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.

That was the last younger generation. The Millennials are quite different from Generation X on this front, and tend toward a much more classical lefty appreciation of government. (See the Pew and IoP polls I linked on the last page.)

Whoo - Mourdock down 11 points.

One can only hope; Mourdock is not especially well-liked by the "old school" Republicans here in Indiana, which has to be hurting him. He has made a lot of enemies statewide due to his abrasive personality and his tendency to stick his foot into his mouth, and here in Evansville, Mourdock's hometown, the Republican mayor has not said one word in favor of his candicacy, at least as far as I can tell.

I'm expecting at least one of Mourdock/Akin to win. I think there's going to be a real effect where people are ashamed to tell pollsters they're voting for the rape guy. Call it the Brad-lady Effect. Or something cleverer.

(The outlying, humongous portion of the Indiana electorate in that poll who claim to be undecided or voting Libertarian - nearly 1 in 5 likely voters - suggests to me that people just don't want to tell the pollster that they're Mourdock voters.)

[quote I think it's verging into poll-truther territory to deny that the country has fewer ideological leftists than ideological rightists.

Sure. Not what I was trying to say. If anything, sort of the opposite: maybe the 18-29's ID as lefty-er in part because the center has moved quite a bit to the right.

Still waiting for the grown-ups in the GOP (or the Big Money) to tell the Tea Partiers, "You jackasses cost us the Senate."

Sure. Not what I was trying to say. If anything, sort of the opposite: maybe the 18-29's ID as lefty-er in part because the center has moved quite a bit to the right.

I think this is what I feel. A kid thinks, "I don't oppose gay-marriage and I favor planning for climate change. Thus, I am a liberal."

But, as others have pointed out, while I have a lot of interaction with the 17-24 crowd, that crowd is quite self-selected and peculiar.

This is what a good jobs report looks like.

A pretty good headline number, and then 80K more jobs in revisions. This is not a great jobs report by any stretch, but this is the kind of report that we've been needing.

(you'll note that I don't find the headline number to be particularly relevant)

The lean toward the right in general isn't just explained by Reagan. Yes, he very successfully presented himself and his views (or what he claimed his views were), but once the Democrats, and specifically the Democratic left (or New Left) beginning in the late '60s decided to #### on white people and white mainstream culture, it was just a matter of time and organization before the chickens came home to roost. You can't denigrate and disparage and insult 75% of the electorate without paying a price. I think there was an alternative to those New Left policies, but, oh, it feels so good to self-righteously read an entire class the riot act.

Edited for typos

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.

I think one of Obama's strengths is that he is comfortable in his own skin. He's not afraid to be himself on the public stage. It's the whole "likability" issue, which I hate, but it matters. And if I'm being honest with myself, it even matters to me despite my objection to the whole notion that the President should be somebody that you would want to have a beer with. This was a subject of great discussion in 2008, but I think it's been forgotten to an extent.

Ballgame.

Eh. The unemployment rate ticked up. Romney can use that to muddy the waters enough to get to Tuesday. He is actually already doing so. If there was no way to portray the report as negative (or positive), I could see it mattering a bit. But as is, I don't think the report will have any impact on the election.

Interesting take by Charlie Cook. Basically, he argues swing states weren't affected as much by Romney's momentum from the first debate because they had been barraged by attack ads hammering Romney all summer and were therefore less open to embracing Romney's new(old?)found moderate and reasonable persona from the debates.

In the states that have experienced the minimalist campaign, the popular-vote numbers are even or maybe up for Republican nominee Mitt Romney by a bit. For people who live there, the campaign effectively started with the first debate. Many undecided voters were pleasantly surprised by Romney, who presented himself as moderate, reasonable, intelligent, and earnest. He also came across as more of a problem-solver than the ideological robot voters had seen earlier in the campaign through their binoculars.

But for those in the battleground states, who had seen Romney’s head bashed in last summer by the Obama campaign’s attacks on Bain Capital, plant closings, layoffs, outsourcing, and income taxes—not to mention bank accounts in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Switzerland—skepticism has persisted. Much more than in the rest of the country, Romney’s scar tissue continues to get in the way of these swing-state voters fully embracing this new and improved Mitt. Sure, after the debates, particularly the first one, many undecideds moved his way. But the ranks of new Romney supporters are smaller and more hesitant in the swing states than in the other states, where viewers didn’t witness the hits on his image inflicted by President Obama’s campaign and Priorities USA, the leading Democratic super PAC.

The explanation sounds plausible, but it would require the polls of safe states to be overrating Obama by a couple points, so that Romney's post-debate surge would be concentrated in the safe states. Pretty much every theory of this election, before the fact, needs to begin with a claim as to which national race (the one in the national polls, the one in the state polls, or some combination of the two) is being explained.

Cook's theory seems to suggest that Obama is overperforming in the swing states and underperforming in the safe states, and that's not what the state polls show.

EDIT: I changed my argument after I thought about it a little. But I only changed my argument a little.

I'm expecting at least one of Mourdock/Akin to win. I think there's going to be a real effect where people are ashamed to tell pollsters they're voting for the rape guy. Call it the Brad-lady Effect. Or something cleverer.

