Tester, Morrison deadlocked
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON - IR State Bureau - 05/28/06

HELENA -- John Morrison and Jon Tester are running neck-and-neck in their race for the June 7 Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Conrad Burns, a Lee Newspapers poll taken last week shows.

Morrison received 42 percent to Tester's 41 percent of the likely Democratic primary voters, with 14 percent undecided, according to the poll that was taken May 22-24.

Looks like the 30 percent undecided vote from last month's poll has broken Jon Tester's way. He is now statistically even with State Auditor John Morrison, with 14 percent of voters yet to commit. Tester appears to have the momentum now that television ads have erased much of the name recognition gap that existed at the start of this race. Tester started with a funny ad that made fun of his flat-top haircut. Another ad shows him working on his farm.

Neither is attacking the other, although some have called Morrison to task on the extra marital affair with a women who later married a man who was a subject of Investigation with the state auditors office. The state investigation seemed to languish, though when the Feds stepped in the man was quickly prosecuted and convicted. Four prominent lawyers issued a press release this week, in which the legal ethics of this affair and it's aftermath were questioned. Though Morrison enjoyed large donations from Montana Plaintiff Attorneys in the Montana Trial Lawyer's Association early in the campaign, one of the four has given his limit to Morrison and has now come out publicaly for Morrison. That may give Tester the edge in how those last 14 percent of undecideds split out on election day, which is one week away.

And I think turnout will be far more crucial than minor candidates.

Repairman, I never said to focus solely on the minor candidates, but they are part of the big picture. One aspect of conversation that doesn't seem to happen when it comes to races are the minor candidates. It is a fact that having a former republican running as an independant, (like we'll see in the Alaska Gov race or DeLay's old seat) takes votes away from Republicans. Third party candidates that are close to one side (like Mihos in the MA Gov race) take votes away from that party.

The same can be said about other third party candidates. As I have stated before, Libertarian candidates tend to take votes away from Republicans. The Green party candidates do the same to Democrats. There is a whole host of other parties that sit in the middle that take away votes from one side or the other or both equally like Perot did.

Pointing out the Senate race in Tennessee, there are 3 minor candidates who are all conservatives. They will take votes away from Hilleary or Bryant should they win the nomination. All together, they will probably get 50,000 votes in total, but if the race is close, 50,000 votes could make the difference.

Pointing this out is not focusing narrowly on these candidates, but pointing out the fact that they will have an impact in the race. Even the smallest impact can change a race, you only need 1 more vote than your opponent to win.

And you still don't know whether, had there been no Libertarian candidate, those Libertarian votes would have gone to Thune, or if those people just wouldn't have voted in that race at all.

But Rob, at that point you can attribute the result of a close election to almost anything. Johnson's registration and turnout efforts among American Indians, fundraising advantages, help from national party committees or interest groups, advertisements, debates, incumbency, voting rules, demographic population changes, media coverage...to focus narrowly on the minor candidates just seems like missing the big picture to me.

Keenan has credentials to run for U.S. Senate, but announced his candidacy just before the filing deadline and has very little money. So he has no chance to beat Burns.

BUT, a significant vote for Keenan, will be reported as an indicator of Burns' weakness. If Keenan gets any significant vote, the Montana press will consider him a moral victor of sorts, so Burns will get no bounce from his inevitable primary win, and will get more negative press if Keenan can pul at least 10 percent of the primary vote, easily within his grasp.

Burns should know this story well. In 1988, incumbent Democrat Senator John Melcher faced only Bob Kelleher in the primary. Kelleher (he's running as a Republican this time) has just one issue, that we should convert to a parliamentary democracy. He's previously run as a Green and before that, always as a Democrat in either the Governor's or U.S. Senate race. But Kelleher, usually a one-percenter, got more than 10 percent of the protest vote.

Melcher was unpopular with the Greens in the Democratic side (Montana is an open primary state) and so his victory was counted as a negative because of the significant "protest" vote.

This made him look even more vulnerable. The state press portrayed it that way, and a Yellowstone County Commissioner and former Ag broadcaster named Conrad Burns beat him in the 1988 general election.

Out of staters like to portray John Morrison as apparent winner-to-be of the Democratic Primary. But there is a whopping 31 percent of undecided voters in the last poll.

Morrison, who started with great name recognition advantage, having run two state-wide races for State Auditor, has a small lead among decided voters, but it is Tester who has gained the ground against him. As a state Senator he is well known in his home district in Montana's "Golden Triangle" of North Central Montana. He is a farmer there and makes his living on it. We have a part-time legislature in this state.

As Senate Majority Leader last session, he is also known amoung those who closely follow state politics. But the reliable Democratic vote in Montana for the primary is in the cities, especially, Missoula, Helena, Great Falls, Butte, Bozeman and Billings.

So count this one a toss up. Morrison will have much more television ads because he has more money, having close connections among the Montana legal community, but Tester is on the air too. It all depends how the nearly one-third undecided vote breaks.

And presentation will be a major part of that, since there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them on the issues. Tester has taken a stronger stance against the war, that might help him with liberal democrats, especially in Montana's second largest city, Missoula. It is home to the University of Montana and easily the most liberal city in the state.

Among Democrats in Missoula, the war is a significant issue and Tester has done a lot of grass root work in Missoula. The fact that Pearl Jam, with Big Sandy native Jeff Ament, played a benefit concert for him in Missoula, probably makes Tester the favorite in the County with the states largest collection of democrats. I know people in both camps and the Morrison people concede that Tester is ahead in Missoula in their campain polling.

