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

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, 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 15 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >  Last ›
   1401. booond Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4205934)
Both Fox and MSNBC are citing sources saying it's Ryan.


Have seen the same rumors. I agree it makes a more interesting pick but cements him in the crush medicare corner.
   1402. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:29 AM (#4205939)
a rare ticket where the base would rather reverse the ticket.
   1403. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4205940)
Have seen the same rumors. I agree it makes a more interesting pick but cements him in the crush medicare corner.


interesting too, as #s suggest Obama not doing so hot with the 65+ crowd.
   1404. booond Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4205941)
The base would rather Mitt go home.
   1405. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4205942)
That's true too.
   1406. The District Attorney Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4205948)
EDIT: Lassus will know why I'm hoping the Virginia location of the announcement doesn't mean it's McDonnell. :)
Given this location and timing, maybe it's Gabby Douglas!

Nate Silver makes a case for Nevada governor Brian Sandoval. Since Sandoval is pro-choice, I really think this is a non-starter. It's backed up by number-crunching that suggests him, Portman, or McDonnell.

Finished listening to the Lewis & Schur podcast I mentioned earlier, and they went on to point out that not only would nominating Romney/most anyone besides Portman give us the first all-non-Protestant ticket and the first all-non-WASP election... a Romney/most anyone besides Portman victory would most likely result in no Protestants leading any level of government (Reid = Mormon, Boehner = Catholic, Cantor = Jewish, Supreme Court = 6 Catholic/3 Jewish). As Lewis & Schur point out, this is not something that is making the news, probably largely because there is no advantage to either side in highlighting it. And I suppose that, insofar as it means the public doesn't really sweat what religion people are, it's a good thing. Still, it's interesting.
   1407. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:56 AM (#4205957)
a Romney/most anyone besides Portman victory would most likely result in no Protestants leading any level of government (Reid = Mormon, Boehner = Catholic, Cantor = Jewish, Supreme Court = 6 Catholic/3 Jewish).

Well, if Romney were to win, there is a pretty good chance the Senate would also change hands, likely elevating Mitch McConnell, a Baptist, to Majority Leader, FWIW.
   1408. DA Baracus Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4205958)
Given this location and timing, maybe it's Gabby Douglas!


Ha. The location does actually matter: it's on the USS Wisconsin. That's a pretty heavy Paul Ryan hint.
   1409. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:59 AM (#4205960)
I think the religion thing is only of interest to those 50+, and maybe I'm low on the age thing. The only people I bump into that mention anybody's faith are old people. My grandmother, a Roosevelt Dem to the day she died this year seemingly always found a way to bring up somebody's denomination, whether it was a pol. or just John Q citizen. I began to notice this a lot more when I spent a summer with her and everybody in her circle talked like that. I can't remember a night on the town where this was a topic of conversation in my demo. (30s).
   1410. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:05 AM (#4205964)
It's a news story, but I'm still firmly in the VP pick means nothing come November camp.
   1411. Tripon Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:35 AM (#4205980)
I think this is the last major election where being pro-choice/pro-life (BTW, I really dislike this distinction, is anyone really anti-life like the opposition to the pro-life people seem to detail?) In four years from now, I like to think it won't even be mentioned since a lot of the stronger presidential candidates in say 2016 won't try to play up that difference and the younger generations understand that any situation involving a potential newborn should be dealt with on a personal level.
   1412. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:46 AM (#4205982)
I think this is the last major election where being pro-choice/pro-life (BTW, I really dislike this distinction, is anyone really anti-life like the opposition to the pro-life people seem to detail?) In four years from now, I like to think it won't even be mentioned since a lot of the stronger presidential candidates in say 2016 won't try to play up that difference and the younger generations understand that any situation involving a potential newborn should be dealt with on a personal level.


I doubt it. America's not getting less polarized on abortion.
   1413. Jay Z Posted: August 11, 2012 at 02:48 AM (#4205993)
I am not impressed by Ryan, but it seems like a good pick. Focusing everything on the $, even though the budget and economy are unrelated, people will conflate the two. Ticket has a Nixon/Agnew feel, it worked before.

If they were elected, Ryan's plan, which wouldn't balance the budget anyway for years and years, won't be used anyway. If they truly want to reduce the deficit (debatable that it's more than a campaign ploy) again you have taxes, entitlements, military. Pick 'em. My guess is the middle class tax increase/upper class cut gets another big push, see if they can get away with it. Entitlements might be "reformed", but won't help the budget anyway near term because seniors will be kept whole. Military - not happening. So nothing much on that front, but getting elected is the main object. Economy won't see any major policy changes, since the prez doesn't affect that much anyway and everyone is still stuck in the Volcker/Greenspan mindset. Happy voting.
   1414. Tripon Posted: August 11, 2012 at 03:14 AM (#4206001)
Picking. Guy llike Ryan might allow Romney to move more to the center.
   1415. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 07:38 AM (#4206022)
Picking. Guy llike Ryan might allow Romney to move more to the center.
How? Paul Ryan is an actual Randian crazypants. I guess Romney will look moderate in comparison?

If I were a right-wing ideologue (not a slur, I am a left-wing ideologue), I'd love this pick. VPs usually make very little difference in the outcome of the election, and so the downside of any pick is limited. Paul Ryan is an economic radical, a man who has devoted his career to pushing fringe-right economic beliefs into the political mainstream. He's been very successful - I never thought that privatizing Medicare would pass the House. If Romney wins, which is at worst a 30% chance, the right has one of their own, a legitimate ideologue, in the Vice Presidency. If I were me, but on the right, I'd be beside myself with joy.

Selecting Paul Ryan as VP is analogous to if Obama had chosen Raul Grijalva, Jan Schakowsky, or Jared Polis. God, that would have been awesome.
   1416. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 07:43 AM (#4206024)
There's some real downside to the Ryan pick - though as I said the downside is limited, based on historical data. He's clearly being chosen to motivate the base, and I think he's a good pick for that, but he's untested nationally and has some legitimately weird beliefs.

There's also good data that the one thing a VP pick can do is bring some votes from his or her home state, and Wisconsin is not a swing state. Romney could win it, but only in an election where he'd have won the presidency without Wisconsin. So Ryan's upside, electorally, is limited.

