Saturday, November 11, 2006

Rainy Day Writers



No soccer today. It rained over night (an inch), and the local Park & Rec brass, worried about damage to their fields, refused to let any games go forward. There were a bunch of frustrated boys and coaches today, because the weather was lovely, clear and crisp fall weather, dry and sunny, perfect socer weather.

The families with kids on the team who grew up overseas, playing soccer in Britain, Germany, parts of South America, etc., can't quite believe the nature of such things here in California. We treat weather, when it appears, as a surprise, a departure from the norm. Really, last night's rain was a rather heavy fog. No reason to panic. No reason to cancel games.

In fact, the kids (and the parents) needed a game so much they went and played an informal game anyway. Who won?

The kids, of course.

***

On those 45 miles south to San Jose this morning, I was listening to the Beach Boys. This is my "upper" music, counter-balancing my usual staple of the blues.

Somebody called, and I punched the music off. When I turned it back on, with one eye on the road ahead, I was suddenly listening to the radio ("Car Talk") and learning a few things about how automobiles operate. This is something of a sore spot with me. Growing up in Michigan in an extended working class immigrant family of auto workers who *all* knew more than I did about how an engine works is a familiar place to me.

As my best friend Howard did his journalism in Detroit, the combination of cops and drug dealers and double agents managed to do him in, and he was kidnapped in his own car by an informant who used Howard's own gun (from his glove apartment) to try and shoot him.

Ah, yes. Reality. It has been so much uglier than the stories we want to tell ourselves. And few of the real stories turned out to have any sort of happy ending...After all, they were not crafted in Hollywood.

-30-

Friday, November 10, 2006

Weekending

First: Overheard today in Silicon Valley: "I always put 25% of my investments into the high-risk category," said the first man. "I know what you mean," said his companion. "I put 33% of mine in high-risk."



Second: It's time to get ready for the weekend. Plans include a sleepover for four boys tonight.

Tomorrow, my little redheaded, freckle-faced Norman Rockwellesque 12-year-old plays with his team in the championship game.

He can be a fierce competitor in these games. He loves being on this team. It is filled with friends, including kids he's played soccer with for six years.

They are very well coached, and know each other so well that they play as a unit, moving down the field in an orange wave.

Although there are teams with older, bigger kids in their league, they have usually been able to hold their own.

That they are in the championship again, I believe for the third straight year, is remarkable.



They always seem to peak for the playoffs. They got beaten badly a few weeks back, but in the first two rounds of the playoffs, they've been superb.



Anyway, you can tell I'm excited, anticipating this contest tomorrow afternoon, even though it is supposed to rain.






(All photos courtesy of Richard Lawler)

***

Third, in the morning, I'll drive to San Jose State University to participate in a conference held by the Asian American Journalists Association and SJSU on narrative journalism. Here are the links to the articles I'll be discussing, none of which are unknown to regular readers of this blog:

Everything's Broken

This is my reaction to what I saw in Biloxi last Thanksgiving. It's one year old!

Wenner's World

Something strange is going on with this article in Salon's archive. I have heard for years how much Wenner hates my piece. The first thing he said when he became an investor in Salon was that he wanted them to pull the piece down from the Internet.

Salon resisted initially, but perhaps Jann is finally getting his way. I notice that the name of the article has been changed recently to "Jann's World;" whereas when we published it, the title was "Wenner's World." This may be an attempt to lower the article's "score" on Google's crawlers, and thereby eventually demote it from its traditional place at the very top of Google's results page.

Furthermore, inside Salon's archive, the article is no longer listed at all, whether you search under "Jann," "Wenner," "Jann's World," or "Wenner's World." The original headline and graphic still appear in the archive of Salon's "Brilliant Careers" section, but the link is the only one on that list that doesn't work?

Coincidence, all this? I note that Wenner has also created a photo link about himself that now is first on Google. Plus he has purchased paid links in the right-column sponsored links area of Google's resultys page.

All of this amuses me. Jann could never buy me off, but could it be that his money gives him a bit more clout at Google and at Salon? Stay tuned. If I notice further attempts to bury this article, I'll start to make a lot more noise about this matter!

In the moment of truth

The third article is straight from this blog, a very personal story, but one of the best, I believe, I've been able to write here so far. Thanks to my dear friend Julie Patel for the invitation to participate.

***


Finally, please sign up for the Weekend Sherpa newsletter (free email) if you live in the Bay Area or are interested in visiting here. It's the best weekend guide around. Track down TODO Monthly the next time you're in the back of a cab or in the hippest coffee houses in town...

-30-

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Nobody knows you...

...when you're down and out.

My ex-girlfriend used to make fun of me when I turned up the volume on this song, but self-pity is not one of my main vices. I've been around long enough, up high enough and down low enough, to have noticed the patterns in who turns up and who doesn't at the key tipping points in life.

I haven't written about her in a while, but tonight, for whatever set of reasons, she came back into my mind. Maybe because I proposed to her, but she rejected me.

I am going through my second divorce these days, and no matter how you cut it, the divorce process sucks, as a life experience.

You can't help thinking back to how you met that person, courted her, fell for her, imagined all kinds of beautiful futures with her, and then experienced the public ceremony (I may not be religious, but the words "I do" mean a lot to me) before your friends and family.

My parents were alive then, and they were very much there, in the front row of the non-secular church we chose for our marriage ceremony.

It was a hot August day in San Francisco, August 23rd, 1992. My first divorce had become final three months before. Those three months were the only time in my entire adult life, so far, that I was technically "single," though I was so much involved with my second wife-to-be that I was hardly a bachelor in the accepted sense, and I had no bachelor party.

In any event, the day we married was one of the happiest days of my life, as was the day, May 3rd, 1969, of my first marriage.

***

All of those memories have faded now. I try never to look backward, and re-experience the moments of hopeful happiness and deep love for another person that has led me to my present predicament -- father of six, partner of no one, alone, aging, with plenty of regrets but stubbornly (and probably idiotically) hopeful that there will once again be love in my future.

That brings me back to my ex-girlfriend, the person whose departure from my life precipitated this blog, with all its subsequent permutations. Shall I tell you why I fell in love with her? Does it really matter any more?

In recent weeks and months, she has chosen to separate herself completely from me. She never, ever contacts me anymore, and I suppose she never will. I realized this past weekend, as I drove past the building where her best friend lives, that if she had come back to San Francisco, I probably wouldn't even know, because she wouldn't tell me.

Her choice, for her own reasons, is to abandon me, to cut off all communication, even though she must know that is the one true way to drive a stake through my heart, and leave me bleeding, emotionally, on the ground.

A pattern in my life, as a good friend pointed out to me earlier tonight, is to be way too "nice" to other people. Maybe they fall for the illusion the world (not me) has created around a man who looks, talks, and presents himself as I do. Maybe they think I can handle these hurts.

Nobody -- nobody! -- knows you when you've been sliced into little thin pieces like a freshly quartered cucumber. Nobody has enough time or a big enough heart to help you piece yourself back together, because we all lead busy lives, complicated lives. And by my age, especially as a man, I should be able to handle this on my own, right?

Guess what: I can't do that without help.

p.s. Not to worry: After the rain, the sun will shine. There is plenty of sunshine in my world. And, once this divorce is final, I intend to find a partner who can love me, regardless of my worldly circumstances.
-30-

If this is Wonderland, where's Alice?

The election numbers I published yesterday remain valid. It is now broadly recognized that the Democrats have won control of the Senate, 51-49. Since Lieberman is technically an Independent, the actual numbers are 50-49-1. So he actually now emerges as a potential power broker between the parties. He was elected due to Republican support -- and despite the fact his Democratic colleagues in the Senate campaigned against him -- but says he will conference with the Democrats. If by some reason he changed his mind, however, and joined the GOP, Dick Cheney would take control the Senate. No one expects this, but it is worth mentioning as one of the central ironies emerging from this election. In the House, the final number will probably be Dems 232 and GOP 203.


