Certainly, the conventional wisdom would be that when the Republican candidate suspends her campaign and encourages her supporters to vote for someone else, it would help the Conservative candidate more than the Democrat. And that's where the betting is on Intrade, where Conservative Doug Hoffman has shot up from having a 50 percent chance of winning NY-23's special election to a 67 percent chance on the news this morning.
The reality may be more complicated.
Consider the Siena poll out this morning, which has all sorts of useful cross-tabs. Scozzafava's supporters in this poll:
-- Have a favorable view of Barack Obama by a 64-31 margin.
-- Have an unfavorable view of Hoffman 15-57.
-- Have an unfavorable view of Democrat Bill Owens, 19-50.
It's not quite so clear how Hoffman stands to benefit from this. Although a majority of Scozzafava's supporters are Republican (about 62 percent, by my reckoning), it is safe to assume that they are mostly rather moderate Republicans, because almost all the conservative Republicans had already gone over to Hoffman. To wit, two-thirds of Scozzafava's supporters say they like Barack Obama. While moderate Republicans are an endangered species elsewhere in the country, that is not true in upstate New York, where a lot of voters are registered as Republicans and vote that way in statewide races but often vote Democratic in federal races. (NY-23 supported Barack Obama 52-47 last November.)
The reality is that a lot of Scozzafava's ex-supporters, many of whom don't like either Hoffman or Owens, simply won't vote. And some of them will still wind up casting their ballots for Scozzafava undaunted, as she'll still appear on the ballot and may have made herself something of a sympathetic figure. Certainly, it would seem to help Hoffman if Scozzafava decided to endorse him -- but only 15 percent of Scozzafava's voters had a favorable view of Hoffman, so they aren't going to come over easily, if at all. (EDIT: It's not clear if Scozzafava has in fact endorsed Hoffman, as the reporting is somewhat contradictory on this -- most sources, apart from the AP, say that she's made no endorsement.)
If I had to guess, I'd think that of Scozzafava's support, one-quarter of people don't vote, one-quarter vote for Scozzafava anyway, 30 percent defect to Hoffman and 20 percent defect to Owens. Extrapolating from the morning's Siena poll, that would produce a result of Hoffman 43, Owens 42, Scozzafava 5, with 10 percent of the voters still up for grabs.
Gun to my head? Sure, I'd take Hoffman at this point. But I'd also take the short side of the 67 percent odds that he's been given at Intrade.
(EDIT: If there's been no endorsement from Scozzafava, then I'm not sure that I'd necessarily give Hoffman any more of her votes than Owens. On the other hand, as I wrote yesterday, I think the enthusiasm/turnout side of the story may have been underplayed here and that dynamic benefits Hoffman.)
UPDATE (3:30 PM). Tom Jensen at PPP reports that he had a poll in the field this morning that was showing very good numbers for Hoffman, although how much emphasis we should give to unweighted, small-sample polling conducted on Halloween morning, I don't know. I would say that if Hoffman wins, it will tend to because of factors that were already in place before Scozzafava's withdraw.
10.31.2009
Scozzafava's Supporters Like Obama, Dislike Hoffman and Owens
@ 12:24 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
242 comments
So if Owens would have won in a (3) way race it would have been embarrassing for Reps, but if Owens wins a (2) way race w/Hoffamn it will be really, really embarrassing for the party of No! er wingnuts!
carry on
Big picture, whether Hoffman wins by getting 44 percent of the vote or loses by getting 42 percent of the vote, this election doesn't seem to really apply as a litmus test for America's political direction.
The fact that a Conservative can win by a plurality in a rural, conservative district isn't a wind socket for America's political direction.
I'm not understanding your consistency here Nate, didn't you say a couple of days ago that the only thing keeping Hoffman alive was the three way nature of the race, and that in a two way race he wouldn't stand a chance? Now we have the chance to test your hypothesis and you're backing away from it.
Check out Q10. I wonder how much those skunkworks ads figure into that. Those are shocking numbers. Either her ads really, REALLY suck or people were confusing that Club For Growth negative ad for hers. :/
Glenn Howes said...
~~~~~~~~~~
True, but if it had been a (2) way race from the start is what Nate was saying, because it was a (3) way race it has created a lot more hoopla especially now that Scozzafava has taken one for the team, sooo ...
all bets are off, w/the extenuating circumstances ie Reps should be throwing out all the stops to win, because the alternative is unthinkable lol.
This is what Glenn is talking about:
Analysis: Suppose this were literally a two-candidate race between the Democrat Owens and the Conservative Party Candidate Hoffman. Who would win?
I think Owens would be favored. Although this district most recently had elected Republican John McHugh to the Congress, it also voted 52-47 for Barack Obama last November, and Obama has a 56-40 favorability rating there according to Siena. It is basically a middle-of-the-road district. And in a middle-of-a-road district, a moderate Democrat like Owens should beat a very conservative, uh, Conservative like Hoffman more often than not, according to a standard one-dimensional model [Median Voter Theory].
Anyways, I disagree that this district is as moderate as people make it out to be (they rely solely on federal election results when they make that case, ignoring the district history in house races), so even assuming Median Voter Theory is roughly correct, I think the median voter in this district is close enough to Hoffman that the race will probably tilt his way.
Although the AP story you cite claimed she was encouraging supporters to switch to Hoffman, her actual statement was "...I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit." NYT etc. are not reporting that as an endorsement.
@Glenn Howes
It isn't exactly a two way race. There hasn't been time for those Scozzafava voters to have been mined, by either side.
Another factor that may come in to play here is resentment from upstate NY Republicans at the national party and at all the right wing pundits inserting themselves into (and apparently taking control of) local party matters. I suspect this is reflected in Hoffman's high unfavorable numbers among Scozzafava supporters.
@Michael (mbw)
Interesting. One wonders exactly what it'll say on her ballot. :)
Party of No (Candidate)
hahaha
I live in this district and I think that people are discounting the common view that Hoffman is an outsider. He showed that he really doesn't understand northern New York concerns. Bringing in a rich, outside to represent relatively poor northern New York is fairly offensive to many.
Also, I am a teacher and the very, very liberal teachers' union endorsed Dede, that tells you something of her liberal views. If conservatives have already fled to Hoffman, I think we know who was left supporting Dede, she had a huge amount of union support and those supporters *will not* be voting for Hoffman.
Markos at kos was considering endorsing Scozzafava because she was a social liberal in her political views.
The angle that is being forgotten is that Hoffman is not local and flubbed questions about local issues.
He is being pushed by outsiders (including Palin) and that can be very offensive to many voters - they know they are being manipulated by people who want this to be a litmus test for national politics but do not actual care about the people in the district and their concerns.
Hoffman's negatives are likely to go up, and that generally more voters who stay home on election day.
Next poll needs to ask the respondent how likely they are to actually vote.
I can't see how this is good for Republicans in anything but the shortest term, and I disagree with Matthew's statement that it doesn't mean anything for the country as a whole. Of course, the voters of upstate New York don't reflect the rest of the country, but I think the outcome of this race probably has implications for the future of the GOP.
If Hoffman wins, that's good for them in the short term, having another right wing member of the House, but it could open the door for this kind of revolt in other races later. I can't see how it's good for a political party if they're willing to throw their own party members under the bus like this, especially for a carpetbagger who has nothing to offer but ideological purity. If there's too much of it, you end up with a substantial shard of the Republican caucus that is ultimately not going to be accountable to party leadership. If the GOP somehow go the way of the Whigs, I could see it starting out looking like this.
Of course, if Owens wins and the narrative coming out of the race was that the far right overplayed their hand, etc. then that will be less good for the Republicans in the immediate future (as they'll be in a slightly less good position for 2010, as if they have a chance of recapturing the House), but it will be much better for them going forward.
How bizarre that the GOP seems willing to grind up the party itself for immediate petty gain. If the GOP does in fact become obsolete over the next few decades, this race will get its own chapter in the history books.
What really matters here is this -
The local Republican party tried to run a solid, moderate candidate who was ideal for the district.
The national wingnuts wouldn't let them. The Michelle Malkin element went crazy.
Now, it's almost guaranteed that a Republican WON'T win the seat.
A wingnut who's too right wing for the district may be elected for two years.
This is in a fairly conservative region. Upstate New York isn't New York City, and it isn't even rural New England, either. It's a pretty "average" part of the country in terms of political views.
The wingnuts torpedoed the Republican candidate because she was impure on their ideology of hate.
This is a trend that is very, very dangerous for the Republican party.
Gotta love the way folks are jumping on this as a disaster for the GOP. I'd say that at this point the Dems have everything to lose should Hoffman win. This now becomes about the liberal versus conservative agenda and I suspect that the Dems will pull out all the stops now to get Owens elected. They simply cannot afford for a conservative candidate to be elected in a 2 horse race.
I think Nate's breakdown of how the votes will go is pretty good, although I think possibly even more will stay home. The question is how the undecideds break and at this point, in an off year, they're likely to stay home as well, or at least a good portion thereof.
The real question being missed here is turnout. The conservatives are energized; this is a real shot across the bow of the GOP who they have utter disdain for. Now, can the liberals match it?
As a progressive, I would find it funny if I didn't find it sad, how we rightfully talk about the GOP fights their moderates and then, when the subject is anything else, without the slightest tinge of irony, talk about all these Blue Dogs and Moderate Democrats that we desperately want to replace with more progressive-friendly Democrats that won't vote Republican on some issues.
Mike said...
I'd say that at this point the Dems have everything to lose should Hoffman win.
~~~~~~~~~~
The last Dem to win this conservative district/area was in 1850 (159) years ago. Sooo, Dems have been losing everything for 159 years! lol
One's hyperbole really makes you look like an idiot, but no, I won't call you an idiot! 'cause then I'd have to apologize to idiots. ;)
For the voters who were previously undecided, is there any indication which candidates they were undecided between? Since Owens and Scozzafava were both moderate, I would think more of the undecided voters would be between those two, who would then go for Owens.
But I don't really know.
Mike said -
Gotta love the way folks are jumping on this as a disaster for the GOP.
Thanks for the love, Mike.
This is an unmitigated disaster for the GOP.
The local party wanted to run a highly appropriate moderate.
Extremists from outside the district went nuts and supported a third party candidate.
Now the GOP is out of the race, its candidate is forced to make a humiliating and embittering "endorsement" of the guy who sandbagged her from the right, and the race is between a Democrat and a third party candidate. This is in a district that has been Republican for generations.
Mike said…
“Gotta love the way folks are jumping on this as a disaster for the GOP.”
You’re misreading this. It’s a disaster for the super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe, which includes, but is not restricted to, the GOP.
The more knives there are slashing around within the rightwing ideological-purity circus the better it is for America.
Siena is looking a little out of step.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/10/ny-23-polling-odyssey.html
"So this morning around 10 AM I started up our NY-23 poll and after a few hundred interviews it appeared that Doug Hoffman was now running away with it-unweighted numbers showed him at 45% to 26% for Bill Owens and 17% for Dede Scozzafava.
Then came the news that Scozzafava was suspending her campaign. My first inclination was to just keep running the poll as is, but I stopped it and thought about it, and now for the rest of the weekend the first question will still provide Scozzafava as an option but also note that she's suspended her campaign, although her name will still be on the ballot.
I'm not going to throw away the first set of interviews, but we'll provide a crosstab for when people got surveyed. I expect Hoffman will win easily now, but if our early numbers were any indication what Scozzafava did doesn't make much difference- he was going to win easily with or without her in the race.
I should also note that the poll included two way races between all three of the candidates as well so we will have full straight up Owens-Hoffman data for whatever that's worth.
More excitement so far today than I might have been anticipating!"
On another note, I hope that Hoffman wins. This will embolden the kookosphere and encourage them to target GOP candidates all across the country. They might even succeed in killing the Republican Party entirely. If so then all the races will be between the Democrats and Teabagger/Batshitters, and we’ll finally get to see just how conservative the country really is.
Mike wrote:
"They simply cannot afford for a conservative candidate to be elected in a 2 horse race."
Huh? The district has been Republican forever. If it remains Republican that is hardly a disaster for the Democrats. It's not as if the House majority hangs in the balance.
Now, if the Republican Party wants to try this strategy in a swing district, that would possibly mean something on the "big picture" scale.
We keep hearing the Right invoke the "pendulum effect", but in truth the pendulum only swings because the losing Party moderates. By moving further from the centre, the Party is conceding ground in order to consolidate its grip on states and districts where they already prevail.
The Right posits a "wave" of non-voters drawn to the polls. However, we just had an election in which the Right screamed at the top of their lungs that the Democratic candidate was a foreign-born Muslim socialist bent on handing the nation over to the terrorists. If that would compel these non-voters to turn out, why would one suppose that a continuation of that screaming, supplemented by the waving of tea bags, would suddenly be effective?
Outside of the Republican "base", people just simply aren't terrified of Obama or "socialism". In spite of 18 months of screeching a message of apocalyptic doom, things are about where they were before. Gallup supports this, with the major effect of the hysteria being a 6% increase in the number of Independents self-identifying as "conservative". Wow. There's your "wave" right there. Look hard, because it might seem to appear as a ripple to everyone else.
Correction. Last comment should have read:
"If that would not compel these non-voters to turn out, why would one suppose that a continuation of that screaming, supplemented by the waving of tea bags, would suddenly be effective?"
Todd Dugdale…
Very succinctly put. The right wing created a frenzy in this country over imagined perils, and now they are suffering the consequences as sensible voters move further ands further away from them, the same way passersby avoid looking at lunatics raving in the street.
