Talk Me Down! Early votes aren't the same as more votes!

I think back to the election in 2006 with Karl Rove stating in no uncertain terms-  We will win this election. My polling data is showing a big win for republicans.

As I remember it...GWB said the day after- we got a good ole fashion whoopin-

The McCain campaign would never state the polls are going south so they razzle ya and dazzle ya and tryin to baffle us with "experience" (that was too funny of a clip during the pop culture feature tonight).

We are putting a bit too much stock in the early voting phenomena..

There will be a huge turnout and I think that will ultimately favor Obama.  But as the famous player Yogi Berra saying goes...it's ain't over until it's over....

I'm afraid I won't be able to talk you down as I have the same pessimistic fears.  I voted yesterday (after waiting in line almost 2 hours) and at about 3:30 this morning I woke up wondering what the results were.  When it finally dawned on me I'd have to wait another week to find out, I got very nervous.  So, does it maybe help to know you are not alone in your thinking?

I have said numerous times, here and elsewhere, that I think this election will either be a landslide or so close we won't know the results for several days.  I'd like the first, but I have this feeling it will be the latter.

Early voting definitely helps increase overall turnout - in other words, it does leads to more votes.  But both parties have equal opportunities to get more votes, so one party does not necessarily have an advantage.  In several states, it seems that the Democrats have greater turnout so far than Republicans.  But not in all states.  Here in NC, the turnout that I have heard about has been split pretty equally among the parties.  In the end, everything will come down to which campaign is better at mobilizing the voters between now and Election Day.  And here is where the rock in the pit of my stomach comes from: historically, the Republicans have been far better at this than the Democrats.

So, yes, early voting does lead to more votes.  But not just for the Democrats.

Sorry, Rachel, I don't think I talked you down any.  But you are not alone in your fears.

obama with a mandate.

What is so exciting about low voter turn out? I can't believe the McCain campaign - they really are putting America first - grateful people aren't exercising their rights of democracy.

Come on Rachel and Newsvine folks, this election has an entire different dynamic than either 2000 or 2004. Barack Obama has really energized the country everyone knows how important this election and we're not going to let it just pass us by. The numbers aren't really moving for McCain, it's just the horserace that makes it even more exciting.

So many people are getting involved, everyone saw the 100,000 in St. Louis and even more in Denver. I'm sitting in a hotel (that doesn't get MSNBC) in the middle of PA, I'm going to knock on some doors for the next two days, I drove 3 hours to get here. I wouldn't have done this for the last two elections.

I worry about minority voting districts having bad or not enough voting machines and voter suppression but it will not be as easy to trick people this time. We should be sort of pessimistic and worried from now until Tuesday night.

However, I have a certain old Fleetwood Mac song queued up on my ipod and ready to play over and over on November 5th.

In Florida, this week, 3 colleges, with marching bands, on mass, left campuses and marched to their early voting location and voted.  That's those young voters that everyone is so worried about. So College students in early voting states what's happening where you are?

I'm afraid I won't be able to talk you down either. I too have the same fears. Although before watching your show today I have to admit I was feeling pretty cocky. Sure of a clear path to victory. Thanks for the sobering thought Rachel! ;P

I am a huge fan of early voting -- although traditionally I have always voted on election day. I urge everyone I talk with to "vote early". I repeat Obama's words that "your car might break down on November fourth" or "what if you can't get out of work to go down to the polls on time." But honestly, I have yet to vote early. Why? Because I am intimidated.

Okay, okay, this is not really talking you down, but the best talk-down I can offer is that the McCain camp as well as that separate rogue state known as the Palin camp live in their own private universes where whatever falls out of their mouths and draws applause -- suddenly becomes truth etched in stone (if it is repeated enough). Sure, they can tweak low early voter turnout numbers while calculating the poll's margin of error in their favor. When you are down and out you do what you have to. If you beat the same old drum long enough, people become familiar with the monotonous sound. That's what the McCain strategists are hoping for.

