This Day in History

Mark Foley

Image via Wikipedia

This is my first attempt in a while to post all by my lonesome. The last post I made (“She Blinded Me With Science”) got a bit munged in the translation from my html through the blogging software, so I’m hoping by doing this directly I avoid formatting problems as I had before.

Today in History
September 29, 2006
Congressman Mark Foley resigns his seat

I’m intrigued by the argument (or more properly, “contradiction”) now in progress on the Canary thread started by Filistro.Just like the Mark Foley scandal has been blamed (or celebrated) for setting off a tinderbox of resentment among the electorate that resulted in a 2006 Democratic wave, is there 1) fuel and 2) a spark that we can identify for the 2010 midterms?

How do we tell when an election turns from one thing into another? What are the predictors of a “wave” election? (Or, for that matter, a tsunami election?) A few weeks ago, Nate Silver and I exchanged a few Tweets about the generic ballot and he indicated he was much more pessimistic than I about the Democrat’s chances at that point. We’ve certainly seen the results of that in his NY Times blog . Other sites are even more sanguine about Republican chances; some are sanguine about Democratic chances, particularly in House elections. I feel pretty good about the predictions I’m seeing on Nate’s blog and other sites for Senate elections. I think the numbers can be predicted pretty well for the Senate, but I suspect we’re flying blind when it comes to the House elections.

My personal rough-and-ready test for seeing the boundaries of a wave election: if a party wins all (or almost all) “lean” seats in their column and almost all of the “tossups”, then I call that a wave election.

For example, Cook Political Report has 204 lean, likely or solid Democratic House races, 181 lean, likely or solid Republican, and 50 tossups. Using my rough measure, that means a Democratic “wave” would render a 254D/181R split (very unlikely, I’d say); a “normal” midterm would split the tossups evenly and you’d get 229D/206R (pretty close to my personal prediction); and a Republican “wave” would result in 204D/231R and Speaker John Boehner.

Eyeballing Nate Silver’s prediction, the mean is 211D/224R with a standard deviation of perhaps 20 seats, so a “wave” of 1 s.d. (about 15% probability) would be 191D/244R one way or 231D/204R the other way.

Sabato’s Crystal Ball has a prediction ofย  +47R or 210D/225R. This is a Republican “wave” by my definition: if all his lean and tossups go D, then it’s 238D/197R while if all his lean and tossups go R, it’s 213D/222R. My “normal midterm” model (splitting Sabato’s tossups evenly) gives 224D/211R.

What “leading indicators” would the 538refugees commentariat suggest for this election? What factors point to a wave election, or to a normal midterm election?

I personally put very little stock in the generic ballot, preferring real polling data (where available) and Cook Political Report and/or Sabato Crystal Ball rankings. However, it’s my impression that real polling data has been hopelessly corrupted by so-called “likely voter” screens plus deliberate manipulation of the news cycle plus an increasing blind spot where the wireless denizens reside. (If I were making this into a bumper sticker, it would say: I’m Wireless and I Vote).


About Monotreme

Monotreme is an unabashedly liberal dog lover, writer, and former scientist who now teaches at a University in an almost-square state out West somewhere. http://www.logarchism.com | http://www.sevendeadlysynapses.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to This Day in History

  1. Monotreme says:

    There was a little mixup and in the process of resolving it, I had to delete Mainer’s comment on an earlier draft of this post.Mainer, could you repost it? Sorry about that.

  2. Monotreme says:

    Para 4, line 3: Democrats’Sheesh.

  3. Monotreme says:

    I meant to include “Votemaster” at <a href="http://www.electoral-vote.com‘s”>www.electoral-vote.com’s predictions.Again, the caveat is “if the election were held today”.”Votemaster” has 222D/188R with 25 tossups. If all tossups break D, then it’s 247D/188R. If all tossups break R, then it’s 222D/213R. You can see that he’s much more sanguine about the Democrats’ chances than any other commentator; like Nate, Votemaster skews pretty far to the left but like Nate, his predictions have been pretty accurate.

  4. shiloh says:

    Money, Money, MoneyAlthough the Dem National Committees have currently out fund raised Reps by @ (30) million …As Keith mentioned tonight, nationally Reps have a 6 to 1 humongous $ advantage because of special interest groups ie turdblossom’s (2) non-profit groups funded by billionaires, the Koch boys et al, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. who are going full-bore trying to buy the election, and then there’s Whitman and McMahon trying to buy their elections and yes Dems have done the same in the past and currently.>but, but, butDuring 2008 used to follow Politico religiously and not at all since:Ohio GovernorMentioned previously Kasich and Portman have the personalities of dead fish, but so does Lee Fisher and the Reps have a big money advantage in Ohio.but, but, butFox News/Pulse ~ Sept. 28Kasich (R) 45%Strickland (D) 43%Ipsos/Reuters ~ Sept. 28Kasich (R) 47%Strickland (D) 46%hmm, Ohio is the bellwether and Strickland is very likable and Kasich is very unlikable and the truth seems to be working in Strickland’s favor as the trend lines indicate.As Deep Throat will tell ‘ya Follow the Money! as ideology is not that important.apologies to dead fish …

  5. GROG says:

    shiloh said:hmm, Ohio is the bellwether and Strickland is very likable and Kasich is very unlikable and the truth seems to be working in Strickland’s favor as the trend lines indicate.So an unlikable, former Lehman Bros. exec, and former Fox News personality is beating the likable Democrat candidate?And the dead fish, Bush crony Portman has a 15 point lead against Lee?Not good for the Democrats.