***

It has been observed that in this post-modern world it may be our fate to become isolated, lonely, disoriented, and disconnected. We're drowning in the early floods of the Information Age, surrounded by wild bursts of new data about virtually everything. It's understandable that, as the biological creatures we are, we often seem to be unable to evolve fast enough to keep up with the pace of technological changes.

Therefore, we seek comfort wherever we can find it.

For many, solace is found in religion. There is nothing quite like a set of cohesive beliefs that can be reduced to mantras repeated over and over -- Allah Akhbar, Praise be to the Lord, Ommm -- to quell our disquiet. I've never been blessed as much (in English) as when I visited Biloxi after Hurricane Katrina; but it also was routine for people to mention me to Allah when I worked in Afghanistan in my early 20s.

Outside of this opiate for the masses, many choose to self-medicate. On one of my other blogs, Sidewalk Images , I publish photos of the cast-off remnants of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes on our streets all the time.

As for other sources of comfort, there's sex. I'll leave that alone for now.

For a small but loud group, there's politics. They are much on display this week.

For a large but quieter group, there's work. The workday routine treats many a case of "referred pain."

In journalism, when we talk about how to improve our media services, we often speak about "addicting" our audiences. So, we are upfront about that. What we hope to do, on behalf of our companies, is to persuade large groups of people to build us into their daily routine. One of the tools we have is the news cycle, which constantly churns out new headlines for us to exploit.

Another tool is the daily columnist. People turn to Maureen Dowd or William Safire (or their radio equivalents) out of habit. People tune into Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh by habit.

There are good habits and bad habits. The role of an honorable journalist is to try and create for you some good daily information consumption habits.

Someone asked me whether I blogged repeatedly throughout election day and night for a reason. I said yes, my goal was to provide those who didn't want to watch the election on TV with an alternative source of information. In the Internet Age, one person has access to enough information in real time to do pretty much everything the old-fashioned television networks still try to do.

If were more talented at html and UI design, I could also provide many bells and whistles. But instead, I just told it straight; my only tool was a calculator. On the other hand, I spent that entire election alone (except for a brief period from 7:30-9:30 p.m.) when I put the kids to bed, so my ex-spouse could go to a celebration party for the victors.

So, I'm one of those disconnected, lonely, isolated discontents you hear about. Just another political junkie indulging his habits behind closed doors; then displaying the results in electronic text messages that can be accessed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

There's some comfort in this, naturally. For that brief moment of simulated contact with the outside world -- that instant when I push "publish" and shoot these thoughts out there, I'm a bit less disoriented, and I feel ever so slightly less lonely.

Then, my own reality sets in again...

-30-

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

"Final" Results.1

SENATE

Democrats 51
Republicans 49

HOUSE

Democrats 231
Republicans 201
Undecided 3


Afternoon Update: Only one undecided Senate seat (Virginia) and ten undecided House seats (6 leaning GOP, 1 leaning Dem, 3 too close to call) remain open. Nothing has happened to change the numbers above. They remain solid.

The first casualty of the election in the administration is Rumsfeld, who was fired by Bush today.




***

Note: These numbers are based on which candidate is ahead in the two disputed Senate races and 10 of the 13 disputed House races. The Democrats should win both the Virginia and Montana Senate seats, unless Karl Rove pulls off one of his dirty trick specials, which remains a possibility, especially in Virginia.

All but 3 of those undecided House contests will, according to my calculations, go to the clear leader, which in seven cases is a Republican, and in three a Democrat. There are three cases where the candidates are effectively tied.

***

What does this all mean? In addition to winning control of both houses of Congress, the Democrats hold between 28-30 state governor seats now. They also benefited from at least one surprise upset, as Democrat Jerry McNerny ousted controversial GOP incumbent Richard Pombo. This is a major victory for environmentalists.

On the other hand, Proposition 87, which would have created a tax on oil companies to fund alternative energy projects, was defeated. This, despite Bill Clinton and Al Gore's strong support and in-state campaigning.

Big environmental propositions usually go down to defeat in California when voters think they are poorly written and too all encompassing. My guess is that the initiative's authors will have to go back to the drawing board to craft a more palatable proposition, and then build broader support before bringing this critical issue back to the ballot.

On the other hand, with a faux Democrat Governor firmly at the helm, and Democrats in total control of the state legislature, it's possible that the state itself may make some new moves in the direction of alternative energy that do not require raising taxes, but redirecting state expenditures for vehicle purchases, travel policies, and energy-efficient facility regulations.

--More TK --

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Democrats Ascendant.1

Well, I now get to revisit my earlier predictions, as the math now dictates a 50-50 outcome in the Senate. Don't get me wrong, all the votes have not yet been counted, but I make it my business to point my calculator to the demographics of the uncounted votes, not the tallies that appear on your TV screen. The bigger cities have not yet been counted in some races, and unless some hanky-panky prevails, the split will be 50-50.

In the House, Pelosi has claimed victory, and the final totals will probably be slightly greater than my predictions, which were 230-205 in favor of the Democrats. I can't yet calculate the actual outcome, however, but it may well be more like 235-200.

Meanwhile, it is pretty clear that both parties will be running a black candidate and a female candidate on their tickets in 2008. You heard it here, the tickets will be:

GOP: McCain-Rice
Dems: Clinton-Obama

-30-

A Democratic Wave is Forming.1

I posted earlier today that I would watch a number of East Coast contests in order to draw my initial conclusions. The Democrats appear to have a net +3 in the Senate. Of the eight seats that now look to be decided, seven have been won by Democrats and one by an Independent who will vote with them. There are 8 more races in play, and the new math of the Senate effectively comes out at this moment 47-45 for the GOP. The key still will be the races in Virginia, Missouri, Montana, and Arizona. Since, as I anticipated, Webb is losing to Allen in Virginia, (although don't write him off yet, as the northern counties haven't fully been counted yet); the three western states may determine tonight's outcome. It now looks like the Democrats may pull out control of the Senate, but it's clear that the balance of power will come down to something like 50-49-1, with the "1" an Independent (Joe Lieberman) promising to vote with the Democrats.

***

In the House, results are moving more slowly, but my key indicator races are leaning Democratic as well. They've only picked up maybe 3-4 seats so far, and the Republicans 1. With almost 20% of the House seats still in play (or in states where the polls are still open), neither party is saying anything publicly yet. But the trends are blue. Here, I fully expect that Nancy Pelosi, on our ballot here in my precinct on Bryant Street, will claim the Speaker of the House gavel come January.

***

Among the high-profile losers are the moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and conservatives like Rick Santorum (Pa.).

Important Indirect Indicators:

The stock market moved sharply upward today.

The "futures" markets in political candidates favor Democrats.

No Democratic incumbents are losing anywhere. Some GOP incumbents, however, are losing...

Current Numbers:

Senate
Race Democratic Republican Other Winner Precincts Updated

CT-SEN Lamont (D): 41% Schlesinger (R): 10% Lieberman (CFL): 48% Ind 3% 09:17 pm EST
FL-SEN Nelson (D): 57% Harris (R): 41% n/a Dem 16% 09:23 pm EST
MD-SEN Cardin (D): 41% Steele (R): 57% n/a Dem 0% 09:24 pm EST

NJ-SEN Menendez (D): 52% Kean (R): 46% n/a Dem 25% 09:20 pm EST
OH-SEN Brown (D): 56% DeWine (R): 44% n/a Dem 2% 09:17 pm EST
PA-SEN Casey (D): 66% Santorum (R): 34% n/a Dem 7% 09:21 pm EST

TN-SEN Ford (D): 46% Corker (R): 53% n/a n/a 17% 09:19 pm EST
VA-SEN Webb (D): 48% Allen (R): 50% n/a n/a 74% 09:14 pm EST
VT-SEN Sanders (I): 64% Tarrant (R): 33% n/a Dem 15% 09:25 pm EST

More Exit Poll data + FIRST REAL RESULTS

The polls have closed in some of the Eastern states. Accordingly, media are now reporting some interesting attitude research from today's exit polls.

