By Lois Beckett, ProPublica

In Minnesota, Democratic volunteers scour their local newspapers each morning for letters to the editor with a political slant. They pay attention to the names of callers on radio shows. They drive through their neighborhoods and jot down the addresses of campaign lawn signs.

Then they feed the information into a state Democratic Party database that includes nearly every voter in Minnesota.

Some of the states' few dozen data volunteers are so devoted that they log into the party database daily from their home computers. Deb Pitzrick, 61, of Eden Prairie, convinced a group of her friends to form the "Grandma Brigade." These women, in their 50s, 60s and 70s, no longer want to knock on doors for the Democrats. Instead, they support the party by gathering public information about other voters.

Much of the data the Grandma Brigade collects is prosaic: records of campaign donations or voters who have recently died. But a few volunteers see free information everywhere. They browse the listings of names on Tea Party websites. They might add a record of what was said around the family Thanksgiving table — Uncle Mitch voted for Bachmann, cousin Alice supports gay marriage.

One data volunteer even joked about holding "rat out your neighbor parties," where friends would be encouraged to add notes about the political views of other people on their block.

Once information about individual people is entered into the state party's database, it doesn't stay in Minnesota. Almost all the information collected by local volunteers like the Grandma Brigade also ends up in the party's central database in Washington.

Few places have data volunteers as dedicated as the ones in Minnesota, which has been held up as a model for other state Democratic parties. Both Democrats and Republicans have centralized databases that, among other things, track opinions you share with local campaign volunteers.

Continue reading »

A Florida resident's answering machine captured a call from a volunteer with the Republican Party of Clay County who was reaching out to potential voters with several important lies about the upcoming presidential election.

From the audio:

"Y'all sound like y'all are senior citizens, right? Yeah. You don't want Obama. You really don' want Obama. Because he'll get rid of your Medicare. You might as well say goodbye to it."

"I don't know if you've done any research on Obama or not, but he is a Muslim... if he had his way, we'd be a socialistic country."

"Pay attention to Fox News."

The head of the Clay County GOP told the St. Augustine Record that the woman was "off-script completely."

We have everything scripted,” Dougher said. “Those are clearly not the views of the Republican Party of Clay County or the Mitt Romney campaign.”

Hmm, I think I'd like to take a look at those scripts.

From Moveon.org, Check out these brave people who’ve responded to Mitt Romney’s comment that 47% of Americans think of themselves as “victims” and will never “take responsibility for their lives.”

This first video was submitted by Donna & Bruce StClair from Forest, Virginia.

Submitted by DeEtte Beghtol Waleed from Multnomah, Oregon. She says “Mr. Romney… I take responsibility for my children, my grandchildren, and my great-children, and have done that for more than sixty years.”

Continue reading »

Five Ways Courts Say Texas Discriminated Against Black and Latino Voters

by Lois Beckett and Suevon Lee ProPublica, Sept. 4, 2012

How does Texas discriminate against minority voters? Federal judges counted the ways.

Last Tuesday, a panel of federal court judges ruled that new district maps drawn by Texas' Republican-controlled legislature weakened the influence of Latino voters and in some cases evinced "discriminatory intent" against both Latinos and African Americans. Two days later, another panel of federal judges unanimously struck down a voter-ID law passed by the legislature in March 2011, arguing that it would disproportionately harm African-American and Latino voters. The judges did not address whether there was discriminatory purpose behind the legislation, but they noted that the legislature failed to pass amendments that would have mitigated the law's discriminatory impact.

Minority groups have outnumbered whites in Texas since roughly 2004, and 55.2 percent of the state's residents are now minorities, according to Census figures. As of 2011, the state's legislature was more than two-thirds white.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office declined to comment on the specifics of the rulings, but Abbott has promised to appeal both cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. In news releases, he said that the Supreme Court had already upheld voter-ID laws, and that the redistricting decision "extends the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits intended by Congress and beyond the boundaries imposed by the Constitution."

Both decisions hinged on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination in voting — including Texas — to prove that any changes in their voting laws or procedures do not hamper the voting rights of minorities. Enacted in 1965, the Voting Rights Act aimed to eliminate discriminatory voting practices that had long been used to suppress the black vote, particularly in southern states. Section 5 has been challenged, including in two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, as an outdated provision that unfairly singles out certain states. The Court has not decided if it will hear the cases.

