Us presidential election 2004

[Tovarish 0]

Gotta say, it's likely a trap as denoir pointed out. There's no way they didn't see the backlash coming.

this one in particular made me chuckle:

Quote[/b] ]My dear, beloved Brits,

I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!

Dayton, Ohio

[denoir 0]

It's a pretty nice arrangement. It is very obvious that a segment of chauvinistic Bush supporter would go ballistic over this. It's the same crowd that thought inviting international observers to monitor the US elections was an act of treason. You could count on the being very pissed off and rude.

Of course the point isn't exactly lessened by this being the same bunch who thought a regime change in Iraq by using force was not only America's right but it's God given duty.

Publishing the comments achieves two things. One is that the Bush supporters get represented by the lowest of lowlifes amongst their ranks. The second one is to overtly display a rift in the US-UK friendship - which again will hurt Bush as Blair is the only real European ally that Bush can rely on and showcase as a true international ally.

Of course, the whole thing relies on the story really getting out, which so far hasn't happened. It is growing however. A few hours ago, Google News reported 7 hits on the story. Now it's up to 22. Since internet commentary got even the traditional media reprinting the "Bush bulge" conspircay theory, it's possible that this story will too propagate through blogs and forums into the attention of the mainstream media.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>Bush suppresses damning CIA report on 9/11</span>

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>Intelligence official says a report that is "very embarrassing for the administration" is being withheld from Congress until after the election.</span>

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Robert Scheer

Oct. 20, 2004  |  It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people."

The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."

-- Salon

[Bernadotte 0]

I seriously doubt Kerry will lose NJ, NH, FL, NM, IA and MO.  Just those would give Kerry 297 vs the 270 needed to win.  AR, WS, OH and VA are also shifting to Kerry and would give him another 49.

New Jersey (NJ) => Kerry

Florida (FL) => tie

TODAY:  Kerry 243   Bush 257

Wisconsin (WS) => Kerry

TODAY:  Kerry 253   Bush 247

New Hampshire (NH) => Kerry

TODAY:  Kerry 257   Bush 247

Florida (FL) => Kerry

TODAY:  Kerry 284   Bush 247

...Another day, another state (or two).  

Iowa (IA) => Kerry

New Mexico (NM) => Kerry

However...

Nevada (NV) => Bush

TODAY:  Kerry 291   Bush 247

[denoir 0]

Note this:

Quote[/b] ]

But there are other polls today as well. A new poll from the University of Cincinnati shows Kerry ahead in Ohio, 48% to 46%. Rasmussen's tracking poll shows Bush and Kerry tied at 47% each in Ohio, the first time Bush has not led there for weeks. ABC News says its Kerry 50%, Bush 47%, but Fox News says it is the other way: Kerry 45% and Bush 47%. On the other hand, Survey USA has Kerry ahead 49% to 47%. All in all, Ohio is a complete tossup at the moment; it could go either way.

I'm telling you, Ohio will go Kerry. I'll bet the remaining half of Billybob's postcount on that  

Anyway, what's interesting is that the FOX seems to have a completely different opinion of the way the trend is going. They're saying that Bush is pulling ahead and leading. Granted that's FOX, but I think I saw something similar on CNN.

One explanation could be that their surveys are nation-wide rather than on state level. If the population isn't homogenous enough, this introduces errors. I'd put my money on the state polls as they are more specific.

[theavonlady 2]

Our absentee ballots arrived in the mail today.

Now I have to break my head on assessing who to vote for as NY State senator and Congressional representative, too.

And just who the heck are Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik, both running for president?

Maybe I'll just scribble "Pat Paulsen" in the write-in column.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]..Another day, another state (or two).  

Why does Kerry still have Flordia in his count? Would it be barely Bush or white?

Quote[/b] ]For Bush, the good news is that he is now leading in seven of the 16 battleground states (Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia), his best showing ever in the Zogby poll. The bad news is that all of these leads are within the margin of error, so they are statistical ties.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Our absentee ballots arrived in the mail today.

I had no idea you were dual-citizenship.

Quote[/b] ]And just who the heck are Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik, both running for president?

Calero is straight socialist, as is the presidential candidate running on the Socialist Party ticket. Badnarik is a crazy-ass libertarian who, well, wants his guns, drugs, and money. Think old-school, George Will-type Republican without the puritannical hangups.

As for myself, I managed to get my best friend to pay me a dollar to write her in, so no matter who loses, I win.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for myself, I managed to get my best friend to pay me a dollar to write her in, so no matter who loses, I win.

I think you just broke a law....

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for myself, I managed to get my best friend to pay me a dollar to write her in, so no matter who loses, I win.

I think you just broke a law....

No, she broke a law. I assure you that the proper authorities will be contacted if she doesn't pay up.

[Bernadotte 0]

Maybe I'll just scribble "Pat Paulsen" in the write-in column.

LOL... You're showing your age.    ...mine too.  

[Colossus 2]

Damn the central states, it's all Bush land.