It will be a tight race for the Democratic election.

Burns is ignoring Keenan, which might not be smart. His adds, which went negative right away, criticize only the two Democrats. He's already running running in just the general.

Tester and Morrison also ignore each other (at least publicly) Their ads are either introductory in nature or are pointed at Burns.

I gotta tell you guys have got a great one in Harold Ford. I saw him speak at the Indiana JJ Dinner and he rocked. Well-spoken, articulate and passionate... he's a keeper. He even gave his tacit endorsement to my man, Sen Bayh, in his presumptive 2008 presidential bid by volunteering to be his finance chair. Outstanding!

You can read a blow-by-blow of the event at http://www.allamericapac.com/blog

repairman,

You are correct, in that instance, even with all the Green votes, Carnahan would not have won. However, I'd bet everything that Thune would have beaten Johnson if it wasn't for Evans, the Libertarian candidate. Libertarian candidates typically take more votes away from Republican candidates and Green's typically take away from Democrats.

By the way, Gilmoure is already better known in the state than than Millay was. He's run for state senate twice in 04 and 02

Rasmussen just found Sherrod Brown leading Mike DeWine 44-41 in Ohio:

The 44% level of support for Brown is his highest of the season. DeWine has lost ground in four straight polls since peaking at 46% in mid-February.

...

When Ohio voters are asked which party they trust more on five key issues, national security is the only one where the GOP comes out on top. Democrats are trusted more on immigration, the economy, energy policy and the War in Iraq.

President Bush's numbers in the state are atrocious. Just 25% give him good or excellent marks for handling both the immigration issue and energy policy.

However, the President's numbers are stronger than Ohio Governor Robert Taft (R). Just 2% of the state's voters "Strongly Approve" of Taft's job performance while 55% "Strongly Disapprove."

Recent revelations about phone companies providing the National Security Agency with call logs from its customers might highlight a deep ambivalence from the public about the lengths the government should go to in fighting terrorism.

A slight majority (51 percent) told Gallup/USA Today pollsters they disapproved of the program to collect phone records, which began making headlines last week. Forty-three percent said they approved.

And a new survey from Newsweek found similar sentiments: Fifty-three percent of respondents said they thought the program "goes too far in invading people's privacy," compared with 41 percent who deemed it a "necessary tool to combat terrorism."

But that doesn't mean they're taking it personally. Gallup/USA Today pollsters found more than six in 10 said they wouldn't be concerned if they knew the government had their records; 22 percent said they would be very concerned, and 13 percent said they would be somewhat concerned. Those numbers dovetail neatly with an ABC News/Washington Post overnight poll released last week, which showed 66 percent of respondents saying it would not bother them if they found out the NSA had a record of their calls.

On the other hand, Gallup/USA Today also found that a majority of respondents (57 percent) said they would feel their "personal privacy" had been violated if they knew their phone company had handed their records over to the government; 42 percent said they would not. Nearly two-thirds also said they would favor immediate hearings in Congress to probe the issue.

Respondents to the Newsweek poll found fault with the executive branch, as well. When pollsters asked if presidential powers have been overextended "in light of this news and other executive actions by the Bush-Cheney administration," 57 percent said it had and 38 percent said it had not. Responses were split along party lines -- with 81 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Republicans answering affirmatively -- but 61 percent of self-identified independents fell on the same side.

Most of Newsweek's release focused on President Bush and Congress, showing another new low for Bush. Thirty-five percent said they approved of the way he is handling his job and 59 percent said they disapproved, only a slight shift from March's 36/58 split.

The direction-of-the-country measure showed a more precipitous drop: Just 23 percent said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States, down 7 points since the previous poll. A slight majority -- 52 percent -- said they wanted to see Democrats win back control of Congress in the fall; 35 percent said they wanted the GOP to keep its grip on power.

As an example, here are the results of the 2002 Senate race in MO: http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/raceresults.asp?eid=87&oid=24756&arc=1

Carnahan lost by about 21,000 votes (Her margin in St. Louis County was too small because Talent is from there). The Libertarian candidate got 18,000 (1%) while the Green got 10,000 (0.6%). It seems reasonable to assume that the Libertarian would get about 1% of the vote again this fall too. So unless there's some reason to think the Libertarian Senate candidate in MO is significantly stronger this year than in 02, I don't see it as a factor. If anything, compared to 2002, what could arguably help McCaskill is if the Libertarian pulled 1% again but no Green were on the ballot this time. Still, you can see that in this instance, giving every Green vote to the Democrat wouldn't have changed the outcome.

PS I concede that "obsessed" was a kind of irresponsible exaggeration. I should have found a milder word.

And for what it's worth, I do think it plausible that Tina, Karen, etc. are all the same person.

Rob, I think you're greatly overestimating the importance of minor party candidates. It's one thing to look at the vote counts and say that a minor candidate had more votes than the margin between the main two, but figuring out what would have happened had that candidate not been in the race, or whether those people would have voted, and for whom, is a whole different ballgame. Studies on Perot's candidacy found that he had no net effect on the Bush-Clinton race. Should we also say that the Libertarian threw the 2000 WA Senate race from Gorton to Cantwell? Or that Nader's candidacy helped her? What about the close races every cycle--NV Senate in 1998, SD Senate in 2002, Reps. Bob Beauprez, Mike Rogers, or Joe Hoeffel? WA's 2004 Gov. race? Gore's 2000 win in NM? Did these people all win because of minor candidates? I've seen no data on any of that. The US is a two party system by design (if unintentionally). I don't know that the minor party vote really changes that much. It's interesting, and it becomes relevant if a minor candidate gains some traction and starts polling over 5-10%, but in the races you mentioned I don't know of any evidence of that. (Interestingly, Rasmussen finds that if Lamont wrested the Dem nomination from Lieberman, he'd still win as an independent. That's very rare!)

