There’s Always More Room for Jell-O™

Photo of green gelatin

Image via Wikipedia

The election picture is starting to firm up, like Jell-O™ made using the special quick-set instructions.

In CO-SEN, Scotty Rasmussen moves from “driving the narrative” mode into “telling the truth” mode , and magically, the race is getting tighter. It would be laughable if it weren’t so bloody transparent.

It’s possible that Majority Leader Harry Reid is losing his NV-SEN seat to the woman who confronted candidate John McCain with the “Obama is a Arab” allegation . This one looks like a true toss-up, perhaps 60-40 advantage Angle in my estimation. Edit: Angle claims Central Casting Hispanic males in her recent “scary Mexicans” ad are not Hispanic males .  I’m not enamored of Sen. Reid as a Majority Leader, and I’m doubly not enamored of him being Majority Leader in an environment with McConnell vs DeMint fighting for the soul of the Republican Party and with perhaps a 52-48 Democratic majority in the Senate.

It appears to me that the Senate will be either 53-47, 52-48 or 51-49. There aren’t many other likely possibilities.

On the House side, everyone except Bart DePalma is settling in on a result close to 230R-205D. That’s a gain of 50 R seats in the House, which is very significant move, even in a midterm election with a bad economy. Bart is still predicting a TSUNAMI OF EPIC PROPORTIONS and a 250R-185D or even weaker D result.

My take on this is that it’s possible, in the same way it’s possible that I might get involved in a car accident between now and Nov 2. Nate has frequently pointed out the volatility in his forecasts, particularly the House forecast. I would only remind the Tsunami Tsoris-Mongers that there’s an equally good chance the result will be 225D-210R. Neither Filistro nor I would like that, however. If it’s going to be a Republican wave, my choice would be for a narrow R majority in the House (where I’m convinced Boener et al. will waste no time hanging themselves Gingrich-style) and a narrow D majority in the Senate.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s health is failing rapidly. The confirmation of her replacement is the most likely significant business the new Senate will transact.

Consider this the new incarnation of our ongoing “let’s discuss the upcoming 2010 midterm election” thread.



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.

59 Responses to There’s Always More Room for Jell-O™

  1. filistro says:

    Neither Filistro nor I would like that, however.That’s for sure. I want a narrow R house, the narrower the better, with a pot full of crazy Teapers to steep and sour the brew.I also look forward to some Teaperish dingalings in the Senate where they will be more highly visible… and RISIBLE. And while I still think ol’ Harry will pull it out, Sharron Angle would be SO good for us if she were in the Senate. Just think of the entertaining two years that lie ahead!Besides, we’d get Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader… You know, it seems odd to say such a thing at this juncture but really… it’s kind of All Good, isn’t it? 😉

  2. shiloh says:

    Although unlikely, for your consideration:Recess appointmentsWhen the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate’s advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the Senate must confirm the nominee. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a regular appointment. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts.In 1960, toward the end of Eisenhower administration (he had made three such appointments), the Senate passed a resolution stating that it was the sense of the Senate that recess appointments to the Supreme Court should not be made except under unusual circumstances. Being a resolution, it has no legally binding effect, but was intended as an expression of the position of the Senate and as a guide to executive actions. The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party lines.~~~~~Since Reps already 110% hate … hmm, let’s go w/despise 😉 Obama w/every fiber of their being. And since Obama already drives Reps 110% bat shit crazy! whatever he does! :)Replace Ginsburg w/another liberal female Justice ~ that’s the ticket.Elections have consequences …

  3. Jeff says:

    Monotreme said: “Bart is still predicting a TSUNAMI OF EPIC PROPORTIONS and a 250R-185D or even weaker D result.My take on this is that it’s possible, in the same way it’s possible that I might get involved in a car accident between now and Nov 2.”==============My guess on the results in similar to yours, but I think Nate would agree that Bart has a Much, MUCH better chance of being right, than you have of having a car accident between now and November 2.Of course, you also could be admitting to being a truly terrible driver…. 🙂

  4. Jeff says:

    Monotreme said: ” I would only remind the Tsunami Tsoris-Mongers that there’s an equally good chance the result will be 225D-210R. Neither Filistro nor I would like that, however. If it’s going to be a Republican wave, my choice would be for a narrow R majority in the House.”===========And for similar reasons, I hope for a very narrow D majority in the House.