Oh yea, I think Akin is winning for exactly the reason you state. What will be interesting to see is if abortion gets pushed up by the social conservatives in the GOP. I think the mainstream Republicans would prefer not to talk about it, especially since the new push seems to be against abortion even in the case of rapes (which polls show some 80% of the public wants to allow) But it is firing up that small minority. I was driving today in Kansas, when I saw a car with a KS license plate proudly displaying an Akin bumper sticker, next to their Pro-Life sticker.

Tea Party-backed Senate candidates who lost (or appear about to lose):
Mourdock
Akin
O'Donnell
Angle
Buck

Don't forget Joe Miller, who beat Murkowski in Alaska's GOP primary only to lose to her write-in campaign in the general. (That was technically a "hold" for the GOP, but definitely a rejection of the tea party.) Also that Raese guy who lost to Manchin in the special election in WV (and is about to get pounded by him again).) Of course, Manchin was a popular incumbent governor before he appointed himself to the Senate seat, so he might've won anyway. Rick Berg, who also has extreme anti-abortion views, is vulnerable in NoDak, but it's a GOP-leaning state so he'll probably win, if by a hair. Still, you're right on the general point. Tea party extremism could well have cost the GOP 5 or 6 Senate seats in the last two cycles, which is a huge deal.

Still waiting for the grown-ups in the GOP (or the Big Money) to tell the Tea Partiers, "You jackasses cost us the Senate."

It seems pretty clear they can't, or they would have done so after 2010, when the jackasses very obviously cost them the Senate. The Tea Party is too large, demographically, and too mobilizable, for the Republican Party to buck their interests.

Mourdock, Akin, O'Donnell, Angle, and Buck all won primaries against mainstream GOP politicians. Republican politicians look at those results and think, I've got to do what this movement says.

Obama and Romney are now tied in the Rasmussen nationwide tracker. Hm.

Be interesting to see where Gallup is once they release the results of their post-Sandy reboot.

Be interesting to see where Gallup is once they release the results of their post-Sandy reboot.

I half expect them to just keep it down until the election as a way to give themselves cover in case they're really badly off come Election Day - "boy, Sandy really turned the tide of this election", they can say if Obama wins.

Cook's theory seems to suggest that Obama is overperforming in the swing states and underperforming in the safe states, and that's not what the state polls show.

It's a bit more nuanced than that--he's saying that Obama;s position in swing states is better than his position in non-swing states relative to his positions in those states before the debates.

Silver seems to support this, though it's problematic to look all the way back to June:

The table below lists our projected results in the 18 states (and one Congressional district, in Nebraska) that were predicted to produce a single-digit race as of our original forecast in June. On average, our projection of the popular vote in each state has moved by just one and a half percentage points, in one or another direction, since then.

The change has been especially small in several of the most important battleground states. In June, Mr. Obama was projected to a 3-point lead in Nevada, a 2.3-point lead in Iowa, a 1.3-point lead in Virginia, a 1.1-point lead in Ohio and a 1-point lead in Colorado. The forecast in those states has moved just four-tenths of a point since then, on average; the largest shift has been in Ohio, where Mr. Obama’s polling has been reasonably resilient and he now has a 2.2-point edge.

I half expect them to just keep it down until the election as a way to give themselves cover in case they're really badly off come Election Day - "boy, Sandy really turned the tide of this election", they can say if Obama wins.

From the Gallup website on 10/31:

"Gallup is now tentatively planning on conducting interviewing over the last four days of this week, Thursday through Sunday, to provide a final pre-election estimate of the election race."

Jobs report in: 171K added, 7.9% unemployment.

Ballgame.

I don't think many people vote based on the jobs report. They vote on how the economy feels to them, which the jobs report is an imperfect measure of.

I also think virtually everybody has decided how they're voting already. The needle, wherever it is, is not moving between now and Tuesday.

This is what a good jobs report looks like.

From the guy that told us Obama had a good 1st debate? The unemployment rate went up. It's higher than when Obama took office. Spin to the contrary, this is bad news for the Obama campaign and the country.

It's higher than when Obama took office.

Haha. Nicely spun.

Of course when you look at the actual chart, you'll see that Obama took over when things were pretty much out of his control at that point.

The other option is to look at October only:

Oct 2009: 10.0
Oct 2010: 9.5
Oct 2011: 8.9
Oct 2012: 7.9

I know there are a fair amount of people on this thread from NYC. I'm curious as to their take (and others, too!) on whether the Marathon should go forward as planned. Bloomberg claims that it brings $350M into the local economy and will be a sign of NYC's "tenacity and vitality." Others, including the Manhattan borough President, are concerned that it will further strain already-strained first responder and other resources.

Thoughts?

The unemployment rate went up.

As did the workforce participation rate.

I know there are a fair amount of people on this thread from NYC. I'm curious as to their take (and others, too!) on whether the Marathon should go forward as planned. Bloomberg claims that it brings $350M into the local economy and will be a sign of NYC's "tenacity and vitality." Others, including the Manhattan borough President, are concerned that it will further strain already-strained first responder and other resources.

I am sympathetic with people who want it delayed but I favor running it. I think there's value in holding to stiff upper lip when you can. I even like the pictures of Bowie Kuhn refusing to put on his jacket in that freezing game back in the 80s. The way to make things start feeling back to normal is by doing normal things when you can.

