The students are angry, well furious, that the government havent disbanded tuition fees – and indeed tripled them instead. Now, they had probably expected that from the conservatives but the students largely carried the Liberal Democrats into parliament and government on a promise of tuition fees being abolished. Whichever way you look at it, either Nick Clegg lied to please the students during his campaign, and never intented to abolish the tuition fees, or he sold out along the way, dropped his promises and reversed his political stance 180degrees – in return for ministerial seats. Either way blatant lies, lost hopes and promises deliberately not kept have always been the fuel that lit political anger and inspired demonstrations in the streets. Nick Clegg has basically taken his party from a role of everybodies favorite pet, a faint hope for idealists and the naughty boy in class who dared speak out when others played tactical games, and bought himself seats in government at the expense of his entire political program (the voting reform was sold before he even took office remember). Former Liberal Democrat leaders and prominent figures voted against their own government in parliament, but thats barely a footnote to the students and libdem voters who feel thoroughly betrayed. In that sense, its probably fairly safe to assume Nick Clegg should enjoy his time in the ministeries, as its more than unlikely he will have a seat there after the next election.

Now does any or all of this justify rioting in the streets, destroying property and hurting people? Of course not. Political violence is a bad thing and innocent people having their belongings ruined or being hurt is obviously out of order. However, the anger, frustration and disappointment created by the actions of the british government and the Liberal Democrats in particular are to blame more than anything else, as one person I spoke to said:

“The students dont exactly make you proud to be british. But Clegg. I would have always voted Liberal Democrat. They were the only straight up idealist party. Now theres nobody left to vote for. I am not a student but Nick Clegg betrayed the voters and proved himself a liar like the rest of them. Never again.”

Taken to the streets by the people directly affected, such levels of disappointment can turn nasty. They shouldnt, but equally its hard to believe how it has surprised anyone that they did. And this may only be the beginning, the british are back on the streets, they are angry and ready to show it.

However, in economical terms this has been about as far from a rightwing or liberal government as it is possible to get without reading your political agendas aloud from marxist pamphlets. The income tax has become the highest in the world during this period, and the top tax bracket is still well above 60%. Car registration tax is 180% still (+ VAT and roadtax). Property tax was frozen in 2001 which means percentagewise its status quo. The public vs private sector has tilted further towards the public sector during this timespan. And so the list continues…and is that bad? Not really. Its what a majority of the danes want. Basically, the danes want perfect public service and are willing to pay extreme taxes for it.

As a consequence the rightwing only gets into office when the leftwing field unelectable candidates, gets involved in massive scandals or convince the people they too want a socialist state. The current government has survived so far on a combination of the three – along with playing the immigration card continously.

Now, suddenly some form of change seems to be developing. Polls are showing the government faultering and the governing liberal party taking heavy blows to their support, but the majority of the losses they are bleeding are headed towards newcomers on the political scene – The Liberal Alliance. Now, unlike any other danish politcal party The Liberal Alliance is actually liberal, if measured on criterias used outside the danish borders. The liberal alliance promote a flat low tax of 40% (low in danish terms anyway, the rest of us would still squeak a bit if the government stole 40% of our income), they want to disband the tax on entrepeneurs and media equipment, they want to lower or disband the cartaxes and not least, remove the generous pre-pension scheme that means danes can retire at 61 with full state funding. On top of this they are taking on the bureaocracy with heaps of ideas for abolishing laws, liberalising or privatising state busineses and stimulating a massive push towards less state and more private sector.

Shocking and life changing? Well to most foreigners looking in it seems quite moderate given the danish political setup, but in Denmark such voices have rarely been heard and never been listened to. That seems to be changing though. New polls show between 6 and 9% support for the liberal alliance, which is unheard of for a party not subscribing to the socialdemocratic welfarestate as a basic premise of their politics. It obviously doenst bring them close to a majority, but it does make them a significant player with a loud voice in the danish parliament..and should the current government win the next election, they will inevitably be reliant on support from the liberal alliance to be able to form a new government, rule without a majority against them and get laws passed in parliament. That suddenly makes a world of difference as the government cant just maintain status quo, as the liberal alliance votes are solely focused on liberal changes and will be needed for every single law to be passed in parliament. This development requires a recovery for the ruling government, as a victory to the openly socialist leftwing will obviously leave the liberal alliance on the sidelines as a loud opposition, but should Venstre and Conservatives pull an election victory in Denmark and judging by the polls they only need to make up 3-4% support before the election, we might actually see real reforms. Interesting times.

