Year Two Day 295 Obama Administration Novemberr 11, 2010 - History

Year Two Day 295 Obama Administration Novemberr 11, 2010 - History

10:40AM THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks at a Veterans Day Event
U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan


11:35AM THE PRESIDENT participates in a wreath laying ceremony
U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan

12:15PM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with President Lee
Blue House, Seoul, South Korea

12:50PM THE PRESIDENT has a working lunch with President Lee
Blue House, Seoul, South Korea

2:00PM THE PRESIDENT and President Lee hold a joint press conference
Blue House, Seoul, South Korea

3:30PM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with President Hu
Grand Hyatt Hotel, Seoul, South Korea

5:00PM THE PRESIDENT holds a bilateral meeting with Chancellor Merkel
Grand Hyatt Hotel, Seoul, South Korea

6:35PM THE PRESIDENT attends the G-20 official welcome reception
National Museum of Korea

7:00PM THE PRESIDENT attends G-20 working dinner
National Museum of Korea


REVOLUTION—

February 10, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

&ldquoYes, this is a film, but that is not its essence. This is a daring, substantive, scientific summoning to revolution. 6+ hours that can change how you see the world and what you do with the rest of your life. Is this hype? No.&rdquo

From one of the filmmakers

Download Poster of this page
Download Leaflet of this page
(both PDF for print)


MORE ON THE FILM:

If humanity is going to fight its way out of this horrific nightmare and create a world where human beings can rise to their full potential and truly flourish, it will be because of the work and leadership of Bob Avakian. And it will be because people—beginning with YOU—get into this work, get with this leadership, and fight for others to do the same.

In March, a new film of a major speech given by Bob Avakian in the fall of 2012 will premiere. This film can make a world of difference in a world that needs nothing more than to be radically different. Whether that happens depends on us.

In darkened theaters in major cities around this country, crowds will settle into their seats and voices will hush as the leader of the revolution is projected onto the big screen. BA Speaks: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! will open people&rsquos eyes to the world around them as they have never seen it before.

It is possible to put an end to a situation where 10 million children die in the Third World each year from malnutrition and preventable disease.

It is possible to end the centuries of terror, brutality, exploitation, and now mass incarceration of Black people, and the oppression of other peoples of color that this system has fed off and still feeds off.

It is possible to create a world without the global epidemic of rape, violence, oppression, and degradation of women.

It is possible to end forever the devastation of war and to take dramatic steps to overcome the environmental emergency and halt the destruction of the environment.

It is possible for people—including people who today are caught up in all kinds of bullshit, some of it quite harmful—to rise up above the muck and mire and become emancipators of humanity.

It is possible to end the exploitation at the root of it all, the insane profit-driven madness of capitalism that leaves billions in misery—and all of humanity alienated from and pitted against one another.

It is possible to bring into being a world where people contribute what they can and get back what they need to not only survive, but to really flourish culturally, intellectually, and in their interactions with each other.

But all this requires: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS!

And when BA Speaks, it is clear that there is the vision and concrete plan for a whole new, and radically better, world. When BA Speaks, you learn about the scientific understanding and the strategy necessary to make this revolution—this real communist revolution—to bring in a whole new epoch where humanity can truly flourish, free from all forms of exploitation and oppression. When BA Speaks, you see and hear the leadership of this revolution.

REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! This movie will be here, soon. The problem—and the solution—will be here. And YOU need to be here. Up against all this, it is not acceptable to simply look out for yourself or your family. It is not acceptable to try to do a little bit of good in your small corner of the world, while life on this planet grows more hellish each day. And no, it is not even acceptable to let the many truly crushing horrors and sacrifices of life keep you from engaging these answers.

As BA has said, &ldquoIf you&rsquore serious—and this is serious—dig into it and learn about it. That&rsquos your responsibility.&rdquo

REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS!

Clear your schedules and come with an open mind and a sincere heart. Come driven by the weight of what humanity is facing and by the burning desire to see a whole new day for humanity. Come with everyone you know, and join with others who are seeking the way out and the way forward.

Get With It!

Revolution #295 February 17, 2013


Year Two Day 295 Obama Administration Novemberr 11, 2010 - History

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. .

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

i do get cranky when i cannot find hendricks gin at the liquor store

It's not an either or requirement, Harv.

i am getting worn out explaining the same thing 4 different ways.

Oh, I understand your explanations. I'm just telling you why I think they're wrong. -)

there have been govt warnings on cigarettes since the mid 60's. i made a lot of money invested in tobacco companies

i have no issue with tobacco companies

I don't, either, beyond their existence.

It's interesting how much Christie's stock seems to have improved here. Two months ago — hell, two weeks ago — he was just a loudmouth jerk whose act wouldn't play anywhere outside New Jersey, and whose prospects for reelection were seen as so-so. Now, after hugging Obama and some people hurt by Sandy, he's Best of Class on the right.

Right, as opposed to the Dem party, whose main constituencies are the "youth vote," low-skilled workers, and downscale minorities. Well-educated, high-information voters, all of them.

And people who vote for Akin or Mourdock believe they're voting for the lesser of two evils. Dems don't have a monopoly on that.

This is a fair enough concern, but I don't think it would work out that way in practice. Most Justices don't get an appointment until their mid-50s. The exceptions to that rule are noteworthy (and usually despised by one side or the other), but they're still exceptions. Even if someone got an appointment at 47 (quite young as these things go), s/he will be 65 upon retirement. I'm not too worried about the afters in that case. Plus, they do get pensions and we could always pass laws against certain behavior if it's perceived to be a problem.

The big gain is that we'd reduce partisan fighting about the Court by quite a bit. With each Justice serving a limited term, and with each new President getting 2 guaranteed appointments, the existing absurdity of judicial appointments would be mitigated a lot.

If you don't like the 18 year proposal, another option is to put an age limit of 75. Of course, that incentivizes younger appointments so I'm not a fan. An upper age limit on officeholders, OTOH, would be a good idea.

Two months ago — hell, two weeks ago — he was just a loudmouth jerk whose act wouldn't play anywhere outside New Jersey, and whose prospects for reelection were seen as so-so. Now, after hugging Obama and some people hurt by Sandy, he's Best of Class on the right.

Please note I have no problem calling Christie an assshole, as I did earlier. My belief in his possible ability to tell the rest of the GOP to pound sand does not mean I think he's somebody I want to spend time talking to or see in power.

So. do you feel that way about alcohol producers? Marijuana or cocaine companies if they were legal? Manufacurers of garbage foods?
[sincere question]

technology has been good to me. i went from sleeping in a mattress stuffed with corn husks and no climate control to having a single device in my hand hwere i can converse with anyone, handle my finances, listen to the radio, and pretty much do whatever.

i do get cranky when i cannot find hendricks gin at the liquor store

Heh. yet another reason why you're my favorite Republican, HW.

We can? Isn't it just a probability model? Same like PECOTA? Just because PECOTA projects Melky Cabrera as a .700 OPS hitter and he goes out and hits .900, doesn't mean the model missed something.

Last week, Bob Fitrakis and Gerry Bello at FreePress.org reported an important story concerning what they described as “uncertified ‘experimental’ software patches” being installed at the last minute on electronic vote tabulation systems in 39 Ohio counties.

The story included a copy of the contract [PDF] between Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s office and ES&S, the nation’s largest e-voting system manufacturer, for a new, last-minute piece of software created to the custom specifications of the secretary of state. The contract itself describes the software as “High-level enhancements to ES&S’ election reporting software that extend beyond the current features and functionality of the software to facilitate a custom-developed State Election Results Reporting File.”

by the way, i am all for taxing the sh8t out of pot growers

not legalizing the other stuff. but we have tried all the other ways and it has not worked

so let it grow and then levy the bejeezus out of it.

My favorite aspect of the right wingers who are convinced that most polls are biased against Romney because their Party ID splits aren't compatible with the way things "feel" at the moment is that they're latching onto a party ID split that's far more ahistorical than any of the polls they're bashing.

While many right-partisans dismiss or "adjust" polls that have Party IDs that they "feel" are too similar to 2008, they've latched onto Rasmussen's Party ID weighting (the only major poll I'm aware of that actually targets a specific party ID split). So what split is Rasmussen using that makes so much more sense than the ones being reported (not used for weighting or targeting) by other firms? Rasmussen thinks the electorate will be 39% Republicans and 33% Democrats, a six point advantage for self-identified Republicans. How does this compare to previous presidential elections? Since exit polls have been used, the electorate has never had more Republicans than Democrats. So Rasmussen's model thinks the party ID split for the 2012 election will far more friendly to Republicans than any presidential election ever has been.

No wonder the Barones and JoeKs of the world see a Romney landslide to them, 2012 "feels" like the greatest year ever for Republicans.

edit: Replying to something 100 posts old and already covered.

eta: "not legalizing the other stuff. but we have tried all the other ways and it has not worked

so let it grow and then levy the bejeezus out of it."

It's almost as if they're trapped inside some sort of "epistemic bubble" where they've convinced themselves that 2010 wasn't midterm election, with the demographics thereof, and a particularly high turnout of angry old white people, but rather the "new normal."

Great wrap-up in 2057, zonk.

A lot of people have said there should be a viable third-party, from the center. But things get tricky when you get to a platform, because most people fall to one side or another on issues, and while they may not agree with either party on all the issues, they probably do on the issues that matter to them. Its also hard to find a moderate position on certain issues.

But what about a third party that is more interested in process rather than results? A Constitutional Reform party. Proposals could include term limits for Congress, term limits for the SC, elimination of the Electoral College, Balanced Budget Act (debatable), pay-go rules for the Senate, elimination/modification of cloture and filibuster rules, revising many of the Congressional rules on amendments and earmarks. Even these issues would be debatable, but the driving goal would be a more efficient, well-run government, no matter what the size of it. On substantive issues, members of the party could vote however they want - pro life/pro choice, no new taxes/expanded welfare state. The party would be indifferent on those matters.

Anyway, I would be interested in a thread (there might be on already) on what you guys would do to reform the Constitution and any other procedural reforms this country needs.

nah, that's common sense. you have a demand and we are making the wrong people rich as the suppliers.

again, cannot cut the demand. cannot stop the flow. law enforcement needs to be focused on other things.

employers drug test now and folks still do it.

even if it was legal i don't see why employers cannot still test in the pre-employment screening.

