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 68 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 >  Last ›
   6701. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4299396)
Google's results are % of precincts reporting. Not % of votes counted. California is not going to end up with 3.5 million fewer votes cast than in 2008.
   6702. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4299397)
I don't claim to have any inside information on voter turnout in 2012. I've simply seen a plethora of articles from news outlets at all points on the political spectrum that claim a lot of white voters unexpectedly stayed home on Tuesday. If the articles are right, then the GOP has some upside potential for 2016 in that demographic.


What news outlets?
   6703. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4299398)
I've simply seen a plethora of articles from news outlets at all points on the political spectrum that claim a lot of white voters unexpectedly stayed home on Tuesday.


I've seen them too, and they are all comparing 2012 votes counted so far to 2008 total votes. IOW, they're wrong. Comparing 2008 to 2012 in apples-to-apples terms of votes counted 3 days after the election yields a much different picture. Turnout is down a little, and white turnout is quite possibly a disproportionate share of the decline, but it's nothing close to 8 million.
   6704. phredbird Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4299399)
the GOP likely will find it easier to make inroads with the millions of white voters who stayed home on Tuesday


The trick is to do this without pissing off the minority voters who also stayed home. The GOP has given no evidence that it is capable of doing this.


i'm no census taker but it also occurs to me that a whole lot of voters are going to be entering the rolls in the next four years and most of them are not going to be white and even if they are younger voters skew democratic.
   6705. SteveF Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4299404)
It's also been a while since people paid significant taxes in a way that the 'smaller government/lower taxes' meme could have much impact.
   6706. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4299405)
Uncounted California ballots

For those California candidates whose contests were too close to call on election day, patience is being recommended.

While more than nine million ballots were counted Tuesday, but state election officials say there are more than three million others that are uncounted and still need to be tabulated throughout California.

The uncounted are mostly vote-by-mail ballots submitted on election day and provisional ballots that include those turned in by people whose names were not on the lists at polling places, but who believe they are registered to vote.

The Secretary of State’s Office reported 3.08 million uncounted ballots late Thursday, including 2.1 million vote-by-mail ballots. That list does not include uncounted ballots from 12 of the 58 counties, including San Bernardino and Santa Barbara counties.

At this time four years ago, during the last presidential election, there were 2.4 million uncounted ballots. Counties have until Dec. 4 to count the remaining ballots.
   6707. Doris from Rego Park Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4299406)
*salutes baseball think factory for not cursing out joe k before, during or after the election*

i'm just a lowly lurker and though i've come across many frustrating internet posters, having mr. k drive this bus has been a tough go

cough cough
   6708. phredbird Posted: November 09, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4299407)
The Secretary of State’s Office reported 3.08 million uncounted ballots late Thursday, including 2.1 million vote-by-mail ballots. That list does not include uncounted ballots from 12 of the 58 counties, including San Bernardino and Santa Barbara counties.


huh, have they finished counting in LA county? i dropped off a mail ballot at my polling place.
   6709. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 09, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4299409)
i'm no census taker but it also occurs to me that a whole lot of voters are going to be entering the rolls in the next four years and most of them are not going to be white and even if they are younger voters skew democratic.

Most of them assuredly will be white, but you're right about the last part.

***
i'm just a lowly lurker and though i've come across many frustrating internet posters, having mr. k drive this bus has been a tough go

Yes, the politics threads are much more peaceful when they're 100 percent liberal rather than 95 percent liberal. I've noticed that myself.
   6710. hokieneer Posted: November 09, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4299414)
I was one of those that was initially surprised by the low voter turnout, by looking at the google results map. I did seem the enthusiasm for this election was less than 4 years ago, but not 8-10 million less. Then I realized later than the west coast is taking their sweet time finishing their tabulations. It does appear there will less turnout in '12 compared to '08, but I'm not sure if it'll be enough to signify any trends leading into 2016.
   6711. hokieneer Posted: November 09, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4299415)
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but is Petraeus resignation related to Benghazi
   6712. bunyon Posted: November 09, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4299419)
But, still, Petraeus was really being a dolt here. Talk about reaching to find a way to besmirch what would otherwise have been one of the more glittering military careers in recent decades, as well as letting down your President and your agency.

Especially when I had considered suggesting him as a Republican nominee in 2016 (or Democrat for that matter).

I confess it now only to say that I'm glad I didn't actually suggest it (didn't know about the affair but just figured it was a little too out there).
   6713. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 09, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4299421)
Sorry; no sale. I have no idea if turnout will be down 10 million or 5 million or 2 million, but nobody's expecting 2012's final turnout to exceed 2008's, and U.S. voter participation is abysmal in the first place. If Obama could find 5 or 8 million first-time voters in 2008 (or whatever the number was), then I have to believe the GOP could get a fifth of that if it got better at GOTV.

You want to increase voter turnout? Make voting mandatory the way it is in Australia. Not sure you'd like the results, though, even if most of the added voters would be white.
   6714. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 09, 2012 at 11:38 PM (#4299422)
Forget Bengahzi. Read the second letter in this NYT Klosterman ethics column, check the date and then completely flip out.
   6715. bunyon Posted: November 09, 2012 at 11:54 PM (#4299427)
Gold Star, I must be forgetting something. Why is that date relevant?
   6716. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4299430)
Because four months ago, Petraeus' mistress' husband was either asking Klosterman for help or having him send a message.

Rather public forum - wonder if the FBI investigators knew of the letter.
   6717. bunyon Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:02 AM (#4299431)
How do you know it was him? I daresay he isn't the only man in government screwing around.
   6718. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4299432)
Maybe not, but still... damn. Lot adds up.

We need Klosterman's take on this, stat.
   6719. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4299433)
It's looking more and more like the difference will be 3 points between Obama and Romney. So I win on that count.
   6720. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4299434)
It's looking more and more like the difference will be 3 points between Obama and Romney.


