OK-Sen: Latest indy poll

Wilson Research for KWTV (PDF). 10/8-10. MoE 4.4%. (10/5 results)

Carson (D) 40 (43)
Coburn (R) 38 (41)
Bilyeu (I) 7 (2)

Interesting results. Bilyeu is a crazy nutjob who is garnering a certain level of protest votes, but won't be a factor election day. Carson took a hit from an ad barrage last week claiming he is "too liberal". Given Coburn's equal slide in the poll, it seems the ad campaign is doing a good job of bringing him down as well (not to mention the press his wacky escapades are garnering).

These results are also quite interesting:

Bush 50 (58)
Kerry 38 (28)

That, my friends, is one heck of a debate bounce. Kerry has no shot of taking the state, but his surge in the state is indicative of what we're seeing nationwide. Indeed, on 9/21, the spread was 64 percent Bush, 24 percent Kerry, or 40 points. Today it's 12 points.

The fewer ballots Carson needs to split with Bush, the better his chances of victory become.

•  Let's Hope

  Carson can bring it home. The Senate will be ratifying at least two Supremes during the next 4 years.

  by dpc on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 03:59:59 AM PDT

  •  Probably more than that

    It's amazing how old these justices are.  And some aren't exactly in prestine health.  

    Year of Birth:
    Stevens 1920 (very liberal)
    Renquist 1924 (Chief Justice, very conservative)
    O-Connor 1930 (swing vote, generally conservative)
    Ginsburg 1934 (very liberal)
    Scalia 1936 (very conservative)
    Kennedy 1936 (conservative)
    Breyer 1938 (very liberal)
    Souter 1939 (liberal)
    Thomas 1948 (very conservative)

    4 years of Kerry (or better yet 8), followed up with a nice dose of Edwards, would put the court right back into our hands - perhaps by a comforable margin.

    by timdauwalter on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:45:57 AM PDT

    •  I agree--

      I heard on NPR that Stevens is in suprisingly good health.  But 4 years is a long time for an 84 year old.

      Does "very conservative" cover Scalia?  Maybe "rabidly conservative" is more apt.  ::shudder::  

      He doesn't just want to keep things as they are.  He wants to roll them back to the '50s.  The 1850s.

      by mijita on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 09:03:20 AM PDT

      •  a former neighbor of mine

        . . . clerked for the Supreme Court about 4 or 5 years ago. He said that despite his advanced age, Stevens is actually in better health than Rehnquist or O'Connor and is as equally lucid as they are, if not more so.

        If any of the justices are forced to suddenly retire because of health problems, my bet would be on Rehnquist or O'Connor, not Stevens.

        by pine on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 11:49:20 AM PDT

    •  There's hardly a true liberal there

      I wouldn't call any of them "very liberal."  Stevens was actually regarded as a moderate conservative when he was first appointed -- it shows how times have changed.  Though I do think Stevens has moved a little bit left over his career.  

      Incidentally Stevens, for years, has arranged himself a deal where he spends as much time as possible staying warm and playing tennis at his place in Florida and doing his work by fax machine when he doesn't have to be in town to hear a case, so I've heard.  It seems to have paid off both for him and for rational, sensible people everywhere.

      by decisivemoment on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 11:48:57 AM PDT

      •  Stevens is the court maverick

        He's a truly independent thinker, liberal on some issues, conservative on others.

        Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg are moderates.  O'Connor and Kennedy are conservatives.

        Rehnquist is not so much an ultraconservative as an extreme "statist" who believes that the Government can do whatever.  Scalia and Thomas are just plain freepers with, in Scalia's case, a diabolical brain to go with the because-we-can ideology.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 03:44:08 PM PDT

•  Thanks for

  always putting these polls up from this race as soon as you get them. I've seen the independent polls (which have the race tied or a 1-2% lead for either candidate) and there's definitely been a slide, as those "liberal" ads would cause.

  SoonerPoll thought there was a backlash against Carson's ads on the tornado funding. Do you think that's true? It seems absurd to me.

  Was this poll taken after Switzer endorsed Carson? I wonder if there's been any bounce from that.

  Are Clark or Edwards planning to appear w/Carson, or have they been told to stay out of the state?

  What has Clark been doing lately? I'm sure he's been somewhere helping candidates but I haven't heard about him since the DNC.

  by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:00:27 AM PDT

  •  James,

    Now could you please retract your dismally depressing and extremely disheartening gloom and doom scenarios of the last hours?

    Now could you put your energy into WINNING instead of WORRYING?

    And can you please stop trying so hard to discount positive news to the extent that you, in the space of a ten line post, managed to seem dour and depressed about GOOD NEWS?

    Maddening, simply maddening.

    by RedDan on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:20:50 AM PDT

    •  What the fuck are you talking about?

      You're putting your own personal demons on this thread. You seem to be following me around and it's starting to seem odd.

      I was asking some questions about ads, and about Edwards and Clark. Asking what candidates Clark is campaigning for isn't depressing, I would hope.

      by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:26:55 AM PDT

    •  Could you tell us how

      asking about where Clark is campaigning is negative.

      Or asking if Edwards will campaign in OK is negative.

      Or how asking questions about the Senate race is doom and gloom.

      We're waiting for you to tell the truth here.

      by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:26:12 AM PDT

      •  James, this isn't Jeopardy

        And there is no requirement that every post be posed in the form of a question.

        Which is what you do. Which leads otherwise well-meaning readers to conclude two things.

        One that you are yelling out "Pay attention to me" by making the implicit argument that your questions ipso facto deserve answers, that you have the right to shape the debate. Neither is true. Put forth an argument, make an analysis, whatever. You don't have the right to demand that I or anyone respond.

        Two given that your phrasing always anticipates that the answers will be dismal that you are not trying to open a dialogue but trying to dampen the parade.

        Personally I think the second explanation gives you too much credit. You are the farthest thing from a clever troll simply out to disrupt this forum.

        by Bruce Webb on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 10:03:05 AM PDT

  •  Edwards

    I would hope that Edwards has been told to stay away.  He needs to spend his time in Presidential states anyway.  And the only way we can take this Senate seat is by allowing the candidate to stand alone and that means far away from the national Democrats (with the possible exception of Max Cleland).

    by Snuffleupagus on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 06:26:21 AM PDT

•  Switzer

  Switzer also endorsed Kerry by the way.

  Boomer Sooner!

  GDoyle

  by GDoyle on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:03:01 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't surprise me that

    Switzer supports Kerry.  I am surprised, though, that Switzer would say that publicly.

    by IhateBush on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 12:09:38 PM PDT

•  A few things.

  1. Why were some people so pissy that Carson's wife was acting like "liberal" was a dirty word? Quite a few people in Oklahoma probably think it is a dirty word.

  2. Wouldn't it strike fear in the hearts of Republicans if Kerry was behind by less than ten points in the next few weeks?

  3. Why is this indicative of a nationwide trend? Or are you saying that this is the start of a trend, and that we will see the results of this trend in the next few days?

  by theprogressivemiddle on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:04:42 AM PDT

  •  Those of Us Who Live in Oklahoma...

