NationStates Jolt Archive

And didnt shoot lightening bolts out of his arse?

Nope.

Mark Udall did summon snow from the mountain peaks, though.

portrayal of obama as elitist hailed as step forward for african americans (http://vodpod.com/watch/971976-portrayal-of-obama-as-elitist-hailed-as-step-forward-for-african-americans)

This is the most hilarious thing I've seen

Alaska's largest newspaper endorses Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_el_pr/alaska_endorsement) :D
:D Now I'm having fun. :D

:D Now I'm having fun. :D

Here's the full article btw, much better than the AP version

http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/567867.html

:D Now I'm having fun. :D

Does this mean you'll finally stop being paranoid? (Muranoid, mayhaps?)

This is the most hilarious thing I've seen

Alaska's largest newspaper endorses Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_el_pr/alaska_endorsement) :D

Almost as funny as if they had said "We endorse McCain so that Palin won't return to Alaska".

Here's the full article btw, much better than the AP version

http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/567867.html

Best. Thing. EVAR!

Wouldn't it be FANTASTIC if Obama won Alaska? That'd just be out of the blue...

I know he won't, but I can dream...

Here's the full article btw, much better than the AP version

http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/567867.html
Thanks. :D I love stuff like this. Nothing pleases me more than to witness the discomfort and deteriorating reputations and hopes of people I detest. :D

Does this mean you'll finally stop being paranoid? (Muranoid, mayhaps?)
Never! Paranoia is one of the Three Most Beneficial States of Mind(tm) (the other two being pessimism and desperation). I will always treasure and rely on my paranoia. ;)

The sad thing is, this David Goldman immigrant from England agrees with him:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/on-road-big-stone-gap-virginia.html

"Blah blah blah wait lines"

Yeah, the wait lines are long because EVERYONE can get care. They need to be improved, yeah, but the system is a lot better than what we here in the United States have, dippy.

Let alone the fact the Brit complains about having 'grown up in a Socialist England'. This from a middle-aged man, so presumably around 40-something which means he was around 12 when Maggie Thatcher came to power. For the past 30 years England has followed right-wing idealogy. If he really thinks growing up in Maggie Thatcher England was socialist, I shudder to think what he views as right-wing.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

This is the end, my friends, my only friend, the end.
I think we'll find if and (hopefully) when McCain loses and all the dirty laundry is aired, that Palin's hubby Todd was influencing her a great deal. He's already been shown to be a huge part of her political career so there's no reason why he would have stopped here and now. My bet is Todd's seent he writing on the wall - that Palin will be the scapegoat for the McCain campaign failure - and is trying very clumsily and quite obviously to separate Palin from McCain. Probably with the ludicrous idea of promoting Palin as the GOP choice for 2012.
The simple facts she's totally incompetent, way over her head, and there has only ever been one VP candidate on the losing side who has ever become their party's presidential candidate (and that was Bob Dole, 1996) is some points apparently missed on the Palins.

From:
Palin's wardrobe whine (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/26/palin-and-hasselbeck-blast-ridiculous-wardrobe-story/#more-26552)
"I am glad, though, that she brought up accessories also. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of accessories, didn't think that we would be talking about it, but my earrings — I see a Native Americans for Palin poster," she said. "These are beaded earrings from Todd's mom who is a Yupik Eskimo up in Alaska, Native American, Native Alaskan."
Anyone else find this incredibly patronising, bordering on racist?
But...I can't be racist! I have black friends!

From:
Palin's wardrobe whine (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/26/palin-and-hasselbeck-blast-ridiculous-wardrobe-story/#more-26552)
"I am glad, though, that she brought up accessories also. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of accessories, didn't think that we would be talking about it, but my earrings — I see a Native Americans for Palin poster," she said. "These are beaded earrings from Todd's mom who is a Yupik Eskimo up in Alaska, Native American, Native Alaskan."
Anyone else find this incredibly patronising, bordering on racist?
But...I can't be racist! I have black friends!

I don't see it. Explain.

Best. Thing. EVAR!

Wouldn't it be FANTASTIC if Obama won Alaska? That'd just be out of the blue...

I know he won't, but I can dream...

Yea very unlikely, and the saddest thing is that the Republicans, the radical ones will probably try and force the paper out of business. It's happened before. I've seen it happen before, when a certain paper from Crawford, Texas endorsed Kerry rather than Bush.

Ah, shows what you know.

McCain is on track, and he's gonna win:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

That's the best McCain can come up with now? "Vote for me, so I can veto everything the house sends me!"
sad. just sad.
It also indicates he's accepted he's going to lose. Or else in a severe state of cog diss. Why else would he accept that GOP is going to lose several house and senate seats because of voter dissatisfaction but will still vote for the GOP presidential candidate? There is a slight dichotomy there.

I don't see it. Explain.
That she feels the need to bring up, rather pointedly and belabouredly, that she's wearing a pair of earrings a Native American - no! A Native Alaskan - made. How does that counter the amount of money spent on her wardrobe? It doesn't. Her wearing a pair of earrings her mother-in-law made for her might conceivably, in a desperate convoluted way (sure, my jacket cost $15 grand but my earrings were free, so that evens it out don't it?). But Palin spent more time stressing her ma-in-law's racial ties over everything else.

It appears extremely scripted. How incredibly fortuitous for Palin that there was a "native Americans for Palin' poster being hoistered in her view at the very speaking engagement she was wearing those earrings, allowing her to bring the issue up.

All-in-all, it was an obvious desperate attempt to woo minority voters. "Hey, I may be a rich upper-middle class whitey campaigning for am extremely rich upper class old white guy BUT! I'm wearing a pair of earrings an eskimo made me. This means I understand you minorities! Vote for me!"

This is the most hilarious thing I've seen

Alaska's largest newspaper endorses Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_el_pr/alaska_endorsement) :D

So much for neutral unbiased media. And before any of you start saying "Yeah teh ebil liberal media" or any of that shit if it said we were supporting McCain I would post the same thing.

9 days, bitches.

I can't wait then we have two years off before this circus starts all over again.

Why do democrats hate freedom?

This joke has gotten old fast.

That she feels the need to bring up, rather pointedly and belabouredly, that she's wearing a pair of earrings a Native American - no! A Native Alaskan - made. How does that counter the amount of money spent on her wardrobe? It doesn't. Her wearing a pair of earrings her mother-in-law made for her might conceivably, in a desperate convoluted way (sure, my jacket cost $15 grand but my earrings were free, so that evens it out don't it?). But Palin spent more time stressing her ma-in-law's racial ties over everything else.

It appears extremely scripted. How incredibly fortuitous for Palin that there was a "native Americans for Palin' poster being hoistered in her view at the very speaking engagement she was wearing those earrings, allowing her to bring the issue up.

All-in-all, it was an obvious desperate attempt to woo minority voters. "Hey, I may be a rich upper-middle class whitey campaigning for am extremely rich upper class old white guy BUT! I'm wearing a pair of earrings an eskimo made me. This means I understand you minorities! Vote for me!"


Ewww, you're right. I am part Native American, well more like 1/64th Cherokee but that's such a small factor, I only consider that part of my Family's genological background very rarely. And for Palin to flaunt it is a bit much. So part of her husband's family is Native, it's not a qualification or reason for voting for her, obviously. If it was, then I wouldn't have considered voting for Obama in the first place.

This joke has gotten old fast.

And so did you constantly only quoting me to point out some character flaw I may have. But I dont bother telling you that, do I?

And so did you constantly only quoting me to point out some character flaw I may have. But I dont bother telling you that, do I?

What? I only quoted you on that because I you were the last to use it, if it was somebody else I would have posted them.

What? I only quoted you on that because I you were the last to use it, if it was somebody else I would have posted them.

Ok, so its not just me you flamebait/troll. Good to know.

Ok, so its not just me you flamebait/troll. Good to know.

How the fuck is saying my opinion on a joke which a lot of people seem to use all the time and have used to death a flamebait or trolling?

How the fuck is saying my opinion on a joke which a lot of people seem to use all the time and have used to death a flamebait or trolling?

Its more a pattern, really.


But, anyway, Im done with the hijack. On topic:

As a sign of McCain's apparent plight, he increasingly argues that, if for no other reason, voters should send him to the Oval Office to serve as a safeguard against a Democratic majority in Congress.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign27-2008oct27,0,1291263.story


Is anyone else deeply amused by ths line? They never seemed concerned over a "one party state" when they had a Rep. majority under Bush.

From:
Palin's wardrobe whine (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/26/palin-and-hasselbeck-blast-ridiculous-wardrobe-story/#more-26552)
"I am glad, though, that she brought up accessories also. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of accessories, didn't think that we would be talking about it, but my earrings — I see a Native Americans for Palin poster," she said. "These are beaded earrings from Todd's mom who is a Yupik Eskimo up in Alaska, Native American, Native Alaskan."
Anyone else find this incredibly patronising, bordering on racist?
But...I can't be racist! I have black friends!

It's worse! "I can't be racist, I accept gifts from minorities who are related to me so I can't help being around them!"

time for a historical comparison, courtesy of sam wang (http://election.princeton.edu/):

http://img.skitch.com/20081026-cxi6bq642m8wm5ua87tmswy4wq.jpg


and where we are today
http://img.skitch.com/20081026-f5ehkb4784i22585prtwp3xbjd.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign27-2008oct27,0,1291263.story


Is anyone else deeply amussed by ths line? They never seemed concerned over a "one party state" when they had a Rep. majority under Bush.

I'm less "amused" than "furious".

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign27-2008oct27,0,1291263.story


Is anyone else deeply amussed by ths line? They never seemed concerned over a "one party state" when they had a Rep. majority under Bush.

It really fits with the pattern, all the way back to when McCain tried to co-opt 'change,' "Look how bad we fucked up! You should send us in to fix it!" Variation on a theme, really.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign27-2008oct27,0,1291263.story


Is anyone else deeply amused by ths line? They never seemed concerned over a "one party state" when they had a Rep. majority under Bush.

Lol. So, because people are voting out Republican Senators, we should vote for a Republican Senator for President. That's some logic right there.

It really fits with the pattern, all the way back to when McCain tried to co-opt 'change,' "Look how bad we fucked up! You should send us in to fix it!" Variation on a theme, really.

Its like when John Stewart flat out asked Huckster if the Republican party message was essentially "Give us one more chance, we promise we wont fuck it up this time."

And Huckster said yes.

So much for neutral unbiased media. And before any of you start saying "Yeah teh ebil liberal media" or any of that shit if it said we were supporting McCain I would post the same thing.

For what it's worth, it's a tradition for "paper of record" newspapers to editorialise in elections with an endorsement for the candidate/party they think would best represent their readers. Even old Granny Sydney Morning Herald does it. For some reason, publishers still think it carries weight. The reports are still supposed to be neutral, but editorials are opinion.

For what it's worth, it's a tradition for "paper of record" newspapers to editorialise in elections with an endorsement for the candidate/party they think would best represent their readers. Even old Granny Sydney Morning Herald does it. For some reason, publishers still think it carries weight. The reports are still supposed to be neutral. but editorials are opinion.

Publishers still think it carries weight because by and large, most publishers of most papers of record are technophobic traditionalists who refuse to modernize or admit that their grey ladies are dwindling in relevance almost daily. Only publishers who listen to the relatively more tech-savvy junior editors they hired instead of ignoring them and driving them away will manage to see their papers survive in some form.

That's not how journalistic neutrality is supposed to work, anyway. The editorials are, and have always been, heavily biased towards whatever persuasions the editors have. It's the opinion page. Their reporting needs to be unbiased, but no one should have any misconceptions about the editorials page being unbiased. It exists specifically to allow the editors to have that outlet to voice the opinions they're otherwise strictly prohibited from voicing.

Excellent article on this whole "anti-american" shit.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/26/2008-10-26_hey_sarah_palin_there_are_real_american_.html?page=1

Publishers still think it carries weight because by and large, most publishers of most papers of record are technophobic traditionalists who refuse to modernize or admit that their grey ladies are dwindling in relevance almost daily. Only publishers who listen to the relatively more tech-savvy junior editors they hired instead of ignoring them and driving them away will manage to see their papers survive in some form.

