I'm going to be a concern troll now. Deal with it.

[pnwmom]

Remember early in the day on Election Day 2004? Exit polls showed Kerry winning by a landslide -- 7 points separated him and Bush. But those 7 points completely disappeared by the end of the day, and the final exit polls were "adjusted" to accord with the "actual" voting results.

We can't take anything for granted now. Go to BarackObama.com and find out where you can volunteer this weekend.

Forget all the good news we've been hearing lately. We need to work as hard as if we were 7 points behind.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. "All hands on deck!" We are working hard.

just finished calling tonight.

[Zynx]

2. Yeah, but the pre-election polls almost uniformly had Kerry losing.

Early exit polls have never been reliable. This has been shown time and time again. Remember the primaries as well?

[babylonsister]

6. Hmm. I don't remember that at all. I think everyone was surprised

he {ahem} 'lost'.

[WeDidIt]

25. The poll averages had about a two point difference in the last weekend

which is how the election turned out.

Electoral Vote Dot Com had Kerry barely ahead with Florida in the Barely DKerry category, but Ohio in the Weak Bush category.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct31.html

By the day before the election, Electoral-vote.com had it Kerry - 262, Bush - 261, Ties 15.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Nov02.html

[babylonsister]

32. Yes, doesn't sound like a uniform Kerry loss. I also remember

the numbers until late at night. I went to bed and he was winning, I woke up and he had lost.
Granted, I was a bit fuzzy prior to bed, but still...

[Zynx]

61. I remember the numbers too. Things didn't look good after 8:30 CST.

[pnwmom]

33. The exit polls up till 5 p.m. had Kerry clearly winning.

There was every reason to believe that they were reliable. The only reason they were "adjusted" was that data was added to them as the ballots were "counted." In other words, the pollsters assumed that the ballot counting was accurate and that the exit poll results were false. So they changed the exit polls to accord with the election results as they came in. But a discrepancy on this scale this had never occurred in the history of election polling. NEVER. In fact, when we monitor elections in other countries, we assume that such discrepancies prove election fraud.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t28796.html

[Shakespeare]

37. Exactly. Traditionally, exit polls are extremely accurate.

All of a sudden, since 2000, the results don't match up (gee, wonder why), so they have to be "adjusted."

That ought to freak the hell out of everybody.

[WeDidIt]

48. Not really

As the results in the targeted precincts came in, the exit poll results were weighted based upon the actuals to predict the entire state.

It happens in every election and the same methodologies were utilized during the primaries this year.

[Shakespeare]

50. You're missing the point. Exit polls have not traditionally been adjusted in that way.

It was our first hint that something was very, very wrong with the vote count in 2004.

[WeDidIt]

79. Actually, they are always adjusted that way. n/t

[Shakespeare]

86. Wanna back that up with proof? n/t

[babylonsister]

52. Per CNN just now, exit polls had Kerry winning. Go figure. nt

[KansasVoter]

3. I agree! And am working Sat, Mon, Tue.........

But exit polls are much different than the polls we see now. But I agree not to assume anything. But it is looking good right now.

[ROh70]

4. You should read that thread about nagging.

[Bucky]

16. Concerned DUers don't bother me. It's those attacking posters for being concerned who suck.

[ROh70]

22. DU posters who attack DU posters who critique concerned DU posters bother me.

[Bucky]

28. .

Good grief

(you win ;))

[BlooInBloo]

5. We're doomed.

[KansasVoter]

9. Just curious, when are you working Mr. Positive?

[BlooInBloo]

17. Aren't you the guy who sends me hate PMs?

EDIT: mail -> PMs.

[KansasVoter]

41. Just letting know when you are being an ass. You can't tell!

[BlooInBloo]

51. Hi stalker.

[Bucky]

21. I want to know what you mean by "working Mr Positive."

Your post is offensive to those of us who practice "self love."

[BlooInBloo]

29. I have no idea what he's talking about. Nice to have a stalker tho! lololol!

[pnwmom]

36. He means, when are you volunteering? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

39. Ah - thanks!

[Shakespeare]

12. Were you awake in 2000? 2004?

Some of us are feeling just a little bit gun-shy. If you can't understand that, and understand WHY, you're dense or simply haven't been paying attention.

