Listen up, boys and girls! This guy's a liberal from the The New York Times:

November 5, 2002
The Left Dumbs Down
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look sillier than the way they excoriated Bill and Hillary Clinton as traitors and even murderers.

Yet these days, the intelligent left is dumbing down and showing signs of slipping into a similar cesspool of outraged incoherence. It's debasing and marginalizing itself by marshaling epithets rather than arguments.

President Bush is criticized not just for catastrophically frittering away our budget surplus or for rushing us into a mess in Iraq. Rather, Citizens for Legitimate Government put it this way in its e-mail newsletter: "We have an Idiot Usurping Lying Weasel for a President."

Close your eyes, and it sounds just like Rush Limbaugh.

The latest leftist silliness is the suggestion that Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated. Liberal Web sites are suggesting such a conspiracy. Sample headlines: "Wellstone Murdered? Last Politician Similarly Killed Was Running Against John Ashcroft"; "They Shoot Leftists, Don't They?"; and "Most Liberal D-Sen. Wellstone Plane Shot Down."

The White House team that executed Vincent Foster must have struck again.

When my columns criticize the Bushies, I get torrents of e-mails cheering me on, but in terms so strident that they appall me. After I noted that Vice President Dick Cheney, while at Halliburton, did millions of dollars' worth of business with Iraq, a reader wrote: "Dick Cheney is a maggot feeding on the decaying flesh of human misery."

Then there's the singer Harry Belafonte, who last month denounced Colin Powell as a house slave.

Election Day seems a good moment to reflect on this kind of incivility. Of course it's not new: The Connecticut Courant warned in 1800 that Thomas Jefferson's election would mean that "murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced."

Still, in recent years public debate seems to have become particularly vituperative. One reason for the rancor may be that people of all political stripes once got their news from relatively neutral newspaper articles or network news broadcasts. Now conservatives mainline on Bill O'Reilly and get their Hillary Horror updates from e-mail networks. Liberals go to their Web sites to trade their own half-truths. All this means that liberals and conservatives alike can find catered news that does not challenge their prejudices but rather reinforces them.

It's true that Democratic politicians like Tom Daschle haven't joined the conspiratorial hysteria, but that's because they're ducking controversial issues and are frightened of offending centrists. Al Gore's speech last month on the economy blasted the administration without offering a single specific suggestion of what should be done.

The venom of political discourse and this ghetto-ization of information is sadly reminiscent of European class politics. Traditionally in England, for example, conservatives found their views confirmed each morning in The Telegraph, while liberals read The Guardian for evidence of their own sagacity. Each side was convinced that the other was not just wrong but also mad and immoral.

England has reduced that polarization recently, just as the U.S. seems to be trying to replicate it.

The vitriol is bad for the country, by turning every policy fight into a zero-sum game, and it's also counterproductive. A Minnesota poll shows that nearly one-quarter of voters are less likely to vote Democratic in the Senate race because of the bitterly politicized Wellstone memorial service.

Then there's Iraq. I'm afraid that President Bush is making a historic mistake by pushing obsessively to invade that country. But it doesn't follow that he's necessarily stupid or venal.

One can disagree with the calls for war, as I do, but liberals discredit themselves when they claim that the only reasons Mr. Bush could be planning an invasion are finishing Daddy's work, helping his oil buddies or diverting voters from corporate scandals. If we're to convince Americans of the perils of invasion, it'll be by citing arguments rather than epithets.

More broadly, the tendency of liberals to underestimate Mr. Bush as a nitwit boy king helped put him in the White House. And unless liberals belatedly acknowledge that he is more than an "Idiot Usurping Lying Weasel," they will keep him there.


Posted for disscussion purposes only

New Group Aims to Drum Up Backing for Ousting Hussein
Effort Seeks to Reverse Decline in Support for Attacking Iraq

by Mr. Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 4, 2002


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2002Nov3.html


The administration is determined to avoid a repeat of August when they ceded the stage to opponents of military action in Iraq and found themselves racing to announce their case against Hussein. Cheney delivered a public indictment of Hussein at the end of August, while Bush presented a bill of particulars to the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly two weeks later.

