One is unlucky. Two is improbable. Three is almost impossible. But for the first time since 1978, Miami, Florida State, and Florida all lost on the same day, and upsets for Texas A&M, Purdue, and Minnesota have had an overall degrading effect on everyone. The good news: my favorite two teams are ranked at #3 and #5 (in the Coaches Poll too, even!), and Tennessee is a win or two away from putting three SEC teams in the top ten.

1.	Auburn	9-0	.7696
2.	Southern California	8-0	.7683
3.	Oklahoma	8-0	.7637
4.	Texas	7-1	.7316
5.	Georgia	7-1	.7258
6.	California	6-1	.7160
7.	Wisconsin	8-0	.7153
8.	Miami	6-1	.7101
9.	Utah	8-0	.7028
10.	Virginia Tech	6-2	.6969
11.	Virginia	6-1	.6952
12.	Boise State	8-0	.6903
13.	Texas A&M	6-2	.6883
14.	Tennessee	7-1	.6827
15.	Michigan	8-1	.6796
16.	Florida State	6-2	.6790
17.	Louisville	5-1	.6669
18.	Arizona State	6-2	.6668
19.	West Virginia	7-1	.6644
20.	Oklahoma State	6-2	.6638
21.	LSU	6-2	.6624
22.	Alabama	5-3	.6564
23.	Iowa	6-2	.6556
24.	Purdue	5-3	.6423
25.	Southern Miss	5-1	.6410

(Last week's Top 25)

I told you nine days ago how a 269-269 electoral tie (or any other tally with no candidate receiving 270 electoral votes) could feasibly result in George W. Bush being elected president and John Edwards being elected vice president. I remind you of this because my TV just landed on Fox News briefly, and Laurie Dhue was way too excited to tell her viewers about this news that's been available forever and getting around the net for a few weeks. (Not to pick on Fox News: I haven't even seen it mentioned on CNN or MSNBC.)

Four days ago, I predicted a 244-234 lead for Bush with 70 swing votes waiting to be claimed. Since then, adjustments in state polls and other analysis have prompted me to shift Florida and New Mexico into Bush's column, which raised his electoral count to 276 until I moved Wisconsin into the swing vote category. I also moved Ohio and New Hampshire into Kerry's column, which gave him 258 electoral votes until I moved Minnesota into the swing vote category.

266 for Bush
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Colorado (9), Florida (27), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Iowa (7), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Missouri (11), Mississippi (6), Montana (8), Nebraska (5), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

248 for Kerry
California (55), Connecticut (7), Deleware (3), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New York (31), Ohio (20), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (11), Washington DC (3)

24 Swing Votes
Hawaii (4), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10)

This leaves a very interesting split: all three remaining swing states went to Gore in 2000 and arguably should be expected to go to Kerry in 2004, but all three are incredibly close to swinging in favor of Bush, and Bush only needs one to win this election.

Following the just-established four-day pattern, I'll try to post a final electoral vote prediction on Tuesday afternoon, just before all the votes are declared for the various states.

As precincts across the nation are reporting in from the polls, I will be here all night long posting the results as they become "official" (which is in quotation marks thanks to the Florida debacle of 2000). I will keep you posted on the electoral vote tally as well as the 34 Senate seats up for re-election. I may have no real reputation as a political reporter or analyst, but you better believe that I'll have more election results centrally located on a single page than any major reporting agency on the web!

Be here election night if you want the results quickly and clearly!

p.s. -- I haven't posted much here lately because the campaign blitz has reached its fever pitch, leaving me with very little to say about it. Also, I have obtained a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and it has consumed about 24 hours of my life since Monday night.

The Defense-Independent Pitching Percentage measures how many outs a pitcher earns without any involvement of the defense, hence why only strikeouts, walks, hit batsmen, and home runs are considered. This percentage is a valuable measure of a pitcher's control and ability to avoid making mistake pitches.

DIPP = K / (K + BB + HB + HR)

Over the short run, this percentage holds no real value. But over the long run, it reveals itself as a strong measure of a pitcher's ability to consistently earn outs.

STARTERS       TEAM   W-L    ERA   IP      K  BB  HB  HR  DIPP
Ben Sheets      MIL  12-14  2.70  237    264  32   4  25  .812
Randy Johnson   ARI  16-14  2.60  245.7  290  44  10  18  .801
Curt Schilling  BOS  21-6   3.26  226.7  203  35   5  23  .763
Johan Santana   MIN  20-6   2.61  228    265  54   9  24  .753
Brad Radke      MIN  11-8   3.48  219.7  143  26   6  23  .722
Jason Schmidt   SF   18-7   3.20  225    251  77   3  18  .719
Jon Lieber      NYY  14-8   4.33  176.7  102  18   2  20  .718
Roy Oswalt      HOU  20-10  3.49  237    206  62  11  17  .696
Jake Peavy      SD   15-6   2.27  166.3  173  53  11  13  .692
David Wells     SD   12-8   3.73  195.7  101  20   2  23  .692

