quote:Originally posted by rivka: Better than the one you went to, apparently. Necromancers don't bring the dead back to life; they summon a spirit and talk to them.
Talks to dead people AND is in denial about it. Sheesh indeed!
Oh I see our disagreement is actually not as fundamental as you think. It's just semantic!
See, I'm utilizing the modern, common usage (or "DanDy") definition of the word. You're still trapped in the stodgy, outdated (or "correct") definition.
Now that I've clarified our disconnect, I'm sure you'll agree that I'm right.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That poll is really sad, Lyr. Curious too if it was exclusively white respondents? Source?
Re: responsibility of previous actions... well, of course we are, but obviously there is also some upward limit on how far back one would expect to go, yes?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That poll is really sad, Lyr. Curious too if it was exclusively white respondents? Source?
Re: responsibility of previous actions... well, of course we are, but obviously there is also some upward limit on how far back one would expect to go, yes?
I don't think it was racially limited, and I didn't read the raw polling data to see if they separated the respondents by race. Are you suggesting a significant amount of black voters against interracial marriage make have skewed the results?
And as far as a limit goes, why would that be, when the effects of those previous actions are still visited upon the nation's black population? There's no statute of limitations on crimes that span centuries.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That poll is really sad, Lyr. Curious too if it was exclusively white respondents? Source?
Re: responsibility of previous actions... well, of course we are, but obviously there is also some upward limit on how far back one would expect to go, yes?
I don't think it was racially limited, and I didn't read the raw polling data to see if they separated the respondents by race. Are you suggesting a significant amount of black voters against interracial marriage make have skewed the results?
Not really skewed them, no. Just curious to see if any of that was factored in. I mean, depending on where, and who the respondents were, I wouldn't be surprised to see an equal or greater number of black southerners also opposed to the idea. It's just a topic I think is interesting, and would love to see a more detailed breakdown.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And as far as a limit goes, why would that be, when the effects of those previous actions are still visited upon the nation's black population? There's no statute of limitations on crimes that span centuries.
But I feel like you just shifted the conversation again.
I think that at its most basic level the main reason most conservatives don't believe in giving special treatment to minorities is because they disagree that the effects of previous discrimination are still holding them back in a way that is universal for all minorities (or universal for all minorities of X race).
I may be wrong. Most conservatives would probably say it's even simpler than that: They just don't believe in treating anyone differently based on their race, period. But I think my previous paragraph still raises an interesting point.
posted
On your first point: I WOULD be surprised. Even if a majority of black respondents looked down their noses at interracial marriages, they would likely still demand the RIGHT to engage in one. Anti-miscegenation legislation was one of the big whoppers fought against by the civil rights movement.
On your second: How did I just shift the conversation? You just said that they feel like after awhile, those things shouldn't be a factor any more, and I said that's silly because the effects are still around. Now you're arguing that the effects have worn off? Civil Rights Acts were passed in the 60s, so almost 50 years ago, yes? That's right around the time that white flight really started to pick up, at which point urban areas took a serious nose dive.
Shelley V Kramer made restrictive covenants illegal in 48, but it wasn't until the Fair Housing Act in the late 60s that blacks were really able to exercise any sort of real freedom of movement...at least on paper. Truth is that most of them still had problems trying to move into suburban areas, either because of local terrorism or unfair lending practices from mortgage brokers. Between that and whites from the city flooding the suburbs, there simply wasn't anywhere for them to go, which left them stuck in inner cities which were decreasingly decaying with substandard education systems that became even worse once white tax dollars relocated to the suburbs. Fast forward to today, where a majority of blacks live in depressed urban areas with substandard education and housing with little chance of ever really escaping. Add to that a lousy housing market and restricted credit, and you have a situation where their freedom of movement is even more restricted. Some get out, either because they get lucky or they have inherent gifts or whatever, but the masses simply have the deck stacked against them, and WE STACKED IT AGAINST THEM starting from the very first day slaves were freed from plantations, we just subtly changed the way it was done every time they inched forward with progress.
It's the same mentality that makes Republicans forget that only a couple years ago, Wall Street tanked the entire economy, but now it's somehow not their fault at all that things still suck (though on a much larger scale, of course).
