England becoming a police state?

John Derbyshire, The Corner’s resident pessimist and a (legal) immigrant from England, refers us to a London Telegraph article that seems to indicate the trusted bobbies of Sherlock Holmes’ day are turning into ill-trained bullies, all in the name of the war on terror. The story is that of an innocent British subject who was minding his own business when he was hauled off to the hoosegow for having a penknife in his possession found during a random traffic stop. Please read the article because I’m not going to do much direct quoting from it. I’ll wait.

Now, this is just anecdotal evidence - one man’s story – and we don’t know how complete and accurate it is. I’m sure the list of people who would say they were treated right when they were arrested is very short, indeed. But, disclaimer aside, it is easy for people, being naturally nervous when confronted by The Law to fear this kind of story to be true. And with things that we know to be happening, like random searches at airports, kids suspended from school for carrying a nail clipper and the Brits’ strange attitudes on self-protection, it becomes entirely credible.

I’m much in favor of the war on terror - although I would rather it were called the war against Jihadistan to help focus our concerns on the real threat – but I would like to think we and the British are being sensible in the way we go about it. We, the people are willing to put up with all sorts of inconvenience if it is necessary and effective. We’ll go along with a new super-sized Department of Homeland Security and some constitutionally arguable provisions in the Patriot Act as long as they help keep us safe and are sensible.

The Patriot Act is a magnet for lefty-bot fears, such as John Ashcroft, oops, I meant Alberto Gonzales dropping in on the local library to see who’s reading what, and I’ll admit we must be very careful in yielding any Fourth amendment rights because they’re awful hard to recover. Just look at the list of transgressions this English guy suffered and ask yourself how they came to be allowable in a free country.

Random traffic stop
Search of vehicle and briefcase
Accusation of racism
Arrest for carrying legal, unregulated consumer products
Detention for seven hours
Assault and re-arrest for a minor non-threatening comment

All in all, he took it a lot better than most of us would have. Must be that British stiff upper lip thing.

“In my cell, I thought a bit about the way I had been treated. For the police to be behaving like this at a time when we are all concerned about terrorism and street crime, and when resources are stretched and manpower is limited, seemed extraordinary.”

To sum up:

Terrorism = bad
Strong measures to fight Jihadistan = good
Random searches for pocketknives = stupid
Poorly trained, poorly directed police = dangerous to a free society

Best news I’ve heard since election night

Phil Gramm, the former senator from Texas, is very interested in becoming Secretary of the Treasury if and when (more likely when) John Snow leaves. According to the Prowler,

"Gramm would lend extra heft to a Bush Administration desperately trying to build support for two critical issues it will press in the coming years: overhauling and simplifying the tax code, and partial privatization of Social Security accounts. Both issues were important to Gramm in his Senate days, and his genial public face and tough talk are thought to be a plus in making the public appeal on these issues."

Gramm was one of my favorite senators, primarily because he did champion the issues above and he was serious about reductions in government spending. If he does succeed Snow, it will be a good sign that the White House is too.

Berlusconi Calls for Tax Cuts; Says Euro Strangling Economy

Italy may have about the best Prime Minister in Europe. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another who actually seems to have a grasp of what low taxes can mean to an economy.

Silvio Berlusconi announced that if some stragling members of Italy's ruling coalition refuse to go along with tax cuts, he'll call for new elections ahead of schedule. It's sort of akin to Republican President's here in the U.S. calling for a vote on tax cuts just before midterm elections to force the Democrats to go on record. Well, except that in a parliamentary system, rather than wait for the election, you can call for them to be held right now. The speculation is that holding elections in such a situation would be hard on the more centrist members of the coalition.

Calling for tax cuts is always a way to get on my good side.

Adding to Berlusconi's studliness is that he's sick and tired of the one-size-fits-all mentality of the EU regarding government debt and currency valuation. Since its inception, the Euro has been operated with an exceptionally tight money supply. Essentially, it's a sop to the Germans and French economic structures.

The stated goal for creating the Euro was to create efficiencies in trade between EU members. Instead, the tight monetary policy has hindered trade because there are too few Euros to go around. They need to open up the money supply to create a little liquidity and flexibility in the economy. Berlusconi understands this and is stating so with increasing frequency and vigor.

