Of course, the Democrats voted to keep Lieberman in his committee Chairmanship. Frankly, they weren’t that angry about what Lieberman did (campaigning with McCain).

But some are hurt and angry; most of the Democratic Senators aren’t worried about it:

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: “The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question.”

I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world.

No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.

There’s that. But there’s also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn’t a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.

In short: “we won and thanks for the help. Now shoo.”

There are those who think that Obama is a bit like this as well.

This is perhaps the tragedy concealed in the events of the late evening of November 4th: as I walked to the subway at about 10 p.m. a vast United States flag was being unfurled in Union Square; there were spontaneous parties in the streets of my part of Brooklyn, and many others can testify to much more exotic, collective experiences. This was a moment when people, no longer cowed by the power of the state and held in check by the police, suddenly become aware of their power and the power of their activity, which is nothing less than the activity of liberty. At such a moment, no force can stop them and a demonstration or street party erupts into being. This is collective joy. There is the potential for a political moment here, but it is a potential whose actualization is denied by the very representative process which is being celebrated. At the moment when people become aware of their power through the activity of the vote, they are simultaneously rendered powerless by the representative process. Liberty slips from the hands of those who have suddenly become aware of its power. In the face of such human fireworks, it is not surprising that Obama cancelled the firework display planned to accompany his victory speech. The message is clear: ‘The victory is yours. But when you’ve finished celebrating, dancing and crying, return to your homes and be quiet. Thanks to you, the business of government is ours and we will take it from here. We’ll let you know how it goes. P.S. Please don’t take popular sovereignty too literally’.

I wouldn’t put it that far; my guess is that through tools like this one, Obama will call on his minions to push their representatives for action on his agenda.

For now, I’ll go along to see how it works, and yes, Obama never campaigned as an ideologue. I knew that from the beginning.

So, I’ll wait and see before resigning from the Democratic Party: will these people produce results? If not, then the hell with them.

Moral This is one reason I didn’t cheer the demise of the Republican Party as much as I might otherwise have. Yes, I don’t like what the Democrats did. But my goodness, when you compare them to the alternative: the anti-intellectual, completely out of touch with reality party that is the alternative? Right now, the Republicans are not an option for me, and they won’t ever be until they move away from their “know nothingness”.

Personally, the Modern Whig party is too centerist for my tastes but I’d love to see them become viable.

Oh well, the news for today isn’t all bad. Some stuff here will make liberals smile.

By the way, I am excited about the possibility of Hillary Clinton serving in the cabinet, either as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. If nothing else, Dick Morris recommends against it (thanks for your concern, Mr. Morris!) I am so sure that Mr. Morris has Obama’s interests (and the nation’s) at heart. No, this isn’t 1946.

Vacancies available...

Now that Senators Obama, Biden & Clinton are going to the White House, who will replace them in the Senate?

Illinois:

Barack Obama has already resigned his seat; his replacement will be named by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is up for re-election in 2010 and–despite his myriad ethical problems–is hoping to get re-elected.

Governor Blagojevich is unpredictable. Nobody really has a good grasp on who he will appoint or why–he could use the appointment to curry favor with a key group necessary to his re-election, he could use the appointment to boost a key ally, or he could use it to neutralize one of his likely primary opponents.

Some names that have been floated are Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Danny Davis, Rep. Melissa Bean, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones, and Illinois’ Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth.

Delaware:

Depending on when he resigns his seat, Joe Biden’s replacement will either be named by outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner (D) or incoming Governor Jack Markell (D).

It’s widely assumed that Biden wants his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, to replace him. But the younger Biden is a JAG who has been deployed to Iraq for about a year, making it impossible for him to fill the vacancy now.

Therefore, rumor has it that Biden is looking for a caretaker to hold the seat until a special election can be held in 2010, which would allow the younger Biden to run.

One name that has been floated is outgoing Lieutenant Governor Jack Carney, who lost to Markell in the Gubernatorial primary. But there’s a chance Carney might not want to leave in 2010, making him a risky choice if Biden just wants a caretaker.

Secretary of State Harriet Smith Windsor has also been mentioned; she might be more favorable to the elder Biden considering that:

She’s in her late 60s, a loyal ally of Gov. Minner, and unlikely to want a long career in the US Senate.

New York:

If Clinton becomes Secretary of State (which is likely) her seat will also open up. Governor David Paterson–up for re-election in 2010–will replace her, and he will have an embarrassment of riches to choose from.

The current front-runner appears to be Rep. Nydia Velazquez; Rep. Brian Higgins and Rep. Steve Israel have also been mentioned, along with Rep. Nita Lowey (who was widely considered the front-runner for the seat before Clinton jumped into the race in 2000). Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Louise Slaughter and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo have also been mentioned.

by Ed Morrissey

I’m sure we’ll all be linking to this video today. John Ziegler interviews Obama voters to gauge their knowledge of various issues that came up during the election, and gets very … entertaining results. His new website, How Obama Got Elected, marries this with a more disturbing report from Zogby that emphasizes a great deal of ignorance in the vote:

Let’s start with Zogby’s numbers. The poll surveyed over 500 self-professed Obama voters and has an MOE of 4.4%, with 55% having a college degree and over 90% having a high-school diploma. It asked 12 multiple-choice questions; only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all them correct.
  > 57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) 
  > 81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) 
  > 82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) 
  > 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing) 
  > 56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).And yet….. 
  > Only 13.7% failed to identify Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on 
  > Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter 
  > And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

On the last point, though, Palin was the only candidate from Alaska. Palin did state that one could see Russia from the state as an answer to an interview question about her foreign-policy credentials. I don’t believe that the survey gave Fey as a choice, so Palin would have been the obvious answer from those provided.
However, the rest of these results show the abysmal state of media coverage of Barack Obama. It’s not that the voters couldn’t absorb data provided to them by the Tanning Bed Media; these voters quite obviously learned plenty about Sarah Palin. In the video, the subjects demonstrate that by assigning every stupid thing said on the campaign trail to Palin whether she said it or not. Meanwhile, no one can figure out what Barack Obama said, how he conducted his campaign, or his political history.
As for the video, without the Zogby poll, it would be hilarious but without context. Anyone can find fools for “man on the street” interviews; Jay Leno does it as a regular staple for the Tonight Show. Zogby’s poll shows that Ziegler’s video is no anomaly. Wait for the end, where the ignorant endorse their favorite media outlets, which is the real highlight of this project.

