Syndicated

Hopefully, they will keep the Conservatives

Today, Canadians vote. In the last election, the Conservative
Party of Canada (CPC) achieved a minority government (meaning the
largest block in parliament without having a majority), their first
victory since the disastrous election of 1993 when the Progressive
Conservatives went from an outright majority to 2 seats.

Prime Minster Stephen Harper’s government, elected in February
2006, has been the longest serving minority government in the
history of Canada. The basic dynamic has been that the Liberal
Party of Canada (LPC, the centrist party whose supporters are
primarily students, government employees, and big business), has
been financially bankrupt and low in the polls. If they ever
brought down the government, the subsequent elections would have
been a disaster for them. So they abstained on every budget vote,
spending vote, or issue of serious policy (taxes, Afghanistan,
etc.) This has resulted in an election in which the LPC, the
historic party of government is coming into this election very
weak.

Polls
coming into today look like about an 8-point lead for the CPC
over the LPC. The polls suggest that the CPC will end up with about
130 of 308 seats, while the LPC will end up with around 80. This is
down nearly 20 for the LPC. The Bloc Quebecois (the Quebec
seperatists) are likely to get in the mid-50s. While this is not
really progress for the CPC or Harper, this is a problem for the
LPC.

Read on after the jump for details about what to watch
tonight.

First, the rules are sometimes in the CPC’s favor because there
are constituency elections and the left is split, while there is
only one party on the right. The left is split between the LPC, the
Greens, and a socialist New Democratic Party (backed by labor
unions). To win a seat, the CPC candidate only needs a plurality.
In many seats (ridings), if one of the parties on the left would
drop out, it is likely that the left would win.

Second, the map is highly regionalized. It is looking like the
CPC is going to clean up out west. It is possible that the LPC will
lose every seat west of Ontario, the largest province, which means
mostly losing seats in British Columbia. The west will be split
between the CPC and the NDP. In Quebec, there is a 3-way race
between the Bloc, the CPC, and the LPC, in that order. This is a
historic shift, but it is likely that the CPC and the LPC will lose
seats in Quebec regardless. In Ontario, the CPC is ahead of the LPC
by a small number of points. The things to watch in Ontario are if
the CPC wins any ridings in Toronto or if we pick up seats in “the
905”, a suburban area near Toronto. Finally, in Atlantic Canada
(the English speaking provinces east of Quebec), it is unclear what
will happen. There aren’t a lot of ridings, but the CPC could make
some real progress. Tonight, you want to watch to see if the CPC
does indeed clean up out west (meaning BC, because it will dominate
the prairie provinces), how much it stops the bleeding in Quebec,
how much we pick up in Ontario, and if we make any progress in the
Atlantics.

Third, how Stephane Dion, the leader of the LPC, handles the
loss. If the LPC loses badly, he will be under pressure to resign.
There are not good procedural mechanisms for taking out the leader
of the party in the LPC (much like the British Labour Party, which
is aching to remove Gordon Brown).

Fourth, vote totals matter tonight. Going into this election,
the LPC was several million in debt. After the election, each party
gets approximately $1.75 per vote to replenish party coffers. The
LPC probably had to spend $20-30m total in additional debt. If they
have a low vote total, their funding problem can begin to be quite
acute. The details of their constituencies and Canadian campaign
finance law will make it very hard for the LPC to replenish their
coffers to anything like an operative level. Meanwhile, the CPC has
millions in the bank because they have learned direct mail
techniques from American conservatives and online fundraising
techniques from American liberals.

It is possible that something could pop tonight. There could be
a last-minute swing to the LPC because of strategic voting. The
Greens could decide that keeping the Tories out is more important
than winning a seat in Parliament.

It is also possible that LPC voters may not turn out in Ontario.
They don’t like Stephane Dion, the party leader from Quebec, who
has a lot of trouble speaking English. This would likely be
catastrophic for the LPC, perhaps beginning a process that would
destroy it over time. This would result in a left-right style
two-party system that could usher in a long period of conservative
dominance. (because the left would stay split in Quebec, but the
right-leaning parts of the LPC would break towards the CPC) This is
a long-term strategic objective of both the NDP and the CPC.