The Obama campaign plan, from day one, has been to tie Mitt Romney to the Ryan plan and Medicare privatization / ending Medicare as we know it. The attacks on Romney's business record are just to build up to that. Romney is saying, bring it on. That's an odd choice, since what Romney should want the election to be about is Obama's stewardship of the economy, not a radical plan for the economy that Romney clearly only endorsed when backed into a corner in the primaries.
   1417. bunyon Posted: August 11, 2012 at 07:43 AM (#4206025)
Selecting Paul Ryan as VP is analogous to if Obama had chosen Raul Grijalva, Jan Schakowsky, or Jared Polis. God, that would have been awesome.


If I were a president I wouldn't to spend every meeting with the ideologues wondering if they were going to off me.
   1418. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 07:58 AM (#4206029)
Nate Silver on the twitters, making lots of sense:
I'm inherently skeptical about VP rumors. But Ryan is not the guy you'd use as a decoy.
I think Ryan pick (if rumors true) indicates bearish view from Romney campaign. Not a pick you make if you think you're ahead.

But I do think, for better or worse, that picking Ryan is a game-changer -- for better or worse. Variance +1.
   1419. Guapo Posted: August 11, 2012 at 09:29 AM (#4206042)
Somebody needs to tell Romney he's already sewed up the nomination...
   1420. DA Baracus Posted: August 11, 2012 at 09:36 AM (#4206044)
Starting off on the right foot:

Ryan: "That man is standing right next to me. His name is Mitt Romney." Romney is not actually standing next to him.

   1421. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 11, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4206046)
I have to agree with the Silver post in #1418.

Romney was always in a worse position in re VP than Obama was in 2008. Obama could have gone with Clinton or Biden, each one adding something to the actual governing that Obama lacked. It isn't clear that Romney had the same opportunity(except Rice, but she has problems such as being pro choice and having been part of the Bush administration). So now he either has to make a move that can't hurt and probably helps little or make a move that can hurt but has the potential to help.
   1422. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 11, 2012 at 09:51 AM (#4206052)
Ryan pick is now official.

   1423. Guapo Posted: August 11, 2012 at 09:55 AM (#4206053)
At the end of his speech, Mitt Romney introduced Paul Ryan by asking the crowd to “welcome the next president of the United States.”


These guys are on fire!
   1424. Jay Z Posted: August 11, 2012 at 09:56 AM (#4206054)
There's some real downside to the Ryan pick - though as I said the downside is limited, based on historical data. He's clearly being chosen to motivate the base, and I think he's a good pick for that, but he's untested nationally and has some legitimately weird beliefs.

There's also good data that the one thing a VP pick can do is bring some votes from his or her home state, and Wisconsin is not a swing state. Romney could win it, but only in an election where he'd have won the presidency without Wisconsin. So Ryan's upside, electorally, is limited.

The Obama campaign plan, from day one, has been to tie Mitt Romney to the Ryan plan and Medicare privatization / ending Medicare as we know it. The attacks on Romney's business record are just to build up to that. Romney is saying, bring it on. That's an odd choice, since what Romney should want the election to be about is Obama's stewardship of the economy, not a radical plan for the economy that Romney clearly only endorsed when backed into a corner in the primaries.


Ryan will not upstage Romney personality wise because he's going to come off as weird and geeky to a degree. I think they're going all in on money issues (economy/budget), punting everything else because Romney polls poorly in most of those things anyway. It's a serious time, we're serious people, things need to be done, etc.

I guess the contrast is that Ryan has had many different plans which he no doubt believed in, at least until other people hated them. Whereas Romney doesn't seem to believe in anything. But I don't think Romney wants to use those plans anyway, Ryan is just an image pick. Like you said, Obama team will try to tie Romney to the crazy plans as proof of more flip-flop etch-a-sketch.
   1425. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4206057)
To re-state some of my initial reaction, I think that looking at the Ryan pick for its impact on the election misses the most important thing about this selection.

Mitt Romney has somewhere between a 25-50% chance of being elected president, and it could easily turn out in October to be an 80% chance. He's now tied himself to a right-wing vision of the economic and fiscal future of the nation which was a fringe opinion even in the Reagan years. If Romney is elected, he's almost certain to have a Republican House and very likely to have a Republican Senate. We can expect their agenda will be to dismantle the safety net, up to and including Medicare and Social Security.

EDIT: And, to return to electoral calculation, the above is precisely why Ryan should be a reasonably successful choice in terms of base motivation.
   1426. Answer Guy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4206064)
EDIT: And, to return to electoral calculation, the above is precisely why Ryan should be a reasonably successful choice in terms of base motivation.


A successful candidate likely wouldn't need to make that sort of move this late in the game, if that's what this is.
   1427. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 11, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4206066)
I think MCoA's analysis may be more or less correct. Romney is a smart dude, and he knows that (a) his chances of winning are currently somewhere in the vicinity of 35-40% and (b) to the extent that moves up or down, its going to be driven entirely by exogenous events. I mean, Romney can move the needle by spending money and Obama can move (and has moved) the needle by spending money, but that sort of micropolitical stuff is just a rounding error on the global economic trends heading into November.

What he has accomplished by picking Ryan is not to materially alter his chances of winning, but to alter the stakes. I don't think Ryan, in truth, is high variance - it's just inconceivable to me that someone would've voted for Romney but now would be all, "OH NO RYAN CHANGE OF PLANS". Ryan is basically competent - not Palinesque - and that's really all that matters with VP. +- 0.2%, tops? Whoopie.

But IF Romney wins with Ryan as running mate, that can be framed as a mandate for Ryan-esque "entitlement-reform" (my freedom fighter is your terrorist, and my entitlement reform is your dismantling of the safety net, whatever), even if that framing isn't necessarily a valid interpretation of the voters will, and I think Romney would get a bit more rope from the self-identifying "centrist" media/commentators to push a right-wing agenda as president.
   1428. booond Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4206076)
What the Ryan does is draw a clear perception of the choice between the candidates. Mitt can't tack to the center with Ryan's budget strapped to his chest. But it's a bold choice. If Mitt thought they were within a few electoral votes he'd have selected T-Paw or Portman. He knows that he's 100 behind and that the campaign's not interested many independents and pissed off his base. Ryan gets the base back and he can portray his team - Romney/Ryan - as the fiscal experts. The problem is that Ryan's budget will create a bigger division between the 1% and the 99%, plus kill off you grandma. There almost wasn't a better choice for the liberal base than Ryan. And his inclusion creates sound bites for both sides.

