i am far more suspicious of financial instruments than i am fracking

i do get cranky when i cannot find hendricks gin at the liquor store

Christie seems like the perfect test case for telling the far-right to #### off and running as himself without the pandering. ...

It's probably easier at this point for the party's money men to try and create more stupid, uninformed, reactionary voters than to recruit and assemble a coalition of supporters who aren't stupid, uninformed, and reactionary. It's not like the money men really care either way, as long as their bank accounts don't take a hit.

See, Democrats don't require ideological purity. We'll support the lesser of two evils if that's what it comes to. Doesn't mean we agree with every position that politician takes.

It's a recognition of human nature. When you remove accountability, people do terrible, reckless things.

i am far more suspicious of financial instruments than i am fracking

There are plenty of arguments against life tenure, but I tend to think putting a limit like this on terms is a bad one. Maybe a mandatory retirement age. But I'd rather not have someone on the bench with three or four years remaining suddenly start to think about what he needs to decide strategically to set him or herself up financially for the post SCOTUS portion of their life.

It's a recognition of human nature. When you remove accountability, people do terrible, reckless things.

HW: i have no issue with tobacco companies
Andy: I don't, either, beyond their existence.

steve

i do get cranky when i cannot find hendricks gin at the liquor store

He's not declaring Obama a certainty, of course, but if Romney wins the EC we can be sure Nate's model missed something very, very big.

Last week, Bob Fitrakis and Gerry Bello at FreePress.org reported an important story concerning what they described as “uncertified ‘experimental’ software patches” being installed at the last minute on electronic vote tabulation systems in 39 Ohio counties.

The story included a copy of the contract [PDF] between Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s office and ES&S, the nation’s largest e-voting system manufacturer, for a new, last-minute piece of software created to the custom specifications of the secretary of state. The contract itself describes the software as “High-level enhancements to ES&S’ election reporting software that extend beyond the current features and functionality of the software to facilitate a custom-developed State Election Results Reporting File.”

No wonder the Barones and JoeKs of the world see a Romney landslide; to them, 2012 "feels" like the greatest year ever for Republicans.

There are plenty of arguments against life tenure, but I tend to think putting a limit like this on terms is a bad one. Maybe a mandatory retirement age. But I'd rather not have someone on the bench with three or four years remaining suddenly start to think about what he needs to decide strategically to set him or herself up financially for the post SCOTUS portion of their life.

While many right-partisans dismiss or "adjust" polls that have Party IDs that they "feel" are too similar to 2008, they've latched onto Rasmussen's Party ID weighting (the only major poll I'm aware of that actually targets a specific party ID split). So what split is Rasmussen using that makes so much more sense than the ones being reported (not used for weighting or targeting) by other firms? Rasmussen thinks the electorate will be 39% Republicans and 33% Democrats, a six point advantage for self-identified Republicans. How does this compare to previous presidential elections? Since exit polls have been used, the electorate has never had more Republicans than Democrats. So Rasmussen's model thinks the party ID split for the 2012 election will far more friendly to Republicans than any presidential election ever has been.

No wonder the Barones and JoeKs of the world see a Romney landslide; to them, 2012 "feels" like the greatest year ever for Republicans.

Anyway, I would be interested in a thread (there might be on already) on what you guys would do to reform the Constitution and any other procedural reforms this country needs.

A lot of people have said there should be a viable third-party, from the center.

The bigger problem is that there's nothing resembling a consensus on the long list of issues you mentioned in #2121.

i am far more suspicious of financial instruments than i am fracking

Now, after hugging Obama and some people hurt by Sandy, he's Best of Class on the right.

So... do you feel that way about alcohol producers? Marijuana or cocaine companies if they were legal? Manufacurers of garbage foods?
[sincere question]

He's not declaring Obama a certainty, of course, but if Romney wins the EC we can be sure Nate's model missed something very, very big.

We can? Isn't it just a probability model? Same like PECOTA? Just because PECOTA projects Melky Cabrera as a .700 OPS hitter and he goes out and hits .900, doesn't mean the model missed something.

A lot of people have said there should be a viable third-party, from the center. But things get tricky when you get to a platform, because most people fall to one side or another on issues, and while they may not agree with either party on all the issues, they probably do on the issues that matter to them. Its also hard to find a moderate position on certain issues.

