Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Energy Gap: Following Campaign News "Very Closely"...

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, ...

2009-10-08T08:10:24.744-04:00

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、...

2009-09-11T01:47:20.813-04:00

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~!!

牙醫,植牙,假牙|矯正|牙周病,牙醫診所、植牙,紋身,刺青,創業,批發,TATTOO,皮膚科,痘痘,...

2009-04-20T02:11:00.000-04:00

牙醫,植牙,假牙|矯正|牙周病,牙醫診所、植牙,紋身,刺青,創業,批發,TATTOO,皮膚科,痘痘,雷射、脈衝光、除斑,中醫,腫瘤,腎臟病,僵直性脊椎炎,飛梭雷射,肉毒桿菌,玻尿酸,痘痘,脈衝光,醫美,毛孔粗大,醫學美容,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,網路行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,關鍵字行銷、seo,關鍵字廣告,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,網路爆紅,牛舌餅，婚紗，台中婚紗，腫瘤，腎臟病。

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,...

2009-02-12T22:58:00.000-05:00

Nate, Republicans are interested in the Democratic...

2008-07-04T09:12:00.000-04:00

Nate, Republicans are interested in the Democratic primaries not because they actually like either Obama or Clinton. There was a huge spike in the Democratic primaries in March, but that was mostly, if not all, antipathy towards Obama. I'm not saying you're wrong, but for all we know, more Republican interest in the Democratic party could very well translate into more votes against Obama.

"Anonymous Coward" is just a name that some sites ...

2008-07-03T19:12:00.000-04:00

"Anonymous Coward" is just a name that some sites give automatically to those who post anonymously. Nothing personal.

"Obama and the democrats are on the wrong side of ...

2008-07-03T19:00:00.000-04:00

"Obama and the democrats are on the wrong side of drilling"

Which drilling is that? The coastal drilling that will take 10 years to get up and running (if they actually find something) or the ANWR drilling that will ultimately give us a grand total of 6 months of fuel in toto?

As is often the case, it'll take a lot of people stating facts repeatedly to get past all the disinformation the Republican side keeps tossing out there, hoping something will actually resonate.

Hey John Peterson, You want to call people "coward...

2008-07-03T16:40:00.000-04:00

Hey John Peterson,

You want to call people "cowards", please do it elsewhere. This isn't that kind of site.

Affaire Clark -love it Sean! So much classier than...

2008-07-03T13:44:00.000-04:00

Affaire Clark -love it Sean! So much classier than clark-gate or some other horrible derivative.

Tom: to go any deeper than that would require poll...

2008-07-03T13:29:00.000-04:00

Tom: to go any deeper than that would require polling from the I's themselves. The Rasmussen data doesn't go back (at least on that site) to 2000 or even 1998 when I would have guessed that D's were becoming I's. The trend has reversed itself but to gauge the impact of the numbers you've generated on the I vote in the chart above requires a better understanding of the breakdown of R- versus D-leaning I's as a function of time. If R's have actively been becoming I's since 2002, R-leaning I's could already be the majority and your numbers (illuminating the flight of D-leaning I's back to D's) would simply cement that majority.

Of course, this speculates the absence of plain vanilla I's who can shift from R- to D-leaning as their level of personal disgust mounts.

Hey, Obama could be 1/12.12 black; Stephen Colbert...

2008-07-03T12:53:00.000-04:00

Hey, Obama could be 1/12.12 black; Stephen Colbert is 1/13 Chickasaw...

Judge Crater,Rasmussen tracks party ID monthly (ht...

2008-07-03T12:33:00.000-04:00

Judge Crater,

Rasmussen tracks party ID monthly (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/party_affiliation/summary_of_party_affiliation)

They show the biggest increase in Dems in Jan-Feb, '08, with the numbers holding pretty steady since then, and ditto for the drop in Repubs.

Rasmussen's number shows the number of Repubs as comparable to at the time of the 2006 elections, which was their previous low point, but they show Democrats as being about 3% higher than at the time of the 2006 elections.

Comparing today with the time of the 2004 elections, Rasmussen shows about 3% more Democrats (41% v. 38%) and 6% fewer Republicans (31% v. 37%). If you assume that Repubs move to Ind, as opposed to Dem, and Dems gain from Ind, as opposed to Repub, that would suggest that just over 20% of current Independents called themselves Republicans in late 2004 and just over 10% of the folks who called themselves Independents in late 2004 are now calling themselves Democrats.

