Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Reverse Nader Effect

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-08T07:10:18.925-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-11T03:00:06.536-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T22:05:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T22:05:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-14T02:20:00.000-05:00

If the McKinney campaign could gain any traction a...

2008-07-28T16:38:00.000-04:00

If the McKinney campaign could gain any traction and salience, she might actually help Obama by making him seem less "exotic" or new. Conservatives and the general public would have a real black radical to evaluate who makes BHO seem politically moderate and tame by comparison (2 with the VP).

I suspect that won't happen this year. Neither Barr nor Nader have had any significant visibility in the MSM so far. I doubt that this will change for the Green entrant.

Well I live in Georgia, and Obama is really workin...

2008-07-27T17:11:00.000-04:00

Well I live in Georgia, and Obama is really working hard to win this state. He is on every channel every hour of the day. Therefore, as a Proud PUMA, I will be voting for John McCain!

No Hillary means no Dem vote from me. No vote for the 'selected' candidate.

TheDenverGroup!

FYI, your link to Chris Bowers' post is broken. H...

2008-07-26T20:33:00.000-04:00

FYI, your link to Chris Bowers' post is broken. Here's the correct link.

Some talk I've seen on PUMA sites such as bitterpo...

2008-07-26T14:12:00.000-04:00

Some talk I've seen on PUMA sites such as bitterpoliticz, pumapac.org, hillaryis44.org, etc is about making Obama the McGovern of 2008. They believe he cannot win anyway (once the GOP really goes after him), but want him to lose more states than McGovern, to discredit Obama and the Dean/Brazile faction.

To this end, in close states those PUMAs will vote for McCain; but in states where the outcome is not in doubt, they may vote third party to send a clearer message.

MSS,Pollsters aren't focused on any 3rd party cand...

2008-07-25T16:54:00.000-04:00

MSS,

Pollsters aren't focused on any 3rd party candidate. Few national surveys have included Barr or Nader and even fewer state surveys have. Most ask only the two-candidate question and force responders to "volunteer" another choice or none-of-the-above.

McKinney support might have shown up in the "Other" candidate category in the ABC/Post poll question two weeks ago (3%) and the Fox poll two days ago (1%).

Other than BOLD ANONYMOUS above, why doesn't anyon...

2008-07-25T13:49:00.000-04:00

Other than BOLD ANONYMOUS above, why doesn't anyone mention Cynthia McKinney? It has long been clear that she (not Nader, who is running nonpartisan) would be the Green nominee, and it was made official about two weeks ago.

Will she draw from weak Obama voters? Or only from potential Nader voters or others who would not vote for Obama, anyway?

I have no idea, and pollsters perhaps are too fixated on Nader and Barr to notice McKinney.

This is a strong field of third-party and independent candidates, based on objective indicators such as actual experience and name recognition.

My guess is that McKinney does little to alter Nate's (and Bowers's) basic conclusion. But it would be good to include all three of these 'minor' candidates in the discussion.

As Rosemary Regello stated,"This elite cast of ele...

2008-07-25T09:09:00.000-04:00

As Rosemary Regello stated,"This elite cast of elected leaders and party officials can't vote until the convention, yet the DNC went ahead and declared Obama the winner based on their input. Even on the official website democrats.org the Chosen One was being heralded as "the Democratic nominee" within hours of the last contest. In criminal justice parlance, this is what's called perpetrating a fraud."

If the media continues to be in the tank for Senator Obama, PUMA will have to make the decision individually who to vote for. Most, like myself, will hold our nose and vote for McCain to have a larger impact of this election.

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Summer08/UndertheBus.html

Hey Hey judas_priest...I'm glad I didn't hold my b...

2008-07-25T02:28:00.000-04:00

Hey Hey judas_priest...

I'm glad I didn't hold my breath.

These Pete Kent types are the type who forego the use of the art of processing information systematically, which requires taking the time to figure out what is being requested, what the evidence is that's presented, and if contrary views are presented, or even dealt with in the first place. These people have a propensity to take short cuts, and only slightly process the information, if at all. It's all a monologue to them.

This man here has well documented these types of personality traits.

A sensible person's precious time is better spent trying to make heads or tails out of a hot steaming pile of dog feces.

If we further feed the troll it has a tendency to grow additional warts.

