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 69 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 >  Last ›
   6801. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4299662)
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?

Keep Googling. Rep. Alcee Hastings would be a good start.

***
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.

LOL. RCP was 49-for-50 in the Electoral College, exactly one state (Florida) worse than Nate.

***
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.

I didn't claim Sandy flipped the results. I said Sandy put the campaign on hold for a week and clearly affected some voters.

Sandy aside, if you really believe the "rape" comments couldn't have affected 2 percent of the vote, then why did lefties obsess over Akin and Mourdock? I guess I imagined that whole "war on women" thing.
   6802. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4299664)
If we trust Nate Silver - do we trust Nate yet, Joe? - Obama could have lost the popular vote by close to 3% and still won the electoral college. Given that no one here has suggested reforming the EC (in a while, at least) this would indicate that in order to swing Presidential elections going forward, the GOP will need to make up the margin of their current loss (3 points) PLUS 3 additional points. So even if Joe finds an extra 3% of white people, he's still down in the EC.

Finding a 6% swing is going to be really tough, Joe.
   6803. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4299665)
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.
State polls basically stayed in place during the last week of the election. The movement in the national polls appears to have been regression to the mean, as they'd been overrating Romney in the preceding week or two.

Interesting piece today in the Times by David Brooks. Hardly surprising that Brooks would find in the election defeat reason for Republicans to embrace a domestic neoconservative policy and move away from the manichean rhetoric of "small government". And as Josh Marshall points out, Brooks' argument based on immigration patterns is totally wrong. But his interpretation of the polling data is reasonably well-considered:
During the 2012 campaign, Republicans kept circling back to the spot where government expansion threatens personal initiative: you didn’t build that; makers versus takers; the supposed dependency of the 47 percent. Again and again, Republicans argued that the vital essence of the country is threatened by overweening government.
...
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.

Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.

Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.

For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.
   6804. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4299676)
In Florida, for starters. Florida Dems, including Florida congressmen, have been claiming for years that "wet foot, dry foot" is a racist policy.

Well, it sure isn't ethnically neutral, as it places "dry foot" Cubans in a different category from Haitians and Dominicans for little reason other than politics. But you're right to point out that this policy was enacted under Clinton.

OTOH although I've heard that policy described many times as racist, I've yet to hear any of those making that charge to propose treating the Cubans like the Haitians and Dominicans. Instead, they propose treating the Haitians and Dominicans as Cubans. Which is a perfectly consistent and unbiased approach to the "wet foot, dry foot" policy, unlike our current version.
   6805. Darren Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4299678)
I think the problem with Brooks is that this won't really "stick" with him. He'll wander off to some other interesting factoid that may or may not contradict this, decide that it resonates with the "real people" that he knows, and go with that. Then on to the next.
   6806. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4299679)
I didn't claim Sandy flipped the results. I said Sandy put the campaign on hold for a week and clearly affected some voters.


Really?

6790. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4299639)



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.


   6807. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4299682)
If we trust Nate Silver - do we trust Nate yet, Joe? - Obama could have lost the popular vote by close to 3% and still won the electoral college. Given that no one here has suggested reforming the EC (in a while, at least) this would indicate that in order to swing Presidential elections going forward, the GOP will need to make up the margin of their current loss (3 points) PLUS 3 additional points. So even if Joe finds an extra 3% of white people, he's still down in the EC.

Finding a 6% swing is going to be really tough, Joe.

Uh, that's not the only way the electoral math works. Also, the idea that Obama's ~400,000-vote victory (based on the last numbers I saw for the four swing states) could survive a six-point shift in the popular vote is purely theoretical. Only the most ardent Nate supporters would bank on that idea, and I'm not even sure most of them would.
   6808. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4299683)
I don't agree with a lot of what David Brooks says, but I think this bit from the article in #6803 is spot-on:

Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.

For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.

Let’s just look at one segment, Asian-Americans. Many of these people are leading the lives Republicans celebrate. They are, disproportionately, entrepreneurial, industrious and family-oriented. Yet, on Tuesday, Asian-Americans rejected the Republican Party by 3 to 1. They don’t relate to the Republican equation that more government = less work.


-- MWE
   6809. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4299688)
OTOH although I've heard that policy described many times as racist, I've yet to hear any of those making that charge to propose treating the Cubans like the Haitians and Dominicans. Instead, they propose treating the Haitians and Dominicans as Cubans. Which is a perfectly consistent and unbiased approach to the "wet foot, dry foot" policy, unlike our current version.

It's silly to suggest that fleeing communist Cuba and emigrating from the (democratic, capitalist) Dominican Republic and Haiti are remotely similar.
   6810. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4299692)
Really?

Are you serious or just doing your typical pedantic shtick?

At no point in this thread did I claim Sandy clearly flipped the election. I continuously referred to Sandy and the "rape" comments, the latter of which led to the whole "war on women" thing.

If you believe that Sandy and/or the "rape" comments couldn't possibly have affected 2 or 3 percent of the vote, just say so. This passive-aggressive, pedantic nonsense is boring.
   6811. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4299694)
Yeah, that column of Brooks is par for the course with him: A decidedly mixed bag. He's basically sane for the most part, and yet for the entire campaign he deluded himself into thinking that Romney would be able to govern like a moderate without having the Furies of the Tea Party descend on him. He seems to conflate the 2012 GOP with the the party of Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney, whereas in reality it's more like the party of John D. ("GOD gave me my gold") Rockefeller and Tea Party pandering Mitt.
   6812. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4299697)
Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. [...] It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.

It sounds like David Brooks believes Latinos want a crackdown on illegal immigrants (who cause downward pressure on low-skill wages) and a heavier police presence.
   6813. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4299699)
Obama could have lost Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and still won the election. It looks to me like Obama could have lost the popular vote 48-49 and still won the electoin and might very well have been able to lose the election by 2 points and still squeaked it out.
   6814. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:37 PM (#4299703)
OTOH although I've heard that policy described many times as racist, I've yet to hear any of those making that charge to propose treating the Cubans like the Haitians and Dominicans. Instead, they propose treating the Haitians and Dominicans as Cubans. Which is a perfectly consistent and unbiased approach to the "wet foot, dry foot" policy, unlike our current version.

