It is real. And, at least in NC, there is nothing scary about it. Who has voted is a matter of public record. And, in NC, the voting stations are required to provide observers* with reasonable access to the list of people who voted--reasonable defined as no less than three times during the election day.

The Houdini system simply quickly takes that public information and provides it to the get-out-the-vote-crew in real time. No more or less scary than a guy at Best Buy HQ being able to log on to the system and see, in real time, how many 80G iPods they have on the shelf in Boise, ID.

*Each party is allowed to have two credentialed observers inside a polling location, subject to all sorts of complicated and draconian rules designed to keep them in their proper role as observers and not interfering with the process.

With this explanation of how it might work, I believe it. What I read before made it sound like some sort of mystical snooping device that could gather information not normally available. So any political party/candidate, given sufficient resources, could do this themselves. It doesn't really have to be more than a database ultimately, does it? Doesn't sound like 1984 (or scary) to me right now.

Some incredibly interesting stuff there:





As to the last one.. piczplzthx

Yes. I am sure that each state has different rules about access to the records. But, in a world where internet capable PDAs are getting more and more common, you could see it expanded and used by both parties four years from now.

Based on what I saw/experienced, anything involving talking to the voters would be dead in the water because the election judges would (rightly) throw you out for potential improper voter influence and/or intimidation.

Do VPs ever talk during a concession speech? The fact that Palin was pushing to speak seems rather aggressive.

Maybe she was going to show us those nice missiles she's been hiding. Dammit that was our chance!

LOL!!

Somewhat, yes. This is a center-right country.

On the other hand, you could argue that a half-black Hawaiian named Hussein vs. a decorated war hero and one of the most well-liked politicians around might have been worth a few percentage points in the other direction.

In the end, I think that when the GOP comes back as an intellectually healthy party, it will have no problem getting back into power.

I do not recall Lieberman or Edwards giving a concession speech of their own, let alone being a part of Gore's or Kerry's concession speech. That does sound really odd that she would want to speak during it.

I saw a lot of ambition on their faces (the Palin couple) when McCain was talking about them during his speech. I'm not sure which segment of the party is convinced they are the future, because I don't see the appeal to anyone outside of the 'religious right.' She pretends to know and care about science research for cures to things like autism while criticizing science funding that is actually making progress on that front. She is the candidate for people who put religion and/or style above all else, while not looking for any substance behind it. It only works because we have a significant amount of people in this nation who think science and math are merely questions of faith.

Nah. Just make sure states that the GOP can't win dictate the selection of their nominee and then let him be a lukewarm imitation of a Republican who is scared of his own shadow. Worked like a charm this time, I can't see why it wouldn't work indefinitely.

For some reason, right or wrong, I seem to remember Edwards making some remarks at some point. I suspect one of our more liberal posters will know for sure.

Can anyone (Jon included, if I'm not on ignore by now) give me some substance to back up this scared of his own shadow claim?

John Kerry's Concession Speech, The Text Of The Speech At Faneuil Hall - CBS News

Looks like he did. I guess this turns to "Why didn't Palin introduce McCain?" then.

Did you miss this up the thread?


Stupid candyass son of a bitch lacked the balls & good sense to use what was sitting on the table begging to be used. As I mentioned last night (this morning?) those boos you hear when he panders to Obama aren't solely directed at The New Messiah.

Reposting this from foxnews because it's true and needs to be read by everyone:

The Two Party Monopoly

Those of you voting in Louisiana or Connecticut this week won't have the option of voting for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr for president. In both states, Barr's campaign insists it had more than enough signatures to put his name on the ballot. But in Louisiana, the courts determined that Barr's campaign missed the filing deadline. That was in part because state offices were closed the week of the deadline, due to Hurricane Gustav. No matter. A federal court determined it would be too expensive to reprint the state ballots to include Barr's name.


In Connecticut, state officials initially said the Barr campaign came up about 500 names short of the 7,500 signatures required to put Barr's name on the ballot. They later acknowledged that they had made an addition error. Barr was only 321 names shy of the minimum. The state then admitted that state officials had actually lost 119 pages of signatures—almost certainly enough to put Barr over the top. Nevertheless, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Barr would not be on the ballot, citing testimony from Connecticut officials that it would be "nearly impossible" to reprint the ballots to include him.