Tom: that's a reasonable explanation although some...

2008-07-03T12:20:00.000-04:00

Tom: that's a reasonable explanation although some I's are refractory: they won't pledge membership to any party. I like your logic although is D party membership increasing that quickly? I know it's on an upward slope but the idea that it has swallowed up most of the D-inclined side of the I spectrum seems too convenient.

Hey Anonymous Coward,I know, "Bush lied, people di...

2008-07-03T12:19:00.000-04:00

Hey Anonymous Coward,

I know, "Bush lied, people died" is probably an article of faith for you, but Kirchick's article is basically right. Is everything you read that you don't agree with just "spin" and "smears"?

They were wrong about intelligence. But there were other reasons to invade Iraq, such as the country's repeated dodging of UN sanctions. You liberals like the UN, right?

It's 2002. Someone says: “As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.” Recalling the Clinton administration’s fitful, feckless, and futile attempts to rein in the Iraqi dictator’s terror mongering and quest for weapons of mass destruction, [this person] described Iraq as “a virulent threat in a class by itself.” As war clouds hovered, he darkly rued the U.S. failure to remove Saddam in 1991, boldly insisting that this time “failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit.”

Who was it? Yea, Al Gore. That was, until "Bush lied, people died" and attack on the Bush administration at all costs (including defeat in Iraq) became the Democratic Party's platform.

If you read John McCain's account of his time as a POW in North Vietnam, you'll see how damaging American "peace" efforts and the constant attacks on the left on U.S. efforts were to the U.S. and how McCain's torturers used the words of supposedly well-intentioned Americans against them.

I'm glad you linked to that article, because of this paragraph:

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," [Fmr. Michigan Gov. George] Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it.

But just as it was necessary to intervene in Vietnam-- and though we fell short of more lofty goals, we prevented the communists from expanding further and further into Souheast Asia, as was their plan, it was necessary to intervene in Iraq.

That was a move largely supported at the time. As soon as it became politically expedient to do so, however, the Democratic Party and their liberal denizens began this simplistic nonsense campaign of "Bush lied, people died," and persist in it even as our current successes in Iraq are staggering (which they ignore). No doubt they embolden our enemies.

So where are the spin and the smears coming from again? I mean, what is called "smears" against Obama are mostly just factual things. Hey, look, Obama hangs out with this terrorist. Oh, hey, it looks like he went to this church for twenty years with this radical, America-damning preacher.

Whereas the left's smears are childish nonsense. McCain is probably going to smear Obama, and use people's racist fears. General BETRAY-us. (Clever!) McCain is probably psychologically scarred from his time in a POW camp. He's too old. Yawn. Wake me up when Jimmy Carter's-- I mean Barack Obama's-- presidency is over.

Higglytown and Alex: Although I would have expecte...

2008-07-03T12:11:00.000-04:00

Higglytown and Alex: Although I would have expected it, I don't think the idea that interest peaked when the fighting was the nastiest matches the data shown. My recollection is there was some nastiness in January, and there is indeed an uptick then. But February was pretty mild; things got rough again in the second half of March and April. But interest falls dramatically then. I stand by the notion that it's uncertainty in the result that drove interest.

To check this idea, I looked at the Intrade charts showing the percentage chance of Clinton and Obama being the nominee. Clinton was at 70% in December, and except for an Iowa dip too brief to be caught by most polling, dropped only a little until SuperTuesday. For the rest of February, Clinton was dropping and Obama rising. By March, Obama was above 70% and bounced around from there until the end of the nomination process. McCain, incdientally, hit the 70%+ level right after Florida in late January.

Taking into account a bit of time lag for changes to sink in, it looks like the news interest graph correlates more strongly with competitive races than either nice (as Sean posits) or nasty (as Higglytown and Alex suggest) behavior from the campaigns.

Judge Crater,"The data on I's is wildly confusing....

2008-07-03T11:35:00.000-04:00

Judge Crater,

"The data on I's is wildly confusing. If they are as uninterested as R's does than mean they will trend with the R's? I'd always assumed that I's would seek their own path requiring them to be more interested than the average. Is BHO's appeal to the I's overstated? Will their apparent apathy cause I's to stay home in droves on election day?"

