm not sure they do), that's their choice - so their vote gets counted exactly as it should, as that of someone who didn't care enough to cast it. People should vote regardless of whether the candidate is up, down, or even. Anyone who bothers to learn even a little bit about elections knows about eleventh-hour surprises; when I went to bed in 2004, Al Gore was President-elect. Glad I voted anyway, or the election wouldv'e been even easier to steal.

It's regrettable if people choose not to vote, but strategists often say that an uncast vote is a vote for the status quo, and I think that's a completely accurate way to read it.

On the topic of voting, lats week's New Yorker piece "Rock, Paper Scissors: How We Used to Vote"blew my mind. I almost FPPd it. The voting standards of America's past make today's look like sheer perfection. It's astounding.

McCain would be better off not mentioning Ayres, but he's between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't mention it, he won't have a chance to spread the message, and he'll look like a total wuss who couldn't stand up to Obama's challenge to "say it to my face." If he does, he'll be stepping into a planned counterattack (with plenty of firepower). It's a checkmate.

And finally, one thing that's been on my mind in watching and listening to these right-wing attacks has just been a sense of despair about people's reasoning. I certainly believe there are legitimate and honest viewpoints on right and left. But I have a very hard time believing that hard-right nutsos can honestly believe the messages they're spewing. If they do, their ability to read and critically evaluate information is so severely handicapped that, were they children, they'd be evaluated for special-needs support in reading and language arts. If they believe this stuff, their credulity is childlike. I give a bit of a pass to the ignorant, the uninformed, the politically disengaged, the poor -- people who really have been disenfranchised by the entire political process for so long that they only follow vague and shallow messages anyway. The people who are most deeply disturbing, though, are not those folks - they are the fairly well educated, well-spoken folk who read right-wing emails and parrot easily refuted talking points as if true, the people who feign (or really have) distrust for clear, demonstrable facts as reported in the mainstream media. I heard a non-crazy-sounding caller to "The Diane Rheim Show" yesterday state that Obama was "not an American citizen, and the Democratic Party is covering that up." I mean, come on, folks - any educated person who is politically active enough to be calling and emailing about the campaign and believes that stuff to be true has some diagnosable mental dysfunctions, and it's time to point that out in clear and certain terms. Debate the merits of the different platforms all you want, but good God, don't expect us to believe your horseshit. Or even to believe that you believe it.
posted by Miko at 12:09 PM on October 15, 2008 [25 favorites]

‘Just this weekend, John McCain vowed to 'whip Obama's you-know-what' at the debate'

I initially read this as McCain vowed to whip OUT Obama's you-know-what at the debate.

“I don’t want to sound like I’m prejudiced,” Ms. Mendive said. “I’ve never been around a lot of black people before. I just worry that they’re nice to your face but then when they get around their own people you just have to worry about what they’re going to do to you.”

Fear of a black penis seems to be running high in this election.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:14 PM on October 15, 2008 [5 favorites]

That video from Al Jazeera is hilarious.

Agreed, but I'm not sure who the joke's on. In any case, I could've sworn the thing was an outtake from Mississippi Burning. I honestly didn't know people still said nih-gruhs.
posted by gompa at 12:14 PM on October 15, 2008

If they do, their ability to read and critically evaluate information is so severely handicapped that, were they children, they'd be evaluated for special-needs support in reading and language arts.

Not if their school's funding were eviscerated years ago by far-right anti-public education politicians.

Wait a second...!
posted by sondrialiac at 12:16 PM on October 15, 2008

Why "Hollywood"? Because "gay weirdos" is just a bit too crass.

Lee Atwater: "By 1968 you can't say '[n-word]'-- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

''And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than [n-word]'"

posted by milkrate at 12:19 PM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

Also, exit polls should have no influence on how a person votes, (yes, in my opinion) yet they do.

The information that you find so valuable to people shouldn't (again, my opinion) have anything to do with how a person votes.

Isn't this the same argument made by those who oppose requirements to label genetically modified foods as such? I don't think people's decisions should be affected by this particular information, therefore people should not be provided with such information.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:19 PM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

When Bush was put into office by judicial coup, our conservative friend were quite bullying about it. Suck it up, they said. You lost, now live with it.