It's silly to suggest that fleeing communist Cuba and emigrating from the (democratic, capitalist) Dominican Republic and Haiti are remotely similar.


Haiti is hell on wheels, every bit as much so as Cuba and in many ways even more so**. The DR has certainly improved in recent years, but at the time of the "wet foot, dry foot policy" enactment it hadn't yet settled into its current period of relative stability.

**Cuba's life expectancy: 78.3 years. Haiti's life expectancy: 60.9 years.
   6815. BDC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4299705)
illegal immigrants (who cause downward pressure on low-skill wages)

One always hears this, but nobody ever suggests the opposite, and just as plausible perspective: that American employers' love of non-union, low-wage workers acts as a magnet for illegal immigrants. One of the most pervasive clichés is "they do work that American citizens don't want to do." And it's true, debt peonage in the produce industry is certainly something that American citizens don't want to undertake.

If one follows through anti-illegal sentiment to its logical conclusion, one would want full employment and consequently strong unions (as many left-wing opponents of various immigration reforms do want, actually). That implication is a curious one for those on the right to generate, and I'm never quite sure whether it's an earnest sentiment, or whether illegals simply make a good flashpoint to "rally the base" of the far right.
   6816. spike Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4299706)
The beautiful thing about shibboleths like Sandy stopped Mittmentum! is that you can count on the GOP Meme Machine to buy into it wholesale and sell it to the base at full retail. The fact that it's underpinnings lie in two of the worst pollsters of the cycle doesn't matter. A theory that presupposes a Republican victory snatched away through no fault of their own will win out over lack of Latino outreach pretty handily. The other one I'm enjoying is that Romney allowed Obama to define him - conveniently ignoring the delightful reality that it was Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich who did it, Sheldon Adelson who paid for it, and Fox who broadcast it.
   6817. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4299707)
It sounds like David Brooks believes Latinos want a crackdown on illegal immigrants (who cause downward pressure on low-skill wages) and a heavier police presence.

Joe, your favorite R&B group has got to be the Four Tops, because you can spin in four different directions and still manage to stay on your feet. I say that somewhat in admiration.
   6818. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4299708)
I dated a girl from the DR back in the mid to late 90's. Crazy as a cat on fire but sometimes she could make it appealing. Anyway at the time something like 99% or so of the population lived in poverty. She was not part of the 99%.
   6819. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4299711)
The other one I'm enjoying is that Romney allowed Obama to define him - conveniently ignoring the delightful reality that it was Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich who did it, Sheldon Adelson who paid for it, and Fox who broadcast it.

That's as succinct and accurate a description of Mitt Romney's life in 2012 as we're ever likely to see. Reminds me of that "Looks like Jesus, Acts like Judas, Throws like Mary" banner that greeted Johnny Damon the first time he returned to Fenway in a Yankee uniform.
   6820. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4299713)
According to Nate the closest Romney got to Obama was on Oct 13th when he got within .9 points of Obama. At the end of the month Obama was up by 1.5 to almost 2 points.
   6821. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4299720)
Haiti is hell on wheels, every bit as much so as Cuba and in many ways even more so**. The DR has certainly improved in recent years, but at the time of the "wet foot, dry foot policy" enactment it hadn't yet settled into its current period of relative stability.

But still not the same thing. Aside from Mexico's border zone being a mess, tens of millions of people in places like Venezuela and Guatemala live in high-crime areas of abject destitution, but we don't give refugee status to anyone who steps foot in the U.S. from those places.

***
One always hears this, but nobody ever suggests the opposite, and just as plausible perspective: that American employers' love of non-union, low-wage workers acts as a magnet for illegal immigrants. One of the most pervasive clichés is "they do work that American citizens don't want to do." And it's true, debt peonage in the produce industry is certainly something that American citizens don't want to undertake.

That's not really the opposite, and it's something conservatives harp on all the time (e.g., support for E-Verify and employer sanctions).
   6822. BDC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4299721)
the closest Romney got to Obama was on Oct 13th

I still wonder what happened in early October; I suspect the first debate was a factor, and wrangling over Benghazi was a factor, and these factors (like so many ephemeral things) then faded in their effect. I tend to be convinced by arguments that the events of political campaigns have by-and-large a minor impact on how people end up voting.

The Benghazi harping (which continues to be widely cited on the right as an example of Obama's perfidy) overstayed its welcome, too, particularly when it devolved into a parsing of what words the Administration used on what day. It took on the feel of a very tiresome marital argument.
   6823. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4299731)
Haiti is hell on wheels, every bit as much so as Cuba and in many ways even more so**. The DR has certainly improved in recent years, but at the time of the "wet foot, dry foot policy" enactment it hadn't yet settled into its current period of relative stability.

But still not the same thing. Aside from Mexico's border zone being a mess, tens of millions of people in places like Venezuela and Guatemala live in high-crime areas of abject destitution, but we don't give refugee status to anyone who steps foot in the U.S. from those places.


But many Haitians were specifically fleeing from chaotic political conditions in Haiti. Poverty was only part of it. And while Cubans were given automatic presumptions of refugee status, Haitians had to jump through endless hoops to qualify on a one-on-one basis. As I said, it's a purely political distinction. Cubans are a powerful voting bloc in a swing state, which is pretty much all there is to it, since neither party wants to be seen as Soft On Castro. If only Papa Doc and Baby Doc had called themselves Marxist-Leninists.....
   6824. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4299735)
I still wonder what happened in early October; I suspect the first debate was a factor, and wrangling over Benghazi was a factor, and these factors (like so many ephemeral things) then faded in their effect. I tend to be convinced by arguments that the events of political campaigns have by-and-large a minor impact on how people end up voting.