"There's going to be a huge need in the post-election vacuum to make sure that what happened in August doesn't happen in November and December," said Randy Scheunemann, executive director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He said Capitol Hill offices have been "getting a lot of calls against and not many for." The White House declined to release its call records.

The committee is just getting started, installing telephones and computers last week to go with fresh business cards and stationery. Its mission statement calls for the replacement of Hussein with "a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations." Its methods will borrow heavily from the NATO effort, including sessions with opinion makers, contacts for journalists and mass marketing when the time is ripe.

I received about 40 calls yesterday: 90% urging the view of Mr. Patton to vote a straight Democrat (DFL, here in MN) ticket. The other 10% save 1 call urged a straight GOP vote. The 1 call urged a straight NRA endorsement.


I afraid that being what I am I shall disappoint these folks who worked so diligently. I shall DICRIMINATEat the ballot box by individual and party platform. It may be that in an actual 4T election one will have to make one's mark in an unthinking way; but that time has not yet arrived.

Mr. Coleman is running on The Future is Now which is rubbish...the future is tomorrow, today is now. The Future is an End to Discrimination; today we will still choose.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=255053

to the extent this is true it looks like a 3T election...

These are apparently Zogby's final numbers in a few selected races as posted by someone at Free Republic:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/782434/posts


Tracking headlines:

The MSNBC/Zogby International Final Results Tracking Poll tracked key elections in Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. A final results poll will be released Election night. For the final results poll, leaners are factored in and Undecideds are eliminated in key races. *Please correctly attribute any information from the following polls to their proper survey source. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas - MSNBC/Arkansas Gazette/Zogby Poll - Governor. Survey conducted of 507 likely voters statewide Nov. 2 - 4 Margin of sampling error +/- 4.5%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Mike Huckabee (Republican) 49 50 51 54

Jimmie Lou Fisher (Democrat) 37 40 40 44

Not Sure 12 10 7 -

Behind the Numbers: With Undecideds not eliminated and leaners not factored in, the race stands at: (Huckabee 50%, Fisher 41%, Undecided 8%). Huckabee leads Fisher in Little Rock (54% - 44%) and in Northwest Arkansas (62% - 37%). The two remained tied in the rest of the state (Huckabee 50%, Fisher 49%). Fisher leads among Democrats (76% - 23%) while Huckabee leads among Republicans (93% - 6%) and Independents (63% - 34%). Huckabee leads among men (58% - 41%) and among women (51% -47%).

Arkansas - MSNBC/Arkansas Gazette/Zogby Poll - Senate Survey conducted of 507 likely voters statewide Nov. 2-4, 2002 Margin of sampling error +/- 4.5%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Tim Hutchinson (Republican) 43 45 44 43

Mark Pryor (Democrat) 45 45 55 56

Not Sure 12 9 - -

Behind the Numbers: When Undecideds are not eliminated and leaners not factored in, the race stands at: (Pryor 53%, Hutchinson 41%, Undecided 5%). Pryor leads in Little Rock (56% - 43%), in the Northwest portion of the state (52% - 48%) and in the rest of the state (60% - 40%). Pryor leads among Democrats (85% - 15%) while Hutchinson leads among Republicans (93% - 7%). Pryor leads among Independents (58% - 40%) when last month Hutchinson led (49% - 39%). Pryor leads among men (55% - 45%) and women (59% - 41%). Less than a majority (40%) say that Hutchinson deserves re-election and 51% say it is time for someone new.

Pollster John Zogby: "Looks like Pryor triumphs by trouncing Hutchinson among Indpendents. Here's another case where 401k holders voted against the incumbent."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Colorado - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted Nov. 2-4 of 507 likely voters statewide. Margin of sampling error +/- 4%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Wayne Allard (Republican) 42 40 44 46

Tom Strickland (Democrat) 42 41 53 51

Rick Stanley (Libertarian) - 5 3 2

Not sure 12 13 - -

Behind the Numbers: With Undecideds not eliminated and leaners not factored in the race stands: (Strickland 49%, Allard 44%, Stanley 2% Undecided 5%). Strickland leads Allard among Denver area voters (55% - 43%) and Southeast voters (52% - 48%). Allard continues to lead Strickland among Northwest voters (52% - 46%). Strickland leads among Democrats (77% - 22%) and Independents (67% - 31%), while Allard leads among Republicans (82% - 15%). Allard leads among men (51% - 47%) while Strickland leads among women (56% - 42%). Less than half (44%) continue to say Allard deserves re-election compared to 49% who say it is time for someone new.