While many right-partisans dismiss or "adjust" polls that have Party IDs that they "feel" are too similar to 2008, they've latched onto Rasmussen's Party ID weighting (the only major poll I'm aware of that actually targets a specific party ID split). So what split is Rasmussen using that makes so much more sense than the ones being reported (not used for weighting or targeting) by other firms? Rasmussen thinks the electorate will be 39% Republicans and 33% Democrats, a six point advantage for self-identified Republicans. How does this compare to previous presidential elections? Since exit polls have been used, the electorate has never had more Republicans than Democrats. So Rasmussen's model thinks the party ID split for the 2012 election will far more friendly to Republicans than any presidential election ever has been.

No wonder the Barones and JoeKs of the world see a Romney landslide to them, 2012 "feels" like the greatest year ever for Republicans.

Oh, I pretty much agree with you on this issue. I was just teasing. I might have a problem with employers being able to screen out people who are doing something legal, especially since it'd largely apply to lower skill jobs (no one pre-screens their accountant, lawyer, or doctor) and thus basically penalizes poor people. But that happens under the current law anyways and with added criminal penalties that only make it harder to stay legally and gainfully employed. Otherwise, we're on the same page.

Yeah, a lot of people want to self-identify as above it all, but what exactly is the "centrist" position that the Democrats don't currently cater to again?

Andy: I don't, either, beyond their existence.

So. do you feel that way about alcohol producers?

No, because alcohol addiction isn't programmed into the product. The percentage of social and moderate drinkers is far greater than the percentage of occasional smokers.

Marijuana or cocaine companies if they were legal?

I'd treat tobacco exactly as I'd treat marijuana: Decriminalize it, but restrict branding to a plain line of company identifier on the package. And no advertising or brand promotion, period. IOW take the profit motive out of it to the greatest extent possible without making pariahs out of the smokers, and then let nature take its course.

As for cocaine, while I wouldn't decriminalize it entirely, I'd reduce the possession penalty for small amounts to a misdemeanor and a fine.

Manufacurers of garbage foods?
[sincere question]

I'd require the simplified nutritional label that Mark Bittman recently proposed, but beyond that, and the existing FDA requirements, I'd just keep trying to promote public awareness of what they're consuming, and hope that it gradually sinks in. I'm a nice nanny, I am.

Electoral Vote: ROMNEY 295 OBAMA 243
Popular Vote: ROMNEY 51.55 OBAMA 47.45

Romney will carry all the McCain states, as well as Indiana & North Carolina, by comfortable margins. Romney will also carry these states more narrowly (

5% or less), listed in order of the expected margin: Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire & Wisconsin. I won't be shocked if we are in the midst of a preference cascade that allows Romney to do even better, perhaps even costing David Axelrod his mustache by capturing Pennsylvania, Michigan or Minnesota. The House won't move much, less than 5-10 seats either way, and if I'm correct, or close, on the Presidential race, it's more likely to go toward the GOP, IMHO. The Senate should be +2 toward the GOP, leaving it 51-49.

On the other hand, I'm never very comfortable with predicting election outcomes, even when I've been right on the money. For all the reasons discussed in the polling wars, I could be wrong, but I think not.

Yeah. I'd never join that constitutional party because I've got serious problems with about half the stuff on that list. And I'm pretty heavily in favor of some procedural reforms (18 year terms for SCOTUS, end of the filibuster, national popular vote) but I simply can't get on board with the others (term limits and earmark elimination are ideas that sound good but are actually pretty dumb and make democracy work less well, and a strict balanced budget amendment would consign ourselves to great depressions on the regular).

You should probably be more suspicious of fracking than you are. I know a surprising # of people here in western PA who are having problems as a result of it.

reform the Constitution and any other procedural reforms this country needs

I'd be interested in proportional representation and a simplifying and standardizing of voting regulations nationwide, and direct popular election of the President (with runoff if no candidate gains a majority). On the human-rights side, explicit 14th-Amendment-like recognition of both sex and sexual orientation (the model being the old, defeated ERA). But there are a lot of things I like about the current Constitution. I have no problem with life tenure on SCOTUS. Term limits are a bad idea, I think &ndash including those on the Presidency.

That's not a particularly high bar, Joe.

In anticipation of wingnut criticism, NBC skewed its poll results. Wimps.

Marijuana doesn't fit with the other three examples.

He's not declaring Obama a certainty, of course, but if Romney wins the EC we can be sure Nate's model missed something very, very big.

We can? Isn't it just a probability model? Same like PECOTA? Just because PECOTA projects Melky Cabrera as a .700 OPS hitter and he goes out and hits .900, doesn't mean the model missed something.

Yes, I think we can say that. First, there isn't nearly the level of variation in predicting from polls as there is in baseball players' seasonal variations. They're not alike at all. Second, the nature of variance in polling is entirely different from the variance in hitting a baseball, where luck is a huge factor. If Romney takes Ohio and, say, Iowa and New Hampshire and Virginia, it won't be because five hundred thousand voters just happened to get in their cars, ricochet off a fielder's glove, and end up in a polling booth. It will be because of things like Nate's adjustments missing a chunk of the evangelical vote. If the exit polls are accurate, he'll know exactly where he missed and by how much. I have to think some of that is simply vagaries of turnout: weather, lines, and so on. I suppose that's 'luck' in some sense, but it's a far cry from the luck involved in what results to swinging at a major league pitch.

Maybe it's more to the point that if Melky has a huge season, to some degree we are able to tell why. We have BABIP, so we can determine what proportion of the improvement is due to luck. We can see which pitches he's hitting better. We can look at the caliber of the pitchers he faced and compare that to the caliber in previous season. We can take a lot of the noise out of Melky's season, and get a good sense of what the signal tells us. I'm pretty sure that's the route Nate will follow in any case, but especially if Romney wins.

re 2116: if you think a last-minute software patch ordered by a partisan Secy of State directly involved in vote suppression efforts isn't something to look deeply into, I have a unicorn to sell you.

It's impossible to find one on abortion, and more than anything that's the issue that will scuttle a third-party trying to be viable nationally, on a par with Dems and Pubs.

It's fine, too, to say to your candidates, 'adopt our platform and do whatever else your conscience tells you', but as soon as you announce prolife or prochoice you've defined your base, and no matter how terrific the rest of your platform is, a prochoice candidate simply won't snare a prolife voter.

I can't speak for the other two, but I live in PA, and saying that Romney has any realistic chance at the state right now is crazy talk.

1. A super-majority of both House of Congress with a presidential imprimatur should be enough to override a Supreme Court decision. It is transparent beyond all peradventure that the Supreme Court has become just another political organ. It always had this tendency, true, but now it doesn't even have the decency to protest.

2. Increase terms of representatives to four years decrease those of senators to four years and everyone runs with the president.

3. History should have made it clear, but just to drive a stake into the outworn creed of State Rights, make it definite and unambiguous: the national government, in relation to all US governing bodies and jurisdictions, is big casino.

An unedited version of PolitiFact's Greatest 2012 Campaign Hits.

It's been a busy campaign for PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter, which has rated more than 800 claims by the presidential candidates, the political parties and super PACs. Here are some of the most significant fact-checks of the campaign.

Barack Obama: "Mitt Romney's companies were pioneers in outsourcing U.S. jobs to low-wage countries."
July 3, in a campaign commercial
Half True. Bain invested overseas but it's a stretch to call them "pioneers." The trend was well-established by the time Romney and Bain joined in.

Mitt Romney: President Obama promised "he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent" if the stimulus passed.
May. 17, at a private campaign fundraiser
The ruling: Mostly False. Obama didn’t say that. Rather, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted that the stimulus would hold it to that level. Their report included heavy disclaimers that their number was a projection and might not hold true.

Barack Obama: The Obama administration has created "5 million jobs … over the last 30 months in the private sector alone."
Oct. 16, in the second presidential debate
The ruling: Half True. It’s correct only using the most cherry-picked time frame. A more reasonable method -- starting the count at the beginning of the recovery -- shows a gain of 3.6 million jobs.

Jennifer Granholm: Romney's response to the auto crisis was 'Let Detroit go bankrupt.'
Sept. 6, at the Democratic National Convention
The ruling: Half True. Romney did not support Obama’s plan for the auto industry, which ultimately proved successful. This line came from an op-ed Romney wrote for the New York Times, suggesting he wanted to let the auto companies go out of business. Actually, he advocated a managed bankruptcy for the automakers.

Mitt Romney: Stimulus dollars paid for "windmills from China."
July 18, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Mostly False. Many American firms connected to the wind industry expanded during the years of the stimulus. In some cases, they purchased wind turbine parts from companies in China. But no windmills were built in China using stimulus money.

Barack Obama: Says Mitt Romney "backed a bill that outlaws all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest."
Oct. 24, in a TV ad
The ruling: Pants on Fire! There’s no evidence that Romney ever specifically opposed exceptions for rape and incest. While he supported the "human life amendment," there are many versions and the most recent ones allow abortion after rape or incest. Romney said recently he supports those exceptions.

Paul Ryan: President Obama "funneled" $716 billion out of Medicare "at the expense of the elderly."
Aug. 29, at the Republican National Convention
The ruling: Mostly False. The law limits payments to health care providers and insurers in order to spur efficiency and reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. The cuts do not reduce benefits. Those savings, spread out over 10 years, are used to offset costs created by the health law, so that it doesn’t add to the deficit.

Bill Clinton: Paul Ryan attacked the president for "the same amount of Medicare savings that (Ryan) had in his own budget."
Sept. 5, in a speech at the Democratic National Convention
The ruling: True. Both Democrats and Republicans are trying to rein in future spending, and Ryan included Medicare savings from the health care law in his own budget. Ryan said later he did so only because it is current law.

Barack Obama: Romney "would turn Medicare into a voucher program."
Aug. 15, in remarks at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa
The ruling: Mostly True. The Romney-Ryan approach pretty much matches the dictionary definition of "a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures."

Mitt Romney: Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." at the cost of American jobs.
Oct. 29, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Pants on Fire! Italy-based Fiat was in talks to buy Chrysler before Obama took office. The Jeeps it makes in China are sold in China. Meanwhile, its American auto plants have expanded and added jobs since the auto bailout.

Barack Obama: Says Mitt Romney plans to "fire" Big Bird.
Oct. 8, at a campaign event
The ruling: Pants on Fire! Romney wants to cut federal funding for PBS, and his idea isn’t specific to Big Bird. A Sesame Street executive said the show itself receives little funding through PBS, and the character is safe.

Mitt Romney: "We're only inches away from no longer being a free economy."
Jan. 7, at a Republican primary debate
The ruling: Pants on Fire! International statistics show that the United States still ranks low in total tax burden and high in economic freedom.

Priorities USA Action: Says Romney wants to "take away early childhood education, slash K-12 funding, and cut college aid … to pay for a $250,000 tax break for multi-millionaires."
Oct. 8, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Mostly False. The Ryan budget that Romney supports could impact education, but the ad takes liberties as it tries to fill in the blanks.

