Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“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.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 61 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 > 
   6001. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4289389)
Great news for Obama — PPP is out with a new poll of North Carolina, where it finds the race to be ... tied.

("Poll truthers" might note that the sample was D+12, even more Dem than 2008, but those are just pesky details.)

In other news, the Dem advantage in early voting is down 70 percent in Florida, while the GOP has a 19-point lead in absentee ballot requests in Pennsylvania.
   6002. GregD Posted: October 31, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4289399)
This kind of thing fascinates me too. There are lots of resumé paths to other top positions – legislative leader, Supreme Court justice – but Presidents often take circuitous or serendipitous routes. Much depends on seizing opportunity and going "all-in": 2008 was not supposed to be Barack Obama's year, for instance; 1992 was not supposed to be any Democrat's year, but Bill Clinton was relentless. The one great "resumé President" of the recent past was GHW Bush; even his own namesake son was messing around running a baseball team at an age when most people with political ambitions are plotting their course from rung to rung up the White House ladder.
Right, victory goes to the bold.

There are two big curveballs in Democratic succession plans. First if Gephardt or Gore or Bradley ran in 92, would that have cleared the field? It was a much-derided field with Clinton, Tsongas from retirement, and Jerry Brown from Mars. Obviously the whole A team was sitting out. Gephardt is hard for me to picture as a winner but there's no inherent reason Gore or Bradley couldn't have let Perot destroy Bush. And a Gore or Bradley victory in 92 would mean essentially no Clintons at all, as he would have surely curdled in some untoward way by 2000.

The other is 2004. Hilary sat out assuming--probably correctly--that 2008 was her shot. Could Hillary have made the difference in Ohio? I don't know. I'm not on the team that sees Kerry as a terrible campaigner, and the odds were against the Dems. On the other hand, Hillary has some organizational and personal strengths Kerry doesn't.
   6003. GregD Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4289407)
I am not sure how much this matters. I think it may matter, but I also think the basic ideological structure of liberalism vesus conservatism matter also. Conservatives tend to be much more authoritarian in inclination (I am not saying all conservatives are authoritarian, I am speaking of inclinations and tendencies), while liberals more anti-authoritarian. These tendencies are reflected in the parties themselves and in how they "rule".

I suspect even without the infrastructure there would be a similar diffeence between how the two parties go about implementing their preferences. In fact the differences between the two groups may account for the differences in infrastructure they have built and support and many other things. Or I could be full of #### disguised as pop-psychobabble.
I think there are two interrelated points here. First, Republicans have long been a better organized party. Although they hit a rough patch in the New Deal era, nominating a recent ex-Democrat and warily dancing past Bob Taft, there is a good reason why Will Rogers said he didn't belong to an organized political party. Even when the Republicans were moderate they were generally organized, and I don't think outside funders to economic think tanks have anything to do with that. There are some counter-examples; Democrats steadily were organized (if foolhardy) in sending Bryan out time after time while Republicans had a helluva time settling on a nominee in 1920 and in 1976.



But Republicans have no always been so conservative, and there the 50-year funding has made a difference and it has supported lower-level economic conservatives over moderates and produced both talking points and policy papers that have had an effect. It isn't all manipulation; Democrats have presented alternative views and the people have at times preferred Republicans.
   6004. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4289411)
Hilary sat out assuming--probably correctly--that 2008 was her shot.


She also could have easily run for Senate in Illinois (later) than in New York. In fact there was talk of her doing that since she is from Illinois after all. She almost certainly would have won, beating out the unknown Barack Obama and likely becoming president in 2008.
   6005. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4289415)
Via Jay Cost on Twitter, the polling craziness continues:

"Princeton Survey Research Associates did the Pew poll from 10/24 to 10/28. Found a tie."

"Princeton Survey Research Associates did the National Journal poll from 10/25 to 10/28, found Obama up 5."

(Obviously, different LV screens used.)
   6006. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4289421)
Very interesting comments on Obama's philosophy and temperament on this page. One aspect of his work as President seems to me relatively unrelated to race or even ideology. He wants to develop pragmatic policies that look good from within the Beltway. I don't see him as much of an advocate for the grassroots – why would a person committed to the grassroots want to vault so quickly out of the South Side to Springfield and Washington and the White House? I think he wants to be President, and to be known for finding legislative and regulatory solutions to problems that look good to his peers, people of his generation who came out of the Ivy League and into the still-small circle of national power – Elena Kagan, to give just one example. I don't think he has a sweeping social vision, the way that McGovern or Goldwater or (God help us) Ronald Reagan did (and that relatively few Democrats have had, particularly the ones in power, since the immediate postwar years). Obama strikes me as someone delighted with some of the intricacies of Obamacare, and much less able to go out and sell the ideal of universal health care to a skeptical nation.


