FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Election '06 --Nov 7 Audio & Discussion
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7536

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:58 am    Post subject: Election '06 --Nov 7 Audio & Discussion Reply with quote

The official BreakForNews Inside Election 2006 topic.

Please post all and any comments, sarcastic observations, early alleged
election results, early alleged exit polling results, and your inside analysis.


Quote:



Our first Nov 7 audio is online.
Second audio late on Tuesday.



"The Next Level" Internet Radio Show

DSL Mp3 Audio
http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel061107a.mp3

Dialup Mp3 Audio
http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel061107.mp3



Interview: Max Linn
Reform Party Candidate for Florida Governor Website


Florida's "New Third Party" Is Here!

"Just when you thought that we the Florida voters had no choice other than
Tweedledees and Tweedledums (the current Republican and Democratic
candidates) for the November 7th, 2006 Governors race the "Florida
Citizens' Third Party Dream Team" are starting their engines. With your
support, we will bring your interests - not special interests - to
Tallahassee for a change. Our Founding Fathers were unanimous on the
importance of citizen legislators, not career politicians. For the first time
Florida has a third choice other than the same old Republican and
Democratic mainstream parties."

PLUS



Interview: Mark Adams, the campaign lawyer for Max Linn who
helped force the Florida TV Networks to give the Reform Party candidate
his place at the televised election debate.

Mark discusses media dirty tricks in Florida and throughout the USA.
Tactics designed to keep third party candidates out of the duopoly.

Quote:
References & Links



Max Linn's Issues:
http://www.maxlinn.com/issues.html

Why vote for Max?
http://www.maxlinn.com/whymax.html


Is the Press Trying to Fix the Election? Evidence Says YES!

by: Mark Adams - Sun Nov 05, 2006

Dear Concerned Citizens:

As one of the most important races for Governor of Florida draws to a close, I wanted to give you a few things to think about. Both the Republican candidate, Charlie Crist, and the Democratic candidate, Jim Davis, have repeatedly claimed that they would change Florida for the better. Of course, with property taxes, insurance costs, and murder rates skyrocketing, it is not surprising that their voter research indicates that the voters want things to change. The question is who will truly bring about change for the better for Florida......

Read More: http://www.flapolitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1272


Charlie Crist Is NOT Gay
And other things the Republican Party wants you to believe on Election Day.
By Julia Reischel - Oct 12, 2006 - Broward-Palm Beach New Times
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-10-12/news/feature.html

Crist Denies Trysts
GOP frontrunner: I have never had sex with a man
By Bob Norman - Oct 19, 2006 - Broward-Palm Beach New Times
http://browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-10-19/news/norman_full.html

Crist Denies Trysts II
Sworn testimony backs up claims that Bruce Jordan boasted of his affair with Charlie Crist.
By Bob Norman - Nov 2, 2006 - Broward-Palm Beach New Times
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-11-02/news/norman.html

Bush campaigns for absent Florida candidate





Earlier, the election story had started here:

Secret Cloistering of Top Polling Execs on Nov. 7

Let get the spin first,
as recounted by the LA Times:


Quote:
Exit poll analysts going to great lengths to get it right

They'll be sequestered to prevent early leaks that can cost credibility.


By Matea Gold, Times Staff Writer - November 4, 2006

NEW YORK — Haunted by the bungled calls and leaked information that plagued the coverage of the last three nationwide elections, networks are taking no chances when it comes to Tuesday's midterm.

This time around, the members of the National Election Pool — a consortium of five broadcast and cable networks and the Associated Press that commissions exit polls of the major races — have decided to sequester two analysts from each news organization in a secret "quarantine room" in New York, where they alone will get access to the first waves of data from precincts around the country.


Stripped of their cellphones and BlackBerrys — and even monitored when they use the bathroom — the representatives will be able to study the results of the surveys but will not be allowed to communicate them to their newsrooms until 5 p.m. EST. They must sign affidavits guaranteeing that they will not reveal any data before then.

