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.....

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

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.....

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

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

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....

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

... 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....

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

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

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.....

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

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....

Many Weigantians are, I am sure.. :D

More than you think... :D

Though likely less than I think.. :D

Michale....

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?

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.....

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

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

"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....

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 :)

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....

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..

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.

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

Back tomorrow. Goldwater in '64!

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....

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.....

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.....

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.

[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.

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.....

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

-David

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.

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

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

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.

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.....

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.

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....

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

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.....

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.

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.....

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/

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....

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'.

Ya, you and me both... :D

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

Michale.....

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...

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

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.....

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....

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....

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.....

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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...

I live in Canada :)

Since when???

Thought you were a Brit???

:D

Michale.....

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.....

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

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

Michale.....

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

Michale....

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.

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....

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.

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?

"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

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?

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).

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...

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.....

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...

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

...[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.

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

Michale.....

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.....

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

Michale

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.

"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.

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.