What Now?

The PUMA movement is regathering, regrouping and re-purposing. Our first goal, to put Hillary’s name in nomination at the Convention, was successful. Our second goal, to prevent Barack Obama’s corruption of the election process and cynical use of misogyny and race-bating from being rewarded at the ballot box, and to break that highest, hardest glass ceiling for women, was not. However, as turnout numbers show, there were not enough PUMAs to swing the election when the Republicans themselves did not vote for their own nominee. But you may be encouraged to know that, according to exit polls, 16% of McCain’s supporters would have voted for Hillary had she been the Democratic nominee instead of Barack Obama. Since McCain received more than 58 million votes, that’s more than 9 million potential PUMAs. 26% of them self-identified as Democrats, which is about 2.5 million Party members that would not vote for their Party’s nominee.

But what to do now? The election is over, and we all still have the same concerns about Barack Obama (who is he and what will he do as President?); the direction the country will now take (will there be a New New Deal or not?); the fairness and transparency of our election processes, both primary and general; the utter and complete failure of the Fourth Estate to present anything resembling the truth about any of the candidates; and the rampant, unrepentant misogyny (and since Prop 8 passed, the homophobia) that has been revealed to exist in American society.

How do we act on those concerns, and where do we start?

The first step is to stand up and be counted. If you are a PUMAtic blogger and want to be part of the PUMASphere, email editor@pumasphere.com to be added to the blogroll at VotePUMA.com. If you are a commenter and don’t see your favorite blog on the list, you can ask the editors to include it.

The second step is to decide where to focus your energies. I think it’s pretty clear that my primary concern is the 30% Solution and modern feminism, so that is where my activism will take me. I personally have a couple of things in the works, including a radio show and working on ways to ratify the ERA, and I am always ready to lend my support to The New Agenda and its non-partisan activities on behalf of advancing women in politics.

And speaking of standing up for women in politics, here are two things you can join me in doing today:

1. Let’s make sure that the editors who published the article I referenced in my last post, the one where the “grammarian” threatened Sarah Palin with a forced hysterectomy, understand how wrong it was to allow such hateful misogyny to become part of an online newspaper. Write the editors and tell them you strongly object to the violent imagery and the name-calling in the article, and ask that the writer, Jeffrey Barg, be fired.

   Philadelphia Weekly

   Adamma Ince, editor: aince@philadelphiaweekly.com

   Liz Spikol, executive edtor:lspikol@philadelphiaweekly.com

   215.563.7400 * Fax 215.563.0620

2. Newt Gingrich, who suddenly believes he is the King of the GOP again, is now putting himself forward as the Presidential frontrunner in 2012. Not only that, but he is trying to shut Sarah Palin (and any other woman) out of the running for the top spot. His top three, more acceptable names are, coincidentally, all men.

   Let’s tell Newt that we’re not impressed with his attempt to turn the GOP into an all-boys club.

   Contact Newt Gingrich
   Rick Tyler
   Spokesperson and Press Secretary
   Gingrich Communications
   540-338-1250
   mailto:ricktyler@newt.org

And you? What concerns you the most? What would you like to see PUMA become?

http://howobamagotelected.com/

Majority Leader Harry Reid is holding a press conference to announce that the Senate Democratic caucus has voted to allow Joe Lieberman to keep the Chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

President-Elect Barack Obama is getting credit for intervening on behalf of Lieberman; hopefully Lieberman will keep that fact in mind as he wields oversight authority over the White House for the next four years.

UPDATE: CNN reports that the final vote total was 42-13.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s ‘emergency’ $700 billion bailout was authorized in record time by both houses of Congress despite the opposition of an estimated 80% of U.S. taxpayers, each of whom seems to have contacted his/her legislators more than once. For days, Congress was flooded with emails and calls with one message: No Wall Street bail out! When the bail out was fully funded, with lightning speed but no hearings, logical justification or concrete plan, it became clearer than ever that the opinions, wishes, demands of the electorate are scarcely worth the cost of the ballots they cast.

Although the immediate cause of the current economic meltdown was the deregulation of Wall Street, banks and the financial services industry, this was far from the first time that citizens have been sold out by elected representatives doing the bidding of Big Business. In fact, dismantling the regulatory/consumer safety net and throwing the taxpayer under the bus has become a way of life in Washington.

We prefer safe drugs. Instead, we get FDA approval of drugs that sicken and kill us. When the body count reaches a boundary of tolerance, they are withdrawn until Big Pharma’s lobbyists can wrangle them back on the market. This game earns billions for Big Pharma and is worth every calculated penny they pay lawmakers and their victims.

We prefer safe and fuel efficient vehicles. Instead, we get what the auto makers decide to serve up, and that is neither notably safe nor fuel efficient. Detroit’s auto industry is now insisting that they are entitled to their share of the buy out billions. They were part owners of Congress long before the current economic crisis, so what they want now is simple payback.

We prefer a sane and reasonable energy policy. Instead, we are held hostage by an unregulated energy sector that rewards run-amok speculation. In 2008, speculators single handedly raised the price of oil to the extent that the economy threatened to grind to a halt. After the price of food, consumer goods, and transportation skyrocketed, after we were left with a lowered standard of living and Congress belatedly threatened action, they crawled back into their holes and oil prices returned to a semblance of normal. Today, with the tacit approval of a complicit Congress and in conjunction with the rest of the economic crisis, the damage done by Big Oil’s engineered bubble appears irreversible.

We prefer an ethical, honest government that understands the need to protect the economy, the environment and citizens with responsible regulation. Instead, we get the likes of Henry Paulson and Nancy Pelosi, so heavily subsidized by their corporate sponsors that they lose sight of public accountability and, I suspect, their own consciences.

