Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
For the next couple of weeks we will be discussing the election, local
and national races. <evan> will be leading/moderating/guiding our
discussion.
  

    

Hi, folks.

It's been suggested with the <politics.> conference rather large and
daunting to some people and with other topics discussing the upcoming
election spread into places like <media.> and <news.>, that it might be
nice to have one place for people to discuss this election.

We'll be open for business until a week after election day.

We'll follow the same rules as the <politics.> conference:  No ad
hominem attacks or name-calling.  Just to be clear:  If you want to
call a candidate a no-good, cattle-rustling spawn of a rattlesnake,
that's OK, but you can't call his supporters one.
  

    

This Presidential race will be a close one.  Obama has been battling
economic heard winds from Day One of his Presidency.  Romney, on the
other hand, says he knows what to do to fix the economy, but seems to
be keeping it a secret.  He seems to be saying his "business
experience" makes him uniquely qualified to lead the nation into
prosperity.  Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to want to discuss his
political experience as Governor of Massachusetts so much, so so it
seems to me.
  

    

Polls show a close race, and there is a possibility that we could have
a winner with an electoral college majority but without a popular vote
one.  Hopefully, if that's the case we won't have another intercession
by the Supreme Court but if things are as close as they could be we
can expect to see a drawn-out count and it seems unlikely we'll get the
networks calling the election as soon as the polls in California
close.

Rather than trying to make sense of individual poll results, there are
a couple of analysts who have very good track records at consolidating
and determining the meaning of the polls in general.

One of those is the New York Times' Nate Silver, who correctly called
all but one state in 2008.  His blog is at: 

<http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com> or

<http://tinyurl.com/2el86wj>

Another is Sam Wang's Princeton Election Consortium, which called ever
state in the 2006 election correctly.  His site is:

<http://election.princeton.edu/>

Both at this point are calling Obama the winner with 300+ electoral
votes.
  

    

If you are reading this from outside the Well through the publicly
accessible Inkwell.vue and you want to make a comment or question,
please email me at evan@well.com and I will post it for you.
  

    

It appears that the Republicans will hold onto their House majority. 
A major factor in that, it has been suggested, is that House districts
have become so gerrymandered by both parties into "safe" districts that
it is very hard to unseat incumbents.  However, this did not keep the
Republicans from big gains in 2010 in the House, and redistricting due
to the 2010 census also has thrown a wrench into the "safe" nature of
some districts.  How do things look in your district?  In your state?
  

    <scribbled by evan Thu 1 Nov 12 10:25>
  

    

You host is known to make "wordos" - the kind of spelling mistakes
such as "their" instead of "there" that spellcheckers won't catch.  The
scribbled post above had enough of them so I'll start over with that
one:

The Senate seems more in play than the House, although several
Republican Senate candidates have managed to make horses' asses out of
themselves recently with remarks about such subjects as rape which may
help the Democrats keep hold of the Senate.  How does it look like
things are playing out in your State if there is a Senate seat up for
grabs?
  

    

So, there are some issues to help us start.  Feel free to join in on
any or all of them.
  

    
In case you have not met <evan>, He has been a member of the Well
since 1993.  

Evan says he has always been a politics junkie and has been involved
in low levels in national, state and local campaigns and issues all of
his life.  He has never held office, but his wife was a member of the
San Anselmo, CA Town Council for 8 years, serving as mayor for two of
those, so he has lots of experience helping run a campaign at the very
local level.  

Evan spent the first ten years of his working career at the U.S.
Department of Labor, but went into the private sector in 1981.  Became
a specialist in employee benefit plans and worked for several West
Coast banks and financial institutions in that area.  Retired in 2007.

We are happy to have <evan> at the helm of this discussion.
  

    
Personally, I am not worried about President Obama losing the
election. I am more worried about my state of North Carolina. 2010 saw
such a low turn-out and the Republicans were able to take over at the
state capital for the first time in 150 years, though we still have a
Democratic governor. Gerrymandering has wreaked havoc on the area
around Asheville. I am worried that we will get a Republican governor
and then there will be no brakes on what they will do in Raleigh. These
were the clowns who passed a law outlawing global warming or at least
tried to outlaw any talk about it. Just one of the laws that the
governor vetoed.
  