:hail: Every word you speak is truth. Please, please, mind-meld with all publishers.

... Their reporting needs to be unbiased, but no one should have any misconceptions about the editorials page being unbiased.

This, too.

:hail: Every word you speak is truth. Please, please, mind-meld with all publishers.



This, too.

I claim no corner on that truth but the one granted to me by one of my best friends (a friend helps you move, a best friend helps you move the body), who is a journalism graduate from about 10 years ago who is facing the grey ceiling in the newspaper business. I wish I didn't know what I do, because that would mean he was listened to and was still working at a newspaper instead of trying to fend for himself online (http://www.offthewahl.com) as a political cartoonist and editor.

For what it's worth, it's a tradition for "paper of record" newspapers to editorialise in elections with an endorsement for the candidate/party they think would best represent their readers. Even old Granny Sydney Morning Herald does it. For some reason, publishers still think it carries weight. The reports are still supposed to be neutral, but editorials are opinion.

Missed that it was part of the editorial.

But now to another topic.

Karl Rove has said that the Democrats this year has campaigned the same way as the republicans in the past two years and this has been a contributing factor to the reasoning why Denocrats have been so strong and managed to get swinging voters (no one cares about you dyed-in-the-wool folk). Do you think he has some merit in saying this? Have the democrats learnt from the Bush campaigns and going to beat them at their own game? Or is he just full of hot air?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24555051-2703,00.html

Missed that it was part of the editorial.

But now to another topic.

Karl Rove has said that the Democrats this year has campaigned the same way as the republicans in the past two years and this has been a contributing factor to the reasoning why Denocrats have been so strong and managed to get swinging voters (no one cares about you dyed-in-the-wool folk). Do you think he has some merit in saying this? Have the democrats learnt from the Bush campaigns and going to beat them at their own game? Or is he just full of hot air?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24555051-2703,00.html


Rove is partally right. But....I think a lot of the factor is....four years ago, we didn't have the economy crumbling beneath our feet. We didn't have massive unemployment. The Republican spin hit more back then then it does today. When people are struggling to find a job, struggling to buy food, struggling to keep their homes,they aren't going to give a damn about the petty issues McCain is putting forward. (They only hit towards the strong base anyway) But those that can be moved to Obama hear a man promising to restore American dreams to the people, then that hits home. Frankly if you're trying to exist, you really don't care about petty issues. You just want to survive It's basically Maslow's hierarchy of needs being played out. Once basic needs are filled: Job, money, home, etc. Then they will worry about other things, right now, they will turn a deaf ear to the dirty spin that the Republicans have spouted out.

Missed that it was part of the editorial.

But now to another topic.

Karl Rove has said that the Democrats this year has campaigned the same way as the republicans in the past two years and this has been a contributing factor to the reasoning why Denocrats have been so strong and managed to get swinging voters (no one cares about you dyed-in-the-wool folk). Do you think he has some merit in saying this? Have the democrats learnt from the Bush campaigns and going to beat them at their own game? Or is he just full of hot air?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24555051-2703,00.html

Bullshit. Rove knows that McCain used the same personal tactics used against him by Bush. What part of Obama's campaign compares to the Swift Boat nonsense? None.

The fact is that people are tired of Rove's nonsense and that of his ilk and they're taking it to the voting booth.

Bullshit. Rove knows that McCain used the same personal tactics used against him by Bush. What part of Obama's campaign compares to the Swift Boat nonsense? None.

The fact is that people are tired of Rove's nonsense and that of his ilk and they're taking it to the voting booth.

Karl just wants to feel relevant when His Math just isn't adding up like it used to.

On the other hand, there is something about Obama repeatedly declaring a McCain Presidency "Dubya Part Three" that seems to stick in the fed-up public's collective subconscious.

Bullshit. Rove knows that McCain used the same personal tactics used against him by Bush. What part of Obama's campaign compares to the Swift Boat nonsense? None.

The fact is that people are tired of Rove's nonsense and that of his ilk and they're taking it to the voting booth.

Except there was more than just Swiftboating employed as the article said "pumping out a discliplined message, assembling a broad based coalition and drowning their opponents in money" the last point is certainly true when Obama is spending 4x the amount as McCain in certain key states.

But wasn't the Swift boat group just a different group that targeted Kerry rather than Bush's campaign team doing it.

Except there was more than just Swiftboating employed as the article said "pumping out a discliplined message, assembling a broad based coalition and drowning their opponents in money" the last point is certainly true when Obama is spending 4x the amount as McCain in certain key states.

But wasn't the Swift boat group just a different group that targeted Kerry rather than Bush's campaign team doing it.


The PAC committes. All thanks go to McCain for coming up with that brilliant idea in campagne finance reform. Technically they are not associated with the party or the campagne, so they can raise unholy amounts of money and have ads against people.

Obama junked the public finance primarly because one: he knew he could raise more than McCain. Two: Even though Obama can outraise McCain. These PAC groups can funnel so much money in the use of dirty spin ads.

If you don't like it, blame McCain for this.

Rove's comparison is somewhat superficial. According to the article, he mentions three campaign features as particularly Rovian: 1) a broad-based coalition, 2) a disciplined message, and 3) a monetary advantage. 1) and 3) aren't particularly Rovian. Both major parties must build broad-based coalitions in order to win a national majority, which is how environmentalists end up voting with Big Labor and working-class Pentecostals align themselves with Wall Street Episcopalians. Having more money than your opponent has always been important and our current attention-deficit-addled era of constant media bombardment only makes money (and the airtime it buys) even more important.

Feature 2), message discipline, is more distinctively Rovian. The Obama campaign is helped in this respect by the fact that the candidate, unlike Kerry and Gore, tends not to get lost in his own sentences. That said, even the most on-message candidate can be undercut by a maundering, undisciplined campaign. If you read quotes from Obama's spokespeople, they sound like they're all reading from the same script. That kind of discipline is vitally important to a modern campaign because of the 24-hour news cycle -- hungry for instant content, the media tend to pick apart any inconsistency of message from anyone associated with the campaign. (Cheaper and easier than doing a story on boring old issues like taxes or healthcare, where you actually have to do research.) One could also point to an enthusiastic grass-roots campaign, which Bush & Rove achieved in part by focusing on social issues at strategic times. (Faith-Based Initiatives and opposition to gay marriage sure seemed to disappear from the agenda once the election hype had worn off, eh?) The Obama campaign seems to have achieved this through a combination of anti-Bushism and the personal appeal of Obama, rather than mobilizing their volunteers around small window-dressing issues. (E.g. I like volunteering but I don't know anybody who's voting Obama because of his support for Americorps.)

One truly distinctive feature of Rove's campaigns has been the nastiness of the negative side of the message: personal attacks on the opponent that the campaign makes sure never come directly from the candidate. Maybe it's a Texas thing -- Google "Lyndon Johnson" and "pig f&$%er" if you don't know the anecdote. I just don't see that kind of attack associated with the Obama campaign; on the contrary, the campaign has chastised some 527s that made nasty anti-McCain ads. That, to me, makes the Obama campaign distinctly un-Rovian. Not that I blame Karl for trying to take the credit: he's got a reputation to polish, after all, and it doesn't look like he can claim the permanent Republican majority he said he was aiming for.

Publishers still think it carries weight because by and large, most publishers of most papers of record are technophobic traditionalists who refuse to modernize or admit that their grey ladies are dwindling in relevance almost daily. Only publishers who listen to the relatively more tech-savvy junior editors they hired instead of ignoring them and driving them away will manage to see their papers survive in some form.

Of course, said tech-savvy folk can also help destroy the paper from within. The Chicago Tribune (which endorsed the Democratic candidate for President for the first time ever (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story), by the way,) would be suffering from a serious morale problem as it is, what with the massive massive recent cost cuts, but the idiot "Chief Innovation Officer" that the new owner brought in is only making it worse. Every so often one of his disturbingly cult-leaderish memos (http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/news-bites/2008/04/11/memo-tribune-company-employees/) leaks to the public and is greeted with either bemusement or derision.

shorter mccain campaign (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign_5soct26,0,2445504.story):
"oh yeah? well, we didn't want people to like us anyway!"

shorter mccain campaign (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign_5soct26,0,2445504.story):
"oh yeah? well, we didn't want people to like us anyway!"

I read it as more, "We can't afford to rent big venues.".

I read it as more, "We can't afford to rent big venues.".

not petulant enough

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2976738104_112c4b27d4.jpg

compensating with yard signs?

The PAC committes. All thanks go to McCain for coming up with that brilliant idea in campagne finance reform. Technically they are not associated with the party or the campagne, so they can raise unholy amounts of money and have ads against people.

Obama junked the public finance primarly because one: he knew he could raise more than McCain. Two: Even though Obama can outraise McCain. These PAC groups can funnel so much money in the use of dirty spin ads.

If you don't like it, blame McCain for this.
yes but they HAVENT been and thats just not FAIR!

mccain's lack of popularity within his own party has screwed him far more than any amount of money that obama has raised.

I read it as more, "We can't afford to rent big venues.".
sounds good eh?

he cant fill the tiny venues that he rents now.

Except there was more than just Swiftboating employed as the article said "pumping out a discliplined message, assembling a broad based coalition and drowning their opponents in money" the last point is certainly true when Obama is spending 4x the amount as McCain in certain key states.

But wasn't the Swift boat group just a different group that targeted Kerry rather than Bush's campaign team doing it.

Of course Rove would say that. Unfortunately, the only thing that particularly screams Rove is dirty politics. McCain's campaign was ripe with it.

As far as message discipline, Bush's message wasn't that discipline, and Kerry's wasn't that undisciplined. The mistake the Kerry and Gore both made (and McCain in 2000) is that they refused to make pies out of hordes of fruit being hurled by their opponents. Obama made no such mistake.

The message discipline in the Obama campaign is unprecedented in our lifetime. Rove is full of shit for trying to take credit for that.

yes but they HAVENT been and thats just not FAIR!

mccain's lack of popularity within his own party has screwed him far more than any amount of money that obama has raised.

It's not just that...

I remember reading an article somewhere, if I could find it I would post it.

The thing is most of these groups, there head members of these Pacs, for one are suffering the effects of the economy. And the other thing, now that McCain is falling behind, they are not willing to throw money down on a caniadate that is probably going to lose. That's what I read in an article.

Obama had planned probably for a big salvo from these groups, so he chose not to follow the format that Kerry followed. Obama has the example from the last election to follow and he's using it to his advantage. Plus Obama isn't willing to be 'swift boated' unlike Kerry, who really didn't fight back against the ads.

Of course Rove would say that. Unfortunately, the only thing that particularly screams Rove is dirty politics. McCain's campaign was ripe with it.

As far as message discipline, Bush's message wasn't that discipline, and Kerry's wasn't that undisciplined. The mistake the Kerry and Gore both made (and McCain in 2000) is that they refused to make pies out of hordes of fruit being hurled by their opponents. Obama made no such mistake.

The message discipline in the Obama campaign is unprecedented in our lifetime. Rove is full of shit for trying to take credit for that.

Rove simply wants to maintain his status as some sort of campaigning and political Yoda among Republicans and independents, so he will claim credit for anything that will work.

He doesnt want people to look at the campaign filled with his former protégés using his playbook and say "Huh, Rove' tactics didnt work." He wants people to look at the camaign that ws winning and think, "Wow, his tactics are working, that Rove sure his a genius" even if that campaign didnt use any of Rove's tactics.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/26/voter.suppression/index.html

This doesn't stop making me sick to my stomach.

It's not just that...

I remember reading an article somewhere, if I could find it I would post it.

The thing is most of these groups, there head members of these Pacs, for one are suffering the effects of the economy. And the other thing, now that McCain is falling behind, they are not willing to throw money down on a caniadate that is probably going to lose. That's what I read in an article.