 Late in the week, John McCain’s campaign issued a farcical statement, with my highlighting below:

Instead of acknowledging the real differences that exist in this election, Barack Obama is using America’s economic crisis to deflect legitimate criticisms of himself and his record. Now, more than ever, Americans should be scrutinizing Barack Obama’s role in shielding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from increased regulation.  Voters deserve a real debate about Barack Obama’s proposals for one trillion dollars in new government spending and tax increases on small businesses – when Americans can afford neither.  At a time when hardworking families face uncertainty and a historic decision in November, they expect more than Barack Obama’s self-interested calls to stifle any inquiry into his record or his past.

This is not going to win the election. Saying "ignore the sinking economy, note the guy behind the curtain" is not going to work when people in all socio-economic locations are worried about the economies in their own ways, whether it is paying the mortgage, the credit card, putting food on the table, paying the rent, eyeballing the 401(k) or whatever. 

The fact is, people, more than anything else, want leadership on the economy. Charlie Crist’s political advisor nails it,  “But I think McCain still has a very good chance of winning Florida. Whichever candidate has a better economic plan is going to be the winner.”

McCain needs a two part strategy, but he can only execute one part. He needs to deliver a plausible economic plan that addresses the needs of America. I am a fan of tax cuts, but more tax cuts probably aren’t the answer.

The answer is probably something like some strategy for recapitalizing some banks — but letting others fall, while protecting deposits–, some supply-side stimulus, and helping some people with their mortgages. And probably more. Some of it needs to address real problems, some needs to address real pain, and some needs to address the news cycle.

Whatever the plan is, the campaign needs surrogates ready to explain it, unlike the mortgage plan "announced" at the last debate when Mitt Romney couldn’t articulate it. (not that he wants to. Instead, he is raising money for himself) The think-tanks need to engage. People on Wall Street need to buy in to defending it. Etc.

And then, once McCain has articulated a credible position on the economy, outside groups need to attack on Ayers, Wright, and all the other cultural symbols that will alienate voters from Obama.

Right now, McCain’s problem, captured so beautifully in the statement at the beginning of this post is that he’s trying to beat something with nothing. Right now, the average undecided American cannot figure out what John McCain would do about the economy. The campaign isn’t giving that voter the opportunity to have doubts about Obama, because McCain’s non-message on the economy is self-disqualifying.

There is partly a theme here. Outsiders are necessary as surrogates to provide either defense or attack. McCain needs to be articulating his positive message for America and other people need to providing defense of that and attack on Obama’s policies. At the same time, outside groups need to be dismantling Obama’s personal image and narrative.

I suspect that none of this will happen. But right now, the blame does not lie totally with the McCain campaign. Business will be severely damanged by an Obama presidency and they are doing nothing about it. The think tanks are not attacking Obama’s plans. They will get audited out of existence. The fact is that the only outside groups that are actually doing their part are the social conservative groups who are running ads about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, judges, etc.

 I spent some time at Americans for Prosperity’s second annual conference in Washington, DC this weekend. I will have several things to say, but let me focus on a series of conversations that I heard in the hallways and at the dinners. Where is the conservative movement going?

First, this crowd is very pessimistic about the election. Nearly all were not supporters of John McCain in the primary, and they weren’t excited about a McCain presidency. But they didn’t think that they were going to have that problem. Everyone was talking about a Barack Obama presidency.

Second, people were worried about the Democratic agenda in the next Congress. Card-check, health care, and the environment all came up regularly. I also mentioned that the first bill signed into law in the Clinton Administration was Motor Voter, which provided, 3 years later, the statutory basis of  Obama’s lawsuit, ACORN v. State of Illinois.

Third, no one sees who the groups will be. Furthermore, the old conservative movement leaders weren’t there. I saw Grover Norquist and Ed Meese, but I didn’t see Morton Blackwell, Paul Weyrich, Ed Feulner, or similar figures. Interestingly, the old conservative movement leaders who were there were Reagan people but not Goldwater people. Many of the old conservative movement institutions predated Reagan.

Fourth, the fact that those leaders weren’t there raises the question: who will be the next leaders. None of these groups have a credible succession plan. The stature of these groups will likely collapse. National Review, which does have some wonderful people but cannot be said to be the opinion leader it once was, was cited repeatedly as an example.