The Benghazi harping (which continues to be widely cited on the right as an example of Obama's perfidy) overstayed its welcome, too, particularly when it devolved into a parsing of what words the Administration used on what day. It took on the feel of a very tiresome marital argument.


The "independent" Republicans went with Romney at that point. I think the first debate really was their excuse to get off the pot and say yes on Romney but I also think they were going to say yes to Romney by election regardless of that first debate.

On a side note I just got an email telling me that the United Nations wished to give my 500,000 pounds.
   6825. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4299742)
But many Haitians were specifically fleeing from chaotic political conditions in Haiti. Poverty was only part of it. And while Cubans were given automatic presumptions of refugee status, Haitians had to jump through endless hoops to qualify on a one-on-one basis. As I said, it's a purely political distinction.

Yes, purely political: Cuba has been a communist dictatorship for over 50 years, while Haiti has been a democracy — a poor and unstable democracy, but a democracy nonetheless — for decades.
   6826. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4299743)
The Benghazi harping (which continues to be widely cited on the right as an example of Obama's perfidy) overstayed its welcome, too, particularly when it devolved into a parsing of what words the Administration used on what day. It took on the feel of a very tiresome marital argument.

Speaking of marital analogies, Matt Taibbi writes "I searched the right-wing media landscape far and wide and tried to find even a hint of self-examination, self-criticism, and I didn't find much," before comparing much of the GOP's post-election emotional baggage to "the last days of a failed 1950s marriage." He also writes:

"A lot of these people [Latinos. women, the young], believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.

But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average "illegal," as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers."
   6827. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4299744)
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.
Which claim, Greg? Serious question. I can't link your post to a specific assertion I've recently made.

@6743: that would be Secretary of State Bennett who, while not a birther, he says, merely wanted ahead of the 2012 election to be certain that Obama was indeed a citizen of the U.S.? Just for the safety of voters, I mean.

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.
Huh. I did not know that. although the cash registers of my local chain gas station for some reason now no longer display your total. Offputting.

@6749: "Adjective:
Occurring or produced twice a month or every two months." Ambiguous, granted. I shop on a schedule of the former.
   6828. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4299745)
At no point in this thread did I claim Sandy clearly flipped the election. I continuously referred to Sandy and the "rape" comments, the latter of which led to the whole "war on women" thing.
who told you that the republican party is involved in trying to teach dogs to talk?
   6829. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4299746)
At no point in this thread did I claim Sandy clearly flipped the election. I continuously referred to Sandy and the "rape" comments, the latter of which led to the whole "war on women" thing.



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.

I am not saying your mother is a whore. I am saying she likes to sleep with men for money.
   6830. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4299749)
I kind of doubt receipts are on their way out. There are a ton of places that require the cashier to give a receipt and if they don't the product is free. 7/11 and such almost never gave you a receipt anyway so them not giving you one isn't a change in procedures. I can think of only three major segments of the economy that don't give you a receipt automatically. Fast food (McDonalds), Convenience stores, and Gas Stations.
   6831. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4299750)
At no point in this thread did I claim Sandy clearly flipped the election. I continuously referred to Sandy and the "rape" comments, the latter of which led to the whole "war on women" thing.

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.
I am not saying your mother is a whore. I am saying she likes to sleep with men for money.

Yet another guy who struggles with reading comprehension. The sentence clearly says "could have been," not "would have been."
   6832. GregD Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4299751)
Which claim, Greg? Serious question. I can't link your post to a specific assertion I've recently made.


My bad; I should have included:

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:


I think we're fairly close in judgment on this and other stuff. And the difference may be semantic. My point is that parties don't have identities; they have members and institutional forces. And they change. So I don't think anything is inherently true of a party, and I don't think it's possible to know for certain how a party will respond in the future since parties are loose and baggy monsters. But I would agree that it seems only mildly likely that the party will respond, and of course I agree that some members of the party will respond angrily to a move toward the center on immigration. The questions are 1) who will control the party process and 2) what the nativists would do if they end up with an outcome they don't like.
   6833. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4299753)
I still wonder what happened in early October; I suspect the first debate was a factor...


It was *the* factor. Obama coasted into the first debate without so much as a cursory thought that he might have to try at it, and got waxed. The post-mortem of the Dem campaign speaks to this fact (everyone is focusing on the GOP post-mortem more, naturally.) John Kerry apparently played the exact tactic Romney used in the debate prep and Obama didn't pay it much attention. That debate gave anyone who wanted to break Romney but hadn't yet the excuse they needed. The numbers for Obama crashed after that debate, until they leveled out at the 2nd debate (which Obama won) and started rebounding by the 3rd debate (which Obama won as well.)

Sandy might have added a few ticks to the already resurgent Obama uptick, but Mittmentum had already ceased by the third debate and Obama was clawing back some of his previous lead.
   6834. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4299756)
Cuba has been a communist dictatorship for over 50 years, while Haiti has been a democracy — a poor and unstable democracy, but a democracy nonetheless — for decades.

Calling Haiti a "democracy" reminds me of a summary I once saw for Nixon's Checkers Speech: "A leading political philosopher calls for honesty in government." It kind of leaves a few things out.
   6835. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4299758)
The numbers for Obama crashed after that debate, until they leveled out at the 2nd debate (which Obama won) and started rebounding by the 3rd debate (which Obama won as well.)

Sandy might have added a few ticks to the already resurgent Obama uptick, but Mittmentum had already ceased by the third debate and Obama was clawing back some of his previous lead.


That's only true in the real world, Sam. You'll have to do better than that.
   6836. Mefisto Posted: November 10, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4299759)
I still wonder what happened in early October; I suspect the first debate was a factor, and wrangling over Benghazi was a factor, and these factors (like so many ephemeral things) then faded in their effect.


The first debate probably wasn't quite as important as everybody said.* It was right about that time that the polling firms shifted from a registered voter survey to a likely voter survey. That alone would have reduced Obama's lead. His poor debate performance didn't help, but the tightening of the race can't be attributed to that alone IMO.