  5. Jeff says:

    Monotreme wrote: “In CO-SEN, Scotty Rasmussen moves from “driving the narrative” mode into “telling the truth” mode , and magically, the race is getting tighter. It would be laughable if it weren’t so bloody transparent.”==========It’s a consistent human trait to blame the messenger who brings the bad news, and to ignore the profits of doom. I believe the first mention was Cassandra, in ancient Troy. But the people who saw the 1929 crash coming were hooted at, but Bernard Baruch became a sage (and very wealthy). Ditto the people who saw the housing market collapse and the sub-prime fiasco.Races often tighten up as Election Day approaches. You seem to think that Rasmussen was “driving the narrative” to enthuse Republicans. Try going to his website, and check out his “Balance of Power” Senate projections.The first projection, in early July, was 49D, 41R, and 10 tossups. His current projection is 48D, 46R, and 6 tossups. I’m sure there’s a way that the Rasmussen haters will find to show that this was “driving the narrative.” But if the claim is that he over-estimates R’s early on, then “tells the truth,” and Democrats make a comeback, then I fail to see how his numbers support that.But then, Cassandra’s curse was to see the future, but have nobody believe her prophesies….

  6. GROG says:

    Monotreme wrote: “In CO-SEN, Scotty Rasmussen moves from “driving the narrative” mode into “telling the truth” mode , and magically, the race is getting tighter. It would be laughable if it weren’t so bloody transparent.”Monotreme is cherry picking one senate race in CO to prove that Ras is “driving the narrative”, but fails to mention his Senate Projections. Interesting.

  7. shiloh says:

    @JeffreyIt’s a consistent human trait to blame the messenger who brings the bad news, and to ignore the profits of doom. I believe the first mention was Cassandra, in ancient Troy. But then, Cassandra’s curse was to see the future, but have nobody believe her prophesies….~~~~~Although a deflection, at least it was an intelligent 😉 deflection …

  8. Bart DePalma says:

    Mono:I am hardly the only one predicting a massive electoral tsunami. Consider…1) The latest NPR battleground polling by a Dem pollster is absolutely devastating. These guys have expanded their polling to over 80 Cook districts ranging from lean GOP to lean Dem and the LV results assuming a heavier turnout show over 50 seats are certainly lost with another over 30 seats currently leaning Dem which have the Dem under 50% and tied with the GOP challenger. Incumbents below 50% in a wave election year are usually toast as the undecided break for the challengers. If you use a low turnout model favoring the GOP, all those lean Dem districts are also overwhelmingly gone. What happens if these folks poll the “safe Dem districts?”http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/18/democrats_didnt_prepare_for_a_year_like_this_107610.html2) Pollster.com, which is now working for HuffPost, has the losses between 60-70 seats. 3) Nate is constantly hedging that the GOP gains can jump above his now 50+ seat gain to 60-70 seats. He sees what is coming. Nate is relying upon donations to Dems as a measure of support for his polling. However, the direct donations broke massively for the GOP in the 3Q and do not include the well hundreds of millions being spent by 538 groups for GOP challengers.3) Michael Barone notes that, if the Gallup LV numbers are correct, we are looking at upwards of a 100 seat gaing for the GOP, the highest since 1896 or thereabouts.4) For a month now, the NRO Campaign Spot blog has been posting reports from its GOP sources about internal polling of safe Dem districts where the GOP challenger has the lead or is statistically tied with requests not to reveal the identity of the districts because the Dem campaigns are completely unaware they are in trouble. Nate’s last post was on polling in safe Dem districts which has been identified. He rather weakly tried to spin the results as GOP leaning robopolling. The problem with Nate’s analysis is that the robopolling is better at reaching conservaties, which is rather inportant n a year where conservative enthusiasm WAY above “moderates” and “liberals.”5) The Dem media is reporting that their Dem WH sources are worried about losing both the House and Senate.6) Dick Morris has been openly predicting the GOP will be taking both the House and the Senate for about a month now. The guy is a sleaze, but I am unaware of any election about which he has been seriously off.I am wrapping up vacation today with an off afternoon. I will look at the charts and make a prediction when I get home. But, if I had to guess now, we are looking at an over/under of GOP+70 in the House and GOP+10 in the Senate.

  9. shiloh says:

    @BartlesDick would you please suck on my toes Morris predicted Hillary wouldn’t run for the NY senate.Dick would you please suck on my toes Morris predicted Hillary would defeat Obama in the 2008 primary.Dick would you please suck on my toes Morris predicted Obama had no chance of becoming president.Again, all I ask for is consistency. ;)Indeed, Bart, Hoffman will win the NY-23 special election going away, DePalma and Morris make quite the prediction team.You Bet’cha!take care Bartles 🙂

  10. Monotreme says:

    Bart,Your lack of reading comprehension is matched only by your lack of knowledge of basic statistics.1. Fivethirtyeight is currently predicting 208D, 227R. That’s minus 47D.2. Larry Sabato has been predicting minus 47D since Labor Day. As he works on fundamentals, he doesn’t regularly update his forecast.3. As I mentioned earlier, there is an uncertainty in Nate’s predictions. You speak of this wave as though it’s a certainty. It’s not. All Nate is saying is that the uncertainty in his predictions for this election is especially high. He is talking kurtosis and skew, and you are playing games wih the English language.