Wouldn't we assume the GOP did some internal polling on a two-way before they made this decision? They were in a position of power here. If the 3-way was more favorable they could have continued. If they 2-way was more favorable they could drop one. They dropped one. Whatever Hoffman's odds were before, they are better now.
super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe
ie, believing in:
fiscal responsibility
limited government
rights for unborn human life
free enterprise
God
According to the Democratic Party, this is the super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe.
Good luck with that message.
Pragmatus:
If Hoffman wins big, it won't destroy the Republican party. It will just shift the party to the right. And if more conservative candidates win in 2010, the Democrat party will tack to the right. The future of the Democrat party will be in the blue dogs.
Dave:
These two things aren't exactly like one another. When liberals talk of primarying blue dogs it's usually because the blue dogs are single-handedly holding up legislation that would be extremely beneficial for the country in every objective measure, is supported by both the majority of the country and the majority of their constituents (not to mention supermajorities of their party members), and they themselves can't come up with substantive reasons to oppose the legislation that aren't completely duplicitous.
Lieberman, for example, already was doing all of this, then screwed up Gore's run, then lost his primary and after all of that the Democratic Party still took him back in and supported him despite him being in a third party... then he went back to the same shit and supported dozens of republican candidates against democratic candidates (even for president) and then tried to make up, saying that was all in the past, and now he's doing it all again and committing to campaigning for Republican candidates against Democratic candidates in the future. Wanting to primary him is completely justified.
To further emphasize how it's different from the Republicans, were Lieberman a Republican he would have been gone in either 2000 or 2006 at the latest, and if he were to become a republican he would definitely be gone in 2012 even though he has never single-handedly held up any Republican Party-supported legislation.
Liberals recognize the advantage of big-tent impurity though they still expect interparty conflict to at least be rational. Republicans expect only purity.
This teaches the Democratic Party a lesson. To quote Ben Franklin, "We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately."
If the Democratic Party is to avoid a turnaround in 2010, they really must hold their base. This is proof that the Republican Party can't hold theirs.
In Minnesota, we had similar problems over a decade ago with a man named Alan Quist, who ran for governor. He won the RNC nomination, but got killed in the state-wide general election. This is a small sample and not indicative of the entire population of this country, much less the entire state of New York. That said, this is more of a problem for the RNC, but overall could be one for both parties.
Grog:
Invoking fiscal responsibility, rights for unborn human life, free enterprise, or God in the healthcare debate (for example) is a sign of the super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe since everything the Democrats have proposed will either improve how things work along those lines or is irrelevant to them. This is equivalently true for 99% of policy and yet consevatives can't help always bringing the debate back to those things, as if there is nothing more important to them to ever consider (you'd think that Christian values would be more important to conservative Christians for example but they aren't brought up, only the rites of the religion ever are).
Also, by the way, artificially limiting the government in the way that the majority of americans don't want it to be limited is undemocratic and, frankly, unique to the super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe.
I love the "sour grapes" strategy by the left wingnuts now. As we discussed yesterday, this election had taken on national proportions because it is the grass roots taking on the moderate-oriented Republican power structure. That strategy has failed monumentally and now the conservatives are in the ascendency again, which is what wins elections for Republicans.
Now, the kook fringe delusional thinking, based on a minor crosstab in a weak poll, is that Dede's voters will vote for the Dem because they're mad at Hoffman and don't like the national significance of this election. Au contrare. The center-right and right voters are tired of being fed lib-lite gruel and told to like it.
This will be a blowout. Can't believe Nate would short the 67 at InTrade. So wrong, as was his oddsmaking yesterday.
@GROG
That list would actually be:
- selective miserliness to the point of cutting off your nose in spite of your face, either through sheer ignorance or as an excuse to further another agenda (example "let's not watch volcanos because ignoring volcanos is the best way to deal with them blowing up" :( )
- shirking responsibility of protecting citizens from fraud, bigotry, and volcanos
- fixation with imposing your theological views on others
- persistant, blatant ignoring of logic, facts, and reason in favour of blind faith in matters where faith has no proper place being
- nakedly playing to the most base bigotry, ignorance, and hatred refering to it as "common sense"
GROG…
You win today’s Too Funny For Words award.
♦ Fiscal responsibility to the GOP means tax cuts that explode the deficit (Dick Cheney’s quote: “Ronald Regan proved that deficits don’t matter) massive new government spending (2 wars, prescription drugs) without a corresponding increase in revenue.
♦ Limited government to the GOP means tripling the national debt under Reagan and again under Bush II.
♦ Rights for “unborn human life” to the GOP means the mother’s health be damned, and forcing their particular religious views on abortion on everybody else.
♦ Free enterprise to the GOP means complete “laissez-faire”, no regulation at all, which led directly to the economic disaster we are in now.
♦ God to the GOP means only He Who roams the halls of Southern Baptist theology. Better not deviate from this strict doctrine or you will be out on your ear.
The new GOP.
If anyone wants to push Owens over the top, find people in the area to go to Hoffman's appearances and press him on this issue. On that issue, Hoffman appears to be quite Bush-like, and his tea party supporters might not like the possibility that he'd take actions that would raise their taxes. Video of that can be uploaded to Youtube.
If you can't bring yourself to do that and you're a staunch liberal who supports what Hoffman appears to support, then congratulate him on video for taking such a liberal stance on that issue.
@ Piddlesworth, Dwight:
Don't feed the super bat-shit nutjob right-wing kook fringe trolls, gentlemen.
GROG wrote:
"fiscal responsibility"
...without specifying what they will cut. Also invoking the 10th Amendment to mean that the Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Highway System are all unconstitutional. Also remaining strangely silent when the Republican Party enacted sweeping new entitlements, kept two wars "off the books", and enacted tax cuts that failed to spur the growth that was promised.
"limited government"
...except for the failed War On Drugs, police-state surveillance, and using the government to ram evangelical Christianity down the nation's collective throat.
"rights for unborn human life"
...and implicit support for dangerous "back-alley" abortion 'doctors'. Also a marked disregard for the 'rights' and welfare of those after they are born.
"free enterprise"
...such as the lack of regulation that brought on the current crisis in the financial sector, unsafe medical products, and health insurance that is revoked when it is needed.
"God"
...or more specifically, the narrowly-defined "God" that fundamentalist Christians look to. Not the "God" that the Deist Founders believed in, and certainly not the "God" that any other religion believes in. And by "supporting" this "God", it really means ramming "God" down the collective throats of the nation, as part of "freedom". One can not merely just believe in this "God"; one must actively push for a theocracy in which those who closely resemble the Sadducees and Pharisees that Jesus railed against are in power.
Good luck with that, indeed.
"This now becomes about the liberal versus conservative agenda"
That would be true if Bill Ownes were a liberal. But he's not.
@Dwight, Pragmatus, Todd:
Like I said, good luck with your message. We'll see how demonizing conservatism works out for you.
GROG…
To continue, it’s amazing how the right wingers are so opposed to abortion, yet have no interest in adopting the children that result from unwanted pregnancies carried to term.
Barney Frank said it best: “The right wing’s concern for life begins at conception and ends at birth.”
Rudy wrote:
"That strategy has failed monumentally and now the conservatives are in the ascendency again, which is what wins elections for Republicans."
Absolutely. That is how we got President Goldwater, after all.
And Presidents Dole and McCain.
If Hoffman wins, it will signal the end of moderates within the Republican Party. The country will then have to choose between a left-leaning Democratic Party and (with a nod to Pragmatus) a "super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe" Republican Party.
GROG wrote:
"Like I said, good luck with your message. We'll see how demonizing conservatism works out for you."
Well, per Wingnut Law, when one demonises or scoffs at something, it means that they fear that idea and know that it is truly valid and powerful. For example, this is how conservatives "know" that Democrats are "scared" of Palin; because they scoff at her. Thus, Wingnut Law dictates that she will prevail.
Thus, your critique of Democrats simply proves that you know you are on the losing side. Wingnut Law is as clear as it is immutable.
Wingnut Law is the Highest Truth, is it not? Thus, you have failed The Big Wingnut In The Sky. He is not pleased.
If Hoffman wins, it will signal the end of moderates within the Republican Party. The country will then have to choose between a left-leaning Democratic Party and (with a nod to Pragmatus) a "super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe" Republican Party.
Oh please. Take your meds. It's one special election. There will be others, for God's sake.
The Republican party isn't treating it as just one special election, though, they are truly forming battle lines of conservative purism against big-tentism within the party and even castigating those that don't choose a side. There will be others, but this one will taint how all others are approached by the Republican Party and it base.
GROG -
Like I said, good luck with your message. We'll see how demonizing conservatism works out for you.
I don't see anyone demonizing conservatives. What I saw was once poster using some humorous language that was mild compared to what conservatives use, and some specific addressing of issues and claims.
fiscal responsibility
Sorry, too vague. I believe in fiscal responsibility. George W. Bush didn't.
However, when conservatives use this term, it's often just a coded attack on social welfare programs. I believe if fiscal responsibility and social welfare programs.
limited government
First of all, this isn't a meaningful term. Limited to what? Almost everybody believes in some limits on government. Except George Bush and Dick Cheney, apparently.
rights for unborn human life
I strongly support your right to have any belief in the morality of abortion that you wish, and to act on that belief in your own life. Since you're presumably a man, you won't have to make the ultimate decision, but I strongly support your right to financially support pregnant women so that they can bring pregnancies to term and to adopt and foster parent as many children as you wish.
And I guess one thing we agree on, then, is strong social welfare support for pregnant women, so that the vast majority who do want to give birth are assured of all the resources they need to complete a healthy pregnancy and care for a small child - RIGHT?
Wait a second - I get it - you meant that as a euphemistic way to say "making abortion illegal".
free enterprise
Which I strongly support.
Whoops, I guess you meant that as a coded way of saying "get rid of all financial and environmental regulations".
God
Thanks to liberals, your freedom to live and worship as you choose is strongly protected.
You forgot to mention things like homophobia, coded racism, and starting wars for no reason - which deserve to be demonized.
There have been conservative third Parties for decades, such as the Constitution Party. If there really were this huge, but hidden, undercurrent of support for Tea Party beliefs, then why have these third Parties languished in obscurity?
If one believes that this vast, hidden well of conservative non-voters did not turn out for the conservative third Parties because they thought they couldn't win, what does that say about the prospects for the putative "wave" of 'conservatism'?
On the one hand, we are told that these vast (but hidden) numbers of conservatives are disenchanted with the Republican Party. On the other, we are left to believe that these putative voters will only turn out if the Republican Party embraces their conservative beliefs in absolute terms.
The whole thing smacks of PK's "hidden voters", who would rise up at Palin's call, overwhelm the polling places and prove all the pollsters wrong.
Of course - it's so simple - because now they have seen the True Face of Socialism. Yeah, that must be it. Last November they didn't believe the Right's hyperbole, but now they do.
And thus does faith spring eternal for those who live forever in 1994.
shiloh said...
Mike said...
I'd say that at this point the Dems have everything to lose should Hoffman win.
~~~~~~~~~~
The last Dem to win this conservative district/area was in 1850 (159) years ago. Sooo, Dems have been losing everything for 159 years! lol
One's hyperbole really makes you look like an idiot, but no, I won't call you an idiot! 'cause then I'd have to apologize to idiots. ;)
___________
Really, you like looking like a fool, right?
This isn't "R" vs "D". It's "C" vs "L". This is now about the national liberal agenda. (Or should I say Marxist, with all the Mao-worshiping people in the WH?)
You're also forgetting that Obama took the District 52-47. (There's a good reason for that, that no one is talking about either.)
Anything but a Dem victory here is bad for the liberal agenda in D.C. because a Hoffman win will show that (a) the GOP needs to nominate conservatives, and that (b) when they do, they win. (And there's plenty of historical data to prove that over and over again.)
So you end up with a united, conservative opposition, to a fractured liberal-cum-moderate party in power. The Dems' ability to block so much in D.C. during Bush's first 6 years was because they were united against him, whereas the GOP was in-fighting. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
harold said...
Mike said -
Gotta love the way folks are jumping on this as a disaster for the GOP.
Thanks for the love, Mike.
This is an unmitigated disaster for the GOP.
_________
Yes, but only for the moderates currently running the GOP. For the party itself, it's a victory.
(Isn't it odd that it's only the liberals calling for the GOP to become moderates, while -- as another comment pointed out -- the Dems are eating their own moderates for dinner.)
Falling back to a 2 party race, and not "D" vs "R", but "L" vs "C", is fantastic for Republicans!
Todd Dugdale said...
Mike wrote:
"They simply cannot afford for a conservative candidate to be elected in a 2 horse race."
Huh? The district has been Republican forever. If it remains Republican that is hardly a disaster for the Democrats. It's not as if the House majority hangs in the balance.
__________
You're making the same mistake as everyone else. It's not "R" vs "D" -- it's "L" vs "C". Even if Hoffman caucuses with the Republicans in D.C., he's not running as one. This is about CONSERVATISM, not the Republican Party!
This is what the liberals are so afraid of. What happens if Hoffman now wins in a rout, say by 20 points? (In a district Obama won by 5 points.) How demoralizing is that for the liberals who are convinced that the country has lurched center-left because of one election?
The Repubolican Party is bowing out of politicsbecause the Social conservatives they have been pandering to are taking over.
I love it. You Goopers are so fricking screwed. This isn't like the Nader problem Democrats faced in 2000, 5% of the far left enviromentalists screwing up an election, your party is split right down the middle.
What is even greater is you guys are totally in denial!
TrueBlue said...
If Hoffman wins, it will signal the end of moderates within the Republican Party. The country will then have to choose between a left-leaning Democratic Party and (with a nod to Pragmatus) a "super batshit nutjob rightwing kook fringe" Republican Party.
Oh please. Take your meds. It's one special election. There will be others, for God's sake.
