• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
muskrat89 said:
I'm not sold it was race-motivated.

Also, something that people forget to mention is that Zimmerman is actually Mexican, not white. I am not saying only white's can do race related offenses, just that some elements are trying to set this up as white vs black.. Its not the 1960's anymore.. Although racism still exists, someone needs to tell Al Sharpton that "whitie" isn't out to get him.
 
Sadly, the Legacy Media does this sort of thing all the time, rapidly shooting a story on the airwaves without any real investigation or fact checking. If the "story" fits the "narrative", then it gets lots of airplay, follow up and so on, while as soon as it does not fit the "narrative", it gets dropped like a rock.

Other blatant examples of media bias can be found when reporting wrongdoing by politicians, in the US, Republicans are paraded through the public square whereas you have to play "identify the party" many times if a Democrat is caught. Covering up is also rife, John Edwards is a classic case in point (he has just recently been identified again in a "Million Dollar Madam" sex scandal, there is no reporting on how long he has been involved with this).

Of course, we are well aware of this as well in Canada; compare the level of coverage and depth of investigation to the various faux scandals raised against this government vs real (and in many cases, still open) scandals such as the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle", Shawinigate, ADSCAM or the unpaid loans of LPC leadership candidates (which have been open so long that by law they are now illegal campaign contributions).

Sadly, we are probably going to see floods of this sort of reporting from the US as the campaign moves forward in order to distract from the real issues like 11% unemployment, dismal economic growth, rapidly rising energy and food prices and the uncertain security situation in the world (and of course,  Administration policies which have amplified these problems).
 
You are all wrong.

From a source no more impeachable than Geraldo Rivera - Trayvon Martin was shot because he was wearing a hoodie.

Think we can put this aside, and get back to more election worthy discussion, such as etch-a-sketch gate? ;D
 
Redeye said:
Okay, okay. I submit.

Trayvon Martin might have been some sort of kung fu fighter. So it was totally legitimate for him to be shot dead. Okay. I'm glad we've put that one to bed.

:facepalm:

Be so kind to show me where I stated it was a legitimate shooting. You discounted Bruce's post, and for the record I don't believe he was stating that the young fellow was an MMA expert, just that it is possible for smaller people to have the were with all to be tough. Have the common decency in the future to avoid putting words in my mouth.....Jesus Christ you can be a absolute..........
 
Sythen said:
Also, something that people forget to mention is that Zimmerman is actually Mexican, not white. I am not saying only white's can do race related offenses, just that some elements are trying to set this up as white vs black.. Its not the 1960's anymore.. Although racism still exists, someone needs to tell Al Sharpton that "whitie" isn't out to get him.

I've seen him variously reported that he's "half-Peruvian" or "white hispanic", never Mexican - but it seems no one has a straight answer on that. And I agree that it shouldn't matter, and it's being spun that way because it's not exactly the first time that something like this has happened. Although it sounds from various sources like what exactly he said is disputed, there are reports that he used a racial slur while on the phone with the cops. Also, FWIW, Hispanic people can be racist too.
 
Hmm.  Zimmerman. Mexican.

Google German Telegram.

More random synaptic surges.  ;D
Great for devising conspiracies.
 
cupper said:
You are all wrong.

From a source no more impeachable than Geraldo Rivera - Trayvon Martin was shot because he was wearing a hoodie.

Think we can put this aside, and get back to more election worthy discussion, such as etch-a-sketch gate? ;D


I've got a hunch that, no matter what happens, this is going to be an election issue.

I don't pretend to understand the "stand your ground" law except that it appears to provide some defence for Mr. Zimmerman's actions, which may not even need much defending if the only witness so far made public is to be believed. (And, absent other witnesses, who else is to be believed?) But, no matter what the law says, significant portions of the American public are excited about this - and the two most (apparently) vocal factions are at opposite end of the political spectrum and so they, probably, cancel one another out IF they are of roughly equal voting strength. (I believe black Americans vote less than most other groups, but I don't know about other groups.) I wonder if this will pit the latino voters against the blacks and if it might drive some more latinos away from Obama. Latinos might not move to the GOP but if they just stay home, depriving Obama of their votes, then it may matter in some swing states.

