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 08:54 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 29 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 > 
   2801. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:30 PM (#4676425)
Please. He posted to Kos because it was easy and free to jack into the Kos "contributing blog" model and because that was the primary audience for "reality based" analysis at the time. He moved to NYT when 538 took off. Now he's doing the Grantland-for-stats-dorks thing via ESPN.


Also, not like Silver ever made any secret of his politics, and not like it means he doesn't do good work. As long as fully disclosed, who gives a #### what Silver does on a polling booth? I'd infinitely rather read analysis by a competent democrat than an idiot republican, hell, I'd rather read analysis from a ####### Communist with insight than typical horseshit "analysis" from the usual suspects.
   2802. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4676426)
Thus, I have a hard time believing it's true.


which part?

   2803. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:33 PM (#4676427)
Please. He posted to Kos because it was easy and free to jack into the Kos "contributing blog" model and because that was the primary audience for "reality based" analysis at the time. He moved to NYT when 538 took off. Now he's doing the Grantland-for-stats-dorks thing via ESPN.

LOL. Right-wingers were reading Nate (or the artist soon to be identified as Nate) almost from Day 1. The idea that he needed to be at DK, rather than on any number of other political sites, is a huge stretch.

The idea that you and yours would have taken his findings at face value if he had published in the WaPo or NYT first is absurd on its face. You would have whinged about "mainstream media" and "liberal media bias" until the heel of reality came crushing down on your face election night.

As someone who styles himself as a big independent thinker, you should know that it's generally unwise to take anything at face value, especially pseudonymous analysis (e.g., the work of "Poblano" at DK).

Regardless, this is just Sam being Sam. No one cares that Nate has a rooting interest; we're just pointing out that he has one, just like the "hack" Scott Rasmussen, et al.
   2804. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4676429)
which part?

I have a hard time believing that Nate is incompetent, and hired some hack to write about climate issues.
   2805. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4676430)
As someone who styles himself as a big independent thinker, you should know that it's generally unwise to take anything at face value, especially pseudonymous analysis (e.g., the work of "Poblano" at DK).


Interesting fact, Joey. I didn't read "Poblano" at DK. I started following Nate at the 538 blog when I realized he was doing it, because I trusted his work from BPro and found his method refreshing in a sea of contemptible stupidity. That said, one of us took the fact based reasoning seriously last election cycle, and baby doll, it wasn't you.
   2806. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:38 PM (#4676434)
I have a hard time believing that Nate is incompetent, and hired some hack to write about climate issues.


How much of this is driven by your preferred narrative that the guy isn't a hack? You want him to be a good hire because you like his arguments, not unlike your desire for Dean Chambers to be a good find because you liked his projections. Like I said, I haven't drilled the details of the brouhaha, so I don't know if he's a quality guy with contrarian tendencies, or if he's Bill James talking about the Kennedy assassination. But I do think you should acknowledge that people have reasonable doubt when it comes to your motivations for narrative.
   2807. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4676435)
I have a hard time believing that Nate is incompetent, and hired some hack to write about climate issues.


I don't believe he's incompetent, I also believe that notwithstandng that, 538's climate guy, Pielke, is a really bad hire.

   2808. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:47 PM (#4676442)
Interesting fact, Joey. I didn't read "Poblano" at DK.

Poor Sammy — always behind the curve.

I started following Nate at the 538 blog when I realized he was doing it, because I trusted his work from BPro and found his method refreshing in a sea of contemptible stupidity.

If you only trusted Nate's work at FiveThirtyEight because you had previously grown to know and trust Nate's baseball work, that's not really taking Nate's political work "at face value," at least not in the sense you used the term above. Why should readers who had never heard of Nate Silver prior to FiveThirtyEight — i.e., the huge numbers of people who don't hang out on baseball stats sites — have been expected to take Nate's political work "at face value" without knowing anything about him, his methods, his rooting interests, etc.?

How much of this is driven by your preferred narrative that the guy isn't a hack? You want him to be a good hire because you like his arguments, not unlike your desire for Dean Chambers to be a good find because you liked his projections. Like I said, I haven't drilled the details of the brouhaha, so I don't know if he's a quality guy with contrarian tendencies, or if he's Bill James talking about the Kennedy assassination. But I do think you should acknowledge that people have reasonable doubt when it comes to your motivations for narrative.

Nice try, but I haven't read a word about climate change at Nate's new site and don't even know which author you guys are referring to. I simply doubt that a smart guy like Nate was duped by some charlatan. (And from the sounds of things, Nate didn't fly solo when hiring people.)
   2809. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:54 PM (#4676448)
I haven't really dug into the crosstabs of the 538 climate wars, but it's perfectly reasonable that they hired a guy on resume for a specialty they don't have depth in, and that it was a bad hire.

Is this what you're referencing, Sam?
Now I get it, there is a big danger of being ideologically neutral – journalists who demand that science support their ideology will attack someone who attempts to be neutral.

Michael Mann has a post FiveThirty Eight: the number of things Nate Silver gets wrong on climate change. This post is worth reading if only because it is not Mann’s usual hatchet job.

   2810. spike Posted: March 24, 2014 at 05:59 PM (#4676450)
I started following Nate at the 538 blog when I realized he was doing it, because I trusted his work from BPro and found his method refreshing in a sea of contemptible stupidity. That said, one of us took the fact based reasoning seriously last election cycle, and baby doll, it wasn't you.

That was really the most insane part of it all - after Silver's performance in 2008, a considerable number conservatives (and even more bizarrely, some posters here) STILL thought Dean Chambers was the pony to bet on.

Just unbelievable.
   2811. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4676453)
That was really the most insane part of it all - after Silver's performance in 2008, a considerable number conservatives (and even more bizarrely, some posters here) STILL thought Dean Chambers was the pony to bet on.

Just unbelievable.

LOL. I never saw a single non-liberal cite Dean Chambers here a single time in 2012. This seems to be a meme the lefties here are trying to perpetuate.

Did some of us hope/believe Romney would win? Yes. Did anyone believe Romney would get 450 EV or whatever the hell Chambers was predicting? Hell, no. Not by a long shot.
   2812. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4676457)
That was really the most insane part of it all - after Silver's performance in 2008, a considerable number conservatives (and even more bizarrely, some posters here) STILL thought Dean Chambers was the pony to bet on.

You say lots of silly things, Spike, but this time I'm not waving it away. I would be appreciative if you provided us the names of conservatives bought Dean Chambers' "polling" data.
   2813. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4676459)
Is this what you're referencing, Sam?


