ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [233] -- Wake Me When It's Over

[ Posted Friday, November 2nd, 2012 – 16:09 PDT ]

Every so often, I get an idea which I know would make me millions of dollars. Today, I had another one: develop and market a pill which, when taken, would put you to sleep until the morning after the election. The pill would be magically timed to work no matter when you took it, meaning a citizen in Texas or California might not want to take one until perhaps mid-October, but the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire might be expected to take one New Year's Eve -- thus avoiding not only the debates and punditary frenzy of the general election, but the entire primary season as well. It would be marketed under the name "The Rip Van Winkle Pill."

OK, I fully admit that this would be medically dangerous, and likely downright impossible. But, hey, I bet I'd sell a bunch of RVW pills anyway (at least in the fantasy world of my overwrought imagination). How many of us would be tempted, at some point, to just say to friends and family, "I'll be out until November seventh, so just leave me a message and I'll get back to you then."

As the 2012 election season draws to a close, it feels (as always) as though it's lasted four full years. At least to me, but maybe I'm just jaded and exhausted because I pay such close attention to politics (speaking of things which are medically dangerous...).

It's gotten so bad that I can't even bring myself to write a talking points column today. Oh, sure, I could give President Obama another award for his response to Hurricane Sandy, and even say a few nice things about Chris Christie, for whom I've always had a soft spot, just because of his double-barrelled "Chris" name (on which subject, I fully admit, I am biased).

I could go back and dig out the best talking points of the election from Obama and other Democrats out there on the hustings, but at this point it really feels like it would be a wasted effort. How many of you, reading this, are still unsure about which candidate you're going to vote for? I have pro-Obama readers, I have pro-Romney readers (no, really!), and I bet I even have a few pro-third-party readers to boot. But I really seriously doubt anyone who is still unsure is spending time today reading my column. I could be wrong (I often am), but it just feels like there's no one left to convince, one way or the other.

Of course, I don't live in a swing state -- that could have a lot to do with it. And I am not donating time to any candidate's campaign for "get out the vote" efforts, because my personal professional code of ethics forbids me to do such things (although I did make an exception last week to fully endorse a cat who is running for the United States Senate... which goes to show my own state of mind, I suppose). But I do not fault anyone for doing so, and in fact heartily encourage such participation in our democratic process.

Want Obama to win? Call up your local Democrats and offer to put in some hours in a phone bank, cold-calling people in swing states, trying to convince them to vote for Barack. Want to see Romney elected? Call up your local Republicans and offer to do the same for Mitt.

One local Republican Party outlet has a new ad up which is well worth viewing -- for all voters. In it, the fictional C. Montgomery Burns offers up the choice between "Broccoli Obama" and "Meat Romney." At this point, we could all use a little comedy relief, right?

As in all elections, what interests me most are the things the media gets horribly, horribly wrong. The biggest one this year would have to be "debates don't matter, they never change anyone's mind." The first Romney/Obama debate will be what is remembered in this election cycle, no matter who wins next Tuesday. It was a true "game-changer," no matter how overused the term is. It was just as much of a game-changer as, in 2008, the choice of Sarah Palin turned out to be (which was, at the time, dismissed by the punditocracy because: "running mates don't matter, they never change anyone's mind").

The one nugget of conventional wisdom that (thankfully) seems to have gone away this year was the obsession by pundits earlier over whether this would be a "choice" election or a "referendum" election. It's such a nonsensical theme, like saying the choice of eating ice cream is because it is either "sweet" or "cold." Well, um... it's both. It always is. But, like I said, thankfully this seems to have fallen by the wayside.

The media did catch one break this time around. In every single election (at least the ones I've lived through), two storylines are consistently pushed by the media -- right up to Election Day itself. The first is the old "this is the most important election in your lifetime." This is trotted out every single time, and nobody ever notices that this cry of "Wolf!" is exactly the same as what was said four years ago. Exactly. Go back and look it up -- just pick any presidential election year, and you'll easily find those stating it's the most important election in all of American history.

But it's the second quadrennial media theme in which the pundits actually caught a break this time around. Because every election -- no matter how big a blowout -- is always portrayed as "excruciatingly close" right up until the minute the votes start getting actually counted. This time around, the media may be right. There, I said it: a tired old media theme from the mainstream media could actually come to pass. I know, I'm as shocked as you are. I mean, these things just don't happen normally, right?

Another thing this year's election may be remembered for -- if Obama wins -- is the "October Surprise" dished out by Mother Nature. Let's see... in 2008, the first day of the Republican National Convention was disrupted by a hurricane... in 2012, the first day of the Republican National Convention was disrupted by a hurricane... and then Hurricane Sandy arrived just in time for President Obama to look presidential and caring in the final week of the election. Now, I'm not one of those folks who pretends to be able to divine "God's will," so I leave it for others to draw conclusions about deities and what message is being sent, if any. Ahem.

The other last-minute news politically looks like it's going to turn out to be pretty much of a non-starter. The unemployment rate inched up from 7.8 percent to 7.9 percent, but more jobs than expected were created in October. This allows both sides to spin things, without giving either side a true knockout punch. Romney will say things are not heading in the right direction -- the rate went up! But with unemployment under the psychologically-important level of eight percent, Romney and the Republicans are robbed of a big conspiracy theory (the one about how last month's numbers were manipulated for political reasons). If unemployment were back up to 8.1 percent, you can bet your bottom dollar you'd be hearing this theme today.

Obama will point to the number of jobs created and say things are heading in the right direction, the recovery is on track, so just give him four more years and things'll be better! But because the number went up, not down, Obama can't point to the rate itself as a good trend. If the rate had fallen to, say, 7.6 percent, Obama would be hammering this number home every chance he got, to put it another way.

But they'll have to spin things on their own, because this week is the one week that I don't think anyone needs my help in formulating talking points. I've been doing this column for five years now, and while Democrats certainly need all the help they can get on this front in normal times, at the tail end of a presidential election the party machine is cranked into such a high gear that my efforts wouldn't even be icing on the cake at this point. I checked, and in 2008 the Friday before Election Day had no Friday Talking Points, because it was also the last weekday before Hallowe'en, so my annual "scare the pants off everyone with a little comedy" Hallowe'en column took precedence (if you missed it, check out my scary stories for 2012 from Wednesday).

Comedy is important, in the midst of the political maelstrom. It allows us all to gain some well-needed perspective, at times. Which is why I started off joking about a Rip Van Winkle Pill (you can just picture the ads: "Wake me when it's over!"). But in reality nobody should sleep through an election. One of the best lines Obama has been using over the last month or so is to bait the crowd during a speech with a line he knows will get booed, and then respond (seemingly spontaneously) with: "Don't boo... vote!"

I think America should enact this into law. I would support making it illegal to complain about politics -- any politics, from any viewpoint or party, including criticizing any politician -- unless you can prove you voted in the last election. I would call it the "If You Didn't Vote, You Can't Complain Act." Republicans want photo identification for voting? Well, I want any political commentator -- even those posting comments to blogs and articles such as this one -- to have to certify that they've voted before they're allowed to say anything -- anything -- about politics.

OK, that was comedy as well, I admit. Or at least a weak attempt. First Amendment... blah blah... unconstitutional... yadda yadda. I know it could never happen, but it certainly would be nice, wouldn't it?

I leave you with excerpts from a real comedian (well, he plays one on teevee, at least) ranting about the importance of participating. This was from a rant by Craig Ferguson I heard in the last election cycle (read the whole thing, if you'd like, it's hilarious). Craig is a naturalized United States citizen, so he personally feels very strongly about the issue of voting. And I can't say I disagree. So, to close, here is Craig Ferguson on why "Wake me when it's over" is really not even an option, or shouldn't be:

Are we so lost we have to be sold our own democratic right? What the hell is wrong with... what is going on?!? We have to "sexy-up" the vote for young people? Remember four years ago Puff Diddley had that group "Vote or Die"? Then it turns out he didn't even vote himself! Maybe he forgot which name he registered under.

Listen. Here's what I am saying to you... here's what I'm saying. Here's what I've been saying: If you don't vote, you're a moron. Alright?

If you... settle down. I know you say: "Well, not voting is a vote" -- no it isn't! Not voting is... is just being stupid. Voting is not sexy. Voting is not hip. It is not fashionable. It's not a movie. It's not a videogame. All the kids hate doing it. Frankly, voting is a pain in the ass, but here's a word -- look it up -- it is your duty to vote! "Duty?"

The foundation in this democracy is based on free people making free choices. So, young people, if you can't take your hand out of your bag of Cheetos long enough to fill out a form, then you can't complain when we wind up with President Sanjaya!

Listen. I am an American. This country at... is at war -- right now. Americans, in foreign lands, wearing uniforms representing this country, are losing their lives. Americans here in this country are losing their homes. We have two patriotic candidates, right? They both love this country. They have different ideas about what to do with it. Learn about them. Read about them. Question them. Listen to them. Then, on Election Day, exercise your sacred right as American, and listen to yourself.

Craig then took a commercial break, and returned with a second half to his rant, where he gave everyone in the audience voter registration cards:

Here's the thing that made me think, though, the... the people who didn't register to vote, when they were asked why they didn't vote, they said, ah... half of them said, "I'm not interested in the election," and the other half said, "I'm not interested in politics."