I've been preparing for an Obama win by promising myself I will not say "How does it feel to be out of touch with mainstream America?" to all of my Republican friends and family.
posted by effwerd at 12:20 PM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

Feel like your vote for president is worthless? I know you've got at least 1 house member to vote for, a 1 in 3 chance there's a senator to vote for and god knows how many local offices to vote for. And how about those issues?

Exactly. And not only that, but let's say somehow there are no issues or Congresspeople on your ballot (which is BS, but stick with me): An election, especially a Presidential one, especially especially one of this magnitude, isn't a simple binary value. The margin is the mandate. If Obama wins by .1%, he's President. If Obama wins by 10%, he's God (at least for 18 months).
posted by DU at 12:22 PM on October 15, 2008 [6 favorites]

exit polls should have no influence on how a person votes, (yes, in my opinion) yet they do.

They shouldn't? Says who, other than you? What does it matter to you why someone else votes? If you are concerned about how others "should" vote, then beat the streets as a volunteer while you still have time to convince them. America's universal suffrage means that everyone has the right to vote - or choose not to vote - and what other people think they "should" do with their vote is really immaterial. I personally agree with your feeling that it would be great if everyone did vote regardless of what the expected outcome was; I deplore people who refuse to vote for any reason; and I suspect some people do vote as a reaction to the overdog/underdog ratio in the exit polls. But that's not something within my power to control; those people have all the rights and responsibilities I do, and they're entitled to use their vote in the way they see fit.

Another reason exit polls can be important is when an election is contested. Exit polls are much more accurate than pre-election polling, as they poll actual voters, not likely voters, and because the die has been cast and any last-minute changes are behind us. This can be rather important in areas where there is a suspicion of fraud. When exit poll results run counter to the actual reported election results, something's rotten in Ohio in 2004. It can be the data that spurs an investigation or a recount.

And it is true that, regardless of what's happening with the charismatic megafauna offices like President, there are always local representatives on the ballot, and in some states, there are important ballot questions, too - ones which may affect your taxes, infrastructure, school system, etc. Of course people should go out to vote on these offices and questions. If they don't, though, exit polls aren't to blame - their own inclinations, or simple lack of education about what's on the ballot, are the culprits.
posted by Miko at 12:22 PM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

The margin is the mandate.

Beautifully phrased, and true.
posted by Miko at 12:25 PM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

This campaign is getting too heated... (conceivably nsfw)
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:25 PM on October 15, 2008

My prediction:

- Obama wins, though not a landslide
- Within the first two months, at least two major attempts at assassination foiled easily
- Within six months, a major assassination attempt that nearly succeeds
- A cascading effect of right-wing control of media, such that within the first two years of his mandate we see right-wing media far worse than appeared under Clinton's two terms (of which we are still coping with)
- A media-driven takeover of the midterms elections by Republicans, who stonewall all progress
- Two years of a lame duck Democrat in the White House

It all reminds me so very much of Carter's great promise but lack of impact.

Don't get me wrong, I am very pro-Obama. I just don't see JFK reborn.
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:25 PM on October 15, 2008

Is this gonna be tonight's debate thread?

If you're in New York and fancy a nice place to watch the debate with your other Pinko-Commie-Queerlovin'-Terrorist friends, the Museum Of Sex is unveiling a friend's painting and screening the debate. No cover. Free hard cider.

MuSex Events

I'll be there.
posted by The Whelk at 12:26 PM on October 15, 2008

In McCain's case, he just wants to finally outrank his father.

You really got me thinking with this.

* George W. Bush = big-time daddy issues w/ President father;
- Result: War with Iraq to compensate

* John S. McCain III = big-time daddy issues w/ Admiral father;
- Result: War with Iran to compensate

* Barack H. Obama = raised by a single mother and her parents;
- Result: A moving biography dedicated to the biological father he barely ever got to know, much less develop some whacked-out Oedipal complex about AND the clear decision to provide a stable home with a loving paternal presence for his own two children

I'm no Freudian but I think there's something to this.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:28 PM on October 15, 2008 [4 favorites]

And it's fascinating to compare that to this NYT article on the views of some Southern voters.

The best part of that article is the fact that they found a confused old doofus who just happened to be named Glenn Reynolds.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 12:29 PM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

How many people choose not to bother to vote because they know it's a hopeless cause for their candidate?