*I thought Obama was terrible.
   6837. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4299760)
I am not saying your mother is a whore. I am saying she likes to sleep with men for money.

Yet another guy who struggles with reading comprehension. The sentence clearly says "could have been," not "would have been."


And I am not saying your mom was a whore. I am saying she could have been.

Listen, I am a republican but you argue dishonestly. You are a typical politician who implies something without really saying it, but when gets called on it, says I really didn't say that. The polls showed Romney behind. He was trying to catch up, but didn't. Did the hurricane help? No. But it didn't lose the election for him, nor did it stop his momentum. He didn't have the momentum. The Republican spin was that he did, which is what you are arguing.
   6838. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4299764)

@6832: Thanks for the clarification, Greg. I do want to be careful that while identifying what I see as trends, I don't start assuming that everyone fits into that trend. HW, just for one, doesn't fit many of the generalizations offered here wrt the GOP.

'Identity' is a concept we could write a few thousand books about. Characterizing a party's tendencies is fair, I believe. At what point characteristics do or do not become or represent identity, however, and at in what places identity is and is not stable independent of characteristics are things I won't claim to be clear on.

...parties are loose and baggy monsters.
is a great definition.

@5949. It was a while back but it's an extraordinarily important issue.
I've been saying it for a little while, but I voted Obama because he is a net positive influence on the country. He probably believes that expanded drone strikes are necessary. And for all we know, he's right. It seems like an ugly choice: to not kill likely members of Al Quaeda may mean to embolden them. But it's still awful, and a black mark on him for not finding a better way than killing an American citizen who had committed no crimes.
I'm sickened that the people targeted are not at least tried in absentia. I'm aware of the problems with that, but to simply have one man picking who lives and who dies is dreadful. I realize that's what generals (and privates) do, but that's typically when a declaration of war has been made, and there is at least some accountability within the military. Sometimes.

I also realize that while the evidence and verdict in a terrorist trial in absentia may have to be largely redacted, there is at least a record of evidence and judgment. That has to be better than no record at all.
   6839. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4299765)
Done! I finally caught up with this thread.

I have nothing to say.
   6840. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4299767)
Listen, I am a republican but you argue dishonestly. You are a typical politician who implies something without really saying it, but when gets called on it, says I really didn't say that.

Utter nonsense. I stated an opinion that Sandy and/or Akin/Mourdock could have swung 2-3 points from Romney to Obama, and then a bunch of lefties dishonestly claimed I made a statement of fact.

The polls showed Romney behind. He was trying to catch up, but didn't. Did the hurricane help? No. But it didn't lose the election for him, nor did it stop his momentum. He didn't have the momentum. The Republican spin was that he did, which is what you are arguing.

More nonsense. Romney was leading in most national polls before Sandy hit, and he had made major gains in many of the key swing states. It's possible there was nothing he could have done in Ohio, where the polls stubbornly stayed at Obama +2.0 despite Romney's gains elsewhere. But the idea that Sandy and/or the rape comments couldn't possibly explain Romney's margin of loss is absurd. According to the polling Kiko linked, Obama won 3:1 among those for whom Sandy was the No. 1 issue.
   6841. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4299768)
Done! I finally caught up with this thread.

I have nothing to say.
You don't even have an election prediction? P***y.
   6842. GregD Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4299769)
'Identity' is a concept we could write a few thousand books about. Characterizing a party's tendencies is fair, I believe. At what point characteristics do or do not become or represent identity, however, and at in what places identity is and is not stable independent of characteristics are things I won't claim to be clear on.
Jack, we're either in the same place or a fingernail apart. Tendencies, yes! Constituencies unlikely to move, yes! If I had to bet, I think I'd bet that your view of the party's future course is correct, but I would have to think about it; that's in the end, all I'm adding. It'll be a fight, and we can't be sure--though we can take a good guess--how big a fight or how it will come out internally.
   6843. DA Baracus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4299771)
Done! I finally caught up with this thread.

I have nothing to say.


Points for limiting it to one post.
   6844. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4299772)
More nonsense. Romney was leading in most national polls before Sandy hit


Librulbias!
   6845. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4299775)
Librulbias!

Nate's unverifiable odds aren't synonymous with "national polls."
   6846. BDC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4299779)
I'm sickened that the people targeted are not at least tried in absentia. I'm aware of the problems with that, but to simply have one man picking who lives and who dies is dreadful. I realize that's what generals (and privates) do, but that's typically when a declaration of war has been made, and there is at least some accountability within the military. Sometimes.

I also realize that while the evidence and verdict in a terrorist trial in absentia may have to be largely redacted, there is at least a record of evidence and judgment. That has to be better than no record at all


I agree 100%. If the Nuremburg defendants could be tried, if Eichmann could be tried, if the Sicilian Mafia could be tried, then al-Qaeda can be tried. Some common ideas are that trials are impossible because the guilty have too much power over potential witnesses, or because we'd tip our hand as to how evidence was gathered, or because the entire culture in which al-Qaeda grows is so antithetical to truth and due process that no trial is possible. All those excuses are pretty cowardly. There's a perverse sense in which if terrorists are assassinated without being brought to justice, the terrorists have won.
   6847. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 08:22 PM (#4299797)
Nate's unverifiable odds aren't synonymous with "national polls."

And yet who wound up nailing every state and came within a whisker of projecting the exact popular vote percentage? And which aggregate didn't pick up on Obama's lead until the last week of the election? Which model vindicated itself once again in the real world, and which model came up short?
   6848. SteveF Posted: November 10, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4299801)
I am left wondering to what extent Nate Silver would be hoisted up onto shoulders and carried off the field had he correctly predicted a Romney victory instead.
   6849. thok Posted: November 10, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4299810)
But still not the same thing. Aside from Mexico's border zone being a mess, tens of millions of people in places like Venezuela and Guatemala live in high-crime areas of abject destitution, but we don't give refugee status to anyone who steps foot in the U.S. from those places.