How could you be not interested in politics? You've got, you've got to have an opinion about something. Don't you think? I mean, I don't know -- "I'm not interested in politics" -- do you, do you live anywhere? Do you, do you shop anywhere? Do you drive a car? Do you put on pants? Do you leave the house at any point? Do you own the house? Do you rent the house? Do you ever, ah, hope that the police will save you from something that may or may not be illegal? Of course you're involved in politics. If you're alive you're involved in politics.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

148 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [233] -- Wake Me When It's Over”

  1. [1] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,
    Because every election -- no matter how big a blowout -- is always portrayed as "excruciatingly close" right up until the minute the votes start getting actually counted. This time around, the media may be right

    I'm going to disagree on this one. If the election was held on October 12th this might be true - there would be a genuine chance of Romney winning and thus it would be considered 'close'. However, the only way this election will be close is if every single pollster (including the right leaning ones) turn out to be incorrect. I doubt that is the case...

    I think America should enact this into law. I would support making it illegal to complain about politics -- any politics, from any viewpoint or party, including criticizing any politician -- unless you can prove you voted in the last election.

    What are your thoughts on making voting compulsory (like in Australia)?

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    The one "stat" that is going to lose the election for Obama..

    Obama has created 75 TIMES the amount of people on foodstamps then he has created people with jobs...

    That's the defining characteristic of Obama's 4 years in office..

    Michale....

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You have quite a knack for making wildly inaccurate assertions in the absence of any factual context, whatsoever.

    Ironically, and sadly, you persist in doing this at one of the few places in the blogosphere where reality-based political commentary reigns supreme.

    You really should try to snap out of your Republican-inspired funk and recognize the real economic progress that has been made in the wake of the Great Recession (an economic disaster also Republican-inspired, I hasten to add) despite the blatant efforts by Republicans to bad-mouth and stymie success every step of the way.

    By the way, have you heard the new Romney/Ryan campaign slogan? Oh, you're going to love this one! Okay, here it is ... I suggest you sit down for this one ... okay, okay ... are you ready for it? ...

    We are the real 'Barack Obama' in this campaign - vote for us!

    You really have to hand it to those Republicans. The Romney campaign is wearing their Etch-A-Sketchiness as a blazing badge of honour, unabashedly appropriating the 'hope and change' mantra of the 2008 campaign. It's actually quite an astute move, if wholly based on a false narrative. But, why let those pesky facts get in the way of good political sloganeering, eh Michale? Heh.

  4. [4] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Obama has created 75 TIMES the amount of people on foodstamps then he has created people with jobs

    Lol Michale still going strong with the rhetoric. Exactly how did Obama 'create' people on food-stamps? What changes to the food-stamps legislation did he make to facilitate this? What policies of his 'created' this?

    Of course, I know you can't answer any of these because there are no facts to back up your rhetoric. People go on food-stamps because of economic conditions. Not because of the President in charge.

  5. [5] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. If you're interested in a little wager, get on In-Trade and bet now. Tomorrow/Monday Romney will plunge when Ras and all the right-wing pollsters release their 'real' polls...

  6. [6] 
    dsws wrote:

    What are your [CW's] thoughts on making voting compulsory (like in Australia)?

    I want checks and balances that aren't just differences in the opportunities for obstructionism. That means having elections for the different branches really be different. So I'm open to options like having Congressional elections be "mandatory" (I don't want draconian penalties, but some effort to register everyone and collect votes from everyone) while presidential elections aren't, or vice versa, or House vs Senate.

    But it's not my first choice, by any stretch. I'd rather have any of various possibilities that have no chance of ever being adopted. For example, you could have voting in the general election for some office be restricted to those who show up for the primary and choose a non-partisan blank ballot; for those who vote voted in one party's primary, their primary vote would count for that party in the general election. Or you could have two-member districts where you vote for up to three and against up to two, and the two candidates with the highest for-minus-against totals win. And so on.

  7. [7] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    I don't get why you have Constitutional Amendments, Judge elections etc thrown in with a Presidential/Senate/Congressional election. Like in Florida I have read that the ballot paper is like 11 pages long. That's completely insane!

    Also I personally think you need a constitutional amendment to set federal standards for elections. Having different voting requirements and voting days available in different States is nonsense. And it opens up voting to bi-partisan games - just look at what Republicans are attempting to do across many States like Ohio and Florida...

  8. [8] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Fwiw I've never voted in person in my life. We have vote by mail in the UK/Scotland, I've only ever used this.

  9. [9] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Hadn't seen this before. When Republicans themselves think this about you, no wonder you are struggling in the polls. Even Trump chimes in!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hRJa2OaiwWw

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You have quite a knack for making wildly inaccurate assertions in the absence of any factual context, whatsoever.

    Ya'all keep saying that.. Yet, NO ONE has been able to provide facts that dispute my facts.. :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, I propose that we forgo any discussion of who is right and who is wrong until Weds..

    By then, it will be self-evident...

    :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, let's get everyone on the record...

    NO ONE is concerned that OBAMA might lose???

    EVERYONE is confident that Obama is going to win???

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,

    I am very confident. And I have put my money where my mouth is thanks to the wonderful In-Trade. And tbh if the unlikely (probably <10% chance) happens and Romney wins, well the world recession that follows his destruction of the American economy will be much worse than me taking a small financial hit...

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I'm interested: has anyone here voted and waited hours to do so? In America? What do you think of this? It seems pretty insane to me...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, we have Michty confident and sure...

    Anyone else wanna go on the record??

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    'FOCUSED ON IT EVERY MINUTE HE'S NOT ON STAGE'...
    Obama Ignores Question About Storm Victims' Frustrations...
    Sandy death toll at 109; 'There could be more'...
    Explosions jolt Manhattan residents...
    2.5 million still without power...
    Temps dip into the 20s...
    Con Edison Distributing Dry Ice...
    FREE FUEL FOR EVERYONE!
    2-mile line on Staten Island...
    Gov't tells public to stay away from free gas until first responders fuel up...
    CRAIGSLIST: $15 a gallon...
    Restaurant, hotel prices skyrocket...
    Residents arm up: Bats, machetes, shotguns...
    'It's Like The Wild West'...
    'Anarchy in Queens'...
    ODD-EVEN: NJ counties enact Carter-style gas rationing...
    REPORT: FEMA RUNS OUT OF WATER...

    How can anyone NOT make a Katrina connection...

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:
  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Because everyone isn't as biased as you and every single poll conducted has shown they believe (75%+) Obama has handled Sandy well. When he is getting 75%+ consistently on his handling of this amongst a very divided country, then that says something...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because everyone isn't as biased as you and every single poll conducted has shown they believe (75%+) Obama has handled Sandy well. When he is getting 75%+ consistently on his handling of this amongst a very divided country, then that says something...

    All your polls assume that voter turnout will be at 2008 levels..

    That is why all your polls will be wrong...

    It's established as fact that Dem enthusiasm is way WAY down and GOP enthusiasm is way UP...

    That is why you are going to be dining on a crow feast come Weds... :D

    Don't worry..

    I won't rub it in...

    MUCH.. :D

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    michty6 wrote:

    All your polls assume that voter turnout will be at 2008 levels

    Lolol Obama didn't win 75-25 in 2008. So, like I said, for Obama to poll 75% on anything means he must have done an exceptionally good job.

    It's established as fact that Dem enthusiasm is way WAY down and GOP enthusiasm is way UP

    One day I'm going to report you to the fact police because your abuse of the word 'fact' is bordering on word-abuse!

    Anyway, that said you do know that polls actually measure enthusiasm? So if you did want some factual evidence to see why your claim is horribly wrong, look into some polls and get a feel for enthusiasm. Or look at early voting numbers, which are up for Democrats (and Republicans) across the board.

    I predict come Wed, Republicans will be blaming Sandy for the election loss, even though Romney hasn't been close in the polls since Oct 12th...

  21. [21] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    How can anyone NOT make a Katrina connection...

    Because that was a "deer in the headlights" response over a geographic area far smaller than this.

    Instead of your bold list of, I suspect, television-reported sensationalism, why not keep up to date with NJ -the real problems- via such outlets as http://www.nj.com (Newark Star-Ledger) or http://www.app.com (Asbury Park Press), where you'll find that, e.g., more than one million homes' power has been restored since last night, and estimates of total outage is being revised downward continuously.

    Seeing your list reminds me of Daily Show's correspondents in Lower Manhattan drinking their own urine, selling fresh rats hanging from tree limbs, and saying "There's only two kinds of people down here: live ones with machetes, and dead ones without machetes."

    I'm not saying the shore (or Staten Island, for that matter) has not sustained tragic damage, and some residents are frustrated and grieving, but those areas are 5 feet above sea level, and the surge was known to be coming at more than 15 feet driven by a high tide and 60+ kt. winds. That damage can't be magically fixed in three days.

    In Katrina, there was no planning for the levee breaches, and no coordination once they did breach. That's not the situation here, in any sense.

  22. [22] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Or look at early voting numbers, which are up for Democrats (and Republicans) across the board.

    An example: Florida Republicans cut early voting, meaning there were queues hours long all over Florida, in a blatant attempt to suppress turnout (because high turnout means they would lose - screw democracy). Democratic voters were so depressed and unenthusiastic they turned up anyway to give Obama at least a 3% lead (these figures only include Saturday morning, the report says there are queues everywhere) going into the final day.

    http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/dems-lead-104k-votes-39-ballots-cast-fla?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tampabaycom%2Fblogs%2Fbuzz+%28The+Buzz+%7C+tampabay.com%29

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. This is just Florida which should be a gimme for Romney if he has any chance to be President. Without it they are screwed. I am not confident of an Obama win there, there I would say the media is correct in calling it a 'toss-up'. It will probably be within 1% either side.

