Earlier this week, I introduce the Electoral Vote Strength Factor (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/... ). This week has been very good to Obama with respect to Electoral Vote Strength. Obama is now at his strongest standing ever with Electoral Votes with a Strength Factor of 92% (previous high was 90% on June 19th. He started the week of at 86%.

McCain struggles to stay above 50% strength, as that is where he is now and started the week at (he never rose above 51% this week). McCain's lowest EV Strength Factor was 46% from Jun 27 through Jun 29. McCain's highest EV Strength Factor was 69% from Jun 10 through Jun 12.

I'll continue to report the EV Strength of each candidate on a weekly basis (unless Phrigin wants to roll this into his daily widget).

McCain on Obama during his stump speech today (and various times he's been making this same statement):

"I know that Senator Obama is going to Iraq. I was very interested in that he articulated and announced his policies before he went to Iraq, not after. I've been on a lot a trips around the world at your expense, but I usually make my policy statements when I get back."

Oh really?

During a stump speech in 2007 during the primaries, McCain had this to say about Iran,

"You know that old Beach Boys Song, 'Bomb Iran'? hehe Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran, hehe"

McCain also has said, very recently that he favors sanctions against Iran.

Really. When was the last time McCain went to Iran? Didn't he say he makes his policy statements after he gets back from countries, not before?

From LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

Day of Reckoning? Super Rich Tax Cheats Outed by Bank Clerk



As elehhhhna points out in her response (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ) , Phil Gramm is Vice Chairman of UBS.... hmmmmmm



PLEASE let it be so....*snicker*

Tweety: Do we need to start drilling in places we haven't wanted to drill before?

Sen. Boxer: "We need to see the oil companies drill on the land and leases they have on shore and offshore. There are 68 MILLION Acres that they have access to they are not drilling. There are another 28 MILLION Acres of the Naval Reserve they have access to. They are doing NOTHING Chris. And I maintain, that when you have two Oilmen in the White House for EIGHT LONG YEARS and you see Gas Prices go up 300%. To turn around and blame the Democrats in Congress JUST DOESN'T WASH. The Oil Companies have gotten EVERYTHING they want. It's time for them to Use It or Lose It. Of course there are places we can drill. But I want you to know something. There are a lot of jobs that come out of a pristine coast in certain areas of our Country. In my own state for example, in Washington State and off the shores of New Jersey and many other places North Carolina, I could go on. The fact is that there is a 70 BILLION DOLLAR, 70 BILLION COASTAL economy, TWO MILLION JOBS. So, of course we want to drill. Of course we need to conserve. Of course we need renewable energy. And my republican friends, just to keep up a little argument here, have said, "Oh No, we are not going to give the Solar companies, the Wind companies, Geothermal the Tax Credits, the Tax Cuts that they deserve. "

BAM. BOOM. It was awesome.

I've been watching the EV data on both electoral-vote.com and fivethirtyeight.com. From time-to-time, I've published the data here in my Journal when something significant has happened, for example, a weakening in McCain's position or an increase in Obama's strength.

One thing I've tried to determine is how strong is each candidate's position. For example, Obama could have the number of electoral votes he currently has, but he could be in an extremely weak position, which would not bode well for the general election.

EV strength is a good measure of momentum and how solid a candidate's hold is on his current position. Of course, electoral-vote.com publishes this data in numerical format, but I thought it would be worth-while to put it in an image. To do so required calculating a new metric.

Presently, EV.com has three categories: Strong (> 10%), Weak (>5%, <10%) and Barely (<5%). If we weight each category of EV's a candidate, say 1.0 times for Strong, 0.5 times for Weak and 0.25 times for Barely and then add that up, we get an idea of how many EV's are solid. This would be a raw strength value. For example, today, Obama's raw strength would be

200 X 1.0 + 39 X 0.5 + 81 X 0.25 = 239.75.

But a raw number doesn't tell us much by itself. We'd like to gage that number against a target or a goal. If all of those numbers were in the Strong Category, the total would be his current EV total, which well exceeds the total number needed. But that is an unlikely event (until the General Election actually occurs). We could use 538 as a goal, but that too is likely not achievable. If we use 270 as a target, then we have a reasonable target such that if Obama had 270 Strong, we could say he's doing great. He could do better, but it's a good goal to start with and so we use it as a target for the EV Raw Strength.

Therefore, we could say Obama's EV Strength Factor today is 89%. He's not at 100%, but he's close.

