It's that time again. Normally I have a big fancy to do where I go through all the races and blah blah blah. But there are still some things going on that I'll throw out there.
Republicans need 39 seats in the House to take over. If they do, it's a virtual guarantee that John Boehner will take over as the Speaker of the House. It is thought that if the GOP takes over, Pelosi will likely resign rather than stay on as Minority Leader. She'll probably take half a dozen senior ranking Democrats with her who are her political allies in the House from California who won't much want to stick around with her there. Who fills the power vacuum is up in the air, but look for Steny Hoyer to play a role.
In the Senate, with a 57/41/2 split between D/R/I, the Republicans need a net pickup of ten seats to take over. Most think that with Tea Party candidates beating out GOP people who would have had a better chance, like O'Donnell in Delaware, the Senate will stay in Democratic hands. Personally, I'm hoping the GOP takes both houses, but it seems unlikely.
There are also a number of interesting ballot issues up this year. California is voting to legalize Marijuana, and they are also voting to loosen some of the strictest budget requirements in the nation by allowing budgets to pass with a simple majority rather than requiring a 2/3, which has been a major structural problem in the CA Assembly's ability to get their budget crisis under control. Frankly I think the governor's race between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman there to replace the Governator is also interesting. Whitman spent more money trying to buy the Governor's mansion than Gore spent in 2000 on his entire presidential election. Crazy. And for all that, she's still not ahead in the polls.
Some individual senate races interest me, mostly Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, and the Alaska election, where Lisa Murkowski, next in a long line of Alaska Republicans, is attempting to win a write-in ballot campaign against the Tea Party candidate Joe Miller who ousted her in the primary. There's also an off chance that the Democratic candidate could beat both of them if they split the vote between each other enough. Angle and Reid interest me, mostly because I think Sharron Angle is a weirdo, but at the same time I think Reid is an incompetent buffoon, and those set to replace him have a far better reputation among Republicans for getting work done. There's also a close race in Wisconsin for Russ Feingold, who is highly regarded as a non-party hack who works well with both sides, but has been tarred as a beltway liberal by his opponent.
Results to come as they are available.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Rand Paul projected as Kentucky winner. Dan Coats projected as Republicans first pick up in the Senate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Early results:
Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul and Tea Party hero) has won the Senate seat in Kentucky.
Dan Coats (R) has taken Evan Bayh's (D) former seat in Indiana, making it the first pickup for the GOP in the Senate.
More on Ballot Initiatives:
Also, I hadn't seen this before, but one of the ballot issues being decided nationally this year is an official state name change in Rhode Island, from "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" to just "Rhode Island."
Also, Colorado and Oklahoma have state constitutional measures to: "Amend the state constitution so that the people of Colorado/Oklahoma cannot be penalized for refusing to buy health insurance. It would also allow physicians to continue taking payments directly from patients." Arizona has a similar measure.
Additionally, Colorado is changing the definition of personhood to: "This constitutional amendment would apply personhood — and all of its rights — from "the beginning of the biological development" of a human being." This could have interesting developments for abortion rights, but I have a feeling this would zoom right to the Supreme Court and get slapped down.
Arizona also has measure to ban affirmative action and legalize medical marijuana (SD, AZ and CA are all voting on this), and is one of a half dozen states putting forward a state constitutional right to hunt and harvest wildlife.
Finally, Illinois is voting on a Governor recall measure.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Rand Paul should be winning Kentucky by over five percentage points, and O'Donnell should be losing by somewhere in the range of three million percentage points.
Colorado's personhood amendment is a sideshow compared to "The Bad Three," another fun fun happy time attempted manipulation of colorado's easy constitutional amendment process that would leave this place a brackish backwater.
I will also be making like a billion dollars off this election.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Coons is projected to beat O'Donnell. I think Coons is excellent compared to her, so, for the sake of government I'm happy, but, I'm going to be robbed of a lot of good comedy with her not in the public spotlight. Maybe Fox will give her a TV show. Lately Fox News is like a refugee camp for failed Conservative politicians.
Mark Rubio will beat out Meeks and Crist as well. This only saddens me because Crist seemed like a genuine centrist that I would have liked to see in Congress. If Meeks had dropped out, he would have won. Oh well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Senate party change spoiler list
N. Dakota 100% 29 69 Hoeven +40
Indiana 100% 39 58 Coats +19
Arkansas 100% 39 58 Boozman +19
Pa. 97% 48 52 Toomey +4
Wisconsin 97% 46 51 Johnson +5
Nevada 83% 47 50 Angle +3
Illinois 69% 48 49 Kirk +2
Colorado 65% 48 49 Buck +1
Eyes on buck election. All else are longshots.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Boozman was called for Arkansas.
That's two.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I had to restrain myself from voting for the Rent is 2 Damn High candidate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Current live tally in the 538 model puts Republican odds for Senate takeover down to 6, House takeover to 89 with dems at 200 seats.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
2%
ahhhhhhhh
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of the races you listed above Sam, I'd say that PA, WI and NV aren't guaranteed. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sestak beat Toomey in PA, or to have Reid pull out a win against Angle.
I'm pulling for Feingold, but, I don't know.
Here's a fun bit: Right now the Republican candidate for governor in Colorado only has 9% of the vote. If they don't hit 10%, they won't be registered as a major party for the 2012 election.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That's with less than half of the count reported though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sure, but the rate of votes that comes in has to increase as the night goes on. The more votes that come in, the more votes he needs to sustain 9%, and the rate has to increase for him to get up to 10%.
The race in Pennsylvania is basically a dead heat. Last time I looked, Toomey was ahead of Sestak by less than a thousand votes.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Kansas has a pretty neat web page for their results. Not that any of the results are surprising. Another election year in Kansas, another argument for me to take up drinking...
Kansas is set to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to bear arms.
What are you guys planning?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Sure, but the rate of votes that comes in has to increase as the night goes on. The more votes that come in, the more votes he needs to sustain 9%, and the rate has to increase for him to get up to 10%.
Only relevant if vote counts are relatively steady across the state, which is uncommon. As each district/area gets counted, there is likely a spurt in one direction or the other.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My favorite candidates, Allen West and Marco Rubio....both win.
Funny that Clinton wanted the black Dem to drop out so the once Republican, Crist could have a chance over the first generation Tea Bagging Latino.
Why would a Democrat ask a black democtrat to drop out in a three way race so that the "independent", once Republican white politician could defeat the latino conservative? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44337.html
Marco Rubio for president..... Maybe our next president will be the first latino president. I hope so. Obama proved that experience doesn't matter. The Rubio's and Allen West's are a great danger to the democratic party. Tea-bagger minority candidates that believe in the American Dream.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
8 Senate races remain uncalled.
6 of those seats need to go GOP for them to take over the Senate.
Pennsylvania - remains neck and neck. (R - 30K lead) Illinois - is close at 48/46. (R - 50K lead) Colorado - 50/45 (D - 50K lead) Nevada - Reid has 12 point lead. (D - 34K lead) Alaska - ? Washington - R ahead by 50K California - D ahead by 12K Hawaii - ?
Lots of people are talking about possibly investigations of Obama with the GOP in charge of the House.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Lots of people are talking about possibly investigations of Obama with the GOP in charge of the House.
I have to admit that I would be surprised if they turned out to be that stupid. That sort of grandstanding plays well to the rubes, but I can't imagine that they want to start trying to seize control of government that transparently at this stage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think the establishment is that stupid. I do believe a lot of newbies might not be so hesitant though. Especially not the more...colorful...candidates.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Who said this: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
Rubio and West endanger the 90+ percent black democrat vote. Funny....what if >90% of whites voted for one party? I bet that would raise some red flags. Can't have successful minority conservatives rise to political power.
What is the longest war in American history? The war on poverty. Blacks are no better off than they were when the dems switched sides from the KKK to the party of welfare. Welfare is the new form of slavery and government provided housing is the new plantation. A millionaire only has one vote. A ghetto is full of votes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Blacks are no better off than they were when the dems switched sides from the KKK to the party of welfare.
I don't know a single black person who would agree with you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know any white people who would agree with that either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I do. But I know a bunch of racist idiots.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lots of people are talking about possibly investigations of Obama with the GOP in charge of the House.
What an excellent use of the House's time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Damn. CNN just called the Senate for the Democrats.
Just when I was hoping the GOP would actually be forced to at least pretend to govern.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Blacks are no better off than they were when the dems switched sides from the KKK to the party of welfare.
I don't know a single black person who would agree with you.
You must not know too many blacks or you live in the ghetto.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As opposed to the blacks who have been living in a sealed bunker for the last 50 years who you're polling?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Kansas is set to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to bear arms.
What are you guys planning?
We're going to invade Nebraska.
Seriously. That's the penalty for abandoning the Big 12.
I don't know what the NRA is planning, but I'm reasonably sure it's not important. The language change is merely to eliminate any doubt that gun ownership is an individual right. Personally, I don't think it's necessary. Kansas, of all the states, isn't going to pass stricter gun laws. Actually, it was only a few years ago that the state legalized concealed carry. Hunting and gun ownership aren't in any danger in this state.
The language of the ballot question itself (not the amendment language) struck me as purely a political ploy. I wonder why that party felt like they needed this measure. There was never any doubt in my mind that they were going to win everything in the state.
In other news...we also amended the constitution to eliminate mental illness as a voting disqualification. Americans with disabilities will surely rejoice as we use our impressive political weight to lead this incredibly important progressive issue to the national spotlight.
And, my sarcasm is going off again. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Damn. CNN just called the Senate for the Democrats.
Just when I was hoping the GOP would actually be forced to at least pretend to govern.
Spending bills originate in the House. Dems did lose a fillibuster proof senate and all bills start in the house. Even if the R's won control of both, the presiden't still needs to sign the bill. We're going to hear a lot of talk about "bipartisanship" tomorrow. The D's locked out the R's for the last two years. Obama only met with the Republican majority leader once,....after 18 months in office. Gridlock was the intention of our founders. Gridlock isn't a bad thing.... If it "aint" broke, don't fix it. Problem is, "progressives" operate on the assumption that it is broke.
"The fundamental transformation of America"....Obama. Most Americans like our fundamentals. The American people are rejecting a speaker of the house from San Fransisco and the most liberal senator, now president. Progressives are showing their colors too soon. The American people do not want a "fundamental transformation". For the last two years, we've endured the most liberal speaker and the most liberal senator...now president. We aren't a liberal nation.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Sestak was heartbreaking here in PA. I just left a house of crying volunteers. It was especially painful having been with him since before the primary.
