Daily Kos

SUBSCRIBE! (or exclude from AdBlock)

If you use ad blocking software while viewing Daily Kos, you're getting all the benefits of our site but we're not getting any of the advertisement revenue associated with your visits. This site relies on ad revenue for daily operations: a decrease in the number of ads seen means a decrease in the funding available to run the site, to pay those that work on it, and to create improved site features.

We won't stop you from using ad blocking software, but if you do use it we ask you to support Daily Kos another way: by purchasing a site subscription. A subscription is an inexpensive way to support the site that eliminates the advertisements without using ad blocking software.

Revenue generated from the subscriptions goes to the Daily Kos fellowship program, providing a steady income for bloggers and allowing them to concentrate full time on expanding the reach and influence of the netroots through a variety of projects.

By using ad blocking software, you may be hiding the site ads but you're also reducing the site's primary source of revenue. So if you must use one, please do your part to support the site and the people that bring it to you by purchasing a site subscription today.

To exclude Daily Kos from Adblock Plus, in Firefox click Tools > Adblock Plus > click on Add Filter, and copy/paste @@http://*dailykos.com/* to the field, then click Add Filter at the bottom of the window, then OK.


Open thread for night owls: Fraudclosure

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 09:00:48 PM PDT

As the foreclosure scandal has unfolded, the pretzel dance of explanations by the banking industry would be almost hilarious were the potential damage to rank-and-file Americans not so disastrous. Just worth a tongue-click and a head-shake if this were an anomaly rather than yet another in a series of multi-hundreds-of-billions of dollars of dodgy and outright fraudulent banker dealings. The rip-offs have contributed mightily to the economic mess we're in today, a mess in which the gain of a few thousand new jobs a month is considered a victory. Our economic situation is not just the consequence of the worst recession since the 1930s, but rather of decades of regulatory failure and policy initiatives that seem designed to let the crooks get away with it. Fraudclosure is just the latest eruption.

"No big deal" would probably be their claim had not bank PR departments been trained to deliver sophisticated obfuscations like problem foreclosures are due to technicalities, and there aren't even very many of them. Another hint of how very much a big deal this is - amid a plethora of such hints over the past few weeks - can be found in Sunday's New York Daily News under the byline of Robert Gearty:

Thousands of foreclosures across the city are in question because paperwork used to justify the seizure of homes is riddled with flaws, a Daily News probe has found.

Banks have suspended some 4,450 foreclosures in all five boroughs because of paperwork problems like missing and inaccurate documents, dubious signatures and banks trying to foreclose on mortgages they don't even own. ...

Some banks also pursue foreclosures even after delinquent homeowners have sold the houses and paid off the mortgages.

Yves Smith comments:

The population of the US is roughly 308 million. If the rate of problems with foreclosures in the US is the same as in New York, that suggest that 163,000 foreclosures underway NOW have significant documentation problems, and some of them indicated in the article (foreclosing on people who have discharged the mortgage, lack of clear ownership of the note) are not mere “paperwork” problems, but point to more serious failings.

Note also that at least some judges are not persuaded by the banks’ breezy assurances that all is now well.

Keep in mind that this quick calculation applies to foreclosures now underway. The cumulative number is clearly vastly greater.

Vastly greater.  How big a deal is that?

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2008:

You heard the story -- it was all over the right-wing blogs. Some poor white girl, 20-year-old Ashley Todd of Texas, was mugged at an ATM, but when the mugger (a big black guy) saw her car with the McCain sticker, he beat her and carved a letter "B" in her face with a knife. Apparently it was a dyslexic mugger because the "B" was carved backward, but whatever -- it proved that Obama's supporters were violent and craaazy! ...

The story was instantly suspect, as the pictures of her supposed beating, her Twitter account, and her timelines all patently contradicted themselves. But the wingnutosphere, with the healthy assist from Fox News, piled on anyway, letting their ideological blinders get in the way of reality. As usual.

And now they look like idiots. As usual.

As for Ms. Ashley Todd, being a liar and race-baiter is par for the course for College Republicans.


Open Thread and Diary Rescue

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 08:16:04 PM PDT

This evening's Rescue Rangers are vcmvo2, jlms qkw, mem from somerville, YatPundit, grog, and srkp23. Special mentions to grog and mem from somerville.

Why We Vote, GOTV, GOTFV, and Fund Campaigns:

Politics and Policy

Real Life

In a double-hit Sunday, jotter rounds up both Week's High Impact Diaries: October 16-22, 2010 and the yesterday's High Impact Diaries: October 23, 2010.

Continuing the double-hit theme, asimbagirl shares both clever comments and great food in Top Comments: Quiche-like Edition.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread. Please play nice and be good people.

Election Diary Rescue 2010 (10/24 - Nine Days 'til Election Day)

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 07:46:04 PM PDT

   This Rescue Diary covers the period from 6 PM, Saturday, 10/23 to 6:00 PM EDT, Sunday, 10/24

Today's Menu Includes :
45 Diaries Overall

- 10 On House races

- Covering 9 individual Districts in 8 states

- 11 On Senate races

- Representing 7 different states

- 10 On Various election races and ballot issues

- Encompassing Governor, Secretary of State, Local, and more

- 14 General election-related diaries

   

And be sure to follow the Election Diary Rescue on Twitter

Open Thread

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 06:20:02 PM PDT

Jabber your jibber.

The final goal

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 06:16:21 PM PDT

Goal ThermometerBy Friday, all campaigns will have made their final advertising purchase of the 2010 cycle. If you contribute to candidates on Orange to Blue, then Act Blue will wire the money to the campaigns you contributed to the next morning.

So, in order for your donation to be used by campaigns for something other than paying off debt, you need to contribute by Thursday, at the absolute latest. There are now less than 100 hours for you to make a contribution to defeat the tea party, save the Democratic majorities in Congress, and protect progressive champions.

This is, quite literally, it. Please, contribute $5, $10, or whatever you can give to Orange to Blue candidates now.

Here is the situation with the polls:

--Republicans are favored to win the House, but Democrats are not out yet. Expect at least two dozen campaigns to be decided by less than 10,000 votes.

--Democrats are favored to win the Senate, but seven campaigns are within 3% or less. The outcome could be anywhere from a 51-49 Republican majority, to a 56-44 Democratic majority.

--While there has been a lot of talk of an enthusiasm gap, Democrats are performing well in early voting, with no enthusiasm gap showing at this point in time.

Quite a bit is yet to be decided, and your contributions will make a difference. Please, contribute to Orange to Blue candidates now.

Your contributions go to candidates who are up against some of the craziest frakking Republicans we have ever seen: Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, and Christine O’Donnell. Your contributions go to progressive champions like Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva and Ann McLane Kuster. Your contributions go to Democrats with a real chance to pick up Republican-held seats, like Colleen Hanbusa, Joe Garcia, Manan Travedi and Suzan DelBene. And they have all taken our Orange to Blue questionnaire on the public option, regulating greenhouse gasses, comprehensive immigration reform, labor rights, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, reforming Senate rules, and not joining the Blue Dogs.

Throughout the past year, you guys have met every single fundraising goal we have set on the Orange to Blue page. Now, we are setting one final goal as the election approaches: $1,000,000 for Orange to Blue candidates. That is a lofty goal, but we are already close.

Be a part of the final push. Contribute to Orange to Blue candidates now.

Fighting on

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 04:02:04 PM PDT

Note: out of space considerations, as well as respect for those with slower browsers, photos and a rough transcript of the President's remarks are below the fold.

