A newer poll has been released by the Political Science De4partment of Montana State University-Billings. Historically an accurate poll and usually the last one released in Montana before general elections, the MSU-B poll shows Tester at 46 percent, Burns at 35 percent, an eleven-point gap that shows Burn's extremely negative campaign is backfiring.

Forget the Rassmussen, it's all over the map and as many others have pointed out, has questionable methodology.

Burns is toast in Montana. The Senate Democratic leadership has even released a statement saying Tester will get a seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee "as soon as possible" (whatever that means) That would be a powerful committee placement which Burns currently enjoys (leading to his role as top money recipient from Jack Abramoff). Besides the extremely negative campaign, Burns is also bragging about bringing home the pork as a member of that powerful committee.

But the GOP will hold the state's lone US House seat. Republican Incumbant Denny Rehberg is getting such weak opposition from Democrat Monica Lindeen that he has hardly even hit the airwaves with adds. Lack of money and a disorganized campaign puts Lindeen with only 30 percent support in the MSU-B poll, compared to 53 for Rehberg. Showing the ineffective campaign that has been run, she still has a significant number of poll respondents who don't recognize her name.

Rehberg has no negative baggage this election. In contrast to Burns, he is a personable man that is generally liked, though his voting record is probably more conservative than the majority in Montana would prefer. He would have been tough to beat anyway, but Rehberg wins this one by default.

The same poll, by the way, gives Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer a 75 percent approval rating. Schweitzer has gone to bat for Tester, appearing in a series of television ads with Tester and making good natured fun of his trademark flattop haircut. The nagative adds are trying to cast Tester as an east-coast style liberal. That's a pretty hard sale to make on a full-tim farmer (Tester is also president of the Montana Senate, butMontana has only a part-time legislature that meats only in odd-numbered years) with a flattop and views on some social issues that would not sit well with eastern liberals.

The Repubs know the polls don't matter because they have purged the voter rolls to the extent that they know they will win.

The question then becomes what can be done about the systematic disenfranchisement of the American citizens? If someone is registered, why should they have to reply to a letter confirming they are registered in order to remain registered?

King george will retain power at all costs. If the purge of the voter rolls doesn't pan out, then I wouldn't put it past him to declare Marshall Law and indefinitely postpone the election.

Come Election night and the day after, it will be interesting to see if the "news media" will go after the real story or come up with some phoney story about how polls no longer work.

PG

I love politics as much as anyone, but some of these people who are posting cannot have a job! How can you be reading all these posts and thinking up retorts which you then post at 1:10 pm, 1:13 pm, 1:16 pm, etc? I am enjoying taking a break from grading papers and reading all the chat, however.

Perhaps the RNC stopped spending in Ohio because the "fix" is in: GOP crooks Rove and Blackwell finally completed their purge of the voter rolls (see "Blackwell purged Ohio Voter Rolls Oct 1st" (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/85915/109).

New polls in OHIO indicate a tidal wave of support for Democrats...that's why the RNCC pulled out...contrary to Zoukster and Bloomers claim otherwise.

Stickland's lead now at 20 points
Brown's lead now at 14 points
Deborah Pryce losing by 11 points
Zack Space lead over Padget up to 9 points
MEAN JEAN Schmidt losing by 3 points is the latest news to befell the GOP in OHIO.

The Ohio battle is over....stick a fork in it.

I was hoping to be the first to say this, but "Stick a Fork..." beat me to it. I think KYl's defeat will be one of the really big surprises in this election (as will Hastert's loss to Laesch). Given that, if Menendez pulls through, Holy Joe's flipping to the Republicans won't matter so much. (C'mon, do you think he'd get so much Republican support without a payback. After all, if the seat stays Democratic, it would be to the Republicans advantage to paint Lamont as a 'second Kennedy' -- not true, but when has that ever stopped them.)
I think Menendez could really score points with an ad that reminds people that while everybody in NJ loves Thomas Kean SR -- even an ex-Jerseyite Yellow Dog Democrat like me -- it is Thomas Kean JR that is running, and comparing the positions of father and son.

Not entirely a suprise, but Wash Post endorse Webb. And before Zoukster and Bloomer get their panties in a ruffle, the Post does NOT always endorse Dems.

Read the editorial......Allen has has an undistinguished six years in the Senate.

It amazes me how the media will start putting a candidate on a pedestal like Allen only to find his accomplishments is hardly that of Presidential material.

Anybody, and I mean anybody, that follows Allen knows he is an intellictual lightweight. Just a good ole neocon bigoted rightwinger IMO. Allen may win reelecttion for one more term in the Senate, but this will be the end of his political career. You can stick a fork in it.

kudos to stick a fork in it for mentioning the AZ race. i've long suspected this to be a sleeper surprise: popular dem gov. at the top of ticket with assured re-election, the candidate (kyl) being further to the right than his constituents, sub-50 approval rating, strong challenger, etc. the latest poll (surveyUSA) has pederson closing to within 5 points, a huge surge. it should take the place of MI and WA as both of these are blue states in a deep blue year, with incumbents who've committed no firable offense, running against opponents who are far behind in all polls and have hardly ever even come within striking distance of their dem opponents.

as regards the nj race, well, a conservative blogger put it best: "New Jersey is such a tease. Like the school girl who flirts with you only to say "let's be friends" when you ask to go steady, Jersey dangles early positive poll results in front of yearning Republican eyes, only to end up with the same boys every time. 2006 is shaping up to be no different." (from electionprojection.com)

as for TN and VA, as much as i'd truly love to believe these are winnable my heart says otherwise. had the dems been able to get warner to run in va (which i'm sure he now wishes he had) and bredesen to run for the tn seat instead of re-election for gov, these would have been absolute cakewalks for the dems. as they stand now though, i think it'll take another scandal, maybe not quite foley-size, but perhaps half-a-foley, to land these in the blue column. these states are simply too red and the challengers are just not up to the, well, uh...challenge.

A bakers dozen of Dem pickups...

Chocola from Indiana down by double digits. He's done...stick a fork in it.

It's a bit of bad luck for Republicans that Indiana and Kentucky are the first two states to come in, just like it was good for them in 2000.

woah there Zathras, there are 3 house races in Indiana up for grabs. The 2nd Chocola, the 8th Hostettler and the 9th Sodrel. In Kentucky, there is a possibly competetive race in the 1st district, though that race may be eluding Barlow's ability to win it. The 2nd Lewis 3rd Northup and 4th Davis, are all races to watch in Kentucky. The early returns of those states will be VERY interesting to watch and could set the tone for the rest of the night.

Wetterling in Minnesota has substantial lead over her GOP rival. Wetterling hit a home run with the ad on Foley. Her child was abducted, which played perfectly with the Grand Ole Pedofile label. Since this ad has ran, she has increased her lead by 4 percentage points to an 8 pt lead. This seat was held by Mark Kennedy, the GOP candidate for Minn. Senate. Another GOP seat moves to the DEM column, as Wetterling has an insurmountable lead....stick a fork in it.

