Poll: Barack Obama leading John McCain in Michigan
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A new poll released Tuesday shows Democrat Barack Obama building a clear lead over Republican John McCain in Michigan as worries about the economy continue to dominate the race.
Obama has the backing of 54 percent of 1,043 likely Michigan voters, while McCain is supported by 38 percent. One percent said they'd vote for someone else and 7 percent were undecided, according to the Quinnipiac University poll. Four third-party candidates are on the ballot.
The telephone poll conducted by the Hamden, Conn., school in partnership with The Wall Street Journal and the Web site of The Washington Post was conducted Oct. 8 to Sunday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
McCain stopped advertising in Michigan and pulled his campaign staff on Oct. 2, surprising and angering many state GOP activists. Statewide polls at the time were showing Obama building a steady lead in Michigan, and the McCain campaign said it needed those resources in other battleground states.
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama is doing better than he did in a late September Quinnipiac poll, when the Illinois senator was apparently leading McCain 48 percent to 44 percent. That poll's margin of sampling error was plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.
Other Quinnipiac polls released Tuesday showed Obama leading McCain in Colorado, Minnesota and Wisconsin. In Michigan, 88 percent said their minds are made up, while 11 percent said they might change their minds.
Peter Brown, assistant director of the university's Polling Institute, said Obama is attracting more male voters than McCain in the four states for the first time this general election season.
The financial meltdown in the country's financial sector and wildly swinging stock market have focused the attention of voters in those states even more firmly on the economy, he said, and that has helped the Democrat.
"Obama's surge comes from voters saying by wide margins that he better understands the economy," Brown said. "The only possible bright spot for Senator McCain ... is that he is holding roughly the same portion of the Republican vote. But McCain's support among independent voters, a group he says are key to winning the White House, has collapsed."
Among Michigan voters, 52 percent say Obama understands the economy better, compared to 35 percent for McCain. But McCain gets the nod on foreign policy, with 58 percent saying he understands foreign policy better compared to 31 percent for Obama. Both candidates this week have rolled out more detailed plans for shoring up the economy.
The poll also showed that Obama was preferred in the state by female voters, 60 percent to 32 percent; male voters, 48 percent to 44 percent; white voters, 48 percent to 43 percent; and independent voters, 52 percent to 35 percent. He also was leading among white Catholics.
After the second presidential debate, 60 percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of Obama, while 30 percent had an unfavorable opinion and 8 percent said they hadn't heard enough about him.
McCain was doing better among white men, 51 percent to 40 percent, and was leading among born-again white evangelicals. After the debate, 51 percent had a favorable opinion, 40 percent had an unfavorable opinion and 7 percent said they hadn't heard enough about him.
Three-fourths of Michigan voters thought Democratic Delaware Sen. Joe Biden is qualified to be vice president, while only 41 percent thought the same of Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, according to the poll.
Macomb tests jury reform
The Michigan Supreme Court is debating whether to change how juries operate during trials -- and some Macomb County residents will be among the first to test the proposed rules.
For the next 14 months, jurors in Circuit Judge David Viviano's courtroom could be allowed to discuss the trial with each other before the case wraps up. And they'll be encouraged to submit questions to the judge in writing before a witness is excused.
The changes are part of a potentially statewide jury reform that aims to make jurors' jobs easier to understand.
"It's sort of to address human nature," Viviano said. "We tell people they can't talk to anyone -- not their spouses, not even the people they're serving with on the jury -- about the case while it's happening. That's counterintuitive to human nature."
Viviano is one of 12 judges across the state whose courtrooms have adopted the rules for the trial run that began at the end of August.
Among the proposed changes:
• Jurors will be given binders with the legal instructions that the judge typically only gives orally.
• Jurors will each get copies of documents that were entered into evidence.
• Experts testifying for the defense or prosecution in either civil or criminal cases could be called back-to-back so that jurors can hear all of the technical testimony at once. Or Viviano could opt for the experts to basically debate each other, having both of them answer questions from either the judge or a moderator.