    ...and are liberal, or who even know and value our liberal friends, are understandably upset that our state's Democratic Senate candidate is running ads that equate being liberal with being evil (had a Republican said this, Kossacks be attacking it from now until the cows come home).

    Carson is much less vile than Coburn, no question.  But, like any candidate, his ability to win will depend in part on not entirely alienating his base.  And he's done a pretty bad job of this in this campaign.  PALPAC, one of the most vibrant and important progressive Democratic groups in the state has asked Carson to pull the ad in which his wife equates "liberal" with "evil."

    Even in conservative Oklahoma, a fifth or so of the electorate considers itself "liberal." And they'll be understandably less likely to vote for Democratic who considers them to be "evil."

    Honestly, a lot of folks on this site seem to forget that for us Sooners, this isn't just about electing a vote for Daschle as majority leader, or even for (or against) a Supreme Court nominee (tho' it's important to remember that OK Democrat David Boren was a vote for Clarence Thomas).  We're also electing someone to represent us. And we gotta live with that.

    by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:47:02 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, but...

      You're also electing a Majority Leader for America and WE gotta live with that.

      by dcg on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 09:14:12 AM PDT

      •  I (and We) Understand

        However, bear in mind:

        1. With Carson, what you see is what you get.  You can count on a vote for Daschle. But don't get your judicial confirmation vote hopes too high.

        2. That still doesn't justify y'all treating Oklahoma like a Cold War-era banana republic, in which all you care about is that the SOB who's elected is for "us" instead of "them."  A lot of us our holding our noses really hard in order to vote for Brad Carson.  The stench emenating from Tom Coburn certainly makes it easier.  But words have consequences.  For a Democrat in a state like Oklahoma to separate himself from liberalism is understandable  But for Carson's campaign to imply that liberals are evil, as they have done, is simply unacceptable.  

        by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 09:22:15 AM PDT

    •  she said...

      i don't know what's worse, being called evil or liberal... this is half tongue in cheek and definately not equating evil and liberalism

      by liberalsonly on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 01:02:12 PM PDT

    •  But if I were you,

      I'd take a chance and just assume this was little more than politics. Notice how Carson isn't running with Kerry. It's almost like he's running without any affiliation to the national ticket; he barely mentions Kerry's name. Does this mean that he's going to work against Kerry when he's elected? Of course. It's just politics. Of course it's fustrating, but imagine how much more fustrating it would be if you had Coburn as a senator.

      by theprogressivemiddle on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 02:34:58 PM PDT

•  North Carolina Polling?

  Kos, Kossacks,

  I was wondering how things are shaping up in North Carolina between Burr and Bowles?  I did some phone banking/polling for the Durham County Dems the other day and it seemed like Bowles was in great shape with all Kerry and many Bush supporters saying they planned to vote for him.  Unfortunately, Burr has gotten extremely negative on televison and the radio.  I hope my perception of Bowles' strength is found in the polling.  Thanks for any information!  -Ben

  by RangerKeeper on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:05:09 AM PDT

  •  Several recent polls have shown

    a dead-heat, or Bowles leading by only 1%. These are GOP polls or just bad polls (SUSA, Mason-Dixon), so I'm not sure how valid they are. Most Dems who are in the know seem to think that Bowles is probably about 3-4% ahead. I don't know if the undecideds are moving Burr's way though. If they are that isn't good for Bowles. Larry Sabato, for whatever he's worth, moved the race to toss-up this week after having it as Leans Dem for most of the race. He thinks that the winner will depend on how big of turnout Bush gets.

    by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:20:56 AM PDT

    •  This is what I am talking about, James...

      This post and a slew of similar posts over the last couple of hours that are essentially nothing but doom-saying with no real meat to them.

      You're talking out your ass on most of these topics.

      And if you're gonna talk out your ass, you might as well be talking POSITIVE.

      If you're gonna talk NEGATIVE then you should do a better job of both backing up your statements and framing your statements to provoke ACTION rather than APATHY.

      See my diary.

      by RedDan on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:31:31 AM PDT

      •  Wait a second here.

        The original poster asked me about the Bowles/Burr race and what recent polls or comments were.

        I mentioned the most recent polls and the most recent analysis, from Larry Sabato, on 9/12.

        How is my answering the question "negative" or "talking out of my ass"? You must think I'm pretty damn kinky if I have a political analyst AND several different polling systems in my ass.

        You have destroyed this thread with your raging at me. If you're going to have these hissy fits, could you please at least do some fucking research beforehand?

        Everything I said about the race was based on current polling and analysis. NOT negativity.

        Do I need to say this a bit more slowly so you can understand?

        Damn. You've lost your mind with this thought police obsession. I don't know what is going on with you.

        by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:35:35 AM PDT

        •  Larry Sabato

          is a Republican Strategist.

          Your negativity is paramount and blatant for all to see.

          I have destroyed nothing in this thread - two posts, each less than ten lines.

          My research is far better than yours - you can't keep your facts straight, even in discussion of THIS post and the source of THIS poll (Independent, NOT Democratic organization).

          Everything you said was NOT based on current analysis, it was and is cherry-picked, twisted, and spun beyond recognition, and all to fit your own little, mean, negative worldview.

          And I am not alone in my "obsession" - in fact, the only "obsession" that is crystal clear here is yours. That obsession is, apparently, devoted to claiming the sky is falling at every breath, with every post, every day of the week.

          Loser.

          by RedDan on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:46:54 AM PDT

          •  Sorry, it still isn't working.

            Larry Sabato is not someone that I'm overly fond of, but he's had the race at Leans Dem for months. So yes, if he moves it to toss-up, then it should be noted.

            I also noted that both of the polls with a dead heat were either GOP or were bad polls (SUSA), and that Bowles real lead was probably 3-4%. If I was trying to be negative, why would I have said that? Why wouldn't I just say that Burr was winning and Bowles should just concede now? Isn't that the most negative viewpoint possible?

            You see, RedDan, you spin this little web of lies, but then you don't bother to back it up. That's why it doesn't work. In your world, my pointing out the only recent pundit analysis on the NC Senate race (I haven't seen anything from Cook or Rothenberg) and my pointing out the 2 most recent polls from the race is "mean" and "negative". In the real world, that's called FACTS.

            The Senate Outlook page will tell you many of the same things I just did.

            Is Jerome Armstrong also mean and negative? Are you also going to shove objects up his ass and then demand that he pull them out?

            And what does an OK poll have to do with the NC race? Kos himself has confused this polling firm with a Dem polling firm, and then he corrected his mistake. Are you going to shove objects up his ass then demand that he pull them out?

            You are so blind to reality that you just shut the truth out, RedDan. You don't even live over here anymore, you don't know what any daily pressures are like, and yet you want to verbally abuse people into thinking that your way is the only way.

            If you're going to spread lies about the NC race, then fine. Everything I've said about the NC race is based on analysis from pollsters and sources that are Democrats and Republicans.

            If you're too defensive to check that out for yourself, then I guess that's because you're too busy gawking at people's asses over in Japan.

