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! In a van on 95 south... 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 83 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 > 
   8201. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4250010)
   8202. robinred Posted: October 01, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4250025)
Waylon Smithers

This seems like it would be the easiest logistically.
   8203. tshipman Posted: October 01, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4250026)
Are they morons? I'm not sure if I've ever met one. I barely know any swing voters.


Most undecided voters are not well informed and tend to make their decisions based on social pressure, misinformation or seemingly random factors.
   8204. zonk Posted: October 01, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4250061)
Waylon Smithers


This seems like it would be the easiest logistically.


Actually, those end up being the most challenging -- doing a Flanders, Skinner, Smithers, or such requires exquisite thrift shop precision with the attire... Duffman was certainly the most involved, but logistically - the easiest to pull together. My rule has always been no masks or other shortcuts, so getting the outfit just right matters most.

I've long wanted to do a Kang/Kodos - though it requires some construction - perhaps I'll give that one a go...
   8205. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4250071)
I don't think a *cell* phone is critical for a job search per se, no. I agree that _some_ kind of phone is, but before I provided people with a free phone I'd like to confirm whether they've wasted money that could have been spent on a phone instead.

You really missed your calling in life, Ray. Your dream job apparently would have been going around in low income neighborhoods peeking through windows to count the big screen TVs.


Welcome to Andyland, where asking whether people are spending other peoples' money on luxury items is beyond the pale.
   8206. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4250098)

And where Andy is the new national spokesman for Latinos. Of all the weird dead horses Andy likes to beat, his hysteria regarding the term "self-deportation," which has been Obama's policy for his entire term, is really comical.
   8207. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4250104)
   8208. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4250110)
Welcome to Andyland, where asking whether people are spending other peoples' money on luxury items is beyond the pale.


There is a cost to doing "means testing" and other similar activities. Sometimes it costs more to put in monitoring and enforcement than is saved. Of course the elephant in the room is the moral outrage component. It is a time honored tradition of scorn and judgement regarding the money spent - what is OK, what isn't. Drug testing of welfare recipients is a classic example of this, but there are hundreds of other examples.

Moral outrage sells better - to me anyway - when not sold by people that think any government program involving any safety net or redistribution is an outrage no matter who receives it.
   8209. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4250119)
and that everyone who doesn't adhere to there view is dishonest, a thief, and "irrational".
   8210. zenbitz Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4250122)
Obama's "landslide" (10 point win) chance is now >6% (Nate Silver now cast); when I made my bold prediction it was 1.5%.
   8211. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4250123)
I don't think a *cell* phone is critical for a job search per se, no. I agree that _some_ kind of phone is, but before I provided people with a free phone I'd like to confirm whether they've wasted money that could have been spent on a phone instead.

You really missed your calling in life, Ray. Your dream job apparently would have been going around in low income neighborhoods peeking through windows to count the big screen TVs.

Welcome to Andyland, where asking whether people are spending other peoples' money on luxury items is beyond the pale.


Oh, the humanity! Oh, your taxes! Are you planning on posting those "luxury item" pictures on Breitbart.com along with your pictures of Obama and Bill Ayers?

------------------------------------------------

And where Andy is the new national spokesman for Latinos. Of all the weird dead horses Andy likes to beat, his hysteria regarding the term "self-deportation," which has been Obama's policy for his entire term, is really comical.

Not nearly so comical as your equation of a candidate who extols "self-deportation" with the president who's being sued by a group of ICE agents---backed by Romney's immigration adviser---for his executive order that will put a stop to much of that. The only "spokesman" you need here are the polls among Latinos that show Romney getting crushed by more than any GOP candidate in memory. Like any other group, they know an enemy when they see one.
   8212. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4250126)
And where Andy is the new national spokesman for Latinos.


Yeah, that's odd. Bud Selig has been more honest on the subject of economics and labor issues in MLB than Andy has been on the subject of immigration. He just repeats the talking points of these groups unquestioned, and engages in the worst distortions.
   8213. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4250127)
8210:


What does that mean--popular vote or electoral vote?
   8214. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4250128)
Obama's "landslide" (10 point win) chance is now >6% (Nate Silver now cast); when I made my bold prediction it was 1.5%.

Who's ever predicted any 10 point win at any time? Or are you just talking about a prediction you made yourself at some point?
   8215. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4250133)
And where Andy is the new national spokesman for Latinos.


Yeah, that's odd. Bud Selig has been more honest on the subject of economics and labor issues than Andy has been on the subject of immigration. He just repeats the talking points of these groups unquestioned.

Yes, and we know that the only "honest" spokesman for Latinos is anyone but those Latino groups themselves!
   8216. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4250138)
Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy

Saying they are fed up with being told that they can’t do their jobs, 10 immigration agents on Thursday sued the Obama administration to try to overturn the president’s new non-deportation policy.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Texas, adds a legal controversy to the political fight that has been brewing over President Obama’s immigration policies, which have steadily narrowed the range of immigrants whom the government is targeting for deportation.

The 10 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and deportation officers said Mr. Obama’s policies force them to choose between enforcing the law and being reprimanded by superiors, or listening to superiors and violating their own oaths of office and a 1996 law that requires them to put those who entered the country illegally into deportation proceedings.

Upping the ante, the agents are being represented by a high-profile lawyer, Kris W. Kobach, secretary of state in Kansas and the chief promoter of state immigration crackdowns such as Arizona’s tough law.

“ICE is at a point now where agents are being told to break federal law. They’re pretty much told that any illegal alien under the age of 31 is going to be let go. You can imagine, these law enforcement officers are being put in a horrible position,” Mr. Kobach said....


"Mr. Kobach" is one of Mitt Romney's chief advisers on immigration issues, and has been since 2008. Romney's now embarrassed to admit it, but he can't run from the truth.


   8217. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4250140)
Not nearly so comical as your equation of a candidate who extols "self-deportation" with the president who's being sued by a group of INS agents---backed by Romney's immigration adviser---for his executive order that will put a stop to much of that. The only "spokesman" you need here are the polls among Latinos that show Romney getting crushed by more than any GOP candidate in memory. Like any other group, they know an enemy when they see one.

I'd like to see a poll showing the percentage of Latinos who even know Mitt Romney uttered the term "self-deportation." Until you started beating this drum, I hadn't heard anything about this in months.

Regardless, according to the polls, Romney is underperforming John "Immigration Reform" McCain by roughly 2 percentage points right now. The idea that Latinos have been offended and repulsed by Romney's position on immigration is utterly ridiculous.
   8218. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4250151)
Yes, and we know that the only "honest" spokesman for Latinos is anyone but those Latino groups themselves!

Well, if you want to go straight to the source, La Raza says that nearly nine out of ten (!) Latino infants in the U.S. were on WIC in 2008. I'm guessing that has a lot more to do with Latinos' support for Obama than does Romney's stance on immigration. Hell, with a rate of welfare usage that high among Latinos, Romney is probably overperforming in that demographic.

