Quoting something I wrote in 2001

Some (all?) of the links won't work, but if you really want you can Google most of the info to find it again, or you can look for the exact same links on The Internet Archive. But this is an excerpt of something I wrote back in 2001, which has relevance today.

One such sympathizer might be Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General for the Lyndon Johnson administration. In 1992, Clark founded the International Action Center, which enjoys the continuing support of the ex-Trotskyist, pro-Stalinist Workers World Party. While the original teachings of Karl Marx are decidedly atheistic, Clark sees a natural alliance. "Islam has probably a billion and a half adherents today. And it is probably the most compelling spiritual and moral force on earth today. (source). "Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity..." (source)

The International Action Center is an umbrella group which shares its offices and its telephones with such groups as Iraq Sanctions Challenge, Peace for Cuba, U.S. Out of Korea Committee, Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Mideast, and Millions for Mumia, which works to free cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal who was convicted using evidence obtained under the powers of anti-terrorist legislation. The structure of the groups, including how frequently new ones appear and disappear, and including how much of their funding comes through charitable donations, is very similar to terrorist networks and cells.

There are ties between Clark and Bin Laden. In 1998, two American embassies in Africa (one in Nairobi and one in Dar es Salaam) were bombed. Four men were eventually captured and tried in the United States, and all were convicted. The prosecution established through phone records and wiretap transcripts that Bin Laden had direct contact with the Nairobi cell that carried out the attack.

One of the defendants, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali, signed a confession regarding his involvement in the Nairobi cell. This Saudi national was riding in the truck that carried the bomb to the embassy, but instead of becoming a martyr and dying in the subsequent blast, he fled on foot. He was treated at a hospital nearby, and was arrested. In addition to his confession, he was in possession of keys that fit into a padlock on the rear of the truck bomb. After his conviction, the defense presented Ramsey Clark as a witness as they argued against the death penalty. (More information regarding the trial can be found here).

How has Clark responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11^th? On September 29^th, there will be a demonstration in Washington, D.C. Ramsey Clark is leading the effort.

Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, a website called "Beat Back The Bush Attack" (note: they have subsequently changed their name) announced that they would be organizing a demonstration. "Now is the time for all people of conscience, all people who oppose racism and war to come together. If you believe in civil liberties and oppose racism and war, join us on September 29 in front of the White House. We urge all organizations to join together at this critical time" their announcement stated.

The temptation is there to dismiss this group of people as misguided kooks or irrational pacifists. This would be a mistake. The organizers of this protest are hoping for a repeat of the troubles that occurred in Seattle in November, 1999. The site's FAQ makes this clear:

Should I bring a gas mask? A helmet?

Since Seattle, there have been an increasing number of major demonstrations and convergences that have been targeted with a high level of repression by the state. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THE DEMONSTRATIONS IN DC WILL FALL INTO THE SEATTLE CATEGORY. Everyone is advised to take this seriously and take precautions. Basically, this means ensuring that you are protected against the types of maneuvers that the cops have clearly utilized over and over against very large demonstrations. Namely, the types of things to protect yourself against are teargas, pepper spray and projectiles. So, this means you should:

• buy and learn to use a gas mask
• wear a helmet, head guard or a hard hat
• wear protective eyewear

The mainstream media currently is portraying the protesters of the war on terrorism as pacifists. They are not. These are the same folks that terrorized Seattle in 1999 under the umbrella group Mobilization for Global Justice, and who tried to do the same in Washington, DC in April 2000 under the name A16.

The type of protest that occurred in Seattle in 1999 takes months of preparation and organization. Travel plans had to be made for the various anarchists. Staging areas had to be set up [Gerry's note: obviously, things have changed and things can move faster in 2014]. Lodging for those taking place had to be arranged. The logistics behind such an endeavor would make it impossible for such an uprising to be impossible to coordinate on such a short notice.

