And This Is Surprising To Whom

Media Bias.  It is a given now, isn't it?  And it is a given that the media is slanted overwhelmingly to the Left.  It is a given in magnitude and in quantity. But I give this who think that bias is not there or that exists in equal parts for both directions.

Media coverage of President Barack Obama was largely positive in the final week of the presidential campaign, while coverage of Mitt Romney was mostly negative, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. From October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama in mainstream media outlets outnumbered negative ones by 10 percentage points, with 29 percent positive, and 19 negative. On the other hand, negative stories about the GOP nominee Mitt Romney outweighed positive stories by 17 points, with 33 percent negative compared to 16 positive.

Of little surprise, MSNBC was arguably unethically super-biased.

MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories in the sample), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative. For Obama, meanwhile, the coverage improved in the last week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, fully 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all in the sample.

Media Bias.  It is a given now.  And it is a given that the media is slanted overwhelmingly to the Left.  It is a given in magnitude and in quantity.

Gift Wrapped Election - Conservative Catch 22

One of the reasons Romney lost the election, according to Romney, is because of the gifts given out to various groups within the populace.

In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups. [...] With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.

I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. But it is not anything new. Consider the whole concept of amnesty to illegal aliens is an attempt to buy the votes of millions of "new citizens". And I know it worked that way. I had a landlord whose citizenship was owed directly to amnesty by Reagan in 1986 and he would repeatedly tell me that he will always vote Republican as a result, as would his wife.

It is an old tactic. Consider this hypocrisy from the anti-lobby as well as the people who regularly want corporate America to have fewer and fewer rights. Corporate America and lobbyists are routinely attacked for getting things from Congress in exchange for their financial support. But it is the same thing that Obama (and plenty more before him) do...give something to a group for the tacit acknowledgement of an exchange for that group's vote.

What the problem for a true conservative is lies in the very belief of smaller government and reducing spending. How do you convince someone who is getting freebies (at the expense of the rest of the nation) to vote for a principle that would require productivity from the freebie-beneficiary? "Hey, vote for smaller government even though it means you will lose all of your handouts and would actually have to work as a result."

Not an easy sell.

Or the other side of the coin, the proverbial 'hard place', is to join in the give-a-way game. Start buying votes like Obama has effectively done for the past 4 years. Then that will grow the budget, grow spending (which every Republican and Democrat Congress has done anyway, so calling any Congress "conservative" is a laugh) and growing the size of government. In essence this strategy is rooted on sacrificing the very principles that identify you to enable you to win so you can enact principles that identify you. But to maintain winning you will have to maintain sacrificing the principles that identify you so you can continue to win while giving lip service to the your "principles" that used to identify you.

Yes, the Democrats routinely buy votes. It is no secret and it is nothing new. The only scandalous part is that the hate-business crowd mysteriously loses their principled indignation when the "buy votes" coin goes in favor of their party.

The real rub is what strategy can conservatives employ that maintains their principles and can win consistently against the purchased votes?

Add Election Fraud To Union Accomplishments

In a meshing of two recent themes here, complaints of a Nevada union engaged in election fraud which adds to both the list of why unions suck and to the coverage of election shenanigans.

ALIPAC, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, based in Raleigh, N.C., sent the Nevada secretary of state an email outlining its intention.

"We want to stop the felonious thefts of American elections," says William Gheen, ALIPAC's president.

Gheen points to a commentary published in Sunday's Las Vegas Review Journal. In it, editorial writer Glenn Cook accuses the Culinary Union 226 of knowingly registering illegal immigrants and then pressured them to vote.

Cook quotes an unidentified illegal immigrant who is on the Clark County voter rolls. The person claims a union representative told them they were "in so much trouble" for refusing to vote. Catherine Lu, a spokesperson for Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, said she could not comment on Cook's editorial or ALIPAC's official complaint.

Gheen says his group wants all non U.S. citizens removed from the voter rolls before Tuesday's election. He suggested the state could use Homeland Security databases such as E-verify to do the job.

Poll Station Hijinks

Each election cycle there are illegal activities which surround the Black Panthers. It looks like this cycle is no exception.

Court-appointed Republican poll inspectors are being forcibly removed from voting stations in some Philadelphia wards and replaced in some cases by Democratic inspectors and even members of the Black Panthers, according to GOP officials.

...

The Philadelphia GOP is reporting that court appointed Minority (read GOP) Inspectors are being thrown out of polling locations in several Wards.

These Inspectors are election officials - again, court appointed -- and are reportedly being thrown out by the Head Judges of Elections (these Judges are elected Democrats) and being replaced by Democrats.

This has happened at [15] locations...

It seems that a judge has already had to intervene to reinstate 70 election inspectors. I think a wise move would be to have the totals through the time that one side's inspectors were ejected negated. There is no way to know that fraud did not occur.

***** UPDATE *****
So, you walk into the polling station and see a huge mural on the wall of the candidate you disagree with. Would that feel uncomfortable? What is the point of banning campaigning within a certain distance of polling station entrances (a standard practice for good reason) if polling stations can have murals of one of the candidates?

What about a banner hanging inside the polling station?

***** UPDATE 2 *****
You know, it should not be a surprise when fraud is mentioned with regards to Illinois (especially Chicago) politics. In the era of cell phones, Twitter and Facebook at least more of these stories can be surfaced and substantiated.

In Chicago (go figure) an election judge is wearing an Obama cap and it is claimed that he gave an extra ballot to the person in front of the picture taker in the story.

This photo, taken by a voter this morning at the Ward 4, Precinct 37 polling place (1212 South Plymouth Court, Chicago), shows an election judge checking in voters while wearing an Obama hat," a source writes. "Chicago's 4th ward is home to President Barack Obama."

The voter who took the photo says: "Woman in front of me also given an extra ballot."

NAACP Runs Polling Station

I read this story and I knew two things.

There would be some people who would not find a problem with this story is the first.

The second is that those people would have a melt down if the roles were reversed.

Let's demonstrate (though I know the hypocrite-partisan-hacks will not fess up).

According to Eve Rockford, a poll watcher trained by voter integrity group True the Vote, three NAACP members showed up to the 139 precinct location with 50 cases of bottled water and began handing bottles out to people standing in line. While wearing NAACP labeled clothing, members were "stirring the crowd" and talking to voters about flying to Ohio to promote President Barack Obama.
...
At this point, NAACP members were instructed to turn their clothing inside out, which they refused to do and said they weren’t going to stop their actions inside the polling place. Their behavior and actions to move people to the front of the line continued for the rest of the evening. Texas State Representative Sylvester Turner, a former Texas NAACP leader, was also seen outside the building talking with voters.