There I was, waiting in the media line for my computer and camera to be screened by the Secret Service, when a text message comes in from David Dayen, erstwhile colleague of mine at Calitics and currently the proprietor of FireDogLake's Newsdesk:

Adam Nagourney is right in front of you.

And that's when it hit me: a few serious people were here too--scattered among a very enthusiastic crowd of 37,500 who had crowded onto the campus of the University of Southern California near downtown Los Angeles to see the president fire up his base to turn out the vote for Democrats in California.

The president had quite the welcoming committee on hand: Speaker of the California Assembly John Perez, the first openly gay speaker in California history; Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Also on hand, of course, were some of the principal beneficiaries of the president's visit: gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, Attorney General candidate Kamala Harris (who is seeking to become the first African-American and the first woman to hold the office of attorney general), and Senator Barbara Boxer.

As David Atkins described in his liveblog on Calitics, the diversity of California was well on hand in the introductions. The invocation was given by Denise Eger, a lesbian rabbi. The masters of ceremonies were actors Kal Penn and Jamie Foxx. And the afternoon's entertainment was provided by the Latino culture-mash rock group Ozomatli. The faces on the stage--as well as the faces in the crowd--stood in sharp contrast to what you might see at a Sarah Palin rally or perhaps a Tea Party convention, if they could ever get one organized.

But beyond the diversity and unity represented by the crowd and the speakers, the main message of the afternoon was a sharp contrast between what was being offered by the Democrats who are seeking to retain power, as opposed to the Republicans who are seeking to wrest it from them: a contrast not just in political results and ideology, but morality as well. There was an urgency, a simplicity, a clarity to the message of Democratic accomplishments. Speaker Perez said it in the most basic terms possible:

We saved the auto industry. We saved the economy from a complete collapse.

Yes, people are frustrated that not enough progress has been made. When people look around and see that their neighbors are still without a job, or that they themselves are facing foreclosure, or that they have no idea how they'll pay for college for their kids--yes, there will still be some dissatisfaction. But in today's world of short-term memory, Speaker Perez did a very good job of reminding the crowd, and anyone who may have been listening through the filter of the media, about exactly how high the stakes were, and just how deep the hole was that we were in.

And when President Obama finally took the stage, he continued this same theme--but not before receiving a massively enthusiastic and adulating welcome that would have made anyone think that it was still the fall of 2008. If there is an enthusiasm gap among Democrats, it certainly wasn't evident among the tens of thousands on hand.

The tenor of the president's speeches has changed ever so slightly. This was not a policy talk, or even a "get out the vote" talk; it was an overt polemic. On occasion, some progressive media commentators--including this one--have complained that President Obama seemed to keep on trying to take a drink from the well of bipartisanship despite so many pieces of evidence that the Republican Party had absolutely no interest in cooperation. The tone of this speech seemed to indicate that those hopes are a thing of the past.

It wasn't just what he said; there was also a flash of indignation and even a little bit of anger in the president's voice as he discussed the utter lack on the part of the Republicans of anything resembling a willingness to compromise, or even a desire to focus on the good of the country as opposed to their own political ambitions.

Their whole campaign strategy is based on amnesia. And so you need to remember that this election is a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and the policies that got us out. A choice between hope and fear. Moving forwards or going backwards. And Trojans, I want to move forward.

...

It's the same agenda that turned a record surplus into a record deficit. Same agenda that nearly destroyed our economy. I don’t bring it up to reargue the past, I bring it up because I don’t want to relive it. It’s not as if we haven’t tried what they’re selling. We tried it, we didn’t like it, and we’re not going back to it.

All in all, the president was in fine form, and he hasn't lost his mojo. He can still draw a hugely enthusiastic crowd. And even more importantly, Friday's event seemed to give an indication that he's done playing nice.

In a handful of dust

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 02:02:04 PM PDT

Der Spiegel recently ran a series on the Pan-European rise of anti-Muslim right-wing "populism." Agence France-Presse recently explained that President Nikolas Sarkozy's draconian crackdown on Roma, Gypsies and Travellers is wildly popular. The Guardian recently reported on the growing ties between England's far right and the U.S. Tea Party "movement." In this country, it's hard to keep up with the multiple manifestations of the rise of right-wing extremism. And people are getting the vapors because Markos dared identify similarities between our own theocratic extremists and the Taliban? And people even on this blog sometimes buy into the absurd and dangerous false equivalency between the anger on the right and the anger on the left?

Last weekend, Frank Rich pointed out that the hate-mongering of prominent right-wing politicians and media figures has at the very least coincided with a rise in right-wing violence against identifiable minorities. The Republican Party's long history of fomenting bigotry grows less veiled and more explicit as the staggering economy looses people's ugliest primal instincts. Hardship often breeds anger and hatred. Hatred is not rational. And those who deliberately exacerbate the hardship aren't going be reticent about trying to co-opt and direct the anger and the hatred. It isn't hard to do. And it also isn't hard to identify, once one is aware of it. But most people aren't aware of it. And the agendas of too many that are aware of it make them unwilling to or incapable of helping to stop it.

The anger on the left is focused. There are specific reasons. To give one obvious example, many on the populist left are frustrated that a Democratic administration continues to rationalize denying basic rights to the LGBT community. On the other hand, many on the populist right have paranoid delusions about ostensible losses of rights, none of which are actually taking place. But does anyone seriously question the reaction if those on the right were, as is the LGBT community, actually denied the same basic rights that everyone else enjoys? They brought guns to rallies opposing a very limited expansion in the government's role in providing access to health care. Imagine if they were denied the right to marry or serve in the military. And some want to equate the behavior of the angry left to that of the angry right? Other examples of anger on the left include issues of war and peace and international human rights or the disastrously inadequate response to what the science tells us about the rapidly developing climate crisis. And these are in some way similar to people freaking out about death panels or socialism or the ostensible family values by which even their heroes don't abide?

Is there anything even remotely similar on the left to a Republican Senate nominee (who might actually defeat the current Senate Majority Leader) talking about Second Amendment remedies if the elections don't turn out the way she wants? How about another Republican Senate nominee who openly excuses rape, another who opposed child abuse legislation, or another who praises Communist East Germany? When was the last time a Democratic governor floated the idea of secession? Can you imagine the reaction in the corporatist media if a Democratic Senate nominee had a history of disparaging religion? And those may be what now passes for a relative moderate Republican, when you consider yet another Republican Senate nominee whose associates are linked to armed insurrectionists. And that's somehow similar to liberals who are angry because the health insurance bill didn't go far enough or the stimulus was too small? That's somehow similar to liberals who are so angry that they might march in rallies or commit acts of civil disobedience or openly criticize a Democratic administration?

These are dangerous times. When economies collapse, and millions of people are suffering, many inevitably end up embracing extremism. It's happening all over the world. That is part of the reason so many on the left wanted to see a much more aggressive approach to reviving the economy. It worked during the Great Depression, when extremism also was on the rise throughout much of the world. But rather than emphasizing the degree to which the right-wing economic model had been revealed by the economic implosion it caused, it was the left that often was vilified and mocked, and it is the left that already bears some of the brunt of the mounting anger and tension-- an anger and tension that likely would have been mitigated had the economic prescriptions of the left actually been enacted. And even many who are neither conservative nor are fooled by conservative propaganda seem comfortable with the scapegoating of liberalism, which is curious in several different ways.