I agree with Lyrhawn though. I actually would've preferred to see the Republicans take the senate.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Somehow I don't think most people were voting for their Congressman/woman with the goal of rejecting a speaker of the house from San Fransisco.
Can you imagine that that's really what people are thinking?
"Just think, if we vote for this person, we can hopefully change the House Majority leader!"
Nice rhetoric, though.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Anyway, I'm pretty sure, from the looks of the data, that in Washington State the Democrats kept the Senate seat.
The Congressman I voted for lost, though. He lost bad. I knew he would, but I voted for him anyway. I've actually met the guy. The only thing against him I can think of is being a Democrat in a fairly conservative area.
Heck, on pretty much every measure, initiative, and person I voted on the majority of people in my state voted the other way. Go figure. It's like they don't care about paying for the things they want the state to actually do.
Whatever. My part is done. Nobody in Washington State can blame me if we have more cuts to essential services. Not my fault.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Damn. CNN just called the Senate for the Democrats.
Just when I was hoping the GOP would actually be forced to at least pretend to govern.
Spending bills originate in the House. Dems did lose a fillibuster proof senate and all bills start in the house. Even if the R's won control of both, the presiden't still needs to sign the bill. We're going to hear a lot of talk about "bipartisanship" tomorrow. The D's locked out the R's for the last two years. Obama only met with the Republican majority leader once,....after 18 months in office. Gridlock was the intention of our founders. Gridlock isn't a bad thing.... If it "aint" broke, don't fix it. Problem is, "progressives" operate on the assumption that it is broke.
"The fundamental transformation of America"....Obama. Most Americans like our fundamentals. The American people are rejecting a speaker of the house from San Fransisco and the most liberal senator, now president. Progressives are showing their colors too soon. The American people do not want a "fundamental transformation". For the last two years, we've endured the most liberal speaker and the most liberal senator...now president. We aren't a liberal nation.
Spending bills originating in the House are more of a formality than anything. The Senate can pass a spending measure, all they have to do is allow it to be re-introduced in the House by someone. It doesn't put the ball in the House's court. I wish it did.
Also, where have you been? Democrats haven't had a filibuster proof majority since...well, ever really, but in real numbers they haven't had one since Scott Brown.
And the D's locked out the R's? I'm sorry, who was the one filibustering every bill under the sun? And yes, the President DOES need to sign legislation, which is why Republicans won't get a fraction of what they say they want. But that doesn't matter. Structurally, neither party was going to be able to pass much legislation after this election. Had Democrats retained control, Republicans would have filibustered. With Republicans in control, Obama will just veto. But the magic would have happened if the GOP had controlled both houses. The onus of government would have been on them, to pass bills and compromise with the President, to say nothing of Democrats, without being able to just say no and stomp their feet. Now they can do what they've always done and just blame Senate Democrats. It's just a different version of what we've always had, and there will be no need to compromise, not when they can play the party of no game all over again. It will be fun to see what bills they pass that Democrats will shoot down though. Furthermore, it will be fun to see how Senate Republicans vote. A rift is forming between fiscal and social conservatives in the Republican caucus, and voting patterns are going to be fun to look for.
And gridlock works just fine for some instances. It worked great back when the government was only responsible for a couple things here and there, like national defense with no standing army, and a national government smaller than a modern PTA meeting. But with a trillion dollar deficit, a ten trillion dollar debt, and a nation piled high with problems? Gridlock is a killer. We need to solve problems right now. You really think that these things will just go away if we do nothing? That's not just naive, or ignorant, or stupid, it's dangerous.
My great hope for this election would be that Republicans would take over both houses, and they would be forced to govern. Forced to actually show us the specifics, and not more of the same mealy mouthed crap that Christine O'Donnell handed out the other day when she ended a radio interview because the interviewer was trying to force specific spending cuts out of her. I think that taking over the House will force them to put forth something. But I think they're likely to shun compromise in return for just blaming their failures on Democrats. Perception will be key here. With huge Republican gains, will the country perceive Congress as being controlled by Democrats or Republicans? If they view it as a Republican Congress, then they'll get all the blame from not having any solutions passed. If somehow it is still viewed as Democratically controlled, then Republicans can pass any bill they want in the House and gleefully watch it die in the Senate. In Congressional politics, perception has never mattered more than it will for the next two years.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
GOP leaders have been saying that it might take two election cycles to take over the Senate. They made significant gains tonight, but odds will definitely be in their favor in 2012 to complete their takeover of the Senate. Twice as many Democrat Senators as Republican will be up for re-election in 2012.
Fox News is saying they predict that the GOP will win 60 seats in the House--which is a real blowout, for which the "Tea Party" movement is getting much of the credit. Republicans only needed to pick up 39 seat from Democrats to gain control of the House. So--Nancy Pelosi will no longer be majority leader.
After the new House is sworn in, Republican John A. Boehner will be second in the line of presidential sucession, after the Vice President--assuming of course that Republicans vote to have him continue as their party leader in the House.
Fox News has projected that Harry Reid will hold onto his seat in Nevada. There have been complaints from the Las Vegas area that many voters were presented with ballots on which Reid's name was already checked. Las Vegas is a union town.
Also, so far seven formerly Democratic state governorships have passed over to the Republicans. This is important heading into the 2012 elections, because governors preside over redistricting, which is due to take place before the next election, and of course the party that control the statehouse controls where voter district lines are drawn (in a time-honored practice called "Gerrymandering").
The GOP may not be able to repeal Obamacare, but they can defund it's key provisions so it cannot be implemented.
Now, if Dems have any sense at all, they will negotiate seriously with Republicans to come up with a Health Care Plan that is truly bipartisan. They can't just be high-handed and ignore Republicans any more. And everyone will have to listen to the people this time, since ignoring them and trying to cram Obamacare down their throats is what made so many voters so angry with the Democrats, and cost so many Democrats their jobs.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The speaker of the house represents San Fransisco.
Does San Fransisco represent the United States? San Fransisco is the extreme left, but their representative initiates all spending bills. The representative of San Fransisco is as powerful as the president. She dictates what hits the floor in the House of Representatives. Pelosi doesn't have to fear her seat...she'll be reelected in perpetuity despite the fact that the majority of America is against her.
Why did the house give the speakership power to the extreme left wing? Do you believe in democracy and the voice of the people? Will you tolerate what Pelosi will try to cram through during the lame duck session, before the inaguration. This is going to be a busy lame duck session....pass the law before the inauguration of conservatives.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Ron Lambert says: The GOP may not be able to repeal Obamacare, but they can defund it's key provisions so it cannot be implemented.
Now, if Dems have any sense at all, they will negotiate seriously with Republicans to come up with a Health Care Plan that is truly bipartisan. They can't just be high-handed and ignore Republicans any more. And everyone will have to listen to the people this time, since ignoring them and trying to cram Obamacare down their throats is what made so many voters so angry with the Democrats, and cost so many Democrats their jobs.
They won't be able to repeal, or defund. But I do hope that they amend, and they will have to work together or it won't happen. I do highly enjoy your revisionist history however. In your version of the last two years, Democrats never tried to work in a bi-partisan fashion with Republicans? Too much Fox News buddy. And the health care bill wasn't why Democrats lost. It is still, as it ever was, the economy, stupid.
quote:Mal says: This is going to be a busy lame duck session....pass the law before the inauguration of conservatives.
I wish. No, the lame duck Congress will pass a few odds and ends that need to be taken care of before the term ends, but nothing highly controversial. It would be awesome if they tried to do something with the budget commission report that is set to come out in December, which I have to say I'm on pins and needles waiting to read. Senate Democrats aren't going to try and run anything through during the lame duck session.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:GOP Delaware candidate Christine O'Donnell's projected loss to Democrat Chris Coons means that she will not get her chance to chat about foreign policy with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Craptacular, I would have paid good money for years of that
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Lots of people are talking about possibly investigations of Obama with the GOP in charge of the House.
I have to admit that I would be surprised if they turned out to be that stupid. That sort of grandstanding plays well to the rubes, but I can't imagine that they want to start trying to seize control of government that transparently at this stage.
"Playing to the rubes" seems to be an effective strategy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:GOP Delaware candidate Christine O'Donnell's projected loss to Democrat Chris Coons means that she will not get her chance to chat about foreign policy with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Craptacular, I would have paid good money for years of that
I'd have paid good money to see Christine O'Donnell in the Senate period if entertainment is the only qualifying measurement. Ignoring the fact that she's a whackadoodle, she would have been a lot of fun to watch. I'm looking forward to Rand Paul, and a few others, but most of the really good gaffe-factories were beaten.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... (in a time-honored practice called "Gerrymandering").
Ick, you guys should fix that bug already
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama talked about gerrymandering in his interview with Jon Stewart last week and it was a little interesting. He listed gerrymandering and the filibuster as the two biggest structural problems in American democracy. The filibuster has a pretty easy fix. I'm not sure how you undo centuries of partisan electoral cartography.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, the British are the ones who invented "Gerrymandering."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Later update: GOP has picked up six Senate seats formerly held by Dems. They needed 10 to take over control of the Senate. So they only need four more in 2012. One of those losses was the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama. Dems poured alot of money and effort into that race to try to prevent this from happening.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
This election was not a referendum on the president.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ballot Initiative Results
AZ bans affirmative action for public jobs. AZ makes it illegal for mandatory health care plans to be enforced in the state. AZ is 50/50 split on medical marijuana.
CA says no on legalizing marijuana. 56/44 right now. CA is still split on changing budget voting requirements. 54/46 in favor of changing.
CO votes not to define a person as beginning at conception. CO votes no on making it illegal to mandate health care coverage. Interesting.
IL votes to recall governor.
OK amends state constitution to make it illegal to penalize citizens for not purchasing mandatory insurance.
Rhode Island will not change their name.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Later update: GOP has picked up six Senate seats formerly held by Dems. They needed 10 to take over control of the Senate. So they only need four more in 2012. One of those losses was the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama. Dems poured alot of money and effort into that race to try to prevent this from happening.
Situational. If the economy rebounds enough to change the public perception, and if Republicans utterly fail to deliver on any of their promises, there is no guarantee that "only four more" won't turn right back into needing another ten. A lot more Democratic seats are up, but a lot of them are in fairly safe states.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, the British are the ones who invented "Gerrymandering."
I'm not sure thats true
quote:The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette newspaper on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party.
Anyways, whoever invented it isn't the main point, the main point is that its an easy fix
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CA says no on legalizing marijuana. 56/44 right now
This was actually kinda funny. There was a company interviewed on CBC based in BC that was complaining that the industry would be wiped out if marijuana was legalised in California. (I was for the prop regardless, but I guess thats moot now)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CA is still split on changing budget voting requirements. 54/46 in favor of changing.
