Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 5 of 114 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   401. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:57 PM (#4290541)
How can you compare one single election to 435 of them? It's apples and oranges to compare the odds on a single election to aggregate odds on 435 of them.

If Nate was behind the curve in reading the tea leaves in 2010, then I have no idea why people are so confident in his abilities to do so in an election as close as 2012's.

Nate was not only late to the GOP wave in 2010, but he still underestimated the GOP gains by over 20 percent. He also went just 2-for-5 in the five most competitive Senate races. The left's faith in Nate's model, down to the tenth of a percentage point, is absurd.
   402. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4290543)
Those other three estimates only show the "competing" prognosticators at their most flattering. I can't find the progression of their numbers in the 4-6 weeks leading to the election;

Rasmussen was way, way ahead of Nate in predicting big gains for the GOP in 2010.

Somehow it seems that someone who got it so wrong on the timing of Silver's ~30% estimate -- a number which is both fixed and in the past -- would have more sympathy for statistical imprecision.

Huh? I was off by roughly one week. Per #390, Nate still had the Dems with a 27 percent chance of holding the House as of Oct. 16, 2010 — 17 days before Election Day.

Given that Nate is running a prediction model, it's absurd to give him credit for closing to the correct position on the eve of the election. The other numbers are supposed to be closing to his model's numbers, not vice versa.
   403. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4290545)
Not that it means you punt the 2012 election but an Obama victory in 2012 probably hands the White House to the Republicans in 2016.


I don't agree. First I am not convinced that having 3 terms in a row is impossible for a party (or even that unusual). Second I think there has been some racism that has hurt Obama and some Bush hate/GOP that have helped in and likely neither of those will come into play in 2016.

However the big reason is that demographic changes will continue. And those changes really favor the Democrats on a national level. Eventually the GOP will change direction, but for the near future I think demographic changes are going to make it hard for them.
   404. GregD Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4290549)
Not that it means you punt the 2012 election but an Obama victory in 2012 probably hands the White House to the Republicans in 2016.
Possibly though I agree with Bitter Mouse that Reagan/Bush suggests a good coalition can deliver 3 wins (and might have delivered 4 without Perot's intervention.) You can make a case that Clinton-Gore delivered 3 popular pluralities though tell that to Vice President Lieberman. Hilary has one advantage in that she's seen as her own woman and yet also worked for Obama so she can make both a keep the team together and it's time for a change case if she has to. Biden can do one, Cuomo can do the other, but she could do either one.

But between now and 2016, Obama should get to nominate several justices, which is a victory that lasts. And every term--as Bush 1 learned--that you extend increases the odds of nominating justices that swing the balance. If Obama wins, then you'd have to think RBG and Breyer will step away, and be replaced with younger people. All you need then is one early retirement for any reason and you go from protecting the status quo to changing the dynamics.

The opposite is true, too. Romney winning now increases the odds of the Rs getting to fill a currently D seat.
   405. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4290550)
Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and even Maine would seem to undermine that argument. Size has always been a factor in creating states. You were never going to have multiple states the size of Texas.


The size and shape of the original 13 colonies, which were decided by the British monarchy and never intended to be part of a self governing country, have nothing to do with how and why later states, created by the self governing country, were formed. Take Delaware for example. originally settled by the Dutch and swedes, it grew up as a small enclave of hard core Protestants sandwiched between the Catholics of Maryland, and the Quakers of Pennsylvania. When the British took it over, they let it be its own separate colony rather than risking religious unrest by attaching it to one of its larger neighbors. That has nothing to do with whether the Dakotas should be one state or 2.

"How the States got their Shapes" is a fascinating and informative documentary.
   406. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:10 PM (#4290551)
Nate makes it BIG.

That cartoon's actually not too far from the truth, but OTOH it's better than having to keep hanging onto unskewed.com.
   407. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4290552)
The left's faith in Nate's model, down to the tenth of a percentage point, is absurd.

I might not use the word "absurd", but if you follow the link in #400, you'll see how widespread such faith has become.
   408. McCoy Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4290553)
This is a party that got George Bush elected twice and have Mitt Romney with almost half the vote. The only reason Obama is president is because the country hated George Bush and even then it needed the economy to tank and McCain to pick Sarah Palin. The demographics point to a conservative politician being a president. The only reason we don't have one elected every 4 years is because the extreme right is so batshit insane that no moderate conservative can get through the primary process without selling his soul.
   409. Craig in MN Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4290556)
Four years is a long time, and there are a lot of strange factors to getting a nomination and a electoral victory. Who's to say that Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, or Amy Klobuchar (or Sebelius, or others) don't decide to run (assuming victories this year) and bring some excitement for a female candidate (non-Clinton category). Bill Nelson seems like he could make a good, if boring, candidate. Everyone loves astronauts and he'd have a chance to secure Florida from day 1. I'd kind of like to see Russ Feingold run, and think he'd have a decent odds of winning depending on the dynamics of his competition. Charlie Crist couldn't possibly get the Democratic nomination, but I could see him getting a VP nomination to try to claim moderate voters and Florida, which could make for tough math for Republicans. There's lots of ways to make a ticket that could cobble together a Democratic victory. Of course, I think the most important factor is to get a qualified candidate that most Americans can possibly connect with on a personal level ("you're likeable enough, Hillary"). I don't see why Republicans have any obvious advantage on that front, especially given their problems doing just that this year.
   410. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4290557)
I might not use the word "absurd", but if you follow the link in #400, you'll see how widespread such faith has become.

Great cartoon. I'm sure that will find a place on Nate's wall whether Obama wins or loses.
   411. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:17 PM (#4290562)
Possibly though I agree with Bitter Mouse that Reagan/Bush suggests a good coalition can deliver 3 wins (and might have delivered 4 without Perot's intervention.)

