Going to attack Iran prior to the election, I'd bet.

Desperation. Pure and simple. What other attitude can they express? Graceful defeat? No.
Hope for the best? No. They are lying cowards with no shame. They are brazening it out.
Full stop.

Probably a combination of tactics, including, as mf2112 implies, vote fraud and disenfranchisement, and (I think I read it here) ships massing in the Persian Gulf in preparation for some sabre rattling.

A proven track record of being able to fool enough of the people when it really counts? Messianic complex? Disdain for polls as a product of the Liberal media, or as an inherently liberal-biased obsession with facts?

I just think these guys are posturing to their base. If they show concern, the base will give up and stay home.

It's a bluff and from my observation, a pretty common political technique. Act like a winner to look like a winner to be a winner. Rove did a similar thing on election day '04 by excitedly talking on a cell phone in full view of about 20 news cameras. Granted, at that time he had reason to be excited, but I get the feeling he would have put on the same show if the news had been bad.

The reports that I read (NYT) said that Rove and Bush were expecting to lose 8-10 seats but not the majority in the House. If we expect that things will close somewhat by election day, I think the safest prediction is that the House will be almost evenly split (a 12-18 seat Democratic gain). Many prognosticators are predicting that the Dems will pick up 30 seats which seems just as unlikely. Yet we don't consider them delusional. I'm no Bush supporter. But his confidence is a good reminder not to count our members of the Democratic majority before they are hatched!

They know they can stave off loss of the Senate by redirecting money and attack ads to VA, TN, and possibly NJ. They can TRY the same tactic for holding a slim majority in the House, but even if they lose that, they can still ram SCOTUS and similar appointments through and stonewall objectionable legislation the House DOES pass. The mindset, therefore is, "Things could be worse. We could be in jail."

I'm not sure a military strike against Iran would be beneficial for the administration at this point. I would guess there would be a backlash given,what we all know, transpired prior to the Iraq invasion.

I'd be curious to know if anyone remembers how the Clinton administation was reacting when they were about to lose control of congress? Did the polls seems to reflect how badly they would lose and what were they saying in the press?

Voter suppression and electronic voter fraud gets my bet.

It's Bravado. If the polls are right and they lose no one really remembers or cares about their prediction. On the other hand if they do keep control of the House and Senate they look like geniuses. They become Joe Namath in '69 or
Mark Messier in '94 guaranteeing the win.

How, exactly, would they 'fix' 468 separate elections for Congress?

The opposition has to play their designated role in the political Theatre. Just like Alan Colmes. Any talk about election rigging opens them up to tin foil hat charges. When the polls are 90 to 10, it is hard to rig an election. But when the polls are 47 to 49--it becomes extremely easy. Our elections are easier to rob than Bank of America.

"If you talk about it, even the simplest thing becomes complex and incomprehensible." -Herman Hesse

Bluff. Mostly directed at their putative supporters.

I've been wondering, by the way, how well their GOTV database is gonna work this time around. Their identification techniques (by periodicals read, products consumed, etc) may break down in this environment. The may turn out voters who are fed up and disillusioned rather than on board the wingnut bus, especially those who are not registered republicans.

They've had no time to do the work to adjust the models to reflect the Foley scandal.

Maybe this whole idea that Bush and Rove are so confident is just so much bs. Think about it: the only people who would know this are people who are pretty loyal to the Bush administration. Maybe the spin is being made to buck up the hearts of GOP volunteers in the face of so much bad news. That's the trouble with sources that won't go on the record, there is no way for us to judge their credibility.

If you have to ask that question--then you have not been following the issue very closely. And anyway, they don't have to fix 468--far fewer seats are in play--many of them quite close. As I type this,there is an ad to the right that says: Election officials try to steal another Florida election. Paid for by Tim Mahoney. Anyway, do your own due diligence.

"If you talk about it, even the simplest thing becomes complex and incomprehensible." -Herman Hesse

I'm a programmer. The fix is in, and this is why.

1. Exit polls did not fit election results in 2004. This is flat out impossible to believe; those same exit poll operations were in danger of being shut down in the 90's because they were *too* accurate, and the western states were complaining that the preditions were so spot on that voters might be staying home instead of voting in an already decided race. Statistics don't stop working, suddenly, in contested areas only. One side doesn't just start lying to the pollsters. It can't happen.

2. Election results didn't match pre-election telephone polls in 2004. Again, impossible.

3. Documented case of media being shut out of an electronic recount in Ohio because of a "threat received from Homeland Security" that was never issued. Results in that recount swung wildly for the Republicans and Bush.

4. I'm a programmer, and I state categorically that there is no way to secure a computer system against intentional manipulation. And it seems that these machines are set up for manipulation; they weren't even trying to hide.

5. At least two attacks, one sanctioned and one independent with a machine somehow obtained from the field, showed that the machines can be manipulated so many ways, without detection, that my fingers would fall off trying to list them.

6. A very small number of people are needed to change the results. No actual human intervention at the machine or the agregator is needed. They can phone the changes in.

7. Exit polls have been discontinued because they are "inaccurate". Garbage. They are no longer being done because the exit polls will not match the coming election results. This isn't a prediction, this is a flat out statement of fact.

8. I'm guessing that someone in the Republican party is well aware of the fix, even if Bush and others are intentionally left out of the loop, and this explains why Rove is so very, very confident.

9. The Republicans will hold on to both houses, impossibly, by slim margins in the most constested areas. Recounts will be useless, as they simply feed the same doctored tabulations through the aggregators again.

10. The only evidence of the coming theft will be the results of the phone polls conducted prior to the election. Another prediction: the news outlets will discover that telephone polls don't work anymore, either.

I think it's less of a bluff than it is Rove keeping up appearances for his boss. Rove has built an inpenetrable shield of lies around Bush akin to the Matrix and he knows that a collapse of that facade would risk Bush actually seeing the world for what it is. The prospect of that moment must be too awful for old Karl to contemplate.

I would say they're bluffing. They've done this before. Remember back in 2000, Bush and Rove went on their victory lap the week before the election claiming they had a 3-5 point margin of victory only to essentially lose the election (if it hadn't been for dumb look and the Supreme Court, instead of being hailed as a genius, Rove would either be teaching at some state university somewhere or running some senate campaign somewhere).

They might know something we don't know, but I can't see where anyone at this point would think invading Iran, even if it were feasible, would be a good election trick. The Republicans look like they're going to lose this election because of the Iraq War, so the best way to prevent that would be by invading an even more powerful version of Iraq? Does anyone really think that's a good election idea? And even if by some odd chance it would work in 2006, such a strategy would almost certainly insure the Republican Party would go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists?

At this point, barring some major, unforeseen twist in the Republicans' favor in the next few weeks, if the Democrats don't win a substantial victory in November I would say we'll have to admit the paranoid fear that the Republicans are tampering with the computer voting booths is probably correct.

One last post, why isn't anyone talking more about the fact that the Hussein verdict is going to be announced 5 November? I don't see it having much of an impact on the election, if anything it might anger voters even more by reminding them yet again about Iraq. But I still think it's signficant and I think it's interesting that no one's talking more about it. Clearly the Bush Administration must have thought the verdict would help them in the election, what do others think about this.