My middle-of-the-night wake-up calls begin with happy dreams of an Obama victory disrupted by a emotional chaser of toxic McCain tactics claiming all those early votes were somehow tampered with and belong to him. I am intimidated by real memories of 2004, imagined chants of racism, socialism, terrorism, Marxism creep into the dream and eventually wake me to the quiet realization that maybe -- just maybe -- early voting could do both harm and good.

Perhaps I am leery following 2000 and 2004, and hanging chads, and dimpled ballots and that creepy Katherine Harris and a national election being "won" by just a handful of votes, but honestly I am torn over wanting to trust the early voting system at all. Am I the only one who is an itty bitty bit suspicious of placing my vote in the hands of a county election official a week before election day? If the system were perfect, I would be the first one in line to vote early. But with voter intimidation tactics surfacing here in my homey little swing state of Virginia (Republicans please vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday), should I trust the people entrusted to accept and safeguard our early votes -- to actually count all of them on election day?

But the peace of mind that helps ease me back to sleep is the McCain overly confident sound bite that although he is down in the polls and outspent 4 to 1, he still "has them exactly where he wants them." If that is the rally cry he is sending out to all his foot soldiers across the land, then any fear I may have that this new found confidence in the early voter numbers can somehow produce a surprise come-from-behind victory is a reflection of the McCain campaign itself -- just more of the same monotonous drum beating.

I am writing you this open letter because the MSNBC web site only accepts email sent to you through hotmail.com, and as I already have more email accounts than I care to deal with I refuse to add another just for the privilege of communicating with you. Perhaps some kind soul who has succumbed to the allure of Microsoft will be kind enough to forward this along.

First a word of introduction. My name is Michael Rivero. I am the webmaster of , now in our 15th year. I also host a talk radio show on GCN six days a week. I am a Republican, these days just barely. I guess that is all you need to know about me.

I am writing this letter in reply to your October 29th "Talk Me Down" segment in which you openly wondered at John McCain's seeming over-confidence in winning the election just 6 days hence. I presume that your solicitation that someone explain it to you was a rhetorical plea, as I cannot imagine anyone with your intelligence not comprehending what McCain knows about the election that the rest of us do not know.

First, by way of homework, I would recommend seeing HBO's documentary, "Hacking Democracy". This film is currently running on HBO so you should be able to TeVo it if you have not seen it yet.

Take careful note of the wonderful woman featured in the documentary by the name of Bev Harris. She runs a website,

Enlightenment awaits within.

Michael Rivero

We don't need a talking down. We need to vote. And we need to feel like we need to vote to win. If the McCain campaign wants to make people think this thing is tied, I say fine by me. The more people think it's tied, the more they'll think their vote could be the tie breaker, the more will vote.

When the media starts calling states before the polls close and calling the whole election before the Central and Western state polls close, I think it discourages people from voting. Why vote if it's already called?

I have a friend here in South Carolina that doesn't vote because he thinks it doesn't matter. This state is always solid red and it'll never turn blue. So I told him, then don't vote to win, vote to narrow the margin.

On behalf of a great source; this is a post I feel is very important...

Please read:

I am writing you this open letter because the MSNBC web site only accepts email sent to you through hotmail.com, and as I already have more email accounts than I care to deal with I refuse to add another just for the privilege of communicating with you. Perhaps some kind soul who has succumbed to the allure of Microsoft will be kind enough to forward this along.

First a word of introduction. My name is Michael Rivero. I am the webmaster of , now in our 15th year. I also host a talk radio show on GCN six days a week. I am a Republican, these days just barely. I guess that is all you need to know about me.

I am writing this letter in reply to your October 29th "Talk Me Down" segment in which you openly wondered at John McCain's seeming over-confidence in winning the election just 6 days hence. I presume that your solicitation that someone explain it to you was a rhetorical plea, as I cannot imagine anyone with your intelligence not comprehending what McCain knows about the election that the rest of us do not know.