That's Proposition 25. But 26, which also looks likely to get a similar majority, would make adding certain taxes require a 2/3 majority instead of the simple majority now required. An interesting combination, if both pass.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: the activity, not the term. Google "rotten boroughs".
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Murkowski is starting out pretty strong in Alaska. If she somehow manages to hold on to win this, it will be another high profile defeat of a tea party favorite Senate candidate (Angle and O'Donnell). While the Tea Party and general voter anger certainly played a large part in the Republican victories today, I do find it interesting that some of the more extreme candidates were defeated. This could indicate a few things. Anywhere from the fact that liberals get riled up when threatened by extreme candidates to that these candidates can't appeal to moderates. Voter anger is a force to be reckoned with, but apparently there's a line.
*This is almost certainly not true for House seats which deal in much smaller areas and voter numbers in which I'm sure many local tea party favorites were able to win.
Were there any other high profile senate tea party favorites? Rubio comes to mind. And his win was pretty significant. Had Meek dropped out Christ still would've had an uphill battle on that one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Damn. CNN just called the Senate for the Democrats.
Just when I was hoping the GOP would actually be forced to at least pretend to govern.
They weren't going to take the senate. I talked about that way, way earlier than now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, the British are the ones who invented "Gerrymandering."
No, they're not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
fugu13: If I'm reading wiki right, that has to do with electoral boundaries becoming obsolete due to migration rather than deliberate redrawing of boundaries to gain an advantage. Granted, both are definitely problems, but they don't seem to be the same problem. (Alternately, if one does think they're the same problem, it got fixed in 1832, so either way ... fix it already)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Also, sinking in that there will be no more Arnold Schwarzenegger. Had rather grown fond of the guy in spite of the obvious problems.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The three issues that really ultimately mattered in colorado:
quote:Amendment 60 is losing 78 percent to 22 percent, Amendment 61 is losing 76 percent to 24 percent and Proposition 101 is losing 72 percent to 28 percent.
The three collectively were an attempt by a radically anti-government force attempting to ruin the state.
quote:We will, at some point, have a serious discussion about how tax measures are affixed to our state's constitution in a hodge-podge way because Colorado voters really like to vote on tax issues, it is relatively easy to do so here compared with other states, and so we do so often.
We aren't going to do that now. First, let's spend some time this fall recognizing that certain proposals that sound like tax cuts -- who doesn't like them? -- have the potential to ruin K-12 education in Colorado, crumble our ability to pay for basic services like roads and courts, and will kill employers' chances of attracting workers here.
Proposition 101 would slash property taxes paid on vehicles by 98 percent (half of these funds go to schools). Amendment 60 would cut local property taxes by $1.5 billion, saving property taxpayers about 23 percent. And Amendment 61 limits debt -- the state would be prohibited from borrowing money in any form, and local governments could only borrow money with voter approval each time, and only if the debt is bonded and repaid within 10 years. Good luck building a new school building with that.
According to the Colorado Legislative Council Staff, if all three measures pass and were fully implemented, a household making $55,000 a year with a $295,000 home would save $1,800 per year in taxes. Sounds good so far.
According to the legislative staff, local governments will lose $3.8 billion a year. State government will lose $2.1 billion a year. The state will then increase K-12 spending by $1.6 billion to offset some of the losses to the school districts, as the constitution requires. Once all three measures are implemented, there will be "no money left to pay for other government functions" according to the legislative staff.
The Bell Policy Center shows if these measures were in effect in 2009, St. Vrain's school district would have lost $42.57 million; Boulder Valley's would have lost $90.17 million.
Crunching the numbers using the general fund budget for 2010-11, Colorado will spend $3.7 billion on human services and health care, jails and courts, higher education and departments other than K-12. If the three measures were fully implemented for that same fiscal year, the state would have $38 million instead. In the meantime, K-12 gets pretty much all of the state's money (leaving about penny on the dollar for everything else) while the local governments' contributions to schools will plummet, and school districts will have no means by which to borrow money for infrastructure improvements, new schools or any growth whatsoever.
We could speculate what roads and bridges will look like, patched with pennies. Or how a judicial system with courts, cops and prisons will work, run on pennies. Or just how badly our students will fare against their competition elsewhere in the country and abroad after we trap them in huge classrooms in cramped buildings, destined for failure.
so long, die in a fire.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CA is still split on changing budget voting requirements. 54/46 in favor of changing.
That's Proposition 25. But 26, which also looks likely to get a similar majority, would make adding certain taxes require a 2/3 majority instead of the simple majority now required. An interesting combination, if both pass.
That's an interesting cognitive dissonance since taxes are an integral part of budget balancing. Well, unless everyone who voted that way is demanding that spending simply be cut. That's kind of at odds with at state that keeps approving ballot measures that run in the billions of dollars. I guess the devil is in the details. Which kinds of taxes will fall under the higher requirements?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Damn. CNN just called the Senate for the Democrats.
Just when I was hoping the GOP would actually be forced to at least pretend to govern.
They weren't going to take the senate. I talked about that way, way earlier than now.
It was a hope and a dream.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No chance. Hope dies when I put money on the line on Intrade. =)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:By the same method I just outlined for Patty Murray -- extrapolating out current voting results on a county-by-county basis based on precincts that have yet to report -- Michael Bennet, a Democratic, would eventually win the Senate race in Colorado by 3-4 points. He now trails by about half a point, but both Boulder and Denver counties, where Mr. Bennet leads by wide margins, have only reported a little more than half their vote.
Hmm!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm waiting on CO Senate then checking out for the night. 538 nailed it, and I'm a very rich man.
Everything I predicted, with the exception of a side bet I made on Prop 19 CA that I abandoned earlier, was right. This was a textbook midterm legislative swing, which silver described as 'surprisingly ordinary,' and is a desperately needed instance of republicans advancing via young voter apathy; yhe turnout from voters in the 18-29 demo is 50% of what it was in 2008.
Large odds — not complete — that what happens between here and 2012 determines whether the filibuster even survives.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh? How do you figure?
I'm not saying I disagree, but I'm wondering what your reasoning is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Use of procedural filibuster and refusal to pass bills and nominations is already approaching a level so high that it's breaking congress and feeding power into the executive. If Congress becomes even more deadlocked due to obstructionism, the filibuster is doomed (in the medium to long term) and the executive gets more powerful still.
it'll eventually get light-nuke optioned in some way once we get another pendulum swing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah but, it's been that way for two years now. What, in your opinion, is the straw that breaks the camel's back? And for that matter, which party is the one to actually give it the old heave-ho? Or for that matter do you think it's possible that both parties could AGREE to either kill it, or maybe move it down to something like 55 votes? Or even change it so that you actually have to do something substantive during the filibuster rather than making it a pure procedural process?
I think everyone recognizes the problem, but Republicans just spent two years crying bloody murder at the very idea of Democrats using the "nuclear-option" on it.
By the by, what is the "light-nuke option"? Following the metaphor, I think we should call it a tactical nuke.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Both parties will agree to keep it as is. I don't think the filibuster will change at all. Both sides can use it against each other, and even benefit when it is used against them. Why change something that you can work to your advantage? This is politics.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm waiting on CO Senate then checking out for the night. 538 nailed it, and I'm a very rich man.
Everything I predicted, with the exception of a side bet I made on Prop 19 CA that I abandoned earlier, was right. This was a textbook midterm legislative swing, which silver described as 'surprisingly ordinary,' and is a desperately needed instance of republicans advancing via young voter apathy; yhe turnout from voters in the 18-29 demo is 50% of what it was in 2008.
Large odds — not complete — that what happens between here and 2012 determines whether the filibuster even survives.
1) Congratulations on your new wealth!
2) I'm not sure what objective measure you're using when you say Silver "nailed it." He was quite wrong on his House predictions (underforcasting GOP gains by ~15-20%), missed on 2/6 (NV and AK) close Senate elections (could be 4/8 if Rossi and Bennet pull out victories). He called Manchin's win, but missed the margin by a lot; same for Ayotte. OR, MN, and IL governorships are still too close to call, but he predicted fairly solid margins in all three. He missed Foley's surge in CT. He missed the strong showings of Robitaile in RI and Cutler in ME.
Doing a rough comparison to Pollster, which uses a much simpler model, his Senate rankings were marginally worse, his House forecast was slightly better (by about 5 seats), and his Governorships were probably slightly worse (due to Foley). He provides nice quantitative analysis, but as a forecaster he doesn't much beat simple poll aggregation and the Law of Large Numbers.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:LONG BEACH (KTLA) -- The 28th State Senate District has been won by incumbent Sen. Jenny Oropeza, who died Oct. 20th, setting the stage for a special election early next year.
You have to wonder how many people that voted for her knew she was dead. It's only been two weeks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CA is still split on changing budget voting requirements. 54/46 in favor of changing.
That's Proposition 25. But 26, which also looks likely to get a similar majority, would make adding certain taxes require a 2/3 majority instead of the simple majority now required. An interesting combination, if both pass.
That's an interesting cognitive dissonance since taxes are an integral part of budget balancing. Well, unless everyone who voted that way is demanding that spending simply be cut. That's kind of at odds with at state that keeps approving ballot measures that run in the billions of dollars. I guess the devil is in the details. Which kinds of taxes will fall under the higher requirements?
"state that keeps approving ballot measures that run in the billions of dollars" Huh? Name one in the last three years. I think it may be more like 5. Most of the cost-us-money measures -- even the ones I thought were absolutely necessary -- went down in flames.
As for the budget, this year we did not have a budget until well into October. Last year was almost as bad. This is not only ridiculous, it directly affects all state employees (and UCLA is one of our top three employers, I discovered yesterday), and anyone trying to access services provided by them (DMV, etc.) -- and every student waiting for their Cal Grant funds.
And the budget that was finally passed was based on promises and dreams. (e.g.: delaying huge payments to public K-12 and colleges by a year) This is largely because the Democrats have had a roughly 60% majority in the state legislature for a while. Large enough to pass a budget now, but not before this.
I predict next year's budget will be timelier (yay!) but have even more California dreamin' (bleah!)
Samprimary, you are right. The term "Gerrymandering" is an American invention, according to Wikipedia:
quote:The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette newspaper on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander. The exact author of the term gerrymander may never be definitively established. It is widely believed by historians that Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, Benjamin and John Russell were the instigators, but the historical record gives no definitive evidence who created or uttered the word for the first time.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This was a textbook midterm legislative swing, which silver described as 'surprisingly ordinary,' a
That's one scary SOB.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CA is still split on changing budget voting requirements. 54/46 in favor of changing.