 
I expect that most "Factions" are going to see events such as this  as confirmation of their worst fears about their opponents.

This and the other challenges facing the Americans will make for an extra-crunchy nasty campaign when it gets under way, likely to make our politics look  absolutely Barney-like in comparison.

I don't take any satisfaction in this, like it or not their challenges impact ours.

I just hope that somehow tings will calm down, for all our sake's
 
It's nice to see that instead of using this unfortunate incident to have a rational discussion on such issues as race and gun control, the politicians in the US have decided to capitalize on a families pain by using it for political reasons.  At the end of the day, whether the guy who shot Tayvan was white, hispanic, black, or from the same place as  Mork and Mindy, the real issues are that the Floridas laws permit armed persons, essentially mercenaries, to roam through the streets and make life and death decisions that Canadian officers in AFGHANISTAN weren't permitted to make.  Further, one might also suggest that the requirement for neighbourhoods to have what essentially amount to roving and clearance patrols speaks a great deal to both the overall level, or perception thereof, of crime and race relations in that area.

I would respect greatly a LEADER (neither Obama or Romney fit this bill) who actually asked these questions and delved into the deeper issues.  Instead, left yells at right, right yells at left, and a kid gets buried. 

The one interesting point I would bring up is the recent ruling to allow aboriginals in Canada to have their histories taken into account.  When one looks at this case, isn't this already happening in the media in terms of the shooter being a latino? Does being a trigger happy, bigot Latino make shooting a black person any better than a white person doing it? What if it was a black person shooting a white? What if he had shot a gay guy?  or a jew? or a woman? I suggest that our collective willingness to apply racial stereotypes to such incidents for both victim and shooter state more about our societies than the incident itself.
 
Redeye said:
I'm pretty much in the centre of the spectrum.
The fact that you're now feeling the need to post this in multiple threads suggests that the content of your posts is leading people to a different conclusion.

To bastardize JW Riley, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its self-proclaiming that it's really an eagle is meaningless.....particularly given its continued, smugly superior duck-like behaviour."

 
Journeyman said:
To bastardize JW Riley, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its self-proclaiming that it's really an eagle is meaningless.....particularly given its continued, smugly superior duck-like behaviour."
Your logic, sir, is impeccable;)
 
Instapundit with a roundup of coverage, and a chilling prediction by one of his readers:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/  26 March 2012

#NARRATIVEFAIL: Police: Trayvon Martin Slammed Zimmerman’s Head Into Sidewalk Several Times.

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.

It seems as if people might have waited for more information before commencing the lynching. (Via JWF.)

UPDATE: Reader David Horwich writes:

IMHO, what’s going in in the WH these days is really, really bad poll numbers. How else can one explain an investment in clearly polarizing issues like picking a fight with both the church and Rush Limbaugh, race-baiting with Trayvon, a flirtation with an advocacy of gay marriage, Stalin-esque striking down of voter ID laws, et. Al. The softness in numbers with the black population must really be stark, otherwise, why bring this stuff up? There’s no upside with independent voters with any of these issues.

It does seem that way — a pre-election period in which Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan have high profiles doesn’t seem optimal for an allegedly post-racial Presidency. But perhaps they feel that it’s better to have people talking about absolutely anything other than gas prices, the debt, and ObamaCare.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Trayvon Martin Case Heading Toward Political Abyss.

Meanwhile, as evidence of how far we’ve come from Obama’s 2008 promises, a reader emails: “Maybe. Just maybe….all this continually more violent rhetoric of the Left’s ‘new civility’ is just build-up for something in the way of a REAL October Surprise. And a rather violent one at that. Just keep looking for the indicators…..”

See, this isn’t the Hope And Change we were looking for.

And also on Instapundit today, open mike moments which are very illuminating as to the mindset of the Administration:

HOT MIC ALERT: Obama to Medvedev: I’ll totally cave on missile defense in my second term if Putin will give me “space.” “Obama won’t share these plans with the American people. However, he’ll share them with the Russians, and ask for their help in influencing the election. . . . What other nations has Obama asked for ‘space’ on American foreign and national-security policy so that he can win a second term? And what American interests is Obama willing to trade for that ‘space’?”