We cannot, cannot, cannot be complacent.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansasVoter]

18. When are you not an ass?

[Shakespeare]

30. Pretty much never.

[Shakespeare]

23. I'm sick of people who are legitimately concerned being shouted down and ridiculed here.

I've been here at DU since day one (my original nick was Not_over_it).

I've covered politics as a reporter.

I live and breathe this stuff, and I'm STILL worried sick about it. I'm not enslaved to it, I'm just very, VERY wary of the myriad forms of theft that can occur. We have to succeed beyond the margin of error to be safe, and THAT is why so many of us are worried.

titty baby? No, not even.

[pnwmom]

40. I'm with you, Shakespeare. Totally.

If we pull this off, I will be almost unimaginably happy. What a relief after these 8 years.

But it's much too early still to sit on our laurels.

[Malidictus Maximus]

73. It's not *WILL* they try to steal it,

it is HOW, and will we catch them.

We are dealing with True Believers here. In their minds they are doing God's work, and thus are justified in doing whatever it takes to prevent our 'godless, Muslin, communist, etc candidate from taking over and destroying this country with the aid of his baby skewering hordes aching to surrender to Islam. There are many, many completely whacked out fundie, rapture awaiting people in positions of possible influence on various parts of the polling process. Many of them are utterly convinced that we have registered tens of thousands people who should not be voting, so they feel quite justified both through ideology and operationally.

It is not being paranoid to Watch. Very. Closely.

An ounce of paranoia is worth a pound of stolen ballots.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Your concern is wholly warranted...

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t28796.html

[whitewomenforobama]

8. Agreed

and I'm on it. Volunteering Saturday, Sunday, and part of Tuesday.

[pnwmom]

11. Me, too! Have fun! n/t

[whitewomenforobama]

27. It'll be my first phonebanking experience.

Any advice?

[pnwmom]

42. It will be my first for this campaign. But my first phone banking experience

was for a school levy election. They gave me a written script, and I had dragged my whole family along with me -- my husband and three kids.

This is how easy it was. My husband, myself, and our twelve year old daughter sat there, reading our script, just reminding people to vote. Everyone thanked us, everyone was nice. After about 15 minutes of this, my shy seven year old son asked if HE could do it, too. So he did! For two hours he called people, just like us. And they were super-nice to him, and to my daughter.

My youngest played on the floor. But he was only 3, and that DID seem a bit young!

So my advice is -- don't worry. You'll be surprised how fast the time goes.

[graywarrior]

10. We all wanted Kerry because he wasn't Bush

We all want Obama because he's Obama. There's a huge difference. One word: Inspiration.

[Mass]

20. Sorry, I wanted Kerry because he was Kerry. Feel free about your opinion, but do not attribute it to

others, and work to get people to vote, whether they do not want McCain or because they want Obama.

[politicasista]

31. Thank you. As a first time voter then,

I did too. I wanted Kerry because of Kerry. And I want Obama because of Obama. No comparison between the two. And no need to knock one to praise the other.

[sandnsea]

24. If I could plunk someone right into the White House

it would be John Kerry over Obama - every single time.

[politicasista]

34. I do not understand why people here feel the need to bash Kerry to praise Obama

Especially bring up revisionist history.

[pnwmom]

57. Or bash Clinton or Gore to praise Obama, etc., etc.

Neither do I.

[politicasista]

59. Exactly

Obama is his own man. Kerry is his own man. Gore is his own man. As a woman, Hillary is in her own way.

I don't know how all that it's supposed to help Obama. :shrug:

[graywarrior]

64. Hey, give it a fucking rest

Jesus H fucking christ I am so sick of you people jumping down everyones fucking throats every time Kerry's name is brought up in a less light than you want. I voted for him gladly. I met him and marched with him at the first Earth Day. I admired him and still do. I just happen to think Obama is a better candidate. Don't like it? Tough shit.