Problems don't go away just because you ignore them, and while I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, American simply isn't a place anymore where hard work grants you a Horatio Alger success story.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: Miscegenation... you're probably right. I don't know, man, in general the stat you quoted just seems very surprising, and I'm curious and a bit skeptical about the details of it. Hope you don't take offense at that.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Truth is that most of them still had problems trying to move into suburban areas, either because of local terrorism or unfair lending practices from mortgage brokers. Between that and whites from the city flooding the suburbs, there simply wasn't anywhere for them to go, which left them stuck in inner cities which were decreasingly decaying with substandard education systems that became even worse once white tax dollars relocated to the suburbs. Fast forward to today, where a majority of blacks live in depressed urban areas with substandard education and housing with little chance of ever really escaping. Add to that a lousy housing market and restricted credit, and you have a situation where their freedom of movement is even more restricted. Some get out, either because they get lucky or they have inherent gifts or whatever, but the masses simply have the deck stacked against them, and WE STACKED IT AGAINST THEM starting from the very first day slaves were freed from plantations, we just subtly changed the way it was done every time they inched forward with progress.
So, are we still doing that? Or are all of the current problems a result of the accumulated previous injustices? I mean, are we still subtly changing the way we oppress them?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's the same mentality that makes Republicans forget that only a couple years ago, Wall Street tanked the entire economy, but now it's somehow not their fault at all that things still suck (though on a much larger scale, of course).
Have you genuinely not seen any conservative arguments that the fault of the financial collapse lies in great part with government intervention into the mortgage market (freddie, fannie, etc), that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and generally that while some Wall Street firms engaged in bad practices the fundamental flaw lies with the government? If you are aware of this argument... do you believe that no conservative honestly believes it, and they actually know that it's primarily Wall Street's fault and the government could have prevented it if only they had total control of the financial sector?
Because if you've heard this, and accept that conservatives think it is accurate, and your only beef with it is that you think it is factually inaccurate... well, that's fine, but then conservatives aren't "forgetting" anything, right? They're just disagreeing with you about the causes.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Problems don't go away just because you ignore them, and while I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, American simply isn't a place anymore where hard work grants you a Horatio Alger success story.
It can't, or it doesn't guarantee it?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, are we still doing that? Or are all of the current problems a result of the accumulated previous injustices? I mean, are we still subtly changing the way we oppress them?
That's an interesting question. I wouldn't hazard a guess. For the purposes of what we're discussing, it doesn't really matter though, does it? The fact is that systemic inequalities still exist as a result of our past actions.
quote:Have you genuinely not seen any conservative arguments that the fault of the financial collapse lies in great part with government intervention into the mortgage market (freddie, fannie, etc), that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and generally that while some Wall Street firms engaged in bad practices the fundamental flaw lies with the government? If you are aware of this argument... do you believe that no conservative honestly believes it, and they actually know that it's primarily Wall Street's fault and the government could have prevented it if only they had total control of the financial sector?
Because if you've heard this, and accept that conservatives think it is accurate, and your only beef with it is that you think it is factually inaccurate... well, that's fine, but then conservatives aren't "forgetting" anything, right? They're just disagreeing with you about the causes.
Sure I've seen it. I don't at all think they all think that's accurate. They only started to sing that tune after the Tea Party achieved power and being anti-bail out was the cool thing to do. Senate Republicans voted for TARP by a two to one margin, and it was almost even in the House. And yes, I'm sure many of them have tried to foist off blame on Democrats, as many of them attempted to blame the whole thing on Clinton-era Democrats pushing changes in Fannie and Freddie, but it's crap. I don't believe they really think that. I think they know precisely what went wrong, but it's bad politics for their cronies, and they want to keep Wall Street deregulated, which is why they tried their hardest to stop Democrats from real regulatory reform of the banking industry in the wake of the collapse. It's revisionist history.
quote:It can't, or it doesn't guarantee it?
It never guaranteed it regardless. It guaranteed it IF you WORKED for it back when jobs were plentiful, but today even back breaking farm labor jobs can't raise a family above the poverty line.
Getting a good job by and large depends on education, which a big group of people in this country do not have access to, either for financial or geographic reasons. Or it requires start-up capital, if you want to take the entrepreneurial route, and that also requires resources that are limited by geography or financial status. It locks them in a cycle of poverty that requires an active effort to break.