"Mr. Kobach" is one of Mitt Romney's chief advisers on immigration issues, and has been since 2008. Romney's now embarrassed to admit it, but he can't run from the truth.

Why the scare quotes? Is Kris Kobach not his real name? You make it sound like he's some nefarious guy hiding behind a curtain somewhere.

Kris Kobach isn't the head of some anti-Latino hate group. He simply has this odd idea that the U.S. is a nation of laws, and believes those laws should be followed with regards to immigration. (Crazy concept, I know.)
   8219. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4250163)
And where Andy is the new national spokesman for Latinos.

Yeah, that's odd. Bud Selig has been more honest on the subject of economics and labor issues in MLB than Andy has been on the subject of immigration. He just repeats the talking points of these groups unquestioned, and engages in the worst distortions.


Watching Ray and JoeK nod and agree with each other is... interesting

Is this how they see every thread that is numerically going against them?

The idea that Latinos have been offended and repulsed by Romney's position on immigration is utterly ridiculous.

I think what killed McCain among Latinos was the highly visible surge in nativist sentiment on the right during the last years of the Bush Presidency - some of which was a reaction to Bush's attempt at immigration reform- the fact that McCain was actually on Bush's side against the nativists during that battle did not help him- Romney is no McCain and was openly pandering to the nativists during much of the primaries, running to the right of his primary opponents- my guess is he figured that the Latino vote was lost for quite awhile anyway, and the right now (as in "next week's" primary) was always more important to him, plus his entire political career seems predicated on a belief that he really can etch-a-sketch past positions away...

my guess (and unlike Andy or Joe, who each know revealed truth, I'm really just guessing here) is that had Romney tacked "left" into McCain/Bush territory on immigration- he may have gained back some of the Latino vote Bush had that McCain "lost," but he didn't, there are no do overs and without time travel/access to parallel universes, there are no controlled experiments that can be done to see who is right or wrong (my guess is everyone is wrong)
   8220. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4250169)
He simply has this odd idea that the U.S. is a nation of laws, and believes those laws should be followed with regards to immigration. (Crazy concept, I know.)


This is a very narrow reading of Kobach's anti-immigration activities, he represents organizations that not only want to strengthen enforcement of existing laws, but also want new laws cutting back all immigration both legal and illegal
   8221. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4250174)
From the ABC News website:

On Immigration, Obama and Romney Agree On Virtually Nothing


Romney: "The answer is self-deportation"

Obama: "It makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans"


Mitt Romney riled Latino voters in January when he said at a GOP primary debate that "self-deportation" is the best way to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the country.

"The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can't find work here because they don't have legal documentation to allow them to work here," Romney said.

Romney supports an E-Verify system that requires employers to check the legal status of prospective employees before hiring them.

President Obama announced in June that rather than sending young undocumented immigrants out of the country, he would grant them two-year work permits, granted they meet certain requirements.

The Obama administration will no longer deport undocumented immigrants who came to the country before they were 16 and are currently younger than 30, have been in the country for five consecutive years, are either in school or have a high school diploma, a GED or have served in the military.

"This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary, stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people," Obama said after announcing the new policy.

While young immigrants are no longer being deported under the Obama administration, the president increased deportations of criminals by 89 percent since 2008, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Obama explained the increase - 217,000 criminals were deported in 2011 compared to 114,000 in 2008 – saying at a campaign event in El Paso, Texas, last May "we are focusing our limited resources on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes; not families, not folks who are just looking to scrape together an income."

Deportations of non-criminals have decreased 29 percent since 2008 to 180,000 in 2011.
   8222. zenbitz Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4250177)
Right around 9/11 I made a prediction* that Obama's numbers - if they kept accelerating were going to lead to a landslide. Sliver defines a landslide as +10% Popular vote. I think I even stated he might carry places like Indiana, Arizona, and Montana.

He's not there yet, but there is are still debates for Romney to make a fool of himself at!


   8223. zenbitz Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4250180)
Oh, and I guess we need a new thread.
   8224. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4250189)
Right around 9/11 I made a prediction* that Obama's numbers - if they kept accelerating were going to lead to a landslide.


How on earth, in this economic climate, can Obama have landslide?
He's already overshooting the "fundamentals" - and he's doing that because Romney has both run a terrible campaign and Republican wingnuttery has actually reached the point* where for every 100 extra "conservatives" are inspired to vote there are 101 extra Dem votes (non-conservatives inspired to vote against the GOP, and liberal/moderate Repubs switching or sitting home).

If growth was at 3.0%+ and unemployment at 7% and declining, then yes, Obama would win by 10%, but in this environment?
The only way for Obama to win buy 10% is if Romney spends all of Wednesday night explicitly explaining how he is the answer to an old Mormon Prophecy...

EDIT: The Unskewed Polls aggregate has Romney down to +7.4- the l;atest Fox poll, even after being unskewed has Obama in the lead... It's 2012 it's the apocalypse, maybe he can win by 10...
   8225. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4250192)
I think what killed McCain among Latinos was the highly visible surge in nativist sentiment on the right during the last years of the Bush Presidency - some of which was a reaction to Bush's attempt at immigration reform- the fact that McCain was actually on Bush's side against the nativists during that battle did not help him- Romney is no McCain and was openly pandering to the nativists during much of the primaries, running to the right of his primary opponents- my guess is he figured that the Latino vote was lost for quite awhile anyway, and the right now (as in "next week's" primary) was always more important to him, plus his entire political career seems predicated on a belief that he really can etch-a-sketch past positions away...

my guess (and unlike Andy or Joe, who each know revealed truth, I'm really just guessing here) is that had Romney tacked "left" into McCain/Bush territory on immigration- he may have gained back some of the Latino vote Bush had that McCain "lost," but he didn't, there are no do overs and without time travel/access to parallel universes, there are no controlled experiments that can be done to see who is right or wrong (my guess is everyone is wrong)


Just out of curiosity, Johnny, what makes you think that I'd disagree with any of that? The outline version is:

1. Bush was widely viewed as sympathetic to Latinos, and was rewarded in 2004 by getting 44% of the Latino vote, an unusually high percentage.

2. McCain was also viewed as being sympathetic, having backed Bush's reform proposals and having co-sponsored reform legislation with Ted Kennedy.

3. When McCain saw the writing on the wall in the 2008 GOP primaries, he backtracked and lost a fair amount of Bush's Latino support.

4. Romney doubled down on pandering to the nativists, and we're seeing the results in the polls. Whether or not his "self-deportation" comment was decisive in turning Latinos against him, or whether it's merely symbolic of his overall hardline views on immigration, isn't really the issue. But there was certainly a reaction to that comment at the time, and to pretend otherwise is simply self-delusional.
   8226. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4250207)
Most undecided voters are not well informed and tend to make their decisions based on social pressure, misinformation or seemingly random factors.