RELIEVERS      TEAM  Hd  Sv   ERA  IP      K  BB  HB  HR  DIPP
Billy Wagner    PHI   1  21  2.42  48.3   59   6   2   5  .819
Trevor Hoffman  SD    0  41  2.30  54.7   53   8   0   5  .803
John Smoltz     ATL   0  44  2.76  81.7   85  13   0   8  .802
Brad Lidge      HOU  17  29  1.90  94.7  157  30   6   8  .781
Eric Gagne      LA    0  45  2.19  82.3  114  22   5   5  .781
F. Rodriguez    ANA  27  12  1.82  84    123  33   1   2  .774
Tom Gordon      NYY  36   4  2.21  89.7   96  23   1   5  .768
Joe Nathan      MIN   0  44  1.62  72.3   89  23   2   3  .761
BJ Ryan         BAL  21   3  2.28  87    122  35   1   4  .753
R. Betancourt   CLE  12   4  3.92  66.7   76  18   0   7  .752

If anyone likes this statistic and decides to use it on their web site, please at least credit Paul McCord in small print somewhere. If you earn any revenue from the dissemination of this and other statistics, feel free to share the wealth. If ESPN, CNNSI, MLB, or any other organization would like to hire me to do statistical gruntwork or other math-related work, email me.

I made a mistake on a previous version of my Christmas list. I want A Perfect Circle's aMOTION, a DVD with a bonus remix CD (to be released November 16). I do NOT want eMOTIVe, the new album that the band is using as their protest against the Bush presidency, conveniently to be released November 2. So if anyone is actually keeping track, I'd just like to make sure the info you have is accurate!

Click on a state's postal abbreviation on the right side of the Real Clear Politics electoral counter for each state's polling numbers, or view recent swing state polls. According to the data contained therein (and other places across the net, but those are the best links I have for you), here's the electoral college breakdown as I see it:

244 for Bush
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Colorado (9), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Iowa (7), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Missouri (11), Mississippi (6), Montana (8), Nebraska (5), Nevada (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Wisconsin (10), Wyoming (3)

234 for Kerry
California (55), Connecticut (7), Deleware (3), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15), New York (31), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (11), Washington DC (3)

60 Swing Votes
Florida (27), Hawaii (4), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20)

By my count, Bush needs Florida alone to win. If Bush doesn't get Florida, he must get Ohio plus any two of Hawaii, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Yes, you heard me right: I said Hawaii, which shouldn't even be in play! But somehow Bush is polling better than Kerry in the Aloha State and could actually win its four electoral votes next Tuesday!

Also, if Colorado's ballot initiative passes, its nine electoral votes would be split -- five for Bush, four for Kerry, which would make it 240-238, and Bush would need Florida plus any other swing state, or all four others if Kerry wins Florida.

I read this stuff all the time, and I usually just pass it over as scare tactics and/or standard politicking, but this appears to be more serious. And it's coming from the New York Times (printable), and considering the Times' record regarding support for Bush, that at least guarantees that it isn't partisan hackery:

Nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives -- used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons -- are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.... United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.

. . .

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could be used to produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings. The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the material of the type stolen from Al Qaqaa, and somewhat larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

Editor and Publisher lists dozens of newspapers across the country according to which presidential candidate they are endorsing, and the introductory text also lists several papers that have swapped parties since 2000. My local paper, the Macon Telegraph, endorses Kerry and is listed among those that have swapped. It is unclear, however, whether this means the Telegraph endorsed Bush or was neutral in 2000. Anyone know?

I've linked to several college football ranking and rating lists on the menu on the right. A lot of their formulas are advanced enough that they require a significant portion of the season to pass before the data can be useful, just like my formula. I don't have the clout or the connections that guys like Jeff Sagarin and Peter Wolfe have, but I do understand statistics and I know how to work calculators and spreadsheets... which makes this part fun!

1.	Auburn	8-0	.7749
2.	Southern California	7-0	.7702
3.	Oklahoma	7-0	.7681
4.	Miami	6-0	.7532
5.	Georgia	6-1	.7289
6.	Texas	6-1	.7276
7.	Wisconsin	8-0	.7196
8.	Texas A&M	6-1	.7188
9.	Florida State	6-1	.7135
10.	Utah	7-0	.7079
11.	California	5-1	.7053
12.	Arizona State	6-1	.6984
13.	Oklahoma State	6-1	.6979
14.	Virginia Tech	5-2	.6944
15.	Virginia	6-1	.6927
16.	Michigan	7-1	.6824
17.	Boise State	7-0	.6797
18.	Tennessee	6-1	.6786
19.	Minnesota	6-2	.6700
20.	Pursue	5-2	.6684
21.	Louisville	5-1	.6680
22.	South Carolina	5-2	.6636
23.	West Virginia	6-1	.6609
24.	Alabama	5-3	.6602
25.	Georgia Tech	4-2	.6502

Unlike polls, my ranking does not consider the biased votes of the coaches' and analysts' polls, because it stands to reason that most voters in those polls don't follow most college football teams -- because I don't, so I have no valid reason to judge the dozens of teams that I never watch. Instead, I manipulate a few numbers to determine who has the toughest schedule and who, based on their performance in played games, is the best overall.

Unlike a lot of the non-poll ranking systems, my rankings don't limit useful data to wins and losses -- I also use points scored and points allowed. Mind you, this doesn't mean I look at margin of victory and margin of defeat, or even how strong are a team's opponents in their wins and losses. I only use the sum totals of wins, losses, points scored, and points allowed to determine what percentage of games were won and what percentage of points scored in those games were yours. The data is then cleverly manipulated to derive a percentage, which should roughly equal the chance a team has of beating an average division I-A team.