  24. [24] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: [17]: Newsbusters is citing a monologue of a known Left-leaning comedian as media bias?

    It's not the Left's fault that the conservatives are so angry and frightened all the time that they can't muster any decent comedy. God knows there's enough just with Biden for 24 minutes a day. Add the Keynesian economists like Krugman, you have another hour a week. Wacky groups with their outrageous alarmists positions, even more.

  25. [25] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Eastern time zone swing states are a big problem for the narrative Tuesday night. If they break for the President, then they've done such a good job of drilling the "Ohio is the key" meme into the public that they're at risk of de-facto calling the election before poll closing in the West.

    It's going to be interesting to see how they do it.

  26. [26] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Re: Democratic voters were so depressed and unenthusiastic they turned up anyway

    One real tell of the effectiveness of the D. ground game is CA. There is no reason why the Democrats need to protect California. Yet registration is at record levels. The Republican registration proportion in CA, by the way, is below '08 levels.

    Overall, the Romney campaign's mistakes, as well as the Senate races, in the last two weeks have frightened and energized the Democratic base as well.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Ya'all keep saying that.. Yet, NO ONE has been able to provide facts that dispute my facts.. :D

    This clearly demonstrates why you are lost in the wilderness.

    The truth is not half-way between right and wrong just as it is not-half way between your facts and my facts.

    But, don't worry! I have faith that you can be found!

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I predict come Wed, Republicans will be blaming Sandy for the election loss, even though Romney hasn't been close in the polls since Oct 12th...

    What do you predict when Romney wins??? :D

    Will you admit you were wrong and I was right? :D

    Florida: Romney 51, Obama 45
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1259531.ece

    Like I said, you only pay attention to the polls that confirm your own thinking and ignore the polls that say something different..

    It's not an evidence based opinion.. You are creating opinion based evidence..

    One real tell of the effectiveness of the D. ground game is CA.

    Oh that is utter felgercarb...

    CA is Democrat thru and thru regardless of ANY Left Wing Strategy...

    Saying California is an example of effective DEM strategy is like saying Texas is an example of effective GOP strategy...

    Overall, the Romney campaign's mistakes, as well as the Senate races, in the last two weeks have frightened and energized the Democratic base as well.

    Despite OVER-WHELMING facts to the contrary...

    But, by all means, hold onto those delusions.. If they comfort you at night, who am I to shatter them....

    But shatter they will, come Weds morning...

    This clearly demonstrates why you are lost in the wilderness.

    Perhaps you can shine a light on ANY facts that show me to be in error.. :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That would take too long Michzle and I'm flat out of energy for that never-ending mission.

    I prefer to just take your advice and wait until Wednesday when I'll be feeling more - how shall I say - energetic. :)

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I am not sure which commentary we discussed this in, so please allow me to bring it forward to keep track of it..

    It's your contention that Benghazi will go away after the election..

    This presupposes that the brutal murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans was really no big deal.

    My claim is that Benghazi will be very much in the news AFTER the election, regardless of the results..

    Here's my reasoning.

    If Romney wins, the GOP will be riding a euphoric high.. They will be looking to put the nails in the coffin of the Obama Presidency to make sure ANY legacy of that Presidency will stink to high heaven.. Democrats, demoralized beyond all comprehension, will be unable to withstand the combined onslaught of a GOP, hungry with restored power and an American public completely disgusted with the Administration cover-up of their incompetence...

    If Obama wins, Republicans will be on the warpath, eager to throw ANYTHING against the wall in hopes that something sticks... This desperation, combined with the American public's complete disgust of the Administration's cover-up, will ensure that Benghazi will be pursued, likely to the point of impeachment which is, IMNSHO, completely warranted...

    One way or another, we're likely to hear about Benghazi.. Probably all the way into the Romney administration...

    If you will remember, I called it dead on ballz accurate when I predicted that the Oowzer (rhymes with Luser) crowd would fade...

    :D

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    That would take too long Michzle and I'm flat out of energy for that never-ending mission.

    I prefer to just take your advice and wait until Wednesday when I'll be feeling more - how shall I say - energetic. :)

    Fair enough.... :D

    For you, I promise NOT to rub it in....

    TOO much... :D

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    30,000 turn out in Ohio for Romney...

    Obama plays for just 2,800...

    CLEVELAND 2008: 80,000; CLEVELAND 2012: 4,000...

    Just 200 show up for event with Stevie Wonder!

    More headlines that show Obama's time has passed...

    And ya'all REALLY believe that 2012's Dem enthusiasm is equal to 2008's Dem enthusiasm...

    Those must be some pretty powerful roofies ya'all have... :D

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    One way or another, we're likely to hear about Benghazi.. Probably all the way into the Romney administration...

    A security breakdown in Benghazi
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-security-breakdown-in-benghazi/2012/11/02/a34b7dd0-250f-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_print.html

    There WILL be a reckoning on Benghazi... You can take that to the bank...

    At the VERY least, it has totally blown out of the water ANY future political plans of Hillary Clinton...

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:
  35. [35] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Florida: Romney 51, Obama 45

    Michale,
    Again I think I've said this 100 times but you cant cherry pick polls. Especially since you say you don't believe in polls lol! It's almost the same thing every day. I'd like to know if you honestly believe FL is R+6? Because even Tampa Bay doesn't (see link I posted earlier with early voting numbers).

    Obama v Romney in Florida on RCP is +1.4 Romney, on TPM is +1.2. Anything under 2 in an aggregated poll is basically a toss-up. For example, IN was +1.4 McCain last time. NC was +0.4 McCain last time.

    2 points in an aggregated poll like RCP is the turning point. NO STATE in which a candidate was >2 pts in the RCP poll last time round swung the other way.

    Essentially Obama is leading by more than 2 points in every battleground except CO, FL, NC and VA. Romney would have to win all these AND some of those which Obama leads by >2. That's why the polls are fairly conclusive. Romney must win 4 toss-ups, all of which he's behind in early voting (except CO) AND a State where Obama has a lead outside the margin of error.

    Perhaps you can shine a light on ANY facts that show me to be in error.. :D

    I already have: Obama is ahead in early voting in every State except CO - at least in terms of registered Democrats vs registered Republicans voting. He is running around 1-2% lower than 2008, which means (based on early voting alone) he will win every single State from 2008 except NC and FL is a toss-up. This was after Romney built a much bigger GOTV than McCain. Hardly evidence of an 'enthusiasm gap'...

  36. [36] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    This probably can't hurt. Followup from about five hours ago on post-storm performance tracking polls.

    A UPI poll released Saturday showed 77 percent of Americans had a positive take on Obama's response to the storm and an additional 65 percent thought "the destructive storm and its aftermath gave the president a chance to connect better with voters," the news service wrote. An ABC News/Washington Post national tracking poll released on Wednesday of last week also found 78 percent of likely voters had a positive view of the president's efforts. A pair of swing state polls released Saturday from NBC/Marist showed the same thing -- 70 percent of likely voters in Florida and 73 percent of likely voters in Ohio approved of the response.

    That will move the FL needle, maybe measurably, and do no worse than hold OH steady.

  37. [37] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    CA is Democrat thru and thru regardless of ANY Left Wing Strategy...

    Actually, no. CA is much more like the evolving US as a whole (outside of the South), and while the Republican party is losing ground with its cultural intransigence in the face of demographic shifts, it still holds -and will continue to hold- 20 of 53 House districts.

    That contrasts with the old Confederacy, where, e.g., Texas has only 6 House Democrats out of 36 after this redistricting.

    Anyway, my point, which you inadvertently agreed with, was that there was no need for the ground game to pursue registration in CA for this election's purpose. It speaks both to the volunteer commitment, as well as the commitment of the electorate that registration is at record level there.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    I already have: Obama is ahead in early voting in every State except CO - at least in terms of registered Democrats vs registered Republicans voting. He is running around 1-2% lower than 2008, which means (based on early voting alone) he will win every single State from 2008 except NC and FL is a toss-up. This was after Romney built a much bigger GOTV than McCain. Hardly evidence of an 'enthusiasm gap'...

    Still waiting for those FACTS you claim to have..

    Around these here parts, it ain't a fact until you show your evidence.

    I showed ya mine, now you show me yours. :D

    LB,

    Actually, no. CA is much more like the evolving US as a whole

    You are actually more correct than you likely know...

    Tell me, howz the financial status of California?? Gas at above $5 a gallon..

    You are exactly right. California is a PERFECT example of just how badly Democrats govern..

    No American wants to see this country go the way of California...

    And that's speaking as a native son...

    Michale....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9652766/David-Cameron-fears-a-chill-wind-blowing-across-the-Atlantic.html

    Interesting analysis from across the pond...

    Apparently UK leaders don't think that Obama is the shoo-in that some of her citizens think... :D

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    As for your polls..

    Like I always say, if you ask the right questions in the right way, you can show that Americans actually LOVE Osama Bin Laden...

    I completely agree with the polls regarding Obama's *response* to Sandy...

    Do you have any polls that show how Americans feel about the FOLLOWUP??

    If you do, I can understand why you won't want to display them... :D

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I propose a pledge for all Weigantians to make and adhere to..

    Regardless of who wins, unless there is clear, unequivocal and incontrovertible evidence that indicates there was fraud *that could have impacted the results of the election*, we all agree to accept the results of the election...

    So say we all???