The rulings detailed several examples of discriminatory practices in Texas:

1. Lawmakers drew some districts that looked like Latino majority districts on paper — but removed Latinos who voted regularly and replaced them with Latinos who were unlikely to vote.

In the redistricting case, a panel of three federal judges found that Texas lawmakers had intentionally created districts that would weaken the influence of Latino voters, while appearing to satisfy the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

In drawing Texas' 23rd congressional district, the judges found that "The mapdrawers consciously replaced many of the district's active Hispanic voters with low-turnout Hispanic voters in an effort to strengthen the voting power of [Congressional District] 23's Anglo citizens. In other words, they sought to reduce Hispanic voters' ability to elect without making it look like anything in [Congressional District] 23 had changed."

In 2010, the 23rd district narrowly elected a Latino Republican, Francisco "Quico" Canseco. One email to a Republican mapdrawer, released during the legal battle over the maps, shows that Republicans were trying to increase the chances Canseco would be re-elected.

Lawmakers used a similar tactic in redrawing a state house district, modifying it "so that it would elect the Anglo-preferred candidate yet would look like a Hispanic ability district on paper," the court ruled. An "ability district" is one in which a minority group has the capability to elect representatives of its choosing. The judges concluded that the legislature had been trying to make this district appear as if it satisfied the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, while actually trying to benefit white voters.

Judge Thomas B. Griffith, writing the unanimous opinion of the three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, called it "a deliberate, race-conscious method to manipulate not simply the Democratic vote but, more specifically, the Hispanic vote."

2. Lawmakers widened the gap between the proportion of the population that is Latino and African Americans and the proportion of districts that are minority-controlled.

In the years leading up to the 2010 census, Texas' population increased by 4.3 million people, 65 percent of them Latino. As a result, Texas gained four seats in Congress.

In their decision, the federal judges in the redistricting case noted that minority voters have no constitutional right to proportional representation. But the Voting Rights Act says states can't weaken the electoral power of minorities. So, the judges reasoned, if there is already a gap between the minority population of a state and its political representation, states can't let that gap grow wider.

In Texas, the judges observed, African Americans and Latinos were already underrepresented in Congress. Given the number of voting-age minority citizens in the state, Texas's old maps should have had roughly 13 congressional seats that represent districts in which minorities have a strong voice, the judges calculated. Instead, Texas only had 10 such districts.

Instead of narrowing this "representation gap" as the minority population grew, the legislature increased it.

With four additional congressional seats, Texas should now have 14 districts in which minorities have the ability to elect their chosen representatives, the judges concluded. But the state's new plan still included just 10 minority districts.

3. Texas removed economic centers and district offices from African-American and Latino districts, while giving white Republicans perks.

In defending its new maps, Texas argued that the districts had been shaped to help Republicans and hurt Democrats — a perfectly legal tactic — and that race had been irrelevant to its choices.

The Associated Press reported that the state's lawyer had argued before the court that "'a decision based on partisanship' is not based on race, even if it results in minority voters having less political influence."

The judges noted that while there was no "direct evidence" that "discriminatory purpose" animated the new maps, circumstantial evidence indicated the design of the new congressional districts "was motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory intent."

Texas' gerrymandering was not limited to manipulating the kinds of voters within districts. By reshaping a district, mapdrawers can determine whether key businesses, schools and tourist attractions are removed from a district or added to another.

The redistricting opinion dwelled at length on "unchallenged evidence that the legislature removed the economic guts from Black ability districts." African-American Rep. Al Green testified that the "economic engines" of his district — including a medical center, a university, and the Reliant Park sports mega-complex that includes the Astrodome — were removed. African-American Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson's district lost a sports center and an arts district, while Latino Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez from San Antonio said that both a convention center and the Alamo were drawn out of his district.

These three members of Congress, and African-American Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, all Democrats, also testified that their district offices were drawn out of their districts — a detriment because constituents want easily accessible district offices.

"No such surgery was performed on the districts of Anglo incumbents," the judges found. "In fact, every Anglo member of Congress retained his or her district office."

"The only explanation Texas offers for this pattern is 'coincidence.' But if this was coincidence, it was a striking one indeed," Judge Griffith wrote. He noted that Texas had argued that "without hearing from the members, the mapdrawers did not know where the district officers were located." But, he wrote, "We find this hard to believe as well. We are confident that the mapdrawers can not only draw maps but read them."