Now, we have learned that Saudi Arabia fancies a war with Iran and desperately tries to convince the americans that this might be a feasable venture. We have learned that Angela Merkel is an administrator with no courage or creativity. We have learned that Barack Obama have tried bribing countries such as Slovenia into taking Guantanamo prisoners in return for photo opportunities with celebrities such as himself…and the list goes on forever.

So…is it valuable information or a criminal act to release such info? Well basically, most of it is irrelevant, a bit amusing or non-surprising slander … theres a couple of potentially destabilising pieces of intelligence such as the correspondence regarding the middle east and north corea – but does that constitute the exposure being a dangerous terrorist act. Of course not. First of all, you have to be a bit more naive and narrowminded than George W. to imagine any of this came as a surprise to the involved parties. Iran isnt just likely to be well informed about the attitude towards them among their neighbours (they do afterall have a fairly efficient intelligence service of their own), they have indeed gone out of their way to manifacture it – had they wanted friendly and trusting neighbourly relations, it probably wouldnt have been first on their list to invest in a nuclear program, long range missiles pointing in all directions and having their political leaders giving speech after speech threatening and harassing the very same neighbours, that has now been exposed as “a bit grumpy”. Surprise surprise.

And North Corea. So, they have a military at the border, so they keep plotting malicious activities…or in other words – nothing has changed since the corean war and everyone know about it. It certainly wont have been scandal of the year in the South Corean ministry of defence that they might be wise to keep a lookout on the northeners and their continued efforts to provoke, militarise and cause havoc. Surprise surprise.

Should we continue? Angela Merkel being a bit boring, Sarkozy being “bizarre”, Anders Fogh Rasmussen cutting deals under the table, Barack Obama acting as though he is trying to bullship his way to winning the next round of Big Brother …. yeah, thats all astonishing news in the “terrorist exposure” end of things we would have never figured out ourselves. Wikileaks is public service, or rather – wikileaks is a nice service for journalists who cant be bothered to dig up their own stories and a marvellous reminder to those of us who briefly forgot what common sense would have told us about international politics and relations, had we thought about it for a second…not much more, not much less.

However, as modern technology continues to adapt to changes in society, Internet campaigning will never be able to serve as a complete replacement for traditional political campaigning without reducing the significant barriers to entry. Internet political campaigning leaves out entire portions of each population because it only is accessible to a certain portion of the population, leaving those without this access disconnected.

For example, during Obama’s recent presidential campaign, Internet political campaigning was effective at reaching the younger population, as they remain engaged with social websites and new media. Because of the limits of technology, Obama’s Internet campaign failed to reach older generations who didn’t use this new media, as well as significant amounts of the population who didn’t have access.

The chinese have already complained that the american administration is keeping the dollar artificially and deliberately weak. The reason of course being an attempt to stimulate american exports, as a weak dollar makes american products relatively cheaper to purchase abroad. Now, the dollar was already weak – and it hadnt stimulated any sort of boom in exports, or indeed meant a positive import/export relation.

what this devaluation of the dollar does mean is that ordinary people gets further down into the mud – out on american streets. Letting the money press run wild like this means inflation is inevitable and whats worse, nothing indicates it will boost the economy locally which means it inspires a situation of stagflation – inflation combined with stagnation, the deadliest cocktail of all as you cant get the wheels going by stimulating the economy due to the inflation. So, whilst more money flowing in the streets (or pumped into a wobbly bond market as it may be) may sound good, for ordinary people the likely consequence is that their paycheque buys them less whilst prices shoot up.

Basically, the printing press is good for ultra short-term gains…but its a bit like peeing your pants to keep warm. The benefits are eaten in no time by inflation. And whats worse, it further weakens the trust in american economy and the dollar, thus potentially forcing the interest rates up – which could prove disastrous in a market already shaken by the latest blow to the property market.

Who on earth came up with this as a good idea?