    Michale....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    As much as I hate to cast aspirations of CIA Director General Patreus.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/exclusive-security-officials-on-ground-in-libya-challenge-cia-account/?test=latestnews

    It looks like he has cast his lot in with the President's cover-up..

    You can bet Benghazi will be very prominent up to and beyond Romney's swear-in as President.

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://twitchy.com/2012/11/02/as-election-day-nears-obama-supporters-step-up-riot-threats/

    Interestingly enough, I can't find ONE example of a person claiming they will riot if Romney loses...

    How weird is THAT, eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:
  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-hit-by-storm-backlash/

    Hahahahahahahah. Dick Morris ... ? I already know what that partisan gasbag is going to say w/o clicking on the link. And I'd rather not give Mr. Morris the hits.

    I'm interested: has anyone here voted and waited hours to do so? In America? What do you think of this? It seems pretty insane to me...

    Agreed, michty. It took me 90 minutes over lunch one day during early voting. And yesterday, the first day of weekend voting, there were lines around the block at our voting station here in Ohio.

    We would be much better off with a mail in voting system like they've instituted in Oregon.

    The reason we will not have this is because Republicans want it to be difficult to vote.

    My bigger fear, though, michty, is that our Republican secretary of state flips the Diebold switch late Tuesday night and Ohio, which all the night exit polls have been predicting for Obama, suddenly is declared for Romney. We're holding our breath here because we know the extent that Republicans will go to in order to win power. Lie, intimidate, redistrict, shut down polling hours, tax, etc. I mean, why not just make things simpler and rig it?

    I'm hopeful that this is hard to do, but there's a gnawing feeling in my gut nonetheless.

    -David

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Michale. How about a real election day bet?

    If Obama wins, you don't say anything bad about him in the comments section on CW.com for a year.

    If Romney wins, I won't say anything bad about him here for a year as well. Plus, I will go a step further and chip in an extra $100 to the CW.com fall fund drive.

    What do you think?

    -David

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Obama wins, I won't say anything bad about him for the duration of his second term.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hahahahahahahah. Dick Morris ... ? I already know what that partisan gasbag is going to say w/o clicking on the link. And I'd rather not give Mr. Morris the hits.

    And yet, when he worked for Clinton, the Left LOVED him.. :D

    If Obama wins, you don't say anything bad about him in the comments section on CW.com for a year.

    If Romney wins, I won't say anything bad about him here for a year as well. Plus, I will go a step further and chip in an extra $100 to the CW.com fall fund drive.

    What do you think?

    Hmmmmmmmm...

    We would have to define what "bad" is.. For example.. If I say that Obama was totally incompetent in Benghazi and lied to the American people, you would likely consider that to be "bad" even though it is factually accurate....

    Conversely, if you would say "President Romney is giving tax breaks to the Rich and letting the poor starve", I would likely consider that "bad" even though you might think it's factually accurate..

    So, I don't know if you could handle spending the next year agreeing with everything Romney said and did.. :D

    But it is an intriguing notion... If we can flesh it out, I would be game... :D

    Michale...

  49. [49] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    No American wants to see this country go the way of California...

    I wish that were true. But a lot of Americans do, and that's scary. That's why, politically, you and I are in many areas not too far apart.

    We're electorally here divergent, I suspect, because your distrust and contempt for Obama forces you to Romney, while my distrust and contempt for Romney forces me the other way.

    That's a bit glib, but only a bit, and, I fear, informs the election this time to a large degree.

    My biggest fear is that the Republican party will not realign the relative influences of the diverse constituencies, and continue with a message that is increasingly rejected outside the old Confederacy and the Empty Quarter.

    Because of the tectonic social and demographic forces sliding the public away from that message, that would not only increase the regional divide, but give hegemony to the people who not only think "Californication" is a good governance model, but think that the governance principles out of Brussels are even better ones.

    The defense against that is a solid alternative, founded in basic Constitutional and genuine conservative principles. Today, the Republican party doesn't offer that, and the Libertarians are still infected with that crazy Ayn Rand, and residual social-issue contamination that they're not yet viable.

    Until the Republicans oligarchical core is in a position to again provide the nation with conservative principles which support the social contract, I personally have no choice but to work towards the present party's electoral marginalization.

  50. [50] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    And here's a headline that's an example of what I'm trying to say above:

    "Should We Build Massive Flood Gates in New York Harbor?"

    The answer is: NO. Never mind the fact that NY harbor isn't Newport, the geography of which makes it the best harbor in America, and allowed for flood gates. If storms - for whatever core reasons - are going to arrive more than once a century which deliver 15 ft of surge into areas populated at +5 ft. MSL, and, if that population lives in homes built the same way as are houses in Phoenix, that's the problem that needs to be addressed.

    That problem should be addressed by zoning restrictions, buy building codes, and by insurance rates which reflect the true risk of living there.

    If someone then chooses to accept the risk and pay for it though more expensive building costs and cost of risk management, then: enjoy the view. If they don't, there are still attractive and accessible home sites inland.

  51. [51] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Uh, oh, partisan friends, it looks like the President is doomed. No, not Libya, nor Obamacare, nor revelations that Biden's teeth are implants.

    Rather, in the WaPo Crystal Ball, Jim Cramer is giving the electoral college win to Obama 440 to 98. Cramer's opinion is an almost flawless counter signal to any future outcome. At least the pick does sum to 538; I guess that's something.

    If he tires of stock flogging, he and Morris could go into business, and serve the purpose of noise-canceling earphones for each other.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama seeks votes as complaints mount over storm response
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/3/obama-gets-briefing-storm-recovery/

    Anyone wanna remind me of those polls that say Obama has good followup on Sandy??? :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're electorally here divergent, I suspect, because your distrust and contempt for Obama forces you to Romney, while my distrust and contempt for Romney forces me the other way.

    That's a bit glib, but only a bit, and, I fear, informs the election this time to a large degree.

    I can't argue with the logic... :D

    Rather, in the WaPo Crystal Ball, Jim Cramer is giving the electoral college win to Obama 440 to 98. Cramer's opinion is an almost flawless counter signal to any future outcome. At least the pick does sum to 538; I guess that's something.

    WOW... Someone has OD'ed on Obama KoolAid!! :D

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    The answer is: NO. Never mind the fact that NY harbor isn't Newport, the geography of which makes it the best harbor in America, and allowed for flood gates. If storms - for whatever core reasons - are going to arrive more than once a century which deliver 15 ft of surge into areas populated at +5 ft. MSL, and, if that population lives in homes built the same way as are houses in Phoenix, that's the problem that needs to be addressed.

    Once again, yer logic is impeccable... :D

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    It's nice to see a pragmatic political take on Gov. Christie's actions, rather than partisan screaming and calls for cleansing.

    ...[F]ormer Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour ... said he had no problem with Christie's close collaboration with the president during the storm response.

    “Christie would have been a fool to poke his finger in Obama’s eye,” Barbour said on CNN's "State of the Union." “When they’re going to be your partner for years, you praise in public and criticize in private.”

    Politics is ultimately local. No successful governor imagines it to be otherwise.

  56. [56] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Florida DNC filed a lawsuit to extend early hours in Florida. It is a sad day for democracy when you have to go to court just to allow people to vote. It's hilarious that America goes around the world 'spreading democracy' when it is suppressing it's own people on it's own land.

    PS. Dem's CRUSHING in Florida early voting. Must be the enthusiasm gap...

    http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/11/florida-democratic-party-sues-in-miami-federal-court-to-extend-early-voting-hours.html

  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    If I say that Obama was totally incompetent in Benghazi and lied to the American people, you would likely consider that to be "bad" even though it is factually accurate....

    How about we make a bet that regardless of who wins you stop the word-abuse that is going on. The word 'fact' can't take much more of this...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about we make a bet that regardless of who wins you stop the word-abuse that is going on. The word 'fact' can't take much more of this...

    It IS a fact that Obama et al lied...

    It IS my experienced and learned opinion that Obama was incompetent...

    Florida DNC filed a lawsuit to extend early hours in Florida. It is a sad day for democracy when you have to go to court just to allow people to vote.

    Unless the people want to vote Republican... :D

    Michale.....

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS. Dem's CRUSHING in Florida early voting. Must be the enthusiasm gap...

    Then why do Democrats have to sue to extend voting hours???

    :D

    "Why the two orders, Colonel!!??"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale...

  60. [60] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Then why do Democrats have to sue to extend voting hours?

    Lol because when you're crushing the other party you don't want it to end. And people were waiting 4+ hours to vote.

    I think part of the Dem's early voting crushing is backlash to Republicans trying to suppress votes. Things like Operation Lemonade (Google it) show that nothing riles up enthusiasm among voters like trying to suppress their vote. It's just sad that Republicans have to resort to these measures to win, rather than making it as easy as possible to vote (like a real democracy would).

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LB [48]

    No American wants to see this country go the way of California...

    I wish that were true. But a lot of Americans do, and that's scary. That's why, politically, you and I are in many areas not too far apart.

    I assume you're quoting Michale with that first part in italics but, I'd like to know why you agree with his analysis of California politics and what you think of Governor Brown.

    Do you live in California?

  62. [62] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Matthew Dowd on ABC news, signs a campaign is losing:

    "Signs of a losing campaign: "the turnout out models in the public polls are wrong" or "on the ground enthusiasm isn't reflected in the polls""

    Lol

  63. [63] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Then why do Democrats have to sue to extend voting hours?

    They go to Sue because of problems with Sandy. I have a friend who did that, and lost just about everything in the divorce to his wife Sandra because of it.