I read that when you posted it to Facebook, Jason. I still haven't had the bandwidth or interest to drill into to it deeply. I'm not really sure what the error was that 538 is accused of perpetuating, or if it's just that the guy they hired is a "known quantity" in the climatology field. If he's an outright denier, I can see where it would be questionable to hire him at best. But I don't know what his deal is, and haven't researched it much, so I'm not commenting on the good or bad of the hire.
   2814. spike Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4676460)
In terms of electoral college predictions, there was more than one conservative that was significantly closer to Dean than Nate. I don't name names because I a: have some of these folks on ignore, and that's not right, and b: well it's a bit embarrassing for some , I would think. So I'll leave at that. "Prove me wrong!" as your fellow travelers might say.

//and I hope you find my prediction form the relevant thread. It was money.
   2815. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:14 PM (#4676465)
If you only trusted Nate's work at FiveThirtyEight because you had previously grown to know and trust Nate's baseball work, that's not really taking Nate's political work "at face value," at least not in the sense you used the term above.


538's forecasting wasn't "political work." It was just aggregation and poll-of-polls number wonkery with a model for projecting electoral votes based on how any given state was trending. The fact that people call that "political" is part of the problem. It's like saying Nate's BPro work was "political" because he was a Yankees fan.
   2816. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:16 PM (#4676466)
In terms of electoral college predictions, there was more than one conservative that was significantly closer to Dean than Nate.

Just to clarify: Having a prediction that's closer to Chambers than Silver does not make one put more trust in Chambers' methodology, right?

Frankly, I think Silver sometimes gets credit for the results when it's his methodology that deserves kudos.
   2817. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:17 PM (#4676467)
I'm not commenting on the good or bad of the hire.

Who are you, sir, what have you done to Sam, and what are your demands? :-)
   2818. spike Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4676468)
Frankly, I think Silver sometimes gets credit for the results when it's his methodology that deserves kudos.


err if it's "his" methodology, wouldn't "he" deserve the kudos?
   2819. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4676470)
err if it's "his" methodology, wouldn't "he" deserve the kudos?

Isn't that what I wrote?
   2820. spike Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:25 PM (#4676472)
That old appeaser Obama just effectively suspended Russia from the G-8. A substitute meeting of the other 7 countries will be held in Brussels at the same time as the planned G-8 summit in Sochi.
   2821. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4676473)
   2822. spike Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4676474)
Isn't that what I wrote?

No. You wrote "I think Silver sometimes gets credit for the results when it's his methodology that deserves kudos." This, to most readers, would parse as Nate "does not" deserve credit, but his "methodology" does. It's either a tautology or a non-sequitur.
   2823. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:27 PM (#4676475)
538's forecasting wasn't "political work." It was just aggregation and poll-of-polls number wonkery with a model for projecting electoral votes based on how any given state was trending. The fact that people call that "political" is part of the problem. It's like saying Nate's BPro work was "political" because he was a Yankees fan.

This is just nitpicking. Scratch "political work" and call it "political writing" or "political statistical analysis." My points above remain valid.
   2824. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:28 PM (#4676476)
   2825. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4676479)
This, to most readers, would parse as Nate "does not" deserve credit, but his "methodology" does. It's either a tautology or a non-sequitur.

I think it was pretty clear, particularly if you had read what I wrote earlier. As with MLB analysis, process matters more than results and that's why Silver deserves the props. But at least now you know.
   2826. tshipman Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4676485)
Just to clarify: Having a prediction that's closer to Chambers than Silver does not make one put more trust in Chambers' methodology, right?


If you were predicting Romney with 300+ electoral votes, that meant you believes that polls were significantly skewed in one direction. That pretty much meant you were closer to Chambers than Silver. Indeed, many echoed the arguments, saying that Ds were being oversampled, and that Independents were breaking for Romney and other such nonsense.

Most of the righties on this board were predicting Romney +300, including Joe, snapper, Yankee Clapper and others.

Edit: I also think it's weird that Nate got all the glory. Nate's methodology was genuinely great ... for the primaries. Everyone was more or less right about the general.
   2827. spike Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4676487)
As with MLB analysis, process matters more than results and that's why Silver deserves the props. But at least now you know.

I'm even more confused because you just specifically said it was the methodology not the man that deserved the credit, and now you say "Silver deserves the props". But I'm an addle-brained lib, so fine.
   2828. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4676498)
You say lots of silly things, Spike, but this time I'm not waving it away. I would be appreciative if you provided us the names of conservatives bought Dean Chambers' "polling" data.


Chamber's schtick was to take a very common 2012 Conservative polling meme (polls were oversampling Dems because pollsters had a very wrongheaded view of what the electorate was going to look like) and simply said, hey if I adjusted this poll to show a 35/35/30 Dem/GOP/Ind split rather than 40/30/30 (or whatever) the the result will look like this- and he basically quantified what had been a GOP talking point before he even came along- a talking point repeated by some of our resident conservatives-

and Chambers' actual numbers ended up pretty close to what Rove and Morris had wishcasted and was closer to Romney's internals than the actual results-

Chambers always came off as a buffoon but the actual reasoning for and method behind his "unskewing" was widely parroted by other conservatives- Josh Jordan's Silver bashing article is a great example- he specifically said he was not a fan of Chambers/unskewed, but then half his argument against Silver's was identical to Chambers'
   2829. JE (Jason) Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4676502)
Nate deserves props for the methodology. Full stop.
   2830. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4676503)
OTOH, Spike: So it's clear now - G-7 says Russia would face only more sanctions if it sent its military into east and/or south Ukraine.


The West's position is exactly what it has been since Putin moved into Crimea. "Okay, you took Crimea, and we're not firing hot rounds to take it back, so you get Crimea; you move again, we're going to look at other options." This still comes back to the fact that Crimea just isn't enough to concern the west. Now that Putin has shown his hand, the West is putting up the proper fencing.

I realize you have friends in the region, but at the heart of the matter, this is what the West wanted Ukraine to be; a border state to play canary in the coal mine for Russian plans, to keep Poland and the former Iron Curtain Euro nations safe.
   2831. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4676505)
and Chambers' actual numbers ended up pretty close to what Rove and Morris had wishcasted and was closer to Romney's internals than the actual results-


Yes. This. The dork-shunning of Dean Chambers is a result of his bad results, not a result of his bad methodology. Prior to the election people in the echo chamber took him and his "unskewing" of "liberal media bias" they assumed to be baked into 538's results seriously, in much the same way Romney's internals (which were feeding Rove the win he was so certain of on TV) were taken seriously. They ate their own dog food. They believed their own spin. They internalized the "liberal media bias" talking point so fully that they created an entire counter-reality where that bias was "unskewed" all the way up to the point where Fox News' own poll watchers had to come out on set and explain to Karl that the emperor had no clothes.