[politicasista]

65. LOL! I am a hardcore Obama supporter.

And to each his own.

No need for a mini-tirade to prove a point. I didn't have the opportunity to volunteer like you did, but I would have loved to do so. This year, I have donated to Obama and am impressed by his amazing candidacy and campaign.

I love Obama is many ways too, but I don't feel the need to knock anyone else just to promote him. And as you said, there are people in the real world that actually liked, and still like and were proud to vote for Kerry.

There is nothing wrong with speaking up for Gore and Kerry anytime their name is brought up in nasty way to praise Obama. Kerry has done for Obama what no one did for him in 2004. Same with Gore on the campaign trail today.

I am for following Obama's example, standing for unity and being civil. What's wrong with that?

I'm out. Sheesh!


:hi:

[Mass]

81. It is NOT what you said in your post. You said that people did not vote FOR Kerry.

Give it a rest yourself. I voted FOR Kerry. You may have voted AGAINST Bush, but do not make your case a generality.

[graywarrior]

88. Semantics.

I will not argue the point. I voted for Kerry I. like Kerry. I have always always always defended him at this forum.

Done. Over and out. Period. EOM.

GOBAMA!

[jonnyblitz]

54. who is "we"? you might want to speak for yourself here.

I barely can stand Obama and will vote for him only because he is the DEM. I would pick Kerry over Obama any day and I am not a huge fan of Kerry either.

[bdamomma]

63. the circumstances have changed radically now

in the country in this present time compared to 2004, the country is unraveling right before our eyes, and people have had enough with the bush neocon doctrine.

[politicasista]

66. Thank you. Good point n/t

[Thrill]

13. You simply can't compare Obama's support to Kerry's

And Pre Election Polls didn't have Kerry winning by the margins Obama is.

[pnwmom]

55. Pre-election polls didn't, but that's probably because most of them --

being weighted AGAINST new voters -- favored Republicans. It is likely that Kerry's support was always higher than most of those polls showed.

And, historically speaking, exit polls have always been the most accurate of all polls. Nothing like 2004 had ever occurred before.

[foo_bar]

75. historically speaking?

One of the odd bits of received wisdom I keep hearing about the exit poll controversy is that up until this year, the exit polls were "always right." If so then this year's errors seem "implausible," and wild conspiracy theories of a widespread fraud in the count somehow seem more credible.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html

Shy Tory Factor is a name given by British Opinion polling companies to a phenomenon observed in the 1990s whereby the share of the vote won by the Conservative Party in elections was substantially higher than the proportion of people in opinion polls who said they would vote for the party. The Conservative Party is often referred to by its previous name 'Tory'.

In the 1992 general election, the final opinion polls gave the Conservatives between 38% and 39% of the vote, about 1% behind Labour. In the final results, the Conservatives had a lead of 7.6% over Labour. As a result of this failure to 'predict' the result, the Market Research Society held an inquiry into the reasons why the polls had been so much at variance with actual public opinion. The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error in the party lead could be explained by differential refusals to be interviewed by Conservative voters; it cited as evidence for this factor the fact that exit polls on election day also underestimated the Conservative lead, when they could not be affected by sampling error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor

I learned early in my Washington Post career that exit polls were useful but imperfect mirrors of the electorate. On election night in 1988, we relied on the ABC News exit poll to characterize how demographic subgroups and political constituencies had voted. One problem: The exit poll found the race to be a dead heat, even though Democrat Michael Dukakis lost the popular vote by seven percentage points to Dubya's father. (The dirty little secret, known to pollsters, is that discrepancies in the overall horse race don't affect the subgroup analyses. Whether Dukakis got 46 percent or 50 percent didn't change the fact that nine of 10 blacks voted for him, while a majority of all men didn't. The exit poll may have under- or over-sampled either group, producing an incorrect national total, but the within-group voting patterns remain accurate.) <...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html

But maybe the vote is rigged in the UK, despite being low-tech paper. The main problem with the (leaked) midday exit polls you allude to, aside from being polls and not divining rods, is that the voting booths are still open when they're leaked, so not only can you influence the outcome by showing one candidate behind before the deal is done (which is why Carter and the Carter Center don't share this "most accurate of all polls" belief when it monitors foreign elections*), but even if the midday results were kept in a secret vault they wouldn't be more accurate than polls that actually sampled 3pm-8pm voters, who may or may not vote differently as a group (whether or not the opposition wants to stop the election halfway through and declare victory**).