“The NAACP basically ran this poll location and the judges did nothing about it,” Rockford said.

Did you find anything wrong with this?

How about this?

According to Eve Rockford, a poll watcher trained by voter integrity group True the Vote, three Tea Party members showed up to the 139 precinct location with 50 cases of bottled water and began handing bottles out to people standing in line. While wearing Tea Party labeled clothing, members were "stirring the crowd" and talking to voters about flying to Ohio to promote Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.
...
At this point, Tea Party members were instructed to turn their clothing inside out, which they refused to do and said they weren’t going to stop their actions inside the polling place. Their behavior and actions to move people to the front of the line continued for the rest of the evening. Texas State Representative Sylvester Turner, a former Texas Tea Party leader, was also seen outside the building talking with voters.

“The Tea Party basically ran this poll location and the judges did nothing about it,” Rockford said.

One of those versions is the real one and the other edited to illustrate a point. If only one version got you upset then you are likely a partisan hack. Both of these should strike you as being wrong. Having the state representative there makes the story even more appalling. That election officials did nothing is shameful.

I personally would be deeply bothered regardless of which version of the story is true. One would shock me. I would be shocked to hear of such blatant disregard for the laws in an organized manner from the Tea Party.

The real story is the version with the NAACP. And this behavior is of no surprise.

Why Unions Suck, Part 3

Yet another example of intimidation efforts by union thugs.

I have said before and maintain that stealing / vandalizing political property or doing such things to property for assumably political purposes is akin to terrorism. I maintain these crimes should carry felony charges.

These punks should be charged with a felony for each sign.

Perrysburg police arrested four Toledo area men early Friday morning on charges of stealing Mitt Romney campaign signs in Wood and Lucas counties in Northwest Ohio.

The signs were found in a pickup truck owned by Sheet Metal Workers International, Union Local 33 in Parma, according to the police report.

Many of the signs -- some measuring as large as 4 feet by 8 feet -- were believed to have been put up by members of Northwest Ohio Conservative Coalition, said John McAvoy, the group's president.

Perrysburg police reported that at 1 a.m., four men – Corey Beaubian, 37, Sean Bresler, 33; and John Russell, 39, all of Toledo; and Christopher Monaghan, 41, of Rossford -- were arrested and charged with receiving stolen property. Police also said the Ford F-150 pickup truck also contained tools such as drills that could have been used to take the large signs down.

The signs were reportedly removed from private property and business locations in Lucas and Wood Counties.

There is intimidation by unions for opposing them, crossing a picket line (which myopic union lovers will say is justification for the union's felonious criminal activity), for wanting to vote against unionization (again, they will say this warrants threats even though it flies in the face of a belief of a free society) and we know it exists. Now is proof of theft by union members for not being politically in goose-step.

The reason for doing this kind of cowardly behavior is to intimidate people into silence. That and a lack of confidence in one's own beliefs so much so that opposition is threatening and must be silenced.

Pathetic.

Why Debate With A 26 Point Lead

California Senator Diane Feinstein (who I still think looks like Momma from "Throw Momma From The Train") is not going to debate with her challenger.

Can't blame her, really. In a state that would elect Marx, Castro, Pelosi or Putin before any even close to center there is really nothing that she or the population can gain from a debate with Righty.

Throw on top of that a 26 point lead in the polls and it is an easy thing to understand.

Polls show [Elizabeth] Emken posing less of a challenge than [the four previous opponents]. A September Field Poll put Feinstein at 57 percent and Emken at 31 percent, a 26-point margin that grew from a 19-point advantage in July.

The campaign spokesperson's reaction was worthy of a chuckle.

Emken spokesman Mark Standriff scoffed at the explanation and continued to criticize the incumbent's failure to debate.

"That's unworthy of the office she's been holding for two decades and disrespectful of the people she claims to represent," Standriff said.

Actually, it is quite representative of California. They are are perfectly represented by her.

And the public is getting a service by not having to suffer debates.

Iowa Joins Texas In Telling UN To Bug Off

The United Nations has long been after deteriorating the sovereignty of nations including the United States. We are treated horrifically by the members even though we provide a large portion of the budget and the lion's share of the military power.

So when wise people tell the UN to take a flying leap I feel hope. The latest is the state of Iowa joining Texas telling the UN election observers they cannot be in the polling stations on election day.

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz — like Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott last week — on Tuesday threatened Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe election observers with arrest if they came within 300 feet of a polling place’s entrance, in violation of state law. (In Texas, it’s 100 feet.)

Good. Keep 'em out. The UN is rarely something good.

Second Battleground State To Have Voting Machine Issues

Last week there reports in Florida that voting machines were registering Obama even though people were selecting Romney. Oh, the machines are fine and there is nothing to worry about was the word.

Now same is happening in Ohio.

Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem.

Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.

It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.

“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.

Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.

Something tells me that we may be hearing a lot more of this in more battleground states.

Pioneer Press Editorial Destroys Voter ID Opponents

All of the arguments against Voter ID are answered quite soundly in this St Paul Pioneer Press editorial.

From the Constitutional Question:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, writing about Indiana's voter ID law, said it was "amply justified by the valid interests in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'" Stevens was a liberal justice writing on behalf of the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the law by a 6-3 margin. Stevens went on to say that "We cannot conclude that the statue imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."

Addressing the fabricated cost expectation:

The other objections to the amendment are less central. Opponents say it will be expensive. To which the supporters note that the opponents are always eager to spend unless and until it comes time to tighten up the voting process. Not to mention that if the state is so backward that it cannot efficiently administer something as ordinary and universal as Photo ID verification, it's high time it upped its game.

The pure instinctual reason to support Voter ID:

Polls suggest that Minnesota's Voter ID amendment will pass, perhaps easily. If so, it is because on the surface it just seems to make so much sense. Virtually any activity of any consequence in this society requires a photo ID. Nobody accuses other institutions of suppression or worse when they require photo ID during the regular course of their activities.

Now opponents claim that there is no problem and there is not even th potential for a problem. Pioneer Press hits that one out of the park, too.

