“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

funny thing is that many on the far-right regard Teddy as having been a commie pinko lib...

Joe K: what's you preferred source for 2008 party ID numbers? Is CNN okay? Or do you have another source?

Sooo...

final turn?

spycake - thanks. Just what I was looking for. Give me a few minutes.

final turn?

That is often where Teddy slips up.

Please explain how there could be a net shift of 2008 independents toward Dems, and a net shift of 2008 Republicans toward independents, with only a net +1 increase for the Dems in the Dem/GOP party ID split.

1: Indies move to Dems
2: Repubs move to Indies
3: Only a +1 increase for dems

There are many ways to answer this
such as:

1: Indies move to Dems (+0.5)
2: Repubs move to Indies (+0.5)

effect is net +1 for Dems

or:

1: Indies move to Dems (+1)
2: Repubs move to Indies (+1)
3: Dems move to Repubs (-1)

effect is net 1 for Dems

you also have people dying, people turning 18, etc etc etc.

You have the patience of Jude to read the posts, let alone respond.

final turn?

And most curiously, a point at which many in both parties are convinced they enjoy a small but significant lead. Someone is going to be most surprised by the outcome.

Jude? Wasn't it Job?

And most curiously, a point at which many in both parties are convinced they enjoy a small but significant lead. Someone is going to be most surprised by the outcome.

Partisans on both sides might believe that, but the 'pros' -- however worthless you might want to consider them -- seem to be in agreement on who has the lead.

I asked him what America should do to counter terrorists. His response: "First, we have to understand them."

I agree. So would Sun Tzu. If you want to destroy your enemy, it is very useful to first understand him. It is much easier fighting a known quantity than an unknown quantity.

Jude? Wasn't it Job?

I dunno, that "nah, nah nah, NAH nah nah nah" fadeout takes forever.

Someone should rewrite the song, call it "Hey Job", and have it by about the guy from arrested development. Its got to be easy to rhyme with Segway.

Joe K. -

Let's do this with a hypothetical population of 1000 voters.

In 2008, the election was 53-46-1 (All numbers will be listed D-R-Ind/Other).

The party breakdown was 39/32/29 - so lets call it 390 Dems, 320 Reps, 290 Ind/Other.
The breakdown in the latest CNN poll (Sept 28-30; this is what we'll call "2012" below) is 37-29-34.

The 39% Dems went 89-10-1 in 2008 - so 347-39-4 from our pop. of 1000.
The 37% Dems are 93-6-1 in 2012 - 344-22-4

The 32% Reps went 9-90-1 in 2008 - 29-288-3
The 29% Reps are 4-96-0 in 2012 - 12-278-0 (we're rounding here on the ind/other)

The 29% Ind went 52-44-4 in 2008 - 151-128-11
The 34% Ind are 41-49-10 in 2012 - 139-167-34

Let's tally it up for 2012:

Dems: 344+12+139 = 495 or 49.5% - rounds to 50%
Reps: 22+278+167 = 467 or 46.7% - rounds to 47%

That's the math. Happy now?

It also depends, a lot, on how things go the next four years if Obama wins. If the economy is humming along and no major wars or terrorist attacks or scandals have hit during a second Obama adminsistration, I'd say the Democrat in 2016 will do okay. If any of those things isn't true, they'll probably get shellacked.

Maybe so, but the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history sure didn't seem to hurt Bush after 2001.

------------------------------------------

Historically, voters keep the incumbent during wartime and vote against the incumbent during weak economic times. If Obama wins, he'll be bucking history rather than being the latest in an electoral trend.

It's not always that cut and dried. The Democrats got thrown out in the middle of the Korean War, LBJ didn't even try to run for re-election after the Tet Offensive, and Kerry was one state away from beating Bush in 2004.

Partisans on both sides might believe that, but the 'pros' -- however worthless you might want to consider them -- seem to be in agreement on who has the lead.

Oh I concur - it's just interesting to watch the counter narrative developed by the party fed to and then repeated by the partisans who provide all of the volunteer capital and a non-trivial part of the financial capital, as it were. They cannot be allowed to disengage.

Jude? Wasn't it Job?

Indeed it was.

That's the math. Happy now?

Wow, Paul Ryan said it would take a long time to explain.

Someone should rewrite the song, call it "Hey Job", and have it by about the guy from arrested development. Its got to be easy to rhyme with Segway.

It was G.O.B. (pronounced like the biblical Job).
George Oscar Bluth Jr.

/AD fan

Wow, Paul Ryan said it would take a long time to explain.

