by Mr. Universe
Well, either Gallup has run off the rails or they are predicting the ‘tsunami’ we’ve all been hearing about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/election-2010-polls-democrats-republicans_n_776862.html
“The fact that Gallup has produced what is arguably the outlier of the final polls is extraordinary. And if Gallup is right, it implies an almost unprecedented Republican sweep on Tuesday. As Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz explains via email, “Republicans have never had anything close to a 15-point popular vote margin in the past 80 years.” Their biggest national margin in that period was “7 points in 1946, followed by a 6 point margin in 1994.” A 15-point majority this year, he adds, “would probably result in a gain of close to 80 seats and between 250 and 260 GOP seats in the new House, more than in any Congress since the 1920s.”
I really find that hard to believe. I refuse to believe we’re this stupid.
538 Refugees 
Another unprecedented result, as noted by electoral-vote.com, among tohers:”Unlike 1994 however, when the Republicans were highly popular, this year the Republicans are even less popular than the Democrats. Consequently, many people, especially independents, are going to vote for Republican not because they like the Republicans but because they want to send the Democrats a message (the message being that the economy is still terrible for many people).”We won’t know until late tomorrow or Wed. what it means for the outcome, that Republicans are favored in the generic likely voter yet less well-liked than the Dems, but it _is_ interesting.
I thought that Nate had alluded to this in his “cover his ass” post over the weekend. This way, if the tsunami happened, he could say “I mostly got it right.”Without snark, what factual evidence do you have that the country is not, in your words, “this stupid.” I am very curious as to your answer. Thanks in advance.
Without snark, what factual evidence do you have that the country is not, in your words, “this stupid.” I am very curious as to your answer. Thanks in advance.Judging by how many eligible voters aren’t registered, and by how many registered voters don’t vote and how many registered voters who do vote are uniformed and easily swayed ie the $$$ in this mid-term from conservative billionaires being unprecedented. One could easily say that not only are American voters lazy/apathetic, but also not very intelligent.Again the best govt. corporate interests can buy as America survives despite itself.Regardless, Obama will be earning his paycheck the next (2) years as he tries to curtail Reps er major corporations/special conservative interest groups total destruction of America!btw, turnout in Portage County Ohio is projected to be (((37%))) of eligible voters.’nuf said! as the average American just doesn’t care …
Speaking of the crazy train. . . Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin.”There is a determined, focused establishment effort … to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin,” said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. “We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44449.html#ixzz144CfircCRead more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44449.html#ixzz144CWnQcv
Ahhhh, the justifications and excuses for what hasn’t even happened tomorrow are getting better and better by the day.The electorate that was so smart two years ago has suddenly become…..StupidLazyApatheticGreedyUninformedOf course it has nothing to do with with the failure of Congress and Obama during the past 4 years and the overall rejection of liberal and progressive policies.
grog, what would you call turnout in Portage County Ohio is projected to be (((37%))) of eligible voters. other than lazy/apathetic?Eagerly awaiting your song and dance reply …
@Real Mikewhat factual evidence do you have that the country is not, in your words, “this stupid.”Yeah I debated on whether to say that or not. I have no ‘factual’ evidence. What I mean by that statement is that it’s self evident to me what needs to be done to steer this ship forward. The fact that people would vote against a candidate or party ‘to send a message’ strikes me as selfish, counterproductive, and quite frankly, stupid.Say you’re on the Titanic. You’re getting into lifeboats and suddenly you decide, “well I’m not sharing this lifeboat with that guy because he cheated at cribbage last night”.Or better: the building is on fire and you stop everbody at the stairwell and say, “We can’t use these stairs because they’re not up to code”.You know what I mean? There’s a way forward that hasn’t been given a chance. We just can’t continue this back and forth “WELL YOUR WAY SUCKS!” pendulum swing.I think we owe it to ourselves to give the Obama administration time to 1. clean up the big pile of horse dooky left behing by shrub and 2. allow the ideas put forth in the campaign to bear fruit. Yes we’re all dissatisfied. But to go to the poll and vote for something in order to punish politicians for things being sucky is like shooting your doctor because you don’t feel good and it’s…well, stupid.
Mr. U,1. clean up the big pile of horse dooky left behing by shrubThis is basically the one and only argument the left has had for the past 2 years and the people aren’t buying it. Democrats have had 4 years of control of both houses of Congress and this is where we are now. The people are rejecting leftwing policies. They have no other way to send that message than to vote. It’s not stupid. It’s called democracy.
shiloh,Voter turnout nationally for the 2002 and 2006 midterms was around 40%. Portage County is right at the national average.Were you arguing voter apathy in 2006?