Success should never be guaranteed, but historically, we've always believed that America is a place where you can succeed if you work hard. We aren't that way any more, but Republicans tend to ignore that fact, and they tend to label unsuccessful people with the blanket charge of "lazy," which is why you see so many, sometimes non-sensical, suggestions for reforming welfare that only keep people where they are. And oh so many more suggested "solutions" to poverty, like tax cuts for billionaires.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Cain fingering Perry's campaign is so out of left field for me, it may actually be true. If it is, (or even if it isn't but it creates enough drama) I think the Romney campaign can pop the corks on their Martenellis*.
*Yes I know Metenellis isn't corked, but they aren't drinking champagne.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may be wrong. Most conservatives would probably say it's even simpler than that: They just don't believe in treating anyone differently based on their race, period. But I think my previous paragraph still raises an interesting point.
Wait a second-yes, they emphatically *do* believe in and support treating people differently by race: it's not really up for serious discussion that it's more than a bit better to be white than a minority in this country, and conservatives can be relied upon as a group to strongly resist efforts to intervene and mitigate that handicap for minorities.
They believe, even if they don't know it, in a system that treats white people better. Just because they've got sellouts like Cain lined up to tell 'em the system doesn't do that doesn't change that it actually does.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Support for racial profiling in police-work and at the airport would also be treating people differently based on race. I don't think treating people differently (period or otherwise) based on race cleanly separates between the two parties.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, alright: conservatives can be relied upon to a greater extent, then-I believe I mentioned that elsewhere. And liberals can be relied upon to resist such efforts more often than conservatives, the ones you mentioned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong consistently flagrant, insulting poster, Blayne. That one was for...geeze, his name is totally escaping me right now, actually. He had a bit of real person vibe comin' off him, but my impression was overwhelmingly partisan attack dog.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wrong consistently flagrant, insulting poster, Blayne. That one was for...geeze, his name is totally escaping me right now, actually. He had a bit of real person vibe comin' off him, but my impression was overwhelmingly partisan attack dog.
posted
Yup-they'll care in early November next year, but only to the extent that they care, "Rar! This guy is presiding over a crappy economy! Out!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify, my intention wasn't to poke or to poke fun at the poster with the neighbors. I don't even remember who it was. It was...shorthand.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if the retirement community has anything to do with it. On the one hand you would think they'd be worried about the economy for their children's sake, but on the other they already have their pensions and SS.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a second-yes, they emphatically *do* believe in and support treating people differently by race: it's not really up for serious discussion that it's more than a bit better to be white than a minority in this country, and conservatives can be relied upon as a group to strongly resist efforts to intervene and mitigate that handicap for minorities.
Rakeesh, do you honestly not see that you are conflating "I want the government to treat everyone equally and I don't care if that means minorities who have the deck stacked against them by society won't get any help" with "I don't want to treat everyone equally"?
We're talking about government action, laws and legislation etc. And even accepting all of your and Lyr's premises re: inequality in society, you're still misrepresenting conservatives. You can say that they are apathetic to the plight of minorities (or even that they have malice in their hearts and hate minorities) but it's fundamentally untrue to act like being opposed to special treatment for minorities is somehow advocating treating minorities differently under the law. I think maybe you're confusing "treated equally under the law" with "fairness."
All that being said, Mucus totally nailed me on the racial profiling thing. Conservatives are all over that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if the retirement community has anything to do with it. On the one hand you would think they'd be worried about the economy for their children's sake, but on the other they already have their pensions and SS.
It could also be a sign that the poll's methodology was... y'know... fundamentally flawed. Seems to be a simpler and more believable explanation than "Floridians don't care if the country is ruined."
If we saw a poll showing 90% of Americans believe insane discredited vaccines-cause-autism hysteria, but the facts show that people are still getting their kids vaccinated and Michelle Bachmann's popularity plummeted after she spouted that crap, then I think we could safely question the validity of such a poll.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, do you honestly not see that you are conflating "I want the government to treat everyone equally and I don't care if that means minorities who have the deck stacked against them by society won't get any help" with "I don't want to treat everyone equally"?
I'm conflating the two because they are to some extent conflated. I realize it's not something conservatives are very comfortable with, but unless you want to dispute that government has had a strong, lasting impact on setting our society in its current condition-entirely aside from the question of whether ongoing racism in our society and government still exists-I don't see how you can argue that there is some crossover.
