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 7 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›
   601. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4290996)
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.


People who want to deny rights to people, but don't want to be tarnished with the cooties of their compatriots who OPENLY deny rights to people, always hide behind "states' rights," wherein it's okay if the various states deny rights to the people, because STRAWBERRIES AND ICE CREAM AND KITTENS!!!
   602. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4290997)
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.

Barry Goldwater didn't segregate the schools either.

(Nor for that matter did Brown and its enforcement mechanisms desegregate them. They're still very segregated. I'm not going to bother looking up exact figures, but they're likely just as segregated now as they've been in 40 years.)
   603. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4290999)
Obviously BTF leans left, politically.


Obviously BTF stands to the left of doctrinaire libertarian economic theory (Randianism) and Tea Party social throwbackism. I will not acquiesce to this being labeled "leans left, politically."
   604. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4291000)
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.


And as Jerry Seinfeld so eloquently would have put it, "That's a shame."
   605. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4291001)
(Nor for that matter did Brown and its enforcement mechanisms desegregate them. They're still very segregated. I'm not going to bother looking up exact figures, but they're likely just as segregated now as they've been in 40 years.)


Hell, in rural GA in the 1980s, my home county ran TWO SEPARATE BUSES on each route. There was a *scandal* in the late 80s when the Board of Ed finally decided to "mix" the "black and white buses" together.
   606. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4291002)
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.

It does if way too many Dems are being passed through the LV screens. This week's Quinnipiac polls, for example, apparently passed 99 percent of respondents through its LV screen. I'm quite sure we're not going to get 99 percent turnout this year.
   607. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4291003)
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?


I think war should only be about survival.* If you're fighting for survival, and it takes genocide to survive, then, yes, I believe that genocide is justified.

I don't necessarily think one should jump straight to that. If you can achieve the aim without committing genocide, you should. I read the modern interpretatino of "limited war" as there is a line that we will not cross. So, if we can't win without crossing the line, the only moral thing is to retreat or cross. It is immoral, IMO, for us to fight a war that we can neither win nor lose at some arbitrary level. If we aren't willing to cross that initial line, we should retire from the conflict.

So, sure, I'm in favor of limited war in the sense that the first move of the action shouldn't be genocide. If we can win, quickly, with a small detachment of soldiers, great. But war is inherently about killing and holding land. If we aren't willing to do those things, we shouldn't do them. I think Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are about as close as you can get to the platonic ideal of immoral war. Just enough aggression to kill a bunch of people and bring misery for years on end but not enough to be decisive. It has drained our treasury for no good end.


Thought experiment: if in 2003 we had good intel that Hussein was at a bar in Baghdad, instead of sending in special forces, we simply target that area with a 25 kiloton bomb. We get him and kill 125,000 folks in Baghdad. More or less moral than what we've done up to now in Iraq?

Please note: I'm not saying we SHOULD have done this. Just that there is every chance that such an action actually would have been less painful for Iraq (and the US) than what we actually have done. What we should have done is hold the status quo, which was doing plenty to keep the guy in check.



Long answer: I don't support genocide and I think one should do one's best to limit action to the aim. But I think we shouldn't kill people for diplomatic or political aims.


* Practically, since most nations, certainly big, powerful nations, fight wars for diplomatic and political reasons, no, I don't think we should be committing genocide just because.
   608. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4291004)
And as Jerry Seinfeld so eloquently would have put it, "That's a shame".

So if you support the rights of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie (*), you're a Neo-Nazi?

We're back again to the modern liberal logical fallacy. Supporting someone's right to do something you find distasteful is an unmistakable sign of tolerance and the proper way to function in a pluralist society. The modern liberal simply has no conception of this truism. Which is bad enough in itself; that they have expropriated the mantle of "tolerance" is worse.

(*) As the Supreme Court has done.
   609. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4291005)
Thought experiment: if in 2003 we had good intel that Hussein was at a bar in Baghdad, instead of sending in special forces, we simply target that area with a 25 kiloton bomb. We get him and kill 125,000 folks in Baghdad. More or less moral than what we've done up to now in Iraq?
Obviously worse. Think about this for a second - with just about the entire Iraqi state apparatus wiped out, wouldn't the suddenly anarchic Iraq have become even more of a disaster area than it became after the (indeed awful) US invasion? That's a recipe for Somalia, and you murdered 125,000 to produce it.
   610. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4291006)
(Nor for that matter did Brown and its enforcement mechanisms desegregate them. They're still very segregated. I'm not going to bother looking up exact figures, but they're likely just as segregated now as they've been in 40 years.)
My inner-city Phoenix high school (40% white, 40% Hispanic, 20% A-A) had de facto segregation: White kids in the Honors classes, everyone else in the non-Honors classes. This was 1984-88.
   611. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4291008)
Hell, in rural GA in the 1980s, my home county ran TWO SEPARATE BUSES on each route. There was a *scandal* in the late 80s when the Board of Ed finally decided to "mix" the "black and white buses" together.

Georgia could always secede and leave the rest of us in peace. We've been cleaning up their messes for 150 years now. We're rather tired of making national policy based on the reptilian actions of a rump of backwoods crackers.
   612. spike Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4291009)
51%, 332 EV, 53 D Senate
   613. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4291011)
Obviously worse. Think about this for a second - with the entire Iraqi state apparatus wiped out, wouldn't the suddenly anarchic Iraq have become even more of a disaster area than it became after the (indeed awful) US invasion? That's a recipe for Somalia, and you murdered 125,000 to produce it.

Hussein held the place together. There was no getting rid of Hussein and installing a single stable government. We still haven't done this. And we've murdered 125,000 (or so) people to produce it. However, it wouldn't have been Somalia. The major factions were pretty well organized with well developed systems outside Baghdad. Iraq would have fragmented and there would have been a civil war. But that was happening however we got rid of Hussein. (as it did, in fact, happen).


EDIT: Which is why the invasion was lunacy to begin with. There was NO stable government coming unless we installed a military governor with iron-clad powers such that the current US simply doesn't have the stomach to do. I'm talking rule like Saddam kind of governing. Too many well armed factions with legitimate grievances running around to go in building a democracy. Idiocy.
   614. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4291012)
Obviously BTF stands to the left of doctrinaire libertarian economic theory (Randianism) and Tea Party social throwbackism. I will not acquiesce to this being labeled "leans left, politically."
Not to mention most Primates discovered BBTF because, partially, they were looking for more rigorous baseball analysis - analysis which is based in science.