It’s not stupid. It’s called democracy.It is Democracy. And I will reluctantly accept whatever the outcome will be since we, as a people often need to feel the pain of a decision before we take collective steps to correct it. I thought we had done that in 2008.But it does not mean it’s not stupid. Quite the contrary, it will be a blunder of epic proportions.
what factual evidence do you have that the country is not, in your words, “this stupid.”See, this is what’s been puzzling me for weeks… and still no satisfactory answer.As of today, Obama’s job approval rating is 45% at Gallup, 50% at Rasmussen. I repeat… 50% AT RASMUSSEN.And yet we are supposed to believe in an electorate so furiously angry about his policies that they are on the verge of giving the opposing party about umpty-eleven seats in the House.I guess we’ll know for sure tomorrow… but something just doesn’t compute here. If the public is that angry with him, why aren’t his ratings down in the 30’s?
@grogWere you arguing voter apathy in 2006?~~~~~as Bartles said to me yesterday, point taken, but have said since the early ’70s America survives despite itself!American voters just don’t care as the 2008 election had (62%) eligible voter turnout, which is still pathetic.This is why it behooves the Rep party to suppress voter turnout as increasing voter turnout heightens the chances of a Dem president, etc.>But again, presidential elections have everything to do w/incumbency, name recognition, effective campaigning/candidate and $$$ to control the national political rhetoric and very little to do w/political ideology.Let me repeat, very little to do w/political ideology, sorry Bart ;), as presidential politics is usually about one party screwing up and being replaced by the other party and …$$$Scott Brown won in MA because of $$$, effective campaigning, his opponent was a no show, superficiality and oh yea, he was a moderate Rep or as Bartles would say, a RINO.>Republicans recovered from 1932 and 1936 and Dems will recover from whatever happens tomorrow, the yin and yang of the political process.btw, Obama is still president regardless. :)take care
@fili,It’s a well know fact that Scotty Ras fixes his polls. He’s just trying to confuse you a bit and maybe give you some false hope tomorrow. :)You seem to be in a little mood the past couple days. I like this less angry filistro much better.
“I really find that hard to believe. I refuse to believe we’re this stupid.”Ah, the voters are stupid meme. I expect to be hearing this a lot over the next week.The voters are not stupid, they are pissed (Tea Party), aghast (Indis) and dejected (African Americans and young folks, both of whom have enormous unemployment rates).When the GOP shows up in force, the Indis break 3:2 for the GOP and the 2/3 of the Dem base could care less, you get GOP+15.Abramowitz put up a post at Pollster calling the Gallup poll an outlier without explaining how the poll which he relied upon in 2006 and 2008 is now for some reason unreliable.Gallup’s last four LV polls have been within three points with a high of GOP+17 and a low of GOP +14, so this is not an outlier poll in the Gallup universe.There are other polls within the margin of error of Gallup: Fox +13, Ras +12 and CNN +10.Even the heavily Dem biased Wash Post poll has the GOP 6 points higher than they did on the eve of 1994 when they took 52 seats.
I must be missing the crystal balls that the rest of you have. (Mine are definitely not crystal)I see post after post claiming to have clear knowledge as to the motivations of the voters. Thus far, none of the polls I’ve seen bear out any of the hypotheses I’ve read here.Could those of you claiming to know the voters’ motivations point to the causal evidence? Otherwise, you’re all looking mighty foolish.
I’m surprised that you don’t seem to know what the word “outlier” means.
GROG said:”You seem to be in a little mood the past couple days.”Insert the word better between little and mood.
This is a pretty good definition of an “outlier”.Of course, it’s probably instructive for you to see that words have specific meanings. Those of us who love language like to understand words, not just use them as weapons. Imagine! They can be used as devices to communicate meaning — even shades of meaning! What an innovation!(In the above-linked article, I think the caveat in the last paragraph is especially germane to predicting tomorrow’s outcome.)
@Bart,Ah, the voters are stupid meme. I expect to be hearing this a lot over the next week.This is actually what I’m most looking forward to in the coming weeks. Watching the left stutter and stammer and try to explain what just happened. They’ll refuse to acknowldege any fault of their own and continue to blame the stupid electorate. It’ll be fun to watch.
As for me, I’m done. I’ll turn out first thing tomorrow morning and vote for the lesser of two evils — AKA I’ll vote for one of the three privileged white flowers (I’ll just save ya the time, Mr. U, and self-censor, but the kind of flower I’m thinking of is the kind that attracts flies) I can choose from.I’m taking a break from politics until after the election, because I don’t believe in trying to read the tea leaves until the teacup is empty — and because I have exams to prepare. See you on Wednesday.