            Have fun.

            by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:57:17 AM PDT

      •  Oh, and in case you yell about this,

        it was MyDD/Chris Bowers who originally said that most of the undecided in the Bowles/Burr race are conservative and/or Republican, and more likely to break for Burr.

        by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:37:25 AM PDT

        •  i doubt it

          I seriously doubt Chris Bowers said that most of the undecideds are "conservative and/or Republican" because that would be stupid, and wrong. He probably said "conservative" and then you probably read the "Republican" part into it yourself.

          The reason is because Republicans are only 34-35% or so of the voters in NC. Our Republicans are almost always solid for any Republican, and if they're not then that Republican is hopeless and can just give it up - and there's no way any Republican candidate with a significant percentage of undecided Republicans would be even remotely close to tied.

          As for the "conservative" part, that's a given. Any close race in North Carolina is decided by conservative Democrats down on the coast, and a band of moderate suburbanite independents along the I-85 corridor. So, Chris Bowers probably didn't say anything one could not just automatically assume by the closeness of the race.

          PS. I looked at the recent polls just now, and 92%+ of Republicans are voting Burr - which is as solid as it gets.

          by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:46:13 AM PDT

          •  Then you're wrong again.

            Go do some research for once and look at MyDD's archives from a month or so ago. He said that he was looking at information that Bowles' campaign gave him. They said that they expected the lead (which was about 10 points at the time) to tighten, and that most of the undecideds were conservative (or Republican; that's why I said and/or, because I couldn't remember which he said) and were more likely to move towards Burr.  

            BTW, are you working for Charles Taylor or not? You still haven't answered that.

            by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:48:49 AM PDT

            •  oh, I see

              A 10 pt race is different from a 1 pt race. But you conveyed the false impression that Chris Bowers' commentary was recent, and based on the latest polls. Like I said, if there are a significant percentage of undecided Republicans in a NC election, then the Republican candidate won't even be close to tied. He'll be at least 10 points down, like Burr was at the time (according to you).

              BTW, are you working for Charles Taylor or not? You still haven't answered that.

              LOL. You really are quite silly sometimes. Am I supposed to be upset by that? If anything I should be pleased I haven't given anyone something genuine to try to insult me with.

              by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:54:03 AM PDT

              •  You're lying again.

                You are the only one who has said that the MyDD comment was recent. Not me.

                If you work for Charles Taylor, fine. That's your choice. You're the one that seems to be spinning the lies here.

                by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:06:24 AM PDT

                •  so pitiful

                  I'm really not interested in playing your immature flamewar game .. I have work to do. Since other people thought it was worth dredging your BS back out of gutter, play with them. I'm done with you, myself.

                  by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:11:50 AM PDT

                  •  We know all about your "work".

                    You jumped into this thread to laugh at me because, according to you, you think that people with a mental illness (as you seem to think I have) are "amusing". And now you run the hell out of this thread when you're busted.

                    Fine. It's your own fault for getting into all this to start with, and for making these things up.

                    by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:16:52 AM PDT

                    •  seriously, though

                      Get help. If not for yourself, then for those with the misfortune of having to be around you, assuming you're not so self-absorbed that you don't care about that (by no means a certainty).

                      by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:22:10 AM PDT

                      •  Aren't you gone already?

                        Maybe Charles hasn't called you up yet.

                        I don't have any need for advice from someone who lies and who laughs at the mentally ill. Why don't you read some of RedDan's oh-so-original "anyone who knows facts about North Carolina or Oklahoma can shove it up their ass" posts to get a general feel for what I think of your contributions and your mental stability.

                        by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:27:11 AM PDT

                        •  i'll grant you

                          ..who laughs at the mentally ill.

                          At least denial doesn't seem to be one of your many issues. LOL

                          by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:33:09 AM PDT

                          •  Have you kept your word one day in your life?

                            I thought that Bush supporters signed loyalty oaths.

                            So much for that.

                            You are again trying to parse your way around your shameful statements. You said I was amusing. Then you said that I was mentally ill. Now you're admitting to saying that mentally ill people are amusing, and that at least I'm not in "denial".

                            You're all over the place here. No wonder Charles Taylor is such a lousy candidate.

                            by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:45:38 AM PDT

                            •  oh please

                              The righteous indignation schtick is getting old. You're obviously an attention whore, so don't even pretend you're not getting your jollies.

                              You have the power not to keep making a silly spectacle of yourself!

                              by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:50:28 AM PDT

                              •  This is like waiting for Godotaylor.

                                You said that you were leaving. And yet, you keep coming back to take the high moral quicksand.

                                Give it up already. You lied. Repeatedly. You laughed at mentally ill people. Repeatedly. And you gave 4s to someone who boasts about forced anal penetration. Repeatedly.

                                by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 08:06:49 AM PDT

          •  and as I said

            A 10 pt race is different from a 1 pt race. But you conveyed the false impression that Chris Bowers' commentary was recent, and based on the latest polls. Like I said, if there are a significant percentage of undecided Republicans in a NC election, then the Republican candidate won't even be close to tied. He'll be at least 10 points down, like Burr was at the time (according to you) that Chris stated that.

            I'm repeating this since the other comment is now hidden.

            by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:03:59 AM PDT

            •  I never said it was recent.

              Once again, you are lying, GoKeever. I said that the analysis at MyDD suggested that undecideds in the race were conservative or Republican, and more inclined to move towards Bowles.

              Could you tell me when I said the analysis was from the past few weeks?

              by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:05:49 AM PDT

        •  I lived in North Carolina

          for nearly ten years.

          During that time, John Edwards defeated Lauch Faircloth by a large margin, Easley won the governors office, and the state legislature went to totally Democratic Dominated.

          So, shove your "analysis" BACK up your ass, 'cause you don't know what you're talking about.

          by RedDan on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:49:01 AM PDT

          •  John Edwards won 52%

            of the vote in 1998.

            Is that a large margin?

            The statehouse would have been Republican in 2002 but several Republicans formed a coalition with Democrats.

            If you lived in North Carolina for 10 years, wouldn't you know any of this?

            Or are you just lying again?

            You are so busy shoving things up your ass that you don't bother to provide any actual evidence for your claims.

            This is just frightening, RedDan. You need some help.

            by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:00:09 AM PDT

            •  I worked on the Edwards campaign

              via cooperation with the local NAACP chapter.

              And yes, 52% is quite a bit given NC's general conservatism...

              "Would have been"?

              In short, you refuted nothing I said, and resort to...asinine shrieking..

              As usual.

              by RedDan on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:39:34 AM PDT

              •  You're full of it yet again.

                If you really lived in North Carolina, as you claim, you wouldn't have said "under Democratic control". Because it isn't. It's bipartisan control. You can try to revise history now, but the fact is that you LIED. You ignored my repeated factual statements about the polling and analysis on the Burr/Bowles races and yet you blatantly LIED about the state legislature.

                And now you're revising history again. 52% is not a "large margin". The percentage that Liddy Dole got in 2002 is closer to a "large margin". Jesse Helms barely beat a liberal black man in '90 and '96, and Dem governors have been running NC for many years, so no, 52% isn't that great of a margin.