Well, the results from the midterm elections certainly speak the language of disillusion and lost hopes. The democrats suffered one of their worst defeats since World War II and long gone were the millions of enthusiastic grassroots, the complete control of the media headlines and the glorification of mysterious democrat spindoctors and geniuses pulling home floodwaves of votes to the party.

So, what happened to the euphoria? Well, the answer seems to be hidden largely in the lack of action, rather than in wrongdoings or scandals. Obama came into office as a visionaire and reformer, but has largely acted as an administator. Lets take a few examples:

Guantanamo. Obama promised it would be closed down more or less as soon as he took office, but he has failed to do so. Its still there, the legal status of the camp and its prisoners of war is still a messy blur to say the least. Might be a minor issue to some, but it has important symbolic value.

Healthcare. He tried but largely failed to make a fundamental reform of the healthcare system. The intentions were there but in the end the results looked more like status quo than revolution when words were to be transformed into working political majorities and actual change.

The economy. Obama said he had a plan to create jobs, get the wheels moving, strengthen the dollar and limit the deficits. Now, the deficits are spinning out of control, the plans to create jobs seem to have withered in the wind as fancy slogans with little positive effect for people on the street. The dollar, well its not exactly at its prime and never will be until the deficits are sorted. Basically, the standard of living for ordinary people havent improved and the macro economical developments still look closer to disastrous than to worrying. So, where is the change, this is in fact a repeat of the terrible economical mess left behind by George W. Bush – Obama promising to change it for the better, but little or nothing has happened.

Foreign policy. Obama wanted a new agenda abroad, and God knows he is a more respected world leader worldwide than George W. Bush, not that the opposite would be possible. But, the bottomline still is that Obama a managing 2 wars started by the former president, he hasnt managed to bring them to any form of peaceful end, he hasnt clamped down on the lies justifying the wars, he hasnt defeated terrorism by diplomacy or reconciled america with friendly forces in the middle east, he hasnt taken anyone to justice for the warcrimes committed and the list is endless. Why would he you might ask? Well, for now – he has nothing but friendly speeches and cheering crowds in Europe to show, no results and no actual change in the state of international matters.

And so, the list of things that hasnt happened could continue but its barely necessary. The fact of the matter is that “Yes we can” seems to have meant “Yes, we can largely avoid making more of a mess than George W. Bush” or “Yes, we can administer status quo from here”. The words still flow freely and elegantly – but the real change is hard to find. Thats what demotivates the grassroots and opens the gates of opportunity for movements such as The Tea Party – and Obama has largely created The Tea Party himself or at least the foundation for their reach and strength by failing to deliver on key policy issues that could have carried his wave of euphoria onwards.

Ironically, Helle Thorning actually suffered a hefty and bitter defeat in the elections losing more than 16.000 votes personally and a single seat for her party the Socialdemocrats. Further, her expected coalition partners from the socialist peoples party lost a staggering 7 seats. Luckily for the centre-left coalition bidding for the primeministers position for Helle Thorning her 2 other supporting parties – the radical left and the communist parties both made significant gains. In fact, the danish communist party lead by Johanne Smidt Nielsen managed to triple their public support to grab 8 extra seats for a total of 12. This is strongest support the communists have had in Denmark since just after the Second World War and speculations are already murmoring that the new female pm will have a rough ride ruling her coalition of liberals, socialdemocrats, oldfashioned socialists and communists.

Campaigns start anywhere from several months to several years before election day. The first part of any campaign for a candidate is deciding to run. Prospective candidates will often speak with family, friends, professional associates, elected officials, community leaders, and the leaders of political parties before deciding to run. Candidates are often recruited by political parties and lobby groups interested in electing like-minded politicians. During this period, people considering running for office will consider their ability to put together the money, organization, and public image needed to get elected. Many campaigns for major office do not progress past this point as people often do not feel confident in their ability to win. However, some candidates lacking the resources needed for a competitive campaign proceed with an inexpensive paper campaign or informational campaign designed to raise public awareness and support for their positions.