• Viviano also could choose to summarize the case for the jury, which could include pointing out the weaknesses in both sides' arguments.
Viviano said the latter change concerns him the most because his summary would be subjective, possibly opening the door for an appeal if he's slanted too much toward one side.
"These changes aren't easy," Viviano said.
Prosecutor Eric Smith said he plans to meet with Viviano about the changes.
He said some of the changes -- such as allowing jurors to have the judge pose specific questions to witnesses -- are easier than others. Circuit Judge Matt Switalski already encourages jurors to submit questions to him in writing.
But Smith said he's concerned about having dueling experts engage in a debate.
After each trial, Viviano said he would talk to jurors and lawyers to find out which rules should stay and which should be tossed out. Then he'll report back to the Supreme Court, which is to decide whether an overhaul is needed.
The pilot project is set to wrap up in December 2010.
Stem cell lies
Metro Times
October 8, 2008
With the exception of the presidential election itself, there is nothing more important on the Michigan ballot this November than Proposal 2, the one allowing embryonic stem cell research. Whatever your politics, you simply must vote yes. Not supporting this amendment is insanely irrational and stupid.
"Embryonic stem cell research has the power to bring hope to the sick. It holds the promise of new treatments and cures for a long list of devastating diseases ... and it can provide a major economic stimulus to Michigan's lagging economy."
That's not me talking. That is Dr. John "Joe" Schwarz, Republican, physician, strong McCain supporter and former congressman from Battle Creek. He wrote those words in a column for the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers' Hometownlife.com last week. Schwarz is a conservative and is a practicing Roman Catholic. But he is smart, tells the truth and knows this is about our future. He knows that if we fail to pass this, it will not only mean we are at a medical disadvantage. It will mean we are dooming ourselves to become a scientific backwater.
Which means we lose any hope of attracting the well-paying jobs of the future. The jobs Michigan, the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, desperately needs.
Schwarz understands economics. His estimate is that — at a minimum — embryonic stem cell research would add at least 8,000 new jobs and half a billion dollars in salaries statewide. So if the fanatics who oppose Prop. 2 succeed in defeating it, everyone with a brain ought to look for the nearest entrance ramp to southbound I-75.
This has nothing to do with "killing babies." What embryonic stem cell research does is to take early-stage embryos that otherwise would be destroyed by fertility clinics, and study their stem cells, which are, at that stage, capable of great modification. They may be able to help replace damaged and destroyed and diseased cells of all kinds.
No one would be forced to donate embryos. The only way the scientists would get them is if the parents grant permission. Not one of these embryos would ever have become a baby, or even a fetus. Nor are they created for research purposes; they are merely leftovers, destined to be thrown away.
How could anyone oppose using them for potentially lifesaving research instead? Simple: Religious fanaticism. The same impulse that made the Taliban destroy the lives of women in Afghanistan. And the nuts are pouring money into an effort to defeat Prop. 2.
They call their group MI-CAUSE, which stands for Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation. Last week, curious how they would justify asking Michigan to turn this down, I interviewed their spokesman, David Doyle.
Now I can have a certain amount of respect for someone who thinks that meddling with nature is against God's law.
Such a person would, if honest, oppose fertility clinics themselves, and probably, if consistent, penicillin.
That wasn't Doyle's position, however; nor is honest religious opposition reflected in MI-CAUSE's advertising.
He just lied, as does their advertising. Openly, brazenly, lied about what this would do. They claim that this will cost Michigan money. The fact is that it doesn't mandate one penny of tax dollars; instead it will bring money into the state. When I asked Doyle about that he merely blustered and tried to talk over me.
MI-CAUSE's advertising claims that this research opens the door to human cloning. Nothing could be further from the truth. Human cloning is already strictly illegal in Michigan, and this does nothing to change that.
They also claim it provides for "unregulated and unrestricted experimentation on human embryos." That's an equally big whopper. The amendment says that the only embryos that can be used for research are those less than two weeks old. It makes it strictly illegal for anyone, anywhere, to sell or buy embryos. And it says the only embryos that can be used are those that are freely donated and were going to be thrown away otherwise.