~JQP~ @ Silly as it Seems
.

Pete Kent:Blow it out your ass. Go back and read ...

2008-07-25T00:44:00.000-04:00

Pete Kent:

Blow it out your ass. Go back and read the exchange before you make a comment that idotic.

But then, you're not interested in what anybody else has to say, are you? You only need to answer the pounding inside you that compels you to write and write and dump the same garbage again and again.

McCain's problem is that the bulk of his polling a...

2008-07-24T20:47:00.000-04:00

McCain's problem is that the bulk of his polling against Obama is an anti-Obama vote instead of a McCain vote. With third party candidates McCain loses more than Obama. It's the reason why the polls are close yet Obama can attract big crowds and McCain can hardly fill a small hall with unenthusiastic crowd. I believe a brick would be get 40% of the vote in a two-way election with Obama.

But I think third party polling might be a bit overstated, Nader and Barr won't get more than 5% of the vote nationally.

As for the size of the PUMA vote, card-carrying P...

2008-07-24T19:07:00.000-04:00

As for the size of the PUMA vote, card-carrying PUMAs -- so to speak, ie members of the Justsaynodeal coalition groups -- number about 2.5 million. A Jy 4 poll in the real world found 9 million Clinton supporters refusing to vote for Obama, up 2 million from 7 million in early June.

In June it was 4 million staying home and 3 million voting for McCain.

Craig Della Penna crunched numbers and found that looks like a McCain landslide.
Details and cites at turndownobama.com

Jeffery - I don't know of any studies, but I have ...

2008-07-24T19:02:00.000-04:00

Jeffery - I don't know of any studies, but I have often voted for third party candidates. I refuse to vote for someone I don't like, and belive would be good at the job. I also strongly believe in voting.

As a protest vote I think that third party candidates are much better options then staying home. I think that a party really notices when a third party steals the votes they need to get over the top.

Has anybody ever done a study on how many people t...

2008-07-24T18:40:00.000-04:00

Has anybody ever done a study on how many people that say they are voting for a third party candidate actually vote?

I believe the theory that third party supporters are a group that dislikes both candidates. Third party numbers always go down on elec day. My theory is that while some of these people hold their nose and vote for the guy they dislike more, a significant number just don't bother to vote at all.

A third party vote is a protest vote. So is staying home and staying home is easier. If this was true, it would mean that the poll numbers with third parties were more accurate, because those people won't be voting for either major candidate.

This is just a theory though. I'm curious if anyone has ever done a study on it.

Way up above Anonymous said... POLL THISOBAMA BERL...

2008-07-24T17:58:00.000-04:00

Way up above Anonymous said...
POLL THIS

OBAMA BERLIN SPEECH: 'A WORLD THAT STANDS AS ONE'

This is America, son! We don;t give a damn! Margin of error????

Cpt. Porter gave a very interest portrait of how Obama really behaves. It's all for show.

AND Judas Priest: Man, they call be a long-winded bloviator! What a waste of time and typing. Who cares what you think and how you anlaze the issues? Whether you are right or wrong, its only the perception that matters. Americans will not sit through your gas-filled explanations on gas long enough to learn anything.

Please keep the polemics to a minimum!

The general rule of thumb you cite for excluding m...

2008-07-24T17:18:00.000-04:00

The general rule of thumb you cite for excluding minor party candidates is seriously flawed. Third party votes may decrease as you get nearer to an election but there is a huge difference between the 19% for Perot or 14% for Wallace even with a decline over their peak numbers and the *** impact of the red-headed league or birthday party candidates.

Even with a fall-off by half in their current meager support, Nader and Barr could have a significant impact on the EV in November with the vote they gain in individual states. You won't be able to anticipate this result because pollsters are ignoring a potentially significant variable.

Michael:The best way to get a real feel for the di...

2008-07-24T16:42:00.000-04:00

Michael:

The best way to get a real feel for the distinction would be to go to the site, the link to which I had provided. But I am posting these two examples. The first is the most recent “False” score; the second, the most recent, “Pants On Fire” one. Subjectively, the analogy I came up with is between being wrong on the one hand and being recklessly or maliciously wrong on the other. This derives from the law of defamation, which would have some relationship to this area. When the person about whom a statement is made is a public figure, even though the statement might be false, it is not defamation if the publisher of the statement acted n good faith. When, however, when the published acted with knowledge that the statement was false or else acted with “reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement,” (The Ann Coulter standard, as it were), that does constitute defamation. (If the person allegedly defame is not a public figure or engaged in a matter or public interest, then the level of mental sate of the published is lowered.)

"Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump? O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!"
John McCain on Monday, July 21st, 2008 in a TV ad

Sure, and blame Obama for bad tomatoes, too

A new television ad by Sen. John McCain's campaign seeks to exploit anger over gas prices by directing it toward his opponent.

"Gas prices: four dollars, five dollars, no end in sight," says the narrator in the advertisement, which the McCain campaign released July 21, 2008. "Because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America."

Oil drilling goes on all the time in America. What Sen. Barack Obama and others oppose is certain new drilling off the coasts. But let's leave that aside.

Some in Washington, the ad continues, say "no to independence from foreign oil." Almost no one opposes the notion of independence from foreign oil. The dispute is over how to get there. But let's leave that aside as well.

The ad culminates with this question: "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" Then we hear a chant familiar to anyone who has watched a fevered Obama rally: "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" So the central claim of the ad, and the one we decided to check, is that Obama is to blame for rising gas prices.

In its news release announcing the ad, the McCain campaign cited everything from Obama's criticism of McCain's electric car contest to Obama's reservations about nuclear power. But in our view those things don't sufficiently back up McCain's sweeping contention that the junior senator from Illinois is to blame for rising gas prices.

The main implication of the ad is that the ban on some offshore drilling — a ban that McCain has long opposed, more explicitly lately than in the past — has contributed to rising prices, and since Obama supports it, it is fair to blame him for it.

The last part is highly dubious. Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, and the congressional moratorium prohibiting oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf dates to 1982.

Granted, Congress has renewed it every year since. But there was also a presidential order banning oil exploration off the coasts from 1990, when the first President Bush issued it, until July 14, 2008, when his son lifted it.

So even if the ban on offshore drilling contributed to "rising prices at the pump," it would have done so regardless of how Obama felt about it, at least until the very recent past.

Now, has the ban in fact contributed to rising prices at the pump? Probably so, though it's impossible to say how much.

Currently, drilling is allowed in about 15 percent of federally controlled waters, and those areas are the source of more than one-quarter of the oil produced in the United States, according to Ron Planting, an economist at the American Petroleum Institute. Domestic production accounts for about a quarter of the oil the country consumes, Planting said.

It is not likely that all the other offshore areas currently off limits would be as productive as the Gulf of Mexico, where most of today's offshore drilling takes place, Planting said.

"The only thing we can say is directional," Planting said. "We'd have more supply (if the moratorium hadn't been in place)] and historically more supply has downward pressure on prices."

But that's really a peripheral issue. Regardless of how the moratorium has affected prices over the years, Obama has not been a key force behind it until very recently.

True, he vows to be just that in the future. But how lifting the moratorium would affect future prices is a separate question, (and a tricky one, as we explain here).

What the ad pins on Obama — and others who are "saying no to (new offshore) drilling in America" — are the price increases the country is currently enduring. That saddles the Illinois senator with a lot more influence than he has had. If one were to line up all the leaders in Washington who share some responsibility for the offshore drilling moratorium — the first President Bush, the Republican leadership of Congress, the Democratic leadership of Congress, the Florida delegation — there would be quite a few people ahead of Obama. We find McCain's claim to be False.

Says Obama opposes innovation, the electric car and "clean, safe, nuclear energy."
John McCain on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 in a Web ad

This 007 claim is out of ammo

A new Web video from Sen. John McCain's campaign portrays Sen. Barack Obama as an opponent of electric cars, nuclear power and energy "innovation."

With music that sounds like the 007 theme, the ad opens with Obama in silhouette and the words "Barack Obama Is Dr. No."

The words change to "No To Drilling Offshore Oil" while Obama is heard saying, "Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today."

The screen says, "No To A Gas Tax Holiday" while Obama says, "I think John McCain's proposal for a three-month tax holiday is a bad idea."

"No To Innovation. No To The Electric Car" then appears, while Obama says "In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks."