Obama had planned probably for a big salvo from these groups, so he chose not to follow the format that Kerry followed. Obama has the example from the last election to follow and he's using it to his advantage. Plus Obama isn't willing to be 'swift boated' unlike Kerry, who really didn't fight back against the ads.
yeah

and its much harder to make a good attack on a man with a thin resume.

if you saw "meet the press" yesterday you saw tom brokaw use john mccains own words against him with clips from old meet the press interviews that contradicted mccains current stances.

you cant hardly do that with obama.

they had the opportunity with kerry to dig up old comrades who have differing memories of what happened in vietnam 40 years ago. the ONE 30 second clip of rev wright saying "god damn america" was damaging but it got old fast. without an ongoing series of bad (but based in truth) attacks, it has little chance of working.

so they are TRYING to tar obama with an associate with a bad past, with a socialist label, with the horrors of having a moslem father, with having lived in an islamic country and having gone to a school with moslem children, but it just doesnt have enough truth to make it stick.

and it doesnt have much of a chance against the candidate that people LIKE against an increasingly unlikeable candidate. most americans wont vote for someone that they dont like.

Except there was more than just Swiftboating employed as the article said "pumping out a discliplined message, assembling a broad based coalition and drowning their opponents in money" the last point is certainly true when Obama is spending 4x the amount as McCain in certain key states.

But wasn't the Swift boat group just a different group that targeted Kerry rather than Bush's campaign team doing it.

Rove is full of shit. There is nothing distinctly Rovian about any of those tactics. They have been essential to any major campaign for decades. The only thing that is unique to Rovian politics is distinctly negative, nasty, slanderous and libelous attacks on the opponent's personal character. It's cute that Rove wants to clean up his image, but he will be remembered solely for being the man who caused the divisiveness of American politics. His legacy is one of spite and vitrol and evil.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/26/voter.suppression/index.html

This doesn't stop making me sick to my stomach.

Bet you dollars to doughnuts that the election board is full of Republicans.

Its more a pattern, really.


But, anyway, Im done with the hijack. On topic:



http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign27-2008oct27,0,1291263.story


Is anyone else deeply amused by ths line? They never seemed concerned over a "one party state" when they had a Rep. majority under Bush.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Didn't the RNC based their entire agenda on setting up what one of them (was it Newt or Delay? someone like that) called a "permanent majority"?

They are such fucking two-faces. I can't stand their bullshit anymore. They scraped the bottom of my patience barrel a long time ago.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Didn't the RNC based their entire agenda on setting up what one of them (was it Newt or Delay? someone like that) called a "permanent majority"?

They are such fucking two-faces. I can't stand their bullshit anymore. They scraped the bottom of my patience barrel a long time ago.

Yea. And that majority has ended up with egg all over there faces. Even though they blame the Democratic majority held Congress, it's such a narrow majority it's not even funny.


I found this as well

As Sarah Palin speaks, a new GOP battle cry is sounded (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/as-sarah-palin.html)

Sarah Palin, speaking to a characteristically enthusiastic crowd, was reciting her tried-and-true list of criticisms of Barack Obama when she was interrupted by a chant: "Use your brain, vote McCain."

OMG that's hilarious. The fact is I do have a brain, but it's wired for Barack Obama. :p

I read it as more, "We can't afford to rent big venues.".

They can't afford to rent bigger venues to get people out of the cold... but they're about to run a NEW series of tv ads?

Yea. And that majority has ended up with egg all over there faces. Even though they blame the Democratic majority held Congress, it's such a narrow majority it's not even funny.


I found this as well

As Sarah Palin speaks, a new GOP battle cry is sounded (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/as-sarah-palin.html)



OMG that's hilarious. The fact is I do have a brain, but it's wired for Barack Obama. :p
"Use your brain, vote McCain."

It rhymes! It's gonna work!

Take a train to get rid of stains!

there has only ever been one VP candidate on the losing side who has ever become their party's presidential candidate (and that was Bob Dole, 1996)
You're forgetting Franklin Roosevelt (Cox's running mate in 1920).

"Use your brain, vote McCain."

It rhymes! It's gonna work!


Yea, if you're a right-wing self-rightous Republican. We should come up with some rhymes for Obama. :p

Yea, if you're a right-wing self-rightous Republican. We should come up with some rhymes for Obama. :p

"If you vote for Obama, he'll Islamize your Mama?"

:D

We already had some further back...

Here are some new ones.

Use your cock to vote Barack. <-- a good way to get people excited about new methods of voting at the touch screens

Barack Obama: He's our man. Vote for him to bomb Iran. <-- Targeting the warmongering vote. Never forget the ones who mong as they could decide the election.

If you don't like rhyming, vote Obama <-- Sometimes people hate those fucking voting rhymes.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/26/voter.suppression/index.html

This doesn't stop making me sick to my stomach.
Good fucking lord that makes me angry.

Good fucking lord that makes me angry.
To think I touched on voter disenfranchisement in my English Conversation class just today...

To think I touched on voter disenfranchisement in my English Conversation class just today...

This should be a lead story in every news cast. Fuck the complete insiginifigance of Mickey Mouse registration as Mickey Mouse is not going to fucking vote, this is a real and systematic way to alter the outcome of the race. This is fucking huge, and not the first time. We can't wait to whine about it in passing after the fact.

To make myself feel a little better-
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Oct27.png
I have my problems with this site, and I don't count it as likely, but dude,-within 2% in fucking Arizona? Talk about having to defend his own backyard...

Bet you dollars to doughnuts that the election board is full of Republicans.

Because Republicans are the only ones who can ever commit voter fraud.

Because Republicans are the only ones who can ever commit voter fraud.

Nice strawman. In a heavily Republican state that has the potential to swing Democratic this election a college student, a demographic that votes overwhelmingly liberal, is purged from the rolls. Do you really think the local Democrats did it?

Because Republicans are the only ones who can ever commit voter fraud.




Show me one time in the last 20 years were the democracts committed voter fraud on the national level.


Ill wait.


Seriously, trying to pretend that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans isnt even funny anymore.

nice strawman. In a heavily republican state that has the potential to swing democratic this election a college student, a demographic that votes overwhelmingly liberal, is purged from the rolls. Do you really think the local democrats did it?

zomg both sides do it!!!

zomg both sides do it!!!

They do, they spend millions upon millions of dollars to elect their mouthpieces, anything that can stack the odds they'll do. See also, Gerrymandering.

They do, they spend millions upon millions of dollars to elect their mouthpieces, anything that can stack the odds they'll do. See also, Gerrymandering.

Ill agree that both sides commit blatant voter disenfranchisement when there are stories of it being done in Democrat leaning states to Republican demographics.

Because Republicans are the only ones who can ever commit voter fraud.

Even if the claims that Acorn were deliberately faking registrants were true...

Even if the claims that they were directly and deliberately linked to Democrats, in that effort, were true...

Even if both those things were true - that ADDS registrants to the pool, who can easily be trimmed from actual voting when no one arrives to vote, (and when no ID can be provided, if they did turn up).

Unless you honestly believe that Mickey Mouse is actually going to turn up?


There is a confusion here, and the McCain campaign are directly implicated - what the Republicans have claimed as Democratic voter fraud isn't really - it COULD be argued as 'electoral roll' fraud, but that still wouldn't make it partisan.

Now - let's contrast that with telling people they can't vote...

Unless you honestly believe that Mickey Mouse is actually going to turn up?

And vote.. democrat ? Come on - the Mouse will of course vote for the candidate who approaches its own age ;)

And vote.. democrat ? Come on - the Mouse will of course vote for the candidate who approaches its own age ;)

That, and Mickey's rich as hell. As if he'd really vote for a man who's promising to raise his taxes. Although, I don't suppose the extra money he'd pay would force him to sell off his castles and start living off of government cheese. Mickey might have to sell more merchandise to the kiddies to offset his losses though, poor guy.

That, and Mickey's rich as hell. As if he'd really vote for a man who's promising to raise his taxes. Although, I don't suppose the extra money he'd pay would force him to sell off his castles and start living off of government cheese. Mickey might have to sell more merchandise to the kiddies to offset his losses though, poor guy.

And don't forget he'll recruit more high-strung preteens to add to his Pre-Teen Television and Movie Cocaine Division. Montana Musical Camp 2012 anyone?

Because Republicans are the only ones who can ever commit voter fraud.

Are Republicans the only ones who CAN commit voter fraud? No. Are Republicans the only ones who DO commit voter fraud. Recently, yes. Cry about Daley and the Chicago political machine all you want, but that was 40 goddamn years ago. Recent years have been plagued with Republican and only Republican attempts to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters. To act like both sides are even remotely complicit in voter fraud these days is the height of dishonesty. It takes a truly delusional mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated.

And vote.. democrat ? Come on - the Mouse will of course vote for the candidate who approaches its own age ;)You don't think Obama's ears will win him any sympathy?

You don't think Obama's ears will win him any sympathy?

Don't forget, Mickey's black.

Don't forget, Mickey's black.

Hmmmm...I don't know....I'm pretty sure his dad is white.

Don't forget, Mickey's black.

And he started out working class, making his living working on a steamboat with the nickname "Willie."

Are Republicans the only ones who CAN commit voter fraud? No. Are Republicans the only ones who DO commit voter fraud. Recently, yes. Cry about Daley and the Chicago political machine all you want, but that was 40 goddamn years ago. Recent years have been plagued with Republican and only Republican attempts to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters. To act like both sides are even remotely complicit in voter fraud these days is the height of dishonesty. It takes a truly delusional mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated.

On top of that, the scale is totally different. Voter fraud (or in this case, disenfranhisement) in a federal election for the president is not the same as electoral fraud in an election to be the mayor.

Are Republicans the only ones who CAN commit voter fraud? No. Are Republicans the only ones who DO commit voter fraud. Recently, yes. Cry about Daley and the Chicago political machine all you want, but that was 40 goddamn years ago. Recent years have been plagued with Republican and only Republican attempts to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters. To act like both sides are even remotely complicit in voter fraud these days is the height of dishonesty. It takes a truly delusional mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated.
It's damned difficult to tell... So many Democrats resist positive ID at the polls. One can only wonder why.

It's damned difficult to tell... So many Democrats resist positive ID at the polls. One can only wonder why.

???

???

He's right, there's been a history of Democratic resistance to the requirement of photo IDs at the polls. The argument being poorer people are more likely not to have them. That's true, but a photo ID for Indiana only costs $5, so you have to wonder why someone wouldn't have one.

He's right, there's been a history of Democratic resistance to the requirement of photo IDs at the polls. The argument being poorer people are more likely not to have them. That's true, but a photo ID for Indiana only costs $5, so you have to wonder why someone wouldn't have one.

Wasn't sure what he was referring to.

He's right, there's been a history of Democratic resistance to the requirement of photo IDs at the polls. The argument being poorer people are more likely not to have them. That's true, but a photo ID for Indiana only costs $5, so you have to wonder why someone wouldn't have one.

You answered your own question... poorer people are more likely not to have them because they cost $5. And because poorer people are less likely to be going around making 'optional' trips for things like voter ID cards...

But, ignoring that - let's do a little thought experiment.

People who are poorer ARE less likely to have acceptable ID.

The Republican party insists it be a prerequisite that every voter has acceptable ID.

KNOWING that poor people are less likely to have such ID, is it not obvious that such a motion would disenfranchise voters?

The only question then - is: do the Republicans not give a shit, or is it a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise a proportion of the population that tends towards voting for Democrats?

It's damned difficult to tell... So many Democrats resist positive ID at the polls. One can only wonder why.

A lot of them oppose it because it seems a lot like a 'universal ID', which you get punished for not carrying (i.e. they hold your electoral roll position hostage to it).

If it were a different year, Republicans would be blocking it harder than Democrats. The fact that they bitch and whine about it NOW (just like 4 years ago) suggests that it's all about maintaining a right-wing majority by any means necessary.

You answered your own question... poorer people are more likely not to have them because they cost $5. And because poorer people are less likely to be going around making 'optional' trips for things like voter ID cards...