  6. GROG says:

    Ras has Kasich up 8 this morning.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/ohio/election_2010_ohio_governorAnd as fili pointed out yesterday, we’re close enough to the election now that Rasmussen’s supposed bias is no longer in play.

  7. Bart DePalma says:

    Let me count them all…Pollster.com has come up with something they call the Anger Index covering these leading indicators:Country on wrong trackDisapproval of CongressDisapproval of the PresidentGeneric ballot Out of power party ID.http://www.pollster.com/blogs/midterms_are_an_electoral_hurr.phpNeedless to say, these are the worst set of leading indicators heading into a recent election.Then there is the enthusiasm chasm. Even though it grossly over counts Dem voters (the sample has more folks voting in Dem primaries than GOP in a year where the GOP had its largest turnout advantage since the 20s), the new NBC/WSJ poll notes that 3/4 of Tea Party supporters, 2/3 of GOP respondents, but only 1/2 of Dem supporters are enthusiastic about the election. Given that they have grossly oversampled Dem primary voters and looking at the Gallup figures, I doubt that Dem enthusiasm is that high.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520252928390046.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStoriesGallup has the enthusiasm chasm nearly 2:1 in favor of the GOP, which is why they spent nearly all of their press release on a 1994-like 46/46 RV generic tie discussing why the GOP will win. Wait until Gallup’s LV figures start coming out next month.http://www.gallup.com/poll/143243/Midterm-Election-Landscape-Points-Republican-Gains.aspxThere is not a single leading indicator even remotely pointing the other way.

  8. GROG says:

    There is not a single leading indicator even remotely pointing the other way.Sure this is true, but the resident lefty refugees need to convince themselves otherwise. They will continue to grasp at straws irrationaly until election day and it will be fun to watch. That’s why I love this site.

  9. Bart DePalma says:

    Dick Morris is reporting:”Republicans are now leading in 54 Democratic House districts. In 19 more, the incumbent congressman is under 50 percent and his GOP challenger is within five points. That makes 73 seats where victory is within easy grasp for the Republican Party. The only reason the list is not longer is that there are 160 Democratic House districts that were considered so strongly blue that there is no recent polling available.”http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/29/obliterating_a_generation_of_democrats_107359.htmlMorris a sleaze and a political whore, but his political numbers are generally accurate.

  10. parksie555 says:

    Am jonesing to see the next polling on the O’Donnell/Coons race. Have been getting nonstop Repub mailers on Coons. They do not mention O’Donnell at all. Clearly trying to swing the New Castle County Rs and possibly D’s that would have voted for Castle to O’Donnell’s column. And truthfully she doesn’t exactly have an impressive record to splash onto mailers.Possibly pollers are waiting until after tomorrow to see if Castle jumps in as a write-in candidate. My bet would be no, would be an ungraceful way for Castle to go out, there is little historical precedent for a successful write in candidate.I was shocked to see her within single digits in the last Ras poll.Had a long discussion about her this weekend with a few of my common sense Republican friends. Was a little surprised – to a man they are going to vote for her – or more accurately, to vote against Obama by voting for her.I thought she had no shot but I am starting to wonder now. Nate has it pegged at 99+ % win percentage for Coons, but he does not seem to have the last Ras poll factored in yet.

  11. filistro says:

    @GROG: They will continue to grasp at straws irrationaly until election day and it will be fun to watch. That’s why I love this site.What? You’re only here to jeer and mock? I thought you LIKED us… ๐Ÿ˜ฆ

  12. filistro says:

    @parksie.. (re O’Donnell:) Had a long discussion about her this weekend with a few of my common sense Republican friends. Was a little surprised – to a man they are going to vote for her – or more accurately, to vote against Obama by voting for her. So are YOU going to vote for her, parksie? If yours was the final vote and the count was exactly tied so you had the power to cast the deciding vote for Coons or O’Donnell?Which do you think would be the better Senator for DE?I used to think you were one of the last honest men on the right…. somebody who would always put good governing ahead of a partisan victory. Now I even have to wonder about you.God, it’s so dispiriting. I think I’ll quit politics and take up… I don’t know… environmental activism?

  13. shortchain says:

    Not to nitpick or anything, but “grasping at straws” is anything but irrational, GROG, old fella — I would call it rather an indication that hope springs eternal, and I wouldn’t think you would want to denigrate hope. No matter how good you think it is, the only certainty is that it won’t stay that way.