Mitt Romney: "Under President Obama: $4,000 tax hike on middle-class families."
Oct. 10, in a campaign ad
The ruling: Pants on Fire! The campaign makes a giant leap and assumes interest on the public debt will be paid for with increased taxes on all income levels. We actually don’t know how the tax code will spread around the pain of paying for the debt. Obama proposes tax increases only on high earners.

Barack Obama: Says Mitt Romney "called the Arizona law a model for the nation."
Oct. 16, in a presidential debate
The ruling: False. Romney was actually praising Arizona’s mandate that employers electronically verify the legal status of employees, which was passed in 2007, and was not part of the later law that allowed local police to ask people for immigration papers.

Mitt Romney: The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917."
Jan. 16, at a Republican primary debate
The ruling: Pants on Fire! A wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that fewer ships means a weaker military. The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today because each ship is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.

Barack Obama: "Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of" President George W. Bush’s policies and the recession.
Sept. 23, in an interview on CBS' 60 Minutes
The ruling: False. Obama misstated his own source by using four years rather than the 10 included in the analysis. And he engages in cherry-picking by assigning pricey programs to Bush’s column even though he himself supported, or supports, many of them.

A chain email: In July 1996, Mitt Romney helped locate the missing teenage daughter of a partner at Bain Capital.
Jan. 30, circulated on the Internet
The ruling: True. The effort by Bain employees was central to the effort to locate the girl, and Romney reportedly played a significant role. She was found and returned safely to her parents.

Mitt Romney: "Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt."
June 28, at a press conference
The ruling: False. The government’s official estimates find that the health care law does not add to deficits, due to its new taxes and reductions in future Medicare spending.

Barack Obama: Says Romney wants to add $2 trillion to the defense budget that the military hasn’t asked for.
Oct. 3, in a presidential debate
The ruling: True. Independent analysts confirm that number, which the Romney campaign does not refute. Military leaders have testified in support of the president’s spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes.

Paul Ryan: Says six studies verify that the math adds up for Mitt Romney’s tax plan.
Oct. 11, in a vice presidential debate
The ruling: Mostly False. We found only one fully independent study out of the six claimed. None of the studies could accurately model Romney’s tax plan because he has said so little about how it would work.

Mitt Romney: "Redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America."
Sept. 19, in a press conference
The ruling: Pants on Fire! Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of it, but redistribution has been a basic principle of the U.S. tax system and many federal programs that have long attracted support from Republicans.

Crossroads GPS: Oil production is "down where Obama's in charge."
April 10, in a Web ad
The ruling: Half True. The decline represents a single year that followed years of substantial gains and occurred only offshore in the wake of a major oil disaster. Also, federal policies take years to affect oil production.

Mitt Romney: Obama promised to "cut the deficit in half."
Oct. 3, in a presidential debate
The ruling: True. Obama promised in his early presidency to cut the deficit in half, which he never achieved. When asked about it, Obama said the recession was deeper than anyone knew at the time.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "Mitt Romney is the first major party candidate for president of the United States in modern times not to release at least 12 years of tax returns."
Aug. 12, in an interview on FOX News
The ruling: False. While Romney has only released two years of tax returns, other candidates have also chosen to release only a few years, such as Ronald Reagan.

Barack Obama: "A few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia."
Oct. 22, in the final presidential debate
The ruling: Half True. Romney has twice drawn the distinction between his concerns about Iran and Russia, calling Russia the biggest geopolitical foe or enemy for the U.S. -- but he has said the biggest threat is Iran.

You don't need an amendment for these to happen. Congress has express power under Art. I to set the "time, place and manner" of federal elections. And states could change the way the House members get selected.

I guess "split the baby in half" is out, then?

It's not, and it shouldn't be, about consensus: it's about governing. It's ridiculous to hold that nothing should be possible unless there is a "consensus". What the hell is that, anyway? The majority should get to decide an issue--that's sufficient consensus.

FWIW, retired justices get their full salaries after they retire (assuming they reach certain age and service targets). You could combine this (with targets altered to reflect the mandatory retirement age and a clause escalating payments when current justices get pay increases) with pretty severe restrictions on post-SCOTUS income to build something that looks less prone to corruption. A justice's salary isn't Wall Street lobbyist money by any means, but it's at about the 95th percentile of US household income. That's a pretty solid pension.

Rasmussen is reporting that Dems and Reps are tied on their Generic Congressional Ballot, 46-46, a change from a 46-43 Republican lead one week ago.

Is this information of any practical, predictive use? It seems much more useless than national polls for the President, for example, but has anybody (Nate?) looked at whether it might tell us anything at all?

Why not? We could walk through the possible solutions to the team's catching problem. That'd be at least as interesting as the minutiae of polling samples, wouldn't it?

It does make sense in some contexts. Tehran is the capital of Iran in no small part because of Soviet claims on (I guess more like aspirations -- nobody took seriously the justifications that Uncle Joe put forward) the northern part of the country.

Jack, I think that each of those relatively unhealthy things (yeah, smoking pot's unhealthy) I mentioned is pretty different from each other. (For the record, I'm pro-legalization pretty much across the board w/ appropriate taxation - though I'm not sure how ease of growing at home would impact marijuana taxation.)

If we're talking about popular vote and House seats isn't there a different base line between 1992 and 2012?

It seems pretty clear that both Obama and Romney are going to get higher percentages of the popular vote than both Clinton and Bush in 1992. Clinton's share of the popular vote as a whole isn't really relevant in a discussion of congressional seats is it? Clinton gets 43% of the vote and Bush gets 38%, but they're getting 100% of the seats.

Greg, yes, definitely a different baseline between 1992 and 2012. That was my original point a few pages back.

In 1992, the Dems already held 267 seats in the House (61 percent), and then Clinton only received 43 percent of the national vote. Even if we assume he would have gotten

7 points of Perot's votes, it still barely gets him to 50 percent. In that situation, one wouldn't expect the Dems to make further gains in the House, since they were already at 61 percent.

In 2012, the Dems hold just 191 seats in the House (42 percent), while Obama is projected to get over 50 percent of the popular vote. The Dems have much more room for improvement in 2012 than in 1992, but the projections are that the Dems will only gain five or six House seats, and some are suggesting that the Dems could even lose House seats at the same time Obama wins reelection. Incumbency and gerrymandering might account for some of it, but I doubt it accounts for all of it. The GOP has only held the House for less than two years.

I haven't much discussed Rasmussen's methodology for weighting by Party ID, other than saying it's silly to do so, so I haven't been faking anything. My understanding was that Rasmussen used the previous three months of his "Party Affiliation survey" to target respondents for their surveys for the next month. That's what he did in 2008, at least. From July 2008:

As we have noted many times, there is a disagreement within the polling industry as to whether or not polling firms should “weight” or adjust their sample to reflect a specific mix of Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters (see recent article on why some polls produce different results).

Rasmussen Reports does weight our sample to a set of partisan targets and bases those targets on surveys conducted in preceding months. Entering the month of June, our targets for the month were set so that the sample would include 9.44% more Democrats than Republicans.

Is he using a different methodology this year? If so, what is his new methodology? And why is he weighting toward a party ID split that's so thoroughly contradicted by his own party ID surveys?

Darrell Huff (in "How to Take a Chance") made the point that as a general rule people only notice your hits when you're either making short term predictions or backing a favorite, but what they tend to notice is your hits when you are making either long term projections or a are picking the underdog.

In today's Daily Presidential tracking poll report, he explicitly projects an electorate that is 39% Dem and 37% Republican. He also notes that Romney leads by 11 points among Independents. The combination of those three facts is consistent with Romney leading 49-48 (if, for example, you assume Obama and Romney are both winning their own party, 95-5).

So where is he coming up with D+2? Is he still targeting a sample based on party affiliation, or is he no longer weighting by party ID and is now simply reporting what respondents tell him?

If the former, why isn't he targeting the party affiliation he gets from his polling, as he claims to have done in 2008? If it's the latter, why does he still have the "The Value of Party Weighting for a Tracking Poll" article up with his methodology?

One more for the spreadsheet -

that's the title to a song isn't it? the 99 problems?

Darrell Huff (in "How to Take a Chance") made the point that as a general rule people only notice your hits when you're either making short term predictions or backing a favorite, but what they tend to notice is your hits when you are making either long term projections or a are picking the underdog.

Jeanne Dixon made an entire career on "predicting" the JFK assassination. Here's how that "prediction" is described in her Wiki entry:

Leaked internal polling - caution.

Internal polling leaked to Brit tabloid - caution squared.

Actually, it's quite easy to find a moderate position on abortion. Just look at Roe v Wade. "Viability" *is* the ####### moderate position on abortion you gits.

In today's Daily Presidential tracking poll report, he explicitly projects an electorate that is 39% Dem and 37% Republican. He also notes that Romney leads by 11 points among Independents. The combination of those three facts is consistent with Romney leading 49-48 (if, for example, you assume Obama and Romney are both winning their own party, 95-5).

As has been said many times, this whole definition of "independent" depends on the pollster's framing of the question. The Washington Post has independents as split 50-50 in their latest poll, which has Obama ahead by a single point overall. Any of us here could probably rattle off half a dozen definitions that would pass the plausibility test, and they'd probably yield half a dozen different results in the presidential poll.

I thought Politifact had lost most of its credibiltiy. Of course that's what Romney said. There's no half truth about it.

"This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."

Blitzer asked Romney if he thought Russia is a bigger foe than Iran, China or North Korea.

"I'm saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world's worst actors," Romney said. "Of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and a nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough. But when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them . who is it that always stands up with the world's worst actors? It's always Russia, typically with China alongside. And so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that's on the Security Council that has the heft of the Security Council, and is of course is a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe."

There's nothing out of context in Obama's remark. He's not obliged to note what Romney said about Iran as a nuclear threat. He was talking about the perceived greatest 'geopolitical foe'.

Hey! No baseball talk here!

Take that stuff to the OT-OT Baseball thread!

Right now, it looks like they're going to bring in a vet on a one-year deal, someone from approximately the Laird level of crappiness, and do a job share.

If they can't attract any veterans at all, then they probably give Sanchez a long look as the other half of the job-share in ST, and panic if he doesn't look up to the task.

The original lyric is "99 problems, and a ##### ain't one"

So it's safe to say that the Republicans won't be trying to repeal Obamacare, right?

It's pretty easy to brew beer and wine (legal) and even distill (generally illegal).

Actually, it's quite easy to find a moderate position on abortion. Just look at Roe v Wade. "Viability" *is* the ####### moderate position on abortion you gits.