None of this is scientific, of course, and it doesn't consider any team's strengths or weaknesses. There are inherent problems in trying to consider those things, or anything more than what I've considered. With only 11 games, different times of possession for each team, different players playing each time, there is absolutely no reason to expect for any data more than wins, losses, and points to have any real value in predicting a team's worth.

There are few things greater than one of your favorite bands releasing a new album without you even knowing its release was upcoming. Collective Soul's new album Youth will be available November 16, and in my lack of attention to their efforts since their greatest hits album (because, you know, that usually means there's nothing to expect for a while), I have been spared the pain of anticipating it! (Yes, of course I have downloaded it. But if my track record is any indication beyond my word, I will be owning this album shortly after its release, even if I have to wait until Christmas.)

Hey, it could happen. If George W. Bush wins all the states he won last time, minus any combination that totals 9 electoral votes, then we're stuck in a 269-269 Electoral College tie. Some scenarios that could allow this to happen include:

Kerry adds CO
Kerry adds NH and either WV or NV
Kerry adds CO, NH, and FL, while Bush adds WI and PA
Kerry adds NH and OH, while Bush adds WI and NM
Kerry adds WV or NV, while CO's ballot initiative passes, splitting 5-4 for Bush

So in the event of a 269-269 tie, what next? According to the 12th Amendment, each state delegation in the House of Representatives would cast one vote for president, and each Senator except the president pro tempore would cast one vote for vice president (99 votes). Congress would therefore vote until both a president and vice-president had been selected. Under this scenario, Bush would almost certainly be elected president by the Republican House, but his vice president could be Democrat John Edwards.

Something to think about... I think it would be great for America!

The idea of defining marriage as the "union of one man and one woman" in the state constitution is a bad idea. That definition is a purely religious one (and only according to some religions, at that), and using the state to force religious beliefs upon everyone within the law's jurisdiction -- including those who may disagree with those religious beliefs -- is tyranny. Tyranny! I agree with Shonda: "Marriage is a religious ideal and we have separation of Church and State in this country for good reason".

Taking more from Shonda's train of thought:

What is wrong with civil unions? Why can't we all settle on the fact that a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman should go to the courthouse to get legally joined to benefit for taxes, insurance, things like that? Afford those people the legal rights couples have regardless of sexual orientation. Then, if the people want a religous ceremony, then they go to a church -- again, regardless of what sort of union it is. Find a church that will suit your own needs. There are churches who do not condemn same sex couples.

You see, we shouldn't force the law to recognize religion, and at the same time, we can't force a religion to change its belief system.

I dont see why people wont compromise on something so important to so many people.

If you look over my Election 2004 page where I have listed the proposed constitutional amendments that will appear on Georgia's ballot November 2, you'll see that I will not be voting in favor of that amendment, and in fact I strongly encourage all Georgia voters to vote it down!

It is a dangerous proposition that threatens to encourage further encroachments on our individual freedom! If we force our government to uphold religious beliefs, then we are no better than the white supremacists of a century ago whose "moral superiority" then voted in favor of segregation.

Yes, that's right. I believe a vote in favor of this marriage amendment is just as bad as a racist vote in favor of segregation or slavery, because enforcing this amendment would enslave any homosexual couple in Georgia to live a life with less freedom than a heterosexual couple that is otherwise no different.

Eight days ago, Mike Mussina took a perfect game into the seventh inning, leading the Yankees to a 10-7 win. Seven days ago, Jon Lieber led the Yankees to a 3-1 win. Four nights ago (after a washout), the Yankees won one of the wildest in ALCS history 19-8. Three nights ago, David Ortiz saved the Red Sox from elimination with a game-winning home run in the bottom of the 12th. Two nights ago, Ortiz again thwarted the Yankees with a game-winning RBI single in the bottom of the 14th. And last night, Curt Schilling pitched for seven amazing innings on a sore ankle, leading the Red Sox into game seven -- the first time a major league baseball team has ever won games four, five, and six after losing the first three games of a championship series.

You better believe I'll be cheering for the Boston Red Sox tonight! For a team to come back and force a game seven after losing the first three is amazing enough, but to lose now would just be cruel to the diehard Red Sox fans whose emotions have undoubtedly been on high for the last three nights, culminating in the next few hours with what will either be one of the greatest comebacks or fizzling-outs of all time. The game is listed for 7:45pm ET on FOX. I'll be there!

UPDATE 9:25pm -- After David Ortiz's two-run homer in the first and Johnny Damon's grand slam in the second, they're now going to the third inning and it's 6-0 Red Sox! Yeah! (What this means, of course, is that the game will last more than four hours.)

UPDATE 10:25pm -- Heh, Orlando Cabrera just broke his bat on a ground out, and the break was so clean and the sound so unusual that it prompted Joe Buck to remark, "What's Cabrera hitting with, an Easton?" I just thought it was funny! Johnny Damon hit another home run last inning, and after a little more Yankee bullpen self-destruction, it's now 8-1 Boston. Yay!

UPDATE 11:25pm -- Going to the 9th, 9-3 Red Sox! Only three defensive outs away! Joe Buck raised a good question: In addition to regarding this as the greatest postseason series victory ever, wouldn't this also be the worst Yankees loss ever? Losing the ALCS after leading 3 games to none? Oh yes! Milk it, baby! Yankees lose and I want everyone to remember it!

UPDATE 11:59pm -- Red Sox win 10-3! Happiness ensues! Hooray!