That's Proposition 25. But 26, which also looks likely to get a similar majority, would make adding certain taxes require a 2/3 majority instead of the simple majority now required. An interesting combination, if both pass.
That's an interesting cognitive dissonance since taxes are an integral part of budget balancing. Well, unless everyone who voted that way is demanding that spending simply be cut. That's kind of at odds with at state that keeps approving ballot measures that run in the billions of dollars. I guess the devil is in the details. Which kinds of taxes will fall under the higher requirements?
"state that keeps approving ballot measures that run in the billions of dollars" Huh? Name one in the last three years. I think it may be more like 5. Most of the cost-us-money measures -- even the ones I thought were absolutely necessary -- went down in flames.
As for the budget, this year we did not have a budget until well into October. Last year was almost as bad. This is not only ridiculous, it directly affects all state employees (and UCLA is one of our top three employers, I discovered yesterday), and anyone trying to access services provided by them (DMV, etc.) -- and every student waiting for their Cal Grant funds.
And the budget that was finally passed was based on promises and dreams. (e.g.: delaying huge payments to public K-12 and colleges by a year) This is largely because the Democrats have had a roughly 60% majority in the state legislature for a while. Large enough to pass a budget now, but not before this.
I predict next year's budget will be timelier (yay!) but have even more California dreamin' (bleah!)
Off the top of my head. 2008, Prop 1A for high-speed rail was a $10 billion measure that was approved.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
According to Michael Beschloss on the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart the good news about the elections is that whenever a democratic president losses control of the house/senate ALWAYS gets reelected. -paraphrasing.
Yes! We! Can!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From what he's done so far, I don't believe that President Obama deserves to be re-elected. I'm certainly not going to be voting for him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Got someone else in mind?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Palin / O'Donnell 2012 would be fun *
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How will Tina Fey play both of them?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The sense I get from Obama is that he's aware of and critically thinking about all the issues, it's just a matter of "the issues are complicated and hard to deal with." The main area he's lacking is getting the democrats to get stuff done, and I'm not sure if that's more of his problem or theirs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Got someone else in mind?
No. But that doesn't mean I should support someone I consider a bad candidate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The sense I get from Obama is that he's aware of and critically thinking about all the issues, it's just a matter of "the issues are complicated and hard to deal with." The main area he's lacking is getting the democrats to get stuff done, and I'm not sure if that's more of his problem or theirs.
It's hard to say what my read on him is. I do think that he's aware and critically thinking of the issues. I also think he promised a lot of things in his campaign that he had no intention of following up on. I think his handling of the financial crisis and especially health care reform has been poor. I think he has betrayed the Democratic sense of entitlement and condescension that is a great detriment to the party, especially in the lead up to this election.
I'm also not to pleased with the fact that his administration has asserted the right to send a CIA hit squad after me without having to justify this to anyone or even notify anyone.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm also not to pleased with the fact that his administration has asserted the right to send a CIA hit squad after me without having to justify this to anyone or even notify anyone.
Gitmo is still open, they don't have to kill you
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Make that ten formerly Democratic governorships that have gone over to Republicans. The prospects for GOP-favoring Gerrymandering are growing!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It looks like Christine O'Donnell is out of the picture. She might have won, but for some serious blunders she made early in her campaign, from which she never fully recovered.
Just thinking of the demographics involved, a Palin-Rubio ticket in 2012 might go places. Palin would bring in the Tea Party vote and most Republicans, as well as the women's vote; and Rubio of Florida as veep candidate would bring in the Hispanic vote.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Got someone else in mind?
No. But that doesn't mean I should support someone I consider a bad candidate.
Of course not. But if whoever is running against him is worse (which is pretty likely) don't you end up supporting a bad candidate anyway? By default at least.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Just thinking of the demographics involved, a Palin-Rubio ticket in 2012 might go places. Palin would bring in the Tea Party vote and most Republicans, as well as the women's vote;
I think you'll find that she won't get the 'women's vote'. She'll certainly get the very conservative women's vote, however.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Were there any other high profile senate tea party favorites? Rubio comes to mind. And his win was pretty significant. Had Meek dropped out Christ still would've had an uphill battle on that one.
Besides Miller apparently being defeated, Sharon Angle went down when most pollsters considered her the favorite. Buck in CO is another tea-party supported candidate who was marginally favored going in, but looks to have lost (although it'll be at least a couple of days before that's certain. And possibly much longer). The most obvious tea party favorite is O'Donnell, who never really had a shot; she was given undue attention because it was economically advantageous for the media (partisan and non-partisan) to do so.
But Jim DeMint coasted to victory in SC (hard not to do when you're running against Alvin Greene) and Rand Paul won by a larger than predicted margin in KT. Tomey won in PA (although by a smaller than predicted amount). Ron Johnson in WI and Mike Lee in UT also have pretty significant tea-party cachet. Rubio in FL you mentioned before is a(n adoptive) poster-child for the tea-party movement.
Other Republican freshmen (from least tea-party to most) rank roughly as Kirk, Ayotte, Hoeven, Portman, Blunt, Boozman. With Buck trailing that list and Rossi probably between Ayotte and Hoeven if they manage to win.
Also, with the election of Manchin in WV I think we have an example of at least one Democrat (possibly more) who is more conservative than the most liberal Republicans. In fact, I think Manchin is to the right of Kirk, Brown, Snowe, Collins and Ayotte, and I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Nelson joins him there with an eye to his 2012 re-election campaign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah but, it's been that way for two years now.
No, it hasn't. This last senate has been actually amazingly good at squeezing decisions through the most obstructionist minority party in american history. If it had not been that way for years now, you wouldn't have things like the health care bill.
quote:What, in your opinion, is the straw that breaks the camel's back? And for that matter, which party is the one to actually give it the old heave-ho? Or for that matter do you think it's possible that both parties could AGREE to either kill it
The 'straw' will actually be 'complete, sustained deadlock of congress.' And in most foreseeable future electoral scenarios, it will be the democrats who kill the filibuster, since the G.O.P. is on borrowed time.
quote:Or even change it so that you actually have to do something substantive during the filibuster rather than making it a pure procedural process?
Deadlock will result in the filibuster being removed. It's terrible. Anybody who complains that we can't get rid of it is being stupid. Here's what the house did once upon a time:
quote:In 1890 ... the corpulent, cold-eyed Republican speaker Thomas B. Reed of Maine rewrote House rules to eliminate the minority's ability to block bills. The minority's most powerful weapon in the nineteenth-century House has been its ability to prevent action by refusing to answer present during roll calls; that denied the majority the quorum required for action. On Wednesday, January 29, 1890, without warning even his allies, Reed instructed the clerk to record as present and not voting all the Democrats who refused to answer when the speaker sought to bring up a contested election from West Virginia. Democrats erupted in outrage, but Reed made the change stick: No longer could the minority stalemate the majority through the House equivalent of a Senate filibuster.
And did this turn out to be a bad change? No.
quote:I think everyone recognizes the problem, but Republicans just spent two years crying bloody murder at the very idea of Democrats using the "nuclear-option" on it.
So? We've learned that they will cry bloody murder at anything and everything, and obstruct everything they can. Their outrage is getting played out.
quote:By the by, what is the "light-nuke option"?
Same technical motions, less grandstanding.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Both parties will agree to keep it as is. I don't think the filibuster will change at all. Both sides can use it against each other, and even benefit when it is used against them. Why change something that you can work to your advantage? This is politics.
Because when government or national systems break, some people will recognize the importance of fixing the system despite the self-interest of some involved which come at the overall detriment of all. This is why the "This is politics" handwave won't ultimately save privatized healthcare, teacher tenure, or (likely) the filibuster.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm not sure what objective measure you're using when you say Silver "nailed it."
He gave me exactly the tools of certainty that I needed to know which aggregate conclusions were foregone, and which were not. Pollster's simpler model couldn't give me that. 538's model presents the ambiguity of each potential election straightforwardly, so his model's percentage chance of wins are much more meaningful. Then, you bet on the margins of probability, where his tabulated percentage chances are certain or near certain.
Nate Silver also is essentially the individual who is responsible, at this point, for everyone's better weighting and vetting of polling organizations. The reason why pollster, et al, knows about problems with zogby and strategic vision and all the other problem pollers, is because of his unflinching methodological detective work. Since the method also results in better survey, he is the best current hope for moving us forward into new polling systems that account for the gradual disappearance of phone landlines among americans.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Of course not. But if whoever is running against him is worse (which is pretty likely) don't you end up supporting a bad candidate anyway? By default at least.
No. I only support candidates that I think deserve my support. If none of the candidates deserve my support, I vote for a write in. My own vote is pretty much meaningless, but I'd advocate this approach on a wide scale, where, yes, refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils may mean that the greater of two evils wins.
I think it's a mistake to take a short term view of the results of an election. Right now, the Democratic party basically runs on a platform of "Hey, we're not going to listen to you or look after your interests, but at least we're not the Republicans." They make this assumption that they are entitled to people's votes and it is the voters' fault when their poor candidates fail to beat the Republican's worse candidates.
Both political parties are machines, much more interested in their own power and in looking after the interests of their contributors then they are after the good of the country. If people are going to keep voting for the lesser of two evils, the country is going to get worse no matter which party is in power, because you're still voting for an evil and there isn't really any incentive for the parties to offer you anyone other than that.
In a way, it is better if it gets worse more quickly, because that seems to be the only way that we might get meaningful reform. I believe that the long term consequences of large groups of people refusing to vote for or support the lesser of two evils are far superior to the long term consequences of the current status quo, although I admit that over the short term, it can look worse.
edit: From my perspective, supporting the lesser of two evils is a betrayal of my important responsibilities as a citizen of a democracy of such severity that I consider it immoral to do so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I wish you luck with that. Really.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm not sure what objective measure you're using when you say Silver "nailed it."
He gave me exactly the tools of certainty that I needed to know which aggregate conclusions were foregone, and which were not. Pollster's simpler model couldn't give me that. 538's model presents the ambiguity of each potential election straightforwardly, so his model's percentage chance of wins are much more meaningful. Then, you bet on the margins of probability, where his tabulated percentage chances are certain or near certain.
I'm glad the percentages worked out well for you, but they don't have much to do with "nailing it." First, that same information can be gotten from the simpler model, it just wasn't presented in the user interface. Second, it had little to do with forecasting accuracy, by which standard I think Silver's model did fair but not great. Third, if you treated anything as a "foregone conclusion" based on Silver's analysis you're pretty much using it wrong (and he'd back me up on that).
quote:Nate Silver also is essentially the individual who is responsible, at this point, for everyone's better weighting and vetting of polling organizations. The reason why pollster, et al, knows about problems with zogby and strategic vision and all the other problem pollers, is because of his unflinching methodological detective work. Since the method also results in better survey, he is the best current hope for moving us forward into new polling systems that account for the gradual disappearance of phone landlines among americans.