  14. Bart DePalma says:

    “Which do you think would be the better Senator for DE?”I would choose the “witch” voting to repeal Obamacare over the “bearded Marxist” promising even more of the same.Who knew little Delaware had such interesting electoral choices?

  15. filistro says:

    @Bart… I would choose the “witch” voting to repeal Obamacare over the “bearded Marxist” promising even more of the same.Yes, we know you would. You’ve long ago establshed that your goal is to destroy your country, not protect it, so I’m not surprised. What else would I expect from an avowed anarchist?I just thought parksie was a somewhat deeper thinker, that’s all.

  16. shrinkers says:

    Something shiloh keeps pointing out .. ebb and flow … whatever happens in November is temporary.

  17. Monotreme says:

    @GROG:Your cynicism and sarcasm are duly noted, but I fail to see anything in the post above that indicates “grasping at straws”. I’m merely laying out the available data.I’m also asking what you would define as a “wave” election, and what indicators you would use to predict one that is coming.

  18. parksie555 says:

    A legitimate tough question at this point, filly. Obviously she would be a disaster as a Senator. However, at this point if she was the difference between a Republican controlled Seante and a Democrat controlled Senate and she was within 5 points in any reputable poll between now and the election I would have to vote for her. Too much at stake, like retiring Supremes, stuff like that.If not I would write in Castle as a protest vote.However I don’t think it will matter, she will not get within 5 points.It will be 51-49 in the Senate IMHO. (RCP Likely and Leaner all go as projected, Reps get CO, WV, and IL, Dems get CT, WA, and NV)

  19. Monotreme says:

    @Parksie:I think you’re right. If the Senate gets to 51-49 or 50-50, then Lieberman (especially) and perhaps Nelson are going to be under tremendous pressure to switch parties. I think Lieberman is as much as gone if the Republicans get to 50-50, he’s that much of an opportunist. I do think it will take a wave to get them there, though.

  20. Monotreme says:

    @Parksie:Another thought. Looking at your Senate list, it makes me sad that in many cases, both parties are putting up candidates that are horribly Lame. (Perhaps they should be putting up lamรฉ candidates, but that’s a different thread.)In my youth, Senator Everett Dirksen was a giant among men, and a true Republican back when my entire family were straight-ticket Republican voters.On the other side of the aisle, Senator Paul Simon represented the best of the Democratic Party.Now, looking at Giannoulis and Kirk, I can only think…there were giants in those days.We have lost so much.

  21. parksie555 says:

    Agree wholeheartedly ‘Treme. I think of a guy like Mike Mansfield.Mansfield on the recession of ’71:”What we’re in is not a Republican recession or a Democratic recession; both parties had much to do with bringing us where we are today. But we’re facing a national situation which calls for the best which all of us can produce, because we know the results will be something which we will regret.” (Wikipedia)Can’t imagine someone from either party issuing a statement like this nowadays.I would also like to see far less academics in cabinet positions, especially those closely related to the economy. Really can’t stomach the Austan Goolsbees and Tim Geithners of the world.

  22. mclever says:

    Oddly, parksie, my reaction to the decline of reasonableness in the political sphere is to prefer more academics and experts in cabinet positions rather than purely political appointments.

  23. shiloh says:

    filistro wrote:@GROG: They will continue to grasp at straws irrationaly until election day and it will be fun to watch. That’s why I love this site.~~~~~What? You’re only here to jeer and mock? I thought you LIKED us… ~~~~~~~~~~Since all of 538 winger trolls were in the fetal position for quite some time after Obama’s election. ๐Ÿ˜€ They need a place er smallish liberal blog to gloat if all their dreams come true after the mid-terms lolAgain, they should thank Mr. U for providing these conservative lemmings an outlet to vent. Can you hear me now!It’s that basic and the only reason they’re here, since Nate has moved on to the NYT’s.Coincidentally, can one ever imagine 538’s liberals doing the same at redstate or freeperville. ๐Ÿ˜‰ ok, all wingers sites are a snooze job w/droids constantly agreeing w/each other.hmm, “our” wingers should fit in nicely! lolIndeed, if Reps do well in Nov. all of 538’s conservative lemmings will feel like they each have climbed Mount Everest and then these teabaggers will have to govern for (2) years …er political reality will set in and everything they’re proposing re: limited govt. will piss off everyone except the shrinking (((34%))) conservative electorate which voted in both the 2004 and 2008 general elections.Such is the nature of politics.>Again Fili these winger trolls pretty much hate us as they do most minorities, they’re here ’cause they can’t help themselves needing a place to reciprocate after their “horror” of the 2008 results. :)Fortunately for them liberals have (((empathy!))) ;)carry on

  24. shortchain says:

    Hmmm, Geithner an “academic”? Since when? Where did he teach? (Hint: that would be “Northern University”, in the state of Where.)My problem with Geithner, et al, is his incestuous relationship with the banksters he’s supposed to have been regulating, and most especially with Summers — and I’d like to see a lot fewer of his type and more academics from all over the country instead.On the other hand, someone who imagines that O’Donnell would be worth a plugged nickel at reviewing nominees for any position whatsoever probably can’t tell a college from a canyon.

