I emailed Jay Rosen about the poll of Bush supporters below. He's head of NYU's journalism school, so I figured he'd have an interesting take. He said it's complecated, and that it's hard to make a story out of journalists jaws dropping. The best quote:

Strange as it sounds, we're going to have an election to settle this "reality" thing.

Here's hoping that it works.

More dishonesty from a Bush campaign that thrives on illusions.

The text of their new scare ad, "Wolves," begins with something along the lines of "Even after the first terrorist attacks on America, Kerry voted to cut intelligence funding."

They're referring to the attempted WTC bombing in 1993, of course, but millions will assume (wrongly) they mean 9/11. This deception is plain and intentional.

The conclusion of the ad, that such cuts would have made us more vulnerable, is also not necessarily supported by the facts. FactCheck.org reports that Kerry's proposed cost-savings amounted to a 1% cut, and that similar measures were advanced by Republicans.

Baseless fearmongering seems to be the 9th inning strategy for team Bush, while the Democrats seem to be resorting to a plea for sanity. The DNC has responded with a lighter ad comparing Eagles to Ostriches; soring high with sharp vision vs. head in the sand. It's a nice contrast, and makes sense to me, but my gut tells me the dishonest scare-ad will be more effective. Hope I'm wrong.

Krugman: Voting and Counting

By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is influential because of its illustrious history, report a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines "likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point Bush lead among registered voters. And as the Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger), Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a much smaller proportion of both minority and young voters than the actual proportions of these voters in the 2000 election.

I think his credits to Teixeria and Soto mark a NY Times first, though real insiders must still wonder when and if he'll credit Brad Delong, who's often a week or two ahead of him on economic analysis (sometimes they use the same charts). However, here he's tackling a distorted media perception and a pattern of disenfranchisement, not economics. His conclusion is red hot, incendiary:

But we must not repeat the mistake of 2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support.

While most other columnists are running out the clock with recycled conventional wisdom and bland metaphors, Krugman is bringing heat in the 9th inning, throwing all his fastballs. And why the hell not? Why not go all the hell out? Yeah! Let's fucking bury these goddamn crooks!

Krugman: Voting and Counting

By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is influential because of its illustrious history, report a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines "likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point Bush lead among registered voters. And as the Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger), Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a much smaller proportion of both minority and young voters than the actual proportions of these voters in the 2000 election.

I think his credits to Teixeria and Soto mark a NY Times first, though real insiders must still wonder when and if he'll credit Brad Delong, who's often a week or two ahead of him on economic analysis (sometimes they use the same charts). However, here he's tackling a distorted media perception and a pattern of disenfranchisement, not economics. His conclusion is red hot, incendiary:

But we must not repeat the mistake of 2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support.

While most other columnists are running out the clock with recycled conventional wisdom and bland metaphors, Krugman is bringing heat in the 9th inning, throwing all his fastballs. And why the hell not? Why not go all the hell out? Yeah! Let's fucking bury these goddamn crooks!

The Doctor Speaks:

"Some people say that George Bush should be run down and sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on November 2nd."

Plenty more good stuff in there. He's slowing down in his age, but's he still got it.

A look into the non-reality-based community. PIPA survey of Bush, Kerry supporters:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program...

75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission...

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves.

I don't know what to do about this. The propaganda and pride are a lot to overcome, and simple "making people aware of the facts" isn't going to do it. The Bush/Cheney04 campaign is one of the most patently dishonest in US history: fully 1/2 of its support is based on outright misconceptions.

Young voters turning to fake anchor for insight / Comic Jon Stewart scores points with rant on 'Crossfire':

"Here is someone who is ridiculing the system, yet he will be part of the system and vote," said Josh Koenig, a co-founder of Music for America, a year- old effort based in Redwood City to engage young voters. "When he did that on 'Crossfire,' we were jumping up and down. That's exactly how young people feel. "

Hey! I got a quote above the fold on the front page of the SF Cronicle! Saw that when I walked into my downstairs coffee shop. Cool!