Pollster John Zogby: "Looks to me like Strickland will win this, though it has tightened again. Allard's re-elect numbers where never good and interestingly, while 401K-holders voted solidly Republican in 2000, the two candidates tied among this group - advantage Strickland."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Georgia - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted of 600 likely voters statewide Nov. 3-4. Margin of sampling error +/- 4%

Nov. 2 Final Results

Max Cleland (Democrat) 49 50

Saxby Chambliss(Republican) 49 48

Sandy Thomas (Libertarian) 2 1

Behind the Numbers: With Undecideds not eliminated and leaners not factored in, the race stands (Cleland 46% - Chamblinss 44%, Undecided 9%.) Cleland takes a short lead over Chambliss in Atlanta (51% - 47%) when just days ago the two were deadlocked (Cleland 49%, Chambliss 49%). The two are virtually tied among voters in the Northern part of the state (Cleland 49%, Chambliss 51%), and in the Southern part of the state (Cleland 50% - Chambliss 48%). Cleland leads among Democrats (92% - 7%), while Chambliss leads among Republicans (95% - 6%). Cleland now leads among Independents (58% - 39%) when just days ago, Chambliss led (62% - 33%). The two are tied among men (Chambliss 50%, Cleland 49%) while Cleland leads among women (52% - 47%). Less than half (45%) say Cleland deserves re-election while 48% say it is time for someone new.

Pollster John Zogby: "A big surprise because this race was on the watch list, then off, then on again. This one is truly too close to call, but more voters think it is time for someone new than feel that Cleland deserves re-election. Here's another race where 401K-holders vote against the incumbent."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted of 601 likely voters statewide Nov. 3-4. Margin of sampling error +/- 4%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Walter Mondale (Democrat) (Wellstone) 41 (Wellstone) 46 50 51

Norm Coleman (Republican) 47 37 45 45

Jim Moore (Independence) 2 6 3 2

Ray Tricomo (Green) 1 1 - 2

Not sure 8 10 - -

Behind the Numbers: When Undecideds are not eliminated and leaners are not factored in, the race stands: (Mondale 49%, Coleman 44%, Moore 2%, Tricomo 2%, Undecided 3%). Mondale and Coleman are tied among voters in Minneapolis/St. Paul (Mondale 48%, Coleman 47%) when just days ago,Mondale led Coleman (52% - 46%). Mondale leads among voters in the North (65% - 32%). Coleman leads among voters in the South (51% - 46%). The two are now tied among voters in the Central region (Mondale 45%, Coleman 45%). Mondale leads among Democrats (95% - 4%) while Coleman leads among Republicans (95% - 4%). Mondale has a slight lead among Independents (46% - 43%). Mondale now leads among men (50% - 46%) when just a few days ago Coleman led (53% - 42%). Mondale leads among women (52% - 44%).

Pollster John Zogby: "Despite the President's best efforts, looks like Mondale holds on."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Missouri - MSNBC/St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted Nov. 3-4 of 600 likely voters statewide. Margin of sampling error +/- 4%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Jean Carnahan (Democrat) 48 41 49 45

Jim Talent (Republican) 40 47 48 53

Daniel "Digger" Romano (Green) 0 0 1 1

Tamara Millay (Libertarian) 1 1 1 1

Not Sure 10 10 - -

Behind the Numbers: With Undecideds not eliminated and leaners not factored the race stands at: (Talent 50%, Carnahan 43%, Romano 1%, Millay 1%, Undecided 5%).Carnahan and Talent are now tied among St. Louis voters (Carnahan 48%, Talent 50%) when days ago Caranhan led (56% - 43%). Talent continues to lead among voters throughout the rest of the state (54% - 44%). Carnahan leads among Democrats (89% - 10%) and Talent leads among Republicans (95% - 5%), but Talent leads among Independents (54% - 39%). Carnahan leads among women (53% - 44%) while Talent continues to hold a strong lead among men (61% - 37%).