I spent the last hour re-clarifying my reasons for voting the way I will vote this November 2. You shouldn't be surprised to read that I'm not partisan about anything, but I clearly and concisely explain why my vote will go the way it will -- at least for the two most important decisions of the day: the presidential race and the definition of marriage within Georgia's borders. Read up here, and don't be afraid to criticize my opinions or methods (constructively or destructively). I never get tired of flattery or rational argument, so bring it on!

(Also, further down that page, I have updated the list of Georgia candidates who have raised and spent money on their Congressional campaigns. Every candidate's numbers are up-to-date except Johnny Isakson's, whose still run through June 30.)

As reported Oct. 8, incumbent Jim Marshall has the support of 53% of likely voters in Georgia's 3rd District, while only 24% support his Republican challenger, Calder Clay. And 28% say Clay's campaign is "too negative." Of course, the poll was done by the Mellman Group, which works for Democrat candidates. The candidates have since held a brief debate Oct. 17, which seemed to be dominated by accusation after accusation from Clay.

Clay's campaign manager, Rufus Montgomery, calls the Mellman poll "laughable," citing the group's polling inaccuracy in 2002 in addition to Marshall's campaign activity. "With all of his explaining and complaining, Jim Marshall sure isn't acting like a confident incumbent," Montgomery said.

Two years ago, the Mellman Group's poll showed Marshall with a 17-point lead (50% to 33%) over Clay only two weeks before the election. As you may recall, Marshall narrowly defeated Clay with only 50.5% of the vote compared to Clay's 49.5%. This only makes me wonder if the polling reports might be skewing the results: if poll results suggest that Marshall has a huge lead, then Marshall supporters might grow complacent and feel less motivated to get out and vote, right?

Of course, the difference could lie in campaign strategy rather than poll data.

During Sunday night's debate, Marshall declined to answer when Clay asked whether the Congressman supported Bush or Kerry in the upcoming presidential election. Marshall's reticence is noteworthy because it highlights an intriguing contrast between the two candidates' strategies concerning their partisanship: from day one, Marshall has focused on himself and his district and separated himself from the national Democratic Party, while "Clay is doing everything he can to ally himself with the nation's top Republicans."

Perhaps even more intriguing, however, is the fact that while Marshall refused to admit or deny support for John Kerry, he "said he was honored to have the backing of Senator Zell Miller," a maverick Democrat noted for his support of President Bush and conservative views. If there is any reason to believe that the Mellman Group's poll could be accurate -- that a Democrat could really enjoy such a level of support in Georgia in 2004 -- perhaps this is it.

(Also appears at Polstate -- comment here!)

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution's online Voters Guide 2004 (print-friendly). The guide lists links to more details on all statewide offices and amendments to be voted on, as well as all contested races and amendments affecting the metro-Atlanta area, including Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry counties. Also included are lists of uncontested races and links back to the aforementioned counties' election offices' web pages. Feel free to post comments with links to other Georgia-specific election resources, such as your county's election office web page.

(Also appears at Polstate -- comment here!)

Appearing on CNN's "Crossfire" last Friday, Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson bickered for several minutes over Jon's politics. Hilarity ensued! (See transcript here.) Apparently, Tucker has a problem with Jon being a Democrat, or at least admitting it to the public. Tucker says a comedian has a responsibility to keep his politics undisclosed, while Jon argues that announcing who he'll vote for is his prerogative. Comedy Central exec Tony Fox sides with Jon: people who watch "The Daily Show" know that he leans politically left, and he says Jon's politics have very little effect on the show.

I support George W. Bush and abhor John F. Kerry, and I absolutely hate Jon Stewart's political opinion. But I'm glad that he has one, and furthermore that it's an educated one, and I absolutely love his show. I've been aware of Jon Stewart's political leanings for years, and it hasn't swayed me in the least from watching his show.

And aside from that, Tucker didn't have anything logical on his side. He just disagrees with Jon's politics and wanted to stick it to him in any way he could, and he only proved Jon's point that "Crossfire" is "'partisan hackery' that does little to advance the cause of democracy".

As of Sunday, October 17, Real Clear Politics predicts a 254-220 Bush advantage, as illustrated here:

The latest polls in the battleground states show that the five white states above (NM, IA, WI, OH, PA) are flip-flopping, while Florida, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are probably too close to call. Taking those last three states away from the count reduces Bush's advantage to 227-199. The winning candidate must receive 270 electoral votes -- it will be interesting!

Larry Sabato is a bit more bold for his Crystal Ball predictions, suggesting a 264-254 Bush advantage with only 22 electoral votes remaining to be claimed:

The New York Times, however, probably has the most informative electoral predictor, indicating past presidential winners of any given state's electoral votes on a mouseover. The NYT currently predicts a 221-213 advantage for Kerry with 104 votes to swing either way.

I added an item to my Christmas List. Go buy it!

Drudge seems to think so, and he links to part of the DNC manual to support his case. But I'm not fooled. The text on that page is slightly tilted, as if it were scanned in a rush. The DNC logo, however, is aligned perfectly horizontally. All this means is that someone was a little sloppy slapping that logo on there and not matching its angle to the text.

This could be a funny prank if it weren't taken so seriously. If I were the Democrat responsible for it, I would lightheartedly joke about it. If I were the Republican responsible for it, I would joke about blaming the Democrats for it. It could be funny! But as Drudge is making it his primary headline this afternoon, there is no humor in it. It's fake, and it's a bad fake at that.

