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

Sunday, September 02, 2012

OTP - September 2012 - Because it’s Labor Day after all

Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: September 02, 2012 at 01:22 PM | 8483 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 81 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 > 
   8001. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4248405)
It's been obvious since the day Romney's campaign began: He can't escape from the albatross of the GOP's Crazy Joe Davola base unless the economy completely tanked, and even then only if people could be convinced that Ryanomics was the solution. He sold whatever soul he had left by pandering to the yahoos in the primaries, and now he's discovering just how high the price was.

Right, which is why it bears repeating: for all its stumbles, the fundamental difficulty for Romney hasn't been the execution of the campaign. It's been the content of the GOP platform.
   8002. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4248416)
And stupid. His one worthwhile achievement is now a big error. What the #### qualifies him as president his hair?


The stated reason would be an ability to see a mistake and adapt accordingly, rather than continuing on a bad course like Obama is doing with Afghanistan.

(Cue the Billy Joel song I mentioned earlier, "Russians in Afghanistan!" Well, now it's the US in that swampland.)
   8003. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4248420)
Is there anything, Joe, that you wouldn't attempt to vindicate if someone you see as on the other side is doing the same or worse? Is that really how you live your life and establish your values?
Even if every member of a street gang was a terrorist, I don't see the point. So there are various people who do bad things, so …?

Add up the number of people killed by street gangs since 9/11 and compare it to the number of civilians killed by drones. It's comical that the lefties are so concerned for the lives and civil liberties of people in hostile nations while caring little (or not at all) about the lives and basic liberties of millions of Americans who live in fear every day because of the violence right outside their doors. All this drone talk and phony moral equivalence is just more of Sam's usual philosobabble.
   8004. booond Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4248422)
The stated reason would be an ability to see a mistake and adapt accordingly


Admitting a mistake is a pretty low bar as presidential qualifications are concerned. Why should he be president if he did nothing worthwhile in his only other government position?
   8005. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4248424)
Admitting a mistake is a pretty low bar as presidential qualifications are concerned. Why should he be president if he did nothing worthwhile in his only other government position?

Funny how Obama supporters weren't asking that question in 2008.
   8006. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4248427)
Right, which is why it bears repeating: for all its stumbles, the fundamental difficulty for Romney hasn't been the execution of the campaign. It's been the content of the GOP platform.


This is a ridiculous statement, coming just four years after we had a Republican president for eight years. And after we had a Republican president for 28 of the last 52 years. (*)

But I know you'd like to believe that just four years after Bush, the public is aghast at the GOP platform. But that's just the echos in your cocoon talking.

No, the far more likely reason is that it's difficult to unseat a sitting president. It's only been done, what, twice in the last nine opportunities. (*)

(*) Endpoints chosen selectively.
   8007. booond Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4248428)
Funny how Obama supporters weren't asking that question in 2008.


You had your chance in 2008 and you ran dumb and dumber. What qualifies the fool you're running now?
   8008. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4248430)
You had your chance in 2008 and you ran dumb and dumber. What qualifies the fool you're running now?

Non-responsive to #8005. But to answer your question, Romney's big success with the Salt Lake Olympics was much bigger and better than anything Obama ever achieved in or out of government. (I won't go into Romney's business career, since we all know he stole all that money and didn't earn any of it.)
   8009. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4248435)
This is a ridiculous statement, coming just four years after we had a Republican president for eight years. And 28 of the last 52 years.

And this is a ridiculous statement in that it pretends that the GOP platform is unchanged since GWB ran, not to mention since the 1980s and earlier.

But I know you'd like to believe that just four years after Bush, the public is aghast at the GOP platform.

"Aghast" isn't the word I would use. "Unimpressed" is more accurate.

No, the far more likely reason is that it's difficult to unseat a sitting president. It's only been done, what, twice in the last nine opportunities.

It's entirely true that this is a hugely important factor. But the GOP's ever-rightward shift appears likely to have reached the point at which it's a liability in the national general election.
   8010. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4248437)
Non-responsive to #8005.
#8007 responded to an attack with another attack. I call this "The JoeK."
   8011. booond Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4248438)
But to answer your question, Romney's big success with the Salt Lake Olympics was much bigger and better than anything Obama ever achieved in or out of government.


I'm not going to list the Obama achievements as president that overshadow managing, with well over 1 billion dollars of federal help, a winter carnival, because that's what you want me to do. However, so that I'm being responsive, your response is idiotic.
   8012. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4248440)
It's entirely true that this is a hugely important factor. But the GOP's ever-rightward shift appears likely to have reached the point at which it's a liability in the national general election.


There's no ever-rightward shift. See for example the trend in the GOP on same-sex marriage and global warming. The party is shifting left, and has been for some time.

The party in power (and its followers) always thump their chest as if the other party's policies have been roundly rejected. But that is not the case. Politics are cyclical. Can you not see that, Steve?

EDIT: Changed pump to thump so I don't sound like an idiot.
   8013. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4248452)
There's no ever-rightward shift.

Compare the positions offered by the pool of Republican primary candidates in 2012 with those in 2000 and say again with a straight face that there's been no ever-rightward shift. Describe the influence of Tea Party voters in current-day GOP congressional elections and say again with a straight face that there's been no ever-rightward shift. Explain why Arlen Specter left the party, and why Dick Lugar was defeated in his 2012 primary, and say again with a straight face that there's been no ever-rightward shift.

Politics are cyclical. Can you not see that, Steve?

Of course politics are cyclical. But to pretend that the GOP has remained unchanged in the past 10 years, and that the political landscape in the 2012 election is the same as it ever was, is to fail to see the blindingly obvious.
   8014. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4248453)
I'm not going to list the Obama achievements as president that overshadow managing, with well over 1 billion dollars of federal help, a winter carnival, because that's what you want me to do. However, so that I'm being responsive, your response is idiotic.