I'm not talking about printing money willy nilly. You don't want inflation like the U.S. in the 1970's or Germany between the wars. But, just as too much money printing can cause problems, too little can be dangerous as well, making trade and economic transactions difficult. The EU is near that point. Keep at 'em Silvio.

Ukraine Election

This is interesting.

The Ukraine held a runoff election yesterday, Sunday the 21st of November, to chose its next President. This is a follow-up to general election held a couple weeks back. The contest is between two Viktors. Viktor Yanukovych is the designated successor to the current President. Mr. Yanukovych is pro-Russian. The challenger is Viktor Yuschenko. Mr. Yuschenko is in favor of integrating the Ukraine into western Europe and the U.S.

Lots of stories have been coming in about irregularities in the counting. In one case, police officials in some cities have stated that they were ordered to rig the election. And, mirroring the U.S. election, exit polls placed Mr. Yuschenko far ahead of Victor Yanukovych.


Supporters of the losing candidate, Mr. Viktor Yuschenko have begun protesting the results in the city squares of Kiev. Mr. Yuschenko is doing little, if anything, to quell the unrest.

You know, this is the reason that the rest of the world looks at the U.S. and wonders how we do it. We've had a couple of contentious elections the last two times we've elected a President, and yet there hasn't been any type of general unrest. Yeah, there are nutters that keep claiming that the election was stolen, but very few serious people take such claims seriously. The fact is that Americans accept that our system is reasonably fair and generates legitimate results. Yet throughout the world, that is generally not the case, even those in places that we think of as developed. We really are blessed here.

I'd like to support the opposition candidate here, Mr. Yuschenko. It'd be great to have another European leader that is pro-west and more inclined to develope ties with the U.S. But, if you want a democracy to survive, you have to accept the results of the election. Absent actual compelling evidence of fraud, you have to accept that your guy lost. The survival of democratic government depends upon it.

The Face of Evil

In Iran a fourteen year old boy was sentenced to receive 85 lashes for committing a crime. He later died as a result of the injuries he sustained.

What was his crime? Did he murder? Did he rape? Did he even steal?

No.

He broke the Ramadan fast. You read that right. He ate a meal between sunrise and sunset during the month of Ramadan. That's it. And for that, he was whipped to death.

Simply disgusting.

Job Market Picking Up in Des Moines?

A new report states that Des Moines ranks 44th out of 200 cities in areas of job growth, wages, and high tech businesses. Now, this isn't beating the world, but its a big jump from the 87th place that Des Moines was in a year ago. It also places Des Moines ahead of such cities as Minneapolis (82nd), Milwaukee (163rd), Omaha (116th), and Kansas City (109th).

Outstanding.

Had the honor of meeting Iowa Geek for a beer this evening. An excellent gentleman and every bit as thoughtful as he comes across in writing.

So, I've met David from Hog Haven, Joe from Roth CPA, Royce from Iowa Libertarian, and now Doug from Iowa Geek. I just love the blogger community. Great bunch of people.

Is Something Going Down In North Korea

The BBC is reporting that pictures of "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il have been removed from some public buildings in North Korea. Hmmm....considering the utterly ubiquitous nature of the photograph and the cult of personality that the Kims, both Jong-Il and his father Il-sung, have maintained for the last fifty years, this is an odd development. This is unlikely to have just happened. Nothing just happens in Pyongyang.

One of the commenters to this post at the Captain's Quarters is speculating that perhaps the Chinese are making a move to clean up the North Korean mess that is causing no small problem to China.

Kim Jong-Il is simply nuts, a trait he inherited from his dad. On top of that, they've so thoroughly run the nation into the ground that the majority of the people are starving, threatening to throw the nation into utter chaos. At one point, members of the military were still being fed. Now, if reports are to be believed, order in the military is beginning to break down. North Korea is a basket case. Frankly, at this point, I wouldn't be upset with China stepping into the breach to rein in Pyongyang. China is certainly no friend of the U.S., but at least it is stable. For the most part, you know what you are going to get.

Also, if Kim Jong-Il and North Korea were to be dealt with by China, it would essentially leave just one member of the Axis of Evil--Iran.

Update: Chad called to say that as of about 4 PM, November 17, North Korea had issued a statement in which Kim Jong-Il was not referred to as "Dear Leader." That's interesting.