A not-insubstantial number of the current GOP has no use for science.
   615. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4291013)
(1) So, sure, I'm in favor of limited war in the sense that the first move of the action shouldn't be genocide. If we can win, quickly, with a small detachment of soldiers, great. (2) But war is inherently about killing and holding land. If we aren't willing to do those things, we shouldn't do them.
But you just said that you weren't willing to engage in certain extremes of killing! There are critiques of the jus in bello framework, but it doesn't seem like you actually disagree with any part of it.

It seems to me that you're just stating your beliefs in pretty normal just war ideas in shocking terms and then walking back any part of the shocking articulation that diverges from jus in bello.
   616. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4291015)
Hussein held the place together. There was no getting rid of Hussein and installing a single stable government. We still haven't done this. And we've murdered 125,000 (or so) people to produce it. However, it wouldn't have been Somalia. The major factions were pretty well organized with well developed systems outside Baghdad. Iraq would have fragmented and there would have been a civil war. But that was happening however we got rid of Hussein. (as it did, in fact, happen).
Ok, so the ledger is.

Bush II Invasion: political goals not met, vicious civil war ensues, hundreds of thousands die
Bunyon Bomb: political goal not met, vicious civil war ensues, hundreds of thousands die, plus another hundred thousand are murdered from above in one day, plus the great city of Baghdad is rendered uninhabitable and its history is destroyed
   617. spike Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4291017)
Georgia could always secede and leave the rest of us in peace. We've been cleaning up their messes for 150 years now. We're rather tired of making national policy based on the reptilian actions of a rump of backwoods crackers.

Holy cow - if you think Georgia is the problem, you really need a visit to the rest of the south. TX,SC,AL,MS,TN,AR, LA and panhandle FL are quite a bit more of what you are thinking of. Of course, sans Atlanta it would certainly revert to that in a hurry.
   618. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4291019)
Granted it would have caused a ton of future wars but America (the rest of the country that is) would be better off if most of the Confederate states had been allowed to leave.
   619. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4291021)
Georgia could always secede and leave the rest of us in peace.


Uh, no they can't. They tried that.

But by all means, tell me about those wonderful, globally diverse neighborhoods in the Hamptons, man. Tell me about how Boston is totally integrated, and about how the most segregated city in the United States is still ####### Milwaukee. Please. Go 'head. Us silly ole' redneck chillen are waiting for your massah's level dissertation.
   620. Lassus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4291023)
I think war should only be about survival.* If you're fighting for survival, and it takes genocide to survive, then, yes, I believe that genocide is justified.

Humanity and emotion is the flaw in this premise. Believing you are fighting for survival is not the same thing as fighting for survival, and everyone BELIEVES they are.


But by all means, tell me about those wonderful, globally diverse neighborhoods in the Hamptons, man. Tell me about how Boston is totally integrated, and about how the most segregated city in the United States is still ####### Milwaukee. Please. Go 'head. Us silly ole' redneck chillen are waiting for your massah's level dissertation.

It's not that, who cares? Braves' fans. Game, set, match.
   621. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4291024)
And as Jerry Seinfeld so eloquently would have put it, "That's a shame".

So if you support the rights of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie (*), you're a Neo-Nazi?


Of course not. But if a Neo-Nazi opened a public establishment and refused service to Jews, I'd enforce the CR law against him. I don't give a #### what's inside that racist's head, or what he chooses to say. I do care when his actions make life a Hell on Earth for an entire group of people. And that's a distinction that a certain brand of libertarian pretends is nonexistent.
   622. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4291025)
But by all means, tell me about those wonderful, globally diverse neighborhoods in the Hamptons, man. Tell me about how Boston is totally integrated, and about how the most segregated city in the United States is still ####### Milwaukee. Please. Go 'head. Us silly ole' redneck chillen are waiting for your massah's level dissertation.

So ... you're rallying around tribe and soil here? I thought you'd (*) transcended all that.

(*) Royal "you."
   623. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4291026)
Braves' fans. Game, set, match.


You haven't even held serve, son.
   624. Tilden Katz Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4291027)
Obama wins 50.5-48.5, 303-235 in the EC (losing IN, NC, FL, and NE-2 from 2008).

Senate stays the same at 53-47 (Dems pick up seats in MA and IN, King caucuses with them; GOP picks up seats in NE, ND, and MO)

Dems add seven seats in the House.

   625. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4291029)
Bush II Invasion: political goals not met, vicious civil war ensues, hundreds of thousands die
Bunyon Bomb: political goal not met, vicious civil war ensues, hundreds of thousands die, plus another hundred thousand are murdered from above in one day, plus the great city of Baghdad is rendered uninhabitable and its history is destroyed


I don't think it would be an "additional". But, yeah, destroying the city would suck. Glad that hasn't happened.


It seems to me that you're just stating your beliefs in pretty normal just war ideas in shocking terms and then walking back any part of the shocking articulation that diverges from jus in bello.

Perhaps. I'm not a student of military history or anything. Dial it down from a small nuke. Just a medium size bombing run with conventional weapons, taking out 10 city blocks. We get Hussein and we never enter. Civil war occurs but we have no further part in it. More or less moral?


I guess my argument is that by making "avoid civilian casualties" such a front and center priority, you actually increase, or at least prolong, civilian suffering and death. I'm not trying to be shocking about it - war is hell, right? Death and destruction. I'm arguing you should only do that if you have a) a very good reason, b) a clear, realistically achievable goal and/or c) a need to defend your nation. In which case, you do what you have to do to win as quickly as possible. Then worry about repairing things.
   626. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4291030)
Thought experiment: if in 2003 we had good intel that Hussein was at a bar in Baghdad, instead of sending in special forces, we simply target that area with a 25 kiloton bomb. We get him and kill 125,000 folks in Baghdad. More or less moral than what we've done up to now in Iraq?


That fails the morality test long before that comparison. There is no way a 25kt bomb is any better than a 5000 lb. conventional bomb if you know where Husein is.

If you can achieve the same legitimate end while likely killing 100 innocent people instead of 125,000, it's immoral to kill 125,000.
   627. Danny Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4291031)
This week's Quinnipiac polls, for example, apparently passed 99 percent of respondents through its LV screen. I'm quite sure we're not going to get 99 percent turnout this year.

Do you have a source for this assertion? Thanks.
   628. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4291032)
I do care when his actions make life a Hell on Earth for an entire group of people.