Damn, the spread has moved from 2.5 to 2.7 since I wrote #6696 - on a Friday night, three days after the election. Actually, I remember commenting on election night about what at the time was about a 0.5-point spread for Obama and speculating that the West Coast could stretch that to "as much as two percent", which in retrospect seems like a pretty strong under-estimate.
   6721. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4299439)
One other thing I noticed, with Obama's popular vote lead growing a bit. There was a fair bit of talk prior to the election about how Ohio had a Republican lean, and that Democrats always underperformed their national numbers in Ohio, which was one reason why Joe (and others) were skeptical of the polling there. Well, it turns out that Joe was right about that: as I write this, Obama is ahead nationally by 2.7% but ahead in Ohio by only 1.9%.
   6722. esseff Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4299440)
Looks like it will be a bigger margin than the one that Bush famously declared a mandate in 2004, when he also had a much-narrower EC victory.
   6723. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM (#4299442)
Looks like it will be a bigger margin than the one that Bush famously declared a mandate in 2004, when he also had a much-narrower EC victory.
Whoa. Hadn't realized that.
   6724. Tilden Katz Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:56 AM (#4299443)
Republicans have not won an election by a greater margin in the popular or electoral vote than Obama did since 1988. And the two fastest growing demographics (Hispanics and unmarried women) are firmly in the Democrats' camp. The younger demographics overwhelmingly identify with Democratic party. It's going to be an interesting couple years for the GOP.
   6725. Tilden Katz Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM (#4299444)
And for pure schadenfreude.
   6726. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:04 AM (#4299445)
According to CNN, Obama's up to 61,680,412, which is only 360,198 off GWB's 2004 total. If he gets there, Obama will own the two biggest popular vote totals in American history. Counting stats, I know.

Meanwhile, Romney still needs 541,207 votes to catch John Kerry's 2004 total.
   6727. esseff Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:35 AM (#4299451)
The other thing about the continuing popular vote count is that it gives 538 another edge over RCP -- in addition to Silver's pale blue for Florida juxtaposed against RCP's pale pink.

Silver projected a 2.5 point margin, RCP 0.7.
   6728. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:49 AM (#4299455)
I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.


So then why did you publish it, Mr. Klosterman?

Romney still needs 541,207 votes to catch John Kerry's 2004 total.


He'll get more than twice that from the uncounted California votes.
   6729. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:45 AM (#4299456)
For what it's worth, I've been asking my Romney-voting friends about what they think the election loss meant for the GOP in their view. Almost to a person, they line up with JoeK: They were right, they're still right, and the lying liars from the left has blinded the world to the truth via the lame-stream media that they just want free stuff. The anger's pretty strong. Out of 26 people (so far) exactly ONE thought that the GOP needs to compromise with the Administration on the fiscal cliff. Everybody else wants a political civil war, and damn the consequences because, as one friend said, "If we give in now, we're dead anyways."

More than a few of them are mad at me for voting for Obama. This time, it's going to linger for a while.
   6730. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:00 AM (#4299458)
So much for the right-wingers saying we liberals had to grow up and take it like a man in '04. From what I remember, we couldn't believe they did it--a lot of us to the extent of actually not believing it--but it was disbelief, disappointment, and disgust, not anger so much. I guess you could chalk that up to smug superiority if you were feeling uncharitable.
   6731. esseff Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:38 AM (#4299459)
Everybody else wants a political civil war,


Well, calling for a political civil war at least means they've calmed down since Tuesday night.
   6732. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:48 AM (#4299460)
We need Klosterman's take on this, stat.

The full conspiracy involves Daniel Petraeus, Van Halen II, Mike Tyson Punch-Out, and a box of King Vitaman cereal.
   6733. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:58 AM (#4299462)
Hey, is anybody interested in making a fair offer on a whole lot of fireworks?
   6734. Perro(s) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:01 AM (#4299463)
From the link in 6725:

Rove, leery of claiming too much for Republicans, said on Meet the Press on November 7 (2004) that "there are no permanent majorities in American politics." This is true, but some last longer than others. Burnham, however, sees little chance of change for years. For Republicans to slip into minority status again, he says, it would take a monumental party split like that in 1912 or "a colossal increase in the pain level" of Americans as happened with the Great Depression. Neither is likely.
   6735. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:07 AM (#4299464)
If I hasn't been posted, there's a nicely done map at The Washington Post showing where Obama did better, and where he did worse compared with 2008.

From the politicalticker blog at cnn.com:

Given this week's results, they said, conservatives will be even more motivated to reform the party. Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of ConservatieHQ.com, ended the press conference with one final prediction.

"Tea partiers will take over the Republican Party within four years," he said.


I think this belief is widespread inside the party. While it would make sound strategic sense for the GOP to make serious immigration reform a very high priority, I don't think the party's close to ready. A far right policy on immigration was de riguer during the primaries. Moderating that policy means moderating the xenophobia that fuels it. It means the tea party would need to voluntarily give up the gains it made within the GOP over the last five years. Why should it? People, and parties, change largely, only, when there's no other choice. There are any number of reasons one can decide led to Romney's loss: not enough white men voted; Obama simply ran a more effective campaign--voters didn't prefer his message, he was simply more effective delivering that message; a little too free with the rape comments, and that energized Democrats; Romney simply allowed Obama to define him early; GOP efforts to suppress the vote via new ID laws were insufficiently vigorous; Romney's polling led the campaign astray; Romney was a moderate delivering a conservative message--voters sensed this. What the party needs is a true conservative; Romney's message was more conservative than McCain's, and Romney ran better than McCain--a real conservative not only will continue to decrease that margin, he'll erase it; Karl Rove was the wrong man to map PAC spending; and so on.

Sean Hannity may well be floating the party's Wall St. money men's desire to moderate on immigration, but that's a far cry from seeing that desire carried out. Contempt for and fear of--even hatred of-- the Other is essential to the GOP's identity. We saw rampant paranoia as a dominant characteristic of the party. We've seen the inability to absorb facts pertinent to the most important foreign policy decision of the last two decades from not just too many in the GOP, but in a significant majority of the GOP:

A new poll conducted by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino found that 63 percent of Republican respondents still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003, even though this assertion has been thoroughly debunked.
Additionally, 64 percent of Republican respondents believe that President Obama was born in another country.


That's a deadly combination of fear and ignorance. It's not the picture of an electorate who, after a close and painful loss to a hated, illegitimate opponent, can be led to re-calibrate policy on strategic grounds.




   6736. Perro(s) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:07 AM (#4299465)
"If we give in now, we're dead anyways."