* Since 2000, Carter Center delegations have overseen local and national elections in Peru, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Guyana, East Timor, Zambia, Sierra Leone, China, Kenya, Mozambique, Guatemala, Indonesia, Congo, and Ethiopia. In most of those cases, the Center opposed the use of independent exit polls to verify whether its assessments of the elections' integrity were accurate.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7314

**The recall's proponents sponsored an exit poll, supervised by Penn, Schoen & Berland, an American firm whose clients have included Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg. Sometime before the polls closed on Aug. 15, Penn, Schoen reported that 59 percent of Venezuelan voters had said yes to throwing the president out of office.

A few hours later, the official count, by an election commission under Mr. Chávez's control, declared him the winner, with 58 percent of the total. Both the Organization of American States and the Carter Center, the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by Jimmy Carter, said that their observers had seen no irregularities at the polls. In response to the exit poll, they called for a random audit at selected polling stations and again found nothing suspicious.

Mr. Schoen acknowledged in an interview that the poll's field workers were recruited by a group that helped organize the recall, but he said the volunteers had been trained to conduct the poll professionally, and that his firm would have no reason to put its reputation at risk by participating in a fraudulent poll. The recall's supporters continue to believe the election was stolen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/weekinreview/17plis.html

According to co-director Maria Corina Machado, Súmate is an objective non-partisan civil association. When asked why Súmate has worked exclusively with the Venezuelan opposition since its inception in 2002, Machado said that their overtures to the government were regularly rebuffed. Machado neglected to mention that one of the reasons the government may have been hesitant to work with her group is because she was a participant in the 2002 coup that briefly overthrew Chávez—she signed the infamous decree of dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona. She is currently being investigated for treason, for having received funds from a foreign government (the U.S.) earmarked for ousting the Chavez government.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/644 "Venezuela’s Opposition Resorts to Phony Exit Polls"

[Bucky]

14. Kerry wasn't landsliding. He was a few points behind in the polls over the weekend.

The fundies busted ass on a very quiet GOTV campaign that most pollsters simply missed.

Work like hell, but be assured that we're beyond the margin of "cheat" this time.

[pnwmom]

44. Exit polls put him as much ahead as Obama appears to be now.

Before then, he and Bush took turns being ahead.

There is every reason, based on all the evidence, to believe that the 2004 election was subject to massive fraud, just as the 2000 election.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trajan]

77. Im kinda not enjoying the 'troll' references ...

Was it really necessary ?

You are speaking to a long time DUer with considerable credibility ....

I have no problem with the disagreements, but I am finding that I utterly resent the unnecessary rudeness being expressed over mere differences of opinion ....

Really ... the schoolyard namecalling is adolescent ....

[mtnester]

80. And against the rules

calling another member a troll is a DU rule violation....I see a time limit on that post

[sandnsea]

19. Oregon is 150,000 votes behind

Yes. We all need to get out and volunteer this week-end.

[pnwmom]

45. When you say behind, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean that

fewer Democrats have voted so far, or that fewer people have voted in general -- or something else?

Whatever -- it's worrisome.

[sandnsea]

49. 150,000 less than this day in 2004

We are hoping it's a combination of the ballot measures and the Merkley campaign. A lot of people are complaining about having to slog through those measures. The scary part is so many people who have voted - don't remember if they voted for Merkley or not. I'm sure Obama will be fine, I just wish we had more people voting.

[pnwmom]

56. They don't remember who they voted for? That does sound unnerving.

Good luck!

[Mass]

26. Because the exit polls are bull. They do not take into account

early voting and they are raw data, often meaningless, particularly for the early results.

But you are right. We need to work as if we were 7 points behind. No disagreement from me.