But in order to pull this bluff off, they have to take the same positions in internal discussions. Any expressions of concern or uncertainty will leak. It's hard to tell whether keeping a confident demeanor disrupts strategy or not--they seem to moving their money around in realistic responses to poll numbers. In most endeavors, though, an honest assessment of your position is pretty much essential to any kind of success.

Voter suppression, Diebold, court challenges with claims of voter fraud, challenges in the HoR, rallying round the flag when they begin to bomb Iran.

Seems like a long time since we've had "major" terror arrests. I'd expect the ol' rainbow homeland security scale to be on red in about a week.

That's the only card they've got left - deflated gas prices aren't working - they'll play it up big time.

-----
Romani Ite Domum

It helps set the stage for allegations of massive voter fraud,probably with illegal immigrants as the culprits.

If they lose they will do everything they can to impugn the legitimacy of the election.

I, too, believe they will steal enough seats to remain in power. Before 2004 I kept thinking-looks good if it's a fair election, but why would it be a fair election?-and sure enough they stole it. This time around there's a new Republican disaster every minute hanging another albatross and another and another around their necks. And the country was already disaffected by the continuing nightmare in Iraq, New Orleans and anywhere else you care to look. Seems increasingly unlikely they would win in a fair election. But I repeat why would they let it be fair? And since so many people still believe they won in 2000 and 2004 it makes it that much easier to fool people into thinking they've won again. Bush has NEVER been elected president.
Why don't you ever talk about this, Josh? Jon Stewart doesn't seem to have it on his radar either. We count on you guys. Our election system is compromised. We need to raise a ruckus about this. I love your sight and you provide an invaluable service to those of us who want to understand what's going on but until our votes mean something what difference can we make? We've been neutered.

I happen to think that securing the accuracy and integrity of an election is foundational to a representative Democracy. There is no reason why elections cannot be made trustworthy--unless someone WANTS to game the system. And the system has been gamed--in every way--from the beginning. Until this issue is address--no other issue comes close in importance. We cannot begin to have policy discussions until we can guarantee the integrity of an election. It is the only political movement that counts, at this point.

"If you talk about it, even the simplest thing becomes complex and incomprehensible." -Herman Hesse

Military action plus stealing a crucial percent of votes.

1) A few speeches by Bush around 9/11/06 created an approx. 5% spike in approval. They'll have the Saddam verdict two days before the election. What's your bet that will be accompanied by some speechifying? Ergo, probably a bump up in approval of Rethugs.

2) Military action in the ten days to two weeks before the election. Something like blockading the Straits of Hormuz, or maybe bombing some supposed nuclear installation in Iran. (Not N Korea, I think. That's just a huge embarrassment they'd like everyone to forget. But who knows?) There's still people out there who'll rally behind Dear Leader in a war situation, manufactured or not. Another 5% to 6%.

Even with a current approval rating for Republicans in Congress somewhere in the 30s, we're up to the mid-40s by now.

3) Steal the remaining 5.1%, as per usual. They have that system running on rails by now. Difficulties voting in Dem districts, isolated machine problems, fliers telling people to vote on Wednesday, and--crucial element--all the rest of us saying, "Stolen election? Can't be. It just can't be. Not in the U. S. of A."

http://acid-test.blogspot.com/

Their current posture is presumably some combination of game face, power of positive thinking, and overconfidence, but there may also be a more practical factor. In the runup and aftermath of '00, I read (can't recall where) that Rove was getting faulty polls, some of which showed GWB winning PA easily (actual: Gore by 4) and MI as a tossup (actual: Gore by 5). Could be happening again . . .

I don't know...the polls are SO against them that tampering can only be done carefully, even if they do it selectively, which I agree is all they need. Democrats are finally pissed off enough that they're not sitting down and taking it--finally, though it took too, too damn long--and such a discrepancy might lead enough Democrats to push back. Traditional voter suppression--too few voting booths in Democratic areas, purging lists, ID laws, etc.-- is less trackable and more effective. Although takes more effort than the one hour it takes to hack a Diebold machine, it's "squishier"--easier to argue about, which simply leads your opponent into a messy, digressive argument and therefore off-track.

And besides, they didn't "steal" 2000 with computer hacking--not enough machines around. They did it through the Supreme Court and stirring things up in Florida. And if they really use a Diebold-hack strategy, all they need is one hacker to flip--the Democrats to get just one hacker to crack--and game over. Enough Republicans are turning against them that this is getting risky.

Still, I think they're partly depending on this, probably depending on some sort of October surprise, carefully placed rumors, and such, but I also think sasetc. is right on--they lock on to failed policy, and stick to it. Bush is a poster boy for denial. I don't think he thinks he cooked the evidence for the Iraq war, and I don't think he is cynically lying about the collapse of Iraq now. The guy lies to himself, which makes lying to others so easy. I do think overconfidence is part of it, and it may be what brings them down.

How much of this is my wishful thinking--wanting them hoist on their own petard--and how much of this is good analysis, I'm not sure. Honestly, I think all of us are guessing to some degree. Josh, you're a historian--you know about contingency and unpredictability. That's also in play.

Re: Exit polls did not fit election results in 2004. This is flat out impossible to believe

Actually there are several reasons (both legitimate and illegitimate) the exit polls may not fit the final tallies. Key fact about exit polls is that they are taken in the morning and the unspoken assumption is that voting behavior is invariant over time: if some X percent of the voters at 8am are voting for John Doe then X percent of the voters at 6pm will be voting for him too.
Legitimate reason 1: The exit polls themselves induced the GOP (and GOP voters) to get out the vote so that later voters tended to be GOP voters.
Illegitimate variant 1: the GOP also did what they often accuse the Democrats of doing and “voted the cemeteries”
Legitimate reason 2: Democrats are more likely to vote in the morning, perhaps because they are more likely to work afternoons or to have Tuesdays off (perhaps because they are retired or unemployed) while GOP voters tend to hold 9-5 jobs and so vote more heavily in the evening.
Illegitimate variant 2: the GOP made sure that Democrat voters in strongly Democrat precincts seeking to vote late would be massively inconvenienced by long lines and malfunctioning voting machines hence would become discouraged and not vote, thus skewing the late voting totals toward the GOP.

As for “bugged“ voting machines, having worked for software companies, I find it extremely unlikely that anyone could get away with it. Any technical person employed in such a company would have access to the code (which would also have to be tested to a fare-thee-well, especially if such a ploy were attempted, as software failure could be catastrophic) and there’s no way the employer could be sure that their workforce would not include Democrats or even just honest Republicans. One outraged employee (or simply disgruntled ex-employee) and the scam would be blown out of the water with extreme consequences for both the company, its managers and CEO, and the party they were cheating for.
Conspiracies requiring the active cooperation of large numbers if people simply do not work and are far too risky to attempt. The scandal of 2000 and 2004 is the scandal of vote suppression at which the GOP absolutely excels, and it is here that efforts at insuring honest elections should be concentrated.

