Washington Liberals Stunned by Poll Results

Or at least they should be.

Strategic Vision has released the results of a poll in Washington, taken Monday through Wednesday earlier this week of 800 registered voters.

1. If there was to be a revote for Governor, would you vote for Dino Rossi, the Republican or Christine Gregoire, the Democrat?

   Christine Gregoire		43%
   Dino Rossi		51%
   Undecided		6%

2. Regardless of who you voted for in November's gubernatorial election, who do you believe actually won the gubernatorial election, Democrat Christine Gregoire or Republican Dino Rossi?

   Christine Gregoire		37%
   Dino Rossi		53%
   Undecided		10%

3. Regardless of who you voted for in November's gubernatorial election, do you view the disputed ballots in King County that gave Democrat Christine Gregoire her margin of victory as legitimate?

   Yes		33%
   No		55%
   Undecided		12%

4. Regardless of who you voted for in November's gubernatorial election, would you favor another election for governor to resolve the election?

   Yes		53%
   No		35%
   Undecided		12%

In addition, voters don't think the courts will allow a revote, have a decidedly unfavorable opinion of Gregoire, are evenly split on their opinion of Rossi, and have unfavorable opinions of both the Democrat and Republican parties by about the same margins.

Once again, the people know best but are gonna get screwed -- and they know it.

Hat tip to ever-observant Advised by Wolves.

Spinning the Numbers

Liberal blogger Donkey Rising is absolutely crowing over the numbers coming from the final count in the '04 presidential election, wherein we find that Bush won with a popular vote of just 50.74%:

So Bush's final percentage point margin is closer to two points than three and his final vote margin is under 3 million. Hardly awe-inspiring--in fact, unprecedentedly weak as incumbent re-election victories go. And we're supposed to believe this is a mandate?

This is a blog that is sadder than Michael Moore at a gun show catered by "Nuthin' but Salad" (come on, emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com? Emerging where? Colorado? Or perhaps Canada?)

Let's put this whole "mandate" in historical perspective (again!).

The electoral college was the only vote recorded before 1824, so a count of popular vote was not taken. Since then, however, there have been 46 presidential elections. Of the 45 elections previous to this one, only 58% were won by a popular vote greater than the 50.74% of the popular vote carried by W in 2004.

That means that 4 in 10 elections were won with a lower percentage of popular votes than in 2004.

If close to 51% isn't a "mandate", what is the magic number? 55%? 60?

Only 13 elections were won with a greater than 55% popular vote (9 Republican and 4 Democrat). Only 4 have been won with greater than 60% of the popular vote (two for each party).

In fact, 17 of these elections resulted in a president that didn't have even a 50% majority of the popular vote. 37%! A nation "more divided than ever"? I don't think so!

Lincoln won reelection with only 55% of the popular vote. But Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia didn't even participate in the election. Would Lincoln have won had these southern states cast their votes? Of course not! Yet many (even many Democrats) consider this Republican to be America's greatest president!

And let's not forget that the liberal's favorite presidential figure, the draft-dodging, whore-chasing, dope-smoking, intern-molesting Clinton, never reached even 50% of the popular vote. Did you hear Republicans whine about "mandate"? No.

In fact, just how may Democrats have ever won with a greater percentage of the popular vote than W took in 2004? Try nine out of twenty -- less than half!

Democrat Presidents Through History
Year	President	Percent of Popular Vote	> 50.74% of Popular Vote?
1996	Clinton	49.2%
1992	Clinton	43.0%
1976	Carter	50.1%
1964	Johnson	61.1%	X
1960	Kennedy	47.7%
1948	Truman	49.6%
1944	F. D. Roosevelt	53.4%	X
1940	F. D. Roosevelt	54.7%	X
1936	F. D. Roosevelt	60.8%	X
1932	F. D. Roosevelt	57.4%	X
1916	Wilson	49.2%
1892	Cleveland	46.1%
1884	Cleveland	48.5%
1856	Buchanan	45.3%
1952	Pierce	50.8%	X
1844	Polk	48.1%
1836	Van Buren	50.8%	X
1832	Jackson	54.2%	X
1828	Jackson	56.0%	X
1824	Jackson	41.3%

Note: for comparisons sake, 70% of the Republicans have won with greater than 50.74% of the popular vote. Does this mean that Republicans almost always carried a mandate while Democrats rarely do so?