[pnwmom]

46. Exit polls are historically the most accurate of all polls. The discrepancies

that occurred in 2004 had never occurred in the history of political polling, and there has never been a rational explanation for them.

[casus belli]

35. This might make you feel better...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/#data

If you look at the column just off to the right - that's where Kerry vs Bush was this time four years ago. It's an entirely different ballgame this time around.

:hug:

[pnwmom]

47. Those polls were criticized at the time for being too heavily weighted

for Republicans and overlooking new voters -- which is why Gallup designed their new "expanded likely voters" model.

I think Kerry won the election, and by a healthy margin -- and that the election was taken by fraud. So I won't feel better till this is all over.

[BlueManDude]

38. Kerry was never favored to win in 2004. I sure as shit didn't think he'd win.

No one did.

[babylonsister]

53. I did, totally. And lots of people on DU did. nt

[pnwmom]

58. I did, too. The "likely voter" model clearly favored Republicans, yet

Kerry and Bush were in a horse-race -- leading me to believe that Kerry was actually significantly ahead. And then, on election day, Kerry surged -- according to exit polls, traditionally the most accurate.

And then it all went up in smoke.

[babylonsister]

60. Thanks for that confirmation. I was devastated.

I remember getting sympathy calls the next day.

[pnwmom]

67. Did you hear about the deposition in Ohio on Monday? From the Rethug

who routed all the Ohio election results through his server in Tennessee?

A judge today ordered him to comply and to show himself for the deposition. It could be very interesting.

[BlueManDude]

90. My recollactions are different about the feeling leading up to 04 election.

It was pretty clear on election night Kerry wasn't flipping any states and he was never ahead in OH.

May be it's just me but I had no expectaions going into that election.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

43. I totally remember it. I went to bed listening to the pundits giving it to Kerry, and in the

morning...... I still can't say it - too painful. The election was stolen.

And don't worry about being a "concern troll". This has been nagging at me, & if they steal it again...

[I LIKE IKE 61]

69. My thoughts.

In 2004 I was thinking it was going to be close. I new Kerry was surging in the final weekend. Then I saw the humbled sad look on the faces of George W Bush and friends/family as he voted in Texas. That gave me false hope. This time around I think it will be a win for the Dem side. This talk of McCain's is getting me a bit nervous. He really thinks he can win. That has me scratching my head. They REALLY think they can win!!!

[Trajan]

62. While I agree that we should NOT take anything for granted ...

I think we need to look beyond the crazy polls ...

I am going to recommend we look at the rally populations ....

Even as someone who has taken heat for defending the 'concerned ones', these huge differentials in rally attendance numbers talks very loudly to me .... It says "We are motivated to come out here in huge numbers", and "We are all ages and ethnicities" ...

The Republicans are going to get CREAMED this cycle ...

Looking at the closing polls (not the exit polls) - The final average, according to RCP, was very close to the actual results ...

RCP Average FINAL BUSH > 50.0% KERRY > 48.5% NADER > 1.0% DIFFERENCE Bush +1.5%

2004 Election ACTUAL BUSH > 50.7% KERRY > 48.3% NADER > 0.38% DIFFERENCE Bush +2.4%

So the deviation between the average polls to the actual vote was 0.9%

Ignoring any other dynamics: The actual voting result was pretty damned close to the average of the polls of the last week prior to voting.

Yes .. Take NOTHING for granted .... But also take heart: Allow yourself to believe, because it is a freight train building an awesome head of steam ...

I'm a believer ...


Source:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Election_results

[HughMoran]

68. IS THIS THE LANDSLIDE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?? --->

C'mon. :eyes:

[AZBlue]

70. I don't think a single person should let up one bit until the polls close Tuesday!

No matter what the polls say, even if Obama's way ahead, the bigger the win, the bigger the "mandate" and the bigger the embarassment for the GOP!

GOTV!

[Drunken Irishman]

71. A lot of revisionist history here.

Firstly, the exit polls that were leaked came around 3:00 EST, which meant all those polls were still going to be open for HOURS.