By my count, the following are done deals in terms of Dem Pickups.
1. Bob 'I'm Innocent" Ney OHIO
2. Curt "I did it for my daughter" Weldon PENN
3. Mark, 'I love Boys ONLY" Foley FL.
4. Jim kolbe " I love camping with Boys" ARIZONA
5. Don "I love beating my mistriess" Sherwood. PA
6. Mark " I'm not Teddy" Kennedy. MINN
7. Tom "There's not a House I couldn't buy" Delay.
8. Indiana Hosteller " I'm leaving on the Hoss I came in on" INDIANA
9. Charlie " I know sleaze, and Heath your know sleaze" Taylor. NORTH CAROLINA
10. Clay " I know Mark Foley, and I REALLLY like Mark Foley" Shaw. FLORIDA
11. Mike " I Rather lose on prinical, RNCC principal" Sodel; INDIANA
12. Tom " I took one for Hastert" Reynolds, NEW YORK

New senate polls
WY-Thomas(i) 67-26 MD
OH-Brown 53-41 Quin.
OH-Brown 52-45 U. of Cinn.
PA-Casey 55-42 Ras.

New Governor Polls
OH-Strickland 52-38 U. of Cinn.
PA-Rendell(i) 57-40 Ras.
IL-Blagojevich(i) 39-30 Glen.

New House Polls
IL10-Kirk(i) 57-32 Mc&A-R
WYAL-Cubin(i) 44-37 MD
MN6-Wetterling 48-40 MST

Zathras, thanks.

Stick a Fork in It, I agree--I think it's very possible that not a single Democratic incumbent will lose, as happened for the Republicans in 1994.

Webb has peaked in VA?? When Sunday the Post released a poll showing him trailing Allen 49-47, and the next day Rasmussen released another poll finding 47-44? MT, OH, PA, and RI are indeed done (as are WA, MN, and MD). That frees up party and committee money to spend in MO, TN, and VA. And the DSCC has had more money than the NRSC all year. I think Ford will win TN before Webb wins VA, but a sweep of all the close races is hardly out of the question.

Survey USA released a poll recently that found McCaskill leading Talent 51-43. I think it's too early to tell whether that's accurate or an anomaly, but it may be the first poll all year to find that race outside the margin of error.

DEMS will not lose one Senate seat, not even Menendez.....

GOP have lost Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, and PA....races are over, stick a fork in them.

Battle for Senate will turn on three races only plus a wild card Arizona IMO. Races to watch:

VA where Webb appears to have peaked, or Allen has stopped falling one. Probably stays GOP, but Allen will not be President any time soon.

Missouri, I think goes DEM, one more set of polls that show MCKaskill over 50% and we can stick a fork in this one.

The theatatrical race to watch is TN. IMO, Ford pulls out a squeaker and DEMS take control on Senate. Corker will play the race card in the last week of the campaign....count on as Rove is directing this campaign. The reason the last minute race card will be played is Rove is holding off so it does not become a national issue which will hurt neighboring VA (Allen) and as well as Steele. Mark it down, Race card will be played in TN the last week by the GOP...stick a fork in it, as that is what the GOP is noted for....race baiting.

UPSET SPECIAL: Arizona where Pederson is gaining. DEMS eak out the upset.

Final Senate make up: 51 Dems, 1 INDY (Lieberman) and 48 GOP. Lieberman joins the Dem Caucus.

Sandwichman,

Here is a link to the closing times:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G06/closing.phtml?format=ac

"There was a huge increase in evangelical voters in 2004."

Not really true less than 10% jump from 2000 to 2004.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-churchvote1oct01,0,6368881.story?track=mostviewed-homepage

"That is a direct result of turn out the vote efforts which used to be a Democratic strength centerd on unions and African American churches."

Not true. This almost was entirely aimed at core Republicans in 2004.

RMill, THANK YOU!! That's exactly the list I was looking to assemble!!

I am still waiting to hear why bhoomes refuses to put his money where his mouth is, Re: saying DeWine will win.

Polls are as reliable as their methodology. Most are pretty good these days. But there are exceptions, like the exit polls from the 2004 presidential race, which had a bad sample bias.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Zathras, where'd you get that list of poll closing times? Does it account for new time zone boundaries in Indiana? I've been wanting to compile such a list to send non-political junkies to point out which races to watch for.

I read two things here that astonished me ... 1. that the washington post is slanted towards republicans and 2. that Chris received these leanings from that cauldron of republican idealism ... the ivy league???

Wow, the kool aid tastes good around here huh?

Zouk

I do not believe in the Dem line on everything. I am a centrist who doesn't particularly like either party. At the moment, I am angrier at the Republicans. I used to like the Republican position on fiscal restraint - until they went to a cut taxes and spend policy. Remember I was ranting the other day about the impending fiscal train wreck with Social Security and Medicare. I do not necessarily agree with your opinon on how to handle these but I think both parties are avoiding seriously dealing with it.

As a matter of fact, we were arguing the other day about the relationship between tax cuts, interest rates, the deficit and the economy from the 80's to the present the other day. I categorically denied that Reagonomics worked in the 80s as it was advertised - that the resulting economic growth would cover the deficit. It wasn't until GHW Bush and Clinton passed some revenue enhancements in 91 and 93 that the receipts began to overtake the deficit. Ideologues of the right like Senator Phil Gramm predicted grass growing in the streets of our cities when the Clinton package passed. Well what happened, a record economic boom. The current administration has run record deficits that, although lower last year, are still enormous. Tax cuts are an economic stimulant, no doubt, but at some point you have to stop the red ink or face catastrophic consequences. Remember that runaway spending in the 60's for Vietnam and the Great Society was financed by a deficit and it gave rise to the stagflation of the 70s. Military Especially when we have the crisis of the baby boom generation just around the corner.

As a centrist who holds a variety of positions, I am sick of ideologues of either stripe who insist that if I hold a liberal/conservative view on one issue, I must therefore hew to the whole ideology on everything.

"I am talking about two absolute facts:
2. There have been several races recently where Republican results were higher than the polls. Micro-targeting and bringing the targets out can produce a greater turn out among sub groups than the polls would project. One of the trickiest items in polling is to project likely voters. Past trends among the various demographic groups is one of the prime predictors. If you can manage to get out your group in greater numbers than past voting history would project, you can increase your totals over what the polls project.

I have studied statistics at the graduate level. I understand polling techniques."

JimD in FL,
You're one of my favorite posters on this blog but I must disagree with you on this. Micro-targeting, unless it is specifically aimed at undermining the accuracy of pre-election poll weighting (e.g. GOTV w/ Republican AA voters) will not "throw off" the accuracy of those polls. Nearly all of the variance between the estimate and the population mean will be due to sample size. Second, in many of the races where Republicans outperformed preelection polls, they also outperformed unweighted exit poll results (Max Cleland). You figure that one out.