That said, I am sure I would feel differently if I lived in Breezy Point or Staten Island or perhaps even just downtown, as we on the UWS have had power and services throughout.

Staten Island seems to be in bad shape

I think you must have seen some pre-hurricane images of Staten Island.

The lean toward the right in general isn't just explained by Reagan. Yes, he very successfully presented himself and his views (or what he claimed his views were), but once the Democrats, and specifically the Democratic left (or New Left) beginning in the late '60s decided to #### on white people and white mainstream culture, it was just a matter of time and organization before the chickens came home to roost. You can't denigrate and disparage and insult 75% of the electorate without paying a price. I think there was an alternative to those New Left policies, but, oh, it feels so good to self-righteously read an entire class the riot act.

Morty, you know and I know that the idea that "the Democrats...beginning in the late '60s decided to #### on white people and white mainstream culture" is a crock. George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were about as "anti-white" as Pat ####### Boone.

and specifically the Democratic left (or New Left)

Okay, now you're getting somewhere, but even that paints too broad a brush. The real "New Left" sprung up in the early 60's, and was completely different from the violent and nihilistic "New Left" that came along after about 1965 and became the dominant force within the "movement" after 1967-68. The genius of the Republican party was to tie a relatively small violent fringe of the "New New Left" (the urban rioters, and the rioters who rioted against the Democrats during the 1968 convention) around the necks of the entire Democratic Party, and keep it there for years to come. They managed to take a World War II fighter pilot and make him into a virtual traitor, and played upon every racial and cultural resentment imaginable to link the Democrats to everything from urban rioters to serial single mothers. It was a fabulous political achievement, but the underlying message was completely fictional.

I'm expecting at least one of Mourdock/Akin to win. I think there's going to be a real effect where people are ashamed to tell pollsters they're voting for the rape guy

So you mean my longstanding nickname of "Rape Guy" doesn't preclude a career in politics?
EDIT: Joke. Sorry. Just love the idea of a politician known as "the rape guy". Or multiple politicians, as seems to be the case this year. I'm imagining it on T-shirts, stickers, etc.

Ewwww.

I am sympathetic with people who want it delayed but I favor running it. I think there's value in holding to stiff upper lip when you can. I even like the pictures of Bowie Kuhn refusing to put on his jacket in that freezing game back in the 80s.

You're older than you're letting on, Greg. That World Series game you're referring to was in 1976.

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.

And a gain of 0.2 since October 15.

***

R.

"Gold Star" is a Republican? I can't recall a single pro-GOP comment from him (?).

***

O'Donnell, Angle, and Buck all won primaries against mainstream GOP politicians.

If I recall, those were Nate's three misses in 2010.

From exit poll data:

I usually only lurk but I thought this qualifies as an interesting observation regarding the segment of the left that is disappointed with Obama (and in some cases won't vote for him):

"I’ve come to realize that Democratic base consists, and for decades has mostly consisted of two types of people, Spocks and McCoys. Goal driven, policy wonkish, ruthlessly logical people who don’t waste time on what they don’t believe is possible, and erratic, yet often brilliant, people mostly driven by an emotional drive to serve and heal.

Kirk (*cough*JFK*cough*) could unite them and mediate between them and get the best from both of them. But whenever Kirk left Spock in command and things got tense, all the more emotive, irrational human members of the crew would invariably get all restless and insubordinate and annoying because, Spock was busy getting Kirk’s ass out of a crack, generally operating on a plane way above above them, and had neither the time, the talent, nor the inclination to tend to their fee-fees.

Does any of this sound familiar? There’s a reason people call him “our first Vulcan president.” And if the crew of the Enterprise had been half Vulcan, things probably would have gotten just as nasty as they do between “Obots” and “Emocrats” in the blogs whenever Spock was in command."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/11/02/early-morning-open-thread-keep-the-faith/#comment-3914147

These were Nate's three misses in 2010, weren't they?

He missed two in the Senate: Buck and Angle. I believe he had Buck winning by a point or less and he ended up losing by a similar margin. Angle had a legitimate lead in all the polls, so Reid hanging on (and winning fairly comfortably) was a big upset.

Interesting, Danny (#532). I wasn't buying Sam's claim about party ID being a trailing indicator, and that seems to refute it fairly handily.

You're older than you're letting on, Greg. That World Series game you're referring to was in 1976.

Ha! I was born in 71 and grew up in central KY as a Reds fan so the 76 series is the first I remember but I wasn't allowed to watch it. And I had no recollection that Kuhn moment was from then. So I must remember the picture or discussion of it or something.

Morty, you know and I know that the idea that "the Democrats...beginning in the late '60s decided to #### on white people and white mainstream culture" is a crock. George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were about as "anti-white" as Pat ####### Boone.

I know you think that, but I don't. It most certainly did begin with the counterculture, the anti-war movement, draft-evaders, which was interpreted by many as unpatriotic if not treasonous, racial and gender preferences, and a general disdain for mainstream values. Archie Bunker didn't become a sensation because he got his comeuppance. They liked him because of his views. What were McGovern's and Mondale's views on this? How they do with the white voters compared to their opponents.

