Obama speech: 'Yes, we can change'

Watch a thankful Obama after his primary win »

Thank you, South Carolina.

Thank you to the rock of my life, Michelle Obama.

Thank you to Malia and Sasha Obama, who haven't seen their daddy in a week.

Thank you to Pete Skidmore for his outstanding service to our country and being such a great supporter of this campaign.

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country's desire for something new, who said Iowa was a fluke, not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.

After four -- after four great contests, in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans that we've seen in a long, long time.

You can see it in the faces here tonight. There are young and old, rich and poor. They are black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American.

They are Democrats from Des Moines and independents from Concord and, yes, some Republicans from rural Nevada. And we've got young people all across this country who have never had a reason to participate until now.

And in nine days, in nine short days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business as usual in Washington. We are hungry for change and we are ready to believe again.

But if there's anything, though, that we have been reminded of since Iowa, it's that the kind of change we seek will not come easy, partly because we have fine candidates in this race, fierce competitors who are worthy of our respect and our admiration.

And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination. And that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington.

It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington.

But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem and this election is our chance to say that we are not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We're up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor and judgment and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose, a higher purpose.

We're up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner. It's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea, even if it's one you never agreed with.

That's the kind of politics that is bad for our party, it is bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We're up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. But we know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics. This is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore. This is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

But let me say this, South Carolina. What we've seen in these last weeks is that we're also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation.

It's the politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon, a politics that tells us that we have to think, act and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us, the assumption that young people are apathetic, the assumption that Republicans won't cross over, the assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor and that the poor don't vote, the assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate, whites can't support the African-American candidate, blacks and Latinos cannot come together.

We are here tonight to say that that is not the America we believe in.

I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina.

I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children alike. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life and men and women of every color and creed who serve together and fight together and bleed together under the same proud flag.

I saw what America is and I believe in what this country can be. That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision.

Because in the end, we're not just against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we're also struggling with our own doubts, our own fears, our own cynicism.

The change we seek has always required great struggle and great sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we're willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. Change will take time. There will be setbacks and false starts and sometimes we'll make mistakes.

But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope, because there are people all across this great nation who are counting on us, who can't afford another four years without health care, that can't afford another four years without good schools, that can't afford another four years without decent wages because our leaders couldn't come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina. The mother who can't get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child. She needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American. That's what she's looking for.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin' Donuts after school just to make ends meet, she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay and more support and her students get the resources that they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who's now competing with his own teenager for a $7 an hour job at the local Wal-Mart, because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors, he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it and put them in the pockets of struggling homeowners who are having a tough time and looking after seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.

That woman who told me that she hasn't been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq or the soldier who doesn't know his child because he's on his third or fourth or even fifth tour of duty, they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged.

So understand this, South Carolina. The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich vs. poor, young vs. old. And it is not about black vs. white.

This election is about the past vs. the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us that we can't do this, that we can't have what we're looking for, that we can't have what we want, that we're peddling false hopes. But here is what I know. I know that when people say we can't overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of that elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day, an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside the envelope. So don't tell us change isn't possible. That woman knows change is possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.

When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who is now devoted to educating inner city-children and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change.

Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.

Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.

And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words -- yes, we can.

Via: CNN

Barack Obama & the “Bradley Effect”

“Bradley Effect is the difference between the number of people who vote for a black candidate and those who say they will or would”

The Bradley Effect
“…As black candidates reaching out to largely white constituencies have discovered in the past, when it comes to measuring political popularity there are lies, damned lies—and polls, on which they rest their fate at their peril.

The phenomenon was first widely noted in 1982, when Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley lost a squeaker of a race for governor after being widely projected as the winner. Douglas Wilder also came up against the "Bradley Effect" when he barely won the 1989 contest for governor of Virginia, after leading comfortably in the polls.