Finally, Bush and Rove’s confidence is hardly surprising. These guys are notoriously disconnected from reality and pleasantly imagine all is going well when it’s raining cluster-events outside. See: Iraq.

=== As for “bugged“ voting machines, having worked for software companies, I find it extremely unlikely that anyone could get away with it. ===

That is somewhat contradicted by the e-mail archive that leaked out from the large voting machine provider that described how they routinely hacked[1] the database when it crashed (which being based on Microsoft Access(!) it did quite often, as I can well believe). Even if you accept that those people were working with the best will in the world and had no nefarious intent, the fact that they routinely hacked the voting data for years (and probably still do) without anyone finding out makes it clear that it would not be that hard to commit fraud.

sPh

[1] Real definition of "hacked", not current traditional media negative definition.

Rawstory now running a teaser:

Republican sources tell Raw House GOP losing hope, believe Dems have new 'October surprise...' Soon...

UN observers, anyone?

Tom

The Republican's ability to tamper with voting machines is a real possibility. From this week's Economist:

"In September three scientists at Princeton University got hold of the most popular touch-screen model and took it and its software to bits. They found serious flaws allowing a competent hacker to infect the machine with a program to transfer votes from one candidate to another. Such a change could be undetectable without a recount (assuming one were possible), and the program could be introduced into the machine far in advance by anyone having access to the machine's memory-card reader for as little as a minute. The readers are protected by a lock, but the lock is a standard one, and keys can be bought on the internet: besides, the keys circulate among election officials. And the researchers found that their program could be spread from machine to machine via the memory-cards. Voting-machine companies make things worse by keeping their software secret: were it published, security experts would be able to assess it and recommend fixes."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8028608

There has been recent news that the Republican party is re-deploying money from some races to others. The explanation is that they are moving the money from races they expect to lose to races they think are winnable. This is plausible, but it would also be interesting to know if they are moving money away from districts where most of the voting machines are Diebold-style, non-paper-trail-generating machines. Why spend the extra money on a campaign when some clever programming can fix the result in a nontraceable manner?

I'm not sure why so much is being read into this...?

Bush and Rove are still overconfident about IRAQ, let alone the election. Has either of them ever shown any emotion other than smug overconfidence?

We're talking about the guy who made jokes about not finding WMD while American soldiers in Iraq were dying, looking for WMD.

They have one card, and that's all they know how to play. If they weren't overconfident, then I'd worry.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Four possibilities.

1) Bush is genuinely delusional. Not out of the question.

2) Rove and Bush are bluffing.

3) The fix is in, quite likely. To keep the House and Senate, they would only need to swing 5 or 10% of the votes in a perhaps 3 senate races and 10 house races.

4) They really don't care. 12 Senate Dems and 40 House Dems voted to give the President authority to torture, to set aside the bill of rights, to shred the Geneva convention, and to terminate the 800 year old right of habeas corpus. Even if Bush loses both the house and the senate, these traitor dems will remain in his pocket and will give him a working majority. He'll never be touched.

They have a new campaign slogan that will win everybody over:

Vote republican

Because somebody needs to be above the law!

They stole it by suppressing voter turnout, especially in predominantly Black districts, where they changed the polling places, brought in uniformed cops to intimidate voters, and closed the doors before everyone had cast their vote. Then they refused to support a recount, and became obstructionist, busing in congressional staffers to pretend to be outraged local citizens. It's all documented.

"If you talk about it, even the simplest thing becomes complex and incomprehensible." -Herman Hesse

Vote tampering, vote tampering, vote tampering! I beg you to post on this, Josh. We need to see this issue addressed in ADVANCE of the elections.

His confidence reminds me a great deal of his confidence regarding Florida in the 2000 elections. Early on, when he was informed that he had lost Florida, his response was a simple 'No I didn't.' His more recent statement makes him sound like a man who knows the answer before the question is asked.

Maybe Rove and Bush are so confident because they know that the Diebold voting machines are rigged!

I was wondering if we will all wake up on the day after the election and find out that the Republicans have maintained control of the House by a seat or two--just enough. Hummmmm....

I think it's important to remember how very little information about states of mind that we are able to get via news stories and television. If we watched Bush and Rove deliver their bluffs in person, I bet we could tell within 30 seconds how much substance their claims had. Given what we do know about their personalities, my hunch is that they would both come off as liars, bluffers, and bullies, because that's what they are, after all.

Both men have built their careers on acting the way they're now acting, and both are habitual liars; each has a personal ethos to lie at the slightest provocation. Everything they both say is 100% unbelievable. The only reason we give their little tantrums any credence at all is because we don't see them regularly in person, and because we're not habitual liars, we find it difficult to bear in mind that other people may very well be. We all tend to project our own spiritual strengths and weaknesses onto others. The fact is that Bush and Rove are, as a matter of habit (which is to say, ethically), liars, bluffers, bullies, and we should interpret everything they say and do through that lens.

Bush is a self-deceiver. He can't admit, even to himself, who he really is and what he really thinks. Reality for him is only ever a dim reflection of his own desires and anguishes. Emotionally, he's 13 years old. He acts as though he can get what he wants simply by wanting it badly enough. Whatever good qualities he may have been born with have been spoiled. He's spiritually crippled. He bluffs and bullies because he actually thinks that's how leaders act.

Rove, on the other hand, is so habitually cynical that he wouldn't tell the truth even if it was wonderful. He'd still embellish it. He has a twisted, stunted heart, and so it's nearly impossible for him to imagine a world in which he doesn't have to lie and cheat in order to get what he wants. He bluffs and bullies because he literally cannot think of anything else to do.

As to stealing the election, I don't doubt that they'll try; nor do I doubt that they'll both fail and succeed to certain extent. The real question is whether the Amerinan people--who have thus far given these losers a pass on cheating--will continue to put up with their shenannigans. I somehow think that the carte blanche of 9/11 has expired. Candidates get away with stealing elections only when people let them. I frankly hope they really try to steal it, because I have a feeling convenient GOP victories will provoke a good deal more outrage now than they did in the past 6 years. Times have changed, but Bush and Rove have only become more like themselves.

J. Powers

Why so confident? Hmm, let's see:

1. Diebold machines are just as hackable as before, and the company is still owned by republicans.

2. There is all sorts of talk that LOTS of Dems, especially those of color, are going to find their registrations suddenly, magically, disappeared when they show up to vote.

3. Since they showed the 2004 election to have been stolen, exit polling is apparently not going to happen this year. (Phone polling on the day of the election has not been cancelled, and will likely not jibe with the "election results.")

4. Because we live in an era where we have to hope they're confident about stealing it, because if they aren't we also live in an era where it is not unthinkable for the President of the United States to stage a terrorist attack, declare martial law and cancel the elections. (An Iran scenario seems less visceral than an attack on our soil.)

Our only hope may be that, since the programming of the Diebold machines have been so thoroughly opened for public dissection, some extremely clever hacker who doesn't like the GOP has his own lil' November Surprise planned. I'm not happy to live in an era where I have to hope our guys are just as cutthroat as the GOP, but you plays the cards you're dealt.