Yeah, like I said, the quantitative analysis (including the very valuable pollster ratings) it great. But that doesn't make his model good at forecasting elections. As for the impact of the cell-phone polling gap, I'll be interested in a future analysis of its impact in the forecasting of the election. As a qualitative analysis I don't think there's immediate evidence that pollsters who included cell phones in their samples out-performed those who didn't. Right now it seems (and, again, a close look at the numbers could certainly prove me wrong) that the demographic reweighting the pollsters do seems to be compensating adequately for the cell-phone gap.
<edit>A propos this discussion, John Sides has a a new post at Monkey Cage comparing the accuracy of various House predictions, including 538's.</edit>
[ November 03, 2010, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Third, if you treated anything as a "foregone conclusion" based on Silver's analysis you're pretty much using it wrong (and he'd back me up on that).
I don't treat his info as a means of determining foregone conclusions, I treat it as a means of seeing which election issues have such a level of certainty in their conclusion that they are worth betting on.
I voted on aggregates that 538 nailed. If you'd like to show me Pollster's better tabulations, I would take them into consideration.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It looks like Christine O'Donnell is out of the picture. She might have won, but for some serious blunders she made early in her campaign, from which she never fully recovered.
Just thinking of the demographics involved, a Palin-Rubio ticket in 2012 might go places.
1. O'Donnell never stood a chance of winning short of her democratic opponent dying or getting caught stabbing puppies. There was nothing to 'recover' from. She started out virtually unable to win.
2. If you actually understand the demographics involved (you don't), Palin-Rubio is a virtually unelectable ticket. Nationwide, Palin is a toxic name to even have attached to a campaign, much less be leading it. Palin being a woman doesn't bring in more women than it scares off; Rubio does the same with hispanics, and you would chase off more republicans than you bring in. Period. Obama vs. Palin would be a guaranteed victory for Obama, and you'll have to set aside your indefatigable love of Palin long enough to come to terms with that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Off the top of my head. 2008, Prop 1A for high-speed rail was a $10 billion measure that was approved.
That's fair. It was also more than 10 years late, and far cut back from what was originally proposed. Pretty sure it only squeaked by, too.
I'm no fan of higher taxes, but I think making it even harder to raise them was a dumb move.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It looks like Sen. Murray (WA) has a good chance to beat Rossi, her challenger. She's only ahead 1% overall, but is leading King county (where Seattle is) almost 2 to 1, with several hundred thousand more ballots there to be counted. King county makes up about a third of Washington State's population.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We've spent something like 10 non-consecutive hours hanging out in bed and devouring political information like it was candy. With the exception of Russ Feingold losing to a high school dropout and Prop 19 in CA going down due to midterm young voter apathy, everything I wanted to have happen in this election .. happened.
This includes:
- Meg Whitman is out 140 million in a failed attempt to buy an election with personal funds.
- Tea Party involvement in Republican primaries pushed out electable candidates in favor of inelectable candidates who, effectively, saved Democrats some seats and cost the Republicans a real shot at the Senate.
- KY gets Rand Paul. Oh, I wanted this. I cannot wait for disillusion season.
- Bad Three died on fire.
- Personhood Amendments died on fire.
- I got a small pre-christmas present in the form of tossup win for Bennett over Ken Buck for CO Senate.
- The Democrats lost the "Senate Supermajority," a false conceptualization which worked primarily to the benefit of the Republicans. Sure, Dems got an amazing amount of things done, but this was via a common caucus. The Republicans could foist Lieberman against democrats and then say things like 'look they have total control and still can't get anything done!' — these next two years, Republicans have every opportunity to show the nation what a real deadlocked congress looks like, and otherwise pander with endless investigations equivalent to when they spent weeks investigating Clinton's christmas cards or whatever.
Next, The Palin Candidates acted as a good referendum on Palin's vetting, spent an election season doing dumb, dumb, things that got weird stares, and then went off to get trounced.
ONE: Sharron Angle proves she's just dumb enough to racially alienate herself, and scare the latinos into re-electing Reid.
TWO: O'Donnell, the most comically inviable tea party embarrassment possible, flames out and immediately begins blaming her inevitable loss on "GOP cannibalism."
THREE: Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina lost. This is a very, very good thing.
FOUR: Lisa Murkowski is probably going to win in Alaska, as the first successful write-in candidate since Strom Thurmond in the 1950's (?). a stinging defeat for the Tea Party backed candidate Joe Miller, right in Sarah's backyard.
Since I know how reliably the pendulum-swing effect works after a midterm bounce (and the stunning amounts of young voter apathy they bring), I feel content in the run-up to 2012.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Palin endorsed 47 candidates. What is your assessment of the other 44?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:In a way, it is better if it gets worse more quickly, because that seems to be the only way that we might get meaningful reform. I believe that the long term consequences of large groups of people refusing to vote for or support the lesser of two evils are far superior to the long term consequences of the current status quo, although I admit that over the short term, it can look worse.
In what is perhaps not the long term, but at least the medium term, I think we've seen what refusing to support lesser evils gets.
It got us Bush elected in '00, which in turn caused a war and countless other problems. This in turn led to a serious backlash against left-wing third-party candidates and no long-term prospects for non-incremental reform.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Palin backed plenty of candidates in non-competitive races: she backed Rubio in Florida long after he was essentially guaranteed the win, and supported Fallin, Branstad, Otter and a slew of others who were heavily favored to win their races. Thankfully for the other candidates, being endorsed by Palin is in no way a reflection of your qualifications as a candidate. It just doesn't mean anything good, because palin will endorse clueless clowns.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
More recently, it likely contributed to the loss of the IL Senate seat. The Green Party candidate got more than enough votes to have pushed Giannoulias over the top. Is environmental policy likely to be better with Mark Kirk in the Senate?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anyone who is voting for third party candidates and has any understanding of the political reality of game theory in american politics is basically saying "I don't care that my idealism is a gleefully exploited tool for the candidates who are the worst for me."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that is quite true. I think that voting idealistically is great in certain circumstances. For example, local elections where third parties have a chance of winning (because they don't need as much money) and can get some name recognition so as to build to bigger things. Primaries are also good places to vote more idealistically.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: With the exception of Russ Feingold losing to a high school dropout and Prop 19 in CA going down due to midterm young voter apathy, everything I wanted to have happen in this election .. happened.
I find this quite surprising. Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen things that I would imagine, based on what I know of you, you did not want to happen. Or maybe you're making a strange semantic distinction between things you wanted to have happen happening and things you didn't want to have happen not happening.
Also, I'm surprised that Hickenlooper beating Tancredo didn't make your list.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I find this quite surprising. Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen things that I would imagine, based on what I know of you, you did not want to happen.
There's plenty of stuff that could have happened that I would have certainly liked, but were outside of the realm of possibility.
Tancredo losing is indeed something I'm happy about but it slipped my mind because I never, ever expected he stood a chance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It got us Bush elected in '00, which in turn caused a war and countless other problems. This in turn led to a serious backlash against left-wing third-party candidates and no long-term prospects for non-incremental reform.
And then, with all this backlash and his horrible performance, how did Bush win in '04?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Without even answering that, it wouldn't change what problems exist with politicians being elected via spoiler.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that is quite true. I think that voting idealistically is great in certain circumstances. For example, local elections where third parties have a chance of winning (because they don't need as much money) and can get some name recognition so as to build to bigger things. Primaries are also good places to vote more idealistically.
In any competitive race between an american left/right candidate, the people who vote third party are basically spoilers for the candidates they are most ideologically opposed to. They're welcome to 'make a point,' but it comes at the cost of them being complete tools. This is why the GOP feeds spoiler Green Party candidates into close races and then encourages people to vote for them, and why in the NY election, conservatives have sicced bulldogs on the Libertarian Party candidate with the intent to destroy him.
In non-competitive races where the conclusion is essentially guaranteed to go one way, sure, go nuts.
This is only really saying though that third party votes are only a good thing in voting that doesn't matter in the first place.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I cringe at a Palin presidency. Thing is, in 2012 if it were Palin vs. Obama, I'd probably vote none of these candidates.
I actually like Rubio, but I think he has a long way to go before he should even think about running as a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate.
The biggest problem the GOP is going to have leading up to 2012 is whether or not something changes in the country. I read one statement by a Republican that said "The people didn't vote Republicans in, they just voted the Democrats out." I think he hit it right on the head. I don't think the Democrats lost so many House seats because people are more conservative than they were two years ago.
I'd argue that it wasn't exactly anything the Democrats did or didn't do, but the effectiveness of the Tea Party and Republicans to rile people up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The tea party? Not particularly. This election was a perfect (and fairly predictable) example of the midterm pendulum effect, exacerbated by the extreme apathy of young voters without a high-profile presidential election to inspire a high 18-35 demo turnout. This is exactly what you get when seniors are at their best voter turnout, and young people are at their worst.
The biggest problem that the GOP will have in 2012 will derive from the fact that just as every midterm swing is predictable, so too is the swing in the other direction, along with the recovery of young voters.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It got us Bush elected in '00, which in turn caused a war and countless other problems. This in turn led to a serious backlash against left-wing third-party candidates and no long-term prospects for non-incremental reform.
And then, with all this backlash and his horrible performance, how did Bush win in '04?
Because the country's population was, and is, both pretty far to the right and irrationally afraid of terrorism?
The backlash I was talking about wasn't a general American backlash against Bush. It was a backlash on the left against third parties. And it's completely erased any "things have to get worse before they get better" effect.
I share a lot of your disgust with Obama and the establishment toadies that make up his administration. But we have both a political culture and a broader American culture to work within. US culture is not hospitable to left-wing ideas the way it used to be. So what we need to do is damage control until that changes. Hopefully the death of the present oldest generation will accomplish that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
American culture is more hospitable to left-wing ideas than it has ever been. It's just that the 18-35 demographic (which is the most hospitable) has the worst voting habits, and the over-60 demographic (which is the least hospitable) has the most reliable voting habits.
The median american voter is closer to the left end of the party spectrum than the right.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:American culture is more hospitable to left-wing ideas than it has ever been.
Socially, I agree, but young people these days don't seem that taken with economic liberalism.
quote:It's just that the 18-35 demographic (which is the most hospitable) has the worst voting habits, and the over-60 demographic (which is the least hospitable) has the most reliable voting habits.