Ronald Walters of the university of Maryland was at wilder's hotel as a projected easy victory turned into a nail-biter. That is a night "i'll never forget," says Walters, who thinks it "naive" to believe that things have changed very much. He believes that some percentage of whites—perhaps 5 percent or so, intent on being seen as less biased than they may be—will claim to support a nonwhite candidate when they actually do not.

Other political observers think the effect may have diminished over time. "We may be seeing the turning of this," says Ed Sarpolus, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Michigan-based polling firm…” (MORE)


Is "Bradley effect" behind the Clinton surge?
“…Does Hillary Clinton’s unexpectedly strong showing in New Hampshire tonight mean that the racially charged Bradley effect” is still hanging around in American politics?

The “Bradley effect” is the name that some political pundits gave to what was a disturbing pattern in elections in the 1980s and beyond: White voters telling pollsters they supported a black candidate, and then voting for a white politician in the privacy of the voting booth.

It was named for former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley (pictured at top), who ran for governor of California in 1982 and built a comfortable lead in every polls over his Republican rival George Deukmejian, only to lose on Election Day. Likewise, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Douglas Wilder led the final polls in 1989 by nine points, and just barely won…” (MORE)

Did "the bradley Effect" beat Obama in New Hampshire?
“…Barack Obama was supposed to win New Hampshire big. The polls going into Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary had him running ahead of Hillary Clinton by seven points, eight points, nine points, even thirteen points.

Yet, when the returns came in on Tuesday night, Obama lost by three points to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Were the polls flawed?

Was there a dramatic shift at the last moment?

Or was it just another instance of "The Bradley Effect"?

The Bradley Effect refers to an electoral phenomenon first identified in the 1982 California gubernatorial election.

Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles, was the Democratic nominee for governor. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the votes were counted, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes...” (MORE)

Did Obama "Supporters" Lie?
“…Judging by this morning’s headlines, just about everyone was confident that Barack Obama was going to win the New Hampshire primary by a comfortable margin. “Clinton braces for second loss; union, senators may back Obama,” the wall street journal declared on today’s front page. At 8:07 p.m., foxnews.com reported that its exit polls showed Obama ahead by five points, 39 percent to Clinton’s 34 percent.

But now Clinton leads. This sort of jarring of our expectations conjures up past examples of black candidates who have polled significantly higher than their white opponents, only to confront a very different reality when the votes are counted. Pollsters know this as the “bradley effect,” christened for former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, a black man who narrowly lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election to a white opponent even though Bradley led in the polls. (it’s sometimes also referred to as the “wilder effect,” after douglas wilder, who had been polling at 10 points ahead of Marshall Coleman in the 1989 governor’s race, beat Coleman by less than a point.) Harold ford jr., who lost his bid for a senate seat in Tennessee in 2006, also polled better than he performed. (more)

Elecciones en Estados Unidos: Demócratas recuperan posiciones

Fuente: CNN

Medios informativos cautelosos en encuestas a boca de urna
“…El uso cauteloso de los sondeos a boca de urna contribuyó a que los medios informativos evitaran los bochornosos incidentes de otras dos elecciones recientes… En contraste con los comicios del 2004, los sondeos a boca de urna efectuados por las cadenas de televisión ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel y la agencia noticiosa The Associated Press fueron silenciados hasta las cinco de la tarde del martes... Edison Media Research y Mitofsky International fueron contratadas por los medios informativos para realizar esos sondeos y adoptaron medidas para corregir los problemas del 2004. Establecieron una sala "de cuarentena" para las organizaciones noticiosas para que examinaran los primeros resultados sin tener que efectuar contactos con el exterior. En el 2004, hubo filtraciones generalizadas con resultados erróneos que favorecieron al candidato presidencial demócrata John Kerry…”