So much for the historical perspective; let's take a look at the current situation. To recap: On November 2nd, Americans:

1. Confidently voted the president back into office by a greater margin than four years ago in virtually every state in the union.
2. Turned out in greater numbers in almost all demographics to make W the leader of the free world, including African-Americans, Whites and Hispanics, Union members, Jews and Catholics, Republicans and -- yes -- even Democrats.
3. Exhibited enthusiastic support for the Compassionate Conservative agenda by sending more Senators and Representatives to Congress, leading to an astounding four-seat gain in the closely-divided Senate.
4. Clearly sent a message to the Democrat party that they are too far left by banning same sex marriage in all eleven of the states where it appeared on the ballot.
5. Clear sent a message to the Democrat party that they expected more from them than obstructionism by replacing the 24-year incumbent/minority leader, Tom Daschle.

And they did this in the face of incredibly skewed reporting (worth 15 points according to Newsweek's Evan Thomas), liberal billionaires trying to buy the election and America's most trusted face in journalism trying to influence the election with a late-breaking fake story.

So while Donkey Rising hugs his skewed perceptions close and dreams of a liberal world, the rest of the country will be getting on with what is important: the Global War on Islamofascism, reforming Social Security, fixing education by a method other than throwing money at the problem, putting balance back into the Supreme Court.

Do I agree with everything the president does? Of course not! Do I think that he is the president and as such has the right to act like one? Emphatically yes!

Side note: What does a president do when he doesn't have a "mandate"? Rule by committee?

It's Official: Bush Wins Ohio

All of the absentee and provisional ballots have finally been examined, decided upon and tallied up. The result is that Bush wins Ohio by nearly 120K votes.

Of course, some people just won't let the matter die. Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb have raised the necessary $113,600 to pay the fee for a state-wide recount (and thereby costing the Ohio taxpayer $1.5 million to actually perform the recount) and are expected to file tomorrow. Why?

Recount advocates have cited numerous Election Day problems, from long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods and suspicious vote totals for candidates in scattered precincts.

I would like to go on record as saying that wait for early voting often exceeded two hours in the middle of a weekday afternoon in my (predominantly white) neighborhood, and the wait in the 100% black neighborhood in which I voted* varied from less than three minutes (when I voted) to 15 minutes (when I took my wife to vote).

Yet never have I heard it said that there was an effort to disenfranchise the white vote. I wonder why?

But I digress. Getting back to the recount:

Both major parties have said they do not expect the recount to change the result of the election.

Then why do it? Why burden the taxpayer?

McAuliffe said the party is not seeking to overturn the result but to ensure that every vote is counted. He said the study will be conducted by nonpartisan experts to be announced later, with a report issued in the spring that recommends reforms to prevent such problems in the future.

Note that McAuliffe did not say that he wanted every valid vote counted. Nor did he say that he wanted to cut down on election fraud. He only expresses an interest in counting every vote, be it from a dead person, an illegal alien, a felon on parole, or a dog. He wants every vote counted, not validated.

This is 21^st century America. There is absolutely no valid reason to keep any citizen from getting a picture ID. Yet Democrats continue to argue that the phrase, "May I see your drivers license, sir?" is voter harassment.

It's time that they reevaluate their position on this issue. If massive voter fraud continues to be perpetrated by a tiny minority of Democrats as it was in the last two presidential elections then the people will eventually give the OK to move ahead with a national ID card. And that is something Democrats will be even more opposed to (I hope).

But long-term strategic thinking seems to be outside of the Democrat box.

* Note: during early voting in Tennessee we can vote in any precinct in the county.

Recount Folly

Two weeks ago I posted my extreme displeasure at Libertarian Michael Badnarik for joining up with Green Party's David Cobb to force a recount in Ohio. Their cost will be $113,600. Cost to the Ohio taxpayers is about $1.5 million.