Once a person decides to run, they will make a public announcement. This announcement could consist of anything from a simple press release to concerned media outlets to a major media event followed by a speaking tour. It is often well-known to many people that a candidate will run prior to an announcement being made. Campaigns will often be announced and then only officially “kicked off” months after active campaigning has begun. Being coy about whether a candidacy is planned is often a deliberate strategy by a prospective candidate, either to “test the waters” or to keep the media’s attention.

One of the most important aspects of the major American political campaign is the ability to raise large sums of money, especially early on in the race. Political insiders and donors often judge candidates based on their ability to raise money. Not raising enough money early on can lead to problems later as donors are not willing to give funds to candidates they perceive to be losing, a perception based on their poor fundraising performance.

Also during this period, candidates travel around the area they are running in and meet with voters; speaking to them in large crowds, small groups, or even one-on-one. This allows voters to get a better picture of who a candidate is than that which they read about in the paper or see on television. Campaigns sometimes launch expensive media campaigns during this time to introduce the candidate to voters, although most wait until closer to election day.

Campaigns often dispatch volunteers into local communities to meet with voters and persuade people to support the candidate. The volunteers are also responsible for identifying supporters, recruiting them as volunteers or registering them to vote if they are not already registered. The identification of supporters will be useful later as campaigns remind voters to cast their votes.

Late in the campaign, campaigns will launch expensive television, radio, and direct mail campaigns aimed at persuading voters to support the candidate. Campaigns will also intensify their grassroots campaigns, coordinating their volunteers in a full court effort to win votes.

Voting in the United States often starts weeks before election day as mail-in ballots are a commonly used voting method. Campaigns will often run two persuasion programs, one aimed at mail-in voters and one aimed at the more traditional poll voters.

Campaigns for minor office may be relatively simple and inexpensive – talking to local newspapers, giving out campaign signs, and greeting people in the local square.

The Tea Party isnt actually a party as such, but a movement primarily within the republican party. They have been called rightwing nutters and extremists, however that didnt deter the american electorate from sending several GOP candidates with a Tea Party backing into newly gained seats. A look behind the curtain of the tea party however reveals a much for diverse and interesting movement than a simple spur of the moment display of extreme rightwing politics.

First of all, the politics of the tea party are in fact not particularly rightwing as such – indeed in some ways quite to the contrary. The tea party argues less government, more freedom and a return to the constitution as it was written? Now, that is in fact quite liberal and certainly wouldnt go a miss for any decent libertarian candidate. Yes, the tea party has some fairly obscure speakers who from time to time dwell in outragious weirdness, but the basic foundation of the movement is that of personal freedom, in the classic liberal way, from the state and to the people.

Could the tea party movement carry a candidate to the whitehouse? It isnt actually unlikely given how much grassroot support the movement has gotten, however they desperately need to put a more charming face on their efforts than that of oldschool republicans without a hope in hell of capturing the middle ground american. Is that possible? Very much so, the messages are clear and appealing – and could sell way across the independent and democrat fence … but, and it is a big but, for now the most prominent figure is Sarah Pahlin. All her qualities untold, she is probably not the ideal candidate to deliver that message of freedom and constitutionalism in a way that appeals beyond the republican base – and the republican base simply isnt big enough to carry anyone inside the walls of the white house. Interesting times ahead.

Klaus Bondam has been under heavy criticism since the last election for making a deal on election night with the rightwing party Dansk Folkeparti (The Danish Peoples Party) to retain his seat as mayor. The comedy mayor resigns to take up a job in Bruxelles.

An informational campaign is a political campaign designed to raise public awareness and support for the positions of a candidate (or his party). It is more intense than a paper campaign, which consists of little more than filing the necessary papers to get on the ballot, but is less intense than a competitive campaign, which aims to actually win election to the office. An informational campaign typically focuses on low-cost outreach such as news releases, getting interviewed in the paper, making a brochure for door to door distribution, organizing poll workers, etc

Campaign advertising

Campaign advertising is the use of paid media (newspapers, radio, television, etc.) to influence the decisions made for and by groups. These ads are designed by political consultants and the campaign’s staff.

Media management

The public media (in US parlance ‘free media’ or ‘earned media’) may run the story that someone is trying to get elected or to do something about such and such.

