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, March 05, 2014

OTP - March 2014: Russia denies calling shots in Ukraine’s Crimea standoff

Only Babe Ruth calls shots!

At a press conference for Kremlin-controlled media on Tuesday, Putin reiterated his position that Moscow has the right to use “all means” necessary to protect ethnic Russians and vital military assets in Ukraine, first among them the Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

 

Bitter Mouse Posted: March 05, 2014 at 07:54 AM | 3254 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: lies, politics, war

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 27 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 >  Last ›
   2601. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4675713)
You continue to confuse #### you think is important with things normal voters care about, JoeK.

If "normal voters" actually rank "has a vagina" ahead of "served his country," then this country is in deep trouble. (And to be clear, I don't believe serving in the military should be a free pass into elected office, but at least it's a real-world accomplishment/résumé item.)
   2602. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4675715)
Also, there's very limited evidence that Cruz is a talented politician. He won by nearly the exact same margin as the state overall. Obama won his senate election by 43 points in a state that went D in the presidential race by 10 points. Now, he was obviously running against a poor opponent (Alan Keyes), but then, so was Cruz in 2012. So far, he has attempted one significant maneuver, and it backfired royally in his face.

We've been through this a hundred times. Ted Cruz won a long, nasty GOP primary, which undoubtedly led to him underperforming a couple months later in the general. (And Paul Sadler, a Texas native who was a Texas state rep for over a decade, was a hell of a lot better candidate than the carpetbagging Alan Keyes.)

I would agree that Cruz is an excellent fundraiser--he makes it rain even for other candidates--but so was Sarah Palin. At this point, I think Ted Cruz is a lot more like Sarah Palin than Barack Obama.

I really hope millions and millions of Dems believe this, too.
   2603. The District Attorney Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4675722)
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think the motto of her Republican opponent should be "Why? Just because she has a vagina?"

The party shouldn't risk diluting this potent message, either. They should stick to those exact words. As often, and as loudly, as possible.
   2604. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4675727)
If Hillary won in 2008, she would have been the first woman president, but I guess Dems thought "first black president" was more important.

I guess that "war on women" was a civil war among Dems.
   2605. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4675730)
I would agree that Cruz is an excellent fundraiser--he makes it rain even for other candidates--but so was Sarah Palin. At this point, I think Ted Cruz is a lot more like Sarah Palin than Barack Obama.


I really hope millions and millions of Dems believe this, too.

I just hope that millions of Republican primary voters confuse Ted Cruz with Ronald Reagan. Those GOP primary voters are the Democrats' ace in the hole.
   2606. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4675735)
If "normal voters" actually rank "has a vagina" ahead of "served his country," then this country is in deep trouble.


Look, I'm well aware that you're not one to think outside of your talking points, Joe, but you're obviously in the tank before you wrote that sentence. But as TDA says at 2603, if the Goopies want to run in 2016 on a platform of "why would you vote for a shriveled up old ####-slit, right?" go ahead with that, kiddo. As I said, until I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to use your support of a GOP candidate as stand-in for proof that he's unelectable.
   2607. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4675736)
I would be inclined to say "guys, shushie, don't talk him off that bone", but, the way he digs in, it ain't necessary.

CRUZ IN '16!!! I may give him some dollars! In fact, we all should. Let's ensure he's the nominee! God, are you listening? I never asked you for much. I'm asking now.
   2608. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4675737)
I just pray that millions of Republican primary voters confuse Ted Cruz with Ronald Reagan. Those GOP primary voters are the Democrats' ace in the hole.

The sudden love for Reagan among lefties is rather funny. At the time, they said he was a dumb B-movie actor who loathed poor people and couldn't wait to fire up the nukes.

***
Look, I'm well aware that you're not one to think outside of your talking points, Joe, but you're obviously in the tank before you wrote that sentence. But as TDA says at 2603, if the Goopies want to run in 2016 on a platform of "why would you vote for a shriveled up old ####-slit, right?" go ahead with that, kiddo.

Looks like someone (still) isn't very good at "reading for comprehension." I never said the GOP should run on anything resembling a "she's just a woman!" platform. The point is that Hillary might need to offer more than "first woman president" to secure the nomination, given that Dem primary voters didn't value "first woman president" very much in 2008.
   2609. Monty Posted: March 23, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4675740)
Ted Cruz won a long, nasty GOP primary, which undoubtedly led to him underperforming a couple months later in the general.


I think the same thing might well happen to whoever wins the GOP nomination for president. This far out, it looks like a lot more people will be fighting on the GOP side than on the Dem side.
   2610. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4675743)
The sudden love for Reagan among lefties is rather funny.


It's not love. It's recognition that he won 2 Presidential elections, the second one handily. Kinda like the guy currently in office did. Acknowledgment isn't love.

   2611. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4675745)
It's not love. It's recognition that he won 2 Presidential elections, the second one handily.

He won the first one handily, too.
   2612. Joey B. Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4675746)
If "normal voters" actually rank "has a vagina" ahead of "served his country," then this country is in deep trouble.

Looked at the debt figures lately? The country is in deep trouble.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think the motto of her Republican opponent should be "Why? Just because she has a vagina?"

Personally, I prefer "Who killed Ambassador Stevens, anyway?"
   2613. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4675747)
Looked at the debt figures lately? The country is in deep trouble.

Fear not, Joey. The lefties here have assured us that the national debt is all but meaningless.
   2614. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4675749)
Long, nasty primary fights didn't seem to hurt Obama '08, Bush '00, Clinton '92, or Reagan '80 any.
   2615. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4675750)
He won the first one handily, too.


That's because edit...McCain chose a Cruz-like Palin as his VP nominee.

Ha! See what I did there?
   2616. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4675751)
Debt trolling. We haven't had that in a while.
   2617. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4675753)
Ohh. Ohh. I have the perfect pairing!! CRUZ/BACHMANN in '16. Dear Lord, please keep that crazy ##### out of jail long enough to make this happen!
   2618. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4675754)
Long, nasty primary fights didn't seem to hurt Obama '08, Bush '00, Clinton '92, or Reagan '80 any.