Early national exit polls showed that 62 percent of voters said that national issues made the biggest difference with their decisions this year, compared with only 33 percent who identified local issues.

In a key metric indicating a possible Democratic surge, 42 percent of voters identified corruption an extremely important issue in their voting decisions -- more than terrorism (40 percent), the economy (39 percent) and the war in Iraq (37 percent).

The relatively low number citing the Iraq War as the deciding factor could be a positive harbinger for Republican candidates.

Nationally, however, 57 percent of voters said they disapproved of the war in Iraq, while only 41 percent approved.

A whopping 62 percent said they approved of the way Congress is handling its job, while just 36 percent said they did. This indicates a likely Democratic sweep in the House.

The exit polls -- by a consortium of broadcast networks and The Associated Press -- were conducted on Tuesday morning and afternoon long before polls were to close in the West. Interestingly, one in ten voters said they made their minds up on election day!



RAW NUMBERS JUST IN:



Race Democratic Republican Other Winner Precincts Updated
SENATE
VA-SEN Webb: 42% Allen: 57% n/a n/a 0.94% 07:23 pm EST

HOUSE
FL-09 Busansky: 46.8% Bilirakis: 53.2% n/a 0% 07:16 pm EST

IN-02 Donnelly: 50% Chocola: 50% n/a n/a 5% 07:19 pm EST
IN-03 Hayhurst: 46% Souder: 54% n/a n/a 1% 07:13 pm EST
IN-07 Carson: 46% Dickerson: 54% n/a n/a 28% 07:14 pm EST
IN-08 Ellsworth: 70% Hostettler: 30% n/a n/a 14% 07:19 pm EST
IN-09 Hill: 50% Sodrel: 47% N/A n/a 4% 07:26 pm EST

KY-02 Weaver: 47.41% Lewis: 52.59% n/a n/a 3+% 07:18 pm EST
KY-03 Yarmuth: 50% Northup: 49% n/a n/a 64% 07:23 pm EST
KY-04 Lucas: 40% Davis: 57% N/A n/a 1% 07:11 pm EST

VA-02 Kellam: 36% Drake: 64% n/a n/a .65% 07:24 pm EST

More TK --

Updates: early numbers

This year, as it turns out, there are few leaks of exit poll data, so far. So the best I can do is give you some raw numbers, without much context or interpretation:

In the hottest Senate races, here is what is happening, according to exit poll data that is emerging here and there in the media:


SENATE EXIT POLLS AS OF 5:30 EST:
The Democrats are leading in 8 key races:
Virginia (D52-R47)
Rhode Island (D53-R46)
Pennsylvania (D57-R42)
Ohio (D57-R43)
New Jersey (D52-R45)
Montana (D53-R46)
Missouri (D50-R48)
Maryland (D53-R46)…

The Republican candidates are leading in 2 races:
Tennessee (R51-D48)
Arizona (R50-D46)

All of this data needs to be read with a great deal of caution, based on the past few election cycles. That's because Democrats in general seem to poll higher in exit polls than they do once the final votes are counted (*).

Nevertheless, the media consortium that owns the exit polling system has tried to tighten up its weaknesses, supposedly. Therefore, these may be more predictive this time around. (Ask me around midnight PST.)

With all caveats on the table, I will say these early exit poll trends suggest the Democrats may have a better chance at winning control of the Senate than I predicted earlier today.

I'll try to post Housse data oncee I can gather it and evaluate it.

One other note: There appear to be delays, and possibly polling problems in many states again this year, including both Florida and Ohio.

Deja Vu all over again?

***

Here, BTW, is what the Republican Party suggests about interpreting exit poll data:


BEWARE OF EXIT POLLS

Biased And Inaccurate Predictions Have Led To Poor
GOP Exit Poll Showings In Past Three National Elections
_______________________________________


FAST FACTS ON EXIT POLLING

* Election Experts Believe Exit Polls Give An Edge And Sway Towards Democrat Candidates.

* National Exit Polls Will Skew In Favor Of Democrats This Year, Due To Large Numbers Of Uncontested Democrat Seats In The House Of Representatives.

* Early Exit Polling Returns In 2004 Were Widely Inaccurate, Declaring Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) To Be The Next President Of The United States And Republicans Barely Holding A One Seat Majority In The U.S. Senate.

* In The 2002 Midterm Elections, Exit Polling Produced Unusable Data.

* In 2000, Exit Polling Malfunctioned And Incorrectly Projecting Vice President Al Gore As The Winner Of The Crucial Battleground State Of Florida.

EXIT POLLS TRADITIONALLY HAVE A DEMOCRAT BIAS

Exit Polls Give Democrats An Edge:

Exit Polling Always Tends To "Give An Edge To Democratic Candidates." President of Mitofsky International, Warren Mitofsky: "Mitofsky said exit polls have always tended to give an edge to Democratic candidates ..." (John Cook, "Early Exit Polls Overstated Kerry Results, Media Group Says," Chicago Tribune, 1/20/05)

* "[Mitofsky] Said That For Reasons That Remain Unclear, Democratic Voters Are More Likely Than Republicans To Agree To Interview Requests From Pollsters." (John Cook, "Early Exit Polls Overstated Kerry Results, Media Group Says," Chicago Tribune, 1/20/05)

Democrats More Likely Than Republicans To Respond To Exit Polls:

October 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll Found Democrats Were More Likely To Respond To Exit Polls Than Republicans.

* 72% Of Democrats Responded They Were Very Or Somewhat Likely To Fill Out Questionnaire, Compared To 66% Of Republicans. (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 10/26/06)

* 44% Of Democrats Claimed They Were Very Likely To Fill Out Exit Poll Survey, Compared To 35% Of Republicans. (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 10/26/06)

* Democrats (37%-10%) And Republicans (25%-18%) Agreed That Democrats Are More Likely To Share How They Voted With A Pollster They Do Not Know. (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 10/26/06)

In 2006, Exit Polls Skew In Favor Of Democrats, Due To Large Numbers Of Uncontested Seats In The House:

In 2006, There Are Over 40 Uncontested Democrat Seats And 10 Uncontested GOP Seats, Which Will Overstate National Democrat House Vote In Exit Polling. (National Journal Website, www.nationaljournal.com, Accessed 11/6/06)

* In 2004, There Were 39 Uncontested Republican Seats, Compared To 30 Uncontested Democrat Seats. (National Journal Website, www.nationaljournal.com, Accessed 11/6/06)

* In 2002, There Were 45 Uncontested Republican Seats, Compared To 36 Uncontested Democrat Seats. (National Journal Website, www.nationaljournal.com, Accessed 11/6/06)

IN 2004, EXIT POLLING PREDICTED OVERWHELMING DEMOCRAT VICTORIES

In 2004, Exit Polls "Got All Of The Bush States Wrong" - Predictions Were "Most Skewed" Since Exit Polling Began:

Exit Polls Showed Across-The-Board Failure. "[T]he networks did get the exit polls wrong. Not just one of them. They got all of the Bush states wrong." (Dick Morris, "Those Faulty Exit Polls Were Sabotage," The Hill, 11/4/04)

* "It Was Dej? Vu All Over Again With Major Embarrassment For Exit Pollsters Since It Was Clear That They Way Underestimated Bush's Support In States Like Virginia That The President Won Handily Once The Real Vote Came In." (Deborah Orin et. al., "Voters Choose Double Dubya," New York Post, 11/3/04)

USA Today: "In fact, the 2004 numbers were the most skewed since joint exit polling began in the 1980s." (Editorial, "Exit Polls' Cloud Crystal Ball," USA Today, 1/20/05)

* The [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer: "Add in poor weather, data programming errors and other technical glitches, and the end product, calculated to give major news operations an inside glimmer as to which way the vote was going, instead produced the most inaccurate information in the past five presidential elections." (Editorial, "The Pollsters Were Pole-Axed," The [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 1/23/05)