This is true of almost all human beings. For example, once you've decided you're a Republican or Democrat, social pressure tends to keep you within the fold.
   8227. formerly dp Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4250221)
Just going to chime in on one thing:
Was at a conference in Wisconsin over the weekend, and met an undecided voter from Mass. on the shuttle from the hotel-- he was probably around 60, and traveling for a Catholic conference of some sort. We talked about Obama/Romney for a minute, but he was more interested in discussing Brown/Warren-- said that after the first debate, he really liked the way Brown handled himself and planned to vote for him, unless Warren does something amazing in the next few weeks. Also said he was waiting for the presidential debates to see which way he goes there.

So that's one, anyway.
   8228. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4250233)
The dystopian hellscape that is Obama's America in 2012.

Although technically, he still has 22 days to work with.
   8229. PreservedFish Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4250237)
How on earth, in this economic climate, can Obama have landslide?


Maybe it's not the economy, stupid?
   8230. phredbird Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4250239)
did anyone read the article about romney in the latest new yorker? it was by lemann. while i know that most of my republican friends would read it and get really angry, seeing liberal bias everywhere and all, i have to say that except for a couple of comments by lemann towards the end, the article read much more sympathetic than i would have expected ... that is, i found romney to be an interesting person as profiled.
   8231. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4250245)
Regarding one aspect of Hispanic support of the candidates and their positions ... it does not surprise me that Romney doubled down, and has not paid much price for it in the Hispanic community. There is a lower floor of support that you are going to get. I think they are reasonably close to that floor now, so increasing the rhetoric doesn't really hurt your campaign and might help with other elements.

The downside for the GOP is that each time a candidate does this it further cements that position as the default GOP position and makes it harder to gain more support in future campaigns. So yeah, Romney has not hurt himself much, but I suspect he has done some damage to the long term GOP brand with Hispanics.

Regarding self deportation, this is an idea that has floated for a while in various circles and while I agree not many non-hispancis cared (or even noticed) when Romney mentioned it, the term very much confirmed the fears (expectations) many Hispancis already had towards Romney and the GOP. Self Deportation is a code word, sort of a dog whistle, that is heard and understood by groups who are close to the subject (which tend to be the "knowledgeable" sorts in the nativist and Hispanic communities).

How much influence those remarks had I would argue not that much directly, because only some got the reference and Romney is pretty near the floor support anyway. But there was some impact, if only to prevent any sort of later etch-a-sketch and also (like I said) damage of a more long term nature.
   8232. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4250249)
did anyone read the article about romney in the latest new yorker? it was by lemann. while i know that most of my republican friends would read it and get really angry, seeing liberal bias everywhere and all, i have to say that except for a couple of comments by lemann towards the end, the article read much more sympathetic than i would have expected ... that is, i found romney to be an interesting person as profiled.

The article was more descriptive than "sympathetic", but Romney certainly did come off as less of a robot during the two pages where he was being interviewed.
   8233. PreservedFish Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4250251)
did anyone read the article about romney in the latest new yorker? it was by lemann.


The bias was up front and labelled as such. I mean, heck, it's the New Yorker.

I liked the article, and I thought the best part was when he asked Romney non-fluff questions and reproduced his answers at length.

I commented on it a few pages ago. I thought that Romney sounded like an interesting candidate in the article, with some attributes that I really admire. But it was difficult to square the image he has of himself with the candidate I see on TV.

With that said, I don't think there were any revelations there with regard to the importance of the Mormon church or business consulting to his life and values.
   8234. phredbird Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4250259)
well, i meant sympathetic in that romney came off rather well as a person. lemann didn't miss a chance to knock his campaign style. i felt like it is too bad romney has to pander to the extremists in his own party, because if he didn't, he'd look pretty middle of the road and way more electable.

The dystopian hellscape that is Obama's America in 2012.

Although technically, he still has 22 days to work with.


in all fairness ... if i'm reading this thread right, it seems to me the far right contingent here is much more concerned with economic issues than the 'freedoms' that were supposedly under threat in that article. ray and joe are all about entitlements = thievery or some such. for instance, hasn't ray even admitted he does not oppose gay marriage?

maybe i haven't been reading closely enough. i've been busy ... but a lot of this thread has been pretty helpful for me from an information standpoint.
   8235. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4250264)

in all fairness ... if i'm reading this thread right, it seems to me the far right contingent here is much more concerned with economic issues than the 'freedoms' that were supposedly under threat in that article.


That wasn't directed at anyone here in particular, just my way of poking fun at the 'we're all doooomeddd!' narrative that is so popular with both the far right and the far left.
   8236. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4250270)
Regarding one aspect of Hispanic support of the candidates and their positions ... it does not surprise me that Romney doubled down, and has not paid much price for it in the Hispanic community. There is a lower floor of support that you are going to get. I think they are reasonably close to that floor now, so increasing the rhetoric doesn't really hurt your campaign and might help with other elements.

With polls showing Romney gathering as little as 28% of the Latino vote nationally, that represents a 36% drop from Bush's vote in 2004, which was the last time that the nativists were't holding the GOP candidate's feet to the fire on immigration.

The downside for the GOP is that each time a candidate does this it further cements that position as the default GOP position and makes it harder to gain more support in future campaigns. So yeah, Romney has not hurt himself much, but I suspect he has done some damage to the long term GOP brand with Hispanics.

The only way that the Republicans can regain a "normal" proportion of the Latino vote is to do a 180 on their restrictive immigration positions, and basically tell the nativists to take a hike. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Too many Kehoskies preaching their "law and order" rhetoric without any idea of what that sounds like outside the echo chamber of the GOP base.

Regarding self deportation, this is an idea that has floated for a while in various circles and while I agree not many non-hispancis cared (or even noticed) when Romney mentioned it, the term very much confirmed the fears (expectations) many Hispanics already had towards Romney and the GOP. Self Deportation is a code word, sort of a dog whistle, that is heard and understood by groups who are close to the subject (which tend to be the "knowledgeable" sorts in the nativist and Hispanic communities).

But the very concept of a dog whistle is one that our local right wingers fiercely object to. Hell, their Commander in Chief doesn't even admit to hearing dog whistles in the ongoing "states' rights" rhetoric of the Republicans' southern strategy.

----------------------------------------------

in all fairness ... if i'm reading this thread right, it seems to me the far right contingent here is much more concerned with economic issues than the 'freedoms' that were supposedly under threat in that article. ray and joe are all about entitlements = thievery or some such. for instance, hasn't ray even admitted he does not oppose gay marriage?

I don't think that any of the prominent Primates here except snapper are against gay marriage. On social issues that don't spill over into economics (as immigration does) it's long been evident that the traditional conservatives here are far outnumbered by the libertarians.
   8237. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4250272)
The Obama administration will no longer deport undocumented immigrants who came to the country before they were 16 and are currently younger than 30, have been in the country for five consecutive years, are either in school or have a high school diploma, a GED or have served in the military.

Perfect example of why DREAM is such a sham. Under what definition is an 18- to 30-year-old with a GED a "talented" person whose departure would be a detriment to the United States? If you listen to Dems talk about DREAM, every single one of them is a physicist or cardiologist whose skills are being wasted for lack of a work permit. It's nonsense. In reality, only 55 percent of Latinos in the U.S. age 23 or older have a high school diploma.

