Friday Morning Open Thread

Update: (TL) It's 9:30 am MST and we already have 14 posts up today. This may be a record for us. The front page only holds 15, so you may want to click the "more" button at the bottom of the page. I'm off to the jail now and won't be back until late this afternoon.


The New York Times has a nice internet feature accessing their Presidential endorsements through the years - back to their 1860 endorsment of Abraham Lincoln. It is interesting to see the discussion of the historic issues in real time. Fun fact - The Times endorsed Wendell Willkie over FDR in 1940.

This is an Open Thread.

< The Polls - 10/24 | McCain's Unsolvable Problem: Sarah Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    An interesting (and perhaps telling)... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:18:21 AM EST
    ...article in this morning's Rocky Mountain News...

    What a difference four years makes in Colorado's political landscape.

    The state has become more female, more Democratic and older since George W. Bush handily won Colorado's nine electoral votes in 2004.

    A Rocky Mountain News analysis of voter data in 2004 and 2008 found:

    • The dominant voting bloc in the state has shifted from Republican men to Democratic women.

    • The percentage of young voters is less than it was four years ago, while the percentage of senior voters has risen since 2004.

    • The number of female voters continued to rise. They now outnumber male voters by more than 100,000.

    The changing demographics underscore how Colorado has become a battleground state this year after decades of Republican Party dominance in presidential elections.


    Way to go Democratic Women!!!

    if it weren't for dem women (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:37:25 AM EST
    there wouldn't be a democratic party.....

    Neil Cavuto (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:36:26 AM EST
    "Common Sense
    If things are so awful, why are iPhones selling so well?"


    Because you lose your land line (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    when you're homeless?

    and because there are a ton (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:08:59 AM EST
    of people in their 20's and 30's who have not lived through a recession and are about to get a bad dose of reality.  I remember spending like a complete moron into my first recession and eating ramen and hot dogs for several months after.....

    Not only have they not experienced... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    ...lean times, but in general, they have never lacked for anything or had to scrimp and save for the things they wanted.  

    My nephews are perfect examples--great kids, but they have no idea what it means to work hard for the finer things in life.  They were always given them on a silver platter.  

    A lot of young people are going to learn the hard way about what it means to live in tough economic times, IMHO.


    Oh yea (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CST on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    Man am I glad I'm not graduating this year.  I feel pretty lucky right now that I already have a job that doesn't appear to be going anywhere.  I would not want to be out in the market right now.

    It's a perfect storm.  On the one hand, we are used to having everything handed to us, on the other hand, we are entering the work force with crippling debt, in a recession, with tons of competition, not just from existing workers, but also our fellow classmates (we are a baby boom after all).


    handed to us (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    They said the same thing about Gen X and to some degree it was mildly accurate but truth be told youth is generally associated with invincibility and you just have to live through these things to understand them.  It is a horrible time for grads but I remember in 2002 many large corporations rescinding offers they had made to grads and my guess is most of those folks remember all too well how ugly it was.  

    The good news is that the younger crows while committed to student loans, aren't holding mortgages and supporting children who cost a ton of money at any age!  The bad news is that layoffs are going to cripple lots of middle aged americans and their representatives are lambasting Greenspan for failing to foresee the crisis (justifiably so), while the representatives are doing nothing while the jobs crisis unfolds.

    Who will hold the hearings to question Waxman, Pelosi, Frank et al and ask them the following:

    Did you not see the jobs crisis coming?
    Why did you do nothing?
    Did you not foresee an enormous rise in foreclosure coming as a result of the jobs crises?
    Did you not see the flood of bankruptcies coming?
    Why did you do nothing?
    Did you not see the storm of small businesses closing?
    Why did you do nothing?
    Did you not see retail, credit card, car businesses, and the service sector on the brink of unprecedented failure?

    Who gets to hold those hearings?


    Well.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    I have a guess as to why...Joe and Jane Blow see the US govt., AIG, etc. being grossly fiscally irresponsible, so why should they go without?