  25. shortchain says:

    Hmmm, Geithner was an academic? Must have been at Northern University in the state of Where, AKA NoWhere U, according to his bio.My problem with Geithner, et al, is the incestuous relationship with the banksters who are supposed to be regulated. I’d like to have more academics from all over the country and a lot fewer proteges of big shots from GS.And I just got a “moderation” message.

  26. parksie555 says:

    mclever – I would like to see experts – like people that have been responsible for meeting a payroll, people that have had to make strategic decisions like moving a plant overseas or developing a new product line, decide whether to invest in new equipment, make decisions about hiring and firing, all the things that actually make the economy go, not just produce papers for other academics to digest. Don’t see any of Obama’s team falling into this category at all. YMMV.

  27. shortchain says:

    Hmmm, Geithner is an “academic”? Where? His bio says he’s basically been a banker and a regulator. Must have been an academic at No. Where. U.For my part, the problem with folks like him is their incestuous relationship with the people they’re supposed to be regulating. I’d like to pick more academics who have no close ties with people like Summers or any big shots from the megabanks. Given the size of this country that could be done without much of a problem. That it isn’t is a metric which indicates just how much a controlling interest in the country is held by Goldman, etc.

  28. shortchain says:

    Hmmm, Geithner is an “academic”? Where? His bio says he’s basically been a banker and a regulator. Must have been an academic at No. Where. U.For my part, the problem with folks like him is their incestuous relationship with the people they’re supposed to be regulating. I’d like to pick more academics who have no close ties with people like Summers or any big shots from the megabanks. Given the size of this country that could be done without much of a problem. That it isn’t is a metric which indicates just how much a controlling interest in the country is held by Goldman, etc.What possible utility is there in a banking regulator having experience meeting a payroll? That’s just ridiculous.

  29. shortchain says:

    Hmmm, Geithner is an “academic”? Where? His bio says he’s basically been a banker and a regulator. Must have been an academic at No. Where. U.For my part, the problem with folks like him is their incestuous relationship with the people they’re supposed to be regulating. I’d like to pick more academics who have no close ties with people like Summers or any big shots from the megabanks. Given the size of this country that could be done without much of a problem. That it isn’t is a metric which indicates just how much a controlling interest in the country is held by Goldman, etc.What possible utility is there in a banking regulator having experience meeting a payroll? What bearing does that have on regulating a financial industry?

  30. shortchain says:

    Hmmm, Geithner is an “academic”? Where? His bio says he’s basically been a banker and a regulator. Must have been an academic at No. Where. U.For my part, the problem with folks like him is their incestuous relationship with the people they’re supposed to be regulating. I’d like to pick more academics who have no close ties with people like Summers or any big shots from the megabanks. Given the size of this country that could be done without much of a problem. That it isn’t is a metric which indicates just how much a controlling interest in the country is held by Goldman, etc.What possible utility is there in a banking regulator having experience meeting a payroll? What bearing does that have on regulating a financial industry?

  31. shortchain says:

    If Geithner is an academic, his bio has hidden it well. For my part, the problem with his type is their incestuous relationship with the industry, and its big shots (Summers). I see no worthwhile reason, and a lot of really bad consequences, in choosing someone with “experience meeting a payroll” (Summers has that experience in spades, for example.)With the number of prominent universities in this country it should be child’s play to find an academic who could make the banksters toe the line.

  32. shrinkers says:

    @parksieCan’t imagine someone from either party issuing a statement like this nowadays.Agreed. And a quote from John Wayne on the occasion of the election of John Kennedy: “Well, I didn’t vote for him. But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”Where is that spirit today, the desire to actually do right for the country? A wish for the country to do well, and a desire to actually help our elected officials — of whichever party — to do that?I grew up in Illinois, and I remember Dirkson and Simon both quite fondly. I would also point to Nelson Rockefeller, Republican of NY as another giant in the Senate.It’s too bad we can’t have more of that today.

  33. shortchain says:

    If Geithner is an academic, his bio gives no hint of it. It does, however, point out his long-term incestuous relationship with the industry and the big-shots therein. Choosing a person who had to “meet a payroll” is likely to require someone with an even more incestuous relationship — and hence would be a counterproductive requirement, IMO.With the dozens of top-notch econ departments across this country it should be child’s play to pick an academic who would actually keep the industry at arm’s length and make them toe the line. (See: Elizabeth Warren, for example.) That such people are rarely, if ever, nominated for regulatory positions is an indication of just how much a totally-owned subsidiary of the banking industry our government is.

