Happy Thanksgiving!

I'll get back to the Tom Schaller stuff soon enough. In the meantime I'm enjoying my holiday, getting all fat and happy. So, while it's still not too late, please by all means have a Happy Thanksgiving with your family, friends, the meal with all the trimings, the big game...



...or whatever it is you enjoy.

Read more...

Whittling Dixie, Part II

In my earlier post I republished several bullet points posted at The Gadflyer by Tom Schaller to explain why he believes this month's mid-term elections vindicated his position outlined in his book, "Whistling Past Dixie". The following is the first installment of my unsolicited, point-for-point rejoinder, adjusted to reflect the corrected criteria outlined in the update to my original post:

1) Schaller says, "5 of 6 gubernatorial pickups outside the South (84%)": True enough. 5 of the 6 new Democratic governors came from outside the south (defining the south as the states that made up the confederacy). In what will be a recurring them here, this analysis ignores, A) the limited number of seats up for grabs in the south in the first place and B) existing Democratic governors in the south.

So yes, 84% of the Democrats' gubernatorial pickups were gained outside the south. At first glance that may look like a very significant figure. However, when one considers that 28 of the 36 governorships contested were also outside of the south (78%) that number looks a lot less impressive. The small variance that does exist between southern and non-southern states here (6%) is not an eye-popping number. It is certainly not large enough to justify conclusions like Schaller's. In fact, one could argue that it actually disproves his point because, at least on a percentage basis, the Democrats' performance in the south is fairly comparable to their results outside of it.

Also, three of the seats in contention in the south were already held by Democrats. This means that any wins in those states (wins they did get, by the way) go by undetected using Schaller's statistic which only measures new "pickups".

Applying a similar methodology to these gubernatorial races, without filtering the results for pickups we find that 3 out of 8 gubernatorial elections held in the south (OK, AR, TN) were won by Democrats (37.5%). Not a majority (yet) but just one win shy of 50%. This hardly qualifies as a blowout.

Furthermore, a quick check of the National Governors Association's website (PDF file) reveals that there were six existing Democratic southern governors. The entries in bold represent seats in contention in this election:

• Kathleen Blanco (Louisiana)
• Michael Easley (North Carolina)
• Brad Henry (Oklahoma)
• Phil Bredesen (Tennessee)
• Tom Kaine (Virginia)
• Joe Manchin (West Virginia)

When added to the new Democratic southern governor or Arkansas elected Tuesday you arrive at a grand total of 7 out of the 13 southern governorships held by Democrats (54%). Looking at the totality of the data, in what possible way can this be construed as evidence that the Democrats should write off the south as a lost cause?


2) Schaller says, "5 of 6 senatorial pickups outside the south (84%)": True again but, as is the case above, by narrowing the focus to pickups alone this analysis ignores the limited number of senate seats up for grabs in the south to begin with. The south only represented 4 out of the 16 seats the Democrats could have possibly picked up. Conversely, that means that 12 of the 16 possibilities (75%) were available outside the south so it should come as no surprise that most of the gains also occurred outside the south in a comparable proportion.

By using this statistic Schaller also ignores existing seats already held by Democrats which were retained in these elections. A list of US Senators at the Senate's website shows that there were 2 southern seats already held by Democrats that were in contention this year. They were Bill Nelson's seat in Florida and Robert Byrd's in West Virginia. The Democrats won them both.

Take the Virginia seat acquired by Jim Webb and add it to the 6 total existing democratic seats in the south…

• Blanche Lincoln (AR)
• Mark Prior (AR)
• Bill Nelson (FL)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Robert Byrd (WV)
• John Rockefeller (WV)

…and you end up with a total of 7 out of the 28 seats held by Democrats (25%). Not as strong a figure as the gubernatorial numbers, I'll admit, but hardly a case for giving up on the south altogether. Without these seats there is no democratic majority in the senate for any of us to celebrate over.

(Results culled from CNN)

Again, although these figures show that the Democrats have some work to do in the south they don't represent a compelling case for giving up on that work altogether. In this election in particular we've been given a good reason to think the opposite approach is appropriate.