    Whip out the Visa and go down in a blaze of glorious excess.  I believe the phrase is "f*ck it".


    I do not know (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    anyone who takes their personal spending cues from the US government.

    That strikes me as pop psychology along the lines of Bill Clinton being responsible for inducing sexual misbehavior in teenagers.


    I thought "sexual misbehavior"... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:59:45 AM EST
    was par for the course of being a teenager:)

    Allright...maybe it is simply the "f*ck it" principle alone. Though the govt. isn't exactly pushing fiscal responsibility...when the people asked "what can we do?" after 9/11, we were told whipping out the Visa was a patriotic act.


    Interestingly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    the Willkie endorsement that BTD cites makes much the same argument about FDR.

    But there are a number of other equally important steps which Mr. Roosevelt has not taken. . . . He has seemed to regard the whole business of defense as a sideshow to the ordinary activities of the country, requiring no fundamental change in the habits of the American people and no revision of any of the policies of his Administration.  We find Mr. Willkie's early call for sacrifice, for hard work, "sweat and toil," more reassuring than Mr. Roosevelt's cheerful confidence that we need not let ourselves become "discomboomerated" by the task that lies before us.

    Fascinating how little things change, huh?  "Discomboomerated" could even be a Bushism.


    This Joe Blow sure doesn't... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    ...roll that way.  But then, I am a Scorpio AND Polish, so it is very hard for me to spend money in an irresponsible way!

    No I-Phones or Crackberrys for me.  I like my privacy way too much.


    I hear that man... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    a Luddite-esque life for me.

    Drinking a cold can of Bud under a brisk fall sky after my football game last Sunday, one guy on the football team is glued to one to his do-hickey placing bets and making calls and god knows what, I'm like "can't you just shoot the sh*t, enjoy your drink and the breeze and the trees and the smell of this patch of grassy dirt for an hour like a normal human being?"

    A good laugh by all, and then how I heard it about my weirdo luddite-esque ways:)


    Cavuto's an idiot (none / 0) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    The people who buy iPhones aren't the people who've been screwed by this economy.

    Davos: Great article on Wall Street (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:48:34 AM EST
    Once upon a time, the World Economic Forum was the ultimate Wall Street jamboree.

    Now, in the riptide of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, WEF officials and delegates say many of the chief executive officers who gathered in Davos, Switzerland, over the last five years didn't listen to warnings from their peers. Davos organizers also say they failed to play tough with the financial-industry bosses, opting to accept their funding and let them turn Davos into a rave-up for Wall Street excesses.

    ``The partying crept in,'' says Klaus Schwab, the 70-year- old WEF founder and executive chairman. ``We let it get out of control, and attention was taken away from the speed and complexity of how the world's challenges built up.''

    Note the similarities between the boys that ran the county and the ones running Wall Street:  lazy sons of you know what.  


    AP on OPEC (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    lowering amount of crude on the market:


    Interesting statement about how Iraq may need to modify its budget due to lower price of crude.

    Iraq has a budget?   Iraq is in OPEC?  


    Ya'll think about me tomorrow night. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 02:07:19 PM EST
    I'm going to watch the Vols get whipped by Alabama. Sports folks in the know say that this is a must win game for Fulmer.

    I have been to about eight TN/AL games and the Vols have never lost one with me there. Maybe I will be the lucky charm they need.

    I will be the one in the orange coat waving at you guys.

    Prop 8 in California may pass (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by rilkefan on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    It makes marriage equality in CA unconstitutional.  I just sent Act Blue's Equality For All fundraising page some money.

    Really wish Obama was leading on this, esp. as the AA community here is about 60-40 for the amendment.

    Hey, he wrote a letter. What (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    else do you expect him to do?  <snk>

    Was it a "sternly worded letter" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    a la Pelosi? :-)

    The letter is at the end of the link. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    However, looking at google list for "Obama Proposition 8 letter"  it doesn't look like he is strongly opposing Prop. 8 in the view of same sex marriage advocates.