This will be fun.
   1429. booond Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4206079)
For the 99% this is Darth Vader asking Voldemort to join forces.
   1430. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4206096)
I don't think Ryan, in truth, is high variance - it's just inconceivable to me that someone would've voted for Romney but now would be all, "OH NO RYAN CHANGE OF PLANS". Ryan is basically competent - not Palinesque - and that's really all that matters with VP. +- 0.2%, tops? Whoopie.


I think that picking Ryan is a massive un-forced error by the Romney campaign. Obama wants to push an argument that states Romney wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid in order to give rich people another tax break. People who aren't into politics actually don't believe that anyone would do that. Romney has been very careful to avoid specifics all the time. The Ryan plan, while also light on specifics, has enough to more effectively make this case. Also, Ryan has never run for an office above the House, making this pick a repeat of the Palin mistake!

In addition, this pick has a heavy opportunity cost. It prevents Romney from making a VP pick that would have shifted a state that matters electorally. It sets up a ticket of two white guys with harsh rhetoric on immigration (when Romney is already at historic lows in polls of the Latino vote).

I am personally very happy about this pick because it's the sort of pick you make if you listen to the neo-con policy elites in Washington. That's bad politics.
   1431. DA Baracus Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4206105)
Also, Ryan has never run for an office above the House, making this pick a repeat of the Palin mistake!


There's plenty of reasons for Democrats to be excited by this pick, but Palin comparisons like that are unfair. Unlike Palin at the time, Ryan's an experienced politician (seven Congressional terms, he was also a speech writer for Jack Kemp in '96 so he's got a little VP campaigning experience too) who's been in the national political spotlight before. Plus he's not dumb enough to not be able such questions as "what newspapers do you read?" I don't think you could try to get someone as awful as Palin was.
   1432. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4206123)
Double post
   1433. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4206124)
I think that picking Ryan is a massive un-forced error by the Romney campaign. Obama wants to push an argument that states Romney wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid in order to give rich people another tax break. People who aren't into politics actually don't believe that anyone would do that. Romney has been very careful to avoid specifics all the time. The Ryan plan, while also light on specifics, has enough to more effectively make this case. Also, Ryan has never run for an office above the House, making this pick a repeat of the Palin mistake!


What is a "tax break"? I find it very interesting that carefully crafted campaign rhetoric leaks into debate of people who don't, I suspect, realize they're parroting that sort of language.

Do people not realize that Republicans want to reduce redistribution of wealth through the mechanism of the state, even if it means taking away from already poor and unfortunate people? Isn't that obvious to everyone by now?
   1434. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4206125)
Double post.
   1435. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4206126)
Oh, #### this ####### iPhone.
   1436. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4206132)
It's not high-fiving when even ####### RAY is off in the corner telling you "dude, you need to back up off this; you're making a fool of yourself."

Uh, Ray pointed out an error that wasn't an error, and then said he sees Obama as "very likely" to win the election, a characterization with which I disagree and with which even some liberals here disagree.

If "the data might be accurate, but..." doesn't become a BTF meme we have all failed here.

For someone who obviously sees himself as the Smartest Guy in the World, you seem to struggle with the simple concept that two things can be true at once. The analysis MCoA linked in #1367 was from this week. It's certainly possible the conclusion is accurate, but it most certainly wasn't the conventional wisdom back in 1980. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was actually alive in 1980, and absolutely no one was talking about "President Reagan" in June of 1980 like it was a done deal.

Since no one bothered to answer the first two times I asked, I'll try again: If Reagan was so clearly the favorite as of June 1980, then why was the narrative so different? Didn't people know how to average polls back in 1980?
   1437. The District Attorney Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4206133)
As I said, I think independent of who ends up winning, this will be good for the country. Ryan (much like a Cylon) has a plan, and although I think it would be a disaster to implement, it also seems like it would, in fact, balance the budget. So he's not doing the lower taxes = MAGIC! thing, he's presenting a plausible alternative way that we could go if we want to prioritize certain things over others. I think America doesn't have its priorities in that order, so in that sense, I think it helps the Obama campaign that Ryan's plan becomes a bigger issue. But it would be extremely nice to have a conversation where both sides are proposing a set of goals and ways to achieve them that are based in reality.

(Of course, this is all assuming that the campaign will be conducted in the way a Ryan pick would suggest. Certainly no guarantee there. Maybe Romney sees adding the policy wonk as providing cover for him to run a dirtier campaign; who knows.)

BTW, in terms of getting the media and the world at large to pay attention, isn't Saturday morning a weird time to make your huge announcement?
   1438. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4206134)
Since no one bothered to answer the first two times I asked, I'll try again: If Reagan was so clearly the favorite as of June 1980, then why was the narrative so different? Didn't people know how to average polls back in 1980?


The amount the media knows about polling is a few orders of magnitude higher than in 1980.

So he's not doing the lower taxes = MAGIC! thing, he's presenting a plausible alternative way that we could go if we want to prioritize certain things over others.


Lowering taxes by 20% and not having it reduce revenue AND having a GDP growth consistently at 5% means that it's basically lower taxes = magic. Add in that it won't actually start reducing the deficit for a decade, and basically you get a plan that is 100% sure not to work.

EDIT: Link!
   1439. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4206136)
The amount the media knows about polling is a few orders of magnitude higher than in 1980.

So the theory is that it didn't occur to anyone to average polls in 1980? The concept of averaging was yet to be discovered by media types?

***
There almost wasn't a better choice for the liberal base than Ryan.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this would have been said no matter whom Romney picked.

Anyway, I like the Ryan choice, mostly because of the logic in #1437. I'm not confident at all that Americans actually want to hear hard truths or — gasp! — make hard choices, but Ryan actually comes with a plan. I'd rather see Romney/Ryan lose while making their case than see another repeat of the McCain "I'll say or do anything, I'm a compromiser!" disaster.
   1440. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4206137)
it also seems like it would, in fact, balance the budget.