  34. shiloh says:

    Actually, Nelson Rockefeller was governor of NY from 1959 to 1973 and never a senator.Another historical anecdote:Supposedly it’s been reported, just before JFK’s assassination Goldwater and JFK met in The Oval Office and JFK said to Goldwater quite eloquently ๐Ÿ˜‰ So you really want this fucking job!!! … JFK having previously gone thru The Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco and The Cuban Missile Crisis!Also noteworthy: JFK average Gallup Job Approval Rating ~ January 1961-November 1963 ~ 70.1%.JFK’s low ~ 56% Sept. 1963carry on

  35. Bart DePalma says:

    “And a quote from John Wayne on the occasion of the election of John Kennedy: “Well, I didn’t vote for him. But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.””Judging by his polls after the election, I think mot folks shared this hope for Obama.Obama’s problem now is that he has done his work and only a minority thinks it was a good job.

  36. Realist says:

    @Bart:I think mot folks shared this hope for Obama.It’s a shame you weren’t among them. I say this based on the things you posted at the time.

  37. shiloh says:

    Bartles er John Wayne’s solution to all of America’s problems:Pilgrims, put all the wagons in a circle!

  38. shrinkers says:

    Actually, Nelson Rockefeller was governor of NY from 1959 to 1973 and never a senator.Thanks for the correction. Duh. Still a damn fine man.Vice Pres for a short time, too.

  39. shrinkers says:

    It’s a shame you weren’t among them. I say this based on the things you posted at the time.Certainly, none of the elected Republicans would have agreed with John Wayne, had he said this about Obama. The R’s engaged in mindless obstructionism 24/7 beginning even before the Inauguration. And yes, Bart was in that category as well. And now he has admitted his complicity in thwarting the Will of the People, by having joined in to the anti-President chorus from Day One.When this is pointed out, Bart pretends that President Obama somehow has been following policies different from those he campaigned on. Bart uses this to excuse Bart’s own anti-American propaganda. But of course, it’s just more bartings, since Obama has, in fact, been closely following what he said he would do. Bart has offered not a single example of Obama supporting one policy during the campaign, and a significantly different one as President — certainly no example of Obama moving toward the left, which is what Bart claims.And since Bart never even waited to see what Obama would do — opposing him unflinchingly all along — it’s disingenuous at best to use Obama’s actions as President to excuse Bart’s opposition beginning before Obama had taken any actions.But then, one thing of which Bart has never been accused is honesty. He merely invents propaganda.

  40. Monotreme says:

    Some Larry Sabato tweets to ponder:# So will Ds continue to engage, shrinking enthusiasm gap, increasing D 11/2 vote, or will gap reopen in R favor? THAT is the key question.# Good news 4 Ds: new WSJ/NBC has R edge in generic ballot among LVs down from +9 to +3. But even tie in LV generic = +39-40 R House seats. # Midterms are a patchwork of local contests, even though national themes are present. Wave for 1 party doesn’t wash evenly across nation. # Ex: We’re seing some Blue states in NE & MW turn Red for GOV, but that doesn’t mean R wave is same height in all Blue states (MD, CT, etc.) # Even in ‘wave’ years, there are actually 50 waves of varying sizes–or more, if you think in terms of CDs. # Aug. CW (Rs headed 4 big majority) has yielded to Sept CW (Dems may hang on). CW will shift again by late Oct. Media storyline never static.# Campaigns are roller coasters. Very hard to change fundamentals. But there is marginal movement.

  41. shiloh says:

    For the record: Have always been a big fan of John Wayne ๐Ÿ™‚ be he Rep, Dem or teabagger! ;)Also liked Charlton Heston and Tom Selleck as there’s something unique about any minority lol who speak their mind regardless of what their industry as a whole thinks of them.If someone has legitimate, rational, intelligent political differences that may benefit America as a whole ~ Let Freedom Reign!As this is the foundation of America: Principled, intelligent, objective, impartial, enlightened disagreement/compromise …>Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,And sorry I could not travel bothAnd be one traveller, long I stoodAnd looked down one as far as I couldTo where it bent in the undergrowth;Then took the other, as just as fair,And having perhaps the better claim,Because it was grassy and wanted wear;Though as for that the passing thereHad worn them really about the same,And both that morning equally layIn leaves no step had trodden black.Oh, I kept the first for another day!Yet knowing how way leads on to way,I doubted if I should ever come back.I shall be telling this with a sighSomewhere ages and ages hence:Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference…Robert Frost~~~~~~~~~~>And then there’s Bartles who has 24/7 mindless, winger tunnel vision, totally unaffected by the world er reality passing by his window as Reps like Bart want to conquer and rule, not govern.

  42. shortchain says:

    Note to Parksie: Geithner is not an “academic”. He’s been involved for a long time in an incestuous relationship with the people he’s supposed to be regulating, and a protege (supposedly) of Summers, about whom roughly the same could be said.If there’s any valid reason why someone with experience “making a payroll” would be any better, objectively, at the job of making mega-banksters toe the line than, say, someone shaped in the mold of Elizabeth Warren, I don’t see it.Now, to see if this thing will post.