    Obama does not support Prop 8 (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by caseyOR on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    But neither does he support same-sex marriage. He has been quite clear that he does not believe same-sex marriage is appropriate. And, his good buddy, Doug Kmiec, right wing Pepperdine law professor and former Bush administration employee, is very upset about gay marriage. He seems to think it will destroy the world as we know it.

    You know Obama needs those right wingers. You can't expect him to take a firm and vocal stand against Prop 8. Remember, he is courting the religious right. He can't be bothered with worry about LGBT voters. After all, where are they gonna go? It's not like THEY'D vote Republican, unlike all those right wing voters Obama has in his pocket.


    Pathetic, though, isn't it? (2.00 / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    He's got California sewed up.  

    It's just cruel. (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:06:33 PM EST
    The world didn't burst into flames when two women married, it won't if they can still do so next year.  Yanking that well-deserved right away is cruel.

    I'll be opening my wallet for the No to Prop 8 campaign this weekend.  Thanks for posting about it.


    AND..........two Obama Biden signs up (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST
    in Enterprise Alabama.

    The balmy days of October are gone. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:01:09 AM EST
    I'm managing to keep a good sized house at a decent temp by firing up the fireplace every other day.  Not bad with nights down to 33F and days up to the 55F-60F.  It helps that the fireplace has an outside air intake (so as not to suck heated indoor air into the firebox) and a fan to circulate air around the firebox for more efficient heat exchange. The chimney runs up the side of the house and I realized that heating a big chunk of masonry that radiates heat back into the house is a good thing.  (It works in the summer because it faces south - it absorbs heat during the day and heats the house at night - not what I want when the temps climb!)

    I only burn for 2-3 hours.  This is a nice fireplace, but it isn't equipped with any thing to help with ash removal.  It makes for a very messy clean up.  

    I'm using mostly tree bits that fell in the wind storm.  Now what I need to do is to make a proper shelter to season my firewood properly.  Burning green or wet wood wastes CO2 and doesn't deliver the same BTUs as dry wood.

    Another wood burner! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    Do you have an insert or just an open fireplace?

    I'm hoping to go all wood this winter, but my small soapsteon woodstove, which I bought second hand when I thought I would only be using it once in a while in the evenings for fun, may not be able to keep up.

    I didn't realize it when I bought this old farmhouse in the country a few years ago, but its most valuable feature is a roomy enclosed attached woodshed at the back of the house.  So I'm laboriously hauling my firewood down from where I had it stacked out in sun and wind all summer and into the woodshed.

    It's been chilly enough here in mid-Vermont that I've been using the stove 24/7 the last week, except for sunny days when I can get away without it until late afternoon.

    If you haven't checked out the site www.hearth.com, go have a look at their wood burners' forum.  The experienced folks who hang out there literally coached me through last winter.


    You just made me really miss VT (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:26:52 PM EST
    Spent a lot of time at my grandparents old farmhouse in Cabot as a kid.  They didn't live there (not alive) so whenever we went up there was no heat turned on, no water running, just plenty of wood, a well out back, and a nice big woodstove in the kitchen.  Oh, and lots of big fuzzy blankets that were covered in moth balls.

    There's nothing cozier than huddling around a wood stove with the fam, 4 feet of snow on the ground and blankets that smell like mothballs :)


    An adventure for a weekend (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    but sure not the way to live full-time!  My old farmhouse has foot-thick walls on two sides and a fair amount of insulation, so although it's hardly air-tight, it's not too bad.  I'm sure hoping I'm not huddling around the stove this winter.

    I used the stove for about half of last winter with heating oil boiler back-up set at 55 just in case, but my little stove actually kept my main room at a reasonable 68 through a patch with -15 temps overnight, so I'm hopeful.

    Modern EPA-certified woodstoves, which mine is, are a vastly more efficient and much, much cleaner thing than the old-fashioned ones.  When EPA mandated lower particulate emissions, the stove people figured out the best way to do it was to design a system that actually burns the smoke before it gets out of the firebox and up the chimney, and thus magically also increased the efficiency by a huge amount.