But we better be optimists, so yet again:

Go Kerry

EDIT: Anyhow, look at what our little nice

Albino Blacksheep has linked for us.

Go Nader

[theavonlady 2]

EDIT: Anyhow, look at what our little nice

Albino Blacksheep has linked for us.

Go Nader

"Music by: Hans Zimmer"

LOL

[Bernadotte 0]

Damn the central states, it's all Bush land.

Sometimes it's useful to look at a Cartogram of the map, which re-sizes each state proportionally to its number of electoral votes:

Why does Kerry still have Flordia in his count? Would it be barely Bush or white?

He got it wrong. The Zogby poll showing Bush ahead in Florida and elsewhere was centered around 15 Oct. A 17 Oct Florida poll has Kerry ahead.

[Colossus 2]

-deleted-

In stead I want to say... Ni!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sometimes it's useful to look at a Cartogram of the map, which re-sizes each state proportionally to its number of electoral votes:

bah 1%...

[Schoeler 0]

Note this:

Quote[/b] ]

But there are other polls today as well. A new poll from the University of Cincinnati shows Kerry ahead in Ohio, 48% to 46%. Rasmussen's tracking poll shows Bush and Kerry tied at 47% each in Ohio, the first time Bush has not led there for weeks. ABC News says its Kerry 50%, Bush 47%, but Fox News says it is the other way: Kerry 45% and Bush 47%. On the other hand, Survey USA has Kerry ahead 49% to 47%. All in all, Ohio is a complete tossup at the moment; it could go either way.

I'm telling you, Ohio will go Kerry. I'll bet the remaining half of Billybob's postcount on that  

Anyway, what's interesting is that the FOX seems to have a completely different opinion of the way the trend is going. They're saying that Bush is pulling ahead and leading. Granted that's FOX, but I think I saw something similar on CNN.

One explanation could be that their surveys are nation-wide rather than on state level. If the population isn't homogenous enough, this introduces errors. I'd put my money on the state polls as they are more specific.

Another reason could be that Bill Clinton has pledged to help eliminate the deregulation of the media that was enacted under his administration if Kerry gets elected.

Can anyone say goodbye big corporate media conglomerates ala Fox and CNN?

[EiZei 0]

Can anyone say goodbye big corporate media conglomerates ala Fox and CNN?

CNN is owned by time-warner among lots of other media outlets.

</nitpicking>

[denoir 0]

Ugh, Time Warner owns Winamp?  

Anyway, here's Muroch's equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

It will be a good day for free speech when those conglomerates are broken up. Anybody seen the documentary "Outfoxed"? I can highly recommend it - it's about the methods and political bias of FOX.

I think however that FOX has shaped up the last few months and at least try to disguise their bias a bit better. As for CNN.. it's such crap that it hurts to watch.

[llauma 0]

Ugh, Time Warner owns Winamp?  

Anyway, here's Muroch's equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

It will be a good day for free speech when those conglomerates are broken up. Anybody seen the documentary "Outfoxed"? I can highly recommend it - it's about the methods and political bias of FOX.

I think however that FOX has shaped up the last few months and at least try to disguise their bias a bit better. As for CNN.. it's such crap that it hurts to watch.

Yes, I was surprised when I saw that too.. They complain about people downloading songs etc. but still they own the biggest mp3 player company.

Is Outfoxed the documentary that was shown on SVT a few days ago? Quite entertaining and disturbing..

[denoir 0]

And here we have our 30 day prediction, which states that in 30 days, Kerry will have a significant lead

Almost 30 days have past since that model, so it's time for a new one.

Again a neural net is used, but this time we go for a 13 day prediction (until 2/11), which should give a bit better accuracy.

Or if we superimpose it on the Electoral Vote Predictor graph:

Nasty, eh? At the final point Kerry has only a slight lead over Bush and is plunging. Basically the prediction says that Kerry will win with a small margin and had the elections been a few days later Bush would have won

Now don't take this prediction too seriously. Although the previous model happened to be correct at this point, I would more attribute it to chance than accuracy of the model.

Quote[/b] ]

Why the prediction above is not to be taken too seriously:

[*] Too little data. To make good generalizations, neural networks need lots of data. The neural network above was trained with 150 data points, which is about 20 times to little to guarantee good generalization capabilities. When neural networks get too little data, they start learning it by heart - meaning that they perform well on the data that they have been presented with during training, but perform terribly on new data.

[*] This prediction is based on the the Electoral Vote Predictor data. They translate popular support in the states in polls directly into ECVs, which introduces a number of errors.

[*] As Bush and Kerry are almost tied, in most polls the data is within the sampling error of the poll - meaning that the polling data is worthless in the first place.

[*] The big assumption in any statistical model, including neural networks is that there is some form of encapsulated pattern in the data. The popularity of the candidates is however mostly determined by external factors, that are not part of the model (debates etc). The only input the neural network model has is past values, which only allows it to find general trends and repeating patterns. That simply isn't enough for a prediction as the external factors are orders of magnitude more important than the past values.