Lucha por Senado de EEUU pende de un hilo
“…El pueblo estadounidense le dio la espalda al gobernante Partido Republicano en las elecciones de medio término, al entregarle a los demócratas el control de la Cámara de Representantes de forma abrumadora y dejándolos a un paso de la mayoría en el Senado… La lucha por la cámara alta del Congreso pendía del resultado final en los estados de Virginia y Montana, donde las pugnas estaban muy parejas a la espera del conteo de apenas miles de votos… Los comicios del martes, considerados por muchos como un referendo al gobierno de George W. Bush, arrojaron una contundente victoria del Partido Demócrata, que capitalizó en el descontento de los estadounidenses con la guerra en Irak, los escándalos de los republicanos en el Congreso y una serie de políticas de la Casa Blanca…”

Bush pierde el "referéndum" en unas elecciones que han dado el control del Congreso a los demócratas
“…Cansados de la guerra y enojados con el presidente que la inició, los estadounidenses lanzaron ayer en las urnas un claro llamamiento a favor del cambio. La mayoría absoluta obtenida por los demócratas en la Cámara de Representantes y la que muy probablemente obtengan en el Senado ha supuesto el primer desafío serio para el presidente de Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, y puede contribuir a alterar drásticamente el equilibrio del poder en Washington…”

Los demócratas recuperan el control del Congreso de EEUU después 12 años
“…El Partido Demócrata alteró hoy la balanza legislativa del poder y 12 años después recuperó el control del Congreso capturando la Cámara de Representantes, aprovechando el descontento de electores con la marcha del país y la guerra en Irak… En una de las más costosas y peleadas elecciones legislativas en la historia de Estados Unidos, los demócratas esperaban este día el desenlace en dos elecciones senatoriales de las que depende que asuman el control de la Cámara alta y con ello el del Congreso… En Virginia, con la totalidad de los precintos electorales contabilizados, el demócrata Jim Webb aparecía este miércoles con una ventaja de poco más de dos mil votos sobre el republicano George Allen, quien busca una tercera reelección como senador…”

Voto hispano, decisivo para triunfo demócrata
“…Los hispanos, que históricamente tienen una afinidad política con el Partido Demócrata, retornaron a esas raíces en las elecciones estadounidenses luego de haber apoyado en las dos últimas votaciones a candidatos más bien conservadores del círculo del presidente George W. Bush... Encuestas realizadas a la salida de los centros de votación en las elecciones del martes, prácticamente el 75% de votantes hispanos dijo que había apoyado a candidatos demócratas en todos los niveles: federal, estatal y local… La tendencia contrasta con el apoyo que dieron a los republicanos hace cuatro años, de hasta un 60%, en las elecciones de medio término, y luego en el 2004 en que contribuyeron a la reelección de Bush… El martes, apenas el 26% de los electores hispanos dijo que apoyó a candidatos del Partido Republicano, que vio así una fuga de ese electorado en más de un 30%, ya que perdió 11 puntos porcentuales con relación al 2002…"

El Gran Martes de la Política Norteamericana: ¿Podrán los Demócratas?

Frenético último día de campaña electoral en EEUU
“…las encuestas más recientes sugirieron que el impulso estaba cambiando en favor de los republicanos… El presidente de ese partido, Ken Mehlman, dijo a sus correligionarios que las encuestas trajeron recuerdos de 1998, cuando los republicanos perdieron escaños pero conservaron la mayoría en las cámaras… Los demócratas se niegan a decirlo en público, pero algunos republicanos señalaron en privado que esperaban perder más de 15 escaños, así como el control de la Cámara de Representantes con ello…”

Espectacular vuelco en los sondeos de EEUU: no habrá terremoto
“…Los demócratas ya no tienen tan claro que van a ganar. Dos encuestas celebradas el domingo han arrojado un sorprendente retroceso del Partido Demócrata, que hace dos semanas se imponía por 49 a 38 al partido de George W. Bush. Ahora han perdido dos tercios de su ventaja, situándose en 47 a 43, sólo 4 puntos sobre el Partido Republicano… Una segunda encuesta publicada por el Washington Post y la cadena ABC también señala un retroceso de los demócratas. Si antes se imponían por 54 a 41 (13 puntos) la diferencia es ahora de 51 a 45 (sólo 6 puntos). Karl Rove, consejero del presidente, ya dijo hace unas semanas: "Ganaremos las elecciones en las últimas 72 horas"; y parece que van por ese camino…”