Meanwhile, the Democratic response is absurd. Their allegations against Republicans are obviously one-sided, and most of it has absolutely no foundation in fact. What few facts are included could easily be offset by Republicans making similarly pointless charges against Democrats. But the fact is: this is a non-issue except to mindless Democrats (only the mindless ones, mind you) who don't understand this.

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are suing "the Morelli Firm" for extortion, alleging that the Morelli Firm has attempted to blackmail O'Reilly, or the network vicariously through O'Reilly, for $60 million. Drudge has a copy of the complaint, and Google News has a list of related headlines. From the complaint:

Defendants [Morelli] seek to extort Sixty Million Dollars ($60 million) from Plaintiffs [O'Reilly] in return for not going public with a scandalous and scurrilous claim based on alleged inappropriate comments made to Mackris by O'Reilly. Defendants' outrageous demand cannot be justified by any alleged harm that Mackris claims to have suffered. Rather, Defendants' demand is based on their threat to sully the reputations of a successful cable news network and a nationally renowned television and radio host, columnist and author. Their demand is blackmail, pure and simple.

What follows is the story of Mackris and O'Relly. Good stuff! Reality TV can't touch this drama!

That headline reads like it came from The Onion. My question: Who the hell cares!? It was thirty years ago! If this persuades any Texans' votes, they should be dragged to a dark alley in the middle of the night, tied up, and allowed to eat nothing but sauerkraut for the next 18 days.

According to a Zogby poll (printable) conducted for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB-TV, Republican Johnny Isakson (49%) holds a 16-point lead over Democrat Denise Majette (33%) in the race to replace Zell Miller as Georgia's junior Senator. Libertarian Allen Buckley (3%) barely puts a dent in the race, but the poll suggests 15.5% of likely voters remain undecided. (View the article for more info on how the poll was conducted.)

As these latest numbers permeate Georgia airwaves, two things are likely to happen: those who believed Isakson had something to worry about with Majette's polling surge last month will sink back into complacency mode, and Majette's supporters will attempt to offset the poll by stepping her campaign into high gear and mount a sincere challenge for the Senate seat.

I admit that I had originally written this race off as a shoo-in for Isakson and the Republican Party, but Majette has impressed me -- and apparently many others throughout the state. She has raised her political capital by mounting a strong challenge, putting herself on the public's radar without negative attention to neutralize the attention.

Only one year ago, the politically attentive among us were concerned that Democrats were avoiding this race because it seemed like political suicide for anyone who just wanted to lose to a Republican. But that was before Denise Majette came along. Now it seems that even a 15-point loss won't damage her political career options in the long run, and anything closer that that -- which seems a lot more likely now than it did only two months ago -- will help her immensely.

And dare I say that three weeks is still enough time for significant shifts in public opinion? If I didn't have my own preconceived notions of the Georgia electorate, I might suggest that Majette could still win this thing.

Millions of Americans view Howard Stern not as a hero of the first amendment, but as a "very savvy user" of it. Others simply think he is a maniacal pervert representing America's moral gutter. Say what you want about him -- hell, I even hate his show despite occasionally watching it on late night TV -- but I love the man. Why? Because it's people like Howard Stern, who continue to challenge the boundaries of individual free speech, that keep Americans' freedom of speech as free as it is.

For instance, imagine for a moment that the anti-Stern lobbyists successfully had Stern evicted from his familiar home on the air. What would that mean for you and me? If speech like Stern's is no longer the extreme to be challenged, then what does that leave? When the extremes of our freedoms are attacked and defeated, then our freedoms are further limited. If Howard Stern is no longer there to represent one of our extremes, who does that leave? You? Me?

With regard to regulations void of specific boundaries, it's good to know where our boundaries are, or at least that we know well enough that we are within them or are violating them of our own volition. When/if our permissions are further constricted, we no longer have any idea what the bounds truly are... And what then?

Game 4: Braves 6 Astros 5

Russ Ortiz gave up five runs in the 2nd inning and was gone after three, leaving the Braves down 5-2. But Adam LaRoche hit a 3-run homer in the 6th off Chad Qualls to tie it up. Then after a badly timed pitching move forced a pinch hitter for Brad Lidge in the bottom of the 8th, the Braves were able to rally with two outs in the 9th to score the winning run off Russ Springer.

After Eddie Perez and Charles Thomas struck out, Rafael Furcal was hit with a pitch. After Furcal stole second, JD Drew hit a single to score him. Drew then stole second and the Braves were threatening to score again, but Marcus Giles struck out to end the inning. The Astros threatened in the bottom of the 9th, getting runners on the corners with one out. But Jeff Kent grounded into a double play to end the game.

The Braves bullpen held the Astros to no runs on six hits over the final six innings, walking three and striking out three. John Smoltz pitched the 8th and 9th and allowed four hits, but held the Astros to earn his first win of the 2004 postseason, breaking his tie with Andy Pettitte to set a new all-time postseason record with 14 wins.

Postseason Wins:
1. 2. 3. 4.	John Smoltz Andy Pettitte Tom Glavine Greg Maddux	14 13 12 11

Smoltz is also now tied with Mark Wohlers for fourth all-time with 39 postseason pitching appearances.

The Braves and Astros will meet for their final matchup tomorrow (Monday) in Atlanta -- 4pm if the Dodgers force a fifth game with the Cardinals, or 8pm if the Dodgers are eliminated.