    With well-seasoned firewood, mine only produces a little bit of smoke out the chimney when I'm starting up from a cold stove, and after that you can't tell from outside there's a stove going at all.  I actually sorta miss the smell of wood smoke!


    It's just an "open" fireplace. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    but it does have a decently designed circulation space around the firebox and a fan to help suck cool air up, around and out through the built in vents.

    I actually didn't want a fireplace at all.  The usual "decorative" types may well make a house colder not warmer as they send most of the heat right up the chimney, often sucking prewarmed room air in to fuel combustion.  Cute but not useful.  Add in possible heat loss via leaky flues and your fireplace may not only be dysfunctional, but actually suck heat out of the house.

    I grew up with a wood fired furnaces, from ancient to modern.  (We were actually terrible combustion engineers, our self harvested fire wood was often wet and sometimes green.)  I can remember being the first person up and my first stop was to fuel up the furnace, even before using the bathroom.  We even burned coal - something I'm not sure is actually legal anymore.  Coal is definitely dirty and the romantic rooftop scenes from Mary Poppins were completely ruined when I realized that all those chimneys were putting out smoke from coal fires.


    You can still burn coal (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 06:14:58 PM EST
    and some manufacturers sell stoves that are designed for it, but only certain kinds of coal, and the stoves are of a new technology that takes most of the crap out, like with the newer woodstoves.

    I spent a few late fall days in Budapest back in the early '60s, and at the time soft coal was the predominant heating fuel, and it was just as bad as you imagine.  The air was thick and smoggy, and everybody went around with dark smears of coal soot around their noses and mouths.  By the end of the day, people who worked outdoors were covered head to toe with a film of black soot.

    Growing up with a wood-burning furnace, I imagine the last thing you'd want to do is switch back to full-time wood heat, but if you ever do think about it, do look into fireplace inserts.  They're much more efficient and far better heaters than even an adapted open fireplace like you have.

    Out here in the country, a lot of the older homes have no central heat and people rely entirely on big old ancient woodstoves, and many don't bother seasoning their wood much if at all.  Most folks have woodlots, and some just go cut something down when they start to run out of firewood.  Of course, a tree in winter has much, much less sap, so it's not as bad as burning something that was cut in the summer, but even so, you'd think we'd have a lot more chimney fires around here than we actually do.

    Modern stoves like mine, though, are incredibly fussy about having totally dry firewood, so I have to have mine split and stacked outside in full sun and wind for at least six months.  I'm hoping to eventually get a year or two ahead so I've got really dry fuel, but it's tough work heaving that much wood around, especially when it's green and heavy with sap, as a single person.


    Dry, seasoned wood... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    There's just no substitute.  And that woodshed is to die for!  We just heaved the wood down the coal chute where it sat in a cold, damp basement until we burned it.  We didn't ever have even one cord of wood split and stacked to season.  We did have a phenomenally dangerous buzz saw, without a guard, that ran off the tractor's PTO.  I'm surprised we all came through with our limbs and digits attached.

    My dad was the one who ran the chainsaw, so he decided when we went out to get firewood.  Our wood was swampy, so it was safest to go out when it was hot and dry or cold enough to freeze the ground.  Otherwise, the wagon and/or the tractor could become bogged down in the mud.  I've got some stories if anyone thinks that cutting your own firewood is all romantic like.


    Go-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-d Morning (none / 0) (#2)
    by Melchizedek on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    everybody! Let's read a little bit from
    "As a footnote, during the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton was arguing that Obama's latching onto Howard Dean's 50-state strategy was a bad idea because no Democrat could possibly win states like North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana. She was pleading for a full-bore attempt to win Florida and Ohio and claimed she was the person best suited for that. While we don't know if red states like these will go Democratic in the end, at the moment these three look good for Obama [and when it comes to Virginia, REALLY f&^*ing good]. If he wins them, the whole paradigm of red and blue states the way we have had them for 8 years will bite the dust."