EE.UU. Cambio y continuidad
“…Si a las encuestas se les puede seguir concediendo el beneficio de valiosa herramienta prospectiva, a la mayoría republicana que controla el Congreso de EE.UU. parece haberle llegado su hora. Si así fuera, los demócratas —más por demérito ajeno— recuperarán en las elecciones del martes parte del poder legislativo perdido…”

Guerra, corrupción y escándalos sexuales y religiosos disminuyen a los republicanos
“…Encuestadores y analistas electorales indican que los demócratas lograrán recuperar la mayoría -y por lo tanto el control- de la Cámara baja, incluso algunos expertos lo dan por hecho, lo único incierto es qué tan grande será el margen de esta victoria, la cual podría ser abrumadora. En el Senado, donde los demócratas necesitan incrementar su presencia en por lo menos seis asientos, pocos se atreven a apostar pero nadie niega que lo que parecía poco probable hace sólo dos meses ahora está dentro de las posibilidades reales… Esta elección, coinciden todos (políticos, expertos, las encuestas, los medios) está enmarcada por la guerra en Irak. Con eso, la elección también será afectada por el cúmulo de escándalos de corrupción, engaños, el temor y, al parecer más que nada, las aventuras sexuales de políticos y reverendos cercanos al poder…”

EE.UU./elecciones: la recta final
“…El control del Congreso está en juego y el partido de George W. Bush, el Republicano, teme que los demócratas recuperen la mayoría en alguna de las cámaras... Aunque no se trate de las elecciones presidenciales, estos comicios llamados de "medio término" han cobrado un interés mayor por el factor Irak, la caída de la popularidad del presidente, y una lista de escándalos sexuales y de corrupción que han surgido en las últimas semanas. .. "Hay gente en Washington que cree que las elecciones ya están decididas y están organizando sus nuevos despachos en el Capitolio. Hace dos años, algunos también estaban eligiendo oficinas en el ala oeste de la Casa Blanca. Pero los de la mudanza nunca llegaron a recibir el encargo", se burló Bush en un mitin electoral… Es verdad, nada está aún escrito y el electorado estadounidense siempre puede sorprender. Los resultados de las encuestas publicadas durante el fin de semana, sugieren que los demócratas siguen llevando la delantera, pero con menos puntos de ventaja que los que tenían anteriormente. .. La del Washington Post y la cadena de televisión ABC indica seis puntos de ventaja (51-45%), mientras que el Pew Research Center solo le da cuatro puntos a los demócratas (47-43%), en contraste con el 50-39% de hace dos semanas... los partidos nunca gastaron tanto en unas elecciones de medio término: US $ 2.800 millones…”

Los últimos sondeos alimentan las esperanzas demócratas de recuperar el control del Congreso
“…La mayoría de los sondeos y observadores políticos estiman que los demócratas tienen grandes opciones de conseguir la mayoría en la Cámara de Representantes. En cuanto al Senado, los demócratas parten como favoritos en Ohio y Pensilvania. Las dos formaciones han movilizado un ejército de abogados en caso de eventuales recursos a la votación. El uso de nuevas maquinas electrónicas para votar que no ofrecen nnguna posibilidad de verificación o de nuevo recuento podrían originar numerosas disputas… En opinión de varios observadores, estos comicios constituyen una especie de referéndum sobre el balance del gobierno de George W. Bush, en especial sobre su gestión de la guerra de Irak. Más de 2.800 soldados estadounidenses han muerto en ese país desde su invasión en marzo de 2003…”