As usual, Ryan's plan doesn't in fact detail all of its cuts.

Ryan tells CBO to assume his tax plan will raise revenues to 19 percent of GDP and then hold them there. He tells them to assume his Medicare plan will hold cost growth in Medicare to GDP+0.5 percentage points. He tells them to assume that spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program won’t grow any faster than inflation. He tells them to assume that all federal spending aside from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will fall from 12.5 percent of GDP in 2011 to 3.75 percent of GDP in 2050.
It’s that last assumption, perhaps, that shows most clearly how unlikely Ryan’s specified budget path is. He’s saying that in 2050, spending on defense, on food stamps, on infrastructure, on education, on research and development, on the federal workforce, and everything other non-entitlement program combined will be less than four percentage points of GDP.
Consider that defense spending has never fallen below three percentage points of GDP, and Mitt Romney has promised to keep it above four percentage points of GDP. Ryan has not outlined a realistic goal.



Do people not realize that Republicans want to reduce redistribution of wealth through the mechanism of the state, even if it means taking away from already poor and unfortunate people? Isn't that obvious to everyone by now?


No, apparently not.

Burton and his colleagues spent the early months of 2012 trying out the pitch that Romney was the most far-right presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. It fell flat. The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.


Get ready to hear a lot about the Ryan Budget.

edit:
I have a sneaking suspicion that this would have been said no matter whom Romney picked.


Come on. Rubio was the pick. He was the clear, correct choice, and it set things up nicely for 2016 as well. Pawlenty/Portman were boring nobodies, but they carried minimal risk. Ryan is just a bad decision. I said all those things on previous pages as well.
   1441. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4206138)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I was actually alive in 1980, and absolutely no one was talking about "President Reagan" in June of 1980 like it was a done deal.


According to your profile page, you were 7 years old in 1980. Forgive me if I don't find your recollections so compelling.
   1442. JE (Jason) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4206139)
BTW, in terms of getting the media and the world at large to pay attention, isn't Saturday morning a weird time to make your huge announcement?

A Saturday announcement dominates the Sunday talk-show conversation. Also, doing it in on a Saturday morning is an easy way to attract a crowd; in contrast, doing it in the afternoon is an easy away to attract a passing thunderstorm.
   1443. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4206146)
Who the hell remembers what they were doing in a specific month 32 years ago, let alone what "people" were saying about someone else in that month?


Hell, I was alive in 1980 and though I can't remember the specific month I think people at some point were saying Kermit the Frog for president.
   1444. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4206148)
absolutely no one was talking about "President Reagan" in June of 1980 like it was a done deal.
It wasn't a done deal. Despite the huge lead that Reagan achieved after the Republican convention, Carter managed to get within a couple points of the lead in September and October. It was close until late October, when the debates and events-dear-boy put the race away for Reagan.

This discussion began with this post by Joe:
The reality is, Romney is in great shape compared to where Reagan was at this point in 1980.
This is false. Reagan was actually ahead in the polls in August. Are you arguing (a) that Reagan was not ahead in August 1980? Are you arguing (b) that Romney is actually ahead in August 2012? You have to argue either (a) or (b) in order to defend that statement. The questions about the media narrative are irrelevant.

EDIT: As you can see for Misirlou's quote below, I originally asked whether Joe was arguing if Romney was ahead "in the polls". This was a poor phrasing, becuase the question is not the polling status of the race - the polls can be wrong - but the actual underlying state of the race. In order for Romney to be "in great shape compared to where Reagan was at this point in 1980", either the polls have to have been wrong then, or they have to be wrong now. I'm asking which of those two claims he believes.
   1445. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4206151)
This is false. Reagan was actually ahead in the polls in August. Are you arguing (a) that Reagan was not ahead in the polls? Are you arguing (b) that Romney is actually ahead in the polls? You have to argue either (a) or (b) in order to defend that statement. The questions about the media narrative are irrelevant.


I think he's saying a version of a, that the polls were wrong because of the media narrative that he, as a 7 year old, was paying very close attention to.
   1446. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4206156)
According to your profile page, you were 7 years old in 1980. Forgive me if I don't find your recollections so compelling.

Yes, yes, all that business about the Oct. 28 debate catapulting Reagan to victory? We all imagined that. It turns out Reagan had been up big since June.

***
Come on. Rubio was the pick. He was the clear, correct choice, and it set things up nicely for 2016 as well. Pawlenty/Portman were boring nobodies, but they carried minimal risk. Ryan is just a bad decision. I said all those things on previous pages as well.

I like Marco Rubio, but he's the GOP's Obama. He's a half-term senator who generates a lot of love but is thin on actual accomplishments and initiatives. He's also from South Florida, so who knows what's lurking in his closet. Without doing any digging, we know he has some sleazy friends (I'm pointing at you, Rep. David Rivera).
   1447. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4206157)
Joe has got to be the most effective tool for the Left this site has ever seen.
   1448. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4206158)
Yes, yes, all that business about the Oct. 28 debate catapulting Reagan to victory? We all imagined that. It turns out Reagan had been up big since June.
No, the graph has a very clear inflection point in late October, when the combination of Reagan's strong debates, economic conditions of high inflation and low or negative growth, and Carter's failure to secure the safety of the Iranian hostages pushed Reagan out to a larger lead. He was in the lead before, and then his lead increased dramatically in the last week or two of the campaign.

Again: Polling averages for the 1980 Presidential election, analysis by John Sides
   1449. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4206160)
Yes, yes, all that business about the Oct. 28 debate catapulting Reagan to victory? We all imagined that. It turns out Reagan had been up big since June.


What is it with you? No one is saying he was up big. They are saying he wasn't behind, as you claim. Up 2-5 points is neither up big nor behind.

And how the hell is the above quote a response to this:



I don't know about the rest of you, but I was actually alive in 1980, and absolutely no one was talking about "President Reagan" in June of 1980 like it was a done deal.



According to your profile page, you were 7 years old in 1980. Forgive me if I don't find your recollections so compelling.


And lastly, we're not talking about June. We're talking about the middle of August. If you want to claim that Romney, at this point, is better off than Reagan was, at this point in 1980, what the hell does June have to do with anything?