Okay, now you're getting somewhere, but even that paints too broad a brush. The real "New Left" sprung up in the early 60's, and was completely different from the violent and nihilistic "New Left" that came along after about 1965 and became the dominant force within the "movement" after 1967-68.

Characterize, if you will, those two "New Lefts". How were they different?

Rasmussen now has the race in a dead heat,

Has the UnSkewed guy "unskewed" this result to still show a Romney lead?
If so, what's his logic for that?

"Gold Star" is a Republican? I can't recall a single pro-GOP comment from him (?).

There's a notable distinction between being a Republican and being a sycophant like you, Joe.

He missed two in the Senate: Buck and Angle.

Actually, he missed three, but the third was Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, which was GOP vs. GOP and didn't affect the GOP/Dem balance in the Senate (at least not on paper). I knew Nate only went 2-for-5 in the five most competitive Senate races, but I had forgotten about that odd Alaska write-in race.

I don't know if this has been posted--Silver explains himself at length

If Rasmussen has it as a tie that means it is basically over for Romney.

Busing and affirmative action were two core planks of the late 60s/early 70s Democrats. Both were avowedly anti-white or, at the very least, their goals were deemed sufficiently laudatory that the aspirations of the white people they interfered with and harmed were gleefully cast aside.

With the recent "Black People Should Vote Republican Because of Abraham Lincoln" and "Obama is like Chavez/Castro/Guevara" ads being put on TV, I fully expect the final weekend will end with "Obama is the AntiChrist!" ads.

Looks like another storm could hit the Northeast, possibly on Election Day:

The National Weather Service’s Prediction Center issued a warning for a possible nor’easter, which may hit the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions as early as next Tuesday.

While the storm is not anticipated to be as destructive as Sandy, the prediction center anticipated the storm will “cause light to moderate precipitation around that region of the country” and “produce impacts much less extreme.”

The Washington Post reports that the European Centre Medium Range Forecast (EURO) model, which tracked Sandy over a week before it hit, shows a simulation of the storm that will bring moderate rains and gusty winds in many of the same areas ravaged by the superstorm.

Has the UnSkewed guy "unskewed" this result to still show a Romney lead?
If so, what's his logic for that?

Someone here said yesterday or the day before that the Unskewed guy had made his final predictions for 2012 (including a huge Romney win).

There's a notable distinction between being a Republican and being a sycophant like you, Joe.

In fairness to Joe, I would not have guessed Gold Star was a Republican either.

O'Donnell, Angle, and Buck all won primaries against mainstream GOP politicians.

If I recall, those were Nate's three misses in 2010.

I find it hard to believe he picked O'Donnell to win.

EDIT: I see you corrected yourself in 540.

Someone here said yesterday or the day before that the Unskewed guy had made his final predictions for 2012 (including a huge Romney win).

Right. I even posted about that.
Need. More. Sleep.

I consider myself a Goldwater Republican, and we've been hunted down like Jedi Knights.

it would be nice if they took some of the money they spent on ads in the swings states and maybe used that money to help solves the issues that plague those states.

CIA released their timeline on the consulate attack. The annex was under attack for 11 minutes at around 5:30am.

I consider myself a Goldwater Republican, and we've been hunted down like Jedi Knights.

So...you're either Yoda or Obiwan. Which?

I read on the front page of a newspaper in passing that consumer confidence was higher in October than in any previous month in the past five years. I'm on my phone, so can anyone confirm, or maybe Joe discount?

So, when are you nerds going to stick your necks out and make your predictions, pre-season baseball style?

Potus? How many EV's to the winner?
Senate?
House?

Will we be smoking pot legally out west?

Personally, I have no idea. My WAG--I think Obama wins, Dems get keep the Senate, Repubs keep the house narrowly and no legal marijuana anywhere. Boo!

Goldwater Republicanism, in four points:
1. Efficient government. Figure out what government (at whatever level) should do, and then do it effectively and efficiently. Cutting taxes just to cut taxes is poppycock.
2. Strong, smart national defense. The Powell Doctrine is a great place to start
3. Socially libertarian. I'm not going to flip out over a lesbian couple across town wanting to get married. Also, what a woman wants to do with her womb is none of my business.
4. Deep distrust over religion in politics. Goldwater wanted to kick Falwell in the nuts because the latter whined over Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court.

I assume someone will create a prediction thread on November 5th, and we'll post all the guesses from around the web, and then our own choices.

It should be
Electoral Count
Popular Vote %
Senate Count
House Count

Hopefully someone will compile the list and pull out the BBTF average/median to see if our crowdsourcing results are close.

So...you're either Yoda or Obiwan. Which?

One of the Padawans who escaped after getting a look at Anakin, with that gleam in his eye.

So, when are you nerds going to stick your necks out and make your predictions, pre-season baseball style?

Potus? How many EV's to the winner?
Senate?
House?

Will we be smoking pot legally out west?

Personally, I have no idea. My WAG--I think Obama wins, Dems get keep the Senate, Repubs keep the house narrowly and no legal marijuana anywhere. Boo!

It's funny. I always make a prediction in those preseason threads thinking it really stupid - I don't do much analysis and I'm basically just guessing.

Um, no reason to mention that here, at all.