Is there good evidence that one's basic politics has a psychological basis? Regardless, it's more than a little troubling that a sizable number of one political tribe feels this way. Us lib'rals shouldn't rest too easy, methinks.
   6737. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:12 AM (#4299468)
"a colossal increase in the pain level" of Americans as happened with the Great Depression.


Well, that did happen.
   6738. Perro(s) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:13 AM (#4299469)
Obama simply ran a more effective campaign--voters didn't prefer his message, he was simply more effective delivering that message


A good Harper's piece on the subject that points to a sophisticsted saberist approach from thr Dems that's sure to be emulated by the pros on the other side.

Corporationism vs. Empiricism
   6739. Perro(s) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:22 AM (#4299471)
6737 -- Explains both Obama's victory and the reaction against him. A bad economy will cause some to rationally size up its causes, while others will double down on their irrational leanings -- see the 'we'll be dead anyway' quote. I've heard the same thing expressed by two not unintelligent people with media-warped attitudes. One listens incessantly to Fox, the other to alternative health media.

I understand the unbalanced personality from the inside...
   6740. Perro(s) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:37 AM (#4299472)
One should be careful to distinguish a sizeable section of the GOP base -- and even its aparatus -- with the party itself. The GOP has some smart operators who will not be content to believe any fairy tales about the past two elections. Expect a rebound. Still, on the level of national elections, the GOP has a real race problem sown strategically over two generations that won't be easily rectified.
   6741. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:33 AM (#4299476)

Weed out the partisan stuff in the linked article, How To Rig an Election, and the lack of accountability (or countability) in voting is indeed worrisome. Leave party out of it. The flaws in the process are enormous. Through, say, 1960, vote rigging was as American as porn. Our politics haven't gotten more honorable in the last half-century, and it's much easier to steal votes, and to steal a hell of a lot of them, than it's ever been.

I don't know whether it was the machines I voted on prior to 2012, or simply that I hadn't paid attention, but I put my ballot through the optical scanner Tuesday night and waited for my receipt. The nice folks supervising the voting and flanking the machine looked at me with curiousity (even more than I usually get). They were nonplussed by the idea that I thought a receipt would be automatically printed. I had to reassure them that I wasn't a deranged radical, but simply thought it would be as routine as getting a receipt after paying at any supermarket.

Apparently you have to specifically request a receipt, otherwise, once you feed your ballot in, it's too late. They showed me what a receipt looks like: for the eight offices up for election (no propositions) the receipt was three inches wide and nine feet long. Why make it so awkward to print and hand to the voter? My bimonthly $200 supermarket run generates a receipt with a lot more information in around one-tenth the area. There was also no visible tally of my vote anywhere on the machine. I had no way of knowing my vote was counted consistent with how I had cast it. A purely faith-based vote, if you will.


FTFA:

The public unmasking of [the ease of hacking voting machines] by an average citizen (who was not a programmer herself) served as a belated wake-up call to the world’s leading computer-security experts, who finally turned their attention to America’s most widely used voting systems. Damning reports have since been issued by researchers from Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Rice, and Stanford Universities, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the Government Accountability Office (none of them institutions hospitable to “tinfoil hat” conspiracy theorists). Experts describe appalling security flaws, from the potential for system-wide vote-rigging viruses to the use of cheap, easily replicated keys—the same kind used on jukeboxes and hotel minibars—to open the machines themselves. In 2005, the nonpartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, stated unequivocally that the greatest threats to secure voting are insiders with direct access to the machines: “There is no reason to trust insiders in the election industry any more than in other industries.”



   6742. bob gee Posted: November 10, 2012 at 08:22 AM (#4299484)
here's an idea. may be crazy, but what the heck.

find the census results from 2010 in each state (or county). find the 2012 voting patterns via each age group. it won't be exact, but close enough.

you can now break down how many in each group didn't vote.

if most of the people who didn't vote are 18-25, they're likely to swing dem more than rep. if they were 55+, they're more likely to vote rep then dem.

i would guess that the largest % of people who didn't vote are 18-25, which are 1) more likely to vote dem but 2) the hardest group to get out to the polls at all.

i'm glad i didn't hear too much junk of "most important election in our lifetime!". i'd say since 1960 the most important ones have been 1980/2008. then 1968 or 64, but without anything near the importance of the first two.

   6743. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4299491)
Matt and cerco have mentioned the large number of uncounted votes in California.

But what about in Arizona?

Races in Arizona Still Hang in the Balance

And from the looks of it, it sure doesn't look like it's Joe's cherished white voters who've been the most affected by this:

PHOENIX — Three days after the election, the outcome of several races remained a mystery in Arizona as officials struggle to count a record number of early and provisional ballots, many of them cast by voters who believed they had registered but whose names were not on the voter rolls at the polling place.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Ken Bennett revealed the magnitude of the situation: 631,274 votes remained uncounted, he said, more than in any presidential election in memory and enough to anger voting- and immigrant-rights advocates, who have called on the Justice Department to investigate. (By Friday, there were 524,633 uncounted ballots. There are 3.1 million registered voters in the state.)

The advocates, who have been staging nearly continuous protests outside the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center, where most of the votes are being tallied, have raised accusations of disenfranchisement, saying the same Latino voters they worked so diligently to register may have been disproportionately affected. Based on accounts they have been collecting since before the polls closed, among the 115,000 voters who cast provisional ballots in Maricopa County on Tuesday were many first-time minority voters who signed up to get their ballots by mail, but never did.....
   6744. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4299494)
A new poll conducted by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino found that 63 percent of Republican respondents still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003, even though this assertion has been thoroughly debunked.
Additionally, 64 percent of Republican respondents believe that President Obama was born in another country.


I've argued for some time that there are enormous benefits to loading your party base with Creationists and superstitious zealots; you've pre-selected for individuals trained to believe in absolutely anything without regard to evidence, a very nice characteristic in a word where facts tend to have a liberal bias.
   6745. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4299498)
People are writing that the GOP is stuck in the past, and has to change. But that's not true. Many prominent Republicans have already reassessed their policies, and moved away from them.