And might very well have delivered them six in a row without Watergate, given Carter's narrow win in spite of having every advantage. The demographic shifts are the only thing that's currently predictable about 2016's political landscape, and if the Republicans ever start emulating Bush's immigration views instead of Sheriff Arpaio's, even that may not mean that much in the long run.
   412. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:18 PM (#4290563)
That cartoon's actually not too far from the truth, but OTOH it's better than having to keep hanging onto unskewed.com.

Hey, we also have the early Nate guidance on the importance of winning the Independents, as noted in #373. That was before Nate sold out to the Big Corporate Media, so it ought to count for more, no?
   413. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4290567)
I think it's likely that Clinton will run -- based only on intuition and the fact that she's stepping down in January -- but I don't think it's any kind of given that she's going to be the nominee. A lot of people thought that in 2008, and though she ran into a buzzsaw, she was also younger and much higher profile at that point. I don't think she's going to be any kind of titanic presence in four years, whether Obama wins or loses.

There are a lot of people who could move forward in the next few years to become party leaders. Craig named a few of them. A lot of people think Kirsten Gillebrand is going to make a run. Deval Patrick could make noise, though I think a northeastern liberal -- especially a black one -- could have more trouble than someone better-positioned geographically. I think people are a little too dismissive of Cuomo, though the question will really be whether he can soften his image on the big stage. (It was the same question people had about Spitzer until he got caught being a scumbag and rendered it moot.)

I also think that there's a strong chance that Clinton will loose a competitive general election. She's not the most charismatic person in history, if you ask me.
   414. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4290569)
The size and shape of the original 13 colonies, which were decided by the British monarchy and never intended to be part of a self governing country, have nothing to do with how and why later states, created by the self governing country, were formed.

Or they were precedents for admitting states without huge populations.
   415. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4290571)
Joe is never wrong...even when he is colossaly, comically mistaken about verifiable facts...what a complete knob. Go update your Wikipedia page, Joe.
   416. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4290572)
This is a party that got George Bush elected twice and have Mitt Romney with almost half the vote. The only reason Obama is president is because the country hated George Bush and even then it needed the economy to tank and McCain to pick Sarah Palin.

There's some truth to that, but it's hard to say that George Bush was objectively a worse candidate than either Gore or Kerry. It's also hard not to note that ever since the days of JFK/LBJ, only under Clinton and Obama have the Democrats even had a semblance of a competent political organization.

Of course the catch there is that such organizational competence is hardly a given going forward, once Obama is out of the picture. Organization feeds in great part on enthusiasm, and unfortunately for the Democrats, Clintons and Obamas don't grow on trees.

The demographics point to a conservative politician being a president. The only reason we don't have one elected every 4 years is because the extreme right is so batshit insane that no moderate conservative can get through the primary process without selling his soul.

But the question remains if the Republican base will ever snap out of it in the absence of a crushing defeat for a certified "principled" conservative. The Tea Party may not have that much power in a general election, but they're sure hell on RINOs in those primaries.
   417. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4290573)
Joe is never wrong...even when he is colossaly, comically mistaken about verifiable facts...what a complete knob.

???

What verifiable facts was I "colossally, comically wrong about" today?
   418. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4290575)
Always win the election in front of you. Next election will take care of itself.

The only reason Obama is president is because the country hated George Bush and even then it needed the economy to tank and McCain to pick Sarah Palin. The demographics point to a conservative politician being a president.


I could not disagree more. I think Obama was going to win even before Palin. Heck Clinton would have won also. I do admit Bush being hated really helped matters though. The part I really disagree with is the Demographics comment. Why do you think that?
   419. tshipman Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4290577)
Hey, we also have the early Nate guidance on the importance of winning the Independents, as noted in #373. That was before Nate sold out to the Big Corporate Media, so it ought to count for more, no?


You didn't read that excerpt, did you?

Nate is talking about correlation vs. causation.

Too often in "mainstream" political analysis, once it is pointed out that independents have swung in one or another direction, the analysis stops. The pundit inserts his own opinion about what caused the independent vote to shift ("Obama's far-reaching proposals and mounting spending", says the Washington Post), without citing any evidence. It's a neat trick, and someone who isn't paying attention is liable to conclude that the pundit has actually said something interesting.


But whatever.

***

Also, I'd like to correct something I was saying earlier. All the talk about the partisan split in the polls is sort of goofy, but why Joe is wrong about it is somewhat interesting. If you look at exit polling data from 2008 vs. polls conducted in 2012, there are actually fewer independents than before. There are higher levels of Democrats and Republicans. So when people talk about an electorate more D than in 2008, that's only part of the story. It's also an electorate more R than 2008.
   420. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4290578)
I also think that there's a strong chance that Clinton will lose a competitive general election. She's not the most charismatic person in history, if you ask me.

I think in great part that would depend on who's the incumbent, and what the state of the country is at that point. Ideally she'd be 49 or 59 rather than 69 in 2016, but right now she's both extremely popular with everyone other than the loonies, and the simple fact that she'd be the first female presidential candidate is obviously going to make for a variant of the Obama phenomenon of 2008. There are a lot of people who think much better of her now than they did in early 2008 or during her years as First Lady, again excluding the nutters.

Whether a younger and more charismatic dark horse could come along to deny her the nomination is another story, but at this point, at least, I can't see that happening. And she'd wipe the floor with someone like Cuomo.
   421. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4290580)
The part I really disagree with is the Demographics comment. Why do you think that?

Twice as many Americans self-identify as conservative than as liberal. This has been true for years, if not decades.
   422. DA Baracus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4290581)
Crackpot right wingers are mistaking sports writer Mike Silver for Nate Silver on Twitter.
   423. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4290584)
Too often in "mainstream" political analysis, once it is pointed out that independents have swung in one or another direction, the analysis stops. The pundit inserts his own opinion about what caused the independent vote to shift ("Obama's far-reaching proposals and mounting spending", says the Washington Post), without citing any evidence**. It's a neat trick, and someone who isn't paying attention is liable to conclude that the pundit has actually said something interesting.