So:

POTUS: Obama 286 EV, less than 50% popular, no more than 0.2% ahead in the popular vote.
Senate: Dems 51 seats
House: 225 seats
Marijuana: No changes


EDIT: I could be happy writing in Gold Star on Tuesday.

With the recent "Black People Should Vote Republican Because of Abraham Lincoln" and "Obama is like Chavez/Castro/Guevara" ads being put on TV, I fully expect the final weekend will end with "Obama is the AntiChrist!" ads.

"Black people, don't vote! Did you know that in the amount of time it takes to vote you could play three games of pool? Three! Now that's fresh." - Tracy Jordan

We don't need another gorram thread in the sidebar for election predictions, they should absolutely positively be here.

I consider myself a Goldwater Republican, and we've been hunted down like Jedi Knights.

Opposition to civil rights for racial minorities has indeed become a difficult position to hold in this country.

----------

I don't have any faith in my predictions. I don't think I have any more knowledge than the various aggregation models. and even the aggregator models don't agree with each other on some important things. I'm gonna go with there actually being a safe state / swing state divergence driving the polls, but I could easily be wrong. What I like about the swing state / safe state divergence is that it has a plausible narrative. But everything that's going on weird in the polls could just be the normal sort of uncertainty and noise you see in any complex social science problem.

Electoral Vote: Obama 290, Romney 248
Popular Vote: Obama 49, Romney 49
House: God, I have no idea, um, how about a round number, 235 Republicans, 200 Democrats
Senate: Dem 50, Rep 48, Ind 2

EDIT: I could be happy writing in Gold Star on Tuesday.

Thanks!

But you can see why the present-day GOP wants the Jedis dead.

You know, Gold Star - that's a healthy chunk of the left as well. Granted, there may be disagreements as to what gov't can or should do.

Opposition to civil rights for racial minorities has indeed become a difficult position to hold in this country.

Way before my time, and of course I don't oppose civil rights for racial minorities.

You know, Gold Star - that's a healthy chunk of the left as well. Granted, there may be disagreements as to what gov't can or should do.

Oh, I know. But the Jedis and the left are united in believing government has a role to play.

Goldwater Republicanism, in four points:
1. Efficient government. Figure out what government (at whatever level) should do, and then do it effectively and efficiently. Cutting taxes just to cut taxes is poppycock.
2. Strong, smart national defense. The Powell Doctrine is a great place to start
3. Socially libertarian. I'm not going to flip out over a lesbian couple across town wanting to get married. Also, what a woman wants to do with her womb is none of my business.
4. Deep distrust over religion in politics. Goldwater wanted to kick Falwell in the nuts because the latter whined over Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court.

This is moderate Northeastern Republicanism in four points. You're basically in the same boat as Johnny Sycophant. You're a Rockefeller Republican, with a bit more of a left-libertarian streak.

Barry Goldwater was a pure ideologue with no interest in practical questions of "efficient" government.

Morty, you know and I know that the idea that "the Democrats...beginning in the late '60s decided to #### on white people and white mainstream culture" is a crock. George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were about as "anti-white" as Pat ####### Boone.

I know you think that, but I don't. It most certainly did begin with the counterculture, the anti-war movement, draft-evaders, which was interpreted by many as unpatriotic if not treasonous, racial and gender preferences, and a general disdain for mainstream values. Archie Bunker didn't become a sensation because he got his comeuppance. They liked him because of his views. What were McGovern's and Mondale's views on this? How they do with the white voters compared to their opponents.

It's hard to disprove a negative, but aside from a general support for some affirmative action laws (which were enforced by Nixon just as much as by the Democrats when they were in power), what sort of "unpatriotic" or "treasonous" positions would you impute to McGovern, Carter, and / or Mondale? You're talking about two midwestern liberals and a southern Navy man / farmer, two of whom (McGovern and Carter) had been elected in "severely" conservative states. The fact that you seem to associate these three whitebread politicians with anything remotely resembling a lack of patriotism only shows how strong a hold the Republicans' talking points still have in elements of the popular imagination.

Okay, now you're getting somewhere, but even that paints too broad a brush. The real "New Left" sprung up in the early 60's, and was completely different from the violent and nihilistic "New Left" that came along after about 1965 and became the dominant force within the "movement" after 1967-68.

Characterize, if you will, those two "New Lefts". How were they different?

I could write a book on that subject based on firsthand knowledge and observation alone, but I'll try to make it as down and dirty as possible.

The original New Left dates from the first sit-in movement in Greensboro on (to be exact) February 1st, 1960. It began at black colleges, but quickly picked up white sympathizers in the form of support groups and parallel institutions, one of which was SDS. This early New Left was closely associated with nonviolent and political resistance to racist institutions. Its base was within historically black (and heavily Christian) colleges, the southern black churches, and generally pacifist-inclined whites from the North, with a few rather heroic native white southerners like Bob Zellner and Sam Shirah thrown in the mix. This version of the New Left more or less ended with the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the escalation of the war in Vietnam.