Related: President Hot Mic can’t wait for a second term (Update: The bigger question): “Notice how the Obama captured when he doesn’t think he is being recorded is so differenct from campaign Obama. The ‘bitter clinger’ remarks and the Netanyahu put-down are the most memorable. And there are the hot mic sound bites which the media won’t release, like CBS refusing to release the full audio of Obama’s comments about Paul Ryan, and the LA Times holding back the Khalidi tape. The most recent hot mic is in many ways the most important, because it demonstrates once again that unrestrained by the need for reelection, Obama is going to go to town.”

 
Two people who are critical of the parts played by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in the Trayvom tragedy.

First, a former president of the NAACP:

Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin
By Alex Pappas - The Daily Caller  2:17 PM 03/26/2012

Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”

“His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Rev. C.L. Bryant said in a Monday interview with The Daily Caller.

The conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garland, Texas NAACP called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” and said they are “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.”

Jackson, for example, recently said Martin’s death shows how “blacks are under attack” and “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.”  (SEE ALSO: Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin ‘murdered and martyred’)

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, killed Martin, a 17-year-old black man who was unarmed at the time of his death, last month. Zimmerman has claimed to have shot Martin in self-defense and has not been charged with a crime.

But Bryant, who explores the topic of black-on-black crime in his new film “Runaway Slave,” said people like Jackson and Sharpton are being misleading to suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men.”

“The epidemic is truly black on black crime,” Bryant said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

Bryant said he wishes civil rights leaders were protesting those problems.

“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that six-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”

Bryant said he worries that “people like Sharpton and those on the left” will make Martin’s death a campaign issue in the presidential race.

He speculated that they will “turn this evolving tragedy of this young man into fodder to say… if you don’t re-elect Obama then you will have unbridled events or circumstances like this happening in the streets to young men wearing hoodies.” (RELATED: Herman Cain criticizes ‘swirling rhetoric’ after Martin shooting)

He also criticized President Obama for his “nebulous statement” responding to Martin’s death that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

“What does that mean?” Bryant asked. “What was the purpose in that?”

Article Link.

And from former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain:

Cain: ‘Swirling rhetoric,’ ‘war of words’ in Trayvon case must stop, facts are needed before rushing to judgment
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller  11:10 AM 03/26/2012

Former Republican presidential candidate and businessman Herman Cain told The Daily Caller he’s concerned that the facts of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s killing may be getting lost amid the heated political and racial rhetoric surrounding the case.

“Where is the investigation?” Cain said in an email to TheDC. “That is the question that should be asked, and answered, before all of this ‘swirling rhetoric’ creates an even more tense situation out of this very tragic incident. We need a complete investigation and all the facts, not a premature ‘War of Words.’”

Cain added that were there are some troubling questions about how police initially handled Martin’s death, the facts need to come out before the American people rush to judgment.

“On the surface, it appears this was a senseless killing,” Cain said. “And it appears as if the suspect was not taken into custody. It appears there wasn’t an immediate or thorough investigation.”

“I’m not an investigator, but I believe all the facts should be out on the table before we draw any more conclusions in this case,” he continued.

African-American conservative commentator Deneen Borelli told TheDC she thinks Martin Luther King, Jr. wouldn’t “condone” the way some activists have handled the Martin shooting.

“He [King] would never condone what Spike Lee has done, who tweeted Zimmerman’s address,” Borelli, the author of “BlackLash,” a book critical of tactics employed by some progressives in situations where race may be a factor, said. “He would not condone President Obama’s comments and Al Sharpton injecting himself into this situation the way that he has. This is something that Martin Luther King would absolutely not stand for.”

Borelli said she thinks President Barack Obama, the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and others have unnecessarily inserted race into this issue. “This has been turned into an issue of race by those who have made it an issue of race,” Borelli said. “Now, you have Al Sharpton injecting himself into the situation.”

“Of course, it’s a tragic situation and my heart goes out to this young man’s parents,” Borelli added. “But, when you look at how the tone of this situation has really been set from the top, and I’m talking about President Obama. What he should have done is emphasize that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and that justice in the end will prevail. But, sadly, he injected race into the issue.”

Sharpton and Jackson are expected to rally in Sanford, Fla., on Monday afternoon. They plan to lead a march across town and before protesting outside a city commission meeting.