The Toledo Blade is less than happy with the recount:

Remember that if a race is close enough to trigger an automatic recount - contests within one-quarter of 1 percent - the state picks up the tab. The Libertarian/Green recount would be simply to make some obscure political point that will be lost on most people and likely soon forgotten by the rest. Even those who support the recount, including the Ohio Democratic Party and the John Kerry presidential campaign, say they don't expect the outcome to change.

Now comes news that the recount duo is asking for recounts in two more Bush states: New Mexico and Nevada. No word on what the effect will be on the taxpayers in those states.

In other recount news, reporters for The Miami Herald reviewed ballots cast in three hand-picked Democrat counties "that fit the conspiracy theory profile: staunchly Democratic by registration, whoppingly GOP by voting.” The result: "charges of voter fraud were unfounded" and "Bush's steamroll through North Florida was legitimate."

One election supervisor explained why so many Democrats there voted for Bush: "People here are mostly fundamentalist Christians who work in the prisons. Do you think they're going to vote for the liberal senator from Massachusetts?"

Indeed.

Conservatives Spending Money Wisely

Analyzing the spending of the top 15 527s in the 2004 election cycle (courtesy of Open Secrets) one finds that liberals outspent conservatives* by a margin of over 3 to 1 ($205 million to $63 million).

Yet the most successful ads of the campaign season were produced by conservatives:

Public Opinion Strategies found that voters in six battleground states were strongly influenced by three ads - all pro-Bush or anti-Kerry. In addition to the Swift Boat ads, they included "Wolves," a TV ad produced by the Bush campaign using the image of a wolf pack to symbolize the terrorist threat; and the "Ashley" TV ad produced by the Progress for America Voter Fund....

Despite a huge fundraising advantage, the Democratic 527s never produced an ad that was as emotionally riveting and memorable. Said Kerry campaign advisor David Thorne, "The only three ads remembered by voters were all Republican ads - and that was after we spent over $100 million on advertising."

* You must leave out Joint Victory Campaign 2004 as it is a fundraising organization for America Coming Together and Media Fund. As these are the top three 527s, including JVC would result in double counting.

Parsing the Election Numbers

Clarence Page, a Democrat from a blue state has some interesting observations about who voted for President Bush:

• 38 percent of union members
• 40 percent of voters who have union members in their households
• 42 percent of workers who earn $15,000 to $30,000
• 44 percent of those who earn under $50,000
• 45 percent of those ages 18 to 29
• 44 percent of the Hispanic vote
• 11 percent of the black vote (up from the 2000 election, and higher gains in battleground states)
• Unmarried women voted as expected, Kerry by a 2-1 ratio, but "married women tended to vote pretty much like their husbands, overwhelmingly for Bush."
• "Adding insult to Sen. John Kerry's injuries, Bush also won the votes of 13 percent of self-described liberals and 11 percent of self-described Democrats!"

Mr. Page offers an opinion as to why Democrats lost ground in segments once thought secure:

All of this came to mind as I was watching one of my guilty pleasures, "The Wire," an exceptionally realistic HBO series about Baltimore cops and drug gangsters. Like life, it's a complicated show that produces unexpected nuggets of wisdom.

During a dinner conversation, a detective was asked by his political-consultant girlfriend whether he voted for Kerry or for Bush. Neither, he responded wearily. No matter who wins the White House, he said, nothing changes on the streets where he works. Drugs keep flowing, kids keep dying.

There was more fact than fiction in that exchange. If Democrats, the party of poor people, working people and Baltimore people, are not offering a vision of a better future to drug-ravaged neighborhoods, I wondered, who will?

Significantly, Bush has. His administration assists grass-roots, faith-based leaders like Rev. Eugene Rivers, co-founder of Boston's Ten Point Coalition. An effort by more than 50 local churches to join forces with Boston police, courts and City Hall to combat youth violence, the coalition reduced Boston's juvenile homicide rate to zero in the mid-1990s. It made a difference.

Exactly.

Ohio Recount Going Forward

Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb have raised enough money to pay the necessary fees for a state-wide recount of votes cast in Ohio.

The fee is $10 per precinct, which works out to $113,600 for the entire state. A government spokesman says that the actual cost to the various county election boards will add up to about $1.5 million.