Underscoring this point is this glaring factoid: No defending Democratic governor or senator lost his/her re-election bid this year; not in the south or anywhere else. Not a single vacated governorship or senate seat previously held by a Democrat was won by a Republican. Absolutely every single instance of turnover in this election happened at the expense of Republicans in both the south and elsewhere. The disaffection with the GOP is a nationwide trend. Any call for the Democrats to intentionally squander that opportunity in the south or anywhere else is just plain crazy bordering on suicidal.

There are now 7 of Schaller's bullet points to go. I will press on further in future posts…

Read more...

Iran: The Next Act

I'll get back to the Tom Schaller stuff soon enough, but this just has to be posted...

Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons
Agence France-Presse
Sunday 19 November 2006

Washington - A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.

A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

The Democratic victory unleashed a surge of calls for the Bush administration to begin direct talks with Iran.

But the administration's planning of a military option was made "far more complicated" in recent months by a highly classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb," he wrote.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Hersh wrote, adding the CIA had declined to comment on that story...

I've made this point repeatedly on these pages but I just don't think I can emphasize it enough, just in case someone is reading this. This nothing short of a replay of the exact same thing they did in the runup to the war in Iraq. Now we're stuck in that ongoing disaster in Iraq. Not only have they learned all the wrong lessons -- if anything at all -- from that experience but they don't seem to care in the least about the consequences of it. Instead, they're going to try to do it to us again! Enough is enough.

"Can't get fooled again", folks.

Read more...

Whittling Dixie

Tom Schaller speaks! Responding in The Gadflyer to Joshua Holland's post, which echos many of my critiques of Schaller's Whistling Past Dixie, Schaller offers the following bullet points to explain why this election vindicates his position:

Sure, we can cherry pick here and there to find southern wins. And I never said there would never be southern wins at any level, ever again.

But let's look at this week's results through some quick bullet points:

• 5 of 6 Gubernatorial pickups outside the South (84%)
  
• 5 of 6 Senatorial pickups outside the South (84%)
  
• 24 of 29 House pickups outside the South (83%)
  
• Speaking of the House, here are the "flip" rates for each region (and I include KY and OK with the Confederate South, to keep Josh happy): Northeast: 11 wins from 36 GOP-held seats, or 30.6% "flip rate"; Midwest: 9 of 60, 15%; 4 of 44, 9.1%; but in the South, just 5 of 91, for a meager 5.5%.
  
• And of those 5 southern wins, two were in races that were tainted by deposed incumbent scandals, and required voters to write-in the GOP candidate (and they still were close).
  
• For the first time in more than half a century, the minority party in the South is the majority party in both chambers of Congress--a truly stunning development.
  
• 254 of 275 net new Democratic state legislators (92%) outside the South, the vast majority coming from the Northeast and Midwest, yielding nine new chamber majorities (six in the Midwest, one in Oregon, both in New Hampshire…none in the South).
  
• The measly 21 southern state legislative seats the Democrats netted are only 1 fewer than the combined 20 U.S. House seats the Democrats picked up in the Midwest and Northeast alone.
  
• Finally, here is the two-party Democratic (D%-R%) performance, by region, according to exit polls: Northeast, +28%; Midwest, +5%; West, +11%; and South, -8%.

In my next few posts I'll be taking these on point for point. I think dealing with it all at once would result in a post of prohibitive length so please bear with me.

Read more...

Whistling Through (NOT past) Dixie

With Tuesday's long-overdue and merciful election results now a reality some of the folks on The Gadflyer -- a blog I really enjoy reading, just so you know I'm not sniping at them -- have taken this as an opportunity to unite in praise of one Tom Schaller, author of Whistling Past Dixie: How the Democrats Can Win Without the South.

Before I begin with my reservations about that, I have to preface my comments with the admission that I have not read that book. I have only read commentary about it. So, if any suppositions I make here are an inaccurate or incomplete representation of Mr. Schaller's position, I apologize in advance and invite the opportunity to be corrected.

However, if the commentary I've read both from supporters and critics alike is accurate, Schaller's main argument seems to be that the south is so far out of reach for the Democrats that they have no reasonable expectation of making any headway there anytime soon. As such they should concentrate their efforts on the rest of the country and pretty much write the south off.

Now the good people at The Gadflyer are touting Tuesday's election as a vindication of that strategy with one contributor even adding that it all certifies Schaller as brilliant. Now, I have no intention of questioning Mr. Schaller's expertise on this subject nor his intellect. But I think before we heap this kind of praise on him for this particular work we should take a closer look at what really took place Tuesday.