The "New New Left" had two somewhat interrelated origins. The first was in the SNCC Waveland (Mississippi) Conference right after the 1964 election. It was there that the tensions between many of the white volunteers and some of the more nationalist-minded black staffers rose to the surface. I was at that conference, and while it ended on a note of official unity, it wasn't hard to tell that the SNCC I'd known wasn't going to be long for the world. The whites started being asked out in 1965 on a gradual basis, and by 1966 the "black power" faction of Stokely Carmichael, Willie Ricks, etc., had taken over completely. Trying to compare the early John Lewis / Charles Sherrod SNCC to the Carmichael / Rap Brown version is like trying to compare the 1997 Marlins to their 1998 counterpart. Only the team name was the same.

The second "New New Left" emerged from the increasing frustration and anger with the Vietnam war, and the rise of black nationalism in SNCC (and its sister organization, CORE) had its parallel in what was going on in SDS. As the war itself escalated in leaps and bounds, a lot of peaceful demonstrations started to give way to far more violent and nihilistic actions, and in classic "Old Left" fashion, SDS started splintering into many different factions, each one more violent and crazy than the one that preceded it. Yada yada yada and by the time it was over, you had the Weathermen, another violent faction called "RYM 2", and a more traditional Marxist faction known as "Progressive Labor", none of whom had anyhing to do with the SDS that began in 1962 as an informal support group for the nonviolent civil rights movement.

Those of us who were in that early movement (my formal participation in first CORE and then SNCC lasted from early 1963 through early 1965, with a more informal and increasingly wary participation in other movements after that) saw what was taking place before our eyes, and we had various responses. Most of us kept participating on a selective basis with whatever nonviolent outlets were being offered. A small number went crazy. And saddest of all, a fairly large number helped to enable the violent types by inventing all sorts of rationalizations and excuses for their actions.

But here's the kicker that relates directly to your point: The anger and the violent rage during the key turning point of that violent period (1967-68) was directed almost exclusively against Democrats---"Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" wasn't aimed at Nixon, and the most violent "white" riot of that entire period was directed at the Democratic convention. It was an extremely complex set of events taking place in a very concentrated time frame, and yet at the end, the Republican narrative had somehow reduced it all to "Democrats = rioting Negroes and hippie traitors". Again, I have to admit a certain amount of perverse admiration for the ongoing success of this Bizarro World framing, variants of which persist right up to the present, in such rhetoric as "givers and takers" and "food stamp president".

Okay, that's not the shortest summary, but it represents the reality of the 60's a lot better than the cartoon versions we usually get from people with no interest in the truth beyond the most cherry-picked versions.

Is this Rockefeller Republicanism? I'm from Arizona, so I've been crediting Goldwater because people knew what I meant.

Barry Goldwater was a pure ideologue with no interest in practical questions of "efficient" government.

This, and the racial minorities part, is where I need to inform people my first presidential election was 1992, and by then an aged Goldwater was much mellower. I believe he was one of the first GOP leaders to say gays in the military were fine - recall his famous comment of "Don't need to be straight; just need to shoot straight." Of course, the state GOP then threatened to take his name off its headquarters building.

Oh, I know. But the Jedis and the left are united in believing government has a role to play.

Exactly. Joooooiiiinnnnn uuuusssss.

(yeah, it's Rockefeller)

Goldwater Republicanism, in four points:
1. Efficient government. Figure out what government (at whatever level) should do, and then do it effectively and efficiently. Cutting taxes just to cut taxes is poppycock.
2. Strong, smart national defense. The Powell Doctrine is a great place to start
3. Socially libertarian. I'm not going to flip out over a lesbian couple across town wanting to get married. Also, what a woman wants to do with her womb is none of my business.
4. Deep distrust over religion in politics. Goldwater wanted to kick Falwell in the nuts because the latter whined over Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court.

Look, Goldwater mellowed in his later years and became every liberal's pet conservative. And with some justification, because of both his personality and his libertarian social views. But when Goldwater the politician was actually running for president, he was well to the right of LBJ on foreign policy, and he voted against the 1964 civil rights bill. All I'm saying is that there's more than one version of "Goldwater Republican".

EDIT: I see that you seem to be acknowledging these points, and I'm not trying to start an argument about it.

P.S. When it came to foreign policy, Nelson Rockefeller was a hawk supreme. And while he supported civil rights bills wholeheartedly, he was also the Governor in charge during Attica.

and he voted against the 1964 civil rights bill.

On libertarian grounds, right?

All I'm saying is that there's more than one version of "Goldwater Republican".

True. And, like I said, I didn't know the 60s radical - I knew the 90s warm and fuzzy. (Well, I also sort of knew the 80s Goldwater, who blew off his last primary, squeaked out a win and then showed up at his "victory" presser drunk and bitter.)

The National Weather Service’s Prediction Center issued a warning for a possible nor’easter, which may hit the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions as early as next Tuesday.

FWIW, Weather Underground and Weather.com are both saying Wednesday, and the NWS prediction has it more a Northeast than a Mid-Atlantic thing. That said, ff it is ahead of schedule and hits New York and New England then it'd increase the chances of Romney winning the popular vote (by suppressing Northeastern vote totals) but it'd be very difficult to imagine it affecting the EC totals. Point is that it would increase the chance of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the election, which would maybe be significant for long-term efforts at changing the voting system.

So, when are you nerds going to stick your necks out and make your predictions, pre-season baseball style?

Potus? How many EV's to the winner?
Senate?
House?