Not to mention that if the actual goal is to reduce abortion's numbers, the surest way to do that would be to provide free contraceptives to the girls and women who are most likely to get pregnant unintentionally. Obviously that may send a different message than we'd ideally like, all other things being equal, but in terms of reducing abortions, it'd sure be more humane and more effective than the alternative of criminalization.

I think if there is a consensus on anything in this nation, its that "Washington is broken." We've tried both parties. I think most would say its the system itself that needs reforming.

Of course there is no consensus on all the issues I list. You don't need a consensus, you need enough of a minority that you can build a coalition to get something done.

It's impossible to find one on abortion, and more than anything that's the issue that will scuttle a third-party trying to be viable nationally, on a par with Dems and Pubs.

It's fine, too, to say to your candidates, 'adopt our platform and do whatever else your conscience tells you', but as soon as you announce prolife or prochoice you've defined your base, and no matter how terrific the rest of your platform is, a prochoice candidate simply won't snare a prolife voter.

There would be no official party position on abortion, so no "announcement" at all. If we have a prochoice candidate than can't snare a prolife voter, well then, so what? I'm not looking to get 100% of the vote here. Each candidate would be judged on abortion on their own. So you'd probably have prolifers in red states and prochoicers in blue states. But unlike the other two parties, this party as a brand would not be associated with either position, which is what hurts Dems in red states (even if they're pro-life) and Republicans in blue states (even if they're pro choice).

Unless you're Rick Santorum, in which case you say that birth control LEADS TO MORE teen pregnancies.

First, that's not likely to happen. Second: Why? Why would that be crazy? As Lisa Simpson said when Bart forgot his consent form for the school outing and couldn't go: it's the only way he'll [they'll] learn. Much too much energy is spent imagining and fearing bogeyman phantom contingencies.

Right, because we'd hate to send the message "women have every right to have sex for pure recreational enjoyment, for no reason other than the enjoyment of their own existential selves." We're much better off continuing to send the message that the only valid reason for a woman to have sex is in order to make a baby for a man.

We'll forget that within a page or so.

Isn't the bigger issue prepping/curing it? (Comment based on going to a tobacco museum, like, 28 years ago.)

As for your nutrition label, Andy - I take issue with a few things, principally with how they define welfare and I imagine it'd be impossible to come up with a definition that makes everybody happy. Well designed, though.

The problem is that different people mean wildly different things when they say that "Washington is broken". Tea Partiers think Washington is broken, because they're spending too damn much money. The Occupy movement thinks Washington is broken because it's in the pocket of Wall Street. Liberals think Washington is broken because the Republican minority in the Senate has the ability to filibuster, until the Republicans win the majority there, at which point, Conservatives will think Washington is broken because the Democratic minority in the Senate has the ability to filibuster. Some folks think Washington is "broken" because taxes are too high (on some people) some think Washington is "broken" because taxes are too low (on some people).

In order to "fix" Washington, you have to have a sense of what a "fixed" Washington would look like and what it would do in terms of policy. And there's no real consensus among "Independents" on what that is/should be.

Ultimately, in the real world, I don't think you can divorce policy from process.

1. Fields.
2. Tobacco.
3. Tobacco barn.

Now, it's a pretty big difference between that product and a tar and nicotine laced death stick, but dude, tobacco is as natural as pot. It's a friggin' plant.

The only real consensus among "Independents" is that it's terrible that people don't agree with their perfectly reasoned middle-of-the-road positions and the only thing to do about it is to stand around sing-songing "Can't we all just get along?!"

Rasmussen is reporting that Dems and Reps are tied on their Generic Congressional Ballot, 46-46, a change from a 46-43 Republican lead one week ago.

Is this information of any practical, predictive use? It seems much more useless than national polls for the President, for example, but has anybody (Nate?) looked at whether it might tell us anything at all?

It was sort of under-reported, but the real lasting impact of 2010 was the GOP seizing several state legislatures, which led to some very, very tough redistrictings. Of course, the Dems did the same in state legislatures they owned -- but only Illinois and maybe California look to actually yield any fruit - maybe NY, too.

Second, the Dems had a really poor House recruiting cycle. a few rematches to seats they lost in 2010 (a couple of which they should win back), but there were a ton of good opportunities left on the board due to weak fields on the D side. PA in particular.

Finally, while the GOP actually had a few more retirements than the Dems -- the Dems had several retirements to seats that they really have no hope of retaining without an entrenched incumbent (Mike Ross in AR, Dan Boren in OK, a few others).

National Journals' final poll also had some really good 'generic ballot' news for the Dems -- but in the current landscape, I just don't see where there's enough turf to even get the Dems into double digits. I see absolutely zero chance for them to win back the House. My House guess was D+6, but it wouldn't shock me to see it come out in a wash or near wash. I believe Sabato has it D+2 and Cook, IIRC, has it D+1.

If one is of a mind that the Dems need more ideological purity of their own, the silver lining is that the Blue Dog caucus might be damn close to nonexistent after this cycle -- it's already down to about 14, and it will almost certainly be single digits when the dust clears from tomorrow.

What will be real interesting is that there's increasing buzz that Pelosi may step aside - at least from leadership, if not congress entirely - when this is all said and done. Steny Hoyer has been the heir apparent since about forever -- but his power base IS the blue dogs, and there just aren't many of them left. Anthony Weiner was supposed to be the progressive/liberal leadership up-and-comer, but he's obviously gone. That leaves Clyburn as one possible candidate.

Actually - both caucuses could have mildly interesting leadership fights. If Obama wins the WH, the Dems keep the Senate, and somehow manage to get into the high/mid single digits in House pickups - it wouldn't at all shock me to see Cantor make a play for the gavel.

Kiko is right. Here's one way of thinking of this. If you took a poll asking "Are federal taxes at the right level?" You might get something like 85% No, 15% Yes (picking out of the air.) So obviously there's a consensus that federal taxes must be changed, right?

But that 85% No might include, say,

40% who think taxes are too high
25% who want taxes at Clinton levels
15% who want taxes at Reagan levels

The result being that even a policy can be both very unpopular and yet every alternative can also be very unpopular. (Taxes may not be the right one, here, but you get the drift.)

The underlying issue is that "change Washington" like "change taxes" is a slogan not a platform. It has no content. People cheer for slogans and buy products for slogans, but they don't endorse slogans since there isn't anything to endorse.

I'm pro-legalization pretty much across the board w/ appropriate taxation - though I'm not sure how ease of growing at home would impact marijuana taxation.


It's pretty easy to brew beer and wine (legal) and even distill (generally illegal).

How much would a Pall Mall, filterless cigarette sized joint cost, once taxes were levied?

Growing the good stuff takes some care. You'll also have some regs added that make small scale farming tough. Home grown won't be a big market, but a lot of folks will have a little patch in the backyard, or a few pots on the balcony. I could be wrong, though. There might be a real flourishing of the pot equivalent of small breweries.

A justice's salary isn't Wall Street lobbyist money by any means, but it's at about the 95th percentile of US household income.

Justices write books and give lectures and such &ndash I don't know if and law forbids them to profit by such activities. I guess who the hell's going to tell them what's legal or not? :)

Wait--your individual candidates are going to have to make their positions known, right? We'll call you the Good Government Party for the moment. Once the GGP candidate in Missouri mentions he's pro-choice, he's running for what are now Democratic votes. How does he get elected?

I like your idea, but I just don't see how your candidate is fighting for anything other than half the votes. I don't see paths to victory.

I'm not sure it is more inconvenient to grow, but probably more goes into processing. But that's probably a function of expectations - people think of tobacco products as the mass produced things they get today, not something you grow and dry in your home garden. Regardless, either product is easier to produce locally in small batches than alcohol of any sort.

There's no evidence that knowledge of, or availability of, contraception has any effect on "unwanted pregnancy." (That is, women who get pregnant unintentionally do not list inability to obtain contraception as a reason.)

Did 15-17 year old girls list "not wanting to be thought of as a whore or told 'no, you're too young' when trying to buy birth control" as a reason instead?

Actually, the recent polling on taxes shows a pretty even split -- Gallup has numbers going back 60 years and while I can't find, I believe the last Pew omnibus where america stands on things has similar numbers.

One other big problem -- we've increasingly seen a lot of the tax burden shift to the state and local level, and in many cases - more in the form of "fees".

I'd actually have a tough time responding to such a poll question myself. I think federal income tax rates are too low, but I think an awful lot of 'fees' that nickel and dime us in the masses are out of hand.

This creates the problems you specify without solving the problem you want it to. If you increase the House to 2,000 from 435, then you decrease the number of people represented by a Representative from about 700,000 to 150,000. I don't think that a guy representing 150K people has any "fighting chance to actually know" his constituents.

To actually create such a "fighting chance," you'd probably need to make it, say, 10,000. Which is. silly.

What's a train? You are so last millennium?

Now, that's a smart observation. And what's the cost for administering and enforcing all that picayune stuff?

There is a distinction between discussion of what is and discussion of what ought to be.


Vox Popoli

I am aware that many of the national polls are projecting an election that goes down to the wire. I am cognizant of the many hands being wrung about the possibility that the Electoral College vote will diverge from the popular vote. And it has been impossible to escape Nate Silver’s thrice-weekly predictions in the New York Times that Barack Obama has at least a 538 percent chance of winning the election tomorrow.

110 comments:

"Election day is almost here!! My hard-on for Romney is so intense that I fear my balls may explode."--Jesus Christ, in the sky.

Everybody needs to get out and vote for the Jeezus ticket. Otherwise the queers, atheists and evolutionists will take over the world!

Come on now. Don't piss off the Savior!

I saw Jim Sinclair though Romney will cause the currency collapse much sooner because he'll work against the Fed. I though Romney would boost the economy a bit and prolong things, but that's another possibility. However, it's also looking like an Obama win will be a loss for Obama, since Republicans look to gain seats, Obama has no agenda, he's going to face a Congressional inquiry into Benghazi that could grow into an Iran-Contra type scandal, and the emboldened House won't budge on the fiscal cliff.

The most interesting thing is what happens if Republicans lose. They're never going to get a more energized base, it would really argue for demographic inevitability. Which is interesting, because that was what was going on in the 1840s and 1850s, as the South realized they would be permanently outvoted.

I beg to differ, four more years of Obama will energize the Republican base. Problem is the party will give us another bank-o-phile moderate to support. If Prechter (and Nate for that matter) are right, things will be much worse in 2016, whoever is elected will most likely be blamed and tossed from the White House.

As for Benghazi, Congress needs to impeach Obama. Of course the Senate will find him not guilty, just as that dishonest mob did to Clinton. Jury nullification is OK for the oligarchs, but must be avoided for the rest of us.