Polk County Voting Precinct By Precinct

The Des Moines Register has a nifty little feature up that shows how each precinct in Polk County voted for President. The thing that surprises me, although maybe it shouldn't, is the staggering nature of how the county pretty much splits between Des Moines and everyone else.

What proof?

Of 102 precincts in Des Moines, Kerry won all but six or seven.

On the other hand, Bush won every precinct in Ankeny, Altoona, Clive, Johnston, Grimes, Pleasant Hill, and Urbandale. Bush won 14 of 17 precincts in West Des Moines.

What can explain that distribution? I don't think its just wealth as the northwest part of Des Moines has similar home values and wealth to the parts of Urbandale it abuts up against, yet the Des Moines precincts are Democrat and the Urbandale precincts are Republican.

The only concrete thing I can think of is that the suburbs have a greater proportion of households with children still in the house. Considering that most of the polling leading up to the election demonstrated that people married with kids tend to vote GOP at about a three-to-one clip, that might explain it.

However, I can't help but wonder if there is either a sort of bandwagon effect where people begin to vote Republican or Democrat because they believe that's what their neighbors would do. Or, perhaps we really are self-segrating along political lines.

I'm going to have to contemplate this some more.

Should Presidential Candidates Blog?

That's the question that the Power Line is asking. But I think the more interesting question is raised by a statement made in the middle of their post. Namely, why do institutional blogs (for example, those done by businesses or political parties) tend to be so darn lame?

Answer: Campaigns and businesses actually care about the response from the readers. If I'm running for President, I want to carefully control what I say. I have to maintain my composure at all times. I have to make sure that I don't inadvertantly offend a key constituency. I want to make sure that I'm sticking to the same themes from day to day. I can't just see some event on the news, pop onto Blogger, and drop down a couple hundred words on it without contemplating how others might perceive it. If I'm running for office, what I say about an event really means something. So, I wouldn't hit "post" without having about five other people review it. I wouldn't want to comment without taking time to think about it.

In blogging, to some extent, once you do that, it loses the vitality that makes blogs appealing.

A candidate's blog would be left with tire cliches about the concerns of America's regular Joes and Janes or banal reports of the crowd enthusiasm in Smallsville, USA. Blech! I can get that from the television ads. I don't need to read it on the web.

Blogs are a great tool. A great way of reading the mood of the public. A great way to generate coversation and to pass along viewpoints. But, I think it will continue to be unaffiliated, but similarly minded, individuals who do the heavy lifting. Like Power Line ends their post:

A blog depends on the relationship between the blogger and his or her readers. It takes time, persistence, and originality to build an audience. Neither political campaigns nor corporations can expect to install some software, start typing, call what they do a "blog," and magically tap into the energy of the blogosphere. Bloggers will undoubtedly play a significant role in future campaigns, as in the one just past. But that role will be played, I think, by established bloggers with an established audience. Candidates aren't going to advance their cause materially by having the candidate type a few words and calling the product a blog.

Arafat is Dead

It's official. Arafat had died.

We've known for some days now that Arafat's death was close at hand. Now, the question becomes: Who, or perhaps what, will replace him as head of the PLO? Will it be one man? Will the Palestinians descend into civil war as various factions try to assume the lead roll?

Here's hoping that it's the former rather than the latter and that he is an actual statesman rather than a faux-peacemaker.

New Iowa Supreme Court Cases

Kris at Random Mentality has posted analysis on a couple of the new Iowa Supreme Court cases.

I really don’t understand the timing on this

I got a phone call yesterday from a young lady who I think said she was from the Republican National Committee. I didn’t tape the call, (darn!) but it went something like this:

Y.L.: President Bush has a great many things that he needs to do for our country. Are you a supporter of President Bush?
Me: Well, I voted for him so I guess you could say that.
Y.L.: That’s good. So, can we count on your help?
Me: Aren’t you a little late making this call? Shouldn’t you have done it last week?
Y.L.: I’m just calling to let you know the president needs your help and support. Can we count on you for $75 or $100?
Me: You need money? Do you have leftover campaign debts to retire?
Y.L.: Can we count on you for $50?
Me: Or are you starting on 2008 already? I really hoped we could have more than one week off between election cycles.
Y.L.: Well, the president needs your help. Without support from people like you he may not be able to complete the agenda the country voted for.
Me: The most serious obstacle he faces is Senator Specter as head of the Judiciary Committee. What’s he going to do about that?
Y.L.: Can I send you a packet and you can return the most generous contribution you can?
Me: I’d really like to hold off on that because until the Specter thing is settled, we won’t know if he can accomplish any of the agenda or not.
Y.L.: So can I send you a packet and you can hold off on returning it until after the Judiciary Committee is settled?
Me: No, just hold off on sending it until then. I’m confident you’ll be contacting me again sometime in the future.
Y.L.: Well, it probably won’t be me, but O.K.