We can't change the past, we can only attempt a wiser path to the future. And it has to begin with honesty. It has to begin with acknowledging that whatever went wrong in the last few years wasn't because public policy suddenly embraced economic liberalism, because liberalism wasn't embraced and conservatism wasn't fully rejected. Too much of what went wrong was allowed to continue, and far too little of what was needed was enacted. And we are all paying for it. And we must begin by acknowledging it. We must acknowledge that the anger percolating on the left is in no way similar to the dangerous and all too eerily familiar rage on the right. There is no equivalency. The anger on the left is based on facts, and is mostly expressed rationally. The anger on the right is being manipulated and directed by the same people who helped create the continuing economic crisis, and who depend on a confused public blaming identifiable Others, including those who adhere to the always marginalized political ideologies that paradoxically have the best record of actually making things better. And it is inevitable that an anger so displaced from history and reality would evolve into such extreme and irrational forms.

As Rich wrote:

Don’t expect the extremism and violence in our politics to subside magically after Election Day — no matter what the results. If Tea Party candidates triumph, they’ll be emboldened. If they lose, the anger and bitterness will grow. The only development that can change this equation is a decisive rescue from our prolonged economic crisis. Not for the first time in history — and not just American history — fear itself is at the root of a rabid outbreak of populist rage against government, minorities and conspiratorial "elites."

So far neither party has offered a comprehensive antidote to our economic pain. The Democrats have fallen short, and the cynics leading the G.O.P. haven’t so much as tried. We shouldn’t be surprised that this year even a state as seemingly well-mannered as Connecticut has produced a senatorial candidate best known for marching into a wrestling ring to gratuitously kick a man in the groin.

These are dangerous times. We must do all we can to prevent the Republican electoral bloodbath that many are predicting, but we also must not delude ourselves into believing that things suddenly are going to get better if we do. The only thing that can begin to calm the fury is a true economic recovery-- a recovery that reaches wide and deep, releasing the pressure by alleviating the very real economic fears and hardships, without which the manipulations and allures of extremism would find no fertile ground. The Republicans and the conservatives offer but a carefully crafted mirage, but desperate people often cling to such desperate delusions. And it is in the Republicans' political interests that such desperation continue and deepen. There has to be a better future on a visible horizon. The only real solution is the one that has been proven to work. And if those in positions of political power cannot come to terms with the fact that conservative economic theory has earned its place in the septic tank of history, while a liberal economic agenda is the only path to a better future, they will fail themselves and everyone else. It's not good enough to be better than the worst, when not being as good as the moment demands might result in the empowerment of the worst.

Midday open thread

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 12:00:04 PM PDT

  • There are nine days until the November 2 elections. Early voting is now taking place in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Virginia allows early absentee voting under certain circumstances -- check here and see if you qualify. And New Jersey allows voting by mail -- apply here. And if you vote in Oregon or Washington, mail in your ballot today.
  • By now, you've probably heard about Ginni Thomas's bizarre phone message to Anita Hill. What the Thomases want everyone to forget is that while Hill always has shunned the spotlight, the Thomases haven't. What the Thomases want everyone to forget is that even David Brock, who so very long ago helped lead the demonization of Hill, has since come clean, admitting the odious role he played and apologizing to Hill, while also founding one of this nation's most important public watchdogs. What the Thomases really want everyone to forget and ignore is the ways in which they use his unique power to enable her career.

    As noted just last weekend, Justice Thomas did not have the sense of honor and integrity to recuse himself from the Citizens United ruling, even thought it directly affected his wife's work at the politically active non-profit she founded. He also didn't recuse himself from the Bush v. Gore ruling, which also directly affected his wife's work. Hill hasn't profited from what happened nearly two decades ago, but the Thomases certainly have.

    We'll never know exactly what happened between Thomas and Hill, but if anyone speaks today with their integrity intact, it is Hill. If anyone owes anyone an apology, it's the Thomases. To Hill and to America.

  • Add Minnesota Secretary of State candidate Dan Severson to the list of Republicans claming there's no such thing as separation of church and state.
  • Would that this were unbelievable.
  • From Casey Gane-McCalla at Jack & Jill: 5 Reasons Rand Paul Is A Racist Conspiracy Theorist.
  • An outbreak of cholera has already killed 142 people in Haiti.
  • What happens if California goes into default or needs a bailout? Brief but fascinating post by Gerard N. Magliocca at Balkinization:

    One reason we got into trouble in 2008 is that there were no default rules (or analysis) in place when "too big to fail" financial institutions started to fail. We'd better not make the same error when it comes to state governments.

  • Juan Williams was fired for making bigoted comments, but the real statement about the state of our traditional media is that such a mediocrity had a job as a pundit to begin with.
  • And speaking of the traditional media, they got yet another story wrong. Rinse. Repeat.
  • As Melissa McEwan says: Whoooooooooops.
  • MAYA, at Feministing:

    Yesterday the National Women’s Law Center and the Rebecca Project for Human Rights released a new report, “Mothers Behind Bars,” on the treatment of pregnant and parenting women in U.S. state prisons. The picture the report paints—like most glimpses into our broken prison system—is not a pretty one.

    According to the report, there are more women behind bars than ever before in U.S. history and, thanks to the mandatory sentencing laws of the war on drugs, the majority of those women are non-violent, first-time offenders. They are also mothers. Two-thirds of women in prison have at least one child under age 18.

    There's more. Go read.

  • In Norway, a major archeological find from 5000 years ago is being called a "mini-Pompeii," while Pompeii itself is suffering from major problems with restoration and preservation.

The unpredictable election

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 10:02:31 AM PDT

Virtually all of my work here at DK has been in the realm of following the polls and offering polling analysis. It is what I did when I was one of the quarter-millionish diarists roaming the site, and it is what I continued to do when I moved onto the front page in the Spring of 2009.

But, long before that, my main interest in politics was election forecasting. It was a passion that I began when I was a teenaged college sophomore at UCLA, and predicted the 1992 Presidential election. I did fairly well in that initial outing, hitting 49 of 51 contests (I thought that North Carolina and Florida would pad Bill Clinton's landslide margin). In 1998, I even won a contest sponsored by CNN for being one of the few voices in America not predicting the GOP landslide that everyone saw coming.

In the past three cycles, I have come pretty close to the mark, no matter whether the outcome was a good GOP year (2004), or a good Democratic year (2006/2008).

This time around? I will be the first to admit that I don't have a freaking clue.

This is the most unpredictable election in my memory, and, indeed, I can't even think of one that rivals it.

I'm not alone in that assessment. Just as Nate Silver was projecting a 50-seat gain for the GOP in the House, he couched in the caveat that the uncertainty of the races could mean as small a pickup for the Republicans as 20 seats, and as much as 80 seats. Such a wide range of possible outcomes made a few people smirk at the "prediction." But from where I sit, that's a pretty appropriate assessment of the landscape.

In short, there are very few outcomes in nine days that would surprise me. And that is because so little about this election cycle is definitively known.

Consider the tools we usually use to project electoral outcomes. They are, without a doubt, providing as many questions as answers in this most unique electoral cycles.

Usually, an election forecaster makes the bulk of his/her determinations about how an election is going to go based on the polls. But this year, that has proven more difficult to utilize, and for two reasons.

  1. The Likely Voter Thing: We have been told for years that pollsters use "likely voters" because it provides a more accurate landscape for taking a snapshot of the electorate. After all, what is the use of recording the preferences of voters who aren't, in all probability, going to vote on Election Day, anyway?

While this is inherently logical, there is a problem with that assessment this cycle. There have always been gaps between the outcomes of polls between "likely voters" and the less restrictive screen of "registered voters." Historically, that gap has equated to better Republican performance among likely voters (as Alan Abramowitz noted over at Pollster a while back). But that hasn't always been the case. In the Democratic wave election of 2006, the majority of the polls which offered both LV and RV data had their LV screens slightly favoring the Democrat. What's more (and this could have big implications for 2010): those screens almost universally (75% of the time) overstated the Democratic performance in the race.