* San Francisco Chronicle: "If exit polls have a role at all, they need to be staged carefully and handled with caution. Along with improved methods, the report [by firms who came up with flawed 2004 exit polls] suggested that no numbers be released to news organizations until near the end of Election Day. That's the least poll-takers can do." (Editorial, "Exit-Poll Errors," San Francisco Chronicle, 1/21/05)

In 2004, National Election Pool (NEP) Incorrectly Projected Victories For Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):

"ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox, And NBC ... Created The National Election Pool To Provide Tabulated Vote Counts And Exit Poll Surveys ... These Six Major News Organization, In A Joint Decision ... Appointed Edison Media Research And Mitofsky International As The Sole Provider Of Exit Polls ..." (Exit-Poll.net Website, http://www.exit-poll.net/, Accessed 10/24/06)

"In The 32 States With Exit Poll Estimates For Both A Presidential Race And A Senate Race The Average Error On The Difference Between The Top Two Candidates Was 5.0 Points In The Democratic Direction For President And 3.6 Points In The Democratic Direction For Senate." (Edison Media Research And Mitofsky International, "Evaluation Of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 For The National Election Pool," 1/19/05, p. 20)

* Iowa: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 1% - President Bush Carried Iowa By .7%;
* Nevada: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 1.4% - President Bush Carried Nevada By 2.6%;
* New Mexico: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 4.2%- President Bush Carried New Mexico By .8%;
* Ohio: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 6.5% - President Bush Carried By 2.1%;
* Virginia: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 0.5% - President Bush Carried Virginia By 8.2%. (Edison Media Research And Mitofsky International, "Evaluation Of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 For The National Election Pool," 1/19/05, p. 21-22)

NEP's Exit Poll Projections Underestimated President Bush's Support In Several Key States:

* Minnesota: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 14.3% -- Sen. Kerry Won By 3.5%;
* New Hampshire: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 15% -- Sen. Kerry Won By 1.4%;
* North Carolina: NEP Projected President Bush Winning By 3.6% -- President Bush Won By 12.4%;
* Pennsylvania: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 13.8% -- Sen. Kerry Won By 2.3%;
* Wisconsin: NEP Projected Sen. Kerry Winning By 5.7% -- Sen. Kerry Won By .4%. (Edison Media Research And Mitofsky International, "Evaluation Of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 For The National Election Pool," 1/19/05, p. 21-22)

NEP's Exit Poll Projections Had Republicans Winning Only 51 Senate Seats Instead Of 55 Seats They Hold Now:

* Alaska: NEP Projected Former Gov. Tony Knowles (D-AK) Senate Victory; Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Won;
* Florida: NEP Projected Dem Betty Castor (D-FL) Senate Victory; Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) Won;
* Kentucky: NEP Projected Dem Dan Mongiardo (D-KY) Senate Victory; Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) Won;
* North Carolina: NEP Projected Dem Erskine Bowles (D-NC) Senate Victory; Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) Won. (Edison Media Research And Mitofsky International, "Evaluation Of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 For The National Election Pool," 1/19/05, p. 23)

Political Professionals Agree 2004 Highlighted Exit Polling's Failures:

Zogby International's John Zogby: "I'm not sure that I will ever believe an exit poll again ... How could they have been so way off? They were worse than virtually every pre-election poll." (John Cook, "Early Exit Polls Overstated Kerry Results, Media Group Says," Chicago Tribune, 1/20/05)

* Zogby: "The sum total of what we got today is enough to suggest that there should never be exit polls again." (Donald Lambro, "Polling Firms Blame Youth, Leaks For Errors," The Washington Times, 1/20/05)

The Washington Post's Director Of Polling Richard Morin: "[T]he 2004 election may have finally stripped exit polling of its reputation as the crown jewel of political surveys, somehow immune from the myriad problems that affect telephone polls and other types of public opinion surveys." (Richard Morin, Op-Ed, "Surveying The Damage," The Washington Post, 11/21/04)

* Morin: "Instead, this face-to-face, catch-the-voters-on-the-way-out poll has been revealed for what it is: just another poll, with all the problems and imperfections endemic to the craft." (Richard Morin, Op-Ed, "Surveying The Damage," The Washington Post, 11/21/04)

President Of Mason-Dixon Polling Firm Brad Corker: "Exit Polls Are Often Wrong". "[B]rad Coker, president of the Mason-Dixon polling firm that called Bush's 2.5-percentage-point win in Ohio practically right on the nose for The Plain Dealer, says ... exit polls are often wrong." (Ted Diadiun, "Rest Assured, We Checked Out Election 2004 Thoroughly," The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 6/18/06)

"Herb Asher, An Ohio State University Political Scientist, Said Election Results Don't Necessarily Reflect Exit Polls." (John Nolan, "Forty Voters Want November Election Results Thrown Out," The Associated Press, 12/14/04)

* Asher: "We all know that exit polls can be wrong. Exit polls are basically a sample." (John Nolan, "Forty Voters Want November Election Results Thrown Out," The Associated Press, 12/14/04)

CNN's Bill Schneider: "The lesson here is put not your faith in exit polls ... particularly if the exit poll is close ... Exit polls are designed for analysis. ... They are not very good ..." (William Douglas, "Turnout: The Early Exit Polls Mostly Wrong," Detroit Free Press, 11/4/04)

Then-CNN Anchor Judy Woodruff: "People want to jump on (exit polls) because they are the first little sliver, little shred of evidence ... It's dangerous to seize on those numbers and assume anything - and yet that's what happened." (Michelle Mittelstadt, "Exit Poll Group Assailed For Erroneous Early Results," The Dallas Morning News, 11/4/04)

Pollster Andrew Kohut: "[D]oing [exit polls] on the fly has led us astray." (Michelle Mittelstadt, "Exit Poll Group Assailed For Erroneous Early Results," The Dallas Morning News, 11/4/04)

EXIT POLLS WERE ALSO WIDELY INACCURATE IN 2002 AND 2000 ELECTIONS

FLASHBACK FACT: In 2002 Midterms, Exit Polls Were Scrapped Due To Inaccuracy:

VNS Consortium Scrapped 2002 National Exit Polls Because It Could Not Guarantee Accuracy. "Voter News Service abandoned its state and national exit poll plans for Election Night, saying it could not guarantee the accuracy of the analysis which media organizations use to help explain why people voted as they did." ("VNS Abandons National Exit Poll Operation, A Setback For Revamped Elections System," The Associated Press, 11/6/02)

* "The Exit Poll Failure Was A Major Setback For VNS - A Consortium Consisting Of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox And The AP. VNS Had Completely Rebuilt Its System In Response To The 2000 Election, When Television Networks Twice Used Its Information To Make Wrong Calls In The Decisive Florida Vote For The Presidential Election." ("VNS Abandons National Exit Poll Operation, A Setback For Revamped Elections System," The Associated Press, 11/6/02)

* Zogby International's John Zogby: "The early [2002] exit-poll data was awful. ... And it came with the caveat that it was unreliable. Can you imagine a doctor saying that about a diagnosis? What a mess!" (Beth Gillin, "Media Organizations Discuss What Went Wrong With Exit-Poll Service," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/7/02)

FLASHBACK FACT: In 2000 Presidential Campaign, Exit Polls Were Badly Flawed In Critical State Of Florida:

In 2000, Exit Polls Were Badly Flawed In Critical State Of Florida. "[S]ome bad assumptions led Voter News Service, the television network exit poll consortium, to make and then retract two dramatic election-night predictions on the winner of the presidential race in Florida." (Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, "Why The Fla. Exit Polls Were Wrong," The Washington Post, 11/8/00)

* Networks Blame Incorrect Projections On Erroneous Exit Polling. "[The networks] concluded the problems were largely due to bad information supplied by Voter News Service, an exit poll consortium run by television networks and Associated Press." (Elizabeth Jensen and Megan Garvey, "TV Election Gaffes Called Statistical, Not Political," Los Angeles Times, 2/9/01)

o CBS' Director Of Surveys Kathy Frankovic: "In the Tampa area, the exit poll results from the [sample] precincts turned out to be more Democratic than the vote turned out to be." (Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, "Why The Fla. Exit Polls Were Wrong," The Washington Post, 11/8/00)