Now, this is the kind of thing that leads to my wife accusing me of being a real jerk at times. But I have this theory that since we’d be idiots not to vote for them, the only way to get the PTB in the party to listen is to threaten to withhold financial support. Many of us thought the president was making a mistake by supporting that ingrate Specter over Pat Toomey back in the primary. They did the same thing giving preference to Milktoast Ganske over Bill Salier to see who would challenge Tom Harkin last time. In my puny little way, I’m just trying to ask:

Have you learned this lesson yet?

If This Doesn't Pull Your Heartstrings...

...Absolutely nothing will.

The Will Kenyon Blog is the story of a baby born at 24 weeks. That's a week or so short of six months. Weight at birth: less than a pound and a half.

As you read through the posts going back to his birthday in late October, be sure to note the pictures. Yes, that's his footprint next to a quarter.

Go, read it. Be amazed at the resilency of life. And then say a prayer for the little guy.

(Hat Tip: State 29)

Conventional Wisdom says this election was about morals and values

And in the whole cosmic scheme of things, aren’t they always? But this time in particular, a few high profile issues and a motivated electorate have pushed the issue out front. Dueling opinion pieces in this morning’s QCTimes argue for two different ways of looking at moral values.

For a change, I was able to get through the entire Ellen Goodman column because she did have a few interesting points amongst the blather. You see, it is her side that owns the moral positions on tax policy, national defense and religious tolerance; they just don’t have the vocabulary necessary to educate us dumb hicks in flyover country. In her conclusion, here’s the key to winning the culture debate:

The blue candidates will never convert people who believe that homosexuality is
a sin, or that the fertilized egg is a human being, or that evolution is a scam
taught by secular humanists. But among the not-so-red voters are those who
believe in legal protection for gay couples, who value a child with diabetes
over a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic. They regard poverty as a moral issue
and tolerance as an American value. They don’t want their country racked by the
fundamentalist religious wars we see across the world. And they need to hear the
moral framework for these views.

Got that? This is the extent of the conservative viewpoint on values. Anything other than anti-gays, anti-abortion or pro-snake-handling religiosity doesn’t fit her squinty-eyed paradigm of what we think is important. Methinks she doesn’t quite get it.

The other viewpoint is presented by Ruben Navarrette in his explanation as to why Latinos gave record-setting levels of support to the Bush candidacy:

Besides, Latinos are basically a conservative bunch. They’re pro-family,
pro-religion, pro-military, and pro-law and order. They believe in working for a
living, making the educational system accountable, turning down handouts,
suiting up when your country needs you, and striving for a better tomorrow. Give
them straight talk and optimism, and they’ll give you a good portion of their
votes.

Of course, these characteristics apply to people of every ethnic background in the growing conservative majority. If the people on the left want to cut into the support from people who feel as Navarrette describes, they will have to develop a deeper understanding of what constitutes moral values to us. They will have to come up with better arguments than “Bush is Stupid”, and a larger vocabulary than “Halliburton, Halliburton, and more Halliburton.” Oh, and let me emphasize that part about straight talk and optimism.

Or they can simply continue to hide their goals and intentions and develop better ways of lying.

I know how I’m betting.

My Favorite Moment Yesterday

On Wednesday morning, even though it was becoming increasingly obvious that Bush was the winner, I was still concerned that we would see weeks of courtroom battles and ugly recriminations.

Then, the word came down that Kerry was conceding. He had called President Bush and would make a public statement shortly. Several of us in the office went to the conference room to watch. The television was set to the local NBC affiliate. And what I saw was the highlight of the past two days.

The screen was filled with the sad-sack visages of Matt Lauer and Katie Couric.