A true discussion about immigration would strongly consider significantly raising the allowed levels of legal US immigration, so that the Venezuelans and Guatemalans (and Sudanese and Afghanis and people from any other country that desperately want a better life) who wanted to move to the US to improve their lot could do so. In that context an amnesty isn't pandering, but recognition that the previous US immigration policy was misguided.

Romney's comments suggested that illegal immigration was a major obstacle hindering legal immigration. It isn't: the one and only obstacle to legal immigration are US laws strictly limiting it. And in that context, it's very unclear that the Republican party is ready to have a real discussion about how much immigration is appropriate for the United States; beginning the discussion by focusing on those immigrants that are already here is an implicit compromise to not discuss bringing in millions more.
   6850. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4299813)
@6842: well, I admit my good guess doesn't mean much. I'm privy to literally nothing in regard to where the party might go from here. Matt Tabibi writes,

Like a lot of people, I listened to Rush Limbaugh the day after the election. Pure Schadenfreude, I admit it; I just wanted to hear the reaction. I searched the right-wing media landscape far and wide and tried to find even a hint of self-examination, self-criticism, and I didn't find much. Then again, they didn't lose the presidential vote by much, so they didn't take the election result as a total repudiation of their belief system, as they probably shouldn't have, anyway.


Limbaugh, from TFA:
It doesn't count. Why not? Why, putting it coarsely, doesn't the Republican Party get credit for Condoleeza Rice? Why doesn't the Republican Party get credit for Marco Rubio? Why doesn't the Republican Party get credit for Suzanne Martinez...?


Listening to him whine is always good fun, but of course the GOP does get credit for having minorities in the party. As poorly as the party did with Latinos, what does he think the percentage would have been without those rare but prominent figures? Is Limbaugh really so ignorant as to believe that by putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court Republicans have solved their problems with AAs? I guess he is.

Limbaugh continues:
But what are supposed to do, in order to get the Hispanic vote now? Does that mean, open the borders and embrace the illegals? I want you to think about this. So – the Republican establishment, does that mean, if we're not getting the female vote, do we become pro-choice? Do we have to start giving out birth control pills? Is that what we have to do?


While I'm in danger of veering into claims for party identity, I've observed this 'either/or' thinking is part and parcel of the mindset that cripples the party (humanity, generally, too, but it seems worse here). There's no hint of compromise in Limbaugh's complaint, no sense that moderation of extreme policies is desirable, or even possible. It's all or nothing. Victory of surrender. "No exceptions" or "The Pill to middle-schoolers". Triumph or failure. That does seem to be a characteristic of Republicans in Congress as well.

@6846: Absolutely. There are no excuses. The Sicilian Mafia trials are an excellent example of what is possible.

@6847: this is STILL getting spun? You have a strong stomach, Jolly.
   6851. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4299818)
So apparently being wrong and shutting up about it only lasts about 3 days after that it is back to the polls are wrong and biased.
   6852. Tilden Katz Posted: November 10, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4299821)
I love the mention of Condoleeza Rice, a woman who wouldn't be able to sniff the GOP nomination because he pro-choice beliefs would offense the Akin/Mourdock win of the party.
   6853. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4299822)
@6852: And how people of color are being bamboozled by free 'Bamaphones into voting Democratic. What O What does the party of Lincoln have to DO to persuade lazy, brown welfare recipients it means them no harm?

Interesting. I was wondering why it's being reported that Obama is considering how to negotiate with House leadership on taxes when Slate came up with Boehner is Bluffing.

Remember the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones faces off against a guy who unsheathes a scimitar and wows the audience with his fancy swordsmanship--only to get shot in the chest by Indy? The swordsman—that’s House Speaker John Boehner right now on the Bush tax cuts. Whether it’s out of deference to the office, eagerness to have an interesting story to write about, or plain gullibility, every congressional reporter in town is now dutifully reporting on his negotiating strategy. But this fight is over. Boehner has brought a knife to a gunfight, only nobody seems to have told anyone in the conservative movement.
   6854. RollingWave Posted: November 10, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4299823)
I am left wondering to what extent Nate Silver would be hoisted up onto shoulders and carried off the field had he correctly predicted a Romney victory instead.

Given that his status in the industry is now secure, it is quite likely that we'll eventually get to see what happen in an election where the GOP Prez wins.

   6855. Steve Treder Posted: November 10, 2012 at 09:37 PM (#4299826)
Given that his status in the industry is now secure, it is quite likely that we'll eventually get to see what happen in an election where the GOP Prez wins.

Good point. No doubt, by that time Silver will have learned from all of the egregious errors he made this year and finally be someone worth paying attention to.
   6856. Steve Treder Posted: November 10, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4299831)
File under "Really?":

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida on Saturday said he requested a review of his state's voting processes with a particular emphasis on areas where voters waited four hours or longer to cast their ballots.

"We are glad that so many voters made their voices heard in this election, but as we go forward we must see improvements in our election process," Scott said in a statement. "I have asked Secretary of State Ken Detzner to review this general election and report on ways we can improve the process after all the races are certified.”

... But last cycle, the state allowed two weeks of early voting, which was shortened this year to eight days. Election boards were permitted to schedule as little as 48 hours of early voting ...

A previous review ordered by Scott drew controversy over the summer.

The governor directed that local election boards review their voter rolls and remove names of people who appeared to be ineligible.


What a complete tool Scott is.
   6857. robinred Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4299835)
I am left wondering to what extent Nate Silver would be hoisted up onto shoulders and carried off the field had he correctly predicted a Romney victory instead.


Wonder all you like. The GOP and many of its followers need to spend less time looking at the way liberals feel about Silver and more time looking in the mirror.