Bush enfrenta camino difícil en crepúsculo de su presidencia
“…La inquebrantable lealtad de los republicanos en el Congreso ha comenzado a debilitarse. Luego de marchar hombro con hombro con la Casa Blanca durante seis años, los legisladores del Partido Republicano están analizando su calendario político y pensando más en su futuro que en el legado de Bush en sus dos últimos años en el cargo… Los republicanos manifiestan un humor avinagrado. Han sido afectados por escándalos de corrupción, los votantes les muestran escasa estima, y se hallan divididos en una serie de asuntos, desde el enorme gasto público hasta la reforma a la ley de inmigración. Muchos candidatos republicanos eludieron a Bush durante sus campañas, temiendo que su presencia los perjudicara…”

Los demócratas cambian la agenda
“…Las encuestas indican que los demócratas tienen grandes oportunidades de hacerse con el control de la Cámara de Representantes y pueden estar cerca de la mayoría en el Senado. Un cambio en el control tendría importantes implicaciones para la política económica de EEUU en los próximos dos años… Los índices de aprobación del presidente George W. Bush, la impopular guerra de Irak, y los últimos escándalos en los que está implicado el antiguo congresista Mark Foley han perjudicado las perspectivas de los republicanos. Los demócratas necesitan conseguir 15 escaños más para controlar la Cámara y seis para el Senado. Pueden aumentar 20-25 asientos en la Cámara Baja y 4-7 asientos en el Senado. Si controlaran ambas cámaras, podrían establecer prioridades políticas, pedir sesiones parlamentarias y redactar nuevas normativas para organizar el Congreso y la política económica ocuparía un lugar prioritario en su agenda…”

Republicanos al Borde del Precipicio

Bush Approval: Three new polls, Trend at 35.8%

Hegemonía republicana en riesgo
“…La gestión legislativa de los republicanos ha caído a un pozo de descrédito a medida que se acentúan los problemas de las tropas de Estados Unidos en Irak, de acuerdo con una encuesta difundida ayer, a poco más de dos semanas de las elecciones parlamentarias, que tendrán lugar el 7 de noviembre… Un sondeo publicado en el Wall Street Journal, señala que el desempeño de los legisladores republicanos cuenta con el aval de apenas el 16 por ciento de los estadounidenses, el nivel más bajo en la historia de 17 años de este tipo de encuestas… Encuestas independientes anteriores publicadas en Estados Unidos permiten deducir que se ha agigantado el peligro para los republicanos del presidente George W. Bush, que pueden perder el 7 de noviembre la hegemonía que ostentan desde hace varios años en las dos Cámaras del Congreso…”

La imagen de los republicanos sufre un nuevo revés
“…La imagen de los republicanos sufrió hoy un nuevo revés con la investigación estatal al candidato conservador al Congreso de California (EU) Tan D. Nguyen por su posible vinculación a unas cartas de amenaza dirigidas contra la comunidad inmigrante… Diez agentes uniformados del Departamento de Justicia de California procedieron hoy al registro de la oficina del candidato republicano al Congreso… La investigación quiere comprobar si Nguyen, nacido en Vietnam en 1973, tenía conocimiento de la campaña electoral hecha en su nombre por la que se enviaron cartas amenazando a la comunidad inmigrante… "Quedas advertido de que si resides en este país de manera ilegal o eres un inmigrante, votar en una elección federal es un delito que puede llevarte a la cárcel", indicaba la misiva escrita en castellano y enviada a 14,000 personas inscritas en el censo electoral como demócratas… Nguyen disputa el asiento de la demócrata hispana Loretta Sánchez, representante del Condado de Orange (California), área al sur de Los Angeles conocida como bastión conservador pero con una gran presencia de inmigrantes… Hasta la fecha su batalla parecía una quimera de tintes quijotescos dada la popularidad de Sánchez, en especial entre los inmigrantes… Pero la distribución de estas misivas borró las simpatías que Nguyen se había ganado entre los republicanos en este intento autofinanciado de recuperar el antiguo bastión conservador…”

