1. Yes, many of these professional athletes are millionaires, and surely some subset of these are "spoiled" or "pampered." But not all make millions per year, many have short-lived careers, and some are carrying not only their immediate but extended families on their back. (Including Artest, by the way...but read more about him in Sally Jenkins' column today.) And if you think pro sports, especially football, doesn't take a toll, consider that NFL players have lower life expectancies than their age cohorts, and that guys like Bill Walton (who played hoops, not football) can hardly stand up for more than an hour before their knees give way. They get millions because that's what the market yields for persons who are among just a few hundred that can perform in their profession at such a high level; corporate CEOs (many of whom perform much worse) make the same supply-and-demand claims to justify their salaries.

2. No, these athletes are not public role models. I agree with Charles Barkley here - if some sports figure is your kid's role model, you're doing a shitty job as a parent. I loved Bucky Dent as a kid (sorry Sox fans) because my dad grew up with his older brother, and my dad introduced me to Dent when I was eight. But I idolized my dad, not Dent, because he was the one who took me to the games and played catch with me in the yard, etc.

3. Despite the fact they shouldn't be expected to be, many athletes are role models anyway. They perform quite a bit of public service, often more than non-millionaire salt-of the-earthers from mundane professions. Coming myself from a profession where service obligations (both on and off campus) are part of mid-tenure, tenure and full-professor reviews, I have a respect for many athletes who, despite being away from home a lot to play games, still find time when they are home to do community service - and expect nothing in return. Tell you what: When drunk salesmen who scream profanities from the corporate box seats have to start performing public service as a condition of their next promotion, they can start piping in with the comments about role models, OK? (N.B.: I do recognize and applaud, of course, the many public- and private-sector workplaces that encourage and reward those who are active volunteers in their communities.)

4. Fans like this jerk John Green need a good comeuppance. Green is the shit-eatin'-grin Pistons fan who threw the cup at Artest and was later caught on film punching Artest in the head. He is now soaking up his absurd 15 minutes of infamy as if he's some sort of hero. I wanted to vomit as I watched him gloating on Larry King this week. (On a related note to #3 above, I'd also be curious as to what Mr. Green's community service record looks like; his similarly-smug lawyer should feel free to shoot me an email with Mr. Green's C.V. attached.)

5. Finally, keep in mind that, by definition, some of these non-role model millionaires will always be on losing teams. Indeed, here's a prediction I can make with absolute certainty: The overall, regular-season winning percentage of the combined teams in the NBA this year (and last year, and next year) is the same as it will be for teams in the NFL, MLB, and NHL: .500. That's because every game has one winner, and one loser. Except for the NHL's ludicrous playoff system, about two-thirds of the teams (including some with winning records) will fail to make the playoffs. And that means that, as an unavoidable artifact of professional sports, tens of millions of fans from dozens of cities will be complaining about the underperformance of "overpaid" millionaires for their home teams.

Though I opposed going to Iraq, given that we are there now, overall I believe these three operations are exactly what was needed in Iraq. Ah, but the emphasis here is decidedly on was. Better late than never, sure; but these offensives would have been better (and more easily) conducted when they were initially necessary and appropriate, instead of waiting. Indeed, these offensives are tougher now precisely because the insurgents have been left to fester, to become emboldened, for months.

And yet, I hear almost no tough questions and few, if any, criticisms from the Big Media. Any reasonable member of the national chattering class who praises these November offensives should rightly pause, even for a moment or two, to ask the president, his Defense Department, or their spokespersons, the following questions:

1. If these insurgent strongholds needed to be defused/suppressed, why were these offensives not conducted much, much earlier? Bush's balk in Fallujah last April permitted these insurgent strongholds to take root and grow. So why the wait? The uncomfortable answer that will never be uttered, of course, is that November 2 loomed. Can it be a coincidence that the troops started moving there within a week of the votes being counted here?

2. Which brings us to a second question: Using April 2004 as the cut-point, what do we say to the 387 Americans who died and the 4,066 Americans who were wounded during the months between May and October 2004? For all of Krauthammer's blather about Bush's courage in spending political capital, when lives were on the line the past six months to a year, Bush dared not spend a nickel of his election-year capital to ratchet up the counter-offensives to save American lives in the longer term for fear it might cost more lives in the shorter (i.e., election-year) term. Many of the attacks against our troops and civilians were planned and coordinated in places like Fallujah and Jalaba.