Badnarik and Cobb said they aren't trying to overturn President Bush's 136,000-vote victory in Ohio, but just want to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities.

"Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, spokesman for Cobb.

They are spending well over a million dollars of taxpayer's money for a principle? They are making farmers, auto workers, construction workers, single parents, programmers, burger-flippers and all the rest fund their quest to prove a point?

The count will take place after the election results are certified in December so the outcome cannot change anything. At best it will confirm that which has already been decided. At worst (admittedly a low-probability outcome) it will drive a partisan wedge between the right and left so deeply that recovery will take decades. It would engender harsh, poisonous rhetoric, perpetuate the violence exhibited by leftest extremists across this nation during the election season, and encourage, nay mandate, that the Democrats in the legislature obstruct every initiative and judicial nomination that comes out of the White House for the next four years.

It has the possibility of politically paralyzing the nation in a time of war. And for what? A principle.

Note that Badnarik and Cobb aren't trying to ensure the integrity of the vote. They only want to count the votes that were cast. It is a recount of the votes cast. Probably a further review of many provisional ballots.

But it will not address the votes cast by legions of dead people, illegal aliens, ineligible felons and imaginary voters. It is a poor principle they wish to waste taxpayer money on proving.

You can tell the character of a man by the friends that a man keeps as well as his foes. Badnarik is partnering with the far left of the ideological spectrum. I've had my problems with Badnarik before at which time I said I would never again vote for a Libertarian candidate above state level. I am seriously considering extending that ban to the Libertarian party in general. Badnarik is carrying a common sense party to the level of extremism and the people are letting him. I will not be a part of it.

Voter Suppression

Wizbang notes Wikipedia's cataloguing of conspiracy theories about the 2004 election and wonders if Wikipedia has jumped the shark:

Among their dubious evidence is that in an election with record turnout, some people actually had to wait in line to vote. (The horrors.) They call that "voter suppression." That is right below the old "but the vote did not match the exit polls" meme.

I have friends that waited over two hours in heavy GOP neighborhoods in order to vote for George W. Yet I've not heard anyone suggest that the reason was because of a plot to suppress their votes.

Voter Fraud in New Mexico

... and Democrat's attempts to perpetuate the practice:

"In counting the first 5,000 provisional ballots," Fund reported, "observers turned up 53 instances of individuals voting more than once. They also found four voters who were dead and dozens of felons attempting to vote. In two cases, the same individual tried to vote three times: early, absentee and on Election Day."

And those are just the instances that they found. Imagine all the ones that got away with it.

The issue is not likely to die a quiet death. New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron asked the state supreme court Monday to overturn a lower court ruling allowing Republican observers into the polls in Sandoval and Dona Ana counties. Vigil-Giron, a Democrat and elected official, is also seeking permission to evict the observers the Bernalillo County clerk allowed in to watch the counting, contending that New Mexico law does not provide for observers to be part of the review process.

So sad that a party repeatedly resorts to fraud. Even more sad is the perception that "both parties do it" and they are equally to blame. Yet a quick look down the stories collected by Bill Hobbs shows that is just not the case.

What We Were Up Against

Buried in a CNN article, The extraordinary triumph of President George W. Bush, is this tid-bit:

The G.O.P. knew that every last disciple would be needed because the Democrats had so much money to spend this time. The liberal 527 America Coming Together (ACT), which overall spent $125 million registering voters and turning them out, had 30,000 paid foot soldiers in Ohio alone, making ACT, for a day, the state's biggest employer. And alongside act was an army of free-lancers and first-timers and recruits from every Democratic activist group, matching the Republican faithful step for step.

That money train isn't stopping folks. They are already gearing up for the next election.

Wall Street Online

The Wall Street Journal is providing one week's free access. No fees, no signup. Among the interesting content is this election day quiz. Arrghh! I only got 13 out of 20!

VOA Election Coverage

The Voice of America provided election-night coverage in 44 languages and seen by a staggering number of people:

• 268 million in Indonesia
• 50 million in Thailand
• 100 million in India

This list goes on:

Far-flung VOA programming reached Ukraine, Russia, Serbia-Montenegro, Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Cyprus, Haiti and Africa, among others. KBC, the only national TV station in Kenya, broke away from CNN to carry a VOA report on the latest developments in English — and Swahili.