    Okay, I had to do that, after hearing SNL's Christie character telling NJ residents to stop calling people named Sandy in the phone book and threatening them.

    And here's the top storm trivia question. Without checking or counting forward from Issac, and knowing that the list of named storms is alternating male/female: is this Sandy a boy's or a girl's name?

  64. [64] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Do you live in California?

    No, I live in Colorado, and have a farm outside of Austin TX, where I am this weekend.

    Re: thoughts on CA and Gov. Moonbeam (affectionate but traditional use, there, BTW), I need to defer a few hours, as I'm already late in going to a neighbor's afternoon BBQ.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    They go to Sue because of problems with Sandy. I have a friend who did that, and lost just about everything in the divorce to his wife Sandra because of it.

    Regardless of our political differences, I love your sense of humor!! :D

    That's beer-worthy.... :D

    I was born and raised in San Diego which makes me a born and bred Southern Californian..

    But having been back there last month, I know I wouldn't want to stay.. To urban for me.. I live in St Augustine, FL (Nation's oldest city) now and, while the summers are brutal, the small town mentality is nice..

    Michale....

  66. [66] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Pew just out O+3 nationally. Obama at 65.6 on In-Trade. My advice: buy buy buy (quickly)!

  67. [67] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Kathleen McGrory ?@kmcgrory
    They just locked the doors at the Miami-Dade Elections Department. Nobody allowed in.

    Kathleen McGrory ?@kmcgrory
    People staying in line, even though in-person absentee voting has been suspended for the day. Crowd chanting "let us vote!"

    Miami-Dade elections now says it will re-open for all in-person absentee voters in line by 5 p.m. What a mess.

    Your country is so fucked up.

  68. [68] 
    michty6 wrote:
  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pew just out O+3 nationally. Obama at 65.6 on In-Trade. My advice: buy buy buy (quickly)!

    Sounds like yer trying to convince yourself that Obama's gonna win.. :D

    Michale....

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your country is so fucked up.

    Yea but we kicked ya'alls ass!!! :D

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty [66], the last bit ...

    People who live in glass houses and such shouldn't be throwing stones.

  72. [72] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Liz,
    I live in Canada :)

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I share your pain.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121104/DA2AR3H01.html

    No matter HOW ya'all try to spin it...

    It's IMPOSSIBLE not to make the connection between Katrina and Sandy...

    So, yer choice...

    We can talk about Sandy or we can talk about Benghazi...

    I am down with either... :D

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    I live in Canada :)

    Since when???

    Thought you were a Brit???

    :D

    Michale.....

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Sure we can talk about Sandy all you like. Which poll would you like to see with approval ratings of Obama's handling of it? The 72% one? The 75% one? The 78% one? :)

    Yeh I've been living in Canada as long as I've been posting on here. Still got family in the UK obviously so I follow UK, Canadian and American politics pretty closely...

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty,

    You follow Canadian politics closely? Are you some sort of sucker for punishment?

  78. [78] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Liz,
    Haha yeh. But they are less entertaining here and in the UK, as there as less crazy politicians with a crazy party to back them. I'm pretty sure the PC party is left of the Democrats...

    Although we do have the equivalent of a Republican-like idiot politician in our mayor in Toronto - Rob Ford.

  79. [79] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I have a wager if anyone is interested. Here is what I am proposing: Ohio will be one of few, if not the only, State in which Obama gets a higher vote % in 2012 than in 2008. Thoughts?

  80. [80] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Liz - Re Jerry Brown.

    Short answer: I've always admired him. He's a progressive in my definition of the word.

    What's that definition?

    He believes in a social contract, but operates from a position of fiscal conservatism. In his first incarnation as governor, some said that he was more fiscally prudent and realistic than his predecessor, a guy named Reagan. He understands more than many on the Left that a bankrupt Utopia is, in the end, Hell.

    He also understands that there is a natural tendency in progressivism to drift continuously to the left, into matters that are directly invasive and fraught with the potential for ruinous unintended consequences. (That, after all, is the real theme of modern California.) So it was, for example, that he would oppose Nannycare and the Farm Workers protection bills a couple months ago.

    At the same time, he understands that a progressive has to put the social contract first, and if, as in the pot legalization, one views the social costs to exceed the personal freedom, then he has to oppose it.

    Personally, I think Gov. Brown sees governance as a challenge: the bigger, and more hopeless the challenge, the better. It doesn't always work, but I'll bet he always believes absolutely that he can make it work going in. Oakland is better forgotten, for example, and probably won't have a big place in his autobiographies.

    I suspect that if Prop 30 loses - and it's polling right in the middle right now - he'll conclude that it'll be better to let someone else try to preside over the insolvency, care-take the rest of his term, and finally retire for good.

    Overall, I see him as one of the most interesting, effective, and undefinable political figures of my generation.

  81. [81] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    EDIT: I didn't realize it, until I just now read Gov. Brown's Wiki page: he's not a Baby Boomer; he was born in 1938. He always seemed like he was One of Us.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LB,

    Thanks for that. I have become a Brown fan and believe that he and Joe Biden are kindred spirits, of sorts.

    I also think that California is one of the more enlightened states in the union and a real leader for the nation, in more ways than one. Which is why Michale's analysis and your apparent agreement with it was a bit disconcerting.

    And, besides, the best bloggers blog from within California! The rest of the country could learn a lot from California and from Californians.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure we can talk about Sandy all you like. Which poll would you like to see with approval ratings of Obama's handling of it? The 72% one? The 75% one? The 78% one? :)

    Let's talk about how the people are suffering while Obama is out campaigning...

    :D

    Liz,

    I'll always love California.. But it's a perfect laboratory to show the Left that many of their treasured beliefs simply DO NOT WORK in the real world...

    Michale...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale

    Let's talk about how the people are suffering while Obama is out campaigning...

    :D

    Just realized how inappropriate that :D was at the end of that...

    My bust.. :(

    Michale.....

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like electric and heating prices are going to go thru the roof... AGAIN...

    November surprise: EPA planning major post-election anti-coal regulation
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/november-surprise-epa-planning-major-post-election-anti-coal-regulation/article/2512538#.UJefsYbvDpV

    Once again, Obama shows he is no friend to the poor or middle class...

    Michale....

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Obama Can't Win
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/nov/4/why-obama-cant-win/

    Most important:

    Traditional social science models do more than simply rehash and average out the latest daily surveys. They look at the influence of variables like age, education, income, sex, race, the economy, and other such factors to come up with more durable conclusions. For example University of Colorado Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry have developed a model based on state-level economic data that predicts Mitt Romney winning with 330 electoral votes. They have applied this model successfully to every presidential race since 1980. It does not shift around with the polls; in fact it does not use them at all.

    I believe in science, not polls.. The UoC study is SCIENCE, pure and simple.. Peer-Reviewed science, to boot... Which I KNOW means everything to ya'all... :D

    Since ya'all (apparently) worship upon the idol of science, then you have no choice.. You HAVE to accept the study as valid.

    If you don't, it shows that you only believe the science when it agrees with your agenda... That's not science.. That's faith...

    Who wants to concede THAT!?? :D

    Michale....

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Newspapers that flipped parties in 2012

    At least 30 papers that supported Obama for president in 2008 have flipped to endorse Romney for president in 2012. The daily papers include:

    Billings Gazette
    Cape Cod Times
    Casper Star-Tribune
    The Columbian
    The Daily Herald
    Daily News (L.A.)
    Daily Tribune
    The Dallas Morning News
    Des Moines Register
    The Florida Times-Union
    Florida Today
    Fort Worth Star-Telegram
    Houston Chronicle
    The Journal & Courier
    The Joplin Globe
    Naples Daily News
    New York Daily News
    New York Observer
    Newsday
    Orlando Sentinel
    Pasadena Star-News
    Pensacola News Journal
    Press-Telegram (Long Beach)
    Quad-City Times
    Reno Gazette-Journal
    Shreveport Times
    South Florida Sun Sentinel
    The (Nashua) Telegraph
    The Tennessean
    Wisconsin State Journal

    At least three papers have flipped in the other direction, from endorsing John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012:

    San Antonio Express-News
    The San Francisco Examiner
    Winston-Salem Journal

    Once again, to the boots on the ground, the election is clearly Romney's....

    So, quote polls til the cows come home. They don't mean a damn thing...

    As this election will prove... :D

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We would have to define what "bad" is.. For example.. If I say that Obama was totally incompetent in Benghazi and lied to the American people, you would likely consider that to be "bad" even though it is factually accurate.

    Good point. I was going to suggest that "bad" meant something bad said without accurate supporting facts. But I can see that this is likely going to be problematic.

    Unfortunately, have too much on my hands to deal with this morning to try to find a workaround. Alas. If you have any thoughts, Michale, let me know.

    Thanks for that. I have become a Brown fan and believe that he and Joe Biden are kindred spirits, of sorts.

    LB & Liz - Me too ... A Brown fan, that is. Both Jerry & Sherrod :). It's also interesting how many political lives Jerry has had.

    -David

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know what polls YOU are looking at, Michty...

    ABCWASHPOST: O 49% R 48%...
    GALLUP SWING: O 48% R 48%...
    CNN: TIED [WITH D+11]...
    PEW: O 48% R 45% [WITH D+6]...
    FL: R 52% O 47%...
    MI: R 47% O 46%...
    VA: O 48% R 47%...

    The CNN and PEW polls are especially telling. Even with assuming outlandish Democrat enthusiasm, the polls are STILL close...

