Carly I-know-how-to-create-jobs-in-China Fiorina has been blanketing the airwaves with attacks on Sen. Barbara Boxer lately, but it seems the more she tries to tell Californians how much she hates Boxer's progressive record, the more voters get turned away from her.  In devastating news for Ms. FCINO, a new California Field poll released today, just 4 days to go till election day, has Barbara Boxer with an all-but-insurmountable lead of 8 points.  Boxer leads Fiorina 49-41.

Think Progress has the scoop on this story. A McDonald's in Canton Ohio appears to be violating Ohio election law in intimidating its employees by threatening the loss of their wages and benefits into voting for the Republican candidates in the state. With each paycheck in their envelopes, each of the employees got this notice, telling them to vote Republican, or else their benefits and raises will be cut off:

President Barack Obama was on Jon Stwart's The Daily Show last night.  He was serious on a comedy show, but by no means out of place.  He patiently and painstakingly explained the Obama recovery from the Bush great recession. Here are the videos:

Barack Obama Pt. 1

Barack Obama Pt. 2

Barack Obama Pt. 3

Suddenly, after the Supreme Court's deplorable "Citizens United" ruling (ironically named, given nearly 80% of American citizens are united against that ruling), shadowy conservative front groups are feeling frisky.  There is a one such front group in Virginia now targeting the California Attorney General's race.  The Republican State Leadership Committee, a front group in the good graces of Karl Rove and funded by the anti-American US Chamber of Commerce, health insurers, big tobacco and manufacturing tycoons is pouring $1.6 million in an ad buy against Democratic nominee and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris.

The ad... -- one of the many such entities revolving in GOP political guru Karl Rove's orbit -- targets Harris, currently the San Francisco district attorney, for her opposition to the death penalty. But it's not hard to figure what its funders really care about. The committee has lately been getting its biggest contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, major health insurers, big tobacco and manufacturing interests.

You know that much vaunted "enthusiasm gap" that was going to wipe out Democrats in November and usher Tea Party Republican nutjobs into power?  Hold off on that for a bit.  In the midst of nearly every pollster predicting electoral bloodbath for the Democrats, the actual figures released about the people who have actually already voted tell a different story.  There's a lot of comparison pundits like to do to 2006, and how 2010 is 2006 in reverse.  Except the Atlas Project, a Democratic polling firm is observing a phenomenon, confirmed by outside analysts, that pundits seem to be missing:

"In many states, it even appears that the electorate so far is a little more Democratic than in 2006, although it is still early in the early voting process," [...]

Outside analysts are seeing much the same. "Democrats are not voting at as high rates as they did in 2008, but they are voting at higher rates [than Republicans] in early voting," said Michael McDonald, a George Mason University associate professor who specializes in voter behavior.

Wait, what?  You mean to tell me that in 2010, the year of the Democratic bloodbath, Democrats in several states have actually increased the gap in early voting turnout compared to 2006, the year of the Democratic resurgence? Am I the only one confused by this?  Could the pundits be wrong?  Oh noes!

(Author's note: Excerpt of my weekly Loop 21 column.)

The numbers are staggering: Last year there were 2.8 million foreclosures, a 21 percent increase over 2008 and a 120 percent rise compared to 2007,” according to Realtytrac, a website that specializes in foreclosures. Four states accounted for half of all foreclosures: California, Florida, Arizona, and Illinois.

Probably the most disconcerting thing about the federal government’s actions recently is their ho-hum response to the biggest lenders in the country – Bank of America, JP Morgan, and others – voluntarily stopping foreclosures due to “inaccurate paperwork.” Meanwhile, all 50 state attorneys general have started investigations. I’m not suggesting the Department of Justice get involved just yet. Instead, Obama should use it as leverage to ensure lenders are truly investing effort into the modification process and are giving homeowners due process protection when after the foreclosure process has been started. Homeowners deserve that much.

What exactly is exacerbating the foreclosure problem? In some cases it is because they are securitizing mortgages (i.e., pooling them together and selling them to investors) too fast or too often to maintain proper due diligence. In other cases, it is because banks are not the mortgage owner, someone else is -- at least on paper.