It will be intriguing to see if David Kuo's book will have any impact on the elections in three weeks. Will Christian voters stay home on a fast like he said they should? Faithful Democrats will be blogging about the book and the elections coming up.

www.faithfuldemocrats.com

RMill::i have been doing a bit of research on Chuck Hagel as well and i must admit i am becoming a fan..My only concern is he is VERY conservative on social issues which might play well in Nebraska, but not so well in Chicago..

Jim D - but I am surprised that your mathematical training doesn't turn you off the multitude of inconsistencies inherent in the Dem positions. do you believe that the status quo is appropriate for government schools? for social security, for medicare. take a look at the burgeoning numbers before you respond. then consider the record tax receipts brought on by tax cuts and the low deficit. If you were awake in those classes, I think you will have a hard time countenencing the Lib position. Please explain.

Zouk

Well, you have found something we agree on. I am fundamentally skeptical of conspiracy theories whether propounded by the left or the right. I know with 100% confidence that it is impossible to conduct a conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people over a period of years without someone "spilling the beans". Especially today, the whistle blower would be an instant celebrity. I think they tell children these days "You could grow up to be a celebrity" instead of "you could grow up to be president". mean we seem to have a raft of people who are famous for no other reason than they are famous.

KOZ & Drindl -- Although I may or may not agree with the particular examples of "bias" you both cite (I don't want to get into specifics today), I certainly agree that the news media does make mistakes no infrequently. I simply disagree that (1) those mistakes are driven by any kind of agenda, or (2) that they ultimately tend to favor one political party over the other when looked at in the aggregate.

Human nature makes all of us notice more immediately what we percieve as coverage that is unfair to our particular point of view. Since we all have busy lives, perhaps we are less quick to see (or sometimes acknowledge) where something similar happens to the other side. At the end of the day, I would argue it largely all comes out in the wash.

Good discussion on this topic - It feels good to have a pretty civil discussion on an interesting topic.

JIm D - so I guess you don't believe that Bush and his cronies sabotaged the WTC on 9/11 in a mad power grab?

JEP,

I think my explanations are a lot more rational than some conspiracy of Republicans to sabotage actual voting results. Where are they hiding the stolen votes - Area 51? There is absolutely no way a conspiracy such as you describe could stay secret. There would be hundreds of people, at the least, involved to make it work. I think it is farcical to believe that such a conspiracy could be kept secret for two decades. Someone - more likely dozens of someones - would decide to write a tell-all book and get some fame, notoriety and money. Seriously, remember the old adage "the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead".

Experienced political workers will tell you that asking someone to vote, calling them on election day, offerring them a ride - greatly increases the likelihood that they will vote. My sister was a professional in this field for years in the '70s and '80s and that was the most important aspect of the "ground game". The more specifically you can target your supporters and push them to the polls, the better your chances will be.

Why accept a simple, straight-forward explanation when a widly creative and fanciful conspiracy which can be made to reflect poorly on Rs will do?

Much of IN-8 and small parts of IN-9 are now in the Central Time Zone. We may not hear from them until an hour later than expected.

"It's unreal none of this has been prosecuted yet."

Well, just who IS "The Prosecutor in Chief?"

JimD

"Especially if they manage to reach people with indifferent voting habits."

Do you think that is where all those mysteriously appearing Republican votes were/are hiding?

In huge blocks of indifferent voters?

I don't believe people who are still uncommitted at this stage of the game are so easy to get up off their duffs and get to the polls, especially when they are still indifferent after all we've been through over the past few years.

Like I said, where is this slovenly, lazy, non-committed crowd of indifferent voters? Hiding in the lower regions of neocon hell?
Are they the nascar dads, or the soccer moms, and are they all Evangelicals?

If they really exist, where are they right now, in terms of politics, and this time around, will they be forced to choose between the openly-gay-membered Dems and the the closeted-gay-pedophiliac Repubs??

Maybe the Republicans will choose not to microtarget that bunch this time around, huh?

Might just backfire on them, in the wake of the Foley scandal and "Tempting Faith."

You may accept these simple, easy explanations, but I don't.

Sorry.

I just don't believe it.

>>>So, it's time to 'fess up Chris, what is your official role supposed to be?

Exactly. Is this a blog? Opinion piece? Journalistic reporting? None of the above? I have no problem with GOP opinion columns, just put it in the OPINIONS section of the website. My beef all along...

JEP,

Google: "abramoff mehlman" or check:

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mehlman15oct15,0,1634103.story?coll=la-home-headlines
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066329/
www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9938
www.msmagazine.com/spring2006/paradise_full.asp

The GOP and the WH c/o Abramoff + Mehlman w/DeLay were up to their eyes in sweatshop labor in the N. Marianas Islands. It's unreal none of this has been prosecuted yet.

I should add the most ineresting party:

'As the scandal involving former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's illicit e-mails to underage pages has unfolded, DeWine's support declined among white evangelical Christians, from an advantage of 63 percent to 27 percent in Quinnipiac's September poll to 57 percent to 37 percent in the poll out Tuesday.

The survey included 272 self-described white evangelical Christians, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.'

63% support to 27%. Huge. If that's anywhere near accurate or indicative it will have an impact.

Chris, allow me to relay to you a local election and the effects of the Republican vs. Democrat labels. Jim Torry was a a wonderful mayor of Eugene, Oregon. He had run as an independent and was repeatedly elected. Now, he is running for the state Senate against a fairly unpopular incumbent. Her "negative" ad's essentially feature clips of Torry claiming to be a Republican and quote of his supporting George Bush. This has essentially sank his campaign. Right now, Governor Kungingoski, in a tight race race against Ron Saxton, has tied mR. Saxton to Bush and that is making all of the difference. Kunginoski will win, a narrow win, but a win nonetheless. Unlike any election in recent memory, this is a truly national election and the very name "Bush" is so detested, causes such a viceral reaction amongst voters, that the candidate painted with standing by this loathed president will loose. I don't think you or the Whitehouse nor the GOP has quite got it yet, but George Bush is pure poison for any Republican and will remain so for years to come. In the future, any successful Republican candidate will of necessity disavow "neo-conservativism" or "Bush" and all that they stand for in order to be even considered electable.

Colin, you are far more patient than I. I just don't why you bother. You can't change the mind of a cultist. I admit that I am highly partisan, but there are republicans I admire. Or at least, there were until fairly recently. But an R cultist will never admit that Dems have done anything they agree with since WWII.

I have to add, though, as far as media neutrality/not, that there are approximately 5 times as many rightwing and way rightwing pundits as there are dems. At least. I mean who can you think of? Krugman, Olberman, Dionne, ummm... hmm and on the right there's a freaking zombie army. And look at radio... puhleeze. Also the ratio on so-called mainstream TV is at least 2:1 right over left in terms of guests. So I think to be fair, you have to admit the zeitgeist leans right.