Apples and oranges, if this was meant as a rebuttal to #2602. There's a big difference between not voting for a non-preferred GOP candidate in an election the non-preferred GOP candidate is sure to win, and not voting for a non-preferred GOP candidate in an election against a Dem.
   2619. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4675755)
Sam, you can teach an old dog new tricks, but dumb dogs of all ages are hopeless.
   2620. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4675756)
I just pray that millions of Republican primary voters confuse Ted Cruz with Ronald Reagan. Those GOP primary voters are the Democrats' ace in the hole.

The sudden love for Reagan among lefties is rather funny. At the time, they said he was a dumb B-movie actor who loathed poor people and couldn't wait to fire up the nukes.


You don't have to have loved a politician to have recognized his appeal to swing voters, but about the only swing voters that Ted Cruz would ever appeal to are these.
   2621. Joey B. Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4675757)
Fear not, Joey. The lefties here have assured us that the national debt is all but meaningless.

Seven trillion here, seven trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
   2622. Monty Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4675759)
Long, nasty primary fights didn't seem to hurt Obama '08, Bush '00, Clinton '92, or Reagan '80 any.


I don't think we know that for sure, any more than we know that long, nasty primary fights definitely did damage to, say, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or Bob Dole. People have both won and lost after primary fights.
   2623. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4675760)
Monty, a Mariners/Padres WS in '16 is far more likely than a Cruz election.
   2624. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4675764)
Ted Cruz won a long, nasty GOP primary, which undoubtedly led to him underperforming a couple months later in the general.


I'm actually curious about this. Who else can we test the theory out on?

Barack Obama in 2008--probably helped him.
Sharon Angle/Danny Tarkanian in 2010--might have hurt Angle? Really hard to say, as she was completely nutty. Don't think this one was a factor, as Angle provided her own Oppo.
Tommy Thompson 2012--rough primary which he emerged from. Ended up Baldin +5.5 in a state that went D by a margin of +6.9. Hard to say this one hurt Thompson.

I would like to see more examples, but I would lean towards no effect.
   2625. Monty Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4675766)
Monty, a Mariners/Padres WS in '16 is far more likely than a Cruz election.


I don't think Cruz is going to win, or even be nominated. I think by far the most likely result is some boring middle-of-the-road Republican being nominated and then being crushed by Hillary Clinton.
   2626. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4675767)
If Hillary won in 2008, she would have been the first woman president, but I guess Dems thought "first black president" was more important.

I guess that "war on women" was a civil war among Dems.


Obama won in 2008 because he had a better organization and a better message (mostly War in Iraq). And in the general Obama won women by a ton.

When was the last GOP candidate to win women in a national general election?
   2627. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4675768)
2625...a Cruz nomination would be 1) entertaining 2) harmless and 3) possibly fatal to the Tea Party. Reasons to wish.

edit I take my desire for 3) back. As long as the Tea Party splits the Republicans, they're our useful idiots.
   2628. Monty Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4675770)
If "normal voters" actually rank "has a vagina" ahead of "served his country," then this country is in deep trouble.


Normal voters are probably going to compare the Democratic platform to the Republican platform.
   2629. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4675771)
You don't have to have loved a politician to have recognized his appeal to swing voters, but about the only swing voters that Ted Cruz would ever appeal to are these.

Most GOP candidates have been too beholden to their big-money establishment backers to do it, but if Cruz keeps being Cruz and makes a populist appeal to swing voters, the effort could bear fruit. A national campaign would obviously look a lot different than a Texas GOP primary.

But that whole thing aside, I'm curious which Romney states the lefties here believe would turn to blue if Cruz is the GOP nominee. (North Carolina was the closest Romney win, and it appears things have gone further south for Dems there since 2012.)

I see no such states, and Cruz could likely bring Florida, New Mexico and/or Nevada (Latinos) into play, as well as Ohio (economy, populism).
   2630. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4675773)
Debt trolling. We haven't had that in a while.


No kidding. I love it when noted "economist" Joe K. explains how the economy works and what matters and what doesn't.

I would love to hear exactly how he thinks debt hurts the US economy.
   2631. spike Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4675774)
I think the same thing might well happen to whoever wins the GOP nomination for president.

They have already moved to shorten their debate and primary schedules out of a fear of this happening. Because imagine how much better off they would have been in '12 if a shortened season had actually resulted in a Perry, Bachmann, Cain or Gingrich nomination.
   2632. JE (Jason) Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4675775)
If "normal voters" actually rank "has a vagina" ahead of "served his country," then this country is in deep trouble.

Don't forget about the all-important crosstabs. How do normal voters who prefer "has a vagina" rank "shaved" versus "neatly groomed" versus "Burmese jungle?"
   2633. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4675776)
2630...Don't you get it? Social programs cost money, so, stop spending money on those. Then, reduce my taxes!
   2634. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4675777)
When was the last GOP candidate to win women in a national general election?

George Bush Sr. got 50% of the women's vote, to Michael Dukakis' 49%.

Last Dem to win men was Obama in 2008, also by 1%.


Does anybody remember how late in 2012 it was before Joe stopped insisting that Romney was a mortal lock for the presidency?

A more dedicated spelunker than myself will have to dive into those posts. I didn't find any "mortal lock" nuggets, but then, I only clicked on about 8 OT:Politics pages, and each of those threads contains several dozens. That lazy search shows that on October 22, following the third debate, Joe K. wrote simply, “Well done, president-elect Romney.” By October 28, he was calling it “one of the closest elections in decades,” but allowed that Obama might “squeak back in” with a 281-257 electoral college win and have absolutely no mandate. (That worst case scenario was off by 100 electoral votes. Still much better than Dick Morris.) Past midnight on Election Night, Joe took solace in the fact that Obama had “underperformed substantially.”
   2635. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4675778)
No kidding. I love it when noted "economist" Joe K. explains how the economy works and what matters and what doesn't.