Because if you do believe that our government's nearly lifelong history of overt, legislated racism (and that's entirely aside from the history of our society before we were the USA) has had an impact that affects our current system...then yes, "I don't want to treat everyone equally," seems to me to be a fair statement. One group-the majority-has reaped substantial benefits that are still ongoing, at the expense of another group-racial minorities-among whom the cost is still felt. We don't typically treat victims equally to their victimizers.
If someone is stolen from, we don't then cry foul inequal treatment if the thief is compelled to give the money back, even though the crime is in the past. If I kidnap you, and you're freed by someone else, I don't get to say, "Wait a second, this is inequality!" if I'm imprisoned. I realize the comparisons aren't exact-no comparison of all of society down to individuals is ever going to be exact. But it is accurate in one sense: historically, as recently as a couple of generations ago, there have been victimizers and victims in our country on racial grounds in ways that are so clear cut, so black and white, that it cannot possibly be argued. For nearly half a millenia, in fact.
The victimizers passed the benefits of their efforts to their descendants, and the harm of their efforts to the descendants of the victims. It's still going on. It's not fixed yet. That's why the inequality is still going on, and that is why 'don't want anyone anywhere treated differently' amounts to 'don't want to treat minorities fairly'. I'm not talking about what such people intend, I'm talking about the actual impact of their beliefs.
quote:We're talking about government action, laws and legislation etc. And even accepting all of your and Lyr's premises re: inequality in society, you're still misrepresenting conservatives. You can say that they are apathetic to the plight of minorities (or even that they have malice in their hearts and hate minorities) but it's fundamentally untrue to act like being opposed to special treatment for minorities is somehow advocating treating minorities differently under the law. I think maybe you're confusing "treated equally under the law" with "fairness."
A couple of things: one, there's not much point in not accepting the premise that there is still inequality and ongoing racism in our society. It's something that is suggested a lot, but I doubt many of them are named Shanequa and having their job application read right after a 'Megan'. Two, the reason it's a contradiction is because being opposed to 'special treatment' for minorities is another way of saying 'we ought to reap the benefits of the special treatment we've been getting for dozens of generations'.
Unless you (general 'you' here in this case) think that there isn't some impact of all those centuries of work. That we've just...gotten over it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Senoj, I'm reading this Politico piece on Obama's campaign tactics, and thought of your comments on the accusations about the economy. You might find it interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It could also be a sign that the poll's methodology was... y'know... fundamentally flawed. Seems to be a simpler and more believable explanation than "Floridians don't care if the country is ruined."
Suffolk is generally a mediocre pollster. But I think the better explanation is that the poll question elicits a Pavlovian response; people don't actually consider the question logically, but rather give a more visceral reaction to the parties in the question.
It's similar to polls from the mid-1980s that found that most Democrats <edit>believed</edit> inflation was higher under Reagan than Carter. I don't think those people were really that poorly informed; they just didn't support Reagan's policies and so wanted to say, essentially, "Reagan, boo!"
FYI, the polls internals say 44% of respondents identified as conservatives (vice 36% moderates and 13% liberal), 21% had children in the school systems, 70% were 45 or older, and 67% were white (vice 13% Latino and 12% African-American). Also, the respondents favored a national flat tax replacing the federal income tax 50-27! Which just demonstrates to me that people don't really think very much about their responses to complicated policy questions in telephone surveys.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Hey, Senoj, I'm reading this Politico piece on Obama's campaign tactics, and thought of your comments on the accusations about the economy. You might find it interesting.
I saw Smith's teaser for that on his blog this morning but didn't click through to the full story. My take, based on the excerpt I read, was Smith was wide-eyed over what is actually a pretty common maneuver for a presidential candidate. I mean, it's not like Bush did a lot of his own attacking; he left it to Cheney or Rove. Same goes for Clinton, who used Carville and other bare-knuckle politicos for cover. Bush Sr. certainly made good use of, say, Lee Atwater, and I'm sure I could keep going down the line. It's just the way presidential politics generally works.
Although I will say that I think Obama's image doesn't seem to be nearly as susceptible as some previous Presidents' to tarnishing due to negative attacks generated by his political associates against his political opponents.