   1450. The District Attorney Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4206162)
Rubio was the pick. He was the clear, correct choice, and it set things up nicely for 2016 as well.
Whaddaya mean? Since you say '16, I assume you don't mean Rubio succeeding Romney as President. And there's little evidence that a losing Vice-Presidential run is a step towards the Presidency.

I agree that if I'm Romney, I want Rubio. It's less clear that if I'm Rubio, I want Rubio.

(Who knows, there's a good chance we'll eventually find out that someone other than Ryan was the "first pick", as we did with McCain/Lieberman.)

I like Marco Rubio, but he's the GOP's Obama.
Well, Obama did win.

BTW, I'm gonna peruse this Ryan Plan critique stuff, thanks for the links.
   1451. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4206164)
incorrect
   1452. Jay Z Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4206165)
As I said, I think independent of who ends up winning, this will be good for the country. Ryan (much like a Cylon) has a plan, and although I think it would be a disaster to implement, it also seems like it would, in fact, balance the budget. So he's not doing the lower taxes = MAGIC! thing, he's presenting a plausible alternative way that we could go if we want to prioritize certain things over others. I think America doesn't have its priorities in that order, so in that sense, I think it helps the Obama campaign that Ryan's plan becomes a bigger issue. But it would be extremely nice to have a conversation where both sides are proposing a set of goals and ways to achieve them that are based in reality.


Ryan's plan IS just another magic plan. He is a typical pol in proposing such.

The primary cost items in the fed budget are SSI, Medicare, Military. There's other stuff, but it's split into 1,000 different areas and making substantial changes is probably not going to have a big bottom line impact.

You can either:
Cut SSI, Medicare, Military

or
Raise taxes/revenue

or
run a budget deficit.

The tendency to use tax cuts as another "goodie" to give voters has made the 3rd option the default since 1980. If you don't run a budget deficit, then you need to use a combination of the first two.

The problem is that if you propose that politically, some other pol will propose one of the "magic" solutions, like unrealistic growth expectations in tax revenue or the economy, unrealistic gains to be had from cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse," etc., etc., etc. Pols live and die by seeming to cover more bases than they can in reality cover. This gets them more votes. They need to get people to vote for them that they can honestly never help, but will vote for them in the hope that the pol will deliver. Realism hardly ever sells in the political world.
   1453. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4206166)
Well, Obama won.


Well, that's what the data says, but...
   1454. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4206171)
The questions about the media narrative are irrelevant.

If the media narrative is irrelevant, then why do people still talk about Dewey defeating Truman? The media narrative drives the popular perception of a race, while polls are only studied by a small, mostly irrelevant number of political junkies like us. People around here, and on a lot of political sites, talk like this election is over. The reality is, a substantial number of people won't even start to pay attention until the GOP convention.

EDIT: As you can see for Misirlou's quote below, I originally asked whether Joe was arguing if Romney was ahead "in the polls". This was a poor phrasing, becuase the question is not the polling status of the race - the polls can be wrong - but the actual underlying state of the race.

No, Romney's obviously not leading in the polls, and I've never argued otherwise. My point all along is that Romney benefits from, as you put it, the "underlying state of the race," since Obama is currently at his lowest approval rating in the Gallup poll, a record number of Americans see the U.S. on the "wrong track," consumer confidence slipped yet again this week, the economy is stagnant if not trending back toward recession, unemployment is steady at over 8 percent (and U6 at 15 percent), etc., etc.

As for the Romney 2012 vs. Reagan 1980 comparison, the charts you're using to lambaste me show Reagan at under 40 percent in June 1980 and at barely 40 percent in August. Romney, meanwhile, is currently polling at 44 to 47 percent, despite "no one liking him" and all that.
   1455. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4206173)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I was actually alive in 1980, and absolutely no one was talking about "President Reagan" in June of 1980 like it was a done deal.

According to your profile page, you were 7 years old in 1980. Forgive me if I don't find your recollections so compelling.
This is practically kevin-quality stuff. I wonder if Joe was also an active-duty military scientist contractor as a child?
   1456. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4206175)
If the media narrative is irrelevant, then why do people still talk about Dewey defeating Truman?


Because of the famous photo. No photo and that gaffe is forgotten by 1950.
   1457. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4206177)
I must apologize. For some reason I assumed that Joe actually provided evidence about his opinion that Reagan was trailing up until late October. I went back and looked and and as I should have known he didn't provide any evidence other than to say that his 7 year old self remembers very well that no one was calling a candidate "Mr. President".
   1458. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4206178)
As for the Romney 2012 vs. Reagan 1980 comparison, the charts you're using to lambaste me show Reagan at under 40 percent in June 1980 and at barely 40 percent in August.
They also show Carter at an even lower ebb. There was a third-party candidate taking votes from both Carter and Reagan at the time. Reagan still led both Carter and Anderson.

Are you arguing that the presence of Anderson in the race was bad for Reagan and good for Carter at the time, and so Reagan's lead over Carter and Anderson should be seen as an illusion of some sort? How do you figure?
   1459. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4206179)
As for the Romney 2012 vs. Reagan 1980 comparison, the charts you're using to lambaste me show Reagan at under 40 percent in June 1980 and at barely 40 percent in August. Romney, meanwhile, is currently polling at 44 to 47 percent, despite "no one liking him" and all that.


Because 40% in a three way race is better than 44-47% in a 2 way race. Or did Bill Clinton not win in 1992 despite what the data shows?
   1460. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4206180)
If the media narrative is irrelevant, then why do people still talk about Dewey defeating Truman? The media narrative drives the popular perception of a race, while polls are only studied by a small, mostly irrelevant number of political junkies like us. People around here, and on a lot of political sites, talk like this election is over. The reality is, a substantial number of people won't even start to pay attention until the GOP convention.

The data might say Truman won but. . .
   1461. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4206181)
Joe has got to be the most effective tool for the Left this site has ever seen.
He's got a Time's article from June of 1980 that he is clutching tightly to his bosom. The whole "the data might be accurate" thingy.

I guess I've arrived -- I have a stalker named McCoy.

I feel like I'm going to need a restraining order soon.
   1462. JE (Jason) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4206182)
I agree that if I'm Romney, I want Rubio. It's less clear that if I'm Rubio, I want Rubio.