Oh, I see. Obama had far less qualifications than Romney back in 2008, but since Obama is president now, he should win by default, since the only Republican alive with the same presidential experience and remaining presidential eligibility isn't a candidate. Very convenient.
   8015. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4248454)
And this is a ridiculous statement in that it pretends that the GOP platform is unchanged since GWB ran, not to mention since the 1980s and earlier.


It is also stupid in that it assumes voters don't have a vivid memory of GWB's actual legacy, which is WHY the majority of the population is saying no to the GOP.
   8016. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4248457)
It is also stupid in that it assumes voters don't have a vivid memory of GWB's actual legacy, which is WHY the majority of the population is saying no to the GOP.

Were you in a coma in November 2010?
   8017. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4248461)
It is also stupid in that it assumes voters don't have a vivid memory of GWB's actual legacy, which is WHY the majority of the population is saying no to the GOP.

Not just voters. The GOP elders themselves have such a vivid memory of GWB's actual legacy that in their 2012 convention they pretended he never existed.
   8018. booond Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4248463)
Obama had far less qualifications than Romney back in 2008, but since Obama is president now, he should win by default, since the only Republican alive with the same presidential experience and remaining presidential eligibility isn't a candidate. Very convenient.


The Republicans had their chance in 2008 and ran weak candidates. Now they are running another weak candidate whose sole government achievement he's embarrassed to discuss. See you in four years.
   8019. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4248467)
Compare the positions offered by the pool of Republican primary candidates in 2012 with those in 2000 and say again with a straight face that there's been no ever-rightward shift.

Hell, compare the Democratic platform from 2008 to its platform in 2012 and say there's been no ever-rightward shift.
   8020. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4248471)
The Republicans had their chance in 2008 and ran weak candidates. Now they are running another weak candidate whose sole government achievement he's embarrassed to discuss. See you in four years.

Yes, it will be fun watching Obama try to unseat Romney in 2016. Probably a little sad and pathetic, but also fun.
   8021. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4248481)
There's no ever-rightward shift. See for example the trend in the GOP on same-sex marriage and global warming.


I think Ray's right in this case.
The GOP hasn't moved to the right on those cases.
They've stayed completely still, it's just the rest of the world has shifted left.
It gives everyone the impression that the GOP has gone "right", but they've simply remained static while the rest of society (with a social conscience and a scientific background) has moved to the "left".

That tree on the side of the road isn't moving in one direction, the car that everyone is in is moving in the other direction.
   8022. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4248487)
I think Ray's right in this case.
The GOP hasn't moved to the right on those cases.
They've stayed completely still, it's just the rest of the world has shifted left.


Too bad those aren't the only two issues in the world.
   8023. Spahn Insane Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4248491)
8020:

You're probably right about the "sad and pathetic" part, were it to transpire, but what makes you think Obama has any interest in supplanting Romney as CEO of whatever private sector enterprise Willard's involved in four years from now?
   8024. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: September 28, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4248496)
Were you in a coma in November 2010?


2010, when a midterm electorate (white, old) came out to in droves to prevent fictive "death panels" and "keep the government out of my Medicare" by voting for House seats.

You do realize that general election is not in any way similar to a midterm, right? Is this the sliver of driftwood the nutters are clinging to? That the general election of 2012 will behave demographically and thus electorally like the midterm election of 2010? Are you people really that stupid?
   8025. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:00 PM (#4248500)
You do realize that general election is not in any way similar to a midterm, right? Is this the sliver of driftwood the nutters are clinging to? That the general election of 2012 will behave demographically and thus electorally like the midterm election of 2010? Are you people really that stupid?

I don't know any GOPers who believe 2012 will be like 2010, but I also don't know any who believe 2012 will be as Dem or more Dem than 2008, which a lot of the polls seem to be assuming.
   8026. Gonfalon B. Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4248506)
But to answer your question, Romney's big success with the Salt Lake Olympics was much bigger and better than anything Obama ever achieved in or out of government.

So you do support government stimulus.
   8027. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4248507)
It is also stupid in that it assumes voters don't have a vivid memory of GWB's actual legacy, which is WHY the majority of the population is saying no to the GOP.


Were you in a coma in November 2010?

...

I don't know any GOPers who believe 2012 will be like 2010

And here all this time I thought you were a GOPer, Joe. Please pardon my mistake.
   8028. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4248510)
And here all this time I thought you were a GOPer, Joe. Please pardon my mistake.

Huh? You're claiming to have seen me predict 2012 will be like 2010? 2010 was a landslide year for the GOP, while I've predicted a 51-49 presidential election in 2012.
   8029. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4248518)
Speaking of 2010, I saw this graphic yesterday on Twitter:

Rasmussen today vs. 2 years ago

It will be interesting if essentially the same approval metrics that translated into a bloodbath in 2010 for Dems might still lead to an Obama re-election victory in 2012. The closeness of the polls really speaks to Romney's weaknesses as a candidate (and campaign).
   8030. Spahn Insane Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:22 PM (#4248519)
It will be interesting if essentially the same approval metrics that translated into a bloodbath in 2010 for Dems might still lead to an Obama re-election victory in 2012.

Yes, it would. What're Ras's approval ratings for Romney? Therein may lie a big part of the answer for how this scenario might play out (along with the vastly different electoral composition, but I'm beating a dead horse...).
   8031. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4248524)
“First of all, we’ve had 9 days of lies…If a president of either party…had had a terrorist incident and gotten on an airplane [after remarks] and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified…it should have been, should have been, the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all. Nothing will be said. [...] It is [unacceptable] to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know. [The MSM] has made themselves the enemy of the American people. It is a threat to the very future of the country; we’ve crossed a new and frightening line on the slippery slope, and it needs to be talked about.”


