Saturday, October 25, 2014

Iran has executed 250 so far in 2014-BBC

10/25/14, "Iran hangs Reyhaneh Jabbari despite campaign," BBC

"The United Nations says Iran has executed about 250 people this year." (last sentence in article)

image from BBC


Non-citizen voters can change outcomes of close races per analysis of 2008 and 2010 elections. Al Franken win a likely result. Most vote Democrat, photo ID no issue, all non-citizens who voted lacked college degree-Washington Post

"Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the (2008) Minnesota Senate race" won by Democrat Al Franken.
10/24/14, "Could non-citizens decide the November election?" Washington Post,

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens

2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.

Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.
There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts."

Friday, October 24, 2014

NY Times Editorial Board: "Why Kobani Must Be Saved." Failure to secure full cooperation of Turkey highlights weakness of US strategy

10/23/14, "Why Kobani Must Be Saved," NY Times Editorial Board, 10/24 print ed.

"If Kobani survives, it will have defied the odds. This embattled city on Syria's northern border with Turkey has been on the verge of falling for weeks in the face of a brutal siege by Islamic State militants. But the Syrian Kurds who call Kobani home continue to fight hard, and on Sunday the United States made airdrops of weapons and other supplies to bolster them.

The town, once dismissed as inconsequential by American commanders, has become not only a focus of the American operation against the Islamic State, known as ISIS, but also a test of the administration’s strategy, which is based on airstrikes on ISIS-controlled areas in Syria and reliance on local ground forces to defeat the militants. A major problem is that the local ground forces are either unorganized, politically divided or, as in the case of the Kobani Kurds, in danger of being outgunned.

A setback in Kobani would show the fragility of the American plan and hand the Islamic State an important victory. Given Kobani’s location next to Turkey, the town’s fall would put the Islamic State in a position to cross the border and directly threaten a NATO ally, a move that could force the alliance to come to Turkey’s defense.

The big missing piece in the American operation is Turkey, whose reluctance to assist Kobani’s Kurds highlights the enduring weaknesses in America’s strategy. The decision to resupply the Kurds was a desperation move; the Kurds were at risk and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has refused to help despite repeated entreaties from Washington.

Only on Monday, after the American airdrop, did Turkey say it would allow Iraqi Kurdish forces, the pesh merga, to cross Turkey into Kobani. So far, however, no reinforcements of forces have reached Kobani by way of Turkey and Mr. Erdogan made it clear on Thursday that he is prepared to let only 200 pesh merga travel through his country — hardly enough when the Islamic State reportedly has about 1,000 militants in the area.

Turkey has been a troublesome NATO ally in the best of times. Matters have been made worse by its insistence that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, is a bigger threat than the Islamic State and by its complicated relationships with various Kurdish groups. Turkey has long enabled the Islamic State, whose original objective was to overthrow the Assad regime, by permitting militants, weapons and money to cross its border into Syria.

Now that the United States is leading the fight against the Islamic State, Turkey says it will work with the Americans. Yet it balks at helping Kurdish fighters in Kobani because it fears this would also strengthen the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (or P.K.K.) inside Turkey. The P.K.K. has been fighting a bitter, separatist war against the Turkish government for three decades, though recently the two sides have engaged in peace talks. It is hard to see what Mr. Erdogan gains by angering the Americans or by angering the Kurds in Iraq, the one Kurdish group with which Turkey has had good relations. Its refusal to assist also jeopardizes the nascent peace talks with the P.K.K.

There were many unknowns when President Obama began a premature and ill-advised mission into Syria. The failure to secure the full cooperation of an important ally leaves the success of the fight against the Islamic State increasingly open to question."

"A version of this editorial appears in print on October 24, 2014, on page A26 of the New York edition."...


Among comments at NY Times


"AC USA 2 hours ago 

ISIS is Turkey's Sunni Muslim proxy army in Syria, Hezbollah is Assad's Shiite proxy army. Erdogran' preposterous objective in asking for a no-fly zone is for the US to be the air force for ISIS. Of course, if Assad goes, Erdogran will expect to determine who takes over in Syria, as ISIS will chase everyone else out of the country. In the meantime, Erdogran wants the US to create a "buffer zone" in Syria which will relieve him of his Syrian refugees, absolving him of doing anything beyond telling the US and NATO what they must do."