"This intense interest only proves the importance of explaining who we are as a people, and how we live," Mr. Jackson said. "Our mission is not to promote the Voice of America, but to explain U.S. policy and give accurate news to people who may not have access to anything reliable."

Their message must compete against anti-American propaganda, he said, and the cultural vacuum created when there is no news available at all....

"I got a recent call from a viewer in Johannesburg, South Africa," Mr. O'Connell [VOA spokesman] said. "He just wanted to congratulate America for setting an example for the world."

Money Map

Fundrace 2004 has map of funding to each political party and even individual candidates. You can view by county, 3-digit zip code or entire state. Interesting.

Magic Mandate Number

If for no other reason, you have to admire Democrats for their dogged adherence to the party line.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard "not a mandate" in the last 12 hours. They clutch this tired rhetoric to their chest like a tattered battle flag, torn, dirty, dropped in the heat of a lost battle, but now recovered and serving as a symbol of their hoped-for relevance.

I find it fascinating that the party that so consistently celebrates diversity bemoans the fact that we don't all agree, but I digress.

It's time for Democrats to take a step back and evaluate what really happened.

On November 2^nd, Americans:

1. Confidently voted the president back into office by a greater margin than four years ago in virtually every state in the union.
2. Exhibited enthusiastic support for the Compassionate Conservative agenda by sending more Senators and Representatives to Congress, leading to an astounding four-seat gain in the closely-divided Senate.
3. Clearly sent a message to the Democrat party that they are too far left by banning same sex marriage in all eleven of the states where it appeared on the ballot.

In addition, the citizens of South Dakota screamed louder and clearer than Dean ever dreamed that obstructionism and minority rule is not how an American party is expected to operate; they put America first by sending their Senator into retirement and going with an untried Senator, losing the power that comes with having 25 years of seniority.

Yet Democrats insist that Republicans in general and Bush in particular do not have a mandate from the American people. They say that the country is "deeply divided" -- more divided than ever.

This leads one to wonder just what is a "clear mandate"? How often has it been achieved? Just how united have we been in days past?

Since the popular vote started being recorded in 1824 there have been 46 elections (before that, only electoral votes were cast). Of those before the current election year, only 22 (roughly half) have been won with a larger margin than that of President Bush in 2004. The remaining 23 were won by even slimmer margins than the 51.4% achieved by the president yesterday.

Clearly, the country has been divided throughout the history of this little federal republic experiment of ours. If you do better than half of the elections before you, you'd think that was a mandate. Perhaps Democrats don't, so just what is that magic number?

How about 55%? Would that be a "mandate"?

In our history there have been just 13 elections won by a margin of 55% or more, so less than a third of our elections fit into this category.

Can a country be effectively governed if the president can set the agenda only a third of the time? Maybe Democrats think so, but I certainly don't.

So the next time you are talking to some media-puppet who starts spouting Democrat talking points, explain to him or her just how divided this nation usually is. When they begin talking about how contentious todays politics are, invite them to do a little reading and educate themselves. And when they say Bush does not have a mandate, ask them who did. If you get anything other than gibberish or a blank stare please drop me a line. I'd really like to know.

Just for informational purposes, there have only been four elections in which the winner took 60% or more of the popular vote. All happened in the 20^th Century spanning the years from Harding to Nixon.

Query: do you think Democrats thought Nixon had a mandate?

Data (including charts) in Excel 2003 format.
Data sources:

• HistoryCentral.com
• Census.gov (PDF format)
• InfoPlease

Update: Watcher of Weasels addresses this subject rather effectively with Mandate This!

Update: James Taranto notes that Bush received a higher percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat candidate for president has received in 40 years.

Tennessee Results

Follow Tennessee races here.

Looks like Speaker Naifeh is going to keep his seat.

On the other hand, Republicans are taking control of the state Senate for the first time since Reconstruction:

Republican candidates managed to oust several demotratic candidates to win a one-vote majority.

The Republicans now control the senate 17-16.

In District 16, Democratic incumbent Larry Trail lost to Jim Tracy.