Matt appeared a bit dazed--wide-eyed, yet not quite following everything. The charitable word might be "distracted." The less charitable description would be to say that Mr. Lauer's expression was somewhat akin to the look you get from your dog when you pretend to toss a dog bone across the room. The dog spins around to see where the bone has landed, and, seeing no evidence of the landed bone, spins back to you to inquire, "Did you see where it went?" Fetch-plexed.

Katie was dressed in black. Not just a black suit jacket, but a button-upped black mourning dress with a stiff collar that came right up to the base of her jawbone. To describe her face as expressing contempt would be an understatement. It was not unlike the expression I would see on my five year old niece's face if we were to tell her on Christmas morning, just after she'd finished opening gifts, that we were going to bag up all her new toys and give them to the kids across the street. It was sort of like a cross between a frown and recoiling from a sour taste.

And while I know I should know better, it made me giggle. Like I said, I was still a bit peeved as of 10:00 AM Wednesday. Matt and Katie started me on the road to recovery.

I know that this gimmicky schtick has been done to death, but in honor of Matt and Katie, let me provide my summation of the entire election cycle.

Donations to the candidates of my choice? Cost: One-hundred dollars.

Interminable 527-group political ads on radio and television? Cost: Twenty points on my blood pressure.

Volunteering for Bush-Cheney 2004? Cost: Eight hours of my life.

Seeing members of the mainstream media bemused, befuddled, and embittered by the reelection of George W. Bush: Priceless.

Just to prove to you that I'm not full of shit

I'm actually quoted in The New Republic's blog on the Iowa election here. I hope you won't think any less of me but I'll hang with anyone who wants to spread the TNT love karma around. (That sounds gross doesn't it?) How about anyone who will make me more famous in my own eyes. Yeah, that's better.

Pollwatching Story #3, sub title Move-On.org's racketeering

Prior to the CIVICS teach fiasco, see infra, a couple of ladies came into the precinct while I was busily checking names off the Republican voter list and began talking to the election official. Saying something about being pollwatchers. One then came and sat down next to the Dem and I and explained she was with MoveOn and was going to be a pollwathcher. I was reasonably certain this was inappropriate so I excused myself and called the party hotline who confirmed my suspicions.

I asked them to stop what they were doing. Complained to the election official who contacted Mike Mauro, the Polk County Auditor, who promptly ordered them to leave. Which they did without a fuss.

In the afternoon, I got the chance to be an observer at the absentee ballot process down at the Civic Center. Mr. Mauro was there and I talked to him about it. He began regaling me with stories about how many problems he'd had with the MoversOn (Is that the correct conjugation?). Mauro had spent the entire day chasing these idiots out of and away from dozens of precincts. Ted Sporer the Chair of the Polk County Republicans confirmed that he had spent most of the day doing the same and have much more serious confrontations than I. Maybe Kris at Random Mentality can confirm whether MoveOn's clearly repetitive and intentionally illegal activities could trigger a civil or criminal RICO violation.

Anyway, I know Mauro takes a lot of heat from Republicans some of which I'm sure is justified. Based on my observation of his professional attitude and the finely tuned process he had in place at the Civic Center, I'd have to admit he's one hell of a good auditor. Thank God I don't live in Polk County and have to consider actually splitting my ballot to vote for him. Major props to Mike Mauro.

I would be remiss not to also extend a hearty congratulations and thank you to Ted Sporer our Polk County Chair who did a wonderful job in an exceedingly tough environment. He managed to decrease the Democratic margin in Polk County by 2000 votes and should be commended. He's proof to Jeff that bald men with goatees can be successful in politics.

Pollwatching Story #2

So about halfway through the morning the CIVICS teacher brings her class down to observe the poll. (Illegal but I tolerated it in the interest of higher education.) Anyway, proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the Democrat and I watched in astonishment as the CIVICS teacher proceeded to explain how to vote straight ticket for either party or vote for individual candidates and then stated "That's all you have to do then you can turn the ballot in." The wonderful election official patiently explained that there were a number of other issues on the back such as the retention of judges, hospital trustees, city-county merger, etc. that had to be separately voted. The CIVICS teacher says "Oh, well, I've never seen these before. All I really care about is voting for President." At that point the Democrat exclaims well within earshot "Can you believe she's the CIVICS teacher?" I respond "Well I'd make a quip about teacher's unions but I think that would be inappropriate." Democrat retorts "Well, if you guys would fully fund No Child Left Behind. . . ." I responded "No amount of money is going to make her any smarter."