The neo-Nazi marching makes life quite a bit worse for an entire group of people. Their marching is action, not sitting around with bad thoughts in their head.

(I'm not sure what you mean by "Hell on Earth," so I won't bother to classify it within that framework.)
   629. Lassus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4291034)
You haven't even held serve, son.

I will admit, losing the accents on those women would be a price to pay. But the rest of you, eh, whatever.
   630. bunyon Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4291035)
If you can achieve the same legitimate end while likely killing 100 innocent people instead of 125,000, it's immoral to kill 125,000.

True. See latest version. Again, my point is, if getting Hussein was the deal, shouldn't we have just made sure our assassaination attempt succeeded?


EDIT: and I said, more moral than the invasion. Not moral in and of itself. I agree it wouldn't have been that.
   631. Mefisto Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4291036)
Barry Goldwater was Typhoid Mary when it came to the segregationists: he may not have had the disease himself, but he was a vector to all he met.
   632. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4291037)
So ... you're rallying around tribe and soil here? I thought you'd (*) transcended all that.


I don't rally, boy.
   633. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4291041)
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?
Why not turn the marathon into help for NYC? I realize the energy for one doesn't remotely translate directly into the other, but even a small fraction could be enormously useful.

I'm usually all for going ahead with life, but something about holding the marathon as scheduled seems off to me.

Archie Bunker didn't become a sensation because he got his comeuppance.
Not at all my recollection. Archie was routinely shown to be a buffoon, and getting shown up as a narrow minded, comically ignorant bigot was a regular highlight of the series.
   634. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4291042)
Do you have a source for this assertion? Thanks.

Front page of the results. (The number is actually a little over 96 percent, but we're not having 96 percent turnout, either. Not even close.)
   635. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4291046)
I'd cancel the marathon.
   636. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4291050)
I'd cancel it. Those generators are needed elsewhere. And traffic in NYC is screwed up enough right now without deliberately blocking off streets.
   637. Danny Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4291054)
Front page of the results. (The number is actually a little over 96 percent, but we're not having 96 percent turnout, either. Not even close.)

Thanks. That does seem a bit high compared to the 90% of registered voters who voted in 2008. I would assume people who are willing to participate in a poll are more likely to vote than the average registered voter. Is turnout higher in swing states?
   638. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4291055)
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.
The problem with this is that 'winning wars', by which I assume you mean taking and indefinitely holding territory is essentially impossible in most parts of the world. It's possible, imo, only in situations like Kuwait, where a pro-American government and people were invaded by a hostile force or nation, and the US aim was limited to evicting and destroying the invading force, not occupying, holding, and governing the invaded territory.

Perhaps you meant that these requirements could be satisfied 'only very rarely', therefore wars are only winnable very rarely? Don't mean to misread you. It's just that the hairs stand up when I hear about winnable wars.

As for the Daisy commercial, it didn't resonate because Goldwater wanted to win in Viet Nam (not possible in any case) but rather that he thought using nukes in Viet Nam was a reasonable strategy.

In a later post you mention distaste for limited war. What about a military occupation of a region of a country otherwise ruled by a genocidal despot, where that limited war is meant to establish and maintain a relatively safe zone? That's one of the arguments for the limited war in Afghanistan, though one I don't think Obama has made particularly well.
   639. Lassus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4291056)
Not at all my recollection. Archie was routinely shown to be a buffoon, and getting shown up as a narrow minded, comically ignorant bigot was a regular highlight of the series.

My recollection of the portratyal was a lovable, forgivable, funny bigot. Which is different from a comically ignorant one, IMO. I was admittedly young, but that was my impression.


Any thoughts on consumer confidence, Joe?
   640. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4291057)
Front page of the results. (The number is actually a little over 96 percent, but we're not having 96 percent turnout, either. Not even close.)

This should have said "a little under 96 percent" (95.96 percent, to be precise). (Too late to edit #634.)
   641. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4291064)
Thanks. That does seem a bit high compared to the 90% of registered voters who voted in 2008. I would assume people who are willing to participate in a poll are more likely to vote than the average registered voter.

From the numbers I've seen, turnout in 2008 was closer to 72 percent, out of the ~88 percent of all eligible Americans who were registered.

Is turnout higher in swing states.

I'm not sure. I haven't seen any breakdowns, but I'm sure they're out there.
   642. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4291065)
I do care when his actions make life a Hell on Earth for an entire group of people.

The neo-Nazi marching makes life quite a bit worse for an entire group of people. Their marching is action, not sitting around with bad thoughts in their head.


The Nazis (there was nothing Neo about them) who marched around Skokie were engaging in political speech. A repulsive type of speech, to be sure.

But as repulsive as they were, they came and went, and without the publicity that surrounded them, they would have likely come and gone a lot more quickly. The lasting damage to residents who avoided the repulsive spectacle was virtually nonexistent. Klansmen in cities like Atlanta sometimes paraded through black neighborhoods, and absent any direct threats to individuals, that was protected speech as well.

(I'm not sure what you mean by "Hell on Earth," so I won't bother to classify it within that framework.)

Hell of Earth would be when a person or a family had to sometimes travel for hours on end just in order to get a bite to eat, a place to relieve themselves, or a room to stay overnight. Multiply that sort of experience over the course of a lifetime, try it yourself, and then give me a report of your findings. The absolute inability of many self-proclaimed libertarians to envision themselves in such circumstances is even more depressing than their misplaced concerns for the "rights" of bigots to enforce their will on innocent others. I suppose the excuse is that you may not have been around back then, but that doesn't excuse a total lack of imaginative sympathy or a complete lack of a sense of understanding about the real world consequences of an abstract position. Put yourself in a black skin and get into a time machine aimed at the U.S. South circa 1960, and your beloved principles wouldn't survive a ####### weekend.
   643. Danny Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4291070)
From the numbers I've seen, turnout in 2008 was closer to 72 percent, out of the ~88 percent of all eligible Americans who were registered.

From the NYT: "Of the 206 million citizens 18 and older, 71 percent were registered to vote. Among those who were registered, 90 percent voted in 2008."

From the Census: "Of all registered individuals, 90 percent reported voting, up slightly from 89 percent in the 2004 presidential election."
   644. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4291071)
Only about 2% of the people responding to the Quinnipiac poll said they weren't going to vote or probably weren't and 10% of the responders saying they were less enthusiastic about this election than other elections. So then how did these people lean politically?