All of this "we didn't really take Dean Chambers seriously" #### is an attempt to pretend that never happened, especially now that Chambers has been outed as a sort of uber-dork of sorts.
   2832. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:03 PM (#4676506)
Edit: I also think it's weird that Nate got all the glory. Nate's methodology was genuinely great ... for the primaries. Everyone was more or less right about the general.


He was kind of lucky I think, 2008/2012 he really wasn't any more accurate than RCP, Pollster or Princeton Election Consortium-
Wang the guy at Princeton really shot himself in the foot in 2004, his model had Bush winning by about 2, right before the election, but he went on MSNBC and when asked who he thought would win "went with his gut" and said he thought Kerry would eek out a win... oops.

Dick Morris and other pundits can make wrong prediction after wrong prediction, but if the math geek visibly makes one (early on) it's all over as far as the MSM is concerned


   2833. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4676507)
OTOH, Spike: So it's clear now - G-7 says Russia would face only more sanctions if it sent its military into east and/or south Ukraine.


The West's position is exactly what it has been since Putin moved into Crimea. "Okay, you took Crimea, and we're not firing hot rounds to take it back, so you get Crimea; you move again, we're going to look at other options."


I think we seriously have to look into sending weapons/ "advisors" into Kiev at this point
(I read some site that said we should send small arms, shoulder mounted anti-tank stuff etc to Ukraine not any complicated or advanced stuff- that's silly Ukraine has plenty of that type of stuff- the question should be whether any effective AA/SAM system can be sent there way and installed- pretty much yesterday)
   2834. Srul Itza Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4676509)
Therefore, it was understandable that some wondered whether he was playing loose with the numbers.


The phenomenon you are reaching for is not "skepticism", it's "projecting." Silver's analysis was clearly laid out. The Republican backers made up all kinds of nonsense to claim that Romney would not only win, but would win easily. Since they were making things up, they assumed that Silver was too. But anyone who actually bothered to read his work knew that he was being straightforward.
   2835. spike Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:16 PM (#4676510)
It's one thing to force a plebiscite in Crimea that is at least nominally majority ethnic Russian. Perhaps even Moldova and Transnistria (you can have them). Engaging in a shooting war in Ukraine even with military superiority will engender a particularly nasty insurgency of the kind we've seen far too much of. I find it hard to believe that even Putin would risk this.
   2836. zonk Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:19 PM (#4676512)


Was he doing the numbers only from the Kos polling, or was he doing the aggregate polling numbers while hosted at Kos? If it's the former, you have a point. If it's the latter, you're writing off a better methodology because you don't like the political positions of the site host.


He was just (re-)posting his own analysis on Kos... the same as anyone else can do. He started with some primary analysis under the Kos moniker "poblano"... eventually started posting more as his own blogspot site (the original 538), then hit the big-time/got unmasked and pretty much stopped posting at DK. I think at one point, when there appeared to be some funny business in the crosstabs from the polling firm DK had contracted, Kos might have reached out to him for a "what do you think" -- but anyone can sign-up for and post at DK. In fact, say what you will about him -- Kos has given a lot of bloggers their start and has never shown any hint of caring that they sometimes use the site as a launching pad.

Beyond that... Silver is a gay man with nerdy tendencies who attended a whole host of liberal elite universities and has lived most of his life in urban hellholes... He was gonna post at Freeper or Redstate? Say what else you will about Kos - but the site also brooks more disagreement than most of the alternatives.

In short - it was a good relationship for both Markos and Nate.... Markos got some high quality analysis for free, Nate got some broad exposure for free. I think both of them would say that it was a symbiotic thing that they both appreciated, profited from, and have no regrets about it.

Where else was he gonna post and get that... Politico?
   2837. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:24 PM (#4676517)
It's like saying Nate's BPro work was "political" because he was a Yankees fan.

Well, now that you mention it, I used to post on a Cardinals board that was convinced PECOTA was rigged against the Cardinals. And then nobody bothered to read Szymborski's notes about ZiPS and how major league playing time for a random AA non-prospect was not intended to be taken literally. It was a horrible board, and I don't miss it.
   2838. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:25 PM (#4676520)
Strange outlook, given that we've been told that Obamacare is going great, that Obama is doing a great job generally, and that the Republican obstructionists are to blame for everything under the sun.


None of which has anything to do with non-presidential elections and the turnout there in or with the Senate map of 2016.

But yeah ACA is doing pretty well (after a rough start), Obama has been a pretty good president, and the GOP is to blame for a whole pile of things.
   2839. Srul Itza Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:28 PM (#4676522)
"Okay, you took Crimea, and we're not firing hot rounds to take it back, so you get Crimea; you move again, we're going to look at other options


Lost opportunity. Of course, we're not going to get him to withdraw from the Crimea. But the sanctions should bite, and we should use the opportunity to shore up Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics, make overtures to any former SSR that can be wooed, and put that missile defense in.

The purpose is not to get Crimea back. It is to deter further action, by implying that a further invasion means a real ramp up [EDIT: In sanctions and counter-measures, not a shooting war], and to create an overall change in the East-West posture in our favor. Someday, Putin will lose favor at home; nobody last forever and he is, of course, making some enemies. When we can speed up that process, or strengthen it when it comes, by creating grounds for arguments that Putin's decisions have not worked out to Russia's favor.

We should be doing that. But we won't. And that is something I do blame Obama and Brussels for.
   2840. Srul Itza Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:28 PM (#4676523)
I find it hard to believe that even Putin would risk this.


So do I. But miscalculations happen.
   2841. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 24, 2014 at 07:48 PM (#4676535)
Engaging in a shooting war in Ukraine even with military superiority will engender a particularly nasty insurgency of the kind we've seen far too much of. I find it hard to believe that even Putin would risk this.


So do I. But miscalculations happen.

He also might have been drinking his own koolaid- he literally pines for the old USSR and thinks most Russians do as well-- eh may think that every Russian speaker in the Ukraine does as well, as long with some non-Russians

he probably thinks that the "grass roots" demonstrators/supporter the EU/West has in the Western part of Ukraine are as phony as the ones he's shipped in/paid in the Eastern half of the country.

OTOH he did stop in Georgia before his troops entered/occupied the parts of Georgia where the actual Georgians live- which would be an indication that he is leery about that.

Also if Russia invades Ukraine proper,and Ukraine fights, before we even get to the insurgency we'll have the largest tank battle since WWII- which Russia will win, but not at no cost they will get bloodied.