Mass meetings, rallies and protests

Holding protests, rallies and other similar public events (if enough people can be persuaded to come) may be a very effective campaign tool. Holding mass meetings with speakers is powerful as it shows visually, through the number of people in attendance, the support that the campaign has.

Modern technology and the internet

The internet is now a core element of modern political campaigns. Communication technologies such as e-mail, web sites, and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster communications by citizen movements and deliver a message to a large audience. These Internet technologies are used for cause-related fundraising, lobbying, volunteering, community building, and organizing. Individual political candidates are also using the internet to promote their election campaign.

Signifying the importance of internet political campaigning, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign relied heavily on social media, and new media channels to engage voters, recruit campaign volunteers, and raise campaign funds. The campaign brought the spotlight on the importance of using internet in new-age political campaigning by utilizing various forms of social media and new media (including Facebook, YouTube and a custom generated social engine) to reach new target populations. The campaign’s social website, my.BarackObama.com, utilized a low cost and efficient method of mobilizing voters and increasing participation among various voter populations. This new media was incredibly successful at reaching the younger population while helping all populations organize and promote action.

Husting

A husting, or the hustings, was originally a physical platform from which representatives presented their views or cast votes before a parliamentary or other election body. By metonymy, the term may now refer to any event, such as debates or speeches, during an election campaign where one or more of the representative candidates are present.

Other techniques

• Writing directly to members of the public (either via a professional marketing firm or, particularly on a small scale, by volunteers)
• By distributing leaflets or selling newspapers
• Through websites, online communities, and solicited or unsolicited bulk email
• Through a new technique known as Microtargeting that helps identify and target small demographic slices of voters
• Through a whistlestop tour – a series of brief appearances in several small towns
• Hampering the ability of political competitors to campaign, by such techniques as counter-rallies, picketing of rival parties’ meetings, or overwhelming rival candidates’ offices with mischievous phone calls (most political parties in representative democracies publicly distance themselves from such disruptive and morale-affecting tactics, with the exception of those parties self-identifying as activist
• Organizing political house parties
• Using endorsements of other celebrated party members to boost support (see coattail effect)
• Remaining close to or at home to make speeches to supporters who come to visit as part of a front porch campaign
• Vote-by-mail, previously known as ‘absentee ballots’ have grown significantly in importance as an election tool. Today, campaigns in most states must have a strategy in place to impact early voting
• Sale of official campaign merchandise (colloquially known as chum, in reference to the baiting technique) as a way of commuting a competitor’s popularity into campaign donations, volunteer recruitment, and free advertising^[3]

Prohibited actions may include, but are not limited to: lying about numbers generated (e.g. phone calls made, doors knocked, volunteers recruited, etc.) – this is increasingly an issue in offices that are wirelessly connected, without direct oversight; going outside the chain of command (e.g. talking to a superior’s superior who happens to be a friend in order to get special favors or report information); non-press-shop members talking to the press; blogging (considered another form of “talking to the press,” which can interfere with message discipline); and being arrested (or otherwise becoming a potential easy target for opponent smear campaigns).

The daily schedule of a political campaign is hyperextended, and often has no definite beginning or end, only a series of tasks to be completed by certain benchmark times (or, most often, “COB” (“close of business”). COB for political campaigns is generally defined as “the time at night at which your supervisor is required to report his/her numbers” (or shortly beforehand), so that your numbers reporting (generally the last action a political campaigner takes before COB) can be factored into theirs. For example, a Field Organizer may have collected 9 new committed volunteers for an event during the day; he will be required to report this at 8:45pm to his Regional Field Director, so that the Regional can report that all Field Organizers in the region recruited 52 total volunteers for said event; which needs to be reported to the Deputy State Field Director by 9:00, so that THEY can speak to the State Field Director at 9:15 and report that 827 volunteers have been recruited for events around the state; and so on, up the chain of command.

Once each of these reporting sequences is finished, organizers at all levels may do paperwork, send emails, call friends, and do other things which are not effective to do during business hours or “voter contact time.” Political campaigns are generally about contacting voters and volunteers at the nuts-and-bolts level; and so dependent on state law, local peculiarities and the preferences of campaign organizers and volunteers, a certain block of time (usually ending at 8pm or 9pm) is set aside each night for “voter/volunteer contact.” (Violation of this block of time to conduct other activities often cannot happen or needs a strong justification, such as attending an important meeting.) Only a very small fraction of campaign workers (such as people who deal with vendors) do the bulk of their work during traditional business hours.