Auburn (#6) pounded Louisiana Tech -- no surprise there. Georgia (#3) took a tough loss against Tennessee and almost came back to win in the final seconds; Georgia lost on penalties. Texas (#5) lost to Oklahoma (#2) and was shut out for the first time since 1980 (281 games!). I feel terrible for UGA fans, really I do, because their loss spoils UGA's hopes for a national championship. But their and Texas' losses also bump Auburn up to #4 and make their title hopes all the sweeter! Of course, Auburn still has to beat LSU and Georgia, plus whoever wins the SEC East (Georgia or Tennessee, probably) to keep their national championship hopes alive. But, man, if they do... (!!!)

One more thing to be happy about: Georgia Tech beat Maryland, taking the Yellow Jackets to 3-2 for the season. I'm going to assume Tech will lose November 27 agains UGA, but if they pull out all the other games they'll finish 8-3! Here's hoping!

In the middle of last night's debate, John Kerry commented that "the president is just trying to scare everybody". Well, I submit to you that the only way John Kerry can win is by doing exactly that: he has to "try to scare everybody" into thinking Bush is doing something horribly wrong. The problem, of course, is that most people are too simple-minded to realize that Kerry is actively campainging against scare tactics with scare tactics of his own!

I'll come back with something substantive when I have the time, energy, and worthy ammunition with which to make my points. Some of you will be surprised to see that I'm just as harsh on Bush in some areas as I am on Kerry in most others. But hey, that's what being fair is about.

The baseball season is over and, like the beginning of every other October, it's time for me to pick the few who deserve to be recognized for their 2004 performances. I may explain my picks later, but for now, I'll just list a few and... you'll either understand or you won't!

Hitter of the Year:
NL: Barry Bonds > Adrian Beltre
AL: Vlad Guerrero > Manny Ramirez

Pitcher of the Year:
NL: Randy Johnson > Ben Sheets
AL: Johan Santana > Curt Schilling

Relief Pitcher of the Year:
NL: Brad Lidge > Eric Gagne > John Smoltz
AL: Francisco Rodriguez > Joe Nathan > Tom Gordon

Rookie Hitter of the Year:
NL: Jason Bay > Khalil Greene
AL: Justin Morneau > Bobby Crosby

Rookie Pitcher of the Year:
NL: Akinori Otsuka > Ryan Madson > Chad Cordero
AL: Shingo Takatsu > Bobby Madritsch > Justin Duchscherer

Manager of the Year
NL: Bobby Cox > Jim Tracy > Tony LaRussa
AL: Ron Gardenhire > Mike Scioscia > Terry Francona

These thoughts were spawned from one of Jen's comments. I'm not picking on you Jen, but when I find an excuse to spew my nonsensical political drivel, I use it and abuse it until I have nothing left to say.

George Bush is not trying to strip anyone of their civil rights. This is a time of war and the legislations that have been passed as a result of 9/11 are entirely temporary. Give it ten years -- PATRIOT Act will be dead even if Democrats never regain control, for the same reason that the Alien & Sedition Acts were killed only a few years after WWI.

Liberal politics in America is essentially secular communism with a nicer name. They would prefer to use the term "welfare" to describe their policy of holding people up, which in turn prevents them from needing and therefore wanting to support themselves. After all, if the government will do it for you, why support yourself!?

Of course, once liberals are the controlling government power, they have no further impetus to lure votes with the welfare arguments, and since taxation of the rich and budget deficits will both be skyrocketing while the welfare problem isn't going away, they will be forced to turn a 180 and become the next generation's "conservatives", in exactly the same way that Democrats and Republicans swapped roles in the 1950s-60s.

Wheeeee, that was fun.

I'm shaking things up at trivia tonight. I was invited to sit with another team, so I'll make up the third and final member of "Short Bus" tomorrow. Most of the rest of my usual team has decided not show up tomorrow night, and I haven't heard anything from Travis or Vida. If they are there, I wish them luck! But considering it would only be the two of them and whoever they brought with them, I'm not sure if they'd even feel like showing up... I should see them both tomorrow and I'll at least let them know. Yeah...

I tried, really this time. Thursday night is trivia night, so I admit that I had no care in the world about last week's Bush/Kerry debate. But I really sat down and tried to watch the Cheney/Edwards debate last night, and... I failed, quite successfully.

The first question annoyed me, so I changed it to the Twins/Yankees game. I switched back and forth for a short while and managed to hear a couple of back-and-forths, and my conclusion based on what I watched is this: Cheney won on what he had to say, but Edwards won on actually answering the questions asked. Cheney had some clever things to say, but the problem is he was just throwing them out there. This means one of two things: he just wanted to make sure he sounded better than Edwards, or he couldn't answer the questions asked (whether his reasoning is igorance, incriminating, or flabbergasting, I dare not imply).

So there you have it. Cheney won on style, Edwards won on preparation, and the media wins on everything else... except me, because I won't be reading their stories about it.

If you're sincerely interested in following the progress of Mount St. Helens' grumblings, I suggest the current activity page provided by the U.S. Geological Survey's Cascades Volcano Observatory. You could also check the headlines, some of which are suggesting that a massive eruption may be imminent, but since the press is paid to sensationalize the news in order to hook you into reading more, I'd rather get my information straight from the source.