                If you were involved with Edwards' '98 campaign, I can see why he didn't get a larger margin. I can just hear your voter outreach:

                "HELLO!!! I LIVE IN JAPAN SOMETIMES, WHEN I'M NOT IN NORTH CAROLINA OR MAINE!!! SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS!!! SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS!!! BE POSITIVE WHEN I TELL YOU TO SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS!!!"

                You certainly do love your asses. Asinine, shove it up your ass...I guess you're quite an expert at making an ass out of yourself. So to speak.

                by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:34:04 AM PDT

      •  The view from Cary

        Someone noted that Wake county (and probably the triangle as well) is slanted democrat versus the rest of the state, so my view is perhaps going to be slanted too, but I've seen alot of Republicans jumping ship and voting Kerry.  Is there going to be coattails or anti-coattails?  Are the Republicans going to be motivated to vote when they seen their boy going down in flames?  We have seen here Burr establish himself firmly as anti-Clinton.  Does that mean anti-democrat, or just some negative stuff?

        I'm not going to phrase the next statement as "worried," but rather prudent.  I think it would be prudent to help Bowles out a little.  Think I'll volunteer this week.

        by SeniorDingDong on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:46:02 AM PDT

        •  As the original question asker

          I apologize for starting a fight!  Thanks for the information.  My two cents?  If its negative, lets hear it and get motivated to turn the tide.  If its positive, lets keep fighting to make sure we don't get surprised.  That being said, if there is positive and negative information to be had, only giving the negative information isn't the wisest idea.

          And about the Triangle (and Durham in particular): this place could be a treasure chest of Democratic voters up and down the ticket.  Our organization here isn't great, but it isn't bad.  We could definitely use North Carolina help though.  In a way its like a recount (or the entire Bush campaign), we should focus on GOTV efforts to get extremely high turnout rates in extremely Democratic areas.  Anyway, its four in the morning!

          -Ben

          by RangerKeeper on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:56:44 AM PDT

          •  It's not your fault

            RedDan likes to cause trouble. He doesn't know anything about NC and he decided to ruin this thread, and to tell you lies. It's not your fault.

            by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:06:58 AM PDT

          •  With that in mind

            From one of the above threads, I and my friends are probably those I-85 moderates.  I'll tell you this, I myself was kinda wishy-washy about Bowles before until I read Carl Rove had a hand in the Burr campaign.  That cemented it for me.  I don't want to  mislead anyone though maybe I'm actually a liberal and don't know it.  

            by SeniorDingDong on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:17:38 AM PDT

      •  I will say again,

        since you and your cronies removed the other comments, that everything I said in that comment is based on current polling and analysis. The Senate Outlook at MyDD (and presumably here) will mention that the race is a dead heat. When MyDD looked at the undecided voters polled a month or two ago, they were considered conservative and more likely to move towards Bowles.

        I'm waiting for you to stop talking about what you want to do with your ass, and to tell me how my analysis of the NC Senate race was in ANY WAY INCORRECT.

        Thank you.

        by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:24:05 AM PDT

      •  Bloody hell

        Come on people. That was a legitimate response to a question. The question was off topic, but if that's your issue, troll-rate that, not the response (no offense RangerKeeper).

        If you find the information given questionable, respond to it, don't troll rate based on your general annoyance at JamesB3. He's not a troll and these posts aren't trolling either. Some times the facts aren't that pretty, and if they are better than he suggests, consider it an excuse to show them, not a personal affront.

        by dukkha on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:34:09 AM PDT

        •  Thank you for your kindness.

          You notice that neither of the rocket scientists who savaged me ever bothered to rebut any of my statements. Not one of them. On the polls, on the analysis from MyDD and Larry Sabato.

          Instead, one of them laughs at the mentally ill, and the other one peddles false statistics about NC while showing his "positive" nature by trying to shove himself up about 500 different asses.

          Very classy.

          by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:39:14 AM PDT

        •  Track history

          I got drawn into a flame war with James in his first week of posting here, over a year ago. Strangely the issue then was negativity. I regretted getting drawn into it then, and I am regretting getting involved today.

          But the pattern, have several as pointed out is clear. James will put up a query, generally with a dismal premise, waits for a response and then attacks. And when things get heated appeals to the refs with the traditional question of mischief brewers "What did I do? All I said was ...."

          As always the answer is "It's not what you said, its how you said it, and what your intent was".

          James is not here for the politics per se. Though he is clearly well-informed and consumed by it. He is here to draw attention. He craves responses. Each gives him the ability to respond in turn. Just look at the sheer volume of his posts here, or on any thread he manages to get stirred up. It becomes the JB3 show.

          Well some of the refs he has been working since his first moment here are no longer letting him make his own line calls. In this pickup game he doesn't get to call his own fouls. He no longer gets to play the "Ma, they're picking on me" card. His "Get out of Jail Free" card expired long ago.

          And it does seem harsh to those who simply see the political post or question and don't see it for what it is: another attempt to get us playing JB3ball. (Which for my sins is exactly the way I wasted what could have been a productive half hour just now.)

          Bottom line. When some people on this site were trying their hardest to make the case against the war, JB3 was predicting electoral blowout for Bush. He brought nothing to the table then, and brings little to nothing now. He has been consistently wrong on every single prediction he ever made.

          And my God, against all my better impulses, he just made me lose my temper. (Again)

          by Bruce Webb on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 10:42:27 AM PDT

          •  it IS tedious

            With so much to do, and hundreds of thousands of people reading, to devolve into these picky little fights and extended flame wars.  It's impolite to everyone else trying to read the thread, and unproductive- no one wants to read it and no ones mind will be changed by each successive argument.

            James is like a Marsh-Wiggle (anyone else read Narnia?) but that doesn't mean that he is a Bad James, just that he consistently focuses on the negative.  It can be irritating for the rest of us, who I think do try to stay positive, but I'm sure that he will be as pleased as the rest of us when Kerry replaces Bush.

            If off-topic we must go, it would be way more fun to argue about baseball.   Personally, I have become fixated on a Red Sox-Cards WS.   I want to see Kurt Schilling pitch to that lineup.

            by kate mckinnon on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 11:25:11 AM PDT

          •  MORE lies from an old troll.

            Bruce, I have tried to avoid you since your days that you blamed me for all the problems in America since the 30's (he really did this, folks -- he also said that he'd give me constant 0's because "that's what professors do") and you pop back up in this thread, right on cue, to whine about what a hard life you have here. I guess it is hard being ignored by everyone, huh.

            I haven't been here for a year. So if you were arguing with someone over a year ago you can go piss on them. And I haven't had any arguments with Marisacat in a long time. It's just odd how you dredge up her name to suit your own slander.

            by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:42:00 PM PDT

        •  Just pointing out

          That while I agree that troll ratings should not be given based solely on general annoyance at someone in particular, JamesB3 himself has a particulary bad history in this regard.  He has a history of giving troll ratings to people, not on the content of their posts, but in retaliation for having received troll ratings on some of his own posts, to which those ratings were given because of their content.  He furthermore has been known to troll rate commenters in external threads based on verbal altercations in a separate thread.

          by DaveOinSF on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 10:11:34 PM PDT

          •  You've done the same thing yourself

            You constantly troll-rate people without saying a damn word as to why.

            by JamesB3 on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 05:54:31 AM PDT

            •  That's not what I said

              read it again.

              by DaveOinSF on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 01:28:58 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        Wow, everybody... calm down. I know there's history here and all that, but nothing that was said in this thread warrants all this. Let's keep our ill temper focused on the bad guys for at least another three weeks, okay?