Fair enough, although the poor voting habits of liberal voters is in a sense a form of cultural inhospitable-ness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Young people these days are VERY taken with 'economic liberalism,' if in general that means ideas like universal healthcare and stronger safety and support nets via welfare. The poor voting habits are age trends that behave like all age trends before it, so watch what happens when the 18-35 voters become 35-50 voters and the 65 and over voters become mostly dead.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1. This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV, while conservative talk shows go on year after year. This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented. The American public appreciates this, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just can't seem to get it that their unprofessional, habitual violations of journalistic integrity are noticed and despised by the public.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives.
Hee.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks
Someone pointed out that while Fox News shows trounce the other networks' news shows, all the Fox News shows are themselves trounced by much crappy reality television. Viewer numbers are not an indication of quality or truth, just of entertainment value.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented.
'Mathematicians have long claimed that two plus two equals four. But to keep things fair and balanced, we're going to talk with those who believe that two plus two equals five. Can you believe these brave mathematicians are being hounded out of their teaching positions merely for holding a different viewpoint?! And those liberals say they're open minded!'
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1.
You must limit yourself exclusively to seeing stupid and wrong polls!
quote:Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives.
Oh, aren't you ADORABLE.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Why are progressives praising the Murkowski victory? Isn't she a R? R and D labels don't matter to progressives. Liberals consider the Murkowski victory a win....she's a Republican. They consider her a gain because she isn't a conservative, despite the R next to her name. The same reason the Democrat party wanted the black Democrat candidate Meek to drop out so the once repulican (Crist) might have a chance against the Tea Bagger latino, Rubio. R's and D's are the same. Charley Crist and Murkowski are not R's or D's...they are progressives and politicians first.
Why would a democrat president ask the democrat nominee to drop out? Compromise is a one party system.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,".... The Who from "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV
Or, I don't need/want to listen to a bunch of talking heads parroting information to me. I've got a brain; I can think for myself. Also, in my experience, those shows aren't giving me any reliable data I can't find in a reputable, written news story.
Politics is so tiring. It's time for me to go lurker on political threads again. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The Murkowski victory -- assuming she wins -- is a win because Joe Miller is a nutjob. Dems would rather have someone they can work with.
It would have been smart for Meek to drop out because, as expected, the vote was split between Crist and Meek and Rubio won. Had Crist gotten all of Meek's votes -- which he wouldn't have, completely, as some Dems simply wouldn't vote for him and some had already voted early for Meek -- he would have won, and the Dems knew they could work with Crist. The numbers prove it.
Not sure why you felt compelled to bring race into the Florida issue, as it had nothing at all to do with the realities of the election.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He's always compelled to bring race into as many issues as possible, because he thinks he understands racial issues.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1. This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV, while conservative talk shows go on year after year. This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented. The American public appreciates this, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just can't seem to get it that their unprofessional, habitual violations of journalistic integrity are noticed and despised by the public.
So when Fox News used footage of a Democrat rally instead of what the actual Tea Party footage was in order to make it seem like the Tea Party had significantly higher turnout then it did, this is fair and balanced and not biased in any way?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1. This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV, while conservative talk shows go on year after year. This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented. The American public appreciates this, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just can't seem to get it that their unprofessional, habitual violations of journalistic integrity are noticed and despised by the public.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would actually prefer a return to the state of publishing 75 years ago when the various news outlets freely proclaimed their political stances.
This fiction of objective journalism is exactly that, and instead of focusing on politics, people spend a lot of time accusing the other side of failing to live to claims that never should have been made in the first place.
Of course every news outlet is biased. Of course there are slants. Forget the opinions themselves - simply choosing what to cover (and hence what to leave out) is infested with prejudices. There is no news organization that doesn't have a slant. They are written and shot and run by human beings. \
All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I have to admire whomever started Fox News, actually - instead of whining about the liberal media, he started an alternative. If you don't like it, turn the television off. I have to wonder what percentage of Glenn Beck's audience are giving him their time (which he makes money off of) just in order to make themselves mad so get they to feel self-righteous and entertain the illusion that they are being productive instead of actually taking action for the world they prefer to see instead.
Turn off the entertainment and actually make a difference. All this sturm and drang about which polititainer is more pure is ridiculous.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I don't know if they can. MSNBC is dedicated to the left and there isn't much of an uproar about that bias or calls to ban MSNBC or not speak with any of their talking heads.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I don't know if they can. MSNBC is dedicated to the left and there isn't much of an uproar about that bias or calls to ban MSNBC or not speak with any of their talking heads.
Their anchors are regularly criticized by other publications for being smarmy and in the case of Olberman constantly grand standing.
The only criticism I hear about conservative pundits is that they aren't *real* conservatives because they don't go far enough.
Look I don't even know why I'm writing this, I absolutely hate the defense, "Our bad behavior will end when yours does!" I don't need Fox News to ditch a lot of the juvenile political stunts they pull before I am willing to criticize the leftist media. I am perfectly happy to just read from other publications and form my own opinion based on my own attempts to toss out bias on my own part.
That's all any of us can really do anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I wouldn't worry about it. This FoxNews problem will work itself out.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
DarkNight, Chris Matthews of MSNBC will never live down his statement that when Barack Obama comes into the room, he feels "a tingle down" his "leg."
It is truly ironic that President Obama and some of his fellow travellers of the extreme political left keep making statements about Fox News being their enemy, or being terribly biased, or not being a real news organizaiion. Fox News is the only news network worthy of being regarded as being true to the journalistic profession. All the others deliberately and knowlingly make up blatant lies and inject personal political prejudices as if they were factual reporting. Most of the public can see this, and that is why they are held in contempt. The more the fanatical left tries to perpetuate the systematic falsehoods they made up about Sarah Palin (and virtually everything they have ever said about her is completely false), the more Palin will grow in popularity. They may get Palin elected president in 2012. Those leftists who keep using the methods advocated by Saul Ailinsky, will find that those methods do not work in the long run, when the dishonesty and malice of their tactics eventually catches up to them, and they are exposed before everyone.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Says the person who thinks evolution is a myth.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I don't know if they can. MSNBC is dedicated to the left and there isn't much of an uproar about that bias or calls to ban MSNBC or not speak with any of their talking heads.
I think MSNBC has a pretty liberal slant. However, I don't think they fictionalize a national narrative the way that Fox News does. There's a difference between presenting a story with a liberal slant and creating a story whole cloth to serve a political agenda. They operate on different levels.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I think MSNBC has a pretty liberal slant. However, I don't think they fictionalize a national narrative the way that Fox News does. There's a difference between presenting a story with a liberal slant and creating a story whole cloth to serve a political agenda. They operate on different levels.
Really? Maddow has claimed that Stockman knew about the Oklahoma City bombing before it happened, blamed Fox for getting Sherrod fired. Olbermann blamed Bush for 9/11, lied about Kilmeade's statements, and on and on. Same goes for Matthews and the rest.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, evolution is a myth. It is completely impossible for something as information dense as the genetic basis of life to produce more complex lifeforms with more complex genetic codes out of simpler. There is nothing in nature that can do this. Natural Selection has no such power. Why do people who profess to believe in science allow themselves to be such unwitting dupes for a philosophy of science that is so utterly stupid and mathematically impossible?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Human Eye.
Blood Clotting.
Down's Syndrome.
Hey look your wrong and deluded.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, evolution is a myth. It is completely impossible for something as information dense as the genetic basis of life to produce more complex lifeforms with more complex genetic codes out of simpler. There is nothing in nature that can do this. Natural Selection has no such power. Why do people who profess to believe in science allow themselves to be such unwitting dupes for a philosophy of science that is so utterly stupid and mathematically impossible?
Because you're taking an analogy (genes are like information) and taking it literally, thus confusing yourself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What, his "let's break out the popcorn" comment when Republican candidates give speeches wasn't indication enough of his political loyalties?
The funniest part of this is that MSNBC is still maintaining the fiction that they are objective.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The funniest part of this is that MSNBC is still maintaining the fiction that they are objective.
MSNBC can claim to be objective while employing a host who clearly is not objective as long as they are clear about what kind of show he is hosting. Remember, this is the same network that produces the decidedly right-wing "Morning Joe".
I find CNN, MSNBC and FOX to have relatively similar levels of objectivity when they are only reporting the news. FOX seems to have less of their programing time devoted to just reporting the news, however. And I'd be more than willing to accept that MSNBC is similar in their own percentage of news vs. commentary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Whereas FOX, far from forbidding their employees from making even private contributions, makes outright contributions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thereby not maintaining the hypocritical fiction. I didn't know you were a fan.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Msnbc isn't claiming impartiality, so that does not hold a lot of water, katharina. They are just showing that between fox and msnbc, msnbc has better journalistic standards for their commentors.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh* No.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest," it says. "Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee."
Like I said, after the pathetic and juvenile partisan coverage election night, I can't believe MSNBC is even still trying to pretend to be impartial.
In fact, I suspect that the snickering coverage was behind the suspension, or at the least contributed to his bosses' willingness to suspend without pay. It was embarrasing.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
That's a quote about policies for nbc news, not msnbc.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Read it again. Actually, click the link and read it in the first place.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'll lay it out for you: MSNBC is part of NBC News. The policies are the same for both.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
As an example of journalistic integrity:
Fox News published all the reported criticisms of Sarah Palin. Fox News also published the facts that proved those criticisms were false. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS never acknowledged when the claims were proven false, nor apologized. No wonder so many people have a negative view of Palin. They have been lied to systematically and wholesale, with no correction, by the mainstream media--and the only news organization that shows ANY professonalism and journalistic intregrity--Fox News--is derided as "biased."
Thank goodness for the blogosphere.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'll lay it out for you: MSNBC is part of NBC News. The policies are the same for both.
No. Policies differ between different parts of nbc universal. That is why in your own link there is a second part right next to the nbc part part for msnbc showing something different in policy for msnbc.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As an example of journalistic integrity:
Fox News published all the reported criticisms of Sarah Palin. Fox News also published the facts that proved those criticisms were false. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS never acknowledged when the claims were proven false, nor apologized. No wonder so many people have a negative view of Palin. They have been lied to systematically and wholesale, with no correction, by the mainstream media--and the only news organization that shows ANY professonalism and journalistic intregrity--Fox News--is derided as "biased."
Thank goodness for the blogosphere.
Fox news is biased. Msnbc is biased. They are all biased, fox news more than most of them. I like arguing over which is more professional or factual but to say fox isn't biased at all is delusional. So is saying that palin was ONLY the recipient of false criticism which fox 100% refudiated.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Fox is biased. They are all biased. Which one is "fair and balanced" in terms of allowing the other side to speak? Fox is considered right wing for presenting the right wing side. In fact, Fox's programs allow presenters from both sides, more than any other network.