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the Washington Post/ABC poll was propoganda. Frankly I doubt that. The Post editorial page has a number of weird quirks, like supporting the Iraq war and school vouchers, but that doesn't necessarily have any effect on its reporting or surveys. Don't you think they'd want to protect their credibility at measuring public opinion? I *can* see where the poll might have been rushed so it could be the first released on a hot new issue, and I did notice that it had a pretty small sample size (about 500). Though I found that poll stunning, and the Newsweek or USA Today 53-41 poll sounds more like what I'd want and expect, as far as I know these are the only 2 polls that have been released publicly on the issue. Either one could be an outlier; we don't know yet. I think more is attributable to sloppiness, rushing, irresponsibility, etc. than intentional, conspiratorial kind of efforts. The latter is generally pretty hard to pull off.

Duly noted. Thanks for the info and the clarification.

Nor'Easter

I think you've got me confused with RMill. we are in fact, 2 different people. So who's still confused lol

I saw a poll that said it was actually 53%-41%, not 51%-43%. Don't remember which poll it was. It's only a 12-point spread instead of 8 who dissaprove, but it's still significant that there are now multiple polls showing how wrong and far off the ABC poll was.

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

Majority of Americans disapprove of NSA Phone Tracking Database. ( Only 43% supupport )

Poll just came out from USA Today :

By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program, disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY. The National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from three of the nation's four largest telecommunication companies since soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Link at USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-14-nsa-reax-poll_x.htm

((( Please fire the idiot who did the ABC Poll that tried to tell us that the majority of Americans support the NSA Phone Tracking Database. I really find the ABC poll obscene to the point of almost being propaganda ! Is the Washington Post now going to run a retraction about the ABC poll being off ? )))

Thanks, RMIll. The point on minor candidates Sheeler and Young in RI is significant. The whole primary scenario is a "wild card" situation. They may not be the major players, but there are four months until that primary. How many lifetimes is that?

Excellent observations by OhioGuy on Sybil - uhh, Tina.

one of the remarkably different things that has us at odds with European Parliments is the lack of diversity...

the lack of differing viewpoints.

that being said a politician/candidate that has a different viewpoint doesn't have to get elected but by offering a different point of view,

may actually occaision/en courage relevant debate...

most of what passes for speechifying now a days is simply tryin to match your speech to what the pollsters say that you need to say........

that predicates a view based upon not _providing_ anything new to the discussion...

if the average intelligence quotient is 100 then you're writing and addressing their concerns, at least in your speech

rather than making sure that the salient points reach them...

to be a great kick-ess candidate nowdays would require you to open that box of whip-ess and to actually say something...

and simply step on the big and little endians......

destroying their rules of conduct....much like myself.

tha's wha ah laks tah doo...

I suggest someone in power, can _make_ a situation happen

by not allowing themselves to be led by conventional wisdom...

Harry Truman was an interesting fellow,

Mark Twain,

Theodore Roosevelt...in someways though I haven't revisted him

Abraham Lincoln

people that didn't dance to the tin horn of "political wisdom"

which often times is no more than political coercion of special interest...

step on them.

..

.

Repairman,

Something that is commonly overlooked are the thrid party candidates, mainly because they never win. However, as we have seen by the impacts of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, a decent candidate for a third party can take a large total of votes. These elections in the races I mentioned above are expected to be close, decided by a few votes. Its races like these where third party candidates can make a big difference.

The 2004 Senate race is good eveidence of this. Mel Martinez beat Betty Castor by less than 100,000 votes. Dennis Bradley, a VET candidate took in 165,909 votes and took more votes from Castor than he did Martinez.

In another race, and independant candidate took 6% of the vote. It may not be a lot, but in a close election, it can make all the difference. I'm not obsessed with them, but I understand that they do count in close elections.

Laura Bush does not believe those bad polls about her husband.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush said on Sunday she does not believe opinion polls showing her husband's approval ratings at record low levels.
Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she did not think people were losing confidence in President George W. Bush, despite a series of polls showing support for him at its lowest point in his five-year presidency and among the lowest for any president in the past 50 years.

"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.

(My Comments:) Laura does not believe the "Vast Bad Poll Wing Conspiricy" trying to get her husband. Someone needs to give Laura Bush a reality check real quick. She is admitting that she creates her own fantasy world in her head - and nobody else "Out there in the Real World" can tell her differently. WOW

Thanks Che

It seems that the public and the media have a very short memory when it comes to what was Bush previosly said. What they are saying now about the phone tracking is a 180 from what they said a year ago. We went from tracking "people with terrorist links" to "all Americans". According to my math that is an increase in 280 million American Citizens. And this has been going on for 3 years and the American public didn't know about it (What are Journalist doing - obviously not their job ?). This is not what Bush said a year ago. Normal people would call this lying, but in the Bush White House unless you are under oath lying to the American people is the stanard practice. If you get caught, to them you were lying for National Security Purposes - I lied to protect you. ( What's next? I will rape you for your own good ? )

If you saw Colbert skit at the the White House Correspondence Dinner. He does a joke about it's the journalist job to just type what the White House tells them. It is starting to look like it was no joke - journalist have just been typing, not investigating(that to much work). A new book just came out called LAPDOG - How the media rolled over for Bush. It is definely worth a read.