By the way, if you are thinking of something that looks like a baby, think again. We are talking about a ball of cells not much larger than the period at the end of this sentence.
Nevertheless, the forces of darkness are trying to stir up conspiracy theories to distract voters from the real issue. In one piece of printed nonsense, MI-CAUSE luridly talks of efforts in Great Britain to create embryos that are part human, part cow. Give me a break.
The opponents of Prop. 2 are the worst kind of cynics. They are betting we will fall for their garbage.
Let's stand with every great scientist who these kinds of people made suffer, and prove them wrong.
Good night, Johnny: Sen. John McCain, whose style is classic ready-fire-oops!-aim must have been something to watch on the shooting range at Annapolis, right after the Civil War. But we now know he is indeed capable of uniting both parties, in horror over his reckless and impetuous decisions. Democrats and, well, intelligent people of all kinds have been aghast since he revealed his choice for vice president, the scarily unqualified, arrogantly ambitious and deeply weird Hockey Mom from Hell.
Last week, it was the Republicans' turn to be johnnied. After insisting that he could win Michigan, McCain's campaign suddenly pulled out of the state, effectively conceding it to Barack Obama. Why? Well, McCain's erratic and probably doomed campaign is running short of money.
The economy made it steadily less likely he could win here. Yet openly pulling out of a key state more than a month before the election is just plain dumb for many reasons. It casts the scent of death over the entire campaign. That may well turn out to be more damaging than the impact of a few more workers in Florida and a few more TV spots in Ohio.
Party leaders in Michigan reacted with what you might call barely controlled rage. They are now going to have big problems motivating their voters to show up and support the rest of the ticket.
McCain's decision to cut and run gives Democrats a much better shot at beating Joe Knollenberg in Oakland County and the knuckle-dragging Tim Walberg in south central Michigan. It also means Republicans have virtually no chance to win back the lower house of the Legislature.
To be sure, it may well have made sense for McCain to concentrate more on other states, but the way to do that was to shift resources gradually, without ever admitting that you are giving up.
What we've seen now are two examples of how the man who would be the oldest new president in history makes decisions. Plus, we now know exactly who would replace him if he dies: Someone grasping and arrogantly ignorant. Someone who hasn't a clue as to what are the limits of the job she wants, or what the Constitution is all about.
So whatever you do, damn it, vote. And drag a slacker or two to the polls with you, after you explain the facts of life to them. The country you save just might be your own.
Jack Lessenberry opines weekly for Metro Times. Contact him at letters@metrotimes.com.
Judge: Michigan voter purge is illegal
Michigan Messenger,
October 13, 2008
A federal judge in Detroit today ordered the Michigan Secretary of State’s office to end its practice of removing registered voters from the voting rolls when their voter ID cards are returned as undeliverable.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen J. Murphy ordered the Secretary of State’s office to restore the records of voters removed for this reason.
He did not issue a similar order for another contested practice
Terri Lynn Land
— the cancellation of voter registration for people who apply for drivers licenses in other states.
This case was brought by the United States Student Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project, which argued that Michigan election officials were removing thousands of eligible voters in violation of federal law.
The Secretary of State’s office did not respond to a call for comment on the ruling.
The Detroit News reports the story here and you can read Judge Murphy’s order here.
For more on the conservative credentials of Judge Murphy and Land’s track record with similar voter rights lawsuits, see here.
National, International News and Views...
Will the GOP Steal Another Election in 2008? A talk with Greg Palast About Republican Voter Suppression.
Buzzflash
October 14 , 2008
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
"However, the Republican cry of 'Vote Fraud!' has become the cover for purges and challenges to legal voters by the millions. I even tracked down and filmed some of these so-called fraudulent voters handed me from a GOP list. Every one was a legal voter."
-- Greg Palast, Intrepid Investigative Reporter and Author
* * *
Greg Palast and BuzzFlash go back to the election of 2000. At that time, large progressive political news sites were hard to come by – and there was only one investigative reporter who was able to unravel the theft of the Florida election: Greg Palast.