Pollster John Zogby: "Carnahan's re-elect was poor and she loses by 21 points among 401K-holders. Looks like Talent wins this one."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted Nov. 2-4 of 527 likely voters statewide. Margin of sampling error +/- 4.5%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Frank Lautenberg (Democrat) (*Torricelli)39 48 54 55

Douglas Forrester (Republican) 34 36 38 42

John "Ted" Glick (Green) 3 1 5 2

Liz Macron (Libertarian) 2 1 1 1

Not Sure 21 12 - -

*Withdrew from the campaign.

Behind the Numbers: When Undecideds are not eliminated and leaners not factored in, the race stands at: (Lautenberg 49%, Forrester 38%, Glick 2%, Macron 1%, Undecided 9%). Lautenburg leads Forrester among voters in the North (59% - 37%) and in the South (53% - 42%). Lautenburg also leads Forrester in the Central part of the state (52% - 47%). Lautenburg leads among Democrats (92% - 5%) while Forrester leads among Republicans (81% - 18%). Forrester now leads among Independents (53% - 40%) when just days ago, Lautenberg led (51% - 28%).

Pollster John Zogby: "Voters simply never found Forrester."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North Carolina - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted Nov. 2-4 of 525 likely voters statewide. Margin of sampling error +/- 4.5%

Sept. 21 Nov. 2 Final Results

Elizabeth Dole (Republican) 55 52 53

Erskine Bowles (Democrat) 32 46 43

Sean Haugh (Libertarian) 1 3 4

Not sure 11 - -

Behind the numbers: When Undecideds are not eliminated and leaners not factored in the race stands at: (Dole 46%, Bowles 39%, Haugh 4%). Dole leads Bowles in Greensboro (59% - 36%), in Charlotte (51% - 46%), and in the Western portion of the state (69% - 30%). Bowles leads among voters in the East (46% - 44%) and among voters in the Raleigh/Durham area (54% - 45%). Dole leads amongwhites (62% - 34%) while Bowles leads among African Americans (83% - 17%). Dole leads among men (59% - 35%) while Bowles leads among women (51% - 47%).

Pollster John Zogby: "A roller-coaster ride in this campaign. At one point this became a four-point race. But it looks like Dole has run the clock out as her lead grows over the last couple days."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- South Dakota - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted Nov. 3-4 of 500 likely voters statewide. Margin of sampling error +/- 4.5%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Tim Johnson (Democrat) 46 43 52 47

John Thune (Republican) 43 45 47 52

Kurt Evans (Libertarian) 2 3 1 1

Not Sure 10 10 -

Behind the Numbers: When Undecideds are not eliminated and leaners are not factored in the race stands: (Johnson 44%, Thune 48%, Evans 1%, Undecided 7%): Thune leads Johnson among voters in the West 55% - 43%) and in the Central region (54% - 45%), while the two are virtually tied in the East (Johnson 49%, Thune 50%). Johnson leads among Democrats (86% - 12%) while Thune leads among Republicans (79% - 21%). Thune leads among Independents (52% - 48%). Thune leads among men (58% - 41%), while Johnson leads among women (53% - 46%).

Pollster John Zogby: "Thune has pulled ahead by virtue of the President's last minute visit. President Bush has a 79% favorability rating in South Dakota while Tom Daschle has a 62% rating. Bottom line is more voters believe Johnson does not deserve to be re-elected. Among 401K- owners, Thune has a 52% -41% advantage."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Texas - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Governor Poll conducted Nov. 3 - 4 of 602 likely voters statewide. Margin of sampling error +/- 4%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

Rick Perry (Republican) 44 52 50 58

Tony Sanchez (Democrat) 32 30 36 38

Rahul Mahajan (Green) 1 1 1 1

Jeff Daiell (Libertarian) 4 2 1 2

Not sure 18 13 10 -

Behind the Numbers: When Undecideds are not eliminated and leaners are not factored in the race stands at: Perry 52%, Sanchez 34%, Mahajan 1%, Daiell 1%, Undecided 10%). Perry maintains his leads over voters in Dallas (50% - 47%), in the East (59% - 37%), among voters in the West (65% - 34%) and in the Central region (61% - 32%). Perry also leads among voters Houston voters (62% - 35%). Sanchez leads in the South (60% - 34%). Sanchez leads among Democrats (80% - 17%) while Perry leads among Republicans (93% - 6%). Perry now leads among Independents (56% - 36%) when days ago, the two were virtually tied (Perry 41%, Sanchez 39%). Perry continues to lead Sanchez among whites (74% - 22%) while Sanchez leads among Hispanics (59% - 35%) and African Americans (81% - 19%).