But in the end, doesn't it get down to the fact that the Right has a well-funded infrastructure with a one-size-fits-all ideology, while the Left is both less well-funded and more important, less focused?**

I am not sure how much this matters. I think it may matter, but I also think the basic ideological structure of liberalism vesus conservatism matter also. Conservatives tend to be much more authoritarian in inclination (I am not saying all conservatives are authoritarian, I am speaking of inclinations and tendencies), while liberals more anti-authoritarian. These tendencies are reflected in the parties themselves and in how they "rule".


There may be something to the authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian split, though I think that depends on what issues you're talking about**. But what I wrote was solely in response to Bob's description of Obama's political instincts.

I suspect even without the infrastructure there would be a similar difference between how the two parties go about implementing their preferences. In fact the differences between the two groups may account for the differences in infrastructure they have built and support and many other things. Or I could be full of #### disguised as pop-psychobabble.

I do think it's true that the Democrats / liberals are less interested in fitting every proposal into a pre-packaged ideology than the Republicans / conservatives are, and I do think that this singlemindedness is reflected both in the party platforms and in the positions pushed by their respective think tanks, particularly by the more blatantly partisan ones like the Club For Growth. But I still think that the far greater funding (and more prosaically, much better job opportunities) of the conservative think tanks has had an enormous influence on the framing of the issues over the past 40 years. Lewis Powell knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote that famous memo, and you have to give him credit for his vision, however poisonous its ensuing legacy may have been.

**A health insurance mandate can just as easily be framed as "authoritarian" as a drug law or a reflexive attraction to military solutions in foreign policy. I'm not sure that this "authoritarian" vs "anti-authoritarian" distinction means quite as much as many liberals seem to think that it does, since it's so easily sidetracked into the question of definition.
   6007. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4289426)
I don't think I stated my position very well. I think the authoritarian leanings of the conservatives lead to a more structured party and behavior of the party, not that it leads to authoritarian policies necessarily. I agree about the health care debate and there it is more of a big government versus private markets argument, but for that the GOP was much more in lock step with what they wanted to do than the Dems were. And I think that is because of the nature of the parties and the people and less about the think tank infrastructure (but it is kind of unknowable).

Hopefully that is clearer, but I think in large part we mostly agree. Mostly.

---

Joe K - Why is it crazy that two different polls get different results? Even done by the same group at the same time. I do like the poll average between them though.
   6008. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4289427)
[6005] That guy Jay Cost is bad at math. From his article today (emphasis mine):

In the case of Ohio, it suggests there are basically two views of the race.

...

When you average out these two views, you get an Obama lead of 2 points – but that does not appear to be very meaningful, considering that just 2 of 25 polls in the last month have found him up by that margin!


So, um, the average of the polls isn't meaningful, Jay, simply because a small sample of polls have hit that exact number?
Also, he actually has 26 polls in his graphic, not 25 - but, again, not good at math, I guess.
   6009. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4289429)

Perhaps my history is a little rusty but how is a political party that died around 1825 the longest lasting political party in America?


Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republicans, generally considered the origins of the modern Democratic party.
   6010. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4289434)
So, um, the average of the polls isn't meaningful, Jay, simply because a small sample of polls have hit that exact number?

The main point of the article was to discuss the apparent abnormal distribution of poll results in Ohio.

Also, he actually has 26 polls in his graphic, not 25 - but, again, not good at math, I guess.

Right, let's assume he can't count to 26, instead of it just being a typo.
   6011. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4289436)
Not to belabor then point, but most of the polls that show Obama leading have partisan splits that are more Democratic than the 2008 electorate. That doesn't seem consistent with other indicators, including the 2010 Ohio results, the 2009, 2010 & 2011 results elsewhere and the national polls. I'm willing to concede that it would be very hard for Obama to lose Ohio if he has a more Democratic electorate than 2008. I just don't think it is likely, and think it is quite possible that polls that have only about an 8% response rate might be missing something if non-responders don't break evenly along partisan lines. So, I put more weight on the fact that those polls show Romney winning Independents, often by double-digits. I could be wrong, but if Romney wins Independents by a significant margin, I believe he will win Ohio and the election. We'll know in a week.

EDIT: Put another way, candidates who win the Independent vote seldom lose elections in Ohio or the country.


Points definitely worth raising, and I'm ignorant of how Obama's ground game might be moving the LV tilt Democratic. Reports are good, and I'm a little puzzled by the Romney campaign's decision to hand over its ground game to state organizations, but I don't know what that means in practice. I suppose we may discover eventually that the Republican move to suppress Democratic votes through nominally legal means was where they put their faith, rather than door to door, GOTV organizing. That'd be a hoisting well worth seeing. Obama also had the advantage of having already established a solid GOTV in 2008, and four years to optimize it. That's an incredible advantage, one I wouldn't be surprised to see manifest itself in registration.