The drastic measures are necessary, news executives said, to prevent the leaks that occurred in the 2004 presidential race, when early exit poll results indicating that Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) was in the lead rocketed through cyberspace.

"People got the wrong impression, and while it didn't impact how we projected the election, we realized that if the data was getting out and being misinterpreted, that's not a good thing," said Dan Merkle, director of ABC News' decision desk.

Delaying the release of the data "may slow us down a little bit, but it's a fact of life for all the networks," he added.

The first wave of exit poll data is often misleading, polling experts say, because it is based solely on surveys of morning voters, a sample that is not necessarily representative of the rest of the electorate.

"The analogy I use is that of a scoreboard at a baseball game," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, one of those who will be in the quarantine room. "What the scoreboard says at the end of the first inning is not an accurate reflection of the final score, or even who is going to win."

Of course, the leaking of early data wasn't the only problem in 2004. By the end of election day, the exit polls continued to show Kerry ahead of President Bush, a problem news directors attributed in part to the fact that Democrats have historically been more willing to answer the surveys than Republicans.

Another possible factor: the large number of college students hired to conduct the exit polls in 2004, some of whom apparently had trouble getting older voters to answer the surveys. This year, the consortium has recruited more professional interviewers and has stepped up training in an effort to capture a wider swath of the electorate.

"It's kind of drip, drip, drip," said Paul Friedman, vice president of CBS News. "If we made another bad mistake, it would kind of add to the toll taken on our credibility."

After weathering fierce criticism for their botched calls of the 2000 presidential election, network executives said their prime directive now is to be right above all else.

"There's a tremendous amount of pressure," said Marty Ryan, executive producer of political programs for Fox News. "We love being first in race calls, but our mandate … is to be correct."

The networks have pledged not to project winners based on the exit polls until after the polls are scheduled to close. Until then, the networks will use the exit poll data they get at 5 p.m. solely to discuss the demographics of the electorate — in other words, who turned out to vote and what factors influenced their decisions, but not who they cast ballots for.

The National Election Pool replaced the beleaguered Voter News Service, which was disbanded in 2003 after failing to generate accurate data in two consecutive elections.

In forming its successor, the participating media organizations — the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC — decided to segregate the exit poll surveys, which are now conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, and the tabulation of the actual vote, which is done by the Associated Press.

Each network has also assembled its own team of statisticians, political scientists and other consultants to analyze the numbers on election night, setting up major operations that resemble political war rooms. Some — including NBC — once again plan to keep their decision desks isolated from coverage on rival networks so executives won't be influenced by their competitors in projecting a race.

"There has been a renewed zeal among all the networks, I think, to make sure what we're saying is accurate, even if we're not first," Holland said. "If it takes those extra 10 seconds to make sure, we'll take it."

For all the precautions, those on the network front lines who will be making the calls Tuesday are anxious about several factors, including a potentially large number of absentee ballots and the possible malfunctions of untested voting systems.

"I am scared to death of the vote-counting equipment," said Sheldon Gawiser, elections director for NBC News, noting that counties around the country will be using new election systems. "We have all kinds of quality control, but still — something could happen."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-et-tv4nov04,0,2528626.story?coll=la-home-nation


Much of the LA Times article is a regurgitation of the misrepresentations
developed to explain away the Kerry "victory" in 2004:

Quote:
The first wave of exit poll data is often misleading, polling experts say,
because it is based solely on surveys of morning voters, a sample that is
not necessarily representative of the rest of the electorate.

Ok. So how would you know that morning data is unrepresentative?
You would just go to the historical polling data and simply compare
morning voters to total voters to see if there is any difference.

But, they already do this! Duuuuuh!

That's how exit polling is so accurate.

They take a polling sample from any voting center and quickly adjust the
results for such known skewing factors to get an accurate picture of voting.