        And there are pitfalls in being either too pessimistic OR too optimistic, so it helps me stay grounded to see posts on here from both noisy worriers and noisy cheerleaders. We're not down so far it's hopeless, and we're not up so far that we can rest. That's all we really need to know. Good news and bad news both help keep us in the zone, as long as one doesn't overwhelm the other.

        by tjekanefir on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 12:47:55 PM PDT

  •  based on most recent polls

    Based on the most recent polls, the Bowles/Burr campaign seems to be coming down to the suburban moderates along the I-85 corridor. The recent pickup in Burr's poll numbers is due to social conservatives on the Coast - mainly Democrats who had been indecisive - swinging in his direction. Unless the dynamics change, it may just come down to whether the Triangle outvotes the Triad, or vice versa.

    by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:43:09 AM PDT

  •  sorry, typo

    I meant mainly Republicans (not Democrats) who were indecisive swung in Burr's direction .. down on the coast, and to a lesser extent in the Charlotte suburbs.

    Generally speaking, Burr has consolidated the conservative vote, which wasn't that much of a surprise. The moderate/liberal vote has stayed more or less where it was a month ago when Bowles led by about 10.

    by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 06:06:36 AM PDT

  •  CHILL.

    ALL OF YOU.

    by BullitNutz on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:21:49 AM PDT

•  LSFC

  Someone ought to print up a "Lesbian Schoolgirls for Carson" T-shirt*.  I'd wear it, and I'm a guy.

  *(Preferably, once the election is over)

  by Neil Sinhababu on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:05:53 AM PDT

  •  What...are you worried about people

    confusing you with a lesbian schoolgirl?

    by theprogressivemiddle on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:10:18 AM PDT

    •  LSFC

      He wishes!

      by WanderingStar on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:36:06 AM PDT

      •  okay

        Well, if a very beautiful bisexual woman were to confuse me with a lesbian schoolgirl, I suppose my attitude wouldn't be entirely negative.

        by Neil Sinhababu on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:04:31 AM PDT

•  Coburn on Meet The Press

  Um, did you guys see  Dr" Coburn on Meet the Press two Sundays ago? He was saying he sterilized several underage women without declaring it to their HMO. At least one of them says he did it without their consent and is suing him.

  Not as that was bad enough: He said he would like to see the highest possible penalty for those that do an abortion, both the doctor and the woman who has it. When Russert kept pressing he essentially said he is for the death penalty for both doctors and women who have an abortion.

  HE is the complete nutjob.

  by sebimeyer on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:11:30 AM PDT

  •  link, please.

    I don't recall him being for the death penalty for the women.  He believes in passing a law that would punish abortionists as murderers.  That may seem far out here, but it isn't a huge issue in state.  The majority of the state think abortion is murder.

    by doverspa on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 10:55:17 AM PDT

•  Bilyeu?

  Can someone explain how Sheila Bilyeu is polling 7%?  She's a peace candidate who espouses "Nader's values".  That doesn't sound like a popular OK candidate.

  by ortcutt on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:15:29 AM PDT

  •  she's also

    A certifiable lunatic who claims the government implanted a transmitter in her head so as to send her "put-downs" just to annoy and upset her.

    Maybe that's the appeal?

    by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:30:13 AM PDT

    •  Nutcase Vote

      I would have thought that the nutcase vote would go to Coburn, but she seems to be fighting hard.

      by ortcutt on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:11:42 AM PDT

  •  Liberals

    Probably just OK liberals who are annoyed with Carson running as a conservative Democrat.

    From what I understand there are actually quite a few liberals with a capital L in Oklahoma particularly around Norman (home of U of OK).

    by ces on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 09:15:01 AM PDT

  •  Bilyeu is a Nut

    ...and she should thus be a completely unattractive candidate.

    Problem is that, in an effort to defend himself from Coburn, Carson has been pissing all over Oklahoma liberals.  The liberal vote in Oklahoma isn't big. But it's also not insignificant...it's a lot more than just a few folks around Norman.  The fastest growing demographic in the state is Latino.  There's a small, but not insignificant, African American population.  At the end of the day, polls show around 15% of Oklahoma voters consider themselves to be liberal (the linked poll is from Wilson Research, a GOP outfit, BTW).  An additional 32% of OK voters consider themselves to be "moderate."

    If Oklahoma liberal voters sit on their hands, or vote for Bilyeu in disgust, Carson loses.  Period.  And right now the person who's increasing that possibility most is Brad Carson.  (Full disclosure: I'm voting for Carson, but with very little enthusiasm.)  

    by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 09:40:13 AM PDT

    •  OK Liberals

      I would hope that OK liberals wouldn't be so self-undermining as to stay home or vote for Bilyeu though.  Tom Coburn is their worst nightmare, and if they throw away their vote, they are helping him get elected.  I've never understood why being liberal is associated with not being able to think clearly about what your goals are and the best way of achieving them.  I'm a liberal, and if I lived in OK I would enthusiastically vote for Carson on Nov. 2, because I would know that he was far and away the better man for the job.  I even sent him $25.  Only two people have a chance of winning this election, Tom Coburn, who is a downright scary fundie nutjob, and Brad Carson, who is a moderate, a democrat, and someone who seems to be able to think clearly.  Do you think Brad is going to work to take away the progress that has been made?  Do you think that Brad Carson is going to work to remove a woman's right to choose.  No way.  Do you think Tom Coburn is?  You betcha.  I just don't understand why you need to agree with someone to be enthusiastic.  Voting is a choice.  It's an attempt to influence an outcome.  If you are making a choice, which is going to influence the outcome in the best way, then you should be enthusiastic about that choice.

      by ortcutt on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:41:05 PM PDT

  •  This is abhorrent

    Tom Coburn is a "crazy nutcase". Sheila Bilyeau is mentally ill. I'm extremely disappointed in the language being used about her by kos, and some of the people on this blog. Y'all should be ashamed. Hope the candidates you support have a higher level of maturity, respect and empathy.

    by gypsy on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 12:20:45 PM PDT

    •  Sheila Bilyeau IS mentally ill.

      http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/002163.html

      (quoting from an old article from The Okalahoman which is no longer on-line for free)

      Independent U.S. Senate candidate Sheila Bilyeu claims the federal government implanted a device inside her head in the 1970s and has sent messages for years to annoy her.

      [...]

      "Mean politicians ... have been after me for years and years and years," she said last week. "I know it sounds nuts, but it's true."

      [...]

      Bilyeu, 60, has repeatedly sued the U.S. government in federal courts in Florida, Virginia, California and Washington, D.C.

      Most of those lawsuits also named former President Clinton and other politicians as defendants.