Read full article here: http://theloop21.com/money/homeowners-deserve-better-protection-from-sloppy-foreclosures

Oh, this is a hilarious turn of events.  If ever you thought the political gods don't have a sense of humor, you stand corrected today.  Here is a new ad Jerry Brown just released.  It uses Meg Whitman's own words - not just against her but to make the case for Jerry Brown.

Whitman is fond of telling the story of what a great place California was 30 years ago when she and her husband came to our golden state.  Now Brown's team has gone in for the kill: who was governor 30 years ago, Ms. Whitman? Here's the killer ad:

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has finalized the rules it's proposing to determine administrative versus medical expenditures to bring insurers in compliance with the new MLR requirements of PPACA. And it looks like insurers will not be happy. Even the Wall Street Journal can't deny it. According to them, insurance brokers "lose out" and "the proposed rules were adopted without any of the changes proposed by industry." Sweet, sweet music! And WaPo is singing the same tune as WSJ:

State insurance regulators finalized their recommendations to the Obama administration Thursday on how to implement a key provision of the new health-care law, largely favoring the views of consumer advocates over those advanced by the insurance industry.

...Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who is a consumer representative to the NAIC, countered that the commissioners had granted insurers plenty of leeway. "There's no end to what [insurers] would have wanted to put under 'quality improvement' if they could have," he said. "But the NAIC looked at this really carefully through a process of months, and the industry was on every one of the calls and had a great deal of input."

Some of you have read my post a little over a week ago challenging the Strengthen Social Security Coalition (a project of Social Security Works in conjunction with many groups) to answer some questions in specific (I originally posed the questions to them over to months ago).  I am happy to report that the Coalition did finally respond, although the specific questions I posed were answered by the two Co-Chairs of the coalition as individuals and not on behalf of the whole coalition.  That's alright, I'll take that to advance the conversation.  I want to thank both the co-chairs, Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson for their time and their careful response.  I should also note that they responded as individuals, and made clear that the coalition they lead has not taken positions on my specific questions.

Now, time for my comments on those response.  I have posted the full response here, and you can read and download the document.  Let me address the points one by one.  I will quote the relevant portions from the response of Altman and Kingson.  Let me say at the outset that on the specifics, they and I mostly agree.  But our biggest disagreement is on the very existence of the Fiscal Commission, which they view as a threat, and I view as a fiscally responsible step to solve our country's budget mess.  I believe there is some irrational fear of the commission and resentment of the idea from some on the left.  However, to understand the commission, one should read this fantastic, authoritative piece.  There is no reason why liberals ought to be afraid of the commission.

You all may not know this, but Randi Rhodes is my favorite liberal talk show host. She was on the Joy Behar show today talking about the bizarre incident of Justice Clarence Thomas' wife Virginia Thomas (a former Chamber of Commerce lobbyist and a current Tea Party phenom) calling Anita Hill and demanding she apologize to Clarence Thomas. Watch.



Check out Randi's website, and listen! I don't agree with everything she says, but she makes me smarter.

So, news came this morning that Juan Williams, the news analyst on NPR, was fired for some comments he made on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor.  As Yahoo's "The Upshot" blog reported (they have the full video, which you might want to watch), here are the precise comments that got Williams fired:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot," Williams continued. "You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Okay, first of all, granted it was an insensitive comment, but was it a firing offense?  I absolutely abhor anti-Muslim bigotry, I have spoken of my special cultural connection to the Muslim cab driver who was stabbed in New York, and I have no earthly idea why Juan Williams goes on Fox.  I don't like the comment he made - they were insensitive.  But the fact of the matter is that Juan Williams was offering his opinion, and said something that is not him acting on his fears, but just having them.  It's an irrational fear, but it's one many people have.  In this country, we do not try to regulate people's thoughts but their actions.  Williams did not say that he'd complain to airline security if someone is wearing Muslim garb and try to have them removed from the plane.