Fifth, people hate the bailout. I think that we will find that this issue will resonate with the grassroots for years to come. If Republicans and conservatives build a real grassroots, the movement will be able to fund itself without the instincts that led to the bailout. This will bring, in some ways, the grassroots into alignment with the people responsible for building and executing the party apparatus. If we are not, we will continue to be dependent upon business leaders who saw the bailout as necessary. If the movement cares about taking control of the party, it will need to figure out how to fund the party. Otherwise, this tension will continue.

Sixth, there is a lack of leaders. People are interested in Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. None of the other governors appeal. People know the names Jim DeMint and Eric Cantor. There aren’t other high-profile leaders that seemed to resonate. I don’t hear much interest in the other people who ran for President. The next round of GOP governors are going to create new models of conservative governance. And why didn’t no members of congress come to this meeting? Only James Inhofe, who got an award. Oy.

It really seems like it is time to build “the next right.” This old one doesn’t seem to exist any more. We will need new political leaders. We will need new organizational leaders. We will need new ideas.

I think that it is clear that AFP will be a leader in this space. AFP had more energy than any other group I have seen recently. They had 1,857 paid registrations in October 3 weeks before the election. Trade associations and unions put more people into rooms in DC, but I can’t think of any conservative interest group other than NRA which has a larger national convention.

I hope this sticks

[UPDATE: If you read the Ambinder piece, you’ll see that this
was leaked to Marc: it’s an internal document designed to
make sure that the GOP’s people are up to speed on this issue. –
Moe Lane]

This makes a good point. Congress (Republican and Democratic)
attacked Enron, but nothing against the politically connected
Fannie Mae. Here’s a slide show,
care of Marc Ambinder, that the McCain campaign is passing
around:

Democracy Corps, a project of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, notes that House Republican incumbents helped themselves — at least in terms of keeping their jobs — with the bailout vote:

Most of these incumbents initially voted against the Wall Street bailout, which was less popular in these incumbent districts than in the open seat races.[3] So it is possible that these incumbents have marginally improved their standing by opposing the bailout.This possibility is supported by the fact that in the incumbent districts Democrats are only even on who would do a better job with the economy and trail by 2 points on who would best handle the financial crisis (whereas they lead by 5 and 4 points on those issues respectively in the open seats).

So if the Republcians in targetted seats who are most likely to win re-election voted against the bailout, it seems likely that one of the "lessons of the 2008 election" could be that the GOP shouldn’t abandon its core principles on the bailout. This could have a real impact on the future of the caucus.

Fox is covering the voting issues in OH:

Transcript after the jump:

<!–break–>

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Let’s talk to you about a story out in Ohio, I believe, Columbus. Of course Ohio we were just talking about, one of the most important battleground states there, and they started this controversial program this week where people could come and register to vote and vote at the exact same time before you could actually try and prove where they actually live, if they are actually residents, or if they’re just Mary Poppins.  Well now there is a report coming out by Shelby Holiday from palestra.net where she says that she was going to do some reporting on what she thought was going to be a lot of students coming to register to vote.  But what she ended up seeing were bus loads of homeless people being brought into these places and registering and voting.  And she joins us now on the phone from Columbus, Ohio.  Good morning to you.

STEVE DOOCY: Shelby?  Shelby?  Shelby, are you there?

SHELBY HOLLIDAY: I went down to go do a story and was down at vets memorial in Columbus, Ohio.  I saw all but about two students in the 30 minutes I was there.  The young people that I did interview were telling me that they were with organizations who were picking homeless people off the streets and bringing them to the polls and encouraging them to vote.  So, check this sound bite out.

DOOCY: Shelby, I understand.  Ok, let’s listen to the sound bite, sorry.

PERSON 1: We’re running a free vote taxi program.  We will come and pick you up at your house.  Drop you off wherever you want.

PERSON 2: And people at the bus stop asked them if they’re registered to vote.  And if they weren’t I said “get in the car I’m bringing you.”

PERSON 3: See me walking around and stuff so they said “hey, man you want to vote?”  And I said yeah I’ll vote.  I said, he said, “man I’ll take you anywhere you want. I said “that’s cool.”

PERSON 4: It’s fast and the people are very polite, and they explained, you know, all about it.

PERSON 3: I mean, if they say “sign the ballot,” just give them and do exactly what they ask you to do.  I mean, hey, this is America.  Know what I mean?

DOOCY: Shelby, so these organizers who are picking up all these people, what are they telling them to do?  If they are bringing them out of a homeless shelter, what are they telling them is in it for them?

