On the front, Josh reports that Norm Coleman is asserting "voter fraud" in Minnesota. That's not strictly true since Coleman isn't alleging that individuals voted more than once or misrepresented themselves at the polls.  Coleman is saying that there is something strange about finding 100 votes that all go for Franken. But setting that aside for a second, everyone should know that "voter fraud" is basically meaningless in Minnesota because they have election day registration.  While there is a registration deadline, anyone who does not submit a registration application by the deadline can show up at their precinct on election day and vote after providing some ID that proves their residence in the precinct, or after another voter vouches for their residence in the precinct.  It's kind of a neat, if slightly nutty, system for running elections.  You can learn more at the Secretary of State's website.

So, if you hear anything about ACORN or actual claims of voter fraud coming out of this race, tell those people to stick it.

Here is a great site that compiles data on early voting:  http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html

There is a ton of information there and most of it makes me happy.  The scoop is that election day is going to be crazy, turnout is already massive, Obama's campaign is going get him states Democrats haven't previously been able to win (possibly including Georgia), and Barack Obama will be the next President. 

As we all know, every state has a procedure for absentee voting:  Voters who aren't in their district on election day can vote a paper ballot, often by mail, and have it counted in the election.  In the past few years, there have been more and more expansions of absentee balloting to the point that many states are now running elections for several weeks before the actual election day. 

Virginia, for example, has "in person absentee" voting.  Besides being a great oxymoron, in person absentee voting is available to anyone who cannot be in their precinct on election day, including anyone who will simply be traveling on Nov. 4.  Ohio has made a similar move and opened up it's absentee balloting to anyone who wants to use it for any reason.  Many other states have done the same thing.  This has been dubbed "no fault" or "no excuse" absentee voting, reflecting the fact that the voter doesn't need to have a reason for voting absentee--they can simply choose to vote absentee for whatever reason.

North Carolina has probably one of the best early voting schemes in the country.  I know that might not be expected since it has often been a deeply red state, but unlike other conservative dominated states like Georgia and Indiana, North Carolina has in recent years actually taken steps to make voting easier.  The deadline to register to vote in NC is October 10, but the state has enacted what they call "one stop voting" which runs for nearly three weeks before Election Day.  At a one stop site, anyone can register and vote at the same time.  Even people who couldn't make the Oct. 10 deadline have the opportunity to cast a ballot in the election.  It is a really great program.

So, what are we seeing in the data on the website linked above?

In Georgia in 2004, 3.3 million people cast ballots in the election.  Already this year, at least 1 million have cast a ballot.  With a week of early voting left to go, a full third of 2004's vote total has already been cast.

In North Carolina, the numbers are similar:  3.5 million people cast ballots in 2004, and over a million have already cast a ballot this year--again with more than a week of early voting left to go.  North Carolina makes it more interesting by breaking their data down by some telling demographics.  Specifically, of the 1,000,000+ ballots already cast in NC, 55% have come from Democrats while only 27% have come from Republicans.

In terms of turnout, that means John McCain is getting absolutely pasted in NC.  The reports of the death of his ground game have not been exaggerated. If you put that together with the fact that Democrats have a registration advantage of 2.8 million to 1.9 million in NC, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where McCain is actually able to carry the state.  The best case for McCain is that the 1.3 million voters without a party affiliation will somehow put him over the top on Election Day.  But that possibility will decline as more and more independents cast a ballot during one stop voting. 

Georgia doesn't break down their early votes in the same way, but let's imagine for a moment that something similar is happening in the Peach State.  That would mean that those polls we have seen showing Obama narrowly ahead are not outliers.  He could very easily win the state.  This scenario isn't implausible given how well run his canvassing and GOTV operations have been. 

Let that sink in for a moment. 

Now consider this:  Given the political preferences of different states, there is no reasonable scenario in which we have a Electoral College tie IF Virginia goes for Obama.  Every scenario with a tie has Virginia going for McCain.  So, if Virginia goes for Obama, then we are going to be in for a very short night on Nov. 4.   Here's why:  In 2004, Kerry racked up 252 electoral votes.  Virginia has 13 EVs.  If Obama wins all of Kerry's states plus VA, he'll have 265--five votes short of the necessary 270. 