In District 18, Republican Diane Black defeated Democratic incumbent Jo Ann Graves.

Democrat Lt. Governor John Wilder managed to fend off republican Ron Stallings to keep his seat. Even though Republicans now control the senate, it's likely Wilder will be voted senate speaker again.

On the down side, Wilder keeps his seat. Too bad -- he had a target painted on him.

Q: Why doesn't Tennessee have an online site with constantly updated voting totals like just about every other state in the union?

All TN Congressional Incumbents Win

All nine of Tennessee's congressmen have won new terms.

Fourth District Democrat Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall beat Republican Janice Bowling of Tullahoma in the closest race.

Democrats Jim Cooper of Nashville, Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro, Harold Ford Junior of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City were easily re-elected. Also re-elected were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, John Duncan Junior of Knoxville and Zach Wamp of Chattanooga.

Incumbent Republican Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood was unopposed.

Democrats still control the delegation 5-4.

An incumbent congressman has not lost in Tennessee since 1974.

Youth Remains Apathetic

Michelle Malkin finds a story that the numbers of youth voters seem hauntingly familiar.

Senate Battles: Final Update

I made my predictions as to what the Senate battles would be and how they would turn out on 16 October. While the nation concentrates on the president, I will keep updating this post with the latest numbers.

State (color is incumbent's party)	Republican Candidate	Democrat Candidate	My Prediction	Actual Result
Alaska	Lisa Murkowski	Tony Knowles	Republicans Retain	Lisa Murkowski
Colorado	Pete Coors	Ken Salazar	Democrat Pickup	Ken Salazar
Florida	Mel Martinez	Betty Castor	Republican Pickup	Mel Martinez
Georgia	Johnny Isakson	Denise Majette	Republican Pickup	Johnny Isakson
Illinois	Alan Keyes	Barack Obama	Democrat Pickup	Barack Obama
Louisiana	David Vitter	John, Kennedy & Morrell	Democrats Retain	David Vitter
North Carolina	Richard Burr	Erskine Bowles	Republican Pickup	Richard Burr
Oklahoma	Tom Coburn	Brad Carson	Republicans retain	Tom Coburn
South Carolina	Jim DeMint	Inez Tenenbaum	Republican Pickup	Jim DeMint
South Dakota	John Thune	Tom Daschle	Democrats Retain	John Thune
Predicted: 2 Seat Republican Pickup			Actual: 4 Seat Republican Pickup

Note: Kentucky turned out to be closer than anyone seriously thought, but Bunning retained the seat for Republicans.

Arlen Specter seems to be squeaking out a victory which is unfortunate. I wish James Clymer (Constitution Party) had siphoned off more votes, giving the Dems a pickup. The funniest thing I've heard in election coverage tonight is Brit Hume calling Specter a "moderate Republican". This guy's about as "moderate" as traitor Jeffords.

Shep says that Vitter is the first Republican Senator from Louisiana -- ever.

Voting: Memphis Report

Right on Red's sister voted this morning, reporting that she waited in line for 45 minutes in the rain.

One person I talked to got to the polls at 7 am and encountered people that had been waiting since 6. His wait was about 45 minutes in a very Republican part of town.

Another person, also in a Republican part of town, arrived at 8:30 and waited a little over an hour

These numbers are not bad, especially when you consider that the wait in early voting lines was frequently in excess of two hours.

Kerry Is No Yoda!

But maybe he wishes he was. Heh!

"Ballsy" Bet

SayUncle has a very successful blog, so his offer to put his blog on the line for a friendly wager is pretty gutsy. Especially considering that he is betting on Bush and he has not exactly been the most supportive of Bush Bloggers.

Of course, he may be ready to quit blogging after the election anyway -- but I doubt it. I've seen no indication to suggest such a thing.

He may be wanting to change to a new blogging format with a new domain name. Something different than his "Libertarians + Lots'a Guns = True Happiness" theme. Perhaps something more marketable to rake in the big bucks from Blog Ads. Like Smurf Porn

Daschle Panics, Sues Republicans

Daschle has asked a federal court to keep GOP poll watchers out of polling places tomorrow.