96% blacks voting for Obama isn't racist and liberal media is "neutral". Fox gives both sides. I won't deny fox leans conservative, but at least they allow debate. Liberal media claims to be neutral while limiting conservative appearance or firing centrist liberals...ie Juan Williams.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey can we give malanthrop an ultimatum that basically says "stop bringing nonsequitorial racial commentary into every political conversation"
please
can we please do that
Also hey, I am glad that MSNBC will fire their cash cow in response to not adhering to the same standards of integrity that all the op eds have to follow. And I'm not just saying that because I hate Olbermann. But this whole 'having integrity' thing seems like a bad business strategy! They should do what Fox does, which is do stuff like where they put Hannity, O'Reilly and company all technically on Fox's "programming" staff, so that rules of journalistic integrity don't apply to them! Then, never fire them, no matter how many people they call hitler!
Hooray! Journalistic integrity a liability! Network news is great!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In fact, Fox's programs allow presenters from both sides, more than any other network.
Source required, mr. Double Price Socialist Burgers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
SO according to you, there is no policy at all for MSNBC. That it is part of NBC News and the president is for both and that an employee was just suspended for not following the exact policy you claim doesn't apply to him is irrelevant.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If you only vote for members of your own race because they are members of your own race, then that is racist. Blacks are not exempt from the same standard. But as I have pointed out, it is also racist for whites to vote for Obama because he is black, so they can prove they are "not racist." Voting for anyone where their race is a factor in the choice, is by definition racist.
Samprimary, Bill O'Reilly does not call people "Hitler." He calls people whom he views as extraordinarily thick-headed "pinheads," in his "Pinheads vs. Patriots" segments. It is liberals who are notorious for calling conservatives "Hitler."
Fox News presents both conservative and liberal viewpoints, which is the closest any news organization can come to being unbiased. MSNBC and all the others only present the liberal viewpoint in both opinion and "news." Then wonder why the vast majority of viewers flock to Fox, so they can get a more complete reporting of the news.
You can only deride Sarah Palin for saying she can see Russia from her kitchen window (when actually it was Tina Fey who said it on Saturday Night Live) so many times, before people in general tune you out as hopelessly biased, not even willing to check your facts.
I would say as a general rule of thumb, that anyone who claims Fox News is "biased" is merely demonstrating that they are biased liberals, so intolerant of other viewpoints that they are unable even to be fair-minded, so that to them, any expression or reportage of non-liberal viewpoints must be "biased."
[ November 06, 2010, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would say as a general rule of thumb, that anyone who claims Fox News is "biased" is merely demonstrating that they are biased liberals.
Funny. I'd say the opposite: that anyone claiming that Fox isn't biased must, QED, be extremely biased. The difference between our two claims is that I'm right. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
SO according to you, there is no policy at all for MSNBC.
Gosh, he's actually not saying that at all!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
SO according to you, there is no policy at all for MSNBC. That it is part of NBC News and the president is for both and that an employee was just suspended for not following the exact policy you claim doesn't apply to him is irrelevant.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I should take my own advice regarding you and know that correcting you or even just arguing wth you makes you rude and mean every time and you can't be corrected.
But I could keep trying anyway.
I didn't say that msnbc has no policy.
Can you read my posts again and admit that?
Or are you just going to keep HAHAHAHAHAHAHAing like it makes you less wrong?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, it doesn't matter how many times you and malanthop say it. People voted for Obama for other reasons besides race. If the Democratic Party had run a pumpkin against McCain people would have voted for it, especially after McCain's running mate was announced.
Did a lot of people vote for Obama to see a black man in the office? I'm sure of it. But I'll bet not many of them would have voted for Michael Steele had he been the Republican nominee, and I'll bet had Jesse Jackson been in the primary instead of Obama you'd be complaining about all the women who voted for President Hillary Clinton right now.
Obama stepped forward as an intelligent man who wanted to return balance to the government, restore reason and science over blind ideology, and actually try to govern instead of endlessly campaigning.
It is liberals who are notorious for calling conservatives "Hitler."
No, no, you don't get to claim that either. While I am annoyed at how often this gets overused by dimwitted liberals, the right has nearly trademarked this technique. Overtly, in lots of instances of commentators and Tea Party signs, and covertly by referring to all of Obama's policies as socialist (even the ones based on existing Republican policies).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well TBF I think uninformed/passively informed reasonable people were at least found Palin an interesting choice based on the initial talkings points as an "anti establishment anti big gov't" kind of person... Then came the news about her corruption, hypocrisy, her unpaleatable stances on key issues like women's rights, her gaffes and blind show of incompetence, her hissy fits, nasty attack adds and efforts to one up McCain and steal the spotlight, etc etc.
THEN she became toxic to the ticket for republicans.
I think had she showed a shred of decency and humility it could have been possible to recover from that but never once as far as I could tell did she ever think "oops".
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Adolph Hitler was a fascist. He was also a socialist. The Nazi party was the National Socialist Party. This is a point that liberals keep trying to resist, claiming that the term fascist can only be applied to conservatives.
Fascism, according to the textbook definition, is a close relationship between the state and industry, where the state favors those manufacturers and other businesses that do their bidding. So objectively, can you not admit that the big trillion dollar bailouts of industry and financial institutions looks like fascism? Does not the U.S. Federal government right now still own stock in General Motors? Why isn't that fascism, according to the textbook definition?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
National Socialism had many arguably good points to it, most notably the focus on class cooperation as opposed to class struggle (one can also make an argument for its supposed good points by pointing out that Germany managed to fight off the entire world's industrial might fairly effectively for 6 years) but never was german National Socialism "socialist" in any key way Republicans fear the term, the Nazi Party cooperated with big business after its reorganization after the failed Beer Hall Coup, never nationalized key industries (preferring instead to give close oversight and to integrate government and business to make increase output) and things like healthcare were actually IMPERIAL GERMAN aka WWI German policies not originating from the Nazi's.
The very name and its policies were an effort to be able to attract the largest pool of supporters from many different groups but National Socialism is first and foremost a NATIONALIST party that took "Deutschland Uber Alles" as the literal and enevitable result and goal of all of their policies.
Socialism is by definition an internationalist movement that views borders, and independence movements as cosmopolitan abberations and worthless historical dead ends to be swept aside in the eventual communist mass uprising. Concepts of being ethnically distinct was a bourgoesis coping mechanism force fed by the capitalist elites, opiates along with religion to galvanize the workers into fighting other workers from other nations with delusional concepts of "patriotism" and as such needed to be destroyed by all means nessasary and replaced by a single new internationalist "people" the "Soviet" people to encompass ALL peoples.
Fascism is the direct link and integration of big business and the state in politics, socialism is the state acting as the single arbitrator between different interest groups in politics (people, the unions, firms), National Socialism copies and merges together both models whenever and only when convenient to subject all resources into an autarkic system designed to direct the state and the people (now one and the same) towards goals of nationalistic dirigist revanchism.
There are huge distinctions but since your not a political science student you are probably incapable and unwilling to make that distinction, preferring to cling to your blase ideal of equating nazi's and socialists as being "one in the same" for the sake of your appeal to godwin's law rather then reasoned argument where you might have to concede being wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is a point that liberals keep trying to resist, claiming that the term fascist can only be applied to conservatives. ... Why isn't that fascism, according to the textbook definition?
[ November 06, 2010, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
People voted for Obama for a multitude of reasons. Some black conservatives voted for Obama because he was black. Liberals voted for him because he was the most liberal senator in the senate. Some people voted for him to "make history" because it was about time we had a black president. Some people voted for him because they were stupid enough to believe the "Hope and Change" promise. (ever wonder what idiots keep the infomercials on the air?)
What we need to look at are the independents. Independents will determine the outcome. The vast majority of conservatives and liberals will vote for their ideals. Obama was nearing a 70% approval rating with independents just after the election....he's in the mid-30%s now.
If Obama does like Clinton did, and pretend to be a conservative...he might be reelected. If they can keep him on the teleprompter, he might succeed in fooling the middle that he is middle. Liberals and conservatives know exactly what he is....a liberal. How well can he play the middle(independents)? Simple marketing terms of "Hope and Change" aren't going to work after he has a record.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He's not the most liberal, please give proof.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Liberal organizations that keep track of the way people vote, rated Barack Obama in his Senate voting record as even more consistently in harmony with liberal positions than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. This is one area where conservative and liberal watchdog organizations were in agreement. Obama was not merely liberal, he was the MOST liberal member of the Senate, judging by his voting record.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah but, how liberal was he? In other words, how liberal were Democrats as a whole during his two years in the seat?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, is that a serious question?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yep.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We can't be sure about anything concerning Obama. Is he the most extreme liberal, a liberal or a moderate? Is he an Athiest, a Christian, a black liberation theologist, or Muslim?
At any given point in his life...he's been all of them.
In 2007 he was the "most liberal" senator. In 2011, he'll fight to be a moderate, his second term depends on it. Just as Black Liberation Theology got him elected as a state senator from S. Side Chicago.
Of all the labels and groups he's temporarily clung to, liberal is the only one that really sticks.
If I had to guess,....he's an atheist politician with liberal ideology. Progressivism is his religion....the religion of big government. A big government he believes he should be in control of.
Pretending to be "X" during his other phases of life....whatever suited him best at the time. In 2011 we'll be presented with a moderate looking for reelection.
Only in America can you be an atheist, christian, muslim, liberal, moderate and the first black president that is half white.....all at once.
If being partially black qualifies you as the first black, do you think he is the first black president? He's not the first president with black blood. He looks black....appearance only matters to a true racist.
My father is a member of the Ojibwe tribe, but I am not. My mother was white and I'm too diluted for acceptance into their "community". Who is the racist? Race is a social construct. Racists consider obama to be the first black president. Being 50/50, he might've ended up looking white.
I despise "community" organizers....they are racist. I can't belong to the same community as my father because of the pollution of my mother. I'm too white.
[ November 08, 2010, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Only in America can you be an atheist, christian, muslim, liberal, moderate and the first black president that is half white.....all at once.
Only in the fictional America presented on Fox News...
In real life, I suspect Obama is the intellectual idealist he typically seems to be. His actions and policies show strong consistency with the set of principles he claims to adhere to, although his positions do seem to evolve a bit over time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah but, how liberal was he? In other words, how liberal were Democrats as a whole during his two years in the seat?
Nowhere near liberal enough.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Excellent post, malanthrop.