Who said it?
   8032. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4248525)
Right, which is why it bears repeating: for all its stumbles, the fundamental difficulty for Romney hasn't been the execution of the campaign. It's been the content of the GOP platform.
And yet, in all 8000 posts in this thread, not one of the Leon Trotsky cheering section left here has identified any such 'content' that has hurt Romney. The only hard right position Romney has stuck to is to never ever raise taxes -- but Romney would not be picking up votes by promising to raise taxes.
   8033. Spahn Insane Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4248526)
Also, your reliance on Rasmussen, which, its Republican house effect aside, has some of the most backward methodology in the polling business (i.e., they're landline only, which likely explains a good bit of the Republican house effect), to the apparent exclusion of every other polling outfit on the planet, is kind of cute.
   8034. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4248529)
It will be interesting if essentially the same approval metrics that translated into a bloodbath in 2010 for Dems might still lead to an Obama re-election victory in 2012. The closeness of the polls really speaks to Romney's weaknesses as a candidate (and campaign).


For all the talk about how badly Romney's doing, even relative to a "generic Republican", Obama's poll numbers are very much in line with his approval ratings. Rasmussen has 48% approving of the President's performance (at least somewhat) and 48% supporting him (including leaners). Romney's under-performing the Obama disapproval numbers there (48% for Romney, 51% disapproval), but Gallup has Obama's approval/disapproval at 50/45 and his matchup with Romney at 50/44 (which is exactly what Obama's approval/disapproval was two days ago). RCP has Obama's approval at +6.5 and his polling lead at +4.1. Maybe the Romney campaign deserves some "blame" for WHY Obama's approval ratings are somewhat positive right now, but it seems that for the most part, Obama's support is coming from people who actually approve of the job he's done as President.

(note: all three of those links update daily, so if somebody is reading this in the future, all of the quoted numbers here may not be there anymore (and heck, my entire point may no longer be valid or make any sense).)
   8035. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4248531)
Also, your reliance on Rasmussen, which, its Republican house effect aside, has some of the most backward methodology in the polling business (i.e., they're landline only, which likely explains a good bit of the Republican house effect), to the apparent exclusion of every other polling outfit on the planet, is kind of cute.

People laughed at Rasmussen when he was the first to predict the 2010 bloodbath, too. The idea that Rasmussen is some hack with a lousy track record is nonsense. He was more accurate in predicting the extent of the GOP takeover in 2010 than Nate's model.
   8036. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:40 PM (#4248532)
It will be interesting if essentially the same approval metrics that translated into a bloodbath in 2010 for Dems might still lead to an Obama re-election victory in 2012.


Obama isn't running against the incumbent House. He's running against Mitt Romney. Is this really the ray of hope to which the Dick Morris Brigades cling?
   8037. Yardape Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#4248533)
but Romney would not be picking up votes by promising to raise taxes.


You don't think he could? (Honest question). If he proposed some kind of moderate tax increase on upper incomes paired with spending cuts to get the deficit under control, it could really help his position as an economic guy who knows how to get us out of this mess - and can actually get it done, unlike Obama. But by sticking to no tax raises ever, he makes himself look more ideological and obstructionist when he wants to look pragmatic. At least, I think that's possible, but this is not my area of expertise.
   8038. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#4248534)
Obama isn't running against the incumbent House. He's running against Mitt Romney. Is this really the ray of hope to which the Dick Morris Brigades cling?

Wait, I thought the 2010 midterm elections were a referendum on the incumbent. Now they were only a referendum on the incumbent House?
   8039. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4248538)
Nothing about the constantly evolving tale the Obama administration has been weaving about the attacks in the Middle East makes sense, unless it is seen as a deliberate attempt to mislead Americans into believing al Qaeda has been decimated, as President Obama has been know to assert. After dancing on Osama bin Laden’s grave for a week in Charlotte, the administration was faced with the reality that the war on terror is still quite on.
Never mind that a fourth-grader could see that the Libya attack was anything but a spontaneous riot over an Internet video the administration, following the lead of the Islamists, has elevated to the genre of “movie.”
Whichever is the case, the media could stand to have a lot more curiosity about the safety of the United States. Thankfully, a few reporters are doing their jobs. While most of the media herd was fretting that Mitt Romney paid too much in taxes, The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake discovered that the administration had known within 24 hours that al Qaeda was behind the attack in Benghazi.

Who said it?
   8040. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4248543)
Circling back to a previous point of discussion, Mark Thompson over at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen:


Professor Jacobson has uncovered this morning a case in which Elizabeth Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law. Although this is still a federal appellate court, because we’re dealing with a Massachusetts client and issues of Massachusetts law, this looks really, really bad for Professor Warren. With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak.


Following the link:


In just the last few days even more information has come forward which supports my original position. We learned that Warren represented to the Texas Bar that her “primary practice location” was in Cambridge.

We also learned that Warren had a law practice going beyond brief writing, including being hired to provide legal advice to various creditors’ committees in bankruptcy cases, in which she represented to the Court that her “Billing Statement is in the same form regularly used by Professor Warren to bill her clients” and in which the work was performed, at $675 per hour as of 2002, from her Cambridge office. There will be more such examples detailed in coming days.

Yet still, Warren defenders persist in defending on the basis that Warren just wrote a few Briefs for out of state cases and never did anything for a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts, much less on a Massachusetts issue of law.

I consider that test irrelevant, but in any event, Warren did represent a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts on a Massachusetts legal issue.

The case was an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston in the case of Cadle Company v. Schlictmann.

...

Based on the First Circuit docket available through PACER, it appears that Warren and three other Harvard Law professors were brought in to try to convince the First Circuit to reconsider its decision. The Schlichtmann representation is not a case previously disclosed by the Warren campaign.