First, by way of homework, I would recommend seeing HBO's documentary, "Hacking Democracy". This film is currently running on HBO so you should be able to TeVo it if you have not seen it yet.

Take careful note of the wonderful woman featured in the documentary by the name of Bev Harris. She runs a website,

Enlightenment awaits within.

Michael Rivero

With McCain saying Obama wants Socialized Government why can't we point out that the Gang Of Pirates have given us eight years and more of increasingly Unsocialized Government. You Know ... Like an Unsocialized Dog ... Bites those they are supposed to protect...tears up the furniture... Leaves surprises on the carpet.... That is the real definition of Socialism, not the "government owns everything" line the GOP pushes.

Rachael-you are way too paranoid.  I love your show but please stop being so fearful.  Show some confidence.  Barack Obama will be the next President........ and eight years later you will be wondering why you were so foolish!!

Rachael-don't be so paranoid........remember Rove in 2006   He said the gop would win no problem.....the gop lost and now they are washed up.....marginalized like never before.......all they will have left after Nov 4 is Sarah "the mouth" Palin........

Last time I looked, news outlets were prohibited from reporting voter results until the last polling place closed in the West. (I don't think that included Alaska or Hawaii.) Normally that would be 8 pm Pacific time. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for keeping peace of mind until we know how the vote goes, go home, kick off your shoes, treat yourself to your favorite things, do whatever you have to do to distract yourself from being glued to your computer. The more I read and watch, the more nervous I get. My nerves don't help anyone know voting results faster.

Rachel, will you and everyone else at MSNBC spend extra time on air over the weekend and Tuesday through Wednesday? I'll break my vow to keep the TV turned off if I know when to tune in to fresh news.

Remember: Nov. 5 is the start of an entirely new election cycle for President of the United States!!!

Woops! Got double posted. Nevermind...

If I am interpreting his memo correctly, he is saying that they can't predict what will happen with such a huge turn out, the only facts are that there are record numbers of black and young voter groups, and his opinion is that the overall high turn out will negate the new Obama vote.

Isn't that what his memo is saying?

Well, don't the experts say that a larger turn out means that the democrats benefit more? And don't they say that the high turn out is for Obama this year and that McCain has not really energized any groups to turn out in larger than usual numbers?

It seems to me that his memo contains facts that aren't flattering for his campaign along with typical spin to try to console his campaigners in the waning days of their losing campaign.

He is trying to put perfume on a turd, or, if you will, lipstick on a pig.

I won't talk you down either, Rachel. I'm going to add a concern. According to a computer hacker named Stephen Spoonamore, "The Rig is In to Steal 2008." The URL is:

I just don't understand why NO ONE is reporting this story except a passing mention by Thom Hartmann. To quote the 2 scariest sentences from the article:

"Spoonamore says that the GOP wanted e-voting to steal elections but now foreign governments will be hacking and the winner will be determined by the best hackers.  He says that if the GOP wins the hacking competition, McCain will win 51.2 percent with three electoral votes over Obama, and it will be a stolen election."

All of the phone calls and GOTV in the world won't make a bit of difference if the back-end process is hijacked and corrupted. Somebody, somewhere needs to do something ASAP or the GOP will steal yet another election, like they stole 2000 with the help of Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court, and like they stole 2004 with the help of Kenneth Blackwell and the SmarTech people - these same people who also ran the gwb43 domain so all of the incriminating e-mails about the firing of the US Attornies could be destroyed.

Rachel, you've got a platform - PLEASE, I am BEGGING you, make this story a BIG deal. Just the visibility could help keep it from happening ...

MSNBC writes about how people are dealing with Post-Traumatic Election Anxiety Disorder.

It's not only about high turnout. Another great unknown is how many Republican voters who can't vote for Obama but can't vote for McCain will find some reason that enables them to stay at home.  I don't think you could poll that question, that it will play out one by one on election day as individual people find their own justifications, quasi-emergencies, and a host of other reasons that kept them from the polls.