Indeed, in the last two election cycles, the "registered voter" screen has been closer to the final outcome more often than the "likely voter" screen. And it wasn't all that close: the RV screen came closer 57% of the time, the LV screen was closer to the truth 38% of the time, and they split the difference 5% of the time.

Another unique feature of the electoral cycle has been the width of the gaps between RV's and LV's. In the 2006 and 2008 cycles, the majority of the gaps between RVs and LVs consisted of gaps ranging from 0 to 2 points. In this election, gaps as wide as 13 points have been reported (an early October CNN poll of Nevada). Of course that has been owed to the most oft-used phrase of the cycle: the enthusiasm gap. More on that later.

  1. The Pollster Hegemony Thing: Around two months ago, I noted that a majority of the polls in my database for this cycle either emanated from Republican private polling or from Rasmussen (which, of course, could easily be described as Republican public polling). As the trickle became a flood of data (what was, at that time, around 1000 polls is now 2040 and counting), those numbers have changed, but only slightly. Even at this point, 47% of the polls released in this cycle have come from GOP or GOP-sympathetic (read: Rasmussen) sources. By contrast, just 8.5% of the polls have come from Democratic sources.

This can be read two ways. For one thing, in 2006, it was Democratic polls that swamped polls from GOP sources. Read this way, this can be interpreted as a bad sign for Democrats. Republicans are releasing more polls because...well...they can. The data contained in them is data they want to have the public consume. But there is an alternate viewpoint: they can also simply be skewing the reality of the electoral situation. As Nate noted last week, these polls come with a thumb on the scale. If (as has happened this year), twice as many sponsored polls have been come from the GOP side as the Dem side, it will paint a picture that is, perhaps, overly optimistic for the Republicans.

Most of this Republican polling, like the LV/RV gaps I described earlier, makes note of what these pollsters project as an enormous enthusiasm gap. One constancy of polling in this cycle has been the indication that Republicans are more enthused about this election than are Democrats. At this point, that is probably beyond dispute. What is disputable, however, is the corollary that states that, because of the enthusiasm gap, the partisan makeup of the 2010 electorate will be dramatically different. Some pollsters, for example, are anticipating an electorate that is more amenable to the GOP than 1994.

There is some evidence that such audacious predictions about the R/D gap in the 2010 electorate might be unwarranted, however. Early voting statistics have painted a decidedly different picture of the electorate than what we have been sold by the pollsters and the pundit class for most of the cycle:

  • In California, site of a critical gubernatorial and Senate election, a study by the Atlas Project shows that the early/absentee vote in 2010 has slightly favored Democrats (43-40). In 2006, it was split almost evenly.
  • In Colorado, where Dems are seeking to hold onto a very vulnerable Senate seat and a trio of House seats that are in some semblance of danger, the absentee statistics are similar to where they were in 2008, which was a very good year for the Democrats in Colorado. While Republicans have requested more absentee ballots, the percentage of ballots requested by the Democrats (37%) is actually fractionally better than the percentage sought by Democrats in 2008.
  • In Nevada, the voice of Nevada politics (Jon Ralston) tweeted on Saturday that the GOP edge in early voting thus far amounts to less than 150 votes. This is notable, because this is one of the states where the RV/LV gaps were the most immense. If there is a huge enthusiasm gap in Nevada, it has not shown up in early voting. Dem-friendly Clark County cast 67% of the early vote in 2006. In 2010, it is 65%. A gap, but not a big one.
  • In Ohio, an analysis (in the name of full disclosure, one done by the Ohio Democratic Party) showed that Democrats have cast 44% of the votes in early and absentee voting, compared to 34% cast by Republicans. Ohio has a toss-up race for Governor, to say nothing of close to a half-dozen potentially perilous House seats for the Democrats.

There are other examples, as well. A study by a diarist at The Swing State Project shows that early voting percentages in Texas are essentially similar in Obama counties and McCain counties, with a spike in counties around Houston, where Democrat Bill White served as Mayor.

What seems conclusive, at least thus far, is that it is difficult to find enormous enthusiasm gaps anywhere. Even in places where early/absentee votes have lagged a bit of 2006 rates, the differences have not been particularly dramatic.

Republicans, however, point out that the early voting numbers aren't the best indicators of turnout, because the Democrats have made that a feature of their GOTV operations to a much greater degree than the GOP. They point to some dramatic differences in early voter numbers from 2008 to 2010 as evidence of the enthusiasm gap, since those are both years that Dems emphasized early voting (and some of those gaps--North Carolina immediately comes to mind--are pretty profound).

But the bottom line is that if Democrats are able to turn out their voters, then the projections in almost every likely voter screen about the GOP turning out in far greater proportions than the Democrats (thus altering the political landscape) would appear to be unjustified. If that's the case, the GOP would need a massive, massive edge with Independents to pull off the kinds of gains that they are breathlessly predicting.

It could happen, of course. And that, frustratingly, is the bottom line. With nine days to go in this election cycle, pretty much anything could happen. Never have there been so many competitive races, so late in the cycle. Never have the traditional predictors of an election been so cloudy.

This is going to be fascinating to watch.

A sign of the times

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 08:00:03 AM PDT

Enter any bookstore today and you will likely see a sign for Mitt Romney's book No Apology, The Case for American Greatness. America is great if you're Mitt Romney and he's not about to apologize for how great things are for him. I don't understand why he got to write a book about it.

Go to Google and enter the words "political book deal." You will learn that the inconsequential dropout former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, recently signed another multi-million dollar book deal. You will see that Scott Brown had a been a Senator for about 30 days before getting his own book deal. Mitt Romney has a book deal. Gov. Bobby Jindal has a book deal. President Obama's half-brother George has a book deal. Yes, even Rod Blagojevich has a book deal. On and on and on. Name any politician, no matter how great or awful as a public servant. Chances are, they've got a million-dollar book deal.

I find it interesting that very few politicians actually write the book before they get the deal. I'm not a writer, but I assume that most book writers create their manuscripts in some lonely cottage in New England. Or maybe they are doing research and putting in hours within the tombs of some major library. But if you happen to be a politician, you don't have to have a particularly literary bent. Hell, you don't even have to write the book! They have people for that. You just show up to take the cover art photograph, go home with a check, and wait for the tour schedule. Must be nice to be able to get rich selling something you didn't create and don't own. Washington has learned a thing or two from Wall Street.

Many of these politicians were awful in office. Why do they get paid millions of dollars to literally write the book on being awful? Sarah Palin, I presume, is getting a book deal so that she can teach the public about how government is supposed to work. When she had that responsibility, she did a shoddy job and then quit before her term was up. Next stop? Million-dollar book deal. Rod Blogjevich got himself impeached, convicted, thrown out of office, and subsequently arrested on corruption charges. I guess while making his way to central booking, he stopped into sign...you guessed it, a book deal. Right now, Carly Fiorina, a woman who is listed as one of the worst CEO's of all time, is right now a major party candidate for U.S. Senate. After cutting the value of the company she ran in half and being fired for doing it, what did she get for her efforts? $20 million severance package and a book deal. What, exactly, do publishers believe these people know that deserves to be recorded and cataloged for all eternity?

Imagine I attempted to build a treehouse, screwed up and built a claptrap doghouse, and then quit. Am I qualified to write the book on outdoor carpentry? Should I be paid a million bucks for it? You'd think our society had taken a wrong term somewhere, right? Worse, Scott Brown's book deal indicates you really don't have to do anything at all to get a book deal showcasing your expertise on government. Don't get me started on the quality of the books themselves. There is a reason why all the political books are always piled up high on a table at the book store.