Since IANAL, to the lawyers on both sides here, what do you think?
   8041. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4248546)
To the lawyers on both sides here, what do you think?


IANAL and I don't really know the details, but form 10000 feet above, this looks and smells a lot like "The Clintons murdered Vince Foster." I could be wrong, of course.
   8042. SteveF Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4248551)
You must not have thought much of Vince Foster.
   8043. PreservedFish Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:15 PM (#4248560)
Going back 40 posts:

The stated reason would be an ability to see a mistake and adapt accordingly, rather than continuing on a bad course like Obama is doing with Afghanistan.


Someone here knows more about this than I do, but is Obama continuing on a bad course in Afghanistan? My understanding was that they are removing troops, more or less giving up on joint training with Afghan security forces, and have been lately only been looking to live up to the extremely low standard of "Afghan good enough." And that he has abandoned the idea that more troops could solve anything. And I thought that Romney was the candidate that didn't want to give up on the occupation. Is Ray absolutely wrong about this issue, or is it me?
   8044. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4248566)
Someone here knows more about this than I do, but is Obama continuing on a bad course in Afghanistan?


He's not doing anything of note. He's not going to do anything of note before November. He doubled down on COIN at the cost of counter-terrorism (Joe Biden was right, Obama and Clinton were wrong) and now he's holding that line. He should be getting the hell out.
   8045. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4248567)
2010 was a landslide year for the GOP, while I've predicted a 51-49 presidential election in 2012.

Once again, Intrade is saying "YOO-HOO, JOE, WE'RE OVER HERE! MONEY TALKS AND BOOLSHEET WALKS!"

Investors eye the 'cliff' as Obama gains in polls

By MATTHEW CRAFT, AP Business Writer – 47 minutes ago

Analysts at investment firms have kept a close eye on polling numbers and especially on the Intrade, an online marketplace where members can trade predictions on events like elections. Polls show voters leaning toward Obama in key swing states. On Intrade, the odds have swung strongly in Obama's direction, jumping to a 76 percent chance of re-election, up from 51 percent at the start of September.



   8046. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4248571)
Homer Bailey's got a no-no in the 9th.
   8047. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4248573)
Hey, take that to a baseball site.
   8048. Spahn Insane Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4248574)
People laughed at Rasmussen when he was the first to predict the 2010 bloodbath, too.

Everybody predicted the 2010 bloodbath. So Silver underestimated the GOP House gains by, what, 10 seats? BFD. As for the 2012 race, it's not just Silver who disagrees with Rasmussen--it's pretty much everybody (and Silver's model incorporates Rasmussen's polling in any case).
   8049. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4248579)
Everybody predicted the 2010 bloodbath. So Silver underestimated the GOP House gains by, what, 10 seats? BFD. As for the 2012 race, it's not just Silver who disagrees with Rasmussen--it's pretty much everybody (and Silver's model incorporates Rasmussen's polling in any case).

And sometimes everybody else is wrong.

I feel like I've asked this a hundred times here with little or no response, but do you and your fellow lefties here honestly believe the 2012 electorate will be as Dem or more Dem than 2008?
   8050. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4248584)
Homer Bailey's got a no-no in the 9th.

My joke in #8047 aside, thanks for the heads up. Via the miracle of MLB.tv, I was able to catch the final out. (Of course, seeing the note about it being the first Reds no-hitter since Browning's perfect game in Sept. 1988 made me feel really old. Oh, to be 15 again.)
   8051. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4248585)



As we explained in yesterday's Slatest PM newsletter, some conservatives are becoming increasingly vocal regarding their doubts about recent polls that show President Obama pulling out in front of Mitt Romney. In short, they contend that pretty much everyone but the conservative pollsters over at Rasmussen are relying on turnout models that unfairly favor Democrats. If the models were tweaked appropriately, they say, Mitt Romney would have a substantial lead coming down the home stretch.

Or at least that's what their "unskewed" polls had been showing up until yesterday when Fox News released its latest survey, which showed Obama up by 5 points, 48 percent to Romney's 43.

Dean Chambers, who runs unskewedpolls.com, quicky worked his usual magic on the Fox data but this time his "unskewing" wasn't enough to move the numbers in the GOP's favor. The result: Obama up by 2 points. While that's obviously less than the gap the Fox News poll showed, it's nonetheless noteworthy because it's a major departure from the past dozen or so of Chambers' "unskewed" polls that claimed to have Romney well on his way to a historic victory this fall.

We'll let Chambers explain what he did:

"When the data from the Fox News poll is unskewed by weighting their reported percentages between Romney and Obama to the partisan affiliations showed by Rasmussen's extensive data results on that issue, the overall picture of the race is different. With Republicans weighted 34.8 percent, Democrats at 35.2 percent and Independents at 30.0 percent, the results calculate to Obama leading but by a smaller 46 percent to 44 percent margin over Romney"

   8052. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4248586)
“First of all, we’ve had 9 days of lies…If a president of either party…had had a terrorist incident and gotten on an airplane [after remarks] and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified…it should have been, should have been, the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all. Nothing will be said. [...] It is [unacceptable] to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know. [The MSM] has made themselves the enemy of the American people. It is a threat to the very future of the country; we’ve crossed a new and frightening line on the slippery slope, and it needs to be talked about.”


Who said it?


This sober-minded fellow?
   8053. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4248588)
Joe says he respects Nate's numbers crunching, so here's what he wrote in the aftermath of the 2010 election:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.

Nor did it make much difference whether the polls were branded as Rasmussen Reports surveys, or instead, were commissioned for Fox News by its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research. (Both sets of surveys used an essentially identical methodology.) Polls branded as Rasmussen Reports missed by an average of 5.9 points and had a 3.9 point bias. The polls it commissioned on behalf of Fox News had a 5.1 point error, and a 3.6 point bias.