Scott Rasmussen (I think, my apologies if I'm misattributing here) made the observation that the increase in Democrats and decrease in Republicans in this election cycle aren't really Repubs becoming Dems. It's Independents becoming Dems and Repubs becoming Independents.

The result of this is that much of Obama's support among "independents" is now migrating to support among Democrats, and "Independents" as a group are more conservative/GOP-leaning than in the past, both because more conservatives/right-leaning moderates are identifying as Independents and because more left-leaning moderates are identifying as Democrats.

This would be consistent with the numbers here showing I's tracking with R's and, perhaps, with Obama's position among independents being weaker than suggested in earlier polls.

Adam,I don't think we should expect polling prefer...

2008-07-03T11:18:00.000-04:00

Adam,

I don't think we should expect polling preferences to track with media interest. If anything, less interested people would be more inclined to simply vote for their side's candidate.

Higgly,
I think I agree. The Democratic primary was theater in a way the Republican was not. I think it's natural that interest in both would peak around the nastiest fighting. But sustained high interest on the D side does mean more volunteering/GOTV effort for Obama.

While I have never pledged to the RNC, I am a soci...

2008-07-03T11:09:00.000-04:00

While I have never pledged to the RNC, I am a social conservative (Although I joined the Granholm Campaign in a mighty way hosting fund raisers through my firm and many other aspects, because of my belief that the Devos family is not good for politics in Michigan) I would say my interest peaked during the bloodbath of the Democratic primary. I enjoyed the snipers on both sides hitting each other. Destructive politics holds a big entertainment value. My interest will peak again this fall around Mid October when the numbers really matter. For now I have mild interest and enjoy the pundits and blowhards making insane predictions about a far from over campaign. Its entertainment value at this stage for me, not really politics. I like saying the outrageous or absurd and seeing the response. The response generally speaks louder than the statement.

Hey John Peterson:The article you linked is so ful...

2008-07-03T11:07:00.000-04:00

Hey John Peterson:

The article you linked is so full of spin and hyperbole that I had a hard time reading the text before it amassed into a vortex and disappeared from my screen.

You may be interested to know the author of that article, being so disconnected from reality, wrote an article 2 weeks ago titled "Bush never lied to us about Iraq" - you can read it here:

James Kirchick is a journalism hack

So after you've pulled the spin from his article, take another look at all the McCain smears that came from his surrogates. How is it fair that Obama's surrogates are called to task for their smears and McCain's are not? That article has not one mention about Joe Lieberman or Charlie Black.

Sean, let me be the first to congratulate you for ...

2008-07-03T10:56:00.000-04:00

Sean, let me be the first to congratulate you for introducing the word "gruntychucklish" to the internet, and possibly the English language.

The news interest index is interesting, especially because it is updated weekly. I suspect it can be used to come up with better weights for old polls; the higher the recent interest, the less old polls should be weighted.

Adjusting the weights in this manner should capture the shifts due to events like Clinton's concession without adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. I'd suggested something similar using Google Trends, but this might be even better.

"Liberal media," eh? The so-called "liberal media,...

2008-07-03T10:39:00.000-04:00

"Liberal media," eh? The so-called "liberal media," right?

What kind of smears are you talking about?

Are you even paying attention? Or are you drunk on hope and change?

a stunningly original insight - factually supporte...

2008-07-03T10:24:00.000-04:00

a stunningly original insight - factually supported.

can anyone continue to wonder why the blogiverse will replace traditional media feedback loops?

terrific. where is it you post about baseball again?

Some posts make me happy that comments on my blog ...

2008-07-03T10:15:00.000-04:00

Some posts make me happy that comments on my blog are infrequent, moderated and generally not of the forum type ad hominem variety. Self righteously yours, S

PS. I agree with Sean's post and the welcome backs.

Your comment, 'Chris', is a better example of 'wil...

2008-07-03T10:09:00.000-04:00

Your comment, 'Chris', is a better example of 'wild-eyed interpretation with little regard for data'. I'll repeat I think Senor Nines is doing a good job (now that he is being more concise).

Ugh, yet another post from Sean. His absence rece...

2008-07-03T09:57:00.000-04:00

Ugh, yet another post from Sean. His absence recently has made me enjoy this blog again. But wild-eyed interpretation with little regard for data is back!

At least this time, he didn't throw in superfluous sexist comments.