Obama 310 Romney 228. Only swing states I have Romney winning are NC, VA, CO. He might get FL. Don't see him getting any upper midwest or Rust Belt states.

Popular vote: Obama 51% Romney 48%


Senate: 49 Dems 49 GOP 2 IND (both King and Sanders will caucus with Dems though)

-Flake over Carmona (AZ)
-Murphy over McMahon (CT) how is this close?
-Donnelly over Mourdock (IN)
-Warren over Brown (MA)
-King over Summers and Dill (ME)
-Akin over McCaskill (MO)
-Rehberg over Tester (MT)
-Heller over Berkeley (NV)
-Berg over Heitkamp (ND)
-Kaine over Allen (VA)
-Thompson over Baldwin (WI)


Dems pick up 5-7 seats in House.

Goldwater Rockefeller Republicanism, in four points:

1. Efficient government. (Obama 1, Romney 0)
2. Strong, smart national defense. (Obama 2, Romney 0)
3. Socially libertarian. (Obama 4, Romney 0) (counting marriage equality and pro-choice as distinct elements)
4. Deep distrust over religion in politics. (Obama 5, Romney 0)

There quite likely exists a plurality of BTF members (inclusive of regulars to the OTP threads as commenters and lurkers) who would embrace this position. This is why there's so much back and forth over the notion that there's a "BTF liberal groupthink" on most issues. Anything to the economic left of Ray or David, or the social/partisan right of Kehoskie is labeled "liberal."

EDIT: I see that you seem to be acknowledging these points, and I'm not trying to start an argument about it.

"I'm not arguing that with you."

and he voted against the 1964 civil rights bill.

On libertarian grounds, right?

Yes, and Goldwater was one of a tiny handful of CRA opponents who could say that with a straight face. But of course his distinctly non-racist motivations were of scant consolation to the would-be beneficiaries of that bill. In the end, his was just as much of a "no" vote as James Eastland's or Strom Thurmond's.

Gold Star - I apologize for being snarky up there. The rehabilitation of Barry Goldwater has always bugged me, because I think he had a profoundly pernicious influence on American politics. His alliances with white supremacists in the '64 campaign laid the groundwork for the Southern strategy, his mainstreaming of radical right economic ideology paved the way for Paul Ryan and the Rick Santelli wing of the Tea Party, and his batshit nuts "let's lob one at the Kremlin" foreign policy played a part in the growth of the neocon / Team B group that eventually gave us the Iraq War. Being a nice man who said nice things in his old age is nice, but it doesn't really change his legacy. But I should have started with the argument instead of the snark.

I also agree, mostly, with what Goldwater said about Vietnam - or what I've come to understand of it, seeing as how I wasn't there.

My take is he said if we're going in, go all in and win the damned thing. Which got the Daisy commercial. All in all, I think that should be the way we fight wars. If we fight them, it's to the death, spare no one sorts of deals. However, we should only very rarely fight them.

Folks that were there may correct me but I didn't think Goldwater was 100% on going to war in Vietnam. And, of course, in any case, LBJ escalated it anyway but in such a way as to prevent "victory".


I was born almost a decade later though, so what do I know?

This is why there's so much back and forth over the notion that there's a "BTF liberal groupthink" on most issues. Anything to the economic left of Ray or David, or the social/partisan right of Kehoskie is labeled "liberal."

Or maybe it's because Obama beat Romney by like 92-8 in Andy's poll. Just a guess.

This is why there's so much back and forth over the notion that there's a "BTF liberal groupthink" on most issues. Anything to the economic left of Ray or David, or the social/partisan right of Kehoskie is labeled "liberal."

DING DING DING.

But of course his distinctly non-racist motivations were of scant consolation to the would-be beneficiaries of that bill. In the end, his was just as much of a "no" vote as James Eastland's or Strom Thurmond's.

Wouldn't the "consolation" be that he didn't cast his vote for bigoted reasons, unlike other Senators?

This is why there's so much back and forth over the notion that there's a "BTF liberal groupthink" on most issues. Anything to the economic left of Ray or David, or the social/partisan right of Kehoskie is labeled "liberal."

Or maybe it's because Obama beat Romney by like 92-8 in Andy's poll. Just a guess.

And it's just a guess, but maybe that says something about just how far to the right the 2012 GOP has positioned itself.

My take is he said if we're going in, go all in and win the damned thing. Which got the Daisy commercial. All in all, I think that should be the way we fight wars. If we fight them, it's to the death, spare no one sorts of deals. However, we should only very rarely fight them.

Which is why I'm a big fan of the Powell Doctrine - there should be no such thing as a half-assed war. Pissed me off to no end that W's instructions to Americans, during Afghanistan and Iraq, was, essentially, "Go shopping." Uh, no - either this country is at war and so needs to be on a wartime footing, or we're at peace.

And it's just a guess, but maybe that says something about just how far to the right the 2012 GOP has positioned itself.

The conventional wisdom is that independents swing hard against the GOP when it's perceived as being too far right. That doesn't seem to be happening this year, with Romney leading in poll after poll among independents.

But of course his distinctly non-racist motivations were of scant consolation to the would-be beneficiaries of that bill. In the end, his was just as much of a "no" vote as James Eastland's or Strom Thurmond's.

