HorsesAss.Org

Early voting has now begun in all 50 states, and it appears that turnout thus far is largely favoring Obama… a fact that did not escape a group of Republican protesters who gathered to heckle early voters yesterday in Fayetteville, North Carolina, accusing a line of mostly black voters of being “cheaters”:

Also at the polling site was a group of loud and angry protesters who shouted and mocked the voters as they walked in. Nearly all were white.

As you can see from these videos, no one held anything back. People were shouting about Obama’s acknowledged cocaine use as a young man, abortion and one man used the word “terrorist.” They also were complaining that Sundays are for church, not voting.

So this is what the Republicans have been reduced to… complaining that voting is cheating.  And they wonder why they’re losing this election?

Though, I don’t think it’s all that coldly calculating to actually admit to being coldly calculating, but, you know, whatever.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 360 electoral votes	Mean of 178 electoral votes

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 370 to 168 electoral votes. In an election held yesterday, Obama would
have almost certainly won.

There were eight new polls in six states released today that weigh in on the score. The most influential are two West Virginia polls that hand the state back to McCain, and a new poll showing McCain leading by +1% in Ohio. As a result, McCain gains back some lost turf today.

Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama still wins them all and, in a hypothetical election held today, receives (on average) 360 to McCain’s 178 electoral votes. Obama would still win an election held now with near certainty.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

Senate Democrats	Senate Republicans
100.0% probability of a majority	0.0% probability of a majority
Mean of 59 seats	Mean of 41 seats

Here is an analysis of the recent Senate polling and what these polls suggest about control of the Senate. I am using methods identical to what I’ve been doing for the presidential race except that, because of the relative paucity of polling in Senate races, I use polls taken in the last three weeks as “current” polls.

A Monte Carlo analysis of 100,000 simulated elections gives Democrats control of the Senate with, on average, 59.0 seats to the Republican’s 41.0 seats. The analysis suggests that, if the election had been held today, the Democrats would have about of 30% chance of taking a “veto-resistant” 60 seat majority.

Here is the distribution of outcomes from the 100,000 simulations. The tallest bar (i.e. the mode) in the distribution is at 59 seats. (Of course, I am assuming that the two “Independents” in the senate—Senators Sanders and Lieberman—continue to caucus with the Democrats. There is about a 25% probability of exactly 60 seats and about a 5% probability of taking 61 seats.

Detailed results for this analysis, including the polls that contributed to this analysis, are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

At long last, someone has been arrested for voter registration fraud. Too bad for the McCain campaign it’s a Republican being accused. From The Los Angeles Times:

The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario late last night on suspicion of voter registration fraud.

State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California.

Jacoby is accused, according to the article, of duping voters into registering as Republicans by presenting them with a fake initiative petition that would “crack down on child molesters.”

Every desperate line of attack by the Republicans is turning into an exploding cigar. Sure, there’s two weeks left, but there’s little evidence any of the baloney about socialism and all the other crud is doing anything but making a few fringe lunatics say mean things. Obama has stated he can endure the slings and arrows for a few weeks, so I guess we all shall.

It’s too soon to declare the McCain campaign one of the worst on record, but that possibility is starting to appear on the horizon. Yeah, yeah, don’t let up and throw them anchors and crush their spirits and all that, but seriously, the McCain campaign is one big stinking pile of putrid stuff that smells bad to this point.

The McCain campaign has somehow managed to combine the charm of Dick Cheney and the effectiveness of Michael Brown, with a soupçon of Dukes of Hazard. It’s times likes these we really miss the late Molly Ivins. She doubtless could have described it better, and thrown in a reference to some kind of varmint.

Serious Republicans know their standard bearer’s campaign is a disaster, and you have to wonder just how willing some of them are to keep re-arranging the deck chairs while the band plays.

Eli Sanders has posts here and here.

Andrew Villeneuve has several posts from the event here.

Calling him a “transformational figure,” and praising his “steadiness,” “substance,” and “style,” former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama for President this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press.

It is important to note that throughout his comments, Powell clearly self-identifies as a Republican, roundly criticizing his own party and the McCain campaign, both for their divisive tactics and their dramatic shift to the right.  Some will trumpet this endorsement as that of a General and Secretary of State.  Some will dismiss it as merely that of a fellow black man.  But above all, this is the endorsement of a Democrat by a high ranking, high profile, widely respected Republican.

In other news, the Obama campaign announced today that it raised a record $150 million in September, averaging less than $100 per contribution, and adding over 632,000 new donors. From a simple fundraising perspective, this has been without a doubt the most small “d” democratic campaign in history, clearly changing the rules of the game from here on out.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 370 electoral votes	Mean of 168 electoral votes

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 369 to 169 electoral votes. An election held yesterday almost certainly would have gone to Obama.

There were new polls released in Florida, Maine, North Carolina and Wisconsin today. The net result is the gain of another electoral vote for Obama.

Today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins all 100,000 times. Obama receives (on average) 370 to McCain’s 168 electoral votes. The analytical results suggest that Obama would have a near 100.0% probability of winning an election held today.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ.The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

Some classy folks at a Palin rally in Johnstown, PA:

100,000 people see Obama in St. Louis:

Last week’s contest was won by Erasmus, who first guessed the correct location of Copenhagen, and wes.in.wa, who found the link. Here’s this week’s contest. Good luck!