  43. shortchain says:

    Note to Parksie: Geithner is not an “academic”. He’s been involved for a long time in an incestuous relationship with the people he’s supposed to be regulating, and a protege (supposedly) of Summers, about whom roughly the same could be said.If there’s any valid reason why someone with experience “making a payroll” would be any better, objectively, at the job of making mega-banksters toe the line than, say, someone shaped in the mold of Elizabeth Warren, I don’t see it.Now, to see if this thing will post. It didn’t the last time.

  44. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “I think most folks shared this hope for Obama.”Realist: “It’s a shame you weren’t among them. I say this based on the things you posted at the time.”I researched Obama’s history before the election and knew he was lying about his center-right promises. However, when Obama appointed what appeared to be a moderate economic team and kept Bush’s excellent Sec Def, I held out some hope that we were in for Clinton II and went back into the markets. Boy was I wrong.When Obama tanked the markets by predicting a Second Great Depression to scare Congress into enacting the Porkulus bill and then nationalized GM and Chrysler, I knew the we were looking at something new and very bad. I was not alone as a half million of us attended out first Tea Party rallies across the country on Tax Day 2009.

  45. shrinkers says:

    I call bullshit on Bart.During the campaign, you accused Obama of being a socialist. You never, not once, not ever thought he had made “center-right promises.”Further, you never gave even the shadow of a hint of the chance of a doubt. You opposed him, lied about him, and spewed vicious crap about him nearly every day throughout 2009.Bart, is there a single day on which you have ever told the truth? Given that you lie so constantly, is they any reason anyone should believe a single thing you say?

  46. Realist says:

    @Bart,I researched Obama’s history before the election and knew he was lying about his center-right promises.Which promises were these? I know you’ve alluded to them many times, but I don’t recall you enumerating them.When Obama tanked the markets by predicting a Second Great Depression…Oh, right, could you remind me what date that speech was on? This will be an easy one to validate.

  47. shrinkers says:

    I call bullshit on Bart.During the campaign, you accused Obama of being a socialist. You never, not once, not ever thought he had made “center-right promises.”Further, you never gave even the shadow of a hint of the chance of a doubt. You opposed him, lied about him, and spewed vicious crap about him nearly every day throughout 2009.Bart, is there a single day on which you have ever told the truth? Given that you lie so constantly, is they any reason anyone should believe a single thing you say?

  48. shrinkers says:

    During the campaign, Bart frequently accused Obama of being a socialist. I’m not sure when he now imagines that he had thought Obama had made “center-right promises.”I wonder if Bart was lying back then, or lying now. Or if he has a very serious grasp on reality. Or a very poor memory.

  49. Monotreme says:

    Barted:When Obama tanked the markets by predicting a Second Great Depression…Realist took the bait:Oh, right, could you remind me what date that speech was on? This will be an easy one to validate.

  50. Monotreme says:

    Barted:When Obama tanked the markets by predicting a Second Great Depression…Realist took the bait:Oh, right, could you remind me what date that speech was on? This will be an easy one to validate.<headdesk>

  51. shiloh says:

    When Obama tanked the markets by predicting a Second Great Depression…Bartles, as mentioned recently, why do we even bother w/you anymore …btw, do you dream about Obama 24/7?Just wonderin’take care, blessings

  52. filistro says:

    Bart, go talk to Michael in the “Govt/Business” thread. He’s waiting for you. (Eagerly :-)Or do you… even YOU… have some hesitation about airing your nonsense in front of somebody who really knows what he’s talking about?I suspect so.

  53. shortchain says:

    Apologies to all. I got the “moderation” message — twice — and nothing appeared, so I reposted. I’m still learning the ins and outs. I swear, I’ll master this newfangled stuff yet.

  54. shrinkers says:

    Apologies to all. I got the “moderation” message — twice — and nothing appeared, so I reposted. I’m still learning the ins and outs. I swear, I’ll master this newfangled stuff yet.Me too. Don’t feel bad.

  55. Monotreme says:

    It’s the blogging software. I found your posts in the spam filter. When I cleaned it out, they all showed up. Sorry.

  56. filistro says:

    So what do y’all think.. is Bart scared of Michael? Seems odd that he would be avoiding such an interesting thread… especially when a specific question has been asked of him there…Hmmmm….Note that as the questions get harder (and the polls get tighter) we see less and less of Bart. Soon, like the Cheshire Cat, there will be nothing left of him but his ::chuckle:: …and a ghostly echo whispering surf’s up….

  57. Monotreme says:

    It’s a sad commentary that sometimes, I want the Democrats to prevail on 11/2 just so I can gloat over Bart’s supine form.