3. Looking ahead, are there any circumstances under which elections should not be held on January 30? The rush to hold elections is, in my view, a diversionary and exculpatory tactic. If Iraq goes ahead with scrambled elections while millions remain displaced from their homes, and unemployment is about 70 percent nationwide, that means the results have far less meaning in terms of democratic transition than they do in terms of phony global public relations. And Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld seem far more interested in the latter than the former. These will not be akin to the Afghanistan elections, which were far from perfect despite being conducted under far safer, far more stable conditions.

4. Though there are signs that we will increase troop counts in Iraq for the short term, will troop counts be reduced after January 30 -- regardless of the outcome of those elections? If Bob Novak is right, Bush is going to use elections as justification for bailing on Iraq, leaving it to becoming Afghanized, as Matt Yglesias worries, while claiming credit for turning a dictatorship into a democracy. I want our straight-talkin' stay-the-course president on the record prior to January 30 saying he will stay the course in Iraq after January 30.

First, here are the excerpts during which he mentions bloggers, usually with a tone mixed of condescension and anger:

OK, let's be clear about a couple of things. First, no blogger -- of the "self-important," "abundantly arrogant" or any other variety -- is a paid subscriber to the National Election Pool, a consortium of major news operations that includes Morin's own paper. That said, it has to be the case that at least one person (and probably more) who does work for either the NEP or an NEP-member media outlet leaked the exit poll results, either to bloggers directly or, more likely, indirectly by leaking first to big media types and/or top officials from both campaigns. Not sure whether Morin considers these persons to be lacking judgment, and perhaps spectacularly so at that, because he refrains from passing his own judgments, despite noting that their behavior causes "mischief." Indeed, though campaigns track turnout rates by precinct/county in order to make same-day decisions about application of resources (e.g., shifting robo-calls to this part of the state from that, or from this state to another), leaked exit poll data from NEP could taint the procedure on election day by making campaigns question their own internal data and thus make poor tactical choices about spending scarce resources as the clock winds down. But no blogger would have the ability to publish the early numbers without the leaks in the first place. Will Mr. Morin dash off an angry letter to the FEC about the NEP corrupting the election?

Somehow I doubt it, given how gingerly Morin treads on the big boys, using a passive voiced "those numbers will still leak out," rather than perhaps writing, "the NEP members will still carelessly, unethically and perhaps strategically leak those numbers." And if, as Morin concedes, the numbers will leak out anyway, doesn't that mean even if there were no such thing as blogs, or even the internet, we would have still have had to witness, by late afternoon on election day, the site of Ted Kennedy and Tad Devine gloating on television while Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes bickered glumly on FOX about whether the election turned on David Kay's report or Bush's first debate performance?

In fact, Morin admits that exit polling data in 1988 was wrong, and yet the networks blundered ahead and discussed the results anyway:

In 1988, the internet was just a gleam in Al Gore's eye, and many of the bloggers were still in diapers.

Ah, but by making such distinctions might just point Morin's finger at his own newspaper, and other major media subscribers to the NEP. It's far easier (and safer) to pick on the bloggers for reporting information they didn't leak in the first place, and would have been circulating by email and phone through the media by 1:15 EST on November 2 to the campaigns and other political insiders around Washington anyway.

I also happen to have it on good authority that the networks this year ignored the NEP's specific, direct warnings not to rush to judgment based on the early numbers. And, although I normally maintain a Novakian regard for protecting my sources, since my source went public with this very information, I may as well reveal him: Richard Morin himself. Continuining in the same piece, he writes:

First, I'd like to take issue with the smarmy "busier than" and victimhood-ish "disliked the media's coverage" suppositions from a columnist who covers serious social science. The implication, of course, is that lazy and/or unemployed Democrats don't have to rush back to work like salt-of-the-earth Republicans do, thus permitting them the luxury of chatting with exit pollsters - perhaps even breaking into conversations about what a great job the national newspapers did investigating the pre-war weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein. (I seem to recall an internal review and apology from a certain newspaper that signs Mr. Morin's check and - to show I'm no suck-up afraid to risk appearing again some day in the same pages where Morin's piece is published - several checks for "Outlook" analyses I've published there myself.)