  11. shrinkers says:

    Here’s my prediction:When the massive teabag tsunami sputters into a mere 30 – 40 seats, and the Republicans fail to take the Senate, Bart will proudly and triumphantly proclaim that he nailed it and that Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of all time.Bart will also begin saying that still more seats will be won next time, if the Republicans merely pour on more cowbell. He’ll begin predicting an asteroid impact of epic proportions! an extinction event the world has not seen since the Cretaceous! for 2012.

  12. Bart DePalma says:

    Folks:You are all free to offer your own over/under predictions like Shiloh’s GOP +35. We will see who is closer.

  13. Bart DePalma says:

    We’ll see where the polling goes on this, but when the debate moderator delivered a very pointed question to Reid on his reprehensible declaration that the Iraq War was lost followed by Reid’s blatantly lying response, you could feel his election chances deservedly go flush. The video of that exchange dominated the following news cycle in NV and the conservative media. Ras has Angle leading now. The other polls are likely to follow.

  14. shiloh says:

    @BartlesYou are all free to offer your own over/under predictions like Shiloh’s GOP +35.~~~~~hmm, maybe you are talkin’ ’bout shrinkers, ’cause as a rule “shiloh” doesn’t make political predictions as they tend to make one look really, really stupid like Bart, Rudy, grog, MPM et al re: NY-23!Bartles you really do have ADD lol as reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh. Or maybe you are totally fixated w/shiloh as I easily debunk your nonsensical spin on a regular basis.Or both. :)take care Bartles as your current vacation did not seem to rejuvenate any of your depleting brain cells.Just sayin’

  15. shrinkers says:

    Bart:You are all free to offer your own over/under predictions like Shiloh’s GOP +35. We will see who is closer.You played this game before, and you wimped out.I don’t make election predictions. I tried once, and it reaffirmed my desire to stay out of that business. I’m far more interested in policy than in horse races.

  16. shiloh says:

    Again Bartles, you can stop hyperventilating at any time, or not.Hopefully, at least your wife enjoyed her Italian adventure. :)solo dicendociao Bartolo

  17. Bart DePalma says:

    A very few on the left are beginning to get it. This is a great New Yorker article about the Reid race…http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/25/101025fa_fact_lemann?currentPage=all

  18. Bart DePalma says:

    Shrinkers:Aw c’mon, predictions are fun and not matters of life or death. We are not in the business of political prognostication, so no one really cares what we predict.

  19. shiloh says:

    @BartlesA very few on the left are beginning to get it.~~~~~Is it going viral 😉 like when Hoffman won NY-23!Oops! :)Indeed, you really are lucky Nate deleted 538’s comment section(s) lol

  20. Monotreme says:

    @Bart:Don’t you read anything?Along with the articles posted above, which don’t say anything close to what you claim they do, you’re not even reading the parent comment.I’m not enamored of Sen. Reid as a Majority Leader, and I’m doubly not enamored of him being Majority Leader in an environment with McConnell vs DeMint fighting for the soul of the Republican Party and with perhaps a 52-48 Democratic majority in the Senate.“The Left” (which, by the way, is no more a monolithic being than “The Tea Party” is) has already given up on Sen. Reid. Those of us who’ve commented on this thread have said, plainly, that they don’t like him.Angle is batshit crazy, as is Joe Miller in Alaska. The voters in either of those states might decide they want a crazy person representing them in the U.S. Senate. For example, Alaskans may want a dangerously unstable candidate who directs his private security staff to unlawfully detain a citizen exercising his First Amendment rights. You reap what you sow, Counselor.

  21. Monotreme says:

    @GROG:I’m not “cherry-picking” so much as picking out one typical example.It’s a pattern with Rasmussen polls. I’ll grant you that there are multiple interpretations of the pattern of data. However, if one posits a random error in the Rasmussen samples, then one should see a divergence to the Democratic side as often as one sees a divergence to the Republican side.For example, look closely at the Colorado Senate polling data. In this graph, Rasmussen is represented by red circles. In both March and May, Rasmussen’s results were exactly the opposite of another pollster’s taken within a week or so. That’s hard to believe.I won’t present all the data, but here’s another data point, since you think I’m “cherry-picking”. In Washington State, pre-Labor Day, Rasmussen has Rossi ahead over and over again through the summer, while other pollsters show a clear lead for Murray.I’m pretty sure Bart pops in at this point and declares that the difference is because of a “likely voter” screen or “enthusiasm” or some such, but human behavior is such that most people don’t know what they’ll have for dinner, much less who they’ll vote for six months from the election. I would suggest that the best a poll can do in May or June or July or August is to measure a voter’s intention but to turn that into a “sure thing” is just plain wrong.I think the current Rasmussen data are accurate. I think the Rasmussen data from before Labor Day are garbage.Prove me wrong.