FOR UNCENSORED NEWS PLEASE BOOKMARK:

WWW.WSWS.ORG
WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO
WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM

SPREAD THE WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.unknownnews.org/0605190511NSAspying.html

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world"
Bush lied repeatedly about scope of NSA spying on Americans

by Leslie Cauley, USA Today

May 11, 2006

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA Today.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans -- most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.
Questions and answers
about the NSA record collection program
Filed under:
Lies from the Bush administration
Secret government in America
The war on freedom
But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made -- across town or across the country -- to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the

For the rest of this article go to:

http://www.unknownnews.org/0605190511NSAspying.html

Here is Charlie Cook's latest set of Senate race rankings, released Friday. He lists 1 Democratic-held seat and 6 Republican-held seats as tossups. If all of them switched parties, the Senate would be 50-50 again.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_sen_ratings_may12.pdf

RM, why are you so obsessed with minor party candidates?

A few things of little knowledge about these Senate races.

Tennessee, an Independant candidate running in this state is as conservative as they come. He claims the Republican party has become too moderate. Ed Choate, apparently running as a Libertarian, wants to form an American Christian Conservatibve Party in Tennessee so we know where he stands on the issues. Dr. Keplinger's, also running as an indpenedant, webiste mentions country gospel music so I'm edgining him toward the conservative section as well. This bodes good for Ford should Bryant or Van Hillery become the Republican nomination. These 3 candidates may not take many votes but any vote they do take can change the election.

Rhode Island, there are still 2 candidates aside from Whitehouse ni the Democratic Primary, Sheeler and Young, this may stop Dems from voting for Chaffee in the repub primary allowing Laffey to win, thus ensuring republican demise.

Missouri

Frank Gilmoure, a Libertarian candidate who has run for state senator twice is in the running, in a close election, he could put McCaskill over the top by taking votes away from Talent.

Montana Burns now has a real primary chalenger in Keenan, Kelliher isn't gonna put up much of a fight despite being the Green party nominee for Senate 4 years ago and Governor 2 years ago. Also, some Stan Jones guy is running as a Libertarian, again, if the election is close, Burns might get tossed by losing votes and money in a primary and to the Lib candidate.

Now I could go on about this, but these are the major races where republicans are losing, excpet PA where no other candidates are in the race cept Dem and Repub. Lets see who the first person to throw the Greens at me is, whoever it is better not mention Parker from the Independant Green's in Virginia, shes more conservative than anything. Even mentions the phrase fiscally conservative on her website.

That funny !

PS I think Dick Cheney is in charge of shooting rich white Republicans. Is he coming to Indianapolis anytime soon?

Evan Bayh isn't much of a Democrat anyway. He should have no problem getting a job on K St.

I can't really speak to Gov. Daniels because I haven't been following his goings on in Indiana. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts (whatever that means) there's no way he drags a national Republican candidate for president under Bayh in Indiana.

Republicans control K street. Don't you remember Rep. Delay - K street Project. How can he get a job there as a democrat. Plus the next plum K street job goes to Rep Delay who resigns from congress June 6. Then maybe to jail for his crimes - who knows nowadays. With the repoublican motto - "Crime does Pay".

I like how you will not dare mention Indiana Republican Gov. Daniels and the disaster that he has become. WHY ? AFRAID ? CAN'T DEFEND HIM ? That's my point. Thanks you for making it for me by avoiding it. Daniels will drag down the republicans across the state. Daniels is why Republicans will vote Democrat. Daniels will do more for democrats in Indiana than Bayh ever could. Republicans should do themselves a favor and shoot Daniels before he spreads his unpopularity virus to them.

And the Republican takeover of both houses of the IN legislature? How is IN trending blue in presidential elections? It hasn't even been close since 1996. They'll reelect Bayh as senator just fine; they won't vote for him on a national ticket against a Republican.

Bayh is a shameless, spineless opportunist who disgraces his father's courageous progressive legacy. He belongs on K Street, not in public office.

To : Sandwich Repairman

I usaully agree with you, but not on Indiana. Indiana over the last year and half is trending blue. Republican thought they had it made when they got Gov. Daniels ( Prior Bush Employee at the White House) into the governor's mansion. But it has BACKFIRED the voters in Indiana HATE HIM, HATE HIM, did I mention HATE HIM. I not sure if its his connection to Bush or what, but Indiana voters like Daniels about as much as they like Saddam. Indiana's Republican Gov. Daniels poll numbers are in the 30s check Survey USA on Governors. When you factor in ground zero poll numbers for a Republican Gov in Indiana and Sky high poll numbers for a Dem Senator named Bayh - you are talking some serious flipping. Bayh as a VP of the 2008 president ticket would be the play of the year and cause Indiana to go blue in 2008. Bayh is my personal favorite for VP in 2008 - I think he might be a little to green for Prez. But, lets see how he does over the next few years.

over in "the debate," it was with chris and sandy k.

but they seemed to be administration shills that were doing...

"data planting"

as opposed to data mining...

there's someone named Archimedes that does that in "Early Warning"

I personally would like to talk to "George Will," in public on a national talk show, in order to penetrate his thick demeanonr of nonsensical removal from pertinence.

.

I hate theorists that have never actually _lived_ a life before....academics..

I'd also like to kick Bill O'Reilly around the parking lot of conversation too....tell him that....he's already in the handicapped spot....parked illegally, I'll heal him!

.