10/24/14, "ISIS one of richest terror groups, earns $1 million a day selling oil," AFP via Hindustan Times
ISIS one of richest terror groups, earns $1 million a day selling oil - See more at:

Canada flags at half mast in honor of 24 year old father murdered by Islamist son of a Libyan businessman

10/22/14, "Revealed: Muslim convert who shot dead Canadian soldier is the 'privately-educated son of country's immigration chief, had his passport revoked and has 'links to Syrian terrorist,'" UK Daily Mail, by L. Warren, J. Nye, C. Spargo

"Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Muslim convert who fatally shot Corporal Nathan Cirillo - a 24-year-old father standing guard at Ottawa's War Memorial - and injured another officer, was a petty criminal and the son of a leading Canadian immigration official.

Born in Quebec as Michael Joseph Hall and raised in Laval, just north of Montreal, the young man lived a quiet childhood of private schools and suburban homes, with a mother who was a high ranking federal employee.
Then, after years of run-ins with the law, he converted to Islam. A criminal court database shows 13 identified Quebec court records dating back to June 2001 in Montreal involving Zehaf-Bibeau. According to documents his full name is Michael, Joseph, Paul, Abdallah Bulgasem Zehaf Bibeau....

Zehaf-Bibeau's mother, Susan Bibeau, still lives in Montreal and works as a a federal public servant for the Immigrant and Refugee board. She is listed as Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Division.

According to the site, she joined IRB in 1990 as a refugee protection officer, working her way up over her 24-year career. She holds a Bachelor of Law degree from the Université de Montréal, a Master of Business Administration from Concordia University, and a graduate certificate in business administration from the Public Administration University.  

Zehaf- Bibeau's father is a Libyan businessman named Bulgasem Zehaf who once owned a local restaurant, Cafe Tripoli. He divorced Susan Bibeau in 1999, and there are reports that he fought in Libya in 2011.

The Washington Times quoted a fighter named Belgasem Zahef in a dispatch from anti-Gaddafi rebels in 2011. Describing himself as from Montreal but a Zawiyah native he said he witnessed torture when held in a regime prison. 

In a statement on Thursday Ms Bibeau revealed she was reunited with her terrorist son last week when they met for lunch. She said they had been estranged for five years prior to that meeting."...

Image: "Respect: The Canadian flag flies at half staff on top of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Thursday," AP


'The Ruling Class Went Down to Mississippi.' They accurately viewed events there to be 'a greater threat to themselves than any Democrats could be,' Angelo Codevilla, 6/30/14

Dr. Codevilla's recap of the 2014 Mississippi GOP primary including NY Times quoting a black Democrat paid to organize for Republican Cochran:

6/30/14, "The Ruling Class Went Down to Mississippi," Angelo M. Codevilla, Liberty Law site

"The mass of GOP and independent voters, having come to see themselves as disadvantaged and insulted by the ruling class, have increasingly supported anti-establishment candidates to challenge it in Republican primaries. Accurately, the Republican establishment sees this as a greater threat to themselves than any Democrats could be.

In the Mississippi primary, Republican establishmentarians from around the country solicited votes from Democrats to defeat the insurgent challenge to Senator Thad Cochran. Their arguments were the same ones used by the bipartisan ruling class that has ruled America for a generation

The role of government is to generate benefits for its clients, 

and those who object are bad people.  

They paid many Democrat voters (nearly all black) so called “walking around money” for their votes, and have refused in many counties to let McDaniel aides examine the voter roles to see whether these voters were eligible to cast ballots.

The retail corruption is much less remarkable than the acquiescence therein of the establishment’s leadership – such as Karl Rove and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. This is very remarkable. Rove’s super-PAC, “Conservative Victory Project,” which played a leading role in recruiting Democrats for Cochran,  

exists explicitly to defeat insurgent Republicans everywhere. 

The Journal’s editorial page, whose editorials and featured columnists mobilized opinion against the Mississippi insurgency, had done the same throughout this and previous years’ primaries. Rove’s post election commentary glossed over the vote-buying as if it had not happened, while the Journal’s Jason Riley endorsed it cynically as “minority outreach.”

