Does anyone here actually believe the 2012 electorate will be more Dem than in 2008, when both Dem enthusiasm and turnout among blacks were at record highs?

I would buy that there are fewer Dems, fewer Republicans, and more independents, with independents now skewing right. That I'd buy, and that's also what the numbers say. I think you're somewhat misrepresenting the reality by just saying "the 2012 electorate will be more Dem". That's an oversimplification, IMO.

The reason it is a dog whistle is shown on this thread, it sounds so innocent, but in reality it is all about making like as horrible, as miserable as possible. Oddly enough this process of making life hell for illegals does collateral damage to their friends and families, many of whom are citizens.

Again, it doesn't just "sound" innocent; it is innocent. The alternative is rounding people up physically, holding them in captivity for a while, and then forcibly shipping them out. (At gunpoint!) That's a lot harsher and more punitive than convincing them to leave voluntarily, and a lot harder on all these citizens who allegedly hang out with illegal immigrants.

I stated in my summary the exact (granting that it's ridiculous to be this exact given the uncertainty in these numbers, but whatever) number Obama was losing:

I agree that it's dumb to get into such specifics re: a single poll, but it seemed like a good example of the issue as a whole.

More than anything, I agree with Zach's comments in #47 and #75. This widespread assumption among pollsters that the 2012 electorate will be even more favorable to Obama than the 2008 electorate seems bizarre and unexplained.

I never said that. I said "Those who are IDing as "Independent" are voting more Republican this cycle." Based only on looking at this dataset, I'd argue that the reasons for the shirt in independents towards Romney is:

1) More new independents previously identified Rep than Dem, and would vote as such
2) Romney has picked up some votes among those who were independent in both 08 and now

And, I'd put slightly more weight on 1) than 2). Again, just based on this data. I'll show you the numbers I used if you like. :-)

Well, if this is true, it pokes a hole in the claims by others here that independents tend to ID with the winner. If Obama's path to victory is to win a higher percentage of a smaller number of Dems, along with a smaller percentage of Republicans and a much smaller percentage of a bigger number of independents, then that seems like a rough road, both politically and mathematically.

This widespread assumption among pollsters that the 2012 electorate will be even more favorable to Obama than the 2008 electorate seems bizarre and unexplained.

Again, this assumes that independents will be just as kind to him as they were in '08, which they won't. You're handwaving them away.

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...

The Nationals are a much bigger presence in Virginia. IIRC, there was a survey a year or two ago that suggested that 65% of the Nationals attendance came from the Old Dominion, 15% from DC, and the rest from Maryland (mostly). The Orioles were more successful in getting Maryland residents to identify with them, since they were in the same state, at least, even if not that close. A lot of people from the DC area went to Orioles games when DC didn't have a team, but many were transients rooting for the visitors, and most others didn't forge bonds strong enough to survive the emergence of a successful DC franchise.

If Obama's path to victory is to win a higher percentage of a smaller sample of Dems, along with a smaller percentage of Republicans and a much smaller percentage of a bigger sample of independents, then that seems like a rough road, both politically and mathematically.

(shrugs) More votes than the other guy is still more votes than the other guy (unless it's the year 2000).

Again, this assumes that independents will be just as kind to him as they were in '08, which they won't. You're handwaving them away.

I'm not hand-waving them at all. Much of my theory rests on Obama not winning independents.

(shrugs) More votes is more votes, unless it's the year 2000.

Right, except that the whole point of this debate is that it seems tough for Obama to win if he's getting fewer votes from people ID'ing as Dems and fewer votes from people ID'ing as Republicans while losing independents to Romney.

If all these polls showing a Dem+8 advantage are only yielding an Obama+3 lead, that seems like a problem for Obama vis-a-vis turnout and enthusiasm. Right now, Obama is substantially underperforming the party ID breakdown of these polls.

Again, it doesn't just "sound" innocent; it is innocent. The alternative is rounding people up physically, holding them in captivity for a while, and then forcibly shipping them out. (At gunpoint!) That's a lot harsher and more punitive than convincing them to leave voluntarily, and a lot harder on all these citizens who allegedly hang out with illegal immigrants.

Except of course that isn't really the alternative. It is one alternative, but others include status quo (not going out of your way to make their lives miserable enough to want to leave) or enacting something like the DREAM act or any number of other things.