The judges noted that members of Congress who represented minority districts testified that they were largely shut out of the map-drawing process. At the same time, white Republican members asked for tweaks to their districts and were often accommodated. "Anglo district boundaries were redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the incumbent's grandchildren," the judges wrote, referring to requests related to the districts of Republican Congressman Lamar Smith, and Kenny Marchant, respectively.

Not all white lawmakers were happy with their new districts. Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett, who was forced to run in a new district as a result of the Republicans' maps, told the Texas Tribune last year that map plans "plunged a dagger into the heart of our community."

4. Divide and conquer: Texas "cracked" minority voters out of one district into three.

One common tactic of racial gerrymandering is "cracking" a minority community into different districts so it cannot elect a minority politician.

Looking at a State Senate district in Fort Worth, the judges cited testimony that lawmakers reshaped the district in a way that "cracked the politically cohesive and geographically concentrated Latino and African American communities," and placed those voters "in districts in which they have no opportunity to elect their candidates of choice."

The judges cited "well supported" testimony that African Americans in Fort Worth had been "exported" into a rural, "Anglo-controlled" district to the South, while Latinos on the North side of the city had been put into another white, suburban district, leaving the "reconfigured" Senate District 10 a "majority Anglo" district.

The judges rejected Texas' argument that "its decision to 'crack' [Senate District] 10 is best explained by partisan, not racial, goals," and concluded that the district map "was enacted with discriminatory purpose."

5. Texas passed a voter-ID law with requirements that would make it disproportionately difficult for African Americans and Latinos to vote.

A three-judge panel found last Thursday that Texas' voter-ID law discriminates against minorities, since the costs of obtaining the required identification would place a greater burden on low-income Texans, who are more likely to be minorities than white.

Although the state issues free election IDs, the cost of a birth certificate, one of the underlying documents needed for the ID, is $22 — and that's if voters can get to the right government office in the first place. At least one-third of Texas' counties don't have a state Department of Public Safety office, which issues state IDs.

"It is virtually certain that these burdens will disproportionately affect racial minorities," wrote Judge David S. Tatel for the unanimous panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He cited "undisputed U.S. Census data" showing that Hispanics and African Americans in Texas are more likely to be poor and more likely to live in households without a car.

"Simply put, many Hispanics and Africans Americans who voted in the last election will, because of the burdens imposed by [the new voter ID law], likely be unable to vote in the next election," he wrote.

The judges agreed ahead of last month's trial to keep out any evidence indicating motivations for the voter-ID law, so they didn't address whether or not there was intentional discrimination behind the creation of the law. But the 56-page decision pointed out that the Texas legislature could have made its law more accommodating by, among other things, waiving documentation fees for the election IDs, reimbursing travel-related costs or expanding DPS office hours to evenings and weekends — amendments that were either defeated or tabled.

Finally, the judges agreed with Texas that the state had an interest in preventing voter fraud, even though there is little documented evidence of current voter fraud in Texas. However, they noted that circumstantial evidence "could nonetheless suggest that Texas invoked the specter of voter fraud as pretext for racial discrimination."

The 2012 election

Whatever the Supreme Court's response to Texas' voter-ID law, Texans will not be required to present a photo ID to vote this November.

"As a result of the court's decision, Texas is not permitted to implement the photo ID law," Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade announced in a news release last week.

As for the redistricting maps, Texas will use a set of interim maps drawn by federal judges in Texas. Those interim maps were part of a contentious battle that earlier went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An expanding network of concerned individuals known as Occupy Monsanto has emerged over the past 8 months staging numerous protests at companies connected to the global trade of genetically engineered foods, also known as GMOs. The network announced today that on September 17, 2012 protests will begin for an entire week in St. Louis, home of the Monsanto Corporation, and across the US including California where voters will decide if they will label GMOs this election and worldwide in Argentina, Canada, Germany, India, Philippines, and other countries where concern over GMO impact on the environment and human health is growing.

The protests will vary in size and nature but are unified in pushing back GMO food into the lab from which it came. An interactive map with times, dates and locations of the 60+ protests can be found at http://occupy-monsanto.com/genetic-crimes-unit/.

