One More Way To Steal An Election - 2008 version.

[Stinky The Clown]

Start the slow whisper campaign that, timed properly, will break out as a headline on the day after, when McLame is declared the winner and Karl Rove and Company are picking their teeth and rubbing their bellies.

The whisper is simple. People will say they'd vote for a black man, but in the booth, just won't. There's a history here. Its called the Bradley Effect after the (in)famous California election where this very thing happened. The when they steal it again, they tamp down the anger with this bullshit story.

Our job, now that we have a solid chance at serious party gains and the White House is stay alert to the sorts of shit they pulled on us over and over and over again the last few cycles. And to actually talk OUT LOUD abut the Bradley Effect and how we KNOW about it and how every American should, too ..... so as not to allow it to be used.

[uppityperson]

1. Yup. They will call it something else, but there will be a fair bit of that.

It would be good to have this out in the open before it happens. I hope Obama has campaign people who will do this.

[babylonsister]

2. I predict a Dem blowout of epic proportions. They cannot steal that!

And that being said, that doesn't mean anyone can or should rest on their laurels. But I bet, after the next 5 months, and after the debates are held (I'm hoping Obama refuses the town halls), the majority of the country, those who desire real change, will not pull that lever for gramps.

Finally, there's this to start it off just right; who's experienced now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x132371

Obama Leads in Laying Campaign Groundwork
Big Spending Edge Presents McCain With Uphill Fight
By B Y CHRISTOPHER COOPER
June 7, 2008; Page A4


As the race begins between Barack Obama and John McCain, the Democrat is far ahead in laying the groundwork for a national campaign.

Federal records from February through April show Sen. Obama has outstripped Sen. McCain in spending for a campaign's most-important functions -- a staff of field directors to round up volunteers and get out the vote, a chain of local offices to call strategy and dispense paraphernalia, and a robust advertising and direct-mail schedule.

Sen. McCain, by contrast, has done little advertising, has a much leaner ground army, and is fielding only a handful of campaign offices ahead of the general election.

The mismatch in spending for the building blocks of a national campaign comes in part because Sen. Obama has had to pour resources into an intensive nominating battle far longer than Sen. McCain, who effectively sealed the Republican title four months before Sen. Obama sealed his party's nod this week. But the extended primary battle could benefit the Illinois freshman senator in November, because he has a ready staff in several key states and has built his name-recognition. The disparity also exists because Sen. Obama has been a far more-effective fund-raiser than Sen. McCain.

more...

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I'd like to believe that, but I don't. Not after the last two times

[babylonsister]

4. They couldn't steal the wins in 2006 precisely because so many

people voted for Dems, and in so many places. That gives me hope.

[watrwefitinfor]

5. I believe the opposite is going to happen in parts of the south.

I think many whites will tell their neighbors, pollsters, whomever, that they would never vote for a black man, then stealthily vote for this one.

My mother was a Carolina textile worker. I won't say she was racist, because she didn't consider herself to be, but obviously there was some degree of prejudice there. She told me once that she had voted for Jesse Jackson, but I should never "tell on her". She said she just had to, cause he was the only one running who was for working people. I'm certain she wasn't the only white person who did this. And yeah, I'm ratting her out now. Sorry, Ma. But things may change this time.

Wat

[unc70]

6. Is your mother in SC, too? Is it still solidly Repub?

Your mother seems to fit a pattern common in much of the South, at least since 1940, in Presidential elections -- white men voted Republican while their wives voted Democratic, often hiding it from everyone, many even in fear that their husbands might find out. If your mother voted for Jackson in SC in 1988, I suspect she has mostly voted for Dems for President in the past.

I am in NC which is currently described as possibly in play. The only way I can see that happening would be if Barr were to siphon off enough more Repubs than Dems votes. While many on the right are not enthused about McCain and many at DU expect a low turnout among them, I expect that once the RW attacks on Obama are fully unleashed after the convention, these voters will not even need to hold their noses when they vote for McCain.

At several family and social gatherings before the NC primary, I talked at length with relatives and friends I have known my entire life and with some more-recently met. Overall, there are more of them that would never vote Dem for President than there are ones, like me, who would never vote Repub. This group included just a few AA or college students, the core of support for Obama in the primary and in the GE. Probably because the NC primary was actively contested, everyone seemed more involved, more informed, and much more willing to discuss politics than I have ever seen here.