Is it the most miserable possible thing? No, of course not. Is applying pressure on immigrants in hopes of driving the illegal immigrants away (self deporting) innocent? Well the Hispanic community doesn't think it is innocent - they see it as an attack on people who are not white.

The fact that you do not react at all to it (even when explained to you) and yet Hispanics and the Sheriff Joe's of the world do is a perfect example of a dog whistle. They (both groups) here it and respond. You do not.

EDIT: Added a not to the last paragraph - so it made sense.

Part registration is done for a variety of reasons. Once you register most people will stay in their party affiliation, even if they are not voting this way. We have had someone (Bob D I think) mention he was registered R so he could influence primaries, but nationally voted D (sorry if I am getting the specifics wrong). The whole south is filled with folks who registered as D years ago and have been voting R nationally. Recently my understanding is a fair number of GOP types have stopped identifying as R, but are still pretty darn likely to vote R (many Tea Party types do this).

I registered as a Democrat when I first registered (and then again when I first registered in NJ 20 years ago), and I've never changed. It's just a PITA to change, and to no real gain. (There aren't enough Libertarian primaries to matter.)

romney must use the 'obama is a nice guy but doesn't know what to do' tactic. anything else will seem desperate. romney needs to turn the debates on the idea that he can govern, since he did that in massachusetts, whether or not he actually did that well(i don't know enough about his governorship to state one way or the other).

but that's just my feeling.

Is it the most miserable possible thing? No, of course not. Is applying pressure on immigrants in hopes of driving the illegal immigrants away (self deporting) innocent? Well the Hispanic community doesn't think it is innocent - they see it as an attack on people who are not white.

According to you and Andy, but not according to actual polls of Latinos. At just 5 percent, immigration ranks ahead of only "not sure" (3 percent) and terrorism (3 percent) as Latinos' biggest concern. [source]

I think there's a definite opening for a candidate who can assuage the populace's fear about "not sure."

Right, except that the whole point of this debate is that it seems tough for Obama to win

Well only if the pollsters, all of them, are not capturing a random sample. Otherwise if they are then it doesn't matter how odd the results, the fact that Obama is winning in the polls means he is likely winning in the minds of the electorate.

By pointing out the "odd" numbers regarding Party ID the implication is the poll is not random somehow. But as we have discussed (to death) Party ID from pollsters doesn't really show that at all.

Meanwhile, Drudge has just lost his status as a Man Who Matters.

Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.

Did he not learn from Breitbart?

According to you and Andy, but not according to actual polls of Latinos. At just 5 percent, immigration ranks ahead of only "not sure" (3 percent) and terrorism (3 percent) as Latinos' biggest concern.

Which proves what? No one said it was their biggest concern. All I have said is it is driving a solidification of the Latino vote to the D vote. In fact I explicitly stated earlier (last thread) that it didn't matter that much because the GOP was pretty close to the floor of Latino (I think I said Hispanic - interesting the difference in usage of those two words - very regional in nature i believe) vote and there wasn't much that was going to change the current vote away from Romney.

None of that says anything about whether it is seen as an attack. My personal knowledge say it is. the reading I have done says it is. It is perfectly OK for you and David not to believe it.

By pointing out the "odd" numbers regarding Party ID the implication is the poll is not random somehow. But as we have discussed (to death) Party ID from pollsters doesn't really show that at all.

If a truly random sample shows a Dem+8 advantage but only an Obama+3 lead, that seems like a possible problem for Obama vis-a-vis enthusiasm and turnout. It's not the equivalent of a generic Dem beating Obama by 5 points, but it's in the ballpark.

Meanwhile, Drudge has just lost his status as a Man Who Matters.

Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.

Do you have the YouTube link(s)?

Which proves what? No one said it was their biggest concern. All I have said is it is driving a solidification of the Latino vote to the D vote. In fact I explicitly stated earlier (last thread) that it didn't matter that much because the GOP was pretty close to the floor of Latino (I think I said Hispanic - interesting the difference in usage of those two words - very regional in nature i believe) vote and there wasn't much that was going to change the current vote away from Romney.

No one has said that? Andy has been claiming for days that Romney could have been getting a much bigger chunk of the Latino vote if only he hadn't uttered that incredibly racist and offensive term "self-deportation."