FL 37-30 Democrat
OH-37-29 Democrat
VA 35-27 Democrat

If you said Ind or other to which party do you lean towards?
FL-40-39 Democrat
OH-44-36 Republican
VA-45-32 Republican

About 80% of the people polled were white and about 15% were black.

So the people who got polled in Florida were probably slightly more democratic than the actual state but the people getting polled in Ohio and VA were split almost in half between Democrat and Republican.

Furthermore of the people who did already vote it was 50-44 in FL and 54-39 in Ohio for Obama.
   645. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4291074)
Any thoughts on consumer confidence, Joe?

It's hard to reconcile the spike in consumer confidence with the actual economic fundamentals. From the polling data, it seems like Bill Clinton, in his convention speech, did a masterful job of convincing millions of Americans that the economic recovery has been much better than it really has been. Then, a couple weeks later, that odd jobs report came out that claimed September was the best month for job growth in ~30 years. Add the two together and the spike makes some sense.

There could also be somewhat of a synergistic effect due to the election: Obama supporters could be increasingly optimistic because of Clinton's speech and the last jobs report, while Romney supporters could be increasingly optimistic because Romney's chances of winning have greatly increased since September.
   646. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4291077)
According to an election site I found it states that 70% of those registered voted.

United States 70.22%
Alabama 69.75%
Alaska 65.80%
Arizona 66.65%
Arkansas 64.52%
California 78.37%
Colorado 74.80%
Connecticut 78.72%
Delaware 68.58%
District of Columbia 62.30%
Florida 74.60%
Georgia 68.18%
Hawaii 65.61%
Idaho 76.00%
Illinois 71.42%
Indiana 60.95%
Iowa 70.18%
Kansas 70.63%
Kentucky 62.84%
Louisiana 66.57%
Maine 68.43%
Maryland 76.66%
Massachusetts 73.00%
Michigan 66.95%
Minnesota 77.77%
Mississippi 68.05%
Missouri 69.55%
Montana 73.64%
Nebraska 69.25%
Nevada 66.91%
New 
Hampshire 74.17%
New 
Jersey 71.61%
New 
Mexico 67.54%
New 
York 63.51%
North Carolina 69.16%
North Dakota 65.03%
Ohio 68.73%
Oklahoma 66.97%
Oregon 84.86%
Pennsylvania 68.65%
Rhode Island 67.27%
South Carolina 75.22%
South Dakota 66.36%
Tennessee 65.88%
Texas 59.50%
Utah 66.48%
Vermont 71.52%
Virginia 73.95%
Washington 83.66%
West Virginia 58.85%
Wisconsin 80.89%
Wyoming 90.18
   647. TomH Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4291081)
281 for Obama. Colorado is red within recount margin, but it doesn't matter.
52-28 Dem Senate
GOP loses 4 house seats.

GOP best spin is they continue to do well in governorships, picking 2 more up, making it 31-18-1 (Chafee).

   648. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4291082)
From the NYT: "Of the 206 million citizens 18 and older, 71 percent were registered to vote. Among those who were registered, 90 percent voted in 2008."

From the Census: "Of all registered individuals, 90 percent reported voting, up slightly from 89 percent in the 2004 presidential election."

This looks like survey data rather than actual data. From the studies and news reports in 2008, over 184 million Americans were registered while less than 132 million votes were cast in the presidential election. That's a lot closer to 72 percent turnout than 90 percent turnout.
   649. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4291085)
while Romney supporters could be increasingly optimistic because Romney's chances of winning have greatly increased since September.


I can't help but laugh. Not derisively, but the idea that Romney's surge helped boost an index that would help Obama's case is the sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" comedy that I so enjoy.
   650. Lassus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4291086)
re: #645, that's a pretty decent answer, even if we disagree on the fundamentals. I'm also glad that I correctly surmised one of the reasons would be from those confident Romney was going to win. ;-)
   651. OCF Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4291088)
Oregon 84.86%
Washington 83.66%


Let's hear it for voting by mail. And at that, the data quoted here might be old enough to not quite catch up with everything Washington has done.
   652. spycake Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4291089)
I have to concur with the ~70 percent folks. At least that's in the ballpark of what I usually see (referencing Minnesota as an above-average turnout state).

Although getting back to the poll, I wonder what's normal for a poll result? Certainly people willing to take a poll are probably very likely to take the time to vote too.
   653. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4291090)
This week's Quinnipiac polls, for example, apparently passed 99 percent of respondents through its LV screen. I'm quite sure we're not going to get 99 percent turnout this year.

The trouble with reading too much into that is that if you look at all the Ohio polls on the RCP Ohio page, you'll see that there are 9 polls represented, but only 2 others besides Quinnipiac show a RV/LV breakdown. Rasmussen shows a tie, but the other 8 have Obama leading by 1 to 5 points.

One of those 2 polls with a transparent RV/LV split is CNN/Opinion Research, with a breakdown of 896/741, and a 4 point Obama lead among LVs. The other is Survey USA, with a 611/603 split, and they've got Obama at +3. None of the others, including Rasmussen, show any numbers for RVs. You just have to assume that they're making a reasonably accurate cull.

From what you've said about Q-Piac, it looks as if you'd only have documented faith in the CNN/Opinion Research poll. But their results only differ by 2 points from Quinnipiac's, and certainly that's well within the MOE. Unless you had some sort of internal numbers that showed how many "unlikely" voters got peeled off from the raw RV list, I'm not sure how or why you'd have any more faith in any one poll more than another, except for CNN/Opinion Research.
   654. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4291091)
Granted it would have caused a ton of future wars but America (the rest of the country that is) would be better off if most of the Confederate states had been allowed to leave.
Fun to speculate. The New South, as of 2012, is white and hispanic, with perhaps 1% of the population black. For a long time hispanics were the new blacks, largely confined to manual labor, but there has been substantial assimilation. The significantly increased black population in northern states has meant that while black political power has increased (and black politics dominate states like Illinois), black-white conflict also increased, leading to regular rioting well into the 1980s. Without the drag of the southern states the principle of gay rights was well established by 1975, with complete legal equality as of 1982. The Split States never quite accumulated the wealth necessary to go to war in Southeast Asia, and without a substantial, united military presence in Europe the Berlin Wall never fell...