    
If I may be so bold as to introduce a new spin on corporate
advertising into this discussion.  My company just sent a note to each
employee stating that 'the impact of Health Care Reform will cause
medical and dental costs to rise even more" - and then going on to note
that our coverage will increase by several dollars a week.

Noting the increase in costs based on the HCRA sounds like it is right
out of the Karl Rove Playbook so as to tarnish the President and lure
move votes towards the Republicans.  I don't recall ever hearing so
much corporate political chatter distributed to employees in my
lifetime. I am appalled that our system is allowing this kind of fear
tactic to be legal.
  

    
Here in Arizona, Richard Carmona may have a real shot at the Senate
seat vacated by Sen. Jon Kyl. Carmona is enough of an independent
Democrat that he appeals to a lot of voters. It does occasionally
happen here, we've had three Democratic senators since the 1950's :)
While I would love to see it happen, I'm skeptical - the Republican
machine is extremely powerful here. This will be a true bellwether of
shifting sentiment.
  

    

Another very important factor in this year's election is that the Republicans
are willing to tell outrageous and easily-refuted lies, and they seem to be
utterly unconcerned with being called on it.  The Remoney campaign came out
and said they weren't going to let "the fact-checkers" get in their way.

Just today I read that a Chrysler executive tweeted that Donald Trump is
"full of shit" for promulgating the Romney campaign's blatant falsehoods abut
Jeep moving their plant to China.

<http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/01/chrysler-executive-to-trump-you-are-
full-of-sht/>
  

    
The realized that that was the way to operate years ago.

Not "reality-based" was the concept.  Who said that?
  

    


Romney: Elect Me Or House GOP Will Wreck The Economy

By Benjy Sarlin | TPM – 17 hrs ago

In what his campaign billed as his "closing argument," Mitt Romney
warned Americans that a second term for President Obama would have
apocalyptic consequences for the economy in part because his own party
would force a debt ceiling disaster.

"Unless we change course, we may well be looking at another
recession," Romney told a crowd in West Allis, Wisconsin.

Romney said that Obama "promised to be a post-partisan president, but
he became the most partisan" and that his bitter relations with the
House GOP could threaten the economy. As his chief example, he pointed
to a crisis created entirely by his own party's choice -- Republican
lawmakers' ongoing threat to reject a debt ceiling increase. Economists
warn that a failure to pass such a measure would have immediate and
catastrophic consequences for the recovery.

"You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable
to work with the people in Congress," Romney said. "He has ignored
them, attacked them, blamed them. The debt ceiling will come up again,
and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy."

<http://news.yahoo.com/romney-elect-house-gop-wreck-economy-192105183--politics
.html;_ylt=Aol1sZKNEKVitKc77DAVKuus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTUyMGViaDg5BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvc
DEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBGb3IgWW91IDUgU3RvcmllcwRwa2cDYzgxNDczOTE
tYjQyMy0zMzczLWJhZmQtMzUyZDY3NWRiYTc2BHBvcwM0BHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2I1O
DBlNDcwLTI1MmYtMTFlMi1iZmViLTlhM2YzZTljODk2NA--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDd
XMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3>

<http://tinyurl.com/cd6bolm>

Subtle, isn't it?
  

    

Paul Krugman actually commented on this yesterday:

Op-Ed Columnist
The Blackmail Caucus
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 1, 2012 522 Comments

If President Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand
dramatically, taxes on the wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face
tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney wins instead, health coverage will
shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen
in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled back.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see
people from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast
their ballots based on the issues. Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing
number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote
for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy
the economy.

O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in
terms of “partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme.
But they aren’t. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men
of the Republican Party.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/krugman-the-blackmail-caucus.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/coyxhad>
  

    
I know it is just last minute, desperation politics, but it is really
amazing that this argument: "Vote for Romney, because if Obama is
re-elected the Republicans in Congress will make it impossible to 
govern" is being bought by anyone, let alone the Des Moines Register. 

I love Paul Krugman's line:

But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got
here. Shame if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning
political argument? I hope not. 
  