So, Obama will only need to win one of the following:  Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, or Nevada.  The first four, of course, are located in the Eastern time zone.  McCain is not leading in any of these states. 

If Obama wins Virginia and North Carolina, we can all go to bed.  Short night.

I hope you have fun with the early voting data.

Hey everybody, I see that people are starting to get a little freaked out about voter suppression and I understand that, but there is something you can do right now.  If you live in a battleground state or a state with a history of voter suppression start reading everything you can right now.  Here are some state by state resources:

The Advancement Project has information on election laws in several states including:

Florida
Michigan
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia
And more at this link:  Advancement Project Election Law Nutshells.

The Brennan Center for Justice has a good legal guide on student voting rights that covers all 50 states.

If you live in a state that isn't covered here, leave a comment with your state and concern.  I'll do what I can to provide an answer to your question.  Or if you have more information, please put it up. 

Know your rights, tell your friends

If you didn't see it, this is important news from Guantanmo Bay.  Turns out the military prosecutor has resigned from his position because his office was not providing exculpatory evidence to the defense:

Vandeveld's departure is the latest blow to the military trials process and a prosecutor's office that has been buffeted by resignations over issues of fairness. Other officials have alleged that the leadership of the military commissions is sacrificing principles of justice in a rush to secure convictions.

That is exactly what's going on here.  Yes, we've known that for some time, but it's still going on, and it's not going away. If you don't know, all prosecutors in the US are required by the Constitution to provide to the defense any evidence that might help demonstrate the innocence of the defendant.  This is a <i>Constitutional</i> issue.  Once again, the Guantanamo is a travesty of justice. 

I know the economy is going down the crapper and the election is going crazy, but keep these sorts of things in mind.  As we barrel forward into October, we have to maintain perspective and remember what's at stake.

Keep your eye on the ball, people.

There seemed to be a lot of movement today among progressives to the point that maybe there isn't an economic crisis at all.  Maybe there is no need for a bailout.  Or at least not one right now. 

I'm not a financial expert.  So, I'm not qualified to judge whether there is or is not a crisis and whether it requires immediate action or not.  I just don't have that ability. 

But I did have some free time today to read Chris Dodd's proposal for a buyout, and it occurs to me that it isn't particularly important if the crisis is as big or pressing as it has been made out to be by the Treasury.

Dodd's plan requires 5 things that are important in my view:

1.  Oversight of any buyout program with frequent reports to Congress.
2.  The public takes a share in any company that accepts public money.
3.  Restrictions on CEO compensation for companies that participate.
4.  Restructuring of mortgages and a preference for keeping people in their homes.
5.  A shorter time period than the Paulson Proposal, such that all authority under the plan is terminated on Dec. 31, 2009. 

Now, we hear that Paulson/Bernanke don't like the executive compensation limitations because they say that it will discourage participation.  Of course, if a CEO is willing to let their company collapse instead of taking a paycut, something is seriously wrong with their thought processes and they shouldn't be in charge of a Dairy Queen. But let's assume that Disaster Twins are right and it will discourage some participation.

Now, let's say that the equity shares section works as it is supposed to.  Namely, we the taxpayers get a part of the companies that are doing poorly, and when they recover, we benefit from the rising tides. 

If these two things are working well, then only those companies in the worst position will participate.  This will mean that even though Congress might authorize $700 billion, our actual outlays will likely be significantly less--that is if the CEO pay aspects actually disincentivize participation.  But on the other side, we will benefit from the participation of poorly performing companies since we will make some money when they recover.  So, these two aspects will work to minimize costs to taxpayers while maximizing return.

Meanwhile, we get to restructure some loans so that people aren't thrown out in the cold, and the authority shuts down in a year. 

The only real question mark is the oversight.  Oversight is supposed to be performed by the Fed chairman, the Treasury secretary, the FDIC chairman, and two non-governmental employees appointed by Republican and Democratic delegations in Congress.  I don't know if this is sufficient.  It's giving oversight authority to the Disaster Twins--Bernanke and Paulson--but potentially could be balanced out by the bipartisan appointees and the FDIC chairman.  (Anyone know who he or she is?)