   2842. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 08:09 PM (#4676541)
Since they were making things up, they assumed that Silver was too.


Yes. This. Exactly this. Which ties back into an anecdote about Russia. When Nixon and Kruschev did their "Kitchen Debate" Nixon was set up in a sound stage that matched the common American kitchen of the day. Kruschev was set up in a similar sound stage, mimicking the American kitchen. Russians, seeing Kruschev in a "kitchen" far more luxurious than anything known to anyone but the highest class of Russian at the time, assumed the Americans were lying too.
   2843. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 24, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4676548)
(1) I withdraw my criticism of Mandela. South Africa is a miracle.

(2) Seeing the impact of gross income inequality in South Africa just reinforced to me the importance, in this country, of achieving a flatter income curve.

(3) Seeing the ineptness and corruption of the South African government reinforced to me the importance of making sure that the federal government is not the mediator of such wealth redistribution.

(4) The crime in South Africa is horrible, and reminded me of growing up in NYC in the 80's (except worse). The corrosive influence of the crime - not just the impact upon victims, but the way it diminishes the quality of life of all people - is unbelievable. If anything, I've gotten even more hawkish on crime and incarceration. In 2 weeks in South Africa, in some of the safest and wealthiest places in the country, I was the victim of one successful (petty) crime and two other attempts.


Props on revising your opinion in #1, but you realize this is the internet, right? :)

Anyway I agree with #2. Regarding #3 I think it is more the case that SA is a single party system (essentially) and those are notoriously corrupt and inept. Unfortunately government (of the not corrupt, reasonably efficient type) is one of the only things that reduces income inequality. Straight capitalism increases inequality, essentially because it is easier to make money once you have some.
   2844. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 24, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4676549)
So do I. But miscalculations happen.


The worst case scenario would seem to be "they didn't do anything about it when I ground Chechnya to a paste."

He also might have been drinking his own koolaid- he literally pines for the old USSR and thinks most Russians do as well-- eh may think that every Russian speaker in the Ukraine does as well, as long with some non-Russians


I forget where I read it, but someone out there made a good point that the west, as is our want, completely missed the most important line in Putin's "Czar's Address" last week. Basically, he argued that the most important line of the speech was the one about "fifth columnists" inside of Russia; that Putin needs a war to rally nationalist sentiment in order to start throwing dissenters in the gulags.
   2845. madvillain Posted: March 24, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4676552)
Beyond that... Silver is a gay man with nerdy tendencies who attended a whole host of liberal elite universities and has lived most of his life in urban hellholes... He was gonna post at Freeper or Redstate? Say what else you will about Kos - but the site also brooks more disagreement than most of the alternatives.


My friend lived above him when Nate was in Chicago, in Wicker Park circa 2006. He said one time, while outside smoking, Nate accidentally tried to enter my friend's apartment, apparently confusing it with his own. In general, my friend's impressions of him seem pretty in line with what you posted: urban elite, eccentric and absent minded in the way a lot of bright minds are. Not a great conversationalist. That apt complex had some great minds in it, as my friend is now finishing up his PHD in an obscure area of Philosophy/Neuroscience at UC-Berkeley.

Dick Morris and other pundits can make wrong prediction after wrong prediction, but if the math geek visibly makes one (early on) it's all over as far as the MSM is concerned


Most of the really smart people that are in the election business eventually start a boutique polling and analytics company or find themselves a highly paid consultant for one of the parties. For people like Morris, the game has passed them by, just as surely as SABERMETRICS has mothballed a number of GMs and Managers in MLB it has down the same in Politics. Nate was the right man at the right place, but their are literally hundreds if not thousands of people like him working in modern politics in the US.

I was lucky enough to work with a really smart analytics guy in NYC, I was sorta his deputy for a few years in the data department of a well known NYC third party. I always joked with him that he could quit and make 2x as much working half the hours as a consultant. I looked him up the other day, sure enough, he's now a consultant. Good for him, dude worked hard, for peanuts, and made quite a few people successful and rich. He should enjoy some himself.
   2846. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 24, 2014 at 11:23 PM (#4676602)
Here's a real surprise story about one of Joe's heroes:

Angry Judge Says Sheriff Defied Order on Latinos

PHOENIX — A federal judge strongly rebuked Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County and one of his chief deputies on Monday, saying that they had defied and even mocked the judge’s order last year to stop singling out Latinos during routine patrols, traffic stops and workplace raids.

“Whether or not the sheriff likes it, there is a distinction in immigration law that was not understood by the population and, with all due respect to you, it is not understood by the sheriff, which is that it is not a criminal violation to be in this country without authorization,” said the judge, G. Murray Snow of United States District Court here, staring down the 81-year-old sheriff, whose tenure has been framed largely by his unforgiving stance against illegal immigrants.

Ten months ago, Judge Snow ruled that Mr. Arpaio and his deputies had systematically profiled Latinos, targeting them for arrest during raids at day-laborer gathering spots and detaining them longer than other drivers during traffic stops. The subsequent order from the judge, who found that the sheriff’s office had violated the constitutional rights of Latinos, came with several requirements, including the appointment of a monitor to field complaints and oversee compliance....

The case before Judge Snow is a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Latinos who have been or will be stopped by Mr. Arpaio’s deputies in Maricopa County. But Mr. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office still face another lawsuit, filed by the Justice Department, claiming civil rights violations, based on, among other things, a longstanding pattern of discrimination against Latinos.

To Judge Snow, the hearing was an opportunity to put the alleged violations and mischaracterizations of his orders on the record. He made clear that if there were any further violations, he would not hesitate to use his authority to impose further sanctions on the sheriff’s office, like hiring more monitors to make sure the deputies were no longer discriminating against Latinos.

To underscore his points, Judge Snow asked that the lawyers on both sides of the case prepare a summary of his order and that Mr. Arpaio and his deputies use it as a training tool, ideally to make sure none of it was misinterpreted. He also asked both sides to sign a letter attesting to the intentions of the order, which Mr. Arpaio’s lawyers said they would have to discuss before accepting.


Monitors, hell. They should make that motherfucker have to ask permission to use the goddam bathroom, or better yet, make his sorry ass wear a clown suit to work to match his conduct. Or maybe if Ted Cruz runs out of hot air, the GOP can run him for president. I'm sure our Joe would be thrilled.
   2847. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM (#4676606)
They should make that ############ have to ask permission to use the goddam bathroom, or better yet, make his sorry ass wear a clown suit to work to match his conduct.