However, the protest on September 29^th was planned long ago, long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The domain beatbackbush.org was registered July 21, 2001. According to their website, they were going to protest the Bush administration's policies regarding the IMF and World Bank, although the phrase "Beat Back The Bush Attack" seems more fitting for the protest of the war against terrorism.

The plans for these protests hit a bit of a snag when the United States reacted with restraint not seen under the Clinton administration. To date, there has been no Bush attack to beat back; unlike Clinton, Bush has said that he has no desire "to send some $2 million missiles at a $10 tent and hit a camel in the butt" to satisfy the desire for quick retaliation. Coupled with the fact that Bush's approval ratings have soared to the 90% level, a change in approach was needed. The group behind beatbackbush.org quickly redesigned their site from leading the charge to "Beat Back The Bush Attack", to "International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism)". They registered a new domain (internationalanswer.org) to front this effort, and both websites currently have essentially the same content.

The shifting focus of this protest shows that the people involved have one goal in mind, and it is not the stated intent, which has shifted from protesting the IMF and World Bank, to protesting President Bush's retaliation to the attacks, to now protesting racism and the coming war on terrorism. The real goal is disruption, as well as to gain publicity, and to put political pressure on the government of the United States to move away from capitalism.

The front page for both of these sites currently shows no link between their efforts and the International Action Center, merely showing Clark as the first of the "initial signers" for their declaration.

One can find who is the primary contact for an internet domain by performing a whois query against the domain names databases. A whois query on beatbackbush.org shows that the organization behind the website is called "World View", and is based in Jersey City, NJ, and lists an administrative contact of Sara Flounders Kramer. The email address given for the administrative contact is gery@riseup.net. A whois query for internationalanswer.org, though, shows the organization to be the IAC, and provides the same email address for the administrative contact. Sara Flounders (sans the Kramer surname) is listed as the administrative and billing contact for the IAC's website. Both internationalanswer.org and beatbackbush.org are hosted on machines running in Boca Raton, Florida. The contact for riseup.net, as found using whois, is Elijah Saxon, who gives his email address as being from the ucsc.edu domain (University of California, Santa Cruz, where he is probably an alumni). Saxon also has registered revolt.org, which says it is part of Global Update, which also has a domain. globalupdate.org, riseup.net, and revolt.org all indicate that they operate out of Seattle, Washington.

What is riseup.net? They provide "Tech support for the revolution" according to their main page. The vanguard, it would seem, has gone high tech. riseup.net also provides hosting for "Direct Action Networks", which function like cells for activities promoting "radical social change" and "social justice", which are the new catchphrases used to hide the true nature of their activities, which is the promotion of Marxism.

Here is how riseup.net describes themselves:

riseup.net is a project of the Red Cursor Collective, a 100% volunteer effort of activists using technology for radical social change. We provide training, web hosting, listservs, email accounts, and any kind of tech support needed by the activist community.

The riseup.net page says that, currently, their "costs greatly exceed the donations we have received". If donations do not currently meet costs, yet they are operating, from where are they currently getting their funding?

Many of the IAC's initiatives are funded by contributions from The People's Rights Fund, a 501c3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization. A google.com search on "Peoples Rights Fund" and Flounders (for Sara Flounders) shows that the contributions have been both frequent and varied in their purpose. Many of the contributions were directly to the IAC. Others were made to other organizations that tie back to the IAC and/or Clark.

Where does the People's Rights Fund get their money? Their website makes no mention. However, at least part of their funding comes from Fidelity Investment's Charitable Gift Fund. One can only wonder how well Fidelity has screened their recipients, if the money from this fund is being funneled to Marxist advocacy groups. One can only wonder who at Fidelity realizes that their fund was used as a conduit to funnel funds for the planning and execution of the massive demonstrations-turned-riots of November 1999 in Seattle, or the similar demonstrations in Washington, DC, of April 16, 2000 that were limited in their destructiveness by police raids the night before. These raids found riot gear, gas masks, staging locations, and involved the arrest of senior IAC members. One can only wonder how Fidelity feels about their fund being used as a conduit to funnel funds for the planning and execution of the coming September 29^th demonstration against the war on terror. One can only wonder how well Fidelity would react to this information becoming widespread public knowledge.