My guess is a small-time October surprise, nothing big like an invasion/bombing campaign of, say, Iran or North Korea. The latter is too risky. Maybe the "capture" of a terrorist, someone they can claim is of some importance. Or maybe something as small as raising the terror alert level.

My other guess is that they have written off the House and are quietly plotting how they plan to attack the Democratic leadership next year.

If the repugs win in November and all the exit polling shows strong support for the dems again I am gonna want those f'ing machines taken apart and examined with an electron microscope...because it will no longer be "conjecture of wacko conspiracy theorists" (tm)...and the people doing the exit polling, after so many years of getting it right, haven't all of a sudden become incompetent in doing their jobs either.

Yep...if the GOP retains control of Congress in the face of exit poll numbers showing the dems doing well two election cycles in a row, the fix will definitely be in.

I agree and believe what one analyst said, 'Rove, is a master of staying on message and being disciplined to keep the troops in line and the electorate psyched that they can win if they vote".  There is nothing to gain by conceeding they may lose before the election.

"Key fact about exit polls is that they are taken in the morning "

False. Exit polls are taken continuously throughout the time the polls are open.

"The exit polls themselves induced the GOP (and GOP voters) to get out the vote so that later voters tended to be GOP voters."

The media does not release exit poll results until the polls close.

"One outraged employee (or simply disgruntled ex-employee) and the scam would be blown out of the water with extreme consequences for both the company, its managers and CEO, and the party they were cheating for."

The emails that have been leaked and testing that has been done are more damming than testimony because they are empirical. There has been damning testimony from ex-employees also. None of the consequences you speak of has occurred.

About the possibility of stealing the elections, etc. - Is there any orgainzed effort by people to have poll watchers to take pictures, gather anecdotal evidence, etc., of any persons who may engage in any electoral shenanigans. I've heard various stories over the years of shadowy unknown persons coming in to "fix" errors with the voting machines, computers, etc. Perhaps we can all bring a camera, or camera phone, and if anything remotely fishy occurs, snap a quick picture of whoever is fixing the machine.

I did not say that they did not have better tools, nor that they did not use them well. I said that their models cannot reflect a state of affairs where Congressman are preying on pages and the Republican party is being outed. The security mom who reads Town and Country and drives a Lexus may have been their voter last three cycles, but she may not be this time.

They'd have to recanvass to find out, and I don't think they have the time.

In any CD where the machines show a GOP politico winning in the face of exit polls showing the opposite result I would want those machines examined in detail.  The GOP came up with a lot of excuses in '04 one of which was improperly done exit polling.  That is a load of cow manure...the pollsters have a track record of doing accurate work.  We need to closely watch the exit polls for discrepencies with the "actual" vote tallies.  That is the one way we can watch the machines...

When the polls are 90 to 10, it is hard to rig an election. But when the polls are 47 to 49--it becomes extremely easy. Our elections are easier to rob than Bank of America.

Yes!  Which leads to speculation that the polls are  also being rigged.  In order for the American public to believe the outcomes of rigged races, the polls have to indicate a narrow margin or tight race, for weeks,  for folks to accept it. THAT to me is one big reason, why the polls are nothing but a set up.  For all we know the entire country feels like they want to wipe out the GOP with 90 voting for Dems and 10 voting for GOP.  However, the polls NEVER say, anti-incumbent fever is that hight,  so the public doesn't expect it and 'accepts' that the races are competitive.  I do not beleive they are. 

Here in MN, the Democratic candidate is walloping the 6yr GOP  incumbent in the House, for the senate seat.  Folks want change and no one but an idiot will put an incumbent back in DC who consistently voted for Bush and his policies out of partisianship. Virtually, all americans are tired of partisianship over the national interests of America, just to retain power.

I think these campaign  polls are rigged...the only true reflection of voting are the exit polls...and based on them clearly indicating that Bush lost to Kerry...the GOP probably has something up their sleeves to abolish/ eliminate this indicator.

We should have not had polls leading up to the election showing such a 'tight competitive' race, if the exit polls were showing that Kerry was winning by a large margin...exit polls showed the exact same pattern with Gore...he was winning by good margins, yet we were told it was going to be a close election for months and months prior to voting.

All these polls,shape the voting public's mindset.  They even get to me and I follow the issues. Imagine how the average voter feels hearing their candidate is losing by a large margin weeks before the election...they likely think 'why vote?"

That's great, but I would change it slightly.

Because the RIGHT people need to be above the law.

OK, ask yourself this: With all you know about Bush, Cheney and Rumseld - are they going to allow themselves to be investigated by the like of Henry Waxman and John Conyers?

To quote Daddy Bush: Not. Gonna. Happen.

Not when they've gone to all the trouble of installing hackable computerized voting machines.

Not when they're in the last election cycle of their regime.

Not when the penalties for stealing elections are so miniscule.

These guys were willing to lie about WMD to get into a war. You think they're gonna think twice about a little thing like stealing an election?

To these guys, stealing elections is just brass-knuckle politics.

I will be supremely surprised if I wake up on November 8 and find out they didn't steal it.

Actually, it will re-affirm my faith that we still live in a representative democracy. I will be absolutely fucking delighted. It'll become a red letter day in the history of American democracy. 11-7! The day we got our country back! They should make it a national holiday.

More likely, however, is this scenario:

11-7 could be the day when the gloves come off and people have to face the fact that we are living under an illegitimate, authoritiarian regime. 11-7 could be the day the war comes home - when we really start to feel the sting of not having Habeus Corpus and all those other rights we gave away so blithely. The question then will be, Is the Democratic Party the vehicle for fighting for freedom - or will it collaborate in the ruling party's crimes?

In other words, we won't be needing any more Democratic leaders who are "good sports." We'll need leadership that is willing to get in the streets. Because when the people's will is quashed at the ballot box, the right of the people to peaceably assemble is the remedy the Constitution provides.

11-7 sure has a ring to it. I just hope that it turns out to have a nice ring.

In 1973, Rove was running for chair of the College Republican National Committee. He won, but he had to steal the election to do it.

The Idealistic Nation, a political newspaper that is put out by students at Princeton, featured an article called, The Man behind the Cowboy: Karl Rove Revealed that included this:

[The]...most important fact about Rove is that he operates with complete freedom from moral or ethical constraints, and under his watchful eye, dirty deeds have been done dirt cheap by and for the Republicans.

The paper also tells the charming story of how Rove went to a Democrat's campaign office in 1970 to steal some stationary and caused havoc at a reception given by the candidate.

Or you could check out Rove Returns To The Scene Of The Crime, where you'll find such Rove classics as:

• Rove Viciously and Anonymously Attacked Alabama Judges Family

You wondered about a conspiracy. Who needs a whole conspiracy when Rove is a one man destroyer in charge of dirty tricks?

"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06

This is a very interesting question. Not only is Rove confident, but he has gone on record with seat number predictions (eight to ten losses, leaving a Republican majority). Whether Bush is confident or not doesn't really matter.

Leave aside the furthest reaching (postpone the elections, we're having another war) reasons. I think this blog entry from elsewhere has it about right.