Greg didn’t just expose the mugging of democracy. As a University of Chicago trained researcher, he was able to detail how Katherine Harris used an outside vendor to create caging lists that prevented legitimate voters from casting their ballots. In fact, Greg has a laptop presentation that actually shows you the lists that Harris’s office worked from in keeping minorities from voting.
Of course, Greg’s investigation on vote theft – which has branched out widely in the intervening years – is persuasive and thorough enough for the BBC and British newspapers, but not for the corporate press in America! We kid you not.
To this day, Palast is effectively banned from reaching the mainstream American voter because television stations and big papers are owned by companies that don’t want to rock the vote. It might hurt their tax cuts or efforts to deregulate media ownership.
BuzzFlash thought that now would be a good time to revisit with our most interviewed expert on BuzzFlash, Greg Palast. After all, we have an election coming up.
* * *
BuzzFlash: You have been investigating the coordinated and vigorous GOP effort to suppress and steal votes since the theft of the election in 2000. You and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just did a BBC Documentary on what nefarious voter suppression tactics the Republicans have in store for us in 2008. Can you summarize some of the methods that the GOP are using to disenfranchise non-Republican voters prior to the election, to prevent them from voting during the election, and to keep their votes from being counted after the polls close?
Greg Palast: It's ugly. Consider:
- In the swing state of Colorado, we found that the Republican Secretary of State wiped out 19.4% - one in five - voter names in an unnoticed mass purge.
- In swing-state New Mexico, in the February caucus, one in nine Democrats found their names missing from the voter rolls supplied by the State. The elections supervisor of San Miguel County - whose own name was missing from the rolls - has no confidence the state contractors will fix it. Our statistical analysis showed there was a direct relationship between your name and your race and income. The poor and the dark were disappeared.
- In Indiana, you heard about 10 nuns who lost their vote because their ID - drivers' licenses - had expired (they were all over eighty). But what about the others? We've calculated that 143,000 others were turned away - disproportionately Blacks and new voters.
And so on and so on.
BuzzFlash: BuzzFlash has been covering one public relations effort by the Republican National Committee to create a false context for claiming voter fraud. In short, they have been attacking a national community organizing group called ACORN with news releases, lawsuits, surrogate assaults, etc., falsely claiming (as they did in 2004 and 2006) that ACORN is engaged in the massive illegal registration of primarily minority voters. Can you explain the significance of the ACORN slander by the RNC?
Greg Palast: As RFK and I report, there are only about SIX voters found guilty of federal voting fraud in a year. SiX! Out of 178 million registered voters.
So the GOP (and Fox and CNN) are running stories about ACORN signing up zillions of illegal voters. Yep, there are a handful of phony names - but 'Mary Poppins' has never shown up to vote.
However, the Republican cry of 'Vote Fraud!' has become the cover for purges and challenges to legal voters by the millions.
I even tracked down and filmed some of these so-called fraudulent voters handed me from a GOP list. Every one was a legal voter.
BuzzFlash: Tell us a bit about the site and downloadable comic book that you launched with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on how to prevent the theft of millions of votes by the Republicans, yet again in 2008. The website is: http://www.stealbackyourvote.com.
Greg Palast: Our Rolling Stone report that's out this week is all about how they've stolen so many legitimate votes. The comic book, which includes the Rolling Stone findings also includes the SEVEN WAYS TO STEAL IT BACK.
And the whole thing is illustrated brilliantly by comic crazies Ted Rall, Lukas Ketner and Troubletown's Lloyd Dangle. I loved doing it.
You can download the whole comic book for a penny or more (donate more please) at StealBackYourVote.org. And better yet, you can order bunches of the comic book there as well (and see the short movies). Cool eh?
BuzzFlash: Can you briefly explain the role of ProsecutorGate at the DOJ in efforts to suppress the Democratic vote in 2006? How did this fit in with Karl Rove’s grand voter suppression and theft plan?
Greg Palast: You betcha! Fired prosecutor David Iglesias told us something astonishing: He said that he was fired because he refused to arrest innocent citizens for voter fraud that didn’t happen. That's obstruction of justice. It was all about creating a hysteria over fraudulent voters that didn’t exist.