Charles Krauthammer, late on November 6, 2012:
"I think the real story here is that Obama won, but he’s got no mandate. He won by going very small and very negative and we are left with a country exactly where we started, but a little worse off. The Republicans are in control of the House, probably a little bit stronger they are not going to budge. There’s no way in which after holding out on Obama for two years they are going to cave in. And Obama doesn’t have really anywhere to go.

If he gets the majority of the popular vote, it’ll be very small, if there’s any. And even in the electoral it’s going to be a rather small majority, particularly if Virgina and Florida go to Romney. So this is not a mandate either in the numbers or the way he campaigned."

Charles Krauthammer's column, November 14, 1988:
"A Mandate To Govern Is A Matter Of Majority

The "mandate" nonsense has been going on nonstop since election night. Every half-hour, one maven or another declares that George Bush won the election, but no mandate. The insistence on this point is curious, since Bush never asked for a mandate. In fact, he never even presented an agenda. He held a referendum on the status quo and won in a walk.

Bush's only promise was more of the same. And as Eisenhower made clear in titling the first volume of his memoirs, mandates are for change. If you want reform or revolution, you need a mandate. If you promise continuity, you need only a majority.

So why the fuss about mandates? It is a preemptive attack on Bush's legitimacy.When Democrats defiantly declare that they refuse to give Bush the mandate he never asked for, they are not being tautological. They are being acutely political. It a high-sounding way' of saying that Bush may have won on paper, but because he won in a way of which one disapproves, he is not entitled to the full powers of the office.

Congressional Democrats may be in no mood to listen to President Bush. They have the perfect right not to listen. But mandate talk is a subtle way of saying that they have a duty not to listen. It is a way of saying: We are authorized to resist President Bush not just by the nature of our congressional vote, but also by the nature of his presidential vote, correctly understood.

Incorrectly understood. The founders said nothing about a president needing a mandate in order to exercise his executive functions, only a majority of Electoral College. That was John Kennedy's view, too.

After winning election by the smallest popular margin in history, "he rejected the argument that the country had given him no mandate," wrote Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy aide and sometime Dukakis speechwriter.

"Every election has a winner and a loser, he said in effect ... a margin of only one vote would still be a mandate."

The point is that for a mandate to govern you need only a one-vote majority. A mandate for change requires an agenda ratified by a landslide. But that has only happened three times since World War II. In 1952, Eisenhower won a mandate to end the Korean War. In 1964, Johnson won a mandate to launch the Great Society and keep the country out of war. (He batted .500.) And in 1980 Reagan won a mandate to rearm and cut taxes.

Compared to the norm, Bush's mandate to govern is as firm as that of any postwar president. You know something is suspect when you realize that the same people expressing such retroactive admiration for, Reagan's mandate and faulting Bush for not having the same are usually those who opposed every element of Reagan's mandate when he tried to enact it."

Charles Krauthammer, November 14, 2004:
"I think it was a huge issue that the president was weak in his first term. He had less of the power and strength and capital, as he speaks of, than he does today. And now that he’s been elected with a large majority, or a significant majority, and with a mandate, I think part of that mandate is to get the right judges, by his likes."
   6746. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4299502)
Every time I see Krauthammer talk on TV, I always remember his theme song.
   6747. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4299504)
Shorter Krauthammer: "No mandate for Mandingo"?
   6748. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4299508)
Is there good evidence that one's basic politics has a psychological basis?


I read an interesting book on the subject: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. The author (a moral psychologist) also has a website where you can do interactive tests and he talks about various results. He would answer your question, "Yes".
   6749. Tripon Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4299514)
Apparently you have to specifically request a receipt, otherwise, once you feed your ballot in, it's too late. They showed me what a receipt looks like: for the eight offices up for election (no propositions) the receipt was three inches wide and nine feet long. Why make it so awkward to print and hand to the voter? My bimonthly $200 supermarket run generates a receipt with a lot more information in around one-tenth the area. There was also no visible tally of my vote anywhere on the machine. I had no way of knowing my vote was counted consistent with how I had cast it. A purely faith-based vote, if you will.


You only do grocery shopping once every two months? How is that possible?
   6750. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4299520)
You only do grocery shopping once every two months? How is that possible?


Longpig keeps for years in the freezer.
   6751. GregD Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4299522)
The solution for party regulars is actually very simple. Rearrange the primary calendar. The Republican Party is not a monolith and if you stay away from the South and Southwest, you're going to get a broader range of outcomes than if you have to run through South Carolina right after New Hampshire. It would be a war, but it would be possible. Say, go from Iowa to New Hampshire (it's dumb these guys have to go first but so be it) to Ohio or Michigan to New Mexico and then to South Carolina, and in a normal year you'll have weeded out the field before you hit the South. Now, no doubt that Iowa caucus goers can be overtaken by loonies (if Iowa were a primary the process would be a lot different) and obviously you can get some strong nativists out west but if you're careful in the western state you pick (stay away from Arizona!) you can end up with 2 fairly moderate-ish (for the party) candidates still standing, and then let the South pick between them.

Or, make it simpler, and replace South Carolina with Florida, and you'll get Bush or Rubio as one of the last two candidates, no doubt. South Carolina shouldn't be picking anything for anybody.

When Democrats wanted to get away from NE candidates they supported the Super Tuesday reconfiguration, in which Iowa and New Hampshire made sure no segregationist would be standing, and then the South purged Northeasterners. It's cold but generally it works.

The point is that the outcomes the party produces are partly reflective of the people in the party, partly reflective of the process. A different but reasonable process will give you a slightly different outcome. Figuring out a new process isn't that hard, but it does require acknowledging things aren't working and then forcing through change.
   6752. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4299539)
I had to reassure them that I wasn't a deranged radical, but simply thought it would be as routine as getting a receipt after paying at any supermarket.

Apparently you have to specifically request a receipt, otherwise, once you feed your ballot in, it's too late


That's how it is at a lot of places now. Not grocery stores yet, but certainly most 7/11-type places. Receipts are on their way out.
   6753. tshipman Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4299545)
The solution for party regulars is actually very simple. Rearrange the primary calendar. The Republican Party is not a monolith and if you stay away from the South and Southwest, you're going to get a broader range of outcomes than if you have to run through South Carolina right after New Hampshire. It would be a war, but it would be possible. Say, go from Iowa to New Hampshire (it's dumb these guys have to go first but so be it) to Ohio or Michigan to New Mexico and then to South Carolina, and in a normal year you'll have weeded out the field before you hit the South. Now, no doubt that Iowa caucus goers can be overtaken by loonies (if Iowa were a primary the process would be a lot different) and obviously you can get some strong nativists out west but if you're careful in the western state you pick (stay away from Arizona!) you can end up with 2 fairly moderate-ish (for the party) candidates still standing, and then let the South pick between them.