A narrowly tailored DREAM makes sense, but not the sweeping DREAM bills advanced by open-borders Dems. If Dems didn't get so greedy back in 2006-07, they could have had a DREAM bill passed, but their hubris ended up costing them.

***
Regarding one aspect of Hispanic support of the candidates and their positions ... it does not surprise me that Romney doubled down, and has not paid much price for it in the Hispanic community.

Andy says Romney has paid a huge price.

Regarding self deportation, this is an idea that has floated for a while in various circles and while I agree not many non-hispancis cared (or even noticed) when Romney mentioned it, the term very much confirmed the fears (expectations) many Hispancis already had towards Romney and the GOP. Self Deportation is a code word, sort of a dog whistle, that is heard and understood by groups who are close to the subject (which tend to be the "knowledgeable" sorts in the nativist and Hispanic communities).

Oh, no. Another dog whistle.
   8238. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4250290)
With polls showing Romney gathering as little as 28% of the Latino vote nationally, that represents a 36% drop from Bush's vote in 2004, which was the last time that the nativists were't holding the GOP candidate's feet to the fire on immigration.

As has been pointed out to you before, the "44 percent" claim for Bush in 2004 has been widely questioned.

The only way that the Republicans can regain a "normal" proportion of the Latino vote is to do a 180 on their restrictive immigration positions, and basically tell the nativists to take a hike. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Too many Kehoskies preaching their "law and order" rhetoric without any idea of what that sounds like outside the echo chamber of the GOP base.

Right, only stupid people and small thinkers use history as a guide.

Reagan signed the biggest immigration amnesty in the country's history in 1986, and it didn't lead to a big jump in Latino support for the GOP. As I've said countless times before, the idea that mostly poor, low-skilled Latinos will vote for the GOP out of loyalty due to immigration rather than vote for Dems who promise more and more "free" stuff is beyond nonsensical. It's wishcasting by GOP types who make such claims and willful dishonesty by Dems.

If the GOP wants to get more Latino votes, it needs to shift toward a skills-based immigration system that makes it easier for skilled Latinos to emigrate to the U.S.
   8239. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4250292)
Regarding self deportation, this is an idea that has floated for a while in various circles and while I agree not many non-hispancis cared (or even noticed) when Romney mentioned it, the term very much confirmed the fears (expectations) many Hispancis already had towards Romney and the GOP. Self Deportation is a code word, sort of a dog whistle, that is heard and understood by groups who are close to the subject (which tend to be the "knowledgeable" sorts in the nativist and Hispanic communities).


I do not have a strong idea if self-deportation was meant as a "dog whistle" or not, however, isn't a dog whistle one in which you expect/want the people on your side - the ones you want to vote for you to hear?

Back in the 60s/70s/ into the 80s talking about "state's rights" was most certainly meant as a dog whistle - it was meant to tell southern redneck types, "I agree with you about them darkies and how the federal government should keep its nose out of your business"

"self deportation" what is that? Is that understood to be something by the nativists? If not, then it's not a dog whistle- whether Hispanics think it is one or not- of course if some group THINKS something is a dog whistle meant to appeal to enemies of that group- then that's a phrase that a candidate is best to avoid- it combines the worst of dog whistle appeal (dog whistles eventually get heard loud and clear by those you don't want to hear it) with none of the advantages (the group you are pandering to do not actually hear it

To me, it seems like "self deportation" would sound like a wishy washy bit of wonkish nonsense to the actual nativists out there- they don't want "self deportation" they want US Marshals (obviously ICE agents aren't up to the task) hauling people off to the border in cuffs
   8240. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4250297)
Well, if you want to go straight to the source, La Raza says that nearly nine out of ten (!) Latino infants in the U.S. were on WIC in 2008. I'm guessing that has a lot more to do with Latinos' support for Obama than does Romney's stance on immigration. Hell, with a rate of welfare usage that high among Latinos, Romney is probably overperforming in that demographic.


As I've said countless times before, the idea that mostly poor, low-skilled Latinos will vote for the GOP out of loyalty due to immigration rather than vote for Dems who promise more and more "free" stuff is beyond nonsensical. It's wishcasting by GOP types who make such claims and willful dishonesty by Dems.


Boy either Romney's 47% claim rang a bell with you or you're trying real hard to make lemonade.

I'm surprised you haven't hauled out this little chestnut:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by dictatorship.
   8241. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4250303)
Self Deportation is a code word, sort of a dog whistle, that is heard and understood by groups who are close to the subject (which tend to be the "knowledgeable" sorts in the nativist and Hispanic communities).
What exactly is it a "code" for? It's exactly what it says, not a code for anything.

And I repeat: only dogs can hear dog whistles.
   8242. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4250310)
What exactly is it a "code" for?
Making illegal immigrants' lives so miserable, they leave America on their own.

Here in Arizona, that's how it's been explained to me.
   8243. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4250316)
And I repeat: only dogs can hear dog whistles.


And every time you repeat this, you remind the world of why you're such a silly, naive, unserious boy.
   8244. Steve Treder Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4250319)
Some interesting Latino poll data ...

While Obama has always carried a significant portion of the Latino vote, this is the first time the group’s support for the president has surpassed 70 percent. This is particularly good news for the Obama campaign as a record number of Latinos--23.7 million are now eligible to vote in the presidential election, according to the Pew Rsearch Center.
   8245. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4250320)
selfdeport.org

Seriously, doing some googling, including some stuff said by Mr. Kobach (mentioned above), then yes it seems that the idea behind "self-deporation" is to make staying here so, ummm,. unfruitful, for illegals, that they voluntarily leave

   8246. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4250323)
What exactly is it a "code" for? It's exactly what it says


so the ACA, Affordable Care Act is exactly what its name says?

as is the Patriot Act?

   8247. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4250337)
No limit to the shamelessness of the Obama administration:

Sen. Graham: Obama move on defense layoff notices 'patently illegal'

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that he will do anything he can to block the Obama administration from reimbursing defense contractors for severance costs if the firms don’t send layoff notices to employees.

The Obama administration issued guidance Friday that said defense firms’ costs would be covered if they have to layoff workers due to canceled contracts under the across-the-board cuts set to take effect Jan. 2.

The layoff notices have become a politically charged issue because they could have come just four days ahead of the election because of a 60-day notice required by federal law for mass layoffs.

Graham and other Republicans were livid after the Obama administration issued the guidance on Friday telling contractors that their legal costs would be covered due to canceled contracts under sequestration, but only if they did not issue layoff notices before sequestration occurs — and before the November election.

Obama is bribing defense contractors with taxpayer money to withhold bad news before the election. "Hope and change," Chicago style.
   8248. zenbitz Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4250338)
Just on pure statistics (polling errors) there is a chance Obama wins by 10. How, mechanically, could this happen? - if the Republican turnout is very, very low. I don't put it past Romney to throw a pick-6 trying to win the game.
   8249. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4250344)
No limit to the shamelessness of the Obama administration:

No limits to your or GOP shamelessness either.

