Final push ideas - please help

I think we need to narrow the field. Check out Bill Dupray at: http://patriotroom.com/

Dupray says a private firm did polls in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Missouri. He thinks that McCain will definitely win FL, OH, NC, MO and NV and New Mexico. Colorado and New Hampshire were absolute dead heats.

Maybe we need to concentrate on Colordo and New Hampshire. We need to write to the papers in those states and maybe do some calling there.

Look, To be honest I am not so sure there are fence sitters at this late stage.

True and loyal Hillary supporters now claiming to be fencesitters  IMHO were never really true supporters, they are just democrats and vote democrat and are not willing to come out publically in support of Obama, EVEN though they fully well plan to vote for him. In other words they have drunk the koolaid and now have forgotten exactly how Obama and the DNC rigged this election and destroyed Hillarys chance to run. Those who want to reward that and who have no problems with supporting a party that cheats and is sexist then I do not know how they can claim to be a Democrat, because Democratic ethos are opposite of what we have seen this election. So If Obama wins that's it folks. Because Hillarys future within the party will be well and truly over. Remember I said it here!

Good idea Hamp.  I'll look forward to reading your comments on this.  

Can you give us a good example of this so we can help you out?

   . . . "catalog comments which demonstrate that a blogger is simply doing their dem duty but if they were independant and had to choose between the better of two evils they perhaps would choose the evil they know over the questionable one."

Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior"

If there is no dissenting view in the media, we as a nation (group) will make bad decisions! Even if the dissenter is incorrect. From one reader's review:

Anyway, one of the most interesting parts of the book is the most reassuring. Research reveals that groups often make better decisions if there's a "blocker" or "dissenter" present--even if that person dissents for the wrong reasons. The authors describe a classic experiment in which the test subjects are led to believe they are being tested for their visual skills--three lines of different lengths are to be matched to a fourth line. The differences in line length are very obvious, so there is plainly only one correct answer. If you put the real subject in a room with several actors who are pretending to be test subjects but who have actually been instructed to give a manifestly wrong answer, most subjects in the experiment will behave in a compltely irrational manner, agreeing with the other "subjects" that lines that are obviously different are exactly the same. But if an actor playing "blocker" is added to the mix and points out that the group is wrong, the subject feels free to disagree and usually makes the right choice. This is true even if the "blocker" makes a different "wrong" choice by picking two other lines of plainly different lengths. What this experiement says for the business and political world is that organizations that "brook no dissent" (like the Bush administration) are likely to perform about as well as that ill-fated flight at Tenarife.

Surely we can do something with this - what do we do with this information? Support Nader?

That's my loophole - I'm voting for the candidate who is more Democratic in my mind (McCain.) Bambi doesn't care for the first amendment.

An open letter to the pro-Hillarysphere, posted throughout the PUMAsphere? Swarming newsblogs? I'm game for most anything.

the blogger boyz