The thing about the 8% figure that intrigues me is that pollsters can robocall landlines and route human answerers to human operators, but by law they can't robocall cell phones. Landlines tend to be owned by a wealthier, whiter demographic, but calling them is a lot cheaper. Failing to adjust for that is going to skew any poll, perhaps badly. That may well be why we're seeing adjustments of who was actually called,reached, and polled towards a more Democratic electorate.

I think you're right, in that how Independents' break is incredibly important; it's probably a leading indicator. If I could look at only one number election, in the hour after the polls close in Ohio, that would be it, sort of like the ratio of assists to errors if you can have only one number for 2Bmen.

   6012. Poulanc Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4289440)
Landlines tend to be owned by a wealthier, whiter demographic, but calling them is a lot cheaper. Failing to adjust for that is going to skew any poll, perhaps badly. That may well be why we're seeing adjustments of who was actually called,reached, and polled towards a more Democratic electorate.



Why would a wealthier, whiter demographic shift the polls towards Obama?
   6013. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4289441)
I don't think I stated my position very well. I think the authoritarian leanings of the conservatives lead to a more structured party and behavior of the party, not that it leads to authoritarian policies necessarily. I agree about the health care debate and there it is more of a big government versus private markets argument, but for that the GOP was much more in lock step with what they wanted to do than the Dems were.

Okay, that makes your point clearer, and there's not much there to disagree with. When the Democrats run into a "blue dog" problem, they court him with compromises. When the Republicans find a "RINO", they** hunt him down and purge him. Both prospective "blue dogs" and prospective "RINO"s usually take the hint and act accordingly, as witness the rightward shifts of McCain and Hatch after their intra-party challenges.

**By "they", I'm not necessarily referring to the pre-existing GOP leadership, which often opposes the prospective purger. But after the "purge" is successful, that party leadership is quick to adapt itself to the rightward shifting reality of their party base's wishes.
   6014. BDC Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4289443)
Landlines tend to be owned by a wealthier, whiter demographic, but calling them is a lot cheaper

Wasn't this the source of the ancient polling debacle in 1936, where calling on the telephone resulted in predictions of a Landon victory? Or is that an urban legend … anyway, as in 1936, I gotta think with #6012 that wealthier and whiter means more Republican.
   6015. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4289444)

Why would a wealthier, whiter demographic shift the polls towards Obama?


He's saying (I think) that wealthier, white people tend to have landlines, and so any system that calls only landlines needs to target more democrats. I would guess that there are more Obama voters without landlines (i.e. cell phones only) than Romney voters.
   6016. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4289446)
Landlines tend to be owned by a wealthier, whiter demographic, but calling them is a lot cheaper. Failing to adjust for that is going to skew any poll, perhaps badly. That may well be why we're seeing adjustments of who was actually called,reached, and polled towards a more Democratic electorate.


Why would a wealthier, whiter demographic shift the polls towards Obama?

I think Jack meant that the wealthier and whiter demographics of the landline owners would force the pollsters to adjust their raw numbers in favor of Obama, or run the risk of being a 2012 version of the 1936 Literary Digest.

EDIT: Cokes to Bob and JoeC.
   6017. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4289453)
So, um, the average of the polls isn't meaningful, Jay, simply because a small sample of polls have hit that exact number?
That's close to saying a you can't ever bat .250 in a season if you never had a 1-for-4 game.
   6018. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4289459)
That's close to saying a you can't ever bat .250 in a season if you never had a 1-for-4 game.

In more than a 3-game "season," the odds of batting .250 in a season without ever going 1-for-4 are roughly zero.
   6019. Ron J2 Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4289461)
It's pretty easy to say you're an independent, but have actually voted Republican all the time.


Saw a research paper on the issue. Can't find the link, but something close to 70% of those who self-identify as "independent" are actually partisan voters in practice.
   6020. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4289462)

This video is great — Comedian "redistributes" Halloween candy.
   6021. Ron J2 Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4289468)
#5993 To me, there are in fact legitimate targets. Those whose death has a meaningful impact on the operational capacity of an intractable enemy. I'm thinking a master bomb maker or a really good planner.

Thing is, those guys are few and far between. The current use of drones seems precisely calculated to invoke the law of unintended consequences.
   6022. Ron J2 Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4289475)
outlawing political parties might be a fun experiment


Of course there's the minor issue that people with enough in common will end up functioning as a voting bloc regardless of whether parties exist.

   6023. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4289477)
Of course there's the minor issue that people with enough in common will end up functioning as a voting bloc regardless of whether parties exist.


In reality game show terms, it's called an alliance.

And, if it happened like in a reality game show, it would lead to infighting and betrayal very quickly.
   6024. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4289484)
In more than a 3-game "season," the odds of batting .250 in a season without ever going 1-for-4 are roughly zero.


Only because it's EXACTLY the sort of thing someone on this site would check...