Why are the defense contractors and their employees being used as a political football in the first place?
Does the GOP have "clean hands" in this?
   8250. spike Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4250347)
only dogs can hear dog whistles.

Recitations of axioms isn't going to slow the demographic shift of this country, and with it a concurrent shift in Presidential politics - the Thomas Theorem still applies. If the Republican Party can't reverse their standing among Latinos, and soon, they will not only lose this election, but many more. I willing to take at face value that you are color blind, but unless the GOP can convince Americans of Latino descent this is true more or less globally they will pay the price at the polls for a very long time.
   8251. Steve Treder Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4250349)
I don't put it past Romney to throw a pick-6 trying to win the game.

Pardon my density, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what this means.
   8252. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4250350)
looking at past debates, what are the odds someone says something as boneheaded as this:

"I don't believe, uh – Mr. Frankel that uh – the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union... I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous: It has its own territorial integrity and the United States does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the president of the United States and the people of the United are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy and their freedom."


That was said in 1976 when Eastern Europe was most certainly dominated by the USSR (well maybe not Yugoslavia, and Albania- Albania was so nuts and so inconsequential that the Soviets just wrote them off)...

I guess Biden is capable of going down this trail...
Ryan has shown that he's certainly capable of saying something as FACTUALLY erroneous- but not as stoopid- he'll say falsehoods that he knows will appeal to some- Ford seemingly mispoke, and intead of quickly saying so (even Ford knew what he was sayng was wrong- while he was saying it), just doubled and tripled down... I guess Biden can do that (and Joey B will be dancing for joy)
   8253. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4250351)
I don't put it past Romney to throw a pick-6 trying to win the game.
Pardon my density, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what this means.
It means, in Romney's desperation to catch up, he'll make a really dumb mistake that clinches Obama's victory.

Pick-6 is football lingo for an interception (pick) returned for a touchdown (6 points).
   8254. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4250353)
And I repeat: only dogs can hear dog whistles


And it should not need to be repeated that we can observed what has the effect of a dog whistle, as well as what the effects of dog-whistling is on the dogs.
   8255. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4250354)
Arsonist trying to intimidate me

thought I would link this since we were talking about crappy towns in California last week. Looks like Vallejo is back in the news.
   8256. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4250358)
Steve doesn't watch football?
   8257. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4250360)
Obama is bribing defense contractors with taxpayer money to withhold bad news before the election. "Hope and change," Chicago style.
That's pretty weird. I mean, he's the guy who's made it clear he's going to try and cut money from defense contractors in his second term anyways, so the idea that he would be appeasing defense contractors to get votes is pretty iffy.

Romney's the guy bribing votes from defense contractors: "Vote for me, I'm going to spend MORE taxpayer money on you guys!"
   8258. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4250361)
Recitations of axioms isn't going to slow the demographic shift of this country, and with it a concurrent shift in Presidential politics - the Thomas Theorem still applies. If the Republican Party can't reverse their standing among Latinos, and soon, they will not only lose this election, but many more. I willing to take at face value that you are color blind, but unless the GOP can convince Americans of Latino descent this is true more or less globally they will pay the price at the polls for a very long time.

Politicians like to win elections. It's odd that people seem to believe that GOP politicians are knowingly taking a self-defeating position due to some nativist animus they allegedly feel toward brown people rather than because poll after poll has shown that for every Latino vote won by the GOP due to immigration pandering, they lose more than one vote from working-class whites. Support for low-skilled immigration is a net loser for the GOP, and always has been. (Hell, support for low-skilled immigration should be a net loser for the Dems, but they bribe the affected demographics in other ways.)
   8259. Steve Treder Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4250363)
"I don't believe, uh – Mr. Frankel that uh – the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union... I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous: It has its own territorial integrity and the United States does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the president of the United States and the people of the United are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy and their freedom."


I once read an intriguing counterfactual exercise in which Ford starts to say this, then stops brain farting and catches himself, and completes the answer instead in normal political platitude. Instead of this becoming one of the all-time debate bloopers and hurting Ford in the polls, he muddles through and wins instead of loses the close election of 1976.

A highly plausible scenario.

OK, then how would history have changed? The exercise I read kind of put the pedal to the metal and imagined all sorts of interesting consequences. Instead of becoming the nominee against the weak incumbent Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan is forced to be a good Republican soldier and support a generally popular incumbent Gerald Ford in his re-election bid in 1980. Reagan's opportunity for the Presidency is missed, because by 1984 he's considered really too old.

I can't remember exactly which election, but the scenario then has Gary Hart winning the White House at some point in the 1980s.
   8260. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4250364)
If the Republican Party can't reverse their standing among Latinos, and soon, they will not only lose this election, but many more.


If the GOP can get the same % of the "white" vote that the Dems get for the Latino vote, they most certainly can win elections going forward for quite some time...

The problem the GOP is gonna have on that score is their emphasis on social issues* is likely probably capping their white support at some point short of that.

Of course the demographic doom argument requires 2 things:
1: Latino share of vote increases
2: Latinos continue to vote for the Ds over the Rs as their vote increases

Latino's vote at a much lower rate than other ethnic groups- part of that is that a higher % of Latinos than other ethnic groups are simply not eligible to vote (not citizens)- but even accounting for that- Latinos simply don't vote as often as others, why not? I don't know, are they ever going to start voting? My guess is that if the recent outbursts in Nativist sentiment doesn't motivate them, nothing will motivate the current voting age cohort.

The other question is this, the ones who don't vote but could- who would they actually vote for? My guess is not gonna make either JoeK or Andy happy- the ones not voting are the social conservatives who are not gonna vote Dem because liberals are a bunch of godless school prayer banning baby aborting elitist snobs, and they are not gonna vote GOP, because well Sheriff Joe Arapaio and his fanboys symbolize the GOP for them- so they don't vote.


*When push comes to shove your median "conservative" is going to vote on god/family/guns ahead of budgets, deficits and taxes.
   8261. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4250366)
That's pretty weird. I mean, he's the guy who's made it clear he's going to try and cut money from defense contractors in his second term anyways, so the idea that he would be appeasing defense contractors to get votes is pretty iffy.

Obama doesn't care about the defense contractors; he cares about headlines saying, "400,000 layoff notices sent to defense workers" possibly costing him votes from non-defense workers.
   8262. Steve Treder Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4250367)
Steve doesn't watch football?

I do, but for some reason I wasn't making that connection. I was thinking of it in its horse-racing or lottery ticket connotations.

All the weirder, in that just a couple of days ago in this very thread, I making the analogy that it's time for Romney to look deep into his playbook for a flea flicker or something.
   8263. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4250372)
All the weirder, in that just a couple of days ago in this very thread, I making the analogy that it's time for Romney to look deep into his playbook for a flea flicker or something.


I'm not sure that he has a playbook. Or that it has desperation plays in it.