  58. shiloh says:

    Actually fili, Bart’s 538 ad nauseam m.o. as we all know:When he’s found to be an idiot in said thread, he either totally leaves or reappears changing the subject.ieNo Fear Zone Thread re: winger racism.Bartles makes an inane comment:How long before you folks realize that the voters are not stupid, racist or afraid.and of course is easily shown to be a complete idiot, as per usual.He later reappears in said thread (10) times posting nothing but political polls totally unaffected after making a total fool of himself.>er, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain lol :)>In fact it was somewhat amusing as all the usual suspects ๐Ÿ˜‰ er winger trolls show up in that thread: p555, grog etc. and they too post nothing but political polls in a thread about Republican racism!>Indeed, deflection is 538’s winger trolls best friend.Nothing new under the sun at 538, Nate leaves, 538 trolls keep deflecting as always …carry on

  59. Mainer says:

    So if Bart were to not realize his predicted, must happen, great wave and he again goes into a contorted fetal position would that mean he was in a subprime form? we all knows what he thinks of folks that got caught in that trap……well the poor ones at least the house flippers were ok in his book as they were just exercising their god given right to greed.

  60. filistro says:

    @Treme just so I can gloat over Bart’s supine form.I keep reminding you that Bart is a Weeble… and Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down. Bart will NEVER be supine. He won’t even be prone. Dems will hold both House and Senate and Bart will still be bobbing and weaving, shouting insults, snarling like Monty Python’s Black Knight after his arms and legs have been sliced off… “‘Tis but a flesh wound! Come nearer, you villains, I will make you pay!!”

  61. Bart DePalma says:

    In response to Michael Weiss. Hopefully this will post here:BD: “Government is nothing like business.”MW: Quite a strong statement. First of all, that’s untrue, because the parallels I drew are all accurate.”Fair enough. You have put some work into the analogies, so I will put some work into my critiques.MW: “In business, cash comes from four sources: income, asset sales, debt issuance, and stock issuance. The same is true for government. Income comes from tax, fee, and fine collection.”Business income is derived from offering goods and services consumers voluntarily purchase. The free market may be the purest form of democracy. In stark contrast, government derives its revenue by coercion through the threat of confiscation and imprisonment. The only thing in common between business earnings and government taxes is that both are revenue streams.MW: “Asset sales is virtually identical to private business.”Generally not. Business income from asset sales is generally derived through the purchase and sale of businesses. Until the current socialist administration, American government never bought and sold businesses and it still does not do so for a profit.There is a narrow parallel in that both distressed businesses and governments will sell capital plant to raise emergency funds. However, this is not a regular means of raising funds.MW: “Debt issuance is in the form of government bonds.”Debt is best understood as deferred expenses to be paid for with future income. Given the stark differences in the way business and government obtain income, the parallel in debt issuance is pretty weak. Business has to pay a risk premium to obtain credit because the business could fail. In contrast, because the government can always coerce taxes from the citizenry, it pays not risk premium.MW: “And then thereโ€™s stock. For the federal government, stock comes in two forms…”Stock is a share of ownership in a business.Citizenry does not convey the citizen an ownership stake in the government which she can buy and sell.The only analogy is that a common share holder and a citizen can vote.However, whereas an elected corporate officer owes legally enforceable fiduciary duties to act in the best business interests of the shareholder short of harming others, the government owes nothing to the citizenry and can and does act against the interests of the citizenry.

  62. Mainer says:

    I don’t know Fili but I think some severe right types really could have a bad time if they do not get their promised elecctoral revolution. In fact that though concerns me. When people are worked into a constant stage of rage they often lose sight of what many would consider reality and could then do very disconected things in the belief they are bettering their groups position.Now some other musings. So what position will Jim Demint hold if his party comes up short in their quest for power and it gets laid at his feet? Will he be made to pay a price? or encouraged to keep on ranting?Will the right turn congress into an even bigger zoo regardless of the election out comes? Block every thing , shut it down screw the will of the people even more? How far are the actually willing to go?Can you picture the next state of the union speech? My prediction will be that it will make the Brits and their political circus look positively calm.And finally we need to invent a Bart-o-meter. So that we can easily judge the level of Barting in any given post.

  63. Bart DePalma says:

    Folks, I keep running into a damn moderation block trying to respond to Michael even though my posts are less than the limit. Any suggestions?

  64. Monotreme says:

    @Bart,This is going to sound like snark, but it’s not.It seems that the blogging software is picking up anything that repeats a significant amount of what the poster has said earlier, and labels it as “spam”.My recommendation would be to make sure that your posts contain unique content.

  65. Mainer says:

    Bart the whole thing is being quite strange tonight, I have lost my Name which used to show up on its own along with my Email. When typing things seem to jump from time to time and when it is posted it takes a really long time to cycle. Just one of those electronic odd nights.

  66. Monotreme says:

    Our first instinct when our posts are blocked (or sent to moderation) is to repost the same content.That instinct is incorrect. Because the blogging software (not me, or Mr. U, or anyone else) is flagging repeated phrases as “spam” using some unknowable heuristic, when one reposts the same content, it just burrows you deeper into the spam filter.Perhaps in the meantime the best solution would be to post on the relevant thread (assuming you are able) and ask for help.