Today, Wednesday, October 20, we are all to wear purple in honor of spirit day, to honor the memory of the gay teenagers who committed suicide and to support young gay people who are struggling.  This day of remembrance was started courageous teenager, Brittany McMillian, who posted on her blog this to start this movement:

On October 20th, 2010, we will wear purple in memory of the recent gay suicides. Many of them suffered from homophobic abuse in their schools or in their homes. We want to take a stand to say that we will not tolerate this. Purple represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality. Please wear purple on October 20th to remember all the lives of LGBTQ youth that have been lost due to homophobia. Tell your friends, family, co-workers, neighbors and schools.

So the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) ended on October 3.  Demagogues on all sides of the political spectrum love to hate TARP, and decry the $700 billion the US government put on the line to rescue the financial sector and the largest banks.  The facts, however, do not square with that position.  As hard as it might be for the right wing ideologues to understand that government intervention in the market is necessary and fruitful, and as difficult as it is for the left ideologues to fathom the idea of the government helping big financial institution in a crisis (even in order to keep the entire system from collapsing), the facts contradict the narrative pushed relentlessly by both ideological extremes.

And the fact is this: with respect to TARP, the dirty dirty thing one must not be seen as supporting on the campaign trail has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams at the time it was enacted, and it has done so at less than 5% of its original cost.  That's right.  Earlier this month, the Department of Treasury updated the net cost estimate of TARP and the AIG bailout to $30 billion on taxpayers.  The cost estimates have steadily declined since enactment.

The news of the shrunken cost, which comes on the two-year anniversary of the legislation that created TARP, represents a dramatic improvement. It highlights the resilience of the markets, as well as the folly of short-term financial projections. In August 2009, the TARP cost was projected to be $341 billion. In its mid-session review, released in August of this year, the Office of Management and Budget projected the total cost would come to $91 billion.

Crossposted at DailyKos Before I talk about what could be or is President Obama's DADT Strategy, I would like to underscore what this President has done for the LGBTQ community. However, these accomplishments don't mean other key LGBT initiatives are in the bank by any means. In fact, discriminatory policies towards LGBTQ community and the battle to dismantled these policies legislatively once and for all is not going to be a cake walk considering the slow expediency of repealing DADT which has an 78% public support. However, the President's accomplishment to date should not be overlook to tie it all up like a jigsaw puzzle about his intentions and continued commitment to advancing equality for LGBTQ community. These elements while some may be symbolic, have been missing in past Administrations and should reinforce that these Administration is on the right path while the pace may have not been quicker on some things because of political limitations. However, Obama's commitment to building a strong alliance in pursuing the end of DADT can not be challenged.

We have been told by the political right that we are living in the age of Citizens United, the age of unlimited corporate money in politics (including foreign money), and that we damn well better like it and shut up.  But there is actually something to be noted in the fundraising numbers of party committees, even in the age of Citizens United.

On October 4, Rachel Maddow did a segment on the Democratic fundraising and polling numbers that got me thinking about the big deal that organizing is.  Rachel demonstrated a simple point that if ordinary people organize and band together, they can defeat big money and special interests by using this old liberal bumper sticker where a big fish is eaten by a bigger fish, except the bigger fish is actually a group of well organized smaller fish:

Human advancement in science and technology is always welcome - especially so when the advancement comes with the promise of curing life-threatening illness.  That is just what is happening as the first human trials begin to put the promise of embryonic stem cell treatments into practice.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. doctors have begun treating the first patient to receive human embryonic stem cells, but details of the landmark clinical trial are being kept confidential, Geron Corp said on Monday.

Geron has the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration license to use the controversial cells to treat people, in this case patients with new spinal cord injuries. It is the first publicly known use of human embryonic stem cells in people.

Crossposted at DailyKos As the battle for control of Congress has tightened and the so called enthusiasm gap is evaporating, we must continue speaking to voter about what Democrats in Congress have accomplished. If you are a democrat and you have an enthusiasm gap, I am hoping that this could change your lack of enthusiasm. The facts are in the last 23 months, the following are things that I think are worth keeping scores about what President Obama and the Democratic congress have accomplished that get over looked without an ounce of credit by some who are always disappointed about something.