Three Terms of Service violations in one sentence. Bitter Mouse is not going to be happy.
   2848. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:03 AM (#4676608)
In light of other comments, this would be a good time to state you aren't really a fan of Sheriff Joe.
   2849. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:14 AM (#4676613)
Doing that would only encourage Andy.
   2850. Greg K Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:26 AM (#4676617)
I'm just shocked Arpaio is 81. I'm clearly mistaking him for someone else.
   2851. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:31 AM (#4676618)
Jonathan Chait on the emphatic crib death imposed on Dave Camp's tax reform plan:

"What set off Wall Street was a tax Camp levied on the largest banks. Their size made them “too big to fail,” thus lending them an unfair advantage, which Camp proposed, with shocking rationality, to recoup. The banks, predictably, do not see things this way. Wall Street unleashed a furious campaign to destroy and isolate Camp, canceling all fundraisers for the party until his fellow members agreed to denounce his heresy.

...Camp’s tax-reform plan – not just the financial tax, but the whole thing — represented a shocking moment in Republican policymaking. Here was not just a vague gesture in the direction of moderation that characterizes most Republican “reform” proposals, but a genuinely serious effort to grapple with trade-offs and impose the real, necessary pain on Republican constituencies that any such effort requires.

...The most important thing to understand about the contemporary Republican Party (which is why I wrote a book about it) is that its organizing purpose is to safeguard the economic interests of the very rich. This isn’t the goal of all or most of the people who vote Republican, or even the goal of all its elites, but even if different vectors within the party veer off in different directions, this is the Party's inevitable thrust.

...The whole point of the push-back from Wall Street, which has reinforced a wildly unenthusiastic reception within the GOP, is not only to prevent Republicans from striking a deal with Democrats and actually passing a tax reform, which could happen if Republicans wanted it. (There’s no law against Congress doing stuff in a midterm election year – the 1986 Tax Reform Act passed with bipartisan support in the sixth year of the Reagan administration.) It’s to murder his plan in a public way so as to prevent it from becoming the baseline for any future Republican agenda.

...Sources I’ve asked believe Camp was playing a kind of double game, an interpretation that closely fits all the public reporting. He promised Republicans he could produce a tax reform that would lower the top rate to 25 percent, a holy grail of GOP policymaking, and which would produce a massive windfall for the rich. He had also given lip service to making sure his reform did not decrease tax revenue or increase the tax burden on the poor and middle class. Meeting all these goals was arithmetically impossible. But Republican fiscal proposals usually come face-to-face with arithmetic impossibility. It is their oldest and most bitter foe.

...A telling comment came from Dean Zerbe, a former Republican tax aide and current tax lobbyist, who told Politico that Republicans would look at Camp’s plan and think, “I’m having the world coming down on me … all this just to get the rate down four points?” The interesting thing about this line is “the.” Camp’s plan cuts tax rates across the board, by significant levels for some taxpayers. “The” rate means the top tax rate, the one affecting the top couple percent of taxpayers. Zerbe assumes, no doubt correctly, that this is the one rate they actually care about."
   2852. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:59 AM (#4676624)
Four Years Later, Dems Waiting For ObamaCare Popularity Bounce:
Democrats have been waiting for ObamaCare to become popular for four years. And counting. Congressional leaders and senior White House advisers have been saying since 2010 that public opinion will turn their way sometime soon. Be patient, they have told anxious members of their party again and again.
. . .
[In 2010] ObamaCare helped catapult Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) to the speakership of the House, and demolished dozens of Democratic political careers.

Democrats now face the prospect of a second midterm drubbing in 2014, and the healthcare law is even more unpopular than it was last time around. According to a Pew survey released last week, 53 percent of the public disapproves of the Affordable Care Act, with only 41 percent saying they approve. Opinions were split almost evenly in the fall of 2010 before the Republican wave election, which Obama called a “shellacking.”

If public opinion hasn't supported ObamaCare in more than 4 years, that wouldn't seem likely to change between now and November.
   2853. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2014 at 07:38 AM (#4676641)
In light of other comments, this would be a good time to state you aren't really a fan of Sheriff Joe.

Well, he was kind of a cute baby, but after that he took a turn for the worse.
   2854. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:04 AM (#4676642)
I just feel bad for the poor people he is supposed to be serving. Last I checked his department was spending huge amounts of money (and sounds like more legal fees on the way) and was doing a terrible job of dealing with crime. And he is a bit of a pop star so getting him out of office is hard. Oh well.
   2855. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:11 AM (#4676643)
Of course Camp's reform proposal is dead on arrival. It cuts against the only real power in the GOP/TP. This is why JoeK's wet dream of Ted Cruz is stillborn.
   2856. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:20 AM (#4676646)
This is why JoeK's wet dream of Ted Cruz is stillborn.


I think Cruz has a chance to get the nod in 2016. Not on the Joe K pretend GOP populace platform, but he has a good chance.

The reason why is because in 2014 the GOP will do well, and the Tea Party (aka GOP base) will see that as a sign that the country is at long last (once again?) turning against Obama, ACA and all things liberal*. Thus all the true TP candidates will get a big jumpstart into the Presidential primaries.

The new GOP calendar is compressed, and if Cruz gets off to a fast start, consolidates the TP support and collects one or two big money men, well he is a smart guy and is not going to make any truly terrible campaign flubs (in the Primary anyway) and he has some charisma.

The "establishment" (i.e. corporatist and Washington DC) part of the GOP will have a couple favorites, but will they consolidate quickly enough to stop someone who has (in this hypothetical) consolidated the GOP primal scream?

That said I think he is maybe a 15% to 20% chance, but I do think he has a chance, running on the standard TP platform.

* I am sure we will get an early preview of what that is like on this very board, oh goody.
   2857. JE (Jason) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:21 AM (#4676647)
...The most important thing to understand about the contemporary Republican Party (which is why I wrote a book about it) is that its organizing purpose is to safeguard the economic interests of the very rich.

If Jonathan Chait wrote a book about it, then who are we to challenge him?
...Sources I’ve asked

What better way to find out the motives behind Camp's tax plan than to ask those who are inextricably opposed to tax cuts for top earners?
The interesting thing about this line is “the.” Camp’s plan cuts tax rates across the board, by significant levels for some taxpayers. “The” rate means the top tax rate, the one affecting the top couple percent of taxpayers. Zerbe assumes, no doubt correctly, that this is the one rate they actually care about.

Behold, the wonders of pop psychology.