The lies continue:

Quote:
Of course, the leaking of early data wasn't the only problem in 2004. By
the end of election day, the exit polls continued to show Kerry ahead of
President Bush, a problem news directors attributed in part to the fact
that Democrats have historically been more willing to answer the surveys
than Republicans.

But if Democrats have been historically more willing to answer polling surveys,
then their reluctance is built into prior historical polling data and is thus
easily factored into the adjustments to nevertheless get an accurate poll estimate!

Quote:
The networks have pledged not to project winners based on the exit polls
until after the polls are scheduled to close. Until then, the networks will
use the exit poll data they get at 5 p.m. solely to discuss the
demographics of the electorate — in other words, who turned out to vote
and what factors influenced their decisions, but not who they cast ballots for.


Right. So that's the big change. No more predicting the election
result on the day, ahead of polls closing. Which gives a longer window
of time to pull any stunts.

And the capacity to pull stunts is way up on what it was since they used
the controversy over how the pollsters 'called it wrong' in 2000, to
replace the old Voter News Service.

What a mess.


Last edited by Fintan on Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:04 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely dead on.

Let's do away with exit polling - remove the single biggest contributor to actual reality not matching the manufactured reality. To place the early election results in the capable, non-partisan <cough>, trustworthy hands of the now battlefield-tested and results-certified entity called "embedded reporters."

Man, this is funny shit. If it weren't so scary. Shocked

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Origins of the Shell Game

Quote:

The shell game (also known as Thimblerig, Three shells and a pea, is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is an illegal confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud. This famous swindle, is referred to, in bunko slang, as a short-con, because it is quick and easy to pull off.



"The Conjurer" by Hieronymus Bosch. The painting accurately displays a performer doing the cups and balls routine, which has been practiced since Egyptian times. The shell game does have some origins in this old trick. The real trick of this painting is the pickpocket who is working for the conjurer. The pickpocket is robbing the spectator who is bent over. ~Wikipedia



"Round and round she goes, the Hand is quicker than the Eye"


There's an uncanny resembalance between representative election systems as we've known them, and the old 'shell game'. Sleight of hand. And sleight of mind. There's a lot of make believe involved to keep the public's blind faith that this archaic system is the only possibility there is.

Elections have always wide open to fraud, since bean counting is necessary to tally the votes. Once a voter casts their ballot, they must rely on armies of middle men process the totals. That's where the process leaves public hands, and we have to count on the bean-counters.
There's an intrinsic problem in the election process that it's a numbers game which must be based on trust of the system. But the system's complexity increases in direct proportion to the scale and scope of the election. A small town city council of 12 casting a vote in shoebox in a room where everyone can watch each other's hands is less open to fraud than a popular nationwide vote. Since 2000, the system has introduced enough new complexity that essentially they've created a new one which allows even less public scrutiny than ever before. And that in itself strikes me as suspect.

We all know that the 'representative' system stacks the deck against the public getting candidates they'd really trust before the votes are even cast, due to the 'two party' lockout. If the 'two party' apparancy is itself a cover for a one party top-down system engineered so only canditates representing the 1% who control the economy, why wouldn't that same interest group control the 'pendulum swing' too? Seems when candidate A and candidate B will end up voting the same on 'issues' the public never dreamed up like a PATRIOT Act or an inadequately explained occupation of foreign nations, things are very much amiss. This system fails miserably to give direct reperestation of the public weil to have handles on their government.

I liked your mention on a broadcast a while back, that we no longer need to send a representative from the villages and hamlets by horseback or train to take a seat in a centralized Statehouse or Parliament. They have already gone ahead and deployed electronic voting without a referendum on that matter (to avoid opening discussion on how it's to be structured).
But they've left the old stumbling blocks of getting to the right precincts and left that open to fraud as much as it was in the previous system. Much of the fraud accusations for the last two US presidential elections has been about manipulation of the precinct information a voter must legally have not to be turned away when they fight traffic and crowds to get to the place to vote. To my casual observation the 'new' voting system their creating deliberately keeps all the exploitable points in it while layering on new possibilities for electronic fraud.