In my small sample, nearly everyone seemed interested in how others were seeing things in the election and willing to share their own views. I was surprised how unemotional, how rational, how pragmatic those on all sides appeared, maybe in part because most in this groups described this election as picking the best from a bad lot.

The greater surprise to me was how far along and how nuanced was the view of Obama by those on the right. Here is one example TP among many I found: While nearly everyone at DU has trouble understanding why anyone could still believe that Obama was ever a Muslim -- after all that was debunked in response to the "madrassa" email ages ago -- when I asked those I know on the right what they knew about Obama's religion, many brought up on their own about his Muslim stepfather, his receiving instruction in Islam in school and being registered as a Muslim there in Indonesia, his "ties" with the Nation of Islam, and then into Rev. Wright, etc. and questions about when Obama became a Christian and what kind of Christian he really was. Several times I heard someone express that Obama was lying (just like every Dem) and was trying to hide who he was, and just wait until everyone found out the truth. Someone was doing a good job getting the "message" out to them about Obama.

At DU and such places, we feel superior and think them stupid and ignorant for believing Obama a Muslim, even make fun of them. (similar on other issues) They, in turn, view those supporting Obama as naive and gullible, and they laugh about how much they will enjoy watching Dems whine and complain after McCain beats Obama.

If for nothing else than the Supreme Court, I want Obama to win, but see the odds now as roughly even with McCain. In NC, we well know what the Repubs can, will, and must do in order to win. They will use tactics that no Dem would use and will use every tiny fact to their advantage. After all, this is where Helms and Reagan found their message and where terms like "welfare queen" first appeared. So what is Obama thinking when he brings up his mother on Food Stamps while he is in private schools? Why does he make it easy for them?

And will there be any way at DU to discuss these attacks and how to defend them after next week? To examine the problems that Obama gives credence because he sometimes seems to mislead or distract others from closely examining something, thus giving that "something" more value?

I preferred Edwards and still believe he would have done better in the GE than either Clinton or Obama; I reluctantly concluded that Obama would be a riskier nominee than Clinton. Neither of those really matter now; the task at hand is to dispense quickly with any euphoria-induced confidence and work to win a very close contest.

[watrwefitinfor]

8. Yours is such a thoughtful and detailed post -

and you took a great deal of time with it. I cannot do justice to all the points you raise, but they are valid questions, and should be discussed. I would urge you to post most of it in a separate thread.

It's my understanding that discussion and criticism of the candidate's tactics and strategy etc. will still be allowed on DU after Wednesday. There was much discussion on DU in 2004 between the Deaniacs and Kerry supporters. The board unified around Kerry, still, Dean supporters would continue to sharply question some of Kerry's actions or non-actions. Many DUers were vocal in screaming that Kerry should respond forcefully and immediately to the swiftboating. Occasionally someone would cross the line from critique to vicious attack, and that was against the rules. But no, there will be no force-feeding of party line. If there is, it will no longer be DU.
____________________________________

My mom has been dead for many years. She lived in NC. She was a registered voter, but could rarely be bothered to actually go out to the polls. She made the exception for Jesse.

She also took part in a couple of union drives, though she never became a real activist. She admired many of her black co-workers because, as she put it, they were the only ones in the plant who weren't scared to stand up and fight for the union. So perhaps she wasn't typical. But exit polls showed a surprisingly large contingent of whites voting for Jesse in NC, if I remember correctly.

Remember, too, if you are at UNC, that you may work in a very rarefied environment. :-)

As for some of the things Obama sometimes says, like the food stamps - I think better he should get it out there than allow them to dig it up. I don't know how it's all going to go down but I was amazed watching them release the attacks, and watching him bounce back every time.

I run into people here in SC who are excited about him. Black and white. Some of the whites surprise me - they want to know more about him, and they are worried for his safety. One younger relative, who hangs with a bunch of rednecks and never talks politics with me, has been won over. He came to me and told me that he listed to the Minn. speech and it was the first time he had actually listened to the words. He said he finally understood what it was about him. He'd never dreamed someone like that was possible, and if anyone could do it, it was him. Before he had been just totally skeptical that anything could change. One speech had won him over.