HOLLIDAY: Well, organizers, when I spoke with the organizers, they said they are trying to help those, it might be a little move tough for them to vote this year.  They want them to get out and vote and want them to exercise their right to vote.  So the organizers are just really trying to help people who don’t have IDs or don’t have a permanent address to get out there and cast ballots.

BRIAN KILMEADE: Do you think that some of them, while they’re driving out there, are telling them who to vote for?

HOLLIDAY: Well, no, all the people I spoke with that they were bipartisan.  But when I talked with the homeless people, it became apparent that they were being offered rides to whoever they wanted or, I’m not, I can’t — it did not appear that these homeless people… Most of them did not know exactly what was going on.

DOOCY: Alright, Shelby Holliday from palestra.net. We thank you very much.  We understand from her blog at palestra.net Shelby also said that the people who winding up there, they didn’t have to prove they lived in the state.  In fact, she talked to one guy who was about to get on a bus to go to Chicago, Illinois where he lived.  All they had to do was give four numbers.

CARLSON: Well this is the whole problem with the whole thing, and this is why it went to the highest levels of the court.  Because with Ohio being, really frankly any state, but with Ohio being such a close state, is this right?  You be the judge.

We may stop this with enough scrutiny

Fox is covering the voting issues in OH:

Transcript after the jump:

GRETCHEN
CARLSON: Let’s talk to you about a
story out in Ohio, I believe, Columbus. Of course Ohio we were just
talking about, one of the most important battleground states there,
and they started this controversial program this week where people
could come and register to vote and vote at the exact same time
before you could actually try and prove where they actually live,
if they are actually residents, or if they’re just Mary Poppins.
 Well now there is a report coming out by Shelby Holiday from
palestra.net
where she says that she was going to do some reporting on what she
thought was going to be a lot of students coming to register to
vote.  But what she ended up seeing were bus loads of homeless
people being brought into these places and registering and voting.
 And she joins us now on the phone from Columbus, Ohio.
 Good morning to you.

STEVE
DOOCY: Shelby?  Shelby? 
Shelby, are you there?

SHELBY
HOLLIDAY: I went down
to go do a story and was down at vets memorial in Columbus,
Ohio.  I saw all but about two students in the 30 minutes I
was there.  The young people that I did interview were telling
me that they were with organizations who were picking homeless
people off the streets and bringing them to the polls and
encouraging them to vote.  So, check this sound bite
out.

DOOCY:
Shelby, I understand. 
Ok, let’s listen to the sound bite, sorry.

PERSON
1: We’re running a free vote
taxi program.  We will come and pick you up at your
house.  Drop you off wherever you want.

PERSON
2: And people at the bus stop
asked them if they’re registered to vote.  And if they weren’t
I said “get in the car I’m bringing you.”

PERSON
3: See me walking around and
stuff so they said “hey, man you want to vote?”  And I said
yeah I’ll vote.  I said, he said, “man I’ll take you anywhere
you want. I said “that’s cool.”

PERSON
4: It’s fast and the people are
very polite, and they explained, you know, all about
it.

PERSON
3: I mean, if they say “sign
the ballot,” just give them and do exactly what they ask you to
do.  I mean, hey, this is America.  Know what I
mean?

DOOCY:
Shelby, so these organizers
who are picking up all these people, what are they telling them to
do?  If they are bringing them out of a homeless shelter, what
are they telling them is in it for them?

HOLLIDAY:
Well, organizers, when I
spoke with the organizers, they said they are trying to help those,
it might be a little move tough for them to vote this year. 
They want them to get out and vote and want them to exercise their
right to vote.  So the organizers are just really trying to
help people who don’t have IDs or don’t have a permanent address to
get out there and cast ballots.

BRIAN
KILMEADE: Do you think
that some of them, while they’re driving out there, are telling
them who to vote for?

HOLLIDAY:
Well, no, all the people I
spoke with that they were bipartisan.  But when I talked with
the homeless people, it became apparent that they were being
offered rides to whoever they wanted or, I’m not, I can’t — it did
not appear that these homeless people… Most of them did not know
exactly what was going on.

DOOCY:
Alright, Shelby Holliday
from palestra.net. We thank you very
much.  We understand from her blog at palestra.net Shelby also said that the
people who winding up there, they didn’t have to prove they lived
in the state.  In fact, she talked to one guy who was about to
get on a bus to go to Chicago, Illinois where he lived.  All
they had to do was give four numbers.