This is what Iglesias basically said: "They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments [Rove and the RNC] that would scare these alleged hordes of illegal voters away." Only the voters were legal.
BuzzFlash: Isn’t there one bright spot? You cut your teeth on GOP voter disenfranchisement with brilliant reporting on how the Bush campaign team, Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris prevented tens of thousands of valid minority voters from voting through a scheme to use an outside vendor, ChoicePoint, to create an inaccurate list of felons who could not vote in 2000 in Florida. Hasn’t the current GOP governor, Charlie Crist, had the right to vote of ex-felons restored?
Greg Palast: Crist is a duplicitous phony. On the one hand, he pretends they'll let ex-cons vote as in almost every state. On the other hand less than a handful of the half million ex-cons in the state have been able to get through the insane rigamarole required to actually register. In most states ex-cons can vote like anyone else.
BuzzFlash: As a follow up, from a practical matter, don’t the Republicans have to be within a certain striking distance to steal the election. If Obama keeps trending up, or ends up with a double-digit popular vote victory, how could the GOP steal the election? After all, if Nader weren’t on the ballot in Florida – despite all the nefarious Republican voter suppression and theft – Al Gore would be president, right?
Greg Palast: That's what RFK and I say: you can't steal ALL the votes ALL the time.
BuzzFlash: Okay, it’s less than a month before the election, what can anyone do to halt another theft of the White House?
Greg Palast: Go to STEALBACKYOURVOTE.ORG. Get the comic book. Now was that so difficult?*
BuzzFlash: For 8 years, you’ve been covering this issue. Some others have joined you over time and it’s a bit of a movement, albeit still relatively small. But, as in 2000, not much has changed with the corporate media. They are still pretty much ignoring the clear evidence of a coordinated GOP effort to keep non-Republicans from voting and to steal votes wherever they can. Is there any reason to think that they might awaken to their journalistic responsibility to report on the mugging of democracy?
Greg Palast: Zero. That's why we have BuzzFlash. Bless you.
[*In brief, Palast advises voters to vote early; do not mail in your ballot; check on your registration in advance to make sure there is not a glitch; don't vote a provisional ballot; volunteer on election day; go to the polls with someone for mutual support; and use the resources that you can get at stealbackyourvote.org.]
Democrats Demand Answers in Wake of Greene County (OH) Voter Suppression Controversy
Democrats Demand Answers in Wake of Greene County Voter Suppression Controversy; Big Questions Remain About the Actions of Republican Sheriff and Prosecutor
COLUMBUS - Democrats demanded answers on Monday in the wake of an unprecedented partisan fishing expedition launched against voters by Republican officials in Greene County. Acting without a single shred of evidence, Sheriff Gene Fischer and Prosecutor Stephen Haller, a former law partner of McCain campaign chairman Mike DeWine, sought the un-redacted voting records of every Greene County voter who registered and cast a ballot between September 30 and October 6 -- including driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers.
Greene County is home to five colleges, including two historically African-American colleges. It is also the political base of Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine who has famously declared that "nothing is off the table" when it comes to GOP election tactics, including voter caging.
Fischer and Haller withdrew their chilling request on Friday in the face of mounting public pressure, but refused to answer questions about how their sweeping partisan fishing expedition came about. "I will have no further comment on this matter," Haller concluded in a Friday press release.
In response to these refusals to answer questions, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern filed several Freedom of Information Act requests demanding records of contacts between the Greene County Republican officials and representatives of the Ohio Republican Party, the McCain campaign, and the Republican National Committee.
"When a chilling act of voter suppression occurs in a county with five universities, including two historically African-American colleges, on the eve of a historic election, voters have a right to know exactly who was involved and how it came about," said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern. "The Republican officials involved have deep ties to both the Ohio Republican Party and the McCain campaign. If Mr. Haller, a former law partner of the chairman of the McCain campaign, has nothing to hide about his role in this controversy, then why does he refuse to answer questions?"