For what it is worth...

Contemporaneous link here.

I could be wrong about things with the heckers mentioned here...

RT @FreeBeacon: That feeling when you do executive amnesty and immigration activists still heckle you at speeches. https://t.co/T3C3btwETl

— WhiteHousePressCorps (@whpresscorps) November 25, 2014

...but it feels to me that there are two main possibilities, and there are not many probable others.

1. The hecklers were planted, to try to make President Obama seem like the pragmatic one, in an attempt to start mitigating the damage done to his and the Democrats brand by his maneuver. Further, that the President was careless and gaffed with the "changed the law" phrase.
2. or the very people Democrats have been stringing along for years may not have been satisfied, and they flustered him into making that gaffe. A constituency, I might add, that the Emerging Democratic Majority depends upon not only supporting this party, but soliciting for and promoting.

I have no idea which one, but it feels to me like it's one or the other.

About PPP...

A friend gave me this. [not mine after this, although I completely agree]:

Here's some fun numbers.

137 PPP polls in the RCP averages across all SEN/GOV races in 2014, excluding PPP's 2-way polls when it also published a 3-way poll in the same race.

Polls In the Field After September 1:

51 polls. 10 underestimated the Democrat (D-), 41 underestimated the Republican (R-).  So, 80% underestimated the R.

In 13 races won by Ds: 6 D-, 7 R-, average error 1.9 points in the 2-party vote.

In 38 races won by Rs (counting LA-SEN): 4 D-, 34 R-, average error 3.1 points in the 2-party vote.

That's not small - an error of 3 points can mean you had the D up 52-48 and the D lost 51-49.

Polls In the Field May-August:

29 polls. 4 D-, 25 R- 86% underestimated the R.

In 8 races won by Ds: 4 D-, 4 R-, average error 3.4 points in the 2-party vote.

In 21 races won by Rs: 0 D-, 21 R-, average error 4.8 points in the 2-party vote.

Polls In the Field Between 2012 and April 2014:

57 polls. 12 D-, 45 R- 79% underestimated the R.

In 16 races won by Ds: 4 D-, 12 R-, average error 4.7 points in the 2-party vote.

In 21 races won by Rs: 8 D-, 33 R-, average error 5.1 points in the 2-party vote.

Overall, PPP conducted 100 polls of races that Republicans ended up winning.  12 out of 100 fell on the side of underestimating the Democrat.  88 out of 100 fell on the side of underestimating the Republican.  PPP polled NC-SEN seven times and showed Hagan with a lead every time.  It polled FL-GOV eight times and showed two ties and six Crist leads, three of them by double digits.  In five KS-GOV polls and four KS-SEN polls, it had Orman and Davis leading every time.  Its only OH-GOV poll in the averages had FitzGerald winning.

And that's before you look at the races they chose to poll.

-PPP polled McConnell's race 3 times in 2012-13, when a small Mitch lead would be bad news for Mitch.  It polled the race once in August, found him up 5, and didn't poll it again until it was painting the tape the last week of the race, when it had Mitch up 8 (still well under his final margin).

-PPP polled the Maine Governor's race three times in 2013, finding Michaud up twice, but never polled it once in 2014.  It showed two double-digit Martha Coakley leads in 2013, then came back and only polled MA-GOV the last week when Baker was putting it away.

-PPP polled Thad Cochran's race twice, the last time in July 2014 when it had him leading 41-26.

-PPP polled TX-GOV four times but stopped after April.

-Its last poll in WI-GOV was also in April.

-PPP didn't poll the Iowa, Alaska, Arkansas or Louisiana Senate races in October, and didn't have a single poll in the field in any race between October 20-29.