Okay--I was just writing as I was going, and the idea of the South out of the US is appealing in some senses, I'm not at all sure it ends well for the world as a whole.
   655. Steve Treder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4291094)
Not at all my recollection. Archie was routinely shown to be a buffoon, and getting shown up as a narrow minded, comically ignorant bigot was a regular highlight of the series.


My recollection of the portratyal was a lovable, forgivable, funny bigot. Which is different from a comically ignorant one, IMO. I was admittedly young, but that was my impression.

To this observer, the truth was much closer to the former of these perspectives than the latter. Yes, Archie was presented as a real human being, and yes, the viewing audience was meant to identify with his humanity and his strengths as well as his flaws -- but distinctly and importantly, NOT to perceive his bigotry and narrow-mindedness as anything but backward, harmful, regrettable, and problematic. The show was a morality play presented with gentle humor, and Archie's bad old social habits were the villain of the piece.
   656. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4291095)
If you're picking up the phone to do an election poll this week chances are very good that you're going to be voting. I would think at this point in the game that almost all polls are going to be in the 90s for likely voters and I also think in general that most polls are going to have a bit of a Romney bias in them. I think Romney is going to lose by at least 3 points and it might just be 5 points.
   657. Mefisto Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4291099)
As much of a drag the old Confederacy (plus some underpopulated midwest additions) is on the rest of us, it's hard to imagine WWI or WWII going well if we had let the South go.

It may seem like we could afford to do so today in a peaceful separation, but I think it's important to remember that much of the problem stems from simple voter suppression. Get all the blacks and hispanics out to vote in most of the South and you'd see quite different results. That would leave WV, KY, TN, AR, OK, and up the Midwest as the center of the problem. Even if we agreed to separate, that's not a viable nation.
   658. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4291100)
Okay--I was just writing as I was going, and the idea of the South out of the US is appealing in some senses, I'm not at all sure it ends well for the world as a whole.

The South has great college football, melodious accents, better than average pool rooms, some pretty good food, and it's not too nasty in January compared to the North. And if you can avoid politics, the people are okay, too. But beyond that, when H. L. Mencken published his famous pair of articles on The Worst American State, it wasn't any accident which states wound up on the bottom.
   659. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4291105)
it's hard to imagine WWI or WWII going well if we had let the South go.

I've seen a couple of counter-factual stories where the CSA (Confederate States of America) sided with the Nazis (racial purity), but remained neutral.

Edit: This movie, for example.
   660. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4291107)
From what you've said about Q-Piac, it looks as if you'd only have documented faith in the CNN/Opinion Research poll. But their results only differ by 2 points from Quinnipiac's, ...

I don't pretend, in any way, to be able to look at a poll and make specific adjustments such that Obama +3 is really Romney +1. It's just that in general, when shown a slew of polls that show a 2012 electorate that's as Dem or even more Dem than 2008, and/or polls projecting a 2012 turnout rate that's as high or higher than 2008, and these polls show only minor Obama leads, I'm confident that history is a solid guide. In other words, if Obama needs 2008's party ID split and/or 2008 turnout just to eke out a 1- or 2-point lead in these polls, I'm confident that Romney will be in great shape on Election Day.
   661. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4291108)

As much of a drag the old Confederacy (plus some underpopulated midwest additions) is on the rest of us, it's hard to imagine WWI or WWII going well if we had let the South go.


Wouldn't the CSA have had just as much interest in joining the allies as the US did?
   662. just plain joe Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4291109)
but distinctly and importantly, NOT to perceive his bigotry and narrow-mindedness as anything but backward, harmful, regrettable, and problematic.


That's how I remember All In The Family as well, the audience was supposed to laugh at Archie Bunker; he was being made fun of nearly all of the time.
   663. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4291112)
On Archie B: It's Norman Lear, c'mon - Steve's right.
   664. Poulanc Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4291113)
It's just that in general, when shown a slew of polls that show a 2012 electorate that's as Dem or even more Dem than 2008, and/or polls projecting a 2012 turnout rate that's as high or higher than 2008, and these polls show only minor Obama leads, I'm confident that history is a solid guide.


Is there history of slews of polls leading up to an election all projecting mistaken voting patterns?
   665. Danny Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4291114)
This looks like survey data rather than actual data. From the studies and news reports in 2008, over 184 million Americans were registered while less than 132 million votes were cast in the presidential election. That's a lot closer to 72 percent turnout than 90 percent turnout.

The census data I linked above says only 146.3 million were registered in 2008, with 131.1 million voting. When figuring out what percent of people who say they are registered to vote are likely to vote, we should look at what percent of people who say they are registered to vote actually vote.
   666. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4291116)
I think Romney is going to lose by at least 3 points and it might just be 5 points.

This is incredibly bullish for Obama, who hasn't touched 50 percent in either Gallup or Rasmussen since early September and has only been at 50 — exactly 50 — in two of the last 30 national polls listed at RCP.
   667. Mefisto Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4291117)
Wouldn't the CSA have had just as much interest in joining the allies as the US did?


It's not clear that they would, no. Even if they did, keeping a slave society going post-1860 would have seriously harmed their economy relative to the industrial revolution. The South would have been even more of a 3d world country than it was for WWI, and it would have lost out on the New Deal in preparation for WWII. Then too, it would have been reluctant to send troops overseas if they were needed for domestic repression.
   668. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4291118)
Fun to speculate.


A lot of the movers and shakers in the ~1860 South were very keen on the idea of conquering Mexico and as much south of that as they could manage to get. I think that the first considerations of the long-term effect of an independent Confederacy start with evaluating whether or not they'd have actually given it a go, their chances of success, and the long-term implications (if any). It's not that hard to imagine a Confederacy that includes Coahuila, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo Leon, and maybe Sonora as well. Maybe everything down to the Santiago River and the northern edge of Guanajuato (i.e., everything north of Guadalajara and León). This starts to make a Southern Confederacy look very different than the one that existed, and makes it difficult to project forward (not that you shouldn't try; this is a fun game).

The New South, as of 2012, is white and hispanic, with perhaps 1% of the population black.


An enslaved population couldn't easily leave (and the reduced USA probably wouldn't have wanted them), and once slavery ends I think inertia keeps a large percentage of the black population in situ. An Apartheid Confederacy wouldn't be much worse than what actually existed in Mississippi in the pre-Civil Rights era, and Mississippi is 36% black today.
   669. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4291119)
This is incredibly bullish for Obama


I agree. I don't see how Obama wins by 5 points unless there is a real failure in the polling results across the board, OR it's a perfect storm of Dem turnout in every state (not just swing).
   670. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4291120)
The South (Confederacy) provided about 20% of the men for WWII.
   671. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4291121)
The census data I linked above says only 146.3 million were registered in 2008, with 131.1 million voting. When figuring out what percent of people who say they are registered to vote are likely to vote, we should look at what percent of people who say they are registered to vote actually vote.