_______________
No kidding. Not to mention that a Hoffman (conservative) win here will embolden Blue-dog Democrats across the country to take back their own party...
Tom Jensen at PPP reports that he had a poll in the field this morning that was showing very good numbers for Hoffman, although how much emphasis we should give to unweighted, small-sample polling conducted on Halloween morning, I don't know.
By all means wait until the PPP poll is finished and weighted before drawing conclusions, but what does the fact that the poll was taken on Halloween morning have to do with anything? Do you think likely voters are out partying at 11 AM?
"You're making the same mistake as everyone else. It's not "R" vs "D" -- it's "L" vs "C"."
Except that there isn't a Liberal in this race. Owens is a conservative Democrat, so it's more weak "C" vs. uber "C". I don't expect there to be a big turnout from democrats with this type of candidate.
@Harold:
The things I listed are at the core of what conservatives believe in. And Mike is right. The upcoming elections are about C v. L.
The more liberals attack things like free enterprise, limited government, fiscal responsibility, rights of unborn human life, and God, the worse off the Dem Party will be, IMO.
And this is with absolutely no leadership in the Rep Party. That's why the third pary candidate is so attractive to conservatives.
I am from the district, and those of you who are outside are leaving out the important fact that this is really four or five different disticnt "neighborhoods" within the sprawling 11 county district. It is not at all a socially or demographically cohesive area. There is the Northeasteren end, Plattsburgh,Franklin, Essex county, Eastern Adirondacks...then the Western part...St. Lawrence and Jefferson counties..then Oswego County ( part of Syracuse SMSA which is the reddest of all of the counties, but is itself made up of rural areas, suburban Syracuse, and the Oswego river Valley, which is largely urbanesque), then there are the really rural parts of the district like Lewis county, and parts of Fulton county...and the Northern fringe of Oneida County (Utica-Rome), and all of Madison County (part of the Syracuse SMSA).
With Scozzafava out of the picture, we can take out the "known" factor...she was at least more "known" than either of the two rivals in at least her part of the district..so we are left with two candidates, only one of whom is known in any part of the District, and that is his native Clinton county area (Plattsburgh). That area has always been the tail of the district, and it is still unlikely that it will wag the dog!
By choosing a candidate from the Eastern end of the District who is an Independent, and unkown person in the Western and CNY part of the District, the Democrats were gambling that divisions in the Republican voting ranks would allow him (Owens) to sneak by with less than 40% of the vote.
Now, he will need more to win..and where does that come from? He is kind of up the creek without a proverbial paddle, as the natural tendency of the district to vote Republican will come back into play in a two person race...unless..the Democrat
was a well known person, with support from and a base in the Western and Central part of the District..which the DCCC had an opportunity to choose, and did not.
Voters don't always vote simply ideology...Owens is a decent, reasonable man, and far from the extreme..either left or right..but he is a little aloof, and stiff in his personal interactions, and has never held elective office, and so is not a very good stump campaigner. He is not the type of person who engenders wild enthusiasm. He is merely a plausible choice.
Hoffman, on the other hand, is a kind of shy Geek-like accountant who has been totally subsumed by the national right wing agenda...he is not a very compelling persona either...but he does have momentum going his way...and that will count for something.
In the final analysis..all politics is really local...perhaps 1600 Pennsylvania avenue should have taken note of that, before choosing a candidate whose philosophy is unfathomable..whose campaign has been controlled..whose personality is bland, and whose support may be broad , but is very thin.
Bottom line..the Right wing Republican will probably prevail...but in this case, he could as easily have been Mickey Mouse, so long as he is a Republican. The Democrats needed Mighty Mouse..not Casper Miltoast..and even then...it would have been near impossible without it being a three way race. So much for this race sending any message except that our system of choosing candidates, and campaigning is broken, sorely in need of major repair. Madison, Jefferson, and the other founders of our country would not be proud of what we have become!
Gooper Trolls are absolutely mental if they believe a split in their party will hurt Democrats. What is wrong with you guys, wake up, look at history, the split party always looses overall. Arguments that ignore reality are nonsense.
Obi-Beeg said...
The Repubolican Party is bowing out of politicsbecause the Social conservatives they have been pandering to are taking over.
I love it. You Goopers are so fricking screwed. This isn't like the Nader problem Democrats faced in 2000, 5% of the far left enviromentalists screwing up an election, your party is split right down the middle.
What is even greater is you guys are totally in denial!
________
First off, I am not a Republican. A republican who believes in the Republic, yes, but not a member of the GOP. Nor have I ever been.
Secondly, you should take a look at your own party. Healthcare wont pass unless you can unite it, which you can't. (Of course, if it was really about healthcare, you'd have put forward a bill that would garner massive support from both sides, but this isn't about healthcare, it's about big government control of our lives.) Cap-n-trade wont pass the Senate unless you can unite your Senators. (You can't; you spend your entire waking moments demonizing your own party's moderate members.)
Mike wrote:
"Falling back to a 2 party race, and not "D" vs "R", but "L" vs "C", is fantastic for Republicans!"
So if Owens wins, then you'll admit that this entire conservative "wave" narrative is a fantasy, right?
I thought not.
If you're right, it proves everything. If you're wrong, it proves nothing. Hard to argue with that logic.
whey said...
"You're making the same mistake as everyone else. It's not "R" vs "D" -- it's "L" vs "C"."
Except that there isn't a Liberal in this race. Owens is a conservative Democrat, so it's more weak "C" vs. uber "C". I don't expect there to be a big turnout from democrats with this type of candidate.
_________
Again, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if Owens is liberal or moderate; he is perceived as liberal since he's a Democrat in this environment.
What you are ALL missing, is that the conservatives have made this election about CONSERVATISM (the opposite being LIBERAL, not DEMOCRAT), and turned it away from being about REPUBLICANS !!!
Todd Dugdale said...
Mike wrote:
"Falling back to a 2 party race, and not "D" vs "R", but "L" vs "C", is fantastic for Republicans!"
So if Owens wins, then you'll admit that this entire conservative "wave" narrative is a fantasy, right?
I thought not.
If you're right, it proves everything. If you're wrong, it proves nothing. Hard to argue with that logic.
_____________
On the contrary; if Owens wins (outright, versus 15-20% still voting for Scozza) I'll be the first to admit I was wrong*.
Question is, if Hoffman wins in a rout, McDonnell routs Deeds, and Dough-boy Christie sends Corzine packing, will YOU admit that maybe there's something to this conservatism trend after all?
(* This assumes that something doesn't happen between now and election day to dramatically alter the race... again...)
PDQ -- nicely put!
Mike:
You're statement probably would've been interpretted correctly by more people if you made it about liberalism versus conservatism rather than about the parties, e.g. "I'd say that at this point the libs have everything to lose should Hoffman win."
Moving beyond that, neither liberals nor Democrats are making anything significant of this race other than in observation of what a big deal conservatives and Republicans are making of it. Before conservative Republicans started campaigning against the Republican candidate neither liberals nor Democrats cared about this race at all and they simply expected it to go to the Republican regardless of if they were socially liberal or not. Democrats and liberals now only care about this race because of its potential affects on the Republican party itself, which it seems there will be some if your reaction is any indication (i.e. the Republican party will be pushed to nominate even more conservative candidates). To reiterate, Democrats and liberals do not care about who sits in this seat for the next year, and as a result many Democratic and liberal strategists are actually rooting for Hoffman. There will be no demoralization by liberals.
By the way, the country has always been center-left compared to its politicians, decades of policy polling has confirmed this, it's just that liberals are now more hopeful that those previously disenfranchised on the left will not become disenfranchised ever again.
Off topic, but a bit humorous... why is it that only 84% of people, according to Rasmussen, know which way to turn their clocks tonight...
Piddlesworth said...
Mike:
You're statement probably would've been interpretted correctly by more people if you made it about liberalism versus conservatism rather than about the parties, e.g. "I'd say that at this point the libs have everything to lose should Hoffman win."
__________
Agreed, yes. Thank you!
Piddlesworth said...
By the way, the country has always been center-left compared to its politicians, decades of policy polling has confirmed this, it's just that liberals are now more hopeful that those previously disenfranchised on the left will not become disenfranchised ever again.
___________
Umm, you need to get out more. This is why people like yourself simply don't understand things like the Tea-Party movement.
We are, and always have been, a center-right country.
Now, I do agree that in general, the politicians recently have been even more to the right than the country as a whole (but not always), but to say that the country is center left is bordering on the ridiculous.
"To reiterate, Democrats and liberals do not care about who sits in this seat for the next year, and as a result many Democratic and liberal strategists are actually rooting for Hoffman."
Yes, I would much rather see the uber-Conservative win over the weak-Conservative. I understand Mike says that it's Liberals vs. Conservatives, but to get the "liberals" riled up and out to vote, an actual liberal would need to be running. The non-political people are not going to differentiate between a Republican and a Conservative, they're one and the same to most. In a county that's traditionally gone Republican, I'd expect a generic "Republican"/Conservative to win over a generic Democrat/"Liberal".
"We are, and always have been, a center-right country."
And I've always thought we are, and always have been, a center-left country. So, where does that leave us?
Getting past 85% in a poll is really really difficult in America for some reason regardless of the question. Even asking if Hawaii is a state only gets us up to 90% lol
Mike wrote:
"It doesn't matter if Owens is liberal or moderate; he is perceived as liberal since he's a Democrat in this environment."
So how does this push the Democratic Party towards the Blue Dog Democrats?
If we accept your assertions, then no matter how conservative a Blue Dog really is, they will lose because they will be "perceived as a liberal" due to their Party affiliation.
Of course, accepting your assertions would entail believing that the entire nation sees the world from the point-of-view of the Republican "base". Which explains why that "base" comprises 20% of the electorate...somehow.
You are no longer even positing the myth of a "centre-right" nation. You have gone into asserting that this is a "hard-right" nation, but that this "hard-right" failed to vote in 2006 and 2008.
Mike said,
"Of course, if it was really about healthcare, you'd have put forward a bill that would garner massive support from both sides, but this isn't about healthcare,"
Many of the other things that he says are debatable, but this one is simply not in touch with the facts. The Democrats could not have put forward a bill that would garner massive support from the Republicans, because there was absolutely no bill that the Republicans would support. When Obama asked Republican leaders what concession they were willing to make on health care reform, they wouldn't name a single one.
"Of course, if it was really about healthcare, you'd have put forward a bill that would garner massive support from both sides"
Can you explain this reasoning? If you put forth a bill because it would garner massive support from both sides then wouldn't you actually be putting forth a bill that was about garnering massive support from both sides, not a bill about healthcare? Further, why are the sides relevant? What about the middle? Most of Americans as a whole support the healthcare reforms that Democrats are proposing. Isn't that more important than giving favors to either side?
@Mike
Off topic, but a bit humorous... why is it that only 84% of people, according to Rasmussen, know which way to turn their clocks tonight...
It must be because a conservative wave is taking over, and they really don't know which way to turn.
MIKE is clearly delusional imho
he is trying to project a national 'wave' to 3 off-year state/district races...
NY-23 proves 'nothing' as it is already a GOP seat & has been forever [unless Hoffman gets 75% of the vote there is no CON message or 'wave']
but the CONs have invested themselves heavily so they [Palin, Beck, Rush et all] have much to potentially lose in a close win or an outright loss...
VA GOV was never really in the cards for any DEM this year. Historical trends, full season polling & the candidates dictated 50%+ for the GOP - unless a real 'macaca' event changed the entire dynamics [nope]...
NJ GOV 'should' have been an easy pick-up for the GOP this year. Historical trends [Whitman], the candidate [Corzine] & polling ALL favored Christie - BUT now they have allowed Corzine [who does NOT deserve to be re-elected] to probably/possible pull, this one off...
NJ stands as a major 'losss' for the GOP in terms of any 'wave' - I mean, how could they have a better opportunity to take over there ???
plus, MIKE & your CON cronies - have Palin & Beck & Rush et all gotten behind your VA & NJ GOP candidates ???
so where is the 'wave' ??? they are both distancing themselves from the hard-CON right-wingnuts such as your ilk, no ???
I actually HOPE Hoffman wins cuz it will further embolden the crazies here in FL to dump Crist [who is a sure winner] & go with Rubio for Senate. Only then do we DEMs have a legitimate chance to take over that seat - and THAT would be HUGE.
Now, IF Rubio beats Crist in a primary battel, the DEMs will be the winner & the GOP will be hurt for years in FL imho
so let's allow MIKE & the loons to think they see a CON wave...
GO HOFFMAN !!!
Mike wrote:
"Question is, if Hoffman wins in a rout, McDonnell routs Deeds, and Dough-boy Christie sends Corzine packing, will YOU admit that maybe there's something to this conservatism trend after all?"
No, because I am not the one who is extrapolating vast national trends from these races. Deeds and Corzine are weak candidates running weak campaigns. There are weak candidates on both sides, and only someone embracing hyperbole would read more into those races than what is obvious on the face.
Conservative candidates can win in "red" districts. That much is obvious. You are extrapolating from that to assert that conservative candidates can win in swing and blue districts, which is what I take issue with.
There is no "wave". Red states are getting redder. Marginal races will continue to switch Parties, but the tactics that work in red states and districts gain little traction outside of those areas.
At the foundation of all of this "wave" theory really is not a belief that conservative candidates are so immensely popular, but rather that Democrats will not turn out for the mid-terms. That is a crucial distinction, because it implies that the Right does not really have popular support - only more 'enthusiasm'. In other words, the Right is essentially conceding in advance that these hypothetical victories would be an aberration.
It is the Right that has blown the significance of these races out of proportion, but I hardly expect that if these races did not go their way, that they would concede the myth of the conservative wave. In the minds of those on the Right, conservatism can never fail; we can only fail conservatism.
