New Yorkers cast their ballots for the pro-America candidate, Barack Obama. CNN currently projects the state at 74% pro-freedom, 26% McBush. Probably going to tighten a little bit, but not by that much.
Congratulations, New York. Once again, you've done your duty to the country.
Alrighty: to prepare for the final push, we're going to start collecting and publishing resources for New Yorkers to get active online and offline. Here's some groups you need to be in on Facebook. If there's a title but no link, there's no extant group, something we'll try to remedy and update going forward.
As we noted when it came out, the recent Siena poll showing a close race in New York precipitated some anxiety among core Obama volunteers, leading apparently to a come-to-Jesus meeting between activists and state director Dave Pollak.
I sent this email to one of the participants on September 15th.
Here's my take: we've seen, since their convention, a weakening in Obama's poll numbers and strengthening in McCain's. That trend peaked and reversed itself about three days ago. Now, we're seeing Obama gaining, interestingly enough, even in some of the state polls that were in the field until yesterday.
I prefer not to do forecasting, but my guess would be that Obama's going to regain the lead in the national tracking polls uniformly in the next week, and that New York right now is roughly Obama 53%, McCain 42%. The Siena poll is perfectly fine methodologically, but apparently, they didn't push leaners, which in terms of the gap benefited McPOW more than it did our guy, since McScumbag was enjoying a bounce, and people moved from Obama to undecided. Note how Siena counts 13% undecided/other, which is very high. The vast majority of those undecideds should be considered Obama leaners.
A new Rasmussen poll today confirms that New York currently goes to Obama, 55% to 42%.
In a stinging rebuke to immigrant-bashing Lou-Dobbs-wannabe ex-republican Jack Davis, 2004 Presidential nominee and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry came out hard for Jon Powers today.
Via Daily Kos:
It will be three years ago this fall that I met Jon Powers and there isn’t a more impressive young man getting involved in public life today. [...]
I first met Jon at a screening I attended of the documentary Gunner’s Palace. When I heard his story, and I talked to him, I was blown away. I then asked him to give the introduction to the speech I gave on dissent and patriotism at Faneuil Hall in Boston.
Jon later told me that he remembers that day because it helped inspire him to run for Congress, a fact that I’m very proud of.[...]
His primary opponent is a self-funded millionaire who is responsible for the gutting of the Millionaire’s Amendment – and who has launched a slew of misleading attacks – so please do what you can to help.[...]
Why is this personal to me? Because I believe in the courage and character of a young man who was a platoon leader in the First Armored Division in Baghdad during the early years of the Iraq war. His commanding officer described Jon as, “one of the most talented officers I have known in twenty-two years of service in the Army.”
Support Jon Powers - click here. This isn't just a fight about who's going to run in NY-26 in November; it goes to the root of the question of what kind of party we want to be. Me, I'd prefer not to nominate the ultra-rich former Cheney crony - until he was removed from a Cheney event for being annoyingly disruptive, that is - who went all the way to the Supreme Court to gut the millionaires amendment. read more »
You hear a lot about political machines - for example, my friend Roatti on Albany Project writes about the subject - and at the risk of acid commentary from machine-owned bloggers, I have some thoughts on it as well.
Machines exist in what is essentially an apolitical space, which is surprising, given that they operate on the field of politics. But the deep relationships that seem to enmesh the machines of both parties, especially in the outer boroughs and in some regions upstate, suggest that they exist mainly for the maintenance of jobs and revenue to a selected group of insiders. It is, essentially, the professionalization and unionizing, if you will, of the exercise of political power. Machines are, literally, a closed shop.
It's worth pointing out that the results aren't all bad. For example, some machine politicians have a sterling record on affordable housing. That's not a small thing. In minority communities, machines have proven an effective mechanism for guaranteeing disadvantaged ethnicities a seat at the table.
The downside of machine politics is equally clear: in a system that consists of, essentially, a professional class supported by carefully chosen voters, the central systemic benefit of the democratic process, of a feedback loop between the people and their representatives, erodes. read more »