In contrast, at least Norm Ornstein, who is today as Republican as E.J. Dionne, attempts a little balance:
But the enthusiasm for the effort and the framework that was expressed by editorial writers, intellectuals, and many journalists and tax analysts was not shared by the relevant pols. There was no enthusiasm shown by the Obama White House to engage Camp, leading Pearlstein to lament the loss of a great headline: "David Camp Heads to Camp David." There was no positive response from House or Senate Democrats. And then came the real kicker: Speaker John Boehner, a close ally of Camp's, reacted to his plan at a press conference by saying "Blah, blah, blah." Ouch.

The reaction by Democrats was in part a tribal reaction: If he is for it, we can't be. For many of them, Camp in other venues has been a hard-driving partisan, shutting out Democrats from actions on the committee (in sharp contrast from how Dan Rostenkowski treated Republicans during consideration of tax reform leading up to 1986.) Camp has vied with Darrell Issa in over-the-top partisan actions and rhetoric against the IRS. But even so, this was a serious plan with a lot for Democrats to like.

The other element, I suspect, is that Democrats don't have a lot of interest in tax reform that is revenue neutral. It will inevitably create winners and losers, and some of those losers will be Democratic voters, especially as rate reductions lead to capping or eliminating popular deductions like the state and local tax deduction or the one for mortgage interest. Democrats, including the president, see tax reform as a vehicle to get revenues, as part of a larger bargain to reduce the long-term debt. Embrace revenue-neutral tax reform, and you give up the best vehicle to achieve the greater goal.

For Republicans in Congress, any impulse to embrace or even say good things about the Camp plan was quashed quickly by the GOP monied interests whose oxen were gored by the plan—including hedge-fund billionaires hit by the changes in tax treatment of carried interest (remember, an idea that billionaire Stephen Schwarzman once equated to Hitler invading Poland), and the big banks hit by the Camp idea to tax the "too big to fail" financial institutions that escaped unscathed in the financial meltdown. As Jon Chait details in his column, "Wall Street unleashed a furious campaign to destroy and isolate Camp, canceling all fundraisers for the party until his fellow members agreed to denounce his heresy." Soon, a passel of House Republicans, Camp's friends and neighbors, sent him a letter denouncing his plan, and embracing their version of crony capitalism.

But the problem goes beyond the usual bipartisan dynamic of special interests jerking the chains of their buddies on Capitol Hill. For Republicans in Congress, problem solving is simply not high on the priority list. Real efforts at problem solving require recognizing that your desire to fulfill your ideological beliefs must fit the tradeoffs and realities of the real world. And it means that ideas—when subject to tests like making the numbers add up without manipulation or rank dishonesty—require adjustments, compromises, and pain for your friends and supporters.

Shorter version: Congressional Republicans have a midterm election to win. Keep the focus on Obamacare.
   2858. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:32 AM (#4676649)
By your own very excerpt Democrats are sort of against it (mostly reflexive), while the GOP money interests "unleashed a furious campaign to destroy and isolate Camp, canceling all fundraisers for the party until his fellow members agreed to denounce his heresy", not exactly both sides the same.

But if you want to suggest that the Democrats are too beholden to corporate interests I am onboard. Not as beholden as the GOP, but still plenty beholden.

Beware the corporate beholder.
   2859. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:34 AM (#4676650)
And how about this ...
The White House proposal would end the government's practice of sweeping up the phone records of millions of Americans and holding onto those records for five years so the numbers can be searched for national security purposes. Instead, the White House is expected to propose that the phone records be kept for 18 months, as the phone companies are already required to do by federal regulation, and that it be able to preserve its ability to see certain records in specific circumstances approved by a judge.


Never mind

The president's plan, however, relies on Congress to pass legislation — something that has so far seemed unlikely.


Sigh.
   2860. JE (Jason) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:35 AM (#4676651)
By the way, posts 2851 and 2852 are by and large emblematic for what typically gets linked to here: Those on the left not named Andy (Shipman seems rather centrist) are considerably more likely to post fire-breathing columnists (e.g., Jonathan Chait, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein, the entire staff at TPM) as a way to reinforce their viewpoints while the rest of us put up news articles from The Hill, Roll Call, and Washington Post.
   2861. JE (Jason) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4676652)
By your own very excerpt Democrats are sort of against it (mostly reflexive), while the GOP money interests "unleashed a furious campaign to destroy and isolate Camp, canceling all fundraisers for the party until his fellow members agreed to denounce his heresy", not exactly both sides the same.

I didn't say I agreed with Ornstein. Heck, he even quoted Chait. I only said those passages attempt to be a bit more balanced.
   2862. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:43 AM (#4676653)
I didn't say I agreed with Ornstein. Heck, he even quoted Chait. I only said those passages attempt to be a bit more balanced.


Fair enough. And now I feel bad I linked to TPM on the NSA story (though that was just where I saw it first).

EDIT: Though I am not sure the left here is more likely to post partisan links than the right, but I don't feel up to a rigorous data driven look at the issue. My peeve is people who don't post their own thoughts, but post essentially only a link. Like I come here to argue/learn from random columnist. Good as support material, bad as primary source IMO.
   2863. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:45 AM (#4676654)
By the way, posts 2851 and 2852 are by and large emblematic for what typically gets linked to here: Those on the left not named Andy (Shipman seems rather centrist) are considerably more likely to post fire-breathing columnists (e.g., Jonathan Chait, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein, the entire staff at TPM) as a way to reinforce their viewpoints while the rest of us put up news articles from The Hill, Roll Call, and Washington Post.


Horseshit, Jason. Posting op-eds from the neocons at WaPo isn't any more "newsy" than posting op-eds from TPM.
   2864. JE (Jason) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:56 AM (#4676655)
Horseshit, Jason. Posting op-eds from the neocons at WaPo isn't any more "newsy" than posting op-eds from TPM.

Sam, I generally don't post "op-eds from the neocons at WaPo" without a "FWIW" or something similar attached and more importantly, I accept it as opinion journalism. And while you might think Clapper cherrypicks, he nearly always posts news articles, not op-eds.
   2865. JE (Jason) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:59 AM (#4676656)
Fair enough. And now I feel bad I linked to TPM on the NSA story (though that was just where I saw it first).

Similarly, it's worth pointing out that I like Josh and shouldn't have said "the entire staff at TPM." Occasionally his operation puts out solid news stories.
   2866. bobm Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:09 AM (#4676659)
I don't feel up to a rigorous data driven look at the issue. My peeve is people who don't post their own thoughts, but post essentially only a link. Like I come here to argue/learn from random columnist. Good as support material, bad as primary source IMO.