Meanwhile, in Texas, the tables were turned. Both the Republican and Democratic parties somehow missed that state's deadline to include Barack Obama and John McCain on the Texas ballot. Barr's campaign sued, noting the equal protection problems with allowing the two major parties to skirt campaign rules while holding third party candidates to the letter of the law. Barr was right — Obama and McCain should have been kept off the Texas ballot. But Barr's suit was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court without comment. Apparently, the Democratic and Republican parties are, to borrow a now-tired phrase, "too big to fail." They're allowed to break the rules.
Bob Barr has no chance of winning the election. But regardless of what you may think of his politics, or that of third-party candidates like Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin, this system is rigged. The two major parties have effectively cemented their grip on power by creating laws that make it virtually impossible for upstarts to compete with them. They have effectively done with campaign laws what federal business regulations tend to do in the private sector — protect the behemoth, entrenched dinosaurs that dominate the industry by making it too expensive and difficult for anyone to challenge them.


In addition to ballot access laws, consider campaign finance rules. In his recent special "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics," ABC News reporter John Stossel profiled Ada Fisher, a woman attempting a low-budget, longshot run for Congress in North Carolina with a staff of volunteers. She found it impossible to comply with the election law without hiring a team of lawyers — which of course, she couldn't afford. Written in small print, single spaced, the federal election code spanned one-and-a-half football fields. Eventually, Fisher and her volunteer campaign treasurer were personally fined $10,000 by the FEC for filling late reports.
Stossel then cut to University of Missouri Professor Jeff Milyo, who ran an experiment in which he asked dozens of college-educated people to try to fill out various campaign finance forms and applications. Of the more than 200 people Milyo tested, Stossel reported, "every one of them violated the law." One participant added, "I'd rather not participate in the political process if it means I have to go through the nonsense I went through today."


That's exactly what the two major parties and the incumbents in Congress had in mind. Come up through their party structure, and you'll have a team of lawyers to help guide you through the process. Challenge them from the outside, and the laws they designed will cripple your candidacy.
Consider these two figures: Congress' approval rating right now is a dismal 19 percent. Clearly, we aren't happy with the people who are governing us. Yet 90-95 percent of the incumbents running for re-election to Congress will be victorious on election night. Many will run unopposed. Between gerrymandering their districts to ensure a friendly electorate, campaign finance legislation, debate rules that effectively bar third-party participants, onerous ballot access rules, and the privileges of office, the Democrats and Republicans have ensured that the vast majority of the country will chose only between one of two candidates this year — candidates who, when it comes right down to it, really aren't all that different.


The system we have now selects for the sorts of people who want to make a career of politics. If, in order to successfully run for high office, you have to spend years culling favors and working your way up through one of the two major parties, the winners in this game are going to be the party loyalists and power-hungry climbers who couldn't hack it in the private sector — frankly, the last personality type we want governing.


It ought to be much easier to run for office. As it is now, the first task of anyone challenging an incumbent for federal office is to raise enough money to hire a team of lawyers to ensure that they're complying with the law. It's difficult enough to raise enough money to mount a credible challenge that overcomes the name recognition and other advantages of incumbency. Congress then continually adds to that the enormous costs of navigating more and more layers of an expensive and confusing web of legalese. Defenders of these complex laws then justify them under the guise of "getting the influence of money out of politics."


How clever of them. What they're really doing is ensuring that incumbents stay in office, and that one of two same-ish parties always remains in power.

Probably because he was afraid that she'd go into business for herself, and ruin a gracious concession speech?

Yeah, I don't doubt the McCain campaign was probably scared to death of what she might say.

Ah, ok. I did not miss that, I just thought you were talking about something else.

I happened to like McCain's concession speech and felt like he seemed much more Presidential at that moment than at any other time during this campaign. I know that doesn't play well with the radical elements of the GOP these days, but that sounds more like the GOP I was once a member of. It is nothing more than the type of political shenanigans that the Clintons became famous for, and then Rove took to another level. I'm glad McCain didn't completely fold for that faction of the party. He was already impaired enough by the concessions he gave them, which is why I think he really lost.

Like revealing that sabotaging their own campaign wasn't her idea? Yeah, if I was the cowardly lions I'd have worried about that too. But maybe he can work Obama for an ambassador's job somewhere, bipartisan spirit & all.