The primaries for both parties should just be Ohio and Florida, since those are the voters you'll be targeting in the general anyways.
   6754. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4299554)
Remember how some people wouldn't sit in lines to simply top off their tanks?

Ventura, who drives a delivery van for a camera rental company, has taken to hunting for gasoline every time his gauge drops below a quarter of a tank. "It makes me crazy, thinking I might hit empty and not be able to find it," he said

Industry officials first blamed the shortage on gas stations that lost power, but now say the problem has shifted to supply terminals, which are either shut or operating at reduced capacity. Drivers are also quicker to top off tanks because they're afraid gasoline won't be available, AAA spokesman Michael Green said.

Desperate drivers weren't paying much attention to prices, but in New Jersey, seven gas stations were among the eight businesses sued by the state Friday on price-gouging claims.



Link

   6755. Morty Causa Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4299556)
Is there good evidence that one's basic politics has a psychological basis?

I read an interesting book on the subject: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. The author (a moral psychologist) also has a website where you can do interactive tests and he talks about various results. He would answer your question, "Yes".

He's been featured at Edge often.

There's this, about partisan politics

And here's some more features by him at Edge. The sumposium held a couple of years ago with others in his field was really informative
   6756. Morty Causa Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4299559)
6754:

Not to get all Monty Pythonish, but those people should have been around in the winter of 73-74 for the OPEC crisis. This is temporary. That forever changed things and it was everywhere felt. Tell 'em about it JOLLY OLD.
   6757. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4299563)
Sean Hannity may well be floating the party's Wall St. money men's desire to moderate on immigration, but that's a far cry from seeing that desire carried out. Contempt for and fear of--even hatred of-- the Other is essential to the GOP's identity.

This new "Jack Carter" account reads like a Jack Keefe-type parody. The idea that millions of conservatives wake up every morning hating blacks and Latinos is pure nonsense. Two of the most popular people on the right are Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas, both of whom are black. The most popular GOP politician in America right now might be Marco Rubio, a Latino from Florida (and Ted Cruz, senator-elect from Texas, is likely to catch up quickly given Cruz's communication skills and huge Texas platform). Allen West is an acquired taste, but he's hugely popular on the right, and the last time I checked, he was still black. (And even if West loses his House seat in the shady recount that's underway, he'll assuredly go on the Tea Party circuit.)

I know liberals can find racism in a box of Cracker Jacks, but comments like the one quoted above are birther-level delusions.
   6758. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4299565)
The primaries for both parties should just be Ohio and Florida, since those are the voters you'll be targeting in the general anyways.
The ability to win base votes in those states may not translate into the ability to win swing votes.

The point of the primaries is not to get the candidate who can best win the general, it's to get the best candidate acceptable to the broad party base who can win the general.
   6759. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4299567)
Re: #6757--
Your first five names include two guys who never run for office, and another who just got booted from office in a diabolically shady manner too sinister for anyone to think about. Don't forget Condi Rice, the claimed-by-conservatives version of Martin Luther King, and person of color John Boehner. Not quite enough to start a Juan Birch Society, but you shall overcome.
   6760. esseff Posted: November 10, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4299569)
CNN and NBC have called Florida for Obama.
   6761. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4299570)
I know liberals can find racism in a box of Cracker Jacks


Cracker Jacks >> Crackers >> whip crackers >> slavery
   6762. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4299572)
I know liberals can find racism in a box of Cracker Jacks

Keep your eyes on the prize!
   6763. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4299573)
Re: #6757--
Your first five names include two guys who never run for office, and another who just got booted from office in a diabolically shady manner too sinister to think about. Don't forget Condi Rice, the claimed-by-conservatives version of Martin Luther King, and person of color John Boehner. Not quite enough to start a Juan Birch Society, but you shall overcome.

Hey, look, the guy who made fun of a paraplegic last night is making moral judgments about millions of people he knows nothing about. Maybe Santa Claus — or Barack Obama — can bring him some self-awareness.
   6764. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4299574)
Wheelchair jokes are just how I roll.

No moral judgments of anyone, let alone millions... merely mockery of your sad list of the GOP's rainbow coalition.
   6765. spike Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4299575)
"Crackers >> whip crackers "

Never heard that particular etymological explanation before. Interesting - I always thought it was because of the color of Saltines.
   6766. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4299576)
Hey, look, the guy who made fun of a paraplegic


Saxby Chambliss? Damn.
   6767. GregD Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4299580)
I don't believe the GOP has an identity or a psyche. People within the GOP do, but the GOP itself is an institution, a corporation, a set of loose affiliations, an idea. So I agree that Jack Carter's claim is too broad both because the future is inherently unknowable and because the GOP cannot have a psyche. I know the GOP includes 1) people who are insanely open-minded about everything, 2) people who are more guarded but who are deeply pragmatic (who could accept nativism if it won elections but will be looking for alternatives now), and 3) people who intensely committed to being close-minded about race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation.

As an institution, the people in categories 1 and 2 have to try to steer it toward some accommodation with the world without losing the support of the people in category 3. Category 3 might be the biggest category--certainly I think it is in the South and parts of the West--but it is not institutionally the most powerful. And the question for the regulars is 1) can they manipulate the process and 2) how big will the blowback be from the nativists? Will they leave the party? Vote against the regulars in the primaries but vote for the party in the general? Stay home? Generally the pragmatics in parties successfully manipulate the true believers since they have both institutional and tactical advantages, and I wouldn't bet against the Republicans doing so. But it won't happen naturally.
   6768. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4299582)
Remember how some people wouldn't sit in lines to simply top off their tanks?
Ventura, who drives a delivery van for a camera rental company, has taken to hunting for gasoline every time his gauge drops below a quarter of a tank.