  22. Monotreme says:

    Jeff sez:My guess on the results in similar to yours, but I think Nate would agree that Bart has a Much, MUCH better chance of being right, than you have of having a car accident between now and November 2.Taking the 70-seat wave (185D) and examining Nate’s graph, I get a probability of perhaps 2-3%. It’s difficult to read the bars in that range, but each is much less than 0.5%. Summing all the bars at 185D and below, I get something in the 2-3% range.The lowest histogram bar on Nate’s current House projection is at 165 D, which is minus 90 D. The probability of that appears to be in the 0.1% range.The probability of a 100-seat wave, which Bart inexplicably screams about again in the above comments, is near zero, so low as to be unmeasurable.

  23. Bart DePalma says:

    Mono:The Ras LV polling has been basically constant throughout. Ras has not suddenly shifted to the Dems at the end to make up for GOP bias before.In sharp contrast, the Dem media polling of RVs grossly underestimated the coming wave and has been converging on or passing Ras as they erected their LV screens. See the difference between Gallup before and currently.Ras was right all along. Consider yourself proven wrong.

  24. Monotreme says:

    @Bart,An assertion without evidence is an opinion. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they all stink.

  25. parksie555 says:

    I thought Nate’s piece on the Alaska Senate race was interesting today. I don’t think it matters much with regards to the overall D/R picture in the Senate but what struck me when I looked at Nate’s detail of the race was how high Murkowski’s write in numbers were.I wonder if Castle’s people in DE seriously underestimated his chances in a write-in campaign. I can’t imagine he could do worse than Murkowski. He would certainly have support from the local Republican party, especially in New Castle County. And he was quite popular here even among Democrats, as evidenced by his performance in difficult years for Rs in the last couple of cycles in a state where Dems have a big registration advantage.I think his people did an internal poll on his chances and apparently he decided against a run after seeing the results. Maybe he just wanted to bow out gracefully but I for one would have liked to see him give it a shot.O’Donnell continues to be a disaster, her debate performance was an absolute disgrace. Although Coons did not sparkle either (just what we need – another Ivy League lawyer for Chrissake!) she is in deep trouble at this point.

  26. shrinkers says:

    Ras was right all along. Consider yourself proven wrong.We won’t actually know that for a couple of weeks yet.

  27. Jeff says:

    Monotreme wrote:@Bart,An assertion without evidence is an opinion. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they all stink.================And this site isn’t about opinion?

  28. Jeff says:

    Monotreme wrote: I’m not “cherry-picking” so much as picking out one typical example.It’s a pattern with Rasmussen polls. I’ll grant you that there are multiple interpretations of the pattern of data. However, if one posits a random error in the Rasmussen samples, then one should see a divergence to the Democratic side as often as one sees a divergence to the Republican side.For example, look closely at the Colorado Senate polling data. In this graph, Rasmussen is represented by red circles. In both March and May, Rasmussen’s results were exactly the opposite of another pollster’s taken within a week or so. That’s hard to believe.I won’t present all the data, but here’s another data point, since you think I’m “cherry-picking”. In Washington State, pre-Labor Day, Rasmussen has Rossi ahead over and over again through the summer, while other pollsters show a clear lead for Murray.======================Rasmussen, the pollster that liberals love to hate. The objective answer — to me — is that he does a lot of political polling as a loss leader, because the real money is in commercial polling where he gets paid. A reputation for biased polling doesn’t get him more paying clients! Trust in self interest…Every pollster has different assumptions as to the mix of voters and how to weigh them. There’s a general consensus that likely voters tend to be more conservative than registered voters. Rasmussen only reports what he considers likely voters, and until recently, most pollsters looked at registered voters. Based solely on that, you would expect him to show better results for Republicans.You cite two examples of Rasmussen being different from other pollsters, and go to March and May polls in Colorado, and Washington State “pre-labor day.” Go take another look at the polls you linked to. Most of the “differences” were within the margin of error. It should be no surprise that two separate polls should be 4-5 points apart — ESPECIALLY when one pollster is using a RV screen and the other is using a LV screen.Earlier I posted his July vs current numbers for the Senate. Rasmussen’s first projection, in early July, was 49D, 41R, and 10 tossups. His current projection is 48D, 46R, and 6 tossups.His “likely D” numbers have hardly budged. The major change has been from “too close to call” to leaning R. This is what other pollsters have shown — and it should be expected that races become better defined as election day approaches. And it should hardly be unexpected that in some races, a candidate leading in May or July, falls behind in October.You keep on saying that Rasmussen is an pro-Republican outlier that’s trying to “drive the narrative.” When Gallup moved to their likely voter screen, their first survey showed a 12-18 point lead for Republicans. Are they also “trying to drive the narrative.” If not, why did they get a +R result greater than any generic Rasmussen poll?Why do I suspect a “shoot the messenger” mentality?