Is it just me , or has anybody else noticed that "Tina" sounds a lot like "sara" who sounds a lot like "karen" and now all of a sudden there is this "Sam" person who I don't ever recall seeing posting on here before, coming to the defense of Tina. Hmmmmm.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the similaritites between all of these people is very striking. They all make the exact same nonsense arguments, and all of them display the same violently allergic reaction to facts and evidence. Go back and read these peoples' posts. They all smell like the same person to me.

I wouldn't be very surprised if all the names are from the same person who posts under many different names to make it seem as if there are multiple people who agree with him/her. Call it a silly conspiracy theory, but all the tired lies and bogus claims these people throw out are so strikingly similar I can't believe that multiple educated people who post on the same blog would all happen to take these positions. And who uses a short, presumably REAl name when they post on a blog anyways? Ohio guy, Sandwich Repairman, Nor'Easter, Populist Dem, Judge, Intrepid Liberal, RMill, Caped Composer...those all sound like blogging pseudonyms. But Tina, sara, sam, karen????.....this smells

*Correction: IN hasn't voted Democratic since 1964, LBJ. Evan Bayh wouldn't even be able to carry the state.

Frankly, I don't see why we'd bother trying to win Indiana. It hasn't voted Republican since 1964.

The Democrats can and most likely will win in Rhode Island, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Montana, and Missouri. I say they have a fighting chance to win in Ohio, and Tennesse. In Ohio there are a good portion of registered Democrats not that many less than Republicans. If the GOP stays home being pissed off at DeWine for bucking from the party on several issues and Brown offers smart solutions to problems facing up Ohio, taking up several liberal issues such as labor, and excites his base by offering some Taft and Bush bashing he can get the turnout to beat DeWine. Brown may be able to keep pace with DeWine in the Independents race who want change and pissed off at Bush and Taft. If Brown gets his base to turn out in large numbers, and keeps pace with Independents he can win his race. Ford, is very smart, has high name recognition, a moderate conservative Blue Dog Democrat, plus the anti-Gop climate, which could add up to a Ford win. I am a moderate Independent, but after all the Republican scandals, failures, and Bush's incompetence has me wanting the Democrats to take over congress and the presidency in 2008. I voted for several Republicans in the past, perhaps more so than I voted for Dems and I am sickened by the Republican Party right now. They are not the Republican Party of Ronald R. of small gov., personal responsibility, and fiscal discipline. I bucked from the Demcrats for these issues, but now after all this it seems the Democrats are the party of small gov. personal responsibility, and fiscal discipline. I am from Indiana and will vote for one of the only sane Republicans in the Senate Richard Lugar this year. In 2008, I hope the Democrats are smart and nominate a Evan Bayh type Democrat because I am leaning their way already unless they nominate Hillary.

Can Sherrod Brown beat Mike Dewine? Yes, aslong as our turnout is good. Is the odds against Brown? Yes. Would Brown been more likely to be DeWine than say Hackett? No. As a Ohioan, I know that even here in Southern Ohio the GOP is becoming more and more unpopular and Ted Strickland's winning his race is coming more and more probable. Unlike moderate Ted Strickland who is an ex-pastor, Brown is more liberal and will get tide as an outsider and DeWine a reasonable moderate. Sadly, Hackett who would have the NRA endorsment and able to court alot of voters pissed at DeWine is not our nominee. I am going to work hard to get Brown elected, as well as Strickland. I will work harder for Strickland because his candidacy is more important for Dems locally and will help us pull Ohio in 2008. Brown who has a uphill climb who can and might win, but it is going to take a lot of hardwork.

Lincoln won with 39% of the vote, so? He ran against Douglas, a northern Democrat, John Breckinridge, a southern pro-slavery Democrat, and also John Bell, of the Constitutional party. The election pie was cut into 4 pieces, and fortunately for our nation, Abe won in 1860. He was also lucky to have been elected to a 2nd term during war against a disgruntled general named McClellan, a Democrat. There were also less states in the Union to hold an election.
Our system of elections is based on state by state winner take all (except for the Maine and Nebraska which divides up according to Congressional district wins)
Our founders were brilliant, they understood how to end the gridlock on election day by blocking run off elections and also blocking mob-rule by the national vote. Only big states would be influencing the presidential vote if they were allowed to put their millions of voters up against the low population states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming, and the Dakota states. Our president would be elected by the East Coast and the West Coast, and ignore what the Democrats call "fly over country".

Sorry dude, the NTSB investigation found that weather played no role in the Wellstone plane crash.

If Tina has touched a nerve of truth, where is it? Where are the facts? The quotes? The statistics? All on our side, apparently, because you haven't given any either! When you make ridiculous claims, you should fully expect that people will offer contradictory evidence disproving them. I notice that, like Tina, you offer no argument to counter any of the facts I and other posters here have offered. Rather, you ask us to lay off her because she's holding her own. Interesting contradiction there.

May I ask you to mind your facts, Sam? Where exactly did anyone do anything that wasn't minding their manners? Suggesting that we should be bound by facts and rational thought?

Ben Nelson is ahead 54-35 in Nebraska: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/May%202006/Nebraska%20Senate%20May.htm

I think the little lady named Tina has been holding her own in here boys. I live in Minnesota, regretted the loss of Senator Paul Wellstone, but he flew in a snowstorm. Why did the Democrats try to create a some evil plan was out there to blow up his plane? Don't call me silly, it was discussing in the Minnesota newspapers, investigated, and reported the pilot should not have been flying, even in good weather.
I think the anger in here from the Democrats lashing out at Tina must mean she has touched a nerve of truth.
If a Republican congressman like Mark Kennedy is Mark Kennedy would be nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush, well, I guess when Democrats voted for all the stuff during the Clinton Adminstration, they were rubber stamps too? It is called being a politican, folks when you elect a Democrat, you get a person who blocks the President. When you elect a Republican, more or less, they usually try to help President Bush. That is what we will decide on election day, whether to add Democrats for more gridlock or send a few more Republicans to end it. That is what the 2006 election will be about. I am just glad a few women come in here to debate the issues with you guys. May I ask you boys to mind your manners?