@GROG: “You seem to be in a little mood the past couple days.” Insert the word better between little and mood….No, you had it right the first time. I HAVE been in a “little mood” lately. I don’t ever get too moody (I’m just a really happy person… my favorite sweatshirt says “life is good” on the front :-)… but when I’ve had too much of right-wing smugness, gloating, and obtuseness, I do occasionally get in a “little mood.”You’re right, though… I’m better now. Whatever happens tomorrow, I’m already looking beyond it. And these next two years are going to be so fascinating for poltical junkies. We are about to witness history… the death of a major political party and the birth of a brand-new one.I feel practically giddy with excitement. I want the election over with so the fun can begin 🙂
Jay Cost performed a nifty comparison of the accuracy of congressional generic polling of the various pollsters since 1994 and found that Gallup is easily the most accurate and the only one without a significant history of overestimating the Dem vote.http://www .weeklysta ndard.com/ blogs/morn ing-jay-sp ecial-hulk -angry-hul k-smash-ed ition_5134 23.html?pa ge=1
Bartles, your link goes nowhere 😉 much like all of your 538 ad nauseam, winger troll bloviating er posts!solo estoy diciendotake care, blessings
Keith just mentioned that turdblossom’s billionaire funded campaign rhetoric er distractions er commercials will continue thru the lame duck period in congress.So for all of you who aren’t totally sick of ad nauseam campaign commercials lol be prepared for scorched earth critical mass.Apparently Reps don’t believe in diminishing returns, eh.carry on
@BartWhat do you make of the unprecedented unpopularity of the Republicans vs. their generic ballot polling? My understanding is that the last time their generics were this positive, they were also more favorably viewed the Dems, not so today.
This is the correct link.http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-special-hulk-angry-hulk-smash-edition_513423.html
yepmatter o’ fact many of us have been dismayed by low voter turnouts since the 70’s
Michael McDonald at George Mason University is projecting record turnout.So much for the enthusiasm gap.
@MonotremeMichael McDonald at George Mason University is projecting record turnout.~~~~~So just like Michael McDonald, Dem’s may be Takin’ It To The Streets or something.Trivia: How did the Doobie Brothers get their name. 😉What a long strange trip it’s been …
11/1/2010 5:21 PM dr_funguy wrote: “@Bart, What do you make of the unprecedented unpopularity of the Republicans vs. their generic ballot polling?”The Tea Party effect. The TP folks view the RINO leadership nearly as negatively as the Dem establishment. However, all the polls I have read concerning the TP, 85% of Tea Partiers plan to vote for THEIR GOP candidates.This is the GOP “civil war” that Fili is looking forward to. It is more akin to a rebellion within a rebellion. The Tea Party has the votes, but the establishment has (for now) the levers of power. Fili is correct that this will be Avery interesting two years.
Fili thinks the rebellion will destroy the GOP. I think it will save and strengthen it.
Bart said,Ah, the voters are stupid meme. I expect to be hearing this a lot over the next week.Yes, I suspect you’ve heard it a lot in your life.
flowers (I’ll just save ya the time, Mr. UThanks shortchain but I wouldn’t censor you. You’re welcome to say *flowers* here anytime.@GROG, et al. Look, if anything we’ve been expecting a Republican turnover. Nobody is denying it. We’re just incredulous that it will actually happen given the circumstances. But it is what it is. And as you pointed out, that’s democracy. Part of living in a free society means you have to accept what that society collectively believes whether you agree with it or not.
@GROG… Fili thinks the rebellion will destroy the GOP.No, I don’t. There will always be a right-of-center party, because there will always be right-of-center people and America needs a two-party system.I think the coming rebellion will destroy the GOP AS WE KNOW IT. It will be the end of the old Reagan coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, corporatists and what has come to be known as “the Religious Right.”The social cons and the evangelicals will break (before 2012) from the corporatists and the fiscal cons, whom they consider the “establishment.” They will subject their potential candidates to a purity test that will revolve around issues like abortion, immigration and whether you sufficiently hate Muslims and adore Sarah Palin.As a result there will be a clean fracture that will leave a southern rump party of fervent social conservatives who like a lot of religion in their politics and think Palin would just be a dandy POTUS, and sensible fiscal cons who are really sick of pandering the clown car and will finally be driven to the point of saying ENOUGH.The clown car will then fade away into obscurity because there are just not enough of them anymore to gain power on their own. The newly purged, serious, fiscally conservative, keen and smart GOP will begin to build back what it lost electorally in the divorce. It will eventually be a force to be reckoned with again… but not for at least a decade or two.I said almost a year and a half ago at the old 538 that Sarah Palin will be remembered in history as the woman who destroyed the Republican party. I think I was prescient. But she didn’t lay the kindling… it was already there. She’s just providing the spark that will start the conflagration.
Damn, shiloh got to the Doobie Brothers pun before I did.