"If so, we’ll enjoy the benefit of another four years of the most incompetent, most unintentionally tragicomic administration since President Carter’s one term."

I disagree with the "unintentionally". It's not just Obama, it's Obama and all the "folks" he surrounds himself with (or has been surrounded by). He the lazy assiest pres we've ever had, and if it were just the one man child it may be a good option. He is probably a puppet, but he is entirely in agreement with what has been going down on his watch. Everything that has happened has been very intentional. I think that Romney at least is not a communist.

It may or may not be "the end times" for the world I think it more likely that it could just be that the U.S. is well into the beginning of her twilight years. God judges nations. A country such as ours which has been so blessed and been given so much light, and yet has so dramatically turned away from Him cannot escape judgement forever. A lack of good available leadership/evil rulers are a form of judgement. The only real hope is repentance.

After all the hoopla and hysteria abates, whoever gets in will have to back away from the fiscal cliff,i.e., abandon the provisions providing for tax increases and spending cuts that kicks in January next.

At least, this is what the Bank of Canada is assuming. Even so, they expect fiscal tightening to remove 1 percentage point from U.S. growth in 2012, and 1.5 percentage points in each of 2013 and 2014.

We must elect a president who will stop the aging of the Baby Boomers. Perhaps by infecting the water supply with a virus designed to kill those born in the years after WWII. Particularly now that they've stopped paying for everyone's social security.

I think your map is a good prediction except for Pennsylvania. Change that and you have Romney 285, Obama 253. That's my prediction.

I think you're wrong about PA. Hope you're right about everything else except WI.

Romney doesn't thrill me, but I delight in the misery of progressive liberals.

"A Mormon or a Muslim? How in the goddamn hell did it come to this?"--Jesus H. Christ, at the voting booth. Without a photo I.D.

"[H]e cannot successfully arm-wrestle the invisible hand of the global economic forces."

This was priceless. I can't wait for one of the local Masonic conspiracy-philes to Photoshop an image of Hair Leader with his hand in his jacket.

The dislike and fear for Obama is greater then the enthusiasm for Romney. The poll numbers for Obama are hyped up to make this election look close. Purpose is to prevent voter apathy.

This election is not close. Obama has lost 30 to 40 percent of his popularity since 2010. The only electoral votes Obama will get is from DC 3 because it is black.

VD said in his endorsement blog column

Stow the reactions to anyone else's endorsement or reasoning, limit your comments to your own intended actions. I'll highlight what I consider to be some of the best and worst of them in a post tomorrow, and present my own endorsement for the presidential election.

I too think that Romney will win big.

The pollsters have been regularly oversampling democrats and undersampling republicans. More importantly, independents have been consistently underepresented and romney enjoys a 6-12 point lead among them, depending upon who you listen to.

If Romney truly is within 4 points in Pennsylvania, even with a +13 democrat sample, it's game over for our Kenyan-american president.

I still think Obama is going to win, maybe in controversy. The simple fact is that Romney's 47% comment was right in spirit if not in actual numbers. (49% don't pay Fed Income taxes.) Too many Americans DO have a sense of entitlement to some handout from Big Brother or another. Maybe its student loans, maybe its Medicare, maybe they work directly for the government or they get tax rebates or something.

I have yet to meet an Obama supporter that didn't want something and want someone else to pay for it.

I agree with VD's electoral map EXCEPT that I slightly disagree re: Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. I think any one or all of them can legitimately be in play.

Biggest disagreement w/the map (and it's a small one), Maine's 2nd congressional district. Look for it to break for Romney with it's lone, independent electoral vote. Link

I don't care much for Nate Silver's opinion. Now, I am MUCH more interested in another Nate's opinion.

You predicted McCain would win in 2009, Vox. Not Obama.

With the caveat of being him being down by 5 in the polls, I need to add. But you did say this:

"But based on my observations, I am forced to conclude that despite the way things superficially appear, John McCain will win the election." )

You are loved, L.W. Dickel. <3 :)

I pledge blind allegiace.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/125222.html

Rasmussen has Romney back up by 1%. 49 to 48. I think that is a pretty clear signal that Romney wins the popular vote tomorrow. If you and the RINO-head NEOCONs (Morris, Rove, etc.) are correct, there is minmaly hope that the electorate can at least identify the failings of the incumbent. There judgement on the new guy will come in 2014 with the mid-terms.

My fave part of the op-ed "If so, we’ll enjoy the benefit of another four years of the most incompetent, most unintentionally tragicomic administration since President Carter’s one term. But I’m not concerned about that. We already know what sort of president Obama will make, which is to say an absentee one. A country can do worse."

I just wonder how the tv ratings will churn this time around, probably just the same as the last election cycle.

"But based on my observations, I am forced to conclude that despite the way things superficially appear, John McCain will win the election." )

I'd predicted the Democratic win for months at that point and was just tormenting Republicans with that post. They were clutching and grabbing at anything by then. Read it a little more closely, with particular attention to the caveats. Remember, I'd even written about how McCain completely blew the election by rushing back to Washington to save Wall Street.

> . you have Romney 285, Obama 253. That's my prediction.

That sounds fairly reasonable. So does Josh's prediction from the earlier thread though. We're a very divided country.

Obama blow-out. They'll bus in the skeleton of Rosa Parks to win this thing.

And a commie is better than a Mormon any day of the week.

Here it is. From March 13, 2007:

"If the Republican Party was actually trying to win this fall, they would pay attention to the way even conservative commentators are declaring that they will sit it out rather than vote for Giuliani, McCain or Romney. But, as I've written repeatedly over the last two years, this is the Lizard Queen's election. It's the Democrat's turn again, so the GOP has to throw up a sacrificial lamb. I guessed it would be Pataki, but it turned out that he's not even electable enough to serve as voter bait."

"While I'm still standing by my 2003 prediction of a president Rodham-Clinton, my ability to read the tea leaves with regards to the Republicans hasn't been very good. I initially thought Pataki might be the unelectable Republican selected to take the fall, (although I did suggest Giuliani as the other probability, as he indeed turned out to be), but as I noted before the primaries began, Giuliani was such a horrendous candidate that he couldn't even fulfill his appointed role. But Democrats need not fear, both McCain and Romney are eminently capable of being defeated in the same landslide that was intended for Giuliani. It doesn't actually matter which of them is nominated to play Bob Dole redux."

Whom are you endorsing?

Didn't you read the column?

Vox, do you think team lizard queen's loss in 2008 to the magic Negro was intentional, or just a staggering example of incompetence (not knowing the rules for assigning delegates)?

VD: "I'd predicted the Democratic win for months at that point and was just tormenting Republicans with that post. They were clutching and grabbing at anything by then. Read it a little more closely, with particular attention to the caveats. Remember, I'd even written about how McCain completely blew the election by rushing back to Washington to save Wall Street."

Yes, I did see that you had made reference to previous posts noting an Obama victory. I haven't read through all those past posts I must admit. It was more just plain ol' curiousity that made me go back and check your opines on the past election, anyway. :)

Back to 2012, I do think Romney wins. He doesn't get MN or MI or PA. But he does get OH and he gets WI in a squeaker. He also gets IA and CO. Loses NH and NV.

He easily gets FL, VA, and NC of course.

And Chris Matthews has a stroke on air, while Rachael Maddow cries silently. Does anyone thinking that MSNBC's ratings, what little they have, is largely due to conservative types tuning in to see their reactions to various news events? I do think that their ratings will be higher on election night with a Romney victory because conservatives will be stopping by to watch the train wreck as it unfolds.

Good job Vox. Having spent some time unwinding the polls over the weekend, I think you have a good shot at beating Silver's 2008 predictions.

What I can project with absolute, total certainty, is that the msm networks will wait to call states like Alabama until about three AM, but will call places like PA, OH, and NH for Zero the instant the polls close, even if they are pretty sure that they may have to do an "oops" later in the evening.


Keynote address at 2004 Democratic National Convention [ edit | edit source ]


Obama wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts, while still serving as a state legislator. ⎪] After describing his maternal grandfather's experiences as a World War II veteran and a beneficiary of the New Deal's FHA and G.I. Bill programs, Obama said:

No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

Questioning the Bush administration's management of the Iraq War, Obama spoke of an enlisted Marine, Corporal Seamus Ahern from East Moline, Illinois, asking, "Are we serving Seamus as well as he is serving us?" He continued:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Finally, he spoke for national unity:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. ⎩]

The speech was Obama's introduction to most of America. Its enthusiastic reception at the convention and widespread coverage by national media gave him instant celebrity status. ⎫]


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

When Things Fall to Pieces

Recent events in the news almost sound like one of those old country music songs. There's the David, Paula, Jill, and Holly "square" (as opposed to triangle). And now the possible John and Jill connection with the shirtless FBI agent caveat. Here's a little blogdrama about the mess with some musical help from Carl Smith and George Jones.

The place was a dive near an army base and was called the All In. The neon beer signs provided most of the light and the floor was littered with peanut shells. It was late, and the place was almost empty. One guy was shirtless and sat alone in a booth at the back, drinking beer and taking photos of himself with his phone.

Another lone man sat at the bar drinking shots.

The man at the bar was an ex Army General who recently had also become an ex-big time government official, and he felt his life was falling apart around him. He'd been forced to resign his high position because of an affair. He put some coins in the juke box and ordered another shot.

As the song ended, another Army General entered. He looked like he'd been sleeping in his wrinkled uniform and his eyes were wild with worry. His command position was in jeopardy and he didn't know what to do. He too sat down at the bar.

The first general looked at him. "You too, John?" he said.

"Shit," said the general who'd just come in. "It's all your damn fault. You and that hussie you hooked up with." He put some coins in the jukebox and sat down.

The shirtless man at the booth in the back wiped a tear from his eye. He looked at a photo of the woman on his phone. He'd been removed from his assignment because of her and he just couldn't get her off his mind. He ordered a beer and put some coins in the jukebox.

When an affair (main street, back street or under the desk) crumbles, when somebody falls on hard times, or when a guy gets stuck on the unattainable, you can always find an old country song to echo the misery. Country music has already "been there, done that, and bought the tee shirt."