How else to explain an AIG? Even in the Land of Bail Out Oz, these delinquents are in a class by themselves, done in by a highly lucrative and utterly irresponsible insurance swindle called credit default swaps. There is no rational justification for rewarding this 21^st century casino, and the gamblers – whom they prefer to call ‘investors’ - who kept it in business, with one cent. And yet, their heavy lobbying has paid off, once again, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollar even as they continue to throw expensive parties and, like the rest of the bail out jackpot winners, hand billions in bonuses to their amoral managers - whom they prefer to call ‘Wall Street elites’ – who are at the root of the turmoil. It would make as much sense to throw a few billion at Starbucks and the Flamingo.

Will anything change with a new administration? We have clues. President-elect Obama was among the first to say the bail out was needed immediately, no questions asked, no second thoughts about disregarding the wishes of the vast majority of Americans. If he had any concerns about the outsized, poorly reasoned giveaway to the reckless greedy, or to the concept of a Wall Street bail out as absurd as it was intellectually dishonest, he never showed it.

And this episode wasn’t the first clue. As others have documented, President-elect Obama’s voting record has been enough to give most supporters pause, as were his speeches at various high dollar fundraisers during the campaign. The myth that the Obama campaign was financed by legions of individual $10 donations is belied by his campaign disclosure statements (www.opensecrets.org).

Obama’s first, immediate, appointment was Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Emanuel is a temperamentally volatile man who never met a war in the Middle East that he didn’t want the U.S. to finance and then star in, and he never met a free trade agreement that he didn’t love. Does he sound like a first round draft pick in a ‘change’ administration? Or does he sound more like a plant preordained by big donors to further their own agendas?

It seems likely that Barack Obama is the best person for the presidency that we could have elected. He is a reasoning, intelligent man of goodwill, a difference of light years from the mean-spirited, short-sighted, unapologetic corporate hustler that he replaces.

But it is naïve to think that he is not caught in the Washington money game or that whatever remains of his ideals, after four years in the Senate and a presidential race, are not prone to extinction by the groupthink that inhabits the East Coast.

Even with Barack Obama as the president elect, our democracy remains fragile, its future uncertain. Here are a few is ideas on how we might restore it.

First, everybody knows that private money should get out of politics. Barring that, politics should get out of Washington.

So, first, close Washington down. Zip it up and return it to the Indians or give it to the Smithsonian for a cautionary display of how not to do democracy.

Elected representatives have shown themselves spectacularly incapable of managing the public trust when they flock together. Grouped, away from the voters who sent them, they make easy prey for corporate predators dispensing lots of money. Events repeatedly show that it is nearly impossible for most of them to rouse their brain cells to independent activity in a crowd. We need to get them out of their noxious geographic comfort zone and send them home.

Given the current economic crisis, we should expect lawmakers to willingly relinquish their cushy, expensive Washington pads and establish primary offices in their home states, among their friends, neighbors and voters. They could thereby patriotically save the taxpayers at least part of the money they gave away to Henry Paulson. They would have an allowance for staff, offices and limited travel. All meetings would be conducted by telecommunication, like it’s the 21^st century.

Further, lawmakers will be reminded daily, up close and in person, of the wishes of those who brought them. There won’t be another misbegotten, taxpayer-financed, Wall Street bailout when directives are delivered by the irate face to face and in the same time zone.

Although this plan will not keep lobbyist entirely at bay, it should make their lives considerably more difficult, a big plus.

Next, the talking heads residing in the New York-Washington corridor should be banned from the air waves. They talk only to each other, being elites and all, and not one of them has had an independent or creative thought in years. We don’t need any more pundits from Yale, Columbia or NYU; we don’t need Brian, Katie or Charlie; we don’t need anyone else from an East Coast think tank giving us their pompous, arrogant version of reality.

There is a continent of alternatives. Let’s get an assessment of the options to Paulson’s opinions from, say, an economist at the University of Missouri; an ungarbled analysis of the Russia-S. Ossetia situation from someone without a vested interest in getting it wrong, maybe a political analyst from the University of Idaho; let’s find people who understand the catastrophe of a toxic ruling class and who won’t lose their jobs for telling the truth right out loud. Because we’ve had enough of the smug politics of condescension.

Getting our news from the western side of the Alleghenies and keeping our elected lawmakers home are actions that could go far toward saving our democracy.

If the United States can elect an Obama, it can do anything.

Donna J. Gillroy

I am a volunteer with the Obama Campaign in Immokalee, Florida – home to the largest US tomato fields, and to hundreds and hundreds of new American immigrants. I’m a baby boomer. Former Kennedy and King dreamer, and recent Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Campaign survivor (barely), who used to stand up and march for lots of things. But that was yesterday. Today I’ll get behind the Democratic nominee, do a little work for the Campaign for Change, and hope something does. Some day.

Immokalee is a tough little town. If you work in the fields, the price of admission to the promised land is 10 back breaking hours in the blazing sun hand picking tomatoes. You are paid by the bushel picked.  A good day is $60.00 if you are lucky. Every day before dawn you are jammed onto a circa ‘50’s bus – the kind with the little buzzing fan in the front which barely moves the humid tropical air – and dropped off at the pesticide-drenched fields. Every night the bus brings you back to the “one stop”. You walk home – if you have one. There are not a lot of “fast tracks” to success in Immokalee, even though its 35 miles inland from the glittering white gulf beaches of Naples, Florida – one of the wealthiest cities in the United States.

It’s been tough in Immokalee for a long time. Edward R. Murrow introduced us to the people who pick our produce in his 1948 award-winning documentary, “Harvest of Shame”. When the story appeared on our black and white Philco TV screens, we were outraged.  How could this happen in America?  Something must be done! Over the last five decades, Federal investigations and senate hearings have come and gone with predictable regularity in response to passionate voices for reform, community organizers, bright young investigative reporters, and election cycles. But the voices fade, the dust settles, tomatoes reach the grocery store shelves, and life goes on.  There are small victories here and there, but getting a real grip on the American dream in Immokalee is hard. The suffering is silent.