Looks like 53% oppose the data mining effort while 41% support it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

ErrinF, can you post the data from the Newsweek poll here?

A new Newsweek poll which took twice as long and included twice as many Americans shows that a mjority DO NOT support the NSA datamining. That Washington Post ABC poll was only done on roughly 500 Americans and was done in less than a day... unlike most polls which take 2 to 4 days and include at least 1000 people. That such a push poll came out so quickly after a supposedly random 'leak' is evidence of the amount of collusion and choreography that goes on between the Bush administration and the mainstream media. That poll was made to shape public opinion, not to accurately assess the public's view on the NSA datamining program.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

May 12, 2006 -- GOP Scandal Scorecard Updated with Republican Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's indictment late yesterday on 3 counts. He joins fellow GOP Governor Bob Taft of Ohio in the criminal docket.
The Republican governor's criminal chain gang gets a little longer. Kentucky's Fletcher (right) joins Ohio's Taft (left) in criminal court. An idea for the location of the next Republican National Convention: Alcatraz.

Yup, that's true about Perot's effect. All the studies on his candidacy found that he pulled equally from Bush and Clinton. If you look at voter turnout rates in presidential elections, you can see how he boosted it to 55% in 1992, from about 50% in 1988. It was 49% in 1996 and 51% in 2000.

I love how Republicans complain about Clinton winning the presidency with 43% in 1992. Would it have been more democratic for Bush to win with his 38%?? Have they forgotten that Nixon won in 1968 with 43%? Or that Bush II LOST the popular vote in 2000 when he got 48% to Gore's 49%? You know, Lincoln took the presidency in 1860 with just 39% of the vote. Which is 10 points higher than Bush's current approval rating!

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

US media, Democrats deflect opposition to government spying on Americans

By Barry Grey
13 May 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

One day after the revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly compiling a data base of the telephone calls of some 200 million Americans, the response from the media and both Democratic and Republican politicians already makes clear that there will be no serious opposition from within the political establishment to this further step in the direction of a police state.

On Friday, as General Michael Hayden, who presided over the NSA spying program as head of the agency from 1999 to 2005, made the rounds of Senate offices in advance of next week's confirmation hearings on his nomination to head the CIA, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, praised him as "a good man" and declared, "I have no problems with General Hayden going into the hearing."

Reid, along with other top Democrats in Congress, was well aware of the NSA's domestic spying program, having been briefed along with leading Republicans by the Bush administration.

As for the media, it did not take long after USA Today published its May 11 exposé on the spying operation for the networks and press to begin their efforts to confuse and disorient the American people and condition them to accept this unprecedented attack on democratic rights.

The Washington Post led the way, publishing as the lead article on its web site early Friday the results of an overnight poll conducted jointly by the Post and ABC News. The survey purported to show that 63 percent of Americans supported the NSA domestic spying operation that was authorized by President Bush shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Under the program, the three largest US telecommunications companies--AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth--are handing over to the NSA the records of every telephone call made by every one of their customers, including the date, the duration of the call and the phone number dialed. This is being done without securing court warrants and without Congressional oversight, in flagrant violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and federal statutes.

The existence of the program exposes as lies previous statements made by Bush and Hayden, following last December's exposure of a secret NSA program to intercept and monitor international telephone calls and emails. At that time, Bush and Hayden said that the NSA was targeting only communications from or to countries outside the US and strictly limiting the spying to communications involving known terrorist suspects.

Beneath the headline "Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts," the

FOR THE REST GO TO:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/phon-m13.shtml

Tina:

Address ANY of the points I and others have made about Minnesota. For example:

* the significant lead Hatch has against Pawlenty in the Gubenatorial race right now.
* The lead that Klobuchar has over Kennedy RIGHT now even though Kennedy has higher name recognition.

*The fact that Kennedy almost lost two years ago against a first time candidate in a conservative district.

*The Dems taking over the State House in 2004 and almost taking back the State Senate.

* Bush's incredibly low approval numbers within the state right now

* Gore/Kerry + Green Votes adding up to almost a 200,000 vote edge even during 2000 and 2004 when Bush was actually somewhat popular.

Do you want to address any of those issues? I'm guessing not, but I'd be interested to see you try. A

lso, as far as your Perot crying goes I would note that a study of the issue found that Perot took EXACTLY the same number of votes from Clinton as from Bush I. The breakdown of perot votes was 1/3 Clinton, 1/3 Bush, and 1/3 who otherwise simply would not have voted. So Perot had ZERO effect in Clinton winning either election.

Fortunately, they are very charitable on typos.

Make that "the party line."

Easy guys. Tina's "out there without a net" enough already. What Tina said was "...and she went bankrupt after the stock sank." Not that Cantwell filed for bankruptcy.

That is not uncommon use of the language for somebody who goes broke. As soon as she was challenged on that a lot of time was spent started talking past each other, quibbling.

Did Cantwell actually "go broke"? Doesn't sound as if she did.

Did she lose a lot of money? Yup! Just like many of the rest of us in the Dot.Com Bust.