      "It's like a little radio," she said of the supposed device in her head. "They can transmit in stuff and talk to me. It sounds like I'm a schizophrenic, but I'm not. Anyway, it has caused me a lot of trouble and pretty much ruined my life and so I've filed these lawsuits about that."

      Bilyeu was born in Oklahoma in 1944 and graduated in 1966 from Oklahoma State University with a home economics degree.

      Bilyeu filed for the Senate seat from Virginia. She has since returned to Oklahoma and said she is looking for inexpensive housing.

      She said she "has been sleeping in my car for much of the last 10 years and living below the poverty line because of politics and greed."

      She also ran for U.S. president this year as a Green Party candidate and for governor of Texas in 1986 as a Democrat.

      She calls herself an educator and political activist. She said she has campaigned for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

      She said she last worked an education job as a school counselor in Ponca City in the 1992-1993 school year. She moved from there to Florida and later to Virginia.

      Judges dismissed all her lawsuits against the federal government. Judges wrote they were hard to understand.

      In her D.C. lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts wrote in 2001: "Plaintiff has filed a narrative, stream-of-consciousness complaint that, as best as I can tell, revolves around the plaintiff's belief that a conspiracy led by President Clinton has implanted a transmission device in her head, 'gassed' her and stolen her dog."

      In California, a U.S. magistrate last year said Bilyeu's allegations of "a vast conspiracy of powerful people" were far-fetched and vague.

      The magistrate, Carla Woehrle, noted that Bilyeu asked in the lawsuit "that the 'device' be removed by doctors who are not part of the conspiracy, that she be protected by 'good authorities,' that she receive damages of $50 million or whatever is fair, and that her dog be found and returned to her."

      In the 1990s, Bilyeu unsuccessfully sued Ponca City schools, game show host Alex Trebek, CBS anchor Dan Rather and others.

      She would not discuss her lawsuit against Trebek. She said Rather did not use her name on the news, but "was making insinuations about me -- that I was a whore or something."

      Her lawsuit against Ponca City schools alleged educators there were part of the "evil political conspiracy" against her.

      She has appealed some cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      "I found that there are a lot of corrupt judges that don't really care about justice. And justice is one of my really big issues. I think there are a lot of those judges that need to be weeded out," she said.

      She claims she has been targeted by conspirators because she was born with a "V" mark on her head and was known as the "victory baby." She said politicians have tried to stop her from running for office because they fear she will "mess up their ... power and their money."

      She said the device was stuck in her head during an operation in the late 1970s at a military base in Arizona.

      She said things got worse while Clinton was president because she spoke out against him. She said she was gassed in her apartment and in her car.

      "You can't even believe all the equipment they can use on somebody that they don't like," she said.

      She said she has never been in a mental hospital. But she would not say if she has ever been under a psychiatrist's or psychologist's care.

      She said the CIA or a rogue unit use satellites to transmit the messages -- mostly "put downs" -- inside her head. Asked during an interview the time of the last transmission, she said, "Today."

      "I really think it's political," she said. "I think the Clintons are out to get me. ... Somebody still is. Somebody is still funding the unit that is transmitting."

      She said she is running for Senate largely because she is against the war in Iraq.

      "We've wasted a lot of young people's lives and billions ... of dollars that should have been used back here on health care and all kinds of things that we needed," she said.

      "I really do care about this country and want it to get back on track like it's supposed to be."

      She admits she was thrown in jail in 2000 for sleeping in her car in a church parking lot in Virginia. "That whole deal was part of the conspiracy," she said.

      SHE IS CRAZY!  Stop defending her.
      

      by Geotpf on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 01:24:03 PM PDT

      •  Look

        She is CLINICALLY ill, dude (or gal). She is not a "crazy nutjob" in the sense that we throw that term around here. And you don't have to give me the story, I've read it in my local paper. I've also met her, spoken with her and observed her. I am saying that the teminology used is less than kind for a person who is worthy of our kindness and respect as a decent human being, if not our support as a candidate. And it is sad, sad, sad that that has to be repeatedly pointed out here, even to Kos. Jeez!

        by gypsy on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 02:24:46 PM PDT

•  Hope the Bounce Echos in Ohio

  My sister in Lima, Ohio (she and her wife are the lesbian scene there) just called me.  She's been working for the small but energetic Allen Co. Dems and says she thinks she must be going crazy because she feels the state breaking for Kerry even in her part.  She did a drive around and said the Kerry signs are everywhere.  People she's called seem very upset about the long call-ups of the Reserves and are hurting economically too.  This was really a shock for me because this is a VERY conservative county -- the only place west of the Mississippi to go for Goldwater!

  I wish I could take off and help her.  I told her about the website and she says anyone who wants to help would be welcomed!  Their phone number is:  [phone] and the website URL is:

  http://www.allencountyohiodemocrats.com/
  

  by mijita on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:17:57 AM PDT

  •  Lima? wow

    That is very encouraging news. One of my cousins lived in Ada (about 20 miles to the east) for a few years. I never dreamed it would be a "swing" area, but I can see how that would be possible. The last time I was there (~2 years ago), the local economy looked like it had been hard-hit.

    Best of luck to your sister and all the other Democratic volunteers in the area.

    by pine on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 12:00:33 PM PDT

•  Bush 50 + Kerry 38 in OK = Kerry landslide in USA

  Bush is up by only 12 points in Oklahoma?

  He must be shitting his pants (or peeing them if we are to believe the rumors).

  This is the best news I have heard this entire election cycle, more than ever it is clear that Kerry is going to pull off a landslide victory over Bush.

  by SoLeft on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:19:06 AM PDT

  •  This is a Dem poll.

    The independent results would probably be closer to 20, I think.

    by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:22:32 AM PDT

    •  More talking out your ass.

      James.

      by RedDan on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:32:08 AM PDT

      •  If you are so worried about asses, fine, but

        I'd think you would be more concerned with lodging your head out of your backside.

        by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:45:42 AM PDT

    •  uh, no it isn't

      This is a Dem poll.

      No, it's not. This is an independent poll.

      You know, it always amuses me a tiny bit how you just make things up when you're at a loss for something to be negative about.

      by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:34:42 AM PDT

      •  I wasn't trying to make anything up.

        The last OK poll Kos had, he said it was a D poll. Then later on he said it was independent. So I stupidly assumed this was a D poll.

        I'm glad I amuse you, but you don't have to accuse me of being a liar. Unless you have any proof that I was deliberately lying, then I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me negative and a liar.

        Is it true that you're working for Charles Taylor now?

        by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:43:31 AM PDT

        •  not a liar

          Actually, I didn't accuse you of being a liar. My insinuation was that you have a borderline psychotic tendency to interpret things as negatively as possible. That is different from being a liar; it is more accurate to describe it as delusional.

          I don't think you're a mole trying to demoralize the forum, like some people do. I just think you need medication, to be honest.

          by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:49:06 AM PDT

          •  You accused me of making things up.