'Democratic U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown has widened his lead in what has been a tight race for the seat of Republican U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, a pair of polls out Tuesday show.

Brown was favored by 53 percent of likely voters surveyed in The Quinnipiac University Poll conducted Oct. 10-15, compared to 41 percent who favored DeWine. The same poll found them about even in the race in September.'

Colin, I guess my main complaint about the media is more of a complaint with the consumers of the media. too many believe anything they see as true simply because "it was on tv/in the paper". then the retractions which inevitably surface are already ingrained. Remember the massacre at Jenin. try to unring that bell. how about the deaths and rapes in the Superdome after Katrina. where was the credit that should have gone to the USCG for saving around 10,000 people in a few days. how about the direct comparison of cutting off heads with putting underwear on heads - one rewarded, one punished yet treated identically by the press and even certain fat, stupid Senators.

but if it is about challenging those in power why the hands off display with Byrd, Reid and the rest? and the sustained attack on Allen/not Webb. Here there is clearly an underlying agenda. certainly you can observe the differences between the content and placement in the WaPo and the WaTimes. Between Couric and O'Reilly? If it were actually just the news, they would be close to identical.

But in the end, complaining about the stupidity of the American consumer is just too late-night tv for my taste. It is so much easier to complain about the wickedness of Dem pols and the material is so readily available. I will concede your point for now.

do you think that Osama's message to voters whcih will be played right after the Saddam verdict on Nov 5th will have any effect on the election outcome?

JEP

It does not "change the final results of an election in 72 hours". Polls reflect what the pollsters consider as likely voters. They construct their sample size to accurately reflect demographics in the electorate and project "likely voters'. The micro-targeting plays into get out the vote efforts by indentifying your supporters among some sub-set of a demographic group that generally opposes you. The poll will try to reflect the relative proportion of that demographic group in their sample and will probably result in the overall leaning of that group being expressed in the poll results. Let's take a working class neighborhood by zip code that is overwhelmingly Democratic. However, let's say Rove finds that snow blower owners among that group are actually likely Republican supporters. (drindl has seen this actually happening where she lives) They can buy mailing lists from the snow mobile manufacturers, poll these folks, identify their supporters and make a concerted effort to get them out to vote. The pollsters would know that overall only 30%, for example, of that neighborhood support Republicans. However, if the "normal" turnout is around 50% and the Republicans manage to turn out 60% of their supporters among that group - they will outperform their polls. Especially if they manage to reach people with indifferent voting habits. There was a huge increase in evangelical voters in 2004. That is a direct result of turn out the vote efforts which used to be a Democratic strength centerd on unions and African American churches.

JimD

Me, too.

I also "got into" Robert Lifton's "thought reform" work, which, by the way, is what Madison Avenue studied to come up with these microtargeting tactics in the first place.

I am also aware that while they have similar factors, business and politics aren't identical.

Biggest difference?

In business, lousy managers who cripple their companies with bad debt and make sweetheart deals for their cronies are usually booted-out when the board sees the red ink receipts piling up.

That micromarketing works in business, there is no doubt.

That it can change the final results of an election in 72 hours, I seriously doubt.

KOZ -- There is not way to determine, in any kind of scientific way, whether the media is or is not "biased" in favor of a particular political party. As you very well know, statistically there are simply too many variables that influence news coverage to label personal political identification as a causal agent. Moreover, you and I COULD (and please, lets not) start throwing up examples all over the place that "prove" that the media is hostile towards are respective parties. The reality is that examples of factually incorrect or misleading news coverage exist on both sides.

What, ultimately, does any of that prove though? That the media makes mistakes? I'll stipulate to that right now. That they favor stories involving subject matter that sells? Since you're a huge advocate of free markets, I can't imagine you'd be against that. That their is a tendency to look more critically at the party in power rather than the party out of power (see Clinton with monicagate, Bush II during his second term)? Again, I agree 100%

At the end of the day, I imagine you will continue to believe that the media has it in for Republicans because the media coverage involving things that can be viewed multiple ways won't ALWAYS conform to what you view as the truth. Many on the left will also make this same argument. Perversely, I look at that kind of criticism as a sure sign that the media IS doing a pretty decent job. If both sides are that frustrated, then that must mean that maybe...just maybe...the ACTUAL truth is leaking out from time to time. :)

Anyone watching the news lately?

Have to repost this one from early September, not as "I told you so" but more as "I'm still telling you so."

A Political Perfect Storm

There is a perfect storm of political imperfection brewing this very day in Iraq.

Bush's arrogant, neocon-contrived supposition that a psuedo-nation such as Iraq, held together only by the extreme brutality of Saddam and his Sunni death squads, could be knit in one historic military moment into a democratic example to the whole Middle East, is being tested to the brink.

Hidden not too secretly away in a single Washington Post story is the evidence of the makings of a perfect storm of political upheaval that threatens to become a full-scale "Iraqi" civil war.

But unlike the two-sided Civil War we remember in our own American history, this storm has three "fronts", each with its own well-armed military, its own foreign support mechanism, and its own foreign loyalties.

In the Sunday, September 3 Washington Post story "A Demand For Saddam Hussein's Release," all three of these converging fronts are clearly identified, and acknowledged as being in the process, at this very moment, of solidifying their independent powers into separate and inevitably warring factions.

1. "A coalition of 300 Iraqi tribal leaders, ...most of them Sunni Arabs, ...on Saturday demanded the release of Saddam Hussein so he could reclaim the presidency and also called for armed resistance against U.S.-led force..."

2. "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki traveled to the southern city of Najaf on Saturday to discuss the deteriorating security situation with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani..."

3. "Arabs across the country expressed anger at a decree by Massoud Barzani, president of the regional government in Kurdish-populated northern Iraq, forbidding the Iraqi flag to be raised in government buildings across the north."

Like Cerebrus, the three-headed dog guarding the gates of Hades, Iraq's three-faceted political nightmare looms ominously on our political event horizon.

Rove just may not be able to stave off this triple-sided civil war, long enough to keep this wayward Republican Congress in control of thier ill-gotten House.

Try as they might, while Rove and his extensive web of secret political operatives may be able to manage the carefully measured MSM trickle of truth that is fed to the American public, when this three-headed "perfect storm" of Middle Eastern civil war begins to converge, our upcoming political cycle may well prove much more difficult for them to control.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are trying to blame the the Iraqi "people," the media, the American public for this confluence of deadly destinies.

The English have already opened up the pandora's box of real truth. They know how violent Iraq has become, and how our troops only encourage that violence.

If the full fury of this storm hits before election day, and our soldiers are caught in the crossfire, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld will have no one but themselves left to blame.