But then something changed. A man of color came on the TV set running for President of the United States, and he setup an office across from the one-stop bus station. I and other volunteers started walking down their streets, saying hello, listening to their stories, inviting them to register, and encouraging them to vote. They had names, faces and IDS. They were American citizens who didn’t think their vote mattered. They loved this Obama guy on TV, but it was different for them. When we came to their door, they were happy to see us. Some families had Obama’s picture on the wall. I flashed on Jack Kennedy. It was a beautiful experience, but I wondered if it mattered.

When early voted started, I went to the small library to see if they would come. They came in droves. No one in Immokalee had ever seen anything like it. Many of them had never been to the library. I sat in the reading room and watched them walk in. White, black, brown, old, young, strong, weak – English speaking,  Spanish speaking, Creole speaking Americans. They approached the poll workers and machines in silence. Quiet, afraid, respectful.  I felt like I was in church.

A Mexican American man and his friend pulled up in an old work truck covered with field dust and were embarrassed about their clothes. They asked if it was o.k. for them to come in. They said they had to rush from work because they were afraid they’d miss “the voting”. I kept it together until a gentle, elderly Creole man I had met while canvassing – who still works 8 hours a day 6 days a week to afford an incredibly humble roof over his head –  came riding up in a 2-piece suit on a borrowed bike to vote early. My heart flew open. He worked for his citizenship. I was born with my mine. We both didn’t think it really mattered until today.

I ducked into the ladies room and cried. I was meeting the “invisible Americans” who keep this fragile political experiment alive in the face of corrosive, criminal power. I thought of that Emily Dickinson line, “Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul”. Something big has changed for both of us today.

Franken is trying to hold off a recount until a few more (say, 216?) “previously uncounted” ballots appear:

The Franken campaign filed a brief Monday asking the Canvassing Board to consider including improperly rejected absentee ballots in today’s official tally. Granting that request would make it practically impossible to proceed to the recount on Wednesday.

However, the state attorney general’s office later issued a three-page opinion requested by Ritchie that said the board’s job today is purely administrative, not to determine the eligibility of a voter or whether absentee ballots were properly accepted.

Wrote Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Raschke Jr.: “Courts that have reviewed this issue have opined that rejected absentee or provisional ballots are not cast in an election.” Improperly rejected absentee ballots can be challenged in court, he wrote.

In two weeks he managed to whittle down Coleman’s 725 vote lead. In the meantime, he’s decided to simply act like he’s won. Today he’s in Washington, D.C. meeting with Senate Democrats.

Michelle Obama is not the only one who is Proud of America for the First Time in her Adult Life

“The thing that’s kind of astounding to me is I never ever would have cared to own a flag,” said Rosemary Garner, 42. “This is the first day in my life I actually feel this funny sense of pride about my country. It’s a very foreign feeling, but it’s a good one.”

Via (Conservatism Today)

So you’d think that I would have posted more following Obama’s victory, with lots of huzzahs and frolicking.  But my job is TIED to the election, so for me it’s not really over until several weeks have passed, and all the seething partisans are either dead or have crawled back to their lairs muttering, “my precious, my precious…”

Right now we’re in the middle of the post-election mania.  In a couple of days, Carrie, Mogs and I are going to Colorado to visit family for Thanksgiving.  Boy, do I need to get out of here.

Really, it was hard for me to revel in the election results in any straightforward way.  I had been so focused on the minutia of the national political landscape that I got at least as much satisfaction from state-by-state results as I did from the bigger picture.  How great it was to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, AND Florida!  How great it was to flip Indiana and North Carolina!  Goodbye, Elizabeth Dole!  Those were the high points for me.

The low point was Prop 8, and the assholery coming out of Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida.  It’s really tough to get over it.  It nearly ruined the night for me, which feels funny to say, since it wasn’t my night to have ruined.

Today I’m still hanging on the latest results from the Stevens-Begich senate race, and girding for the Coleman-Franken recount.  Crazy crazy.  As a taste, there’s the dream I had just last night…

I didn’t study as hard as I could have in school, and maybe for that reason, I have a lot of dreams about going back to my first year of college as an adult.  Anyway, in this latest dream, I was enrolled as a student at UNC-Chapel Hill, living (as I always do) in the dorms.  Being a new resident of North Carolina, I naturally wanted to register to vote so that I could participate in the Saxby Chambliss-Jim Martin senate runoff in… Georgia?  Yes, I know it doesn’t make sense.

So I’m at my local elections office and I’ve registered to vote.  The lady behind the desk hands me my ballot and says, “That’ll be six dollars and thirty-three cents, please.”  Huh?  The lady explains that there are a few ballot propositions being decided in that election, and whenever a proposition will have any kind of fiscal impact, North Carolina voters pay for that impact up front.  Makes sense, except when you think about what they would need to do if some or all of the propositions failed.

But I object, saying that the $6.33 charge amounts to a poll tax.  I really go to town on the lady, ranting about the Voting Rights Act, etc. etc.  Finally, someone wearing a badge tells me to fill out a complaint form.  That’s really all I remember.

I’m going to bed now.  I’ll talk to you again from the beautiful, NEWLY BLUE state of Colorado!

Of the increased turn-out of young voters noted below, what percentage of this do you think is attributable to hip-hop (as a media and/or as a movement/methodology) - what percentage of that do you think foundation-funded hip hop voter initiatives contributed to?

About 23 million young people, an increase of 3.4 million over 2004, accounted for almost two-thirds of the overall 5.4 million increase in voter turnout. Their participation increased at a rate greater than older generations. As a result, young voters increased their overall share of the vote from 17 percent in 2004 to 18 percent in 2008. In contrast to previous recent presidential elections, a majority of young people voted in 2008 (53%), and in the competitive battleground states, youth turnout was even higher (59%). This was significantly above the 1996 (37%), 2000 (41%), and 2004 (48%) levels. In the earlier elections, “young people” were primarily members of Generation X, an alienated and socially uninvolved cohort; by contrast, the young voters of 2008 were mostly members of the civic-oriented Millennial Generation.