El Informe: ¿Qué pasa si ganan los demócratas?
”… Aunque las elecciones legislativas son vistas por muchos como un tema de política interna, una entrevista con el Gobernador de Nuevo México Bill Richardson me convenció de que la votación podría tener un gran impacto en la política exterior del país… El creciente rechazo público a la guerra de Irak, el escándalo sobre los mensajes electrónicos del ex congresista republicano Mark Foley a mensajeros del Congreso, y el enojo de los votantes hispanos por la postura antiinmigración de una parte considerable del Partido Republicano, está alejando a muchos votantes de ese partido, dijo Richardson. Y después de varios años de control republicano en ambas cámaras del Congreso, los votantes quieren un cambio…”

Tras el escándalo sexual, los republicanos retroceden en las encuestas
“…Los sondeos se realizaron entre el 25 de septiembre y el 2 de octubre, días en los que se destapó el caso del ex legislador Mark Foley, que envió mensajes sexuales explícitos a becarios menores de edad. El escándalo, y las dudas sobre cómo los líderes lo manejaron, se convirtieron rápidamente en una crisis para los republicanos, a quienes les preocupa que pueda desmoralizar a sus principales partidarios, en especial a los conservadores sociales y religiosos… De acuerdo a las recientes encuestas, los candidatos republicanos en ejercicio están en un riesgo particularmente alto, con siete de los nueve postulantes por detrás de sus competidores demócratas en la batalla por el control del Congreso. Los demócratas deben obtener 15 bancas para dominar la Cámara de Representantes… Los sondeos mostraron que los republicanos también pierden en la competencia por cuatro de las seis bancas que ganaron en 2004. "Se ve un fracaso para los republicanos", dijo el encuestador John Zogby. "Deben estar muy, muy nerviosos", comentó. "No es sólo Mark Foley, sino también qué sabía el Presidente de la Cámara y cuándo lo supo. Esto podría convertirse en una caída libre para los republicanos…"

El caso Foley, un escándalo de sexo y política
“…Como si se tratase de un agujero negro que engulle a todo aquel que se acerca a él, el escándalo Foley ha salpicado a algunos de los congresistas republicanos más notorios, como el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, Dennis Hastert…La mayor preocupación en las filas republicanas es cómo conseguir atajar el sinfín de contradicciones que afloran cada vez que se intenta justificar la conducta de Foley y la pasividad por parte del liderazgo republicano… Hasta el momento, a cada vía de agua que han intentado parchear Foley y los suyos le ha respondido un nuevo escape… El 29 de septiembre, después de que la televisión "ABC" divulgó los mensajes de proposiciones explícitas que Foley envió a los ujieres adolescentes del Capitolio desde el 2003, el congresista por Florida renunció a su escaño…”

Republicanos, a la baja en sondeos
“…Mientras nuevas encuestas destacaban la pérdida de confianza en el liderazgo republicano en la Cámara Baja, reportes oficiosos consignaban que desde un punto de vista legal el ex congresista republicano Mark Foley, involucrado en un escándalo sexual, podría estar en terreno relativamente seguro… Según el semanario Newsweek, 53% de los estadounidenses estaría ahora en favor de que el Partido Demócrata obtenga el control del Congreso, contra 35% para los republicanos. En tanto los índices de aprobación para el presidente George W. Bush se encuentran en 33%... La creciente impopularidad de los republicanos se debe a la combinación de lo que algunos analistas consideran como la "perfecta tormenta política", con casos de corrupción, una guerra que pierde cada vez más apoyo público y ahora un escándalo sexual en el partido presuntamente defensor de los valores morales...”