Is the country center-left, is the country center-right, has it always been either of those things... WTF does that even really mean? What's left and right changes over time. abolition versus slavery was once on the political spectrum somewhere. Now slavery isn't even on the chart. Ditto with most other economic and social issues.
The problem is that if you try to forecast backwards, the whole left/right line makes even less sense than it does now. In reality, the country is a center country now because that's the only sane way to define it. Where it stood in the past is on an issue by issue basis, and considering the lack of historical polling (got any good nationwide polling on women's suffrage from the 1800s?), it's really just everyone's (loudly voice) opinion.
@Pan
In reality, the country is a center country now because that's the only sane way to define it.
Correct. By definition, the center of a thing is in its center.
Conservatives want to claim to own the center, so they claim the center is conservative. It's a nice bit of propagandizing.
And in the end, that's what conservatives rely on - propagandizing, spin, creating an image that hides the substance.
Two examples are their use of terms such as "socialist" and "pro-life". The former term is being used as a meaningless insult (Be afraid!!! Be very afraid!!!), and the latter is obvious hypocrisy (conservative care for the post-unborn child is pretty thin). Both of these terms are used to hide ugly and hateful truths about conservative philosophy (GROG's list of conservative values - "fiscal responsibility", etc - furnishing other examples of this technique).
So, "center right nation" is just another instance of the spin, a phrase that is meaningless in itself (self-contradictory, actually), but coded in a way to encourage (false) assumptions in the hearer. Conservatives have to operate this way. If they spoke honestly, even they would find them silly.
It is not possible to put forward a health reform bill that would have bipartisan support, because the position of the GOP is that the status quo is just fine.
So please explain how you come to agreement when one side sees things that need to be fixed, and the other wants absolutely nothing changed at all?
“Bipartisanship” on health care reform is yet another fantasy from the “conservative majority”.
And the remark Mike made that the Democrats were hoping to make the GOP more liberal is pure lunacy. Democrats and Independents such as myself are encouraging the Party of No to get as conservative as possible. My fondest wish is that Hoffman wins in New York and a new upwelling of conservatism either starts a new, viable arch-conservative party or else mutinies within the GOP and turns it into an arch-conservative party that has no room for anyone to the left of John Birch.
Arch-conservatism is a deadly poison, although it tastes really good to some people when first sampled.
Pan:
I can't defend others' posts, but I originally said "center-left compared to its politicians" and I stand by that. The majority of americans were for the abolition of slavery before the politicians got around to accepting it, the majority of americans were for women's suffrage before the politicians got around to it, etc. etc.
This gets vastly distorted in corporate-funded media because they tend to focus so intently on the senate, but even they agree that the house is almost always further to the left than the senate, the president, and the supreme court, and the house is the only body of politicians of those four directly elected by the people with proportional representation observed.
Even the members of the house fail to accurately represent the will of the people, though, because you have hundreds of thousands of people concerned with thousands of issues and only one representative to best fit all of that. As such, historical policy polls provide a much better metric of where the people have been with respect to their politicians throughout history and thorough study of that reveals that the American public has almost always been to the left of representatives and president on most of the policy issues debated at any point in history.
That would be true if Bill Ownes were a liberal. But he's not.
Absolutely true. This is the key point that's getting lost in this "debate."
I'm officially rooting for Hoffman on Tuesday. A Hoffman victory will do two things: 1) It will show the Democratic leadership that they can't beat a conservative with a conservative (a lesson they're about to get in Virginia, as well), and 2) It will show that third-party candidates can succeed, and hopefully lead to progressive third-party challengers for right-wing Democrats in the future.
Plus, if Hoffman wins, we can run a real Democrat against him in 2010. If Owens wins, we'll be stuck with him through at least the 2010 election and it'll be 2012 at the earliest before we can try to get a progressive into the seat.
excellent points, BURT
and besides, NY-23 is NOT a seat the current DEM caucus needs in this congress [especially for pushing through real healthcare reform]
I would rather have a vocal CON opponent in an already GOP seat, then try hard to pick it up with a PROGRESSIVE candidate in 2010.
Scozz would probably have been much tougher to beat in 2010 than HOFF...
WV - deadedie [dead Dede] - I kid you not...
Pragmatus said...
It is not possible to put forward a health reform bill that would have bipartisan support, because the position of the GOP is that the status quo is just fine.
Not exactly. I remember McCain facing that angry townhall saying that they'd "figure out a way". So it isn't so much that the status quo is hunky-dorry. They just haven't actually tabled much and don't really know where to go. They've made a little bit of noise about "competition" (but what that is going to require to truely be effective will set off the 10th Amendment faction in their own party) and tort reform (which isn't a bad thing in theory but is a relatively small piece of the puzzle, and an area fraught with danger of screwing patients over hard).
Pragmatus wrote:
"My fondest wish is that Hoffman wins in New York and a new upwelling of conservatism either starts a new, viable arch-conservative party or else mutinies within the GOP and turns it into an arch-conservative party that has no room for anyone to the left of John Birch. "
I completely agree.
The Right should put up or shut up.
The GOP should run arch-conservative wingnuts in every race for 2010. And when those arch-conservatives lose, they do should it again in 2012, because they undoubtedly will invent some half-baked excuse to explain away the losses.
More likely, though, is that this 'conservative majority' myth will never be put to the test. The way things are going, we will probably see some clumsy, ham-fisted, old-fashioned right-wing violence that will discredit the Right for a generation. And the same people positing the 'conservative majority' myth will continue to claim massive popularity, but add that people are just too afraid to voice those beliefs for fear of being labelled as 'militant'.
In other words, their lack of support will be put forward as proof that they are stronger than ever.
I'm somewhat surprised that the wingnuts aren't already claiming that voters are afraid of being locked in 'FEMA camps' if they vote for conservative candidates. Because no ballot is secret with ACORN on the loose, right? Everybody "knows" that, don't they?
@Pragmatus
It is not possible to put forward a health reform bill that would have bipartisan support, because the position of the GOP is that the status quo is just fine.
I think you're almost right. It isn't so much that Republicants think the status quo is fine. It is that they want to oppose Obama and the Democratic majority at all costs. They don't really have an opinion on health care reform, or the status quo. They simply want to oppose.
Wasn't it Boner who said they they intended to make health care into Obama's Waterloo? Their intent is to have no bill whatever, to simply stop everything.
So, it isn't possible to put forward a health reform bill that would have bipartisan support, because the position of the GOP is "No!" They will not negotiate in good faith - on anything. They will argue and oppose and get concessions, and then vote no anyway. They do not want a health reform bill. They do not want anything that the Dems want. They simply want to gu,m up the works.
This is part of their campaign to prove that gummint doesn't work - they will force it to not work, hoping they'll be seen as prescient geniuses. After all, that's what the Republicants have done every time they've been in power since Reagan - they run things as incompetently as they can, in their effort to prove the gummint is broken.
Mike said...
You're also forgetting that Obama took the District 52-47. (There's a good reason for that, that no one is talking about either.)
~~~~~~~~~~
As has been discussed ad nauseam, a presidential vote is a very personal vote, etc. etc. and yet, and yet a young, relatively inexperienced, bi-racial, African/American, Communist, Marxist, Islamo-Fascist, Socialist, Liberal/Liberal/Liberal, Osama Obama, Satan, The Devil Incarnate, The Anti-Christ, wealth distributor, community organizer, Arab, Muslim who was born in Kenya and wakes up every morning hating America! defeated McCain 53/46 nationwide and 52/47 in NY-23.
Which begs the question ~ which conservative winger presidential candidate would have done better than McCain, as McCain was the far better Rep national security candidate ie the best candidate amongst light weights and chicken hawks, which is what the party of No! currently has as presidential contenders for 2012.
Yea, what conservative candidate would have done better than McCain ie there's a reason the Rep hierarchy came out in support of McCain after he won NH and FL as these astute Rep politicians knew McCain was there best shot after (8) years of cheney/bush discombobulation, corruption, incompetence and they knew presidential elections are all about national security and being the better C-in-C and yes the economy and the voters gave cheney/bush an (8) year trial run on the economy and they failed miserably, eh.
Yea, cheney/bush's legacy looms large re: national security, the economy, etc.
Eagerly awaiting your winger choice for president in 2008 who would have done better than McCain so I can have a good laugh! :)
Again, the Reps current meme: We sucked for (8) years, but, but, but pay no attention to cheney/bush behind the curtain and vote for us anyway 'cause the other side sucks worse.
take care, blessings
"Republicants"
Classy. Why not Repugnicants or Rapepubicunts?
@Todd Dugdale
And when those arch-conservatives lose, they do should it again in 2012, because they undoubtedly will invent some half-baked excuse to explain away the losses.
Their excuse will be that the candidates who ran were not conservative enough. This is, after all, the way they are attempting to distance themselves from Bush II and from McCain - Ok, Shrub was a brainless sub-moron, but Cheney and Gonzo and the rest of the crew were somewhere to the right of Juan Peron, and McCain veered so far right in his campaign (Palin?) you'd think the wheels on his car were drastically out of alignment.
Maybe if they nominate the Grand Wizard of the KKK he'd be conservative enough - until he lost, then they'd denounce him for a weakass socialist and look for someone with some balls.
@Piddlesworth
"Republicants"
Classy. Why not Repugnicants or Rapepubicunts?
Because style counts. Subtlety and nuance rule.
It's less subtle than "Democrat Party" and just as bad. If you can't even summon the maturity to respect the name of your opponent then why should you be given the benefit of the doubt in debating in good faith?
I sense a trend -
Reagan was a well-meaning boob who was cripplingly senile for most of his presidency. He served two terms, and is revered to the point of worship by His party.
Bush II was pretty much clueless, and had it not been for the economic collapse, the GOP would still be hailing him as the greatest thing since sliced bread (well, since Reagan anyway), as they were for the first 7 years of his presidency (don't them them re-write history now - Republicants all wanted to have his babies until their 401k's tanked).
In contrast, Bush Sr wasn't well liked by the Repubs. He was a pretty smart guy (former head of the CIA and all that). They were always lukewarm for him, and he got elected in the first place by promising to be Reagan's MiniMe. He lost to Jimmy Carter (yeah, I like to rub that in).
McCain is also pretty smart (compared the the Shrub anyway), and the Repubs never cared much for him, either. He lost.
Now, the batshit crazy right wing is all gaagaa over Sarah "I-don't-have-a-second-braincell" Palin.
Methinks there's a cult of stupidity out there, masquerading as a political party.
Fortunately, they've been pretty much discredited. Obama is probably the smartest man every to occupy the Oval Office.
Please Gods, let Hoffman win.
shrinkers wrote:
"Their excuse will be that the candidates who ran were not conservative enough."
That much is guaranteed.
But if the Party runs further to the Right and the "favourables" of the Party remain unchanged or even fall, what will the excuse be?
Currently, we are being told that the Party is viewed poorly because it has betrayed "conservative principles". If the Party embraces those "principles", based on the 'proof' of these special elections, and still does not improve in polling, then there will be tough questions asked.
I vote for the excuse that all pollsters are involved in some kind of conspiracy. We're already half-way to that lame excuse being employed right now.
The excuses are already defining the Party. If you believe the excuses, you are "in". If you don't, then you are a "liberal", no matter what your ideology really is. The value of being "in", however, greatly diminishes when those that are "in" are out of power.
The Party could end up so "exclusive" and "pure" that nobody is fit to be in it.
Hey, I debate in good faith ;) and call them the party of No! but, but, but used to call them the Whigs lol.
If the shoe fits ...
@Piddlesworth
It's less subtle than "Democrat Party" and just as bad. If you can't even summon the maturity to respect the name of your opponent then why should you be given the benefit of the doubt in debating in good faith?
Because I'm immature. I'm an aging hippy.
I don't give them respect because they're not worthy of it. I mean really, the Party of No! is worth respecting? The people who come up with death panels and the birthers and Joe "You Lie!" Wilson and the ACORN obsessives? Really?
I'll be honest. I'll give a great deal of respect to someone who states a coherent position and who argues logically and reasonably and consistently. The whackheads who keep calling Obama a socialist, on the other hand, get nothing but juvenile contempt, because that's what they've earned.
The Repubs in Congress have proven that they have no creed, no position, no proposal other than "No!", so they're not worthy of respect, either.
Now, if someone like Nate puts me on his payroll, and I am thereby put into a position of representing an institution like 538, I'll be more respectful than the Dalai Lama, because the contrast with the rightwing nutbats would be a nice thing to underline. But as long as I'm a private poster who represents no one other than other aging hippies, I'm happy to play the Abbie Hoffman role.
@Todd Dugdale
But if the Party runs further to the Right and the "favourables" of the Party remain unchanged or even fall, what will the excuse be?
You may be right about the pollster plot thing. My point was that, regardless of how many cycles it goes, and how many losses, and how many years, the nutbat excuse will still be, "We haven't gone right enough yet. We gotta find someone so reactionary that he'll finally inspire the slumbering Murrikan conservative majority."
Shrinkers, you rule. You remind me of my dad a little bit, too.
Oops. Brain freeze.
He lost to Jimmy Carter (yeah, I like to rub that in).
Nope, Bush Sr lost to Clinton. Even better.
:bangs head: (Put away the sake, kid.)
Shrinkers-
I agree, do you think the Club for Growth will go after Castle in DE?
The one who drinks watered down wine has made references and inferences that Ronnie Ray-Gun was one of his heroes.
Then the one who drinks watered down wine talks about 'fiscal responsibility'.
What was Ronnie Ray-Gun's actual philosophy about 'fiscal responsibility'?