I won't be shocked if we are in the midst of a preference cascade that allows Romney to do even better, perhaps even costing David Axelrod his mustache by capturing Pennsylvania, Michigan or Minnesota.

Anyway, I would be interested in a thread (there might be on already) on what you guys would do to reform the Constitution and any other procedural reforms this country needs.

That's not a particularly high bar, Joe.

It's been a busy campaign for PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter, which has rated more than 800 claims by the presidential candidates, the political parties and super PACs. Here are some of the most significant fact-checks of the campaign.

Barack Obama: "Mitt Romney's companies were pioneers in outsourcing U.S. jobs to low-wage countries."
July 3, in a campaign commercial
Half True. Bain invested overseas but it's a stretch to call them "pioneers." The trend was well-established by the time Romney and Bain joined in.

Mitt Romney: President Obama promised "he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent" if the stimulus passed.
May. 17, at a private campaign fundraiser
The ruling: Mostly False. Obama didn’t say that. Rather, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted that the stimulus would hold it to that level. Their report included heavy disclaimers that their number was a projection and might not hold true.

Barack Obama: The Obama administration has created "5 million jobs … over the last 30 months in the private sector alone."
Oct. 16, in the second presidential debate
The ruling: Half True. It’s correct only using the most cherry-picked time frame. A more reasonable method -- starting the count at the beginning of the recovery -- shows a gain of 3.6 million jobs.

Jennifer Granholm: Romney's response to the auto crisis was 'Let Detroit go bankrupt.'
Sept. 6, at the Democratic National Convention
The ruling: Half True. Romney did not support Obama’s plan for the auto industry, which ultimately proved successful. This line came from an op-ed Romney wrote for the New York Times, suggesting he wanted to let the auto companies go out of business. Actually, he advocated a managed bankruptcy for the automakers.

Mitt Romney: Stimulus dollars paid for "windmills from China."
July 18, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Mostly False. Many American firms connected to the wind industry expanded during the years of the stimulus. In some cases, they purchased wind turbine parts from companies in China. But no windmills were built in China using stimulus money.

Barack Obama: Says Mitt Romney "backed a bill that outlaws all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest."
Oct. 24, in a TV ad
The ruling: Pants on Fire! There’s no evidence that Romney ever specifically opposed exceptions for rape and incest. While he supported the "human life amendment," there are many versions and the most recent ones allow abortion after rape or incest. Romney said recently he supports those exceptions.

Paul Ryan: President Obama "funneled" $716 billion out of Medicare "at the expense of the elderly."
Aug. 29, at the Republican National Convention
The ruling: Mostly False. The law limits payments to health care providers and insurers in order to spur efficiency and reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. The cuts do not reduce benefits. Those savings, spread out over 10 years, are used to offset costs created by the health law, so that it doesn’t add to the deficit.

Bill Clinton: Paul Ryan attacked the president for "the same amount of Medicare savings that (Ryan) had in his own budget."
Sept. 5, in a speech at the Democratic National Convention
The ruling: True. Both Democrats and Republicans are trying to rein in future spending, and Ryan included Medicare savings from the health care law in his own budget. Ryan said later he did so only because it is current law.

Barack Obama: Romney "would turn Medicare into a voucher program."
Aug. 15, in remarks at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa
The ruling: Mostly True. The Romney-Ryan approach pretty much matches the dictionary definition of "a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures."

Mitt Romney: Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." at the cost of American jobs.
Oct. 29, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Pants on Fire! Italy-based Fiat was in talks to buy Chrysler before Obama took office. The Jeeps it makes in China are sold in China. Meanwhile, its American auto plants have expanded and added jobs since the auto bailout.

Barack Obama: Says Mitt Romney plans to "fire" Big Bird.
Oct. 8, at a campaign event
The ruling: Pants on Fire! Romney wants to cut federal funding for PBS, and his idea isn’t specific to Big Bird. A Sesame Street executive said the show itself receives little funding through PBS, and the character is safe.

Mitt Romney: "We're only inches away from no longer being a free economy."
Jan. 7, at a Republican primary debate
The ruling: Pants on Fire! International statistics show that the United States still ranks low in total tax burden and high in economic freedom.

Priorities USA Action: Says Romney wants to "take away early childhood education, slash K-12 funding, and cut college aid … to pay for a $250,000 tax break for multi-millionaires."
Oct. 8, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Mostly False. The Ryan budget that Romney supports could impact education, but the ad takes liberties as it tries to fill in the blanks.