Yovani Gallardo - 2007 (20 games, 42 PA)
   6025. Ron J2 Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4289487)
#6023 It really depends. There's relatively little pure party politics in Canadian municipal politics. But there are some pretty reliable voting blocks.
   6026. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4289495)
   6027. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4289498)
6020- proof again that people on the Left are funnier than people on the Right. Dude, that wasn't even close to funny.
   6028. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4289499)
6019 - guilty as charged
6023 - my parents are doing this
   6029. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4289500)
Saw a research paper on the issue. Can't find the link, but something close to 70% of those who self-identify as "independent" are actually partisan voters in practice.


I am registered as "Unenrolled" and don't necessarily identify as a Democrat, but I almost always vote "left". If I was taking a phone survey, I'd probably press 3 for Independent/Other.

This video is great — Comedian "redistributes" Halloween candy.


So...are we saying wealthy Republicans behave like petulant children? Is that the joke?

   6030. Greg K Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4289505)
Of course there's the minor issue that people with enough in common will end up functioning as a voting bloc regardless of whether parties exist.

That kind of was the first half of the sentence you quoted. So certainly agreed on that score. As in the case of most of my contributions to political discussions here it wasn't a serious suggestion. Mostly just comes from A) my biggest problem with current Canadian politics - strict party discipline on votes. B) A variant of Stockholm Syndrome. study 1620s politics enough and your brain turns to mush - "hey, maybe this was a great way to run a country!", and C) Just watched series 4 of The Thick Of It. I know technically they are all in parties on that show, but it sure as hell seems like an every man for himself scenario.

EDIT: Seconded on the video. Rule #1 of Hallowe'en prank comedy. If you're not making the children cry you're doing it wrong.

DOUBLE EDIT: On second thought maybe that's just rule #1 of Hallowe'en.
   6031. zonk Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4289509)
It's pretty easy to say you're an independent, but have actually voted Republican all the time.



Saw a research paper on the issue. Can't find the link, but something close to 70% of those who self-identify as "independent" are actually partisan voters in practice.


This is why party ID weighting, especially as 'weight of weights', is generally eschewed... it's just too fluid - not to mention, there are tons of different ways to gauge it. I've actually been polled several times this cycle (all but once on local/state ballot issues, though) -- and based on the screens, I bet I classified as a Democrat twice, an independent once, and actually a Republican once...

In the two screens I bet I got counted as a Democrat - the party ID screen was a simple 5 choice question: Do you consider yourself a strong Democratic voter, somewhat Democratic voter...

In the screen that I'll bet counted me as an independent, the question asked if I was registered as a D, R, or not registered to any party.

In the screen that I'm almost certain counted me as a Republican - it was a two part question - did you vote in the recent primary, and, if so, did you vote in the R or D primary.

No attempt at any chicanery on my part -- I answered each question honestly... It's just that I consider myself a Democrat, however, I'm not registered as anything, and in fact, I did vote in the 2012 Republican primary...

I'll say this, though -- the last week or so, I've really, really, really regretted taking that GOP ballot this past spring... Last night, I actually got a Romney campaign call saying "According to our records, you haven't yet made a donation to the Romney/Ryan Victory Fund - with the election fast approaching...." I've used up all my cute and entertaining ways to respond to these calls, now I'm starting to get annoyed.
   6032. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4289510)
6020- proof again that people on the Left are funnier than people on the Right. Dude, that wasn't even close to funny.

I dunno, Joe's Halloween redistributionist video may have been as lame as it gets, but that "Game changer" romneymegaprayer.com that YR linked to had me howling in delight, at least when I got to the end and realized that it was totally serious.
   6033. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4289515)
I dunno, Joe's Halloween redistributionist video may have been as lame as it gets, but that "Game changer" romneymegaprayer.com that YR linked to had me howling in delight, at least when I got to the end and realized that it was totally serious.


Whoa! Wow! That's REAL?
   6034. bunyon Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4289516)
That animated chick in 6026 has nice tits.
   6035. Tilden Katz Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4289519)
This video is great — Comedian "redistributes" Halloween candy.


I don't get it, where has Romney called for the complete abolishment of the progressive income tax and the welfare state?
   6036. McCoy Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4289520)
The megaprayer link has a Diplomacy siting as well.
   6037. zonk Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4289521)
I dunno, Joe's Halloween redistributionist video may have been as lame as it gets, but that "Game changer" romneymegaprayer.com that YR linked to had me howling in delight, at least when I got to the end and realized that it was totally serious.




Whoa! Wow! That's REAL?


Hey - you don't joke about the Battle of Lepanto...
   6038. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4289522)
That animated chick in 6026 has nice tits.

But she's no Chris Christie.
   6039. greenback calls it soccer Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4289524)
Last night, I actually got a Romney campaign call saying "According to our records, you haven't yet made a donation to the Romney/Ryan Victory Fund - with the election fast approaching...." I've used up all my cute and entertaining ways to respond to these calls...