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Texas - MSNBC/Zogby Poll - Senate Poll conducted Nov. 3 - 4 of 602 likely voters statewide. Margin of sampling error +/- 4%

Sept. 21 Oct. 12 Nov. 2 Final Results

John Cornyn (Republican) 42 45 49 50

Ron Kirk (Democrat) 30 37 48 46

Roy Williams (Green) 1 3 1 1

Scott Jameson (Libertarian) 3 2 2 2

Wright 1 5 1 1

Not sure 22 13 - -

Behind the Numbers: When Undecideds are not eliminated and leaners are not factored in the race stands at: (Cornyn 46%, Kirk 42%, Williams 1%, Jameson 1%, Wright 1%, Undecided 9%). Kirk now leads Cornyn among Dallas voters (62% - 38%) when days ago Cornyn led (48% - 45%). Cornyn leads among voters in Houston (53% - 43%), in the West (65% - 33%), and in the Central region (57% - 39%). Kirk leads among voters in the South (60% - 19%). Kirk leads among Democrats (86% - 13%) while Cornyn leads among Republicans (87% - 12%). Kirk leads among Independents (45% - 41%) when last month Cornyn led (40% - 36%). Cornyn leads among whites (68% - 30%) while Kirk leads among Hispanics (58% - 27%) and African Americans (91% - 9%).

Pollster John Zogby: "Turnout is everything here. Cornyn is also helped by President Bush's 78% favorable rating in Texas and the President's last-minute campaigning. But Kirk is a hot candidate and a big push by Hispanics and African Americans could make this even tighter."

ALL PUBLISHING RIGHTS RESERVED

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I afraid that being what I am I shall disappoint these folks who worked so diligently. I shall DISCRIMINATEat the ballot box by individual and party platform. It may be that in an actual 4T election one will have to make one's mark in an unthinking way; but that time has not yet arrived.

On what basis shall you discriminate, Mr. Saari? Surely you realize that the public pronouncements of any particular candidate have only the slimmest correspondence (if even that) with the actual views and deeds of that individual. It seems to me that, if you're not going to use an objective standard such as height, weight, or hair color, you may as well just vote some particular party line (or strike at random, I suppose).

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Mr. Coleman is running on The Future is Now which is rubbish...the future is tomorrow, today is now. The Future is an End to Discrimination; today we will still choose.

Even the ploughman, and his team, know to bring the harvest in, lest winter's song be turned to mourning.

"The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved." --Jeremiah 8

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You seem to be under the impression that Bush and Limbaugh send out control programs that all conservatives echo. It just doesn't work that way. Granted, Limbaugh is a staunch partisan, and he often skips over the bad side of the GOP as he lambastes his opponents. But the fact remains that most conservatives came to approximately the same conclusions with or without him.

No, they didn't HC. I witnessed it with my own eyes through the tail end of 1999 and into the early 2000 primaries among the "conservatives" I know in real life. And, yes, I was absolutely appalled when I first encounted this because I had spent all the years previous defending "conservatives" from such charges made by "liberals." Actually, I will not go so far as to say that "liberals" were correct all those years and that dittoheads have always been simply the guy's mind-numbed robots. But with respect to George W. Bush getting first the nomination and later the selection, he owes his "success" entirely to the influence of that vile cretin on the radio...entirely.

BTW, thank you for confirming that the vile cretin did generate all this nonsense exploiting a dead man's memorial service. I cannot listen to him for more than two minutes now without getting physically ill and I only heard him mouthing off for a two minute span while spinning the dial that day. When I heard Hannity mouthing off about the same thing later that day (again, for a two minute span because I can no longer take any more than two minutes of Hannity either), probabilities suggested to me that the Flatulent Fraud had dedicated his whole show to milking that dead man's memorial service. Based upon your response, it would appear that he indeed did. That is sad, really sad.