Mitt Romney: "Under President Obama: $4,000 tax hike on middle-class families."
Oct. 10, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Pants on Fire! The campaign makes a giant leap and assumes interest on the public debt will be paid for with increased taxes on all income levels. We actually don’t know how the tax code will spread around the pain of paying for the debt. Obama proposes tax increases only on high earners.

Barack Obama: Says Mitt Romney "called the Arizona law a model for the nation."
Oct. 16, in a presidential debate
The ruling: False. Romney was actually praising Arizona’s mandate that employers electronically verify the legal status of employees, which was passed in 2007, and was not part of the later law that allowed local police to ask people for immigration papers.

Mitt Romney: The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917."
Jan. 16, at a Republican primary debate
The ruling: Pants on Fire! A wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that fewer ships means a weaker military. The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today because each ship is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.

Barack Obama: "Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of" President George W. Bush’s policies and the recession.
Sept. 23, in an interview on CBS' 60 Minutes
The ruling: False. Obama misstated his own source by using four years rather than the 10 included in the analysis. And he engages in cherry-picking by assigning pricey programs to Bush’s column even though he himself supported, or supports, many of them.

A chain email: In July 1996, Mitt Romney helped locate the missing teenage daughter of a partner at Bain Capital.
Jan. 30, circulated on the Internet
The ruling: True. The effort by Bain employees was central to the effort to locate the girl, and Romney reportedly played a significant role. She was found and returned safely to her parents.

Mitt Romney: "Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt."
June 28, at a press conference
The ruling: False. The government’s official estimates find that the health care law does not add to deficits, due to its new taxes and reductions in future Medicare spending.

Barack Obama: Says Romney wants to add $2 trillion to the defense budget that the military hasn’t asked for.
Oct. 3, in a presidential debate
The ruling: True. Independent analysts confirm that number, which the Romney campaign does not refute. Military leaders have testified in support of the president’s spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes.

Paul Ryan: Says six studies verify that the math adds up for Mitt Romney’s tax plan.
Oct. 11, in a vice presidential debate
The ruling: Mostly False. We found only one fully independent study out of the six claimed. None of the studies could accurately model Romney’s tax plan because he has said so little about how it would work.

Mitt Romney: "Redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America."
Sept. 19, in a press conference
The ruling: Pants on Fire! Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of it, but redistribution has been a basic principle of the U.S. tax system and many federal programs that have long attracted support from Republicans.

Crossroads GPS: Oil production is "down where Obama's in charge."
April 10, in a Web ad
The ruling: Half True. The decline represents a single year that followed years of substantial gains and occurred only offshore in the wake of a major oil disaster. Also, federal policies take years to affect oil production.

Mitt Romney: Obama promised to "cut the deficit in half."
Oct. 3, in a presidential debate
The ruling: True. Obama promised in his early presidency to cut the deficit in half, which he never achieved. When asked about it, Obama said the recession was deeper than anyone knew at the time.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "Mitt Romney is the first major party candidate for president of the United States in modern times not to release at least 12 years of tax returns."
Aug. 12, in an interview on FOX News
The ruling: False. While Romney has only released two years of tax returns, other candidates have also chosen to release only a few years, such as Ronald Reagan.

Barack Obama: "A few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia."
Oct. 22, in the final presidential debate
The ruling: Half True. Romney has twice drawn the distinction between his concerns about Iran and Russia, calling Russia the biggest geopolitical foe or enemy for the U.S. -- but he has said the biggest threat is Iran.

I'd be interested in proportional representation and a simplifying and standardizing of voting regulations nationwide

It's impossible to find [a moderate position] on abortion...

It's not clear that the U.S. needs procedural reforms. The bigger problem is that there's nothing resembling a consensus on the long list of issues you mentioned in #2121.

But I'd rather not have someone on the bench with three or four years remaining suddenly start to think about what he needs to decide strategically to set him or herself up financially for the post SCOTUS portion of their life.

Popular Vote: ROMNEY 51.55; OBAMA 47.45

Don't make me start talking about the Pirates, Vlad.

In a scenario where the US split into two countries, no way DC could stay the capital of the north. It just doesn't make sense to put you capital right on the border.

We could walk through the possible solutions to the team's catching problem.

If we're talking about popular vote and House seats isn't there a different base line between 1992 and 2012?