Soundbites

The habit of modern Western media outlets (especially radio and television) of taking short excerpts from speeches has resulted in the creation of the term “soundbite”. Examples might include:

• “John Doe is a businessman, not a politician. His background in finance means he can bring fiscal discipline to state government.”
• “As our society faces a rapid upswing in violent crime and an ever worsening education system, we need leaders who will keep our streets safe and restore accountability to our schools. John Doe is that leader.”
• “Over the past four years, John Doe has missed over fifty City Council meetings. How can you lead if you don’t show up? Jane Doe won’t turn a blind eye to the government.”

“Essentially,” Caddell wrote, “it is my thesis governing with public approval requires a continuing political campaign.”

The phrase “the permanent campaign,” its concept and history, were first defined by journalist and later Clinton presidential senior adviser Sidney Blumenthal in his 1980 book, “The Permanent Campaign.” In it, he explained how the changes in American politics from old-style patronage and party organization to that based on the modern technology of computer driven polling and media created a fundamentally new system. He explained that political consultants had replaced the party bosses and brought with them a new model by which campaigning became the forms of governing.

Blumenthal’s work resolved the problem in political science of “critical realignment.” According to Walter Dean Burnham, the leading political scientist of realignment theory, “If we view the arena of American electoral politics in historical perspective, we can say that the contemporary status quo extends back to some point in the mid-to-late 1960s. In his recent study, The Permanent Campaign, Sidney Blumenthal has advanced the argument that a critical realignment in fact occurred at about the point–1968–where many analysts had been expecting. They were, however, looking for realiagnment in the wrong place. For crucial to this one, and the ‘sixth electoral era’ which he argues followed from it, was the exact opposite of all previous events of this type. Instead of being channeled through–and thus revitalizing–the political parties, this realignment involved the conclusive marginal displacement of these parties by the permanent campaign…. The older linkages between rulers and ruled become ever hazier, ever more problematic.” (See Walter Dean Burnham, “The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics,” in Ellis Sandoz and C.V. Crabb, Jr., ed., Election 84: Landslide without Mandate, New American Library, 1985, p. 206.)

Strategies of this nature have been in active development and use since Lyndon Johnson, where priority is given to short-term tactical gain over long-term vision. The frenzied, headline-grabbing atmosphere of presidential campaigns is carried over into the office itself, thus creating a permanent campaign that limits the ability of policies to deviate from the perceived will of the people (hence, intensive polling).

A famous example that illustrates just how strongly this mind-set has come to influence politics was during the Clinton Administration when pollster Dick Morris asked voters to help decide where Bill Clinton would go on vacation. In the words of columnist Joe Klein, “The pressure to ‘win’ the daily news cycle—to control the news—has overwhelmed the more reflective, statesmanlike aspects of the office.”

Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary for U.S. President George W. Bush, wrote in his 2008 memoir What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception that the Bush White House suffered from a “permanent campaign” mentality, and that policy decisions were inextricably interwoven with politics.

They then use various means of communication–direct mail, phone calls, home visits, television, radio, web advertising, email, text messaging, etc–to communicate with voters, crafting messages to build support for fundraising, campaign events, volunteering, and eventually to turn them out to the polls on election day. Microtargeting’s tactics rely on transmitting a tailored message to a subgroup of the electorate on the basis of unique information about that subgroup.

Although some of the tactics of microtargeting had been used in California since 1992, it really started to be used nationally only in 2004. In that year, Karl Rove, along with Blaise Hazelwood at the Republican National Committee, used it to reach voters in 18 states that George W. Bush’s reelection campaign was not able to reach by other means. The results were greater contacts with likely Bush voters. For example, in Iowa the campaign was able to reach 92% of eventual Bush voters (compared to 50% in 2000) and in Florida it was able to reach 84% (compared to 50% in 2000). Much of this pioneering work was done by Alex Gage and his firm, TargetPoint Consulting.