  29. shiloh says:

    @JeffreyRasmussen, the pollster that liberals love to hate. ~~~~~Another absurd generalization aside, btw if one truly hated a pollster, what action would they take to show their feelings lol, I believe the phrasing Jeffrey is looking for is disagree w/Rasmussen’s skewed scientific methodology for political effect er ulterior motives …Disingenuous hyperbole will never win one any debate points, whereas sarcasm can be useful tool. ;)Just sayin’take care

  30. parksie555 says:

    Jeff, I tried to fight the good fight for Ras over and over again at the old 538. You cannot convince these guys. When it comes to Ras these guys are like the KosKids – they see conspiracy everywhere. And they were shocked, shocked I tell you, when R2K went bellyup even though I had told them for months that they were nothing but shills for the Dems.Even Nate got into it by trying to drive Ras accuracy numbers down with some silly “pollster transparency initiative” weighting factor in his last round of pollster ratings. Nate loves to think he is the smartest kid in the class but thankfully there are some other sharp people looking at polls as well.http://www.pollster.com/blogs/are_nate_silvers_pollster_rati.php?nr=1Conspiracy theory is like catnip to liberals. They just can’t resist it.

  31. shiloh says:

    Scott Rasmussen himself was on Hannity the night before the NY-23 special election election and said Hoffman would easily defeat Owens in said election, no problem.He’s a conservative who works hand in hand w/Reps as he’s a paid employee er consultant of fixednoise much like palin and has conservative bias. Which is why he is a good fit.>There are Dem pollsters who skew and Rep posters who skew their polls for political effect. Rasmussen just needs to admit they are a Republican pollster and we can all move on, eh.btw, the worst case scenario for a political pollster are really, really close races and 2010 is gonna have many, many close races as let the foolish predictions begin …>hmm, didn’t p555 say Blumenthal in CT was toast once upon a time as resiliency is a virtue, just ask Nixon.

  32. shrinkers says:

    Conspiracy theory is like catnip to liberals. They just can’t resist it.Yes, like the “global warming conspiracy”. A famous liberal theory.Or the “liberal media conspiracy.” Yet another one.Or the “Obama is a secret muzzlin socialite from from Kanye” conspiracy. Liberals have been theorizing for years that Obama and friends are keeping the truth about his birth secret.Or the “takeover of health care” conspiracy. Or the “9/11 was an inside job” thing.Only liberals come up with conspiracy theories.

  33. filistro says:

    @parksie Conspiracy theory is like catnip to liberals. They just can’t resist it.Some of the hundreds of conspiracy theories discussed at Free Republic: (These have all appeared or reappeared at within the past month.)* Barack Obama doesn’t want his long-form birth certificate to be seen because his real father was Malcolm X.*Barack Obama’s mother was an ambitious, promiscuous slut who gave birth in Canada and then falsified the Hawaii medical records because she wanted her son to be president someday*Barack Obama is a Manchurian candidate programmed by his father to carry out anti-colonial goals. His father (who is not dead at all) controls him from a secret enclave in Kenya.*Barack Obama’s trip to his grandmother’s deathbed just before the election was really a pretext to find and destroy incriminating evidence about his birth. During the trip he killed his grandmother by smothering her with a pillow because she “knew too much.”*The abandoned rail cars sitting at sidings around the country are being quietly gathered to ship conservatives to internment camps*Facebook and other social media are plots to collect the e-mails of conservatives, which can then be used to hunt down and “liquidate” them*Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster because he “had the goods on her”*Barack Obama is a homosexual. Larry Sinclair is his long-time lover.*Michelle Obama is a transgendered male. She was hired to be Barack Obama’s “beard” to keep his homosexuality hidden. The little girls are both adopted from inner city families where the facts of their birth have been hushed up at great expense.You get the picture. It never stops. I can say without exaggeration that there are at least two or three ugly, outlandish new conspiracy theories like this EVERY DAY at Free Republic…. proud home of the Tea Party Express!!!

  34. Mule Rider says:

    “Or the “9/11 was an inside job” thing.”While some on the “right” adhere to this one, it’s primarily a concoction of the left-wing. Fahrenheit 911 was a product of Michael Moore, not David Bossie. @filistro,Point taken but there’s a vast difference between the whacked out imagination of a handful of nuts on the internet and a more “mainstream” belief of something that might be believed by >10% of the population.

  35. filistro says:

    @Muley… there’s a vast difference between the whacked out imagination of a handful of nuts on the internet and a more “mainstream” belief of something that might be believed by >10% of the population.More than 4 in 10 Republicans are either outright birthers or have some belief in birtherism. It is the most prevalent, widely-held conspiracy theory in the entire nation.

  36. filistro says:

    Okay, that poll I linked was from Research 200, so just to save all of you some time, here’s another one, this time from CNN that finds exactly the same ratio of birthers among Republicans.