Experts Lament Exit Polling's "Poor" Predictions In 2000. "Paul Biemer, a statistician hired to review the VNS methodology, reported that 49 percent of those surveyed leaving the polls declined to respond. In the parlance of his trade, Mr. Biemer said 'a non-response rate of this magnitude is a potential source of statistical bias in the model projections ...' In other words, exit polls are poor predictors." (Jules Witcover, Op-Ed, "Voters Don't Need Instant TV Results," The [Baltimore, MD] Sun, 2/16/01)

Faulty Media Reports In 2000 Impacted Florida Panhandle And Congressional Races:

"About 7:50 P.M. EST Tuesday, Less Than An Hour After Most Of The Polls Closed In Florida, Both CBS And NBC Declared Mr. Gore The Winner In That State, A Decision Based Largely Upon Exit Polls Conducted By Voter News Service. Fox News, CNN And ABC Followed Within Minutes." (John Godfrey, "Tauzin Plans Hearings On Gaffe," The Washington Times, 11/10/00)

* "A Survey Conducted By John McLaughlin & Associates Found That The Early And Incorrect News Network Announcements Declaring Al Gore The Winner In Florida May Have Influenced Thousands Of Last-Minute Voters In The Central Time Zone Section Of The Florida Panhandle Not To Vote. The Premature Announcement Discouraged Many Registered Voters Who, According To [The] Survey's Results, Would Have Voted Like The Rest Of Their Neighbors - Overwhelmingly For George W. Bush." (McLaughlin & Associates Website, "Panhandle Poll Summary," www.mclaughlinonline.com, Press Release, 11/20/00)







A Product Of The RNC Research Department


--More TK --

David's Predictions

*Three important polls all showed a significant tightening of the battle between the two parties for control of the House and the Senate. After reviewing these polls, it looks to me that, nationally, what once was a ~15 point edge for the Democrats has shrunk to ~5 points. This is the normal trend in national elections, where negative advertising and get-out-the-vote blitzes by the trailing party energize its base by election day.

*On the other hand, these late trends are usually "too little, too late," and that certainly appears to be the case this year when it comes to the movement of the electorate toward the GOP, at least in the House of Representatives.

*Pundits are speculating that the Democrats could pick up many more seats than the 15 they need to wrest back control of the House. Looking at the tightest races east to west, we should be able get a sense early tonight of how large the Democratic victory will be from the races in New York, Florida (for Republican sex- scandal-ridden Mark Foley's seat), Connecticut and Pennsylvania.)

*My view is that the Democrats will pick up 20 seats, and Nancy Pelosi will become the first female Speaker of the House in American history. Moderate members in both parties (assuming any remain in the GOP, after tonight) will still be able to influence policy.

*In the Senate races, the last-minute trends spell bad news for Democrats. I now think that Webb (in Virginia vs. Allen) and Ford (in Tennessee vs. Corker) are likely to lose. If both do, and if the Democrats lose Menendez's seat in New Jersey, their hopes are ended. On the other hand, if they win two of those three, three races out west (in Montana, Missouri and Arizona) may be the determining contests.

*I now feel the GOP will hold on to the Senate, either by 51-49 or 50-50 (with Dick Cheney by law then able to cast the tiebreaker vote.)

*None of this reflects my experience that every election night contains at least one big surprise. Naturally, I have no guess yet what that will be tonight...


Links to Polls

Pew: Democrats Hold 47%-43% Lead Among Likely Voters

Gallup/USAT: Democrats' leads shrinking but still strong

The non-profit organization Public Agenda has provided a handy guide to how to understood polls, called 20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results .


More soon...

-30-

Vote!

If you're like me, you took all those thick voting guides and sample ballots to work yesterday. Your intention was to study them during the day, because you were going out last night. But you were too busy...meetings all day at work, leaving just enough time to stop by Safeway and buy that fruit tart and get to your friends' 15 minutes late.

Later on, trying to park near your house was an ordeal. PG&E has moved into your neighborhood, and as everyone knows, once they arrive, it will be years before they are done with whatever it is they purportedly are doing. Therefore, it will be years before you can again easily find a parking place, unless, of course, you drive a Mini.

Meanwhile, later still last night, as you collapse across your bed and remember that tomorrow is the election, you look around frantically for those election materials...which sit, untouched and unread, on your desk at work many, many miles away.

Well, I can't help you figure out who or what to vote for, but I can help you find out where your polling place is. Because, if you live in a neighborhood like mine, polling places are always moving. Not to fret: Help is just as click away at
411.org.

Good luck!

Monday, November 06, 2006

Election Watch

If you want to get a sense of what is developing tomorrow in the U.S. midterm elections, you can tune in here, as you cruise around the Internet. I'll do my best to monitor the sources and sites I have come to trust, including those that have access to exit poll data.

However, unlike 2004, I am not going to pass on exit poll data uncritically. I think one big lesson we political junkies learned from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections is that either the supposedly empirical data we had (Gore won in 2000, and Kerry won in 2004) was wrong, or there was some hanky-panky that made what people said after they voted somehow irrelevant.

Historians will have to sort all of this crap out, long after the likes of you and I are gone, but if tomorrow the Republicans succeed in holding on to their majorities in the House and the Senate, you can be sure that something is terribly wrong in this country.

According to the best data I've examined, and after awarding the entire margin of error to the GOP in every contested race, my predictions of a few days ago that the Democrats will control the House (230-205) and the Senate (51-49) remain solid. In fact, after reviewing all the latest polls, I think my predictions understate the likely margin of victory for Democrats, but I'm not changing my numbers, because I don't want to mislead you, my loyal readers.

Yet, if you are at all familiar with the strange world of statistics, you know that the polls can be wrong in one direction or another some of the time; and that the polls can be wrong in all directions some of the time; but that all of the polls can never be wrong in all directions all of the time.

I think Abraham Lincoln said that. Or maybe Bob Dylan.

What's at stake in this country tomorrow is the core belief of our citizens in the democratic process. That's a much bigger issue that which party wins the majority of seats. If I might give voice to the hopes of my countrymen and women, it is "Let our votes matter. Let the count be honest."

The rich, the powerful, the self-entitled may feel otherwise. If so, the next stage of political action will be decidedly less to their liking. (Note that, Karl Rove.)

***

The best pre-election piece I have read is this one: Michael Schwartz's article. In case the link does not work, I'll copy this article below:

The Couch Potato's Guide to Election Night

By Michael Schwartz, Tomdispatch.com. Posted November 6, 2006.

This election's success will be measured not only by the number of seats won. Here are some other issues to ponder.


If you have a political bone in your body -- even if you're usually a cynic about elections -- you're undoubtedly holding your breath right now. With the 2006 midterm elections upon us, the question is: Will the Democrats recapture at least the House of Representatives and maybe even take the Senate by the narrowest of margins?

There is very little agreement about what might happen if a change in Congressional control takes place. The Bush administration, of course, has trumpeted the direst of warnings, predicting (in sometimes veiled ways) nothing less than the demise of the country. Less apocalyptic predictions include an expectation among 70 percent of potential voters (as reported in the latest New York Times poll) that "American troops would be taken out of Iraq more swiftly under a Democratic Congress." The more cynical among us hope for at least a few challenging congressional investigations of administration activities at home and abroad.

So we will go into Tuesday looking for that tell-tale count that will indicate a Democratic gain of 15 or more seats in the House; and -- a much bigger if -- six seats in the Senate. We probably face a long night sorting out so many disparate races -- and our traditional counters, the TV networks, won't even begin their task until the polls close on the East coast. So we could face a long day's journey into night, if we don't have some other "benchmarks" -- to use a newly favored administration word -- and issues to ponder.