...Some seem to think that Bush and Rove are deluding themselves, but I am not so sure. We don’t even need an October surprise. I think Rove, in predicting the loss of “eight to ten seats”, is going by the eventual, post-litigation results.

There will be so much confusion at the polls this year, for so many different reasons, that, as I said earlier, we will see large numbers of challenges, resulting in litigation all over the place. The resolution of all of these will not be complete, maybe right up until the time that the new Congress is set to convene.

So Rove’s number is an after-the-dust-has-settled one, and I am not sure I would argue with it. This approach to elections has been set up for two to four years now.

I happen to think that securing the accuracy and integrity of an election is foundational to a representative Democracy. There is no reason why elections cannot be made trustworthy--unless someone WANTS to game the system. And the system has been gamed--in every way--from the beginning. Until this issue is address--no other issue comes close in importance

I agree. To me the key question is where is the outrage?  Is there apathy about this issue...or like so many other issues in the last decade, are Americans so partisan polarized, that they consider questions about voting integrity nothing but sour grapes from the losing party?

We have had several programs on voting fraud and Lou Dobbs has made a issue of this and there is the RFK article in RS mag. 

So what gives? Why is voting integrity NOT a big issue to the masses?

Can we create a netroots uprising to ensure voting integrity?  What baffles me is that folks are about as interested in voting integrity as they are about global warning or environmental issues and yet voting integrity is much more of a simplistic issue.

What is going on here?  Is it because the O;Rielly's, Coulters, Malkins, Hannitty and Limbaughs are not talking about it, that there is so much apathy.

Talk Radio rules America, I think.

I agree, Lib, so this is aimed at all of us, not you! We've known all this stuff since 2000, better since 2002, utterly convincingly since 2004, not to mention the post-Duke Cunningham election in CA and... it goes on and on. There should be not a single doubt left. How did we let it get this far? And, damn it, will we allow these voting problems to continue into 2008?

My guess would a mixture of posturing for the base, bravado and serious disconnect with reality.

I can't see what the fix would be.
- Massive fraud ? Not very feasible.
- Capturing Bin Laden ? Narhhh. Hard to do and that would blow up in their face : Why it's been so long ? Why now ?
- Iran ? Not enough time unless of a provocation.

Short of the Second Coming or of a nuke going off in a major city, I don't see what could work for that crew.

No, you can't have your own facts!

They're like Hezbollah. If they survive at all they've won.

That and they've got some kind of deal to be able to say they've made peace in Iraq and are planning to withdraw immediately, execute Saddam and attack Iran --simultaneously.

Stealing elections on a state level isn't that easy - even with Diebold. You need corruption all the way to the top. What poll workers would want is to be fairly certain they won't be caught, and in order to do that, you need to have the prosecutorial functions of the state restrained by the party who stands to benefit from the theft. All the way up the election machinery of most states are men and (primarily) women in their fifites and sixties. Convincing them that they should risk being placed in prison and separated from their grandchildren so that one more Republican can make it to Congress is a very difficult task.

What Republicans did with the presidential theft is they launched a full court press in Ohio and in Florida. They began by getting the Secretary of State and the governor in their pocket - easy in Jeb's case. Then they began tossing as many legally registered Democratic voters off the rolls as they possibly could - felon purges, challenges to address - all of that. Then they made it as difficult to register as they possibly could and then discounted as many of the new registrations as possible. On election day, they made it as difficult to vote for Democrats as they possibly could - uneven distribution of voting machines, voting machines that didn't work, polls that didn't open, campaign headquarter phone lines jammed and challenges to residency on the spot. Lastly, they controlled how the votes were counted - preferably behind closed doors with no Democrats present. In Escambia County in 2000, a group of Republicans only counted the absentee ballots and certified that 100% of absentee ballots for Gore had two or more marks for president. None of the absentee ballots for Bush had two or more marks for president. Now what are the odds of that? Finally, you jump to court as fast as you can, and you use the court to prevent the ballots from being counted. All of that to shave 5% of the vote off of the Kerry totals in Ohio.

5%.

5%.

It's a huge amount of work to shave off 5 - 10 Kerry votes in each precinct.

Now, it's true that electronic voting makes it much easier. You can just program, in under a minute, the machine to invert totals, or start one candidate out 500 votes behind or any number of things. And that's almost certainly what happened to Cleland in Georgia. But it's Georgia, for God's sakes - not known for their squeaky clean elections ever.

The point I'm making is that if stealing elections was easy, Bush would not have gone to the extreme trouble that he did to take 2000 and 2004. Those thefts had to start years in advance.

Let's also remember that after 2002, the Senate was Republican only because 2 Democrats died in plane crashes within weeks of the election. Mrs. Carnahan was not in the plane with her husband and had to run again in 2002. Mrs. Wellstone was not so fortunate. If i were to don my tin foil chapeau, I'd say that was mistake not made twice.

Why are they so confident? What choice do they have? It's not like Bush can go out and campaign for these jokers. He can raise money but money and theft alone may not stem this tide. One can only steal so many votes without risking insurrection. As for insurrection, neither the military, the police departments nor the National Guard are all that happy with Bush.

I think they've painted themselves in a corner and Bush may be too stupid to know it.

Let's also remember that after 2002, the Senate was Republican only because 2 Democrats died in plane crashes within weeks of the election. Mrs. Carnahan was not in the plane with her husband and had to run again in 2002. Mrs. Wellstone was not so fortunate. If i were to don my tin foil chapeau, I'd say that was mistake not made twice

I wonder how they decided which Dem Senators to target for death. Strong incumbents in heavily democratic states?  Those plane crashes have always been suspect, they also took Wellstones daughter.

No matter how much I like to view myself as someone guided by reason, there is this superstitious component that I can't seem to ditch. I predicted to friends that Kerry would win and then suffered the painful sting of being proved wrong. This time around I will keep mum on the prognistications and divinations and hope that all the Rovian bluster is bs. At the same time I say fight, fight, fight!!!

Gore in '08

David Pincus

 I predicted to friends that Kerry would win and then suffered the painful sting of being proved wrong

Your prediction was right...election fraud stole the election. Stop suffering for not anticipating theft. Your instincts were right.  What is your prediction?

my opinion:

it's just like Iraq. In BushWorld, it's disloyal to even consider the possibility of defeat or things going wrong, particularly when it comes to deeply cherished beliefs, like invading Iraq will magically transform that nation and the Middle East, or that GOP hegemony will be re-affirmed this fall.

Therefore, no Plan B for defeat.

I look forward to George W. Bush throwing a massive tantrum on Nov. 8th, just like AZ Cardinals coach Denny Green did at the post-game press conference last night.

An attack on Iran would probably do the trick of diverting attention from a stolen election. An attack by Iran would be even better.

I tend to be an optimist, but that hasn't worked at all well with these guys. I think that if the election doesn't see a change in at least the house that I'll conclude that the US really is no longer a democracy.

What's it going to take to get normal people out in the streets with torches and pitchforks?

DRE touchscreen machines. They can be hacked in a NY minute by an election judge with less than an hour of training.