Article Link
 
the real issues are that the Floridas laws permit armed persons, essentially mercenaries, to roam through the streets and make life and death decisions that Canadian officers in AFGHANISTAN weren't permitted to make.  Further, one might also suggest that the requirement for neighbourhoods to have what essentially amount to roving and clearance patrols speaks a great deal to both the overall level, or perception thereof, of crime and race relations in that area.

OK - I chewed on this for a day and it's still bugging me. You are RTFO. Talk about Henny Penney...  Neighborhood Watch programs are generally touted by the feds and sponsored by local police agencies. I formed a Block Watch in a community I lived in. Firearms laws are a separate matter, entirely and are unrelated to the Neighborhood Watch stuff. One may argue there is a potential for disaster when the two concepts converge but I can tell you all Block Watch programs are about observation and reporting, not armed conflict.

http://www.usaonwatch.org/

http://www.sandiego.gov/police/services/prevention/programs/neighborhoodwatch.shtml
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
the real issues are that the Floridas laws permit armed persons, essentially mercenaries, to roam through the streets and make life and death decisions that Canadian officers in AFGHANISTAN weren't permitted to make.

Any other dumb comments to add to the thread?
 
muskrat89 said:
OK - I chewed on this for a day and it's still bugging me. You are RTFO. Talk about Henny Penney...  Neighborhood Watch programs are generally touted by the feds and sponsored by local police agencies. I formed a Block Watch in a community I lived in. Firearms laws are a separate matter, entirely and are unrelated to the Neighborhood Watch stuff. One may argue there is a potential for disaster when the two concepts converge but I can tell you all Block Watch programs are about observation and reporting, not armed conflict.

http://www.usaonwatch.org/

http://www.sandiego.gov/police/services/prevention/programs/neighborhoodwatch.shtml

I agree that conflating this with Neighborhood Watch concepts doesn't make sense. There's been a lot of reports that Zimmerman wasn't part of any sort of sanctioned Neighborhood Watch, and others that say he was - but either way I can't see how there's much legitimacy to any of this.

So, on the topic of the election again, have you all seen Herman Cain's latest absolutely bizarre "ad"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdpN5C1_flQ

Stipulated that the guy isn't an actual contender for the White House and never was, but it seems like he's got something to say, it's just so absurdly presented that no one can really figure it out.

I suspect, that like Sarah Palin, he will probably inject himself into campaigning in some way once the primary is sorted out, but I can't figure out to what end nor really predict the impact. For now, I can only just shake my head at what he puts out.
 
At the risk of dragging this thread back towards the topic, it appears, according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail that Newt Gingrich can see the writing on the wall:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/gingrich-pledges-to-support-romney-if-he-clinches-nomination/article2383232/
Gingrich pledges to support Romney if he clinches nomination

BRIAN WITTE

ANNAPOLIS, MD.— The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, Mar. 27, 2012

Under pressure to help unify his party, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich pledged Tuesday to support Mitt Romney if the former Massachusetts governor wins enough convention delegates to clinch the nomination by the end of the GOP primary season in June.

If Mr. Romney falls short, “I think you'll then have one of the most interesting, open conventions in American history,” the former House speaker said as he campaigned for votes in next week's Maryland primary.

Mr. Gingrich is short on funds, and his hopes for a Southern-based comeback in the race were all but extinguished by rival Rick Santorum's recent victories in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. Even so, has insisted he plans to campaign actively into the party convention, which begins on Aug. 27 in Tampa, Fla.

He signalled his change in remarks to reporters. If Mr. Romney gets the 1,144 delegates needed for the nomination by the time of the Utah primary on June 26, Mr. Gingrich said, “obviously I will support him and will be delighted to do anything I can to help defeat Barack Obama.”

Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum have both come under increased pressure from some Republicans in recent weeks to swing behind Mr. Romney, who is on track to pick a majority of delegates before the primaries end with the vote in Utah.

Mr. Gingrich has tried to position himself as an anti-establishment figure in the race for the nomination, and has bristled at the devastating attacks that Mr. Romney and a Romney-aligned super political action committee unleashed at him at key moments in the campaign.