I would love to hear exactly how he thinks debt hurts the US economy.

I love it when "noted economist" Bitter Mouse stridently explains how a massive influx of low-skilled workers at a time of high unemployment "shifts the demand curve" in a way that's a net positive for everyone. You haven't done that in a few weeks. Could you do that again for us?
   2636. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4675779)
Jason, #2588 is beneath you.
   2637. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4675781)
But that whole thing aside, I'm curious which Romney states the lefties here believe would turn to blue if Cruz is the GOP nominee. (North Carolina was the closest Romney win, and it appears things have gone further south for Dems there since 2012.)

I see no such states, and Cruz could likely bring Florida, New Mexico and/or Nevada (Latinos) into play, as well as Ohio (economy, populism).


Amusingly, Joe, assuming that Cruz were to win all four of those states, he would still lose 264-274. Cruz would have to also put in play one of the following: Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa or New Hampshire.

***

I see Cruz as a pretty uniform -6. I doubt he helps the party with Latinos, given his policy on immigration reform and his economic agenda. I would see Cruz losing North Carolina and would leave Arizona and Missouri very competitive. Depending on the economy, he would risk losing Georgia and Indiana as well.
   2638. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4675785)
Amusingly, Joe, assuming that Cruz were to win all four of those states, he would still lose 264-274. Cruz would have to also put in play one of the following: Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa or New Hampshire.

I know. It wasn't a state-by-state analysis. It was just a quick look at the 2012 map.

I see Cruz as a pretty uniform -6. I doubt he helps the party with Latinos, given his policy on immigration reform and his economic agenda. I would see Cruz losing North Carolina and would leave Arizona and Missouri very competitive. Depending on the economy, he would risk losing Georgia and Indiana as well.

So Cruz would lose among Latinos because he's against amnesty,* but he'd also be at risk of losing in some of the states most opposed to amnesty? That's a rather interesting outlook.

What's the profile of the average person who voted for Romney but would refuse to vote for Cruz?


(* Which is dubious, given that immigration consistently ranks very low on the list of priorities among actual Latino voters rather than Latinos as a whole.)
   2639. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4675787)
It wasn't a state-by-state analysis. It was just a quick look at the 2012 map.


Still funny.

So Cruz would lose among Latinos because he's against amnesty, but he'd also be at risk of losing in some of the states most opposed to amnesty? That's a rather interesting outlook.


Admittedly that is slightly contradictory analysis. However, I don't think a strong anti-immigrant position really helps anyone. If it did, there would be as many votes over immigration restriction in the House as there are Obamacare repeal votes. I think that people who feel strongly about preventing immigrants are already pretty far R partisans.

I think the rest of Cruz's agenda/perceived partisanship is what will hurt him. Cruz is positioning hard right. If he wins a primary, that will be how he wins it. It will be vaguely possible for him to win with terrible economic performance (real change!). I think that in the absence of that, he will likely not win.
   2640. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4675789)
Admittedly that is slightly contradictory analysis. However, I don't think a strong anti-immigrant position really helps anyone. If it did, there would be as many votes over immigration restriction in the House as there are Obamacare repeal votes. I think that people who feel strongly about preventing immigrants are already pretty far R partisans.

Cruz isn't really "strongly anti-immigrant," but regardless, it's unclear how you arrived at this. Back when the Dems had the White House, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they didn't even mention the word "immigration." If immigration was a winner, so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" would have happened long ago, and Obama wouldn't be tinkering at the margins in a cautious, passive-aggressive way.
   2641. Joey B. Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4675790)
I love it when "noted economist" Bitter Mouse stridently explains how a massive influx of low-skilled workers at a time of high unemployment "shifts the demand curve" in a way that's a net positive for everyone. You haven't done that in a few weeks. Could you do that again for us?

How great would it be to live in Bitter Mouse's little fantasy world where countries can run up unlimited amounts of debt with no negative economic repercussions? The things that have been happening over the years in places like Greece and Japan, those are all just figments of our imagination you see.
   2642. BDC Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4675792)
What's the profile of the average person who voted for Romney but would refuse to vote for Cruz?

To me that's like asking "what's the profile of the average Nixon voter who wouldn't vote for Goldwater" or "average Humphrey voter who wouldn't vote for McGovern."

Romney had a moderate record and a flair (or non-flair?) for bland Presidential-seeming, despite his increasingly hard-right rhetoric. Cruz OTOH reminds me a lot of Pat Buchanan (and not just because they were separated at birth). Negative energy and malice flow off the guy like inability to remember three things at the same time flows off Rick Perry.
   2643. JE (Jason) Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4675794)
Jason, #2588 is beneath you.

Thank Jackie the Jokeman, Lassus. (Wait, are you serious?)
   2644. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4675795)
Romney had a moderate record and a flair (or non-flair?) for bland Presidential-seeming, despite his increasingly hard-right rhetoric. Cruz OTOH reminds me a lot of Pat Buchanan (and not just because they were separated at birth). Negative energy and malice flow off the guy like inability to remember three things at the same time flow off Rick Perry.

Nothing says "concern troll" like a liberal citing a GOPer with a "moderate record." Romney and McCain both had moderate records, and we all saw where that got them on Election Day. Voters only had a moderate interest in voting for them.
   2645. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4675796)
Romney and McCain both had moderate records, and we all saw where that got them on Election Day. Voters only had a moderate interest in voting for them.


So the answer is to run someone farther to the right against the "Socialist"? You are the gift that keeps on giving.
   2646. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4675797)
Most GOP candidates have been too beholden to their big-money establishment backers to do it, but if Cruz keeps being Cruz and makes a populist appeal to swing voters, the effort could bear fruit. A national campaign would obviously look a lot different than a Texas GOP primary.

But that whole thing aside, I'm curious which Romney states the lefties here believe would turn to blue if Cruz is the GOP nominee. (North Carolina was the closest Romney win, and it appears things have gone further south for Dems there since 2012.)