Like I have said several times, I paid attention to Silver because his model did a really good job with the 2008 Election and because he writes in an accessible, intelligent, low-key manner. Had he been telling me that Romney was in the driver's seat, I would have gone into Tuesday thinking that Romney was probably going to win. Many liberals no doubt latched on to Silver because his blog told them some things they wanted to hear, but this is, in the context of political partisanship, totally unremarkable behavior. Silver is a big deal because he is one guy, rather than a faceless organization, because he writes for the NYT, because he is a "Moneyball guy", because he was right last time, and because a lot of GOP talking heads and rank-and-filers made a point of saying he was going to be wrong.
   6858. robinred Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4299837)
I also agree with a lot of 5949.
   6859. Morty Causa Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4299838)
A true discussion about immigration would strongly consider significantly raising the allowed levels of legal US immigration, so that the Venezuelans and Guatemalans (and Sudanese and Afghanis and people from any other country that desperately want a better life) who wanted to move to the US to improve their lot could do so. In that context an amnesty isn't pandering, but recognition that the previous US immigration policy was misguided.


A true discussion of immigration would also deal with reciprocal obligations of other countries--if for no reason other than conceptual purity.
   6860. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4299841)

Since it was discussed here and there in this thread, from today's online edition of Slate

BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ABOUT FOUR YEARS AWAY:
Politico: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would start out as a dominant favorite in the 2016 Iowa caucuses if she chooses to run for president, a new survey from Public Policy Polling finds. The PPP poll ... shows Clinton taking 58 percent of the Iowa vote in a hypothetical presidential run. Vice President Joe Biden trails far behind at 17 percent, followed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at 6 percent and Massachusetts Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren at 3 percent."
Polls that far ahead don't mean much but that's a slight edge to Clinton, there.

What a complete tool Scott is.
Impressive toolery, though. "I demand an investigation [of the problems I myself created]!"
   6861. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4299842)
Keep Googling. Rep. Alcee Hastings would be a good start.

Yeah, I did. Asserting that not allowing Haiti the same lenient immigration as Cuba is about racism is not complaining about the leniency letting Cubans in. It's complaining about the racist reasoning behind keeping Haitians out.

And it's not FLORIDA LEGISLATORS, AN ARMY OF THEM. It's basically him that you're misinterpreting the view of.

As usual, a joy to pick out the facts from your personal fantasies, Joe, thanks.
   6862. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4299843)
Alcee Hastings is a jerk though.
   6863. BDC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4299844)
Many liberals no doubt latched on to Silver because his blog told them some things they wanted to hear

In the first two weeks of October, he was telling me that Romney was coming on like the 2012 Oakland Athletics. I did not want to hear that, but I accepted it as probably right for the reasons you mention: that Silver had been right on in '08.
   6864. Steve Treder Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4299850)
Impressive toolery, though. "I demand an investigation [of the problems I myself created]!"

Chutzpah at its most ardent.
   6865. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4299852)
Many liberals no doubt latched on to Silver because his blog told them some things they wanted to hear

Yes, facts and data. Too bad Republicans didn't want to hear them, so offered up Romney victories/landslides instead.
   6866. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4299854)
I am left wondering to what extent Nate Silver would be hoisted up onto shoulders and carried off the field had he correctly predicted a Romney victory instead.
If he had correctly predicted a Romney win, he wouldn't have been attacked by liberals the way he was by conservatives.
   6867. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4299855)
"they do work that American citizens don't want to do." And it's true


Not true. I've worked with too many returning from prison, young urban kids and young single mothers to know that desperation for a job isn't above scrubbing toilets. It is these kinds of jobs - landscaping, housekeeping, food processing - where it's hard to get hired (unless you know Spanish and know the contract boss). And even then the wages are so depressed, one can only make a living if one's doing a series of like jobs 60 hours a week and renting a house with a dozen others.


Of course, the profiteering class wants to keep these low-wage workers. However, you neglect that it's also the welfare-bureaucracy and its related parties that wants to keep these needy people in the country. It means more business for the welfare departments and justification for more public jobs (and thus more forced into public unions, more forced dues, more contributions to a certain political party). Their dependency, their need for advocacy, their need for legal defense also grows and sustains community organizations and their public funding opportunities.

It's not just rich corporations that are exploiting the undocumented immigrant, the very core of the Democratic Party is in on it too. Of course nothing that liberals have done "for" the poor or needy has not also come with strings to control them and/or others in their power grabs.
   6868. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4299856)
In the first two weeks of October, he was telling me that Romney was coming on like the 2012 Oakland Athletics. I did not want to hear that, but I accepted it as probably right for the reasons you mention: that Silver had been right on in '08.


Notably, you didn't hear a peep from the pro-Obama voices in this thread when Nate was confirming what seemed clear: that the first debate was a debacle of historic proportions and that Mittmentum was on a roll. And that he had a really deep hole to dig out of, which he failed to do.
   6869. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4299858)
No matter who he picked he would have gotten attacked by some people and some of the people would be mean and vicious about it. Now I don't know how sneering and ignorant the media would be about it if he was projecting Romney to win and as for the people it really depends on what the polls were saying. If all the polls were saying Romney was leading and he picked Romney the uproar wouldn't be much. If all the polls said Romney was leading and had a R+9 skew or Silver used a R+9 skew there would be a pretty large uproar over it just like people thought the unskew guy was an idiot for doing what he did.
   6870. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4299859)
Nothing wrong with working 60 hours a week and sharing a place to live.
   6871. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4299860)
Asserting that not allowing Haiti the same lenient immigration as Cuba is about racism is not complaining about the leniency letting Cubans in. It's complaining about the racist reasoning behind keeping Haitians out.

Don't confuse the man with mere facts, Lassus.

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

In the first two weeks of October, [Silver] was telling me that Romney was coming on like the 2012 Oakland Athletics. I did not want to hear that, but I accepted it as probably right for the reasons you mention: that Silver had been right on in '08.