Yet as a former House speaker, he is also aware of the importance of party unity as the general election campaign comes into view.

Mr. Romney is the front-runner with 568 delegates, based on a tally by The Associated Press. That is slightly less than half the needed 1,144 delegates, and more than four times as many delegates as Mr. Gingrich, who has 135.

Mr. Gingrich conceded he is strapped for campaign funds.

“The money is very tight, obviously,” he said. “That's why we're trying to raise more money.”

Mr. Gingrich has struggled since his campaign peaked just before the Iowa caucuses kicked off the nominating process in January. He has won just two contests – in South Carolina and his Georgia home state.

His campaign listed more than $1.5-million in outstanding debt by the end of February, according to Federal Election Commission filings, including legal fees and advertising production costs. At the same time, Mr. Gingrich had about $1.5 million cash on hand – the lowest of the four GOP candidates.

Maryland, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin, has drawn unusual attention from the from the GOP presidential candidates. The state has 37 delegates at stake in its primary next Tuesday.

Mr. Romney campaigned in Maryland last week. Texas congressman Ron Paul, the fourth Republican in the race, has scheduled an event at the University of Maryland on Wednesday.


It's pretty clear that nearly half of the Republican base do not like Mitt Romney; he is, after all, a moderate - the sort of person for whom about half of Americans are inclined to vote.

If the Obamacare statute is declared unconstitutional by the USSC then Obama's first term achievements look pretty unimpressive; maybe a lot of folks, enough to tip the balance, will think that Romneycare is a better aletrnative and Barack Obama will be a one term wonder.
 
Intensive and intrusive data collection is going to be a feature of any election from now on. This has all sorts of unpleasant potential; do you really want the current mayor to know who you supported the next time you apply for a permit or zoning variance?

So long as there is a clear and enforceable understanding that the databases are purged after an election, then there is no reason that political parties should not do this during a campaign, but the idea of this information being held indefinitely is creepy at best (think of Facebook and its ability to release your data without your concurrence)

http://www.propublica.org/article/three-things-we-dont-know-about-obamas-massive-voter-database

Three Things We Don’t Know About Obama’s Massive Voter Database
by Lois Beckett
ProPublica, March 27, 2012, 4:48 p.m.
 
President Obama's re-election campaign is reportedly [1] building [2] a massive database [3] of information about potential supporters.

The database seems to bring together information about supporters gathered from all branches of the campaign [3] — everything from an individual's donation records to volunteer activity to online interactions with the campaign — aimed at allowing the campaign to personalize every interaction [4] with potential supporters.

Earlier this month, we built an interactive graphic showing how different Obama supporters received different variations of the same email [5] — one way that the campaign may be using data to personalize messages.

We can't describe the Obama campaign's database with certainty because the campaign won't talk about it. Citing concerns about letting Republicans learn its tactics, the campaign declined our request for comment — as it has with other outlets — about what data the campaign collects and what it's doing with the data. The campaign did emphasize that, regardless of what information it gathers, it has never sold voter data or shared its voter database with other candidates.

Here's a guide to what we know — and don't know — about the information Obama is collecting about voters.

1. What information is the campaign collecting about individual supporters?

We know only some of the data it's collecting, but it is clearly collecting a lot.

The Obama campaign has hired a corporate data-mining expert, Rayid Ghani [6], to serve as its "chief scientist [7]." Ghani has previously researched how to use a retailer's record of customer purchases to predict what a particular customer will buy [8] during a given shopping trip — the same kind of data crunching that Target has apparently used to predict whether shoppers are pregnant [9]. The campaign is continuing to hire "analytics engineers [10]" and other data experts.

Some of the most important data that campaigns need are already public [11]. State voter files include voters' names, addresses and voting histories. Campaigns don't know whom you voted for. But they know when you voted, when you didn't and, in some states, your race and party registration.

The Obama campaign website [12] asks supporters for basic information, starting with your email address and ZIP code. If you sign up for an account on the site or register as a volunteer, you may also be asked for your mailing address, phone number and occupation.

But the campaign's privacy policy [13] says the campaign has the right to gather far more — information about how you use the campaign website, such as what you click on and which pages you view; data about how you interact with campaign email messages; and personal information you submit as part of blog comments, interactive forums or contests and games on the campaign's websites.