I'm sure she's a perfectly nice lady. She shouldn't be teaching CIVICS, however.

Pollwatching Story #1

Well, I think I've finally recovered from the election and I've got a couple of stories to tell. First, I was sent to precinct 71 at Merrill Middle School as a morning pollwatcher. My Democrat counterpart was a long hair, hippie, union type who responded when I asked "What do you do?", "I work for a living." Rather than be an asshole back I responded "That's great. I do to." What I wanted to say was "Yeah, jackass, Dubya didn't exactly give me this suit." But I resisted.

Prediction Recap

Well, I did better this time than I did with the Caucuses back in January.

When it came to picking winners in the Senate, I think that I got all but one right. The one mistake, I thought Castor would eke it out against Martinez in Florida. I was right about the margin; I was wrong about the winner.

I do want to note, however, that Jim Bunning in Kentucky came much closer to losing than I ever thought possible.

In the Presidential race, I got the winner, but I was a bit pessimistic about my Electoral College numbers. I had said 273 to 265. Final total looks like its going to be 286 to 252. That's one I'm okay with being wrong on.

But, even with the accurate (when compared to my usual success rate) predictions I made this time, I pale in comparison to David Hogberg.

Dave nailed it. Got every Senate race. Got the Electoral College right. Predicted every state correctly. Daaaamn! That's good.

Surprises

In looking through the state by state results today in the Register and reading various reviews of the results, a couple of things jumped out at me.

First, it wasn't that long ago that West Virginia was the last Appalachian/quasi-southern state to hold out against the GOP. Outside of major Republican landslides, it had remained stubbornly Democrat until 2000. Even this year, unlike the remainder of the solid south, some had actually considered it a bit of a swing state.

That wasn't the case.

Bush won in West Virginia by 13 points, 56 to 43.

Want more evidence of the ineffectiveness of Democrats in the south? Four years ago, Bush won North Carolina by 7 percent, 53 to 46. With home stater John Edwards on the ticket, that margin narrowed by exactly zero. Not only did Edwards fail to deliver the state, he failed even shrink the Bush margin of victory. 2004 result: Bush by 53 to 46.

Then, there's the fact that Bush did 4000 votes better in Massachusetts against Kerry than he did in Massachusets against Gore. To me, that is stunning.

Lastly, I'm still impressed with the efficiency and effectiveness of the Bush-Cheney GOTV efforts. For decades, we've been told that the GOP simply can't match the Democrats in putting political boots on the ground. Heck, David Yepsen was offering that theory as recently as last Sunday as the reason why Kerry would win Iowa.

Democrats are better organized. They've had to be. They don't have the money Republicans have, so they've learned to develop shoe-leather campaigns. Now, when shoe leather is everything, Iowa Democrats have the thicker callouses.

I don't think Yepsen was paying attention in 2002 when the GOP's new GOTV plan was first put into practice. It was pretty impressive that year, and then they went ahead and incorporated what they learned. This was not your father's GOTV. This was precision-guided GOTV. At least here in Iowa, it appears to have been good enough to push Bush over the top.

Whew!

Well, it's looking like Bush will hold on. Most of the networks have called Ohio for Bush. (CBS is, of course, an exception. Ol' Dan Rather is pleading with viewers to believe him that "it's still not over.") Add in that Bush held Florida by about a third of a million votes, and may even pick up New Mexico and Iowa (whoo-hoo!), and things are getting bleak for Kerry.

Speaking of Iowa, for most of the evening, I was trying to figure out how Bush could be down by five percent in Iowa. That's what the early precincts were reporting. Then, about 11:00 or so, things started to tighten. By midnight, Bush had turned the tables, taking a thousand vote lead over Kerry. By about 12:40 AM, Bush had expanded to an 8000 vote lead in Iowa. As of right now, Iowa is sstill too close to call, but it looks like Bush may pull it off. That is so gratifying to me because of the following.

If anyone is wondering why there were no updates throughout the day here at Tusk and Talon, well, there is a good reason. The entire staff was out volunteering on behalf of Bush-Cheney '04 today. Chad and I were poll watchers. Don was a runner.