But, ignoring that - let's do a little thought experiment.

People who are poorer ARE less likely to have acceptable ID.

The Republican party insists it be a prerequisite that every voter has acceptable ID.

KNOWING that poor people are less likely to have such ID, is it not obvious that such a motion would disenfranchise voters?

The only question then - is: do the Republicans not give a shit, or is it a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise a proportion of the population that tends towards voting for Democrats?

One would think if Democrats were so worried about the cost they'd simply write laws to make them free. As it stands states without the ID requirement are easy marks for voter fraud.

As it stands states without the ID requirement are easy marks for voter fraud.

...if one has access to the official lists of registered voters by precinct, which aren't made available to the public. Effective vote fraud would require collusion on the part of poll workers. If you already have poll workers colluding with you, why would an ID requirement get in your way?

...if one has access to the official lists of registered voters by precinct, which aren't made available to the public. Effective vote fraud would require collusion on the part of poll workers. If you already have poll workers colluding with you, why would an ID requirement get in your way?

Because Voter Fraud is so much harder to prove when you have the ballots to back your claims up.

Because Voter Fraud is so much harder to prove when you have the ballots to back your claims up.

...I'm sorry, I'm stupid, because I'm not following. Even with states that require ID (like Indiana) there's no personal identifying information attached to the ballot. That's to preserve the privacy of the voter.

...I'm sorry, I'm stupid, because I'm not following. Even with states that require ID (like Indiana) there's no personal identifying information attached to the ballot. That's to preserve the privacy of the voter.

It only takes one schmuck to copy the list of voters. One inside guy. To circumvent an ID program you need several to fake and plant ballots, or an army of them to fake IDs and vote illegally.

One would think if Democrats were so worried about the cost they'd simply write laws to make them free. As it stands states without the ID requirement are easy marks for voter fraud.

Your solution is that the Democrats should collectively push a campaign that will cost taxpayers MORE money to meet an arbitrary need?

Dude, if you're a republican, reveal your vested interest straight out - don't hide it behind these kinds of sloppy election tricks.

It only takes one schmuck to copy the list of voters. One inside guy. To circumvent an ID program you need several to fake and plant ballots, or an army of them to fake IDs and vote illegally.

Or one guy pretending to check IDs...

It only takes one schmuck to copy the list of voters. One inside guy. To circumvent an ID program you need several to fake and plant ballots, or an army of them to fake IDs and vote illegally.
yeah.

the problem with this whole voter fraud thing is that the republicans have been looking for it for years and they havent found any.

so why inconvenience people over a problem that isnt a problem?

The only question then - is: do the Republicans not give a shit, or is it a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise a proportion of the population that tends towards voting for Democrats?
The only question should be:

Is voter ID necessary?

IF the answer is yes and I do believe that yes should be the only answer, then that spurs a secondary question:

Since voter ID is mandatory, should the ability to obtain such ID be free of charge for those who don't have any, and cannot afford it?

The only question should be:

Is voter ID necessary?

no.

The only question should be:

Is voter ID necessary?

IF the answer is yes and I do believe that yes should be the only answer, then that spurs a secondary question:
I don't agree, but...
Since voter ID is mandatory, should the ability to obtain such ID be free of charge for those who don't have any, and cannot afford it?
If it is made mandatory then the ID's should be free.

It only takes one schmuck to copy the list of voters. One inside guy. To circumvent an ID program you need several to fake and plant ballots, or an army of them to fake IDs and vote illegally.

OK, so you have one yahoo copying the voter lists as divided up by precinct. (That's one highly-placed yahoo, as anybody at a precinct level won't have access to the whole list.) There's no ID required, so in order to vote fraudulently, all you have to do is walk into the precinct where you know John Q. Public is registered (because you have the list), say "I'm John Q. Public, I live at yadda yadda yadda" and presto, you're given a ballot you don't have a right to. Congratulations, you've cast one fraudulent vote. Unless the election is very, very local, your fraudulent vote won't make a difference -- and if it is very local, there's a reasonably high probability that one of JQP's neighbors will notice that you're not who you've publicly stated you are and you'll be caught.

If you want to have a significant number of fraudulent votes cast, you need more than the one (highly-placed) fraudster copying the official lists, you need someone to actually cast the fraudulent ballots, and that means at least someone (or more likely more than one person) at each precinct. If you've already got this little conspiracy in place, I just don't see how an ID requirement is going to stop you. All you need to do is to have your corrupt precinct workers "verify" that IDs were shown for each name checked off the list.

Wait, you guys don't have to show ID when you vote? You could just walk up to the polling place, give the name of your neighbor/aunt/friend/whatever and be able to vote under their name? Not really, right? <<

There's no ID required, so in order to vote fraudulently, all you have to do is walk into the precinct where you know John Q. Public is registered (because you have the list), say "I'm John Q. Public, I live at yadda yadda yadda" and presto, you're given a ballot you don't have a right to.
Well, that answers my question.

That seems very strange to me, especially when you consider that they're messing with the registrations left and right throwing out thousands of them because of typing errors or other kinds of "inconsistencies", yet at the final stage nobody even checks if the person voting under my name is actually me?

Well, that answers my question.

That seems very strange to me, especially when you consider that they're messing with the registrations left and right throwing out thousands of them because of typing errors or other kinds of "inconsistencies", yet at the final stage nobody even checks if the person voting under my name is actually me?

Not sure where Wytyg lives, but where I live you have to sign a logbook which has a copy of your signature from when you registered for comparison.

Not sure where Wytyg lives, but where I live you have to sign a logbook which has a copy of your signature from when you registered for comparison.
and they usually ask you some other identifying question like "what is your address?"

Not sure where Wytyg lives, but where I live you have to sign a logbook which has a copy of your signature from when you registered for comparison.
Germany

Not sure where Wytyg lives, but where I live you have to sign a logbook which has a copy of your signature from when you registered for comparison.

Germany, so the "you guys" was roundly meant to mean all those US Americans in states that don't have any form of IDing at the polls. :p

Wait, you guys don't have to show ID when you vote? You could just walk up to the polling place, give the name of your neighbor/aunt/friend/whatever and be able to vote under their name? Not really, right? <<

It's all determined by local laws, which vary. Where I live, I get a little card from the Board of Elections which doesn't have my picture on it but does have my name & address. When I go to vote, I don't have to show ID but I do have to sign a card. My signature is checked against the signature on a copy of my registration form. If they match, I get a ballot. EDIT: So I wasn't entirely correct when I said earlier you could just walk up and state your name & address -- I was forgetting the signature requirement. Silly moi.

If I was a first-time voter who had mailed in a registration (e.g. I had registered through ACORN or printed the form online and mailed it in,) I would have to show ID. I'd also have to show ID if I was voting early.

I should also note that I just realized that I don't have the slightest idea how it's done here seeing how I've been voting with absentee ballots for as long as I can remember. But since we do have national IDs I'd very much assume we'd have to show them.

Wait, you guys don't have to show ID when you vote? You could just walk up to the polling place, give the name of your neighbor/aunt/friend/whatever and be able to vote under their name? Not really, right? <<

more or less, though there are limitations on registration and whatnot. wisconsin's same-day registration just needs you name, the last 4 digits of your social security number, and proof that you've lived there for more than a week - so like a bank statement or whatever.

i haven't had real id for any of the last 8 places i've lived; i've got a driver's license from illinois with my parents' address on it.

I should also note that I just realized that I don't have the slightest idea how it's done here seeing how I've been voting with absentee ballots for as long as I can remember. But since we do have national IDs I'd very much assume we'd have to show them.Where is "here"?

It's all determined by local laws, which vary. Where I live, I get a little card from the Board of Elections which doesn't have my picture on it but does have my name & address. When I go to vote, I don't have to show ID but I do have to sign a card. My signature is checked against the signature on a copy of my registration form. If they match, I get a ballot.

If I was a first-time voter who had mailed in a registration (e.g. I had registered through ACORN or printed the form online and mailed it in,) I would have to show ID. I'd also have to show ID if I was voting early.
That sounds entirely reasonable. I shouldn't have said "show ID", I basically meant any kind of reasonably fail-safe method of identification.

The being sent a card by the Election Board actually might be how it's done here, too.

Where is "here"?

Transylvania.

more or less, though there are limitations on registration and whatnot. wisconsin's same-day registration just needs you name, the last 4 digits of your social security number, and proof that you've lived there for more than a week - so like a bank statement or whatever.

i haven't had real id for any of the last 8 places i've lived; i've got a driver's license from illinois with my parents' address on it.
Right, you guys all have a social security number. They could just use those instead of universal ID, no?

I should also note that I just realized that I don't have the slightest idea how it's done here seeing how I've been voting with absentee ballots for as long as I can remember. But since we do have national IDs I'd very much assume we'd have to show them.

Germany takes a different approach than the US does when it comes to ID in general, as I understand. A friend of mine grew up in Germany and the way she told it, you basically couldn't do anything unless you had registered your name & address with the local authorities, and lots of times said authorities would send someone out to your house to make sure you lived there. It's a different philosophy this side of the pond.

Right, you guys all have a social security number. They could just use those instead of universal ID, no?

It's sort of become the de facto universal ID number, but AFAIK there are actually federal laws preventing it from being used so explicitly. Because we're weird like that.

Germany takes a different approach than the US does when it comes to ID in general, as I understand. A friend of mine grew up in Germany and the way she told it, you basically couldn't do anything unless you had registered your name & address with the local authorities, and lots of times said authorities would send someone out to your house to make sure you lived there. It's a different philosophy this side of the pond.

It is. Although they really don't go to check where you live, I'm afraid that'll have to be filed under urban legend. :tongue:

It's sort of become the de facto universal ID number, but AFAIK there are actually federal laws preventing it from being used so explicitly. Because we're weird like that.

Exactly

Right, you guys all have a social security number. They could just use those instead of universal ID, no?

not quite - there are people who don't have them who are also eligible to vote. but it serves as a sort of basic starting point that catches most people.

It's sort of become the de facto universal ID number, but AFAIK there are actually federal laws preventing it from being used so explicitly. Because we're weird like that.

Of course. -_-

Nah, I didn't actually mean to go "Ooooh, you should all have national IDs like we do and be required to show them when trying to vote!". I was just really surprised about people being able to vote without any identifying process whatsoever - but turns out that doesn't really seem to be the case in most places (well, most places described so far, yay anecdotal evidence).

more or less, though there are limitations on registration and whatnot. wisconsin's same-day registration just needs you name, the last 4 digits of your social security number, and proof that you've lived there for more than a week - so like a bank statement or whatever.

i haven't had real id for any of the last 8 places i've lived; i've got a driver's license from illinois with my parents' address on it.
that was one of the few things i loved about wisconsin. you just show up, register and vote.

easy peasy.

not quite - there are people who don't have them who are also eligible to vote. but it serves as a sort of basic starting point that catches most people.
Really? Who are those?

Of course. -_-

Nah, I didn't actually mean to go "Ooooh, you should all have national IDs like we do and be required to show them when trying to vote!". I was just really surprised about people being able to vote without any identifying process whatsoever - but turns out that doesn't really seem to be the case in most places (well, most places described so far, yay anecdotal evidence).
when i went to vote last week, i gave them my driver's license but my mother in law didnt even have to bother with that. they took our word for who we were.

Really? Who are those?You don't have to get a Social Security number until you work. Students might not have one.

Really? Who are those?

the amish

we're a really weird and wonderful country

Are Republicans the only ones who CAN commit voter fraud? No. Are Republicans the only ones who DO commit voter fraud. Recently, yes. Cry about Daley and the Chicago political machine all you want, but that was 40 goddamn years ago. Recent years have been plagued with Republican and only Republican attempts to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters. To act like both sides are even remotely complicit in voter fraud these days is the height of dishonesty. It takes a truly delusional mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated.

That's fair. We can just ignore and/or downplay the Acorn nonsense. I'm sure it's nothing important. I'm sure that Obama had NOTHING to do with it. He's a trustworthy guy who's never been the least be dishonest about anything.