To Republican and independent voters who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, the conflict between the pretenses and the actions of such as Rove and of the Journal added insult to injury. The Journal, for example, never loses an opportunity to declare itself the mortal enemy of “crony capitalism” as it decries the direction in which America has been headed, while the word “conservative” as part of the title of Rove’s super-PAC intentionally evokes the complex of sentiments of voters angry at the ruling class’s characterization of them as, well, the litany: “racist, greedy, stupid,” etc.

Indeed, the Republican Party’s very identity, the one, sole, argument it makes to persuade voters to vote Republican rather than Democrat

is that it will take the country 

in a direction different from the one in which it has been going.

But, in the Mississippi primary, the Republican Establishment’s campaign was by and for crony capitalism, and employed the classic themes by which the ruling class has beaten down the rest of America.

To Mississippians white and black, the establishment’s message was: All this Tea Party talk about dangerous deficits and the need to cut spending is a threat to responsible officials’ capacity to bring you the jobs and federal assistance on which your prosperity depends. Orchestrating that message was Haley Barbour, former governor of Mississippi, former national chairman of the Republican Party, 

and arguably Washington’s biggest lobbyist.

Day to day operations were run by Stuart Stevens, formerly chief strategist in Mitt Romney’s 2012 national campaign, along with Henry and Austin Barbour, Haley’s nephews. There could be few better 

personifications of crony capitalism.

To the blacks, who, according to The New York Times’ provided some forty thousand votes, the message was:
Don’t be intimidated by the Tea Party. . . . Mississippi cannot and will not return to the bygone era of intimidating black Mississippians from voting. We must rise up on Tuesday and have our voices heard on who will represent Mississippi in the U.S. Senate. VOTE THAD COCHRAN.
The Times reported the effect: Roger Smith, a black Democrat who said he was being paid to organize for Mr. Cochran, said, ‘I don’t know too much about [Cochran’s opponent] McDaniel other than what McDaniel is saying:

that he’s Tea Party, he’s against Obama, he don’t like black people.” 

In short, those who oppose the way things are done in America are racists.  

You ought to hate them as they hate you.

Why do such things? Cui bono? Clearly such behavior by the Republican establishment has nothing to do with the role it claims for itself of opposition to the direction on which America has been taken in recent decades,  

never mind with anything “conservative.” 

It has everything to do with maintaining its status, 

and that of its clients, within the ruling class.

The Mississippi primary confirmed yet again that, if America is to go in a direction other than the one of which some three fourths of American disapprove, it is compelled to do so with a vehicle other than the Republican Party."


"Angelo M. Codevilla professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. He served as a U.S. Senate Staff member dealing with oversight of the intelligence services. His new book Peace Among Ourselves and With All Nations was published by Hoover Institution Press."

Image above from Liberty Law site.


Added: From NY Times article linked in Codevilla piece, NY liberal billionaire Mike Bloomberg gave as much as $500,000 to support the GOP Establishment candidate in the 2014 Mississippi GOP primary:

6/24/14, "Cochran Holds Off Tea Party Challenger in Mississippi," NY Times, Jonathan Weisman

"Also sure to inflame the right: a center-right super PAC, Defending Main Street, which contributed over $150,000 to Mr. Cochran during the runoff, received $250,000 from Michael Bloomberg in the same period, according to a source close to the former New York City mayor.

Mr. Bloomberg also contributed $250,000 to Mr Cochran’s super PAC, Mississippi Conservatives, before the primary....

It was an extraordinary end to a wild campaign, with a Republican 

standing up for the rights of black Democrats,  

and with Tea Party groups from the North,  

especially the Senate Conservatives Fund, crying foul."...


Karl Rove's "Conservative Victory Project" mentioned Dr. Codevilla's article was financed at least in part by Rove's American Crossroads PAC:

"Conservative Victory Project," 2014 donors

American Crossroads, $18,685,


"Conservative Victory Project," 2014 Expenditures:"

"Top Vendors/Recipient, American Crossroads"

"$17,160," Accountants, compliance, legal services, misc.


In his 6/26/14 Wall St. Journal article Mr. Rove says he made three donations to the 2014 Mississippi GOP primary: one to the Cochran campaign, one to Mississippi Conservatives (Cochran's PAC) via Rove's super PAC American Crossroads, and one to the Mississippi GOP primary runoff. American Crossroads PAC also donated to Rove's "Conservative Victory Project.