At the debate Thursday night, John Kerry made an interesting analogy:

The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

While this may ostensibly be true, Kerry is ignoring something crucial: we did respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbor not by invading only Japan, but also by invading North Africa, and Sicily, and Italy, and France. How does this analogy support Kerry's campaign?

Another good day in sports for me. The Braves lost 10-8, which is about what I was hoping -- the offense came out to play, but the Braves were delivered that crucial loss on the last day of the season to prevent them from showing up too confident in the postseason. This should mean good things for Atlanta, at least until they run into St. Louis in the NLCS! Assuming the Houston Astros beat the Colorado Rockies today (they should), the Braves will host the Astros in Atlanta Tuesday night for round one of the playoffs.

Also, Georgia held its #3 ranking in both the AP and Coaches polls, and Auburn jumped to #6 in each of them. Georgia will face a tough match next week against Tennessee, but I expect Auburn will dominate Louisiana Tech. Even better: Oklahoma (#2) plays Texas (#5) and Southern California (#1) plays UCLA (#10) next Saturday, so Auburn will most likely be ranked #5 and possibly #4 this time next week! We'll talk more about it then...

UPDATE -- I like the CBS Sportsline college football poll. I noticed earlier in the season that their rankings didn't exactly match up with the two major polls, and also that I tended to agree more with their rankings than the Coaches' or AP's. And after this week, they've got Georgia ranked #1, which I think is only fair since they've had a much tougher schedule than either Oklahoma or Southern California.

I have enjoyed a wonderful day in sports. The Atlanta Braves beat the Chicago Cubs, simultaneously clinching the home field advantage in the Division Series and eliminating the Cubs from playoff contention. I actually feel bad about the Cubs being eliminated, but I'm glad Atlanta beat them. (Expect much writing on Major League Baseball Sunday night or Monday afternoon; as the season ends, I will be posting on who I think should win the various awards, plus the leaders in some of my created statistics.)

Even better: both Georgia (#3) and Auburn (#8) destroyed strong SEC rivals tonight, LSU (#13) and Tennessee (#10) respectively. This will boost Auburn to #6 after West Virginia's and Ohio State's losses, and Georgia's manhandling of LSU could push them to #2... but I doubt it.

Now, here's hoping the Giants win and the Astros lose tomorrow.

Are you catching a theme among today's posts? Below is a succinct passage from Eddie Thomas, another Maconite. The entire post was brilliant but I tried to stick to the politics of it:

When I listen to Kerry attack Bush for failing to be a good global leader, I feel ill at ease, and my first instinct is to resort to the familiar arguments: Bush did work hard to get the UN on board, he did put together an impressive coalition, etc. As I think about it more, however, I believe my unease stems from a more fundamental problem, namely, that I'm not much interested in any U.S. President being a global leader, or the U.S. being a leader among nations. As philosophers have been saying for over two thousand years, leaders are slaves to those who follow, not vice versa.

Our failure in the UN was distressing, but even more distressing perhaps is that we find ourselves in a situation where it matters to us that we persuade the French and the Chinese. Even the "hearts and minds" campaign in Iraq shares in this misfortune. To think that we are distressed because a lot of Sunni Iraqis have not given their support to our vision of democracy makes me want to go shower and clean myself.

Wit with substance -- I don't think this point could have been made any better if it had been served with a side of cheese. And for the most part I agree. If the Golden Rule applies to us, then why not to the rest of the world? And on that thought, if they don't hesitate to share their "to hell with America", then why the hell are we even bothering with them? Why don't we just keep our military efforts to ourselves and use the rest of the world for whatever economic benefits we can, since we all know they would never let us keep our money to ourselves?

The world needs us as much as we need it, and our actions of the last three years -- if not the last 230 years -- only go to show that, as international leaders, we refuse to be slaves to those who who follow. We are not bullies and we refuse to be bullied. The end.

Via Confessions of a Political Junkie, Erick's blog:

In the Bush campaign, we are pretty clear that Karl Rove calls the overall shots. Ken Mehlman directs the troops on the ground. Matthew Dowd conducts the polling that helps Karl tweak the message so he can tell Ken where to send the troops. Terry Holt handles the communications for the campaign and coordinates Rove’s message, based on Matt’s polling to the surrogates who are sent out by Ken. It is a well oiled and focused machine.

Compare that to Kerry’s campaign. Bob Shrum is suppose[d] to be the Karl Rove of the Kerry campaign. Mary Beth Cahill should be Ken Mehlman to the campaign. But, then there is Joe Lockhardt and Mike McCurry and Paul Begala and James Carville and Tad Devine and John Sasso and Michael Whourley and Stephany Cutter, and, and, and . . . The Kerry campaign is a vision of what the Democrats want government to look like -- overstaffed, too much bureaucracy, too many egos, and a lack of message focus and discipline.

I particularly like the clever abuse of stereotypes involving the words "oiled" and "bureaucracy". Good work, Erick!

From reading the transcript of the debates (rather than watching it), I wholeheartedly concur with Debra Saunders: "You can count me in agreement with the 37 percent of Americans who told the CNN/Gallup poll that Bush got the better of John Kerry. Kerry [may have] looked good and talked better. But every argument Kerry hurled against Bush also worked against Kerry."

Consider Kerry on the president's mistake in going after Saddam Hussein before capturing Osama bin Laden. Or, as Kerry intoned, "We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off Osama bin Laden." I reread Kerry's very long and also ponderous remarks before he voted in favor of the October 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Kerry never mentioned Osama bin Laden. (Is that the fault of Bush, too?)