I see no such states, and Cruz could likely bring Florida, New Mexico and/or Nevada (Latinos) into play, as well as Ohio (economy, populism).

So, are you predicting more EV or fewer for Cruz, than the 315 you predicted for Romney?
   2647. spike Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4675798)
I see Cruz as a pretty uniform -6. I doubt he helps the party with Latinos, given his policy on immigration reform and his economic agenda. I would see Cruz losing North Carolina and would leave Arizona and Missouri very competitive. Depending on the economy, he would risk losing Georgia and Indiana as well.

It's an article of conservative faith that if the Republican message simply has a "z" stapled to it's last name, or is shoved in a skirt, or spoken by a person of color that those constituencies will automatically vote for them. As I've mentioned earlier it's classic cargo cult behavior.
   2648. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4675800)
So, are you predicting more EV or fewer for Cruz, than the 315 you predicted for Romney?

News flash: I didn't really think Romney would win 315 EV.

***
It's an article of conservative faith that if the Republican message simply has a "z" stapled to it's last name, or is shoved in a skirt, or spoken by a person of color that those constituencies will automatically vote for them.

Uh, no, it isn't.
   2649. Monty Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4675801)
What's the profile of the average person who voted for Romney but would refuse to vote for Cruz?


I know a few. The most outspoken one is absolutely furious that Cruz convinced the party to shut down the government in what he viewed as a grandstanding move with no hope of actual success. Here are two of the things he's said:

There is no other way to look at this for the GOP than as a complete disaster that provided cover for Obamacare's failings. #### Ted ####### Cruz to ####### Hell.


politicians who ignore political realities (#### Ted ####### Cruz to ####### Hell) to push their own personal brand are abominable and destroying the conservative position in American politics today.


I don't know if there are other people who think like him, but he certainly exists.
   2650. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4675803)
I know a few. The most outspoken one is absolutely furious that Cruz convinced the party to shut down the government in what he viewed as a grandstanding move with no hope of actual success. Here are two of the things he's said:

I know a lot of right-wingers who were furious about Romneycare, but I doubt any of them protested by voting for Obama, or even by staying home.

Cruz undoubtedly would have some intra-party battles and need to mend some relationships, but I don't buy into the idea that a Cruz candidacy would result in a bunch of Romney states turning blue.
   2651. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4675804)
So Cruz would lose among Latinos because he's against amnesty,* but he'd also be at risk of losing in some of the states most opposed to amnesty? That's a rather interesting outlook.

What's the profile of the average person who voted for Romney but would refuse to vote for Cruz?


I'm sure that the average Romney voter would vote for any Republican, but it wouldn't take too much effort for Hillary to peel off a fair number of women who wouldn't go for Cruz's Holy War against abortion rights.

(* Which is dubious, given that immigration consistently ranks very low on the list of priorities among actual Latino voters rather than Latinos as a whole.)

It may be low on their list of priorities when one candidate isn't blatantly anti-reform, but being a Latino isn't going to help Cruz win many Latino voters any more than being black would help Clarence Thomas win many black voters.

Even more to the point, what sort of Obama voter would be likely to switch parties and vote for a hard right Republican ideologue of any ethnic background?

And the idea that Cruz could ever wage a credible "populist" campaign is going to be kind of hard to reconcile with his being against the very popular proposal to increase the minimum wage, plus having a wife who's a Goldman Sachs VP, and who also was an economics adviser to George W. Bush.
   2652. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4675805)
2648. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4675800)
So, are you predicting more EV or fewer for Cruz, than the 315 you predicted for Romney?
News flash: I didn't really think Romney would win 315 EV.

i guess it's good to know that your most strongly expressed opinions are complete bullshit.

now, would you like to talk some more about how important you think the national debt is.
   2653. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4675809)
How great would it be to live in Bitter Mouse's little fantasy world where countries can run up unlimited amounts of debt with no negative economic repercussions? The things that have been happening over the years in places like Greece and Japan, those are all just figments of our imagination you see.


I would be curious to hear how debt has hurt Japan, given that they've had higher debt/GDP than the US currently has for about 20 years.

   2654. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4675810)
You haven't done that in a few weeks. Could you do that again for us?


Well you didn't understand it the first few times, so I am not sure why I should bother.

How great would it be to live in Bitter Mouse's little fantasy world where countries can run up unlimited amounts of debt with no negative economic repercussions? The things that have been happening over the years in places like Greece and Japan, those are all just figments of our imagination you see.


So explain the exact mechanism wherein the current debt of the US is a huge problem. This should be amusing.
   2655. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4675811)
I'm sure that the average Romney voter would vote for any Republican, but it wouldn't take too much effort for Hillary to peel off a fair number of women who wouldn't go for Cruz's Holy War against abortion rights.

If Hillary can "peel off" GOP voters based on abortion, Cruz could "peel off" Dem voters for any number of reasons, including that Hillary is a crony corporatist who championed Obamacare.

It may be low on their list of priorities when one candidate isn't blatantly anti-reform, but being a Latino isn't going to help Cruz win many Latino voters any more than being black would help Clarence Thomas win many black voters.

Shorter Andy: Ted Cruz isn't the "right" kind of Latino, and Clarence Thomas isn't the "right" kind of black person.

And the idea that Cruz could ever wage a credible "populist" campaign is going to be kind of hard to reconcile with his being against the very popular proposal to increase the minimum wage, plus having a wife who's a Goldman Sachs VP, and who also was an economics adviser to George W. Bush.

The idea that the minimum wage is the central issue of populism is rather funny, as is the idea that Heidi Cruz's day job will somehow impede Ted Cruz politically.