Rove: "(Full disclosure: I donated to Mr. Cochran's campaign and the super PAC that I help, American Crossroads, donated to Mississippi Conservatives in the primary and runoff.)"...

6/26/14, "National Tea Party Groups Take A Beating," WSJ, Karl Rove

"The six-term senator's victory was due to a strategy by his campaign...led by GOP national committeeman Henry Barbour and his uncle, the very popular former Gov. Haley Barbour."... 


Per, American Crossroads donated $210,000 to 2014 GOP primary PAC, "Mississippi Conservatives:"

("Bluegrass Cmte" above with $50,000 donation is a Mitch McConnell group).

About: "Mississippi Conservatives"

"This committee is a single-candidate super PAC in support of Thad Cochran (R)."


What it cost to win the 2014 Mississippi GOP primary:

Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran campaign spending chart,



Thursday, October 23, 2014

Rare correction made in Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg's dissent in 6-3 decision on Texas voter ID law, Veterans ID's are also allowed

The referenced dissent was in a 6-3 decision.


10/23/14, "Rare correction made in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent on Texas voter ID law," Fox News, by

"The U.S. Supreme Court made a rare correction on Wednesday to an error in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing dissent of the majority opinion [6-3] on Texas' controversial voter ID law -- a dissent that had been highly touted by critics of the law. 

The dissent attracted widespread attention, in part because Ginsburg and fellow dissenting justices were up all night Friday, into Saturday morning, writing their statement skewering the law. They came down hard on the majority opinion by the Supreme Court to allow Texas to enforce the voter ID law in the upcoming November elections. 

In her seven-page dissent, Ginsburg wrote that the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” Her dissent was widely covered in liberal-leaning media outlets....

But it turns out Ginsburg overstated her case in at least one regard. 

Aside from “small stylistic changes,” Wednesday’s correction erases a sentence from Ginsburg’s official dissent that refers to photo identification cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs not being an acceptable form of ID in Texas -- when they actually are....

As it currently stands, the Texas law allows seven types of approved ID documentation, including handgun licenses. The problem some groups had was that it did not include some types of identification -- like college IDs -- which are accepted in other states. Veterans Affairs ID's, though, are acceptable....
The dissent has no force of law, and so the correction is more a black eye than anything. While corrections made by U.S. Justices are uncommon, they do happen."...via Lucianne


10/20/14, "Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law," Richard Cohen,

"In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has permitted Texas to enforce its controversial voter ID law in the Nov. 4 election."...


A quarter of Nigeria budget is spent on security-BBC

10/23/14, "Nigeria's Boko Haram 'abducts more women and girls'," BBC

"According to people in the area, a large group of insurgents attacked the villages, rounding up women and young girls

Communication with the affected area is difficult, which is why it takes time for news of attacks to filter out. Other raids by suspected Boko Haram fighters were reported by residents in Adamawa and Borno over the weekend.

News of the new abductions came as MPs approved a $1bn (£623m) loan - requested by the president in July - to upgrade military equipment and train more units fighting the north-eastern insurgency.

Security already costs the country close to $6bn, roughly a quarter of the federal budget....

The name Boko Haram translates as "Western education is forbidden", and the militants have carried out raids on schools and colleges, seeing them as a symbol of Western culture."

map from BBC


Romney problems deeper than widely known, assured his defeat. Ground staff tiny compared to Obama's, campaign heavy says had no idea about massive disparity in ground staff until election was over. Son Tagg says Romney never wanted to run, would've been ecstatic to get out of it-Boston Globe, Dec. 2012

Obama Ohio campaign staff to voter ratio 1:50. Romney, 1: thousands, subhead, 'Organizing Strategy.' No Republican has ever won pres. without Ohio:

12/23/12, "Mitt Romney was hesitant to reveal himself," Boston Globe, Michael Kranish

"A reconstruction by the Globe of how the campaign unfolded shows that Romney’s problems went deeper than is widely understood. His campaign made a series of costly financial, strategic, and political mistakes that, in retrospect, all but assured the candidate’s defeat, given the revolutionary turnout tactics and tactical smarts of President Obama’s operation....