Occupy Monsanto means to confront the industrial agriculture system head-on. Some protests could result in widespread arrests of people who choose to engage in non-violent civil disobedience. Despite the peaceful nature of these planned protests, organizers are concerned about surveillance of Occupy-Monsanto.com by the US Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies worldwide. Nevertheless Occupy Monsanto protests will feature costumes made of bio-hazmat protective gear that can also protect against pepper spray from police who have routinely attacked occupy protests in the past year.

“There is something wrong when a chemical manufacturer, the same company who made Agent Orange, controls the US food supply,” says Jaye Crawford, a member of the Genetic Crimes Unit in Atlanta, Georgia that has planned a week of events. Info: http://occupy-monsanto.com/atlanta-gcu-schedule-of-events/.

“Wall Street and the American political elite have underestimated and even ignored our potential to effect rational policy change on GMOs which would include labeling for GMOs and restrictions on GMO cultivation,” says Gene Etic an anti-GMO campaigner based in Washington, DC. “If Occupy Monsanto’s anti-GMO actions are successful, after September 17 the media and increasingly more voters will ask tough questions about these experimental GMO crops especially within the context of the Presidential election, as that office holds the power to determine American food policy,” says Etic.

“People are stirred by the evidence that GMO foods compromise human health,” says Rica Madrid, a member of the Genetic Crime Unit of Occupy Monsanto. “Politicians and their sponsoring corporations ignore public outcry over GMOs to protect huge profits over health. Since GMOs’ introduction to the food supply in the mid 1990’s, food allergies have expanded according to Center for Disease Control data,” says Madrid.

“By purchasing influence via massive campaign donations, Monsanto ensures the essential duties of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are neglected. One example of this corporate coup is President Obama’s appointment of Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice-President and legal council for the chemical company, to head the FDA’s food safety efforts despite his obvious conflict of interest,” says Ariel Vegosen, a member of the Genetic Crimes Unit. She adds, “Monsanto is the biggest maker of genetically engineered crops so it must be stopped before it is too late to shift to healthy organic agriculture practices as a result of widespread genetic contamination by GMOs. ‘Coexistence’ as defined by the USDA of Organic and GMO crops is a myth.”

“At the US State Department it’s apparent Monsanto has duped leaders in Africa to ask the US for foreign aid in the form of GMO technology and equipment,” says Monsanto shareholder Adam Eidinger who last year walked from New York to the White House in Washington, DC with hundreds of other food activists to demand labeling of GMO foods. “The generous use of US tax dollars, endorsed by the likes of rock-star Bono and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a former legal council for Monsanto, is actually another taxpayer funded subsidy for Monsanto’s pesticide and herbicide hungry crops.”

Occupy Monsanto will be heard at the offices and facilities linked in the GMO food system. In St. Louis a major anti-GMO conference will take place in the same location as the ’12th International Symposium on GMO Safety.’ A lead organizer of the conference is Barbara Chicherio who believes, “Monsanto’s push to control agriculture and what people are eating poses a great threat not only to consumers in the US, but to farmers and communities throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia.” Info on the conference is at http://gmofreemidwest.org/.

Media may arrange interviews with Occupy-Monsanto.com by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or write to gmo@Occupy-Monsanto.com Visit http://Occupy-Monsanto.com for more information and to see video and photos of protests from earlier this year. All images and video are available for free and unrestricted use by members of the media.

[Via]

Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews discussed some newly released data that reveals the effects of new Republican Voter ID legislation on the numbers of newly registered voters, and compared the numbers to those of previous election periods. The results are startling.

Rachel begins:

"Nikki Haley signed a law last year making it harder to vote in South Carolina. You have to show documentation you never had to show before, and that 200,000 people in her state, who are legal voters, it's documentation they do not have. There was one point on this issue about voter suppression , making it harder to vote that I want to particularly highlight, because we are in Florida tonight. We're heading into Ann Romney 's speech, but keep in mind the importance of the location in which this speech is happening. This is probably going to be the highest profile moment of the entire convention, we're going to get from Ann Romney , except maybe her husband's speech. But in the state of Florida, where tonight's Republican convention is being held, last July, Republicans in the state passed a whole slew of new restrictions that make it harder to register to vote in the state."

"Voting rights activists at the time said it would disproportionately affect minority voters who tend to lean Democratic. Those activists appear to be proven right."