  37. Mule Rider says:

    “It is the most prevalent, widely-held conspiracy theory in the entire nation.”First of all, you threw in the qualifier of his real father being “Malcom X.” I’m not saying there aren’t quite a few “birthers,” but you’d be hard pressed to find very many believe it’s specifically a cover-up for being the son of Malcolm X.The next hole in your argument is that you’re talking about 4/10 of self-identified Republicans, which generally make up about 25%-30% of the population. So that makes it closer to 10%-12% of everyone (assuming 4/10 is even true), which is still too many but not nearly as pervasive as it seems on the surface.

  38. filistro says:

    Okay, Muley… 1.) parksie suggested liberals are suckers for conspiracy theories.2.) I provided links to 2 polls regarding a specific conspiracy theory that is (according to those two polls) believed by almost half of all Republicans.3.) Can you (or parksie) name any specific conspiracy theory that is believed by that high a percentage of liberals? (After all, if liberals are such big fans of conspiracy theories, there must be LOTS of them that are widely held among liberals… no?)

  39. Jeff says:

    filistro wrote:@Muley… there’s a vast difference between the whacked out imagination of a handful of nuts on the internet and a more “mainstream” belief of something that might be believed by >10% of the population.More than 4 in 10 Republicans are either outright birthers or have some belief in birtherism. It is the most prevalent, widely-held conspiracy theory in the entire nation.==============Ummm… how about the conspiracy theory that the Supreme Court gave the 2000 election to Bush, and that the recount would have proven Gore won Florida?

  40. filistro says:

    Jeff… Ummm… how about the conspiracy theory that the Supreme Court gave the 2000 election to Bush, and that the recount would have proven Gore won Florida?Perhaps you need to look up the definition of “conspiracy theory.” Hint… it involves a group of people “conspiring.” I seriously doubt that 40% of liberals believe right-leaning Supreme Court Justices huddled in a back room and conspired to throw the election to Bush. Liberals would agree that the Supremes did what they thought was right. Many feel they made a mistake. I don’t know of anybody who thinks they “conspired.”

  41. shortchain says:

    Jeff,Beliefs in reality don’t really count as “conspiracy theories”.But you unintentionally illustrate the difference between left and right conspiracy theories, namely that the left observes reality (recall: the August, 2001 briefing memo), whereas the right has no problem with conspiracy theories that are directly and obviously contradicted by reality.

  42. shiloh says:

    Ummm Jeffrey, actually the S.C. did give the election to cheney/bush in legal terms or more precise, Gore graciously stepping aside and not beating a dead horse.And as we saw by the hanging chad fiasco the process was totally subjective so one will never know who won, older Jewish voters being confused by the butterfly ballot and voting for Buchanan 😉 notwithstanding.>As to the main crux of your disingenuous deflection, you have provided no #s er % as regards to a counterpoint of a bigger liberal conspiracy than the 40% of Rep birthers.>and yes, can’t believe I’m replying to any of this ad nauseam minutia lol but when Jeffrey needs corrected er educated, my empathy kicks in. :)take care

  43. shrinkers says:

    @shortchain and filistroJeff and GROG have now also illustrated another aspect of the term “conspiracy theory.”Not only do many people no longer know what the word “conspiracy” means … and not only are conservatives frequently unable to separate fact-based descriptions of events from wild nonsense with no supporting evidence whatever …… but also, the term “conspiracy theory” has become merely a cuss word. The phrase now means, “I disagree with you and want to discredit your ideas by simply characterizing them as something worthy of ridicule. I don’t want to take the time to actually consider or dispute what you said. I want to shut off discussion of your idea. So I will condemn it by calling it a ‘conspiracy theory,’ and I will thereby hope everyone will begin to ignore you, lest they be tarred as someone who gives credit to ‘conspiracy theories’.”It’s the same way they use terms like “socialist.” It’s now a simple insult, with no actual meaning.

  44. filistro says:

    @shiloh…Empathy is a wonderful thing. It’s what makes the difference between conservatives and liberals 🙂

  45. shrinkers says:

    @shortchain and filistroJeff and GROG have now also illustrated another aspect of the term “conspiracy theory.”Not only do many people no longer know what the word “conspiracy” means … and not only are conservatives frequently unable to separate fact-based descriptions of events from wild nonsense with no supporting evidence whatever …… but also, the term “conspiracy theory” has become merely a cuss word. The phrase now means, “I disagree with you and want to discredit your ideas by simply characterizing them as something worthy of ridicule. I don’t want to take the time to actually consider or dispute what you said. I want to shut off discussion of your idea. So I will condemn it by calling it a ‘conspiracy theory,’ and I will thereby hope everyone will begin to ignore you, lest they be tarred as someone who gives credit to ‘conspiracy theories’.”It’s the same way they use terms like “socialist.” It’s now a simple insult, with no actual meaning.