You should've asked for help sooner, because I'm sure a few folks can give you some suggestions.
   6040. zenbitz Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4289525)
All I can say is:
You'd be speaking Turkish now if it hadn't worked.
   6041. zonk Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4289527)
It's hard to pick just one favorite part of the prayer warriors site... but here are a few...

1) I like how the pie chart of 'Christians supporting Romney' is divided between 'good people' and 'misguided'... that's gotta be a record for deftly mixing sensitivity with insult.

2) Ya gotta love the citing of the NYT/538/Nate Silver as the source of 'romney will lose... unless'

3) Again... I just love the Battle of Lepanto reference... in fact, I think I'm going to be leaving work early so I can play some EUIII... Byzantium will rise again!

EDIT: 4) Oh yeah --- I gotta love the whipping out of "scientists!" as the reason not to doubt the power of the megaprayer!
   6042. Greg K Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4289530)
I dunno, Joe's Halloween redistributionist video may have been as lame as it gets, but that "Game changer" romneymegaprayer.com that YR linked to had me howling in delight, at least when I got to the end and realized that it was totally serious.

That was actually kind of cool, though I would have used the siege of Belgrade in 1456 rather than Lepanto as my evidence, but it all works.
   6043. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4289532)
I've just e-mailed that "Game changer" link to my two best Republican friends without any comment other than "You can't make this stuff up". I wonder if I'll get any response.
   6044. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4289534)
sorry, i meant to say that my parents are doing the mass prayer thing. they've done a lot of them over the years...
   6045. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4289537)
Here's what I'd like to learn more about the Romney Megaprayer - what do they think will happen if it works? Will Jesus influence voters to change their minds in thr voting booth? If so, what does that say about free will? Will Angel Moroni glitch the voting tabulations so that Obama voters register as Romney voters? If so, how do we intend to reconcile the almighty loving god of worship with the base cheat manifesting on Novemebr 6?

Shouldn't these people be praying for an engine that runs on water or something?

And yes, like many of you, I assumed Poe's Law was in effect here.
   6046. zonk Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4289538)

That was actually kind of cool, though I would have used the siege of Belgrade in 1456 rather than Lepanto as my evidence, but it all works.


Well, this is was the 'digital remastering' -- if you use the siege of Belgrade, you're forced to watch Han Solo pull his gun and shoot Greedo/Mehmed II first.... if you go with Lepanto, you can have the nice, neat Greedo/Sulieman (or was it Selim II?) attacking and the Han Solo christians simply acting in self-defense...

   6047. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4289541)
BTW the RCP average is now a dead heat, and the Intrade is now 66.2% for Obama.

To steal a line from Colonel McCormick's Chicago Tribune from 1936, when FDR was the then-current Great Satan.....

"Only five more days for you to save your country Joe to clean up on Intrade---What are you is he going to do about it?"
   6048. Greg K Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4289544)
By the way, thanks zonk. I've never played EUIII as Byzantium and now I'm going to have to instead of prepping for this seminar on the Cathars tomorrow morning. Thanks a lot.
   6049. DA Baracus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4289546)
I dunno, Joe's Halloween redistributionist video may have been as lame as it gets, but that "Game changer" romneymegaprayer.com that YR linked to had me howling in delight, at least when I got to the end and realized that it was totally serious.


That's not crazy enough to be real.
   6050. McCoy Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4289547)
And why does RCP now have it tied? Because there is a poll now that counteracts Gallups out there 5 point lead for Romney.
   6051. Danny Posted: October 31, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4289552)
BTW the RCP average is now a dead heat

Despite excluding RAND (O+5), Google (O+4), YouGov (O+1), Ipsos/Reuters (O+1), and PPP (tied).
   6052. McCoy Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4289556)
Well, RCP doesn't want to make their liberal bias obvious.
   6053. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4289562)
Now that we're all electoral college experts, it's time to strut our stuff.
   6054. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4289569)
. . . that "Game changer" romneymegaprayer.com that YR linked to had me howling in delight

I'm not quite sure what the fascination is with finding some obscure GOP affiliated candidate or group and trying to suggest it has some significance. Seems like a waste of bandwidth, but there are number howlers on the other side. How about the Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee, who the Washington Post calls the Worst Candidate in America:
Clayton, 36, is a part-time flooring installer, an indulger in conspiracy theories — and for Democrats here, the living personification of rock bottom. In a state that produced Democratic icons including Andrew Jackson and both Al Gores, the party has fallen so far that it can’t even run a good loser.

Instead, it has this guy. In Tennessee, Clayton’s unlikely run is providing an absurdist coda to a long Democratic disaster. Something like falling down a flight of stairs onto a whoopee cushion.