I would be interested in reading a study of how legal immigrants feel/vote about illegal immigration issues.

This is probably an incredible oversimplification, but it is interesting to me that the republican party, which is theoretically more in favor of a free market than the other guys, wants to artificially restrict the labor market because of immigration issues.

Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.

It's probably way overblown, but Buzzfeed's been looking at some of the sneak peek quotes and not finding them in the original video, so is speculating that it's an unedited version of the edited 2007 video.

No one has said that? Andy has been claiming for days that Romney could have been getting a much bigger chuck of the Latino vote if only he hadn't uttered that incredibly racist and offensive term "self-deportation."

No one this month has said it! :)

Seriously though I disagreed with Andy on that. Romney might have gotten a better rate of Hispanic voters if he had different opinions, but right now the whole GOP is poison for Hispanic voters. Long term this is a GOP problem, but hey its not my problem.

Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.

You've got to appreciate the effort, though.

I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Barack Obama said something disqualifyingly stupid in a prepared public statement in 2007, but I guess it could be. Here's the text of the speech if anyone wants to read it.

This is probably an incredible oversimplification, but it is interesting to me that the republican party, which is theoretically more in favor of a free market than the other guys, wants to artificially restrict the labor market because of immigration issues.

Yes, Republicans who generally like cheap labor now want to restrict low-skilled immigration, while Dems who complain about wage stagnation pretend there's no connection between labor supply and wages. It's an interesting issue.

which is theoretically more in favor of a free market than the other guys

The GOP is very much in favor of the freedom of capital. Money must be free. Labor, not so much. Though to be fair there are two groups here, the big money GOP which is fine with immigration and has zero trouble with illegal immigration (cheap labor and really cheap labor respectively). Then there is the border patrol fanatics which give every appearance of just plain not liking brown people.

This is where the legal immigrant (and native US citizen) Hispanics come in. Many of the tactics to hurt illegal immigrants, profiling, showing papers and so on end up harassing all of the Hispanic population (not just the illegals).

It is a bit like drone attacks (yes this is a stretched analogy, try not to freak out) even if you get a large majority of bad guys you are still hitting innocents and the innocent populations get pretty annoyed about the whole thing - even if the drone attacks are "justified" and the alternative is worse.

So my opinion is these tactics do have collateral damage. Because the GOP is so loud about it they accumulate the damage. Even when it is not very fair (example Obama's record the first few years were pretty aggressively anti-illegal. The GOP gave him cover to do that though by wanting even more and claiming Obama was soft on the issue).

Still no word on Michelle's "whitey" tape, btw...

FWIW here's an article on it from 2007.

Here is the transcript of the prepared remarks. (Coke to the other DA.)

Meanwhile, Drudge has just lost his status as a Man Who Matters.

just? as in right now?
I think he lost that status (to the extent he ever had it) several years ago.
He's just a guy who collects headlines (usually right leaning).

I think he jumped the shark back in 2004 when he posted raw (and very misleading) preliminary exit poll data

I was hoping the video would be Obama hugging Breitbart. That would make a lot of people's head explode.

Yes, Republicans who generally like cheap labor now want to restrict low-skilled immigration,

No the Republicans who generally like cheap labor, do not and have never wanted to restrict low-skilled immigration.
The Republicans who generally do not like low-skilled immigration are currently a bit louder and active
The Republicans who generally do not like immigration at all are also currently a bit louder and active

I suppose I'm ignoring the housing situation and the role that equity spending played in consumer spending during the previous generation, but the fact remains -- I don't see a situation where wages rise until two things happen:

1) Snapper-esque protectionism in some form -- corporate tax penalties for offshoring, etc

2) A cease to the organized movement to shrink union power

What we need is wage growth... a humming job market will only go so far to accomplish that.

Or

3) health care spend stops rising and / or an end to tax-free employer sponsored health care ?

Another day, another $165,000,000 in taxpayer money being used by Obama to bribe voters:

Durbin: Feds to write $165 million check to state for unused prison

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said today that under President Barack Obama’s directive, the federal Department of Justice will purchase the long-unused Thomson prison in northwestern Illinois, cutting a check and bypassing the objections of a veteran Republican U.S. House member who had blocked the sale.