Perhaps Paul has met Joe.

The Democrats got thrown out in the middle of the Korean War

Well, the actual incumbent wasn't running, and the guy the Republicans were running was in the top 10 of all time American War leaders/heroes (possibly top 3 with George Washington and Unconditional Surrender Grant)

Someone should rewrite the song, call it "Hey Job", and have it by about the guy from arrested development. Its got to be easy to rhyme with Segway.

It was G.O.B. (pronounced like the biblical Job).
George Oscar Bluth Jr.

/AD fan

Like the guy in the $6000 suit is going to take song writing advice from the guy who can't even spell his name right? C'MON!

It is a new month ;) and I am still hoping for Joe's explanation for the D/R numbers the pollsters keep getting. Well that and more clarification (I even gave examples) on who is and who is not a freeloader (Not from Joe I admit).

Joe K, thanks for the new month thread.

LBJ didn't even try to run for re-election after the Tet Offensive

and in 1864 detailed news of the Cold Harbor fiasco was allegedly deliberately suppressed until after the election- while the nearly simultaneous Atlanta campaign was hyped to the heavens...

historical counterfactual- if there were video/movie cameras in 1864- and the battle of Cold Harbor and aftermath was BROADCAST- Lincoln loses to McClellan- more serious counterfactual- if Northern Papers ran detailed pictorials of the Cold Harbor battle and aftermath- Lincoln loses.

Wartime elections are hard to generalize about, because there haven't been that many of them. 1864, 1944, 1952, 1968, 1972, 2004, and 2008, as mentioned, would qualify, and you've got incumbent parties losing three of the seven, twice certainly because disaffection with a long and purposeless war was a factor (1968 and 2008); and Ike as well made "I will go to Korea" a campaign talking point, largely because voters suspected that nobody had a good idea why we were in that war anymore either, and he'd be a good leader to sort it all out. Nixon had greatly reduced American troop levels in Vietnam, pulling the teeth of the McGovernite opposition to the war. That leaves 1864 and 1944, and one hopes to hell we never have to generalize from either experience again …

The Democrats got thrown out in the middle of the Korean War

Well, the actual incumbent wasn't running, and the guy the Republicans were running was in the top 10 of all time American War leaders/heroes (possibly top 3 with George Washington and Unconditional Surrender Grant)

If the actual incumbent with his 29% approval rating had been running, the result wouldn't have been any better. And if the Korean War had been ended with a clear cut victory instead of having a protracted stalemate all during the election campaign, the chances are that Eisenhower wouldn't have even bothered to run, since "I will go to Korea" was his major campaign theme.

The point is that to say that "voters keep the incumbent during wartime" is a bit of an oversimplification. At the very least, you have to distinguish "popular wars that look like they're going well" from "stalemates whose rationale gets harder and harder to explain with each passing day".

EDIT: coke to Bob

Interesting counterfactual, Sycophant. Some historians argue (Charles Bracelen Flood, most recently, in a book called Grant's Final Victory) that the aftermath of Cold Harbor, where Grant continued to advance on Richmond after staggering losses, actually improved Union morale at the front. I guess it would depend on how it was spun back home; but communications weren't primitive in 1864, and censorship was not as good; people learned a lot about the battle anyway. The Union Army had justified confidence in Grant, and they voted for Lincoln. Now, if Grant had retreated after Cold Harbor, he might well have cost Lincoln the election; but then he wouldn't have been Grant. But people had become inured to death; as long as it seemed to lead to progress strategically, they ultimately accepted it. (Or again, many historians would argue; there are dissenters, I'm sure.)

histpriacl counterfactual- if there were video/movie cameras in 1864- and the battle of Cold Harbor and aftermath was BROADCAST- Lincoln loses to McClellan-

I am going to take issue with this one - for the same reason Bush won with video in 2004, not to mention Grant ordered it, not Lincoln, and the South was still losing badly regardless of the outcome, and even more so by the time the election rolled around. Video would have shown the tragedy of Cold Harbor, but also the impossible situation the COnfederacy was in. Despite McLellan's personal disaffection for the Peace Democrat platform, it would have sunk him regardless.

1864, 1944, 1952, 1968, 1972, 2004, and 2008,

Shouldn't 1914 and 1940 count, based on how much the early goings of WWI and WWII would have dominated US headlines? Both of those elections saw the incumbent win.

1864, 1944, 1952, 1968, 1972, 2004, and 2008, as mentioned, would qualify, and you've got incumbent parties losing three of the seven

And in those three, the party was in fact nominating a different guy. I'm sure that "trust the person who's been running the war to keep running it" is a much more persuasive pitch than "trust a different person from the same party to run the war."