McCoy, who the hell considers filling up when they are below a quarter of a tank "topping off" said tank? That is simply not a compelling example for what you are trying to prove.
   6769. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4299583)
No moral judgments of anyone, let alone millions... merely mockery of your sad list of the GOP's rainbow coalition.

OK, where are all of these prominent Latinos you liberals supposedly care so much about?

Zero governors, one U.S. senator, few or no House members from non-majority-minority districts.

The Dem bench of Latinos is so thin at the national level, your party gave a prime convention speaking slot to a 38-year-old Latino mayor of a struggling city in a deep-red state who doesn't even speak Spanish.

The Dems care about Latinos as long as Latinos vote for Dems. As soon as a group of Latinos votes for the GOP (e.g., Cuban-Americans), the Dems treat them with utter contempt. It's comical watching you guys try to stake out the moral high ground when your alleged concern for Latinos is nothing more than pure political vote-counting.

If the vast majority of the 12 million illegal immigrants were expected to vote for the GOP if they were amnestied and given a path to citizenship, does anyone here believe the Dems would be making it a moral imperative to give them amnesty? Give us a break.
   6770. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4299585)
OK, where are all of these prominent Latinos you liberals supposedly care so much about?

Busy writing protest songs.
   6771. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4299586)
How To Rig an Election,

That Harper's article that Jack linked to in 6741 runs 10 pages, but it's definitely worth the time it takes to read it. The connection between right wing honchos and the companies that own the computerized voting systems is indisputable, and if I were Obama I'd be having either Holder or his replacement launch a major investigation into them.

This is one of many ways in which the country dodged a whole hail of bullets on Tuesday. After reading about the events described in this article, and about those uncounted votes in Arizona, the rather bitter irony is that the extent of potential voter fraud is all too real, only not in the way that the Republicans have been yammering about. It's testimony to the skills (dark or otherwise) of the Republican noise machine that stories like this get ignored, while videos of a stray Black Panther are seized upon as some sort of proof of intimidation.
   6772. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4299591)
That Harper's article that Jack linked to in 6741 runs 10 pages, but it's definitely worth the time it takes to read it. The connection between right wing honchos and the companies that own the computerized voting systems is indisputable, and if I were Obama I'd be having either Holder or his replacement launch a major investigation into them.

You want a major investigation of people who didn't steal an election?

How about a major investigation of what's going on in Allen West's district, where ballots are being filled out, after the election, with no witnesses?
   6773. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4299593)
If the vast majority of the 12 million illegal immigrants were expected to vote for the GOP if they were amnestied and given a path to citizenship, does anyone here believe the Dems would be making it a moral imperative to provide said amnesty? Give us a break.

Did the Democrats rise up in protest against giving political refugee status to the Cubans and Vietnamese who were fleeing Communist regimes and were notably pro-Republican in their sentiments?

-----------------------------------------------

As an institution, the people in categories 1 and 2 have to try to steer it toward some accommodation with the world without losing the support of the people in category 3. Category 3 might be the biggest category--certainly I think it is in the South and parts of the West--but it is not institutionally the most powerful. And the question for the regulars is 1) can they manipulate the process and 2) how big will the blowback be from the nativists? Will they leave the party? Vote against the regulars in the primaries but vote for the party in the general? Stay home? Generally the pragmatics in parties successfully manipulate the true believers since they have both institutional and tactical advantages, and I wouldn't bet against the Republicans doing so. But it won't happen naturally.

We all know that the Democrats took a huge hit in the South when they finally stood up to the Dixiecrats and basically ceded them to the Republicans, first on the national level and then down to the state and local levels in nearly every state. It cost them 5 out of the next 6 elections, and they went from 1964 to 2008 without winning a majority vote, but it was the right thing to do. The question is whether or not the Republicans have the character and the cahones to similarly wean themselves from an equally critical part of their electoral base, or whether they're just going to keep chasing after the votes of nativists and other wackos. I know which course Joe favors, and the purely partisan side of me hopes that his view prevails.



   6774. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4299594)
McCoy, who the hell considers filling up when they are below a quarter of a tank "topping off" said tank? That is simply not a compelling example for what you are trying to prove.

Thank you for proving once again that BTF will quibble about anything.
   6775. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4299596)
That Harper's article that Jack linked to in 6741 runs 10 pages, but it's definitely worth the time it takes to read it. The connection between right wing honchos and the companies that own the computerized voting systems is indisputable, and if I were Obama I'd be having either Holder or his replacement launch a major investigation into them.

You want a major investigation of people who didn't steal an election?


I'd like to see a major investigation of people who try to steal elections, regardless of whether they succeed in all cases.

How about a major investigation of what's going on in Allen West's district, where ballots are being filled out, after the election, with no witnesses?

Go for it. And if there's evidence that West is being robbed, prosecute those robbers, too. Let the chips fall where they may.**

But you might actually read the facts laid out in that Harper's article before commenting any further on it.

**And truth be told, Allen West provides far more amusement and pinata value than his lone vote in the House can possibly counter. He's a walking and talking exhibit of the state of today's Republican Party, and as such is of more use to Democrats than he is to Republicans.
   6776. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4299599)
Thank you for proving once again that BTF will quibble about anything.

What? I'm not quibbling, I'm flat-out disagreeing your example forwards your point.
   6777. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4299603)
My point being that price controls are stupid?
   6778. Morty Causa Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4299604)
I don't believe the GOP has an identity or a psyche. People within the GOP do, but the GOP itself is an institution, a corporation, a set of loose affiliations, an idea.


I'm sorry: it's official: the GOP is a person.
   6779. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4299605)
Did the Democrats rise up in protest against giving political refugee status to the Cubans and Vietnamese who were fleeing Communist regimes and were notably pro-Republican in their sentiments?

The Dems have been railing against the Cubans' favored immigration status for years.