President Bush has jumped into the book deal game recently, and why not? His presidency, one of the worst of all time, is a case-study in rank incompetence, short-sightedness, corruption, and disregard for the Constitution. From allowing the country to be attacked despite warning, to failing capture or kill the attackers, to ruining the budget, to wasting a mountain of blood and treasure on an unnecessary war, to allowing a major city to be completely destroyed, and having it all culminate in a massive economic crash, the Bush presidency should be considered the owner's manual on how not to run a superpower. Therefore, it was only fitting that he be rewarded with a $7 million book deal.

President Bush's book, Decision Points will be released November 9. Talking about the book and his presidency recently, he said this:

"In terms of accomplishments, my biggest accomplishment is that I kept the country safe amidst a real danger."

What is wrong with him? I don't know. What we should be asking is what is wrong with America?

George W. Bush, of all people, gets to write the book on keeping the country safe from attack?! Only two modern presidents have experienced a domestic attack form a foreign power, and Bush was the one who failed to bring the attackers to account. He gets to write the book on keeping the country safe for seven million? Have we lost our minds?

These things, and these sort of things, are a sign of the complete moral bankruptcy of our political elite. The people who are a part of this machinery, the lobbyists, literary agents, publishers, lawyers, publicists, consultants, advisers, researchers, ghost writers, media pundits, billionaires and the politicians themselves, constitute a modern day American Ancien Regime that Madame Defarge would easily recognize.

It is as if we are living in France just prior to the French Revolution. It was a time of high debt and high unemployment brought about by a financial crisis brought on by debt, which was brought on by a pointless war. King Louis XVI's government refused to raise taxes on the nobles and clergy because of the false belief it would hurt the economy. It was a time of excess and vanity on the part of the regime while the suffering of the masses knew no end. The regime knew no limit to their greed and villainy. In the end, the callous disregard for the people exhibited by the self-indulgent elites who failed to live up to even the minimal standards expected of them, proved to be the source of their own undoing.

I'm no expert on morals or ethics, but I do know right from wrong. It is terribly wrong to reward failure with wealth. Yet that is what keeps happening among the people at the top. Don't they have any sense of decency and proportion? Guilt? Shame? How could a person like Fiorina or Bush seriously believe they, after all they've done to ruin so many lives, deserve to get rich? How could someone with so much wealth and power look around and see the great suffering so many in this country endure and think that what the people deserve most is an opportunity to buy and read their drivel?

I don't know about you, but I pass by these books by at the bookstore. I wish I couldn't see the signs. Still, the signs are there.

For a very important date...

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 06:08:16 AM PDT

The street is of a decidedly mixed quality. Here and there buildings are under repair and you can see a few updated spots up the block -- a cafe, an apartment building, a neighborhood church -- but other buildings in the area are shabby, either unoccupied or uncared for. In front of one of these more decrepit structures a guitarist is strumming his instrument. He's at least as scruffy as his surroundings, looking like a refugee from the punk movement, and all his playing produces is a few discordant thrums.

From down the street a small group of men approaches. They're dressed more cleanly than those around them, with most in crisp new workshirts. The leader of the group is an unassuming fellow in a sweater vest. The leader approaches the musician and offers him a moment of uplifting spiritual enlightenment, but the rocker shows no interest. His negativity and hostility is unchanged. At that point the others move forward as a group, surround the musician, and quickly beat him to death. Afterwards they kneel on the sidewalk to pray. One of them shouts, "praise the Lord."

Fortunately, this scene isn't taking place in reality. The brutality is restricted to the digital domain of the video game version of one of the most popular book series ever published-- Left Behind by Tim Lehaye and Jerry Jenkins. Together the 16 books of the series sold have sold over 65 million copies. If that's not enough, there's also a 40 volume young adult series -- because it's never too soon to start warning the children against the threat posed by the United Nations.

The Left Behind game follows a scenario common to many strategy games. The player begins with limited resources and must gather the means to combat opposing forces. The mechanics of recruiting an army and destroying enemies might be wholly unremarkable except for the layer of Christian eschatology that's been applied to each situation. Enemies in the game may be rockers, men in Arabic dress, or soldiers of a U.N.-like organization. They are enemies because they simply refuse to believe. Despite a background story that includes millions of believers disappearing in an instant of rapture, and despite the increasing numbers of horned giant demons wandering the streets, many of the game world's inhabitants refuse to adopt proper beliefs. And the choices you, as represented by the sweater-vest guy, are given really boil down to convert or kill.

The makers of the game, Inspired Media Entertainment, point out that there's no requirement to kill characters like the rebellious rocker, and that there are penalties to murder. However, those penalties are abated by a quick in-game "prayer." Soon enough the player sees that aggression is often the easiest path and a moment of digital regret obliterates any downside. So why not blast away? Besides, by the time those one-world government goons show up and start start to harass your forces, you'll need trained soldiers of your own to return fire.

If the nature of the game strikes you as violent, it's not a patch on the books. By the third volume, many US cities have been blasted apart by nuclear weapons -- which eventually turns out to be one of the milder events of the series. Though the authors of the books claim that the series is based on a "literal interpretation" of biblical prophesy (chiefly the Revelation to John), if there are any genuinely literal events from the Bible, you'd have to squint hard to find them. Instead the details of the story have been filled in from a grab bag of conservative hobgoblins.

See if any of this sounds similar to something you might have heard on the AM dial: The books feature a US president (played by Louis Gosset Jr in the film version) who takes office after George W. Bush.  He presents himself as a peaceful pacifist -- which you can read as weakling collaborator -- and begins to turn over more and more power to the leader of the United Nations. When militias spring up in response to this surrender to one world government, the president helps put them down. The president is a non-Christian who misses out on the rapture express elevator to heaven. Israel (though blessed by miracles and able to reach Middle East peace on their own terms) is forced to buckle to the UN after its allies abandon it. Christians are a highly repressed minority, with highly restricted rights of speech and assembly and Bibles are outlawed. To defend the US, Israel, and believers everywhere, militia forces must assemble. The president realizes too late that he's been played for a fool (and dies).  

That last bit is something of a pattern in the books. Anyone who isn't willing to pick up a gun and join the fight? Weak, evil and soon to be dead. Anyone who has questions about the evangelical interpretation of Christianity? Dead and evil. Anyone who stubbornly hangs onto some other faith? Oh so dead and super evil (this includes the Pope, who leads the evil one world government church).

This may make it sound as if the core of this series is an extremely violent revenge fantasy in which a highly selective reading of biblical passages is used to justify killing foreigners, liberals, and anyone the authors didn't like. But that's not quite it. It's a hyper-violent revenge fantasy that finishes with graphic planet-wide destruction, enemies writhing in agony, blood flowing in rivers, and billions (with a 'b') of people consumed by fire.

None of which seems all that compatible with this.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)

How did a religion that was founded around radical notions of peace become the instrument for unequaled expressions of violence? And does the bible literally predict a coming period of destruction? As it turns out, what was in the Bible was less important than the motivations of those reading it.

The idea that the world was soon to end was a central feature of the first century Jesus movement. In fact, Jesus makes a statement that certainly seems to imply that the end times are going to happen within a few years of his own ministry.

And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1)

There are unequivocal predictions of end time events in the Gospel of Matthew, in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, and in the letters of Peter. After Jesus' death, his followers lived in expectation that the end would come soon, suddenly, and with little warning.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

Jesus' earliest followers didn't just expect the end of the world to come eventually, they expected it very soon, certainly within their lifetimes.

This kind of prediction was not a new thing limited just to Jesus' followers. Many of the Old Testament writings predicted a period in which God would directly lead Israel, other nations would recognize His authority, and a period of peace would begin.