From where I'm standing, far from being any vindication of the idea that the Democrats should regard the south as a dead zone, the exact opposite seems to be true. Consider the following:

First, much of south was off the table for this election so it's difficult to use this a gauge with which to judge claims the Gadflyers are making. In the Senate only four of the 14 states that would traditionally be considered "the south" (south of the Mason-Dixie line -- DIXIE!) were contested at all. And a quick examination of the red/blue map shows that there is a fair share of blue in that same region.


Arkansas, the state that elected Bill Clinton to two gubernatorial terms:

• 3 out of the four seats up for grabs were won by Democrats. The state was an incumbent sweep in districts that were not competitive, however. Still, 3 out of 4 ain't bad.
• In the race for governor Democrat Mike Beebe defeated former DEA chief, Asa Hutchinson, handily 55-41%.

Alabama:

Bad juju.


Florida's senate and key house races:

• Democratic Senator Bill Nelson trounced Katherine "Voter Purge" Harris.
• Democrat Tim Mahony won the seat vacated by disgraced Rep. Mark Foley.
• GOP candidate Vernon Buchanan barely edged out the Democrat Christine Jennings by less than a single percentage point.
• DemocratRon Klein defeated incumbent Republican Eugene Shaw by 4-points.

Georgia:

• 6 of the 13 seats up for re-election were won by Democrats.
• In a key race the Democrat John Barrow defeated the Republican Max Burns in the 12th district
• Incumbent Democrat Jim Marshall held off challenger Mac Collins in another key race
• No key races were won by republicans in Georgia, of all places.
  

Kentucky:

• A key race in KY's 3rd district was won by a Democrat, John Yarmouth, over a Republican incumbent, Anne Northrop.
• Democrats only won 2 of the seats contested here but, obviously, one of them was in a pivotal race against a long-time GOP incumbent.
• This is Kentucky I'm talking about here. It so southern there's literally no way to even pronounce it's name without sounding southern yourself. I dare you to try!

Louisiana:

The Dems didn't win a majority of the seats here, taking only 2 of the 7 seats but, once again, they took the one that mattered -- the "key race" in the 2nd district holding on to a seat already held by the embattled incumbent William Jefferson. So you see the first sign that embattled Republicans are getting ousted while similarly situated black Democrats can hold on even in the deep south state of Louisiana.


Maryland:

• Ben Cardin handily defeated the highly-touted Republican Michael Steele for that state's vacant senate seat.
• Democrat Martin O'Malley won in a strong showing against incumbent governor Robert Ehrlich.
• None of Maryland's house races were pivotal in the determining the balance of power but still, 6 of the 8 seats were won by Democrats.

Mississippi:

Not much action here but the house seats up for grabs were split 50/50 and Republican Trent Lott retained his senate seat as expected.


North Carolina:

• In the only race seen as "key", Democrat Heath Shuler soundly defeated the Republican incumbent Charles Taylor by an eight point margin, representing what I believe is his first win since leaving the Vols.
• 6 of the 12 seats contested were won by Democrats.
  

Oklahoma:

Not much good here. One Democratic incumbent won in a heavily Democratic district. But even that fact alone also helps my point. There are heavily democratic districts in every state in the union. Build on that.


South Carolina:

What can I say? It's South Carolina. I never said this thing was going to be easy. Still again, two Democratic incumbents won in heavily Democratic districts that actually exist in South Carolina.


Tennessee:

• In the race for Bill Frist's Senate seat Harold Ford, Jr -- a black man in Tennessee, shamelessly attacked by race-baiting opponents with thinly veiled references to "the taboo", fell to his Republican opponent but made a strong showing in the heart of Dixie by bringing in 48% of the vote.
• The incumbent Democratic governor, Philip Bredesen, handily defeated his Republican challenger, Jim Bryson, by 39% of the vote.
• None of the house races in this state were thought to have a major impact on the balance of power but it is telling that the Democrats won 5 of the 9 seats up for grabs.
• This is Tennessee I'm talking about, people.