    
Turnout is my big concern. Every vote is important, even in a solid blue or
solid red state. I hate to think of the 'white collar riots' that may happen
should President Obama win the electoral vote but not the popular vote. My
anxiety is lessened a bit by Dr. Wang's post this morning on the Princeton
Election Consortium:

"I estimate Romney's chance of winning the popular vote at 6%, odds of 16-1
against."

http://election.princeton.edu/
  

    
Below is a link to a story about the attempt to disenfranchise the
1000 students who vote at Warren Wilson College, near Asheville, NC.

The redistricting Republicans in Raleigh split the county into
commissioner districts. WW College students historically use as their
address 701 Warren Wilson Road, and then their PO Box. But the
redistricting cut the campus in half. So now the students have to use
their actual dorm address. The county Board of Elections did not hear
that the PO Boxes were no longer good enough until 10/31, two weeks
into early voting. Major local mess. Election Protection lawyers are
involved. The effect has been to get the anarchists out to vote too
because they are so pissed off.


<http://www.mountainx.com/article/46635/Ballots-in-question-for-1000-registered
-voters-at-Warren-Wilson-College>
  

    
I've closely followed every presidential election since 1960, when i
was 13. My predictions follow. 

Presidential election. 
I will use the map at this link as a reference.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electora
l_college_map.html

Please, no lectures about Real Clear, i'm only using it as a
reference.
Start with Obama at 201, Romney at 191, where things stand at this
moment. I'll go through the toss-up states in alphabetical order.
Colorado, 9. Obama, by a very small margin. Obama at 210.
Florida, 29. Romney, close, Romney  at 220.
Iowa, 6. Obama, who is at 216. 
Michigan, 16. Obama, not even close, i don't know why it's listed as
toss-up. Obama at 232. 
Nevada. 6. Obama, who is at 238.
New Hampshire, 4. Obama, close, Obama at 242. 
North Carolina, 15. Romney, who is at 235.
Ohio, 16. Obama, close, Obama at 260.
Pennsylvania, 20. Obama, not even close, NOT a toss-up at all. Obama
at 280. All over, but let's finish. 
Virginia, 13. Romney, very small margin, Romney at 248.
Wisconsin, 10. Obama, not that close. Obama at 290. 
Obama 290, Romney 248. 

Senate will likely remain controlled by the Demos, small chance of a
change in control, small net GOP pick up of seats or draw. Akin in
Missouri and Mourdock in Indiana have pretty much destroyed chances of
GOP taking control.

House will highly likely remain controlled by the Reps. 

Two more years of divided government, right as the cliff comes up and
everything disintegrates. Not that a unified party control of the WH
and Congress could do anything anyway.:-)
  

    
Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-st
ate-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/
  

    
Jonsthan Klate paints a woeful picture in Tikkun and suggests military

supervision to ensure fairness at the polls


http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/obama-must-use-military-to-ensure-a-free-and-fai
r-election
  

    
People on the right are also paranoid about the election.  Google "spigot
cities" and you'll see articles that claim, for example:

"President Barack Obama’s campaign team could have more control over the
outcome of the 2012 election than you think, according to a report by
TheBlaze documentary team that reveals the potential for highly targeted
voter fraud in key cities that could determine who gets the electoral votes
from many swing states.

"The potential fraud would be focused on major, decisive cities that are
believed to help keep states blue, and therefore earning them the electoral
college’s votes. They’re called 'spigot cities.'"
  

    
I am really so tired about hearing the term voter fraud as if it were
running rampant like rodent plague in Australia's outback publicized a
few year ago.
If there really were rampant voter fraud, it would show up in reports,
but the real fraudulent actions seem to be on the Republican side of
the isle where hired guns step barely over the line to cheat, steal,
and rip off unassuming voters who indicate they won't vote in favor of
the republican party.
Folks like Sproul,  Small and  Cuccinelli in Virginia and  companies
like Strategic Allied Consultants in Florida.

the real issue seems to be not voter fraud, but GOP sponsored voter
registration fraud that appears to be specifically targeted in
'battleground' states.
  

    
Well, sure.  In general if you want to know what the Rapepublican
scumbags are doing, just listen to what they are accusing Democrats
of doing.  It's a very reliable indicator.