Nir Rosen has an amazing account in Rolling Stone of his journey into Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan. Rosen discovers some expected things, for instance, that it’s still a dangerous region where foreigners are not welcome and coalition forces only engage from the air. But he also finds some unexpected things, like that the ranks of the Taliban are not so much the religious fundamentalists that they once were. Their movement is once again driven primarily by nationalism, as was the mujaheddin that drove out the Soviets in the 1980s.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have said they’d send more troops to Afghanistan, but they should also listen to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen:

But Mike Mullen added bluntly that military means alone were no longer sufficient. “We can’t kill our way to victory,” he declared. “Afghanistan doesn’t just need more boots on the ground.” The keys to success, he explained, were “Foreign investment. Alternative crops [to replace poppy cultivation]. Sound governance. The rule of law… No armed force anywhere — no matter how good — can deliver these keys alone.”

This is why I’ve cringed when Afghanistan has come up at the debates. Obama hasn’t even dared to challenge John McCain on whether or not the surge in Iraq worked. The reduction in violence in Iraq came from reaching out to former insurgents, improved tactics on the ground, building walls throughout Baghdad, and the fleeing of millions of Iraqi’s who’ve seen their prospects for a better life dwindle. Having greater numbers of troops was certainly helpful, but it was far from being the main thing that quieted down the insurgency. And Mullen is warning us not to take such a simple-minded approach to Afghanistan, even as John McCain keeps talking about bringing “the surge” there as well. That Obama appears to be the one candidate more willing to listen to Mullen’s advice is just one of the many reason why he’s getting my vote this year.

As part of the new push in Afghanistan, NATO recently authorized coalition forces to target the drug trade more directly by going after traffickers, labs, and drug lords, but leaving the farmers alone. Afghanistan still produces a majority of the world’s heroin which, despite being illegal, accounts for over 50% of the country GDP. And it’s because Taliban forces have provided protection for the industry that they’ve become such a well-funded and well-armed fighting force threatening to topple the coalition-led leadership across the county. Now the coalition will be trying to go after the people who’ve been paying the Taliban:

The alliance is not in the business of crop eradication, [Sec. of Defense Robert] Gates said, “but if we have the opportunity to go after drug lords and … labs — to interrupt this flow of cash to the Taliban — it seems like a legitimate security endeavor.”

Up until now, the only method being used to eliminate the opium crop was to have Afghan-led eradication teams tour the countryside and plow over opium fields. This approach has been totally ineffective. The teams were easily corrupted, often being used by a local drug lord (who would often happen to also be within the government) to eliminate a rival’s crops. Considering that individuals within the Bush Administration and the C.I.A. openly accept that even Hamid Karzai’s brother is involved in the trade, it’s easy to see why trying to enforce this law has been pointless.

Hard-core drug warriors in the Bush Administration and Congress continually pushed for aerial eradication (including Joe Biden, who helped push a bill to allow dangerous toxins to be dumped on Latin American fields). Our NATO allies and the Afghan Government both opposed us. What’s happening now is clearly a different approach, but it’s every bit as pointless. What we’re trying to do is similar to what we’ve been trying to do in Mexico for years. And when you’re dealing with an industry that accounts for half of a nation’s economy, destroying a few labs and killing some of the drug lords is not going to put a dent in the profiteering.

Instead, Taliban forces will shift from guarding the opium fields to guarding both the labs and the drug lords themselves. The more effective the coalition becomes at eliminating the elements of the trade, the more money will be spent for protection. While it seems like a legitimate security endeavor to Bob Gates, it’s actually one that will completely backfire. As with every anti-drug initiative we undertake in our foreign policy, we forget that the source of the money cannot be uprooted by eliminating the supply. As long as the demand for that supply exists, the best we can ever do is move it, as we once moved it in the 1970s from Turkey to Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, was done in part by allowing Turkey to legally grow it).

The foreign policy discussions in the Presidential debates have rarely deviated from the belief that we defeat our enemies across the globe through fear and intimidation. And in Iraq, our attempts in the early stages of the occupation to use the military alone to quell the insurgency just fanned the flames until we got smart and sat down with the leadership in Al-Anbar and other dangerous areas. Human beings tend to react one way or another to overly authoritarian approaches. Some submit, others rebel. How much of each group there ends up being tends to rely on whether the authority is trusted. In Iraq, we’ve gotten to a point where the vast majority of Iraqis are never going to see us as legitimate occupiers in their nation. It’s possible to keep a rebellious population under wraps if you have the resources, but it doesn’t provide security in the way that the proponents of that policy hope for. Israel has been lost in this psychological quagmire for decades when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza.

In Afghanistan, our unwillingness to dial back our air offensives, which even Hamid Karzai has questioned, is only part of why we’re losing ground there. It’s also because we believe that the drug trade is a form of defiance in much the same way that refusing to accept the coalition’s right to be there and rebuild the country is a form of defiance. It’s not.

The case of Bashir Noorzai is a good indication of how this misunderstanding will only make matters worse there. Noorzai was a wealthy drug lord who came to New York in the hopes of working with Americans to improve the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. It was all a ruse. He was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now the strategy is to go after these guys all over Afghanistan. But people like Bashir Noorzai don’t break the law because they hate us or because they support the Taliban. They break the law because it allows them to be rich and powerful. Our decision to go after a heroin trade that we will never be able to stamp out aligns those whose motivation is profit and power with those whose motivation is to get the foreigners out of their country. This will just accelerate the defeat of Karzai’s fragile regime. We are hooked on a bad policy that just gets exponentially worse as we ignore the real roots of the drug trade and blame those trying to profit from it. While I’m eager to vote for Barack Obama in two weeks, I worry that this mess could eventually be his undoing.

Republican congress-critter calls for investigations of “anti-American” activities, Democratic opponent gets darn near close to a half million dollars in donations in 24 hours.

Yes, but what do the netroots actually do? It’s a mystery.

Sen. Haugen is a communist? Really?  That’s the best they can come up with?

Talk about being stuck in 1982.