Judge Virginia Phillips, who had held that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the military violated the US Constitution today issue a remedy of that violation: she issued a worldwide injunction against the policy, prohibiting its enforcement.  The gay rights community and gay and lesbian veterans and armed forces members welcomed the news with open arms.

"This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans.

In the ruling, the court:

(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command;

(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.

Crossposted at DailyKos I read a diary about some amazing and creative resentment about how this Administration is fucking the elderly because it was projected by the trustees who oversee Social Security that there will be no Cost Of Living Adjustment(COLA) for 2011. In fact, all the change and hope this Administration has worked hard for and implemented to benefit the elderly is totally wiped out because of the failure to increase the COLA adjustment for Social Security beneficiaries in 2010 and 2011. Let's look at what we are really talking about in context. A 15 years average COLA adjustment between 1995 and 2009 was about 3%. An eligible individual will receive an average monthly maximum Federal SSI payment of about $674 a month in Social Security Benefit. The 3% COLA adjustment would have given eligible individual $20 more a months. 20 dollars a month is what has caused one to spitting nickles in that other diary (link provided at the bottom of this diary). I call it sensationalizing a non-drama drama. Do you really want to know how this administration is really fucking the elderly? Then, follow me...

Professor Marybeth Gasman (associate professor of higher education at UPenn and Policy Diary advisory board member) and I co-wrote a piece concerning anti-bullying efforts being instituted in higher education. For sure, some colleges and universities have been on the forefront of this issue. But far too many lack practical and widespread initiatives that can make a real impact in changing students' perceptions of what is an acceptable prank and what is unacceptable, punishable abuse.

The piece "Where Pranks End and Abuse Begins" has been published here at The Chronicle of Higher Education and is also in PDF format below.

There is an alarmist faction out there that is targeting the Presidential Fiscal Commission and accusing it of only focusing on social security, and that faction swears that the commission is going to cut social security.  Obviously, they're wrong, and I'd just love to have Joan McCarter eat her words when the time comes.  But no matter, I think we can all agree that cutting social security would be a bad idea.  But the devil is in the details.  What is a cut?  Is it only raising the retirement age or an actual cut in the dollar amount of social security benefits?

A coalition of groups, calling themselves the Strengthen Social Security Coalition is on the forefront of trying to protect against social security cuts.  I admire the coalition, as well as many of the participant organizations.  They espouse seven principles, which I am all in agreement with, more or less.  However, the coalition is putting pressure on the Fiscal Commission to be specific on just what they are going to do with social security, and I think that's fair.  I think it's also fair that the coalition tell us the specifics of their principles as well.  So I emailed Alex Lawson of the Coalition as well as filled out their web form asking for specificity.  I sent both messages on August 6, and I have yet to hear back.  Here are the questions I posed to him:

The loudest critics of health reform on the ideological left say that health reform is a boondoggle to health insurance companies.  It delivers an individual mandate (they skip the whole part about how the mandate only applies on a sliding scale of affordability of between 2% and 8%), without a public option.  The argument goes that therefore, President Obama and the Democrats have just delivered Americans to the lion's den of the murder by spreadsheet industry.

This argument, of course, does not hold up to scrutiny, given the wide range of new regulations insurance companies are to be subjected to (including no more pre-existing conditions discrimination and no more rescission when you get sick, plus your insurance company must spend 80-85% of premium revenue on actually providing care -- it's notable that enacting a pre-existing conditions discrimination ban without a mandate would simply raise premiums even faster) and the subsidies that will be available in the new exchanges that open in 2014.  There's another curious group that didn't get the memo on what a boon it is to the insurers, either: the health insurance companies!

The insurance industry is pouring money into Republican campaign coffers in hopes of scaling back wide-ranging regulations in the new healthcare law but preserving the mandate that Americans buy coverage.

Since January, the nation's five largest insurers and the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm have given three times more money to Republican lawmakers and political action committees than to Democratic politicians and organizations.