In 2002 Thune was narrowly defeated and there were reports of vanloads of Indians walking into a polling place and saying that they are one person after another until an unused name was found. After voting they reportedly loaded up and proceeded to the next polling place.

This year:

Daschle charges that GOP poll watchers have been crowding voters in Lake Andes and making notes as they voted, writing down license plate numbers of Native American voters and loudly discussing other Native Americans who have been prosecuted for voter fraud.

There is no evidence to support this claim. Daschle will lose his suit. On the other hand, I predict, Republicans will not be able to stop enough voter fraud to keep Daschle from winning.

Update: A federal appeals court in Ohio has ruled that poll watchers are allowed under Ohio state law.

The court said that while there is a strong public interest in letting registered voters vote freely, there is also "strong public interest in permitting legitimate statutory processes to operate to preclude voting by those who are not entitled to vote."

Hopefully, the feds in SD will follow suit.

Hat tip to the Command Post.

Quote of the Day

From Mark Steyn:

For John Kerry to become President, he has to win 270 of the 538 electoral-college votes.

For George W Bush, it's not quite that simple: he's got to win big enough to be outside the margin of lawyer.

Now that's funny, I don't care who y'are.

Election Day Weather

Indiana and much of the Midwest will be soggy and cool tomorrow, which always suppresses voter turnout.

"The latest models show rain stretching from the deep south into New England, with a pretty significant event in eastern Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York state," said McCoy. "That rain will overspread the entire eastern third of the nation for Tuesday and Wednesday."

Yet another reason that polls are meaningless and projections akin to rolling dice.

Election Night Scenarios

For those of you with friends that says their vote doesn't matter, send them to Squeaker vs. Big Win by Shaking Spears. If that doesn't scare them into voting, nothing will. Either that or they'll die laughing -- either way . . .

The South Dakota Senate Race

Harvard Law School professor William Stuntz gives an effective analysis of why he believes Daschle will lose in South Dakota and why he thinks Republicans will come to regret it.

Although I disagree with both of these assertions, I recommend the article.

Election Night Coverage

Power line will be the place to be on election night. Not only will he be part of "NBC's election night broadcast team", he is requesting that readers send him update emails throughout the evening so he can share it with both the blogosphere and the NBC panel.

Of course, I will also be following the comments at the indispensable Lucianne.com.

Osama bin Irrelevant

Pew Research Center said that bin Laden's lame attempt to influence American voters latest video had "no impact" on likely voters nationwide.

Rasmussen said the same thing, as did an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey.

That's because this is America.

The Problem with Polls

Lots of people are talking about how the polls are showing that Bush is taking the lead and gaining momentum, like the latest from USA Today that shows Bush up by 8.

The problem with polls (even those of "likely voters") is that they don't account for the vote of those that are dead, felonious, duplicated or imaginary. Yet those votes will count. Democrat lawyers will see to that.

Senate Race Roundup

Now that I've taken two days of my vacation to analyze the latest polls and news from ten of the most hotly contested Senate races, I have come to understand just how shaky political prognostication really is. Out of the ten that I looked at, only one is certain, four are pretty solid, two are shaky and the remaining three are pure guesses.

I've summarized my ten postings in the table below, with the colors representing the current office-holder, the candidate's party and the projected winner. Blue is for Republican, red is for socialist Democrat.

State (color is incumbent's party)	Republican Candidate	Democrat Candidate	Race Result
Alaska	Lisa Murkowski	Tony Knowles	Republicans Retain
Colorado	Pete Coors	Ken Salazar	Democrat Pickup
Florida	Mel Martinez	Betty Castor	Republican Pickup
Georgia	Johnny Isakson	Denise Majette	Republican Pickup
Illinois	Alan Keyes	Barack Obama	Democrat Pickup
Louisiana	David Vitter	John, Kennedy & Morrell	Democrats Retain
North Carolina	Richard Burr	Erskine Bowles	Republican Pickup
Oklahoma	Tom Coburn	Brad Carson	Republicans retain
South Carolina	Jim DeMint	Inez Tenenbaum	Republican Pickup
South Dakota	John Thune	Tom Daschle	Democrats Retain

Of course, these are only those races considered "tight". Surprises can happen just about anywhere. Wisconsin has possibilities, although the national Republican party doesn't seem to think so. The Republican's lead in Kentucky seems to be evaporating, although it would have to plummet to disappear by election day. Congressman Toomey is making mischief in Pennsylvania and may just cost incumbent Specter the race (an outcome that I would shed few tears for: even if a Democrat takes that seat I see little difference between the two).