Democrats did only limited microtargeting in 2004, with some crediting microtargeting for Kerry’s win in Iowa in 2004. Some news accounts credited Republican superiority in that area for victories in that election cycle. Democrats later developed microtargeting capabilities for the 2006 election cycle. “It’s no secret that the other side [Republicans] figured this out a little sooner”, said Josh Syrjamaki, director of the Minnesota chapter of America Votes in October 2006. “They’ve had four to six years’ jump on us on this stuff…but we feel like we can start to catch up.”

Microtargeting is a modification of a practice used by commercial direct marketers. It would not be possible on a large scale without the development of large and sophisticated databases that contain data about as many voters as possible. The database essentially tracks voter habits in the same ways that companies like Visa track consumer spending habits. The Republican National Committee’s database is called Voter Vault. The Democratic National Committee effort is called VoteBuilder. A parallel Democratic effort is being developed by Catalist, a $9 million initiative headed by Harold Ickes, while the leading non-partisan database is offered by Aristotle.

The databases contain specific information about a particular voter (party affiliation, frequency of voting, contributions, volunteerism, etc.) with other activities and habits available from commercial marketing vendors such as Acxiom, Dun & Bradstreet, Experian Americas, and InfoUSA. Such personal information is a “product” sold to interested companies. These data are particularly illuminating when portrayed through a Geographic Information System (GIS), where trends based on location can be mapped alongside dozens or hundreds of other variables. This geographic depiction also makes it ideal for volunteers to visit potential voters (armed with lists in hand, laid out in the shortest route – much like how FedEx and UPS pre-determine delivery routes).

These databases are then mined to identify issues important to each voter and whether that voter is more likely to identify with one party or another. Political information is obviously important here, but consumer preferences can play a role as well. Individual voters are then put into groups on the basis of sophisticated computer modeling. Such groups have names like “Downscale Union Independents”, “Tax and Terrorism Moderates,” and “Older Suburban Newshounds.”

Once a multitude of voting groups is established according to these criteria and their minute political differences, then the tailored messages can be sent via the appropriate means. While political parties and candidates once prepared a single television advertisement for general broadcast nationwide, it is now not at all uncommon to have several dozen variations on the one message, each with a unique and tailored message for that small demographic sliver of the voting public. This is the same for radio advertisement, direct mail, email, as well as stump speeches and fundraising events.

Of course, the scots dont put up with such things and Stewart Stevenson had to take full responsibility, pack his back bag and leave office. Read that again, the minister took responsibility, declared himself a failure and left. They may be frozen fools but the scots sure have more spine than most politicians.

Now think about George W. Bush and his handling of Katrina.

All that said, I almost had to smile when reading the news that someone had done a suicide bombing in Sweden. Not because its a funny thing to do, but because the stated reasons in a mail from the suicide bomber gives “the swedish involvement in Afghanistan” and “the muhammed cartoons” as reasons. My first reaction was, uhm, does Sweden actually have any military involvement in Afghanistan? I was aware Denmark had a few soldiers hiding in a british base in Helmand, but I had never heard of swedish military there. A bit of googling enlightened me, they do indeed have some 4-500 soldiers in Afghanistan somewhere. Fair enough. Low profile and barely enough of a crowd to make coffee for the real armies there, but I guess its the thought that counts. My second thought was, uhm, the muhammed cartoons were done by danish artists for a danish book and infamously reprinted in the danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. Did this guy miss the busstop in Copenhagen and just randomly drive on into sweden?

It seem though that the muhammed cartoons, stupid and offensive as they were, had been reprinted later on in Sweden as well, and as such I suppose the suicide bombers points were valid, although his actions obviously horrid and wrong. But. Why target Sweden I wonder? Their involvement is about the smallest of any country involved in Afghanistan and some private newspaper reprinting what had already been published in other countries and produced by danes doesnt exactly strike me as something that would spur anyone into enough of a rage to consider suicide bombing. But then, admittedly, I dont really understand the logic driving anyone to that stage in the first place.

I hope the suicide bomber was basically a lone nutter, obsessed with whatever weird beliefs he may have held and acting on his own in an act of insane determination to make his mark on the world. As far as I have been able to find out so far, nobody but himself got killed, however two people were injured. Lets pray it stays at that.