Rain Storm -- an online journal of opinion and culture

Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans have particular presence in the Midwest, including in swing states like Michigan and Ohio (these two plus Pennsylvania and Florida all have more than 100,000 Arab-Americans. Since many Arab-Americans are Christians, they aren't exactly an overlap with Muslim-Americans). They do not ordinarily swing an election, however, because they were about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. But when the Iraqi Shiites start demonstrating against the Bush administration, it is a sign that they may well vote for Kerry. A large number of Muslim-Americans is deeply upset by the fighting in Najaf, and by what they see as Bush administration trampling of their civil rights.

In a very close race, the Muslim Americans and Arab Americans in the above states could be a decisive constituency. There are about 300,000 Arab Americans in southeast Michigan, a state with a population of 11 million. All the signs are that they are migrating toward Kerry and Nader in large numbers. In 2000, many of those who voted Republican were afraid that with Joe Lieberman on the ticket, a Gore administration would be very hard on the Palestinians. But what I'm hearing from the community is that they are so upset with Bush that they will vote Democrat this year.

In general, swing voters in the battleground states are closer to Kerry on Iraq than Bush. Robin Wright argues that they think Bush has been too quick to use military force, and a majority feels that the Iraq misadventure hasn't helped the US in the war on terror.

The Axis of Eve coalition is planning a "Panty Performance Protest" at 6pm in the park, where its "brazen women" will carry out their mission of exposing themselves (no nudity, mind you) in order to help "expose and depose" President Bush. More than 100 women will participate in the mass flash, which will showcase the group's provocative line of protest panties emblazoned with such sexy admonitions as "give bush the finger," "expose bush" and "weapon of mass seduction."

Conservative Republicans may prefer to be titillated behind closed doors, but anyone sympathetic to Axis of Eve's desire to strip bare the Bush administration's numerous transgressions won't want to miss this spectacle.

I suspect that, if Bush loses, the GOP will enter a period of temporary chaos. All the various factions – which include overlapping and often incompatible groups such as neo-cons, paleo-cons, realists, Rockefeller Republicans, deficit hawks, libertarians, corporate executives, and Falwell conservatives – will find themselves in a full-blown civil war for leadership of the newly-headless GOP. It will be fun to watch.

Of course, because of the bizarrely undemocratic system we have, you don't actually have to win the most votes in order to become president, and on election night we'll be watching a relatively small number of states to see which way they swing.

But here's the key point: the number of battleground states has grown since the beginning of this race, and in each case a state that Bush won easily in 2000 has, to the surprise of many, become highly contested, complete with multiple candidate visits and a tsunami of television ads. Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado were all supposed to be safely Republican; Kerry could win one or more.

In fact, there is not a single battleground state save Louisiana (which many people don't consider and actual battleground state) in which a non-partisan poll shows Bush with a lead larger than the poll's margin of error, while in many, things are trending Kerry's way. Bush won Missouri comfortably in 2000; Kerry now leads in polls there. Pennsylvania, the state Bush has visited more times than any other save Texas, now looks like it might not even be close, with Kerry garnering double-digit leads in some polls. Kerry also leads by a good margin in Michigan. Ohio was supposed to be the Florida of 2000, the state on which all could hinge; most polls show Kerry with a lead there.

Which brings us to Florida itself. After Jeb Bush coasted to re-election in 2002, some were saying Democrats shouldn't even bother trying to contest the Sunshine State; now Kerry leads there in every poll.

The looming debate about the economy between John Kerry, arguing for continued middle class economic problems, and George Bush, arguing for economic progress, is likely to consolidate Hispanic voters for Kerry. Bush is simply on the wrong side of the Hispanic experience on the economy. Over 70 percent say the middle class faces job scarcity and rising health care costs and rejects the evidence of new jobs and an improved economy; 62 percent believe that strongly. Among independents, 81 percent opted for the critical view of the economy.

The problem for Republicans is rooted in their base. Greenberg's analysis shows that Rove's base strategy is in trouble--President Bush is falling roughly 4 points short of his 2000 vote in nearly every group in the Republican loyalist world. If Bush was depending on the white evangelicals, white rural and Deep South voters, and older blue-collar men, he's got a problem to address. He will have to play an even stronger cultural politics to stay in the game.

These changes are illustrated by trends among rural voters, one of the core Republican groups discussed in The Two Americas. These rural voters, referred to as "Country Folk," represent 21 percent of the electorate. In 2000, 63 percent of Country Folk backed Bush. Yet today, only 58 percent support him and only 51 percent want to continue in Bush's direction; 47 percent want to go in a "significantly different direction."

An overall drop of 5 points in the Republican presidential vote among these voters may not seem like a major shift, but in a country at parity it could provide the margin of victory. This impact is amplified by where the Country Folk live: they are concentrated in the battleground states, like Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Minnesota.