White House, Black Mother: Michelle Obama and the Politics of Motherhood as First Lady

In 2008, for the first time in the history of this country, a black woman became First Lady of the United States. During Barack Obama's presidency, Michelle Obama was ever present in the public eye for her advocacy on issues related to health, military families, education, and for promoting the interests of women and girls. This article contributes to ongoing scholarly discourse, as well as extensive media coverage and analysis, regarding Obama's role as wife and first lady by critically examining how the particular model of motherhood she embraced and exhibited, a model firmly rooted in the black American community, was designed to challenge negative stereotypes of black women, maternity, and families. We address the following questions in this work: How did Obama's identity as a black woman influence the policies she championed as first lady? Does Obama's mothering relate to stereotypes of black mothers and help (re)define black motherhood, and if so, how? What does it mean to be a black mater gentis or mother of the nation? Drawing on her speeches and policy initiatives, we reveal how Michelle Obama defied dominant and oppressive stereotypes of black women and mothers while simultaneously (re)defining black womanhood and motherhood for the nation.


Door to hell__Geographical research


door to hell also known

Gate to Hell , the Crater of Fire ,

Darvaza Crater) is a natural
gas field in

Derweze , Turkmenistan , that collapsed into an underground cavern in 1971, becoming a natural gas crater . [1] Geologists set it on fire to prevent the spread of methane gas, and it has been burning continuously since then. The diameter of the crater is 69 metres (226 ft), and its depth is 30 metres (98 ft). [2]

The crater is a popular tourist attraction. In the past five years 50,000 tourists have visited the site.[3] The gas crater has a total area of

5,350 m 2 , the size of an American football field . The surrounding area is also popular for wild desert camping.

The gas crater is located near the

Derweze village. It is in the middle of the Karakum Desert , about 260 kilometres (160 mi) north of Ashgabat , the capital of Turkmenistan. The gas reserve found here is one of the largest in the world. The name “Door to Hell” was given to the field by the locals, referring to the fire, boiling mud, and orange flames in the large crater, which has a diameter of 70 metres (230 ft). [4] The hot spots range over an area with a width of 60 metres (200 ft) and to a depth of about 20 metres (66 ft). [5]

The “Door to Hell” and the surrounding area, including where the tents usually are pitched, a couple of hundred meters away to the south of the crater.

The site was identified by Soviet engineers in 1971. [6] It was originally thought to be a substantial oil field site. [7] The engineers set up a drilling rig and operations to assess the quantity of oil available at the site. Soon after the preliminary survey found a natural gas pocket, the ground beneath the drilling rig and camp collapsed into a wide crater and was buried.

Expecting dangerous releases of poisonous gases from the cavern into nearby towns, the engineers thought it best to burn the gas off. [4] It was estimated that the gas would burn out within a few weeks, but it has instead continued to burn for more than four decades. [4]

The crater was featured in a Die Trying episode titled “Crater of Fire”. Explorer

George Kourounis became the first person to ever set foot at the bottom, gathering samples of extremophile microorganisms. The episode was broadcast on the National Geographic Channel on July 16, 2014. [8]

Effects on future development of gas

In April 2010, the president of Turkmenistan , Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow , visited the site and ordered that the hole should be closed, or measures be taken to limit its influence on the development of other natural gas fields in the area. [6] Turkmenistan plans to increase its production of natural gas, intending to increase its export of gas to many countries such as Pakistan, China ,

India , Iran , Russia , and Western Europe , from its present yearly production level to 225 billion cubic metres (7.9 ×10 12 cu ft) in the next 20 years. [5]

Eternal fire at Baba Gurgur in Iraq

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Door to Hell.

2. ^ Christina Nunez (17 July 2014).

“Q&A: The First-Ever Expedition to Turkmenistan’s “Door to Hell” ” . National Geographic.

3. ^ “Turkmenistan hopes ‘Door to Hell’ will boost tourism” . CTV News. 22 June 2014.

Pakistan Daily Times . September 14, 2012. Retrieved 11 October 2012.

5. ^ a b Marat Gurt (20 April 2010).

“Turkmen president wants to close “Hell’s Gate” ” . Reuters. Retrieved 16 December 2012.

6. ^ a b “The Door to Hell: Take a look inside a giant hole in the desert which has been on fire for more than 40 YEARS” . Daily Mail . 27 July 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2012.

7. ^ American Geological Institute (January 2010). Earth . American Geological Institute. p. 22. Retrieved

8. ^ Christina Nunez (16 July 2014).

“Q&A: The First-Ever Expedition to Turkmenistan’s “Door to Hell” ” . National Geographic.

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.

Terms of Use • Privacy • Desktop

Door to Hell, Gate to Hell


Althouse

It's 7 a.m. here in Wisconsin, which might just make the difference in the Electoral College, with our measly but magnificent 10 votes. I've seen various permutations of the Electoral College map — here, create your own map — and it's easy to see how Wisconsin could put Romney over the top even if he loses Ohio and Pennsylvania and Iowa.

Air Force One touched down in Madison at 2:30 a.m., and a small group of people were lined up on State Street at 6, but the line has grown in the last hour. Madison gave Obama his largest crowd of the campaign when he was here a month ago, but he was here a month ago, and that was in the afternoon in the middle of campus. Now, it's early Monday morning, a time when young people are difficult to rouse from their warm beds, and, speaking of warmth, it's 30° in Madison right now. It was a long wait in the rain for the campus speech last month.

And people must remember that you don't just get to see Obama and that other guy you might care about. (Do the young folk care about seeing Bruce Springsteen?) You have to put up with the local politicos — the mayor and so forth. Meanwhile, it's all on TV. and has been for months. (Years?) The reason to go is not so much to see, but to be seen. Lend your body to the photograph of Obama with the Wisconsin Capitol looming in the background. As it looms, you may wonder, where was Obama when you were marching and chanting and drumming last year protesting Scott Walker? Where was Obama last spring when you dragged Scott Walker into a recall election? He expressed tepid support from afar, but declined to set foot in Wisconsin, even when he was right at the border in Minneapolis/Chicago.

Ironically, that recall election forced Republicans to develop their ground game in Wisconsin, and that's exactly what may push Mitt Romney over the top tomorrow. Here's RNC chairman Reince Priebus, yesterday on "State of the Union":

When you see that Wisconsin State Capitol in the background in today's Obama photo-ops, remember all that it symbolizes: an immense GOP victory in 2010, a huge and rude months-long uprising of the left end of the Democratic Party's target constituency (shunned by Obama himself) in 2011, and, in 2012, a decisive victory in the recall election for GOP Governor Scott Walker. What about all those Democratic voters splayed out around the GOP-dominated Capitol building? Hello? This is Madison, Wisconsin. The state Capitol building is always surrounded by Democrats. Every day, every month, every year. Madison does not control election outcomes in Wisconsin. In fact, there are an awful lot of people in Wisconsin whose idea of Madison is: This is not what Wisconsin looks like. And the people of Madison return the sentiment. We've been amusing ourselves with the saying "Madison is X square miles surrounded by reality" for a long, long time.

Obama will win by a landslide in Madison, but Madison — as we all know and have been telling ourselves for decades — is not reality.

105 comments:

Zero can and will steal any state he needs.

I wonder if Obama will face any hecklers in Madison today?

Interesting video link at Drudge from a heckler last night in Cincinnati. That heckler took Obama and the pro Obama crowd completely off their game. They aren't used to having a protestor disrupt one of THEIR events.

Zero can and will steal any state he needs.

Get ready for the whiny excuses from whichever side loses.

"Boo hoo hoo! They stole the election from me!" = "I backed the loser."

Get ready for the whiny excuses from whichever side loses.

I don't have a side. Just eyes to see with and a brain to think with.

This is a curious thing about hardcore lefties I started noticing a few years ago. That they often like to live in enclaves surrounded by people who think just like they do. One hears about places like Portland, Seattle, Berkley, Austin, I lived in Ithaca (NY) for 9 years. I have a friend in Decatur who commented how glad he was to live in a place where everyone was a "progressive".

Is it my imagination or do "conservatives" seem much more willing to live in places with more diversity of opinion?

Romney will win Wisconsin AND Ohio. The republican base AND independents have had enough of Obama's socialism. There is a better than even chance Romney will win in Minnesota.

In the immortal words of the cajun reptile: It's the economy, stupid.

If Obama wanted to ensure himself a large crowd he should have asked Romney to join him.

I don't have a side. Just eyes to see with and a brain to think with.

Uh huh. You call him Zero and say that he will steal any state he wants and you maintain. you don't have a side!

"As it looms, you may wonder, where was Obama when you were marching and chanting and drumming last year protesting Scott Walker?"

The big news is that a lot of voters decided they couldn't vote for Obama a long time ago. They also decided that they were going to keep that under their hat--they didn't want the confrontation--or even want to talk about it. They were going to sit this one out, for the most part. After the first debate, some--not all--decided to vote for Romney because they saw someone different than the picture that had been painter by the media.
Looking at all the numbers, including early voting, I think that most States are in play--even Illinois. Look at the absentee count in Chicago--the lowest in several election cycles and a good source of manufactured votes. From all the Benghazi talk I'm hearing in Chicago, it's going to play a bigger role than the Lefties here are hoping. It might go down as the issue that sealed Romney's victory. Everyone can see that Obama and the Media kicked the can down the road until after the election.

How can you stand to live in such a looney ugly place? Madison sounds just awful. Why don't you live in Waukesha County? As a college professor you don't need to be on campus everyday and you don't need to be there at all in the summer. Why you willingly surround yourself with mean ugly people in a trashy over-taxed poorly runned city is a real mystery.

Uh huh. You call him Zero

And what have you seen me call the other guy?

Okay, what's your pet name for the other guy, campy?

I think Romney will win PA, too. Chuck Todd said on The Today Show this morning that Romney's topline count of electoral votes is 315. That's my guess.

This is what hypocrisy looks like.

Will Wisconsin take a break from politics after the election?

Non-stop yammering from my FB friends for six months. I wish they'd shut up and find something else to do.

What an embarrassment for Madison.

New motto: "Yes, We're THAT Stupid"

Campaigning in Madison is like campaigning in his own house--very little to gain. I was in southern Wisconsin over the weekend and the Romney/Ryan signs dominate by a huge margin.

I can’t make it to tne rally but if I could I’d gather 4 other friends to hold up 4 large placards in view of the students going into and out of the rally.

A graphic showing unemployment the last four years, one showing labor participation rate the last four years, one showing the national debt the last four years and the CBO projection the next four – possibly with a line noting “you students will have to pay for this”, and finally a graphic showing unemployment and under-employment of recent college grads (I believe it is over 50%). And then perhaps a sign saying “Enjoy the Show, and if Obama wins, I hope you enjoy living in your parent’s basement”

And, just for good measure, and given its Guy Fawkes day, we’d all wear Occupy Wall Street/Guy Fawkes masks just to create even more cognitive dissonance for the students.

Campaigning in Madison is like campaigning in his own house--very little to gain.

That they often like to live in enclaves surrounded by people who think just like they do.