    Like I always say, you can find a poll that will agree with ANYTHING you say...

    Michale...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, have too much on my hands to deal with this morning to try to find a workaround. Alas.

    Ya, you and me both... :D

    But any deal we make should not go into effect until the first of the year... :D

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    For example University of Colorado Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry have developed a model based on state-level economic data that predicts Mitt Romney winning with 330 electoral votes

    Any model which says Romney will get 330 EV loses it's credibility immediately. I will sell all my assets, my house and bet everything I own that this will not happen if you're willing to take this bet?

    The CNN and PEW polls are especially telling. Even with assuming outlandish Democrat enthusiasm, the polls are STILL close

    I've got really bad news for you. I don't know if you were aware of this, but elections are decided in the Electoral College in America. National polls lean Obama now (by only 0.3 on the RCP average)but that is irrelevant.

    Most models have settled on Obama winning this either 56%-44% (without Florida) or 62%-38% (with Florida) based on the State polls. I don't consider either of these results (especially the latter) 'close'.

  92. [92] 
    michty6 wrote:

    How ironic is it that American GOP supporters can't bet on their own guy, who is getting odds of close to 5 to 1, on online betting sites because of a law passed by a GOP PRESIDENT (UIGEA). Yes, GOP is the party of freedoms, as long as the freedoms they will allow you to have are in line with what they decide.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any model which says Romney will get 330 EV loses it's credibility immediately.

    And yet, it's pure unadulterated Peer Reviewed SCIENCE...

    Why do you accept science when it supports your beliefs and reject science when it doesn't???

    Most models have settled on Obama winning this either 56%-44% (without Florida) or 62%-38% (with Florida) based on the State polls. I don't consider either of these results (especially the latter) 'close'.

    Those are models based on POLLS, which are shit...

    The UoC model is based on FACTS and is peer-reviewed science, which you claim to worship...

    We'll know in 48 hours who is right and who is not.. :D

    Just one question.. Will you be feasting SOLELY on sour grapes and then save the CROW dishes for later??? :D

    Michale....

  94. [94] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Peer Reviewed SCIENCE...

    Why do you accept science when it supports your beliefs and reject science when it doesn't?

    You do know what peer reviewed means right? Peer reviewed doesn't mean '100% correct and definitely right' lol. Sam Wang at Princeton had a good post summarising the different models. Here were his comments on this model:

    "I’m leaving out political scientists who use predictors only, such as Alan Abramowitz, Ray Fair, and the University of Colorado people. As I’ve written, I categorize their models as tools to test ideas about how voting preferences are shaped. All of them do well at “post-dicting” past events. They might get the next election right, but if they don’t…so what? Make another model. This activity is research, with emphasis on the “search.” There’s nothing at all wrong with it. But it’s most useful before the election season starts. In the storm, you want the person with the instruments, not the person with the almanac."

    Will you be feasting SOLELY on sour grapes and then save the CROW dishes for later?

    I just have one thing to say and that is when Obama wins there is going to be massive out-rage by people who have bought into this 'it's a close race' media-shaped agenda (by the media who want people to tune in - close races improve ratings!). Are you going to be the voice of reason or join the nut-cases out-crying that Obama somehow 'stole' the election?

    PS. Large British bookmaker Paddy Power has actually paid out on an Obama win lol: http://blog.paddypower.com/2012/11/04/paddy-power-pays-out-400000-on-obama-victory-in-u-s-presidential-election/

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    You do know what peer reviewed means right? Peer reviewed doesn't mean '100% correct and definitely right' lol.

    It does when the Left whines and moans about Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling).

    Like I said.. Science is gospel when it agrees with the Left's agenda...

    When it disputes the Left's agenda, science doesn't mean dick...

    "Let me tell you something about those skills, slick. As of now, they mean precisely dick."
    -Agent K, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

    Michale.....

  96. [96] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Like I said.. Science is gospel when it agrees with the Left's agenda.

    Nope again it's hard to explain to non-math minds but it also doesn't mean 100% correct. What it means is that there is a >0% probability that we are destroying our own planet through human-caused global warming. That is kind of a big deal! Even if the actual probability is 1% that is still KIND OF A BIG DEAL when we could reduce this to close to 0% by taking certain measures.

    So absolutely there is a >0% probability that Romney gets elected. But to think that having 1 peer-reviewed paper makes this probability 100%, ignoring all other evidence that suggests otherwise is laughable.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    So absolutely there is a >0% probability that Romney gets elected.

    And, conversely, there is a >0% probability that Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is not a con job of galactic proportions..

    OK... I can live with that.. :D

    Michale.....

  98. [98] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I just have one thing to say and that is when Obama wins there is going to be massive out-rage by people who have bought into this 'it's a close race' media-shaped agenda (by the media who want people to tune in - close races improve ratings!).

    I think you'd be surprised, michty. Most people don't pay enough attention to question the corporate dominated media. But eventually, as it starts to become less subtle, maybe people will start to wake up.

    I can already tell you that conservatives will blame Hurricane Sandy if they lose. If the Dems lose, the focus is likely to be on being outspent.

    Interestingly enough, neither party will likely examine what they believe in :)

    -David

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just have one thing to say and that is when Obama wins there is going to be massive out-rage by people who have bought into this 'it's a close race' media-shaped agenda (by the media who want people to tune in - close races improve ratings!).

    And, conversely, when Romney wins, there is going to be massive outrage from the Left...

    The difference being, the Right won't riot, rape, pillage and destroy when their candidate loses..

    The same cannot be said for the Left...

    Michale....

  100. [100] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Great so if we're agreed that there is a >0% chance that humans are causing global warming that may potentially destroy the planet then let's get out and do something about it! I expect you to start pushing global warming strategies ASAP.

  101. [101] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    I can already tell you that conservatives will blame Hurricane Sandy if they lose. If the Dems lose, the focus is likely to be on being outspent.

    Interestingly enough, neither party will likely examine what they believe in :)

    This is very true, I have already seen many using the Sandy scapegoat already. I do think, however, that if Republicans lose they will indeed examine what they believe in. There will be in-fighting with the lunatic right-wing side accusing Romney of not being sensible enough and the (dwindling) moderate rational side pointing out that the lunatic right-wing side certainly cost them any chance of controlling the Senate, and probably the election too.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Great so if we're agreed that there is a >0% chance that humans are causing global warming that may potentially destroy the planet then let's get out and do something about it!

    But, by going out and doing something about it, there is an 80% chance we'll destroy our economies and a 50% chance that we'll actually make things worse, out of ignorance..

    ALL of that, based on a greater than zero chance that Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is actually real..

    Of course, it also presupposes that mankind actually HAS the technology to affect global climate..

    Which they don't....

    But sure... Let's act out of ignorance.. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?? :^/

    Michale.....

  103. [103] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,

    You do know that oil and gas are finite resources so we'll have to replace them anyway? Postponing the decision to replace them:
    (1) Just pushes the cost somewhere into the future. the continual rising prices of these commodities already illustrates this
    (2) Increases the probability (that we know is >0%) that we will destroy the planet

    So it is an absolute no-brainer of a decision.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    You do know that oil and gas are finite resources so we'll have to replace them anyway? Postponing the decision to replace them:
    (1) Just pushes the cost somewhere into the future. the continual rising prices of these commodities already illustrates this
    (2) Increases the probability (that we know is >0%) that we will destroy the planet

    So it is an absolute no-brainer of a decision.

    What part of "We Don't Have The Technology" did you not understand???

    Michale...

  105. [105] 
    michty6 wrote:

    What part of "We Don't Have The Technology" did you not understand???

    To create technology, you need incentives. Just like for oil and gas drilling, if companies were left to their own back when oil fields were first discovered they wouldn't have been able to afford it. So the Government created incentives and subsidies (sadly these still exist today, long after they've served their purpose).

    There-in lies the problem. When people like you keep denying the problem and even elected representatives completely flat out deny the problem, the Government is unable to create the necessary incentives and subsidies for the technology.

  106. [106] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Word on street is the Gallup tracking poll will be back today and show R+1, meaning that apparently Obama went up 5 points in it in 1 week lololol amazing.

  107. [107] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There will be in-fighting with the lunatic right-wing side accusing Romney of not being sensible enough and the (dwindling) moderate rational side pointing out that the lunatic right-wing side certainly cost them any chance of controlling the Senate, and probably the election too.

    We can hope :) ...

    But I doubt it very much. After all, when you can control the media enough that people think you're moderate, you can be as crazy as you want to be. Look for more craziness no matter what happens.

    -David

  108. [108] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CBS report confirms what I've been seeing elsewhere: Republicans behind in all battle-ground in early voting, except CO.

    So pretty much exactly the same situation as 2008...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57545128/democrats-hold-edge-in-swing-state-early-voting/?pageNum=1&tag=page

  109. [109] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    For example University of Colorado Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry have developed a model based on state-level economic data that predicts Mitt Romney winning with 330 electoral votes

    In disclosure, I don't know any more about that model than what I've read, and I haven't read an academic journal article since I left that business shortly after grad school. However, I do remember a little about econometric modeling principles, so here's my FWIW:

    That model successfully predicts every election result since 1980. Counting on my fingers, that's 8 elections. That means that any nine economic "explanatory," aka "independent" variables could "predict" those elections if those elections were used to fit the model.

    This is the same as the facts (no dispute of that word's meaning here, michty6) that a straight line will fit two points exactly, any three points will fit a parabola exactly, etc.

    Since economic time series based independent variables are highly serially correlated, and since election results are binary (win/lose) then far less than nine (even randomly chosen) economic time series could be fit to those elections' results.