What Exactly Is ACORN'S Plan For World Domination?
FireDogLake
October 14, 2008
Help me out here, because my right-wing logic interpolation machine is failing me.
Glenn Reynolds seems quite flustered today with his new headline:
Oh my! Except there is no voter fraud. What they're talking about is a problem with registration, not voting. I guess when you're typing propaganda in a highly aroused state, little things like that are bound to slip.
Same old canard -- 2100 registration forms handed in by Acorn aren't valid. Now these are probably the ones Acorn submitted which they tagged as "suspicious," which they are required to do by law.
But I'm having trouble gaming this out. What is it exactly they think Acorn is up to? Instacracker:
ANOTHER UPDATE: Robert Mayer emails: "That post regarding ACORN was absolutely astounding to me. I know that there have been problems with voter fraud in America. It has existed since the ballot box. But what ACORN is doing, with 1.3 million voter registrations turned in nationwide, is akin to what I have seen in places like Belarus. All 1.3 million of those registrations should be considered suspect. If the voting process is allowed to become so derelict, then we don't deserve to be any better off than a third world despotism. And eventually, we won't be." Some people would like it that way.
What do they think Acorn is planning here? To send those 2100 people to the polls to vote a second time? Is that it?
The St. Petersberg Times today says that "Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote in Florida this summer. Orange County elections officials rejected his application, which was stamped with the logo of the nonprofit group ACORN."
If that was the plan, don't you think they'd pick a name that was, oh I don't know, a bit less likely to raise red flags than "Mickey Mouse?" Many of the registration forms flagged by ACORN were incomplete. If their intention was to stuff the ballot box on election day, don't you think they'd do a better job of dummying them up?
Adam Doster at Progressive Illinois:
[T]here's no evidence these imaginary people turn around and vote in November. Given Indiana's strict voter ID law, it would actually be next to impossible for anyone to cast a ballot under the name of a submarine sandwich chain or a dead person.
ACORN has so far registered 1.3 million new voters, mostly Democrats, enough to scare any respectable pencil-squeezing Republican. The numbers involved remind me of the signatures that were collected to recall Gray Davis in California in 2003:
Supporters of the recall turned in 1.65 million signatures, about 1.36 million of which -- about 82 percent -- were deemed valid, according to figures released by the secretary of state's office.
That's 300,000 signatures that couldn't be verified. Darryl Issa paid $1 per signature, or $1.65 million dollars to facilitate the recall. It's just what happens when you send people out onto the street and offer to pay them to get people to sign up -- it's factored in by reasonable business people as the "cost of doing business."
But conservatives rarely understand how things work. They don't take the time and don't have the minds. We're thus treated to a lot of smoldering innuendo, a bunch of supposedly damning facts, but what they think the ultimate Acorn conspiracy is never really comes together into a concrete plan. We're all just supposed to nod knowingly, assume that "where there's smoke there's fire," and repeat John McCain's talking points until told to do otherwise.
SNAP! "White Shift" for Obama in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida
The Smirking Chimp
October 14, 2008
Obama on the way to a standing room only speech to thousands at
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia Image cc
A 900,000 Vote Shift to Obama
Michael Collins
(Wash. DC) An amazing political and social event is under way in three critical swing states. Virginia and North Carolina show a major shift by white voters benefiting Sen. Barack Obama. Florida whites are also moving but at a somewhat slower rate. The total number of white votes shifting from McCain to Obama is around 900,000 currently. That number will vary depending on turnout and campaign events. The exact size of the vote shift is important but it's not nearly as significant as the "white shift" phenomena.
This "white shift" is the topic of a just released survey by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh North Carolina. The decades-long pattern in Southern presidential contests consisted of heavy white support for the Republican presidential candidate consistently defeating the remainder of white voters plus the 90% support by black citizens consistently voting for Democrats.
For the first time in decades, there are signs of cracks in Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy. This divisive approach may soon be put to rest where it belongs, in the dust bin of history.