Their unified support for Barack Obama combined with their high turnout made the Millennial Generation the decisive force in his victory. Young voters accounted for about seven million of Obama’s almost nine million national popular vote margin over John McCain. Had young people not voted, Obama would have led McCain by only about 1.5 percentage points instead of seven. Republican Internet guru Patrick Ruffini pointed out that without Millennials, Obama would not have won the combined 73 electoral votes of Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and North Carolina. While he may still have won in 2008 without young voters, Obama’s margin and his political mandate would have been far narrower. - Source

Do not be reticent to make a cogent argument.

Double bonus, who is America’s 3rd party?

It’s still unclear whether President-elect Barack Obama will campaign in Georgia for Jim Martin, the Democrat challenging Republican U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss. But the Obama campaign has been emailing supporters to attend a Wednesday afternoon Get Out The Vote Rally at Clark Atlanta University featuring former President Bill Clinton.

Chambliss, who faces Martin in a Dec. 2 runoff, was joined at recent campaign stops by former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and GOP nominee John McCain.

After a long and contentious presidential race, it’s uncertain how many Georgia voters will have the motivation to return to the polls one more time. Equally uncertain is who’s more likely to vote: Someone euphoric over Obama’s victory? Or someone lamenting McCain’s defeat?

Follow Jonathan on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jonathanserrie

Jonathan’s Other Blogs: http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/author/jonathanserrie/

The 2008 presidential election saw a surge in popular websites specializing in coverage of the campaigns.  Many of those websites, it is now being reported, will be expanded immediately to cover all kinds of political, business, and cultural events.  The hope is that America’s interest in politics has been rejuvenated, and that growing demand will mean success for many of the start ups.  The transition is not unheard of, as the Huffington Post made the same leap after the 2006 election.  With sites like FiveThirtyEight.com being so accurate in their coverage, their ability to go mainstream makes for an interesting conversation.  An pre-election interview with Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight may be seen below:

Discussion Questions:

1.  How are new sites like those listed above different from those sources of political news we’ve always had?  What makes them more attractive?

2.  Are Americans really more interested in political matters than they were before the election?  What evidence supports this rationale for expanding these websites?

3.  What impact will these sites have on other news sources?  Will they spell the end of certain sites?  Will they strengthen other sources?

Filmmaker John Ziegler has a new website promoting a documentary he is making on the 2008 election.

The site is called How Obama Got Elected, and it prominently features this video of supporters of Barack Hussein Obama which reveals not only their lack of knowledge on the presidential and vice presidential candidates but also the decided impact of media bias.

Some amazing statistics from a John Zogby poll, which correlates with the information Ziegler has uncovered as well:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

That last point is correct, but you’d never know it from the Drive By Media. The nutroots took the Tina Fey statement, inserted it into Palin’s mouth and, since it fit the “Palin is an idiot and a female version of Dan Quayle” meme that had been created, it spread and became a statement attributed to Palin rather than Fey. It didn’t help that the McCain campaign never bothered to refute it, either.

The frightening thought is people this ignorant actually voted. Talk about disenfranchisement of the intelligent.

Update: over at Hot Air, Ed Morrisey adds:

[T]he rest of these results show the abysmal state of media coverage of Barack Obama.  It’s not that the voters couldn’t absorb data provided to them by the Tanning Bed Media; these voters quite obviously learned plenty about Sarah Palin.  In the video, the subjects demonstrate that by assigning every stupid thing said on the campaign trail to Palin whether she said it or not.  Meanwhile, no one can figure out what Barack Obama said, how he conducted his campaign, or his political history.

As for the video, without the Zogby poll, it would be hilarious but without context.  Anyone can find fools for “man on the street” interviews; Jay Leno does it as a regular staple for the Tonight Show.  Zogby’s poll shows that Ziegler’s video is no anomaly.  Wait for the end, where the ignorant endorse their favorite media outlets, which is the real highlight of this project.

The sources of information for these enlightened voters includes Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, NPR, PBS, the Commie News Network, al-New York Times, PMSNBC and the British Bullshit Corporation.

The first three are comedians. All that was missing was Jay Leno and David Letterman as news sources.

This reminded me of a Leno “Jaywalking” segment, although with much more tragic results for America.

Cindy Sheehan for Congress

by Cindy Sheehan
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
Cindy Sheehan for Congress

Nov 17, 2008

George Bush is the most hated president in American history. Number Two, Harry S. Truman, left office with a 64% disapproval rating and George Bush’s is now a very dismal, yet richly deserved 76%. I can’t remember a time when Americans have been so united in anything since we were actually a compassionate country after the tragedy on 9-11.

Barack Obama and the Democrats rode this wave of hatred for nearly all things Republican on November 4th. The reason for the Democratic victories could not have been because the Democrats give a viable alternative to the Republicans, because most of the time, they do not. In the contest for the highest office in the land, the Republicans threw a bone to their old and decrepit dog, McCain and offered us an even weaker (but younger) choice for his running mate. The deck was stacked for Obama and this was a year that practically anyone could have beaten McCain/Palin (in fact, polls showed that Hillary would have beaten McCain even worse).

I confess, I have become cynical about the political process since I witnessed little (if any) progress towards peace and economic justice after the Democrats regained some power in 2006. I have little hope that Emperor-Elect Obama will voluntarily give up any imperial power or reduce the size of the US Empire as he has already promised to increase US presence in Afghanistan and Super-Duper-Size our military to levels never seen before and can only be used for spreading corporate-imperialism. I hope I am wrong but I am not going to drink the blue flavored Kool-Aid anymore than I would drink the Red flavored Kool-Aid and give Obama a free pass because he chooses to put a (D) behind his name instead of the dreaded (R).