Stonewall, as I said before, get a grip. The things you are saying here are losing touch with the cold facts. I STILL oppose the national ID card, and in my opinion the GOP is less likely to create one than the Democrats.

Well, at the moment it is your beloved Bush administration which is leading the effort and they wear an "R," not a "D." So why don't you get a grip, vote straight Democrat, and keep things as bottled up as possible?

DEMOCRATS, will you take it lying down this time?




http://www.drudgereport.com/vote1.htm

(For educ. and discussion)


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE NOV 05, 2002 09:41:08 ET XXXXX

FLORIDA VOTERS CLAIM MACHINES 'BROKEN', VOTED FOR MCBRIDE, MARKED IT AS BUSH

"I voted for McBride, but the machine counted it as Bush. It did this three times. The polling worker finally said, 'We have to reprogram this machine. Another person was having the same trouble while I was there.'"

So claimed a caller to Southern Florida's WQAM-AM and the highly-rated radio talkmatch, NEIL ROGERS SHOW.

"I pushed the screen for McBride and it marked Bush. They called over a technician, he reset it," claimed a second caller.

"I'll tell you right now, this election is fixed!" roared Rogers, who has been in the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale market for more than 25 years. "Based on a few early calls, it is going to be a wild, wild time."

"You have not seen anything yet," warned Rogers. "It's not even 10:30 in the morning. This is going to be one of the great disasters of all-time."

Comments made on the ROGERS SHOW early on Election Day 2000 foreshadowed the voting chaos that fully engulfed the state.

There is no official confirmation of the new alleged tech trick glitch as described on WQAM.

Touch-screen and other new century voting machines made their full-scale debut today.

Mid-state, problems have been reported in at least three polling locations.

Local 6 News reported that the scanners were not working at the Central Florida Gotha Precinct #101 in Orange County.

Voters were putting their ballots in a box to be hand-counted, according to the report.

The scanners also are not working at the Port St. John precinct #159 in Brevard County or at precinct #116 in Seminole County at the St. Albins Church on State Road 426, according to reports.

Developing....

Here are the latest headlines on Drudge Report:

Systematic problem statewide in Georgia confirmed: When placing vote, and touching the screen for a Republican candidate, the box is incorrectly checked for the Democrat candidate. Another similar situation is occurring when the review screen comes up and previously marked Republican votes are showing as Democrat votes... is happening in lots of different races. Officials fixing problems as they arise when made aware of them... Developing...

Ummm...does the word "debug" mean anything to these guys!? Not even M$ would release software with bugs as bad. This is beyond bad. These people really did a quarter-assed (half doesn't cut it) job with this. One should only hope that these same people do not write software for our weapons systems.

How bout the old fashioned way of fill in the circle with a number 2 pencil?

Originally Posted by justmom

How bout the old fashioned way of fill in the circle with a number 2 pencil?

I admit this is pretty overt. It would have been much simpler just to 'screw up' the tallies, rather than actually misreporting an individual's selection while they are still looking at the screen. Complete lack of hard-copy backup makes vote fraud a certainty.

Originally Posted by justmom

How bout the old fashioned way of fill in the circle with a number 2 pencil?

Wouldn't do any good. These types of tests use machines to score. If the machines are programmed by the same people who made the electronic voting machines, then the consequences will be the same.

I have a new prediction for todays election.
Pandora's Box has been opened.
We will not know the results of todays votes until justices get involved,
lawsuits get filed, ad infiniteum.
And when the dust clears, we still won't know what happened.
Sounds very start of a 4T to me.

Maxine, care to guess what Stonewall Patton would do to your latest election prediction?

(he he) NO. He has scandalized himself into irrelivancy.