So, according to Morin's reporting, it was the esteemed, seasoned and of course ethical network folks who "chose to ignore" the NEP's warnings about rushing to judgment on the basis of early exit poll results. Yet somehow, the network folks do not lack judgment ("spectacularly," or not) and, again, their actions on Election Day must therefore be the fault of the bloggers, just as it was their fault for reporting info leaked to them by same network folks, directly or indirectly.

The sad thing is that Morin's piece is otherwise a very informative analysis of what happened regarding exit polling on Election Day. I know several of the "Outlook" editors, and they are a quality bunch. So I'm completely puzzled why they and Morin would pollute an otherwise superb piece with Morin's vented frustrations about bloggers when the origin of the problem is the behavior of NEP members and rush-to-judgment network types.

Since the civil rights era, the Democrats have, without doubt, been the more heterogeneous party, even today in their minority status. Still, it is axiomatic that, all else equal, the GOP coalition becomes increasingly harder to maintain and satisfy the larger it gets. The political corollary to this axiom is that wedge politics become more fruitful as a political tactic for Democrats and the progressive Left to use against the Republicans.

That said, I'm curious to get some feedback on the following, as Proposal #1 for wedgifying the GOP majority in Washington: A proposed constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Consider the Texas-sized horns of the president's dilemma:

*If he deems it necessary to defend the "culture of life" by endorsing the amendment, he risks alienating many social moderates, including millions who vote Republican on fiscal/defense issues but are less comfortable with the social conservative wing of the GOP. Moreover, Bush will be perceived by many (including constitutional conservatives) as a reckless leader who wants to settle yet another controversial policy dispute by meddling with the language of document intended to design the basic rules and paramaters of government, not decide temporary policy battles best resolved by the majoritarian branches of the national and state governments.

*If, on the other hand, he dares to fall silent - or even oppose it - he will have a full-blown mutiny on the bountiful values-voters deck. It will be a nice little test case of Thomas Frank's claims in What's the Matter with Kansas?

For all their whining about the havoc wreaked by "activist judges," you can be sure many Republicans do not want to go public, especially via constitutional action, on the abortion question. They'd much rather chip away at abortion rights more quietly in the courts. You may recall that Bush ducked (twice) when asked during the debates about Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees; he does not want to append to his call for banning gay marriage by amendment a call to ban abortion by amendment, too.

By making the president and Republican congressmen - and "men" is, generally speaking, the accurate gender usage - take stands in the form of public statements and/or roll call votes, we can ascertain who has the political-electoral guts to support banning abortion by federal constitutional amendment.

I think Minority Leader Pelosi should come forward, tell the nation she wants to get this issue settled once and for all, and call for the vote. Values voters who would love to have this issue settled by constitutional amendment will ratchet up the national conversation to cacophonic levels. Then, after the proposed amendment goes down, when those court appointees start issuing their rulings, the pro-choice community can complain, and rightly, that "conservative activist judges" are trying to undermine the will of the public, as expressed by their democratically-elected national representatives.

The GOP plays wedge politics because they love forcing Democrats to go on record so they can later pillory those who vote against them, and neutralize those who voted with them. The last thing this Republican majority - and its politically-capitalized president - wants is to be assaulted by the same wedge-political tactics they have used for years.

So, what say you, aspiring Speaker-to-be Pelosi?

Reed, you see, wanted to not merely deliver the social conservatives' "values" votes this year, but to ensure that their pivotal role be made noted and respected -- broadcast and trumpeted, loudly and quite publicly. They didn't want to just win; they want credit and plaudits for scoring the decisive touchdown.

Awesome. The fact that this election - the first post-9/11 election, with a war in Iraq abroad and a changing economic situation at home - will be remembered by the we-need-it-simplified media as the "values" election, is Reed's great gift to us.

Why? Because I suspect that right now that the Wall Street wing, and the small business wing, and the defense industry wing, and the tax reform wings of the party are shuddering at the thought that Americans are being told that Bush got to 51 percent based on "values" voting. Would not the better "take-away" storyline from this election be that Bush won because the nation believes in Republicans' fiscal and defense policies, their steadfastness and leadership abilities? I'm meeting a lot Republicans (both conservatives and moderates) who do not want this election to be framed as the Ralph Reed Rout.