“It’s pretty sad. I mean, when your nomination is not worth having, that’s embarrassing,” said Will T. Cheek, a Nashville investor who has been a member of the state Democratic Party’s executive committee since 1970. “That would appear to be where we are.”


That guy would seem like more of a problem than some folks praying.


   6055. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4289571)
BTW the RCP average is now a dead heat, and the Intrade is now 66.2% for Obama.
In the last 45 minutes, Intrade has climbed to 66.9%
   6056. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4289574)
Shut the thread down. It's all over.

Dick Morris: Here Comes the Landslide

Snapshot:
Obama has already lost Florida, Virginia, and Colorado; will lose Ohio, New Hampshire, and Iowa; is poised to lose Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; might also lose New Jersey and Oregon. It adds up to 159 electoral votes, or 138 once New Jersey and Oregon fall. Which would be nice, since it gives Romney a nice, even 400. Also, this greases the path for a 6-seat GOP pickup in the Senate.
   6057. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4289577)
Dick Morris: Here Comes the Landslide
How does this man still find work?
   6058. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4289579)
How does this man still find work?


Lips like velvet
   6059. Danny Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4289580)
How does this man still find work?

Why Does "The Hill" Still Publish Dick Morris?
   6060. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4289584)
That guy would seem like more of a problem than some folks praying.
Thanks for the link! Not sure why either is a "problem" (for Obama/Romney?), but they're both pretty funny.
   6061. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4289588)
That guy would seem like more of a problem than some folks praying.


The difference being, of course, that by virtue of being a part-time flooring installer, we can be assured that Mr. Clayton works.
   6062. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4289595)
Is it too soon after Dick Morris's lobotomy to joke about him?
   6063. Spahn Insane Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4289598)
Romney's picked up the Joey B and Dick Morris predictions in a span of 24 hours. Just sayin'.
   6064. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4289599)

John Koster, the Republican nominee in Washington’s first Congressional district, offered his opinion on legalizing abortion in instances of incest, when the life of the mother is at risk and rape, or, as he put it, “the rape thing.”

Koster began by saying that “incest is so rare,” and when it comes to the life of the mother, “I’m not going to make that decision.”

“On the rape thing, it’s like, how does putting more violence onto a woman’s body and taking the life of an innocent child that’s the consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?” Koster said. “You know what I mean?”
   6065. zenbitz Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4289600)
THE END TIMES!

Barack Obama For President ad here in San Francisco!!!.

Oh, it's on TBS.
   6066. JL Posted: October 31, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4289601)
6062- it is never too soon to joke about Dick Morris.

On a serious note, this thread was reason I participated in a political poll for the first time in over five years. Typically, I hang up the moment I figure out it is a robo-call. This time, I figured I would participate in the process. So when the next poll comes out showing Marvin the Martian with momentum on his side, you know who to credit.
   6067. SteveF Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4289605)
Personally, I'm pro Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators.
   6068. JL Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4289613)
6067-that merely proves you are a monster.
   6069. DA Baracus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4289617)
THE END TIMES!

Barack Obama For President ad here in San Francisco!!!.

Oh, it's on TBS.


It's still a local ad.
   6070. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4289619)
Now that we're all electoral college experts, it's time to strut our stuff.

As a Canadian, I'm proud to say I "earned" 270 electoral votes!
   6071. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4289624)
Why would a wealthier, whiter demographic shift the polls towards Obama?
It wouldn't, of course. I'm talking about the adjustments in the raw data any pollster has to make. Taking your info on RVs and LVs from calls to landlines gives a skewed sense of the electorate. Calling 1000 landlines and 100 cell phones will give you a whiter, wealthier electorate. Some people thought a pollster failing to use the RV data generated by conventional polling methods was an oddity, but in fact failing to adjust that data gives you the whiter, more Republican registration figures that some people claimed was telling us Romney was in good shape in Ohio.
   6072. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4289627)
Is it too soon after Dick Morris's lobotomy to joke about him?


1. Dick Morris rakes in cash hand over fist from the geriatric demographic that considers him the only unbiased source of information on the planet.

2. Dick Morris only has to luck into one "correct prediction" to have his name written in the stars forever.
   6073. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4289630)
Now that we're all electoral college experts, it's time to strut our stuff.

Got them all, so feel free to give my opinions added weight. Or not.
   6074. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4289631)
… anyway, as in 1936, I gotta think with #6012 that wealthier and whiter means more Republican.


Well, sure. I wrote,

The thing about the 8% figure that intrigues me is that pollsters can robocall landlines and route human answerers to human operators, but by law they can't robocall cell phones. Landlines tend to be owned by a wealthier, whiter demographic, but calling them is a lot cheaper. Failing to adjust for that is going to skew any poll, perhaps badly. That may well be why we're seeing adjustments of who was actually called,reached, and polled towards a more Democratic electorate.
So I assume we're seeing adjustments. Adjustments away from who was reached via landline, and 'towards a more Democratic electorate'.