Later,
JEP

JEP

Businesses use those micro-marketing techniques all the time. I know that from first hand experience.

JEP,

I tried to post a reply to you a while back and for some reason it did not take.

Anyway, I believe that a certain number of people feel constrained to tell pollsters that they will vote for the African American candidate because they think they would appear racist otherwise. It is also possible that people weakly leaning towards the African-American candidate might find themselves unable to vote for an African American when they get to the polls.

Now if you are discussing a deliberate effort to sabotage actual votes, I do not believe that for a minute. This has happened too many times in too many places for something like 20 years. There is no way you could keep a conspiracy like this secret with that many people involved over that many years. As for voter suppression, there have been efforts to dampen turnout in Democratic strongholds. That may be unethical but most methods I have read about are not illegal.

One more comment on micro-targeting, with sample sizes of a few hundred to a few thousands, the pollsters do not stratify those polled to the extent that modern micro marketing techniques can. I read that Rove has identified that Hispanics who drink gin are a heavily Republican group. Things like that are gold to a get out the vote effort. Turnout wins elections and the GOP has developed an incredibly sophisticated GOTV operation. It has, in fact, resulted in Republican candidates outperforming their polls in several instances.

bsimon;

read my last post.

Also, I think "microtargeting" is just the latest front to cover their voter-fraud tracks.

You can call me paranoid, but that is what I believe.

My gut and my brain both agree on this one.

It is very easy to convince people you are smart when you can cheat to win and never have to answer for it.

Some people even think "cheating" effectively is "smart" as long as they win.

I think they are just plain lying about microtargeting, to give people either an explanation for the unlikely, or an excuse to ignore the obvious, depending on their perspective.

You believe what they have told you about their micro-marketing acumen, and you attribute their election success to that acumen.

I believe they are using microtargeting as a smokescreen for election fraud.

Whichever one of us is right, we may never know.

But then again, we may know very soon.

KOZ, $700,000 is a pittance in a Senate race for a large state like Ohio, where each side has spent tens of millions of dollars. That amount is clearly just a face-saving gesture.

Is Chuck Hagel the new John McCain?

Both are Vietnam veterans. Both are US Senators from western states. Both have been critical of George W. Bush at one time or another. Both are running for President in 2008.

Born in 1946 (ten years younger than McCain). An Army Sergeant (Captain McCain was a naval aviator) in Vietnam. Decorated and wounded (McCain too was wounded and also captured after being shot down in 1967, held for six years and brutally beaten and tortured). Became a successful businessman and then, in 1996 (also ten years after McCain was elected to the Senate), took on long odds in a US Senate race against the sitting then-Governor, now US Senate colleague Ben Nelson and won. In leadership as deputy whip, sits on the Select Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees.

He has often found common ground with Arizona's senior senator on a number of issues, most recently on the fight against re-defining the Geneva convention with regard to detainees of the War on Terror. In more recent times, however, Hagel has increasingly become more independent and outspoken, as McCain was at the beginning of this millennium.

Senator Hagel has, on more than one occasion, recently been critical of the Bush administration and its policies with regard to Iraq, the Patriot Act and other issues, whereas McCain has generally been more supportive of the President:

In Hagel's own words:

On August 18, 2005, Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam, and openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." [CNN- 8/18/05]

In November 2005, Hagel made a much-publicized statement saying "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic." This was in reference to the increasing amount of debate surrounding the Iraq War, and his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops.

In December 2005, in reference to Bush, the GOP, and the Patriot Act, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president," [Washington Post 12/21/05]

In January 2006, Hagel took issue with Karl Rove over controversial statements the White House advisor made concerning the mindset of Republicans and Democrats. Hagel said, "Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context." He also said that "dark clouds" are hanging over the Republican party," and "If you look at the environment and the atmospherics politically in this town, read any poll. The sixth year of a governing party usually ... is not good ... the country is tired, a lot of complications in these international issues, we're at war."

Hagel further criticized the Bush administration, saying, "National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party."
[UPI-01/06]

In July 2006, Hagel again took issue with the Bush administration, this time on its handling of the Israel-Lebanon issue saying "The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop." [7/31/06]

McCain, on the other hand, has been out front for the Bush administration on many of these issues (although he forged the compromise bill on detainee interrogation), becoming the standard bearer for Iraq in anticipation of his forthcoming presidential run.

Has McCain compromised and mainstreamed himself to be more attractive to Republican voters? Some say yes.

Whereas McCain is often used as a shield to blunt criticism of and for Republican candidates and Bush himself, especially on Iraq and other military matters, Hagel has become the foil.

Whatever the case, it is clear that Chuck Hagel has been much more outspoken and critical of his own party leadership and in that way, has positioned himself for 2008 as the maverick candidate, much the same way McCain did in 2000 and 2004.

JEP- I'm a little surprised to see you disparaging the premise that micro-targeting can produce results that the polls don't predict. People have been studying - for decades - how to maximise your dollar, with respect to marketing to customers who will buy. The GOP, showing some business saavy, have adapted techniques perfected in business to politics. Frankly, its smart. The reason it works is because so many people choose not to vote, that all the GOP have to do are identify enough voters to swing the balance. Given that nationally roughly 50% of eligible voters cast ballots and that it only takes a plurality to win office, you only have to get a few people to vote your way in order to win. Maybe 25% of eligible voters, sometimes less.

JEP

I am not prone to believe in conspiracy theories. I believe that some voters think they would appear racist if they told the pollster they do not support the African American candidate. Also, I do not believe a broad based effort to sabotage actual voting results across a number of states could be kept a secret. Far too many people would have to be involved. This has been going on for something like 20 years. I know that the Republicans have tried to depress turnout in Democratic strongholds with varying degrees of success. However, that is far different from subverting actual voting resluts. They would not be able to do this in so many places, so many times without someone talking.

RNC Spends Big In Ohio Senate Race
10/17/2006
The Republican National Committee reported over $700,000 in media buys, polling, and research to oppose Sherrod Brown, Democratic Senate candidate in Ohio.

there would seem to be a difference of facts here. One would have to conclude that Cilizza is a shill for the Dems and trying to suppress voter turnout. Naturally.

Colin- that is a sincere yet inaccurate retort to my (really belongs to MRC) points. the owners of newspapers usually do not participate in hiring decisions. this is the editors job. Editors typically hire people who write like they do.
do you honestly think that having over 90% of the working media voting for Ds doesn't enter into their ability to interpret a story? How about how long the story remains news? It is not just the story but the actual words used. what does pro-choice mean? It means pro-abortion. what does anti-war mean? who is pro-war?
I am surprised you don't use an argument like" journalists are trained to be skeptical and investigative. Naturally they are above average intelligence and after examing all the facts of most situations they independently decide to side with Libs on most issues."

but why won't Dems call themselves Liberals? why won't they admit their big government agenda? Why do they shun their press advantage and hide the facts? do you think your victory will be tainted? Why doesn't the long standing practice of race-baiting taint a victory? can you please point out any long-standing value held by Dems. Bush is bad doesn't count.