I am willing to give an Obama regime the chance to prove me wrong but I do not think that the movements that put him in power should relax. Obama has proven to be resistant to constituent pressure as he voted to give telecom companies and BushCo immunity from prosecution for smashing the 4th Amendment to bits and pieces as he voted to and pressured other people to vote for the bankster bailouts which has proven to be disastrous. How can anyone who has been alive the last 8 years, but especially a Constitutional attorney/professor vote to give billions (really trillions) of dollars to a corrupt administration that has proven to be criminally inept and callous in every way?

In my refusal to be coma-tized by Obama, whom I have met several times and think he is very smart and very likable (like some people think about George), I have been confronted by friends and strangers alike who do not want facts pointed out to them, just like Republican war hawks and troop “supporters” do not want the facts that Dick and George dodged Vietnam and reduced Veteran’s benefits pointed out to them.

Recently, I was on a cable access show here in San Francisco and I was talking about the FISA abomination and pointed out the “pesky” fact that Obama voted for it and a very nice woman who had already voted for me in early voting called and said: “I don’t believe that Obama would vote to take away our rights!” I told her that it was a fact that I did not pull out of thin air and she said: “Then he must have had a good reason.” Where have our critical thinking skills gone? It is human nature to be partisan for your political party, but to give up your brains and your rights to either party is just plain wrong.

After election day, I received an email from a person who said that he “liked” me and would have voted for me, if I didn’t lie about Obama and his funding. He said: “the reason that he has so much money is that WE GAVE IT TO HIM!” I haven’t heard from him since I sent him this link that shows how much corporate money Obama also took.

The most gut wrenching emails I have received are from friends who have literally been in the ditches with me saying things like: “Obama has to send more troops to Afghanistan to catch Osama bin Laden, that’s a no brainer.” Well, I guess I have no brains, because in the first place, has it been established that bin Laden is even in Afghanistan and secondly, do we need two combat brigades in Afghanistan to catch one very tall man with failing kidneys? Afghanistan is now our second longest military misadventure and was the downfall of the USSR’s empire. Iraq, Afghanistan and our warfare state may be the downfall of ours if Obama continues the Bush trajectory and his war OF terror. Do not get me wrong, I believe our empire should crumble, but if we do it voluntarily, we may retain some dignity. Additionally, when the empire crumbles, it will crumble on We the People and the ones who have been making immoral profits are already scampering away to places like Dubai (Halliburton after it has soaked US taxpayers for over 20 billion) to preserve their ill-gotten gains.

I was at the No on 8 Protest at City Hall yesterday when a participant and I got into a discussion about civil rights. He said that we reclaimed them on November 4th when Obama (who does not support same gender marriage) was elected. I said, “How so, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT.” The young man brilliantly retorted with: “No, he didn’t.” I replied with: “He most certainly did and what did you think of him voting for the FISA Modernization Act?” At which point, the man turned around and walked away. That’s the rabid Republican way and the new rabid Obama-ite way. If a fact doesn’t conform to your worldview, then walk away from it and the un-truth fairy will hopefully scrub it from your mind with a wave of her magic wand.

Obama’s statements on Iraq are exactly the same as Bush’s. He will bring the troops home in a responsible manner when the Generals on the ground tell him it is safe to do so. However, the Iraqi Cabinet has now agreed to the Status of Force Agreement (SOFA) that keeps US troops in Iraq until 2011. I do not think the Parliament or the people of Iraq will agree to this SOFA, as one Bagdad resident put it: “We don’t want an agreement with America. We don’t want an agreement with Israel… We fully and totally reject this security pact.” The Iraqi people will not lie down and accept this as US citizens have. It is unconscionable to think that our forces will be under Iraqi authority, but to also think that we will be infecting that unfortunate nation for another three years after we never should have gone in there in the first place.

The anti-war movement must stick to its “Troops home immediately” mantra and not be lulled into complacency by slick marketing and empty rhetoric. We never accepted the “Troops home eventually” crap and we must not accept it now.

Red, Blue, Green or Purple, we should not allow ourselves to be rocked back to sleep and re-abdicate our responsibilities to our Republic or to humanity. We are going to go through some very rocky economic times before we come out the other end.

Are we going to come out the other end as victims or victors?

see

Methinks they do protest too much By William Bowles

The Obama Conundrum: Progress and Protest in the Face of Reality by John Caelan

Iraq cabinet approves troop agreement with U.S.

Obama-Barack

Over the past several days, I have addressed the misleading attacks made by Republicans and their surrogates (i.e., Joe the Non-Licensed-Plumber) on the tax plans of Democrats.  I have shown how the tax rates today penalize the middle class in favor of the wealthy and how the federal government, under Republican leadership, has squandered social security by wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars on general budget items such as the war in Iraq and the Bridge to Nowhere. 

But, the most unconscionable thing about the Republicans’ tax breaks for billionaires, refusal to protect social security, and irrational spending on unnecessary wars and frivolous expenditures, is that it has cost all of us a national debt approaching eleven trillion dollars.  Yes…eleven trillion dollars!  It is impossible to even fathom a number that high.  To put it in perspective, a child born today already owes the nation nearly $40,000 to pay for the largess of Republican leadership.

Now, the deficits/debt are not 100% entirely the fault of Republicans.  Not even I would pretend that is the case.  Democrats must shoulder their share of guilt as well.  However, this crisis is primarily explained away by looking at those in charge over the past thirty years:  Republican presidents.  For evidence, please review the following charts.  This first one shows the national debt from 1950 through 1999:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

In those years, you can see the effect of the Bush, Sr., and Reagan eras.  When Reagan signed his first budget, the national debt was just short of one trillion dollars.  By the time he left, the national debt stood at nearly three trillion.  In other words, it took Reagan only eight years to nearly triple the federal national debt that it had taken the previous two centuries to compile.  Eight years to accumulate a debt three times the amount the nation had incurred in over two hundred years prior to Reagan.  That administration was shameful in its own right.

Next, was George Herbert Walker “I’m Fucking Rich With Oil, So Who Cares About You” Bush.  When he signed his first budget, the debt stood just below three trillion dollars.  By the time he was done, he added over another $1.5 trillion to that total.  Meaning, he was also on pace to double the national debt, if he had been elected for another four years.  Is there any doubt he could have accomplished such a task?