I would go as far to say Republicans are the only ones whose fraud gets covered by the media. You won't accept that, of course, so we can just agree to disagree.

In Nevada they check your ID for matching names on their computer and then they ask you what your birthday is and once you answer that correctly they put this little card into a machine and type in a number that shows up on screen for them. After it pops back out of the machine they hand it to you and it becomes your key to make the touch screen in the voting booth work.

when i went to vote last week, i gave them my driver's license but my mother in law didnt even have to bother with that. they took our word for who we were.
Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?

that was one of the few things i loved about wisconsin. you just show up, register and vote.

easy peasy.

the fact that it was like that in idaho too left me wholly unprepared for this oct. 6 registration deadline nonsense here in michigan. get with the fucking program, guys.

Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?

why should it?

It is. Although they really don't go to check where you live, I'm afraid that'll have to be filed under urban legend. :tongue:

Could be if she was in immigrant or an immigrant family... But that's nothing out of the ordinary and neither here nor there.

You don't have to get a Social Security number until you work. Students might not have one.
Really? Weird. I got a Social Security number as a student even though I was only staying in the US on a 1-year student visa (and, as such, not even allowed to work).
the amish

we're a really weird and wonderful country
Awesome.
In Nevada they check your ID for matching names on their computer and then they ask you what your birthday is and once you answer that correctly they put this little card into a machine and type in a number that shows up on screen for them. After it pops back out of the machine they hand it to you and it becomes your key to make the touch screen in the voting booth work.
Ah, touch screens. How's that working for you? I still curse the day when they switched to touch screens from the old machines with real buttons and that's just for buying subway tickets. :tongue:

Could be if she was in immigrant or an immigrant family... But that's nothing out of the ordinary and neither here nor there.
True I guess.

why should it?
Because it can lead to fraudulent voting.

Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?
no not at all.

there IS voting fraud in the US but there isnt THIS kind of voting fraud.

That's fair. We can just ignore and/or downplay the Acorn nonsense. I'm sure it's nothing important. I'm sure that Obama had NOTHING to do with it. He's a trustworthy guy who's never been the least be dishonest about anything.

I would go as far to say Republicans are the only ones whose fraud gets covered by the media. You won't accept that, of course, so we can just agree to disagree.
do you think that mccain has something to do with it?

he gave a keynote speech at their meeting in 2006. he praised them for the good work they do.

maybe its all a republican conspiracy!

It's all determined by local laws, which vary.
And this seems silly to me. And as fodder for lawsuits.

In my view, the system should be the same all over the country, and be determined by federal (national) law.

For the local elections the states could do as they pleased, but not for the presidential election.

Because it can lead to fraudulent voting.

why would anyone bother? it accomplishes nothing

why would anyone bother? it accomplishes nothing

That's what kills me about the voter registration fraud accusations. Does anyone really worry that Mickey Mouse is going to show up to vote?

do you think that mccain has something to do with it?

he gave a keynote speech at their meeting in 2006. he praised them for the good work they do.

maybe its all a republican conspiracy!

Maybe it's all a Democrat AND Republican conspiracy. It's like having two bands of thieves running the country who take turns robbing the American people blind.

Ah, touch screens. How's that working for you? I still curse the day when they switched to touch screens from the old machines with real buttons and that's just for buying subway tickets. :tongue:

I personally like them. You can review your choices on a hard copy before actually submitting on the machines we have in Vegas

That's what kills me about the voter registration fraud accusations. Does anyone really worry that Mickey Mouse is going to show up to vote?

Not if he has to show an ID. Though apparently wanting that makes you a republican.

Maybe it's all a Democrat AND Republican conspiracy. It's like having two bands of thieves running the country who take turns robbing the American people blind.
finally youre making some sense!

Not if he has to show an ID. Though apparently wanting that makes you a republican.

You think that without an ID Mickey Mouse might get through?

Not if he has to show an ID. Though apparently wanting that makes you a republican.

Well, as has been pointed out, there are tons of ways that state IDs are problematic.

Regardless, Mickey Mouse isn't going to vote. Go ahead show up to a voting booth and tell them you're Mickey Mouse. I promise they won't even check to see if your on the list.

finally youre making some sense!

I know, right?! Just because I hate Obama doesn't mean that I don't hate McCain and everyone else who runs this country.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2976738104_112c4b27d4.jpg

compensating with yard signs?

Speaking of which, my neighbor, the one right across the street:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0019-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0018-1.jpg
You can't tell, because my camera is shitty and I was zooming in, but there's a Bob Schaffer, a McCain, and a "Nobama!" sign on the target. Also, another McCain sign to the right of it, out of frame(and in a completely worthless shot).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0017.jpg

There's another Bob Schaffer sign out of frame to the left(which was also in that worthless shot.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0021.jpg

I'm not sure who this guy is.

Anyway, my family fights back:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0016.jpg

(John Tighe is a local Republican former police chief. Very great guy.)

And some unexpected support from...someone:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/IMG_0022.jpg

Also, our next door neighbor, an awesome Jewish lady, has an Obama/Biden sign, and a Mark Udall sign too. (And one for Hank Eng, but he's not getting elected.)

Well, as has been pointed out, there are tons of ways that state IDs are problematic.

Regardless, Mickey Mouse isn't going to vote. Go ahead show up to a voting booth and tell them you're Mickey Mouse. I promise they won't even check to see if your on the list.

Some of the stupid shit people name them kids and themselves. I bet they'd check.

Not if he has to show an ID. Though apparently wanting that makes you a republican.

makes you objectively pro-republican, at least. there is no problem to be solved, and the 'solution' is just a republican disenfranchisement scheme.

Well, as has been pointed out, there are tons of ways that state IDs are problematic.

Regardless, Mickey Mouse isn't going to vote. Go ahead show up to a voting booth and tell them you're Mickey Mouse. I promise they won't even check to see if your on the list.
My dad knew somebody named Donald Duck (went by "Don"). He was born before the cartoon became popular.

My dad knew somebody named Donald Duck (went by "Don"). He was born before the cartoon became popular.

If you came to me and said, "I"m Donald Duck and I'm here to replace your mouse," I'd make you show me ID before I'd let you take it. It would totally be reasonable to ask for ID if someone claimed their names was Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald or Pikachu.

Kind of sucked to be him, huh?

The only question should be:

Is voter ID necessary?

IF the answer is yes and I do believe that yes should be the only answer, then that spurs a secondary question:

Since voter ID is mandatory, should the ability to obtain such ID be free of charge for those who don't have any, and cannot afford it?

Why is voter ID necessary?

Surely, each person can only vote once.

Thus - unless a person appears a SECOND time claiming to be person-x, there's no problem. And if person-x claims to be someone who hasn't yet voted, at THAT point you can put a flag on the name and check for ID's.

Got to be better than 200,000 disenfranchised voters...

Not if he has to show an ID. Though apparently wanting that makes you a republican.

No - shitting your pants about registration only once in every four years, while the Republicans have a majority they'll be hard pressed to keep by legitimate means, and while there are a number of acts of voter disenfranchisement going on around the country, IN Republican governed areas... and for the second time in four years, when most of the same tricks were employed, and a lot of it was proved....


and pretending it's NOT happening... that suggests a Republican.

But, Jocabia hit it on the head. Registration=/=voting. No one is ENfranchised, or DISenfranchised by a 'mickey mouse' registration.

If this is true
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot

WTF?!

If this is true
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot

WTF?!
yup

some people are so stupid that they have no idea how stupid they are.

If this is true
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot

WTF?!

It means that there's a lot more methhead boneheads in the United States, and not just Colorado.

Why is voter ID necessary?

Surely, each person can only vote once.

Thus - unless a person appears a SECOND time claiming to be person-x, there's no problem. And if person-x claims to be someone who hasn't yet voted, at THAT point you can put a flag on the name and check for ID's.

Got to be better than 200,000 disenfranchised voters...

I'll just say I'm you when I go to vote, then. After that, I'll go to a different polling site and vote under my real name. No need to check my ID.

I'll just say I'm you when I go to vote, then. After that, I'll go to a different polling site and vote under my real name. No need to check my ID.

then when gni shows up and tries to vote too, you get found out, tracked down, and charged with a felony. and gni still gets to vote.

the cost is really fucking high and the rewards are non-existent.

I'll just say I'm you when I go to vote, then. After that, I'll go to a different polling site and vote under my real name. No need to check my ID.

And when he shows up himself to vote (or has already) and can actually prove who he is, how do you keep from getting caught?

The only way to pull this off would be to find people who had no intention of voting in this election, and voting in their place.

I'll just say I'm you when I go to vote, then. After that, I'll go to a different polling site and vote under my real name. No need to check my ID.
yeah but why would you bother?

in a country where less than half the eligible people bother to vote we dont really have to worry that elections are going to be stolen by those who wander from precinct to precinct voting under other people's names.

The only way to pull this off would be to find people who had no intention of voting in this election, and voting in their place.

and the only way for it to matter is to do it on a massive scale

That's fair. We can just ignore and/or downplay the Acorn nonsense. I'm sure it's nothing important. I'm sure that Obama had NOTHING to do with it. He's a trustworthy guy who's never been the least be dishonest about anything.


Im sorry, this is just so utterly stupid. You realize that the ACORN nonsense is only an issue if someone actually shows up to vote, with an ID, as Mikey Mouse right?

If the starting line up of the Cowboys doesnt show up to vote, whats the problem? It has no effect on the election.

However, taking people from democratic demographics OFF the voting list is voter disenfranchisment and DOES have an effect on the out come.

See how that works pal?

I would go as far to say Republicans are the only ones whose fraud gets covered by the media. You won't accept that, of course, so we can just agree to disagree.

Yep. Vast left wing conspirecy, ebil libruhl media, all that typical conservative persecution complex crap. Please, before you post here, know what youre talking about.

Are Republicans the only ones who CAN commit voter fraud? No. Are Republicans the only ones who DO commit voter fraud. Recently, yes. Cry about Daley and the Chicago political machine all you want, but that was 40 goddamn years ago. Recent years have been plagued with Republican and only Republican attempts to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters. To act like both sides are even remotely complicit in voter fraud these days is the height of dishonesty. It takes a truly delusional mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated.

correction: It takes a truly desperate mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated. A mind so desperate to ignore the reality that the party they support actively engages in voter fraud.

Im sorry, this is just so utterly stupid. You realize that the ACORN nonsense is only an issue if someone actually shows up to vote, with an idea, as Mikey Mouse right?

If the starting line up of the Cowboys doesnt show up to vote? Whats the problem? It has no effect on the election.

However, taking people from democratic demographics OFF the voting list is voter disenfranchisment and DOES have an effect on the out come.

See how that works pal?



Yep. Vast left wing conspirecy, ebil libruhl media, all that typical conservative persecution complex crap. Please, before you post here, know what youre talking about.

My, my. Someone is getting testy. Firstly, I'm more a proponent of "vast government conspiracy" than a "vast left wing conspiracy", as I believe that "right wing and left wing" are merely used as political tools these days used to divide and manipulate the population. Firstly, you can argue about how the ACORN nonsense "has no effect on the election" if you want, but how can we be sure that there isn't far, far more under the surface? I don't care whether you think it has an impact or not -- if there's any possibility that it could, it needs to be stamped out, regardless of who's potentially behind it.

I dislike and distrust both parties and am fully willing to accept the fact that both, including the Republicans, are corrupt and would not be above vote manipulation. It just makes me laugh when examples of republican manipulation are always the primary focus. Of course, coming from NSG, that shouldn't surprise me. However, why limit ourselves? We would do a much greater service to the country by admitting that both parties are bands of thieves out to rob the American people, wouldn't you say?


The only way to pull this off would be to find people who had no intention of voting in this election, and voting in their place.

Well, such people consist of half the population, so it shouldn't be a problem.

correction: It takes a truly desperate mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated. A mind so desperate to ignore the reality that the party they support actively engages in voter fraud.