"Chemistry" may be a verboten term at BTF but don't discount its importance in VP selections. It is understood that Romney gets along with Ryan, whereas there is little evidence that he is close with either Rubio and Jindal.
   1463. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4206184)
Are you arguing that the presence of Anderson in the race was bad for Reagan and good for Carter at the time, and so Reagan's lead over Carter and Anderson should be seen as an illusion of some sort? How do you figure?


You know, this would be an interesting counterfactual. Imagine a world in which the Tea Party sets itself up as a genuine third party, a right-wing populist movement. Romney is the Republican nominee, but is running basically on his record from MA. What does polling look like in a hypothetical Obama/Romney/Palin race?

edit:
"Chemistry" may be a verboten term at BTF but don't discount its importance in VP selections.


This is one of those things that might be true, but is pretty stupid if it is. The VP is a figurehead that has very little to do with actual policy. Who gives a #### if you don't like the guy, if he can deliver Florida, you suck it up and take it.
   1464. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4206186)
No, the graph has a very clear inflection point in late October, when the combination of Reagan's strong debates, economic conditions of high inflation and low or negative growth, and Carter's failure to secure the safety of the Iranian hostages pushed Reagan out to a larger lead. He was in the lead before, and then his lead increased dramatically in the last week or two of the campaign.

Again: Polling averages for the 1980 Presidential election, analysis by John Sides

Why do you keep invoking a graph that was created 30 years after the fact and presumes a two-man race when, in fact, it was a three-man race?

Also, I find it odd that people are claiming they don't remember the 1980 presidential election or that a 7-year-old couldn't have been following it. The 1980 election was huge when I was growing up, with kids fearing nuclear war if Reagan won, etc. It was a big deal, at least at my school. I guess people have forgotten the Cold War, but those were different times. We were still doing disaster drills at school.
   1465. DA Baracus Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4206187)
This is one of those things that might be true, but is pretty stupid if it is. The VP is a figurehead that has very little to do with actual policy. Who gives a #### if you don't like the guy, if he can deliver Florida, you suck it up and take it.


It didn't make McCain look good.
   1466. The District Attorney Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4206189)
You can either:
Cut SSI, Medicare, Military

or
Raise taxes/revenue

or
run a budget deficit.
Okay, I thought Ryan was essentially proposing the first one of those, minus military (and with the very cynical proviso that current old people won't suffer the cuts.) I'll look this stuff over.

Silver's take. To sum up, he thinks this means Romney sees himself as behind (probably not a controversial assessment of the pick's meaning), and points out that Romney is after all a "turnaround artist." I always like historical points, and Silver mentions that the last House member to win VP was 1932 (John Nance Garner/FDR), and if you don't want to count Garner since he was the Speaker, you'd have to go back to 1908 (James T. Sherman/Taft). Also, Silver tries to express Ryan's conservatism statistically:
Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that is is [sic] the furthest from the center. (The statistic does not provide scores for governors and other vice presidential nominees who never served in Congress.)
Not sure what Ryan's Conservatism Above Replacement Legislator (CARL) score is.
   1467. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4206190)
What is it with you? No one is saying he was up big. They are saying he wasn't behind, as you claim. Up 2-5 points is neither up big nor behind.
And lastly, we're not talking about June. We're talking about the middle of August. If you want to claim that Romney, at this point, is better off than Reagan was, at this point in 1980, what the hell does June have to do with anything?

Try to keep up. The link MCoA keeps posting shows Reagan with a huge lead as of June and July 1980.
   1468. Tripon Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4206191)
It didn't make McCain look good.


Well, Alaska was already going to vote republican....
   1469. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4206193)
Try to keep up. The link MCoA keeps posting shows Reagan with a huge lead as of June and July 1980.

Yes, try to keep up. Joe's a troll.
   1470. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4206194)
Also, I find it odd that people are claiming they don't remember the 1980 presidential election or that a 7-year-old couldn't have been following it. The 1980 election was huge when I was growing up, with kids fearing nuclear war if Reagan won, etc. It was a big deal, at least at my school.


I turned 7 shortly before Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, an event far more compelling than even a landmark presidential election, certainly more compelling considering that said campaign was still 3 months away from the election, and far, far, FAR more compelling to an average 7 year old boy. I have no personal recollection of the moon landing.

It may well have been a big deal at your school. But you were in second grade, still learning to not eat paste. I doubt you or any second grader knew what nuclear war was, much less fearing it.
   1471. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4206196)
I think Jonathan Chait's take on the larger significance of the Ryan selection is both interesting and correct:
What makes Ryan so extraordinary is that he is not just a handsome slickster skilled at conveying sincerity with a winsome heartland affect. Pols like that come along every year. He is also (as Rich Yeselson put it) the chief party theoretician. Far more than even Ronald Reagan, he is deeply grounded is the ideological precepts of the conservative movement – a longtime Ayn Rand devotee who imbibed deeply from the ... supply-side tracts of Jude Wanniski and George Gilder. He has not merely formed an alliance with the movement, he is a product of it.

In this sense, Ryan’s nomination represents an important historical marker and the completion of a fifty year struggle. Starting in the early 1960s, conservative activists set out to seize control of the Republican Party. At the time the party was firmly in the hands of establishmentarians who had made their peace with the New Deal, but the activists regarded the entire development of the modern regulatory and welfare states as a horrific assault on freedom bound to lead to imminent societal collapse. In fits and starts, the conservatives slowly advanced – nominating Goldwater, retreating under Nixon, nominating Reagan, retreating as Reagan sought to govern, and on and on through Gingrich, Bush and his successors.

Over time the movement and the party have grown synonymous, and Ryan’s nominations represents a moment when the conservative movement ceased to control the politicians from behind the scenes and openly assumed the mantle of power.
(I took out one word in there where Chait gave his opinion of Wanniski and Gilder.)
   1472. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4206197)
Also, I find it odd that people are claiming they don't remember the 1980 presidential election or that a 7-year-old couldn't have been following it. The 1980 election was huge when I was growing up, with kids fearing nuclear war if Reagan won, etc. It was a big deal, at least at my school.
It makes sense you remember what other 7-year-olds thought about the election. The idea that you have a clear and definitive memory of the media narrative is fabulous for its insanity.
   1473. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4206200)
Yes, try to keep up. Joe's a troll.