Wouldn't the "consolation" be that he didn't cast his vote for bigoted reasons, unlike other Senators?

If you can explain just how that consolation would have helped a black family keep from being turned away from one establishment after another between Miami and Arlington, Virginia, I'm certainly willing to listen. Those consolations are usually a lot more consoling to people who aren't affected by actual votes like that.

585: the clear message, either from the pols themselves or just if you're paying attention, is that those were two wars that simply didn't need to be fought. If anyone takes offense at my saying, "kill them all" note that I'm not saying kill everyone over minor issues. Just that if it is moral to go to war, it is moral to go after the enemy with all you have. By fighting the "limited" war, we're still killing lots of people, many of them innocent, we're just doing so more slowly, for longer and in such a way that our "way of life" has no chance of succeeding in the area in which we're fighting. It's repugnant.

and he voted against the 1964 civil rights bill.

On libertarian grounds, right?

Yes, and Goldwater was one of a tiny handful of CRA opponents who could say that with a straight face. But of course his distinctly non-racist motivations were of scant consolation to the would-be beneficiaries of that bill. In the end, his was just as much of a "no" vote as James Eastland's or Strom Thurmond's.

Was his opposition to Brown v. Board also on libertarian grounds?

Consumer Confidence Rises to Highest Level in 2012

Says Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board: “The Consumer Confidence Index increased again in October and is now at its highest level this year. Consumers were considerably more positive in their assessment of current conditions, with improvements in the job market as the major driver. Consumers were modestly more upbeat about their financial situation and the short-term economic outlook, and appear to be in better spirits approaching the holiday season.”

Consumers’ assessment of current conditions improved in October. Those claiming business conditions are “good” rose to 16.5 percent from 15.3 percent, while those saying business conditions are “bad” edged down to 33.1 percent from 33.8 percent. Consumers’ appraisal of the labor market was also more positive. Those stating jobs are “plentiful” increased to 10.3 percent from 8.1 percent, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” declined to 39.4 percent from 40.7 percent.

Consumers were generally more optimistic about the short-term outlook in October. Those anticipating an improvement in business conditions over the next six months increased to 21.4 percent from 17.9 percent. However, those expecting business conditions to worsen edged up to 15.1 percent from 14.5 percent.

Bunyon - do you believe that there is no such thing as jus in bello? That a declaration of war is tantamount to a justification of genocide?

I assume that you don't actually believe that. I assume that you believe that only actions proportionate to the aim are justified. Which puts you right back in the camp of limited war. doesn't it?

Wouldn't the "consolation" be that he didn't cast his vote for bigoted reasons, unlike other Senators?

That's the type of consolation that causes people to riot.

Obama:
ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, NY, PA, VA, oH, MI, WI, IL, IA, MN, NM, NV, WA, OR, CA = 294

Romney:
WV, KY, IN, TN, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, AR, LA, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, WY, MT, ID, UT, CO, AZ = 244

I don't really know enough about the Senate or House contests to render a reasonable prediction.

The conventional wisdom is that independents swung hard against the GOP when it's perceived as being too far right. That doesn't seem to be happening this year, with Romney leading in poll after poll among independents.

So according to RCP, the race is now essentially tied.

Romney is holding fast among Republicans to a greater extent that Obama is among Democrats.

Romney is leading in "poll after poll" among independents.

And yet you feel compelled to "unskew" every poll that shows a greater number of Democrats being polled than Republicans.

Sorry, but something in your various positions here doesn't quite add up. A majority of independents + a greater majority of declared partisans + a roughly equal number of Republicans to Democrats doesn't add up to a tied race. Unless, of course, you're now saying that RCP is somehow skewing its findings towards Obama-----Which would seem like a strange thing for an outfit founded by "Christian conservatives" to be doing, but whatever.

Or maybe it's because Obama beat Romney by like 92-8 in Andy's poll. Just a guess.

Considering the fact that Barack Obama is for all intents and purposes a Rockefeller Republican in all but name...

Was his opposition to Brown v. Board also on libertarian grounds?

It was on the grounds of the Supreme Court's "usurpation" of matters that he said should have been left to the states. Again, very high-minded in theory, but of little consolation in practice to the black residents of those affected states.

Obviously BTF leans left, politically.

That doesn't make right-wingers or Republicans into a persecuted minority, but it's pretty clear from our demographics.

If you can explain just how that consolation would have helped a black family keep from being turned away from one establishment after another between Miami and Arlington, Virginia, I'm certainly willing to listen. Those consolations are usually a lot more consoling to people who aren't affected by actual votes like that.

Barry Goldwater wasn't turning those people away from establishments. Southern crackers were.

Uh, no - either this country is at war and so needs to be on a wartime footing, or we're at peace.

One of the many odd features of the war-but-not-really we've been in under Bush & Obama: we didn't declare war, but we're "at war," so the President gets war powers, and the military's budget always needs to go up, and you should go shopping!

It was on the grounds of the Supreme Court's "usurpation" of matters that he said should have been left to the states. Again, very high-minded in theory, but of little consolation in practice to the black residents of those affected states.

Whatever else you may say about this, that is not the position of a man who believes in pragmatic determinations of "efficient" government.