In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:2-3)

Traditionally, the timing of these events was vague. The Talmud implies that the end will come before the year 6000 on the Jewish calendar -- 2240 CE. Which, even today, seems a bit far off to worry about. But in the first century, turmoil and disappointment led many rabbis to predict that the Lord's day was approaching, and that the injustice of the present order was soon to be put right.

Following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by Roman forces in 70, Judaism was thrown into chaos. Though already a complex, philosophical religion where many followers embraced the contradictory nature of its history and writings, first century practices remained strongly anchored to activities at the temple. When that spiritual center was gone, Jews could no longer practice their religion as they had for centuries. Something new would have to be created if the religion and culture was to survive.

One of the first groups to get organized after the temple's loss were the followers of Jesus. Though they had begun to reach out to non-Jews, they were still an essentially Jewish group who saw Jesus as ushering in a new phase of God's covenant with Israel. Their ideas of salvation for believers and the approaching end of Roman control were appealing. However, this group was not without rivals. Other Jewish groups were working toward changing the core practices of the religion in a different way, placing much more emphasis on textual study. It became a struggle over the direction of Judaism, a rivalry reflected in many of the early church writings, where Pharisees and scribes were made out to be either villains or dunces.

Not only was there a struggle to define what it meant to be a Jew, as the followers of Jesus attempted to codify their beliefs, it was difficult to determine what Jesus' followers should really believe. There were schisms in the group, even as they waited in expectation of the end. In John's letters (a different John than the author of the Revelation) a phrase appears that's found no where else in the Bible.

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. (1 John 2:18 )

The term "antichrist" means simply "against Christ" or "in place of Christ." It's used five times in John's letters as a way to condemn those whose beliefs don't fall in line with those in John's group. John wasn't the only one to use this term as a general condemnation, early church leaders also used it against those whose teaches about Jesus were viewed as radical or simply wrong. It's clear at this point that "antichrist" isn't a specific person, but an alternative for "heretic."

But when the world failed to close down during the first and second centuries, Christian began to reexamine these letters in the light of Jewish scripture, looking for clues about when their wait might be over. By the third century, connections were already being drawn between the term antichrist, an "abonation" mentioned in the Book of Daniel, and the Beast mentioned in the Revelation. Bishop Irenaeus of Gaul went so far as to name the tribe of Judiasm that the antichrist must come from and even make a prediction of his name. And of course, Irenaeus thought that the biblical prophecies pointed to the legions of Rome, that all the signs and portents had been fulfilled, and that the end was coming very soon.

For the next fifteen centuries, the biblical prophesy pot boiled. Antichrist was used to describe corrupt emperors and outcast leaders of the Church. The Revelation was interpreted as a description of the fall of the Temple, as a prediction of the fall of Rome, and (by many church fathers) as a book completely lacking in divine inspiration that should not be included in the testament. Statements from a variety of Old Testament books were stirred into the mix, and characters were recast as members of a new play.

Only one thing remained constant -- the end of the world was coming soon. The first century followers of Jesus believed it. The second century members of the early Christian church believed it. Jerome believed that everything was in place for the second coming in 380. Rebellious archbishops accused the Pope of being the antichrist as they waited for the second coming with the end of the millennium. William Tyndall, who translated the Bible into English and was burned for the crime, believed that the Catholic Church was the antichrist and the end times were on them -- a position shared by Martin Luther and John Calvin. This belief was a popular one for centuries, and the directive that the Papacy should be interpreted as the antichrist was stamped into the commentary of the Geneva Bibles that the Pilgrims carried with them to America.

By the time William Miller was assembling his theories about the rapid approach of world's end in 1844, generations of predictions had already come and gone. Though the end results of Miller's biblical interpretations were particularly spectacular, what he was doing at the time wasn't all that special. Hundreds of clergy and thousands of laymen were involved in the same pastime of sifting biblical prophesies and applying them to current events. Across the United States there had been a growing movement to reject the cool, analytical deism / unitarianism of the founding fathers and to replace it with something more passionate and vigorous. A big part of that movement turned into renewed interest in biblical prophecy, and an obsession for trying to ferret out "hidden meanings" in the text. In the first half of the 19th century, these textural searchers created what's known today as evangelical Christianity, a home grown reaction to ideas as diverse as supporting westward expansion and horror over the events of the French Revolution, with expectations that the end times were coming very soon written into the foundations of the movement.

The exact mix of prophecies that went into the stew pot was an open question until the 1890s. That's when evangelist John Nelson Darby put together the recipe of Old Testament scriptures and New Testament statements that has congealed into the accepted view among many protestants. From 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 "we who are still alive.. will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" was developed the idea of the "Rapture." The same verses in Daniel that Miller used to plot his end times were used to establish a period of "Tribulation" in which horrible events occurred.

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'

From the Revelation story of the struggle between Lamb and Dragon was drawn the 1,000 year period in which Jesus would rule the earth and the climactic battle to follow. Finally, the antichrist -- by then a stand in for every black hat in the Bible -- was brought in as the agent of evil on earth and the central actor in end time theater. And finally bits of Daniel, Isiah, and several the Gospels were merged in a definition of the "last judgement."

The rapture of believers, followed by the tribulation of those who remain, which ends in a thousand years of Jesus' kingdom on earth, a final confrontation with evil, judgement day, and a remaking of earth as God's kingdom. That order of events -- the "dispensational view" -- is so widely accepted today that few people realize that it's a fusion of ideas from disconnected books and themes (quick: ask a friend if the antichrist appears in the Revelation). There's nothing "literal" about either how it's assembled, or how it's been used. None of the popular books, films, or video games indicates multi-horned beasts stepping from the sea, or metal grasshoppers shuttling through the sky. The interpretations are vague and fanciful, stretched to fit whatever the author wants them to fit.

Just as the first century writers saw their opponents in the movement as "antichrist" and early members of protestant groups were quick to lend this accolade to the Pope, modern authors have applied the term to bogeymen of the right -- the UN, the European Union, and liberals of all stripes.

Just as with other forms of end times predictions, the only thing consistent about this prophecy is how consistent its adherents have been about the predicted timeline. When Hal Lindsey wrote The Late Great Planet Earth in 1970, he followed the typical pattern. He pegged the then six member European Confederacy as the beast with ten horns (Lindsey anticipated growth, but since this is now the 27 member European Union -- someone should inform the beast he'll be needing a new hat). He pointed to the founding of Israel as the triggering event for the approaching rapture. Like every end times predictor since the first century, he made a selective list of earthquakes and famines to show that the signs pointed to the end of the world... probably in the 1980s.

What Lehaye and Jenkins did in their books is no different than what Lindsey did, or what a long line of predictors going back to the first century did -- they assigned the events taking place in their own times as the most critical events of all times. On the surface, there's nothing wrong with that. After all, your own lifetime is the most important period for you (even if Jesus refuses to go by your clock).

But there's a problem with always living in the "end times." If the world is going to end any minute, why bother to plan for the future? Why bother to clean up the air, protect a national park, or balance a budget when it's all going up in smoke Real Soon Now.

The problem with Christian eschatology as it's understood today, is that it puts the whole planet on death row. And that's a very unhealthy way to live.

Open Thread

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 05:08:02 AM PDT

Jabber your jibber.

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:51:00 AM PDT

NY Times:

A costly and polarizing Congressional campaign heads into its closing week with Republicans in a strong position to win the House but with Democrats maintaining a narrow edge in the battle for the Senate, according to a race-by-race review and lawmakers and strategists on both sides.