**And in this case without even noting that the Washington Post has also endorsed Obama as a clear cut choice over Romney's updated version of voodoo economics.
   424. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4290586)
Crackpot right wingers are mistaking sports writer Mike Silver for Nate Silver on Twitter.
That's fantastic. They guy even kept at it when his error was pointed out.
   425. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4290587)
Also, I'd like to correct something I was saying earlier. All the talk about the partisan split in the polls is sort of goofy, but why Joe is wrong about it is somewhat interesting. If you look at exit polling data from 2008 vs. polls conducted in 2012, there are actually fewer independents than before. There are higher levels of Democrats and Republicans. So when people talk about an electorate more D than in 2008, that's only part of the story. It's also an electorate more R than 2008.

When people talk about the electorate being "more Dem" or "less Dem," they're talking about the net split between Dem and GOP, not the party affiliation number itself.

Regardless, the above certainly isn't what I've been seeing in the various polls being released, or at Rasmussen's party affiliation, or at Gallup's party affiliation.
   426. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4290589)
Nate is talking about correlation vs. causation.

In the context of discussing how important winning the Independent vote is. He faults others for not sufficiently explaining, or even seeking to explain, why Independents shift. That doesn't detract from his comments on the importance of the Independent vote at all. Or did you not read the article?
   427. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4290591)
Whether a younger and more charismatic dark horse could come along to deny her the nomination is another story,

Dog whistle!
   428. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4290592)
Twice as many Americans self-identify as conservative than as liberal. This has been true for years, if not decades.

But the most conservative part of the electorate (older whites) is dying off, to be replaced in great part by the least conservative part (younger minorities). To put it bluntly: This isn't a white country any more, not in the way it was in past generations, and four years from now it's going to be even less white. I'll admit that those Mormons and fundamentalists are great breeders, but those latterday Pat Boones also tend to locate in areas where all they can do is to keep the solidly red states from ever switching sides.

And more to the point, when the conservatives go out of their way to alienate the moderates, the moderates wind up voting for the liberals, as has been the case in more than a few elections.
   429. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4290598)

I think in great part that would depend on who's the incumbent, and what the state of the country is at that point. Ideally she'd be 49 or 59 rather than 69 in 2016, but right now she's both extremely popular with everyone other than the loonies, and the simple fact that she'd be the first female presidential candidate is obviously going to make for a variant of the Obama phenomenon of 2008. There are a lot of people who think much better of her now than they did in early 2008 or during her years as First Lady, again excluding the nutters.


Yup

Look, I was knee deep in the 2008 primary that really did get awfully bitter near the end, but I have to give it up for Clinton... I think the "find my voice" stuff was legitimate and despite it becoming a grudge match near the end, I could have gotten behind HRC had she somehow pulled it out -- and she very nearly did.

The fact that she was able to come as close as she did is, I think, a testament to her skills as a politician... she's much more than just "wife of Bill Clinton".

When the heavy, heavy favorite in a primary like that fall because of a the shiny, rising star - they've historically tended to stay down. I suppose maybe you could say Mondale held off Hart, but I don't think Hart was anything more than "some guy not attached to 4 years ago when we got pasted" than he was a potential Obama or JFK.

After Iowa, she had a real chance to flame out in Howard Dean fashion... she didn't. After it was revealed that it was her great misfortune to have hired an idiot like Mark Penn who didn't bother to figure out how primaries actually work until it was too late, she could have packed it in several times... the little Tuesday... when the numbers didn't come in well after Super Tuesday was all added up... after the disastrous March...

She goes on to bow out as gracefully as I think was possible at point, gives a full-throated endorsement that I think was better than, say, Kennedy's in '80, and serve in the cabinet rather than getting the veep slot.

...and that's even before we get to the fact that she probably has faced more total nonsense than any woman in her lifetime (I mean, seriously... even put the Paris Hiltons out there - is there anyone that has gotten a more regular dose of vitriol than her over the last 20 years?).

I've got a ton of respect for Hillary.
   430. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4290599)
Whether a younger and more charismatic dark horse could come along to deny her the nomination is another story,

Dog whistle!


Joe, when it comes to dog whistles, I've got you clocked at about 15,000 Hz. You'd beat Rin Tin Tin to the Alpo every time.
   431. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4290600)
   432. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4290601)
Holy crap. I was listening to that 15,000hz video and my cat absolutely freaked out when it hit one of the last notes....and I was wearing earphones.
   433. tshipman Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4290602)
She goes on to bow out as gracefully as I think was possible at point, gives a full-throated endorsement that I think was better than, say, Kennedy's in '80, and serve in the cabinet rather than getting the veep slot.


I believe the story was that Obama told her she could pick her role and she chose State.

I don't think that Hillary runs in 2016. If she runs, I don't think she gets the nom. If she gets the Nom, I don't think she'll win.
   434. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4290603)
Andy — I don't disagree at all re: the future demographics, but I doubt they'll be as detrimental to the GOP as some seem to believe. For one thing, politicians and political parties like to win elections, and after they lose a few, they find new ways to win. For another, I tend to believe cold, hard realities — e.g., cities going bankrupt; fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs paying a living wage (for a single person, let alone a family); the college-debt bubble; problems with Social Security, Medicare, and pensions; etc. — will make more of an impact on American politics over the next decade than any demographic changes. In other words, I believe our problems are bearing down on us quicker than the demographics are changing.

Joe, when it comes to dog whistles, I've got you clocked at about 15,000 Hz. You'd beat Rin Tin Tin to the Alpo every time.

Ha ha. Just having some fun with you. I know how much you like the dog-whistle topic.
   435. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4290604)

Joe, when it comes to dog whistles, I've got you clocked at about 15,000 Hz. You'd beat Rin Tin Tin to the Alpo every time.


I hear Nieporent is in the market for a good hearing ear dog...
   436. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4290605)
War on Women Update: Obama Canvasser Charged With Groping Woman's Breast.


Moron.
   437. SteveF Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4290606)
The Democrats have an uphill battle in 2016 if only because of the economic record they are going to inherit. Growth is going to be significantly compromised as the US begins to deal with trillion dollar budget deficits and an aging population. (Edit: Obviously I'm assuming Obama will win reelection here, as that seems to be the likeliest outcome.)