This is the biggest problem with our system. It is easier to get on the ballot in the former Soviet Union than it is here. It's a shame that people are not outraged about this. Republicans and Democrats don't continue to share power because of the superiority of their ideas, but rather because they make it far too difficult for the competition to enter the market.

If anyone was sabotaging the message, Jon, I'd say it was Palin. Just my thoughts there.

Jon appears to be the target demographic for her approach to campaigning.

This is what a lot of my relatives are saying, which makes me wonder if the party won't go FURTHER right in 2012.

Well, let's be polite and say that the message the general campaign wanted to take clashed with the message that Palin was generating, and it led to a public perception that the campaign couldn't stand on any one message. Let folks draw their own conclusions out of that.

Subby, someone sent me a link to RedState musing about 2012, and they basically put out something that said "moderates need not apply".

To back up this assertion, I'm a conservative republican and I've had him on ignore for months. My stress levels have gone way down since then.

It would help having a candidate that doesn't change major parts of his message between the primaries and the election. I said it earlier: I was strongly considering a vote for Obama after the primaries were over, as I liked his message and McCain was clearly not the same guy he was 4+ years ago, and then Obama started flipping on everything and changing his message and turning into every other politician out there, at which point I've lost all the reasons I considered voting for him.

Heh. In the election post mortem on Fox, they brought up fivethirtyeight.com (which pretty much nailed the entire election), and one of their commentators said "Nate cheats. He goes to the future!"

If you mean people who, you know, actually want to win an election, yep I'm it.

Someone will. Whether it's the GOP as currently constituted probably remains to be seen.

Reminds me of this:

YouTube - KEVIN JAMES OWNED

In other words, the GOP is screwed.



I kid. I kid.

That's actually an awesome quote.

I think I would have changed my vote to him if he'd actually said that.

damn, Kwhit! Dola warning, man! Think before you Dola! :D

I was playing catch up and had to post very important inane responses to some stuff.

:)

OK, I had a bunch of replies quoted, but screw it. This is directed straight at MBBF. Just two days ago (I can find the posts and quote it) I specifically asked you if you would own up to it if the actual voter turnout matched closely with the weighting used by pollsters. So, now that those numbers do line up, what have you done? You are suddenly claiming that the results of the polls were inaccurate, rather than the weighting?! How can you even begin to skirt this issue when you have spent the past few months doing nothing but complain about the weighting. Can you please man up as you said you would, and admit that you were wrong on the polling. Admit that you were wrong on the eventual percentage spread across the nation. Admit that the pollsters did right and that Obama had a strong campaign that had a significant EV victory (I won't say "landslide").

In addition, early this morning you attempted to claim that your 3 point victory prediction was turning out to be correct. As of right now CNN is showing 53% to 46% (63.6mil vs. 56.2mil) and FOX News says 42.39% to 46.31% (same vote totals). I'm not sure how the math works where you learned it, but that looks like 7 points to me.

If you have to beg him to own up to it, it's not going to be sincere when he does. I think we should all just agree that we're dealing with a troll of a somewhat different nature than most, but a troll nonetheless.

10% of the trolls on the internet act like this though... (+/- 3%)








Ok.. I couldn't help it.

:D

:D

How did you weigh that?

Crap, I have been discovered.

Anybody else get their heart strings tugged watching Jesse Jackson crying last night? I'm not a big fan of his, but it really did hit home how much guys like he, John Lewis, and even Rev. Al has gone through and seen. I have a feeling there was many a-thought to MLK last night from the people who were close to him.

I would probably have felt better about Jesse Jackson if he didnt want to cut Obama's nuts off

Yeah, but it wasn't really so much about him. I have a feeling Jesse wasn't happy about Obama as much he would have been some other candidate (esp. himself). It was the symbolism of those early civil rights warriors and the first black president.

Indeed. That was the first time I've heard McCain talk when he wasn't playing the "please vote for me" politician, and he came off sounding like a pretty decent human being. Certainly a hell of a lot better than he came off during the debates.

I'm happy. I feel like this is a good step in the right direction.


For the first time in my adult life I am very proud of my country. ;)

I agree.

Wow! My local paper just got "Drudged." GEORGIA PAPER GIVES HISTORIC OBAMA WIN BELOW THE FOLD TREATMENT...

Denied:1up! Software ()

He is going off on the Obama win being "below the fold?" It is a freakin local paper! The local elections were way more important to it's subscribers than the National one. That's what the AJC is for.