To me, the 'elected representation' system that we have is an elaborate scheme to limit access to the public. It's a mess, it's obviously flawed beyond recognition, and corruptable. What I don't see is anyone Proposing well designed alternative systems for far more accurate public representation, which are quite possible now.

What a mess indeed.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good post, Ormond.

So, they install an incredibly expensive electronic voting system, use it to fix a few outcomes, then allow the suspicions to rise into the public view - particularly those of the "out of power" party.

So, what scam seems the more likely overview of this "mess":

    A. Create this "media watchdog" ruse, and use this corrupted "oversight" scenario, in which an entity that deserves no trust is entrusted to watch the public's backs, and it's results are simply morphed to reflect the nationally-corrupted vote. Or...
    B. After the other party is installed back into power, have them loudly decry the "corrupt" system, and replace it with an equally-expensive, just as easily (but more covertly) corruptable system, such as a electronically-verified paper ballot system? I.e., buy System 1, declare it broken, buy System 2, declare broken later. Spend profits on cutting-edge vote-rigging technology.

?

I realize, btw, that little of this matters much, when both choices are essentially the same guy. Laughing

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A and B, above

Works for me. That includes the factor that aside from just enough vote tweaking to call elections, it's a money making opportunity--and they always do think of things like that.

The short con of the shell game depends on keeping the target watching the hands move the shells around, which is nothing but a ruse to distract the target from the real crime. The guy moving the shells may even be playing his end straight, to give the appearance of 'honesty' to the whole racket.

This spin of drawing attention to the exit polls and the actual bean count is the table and the shells moving. Meanwhile I see people are renewing their faith in the two party system failing to notice the US foreign policy never skips a beat, no matter who's elected.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:45 pm    Post subject: Dark Ages Reply with quote

FYI - Mark Adams earlier story
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=147

This is a _ v_e_r_y _ s_l_o_o_o_w_w _ shell game. It doesn't rely on sleight of hand, it relies on people's gullible trust of revered institutions like the media and government. It even relies on people's gullible trust of LOCAL government, and on LOCAL political parties. It relies on local party members' disdain for "conspiracy theories".

Surely local Dems or Greens would say something, would squawk loudly, would object. Surely the media would report it if there were something wrong, the media is SO-O antagonistic.

They don't even hold back when Congressmen send out sexual email to kids.

"We're HOPING it goes SMOOTHLY." Well, now it WILL go SMOOTHLY, guaranteed.

I wonder how many MORE people won't turn out than usual. I wonder how we'd even know. I suspect a lotta previous first time voters (esp blacks) are saying "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on ... " I was planning on turning out to vote Green or Lib, but it's a total scam.

I already knew it was a total scam. I already knew that voting on electronic machines is "pretending to vote". This is just rubbing it in that it's a total scam.

What everyone said here is correct: The reality check revealed a discrepancy to the public mind, so we must eliminate the reality check. Also note, in the Kerry election, it was not just the morning results, it was the switch that occurred after midnight. They just won't discuss what happened in the mainstream.

Quote:
The last election just laid the foundation of the next 500 years of Dark Ages.
-- Frank Zappa, in 1981


Perhaps 1980 WAS the test. Perhaps the elite said "we'll run Ronald Reagan, a b-movie actor and total numbskull, against our previous handpicked candidate who was actually a politician, Jimmy Carter. If Reagan wins, this will prove that the people are vastly too stupid to handle democratic forms of governance, so we'll just take it over, for their own good" ... kinda like how the court may appoint someone to have 'Power-of-Attorney' for a patient who suffers from brain dysfunction or mental illness.

Given that some of them have a sense of humor, I wouldn't 100% pass that conversation off as fantasy.

Maybe Zappa meant, "it will take 500 years for the public to figure out they're being scammed, -- or to admit it to themselves".