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year [2010].
   8054. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4248593)
Once again, Intrade is saying "YOO-HOO, JOE, WE'RE OVER HERE! MONEY TALKS AND BOOLSHEET WALKS!"

I've never said I see Romney winning under all scenarios. If I did, I'd be happy to make such bets.

Going back to early 2012 or even late '11, I've predicted a GOP win if the economic metrics remained the same or got worse. Since all sorts of "events" could end up overriding the economics, and since Intrade probably wouldn't accept a narrowly defined bet that would require 10 pages of terms and legalese, the constant drumbeat re: Intrade is little more than pool-hall bravado.
   8055. Gonfalon B. Posted: September 28, 2012 at 09:57 PM (#4248602)
The idea that Rasmussen is some hack with a lousy track record is nonsense. He was more accurate in predicting the extent of the GOP takeover in 2010 than Nate's model.

In 2010, Rasmussen missed the final margins by an average of 5.8%, the worst of any major pollster. They were off by double digits in 13 polls, including missing the actual result of the Hawaii Senate race by 40 points.

In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Silver rates Rasmussen's accuracy as poor in 2000, strong in 2004 and 2006, average in 2008, and poor in 2010.

[EDIT: Anywhere between 74% and 112% of a Coke to Andy.]
   8056. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4248607)
Intrade is little more than pool-hall bravado.


You could win a lot of money in a pool hall if you know what you're doing.
   8057. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4248608)
Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year [2010].

Meanwhile, Scott Rasmussen's prediction of the House, without doing any polls at all, was more accurate than Nate's model. You win some, you lose some.
   8058. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4248613)
Going back to early 2012 or even late '11, I've predicted a GOP win if the economic metrics remained the same or got worse. Since all sorts of "events" could end up overriding the economics, and since Intrade probably wouldn't accept a narrowly defined bet that would require 10 pages of terms and legalese, the constant drumbeat re: Intrade is little more than pool-hall bravado.

IOW with 6 weeks to go and the economic metrics more or less stagnant (some slightly better today, some worse), and with "events" just as likely to fall in either direction, you're saying that even though you see Romney as a 51-49 favorite, he's not worth a flyer where you're getting a better than 3 to 1 payoff?

Don't get me wrong. If you don't like betting on principle or out of caution, I can respect that. But if that's not the case, then it's hard to see what you're waiting for, unless your real convictions aren't quite what you're making them out to be.

And BTW I always thought Intrade was supposed to be the free marketer's favorite. In 2008 they missed the electoral vote total by one (1) EV, reversing Missouri and Indiana and missing that one Nebraska district that went for Obama.
   8059. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4248614)
but Romney would not be picking up votes by promising to raise taxes.

You don't think he could? (Honest question).
No. (Honest answer. Not snarky.) Roughly speaking, there are two types of people who are more likely to vote for someone who promises to raise taxes: lefties who cackle with glee at the thought of soaking the rich, and David Broder. The first group aren't going to vote for Romney regardless, and the second group is dead.
If he proposed some kind of moderate tax increase on upper incomes paired with spending cuts to get the deficit under control, it could really help his position as an economic guy who knows how to get us out of this mess - and can actually get it done, unlike Obama. But by sticking to no tax raises ever, he makes himself look more ideological and obstructionist when he wants to look pragmatic. At least, I think that's possible, but this is not my area of expertise.
Approximately no voters actually care about the deficit qua deficit. Professions of concern about it are really proxies for broader economic concerns, for concerns about taxes, or for concerns about spending. You've got to remember that undecided voters are not thoughtful people weighing the pros and cons of each candidate and just unable to decide who they like better; they're morons who don't pay attention. (It's hard for the sort of people who participate in 8000-post OTP threads on a baseball website to grasp, but there are actually people out there who know essentially nothing about the candidates, don't watch conventions or debates or read newspapers.) They're not going to analyze a promise to raise taxes that deeply. And for every hypothetical vote he gains from the unicorn who actually says, "Yeah, I like him because he promised to raise taxes and that sounds pragmatic," there's lost votes from the people who say, "Uh, he just promised to raise taxes."
   8060. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4248620)
IOW with 6 weeks to go and the economic metrics more or less stagnant (some slightly better today, some worse), and with "events" just as likely to fall in either direction, you're saying that even though you see Romney as a 51-49 favorite, he's not worth a flyer where you're getting a better than 3 to 1 payoff?

I'm not sure at all that "events" are likely to fall in either direction. The odds of Eurodoom occurring over the next 40 days seem very low, while a domestic terrorist attack would likely rally people to Obama (his Libya fiasco notwithstanding). A leaked picture of dead Osama probably helps Obama; Romney's tax returns being leaked probably helps Obama. The Libya debacle is proof that the media is in the bag for Obama, so I'd guess that just about any October surprise(s) will help Obama rather than hurt him (unless Breitbart left an envelope that says, "Do Not Open Until October 20, 2012").
   8061. Lassus Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4248626)
Saw Looper tonight. It was quite good, but personally as I'd been hearing about it for 18 months, I just feel a little let down somehow. I think the over-exposure of nerd-dom has been hurting these films, expectation-wise.
   8062. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4248633)
You've got to remember that undecided voters are not thoughtful people weighing the pros and cons of each candidate and just unable to decide who they like better; they're morons who don't pay attention.