In the essay accompanying the poll, Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling made it clear that the "white shift" was moving south. He said:
"The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama is doing so well this year due to the likelihood of increased turnout and support from black voters and young voters. Those things are certainly important, but a strong majority of Obama's gains relative to Democratic performance in 2004, even in the South, can be attributed to increased support from white voters. Concern over the economy and the direction of the country over the last few years are outweighing any trepidation white voters, particularly conservative Democrats and independents, might have about choosing a black man. (author's emphasis)
Tom Jensen, Oct. 11, 2008
It's a clear indication that a "White Shift" is taking place right now in these three critical swing states. White voters are indeed moving to Sen. Obama. The chart below shows some of the results from the survey demonstrating the change.
The dramatic shift in projected 2008 white voting is evident for each state.
It demonstrates the potential for a strong 2008 "White Shift" to Sen. Obama.
Produced by Public Policy Polling: Introduction Report link below:
White Voters in the South: An Introduction by Tom Jensen, Oct. 11, 2008
The "white shift" adds election protection provided by the critical category of voters discussed previously in "Scoop" Independent News, "net new" Democratic primary voters: Michael Collins: Election 2008 - The Difficulty Stealing It This Time. The chart below shows 2004 and 2008 Democratic Party turnout plus 2008 Republican primary turnout for the three states surveyed by Public Policy Polling. "Net new" primary voters are those voters who represent the difference between 2004 and 2008 Democratic turnout.
+ North Carolina ("NC+") above did not have a 2004 presidential primary.
The figure used for "2004 Dem - N.C." is an estimate.
See Michael Collins - Election 2008: The Difficulty of Stealing it This Time
The estimated number of new voter registrations for these states is around 1.7 million. Assuming a 2 to 1 advantage in registrations for Obama and a 65% turnout, this represents a potential for 750,000 more Democratic voters for the three states. The "net new" primary voters in these states totaled 2.3 million, a much more dedicated group than newly registered voters; voters who will show up on Election Day. These are largely discrete sets of voting groups. From the Public Policy Polling analysis, it seems as though the "white shift" voters represent a third discrete voting group.
"White Shift" - White voters in North Carolina attend an Obama rally.
Image cc
Net New Democratic Primary Voters, White Shift Voters, and Newly Registered Voters Combined Form a Solid Defense Against Election Fraud
While the newly registered voters are subject to all the voter suppression strategies available, the 2.3 million new primary voters are not. They've voted, they're registered without any doubt, and they're not likely to be denied their vote. These new primary voters represent about 13% of the general election vote in the three states mentioned (assuming a 20% increase in voter turnout in 2008). That's not 13% of the Democratic vote. It's 13% of the entire estimated vote total.
The white shift voters are another major factor that will help reduce the potential for election fraud. As whites, they're not the target of race based voter suppression. Having paid enough attention to the campaign to consciously shift their allegiance, they seem likely to vote in large numbers. The white shift voting population moving to Obama represent nearly 1.0 million votes for the three states discussed (extrapolating from the Public Policy Polling numbers).
The only fraud strategy left to counter this is a massive manipulation of electronic voting machines and tabulators (which are often one and the same). The risk of committing electronic fraud for these states is extraordinary. Even a cursory examination of the reported totals would produce a variety of contradictions that would unravel the crime.
According to three recent national polls, terrorism is the most important issue for 8% and 10% of registered voters nationwide, while the same polls show that the economy is the top campaign issue for 48% to 57% of registered voters. Osama bin Laden would need to do a whirlwind tour of Virginia and North Carolina endorsing Obama to generate a McCain-Palin win.
Given these numbers and others from around the country, Sen. McCain might be thinking of the hypothetical posed by the former governor of Louisiana Edwin Edwards (D). Remarking on his 1983 race for governor, Edwards said that the only way he could lose would be if he were "caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." That's not likely this year.
A victory based, in part, on white shift in just Virginia and North Carolina would be an irony of major proportions. In 2004, two questionable results raised serious questions about the notion of a Bush victory. The 2004 "red shift" in the swing states was based on last minute shifts by white voters. The fictitious 4.0 million new white voters in "big cities" (from the media consortium's final exit poll) were the second factor. These "white ghosts" were confabulated by the media consortium's unbelievable and incorrect exit polling result that showed "big city" turnout up 66% for 2004. In fact, turnout was up between 12% to 15 % - ( See Chart 1).