Before the Polls Close

Voter turnout is crucial: The networks have grown skilled at predicting elections using exit polls and they begin collecting their numbers first thing in the morning. Even for close races, they often have a very good idea what will happen by early afternoon. They are, however, sworn to secrecy until those polls close, because early forecasts of results have, in the past, affected voter turnout later in the day.

But they are willing to reveal one very important fact during daytime newscasts: voter turnout, which is generally the determining factor in close races. Here's why.

By the time Election Day arrives, just about every voter has made up his or her mind about whom to vote for. Even for that vaunted category, independent voters (who, so many experts are convinced, will determine this election), less than 15 percent were undecided a week before the election. True enough, those who hadn't by then made up their minds are expected to be splitting two-to-one for the Democrats even as you read this, thereby making some previously secure Republican seats competitive. But by Election Day itself, the handful of independent "undecideds" that remain will not be enough to tip the close races one way or the other, no matter what they do.

The determining factor in winning those "too close to call" seats is: How many already committed voters actually go to the polls. Traditionally, in a midterm election as many as two-thirds of a candidate's supporters may stay home, so whoever moves the most people from the couch to the polling booth will win.

And this year there is real intrigue about which party can get its supporters to the polls. Since the 1990s, the GOP has been hands-down better at this. Leaving aside the question of fraud for the moment, most observers believe this "get out the vote" effort was critical in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004. But this year may be different.

GOP superiority has been based on two factors -- a much better on-the-ground organization and far greater enthusiasm among the rank and file. Such enthusiasm means potential voters are more likely to brave cold weather or long lines to vote; and it also means more volunteers to encourage people to get out and, in some cases, to transport them to the polls.

The Democrats have been working since 2004 to build up their on-the-ground organizations in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Because Bush is so unpopular and the GOP obviously so vulnerable, opinion polls tell us that there is tremendous electoral enthusiasm among Democratic rank and file -- and concomitant gloom and disillusionment on the Republican side.

So check the news early for turnout reports from key areas. Look for whether turnout is higher this year in Democratic urban strongholds, and lower in GOP suburban or rural ones. This will tell you a lot about each party's congressional (and gubernatorial) possibilities.

What about fraud? In 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio, fraud made a world of difference in close contests. As early as noon on Tuesday, you should begin to get a sense of how much of a problem fraud will be this time around.

Many people are terrified that the new electronic voting machines will be the means to falsify vote totals (as was apparently done in Ohio in 2004) and so steal elections -- especially with no paper trails available for recounts. However, the biggest threat is old-fashioned indeed: legal and illegal methods that block eligible voters from voting.

Two examples will illustrate how this can be done. In the 2000 election, Republicans in Florida disenfranchised over 10,000 voters, by purging names from the voting lists that happened to match the names of convicted felons. When these voters showed up at the polls, they were simply declared ineligible; and, by the time they took their case to court, George W. Bush was already president. (The excluded voters were largely African American and would have voted overwhelmingly in the Democratic column.)

In Ohio in 2004, election officials simply did not provide enough voting machines in predominantly Democratic areas, so many potential voters waited all day in endless lines without ever getting the chance to vote, while others grew discouraged and left. There seems little doubt that the excluded voters would have tipped the state to Kerry -- and this act of voter suppression wasn't even illegal.

This year, GOP state officials in as many as a dozen states have already made good use of the legal system to exclude otherwise eligible voters. They have, for instance, passed laws that will disqualify people who think they are eligible to vote. One common way to do this is by requiring a state-issued picture ID (a driver's license), which many old and poor people (guaranteed to fall heavily into the Democratic column) do not have. These potential voters will simply be turned away and, by the time anyone can register a meaningful complaint, the election will be a fait accompli. Watch especially for complaints in the following states that have passed such laws (or similar ones to the same end): Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

But Ohio will probably be the worst, since Republican officials there have developed an ingenious electoral "purging" system. State-appointed officials are allowed (but not required) to eliminate people from the voting rolls for a variety of minute irregularities -- without notifying them. This year, only strongly Democratic districts had their rolls purged, while strongly GOP districts, not surprisingly, went untouched. On Election Day, many voters, possibly hundreds of thousands statewide, are going to show up at the Ohio polls and be told they are not eligible.

So start looking for news reports early in the day reflecting the following symptomatic problems: (1) voting sites with tremendous long lines because there aren't enough machines to accommodate all the voters; (2) people in enough numbers to catch reportorial eyes who claim that they have been declared ineligible on appearing at the polls. Expect virtually all affected people to be Democratic.

Election Night

Contested races: Of the 14 contested Senate seats, the Democrats currently hold six (Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Washington State) and are favored in all of them except Connecticut, where Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the defeated Democrat, is leading as an independent. If Lieberman beats Ned Lamont, but then caucuses with the Democrats (not exactly a given, despite his promises), then in addition to holding those six, they have to win six of the eight GOP races.

Right now the Democrats seem likely to win three of these -- Pennsylvania (ousting the odious Rick Santorum), Ohio (barring massive disfranchisement and fraud) and Rhode Island (replacing the most liberal Republican in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee). The latest polls indicate that they are behind (but not out of it) in Tennessee (see below) and Arizona (where incumbent Jon Kyl is leading shopping-center magnate Jim Peterson). Their best chances to get those crucial three more seats are Virginia (where incumbent George Allen has given away the lead with verbal gaffs), Missouri (where Michael J. Fox and a statewide referendum on stem-cell research may put underdog challenger Claire McCaskill over the top), and -- most surprising of all ---Montana (where the Abramoff scandal has given challenger Jon Testor a slight lead).

Among the approximately 60 house seats now generally agreed to fall into the category of "contested," all but six are currently held by Republicans. The Democrats need just 33 of these, a little over half, to claim the House. It's obvious why so many people are predicting that the Democrats will win.

Three states to watch: New York (at least 5 contested seats) may be a real bellwether, since the results will come in early. All five of them are upstate Republican, and if even three go to the Democrats that could mean a genuine sweep to come (barring massive fraud elsewhere) - as well as being a signal of the emergence of a "solid (Democratic) North" that might in the future help offset the solid (Republican) South.

Ohio (5 contested seats) is at least as interesting, because polls show at least three of the four contested races, all with Republican incumbents, to be really close -- and so especially sensitive to fraud. If all of them go GOP, this might be a strong signal of success for the various Republican voter-suppression schemes in the state -- and for fraud in the rest of the country. If the Dems win at least two, it will probably be a long night for the GOP.

And then, keep an eye on Indiana. There are three GOP House seats up for grabs in districts that were supposed to be Republican shoo-ins. Miraculously, Democrats are leading in all three, and the lead is approaching double digits in one of them (the 2nd district). If one or two of these actually go Democratic, you're seeing a small miracle, a tiny sign of tidal change in the electorate -- and the good thing is, the polls close early in Indiana, so what happens there could be a bellwether of change. But take note that Indiana passed "the strictest voter identification law" in the country; so watch out as well for frustrated Democratic voters turned away at the polls and a GOP sweep of these seats.

Three elections to watch, for very different reasons: First, keep a close eye on the Tennessee Senate race. African American Congressman Harold Ford, the Democratic candidate, was essentially written off early in a generally blood red state -- until, that is, he caught up and even pushed ahead in some polls. Now, he is slipping back a bit and probably won't win (in the 10 polls since October 20, he is, on average, lagging by about 3 percent). But even if he loses, the margin by which he goes down will be an interesting indicator of the national mood. It seems that white southerners have this habit of telling opinion pollsters and exit poll workers that they favor a Black candidate, even though they vote for the white opponent. This peculiar racial trait has resulted in Black candidates losing big in "close" races. So if Harold Ford stays within 5 percent of his opponent, businessman Bob Corker, it may indicate that white electoral prejudice in the South is waning (or that anger over the President and his war in Iraq simply trumps all this year).

Second, make sure to keep an eye out for the results of the anti-abortion referendum in South Dakota. This is a draconian measure making virtually all abortion illegal. It is meant as a full-frontal challenge of Roe v. Wade, offering the new Bush Supreme Court a future chance to weigh in on the subject. The latest poll suggests that it is losing, 52 percent to 42 percent, with only 6 percent undecided.