The census is a poll and in this case they are off on the registration part.
   672. Danny Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4291123)
The latest CNN poll of Ohio has Gary Johnson as a potential spoiler: Obama 47, Romney 44, Johnson 5...though they also have it as Obama 50 and Romney 47 without third parties.
   673. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4291124)
A lot of the movers and shakers in the ~1860 South were very keen on the idea of conquering Mexico and as much south of that as they could manage to get. I think that the first considerations of the long-term effect of an independent Confederacy start with evaluating whether or not they'd have actually given it a go, their chances of success, and the long-term implications (if any). It's not that hard to imagine a Confederacy that includes Coahuila, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo Leon, and maybe Sonora as well. Maybe everything down to the Santiago River and the northern edge of Guanajuato (i.e., everything north of Guadalajara and León). This starts to make a Southern Confederacy look very different than the one that existed, and makes it difficult to project forward (not that you shouldn't try; this is a fun game).

I happen to think that the North would be a lot more aggressive when it comes territorial conquest as well. Cuba, Phillipines, parts of Canada. . .
   674. Kurt Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4291125)
That's how I remember All In The Family as well, the audience was supposed to laugh at Archie Bunker; he was being made fun of nearly all of the time.

Yeah, but Mike was a nitwit too - Archie got the better of him many times, and I'd say Archie was granted more "humanity" or whatever you want to call it.
   675. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4291126)
The Washington Post's The Fix column has an analysis of two weeks of its Post/ABC Daily Tracking Poll, showing that only 84% of 2008 Obama voters plan to vote for him in 2012, with 13% going to Romney, and 3% still undecided. The breakdown by various categories is here. Can't see Obama losing that much support and still winning, since Romney appears to be doing very well with the McCain voters and should pick-up support from GOP leaning voters who sat out 2008 because the prospect for victory looked dismal.
   676. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4291130)
I think another big difference in a USA without the South is in the nature of the post-1860 westward expansion. A lot of the people who went west were Southerners, and one would think that wouldn't happen with an international boundary in the way and a South not ravaged by war. One interesting thing is that in the later 1860s and the 1870s, the two largest single groups of cowboys were former Confederate soldiers and blacks. No wonder they were always shooting each other. Anyway, there are a lot fewer of these (and other young drifters) available with an independent South, so overall you'd have to think that the West gets filled in a lot more slowly than it did in real life, and the plains Indians US get beaten down a decade or so later than they actually did.

   677. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4291131)
The census data I linked above says only 146.3 million were registered in 2008, with 131.1 million voting. When figuring out what percent of people who say they are registered to vote are likely to vote, we should look at what percent of people who say they are registered to vote actually vote.

But the above survey undercounted actual voter registration by a whopping 40 million. Either 40 million people don't remember being registered or they lied about it, and those 40 million would have to skew GOP* — which would run counter to the GOP's higher turnout rate — in order to yield pro-Obama survey results.

(* Or Obama would have to be making net gains with defectors, which seems highly unlikely.)
   678. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4291132)
Well, I doubt they are all going to vote period and I would guess a person who voted for Obama and now doesn't is less likely to vote at all then a person who voted for Obama and will do so again. I also don't know how you can say you can't see how Obama could win while losing all that support since the poll you are referencing has Obama ahead.
   679. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 02, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4291133)
The South (Confederacy) provided about 20% of the men for WWII.


The thought experiment really depends a lot on *how* the CSA maintains it's sovereignty. If they secede and the Union says "um, we'd prefer not, but okay" then you have a historical trajectory where the two sides might cooperate in future efforts (against the Nazis and such.) But if you fight the war and the CSA wins, taking it's sovereignty by force, them's completely different apples. At that point you have a huge, historical grudge between the CSA and the Union, you have a natural alignment of white supremacy between the CSA and the Nazis, and you very likely see a much bigger/more successful attempt by Hitler to recruit "Old Mexico" which would have likely been part of the expanded CSA.

Basically, the CSA would have been Vichy from the start.
   680. Steve Treder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4291134)
Yeah, but Mike was a nitwit too - Archie got the better of him many times, and I'd say Archie was granted more "humanity" or whatever you want to call it.

Perhaps, but Mike wasn't Archie's only nemesis. His daughter and his wife were too, in their ways, and Archie's sexism was plainly presented as a flaw, and Gloria and Edith could cow Archie, and shut him up, as Mike couldn't possibly.

Archie was not allowed to "win" in the long term regarding any of his social/moral deficiencies. The show did not intend to provide a "balanced" forum around its serious points.
   681. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4291135)
Yeah, but Mike was a nitwit too
Please. He was a meathead. Just ask Archie.
   682. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4291136)

Is there history of slews of polls leading up to an election all projecting mistaken voting patterns?


I don't remember all the specifics, but didn't a lot of exit polls in 2004 show Kerry had won to the point where even Bush thought he had lost? Maybe that's not quite what you're asking though.


The latest CNN poll of Ohio has Gary Johnson as a potential spoiler: Obama 47, Romney 44, Johnson 5...though they also have it as Obama 50 and Romney 47 without third parties.


Third party candidates typically underperform how they fare in polling.
   683. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4291141)
Wouldn't the CSA have had just as much interest in joining the allies as the US did?


It's not clear that they would, no. Even if they did, keeping a slave society going post-1860 would have seriously harmed their economy relative to the industrial revolution. The South would have been even more of a 3d world country than it was for WWI, and it would have lost out on the New Deal in preparation for WWII. Then too, it would have been reluctant to send troops overseas if they were needed for domestic repression.
In addition, wouldn't Hawaii have been one of the Northern States? The Axis would not have been attacking New South territory, especially if the New South had kept its borders or expanded only into Mexico. Between its sympathy for the Nazis racial purity campaigns, and the absence of any direct conflict with the Axis, it's pretty easy to imagine the New South staying neutral.

The New South, as of 2012, is white and hispanic, with perhaps 1% of the population black.