From September 20, 1980, Ray-Gun issued a statement that read in part:
Ray-Gun accused Carter and the Democrats of "shameful efforts . . . to hide the more than $40 Billion deficit they plan for the coming year."
(The Spokesman-Review - Sep 20, 1980, page 5)
As it turns out, the FY 1981 budget had a deficit of $73.948 Billion. Since the FY 1981 budget began on October 1, 1980 (before the November 1980 election, and before the inauguration of Ray-Gun on January 20, 1981, it would be difficult to say which part of the budget deficit was Carter's fault, which part was Ray-Gun's fault, and which part was Congress' fault, so we'll just use it as a baseline.
The FY 1982 through 1989 budgets were submitted by Ray-Gun, though. The results (in terms of budget deficits)?:
FY 1982 - $120.040 Billion
FY 1983 - $208.014 Billion
FY 1984 - $185.629 Billion
FY 1985 - $221.671 Billion
FY 1986 - $237.946 Billion
FY 1987 - $169.298 Billion
FY 1988 - $193.951 Billion
FY 1989 - $205.210 Billion
An average of $192.720 Billion of deficit per year.
So if Carter was criminal in allowing a 'more than $40 Billion deficit' to exist in the FY 1981 budget, what does that say of the Ray-Gun budgets that were 3 to almost 6 times that 'criminal' Carter budget, and the average was more than 4 times the 'criminal' Carter budget?
But then again, Ronnie Ray-Gun's record on 'fiscal responsibility' looks good when compared with Shrub (both big shrub and little shrub):
FY 1990 - $277.786 Billion
FY 1991 - $321.525 Billion
FY 1992 - $340.463 Billion
FY 1993 - $300.434 Billion
An average of $310.052 Billion of deficit per year.
For historical reference, the last full budget submitted under President Clinton (the FY 2000 budget) was in surplus by $86.626 Billion.
Then along came little shrub, and the budgets he presided over had the following deficits:
FY 2001 - $33.382 Billion (all but 19 days were pre 9-11)
FY 2002 - $317.461 Billion
FY 2003 - $554.995 Billion
FY 2004 - $595.822 Billion
FY 2005 - $553.657 Billion
FY 2006 - $574.264 Billion
FY 2007 - $500.679 Billion
FY 2008 - $1017.071 Billion
An average of $518.416 Billion of deficit per year.
To me, it doesn't look like the Republicans ran a very 'fiscal responsible' budget during their 20 (of the past 28) years in office.
Mike in Maryland
PDQ has it just about right I would say. I am also from the district and all this back and forth about liberal and conservative and how much this race means, is nothing more than garbage. Owens is not liberal, he is not close to liberal. He has a fairly liberal stance on 2-3 issues but is very conservative otherwise. He got the nomination only because there was *NO* liberal candidates to run. This area is just at a point where there are no big-name liberals available. Aubertine has a decent name and is fairly liberal, he could have competed well, but he chose not to run.
So please, if you are not from this district, you have no idea what you are talking about if you are making this into some big L v. C showdown. One note on why many liberals in the area (the ones who came out in droves to get that Obama victory here) are not energized...there has been *alot* of talk recently that Owens, should he win, has talked about switching parties...either back to Independent or over to Republican. This is not a liberal voter inspiration.
Bradford -
I don't know if it will be that group, specifically. Club for Growth might just be one of several.
I'm sure (particularly if Hoffman wins) that the Repubs will look for stunningly conservative candidates everywhere they can. And it may well be that, regardless of how conservative various official Republican candidates are, various third party groups will push someone even more hard core. REpubs currently in office can expect increasing numbers of ultrawinger challengers, I think.
I do expect NY-23 to start a trend. And I intend to buy lots of popcorn.
Palin must be ecstatic, I am sure she thinks this is her chance to help develop a true nutball right party. We might be witnessing the schism between social and fiscal conservatism that Reagan built. I would be all for that!
@JonTheLyrik
I'm honored. I always aspired to be a father figure.
Give you dad a hug when you see him.
This is basically a summary of the past 30+ years of presidential history:
Carter was a complete disaster.
Reagan came along to clean up after Carter and the country again became a nation of great prosperity and military might.
Bush 1 had the job of managing the growth from the Reagan years.
Clinton reaped the benefits of the Reagan/Bush economy but completely buried his head in the sand and ignored national security threats while terrorists attacked and plotted more attacks. He was forced to ignore it because it would have been unpopular with his lunatic fringe base. He was more concerned with popularity than national security.
Bush 2 came along and we were attacked almost immediately. Bush had to clean up after Clinton's national security mess. To the lunatic leftwing fringe's dismay, Bush's policies led to zero attacks on the country for 7 1/2 years after 9/11. He ran up huge deficits.
Obama came along and should have won in 2008 by 20 points. All the stars were aligned...an unpopular outgoing Republican president, a bad economy, a horrible Republican canditate in McCain, and Obama being one of the most charasmatic speakers in the history of American politics.
The country is getting a taste of what socialism might look like and they don't like it and conservatism is back and the lunatic leftwing fringe are going batshit crazy.
That's basically it.
Bradford wrote:
"We might be witnessing the schism between social and fiscal conservatism that Reagan built."
Maybe.
Hoffman wouldn't be able to ask for any earmarks for his district without compromising his wingnut credentials, though.
We already see 'conservative' Governors accepting stimulus money and bragging about the programmes funded by it, all the while denouncing the stimulus itself.
Oddly, the putatively massive 'conservative' faction does not appear willing to call them on this violation of principles.
One thing that the GOP does not need is more hypocrisy. One very real way for the 'conservative movement' to distinguish itself from the old and faded Party would be to take on this kind of contradiction. Their unwillingness to do so, however, belies their assertion that they are separate from Republicans.
When I see 'conservatives' present concrete proposals to cut $300-500 billion in spending, then I will concede that there is a real fiscal conservative alternative in existence.
McCain only came up with about $300 million in proposed cuts, and was more notable for those programmes that he took "off the table".
It seems to me that a true fiscal conservative would be supporting increasing taxes to pay off the debt, rather than wringing their hands in mock despair while taking their "share" of that evil socialist spending.
Mike in MD…
Thanks for that excellent breakdown by year of GOP “fiscal conservatism”. It’s good to have numbers at hand as proof of their bullshit.
beowulf…
Thanks for the boots-on-the-ground view of the NY-23 race. I hope you come back after the race is over for additional perspective.
Bradford…
Yep, Sarah Palin is just dumb enough to think this is all about her. But I think she can do much more damage inside the GOP than out of it. I doubt many people will rally to a third party that represents only her. But she could be a real wildcat within the GOP, fighting for the nomination. There would be body parts everywhere.
GROG…
Now all you have to do is keep thinking just exactly the way you are, and everything will be fine. Oh, and don’t forget to donate money here. Princess She-Ra of Mooseland is going to need all your money if she is going to run a successful campaign, then if she wins she will take all the rest of your money and give it to the truly rich.
Why are you so worried to the point of infatuation with Palin? Hmmm.
GROG wrote:
"Obama came along and should have won in 2008 by 20 points."
Eh? I thought this was a centre-right country and Obama was too liberal to be elected. That's what the wingnut choir screeched for six solid months up to the election. Now the story is that he should have won by more?
Thanks for filling us in on the Fox News revisionist history, though. I particularly like how you left out the Iraq war...or was that part of "keeping us safe"? If so, you could at least have added the part about how it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11, just to keep the fantasy consistent.
Extra points for claiming that all Democrats -er, I mean "the lunatic leftwing fringe" - were fervently hoping for another terrorist attack, too. I'm sure all of us can recall hundreds of cases of Americans pleading with terrorists to attack the country just one more time to make The Decider look bad.
I'm just left wondering how - if the Democratic Party is really just a "lunatic leftwing fringe" - was Obama supposed to win by 20 points?
If only the Right had let the American electorate know beforehand that Obama wanted to "spread the wealth", or enact a stimulus package, or spend any money at all, really. You left out the part in your fairy tale where Obama promised that he would govern exactly like a Republican, only to pull off his right-wing mask after the votes were counted to reveal his true crafty socialist face.
Tell me, just how many Quaaludes were involved in the creation of the fictional history that you just presented?
The last 30+ years of US presidents, in brief -
Jimmy Carter was a good man, who was not a terribly effective president. His greatest downfall was the Iran hostage crisis, which was partially engineered by Reagan - who made a deal to sell arms to the hostage takers if they held the captives until after the election.
Reagan was a complete disaster. He destroyed the US economy, tripling the debt for the purpose of trying to cripple domestic spending. The apparent increase in GDP was due primarily to military spending and his enormous deficits (so conservitards who claim that gummint stimulus spending doesn't work - and who revere Reagan - are complete idiots). His was the most lawless administration in history (until Bush II) - the number of officials from his administration who were convicted of crimes or sent to prison is absolutely unprecedented.
Bush I tried to be Reagan's MiniMe, and failed, because Reagan had screwed up the economy so bad that we were desperate for someone else. (This was the era of "It's the economy, stupid!" which is why Clinton was elected.)
Bill Clinton's fiscal policies led to the greatest sustained period of economic growth in US history. He balanced the budget, despite Republicant opposition, reversing the Reagan/Bush policies of borrow-and-spend. He kept America out of foreign wars, despite his wise use of America's military power when it was needed. His presidency was a resounding success, and, almost unique among American presidents, he left office even more popular than when he was first elected. This, despite Republicants impeaching him for getting a blow job in the oval office (those GOOPers are nuts).
Bush II managed to be a worse president than even Reagan. He turned Clinton's massive budget surplus into the most enormous deficits the World had ever seen - in less than a year. He presided over 9/11, ignoring the warnings from American's security community. He lied to get us into a unnecessary war, he destroyed America's standing in the world, he created a $1 trillion deficit in his final year, and he caused a worldwide economic collapse, he ignored the constitution, and was the darling of American conservatives - until the stock market crashed.
Obama is probably the smartest and most capable president we've ever had. His style is subtle and non-confrontational. It is far too early to say much about his policies, other than that he has already brought us back from the brink of Bush's economic disaster, and he has markedly improved our standing among our allies, and even has improved the respect with which we are seen by our global competitors.
GROG…
Who on earth is “worried” about Palin? (Except the GOP, knowing what damage a loose cannon like her can inflict.)
Is this the best spin you can put on things? That anyone would really be afraid of the woman who single-handled led the GOP to disaster last year?
I see you need some time in re-education camp, comrade. (Watch how, in her “explanation” of the bailout, she has to keep glancing down to check her talking points, and how she then had to have John McCain sit in on (and interrupt when the going got tough) an interview with Katie Couric.)
This is the dumb bunny progressives are supposed to be afraid of?
I think this really is the best that you can do. Please, by all means keep it up! Not just here but everywhere.
Shrinkers, Mindlesss, Prag, Todd:
You guys are living in some kind of fairy tale world.
Reagan was a complete disaster. He destroyed the US economy
Here is the truth on Reagan.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/BG1414.cfm
Mike in Maryland said...
The one who drinks watered down wine
Dammit, I can't take it anymore! First off, grog is water and RUM. Secondly, his name is GROG, not "Drinker of GROG", hence he wouldn't be "the one who drinks watered down rum", he'd be just plain "watered down rum."
In fact, why don't you skip these names altogether, as every time I see them in your posts I tend to roll my eyes and stop paying attention to the rest of it. You're embarrassing yourself and by extension embarrassing those who agree with your ideology.
And I say all this as a (for the most part) liberal!
The Heritage Foundation? That's like getting the truth about the 9/11 terrorist attacks from Alex Jones. It is GROG who lives in his fairy tale world. Notice that he never debates: he just regurgitates his dogma over and over again. He seems to need to do this in order to keep himself brainwashed.
GROG…
Here’s an appropriate cover of the “scariness of Sarah Palin”, from last year but still apropos given what day it is. Please note that the creatures running away from her are supposed to be real ghosts and goblins and witches.
Hee hee! Yeah, enjoy the Heritage Foundation talking points, Grog. I remain underwhelmed by them.
Having lived through Ronnie, I distinctly recall the reality of it. I hardly need a spinmeister to tell me what happened. Deficit growth to about $4 trillion (if you include his raiding of the Social Security trust fund) says nearly all that needs to be said - that, and the beginning of the redistribution of American wealth from the middle class to the super-rich, the class-warfare policy that Bush II really ran with.
But let's also not forget the Iran-Contra scandal, and the "shadow government" he tried to establish within the Executive branch.
Reagan. Worst. President. Ever.
Till Bush II outdid him.
Shrinkers, there's little point in trying to enlighten GROG. He'll just repost the dogma again. GROG has let the neoFascist dogma absorb his brain, to the point that he is less than human. He is instead an automaton who has no definition beyond the teabagger dogma. He is just like an al-Qaeda drone, so poisoned by hate propaganda that he is a dogma recorder and nothing else.
You know what the Republican party should have done a year ago? They should have recruited some blue-collar guy - maybe a plumber's assistant - and given him a fake name and a fake job description. That fake guy could have become an instant icon, and could have got all mad because Obama was going to keep him from buying a business he couldn't ever possibly afford anyway. Then he would merely have to speak the magic word "socialism", and the nation would automatically believe this icon. Who wouldn't believe a fake plumber with a fake name, no matter what they said.
After that, it would have been easy to defeat Obama. Conservatism has so much credibility, and the word "socialism" resonates so well with the electorate, that McCain could have won in a landslide.
Instead, the Republicans just went on and on about what a nice guy Obama was, how cool it would be to have the first bi-racial President, and how similar Obama's political beliefs were to those of Barry Goldwater.
So, the GOP dropped the ball and failed to let anyone know what Obama was all about until after the election. As it turns out, Obama wasn't really a Republican at all, and now the nation is really steamed and terrified because they thought that he was.