            Which is the same as saying I'm a liar. And there is no "borderline" tendency of that kind, as far as I can tell. Are you saying that Kos has the same tendency, since he also confused this poll for a Dem poll weeks ago?
            

            by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:02:20 AM PDT

            •  uh, no

              A liar "makes up" intentional falsehoods. A psychotic "makes up" his own little delusional fantasy world. If I ever want to accuse you of being a liar, I will call you a liar.

              by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:07:03 AM PDT

              •  So basically what you're saying is that

                when you say I "make things up", it's because you think that I'm insane. When Kos says a poll is Dem and not independent, you don't think he's insane.

                Is that the gist?

                The sad thing is that you don't even really seem to be interested. You said that you were amused. If you think I'm insane, why do you think that's funny? I wouldn't laugh at you if we found out that you were lying about working for Charles Taylor, or George Bush.

                by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:11:01 AM PDT

                •  i don't

                  I don't think it's funny. I think it's quite sad, actually. In the respect that you're clearly disturbed, I feel sorry for you. To the extent that you inflict it on other people, I don't.

                  BTW, I didn't say that you're insane, although you very well may be. If I had to guess, I would say it's either chronic depression or a personality disorder .. perhaps both. I do vaguely recall that superficiality and shallowness is a hallmark of one of the personality disorders, so maybe that's the one. I'm not a psychologist though, but it sure doesn't take one to figure out you have a dreadfully serious problem..

                  by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:01:18 AM PDT

                  •  Quick! Get the horse tranquilizers!

                    They're gonna blow!!!

                    by BullitNutz on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:25:06 AM PDT

    •  Couple Things

      1. Wilson Research Strategies is a conservative, Republican polling and consulting firm with a major presence in Oklahoma.  Here are some references to WRS as a Republican firm.  In fact, they're even known for push polling (not surprising as I was actualy push-polled in a local race by Wilson last year!).

      2. I don't mind spirited disagreements (though in this case, a little Googling would have shown that Wilson is neither Democratic nor independent).  But if y'all really want to discuss each other's body parts and mental health, could you do it off list?  

      by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 09:58:10 AM PDT

      •  it's supposed to be independent

        This poll is supposed to be independent, for a TV station, but I have no reason at all to dispute that they would slant the poll if they are ordinarily a GOP firm. I didn't know that!

        by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 10:05:34 AM PDT

  •  As I said before,

    Kerry being behind by less than ten points in Oklahoma would strike fear into the hearts of conservatives.

    by theprogressivemiddle on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:39:27 AM PDT

•  a shot in the dark

  Kerry has no shot of taking the state...

  Call me a naive yea-sayer, but I'd say that Kerry does have a shot at taking the state. In just three weeks, he's made up two-thirds of the difference between himself and Bush, with a wild-card debate on Wednesday, and an energized Democratic base which may well elect a Dem senator. Sure, it's a long shot, but that's better than no shot at all.

  I mention this partly out of optimism and hope, and partly so that I'll look like Carnac the Magnificent if Kerry wins Oklahoma in a fluke.

  by buddhistMonkey on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:19:07 AM PDT

  •  electoral college campaigning

    I think you are kind of right, the only problem is that the Kerry campaign isn't in OK at all.

    The fact is that Kerry could take states like Oklahoma if he could just invest some resources there.  But the only reason that is true is because Bush has no resources there right now either.  And in a state like Oklahoma one Bush campaign dollar can counteract 10 of Kerry's.  If Kerry put any time or effort into conservative states like these and actually started to get close, the Bush would just throw up a quick add about guns or taxes and that lead would erode away.

    I think we will see climbs like these in tons of conservative states because Bush has no campaign presence and Kerry has unnofficial presence.  Some people are sooooo excited about Kerry that they become mini campaigns, and they don't care where they live.  This pulls the focus away from buzz issues (guns, taxes, abortion) and puts it on the economy and war, issues that Kerry can win among conservatives.

    But if these red states get too close to comfort it will take very little effort for Rove's team to reel them back in.

    by Snuffleupagus on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 06:35:51 AM PDT

    •  On the other hand

      It can indicate a general GOP meltdown and can lead to too many fires breaking out all over for Bush to react fast enough.

      For example there was an article in today's paper about the Bush/Cheney campaign, the RNC, and the RSCC all pulling ads and resources out of Washington state because they consider it a lost cause. They are also pulling back on support for Rossi (who is running for Governor). Not to mention that by giving up on the Presidential and Senate races Rossi has to work that much harder on GOTV.

      Kerry, the DNC, and the DSCC have also pulled ads (because it would be overkill) and are putting the resources elsewhere. Supposedly at least some of the money and staff are being used where democrats are running closer than expected. I'm thinking we are going to see a massive landslide for Democrats nationwide including some huge supprises.

      Then there is the 3rd debate Wedensday night and a further chance for Bush to embarras himself on national TV (and for Kerry to move in for the kill). Heck at this rate Kerry might win Texas.

      In addition the GOTV efforts of various groups trying to get Carson elected can only help Kerry. OK has a huge Native-American population. Typically Native-American turnout is very poor. I'm sure that part of Carson's strategy is a massive registration and GOTV effort among Native-Americans. Just think what the election-night returns from OK are going to look like if there is 55%-60% turnout from Native-Americans.

      by ces on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 09:36:05 AM PDT

•  This counts Wilson Research as partisan poll

  Partisan GOP, that is.
  LOL.
  http://www.race2004.net/states.php?state=ok

  by jfern on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:55:27 AM PDT

  •  Wilson Research Strategies = A**holes

    WRS are not just GOP, but aggressively right-wing. As I note upthread, WRS are known for push-polling.  They even push-polled me in a local race last year!

    by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 10:01:05 AM PDT

•  "Stolen Honor" doc

  Stopsinclair.org offers another chance to weigh in against this outrage.  

  To add your support to the petition below:

  http://www.stopsinclair.org/index.php

  We, the undersigned, respectfully request that Sinclair Broadcast Group not air the documentary Stolen Honor. We believe that it is inappropriate and unfair to air partisan propaganda in the last 10 days of an election campaign. We will make our position known to Sinclair, its advertisers, and any affiliated organizations.

  by Bugsby on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:59:16 AM PDT

  •  Oklahoma

    Nice to see solid numbers in Okla. - However, we need to maintain this. Kerry needs a solid domestic policy debate on wed. to secure momentum - because the blistering negative attacks and 'october suprise' will probably come. But solid numbers for sure.

    by Rick22 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:08:53 AM PDT

•  A Few Observations

  The numbers look reasonable.  Carson hangs on the a razor-thin lead.  That is a good sign because I believe he has already taken most of the worst possible hits.  It ain't over yet, though...

  Something to consider about the Wilson Research polls and this shifts in this week's numbers (especially for Kerry and the marriage amendment) is that I think WRS was oversampling conservatives in their previous polls.  In last week's poll, the internals showed respondents were:

  Ideology 10/5
  Conservative: 50%
  Moderate: 31%
  Liberal: 12%
  

  That seems skewed too conservative by a few points, even for OK.  The internals this week show:

  Ideology 10/12
  Conservative: 44%
  Moderate: 33%
  Liberal: 17%
  

  So, that's a 5-6 point swing to the liberals from last week.  Kerry picked up 10 points from last week, so there is still a debate bounce of 4-5% in there.  Reasonable.  Since the Republicans are trying so hard to paint Carson as more liberal than John Kerry (amazing claim, I know), the better Kerry is viewed, the better Carson will do.

