It's Time--10 Questions
Article 19 readers, it's time to step up to the plate. A contest is called for. The winner will receive all the honor and glory that comes with knowing you have the brightest political mind among us.

Predict the following things before noon on Tuesday (just in case Drudge releases exit polls in the afternoon again....no cheating.), Use the comments thread:
1. The final popular vote results, by percentage, including Nader.
2. The final electoral vote results. Electoral vote calculator here. Abundant state polls here Let us know which of the major tossup states are going which direction in your mind, that led to your EV prediction.
3. The closest state in actual votes. (among states with 5 or more electoral votes)
4. The state that provides the most surprising sweat (the closest state that was presumed in the bag one way or the other)
5. When (day/time) will we have closure in the race, including a victory speech and a concession speech?
6. Will a recount/legal challenge decide the outcome?
7. Pickups in the House (which Party; how many seats?)
8. Pickups in the Senate (which Party; how many seats?)
9. Upset special--any race or any state in the Pres. race.
10. Any other prediction you'd like to make.

Vote in as many/as few categories as you like. Individual and overall winners will be announced.

What it's all about
In my heart, I believe we're going to win on Tuesday, not because of polls, which at least aren't dissuading my belief, but because even here in Nashville I see and hear sentiments along these lines all the time, as relayed by Josh Marshall, from an email he received:

My job is to get people to the polls and, more importantly, to keep them there. Because they’re crazily jammed. Crazily. No one expected this turnout. For me, it’s been a deeply humbling, deeply gratifying experience. At today’s early vote in the College Hill district of East Tampa -- a heavily democratic, 90% African American community — we had 879 voters wait an average of five hours to cast their vote. People were there until four hours after they closed (as long as they’re in line by 5, they can vote).

Here’s what was so moving:

We hardly lost anyone. People stood outside for an hour, in the blazing sun, then inside for another four hours as the line snaked around the library, slowly inching forward. It made Disneyland look like speed-walking. Some waited 6 hours. To cast one vote. And EVERYBODY felt that it was crucial, that their vote was important, and that they were important.

There is a determination and energy on our side that is inspiring. We're not just choosing one policy direction over another, or one leader's personality over another. We know this election will define--for a long time--who we are determined to be as a country, and who we are determined not to be. The character of the President is taking a backseat. This election is about the character of our nation.

Osama tape hurts Bush
Its presence makes clear the truth of all of Kerry's main points about the "war on terrorism" and the war in Iraq. Bush dropped the ball. He could have had the hearts of Americans on his side in a persistent push to track down terrorists and build a more efficient, communicative intelligence network all around the world. Instead, his advisors couldn't resist the opening for a more conventional war against a bad man they hated. We shut down the lines of communication around the world instead of opening them, because hardly anyone else wanted to join the Iraq fiasco.

And now the face of that horrifically bad decision has popped back up on TV.

Team Bush? They consider this development, despicably, to be "a gift."

They are as shameless as they are bad for America. I honestly believe Americans will find in this tape a renewed disappointment with President Bush's failures. The Fox News pollster reports that in their tracking poll calls last night, Bush's numbers fell after the tape was aired. That would be a small sample, but it's true nonetheless.

Just say something memorable, facts be damned
Atrios has transcripts from yesterday's news programs to show just how much they pull things out of their collective asses. They just make stuff up. I wish they realized the role they play in shaping conventional wisdom. Clearly they could care less.

Predictors
As further evidence that I should stop looking at, and writing about, polls, consider the Gallup tracking poll that came out on the eve of election day 2000 (via Kos):

Bush 48
Gore 43
Nader 4

We know how that one turned out.

Meanwhile, I'm saving the Article 19 prediction thread for Sunday night/Monday so get ready to prognosticate. For research, electoral calculator here, ridiculous amounts of state polls here, and you might want to use this.

Margin of Error discussion
In response to conversations in comments thread, I thought I'd link to the post that informed my thoughts about margins of error in polls. It also has a handy table. Of course, I have no background, so I don't know if he's right, and would welcome further insight from any of you statistics types. I'm throwing it out there to show why I worry about a 2 or 3 point deficit in a state poll even when it's inside the MOE. Other than just the fact that I worry.

Drinking the kool-aid
Creepy.

unbelievable
Good to know the Bible Belt has really evolved.

Not!