Third, Connecticut is fascinating because Joe Lieberman, defeated by anti-war Democrat challenger Ned Lamont in the primary election, is leading as an independent. He says he will caucus with the Democrats, but we should have our doubts. If the final tally in the Senate, for instance, is 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans, think what his vote would mean and what kind of horse-trading might then go on. After all, the GOP could then retain the ability to organize the Senate and appoint committee heads as long as he voted with them and the Vice President cast the deciding vote to break any 50-50 ties. The pressure would be incredible and so would the temptation for honest Joe to take a GOP dive. Remember, he's already shown himself more loyal to his own career than to the Democratic Party through his refusal to accept defeat in the primary. If things are close, this is a story that will eat up media time in the days to come.

The Morning After

What do the Democrats stand for? But what if, as some pollsters, pundits, and even Republican prognosticators are suggesting, those New York seats go Democratic, along with moderate Republican ones in Connecticut and previously red-meat Republican ones in states like Indiana? What if the Democrats win by 20-35 seats or more, as some are suggesting, decisively gaining control in the House?

From the opinion polls, we already know that most Democratic voters this time around will see the taking of the House, or all of Congress, as a mandate to begin a draw-down of American troops in Iraq and to bring the American part of that war to an end in some undefined but rather speedy fashion. As it happens, however, Democratic leaders do not see it this way. Their strategy has been to "lay low" and let anger towards Bush sweep them into office.

An indicator that voters know the Democrats ran on a non-platform is the fact that independent voters favor them in polling by two-to-one margins mainly because they are incensed with the President and the GOP. As the Washington Post put it:

"Independent voters may strongly favor Democrats, but their vote appears motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party. About half of those independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the Republican candidate rather than to affirmatively support the Democratic candidate. Just 22 percent of independents voting for Democrats are doing so 'very enthusiastically.'"

A Democratic victory, if it actually occurs, will be a statement by independent (and other) voters that they disapprove of Bush administration policy on a wide range of issues, not an ideological tilt in support of the Democrats. But then how could it be? Today's Democrats essentially stand for nothing. They are the not-GOP Party.

Will a Democratic victory mean a "mandate" for change? Do the Democrats need to avoid political positions? Those of us who are actively hostile to the Bush administration tend to excuse the absence of a Democratic program as a necessary ploy to win the election. Laying low and not being too "left wing" are, the common wisdom goes, the keys to winning independents -- and thus the election. Many of us expect that the Democrats, once in control of all or part of Congress, will see themselves as having a mandate from the people to be much more liberal than their campaigns have suggested. This, I suspect, is an illusion -- and this cynicism is, unfortunately, supported by our recent political history.

Remember, as a start, that Bill Clinton's 1992 election was based on a similar "anti-Republican" appeal. Yet, once in office he proved himself to be a "modern Democrat" by, for instance, advancing the GOP agenda in eliminating much of the welfare system, adopting a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, and abandoning a national health plan. Then, of course, came the Republican "revolution" of 1994, which really did drastically alter policy. The GOP made an explicit and vociferous break with the failing policies of the Democrats, began the most serious drive of our times to rollback history to the days before Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and never flinched from taking strong stands.

Since that year, the Democrats have found themselves increasingly locked out of power, while the GOP has finally inherited the mantle of the established party with the failing policies. Instead of riding back to power on a dramatic set of alternative policies as the GOP did, however, the Democrats -- like Clinton -- are mimicking parts of the GOP platform, while arguing that the Bush administration administered it in an inept, extreme, and corrupt way.

This strategy may indeed get them elected if the Karl Rove system of political governance finally comes apart at the seams, but it won't work to generate the changes in policy that so many of us desire. Instead, we can expect Democratic leaders, suddenly invested with the power of the subpoena (but probably little else), to investigate past Republican sins while attempting to prove that they can, indeed, pursue a less overtly offensive Republican program more honestly and efficiently than the Bush administration has. Just as the Democratic leadership has promised, they will probably continue to support fighting the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more "effectively." They are also likely to continue the essence of Bush tax policy (more cuts, just not as favorable to the very rich), and to serve money to the Pentagon more or less on demand, but not to domestic "reconstruction" programs.

Could the Democrats win in 2008 on the basis of actual differences in policy? Only if they tried to win over the American people (including independents) to a genuinely different platform. On the Iraq War alone, look at how close ex-Marine Paul Hackett came to winning a 60 percent Republican congressional district in Ohio back in 2004 on a simple platform of withdrawal from Iraq.

Or look at the actual attitudes held by independents. According to a typical recent poll, only a third believe the war is "worth fighting"; three quarters think the country is "headed in the wrong direction"; only 37 percent approve of the job Bush is doing. Doesn't this suggest that such voters might indeed be receptive to ideas that dramatically challenge Bush administration policies?

But, let's face it, even if such a strategy could win, the Democratic leadership will not follow the path laid out by the GOP from the 1970s through the 1990s as they toppled an entrenched Democratic establishment. They may want to win on Tuesday, but what they don't want is a mandate to lead Americans in a new direction. In the end, they prefer to hang in there as the not-GOP Party, pick up old-hat and me-too policies, and hope for the best.

What's at Stake in This Election

As in 2004, there is no mystery about what the voters think when it comes to this election: It is a referendum on Bush administration policies in which unhappiness over the war comes first, second, and third. And this is why, no matter what the Democrats do afterwards, the 2006 midterm elections whose results we will all be anxiously watching on Tuesday are so important. If the Democrats prevail, however narrowly, against a world of massively gerrymandered seats, Republican finances, blitzes of dirty ads, the presidential "bully pulpit," and well-planned campaigns of voter suppression, American -- as well as world public opinion -- will interpret it as a repudiation of Bush administration war policy. And this will become a mandate for those who oppose these policies to speak and act ever more forcefully. With or without Democratic Party leadership, this added momentum might even make a difference.

Michael Schwartz is Professor of Sociology and Faculty Director of the College of Global Studies at Stony Brook State University. For years he was part of the polling world, measuring attitudes and attempting to predict the political, economic, and social behavior of Americans. His current work, which has appeared frequently on Tomdispatch.com, is focused on the equally problematic goal of understanding the war in Iraq. His email address is ms42@optonline.net.

Digg!


Michael Schwartz is a professor of sociology and faculty director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University.

AlterNet Home »

One click away...

Some residual dust from Burning Man still clings to my car, despite regular trips through the automatic car wash these past few months. I get a tiny thrill every time I feel the conveyor belt moving my vehicle (and me) into the vortex of soap, water, rubber and whirling dervishes. We get soaked, slapped, sprayed, rubbed, coated and uncoated -- all to the sound of the Beach Boys (today's track), or whatever CD the kids have left in the slot.


My distrust of strange technologies is so deep-seated that I always expect something to go wrong, like the conveyor belt suddenly freezing right in the middle of the operation, so that me and my car get pummeled repeatedly, with no end in sight. I wonder how long this might go on before somebody noticed and extracted us from the nightmare. But, so far, that has not occurred. My car is cleaner (just the pixie dust remains), and I have one more piece of empirical evidence in favor of technology.

This matters because for the past decade I have been one of the many beneficiaries of new technologies. This very platform for blogging didn't exist ten years ago. There was as yet no Google AdSense, let alone Google. It can be easy to forget how rapidly these forces have engulfed us, much like the auto-washing unit engulfed my vehicle this morning.

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle contains an excellent summary of Web 2.0 by one of the paper's best reporters, Dan Fost.

An index to the package of five stories by Dan can be found at:

Link to headlines , but I'll also list them below.