It's funny how true this is and how no one — not the candidates, not the media, not anyone among the political class — really talks about it. Instead, the "undecideds" are hailed as thoughtful, pragmatic people who spent the whole election season weighing their decision carefully. It's nuts.
   8063. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4248640)
Since IANAL, to the lawyers on both sides here, what do you think?
Many pages ago I said that there was insufficient evidence to say that she had violated the law, but that there was enough of a reason to investigate further. I still think the same, except that I've moved the needle from "Guess it's possible she did something wrong" to "Yeah, it actually looks like she might have some problems." Now I think that the ball should no longer be in Scott Brown's oppo research's court; the bar should look into it.
   8064. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4248641)
The Libya debacle is proof that the media is in the bag for Obama
This would explain why the Democrats win every election, every year.
   8065. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4248642)
No. (Honest answer. Not snarky.) Roughly speaking, there are two types of people who are more likely to vote for someone who promises to raise taxes: lefties who cackle with glee at the thought of soaking the rich, and David Broder. The first group aren't going to vote for Romney regardless, and the second group is dead.
isn't that what the whole 47% thing is about? that 47% of americans aren't paying taxes, and romney's plan would put an end to that?
   8066. greenback calls it soccer Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4248644)
From #8051:
everyone but the conservative pollsters over at Rasmussen are relying on turnout models that unfairly favor Democrats

I don't know the source, but I thought journalists were taught to avoid adverbs when possible, and "unfairly" would have been a good adverb to omit here.

Who the heck has a land line in 2012?

   8067. tshipman Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4248645)
And yet, in all 8000 posts in this thread, not one of the Leon Trotsky cheering section left here has identified any such 'content' that has hurt Romney. The only hard right position Romney has stuck to is to never ever raise taxes -- but Romney would not be picking up votes by promising to raise taxes.


Q: [to Gingrich]:We heard from Gov. Romney, that self-deportation, or illegal immigrants leaving the country voluntarily, is a possible solution. You've suggested that self-deportation is "an Obama level fantasy."


ROMNEY: Those who come into the country legally would be given an identification card, and if employers hire someone without a card, then those employers would be severely sanctioned. If you do that, people who have come here illegally won't be able to find work. And over time, those people would tend to leave the country, or self-deport. I don't think anyone is interested in going around and rounding up people around the country and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants into America. Let's focus our attention on how to make legal immigration work and stop illegal immigration.


Poll: Obama has 35-point lead with Latino voters

President Barack Obama continues to lead presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney by wide margins with Latinos, according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal-Telemundo poll.

Hispanics, the largest-growing segment of the U.S. population over the past decade, said they preferred Obama over Romney in the presidential race, 63 to 28 percent.

That margin has been relatively consistent since May when the poll started sampling additional Latino interviews. It’s also, though, far below the stated Romney campaign goal of winning 38 percent of the Hispanic vote.


Poll favors Obama on Medicare

Voters in three critical swing states broadly oppose the sweeping changes to Medicare proposed by Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and, by big margins, favor President Obama over Mitt Romney on the issue, according to new state polls by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Among seniors, the issue rivals the economy as a top voting issue, undercutting Romney's appeal in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Generally, the more voters focus on Medicare, the more likely they are to support the president's bid for re-election.
   8068. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4248649)
Yes, but those are empirical facts. David's state department doesn't recognize such things.
   8069. tshipman Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4248653)
By the way, I actually disagree with you above, Steve.

Right, which is why it bears repeating: for all its stumbles, the fundamental difficulty for Romney hasn't been the execution of the campaign. It's been the content of the GOP platform.


I don't think this is correct. There is a universe where a Republican nominee is tied or narrowly in the lead with the same platform. He's lost 1-2 points over the 47% thing. That is something that is totally avoidable. No one on this board would be crowing over a 2 pt Obama lead.
   8070. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4248657)
I don't think this is correct. There is a universe where a Republican nominee is tied or narrowly in the lead with the same platform.

What universe is that? Which other GOP primary candidate would be running better than Romney? Which other plausible GOP candidate who didn't compete in the primaries would be running better than Romney, given the mood of the GOP primary electorate?

   8071. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4248658)
Poll: Obama has 35-point lead with Latino voters

If you believe Obama's numbers, he's deported more Latinos than any president in history. Latinos would be fools to vote for Obama based on immigration, especially since Obama flat-out lied to Latinos in 2008 when he "promised" to pass amnesty. I suppose Obama's illegal DREAM executive order might have helped, but that was narrowly tailored and clearly a political ploy.
   8072. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4248661)
Which other plausible GOP candidate who didn't compete in the primaries would be running better than Romney, given the mood of the GOP primary electorate?

Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, ... Paul Ryan?
   8073. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4248662)
Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, ... Paul Ryan?

And why exactly was it that none of the above elected to compete for the nomination?
   8074. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4248669)
If you believe Obama's numbers, he's deported more Latinos than any president in history. Latinos would be fools to vote for Obama based on immigration, especially since Obama flat-out lied to Latinos in 2008 when he "promised" to pass amnesty.
if you believe Obama's numbers, then he's more conservative on immigration than George W. Bush. That's so weird, since everything about him is crazy lefty.
   8075. DA Baracus Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4248671)
If you believe Obama's numbers, he's deported more Latinos than any president in history.


You've got your talking point wrong (it's deportations as a whole, not Latinos), and it's not correct anyway. His rate is higher but his counting stats aren't there yet.
   8076. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4248677)
Steve: What percentage of people in this country - who are paying attention - do you think reject the GOP's platform?
   8077. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4248678)
That turnout models meme is nonsense, by the way. Party ID is fluid, and by not controlling for it, every pollster other than Rassmussen is picking up on something: the enthusiasm gap from 2010 has vanished, and Democrats have a strong party ID edge, as they have since basically the dawn of time. It's pure denialism.
   8078. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4248679)
Steve: What percentage of people in this country - who are paying attention - do you think reject the GOP's platform?