***
i guess it's good to know that your most strongly expressed opinions are complete ########.

Romney getting 315 EV wasn't among my top 100 "strongly expressed opinions" on this site.
   2656. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4675812)
With all due respect, I think I've already explained this. Complain about the debt, call for spending cuts (mostly cutting social programs), then cut their taxes. That's the end game. The crying about the debt is a smokescreen. They feel overtaxed.
   2657. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4675814)
also, i think people are forgetting the whole politics are local thing.

in west virginia, there are still people who can't take showers because their water was contaminated by a chemical leak.
in north carolina, you have the current governor covering up his former company's illegal dumping of chemicals into rivers that are used for drinking water.
in north dakota, you have tons and tons of radioactive fracking waste that's created daily and cannot legally be disposed of.
in kentucky, you have a successful implementation of obamacare.


those are issues that a democrat can run on, and potentially win on.
   2658. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4675815)
Shorter Andy: Ted Cruz isn't the "right" kind of Latino, and Clarence Thomas isn't the "right" kind of black person.


Minorities are not idiots. They know exactly what kind of Latino Cruz is and what kind of AA Thomas is. Just like women are not idiots and despite Palin on the ticket, Obama crushed with women.
   2659. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4675818)
Minorities are not idiots. They know exactly what kind of Latino Cruz is and what kind of AA Thomas is.

Yes — the "wrong" kind.
   2660. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4675819)
Do you mean..."sellouts", Jokey?
   2661. The District Attorney Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4675820)
The idea that the minimum wage is the central issue of populism is rather funny
Fine. Is immigration the central issue of populism?

What specific other populist positions do you expect Cruz to stake out? Break up the big banks? High tariffs? Raise corporate tax rates? Student debt relief? Less international adventurism? What, exactly?

Or will it just be (what you perceive to be) the populist approach to immigration, and that will be sufficient?
   2662. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4675823)
Ted Cruz isn't the "right" kind of Latino


Well, he's not. He's Cuban-American. I don't really see how being light-skinned, Cuban, against Immigration, and having a anti-social safety net message will help with Latinos.

Also, I'm not really clear how Cruz is a populist. He's filthy rich, wife works for GS, etc. etc. etc.
   2663. Ron J Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4675826)
Ted Cruz would be the candidate that I would be most confident in being unelectable


And yet I'd have to think he'd do at least as well as Santorum did last time around. To be sure Santorum was never any kind of threat to win the nomination and had zero (direct) influence on the positions Romney eventually took. Yeah Romney ran well to the right of his entire previous career, but he'd have had to do so regardless of the opposition (and wouldn't have had to match Cruz's positions to secure the nomination.)
   2664. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4675829)
Fine. Is immigration the central issue of populism?

Immigration is indisputably a central issue of populism, especially when real unemployment is at ~10 percent, underemployment is at ~25 percent, and wages have been stagnant for decades.

What specific other populist positions do you expect Cruz to stake out? Break up the big banks? High tariffs? Raise corporate tax rates? Student debt relief? Less international adventurism? What, exactly?

The Dave Camp plan is chock full of examples.

***
Also, I'm not really clear how Cruz is a populist. He's filthy rich, wife works for GS, etc. etc. etc.

Hillary Clinton is filthy rich, too — indeed, much filthier than the Cruz family — but her and Willie have made a career out of pretending to care for the little people.
   2665. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:07 PM (#4675831)
My 401K did well in the 90's, during the Clinton years. It got killed during the W Bush years. Now, it's doing well again.

That's how the market responds to sanity.
   2666. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4675834)
Yes — the "wrong" kind.


That would be the kind they won't vote for. Not sure why the scare quotes though.

Oh and regarding the minimum wage being a populist issue. Let's check the numbers:

Half of all adults say they would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who supports increasing the minimum wage, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted Feb. 27-Mar.2. About three-in-ten (28%) said a candidate’s stance on the issue wouldn’t make much difference and 19% said they would be less likely to vote for a lawmaker who backed the wage hike.


EDIT: Feel free to post how much better your favorite immigration issue polls.
   2667. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4675835)
And yet I'd have to think he'd do at least as well as Santorum did last time around. To be sure Santorum was never any kind of threat to win the nomination and had zero (direct) influence on the positions Romney eventually took. Yeah Romney ran well to the right of his entire previous career, but he'd have had to do so regardless of the opposition (and wouldn't have had to match Cruz's positions to secure the nomination.)


Sure, but Santorum would have gotten crushed in the general. Like ... 360 EV+.

Hillary Clinton is filthy rich, too — indeed, much filthier than the Cruz family — but her and Willie have made a career out of pretending to care for the little people.


Yes. Enacting policies that benefit the working class is indeed why Bill Clinton was held in such high esteem. It's why things like raising the minimum wage would be very popular. It's why universal Pre-K would be very popular.

In fact, pretending to care about the little people tends to go a long way.

Edit:
The Dave Camp plan is chock full of examples.


This would be the plan that got killed behind closed doors and promised never to be brought back up again because of the bank tax, yeah?
   2668. The District Attorney Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4675842)
The Dave Camp plan is chock full of examples.
Well, I'm sure neither you nor Cruz agrees with every item in someone else's plan. Could you briefly summarize just the top couple of populist positions, other than on immigration, that you would recommend Cruz take?
   2669. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4675843)
Oh and regarding the minimum wage being a populist issue. Let's check the numbers:

Half of all adults say they would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who supports increasing the minimum wage, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted Feb. 27-Mar.2. About three-in-ten (28%) said a candidate’s stance on the issue wouldn’t make much difference and 19% said they would be less likely to vote for a lawmaker who backed the wage hike.

Those numbers aren't all that impressive, especially when it comes to swing voters, and they get worse when you ask them if they support raising the minimum wage if doing so would result in job losses.

***
It's why universal Pre-K would be very popular.

Handouts are always popular. Universal pre-K is little more than free babysitting, and the studies of the educational impact thereof show results that are middling, at best. Universal pre-K is highly unlikely to do much of anything to change the various educational trend lines that it purports to impact.

This would be the plan that got killed behind closed doors and promised never to be brought back up again because of the bank tax, yeah?