What exactly does Web 2.0 mean? Well...
Dan Fost, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/05/06
Like it or not, the name Web 2.0 has stuck. But the defining term behind the latest Internet boom has different meanings to different people. And some have even tried changing the name. Newsweek, in a cover story, referred to it as the Live Web. Nobody...
DIGITAL UTOPIA - Web 2.0 words -- from ajax to wiki
Dan Fost, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/05/06
Ajax: A programming platform that enables Web sites to work more interactively because features can load one at a time. It lets Web sites have the power and feel of a desktop software program, rather than a slow-loading Internet application. The ability to...
DIGITAL UTOPIA - A new breed of technologists envisions a democratic world improved by the Internet
Dan Fost, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/05/06
Behind the random silliness of YouTube videos and the juvenile frivolity of MySpace Web sites lies a powerful idea: Everyday people are using technology to gain control of the media and change the world. At least that's what a new breed of Internet...
The people who populate Web 2.0
Dan Fost, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/05/06
Some of the key people in the Digital Utopian and Web 2.0 movements. Where possible, the list includes links to their blogs. Chris Anderson, Wired magazine editor who published a seminal piece in Wired in 2004, "The Long Tail," that showed how the Web is...
Key Web 2.0 sites
Dan Fost, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/05/06
Blogger: A site owned by Google that makes it easy to start and maintain a blog. Competitors include Typepad, from San Francisco's Six Apart, and the open source WordPress. The key site for searching blogs is San Francisco's Technorati. www.blogger.com...

***

It is understandable if to most people this just sounds like a lot of the same old hype that accompanied the first Web boom. But it would be a mistake to write it off as the excessive rhetoric of enthusiasts. The changes we are experiencing all over the Internet right now amount to a second revolutionary wave of change.

Think back to your pre-Internet days. You used to have to pay for phone calls. You had to buy stamps and mail letters to friends and relatives. You had to ship documents back and forth across the country or across the oceans, and wait days or weeks for a reply.

Life back then now appears to have been in slow motion.

All of these functions, plus so many more, now lie merely one click away. Ask not for whom the mouse clicks...it clicks for you.

-30-

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Sunday Morning Coming Down*

One of the best parts of being a parent comes later on, when your kids are grown, and they come home for a visit. Luckily, for me, I live in a desirable location, from my kids' point of view. Though it's nothing special, my apartment can accommodate quite a few people at a time.

Last night, my oldest son, who is 25 and a first-year PhD candidate in neuroscience at Cal Tech, showed up with a bunch of friends. I fed them appetizers and then out on the town they went. After I went to sleep, I heard them come back in groups. It seemed like some came in at around 2, some at 4, and maybe a straggler or two at 6 a.m.

By 8, as I got up to gather my Sunday morning newspapers, I started counting people. Two guys sleeping in the living room. A girl up early doing her (incredibly complex) schoolwork.

As I started making coffee and getting out other foods for breakfast, the remaining kids started emerging from the other bedroom. A guy. Another guy. A girl. Hmmm. Now we are up to seven, with no sign yet of my son.

As I sliced papaya, washed grapes, and got out cereals, oatmeal, tea, milk, juices, pomegranates, apples, grapefruit, wheat toast, cinnamon toast, margarine and jam, I happened to glance out the kitchen window.

So, that's where he ended up: In a sleeping bag on the back porch. He didn't have other options because he was the last one to get home from the clubs. (That's my boy!)

Luckily, after our recent rains, last night marked a return of Indian summer. It was hot enough that I left windows open and had my fan going. It's the kind of night two of my ex-girlfriends would have slept naked, though, come to think of it, that was their preference no matter what the temperature.

I would worry about how cold the bed would feel on their skin when they crawled in, so I made it my habit to lie on their side, and warm the sheets up, before they got in next to me. Like most men, I'm like a power plant -- I exude heat.

But in cold weather, when I sleep alone, I often get cold too. Thus, I'm grateful when one of my little kids wakes up and decides to troop over to Dad's room, and snuggles in next to me. They seem to be sleep walking when they do this. They don't say anything, and within seconds of hitting the bed they are breathing regularly with the rhythms of sleep.

The past few nights have featured a fullish moon, and my dreams have been disturbingly realistic. That's probably why I heard the kids coming home all night, because I was restless, frequently waking from strange dreams.

In these dreams, the main disconcerting factor was it never was clear which woman I was with. Various combinations of former partners, strangers, and recent acquaintances all seemed to be by my side. I, or the character most like me in these vivid dreams, truly felt confused. He didn't know whether he should feel guilty about the couplings he was experiencing, or grateful.

In any event, if real life were as filled with episodes of loving as dream-life, I'd probably have 30 children by now, not only six.

***

Once Peter made his appearance this morning, I cooked eggs and sausages, tomatoes, onions, garlic and spices for the crowd. Conversation was lively. These are the brightest of the bright, and I love the way their minds work. They were heavy on variables, formulae, and regression analyses compared to most groups of twenty-somethings, but their political insights were acute and their values, collectively, humanistic and kind.

Sometimes I wonder how we can produce so many wonderful young people, with terrific brains and a balanced set of drives that sends them to the top of their fields without turning them into arrogant, selfish power-mongers, and still end up with a society such as this one.

I had lunch with an old friend who is one the best traveled people I know. He’s been all over the world many times. He noted how small the U.S. has become in the eyes of the rest of the world -- small in the sense of significance, even though most Americans apparently believe they sit at the center of the universe.

Over a quarter century ago, our book "Circle of Poison," sponsored by the Center for Investigative Reporting, showed how U.S. companies exported hazardous technologies to the Third World, where regulations were relatively weak.

Today, in an age of globalization, the irony is that Japanese and European countries are dumping hazardous goods here, because our regulations have been weakened by successive waves of regulatory "reform" and the privatization of health and environmental protections.

No longer is the U.S. any kind of world leader in this regard.

That's why, whatever the outcome of Tuesday’s elections, unless we get leadership from people who recognize how backward this society is becoming in the eyes of the rest of the world, we will be doomed to an increasingly isolated position -- a sort of Wild West, where anything goes, and other, more sophisticated cultures sell us hazardous goods we are simply too lazy or undisciplined to reject at our borders.

Some chickens do come home to roost. Bad things that go around do come around. Irony is alive and well in this global community, though Americans apparently may be the last to know...

* Johnny Cash

p.s. I love that song. And I can recall a specific Sunday morning in London town where this song spoke to me, as only music can, straight to my lonely existential heart...
-30-

What Tuesday Will Bring


We can now offer you a sneak peek at the projected results of the national elections on the day after tomorrow. Our special, "make the future transparent" technology allows us to calculate the probable outcomes within a margin of error of 5 seats either way in the House of Representatives, and 2 seats in the Senate.

The Democrats will control the House, and Nancy Pelosi will become the first woman Speaker of the House in U.S. history. (Pelosi represents San Francisco, for those of you living in Kazakhstan.)

Control of the Senate is too close to call.

First, this just in.

Alaska (1) and Hawaii (2), sadly, have decided to secede from the nation out of anger at having no more representatives than they do senators.

Whatever. Now, as you can see from the computer-generated map above, the results of the election now appear to be a complete Democratic sweep of the country, although they may lose an "O" in Colorado or an "S" in Mississippi. So our projected outcome has the Democrats holding the Senate 96-0 and the House, 430-2.

The good news for Republicans is that they will win Canada and Mexico, where a last-minute, get-out-the-vote effort with Karl Rove's name written all over it is succeeding beyond anyone's expectations. (The outwitted Dems didn't even realize those seats were up for grabs.)

So the final outcome, after the presidential executive order annexing Canada & Mexico in exchange for granting Alaska & Hawaii their freedom is an amazingly close victory for George W. Bush's party.

New Senate
GOP 97
Dems 96

New House
GOP 431
Dems 430

Angry Democrats will feel ripped off, of course, but what can you expect from a party that never even bought into the New Math?



Graham Nash and Jackson Browne will cluelessly lead the election night blues party singing their signature "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Yesterday," a virtual Democratic anthem.

***

Not to get serious, but here is my actual projection:

House
Democrats 225
GOP 210

Senate
Dems 51
GOP 49

-30-