Re: The media does not release exit poll results until the polls close.

Exit polls from the morning were released (or at least leaked) in the early afternoon of election day 2004. I recall reading them online. The appearance that Kerry was going to win big created a panic in many GOP headquarters and did indeed lead to a massive last minute get-out-the vote effort. And I would not be surprised at all if dishonest measures were also taken. I am certainly not arguing for the GOP’s honesty, just arguing against the tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, which I fear might result the very major problem of vote suppression being ignored if not outright despair.

On the larger question here it’s quite possible BushCo doesn’t really care if they end up with a Democrat Senate and Democrat House as long as the majorities are very slender, well below the impeachment threshold. After all, Bush pretty much ignores Congress anyway, reinterpretting any law he deigns to sign according to his own pleasure. Besides which, he will be able to get his immigration plan (which he seems to see as his main legacy domestically) through a Democrat Congress, and a Democrat Senate would relieve him of the responsibility of appointing hard right judges so the GOP would not suffer the consequences of Roe’s overturn but can continue to string the Religious Right along.

We are about to attack Iran, that is why they are confident.

Fact 1: a story. Last week, Israeli intelligence floated a story. When North Korea tested its missiles, several Iranians were on hand for the test. When North Korea tested its nuclear bomb, the same several Iranians were present. The Israelis say that Iran is footing the bill for North Korea's program to develop missiles with nuclear warheads, and that Iran in return is getting the North Korean technology.

Fact 2: The U.S. Navy is scheduled for maneuvers in the Persian Gulf starting October 31 -- just a week before the election.

Fact 3: The White House promises that the House and Senate will remain in Republican hands, causing Republican party operatives to say that the White House is either delusional or knows something that no one else knows. Rove promises an October Surprise.

My prediction: On or about November 1, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure and other military targets, using their story as justification. The U.S. will either join in the attacks or, at least, provide cover for the Israelis.

My question: Will voters swing back to the rally around the flag and the party of the president, or will they mutter "there he goes again" as they pull the levers with their left hands?

They'd have to recanvass to find out, and I don't think they have the time.

Sorry, I should have addressed your point a little more clearly. If they are anything like standard regression, tree-based, or clustering models, then they could do some pretty reasonable recalibration just by doing some clever targeted polling. My guess is that they are doing this now. With the right resources, a statistician could easily pull this off within a few weeks. You're right though, that to do it 100% accurately, they would need to recanvass, which they don't have time to do. But, they don't need 100% accuracy, and though I haven't seen the data, I'd bet that they could do a pretty reasonable job quickly.

What does it mean to be "reality based"?

A love of and considerable knowledge about politics is no assurance one really knows what is going on in this country or even in Washiington. What you see is very often not what you get. Much of politics is a sham, no more than window dressing. We need to focus on, and know for sure, who is really making what important decision(s), when, where and why.

Glaring ghastly facts about 9/11 have never been investigated nor have they been reported in the MSM. There are reasons for this.

Wars in Afghanistan (oil pipeline) and Iraq ("the prize" oil fields)

Two national elections have been stolen

Supreme Court packed

Telling Iraq how to write their “oil laws” to favor American companies.

Torture is OK if the President says it is OK.

Not leaving Iraq till 2010...read like forever.

Pillage National Forests

Neglect National Parks

Steal big, steal everything, steal constantly until people get numb and just keep strealing more.

Make Americans irrationally afraid of “terrorists” who are no more deadly than alergic reactions to peanuts or deer causing auto accidents.

Tax cuts for rich.

No paper ballots, no accountability.

A messy and close election is a Rove election.

Are Americans still delusional about who “owns” the country, counts the votes and dispenses “government contracts” for highly selective projects?

Are you wondering about the outcome of the coming mid-term election in November ?

Has anyone that you know been killed in Iraq?

This is not an exhaustive list, but the fact that these issues have been the stuff of politics for the last six years makes me wonder who really is reality based.

It is disgraceful that we are even asking about the probable outcome of the election in November. But indeed we are seriously asking and wondering. I am 66, but I keep thinking
that people were a whole lot smarter when I was 10.

=== Has anyone considered the possibility that Rove WANTS the Dems to win?

Here's a theory: There's no way out of Iraq. It is a complete disaster and they know it. What better way to extracate than to have Dems controlling both houses; Iraq implodes into major civil way on the Dems watch (it will happen no matter what) and this way the Republicans can say the Dem's "cut and run" strategy is the reason why. ===

I agree that is a strong possibility, but it also implies a split between Rove and W as it would also mean throwing W to the wolves. Perhaps someone has made Rove an offer?

sPh

"Voter suppression, Diebold, court challenges with claims of voter fraud, challenges in the HoR, rallying round the flag when they begin to bomb Iran."

Klyde was right on the money. The Dems will increase their numbers in both houses, but not enough to take control of either. This will be in spite of exit poll after exit poll showing victories for Dems in many races that they ultimately "lose." Anyone who doubts that Karl Rove is above fraud, criminal manipulation, and of course smear and slander is ignorant of his entire career. And anyone who doubts that Diebold and other electronic voting machines are not hackable is similarly not paying attention; the hard evidence has been available for months and months.

The ironic thing is that it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the GOP. An attack on Iran will be one of the greatest military and diplomatic disasters in our nation's history, with particular blowback in Iraq that will make the present situation look calm. Anyone who thinks that images of dead Shia children in Teheran or Isfahan won't inflame their Shia brethren all over Iraq is living in a Cheneyian fantasyland. We will likely lose naval vessels, the straits of Hormuz will become a battleground, the price of oil will skyrocket, and the stock market will not be happy. The effects on our economy, tottering as it is on the precipiece of a breathtaking "correction" in housing prices, will be very damaging.

Remember, any serious military action in Iran will consume a major amount of military resources that are already stretched thin. What is to stop the Iranians, in response to an attack, from sending troops, uniformed or not, into Iraq to "liberate" the Shia south from the coalition forces?

Public outrage at home, especially in the aftermath of elections that literally tens of millions will believe were outright stolen in state after state, in combination with a collapsing economic picture and a rapidly-developing disaster in Iran, will be at unprecedented levels. In particular, the highest levels of the military, men and women who still have to live in a reality-based world, will become very restive very quickly as they see what they've devoted their careers to—the institution of the military—being severely damaged in front of their eyes, all due to decisions made by men who sneered at the idea of military service themselves.

Public opinions about the GOP in general and Bush in particular will sink to the basement, and Bush will be regarded in future histories to be singularly responsible for the destruction of the Republican Party as a viable and law-abiding entity.

But as George has made clear, he doesn't give a damn about history, and the men and women surrounding him have made it abundantly clear that they regard the Constitution as something they can interpret and ignore as they see fit. There's no reason to believe, given the statements on the record by Gonzales and given the likely attitudes of the Bush nominees to the Supreme Court, that the standard legal challenges will be available. As a consequence, I believe that 2007 will see a full-bore Constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven't seen since 1974, maybe even the 1860s. Will a Republican-controlled House impeach Bush? And would a Republican-controlled Senate remove him? Especially if they were confident that they would never pay the price at the polls for not acting?