Is that about it, Grog?
GROG said...
Shrinkers, Mindlesss, Prag, Todd:
You guys are living in some kind of fairy tale world.
~~~~~~~~~~.
No, that would be turdblossom, who actually thought he was leading ;) the party of No! to a permanent Rep majority ... bwahaha!
The end result of his genius! Obama over McCain 53/46, the biggest Dem victory since 1964 and the Dems annihilating the Reps in '06 and '08 ~ Thanx turd for your genius, political math in '06 lol and fairy tale aspirations. :)
This is the current Rep reality, no fairy tale, eh. So please continue the disingenuous smugness er idiocy re: the political landscape as it's somewhat amusing.
btw Grog, you sound just like turdblossom ...
take care, blessings
@Inkan1969
You're right. I post not in an effort to enlighten Grog (I know he's beyond hope), but to insure that any readers who may be unaware of some of the issues are exposed to a second point of view.
"Certainly, the conventional wisdom would be that when the Republican candidate suspends her campaign and encourages her supporters to vote for someone else, it would help the Conservative candidate more than the Democrat."
I suppose so, but the more obvious and relevant observation would be that subtracting the Republican from any race helps the Democrat enormously, period.
shrinkers, I think you've gotten hold of some bad Kool-Aid.
Hee hee! Yeah, enjoy the Heritage Foundation talking points, Grog. I remain underwhelmed by them.
Interesting how no one has disputed any facts in the article.
GROG wrote:
"Interesting how no one has disputed any facts in the article."
Yes, it's almost as if nobody takes you seriously, isn't it?
Facts and the truth hurt sometimes.
GROG wrote:
"Facts and the truth hurt sometimes."
Well, it's a good thing that you are completely safe from both by keeping a wide distance from them at all times.
Okay, Grog, I'll dispute the spin of the Heritage Foundation. Just one one point, because one point is enough to show the way they are misrepresenting the data:
"Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
* For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
* For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
* For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989."
I will grant the accuracy of the raw data. (I have no access to other data - I'm simply willing to grant this for the sake of logical argument). The article neglects to inform us why the taxes payed by these groups increased. You may note that the article does not address the changes in income among various income-groups during the period.
Real wages for the lower 80% of American workers declined during the Reagan era, so naturally they payed a smaller percentage of taxes. Income of the upper 20% increased, so again, they naturally payed more taxes.
Any economy is driven by demand. Most of the demand is generated by the lower 80% of income earners. Reducing their income leads to an unsustainable false economy, which eventually culminated in the worldwide collapse of 2008.
No matter how Heritage wants to spin it, the federal debt grew during Reagan from about $1 trillion to nearly $5 trillion - so claims of Republicans being the party of "fiscal responsibility" are simply hollow and absurd.
All of Heritage's numbers are taken out of context in the sorts of ways illustrated by this single example. Reagan was an absolute disaster.
SHRINKERS
nice work debunking the Reagan mythology - Heritage does like to twist the truth to try to fit their fantasy & justify their perverted neo-con revisionist history...
and while I agree with your conclusion that "Reagan was an absolute disaster."
I would add another adjective to your description of RR's legacy - an absolute UNMITIGATED disaster - but Bush 43 was even worse imho
Real wages for the lower 80% of American workers declined during the Reagan era
That is absolutely not true. It may be true according to Michael Moore, but it is absolutely false here in the real world.
Debunked, my ass.
GROGGY
well since you dispute SHRINKERS facts, why not provide your own data source that will show how the real wages of the average person improved under RR...
hhmmm...din't expect you to be able to back up your position - as usual. not holding my breathe either...
RR was a total tool, albeit a highly successful sock puppet of vested special interests
Grog: "Incomes of the top 5 percent rose more than 27 percent, to about $120,000, and the highest 20 percent went up about 25 percent, to around $70,000. The next 20 percent of income earners saw a nominal rise in wealth during the 1980s, while the rest, 60 percent of Americans, saw no rise at all or, in the case of the lowest two-fifths, actually saw a decline in income and savings. In fact, income inequality rose each year of the Reagan administration, while taxes were correspondingly lowered and the national debt grew."
Source: http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/HoustonChronicle_com%20-%20Reality%20behind%20lofty%20rhetoric%20on%20Reagan%20legacy.htm
MATT laid the hammer on the TROGlodyte - BAM !
Thank you, Matt. I was too lazy to look it up.
@Matt -
The next 20 percent of income earners saw a nominal rise in wealth during the 1980s
I also wanted to point out, "rise in wealth" is not the same as "rise in income". Much of the "rise in wealth" of this group was due to increases in real estate prices. The real buying power - i.e., real wages - of this group pretty much held constant. Which is why their taxes, as percent of the total, declined slightly - the income of the top 20% rose dramatically.
GROG
read the rest of the article. Since you will refuse to link to it, here are the relevant FACTS from the same source from MATT:
"In fact, income inequality rose each year of the Reagan administration, while taxes were correspondingly lowered and the national debt grew. Adding to the economic burden of working Americans, public services were deeply cut at federal, state and municipal levels, and, because of the tight-money policies pursued by the administration and federal reserve system, wages remained low, if not falling.
In fact, weekly per worker income dropped substantially during the Reagan years. Where the average American might take home a paycheck for $366 in 1972, she would earn $312 in 1987. Median family income, about $31,000 a year in 1973, plummeted in the early 1980s until recovering to 1973 levels in the late 1980s. After-tax median income, however, remained well below 1970s-era levels because of the redistribution of wealth caused by the tax cuts and debts regimen of the Reagan years.
The data on family income is likewise striking. Only the top 20 percent of Americans saw an increase in family income between 1977 and 1988, with the top 10th gaining an increase of about $17,000, the top 5 percent seeing an extra $31,000, and the top 1 percent with a whopping $134,000 increase. Middle-class and working Americans, however, saw declines in real income from about $600 to $1,600 in the Reagan era.
Real wages fell also. Where the median pay for working men in 1973 was a little over $10 an hour in 1973, it fell to $8.85 by 1987. The average worker without an advanced degree might have made about $24,000 a year in the early 1970s, but by the end of the Reagan years, that was down to around $18,000. Exacerbating such economic problems, millions of jobs were "downsized" or fled overseas, while unions, traditionally the source of better wages and working conditions, were further crushed.
So, as we listen to the testimonials to Reagan, as we reflect upon his visions, presidency and goals, we must, for the sake of historical integrity and political realism, acknowledge his economic policies. "Reaganomics" took wealth and income from working people and reallocated it to the wealthy via huge tax cuts, job losses and debts. He caused a reduction in wages for the majority of Americans. He spent trillions on the Pentagon but cut services to the average American. Today, as we survey a generation of job losses, of wage cuts, of opportunities lessened, we have to make that part of the Reagan legacy as much as his lofty rhetoric and patriotic imagery."
---------------------------------
put THAT in your corn-cob pipe & smoke it cuz RR screwed this country butt good...
Thanks DCM. I guess I was wrong. I understated the extent to which Reagan screwed the nation. Maybe I even praised him with faint damns. I appreciate the correction.
60 percent of Americans is not 80 percent first of all.
Second of all, your quoting a history professor named Bob what from where? Where did he get his figures?
Ahh, been fun watching the left-wing loons beside themselves over the past few hours. Me, I've been out with the kids taking candy from dumb liberals.
Libs, your problem is you don't understand what conservatism is. You think conservatism equates to extreme socially conservative positions. You think conservatism is some kook right-wing fringe.
Let me educate you, you imbeciles. Conservatism is about LIMITED government. Liberalism / Progressivism is about EXPANDED government.
The people on the "right" of the GOP who have been passing themselves off as conservatives over the past 20 years are not conservatives because they believe in expanded government as much as the liberals do, only with slightly different ideals. How else do you explain the bludgeon of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion?
Most Americans believe in limited government versus big government. That's why the liberal agenda is ultimately doomed.
That, and the fact that Marxists have only succeeded at the end of the barrel of a gun, and in this country, it's the other side with the guns, despite 30 years of attempts to disarm us. Thank God for the 2nd amendment.
Pass the popcorn!
Mike, you seem to be talking about libertarians, not conservatives. Ask most conservatives how they feel about abortion. Talk to Ron Paul. There's a difference.
Oh and Mike, you are right about conservatives. They believe in a vastly intrusive government. They are a hypocritical bunch, yes.
MIKE
your idea of LIMITED government seems to be to LIMIT government to waging wars of aggression around the world & burdening your kids & all future generations with the debt since it is YOUR ilk that does not want to pay your own bills
so, are you now disavowing St. Ronald ?
cuz he was NOT a true conservative under your definition... not by any means...
BOTH RR & Shrub 43 vastly expanded the federal government & spent far more than they took in & expanded the scope og government intrusion into our private lives [Patriot Act, and on & on]
plus both believed in the imperial powers of the POTUS & a stacked activist SCOTUS - which should be totally unacceptable to any true 'conservative' or libertarian
DCM -
I'm pretty sure St Ronnie - and, no question, the Shrub - are Marxist libruls compared to true conservatives like Mike.
We're talking about the Palin Revolution here, the guys represented by Hoffman in NY-23 (bringing it back to topic). They're going to take the country back. Just as soon as they exceed 5% of the population.
Grog: I'm sorry, I thought you were literate. Notice the line at the bottom of the page? You could also have used google. Or looked at the url. Or looked him up on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Buzzanco. Also, it's "you're," not "your."
Odd that you ask for sources, when you gave none of your own (See no reference for your real wages claim, also your earlier source mentions "growing surpluses" without any reference). Numbers are presumably official government figures, though admittedly no source is given. Too lazy to mess with excel or lotus files, myself, either way.
@shrinkers
Actually that is one issue where Ron Paul does go with his religion on (and somewhat counter to the Libertarian Party platform, officially they are "no abortion laws" but unofficially they appear to be 10th Ammendment, which is a mostly wishy-washy "punt"). The reasoning, and this runs counter to what the Supreme Court found, is that there is a person once conception has occured. It isn't particularly logical, medically speaking, to make the distinction there but that's how he justifies it. *shrug*
Ron Paul is kinda iffy libertarian on other social issues, too. But he's a lot closer. He's more a mixture of libertarian and endorsement of localized totalitarian.
Next, I'm hoping Grog, who is so enamoured of facts and truth, will point out one single example of an American hoping for another terrorist attack to make Dubya look bad.
It should be incredibly easy to do this because, according to him, the Democratic Party is simply a "lunatic leftwing fringe".
Meanwhile, the "sensible" wingnuts predicted that by now we would be experiencing hyperinflation and a worthless currency due to "socialism".
In contrast to the "lunatic leftwing fringe", the "serious" conservatives are now engaged in discussion about which foreign country the President was actually born in. Their lawsuits have been dismissed by every Court, but this is due to "corruption", of course. Per these "highly regarded" conservatives, the fortunes of Microsoft and Comcast are tied to Obama's Administration in some mysterious way, such that any judge with a stock portfolio would suffer financially if Obama were to be 'exposed'.
And it is the completely credible conservative leaders who insist that Medicare is unconstitutional but wonderful, while at the same time gasping in horror that "Medicare for all" is the same as Stalinism - or perhaps Hitler, depending on the phase of the Moon.
As the conservative base chokes and sputters in disbelief that the American people are not rising up to overthrow their socialist overlord, "true believers" such as Grog tell us that we are the ones living in a fantasy world.
Somehow, though dissent was equivalent to treason less than a dozen months ago, these same conservatives that Grog sees as so level-headed now consider dissent to be one's patriotic duty.
With his finger firmly on the pulse of the "real" American electorate, Grog can confidently dismiss all of these contradictions by simply stating that everyone considers the Democratic Party to be a "lunatic leftwing fringe".
And so it must be, for Grog is steeped in truth and facts. He even says so himself.
Thanks, Dwight. Yes I worded it poorly - my intent in mentioning Paul was not to stress the abortion issue, but simply the difference between libertarian and conservative.
Paul goes his own way on a number of issues. He is at least thoughtful and able to mount coherent arguments, even when I disagree with him. Unlike most conservatives (and unlike Mike).
Pan,
Why do I do it? Because I can.
Why don't you turn your wrath on posters who make disparaging remarks about Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama?
You know what? I'll stop making up disparaging names of the GOOPers when they stop making up disparaging names for the Democratic Party, elected members of the Democratic Party, and people who otherwise are member of the Democratic Party. I don't expect it to happen soon, as it has been going on for 20+ years now. So expect me to continue with the style of writing you've seen here for some time.
Mike in Maryland
Matt,
The only source you could find to back up your false statement other than Michael Moore was an opinion article from a liberal history prof who specializes in Vietnam War history and who gave no sources for his "facts".
Go back to the drawing board.
I referenced an article that actually had sources provided. It looks something like this:
1. This paper is an update of an earlier Heritage Foundation publication on the Reagan record by Peter J. Ferrara, "What Really Happened in the 1980s?" in Issues '94: The Candidate's Briefing Book (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 1994), pp. 3-23; copies available upon request.
2. Joint Economic Committee, The Great Expansion: How It Was Achieved and How It Can Be Sustained, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 2000, pp. 4-6.
3. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., Table 2.1, p. 27.
6. Ibid., Table 1.3, p. 23.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., Table 8.2, p. 118.
9. Ibid. and Table 8.1, p. 117.
10. Robert Bartley, The Seven Fat Years (New York: Free Press, 1992), pp. 135, 144.
11. Richard B. McKenzie, What Went Right in the 1980s (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1994), p. 8.
12. Bartley, The Seven Fat Years, p. 6.
13. McKenzie, What Went Right in the 1980s, p. 277.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., p. 278.
16. Alan Reynolds and Norman Ture, "The Real Reagan Record," National Review, August 31, 1992, p. 31.
17. McKenzie, What Went Right in the 1980s, p. 276.
Didn't Mike state earlier that the conflict is between "liberals" and "conservatives"?