But at least I'm not a pathetic stalker. You must have a sad life if following me around BBTF is your best Saturday entertainment option.

***
It may well have been a big deal at your school. But you were in second grade, still learning to not eat paste. I doubt you or any second grader knew what nuclear war was, much less fearing it.

Second-graders eat paste and don't remember major historical events? Maybe the low-IQ ones.
   1474. JE (Jason) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4206201)
It didn't make McCain look good.

Moreover, it's not "pretty stupid," partiuclarly for a candidate with plenty of executive experience. The campaign is a team and everyone needs to be on the same page. (i.e., There is little chance of anyone going "rogue.")
   1475. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4206203)
No seven-year-old in the history of the world has critically appraised and clearly understood the broader media narrative on a national event. Please stop, this is silly even for you, and approaching to kevin-in-the-military levels of internet guy who won't back down.
   1476. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4206204)
Maybe the low-IQ ones.


Well, at least it's self aware ...
   1477. Monty Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4206206)
Second-graders eat paste and don't remember major historical events? Maybe the low-IQ ones.


I think the point was that second-graders are not a reliable source for political news.
   1478. DA Baracus Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4206207)
Silver mentions that the last House member to win VP was 1932 (John Nance Garner/FDR), and if you don't want to count him since he was the Speaker, you'd have to go back to 1908 (James T. Sherman/Taft). Also, Silver tries to express Ryan's conservatism statistically:


Small sample size. Since 1908 Geraldine Ferraro is the only other House member to even be a VP candidate. It's not that being Congressman is prohibitive for Ryan becoming the Vice President, it's that being a Congressman is prohibitive of getting nominated in the first place.
   1479. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4206208)
But at least I'm not a pathetic stalker. You must have a sad life if following me around BBTF is your best Saturday entertainment.

So being a troll is your best Saturday entertainment? I'm actually getting paid while I call you a troll. Are you getting paid to be a troll?
   1480. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4206209)
(I took out one word in there where Chait gave his opinion of Wanniski and Gilder.)

Yes, you took out the word "lunatic." But, hey, that doesn't change the analysis any, right?

It makes sense you remember what other 7-year-olds thought about the election. The idea that you have a clear and definitive memory of the media narrative is fabulous for its insanity.

When did I claim to speak on behalf of other 7-year-olds? And why would that even matter, since 7-year-olds don't vote?

My point now, as it's been all along, is that the media narrative of 1980 most certainly didn't have Reagan as a big favorite dating back to June 1980. It's easy to look back on an election and explain why things happened the way they did. But that doesn't retroactively change the conventional wisdom that was in place at the time.
   1481. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4206210)
Look, the data may show Joe was seven, but he was constructing his own polling questionnaires at recess.
   1482. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4206211)
But, hey, that doesn't change the analysis any, right?


Only insofar as it refuses to call lunatics lunatics.
   1483. bunyon Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4206212)
Duck, I'm surprised you weren't keenly following the moon landing. I agree that it is unlikely for a 7 year old to be able to critique major events but I can clearly recall the Viking landings on Mars and I was 5 or 6. I recall the 1980 election clearly and I was nine. I don't think I could give you a proper accouting of it but I definitely remember it.

To wit, I think all of us wind up biased by our circle. I would have said Reagan took a commanding lead in 1980 in approximately 1977. Just as, today, I have trouble believing Obama isn't up 50 points. As a 9-year old in 1980 I didn't realize my circle wasn't representative. Today, I do.
   1484. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4206213)
When did I claim to speak on behalf of other 7-year-olds?


When the hell did anyone claim you did?
   1485. JE (Jason) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4206214)
   1486. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4206216)
Duck, I'm surprised you weren't keenly following the moon landing. I agree that it is unlikely for a 7 year old to be able to critique major events but I can clearly recall the Viking landings on Mars and I was 5 or 6. I recall the 1980 election clearly and I was nine. I don't think I could give you a proper accouting of it but I definitely remember it.


I'm not saying I didn't follow it, just that today I have no personal recollections of the event.
   1487. Tripon Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4206219)

Moreover, it's not "pretty stupid," partiuclarly for a candidate with plenty of executive experience. The campaign is a team and everyone needs to be on the same page. (i.e., There is little chance of anyone going "rogue.")


That's still was a fascinating pick, if only because the McCain campaign basically admitted they threw a hail mary. No way in hell that a person like Sarah Palin gets even considered in any other year.
   1488. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4206220)
When did I claim to speak on behalf of other 7-year-olds? And why would that even matter, since 7-year-olds don't vote?
The point, and I honestly can't believe you haven't backed down on this, is you don't remember the media narrative of the 1980 election. You were seven. Seven-year-olds don't understand the idea of a media narrative and have no way to critically appraise it. Because they are children.

You foolishly claimed personal knowledge that you don't actually have. Just back down, say, I might have gotten caught up in the moment. Then do some research and present the evidence that the media narrative in summer 1980 contradicted the polls. And stop pretending to have remembered something that you don't, and couldn't possibly have known.
   1489. The District Attorney Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4206222)
Here's what struck me from Chait:
Ryan [has] become the leader of the Republican Party, with the president himself relegated to a kind of head of state role, at least in domestic affairs. As Grover Norquist put it, the only requirement for a nominee was enough working digits to sign Ryan’s plan. Ryan’s prestige within the party is unassailable. If he doesn’t want something to happen, it won’t happen (say, several bipartisan deals to reduce the deficit that he squashed.) If he wants something to happen, however foolhardy (like putting the entire House GOP caucus on record for his radical budget plan despite a certain veto) it will happen. It is Ryan’s party.

The only real question left was how to handle the optics of this reality. The original operating plan of the Romney campaign was to run against the bad economy, and then implement the Ryan Plan, which of course is a long-term vision of government unrelated to the current state of the labor market. Romney’s campaign had been bravely insisting for weeks that the plan was working, or that it was due for a 1980-like October leap in the polls, but clearly Romney did not believe, or had come to disbelieve, its own spin.
Whoops, let's ignore that last sentence, ok?