My peeve is people who post only their own thoughts unsupported by data. :)
   2867. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:14 AM (#4676660)
And while you might think Clapper cherrypicks, he nearly always posts news articles, not op-eds.


Cherry picking "news" articles that only support a specific narrative is no better than posting op-ed links as news. It's all spin. Clapper isn't a buffoon because he posts cherry picked polls. Clapper is a buffoon because he posts cherry picked polls in a direct attempt to establish a narrative that his bugaboo policy monster, the dreaded "Obamacare," is driving those polls. He's a buffoon because he spins and spins and spins and then runs around pretending that he's non-partisan and just posting data.
   2868. zonk Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4676663)
Just for the record on the Camp proposal --

I thought it was a very good and reasonable starting point when it was floated (my biggest beef was mainly that I don't think a two-tiered income tax schema for individual earners works). I'd be happy to say that the Democrats ought to have been more conciliatory and open to negotiating with it -- but then, let's be honest... the minute Reid, Obama, or anyone lauded it or even appeared open to it, it would have died a quicker, harsher death than it did when Boehner basically said "It's not a plan to vote on" and the banks swooped in to smash Camp. Politics being what they are, the best thing the Democrats could do was at least publicly bash it, too. You wanna say it's a problem with both parties, so be it -- but large segments of the voting public reflexively like what the other side says they hate.
   2869. JE (Jason) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4676664)
Wow. (Not to worry, Sam: This is not one more "op-ed from the neocons at WaPo.")
A sneaky New Jersey teen made front-page news last week when he bypassed lax security and climbed to the top of the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere. The 16-year-old was called a “daredevil,” even though he just walked back down to the bottom — these three bros actually jumped off the damn thing back in September, and it looks as insane as it sounds.

Ho. Lee. Sheeeeet. That’s just bonkers. Totally bonkers. But, c’mon, people, 1 WTC hasn’t been called the Freedom Tower in like five years.

If you watch the video, don't fast forward. You really feel the nervous tension build before they finally go over the side.
   2870. JE (Jason) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:23 AM (#4676666)
Cherry picking "news" articles that only support a specific narrative is no better than posting op-ed links as news. It's all spin. Clapper isn't a buffoon because he posts cherry picked polls. Clapper is a buffoon because he posts cherry picked polls in a direct attempt to establish a narrative that his bugaboo policy monster, the dreaded "Obamacare," is driving those polls. He's a buffoon because he spins and spins and spins and then runs around pretending that he's non-partisan and just posting data.

If Clapper is somehow a "buffoon" who presides over a "bugaboo policy monster" narrive, what does that make you? (I know, I know, "happy and handsome," right?)
   2871. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:25 AM (#4676669)
He's a buffoon because he spins and spins and spins and then runs around pretending that he's non-partisan and just posting data.

He doesn't make any claims to being non-partisan
   2872. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:34 AM (#4676673)
Does anyone here claim to be non-partisan? I have a terrible memory though, so I could be wrong.

EDIT: And I like Clapper's poll posts. Say, how is our Kenyan dictator doing, poll wise?
   2873. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM (#4676681)
EDIT: Though I am not sure the left here is more likely to post partisan links than the right, but I don't feel up to a rigorous data driven look at the issue. My peeve is people who don't post their own thoughts, but post essentially only a link. Like I come here to argue/learn from random columnist. Good as support material, bad as primary source IMO

I think it depends both on who's doing the posting and the nature of the material being linked. But personally I find the bigger problem to be that few people are willing to engage the author of a linked article (not op-ed piece), partly because trading insults with fellow Primates gives more instant gratification, but mostly because (IMO) they're too lazy to go to the link in the first place----"IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME."**

And yet many of those linked articles offer perspectives that go beyond the shouting matches, or at least introduce new information on an old topic. Much as it's interesting to read what a Primate has to say for the 50th time on any given subject, there are times when there's more insight to be gained from someone on the outside.

**Which is why I often copy and paste most of the article, rather than just leave the link lying there in the cold, hoping that some kind stranger will pay it some attention.

   2874. The Good Face Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4676686)
He's a buffoon because he spins and spins and spins and then runs around pretending that he's non-partisan and just posting data.

He doesn't make any claims to being non-partisan


This. Clapper's poll posts are just a sort of solo form of the high fivery the lefties like to engage in here. And it apparently drives Sam into a frothing rage, so I hope he never stops doing it.
   2875. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4676689)
And it apparently drives Sam into a frothing rage, so I hope he never stops doing it.


Son, you've never seen me in a frothing rage, and if you continue to be lucky, you never will.
   2876. The Good Face Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4676693)
Son, you've never seen me in a frothing rage, and if you continue to be lucky, you never will.


Nothing more fearsome than a doughy keyboard warrior having a hissy.
   2877. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM (#4676699)
...of the high fivery the lefties like to engage in here

I'm glad the lefty high-five meme hasn't died much in the same way I'm glad the tea party is still driving the train. Keep it up!
   2878. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4676733)
Another for the government regulation is evil and a huge burden on business ...

WHO: air pollution responsible for 1 in 8 global deaths

According to a World Health Organization report released today, around 1 in 8 of total global deaths - 7 million deaths annually - are as a result of exposure to air pollution.

The new data challenges previous information on air pollution. The figure of 7 million more than doubles the previous estimate of annual air pollution-caused deaths, making air pollution now the world's largest single environmental health risk.


If only we could reduce those job killing regulations, then we could truly unleash the free market.
   2879. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4676739)
Nothing more fearsome than a doughy keyboard warrior having a hissy.


Tell me again about how you strong like Russian bear, baby?
   2880. The Good Face Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4676747)
Tell me again about how you strong like Russian bear, baby?


Hey, I'm not the guy boasting about my fearsome, world-shattering wrath (feel free to steal that for your next username), so....
   2881. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4676754)
All you jiu-jitsu weak, no honor, quick I mata leao all you beeches, give teabag.
   2882. Howie Menckel Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4676757)


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/25/democrats-slam-nate-silver-for-daring-to-predict-theyll-lose-senate/

Howard Kurtz:

"The Democrats are angry at Nate Silver.

This is rather amusing, since the Dems were big Silver boosters in 2012, when he predicted for the New York Times that Barack Obama had a 90 percent chance of being reelected.

His brilliance has apparently faded since then, at least in Democratic eyes, now that he is forecasting a Republican takeover of the Senate this fall.......

Silver also unveiled his prediction on “This Week,” the Sunday morning show on ABC, which owns ESPN.

And that prompted the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to issue a detailed rebuttal. That’s right, the committee went into damage-control mode to respond to a pundit."
   2883. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4676761)
According to a World Health Organization report released today, around 1 in 8 of total global deaths - 7 million deaths annually - are as a result of exposure to air pollution.