That the entire plan won't be enacted doesn't mean there weren't plenty of great parts. Do you support every current loophole, exemption, etc., in the tax code?
   2670. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4675849)
You'll note that the numbers are much closer to my position than Clapper's "the GOP is going to wave through to 10 seats" silliness.

As others noted on the previous page, Sam mischaracterized both my position & Silver's. Typical of his work here.

Anyone interested enough in the topic to endure this thread, should read Silver's entire column. Silver's position has moved from a toss-up for Senate control, with conventional wisdom favoring Democrats to retain the chamber, to the GOP being slight favorites to win at least 6 seats and control the Senate. I recently said the range of GOP gains was 6-10 seats, Silver says 6-11 seats, although he hasn't ruled out a Democratic rebound. Sam has said the Democrats will retain the Senate. Decide for yourself who is out of step.

   2671. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4675850)
News flash: I didn't really think Romney would win 315 EV.

Good to know. So there is really no reason for anyone to think you believe anything you write her, and you admit to being a troll.

Well I guess that has been evident for a long time.
   2672. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4675853)
Is this supposed to be clever? That the entire plan won't be enacted doesn't mean there weren't plenty of great parts. Do you support every current loophole, exemption, etc., in the tax code?


The point was to show that the populism of the R party is very limited. I thought the bank tax was relatively courageous, actually. If I were O, I might have taken the tactical risk of coming out in support of Camp's proposal to make it more embarrassing when it got shitcanned.

Camp's plan was not perfect policy, but I did feel like on the whole, it represented an improvement over current policy. My primary change would have been to avoid the territorial system on corporate taxation and maybe make the corporate tax more progressive (i.e., there's no reason why a business that clears 200K in profit should be taxed at the same rate as one that clears 5 billion).

Handouts are always popular. Universal pre-K is little more than free babysitting. The data on the educational impact thereof is middling, at best, and is unlikely to do anything to change various educational trend lines.


First of all, if it were just free babysitting, it would still be great policy. Babysitting is ruinously expensive--here in SF, it costs about 20K per year. If you want to be both pro-family and pro-work, free babysitting is great policy.

Second, while the research is sort of limited, the best guess is that it's probably a positive. Summarizing from the Brookings review (most thorough one I know of):

The previous tables and descriptions refer to 13 separate studies (including 3 similar studies of district programs and two similar studies of statewide programs in Oklahoma and Georgia). Of these 13, six report enduring and meaningful impacts beyond the pre-k year, four report null, negative, or very small positive impacts beyond the pre-k year, and three do not report findings beyond the pre-k year.

...

But results do not speak for themselves. Rather, it is the combination of results and the research designs that produce them that do the speaking. And some of the combinations speak a lot louder than others.

...

I conclude that the best available evidence raises serious doubts that a large public investment in the expansion of pre-k for four-year-olds will have the long-term effects that advocates tout.


The best you can get is that it *might not* have great benefits for the children. If you show me a policy that has zero downside (very low cost), great upside (better achievement/lower crime for participants), and a positive worst case scenario (free babysitting), I take that policy all day long.
   2673. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4675859)
Shorter Andy: Ted Cruz isn't the "right" kind of Latino, and Clarence Thomas isn't the "right" kind of black person.

So how many Latino votes do you think Ted Cruz would win against Hillary? How many black votes do you think Clarence Thomas would win against her?

Cruz's positions on immigration resonate with hard core Republicans, but they're anathema among Latinos as a whole, and not likely to win him much support in the country as a whole.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of odds would you put on Ted Cruz being our next president? 2 to 1? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? 50 to 1? 100 or more to 1? Since this is a sabermetric-friendly site, let's see you put some numbers behind your speculation. Who knows, maybe you can pick up some easy money.
   2674. Mefisto Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4675861)
Silver says 6-11 seats, although he hasn't ruled out a Democratic rebound.


That's not what Silver said at all. What he said was, "So our forecast might be thought of as a Republican gain of six seats — plus or minus five."
   2675. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4675862)
Andy, I will give you, and everyone else, infinity to one on Cruz.
   2676. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4675863)
First of all, if it were just free babysitting, it would still be great policy. Babysitting is ruinously expensive--here in SF, it costs about 20K per year. If you want to be both pro-family and pro-work, free babysitting is great policy.

I don't think that is a winning issue. Few would be willing to endorse such a blatantly rent-seeking claim on taxpayer funds to subsidize personal expenses. Hence the claim to educational benefit, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
   2677. Joey B. Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4675864)
I would be curious to hear how debt has hurt Japan, given that they've had higher debt/GDP than the US currently has for about 20 years.

Well, you should try looking at their GDP chart some time. If you do, you'll see that their economic growth has pretty much been sh*t over those twenty years.

But even more problematic than their long-depressed economy is the staggering amount that they're now paying in interest on their debt despite relatively low interest rates. It's now up to 257 billion US dollars this fiscal year, almost 14% more than what they had to pay the previous fiscal year.
   2678. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4675865)
Good to know. So there is really no reason for anyone to think you believe anything you write her, and you admit to being a troll.

Well I guess that has been evident for a long time.

If you believe this, then you must be a fairly dumb person to reply to me so often.

***
The point was to show that the populism of the R party is very limited. I thought the bank tax was relatively courageous, actually. If I were O, I might have taken the tactical risk of coming out in support of Camp's proposal to make it more embarrassing when it got shitcanned.

Camp's plan was not perfect policy, but I did feel like on the whole, it represented an improvement over current policy. My primary change would have been to avoid the territorial system on corporate taxation and maybe make the corporate tax more progressive (i.e., there's no reason why a business that clears 200K in profit should be taxed at the same rate as one that clears 5 billion).

It sounds like you agree with me, then. Ted Cruz didn't kill the Camp plan; the GOP establishment did.

First of all, if it were just free babysitting, it would still be great policy. Babysitting is ruinously expensive--here in SF, it costs about 20K per year. If you want to be both pro-family and pro-work, free babysitting is great policy.