Now, Chait is probably being a bit of Dramatic Liberal here, but of course it does seem logical that if Romney wants Ryan to be his VP, and if Ryan does ascend to that role, that all makes it far more likely that Romney actually will try to get the Ryan Plan passed. That is going to be a hell of a day. I mean, I know they've got ways to try to spin it and make it sound good, but you've gotta see it going worse than GWB's attempt to privatize Social Security, right? How could it not?
   1490. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4206223)
No seven-year-old in the history of the world has critically appraised and clearly understood the broader media narrative on a national event. Please stop, this is silly even for you, and approaching to kevin-in-the-military levels of internet guy who won't back down.

For Pete's sake, my brief aside about following the election as a 7-year-old was not a claim to "critically appraise" "the broader media narrative." All I said was that I remember following the election and I remember a general belief that Carter would win.

As to my larger "media narrative" point to which you keep objecting, if I'm wrong, why don't you show me some links to major political analysts discussing Reagan as a major favorite going back to June 1980, as he should have been described given those links you're so fond of citing. If Reagan truly had an 18-point lead in the summer of 1980, then absolutely no one in America should have been surprised he won.
   1491. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4206224)
You can either:
Cut SSI, Medicare, Military

or
Raise taxes/revenue

or
run a budget deficit.

Okay, I thought Ryan was essentially proposing the first one of those, minus military (and with the very cynical proviso that current old people won't suffer the cuts.) I'll look this stuff over.


The problem is that he is doing the opposite of the second one, which may have an even greater impact in the short- and medium-term.

Though I don't think excluding the current elderly from the cuts is necessarily that cynical in itself. They are totally unprepared for cuts. A 55 year old has some time to prepare. A 45 year old more so. But it is quite possibly a happy coincidence that their base doesn't get hit by cuts.
   1492. Downtown Bookie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4206225)
I agree it makes a more interesting pick but cements him in the crush medicare corner.


If Romney is elected, he's almost certain to have a Republican House and very likely to have a Republican Senate. We can expect their agenda will be to dismantle the safety net, up to and including Medicare and Social Security.


I think that picking Ryan is a massive un-forced error by the Romney campaign. Obama wants to push an argument that states Romney wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid in order to give rich people another tax break. People who aren't into politics actually don't believe that anyone would do that.


I don't see where anyone's mentioned this yet; but the following is from Mitt Romney's speech introducing Ryan as his running mate:

“Unlike the current president who has cut Medicare funding by $700 billion, we will preserve and protect Medicare and Social Security.”

I said in the Lounge that it's all in the presentation; though, perhaps, it could be better said that the most important thing is how you frame the argument.

DB
   1493. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4206226)
But at least I'm not a pathetic stalker. You must have a sad life if following me around BBTF is your best Saturday entertainment.
Dude, you're here on a Saturday.
   1494. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4206229)
So being a troll is your best Saturday entertainment? I'm actually getting paid while I call you a troll.

Then I guess it's no wonder Guggenheim overbid for the Dodgers by $600,000,000 and allowed McCourt to stay involved.

On behalf of Guggenheim's investors, more work and less stalking, please.

***
Dude, you're here on a Saturday.

I'm here arguing about politics, which is dumb enough. But I've never spent 3 days stalking someone here like McCoy. What's with this guy?
   1495. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4206230)
As Larry Sabato points out, Gallup did not have Reagan way ahead of Cater in June 1980,
Gallup's polling in 1980. They took several polls in June, the first of which indeed had Carter up 39-32. They polled the race several more times in June and July, and this was the trendline:

Carter 39, Reagan 32 ->
Carter 35, Reagan 34 ->
Reagan 37, Carter 32 ->
Reagan 37, Carter 34

Their next poll in August had Reagan up 45-29. After that Carter pulled even in Gallup's polling, and only in the final week did Reagan pull away.

I don't know why you would cite only the polling of Gallup when analysis has been presented showing that full polling picture of the race, using data drawn from all the publicly available polls and not just those by one company.
   1496. JE (Jason) Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4206231)
That's still was a fascinating pick, if only because the McCain campaign basically admitted they threw a hail mary. No way in hell that a person like Sarah Palin gets even considered in any other year.

I wouldn't go that far -- maybe a 20-yard attempt on a 4th and 5? The McCain campaign deserves the lion's share of blame, first for not fully vetting Palin (e.g., notice she had not been sent out as a campaign surrogate?) and then screwing up the Palin rollout (e.g., not allowing her to get the feet wet with local media outlets, only to dump her at the door of Nicolle Wallace's pal, Katey Couric, a few weeks later).
   1497. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4206232)
If I'm wrong, show me some links

Typical. Joe has an opinion that he is basing either on some right wing fringe group blog trolling or his recollection as a 7 year old. Its up to us to actually do the research to find out whether or not his particular brand of lunacy is right or wrong and up to us to teach him. Yet he forgets to mention that anything you show him that does not toe the line of his worldthink will be hand waved away.

How about you do the research just this once?
   1498. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4206233)
Then I guess it's no wonder Guggenheim overbid for the Dodgers by $600,000,000 and allowed McCourt to stay involved.

On behalf of Guggenheim's investors, more work and less stalking, please


So can I assume you're being a troll pro bono then?

   1499. Monty Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4206236)
All I said was that I remember following the election and I remember a general belief that Carter would win.


Actually, you said this:

It's certainly possible the conclusion is accurate, but it most certainly wasn't the conventional wisdom back in 1980. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was actually alive in 1980, and absolutely no one was talking about "President Reagan" in June of 1980 like it was a done deal.
   1500. McCoy Posted: August 11, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4206240)
I might have said that, but . . .
Page 15 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
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
(3780 - 3:00pm, Oct 25)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(19 - 2:59pm, Oct 25)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(7 - 2:51pm, Oct 25)
Last: puck

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(16 - 2:41pm, Oct 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(85 - 2:23pm, Oct 25)
Last: puck

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 2:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Batman

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(21 - 2:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(392 - 2:08pm, Oct 25)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(4 - 1:59pm, Oct 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(933 - 1:35pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(3 - 1:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: esseff

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(9 - 12:55pm, Oct 25)
Last: The elusive Robert Denby

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(8 - 12:43pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cargo Cultist

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(7 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(17 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

Page rendered in 0.8040 seconds
52 querie(s) executed