So, here's the point:  If Dodd's proposal works as planned, does it matter if the crisis is smaller than estimated?  Are there large outstanding downsides that I'm missing?  Wouldn't it be ok to pass this and see what happens?

Pass a bill for the American people.  Pass a bill that protects taxpayers.  Pass a bill that isn't a massive theft from the American public.  Pass a bill that limits the authority of the Treasury department.  Pass a bill that burdens those who caused this problem and benefits those who did not.  Pass a bill for the American people.  Pass a bill that you have created because you think it is the best solution.  Pass a bill that isn't mere capitulation to this lame duck administration.  Pass a bill shows you understand how Congress is supposed to work.  Pass a bill that shows that you care about your actual constituents and not just the people who fund your campaigns.  Pass a bill for the American people. 

Pass a bill for the American people. 

Pass a bill for the American people.

Pass a clean bill.

I'm sorry I don't have the time for a longer post pulling this all together, so here's the point:

John McCain supports privatizing social security, presumably allowing workers to put their SS money into stocks.  Today, we see the result of Republican policies on the stock market, namely a 4.5% drop in the Dow, a 3% drop in NASDAQ, and a series of collapsing banks. 

So, exactly how is McCain's social security policy supposed to work?  Are people going to put their money into nose-diving stocks?  How will that help them retire?  Does McCain think people will be able to retire when his policies shrink their savings?

Regarding this post.

Can anyone else think of a major political figure who's done only Barbara Walters-style prime time celebrity interviews rather than appearing on actual news shows? I can't. And really a political campaign will do whatever it can get away with. But what news organization has ever done that? What an embarrassment.

NO ONE CARES.

The American People don't have standards to which they hold their political candidates.  It doesn't matter what kind of interviews she does, when she does them, how she does them.  Or whether the media enables them or not.  This makes ZERO difference to anyone in this country.  Why are you even talking about this?  What good is going to come of it?  ABC will still be number 2 in the nightly news ratings.  Do you want us to boycott ABC?  Do you want us to write letters to ABC?  Or do you just want us to sit in silent judgment of ABC and Palin's shamelessness?

Why write this post at all?  What did you think would happen? 

If your response is, "Nothing, I just wanted to write something," couldn't you come up with something else to write?  Why did you have to write the obvious?  Can you tell me something I don't know?

I have read TPM for a long time now.  I can't say I was around when Josh first opened the doors, but I have been reading it at least since 2003.  So, that's five years.  I signed up for an account with TPM Cafe the day it opened.  Now I am forced to question why I spend so much time reading this blog. 

More and more, it just seems like TPM provides space for a bunch of self-important wankers.  Not just on the front but in the reader posts.  Yes, I realize that I am one of those self-important wankers, but at least I realize it and I am trying to do something about it.  Yes, I realize that my criticisms can be applied to the vast majority of blogs, but that is kind of the point.

So, what has set me off today? Specifically, this post on the front by Josh, and this post at Open Left by Matt Stoller.  In the first, Josh restates the patently, blatently, bloody fucking obvious.  In the second, Stoller admits that blogs are powerless to produce any real effect in politics. 

What has this blog ever accomplished?  The best thing TPM has done was 2005's agitprop about Social Security privatization, and I don't mean 'agitprop' as a perjorative.  It was great.  Josh got a ton of people involved, helped to establish a counter narrative, and played at least some role in the privatization movement grinding to a halt. 

And since then TPM has produced almost nothing of utility.  Sure, it's nice to get a few videos now and then, but they aren't doing us any good.  The audience isn't large enough, and they tend to infect only certain populations.  That is to say, TPM's videos don't end up hitting a wide audience and are only infectious among left leaning political junkies.

Left leaning political junkies, though, are the choir.  It seems TPM has chosen to spend its resources in preaching to them.

Josh has also stated quite often in the past that he believes there are different kinds of blogs, and he conceives of TPM as being more journalistic than activist.  So, I am forced to ask:  WHO NEEDS ANOTHER FUCKING JOURNALIST?