Places like Madison used to be little bastions of free thinking, liberty, etc. Somewhere along the way they morphed into something which thought itself strong enough to become the dominant force(s) in intellectual, civic, & commercial American life. No longer reliant upon volition, they organized into forces. Tomorrow they will be tested on this point and the result will be bolster or retreat.

you seem a little cranky this morning phx. I'm feeling great.

Waste of time, WI will go Romney.

And you hit it right Althouse, Walker's Victory Centers were taken over by Romney. The GOP ground game here is textbook case on how to do it right.

I wonder, will there be any Why Did You Kill Chris Stevens? signs in the crowd, or would that be, ya know, too raw?

I think we should have a six week period after the election during which it is a capital offense to discuss politics.

Anybody who violates this law will be summarily executed in the back yard without trial!

Please guys. Go look at some dirty pictures, or read about sports. or something.

Shouting Thomas notes (among others): Non-stop yammering from my FB friends for six months. I wish they'd shut up and find something else to do.

When I was back in Wisconsin last summer families were still split and not talking to each other over the Walker recall. It's hard to image this not repeating nationwide.

There is one choice with a proven track record of divisiveness there is another untested choice calling for a return to core unity.

"Fringes will always be fringes, but let them not unhinge us."

@Paul Risenhoover: I doubt it's related to the election.

When people say something the wrong way I sometimes overreact.

Sometimes I say something the wrong way, too.

I completely accepted Bush's getting the decision from the SCOTUS in 2000 and I'd like everyone to respect the decision in 2012. No way that's gonna happen though.

"phx said.
Turnout turnout turnout."

I can't believe that Obama's turnout in Madison will exceed what the Walker Recall produced. And Walker won huge. What you are watching is "going away" party for Choom. He's toast here in WI.

I think we should have a six week period after the election during which it is a capital offense to discuss politics.

Wisdom from ST. Except I'm going to immediately start arguing that CP needs to be abolished.

Yeah, come to Waukesha county Ann and Meade, I'll go to Madison instead of staying here with these mean ugly people in Waukesha County.

We should have a thread where we all make our final predictions so we can either laugh in each other's faces or start with the I told you sos.

"Campaigning in Madison is like campaigning in his own house--very little to gain."

Voter fraud requires motivation.

My final prediction is that either Romney or Obama will win, that the recriminations will start immediately, and none of will make a fucking bit of difference in your lives.

"I wonder, will there be any Why Did You Kill Chris Stevens? signs in the crowd, or would that be, ya know, too raw?"

I thinking just his picture.

As always (kidding!) you are right Shouting Thomas. Recriminations, accusations no matter which side wins, and it sure won't make a lick of difference that we can tell.

For one thing, you can never say with certainty "It would have been so much better if so and so won the election."

I'm a believer in the consequences of unintended results. I have a deep sense of humility that tells me I don't really know for sure what is best for my country or for the world.

I drove up to Green Bay from Chicago on Saturday for the Packers game. Over the entire trip, I saw maybe 3 Obama signs, and countless Romney/Ryan and Tommy for Senate signs. At the tailgate, there were plenty of tables with Romney/Ryan signs, none with Obama signs (just one of the houses on Lombardi Ave. Based on that, Madison's going to need a ton of votes to stay Democrat.

“Vivre le Trotskyville Libre!” Trotskyville (Madison).

I have a deep sense of humility that tells me I don't really know for sure what is best for my country or for the world.

That is what motivated me to choose my screen name.

On the other hand, I'm quite confident that I'm less ignorant than most of the people in government who are trying to micro-manage the country.

This morning I'm thinking about the leftist activists who threatened to withhold support for Obama because he shunned them in their hour of need. Mostly I'm wondering "why are you doing exactly what you said you wouldn't"?. Support is always a one way street with Democratic politicians. But then their policies are one way too [money goes to them and nothing comes back] so that seems appropriate. The question is why people fight for politicians who promise goodies but return nothing.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

People need something to occupy their time, and somebody to blame.

Walker won the recall handily because enough people were pissed off over the notion of the recall. It was a bad idea by the Democrats, but I don't think it translates into much for the presidential election. The notion that it greatly improved Republican "ground game" is just more wishful thinking.

I think it is telling that BHO is spending his last campaign day (in part) in Madison. While the inevitable adoration will be soothing, it seems desperate.

The President will not move the needle here in MSN. If he wanted to generate turn out, he should have campaigned in LaCrosse or the Chippewa Valley.

@rightisright, Madison politics are annoying and at times despicable. It is, nevertheless, a fabulous place to live. Don't get me wrong, I really like Waukesha, but political compatibility is not the driving criteria where I would want to live.

These students have already voted. A significant number have voted twice, in their home districts and in Madison. Their work is done. Back to snoozing and partying.

My office window looks down Carroll Street to State Street and there has been a steady stream of people--mainly baby boomers and not very many college students, but it is early--I think they will get the 80,000 people they are looking for. I don't think that Bruce Springsteen is a big draw for college students but he will be a huge draw for the baby boomers. They are giving everyone Obama-Biden stickers to wear and it looks like most people are wearing them. Some people with pro-life signs are also in the mix of people.

Obama is coming to Madison again for optics.

It's one of the few places he can reliably turn out a large crowd.

He dares not play to half a house on the eve of the election.

I'm so glad I live in a red state. I lived in Louisville, Ky for thirty some years and its kind of liberal. People in rural Ky think Louisville is a dangerous place, I guess because they're always reading about the killings in the poor black sections of the city.

If Wisconsin goes Romney, won't people look back at the recall, Supreme Court bruhaha, etc., and wonder if those events took too much energy (and money) out of the unions get-out-the-vote effort? Obama's visit today seems to be aimed at the young people (in Madison and across the country) to urge them to renew their 2008 enthusiasm for Obama. But that's young people, not unions.

This is another reason that makes Wisconsin an especially interesting race this year.

"I have a deep sense of humility that tells me I don't really know for sure what is best for my country or for the world."

If Wisconsin goes red, Romney's win will probably be safe enough that it won't all have come down to Wisconsin.

My God what nonsense . . .

Simple to say that. The challenge is to say why you think so.

Campaigning in Madison is like campaigning in his own house--very little to gain.

Quite so. It is all about having some nice optics. A big crowd, even if it is full of [as Althouse says] people just lending their bodies for Obama's photo op.

Preaching to the choir. Listening to the echo chamber. As always. Obama. taking the easy route instead of doing the heavy lifting.

"I have a deep sense of humility that tells me I don't really know for sure what is best for my country or for the world."

Typical liberal Dem, they feel strongly, think weakly.

I think that the candidate I'll vote for will accomplish [X] and that his policies will be [Y], but I sure as hell can't be sure that that is what will actually happen.

Because, in the past, there's been little evidence that there is a large correspondence between what the candidate says and what he does when elected.

And, reality gets in the way, too.

I'd like everyone to respect the decision in 2012. No way that's gonna happen though.

Depends on what you mean by "respect the decision".

Will I complain about stolen election, threaten to move, claim the nation is doomed, or call the electorate stupid?

Will I give up on pushing Obama to at least tell us what the US Govt already knows about the circumstances surrounding Stevens death?

No, because that isn't election-related, that's governance-related. Meaning, it impacts the election, but doesn't go away when the election ends.

Will I take steps to try to minimize the damage to personal life and financial situation from a 2nd Obama term?

Will I push the Republican Congress to do everything it can to block Obama's policies?

Absolutely. Especially if they increase their numbers in both houses (as looks likely right now), giving Congress a mandate to obstruct.

And will I cheer every time a leftist/Keynesian/anti-business policy move by Obama fails?

But that is because I'm a citizen, not a subject.

I think Romney carries Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and maybe Michigan. Romney by a landslide.

Be forewarned. That house swap w/ Inga would mean caring for 53 cats and aluminum foil over the windows.

"I have a deep sense of humility that tells me I don't really know for sure what is best for my country or for the world."

Aren't you a big government guy? Nobody does hubris better than the government.

It is not your imagination.

I see that Clinton and Richard Trumka are headed into Pittsburgh today for a rally.

The left has been telling us that PA is not in play, haven't they?

But, but the Pittsburg market covers eastern Ohio and it will help bolster dem hopes there as Richard Trumka will stand up and tell coal industry workers that it is very important for coal workers to support the man who wants to shut down their industry.

But if PA is not in play, why wouldn't you just go rally in Ohio if that is where the real battle lay?

I also think the Romster will take NV, NM, possibly OR, and maybe Jersey - given the events of the last few days.

Be interesting to see how close NY is.

I wonder if Obama will face any hecklers in Madison today?

I wonder if people will walk out halfway through as they did in VA.

My gutsy call:
A combination of enthusiasm/turnout favoring R and Romney raking in a 22-pt lead with independents means that the poll averages you see will shift 7 full points to Romney in votes cast.

That means that even Oregon and Minnesota go for Romney, resulting in
355 electoral votes for Romney vs 183 for Obama.

The same thing will happen in the Senate, where the GOP will end up with a clear majority but fall short of a filibuster-proof lead with 56 Senators.

The number of GOP Governors and Representatives will also increase.

But the MSM will still claim Romney lacks any sort of mandate at all, in any way.

The only uncertain point is what excuse they will offer in trying to deny the mandate.

I actually had an election worker come to the house yesterday, asking whether I've voted, and if my wife voted. I told him I had and my wife hadn't, and that I thought our votes cancelled each other out.

Not sure if that last phrase is true.

I'd like to hear your analysis of how WI can be so close in the pools when the Repubs have had these crushing victories in the last couple of years.

After hearing about the big rally for the Romster in Bucks County (which is the Leftiest of the Philadelphia 'burbs), I think Insta's "preference cascade" is well under way.

I'm also wondering if tomorrow night is going to look like the night of the Walker recall.

I'd like to hear your analysis of how WI can be so close in the pools when the Repubs have had these crushing victories in the last couple of years.

Remember that the Walker recall election was held during the summer, when the college kids were sitting back home on their couches and not being driven flock-like to the polls by their benevolent Democrat Party shepherds.

I'm sticking by my prediction of a Romney win here, but I don't envision it being by much.

If I may say, with the respect to the election tomorrow. My friend PHX and shared a conversation that is, i think, worth repeating:

The election is close and both PHX and I will respect the will of the electorate. (I think I encapsulated PHXs response) PHX leans left, and I lean right. That said, it is important that the nation goes on.

Anyone watching those on-campus voting locations in Wisconsin where students take as many ballots as they can fill out--only limited by when they get bored?

Chicago area students attending Wisc. colleges told me they had done that in 2000 and 2004. But heck, what would they know?