Frank Rich:

The reasons for his failure to reap credit for any economic accomplishments are a catechism by now: the dark cloud cast by undiminished unemployment, the relentless disinformation campaign of his political opponents, and the White House’s surprising ineptitude at selling its own achievements. But the most relentless drag on a chief executive who promised change we can believe in is even more ominous. It’s the country’s fatalistic sense that the stacked economic order that gave us the Great Recession remains not just in place but more entrenched and powerful than ever.

So you averted Armageddon. And what have you done for me lately, anyway?

Gail Collins:

But about Russ Feingold. He is running for a fourth term, in a very tough race against Ron Johnson, a plastics manufacturer and one of those rich political virgins who have been popping up in races across the country, waving a checkbook and a copy of "Atlas Shrugged."

 

Tony Jackson (Hendersonville, TN):

Most politicians arouse my skepticism. Not to mention what we are subjected to on a daily basis that masquerades as news.

My point is, the seemingly ever-growing masses of "sheeple" don’t seem to have a fully developed or functioning B.S. meter. If they did, they wouldn’t be so easily led to believe the half-truths and outright lies being spread by talking heads and politicians with hidden agendas. One thing is certain, fear is a powerful tool being wielded every day by those who strive to divide and turn us Americans against each other. Yes, I said Americans, not Caucasian Americans or African Americans.

Be skeptical, when you hear our duly elected president referred to as a half-Kenyan Muslim, the meter in your head should tell you that whomever is doing the talking is skirting around and talking about race. When that red-faced, screaming Tea Party candidate says "we’re gonna take back our country" the translation is, "take back the country from those who don’t look like us."

Ian Reifowitz:

Characterizing some of us as "real" or "everyday Americans" means that others are somehow "not real" Americans. Palin says "real" Americans live in small towns, a stand-in for culture, values, and more ominously if indirectly, religion and ethnicity. Her language evokes the Klan's Anglo-Protestant definition of Americanness, another ideology that draws on traditional small-town antagonism toward the city, toward cultural change, and toward those defined as different. Palin's America hearkens back to a simpler, mythic time when Americans were-or at least seemed-more like one another, and when those who were different knew their place. She suggests that her political opponents reject everything good and right about that mythic America.

Political scientists analyze Connecticut:

Connecticut's voters, like those in much of the nation, are frustrated. Many want better policy outcomes, particularly, in terms of jobs. Perhaps different from some parts of the nation, though, a majority in Connecticut still supports (President Barack) Obama -- essentially believing that federal government has not done enough, not too much.

In addition, the gender gap -- with women overwhelmingly supporting the Democratic candidates -- continues to exist in Connecticut, even though it thought to be shrinking in other parts of the nation.

Hmm... CT seems to have avoided the excess of the above. Other parts of the country will, too.

[Added]: Nate Silver:

Certainly, Mr. Sestak could win his race in Pennsylvania. But if he does, that might suggest that the enthusiasm gap isn’t quite as large as some pollsters were expecting, or that there were other problems with the polls that had implications in a number of races around the country. In that universe, the Democrats would probably be favored to win at least one or two of the races in the group including Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, and West Virginia — all of which appear slightly closer to us than Pennsylvania — and Republicans would be long shots to win in California or Washington, where Democrats already have an edge.

Sunday Talk - An Imperfect Storm

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 09:30:05 PM PDT

With less than 10 days remaining before Entropical Storm Sarah is expected to make landfall, desecrating this once great nation of ours, emergency preparations are well underway.

All signs point to Democratic losses ranging from the House to the Senate, despite the President's best efforts to shore up the base.

Given this, rather than worrying about voters staying home on November 2nd, Democrats should be focusing on their own survival.

Open Thread and Diary Rescue

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 08:22:05 PM PDT

This evening's Rescue Rangers are shayera, rexymeteorite, sunspark says, Purple Priestess, grog, and vcmvo2, with watercarrier4diogenes kinda sorta mebbe pasting them together into an entertaining and educational Rescue.

The rescued diaries tonight are truly the gems for which we search every night. The Rangers are secondary to what they present to you, some of the best writing available on Teh Great Orange Satan, if some of the less noticed initially. Read these, rec and comment in them, let the diarists know that you appreciate their efforts and their viewpoints (even if you don't happen to completely agree with them).

jotter has worked his magic again in High Impact Diaries: October 22, 2010 while carolita has conjured up Top Comments 10-23-10 – Unemployment and Disability...

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

Polling and Political Wrap, 10/23/10

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 07:46:04 PM PDT

As might be expected on the weekend before the weekend before the election, the polling volume for this Saturday edition of the Wrap is seriously elevated. We head close to the half-century mark, with a grand total of 49 polls to peruse, with the serious probability that several more will come with the Sunday papers.

As has been true for much of this month, the data is a real mixed bag. Dems trail in Illinois, but with a few huge caveats that suggest that GOP victories might not be the final outcome in the Land of Lincoln. Meanwhile, the Muhlenberg tracker has shifted in a position that Democrats won't like (at least in the Senate race), while some counterintuitive numbers pop up from the South in Louisiana and South Carolina.

All that (and much, much more!!) in the weekend edition of the Wrap...

THE U.S. SENATE

THE ANALYSIS: There are a couple of major-league caveats with the Illinois poll. For one thing, curiously, Mason-Dixon chose not to include either the Green or Libertarian candidates in their trial heat. It is hard to know if offering the mere binary option of Kirk or Giannoulias is helpful or harmful to either party, but there is no question it does not represent the choice facing the voters next week. Also, and this could be huge for Giannoulias, there were far more undecided voters on the Democratic side than on the Republican side. Assuming that voters come home in proportion to their partisan leanings, one has to give Giannoulias a bit of an edge. Meanwhile, Louisiana looks competitive for the first time in months, at least according to a Dem poll. As of this afternoon, we haven't seen the retaliatory GOP internal poll, suggesting that the Dem poll might at least be in the wheelhouse. For the second week in a row, Dems release a poll out of the Mountaineer State showing Joe Manchin leading by five points. Finally, not in the Wrap because the data wasn't specific: good news potentially for Nevada, where the inimitable Jon Ralston tweets that Harry Reid's campaign is claiming a consistent six-point advantage in their internal polling.

THE U.S. HOUSE

THE ANALYSIS: The data for this weekend out of the House races has to be considered quite the mixed bag. Democrats have to be a bit unnerved about the status of Chellie Pingree in Maine, a race that lots of pundits had talked about but where the polls had been pretty steady until this latest installment from Critical Insights. The brouhaha over John Adler and allegations about his campaign's involvement in getting a Tea Partyer on the ballot has clearly taken a pound of flesh, as what was once a mid-single digit lead is gone. On the bright side for Dems, longshot GOP bids at John Yarmuth in Kentucky and the venerable John Dingell look like no-shots, and there might be a surprise pick-off opportunity looming in the open seat battle in Michigan's 3rd district. Perhaps on the bright side (though it would be another pickup for the GOP), Jim Marshall's anti-Pelosi, hippie-bashing (literally) campaign in Georgia seems to be really paying off. One GOP pollster had him trailing within the margin of error last month. Now, the "Democrat" is trailing by sixteen points, according to another GOP pollster.