Again, the obvious:2006 the Dems won a majority of 40% of eligible er likely voters.2010 the Reps are expected to win a majority of 40% of eligible er likely voters.but, but, but like Bartles, these teabaggers will consider it a mandate to do whatever ~ which, of course, is a big mistake as a recent poll said registered voters preferred Dems over Reps 47/44.and so it goes …Again, Obama will be the big winner tomorrow by default!>as Bartles said re: Obama sometime in 2009, which will apply to Reps tomorrow if they take control of the House …Ain’t governing a bitch!Let the teabagger/Rep implosion begin. 🙂
I think Fili hits it right on here although its a bit optimistic; so far there has been a lack of spinal fortitude for the fiscal conservatives to really divorce the social cons…The Republicans are schizo’ with some fraction being very socially conservative (god, guns, gays, abortion), some more or less libertarian (remember William Buckley?), and some with a strong cold warrior DNA (neo-cons). These are partially overlapping sets. It is inevitable that the social cons will war with the other two and vice versa. Fun to watch but it’ll be messy for a while. The pessimistic scenario is that the social cons will found a religious dictatroship as portrayed in Heinlein’s Revolt in 2100 or Rice’s Handmaids Tale…
@dr_funguy:Small correction, Handmaid’s Tale was Margaret Atwood.Ironically, today is the 25th anniversary of its publication. I found this out from Ms. Atwood’s Twitter feed.
fili,I have my doubts that the Republican party will be able to rid their party of the very right-wing social conservative evangelicals. As my teaper siblings have told me, “Why should WE be the ones to leave the party? THEY will have to leave.”It’s a hostile takeover – with the battle mainly between the “so-called newly minted libertarian small government” teapers versus the social conservatives who, having realized the Tea Party is an excellent vehicle to finally advance their social agenda that the Republican party has for years ignored. And the traditional RINO Republican party unable to manage either faction. If I were a betting person, I’d bet that the social conservatives will win; they have seniority and lots of years experience battling the traditional Republican party.
Filistro, I believe you missed the defense hawks, who coalesced around Reagan to “restore honor to the military after Vietnam.” They are their own leg of the three leg Reagan strategy. Their candidate, John McCain, won last time because he was the lesser of the three evils. He was the first choice of the defense hawks, and no lower than the third choice of the other two wings of the GOP. Where they go and who they back will determine the outcome of the future of the Republicans.
Thanks for the correction.The irony: I actually read A Handmaid’s Tale. Never read Rice. Brain Fart.
filistro wrote: “I think the coming rebellion will destroy the GOP AS WE KNOW IT. It will be the end of the old Reagan coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, corporatists and what has come to be known as “the Religious Right.”The demographics of the Tea Party folks are the same as the old Reagan coalition, which are free marketeers, foreign policy hawks and social conservatives centered primarily in the suburban and rural middle class.Nothing like Carter II to get the old gang back together.
@Bart… The demographics of the Tea Party folks are the same as the old Reagan coalition, which are free marketeers, foreign policy hawks and social conservatives centered primarily in the suburban and rural middle class.Ah Bart… but there’s one huge, enormous, impossible, insurmountable difference between the “Tea Party” and the old Reagan coalition… and therein lies the seeds of destruction for the entire GOP as we know it.Can you think what that difference is? I’ll give you a while to see if you can work it out…
Referencing Fili:Let the record show the liberal 😉 San Francisco Giants have just defeated the yahoo, conservative, formerly owned by dubya, Texas Rangers lol to win the 2010 World Series.Congrats!ok, nobody cares about baseball anymore, but still.>Let the record also show, The Cleveland Browns, although not as talented as many NFL teams, still compete, having just beat the Super Bowl champs N.O. Saints last week, whereas the Dallas Cowboys have given up and are 1-6.>We now return you to Bart barting …
So, I keep hearing that “the voters” are feeling this, or “the voters” are feeling that.I don’t buy it.Are all “the voters” feeling the same thing?No. Of course not. There are many of us, and we each have our own voice, our own spirit, our own motivations. Notice how the right pretends “the voters” all think one way if they believe they are in the majority. When they are in the minority, they utterly ignore what “the voters” said.
Interesting rookie quarterback, Colt McCoy, in his second NFL start, won his first game on the road against the defending Super Bowl champs. With a lot of help from the defense.That’s why they play the game …
@Bart11/1/2010 5:21 PM dr_funguy wrote: “@Bart, What do you make of the unprecedented unpopularity of the Republicans vs. their generic ballot polling?”The Tea Party effect. The TP folks view the RINO leadership nearly as negatively as the Dem establishment. However, all the polls I have read concerning the TP, 85% of Tea Partiers plan to vote for THEIR GOP candidates.The Republicans are unpopular because they’re less conservative than the Teapers????Oh my gods, you slay me Bart! Seriously, you GOTTA take this on the road!