For a discussion of Clinton and the current Bushie, we’ll also need the following link for the national debt figures from 2000 to present:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

When Clinton signed his first budget, the national debt stood just short of $4.5 trillion.  He left office with a federal deficit at $5.8 trillion.  Of course, Clinton is the only president of my lifetime that was able to balance the budget, actually turn a budget surplus, and pay down some debt during his presidency.  His performance stands in stark contrast to the Republican office holders. 

Finally, let’s turn to one of the worst leaders in modern day history.  I’m done calling him the worst President, as he is simply one of the worst leaders of any country.  When he signed his first budget, the national debt stood at about $5.8 trillion.  Where does it stand today?  Well, it adds over $1,000,000,000 every minute, so by the time I type the figure, it is old news.  So, here is a link with an up to date figure:

http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

In short, by the time “Caboy” (my term for a fake Cowboy) leaves office, he will once again have about doubled the debt from the time he took office.  It is shameful, but the bad news above, isn’t the half of it.  Interest on the national debt, largely accumulated during these Republican administrations is the second largest budget item every year.  Please see the link below:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

From that link, we are now paying about $500 billion on just the interest for the national debt.  Just as you must pay the interest on your credit cards, the federal government must pay interest on its debt.  Failure to pay this item will send the nation into default and make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park.  So, that $500 billion figure (and rising) must be paid every year.  It adds up quick…over the next four years, it will total two trillion dollars.  Can anyone think of a more productive use for that money?  The possibilities are endless. 

So, Republicans have raped the middle class through labels, accusations, and pea-brained traitors such as Joe and their freaky religious base.  They have handed the wealthy billions of dollars while robbing social security.  All the while, they have run up deficits that are unsustainable.  Their actions are criminal.  Our children, grandchildren, and their progeny are left holding the bag.

But, the best is yet to come.  The joke of the Republican economic philosophy.  It is a lie they all tell.  A lie that undercuts their entire argument.  A lie that could cost this nations its status as the preeminent democracy the world has ever known.  All will be revealed in time.  

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.seance/art.obama.afp.gi.jpg]

Errol Louis
Daily News

Expectations for Barack Obama, already high, jumped even higher when his aide and longtime confidante, Valerie Jarrett, announced that the President-elect plans to create a White House office dedicated to urban affairs.

That would make good on a promise Obama made… “We need to stop seeing our cities as the problem and start seeing them as the solution. Strong cities are the building blocks of strong regions, and strong regions are essential for a strong America…”

That sounds great, but it lacks a certain audacity….
Read more…

From The Hartford Courant:

WASHINGTON — - Senate Democrats will decide by secret ballot Tuesday whether to take away Sen. Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — a post from which he oversees U.S. security issues, as well as the operations of a wide segment of the federal government.

The anger over Lieberman’s campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate is still boiling — fueled by memories of his undercutting Barack Obama, including in a nationally televised speech at the Republican National Convention.

Majority Leader Harry Reid met with Lieberman two days after the election, telling him that his chairmanship might be on the line.

But just as it looked as if his future in the Senate could be as a political hermit, the backlash against him has faltered. So Tuesday’s vote — the talk of Capitol Hill — has become as uncertain as a stock market investment.

Original DVD cover.

Only a few of Lieberman’s fellow senators were open about their opinions.

Two fellow New England senators, the duo from Vermont, want Lieberman’s gavel taken away. Sen. Patrick Leahy, judiciary committee chairman, said in a Vermont Public Radio interview Friday, “I’m one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did.”

And Bernie Sanders issued a statement quoted by the Associated Press: “To reward Sen. Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country. Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not ‘change we can believe in.’”

…snip…

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., told Fox News, “I don’t think retribution or revenge is in the best interest of anyone.” [...] But he said in a different interview Wednesday night that Lieberman should apologize for what he did — a sentiment that Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., echoed in another interview.

Whether he is calling to issue apologies or not, Lieberman has been trying to set up a phone conversation with Obama. He has already spoken on the phone recently with Vice President-elect Joe Biden — a call that was said by a Lieberman aide to have been “a friendly, congratulatory conversation.”

Sen. Chris Dodd has said he’s trying to find a way to keep Lieberman in the caucus, although his office wouldn’t say Friday whether he would vote against stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship.

Obama’s spokespeople said the president-elect is not holding any grudges and wants Lieberman to keep caucusing with Democrats. After threatening Lieberman’s position, Reid said in a CNN interview, “Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn’t support us on military stuff, and he didn’t support us on Iraq stuff. But you look at his record, it’s pretty good.”

Jim Shea at The Hartford Courant:

How should the Democrats punish Say-It-Ain’t-So Joe Lieberman for palling around with Republicans?

…snip…

Say-It-Ain’t-So toured the country this summer and fall with his buddy John McCain, cheap-shotting Barack Obama at every opportunity.

Is Obama a Muslim?

Say-It-Ain’t-So didn’t think so but he wasn’t 100 percent sure.

Is Obama a Marxist?

Say-It-Ain’t-So thought that was a “good question.”

And then there was the little matter of the speech Say-It-Ain’t-So gave at the Republican National Convention in which he said:

“When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would have been a disaster for the U.S.A., when colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our troops on the battlefield …”

Low blow, Say-It-Ain’t-So, low blow.

…snip…

What you have to ask yourself is this: If the Republicans, and not the Democrats, had been in the position to offer Say-It-Ain’t-So the chairmanship of a powerful committee, which side of the aisle do you think he would have been sitting on?

Another defense Sen. Home Loan [Chris Dodd] and the boys are spouting is that Say-It-Ain’t-So votes with the Democrats 90 percent of the time.

OK. But on the other hand, wasn’t Say-It-Ain’t-So just a hair’s breadth away from being McCain’s running mate, a guy who voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time?

…snip…

And what about Say-It-Ain’t-So’s thinly veiled threat to go over to the Republican side if he loses his chairmanship?