At least it makes me feel better in a way to say what is the truth.


Last edited by dilbert_g on Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:03 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This is a v e r y s l o o o w shell game. It doesn't rely on sleight of hand, it relies on people's gullible trust of revered institutions like the media and government.


That's a good focus to narrow this down, Gary. What I see before my very eyes locally is a return of magical thinking, since at the neighborhood level people have felt left out of the loop without handles on the government. That goes for the lawn mowing republicans too. There is a real public issue there, which no politician or media-whore will mention---waning trust in the 'representatives' they voted for last time.

Give 'em an election and all is forgotten. After the election comes the same old let-down. Lawn mowing republicans were satisfied when their guy stayed in, in 2004. But being of the party in control, they were soon disappointed as a Bush--who didn't need the fundies anymore very much--proceeded to screw them economically too. Things like gutting the traditional bankruptcy protection for the small fry. Buddying up with Vincente Fox, and so on.
Dems had been mind-fucked by Kerry's hawkish stance going into the fall election, but voted for him anyway. Now they've forgotten about what that implied, and still believe that a Democrat House and Senate will withdraw from Iraq. Nobody's gonna talk withdrawl from Iraq till the State Department's objectives are completed with it.

I see so much wishful thinking and believing in images clouding seeing what the parties pull right under everybody's noses.

Quote:
Perhaps 1980 WAS the test. Perhaps the elite said "we'll run Ronald Reagan, a b-movie actor and total numbskull, against our previous handpicked candidate who was actually a politician, Jimmy Carter. If Reagan wins, this will prove that the people are vastly too stupid to handle democratic forms of governance, so we'll just take it over


Sure looked that way to me then! Didn't you think "WTF????" that morning after the Nov 1980 election? I remember very well walking to my job downtown at the Arkansas Gazette feeling something similar to what I felt when I watched 911 going down on television that morning. OMG...they did it. Even then we knew that the 80 election meant GHW Bush had gained power over the US government. And the gang he represents have never let go of it since.

But try telling that to a neighbor.

People want to believe what they were taught in childhood about how America is a Democracy, how it's set up so well that it will always be. They've seen no tanks rolling down the street, no banana repulbic style coup d'tat. They still get to vote. They can't see the changes, too slow on the uptake for the slooooow short con.

I hadnt heard that Zappa quote, btw. Pretty damn good vision for 1981. That statement would have sounded really over the top to even astute people at that time, but 'I hear ya Frank, where ever you are'.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SECRET CLOISTERING

Quote:
This time around, the members of the National Election Pool a consortium of five broadcast and cable networks and the Associated Press that commissions exit polls of the major races have decided to sequester two analysts from each news organization in a secret "quarantine room" in New York, where they alone will get access to the first waves of data from precincts around the country.


Hey, wait up!! I just 'got' it! Fintan's emphasis is right. The operant term 'SECRET' is so common with anything government now that I almost forgot to see and say that what we need is NO MORE SECRECY we want MORE TRANSPARENCY!!!
What the hell is this stuff of sequestering reporters--taking cell phones, watching them pee--frisking them, I suppose? So that they can attend but cannot report?
We have been getting so accustomed to hearing this stuff since 2001 that even I didn't give that part much thought until a few minutes ago!
That is just so WRONG on so many levels.

This is NOT a new 'issue'! It was never considered an 'issue'...


That's Harry S. Truman, who some hair-trigger newspapers had declared the loser in the 1948 Presidential election!

What's changed? If anyone had suggested 'gagging' election reporting in progress, even in 1980 when they first brought this meme up, Americans would have seen the red flag and said, "hey, you can't do that! This ain't the Soviet Union!"


So what? When I turned out the lights around midnight during the 1980 election, the last reports said that Carter was way ahead. So I could rest easy...or so I thought.
My morning, Reagan had WON.