We're now facing a shift of major proportions in consistently Republican states in the South coming from white conservative males fed up with the poor economy and the direction of the nation along with "net new" primary voters in the Democratic Party primaries.
Frum: Maddow's sarcasm same as shouting out 'kill him'
Raw Story
October 14th, 2008
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow introduced an interview with National Review columnist David Frum on Monday by sarcastically enumerating recent examples of chaos in the McCain campaign and its increasing loss of support from GOP activists, intellectuals, and elected officials.
Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, has expressed his own criticisms of how the McCain campaign has been run, but he appeared less interested in discussing them than in attacking Maddow's satiric tone as being somehow equivalent to the Republicans' demonization of William Ayers.
Maddow, however, handled Frum so deftly that one top Daily Kos diaries headed an entry on the encounter, "Rachel PWNS Frum -- Big Time." Even Matt Lewis at the conservative website Townhall wrote "David Frum Has His Clock Cleaned by Rachel Maddow," and called the interview "arguably one of the most pathetic appearances I've seen."
Maddow began by asking Frum what he had meant by his recent suggestion that "those who press this Ayers line of attack are whipping Republicans and conservatives into a fury that's going to be very hard to calm after November."
"You were talking through much of the show about the matter of tone in our politics," Frum stated in response, "and yet I think we are seeing an intensification of some the ugliness of tone that's been a feature of American politics in the past eight years. I mean, the show unfortunately is itself an example of that problem, with its heavy sarcasm and sneering and its disregard for a lot of the substantive issues that really are important."
"Do you think that my tone on this show is equivalent to people calling Barack Obama somebody who pals around with terrorists?" Maddow asked in amazement. "People yelling from the audience at McCain-Palin rallies 'bomb Obama,' 'kill him,' 'off with his head,' 'traitor.' Are you accusing me of an equivalence in tone?"
"I don't think that's an important question," Frum answered condescendingly. "I think the question is, given the small plate of responsibility that you personally have, how do you manage that responsibility. The fact that other people fail in other ways is not an excuse for you failing in your way."
"You did just say that it's the same thing," Maddow insisted. "I sense also that there's a devotion to coming up with a sort of false equivalence. ... You saying that my tone on this show -- sarcasm, being playful, the way that I approach issues -- would be somehow equivalent to the McCain campaign, I'm guessing, saying they don't want to talk about the economy."
"If we want to have a more intelligent, more grown-up politics ... then we ought to do it," Frum replied, attempting to maintain a position of superior seriousness. "I absolutely am concerned and unhappy by the kind of campaign my party has been running, and I'm doing my best to try to raise the tone."
"When you say that you want the discourse to be more grown-up and more intelligent, I agree with you on intelligent," answered Maddow. "I don't necessarily agree with you on grown-up. I think there's room for all sorts of different kinds of discourse, including satire. ... But I do think that there's something qualitatively different about threats of violence and about accusations that people are un-American."
Frum, appearing backed into a corner, was finally reduced to arguing that candidates may not hear the more inflammatory cries from the audience, but that "John McCain has tried to dial it back." He also acknowledged that "the McCain campaign is doing a non-substantive job and doing a lot of politics of cultural resentment. That's all true, and they're going to pay a heavy price in November."
Frum attempted to explain his poor performance the next day, writing, "I don't watch the show, but I had (or thought I had) a rough idea of what it was like. ... I watched the show in horror in the MSNBC green room. Maybe I was a bit crankier than usual: I'm still jet-lagged enough that I have been going to bed by 8:30 most nights this week ... Anyway I was unprepared for the sarcasm and anger of what I saw. So when it was my time to go on air -- and instead of being asked about Afghanistan I was asked about how awful and hateful the John McCain campaign was -- I got a little grouchy."
This video is from MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast October 13, 2008.