"Today the Florida Times Union released some remarkable new analysis on voter registration in Florida that Ialmost cannot believe. In the lead up to the '04 Presidential Election , look at this. This is what the increase in voter registration looked like on the Democratic side. That was '04, 159,000 new Democrats registered to vote over that time period . In '08, same time period , 13 months, it was pretty much the same story, right. Democratic voter registration surging in the same time period before the election. But then last year, Florida republicans made it harder to register to vote in the state. Look at what has happened in the lead up to this year's election over an equivalent time period . Look. New Democratic voter registration has disappeared in Florida. It has fallen off a cliff, over the same amount of time -- look, the Republican numbers have been basically static."

"The way they have changed these laws in these states have partisan outcomes. Voter registration drives like the ones that were crimped in Florida tend to get Democrats signed up. You get rid of those, you get rid of Democratic voters. Thanks in part to these new republican laws, Democratic voter registration has been absolutely devastated in florida heading into the 2012 election. Since the beginning of last year, its 19 states that have put in place strict new barriers to voting or barriers to registering to vote, barriers that have never been there before in modern times -- but which you just heard Nikki Haley defend to the Republican National Convention audience -- and which got her a rather lusty round of cheering from that audience."

Joined by Chris Matthews, he adds "Wherever this issue of voter ID, and more difficult voter registration or participation gets in these proposed changes that are now law, the more the Republicans cheer. of course, we had the legislative leader up in Harrisburg openly saying this will help Romney carry the state. It's blatantly partisan. And I have to tell you, I was talking to the Reverend Jesse Jackson today, and he points out there's a real strategy here. One is suppression, the other is frustration of minority voters. Not just stopping them from voting, discourage them because it's so hard to do. In states like Pennsylvania, you have to go back to the cities of your birth in South Carolina, and you have to come up with the documentation. It's also encouraging white anger. It's an interesting pincer that is their plan here."

DOWNLOADS: (95)

PLAYS: (985)

Embed

H/T to Heather for the video embed

On the first primetime night of the Republican National Convention, the GOP dispatched Ann Romney to score points with women voters, and lessen some of the damage done by the abortion and rape debate inflamed by recent comments from Senator Todd Akin.

"Tonight, we salute you and sing your praises."

"I'm not sure if men really understand this, but I don't think there's a woman in America who really expects her life to be easy. In our own ways, we all know better!"

"And that's fine. We don't want easy. But these last few years have been harder than they needed to be. It's all the little things — that price at the pump you just can't believe, the grocery bills that just get bigger; all those things that used to be free, like school sports, are now one more bill to pay. It's all the little things that pile up to become big things. And the big things — the good jobs, the chance at college, that home you want to buy, just get harder. Everything has become harder."

Mrs. Romney's personal touch may well sway some women voters, especially if their politics leaned Republican to begin with. The reason her speech may score those crucial women's votes is because she can call attention to any of today's hot button issues without having to address how the Romney-Ryan platform will help or hinder these issues for Americans.

And if her personal anecdotes of growing up in small town America (No mention of that small town being the 4th wealthiest in the nation), meeting and falling in love with her husband at a school dance helped humanize Mitt Romney for anyone, that will just be icing on the cake come November.

"When Mitt and I met and fell in love, we were determined not to let anything stand in the way of our life together. I was an Episcopalian. He was a Mormon."

"We were very young. Both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage, and you know? We just didn't care. We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping, and ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses. Our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen. Those were very special days."

"Then our first son came along. All at once I'm 22 years old, with a baby and a husband who's going to business school and law school at the same time, and I can tell you, probably like every other girl who finds herself in a new life far from family and friends, with a new baby and a new husband, that it dawned on me that I had absolutely no idea what I was getting into."

"That was 42 years ago. Now we have five sons and 18 grandchildren and I'm still in love with that boy I met at a high school dance."

This part of the speech fell flat for me, because I've heard most of it so many times before from other women. Young and in love, living in a basement apartment eating tuna and pasta while using a door propped on sawhorses for either a table or desk, and a fold down ironing board in the kitchen that doubled as a table. I'm wondering now if it's a chapter out of some old romance novel that's been passed around for years and years; "Chapter 3: What Have I Gotten Myself Into?" But an example of hardship? Not so much.

"I read somewhere that Mitt and I have a "storybook marriage." Well, in the storybooks I read, there were never long, long, rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once. And those storybooks never seemed to have chapters called MS or Breast Cancer."