To understand their fears, flip the script for a moment, and imagine we had won and the emergent storyline right now was, say, how pro-choice single white women carried the day - that they were the newly-mobilized "swing voter" that proved decisive. That image would not merely oversimplify such a victory, but frame it in a way that would permit conservatives to demonize us through their usual tactics of villification and exaggeration. Indeed, have not the Hannitys and Coulters done just that to us, for years? (And we're the liars and haters, huh?) They love to claim, falsely but effectively, that our party is comprised solely of Hollywood elites, gays, the unmarried and childless, college professors, and minority welfare cheats.

Frankly, we don't angry enough about this depiction, and if we don't start raising our voices, pretty soon Sean and Bill and Ann will have the rest of America invoking as a referent, whenever they hear the words "Democrat Party," the image of a thirty-something, black, gay UCLA professor of postmodern studies who works a few hours a day indoctrinating his students with Che Guevara mantras, before knocking off early to go home for some hot gay sex with his unionized, Hispanic postal worker husband, as they watch pornography on the widescreen and their three adopted sons sit nearby taking notes. I exaggerate for effect, but you get the point.

And thus, the biggest silver lining of this election is how the GOP's victory is thus far being claimed, framed and explained. To that I say, "Let us join that chorus." And we should do so now, because there is immediacy in the post-election window of opportunity.

Marching order #1, therefore, is this: No matter whom you talk to outside our circles, begin to perpetuate the (false, exaggerated) notion that George Bush's victory was built not merely on values issues, but gay marriage specifically. If you feel a need to broaden it slightly, try depicting the GOP as a majority party synonymous with gay-haters, warmongers and country-clubbers. Because I, for one, am tired of hearing whiny complaints from conservatives that, not only do I not have values, but that I fail to properly respect the values of people who are all too happy to buy into, no less perpetuate, inaccurate caricatures of the 54+ million Americans who voted Tuesday for John Kerry.

Criticizing the GOP ain't gonna build us a new national majority. But the process is brick by brick, or perhaps, brickbat by brickbat. We didn't decide the rules of engagement, but that's what they are and so we may as well start firing away. Oh, and Ralph: Thanks for the help.

And yet the lines at my local polling station in the Adams Morgan section of Northwest DC look like scenes we've witnessed from TV broadcasts in Broward County, FL. I went to the front of the outside portion of the line at my voting location at 7:50, and the woman there said she began waiting at 6:50. The line wrapped around the block, and the next (shorter) block, probably 250-deep. The only explanation I can muster is that people here want to post the highest Kerry national vote winning margin possible, because the three electors are a lock.

Share your poll observations on this thread. And if you haven't voted yet, be sure to bring food, water, reading material -- and, if you live in Ohio or elsewhere it may be inclement today, rain gear and umbrellas -- for yourself and to share with other (Kerry) voters.

As a result of a middle of the night ruling (typical), you may be challenged in Ohio today.

According to Ohio Law (§ 3505.18):

As a non-lawyer reading that, I take that to mean that only those with a permanent handicap (or a temporary one, like a cast on your writing hand) that prevents them from physically signing the registry need to show ID.

Look, Ohio's Republican Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, has already predicted a 73 percent turnout in Ohio this year, up from 63 percent four years ago. So you know they need to challenge, because this kind of rise in voter turnout does not bode well for the GOP in the Buckeye State.

Here is the national voter fraud hotline webpage, with a toll-free number as well as a link at the bottom (in English and Spanish) with more information on your voting rights in Ohio than what I've posted above. Sadly, the OH secretary of state's Board of Elections' webpage does not provide much information on how to file a complaint, other than to instruct you to notify the poll worker at your voting location.

Related note: If you are planning to vote after work today, or late in the day, they MUST let you vote so long as you ARE IN LINE by 7:30 p.m. when the polls close. Do NOT let them turn you away if you are there but still in line, whether inside or outside the polling location. Pass the word.
UPDATE: More information on Ohio from DKos’ incomparable readers. Go here and here.

Don't take my word for it: Here's Prof. Dante Scala of St. Anselm's college -- the man who literally wrote the book on the New Hampshire primary -- with the early line.

