From here:

“For a long time now there’s been too much secrecy in this city. Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” – Barack Obama

The new president effectively reversed a post-9/11 Bush administration policy making it easier for government agencies to deny requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act, and effectively repealed a Bush executive order that allowed former presidents or their heirs to claim executive privilege in an effort to keep records secret.

It may not be the type of thing that Mr. Bush wants to hear, however. Experts said Mr. Obama’s moves would have the practical effect of allowing reporters and historians to obtain access to records from the Bush administration that might otherwise have been kept under wraps.

How wonderfully refreshing!
Let the floodgates open on the secrets that the Bush administration tried oh so hard to keep secret. Exciting times, indeed.

Newsweek reporters made an agreement: exclusive behind-the-scenes at all of the campaigns, in exchange for complete silence until November 5.
Now, they have released their stories.
There’s a lot to read (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and more coming), but it makes for really fascinating reading.

This site offers an excellent analysis, complete with charts, on how voter turnout compared to 2004 and 2000.
Particularly:

• McCain did better among the rich than the poor, but his lead decreased among the highest income brackets.
• No massive youth turnout, again. Instead, Obama got a much larger share of the youth vote.
• As in 2004 and 2000, the map was very partisan by state (see the charts for more details).

This Newsweek article, The World Hopes for Its First President, really steps me back from the daily ground game I read about over at fivethirtyeight.com and editorials at politico.com, to a more global, and heartening, perspective. Barack Obama seems to be the overwhelming favorite in a US election that has been more closely watched across the world than any other by far.

Obama, whose life story allows him readily to be seen as the personification of change, racks up landslide-scale support in global surveys. Recent polling by the London-based firm YouGov had Obama garnering more than 70 percent support in Nordic countries and well more than 50 percent in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They show him rising in the polls since May, ever so slightly in Germany, and by 13 points in Britain, to 62 percent in October. In France, friends-of-Obama committees have proliferated; the French Support Committee for Barack Obama sells “France for Obama” T shirts online. The Portuguese-language version of the social networking Web site Orkut, dominated by Brazilians, has 293 “communities” dedicated to Obamania, including Eu Amo Obama. In Brazil, flattery knows no bounds: at least eight candidates in recent elections simply borrowed Barack Obama’s name and put it on the ballot instead of their own.

(Emphasis on my favorite part my own)

Some more statistics illustrating his global appeal.

Obama went into Election Day with a steady lead in U.S. polls, averaging about 50 percent to 44 percent for McCain, but he was headed for a landslide around the world, topping polls in virtually every nation often by strong margins: 70 percent in Germany, 75 percent in China and so on. Somewhere along the road to the White House, Obama became the world’s candidate—a reminder that for all the talk of America’s decline, for all the visceral hatred of Bush, the rest of the world still looks upon the United States as a land of hope and opportunity.

A point of view from The Washington Independent. It’s unfortunate that disenfranchisement is turning out to be the most effective tactic by the GOP to try to win this election.

The strong Democratic turnout has Republicans mulling possible legal challenges. “We question whether these are valid registrations,” said Smith, the Washoe County GOP chairwoman.

While talking to Smith, she was interrupted by a cell phone call, which she inadvertently put on the speakerphone. It was the state GOP executive director Zachery Moyle, and the two discussed what could be done about the tsunami of Democratic Party registrations.

“I’m looking for people to sign on to a lawsuit,” Moyle said to Smith, who fumbled with the phone while turning off the speaker. “You didn’t hear that,” she said glancing in my direction.

When asked later that day about the potential for a lawsuit, Moyle said there was no “definitive plan” to go to court. “There’s been obviously concern with voter fraud across the country,” he said.

Emphasis above is my own.

100,000 people at an Obama rally in Missouri. This picture is just amazing. Not as many as some of the protest marches in Washington D.C. (upwards of 1M for a women’s pro-choice rally), but impressive nonetheless.

Ack, it’s been a while since I’ve last posted. Sorry, eager readers!

The failed house bailout bill has been absolutely fascinating to me. While I don’t doubt that something is needed to give the markets confidence, I’m conflicted as to whether the approach of the bill was the right one (and leaning towards, “no it was not”).

Anyway, this is the first time I can recall where a Bush-proposed bill had more support from Democrats than Republicans. I found some answers in this analysis on fivethirtyeight.com (thanks Erich for introducing me to this blog!)

It’s remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today’s failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as “toss-up” or “lean” by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don’t have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.