The noise at that time was that early reports of Carter's lead hit the West Coast before the polls closed---with the suggestion that California Democrats assumed they'd won, so they didn't bother to vote.
NOW I see that was 'predictive programming'', inserting the meme that 'maybe we oughta change that".

Yeah, so let's lock 'em up and wait till they just tell us who 'won'.

No. This is just another step to concealing how they manipulate votes.

Secrecy of government is ANATHAMA to public awareness. 'Scuze me, it just dawned on me the full meaning of what this latest ruse is about.
They're using the gimmick that reporting incoming results to the public might lead to skewing results? Where do these bozos get off treating us like children and simply HIDING THE PROCESS further than it already is!

I know some people here wrapped up in this election--a precinct captain, election volunteer helpers....I'm going to ask around and get some opinions on this for the next couple of days.

What do you wanna bet they will be ALL FOR THIS, SECRECY, and will regurgitate the same reasoning implanted by the spin doctors? I'll come back and post to let you know if they don't.

uhhhhnnnnn......I gotta take a walk to the park and calm down....

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, my impression was that they pledged NOT to report on actual poll results until the end, hence no horse race to watch.

I wonder how media will fill in time.
But yeah, the POINT as I see it is those nasty Exit Polls (and the midnight flip) tipped off Americans to the discrepancy, and caused a problem with credibility, SO they eliminate all evidence but the final numbers.


What I meant about Reagan was that PEOPLE actually DID vote for the doof, and perhaps that was the intelligence test of our population. I was merely joking that it was a test of if we were 'worthy' of a democratic voice, because I know that they already decided we were not, but rather I think it WAS a test of how easy would be for them to fool us. Would we flock to Mr. Happy SuperPres moron actor over a real-but-flawed actual politician who they also installed?

Now that I think about it, that IS a hell of a TEST of effectiveness of Marketing. Transforming Bonzo (about whom Maggie Thatcher even said "poor man, nothing btw his ears") into actual Presidential material, not only that but into MYTHIC SUPERHERO status due to

a) his charm and displays of patriotism, canned quips
b) his supposed love of Constitutional limits to government (in the social services, not corporate or military)
c) his charm and displays of patriotism
d) unlike Kerry who voted both for and against stuff, Reagan lied about facts with his lips while telling the truth in his heart

and having that PR actually work, that was actually a THE test of how much Americans can be manipulated, and how easy it is for them to run the whole show while giving us pure fluff, which the majority of us accept.

Ormond,
I did not look at things deeply back then. I guess I assumed the President was the President, but surely the military did not go to Reagan for decisions any more than they go to The Decider today. Surely all discerning people in power knew that Reagan was a puppet, correct? Even if they didn't really announce it? (I do remember articles on his napping at meetings and jellybeans. I guess that was a way of signalling that Bush was in charge.)


I remember college kids being FOR him, and I was aghast at the disconnect. I did not know that Reagan had once called for a bloodbath against college students (disruptive ones). Nowadays, a lot of little Cartmans would agree -- seriously or jokingly -- damn Hippies!

And I also knew before the election that Bush, not Reagan, was the problem.

I knew Bush was former CIA and that was enuf. Is there a social split, in that people who did not read my dad's Playboys in the 70's really do not know that the heart of CIA runs secret police and death squads? (What I just typed made me rethink Ray McGovern and Mel Goodman even more ... it's not that death squads are a part of CIA, it's that clandestine services are the heart, and gathering or consolidating intell was just the excuse used to create it.)

Now that you mention it, I was not really aware that 1980 election had a big glitch on skewed outcome (suspected to be rigged by some?), but I vaguely remember that stupid explanation about how "West Coast voters decided to stay home", and I think I remember accepting that at face value, but at the same time having a vague question mark about that story that it didn't really make sense.