Meanwhile, here are the two closing sentences from Bush's election day email to his list of supporters:

It's a strange and strangely ambiguous statement; though surely written by a staffer at BC04 headquarters in Northern Virginia, it's eerily typical of Bush's veiled language in real life. (Like when he points out that he received an honorable discharge, which implies that he served honorably without actually stating: I served honorably.) Yes, he did pledge to uphold the honor and dignity of the presidency four years ago. And yes, today will be the beginning of four more years...of something. He can't even bring himself to say he succeeded in upholding the honor and dignity of the office, or what those next four years might look like.

All in all, a fitting, final moment of truth from Bush that summarizes who he is and what he has (or rather, has not) been to the country...

Karl's last-ditch effort is to use the gay marriage issue to scare people. This is how desperate they are:

Use comments below to report contact information (phone, email) for newspapers, radio stations and television affiliates so Michigan residents (there should be plenty of Kossacks there without the rest of the readers of this site piling on) calling as outraged, local citizens.

Update [2004-11-1 15:57:43 by DHinMI]:

Be careful with this.

Here in Michigan we’re fighting what I’m pretty sure is a tight battle against the bigots over Proposal 2, which wouldn’t just enshrine anti-gay discrimination in our constitution, but would also, because of the ridiculously vague language of the amendment, permanently ban all civil unions and many domestic partnerships for unmarried couples, both same-sex and heterosexual. (Yes, many employers offer domestic partner benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples.)

Don’t unwittingly permit this crap to be spun by the media as Kerry is just as anti-gay marriage as Bush, because that could hurt our chances of defeating Proposal 2. If you wish to say anything to the media, don’t focus on the fact that both Kerry and Bush oppose same-sex marriage. Focus on the fact that they are trying to mislead voters about Proposal 2 and divide voters and distract them from the real issue of this election (like jobs, healthcare and the war in Iraq). And remind whoever you talk with that same-sex marriage is already against Michigan law, but that Proposal 2 would ban civil unions, which are supported by both John Kerry AND George W. Bush, so therefore both Bush and Kerry would both vote against Proposal 2.

Please, be careful about causing collateral damage to Proposal 2.

Hey, you know it's gotta be both fair and balanced: According to Fox News -- boy, do I love starting sentences that way -- Kerry leads Bush by five points in Florida, and by two points nationally, 48-46 percent.

Funny, but when Bush was leading by two points nationally two days ago, the blurb on their homepage said Bush was winning by 2. Now it calls the results, more generously, "Polarized Electorate." Bush was leading in the Fox poll by five points nationally about a week ago. But I'm sure Fred, Mort, Bill K., Bill O., Sean, Brit and Tony will all lead tonight's commentaries with "Bush is surging" memes anyway.

Facts, as Reagan said, are stubborn things. So why let them get in the way? To be a Republican, you must be willing to ignore all contradictory evidence and blunder ahead. It's more liberating that way. Freedom, if you will, on the march.

Using July 1 as the cutoff, and courtesy as always of Lunaville's incomparable site, there have been a combined total of 265 American fatalities in the 123 days of July, August, September and now October. That's an average fatality rate of 2.15 Americans per day.

By contrast, in the entire 469 days from March 19, 2003, through June 30, 2004 -- which thus includes the "war" phase and the "occupation" phase -- there were a total of 858 American fatalities, or 1.83 fatalities per day.

(Note to major media: Do not, under any circumstances, discuss or report this data. Return to your present slumberama.)

Remember, the fatality and casualty rates are higher in 2004 than 2003; higher since Hussein's capture than before; higher since "sovereignty" was turned over on June 28 than before. You can slice and dice the data anyway you choose, but it's not progress. As I have said before, imagine if it were different: Imagine how the Bush team would be running ads announcing the percentage decline in fatalities and casualties, carefully selecting the data to maximize the statistics (like John Kerry's votes to raise taxes).

Instead, per usual, we get silence. Because in Bushworld, where up is down, these numbers are considered "progress" - progress they're so proud of, they dare not mention it.

First, according to registration data as of October 29, 2004, when compared to the final, 2000 registration data, the four-year changes in partisan registration favor the Republicans.