But are we arguing that this is a war election? It clearly isn't. I don't think it will be a foreign policy election at all, which is a shame from my point of view because I think it'd help Obama if it were, but I don't think it will be.

that the aftermath of Cold Harbor, where Grant continued to advance on Richmond after staggering losses, actually improved Union morale at the front

Before Grant the Union tendency- especially in that theatre- was to pull back after getting its nose bloodied- and Cold Harbor was a bit worse than a bloody nose- Grant had run straight into a clothesline- some of his predecessors (McClellan, Hooker etc etc) likely would not have just broken off the offensive, they would have called for a general retreat- Grant didn't, he hit a wall, and he dug in come hell or high water- he ordered Meade to stay in contact with Lee, no matter what no matter where Lee went, or tried to do- and Meade did that- and that essentially suffocated Lee, there was nothing he could do.

Plus until Grant there was no progress in that Theatre- even after a major victory at Gettysburg that state of the war seemed unchanged- the immediate aftermath was that the "lines" re-set to where they wee before Lee's offensive- except there really were no lines, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac would sporadically engage and disengage- when Grant came in- they engaged- and stayed that way- Lee would try to disengage, pull back, regroup, try something- Grant wouldn't let him- the result was that Lee was visibly being ratcheted back. Grant was taking losses, but you could see the lines on the maps moving and see that the Union was WINNING- and winning meant that an end was in sight- when a war is stalemate it's very easy to see it going on endlessly - so yes if you are a soldier you can the death toll rising- but you cold also see an END. For the Confederate soldier the contra was true- their death toll up to, and they could see an end- but that end involved them losing-

and directly contrary to Southern "lost cause" mythology- when the southerners actually saw that it was a lost cause- that they were losing- recruitment plummeted and desertions began- not enough to cause a sudden and systemic collapse, but enough to make the war situation completely hopeless.

And yet, despite higher unemployment, lower household income, higher underemployment, etc., etc., you keep claiming that people are "better off" now because of things like the stock market indices. Very strange.

If you think the rallying cry for the GOP should be "Taking our country back to 2008!", I'd be okay with that.

Let's tally it up for 2012:

Dems: 344+12+139 = 495 or 49.5% - rounds to 50%
Reps: 22+278+167 = 467 or 46.7% - rounds to 47%

That's the math. Happy now?

I appreciate that rundown, but it was just a restatement of the polls' underlying math. I never claimed the polls' math was bad; I claimed Johnny Sycophant's math was bad.

Johnny and others have claimed there's been a sizable shift of 2008 independents to the Dems, and a sizable shift of 2008 GOP to the independents, all of which netted only a +1 gain for the Dems. Additionally, they claimed this is occurring because people "identify with the winner," but these polls are showing a bigger Dem advantage in 2012 but projecting a smaller margin of victory for Obama. Either the math is bad or the theory is bad (or both). Clearly, if an 8-point Dem advantage only yields a 3-point Dem victory, then people aren't "identifying with the winner" at a net positive rate.

Maybe so, but the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history sure didn't seem to hurt Bush after 2001.

That's because Democrats helped to declare war on Iraq.

If you think the rallying cry for the GOP should be "Taking our country back to 2008!", I'd be okay with that.

And if Obama starts "reminding" the middle class how much better off they are now compared to 2008, I'd be OK with that.

***

That's because Democrats helped to declare war on Iraq.

Hey, hey, they want people to forget about how the "stupid" George W. Bush "tricked" them into Iraq.

So where are the much ballyhooed micro-BTFs we kept hearing about?

Shouldn't 1914 and 1940 count, based on how much the early goings of WWI and WWII would have dominated US headlines? Both of those elections saw the incumbent win.

You must mean 1916, not 1914, which was a by-election year. And in both 1916 and 1940, the incumbent vowed not to involve the United States in the overseas conflict.

Maybe so, but the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history sure didn't seem to hurt Bush after 2001.

That's because Democrats helped to declare war on Iraq.

Alas, there's a lot of truth to that, although it wasn't the Democrats who were the originators of the WMD myth.

Shouldn't 1914 and 1940 count, based on how much the early goings of WWI and WWII would have dominated US headlines? Both of those elections saw the incumbent win

Neither one saw an opponent who really posed a sharp alternative – or for that matter, an incumbent who was pressing the war as an issue. FDR was strongly internationalist, but stopped well short of campaigning for a declaration of war, and Wendell Willkie basically agreed with his policies. Wilson was internationalist too, but so was his GOP opponent Charles Evans Hughes; the stronger disagreement was between Wilson and William Jennings Bryan, who was his pacifist ex-Secretary of State. And in any case, that disagreement within the Democratic Party led Wilson to campaign on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," which doesn't really fit the image of an incumbent wartime leader.