But One friend who I have known a long time and who I thought was smart enough to know better said, yes, I agree with just about everything he says, but I don't think I could ever vote for a Muslim. But I says, he isn't. I know, she says, but his father was. So I know exactly what you are talking about.

But mostly, I think, people see the economy and know the Republicans did it. They see the weather, and they have learned that the polar ice caps are melting and the Republicans did nothing to stop it, in fact contributed to it, and they know they are being lied to about the severity of it. At least people I know out here in the boonies know it. It's hard to fool a farmer about the weather, and you should see the clouds cross their faces when you raise the weather/climate question. I think many many people know that it's make or break time.

And no, SC isn't solidly Republican. There are a number of blue areas. All my reps, both national and local, are Dems. I am in the same general area as Clyburn and Spratt, but it's true, we are a minority in a sea of red.

So maybe I am too optimistic. But I've waited since 1960 for another presidential candidate I could get excited about, and had given up seeing one in my lifetime. Maybe that colors my view of my fellow South Carolinians.

Wat

[unc70]

9. A Dem strategy that hopes to flip NC, SC, or VA feels desperate

I would love to see one or more of these states vote for Obama, but I see the odds of any of them flipping at about 20%. I don't believe any of those states have gone Dem since Carter. In 1960, NC went for JFK through the incredible efforts of Terry Sanford. It looks likely that McCain would carry FL, WV, and a couple of others Dems usually need to win, so that immediately puts us in a hole. PA, MI, WI appear shaky.

But I just don't see the demographics for a Dem win here. New voters can only help by 1-2% because previous registration and GOTV campaigns among AA and college students were part of 2000 and 2004. The newcomers to NC have voted Repub as much as Dem -- banking and technology is dominated by white males tending to vote Republican. Charlotte and Raleigh. We would still need to gain an additional 5% of the electorate to Obama over what we saw in 2004 with Kerry/Edwards and in light of the effects of racism pulling in the other direction.

While I now live in Chapel Hill, my roots and my extended family and many friends are in rural eastern NC. Born and raised in the 1940's on a tobacco farm on a dirt road, hand pump on the porch, outhouse, and no telephone. Things have changed a lot since then for all of us, but I still keep up with what is happening down east.

I think race is not the biggest problem for Obama. Most of those who might not vote for him because of race, would not likely vote for any Dem; same for those voting for him -- likely to vote for any Dem. I think Obama is most vulnerable on his credibility. When Obama was dealing with the Rev Wright issues, almost no one believed him when he at first tried to claim he had never heard any of Wright's rhetoric in 20 years. As he gradually changed his story, his credibility eroded further. When Obama denied any ties to Islam except his father being raised in a Muslim family but becoming an atheist, the RW points out that his stepfather was a Muslim, that Barrack received instruction in Islam while a student in Indonesia, and that his family attended celebrations of Islamic holidays. They then shift the focus to when did he convert to Christianity and what kind of a Christian is he and that leads to Wright and Trinity Church and to various ties to the Nation of Islam.

The RW is also busy establishing his close ties with leftist radicals, his Marxist parents, and his high-school mentor being a member of the Communist Party. Of course, there are also issues involving corruption of all sorts in Chicago: Rezko, Robert Blackwell, Auchi, et al. All of these problems, each with some basis in fact, will scare away a lot of voters. All this even before the RW start lying about him.

BTW I was one of those whites who voted for Jesse in 1988.

[unc70]

10. Deleted -- duplicate

dup

[unc70]

11. Deleted -- duplicate

dup

[bemildred]

7. Who gives a sh*t? What have we got to lose? Nothing, that's what.

Go for it, all the way.

[readmoreoften]

12. Personally, I think they lied about Clinton voters being "racist". That's the beginning of the hype.

Not that there aren't racists--LORD KNOWS. But in those polls only 20% of Clinton voters said that "race mattered" and it wasn't always clear to me what that meant. For example, some people could've meant "The idea of voting for an African-American appealed to me, but in the end I wanted to vote for a woman."

For instance when West Virginia voted for Edwards it was reported 7% of West Virginia voters refused to vote for a woman or an African American. Yeah...well, technically or maybe they just REALLY LIKED EDWARDS??? I mean come on now, that's a total distortion.

Hopefully it won't work this time. I'll tell you what, if it does...they'll be settin' up for some serious problems. Which, I must say, is very in their character.