Also, I'm not convinced minorities are Democrats for life in the way that some Democrats seem to take for granted. Someone has to have the wealth and power. When that starts to be 'minorities', is everyone so certain they won't be voting for the conservative candidates?
   438. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4290607)
Look, I was knee deep in the 2008 primary that really did get awfully bitter near the end, but I have to give it up for Clinton... I think the "find my voice" stuff was legitimate and despite it becoming a grudge match near the end, I could have gotten behind HRC had she somehow pulled it out -- and she very nearly did.

I was probably as anti-Hillary as any Democrat I knew during those primaries, especially when she made that clueless and classless comment about Obama's lack of appeal to white working class voters.

But once she ended her campaign, both she and Bill came through in grand style, and since then her work as Secretary of State has burnished her reputation both here and abroad. And I don't think that Democrats will forget that when 2016 comes around. She's got a hell of a lot of markers she'll be able to call in at that point, and she's earned every one of them.
   439. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4290608)
I believe the story was that Obama told her she could pick her role and she chose State.

Biden says that he was given that choice. But it's Biden, so consider the source.
   440. Craig in MN Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4290610)

And more to the point, when the conservatives go out of their way to alienate the moderates, the moderates wind up voting for the liberals, as has been the case in more than a few elections.


More ballots have been cast for Democrats over the past 4 years than Republicans (obviously). But this is also true cumulative for the past 8 years, 12 year, 16 years, 20 years and 24 years. You have to go back 28 years to have more votes cast for Republicans that Democrats. And whole a lot of the people who voted R for Reagan back then aren't alive anymore. If this is a center-right country, as some people claim, the right party has a terrible record of picking candidates that appeal to a center right country. You'd think once in a while they'd just nominate a center-right candidate and wait for the landslide.
   441. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4290611)
Andy — I don't disagree at all re: the future demographics, but I doubt they'll be as detrimental to the GOP as some seem to believe. For one thing, politicians and political parties like to win elections, and after they lose a few, they find new ways to win.

The birth of a new non-dog whistling GOP may well be a lot closer than it appears to be right now, but I don't think it's going to be exactly painless. It might even require a Cesarian delivery.

For another, I tend to believe cold, hard realities — e.g., cities going bankrupt; fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs paying a living wage (for a single person, let alone a family); the college-debt bubble; problems with Social Security, Medicare, and pensions; etc. — with will make more of an impact on American politics over the next decade than any demographic changes. In other words, I believe our problems are bearing down on us quicker than the demographics are changing.

Could be, but issues like that can be framed in more than one political direction. There's no guarantee that any economic crisis will be greeted by a sudden re-popularization of Bushonomics.

Joe, when it comes to dog whistles, I've got you clocked at about 15,000 Hz. You'd beat Rin Tin Tin to the Alpo every time.

Ha ha. Just having some fun with you. I know how much you like the dog-whistle topic.


And truth be told, I actually enjoy having you around. You don't engage in personal attacks, and you represent a POV that's certainly out there in the blogosphere, whether or not I think there's anything to it. I would never, ever wish you to be shot on sight. (smile)
   442. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4290612)
Who's to say that Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, or Amy Klobuchar (or Sebelius, or others) don't decide to run (assuming victories this year) and bring some excitement for a female candidate (non-Clinton category).


Well, Elizabeth Warren is vile scum. I'd love to see her try to run for national office just so the scandal screws can twist a little tighter on her and reveal her hypocrisy and general bad character.
   443. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4290613)
Also, I'm not convinced minorities are Democrats for life in the way that some Democrats seem to take for granted. Someone has to have the wealth and power. When that starts to be 'minorities', is everyone so certain they won't be voting for the conservative candidates?

That sounds plausible on the surface, but if black voting patterns are any indication, minorities aren't lacking in historical memory as to which party was standing up for them when push came to shove.

Now once the GOP stuffs its thousands of local, state and congressional immigrant bashers and minority vote suppressors in a sack and chucks them overboard, then the conversion conversation might pick up some steam. Call me when that happens.
   444. greenback calls it soccer Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4290616)
Before there was Donald Trump, there was Larry Flynt. Link.
   445. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4290618)
The birth of a new non-dog whistling GOP may well be a lot closer than it appears to be right now, but I don't think it's going to be exactly painless. It might even require a Cesarian delivery.

2016 or 2020 should be very interesting for the GOP, with minority contenders such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal to go along with Jeb Bush, Rob Portman, and others.

I would never, ever wish you to be shot on sight. (smile)

Ha ha. Thanks. I hope you're not just saying that so I'll pay less attention to the pool cue you're holding.
   446. SteveF Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4290622)
Call me when that happens.


I'll be sure to give your number to my future grandchildren. ;)
   447. DL from MN Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:38 PM (#4290624)
their problems doing just that this year


I still think Romney bought off all the competent Republican challengers.
   448. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4290625)
I would never, ever wish you to be shot on sight. (smile)

Ha ha. Thanks. I hope you're not just saying that so I'll pay less attention to the pool cue you're holding.


Don't worry, I've often been called a straight shooting ##########, but the context has always been strictly confined to the pool table. (smile again)

But OTOH once you've cashed in all your election bets, you've got the last two and the snap for $200 a set. (smile once more)
   449. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4290627)
with minority contenders such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal to go along with Jeb Bush, Rob Portman, and others.


Unless he shakes the comparison to Kenneth from 30 Rock, he's not going anywhere.
   450. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4290629)
   451. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4290630)
Don't worry, I've often been called a straight shooting ############

I guess Jim laid off the nanny. Kind of sad, with the holidays coming up.

(EDIT: Hmm, the nanny works in the quote but not in #448. Interesting.)
   452. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:52 PM (#4290635)
Joe: Certain people here know the proper ASCII codes for letters, so words can be slipped through because the nanny doesn't recognize them.