  Carson and Coburn's numbers have probably dropped overall (while Bilyeu picked up a few points) due to all the negative advertising turning people off to both candidates.

  Also, a final note.  One of the more interesting results in this poll is that support for the constitutional marriage amendment fell 12% from last week.  It's currently up 59% to 35% in the poll -- support falling from 71% last week.  I guess all the newly developed "rampant lesbianism" in southeastern Oklahoma is helping to turn the tide on this question. ;-)

  by Federalist on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:02:52 AM PDT

•  Bushco intimidating our troops in Iraq

  This from Hack, America's most decorated Vietnam Vet:

  http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=87&rnd=272.890680002096

  I'm not sure how to reconcile this with the NYT op-ed piece that showed the troops favoring Bushco by about six to one.

  Oh, the fog of war....

  by clarkista on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:18:46 AM PDT

•  BRAND NEW "Furious George" Cartoon

  FOLLOW THIS LINK to view the new "Furious George" cartoon. Jot it down and pass it around...

  http://www.delphinos.com/furious/mystery.html

  __

   Or view the original here:

  http://www.delphinos.com/furious/furious.html

  by AZnomad on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:48:33 AM PDT

•  nice thread

  who won the pissing contest?

  I score it a tie.  

  I realize people get on James for being dkos Prozac but trolling the guy 50 times doesn't prove he was lying about everything, but it proves some people don't have any patience.

  So as in the debates I give James the style pts for standing up for himself.  I give Dan and Keever the substance on the "downer" label.

  If I break the tie using Olbermann rules, I deduct 1 pt from the latter for not backing up their claims of lies with fact but instead just with opinions of their own.

  Now I get to go 4 all of James posts because like him or not, not one post deserved a super troll.

  by thebloviator on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 06:35:38 AM PDT

  •  Thank you.

    Now people can see that GoKeever and RedDan were repeatedly lying and then repeatedly refused to admit it. Not a first for them.

    by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:47 AM PDT

    •  please James

      I read the whole thread before my initial comment.  Yes I think you got screwed.  But please ease up.  I'm not calling Dan or Keever liars.  I'm not calling you a liar.  I'm trying to be superNeutral guy.  

      I see your side.  I see their side.  They are right in that you do try to get a rise out of people.  You are right that your opinions shouldn't be suppressed.  But lets save the name calling for our rivals.  The only people I want to see get called liars are Bush and Cheney.
      

      by thebloviator on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 02:52:18 PM PDT

  •  Jesus

    There's no excuse for telling JamesB3 that he needs to be on medication, as one commenter did earlier.  That's a lowlife dig right there.  Over and over again, I see JamesB3 respectfully sharing opinions that many of us might not share, and then other people not only troll-rating, but insulting him because of it.  These folks should be ashamed of themselves.

    by tunesmith on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:52:01 AM PDT

    •  It is only a select few,

      who are gutless enough to say all this garbage. The funny thing is that they never can take the shit that they dish out. Bullies usually never can do that, can they?

      by JamesB3 on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 08:09:02 AM PDT

    •  Tunesmith

      It is never James' fault, people are always picking on him, and its sad, and pathetic and says more about them than him.

      Or at least that has been JB3's take on this since his very first day. If Trusted Users are handing James 0's, if James is complaining about his posts disappearing (meaning he is no longer Trusted) that says something.

      People have tried everything with James. We have tried reason, we tried humor, we tried advice (good advice - like get the Hell out of Macon). None of that worked. It got old, way old, months ago. Whereupon some people resorted to ridicule, insults and troll rating. None of that worked either.

      Last Spring I sprang an metaphor: Imagine you and a few pals and JamesB3 lying in the tall grass in a meadow on a clear warm day. And out of nowhere James jumps to his feet and cries out "Winter's coming! And it is going to be cold!! Probably the coldest ever!!!"  Well you might start by pointing out that it is a warm day, winter is months away, and the Earth is probably enduring Global Warming as we speak. If he did it again ten minutes later, we might point those facts out again a little more testily, and back it up with some links on a handy laptop. But about time three you begin calling him Chicken Little in your head, and time four Chicken Little to his face. And time five, if you are smart, you simply ignore his odd behavior.

      The problem is that this is a blog and we continually have new residents plopping themselves down in the meadow. And they get involved with our local character, try to intervene and get the same results. Annoying to those of us just trying to doze away here in the tall grass, but whatever. But if some third party intervenes and chastises someone who was after all only trying to help initially but was dragged into verbal battle, well we have to step up.

      Anyone who is chastising GoKeever and even more anyone who is following JamesB3 in his abuse of the Rating system in the belief that JB3 is some kind of victim here is simply wrong.

      James has done this a bazillion times. He even tried it on Marisacat (who had been away for awhile and who he apparently didn't recognize -that ended badly for our hero). And time and again has drawn sympathetic responses from people who have not watched this consistent pattern of behavior since his very first day.

      by Bruce Webb on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 11:54:28 AM PDT

      •  Read james' diary

        on the races in Kentucky, from yesterday.  I read it and beamed with newfound optimism.

        I mean, I've locked horns with him plenty of times, but give the man some credit when he earns it.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 03:53:57 PM PDT

        •  Well I would

          But I don't spend much time on the diaries if truth be told. And what I am commenting on is a pattern of baiting people on main page threads. Anyone who freely enters Diary Land and ends up in a flame war pretty much gets a "Guess you learned your lesson" and not a heaping helping of fours from this poster.

          I guess the appropriate metaphor is the boarding house: there is one set of rules for the shared kitchen table and another for your private room.

          by Bruce Webb on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 05:54:59 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        You don't need to school me about who JamesB3 is.  I've been here for over a year myself and I've seen him around a lot.  You're basically criticizing him for the nature of his opinions.  You're not accusing him of being a troll.  If you don't like who he genuinely is, then tough shit.  One man's Chicken Little is another man's Eeyore.  I happen to like Eeyore.  If you actually have reason to believe that JamesB3 is nothing more than a very sophisticated troll or Republican plant that just enjoys baiting us all and laughing himself to sleep every night, then make your case.  But if your case, and these other folks' case, is that JamesB3 deserves to be bullied out of the community with insults because you don't like what he says, then you don't have my respect.  Not in this community.  You'd be far worse than him.
        

        by tunesmith on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 07:05:59 AM PDT

        •  Agree to disagree

          I have spent two days talking about a topic I vowed to not even touch ever again. And sure enough my first words were true enough, I regret even getting involved.

          by Bruce Webb on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 08:06:28 AM PDT

  •  actually

    I super-troll rated him because this thread isn't about James, or his issues. He wanted to goad people into a flamewar and succeeded, ruining a perfectly fine thread in the process.

    Since you saw the thread as it was before you dredged the crap back out the garbage, you know how orderly it was before you did that.

    Now what is it? An immature, juvenile flamewar. Congrats on the wise use of your trusted-user responsibility..

    by GoKeever on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 07:56:44 AM PDT