Both my friends Shouting Thomas and Roger J have spoken for me in this thread.

"Obama will win by a landslide in Madison. "

Here in CA I know the feeling. It's like being on a runaway bus full of kids who force you to the back and won't let you take the wheel. Crazy-eyed children of the corn chanting accusation as the bus careens toward the cliff.

Actually, Madison being surrounded by the rest of Wisconsin, is in nowhere near as bad a situation. All you Madisonians should thank a non-Madisonian Wisconsinite today. Just say: "Thanks for taking the wheel."

We all must abide by the honest vote.

We do, however, have the right not to be happy about it. On that score, it might be incumbent to remind the Lefties that a lot of people on the Right - granted, not all - were willing to give Barry the benefit of the doubt.

What he did with that benefit is another matter.

PHX--my pleasure sir--it is possible to disagree on policy choices, and even as to candidates. But we should, as you do, keep our eye on the ball which, IMO, is the Republic. At the end of the day, we need to respect the electoral choices of all Americans.

On that score, it might be incumbent to remind the Lefties that a lot of people on the Right - granted, not all - were willing to give Barry the benefit of the doubt.

Now you know how guys like me felt with George W.

It doesn't bother me that people will be unhappy with the results. What bothers me is if there's a sentiment that the result wasn't bona fide or legal.

We've seen too much of that IMO.

"We do, however, have the right not to be happy about it. On that score, it might be incumbent to remind the Lefties that a lot of people on the Right - granted, not all - were willing to give Barry the benefit of the doubt."

And each and every one of them was a damn fool.

People _said_ they would give Obama the benefit of the doubt. What exactly did that mean? He hadn't been accused of a crime and this wasn't the presumption of innocence. It's supposed to be a nice-sounding phrase that's based in fact in delusional or mendacious thinking. I believe it meant people would support him until such time as he actually did something they disagreed with. People who said this either imagined he would not govern as a Democrat (albeit a centrist one) -- that was delusional -- or they said it knowing he would and thus with the full expectation their "support" would be withdrawn almost immediately -- that was mendacious.

Yes, thank me a Waukesha resident, for taking the wheel. And I have only one cat and naked windows, the view being beautiful. Ann and Meade would love my 1930's era lake house. Bonus, a gorgeous spaniel springer lives next door, he loves to play throw rocks in lake, he fetches. Its not the plumber.

@Unknown. The President was given the benefit of the doubt because he was spectacularly unqualified for the job.

In 2007 (or there about) Jesse Jackson said something like "Barack Obama has never run anything but his mouth"

His ascent to the Presidency was the culmination of very little in the way of actual accomplishment or experience. Yes, he was a US Senator for 4 years when elected. But he was a US Senator for about 4 days when he started to run for President

"Now you know how guys like me felt with George W."

How could we not know how people like you felt about BushHitler?

Here is what I wrote about Obama right before he got elected: I think it has held-up pretty well.

To those on the left-hand side of the Democratic party, a vote for Senator Obama is totally rational. He is as liberal a candidate as his party has run in recent history. This article is not for you, if you fit into the above category. This is for a class of Obama supporter which can be represented by Christopher Buckley:

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

I think these people are mistaken when they think Obama will be pragmatic: Here are two reasons why.

1. In the April 16th Democratic debate, Charles Gibson pointed-out that when cap gains tax rates are lowered, the government takes in more revenue. Obama responded (to the effect) that it was a matter of "fairness". This is not the mind of a pragmatic person.

2. History: Back when Bill Clinton was first elected President, he too had a Democratic Congress. He tried to finesse a progressive agenda. It didn't work. The things he got done were not all that radical, but they were radical enough to loose him both houses of Congress. The only significant legislative accomplishments from then on were moderate/conservative in nature (Nafta and Welfare Reform). He never got another chance to push-forward anything remotely progressive.

Obama is smart enough to realize that if he does what Clinton did, he will have no legacy. If he rams-through big stuff in the first two years it won't matter if Congress goes Republican. The Republicans will not get veto-proof majorities and will thus not be able to reverse any of what he does in the first two years.

The pragmatic camp will regret their hope that Obama doesn't mean to do what he has promised to do.

ADDED: Yes, I know that Obama's 180 on taking public financing argue that he is indeed pragmatic. Yes, if pragmatic=dishonest. This only benefited him personally, as I have argued above he will not gain anything from being pragmatic once in office.

On that score, it might be incumbent to remind the Lefties that a lot of people on the Right - granted, not all - were willing to give Barry the benefit of the doubt.

Now you know how guys like me felt with George W.

But the Righties did wish Barry well, for the most part.

The Lefties did no such thing.

It doesn't bother me that people will be unhappy with the results. What bothers me is if there's a sentiment that the result wasn't bona fide or legal.

We've seen too much of that IMO.

1960 comes to mind among others (although I recall very little grousing at the time), but ༼ wasn't in that ballpark. The Demos tried to massage it that way, but the numbers weren't there.

@Unknown. The President was given the benefit of the doubt because he was spectacularly unqualified for the job.

In 2007 (or there about) Jesse Jackson said something like "Barack Obama has never run anything but his mouth"

That was Marion Barry talking about the Rev Jessuh and his Presidential aspirations.

Rev Jessuh wanted to emasculate Barry, an interesting choice of violence, given it's racial history.

Regarding a "bona fide" result, I hope the election is decisive enough (either way) that we don't get any of the lawsuit and recount stuff.

Do the young folk care about seeing Bruce Springsteen?

Well as I recall, us boomers couldn't get enough of the music of our parents' generation. We'd camp out overnight to score Perry Como tickets.

I hope the election is decisive enough (either way) that we don't get any of the lawsuit and recount stuff.

The Democrats have already deployed a record number of legal teams around the country to keep polls open past their closing time and challenge election results.

I hope we know early on that Romney is going to win so I can enjoy the night as I continue to watch the results. A close election will not be good for our country. The best result would be a big Romney victory so that it will be accepted and we can get on with doing what needs to be done.

The Dems are totally ruthless and will cheat big time to win, they're unscrupulous.

People with a "deep sense of humility" generally don't want to broadcast to everyone how deep their sense of humility is. Just sayin'.

What dreams said--I dont think the results will be close, but we will know in a matter of hours.

phx said.
@Paul Risenhoover: I doubt it's related to the election.

When people say something the wrong way I sometimes overreact.

Sometimes I say something the wrong way, too.

I completely accepted Bush's getting the decision from the SCOTUS in 2000 and I'd like everyone to respect the decision in 2012. No way that's gonna happen though.

Why not?
Among intelligent conservatives it's taken for granted that progressives are going to cheat like mad. It's just something progressives and democrats do. Rioting when outcomes are not to their liking is something else progressives and democrats do.
When Romney wins despite all the progressive vote fraud you will whine and complain and riot or threaten to riot. It's just something you do.

I hope we know early on that Romney is going to win so I can enjoy the night as I continue to watch the results. A close election will not be good for our country. The best result would be a big Romney victory so that it will be accepted and we can get on with doing what needs to be done.

If they call PA (or Jersey, or even CT or NY - not likely, but people are mad) early, it's over.

Inga says: And I have only one cat and naked windows, the view being beautiful.

Are you the neighborhood Marxist cat lady?

People with a "deep sense of humility" generally don't want to broadcast to everyone how deep their sense of humility is. Just sayin'.

LOL! It never occurred to me that having a deep sense of humility about not knowing for sure what's right for the country is a sign of pridefulness!

We live in an age where everyone's apparently looking for a reason to show you up or be offended by you.

But the Righties did wish Barry well, for the most part.

The Lefties did no such thing.

Excerpt from edutcher's book: History As I See It

In a truly fair universe the election would come down to Staten Island, which would mean that Obama would be sent packing.

But Staten Island committed the blasphemy of voting for a Republican for Congress, the Democrat candidate being too much of a hack even for a borough of New York City, so they've been left to dig out from Sandy on their own.

Althouse,
The correct name of the show that Priebus was on is called "State of the Union," hosted by Candy Crawley. You might've mixed up the title with Bob Schieffer's "Face the Nation."

Madison sounds just awful

If this blog was your only source of info about the city then it would sure seem that way, eh?

And yet Madison is constantly on the top of "Best Cities" for all kinds of different categories.

Our Wisconsin Summer Camp By providing outdoor recreational experiences such as fishing, hiking, camping, horseback riding, canoeing, and arts & crafts and many more to Wisconsin Summer Camps | Summer Camps inMinnesota

It is somewhat amusing to read this some 10 days after the election, and then reading all the "what happened" and "election fraud" allegations since then, and that the armed forces vote not included because those votes were received a day late - after being sent 8 months ago. And that "Benghazi" thing, and the price of gas going back up. The national debt approaching 17 trillion and Harry Reid stating that the debt limit will be raised another $2 (some) trillion saying "thats a fact, it's the way things are done". And the administration will start discussions on how to deal with the economy - talking to labor leaders on the first day. And new regulations mount every day.

The time will come that the democrats will change their name to the labor party - because that's what they are.


Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The Speech

This is a long speech but I will highlight to most important parts and add my comments.

1.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and
creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations
who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil
disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can never forget that the founders of our country endorsed slavery and somehow rationalized it to be compatible with
Christianity.

2.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For
some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of
course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree
with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis
with which you strongly disagreed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Obama I have heard many controversial remarks in church. Eventually, I decided never to attend again due to the hateful rhetoric
I heard. I no longer am affiliated with any religious demonination and an extremely happy. However, as a Obama supporter and as a
person that has donated to your campaign I find it hard to believe that you in 20 years of sermons have never heard any hateful
or racial remarks. So I ask if you don't agree with the statements of Reverend Wright then why attend the church?

3.
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black
community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches,
Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting
that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking
ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do attend a racist black church when you are running as the unity candidate?

4.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of
Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between
today's black and white students.


Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted
to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions,
or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future
generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty
that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.


A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family,
contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services
in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -
all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best part of the speech. For those that think that the huge disparity in test scores between white, asian and black students
is due to African -Americans being lazy or stupid are morons. We the United States of America by not allowing a whole segement
of our population ACCESS to quality education created this mess. I am not absolving the black community of blame in not taking
advantage of the opportunities given to them, however.

5. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the
old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo, nothing divides people more than religion.

6.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if
our society was static as if no progress has been made as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his
own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young
and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true
genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve
tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As deporable as the current state of racism is in our country we have made remarkable progress.

7.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle
race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder
for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the
election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize
with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or
we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.


But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then
another one. And nothing will change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is our choice. Do we have the courage to make history and vote for a new "ray of hope" or do we go back to our corners
and vote and stick to our kind?