As a liberal, I'll say it: I'd need to really delve into this before I approve of this kind of scare-tactic headline.


Jerry Lewis stopped being funny a long time ago, YR.


   2884. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4676762)
#2882: I thought we discussed this earlier. Anyway the DSCC is pushing back as part of a fundraising bit. it is what those various committees do, raise money.

While I am not yet super impressed with 538 Mark II, I think it early to suggest he has lost his forecasting mojo.
   2885. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4676765)
As a liberal, I'll say it: I'd need to really delve into this before I approve of this kind of scare-tactic headline.


Why? Conservatives use scare tactics all the time. Besides suppose they are off by a factor of two, gee only 3.5 million deaths, total nothing.

Pollution is a real problem that causes real death. Highlighting that there are consequences to ignoring pollution seems totally legit, especially when the stats are not from some dude, but are from the World Health Organization (yes I know UN, black helicopters, etc...).

Anyway I will gladly listen to rational push back on the numbers, heck their methodology might be bad, but pushing back just because the numbers are scary is dumb. Scary numbers can be real.
   2886. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4676768)
Hey, I'm not the guy boasting about my fearsome, world-shattering wrath


Neither am I. I simply pointed out that you nor anyone else has seen me wrathful.
   2887. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4676769)
Norm Ornstein, who is today as Republican as E.J. Dionne,

what an absolutely perfect example of no true Scotsman.
   2888. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4676770)
Jerry Lewis stopped being funny a long time ago, YR.


Liar.
   2889. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4676771)
"The Democrats are angry at Nate Silver.


What I find interesting here is the arm's length the GOP is keeping here. I guess having spent so much time talking 538 down last cycle, they can't embrace it this cycle, so they have to go with the "Dems are mad at the guy they used to love" angle.
   2890. Lassus Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4676783)
While I am not yet super impressed with 538 Mark II, I think it early to suggest he has lost his forecasting mojo.

Is there specific predictions for specific states? I may or may not have a friend running for congress in a particular state and I'm curious if I can already check up on the forecast.
   2891. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4676787)
"The Democrats are angry at Nate Silver.


What I find interesting here is the arm's length the GOP is keeping here. I guess having spent so much time talking 538 down last cycle, they can't embrace it this cycle, so they have to go with the "Dems are mad at the guy they used to love" angle.

Not to mention that this entire "angry at Nate Silver" bit is complete BS to begin with. Here's the latest of about a dozen similar e-mails I've gotten since his Senate prediction was released. This one is from ActBlue, but the tone is identical to all the others I've gotten.

Dear Andy,

Nate Silver is predicting that Democrats will lose the Senate this November. That's the scary truth.

If we lose the Senate and the Republicans keep the House, then we’ll spend the last two years of the Obama presidency fighting against Republican legislation that will favor the wealthiest 1% over the rest of us. And we’ll be continually fighting to keep Obamacare alive.

The Kochs are using their millions to divide our country and gain personal influence with legislators. It’s a strategy that’s worked scarily well. It will work in this election too, unless we take action.

The truth is, the math isn’t in our favor. We’ve got more vulnerable Senate seats than we had predicted, and GOP supporters have a lot more money. ActBlue provides the platform for millions of small-dollar donors to support Democrats around the country. We’re building a grassroots movement that is stronger than the Kochs’ money.


You can call the above fundraising appeal "fearful", or you might just call it standard issue fundraising rhetoric. But where is the "anger" at Nate?
   2892. The Good Face Posted: March 25, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4676794)
Neither am I. I simply pointed out that you nor anyone else has seen me wrathful.


Then why must I pray for continued good fortune to avoid seeing such a terrifying sight?

Son, you've never seen me in a frothing rage, and if you continue to be lucky, you never will.


   2893. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4676801)
"Dems are mad at the guy they used to love" angle.

Good ol' Howie - he sure went native in a hurry. As discussed upthread this is classic modern conservative problem of only being able to see the world through your own prejudices. In the conservative world, any deviation from the notion of the ultimate triumph of the movement is treated as rank apostasy. Of course he considers the DSCC memo a "slam", while curiously providing literally nothing to support this assertion - no quotes, no description of said slam, nothing. Just this - “The DSCC memo took pains to compliment Silver, saying his work at newly launched FiveThirtyEight was ‘groundbreaking.’ - ooooh sick burn Nate! You got schooled!
   2894. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4676804)
Oh, and noted chutzpah king Don Rumsfeld criticizing Obama's Afghanistan policies while comparing him to a trained ape was a new low. I hope that guy keeps talking so that no one forgets how absolutely abysmal the Republican vision of foreign policy has been for this country.
   2895. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4676807)
Then why must I pray for continued good fortune to avoid seeing such a terrifying sight?


Prayer won't save you.
   2896. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4676810)
Oh, and noted chutzpah king Don Rumsfeld criticizing Obama's Afghanistan policies while comparing him to a trained ape was a new low. I hope that guy keeps talking so that no one forgets how absolutely abysmal the Republican vision of foreign policy has been for this country.

WTF are you talking about? I distinctly remember the way our soldiers were greeted as liberators in Iraq. It was just random chance that stuff happened after that.
   2897. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4676830)
   2898. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 25, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4676846)
so they have to go with the "Dems are mad at the guy they used to love" angle.


I'm also looking for but failing to see the "anger," he may be saying something they don't really want to hear, but its not like Nate was saying anything they didn't already know/suspect- whereas a lot of the right's actual anger was being driven by not only that he was telling him something they didn't want to hear, but they were also emotionally invested in an alternative reality driven by their koolaid intoxication
   2899. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4676865)
So, Mitch McConnell's new ad in addition to being just plain awful and using the Orwellian platitudes you expect, has footage of DUKE'S 2010 BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP WIN. Is his campaign really that stupid? They already took it down of course, but too late now.
   2900. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4676867)
So, Mitch McConnell's new ad in addition to being just plain awful and using the Orwellian platitudes you expect, has footage of DUKE'S 2010 BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP WIN. Is his campaign really that stupid? They already took it down of course, but too late now.


Could they not get the rights to Laettner stepping on the kid for UK?
Page 29 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(13 - 3:52am, Nov 23)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4170 - 3:40am, Nov 23)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(99 - 3:12am, Nov 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(18 - 2:55am, Nov 23)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(966 - 2:27am, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(12 - 1:50am, Nov 23)
Last: ptodd

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(553 - 1:35am, Nov 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 1.1316 seconds
53 querie(s) executed