Remember, in Minnesota anybody can simply show up at the polls and vote, whether they have previously registered or not. They "register" on the spot with as little documentation as an old ID and an invoice with an address on it. In 2008, roughly 500,000 people (!) showed up and voted after registering on the spot. That number of same-day registrants represents nearly 20 percent of the votes cast. No one knows how many of these votes may have been ineligible. A recent video from the state of Virginia records the son of a politician explaining how to cast votes by using fake documents such as water bills. And what makes matters worse is that once a vote is cast it is counted, and cannot be un-counted, even if the voter is later found to have been ineligible.

Without an ID there is no way to verify even the most elementary things such as citizenship. Post-election, more than 6,000 of the addresses given by these same-day-registrant voters came back as undeliverable in a routine postal check. Even if the legwork was done to determine which if any of those votes were ineligible, the votes themselves could not be un-counted. (Emphasis added)

6,000 of the 500,000 same day registrants had undeliverable addresses. That is 12%. That is nearly 3,000% of Al Franken's margin of victory that year.

The editorial addresses something I believe should be ditched altogether, the asinine allowance of vouching for someone's identity.

But the system is even more porous than that. The vouching process allows people to show up at the polls without a shred of evidence that they are eligible to vote, and cast a ballot on the say-so of someone who "vouches" that they are indeed eligible to vote. And the person who vouches is permitted to vouch for up to 15 people, all of whom have no documents that would qualify them to vote. We don't know a lot about the vouching process because records on vouched votes are scarce, seldom reported, and what records do exist are destroyed after 18 months. As with ineligible votes cast through the same-day registration process, ineligible vouched votes once cast cannot be un-counted.

Remember also that while voter fraud alone would be cause to vote for Voter ID the real target in protecting the integrity of the election process is intelligible votes being stopped, not just fraudulent activity.

Opponents of the amendment base their arguments on voter fraud -- or, more precisely, the lack thereof. But there's a lot of misdirection in that argument. Proponents are interested in protecting against ineligible votes in general, not just the presumably smaller subset of fraudulent votes. Fraud is very difficult to prove, and in a system as loose as Minnesota's would likely be a small fraction of the total number of ineligible votes. Even so, there have been 200 convictions of voter fraud since 2008 -- primarily felons who weren't eligible to vote -- and the total number of ineligible votes is arguably significantly higher. The focus by opponents on voter fraud is a means of avoiding the larger issue.

It is fair to say that the electoral process in Minnesota is much looser than opponents of this measure are willing to admit. And if we accept the claim that despite the points outlined above there really is not a problem, the counter argument would be that it's for sure a problem waiting to happen.

Three are commercials on the air now that have grandma pleading on about how she has lived in her home for nearly a century and somehow cannot get out to get and ID which means she will not be able to vote when she gets out to go to the polls. My first thought is that if it is a priority enough (as it should) to get out of the house than so too should it be a priority to get an ID. You need ID to get your meds or cash a check or make a cash-back deposit.

The other thing that the commercial has the old lady say is the oft heard and absolutely disingenuous plea to "send it back" to "get it right". This implies something that we all know is not true, that there is a version of this concept that they would support. I think it is safe to say that almost 100% of the people who utter that would never support any version of identification verification for voting. I have found this when I ask those opponents "what needs to be fixed to make it supportable?" The answer is a shrug, an I don't know and an insistence that it is not their job. In other words they cannot even conceive any way they could support the idea. Bottom line there is I do not believe anyone who uses the tactic of "send it back and tell them to fix it" is being honest. They are trying to appear reasonable in their opposition and lying while doing so. The honest response would be to say "requiring ID to vote is never right, I oppose it in all iterations." Dishonest in the attempt to persuade deceive. Grandma in the commercial included.

I know, that is not allowed to be said about the dear old and frail looking lady who is has so much difficulty getting around that her cane is even sharing the shot with her. But the deception attempt has to be called out. Fortunately I believe that none of my readers are dumb enough to fall for that gambit.

It may be worth remembering, in the fog of the debate, that generally speaking those who oppose the amendment would still oppose it even if it cost the state nothing and exempted absentee ballots. The arguments brought to bear by the opponents are simply tools -- incidentals -- used to defeat an amendment that they fundamentally oppose in all its forms. Plain and simple, they are against using Photo ID in the election process. Opponents are not saying that they are for it as implemented by some other state, just not as it has been drawn up in this particular amendment. They are against the very concept, regardless of the particulars.

Absentee ballots? That whole process is, to coin an expression from a close friend, ridiculous like clown shoes. It is a luxury, to be honest, but one worth fixing and making better. Notice with that broken process we have not scrapped it because it is so far from perfect? Now examine what opponents say about Voter ID in relation to absentee ballots.

Another issue raised is the handling of absentee ballots and the lack of clear provisions for how Photo IDs work in that circumstance, to which the supporters respond that the amendment allows for "substantially equivalent" verification standards. To the objection that this sort of thing shouldn't be handled as a constitutional amendment, the supporters point out that the state constitution has plenty to say about the voting process. To the objection that passage of the amendment will lead to a great deal of litigation, supporters answer that there will be plenty of litigation regardless, and that it's a bit ironic coming from opponents who regularly pursue their agendas through the courts. Opponents say that whatever else may be true, Photo ID will not fix all the problems, to which supporters argue that in a process as important as the vote we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

To me the slam dunk is with regards to suppression of voters.

Opponents fear that higher standards will suppress their vote. While this concern is understandable, they offer no evidence that this indeed has happened in states that implemented Voter ID. If there were evidence that Photo ID suppressed the vote in other states that practice it, you can be certain that this would be Exhibit A in the case made against it. Opponents talk of hundreds of thousands of eligible voters who might potentially be denied the franchise, but they have brought no evidence that such measures have indeed repressed the vote in other states.

Truer words in politics are difficult to come by and bear repeating. "If there were evidence that Photo ID suppressed the vote in other states that practice it, you can be certain that this would be Exhibit A in the case made against it. "

This is a very easy issue. Minnesota's voting process over emphasizes the priority of voter turnout numbers at the overwhelming sacrifice of a system that can be deemed as integrable. In fact, it seems to be that the drive for high voter turnout numbers is a higher priority than safe and protected elections based on the processes that exist. Voter ID easily maintains the obviously top priority on the voter turnout statistic while actually improving the integrity of the ballot box to its current second world state of existence.

