I find this Churchill anecdote my favourite.

That is awesome!

The real funny part about 2004 was the liberal insistence that polling was oversampling Rs and was skewed in favor of Bush...
At least I think Liberals can see the humor in that now...

in fact an overwhelming % of our elected pols are people most normal people would not want to eat lunch with

I think most politicians would be fun to have lunch with, as long as you didn't talk about politics. For the most part, they're open and charismatic people with interesting life experiences.

I'd have to go pretty far back in my digital memory to recall whether I had any crow to eat or not... I rather think not/remember not, mainly because:

On October 27, Bloc Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard's office sent a press release to all military bases in Quebec, calling for creation of a Quebec military and the beginning of a new defence staff in the event of Quebec's independence.[14] Bouchard declared that Quebec would take possession of Canadian air force jet fighters based in the province.

What I remember here in NYC was how so many out of touch NYC liberals were absolutely flabbergasted that Bush won- these were people who had not voted Bush in 2000, were ideologically opposed to his administration AND thought/believed that the Bush administration was such a complete and utter trainwreck, that he'd lose so many votes as compared to 2000 that he'd lose in a landslide-

as far as I could tell they either paid no attention to polls or convinced themselves that the polls were biased...

You could have taken virtually any of the major marches and rallies in opposition to going into Iraq and I think you'd have found larger numbers at those single events than you would have at entire months of Tea party rallies.

Me too - I had no illusions or expectations of a Kerry victory. I was very pessimistic and barely watched any election coverage the night of. I was in the "how on earth can people vote for this guy *again*?!" category, but at the same time it didn't suprise me that people would, if that makes sense.

HARRISBURG - A Commonwealth Court judge issued an injunction today blocking Pennsylvania's controversial new voter ID law from taking full effect before the presidential election, clearing the way for voters without government-issed identification to cast regular ballots on Nov. 6.

Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. in essence ruled that the general election would be - like the primary - a soft rollout of the law.

"I reject the underlying assertion that the offending activity is the request to produce photo ID; instead, I conclude that the salient offending conduct is voter disenfranchisement," he said.

That disenfranchisement, Simpson said, involved requiring those without identification to cast provisional ballots, which could be challenged at a later date.

During the primary, the law - Act 18 - permitted voters without identification to cast regular ballots.

"The injunction will have the effect of extending the express transition provisions of Act 18 through the general election," Simpson wrote.

On top of that, Kerry was an uninspiring candidate with no plan whose biggest argument was "I'm not that guy."

Why does that sound familiar?

That disenfranchisement, Simpson said, involved requiring those without identification to cast provisional ballots, which could be challenged at a later date.

So people were able to vote despite not having ID, and the judge calls that "disenfranchisement" rather than potential voter fraud.

I suspect that she (and the Dems) are going to have a hard time in 2016.

I suspect that she (and the Dems) are going to have a hard time in 2016.

I'd say this depends on how the GOP reacts to a Romney loss. If the Tea Partiers win the argument over how conservative the candidate must be, then it could be another long election cycle. But if the party elders and/or The Money decide, "Enough purity ########; let's win," then the GOP's chances look better.

Churchill also participated in the creation of the abbreviation "OMG"
link

This election is very much a comp of 2004.

It seems a stretch, but it might be that the judge actually looked at the evidence -- or lack thereof -- of "potential voter fraud", took another listen to the law's proponents who made pretty darn clear that they had no such evidence that such a law was needed, and maybe even applied a bit of logic around the loopiness of 'voter fraud' having any impact.

It is possible though, and my understanding is most pollsters are expecting a turnout model in between 2008 and 2010 in favorability to the two parties. — Bitter Mouse

No, there are other ways
1: Some of those who formerly described themselves as Indies are now describing themselves as Dems
2: People who were 14-17 in 2008 and 16-17 in 2010, can now vote- while voter turnout among 18-21 year olds tends to be very low- there is some and in recent years it has been disproportionately Dem- in 2008 Obama won the 18-29 cohort by 2:1, his worst age cohort was 65+, and how do I put this, the upper end of that cohort (where he did even worse) is dying off
3: You area ware that the 1996 electorate looked much morelike the 1992 electorate than the 1994 electorate?

There's been a split between party registration and party "identification" for a few decades now- Dems have more than a +10 registration advantage- yet haven't polled near that level of party identification in along time

Dems 41
Repub 33
Indies 26
That's Dem +8
If all Dems vote for the Dem and all Repubs vote for the Repub, and Indies go 16-10 in favor of the Repub, then the Dem wins by 51-49, +2, less than when the Dems, had a +7 "advantage"

It's not that hard, it's not "counter-intuitive" - you are just grasping at straws,

How so? The 2004 election was a referendum on two unpopular wars during strong economic times. In 2012, the media barely remembers that Afghanistan is still going on, and the economy is the worst in decades.

You could have taken virtually any of the major marches and rallies in opposition to going into Iraq and I think you'd have found larger numbers at those single events than you would have at entire months of Tea party rallies.
My experience was different. I was a reporter in Orlando during the run-up to OIF, and once was assigned to cover an antiwar rally. It was held in a downtown park on a Saturday. Just as I walked up, the woman on stage said, into the mic, "Where is everybody? I know you're out there

Nonsense. Most would be an absolute blast to have lunch with.

Your math doesn't work, esp. #1.

The economy and the wars are similar though, as the singular issue

Please forgive me, but my math "works" just fine, you on the other hand have demonstrated a high level of mathematical ineptitude in this thread.

How so? The 2004 election was a referendum on two unpopular wars during strong economic times. In 2012, the media barely remembers that Afghanistan is still going on, and the economy is the worst in decades.