The question to ponder is whether the military would ever rise up and say, "enough: Bush, you have to leave," and whether those of us in opposition to Bushism would be comfortable with the military stepping in as a last resort. Is that "cure" worse than the problem?

All this may strike you as absurd and paranoid speculation, but I would bet most Americans in 1859 would have thought the notion of an all-out Civil War the unlikeliest of scenarios. How many Americans in 1928 would have imagined that in two years' time the economy would be utterly devastated? Frankly, how many regular Americans would have thought, as Commander Codpiece was strutting about with the "Mission Accomplished" banner above him, that Iraq would be in the situation it is now? They would have said, "nope, that's inconceivable."

About the exit polls.  You do make a good point about the early ones being leaked before the polls closed (for whatever reason).  But even the exit polls that were released after the polls closed didn't jive with the results.  I remember some very good exit pollers, who had very solid track records, issuing "mea culpa" statements for weeks after because they couldn't figure out how they had been "so wrong". 

Their confidence is not making much sense. Everything is going wrong for them. The biggest thing that I think is going to be a problem, even with its less than stellar media attention is David Kuo's book. Faithful Democrats website is blogging about it all week long. The manipulation for Christian right value vote is staggering.

My blog - Faithfully Liberal.

If it's so easy to hack their code why hasn't some programmer done so and plastered their secret vote-switching routines all overt the web?

Seashell, I am delighted (or embarassed) to say that we don't disagree! I was sneaking in a response while at work, and so it was not thoughtfully worded. What I intended to say was that the necessity of stacking the Supreme Court is the republican response to the Foley thing. They want to immunize themselves from something that clearly goes against their "values" by pointing to the relatively "more important" long-time value of a conservative Supreme Court. In other words, it works only to rally the base (those who don't think for themselves) and thereby give them an excuse to follow the playbook:

That's pretty much enough for people who don't bother to think.

That is not how I would describe "undecideds, moderates or even not-part-of-the-base Republicans may have needed to be able to say, enough."

Indeed it is the members of that group, who actually do think, and are able to be swayed by facts and reality that may make a difference in this election. At least I hope so.

Jan Knaus

Because it is very difficult to get your hands on one of the machines. The companies won't sell one to you. So how do you go about getting one?

The ones that have been successfully hacked, were obtained legally. That makes it far more unlikely that the hackers are going to post the hack online.

Remember, the county official in Florida had one hacked as well. It isn't hard.

I wanted to raise one of bluestatedon's points. From what I can tell, the military HATES Bush at this point. Thanks to the unnecessary war in Iraq, Bush and Rumsfeld have basically ruined military readiness for any actual threat to national security--and increasing numbers of top brass know it.

Suppose the Repugnants do lose, declare martial law, etc.--will the military go along with it? My impression of the military is that they have even more respect for the Constitution than the average American does.

Talk about a Constitutional crisis.

marginally related to bush being the general of the rightwingnuts is the fact that like reagan, there will be a push for everything-on-earth named after our great savior george w. bush, and i don't think i can stomach.

I must say, if I were Karl Rove reading this thread, I would be smiling to myself, knowing that I really have gotten into their heads.

Don't get me wrong, there is no one more despicable than Rove. But he happens to have been right an awful lot. And man, is he in your head.

Just remember, he is human and quite capable of getting his comeuppance. Try to see things for what they are and not let him get to you too much.

But I suppose that's easy for me to say. I'm a Detroit Tigers fan.

Indeed it is the members of that group, who actually do think, and are able to be swayed by facts and reality that may make a difference in this election. At least I hope so.

You know Jan though, this is what makes me nervous. My experience and observation has been that many otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people are more than happy to suspend their rational thinking when it comes to faith. Point of fact, I have found that the more intelligent and devout a person is the more likely they are to suspend their own reasoning and simply..."step out on faith or let go and let God"...as they say.

Having reflected on this I pretty much decided that is the real reason many have strong faith, so the individual does not have to engage in that type of difficult reasoning but can just let themselves be confidently guided by their faith.

unfortunately, that means they are sheeple... truly, I can't see how independent thought meshes with religion to the extent that one can be devout unless the individual is willing to suspend reason and simply accept faith for the answers.

BTW, this may be an aside, and is certainly not intended to be a criticism of individuals with strong faith, rather it is a personal observation and what concerns me when we are relying on the 'judgement' of those who are do think yet attend church weekly.

 I think this is why folks have religion in their lives, so they don't have to make the 'tough decisions' they simply have to have faith. Politics with all its corruptions and scandals, represent 'tough decisions' how can one know who to vote for in such a craven, morally depraved and debauched society, without faith?

I think this is the very disillusionment that Kuo is talking about in his expose of the faith initiative and how it is nothing more than shrewd manipulation of those with strong faith. They want someone to tell them who to vote for and why based on faith.

Which is why this Foley thing is the only thing that would shake these folks up, just like the priest scandal, because faith or no faith....no one has a right to threaten the welfare and safety of children. That is one thing folks are not willing to accept faith about, the welfare and safety of kids who are preyed on.

OK, here's challenge then. Get someone hired by Diebold who can investigate this from the insuide and if there's anything amiss he can blow the whistle on the whole business, with solid evidence in hand. There should be plenty of left-leaning programmers (without an obvious political paper trail) who could do this.

Best solution to overcome the voter suppression tactics of Bushco. VOTE ABSENTEE. Paper ballot and hand counted.

I disagree as well. I think it's the right of the people to overthrow a corrupt government if their right to vote is taken away. It doesn't have to be peaceful.

Good point, Dreamer. Because if there is one thing these guys know, it is that going on TV and appearing absolutely sure of victory WILL discourage some Democrats from voting, because "what good will it do to vote if my candidate is just going to lose again?" As unfortunate as it is, people sometimes just give up trying after losing again and again.

Also, it's not uncommon to see the coach of a sports team go out during a press conference before a game everyone is sure they are going to lose and say "I'm not worried; my team's going to show you all how good it is." Bush can't go out and say "we're going to lose big this election." They're going to put on a happy face to show their "team" they are confident.

Here's to them losing the game.

Let the fear-mongering begin!!
NFL stadiums??
Is that the best the Rove team can roll out? Looks like the GOP October Surprise will be "threats" against larg crowds of early season sports fans... PUH-leaze! Anybody want to buy a bridge in lower Manhattan?

I concur.

(I respect and agree with a lot of the other posts on this item. I would need a big book to present a detailed exposition of what I am suggesting. I just thought I would write a little “cut to the chase” comment.)

The Surprise In The October Surprise Is That It Includes Republicans

Olbermann: “Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?”

Surprise! Yes. And by the way, “the viewer” includes Republicans.

Karl Rove is committed to a man, George Bush. He is not committed to the Republican Party, to the Republican base, to PNAC or to any other person or group. He has delivered into the hands of his liege the power to rule without party or platform. Elect all of the Democrats you want. Bush has the NSA and the “Military Commissions Act.” With the former it should be a simple matter to leverage any legislator or political opponent. The authority of the “Military Commissions Act” never need be employed. It stands as such a monumental threat that only the careless would ignore it and the careless tend to self-destruct. And if it ever is exercised no one will know except the target. On the other hand the promise of power that this represents would make any person, or corporation, swoon.