Not sure what's not clear in that... no snark intended.

I think Jack meant that the wealthier and whiter demographics of the landline owners would force the pollsters to adjust their raw numbers in favor of Obama, or run the risk of being a 2012 version of the 1936 Literary Digest.

Yup. Someone upthread was puzzled as to why, on the raw data, Pinky's Pinko Pollsters wasn't giving Romney a small but significant edge in Ohio.

It's hard for me to imagine that any pollster failing to account for phone ownership is going to have any real chance of getting this election right. It would surprise me if Silver wasn't adjusting on this basis. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gallup was largely missing this.

   6075. Danny Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4289633)
Now that we're all electoral college experts, it's time to strut our stuff.

405.
   6076. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4289634)
. . . that "Game changer" romneymegaprayer.com that YR linked to had me howling in delight

I'm not quite sure what the fascination is with finding some obscure GOP affiliated candidate or group and trying to suggest it has some significance.


Who said anything about significance? Of course it has no significance. Just enjoy it for what it is.

Seems like a waste of bandwidth, but there are number howlers on the other side. How about the Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee, who the Washington Post calls the Worst Candidate in America:

The only difference between this guy and Todd Akin is that (a) the Democrats aren't pretending he's a serious candidate and lending him support; and (b) he won't have nearly half the state voting for him.

And while granting that Clayton is amusing in a generic wingnut sort of way, his story doesn't have a tenth of the originality or charm of the Palinesque figurine in that Holy Wars link.
   6077. Greg K Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4289635)
How about the Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee, who the Washington Post calls the Worst Candidate in America:

The New Democratic Party of Canada scoffs at such a qualified candidate. Theirs actually got elected. Despite not speaking the language of her constituents, not really campaigning, not visiting her riding, and generally only being on the ballot as a formality.

EDIT: apparently she's really improved her French since the election, but that makes for a less interesting zinger.
   6078. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4289638)
BTW the RCP average is now a dead heat, and the Intrade is now 66.2% for Obama.

In the last 45 minutes, Intrade has climbed to 66.9%


And now it's up to 68.3%. Methinks wily old Joe is just biding his time and waiting to pounce.
   6079. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4289642)
IOW, if in 2008, the electorate was: D-45, R-38, I-17, but in 2012 the electorate was: D-43, R-33, I-24, then we'd see higher partisan affiliation for Democrats while Republicans would run better among independents. However, that's just an artifact of poll questions.

Although such a scenario might be theoretically possible, the 2010 election results strongly suggest that is not the case. Democrats took a shellacking all over the country - far beyond what can be ascribed to the difference in turnout between a Presidential and mid-term election. That doesn't happen without a large block of voters beng more inclined to vote Republican. Hard to imagine that could happeniat while fewer people are identifying with the GOP. Such a drift away from the GOP is also contradicted by the partisan identification polls, which use much larger samples and should be more accurate.
   6080. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 31, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4289643)
And now it's up to 68.3%. Methinks wily old Joe is just biding his time and waiting to pounce.
Someone's making their move! Down to 67.7!
   6081. McCoy Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4289645)
Weird how a Democrat turn out in 2008 for a presidential election can be easily explained away while a 2010 mid term election turnout for Republicans is proof that Republicans are out in force.
   6082. Lassus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4289646)
I'm not quite sure what the fascination is with finding some obscure GOP affiliated candidate or group and trying to suggest it has some significance. Seems like a waste of bandwidth, but there are number howlers on the other side.... That guy would seem like more of a problem than some folks praying.

Yes, we should be focusing on the guys saying rape is god's will or the ones saying the Big Bang is from Satan or that women can stop conception with their vaginas. Or a number of other howlers.
   6083. Eddo Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4289648)
Now that we're all electoral college experts, it's time to strut our stuff.

The key is looking at which states were actually states (particularly Alaska and Hawaii), and just using that combined with election years. I mean, Hawaii certainly didn't vote for Grover Cleveland.
   6084. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4289649)
From a link from the link, on the efficacy of remote prayer:

DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 23 trials involving 2774 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Heterogeneity of the studies precluded a formal meta-analysis. Of the trials, 5 examined prayer as the distant healing intervention, 11 assessed noncontact Therapeutic Touch, and 7 examined other forms of distant healing. Of the 23 studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects, 9 showed no effect over control interventions, and 1 showed a negative effect.

CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.

It would be nice to know what's meant by 'statistically significant treatment effects' but what's particularly fun is that by the quoted account, it's entirely possible prayer as a distant healing intervention has a negative effect.
   6085. Lassus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4289652)
So when the next poll comes out showing Marvin the Martian with momentum on his side, you know who to credit.