La recta final de las legislativas en EE UU ofrece un negro panorama al partido de Bush
“…Hace un mes, el presidente acometió con ímpetu la celebración del quinto aniversario del 11-S para recordar que la lucha contra el terrorismo sigue en pie, y el esfuerzo le hizo ganar casi diez puntos en los sondeos. Ahora, tras una semana en la que todo lo que podía salir mal le ha salido mal, Bush vuelve a estar casi solo: el escándalo del congresista Mark Foley, la aparición del nuevo libro de Bob Woodward y el incremento de soldados muertos en Irak, tiran de nuevo las encuestas y desatan el pánico entre los republicanos… Eso es lo que un 53% de estadounidenses quiere en noviembre, frente al 35%, según el último sondeo del semanario Newsweek, que pone patas arriba dos bastiones republicanos: un 42% cree que los demócratas manejarían mejor los valores morales, frente al 36%; y un 44% dice que los demócratas llevarían mejor la guerra contra el terrorismo, frente al 37%... Si el sondeo es fiable, son resultados devastadores para las esperanzas republicanas, igual que lo es el 33% de respaldo de Bush (la media de todos los sondeos es del 37,4%). El experto Charlie Cook recuerda que este apoyo es "un factor clave en las legislativas de mitad de mandato" y que en 1994, "cuando los demócratas quedaron destrozados", Clinton tenía el 39%...”

NEWSWEEK POLL: Majority Of Americans-Including 29 Percent Of Republicans - Believe Dennis Hastert Tried to Cover Up Mark Foley Scandal; Fifty-Three Percent Want Democrats to Take Control of Congress in November

La propietaria de una empresa de sondeos que trabajó para campañas de Bush se declara culpable de fraude

Las claves (En 20minutos.es)

• Tracy Costin se declaró culpable por amañar datos, y podría pasar hasta cinco años en la cárcel.
• Ordenaba a sus empleados que modificaran los resultados de sus sondeos y que entrevistaran a "perros y gatos".
• El FBI afirma que el 50% de la información que suministró DataUSA a la campaña de Bush era falsa.

La versión original en “The Connecticut Post”
Pollster guilty of fake data conspiracy

It's a Civil War, Stupid.

Approval of President Bush in 2005-2006


“Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional…”


Generals to Bush: Talk to Iran!



Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq

Noticias desde el Imperio: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls? - Part I

Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls? - Part II

Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls? - Part III

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
“…Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)…”


“…I. The Exit Polls
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren't just off the mark -- they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)…”

“…II. The Partisan Oficial
No state was more important in the 2004 election than Ohio. The state has been key to every Republican presidential victory since Abraham Lincoln's, and both parties overwhelmed the state with television ads, field organizers and volunteers in an effort to register new voters and energize old ones. Bush and Kerry traveled to Ohio a total of forty-nine times during the campaign -- more than to any other state.(42)…”

“…III. The Strike Force
In the months leading up to the election, Ohio was in the midst of the biggest registration drive in its history. Tens of thousands of volunteers and paid political operatives from both parties canvassed the state, racing to register new voters in advance of the October 4th deadline. To those on the ground, it was clear that Democrats were outpacing their Republican counterparts: A New York Times analysis before the election found that new registrations in traditional Democratic strongholds were up 250 percent, compared to only twenty-five percent in Republican-leaning counties.(61) ''The Democrats have been beating the pants off us in the air and on the ground,'' a GOP county official in Columbus confessed to The Washington Times.(62)…”

“…IV. Barriers to Registration
To further monkey-wrench the process he was bound by law to safeguard, Blackwell cited an arcane elections regulation to make it harder to register new voters. In a now-infamous decree, Blackwell announced on September 7th -- less than a month before the filing deadline -- that election officials would process registration forms only if they were printed on eighty-pound unwaxed white paper stock, similar to a typical postcard. Justifying his decision to ROLLING STONE, Blackwell portrayed it as an attempt to protect voters: ''The postal service had recommended to us that we establish a heavy enough paper-weight standard that we not disenfranchise voters by having their registration form damaged by postal equipment.'' Yet Blackwell's order also applied to registrations delivered in person to election offices. He further specified that any valid registration cards printed on lesser paper stock that miraculously survived the shredding gauntlet at the post office were not to be processed; instead, they were to be treated as applications for a registration form, requiring election boards to send out a brand-new card.(90)…”