fili,For your Sarah Palin file: The teapers over at redstate are having a hissy fit about today’s Politico article claiming Republicans (the establishment GOP) are working to stop Sarah Palin from a 2012 presidential run.The best teaper comment so far, “I just shook my head yesterday when Chris Wallace was interviewing her [Sarah Palin] yesterday and she compared herself to Reagan. First, Reagan served two full terms in the most populous state in the union and which represents one of the largest economies in the world standing on its own. Palin served half a term in a state with the population of El Paso, Texas.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
and please tip the waitresses …
@ filistro……….I guess we’ll know for sure tomorrow… but something just doesn’t compute here. If the public is that angry with him, why aren’t his ratings down in the 30’s?*******************************************************************************Its the ongoing problem in American elections. The president can win the popular vote and lose the electoral college and the election. Then there are the House districts that have been gerrymandered mostly by the Rs for the past 2-3 decades. Hence, a lot of districts in a state can go R while the overall state may vote Dem. Its what makes American elections so frigging annoying. [I assume you know what gerrymandering but if not, look it up under wiki]As for Obama, he remains a popular president. However, Americans are angry and are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They are uninformed, motivated by fear thanks to the Rs and are throwing a tantrum because things are not better. So they are about to punish the Dems and Obama. As with most tantrums, it will prove to be unproductive and result in gridlock.This too shall pass.
Okay, hopefully someone here can set me straight. I went to the above link. Looks like the author is projecting 41.3% turnout correct? What is the norm for a mid-term, about 40%? I’m not saying it’s incorrect, but just that small increase, going from 40 to 41.3, makes it record turnout? What am I missing?
Sorry, poor job on my part of referencing….this is the post I was refering to:Michael McDonald at George Mason University is projecting record turnout.So much for the enthusiasm gap.
I still love baseball. Great win, from a chagrined Phillies fan.
If it’s a larger percentage than it ever has been before, then it’s a record.Pew says:Counting ballots provides the most accurate measure of voter turnout (but cannot show the characteristics of voters). In the past seven midterm elections, voter turnout has stayed between 38 percent and 42 percent nationwide. Voting patterns have varied somewhat among states. In 2006, voter turnout was roughly 29 percent in Louisiana and Mississippi, but roughly 60 percent in Minnesota and South Dakota. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ttw/trends_map_data_table.aspx?trendID=19&assessmentID=5&mode=tableMcDonald is predicting a 50% turnout rate.http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mcdonald_does_enthusiasm_porte.php?nr=1
If it’s a larger percentage than it ever has been before, then it’s a record.Duh, this much I could figure out on my own. lolAgain, I’m not saying anything you’re putting forward is incorrect. I went to the link you posted a while ago, and it only said 41.3 – or at least that’s what I thought. I still can’t find where he says 50%. I haven’t been able to find it in the two most recent links, but I’ll hunt a bit more.I just knew 41.3 couldnt be a record, but I can see how 50 would be. Thanks.
@Jean,I was thinking the exact same thing and I couldn’t figure out what the point was and how it related to the enthusiasm gap.
lki wrote:”@ filistro……….I guess we’ll know for sure tomorrow… but something just doesn’t compute here. If the public is that angry with him, why aren’t his ratings down in the 30’s?’His programs are. The difference is personal popularity.In essence, the voters are saying: “You’re a nice guy, but…”
BD: ‘The demographics of the Tea Party folks are the same as the old Reagan coalition, which are free marketeers, foreign policy hawks and social conservatives centered primarily in the suburban and rural middle class.”Fili: ‘Ah Bart… but there’s one huge, enormous, impossible, insurmountable difference between the “Tea Party” and the old Reagan coalition… and therein lies the seeds of destruction for the entire GOP as we know it. Can you think what that difference is? I’ll give you a while to see if you can work it out…”Do tell. As someone who has been personally involved in both, I would love to know what I am missing.
His programs are. The difference is personal popularity.No, Bart. Sorry, WRONG.The question at Ras is “Do you approve of the way Barack Obama is performing his job as president?”YES… 50%As to the fundamental operative difference between the Reagan coalition and the Tea Party… keep pondering. The tech is about to come and switch servers for me, so I’ll be going dark for a while. I’ll tell you later.(I can’t believe you don’t see this. Well, actually, yes I can…;-)
Fili:I know what the general approval question says. However, it is reasonable to assume that, if Obama’s personal approval is markedly higher than that of his deeply unpopular policies, that the difference is being driven by something other than policy. Once you remove policy from a job approval measurement, what is left apart from personal popularity?