On the contrary, looking at McCain's EV Raw Strength today, we see he's at

77 X 1.0 + 101 X 0.5 + 26 X 0.25 = 134

McCain's EV Strength Factor for today is therefore 50%.

Now we can compare how the candidates are doing with respect to each other's Electoral Vote Strength over time. Below is a graph I made from June 6 through Today using the data from Electoral-Vote.com:



As you can see, Obama's EV Strength is increasing while McCain's is steadily decreasing. In fact, if the trend continues, Obama will be very close to a strength of 100% and could possibly be higher. The polynomial trend line is a power 4 trend line for all series.

And we can see how Obama's strength is compared directly to McCain's by looking at the Ratio of the Strength Factors of Obama to McCain. The following graph shows this relationship:



As you can see, Obama's EV Strength is nearly 2:1 against McCain's. If it stabilizes where it is at, then things look very good for the Fall, given that the EV.com data is based on solid polling data and uses averages from multiple pollsters. Furthermore, there does seem to be a correlation between the EV Strength Ratio and the Win Percentage (computed at fivethirtyeight.com), even though the numbers are computed in a completely different way.

At any rate, I am finally happy I have a means to track candidate strength and I will monitor this value moving forward.

Best summed up with this screen cap of the CNN homepage:


When companies are making Billions for their executives with windfall profits from either outsourcing jobs overseas, gouging prices or selling predatory loans and screwing the citizens, God forbid the government get involved to use some of that profit to create jobs here in the U.S. How dare they get involved in a Free Market and take away hard earned money from the privileged few.

But when these companies fall on their asses because the executives have blown all the money throwing parties for BushCo and hiring truckloads of undocumented workers to manicure their lawns, take care of their pools, and nanny their children because they are too lazy. Then there is outrage by the Republicans if the government doesn't step in and save these companies and their fat executives as they are critical parts of the infrastructure. The Republicans want to give these corporations golden parachutes because they borrowed too much money and took too many risks gambling everything away, while if you or I are this irresponsible, we get left out in the cold.

I say, let these companies fail. If this were truly a Free Market, then there should be plenty of opportunity and competitive positions opening up for those progressive corporations who act responsibly.

That's what this forum is for. Yeah, we get it, you don't agree with Obama's vote on FISA. It's Over. Move On. You think Obama's moving to the Center (or Right). Then you've been fooled by the MSM.

Electing Obama as the next President is in the best interest of:
- The World
- America
- The Democratic Party
- You

If you fail to understand that, then you should stick to lurking and reading until it settles in.

Even Feingold, the Senator that is championed for his resistance to the FISA bill said on an interview on Countdown last night that the single most important thing we can do now is get Obama Elected so the damage to this country, the Constitution and its people can be undone.

If you are such a blind follower of Feingold on FISA, it's time to shut-up and get busy helping Obama to be Elected President.

The time for whining and hand-wringing is over. There's a site for you, but I won't name it out of respect for the good people here.

During a town hall meeting, McCain had the nerve to lie right to a Vietnam Vet's FACE!!! This is simply outrageous.

When asked by the Vet why McCain didn't support the latest bill sponsored by the VFW, McCain touted a "PERFECT" record and endorsements by Disabled Veterans of American (DAV), the VFW and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

The Fact Is: DAV gave McCain a 20% rating on his voting record (Obama got an 80%)
The Fact Is: VFW has noted that McCain has voted against them more than 75% of the time, while Obama has voted for them about 75%
The Fact Is: IAVA gives McCain a D rating while they give Obama a B+ rating.

McCain stood there, IN DISGRACE, and LIED TO THAT VET'S FACE.

McCain, you are a disgrace to ALL VETS and Military Personal.

And McCain, America knows that you are not just a flip-flopper, you are a BALD FACE LIAR!

Here is video of McCain's Disgrace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzr3pdXqZ98

How does that make you all feel?

He hasn't.

There hasn't even been a vote yet. Obama has only made a statement that he supports passing the current legislation. He's doing what he is supposed to be doing. Voting with his conscience. He has listened to his constituency. He has considered the evidence that we are not privy to. He has explained his position. He's even said it's not a Bill that he would author. But it's enough of a compromise.

Does this mean we have to agree with him? No. Does this mean it's ok to feel that he's wrong? Yes.

But has Obama failed us? If you believe that, then you have not considered what it is like to be Obama. You have not put yourself in his position. And you are not giving your leader the benefit of the doubt.

Obama has proven he has what it takes to be a great leader. If he were President, I guarantee the current FISA bill would not be an issue. And that's what this is all really about.