Personal note: This topic was the cause for an ending of a friendship. There was a husband of a former friend who portrayed himself as the only all-knowing demi-god authority on all things voter related in Minnesota. He reminded me for some reason of the bug-thing monster voiced by Steve Buscemi in "Monster, Inc.". He, and only he, was the authority on voter issues. All others were obligated to worship his superiority and acquiesce their insignificant and incorrect views to his or bear the unending wrath of hatred and profanity and insults.

I say former friend because the wife admitted her husband was well beyond being out of line in discussions but then dutifully retracted her apology saying it is her husband so he must be right. She said she needed space until the election was over and I decided that kind of disrespect will not magically disappear the day after the election...and it is unhealthy to keep it in my life. She had done the same thing to me about global warming as her husband does to people on voter issues. Some people just need to be let go from our lives and they be them.

But I digress.

Aside from him being the biggest ass I have ever dealt with (which is saying something considering I have had to deal with the idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church) he was also one of the most arrogant piles of flesh I have ever witnessed. I wish I could hear his apoplectic vitriolic reaction to the Pioneer Press editorial before casting him to the heap of irrelevance in the past.

Children Should Be Protected From All Things Political

I don't care who it is or for what cause or what party. I find the use of children in protests and political activity to be immoral and repugnant. A recent political ad is just...well, you decide if children should be singing the following lyrics.

Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea

We don’t have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying

Congress went home early
They did their best we know
You can’t cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it’s welfare dough

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair

It’s a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term’s kind of a drag

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we’re blaming you

You did your best
You failed the test

Mom and Dad
We’re blaming you!

Disgusting. Indoctrinating. Sickening.

And further proof that for some demented people winning is an ends that trumps all things, including principles or human decency.

Will They Still Want The Electoral College Scrapped

They wants the Electoral College done away with. My hunch was it was pure politics, a gambit to ferment discontent and fan the belief of disillusionment while misleading people to believe they were disenfranchised by the genius of the Electoral College. I did not believe their words to be sincere.

Polls and probabilities are showing a growing possibility of Romney winning the popular vote while Obama wins the election. That would give us a great chance to see if those people were hacks putting their party above any principles or if they actually believe what they said.

One fine example is Secretary Clinton and President Obama. Let us remember her position after the 2000 election.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Shortly after the 2000 election, as a newly-minted Senator-elect, Clinton called for direct elections of the president. She argued the country has changed since the Electoral College was put in place.

“We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” Clinton said at a news conference.

“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

And another example of a prominent politician who said the Electoral College needed to be done away was President Obama.

Obama said he supported eliminating the Electoral College as a Senate candidate during a WTTW television debate against Republican Alan Keyes in 2004.

When asked, “Yes or no, eliminate the Electoral College?” Obama responded, “Yes … I think, at this point, this is breaking down.”

Oh, don't worry. I won't be surprised to get some Righties pissing vinegar about the Electoral College. Here are some on the record for maintaining it.

Vice President Biden and Senator Orin Hatch vote against the idea the last time it reached the Senate floor in 1979. There is also Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell.

The Senate minority leader told the Associated Press two days after the 2000 election that presidential candidates would avoid small states if the Electoral College was eliminated.

“If we did away with the Electoral College, an awful lot of states would never get a visit from a presidential candidate,” McConnell said.

In 2011, McConnell blasted a national popular vote movement that would circumvent a constitutional amendment. He claimed it would lead to an extreme number of recounts.

“The proponents of this absurd and dangerous concept are trying to get this done while nobody notices, just sort of sneak this through,” and “we need to kill it in the cradle before it grows up.”

I agree with him.

There's more.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) — The chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee shares the same opinion as McConnell about smaller states losing power without the system.

"Washington (state) would be hurt dramatically,” Murray told a Vancouver, Wash., high school on Nov. 20, 2000.

"Presidential candidates wouldn't come here."

Notice the mixed company in opposition of the change?

Let me give the names of a few others wanting to do away with the Electoral College. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who is now Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y). Notice the homogeneity in party on this side? One of them had the most ridiculous concept for a justification. Durbin actually posited that people who vote for the loser in a state are disenfranchised.

"Our current system disenfranchises millions of voters who happen to vote for the losing presidential candidate in their state," Durbin said. “The electoral college is an 18th century invention that never should have survived to the 21st century.

Someone who votes and whose vote is tallied cannot by definition be disenfranchised. This is a buzzword to make people believe the speaker's position is a moral imperative and in that vein is a very specious and despicable method of communication.

I saved this one for last mostly because he both changed his story and did it while erroneously leading people to believe that not being visited by the candidates constitutes disenfranchisement.

Former Vice President Al Gore — After the 2000 election, Gore continued to support the current system. But Gore reversed course during this year’s Democratic National Convention, criticizing the process that ignores voters outside of swing states and cost him the election.

“I’ve seen how these states are written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race. And I really do now think it is time to change that,” Gore said on Current TV.

Sorry, that is nowhere close to disenfranchisement and it only perpetuates a broken victim mentality.

From the World English Dictionary:

1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship

It is like they do not know what it means...or are counting on the public to be too stupid to know what it means.

Anyway, we might get to see a lot of people suddenly rationalizing a 180 in their "beliefs" and principles. Should be fun to watch.

Voter ID Opponents Do A Facepalm

I bet the folks against requirements to show ID to vote are doing a facepalm over this story. Remember, one of the main tenets of the anti-ID crowd is that there is no voter fraud. I have people tell me that in this state it is impossible. My take is that human nature being what it is and politics being as divided as it is that it is folly to ignore human nature. It is human nature to "stretch the truth" and play in the grey areas...to test the limits and stretch the boundaries.

So when the field director of Jim Moran (D-VA) gets busted on video advising someone how to fraudulently cast votes it makes me wonder how the anti-Safe Election crowd will respond. What is worse is that the field director was telling how to cast those votes...by forging utility bills. And they won't be able to dismiss it as one rogue person. The field director was advising that, if caught, the person could rely on Democrat lawyers to help.

The son of Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. – who serves as the field director for his father’s campaign – has been caught on video advising an undercover reporter how to fraudulently cast ballots in the name of registered voters by forging utility bills and relying on the assistance of Democrat lawyers.

But, you would say to me, this works on both sides. I'm sure it does. But I don't hear anywhere near as many stories about organized voter fraud on the Right as I do on the Left. In fact, I have never heard of an organized effort on the Right. I have been on mailing lists for organizations across the spectrum from Green Party to Constitution Party and I left some of them for using those mailing list to organize voter fraud. Specifically, that was the Green Party at the U of MN who was trying to organize busing people to Iowa to allow them to vote both in MN and in IA. They were also organizing groups to take advantage of same day registration and vote in multiple locations including at home and at school.