Screw the undecideds; it's about turnout
I've never quite believed in the argument that undecideds will break hard for the challenger this year, even though I've repeated it a few times. It seems to me that, like Pat Caddell says (and I loathe Pat Caddell), there would be an equal or greater inclination on the part of those who just haven't yet been convinced by Kerry to go with the known quantity and stick with Bush. I'm thinking/hoping many of them will decide not to vote, or even a Republican protest vote for Nader as opposed to Bush.

What seems like a more reasonable hope is that first-time voters will turnout in big numbers (although they haven't been in early voting in Tennessee). My fear is that the recent shocking move in Michigan polls in Bush's favor, after kerry seemed to have a firm grasp on it, is the undecided vote deciding to break for Bush, a foreshadowing of how they will go everywhere else. If we're not going to get the late deciders, we have to hope for a miraculous turnout of "unlikely" voters, motivated by a desire to kick the bum out.

Today's only post: a question [Still the question for Friday!]
I have a serious question, and would love for everyone who reads this to answer (leave the name blank, or make up one if you would prefer to stay anonymous).

People say this is the most important election of our lives. I agree. And it is consuming a good bit of mine. I thirst for polls, and especially news that Kerry has a chance to win. I worry. I'm anxious. I have feelings of dread over the prospect of another Bush term. And it occurs to me... those are pretty serious feelings. I don't think I'm alone, judging from the concern I hear and read about. Most weekends, this election has prompted me to do things I not only never do, but hate doing--waking up early on Saturdays, initiating awkward conversation with strangers on their doorstep or over the phone. Everything about that is contrary to my personality.

When I was in college, I just knew that my vote for President could and would change the world. Now, we've had Presidents I hated and Presidents I loved (well, one), and many of the same challenges and injustices face us that did when I first started voting. There are too many poor people. There are too many people with no health insurance. There is too much hunger in the world. There is too much greed. Too many nations, including our own, still execute its criminals. Too many nations subjugate women to horrible oppression, and those that don't still embrace a culture and economy that brazenly exploits them as objects of sexual desire (or worse). We still pollute the air and contribute to global warming more than we contribute to its solution. Being black, or brown, still poses far more obstacles--and more cruelty--than being white. And none of those things began with George W. Bush.

Will a new President really matter? Shouldn't we worry more, and work harder, for a city council election, or a school board race? Don't those have more direct impact on lives in our community? If so, why don't we? Maybe you do.

Is Presidential politics so much a spectator sport now, thanks to 24-hour news or whatever, that we care and root for basically the same reasons that we cheer for the Red Sox to win? A superficial, ultimately meaningless (sorry Kenny) way to fill out our personal identities, a purposeful distraction from really addressing our own lives? A chance to jeer (inside) at the other side?

I know you can list the standard policy reasons why a different President will make a difference, and those may be the reasons why you're on one side and not the other. But is that really why we care? Has the desire to win separated itself from those reasons?

So, my question to you (and Article 19 will consider all attempts to deflect with sarcasm as evidence of a character flaw. We should know - we invented that technique.) is this: assuming you care more about the outcome of this election than previous ones, why do you think that is? Why do you care so much about what happens on Tuesday?

Sorry for the cursing
This would be funny, maybe, if we didn't have to remember that--as Kos says--"this asshole is our President". Watch the video.

Who's gonna win?
Who knows. Zogby's state polls continue to give Bush a slight lead in OH (though a high undecided number, defying common sense), and a growing lead in Florida. CBS just took a poll in Florida that was so good for Kerry they got nervous and are sitting on it.

Zogby shows Kerry with a lead, 3 days in a row, in CO. No other poll shows Bush behind there. Zogby also shows a sizable lead for Bush in NM, where others (save the Republican-biased Mason-Dixon) show it very close, or Kerry ahead. At least WI has flipped to Kerry in Zogby's tracking poll. Holding on in MN as well.

Iowa sounds tied, no matter who you ask.

Pulling out wins in Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico (21 votes combined) would offset the loss of Ohio and give Kerry a chance to win even losing both FL and OH.

Meanwhile, Zogby's national tracking poll says that the last day was one of Kerry's best - up by 5.

Nobody has a clue what's going to happen. Experiment with electoral college scenarios here. You know, with the anxiety, you're not going to get any work done before Tueday anyway.

Eminem [UPDATED]
Wow.

[UPDATE} The video is now number 1 on MTV. A DailyKos diarist has the best analysis of it I've read.