  46. Jean says:

    shrinkers,There must be something tainted in the water in the 6th District.In an interview with prominent birther site World Net Daily, [Michele] Bachmann explains what she would do if she could change anything about America:Q. If, with a snap of your fingers, you could change anything about America, what would it be?A. Reduce the federal government to its original size and constitutional limitations and to restore the 9th and 10th amendments. In other words, Bachmann wants to reduce the size of the government to the level it was at when there was no Minnesota. Also, it’s not entirely clear when we lost the 9th and 10th Amendments. A cursory review of files stored at the National Archives shows that those two amendments are still very much attached to the Constitution.

  47. Monotreme says:

    Of all the things I said in my original article and the comments, virtually the only thing our conservative friends have commented on is my criticism of Rasmussen’s polls.For the record, I never said (nor implied, nor meant) that there was a Rasmussen “conspiracy”. I think Rasmussen uses his model of a “likely voter” to drive a particular narrative. Do I think it’s deliberate, or intentional, or conscious? Not at all. I think he believes he’s doing the right thing. I’m sure I’d enjoy meeting him and hoisting a few. I think he’s misguided, not part of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.As a liberal and also as a scientist, I don’t tend to believe in conspiracy theories. I think a conspiracy is too much effort, and a violation of Occam’s Razor and the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

  48. Monotreme says:

    The “Votemaster” at electoral-vote.com analyzes the House polling data (such as it is) and finds it lacking.He does a regression analysis comparing House and Senate losses and gets a forecast of minus 40 D.Notice that since World War II, the largest swing in seats has been 54. To postulate a swing larger than that would mean you are predicting something that has less than a 1 in 15 chance of happening, by definition (there have been 30 House elections since 1945, and two of those have seen a swing of 54 seats, so a swing of 54 happens 1 in 15 times).One thing I find attractive about this model is that it accommodates the dynamics of a wave, that is, if people are disgusted with the party in power they’ll vote out Senators just like they vote out Representatives.

  49. Monotreme says:

    Barted:Mono:The Ras LV polling has been basically constant throughout. Ras has not suddenly shifted to the Dems at the end to make up for GOP bias before.In sharp contrast, the Dem media polling of RVs grossly underestimated the coming wave and has been converging on or passing Ras as they erected their LV screens. See the difference between Gallup before and currently.Ras was right all along. Consider yourself proven wrong.You mis-characterize my position. Given your overall reading comprehension deficit, that’s not surprising. Still, hope springs eternal and I’m an educator at heart, so I’ll try again.Let me say this plainly:We have no way of knowing how many people supported a particular candidate in July.Polls are not designed as tools to predict what’s going to happen. (“I predict that the high temperature on January 1 in Woodland Park Colorado will be 32F.”) Rather, a poll is supposed to represent what citizens are thinking or feeling or intending at a particular moment in time.My contention is that Rasmussen’s polls are not accurately measuring what the electorate is thinking or feeling or intending in, say, June. Rather, I think these polls are designed to predict what is going to happen on November 2. Your comments, and those of others here, confirm this suspicion.I don’t see anyone here arguing that Rasmussen’s summer numbers are accurate in the sense that they reflect the current temperature of the electorate. Polls are supposed to be a thermometer, not climatology.

  50. shrinkers says:

    Monotreme, thanks for linking that article from Electoral Vote dot com.What I found particularly interesting was this: The base problem is that there have been only 166 nonpartisan House polls this year and these cover only 81 congressional districts. And on the basis of this, we have assurances of a tsunami.At least we only have to listen to that for another two weeks.

  51. Jeff says:

    filistro wrote:Some of the hundreds of conspiracy theories discussed at Free Republic: (These have all appeared or reappeared at within the past month.)============And (to continue an old, old dispute):Free Republic is a wonderful mechanism for collecting all the loony-tune nutcases on the right and getting them all in one place so they can circle-jerk. Keeps them away from civilized people….Your list of freeper discussion topics just goes to show how far away they are from the conservative mainstream.

  52. Jeff says:

    Monotreme wrote:Of all the things I said in my original article and the comments, virtually the only thing our conservative friends have commented on is my criticism of Rasmussen’s polls.================Possibly because your conservative friends don’t disagree with the rest of what you’ve said (except the partisan bit in the last part of your last paragraph, where you stated your preferences).Your predictions are pretty similar to mine — and I’m possibly more conservative on R gains.However, my belief is that if the results fall outside of the range you outlined, they’re considerably more likely to be outsize Republican gains, rather than losses.I live in the SF Bay area, and one of the local news stations had a piece about voter registration in Contra Costa County (2:1 Dem registration over Republicans; no significant elected Republicans, one marginally competitive seat (McNerney). Seems that new registrations are being submitted in much higher quantities than ever before — and they’re running 2:1 Republican.This is a manifestation of the enthusiasm gap. If D’s turn out at the typical mid-term rate, and R’s turn out at an enthusiastic Presidential rate, I’ll expect more than 50 seats to turn. If nationally, there’s a swing like we saw in Virginia, New Jersey, and MA, it could be Bart’s tsunami.I don’t know — it’s all trying to read tea leaves. But in many respects previous models don’t apply, because we’ve not had economic conditions like this since the 1930’s, coupled with polarizing issues like HC and the stimulus. But we’re not going to know for another 15 days.