Your problem isn't exit polls, it's a lack of electoral reform that has left you with a broken and obsolete form of democracy. You should instead campaign to upgrade to one of the better systems of democracy that includes proportional representation - then it doesn't matter if you know you're a minority, your vote still matters, and you still get representation because of your vote. (And as a super power-bonus, it chops off the head of the two-party system and it's poison, so instead of a two-headed one-horse race, you get multiple parties covering a vast array of viewpoints, forced to negotiate with each other over legislation. Much like national healthcare, it's a thing of almost unending win that some people love to hate)
posted by -harlequin- at 12:29 PM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

I've been preparing for an Obama win by promising myself I will not say "How does it feel to be out of touch with mainstream America?" to all of my Republican friends and family.

It's going to be hard. Here's a list of things we could say, just to twist the knife, but probably shouldn't:

You lost, get over it.

Such and such is why Republicans can't win a national election.

If you don't support Obama, you're un-American.

If the Republicans ever win again, we'll have given in to what the terrorists want.

Etc. etc. etc. There's a massive stockpile of bullying rhetoric that conservatives have used over the past few years, all rooted in the idea that they didn't simply win an election, but, despite their consistently narrow victories, they were nonetheless given a mandate by true Americans and that their policies reflected the beliefs and ideas of what is somehow the real America.

It's hard not to want to throw that back in their face. But, as Pyrrhically satisfying as it might be, I won't do it, because that sort of stuff is poison. I've had it poured down my throat for too long to actually want to poison someone else with it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:30 PM on October 15, 2008 [7 favorites]

More on ACORN: ACORN Smear is Effort to Cover Up Massive GOP Push to Undermine 2008 Elections Through Coast-to-Coast Vote Suppression

one choice bit: "The Philadelphia Daily News has reported that fliers showed up in African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia recently showed up warning residents that undercover cops would be prowling the polling places, arresting would-be voters with so much as an unpaid traffic ticket on his or her record."

And "Editor and Publisher" asks, why does it seem to be a greater sin to be suspected of voter registration mistakes than to publicly engage in voter suppression efforts?
posted by taz at 12:30 PM on October 15, 2008 [8 favorites]

their ability to read and critically evaluate information is so severely handicapped that, were they children

Someone mentioned it in a thread somewhere on here a few weeks ago. They are functioning like children. That's not to be dismissive, it's saying they are processing things like a child might when it runs into information it doesn't like. The hyperbole, ignoring obvious facts, completely believing things they want to believe while ignoring the reality of a situation.
posted by cashman at 12:34 PM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Avenger writes "I think the real antipathy against polls goes deeper on the Right, however. If you think about it, extreme Rightism (or extreme Nationalism or Fundamentalism of any kind) takes a very dim view of people's opinions. Opinions are something that are supposed to align with Authority (God, the State, the King, the Pope, etc.) not something that you're supposed to, you know, just have on your own. "

Note that this is only true if the polls are against them. Otherwise, the political Right is more than happy to cite how high Bush's approval ratings are, for example (well, at least back in 2003, when they were high).
posted by krinklyfig at 12:34 PM on October 15, 2008

Russia invades Poland?

How many times in history has Poland been invaded?

Too many.
posted by captainsohler at 12:37 PM on October 15, 2008

re Acorn: then you are to blame. I don't want to hear any excuses about "legal requirements to submit the paperwork anyway". This is why I want to see people hold the US Post Office accountable for their share of bad voter registration forms. They've been awfully quiet. What do they have to hide?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:01 PM on October 15 [+] [!]

[on preview: I realized that you are probably being sarcastic and my irony metre was off - but I finished writing the comment first, so thought I would post it for the general point.]

Acorn is legally required to submit all voter registrations because if they weren't there would be huge potential for them to abuse the system. They could, for instance, tell millions of people that they are registering to vote, but never hand those registrations in and thus disenfranchise people. Not that Acorn would ever do this, but other groups could and it would be far more dangerous than a few poorly filled out registrations.

But Acorn is also very worried about voter fraud. Which is why they have spent millions of dollars (that they could be using to do other charity work) to check the voter registrations themselves and flag questionable ones for the election officials. Some of these warnings have been ignored by those officials. But a whole lot of the criticism about bad registrations is actually based on bad registrations which Acorn pointed out were bad.

As Acorn has pointed out, they are the ones who have been defrauded by bad employees who were paid but didn't do their job (get legitimate voters registered) - they are the victims, not the perpetrators of this fraud.