Well, that was sort of a disappointment. I saw this title and the fact that itas created by S&H, and I thought this topic was a kind of "Is the 911 Attack Triggering a Fourth Turning?" type article from them. Something that would confront and discuss the question of whether the 2002 election has the qualities that make it a 4T election, the differences between elections typical of Third Turnings and those typical of Fourth Turnings, and how to tell. Like, if the nature of the 2002 election is supposed to give us a big hint as to what turning we're in, I was hoping they'd be telling us what to look at. We have some talk here about how a Democratic gain would indicate a 3T because people would want to keep a gridlocked Congress and presidency, but we haven't really heard anything from the authors themselves on this.

Maybe we can see how 3T or 4T an election this is by positive and negative numbers.

Since voters, indicative of a 3T, responded to a poll recently that they prefer to continue having Congress one party and the presidency the other, add x points if we have a net gain of x Republicans and subtract y points if we have a net gain of y Democrats.

If the House becomes more Republican as a net change, add 10 points. If it becomes more Democratic, subtract 10 points.

If the Senate gains a Republican majority (51 or more), add 5 points.

If the Senate loses Democrats but maintains a Democratic plurality (difficult to do), subtract 3 points.

If the Senate has 50 Democrats, subtract 1 point.

Add 1 point for each Independent who loses his seat, not due to retiring.

If a new Independent is actually elected to the Senate, the House or a governor's office, subtract 3 points. If MORE THAN ONE Independent wins a seat that was formrely occupied by either a Republican or a Democrat, than subtract three points for each of them.

If Mondale, in particular, wins the Minnesota race, subtract 1 point.

For each incumbent Silent who is unseated by a Boomer, add 2 points.

Subtract 3 points for every Silent incumbent who manages to beat a Boomer challenge.

If an incumbent Boomer loses his seat to a SILENT...subtract 10 points.

The presence of the G.I. Generation reflects our place in the saeculum, and public presence of G.I.'s today denotes that we are earlier rather than later in the cycle. So if any G.I. wins a race, subtract 1 point for each of them.

Compare the number of Boomers replacing Silents in the 2000 Congress to 2002 Congress replacement to that that took place in the 1998 Congress to 2000 Congress switchover. Take how many more seats were lost by Silents in the net count this election than how many were lost by Silents in the net count last time and multiply by two. Add 2 points for each Silent lost by comparison. If we actually lose fewer Silents than we did last time, subtract 5 points for each net Silent seat gained.

For example if the election one year changes the composition from
200 Silents to 180 Silents, and the election two years later changes the composition from 180 Silents to 156 Silents, we have 4 more Silents lost than last time (180 to 160 would have been the same as last time). For each of those 4, the new election would gain 2 points; therefore, we would add 8 points. If the second election actually lowers the count of Silents less than the last time, say going from 180 to 163, than we would take that 3 and multiply it by 5 (subtracting 15 points).

I do this because there WILL be some replacement of older generations by younger ones as time goes on, no matter what, but if the Silents disappear at an even faster rate than before, than that will hint at a real change in turning, not just a passing of time.

If the Silents actually GAIN in terms of their total seats in either the Senate or the House, or even among governors, subtract 20 points.

If the Silents gain a majority in the Senate, subtract 50 points.

If the Silents maintain their plurality, subtract 5 points.

If the Silents gain a generational plurality of the House of Representatives, subtract 200 points (actually, I think this is impossible).

If the voter turnout rate for all 18-to-24-year-olds in America is at least 40%, add 10 points.

If the majority of 18-to-24-year-olds vote, add 20 points.

If over 60% of them vote, add 30 points.

Finally, if any news network cancels its election coverage tonight to show you poodles in bikinis and people who have learned to flatulate every note with their armpits, subtract 1,000 points.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by The Wonk

What do all the people who complained about Wellstone's memorial service being turned into a political rally think about the current "Campaigner in Chief" putting ole Clinton to shame with his intense recent political campaigning? On our tax dollars?

He hasn't even come close to matching Clinton, Jenny.

I should clarify, I'm talking about more than just the number of stops he's made for a given election cycle, or the like. Bush did indeed outdo Clinton's numbers in that way.

Originally Posted by voltronx

Well, that was sort of a disappointment. I saw this title and the fact that itas created by S&H, and I thought this topic was a kind of "Is the 911 Attack Triggering a Fourth Turning?" type article from them. Something that would confront and discuss the question of whether the 2002 election has the qualities that make it a 4T election, the differences between elections typical of Third Turnings and those typical of Fourth Turnings, and how to tell.