Now, it's between "Marxists" and "libertarians".
Like most of those on the Right, there seems to be no contradiction that cannot be resolved by a simple re-definition of terms. The key is to stridently insist that your new definition has always been the one that you believed in, and that "everyone" knows that it means whatever you currently say it does.
Just as "victory" in Iraq was re-defined as "whatever The Decider says it is today", the word "socialism" is now re-defined as "anything Obama does". Apparently these two words had no definition whatsoever before Bush or Obama came on the scene, because "everyone knows" what these words mean now.
@Mike:
You wrote "You're also forgetting that Obama took the District 52-47. (There's a good reason for that, that no one is talking about either.)"
Care to enlighten us as to what that means?
@Grog
OMG! Footnotes! We are so incredibly impressed!
Doesn't alter the argument, that you now have footnotes but no facts to be footnoted.
So okay, conservatiards quote each other and misuse OMB data. We already knew that.
It is amazing how in the space of two weeks of Sarah Palin after Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement endorsed Doug Hoffman, the left has gone from predicting an Owens win in a "moderate" Obama supporting district because the conservatives were destroying the GOP to now making excuses that Hoffman was always going to win this conservative district and contradictorily that Owens was actually too conservative to win.
Hoffman should win because he was a conservative alternative to two liberals.
Owens is not anywhere close to being a conservative. There is no part of the Obama socialist agenda he would oppose. Owens is on record for raising taxes and government health insurance. In short, he is a NY liberal and appears that he will lose because he was a liberal.
What is far more interesting is that NY-23 is no more conservative than and more liberal than many of about 80 other districts won by Bush and/or McCain that are currently occupied by Dem congress critters. What the Tea Party movement did in NY 23 with a relatively inexperienced conservative candidate should be able to be duplicated in 2010 across the country of the GOP runs conservatives.
shrinkers:
Try to keep up. The facts are in the Heritage Foundation article. There are sources to back up the facts unlike the opine article by the Vietnam War history professor that Matt referenced.
Oh, and Pan?
According to Wikipedia, grog can be made with:
- water or "small beer" (a weak beer) and rum, and was the original 'grog' served in the British navy;
- modern versions substitute the "small beer" with hot or boiling water, and sometimes include lemon juice, lime juice, cinnamon or sugar to improve the taste;
- Rum with water, sugar and nutmeg is known as bumboo and was more popular with pirates and merchantmen;
- in Australia and New Zealand, the word has come to mean any alcoholic drink;
- In Sweden and some subcultures within the English-speaking world, grog is a common description of drinks not made to a recipe, but by mixing various kinds of alcohol (but just one kind of liquor [most commonly vodka or brännvin]) and one kind of a non-alcoholic beverage (soda, fruit juice or similar ingredient);
- In Fiji the term "grog" refers to a drink made by pounding sun-dried kava root into a fine powder and mixing it with cold water.
Now tell me again that it is water and rum, and ONLY water and rum?
If I wanted to please you, I COULD change the sarcastic descriptive to 'the one who drinks a watered down alcoholic beverage', but I don't think I want to do that, so I'll continue with the sarcastic descriptive that I've been using. After all, in most societies, wine IS considered a beverage with an alcoholic content - not as strong as rum, vodka, schnapps, etc., but still with an alcoholic content.
Mike in Maryland
MinM
quibble, but for me & I bet many others, GROG is a troglodyte character in the BC comic strip
WIKI describes him as "a caveman's caveman"
and GROG does not really speak or make cherent sense...
imho that describes our resident incoherent troll better than a beverage, no ???
DCM in FL:
Mike has trouble with reading comprehension.
Pan's point was way over his head.
She was saying it makes no sense to call me "the one who drinks watered down......." Grog IS the drink. Grog is not something that has the ability to drink.
If he called me "watered down wine". That would make sense.
But to call me the drinker of "water down wine" makes no sense.
@Grog -
No one disputed the facts. We disagreed with the idiot spin that Heritage gave them, and the stupidity of anyone who would buy Heritage's absurd interpretation.
If I wanted to please you, I COULD change the sarcastic descriptive to 'the one who drinks a watered down alcoholic beverage', but I don't think I want to do that, so I'll continue with the sarcastic descriptive that I've been using. After all, in most societies, wine IS considered a beverage with an alcoholic content - not as strong as rum, vodka, schnapps, etc., but still with an alcoholic content.
See what I mean? He totally missed it.
Oh, and we also pointed out a lot of facts that Heritage neglected, such as the redistribution of wealth that happened under Reagan (reverse Robin Hood, rob for the poor, give to the rich) and the insane ballooning of debt due to his indefensible economic policies.
shrinkers:
You gave one example of spin but were unable to back up the facts you quoted. (Real wages for the lower 80% of American workers declined during the Reagan era.)
In Matt's failed attempt to help you out, he actually contradicted your facts.
in the case of the lowest two-fifths, actually saw a decline in income and savings.
Two fifths is half of 80%.
And the only source for that was the Vietnam history prof.
Grog: Quit the hypocrisy. You're citing the opinion piece of a conservative (He works for the Heritage Foundation, which pays him for, among other things, his conservative point of view), making unsourced claims (See what I said about the "surplusses" claim), written for a conservative publication. I'll also point out that his indentation indicates that all of his article, other than the first two paragraphs, is a direct quote from his second source. This clearly isn't the case.
Your other two complaints (qualifications, references) have a little more basis in fact...I can't actually find any information on what Peter Sperry has a PhD in, or where it's from. I assume it's a non-honorary degree in economics. I have more faith in a historian getting the facts right than an economist, even if his degree focuses on a period a decade earlier. I have no great distrust of economists; I just view them as more likely to focus on proving their pet economic theory.
Regardless, this is completely besides the point. None of their figures contradict each other. Sperry looks at GDP, tax revenues, and federal spending, while Buzzanco looks at individual incomes and wealth as well as the national debt. There's basically no overlap on the numbers they provide.
As for references, all numbers they give are released by the federal government and are a matter of public record. It certainly would be nice if Buzzanco specified the exact US government tables they came from, but it's an opinion piece for a newspaper, and you generally don't provide explicit references for those. Rare to see references in opinion pieces in general.
Oh yea, and sorry for the illiterate comment, but it was right there at the bottom of the article, same place it was for Sperry. Looks to me like you don't care about Sperry's qualifications, only about Buzzanco's, and I find hypocrisy rather irritating.
To all those who think this race has national implications, please be advised that New York's Conservative Party has been doing this kind of thing for YEARS. In the context of the hissy fit being thrown by Republicans at the national level, this may appear to be a symptom of anger at Obama, but in fact it is a move the Cons. Party have made many times before.
And, in some respects, it has been a very effective move. New York used to have many liberal Republicans along the lines of Jacob Javits and John Lindsay, but not any more. Now candidates feel that they must move to the right in the hope of getting the Cons. Party endorsement or risk exactly what happened to Scozzafava.
But while it has been effective in moving the Republican Party to an ideological place in the spectrum more pleasing the the Conservative Party, it has also moved the Republicans to a place which is further from where the VOTERS are today. New York State has three Republican Congresspersons out of 29, and, after Tuesday, it will have...three. If Hoffman wins; if he doesn't, the number will be two. Six years ago, there were ten Repubs in New York's delegation, so you tell me what the trend looks like.
What has happened in NY-23 is that the teabaggers and their ilk energized the Conservative Party into using a tried-and-true tactic that has worked many times before, and appears to be working again. But if Hoffman wins, what will have really changed? Given the level of discipline shown by Republican Congresspersons in the past, how would Scozzafava have voted differently from Hoffman?
Indeed, the differences between the two which are most often cited are Scozzafava's positions on gay rights and abortion -- social issues which have no power to decide the outcome in more than a tiny handful of NY Congressional districts. The Club For Growth, which doesn't give a fuck about either abortion or gay rights as long as the rich are taxed as minimally as possible, is trying the old tactic of using social issues to get an economic conservative elected. This has worked less and less of late, but there are still, it appears, a handful of places where it does, and NY-23 is one of them.
But in the rest of the country, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
@slasher14
Excellent points. NY-23 has zero national significance - except in so far as it can serve to further shove the Republicans to the right, and, thereby, make them increasingly insignificant.
Mike:
I'll take you at your word that conservatism as used by those who selfidentify with it now as meaning "limited government", but it traditionally simply means conserving policy, i.e. not allowing how things work to change or, when they are allowed to change, only chnging them regressively. This is why dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies, slavery, serfdom, etc. is always thought of as conservative, because the people trying to preserve those things or resurrect them have historically been conservative and, in the case of places that still suffer under such policies, the people trying to overthrow them are always the liberals and those trying to preserve them are conservatives. For an example of this, the people in Iran trying to get rid of Ahmadinejad were the liberals, and they also are the same people trying now to end the theocracy in Iran despite almost all of them following the state religion by choice. Something that's confused me greatly is that American conservatives want the conservativism and bellicosity of their politicians to be maximized, and yet when they see an example of this in the Iranian president they are put off... but I digress.
Something you don't seem to understand about liberalism, though, is that it isn't expanded government for the sake of expanded government in the same way you claim that conservatives want to limit government for the sake of limiting it. Liberalism is about producing the best possible world to live in for people as the people see fit, and to that end they are willing to allow government to expand as the people see fit. For example, it is better that people be able to mail eachother things than not, so there is a US Postal Service because were there no US Postal Service many places in the country would not receive regular mail delivery or at the very least the service would be prohibitively expensive (for evidence of this, look to FedEx accepting packages and then turning them over to the US Postal Service for delivery). Liberals only differ from conservatives on this point in that conservatives want to limit the freedoms of the people by arbitrarily limiting the government from expanding at all whereas liberals don't want to take away that freedom.
Excellent comments, Piddlesworth.
Generally, conservatives want government to be small enough to fit into your bedroom.
Liberals want government to be large enough to prevent corporations from becoming military dictatorships.
Conservatives seem to have trouble keeping a sense of context - taxes are bad, regardless of what they are used to pay for. Liberals have a sense of social responsibility - helping a neighbor to not die senselessly is worthwhile, making sure our children are educated is a noble cause - even if I have to pay a tax to accomplish these things.
Bart DePalma said...
the left has gone from predicting an Owens win
~~~~~~~~~~
??? Who at 538 predicted an Owens win? as it would be kinda foolish to predict a Dem win in a district which hasn't elected a Dem congressman since 1850. Whereas, (((if))) Owens does win next Tuesday, most of the 538 wingers may want to take the day off from 538, eh.
>
>
>
and Grog really, are you a masochist? as well as clueless and an idiot.
just wonderin' ...
take care, blessings
@Mike in Maryland
Yes, yes, I know how to access wikipedia, too. You know what? A "martini" can also be made with vodka. Still makes you look like a damned idiot when you try to correct the bartender when he takes the gin off the shelf to make yours.
My point isn't just about you calling names. My point is that you are BAD at it. Others here (on both sides) play that game a lot better than you. When you do it, you just look like a fool.
Grog: My source actually does not necessarily contradict the 80% number. If one says "the incomes of the poorest 80% of Americans went down", one generally means the mean decreased. The incomes of the second to richest 20% (ie the top 25% of the 80%) may well have gone up, or remained unchanged, but as you're looking at the average....
That's not to say I think the 80% number is correct, just that it's not necessarily a direct contradiction. Nor are any of those numbers contradicted by your source, so stop claiming otherwise.
My post was just in support of the jobs and deficit numbers being provided.
@shiloh: "Who at 538 predicted an Owens win?"
To be fair, one very important person at 538 predicted an Ownens win:
I wouldn't call Hoffman the favorite but it's close -- I'd give him a 45 percent chance of winning, Owens a 50 percent chance, and Scozzafava no more than a fleeting, 5 percent chance.
Also:
It would also not be totally shocking if Hoffman won this race [...]But this poll would not give me particularly more confidence in that outcome
Hint: His name starts with "N" and ends with "ate Silver."
I'm sorry, but this is just wishful thinking on how the Scozzafava supporters are going to break. Sure they say they dislike Hoffman in the three way race, but watch that change now. How many of those Hilary Clinton voters who were threatening to vote for McCain over Obama do you think actually did so?
When the Club for Growth candidate (Andy Harris)in MD-1 lost to a Democrat in an R+13 district, it's odd that this did not herald a national trend to 'conservatives'.
When they are successful, these 'conservatives' cast their victories as part of some national tide. When they fail, it means nothing; look over there, something shiny.
In other words, their strategy always works, except for those times that it doesn't. And we are supposed to take these geniuses seriously.
Hey, I flipped a coin and called it in the air correctly. I'm an infallible psychic. Never mind about the previous four times that I called it wrong, because they don't count.
PAN
that was hardly a prediction of a win. Nate projected a 'toss-up' between Hoffman & Owens with Major QUALIFICATIONs: based upon a 3-way race and subject to the polling data that was available at that time...
now today as the metrics have shifted for this particular race with Scozz suspending her campaign [but still on the ballot next week], Nate says he believes that Hoffman will probably pull it out.
My question is: does NY have early voting in this race ? how many absentee or other ballots may have already been cast for Scozz ?
any district 23 residents that can enlighten us on this ???
any early voting #'s available ???
@DCM
If shiloh had qualified it with "who at 538 has predicted an Owens win after Scoz dropped out?" then yeah, that'd be valid. I simply answered the question he answered. Nate gave Owens the highest chance of winning. If you can't call that "predicting an Owens win", I don't think you're being intellectually honest.