Does that make her a bad manager or a bad person? Nope! Just in the wrong business at the wrong time.

Tina, you should realize that your implications could be just as easily used on the Bush family in business! Want to talk about "bad business people," let's discuss George H. W., George W. and the inimitable Neal Bush.

There seems to be enough of a Truth Squad [The RNC doesn't have that copyrighted, do they?] in the blog, that Tina can't get away with playing fast and loose without being quickly corrected.

This is a tough group on facts and how they are used, Tina. Everybody here has the Internet at their fingertips. Any spinning gets stopped immediately.

Give Tina some credit though. At least she is not simply "bashing" with all of the tired old epithets that the people at the far ends of the political spectrum use.

Tina, if you have good ideas, talking points and facts, most of this group acknowledges it. But, they savage "the arty line."

Bush won Iowa by 10,000 votes. Yes, that is correct. The point is that Bush won the state and the electoral votes."

Yes, Tina, so if Bush won in Iowa by only 10,000 then why are you saying that Minnesota is so red when it voted for Kerry by 100,000 votes? You take hypocrisy to a new height.

Oh, and I love how you don't respond to any of the facts that were leveled at you about Minnesota or Maria Cantwell. It's not lost on anyone that you just rant and rave without respond to any facts.

I love how Tina has ignored all the myriad comments here pointing out her errors and dispelling her earlier idiotic claims. If at first you're proven wrong, change, change the subject! Cantwell had $40M, not $10M. She never declared bankruptcy, as Tina claimed (while castigating Democrats for being the ones not to check their facts), and NONE of this has any bearing on her ability to win reelection in 2006!

Linda, that was my point! Lie and misrepresent the Wellstone funeral as you will (I was there), there won't be one in 2008. It was a fluke, and it ain't happening again. Coleman will be outta there. There's no other way he would have gotten in in 2002. Are you proud to support an alcoholic womanizer whose wife lives in California? Is that your idea of "family values"?

did you say something?

what are you implying?

you're not being clear enough

maybe it's too simple for you: it's just that there's an implication that the current NSA is not just monitoring the _flow_ of the ocean of information....

which is what Bush's NSA, which is different than the _real_ NSA, said...flow

they're monitoring the lives of fish, whales, squids, seaweed, temperature, color of the sand, ecologies of interactions in all communities, they're listening in on all conversations that they have access to...

teenage girls and boys talking about sexual discovery, old people dying talking to loved ones from a hospital bed, your mother arguing with your father, preists talking to parishoners....

things that are normally regarded as private conversations....whatever they want to....

they are not offering any proof of what they are doing....

your own Mr. Goneshillazzzzz refused to take oath when he testified about what they were doing....while he grinned like a drunk coyote....and you want _us_ to trust these losers....Mr. Cokehead....

Saudis/UAE people flew the planes that purportedly were "attacking" the United States....who are bushs' family friends?

who was he trying to give the Ports deal to?

can you count? 1+1 = 2, 1+ 2 = 3,

can you make simple connections?

did you know Poppy was involved in the CIA and Mafia in the early 50's and oil? Did you know that his uncle lost a plantation when Castro took over Cuba? When did McCarthy start barking about Communism? And why was it important to the average Joe? It wasn't it was important to rich people, who didn't want to lose their...no it was about reiche people that didn't want to share.......we got McCarthyism, so they didn't have to worry....it's not about the people it's about a special class...

your United States Royalty...monied.

.

Yes, They took the NSA phone database poll way to early before the public could get their arms around the issue. I am positive ; if they took a new poll today the majority of the public would be against a NSA National Phone Taracking Databse that tracks phone call that Americans make. This Poll was Fraud. The American public does not even support a National ID Card much less a NSA National Phone Tracking Database. There is something funny with this Poll. My gut does not feel right about the spin on this poll. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA tampered with the poll numbers.

Sandwich Repairman, Norm Coleman was elected because the people of Minnesota were disgusted by the Democrats turning a funeral for Paul Wellstone into a political circus, booing Ventura (who walked out) booing Republican from Congress who came to pay respect to a member of the Senate. That is more than a fluke, it was voters smacking the Democrats across the face for acting like noisy children in a church running up the down the aisles. And Cspan carried it LIVE for the entire nation to see Democrats at their worst moblike role. Walter Mondale was put on the ballot after Wellstone died in a snowstorm in October. Walter Mondale lacked the support of the young voters who only saw an old man begging for votes.
Good manners and politics do not seem to go together anymore, but Minnesota might be an example of why the Democrats lost that Wellstone seat. Dayton has lost support for his antics and that is why he is stepping down after 6 years, he faced rejection by the voters.

Bush won Iowa by 10,000 votes. Yes, that is correct. The point is that Bush won the state and the electoral votes. That is the system we use in the US to select the President, not who got the most votes. Nader helped Bush win states in 2000, and I would think the Democrats would be angry at Nader instead of giving him credit to helping to defeat Gore. (I call it the revenge for Ross Perot taking 19% of the national vote and helping Clinton win the electoral college only 43% of the national vote in 1992 and 48% in 1996)

Kerry was not a strong leader, and he got the ANYBODY BUT BUSH vote, showing that anger is not a good motivator for electing any politican.