Here are the party registration breakdowns, then and now:

2000. DEM 52.2%; GOP 32.7%, OTHER 15.1%
      
2004. DEM 49.8%; GOP 32.5%, OTHER 17.7%

Beyond registration data, the second reason I'm worried about NM is the economic situation. NM is rare among battleground states in that (a) its per-capita income has increased since Bush took office (16.1%) at a rate that exceeds the (dismal) national average of 11.0%; and (b) the share of people without health insurance has actually dropped by 2.8 percent between 98/99 and 02/03, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Despite going Democratic the last three times, I fear New Mexico will revert back to its Republican ways. MSNBC was reporting tonight that Bush had a 4-point lead there. I'm hoping a Kerry win in Nevada will compensate.

Any news from folks in either state to cheer us? Consider this a still-early-on-the-west-coast New Mexico and Nevada Open Thread.

Update (Jerome): Don't worry, there's been a Surge of voter rolls in New Mexico. Over half the newly registered are aged 18-34, over 36% are aged 18-24. Typical, they maintain their independence in party ID. The War in Iraq is their number one issue; they've been registered mostly by our 527's; they are hard to poll; they will vote for Kerry (Zogby finally adjusted his sample).

Then, let's use this space as an Ohio and Florida Open Thread. Kospolitans living, working or volunteering in the Buckeye or Sunshine states...what's going on? Let us know here.

Hmmm...that's funny, but I seem to recall that when Bush was +5, according to Fox News's own poll just three days ago, the network seemed to gleefully, and quite frequently, tout Bush's lead. The president, after all, was surging. Now that Bush is tied, according to Fox News, they don't want to report their own poll numbers. (Yes, I admit that I like saying, with deep intonation of authority, "according to Fox News"; try it at home, it's fun.)

The truth is - and here's their own damn memo, if you doubt me - that, according to Fox News (hehehe), among likely voters Bush went from a 7-point lead on Oct 17/18, to five points by Oct 27/28, to two points on Oct28/29, to tied as of today. Even with his shoes on, Fred Barnes can calculate that as a 7-point drop in two weeks. Here's a fun experiment: Try to imagine if the president had improved seven points during the past two weeks: Fox News would have a perma-graphic in the bottom-right corner of the screen, and Kristol and the Beltway Boys would be chirp, chirp, chirping!

If Fox News cannot report their own poll numbers, what will they resort to next? Here's a suggestion, Roger Ailes: Borrow a page from the Bush playbook and create long-term averages by grouping recent numbers with older ones. For example, much like my "average" tax cut in a room with 98 other state university professors, plus Bill Gates, is something in the five figures, why not average all the "favorability" numbers for Bush since, oh, mid-September 2001, when they were at their highest? I'd bet the average during the past three years is at least 60 percent - maybe 65 percent - favorable.

Then report: "Bush's average favorability rating as a post-9/11 president is 65 percent."

That would, strictly speaking, be true - and it would paint the kind of image of Bush as a beloved, inevitable and deserving-of-re-election president that Fox News so desperately wishes to paint. Unfortunately, according to Fox News (there I go again), Bush's net favorable/unfavorable rating is (UPDATE) +4 points: 49% favorable, 45% unfavorable.

Sorry, I misread the columns: Bush is +4.

Let's take a look at the 12 remaining battleground states: For fun, and as a sign of positive thinking, I've added Arkansas to Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Now, consider statewide performance relative to national trends on three economic measures:

1. Statewide job growth rate between January 2001 and June 2004, which declined nationally by 0.8 percent (National Journal, July 25, 2004 special issue).
   
2. Statewide median household income change between January 2001 and June 2004, which grew nationally at a rate of +11.0, a rate which essentially keeps pace with inflation (same source).
   
3. Statewide increase in percentage of people without health insurance between 1999-2000 two-year average and 2002-2003 two-year average, which increased nationally by 1.0 percent, from 14.0 percent to 15.4 percent between 99-00 and 02-03. (U.S. Census Bureau, compiled by Senate Joint Economic Committee).

1. On statewide job growth rates, only Iowa (at -0.4, still negative, but not as bad at -0.8) has done better than the national average. The other 11 states did worse.
   
2. On statewide income change, only New Mexico (16.1 income growth between 1/01 and 6/04) has done better than the national average. The other 11 states did worse.
   
3. And, on statewide share of persons without health insurance, only three states - Florida (-0.2) Minnesota (+0.5), and New Mexico (-2.8) - have done better than the national average. The other nine states did worse.