"A storybook marriage? No, not at all. What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage."

What? A "real marriage," is that anything like a "legitimate" marriage? This came across as a slam, but aimed at whom? If your marriage failed it wasn't "real"? People without large families? The Obamas?

"No one will move heaven and earth like Mitt Romney to make this country a better place to live!"

Mitt Romney in April 2007: [Romney] said the country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” Romney said.

"You can trust Mitt."

Release your income tax returns.

Cenk's guest Friday on the "Aggressive Progressive" segment was Darcy Burner, who is running in Washington's first district in the Democratic primary for that seat. She has also been a guest at CrooksandLiars, and is also listed on our "Blue America" page.

Also, Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos recently attended a Townhall event with Ms. Burner, where he enthusiastically endorsed her candidacy for Congress.

Cenk began with "I love this Aggressive Progressive segment and usually I do it, but I've got an even more aggressive progressive for you. Now you think, "come on, really." Well, it's Darcy Burner. You know what she advocates for, let me show you a quick little list here":

--"First of all, "suing the bejesus" out of corporations for wage discrimination,"
--"Then targeting boycotts against conservative funders"
--"And a campaign to "cast off the shame and embarassment" of women who've had an abortion"

"To which I say, "about damn time." So Darcy's going to join us now and not only is she running in Washington's first district in the Democratic primary for that seat, she also used to run ProgressiveCongress.org, and the Progressive Congress Action fund, and the list goes on and on."

Cenk: So Darcy, what are you doing? I'm told that Democrats aren't supposed to ruffle feathers; you not supposed to be an actual progressive."

Darcy: Well, you know, I think that's a big piece of the problem the Democratic Party has and maybe we should elect more Democrats with actual values.

Cenk: Shocking. Alright, now you've gotten into some quote-unquote trouble by the press there because they say that you're stridently pro-choice. Well, given that the country is 72% in favor of legalized abortion, wouldn't that seem to play to your advantage?

Darcy: One would think. One would think. But there's this culture around the idea that we should all be timid and meek and not actually stand up for the things that matter. I disagree.

Cenk: Now, Darcy, in your district they say well, look now, this is an important swing district and if we have someone clearly on the left here, it might hurt our cause. Now that's conventional wisdom, why do you disagree with that.

Darcy: That isn't what any of the actual numbers show. First, I've been polling ahead of all of the more timid, conservative, 'other' Democrats in this primary. Second, if you look at what happens around the country when you have progressives running and conservative Democrats running, progressive candidates consistently do better than the more conservative candidates. It turns out that American voters like people who will actually fight for them.

Cenk: Shocking! Republicans succeed. Why? They fight, right? They might be wrong, but they fight. Now, Elizabeth Warren also getting a ton of donations in Massachusetts, I just read a story today, they're like...wow, why? Well, it's because she fought the banks. For example, what would you do with the banks, Darcy?

Darcy: We have a huge number of bankers who have broken the laws and they should go to jail. It's long past time the people who brought down the economy for personal profit paid for it.

CNN:

In the canon of political cliches, "it all comes down to turnout" is among the most tired.

But in the case of the polarizing and closely watched Wisconsin recall election, the maxim happens to ring true.

Public polling, internal polling and campaign strategists all tell the same story: Republican Gov. Scott Walker is clinging to a tiny lead over his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, heading into Tuesday's vote.

And the number of undecided voters has dwindled to almost zero, strategists in both parties say, meaning that the only mission left for both sides is to get their rabid supporters to the polls.

If just the one million people who signed the Walker recall petition get themselves to the polls today, Wisconsin will be free of Scott Walker once and for all.

Mitt Romney struggles to convince voters that he understands the problems of the 99 percent, fails...

Mitt Romney says he learns about what it’s like to struggle in a difficult economy by sitting down and chatting with regular people. But the Republican presidential candidate doesn’t want anybody to see it — and his campaign won’t say who he meets with or when the meetings occur.

In interviews and on the campaign trail, Romney regularly says that he learns about the struggling economy by talking to people affected by it. Earlier this week, he said he meets with families “almost every day.” On Friday, Romney said the talks are “off the record” — and that he agrees to keep private the names of the people he meets with.

I wonder if Ann Romney sits in on these secret meetings with regular people? If so, do you think she wears $990 t-shirts in an effort to "dress down"?