I guarantee if there were as many any stories about Right-leaning groups engaged in this crap then the Left would not be fighting so strongly against the ID Requirements to vote. Wait, I take that back. After the 2000 election the Left suddenly wanted to scrap the Electoral College. (Aside: I wonder if Romney should win the popular vote but lose the election will those people on the Left scream again as loudly about the Electoral College or will they be embracing that part of the Constitution?)

The guy that busted this field director has busted many people including the uber-socialist group, ACORN.

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, known for its hidden-camera probe of the controversial national community organizing group tied to Obama, ACORN, carried out the investigation and provided the video exclusively to WND.

The field director has immediately resigned. But I would like to see criminal charges brought against him.

Furthermore, Jim Moran is no angel either. I mean, when a Democrat gets punished by Nancy Pelosi you know he is out there.

Jim Moran, 67, a controversial figure in Congress, has been criticized for his collaboration with Islamic leaders with ties to terrorism. In 2003, Moran, then a regional whip in the House of Representatives, was punished by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi after he suggested Jews were responsible for the push for war against Iraq.

Back to the voter fraud thing. Notice here that there is not just a plan but obviously a safety net in spite of the new Virginia laws. Human nature. If you make it to easy for everyone then it is too easy to act fraudulently. We go from the 'how to'...

Moran suggests creating fake utility bills to serve as voter ID. But he warns that there will be “a lot of voter protection” at the polling places to enforce the identification laws.

“So, if they just have the utility bill or bank statement – bank statement would obviously be tough … but faking a utility bill would be easy enough,” Moran says.

The reporter asks: “How would you do that?”

“I mean, I would just find, I don’t know,” Moran replies. “I guess. …”

“Microsoft Word and type it up,” offers the reporter.

...to the 'safety net'...

Moran emphasizes that the poll workers will be “trained up” on the new law to protect voters and “be cracking down.”

If there’s any trouble, he says, an Obama for America lawyer, or another Democrat lawyer, will be on hand to provide help, he said.

“You’ll have somebody in house, that if they feel that what you have is legitimate, they’ll argue for you,” Moran says.

But he warns the reporter that the utility bill has “got to look good.”

...to the advice on making the fraud safer...

Later, at the Arlington County Democratic Party office, Moran advises the reporter to contact the registered voters on the list to make sure they don’t plan to cast a ballot Nov. 6. He suggests obtaining the information by posing as a pollster.

Again, this is not an isolated incident. The reporter is working for Project Veritas and has had interesting results just this year alone.

As WND reported, earlier this month O’Keefe’s team captured on video a regional director of the voter mobilization group launched by Barack Obama, Organizing for America, helping an undercover reporter vote for the president in two states.

And wait, there's more.

This year, Project Veritas says it has been conducting an ongoing series of investigations in more than a dozen states “demonstrating the ease with which election fraud can be committed and legitimate voters can be disenfranchised.”

The group’s previous effort in Texas, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut shows Obama campaign workers, including Organizing for America Regional Field Director Stephanie Caballero, helping people who declare they want to commit election fraud. The investigation was inspired by a column by WND columnist Chuck Norris.

Just when you thought it was safe to say that elections are safe...

In April, a Project Veritas investigator was offered the ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder at a polling place.

Think carefully as you look at Question 2 on your Minnesota ballot this year. Think carefully as you try to pull the lever against safer elections. Think carefully how comfortable you are with the system. If your opposing political party controlled the area you live in would you want the present system of not being required to do anything but sign your name on the list of registered voters? And then relying on a partisan Secretary of State office to validate everything?

If It Is True Then I Feel Better About My Vote.

If this is true then I feel better about casting a vote for one of the two major Presidential candidates for the first time in 8 years (as opposed to third party candidates),

A man claiming to be a close pal to President Obama during college made contact with Republican operatives recently, ready to go public with claims that Obama used and sold cocaine in college...

Most politicians would have held onto the story and then had some staffer "leak" the information which would be officially unauthorized but unofficially coordinated. A slime ball, spineless evil politician would have heard of this information and, regardless of if it were factual, she would run with the story as if it was absolutely certain and a Biblical mission to destroy the opponent.

Romney's campaign...what did they do?

Operatives close to the Romney campaign were contacted and rejected the information, the source told Radar.

“They didn’t want anything to do with it,” the source said. “They thought it was not anything they wanted to be associated with or anything their candidate would want to be associated with.”

In fact, the man’s charges about Obama never reached Mitt Romney. [Emphasis added]

I know. There are plenty of crazy people who make stuff up all of the time to smear their opponents. There are plenty of unscrupulous people who will knowingly disseminate damaging details even when they know the details are false or a distortion. Some will even intentionally fabricate details or edit context just to denigrate someone who does not goose-step their way. I know several people personally who do this.

So what vetting has been done with this guy? Not much, but it is interesting what the reporting article claims.

A proposal of the man’s story was created and viewed by Radar. The document claims that there are multiple sources who can back up allegations that Obama used and sold cocaine in college.

The alleged pal was willing to go on the record for the story and take a polygraph test, according to the source.

Again, the point of this post is to show the stark contrast from the norm that is Romney's campaign. And to admit that, if this is true, I am pleasantly surprised.

Someone not in the Romney campaign but working to help Romney knew what the value of this story would be (regardless of its truth).

“The operatives close to the Romney campaign believed the man’s story would be the ultimate October Surprise but they got nowhere. “People who would have taken the information to the highest levels of Romney’s campaign just wouldn’t touch it. “They don’t want their candidate smeared with this type of activity.”

And the staffers didn't bat an eyelash. This a big difference from, say for example, 6 years ago when Klobuchar's staffers illegally accessed their opponent's unreleased campaign ads. Color me pleasantly surprised and very satisfied with my vote this year.

If Only He Had A Gun

I would love for the laws for political vandalism, including the theft of lawn signs, to be felonies. And I will have no remorse for someone who is engaged in theft of property (and trespassing) to be shot by a homeowner protecting his property.  It is a shame this guy was not packing heat.

Wait, I thought the Left was supposed to be full of peace-loving people.  Or is it the same Left from which I repeatedly received death threats for disagreeing with them?