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

THE ANALYSIS: The eyebrow raiser in the group is the GOP poll showing Tancredo closing to within a single point in Colorado. While the temptation will be to dismiss it as a partisan poll, it is worth noting that Tom Jensen of PPP tweeted that their own polling showed a tightening of the race, as well. This is actually somewhat predictable--the only path to victory for either Tancredo or Maes was going to be one of them becoming marginalized. It looks like Maes is the victim here, with his support dropping in most polls over the last month. The other surprise here is South Carolina, where virtually every pollster has recorded movement towards Democrat Vincent Sheheen. Insider Advantage throws a curveball, putting Nikki Haley in reasonably safe position. In other races, Dems have to be pretty happy about Maryland and Massachusetts, and pretty alarmed by Florida and Maine. Maine is an interesting one, similar to Colorado with half of the ink. LePage is a pure teabagger who probably won't get more than 35-40% of the vote. But as long as Mitchell and Cutler split the left-and-centrist vote, 35-40% will probably be enough.

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA
The House of Ras is definitely clinging to their narrative. They will either look like geniuses or fools in ten days, given their stubborn insistence that Carl Paladino is still in reasonable contract (14 points!) of Andrew Cuomo. One race where they decided to join the rest of the polling world was Pennsylvania, where they have shaved Toomey's lead down to four points.

CA-Gov: Jerry Brown (D) 48%, Meg Whitman (R) 42%, Others 4%
CA-Sen: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) 48%, Carly Fiorina (R) 46%, Others 3%
MN-Gov: Mark Dayton (D) 44%, Tom Emmer (R) 41%, Tom Horner (I) 10%
NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo (D) 51%, Carl Paladino (R) 37%, Others 5%
PA-Sen: Patrick Toomey (R) 48%, Joe Sestak (D) 44%
RI-Gov: Lincoln Chafee (I) 35%, Frank Caprio (D) 28%, John Robitaille (R) 25%
SD-Gov: Dennis Daugaard (R) 55%, Scott Heidepriem (D) 36%
SD-AL: Kristi Noem (R) 49%, Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 44%
TX-Gov: Gov. Rick Perry (R) 51%, Bill White (D) 42%

Election Diary Rescue 2010 (10/23 - 10 Days 'til Election Day)

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 07:16:04 PM PDT

   This Rescue Diary covers the period from 6 PM, Friday, 10/22 to 6:00 PM EDT, Saturday, 10/23

Today's Menu Includes :
28 Diaries Overall

- 5 On House races

- Covering 4 individual Districts in 4 states

- 8 On Senate races

- Representing 5 different states

- 6 On Various election races and ballot issues

- Encompassing Governor, Secretary of State, Local, and more

- 9 General election-related diaries

   

And be sure to follow the Election Diary Rescue on Twitter

SEGO: Spies like us... and them

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 06:30:05 PM PDT

Quite recently, I promised that I would no longer fill these Saturday night affairs with tales of my own undirected wallowing around the edges of the literary pool, and that I would restrict my discussion to the subject of books currently on the shelves. I hope, for all our sakes, that the politicians who get elected in the next two weeks do a better job of holding to their promises.

I left London on the "red eye," a big 747 under BA livery in those pre-Airbus days. Ahead of me was eight hours of flight across the midnight Atlantic, to be followed by two short hops before I would land at home. I was, and still am, completely incapable of sleeping on a plane, so the way in which lights snapped off across the acres of space inside the huge plane as soon as the wheels left the runway was a bit depressing. Normally, I'm not one to strike up a conversation on a plane, but on that night the idea was highly appealing. This had been my first trip to London, or anywhere else outside the Western Hemisphere, and I was feeling quite cosmopolitan. This feeling was enhanced by the fact that I had spent the previous day trailing around the city with fantasy writer Felicity Savage, whose name alone was more enchanting than many people's life stories -- and whose life story was better still. So I was quite keyed up.

And I had another motive to chat. My trip had been spurred by the nomination of one of my books for a literary award -- and though I hadn't won, just being able to drop that into a conversation seemed extremely appealing. "Vacation? Oh, no," I would say. "You might have seen me on BBC 2 earlier this week. I was there for..." etc. etc.

As the cabin settled into darkness, I was excited to see the middle-aged man at my right elbow turn on his reading light and slide out a copy of  John le Carré's fine espionage novel, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. I fumbled in my own bag (purchased at the direction of Ms. Savage as part of some complex scheme concerning manipulation of VAT) and came up with a copy of Ken Follett's Triple.  

I angled the cover toward my neighbor with a smile. "I see you're also reading a spy novel," I said, then waited for the response that would allow me to segue to my recent brush with publishing fame.

The man in the next seat turned slowly. He tipped his head down to look at me over the top of rimless glasses, gave my face a few seconds' examination, then did the same to the book in my hand. "Follet," he said in the most plummy, upper-crust British accent imaginable, "is a hack." Then he turned, carefully removed the bookmark from his own novel, and settled back to read.  I spent the next eight hours staring at the seat back.

Even if I let a few refined syllables deflate my mood that night, I still enjoy a good spy novel. "Spy novels" covers a lot of ground.Sometime it's the action-oriented dealings of Commander Bond or his American counterpart, Matt Helm. On other occasions I've lost myself in the twists and turns of the hunt for the Jackal in Frederick Forsyth's novel, or sweated through encounters with those damn Nazi's in Jack Higgins' The Eagle has Landed. I've never seen much in the hardware-oriented thrillers of writers like Tom Clancy or Dale Brown -- they seem more interested in ensuring me that they know the serial numbers on the bottom of each weapon than on making the characters as believable -- but sales numbers show that someone certainly enjoys these books. And naturally I can't get through this topic without making yet another reference to Tim Power's Cold War fantasy, Declare.

And I don't care what that idiot said. I still like Ken Follet.

Jackdaws by Ken Follet

It's tougher to write a good spy novel in a world that increasingly seems composed of indistinguishable shades of grey. Many authors have retreated to those two great generators of spy novels -- the Cold War and World War II -- to find places where the shadows are genuinely inky and brutal action easily forgiven. This book, certainly among Follet's best, features memorable British spy Felicity 'Flick' Clariet who, as part of an all-female team, becomes embroiled in a scheme to destroy a critical German communications hub. The best spy novels can achieve a painful level of anticipation as the agent seems always on the brink of discovery, that's certainly true here. Flick is forced to be sometimes patient, sometimes daring, sometimes quiet, sometimes bold -- and always very, very smart -- to keep both herself and her mission alive. So there, guy in seat 33E. So there.

The Spy Who Came In from the Cold by John le Carre

Alright, yes, that other guy can write, too. In fact, le Carre has created the most memorable cast of spies to ever populate a Cold War, and while he's written many novels more laden with the emotional and intellectual burden carried by those involved in espionage, few of them match up to The Spy Who when it comes to pure intrigue. Twists, turns, betrayals and revelations light up a plot line as intricate as an embroidered tapestry. Unlike the tired George Smiley of le Carre's later novels, British agent Alec Leamas is young and new to his game. In fact, the whole Cold War is only at its beginning in this energetic novel. This novel doesn't pull punches, doesn't provide neat resolutions, and doesn't succumb easy answers. It's thrilling in a way that few reads are.

So. what agent would you trust to smuggle you past Checkpoint Charley? And while you're recounting your sneaky favorites, don't forget that you're supposed to be reading Lonesome Dove for the next front page book club to be held on the first Saturday after the election.


:: Next 18

Hate ads? Subscribe.







On Mothertalkers:

Speaker Pelosi: It Gets Better

Sunday Open Thread

Saturday Open Thread: Autumn Daze Edition

Midday Coffee Break

Review: Sesame Street Video Games

On Street Prophets:

Vigil -- Remembrance

Local Activism Diary - Changing The Script

Sunday Coffee All Day: Happy Endings

Massachusetts Prior to the Pilgrims

Soothing The Angry Child Within Us

On Congress Matters:

The pocket veto is finished

Speculation on what happens if GOP comes up short

Today in Congress

Today in Congress

Chancellor DeMint dissolves the Senate