An enslaved population couldn't easily leave (and the reduced USA probably wouldn't have wanted them), and once slavery ends I think inertia keeps a large percentage of the black population in situ. An Apartheid Confederacy wouldn't be much worse than what actually existed in Mississippi in the pre-Civil Rights era, and Mississippi is 36% black today.
Good point. I assumed a mass exodus, but for no compelling or even good reason. When do you imagine slavery ends in the South if a reasonably tight border is maintained on the Missouri Compromise through the 19th century?

   684. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4291142)
I think another big difference in a USA without the South is in the nature of the post-1860 westward expansion. A lot of the people who went west were Southerners, and one would think that wouldn't happen with an international boundary in the way and a South not ravaged by war. One interesting thing is that in the later 1860s and the 1870s, the two largest single groups of cowboys were former Confederate soldiers and blacks. No wonder they were always shooting each other. Anyway, there are a lot fewer of these available with an independent South, so overall you'd have to think that the West gets filled in a lot more slowly than it did in real life, and the plains Indians US get beaten down a decade or so later than they actually did.

About 20% of the people who moved west were from the Confederate states with a small number of those people being black according to the 1890 census.
   685. zonk Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4291144)
Today was an exceptionally good polling day for Obama - all nationals moved in his direction, and with Rass doing its usual "back to the mean" showing a tie, I don't think there's anyone beyond the dormant Gallup with Romney leading. State polling was even better, with even a couple of GOP pollsters delivering bad news for Romney Ohio alternate paths.

I'm doing my final sheet now for a mega pool I do with a few friends (confidence-based ratings on pres states + senate + all house seats)...and while I suspect the pres race portion will pretty much come down to getting FL and VA right, it's interesting on the House... Don't get me wrong - the Dems aren't gonna retake the House - but we've had some really odd generic D/R numbers that just don't fit with the actual individual races. One of the guys in my pool has the Dems picking up 12 house seats (and he's a GOPer), but I have trouble getting to even +10, and even that requires a couple upsets. My last sheet actually had Sam's EC, but with FL in Obama's column, the senate ending up exactly where it is today, and a +6 in the House. I'm leaning towards giving the Dems another senate seat (IN - howey-gage, which is pretty much the IN gold standard, has a new poll out with Moudock down 11), and there have been a couple developments in a few house races where I can see another seat or two.

The fun thing about our pool is that we actually have a near even split of D/R participants and every year we've done it - we end up with a mix of partisan wishful thinkers, partisan chicken littles, and people who actually just want to win the pot (I try to be that)... But the partisan chicken littles seem to do the best... We've been doing this since 2000, and 2006 & 2008 were won by (two different) pessimistic GOPers, while 2010 was won by a pessimistic Dem leaner... The closest I came was in 2008, when 2 house seats would have pushed me into the lead.
   686. DA Baracus Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4291145)
The NYC Marathon has been cancelled.
   687. JL Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4291147)
So my WAG predictions:

Obama wins with 295 EC and 49.8 % of the vote.
Dems +5 in the House
Dems with 53 Senators (counting those that caucus with them).
   688. Poulanc Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4291148)
I don't remember all the specifics, but didn't a lot of exit polls in 2004 show Kerry had won to the point where even Bush thought he had lost? Maybe that's not quite what you're asking though.


Not exactly.

Joe's been arguing that nearly every single poll has been oversampling Democrats. I'm wondering if there is a history of this many polls leading up to an election all oversampling one party.
   689. Kurt Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4291149)
Perhaps, but Mike wasn't Archie's only nemesis. His daughter and his wife were too, in their ways, and Archie's sexism was plainly presented as a flaw, and Gloria and Edith could cow Archie, and shut him up, as Mike couldn't possibly.

Archie was not allowed to "win" in the long term regarding any of his social/moral deficiencies. The show did not intend to provide a "balanced" forum around its serious points.


Yes, I agree with all of this. Archie never "won" on anything centered on sex or race.

As to the original question - why he became a sensation - there are three basic elements to it: (1) the character and show were well-written and funny, (2) he got his comeuppance enough to make lefties happy, (3) he made just enough sense to be popular with the righties. Tied in with #3 is that he reminded lots of people of their well-meaning but racist/sexist parents or grandparents, rather than being truly malicious or evil.

   690. Morty Causa Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4291154)
Post 568:

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.


ETC.

You seem to be engaging in a lot of smoke and mirrors. An elaborate fan dance to cover up what is essentially a flat chest. You know what the New Left was, what was referred to as the New Left, what characterizes the New Left—social engineering based on preferences for select groups—just like the old discrimination, only with different favorite classes.

Reciting a lot of history is not parsing philosophical attributes. Rioting Negroes and Hippie Traitors came and went, but the institutionalized inequality is what gave them their eternal hook—one that still is being used, and will be as long as discrimination in the form of preferences. That was the Left’s mistake. One it refuses to correct, yet it has reached the decadent phase where it no longer tries to justify it on traditional liberal grounds, but can only half-heartedly and unconvincingly justify it on terms that amount to lame expediencies.

The Left on race (and later gender) promised it wanted a color-blind legal and political system. Fair and equal before political institutions for everyone. When it got its chance, it turned on a dime; it transmogrified into that which it was fighting—only it claimed this intolerance was good intolerance. That’s what made it New Left. Reciting trivia about how it started and what the components were initially doesn’t deal with what happened to the Left in the terms of change in the policy it advocated. It went from idealistic to it’s time we get our turn to discriminate. And you know that.

   691. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4291155)
I'm just curious not counting the Cold War, how many years of its life that US has been in some state of conflict?
   692. Morty Causa Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4291157)


Barry Goldwater was a State Rightist in the early '60s. He probably didn't know what a Libertarian was in the late '50s/early'60s.
   693. Morty Causa Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4291159)
Supporting someone's right to do something you find distasteful is an unmistakable sign of tolerance and the proper way to function in a pluralist society. The modern liberal simply has no conception of this truism. Which is bad enough in itself; that they have expropriated the mantle of "tolerance" is worse.


I have to say when I was kid and it became evident that liberals who had been preaching equality and tolerance were suddenly revealed to be all too willing and ready to support unequal and intolerant treatment, if it were against the right people, which meant they were no different than those they ridiculed and chastised, I found it quite disillusioning --I at first couldn't believe it, then was aghast when I realized they simply were no different in principles than those they were attacking. But, let's remember that: they were no different than....
   694. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4291160)
You know what the New Left was, what was referred to as the New Left, what characterizes the New Left—social engineering based on preferences for select groups—just like the old discrimination, only with different favorite classes.
So... hate crime legislation (which I oppose) will elevate blacks to the status whites had under Jim Crow? Affirmative action is no different than Whites Only? I'm not seeing it.
   695. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4291162)
Good point. I assumed a mass exodus, but for no compelling or even good reason. When do you imagine slavery ends in the South if a reasonably tight border is maintained on the Missouri Compromise through the 19th century?