I don't see any reason not to estimate it as equal to the likely margin by which Obama seems poised to win the general electorate, somewhere around 51-48 or 52-47.
   8079. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4248681)
I don't see any reason not to estimate it as equal to the likely margin by which Obama seems poised to win the general electorate, somewhere around 51-48 or 52-47.


That seems reasonable enough to me, but then it doesn't really match with the vigor in which you seem to be criticizing the GOP's platform as rejected by the public or at least unwinnable. (I don't mean to put words in your mouth here; if I'm mischaracterizing your position please correct me.)
   8080. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4248682)
That's because while the country rejects the GOP platform 52-47, Steve rejects it 100-0. Steve's making an argument against, it's not his goal to present arguments defending it.
   8081. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4248684)
it doesn't really match with the vigor in which you seem to be criticizing the GOP's platform as rejected by the public or at least unwinnable

Then you fail to grasp the significance of a 51-48/52-47 national margin in a country the size of the United States, particularly given the economic landscape dogging the incumbent.
   8082. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4248686)
Then you fail to grasp the significance of a 51-48/52-47 national margin in a country the size of the United States, particularly given the economic landscape dogging the incumbent.


Seems to me that 52-47 is within shouting distance such that something like the economy dropping could well push Romney ahead.
   8083. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4248689)
Seems to me that 52-47 is within shouting distance such that something like the economy dropping could well push Romney ahead.

Thus demonstrating your ignorance.
   8084. PreservedFish Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4248691)
I don't see any reason not to estimate it as equal to the likely margin by which Obama seems poised to win the general electorate, somewhere around 51-48 or 52-47.


This doesn't seem right to me. Do you mean that a really charismatic GOP candidate, running with the current GOP platform, couldn't win more than 48% of the vote?
   8085. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4248695)
Thus demonstrating your ignorance.


Perhaps. I fully concede I don't know nearly as much about polling/etc as others here. I don't follow it.

You'll never see me making hard arguments on the basis of it. It's shocking, but, believe it or not, there are some things I don't know.
   8086. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4248696)
Do you mean that a really charismatic GOP candidate, running with the current GOP platform, couldn't win more than 48% of the vote?

Which charismatic GOP candidate? Please specify, and explain why said candidate chose not to run, despite the abundant likelihood of winning greater than 48% with this platform?
   8087. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:46 PM (#4248697)
Perhaps. I fully concede I don't know nearly as much about polling/etc as others here. I don't follow it.

You'll never see me making hard arguments on the basis of it. It's shocking, but, believe it or not, there are some things I don't know.


May I commend you for your candor and humility. Quite sincerely.
   8088. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4248699)
And why exactly was it that none of the above elected to compete for the nomination?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they're all young guys and they preferred to wait for what could be a wide-open 2016 election rather than enter a bruising race against an incumbent the media absolutely loves (and knowing, if they were to win, that they'd inherit a lousy economy anyway)?

(Obviously, Ryan accepted the v.p. nomination, but I imagine such an offer is tough to turn down even if one doesn't want it.)

if you believe Obama's numbers, then he's more conservative on immigration than George W. Bush. That's so weird, since everything about him is crazy lefty.

I didn't say Obama wanted to deport more Latinos, just that he did (or is claiming to have done so). That's more a function of resources allocated by Congress than anything else. Regardless, Obama promised amnesty in 2008 and didn't lift a finger to deliver it.

The Dems have been dangling the "amnesty" carrot in front of Latino voters for at least a decade now. At some point, one would think the "fool me once, fool me twice" principle would begin to have an effect.

That turnout models meme is nonsense, by the way. Party ID is fluid, and by not controlling for it, every pollster other than Rassmussen is picking up on something: the enthusiasm gap from 2010 has vanished, and Democrats have a strong party ID edge, as they have since basically the dawn of time. It's pure denialism.

Nonsense. The Democrats' edge in party affiliation in several key states has slipped, and things like absentee-ballot requests are looking way better for the GOP in places like Ohio, where requests by Dems are lagging by ~30 percent from the last election while the GOP is already outperforming the last election.
   8089. Steve Treder Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:50 PM (#4248701)
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they're all young guys and they preferred to wait for what could be a wide-open 2016 election rather than enter a bruising race

In other words, because none of them calculated that they'd have as good a chance as Romney. Thanks for validating the point.
   8090. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4248702)
I don't see any reason not to estimate it as equal to the likely margin by which Obama seems poised to win the general electorate, somewhere around 51-48 or 52-47.

And yet, basically no one is predicting the Dems will retake the House, which means a bunch of districts that go for Obama will be going for the GOP House candidate. How do you explain this? Bad Dem candidates?
   8091. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:02 AM (#4248706)
In other words, because none of them calculated that they'd have as good a chance as Romney. Thanks for validating the point.

Huh? How does that validate the point? As guys with stronger conservative credentials, they all probably thought they had a better chance than Romney, but they also probably thought their chances would be better in a wide-open race in 2016. The two considerations aren't remotely contradictory.
   8092. Steve Treder Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:03 AM (#4248707)
And yet, basically no one is predicting the Dems will retake the House, which means a bunch of districts that go for Obama will be going for the GOP House candidate. Other than gerrymandering, how do you explain this? Bad Dem candidates?

This question is too stupid to validate with an answer. All I'll say is ... no, it's just too blockheadedly stupid to validate with an answer.
   8093. Steve Treder Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4248708)
Good night, Joe.
   8094. tshipman Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM (#4248710)
And yet, basically no one is predicting the Dems will retake the House, which means a bunch of districts that go for Obama will be going for the GOP House candidate. Other than gerrymandering, how do you explain this? Bad Dem candidates?