@BartlesI know what the general approval question says. However, it is reasonable to assume that, if Obama’s personal approval is markedly higher than that of his deeply unpopular policies, that the difference is being driven by something other than policy. Once you remove policy from a job approval measurement, what is left apart from personal popularity?~~~~~One of your better song and dances … ok, I’m lying.Again, how does one go from a Gallup high of 90% on Sept. 2001 to a low of (((25%))) on Oct. 2008.and Bush’s daddy was worse lol: 89% Feb 1991 and only (((15 mos.))) later, (((29%))) on July 1992.>A lot of water under the bridge in a very short time frame, eh.btw Bartles, it’s reasonable to assume that you’re makin’ shit up, as per usual …take care, blessings
Bart,re: BD: ‘The demographics of the Tea Party folks are the same as the old Reagan coalition, which are free marketeers, foreign policy hawks and social conservatives centered primarily in the suburban and rural middle class.”Gee, Bart, it was not that long ago you were strongly arguing that the Tea Party does not include social conservatives. Now you are saying the Tea Party DOES. What changed your mind?
Bart, it was not that long ago you were strongly arguing that the Tea Party does not include social conservatives. Now you are saying the Tea Party DOES.~~~~~Bart’s mind is an ever changin’ entity, much like his beloved teabaggers who couldn’t keep a consistent thought to save their lives.solo estoy diciendoWhen one is makin’ shit up as they go along like Bart, there’s bound to be a few internal, winger troll conflicts.Or something. 😉
Jean wrote: :Gee, Bart, it was not that long ago you were strongly arguing that the Tea Party does not include social conservatives. Now you are saying the Tea Party DOES. What changed your mind?”I never said that. I posted that the objectives of the Tea Party are libertarian (limited government) and to the extent that social conservatives agreed with that goal (and not all of them do), they were on board.The Springs Tea Party groups have a large number of social conservatives who happen to also believe in limited government. Contrary to Fili’s self inflicted nightmares, social conservatives are overwhelmingly NOT face stomping Nazis.
Appropriately, CNN’s theme music for their election coverage is from HBO’s superb miniseries John Adams. Tea Party anyone?http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/251915/music-revolutionary-night-american-politics
“Once you remove policy from a job approval measurement, what is left apart from personal popularity?”The economy? For which there is limited impact of government policy, especially in less than two year from the worst recession in 80 years.As usual, you ass u me a very simple situation when the real world is actually complex.Objections to Obama’s policies include those who see him as too conservative (e.g. no single payer, stimulus too focused on tax cuts) as well as too liberal. So he is obviously popular with the former group. Second, you are assuming that “deeply unpopular” policies includes all policies. Since not all policies are equally objectrionable, his popularity could be related to the more popular among his policies, court appointments, conduct of the wars, etc.Third (and first): “Its the Economy Stupid”
If “the objectives of the Tea Party are libertarian” are they then in favor of legalization of drugs and prostitution?Social conservatives are by definition in favor of government intervention in medical decisions regarding termination of pregnancy and government protection of discrimination due to sexual orientation. Hardly limited government.
BD: “Once you remove policy from a job approval measurement, what is left apart from personal popularity?”dr_funguy wrote: “The economy?”President Obama is more personally popular than his economic policies (the Porkulus bills) because of the poor economy? Sorry, but this makes no sense. Your observation that some on the left do not like his economic policies because they did not go far enough explains why his policies are so unpopular, but not why Obama has a higher personal approval.dr_funguy “Second, you are assuming that “deeply unpopular” policies includes all policies. Since not all policies are equally objectrionable, his popularity could be related to the more popular among his policies, court appointments, conduct of the wars, etc.”Court appointments do not move voters (unfortunately). I suppose an argument could be made that part or all of the differential could be due to Obama’s foreign policy, which polls the highest of his policies. However, now that there is a Dem president in charge of the war the Dems have lost their anti-war fervor and now that Obama has adopted nearly all of the Bush war policies the GOP isn’t grumping, the subject has all but fallen off the voter map. Do you really think foreign policy is driving Obama’s personal approval rating?
The nice thing about working for myself is that I can take off when I want. I figure I will only get in a half day’s work after trolling the election news.Anyway, NRO and Hotair are posting emails concerning voter turnout. Of course, they are anecdotal and only give an unscientific hint of how the voting is going nationally, but their admittedly conservative voters are observing heavy turnout in GOP areas and ranging from slow to crickets in Dem areas.I am not seeing the usual turnout reports in the lefty blogs like Kos and TPM. Have you folks seen anything?So far, so good.
barted: “Do you really think foreign policy is driving Obama’s personal approval rating?”Perhaps you should actually read all of what you respond to?As I said first and last Its the economy, stupid.By the economy I mean actual economic conditions not policies inteneding to affect them. Real disposable income is a good predictor of mid-term losses in ocngress. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Most-Important-Economic-atlantic-1230097379.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=
BartedThe nice thing about working for myself is that I can take off when I want. = I’m usually not very busy …
dr_funguy:I read your comments about economics, did you read my response?Obama’s personal approval rating is higher than that for his economic policies. How on Earth do you figure that a piss poor economy is making Obama more popular than his economic policies?Indeed, when polls break down his job approval in categories, Obama’s handling of the economy gains his lowest or maybe second lowest approval next to his handling of the debt.