Do West Coast Lefties of the most populous state (Los Angeles) watch TV to find out whether or not they really need to bother going to the polls? Is that the mindset? If not, then when California voters walked into the streets and asked "Did you stay home because it looked like Carter already won?", this may have been their Early Warning about the total death of the republic in 1980. Was there also surprisingly low turnout? Did that answer really make sense to West Coast people?
Back to top
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 80 election was so crammed with unprecedented moves and confusion that a full study could go on for years.

But here's the demographics. Check out the popular vote pie vs the Electoral 'College' pie.


It was considered a landslide. That's the first time that the term "Mandate of the People" was ever used in politics. It means, 'we have carte blanche to do anything we damn well please".
That term was lifted by Reagan handlers from an ancient Chinese concept of divinity of the Emperor--but back then it was called "Mandate of Heaven", ie, Divine Right.
Handy concept to apply to a President who'd co-starred with a chimpanzee for second billing in a 50's movie. And obviously, Reagan didn't just pull that terminology out of his ass in one of his so-called 'extemporanious' speeches. I smell think tank guys behind that kind of thinking.

This is also a clear example of how the Electoral College can radically distort public perception of an election outcome. The premise (dialectic) for this feature of Presidential selection was that states with big cities and population density would get better representation for supporting the victor, than the states that didn't have many people.
Personally, the concept seems to have some fundamental fallacies in it, but that's the system we have. Result: on a map, it looks like hardly anybody voted for Carter, while Reagan wins by LANDSLIDE!!!!!

Reagan did win the popular vote, by a clear margin--but trough red maps and repetition, it was blown up in public perception.
We know voters switched to Reagan due to Carter's inability to solve the 'hostage crisis' of a few diplomats captured in Iran and held prisoner. Blown way out of proportion by Ted Koppel's 'Nightline' --you'd think they kidnapped the Lindberg baby. But also, Carter and the Dems had failed to solve the severe and lingering recession, and 'stagflation'. Reagan said he would solve the problem with his 'voodoo economics', aka, the power of positive thinking. It's easy, stop taxing the rich, and soon they'll spend money and the rest of us can have all the change they may leave in the sofa. Well, somthing like that. It was really a revival of the 18th century economist Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"---means remove all regulation of business, put the tax burden on the useless eaters, and everything will be fine.

Now we know that none other the GHW Bush and his gang negotiated with the 'enemy', and cut the secret deal to provide Iran under the table weapons once in power, in return for the Iranian Guards not to negotiate with Carter's people. (correct me if I don't have that quite right, Gary. I know you've done tons more research on the Iran episodes than I ever have)
Incredibly, Carter doesn't seem to have known this at the time. We'll never know, but did Brezenski know? And who really planned all that, and had the covert network inside Iran, and could keep it all a secret?

I don't want to digress too much into the "October Surprise", all that's another act in Bush's multi-ringed circus. The most concise explanation of 1980 to now I've heard is in the 911 trilogy of broadcasts Fintan aired a month back. The one about GHW Bush's quiet coup d'tat, and that's who's been the Godfather ever since. Everything weird all the way back to 80's seems to always trail back to GHW and his gang of the usual suspects.
For decades, we've gotten bogged down too much by all the plots and subplots and plans within plans, but that take strips it down streamlined to the nuts and bolts.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7536

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:57 pm    Post subject: Early Indications Reply with quote

Here's the latest proclimation from on high.
Or rather, from Associated Press (AP).
And they should know.
After all, they're counting the votes! (for the media, only, of course....er...)

Quote:
Early returns from eastern states could signal election outcome

The Associated Press Published: November 6, 2006

WASHINGTON: Early returns in Tuesday's elections should offer hints of what is to come, the first whiff of whether Democrats can seize the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.

Most of the heavily contested, down-to-the-wire races are east of the Mississippi River, in states with relatively early poll closing times. If a Democratic rout is going to happen, it will be clear from the first votes.


Showdown contests in Virginia, Rhode Island and New Jersey should be harbingers of trends in the Senate. House races in Indiana, Kentucky and Florida will provide election-watchers initial clues as to which party will control that chamber.