Chad actually pulled double duty. He watched a poll this morning and then went down to watch them open absentee ballots this afternoon. I think he was working from 6:30 to about 9:30 or so this evening. A long day, to be sure.

I spent the pretty much everything from 1:00 PM on at the poll. First voting and then watching. Finally left at about 9:40.

I want to add that the two ladies that were my Democrat poll-watching counterparts were as pleasant as pleasant could be. We chatted for almost the entirety of the day about our families and jobs, etc. When one of them went out to act as a runner for a little while, she brought back coffee for me in addition to her partner. Very thoughtful and I appreciated the heck out of it. Before they left, they each said by and wished me and my side luck. The moral of the story is that even in the midst of divided election, Republicans and Democrats can get along.

Anyway, it's been an exhausting day and it's getting exceptionally late. I'm sure I'll have more to say about the election in the days to come. But for right now, I'm packing it in for the day much happier than I was just a scant twenty or so hours ago.

Man, I'm stoked about the likelihood of Bush winning Iowa.

Predictions

Well, election day will be here in just under an hour. The polls will open in just over seven hours. They'll close a scant thirteen hours after that. In other words, it's all over but the shouting.

This would be the post where I should put into writing for all posterity, or at least until the permalinks dissovle into the ether of the internet, my predictions for how this whole crazy election cycle will resovle itself.

The House:

I'm not going to cover specific house races in any detail. Iowa will return the exact same five we sent last time--Leach, Nussle, Latham, King, and Boswell.

As a whole, the GOP will gain about seven seats in the House, due primarily to redistricting in Texas.

Random Senate Races:

Oklahoma: Coburn (R) v. Carson (D). This one has been tight. But, I've got it on good authority from my Oklahoma sources that Coburn is going to pull it out. Republican Hold.

South Carolina: DeMint (R) v. Tannebaum (D). Earlier, the DNC had hopes for this one. But, South Carolina is a heavily Republican state at this point. DeMint has this wrapped up. Republican gain.

North Caronlina: Burr (R) v. Bowles (D). Bowles was ahead until just a couple of weaks ago. Burr got a late start, but I think he is peaking at the right time. A hold for the GOP.

Kentucky: There's been some speculation that Jim Bunning might be in trouble due to concerns about his age and health. Take that with a grain of salt. The "tightening" of this race was bringing from the high twenties to the low teens. Bunning has never been in serious danger. The fact that I can't think of his opponent off the top of my head is an indicator of how uncompetitive this race has really been. If Bunning were to somehow lose, it'd be an upset of epic proportions. GOP hold.

Alaska: This is a tough one. Bush will win the state by twenty points or more, but Murkowski has been in trouble from the get go. Some GOP faithful have been upset that she's a bit milktoast. The Dems aren't happy with her because she's a Republican. Everyone is upset of the nepotism that put her in office. To top it off, she's running against a popular former governor of the state. Yet, for all that, the recent polls indicate that she's in a dead heat if not a little ahead. I'll probably regeret it, but I predict Murkowski with a margin of victory you might be able to count on your fingers and toes. GOP hold (I hope).

Iowa: Grassley (R) v. Small (D). I write about this only because it's happening here in Iowa. Art Small may have the catchiest ads this side of the Budweiser lizards, but that's no match for Chuck Grassley. Grassley will win this in a walk away. The latest polls have him up 65 to 20. Even if all the undecideds break for Small, it'll still be a two to one wipe out. GOP hold.

Florida: Martinez (R) v. Castor (D). The DNC had high, high hopes for this one. And it's not a foregone conclusion. The polls have been inconsistent. I'd like to say that Martinez will win, but I've been giving all the close ones to the GOP. Accordingly, and for no other reason, I'll go with Castor here. I hope I'm wrong. Democrat hold.

Georgia: This one has never been in doubt. Johnny Isakson will win easily in this race to replace Zell Miller. For policy purposes, this isn't much of a gain for the GOP. However, for the electing of leadership positions, it's a net gain. GOP gain.