It seems pretty clear that both Obama and Romney are going to get higher percentages of the popular vote than both Clinton and Bush in 1992. Clinton's share of the popular vote as a whole isn't really relevant in a discussion of congressional seats is it? Clinton gets 43% of the vote and Bush gets 38%, but they're getting 100% of the seats.

If you really believe Rasmussen is weighting his polls according to a GOP+6 electorate, you've done a great job faking your way through these polling discussions in recent weeks. You're off by at least 8 points. (And if you believe a GOP+6 electorate is somehow yielding only a Romney +1 lead, then this would be one of the best years in history for Dems, at least relative to the expectations a GOP+6 electorate would imply.)

As we have noted many times, there is a disagreement within the polling industry as to whether or not polling firms should “weight” or adjust their sample to reflect a specific mix of Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters (see recent article on why some polls produce different results).

Rasmussen Reports does weight our sample to a set of partisan targets and bases those targets on surveys conducted in preceding months. Entering the month of June, our targets for the month were set so that the sample would include 9.44% more Democrats than Republicans.

The game is easy for the Wills and the Barones.

Is he using a different methodology this year? If so, what is his new methodology? And why is he weighting toward a party ID split that's so thoroughly contradicted by his own party ID surveys?

Why not? We could walk through the possible solutions to the team's catching problem. That'd be at least as interesting as the minutiae of polling samples, wouldn't it?

In today's Daily Presidential tracking poll report, he explicitly projects an electorate that is 39% Dem and 37% Republican. He also notes that Romney leads by 11 points among Independents. The combination of those three facts is consistent with Romney leading 49-48 (if, for example, you assume Obama and Romney are both winning their own party, 95-5).

Dixon reportedly predicted the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In the May 13, 1956, issue of Parade Magazine she wrote that the 1960 presidential election would be "dominated by labor and won by a Democrat" who would then go on to "be assassinated or die in office though not necessarily in his first term." She later admitted, “During the 1960 election, I saw Richard Nixon as the winner”,[11] and at the time made unequivocal predictions that JFK would fail to win the election.[12] In the 1956 pronouncement, she merely stated that a President would "be assassinated or die in office", not necessarily that one would be assassinated. By emphasizing a few coincidentally correct predictions and ignoring those that were wrong, she acquired both fame and notoriety. The ability to persuade the public in this matter is known as the 'Jeane Dixon effect'.

FYI: Internal polls released to the public have a 6-point bias, on average, as we saw in Wisconsin recall earlier this year.

that's the title to a song isn't it? the 99 problems?

It's impossible to find [a moderate position] on abortion...

Barack Obama: "A few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia."
Oct. 22, in the final presidential debate
The ruling: Half True. Romney has twice drawn the distinction between his concerns about Iran and Russia, calling Russia the biggest geopolitical foe or enemy for the U.S. -- but he has said the biggest threat is Iran.

"This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."

Blitzer asked Romney if he thought Russia is a bigger foe than Iran, China or North Korea.

"I'm saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world's worst actors," Romney said. "Of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and a nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough. But when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them ... who is it that always stands up with the world's worst actors? It's always Russia, typically with China alongside. And so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that's on the Security Council that has the heft of the Security Council, and is of course is a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe."

Is giving McKenry a shot the current plan? Looking at his minor league track record he's not exactly thrilling, but beggars can't be choosers and it looks like he has some power by catcher standards.

It's not, and it shouldn't be, about consensus: it's about governing. It's ridiculous to hold that nothing should be possible unless there is a "consensus". What the hell is that, anyway? The majority should get to decide an issue--that's sufficient consensus.

Is giving McKenry a shot the current plan? Looking at his minor league track record he's not exactly thrilling, but beggars can't be choosers and it looks like he has some power by catcher standards.

that's the title to a song isn't it? the 99 problems?

it's kind of crazy to be passing, repealing, and re-passing legislation that overhauls the U.S.'s system of government, budgetary process, healthcare system,

I'm pro-legalization pretty much across the board w/ appropriate taxation - though I'm not sure how ease of growing at home would impact marijuana taxation.

It's pretty easy to brew beer and wine (legal) and even distill (generally illegal).

It's not clear that the U.S. needs procedural reforms. The bigger problem is that there's nothing resembling a consensus on the long list of issues you mentioned in #2121.