I think you're confused. That sentence doesn't make sense.

That's fair. We can just ignore and/or downplay the Acorn nonsense. I'm sure it's nothing important. I'm sure that Obama had NOTHING to do with it. He's a trustworthy guy who's never been the least be dishonest about anything.

I would go as far to say Republicans are the only ones whose fraud gets covered by the media. You won't accept that, of course, so we can just agree to disagree.
And he proves my previous post: A truly desperate mind.

Thing is: A person registering to vote 20 times can still only vote once. So it's not going to affect the election. Similarly, someone registering as Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck won't be allowed to vote if they ever turned up to the polling station. So again, it's not going to affect the election.

However, Republicans going through voter lists and actively cutting eligible, legal, voters from said lists based on minor typos and doing this just a few days before the election, thus ensuring those people don't have time to challenge their expulsion IS going to have an effect on the election.

If you can't see the difference there, then it just proves what I, and others have already stated: You're suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance and are too ashamed to admit your own party lies and cheats to try to win elections.

My, my. Someone is getting testy. Firstly, I'm more a proponent of "vast government conspiracy" than a "vast left wing conspiracy", as I believe that "right wing and left wing" are merely used as political tools these days used to divide and manipulate the population. Firstly, you can argue about how the ACORN nonsense "has no effect on the election" if you want, but how can we be sure that there isn't far, far more under the surface? I don't care whether you think it has an impact or not -- if there's any possibility that it could, it needs to be stamped out, regardless of who's potentially behind it.


Oh, I see. Youre one of those tinfoil hat types.

I think you're confused. That sentence doesn't make sense.
ah. yes it does. take a deep breath and try reading it slower next time.

correction: It takes a truly desperate mind to think that voter fraud is equally perpetrated. A mind so desperate to ignore the reality that the party they support actively engages in voter fraud.

ah. yes it does. take a deep breath and try reading it slower next time.

No it doesn't.

You say to believe voter fraud is perpetrated equally by both parties means that you also believe that your party doesn't engage in it. That's a contradiction.

If you can't see the difference there, then it just proves what I, and others have already stated: You're suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance and are too ashamed to admit your own party lies and cheats to try to win elections.

Excuse me? I'm not a Republican. Didn't I already say that BOTH parties lie and cheat? Yes. Did I ever deny the accusations of Republican voter fraud? No. You are the one who can't stop blindly defending his own party.

Oh, I see. Youre one of those tinfoil hat types.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm merely realistic and humble enough to admit that both parties are corrupt and will try/are trying to steal the election. You seem rather delusional in thinking that the Democrats are somehow clean, or even close to it. Thinking that either party is clean is very silly in my opinion.

Excuse me? I'm not a Republican. Didn't I already say that BOTH parties lie and cheat? Yes. Did I ever deny the accusations of Republican voter fraud? No. You are the one who can't stop blindly defending his own party.
ah yes. The old, "I can't be a GOP supporter cause I say both do it!" excuse. True, you're not denying the accusations per se, but what you are doing is dismissing them by flinging accusations of Democrat voter fraud.

And the thing is, this only works IF both parties do it. Since the Democrat party hasn't done this sort of voter fraud in over 40 years, and that was for a mayoral election NOT a presidential election suffice to say both parties DON'T do it.

Only one party is currently actively - and illegally - stripping people of the right to vote. So to counter with, "The Dems did it 40+ years ago" proves nothing more than that you're desperate to believe what GOP is doing now is somehow justified.
sad really. really really sad.

ah yes. The old, "I can't be a GOP supporter cause I say both do it!" excuse. True, you're not denying the accusations per se, but what you are doing is dismissing them by flinging accusations of Democrat voter fraud.

And the thing is, this only works IF both parties do it. Since the Democrat party hasn't done this sort of voter fraud in over 40 years, and that was for a mayoral election NOT a presidential election suffice to say both parties DON'T do it.

Only one party is currently actively - and illegally - stripping people of the right to vote. So to counter with, "The Dems did it 40+ years ago" proves nothing more than that you're desperate to believe what GOP is doing now is somehow justified.
sad really. really really sad.

But ACRON could be a much deeper conspirecy!!!111!

Firstly, you can argue about how the ACORN nonsense "has no effect on the election" if you want, but how can we be sure that there isn't far, far more under the surface?

because it is an entirely ineffective way to rig an election. it doesn't even begin to be worthwhile to even try.

No it doesn't.

You say to believe voter fraud is perpetrated equally by both parties means that you also believe that your party doesn't engage in it. That's a contradiction.
I see where you're getting confused.
I didn't mean believing that your party isn't doing it. I meant convincing oneself that voter fraud is being equally perpetrated so one doesn't have to face the reality that the party one supports is acting immorally and illegally. Using the 'but they're doing it too!" excuse.

But ACRON could be a much deeper conspirecy!!!111!

Especially since ACRON is based in Ohio!! 2004!! 2004!!

ah yes. The old, "I can't be a GOP supporter cause I say both do it!" excuse. True, you're not denying the accusations per se, but what you are doing is dismissing them by flinging accusations of Democrat voter fraud.

And the thing is, this only works IF both parties do it. Since the Democrat party hasn't done this sort of voter fraud in over 40 years, and that was for a mayoral election NOT a presidential election suffice to say both parties DON'T do it.

Only one party is currently actively - and illegally - stripping people of the right to vote. So to counter with, "The Dems did it 40+ years ago" proves nothing more than that you're desperate to believe what GOP is doing now is somehow justified.
sad really. really really sad.

I'm hardly defending what the Republicans are doing, though I'm inclined to believe that there is more to the issue than is being said in the media. It merely seemed a waste of breath to yell out in outrage since plenty of you were doing so already. I'm just not as willing to dismiss what ACORN was doing. How can you say for certain that it'll have no impact? Who knows what they were doing that we haven't heard about yet. Even if it doesn't affect the election, voter fraud is voter fraud regardless of whether the perpetrator's manage to accomplish anything. Point being: if the Republicans are manipulating the election, then they shouldn't get away with it. I wouldn't put it past them, as I am well aware that the GoP is full of scumbags. However, your double standard is obvious no matter how much you try to deny it.

I'm hardly defending what the Republicans are doing, though I'm inclined to believe that there is more to the issue than is being said in the media. It merely seemed a waste of breath to yell out in outrage since plenty of you were doing so already. I'm just not as willing to dismiss what ACORN was doing. How can you say for certain that it'll have no impact? Who knows what they were doing that we haven't heard about yet. Even if it doesn't affect the election


Your tinfoil hat is showing.

Your tinfoil hat is showing.

It keeps them from reading my MIND! But seriously, do you really trust the government?

But ACRON could be a much deeper conspirecy!!!111!
omg, I never realised! you're right!
Acorns - oak trees grow from them. Trees, which gives us wood, which was used to make the cross the Jews crucified Jesus on. Trees also give us paper, which is used to make banknotes!
It's all a jewish banking conspiracy!
It's so obvious, why didn't I see it before?!

oh no! I can hear them at the door now. I know too much! the MIBs are already onto me!

It keeps them from reading my MIND! But seriously, do you really trust the government?

Not at all, but I trust them more then I trust the private sector, and Im not paranoid.

Not at all, but I trust them more then I trust the private sector, and Im not paranoid.

Well, that's where we differ. I trust the private sector a little more than the government, since they've managed to get things right, and actually reward success. I doubt that we'll change each other's opinions on it, and I can accept that.

However, just because I distrust the government doesn't make me paranoid. Look at human history and tell me that leaders have ever been trustworthy.

Well, that's where we differ. I trust the private sector a little more than the government, since they've managed to get things right, and actually reward success. I doubt that we'll change each other's opinions on it, and I can accept that.

However, just because I distrust the government doesn't make me paranoid. Look at human history and tell me that leaders have ever been trustworthy.

Perhaps its more the way you phrase things that makes you seem crazier then you are;)

Perhaps its more the way you phrase things that makes you seem crazier then you are;)

Maybe, but we can still be friends! Right? Right??

>.>
<.<

Well, that's where we differ. I trust the private sector a little more than the government, since they've managed to get things right, and actually reward success. I doubt that we'll change each other's opinions on it, and I can accept that.

However, just because I distrust the government doesn't make me paranoid. Look at human history and tell me that leaders have ever been trustworthy.
If that's how you feel, then apologies for my brusqueness.
Your initial comments came across as typical GOP-supporter dismissal, a la Myrm or Hot wife.

though I do take issue with your '(private sector) has managed to get thigns right' comment, especially in today's current financial climate!

If that's how you feel, then apologies for my brusqueness.
Your initial comments came across as typical GOP-supporter dismissal, a la Myrm or Hot wife.

though I do take issue with your '(private sector) has managed to get thigns right' comment, especially in today's current financial climate!

Haha, no harm done. I know how things can get; if someone doesn't support Obama it is often immediately assume that he/she is a GoP pawn.

As for the current financial situation, from the reading and research that I've done, it really seems that the current meltdown was more the fault of the government than the private sector. For example, under Clinton, banks were practically (and sometimes literally) forced to give risky loans as part of their goal of putting more people, particularly lower-class minorities in homes. This was then continued and made worse under Bush.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that minorities shouldn't own houses -- I merely believe that people who can't afford a house shouldn't be entitled to one. But anyway, all these risky loans, as logic would predict, fell through and banks started to fail. That said, I also don't deny that CEO's have manipulated the books and preyed on families to enrich themselves, and should be thrown in jail and flogged, along with the secretary of the treasury, and probably others.

Haha, no harm done. I know how things can get; if someone doesn't support Obama it is often immediately assume that he/she is a GoP pawn.

As for the current financial situation, from the reading and research that I've done, it really seems that the current meltdown was more the fault of the government than the private sector. For example, under Clinton, banks were practically (and sometimes literally) forced to give risky loans as part of their goal of putting more people, particularly lower-class minorities in homes. This was then continued and made worse under Bush.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that minorities shouldn't own houses -- I merely believe that people who can't afford a house shouldn't be entitled to one. But anyway, all these risky loans, as logic would predict, fell through and banks started to fail. That said, I also don't deny that CEO's have manipulated the books and preyed on families to enrich themselves, and should be thrown in jail and flogged, along with the secretary of the treasury, and probably others.

Seriously, man, don't embarrass yourself. You didn't do research. You're regurgitating basic accusations about this economic problem that breaks away as soon as you look at it even the smallest amount.

For example, if the government caused this with subprime loans how come Ginnie Mae survived? If you're honest, you'll admit you've never even heard of them. Why? Because they were government regulated and thus didn't use subprime loans as an excuse to turn borrowers into prey. No one is talking about them, because it reveals the problem with the current national argument being made.

As for the private sector, you can use that same history to see the private sector be just as corrupt and just as guilty. Your speckled history lessons don't lend to your credibility.

Haha, no harm done. I know how things can get; if someone doesn't support Obama it is often immediately assume that he/she is a GoP pawn.

As for the current financial situation, from the reading and research that I've done, it really seems that the current meltdown was more the fault of the government than the private sector. For example, under Clinton, banks were practically (and sometimes literally) forced to give risky loans as part of their goal of putting more people, particularly lower-class minorities in homes. This was then continued and made worse under Bush.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that minorities shouldn't own houses -- I merely believe that people who can't afford a house shouldn't be entitled to one. But anyway, all these risky loans, as logic would predict, fell through and banks started to fail. That said, I also don't deny that CEO's have manipulated the books and preyed on families to enrich themselves, and should be thrown in jail and flogged, along with the secretary of the treasury, and probably others.

I'd love to see you link some of this "research." We had a whole thread discussing this not that long ago, and zero evidence was found to support the argument. To the contrary, the evidence was that the allegation was untrue.

Haha, no harm done. I know how things can get; if someone doesn't support Obama it is often immediately assume that he/she is a GoP pawn.