Obviously, these trends are interrelated: People who lose jobs see their household incomes drop and their insurance disappear. But the point is, whether one thinks the economy is improving or not, and whether one believes this president (or presidents generally) deserve credit or blame for the economy, because these figures are relative - they're benchmarked against the national averages -- the fact is that the battleground states have struggled disproportionately to the rest of the nation.

Iraq and the war on terror may be swamping economics in voters' calculus. But the president had better hope that economics does not serve as a tiebreaker for swing voters in swing states.

Because, to voters in those states, "W" stands for "worse."

1. If you are not sure what the poll opening & closing times are for your state, or know somebody who needs this information, go here:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/faqs.htm

2. If you or somebody you know is registered, but unsure of where your voting location is, go here:

http://www.mypollingplace.com

Meanwhile, let's have some fun with this thread by using it to conduct the first ever DKOS TURNOUT PREDICTION CONTEST.

Sadly, since 1968 (60.8%), the highwater marks for turnout in the post-Vietnam era were 1976 and 1992 (about 55.2% each year); in both years, of course, the only two Democratic presidents of this period were elected. By comparison, the 2000 final turnout rate for the 208.5M voting-age eligible electorate was 105.6M, or 51.3%. Gore won the popular vote, mind you, despite a low turnout rate compared to what propelled Carter and Clinton into office; it's hard not to feel bad for the guy.

Turning to this year, a similarly-dismal turnout rate of 51.3% in 2004 would yield approximately 111.7M voters, based on the US Census Bureau's current voting-age population estimate of 218.7 million. I think it will be much, much higher than that; indeed, I don't know a soul who thinks otherwise. So I'll predict that we'll have the highest turnout rate since 1968, and peg it at, say, 56.7 percent, or a whopping 124 million estimated voters. And I hope it's even higher than that.

Your guess?

Update by Kos: I don't like MyPollingPlace.com. If I put in my info, it gives not just the wrong polling place, but it even sends me to the wrong city! I'm not the only with similar complaints.

Don't depend on that site to tell you where to go.

In Colorado, neither is the case. That may bode well for party resurgence, and I'm all for that. But, to summarize the data, in 2000 the final registration totals showed 35.4% Republican registrants; 29.9% Democrats; and the remaining 34.6% (with rounding) either third-party or independent. Four years later, the movement is slightly Republican: 36.4%-GOP; 30.6%-DEM; 33.1% other.

Yes, what county-level registration gains the Dems have made have come mostly in the bigger, more densely-populated counties that should thusly be more efficiently mobilized (Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Jefferson & Larimer). Still, the two-party statewide share of all registrants has nudged ever-so-slightly Republican: from 54.2% statewide in 2000, to 54.3% now. What's most curious to me is that independents and others have not gained relatively, as is happening elsewhere.

So, cutting to the chase: Can Kerry get it done in CO?

I'm fully aware of the hopeful notion of a "reverse coattails" effect from Ken Salazar's senate campaign on Kerry's candidacy; no doubt Mr. Salazar will draw new voters, especially Latinos, to the polls. But will this effect, coupled with resources from Kerry and Dems that Gore did not invest four years ago, be enough to swamp registration stagnation that provides little reason to suspect Kerry can erase Gore's 8.4% margin of defeat in 2000? I'm not too confident, although I've been wrong before and hope I am again. (Keep in mind: "Colorado" is a butchered, Anglicized derivative of the Spanish "color rojo" -- a "red color" reference to the state's famed red rocks...and thus hard to make blue?)

And so, based on my game theory training from grad school days (courtesy of Mike Munger and Emerson Niou, thanks!), my strategic recommendation to Colorado Kerry supporters is to vote Kerry and vote "aye" on the proportional-electors ballot initiative. If it passes and Kerry wins, it will cost him four electors. But if Kerry loses, as is my hunch, ballot passage still guarantees the senator four more electors than Gore won in 2000. (At least, that is, until Brett Kavanaugh and the Federalist Society goons get involved.)

P.S.: The final, 2004 registration data are here:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/oct04_party.doc

(The 2000 data are not online, however; my thanks to the SecState's office for speedy faxing.)

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," said the report, conducted jointly by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.

Read.