It's impossible to find one on abortion, and more than anything that's the issue that will scuttle a third-party trying to be viable nationally, on a par with Dems and Pubs.

It's fine, too, to say to your candidates, 'adopt our platform and do whatever else your conscience tells you', but as soon as you announce prolife or prochoice you've defined your base, and no matter how terrific the rest of your platform is, a prochoice candidate simply won't snare a prolife voter.

Not to mention that if the actual goal is to reduce abortion's numbers, the surest way to do that would be to provide free contraceptives to the girls and women who are most likely to get pregnant unintentionally.

If consensus swings from 52-48 to 48-52 and then back to 52-48 all within a few years, it's kind of crazy to be passing, repealing, and re-passing legislation that overhauls the U.S.'s system of government, budgetary process, healthcare system, etc., etc.

Obviously that may send a different message than we'd ideally like, all other things being equal, but in terms of reducing abortions, it'd sure be more humane and more effective than the alternative of criminalization.

Can't edit 2150.

It's pretty easy to brew beer and wine (legal) and even distill (generally illegal).

Out of curiosity, how easy is it to grow tobacco in your backyard?

I think if there is a consensus on anything in this nation, its that "Washington is broken." We've tried both parties. I think most would say its the system itself that needs reforming.

Isn't the bigger issue prepping/curing it?

In order to "fix" Washington, you have to have a sense of what a "fixed" Washington would look like and what it would do in terms of policy. And there's no real consensus among "Independents" on what that is/should be.

Rasmussen is reporting that Dems and Reps are tied on their Generic Congressional Ballot, 46-46, a change from a 46-43 Republican lead one week ago.

Is this information of any practical, predictive use? It seems much more useless than national polls for the President, for example, but has anybody (Nate?) looked at whether it might tell us anything at all?

The problem is that different people mean wildly different things when they say that "Washington is broken". Tea Partiers think Washington is broken, because they're spending too damn much money. The Occupy movement thinks Washington is broken because it's in the pocket of Wall Street. Liberals think Washington is broken because the Republican minority in the Senate has the ability to filibuster, until the Republicans win the majority there, at which point, Conservatives will think Washington is broken because the Democratic minority in the Senate has the ability to filibuster. Some folks think Washington is "broken" because taxes are too high (on some people); some think Washington is "broken" because taxes are too low (on some people).

I'm pro-legalization pretty much across the board w/ appropriate taxation - though I'm not sure how ease of growing at home would impact marijuana taxation.


It's pretty easy to brew beer and wine (legal) and even distill (generally illegal).

The problem is that different people mean wildly different things when they say that "Washington is broken". Tea Partiers think Washington is broken, because they're spending too damn much money.

Not to mention that if the actual goal is to reduce abortion's numbers, the surest way to do that would be to provide free contraceptives to the girls and women who are most likely to get pregnant unintentionally. Obviously that may send a different message than we'd ideally like, all other things being equal, but in terms of reducing abortions, it'd sure be more humane and more effective than the alternative of criminalization.

There would be no official party position on abortion, so no "announcement" at all. If we have a prochoice candidate than can't snare a prolife voter, well then, so what?

I get that Sam, but I just meant that it's probably more inconvenient to grow your tobacco supply than it is to grow your marijuana supply.

It's not, and it shouldn't be, about consensus: it's about governing. It's ridiculous to hold that nothing should be possible unless there is a "consensus". What the hell is that, anyway? The majority should get to decide an issue--that's sufficient consensus.

85% think taxes are too high. And that includes people who don't even pay taxes. In other words, the irredeemably stupid.

Oh, and in addition to proportional representation, I would greatly increase the size of the House of Representatives. It should have 2,000 members. I know there are practical objections, like having to build a bigger Capitol and trying to whip the resulting goat rodeo into condition. But how about some democracy where you have some fighting chance to actually know your Representative? The Senate is fine as it is, if one wants some counterbalance. I don't really see why legislating with 2,000 is going to be harder than doing it with 435. Nobody knows everybody in the House as it is. And with minor parties and coalitions ensuing, we might actually have legislation that is responsive to the will of the people.

Keep trying; eventually those trains will run on time.

I'd actually have a tough time responding to such a poll question myself... I think federal income tax rates are too low, but I think an awful lot of 'fees' that nickel and dime us in the masses are out of hand.

Nate has a lot riding on the outcome of this election. To deny that seems pointless.