I can corroborate some of bart’s findings. Here in Orange county, CA, I had to wait to vote for the first time in eight years. There were 12 booths and all were filled at 8:30 local time. We have every race on the ballot, from US Senator to City Council, plus 9 propositions. That could also mean precinct consolidation has forced this in order for the government to save money. 25% of registered voters mail in their ballots. The guy behind me has been waiting for six months for this election. He’s a veteran, white, and around 60 years old. Fired up, indeed. Just a small slice. Perhaps searching “turnout” in google news will give a more composite picture.
Breaking News …Thanx to (12) years of so called (((conservatives))) Reagan/Bush41 and (8) years of cheney/bush increasing America’s debt exponentially ~ America’s in a deep hole er broke!and please continue Bartles
@BartI never said that. I posted that the objectives of the Tea Party are libertarian (limited government) and to the extent that social conservatives agreed with that goal (and not all of them do), they were on board.Ah. So. “The Tea Party” is not about social conservativism. But most Tea Partiers are.This is a distinction?
After some thrashing around trying to figure out what Michael McDonald at George Mason was talking about (41% turnout is a midterm record?) I finally found a clue.He’s talking 90 million voters, which would be a record for a midterm election. The percentage, however, would not be.It’s a strange way of putting it. Many of us were having problems resolving the headline (“RECORD TURNOUT”) with the 41% number, so that seems to be the explanation.Sorry that I bought into it as well.
Okay Bart… here’s the difference.Reagan’s coalition was not captive to its religious component. The Tea Party IS.Reagan attended church ONCE during his 8 years as president. His wife invited astrologers to the White House. Can you honestly see a Tea Party president beign allowed to conduct him/herself in that way?The Tea Party is MUCH more overtly religious than Reagan’s coalition ever was. Without them, the Tea Party’s numbers would shrink to nothing… and recent pools show they are now losing libertarians in droves BECAUSE of the increasingly high profile of religious cons among Tea Partiers.There is no compromise and no working with people driven by religious beliefs… becase while one can compromise on political dogma, people DO NOT compromise their religious principles. There are many people who would (literally) rather die.So… intransigence, gridlock, decline.. and eventual irrelevance.
hmmmmmm 90 million. I know I saw some thing the other day that considered numbers even higher than that as being possible. Let me see if I can find where that was.I have had a couple of text messages already today from friends standing in voting lines and they seem to think the lines are pretty robust. Locally it has apparently been steady and I intend to get my voting done before the mills let out because after that it is going to be a mad house as it always is.I also just found out most of the rest of my imediate family voted early after all standing in line last time around. I bet those numbers are going to be off the charts regardless of what the in person count is…..going to be a long night.
I will try to put this as simply as I can in the limited time available.The economy is not economic policy. Economic policy is an abstraction; the economy is real and includes growth in disposable income and unemployment. When I say its the economy I don’t mean the abstract policy, which I don’t think has much impact in the short term and to which I doubt that many voters actually pay attention, I mean the real economy. The performance of the economy is more likely to influence peoples votes than their opinions regarding policy.
Amen to that. Disposable income after transfer payments is the best variable for measuring “the economy.” If I got $10 more in my wallet than I did two years ago, I’m pretty happy. Unlike GDP and the DJIA, that figure has been flat for the last two years.
We could very well set a new midterm turnout record today. The polling over the past month has self identified Tea Party supporters at about a third of the voters and between 85 and 90% are telling the pollsters they are certain to vote, a far higher percentage than every other group including the GOP in general. This is higher than the usual Presidential election turnout.The Tea Party third are concentrated in the suburban and rural districts where the 100 or so swing districts are located. Thus, we are talking about closer half the voters were the votes count.It would not surprise me at all if we break 41% national turnout this year unless the Dems set records for low turnout.
The Real Mike Is Back wrote: “Amen to that. Disposable income after transfer payments is the best variable for measuring “the economy.” If I got $10 more in my wallet than I did two years ago, I’m pretty happy.”Let me understand this. If the government increases your disposable income by taking money from some tax payer or borrowing it from the Chinese and giving it to you, the economy is improving?I could not have encapsulated the socialist basis of progressivism any better.BTW, this election is a referendum on that idea. Let’s see what the voters think.
And Bart agin there in is part of the problem “suburban and rural districts where the 100 or so swing districts are located. Thus, we are talking about closer half the voters were the votes count.” So 2/3 or more of the electorate could see things one way and be over ruled by a distinct minority but you would still see it as the will of the people. What is really scary is how you don’t even suspect that there is some thing wrong with that.
shrinkers,re: Ah. So. “The Tea Party” is not about social conservativism. But most Tea Partiers are.The Tea Party folks like Bart are downplaying their significant social conservative fellow teapers hoping that those social con teapers will just shut up about their social issues ((mainly abortion) and pretend they are all about only “fiscal” issues. Good luck with that! The libertarian and fiscal conservative Tea Partiers are trying to do exactly what the Republican party has done to the social cons for years. But now the social cons have hijacked their Tea Party and decided to use that as their vehicle to take-over the Republican party.