BREAKING NEWS This just in, from the Fourth Turning Blog!

For the very latest on "Is Election 2002 a Fourth Turning?", we go now to Messers Strauss and Howe: What, Messers Strauss and Howe, have you to say about Election 2002?

Originally Posted by Messers Strauss and Howe

Hummm.... Interesting. We now...zzzzzz... return you...zzzzzz... to you regularly scheduled... zzzzzzz... nothing. :wink:

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Why are Republicans so smarmy?

Why do liberals indulge in vague, meaningless generalizations?

Originally Posted by justmom

How bout the old fashioned way of fill in the circle with a number 2 pencil?

That is my preference, actually. I think that for electoral purposes, we should be moving away from electronics, not toward more technology. Almost all the proposed 'improvements' in voting methods, from touch screen polling systems to Internet voting, are nearly certain to reduce both the accuracy of the count, and the honesty.

To answer the question is election 2002 a fourth turning election, my answer is most definitely no and here is my reason why.

This congressional election reminds me very much of the last federal election in Australia a year ago. Basically in a time when really urgent issues which would benefit the more left leading parties (Labor party in Australia and Democrats in the USA). Before the election campaign in Australia two major companies had collapsed one of the two major airlines Ansett and HIH a major insurance company.

The main reason why Ansett collapsed because the federal government had not approved a takeover of troubled Ansett Company by Singapore Airlines, there was a good reason that the federal government was in the pay of Ansett competitor Qantas. In the HIH collapse the government knew months in advance that the company was in serious trouble, however decided not to act mainly because HIH is a major contributor to Liberal Party funds.

However the Labor party dismially failed to capitalize on the influence of corporations on the government.

Also in Australia the Right leaning political party had capitalized on the issue of national security. Before the election federal election there was thousands of illegal immigrants washing up on our shores from Indonesia (they had originally came from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan).

The federal government took very tough action to curb this movement of illegal immigrants citing that it was a national security concern. Since these measures were very popular (like the Bush tax cuts and the plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein) the ALP decided to support the government in these measures because it feared losing big time.

When Election Day came the result was a small increase in the Liberal party?s majority the status quo changed little in spite of that result. When the opinion polls in the months before had shown a defeat for the Liberal party. Labor party supporters fed-up with the Labor party?s me-tooism decided to defect and vote for the Greens, in the United States mid-term election dischanted Democrats decided to stay home on that day.

At least in my eyes the 2002 mid-term elections are just another Unraveling election campaign. I really do doubt the United States had entered a Fourth Turning, it may not enter a fourth turning until 2004 at the earliest.

On a another related topic the latest results I have been reading is that the Republicans will maintain a narrow control on the House and regain narrow control of the Senate, practically the same result as 2000 election, weird.

It seems that the major TV networks, CNN and Fox news are reporting that the Republicans may not only hold on to their seats in Congress but may actually gain more seats and possibly control both houses of Congress.

This is disturbing to me, but what I find even more disturbing is the fact that most of the Democrats running for office in this election refused to stand for anything of principle, but rather sold themselves out for votes. The events of the last year could have been a watershed for both parties to set a new course in American politics and show some vision. Instead, we get the same old partisan mudslinging and personal attacks. The Democrats in general have really disappointed me because they refused to articulate a vision for our future, especially Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, et al, who just go right along with the Republican agenda because they think it will win them votes in the next election. Meanwhile, the corporatists charge full-steam ahead in dismantling our individual freedoms all in the name of profit, and the Democrats line up to kiss their backsides.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Originally Posted by justmom

How bout the old fashioned way of fill in the circle with a number 2 pencil?

Wouldn't do any good. These types of tests use machines to score. If the machines are programmed by the same people who made the electronic voting machines, then the consequences will be the same.

I would prefer to use _humans_ to count the votes, myself, using precisely the circle and pencil method. We're already facing days of lawsuits after major elections (or we did in E2K and it's looking like we will in E2002), so what if it takes days to count the vote manually? This is one area where more technology is almost certainly the wrong approach.