  53. shiloh says:

    @Jeffreythere’s a swing like we saw in Virginia, New Jersey, and MA, it could be Bart’s tsunami.~~~~~For the umpteenth time VA is still a fairly conservative state as it took (8) years of cheney/bush to switch it to blue after (44) years of red on the national level ~ LBJ ’64 being the last Dem to win.MA Coakley was a no-show and Brown was straight out of leading man central casting. Coakley blew a (30) pt. lead and had a 10 to 15 pt. lead w/a mo. to go as even Rasmussen had her ahead by 9 pts. Brown campaigned non-stop and Coakley took a weeks vacation over Christmas plus she said Schilling was a Yankee fan! In a nutshell, she was a train wreck.NJ ~ Corzine was very, very unpopular and still only lost by 3.5% w/Christie only getting 48.5% as the Dem’s only lost (1) state general assembly seat. >And of course the Dem’s had a string of winning (10) straight special election House seats where the voter turnout is always low. Even winning ruby red NY-23 when palin’s train wreck Hoffman imploded.>But again, w/a nationwide 6/7/8 to 1 money advantage because of Citizens United S.C. case allowing Rep billionaires etc. to fund turdblossom, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. w/unlimited campaign $$$ how embarrassing if the Reps don’t regain the House.Expectations …

  54. Bart DePalma says:

    Mono:RV and adult polling (especially that like the WP polling which heavily oversamples Dems) is ALWAYS inaccurate no matter when it is performed.LV polling becomes accurate when the electorate makes it’s decision. In this cycle, that was this summer after Obamacare was rammed through and the Dems lost the center. LV polling is always the most accurate measure of the electorate at the time.

  55. Jeff says:

    Concerning loony-tune conspiracy theories,how about these (link provided below, and site has links to the surveys):I. Ignorance and Irrationality are Common Among Democratic Voters Too.One can easily find parallel examples for Democrats. Thus, Kos makes much of the finding that 23% of Republicans in the survey say they want their state to secede. But a 2008 Zogby/Middlebury College poll found that support for secession was vastly more common among liberals than conservatives. In that poll 32% of liberals claimed that their state has a right to secede (compared to only 17% of conservatives), and a whopping 33% of African-American respondents (an overwhelmingly Democratic group), said that they would support a secession movement in their state. I suspect that supporters of the opposition party are always disproportionately likely to express support for secession when they are angry at an incumbent administration of the opposite party (as Republicans are today, and Democrats were in 2008). I don’t think that support for secession is necessarily ignorant or stupid. To the extent that it is problematic, it’s not a problem limited to Republicans.Kos also points out the 36% of Republicans in his study who seem to endorse birtherism and the 22% who say they aren’t sure. Birtherism is indeed ridiculous. Yet a 2007 poll found that 35% of self-identified Democrats believe that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and 26% say they don’t know if he did. Other examples of ignorance and irrationality by Democratic voters are not hard to come by. For example, some 32% of Democrats believe that “the Jews” deserve a substantial amount of blame for the financial crisis (compared to 18% of Republicans). In November 2008, some 59% of Obama voters did not know that the Democrats then had control of Congress.http://volokh.com/2010/02/09/republican-voters-often-have-ignorant-and-irrational-views-and-so-do-democrats/==============Glass houses and throwing stones…..Let’s all admit that there are froot-loops and nut-cases on both sides, and that the mainstream of neither party should be judged by what their fringe crazies say and believe.

  56. shiloh says:

    Let’s all admit that there are froot-loops and nut-cases on both sidesTrue, and let’s all agree the vast majority of these fruit-loops and nut cases are Reps/cons.Especially since Obama was elected, eh.>Your dubious source notwithstanding, did find it interesting one of the comments mentioned Colbert/Daily Show viewers are more informed than regular cable news viewers and of course most of Colbert/Stewart’s viewers are progressives …take care

  57. Realist says:

    @shiloh,True, and let’s all agree the vast majority of these fruit-loops and nut cases are Reps/cons.I won’t agree with that. I do think they have more of the nominations in this election cycle, though.

  58. shiloh says:

    Did I mention liberals/progressives often disagree.Anyway, my reply was mostly sarcastic as when a die hard Rep replies: Let’s all agree a general rule of thumb is to smile and move on.Let’s all agree to disagree is more apt at a political forum.Just sayin’ as we argue about agreeing and disagreeing …

  59. Mr Universe says:

    Conspiracy theory is like catnip to liberals. They just can’t resist it.

    Actually we just know when to call ‘bullshit’.

    But seriously, both sides have a tendancy to call for ‘More Cowbell!’. I think it’s just a knee-jerk reaction.

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