I'm sorry folks, but the mainstream media isn't dying.  It's still going to be where most people get their news, whether it's CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or the nightly broadcasts.  I see plenty of people everyday reading newspapers.  Sure, newspaper circulation is in decline, but people are still going to read them, especially local papers outside of the east coast metropolitan corridor.

Blogs are not going to replace the mainstream media and they aren't going to become mainstream media.  They are and will remain fringe media.  Moreover, there is no evidence that left leaning sites like TPM have any ability to drive MSM coverage of issues.  Drudge still has the MSM in his pocket, but lefties only get coverage when they create new mechanisms for involvement, (like Chris Bower's googlebomb). 

I can't help but wonder . . . There is a common thought among lefties that goes like this:  We have access to better informaiton, and if only we could effectively communicate that information to other people, the scales would fall from their eyes, and everyone would be more liberal.  But that's just a conceit.  It ain't happening folks, and reporting isn't going to make it happen.  The fact that Josh took 5 minutes to restate the fact that a McCain administration will be worse than the Bush administration isn't going to change anyone's mind.  It's useless and masturbatory.

And that's the conclusion I am coming to about this site in general.

Let's not get too wrapped up in Palin's refusal to sit down for press interviews.  This works in her favor, because a) she can avoid it for a quite a while, and b) it builds anticipation for the first interview she actually does.

Read Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/06/carney/index.html

Obama is running ads on the broadcast channels in Springfield at least.  I was surprised to see them.  This is Roy Blunt's district and went for Bush 70-30. 

I know earlier on people were concerned that Obama wasn't spending enough in Missouri.  Anyone know if that has changed, or if individual perception of the amount that Obama has been spending is skewed based on the view from KC and the Lou?

Anyway, I think it is a good sign that he really intends to contest the state.

Don't you understand, he was a POW.

Last night, Michelle told us about Barack's time as an organizer, and related a bit of what he said to people in communities that had been affected by plant closing:

<blockquote>He talked about "The world as it is" and "The world as it should be." And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two, and settle for the world as it is - even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves - to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be. And isn't that the great American story?</blockquote>

Justice is a word that gets thrown around a lot, but it genuinely concerns me.  I went to law school partially in an attempt to learn about justice, and I didn't find it.  I still think out legal system is profoundly unjust in a lot of ways, but I always have trouble describing exactly what is unjust about our system. 

So, for you, what does justice look like?  What, specifically, about our country would you change in order to make it just? 

What's the deal with the repeated use of "literally" by the Obama campaign this week?

Joe Biden said it about 10 times during his speech in Springfield on Saturday.  You can watch that here. He said it every time he introduced a new point or argument almost as a segue between issues.

Then today they put out a video with Barack and Joe as an introduction of Biden, and once again, 'literally' makes a surprise appearance.  Barack says that we've come a long way, but "the campaign is literally just beginning."  I'm not sure if the link will work, but the video can be seen here.

And now Michelle started her speech just a few minutes ago, and used the word 'literally' within the first couple sentences.

Does anyone have an explanation for why our party is so concerned with being literal?

I am looking for as much information as I can find on John McCain's foreign policy positions.  I would like to limit it in a couple ways.   First, I don't want the little "jokes" he makes, such as Bomb Iran, or his other sort of gaffes.  The Czechoslovakia and Shiite/Sunni stuff I know about, so that won't be necessary.  Second, I don't want to get overly theoretical.  I don't want big academic discussions of whether he is a realist or a neo-con, or whatever.  If you have an article authored by a professor or someone at Brookings, I don't care.

Most of all, what I want are serious attempts by John McCain to to articulate what he would do as President.  Secondarily, I also want to have a comprehensive list of people who actually advise McCain on foreign policy.  I know this one is more difficult to come by with all the half-assed campaign advisers, but hopefully, this information is out there.

The goal is to create an accurate picture of McCain's foreign policy based on his own statements and the statements of his actual advisers. 

Right now, I have his big piece from Foreign Affairs that he wrote last year, and I would be interested things like that, or even just short clips of him at debates or whatever, but anything with specificity would be good.

I am think of making a video of his statements or at least compiling them into a larger written piece.  If you want to help out, I would really appreciate it.