[...]

The prison is expected to draw workers and business from neighboring Iowa, a swing state where Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are battling.

Everywhere I'd go, I'd get two questions. First, they'd ask, "Where'd you get that funny name, Barack Obama?" Because people just couldn't pronounce it. They'd call me " Alabama," or they'd call me "Yo Mama." And I'd tell them that my father was from Kenya, and that's where I got my name. And my mother was from Kansas, and that's where I got my accent from.

Whooo boy, that'll piss off them Kansans...

Another day, another $165,000,000 in taxpayer money being used by Obama

Obama spending US tax money? What a freaking outrage. Who does this guy think he is, President or something?

Amnesty for the DREAMers by executive order, $165,000,000 for an unused prison in his home state without Congressional approval, tens of millions more to cover liabilities from unannounced layoffs, also without Congressional approval. Apparently Obama believes he's king rather than president.

Another day, another $165,000,000 in taxpayer money being used by Obama to bribe voters:

The damn thing was built by the state 10 years ago and has never been used, it was appraised at $220mm and the Feds actually plan on using the damn thing. The sale was being blocked by a Republican Pol who claimed that Obama/Holder planned to transfer Gitmo inmates there...

Basically this thing was going to waste because of GOP paranoia, when that paranoia was essentially nullified, it was being blocked because the GOP didn't want a white elephant to be turned into a functioning entity in a swing state during an election year.

Sorry Joe, but this whole episode speaks more poorly for the GOP than Obama, the real question for Obama is why did he wait do long- and my guess is he waited to get maximum electoral leverage out of this.

Amnesty for the DREAMers by executive order, $165,000,000 for an unused prison in his home state without Congressional approval, tens of millions more to cover liabilities from unannounced layoffs, also without Congressional approval. Apparently Obama believes he's king rather than president.

Indeed, and when the Republicans get back the presidency in 2016 or 2020 or whenever, it will be more of the same. The opposition party always complains about the ruling party actually using their power. Nothing to see here.

Edit: Oh and this prison purchase was a no-brainer, should have been done long ago.

The damn thing was built by the state 10 years ago and has never been used, it was appraised at $220mm and the Feds actually plan on using the damn thing.

Please stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

This prison was built in 2001 for $140 million and has sat vacant ever since. (Great job, Illinois.) Since when do properties appreciate by 50 percent after sitting vacant for a decade?

This was an Illinois bailout engineered by Illinois politicians and a president from Illinois, and it was timed to bolster Obama's electoral chances in Iowa.

No the Republicans who generally like cheap labor, do not and have never wanted to restrict low-skilled immigration.

I suppose I'm this kind.

One has to wonder how many illegals will actually come forward and register with USCIS to get their papers since the policy can be changed as readily as it was enacted.

Here's the text of the speech if anyone wants to read it.

The list of broken promises and incorrect claims in that speech is longer than my arm.

Is it longer than the Long Arm of Rudy Law?

And the number of votes this game-changing "October surprise" will swing is as long as his arm.

[double post]

Please stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

This prison was built in 2001 for $140 million and has sat vacant ever since. (Great job, Illinois.) Since when do properties appreciate by 50 percent after sitting vacant for a decade?

This was an Illinois bailout engineered by Illinois politicians and a president from Illinois, and it was timed to bolster Obama's electoral chances in Iowa.

the sestak affair
fast and furious
solyndra


been there, done that. it's distinctly possible that there's something untoward here, but since you people have gone nuclear so many times in attempts to smear obama, you have no credibility on the subject.

the sestak affair

This was seriously the best one. Offering a retired admiral a position in the Department of the Navy is worse than Watergate!

This prison was built in 2001 for $140 million and has sat vacant ever since. (Great job, Illinois.) Since when do properties appreciate by 50 percent after sitting vacant for a decade?

It's a big piece of property, buildings have been built, parking lot, power, water, security, etc. There's a lot of value in that. And I don't know about other places, but property appreciates a lot in my neck of the woods over a decade.

This was an Illinois bailout engineered by Illinois politicians and a president from Illinois, and it was timed to bolster Obama's electoral chances in Iowa.

It would have been just fine with the GOP if Obama were throwing money at the DoD.

It would have been just fine with the GOP if Obama were

... fill in the blank.