Edit: Andy & I even on the Cokes now :)

And if Obama starts "reminding" the middle class how much better off they are now compared to 2008, I'd be OK with that.

You are basically insinuating here that one or more of the following is true:

1) Obama caused the economy to crash and/or it wouldn't have crashed had he not been elected (which you can't possibly believe)
2) That an economy that has crashed but not had the effects trickle out to regular people yet and has literally nowhere to go but down before anything good will happen is somehow better than an economy that is (albeit very sluggishly) on the upswing.
3) That the election of John McCain would have resulted in a speedier recovery

Very interesting elaboration of the 1864 political/military situation in #30, Sycophant.

Johnny and others have claimed there's been a sizable shift of 2008 independents to the Dems

bzzt. nope never made that claim, what I said was that a shift like that could explain was you saw as an anomaly

and a sizable shift of 2008 GOP to the independents

bzzt. nope, never made that claim

all of which netted only a +1 gain for the Dems.

Bzzzt nope, that was YOUR claim.

Additionally, they claimed this is occurring because people "identify with the winner,"

other people have claimed this yes, I didn't and don't

if an 8-point Dem advantage only yields a 3-point Dem victory

all that means is that "indies" are going 5 points for Repubs
or it means that Dems are voting 85-15 for Obama while Repubs are voting 90-10 for Romney and Indies are...


Joe Joe Joe...

It is a new month ;) and I am still hoping for Joe's explanation for the D/R numbers the pollsters keep getting. Well that and more clarification (I even gave examples) on who is and who is not a freeloader (Not from Joe I admit).

I don't have an answer for your poll question. I just believe polls that show a Dem+8 advantage but only show a 3-point Obama lead are suspect. Are we really supposed to believe that 5 points more Dems than GOPers are defecting? It seems absurd to me, both theoretically and mathematically, that Obama could be losing support among Dems and be underwater among independents while facing a more unified GOP, but somehow maintain a 3-point edge and an 8-point party ID edge.

Joe K, thanks for the new month thread.

Yet another handout for you freeloaders.*

Seriously, no problem. All thanks should be directed to Sr. Furtado.


(* NOTE: This was a joke.)

Roadkill kitchen

Thank goodness they got stopped before they served the #2 with fried rice

Maybe so, but the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history sure didn't seem to hurt Bush after 2001.

That's because Democrats helped to declare war on Iraq.

Alas, there's a lot of truth to that, although it wasn't the Democrats who were the originators of the WMD myth.

Well, the majority of House Democrats voted against the Iraq AUMF (something like 130 opposed/80 for). The Senate vote was much more even -- a slim majority of Senate Dems "for", but significant number voted nay (I want to say it was something like 27-24).

The problem was that the most visible Democrats -- all of whom had designs on the 2004 Pres primaries -- all voted yes so as not to appear 'weak'... Shame on them absolutely.

There were plenty of Dems trying to slam on the breaks, even a slight majority of the party as whole... but it was a lost cause the moment those librul media types like Judith Miller decided to trade in their pens, notepads, and reporting for pom-poms.

bzzt. nope never made that claim, what I said was that a shift like that could explain was you saw as an anomaly

Your hypothetical had Dems with 42 percent party ID in 2012 and Obama winning independents by only 1 point in 2008. If you want people to interpret your hypotheticals at face value, you should try to have them make more sense.

Bzzzt nope, that was YOUR claim.

It wasn't "my claim"; it was straight out of the CNN poll we've been discussing.

all that means is that "indies" are going 5 points for Repubs
or it means that Dems are voting 85-15 for Obama while Repubs are voting 90-10 for Romney and Indies are...

If a substantial percentage of 2008 Republicans haven't shifted to independent, then why would independents be going for Romney in 2012 after going solidly for Obama in 2008? Remember, the claim here has been that independents "identify with the winner."

The 39% Dems went 89-10-1 in 2008 - so 347-39-4 from our pop. of 1000.
The 37% Dems are 93-6-1 in 2012 - 344-22-4

The 32% Reps went 9-90-1 in 2008 - 29-288-3
The 29% Reps are 4-96-0 in 2012 - 12-278-0 (we're rounding here on the ind/other)

The 29% Ind went 52-44-4 in 2008 - 151-128-11
The 34% Ind are 41-49-10 in 2012 - 139-167-34

One thing to note here is that the number of Democrats has not actually increased; it has decreased less than the number of Republicans.