And it was also because Silver's objectivity was obvious to everyone but Joe and his fellow Unskewers. I lost count of the number of times a poll that was favorable to the Democrats was "unskewed" by Nate and shown to be less than it appeared to be on the surface. He was every bit as quick to point out Democratic bias in a pollster as he was to point out Republican bias. It's as if his critics simply refused to acknowledge the consistency of Nate's poll unskewing.
   6872. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4299862)
I personally loved how all the Republicans kept saying things like "you think Dem turnout is going to be the same as 2008? Come on" despite poll after poll after poll confirming that yes the Dems were going to turnout in roughly the same numbers. hubris.
   6873. BDC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4299863)
you neglect that it's also the welfare-bureaucracy and its related parties that wants to keep these needy people in the country. It means more business for the welfare departments and justification for more public jobs

I'm sorry, but nobody in their right mind moves to Texas for the welfare benefits :) They move here because there's work here and there's none at home. Hell, that's why I moved to Texas …

   6874. Srul Itza Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4299864)
he welfare-bureaucracy and its related parties that wants to keep these needy people in the country. It means more business for the welfare departments and justification for more public jobs (and thus more forced into public unions, more forced dues, more contributions to a certain political party). Their dependency, their need for advocacy, their need for legal defense also grows and sustains community organizations and their public funding opportunities.

It's not just rich corporations that are exploiting the undocumented immigrant, the very core of the Democratic Party is in on it too.


Paranoid conspiracy theory, much?
   6875. esseff Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4299866)
My only doubt of Silver was the newness of his model, which had been through only one presidential campaign; whether there might be something unique to this year's campaign that he hadn't picked up on, something not seen in 2008, some institutional bias, some false assumption. We now know there weren't any such factors. Or maybe there were and he anticipated them and adjusted.
   6876. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4299867)
6873. And they're not kicked out of Texas because both the profiteering class and the core of the Democrat Party has a stake in their existence as a permanent underclass.
   6877. Srul Itza Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4299868)
My only doubt of Silver was the newness of his model, which had been through only one presidential campaign


And one congressional off-year, which he also called.
   6878. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4299870)
6874. Not a conspiracy. The lived experience of someone who rose out of poverty and witnessed the false compassion of the welfare system. It's a scheme for bureaucratic self-protection and statist expansion, not charity.
   6879. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4299871)
And they're not kicked out of Texas because both the profiteering class and the core of the Democrat Party has a stake in their existence as a permanent underclass.

Since you're relatively new here (or at least your handle is) and you're making all sorts of scattershot claims about "profiteering class[es]" and the "Democrat" Party (a giveaway right there), maybe you might ground yourself by telling us who would have been your top choice for president this year among all the names who were mentioned. It might help put some of your comments into a bit of perspective.
   6880. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4299872)
Allan Parsons
   6881. Srul Itza Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4299873)
Since you're relatively new here (or at least your handle is) and you're making all sorts of scattershot claims about "profiteering class[es]" and the "Democrat" Party (a giveaway right there), maybe you might ground yourself by telling us who would have been your top choice for president this year among all the names who were mentioned. It might help put some of your comments into a bit of perspective.


And also what brand of tin-foil you use to fashion your hats.
   6882. BDC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4299874)
the core of the Democrat Party has a stake in their existence as a permanent underclass

I'm sorry, again, but how does that square with consistent support from the federal Democratic Party for various versions and provisions of the DREAM Act? It seems to me that DREAM, with its mandatory education provisions, is entirely about transforming an underclass into a middle class.

I'll hang up and listen. It's late here in San Antonio, where I've been on business this week and where most of the larger American debate about immigration seems fairly lunatic. There are things to dislike about Texas, but the relative lack of xenophobia here is something to be grateful for.
   6883. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4299876)
Since you're relatively new here (or at least your handle is) and you're making all sorts of scattershot claims about "profiteering class[es]" and the "Democrat" Party (a giveaway right there), maybe you might ground yourself by telling us who would have been your top choice for president this year among all the names who were mentioned. It might help put some of your comments into a bit of perspective.

And also what brand of tin-foil you use to fashion your hats.


I dunno, if this were 1992 I suspect his pick would've been Pat Buchanan. Right now his eclectic set of targets kind of reminds me of snapper's.
   6884. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4299877)
Thanks, but I'm a long-time reader (although infrequent poster) so I'm already well aware of this kind of mocking and bullying by BBTF's liberals.
   6885. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4299878)
6882. The same Dream Act that requires the payment to colleges (where liberals are employed in large numbers) and attendance (indoctrination) to qualify for eventual citizenship? Again, everything "for" the needy is set up as a liberal power grab.
   6886. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4299880)
Since you're relatively new here (or at least your handle is) and you're making all sorts of scattershot claims about "profiteering class[es]" and the "Democrat" Party (a giveaway right there), maybe you might ground yourself by telling us who would have been your top choice for president this year among all the names who were mentioned. It might help put some of your comments into a bit of perspective.

Andy, if I recall correctly this was the guy making ridiculous comments about same-sex marriage a few days ago.
   6887. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4299881)
The same Dream Act that requires the payment to colleges (where liberals are employed in large numbers) and attendance (indoctrination) to qualify for eventual citizenship?


Well yeah, shouldn't you have to show up?
   6888. robinred Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4299882)
Thanks, but I'm a long-time reader (although infrequent poster) so I'm already well aware of this kind of mocking and bullying by BBTF's liberals.


Heh. Make sure you call out Kehoskie for his next round of mockery as well, as well as DiPerna upon his return.

One more time: here at BTF, you mostly get what you give.

The lived experience of someone who rose out of poverty and witnessed the false compassion of the welfare system. It's a scheme for bureaucratic self-protection and statist expansion, not charity.


All organizations exist in part and have mechanisms in place to protect themselves; this applies to schools, corporations, and government bureaucracies, and these mechanisms go along with whatever good said organizations may do. You are to be commended for rising out of poverty, but people in poverty who need welfare and other forms of public assistance, like the "Latino Voting Bloc", are not a monolith.
   6889. robinred Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4299883)
Andy, if I recall correctly this was the guy making ridiculous comments about same-sex marriage a few days ago.