Gallup's Likely Voter test
You can take their test screen here. It's crazy. Take the test as if you are this year an enthusiastic, knowledgeable first-time voter, though you have been old enough before. Say you rate your own chances to vote a 10 out of 10. The screen still tells you that you are not likely to vote.

Meanwhile, polls show that first-time voters are heavily for Kerry, and early voting returns point to record turnout.

tuesday poll goodness [UPDATED--6 PM]
American Research Group has Kerry up slightly in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, in new polls.

New Survey USA poll also shows Kerry up by 2 in Florida.
[UPDATE] Also, new Survey USA polls show Kerry up 3 in OH and 8 in PA.

A little help from my friends
Somehow, I got lassoed into giving a lecture at school on the Beatles in a few weeks. I decided the thing college students most need to know, that can be introduced in 45 minutes, is how truly experimental they were musically--instrumentation, meter changes, recording techniques, music "videos," and many other things that show they weren't all just about "twist and shout."

But, I need a snappy title for my talk. Without being too campy.

Any ideas?

When Clinton comes to town
Atrios has a picture from the Clinton/Kerry rally today in Philly. A few people showed up.

Incompetence
We all know Bush is a raging fool. But I'm guessing he didn't actually sit down and make the war plans. Who the heck is in charge, and why did nobody guard the most dangerous stuff in Iraq? Does this all go back to the idiocy that thought we would be greeted as liberators? We figured Iraqis would not be interested in violence as soon as Saddam was gone? Was there any strategic thinking, or back-up planning whatsoever? It's like Kerry said in debate #2: "It's the military's job to win the war; the President's job is to win the peace." (Why do we not repeat our best lines endlessly like the evil ones do? This beauty sounds like it could have been the main line of attack. But I don't think I heard anyone say it again since.)

In my opinion, this story should seal the deal. This administration is incompetent, from the top down. And there is no leader to hold people accountable for getting the most important stuff done (like protecting our troops and Iraqi civilians from the most dangerous weapons in Iraq).

This was not Saddam handing over weapons to terrorists. This stuff was under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (they're the good guys). They told us this stuff was there, and we should secure it if we're coming in to take over. We did not. WTF??

Now that we know the President's response is that "he wants to know what went wrong," Josh Marshall has the best take:

The President wants to determine what went wrong.

This reminds me of when I wanted to know why my Palm Pilot stopped working after I dropped it in the bath tub.

Doesn't this capture Bush's entire presidency?

The thing happened more than a year ago, his administration has taken active steps to cover it up and now that the truth finally comes out, he 'wants to determine what went wrong.'

The idea of accepting responsibility for anything is simply alien to the man. He doesn't even have the good grace to scam us by finding a scapegoat to pin the blame on.

Hunter S. Thompson weighs in
Hard to pick just one quote from this Rolling Stone column, but here's one:

Back in June, when John Kerry was beginning to feel like a winner, I had a quick little rendezvous with him on a rain-soaked runway in Aspen, Colorado, where he was scheduled to meet with a harem of wealthy campaign contributors. As we rode to the event, I told him that Bush's vicious goons in the White House are perfectly capable of assassinating Nader and blaming it on him. His staff laughed, but the Secret Service men didn't. Kerry quickly suggested that I might make a good running mate, and we reminisced about trying to end the Vietnam War in 1972.

That was the year I first met him, at a riot on that elegant little street in front of the White House. He was yelling into a bullhorn and I was trying to throw a dead, bleeding rat over a black-spike fence and onto the president's lawn.

We were angry and righteous in those days, and there were millions of us. We kicked two chief executives out of the White House because they were stupid warmongers. We conquered Lyndon Johnson and we stomped on Richard Nixon -- which wise people said was impossible, but so what? It was fun. We were warriors then, and our tribe was strong like a river.

That river is still running. All we have to do is get out and vote, while it's still legal, and we will wash those crooked warmongers out of the White House.

I'm still shocked at the way this campaign has managed to turn the heroic anti-war movement from the sixties into a liability. Kerry was a hero among heroes to the young people that brought a merciful end to a terrible mistake of a war. But we're having to run from his involvement in that movement; it would seem to have no voice today at all. So, it's nice to hear Hunter backing his friend and fellow former protestor.

Tracking Poll Heaven
Here's a one-stop shop for national daily tracking polls. If you need it.