As a ticket, Kerry/Edwards now leads Bush/Cheney among men, 47-45%! That is unheard of for a Democrat, and something even Bill Clinton failed to achieve. Another significant trend is the 2% percentage points Kerry picked up came from the Undecided voter column. Meaning, one quarter of that previous Zogby survey group, decided not to wait until the Republican Convention to make their choice. In fact, Bush will need to win over all 6% percent of the remaining group of Undecided voters, just to get back within a plausible margin of error. The fact that since the Democratic Convention, John Kerry has captured about 4% to 6% percent of an already small group of Undecided voters was unfathomable just 3 weeks earlier.

Recent polling also suggests, that Kerry has opened up small, but solid leads in the battleground states of Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. And, the 18-29-voter group is a 2 to 1 margin in favor of Kerry. (They split evenly in 2000). Plus, for only the second time in history, a majority of this group is expected to go to the polls in November. (The previous occurrence was Clinton's election in 1992.) This type of movement in the polls is the very definition of a Convention 'bounce'. However, it usually occurs days after the event, and would've been expected to be slipping, now 3 weeks hence.

Red-hot rage may seem in order when the country's values have been trampled upon by a government with a dubious claim to legitimacy. Yet the theatrics of rage can easily play into Bush's hands. Righteousness, if not rooted in humility and focused on results--on persuasive power--will offend more than it attracts and fall victim to its own arrogance, as surely as arrogance undercuts Bush.

The power of nonviolence rests in its welcoming spirit, its power to elicit identification and its promise of reconciliation. Consider the brave young men and women of the civil rights movement, sitting with dignity at lunch counters throughout the South. In film footage of the time, you can see them attacked by uncivilized whites, who curse them, beat them--and thus reveal themselves as bullies and cowards. The civilly disobedient cover themselves in self-defense but never raise their hands in anger. They appeal over their adversaries' heads to the majority who, they believe--they have to believe--will see the justice of their cause.

As thousands of Republicans gather to nominate Bush for re-election, and as many more protesters--perhaps fifty times more--gather to express themselves against the damage Bush is doing, Americans of all stripes will be watching. Fair-minded people can understand dignified opposition even when they disagree with it. Rage in the streets is something else altogether. Protesters who spell "Bush" with a swastika, who smash windows, fight the police or try to block Manhattan commuters might as well stay home and send their contributions to the Republicans.

It is, or ought to be, so obvious that violence and chaos in the streets works to Bush's advantage that not a few oppositionists worry about the Republicans planting their own provocateurs in the protest. Such a scenario is not farfetched. Provocateurs know some history, too. They know that disciplined handfuls can start riots amid turmoil. In 1968 a substantial number of the toughs who surged through the Chicago streets, inciting the police to riot, were later revealed to be police and intelligence agents. They urged violent actions, pulled down American flags, led taunts and otherwise triggered police attacks. Afterward, demonstrators exulted, equating their seduction of the cameras with victory. But most spectators who watched the clashes on TV sided with the police. Richard Nixon's people knew what use to make of the footage. They strengthened their hold over the law-and-order vote.

The big news today is in Colorado. The Colorado secretary of state, Donetta Davidson, has certified that the petition to change the way Colorado allocates its electors has gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot. On Nov. 2, Colorado voters will be asked if they approve a change to the state constitution that divides its nine votes in the electoral college in direct proportion to the popular vote. If it fails, George Bush will most likely get all nine electoral votes. If it passes, probably Bush will get five electoral votes, Kerry will get four, and the Supreme Court will get a world-class headache. Badly polarized as it is, the Court probably does not want to decide another election.

Each soldier that dies in Iraq doesn’t merely cause the soldier's family to question the war (or our execution of the war), it causes the entire town to question these things. The lost soldier is discussed at the local restaurants and in the local churches by people who have seen him or her grow up and play Little League. The grief is collective - and it runs deep. Thus, Bush is losing these people in clusters. And the polls show it. Ryan Lizza linked to a recent poll by Stanley Greenberg that showed Bush’s rural support has dropped, and has dropped in states where Bush can’t afford to let it drop.

Jonah Goldberg, in the middle of a post about Clinton haters and the people who hate them, says this:

The Bush-haters — who are just as extreme and nasty as the Clinton-haters were, and in many ways more so....

Tell you what, Jonah. As soon as the most popular liberal editorial page in the country accuses George Bush of murdering one of his aides, maybe I'll give your argument a hearing. And as soon as one of the most influential liberal interest groups in the country starts distributing hundreds of thousands of videos suggesting that George Bush ran a coke ring out of Austin, then I'll really perk up. And when Senate Democrats spend $70 million investigating the Valerie Plame affair — compared to the current $0 — and end up bringing impeachment charges against George Bush, then you'll have me. You'll really have me.

But until then, sell it somewhere else. Michael Moore calling Bush a liar and a moron just isn't in the same league as what your side did to Bill Clinton, and nobody who was sentient during the 90s can find the contrary suggestion anything but laughable.