President George W. Bush and his chief political strategist, Karl Rove, insist Republicans will buck historical trends, overcome opposition to the Iraq war and retain their majority in both the House and the Senate. Democrats suggest an anti-Republican wave will sweep across the nation.

Early returns might telegraph who is right, and whether it will be a short night or a long one.

All 435 House seats are up for election along with 33 in the 100-member Senate. But many incumbents of both parties are either running unopposed or have token opposition, and so the contest for control of Congress boils down to a few dozen competitive races.

In the House, Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to regain the control they lost in the 1994 Republican Revolution that made Newt Gingrich the House leader. Democrats need to gain six seats to retake control of the Senate, which they last ruled in 2002.

The earliest indication of a Senate trend may be seen in Virginia, where polls close at 7 p.m. EST (0000 GMT), and where Republican incumbent George Allen, once expected to be easily re-elected, faces a tough challenge from Republican-turned-Democrat James Webb, an author and former Navy secretary in Ronald Reagan's administration.

"We're going to know a lot by just knowing Virginia," said Bernadette Budde, political analyst at BIPAC, a pro-business political group. "If Allen loses, then I don't see how it can be better than 50-50 for Republicans."

Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez in New Jersey are also in tight races whose outcome could say plenty about the overall results.

Democrats figure they can win Pennsylvania and Ohio, two states with incumbent Republican senators. Tennessee is another now-Republican Senate seat that Democrats hope to win. Polls showed it competitive up to the election.

Moving west, Missouri and Montana were still in play in Senate contests, both with threatened Republican incumbents. Democrats also argue they have a shot at knocking off a Republican incumbent in Arizona.

In the House, the first indication of trouble for Republicans could come with the first poll closings at 7 p.m. (0000 GMT) — in Indiana and Kentucky. Democrats fielded moderate candidates to challenge Republican incumbents in districts in the conservative Ohio River Valley.

It could be a sign of a long night for Republicans if Democrats knock off Reps. John Hostettler, Chris Chocola and Mike Sodrel in Indiana, and Ron Lewis, Anne Northup and Geoff Davis in Kentucky.

Should Democrats win in these Republican-friendly districts, it is conceivable that later in the evening they also will win clusters of seats in the liberal-leaning Northeast that are held by moderate Republicans.

Those include: House Republicans Nancy Johnson, Christopher Shays and Rob Simmons in Connecticut, as well as Mike Fitzpatrick, Curt Weldon, Jim Gerlach, Don Sherwood and Melissa Hart in Pennsylvania.

Some analysts prefer to look at returns in Florida, which has 25 House seats, 18 of them currently held by Republicans and seven by Democrats.

The fate of the seat held by disgraced Republican former Congressman Mark Foley could give an early indication of the impact of the cybersex scandal on Republicans in general.

Also being closely watched: the Florida West coast seat of Republican Congresswoman Katherine Harris, who gained national attention when she oversaw the controversial recount in 2000 that gave Bush the White House. She is widely expected to lose in her bid for the Senate.

The results from Georgia, where polls also close at 7 p.m. (0000 GMT), could give Republicans reason to be optimistic. They have made a play for two seats held by Democratic Congressmen Jim Marshall and John Barrow. If Republicans win those seats, the Democrats' math gets more complicated.

Most polls showed Democrats had a better chance of winning control of the House than the Senate, and early returns on Tuesday night might bear this out.

"We have never said we're going to take control of the Senate. We have said we're on the edge," Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Monday.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/06/america/NA_POL_US_Election_Watching.php
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Portside swing is coming, but I think the plan might be to allow the Repugs to barely keep the Senate, that way they might be able to sell Hillary more easily in 2008.

All that would take is a few moments of obstinate obstruction to popular issues by the 'evil' Senate holdouts. "Those miserable, Bush-era, NeoCon bastards. Let's clean out the Senate and get a Dem President in there." Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.