The pattern with the rise of the corporatist political systems in Western Europe in the last century always has a moment when some of the groups who put the “leader” into power have to be jettisoned. These jettisoned groups have one thing in common, they lack an elitist mentality. So part of the “surprise” will be for groups like Republican Congressmen, Evangelical activists, and the Stalinist PNAC crowd. They are no longer welcome at the small dinners, just the big ones. The small dinners will be populated with powerful “earls and lords.” This is now a government of men not laws and that is true from top to bottom.

I do not subscribe to the notion that Karl Rove is a genius. He must be quite clever, perhaps very smart. I doubt that he has considered what happens after 2008. My guess would be that he thinks he can run his operation as long as he has a client in the White House. Given his demonstrated cynicism I suspect Rove thinks the client could just as easily be a Democrat. He is most probably correct.

In a way the real surprise is that Rove/Bush don’t need any more surprises.

I don't know if Rove is a genius but he's damn smart. He engineered Dubya's election twice - he is Bush's brain. I agree his ethics are dubious but he's not the first or last slimy Republican we'll see.

I don't know if Rove is a genius but he's damn smart. He engineered Dubya's election twice

I think the more appropriate term is criminal mastermind vs. smart given that the elections were stolen,

Re: a Princeton computer science professor and 2 students were in the Diebold machine in 10 minutes. See Freedom to Tinker for their blog. Read the Hotel Minibar Keys Open Diebold Voting Machines article to really get blasted.

If they had truly found something nefarious then this would have exploded like an atom bomb over the US political landscape. The fact that it has not (and that they have not published any hard evidence, i.e., actual vote-switching code) proves that they did not. What they did find is that the voting machines are not 100% secure-- but that's true of everything everywhere, and not just computers. Vote fraud has been going on since the Athenians scratched names on ostraka. And please do not trot out the lame line "The media is supressing the story". The media is in business to make money, not to elect Republicans, and if they get hold of something sensational and solid they will run with it and count the coins rolling into their coffers with glee (exhibit one: the Foley scandal). Rigged voting machines would be the equivalent of Watergate, or more. Moreover there is a leftwing media in this country which would hardly ignore such business-- not Rolling Stone which is a good entertainment mag, but whose politics are, well, paranoid like those of a true stoner-- but sober, responsible journals like Mother Jones and the Nation.
the more I think on it the more I suspect (here's my paranoia!) the loonier conspiracy theories (on 9-11 and here as well) are actually GOP disinformatsiya designed to demoralize their opponents ("You can't win cause the voting machines are rigged") and distract public attention from the true scandals going on right under their nose (in this case, massive and well-documented vote suppression tactics).

Coupled with the RNC's turnout apparatus, there will be a terrorist "event," something within Rove's control to spring at a TBD moment, or a selected and massively hyped non-event, followed by a withering barrage of "terrorist sympathizers" charges against Democrats. It will be made to seem that we are, contrary to any doubters, facing a national emergency, with the fate of civilization in the balance.

Any and all of this can - undoubtedly has been - programmed. Would Rove not save his best for last?

Coupled with the RNC's turnout apparatus, there will be a terrorist "event," something within Rove's control to spring at a TBD moment, or a selected and massively hyped non-event, followed by a withering barrage of "terrorist sympathizers" charges against Democrats. It will be made to seem that we are, contrary to any doubters, facing a national emergency, with the fate of civilization in the balance.

Any and all of this can - undoubtedly has been - programmed. Would Rove not save his best for last?

Conspiracy theories aside, the Republicans have a very very good get-out-the-vote machine - the 72 hour Project. That may be the reason for the Cheshire grins on Bush and Rove. The 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections are major examples of the RNCs oganizational skills.

A recent example is the 50th District in California, a seat held by convicted felon Duke Cunningham. Inspite of all the negative publicity over the scandal and a lot of Democratic money that was poured in to support Francine Busby, the Republicans held that seat in the special election and will undoubtedly retain it on November 7th.

Money and a great get-out-the-vote organization is a winning combination and the Republicans spent money and built a very high tech voter tracking process. This election will be a test of Howard Dean's efforts over the past year to rebuild local Democratic organizations.

Polls will likely go up and down and many races are very close. The polls to watch are the last ones two to three days before the election. By that time most of the undecided voters will have picked a candidate. The Democrats have an enthusiastic base, but elections are decided by votes on election day not by opinion polls.

I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also cautious about this election.

I dunno. It strikes me that anyone who is voting for Bush's handling of the economy deserves what they get. In the case of the Paris Hilton class, that's an extra billion dollars, in the case of a middle class American, that's a world class fisting.

The export of jobs and deindustrialization of America begins with Reagan and Bush I, and appears to have accelerated dramatically with Bush II.

The arguments with respect to the stock market are largely mythical. The notion that 80% of Americans own stocks is hardly supportable in any real sense. A large proportion of Americans own mutual funds, which in turn invest in the stock market. But the reality is that 80% of shares in the stock market are owned by 1% of the population.

Given that the stock market seems to do better when unemployment is high and wages are low, that's hardly a good thing for Americans.

But the reality is that 80% of shares in the stock market are owned by 1% of the population.

Just curious. Do you have a citation for this?

The market leveled off in 2000. It did not crash under Clinton, although it lost steam. Likely the creepy prescience of the market was anticipating Bush, under whom it did sort-of crash. Since it began a straight-line climb in July, I say it is anticipating the fall of the GOP and its poor economic policies.

Well, lucky you weren't investing in Enron.

wrb and valdron, oddly enough, I was reading about this today, although not in connection with this thread.

The following is from the Federal Reserve Board in their 2006, Recent Changes in U.S. Family Finances: Evidence from the 2001 and 2004 Survey.

In 2004, ownership of combined direct and indirect public stock holdings was 48.6%. This was a 3.3 percentage point loss to a level last seen in 1995. The loss was spread over all the income groups, except the top 2 deciles and the 55+ age group.

Even worse, the overall median value of the holdings fell 33.8% and was felt by all income groups except the 2nd percentile. (There was some good news in that net worth did rise slightly. Mean value rose 1.5% and median value rose 6.3%. Compare that to 1998 when the median rose 10.3% and the mean 28.7%. However, the bad news offsets the good as debt rose from 12% in 2001 to 15% in 2004.)

The percentage of families holding stocks should not be confused with the number of families holding a percentage of wealth, which is where I think valdron was going.

The Fed's 2006 paper, Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989-2004 allocates the 2004 wealth with the top 10% holding 69.5% of the wealth. The lowest 10% holds a mere 2.5%. Out of the top 10%, the very top 1% holds an astounding 33.4% of all the wealth.

And if you are interested, the fed is claiming that the 2003 tax cuts had no effect on the value of the aggregate stock market in the US. Nor did the US outperform the (socialist) European markets.

"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06