One potential reason for low early voter turn out could be that on November 4th, lots of employers allow their employees to leave the office early or come in late, PAID, so they can exercise their right to vote. I suspect that a lot of folks like to take advantage of this. Say stand in line for two hours, go out for lunch or a coffee and tell the boss you stood in line for three or four hours. It's a classic "get out early card" and often isn't offered until the day before, or the day of. Just a possibility.

Why is it that nobody has yet to connect the dots to the 'not so long ago' Firing of US Attorneys, though they were all GOP, just over a year ago? It was all about the Vote. I'll leave a link to refresh memories. And let me also leave this thought re: Why McCain has been spending so much time in Pennsylvania. Suppose the "FIX" was in, in PA, Ohio, Florida, and other States. There would have to be some reason to explain how McCain could have won, despite the constant double digit lead for Obama in the polls.

Dismissed attorneys and elections

The controversy surrounding the U.S. Attorneys dismissals is often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues. Allegations are that some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed for failing to instigate investigations damaging to Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases.[2][63] Such allegations have been made by some of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed.[64] The background to the allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States to be very close; an election outcome can be affected by a mere announced investigation of a politician. The use of U.S. Attorneys for partisan purposes is highly improper, particularly given the strong non-partisan traditions of the U.S. Attorneys.

The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political dispute initiated by the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations have focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[1][2] A report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary," "fundamentally flawed," and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department Prosecution Decisions."[3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]

In October 2006, George W. Bush told Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some of the U.S. Attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations.[29] The complaints came from Republican officials, who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns.

The 2006 United States general election was forthcoming (November) and Republicans were concerned about losing Congressional seats to Democrats. (The election in fact did overturn Congressional control to the Democratic Party.)

Furthermore, "The documents show that in one case, officials were eager to free up the prosecutor's slot in Little Rock, Ark., so it could be filled by Timothy Griffin, a GOP operative close to White House political guru Karl Rove — at all costs."[30] According to Newsweek, "Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House."[33]

Pennsylvania is well "Covered" ---one:

Mary Beth Buchanan, birth name "Mary Beth Kotcella," (born July 25, 1963), a United States Republican attorney. She is currently the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She was appointed by George W. Bush on September 5, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on September 14, 2001. Ms. Buchanan is the first woman and youngest person ever in Pennsylvania's history to be Presidentially appointed to this position and has been viewed as one of the most controversial US Attorneys in the history of Pennsylvania. Under US Attorney John Ashcroft and US Attorney Alberto Gonzales, Buchanan has continuously held two key Justice Department posts, splitting time between Washington and Pittsburgh.

Rachel,

First off, I love your show!

I have been thinking about this article and find is this the republican's way to set up the election so that the vote supression, the voter fraud, the switching votes for Obama to McCain after the election can be explained? In other words the polls don't show that the race is getting to close to call, it's just the campaigns knowledge of how they will tamper the votes. I guess after the last 2 elections I am very jaded.

First I need to be talked down.  Having a hard time getting my head around your disclosures that you think McCain's chances are "pretty good" and that you need to be talked down.  OK, here goes:  You are probably not old enough to remember Lee Atwater, a little snake of a man held in highest esteem by the Reagan GOP, an avatar of dirty tricks, one of the creators of "spin," and a mentor of Karl Rove. Atwater mastered the fine art of flooding a spin room with loud, long-winded, paeans to the GOP candidate for his clearly superior performance in a debate, to the exclusion of anything the interviewers or Democratic supporters wanted to say.  The Republicans have have made great strides since then; they can now spin off untruths with perfectly feigned self-righteousness and sometimes even with seeming objectivity.  I offer for your consideration the instant case--you didn't really expect McCain's top pollster to say it's all over but the shouting now, did you?  And keep in mind, this is McCain's guy, not a Harris or a Zogby or any other independent pollster whose reputation is made and maintained by getting it right....  I'm not suggesting that it's all over, either; I have no doubt that Obama's troops will remain vigilant to the end.  But don't lose any sleep over this.  Touch thy feet back down to the solid earth.