As another poster has said here:

"Keep on keeping on. Keep working to get in as many REAL progressives in Senate and Congressional seats as humanly possible. Keep educating the public. Keep protesting. Keep speaking out."

But don't jump to the conclusion that our leaders are failing us. They need more help than they are getting from us. That much is clear.

http://www.electoral-vote.com /



Strong Dem (194)
Weak Dem (45)
Barely Dem (81)
Exactly tied (0)
Barely GOP (23)
Weak GOP (115)
Strong GOP (80)

Obama has 194 Strong Electoral Votes. If you add up both McCain's Strong AND Weak EVs, they only total 195.

Yes, it's a great day.

But we still have much work to do. We need to convert those 81 Barely EVs into Weak or Strong EVs. If we do that, then we have done our jobs as activists.

YOU ROCK.

Rachel Maddow is hosting Countdown tonight and she is simply DESTROYING McCain. I love her.

I'd love to see her host MTP.

http://atom.smasher.org/gas-station/?p1=4....

As kpete posted today, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/... spying on U.S. Citizens that was warrantless and bypassing FISA, started before 9/11. That means the NSA started their program before the first post-9/11 FISA Amendment, the Patriot Act, and the following FISA Amendment, the Protect America Act, which granted broad, domestic spying powers to the Administration. The PAA has expired and that is why there is such a push to pass the current FISA Amendment of 2008. However, this Amendment adds several beneficial accountability clauses and removes several broad power clauses from the PAA.

But the large controversy about the current FISA bill has been its granting of retroactive immunity for U.S. Telecom companies against civil (not criminal) lawsuits. The controversy is heightened with the fact that Senator Obama said he would oppose retroactive immunity against illegal activities and that he currently supports the current FISA Amendment, admitting that he feels it is a necessary compromise. The left side of the blogosphere, including many here at Democratic Underground, have seemed zealous in their attacks on Obama for this. But let's consider what the law truly states.

The full text of the Amendment can be found here (PDF format): http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_0806...

First, it does grant retroactive immunity for telecoms. Title II of the Amendment modifies Title VIII of FISA to include immunity for telecom companies against civil actions if the telecom company acted in a certified manner. The obvious question that follows is, what certification is required? Sec. 802 of the Amendment answers this question (starting on page 88 of the PDF document linked above). There are 5 protective clauses that allow a telecom to avoid defending against a civil action, as listed below (I'll list out of order to cover the easy ones first):

1. Providing assistance to the NSA was authorized by a court order (FISA court) (which the pre-911 doesn't qualify)

4. The monitoring occurred between Sept. 11, 2001 and Jan 17, 2007 (which the pre-911 spying didn't)

5. The company didn't provide the assistance (not true for AT&T or Verizon in this case)

3. This one's tricky, as it pulls in language from the PAA. Here is the text it pulls in from PAA, section 105B(e)

This means the Director of NI and the AG must authorize the spying and the telecoms in question must have such an order in writing. The funny thing about this, is that there was no such thing as the Director of National Intelligence before 9/11. That branch of government was formed in April of 2005. (this clause does not apply to telecoms spying before 9/11)

And finally, protective clause 2:
2. This clause refers to a section of the current FISA bill that allows individuals (or telecoms) to hand over requested information if the AG certifies it as an emergency and there are grounds for a court order. Under the original FISA, this meant that the AG had up to 3 days to file for the court order or the evidence was invalid. The current amendment extends that to a week given the load on the FISA court. It doesn't matter, as the protection against a civil suit would require that the AG certified it in writing then and had applied for the court order.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave the final interpretation up to the lawmakers and the courts. However, it seems pretty clear to me that the immunity against civil action, granted by this Amendment that has stirred up so much controversy is pretty narrowly defined. The aiding telecoms must have a court order or a get-out-of-lawsuit-free card with severely limited circumstances that can be reviewed by the court presiding over one of these pending 40 civil cases. The FISA bill does not protect companies (or government officials for that matter) against criminal abuse of the FISA law, and it seem pretty clear from kpete's post this morning, that the pre-911 solidly falls in that category.

Obama called it a bill that he would not author but reluctantly agrees to out of necessary compromise. However, the compromise seems in line with Obama's original pledge. No retroactive immunity for telecoms who engaged in illegal spying.

ON EDIT: to those who think the AG will certify pre-9/11 domestic spying, I doubt Ashcroft will be signing any such papers. Ashcroft deemed it illegal once he found out about. It's the reason he resigned. See my response here below: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...