Texas:

• Texas is Texas. This is the state that is mostly responsible for the Bushit we put up with today. Yesterday they also gave us another 6 years of Kay Baily Hutchinson.
• 12 out of 32 House seats went to Democrats but, as we all know, this state was gerrymandered out the whazoo a couple of years back.
• Despite all of this, once again ij the race that mattered the Dems broke through with Nick Lampson taking the Sugar Land seat vacated by the slimey yet disturbingly popular, Tom Delay.
  

Virginia:

You all know by now that an incumbent Republican senator with Presidential aspirations was narrowly ousted by the Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, with the fate of the Republican congress hanging in the balance. Nuff said.

West Virginia:

• Democratic incumbent Senator Robert Byrd retain his seat as expected.
• The state was an incumbent sweep with Democrats retaining 2 of the 3 seats contested.
  

In addition to the above results the Dems took seats that looked all but lost until recently in the old border states like Indiana, Missouri and Kansas plus the big sky state of Montana -- states that are not technically "the south" but share a lot in common with it politically.

Taken altogether I'm missing the part where these results constitute any compelling argument that the Democrats should write the south off. If anything the exact opposite seems true. One can talk all day about historical results, polling data and high-end political calculus. But this election appears to me to be, if anything, a stunning vindication of at least the idea behind Howard Dean's 50-state strategy for rebuilding the Democratic party.

Make no mistake about it. "Whistling past Dixie" is not a new idea nor is it a good one. It is essentially what the Democrats have done for much of the past 30 years -- sometimes consciously and other times not -- and all it has earned them is a shrinking political footprint in a nation where the vast majority of Americans agree with their policy positions on most of the issues. Simply put, it's a non-starter. It's absolutely crazy to advocate growing the party by relegating it to a semi-national or regional status with a publicly enunciated strategy to ignore the south. This is especially true considering there are so many natural reasons for southerners to support you if you'd only get out there and show them why.

More importantly, the spectacle of even talking about writing the south off (let alone actually doing it) could have the lethal effect of validating all the right-wing rhetoric about Democrats being elitist, "northeastern liberals" who don't care about the "real Americans" in the south (and extended into "the heartland"). The GOP will be free to paint them all as snobs looking down their noses at middle and lower income constituencies that reside there. This is exactly the wrong the message to send.

Meanwhile, the GOP will be attacking you on every front on every square foot of this nation, all over the country, not just in the south. What could be more suicidal than to adopt this reverse southern strategy?

Now, I'm not saying that succeeding in the south on a consistant basis is going to be an easy thing for the Democrats to accomplish. But simply giving up on it altogether seems to me to be the easy and foolish way out. A national party competes nationally.

Note: I would have liked to have posted my thoughts on this in the comments section at The Gadflyer but, unfortunately, they don't seem to have one.


UPDATE:

I just got my first celebrity response in the comments section this past Friday from Joshua Holland of Alternet and The Gadflyer. In the words of Peoples Hernandez, "We got Hollywhoo!"

Mr. Holland pointed out that "Schaller specifically limits his analysis to the eleven states of the confederacy", not the broader south-of-the-Mason-Dixon Line analysis I'm using here. I will make the proper adjustments now while making note of one important objection -- there are more than 11 states that were part of the confederacy.

Maryland is out: It truly wasn't a confederate state and is considered by all a border state despite it's south-of-the-Mason-Dixon-Line geography. However, even after correcting this my point doesn't change a great deal. Maryland is the only non-confederate state I've included here and, although the great gains made there did help my argument, it was just a bonus. Move my reference to it to the paragraph on border states instead and everything is all hunky-dory.

West Virginia stays: Although there was no state of West Virginia in the confederacy there was the old state of Virginia. A quick peek at a Civil War era map of Virginia seals the deal:



Look at little fat? That excess you see to the west is none other than West Virginia, which was part of the state of Virginia at the time of its secession from the union – a bona fide part of the Confederacy. West Virginia stays.

Oklahoma stays: Although Oklahoma was technically Indian Territory during the civil war, any analysis of the American south that includes Texas but excludes Oklahoma would strike me as particularly meaningless. Let's hope this is not what Schaller has done.

Finally, if we look at the confederate criteria technically I should have included Missouri. However, to avoid the appearance of gratuitously taking advantage of the situation, I'll continue to exclude it.

Read more...