If you put a &# in front of each of these numbers, it will spell the word out.

109;111;116;104;101;114;102;117;099;107;101;114;

motherf cker
(I've left out u)

You can see them in action by choosing "view source" and searching for "straight shooting".

†§š
   453. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4290636)
Joe: Certain people here know the proper ASCII codes for letters, so words can be slipped through because the nanny doesn't recognize them.

Thanks. That's funny.
   454. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4290637)
If she runs, I don't think she gets the nom. If she gets the Nom, I don't think she'll win.

And your reasoning for thinking this is? I'm curious.


Well, Elizabeth Warren is vile scum.

What did she do? Screw around on consecutive husbands?

Actually, I do wonder where you get "vile scum" from. Is it something more than the native american thing?
   455. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 02, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4290641)
Joe: Certain people here know the proper ASCII codes for letters, so words can be slipped through because the nanny doesn't recognize them.

If you put a &# in front of each of these numbers, it will spell the word out.

109;111;116;104;101;114;102;117;099;107;101;114;

motherf cker
(I've left out u)

You can see them in action by choosing "view source" and searching for "straight shooting".


That seems like an awful lot of work just to circumvent the wishes of the guy who runs the place.
   456. tshipman Posted: November 02, 2012 at 12:09 AM (#4290644)
And your reasoning for thinking this is? I'm curious.


Democrats never nominate someone that old (69 in 2016). In 2016, the country will have had two terms of a D president and generally that motivates Republicans to stop being nutters.


That story about the Secret Service guy is sad.

The Democrats have an uphill battle in 2016 if only because of the economic record they are going to inherit. Growth is going to be significantly compromised as the US begins to deal with trillion dollar budget deficits and an aging population.


This is almost entirely backwards. By 2016, no matter who is elected, the economy will be much better than it is today. The economy is likely to be a tailwind for whoever is the incumbent.
   457. Lassus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 12:24 AM (#4290648)
Democrats never nominate someone that old (69 in 2016). In 2016, the country will have had two terms of a D president and generally that motivates Republicans to stop being nutters.

Fair enough. I don't think the age thing is going to do it, though. I think women age better and I think that absolutely no one at that point will be a better Demo candidate. Things never happen until they do.
   458. robinred Posted: November 02, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4290656)
HRC is very popular with many parts of the Latino voting base, (she beat Obama handily in CA and in Texas in 2008) and the country is getting older by the minute, and I don't think being 69 years old and running for POTUS will be a negative. That is not to say that she will be the nom, but I do think that there is a very good chance that of it happening.
   459. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 12:45 AM (#4290659)
I just don't think she's a very good politician. That's why I don't think she'll get the nomination. Someone in her position never should have been beaten by a nobody like Obama.
   460. Tilden Katz Posted: November 02, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4290663)
Hilary lost because she voted for the Iraq adventure and Obama had his 2003 speech that gave him early cred among the anti-war left. In 2016 Iraq will (hopefully) be well in the rear view mirror. The nomination will be hers if she wants it, unless Obama gets blown out on Tuesday and everyone associated with his administration is tainted. But I don't see that as being very likely.

Does anyone have any predictions for a potential Obama or Romney Cabinet?
   461. robinred Posted: November 02, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4290664)
I think her image is better now than it was in 2008, and I also think that you are not giving Obama enough credit. He is not as gifted a pol/communicator IMO as Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, but he is a very good one, gives excellent speeches, he has a great backstory, and his campaigns have mostly been disciplined and effective. Simply making the decision to run rather than wait, in and of itself, shows some political acumen.

HRC is not charismatic, but she has other things to sell, and will be the logical candidate if Obama is re-elected. If the Dems are trying to unseat Romney, then they will likely want a fresher face.
   462. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 01:02 AM (#4290665)
This Sean Hannity is really shameless. He comes on screen talking about the traffic and gas lines and food problems and power outages, and then says "Amidst all of this, where is Obama? After his photo-op with Christie and the help of your tax dollars, he boards AF1 and he begins a stump speech in WI. From there he flew to Las Vegas. And his final event is getting underway in Colorado. And when that concludes he plans to stay the night not in the northeast but in Ohio. And with the horrifying images of Sandy's devastation now contrasted with the president's constant campaigning, this is starting to look like in my opinion Obama's Katrina."

Does Hannity know - he must - that Bloomberg asked Obama to stay away from NYC so that the city could focus on recovering? Hannity: "There is no help coming in at all?" What? Of course there is. And the federal government has been helping. Seriously, Sean, STFU.

(No, I am not becoming a liberal. But sometimes - ever so infrequently - the liberals are correct.)
   463. robinred Posted: November 02, 2012 at 01:04 AM (#4290666)
If Nate was behind the curve in reading the tea leaves in 2010, then I have no idea why people are so confident in his abilities to do so in an election as close as 2012's.


In part because his model nailed the last Presidential Election, and 2010 was not a presidential election.

I disagree with zop on most things, but I think that his questions about Silver's model were reasonable, and I also think that zop's statement about the quality of Silver's model relative to the other ones was reasonable. Like I said, if Silver were telling me that Romney was in command in the election, I wouldn't like it, but I would tend to believe it.
   464. zonk Posted: November 02, 2012 at 01:45 AM (#4290675)

(No, I am not becoming a liberal. But sometimes - ever so infrequently - the liberals are correct.)


Dammit... I told the lab 10cc's would only bring occasional and momentary clarity! But, noooo... they're all worried about the 'health' of the treatment group.
   465. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:49 AM (#4290686)
To the surprise of no sentient beings,

GOP kills official report finding tax cuts for rich don’t boost growth
here

I still think Romney bought off all the competent Republican challengers.
Weird, wasn't it? I realize that for the Republican party as currently constituted it would be inherently contradictory for it to nominate a smart, sensible, grounded, intelligent candidate for national office, but the field was astoundingly bad. The 'idiot of the week' primaries would have been hilarious if not for that whole 'leader of the free world' thing lurking in the background.