Perhaps he could call Hillary's people. They seemed to have no trouble raising the birth certificate issue in 2008; perhaps they have some stones yet unturned.
   8264. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4250379)
Obama doesn't care about the defense contractors; he cares about headlines saying, "400,000 layoff notices sent to defense workers" possibly costing him votes from non-defense workers.
He clearly doesn't care about defense contractors as much as you do, since he's publicly said he was cutting back on their funding.

Shouldn't you be in support of this plan? It's the single largest government entitlement program on the federal budget. You don't care about laying off teachers or administrators or anyone else.
   8265. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4250380)
Politicians like to win elections. It's odd that people seem to believe that GOP politicians are knowingly taking a self-defeating position


I think the GOP position on immigration (by that I mean the base's position, not Bush's or other scattered pols) was in fact, in the past, their optimal position from an electoral POV. I think that in some states it still is, I also think that in some states a tipping point has been reached...

There has also always been a tension within the GOP- a goodly chunk of their base )financial if not numerical) has always appreciated cheap labor- and that portion of the base has always sought to tamp down the nativist sentiment of their fellow travelers within the GOP.

I think the "establishment" basically wanted to NOT TALK ABOUT immigration, at all, this go round- but Obama's executive order (deliberately) made that hard to do, Romney seeking to outflank his primary opponents on the right made that hard to do, and the Ariz/Alabama type immigration laws and such made that hard to do.

Do [serious] politicians intentionally take self defeating positions? No, but they do miscalculate from time to time- now I think we're getting mixed signals from the GOP as a whole because their is no longer any consensus on what the optimal electoral strategy is- this was true when Bush's plans foundered, and it's true now, The Arapaio/Kopech/Brewer faction "knows" what the optimal strategy is, and the Perry/Bush/Rubio side also "knows" what teh optimal strategy is- trouble is, what each side "knows" is not compatible with the other's know.
   8266. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4250383)
He clearly doesn't care about defense contractors as much as you do, since he's publicly said he was cutting back on their funding.

I don't remember coming out in support of more money for defense contractors. Regardless, Obama shouldn't be using tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to bribe defense contractors (or anyone else) not to issue bad news before the election.
   8267. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4250388)
A highly plausible scenario.

OK, then how would history have changed? The exercise I read kind of put the pedal to the metal and imagined all sorts of interesting consequences. Instead of becoming the nominee against the weak incumbent Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan is forced to be a good Republican soldier and support a generally popular incumbent Gerald Ford in his re-election bid in 1980.


I've always assumed that if re-elected Ford becomes Jimmy Carter, instead of Jimmy Carter becoming Jimmy Carter, by that I mean economic policy under a Ford Admin really wouldn't have materially differed than Carter's, so we'd still have the same stagflation recession in 1980 that Carter had-

Iran? Well now, that could have come out very differently- not initially, the Shah was still toast and Ford would not have done any more than Carter did to help him hold on- i.e., nothing (for example- there were events that lead to the fall of Saigon - Fprd's reaction, "ooh, this isn't good, but we're not going to do anything... and by not do anything I really really really mean not do anything, we're not even gonna give our former ally hope by telling them we have their backs"

Iran hostage crisis- well people forget that our embassy was stormed TWICE- under Ford we may not even have had anyone in our embassy to be taken hostage the 2nd time- then what?

My guess? Ford wins in 1976, Reagan takes him down in the 1980s primaries (or Ford, like LBJ in 1968, doesn't run or drops out early) - WHAT Demo then does Reagan face in 1980???
   8268. spike Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4250389)
If the GOP can get the same % of the "white" vote that the Dems get for the Latino vote, they most certainly can win elections going forward for quite some time...

Well, sure. if my aunt had balls, etc.

The problem the GOP is gonna have on that score is their emphasis on social issues* is likely probably capping their white support at some point

Well, I'd say that's a given - Dukakis 40, Clinton I 39, Clinton II 44, Gore 42, Kerry, 41, Obama 43. Not much growth there. What can they possibly do or say to white voters that currently reject them to change their minds?

Of course the demographic doom argument requires 2 things:
1: Latino share of vote increases
2: Latinos continue to vote for the Ds over the Rs as their vote increases


Eligble Latino voters went from 19.5M to 24M in the last 4 years
The percentage of those voting D has already been posted earlier, with the party in general, and Romney in particular, heading in the wrong direction.


Latinos simply don't vote as often as others, why not?

Personally I think the answer is self evident - fear of legal status issues being raised, and low turnout among the poor being generally true.

My guess is that if the recent outbursts in Nativist sentiment doesn't motivate them, nothing will motivate the current voting age cohort.

My guess is because of the higher birth rate among legal latinos, increasing numbers of this group moving out of poverty, and transition of members of that demographic to citizenship far outstripping white immigrants will certainly change upward the net number of latin voters going forward. If just for example, Texas became a blue or even purple electoral state, the GOP is screwed - starting with NY, CA and TX is just insurmountable.
   8269. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4250391)
perhaps they have some stones yet unturned.


maybe they do, but what makes you think they'd let Romney look under those rocks?
   8270. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4250395)
I don't remember coming out in support of more money for defense contractors. Obama doesn't care about the defense contractors; he cares about headlines saying, "400,000 layoff notices sent to defense workers" possibly costing him votes from non-defense workers.
The only sector of the budget that you were worried about cutting was defense, precisely because of the job impact. The job impact that cuts might have elsewhere, you don't care about at all. On the other hand Obama clearly doesn't care about defense contractors as much as you do, since he's publicly said he was cutting back on their funding.

As for this particular cut, it's due to Congress' inability to come to any agreement on spending. Johnny SLF is right: The right doesn't care about those jobs or those people. They just want another dagger.

Shouldn't you be in support of this plan? It's the single largest government entitlement program on the federal budget. You don't care about laying off teachers or administrators or anyone else.
   8271. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4250397)
Reagan's opportunity for the Presidency is missed, because by 1984 he's considered really too old.


He was also, well to be frank, showing signs of losing it by 1984- in 1980 he was still sharp, able to think on his feet - by 1984 I don't think he was physically capable of going through a contested primary campaign, giving frequent speeches, interviews, partcipating in debates.

By 1984 in the real world he was the incumbent, there was no primary campaign, and the general was a cakewalk with the economy looking up and all.

Of course the Goldwater fans of 1964 supported Reagan in 1976/80/84, if their is no President Reagan those people don't go away, they would have gotten behind someone else eventually
   8272. Steve Treder Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4250398)
My guess? Ford wins in 1976, Reagan takes him down in the 1980s primaries (or Ford, like LBJ in 1968, doesn't run or drops out early) - WHAT Demo then does Reagan face in 1980???

Well, in that scenario, the 1980 Republican brand is wounded in just the same way the 1980 Democratic brand actually was: by the presence of the unpopular, ineffective incumbent President, and by the fratricide struggle to replace him (as Kennedy wounded Carter that year). Reagan wouldn't have the strength he actually had in that election.