There seems to be great confusion on the political left about the phrase "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."  Coined by the great Democratic firebrand Sen. Paul Wellstone, it was re-poularized by Gov. Howard Dean during his campaign for President in 2003-04 as a means of showing some Democratic and progressive spine as many Democrats seemed to cower every time George Bush said "9-11."  Many on the left's ideological fringe have taken that as a cue that the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is an euphemism for perfectionism in the Democratic party, and choosing perfectionism over progress.  But in fact, that is not what the phrase signifies at all.

It is, instead, a phrase that signifies the importance of Democratic values to the Democratic grassroots.  It was never about not accepting progress because one thought it wasn't enough progress.  It is, rather, about making progress - even if we don't reach the promise land immediately.  People from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party do not cower in fear of the Republican reactionaries.  We push through incredible odds and we get something done.  We believe in our ideas deeply enough to make a case for them even to conservatives.  We believe in justice, fairness, fighting for our cause and yes, we believe in pragmatism to get things done.  It is not about adhering to ideological rigidity.  On the contrary it is about having the courage to stand up and get things done.

This is a must watch video for any Democrat, moderate, liberal or progressive thinking about sitting this election out.  Don't you dare.



Remember, if you don't vote, the crazies win. And everyone loses.

Today, the jobs report came out for September.  It's bleak, showing a net loss of 95,000 jobs, despite a gain of 64,000 private sector jobs (marking the ninth straight month of private sector job growth), government layoffs.  The numbers, even accounting for the private sector growth bode poorly for the American economy, and the lives of countless people, without a doubt.  How did this happen?  Austan Goolsbee, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, explains:

Despite the rise in private sector employment, overall payroll employment fell by 95,000 last month.  In addition to the anticipated layoffs of 77,000 temporary Census jobs, state and local government also experienced a drop in employment of 83,000. [...] The sector with the largest decline was local government, where payrolls declined by 76,000.

Now, the GOP line on the numbers is a little, shall we say, rich.  They have of course been lambasting the 95,000 net loss without noting that the loss of 159,000 government jobs dwarfed the private sector job creation number of 64,000.  It's funny because I could have sworn I heard somewhere that Republicans don't believe government jobs are, well, real.

Nearly everyone can agree on the cause of the recent global financial meltdown: excessive risk-taking by large banks and financial institutions.  What the right refuses to admit is another obvious: those excessive risk taking practices were enabled and encouraged by financial deregulation that started with Reagan and culminated in the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1999.  As a response to this crisis, Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, the most significant reform of Wall Street since the 1930s, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  While Congress was working on the new law, the President provided important leadership on global financial regulations.

The reforms were popular and the right thing to do, but many have wondered if those will be rendered useless at the end of the day.  While the far right has bemoaned any additional regulation of Wall Street, many on the left have expressed concerns about the regulations not being sufficiently hard on the financial sector.  Whatever your personal opinion of the reform is, we now have early indications that the reforms are working.  US and global action seems to be paying off, reports the Wall Street Journal.

I was casually checking the Daily Kos website today while sipping on a blended caramel mocha, and I ran across this on top of the Daily Kos "Recommended" list: Daschle Admits Public Option was Never Option.  ZOMG.  There's confirmation that the White House dropped the public option as part of backroom deals they cut with insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies!

Except it's not true.  As the TPM article that is the source of this latest poutrage explains, Dashcle not only walked back his comments, but also never in the first place claimed that his comments were based on first-hand knowledge of inside-the-White-House deliberations.

That rendering flies in the face of the White House's narrative, so TPM emailed Daschle to ask whether his statement reflected first-hand knowledge of the stakeholder negotiations, or was a conclusion he'd drawn independently. In response, he walked back the entire claim.

"In describing some of the challenges to passage of the public option in the health reform bill, I did not mean to suggest in any way that the President was not committed to it," Daschle emails. "The President fought for the public option just as he did for affordable health care for all Americans. The public option was dropped only when it was no longer viable in Congress, not as a result of any deal cut by the White House. While I was disappointed that the public option was not included in the final legislation, the Affordable Care Act remains a tremendous achievement for the President and the nation." [underline mine, bold from original.]