  67. shiloh says:

    @BartlesFolks, I keep running into a damn moderation block trying to respond to Michael even though my posts are less than the limit. Any suggestions?~~~~~~~~~~hmm, any suggestions ~ the mind boggles! ;)It’s all part of our vast left wing conspiracy against you! :)>btw, Bartles spamming ?!? ~ perish the thought!

  68. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart, in the interest of consistency with the primary article, I’m responding back in the other thread.

  69. filistro says:

    @Mainer… I think some severe right types really could have a bad time if they do not get their promised electoral revolutionI’ve been thinking about this lately, too. Now… I should say that (insofar as anybody can make this claim) here’s the one area where I’m actually a professional. ๐Ÿ™‚ I’ve made a very nice living for a good many years writing fiction… where my job is to analyze character and motivation, create situations, put my characters into the middle of them and then develop believable ways for them to behave.But I have NO CLUE how the right will react 5 weeks from now in a non-tsunami world. I realy can’t picture it. If I had to guess… yes, I think there will be scattered violence. Some ugly things will happen, but not in any kind of concerted wave. It will be more like vandalism and random hate crimes.What I suspect WILL happen in a concerted way is internecine warfare. The Right and the Extreme Right will be fingerpointing and attacking each other… and only one of these groups will survive amd emerge to fight anther day. I don’t know which one.It will surely be interesting… and I think it will happen. Today is the day I became convinced the Dems will hold not just the Senate but also the House. (Sept. 29. Write it down. ๐Ÿ™‚

  70. Monotreme says:

    “There are two tragedies in life. One is not getting what you want. The other is getting it.” — Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Bart

  71. GROG says:

    Mainer said:Will the right turn congress into an even bigger zoo regardless of the election out comes? Block every thing , shut it down screw the will of the people even more? How far are the actually willing to go?Is that some of the fear-mongering shrinkers wrote about yesterday?

  72. GROG says:

    fili said:But I have NO CLUE how the right will react 5 weeks from now in a non-tsunami world. I realy can’t picture it. If I had to guess… yes, I think there will be scattered violence. Some ugly things will happen, but not in any kind of concerted wave. It will be more like vandalism and random hate crimes.I’m beginning to think shrinkers was directing his fear-monger opine directly at Mainer and Filistro.

  73. shiloh says:

    GROG wrote:I’m beginning to think~~~~~~~~~~Hope springs eternal …

  74. GROG says:

    filistro said:What? You’re only here to jeer and mock? I thought you LIKED us.I do like you guys. Not here only to jeer and mock. You guys do your share of jeering and mocking, so I have to get mine in when I can. ๐Ÿ™‚

  75. Monotreme says:

    This article by Charlie Cook has some interesting things to say about publicly available polling numbers.I would warn any of you against putting too much stock in them.

  76. Monotreme says:

    I have to admit to a great deal of schadenfreude watching this confrontation between a gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino and New York Post reporter Fred Dicker. The New York Post. Not exactly a liberal media outlet.I suspect this is a harbinger of the post-11/2 future — bad for Republicans if they lose, worse if they win.

  77. shrinkers says:

    I have to say, totally off-topic –I wrote 5300 words today on my new novel. They were all Good Words. I am exhausted. Anyone who is a writer will appreciate that.

  78. Monotreme says:

    Way to go, Shrinkers.

  79. Bart DePalma says:

    Monotreme wrote: “This article by Charlie Cook has some interesting things to say about publicly available polling numbers. I would warn any of you against putting too much stock in them.”What does it tell you when Cook is describing a GOP wave that will probably sweep the Senate as well as the House followed by a warning that much of the media polling is junk?Fili, are you listening?

  80. Monotreme says:

    @Bart:You’re not paying attention. Sadly, I have come to expect that from you.We all agree that there’s a Republican wave election afoot. See comments in the main post above. See where I defined the boundaries and said, “I don’t think this is very likely” when considering a big Democratic win on the borders.It will be a wave, all right. I just am betting (literally) that the wave will be in the 30-40 House seat category, and 7-8 Senate seats. You are talking about a TSUNAMI OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. I am telling you (and will “collect” my “reward” later) that even if you “win” this election, as your side did in 1994, that the “win” will come at a high cost to your agenda and to the Nation. God help us all, which She may be able to do since She won’t be managing Christine O’Donnell’s campaign or Sharron Angle’s campaign any more.

  81. shrinkers says:

    @MonotremeI am telling you (and will “collect” my “reward” later) that even if you “win” this election, as your side did in 1994, that the “win” will come at a high cost to your agenda and to the Nation. It will be interesting to see — regardless of how many are elected — how well the Teapers get along with the rest of the Republican Party.And if some Teapers do get elected, it will be interesting to see if they follow through on some of their threats, like trying to repeal Social Security, or make masturbation a federal crime.What what might be the public reaction to their extreme agenda?

  82. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me. . I am looking forward to your new posts.

  83. Your blog is really appreciable I enjoying your great post on regular basis. Thanks for giving such useful information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s