@375--FTFA linked, "Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report stayed nonpartisan but doled out the same advice. "The intensity has switched to the other side," Cook explained. That said, Silver acknowledged that 2012 is looking pretty good for President Obama. Why? Because the Republicans might be "stupid enough to nominate, say, Sarah Palin," said Silver."

And might very well have delivered them six in a row without Watergate, given Carter's narrow win in spite of having every advantage. The demographic shifts are the only thing that's currently predictable about 2016's political landscape, and if the Republicans ever start emulating Bush's immigration views instead of Sheriff Arpaio's, even that may not mean that much in the long run.
Fortunately for the Dems, a self-destructive immigration policy seems pretty well baked into the current RepubTea Party. I'm having a tough time imagining the far right, which now controls the party, letting a nominee sneak through who isn't repugnant to a significant majority of Latinos.

Lost the link, but Politico, I think, was reporting that Latinos appear fired up about this election. Good news.


   466. Tripon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:55 AM (#4290687)
Just voted, (well, just filled out my absentee ballot, will send it in the morning.) Won't matter much since I'm in Southern California, but at least as always, there's a dozen of ballot props that have no business being directly voted on, and should have been handled in the state legislature. As is tradition.
   467. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:31 AM (#4290689)
.
People posting on the problem of the EC distorting representation might find Chris Hayes's show from Oct. 28th of interest. "What if Ohio were the Bronx?"

Hayes does on occasion waste time with a token wingnut, who dribbles a bit in the segment following on how the EC isn't the most important issue facing the country, after all, and that we've only had issues three times with contradictions between the EC and the popular vote (as though that was somehow a redeeming quality), and anyway, what's really wrong with disproportionate representation? Still, given the skin-deep analysis of most cable shows, Hayes is pretty good. Republicans are right, from their point of view, to reject proposals to change the EC, or to institute a nationwide motor voter law, or make contemporaneous registering for draft with registering to vote. If those things happened, and despite some posts, above, the GOP as the true minority party at the national level would become undeniably manifest.

Hayes is originally from the Bronx and in the linked segment does a nice bit on what a Presidential campaign would look like if the candidates had to deal with the needs of Bronx residents the way it does now with the needs of Ohio residents. Hayes also recalls that Obama's handling of the auto industry's problems has its root in Bush giving out some panicked loans to Detroit in the waning days of his Presidency, which I had forgotten. Credit where it's due, and it'll be a pleasure to think that Bush helped pave the way for Obama's re-election.

edit: To CraigMN re post 440--how far down are you counting votes, and can you link to a source? (I'm wondering if I'm missing something clearly implicit, like your count includes the Presidential and all Congressional races or, based on the years you give, something else...).
   468. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:01 AM (#4290691)
As an aside, it's beyond bizarre to me that given all energy the Republican party has spent on supressing Democratic votes, the Democratic party hasn't tripled that on enfranchising (at a minimum) nonviolent felons, passing motor voter laws in every state they can, making voter registration a wonderful civic moment in every high school in the country on a given day in September, and so on. Universal, automatic registration would give the country a nice, hard shove to the left that would correct the artificial, rightward cast we've taken on as a result of not actually wanting anything like maximum voter turnout.

I'm not so naive as to think that there aren't Democratic politicians benefitting from limiting the franchise, but you'd think maximizing registration is something the bulk of the party could get behind, particularly when it renders the opposition, unless it changes dramatically, the pronouned minority party on the national level, and would very likely tip several swing states from neutral or lean Democratic to, say, where Minnesota and Oregon currently are.

edit: NC, NH, WI, and NV have Dems in charge of elections for those states. VA, OH, FL, PA, CO, MI, and IA have Repubs at the top. From memory that's 35 versus 111. Ouch.
   469. Jim Wisinski Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:11 AM (#4290692)
Won't matter much since I'm in Southern California, but at least as always, there's a dozen of ballot props that have no business being directly voted on, and should have been handled in the state legislature. As is tradition.


I filled out my absentee ballot the other day. Other than voting for President, US Senate, and US Rep. the only other choices I made on my ballot were to vote against every constitutional amendment (Florida's version of ballot propositions). The other time I voted, in 2006, I did however choose to vote yes on one amendment.....it was the amendment to change the requirement for future amendments to 60% approval instead of just 50 (it passed).

I believe that was the same election that resulted in Florida's constitution, the framework of government for the state, mandating a ####### high-speed train.
   470. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 02, 2012 at 08:20 AM (#4290702)
And with the horrifying images of Sandy's devastation now contrasted with the president's constant campaigning, this is starting to look like in my opinion Obama's Katrina.


I was expecting this from the nutters on the right. The moment there would be any devastation shown on the TV screens and it couldn't be cleaned up within a day or two, they'd immediately start trying to compare it to Katrina.

It sounds like Hannity wouldn't have been happy unless Obama was actually spending a couple of days grabbing a shovel and digging.
   471. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 08:24 AM (#4290704)
Staten Island seems to be in bad shape but it seems to me that their bad shape is more of the we ain't doing nothing about it and what everyone else to save us kind of bad shape. I'm sure that isn't totally true but there really should be no real reason why residents of Staten Island are in such dire straits several days after the storm.
   472. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 08:27 AM (#4290705)
This Sean Hannity is really shameless.

...

(No, I am not becoming a liberal. But sometimes - ever so infrequently - the liberals are correct.)
I didn't think you were. Sean Hannity is dumb as a bucket of tar. There is nothing partisan about noting that he's wrong - if he ever make an argument in favor of something leftish, I can pretty much guarantee he'd be wrong. He's shudderingly stupid.
   473. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 08:35 AM (#4290707)
Jobs report in: 171K added, 7.9% unemployment.

   474. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 08:38 AM (#4290709)
It sounds like Hannity wouldn't have been happy unless Obama was actually spending a couple of days grabbing a shovel and digging.


Doesn't this just prove Obama is too much of an elitist snob to do physical labor?
   475. DA Baracus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 08:43 AM (#4290711)
Doesn't this just prove Obama is too much of an elitist snob to do physical labor?