Bottom line: although last December I predicted a four-seat Republican gain (and it is certainly still possible), I am backing off and projecting a net gain of two seats for the Republicans.

The South Carolina Senate Race

81-year-old incumbent Senator Fritz Hollings called it quits, leaving this previously-Democrat seat open in an increasingly-Republican state. Republican Rep. Jim DeMint is running against Democrat state school Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum.

In what is quickly becoming one of the most expensive contests in the state's history, the two campaigns are running roughly equal in campaign funds.

This is a hotly contested race with a slew of negative ads. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has spent or pledged about $3 million on television ads bashing DeMint. National Republican Senatorial Committee is responding with a $1 million ad blitz, although this is a little lower than their original promise of $1.3 million.

DeMint has made a few stumbles in recent days, but he did well in the telivised debates that have aired so far and still leads in the polls.

Bush will sweep the state with a comfortable margin, which will aid DeMint but I don't think he'll need it. This one will be an easy Republican pickup.

The North Carolina Senate Race

Democrats got lucky when Senate incumbent John Edwards decided not to run for reelection so he could devote his time to his vice-presidential aspirations: he wouldn't have won reelection and won't even be able to carry his own state for Kerry.

Five-term Republican Congressman Richard Burr and Democrat ex-Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles are vying for the seat. You may remember Bowles as the Democrat that was soundly beaten two years ago by Elizabeth Dole. However, Bowles has been running a better campaign this time and jumped into a rather significant early lead.

But an aggressive ad campaign and a $10 billion payout from a Republican Congress to tobacco growers has propelled Burr into a virtual tie with his opponent. And while Bowles must not only distance himself from the Kerry campaign and his former boss Bill Clinton, Burr is benefiting from fundraising events with former President George H.W. Bush as the star attraction. In addition, both candidates are receiving help in the form of ads run on their behalf by out-of-state groups, although Burr has been getting the most help so far.

Along with the real estate group, political action committees for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association are promoting Burr. The pro-business Americans for Job Security, an advocacy group, weighed in earlier.

The League of Conservation Voters has bought radio and television ads supporting Bowles. Both Bowles and Burr are receiving boosts from committees established by their national political parties to promote Senate candidates.

Rasmussen puts Burr slightly ahead and it seems that momentum in on his side. Further helping Burr is that Bush will easily carry the state. I think North Carolinians will send a second GOP senator to Washington and predict a Burr victory in November. I place this in the "pickup for Republican" column.

The Illinois Senate Race

Out of the entire country, Illinois is the nexus of Republican missteps. Had freshman Senator Peter Fitzgerald decided to run again, the Republicans would admittedly have had a tough run in this state that is trending Democrat, yet the power of incumbency is worth something.

The Republicans fumbled through a series of blunders as they sought an electable candidate, first angering football hero Mike Ditka by leaking news of a strategy meeting to the press and finally settling on Jack Ryan. This was short-lived as Ryan was enmeshed in a sex-club scandal when a judge ordered his sealed divorce papers be made public. No other viable Republican candidates were found in-state, so the party desperately reached out to Maryland to tap Alan Keyes to compete with Democrat state Senator Barack Obama, pitting one African-American against another and bringing national name recognition.

Keyes has been a disastrous candidate, calling Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter and other homosexuals "selfish hedonists" for having sex without procreating and then further alienating conservatives by proposing to exempt African Americans from income taxes for "one or two generations" as reparations for slavery, not to mention his "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama because of his stance on abortion rights" statement.

Obama has a massive multi-million dollar war chest and is so comfortably in the lead that he is donating large amounts to other Democrat races around the country and even making out-of-state appearances on their behalf. Predicting this one is a no-brainer: both Keyes and Bush go down in flames in Illinois as Democrats pick up a Senate seat.