<edit>I did love this quote from David Mendell in the article, purely (or at least mostly) for the evocative imagery:
quote:David Axelrod has always been skillful at creeping into your room in the middle of the night and slicing out your heart, somehow without leaving behind a single fingerprint or drop of blood that ties him or his candidate to the crime.
</edit>
<edit2>This quote from Paul Begala, near the end of the article, provides a possible explanation for why Obama doesn't personally seem to receive much blow back from the negativity of his campaigns
quote:When he’s carving up those Republicans, it’s always with a smile and he gets the audience laughing at them. He eviscerated Donald Trump with humor. In that sense, he’s like Reagan. Reagan tore up the Democrats, but he always did it with humor, and no one ever thought the Gipper was mean spirited.
Maybe. I tend to think it has more to do with his "only in America" biography than his demeanor, but I'm sure his personal charisma plays a role.</edit2>
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Also, on the size of the settlement, this from David Frum:
quote:The smallness of the settlement deserves attention because sexual harassment is a tort that covers a lot of territory, everything from prolonged and brutal sexual humiliation to an untoward joke. A settlement in the $10,000-$90,000 range is likely going to arise from behavior that is on the low-end of the spectrum.
Numeric values for both severance agreements have now been reported in the press. The settlements were allegedly for $35,000 and $45,000. This seems to be at the low end for such things, and so seems to me to reinforce the idea that whatever happened it was neither very strongly evidenced nor of a highly explosive nature. It gives credence, I would say, to Cain's claims that these were relatively innocuous interactions that could, at least superficially, be explained away as "misunderstandings."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, republican party, but you are as dumb as I always make fun of you for being. Herman Cain is still running neck and neck with Mitt Romney. You are a party where you can have the 9-9-9 plan and not immediately be politically nonviable. Hell, you're a party where you can have the 9-9-9 plan and still be making a good running for the lead. You are a party that makes this onion article dance dangerous and lurid with poe's law. Oh, and you are also a political party that can killibuster the entire government for the sake of your own political survival, and have been doing so pretty straightforwardly for years, oh my god, we're boned. Hey I like that word. Killibuster. I should trademark it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an article in Time Magazine recently about how Cain supporters are stupid. Basically the article said that normally instead of directly attacking voters, the media tend to either go after the candidate, or to comment generally about the entire voting population, but he was breaking from that because Cain was just that ridiculous, and his supporters just that stupid.
Shows just how frustrated some people are becoming.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is starting to get just plain bizarre.
There are three ways to take this: They're all lying, they're all true, or some are true and some are not.
There's evidence to make each assumption troubling.
Given the fact that two cases were settled out of court, there's proof that at least two of them were handled before he ever publicly displayed any presidential aspirations, though he's tried to run for major public office before. Still that leads me to believe there's a history of this sort of inappropriate behavior, even if it's on the relative "lighter side" of sexual harassment. I'm inclined to believe at least something is going on, and that it's not "all lies" as Cain says.
On the other hand, so much of this is a cliche. The timing is ridiculously suspicious. Did it really only come out now because of front runner scrutiny, or is some of this manufactured only because he's out in front and someone like Perry wanted to drop the boom on him? Furthermore, black man as sexual predator to white females is a tired and overused racial stereotype, but it still has incredibly cache among certain subsections of the population, especially older people who are some of the mainstay of the GOP voting base. The fact that it's such an obvious stereotype has me doubtful.
I wonder where the most recent polling has Cain.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean the cliche is that all sexual harassment is male on female, but BLACK man on WHITE female is an especially charged stereotype in America. It has at least a century and a half of very heavy baggage that goes with it that provokes an especially powerful gut reaction in a lot of people.
It's the sort of thing where if it's a white man, you shake your head in disapproval, but if it's a black man, a lot of people get a combination of outraged and lack of surprise because that's just how they are. It has to do with a history of portraying black men as sexual predators with uncontrollable sexual desires.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder where the most recent polling has Cain.
Still on even footing with romney.
I think it's pretty clear that many Republicans really really really would rather have an alternative to Romney.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder where the most recent polling has Cain.
Still on even footing with romney.
I think it's pretty clear that many Republicans really really really would rather have an alternative to Romney.