Logging on to BarackObama.com using Facebook gives the campaign permission to access your name, profile picture, gender, networks, list of friends and any other information you have made public.

How much information is the campaign tracking and connecting back to you? The campaign won't give an overarching answer to that.

That doesn't mean it is tracking everything. For instance, the campaign website features an interactive graphic that allows users to see how the health-care reform law [14] might benefit them. To do so, users click through several options, selecting whether they have private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid or no insurance at all, how many people are in their families, and what their annual household incomes are.

According to the campaign's privacy policy, the campaign may track how individual users interact with the campaign website. But the campaign said that none of the information entered into the health-care interactive site was linked back to individual supporters.

It's worth noting that, as many websites do, the campaign also works with third-party ad vendors that use web cookies to track your browsing online. This enables them to serve you ads on different sites — and to target their ads based on the sites you visit.

2. What will happen to all this personal information once the campaign is over?

It's hard to know.

According to the privacy policy [13], the campaign reserves the right to share the personal information it collects "with candidates, organizations, groups or causes that we believe have similar political viewpoints, principles or objectives."

The campaign wouldn't comment about any future plans but said its track record demonstrated its approach to privacy protection.

After the 2008 election, Obama's list of 13 million email addresses was not given to other candidates or used by the White House. Obama launched "Organizing for America," a Democratic National Committee outreach program that drew on Obama's wide network of supporters to generate support for the president's agenda.

"This campaign has always and will continue to be an organization that respects and takes care to protect information that people share with us," spokeswoman Katie Hogan said.

But the privacy policy shows the campaign is reserving the right to share its increasingly rich database. And some experts are wondering what Obama will do with it once the campaign ends.

"As a voter, I would feel a lot more comfortable if campaigns gave voters the option of whether or not they could pass their information on to other groups," said Andrew Rasiej, founder of Personal Democracy Forum [15] and TechPresident [16], a site focusing on how technology affects politics.

From a voter's perspective, "the fact that I gave the Obama campaign $10 for six months, or emailed the campaign 10 times, may not be information that I want anyone else to know," Rasiej said.

Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center [17], said she's "never heard anyone complain" about Obama's 2008 campaign giving away personal information.

"The success of the Obama campaign in 2008 in getting millions of people to log on to their website to give personal information and volunteer and do all sorts of things for the campaign hinged on trust," she said. "People did not believe that that information was going to go anywhere."

Any choice to share supporters' information should take their preferences into account, Coney said. A campaign could easily create a checklist of politicians and organizations, allowing users to grant permission to share with some groups and not with others.

3. Is there any way to erase yourself from the campaign's database?

As far as we can tell, no.

President Obama's "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights [18]," released last month, says that consumers' right to control their personal data "includes a right to withdraw consent to use personal data that the company controls."

The Obama campaign does make it easy to unsubscribe from email, text messages or newsletters. But we couldn't find any way to take yourself off its database — and the campaign wouldn't comment. There's also no apparent way to see what information the campaign is storing about you.

In a report on consumer privacy [19] released March 26, the Federal Trade Commission called on companies to "provide consumers access to the data collected about them."

Both the "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" and the FTC's report are meant to serve as guidelines for future legislation regulating companies' use of consumer data. How any laws will apply to political campaigns isn't clear.

A White House official said the Privacy Bill of Rights "applies to how businesses handle consumers' personal data online, and will impact all organizations using personal information collected through commercial means," including campaigns.

Obama's privacy policy notes that users, just as they can at any website, can disable cookies if they don't want their browsing tracked. And to the campaign's credit, EPIC's Lillie Coney said, the privacy policy also includes a link to the Network Advertising Initiative [20], which allows users to control which digital advertisers are tracking them.
 
And a prediction for the Senate:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/327883.php

you are looking at a 58R-40D-2I Senate in the map above. New Mexico, Hawaii, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia and Connecticut are the next batch of Democrat-held seats to fall after the already projected D losses of Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri, and Florida, in this scenario. King still wins Maine.
 
A little optimistic about Virginia. LAtest polls show Obama leading any of the GOP candidates, and the race for Senate is tight within the margin of error.
 
Back
Top