As for the current financial situation, from the reading and research that I've done, it really seems that the current meltdown was more the fault of the government than the private sector. For example, under Clinton, banks were practically (and sometimes literally) forced to give risky loans as part of their goal of putting more people, particularly lower-class minorities in homes. This was then continued and made worse under Bush.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that minorities shouldn't own houses -- I merely believe that people who can't afford a house shouldn't be entitled to one. But anyway, all these risky loans, as logic would predict, fell through and banks started to fail. That said, I also don't deny that CEO's have manipulated the books and preyed on families to enrich themselves, and should be thrown in jail and flogged, along with the secretary of the treasury, and probably others.

that's not entirely true. I found some research online (and posted it a while back) which shows that the CRA lending banks actually have the lowest foreclosure levels. CRA was lending to poor people amounts they could afford to pay back.
The problem came about with the other banks encouraging people to take out loans far above their repayment abilities. some banks were lending up to 150% of the house value, which is just stupid regardless of the person's income. When the housing market crashed, people were holding mortgages up to double the current house value. This automatically made banks demand the difference, hence the foreclosure rate skyrocketing.

that's not entirely true. I found some research online (and posted it a while back) which shows that the CRA lending banks actually have the lowest foreclosure levels. CRA was lending to poor people amounts they could afford to pay back.
The problem came about with the other banks encouraging people to take out loans far above their repayment abilities. some banks were lending up to 150% of the house value, which is just stupid regardless of the person's income. When the housing market crashed, people were holding mortgages up to double the current house value. This automatically made banks demand the difference, hence the foreclosure rate skyrocketing.

Shhhhh... clearly he did research. People who do research always end up just spewing talking points.

Yes, yes. I disagree with you so therefore I'm just a GoP pawn spewing talking points. Anyway, the following is an article that I'd found a few weeks ago that helped form my opinion on the matter. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

You can disagree with my take on it if you like, but you can't deny that the Community Reinvestment Act caused an increase in sub-prime loans. I would even be willing to believe that it was done with good intentions. Helping others buy homes certainly sounds like a noble cause, but the way I see it, this really started the problem. The government pushed banks to make risky loans.

I also feel the need to once again stress that these companies are by no means innocent, either. I just think it's wise to fairly spread the blame around to those who deserve it.

Knew it would happen, eventually. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7938466)

Knew it would happen, eventually. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7938466)

The media has been foaming at the mouth since the primaries for something like this to finally come up.

The media has been foaming at the mouth since the primaries for something like this to finally come up.Seriously, and they just had to be prove them right.

I'll just say I'm you when I go to vote, then. After that, I'll go to a different polling site and vote under my real name. No need to check my ID.

I'd like to see you try it, actually. You'd find out that there are several reasons why the kind of 'fraud' people are talking about here isn't very prevalent. Not least being that - unless you personally know the person you're pretending to be, you won't know if they've already voted, or even - WHERE they should vote.

And if you go wandering into the polling point claiming to be me, they're not going to let you claim to be someone else instead once it's discovered that I've already voted / you're in the wrong region / I'm not eligible, etc.

...you can argue about how the ACORN nonsense "has no effect on the election" if you want...

There's no argument.

McCain was blowing it out of his ass when he even brought it up in the debates, because he knows damn well that 'registration' has literally no effect on elections. It doesn't matter if you get ten billion fake registrations, because they don't COUNT for anything. Only voting counts.

However, Republicans going through voter lists and actively cutting eligible, legal, voters from said lists based on minor typos and doing this just a few days before the election, thus ensuring those people don't have time to challenge their expulsion IS going to have an effect on the election.


Not to mention, it's actually illegal to do such major purges within 90 days of an election.

Seriously, and they just had to be prove them right.

I suppose so. There's always going to be SOME crazy morons out there, sadly.


On a side note, has anyone considered the possibility that the Republicans hand picked McCain to intentionally lose the election, because they know that the country is collapsing and will only get much worse, and they want to pass it off to the Democrats? You could even say that Bush and his cronies caused it, and I wouldn't even be very inclined to argue. Lol. But has anyone else thought of that?

I suppose so. There's always going to be SOME crazy morons out there, sadly.


On a side note, has anyone considered the possibility that the Republicans hand picked McCain to intentionally lose the election, because they know that the country is collapsing and will only get much worse, and they want to pass it off to the Democrats? You could even say that Bush and his cronies caused it, and I wouldn't even be very inclined to argue. Lol. But has anyone else thought of that?If that's so, not saying that it is, then they deserve to fail.

But ACRON could be a much deeper conspirecy!!!111!

Especially since ACRON is so close to ENRON! :eek:

Yes, yes. I disagree with you so therefore I'm just a GoP pawn spewing talking points. Anyway, the following is an article that I'd found a few weeks ago that helped form my opinion on the matter. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

You can disagree with my take on it if you like, but you can't deny that the Community Reinvestment Act caused an increase in sub-prime loans. I would even be willing to believe that it was done with good intentions. Helping others buy homes certainly sounds like a noble cause, but the way I see it, this really started the problem. The government pushed banks to make risky loans.

I also feel the need to once again stress that these companies are by no means innocent, either. I just think it's wise to fairly spread the blame around to those who deserve it.

ZOMG! How dare those n****** think they should own their own homes! :rolleyes: Yes, I'm sure the big bad government had to twist the banks' arms to make them take advantage of people.

ZOMG! How dare those n****** think they should own their own homes! :rolleyes: Yes, I'm sure the big bad government had to twist the banks' arms to make them take advantage of people.

The private sector is infallible.

I found this very inspiring, and that despite all the dirty spin the Republicans have put out, sometimes miracles and good things do happen.

Dozens Of Call Center Workers Walk Off Job In Protest Rather Than Read McCain Script Attacking Obama
(http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/dozens_of_call_center_workers.php)

ZOMG! How dare those n****** think they should own their own homes! :rolleyes: Yes, I'm sure the big bad government had to twist the banks' arms to make them take advantage of people.

As I said, I have no problem with anyone of any race owning a home so long as they can afford it. o.0

I found this very inspiring, and that despite all the dirty spin the Republicans have put out, sometimes miracles and good things do happen.

Dozens Of Call Center Workers Walk Off Job In Protest Rather Than Read McCain Script Attacking Obama
(http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/dozens_of_call_center_workers.php)

Ah man, I thought it was going to be about volunteers walking out...but still, there isn't much people in a call center won't do, so that's something. I actually led a small revolt at a call center I worked at for two weeks.

So, anybody watch Obama's "closing argument" speech? I missed it when it was actually on because I was helping my roommate look for his cat (yeah, we found him under our house. :)), but I just caught it on YouTube. It was inspiring.

And you know, I'll admit it: I had a few tears running down my cheeks. It's been so long. I remember volunteering at a rally where I overheard passersby ask, upon seeing our signs, "Who's this 'Obama?'" (One lady, to the embarrassment of her apparently more politically knowledgeable friend, asked exactly that, and pronounced his name wrong.)
All the phone calls made, the doors knocked on, the cold and rain endured, all of those will, I hope, be worth it in one week.
Just one week.
It's a little hard to believe... despite all my times that I told doubters during the primaries "hey, John Kerry was polling in 4th place at this time 4 years ago. We can still do it," I still had my doubts.

But, wow.

Ah man, I thought it was going to be about volunteers walking out...but still, there isn't much people in a call center won't do, so that's something. I actually led a small revolt at a call center I worked at for two weeks.

Better than nothing. These were paid employees though, and in a rough economic time when a job and pay matters, that is really a big deal

Better than nothing. These were paid employees though, and in a rough economic time when a job and pay matters, that is really a big deal

Having done that job before I can say that you only do it if you absolutely need the money. At least that was true of me.

Having done that job before I can say that you only do it if you absolutely need the money. At least that was true of me.

My mom did that sort of job for an insurance company. She quit after a month. I agree it's not a glamourous job.

So, anybody watch Obama's "closing argument" speech? I missed it when it was actually on because I was helping my roommate look for his cat (yeah, we found him under our house. :)), but I just caught it on YouTube. It was inspiring.

But, wow.


I caught the first part, but had to go to class. So I had to leave it. But listening to it now on You Tube. Makes me feel warm. :)

So, anybody watch Obama's "closing argument" speech? I missed it when it was actually on because I was helping my roommate look for his cat (yeah, we found him under our house. :)), but I just caught it on YouTube. It was inspiring.

And you know, I'll admit it: I had a few tears running down my cheeks. It's been so long. I remember volunteering at a rally where I overheard passersby ask, upon seeing our signs, "Who's this 'Obama?'" (One lady, to the embarrassment of her apparently more politically knowledgeable friend, asked exactly that, and pronounced his name wrong.)
All the phone calls made, the doors knocked on, the cold and rain endured, all of those will, I hope, be worth it in one week.
Just one week.
It's a little hard to believe... despite all my times that I told doubters during the primaries "hey, John Kerry was polling in 4th place at this time 4 years ago. We can still do it," I still had my doubts.

But, wow.


You got me to watch it rather than just reading it. It was moving.

I want to post on excerpt.

Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else - we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

And there ya go. What more is there to say?

It was?

I wasn't moved.

But then I'm really hard to move. I mean, I listened to the guy in person and I thought he was no more impressive than he was on television.

It was?

I wasn't moved.

But then I'm really hard to move. I mean, I listened to the guy in person and I thought he was no more impressive than he was on television.

Yeah, well, you haven't 25 years of politics to lower your expectations to the point of just being happy that a major power in our government actually appears to want to represent a better future.

Yeah, well, you haven't 25 years of politics to lower your expectations to the point of just being happy that a major power in our government actually appears to want to represent a better future.

Indeed I haven't.

Let's hope I and the others of my generation don't get that experience.

That settles it, Mccain's message is so dirty that telemarketers are too moral to go along with it.

That's gotta feel dirty.

That settles it, Mccain's message is so dirty that telemarketers are too moral to go along with it.

That's gotta feel dirty.

It's like the Signs of Republican Armageddon.

First, Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove declares McCain's campaign is getting too dirty. Now, telemarketers refuse to play along with it. What next?

It's like the Signs of Republican Armageddon.

First, Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove declares McCain's campaign is getting too dirty. Now, telemarketers refuse to play along with it. What next?

Lawyers refuse to protect him from defamation suits.

It's like the Signs of Republican Armageddon.

First, Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove declares McCain's campaign is getting too dirty. Now, telemarketers refuse to play along with it. What next?

Wow...that's unthinkable. The Republican party falling on its rear?

Sometimes I think republicans wanted John McCain to be the nominee because they wanted him to lose

Wow...that's unthinkable. The Republican party falling on its rear?

Sometimes I think republicans wanted John McCain to be the nominee because they wanted him to lose

McCain was the only one they had that had any real chance. If he had run a better campaign this would have been a closer race.

If it is made mandatory then the ID's should be free.

Hell, ID is pretty much mandatory for life. Try getting a job, opening a bank account etc. without one.

Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?

It bothers me more that people think I might not be me.

ZOMG! How dare those n****** think they should own their own homes! :rolleyes: Yes, I'm sure the big bad government had to twist the banks' arms to make them take advantage of people.

:rolleyes:

There was also the abolition of the Glass-Stegall Act during the Clinton years, but we will forget about that, now while the government is not the sole cause of this it is a part of it and shouldn't be absolved of all the blame there are also other people to blame including the banks, the US Fed regulatory authorities around the world and to an extent those people who always thought that they could spend more tha they earnt and believed that their equity would always be rising.


As for the call centres could it perhaps be that they are Obama supporters?

you should see them over on tpmelections praising the workers who "stood up to the man". Just imagine if it had been telemarketers of a conservative bent refusing to peddle stuff they thought were liberal lies - they'd be branded racist and shown the door. An almost-infinite variety of ridiculous double standards has been displayed in this election season.
:rolleyes:

As for the call centres could it perhaps be that they are Obama supporters?

Of course. But I personally prefer the idea that even republicans themselves are disgusted by how their campaign is being conducted.

you should see them over on tpmelections praising the workers who "stood up to the man". Just imagine if it had been telemarketers of a conservative bent refusing to peddle stuff they thought were liberal lies - they'd be branded racist and shown the door. An almost-infinite variety of ridiculous double standards has been displayed in this election season.
:rolleyes:

Yeah, those double standards between something that actually happened and a completely made up thing with made up consequences are really something, aren't they?