The End of Electoral Conspiracy Theories?

I've made reference to how glad I am to have seemingly been wrong about about another round of apparently massive electoral fraud being on the horizon for these elections. So, to discuss my wrongness in greater depth, I think it's appropriate check out Glenn Greenwald, one of my favorite bloggers, who has a very good and interesting post up at Crooks & Liars about the meaning of the Democratic victory last night. He argues first:

American Democracy Still Works

See? He's lost me already. :-)

He continues:

The basic mechanics of American democracy, imperfect and defective though they may be, still function. Chronic defeatists and conspiracy theorists — well-intentioned though they may be — need to re-evaluate their defeatism and conspiracy theories in light of this rather compelling evidence which undermines them (a refusal to re-evaluate one's beliefs in light of conflicting evidence is a defining attribute of the Bush movement that shouldn't be replicated).

Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; he is a rejected loser. Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software. They can't magically produce Osama bin Laden the day before the election. They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth (Americans heard all about how Democrats would bring their "San Francisco values" and their love of The Terrorists to Washington, and that moved nobody). It simply isn't the case that we are doomed and destined to lose at the hands of all-powerful, evil forces.

All of the hurdles and problems that are unquestionably present and serious — a dysfunctional and corrupt national media, apathy on the part of Americans, the potent use of propaganda by the Bush administration, voter suppression and election fraud tactics, gerrymandering and fundraising games — can all be overcome. They just were...

Given the results we've seen overnight it's hard to argue with what Greenwald is saying. I admit to being among those who expected something absolutely nutzo to happen and clearly I was wrong (and I couldn't be more pleased to be wrong). However, I would be lot more hesitant to blanketly dismiss the "conspiracy theories" surrounding black box voting. We seen far too many unexplained anomalies to start feeling so at ease about such things. Last night's elections, though a relief, have no bearing on past events.

He is correct to note that our opponents are not all-powerful and not evil geniuses (I'd just drop the "genius" part). Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the cards are fundamentally and structurally stacked against progressive politics in our society. Call it a death by a thousand cuts. From black box voting, to the corrupt corporate media, the wealth-dominated tribute system we call political campaigns, to the dominance of corporate money in congress, to growing cartelization of our economy, to the swelling gap between rich and poor; justice-seeking Americans face an increasingly uphill battle. That is NOT a conspiracy theory.

So, yes, all these things can be overcome. If the GOP grotesquely overreaches and shoots itself in both feet the way it has, we'll be fine. But it shouldn't take the kind of perfect storm of scandal we've seen so far to bring down a party with the GOP's track record. If simply winning requires the opposition to pratfall to this extent we're already in deep, deep trouble as a nation. They should have been in trouble on their authoritarian policies alone, let alone the scandals.

Read more...

Super Tuesday!

Well, this is a pleasant surprise and relief!

The House went down and it went down hard. All fall down! The majority has literally flipped.

Say hello to your new Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.

Say hello to your new Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel.

Say hello to your new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

The Senate is still slightly up in the air but it is just about teetering over the edge. The GOP has already been uprooted from their seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The Dems need 3 more seats to control the Senate and Tester leads in Montana, Webb holds a slim lead in Virginia with the polls just about done reporting and in Missouri, Claire McCaskill has just declared victory (St. Louis rocked Talent's snotbox tonight) .

It looks as if we have a real shot of wresting control of both houses from the Repugnacans by the morning (knock on wood)!

I have never been so glad to be so wrong. Thank goodness. Now lets keep the pressure on the Dems to behave like a true opposition party and place a check on this maniac, radical and disasterous Bush administration.

Goodnight.

Read more...

The Doctrine of Pre-emptive Excuses

I'm watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN today and Ken Mehlman is on talking about how unreliable exit polling is, how it all has an inherent bias. He had the nerve to cite the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections as proof that exit polling is problematic. This is a man who speaks for a government that promotes the use of exit polling themselves to as a means of safeguarding elections in several nations:

The reliability of exit polls is so generally accepted that the Bush administration helped pay for them during recent elections in Georgia, Belarus and Ukraine. Testifying before the House Committee on International Relations Dec. 7, John Tefft, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, explained that the Bush administration funded exit polls because they were one of the "ways that would help to expose large-scale fraud." Tefft pointed to the discrepancy between exit polls and the official vote count to argue that the Nov. 22 Ukraine election was stolen.