Rich Beeson, the Romney political director who co­authored the now-discredited Ohio memo, said that
only after the election did he realize what Obama was doing with so much manpower on the ground.
"Obama had more than 3,000 paid workers nationwide, compared with 

500 for
and hundreds of thousands of volunteers. 

Now I know.
what they were doing with all the staffs and ­offices,” Beeson said.

They were literally creating a one-to-one contact with voters,” 
something that Romney did not have the staff to match....

While candidates often try to portray themselves as reluctant, Tagg insisted his father’s stance was genuine.

He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to . . . run,” said Tagg, who worked with his mother, Ann, to persuade his father to seek the presidency. “If he could have found someone else to take his place . . . 

he would have been ecstatic to step aside...he doesn’t love the attention.”... 

Why had Obama spent so heavily during the primaries 

when he had no primary opponent?  

this was a key to Obama’s victory
We were looking at all the money they were spending in the primary and we were thinking ‘what are they spending all their money on? They’re wasting a lot of money.’ They weren’t. 

far more people on the ground,
for longer periods, and backed by better data.  

on the ground, a huge commitment of its total of 500 nationwide
But the Obama campaign had 770 staff in Florida  

out of 3,000 or so nationwide.

said Romney adviser Ron Kaufman. 

Indeed, in swing state after swing state, the Obama field team was much bigger than the Romney troops. 

Obama had 123 offices in Ohio, compared with 

Romney’s 40

Obama had 59 offices in Colorado, compared with 

Romney’s 15

accord­ing to statistics compiled by the Obama campaign.

Stevens said he expressed alarm about the Democrat’s early advantage in money and staff.
He said Obama’s decision to reject public financing for the fall campaign (a move Romney followed) worked to Obama’s advantage ­because Obama used primary funds to prepare for the general election, and it meant there was no ceiling on how much could be spent....
Ground game.. 

Obama’s field organization was too strong. In Florida, 266,000 more Hispanics voted than four years earlier. 

They told us they would do it
I didn’t think they would do it, and they did.”...


Romney pollster Neil Newhouse calculated that 209,000 more African-Americans voted this year than in 2008 in Ohio

“I don’t know how that’s possible,” Newhouse said. “If that is what the Obama campaign achieved,  
hats off to them.’’

A key difference was the depth of voter contact. Romney took comfort in polls that showed voters had been contacted equally by both campaigns. But the polls were misleading, perhaps equating a recorded robocall on the phone with a house call by a worker.

It wasn’t well understood what they were doing,” Newhouse said. “We asked the question in polls, ‘Have you been contacted by campaigns?’ Our overall contact was pretty similar. But their in-person contact was beating us by 3 to 2.”...

Organizing strategy [Community organizing strategy] 

President Obama’s strategy had very different roots. His national field director, Jeremy Bird, drew his inspiration from the time around 2001 when he witnessed, as a young Harvard Divinity student, a group of African-American students in a Roxbury church, pressing their case for school funding with members of the Boston City Council.

It was a model, in miniature, of grass-roots engagement that would shape Bird’s career in politics and attract him to Obama, who had himself been a community organizer.

Bird was confident that Obama would commit massive resources to building an organization that zeroed in on individual voters. It would be like that Roxbury church encounter, multiplied a thousand times.

“I had watched a group of young people come together; I watched them organize at the local level,” Bird said.

And Bird had learned another lesson. He lived in Massachusetts when Romney was elected governor, had studied him and voted against him, and was determined to do everything possible to prevent him from ­becoming president.

So it was that Bird and his colleagues drew up plans to ­expand the electorate into one that could reelect Obama.  

In Ohio, for example, a “barber shop and beauty salon” strategy was designed to get likely Obama supporters, particularly African-Americans, to register to vote when they went for a haircut. 

“Faith captains” were assigned to churches to encourage parishioners to turn out for Obama.  

“Condo captains” were told to know every potential Obama voter in their building. 

The goal was like nothing seen in presidential politics: 

over the course of the campaign. By Election Day, that worker would know much about the lives of those 50 voters, including whether they had made it to the polls. 

Romney’s team talked about a ratio of thousands of voters per worker.