Maria Cantwell did not have to offically declare bankrupty in order to be broke, so the Democrats can defend that point as much as they want, but the fact of the debate is that she needed to beg, borrow, and find Democrats who could help during her ordeal.
To go from being worth $10 million down to $1 million with a debt to pay back for financing your Senate race is a huge monkey on any person's back.
Senator Elizabeth Dole was smart to find wealthy Republicans to challenge Democrats who used their own wealth to win their seats. Look at Corzine in New Jersey, he spent $60 million of his own bucks to win the seat in 2000, Dayton spend millions of his own Dayton Clothing Store empire bucks, Bob Graham is also a wealthy man from Florida who stepped down from office in 2004 but used his millions to finance his seat, as well as another wealthy Democrat Jay Rockefeller, from the dirty Big Oil empire. (explain that one to us, Democrats, why is he a member of your party if Big Oil is so disgusting and vile?)

Nancy Pelosi is worth over $10 million, Diane Feinstein is worth millions. So why are the Democrats complaining about rich people? Are they so full of self-guilt that they are embarrassed by their millions? It is difficult to understand when the Democrats complain about rich people yet they love George Soros and his $20 million to try to defeat Bush in 2004. Steven Bing donated millions, the Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles creator donated millions to Democrats. And Moveon.org was created and financed by Wes Boyd and his wife with their millions. So I think we need to start a debate about the hypocrisy of rich Democrats who use class warfare to create a wedge issue to win. Ted Kennedy used his millions to hang onto power, clobber Republicans.

I forgot some more of the puzzle pieces.

Let me add to my list.

7) CIA secret prisons in Europe.
8) Porter Goss resigns(fired) the day before European Officail visit the White House to investigate the CIA Secret Prisons in Europe. (How convient - I can't answer your question are CIA director no longer works for us.)
9) They blame the leak on the CIA Secret Prisons in Europe on some lady that worked at the CIA for 20 years. As they are dragging her out of the building she screaming she didn't do it. Framed ? Scapegoated ?
10) Looks like we really get the leaker so who leaked. ( Maybe Negroponte(NSA) leaked CIA prisons in Europe so that he could get Goss fired, and then put in his own puppet in charge of the CIA ( Hayden ) )

I better be careful what I say. I think. I saw this in a Movie before called "The Pelican Brief".

All these stories are interconnected, but no one in the media has the balls to connect the dots. Wouldn't be first time we didn't connect the dots.

It is kind of what they do on Top Secret Projects - where they break it up into pieces so that you can't see the big picture - The Whole Picture. ( Standard Intelligence Procedure )

I AGREE !

1) CIA Porter Goss resigns(truth fired)
2) NSA fighting for power with the CIA
3) Secret Phone Databases at the NSA on Americans
4) Hayden who worked for Negroponte(IN charge of the NSA) pushes for Hayden to be put in charge of the CIA.
5) CIA number 3 tries to quits when they fire Porter Goss.
6) FBI search CIA number 3 house and seize his computer.

IT SMELLS !

There is a real story in there somewhere we just haven't been told the truth yet - maybe never will. The Washington Post needs to get back to Investigative Journalism.

I was just noticing on another blog that

someone implied that maybe what we needed to "learn our lesson"

was to have another terrorist attack occur....

maybe someone on the inside

can't hold their water

and they are bragging to us...

our own country could be planning a terrorist attack against us to garner credibility...for a failing administration numbers....

I urge anyone in government service to not let Americans be killed as part of some political ploy to keep the Bush family in power...

do not let them kill your country men, because you don't have balls,

just say no.

.

.thanks.

.

just say no to crime, arrest the bush family...today,

take a bite out of crime, have a country you can be proud of...

thanks so much you r mother loves yah...

.

here and now there is another thing going on...

parties were important...

when everyone knows that the votes are flavored in congress...

why did Kerry let Bush win? what did he get?

and why is the Washington Post pushing Hayden up to the point of masquerading

"former CIA agent, Peter Brookes" as an unpredjudiced opinon

when he served under Rumsfeld, and is friends with him

and Dana Preist speaks out in favor of Hayden, saying that he will rein in Rumsfeld, when he's a former Rumsfeld agent?

is there any spin going on here?

sure, and you people are right on top of it too...

"The lure of absolute power tempts everyone in power, whatever their political stripe."

things happen in degrees.

the Patriot Act is the rape of the Bill of Rights.

do you disagree?

this paper printed that the majority of people are "okay"

with having their phone calls intercepted, as long as it's for terrorists....

what effing terrorists?

12 to 20 Million Mexicans have entered the United States

ANY ONE OF THEM COULD HAVE BEEN AN ARABIC TERRORIST....

but weren't.

the 9/11 Commission said that this administrations _inaction_ on addressing terrorists threats "bordered on the criminal,"

why are the borders guarded and why have there been no _real_ action on terrorists?

because _WE_ are the terrorists...

Peter Brookes, who stood up for Hayden as a former CIA man is also a Rumsfeld man....

the same man that Dana Preist, acting as a Washington Post disinformation agent for your country...and I know that she leaked about secret prisons...who cares...she plants information so that she appears to be a credible source....he walk doesn't match that....she _never_ openly speaks against this administration....

as an authority if she cared about her country she would....

IN FACT THE ECONOMY IS A GREATER NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE THAN ANY ARABIC COUNTRY...

and that's being discussed a lot isn't it?

and the fastest way to stop illegal aliens,

arrest the people that hire, them starting with Congress people, the Judicial Branch and system, and the Executive branch of the Federal government....

ZERO TOLERANCE for Federales hiring _illegal_ aliens....

check all of the ranches, and owned properties of FEDERAL PEOPLE....

if you can't obey the laws of this country, then you shouldn't have the option of affecting, creating, or passing laws...

because you're sure not capable of putting other people first....

.

.