The incumbency effect*, although I should note that Sam Wang projects D's to take back the house. Generally, people tend to vote for incumbents, all things being equal. This is worth around 2-4 points on the generic congressional ballot. Currently, most house races are not heavily polled, but in general, Dem's would project to pick up anywhere between 1-12 seats. If things really break towards Obama (Country is D+5-7), Dems might take back the house. I would put that at like 20%.

The Dems have been dangling the "amnesty" carrot in front of Latino voters for at least a decade now. At some point, one would think the "fool me once, fool me twice" principle would begin to have an effect.


It helps to run against Romney.


*also, you shouldn't have to put "Other than gerrymandering." The 2010 redistricting looks to be roughly a wash, surprisingly enough.
   8095. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM (#4248711)
This question is too stupid to validate with an answer. All I'll say is ... no, it's just too blockheadedly stupid to validate with an answer.

So the country has soundly rejected the GOP platform, but somehow the GOP will retain control of the House of Representatives. You sound like one of those McGovern people from 1972.
   8096. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:10 AM (#4248713)
8028. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4248510)
2010 was a landslide year for the GOP, while I've predicted a 51-49 presidential election in 2012.

8060. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4248620)
I'm not sure at all that "events" are likely to fall in either direction. The odds of Eurodoom occurring over the next 40 days seem very low, while a domestic terrorist attack would likely rally people to Obama (his Libya fiasco notwithstanding). A leaked picture of dead Osama probably helps Obama; Romney's tax returns being leaked probably helps Obama. The Libya debacle is proof that the media is in the bag for Obama, so I'd guess that just about any October surprise(s) will help Obama rather than hurt him (unless Breitbart left an envelope that says, "Do Not Open Until October 20, 2012").

Okay, then you're saying two things:

1. If the election were held today, Romney would win by 51 to 49.

2. OTOH you don't trust "events" not to put Obama over the top by the time November 6th rolls around.

The second part I can see, but regarding the first part you must really think that Nate's Now-Cast with Obama at 97.8% is fueled by drugs, because mere partisanship alone could hardly account for that big a gap between your reading of the race (as of today) and his.
   8097. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM (#4248714)
You sound like one of those McGovern people from 1972.


McGovern's party held the House of Representatives in the 1972 election, didn't they?
   8098. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4248715)
The incumbency effect*, although I should note that Sam Wang projects D's to take back the house. Generally, people tend to vote for incumbents, all things being equal. This is worth around 2-4 points on the generic congressional ballot. Currently, most house races are not heavily polled, but in general, Dem's would project to pick up anywhere between 1-12 seats. If things really break towards Obama (Country is D+5-7), Dems might take back the house. I would put that at like 20%.

I had Sam Wang in mind when I said "basically no one." But regardless, if Treder is right — which would be a first — that Americans have rejected the GOP platform, it doesn't make much sense that incumbency would make that much difference, especially since the GOP has only controlled the House for less than two years. That's hardly enough time for people to have fallen in love with their new GOP reps.

*also, you shouldn't have to put "Other than gerrymandering." The 2010 redistricting looks to be roughly a wash, surprisingly enough.

I deleted that part within 30 seconds of posting it. Treder must have seen it as soon as I posted it.
   8099. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4248718)
Okay, then you're saying two things:

1. If the election were held today, Romney would win by 51 to 49.

2. OTOH you don't trust "events" not to put Obama over the top by the time November 6th rolls around.

The second part I can see, but regarding the first part you must really think that Nate's Now-Cast with Obama at 97.8% is fueled by drugs, because mere partisanship alone could hardly account for that big a gap between your reading of the race (as of today) and his.

#2 is correct, but #1 doesn't logically follow from the two comments you quoted. I've never said I thought Romney would win if the election were held today; I've said I believe Romney will win in November if the economic metrics stay the same (or trend worse) and no "events" override the economics. Inherent in that belief is that Romney must do well in the debates, hammer Obama down the stretch, etc.
   8100. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4248721)
McGovern's party held the House of Representatives in the 1972 election, didn't they?

In the McGovern fiasco year the Dems lost all of 11 House seats, and actually gained 2 seats in the Senate. The presidential race that year was essentially a referendum on the counterculture as defined by the Republicans and as represented by George McGovern. The Democrats had about as much chance winning that as the Republicans would have after promising to voucherize Social Security and Medicare instead of partly pulling their punches out of fear and nothing else.
Page 81 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2772 - 2:05pm, Jul 23)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogFSAZ: D-backs cut off McCarthy’s cutter controversy
(28 - 2:02pm, Jul 23)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogTony Oliva turns 76; Gardenhire: 'He should be in hall of fame'
(53 - 1:48pm, Jul 23)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(831 - 1:42pm, Jul 23)
Last: Jimmy P

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(328 - 1:38pm, Jul 23)
Last: DA Baracus

NewsblogChase Headley traded to New York Yankees from San Diego Padres - ESPN New York
(114 - 1:38pm, Jul 23)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogSportsNet: Kawasaki: ‘A monkey never cramps’
(6 - 1:30pm, Jul 23)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogCowboy Monkey Rodeo taking the Minors by storm
(14 - 1:28pm, Jul 23)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(62 - 1:27pm, Jul 23)
Last: Daniel in Toronto

NewsblogPadres’ Offense May Go Down as Worst Ever
(82 - 1:19pm, Jul 23)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogRubin: deGrom for NL rookie of the year?
(21 - 1:10pm, Jul 23)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-23-2014
(7 - 1:07pm, Jul 23)
Last: Batman

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(126 - 12:35pm, Jul 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(54 - 12:31pm, Jul 23)
Last: Mark Armour

NewsblogTrading for Price would be right move for Cubs | FOX Sports
(77 - 11:35am, Jul 23)
Last: SouthSideRyan

Page rendered in 0.6336 seconds
54 querie(s) executed