I think he did enough growing up in Kenya.
   476. DA Baracus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 08:45 AM (#4290713)
   477. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4290727)
Twice as many Americans self-identify as conservative than as liberal. This has been true for years, if not decades.


But the most conservative part of the electorate (older whites) is dying off, to be replaced in great part by the least conservative part (younger minorities).


I doubt it's even a demographics thing, so much as a "what are the cool kids doing" thing. Americans self-identifying as "conservatives" rather than "liberals" is akin to voter ID in the run-up to elections. Americans have self-identified as conservatives for the last few decades because "conservatism" was ascendant post-Reagan. In a hypothetical reality where two Obama terms is followed by an HRC term, coinciding with generally positive events for most Americans over the course of that time, the people will identify as "liberals" so long as Obama and HRC identify themselves as such.

The voter ID follows the trend as a trailing indicator.
   478. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:27 AM (#4290730)
Is there good data that the "young" tend to be more liberal? I'm at a fairly unusual college so I'm willing to be wrong, but the college age kids today tend to be far to the right of the faculty (yes, leaving myself completely open here) on everything but gay-marriage. They're very in favor of gay-marriage but generally pro-life.
   479. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4290735)
I doubt it's even a demographics thing, so much as a "what are the cool kids doing" thing. Americans self-identifying as "conservatives" rather than "liberals" is akin to voter ID in the run-up to elections.
I think it's an entirely real demographic issue. Look, for example, at the Tea Party and compare them to any base-mobilization movement on the left of the last 50 years. There are just a whole lot more Americans on the far right than there are on the far left. It's not primarily a matter of strategy - the Tea Party was able to seize control of the party apparatus because they constitute a huge percentage of GOP primary voters. There isn't an ideological class on the left of nearly comparable size. We need to do real work changing minds (and organizing workers!) to move the country to the left.
   480. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:44 AM (#4290737)
I think it's an entirely real demographic issue. Look, for example, at the Tea Party and compare them to any base-mobilization movement on the left of the last 50 years. There are just a whole lot more Americans on the far right than there are on the far left. It's not primarily a matter of strategy - the Tea Party was able to seize control of the party apparatus because they constitute a huge percentage of GOP primary voters.


Meh. Run a white candidate on the exact same platform as Barack Obama and the Tea Party doesn't exist.
   481. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:44 AM (#4290738)
Is there good data that the "young" tend to be more liberal? I'm at a fairly unusual college so I'm willing to be wrong, but the college age kids today tend to be far to the right of the faculty (yes, leaving myself completely open here) on everything but gay-marriage. They're very in favor of gay-marriage but generally pro-life.

The problem is that self-definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are pretty much meaningless unless they're tied to specific issues. Young people have certainly favored Obama both this time and last time, but maybe that's because they realize that Obama really isn't as much of a liberal boogeyman as the right wing tries to portray him. Or maybe the conservatives just creep them out on overall aesthetic grounds that have nothing to do with any real ideology. How many Rush Limbaughs or Todd Akins does it take to make young people wonder what "conservatism" is really all about?
   482. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:44 AM (#4290739)
I think that's partly of function of where you teach, bunyon, and partly about the kind of person that enters academia.
   483. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4290741)
MCoA, I don't really disagree with your post in 479, but I would say that -


Never mind, you say move to the left. I was just going to point out that what I think needs to be avoided is an all-out move to the far right. I don't think you can make the US a left-leaning country. I don't think, overall, we lean to far right but, if there is a lean, it is in that direction. I know others here disagree but I'm not sure how they come to their conclusion.


I missed the discussion on small state v. big state last night. Someone sort of floated the idea (or I took it that way) that just having electors be based on the House would be a good tweak. I do think small states have gathered too much power but a straight up democratic vote would leave them with too little. Tossing the two EC based on the senate would move it back some. This election, for instance, would be over.

However, I have no idea how you pull that off. The big states would have to give the small states something - and, really, the Ds would have to give the Rs something - and it would have to be big enough for them to cede so much.
   484. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:47 AM (#4290744)
I think that's partly of function of where you teach, bunyon, and partly about the kind of person that enters academia.

Certainly possible. I hope so, at any rate. While I'm hardly a liberal*, the conservative bent of our students is really disturbing to me sometimes.


* The "liberal academic" tends to be in the humanities. I find the science faculty to have a lot of conservatives, if not religious conservatives.
   485. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:49 AM (#4290746)
Is there good data that the "young" tend to be more liberal?


If self-identification means anything, according to Pew in 2010, Millenials (born in or after 1981) are the group most likely to self-identify as liberal: 29% compared to 28% self-IDing as conservative. For Gen Xers it is 38/20 cons, for Boomers, 43/18 cons. Source: http://www.denverpost.com/opinionheadlines/ci_14472645.

Of course, to me, the fact that in the "best" demographic group the self-ID was still only 29-28 is further evidence that Reagan et al were masterful in winning the discourse war - and that their gains have not really been eroded all that much.
   486. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4290749)
Is there good data that the "young" tend to be more liberal?
Yes, the "Millenial" generation has views much further to the left than the country, not only on social issues, but also on economics and the role of government. (It is true, as you note, that views on abortion do not seem to differ too much between Millenials and older generations, but that's very much the exception.)

harvard's Institute of Politics has been polling Millenials pretty regularly - here's their most recent poll. Millenials not only support Obama more than the national average, they also have more left-wing beliefs about the role of government in providing health care (+20 for government-funded universal health care), for instance. Millenials identity as "liberals" far more heavily than any other generation.

   487. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 09:53 AM (#4290750)
Of course, to me, the fact that in the "best" demographic group the self-ID was still only 29-28 is further evidence that Reagan et al were masterful in winning the discourse war - and that their gains have not really been eroded all that much.

Totally agree.