    50 state is a strategy (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by WS on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    and having a ton of money like Obama does helps a great deal.  What happens if you have limited resources?  

    Obama provides a different road map to victory and we should all be grateful.  Hillary provided a more traditional road map to victory because Ohio and Florida (and WV and Arkansas) looked way better for her and you can't fault her for emphasizing the tried and true.  The Clintons do have a track record of winning these states and polls last spring confirmed that.

    Obama wrote another page in the Democratic playbook, and that is just awesome.      


    Hasn't it been much more than 8 years (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:15:30 AM EST
    since at least some of these states went Dem?

    It would be interesting to see the regional differences within some of these states, such as Indiana, i.e., north to south.  Gary is a world away from Vincennes.:-)


    Just checked RCP archives (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:44:26 AM EST
    and of the three states named, NC last went Dem in 1976.  The other two, IN and VA, haven't gone Dem in 40 years (as far back as the RCP archives go, to '68 -- so IN and VA must be red for far longer.  

    If those are key to altering a paradigm. . . . Well, I like electoral-vote.com for a lot of info, but I've noticed that the narratives often seem to overgeneralize and are a bit lightweight from lack of context.


    Both of them (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:46:11 AM EST
    were blue in 1964, when Johnson won 44 states.

    Virginia has had huge demographic (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    changes since then.  It's turning from red to blue not because people there have changed their minds, but because the population is changing.

    Thanks -- that's a parallel (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    to ponder for this election.  So much about the Dems seemed to change in '68 -- the first election year when I really got involved, although I still couldn't vote -- although we certainly have seen that not as much changed about the Dems as it seemed.  Now I will head back into prehistory, i.e., before my personal memory bank, and look more closely at '64.  I've got just the book to do so.

    But I still keep seeing eerie parallels to what I recently learned about the 1896 election.  Too bad RCP archives don't go that far back, either. :-)


    Between 1964 and 1968 (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    I think what changed the most were simply the "facts on the ground."  The war, violence in American cities, all those things combined to alter the political landscape in an unforeseen way.  It's not as if the Democrats suddenly decided "hey, let's change a winning formula."  The public mood was in a completely different place, and the rewards were reaped by the cagey politicians (like Nixon and Reagan) who understood the new mood of the public and were able to tap into it.

    Actually, Dems did change their formula (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    radically in the '60s and '70s, internally, is what I was thinking about as much as societal context -- although that certainly mattered a lot.  

    But I also was thinking about the Dem party's major changes in representation of minorities, women, etc., which led to the major shifts in the South turning red, and then the changes to superdelegates -- all basic to the party "formula," the formulation of party policy, platform, public image, and more.


    And yet, wasn't Nixon more "liberal" (none / 0) (#47)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    than our centrist Dems today? Didn't he advocate, for instance, a bottom-line income for all?

    Just asking, someone here is sure to have the facts.


    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    Except for the cursed Vietnam war, Nixon was actually farther to the left than any Dem. politician in years.  And we hated Nixon because he was such a conservative Republican in those days...

    As a college student, in the 60s (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:56:33 PM EST
    I remember calling Lyndon Johnson a fascist....we thought he was a total bigot,

    and Humphrey was an old establishment guy from the past.

    Just goes to show the value of living through some stuff....


    Boy, it pains me to remember that I (none / 0) (#73)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    thought Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson were fascists back then...

    Well I must say, the establishment Dems (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    clearly got the 50 state solution wrong. I personsally doubted Dean, probably because of his bellicose, over-the-top demeanor led me to take him less seriously. He was right. Sue me. I'll give credit where it's due.

    Cool link.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    The endorsement of Alfred E. Smith in 1928 caught my eye.

    "The duty of all to whom the conditions under prohibition seem the most important concern of the nation is plainly to vote for Alfred E. Smith.  He is the first leader in a national sense to whom they have been able to turn since enforcement became a scandal and social consequences of prohibition became serious."