It would prove to be a crucial difference....
Recommendations are already pouring in for the party to create 

a ground-game infrastructure 
long before a nominee is selected, 
to catch up to the Democratic advantage."...
The "Colorado Model" turns red states blue: 
7/21/2008, "The Colorado Model," Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes, "The Democrats' plan for turning red states blue."

"The Democratic surge in Colorado reflects the national trend, but it involves a great deal more. There's something unique going on in Colorado that, if copied in other states, has the potential to produce sweeping Democratic gains nationwide."...


. 12/28/2011, "The Colorado Model and The Left’s Stratagem For Turning Red States to Blue," Labor Union Report

"Although it’s being deployed in several states like Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania and others, there are still many who have never heard of the Colorado Model. What’s worse, despite all the Left’s bemoaning of the “vast right wing conspiracy,” Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or whatever enemy they can dream up, there is still nothing like the Colorado Model on the Right.

In sum, the Colorado Model is one of the Left’s most effective stratagems that was “built” to turn “red states” into “blue states” in a very short period (with the exception, perhaps, of the 2010 election cycle). When combined with the tactics of Saul Alinsky and his disciples, the Colorado Model is akin to a Soviet platoon armed with AK-47s mowing down a militia armed with slingshots.
According to a 2008 expose in the Weekly Standard, in 2004 and 2006 “routed Republicans, capturing the governorship, both houses of the state legislature, a U.S. Senate seat, and two U.S. House seats.

. Conceived by four rich liberals, the Colorado Model is a fairly simple strategy:
Eric O’Keefe, chairman of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, says there are seven “capacities” that are required to drive a successful political strategy and keep it on offense: [1] the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, [2] to pursue investigations, [3] to mobilize for elections, [4] to fight media bias, [5] to pursue strategic litigation, [6] to train new leaders, and [7] to sustain a presence in the new media. Colorado liberals have now created institutions that possess all seven capacities. By working together, they generate political noise and attract press coverage. Explains Caldara, “Build an echo chamber and the media laps it up.”
Unfortunately, the Right still doesn’t seem to embrace or, more importantly, understand the Colorado Model. What’s worse, because the Colorado Model requires cooperation, it is unlikely the Right will ever be successful in creating a model similar to that which the Left is deploying across the country.
Unlike Barack Obama’s OFA, which coordinates with the institutional Left, the Moveon.orgs of the world, hundreds of 527s, think tanks, unions, and the like,

the Right largely consists of groups who work disparately, in disagreement with, and, often, openly fighting with one another. On the Right, we have the Keystone Cops facing the Red Army on the Left.
 As opposed to disarray on the Right, the Left is largely unified in their vision, their messaging, and their tactics. As such, the Colorado Model is a prime example of the Left putting their ideas into action and, in so doing, turning America from a country of individuals into a country of collectivists.
Again, from 2008:

The Democratic surge in Colorado reflects the national trend, but it involves a great deal more. There’s something unique going on in Colorado that, if copied in other states, has the potential to produce sweeping Democratic gains nationwide. That something is the “Colorado Model,” and it’s certain to be a major topic of discussion when Democrats convene in Denver in the last week of August for their national convention.
While the Colorado Model isn’t a secret, it hasn’t drawn much national attention either. Democrats, for now anyway, seem wary of touting it. One reason for their reticence is that it depends partly on wealthy liberals’ spending tons of money not only on “independent expenditures” to attack Republican office-seekers but also to create a vast infrastructure of liberal organizations that produces an anti-Republican, anti-conservative echo chamber in politics and the media.
Colorado is where this model is being tested and refined. And Republicans, even more than Democrats, say that it’s working impressively. (For Republicans, it offers an excuse for their tailspin.) Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a conservative think tank based in Denver, says Republicans around the country should be alarmed by the success of the Colorado Model. “Watch out,” he says, “it’s coming to a state near you.”
On the Right, after nearly three years of being engaged in the battle to save America from tax and spend collectivists, there is still a large knowledge vacuum in the nature of the battle, the groups and strategies involved, as well as the tactics used. America is nearing the end of a century-old ideological war waged by Marxists of varying degree—an ideological war that will determine the future of America. Until such time as the Right understands that fact and begins to work together, any “victories” at the ballot box will be fleeting and, in the long run, futile."