CARLSON:
Well this is the whole
problem with the whole thing, and this is why it went to the
highest levels of the court.  Because with Ohio being, really
frankly any state, but with Ohio being such a close state, is this
right?  You be the judge.

Given the things going on in Ohio over the next couple of days, perhaps Barack Obama shouldn’t be comparing the Ohio election process to the Chicago machine:

Transcript:

SUPPORTER 5: i would like to know what you can say to reassure us that this election will not be rigged or stolen? [applause] — or stolen? [applause]

SEN. OBAMA: it helps in Ohio that we have democrats in charge of the machines.  but, look, i come from chicago. some want to be honest, it is not as if it is just republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. sometimes democrats have, too.

Turns out that there’s even some overlap between the Chicago and Ohio machines:

"Who are you voting for?" I asked another homeless man. "Baraaaack," he replied. "I want him to do his thang, you know, do his THUG THIZZLE, you know…"

As I started interviewing the homeless men, it became clear that their "buddies" who drove them to the polls were pushing quite an agenda. The homeless guys were being bribed with rides, food, and who-knows-what to go "vote."

My new THUG-THIZZLE friend told me that he wasn’t even from Ohio and that he was getting on a Greyhound to go back to Chicago. Yet he was voting in one of the key battleground states? How was that fair?

And how was he going to get to the Greyhound station? His "friend" that had brought him to the poll promised to take him wherever he wanted… the only problem was, his friend appeared to be long gone.

At this point, I was disgusted that the organizations seemed to be exploiting the homeless. But I was even more disgusted when they flat out admitted it.

Early voting is taking place in Ohio. Through the end of the week, people can register and vote on the same day. The Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner argues that they are merely "casting their ballot" rather than "voting" so the fact that Ohio statute requires 30 days between registering and voting would not interfere.

 So here is what is happening today. People are showing up to register and vote. There is no affirmative evidence that these people have not registered or voted somewhere else. There is no control. Normally in an election, partisan election monitors are allowed into polling places so that they can police each other. But not in two counties, Franklin and Montgomery, in Ohio. Brunner also issued an advisory opinion to counties saying that they are not required to allow election monitors. Watch an election observer be turned away.

Now if you want to see what is actually happening on the ground? This video shows interviews with people who are voting in Franklin County, where Republican election monitors are not being allowed into polling places.

 My favorite is the quote:

It’s a perfect opportunity for them to come in, register at a temporary address like a homeless shelter or a YMCA or something like that. They can register at that address because they don’t know where they’re going to be tomorrow or next week."

The registrar also doesn’t know where they will be. And there is nothing stopping that person from registering at a different location tomorrow (or later today).

Note that Brunner cannot be said to be simply trying to protect the franchise. After all, she directed county officials to discard absentee ballot applications. These are just partisan hacks interested in winning elections. If that means stealing votes… I wonder how much that bothers her?

Perfect vehicle for election fraud and it could be happening
now

Early voting is taking place in Ohio. Through the end of the
week, people can register and vote on the same day. The Ohio
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner argues that they are merely
“casting their ballot” rather than “voting” so the fact that Ohio
statute requires 30 days between registering and voting would not
interfere.

 So here is what is happening today. People are showing up
to register and vote. There is no affirmative evidence that these
people have not registered or voted somewhere else. There is no
control. Normally in an election, partisan election monitors are
allowed into polling places so that they can police each other. But
not in two counties, Franklin and Montgomery, in Ohio.
Brunner also issued an advisory opinion to counties saying that
they are not required to allow election monitors. Watch an
election observer be turned away.

Now if you want to see what is actually happening on the ground?
This video shows interviews with people who are voting in Franklin
County, where Republican election monitors are not being allowed
into polling places.

 My favorite is the quote:

It’s a perfect opportunity for them to come in, register at a
temporary address like a homeless shelter or a YMCA or something
like that. They can register at that address because they don’t
know where they’re going to be tomorrow or next week.”

The registrar also doesn’t know where they will be. And there is
nothing stopping that person from registering at a different
location tomorrow (or later today).

Note that Brunner cannot be said to be simply trying to protect
the franchise. After all,
she directed county officials to discard absentee ballot
applications. These are just partisan hacks interested in
winning elections. If that means stealing votes… I wonder how
much that bothers her?