As you know, thanks to the utter incompetence of Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele, and thanks to the Supreme Court's un-American ruling in the Citizens United case, Republican front groups have been propping up everywhere to spend limitless cash to elect the truly crazy in this year's crop of Republican Tea Party candidates.  One such group, the brainchild of Karl Rove (well, his second brainchild, after his first brainchild, the Bush presidency worked out so well for the American people), is American Crossroads.  What you may not know is that American Crossroads is actually two organizations.  There's American Crossroads, the 527 group organized for the purpose of influencing elections.  Its donors must be disclosed to the public.  Then there's Crossroads GPS (the "GPS" stands for "Grassroots Policy Strategies"), a 501(c)(4) group that is not required to disclose its donors but as a consequence, cannot have as its "primary purpose" advocating for or against candidates in elections.

But of course, Karl Rove has never cared about rules.  The 501(c)(4) group is being used simply to shield donors who do not feel comfortable having their names associated with the group, and founded just months ago, they are engaging -- at least as far as we can see -- almost exclusively in electoral activities.  This is illegal.  And so, two watchdog groups, Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, are now asking the IRS to investigate the tax status of Crossroads GPS.

There's a story being told to you kids by the national media types.  The story is that health care reform is incredibly unpopular and that Democrats are running away from it.  You see, the media and blogging establishment want you to believe that the ire of Tea Party folks - most of whom are on Medicare - against the government, by law, setting rules of the road for health insurance companies is just too hot for Democrats, and they are running scared, especially the ones in tight races defending their seats.

Except they are not.  Let me say that again.  Democrats are not running away from health care reform.  EJ Dionne of Washington Post tells us where the media establishment can shove it.

Here is another piece of conventional wisdom about this year's election that is being rendered patently false. It's been said over and over that no Democrats are running on the health-care bill. Actually, more and more of them are proudly campaigning on what the plan has achieved -- and they should.

Like who, Mr. Dionne?  Like Russ Feingold - a progressive Senator in the political fight of his life.

In a fight for his political life in Wisconsin, Sen. Russ Feingold went on the air last week with an advertisement that explicitly defends provisions in the bill and attacks his opponent, Republican Ron Johnson, for wanting to repeal it.

Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services added a new feature to the Healthcare.gov site under the health care reform law signed by President Obama in March.  Now, not only can you go to Helthcare.gov and shop around for health insurance choices and learn about your options, now the insurance company denial rates are displayed with your choices, too.  From an email update sent out by Healthcare.gov, here are the new benefits for consumers at Finder.Healthcare.gov.  Now, if you want, you can reward companies with lower denial rates.

As you’ll see, HealthCare.gov now provides you with information about health insurance options such as:

• Monthly premium estimates
• Cost-sharing information, including annual deductibles and out-of-pocket limits
• Major categories of services covered
• The consumer’s share of the cost of these services

And to help you make more informed choices, HealthCare.gov also includes, for each insurance product, two notable metrics that have never previously been available to the public:

• The percentage of people who applied for coverage and were denied
• The percentage of applicants who were charged higher premiums due to their health status.

Just wanted to post this quick update.  Have a nice Sunday, everyone.

There has been plenty of pontificating from all corners of the political and blogging establishment classes about how it is going to be a bloodbath for Democrats in November.  I don't believe in all the punditry.  I believe in getting the vote out - getting our vote out.  Recent polling data is telling us exactly where our votes are: Young voters.  Gallup reports that while on the generic ballot Democrats and Republicans were tied last month, young voters significantly shifted their preference to the Democrats, while seniors held to the Republicans by a solid margin.

Here's what Gallup found.  Note that the numbers are net Democratic numbers, so a negative number indicates a Republican preference.  There is good news in this poll.  While the swing in favor of the Democrats by young voters is the most marked (now to a 19 point advantage), every age block has shifted in favor of Democrats from August to September, except for seniors, who remained at a 12 point deficit for the Democrats.