I don't see enough of a cross-section to know, but am under the impression that young people are less "liberal" than they were when I was that age, with the exception of a few issues (gay rights, environmental stuff in particular).
   488. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4290758)
Here it is, the humongous Pew poll on Millennials from 2010, that's what I was looking for. They divide the generations into "Millennial" (18-29), "Gen X" (30-45), "Boomer" (46-64), and "Silent" (65+).

Government should do more / do less to solve problems:

Mill: 53/42
GenX: 45/47
Boom: 43/50
Old: 39/47

Obama job approval:

Mill: 57
GenX: 49
Boom: 49
Old: 39

Liberal / Conservative:

Mill: 29/28
GenX: 20/38
Boom: 18/43
Old: 15/45

As context, 15 years ago, when the GenX'ers were the age of the Millennials, they identified as about 23/35 Liberal / Conservative.

The biggest finding from the Pew poll is that Millennials are also much more politically engaged that most young generations, and they are more civically and community minded, much more involved in community service and the like. They're pretty great.
   489. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4290764)
Rasmussen now has the race in a dead heat, and the RCP average now has Obama inched up to 0.3, a gain of 2.0 since October 13th. The only recent national poll that shows Romney ahead is Gallup. Gallup stopped polling after last Sunday, and from what I can infer from a statement they issued yesterday, they won't post any more horse race results until the day before the election.

Gallup will resume daily tracking of President Barack Obama’s job approval rating on Monday, Nov. 5, and will post the first post-storm three-day rolling average on Thursday, Nov. 8.

Gallup plans to resume interviewing on election issues Thursday, Nov. 1 through Sunday, Nov. 4, to provide a final pre-election estimate of the presidential race along with attitudes about the candidates and election issues, while continuing to assess the impact of superstorm Sandy on these political measures.
   490. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:11 AM (#4290766)
Thanks, MCoA.
   491. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4290769)
Jobs report in: 171K added, 7.9% unemployment.
Ballgame.
   492. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4290770)
Proof of right-wing bias at the BLS: they under-counted August job growth by nearly 100,000 jobs.

Or maybe they're just good public servants doing their best with a difficult task.
   493. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4290771)
Jobs report in: 171K added, 7.9% unemployment.

Ballgame.


I can't keep track of who is R and who D on the board, but I don't think anyone should be calling ballgame.

Obviously, someone will win and the folks that predicted it will crow. But, though signs lean toward Obama, I don't think it is nearly clear enough for anyone to say it's over.
   494. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4290772)
Another problem with self-ID polls is that they are implicitly self-define polls. If you interview 1000 people, and 290 of them identify as liberal, then there are probably somewhere between 29 and 145 different ideas of what "liberal" means involved. And when trying to look at generational trends, you're implicitly dealing with generational differences in definitions. "Liberal" has a very different meaning to my father than it does to my daughter.
   495. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4290773)
Whoo - Mourdock down 11 points.

Tea Party-backed Senate candidates who lost (or appear about to lose):
Mourdock
Akin
O'Donnell
Angle
Buck
   496. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4290774)
I don't think, overall, we lean to far right but, if there is a lean, it is in that direction. I know others here disagree but I'm not sure how they come to their conclusion.
The major ideological peculiarity of the US, through the 19th into the 20th century, is the generalized failure of the far left. We've never had a real socialist alternative, and the gains made by unions and organized labor in the first half of the century were beaten back far more effectively (starting with Taft-Hartley) than in Europe. I don't know that the median American leans left or right so much, but the American left is made up much more heavily of squishy center-left folks than the right is made up of their equivalent squishes.
   497. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4290775)
I can't keep track of who is R and who D on the board, but I don't think anyone should be calling ballgame.
R.
   498. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4290776)
Another problem with self-ID polls is that they are implicitly self-define polls. If you interview 1000 people, and 290 of them identify as liberal, then there are probably somewhere between 29 and 145 different ideas of what "liberal" means involved. And when trying to look at generational trends, you're implicitly dealing with generational differences in definitions. "Liberal" has a very different meaning to my father than it does to my daughter.
I guess, but this is incredibly consistent across a huge range of polls. I think it's verging into poll-truther territory to deny that the country has significantly fewer ideological leftists than ideological rightists.
   499. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4290777)
Is there good data that the "young" tend to be more liberal?


Depends on what you mean.

From what I have read, young people tend to self-identify as liberal more often, tend to be more liberal socially, but there's also broad support among the younger generation for right-of-center economic views such as privatization (or a "private option") for Social Security and reduction of the size and role of government.

-- MWE
   500. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4290778)
I don't think anyone should be calling ballgame.


The real question is who's calling "next". It's all about the (2016) horse race.
Page 5 of 114 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3960 - 7:43pm, Jul 31)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr., on standing pat at deadline
(5 - 7:43pm, Jul 31)
Last: jdennis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1058 - 7:41pm, Jul 31)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogMinnesota Twins sign Kurt Suzuki to two-year contract extension
(1 - 7:40pm, Jul 31)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogYankees land infielders Stephen Drew, Martin Prado at Deadline
(7 - 7:39pm, Jul 31)
Last: bigglou115

NewsblogHardball Talk: Calcaterra: Nationals-Orioles TV Money Dispute about to Explode
(24 - 7:39pm, Jul 31)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(549 - 7:32pm, Jul 31)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-31-2014
(19 - 7:30pm, Jul 31)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogBrewers acquire outfielder Gerardo Parra from D-backs
(3 - 7:27pm, Jul 31)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogTigers To Acquire David Price
(59 - 7:25pm, Jul 31)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogMarlins acquire Jarred Cosart from Astros in six-player deal
(1 - 7:13pm, Jul 31)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(17 - 7:07pm, Jul 31)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogCardinals Acquire John Lackey
(89 - 7:03pm, Jul 31)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogWhy the Mets Are Right to Save the New York State Pavilion
(16 - 7:03pm, Jul 31)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogJULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(334 - 7:00pm, Jul 31)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

Page rendered in 0.9749 seconds
52 querie(s) executed