Maybe I should start a new category explicitly for "self aggrandizement."

Just a quick shout out to all the Massholes I know and love who read this website from time to time. Hope you tie one on good tonight. I can only imagine the sloppy phone calls flying all over the New England area. The Red Sox made a comeback of epic proportions: returning from a 0-3 defecit with two extra-inning wins and clinching it on Yankee turf...

I'm not really a Sox fan -- I'm more of a Mets man: You Gotta Believe -- but I've never liked the Yankees. Seemed like rooting for Microsoft or something. Now I can only hope that the Astros don't take it tomorrow or else we'll hear nothing from the talking heads but "Texas vs. Massachusetts" in sports and politics. I don't know if I could take it, though I'm sure the Daily Show would do something great.

Cheers to you all!

Enjoy The Draft is a great satire site some friends of mine put together. If you actually want to register your opinion on the matter, you can head on over to NoIraqDraft.com.

For the record, in spite of what you might like to believe, if Bush is re-elected the chances of events leading to forced military service move from "possible but unlikely" to "frighteningly possible." This is not scaremongering; it's rational analysis.

I was talking to someone the other night who serenely insisted that it wouldn't happen because mothers would not allow it. Some say because it's currently politically unpopular, it would never happen. Others simply scoff at the very notion.

I think these people are (like the president) somewhat insulated from military and geopolitical reality.

Let's play a little game called "what if." What if North Korea starts lobbing artillery at Seoul? What if Iran is conclusively shown to be sending arms, fighters and possibly even non-nuclear WMDs into places like Fallujia and Sadir City? What if there's a coup in Saudi Arabia or Syria? What if the Russians decide to invade some of their former satelites and that triggers a wider conflict, perhaps including Pakistan?

The reality is, at the moment we ain't got shit to do. Training units are being called away from training new troops to fighting in the Middle East. Reservists are being forced to re-up. There's a major crisis of manpower, and without a change in plans and priorities, something's got to give.

Public support for warlike causes is historically remarkably easy to whip up. Let's not get carried away with how people "won't get fooled again." More than half of all Republicans (and close to 1/3 of Democrats) still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, ok? It wouldn't even take another nation getting involved (as above) or an attack on US soil to stir up the pot. What if 35 young US solders (male and female) are captured on an unprotected supply run -- similar to the one that recently sparked a mutiny -- and then brutally executed/beheaded by Iraqi insurgients en masse?

That shit could happen any day now, but how 'bout if it happened right before Christmas; if it was all over the news through the new year as the saga drug out to it's final tragic bloody conclusion. Think that might sway some public opinion?

That would force the reality that we need to protect our supply lines -- Rumsfeld's pet theories of war notwithstanding, public opinion would demand we support our troops rather than leaving them exposed. Only problem is that means fighting the war like most generals initially requested, with 100 thousand more bodies to stand around holding guns and getting shot at. It would be either that or packing up and leaving, and if you think Bush is flexible enough to cut and run, you haven't been paying attention to his tempermet or his political advosors' willingness to exploit tragedy for their own ends.

It's a real thing; there really honestly could be a draft if we don't get our shit together here. One more time: NoIraqDraft.com.

What's At Stake

For anyone out there who thinks Bush and Kerry are just "two sides of the same coin," take a look at the page I've been working on for the past few days over on MfA.

P. Diddy ain't kidding when he rocks those shirts that say "Vote or Die." The stakes are high, especially for our future. The contrast is clear and the time to raise our voice is now.

A lot of people don't like their choices. It's not my ideal election either, but our future is at stake, and we better do something or quit bitching.

If you're smart enough to be concerned about your vote, you've proven yourself smart enough to cast it. And to be honest we need all the smart people we can get this time around. It's that big a deal. Seriously.

What's At Stake: pass it on.