--------------------

To be honest - I had never heard of Acorn before these last few weeks. And now the more I learn about them, the more I am impressed by them. They are pretty damn awesome, and I would love it for a Canadian branch to start up (and a British branch, and an everywhere-else branch). I need a new career path - maybe I should look into community organizing. It's kind of like being a mayor,* only you actually do some good in the world.

*no offence intended to dedicated city politicians - but the parallel structure was too nice to not use.
posted by jb at 12:37 PM on October 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

Change comes, but sometimes it's slow.

Exactly. And that's what I took from that article: that all the people the reporter quoted first were a set up to make that last guy's epiphany that much more powerful.

There was a time when I would have reacted to his comments with vitriol: "You goddamned idiot, of course we're human beings." But the older somewhat wiser wolf wants to give him a hug and say, "Welcome to the family of humanity, brother. We've been waiting for you."
posted by lord_wolf at 12:39 PM on October 15, 2008 [7 favorites]

If Obama wins, I hope it happens with a no doubt landslide, as it's hard to blame a five percent difference or more on voting errors.
posted by drezdn at 12:43 PM on October 15, 2008

delmoi writes "The alternative would be to cease registration entirely, which is exactly what the republicans want."

I can see the teasers now: "The organization that doesn't want you to register to vote! More at 11."
posted by Mitheral at 12:49 PM on October 15, 2008

But the older somewhat wiser wolf wants to give him a hug and say, "Welcome to the family of humanity, brother. We've been waiting for you."

and then you eat him?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:55 PM on October 15, 2008 [5 favorites]

"In McCain's case, he just wants to finally outrank his father. This is his last chance and it seems highly likely that he never will."

But Johnny got the heiress -- did either his Dad or Grandpa manage ever to be kept men with seven homes in 3 time zones and 9 personal vehicles?
posted by vhsiv at 12:59 PM on October 15, 2008

I personally have no problem with exit polling, but I'm surprised that the results aren't embargoed until the polls close (as is the case in the UK, for instance). Plus, stopping a poll early means you run the risk of having a sampling bias based on when voters show up.

Speaking of which, having never participated in an exit poll, how are they normally conducted? Surely any competent organization could collect the data electronically and have an analysis ready within seconds, right?
posted by teraflop at 1:04 PM on October 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm surprised that the results aren't embargoed until the polls close (as is the case in the UK, for instance)

Yes, this is a good idea.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:07 PM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

I, too, hope they never nominate anyone besides Obama.

Michelle Obama in 2016!
posted by MegoSteve at 1:08 PM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

I bet he mentions Ayers in closing comments.
posted by dsword at 1:10 PM on October 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

I realized that you are probably being sarcastic and my irony metre was off - but I finished writing the comment first, so thought I would post it for the general point.

My irony has been all too convincing lately. I really need to start taking into account the monstrous heaps of Absurd that the McCain campaign has been shoveling at us, and that comments such as mine - that I might think are pretty obvious exaggerations - are more or less par for the course from the right. Hell, with the official California GOP website calling for the waterboarding of a US Senator, and the Sacramento County GOP Party Chairman more or less says, "Hey, some are offended, some aren't", what do I have to work with here? How do you satirize the insane?

The right's dogpile attack on ACORN sickens me to the core, given the cynical and desperate shenanigans they engaged in in 2004 and 2000. The same people who used to get intimidated and pushed around by local cops and GOP operatives are now getting organized and getting assistance in making their vote count, and it makes the GOP furious. They had their chance and blew it.

But what gets to me the most about all this is, McCain hasn't even tried running a solid issues-based platform. His campaign managers actually revel in this underhanded crap. Palin's just a small part of this - she's nothing more than the physical manifestation of the cynical MO of Team McCain. What America wants doesn't matter, clearly, when this ACORN attack boils down to actually trying to block votes.

On the flip side, this sort of crap is food for Obama campaigners and voters. It just gives them all the more determination to get people to the polls. But don't expect this to end when Obama does take the White House. The GOP has already paved the way for what will surely be legal challenges to the Obama presidency. FOX columnists have already declared beforehand that the election will be "stolen" (right, because every poll in the country is run by liberal propagandists, after all).

Ah, well. I bet the dinosaurs were pretty hostile to the first mammals, too.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:13 PM on October 15, 2008 [7 favorites]