On political review, the analysis indicated that that so little of the republican core really wants to settle on Romney, and that's why this whole primary circus is still going; they want a candidate they can really fall in love with, and they have to go through the motions of loving a character because they really 'speak to the base' then falling out of love with them because they would lose to Obama and probably are also crazy.
But the alternative is settling for Romney! He did this stuff that was like Obamacare! And he's a Mormon! Him being a mormon really weirds out a third to a fifth of conservatives to the point where they are too uncomfortable at present to say that they would vote for him.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the non-Romneys were smart, two of them would team up into a P/VP team and try to consolidate a split base into a single movement.
I read an article awhile back that said if Palin was smart, she'd throw her support behind Perry, which would re-invigorate his campaign and make her relevant again since she sort of forced herself into the realm of common players by bowing out of the race.
Theoretically, with only a quarter of Republican voters willing to support Romney at any given time, any one of the other "real conservatives" (not Huntsman) should be able to sweep most of the rest of the vote if there was only one of them, and if that vote wasn't split four or five ways.
I still think interesting things could happen in January if some candidates drop out fast. Romney is going to win a plurality in most early states because the rest of the vote is so divided, but, once they drop out, we'll see who the support flows to. If it becomes a two or three man race by Super Tuesday, Romney's 25-30% won't be enough to push him over the top. It might even come down to some deal making for spare delegates floating around if the spread is really that wide.
We're down to it now. Only really a month and a half for polls to really move, which means Cain might have the right timing and momentum if he can get through this scandal. There's not a lot of time for another swapittydo in the frontrunnership.
If everyone holds on with their teeth and refuses to drop out, Romney will win with a plurality. If people like Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman drop off fast, and then one of the other biggies like Paul, someone could pull ahead and stay there. Timing is going to be key.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is... is Michelle Bachmann still running? Are you sure? Huh.
But seriously, why is she still running?
But seriously serious now: Lyr or Samp or some other political news junkie, is there a reason people follow polls instead of intrade? From what I've read (which is admittedly not a great deal), intrade is vastly more reliable at predicting presidential and nominee outcomes, yet everyone always cites this poll or that poll that shows oh my god X Terrible Candidate is the frontrunner he could win the nomi— oh wait no he imploded but look at Terrible Candidate Y people love them an— wait they said what? And so on.
Is it just because this is more exciting and polls feel more like you're getting the pulse of the people? (And not just a random selection of a couple hundred shlubs with zero skin in the game and who could say anything at any time for any reason)
posted
Speaking of tag-teams, at least one pundit likes the idea of Cain/Gingrich. It boggles my mind.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Republican Iowa Caucuses work differently than the Democratic counterpart: the GOP doesn't use the 15% viability and regrouping rules--it's just a secret ballot (generally speaking). In 2008, Team Obama worked hard to recruit caucus goers who had supported Dodd/Biden/Edwards/Richardson/Kucinich in the early rounds, so they were able to organize an anti-Clinton snowball right then and there in the individual precincts. Such a strategy is not available to those looking to be the anti-Romney.
The other thing to watch is who Congressman Steve King endorses. He represents the more conservative, western portion of Iowa, where Romney actually carried some counties in 2008. King spent much of the summer palling around with Bachmann and has flirted some with Perry, and is seen by many in the political media as a representative of the Tea Party.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But seriously serious now: Lyr or Samp or some other political news junkie, is there a reason people follow polls instead of intrade? From what I've read (which is admittedly not a great deal), intrade is vastly more reliable at predicting presidential and nominee outcomes, yet everyone always cites this poll or that poll that shows oh my god X Terrible Candidate is the frontrunner he could win the nomi— oh wait no he imploded but look at Terrible Candidate Y people love them an— wait they said what? And so on.
Is it just because this is more exciting and polls feel more like you're getting the pulse of the people? (And not just a random selection of a couple hundred shlubs with zero skin in the game and could say anything at any time for any reason)
InTrade, in my view, is a good solid distillation of the conventional wisdom at any given moment. Looking at the chart for the Republican nomination for 2008, Giuliani led right up until the end of December, and McCain didn't shoot up until the lead up to New Hampshire as more of the establishment fell in line behind him. So, yeah, I'd be willing to believe what InTrade says on January 2nd, and one really doesn't want to get excited about any single poll, but it doesn't express any special insight.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