And yes, it was done when it was a three way race. That's a fair point. Won't disagree with it. But it does answer the question that shiloh actually asked.
Pan said...
~~~~~~~~~~
To be fair, no Dem predicted Owens has a 100% chance of winning. As I feel there's a 75% chance that 90% of the wingers at 538 are totally clueless ;) but I can't be totally certain ...
100% is certitude in one's prediction, 50% not so much.
There are very few absolutes in life, but bat shit crazy winger trolls surfing 538 on a daily basis is pretty close to a sure thing. ;)
Whereas Rudy said this will be a blowout and greatone lol said Doug Hoffman was now running away with it
to be sure, reminds me of the wingers at RCP last year who said w/absolute certainty McCain would win in a landslide over Obama ... and the pundits who said Hillary had no chance in NH.
ie polls can be misleading, eh ...
carry on
@shiloh
Ah, so now we're redefining a prediction as having to have 100% certainty.
When you use absurd logic like this, you just become a liberal version of BDP and GROG.
Saying that giving someone a 50% chance is predicting they'll win really isn't much better.
PAN
again, I would disagree with you.
as Nate made clear all last year during the cycle - he makes 'projections based on available polling date' and those PROJECTIONS are subject to change if/as conditions change
NOTE: Nate does not make a 'prediction' per se UNTIL election day...
therefore, Nate never 'predicted' an Owens victory - he merely projected that 'based upon polling data available' [before today] that at best he would 'project' a toss-up between Hoffman & Owens [45/50]
now, I fully anticipate that by Monday, Nate will again alter his projection #'s & make an election eve 'prediction' in that race
and it will most likely be for Hoffman
but I do not agree that you can clearly state that Nate actually 'predicted' Owens would be victorious
that is parsing his posts on this race too much
quote: "Gun to my head? Sure, I'd take Hoffman at this point. But..."
notice the disclaimers...
semantics matter
Pan said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Again, since you want to parse every word, which btw, is what BDP and Grog do daily ... 50% is just that, 50%, predicting it should be close not overwhelming evidence that someone is gonna win.
and he said, the left has gone from predicting meaning every progressive at 538 and you came up w/one who said 50% chance which as I said predicts it will be close, nothing more, nothing less ...
Have a nice day!
10/30/2009
'2009 Elections Preview: NY-23 -- A Toss-Up, Indeed, Between Owens, Hoffman'
by Nate Silver @ 1:27 PM
========================
PAN, deal with it...
hi there SHILOH
hope you had a Happy Halloween
always a pleasure to read your posts
DCM
DCM in FL said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Thanx
As it was the first Halloween in (8) years w/a Dem as president ... :)
and Ohio State won and Michigan and Southern Cal lost, but, but but those damn Yankees won lol.
btw, how ridiculous is it having the World Series in November, I digress.
for PAN & others on this site who are still unclear about how & when Nate makes a 'prediction' - please read his FAQs [linked at the top left of the page]
here is just part of his own [edited] description of how he operates:
Process Overview
The basic process for computing our [Presidential] projections consists of six steps:
1. Polling Average: Aggregate polling data, and weight it according to our reliability scores.
2. Trend Adjustment: Adjust the polling data for current trends.
3. Regression: Analyze demographic data in each state by means of regression analysis.
4. Snapshot: Combine the polling data with the regression analysis to produce an electoral snapshot. This is our estimate of what would happen if the election were held today.
5. Projection: Translate the snapshot into a projection of what will happen in November, by allocating out undecided voters and applying a discount to current polling leads based on historical trends.
===================================
NOTE: Nate clearly states numerous times that he 'projects' - he does not give 'predictions' in advance...
and that he constantly adjusts for current trends...
and that he only gives SNAPSHOTS as if the election was being held today...
just sayin'...
same modeling holds true for the NJ Gov election [and VA too]
Wow, this quibbling over the word "predict" has become rather sad. Now you're trying to redefine it and say Nate isn't making "predictions", he's making "projections", because he qualifies them with percentages of certainty.
As counterexample, I give you his Oscar PREDICTIONS:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/for-entertainment-purposes-only.html
I use a database of the last thirty years of Oscar history to predict the recipient's of this Sunday's Academy Awards.
[...]
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight (86% chance of victory)
Best Supporting Actress: Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (51% chance of victory)
(Emphasis mine)
Uh huh. So I guess saying someone has a 50% chance of winning (and the next highest candidate 45%) isn't a prediction, but 51% is? It's a bizarre world some people are trying to claim we live in.
@DCM: As far as the toss-up thing, if you read the article you'll see that's a comment on if the race had been a two candidate race from the start. That's why he can predict both a toss-up in that hypothetical race and an Owens win in the real race. There's no conflict between those two analyses.
And though Scoz has dropped out, she is still on the ballot. People can and will still vote for her.
@shiloh: I wasn't addressing the blanket statement. I don't agree with it. I was simply addressing your direct question. If you don't want a question (rhetorical or otherwise) to be answered on an internet forum, you shouldn't ask it. Or you should be more specific and ask a question in the way you mean it. Example: "Can you name a large number of people at 538 who predicted an Owens win?"
I just answered the question you asked. Sorry it causes you and others so much consternation.
Why does anyone Right or Left respond to the likes of BdP, Rudy, Grog, etc. We should just boycott their responses. Let them find another Blog.
PAN
your argument fails because there is a clear difference between a 'prediction' and a 'projection' by your own admittance.
yes, Nate 'predicted' the Academy Awards as a lark - you saw how that turned out...
but for political elections, Nate does 'projections' with those disclaimers...
deal with it
a rather small quibble, yes - but imho it does matter when you use his old 'projections' improperly & out-of-context when facts & trends have changed dramatically
case in point, Nate may well have 'projected' months ago that Corzine had a poor probablity to be re-elected.
fact was, he did at that time. BUT now this weekend, Corzine would have to be even money [maybe better than that] - and that is a pity when a bad politician wins anyway no matter which party...
Obi-Beeg:
Because regardless of their sincerity, their professed thoughts are shared by some people who vote, and thus their professed thoughts are important enough to respond to. The great thing about democracy is that you are incentivized to care about the well-being of your neighbor including their mental well-being, as opposed to the libertarian dream of not giving a fuck about anyone but yourself.
Pan said...
~~~~~~~~~~
No consternation, I had my say and you had yours and maybe I should have been more explicit, rather than implicit re: my reply, but I have since given my interpretation of said discussion and will let it lie.
No biggie, as no one at 538 gets me upset, typing words on a keyboard being such a detached function.
take care
btw, liberals arguing w/other liberals is just as much fun as arguing w/wingers even the over mundane crap like grammar and coherence. At the last political forum I frequented liberals argued all the time re: everything w/each 'cause hey, that's what progressives do best, argue.
Part of the reason I'm at 538 is all the conservative wingers left that other forum after Obama won! Shocking! ;)
did I mention liberals never go away or retreat from any political discussion ~ ok, as I repeat myself a lot ...
@DCM: We have your claim against my own evidence from Nate's words, saying that he was "predicting" with a 51% chance of certainty.
Your only counter-argument appears to be "but, but, that was Oscars, this is politics, the word 'prediction' means something different here!" Forgive me for finding that a laughable excuse.
As far as it being an old prediction, yup, sure enough! Did I ever claim it wasn't? But, again, shiloh didn't ask "Who at 538 is predicting an Owens win?" Shiloh asked "Who at 538 predicted an Owens win?"
I say again - I simply answered shiloh's question. I'm not trying to claim much beyond that. Nate did predict an Owens win. The situation has changed. I doubt he would give a 50/45/5 prediction today. Predictions (forecasts, projections, whatever you want to call them) change from day to day as the facts change. There's no shame in that. It's not a knock on Nate.
So, shiloh, feel free to ask about current projects. When you ask that question, I won't be bringing up Nate's previous predictions.
OBI
I am sure that the posters that you mentioned do inhabit other blogs - despite infesting this one
many such as Pete Kent also are unabashed serial spammers across the blogoshere
I would recommend they start their own Borg blog & create their own alternative fantasy universe fwiw
their avatars would be a hoot - I mean GROG, ugh... lol
@shiloh: Understood and agreed. My comment wasn't ever a shot at you or Nate, though it seems to have gotten DCM's hackles up. It was just a good-natured comment that I thought pertinent to the question asked. Nate did consider Owens a very slight favorite given the features of the race, and I agreed with him.
The thing that got my hackles up wasn't just a "yeah, you're right but I really meant predictions now", but DCMs attempt to claim that Nate never predicted anything. It was an utterly bizarre response.
Like you, I have fun arguing. I just don't much care when people make bizarre arguments like DCM did. Similar when Mike in Maryland keeps making his weirdo nicknames that don't actually work. That makes me scratch my head much more than people who have an ideological bent the opposite of mine.
Have a good night!
PAN
I do not mind this semantic discussion with you, as it remains civil discourse & open for interpretation
But you are comparing apples [election polls] with oranges [oscars].
The apples are dynamic in this case, since the polling #'s are constantly in some sort of flux or subject to external influence.
that is why Nate makes clear that until election eve, he does 'projections' [not predictions]. and even then his 'prediction' will be given as a probability - seldom if ever as an absolute
on the other hand, as you mentioned, Nate did play the Acadamy Award prediction game
BUT that orange is/was based on static info since the votes had in fact already been cast & were no longer subject to further influence
and Nate made probability 'predictions' based on historical trends + the available data - which was only anecdotal rather than empirical such as verifiable polling #'s
so, I would not agree that the 2 are anywhere equivalent...
but thanks for playing nice !!!
Shiloh also plays nice as I remember from this time last year when the election was coming down to the proverbial wire
I still wish someone would answer the early voting question for NY-23, as banked votes could make a difference...
on the other hand, I actually do hope Hoffman wins cuz that will be nothin' but sour grape victory for the GOP/INDs to snatch it back from the jaws of near defeat...
anything that will keep Palin & her CON brethern in the headlines is good for the DEMs & progressives imho
OK, PAN
just read your comment that I made bizarre arguments about prdictions v projections
guess you are less than I give you credit for.
your are illogical & irrational as I spelled it out for you
and besides YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG
give it up - you are WRONG so quit digging your hole deeper
I showed you the FACTS
you gave me a bad example that actually proved my FACTS
chill pan... words have meaning & you have made a minor mistake & misinterpreted a statement
but you were supporting misinformation that came from a troll...
Obi_Beeg,
we simply must have political discourse if we are to survive as a democracy. Unfortunately, the Right side of the equation has steadily moved into an alternate reality. One of the objective means to break through that wall of delusion is with polling, the ostensible focus of this blog.
Wingnuts really need to find out that most do not accept their "truths" and revisionist histories as fact. They will not be persuaded, but they need to be exposed to reality, where people do not merely nod when they make outrageous claims, sweeping assertions, and ridiculous predictions.
We are now at the point where 20% of the nation believes that they are really 60%, and this 20% increasingly lives in a bubble where their views are never challenged. They vaguely grasp that a "tiny fringe" disagrees with them, but they never are forced to defend their views. Everything that they "know" is "common knowledge" or "common sense" that is "self-evident", so they resort to calling anyone with a contradictory view an "idiot" or a "liberal".
It is the ones who never emerge from their bubble and face the daylight that are the most dangerous. Those who come here are most likely refugees from conservative blogs that have been run off for "heresy" and are mostly looking for "kindred spirits". They will post here if people respond or not, because they have to put themselves "out there" in order to find others who share the bubble.
Pan,
When you order a traditional martini, unless you specify gin or vodka and/or unless the bartender asks you if you want gin or vodka, you get the establishment's usual and customary martini. The usual martini in most establishments is made from gin, but, as you say, it can be made with vodka. If you want to make sure you get a vodka martini, you ask the bartender specifically for a vodka martini.
Another example:
What do you call a carbonated beverage? Coke? Pop? Soda? Something else?
Depends on what part of the US you are in depends on what you call that carbonated beverage.
When I was growing up in Indiana, everyone called it 'pop', no matter the brand name. In Maryland, the generic carbonated beverage is called 'soda', no matter the brand name. In many parts of the south, any carbonated beverage is called a "Coke", no matter the brand name. Unless you specify a specific brand, you get the brand the establishment sells.
See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Sodavspopvscoke.png
Back to the martini discussion:
Unless I go into an establishment that I absolutely know dispenses a vodka martini without otherwise having to specify such, and I want a vodka martini, I will specifically ask for a vodka martini. If I ask for a martini, the establishment's usual and customary martini is made with gin, and the bar tender makes it with gin, it's not the bar tender's fault if I wanted a vodka martini, but failed to tell him/her that.
And then there are other considerations:
- Olive (with or without pits, with or without pimento) or pearl onion, and how many?
- The olives or onions on a toothpick, or floating?
- Dry or extra dry?
- Stirred or shaken?
- Which brand of gin, and which brand of vermouth?
Besides, I wouldn't order a martini, as my preferred drink is the gin and tonic (or sometimes a Madras). Which gin in the gin and tonic? I prefer Bombay Sapphire, but not every establishment carries the Bombay brand. Normally I go with a brand that is a step or two up from the 'bar brand' for the first and second drinks, but then order the 'bar brand' if I have more than two (can save money by doing that, and the alcohol, by that point, usually has dulled the taste buds enough that it is difficult, if not impossible, to taste the difference). But it's been more than three years since I've had a gin and tonic (or any mixed drink) at a drinking establishment, so I haven't had to perform due diligence in those circumstances to make sure I get what I desire. There are distinct advantages to having an occasional drink at home.
Mike in Maryland
BTW - Since your screen name is 'Pan', are you a companion of the nymphs, and do you have the hindquarters, legs, and horns of a goat, as the Greek god?
Just wondering.
Post a Comment