But he was still Reagan, one of the most charismatic and skillful politicians you're ever going to see. He would be a tough opponent.

The obvious first choice as the Democratic nominee would be Kennedy. But the Democrats at this point would be feeling pretty desperate, not having held the White House since 1968. In that circumstance they might not have nominated the obvious choice, or a "safe" candidate like Mondale ... I suspect the nominee would be some sort of "outsider," such as Carter, or Jerry Brown, or Hart.
   8273. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4250401)
As for this particular cut, it's due to Congress' inability to come to any agreement on spending. Johnny SLF is right: The right doesn't care about those jobs or those people. They just want another dagger.


I'll even admit that JoeK is right, if incomplete. I mean seriously, paying someone to defer bad news till after an election? Where I break with JoeK is his insistence that Obama/the Dems are uniquely shameless in this type of thing...

Anyway, I'm voting Gary Johnson, so there.
   8274. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4250405)
.. I suspect the nominee would be some sort of "outsider," such as Carter, or Jerry Brown, or Hart.

Not Carter, Carter would be the guy who lost 1976 to the klutz who'd pardoned Nixon, and "led" the Country into an economic morass....

I'm guessing Brown... Hell I'm guessing Brown, Anderson, Reagan in that order.
   8275. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4250412)
Do [serious] politicians intentionally take self defeating positions? No, but they do miscalculate from time to time- now I think we're getting mixed signals from the GOP as a whole because their is no longer any consensus on what the optimal electoral strategy is- this was true when Bush's plans foundered, and it's true now, The Arapaio/Kopech/Brewer faction "knows" what the optimal strategy is, and the Perry/Bush/Rubio side also "knows" what teh optimal strategy is- trouble is, what each side "knows" is not compatible with the other's know.

The truth is that both factions are "right". The only problem for any Republican nominee is that if he doesn't choose the Arpaio/Kobach/Brewer faction, he doesn't make it out of the primaries, but if he doesn't choose the Perry/Bush/Rubio narrative, he's got a lot of explaining to do to Latinos when he needs their votes in November.

---------------------------------------------------------

My guess is because of the higher birth rate among legal latinos, increasing numbers of this group moving out of poverty, and transition of members of that demographic to citizenship far outstripping white immigrants will certainly change upward the net number of latin voters going forward. If just for example, Texas became a blue or even purple electoral state, the GOP is screwed - starting with NY, CA and TX is just insurmountable.

The best thing that could happen to the GOP would be for an ocean liner full of about 5,000 right wing radio hosts, Tea Party honchos, and anti-immigration activists to sink in the middle of the Pacific. Once they got that poison out of their systems, they might actually start to pay attention to the demographics of the 21st century, not the demographics of 1955.

   8276. Steve Treder Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4250413)
Not Carter, Carter would be the guy who lost 1976 to the klutz who'd pardoned Nixon, and "led" the Country into an economic morass....

D'oh! Of course. Adlai Stevenson he would not be.
   8277. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4250417)
CNN Poll out today has Obama leading Romney 50-47, even though Romney is taking Independents 49-41. That should be worrisome to Obama, since his lead is due to the D+8 (37-29) tilt of the survey. In 2008, the turnout was D+7. There are reasons to think the partisan split will be closer in 2012 - the 2009/2010/2011 elections & party registration data, among other indicators. If actual turnout is only D+3 or +4 (mid-point between 2004 & 2008 elections) Obama would be behind in the CNN Poll. With the debate Wednesday and the jobs report out Friday, this should be an interesting week.
   8278. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4250420)
The truth is that both factions are "right". The only problem for any Republican nominee is that if he doesn't choose the Arpaio/Kobach/Brewer faction, he doesn't make it out of the primaries, but if he doesn't choose the Perry/Bush/Rubio narrative, he's got a lot of explaining to do to Latinos when he needs their votes in November.

McCain might have been the biggest pro-amnesty Republican in the country during the Bush years, and he won the 2008 GOP primary barely a year after the bruising immigration battle of 2007. This idea that Republicans can only win by being sufficiently anti-Latino is just another of your fantasies.

The best thing that could happen to the GOP would be for an ocean liner full of about 5,000 right wing radio hosts, Tea Party honchos, and anti-immigration activists to sink in the middle of the Pacific. Once they got that poison out of their systems, they might actually start to pay attention to the demographics of the 21st century, not the demographics of 1955.

Uh oh. Andy's wishing death on people again. I wonder if Intrade has odds on Andy being suspended again before Election Day.
   8279. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4250422)
Ooh, a poll truther!
   8280. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4250424)
Meanwhile, Nate Silver updated about 30 minutes ago: Obama with a 85.7% chance of winning (up 0.6% from yesterday and 8% since last Monday).
   8281. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4250426)
CNN Poll out today has Obama leading Romney 50-47, even though Romney is taking Independents 49-41. That should be worrisome to Obama, since his lead is due to the D+8 (37-29) tilt of the survey. In 2008, the turnout was D+7. There are reasons to think the partisan split will be closer in 2012 - the 2009/2010/2011 elections & party registration data, among other indicators. If actual turnout is only D+3 or +4 (mid-point between 2004 & 2008 elections) Obama would be behind in the CNN Poll. With the debate Wednesday and the jobs report out Friday, this should be an interesting week.

"Blah blah blah, it's a myth that Dems are being oversampled, blah blah blah" — every lefty on the internet and airwaves
   8282. Tilden Katz Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4250433)
Scott Rasmussen is a lefty?
   8283. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4250435)
McCain might have been the biggest pro-amnesty Republican in the country during the Bush years, and he won the 2008 GOP primary barely a year after the bruising immigration battle of 2007. This idea that Republicans can only win by being sufficiently anti-Latino is just another of your fantasies.

Problem is, the McCain of the Bush years had largely vanished in 2008. In fact by January of that year he even said that he wouldn't even vote for his own reform bill!

The best thing that could happen to the GOP would be for an ocean liner full of about 5,000 right wing radio hosts, Tea Party honchos, and anti-immigration activists to sink in the middle of the Pacific. Once they got that poison out of their systems, they might actually start to pay attention to the demographics of the 21st century, not the demographics of 1955.

Uh oh. Andy's wishing death on people again. I wonder if Intrade has odds on Andy being suspended again before Election Day.


I said that doomed ocean liner would be the best thing that could happen to the Republicans. Personally I hope they all go forth and multiply, because the more they become the face of the GOP, the more likely that face will wind up in a ditch along with the Red Sox.**

**Hey, how many home runs can Buchholz give up in an inning? What's his record?
   8284. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4250436)
He is if he's giving Joe bad news.
   8285. Lassus Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4250437)
...maybe they do, but what makes you think they'd let Romney look under those rocks?

He doesn't think that, Ray just likes to bring up the birth certificate issue he doesn't care as much as possible, preferably regarding Hillary's involvement. It's like clockwork.
   8286. Tilden Katz Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4250438)
Why would Romney ask a Hilary supporter when he can just ask his friend Donald Trump at their next joint fundraiser?
   8287. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4250439)
Scott Rasmussen is a lefty?