So the prediction above is basically the best you can do with the data that exists. There is however little data and it's fairly crappy, so one can't really expect any great accuracy. Take it with a big grain of salt.

Edit: If anybody ever had any doubts about the bias of FOX, should read this interview with Cheney. Just amazing. Have they no shame? It makes Soviet-era issues of Pravda look like good objective journalism.

Arn't there election laws against this kind of stuff?

[Bernadotte 0]

Simply stunning.

http://www.youforgotpoland.com

Thats, what, 3 hours?

edit - looking at the source "props out to the RateBeer crew.  Rate On Raters!

Hey FSPilot, have you visited the site since the first debate?

It's hardly Bush-friendly territory.

My favourite:

LMAO

[Winters 1]

Ha HA Ha HA HA aha aaaahhhaaaaaaaa

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....ericans

Quote[/b] ]

Little Saigon Voters Not Embracing Kerry

Thu Oct 21, 1:59 AM ET  

By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer

WESTMINSTER, Calif. - In the teeming markets and cafes of Little Saigon, generational changes and misgivings over his policies have weakened President Bush (news - web sites)'s support among Vietnamese-Americans. Still, few are embracing his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites).

Most people in the nation's largest Vietnamese community respect that Kerry, unlike Bush, risked his life and fought the communists during the Vietnam War. It's what Kerry did when he returned from the battlefield that angers them.

Many resent Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War as a young veteran and later, as a senator, engaging with Vietnam's communist leaders and not taking a tougher stance on human rights and democracy in their homeland. Bush also supported engagement with Vietnam, but Kerry gained notoriety in the Vietnamese community.

"It's a very sensitive issue for anyone who's a registered Democrat," said Xuan Vu, 31, a community activist and Democrat in Orange County. "People feel very hesitant about Kerry. If they vote for Kerry, it's really about how much they dislike Bush."

A spokesman for Kerry's campaign in California declined to comment. The Massachusetts senator leads Bush in California, 58 percent to 40 percent, according to a Los Angeles Times poll released Wednesday.

In the decades since the communists prevailed in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, many with links to the South Vietnamese government and army, have immigrated to the United States. More than 1 million now live in this country. Orange County has the most people of Vietnamese descent — 130,000, according to the Census.

As voters, Vietnamese-Americans have traditionally backed the GOP because of its strong anti-communist stance. But between 1992 and 2002, the share of Vietnamese registered as Republicans in Orange County fell from about 60 percent to about one-third, as more voters identified themselves as independents and Democrats.

"The segment of the community that participates remains in vigorous opposition to the government of Vietnam," said Christian Collet, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine. "What you have seen in recent years, however, is a greater willingness of younger Vietnamese-Americans to speak out and oppose this view."

Vietnamese reared in the United States tend to be more socially liberal and less Republican than their parents. They worry more about education, jobs and the economy than about communism and U.S.-Vietnam relations.

Many older immigrants remember Kerry as the angry young veteran who railed against the Vietnam War and tossed his medals at an anti-war rally in Washington. He also is remembered as the Senate subcommittee chairman who two years ago blocked the Vietnam Human Rights Act after it passed 410-1 in the House.

[denoir 0]

Clark County mistrusts anti-Bush letters from Brits [Middletown Journal]

Quote[/b] ]

SPRINGFIELD — The letter came addressed to her mother, but Beverly Coale wasn’t expecting anything from England. She began to fear the writer had an underhanded motive.

“You think, ‘Is this really a letter from a guy in England, or is it from a terrorist?’†Coale said.

Coale threw the correspondence away until she read a Springfield News-Sun article about a letter-writing campaign sponsored by the Guardian, a 400,000-circulation paper based in London. The Guardian has asked its readers to contact 36,000 undeclared Clark County voters in an attempt to influence the presidential election. Coale’s mother, Thelma Arnold, has not voted in recent years because of various illnesses, but she still is registered.

The Guardian is considered left-leaning and has been critical of American foreign policy and President Bush’s administration. The paper said 46 percent of its readers support Democratic Sen. John Kerry and 16 percent are pro-Bush.

“You may be wondering, I know I would, why someone from the United Kingdom would care so much about the outcome of the forthcoming election in America. The answer is that the result is perhaps further reaching than you may imagine,†Neil Evans, of Kent, England, typed.

Coale, who already has cast her vote for Kerry, called the letter propaganda and said she was shocked her mother received it.

“Please act now to preserve your once-great name internationally. We know the majority of you didn’t vote for Bush the first time around, but voting him in for a second term will mean putting on a Canadian accent when traveling abroad,†Evans said in his letter.

Although Coale called the letter courteous, she said that she thinks the writing campaign will not work because the American people are too smart to be influenced by people outside of the country.

[...]

LMAO (Or distrubing when you think that people like that vote and procreate )

now.. is this really a post from a guy from Sweden or WAS IT FROM A TERRORIST?