Tresopax, I cannot fault you for being willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt. But you do seem very optimistic . I believe Obama is way too cynical and self-centered to be idealistic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Liberal organizations that keep track of the way people vote, rated Barack Obama in his Senate voting record as even more consistently in harmony with liberal positions than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Ron has worded this in a way that suggests he understands the methodology, but somewhat disingenuously does not decrypt it for you. Allow me.
Because there is no good way to determine what is a "liberal" position or a "conservative" position, in reality this report (unlike some other reports, which do attempt to judge the political "leaning" of a given bill) historically determines partisanship of an issue. A bill that half the Democrats and half the Republicans vote for is considered a non-partisan bill; a bill that all the Democrats vote for but which no Republicans vote for is considered a "liberal" bill, when in actuality it's simply a bill that is, for one reason or another, rejected by one party and favored by another.
Over years, you can estimate the statistical likelihood that a bill which is strongly partisan will receive cross-party votes. You can also identify which bills were the most partisan and which were the least. You can also identify which individuals voted across party lines, and on which sort of bills.
When they say "X is the most liberal Senator" or "X is the most conservative Senator," what they mean is "X voted with his party, most consistently, on those bills which were most decided along party lines."
It has absolutely nothing to do with actual "liberal" or "conservative" policy or philosophy; it purely has to do with party fealty. It is unsurprising, then, that a party's presidential candidates are most likely in any given year to align themselves with their party's platform (or the other way around: the party votes with their prospective candidate.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom-
I'm not even sure what "liberal organizations" Ron is referring to, or what research you're specifically referring to, but are you familiar with Keith Poole's work at UCSD? His DW-NOMINATE works somewhat similarly to what you've outlined above. While I agree it's difficult to interpret "more liberal" or "less liberal" I think that in general if parties tend to be ideologically consistent, those statistical effects should emerge from the data. And if you look at the data qualitatively, I would say the scores pretty well match intuition about what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative."
Anyway, in both the 109th and 110th congresses Obama is ranked by Poole's algorithm as less liberal than both Kennedy and Kerry. His score ranks as 17th most liberal in the 109th (out of 45 Dems) and 19th most liberal in the 110th (out of 51 Dems). That puts him somewhere left of the median Democratic Senator for those congresses, but nowhere near the ragin' liberal that Kennedy (let alone Feingold) was.
<edit>You can find the historical rank orderings for each Congressional session here. The table formats take a little visual parsing, but the significant number is the column immediately adjacent to the legislator's name; negative means more liberal, positive means more conservative.</edit>
<edit2>I should also say that Poole's methodology gives a single number for a politician's entire career in a particular office. So Kennedy's very liberal score may be due to very liberal votes from earlier congresses rather than the 109th or 110th.</edit2>
<edit3>Or maybe it doesn't; some individuals numbers change congress to congress and others don't. Maybe they're recomputed for each election cycle?</edit3>
[ November 09, 2010, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
As reported on the NPR website, The National Journal published a ranking of senators in 2007. It included liberal rankings of votes relative to other senators in economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs, with a composite score.
I miss those guys.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Meanwhile in 2008
quote:It is true that the National Journal rated Obama "the most liberal senator" in 2007, based on 99 votes in the Senate that year. But in his previous two years, Obama was rated 10th and 16th most liberal. So his career voting record is far from "most liberal."
quote:Obama and his campaign have disputed the National Journal's 2007 rating by saying that he missed too many votes while campaigning for the rating to be representative, and that some of the votes (particularly one in favor of stricter ethics rules) should not properly be seen as either liberal or conservative.
It is pretty hard to dispute that Barack Obama is an extreme liberal. It is also interesting that while Obama was ranked #1 on the list as most liberal senator through all his votes in 2007, #3 on the list was Sen. Joseph Biden. So in the last presidential election, the Democrats presented America with a team that was 1 and 3 on the most liberal list.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is pretty hard to dispute that Barack Obama is an extreme liberal.
Yeah, it was pretty hard to use the search function at FactCheck. I had to type like three whole words.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is pretty hard to dispute that Barack Obama is an extreme liberal. It is also interesting that while Obama was ranked #1 on the list as most liberal senator through all his votes in 2007, #3 on the list was Sen. Joseph Biden. So in the last presidential election, the Democrats presented America with a team that was 1 and 3 on the most liberal list.
Remember, boys and girls...what happened in 2007 exists in a bubble and remains true for all time.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
If you could take the economy off to a corner somewhere and quietly explain that I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, how sure are you that FactCheck is really impartial? There are many people who raise questions about their political bias. Here are a few examples:
quote:Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also funded the Wm. Ayers/Barack Obama Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and thus cannot be trusted to verify anything ‘Obama’ – including his faux birth cert.
National Review article’s closing paragraph says it all:
One of the really surprising developments in this election has been how the “fact-checking” features of major news organizations have been sloppy and vague with large omissions…just about always to the benefit of Obama.
I don’t bother with sites like “factcheck.org” because the title itself raises red flags. Remember that the left always chooses titles for their orgainzations that are exactly the opposite of what they really represent. It’s like the “People’s Republic of North Korea”.
Fact-Check.org bent over backwards a while ago to claim that a McCain ad which said that Obama supported legislation that expanded a comprehensive sex ed program to include kindergarten---the piece claimed it was false ONLY because of Obama's statements post-mortem to the bill that it was not his intent---BUT THE LAW HE HELPED PASS DID IN FACT EXPAND A COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED PROGRAM TO INCLUDE KINDERGARTEN.
Snopes has also been caught showing a liberal political bias.
The truth is, there is no place you can just browse to in one link and be sure you are getting real, impartial, unbiased fact-checking. In truth, there is no short-cut. You have to check the facts for yourself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The National Review telling us if something has a liberal bias? Why don't we ask The New Yorker if The National review is right about factcheck.org having a liberal bias?
quote:One of the really surprising developments in this election has been how the “fact-checking” features of major news organizations have been sloppy and vague with large omissions…just about always to the benefit of Obama.
No no no no no. I cannot tell you how many times I've read factcheck where it clearly states that Obama was mistaken about his facts.
Also, I should have stopped reading after, "including his faux birth cert."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You have to check the facts for yourself.
How do you do that, Ron?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Also, I should have stopped reading after, "including his faux birth cert."
That's exactly what I did. Once they lose credibility, it's really about entertainment value. Didn't see it, so I stopped.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can see how if someone's easily swayed by chain email propagation of rumor and mistruth and similar institutuons, and continues to really seriously believe that Obama is a Musim and has no genuine birth certificate, you reflexively have to believe that snopes is liberal pollution of the truth masquerading as fact checking.
It's why I was unsurprised that Ron pulled that stunt over a year ago.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, how sure are you that FactCheck is really impartial? There are many people who raise questions about their political bias. Here are a few examples:
quote:Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also funded the Wm. Ayers/Barack Obama Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and thus cannot be trusted to verify anything ‘Obama’ – including his faux birth cert.
National Review article’s closing paragraph says it all:
One of the really surprising developments in this election has been how the “fact-checking” features of major news organizations have been sloppy and vague with large omissions…just about always to the benefit of Obama.
I don’t bother with sites like “factcheck.org” because the title itself raises red flags. Remember that the left always chooses titles for their orgainzations that are exactly the opposite of what they really represent. It’s like the “People’s Republic of North Korea”.
Fact-Check.org bent over backwards a while ago to claim that a McCain ad which said that Obama supported legislation that expanded a comprehensive sex ed program to include kindergarten---the piece claimed it was false ONLY because of Obama's statements post-mortem to the bill that it was not his intent---BUT THE LAW HE HELPED PASS DID IN FACT EXPAND A COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED PROGRAM TO INCLUDE KINDERGARTEN.
Snopes has also been caught showing a liberal political bias.
The truth is, there is no place you can just browse to in one link and be sure you are getting real, impartial, unbiased fact-checking. In truth, there is no short-cut. You have to check the facts for yourself.
I'm sorry to quote you, if it were FB I would just "like" it. All people, liberal or conservative, should verify. The vast majority are manipulated by political commercials. The election commercials for the left and right don't tell you the truth. Neither side tells you the law proposed, they scare the uninformed voter, one one way or the other.
The educated voter is the best voter. The right and left is informed. Unfortunately, elections depend upon the middle.... The middle are the folks that keep infomercials on the air. The middle American is drawn to "Slap Chop" and is concerned about Paris Hilton.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The middle american is quite a-twitter for "Penny Dreadfuls" and rapscallions
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Good lord. I'm getting too angry. I don't know why. Well, I do, but whatever. This one went too far. I'll leave the McDonalds one as a testament to my mood tonight, but this one... it seems like bad taste.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A British MP had his seat voided during the election for and I paraphrase "saying/speaking untruthful statements about his opponent including insinuating that his opponent was supporting terrorism by not speaking out against angry Muslem demonstrators."
Wow. Half of congress would be out of a job if we applied this here.
Also the GOP apparantly intends to have 7 hearings a week 40 weeks a year.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blayne, many of us already watch the Daily Show.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*Kruschev impression* "So?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So there is really no need to regurgitate for us the tidbits you picked up from Jon Stewart.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I do however want to hear your Khrushchev impression.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
'When asked by Nixon whether the Premier realized that a nuclear war could lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people Kruschev looked the president in the eye and said. "So?"'
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If the reports I heard were true, toward the end of his time in office Nikita Khruschev became a converted Christian, and that is why he did not fight back when the Politburo decided to remove him from power. The charge that he had become a Christian in the officially atheistic state, was the one accusation he could not deny. I hope the story is true. I would like to believe there is hope for anyone to realize the error of his ways, and turn from darkness to light.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If the reports I heard were true,
You begin a lot of clearly false things this way, so you better source those reports.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If the reports I heard were true, toward the end of his time in office Nikita Khruschev became a converted Christian, and that is why he did not fight back when the Politburo decided to remove him from power. The charge that he had become a Christian in the officially atheistic state, was the one accusation he could not deny. I hope the story is true. I would like to believe there is hope for anyone to realize the error of his ways, and turn from darkness to light.
Pffft. Kruschev was removed because the Politburo thought he had caved in to the Americans regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis but they didn't actually know that the Americans had secretly agreed to pull their obsolete IRBMs from Turkey.
He didn't fight back because he couldn't as it was either bow out peacefully or risk a military coup as the Soviet Army was pissed at Kruschev focusing the military budget on nuclear deterrence rather then building up the ground forces and backing out of the Missile Crisis was seen as the last straw.
By backing down peacefully he could save the life of himself and his family and be able to retire peacefully, if he didn't he'ld have been shot.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)