Obama will provide for us all

In case you have not heard the expectations of the Obama supporters check this out.

"I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him, he’s gonna help me."

THAT is either the Welfare state (who will pay for that?) or that is Socialism (we all pay for that with our freedom).

Yes, Obama won. How could he not when he promised everything to everyone! This list of promises is so long that people were viewing him as a savior (if not THE Savior).

The expectations of handouts and free rides are so high that by October 31 Obama's camp was trying to figure out how to lower expectations after their victory.

"Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve."

How can his supporters NOT harbor unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve when in just one speech on October 30 he gave this laundry list of things he will do:
* "give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week";
* "eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000";
* "give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks";
* not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax";
* "end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas";
* "give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States";
* "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country";
* "create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country";
* "invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade";
* "reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines";
* build "a new electricity grid";
* "build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow";
* "eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years";
* "lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance;
* "if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves";
* "end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most";
* "invest in early childhood education";
* "recruit an army of new teachers";
* "pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability";
* "make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts";
* "stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus";
* "end this war in Iraq";
* "finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden";
* "increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world";
* "invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home";
* "No more homeless veterans"; and
* "no more fighting for disability payments."

Election Analysis--Complete List

I posted here on this blog a portion of my Election 2006 analysis. It was long so I had to break it up into several posts. Here is a listing of them in relatively close order of posting (not in the order of the complete document).

Election Analysis--Preface
Election Analysis--Issues--Iraq
Election Analysis--Issues--GOP Strategy part 1
Election Analysis--Issues--GOP Strategy part 2
Election Analysis--DEM Strategy--Same Thing, Different Results
Election Analysis--Results--Nationally
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide Intro
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 1
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 2
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 3
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 4
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 5
Election Analysis--2008 Elections

And a late inclusion to the original document...
You got what you wanted

One tidbit, post-election related, but not in the original document...
Checking the TradeSports predictions

Election Analysis--2008 Elections

Please don't start '08 until '08--Fatigued and will be pissed
I can see already that this request will fall on deaf ears. But I will make it anyway. Please do not start Campaign '08 until, well, 2008. Since 1999 it has been constant discussion about candidates and running for office. It is fatiguing. I am usually interested in this stuff and I am sick of "elections" and "campaigns". On the air I am putting a moratorium on Election 08 discussion until no earlier than November 2007. I have talked to many people who also (foolishly) were hoping that if they vote Democrat (or anti-incumbent) then the campaigning will stop for a few months at least.

People want a break from it. So please, do not campaign for 2008 until, well, 2008. Look at the candidates in 2006 that started their campaigns in 2005. They turned out to be hamstrung and alienating of their base.

Count how many "exploratory committees" started more than 15 months before an election actually saw that person actually be on the ballot for the targeted election.

For that matter, how many election winners were the "leading candidate" more than 12 months before the election.

Starting that early is the kiss of death. And each one that does it for 2008 I hope for an excruciatingly disappointing end for your campaign as well.
Hard Left wing of 'D' won elections for 'D', and control 'D'
The Hard Left wing of the Democrats won the elections for the Democrats this year. They are the vocal and active minority portion of the Democrat party. Yet they have incredible influence within the Party. If most of the media had to decide which wing they would be a part of, the uber-liberal or the moderate to liberal, most of them would choose the uber-liberal. That gives the Hard Left a louder voice and deceptively stronger influence within the Party.

But they do not have the numbers to support their voice. Worse than that, they believe and behave as if they have the numbers within the Party to control the Party.

A clear example of this is the entire Lieberman saga. Voice enough to not endorse Lieberman, but not enough real numbers when it comes time to actually defeat Lieberman. In between the Democrats are torn between catering to what seems to be the strong presence of the Hard Left or catering to the middle Left which could also put them near the moderates.

This dilemma is what will divide the Democrats unity. Unity was easy when simply being the minority party and running obstruction constantly. They never had to resolve the difference to decide what legislation and solutions to pursue.

Now they must author solutions and that will force confrontations within the Party. The 'scorched Earth' mentality in each aspect of discourse from the Hard Left does not leave room for expectations that these confrontations can be done without damaging the Democrats' majorities.

Compounding this coming division is the ideological position of the country. It is not close to the Hard Left and a habit of spinning facts beyond being factual so they can claim to be representative of the mainstream has fooled them into actually believing that. The newly acquired majorities will slap the Hard Left, put the moderate Left in a difficult position and open the door for a quick snapback to Republican majorities in 2008.

That is unless the GOP continues their own incompetence or takes on the Democrats as minority failure seize opportunities
Pawlenty in the White House
The whispers have been going for a long time and they began to pick up momentum again after Election 2006. Tim Pawlenty in the White House…it is possible. Frankly I believe trying to assess the possibility of someone's viability as a Vice Presidential candidate are as solid as assessing the exact score of next year's Super Bowl. But Pawlenty's prospects as a Presidential candidate are worth some light examination.

I believe the chances of Pawlenty's ability to win the nomination for President are dependent on one last thing: his performance during the 2007 session. He has two general options. Go-along to get-along, which would require him to continue his sprint away from the Right, past the middle and into the Left. The other general option is to become the hard conservative.
Go Along to Get Along
In examining this position one must understand the risks of this course of policy and the possibility of Pawlenty taking this course.

Possible...blamed last 2 yrs on slim majority
Is it possible for Pawlenty to run to the Left? Certainly. He started his first term at far Right and by his third year moved to the center. By his fourth year in office Pawlenty was pushing Moderate Left in his fiscal policies. From his comments in the first few days after the election it is clear that Pawlenty's sprint towards the left is not near completion.

Pawlenty blamed his sudden shift on the slim Republican majority in the House coupled with the Democrat majority in the Senate. Essentially Pawlenty was unable to find his bully pulpit, his veto pen or his realm of influence. That was with a divided legislature.

Now that he has to face nearly veto proof Democrat majorities in the Legislature it is hard to believe Pawlenty is capable of finding the will to fight his opposition party at all.

All things considered this option is the most realistic expectation. Pawlenty will yield to the Democrats and spin it as "bi-partisanship". Come early 2008 he will use it as proof that he can "work across the aisle" though the reality will be he is unable to fight for his own beliefs, principle or positions.