Putting aside that there's really no such thing as "free," this sounds like a proposal to have government babysitting from birth until kindergarten. Why start at age 3 or 4?

Second, while the research is sort of limited, the best guess is that it's probably a positive. Summarizing from the Brookings review (most thorough one I know of):

Huh? The conclusion you quoted says this:

I conclude that the best available evidence raises serious doubts that a large public investment in the expansion of pre-k for four-year-olds will have the long-term effects that advocates tout.

How did you get "probably a positive" out of that? And shouldn't we have a better idea than "probably" before spending tens of billions of dollars per year for universal pre-K?

The best you can get is that it *might not* have great benefits for the children. If you show me a policy that has zero downside (very low cost), great upside (better achievement/lower crime for participants), and a positive worst case scenario (free babysitting), I take that policy all day long.

You just invented all of that out of thin air. Your citation supports none of it. (And that's before we get to the issue of the impact millions of formerly stay-at-home mothers parents would have on a labor market that already has a ton of slack.)
   2679. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4675866)
I don't think that is a winning issue. Few would be willing to endorse such a blatantly rent-seeking claim on taxpayer funds to subsidize personal expenses. Hence the claim to educational benefit, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.


Medicare, the homeowners tax credit and public schools remain incredibly popular.
   2680. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4675867)
Fear not, Joey. The lefties here have assured us that the national debt is all but meaningless.

Seven trillion here, seven trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Deficits don't matter.
   2681. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4675868)
Deficits don't matter.


Slight pedantic correction. The debt doesn't matter. Deficits matter in certain circumstances (and now is not one, well and deficits are decreasing).
   2682. Joey B. Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4675870)
So explain the exact mechanism wherein the current debt of the US is a huge problem. This should be amusing.

It's not our current debt that's the big problem, it's the rate at which the debt is increasing, the projected rate increases going forward based on current budgeting policy, and the possibility that the extremely low interest rates we're enjoying right now won't last forever.

But I know that you already know all of this just like everyone does, so stop acting like an idiot.
   2683. Monty Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4675872)
The debt has increased more under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. I feel like I've posted these numbers a few times.
   2684. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4675873)

Those numbers aren't all that impressive, especially when it comes to swing voters, and they get worse when you ask them if they support raising the minimum wage if doing so would result in job losses.


LOL. Point us to some numbers on your favorite populist issue, immigration. Minimum wage polls great, and much better than cracking down on immigrants does.
   2685. spike Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4675874)
Cruz's positions on immigration resonate with hard core Republicans, but they're anathema among Latinos as a whole, and not likely to win him much support in the country as a whole.

But it squares with their whole idea that blacks only voted for Obama because he's black - QED, it doesn't matter what Cruz says - he's a brown and therefore will get the brown vote, so checkmate, libtard.
   2686. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: March 23, 2014 at 05:59 PM (#4675876)
The debt has increased more under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. I feel like I've posted these numbers a few times.
yes, but you're making the mistake of assuming that republican presidents are actually republicans. because as we all know, communism republicanism cannot fail. communism republicanism can only be failed.
   2687. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4675878)
It sounds like you agree with me, then. Ted Cruz didn't kill the Camp plan; the GOP establishment did.


Yes ... and it is now toxic. It raises serious doubts that anyone could use it as their platform.

Putting aside that there's really no such thing as "free," this sounds like a proposal to have government babysitting from birth until kindergarten. Why start at age 3 or 4?


Half a loaf is better than none.

How did you get "probably a positive" out of that? And shouldn't we have a better idea than "probably" before spending tens of billions of dollars per year for universal pre-K?


To your second question: tens of billions is not that much money (which you know), the total yearly cost was 10.5 billion, and can be paid for with other very popular proposals that are also good policy (cigarette tax, for one). Of course, if we just shitcanned the F-35 project, that would probably pay for it.

To your first question: the summary says that you can't necessarily expect long term impact, but that nearly every study found good short-term impact. Evaluating long-term is problematic, since many of these studies are so recent that there has not been follow-up. Again, I view the program as a home-run even if it has zero long-term impact.

   2688. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4675879)
It's not our current debt that's the big problem, it's the rate at which the debt is increasing, the projected rate increases going forward based on current budgeting policy, and the possibility that the extremely low interest rates we're enjoying right now won't last forever.

But I know that you already know all of this just like everyone does, so stop acting like an idiot.


Giggle - Deficits are dropping, despite what you may have heard. Hmmm.

If you think policymakers haven’t done much about budget deficits since President Obama’s deficit commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson issued their "Moment of Truth" report in late 2010, consider this: Projected ten-year budget deficits over the 2015-2024 decade have shrunk by nearly $5 trillion, mostly because policymakers have changed spending and tax policies.


However there is a bit of sense in your post. Interest rates. If deficits were a huge problem interest rates would be soaring and crowding out private investment. That is not happening. At all. In fact we could use more inflation, it would help our economy.

So other than being completely backwards - since we need more deficit and more inflation at the moment - you still know more economics than than Joe K. Congrats?
   2689. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4675880)
Cruz's positions on immigration resonate with hard core Republicans, but they're anathema among Latinos as a whole, and not likely to win him much support in the country as a whole.

There's so much spin in that linked article that I won't bother with a response. (Liars and statistics, etc.)

Just out of curiosity, what sort of odds would you put on Ted Cruz being our next president? 2 to 1? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? 50 to 1? 100 or more to 1? Since this is a sabermetric-friendly site, let's see you put some numbers behind your speculation. Who knows, maybe you can pick up some easy money.

I'm not sure yet. The Unskewed Guy hasn't updated his site lately.

Jokes aside, I don't know. It's at least a year until the GOP primary will be in full swing, and a lot can happen between now and then. Hell, if we get hit by another major terrorist attack, John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain might start looking good again. The whole point of this discussion is that at this early date, events can and have had a major impact on conventional political wisdom, as Bush 41 learned the hard way.
   2690. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4675884)
The whole point of this discussion is that at this early date, events can and have had a major impact on conventional political wisdom, as Bush 41 learned the hard way.