The screen says "No To Clean, Safe, Nuclear Energy" while Obama says "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." The ad ends with the message: "Barack Obama Truly Is The Dr. No Of Energy Security."

The ad is part of an effort by the McCain campaign to portray Obama as an obstructionist on energy policy. The ad has a kind of split personality. While the drilling and gas tax claims were accurate, as we explain in this item, the other claims were strikingly wrong.

In this item, we'll examine the claims about electric cars, nuclear power and innovation.

Let's take electric cars first. To back this up, the McCain campaign cites Obama's statement that McCain's $300-million prize for improving car batteries was "a gimmick."

But that doesn't prove Obama said "no" to electric cars. (As our friends at FactCheck.org have pointed out, the McCain campaign ignored an Obama remark in which he was criticizing McCain for not doing more than the battery prize.)

In fact, Obama has said his energy plan will lead to more electric cars. In a speech on June 16, Obama said his proposal to invest $150-billion in energy programs would lead to new jobs "that will be created when plug-in hybrids or electric cars start rolling off the assembly line here in Michigan."

In a speech on May 14, he praised Chrysler for "working to develop a system that integrates electric motors with a fixed-gear transmission."

That doesn't sound like "no" to us.

Against innovation? To back that up, the McCain campaign cites the same line that McCain's battery plan was a gimmick.

But Obama last October proposed a decade-long, $150-billion energy program that would increase research and create new jobs developing "climate-friendly energy supplies that will move us toward energy independence."

An 11-page account of his plan, titled Barack Obama's Plan to Make America a Global Energy Leader, includes incentives for communities to invest in biofuels refineries, more emphasis on clean coal and "safe and secure nuclear energy." That sounds to us like a pretty significant attempt at innovation.

Which brings us to the McCain ad's last point, that Obama said "No To Clean, Safe, Nuclear Energy." To the contrary, it's right there on page 4 of Obama's energy plan: "Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy." It's not a blanket endorsement — Obama says it's important to protect the security of nuclear fuel and waste and determine how to store the waste — but it's still a part of his plan.

So McCain is way, way off with these charges. It's not that he's just missing nuances or exaggerating; he has completely distorted Obama's positions, falsely claiming that Obama opposes research and innovation on the most significant political issue of the summer.

He portrays Obama as a impediment to energy research when the Democratic candidate has been at least as assertive on the issue as McCain has — and has been touting his energy plan since last October. It's so wrong we have to set the meter ablaze: Pants on Fire.

I see the resident dillweed @ 9:21 AM was honkin' ...

2008-07-24T16:21:00.000-04:00

I see the resident dillweed @ 9:21 AM was honkin' and tootin' on his own flugal horn, and playing the normal sad-sack-winger victim card.

> > "Sorry for the bragging, but I get kicked around so much
> > on this site, that I could not help defending myself."

Although ... The way too obvious problem he refuses to face is that the folks he accuses of kicking him around are kicking him around because of his previous propensity to post infantile Rove/Limbaugh/Hannity talking points. No one has been kicking him around for staying on the topic of a thread.

His MO is a perfect example of an authoritarian enabler without an idea of substance of his own.

Although, so far today in this thread he's down to two posts. One of which was even a comment on polling.

That's a positive step in the correct direction.

I won't hold my breath.

~JQP~ @ Silly as it Seems

Judas, what's the difference between false and bla...

2008-07-24T16:05:00.000-04:00

Judas, what's the difference between false and blatantly false? Can you please give an example or two? (I realize this is a tangent, but I'm interested.)

JP: Let me restate the substantive point and avoid...

2008-07-24T15:49:00.000-04:00

JP: Let me restate the substantive point and avoid the ad hominem.

It is a fact well supported by all kinds of survey research the younger people in the U.S. are more tolerant of diversity on multiple dimensions.

This by itself doesn't attract them diffentially to Obama. But it means that they are less likely to judge him only or primarily by his race.

Juris:The support for Obama among younger persons ...

2008-07-24T15:41:00.000-04:00

Juris:
The support for Obama among younger persons in general in the country also reflects a much more tolerant (read: less racist) view of the world.

I'd call you out for being simple and ignorant, but this seems to be Obama's platform as well. People will vote for me because they're not racist. You're not racist, are you? Then I think you know how to vote.

That's pretty horrible.