1. I only care about people who vote because those are the people the politicians listen to and that's how we get change on most of the issues we care about here.

2. I don't care much about public opinion. I care about the voting public's opinion.

3. Polls of registered voters and those likely to vote are what I tend to focus on.

Newsflash: The fact that Edger calls something a half truth or lie doesn't make it so.

This is a silly back and forth that, again, has become about you taking out whatever frustrations you obviously have with Obama on me.  But have at it. Whatever turns you on.

Sadly, I'm well aware that people like you exist, but I don't attribute your position to stupidity, idiocy or ignorance; I guess I would attribute it to your having such a need to defend Obama that you constantly move the goal posts, rationalize the concessions, change the analysis, flip and flop and do whatever you have to do to make sure Obama ends up on top of the issue.

Getting back to Occupy, you keep expressing a desire for them to adopt tactics that work - so what are they?  You want them to use the Tea Party template?  The one where the movement is bankrolled by establishment interests, disguised to look populist?  

Maybe that works with Republicans/conservatives, but I think it's clear that it doesn't work on the liberal side of the aisle.

If Occupy were to color within the lines, as you seem to want them to do, I believe it would undermine their message and their mission, whether you want to believe that or not.  I believe that making demands, as some people think they must do, just confirms that the entity on whom demands are being made is the entity with all the power - the power to say "no."

Will the current strategy pay off?  I don't know.  But I'm willing for the movement to decide when or if the strategy needs to change; for now, I am content, and even happy, that it is getting out a message, letting the powerless know that someone cares about their issues, that someone is willing to be their voice.  

And the friction between the movement and the establishment is not a bad thing; there has been so much concession in the name of getting things done that has not served the interests of average people that I am not anxious for conciliation and mediation and cooperation to be the goal until it is clear that we're getting the lions' share of the concessions, and it isn't all in an effort to make people shut up and go away.

The civil rights movement, women's suffrage, LGBT rights - these were not movements that made great strides by adopting the methods and fitting into the establishment model of how to effect change.

if the movement can find a temporal spokesperson/spokespeople that can bridge the divide

Not all occupiers will be invested in exactly the same things that "I" am.  In fact, maybe I'm the only one who gives a sh!t that it can cost a dollar a minute or more to accept a phone call from the incarcerated.*  By not centralizing "my" issues, I'm free to act on them independently or with other like-minded folks without being outvoted by those who have other serious concerns. "I" and like-minded friends can just show up and maybe even act up.

Occupy has addressed the human need to have comadres and compadres in our actions.  Before, we looked to our neighbors or maybe one of two (only two!) political parties to make things happen.

But here is part of the brilliance of what they have created.  The "tribe" they've created is the 99%.  One doesn't need to sign up.  Or change religions, political parties or fill out a change of address card.  There is an aegis that is bigger and yet, somehow, much more personal than all that.

They don't need pre-approval to create the next Occupy site.  They just need to show up.  History is made by those who show up.  And they are showing up big-time.  Even if the media is desperately trying to minimize numbers, they are showing up. And popping up.

It's a beautiful thing.  I could never have envisioned this.  Our youth are a wonder to me, and I have no doubt it will grow.  But clearly my vision was too narrow for the conception of this movement.  I won't impose that same narrow vision and have it limit it's future.  The kids are alright.  They are committed and they are brilliant.  They don't need to follow my playbook.  I fact, I think I'll follow theirs.

This all brings to mind the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech movement. Perhaps the words the eloquent Mario Savio (an early hero of mine) spoke at Sproul Hall in December of 1964 are applicable to this time and these places.