    If the last nine elections are "out of sample," meaning they were fit with time series from elections prior to 1980, and validated by those elections, the criticism is mitigated, but replaced by a criticism of using information more than 30 years old in the face of changing demographics, information, and economic policies.

    In short, I don't put any more credence in econometric analysis of elections than I do in econometric analysis of the economy. And the latter amount, in the jargon of that business, is "epsilon vanishingly small."

    Finally, one final anecdote about social science use of econometrics, which is not meant to be a blanket condemnation. A lifelong friend of mine ("Jim"), now a business school Dean, once was the "outside" faculty member at a Education School dissertation defense. The candidate's dissertation was some "controversial" conclusion, based on regression analysis of data.

    Jim read through the methodology, and, at the break in the proceedings, where the candidate goes out to allow the committee to vote, said that the methodology was so bad that he could not in conscious vote to pass the dissertation.

    They leaned on him - hard. Finally, he was promised that prior to any submission of an article based on the dissertation, he would be given the draft, and they would act on any criticisms he had. In the alternative, they would suspend the defense, and request a different outside member from his college's dean before voting.

    He agreed to the offer. The student got the PhD, and went on to become an official in the Clinton Dept. of Education.

  110. [110] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Word on street is the Gallup tracking poll will be back today and show R+1, meaning that apparently Obama went up 5 points in it in 1 week lololol amazing.

    If you want a real moment of Zen, read the comments on the following article, which seems to indicate O+1, not that that matters.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-05/breaking-gallup-to-show-romney-obama-in-dead-heat#r=pol-s

  111. [111] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    This politically insensitive governor in FL couldn't have done more to help Democratic turnout than he did this weekend.

    Nothing angers and motivates people more than the threat -or even the perception- of disenfranchisement. And, for God's sake, it's Florida!

    What the DNC needs to do, I think, is keep a couple hundred million, and target Secretaries of State in a few key states, playing the Election Fraud trump card, and motivating the base to get out and vote the cheating weasels out of office.

  112. [112] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB,
    I just looked at the first comment on that page about Romney 'winning' early voters. It amazes me that when party identification of early voters is made available and easily accessible on-line that anyone can be stupid enough to fall for the narrative that Obama is 'down' in early voting.

  113. [113] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Yet another pastor has come forward in the wake of Hurricane Sandy with claims that the devastating storm has links to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

    Okay. Since the evangelicals have opened Pandora's Box (she's a Saint, right?) linking God's Will to the storm, I suggest that the following question is also fair game.

    If Gov. Romney loses, at least partially (that's understatement; it's likely the Official Line) due to the storm:

    What was behind God's decision to support the President by giving him the storm?

  114. [114] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    anyone can be stupid enough to fall for the narrative

    That's one of the great things about America. Anyone can grow up to be that stupid.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    The other key point of that UoC model (the point that Michy would LOVE to ignore) is that it has an 89% success rate in predicting Electoral College Results..

    Couple that 89% success rate with the 100% success rate at Presidential Picks and you got a pretty powerful argument..

    Compare that the the success rate of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) models.

    ZERO.... ZILCH..... NADA..... NONE..... :D

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Many other models that are predicting an Obama win also have a 100% success rate in predicting the election. So something has got to give on Tuesday. I'll go with the fact-based argument, rather than the econometric or emotional one. As Sam Wang put it "In the storm, you want the person with the instruments, not the person with the almanac"

  117. [117] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It doesn't look like Ras is putting out a lot of final State polls. I hope they do. I guess they might be scared of being as wrong as they were in 2008, but come on! The election is decided in the EC and in the past few days the only battle-grounds they have polled have been Ohio, Virginia and Michigan (the latter not even being a battle-ground).

  118. [118] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Now I'm probably going to have to go read this article, but not today. I'll say this, though:

    [The model] has an 89% success rate in predicting Electoral College Results most likely refers to the model's "R-squared," which defines the amount of variation "explained" by the model. Moreover, since electoral count defines "win," it's likely that count was the dependent variable. In that case, an R-squared this high is evidence of autocorrelation. (Man, this stuff is coming back to me!)

    Social scientists are R-squared junkies. One of the exercises I most remember from grad school was the exercise where we were to regress a series of numbers on the square of those numbers (plus a random component) and report the R-squared.

    The result: a straight line "explains" more than 90% of the variation in a parabola. We then had to slog through the mathematical proof of that, which I most decidedly do not recall.

  119. [119] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Compare that the the success rate of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) models.

    There is no way to incontrovertibly prove links between human activity and climate. That a fact. One reason is the counter hypothesis (no human activity) cannot be observed, tested, or measured.

    Climate is the grandpa of non-linear (aka "chaos") dynamic systems. The famed Lorenz butterfly effect was a climate based comment. The Hurst exponent arose from observations of reservoir water levels.

    What we can say, though, is it's been too hot in North America for too many years in a row to be due to any "no change" model. We can say there was no ice pack above 80N on September 21, except for a bit in the Queen Elizabeth islands, and that is and will be raising hell with the stability of the Jet Stream this winter.

    It's too late, really, for political solutions to this issue. The problems are here, and they're real. It doesn't make any difference if it was caused by freon, sunspots, volcanic activity. Once a non-linear system enters a dynamic region, it will continue in a sequence of unpredictable and hyper-volatile events until it doesn't any more.

    That much the chaos theorists will tell you is true.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now I'm probably going to have to go read this article, but not today. I'll say this, though:

    Yes, you will definitely want to read it..

    I am not the mathemetician you appear to be but, as I understand the model, the 89% EC success rate wasn't solely based on a win/lose option, but rather the model has an 89% success rate with the numerical value itself..

    Again, if I understand it correctly, it would be like predicting the actual NUMBER of a 1-100 guess 89 times, rather then just predicting ODD/EVEN correctly 89 times...

    That's a BIG difference that makes ALL the difference in the projection..

    I simply cannot see a scientific principle that predicts the Electoral College outcome with an 89% success rate could be SO wrong as to call Romney at 330 ECs, but Obama actually wins..

    We'll know in 48 hours, but I am going to go with the peer-reviewed SCIENCE on this call..

    I know... Ironic, iddn't it?? :D

    The problems are here, and they're real.

    Some science says yes, some science says no... Such as it is with true REAL science...

    Michale.....

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    What we can say, though, is it's been too hot in North America for too many years in a row to be due to any "no change" model.

    Has it ever been hotter on the planet in the last 2000 years??

    Yes it has...

    Was THAT heat caused by humans?

    No it was not...

    Ergo, other factors may be at work...

    We don't know enough to even know what we don't know...

    THAT's the ironic fact that settles the issue for me...

    Michale.....

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, moving on to other things..

    By happenstance (or a cruel twist of fate for ya'all :D) I have tomorrow off...

    So, you can count on a lot of LIVE commenting as the election progresses...

    Too bad we can't start the Holiday Fund Drive early. I might hit my 500 mark in one day!!!! :D

    Michale....

  123. [123] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I'm going home. It's going to be a lot more fun to be in Denver for election night than in Texas.

    My prediction: pot legalization is going to pass in WA, but will fail in CO.

    Back tomorrow. Goldwater in '64!

  124. [124] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    From an article written by a political gambler, on how he won the bet on Sarah Palin being chosen as VP:

    In some instances, though, relying on reporters isn't enough: You have to be the reporter and find the story. It was in that vein that I teamed up with a friend to find out the next vice presidential nominee in 2008. The rally to announce the VP was scheduled to take place on August 29. No one besides close aides and possibly reporters who had been sworn to secrecy knew who John McCain would pick as his running mate. We knew, though, that the information existed somewhere, that a pick had to be made before the rally, and we were determined to find it.

    On August 28, we started by calling Tim Pawlenty's office. We asked for his schedule the next morning. A fair and a radio interview was the response. Possibly a cover story to nosy reporters. We called the fair and asked if he would be there; he would. Next was Jindal. We confirmed that he had a conflict and reconfirmed. On we went down his list — Lieberman, Romney, and on and on — until his frontrunners and long shots had been exhausted without a definitive answer. Finally late that night, possibly that morning, it dawned on us: The vice president cannot magically appear. The person has to physically arrive at the location via some method. With the airport being the most logical choice, we brought up a website that tracks flights coming in and out of the closest airport to the Dayton, Ohio, rally. And there it was: a private jet coming in from...Alaska. Sarah. Palin. That was a $25,000 victory, and done through hard-nose detective work.

    Here's the article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/intrader/inside-intrades-political-market

    See ya.

  125. [125] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB,
    Oh you could make so much money on In Trade. Especially just now. I am so happy to have my eyes open to this wonderful market. I don't want to explain (since the margins will likely disappear) but simple maths and a sense for the likely outcome mean you could easily hedge any potential loss (or bet on both guys and make money) elsewhere because In Trade is so far out with other betting markets...

  126. [126] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. Marijuana is ahead in both CO and WA in the polls. I think it will stay that way.

  127. [127] 
    michty6 wrote:

    We'll know in 48 hours, but I am going to go with the peer-reviewed SCIENCE on this call..

    I know... Ironic, iddn't it?? :D

    Lol it's not really. Consistently on here you ignore every fact that doesn't fit your own personal belief system and amplify/exaggerate those that don't. Not that I am being too overcritical since most people do this. People are pretty poor at thinking objectively/probabilistically..