This, I think, everyone should be able to agree upon.

Some major unknowns are a potential war with Russia, non-proliferation with Iran, Iran Nuke, economy rebound, or a major environmental disaster.

Any or all of these could happen, and would seriously scramble the race. And of course, there might be additional unknowns: no one saw Crimea coming a year ago.
   2691. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4675885)
John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain might start looking good again.


I thought you said jokes aside.
   2692. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4675886)
This, I think, everyone should be able to agree upon.


In theory sure, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issues and candidates. And what things will look like absent a huge event. Because most years there is not such an event, and most elections run by fundamentals IMO.
   2693. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:16 PM (#4675887)
Thank Jackie the Jokeman, Lassus. (Wait, are you serious?)

I don't follow standup and don't give a shit about Jackie Mason.

I don't mind my opinion (on the post) not being shared.
   2694. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:17 PM (#4675888)
LOL. Point us to some numbers on your favorite populist issue, immigration. Minimum wage polls great, and much better than cracking down on immigrants does.

Again, minimum wage polls great until you cite the CBO as saying that it will cost 500,000 jobs.

Proposals to increase low-skilled immigration, meanwhile, don't poll all that great, or Dems (and the GOP) would have enacted such legislation by now.

***
Yes ... and it is now toxic. It raises serious doubts that anyone could use it as their platform.

The Camp plan is now "toxic"? I doubt more than one voter in a hundred could tell you what "Camp plan" refers to.

To your second question: tens of billions is not that much money (which you know), the total yearly cost was 10.5 billion, and can be paid for with other very popular proposals that are also good policy (cigarette tax, for one). Of course, if we just shitcanned the F-35 project, that would probably pay for it.

To your first question: the summary says that you can't necessarily expect long term impact, but that nearly every study found good short-term impact. Evaluating long-term is problematic, since many of these studies are so recent that there has not been follow-up. Again, I view the program as a home-run even if it has zero long-term impact.

"I like it" generally isn't a compelling argument. Of course, so-called progressives have spent the past 50 years spending other people's money without concern for ROI, so why should universal pre-K be any different?
   2695. Joey B. Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4675889)
Giggle - Deficits are dropping, despite what you may have heard.

Love this. We're supposed to jump for joy with projected average deficits of "only" around $630 billion a year, which I guess is now officially the "new normal". It would be laughable if it wasn't so sickening.

And of course that's assuming that the CBO projections of economic growth, revenue, and spending are reasonably accurate, an assumption which I personally am rather reluctant to make. Because quite frankly, the CBOs track record of projections in our recent history absolutely sucks.
   2696. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4675890)
So other than being completely backwards - since we need more deficit and more inflation at the moment - you still know more economics than than Joe K. Congrats?

Come on, man, tell us again how importing another 20 million low-skilled workers will not only result in those 20 million people getting great jobs, but also result in the current ~10 percent of the workforce that's unemployed also getting a great job. I love that story.

***
Because quite frankly, the CBOs track record of projections in our recent history absolutely sucks.

Don't be so hard on the CBO. They were only off by $1,100,000,000,000 (and counting) when it came to their initial Obamacare estimate.
   2697. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4675891)
Although I doubt that Ted Cruz will end up beng my 1st choice for the GOP nomination, some folks here are seriously "misunderestimating" him, to use a phrase coined by another Texan. Cruz is a pretty smart guy, at least by his academic record, and was a highly regarded appellate attorney. He's argued Supreme Court cases - something I can't imagine Joe Biden doing. Cruz won the GOP Senate nomination over a better-known, and at least initially better-funded opponent. First-term Senators don't win their party's nomination very often, and when they do it's not because of their record or accomplishments - it's more on seizing the issue of their time and campaigning effectively. Far too early to say how those things are going to play out in 2016.
   2698. bobm Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4675893)
Point us to some numbers on your favorite populist issue, immigration. Minimum wage polls great, and much better than cracking down on immigrants does.

Obama has been to immigration what Clinton was to welfare. He has cracked down.

This president has used far more enforcement discretion in the ACA (pushing off the mandates, eg) than in zealously pursuing illegal immigrants.
   2699. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4675896)
Infinity to one, Clapper.
   2700. Joey B. Posted: March 23, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4675897)
Don't be so hard on the CBO. They were only off by $1,100,000,000,000 (and counting) when it came to their initial Obamacare estimate.

I'm sure that most of the people in the CBO are decent folks doing the best that they can, but the bottom line is that in the end, they do what they're told to by their bosses.

Their job is to polish the giant turd that is big government, and that's a job that they do very well.
Page 27 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAP sources: Umpires, MLB reach 5-year agreement
(3 - 5:48am, Dec 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(155 - 4:58am, Dec 21)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogAngels, Red Sox discontinue pension plans for non-uniformed personnel - LA Times
(23 - 4:00am, Dec 21)
Last: The TVerik of Lordly Might

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(762 - 3:19am, Dec 21)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogThe Jeff Jacobs HOF Ballot: Keep The Voting Serious And Fair
(18 - 3:12am, Dec 21)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9189 - 1:38am, Dec 21)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(12 - 1:09am, Dec 21)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5140 - 1:05am, Dec 21)
Last: GordonShumway

NewsblogGiants acquire McGehee to fill third-base spot
(4 - 1:03am, Dec 21)
Last: Cargo Cultist

Newsblog2014 Disabled List Information and So Much More – The Hardball Times
(4 - 12:59am, Dec 21)
Last: Batman

NewsblogDodgers biggest spenders in payroll
(7 - 12:42am, Dec 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(35 - 12:16am, Dec 21)
Last: John Northey

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(105 - 11:14pm, Dec 20)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(94 - 10:35pm, Dec 20)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(11 - 9:31pm, Dec 20)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.8854 seconds
48 querie(s) executed