Evaporate his support further from fiscals
This portion of the analysis is assuming that one of Pawlenty's eyes is focused on the White House. Assessing the risk of this "Go Along to Get Along" philosophy is necessary. Pawlenty's history shows he mistakenly believes he can win the opposition's support by giving in to their demands repeatedly. Unless he finally learned in 2006 that "giving in" does not win support, he is very likely to believe that "working together" in 2007 will be a resume booster for 2008.

The reality is to the contrary.

By giving in further to the opposition Pawlenty will continue alienating the fiscal conservatives and his support from the wary supporters of 2006 will evaporate as well. Lukewarm support from one's base is a recipe for disaster. Should Pawlenty take this road and still win the nomination I would expect a Dole 96 or Bush 92 showing from Pawlenty. Fiscal conservatives around the country will not be enthusiastic and the ripple effect will be destructive.

Could put as "McCain moderate" in White House hopes
The one thing that may weigh in Pawlenty's favor is the degree of party loyalty. We have seen, especially here in Minnesota, in 2006 a willingness without hesitation of the GOP members to set their principles aside for the sake of party victory...regardless of their candidate's record.

A Pawlenty ticket may evoke some of those tendencies. The success of Pawlenty's White House run after a "Go Along" 2007 session depends heavily on the match-ups. My view is there is too much to overcome if Pawlenty fails to use his veto pen often enough.
Stand hard against legislature (more than first 2 years)
The other road for Pawlenty is to veto, veto and some more veto. Grab hold of the fiscal conservative platform that pushed him into office in 2002.

Possible...
It is possible for Pawlenty to return to his 2002 campaign promises. Possible, though, is not probable. He had a great record in his first two years. But the reason for his performance and staying true to his campaign promises to his base is simple. There was no risk for him. The House would pass a fiscally conservative bill. Pawlenty could push for a bill that was not as conservative, but still appear conservative enough. The Senate would pass a bill that was liberal in spending, though not as much as they would have like. The compromises between the House and Senate would be "justifiably moderate" and still conservative enough to please the Right.

He had a GOP controlled House to run his cover through.

Now his decisions will be all his own, there will be no cover for Pawlenty in 2007. No one will be able to be blamed for being too conservative, there is no "happy medium" or middle ground for him to stake out for his compromises.

Historically this means Pawlenty will try land somewhere left of center.

Strengthen/re-strengthen support from fiscals
Should Pawlenty miraculously find his veto pen and start standing up for the principles he gives lip service to presently then Pawlenty could be in position for a huge push towards the White House.

Many of the frontrunners of 06 have been knocked out for one reason or another. Those that are still standing are moderates, or at least viewed that way (as in John McCain's case). That leaves the conservatives looking for someone to get behind.

Should Pawlenty move back to his conservative side it will energize the conservative, both fiscal and social, the moderates an the undecided independents. The fiscals will feel they finally have a voice again be can become a highly energetic voice.

This road I believe would make him a strong bet to win the White House in 2008. I would not bet on Pawlenty taking this course of action, though.
The Dark Horse possibility: Bachmann
It pains me to say this, but I think the dark house or long shot bet is Michele Bachmann. This is a fairly simple concept so it will be brief.

Michele has become the darling of the Right across the country. There is no question about her ability to stand in the face of fire while in Congress (though she avoids tough questioning like the plague). These two traits and the latitude to take strong stands in Congress with little risk of her stands actually seeing a vote gives her the power to mold herself as THE top conservative.

Republicans, nervous still about a run by Hilary would love this.

Bachmann is a political campaign machine. No one campaigns better, distorts facts about their opponent in a convincing fashion better, or has the long term organization. Noone is better at manipulating a system, a group or a person for their own gain than Bachmann. Only Keyser Soze may be better at meticulous planning of manipulation. I would not be surprised to find out that strategizing has already begun...formulating which issues to bring up in Congress and which one to avoid all to position herself better.

If you are looking for the long shot with a real chance then Bachmann may be it.

This concludes the election analysis that I am publishing through the blog. It represents about 2/3 of the writing and may be available eventually through other sources. Again, remember that these are the thoughts based on the outline I drafted the morning after Election Day 2006.

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 5

Of the eight Congressional races only two had something that I believes warrants analysis.
No Surprises
In six of the Congressional races there were no surprises. Two of the Republicans won re-election easily. The three Democrat incumbents also won easily. The open Democrat seat was won easily. I am surprised by the large percentages for both Tammy Lee and Alan Fine in the 5th District. All in all of these 6 districts (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th & 8th) there were no surprises whatsoever.
6th Congressional District
Why so many people (including myself) believed for a fraction of a moment that the 6th was "in play" is perplexing me now. It has been a solidly conservative district with a few pockets of strong Democrat support. Wetterling did not do well in the district in 2004 while she had the benefit of being a still grieving mother. In hindsight there was nothing Wetterling could have done to win the race.

The Democrats fell into an emotional trap when they endorsed Wetterling. Elwin Tinklenberg would have pulled moderates, could have pulled the fiscal conservative/socially liberal block and enough of the disaffected Republicans to win the district. The same block that sent Jim Knoblach to the state House or Jungbauer to the state Senate could easily have found enough in Tinklenberg to push him over the top.

While most of 2006 was marked with terribly run Republican campaigns, the 6th was marked by an incompetent Democrat campaign. There were many untrue labels the Wetterling camp could have tried sticking on Michele Bachmann and they could have stuck. A "liberal tax hike lover" was not among those. The person who thought trying to tie Bachmann to the Mark Foley scandal should have their Democrat membership card revoked. It is not a convincing line of argument to say, "Vote for me, vote for change, vote against the same old corruption in Congress" when your opponent is not a current member of Congress. This is before pointing out how misleading the "facts" that were uttered in those ads were.

The sad part is that regardless of who won the race between Bachmann or Wetterling the winner would have been rewarded for brazenly lying constantly about their opponent. Wetterling was also outmatched. Bachmann is the textbook incarnation of a typical politician...in every sense. She is able to get her machine rolling hard and fast. She is the best in the world of politics at lying to someone even though everyone knows she is lying and still making the person feel like they were not lied to. She is a Charismatic (take that as a negative or a positive). Wetterling, even if she had a competent and truthful campaign that showed a glimmer of understanding her positions had no chance of winning.

The only surprise in the 6th was that people thought it might have been close.
1st Congressional District
Tim Walz came out swinging at Gil Gutknecht about Iraq. Walz also came out firing about Gutknecht being to much like Bush. Gutknecht's reaction was what did him in...he ran away from those positions. If someone really wants to understand how Iraq was used in the elections they only need to look at the Minnesota's 1st District.