South Dakota: Thune (R) v. Daschle (D). I think that fate may actually have caught up with Daschle. He's had the good fortune to run in '86 (an off year election in the second term of the sitting President), '92 (when Bill Clinton was washing away Bush 41), and '98 (an off year election in the second term of a sitting President that defied all precedent by adding to the President's party in Congress). Those were all bad years for Republicans as a whole. So he's been lucky up to nown. Moreover, as minority leader, Daschle has had to push the party line more than he would have in the past. The DNC party line isn't popular in South Dakota. Moreover, he's been in the minority and isn't in a position to bring home the pork like before. Combine all that and I think Thune's got a good chance. Daschle can still pull it off, but I suspect that it'll take a massive effort on the Reservations to make it happen for Daschle. I'll go with Thune, narrowly. GOP gain.

Illinois: The Illinois GOP is a joke. A. Complete. Joke. Keyes has also been a joke. Obama will win this by about a four to one or five to one margin. If Kerry doesn't win, start printing your Clinton/Obama bumper stickers for 2008. Democrat gain.

Colorado: Coors (R) v. Salazar (D). I think that Coors has run a lackluster campaign and has been outhustled by Salazar. Salazar wins. Democrat gain.

The Big Enchilada, the White House:

I hate this. My predictions are historically bad. I'm concerned that if I say "Bush" that my bad karma will create a boomerang effect, causing Kerry to win. I'm tempted, therefore, to pick Kerry so that I can least have the hollow happiness of saying, "I told you so" if Kerry wins. Unfortunately, fate is a cruel mistress. If I pick Kerry, there is little doubt in my mind that Lady Luck will bite me in the ass and throw the victory to Kerry. So, with trepidation and fear, I'll call for a Bush victory. (Insert my prayer here.) I'll go so far as to say 273 to 265. I don't know what combination of states it takes to get those numbers, but, you weren't going to try to figure it out anyway.

“Margin of Error”

I’m no expert on statistics, but I have a passing acquaintance with their use and misuse, and the overemphasis on polls this election year annoys me. Every newscast seems to lead off with the latest survey results and newspapers breathlessly report each day’s movement in the tracking polls as if it were something crucial. Each discussion includes the “margin of error” of the survey as if this confers some extra legitimacy to the report.

I’d like to explain, since journalists won’t, what the term margin of error means. Mathematically, it is based entirely on the sample size; the larger the sample, the smaller the margin of error should be. It is necessary because if you take a small sample of the same large population more than once, you will likely get different results.

The margin of error is supposed to tell you how close you can expect the population mean to match your sample mean. For example, if a poll shows Bush leading Kerry by 2 points (51-49) with a margin of error of 3 .5 percent, his actual lead in the whole population might be as much as 54.5 – 45.5 or he might be trailing as badly as 47.5 – 52.5. Note that within this range of possibilities, there are more outcomes that would favor the candidate who is leading, in this case Bush, than the one who is shown to be trailing. Thus, the characterization the pollsters always use that if the poll results are within the margin of error, the race is a “dead heat” is erroneous. It simply means they cannot be too confident that the leader in the poll is actually ahead.

And more importantly, all this is based on the assumption that the sample is randomly selected from the entire population. If the sample is biased to include more or less of a particular subset of voters either through intent or poor methodology, the margin of error becomes meaningless. That is, it only reflects the true mean of the subset of those in the portion of the population that was sampled.

A common example is the tendency that polls taken on weekends have to oversample Democrats. Apparently Republicans are all out partying and do not answer their phones on weekends. I know I don’t. The point is that if the sample mean is skewed to one side or the other, the true mean can be far outside the margin of error.

Pollsters also have difficulty assessing the likelihood that the people sampled will actually cast a ballot. One of the biggest controversies in this election cycle has been whether polling “likely voters” gives more accurate results than “registered voters.” Michael Moore suggests that with the intense GOTV efforts in place this year, “unlikely voters” need to be measured; in fact, I believe he said “unlikely voters” would provide a Kerry victory. I take this to mean that until pollsters start sampling voters in cemeteries and include a question such as ‘How many times do you intend to vote?’ this potential subset will be underrepresented in their polls, rendering the margin of error (and the entire poll) even less significant.

So, forget about the polls; just support your president and vote.

Update:
I didn’t intend to imply that polls have no value, just that they are often misused. The Horserace Blog, found via NRO’s The Corner seeks to overcome many of the limitations of the widely reported polls, primarily by combining those that he considers reliable, thereby increasing the sample size. And he knows a heckuva lot more about statistics than I do.