A Letter to "My Side", Regarding Gruber

Yes, note how much of the 'mainstream' media is downplaying the Gruber tapes.

However, it would be a mistake to make the story about that. They've weathered such embarrassments before, and they will this time- without changing.

We have two years to educate, with the assistance of some wonderful videotapes courtesy of an Obamacare insider.

Two years. That's a long time.

It's on us to do it.

Let Me Add A Fourth Theory

Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy have an article up over at Huffpost Pollster wherein they discuss three theories for why polls underestimated the GOP. It’s worthy of reading.

You had to know a “however” was coming, did you not?

I have another theory to throw into the mix, and it is a theory I feel really good about believing is true. Without further ado, let me throw it out there.

The theory is that polls, at any point in time, are not measurements of what will happen, but rather are measurements of what the parties have to work with.

The parties spend a good amount of money on “get out the vote” (GOTV) activities. Some of these activities (voter contacts to spur interest, drives to register voters and/or request absentee ballots) start weeks before the election, and to some extent will get reflected in polls as they are ongoing. However, the late pushes to ensure the absentee ballots yet to be returned, and the Election Day efforts to get people to the polls, happen after most polls have been conducted.

It seems obvious to me that these operations must be capable of "moving the needle", or else the campaigns would not spend time, effort, and money on them.

Further, there is nothing that says that the parties will perform equally well in their respective efforts. In fact, it seems to me to be patently obvious that there will be times where, through skill of leadership and especially through advances in information technology, one party will improve from one election to another more than the other, that at times a party will develop an edge in this regard that can last a cycle or two, and that when that has happened it is inevitable that the other party will eventually catch up.

That dynamic, if my theory is correct, would play out such that in some years, we would see the Democrats outperform the polls, being better at converting their potential voters into actual voters at the end of the campaign than the likely voter screens in polls ‘assumed’ due to the methodology involved. In other years, the same would be true with Republicans. We might even see, for a few years in a row, the same party outperforming the polls, until such a time as the other “ups their game” - and if pollsters had adjusted their models and/or methodologies to try and rectify widespread misses, a party just drawing even would subsequently outperform the polls in a widespread fashion.

We might even see it look like it does in the chart Nate Silver presented here.

We also might see the effects be really big in some states, where field operations had changed more from election to election than in other states. As happened this year.

That the Democrats had developed an edge in micro-targeting and GOTV over several election cycles is broadly assumed to be true. Republicans spent a lot on ORCA, a software system designed to close that gap, but it failed to function on Election Day in 2012. This year, there were instead stories about how the GOP had developed a much improved system.

As Silver wrote in the article linked above, “The polls may be biased again in 2016; we just won’t know much about the direction of it until votes have been cast and counted.” I agree wholeheartedly. However, I suspect this has a lot to do with the fact that polls are measuring attitudes and opinions of people, and can never measure the relative efficiency of the respective ground games at the end. That plays out, to a large extent, after the polling is done. If all of the effects of the relative strengths of voter mobilization efforts will be captured in pre-election polling, then my theory is bunk. However, it seems clear to me, since those efforts continue until the balloting stops, and are actually quite different in mechanics at the very end, that pre-election polls cannot ever truly measure it.

Regarding Democratic Party Approval Hitting Record Low

The Washington Post's Jose A. DelReal writes:

The Democratic Party's approval numbers have hit their lowest point in at least two decades following an electoral drubbing that gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The Gallup survey has the Democratic Party pulling a 36 percent favorability rating, a 6-point drop since September.

The same poll shows the Republicans tying a 2-year high in approval at 42%. Further, by a 17-point margin, the public prefers Congress to steer the agenda, not the President.