This was the most effective use of Iraq. Walz immediately pounded this as the main topic. And it scared Gutknecht off of it enough to leave him without anything to campaign on. Of all the candidates I heard interviewed Walz was the only one to tie every statement and position and response to Iraq. Not Bush, not Bush's policies and not the War on Terror...Iraq. Walz' theme was Iraq.

While other candidates used Iraq as one of many issues they still had other issues. "Change", "Social Programs", "Iraq"...those were from the other candidates. Walz' message was basically "Iraq needs to be changed. Social Programs cannot be addressed until Iraq is changed. Crime cannot be solved until Iraq is changed." Obviously this is exaggerating to demonstrate quickly how different the theme from Walz was compared to other Democrats. But the difference was Walz' campaign was about Iraq.

Gutknecht's efforts to distance himself from Iraq left the voters to wonder, "Hmm, if he is not for it now then it must be wrong. He helped start it so I will have to vote for the other guy." Simplistic, yes, but that is the effect running from one's record has.

I did not think Walz' strategy was going to work and so I was caught off guard by the results.

Coming Next: 2008 Elections

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 4

Attorney General
While looking at this race keep a few things in mind. Jeff Johnson is a very nice person...maybe to a fault. When I first talked to him as Attorney General candidate I wondered if maybe he was too nice to convince the average person he was capable of "going after" the people and companies that needed to be pursued. This fear of the unfortunate "flip side" of a candidate's image I could not get away from.

Understand also that people in this country think that everyone should be sued when one does not get their way in any fashion. If you have access to a law database go through and look at some of the complaints filed (and thrown out) throughout the country. We sue, and sue, and sue and sue. We like to punish if there is a hint of MABYE something that possibly could be perceived as interpreted as wrong.

So when the opponents of current Attorney General spend eight years complaining that he is sue-happy it rings to people. On the surface people hate that but they will remember one of those times they thought "yeah, they needed to be sued" and will find little reason to change the status quo.

The way I see it the complaint of a sue-happy or anti-business Attorney General is an all-or-nothing charge. And there is no way to tell beforehand if the message will be a winning theme or a losing theme.

Some people still try hanging the tobacco lawsuits around the DFL's neck (in a kind of 'guilt by association' line of attack). This is a perfect example of the double edge sword of a "sue happy" or "anti-business" charge. While sometimes people may think the tobacco lawsuits were a horrible precedent there are times when people (many of the same people) will secretly thank the Minnesota Attorney General for beating 'big tobacco'.

Enter Lori Swanson. A strategy from her based on "I can continue Mike Hatch's work" would be risky on so many fronts. Who sees his work being continued as a good thing? Risky toss-up. Who would support a candidate basically running to be their predecessor part II? Not many.

And Jeff Johnson's supporters (myself included) saw Swanson's ties to Hatch as a big negative, an indicator that more of the same anti-business practices would be in place and the continuation of using the Courts to create policy they could not get through the Legislature. To us the harms of Swanson's connection seem to be a truism. And we said so.

That logic we thought was irrefutably sound actually to the average person was not logical. In the end, we are sue happy and the charge that Swanson comes from a sue happy office could be a positive. Worse, by coming from opponents of Swanson it seems to be a personal attack--punishing her for doing her job.

I believe deeply this is what happened. By September I began to realize witness this effect when I talked to people and so I stopped using that line of support for Johnson. That left very little to offer the average person on Johnson's behalf. Johnson need more visibility.

Unfortunately Johnson's campaign was one of the most invisible to people I talked to before the election. Those are the reasons I believe he lost.
State Auditor
This is the one race that leaves me perplexed. Pat Anderson was a good candidate and ran a campaign that never said a negative thing about her opponent. Never. Anderson had a record of competence and with a little digging one would find Anderson not only did her job but went above and beyond. It seems that her office was focused on constantly answering "What else would help the citizens?" and then pursuing that end. And Pat is a good person. Anderson was the rare trifecta for a candidate.

Historically people generally want a fiscal conservative in this office regardless of their leanings. That too should have been in Anderson's favor.

Rebecca Otto was in the center of some partisan controversy regarding campaign laws. Guilty or not, that should have been enough to keep some people from voting for her. Otto also did not seem to project any confidence in her ability to be an effective Auditor much less be able to maintain the high standard Anderson set.

Nonetheless Otto defeated Anderson by a hefty margin. While for this race a strong case could be made that Anderson was simply collateral damage in the tide of "change" the voters sought I find that a little too simplistic to leave as the final analysis. A few other factors may have been involved.

After talking with about a dozen people both before and immediately after the elections I discovered most people who voted for Otto (or were planning to vote for the 'other guy'--showing how little they knew about the race) did so because of a misplaced blame.

Many of them were upset about some local aspect. A few of the more common complaints used as reasons to vote against Anderson were "property taxes skyrocketing" or the localities revenue raising after their Local Government Aid was cut. After trying to refocus the blame in more appropriate directions (local officials, legislature, etc) there was simply rationalizing their own positions rooted in a belief that the Auditor should be halting some of the tax hikes.

That is the first big contributor to Anderson's defeat and it seems legitimate to say the overall culture for "change" or even the anti-Republican mood was magnified in this race.

The other compounding problem normally would have affected the Secretary of State's race to a lesser extent. It impacts the Auditor more because the Secretary of State gets additional exposure for simply being the overseer of elections...free face-time. The Auditor does not get that.

The problem: ridiculously low spending limits for the campaign. As high as the figure you are about to read may seem initially, once you think about how expensive a campaign is you will realize it is literally pocket change.

$200,000.

For a statewide race the limit is $200,000. That is enough to send one postcard sized mailing to 30% of the state...and nothing else. Consider the other things that need to be paid for and you understand how strangling this limit is. At least one full-time staff (campaign manager), lawn signs, website costs (and a webmaster), traveling expenses to be able to meet people throughout the state. The list goes on and on.

The limit is ridiculous and the result is an horrifically under informed public. This leaves the voter to essentially flipping a coin in order to decide which of the candidates to select. In an election cycle where both parties are campaigning for change the incumbent Auditor is in a bad position with little hope of saving themselves.

That, and this is, in my analysis, the only race in Minnesota where an "anti-Republican" mood was a major factor in the outcome.

Coming next: Results--Statewide part 5 (almost done)