I don't believe this is a conspiracy, which is an organized effort to hide something, but rather a natural educational and cultural phenom which happens to exist in certain professions. Actors have it, professors have it, writers have it. Economists don't, they are quite the opposite. Military officers mostly don't. why is this? do your political inclinations form at a young age and draw you into certain professions as a result of your proclivities? Your parents political persuasion is the best predictor for you. I don't think it makes much sense to deny your individual talents and urges.
I would be interested in some non-hysterical responses to this. Drindl, JEP, FB need not respond.

"..but I am worried about the African American candidate polling phenomenom (particulary strong in the South)"

If you were a paranoid person, like me, who thinks there are people desperate enough "out there" to manipulate our electoral process for profit and power, where do you suppose they might first reveal themselves?

You immediately assume, because the southern black vote traditionally never matches the polling, it is the fault of the voters, or it is the fault of the polls, not even a thought that it may be the very proof of systemic Republican electoral sabatoge I speak of.

Just for kicks, ponder this question.

If there was a any example to call "the canary in the coal mine" of election fraud, don't you agree it could quite possibly be the southern black vote?

Is there any other demographic more important to subdue, for the Republican Party?

If so, please name it.

Has it crossed your mind that the "phenomenon" you describe is clear evidence of long-term ballot-box manipulaton, not faulty polls or lazy voters??

At least entertain the thought for a moment.

You might just recognize the obvious implications in your own words.

And anyone who doesn't believe there R people so desperate to hold onto power that they would abandon their own democratic principles is naive, at best.

Jim D - please don't get JEP started on math. Last time we managed to revoke all laws of economics and physics to find a way to subscribe to his fancy notions. In his world, people like paying taxes and want to pay more. the lazy should be rewarded and the industrious should be punished. the government rate for retirement income at 1% is far superior to private methods at 8%. Falling test scores indicate that government schools need to be kept the same. Being attacked at home indicates you are too mean, if only you were nicer, no one would mess with you. Math and logic just are not strong suits for most Dems. the only Liberal economist they could come up with died and had his heyday in the 60s. the general state of the intellectual capabilites of the Dems is in severe decline. but that would seem obvious after examining the wacky views on this blog.

"Could he be "reverse psyching" the electorate to make Bell seem stronger than the other two?"

...does seem rather uncharacteristic.

Here's an interesting theory;

Maybe Perry is getting smart, and wants out of this mess before he goes down the tubes with "The Hammer."

There is a lot of pernicious history still to be uncovered in the gerrymeanderings of Texas legislative districts, and in the way the "Law" went after the Democrats who refused to show up for a quorum.

It is possible that lots of "Texas secrets" won't be so secret very soon.

So, maybe, (just maybe) Perry's got wind of it and now has his strategists positioning for Bell to take the Gov.'s mansion, which would not surprise anyone in either party, but may actually be avoidable and Perry COULD win.

If he really wanted to.

He may just want out, ASAP!

Nor'easter: Chris isn't acting as a reporter here. He gives analysis. A reporters job is to provide raw data and deliver it for the people to interpret themselves.

He isn't a facilitator as he isn't leading the discussion. He is merely putting forth an opinion and letting us react to it.

Somedays we pounce on it and rip it apart. Other days we totally ignore it and just talk to each other.

We can safely call him a Commentator. From dictionary.com: "A broadcaster or writer who reports and analyzes events in the news"

Colin

Very well said.

JEP

Make no mistake, I dearly want the Dems to take over both Houses because I am totally disgusted with the Republicans. I sincerely hope Ford wins, but I am worried about the African American candidate polling phenomenom (particulary strong in the South) and the GOP GOTV as well. I think Ford will be a real star in the Dem party if he wins.

I think when NJ voters go to the polls and see the choices for Senate, Tom Kean. Jr. will do better than anticipated.

I wonder if Republicans aer flooding NJ with absentee ballot applications? NJ changed their law on voting absentee two years ago to make it easier.

Let's not forget that Gov. John Corzine spent $50 million more than his Republican opponent in 2000 and won by a mere three points.

Also,in July Gov Corzine shut down the goverment and raised the sales tax by $1 Billion (1%).

Unknown and underfunded Christie T. Whitman nearly defeated Senator Bill Bradley in 1990, the year Democratic Gov. Jim Florio raised taxes by a few bilion.

KOZ:

1. YOu cite self-reporting data that says that a majority of journalists vote Democratic. You cite ZERO evidence that who an individual votes for precludes them from acting as an objective professional journalist. Put more simply, you have completely failed to establish ANY causal connection between the statistics you cite.

2. Using the logic from your "voting preference" argument, I would note that overwhelmingly the OWNERS of the media outlets you cite are Republicans. Since they ultimately HIRE the journalists you cite as biased, I COULD argue that per say those journalists must be slanted towards Republicans. Notice I am not advancing this argument.

3. Further, if we accepted that WHO someone votes for controls their ability to be objective, the only way to ensure "balanced" coverage would be to continually make sure that every newspaper put to print, news broadcast, etc had EXACTLY as many Red voters as Blue voters. Is that really what you're arguing for? Similarly, should the FCC force their to be an equal balance of media outlets owned by Republicans and Democrats? Come on - that's just silly.

4. There are all kinds of purported media watchdogs that cherry pick news stories to find "bias" on both the Right and the Left. The Right has been playing this game longer, having made attacking the media generally one of the primary plans of their agenda, but the Left is quickly catching up. Ultimately, the exercise is completely uselss. The Media is biased towards the SENSATIONAL and what is EASY TO REPORT, not towards any particular ideology. How else can you POSSIBLY reconcile the beating Clinton took during his entire presidency with the purported liberal bias?

In conclusion, sometimes we all disapprove of particular new stories or the coverage our "side" is getting. Guess what? That's just the breaks folks. Doesn't mean there is any grand "conspiracy" out there.

No comment on the Santorum-Casey debates? I guess things didn't go well enough for Santorum to get some momentum.

Someone help me out here.

Is it it fair to say the Abramoff scandal has reached all the way to the top?

All the way to the White House?

Of the 8 people who have been indicted or actually charged in the Abramoff scandal, how many of those were on the White House staff?

Or will it take a direct Bush-Cheney/Abramoff connection to fairly make that claim?