Is somebody missing a loyalty gene?

Unless the Democrats want to be played for saps yet again by Lieberman, they need to remove him from the Homeland Security committee.

If they want to give him another chairmanship, I don’t know, Chairman of the Senate Conscience Committee, fine.

Go read the entire thing, kids. Shea lists punishments for Say-It-Ain’t-So.

In no small terms, the election of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States is indeed a historic moment in the history of the United States, in terms of our nation, after electing a Caucasian male to the office of President, ushering in an African-American into the highest office.  Numerous voters and pundits have painted the 2008 Presidential election to be unique in to such elections as Ronald Reagan in 1980 and John F. Kennedy in 1960, in so much as the election cycle was infused with a transcendental candidate.

I would argue that, while the 2008 election possessed uncommon qualities not typical of most Presidential elections, it was not the candidates themselves that created the interest in the 2008 election, but the national conditions that transformed this election into one perceived as important.

Barack Obama is undoubtedly one of those rare figures who captures the imagination and attention of the electorate.  Many have attributed his oratory skills as the reason.  To be frank, his speaking skills are above average, but not on par with other “great” Presidential speakers of recent memory - Reagan and Clinton.  Where Obama does excel is his ability to display pragmatism and rationale in conveying his message which is a rare departure from the typical mold for politicians.  I am in know way attempting to disparage Obama.  He has run a magnificently effective campaign, emerging as a relative unknown to capture the Presidency of the United States.  He consistently displays “leader” type characteristics that are rarely found in the lemming pool that is Washington.

But the question I want to answer is - was it Obama himself that caused this election to be viewed as unique and of historical importance or was it the conditions on the ground, seeding voter perception, that created the atmosphere for a unique and important Presidential election?  This harkens back to the critical delineation between correlation and causation pf which muddles so many discussions.

Previously, I had detailed past Presidential elections illustrating how an incumbent faired during either an unpopular war or economic recession.  When either or both elements are issues during an election, the incumbent fairs drastically worse then when they are not present.  It can be assumed that these two components breed a negative national image, and expedite a staggering requirement within the voting populace for “change”.  Given that our political system is dominated and vastly perceived as a strictly two party system, it is not outrageous to put voting tendencies in such simplistic terms.  An incumbent party presiding over these two antagonistic events will be viewed as the cause, and the inverse party will naturally be presumed to be the fix to the problem.

Exit polls indicate that the economy dominated voter concerns. 6 in 10 voters said the economy was their primary concern while the next issue of concern was the Iraqi War, but was cited by only 1 in 10 voters.  Historically, voters have given the nod to Democrats as the best party to handle the economy, and this election held to that voter generalization.  Of those citing the economy, Obama held a 9% lead among voters.  Also consider 9 in 10 voters who wanted “change” cast their vote for Obama.  I had previously detailed the effect the economy would have on the election results, and it certainly bore fruit.  voters clearly wanted “change”.

The major issues in play in the 2008 election are not terribly unique, and are, in fact, a common occurrence in past Presidential elections.  Nor did the outcome in this election stray far from past elections when the same major issues were present.  In this respect, the 2008 election was not and is not unique.

Let’s dig deeper.  One would expect a historic election to draw voters to the polls in droves.  However, according to the numbers, this election did not see an appreciable increase in total voter turnout.  In fact, the percentile of voting eligible persons who participated in the 2008 election declined from 2004.  55.3% of the voting age population participated in 2004, while 53.1% took part in 2008.  Over the past 36 years, election turnouts has steadily hovered between 49-55%.  From an aggregate level, the 2008 election was not unique in terms of voter turnout.  There was not a country wide, demographic blind drive to the polls.  Certainly not more or less then in past elections.  The only noticeable sum increase or decrease  that’s occurred in the last two decades was from 2000-2004 when voter turnout increased by 4%, from 1992-1996 when voter turnout decreased 6%, and from 1988-1992 when it increased by 5%.

One would expect an election of historical proportions to witness a large increase in voter turnout indicative of a populace that deemed 2008 as a critical point in the political future of our government.  But the numbers seem to say that American voters didn’t care any more or less in 2008 then they did in 2004.  The only thing we can say based on these figures is that voter interest in the political process rose from 2000 to 2004, and slightly dropped off in 2008.

A common theme in the 2008 Presidential election has been the effect of the youth vote ages 19-24.  Pacer noted on his blog, The Blog at the End of the Universe, how the election became a palpable topic of discussion at his school. This is particularly pertinent considering these are persons not eligible to vote.  Naturally, one would expect the youth vote to have increased from the 2004 election, and it did.  According to CIRCLE, youth voting increased by from 2004 to 23 million under the age of 30(numbers on voters from 19-24 are currently unavailable).  This is a 4% point increase.

Obama captured 62% of the youth vote as compared to 32% for McCain.  Undoubtedly, young Americans went to the polls to let their vote be heard, and Obama clearly benefited from their increased turnout.  However, were the youth numbers and increase enough to say that 2008 was an election like any other from this particular perspective?

The very same CIRCLE article cites that 2008 was the second highest youth turnout.  1974 saw 55.4% of all under 30 voters visit the polls, and in 1992 an almost equal number, 52%, cast their vote.  Additionally, consider that the youth vote has been increasing for the last eight years, and CIRCLE questioned whether the 2004 increase was an isolated circumstance particular to that election or an overall trend.  Given the subsequent increase in 2008, it appears to be a trend possibly linked to overall demographic shifts in age, but not election specific.

These don’t seem to be especially unique factors.  They have cropped up previously in past elections.  Was the 2008 election a special one?  Certainly.  Was it a unique one this nation has never seen the likes of before?  Aside from electing an African-American, no - at least not in terms of importance.

There was one unique characteristic to this election then another previous one, and that was Obama’s revolution of the campaign.  Specifically, in his campaign embracing technology to reach potential voters and donors.  The utilization of the internet and SMS will fundamentally alter all future elections.  Any candidate who does not harness the reach of technology will automatically put himself at a disadvantage compared to an opponent who does.