Yeah, those double standards between something that actually happened and a completely made up thing with made up consequences are really something, aren't they?Stop being unfair and unbalanced. Each side deserves equal time and attention, regardless of merit! >=(

As for the call centres could it perhaps be that they are Obama supporters?

If they're Obama supporters, why were they working for McCain?

Try again, please.

My Dad was talking to his sister in California and found out to his horror that she ended up voting for McCain. He didn't yell at her, but he said, you do realize that McCain is stating that he's planning to freeze spending, which may include the cost of living allowance on your social security and your pension.

She was very quiet on the other end as if she hadn't realized what she had done. She only voted for McCain because she was for Hillary and was still upset that Obama had got in. *sighs* Be it known that my family, particularly on my Dad's side is very stubborn.

My Dad was talking to his sister in California and found out to his horror that she ended up voting for McCain. He didn't yell at her, but he said, you do realize that McCain is stating that he's planning to freeze spending, which may include the cost of living allowance on your social security and your pension.

She was very quiet on the other end as if she hadn't realized what she had done. She only voted for McCain because she was for Hillary and was still upset that Obama had got in. *sighs* Be it known that my family, particularly on my Dad's side is very stubborn.

CanuckHaven is your aunt?

On a more serious note a vote for McCain in California means nothing, there's no chance of him swinging the state.

CanuckHaven is your aunt?

On a more serious note a vote for McCain in California means nothing, there's no chance of him swinging the state.


I doubt it. My aunt isn't that techsauvy.

And I agree, Caifornia isn't going for McCain. It would be diffrent if she lived, in my state, where it is an active battle for Obama or McCain. My aunt just did a protest vote. She seemed as if she was kind of in a state of shock after it was pointed out what she had done.

I doubt it. My aunt isn't that techsauvy.

And I agree, Caifornia isn't going for McCain. It would be diffrent if she lived, in my state, where it is an active battle for Obama or McCain. My aunt just did a protest vote. She seemed as if she was kind of in a state of shock after it was pointed out what she had done.

Maybe if more people were put into states of shock and had what they did rubbed in their faces, they might actually pay more attention to the consequences of their actions...

CanuckHaven is your aunt?I though CH can't vote in the US election...

If they're Obama supporters, why were they working for McCain?

Try again, please.

From what I understand, they weren't working for McCain. They were employees of a telemarketing firm that agreed to do some paid work for the McCain campaign. Many of them could be Obama supporters. They could be McCain supporters. Who knows?

Maybe if more people were put into states of shock and had what they did rubbed in their faces, they might actually pay more attention to the consequences of their actions...

I agree. I mean McCain makes some damn perusausive arguments, but after seeing what Republicans have done since I was a kid (Regan and Bush Sr. era.) and living through Clinton and now this sorry excuse of a president for 8 years. I am not fooled one bit by the Republican promises. They sound good when they speak them, but they seem pretty empty when they get into the big chair.

I agree. I mean McCain makes some damn perusausive arguments, but after seeing what Republicans have done since I was a kid (Regan and Bush Sr. era.) and living through Clinton and now this sorry excuse of a president for 8 years. I am not fooled one bit by the Republican promises. They sound good when they speak them, but they seem pretty empty when they get into the big chair.

I don't know. All I hear from McCain, aside from the mud, I could get out of a blimp. All hot air and no substance.

From what I understand, they weren't working for McCain. They were employees of a telemarketing firm that agreed to do some paid work for the McCain campaign. Many of them could be Obama supporters. They could be McCain supporters. Who knows?

Ah, I thought they were McCain campaign workers. That story's not nearly as funny if they were independent contracters.

I don't know. All I hear from McCain, aside from the mud, I could get out of a blimp. All hot air and no substance.

I hear that too, aside from the random promise of jobs and tax cuts. But I am skeptical of those promises. Espically from a man who has his own words used against him.

"I voted 90% of the Time with the Bush Adminstration...."

or the whole 9 AM AND 11 AM switch on the state of the economy.

His cast of Economic advisors terrify me, and have no clue on how to fix the economy, one of them almost driving HP into bankrupcy. Plus McCain stating earlier that he doesn't know much about the economy. In good concious, I couldn't vote for McCain. It's just a shame that other people, espically people in states that have this whole press the Republican button that don't realize the whole conscious factor and not voting for a man that's weak on the economy.

Indeed I haven't.

Let's hope I and the others of my generation don't get that experience.

You will

If they're Obama supporters, why were they working for McCain?

Try again, please.

vvv
From what I understand, they weren't working for McCain. They were employees of a telemarketing firm that agreed to do some paid work for the McCain campaign. Many of them could be Obama supporters. They could be McCain supporters. Who knows?

Thank you.

What concerns me right now is the polls.
You see when you have a white and black candidate for office many times the white person will say they voted for the black person when question by a pollster. I think in the Giuliani Dinkins election in 1989 you see this. a 12 point lead was shown to only be 2 points once the votes were tallied.
The Obama camp seems to be taking things easy now feeling secure in the polls but the polls will be very inaccurate for this race as documented in in previous more local elections.

It was?

I wasn't moved.

But then I'm really hard to move. I mean, I listened to the guy in person and I thought he was no more impressive than he was on television.

For me, a big part of it was largely a lot of the volunteering that I've done. The long journey. The "one more week" thing really brought it all rushing back to me, all the people I've worked with and all the doors I've knocked on.

So, I'm planning on casting my vote early today. Add one vote to That One's column in Georgia! :D

What concerns me right now is the polls.
You see when you have a white and black candidate for office many times the white person will say they voted for the black person when question by a pollster. I think in the Giuliani Dinkins election in 1989 you see this. a 12 point lead was shown to only be 2 points once the votes were tallied.
The Obama camp seems to be taking things easy now feeling secure in the polls but the polls will be very inaccurate for this race as documented in in previous more local elections.
I don't think they're taking it easy at all. Obama keeps whipping them into action. He certainly is not being complacent, and rightly so.

I'm not sure what you are referring to about the 89 NYC race. The last thing I did before moving out of NYC was vote for Guiliani in order to vote against the incumbent Dinkins. I cast my vote and skipped town to Vermont. I did not bother even to track the election. However, I remember from when Dinkins got elected, his numbers shifted drastically once all the zombie votes were deleted from the count. Dinkins garnered record numbers of votes from people who had been dead for years.

So, maybe you're thinking of the "cemetery effect" on the NYC polls?

What concerns me right now is the polls.
You see when you have a white and black candidate for office many times the white person will say they voted for the black person when question by a pollster. I think in the Giuliani Dinkins election in 1989 you see this. a 12 point lead was shown to only be 2 points once the votes were tallied.
The Obama camp seems to be taking things easy now feeling secure in the polls but the polls will be very inaccurate for this race as documented in in previous more local elections.

Alright, that does it. The next person to bring up the Bradley Effect like it's a new concern or something gets their foot lit on fire.

Alright, that does it. The next person to bring up the Bradley Effect like it's a new concern or something gets their foot lit on fire.

You're right, it's the Wilder Effect...

Ah, I thought they were McCain campaign workers. That story's not nearly as funny if they were independent contracters.

I've worked on a call-centre. That job pays shit, but sometimes it's all you can get, especially when all the permanent/'real' employment moves away.

The idea that people who are in a bottom-rung job - which means they NEED a job, bad - would find the material SO objectionable they walk out? That's not funny, but you SHOULD be impressed.

Alright, that does it. The next person to bring up the Bradley Effect like it's a new concern or something gets their foot lit on fire.

Actually the Bradely effect is a bunch of poodo. I mentioned it to my Dad once, and he said the only reason Bradely didn't get elected was he ended up being found guilty of corruption charges or something like that. People liked him and it reflected in the polls. But when the news got out that he was corrupt, people dropped him like a lead pipe.

So unless there is something really bad about Obama (not any of the phoney stuff that the Republican side has dug up.) The Bradely effect shouldn't play that much of an issue.

Actually the Bradely effect is a bunch of poodo. I mentioned it to my Dad once, and he said the only reason Bradely didn't get elected was he ended up being found guilty of corruption charges or something like that. People liked him and it reflected in the polls. But when the news got out that he was corrupt, people dropped him like a lead pipe.

So unless there is something really bad about Obama (not any of the phoney stuff that the Republican side has dug up.) The Bradely effect shouldn't play that much of an issue.

Sorry, but your dad is talking crap.

On EXIT polling, the Bradley effect was seen in the Bradley election - not just on pre-election polls. That rules out sudden swings over something like corruption, UNLESS the voters suddenly decided to swing BACK when they were exit-polled.

That fact - paired with the fact that there's no big corruption story hanging over Tom Bradley's life - suggests that your dad is (I'm afraid) spreading nothing more than rumours.

It's a pretty established phenomenon, and Bradley is not the only person for which it is evident (Dyakovo already mentioned one of the alternatives) - and it isn't even just a matter of colour.

It's a politics of shame. The same thing has happened in England where people weren't willing to admit to wanting to vote for the Tories, and thus claimed they werent going to (Shy Tory Effect).

Actually the Bradely effect is a bunch of poodo. I mentioned it to my Dad once, and he said the only reason Bradely didn't get elected was he ended up being found guilty of corruption charges or something like that. People liked him and it reflected in the polls. But when the news got out that he was corrupt, people dropped him like a lead pipe.

And that's why they claimed to have voted for him in the exit polls?

Remember that the odd thing about the Bradley election was that the exit polls actually had him winning. However, the actual vote tally didn't. It wasn't a matter of pre-election polls being unrepresentative.

hahahaha (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg)

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

you should see them over on tpmelections praising the workers who "stood up to the man". Just imagine if it had been telemarketers of a conservative bent refusing to peddle stuff they thought were liberal lies - they'd be branded racist and shown the door. An almost-infinite variety of ridiculous double standards has been displayed in this election season.
:rolleyes:

Oh for the love of...

Is this what you conservatives have come to? Really? You, Blouman Empire, and many others are so desperate to explain away the shameful, slanderous, and sometimes outright lies and inciting of race riots in the McCain campaign that your only defense lately (well, its been BE's from the start) is "Well if this was the Obama campaign doing it..."

Guess what, he hasnt been doing it. So your "what if" scenario is just utter bull and a non issue. A weak, pathetic, and obviously desperate one at that.

Guess what? You know that guy whos been peddling lies for a while now saying McCain was a traitor and sold out his in mates will he was a POW? I think that guys a shameful liar too. And if Obama had picked up on that, Id be appauled. Some of us are capable of sticking to our principles.

Next guy that takes the above route as an "arguement" is getting their house fire bombed.

*shrugs* It could have been just the rumors of corruption that may have done Bradely in. I don't know. Since I was too young to remember the whole campagin. Bradely wasn't a perfect indvidual s even the rumor of a scandal or corruption may have been enough to bring a person down. No one has to admit they have or they haven't voted for a person. As in an after polling, a person can say whatever they damn well please who they have voted for.

A person can say whatever they please - absolutely. But they don't usually lie. After all, they aren't required to take exit polls.

The indications are that, in the Bradley election, they did lie - claiming to have voted for him when they didn't. Now, if there were some rumors of corruption going around about Bradley, why would they feel the need to pretend to have voted for him?

A prime example would have to be said that after John F. Kennedy had been assinated, everyone said they had voted for him. When in actual fact the election had been a lot tighter than if those people said they actual voted for him.

Kennedy was a well-liked president who died in a tragedy. Thus, there is a reason someone might want to be seen as having helped him become president, even if they didn't.

That doesn't fit in with your version of the Bradley effect. Unless you think that people generally want to be known as having voted for the corrupt guy?

Here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/bradley%20effect)
All twelve to date entries Nate Silver has had to make regarding the Bradley Effect. I'm just posting this every time someone comes along with the same observation like they've just discovered the sun from now on. Probably more constructive than shoe fires...