- Former HPSCI staffer Brant "Nine Fingers" Bassett had a "close personal friendship" with Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former CIA #3 man who quit the agency after the feds raided his house in a corruption investigation related to Cunningham. "During his time at HPSCI, Bassett and Foggo worked together to achieve certain objectives relating to the management of the CIA," the summary reported:

Bassett introduced Foggo to key HPSCI members and staff, and Bassett and Foggo sought to motivate various HPSCI members to take desired actions by, among other things, providing them with gifts of "government trinkets" such as a carpet emblazoned with the words "Global War on Terror." . . further inquiry is appropriate.
- The Justice Department probe into Foggo includes awards of several large CIA contracts to a company "managed by an individual" who was neither Wade nor Brent Wilkes, Cunningham's other alleged briber. "Foggo introduced Bassett to this invididual in the spring of 2003. . . [the three men] also apparently had dinner together at the Capital Grille in June 2003," the report stated. "[W]e believe that additional inquiry is warranted to determine whether either Bassett or anyone else at HPSCI facilitated or was involved in any of the contract awards in question."

- "[W]e are aware of dealings that Cunningham had with certain foreign nationals, which we expect will be given careful scrutiny by appropriate law enforcement and national security agencies" for possible breaches of national security.'

--republicans and national security. what a joke. they'd sell their souls for a nickel bag in an instant.

JEP

I am talking about two absolute facts:

1. Pre-election polls almost always overstate African American candidates' support compared to actual election results.

2. There have been several races recently where Republican results were higher than the polls. Micro-targeting and bringing the targets out can produce a greater turn out among sub groups than the polls would project. One of the trickiest items in polling is to project likely voters. Past trends among the various demographic groups is one of the prime predictors. If you can manage to get out your group in greater numbers than past voting history would project, you can increase your totals over what the polls project.

I have studied statistics at the graduate level. I understand polling techniques.

JEP: Can I get a group "DUH!"

That's about the democratic response I would expect.

Let's consider the Senate member who actually WAS a memeber of the KKK. do you know who I am talking about? He is currently running for re-election and you probably haven't heard about this much. why? He is a Dem. Let's examine all the potential financial scandals out there of currently running congressmen. haven't heard about them - they are all Dems.
Yet Allen has some stock options valued at minus $7 and you get stories complete with criminal allegations. Pushing through rezoning to line your pockets and the pockets of your biggest contributors, your kids and your lobbyists warrant no coverage.

i guess you will believe aht you want to believe but for many of you, you would be better off back on an X-files episode instead of on planet Earth.

but why do you so vigorously deny this advantage. I don't deny that Rs have a huge advantage in intellectual capital and think tanks and policy. I am flummoxed that this has not turned out to be such a vote getter.

For Perry to be in real jeopardy, one of the two independant candidates (I'm thinking Friedman) needs to pull out and swing support to either of the other two candidates.

As long as they are all jockeying for 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th place, Perry is safe, albeit unpopular.

"note there is no recent evidence of this racist agenda."

That's a load of macaca...

"Apparently if you dare say anything positive about a Republican candidate you are part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

Can I get a group "DUH!"

Re: TX Governor's race

I wish someone would do more reporting on this one. It strikes me as strange that Perry has gone negative on Chris Bell, without any mention of Strayhorn or Friedman. Strayhorn is riding Perry, and any polls I've seen show Perry weak but ahead with the other 3 flipping back and forth in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Does it mean Perry thinks Bell is the biggest threat? Could he be "reverse psyching" the electorate to make Bell seem stronger than the other two?

With respect to voter targeting, a good article by Dan Balz in the Post on Sunday 10/08:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/07/AR2006100700388_pf.html

does anyone out there think that some possible racist statements you may have made over 20 years ago is a deciding factor in a Senate bid? note there is no recent evidence of this racist agenda. Yet the Post wrote articles day after day about this. Is that an independent press with no visible agenda?

now that we have settled that the majority of the media is biased towards anti-conservatisim, how will you utilize all the advantages you have as Libs? will you actually fix any problems or will you continue to carp and complain with no agenda of your own. continue to support the status quo on failing government programs?

the Seinfeld party - the party about nothing. the Rs may be somewhat dissappointing, but the Dems are outright dangerous.

Nor'Easter: If you're a reporter, you've committed the Cardinal Sin and become part of the story here. That's not supposed to happen.

He is a part of the story because of the hyper-sensitivity of the majority dem. audience on this blog. Apparently if you dare say anything positive about a Republican candidate you are part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. As a political analyst, it's his job to voice his opinion...good or bad...on the races and the effectiveness of the individual campaigns being run. I'm not sure how this makes him a partisan. If you constantly look for conspiracies, you will generally find them.

Nor'easter;

How about we just give Chris a new title for these new times.

"refascilator"

reporter, facilitater and commentator, all in one.

I am hearing that the RNC buy is not new money but dollars they already had used to hold time in reserve.

They chose to block out time using those funds which were technically already "scheduled" so it does not represent new investment but also lessens the effect of the "pull-out" by the RSCC.

this is just too easy:
Re:allen stock options. The Washington Post, if I am reading their search page correctly, ran six different stories in a two-day period on various aspects of Option-Gate. You would have thought he was about one guilty plea from sharing a cell with Bernie Ebbers.

Turned out it was a technical violation. Options allow you to buy a stock at a set price. If you have options to buy stock in Mullings.com at $10 per share and Mullings is selling for $15 per share, those options are worth five bucks each.

In the Allen case the company's stock is, in effect, selling for $3 per share. Executing an option and paying $10 for a stock anyone else can buy for $3 is not a fast path to personal wealth creation.

At about the same time, it seems that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) did a land deal flip with a friend which earned him about $1.1 million. He neglected to list portions of the transaction on his financial disclosure forms back in 2001. The Post apparently felt that a single story about the financial dealings of the man who might be the Majority Leader of the US Senate was more than sufficient.
On Saturday, our friends at the Washington Post did their level best to provide balanced political coverage on its front page.

The Republican story was about Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) pleading guilty to charges of influence-peddling:

Ney Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges
Lawmaker's Conviction Is 8th in Abramoff Probe

Legit news, to be sure, so you can't complain.

But, here was the headline of the front page story about Democrats:

Democratic Faces That Could Launch Thousands of Votes

With a Parade of Attractive Candidates, the Party May Benefit From the Politics of Beauty

What? The best the crack political staff at the Washington Post could come up with is a story about how Democratic candidates are prettier than Republicans?

from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=fair_andwhat&ns=RichGalen&dt=10/16/2006&page=2

JimD;

Concerning this line in your previous post, "These sub groups might not be well represented in the polls..."

The pollsters and their political scientists would just laugh at this, they spend millions making sure there is no such demographic. Anyone so detached from our modern society that they could completely escape the pollsters would probably not be voting in the first place.

To suggest there are enough of "those types" available for the Republicans to somehow call up from the depths of neocon hell, to turn back the popular tidal wave the pollsters are reading in their tea leaves, just sounds like pandering (to me).

Unless you expect a couple million illegal aliens with no phone number, no home address and no driver's license or social security card to go and vote for the Republicans(sounds quite possible, actually) all of whom are inaccessible to our intrepid and relentless pollsters?