    Fast forward 80 years and once again enforcement is a scandal and the social consequences are significant...where have you gone Alfred E. Smith?  

    Just received some spam (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    From JustSayNoDeal.

    Not sure what email list they have stolen or bought but the email opens with a lie. It begins with:

    "You are receiving this email because you recently joined the Just Say No Deal community or signed a DNC-related petition."

    Neither of the above would be true.

    What it evolves into is nothing to do with anything except... "we are for McCain". Or loosely translated, we have made a deal with the devil.

    It's just more of the same underhanded Republican attempts at smears.

    CoralGables... (none / 0) (#20)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    Are you a closet PUMA? 'fess Up!

    Your humor is always appreciated :) (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    I am happy to come clean that by November 4th I will have voted for a Woman and an African American as my choice for President this year...but as for being a member of any shoot myself in the foot groups....I hope to never be that masochistic.

    Do you ever wonder what sort of contortions a brain has to go through to transform itself from a Hillary supporter to a McCain supporter? Mine hurts just pondering the path.


    Does anyone have a theory (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    or knowledge about what may be happening in Ohio? The most recent state polling out of there suggests a real big lead for O and the Dems. Maybe Ohioans have just had enough, but I was of the thought Ohio was the last swing state to go blue if it goes our way.

    Just listening to a talk show (none / 0) (#24)
    by atlmom on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    And they said that the McCain/Palin signs in Ohio far outnumber Obama signs.  I suspect they are looking at a limited geographic location, but scary nevertheless.

    I will pass on... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    the semi-official slightly edited Obama Campaign answer to this everlasting query concerning lack of yard signs...

    "Yard Signs Don't Vote"


    Yard signs also (none / 0) (#32)
    by mg7505 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    don't cheer wildly at 100,000-person rallies.

    But they speak to people who aren't (none / 0) (#38)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM EST
    at the rallies, which after all are playing to the already committed....

    In parts of the Bronx. . . (none / 0) (#48)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:22:30 AM EST
    I think they do.

    Who can conscionably (none / 0) (#33)
    by mg7505 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    put a McCain sign on their lawn? Sad.

    Obama campaign stingy with yard signs.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    It's hard to get one! The headquarters doesn't have bumper stickers either and yard signs one per person a couple of weeks ago when I went downtown to vote early.

    With all that money, what the hell is their problem? I have two in my yard, but I had to order them online from Cafe Press....the Obama site sent only the metal framework, not the signs!!!!

    So I voted Obama/Biden, but I can't understand their stinginess....signs may not vote, but they speak to the voters every day that they're up, and encourage others to vote as well.

    It's not like Ohio is a sure thing for Obama....


    Does the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    consider yard signs to be "tacky," or "working class"?  I'm not seeing signs on lamp posts or at freeway on ramps either.

    Yeh, I don't get this, either (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:07:28 AM EST
    unless what is reported as donations really are only pledges of funds to come from donors.

    In my very librul area, and especially on my block only a block from a polling place (so a popular block for signs that voters will see), hardly an Obama sign is to be seen -- but several McCain signs.  

    I understand the emphasis on new shiny technologies and tactics, but I wonder if this will turn out to be a new twist on the infamous Coke screwup -- when New Coke was introduced but old Coke was tossed out, only to have to bring back old Coke as Classic Coke . . . and eventually dump New Coke as a dud.  The bad decisions were based on bad market research.


    The donation options (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:54:21 AM EST
    appear to be pay by CC online, send a check, or sign up for a recurring donation.  I don't think he is accepting pledges, particularly at this date.  As far as big fundraisers go, I don't know how those work at all.

    Are you suggesting that the lack of yard signs is really making that much difference in voting patterns?  

    I'm not looking in from the outside, since I am volunteering for the campaign locally and obviously meeting a bunch of local supporters.  Maybe I feel the Obama camp is doing better than they actually are in terms of exposure.  

    There actually aren't that many McCain/Palin signs down here in NC.  Fewer than I had thought.  

    I don't think the official yard signs are that important.  I have seen some great homemade yard signs too, painted on wood.  