Here's a hypothetical set of shifts that could lead to this:

20 Dems who voted 3-17-0 in 2008 stopped identifying as Dems: the latter 17 because they didn't even bother to vote for Obama, the former 3 perhaps because Obama has disappointed them. Suppose in 2012, these 20 now-I's will break 0-17-3. Obama has lost a bit of support among these people.

30 Reps who voted 17-10-3 in 2008 stopped identifying as Reps: the 17 had voted for Obama and the 3 had voted 3rd-party anyway; the rest, perhaps, were Tea Party types who were turned off by Bush's profligate spending (TARP, et al.) but are still generally conservative. Suppose that 5 of the 2008 Obama supporters shift to 3rd-party, as do 2 McCain supporters; these now-I's will break 12-8-10: Obama has lost support among these folks.

So the 2012 I's were 139-167-34; subtracting out the 12-25-13 of the new-I's, people who were Independent in both 2008 and 2012 would be expected to split 127-142-21. Here, Obama has lost support among true independents, as I think we'd all expect, given the economy.

The party breakdown was 39/32/29 - so lets call it 390 Dems, 320 Reps, 290 Ind/Other.
The breakdown in the latest CNN poll (Sept 28-30; this is what we'll call "2012" below) is 37-29-34.

I know this isn't your model, so I don't want to jump on you. But it strikes me as implausible that Obama could be doing 16 points worse among independents and still get a voting population that is *more* Democratic than in 2008. Looking at the number, he's -16 among independents, -11 among Republicans, +8 among Democrats.

I've been out of the country for the entire Obama administration, so I can't claim any particular insight into the mood of the electorate. But it seems to me that such a big cratering in soft supporters would show up in turnout, as well.

Let's get back to the baseball part of the article. If the Nats have 'taken over the town', I can't see it. They have been placing 2-for-1 coupons in the Post every day since mid-August. I own an ice cream store in Gaithersburg and don't see any curly W's around here anywhere, much less everywhere...was at local mall yesterday and saw one kid wearing a Nats cap. When they clinched the playoffs, I made an ice cream in Nats colors, a red-colored vanilla with a white marshmallow swirl and chocolate-covered peanuts. Had to toss it out after a week, and there was still 2/3 of the batch left. (I do lots better making 'Black and Gold' for Steelers fans.)

I'm not saying the Nats don't have a following; of course they do. But it's not as rabid as the radioheads, TV folks, and reporters (especially Boswell) make it out to be. Maybe that will come, but it's not here yet.

You are basically insinuating here that one or more of the following is true:

1) Obama caused the economy to crash and/or it wouldn't have crashed had he not been elected (which you can't possibly believe)
2) That an economy that has crashed but not had the effects trickle out to regular people yet and has literally nowhere to go but down before anything good will happen is somehow better than an economy that is (albeit very sluggishly) on the upswing.
3) That the election of John McCain would have resulted in a speedier recovery

I believe most conservatives go with option 3.

There are also some who dispute that the economy had nowhere to go but down (in #2)- those people are wrong... there seems to be a belief that if NOTHING was done the decline would have magically stopped itself as badly run companies went under and well run companies cherry picked the salvageable assets- I shouldn't say magical- that's how it works in normal economy- 2008 was not "normal" you had a cascading/domino effect going through the entire financial sector- the belief that the Government/Fed should have done nothing I think largely comes from people who grossly underestimate what had happened and what was happening.

an economy that is (albeit very sluggishly) on the upswing.
Personally I don't think we are in a "normal" up/down- boom/bust cycle, I think the economy is re-setting itself/ re-adjusting (correcting) to the fact that the nature of the US economic activity has changed so much the past few decades, I think we are at temporary ledge/plateau, and the business cycle has not in fact restarted- we are in either a recession or a recovery as has been commonly known- I think a business cycle will re-assert itself at some point- and at that time we'll either start out by heading up (recovery) or down (recession)

If a substantial percentage of 2008 Republicans haven't shifted to independent, then why would independents be going for Romney in 2012 after going solidly for Obama in 2008? Remember, the claim here has been that independents "identify with the winner."

And that identification causes them to tell pollsters that they're Democrats. An increase in the rightward lean of independents fits perfectly with the "identify with the winner" strategy. Left-leaning independents decide to call themselves Dems, so you're left with a more right-leaning body of independents. That all follows quite easily.