To what are you referring? Rasmussen's polls haven't been showing anything like a D+8 advantage.
   8288. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4250445)
**Hey, how many home runs can Buchholz give up in an inning?


Answer: Fewer than Dice-K can give up.
   8289. tshipman Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4250455)
To what are you referring? Rasmussen's polls haven't been showing anything like a D+8 advantage.


I believe he's referring to Rasmussen's comments on the Unskewed Polls guy, saying that it wasn't appropriate to use Ras's partisan ID.

Ras doesn't show a D+8 advantage because he takes a number of methodological shortcuts in order to save money. He uses a fixed weighting party ID because it's cheaper, not because it's more accurate.

Question: Do you really think all the polls are innacurate? I mean, I can understand disregarding outliers, but with a clear trend of polling, don't you have to sort of look at that? Or not? I don't get that.
   8290. spike Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4250460)
Do you really think all the polls are innacurate? I mean, I can understand disregarding outliers, but with a clear trend of polling, don't you have to sort of look at that? Or not? I don't get that.

A narrative that the election is already decided is anathema to either party. That's why the Democrats aren't pushing back particularly hard (although to it's credit, the media seems to be for once). It's all about the downballot races.
   8291. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4250461)
Ras doesn't show a D+8 advantage because he takes a number of methodological shortcuts in order to save money. He uses a fixed weighting party ID because it's cheaper, not because it's more accurate.

He doesn't use a fixed party ID; he uses a party ID based on his last three weeks of polling.

Question: Do you really think all the polls are innacurate? I mean, I can understand disregarding outliers, but with a clear trend of polling, don't you have to sort of look at that? Or not? I don't get that.

A D+8 sample like today's CNN poll is a more Dem electorate than in 2008. Do you really think the 2012 electorate will be as Dem or even more Dem than 2008? I feel like I've asked that question 50 times here, but the lefties won't ever touch it.
   8292. tshipman Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4250465)
A D+8 sample like today's CNN poll is a more Dem electorate than in 2008. Do you really think the 2012 electorate will be as Dem or even more Dem than 2008? I feel like I've asked that question 50 times here, but the lefties won't ever touch it.


Well, I think the Neither/No opinion at 3% is too high, but other than that, I think that the CNN poll released today is broadly reasonable.

I think focusing on partisan weighting is sort of silly, but sure, if you like, I think that the 2012 electorate will be very similar to the 2008 electorate.

Also, according to their write-up (PDF), there was one more registered Republican surveyed than D when you include independents. To me, that if anything is likely to not be the case.
   8293. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4250472)
I think focusing on partisan weighting is sort of silly, but sure, if you like, I think that the 2012 electorate will be very similar to the 2008 electorate.

You think partisan weighting is "silly" when using a 1,000-voter sample to try to project how ~130,000,000 people will vote?

Also, according to their write-up (PDF), there was one more registered Republican surveyed than D when you include independents. To me, that if anything is likely to not be the case.

You don't believe Romney is really leading among independents?
   8294. Mefisto Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4250473)
And I repeat: only dogs can hear dog whistles.


This is remarkably silly. Dog whistles were invented by human beings, even though human beings can't hear the whistle. And we all know what they do even if we can't hear them. When we see someone with a dog whistle in his mouth, that's just as obvious as when we read the words spoken by Republican racists.
   8295. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4250474)
What exactly is it a "code" for?

Making illegal immigrants' lives so miserable, they leave America on their own.
That's not what it's code for; that's what it actually is. I mean, Romney said that right there, as I quoted a couple of pages ago: rather than rounding up and deporting people, he wants to make it impossible for them to work so they have to/choose to leave.
   8296. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4250478)
That's not what it's code for; that's what it actually is. I mean, Romney said that right there, as I quoted a couple of pages ago: rather than rounding up and deporting people, he wants to make it impossible for them to work so they have to/choose to leave.
Sure, but put into practice, it means Sheriff Joe putting screws to the town of Guadalupe (about 4 miles from my house), and netting himself mostly brown-skinned Americans.
   8297. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:45 PM (#4250479)
I once read an intriguing counterfactual exercise in which Ford starts to say this, then stops brain farting and catches himself, and completes the answer instead in normal political platitude. Instead of this becoming one of the all-time debate bloopers and hurting Ford in the polls, he muddles through and wins instead of loses the close election of 1976.

A highly plausible scenario.

OK, then how would history have changed? The exercise I read kind of put the pedal to the metal and imagined all sorts of interesting consequences. Instead of becoming the nominee against the weak incumbent Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan is forced to be a good Republican soldier and support a generally popular incumbent Gerald Ford in his re-election bid in 1980.
Apparently this counterfactual also involves time travel, since Ford would have to go back and time and prevent the ratification of the 22nd Amendment if he wanted a re-election bid in 1980.
   8298. spike Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4250481)
I think focusing on partisan weighting is sort of silly, but sure, if you like, I think that the 2012 electorate will be very similar to the 2008 electorate.

As I read somewhere the other day, Obama isn't leading in the polls because the Democratic sample is high, the Democratic sample is high in the polls because Obama is leading.
   8299. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4250484)
Sure, but put into practice, it means Sheriff Joe putting screws to the town of Guadalupe (about 4 miles from my house), and netting himself mostly brown-skinned Americans.

Well, it also means ~200,000 illegal immigrants leaving Arizona since 2008, mostly by "self-deporting" (if not from the U.S., then at least from Arizona).
   8300. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4250486)
I think focusing on partisan weighting is sort of silly, but sure, if you like, I think that the 2012 electorate will be very similar to the 2008 electorate.

That kind of ignores the 2010 elections, doesn't it? While there are differences in presidential-year turnout, you don't get the 2010 results without the electorate shifting somewhat, just as in 2006, which foretold that 2008 would be different from 2004.
Page 83 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 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
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJohn Torres: Baseball must bag sickening farewell tours
(16 - 12:15pm, Apr 20)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogTim Federowicz has rough night behind the plate - True Blue LA
(7 - 12:11pm, Apr 20)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(67 - 12:10pm, Apr 20)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(943 - 12:02pm, Apr 20)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 20, 2014
(1 - 11:48am, Apr 20)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(43 - 11:46am, Apr 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogA’s Jed Lowrie “flabbergasted” by Astros’ response to bunt
(18 - 11:43am, Apr 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(155 - 11:31am, Apr 20)
Last: zack

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(42 - 11:19am, Apr 20)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogRaissman: After cheating scandal, former Mets GM Steve Phillips back calling the shots
(2 - 11:11am, Apr 20)
Last: spike

NewsblogDesign Room: Top 10 Logos in MLB History.
(79 - 11:05am, Apr 20)
Last: Nats-Homer-in-DC

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(369 - 10:54am, Apr 20)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(64 - 10:51am, Apr 20)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1743 - 10:49am, Apr 20)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(101 - 10:35am, Apr 20)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.6987 seconds
52 querie(s) executed