    No way to know (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    whether yard signs change voting patterns until after November 4, so I'm hardly suggesting that.

    The discussion is about a difference in campaign tactics -- a campaign being before voting -- that seems odd to some of us.  So we'll wait and see whether it works (or what it actually would mean is that yard signs no longer work, never worked, who knows?).


    I don't think there's a way (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    to judge the effectiveness of yard signs, period.  Plus, yard signs only have meaning in relation to other yard signs.  My "yard sign theory" is that maybe the Obama camp thought they could stand out more by not being there at all - get attention by being absent.  

    To not have a ton of yard signs ready to go by this point...it does seem like a decision by the campaign.


    Now, that's interesting (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    as a sort of Sherlock Holmes theory, i.e., why didn't the dog bark in the night? :-)  I'll have to think about the absence of an expected tactic being a good tactic!  Thanks.

    The presence of absence...n/t (none / 0) (#74)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    my drive through (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    grand rapids michigan a couple of weeks ago I saw 2 O signs and dozens of McCain signs, yet O leads by double digits there.  Depends on where you are travelling through.  One could easily drive through that town and make an argument that McCain is popular in MI, but the real story is that he has lots of signs in GR.  

    Grand Rapids is a college town (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    somewhat, isn't it?  I had to cancel on going to a conference there, on a campus, but my research into the area before I had to cancel told me that it's a good area to go see someday, still on my to-do list. :-)

    That part of Michigan (none / 0) (#50)
    by eric on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST
    is known to be super conservative.  Something to do with the Dutch Reformed Church, I am told.

    Ahh. Tulips are a tip-off (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:50:14 AM EST
    to conservatism in Michigan.  I love it.

    Think: Gerald Ford. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    I think it's close (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM EST
    Me too. I would be shocked if Obama (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    wins or loses Ohio by more than two points.

    Bill Weld (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    Endorsed Obama today.

    The defections keep on coming.

    BTW, who knew (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:58:40 AM EST
    that the Times endorsed Eisenhower twice?

    Actually I was surprised (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    to see how consistently the Gray Lady has endorsed Dems over the yrs.  Ike being a semi-exception, since he'd been courted in 52 by the Dems too.  Willkie another semi-exception, as he'd been a Dem only the yr before his run, and was a liberal R who embraced much of FDR's New Deal.  They also only get partial credit for Al Smith in 28, since that curious fellow was just a few yrs away from being the Wall Street sellout to the right that he devolved into.

    Frankly though, I'd trade some of these lofty Times' endorsements of Dems for some better, fairer and more relevant political coverage, not to mention a major rethinking of who they publish on their opinion page.


    Yesterday, I receieved (none / 0) (#44)
    by eric on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    in the mail two anti-Obama mailers.  The first mailer was the dreaded "Bill Ayers" piece.  Really scary terrorist stuff.  The second was the "Obama and Hollywood" thing.  One was from the local Minnesota GOP and the other from the RNC.

    Why they continue to waste their money in Minnesota is beyond me.

    3400 educators (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    and others have signed a petition supporting Bill Ayers and explaining why. I think he is the least likely factor to impact the election.

    The flyer (none / 0) (#55)
    by eric on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    actually makes me laugh.  Oh no!  Not the Weather Underground!

    At the same time, it makes me mad because it is so ridiculous, yet McCain puts this crap out.  I never liked McCain, but that 5% of me that might have thought he was a decent guy is now at 0%.


    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    as I meant to find it to see who signed from my campus and others I know.

    Just fyi, of 10 names from my campus, only a couple are actual "educators."  Most are grad students, some staff (secretaries, as we used to say), etc.  Good for them, but it just may not be quite as billed.


    Adam Nagourney, NYT, (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    on McCain's possible path to 270 EV:

    Love this quote:

    "The McCain campaign is roughly in the position where Vice President Gore was running against President Bush one week before the election of 2000," said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain's chief strategist. "We have ground to make up, but we believe we can make it up."