I can't really guess. By 1860 slavery was good for wealthy plantation owners and bad for pretty much everyone else. In a situation like that slavery probably continues as long as the CSA is dominated by its plantation aristocracy. So before I gave a real answer I'd have to try to think through the social and political history of the new CSA. That said, sharecropping survived into the second half of the 20th century, so it's entirely conceivable that slavery could have as well. But that depends on poor whites continuing to side with rich whites even though doing so is probably against their interests.

WAG is that it survives into the 1940s, and disappears as part of a worldwide reordering after the Second World War. Hell, I'll go out on a limb and say that the CSA took an aggressive neutral stance during the war, but a series of border and shipping/naval incidents revealed it to be hopelessly weak and sclerotic compared to the USA (EDIT: The battleship the CSS John C. Calhoun is sunk by an armed Liberty Ship or something absurd like that). They ditch slavery as part of a crash modernization program, and by the 1980s are a manufacturing powerhouse thanks to cheap labor and easy shipping connections to the US.
   696. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4291163)
I doubt the South and North don't fight over something between 1860 and 1945.
   697. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4291165)
Well, I doubt they are all going to vote period and I would guess a person who voted for Obama and now doesn't is less likely to vote at all then a person who voted for Obama and will do so again. I also don't know how you can say you can't see how Obama could win while losing all that support since the poll you are referencing has Obama ahead.

If even a couple percentage points of loose Dems are incorrectly passed through the LV screen, then it could push Obama ahead in the polls. Regardless, the above assumes that voters respond to polls in proportion to party affiliation, but, as The Yankee Clapper has pointed out, this is unknown.

***
Joe's been arguing that nearly every single poll has been oversampling Democrats. I'm wondering if there is a history of this many polls leading up to an election all oversampling one party.

I don't know if there's a history. All I know is that when polls show the 2012 electorate to be as Dem or slightly more Dem than 2008 but with Obama only +1 or +2 in the polls, something seems amiss. Over and over in these threads, people have claimed that party ID is fluid and that "people identify with the winner," but that doesn't seem to be happening in the poll results.
   698. Steve Treder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4291166)
As to the original question - why he became a sensation - there are three basic elements to it: (1) the character and show were well-written and funny, (2) he got his comeuppance enough to make lefties happy, (3) he made just enough sense to be popular with the righties. Tied in with #3 is that he reminded lots of people of their well-meaning but racist/sexist parents or grandparents, rather than being truly malicious or evil.

All true. I'll add a 1-a: Carroll O'Connor played the character perfectly, pushing his rough edges but never making the "bad Archie" too repellent. Getting him right was a writing challenge and an acting challenge, and could have failed in any number of ways that it didn't.

But what (2) and (3) demonstrate is that this show was a mainstream pop culture response to the social/political zeitgeist. The meaning of racial/ethnic/gender prejudice/bigotry was an enormous issue on just about any thinking and feeling citizen's mind in the late 1960s, and this was the first time that any dramatic TV show (sitcom or drama) summoned the courage to address it as the central theme.
   699. Morty Causa Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4291167)
Yes, Archie was presented as a real human being, and yes, the viewing audience was meant to identify with his humanity and his strengths as well as his flaws -- but distinctly and importantly, NOT to perceive his bigotry and narrow-mindedness as anything but backward, harmful, regrettable, and problematic. The show was a morality play presented with gentle humor, and Archie's bad old social habits were the villain of the piece.


Sure, that’s what you took from it, and that was the genius of the show: people like you others could take satisfaction in knowing he was the butt of the joke—officially the butt of the joke, but that’s not what those disaffected whites who the Democrats lost took from it. What is intended is often different from what is apprehended. (That's what makes for a lot of lawsuits in contract.) To them, he spoke truth—his comeuppances was completely pro forma and eminently dismissible. And they did just that. They let that water flow right over them No one I know was quoting or citing the Meathead’s retorts. They were savoring Archie’s putdowns. He became the legend--not the Meathead or his daughter or his wife.



(Nor for that matter did Brown and its enforcement mechanisms desegregate them. They're still very segregated. I'm not going to bother looking up exact figures, but they're likely just as segregated now as they've been in 40 years.)


That’s clown talk, bro. I have no idea where you coming from with this. Or reflects a deep and broad ignorance of how things were before. There were no integrated schools in my state--none. I doubt if there were even any private schools that were integrated. My graduating class was the last officially segregated class in my town. A few years later it was totally integrated.

   700. Morty Causa Posted: November 02, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4291170)
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.


You need to re-read. I didn’t do any such thing. I said the counter-reformation to the left and the New Left did feel that way. Don't confuse the message with the messenger.

Page 7 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(38 - 12:28am, Aug 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogGiants Designate Dan Uggla, Tyler Colvin
(13 - 12:26am, Aug 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(32 - 12:24am, Aug 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogMike Carp designated for assignment, Mookie Betts called up - Over the Monster
(28 - 12:21am, Aug 02)
Last: BochysFingers

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-1
(29 - 12:13am, Aug 02)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogRosendo ‘Rusty’ Torres found guilty of 5 counts of sex abuse, acquitted of 3 other charges
(15 - 12:11am, Aug 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(217 - 11:38pm, Aug 01)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMiklasz: Mozeliak sets off a loud wake-up call
(13 - 11:33pm, Aug 01)
Last: Jeff Francoeur's OPS

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(8 - 11:26pm, Aug 01)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogGraphic designer creates Star Wars/MLB mash-up logos for all 30 teams
(12 - 11:01pm, Aug 01)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1081 - 10:39pm, Aug 01)
Last: Quaker

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(160 - 9:12pm, Aug 01)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogBill James Mailbag - 7/13/14 - 7/22/14 (Subscription Required)
(11 - 8:40pm, Aug 01)
Last: robinred

NewsblogJose Bautista, Casey Janssen “frustrated” and “disappointed” by Jays’ lack of deadline activity
(6 - 8:31pm, Aug 01)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-1-2014
(9 - 7:36pm, Aug 01)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

Page rendered in 1.0284 seconds
52 querie(s) executed