It's Election Day in America, and as is so often the case in this
fickle land, the results of the 2010 midterm elections are up in the air. Although President Obama's party is expected to suffer significant losses,
record numbers of districts remain competitive, and even minute errors in polling could mean the difference between
a historic Republican landslide and
an unexpectedly robust Democratic defense. At stake are control of not just the Senate and House, but myriad state and local offices, many of which will play key roles in the dynamics of the 2012 presidential race -- and, more subtly but no less crucially, the once-in-a-decade
congressional redistricting process. Much uncertainty surrounds the behavior of the electorate -- how many will turn out, and how informed will they be? To help move those statistics in the right direction, look inside for voter guides, national and state fact checkers, and an assortment of other resources to keep tabs on as the results roll in.
[more inside]
posted by Rhaomi
on Nov 2, 2010 -
858 comments
Is the GOP tampering with Florida elections? The New York Times reports that State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November.
Also, see
here and
here.
Why do we even put up with this?
posted by black8
on Aug 16, 2004 -
61 comments
Bush camp solicits race of Star staffer. President Bush's re-election campaign insisted on knowing the race of an Arizona Daily Star journalist assigned to photograph Vice President Dick Cheney.
The jounalist's name was Mamta Popat. She sure
sounds like a terrorist.
posted by JeffK
on Jul 31, 2004 -
30 comments
Republican Dirty Tricks "From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.
The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November." They just can't get Nixon out of their system, huh?
posted by owillis
on Jan 22, 2004 -
124 comments
Democrats finally speaking out? "Today the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives announced that -- and I quote -- 'Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.' Let me make this clear: Never in its history has the United States passed a big tax cut in a time of war. We have always believed in shared sacrifice. " Sen. John Kerry's speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner April 3 in Georgia.
(Salon article, click the free day pass to view)
posted by Espoo2
on Apr 6, 2003 -
29 comments
Political Fratricide: The GOP is reportedly [
+] proposing $15 billion of cuts — or is it $25? — in veterans' benefits between now and 2007, and groups like the
Veterans Against the Iraq War are hopping mad. Hell, I imagine the pro-war wing is pretty peeved, too. It's part of a plan
with delusions of grandeur to deliver massive tax cuts AND kill the deficit ... you know, the one that did not exist before W was elected, as I understand it ... in six years. The original tip is from
Stand Down. The actual status of the cuts is nebulous at this point, however, with the
SF Chron reporting that they will likely fail in the Senate as the tax cut is halved and
others reporting that the die is not yet cast. The House budget resolution, for metafilter accountants who like these things, is
here.
posted by hairyeyeball
on Apr 1, 2003 -
12 comments
Spinning the Environment One section of the memorandum, "Winning the Global Warming Debate," asserts that many voters believe there is a lack of consensus about global warming among scientists. "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly," it says. "Therefore you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue."
Among the ways to "challenge the science," the memorandum says, is to "be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view and much more active in making them part of your message" because "people are more willing to trust scientists than politicians."
So much for science based decisions regarding the fouling of our nest. Sounds Green = Is Green in the bizarro world of spin.
posted by nofundy
on Mar 4, 2003 -
35 comments
Gore questions timing of Iraq concern Is it proper to invade Iraq? This would be an unprecedented move for the US military as Iraq has not attacked the US anyone the US has defense treaties with.
"Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke called Gore's comments "irresponsible."
"This is no time to attack the president or Republicans for their handling of the war for political gain," he said."
Hmmm..so he admits the Iraqi attack IS for partisan political gain, eh? I would have never suspected it.
posted by nofundy
on Jul 26, 2002 -
27 comments
GOP Will Fight GAO Lawsuit. Says Orrin Hatch, "the General Accounting Office, shouldn't be 'trying to impose disclosure on internal White House meetings to determine policy. ... If you have to do that, pretty soon there wouldn't be any meetings.'"
This is going to be a tough move to defend come election time.
posted by Pinwheel
on Jan 30, 2002 -
23 comments
CNN & FOX: Birds of a feather? In an effort to improve his network's image with conservative leaders, new CNN chief Walter Isaacson huddled with House and Senate GOP leaders last week to seek advice on how to attract more right-leaning viewers to the sagging network.
posted by Rastafari
on Aug 5, 2001 -
10 comments
Do Republicans dream of electric sheep? A new study concludes that Republicans have scarier and more frequent nightmares than Democrats. As usual, the explanation for this is split among party lines:
"What do you expect after eight years of William Jefferson Clinton?" -- Kevin Sheridan, Republican National Committee deputy press secretary.
"If George W. Bush were the leader of my party, I'd have trouble sleeping at night, too," -- Terry McAuliffe, Democratic National Committee chairman.
Wow... deja vu
all over again.
posted by Dirjy
on Jul 10, 2001 -
11 comments
Grand Old Petroleum. GOP. Get it? The DNC really cracks me up sometimes. This is, however, an interesting development in politics. Is every issue going to have its own clever webpage in the future? The mind boggles.
posted by CRS
on May 17, 2001 -
17 comments
The link between Reagan's party and Clinton's persecution After power itself, conservative Republicans have wanted nothing more than to round out the 20th century with the ledgers balanced. They needed a Democratic Richard Nixon and a Republican Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Tom Teepen makes a pretty good case here. Clinton wasn't Nixon, and Reagan sure as hell wasn't FDR.
posted by mac
on Apr 2, 2001 -
16 comments
Republicans plan energy bill "Legislation to be introduced next week by the Senate energy committee chairman would pay billions of dollars in subsidies to the energy companies, which gave generously in last year's campaign."
More here.
posted by kliuless
on Feb 13, 2001 -
3 comments
Why HAVE the Republican and Democratic parties shifted about so dramatically? In most periods from 1789 to the present, the US has had two dominant national parties competing to control government: Federalists vs Republicans (1790s-1810s), National Republicans vs Democratic Republicans (1810s-1830s), Whigs vs Democrats (1830s-1850s), Republicans vs Democrats (1850s-present). Despite the changing names, the underlying coalitions have been remarkably stable. In effect, there have been only two main parties in American history: the northern party and the southern party. [via A&LD]
posted by rushmc
on Jan 3, 2001 -
7 comments
What is a likely voter This morning, while listening to Democracy Now, I heard something very interesting. it seems that the Republicans lobbied Gallup to redefine a 'likely voter' for this election season's polling. It seems Gallup is now defining a 'likely voter' as someone who voted in the last three presidential elections ('88, '92, '96). This leads to voters who are older (at least 30) and to people who participated in the last election to elect a Republican. Furthermore this polling method would have shown Bob Dole winning the 1996 election. No wonder Shrub is in the lead.
Savannah Now describes the pool of likely voters "tend to lean Republican."
posted by DragonBoy
on Oct 18, 2000 -
2 comments
The Republicans make character assassination an art form. Several people have linked to this already on their sites and I haven't had a chance to update my own yet, but Phil Agre's latest piece about Republican dirty tricks is a must-read. "The past ten days will go down as a turning point in American history. This is what it's like when the far right is taking over your country: the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character."
posted by Medley
on Oct 16, 2000 -
73 comments