I was wondering about that; the tone certainly is a match.
   6890. McCoy Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4299884)
So liberal politicians crafted a law to benefit liberal professors? That's mighty white of them.
   6891. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4299886)
Many liberals no doubt latched on to Silver because his blog told them some things they wanted to hear
Gotta love it. "I have only a limited capacity for distinguishing truth from the desire to have my beliefs affirmed, even in the face of strong, objective evidence, therefore you must have a limited capacity for distinguishing truth from the desire to have your beliefs affirmed in the face of strong, objective evidence".


Apropos of this, there's a terrific piece in The Atlantic documenting one very small but very germane example of how pervasive deception is among the right, and how and where and by whom that deception is spread. It's aptly titled The Big Lie:

This is the era of the Big Lie, in other words, and it translates into a lot of little lies - "death panels," "out-of-control" spending, "apologies for America" etc. - designed to concoct a false narrative so simple and so familiar it actually succeeded in getting into people's minds in the midst of a brutal recession. And integral to this process have been conservative "intellectuals" who should and do know better, but have long since sacrificed intellectual honesty for the cheap thrills of enabling power-grabs. And few lies represent this intellectual cooptation of talk radio/FNC propaganda better than the lie that Obama has publicly rebutted the idea of American exceptionalism.


Then, in a nice bit of humor,

Where does one start? Where one always starts with these things - Jonah Goldberg:...


I remember with chagrin seeing how slowly the left and middle generally and Democrats specifically responded to this kind of thing, caught flat-footed by Fox's and others' methods through the 2000 election and only slowly catching on, not developing 'rapid response teams' to combat deception until the middle of the last decade, nine years after Fox began broadcasting.
   6892. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4299887)
Actually, they were the same "ridiculous" comments of why liberal secularists and statists invoke a minority in the self-serving pursuit to redefine human and societal institutions and to enforce their new laws against competing influences of public morality (family, churches).
   6893. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4299889)
I long ago plonked Joe K, but I fervently pray that he represents the core of the GOP.

We're home free for many elections, if that's the case
   6894. robinred Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4299890)
"I have only a limited capacity for distinguishing truth from the desire to have my beliefs affirmed, even in the face of strong, objective evidence, therefore you must have a limited capacity for distinguishing truth from the desire to have your beliefs affirmed in the face of strong, objective evidence".


Not sure what you are going for here, but if you are talking about me as an individual, then quote this as well:

Had he been telling me that Romney was in the driver's seat, I would have gone into Tuesday thinking that Romney was probably going to win


I wasn't criticizing Liberals; everybody engages in that behavior.
   6895. Lassus Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:50 PM (#4299892)
The lived experience of someone who rose out of poverty and witnessed the false compassion of the welfare system.

Your sample size of one is noted. Please note you aren't the only person in America who has been through the welfare system and poverty.
   6896. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4299893)
I'm still wondering what the answer is to that question I posed in #6879. I wasn't the one making the comment about tinfoil hats, I just was wondering who his candidate of choice would have been, after reading his comments about profiteers and the "Democrat" Party. It certainly wasn't meant to be a "gotcha" question; I'm just trying to place those comments of his into some sort of broader perspective about his overall worldview, which is often fairly well represented by our favorite presidential candidate.
   6897. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4299894)
Not sure what you are going for here, but if you are talking about me as an individual, then quote this as well:
Say what? I was referring exclusively to Joe and what I took to be his remarks on the order of, 'If Silver had predicted a Republican victory, you would have been just as antagonistic towards him as I was'.

Fwiw, I wasn't thinking of you at all, robinred. Not that your comments don't deserve profound reflection :), I just happened to be elsewhere with that post.
   6898. robinred Posted: November 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4299895)
Jack,

Fair enough. Sorry.
   6899. tshipman Posted: November 11, 2012 at 12:11 AM (#4299897)
Actually, they were the same "ridiculous" comments of why liberal secularists and statists invoke a minority in the self-serving pursuit to redefine human and societal institutions and to enforce their new laws against competing influences of public morality (family, churches).


The "statists" line means that it can't be Joey B. It must be Szymborski!
   6900. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 11, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4299899)
Thanks, but I'm a long-time reader (although infrequent poster) so I'm already well aware of this kind of mocking and bullying by BBTF's liberals.


Anyone who keeps saying "the Democrat party" instead of it's real name (much the same way someone uses the phrase "Repugnicants") is going to get all the "mocking" they deserve.

And, unless someone threatens your life or your BTF account, I'm really not sure how you can get "bullied" in these discussions.

Page 69 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-30-2014
(25 - 9:37pm, Jul 30)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3785 - 9:37pm, Jul 30)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(529 - 9:37pm, Jul 30)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogPosnanski: Hey, Rube: Phillies pay dearly for Amaro’s misguided loyalty
(15 - 9:36pm, Jul 30)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1026 - 9:33pm, Jul 30)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(150 - 9:33pm, Jul 30)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

NewsblogCameron: Why a July 31 trade deadline just doesn’t make sense anymore
(10 - 9:18pm, Jul 30)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh Rises

NewsblogRed Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(50 - 9:08pm, Jul 30)
Last: Petunia inquires about ponies

NewsblogCubs Acquire Felix Doubront
(38 - 8:58pm, Jul 30)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogVICE: Baseball Erotica #1: John Smoltz and Tom Glavine
(8 - 8:58pm, Jul 30)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogESPN: Twins Sign "Out Of Nowhere" Prospect
(80 - 8:44pm, Jul 30)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogDetroit Tigers’ Evan Reed charged with sexual assault
(1 - 8:35pm, Jul 30)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogPosnanski: Four theories about Hall of Fame voting changes
(26 - 8:27pm, Jul 30)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(676 - 8:27pm, Jul 30)
Last: Langer Monk

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-30-2014
(22 - 8:22pm, Jul 30)
Last: Lindor Truffles

Page rendered in 0.6421 seconds
52 querie(s) executed