No offense, I appreciate your moderate temperance of our oft-fiery rhetoric on this blog, but sometimes, you actually spout the very deceptions that they use to get away with "it."

Yes, Virginia, you CAN trust non-partisan polls.

POLLS ARE RELIABLE!

As long as there are no mitigating influences (like ballot-box cheating or organized deception), there is no logical reason these polls or the election-day exit polls should not be accurate.

Simply sad but true.

And as for the earlier post you mentioned, I think this was the gist of it.

let me reiterate;

I'm for letting them ALL off the legal hook, as long as they tell us the WHOLE truth so it can never happen again.

But without the threat of prison sentences and large fines, they aren't likely to "tell on each other."

Thus my suggestion that a Cheney/Bush (in that order) impeachment hearing would bring all of this under one final umbrella of oversight, and we wouldn't get caught up spending thousands of hours and millins of dollars in low-level hearings and committee meetings, it would start at the top in the first place, instead of inching up there through lower-level criminal investigations.

Is that the post you meant?

New Ohio Poll from Univ of Cincy
10/9-10/14
Brown (D)52%
DeWine (R)* 45%

'The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media'

...and Media Matters continuously reports on instances of the rightwing bias in the mainstream media

In the Cleveland, O. media market, over this past weekend, I didn't see a single DeWine TV ad, but lots and lots of Brown ads. On Monday night I saw a single DeWine ad, it was a new ad, but wasn't anywhere as effective as required. In fact I can't remember it at all.

N.E. Ohio, the Cleveland media market, is Brown's home base. He can pull huge numbers of votes from this area, the largest population in the state.

While DeWine's core constituency is SW Ohio, the Cincinnati media market, if he cannot significantly cut into Brown's N.E.O. base, if he can't compete head to head with Brown's TV ads here, then DeWine doesn't have a frigging chance.

From what I've seen recently -- the NY Times article about GOPer's 'cut and run' with TV cash is right on target.

So I'll read the WaPo and NYT including Cillizza and Nagourney and then I'll refer to Mickey Kaus to see which parts of the story are not true.....maybe I should skip one of these steps?

JEP, Colin, and all of the others who actually think and post on this blog - Thanks.

We do get mostly good stuff here from both sides of the spectrum and the critical independent thinking posters.

I have a question on the slant/bias matter. What is Chris C's role with respect to The Fix?

Is he a reporter?

Is he a commentator?

Is he a facilitator?

We all look at him from one of these perspectives, but we don't know what marching orders he has from washingtonpost.com (supposedly independent of the Washington Post).

As far as I know, there are no standard Internet rules for the person who "runs" a blog.

So, it's time to 'fess up Chris, what is your official role supposed to be?

If you're a reporter, you've committed the Cardinal Sin and become part of the story here. That's not supposed to happen.

Clear up the confusion and we can move on.

Need more evidence:
The news that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) failed to disclose a land deal that earned him $700,000 -- three years after he sold the land to a friend's company -- isn't "sexy" enough for front page news, according to one political analyst

Since the story broke, the Washington Post has mentioned it three times: once in story about the scandal on Oct. 12 and in an unrelated article and an editorial on Oct. 13. The New York Times has mentioned the scandal once in an article on Oct. 12.

During the same time period, the papers have mentioned Foley 37 and 28 times, respectively.

On Oct. 16 - nearly three weeks after the Foley scandal broke - it was still front page news on the Post.

Bhoomes and colin, I will help you out since Dems are such slow easy targets these days. Start with this. there are professionals out there who actually operate based on fact and not feelings.

How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalists' self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section.
Journalists' Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as "liberal" as said they were "conservative." See Section.

How the Public Views the Media. In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media's liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as "too liberal" as see a media that is "too conservative." A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, "The news media try to report the news without bias," and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. See Section.

Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek's Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry's vote by "maybe 15 points," which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: "The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me." See Section

Denials of Liberal Bias. Many journalists continue to deny the liberal bias that taints their profession. During the height of CBS's forged memo scandal during the 2004 campaign, Dan Rather insisted that the problem wasn't his bias, it was his anybody who criticized him. "People who are so passionately partisan politically or ideologically committed basically say, 'Because he won't report it our way, we're going to hang something bad around his neck and choke him with it, check him out of existence if we can, if not make him feel great pain,'" Rather told USA Today in September 2004. "They know that I'm fiercely independent and that's what drives them up a wall." See Section.

Evidence of Bias in News Coverage. The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. Daily CyberAlerts offer a regular roundup of the latest instances of biased reporting, while our NewsBusters blog allows Web users to post their own reactions. Media Reality Check fax reports showcase important stories that the news media have distorted or ignored, and several times each year the MRC publishes Special Reports offering in-depth documentation of the media's bias on specific issues.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

you may debate these points if you care to but your rebuttal should also contain facts of some sort.

BINGO!

drindl,

I also think the microtargeting, if it works very well, can produce results that do not track the polls. Say group A is 25% of the population and tends to vote 70-30 for the Dems and tends to turn out 55% of the time. If the Republicans can identify the 30% who support them and get a 70% turnout of that sub-group, the results that would add 1.12% to the Republican total. The polls generally do not stratify the electorate that finely.

"And - personally - I think Chris does a pretty darn good job of keeping his eye on the ball and reporting what's going on."

Absolutely.

While I once joked that someone called such a young fellow a "top pundit, it is safe to call him one of the best in the business, which is why we are always hanging out here.

And he will only get better if we continue to point out our own perspectives, so he can see where his words might seem "slanted."

This is criticism, not condemnation.

Big difference.

No one needs to protect Cilliza from me, I'm a fan.

JEP - "And, I know why Kouk won't climb onboard any more, the other day when he tried to claimn he was a "38 year old Dem who was staying at home," he got caught because his lie had some of his patent errors in it, so everyone knew right away who he was."

You have really gone around the bend. the voices in your head must be overwhelming. I have no idea what you are talking about. Many people seem to like to use my moniker. but I don't need to disguise myself to make a fool out of Dems. they are quite capable of doing that on their own.

Drindl -- I don't EVER have a problem with pointing out factually inaccurate or slanted reporting. And that includes instances where CC is guilty of such abuses, as I think ALL media outlets occasionally are. So I don't have much of a problem with your ciriticism of Halperin. Really, my only point here is that the MOTIVE behind less than perfect news coverage is seldom ideologically motivated and I would hate to see the political left parrot the Right's ridiculous attacks on the media.

And - personally - I think Chris does a pretty darn good job of keeping his eye on the ball and reporting what's going on.

bhoomes -- I ask you this all th time and you never respond. Other than brainwashing, do you have any basis for actually calling the media biased? Honestly, I think you're a smart individual. Put those critical thinking skills to use and at least justify that frequent criticism rather than just rationalizing any news you don't like with a conclusory accusation.