Obviously, Republicans will be pleased with this poll. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

1. I have long held that, in the wake of a 'big' event, slight changes in response rates for each side of the aisle can have a (temporary) distorting effect on polls. Especially with response rates getting low, just a 1% increase in the chance that a person called will respond due to them being psyched about things can change the measurement tremendously, as can a decrease in the willingness of those turned off by the recent turn of events. This is one of the reasons why there are frequently 'bounces' in approval ratings or horserace measurements after events such as convention acceptance speeches or State of the Union addresses. Such distortions do not reflect a change in the underlying attitudes, and relatively quickly fade. Odds are, part of the results in this survey are due to such effects.
2. Approval rating and electoral success are reinforcing. A party that has a low approval will tend to struggle electorally, but also a party that struggles electorally will lose approval from partisans who are unhappy with the approach that led to defeat. Unlike the transient bounce from above, this effect tends to last longer.
3. Similarly, a party that suddenly has electoral success will gain approval from partisans who had been discouraged.

At this point, it is difficult to discern how much of the swing in Democratic approval is due to a temporary dip in enthusiasm, and how much is due to frustrations with their election day setbacks. My bet is that there is a mixture of both at play; that the Democrats will likely recover a few points over the next couple of weeks, but their approval rate will settle somewhere a few points below the level that had been established through September.

Updated to add: Regarding the above point on response rates, please see the table on this Tom Blumer article, which shows how the response rate in polls has declined from 36% in 1997 gradually over the years to where in 2012 it was 9%. With response rates that low, if 1 in 100 Republican partisans called decides to answer when normally they wouldn't, and 1 in 100 Democratic partisans called decides not to answer when they normally would, that would be sufficient to cause a 9 point swing in the partisan composition of the sample. Weighting for demographics would somewhat mask this in the partisan identification portion, but the Republicans sampled would be over-represented by the enthused partisans and the Democrats under-represented by the discouraged partisans. In other words, the declining response rate can very well be leading to the short-term change in enthusiasm having more of a distorting effect now than a decade ago.

Be Skeptical

Note to political consumers: view all polls released in next 72 hours with great skepticism. Very hard to poll now.

— mike murphy (@murphymike) October 31, 2014

Over the past two months, my home phone has been bombarded. Outreach contacts. Robo-call messages. Pollsters, so frequently as to defy the odds; no way could we be sampled so frequently. The closer we get to election day, the more frequent the phone rings. This past week, perhaps 5 calls a night. Last weekend, maybe 10 per day. I see no reason to think the trend will slow today or tomorrow.

It is always fun (and educational) to extrapolate out from a sample size of one, but I know that my wife refuses to answer the phone now and tells me I should let our answering machine screen things for us. It is easy for me to believe that the cacophony can influence response rates in a distorting fashion, and that the closer to election day it is, the more this is true.

I also find it easy to imagine that, as the election looms near, fewer people want to admit that they have tuned it out, or don't really care. The responses showing such disinterest, which can be used to screen out unlikely voters, may not be as frequent.

It does not take a huge change in either the response rate, nor in the answers to screening questions, to fundamentally change the quality of a poll sample as compared to those gleaned earlier in the cycle.

Throw on top of it that last night was Halloween, which is a night where who is home and who is not is just different than it normally is on a comparable day of the week.

Lastly, for the final surveys, there often is pressure to minimize the undecideds; to either put more effort into pushing leaners in the script, or to use some sort of modeling to allocate the coy.

I don't know which of these effects Mr. Murphy had in mind (or if there are others), but experience tells me he is right. The last election I did comprehensive, day-by-day analysis of the races was 2004, and the very last set of polls, all conducted in the last few days before the election, provided distorting information, not clarifying information. Experience had taught me before to view those with skepticism. I may not know the precise reason why he is, but Mr. Murphy is right. Bake in your perception of the races with the poll information you have on-hand right now, and just sit back until the results come in.

Edited to add: My warning above does not apply to polls that were previously in the field but concluded before the weekend (and just have not yet been published). Selzer, I am looking at you.