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol it's not really. Consistently on here you ignore every fact that doesn't fit your own personal belief system and amplify/exaggerate those that don't. Not that I am being too overcritical since most people do this. People are pretty poor at thinking objectively/probabilistically..

    And, of course, not you, right?? :D

    I am really going to hate to see you break down this time tomorrow...

    Be well, Michty.. There is no shame in a grown man crying.. :D

    But, you haven't answered my question...

    Will it be just sour grapes tomorrow?? Or will you tackle some crow??

    :D

    Michale....

  129. [129] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I don't get the question. What is 'tackle some crow'? Is this an American thing?

    I gladly admit I am probably biased. Admitting it is the first stage to fixing it. That is why my model I developed for predicting this deliberately filters any bias and focusses on the polls alone :)

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/

    "Eating Crow" is a term for someone who has to swallow the bitter pill of being wrong, being fantastically wrong...

    I am not sure the development of the etymology. Perhaps someone smarter than I (which includes every body.. :D) can impart some wisdom.. :D

    Michale....

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://politicker.com/2012/11/obama-campaign-to-supporters-dont-panic-over-early-exit-polls/

    When a campaign tells it's supporters to NOT PANIC....

    It's time for those supporters to panic... :D

    Gods, tomorrow is going to be like Mardi Gras!! :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "Eating Crow" is a term for someone who has to swallow the bitter pill of being wrong, being fantastically wrong.

    Is that what this election is all about, Michale? Making some liberals "eat crow".

    Do you think we're interested in proving you wrong?

    Me personally, I could care less. That is, my fight is really not with you.

    It's with the people pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into this campaign in order to grant themselves another tax break. And no matter who wins the election today, that doesn't change.

    Even if Obama wins, these lobbyists will still be in there fighting for their tax breaks. If Romney wins, they've just won one battle.

    So good fight, go vote, and good luck!

    -David

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that what this election is all about, Michale? Making some liberals "eat crow".

    I could ask you the same type of question, David..

    Is the election about "revenge"?? :D Obama says it is...

    But to answer you, no.. It's not about making the Left eat crow.. It's about saving this country..

    Making the Left eat crow is just an added Benny :D

    It's with the people pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into this campaign in order to grant themselves another tax break. And no matter who wins the election today, that doesn't change.

    Democrats are just as guilty of that as Republicans.. They are just not as good at it..

    But you are correct. That is unlikely to change..

    And it won't change until ALL of us are ready to hold ALL our leaders accountable..

    Not just the leaders in the opposing Party...

    Even if Obama wins, these lobbyists will still be in there fighting for their tax breaks.

    Exactly.. And the Left will let Obama get away with it, solely and completely because of that '-D' after his name...

    Michale.....

  134. [134] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Democrats are just as guilty of that as Republicans.

    Lol considering that the Democrats aren't offering tax breaks, then it's hardly fair they are 'good' at accepting wealthy money for tax breaks. 50% of their funds raised is grass roots. Who would you rather have your candidate owe a debt of gratitude to, millions of Americans donating $5 or 10 guys donating $100m who want a tax cut?

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think we're interested in proving you wrong?

    Many Weigantians are, I am sure.. :D

    More than you think... :D

    Though likely less than I think.. :D

    Michale....

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol considering that the Democrats aren't offering tax breaks,

    No, Democrats just offer lucrative no-bid contracts to family members and donors.. They also tailor legislation to favor donors...

    The auto bailout is a perfect example...

    If you HONESTLY believe that Democrats are better than Republicans in regards to corruption, then you don't know a thing about American politics.. :D

    Michale....

  137. [137] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And the Left will let Obama get away with it, solely and completely because of that '-D' after his name.

    But Democrats aren't proposing tax cuts for the rich. I'm not sure how they can get away w/ something they're fighting against.

    If you HONESTLY believe that Democrats are better than Republicans in regards to corruption, then you don't know a thing about American politics.

    Democrats are the only ones I see fighting for any actual legislation against corruption ...

    ... against Citizens' United
    ... regulating Wall Street
    ... a consumer protection bureau

    Etc, etc.

    I'm all for capitalism, Michale, but there have to be checks and balances on it for it to work best.

    Republicans like to talk about "crony capitalism" but what's their answer?

    As far as I can see, Republican theology is simply about eliminating all of these checks and balances. That, to me, is a recipe for more financial disasters.

    Is there a Republican answer to corruption I'm missing?

    -David

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Democrats aren't proposing tax cuts for the rich. I'm not sure how they can get away w/ something they're fighting against.

    Yer right..

    They are just giving lucrative no bid contracts to family and donors and tailoring legislation so that Unions and Donors make REALLY big money...

    How is that any better than tax breaks for the rich?? Assuming there WILL be tax breaks for the rich..

    That's the problem with your argument. It's all based on what Romney MIGHT do...

    We KNOW what Obama has done...

    My argument is fact..

    Your argument is supposition and conjecture...

    If we were in a formal debate, guess who would win?? :D

    Democrats are the only ones I see fighting for any actual legislation against corruption ...

    ... against Citizens' United
    ... regulating Wall Street
    ... a consumer protection bureau

    AND while they are giving lip service to FIGHTING against it, they are getting big money FROM it..

    At least Republicans are honest about it. Democrats are so two-faced about it, it's pathetic...

    Is there a Republican answer to corruption I'm missing?

    Yes.. You assume that Democrats are the solution.. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support such a claim...

    Until you hold your own Dem leaders accountable, your argument simply WON'T fly...

    Michale.....

  139. [139] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale,

    I still don't see any solutions.

    If Republicans are so keen on fighting corruption, how would they do it?

    What ideas do they have?

    -David

  140. [140] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You assume that Democrats are the solution.

    No. Not really. I merely listed some solutions Democrats have fought for:

    ... campaign finance reform
    ... regulating Wall Street
    ... a consumer protection bureau

    Where are the Republican ideas?

    -David

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. Not really. I merely listed some solutions Democrats have fought for:

    ... campaign finance reform
    ... regulating Wall Street
    ... a consumer protection bureau

    No... You listed some solutions that Democrats have SAID they fought for..

    But when the rubber hit the road, when it came time to step and actually DO the right thing, Dems crumbled and took the money..

    And because the Left excuses them for that, they have absolutely NO INCENTIVE to change..

    Michale....

  142. [142] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But when the rubber hit the road, when it came time to step and actually DO the right thing, Dems crumbled and took the money.

    Huh?

    We now have a consumer protection bureau. We now have stricter rules for banks.

    And we could have had campaign finance reform but it was blocked by Republicans.

    But back to the original question: What do Republicans propose? What are their ideas for fighting corruption?

    -David

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    We now have a consumer protection bureau. We now have stricter rules for banks.

    I'll give you the CPB, toothless and useless entity though it is...

    Stricter rules for banks?? Yea, on paper.. MAYBE... yet they are still screwing over the middle class so they can make tons of money..

    I noticed you didn't touch Obama's embrace of SuperPACs and CITIZENS UNITED...

    Good call.. :D

    I never claimed Republicans WEREN'T corrupt or had ideas to combat corruption...

    I am simply showing you that YOUR claim that Democrats are better than the GOP doesn't pass the smell test...

    Michale....

  144. [144] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am simply showing you that YOUR claim that Democrats are better than the GOP doesn't pass the smell test.

    Let's see. One party fighting for and passing anti-corruption legislation versus a party that doesn't even have an idea.

    Seems pretty clear to me ...

    -David

  145. [145] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I noticed you didn't touch Obama's embrace of SuperPACs and CITIZENS UNITED.

    Democrats would be happy to overturn Citizens' United. In fact, many of them, like Russ Feingold and Sherrod Brown, are fighting against it. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

    -David

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's see. One party fighting for and passing anti-corruption legislation versus a party that doesn't even have an idea.

    No... One Party SAYING they are against corruption, yet still taking all the money and benefits of that corruption...

    Democrats would be happy to overturn Citizens' United. In fact, many of them, like Russ Feingold and Sherrod Brown, are fighting against it. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

    You mean, other than Obama embracing SuperPACs and CU???

    No matter how you slice it, David, it's wrong..

    You simply CANNOT castigate something while at the same time embracing it...

    "One cannot simultaneously prepare for Peace AND War."
    -Albert Einstein

    I seem to recall people around here castigating Republicans for being against the Stimulus, yet asking for Stimulus funds..

    How is that any different than what Obama and the Democrats are doing with SuperPACs and CU???

    Michale.....

  147. [147] 
    akadjian wrote:

    One Party SAYING they are against corruption

    Consumer Protection Bureau ...
    Dodd-Frank ...

    And much stronger bills which were defeated by the Republican party such as ...

    The SAFE banking act (which would have broken up the big banks) ...
    And the DARE campaign finance reform package

    Republicans ... No ideas ...

    Why? Could it be because of how corrupt they are?

    -David

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You're arguing that Republicans are bad.. You are preaching to the choir in that..

    YOUR claim that Democrats are better doesn't pass the smell test..

    Yea, you can point to a law here or a bill that there might have done some good if it was actually imposed and/or acted upon..

    But you simply CAN'T argue that Obama's and the Democrat's embrace of SuperPACs and CU completely negates your argument..

    I'll ask again.. You slammed the GOP for being against TARP but yet still request TARP funds..

    How is that ANY different than Obama and the Democrats slamming CU and SuperPACs, yet still avail themselves of it..

    The answer is: It's NOT any different...

    So you slam the GOP and give the DEMs a pass...

    Where's the famous (or infamous :D) "No Right v Left" David I have grown so fond of??? :D

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]