***
Thank you for proving once again that BTF will quibble about anything.

Irony.
   6780. GregD Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4299606)
We all know that the Democrats took a huge hit in the South when they finally stood up to the Dixiecrats and basically ceded them to the Republicans, first on the national level and then down to the state and local levels in nearly every state. It cost them 5 out of the next 6 elections, and they went from 1964 to 2008 without winning a majority vote, but it was the right thing to do. The question is whether or not the Republicans have the character and the cahones to similarly wean themselves from an equally critical part of their electoral base, or whether they're just going to keep chasing after the votes of nativists and other wackos. I know which course Joe favors, and the purely partisan side of me hopes that his view prevails.
Good points and it illustrates the fact that every decision has consequences. As did the alternatives. Once civil rights began to get momentum, Democrats had to ask if Republicans would be the ones to do it, and if so what would happen to Democratic urban machines if African-Americans in the North switched back to the Republican Party. On the one hand, they made the switch and suffered, losing narrowly in 68 04, winning but losing in 00, losing bad in 72 80 and 84 and 88, and winning only in 76 92 and 96 (with some help, thanks Ross!). On the other hand, they preserved, mostly, their Congressional strength and could have gotten a little luckier on the presidential scorecard with a faster recovery in 79 or a different set of circumstances in 00.

What they faced was permanent minority status if they became isolated as the party of the segregationist South. Adding blacks to Republican coalitions in the Northeast and Midwest would have hurt the party badly, maybe permanently.

So they made the right decision both tactically and morally.

The question for Republicans is whether they would pay the same penalty the Democrats paid. Everyone knew lots of white Southerners would switch parties, at least on presidential elections, rather than vote for the party of civil rights. Is the same thing really true of nativist Republicans? Would they really vote Democratic?

I don't think so 1) because the Republicans don't have to flip sides, they just have to move to the middle, meaning they won't actually be more objectionable than the Democrats to nativists (as national Democrats became more objectionable than Republicans to the old white South), and 2) I don't think the Democrats will--tactically much less morally--be likely to be in position to try to exploit any Republican movement and appeal to the nativist bunch. Tancredo is not going to suddenly run for office as a Democrat (as lots of white Dems in the South switched parties.) Nativists just don't have anywhere else to go.

   6781. Morty Causa Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4299607)
   6782. Mefisto Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4299614)
a set of loose affiliations


A loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires.

/Paul Simon
   6783. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4299617)
My point being that price controls are stupid?

Your point in that post being that "SEE, SOMEONE SAID, BUT LOOK!"

I think your arguments against price control are sound, even if I don't agree with them. I think this example you made a point of posting is not applicable the argument. I don't consider that a quibble, YMMV.
   6784. BDC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4299626)
A religious talk radio host in Central Texas this week laid out an interesting assessment of the election: Obama, despite objectively being a disaster for this country, was re-elected at the margins by black people and white hipsters who are so proud of him that they couldn't bear for him to be a one-termer. (His more central coalition, I learned, consists of atheists, government employees, and single women.)

IOW no rethinking necessary. Wait for a white Democratic candidate and clear thinking will again prevail. Meanwhile, convert the heathen, downsize government, and marry off your daughters :)


   6785. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4299628)
Obama, despite objectively being a disaster for this country, was re-elected at the margins by black people and white hipsters who are so proud of him that they couldn't bear for him to be a one-termer. (His more central coalition, I learned, consists of atheists, government employees, and single women.)

IOW no rethinking necessary. ...

Sounds about right.
   6786. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4299632)
Never heard that particular etymological explanation before. Interesting - I always thought it was because of the color of Saltines.


I've always had it explained that "crackers" is a term for the plantation foreman/boss in charge of cracking the whip (and lashing out punishment.)
   6787. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4299633)
The Dems have been railing against the Cubans' favored immigration status for years.

¿Donde?


Sounds about right.

That was like watching us putting a hot dog in front of our pug.
   6788. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4299635)
¿Donde?

In Florida, for starters. Florida Dems, including Florida congressmen, have been claiming for years that "wet foot, dry foot" is a racist policy, despite it being the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton.

That was like watching us putting a hot dog in front of our pug.

A political party has no need to blow up its core principles after losing by 2-3 points. If Hurricane Sandy didn't hit at all, or if Hurricane Sandy didn't flip 1 percent of voters and/or the absolutely idiotic "rape" nonsense from Akin and Mourdock didn't hurt the GOP with women, Tuesday could have been a whole different ballgame.

The GOP held the House, it lost more Senate races with establishment retreads than it did with Tea Party types, and it made gains with governors (now holding 30 out of 50). The death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated.
   6789. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4299638)
if Hurricane Sandy didn't flip 1 percent of voters


How do you know this?

the absolutely idiotic "rape" nonsense from Akin and Mourdock didn't hurt the GOP with women


And that North Dakota guy who voted to make performing or receiving an abortion a felony.
   6790. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4299639)
How do you know this?

In the last five days of national polls before Sandy hit, Romney was over +2.0 ahead of Obama. A week later, he was -0.7. I was being cautious with the "1 percent" claim, but Sandy was the only intervening event over the last 8-9 days of the campaign, and the polls shifted ~3 points toward Obama.

If you're a hurricane and/or some dumb "rape" comments away from winning a national election, you don't need to run your platform through the shredder.
   6791. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4299641)

How do you know this?


It's the only explanation. Afterall they all thought Romney was winning despite what Nate and many other sites had been saying for months. They can't be wrong, it had to be god.
   6792. Poulanc Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4299642)
If you're a hurricane and/or some dumb "rape" comments away from winning a national election, you don't need to run your platform through the shredder.



Man, I really hope the Republican party actually believes this.
   6793. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4299643)
That Harper's article that Jack linked to in 6741 runs 10 pages, but it's definitely worth the time it takes to read it.


There's a link on the page that lets you download a PDF version of the article, which is far easier to read. I agree that it's a worthwhile read.

-- MWE
   6794. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4299646)
The death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated.

Saying that the GOP was recently weaker and stupid is not the same thing as saying they are dead. Also, I think you're interpreting post-coital victory blush as declarations of eradication. People are kind of excited.


The Dems have been railing against the Cubans' favored immigration status for years.
In Florida, for starters. Florida Dems, including Florida congressmen, have been claiming for years that "wet foot, dry foot" is a racist policy

So Florida Dems - in number - are against the favored immigration status of Cubans because "wet foot, dry foot" is a racist policy. I've been looking for evidence of this, but my google-fu seems to be failing. Can you provide?
   6795. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4299647)
if Hurricane Sandy didn't flip 1 percent of voters

How do you know this?