I would make my own points, but Saunders does a much better job than I could hope too, being both better informed and having already written a column dedicated to the task. If you want to add some Kerry detraction to your arsenal -- either to prove her wrong or to support her points -- click the link above.

At Gennie's suggestion, I read the entire article. Before you let mention of Bill O'Reilly's name turn you away from the rest of this, I should clarify that I don't agree with the man on tons of things. But his willingness to approach any topic and hold no thoughts back is refreshing in today's media climate, and those traits are what make his commentary so refreshing, if even brutal. So, now, on with the quoted material from the article. Naturally, I think you should read it for yourself and not just limit yourself to my biased clippings.

The sad truth is that many countries dislike America, and it has little to do with the USA's proactive policy in fighting perceived terror threats. The acrimony is caused by severe differences in philosophy and priorities.

First, there's the economy...

And then there's the secularist philosophy. In the Netherlands they have legalized euthanasia even for children. If you want drugs, you will find them sold openly in Amsterdam. After you score, you can walk on over to the red light district and have sex with a government-approved prostitute. Then you might want to use your drugs in a public coffee shop. No problem.

Bill's thesis is that no matter what the American votership decides November 2, it will be decided on hope. Most voters are honest enough with themselves to admit that they are only hopeful that their chosen candidate is the right one for the job; we mostly admit that we can't really know the consequences of our vote until the candidate becomes the official and proves us right or wrong.

Final thoughts: Do you really believe the rest of the world hates America because of Iraq? Or do you think it's our superior economic and military power and our conservative, Judeo-Christian traditions that so flagrantly contrast nearly every other nation on the planet? I think it's less hatred and more a misdirected response to fear due to a lack of understanding.

Only 30 days remain between now and Election Day 2004! Whether you intend to vote or not, it would be a good idea to make sure you are registered to vote just in case you find good reason to cast your ballot November 2! The deadline to register to vote in Georgia is October 4 (all states' deadlines here) -- this Monday!

With the election suddenly so near, here's a list of the 14 Congressional races in Georgia with links to campaign web sites (if available). Anyone interested in Georgia politics is encouraged to share their opinions or predictions about the upcoming election, or to remind us of additional important races in Georgia.

Senate: Johnny Isakson (R) vs Denise Majette (D)

I predict that Isakson will win unless something terrible affects his campaign, although Denise Majette and her poll numbers have surprised the "experts."

House: 1st: Jack Kingston (R)

Unopposed.

House: 2nd: Sanford Bishop (D) vs Dave Eversman (R)

Veterans Party candidate Glenda Kelley has also entered the race. This seat is assumed by many to be safely Bishop's until he decides to give it up.

House: 3rd: Jim Marshall (D) vs Calder Clay (R)

Republican Calder Clay is challenging Congressman Jim Marshall to a rematch. The race seems to be as close as it was last time, but I expect Marshall will emerge victorious once again, this time with a slightly larger margin of victory.

House: 4th: Cynthia McKinney (D) vs Catherine Davis (R)

I expect McKinney to reclaim the seat she lost in 2002 to Denise Majette, who is running for Senate.

House: 5th: John Lewis (D)

Unopposed.

House: 6th: Tom Price (R)

Tom Price is running unopposed to take over Senate candidate Johnny Isakson's seat.

House: 7th: John Linder (R)

Unopposed.

House: 8th: Lynn Westmoreland (R) vs Sylvia Delamar (D)

Mac Collins will not be re-elected due to his (failed) bid for the Senate. Lynn Westmoreland should take Collins' place in this safely Republican district.

House: 9th: Charlie Norwood (R) vs Bob Ellis (D)

Charlie Norword should cruise to re-election in the Republican-leaning 9th district.

House: 10th: Nathan Deal (R)

Unopposed.

House: 11th: Phil Gingrey (R) vs Rick Crawford (D)

Crawford is expected to mount a solid challenge against Congressmen Gingrey. It will probably be a close race.

House: 12th: Max Burns (R) vs John Barrow (D)

Barrow is expected to mount a solid challenge against Congressman Burns. Another close race.

House: 13th: David Scott (D) vs Philip Bradley (L)

Libertarian Philip Bradley is all that stands in the way of David Scott's re-election bid.

(This also appears at Polstate -- comment here!)

All work and no play makes Paul a dull boy.

All play and no work makes Paul a poor boy.

So I know what I have to do.

I'm a little frightened that it's already October. I'm a little more frightened that I'm going to graduate from college before 2005 gets here. I'm even more frightened that I will be seeking or enjoying full-time employment shortly after the new year. Finally, I'm most frightened that I have absolutely no idea where I will actually even six months from now.

I'm also disappointed that I missed the debate Thursday night, but I knew I could catch reruns and commentary on it across the internet. Perhaps more concerning, though, is the fact that I haven't bothered to check on it yet. I have no idea what was said, how the candidates answered, or how to anticipate the polls to shift as a result. All I have heard is one comment, passively at that, that Kerry won. Hmm.

I've actually put quite a bit of effort lately into being social, so when I'm not communicating with friends in person, I've spent a lot of my online time communicating with them via livejournal. I know I keep plugging that every few days, but... that's just how I justify not posting much else here lately. As November 2 approaches, I'm sure I'll have a few things to say.