Mainer:In a democracy, only a majority of voters count. If the Tea Party ends up being a majority of voters, then we are the only folks who count.Effectively, when a party’s supporters refuse to vote, they are casting a thumbs down on their party’s government, but not a thumbs up for the other party.
@BartStill awaiting your response.If “the objectives of the Tea Party are libertarian” are they then in favor of legalization of drugs and prostitution?Social conservatives are by definition in favor of government intervention in medical decisions regarding termination of pregnancy and government protection of discrimination due to sexual orientation. Hardly limited government.
Psst Doc… also ask Bart about the Tea Party’s foreign policy hawkishness, and their opposition to the separation of church and state.Both really well-known libertarian positions.. 😉
Bart,I remember a Methodist minister explaining to me how his denomination sets its official interpretation of doctrine. They get a bunch of representatives together and vote every four years. The majority decides what goes in their Book of Principles. But, he keenly pointed out to me that nearly half of the delegates might oppose a given policy, even if it’s the official church stance. He then went on to lecture about awareness, tolerance, and accommodation of minority views as being a necessary part of the church’s psyche, because in 4 years, the votes might swing. “Peter and Paul didn’t agree on everything, either. But together they built a foundation that has lasted through to the present.” He went on to further argue that the early church’s foundation was strong in part because Peter allowed his eyes to be opened to accepting the Gentiles and those who thought differently, even if they were a minority.My point? Be careful about overstepping your “mandate” if the Republicans do have a majority. We’ve seen in the past few elections just how ephemeral that “mandate” can be.
Bart… the “libertarian” believes his “limited” government should be privy to the results of your private medical test. The “limited” government must then be informed of your 20-minute outpatient procedure to terminate your 3-week pregnancy.And the “limited” government should then try you for homicide and apply the “accepted punishment.” Bart is strongly in favor of limited government.
I mentioned that in one thread or another yesterday… the three ringed tea party circus – religous extremists, so-called libertarians and neo-cons will inevitably self-destruct. There is no single principle upon which all three factios agree. The sociological concept known as coalitions in triads applies.
Gee Bart that isn’t how you seemed to read it after the last election when a majority of the voters….voted for some thing you and yours have done every thing in your power to block. I keep asking “So the only will of the people is your will?”So 30% or less of the electorate is now the new majority…..who knew? So if we use the 90 million figure that could cast ballots in this election and upwards of perhaps 55 million of them got gammed out of control by maybe 30 mill or less you see no issues there?Sure sounds to me like the ole all voters are equal but some are more equal than others. And rememebr Bart I too live in a very rural place, much more so than you, and while it may benefit me it does not make it right.
Please, I beseech you, don’t overwork Bartles so early in the day as Reps are notoriously bad long distance runners …solo estoy diciendo
Of course, what Bart means to say is that turnout is heavy in “Indy” districts…
Dude,I just google Elvis is alive and got 499,000 hits.If that is evidence, can I sell you a bridge?If there were any substantiated cases I am certain it would be 24/7 on the MSM.So are there any actual, you know filed in court, charges of vote fraud? Convictions?
Bart, you couldn’t have said it better becasue _you_ _said_ _it_ _yourself_. Mike said nothing about taxes or the Chinese, you made it up. Once again.I can’t tell if you are stupid, so biased that everything gets filtered through some deranged worldview, just trolling for attention, or something less obvious.I really don’t get why you bother to continually play these games of diversion, straw man and ad hominem arguments when you get called on them every time someone bothers to respond.
Bart,You bring up a good point. The correct name of the statistic is “Real Personal Income Less Transfer Payments.”• So the real part factors out inflation.• Personal income is pretty well known.• Transfer Payments are a redistribution of income in the market system. They do not directly absorb resources or create output. Any sort of welfare, social security, government subsidies are transfer payments. They must be subtracted out of this equation to figure out real, non-inflationary domestic income. Because we subtract out “any sort of welfare”, this variable uses non-government, non-socialist, and non-progressive means to calculate income growth. I therefore stand by my argument that this is the best variable for measuring the economy. My example implied that I made $10 more because I did more overtime, or worked hard and got a bonus.This third party blog by a proud capitalist economist (and who called it right on the bubble) is where I learned about RPILTP. The graph speaks for itself. In July 2010, RPILTP was 5.5% below the peak level. That was the warning shot to me that voters were going to vote angry in November.http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/08/personal-income-spending-increase-in.html