Secondly, even exit polls have a MOE. Kerry never had a commanding lead in the battle ground states. They were all within a few points and could have moved at any moment. Since those exit polls were leaked early in the day, it isn't a surprise they were off, since the polls remained open for quite a few hours.

[CreekDog]

72. you are absolutely right

i've signed up for phonebanking in my city tomorrow and going to Reno for Sunday through Tuesday to help good old Nevada turn blue.

[4lbs]

74. Zogby, Rasmussen, Gallup, and most other polls had Kerry behind Bush right before Election Day.

Right now, Obama is ahead of McCain in nearly every poll.

[DCBob]

78. Yes. this year is much much different.

The exit polls on election day in 2004 were off for some reason but that has nothing to do with polls showing Obama ahead now. Obama is in a very commanding position -- not a lock but very likely a big win coming on Tuesday. Cheers!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Exit Polls Aren't The Same As Regular Polls. Regular Polls All Had Kerry Losing.

Please don't compare the two as if equal.

Comparing 2004 to 2008 is apples and oranges. Obama's position outdoes Kerry's position 10 fold from a confidence perspective.

We need to gotv for sure, but using the exit poll lead evaporation as comparison for our current confidence is completely inaccurate and needlessly worrisome.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

89. "Exit Polls Aren't The Same As Regular Polls."

You're right -- they're historically much more reliable:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t28796.html

[NorthCarolina]

83. Yeah, the lead evaporated after the vote tabulation computer in OH was switched to the RNC Servers

for a couple hours after midnight.

[DainBramaged]

84. I'm going to hide this thread, deal with it

[ChiciB1]

85. I DON'T Like Posting This... AT ALL! But For Me It Started Yesterday...

First I got hiccups for NO REASON, later in the date head-ache, upset stomach with running to the toilet as a side jaunt (you know) and this morning malaise, or DEPRESSION!!

No I DON'T have the flu, no fever, runny nose etc. But I feel so out of it, my ears are ringing! I've been working with the campaign doing all the usual things you do, almost non-stop but got up this AM made coffee and couldn't drink it! Took some aspirin for my head, then though perhaps Alka Seltzer Cold Plus... just made me sleepy and I went back to bed and feel asleep. Last night's insomnia caught up with me!

I'll be working the polls on Nov. 4 from 1:00 to 7:00 PM so won't be seeing early returns. I'm not sure I'm going to make it. I have so little TRUST left in me, even though I KNOW some of what the Obama campaign has in store if things so south!

TELL ME WHY MSM is just NOW starting to RAMP up a DEWEY thing?? I know I need to function, have a family to feed and animals to care for, but feel crappy and distracted and am waiting to break out in HIVES!

PLUS, here's the weird thing... I never supported Obama in the beginning, nor Hillary and even said I was going to do a write in, PROTEST MY VOTE, throw it away. How did I GET HERE?? Can't keep taking meds to calm me, I need to function.... FOUR LONG LONG DAYS, and already my nerves are SHOT!!

And I live in Florida, the sun is shining and the weather is GREAT! Had a cool front come in and I opened my windows for the fresh air!

Anyone else feeling this way???

[stevenleser]

87. Nah, you arent being a concern troll...

A real Democrat having some real concerns is not a concern troll. Here is the definition according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.<13>

For example, in 2006 Tad Furtado, a top staffer for then-Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH." "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.<14>

A recently declassified World War II manual on sabotage recommends such techniques to derail any effective action: "Advocate 'caution.' Be 'reasonable' and urge your fellow-conferees to be 'reasonable' and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on... Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon." <15>

Although the term "concern troll" originated in discussions of online behavior, it now sees increasing use to describe similar behaviors that take place offline.

For example, James Wolcott in Vanity Fair<16> accused a conservative New York Daily News columnist of "concern troll" behavior in his efforts to downplay the Mark Foley scandal. Wolcott links what he calls concern trolls to Saul Alinsky's "Do-Nothings," giving a long quote from Alinsky on the Do-Nothing's method and effects:

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means.'
In a more recent example, The Hill published an op-ed piece titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls'." Again, the concern trolls in question were not Internet participants; they were Republicans offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient."<17>