The hypocrisy is jaw-dropping.

Mehlman also said that they are already getting data back from the early voting period that show that the Republican exceeded expectation by double digit in every single jurisdiction where early voting was held. That would be truly amazing, would it not?

This guy sounds like he's faithfully setting up their pre-emptive excuses for what, if it transpires, would be the most blatant electoral theft yet.

Just imagine: "Supermajority for the GOP! Who saw that coming? It just showz-ta-go-ya, you can't trust polling at all. Listen to Ken Mehlman instead."

I'll post the video if it becomes available.

UPDATE: Wolf is now talking to CNN's impartial and objective political analyst from the American Enterprise Institute (though Wolf somehow, for the 1-millionth time, forgot to tell us that), Bill Schnieder who studiously informed us that this election is not just about Iraq and that voters think things like terrorism and the economy are more important. "The most trust name in news", ladies and gentlemen.

Read more...

More On Election Hypocrisy

In the wake Daniel Ortega's apparent victory in Nicaragua's presidential election yesterday I made reference to the following comments of an official at the US Embassy in Managua:

The U.S. Embassy said it was too soon to "make an overall judgment on the fairness and transparency of the process..."

"We are receiving reports of some anomalies in the electoral process, including polling stations that opened late and closed early," the [US] embassy said.

Well, here's the thing. The US mid-term elections began this morning and, only a little after 10AM eastern time, already we're having the exact same problems...

New Rules, Machines Frazzle Voters Early
Problems Crop Up Early As Poll Workers Tangle With New Voting Machines, Databases, ID Rules

By ANICK JESDANUN

Nov 7, 2006 (AP)— Programming errors and inexperience with electronic voting machines frustrated poll workers in hundreds of precincts early Tuesday, delaying voters in Indiana and Ohio and leaving some in Florida with little choice but use paper ballots instead.

In Cleveland, voters rolled their eyes as election workers fumbled with new touchscreen machines that they couldn't get to start properly...

[Snip]

Election officials in Delaware County, Ind., planned to seek a court order to extend voting after an apparent computer error prevented voters from casting ballots in 75 precincts. Delaware County Clerk Karen Wenger said the cards that activate the machines were programmed incorrectly...

[Snip]

In New Mexico, some voters complained they had received phone calls giving them incorrect information about where in vote...

CNN reports the following:

Glitches delayed voters in dozens of Indiana and Ohio precincts. In Delaware County, Indiana, officials planned to seek a court order to extend voting after an apparent computer error prevented voters from casting ballots in 75 precincts.

Florida officials, working to avoid a repeat of the vote-counting debacle of 2000, fielded extra voting machines, paper ballots and poll workers.

In the Jacksonville suburb of Orange Park, Florida, voters were forced to use paper ballots after an electronic machine broke...

So, in the wake of this and so many previously well-documented anamolies in our elections -- strictly taking our cues from unnamed officials at the US Embassy in Managua, Nicaragua -- I have wonder if it's also too early make a judgement on the transparency and fairness of our own elections. I mean, that would only be consistant, right?

PS - I may have never mentioned on this blog what I've been telling my personal friends repeatedly lately, that I have this sinking feeling about this election. Despite of the optimistic polling about voter disaffection with our onerous GOP leadership I can't help but feel like something crazy is about to happen. With all the crimes we know about that haven't been properly adjudicated -- let alone the ones we have yet to learn about which may turn out to be worse -- I can't help but speculate that certain people can't afford to lose this election and, having proven themselves capable of any amount of evil in my mind,... well, I just can't help but be wary going into this election. Is that wrong? I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Read more...

Election Day

I'm going to vote this morning. In the evening I'll try to find a good place to track the election returns live and in real time. I did this during the '04 election and it was very interesting to see how the initial returns all changed and moved uniformly in a Bushwardly direction, one after the other. States where Kerry had a large lead all narrowed. States where Kerry had a small lead went to Bush. In states where bush started with any lead at all, the lead widened. There wasn't any race I saw that moved even slightly the other way (or so it seemed). So I think it's important, for m own benefit, that I watch for this strange pattern again. It'll be interesting to find out just how tainted our democracy has become.

Read more...