Historically, voters keep the incumbent during wartime and vote against the incumbent during weak economic times.

It's better than it was in 2008.

It doesn't have anything to do with what I think is "right"; it's about the reported numbers in prior elections. The Dems had a Dem+7 advantage in 2008 and they won big. I find it hard to believe the Dems will have a bigger party ID advantage in 2012 but win by a smaller margin than in 2008. If the theory is that people identify with the winner, such a result would be entirely counterintuitive.

No, there are other ways
1: Some of those who formerly described themselves as Indies are now describing themselves as Dems
2: People who were 14-17 in 2008 and 16-17 in 2010, can now vote- while voter turnout among 18-21 year olds tends to be very low- there is some and in recent years it has been disproportionately Dem- in 2008 Obama won the 18-29 cohort by 2:1, his worst age cohort was 65+, and how do I put this, the upper end of that cohort (where he did even worse) is dying off
3: You area ware that the 1996 electorate looked much morelike the 1992 electorate than the 1994 electorate?

Your math doesn't work, esp. #1.

vote against the incumbent during weak economic times.

If this was a thing, someone besides you and a few right wing blogs would agree. But it's not.

*I'm* grasping at straws? When's the last time exit polls showed Dems with 41 percent party ID?

Here we go again.

Here we go again.

If you have a great house in early 2008, it burns down in late 2008, and it's only 75 percent rebuilt in 2012, you're not better off.

I'll spoon feed you Joe.

Dems were +7 in 2008 right?
for shits and giggle
Dems 40
Repubs 33
Indies 27 (14 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total 54-46 in favor of Dems
Then in my #1, some Dem leaning indies may actually move from Indy to Dem- Dem's go up from +7- but the actual vote doesn't move

Dems 42 (include 2 who used to be indy)
Repubs 33
Indies 25 (12 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total is still 54-46 in favor of Dems even as their "advantage" went from +7 to +9
if 1 of those Dem voting Indies votes R, then the Dem's overall total will go down 53-47- even while their partisan identification edge went up

Since then, the same thing has occurred in every election: The losing side objects to the partisan composition of polling. The polls then proceed to get the final result roughly correct.

it would yield more than the net Dem+1 shift you claimed in your example.

Joe, I'm not a lefty by any stretch but surely you don't think 2008 was rollicking good economic times? The #### hit the fan in 2007 and was seen hurtling toward us earlier than that. I don't think Obama has handled it brilliantly, but 2008 was not good times, in any sense.

So you posted thousands of words, only to make the very same point I've been making for weeks.

that's not grasping at straws that was a ####### math hypothetical- are you being deliberately obtuse or is reading comprehension not your strong suit?

That's right. You continue to argue that America was better off smack in the middle of the greatest economic meltdown in 80 years.

You don't need to spoon-feed me. You need a refresher on second-grade math. Your posts are high in snarkiness but very low in basic math competency.

Aside from the basic math problems, your examples are also historically illiterate. Obama won independents by a wide margin in 2008, not the *1 point* you used in your 2008 example above.

Yeah, you're right. It's much better to be unemployed while the stock market rallies than to have a house and job while the stock market declines. You guys are out of your minds.

Joe, I'm not a lefty by any stretch but surely you don't think 2008 was rollicking good economic times? The #### hit the fan in 2007 and was seen hurtling toward us earlier than that. I don't think Obama has handled it brilliantly, but 2008 was not good times, in any sense.

I claimed nothing, I was simply showing how partisan voting shifts between D/R and I can produce the patterns you claim to be counterintuitive.

I don't claim to know what is actually going on, but I am trying to show what could be going on to explain current polling results- but I guess the only possible explanation inside your thickhead is that pollsters are cooking the books- in which case all speculation is useless since its all proceeding from a false assumption.

Those links have nothing to do with the basic math problem in Johnny's example.

Why anyone continues to engage Kehoskie on this subject is just beyond me.

You concede that the markets are strong — something that was not true in 2008. You're also conceding that supply side economics doesn't work. Awesome. Thank you.

I see you have trouble both with reading comprehension and elementary grade math, somehow the fact that you are a Romney supporter goes hand in hand with that, but I have now wasted several minutes of my life arguing with a moron, so I guess that means you win
congratulations.

trickle-down economics that lack the trickle.

Someone needs to submit a link for October.

How does this matter? Lefties like you have spent decades mocking the idea of trickle-down economics. Now you seem to love trickle-down economics that lack the trickle. Funny stuff.

34.3% 33.1% 32.6%

34.3% 34.9% 30.8%

Maybe Kehoskie and JSLF can settle this by taking an IQ test (insert winking emoticon here).

They do have to do with the larger set of arguments you're apparently trying to make. Do you have the party ID numbers from the 2008 election? I can get them from the CNN poll. I'll be happy to step through the math from there.

It's only funny because of how badly you misrepresent the opposing argument. The entire lefty argument for decades has been that trickle-down economics lacks trickle. That's why it's bad.

The above is Rasmussen's party identification for October 2011 (order is R-D-I)

here is November 2011:

34.3% 34.9% 30.8%


what happened? 1.8% moved from I to D
as a result, the partisan edge went from + 1.2 Repub to +0.6 Dem

Those Is wwho moved were probably already D leaners/voters anyway, so the shift in "edge" may have no effect on an actual vote- in fact the vote could actual go the other way if some Is who leaned D, still stay I, but now lean R.

So what are the actual numbers? I can't do anything with the fact that you *know* them. You want a hypothetical with numbers, then please give me the numbers.