Marvin the paranoid android is incredibly depressed by your lack of support. Or, he just thinks you're a stupid monkey for voting for the wrong Marvin.
   6086. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4289653)
Weird how a Democrat turn out in 2008 for a presidential election can be easily explained away while a 2010 mid term election turnout for Republicans is proof that Republicans are out in force.

Well, if nothing had changed between 2008 and 2010, the 2010 results would have been similar to 2008, or to the 2006 mid-term election, which was also a very good year for Democrats. Just as the 2006 election foreshadowed 2008, the 2010 election suggests Obama, and Democrats in general, are not as popular as they were in 2008.
   6087. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4289654)
Last time I checked out remote prayer most of the studies finding in favor were deeply flawed or they later found fraud involved. Chasing that stuff is like chasing the climate deniers or the creationists, it never ends.
   6088. JL Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4289655)
6085- Marvin the paranoid android did not make it on the ballot here in Virginia. Very disappointing.
   6089. McCoy Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4289658)
I kind of want to vote for myself so that somewhere in some file it will be noted that I got votes to be President.
   6090. Lassus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4289664)
I apologize if I've lost track or missed it, but the Whedon Romney ad/video must have been posted here already, right?
   6091. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: October 31, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4289668)
Supposedly, I live very near to a former brothel/whorehouse connected to Dick Morris.
   6092. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:14 PM (#4289673)
DRUDGE has an item -- "SEX SCANDAL TO HIT CAMPAIGN . . . DEVELOPING . . . " No details yet. Probably over-hyped, but my money is on Bill Clinton.
   6093. DA Baracus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4289676)
Or some advisor or campaign staffer had an affair and somehow it means Obama shouldn't be elected.
   6094. zonk Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4289677)
I kind of want to vote for myself so that somewhere in some file it will be noted that I got votes to be President.


I don't think it works this way...

At least - as I noted, I took a GOP ballot in the primary. I live in Cook County, so as you might imagine -- my ballot was an absolute wasteland. Beyond the Presidential ticket (neither Durbin nor Kirk are up this cycle), there was literally only one other office that had even a single candidate.

So - I did the only logical thing... I wrote myself for the IL-5 congressional seat (held by Mike Quigley, formerly Rahm's -- and Blago's -- seat).

Just for fun, I called up the Cook County Republican party -- yes, such a thing exists, though it took several attempts to get an answer -- to ask if I had won... and they hung up on me.
   6095. Lassus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4289678)
DRUDGE has an item -- "SEX SCANDAL TO HIT CAMPAIGN . . . DEVELOPING . . . " No details yet. Probably over-hyped, but my money is on Bill Clinton.

Maybe he means "developing" like he's filming it right now or something.
   6096. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4289681)
I apologize if I've lost track or missed it, but the Whedon Romney ad/video must have been posted here already, right?

In our commitment to fair and balanced commentary, we should also post this refutation from Romney HQ:

This guy is an idiot. A? typical liberal. He does not state any reason or fact as to why any of things could happen. His job is to support a guy who has no record to run on and who denied extra security or back up for our seals and ambassador. Ignore the liberals who will do anything to make republicans look evil. Romney/Ryan 2012
   6097. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:41 PM (#4289688)
SEX SCANDAL TO HIT CAMPAIGN . . . DEVELOPING . . .


I wonder if it will change the game as much as Trump's announcement.
   6098. Tilden Katz Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4289690)
SEX SCANDAL TO HIT CAMPAIGN . . . DEVELOPING . . .


Now "STORY SAID TO INVOLVE POWERFUL SENATOR, SOURCES TELL DRUDGE. DAILY CALLER PLANS LATE NIGHT RELEASE..." has been added. It's the Daily Caller, so I assume there's not much there, but speculating is always fun!
   6099. DA Baracus Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4289691)
It involves a Senator apparently. Daily Caller will have it, so it must be old news.
   6100. zonk Posted: October 31, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4289695)
It involves a Senator apparently. Daily Caller will have it, so it must be old news.


FWIW... rumor mill has it that being one of two Senators/Senate candidates... either Rick Berg (ND-SEN candidate for Johnson's open seat) or NJ-SEN Bob Menendez
Page 61 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3113 - 6:12pm, Oct 22)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(20 - 6:07pm, Oct 22)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(8 - 6:05pm, Oct 22)
Last: Kurt

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(872 - 6:04pm, Oct 22)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(50 - 6:02pm, Oct 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(25 - 5:52pm, Oct 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(166 - 5:48pm, Oct 22)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(18 - 5:40pm, Oct 22)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(11 - 5:31pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(38 - 5:28pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPace-Of-Play Initiatives Get Mixed Reviews In AFL - BaseballAmerica.com
(26 - 5:26pm, Oct 22)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(1 - 5:17pm, Oct 22)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(339 - 5:16pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(5 - 5:00pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-22-2014
(13 - 4:49pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.5881 seconds
52 querie(s) executed