At the bottom of CNN's Exit Polling, they asked about Hurricane Sandy, and if you believe the numbers there, it really does support Joe's thesis:

Importance of Obama's Response to Hurricane: Most important (15% of voters), they voted for Obama 73-26; An important factor (27%), voted for Obama 65-33


Going up a bit from that

When did you decide Presidential vote: Today/last few days (9% of voters), Obama won 50-44


Although Obama also won those who decided before that 51-47, which implies that these results probably haven't been properly weighted.
   6796. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4299649)
In the last five days of national polls before Sandy hit, Romney was over +2.0 ahead of Obama. A week later, he was -0.7. I was being cautious with the "1 percent" claim, but Sandy was the only intervening event over the last 8-9 days of the campaign, and the polls shifted ~3 points toward Obama.


Silver never had Romney projected for more popular votes, and the worst odds of Obama winning were ~ 60%. Sandy may have made the win bigger, but it didn't flip the results.
   6797. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4299650)
Obama and Romney were tied according to RCP on October 31st and the biggest lead Romney had in October according to RCP was 1 point on the 27th of October. The next day it would go to .8 for Romney. So somehow all of these people that got polled just figured Obama would look Presidential over a hurricane and told pollsters they were going to vote for Obama before the Hurricane even hit and before Obama had even done anything about the devestation the hurricane had caused.

As for even sticking with RCP as evidence of anything is just laughable stupidity at this point. RCP did not use a bunch of polls that turned out to be accurate while using polls that turned out to be inaccurate and at times biased towards Romney. Nate Silver was much more accurate with his system and his polls revealed that Romney never ever had the lead.
   6798. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4299654)
Going up a bit from that


When did you decide Presidential vote: Today/last few days (9% of voters), Obama won 50-44


Like you said you have to adjust those numbers properly. Each candidate is going to have a baseline for that roughly 11 million voters. Probably something like each candidate was assured of getting 40% of that at the very least and Independents probably geting at least 2% total. I don't know it may be more I don't know how Indy's traditionally do in this regard. Doing that and Obama picked up 648,000 more votes than Romney in the last few days. Now will every singly one of those votes be because of the Hurricane? Probably not so we'll be generous and say 66% of those votes are because of the huricane so that gives us roughly 428,000 votes. Now then who are the peopel most likely to give him these votes? NE voters and those states went blue and it wasn't even close. Obama won VA by 3 points and over 110,000 votes so about the only state where it could have made a large difference is in VA and you would have to believe that over a quarter of all the people who decided to vote for Obama because of the hurricane lived in VA.
   6799. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4299657)
Probably something like each candidate was assured of getting 40%


Come on man, 47%. Pay attention.
   6800. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4299660)
The question for Republicans is whether they would pay the same penalty the Democrats paid [when the Democrats jettisoned the Dixiecrats]. Everyone knew lots of white Southerners would switch parties, at least on presidential elections, rather than vote for the party of civil rights. Is the same thing really true of nativist Republicans? Would they really vote Democratic?

I don't think so 1) because the Republicans don't have to flip sides, they just have to move to the middle, meaning they won't actually be more objectionable than the Democrats to nativists (as national Democrats became more objectionable than Republicans to the old white South), and 2) I don't think the Democrats will--tactically much less morally--be likely to be in position to try to exploit any Republican movement and appeal to the nativist bunch. Tancredo is not going to suddenly run for office as a Democrat (as lots of white Dems in the South switched parties.) Nativists just don't have anywhere else to go.


Morally, the Republicans have no real choice other than to shed the Arpaios and their ilk. That sorry faction of their party is very much the 21st century version of the Dixiecrats, even if they use that transparent "we're only talking about illegal immigration" dodge, which fools nobody.

But politically, they're in a quandary, though not as severe as the one the Dems faced in the 60's.

You're saying that "nativists just don't have anywhere else to go," but while that may be true for the pragmatic nativists, there are more than a few "principled" anti-immigration types whom I'd bet would either start sitting out elections or going the third party route.

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two main parties." That's what George Wallace used to say, and until he got shot and belatedly saw the light, he had quite a few million Americans who agreed with him and were willing to follow his lead. I wouldn't necessarily count on the Republicans being able to hold onto all of those angry white men if they started endorsing immigration reform along the lines of Bush and the man formerly known as Maverick McCain. Those angry white men turned against their party once over this issue, and it'd hardly be a shock were they to do so again.

The good news for the Republicans is that they wouldn't suffer any wholesale loss of states by doing the right thing, the way the Democrats lost the old Confederacy and then the border states. They're way too entrenched in their modern day version of the "Solid South" for that to happen. But OTOH, it might well switch a few of those now-swing states into the Democratic column, especially when the Latino percentage of the vote increases in those states. But OTOOH, when those nativists die off, some of those newly enfranchised Latinos with conservative social and economic views might be willing to give the GOP a fresh hearing.

The bottom line is that there are no political guarantees one way or the other, but there is one moral guarantee: If the Republicans continue to pander to the worst nativist elements in their party, they'll be more and more seen as a pariah party by the majority of the emerging electorate. And if I roll my eyes and say "that's a shame", I'm only halfway being sarcastic.
Page 68 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1746 - 11:22am, Apr 21)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogVIDEO: Brewers, Pirates brawl after Carlos Gomez triple
(120 - 11:19am, Apr 21)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogJ.R. Gamble: Albert Pujols' 500-Homer Chase Is A Bore, But That's Baseball's Fault
(4 - 11:18am, Apr 21)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogMorosi: MLB must evolve to let players express themselves without rebuke
(18 - 11:16am, Apr 21)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(421 - 11:13am, Apr 21)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogIvan Nova’s season in jeopardy after tearing elbow ligament
(12 - 11:13am, Apr 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(964 - 11:12am, Apr 21)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-21-2014
(28 - 11:09am, Apr 21)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(97 - 11:08am, Apr 21)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(109 - 11:01am, Apr 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(162 - 11:00am, Apr 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogDeadspin: Here is a Chicken Playing Baseball
(1 - 10:52am, Apr 21)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for APRIL 21, 2014
(4 - 10:48am, Apr 21)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(138 - 10:11am, Apr 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1953 Ballot
(1 - 10:04am, Apr 21)
Last: DL from MN

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.1115 seconds
52 querie(s) executed