“…V. ''The Wrong Pew''
In one of his most effective maneuvers, Blackwell prevented thousands of voters from receiving provisional ballots on Election Day. The fail-safe ballots were mandated in 2002, when Congress passed a package of reforms called the Help America Vote Act. This would prevent a repeat of the most egregious injustice in the 2000 election, when officials in Florida barred thousands of lawfully registered minority voters from the polls because their names didn't appear on flawed precinct rolls. Under the law, would-be voters whose registration is questioned at the polls must be allowed to cast provisional ballots that can be counted after the election if the voter's registration proves valid.(114)…”

“…VI. Long Lines
When Election Day dawned on November 2nd, tens of thousands of Ohio voters who had managed to overcome all the obstacles to registration erected by Blackwell discovered that it didn't matter whether they were properly listed on the voting rolls -- because long lines at their precincts prevented them from ever making it to the ballot box. Would-be voters in Dayton and Cincinnati routinely faced waits as long as three hours. Those in inner-city precincts in Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo -- which were voting for Kerry by margins of ninety percent or more -- often waited up to seven hours. At Kenyon College, students were forced to stand in line for eleven hours before being allowed to vote, with the last voters casting their ballots after three in the morning.(132)…”

“…VII. Faulty Machines
Voters who managed to make it past the array of hurdles erected by Republican officials found themselves confronted by voting machines that didn't work. Only 800,000 out of the 5.6 million votes in Ohio were cast on electronic voting machines, but they were plagued with errors.(164) In heavily Democratic areas around Youngstown, where nearly 100 voters reported entering ''Kerry'' on the touch screen and watching ''Bush'' light up, at least twenty machines had to be recalibrated in the middle of the voting process for chronically flipping Kerry votes to Bush.(165) (Similar ''vote hopping'' from Kerry to Bush was reported by voters and election officials in other states.)(166) Elsewhere, voters complained in sworn affidavits that they touched Kerry's name on the screen and it lit up, but that the light had gone out by the time they finished their ballot; the Kerry vote faded away.(167) In the state's most notorious incident, an electronic machine at a fundamentalist church in the town of Gahanna recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry.(168) In that precinct, however, there were only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up.(169) (The error, which was later blamed on a glitchy memory card, was corrected before the certified vote count.)…”

“…VIII. Rural Counties
Despite the well-documented effort that prevented hundreds of thousands of voters in urban and minority precincts from casting ballots, the worst theft in Ohio may have quietly taken place in rural counties. An examination of election data suggests widespread fraud -- and even good old-fashioned stuffing of ballot boxes -- in twelve sparsely populated counties scattered across southern and western Ohio: Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Darke, Highland, Mercer, Miami, Putnam, Shelby, Van Wert and Warren. (See The Twelve Suspect Counties) One key indicator of fraud is to look at counties where the presidential vote departs radically from other races on the ballot. By this measure, John Kerry's numbers were suspiciously low in each of the twelve counties -- and George Bush's were unusually high…”

“…IX. Rigging the Recount
After Kerry conceded the election, his campaign helped the Libertarian and Green parties pay for a recount of all eighty-eight counties in Ohio. Under state law, county boards of election were required to randomly select three percent of their precincts and recount the ballots both by hand and by machine. If the two totals reconciled exactly, a costly hand recount of the remaining votes could be avoided; machines could be used to tally the rest…”

“…X. What's At Stake
The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. ''We're in a terrible fix,'' Rep. Conyers told me. ''We've got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse -- to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That's why our citizens are not up in arms.''…”

The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. Talk about it in our National Affairs blog, or see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary