Post Your Hoc

Time for the requisite “morning after” analysis.

Okay, Wednesday morning quarterbacks, where do we stand with yesterday’s election results? (And, where are we with the still-ongoing races in CO-SEN, WA-SEN, and AK-SEN, among others?)

What were your favorite and least-favorite things from yesterday’s election? What are your predictions for the future?

I’ll kick things off with my nomination for the “Capturing the Zeitgeist” award:

The Hazards of Exit Polling

Some background to the above: we are a community-based four-year college that does a lot of retraining of working people, giving them the skills they need to upgrade their job. The student in question is pretty typical for us, someone who had one kind of job and is retraining for another. Clearly, not everything is as it seems.

Ecce Tea Party!


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.

212 Responses to Post Your Hoc

  1. filistro says:

    Ah… I see. Boehner becomes Speaker, so Majority Leader is the next position, right?Cantor becomes Steny Hoyer?

  2. Monotreme says:

    @fili:Yes.111th Congress House Democrats:1. Speaker of the House (currently Pelosi)2. Majority Leader (currently Hoyer)3. Majority Whip (currently Cliburn)111th Congress House Republicans:1. Minority Leader (Boehner)2. Minority Whip (Cantor)So, to run for #2 would be a lateral move within the party structure, but of course a promotion since Republicans now control the House.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House_leadership

  3. dr_funguy says:

    I confess, I wish that Sharon Angle had won (barring a turnover of Senate majority) for two reasons. First, Harry is not a particularly effective leader in the Senate. And more importantly, for entertainment value. She would forcefully demonstrate the nonesensical nature of the winger fringe. Anyone who get unanamous votes against her positions in the State Leg. in _Nevada_ is certifiable.

  4. Alki says:

    I was dreading last nite for months. As it turns out, it was not nearly as bad as I expected. In fact, I am pleased with the results. We held the senate and the Western firewall is stronger than ever. BTW Bennet has been declared senator for CO……CO is completing its conversion from red to blue.Probably nothing much will get done in the next two years but it will set Obama up for his second term when he will do great things. I am looking forward to it.

  5. filistro says:

    Doc… it’s an old joke in NV.. Angle voted against EVERYTHING, even the most obvious housekeeping stuff in the legislature.”So how did the vote go?” I’d ask on many occasions.My friends would shrug and say, “Just like always. It was 41 to Angle.”

  6. filistro says:

    alki, ME TOO!I’m reveling in a “dodged the bullet, now what’s next, life is good!” kind of feeling. Sheer relief.But when I think how close they came to getting the Senate (THANK YOU TEAPERS, THANK YOU for sparing us from that horror!) I do get some little cold chills.

  7. Realist says:

    I must confess to a touch of schadenfreude, seeing as how the governor, senator, and ballot initiatives in Colorado ended up going to the D side of the aisle.

  8. Monotreme says:

    I have a dream. Actually, two of them.1. Sen. Reid voluntarily steps down as Majority Leader. We need someone more forceful, someone like Sen. Schumer. I think Sen. Durbin would be more of the same.2. Pres. Obama declares, Lyndon Johnson-style, that he will not seek re-election in 2012. Hilary Clinton cruises to an easy victory, serves two full terms, and then Pres. Obama comes back in 2020 to serve his second term.You know how much I hate the meme “America is a center-right country”? Well, I just read a progressive blog that said “America is a center-left country”. For the record, I hate that meme just as much.

  9. Monotreme says:

    @Realist:Exactly. Colorado is pretty representative of the West as a whole. My home of Jefferson County is a true bellwether. If you look at the county-by-county results, you can see the future of the Western electorate there.

  10. I had indicated last night the following: President Madison would be pleased with tonight’s results. The house of public opinion bent toward it’s favor. The house of governance will continue to govern. Every House Member and staff knows it’s not the Democrats or the Republicans who are your enemies, but the Senate! That is my favorite thing of all. The Senate still governs. My least favorite thing will be the myriad of time wasting that the House will do in order to keep their majority.I too applaud Nate for coming closest and doing the best. But given how all over the map the pollsters were, I’d compare Nate to being the prom queen in Pittsburgh. One pretty girl over lots of ugly ones is a win.No idea whatsoever about 2012. Give me about 9 months on this.

  11. Monotreme says:

    You wanna know what it’s like living in Utah?http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50593786-82/cartoon-bagley-lake-salt.html.cspHere ya go.

  12. Mr. Universe says:

    Sad about Fiengold. It puzzles me how you can reject a Fiengold yet hang on to a Bachmann. Strange.

  13. filistro says:

    Will I be kicked off the blog if I say that I find Marco Rubio quite impressive?

  14. Monotreme says:

    @fili:

    Only if we have to edit your post to say

    Marco Rubio is a massive flowerpot who seems to have puppy-like positions on all the important issues of the day.

  15. filistro says:

    But Treme… he’s so CUTE!!!Seriously… it behooves Dems to watch this guy. He scares me a hell of a lot more than Sarah Palin does. Though he will inevitably run afoul of the Immigration Juggernaut coupled with the Minority Voter Wave. Pretty tough for a guy with his ideology to successfully thread that needle.

  16. filistro says:

    Everybody but NBC has now called CO for Bennett.Can Patty Murray win? We need to get the Senate up there so Lieberman and Nelson don’t have their hot little hands on the power switch. Any guesses what Murkowski is likely to do? She was dropping hints late in the campaign that she might not caucus with the R’s…. but they always do, don’t they…

  17. Scott says:

    Will I be kicked off the blog if I say that I find Marco Rubio quite impressive?To quote from Caruso for Florida (cheap plug):It’s easy to see why Mr. Rubio has been rumored as a potential Presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020. He looks comfortable on camera and he definitely speaks with confidence. That’s not to say that I agree with him – he’s definitely batshit insane when compared to his two opponents – but he’s a good public speaker and it’s clear why he’s highly-touted in Republican circles.He has a chance to take a real leadership position on issues like immigration and Social Security. Let’s see what he does.

  18. filistro says:

    SPECIAL MESSAGE FOR JEFF…Hey dude, I want your reaction to this election! Just type something brief… and don’t worry if looks like word salad at first, we all understand. Besides, typing is good therapy.I was once on an e-mail loop with a writer who had a middling-strength stroke. He started posting in his third week of rehab and the posts at first were gibberish… you had to really work to get his thought. (They were kind of a fun challenge, actually…)And steadily, week by week, the posts got clearer and more lucid until finally he was right back to the exquisite prose he’s famous for. It was really inspiring.Talk to us, Jeff. We miss you.

  19. shortchain says:

    Scott,That’s no plug for a blog. This is a plug.

  20. Scott says:

    Scott,That’s no plug for a blog. This is a plug.I’d be terrible in marketing. I hate promoting myself on someone else’s turf. πŸ™‚

  21. filistro says:

    Actually… I consider THIS a plug πŸ™‚

  22. filistro says:

    I fear the next post… πŸ™‚

  23. Scott says:

    My Twitter feed is blowing up with Dems and Progressives crying that the President isn’t grandstanding to the GOP right now.Do they expect him to deny what happened last night?

  24. Mainer says:

    Knock it off you guys before we end up with a Bart plug……

  25. mclever says:

    filistro wrote:Will I be kicked off the blog if I say that I find Marco Rubio quite impressive?I agree with you that Rubio is impressive. He’s well-spoken and sane-sounding, good looking, and definitely understands how to play the media’s game. If I were a Democratic strategist for 2012 or 2016, I’d be much more worried about him than Palin.Though, I still think Romney is the most likely candidate whose “turn” it is next.

  26. Scott says:

    Though, I still think Romney is the most likely candidate whose “turn” it is next.QFT. If the GOP is smart, they’ll go with Romney and see if they can steal the White House. If not, they’ll groom Senator Rubio for a shot in 2016.

  27. Monotreme says:

    @Scott:I must plugged your blog on my Twitter feed. Maybe one of my 3 followers will respond appropriately.

  28. Alki says:

    My biggest worry was Joe Miller. To me, that was the biggest bullet dodged IMO. He is one scary dude. I don’t know if you know this but during his victory parade after, I think, his primary, some of his supporters were carrying AK-47s. I just hope he kept the receipt to the drapes he bought for his DC office. ;-)BTW I will never forgive the corp. controlled MSM, and that includes Nate Silver, for running their gloom and doom narrative for the past 12 months. I think the losses in the House would have been less had that MSM script not been so negative for the Dems.

  29. Alki says:

    Sorry…I forgot to type in: @ filistro.My biggest worry was Joe Miller. To me, that was the biggest bullet dodged IMO. He is one scary dude. I don’t know if you know this but during his victory parade after, I think, his primary, some of his supporters were carrying AK-47s. I just hope he kept the receipt to the drapes he bought for his DC office. ;-)BTW I will never forgive the corp. controlled MSM, and that includes Nate Silver, for running their gloom and doom narrative for the past 12 months. I think the losses in the House would have been less had that MSM script not been so negative for the Dems.

  30. Realist says:

    @Mainer,I’m just glad you put an “ar” between the “B” and the “t”

  31. Scott says:

    Though, I still think Romney is the most likely candidate whose “turn” it is next.QFT. If the GOP is smart, they’ll go with Romney and see if they can steal the White House. If not, they’ll groom Senator Rubio for a shot in 2016.I actually want to expand on this a little bit. I *think* – and this assumes that the country stays on roughly the same track for the next couple of years – that the GOP establishment may look to go for a candidate with executive experience (Romney, Barbour, Jeb Bush, etc.), going with the: “Look what we got when we picked an inexperienced Senator with no executive experience. We need real leadership.” I would start that meme right now if I were the RNC.

  32. Todd Dugdale says:

    I second this. If only Maes had come in below 10%, the GOP would have become a minor party in Colorado. Instead, it looks like he’s getting 11%. My personal schadenfruede comes from Keith Ellison getting 68%, and the wingnut-preferred candidate getting 4%. That makes three elections where the Right has done virtually nothing but scream “He’s a Muslim!”. The local Tea Party invested in a huge registration effort, which netted very, very few new registrations.The local wingnuts are also claiming that their loss in MN-4 (59/35) represents a “stunning repudiation” to Democrats. Yet, their victory in MN-3 (59/37) – by virtually the same margin – is oddly seen as validation of wingnut principles.

  33. Alki says:

    @ filistro……Patty Murray will win in the same way Bennet won…..by taking the dominant metro area of the state. Murray’s biggest support is in King County. To see that, you need to click on this link…..it should bring up a map of WA state:http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/#/Senate/2010/WAYou want to find King County which is the county for Seattle. Its the large county on the lower right of Puget Sound. If you put your cursor on the county, a pop up will show you that Murray has a huge lead in the county and only 54% of the votes have been counted. Typically, its King County that wins it for statewide Dems every time. I think it will do it again this time.BTW holding the western firewall was no small feat…….and I am very pleased with that. Its an important region for this country’s future. I am also pleased that NV and CO are turning a nice shade of blue. πŸ˜‰

  34. Alki says:

    Its looking like the Dem may win the governor’s race in OR after all. All counties are in except Multnomah which is Portland’s home county and heavily favors the Dem.

  35. dr_funguy says:

    Been there done that.In Utah’s Dixie (Kanab) no less.As we used to say of the politics there (you had to register and caucus republican to have any sort of voice):”It’s not the heat, its the stupidity”.

  36. mclever says:

    @Scott re: RomneyI’m right there with you. Like Jeb Bush, Romney can tout his executive experience and his “successes” as Governor. In the General Election, Romney may have an additional advantage in coming from Massachusetts, because he can believably claim a “proven track record of working across the aisle” to attract moderates or disillusioned Democrats, while simultaneously dishing the red meat rhetoric to fringe conservatives. Romney’s a very skilled panderer who looks good on camera. He is skilled enough at messaging that he can say all the right things to the Tea Party while simultaneously making an appeal to moderates. Most people won’t really believe him, but he just looks so damn nice saying it that they might vote for him anyway. He’s almost as slick as Willy. Rubio (as mentioned by filistro) is another future Presidential wannabe, but I still think this “turn” is still Romney’s if he wants it. We’ll have to wait and see if Rubio lives up to his Tea Party expectations, or if he caves to the pressures of governance and actually moderates his ideological stance. Rubio looks to me to be where Romney was about eight years ago…

  37. filistro says:

    Alki… it’s just so NICE to see you happy again :-)Scott… Romney’s run for the nomination is going to be the first real indicator of how much power the Teaper wing of the GOP is going to have going forward. Despite all their blather about being “libertarian” and “fiscally conservative” the Freepers LOATHE Romney. (Mormon. Secretly pro-abortion. Not Really One Of Us.) Freepers who like the guy are only tolerated at the site on a sort of DADT basis. They can post and participate but if they express overt support for Mittens they are quickly banned.Also when Freeprrs are having little family squabbles and one wants to make trouble for another, somebody is sure to get “outed” as a “Romneybot”… with the same results.It’s all so cute….

  38. Scott says:

    “Wave” my (expletive deleted):http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/house-gop-disappoint-2012_n_778281.htmlHold the celebration. Most voters expected Republicans to win control of the House of Representatives on Election Day, but nearly as many expect to be disappointed with how they perform by the time the 2012 elections roll around.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.

  39. mclever says:

    @Todd Dugdale:The local wingnuts are also claiming that their loss in MN-4 (59/35) represents a “stunning repudiation” to Democrats. Yet, their victory in MN-3 (59/37) – by virtually the same margin – is oddly seen as validation of wingnut principles.Never underestimate the power of spin!Spin requires no internal logic or consistency, all it requires is partisan glasses and a willingness to repeat gibberish until someone else thinks it’s sane!

  40. Scott says:

    Romney SHOULD do really well in Democratic states (New England, California, et al), which makes we wonder…Who controls whether or not a state holds “Open” or “Closed” primaries? One would think that if the GOP establishment wants to hedge its bets against the Tea Party hijacking the primary process, they should push to get open primaries that will allow Dems and Indies to cross-over and vote in every state they possibly can.

  41. filistro says:

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.Translation… “we know they suck and we fully expect them to keep right on sucking, but what the heck. Let’s vote for ’em anyhow!”In the immortal words of Tiny Tim… “God bless us every one…”

  42. mclever says:

    @filistro re: RomneyI agree with you that there are elements of the conservative Republicans who don’t like Mitt Romney (especially ardent fundamentalists who have a problem with any who isn’t born again), but those who actually post and read the “freeper” nonsense are a very small segment of the party. If the signals from “on high” are that Romney’s their guy, then Republicans tend to get in line. Many of the pragmatic fiscal moderates of the Republican Party have been sitting on their hands for the past couple of elections. Romney’s the kind of candidate who can draw them back to the polls to block the threat of Sarah Palin for President.

  43. filistro says:

    @Scott… One would think that if the GOP establishment wants to hedge its bets against the Tea Party hijacking the primary process, they should push to get open primaries that will allow Dems and Indies to cross-over and vote in every state they possibly can.The Freepers are way ahead of you. They have already started a concerted push (organized, with spokespeople, funding and everything) to get all primaries closed.I keep telling you people how much FUN this is going to be. Richly entertaining.It’s a Clown Car Demolition Derby!

  44. Scott says:

    The Freepers are way ahead of you. They have already started a concerted push (organized, with spokespeople, funding and everything) to get all primaries closed.Ugh. So, this makes me no better than a freeper.Thanks so much, for that.

  45. filistro says:

    @Mclever… but those who actually post and read the “freeper” nonsense are a very small segment of the party. Not any more. The Freepers ARE the “Tea Party Express”… the largest, most powerful wing of the entire Tea Party movement.The Republicans are like the hapless host for one of those awful parasitic species that lays its eggs within the body, and the eggs then hatch into voracious larvae that consume the host from within. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group. Wise analysts and party oracles like Goldwater warned them decades ago that a careless embrace of religious/social conservatives would one day bring them to grief and destruction… but they wanted the votes.

  46. Scott says:

    Does anyone else see the beauty in the fact that we’re sitting here laying out what the GOP could do in order to beat us for the White House in 2012, meanwhile, the freepers are plotting their own destruction?I love irony.

  47. Bart DePalma says:

    One of the perks of joining Rasmussen Reports was a webinar with Scott Rasmussen this afternoon. The cool thing is that he answered every question put to him concerning the exit poll he took last night after the polls closed. Here are the highlights:59% of voters want Obamacare repealed.59% believed the average Dem in Congress is more liberal than the respondent.55% believed that Dem policies over the past two years are out of the mainstream.59% believe that the government is a threat to their individual rights.75% believe that the government can only sometimes or rarely be trusted.66% believe that members of Congress do not care what the voters think.Now to the two questions Ras answered for me:22% of voters self identify as Tea Party members, while 50% say the Tea Party is good for America. The last question may be roughly analogous to being a Tea Party supporter. As a point of comparison, the network exit polling found that 41% self identified as “tea party supporters.”We are larger than the Dems or GOP.Next, through 2009 and 2010, Rasmussen has been dividing the population into two groups he calls the “Political Class” (7%) and the “Mainstream” (around 60%) based upon how they answer three questions concerning whether they prefer to rely upon government or the people. This is not a GOP and Dem divide as the 7% making up the Political Class are not restricted to either party. Over the past two years, the Mainstream have been very hostile to the government’s policies, while the Political Class has been very highly supportive. I have been very curious how many of the folks who self identify as Tea Party also end up in Ras’ Mainstream. Ras says that the Tea Party is a subset of the Mainstream, but the folks who share many of the Tea Party concerns about government are far larger than just the Tea Party as the other polling data confirmed.Very interesting.

  48. mclever says:

    Scott,The Surgeon General recommends 18 milligrams of irony per day…So, thanks for helping me get my daily dose!:-)

  49. shrinkers says:

    Speaking of Bart, I don’t think I’ve seen him today. With his worst-case scenario playing out last night — even more, Colorado clearly in the process of turning blue — I wonder if he’s entirely sentient today.

  50. Monotreme says:

    That’s why living in Utah is going to be so interesting for the next 500 days or so. Utahns are behind their fellow LDSer Romney. Still, their Tea Party sympathies are strong (Beck, is of course, One of Us). Resolving that cognitive dissonance is going to be fun to watch.Also, when thinking Romney, remember that Obamacare is Romneycare’s identical twin. That’ll put Romney in a really tight spot as he runs against his own creation.

  51. shrinkers says:

    Oops I spoke too soon. Hi, Bart!

  52. Bart DePalma says:

    It is very plain that this election was a massive repudiation of nearly all of the Obama agenda by the center-right majority of the electorate. The Dem turnout was not actually very low by midterm standards. What fueled the tsunami and I think a recent high in turnout was an incredibly energized Tea Party and the center including women turning against the Dem Government. The only Dems who survived in a swing (not blue) district or state apart from Harry Reid were the ones who repudiated some or all of the Obama policies.The Dems need to look at the congressional map and then think long and hard about what the voters just told them. I was chatting with the local Tea Party folks this morning. We are already planning to put Congress’ feet to the fire again next year. If they blow us off like they did in August 2009, there will be another message coming their way in 2012.

  53. Todd Dugdale says:

    I disagree with that (whimsical) take on the poll. For the Republican base, it was all about Vengeance and had little to do with policy. But that was largely irrelevant, because Republicans can’t win with just the base. They only win when they capture independents. Independents are all about jobs and the economy, not “socialism”. And they know that the Republicans have no solutions, but they are just plain frustrated. Somebody has to pay, IOW. Now we will see two years of Republicans really doing nothing about jobs, and those independents know that, too. Two years of culture war and impeachment rhetoric will turn off those independents, along with the arrogance and smugness we are already seeing. The GOP has made this all about results, not policy. And they will have no tangible results. The independents have just given the GOP the very rope with which they will hang themselves, and that poll proves it.

  54. Scott says:

    Bart -After the results of last night, none of that data surprises me. Conservatism – in this election – won the fight.Now, the job is for the House Republicans to govern and to use the momentum they’ve built to work towards real, substantive improvements for the American people. If they do that – and, it’s all about jobs, jobs, jobs – I will be the first to congratulate them on a job well-done, and will certainly understand if this wave leads to more GOP pick-ups in 2012.Congratulations on your victory.

  55. Alki says:

    @ ScottMost Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012, Rasmussen Reports Just when I think its nearly impossible Americans find new ways to embarrass me.BTW where is Bart? Is he staying away so as to not rub it in, or is he worried he may gloat?

  56. dr_funguy says:

    Funny, Bart didn’t mention this result in his summary of the Ras results… It must have slipped his mind (if any).I don’t know that this election was a conservative – liberal fight.How much of the variance in congressional turnover is explained by change in disposable income?It’s still the economy, stupid.

  57. Alki says:

    @ Bart…….You are the funniest dude. I think some times you must be fairly bright and then you come in and start prattling off all this teaper crap. Seriously, dude, are you really buying the nonsense you are spouting because if you are then you are on the same level as an Angle? I really thought you were better than that.“Hold the fire to Congress’s feet”. LMAO.The debt ceiling needs to be raised next June or the feds run out of money. What are you teapers going to do? Are you ready to cut off SS and Medicare? Payments to the military? The building of roads etc?Inquiring minds desperately want to know.

  58. mclever says:

    Bart,Funny thing about those “repeal Obamacare” polls, is that when you remove the “Obamacare” label and start articulating specific provisions of the bill, support for the individual items in the bill is actually very high and has been consistently since the beginning of the healthcare discussion.CNN poll on healthcareDo you honestly think voters want to give back the healthcare tax credit?To repeal the provision that lets people keep their post-college kids on their parents’ policy for a few more years?To give insurance companies back the right to drop their coverage right when they need it most?To allow insurance companies to refuse to cover them at all because of “pre-existing conditions” ranging from utterly frivolous to extremely serious?To repeal increased Medicare and Medicaid drug rebates?To repeal the prohibition against lifetime payout limits?To repeal the “Medicare Gap” fix?To repeal the institution of an appeals process for denied claims?To repeal the expansion of Medicare in rural communities?And on and on…Most of these provisions of “Obamacare” are actually very popular. And you want to repeal them?

  59. Realist says:

    @Bart,I’m very intrigued by Scott Rasmussen’s poll. Here, let’s look it over, shall we?59% of voters want Obamacare repealed.All of it? Parts of it? What parts don’t they like? Do they understand the relationships among the parts? Are they willing to give up the parts they like in order to get rid of the parts they don’t like?I genuinely would like to know the answers to those questions. They’d be very telling.59% believed the average Dem in Congress is more liberal than the respondent.What percent believe that the average Republican in Congress is more conservative than the respondent?55% believed that Dem policies over the past two years are out of the mainstream.What percent believe that Republican policies are out of the mainstream?59% believe that the government is a threat to their individual rights.In what way? I believe that it is, too, but probably in a very different way than you do.75% believe that the government can only sometimes or rarely be trusted.Again, in what way? I believe that, too, but probably in a very different way than you do. And, more importantly, I believe that it’s easier to rein in government than the alternatives.66% believe that members of Congress do not care what the voters think.All members? Just Democrats? Do they believe that the solution is to abolish Congress? Or do they have another solution in mind? What solution might that be?50% say the Tea Party is good for AmericaIf I understand filistro correctly, she’d be among them.So, do you have answers to my questions?

  60. Todd Dugdale says:

    Agreed. The actual Party was nearly a non-factor in this election. Donations went directly to candidates. Party-backed candidates were primaried out. The Chamber and various shady non-Party organisations spent most of the money. The Party itself mostly just stayed out the way. They are relegated to the role of Keeper of Voter Vault, which is creaking its way to obsolescence. Without being the dispenser of campaign money, and with the Party endorsement becoming meaningless (or even a liability), how much clout can the actual Party organisation have?

  61. shiloh says:

    Let the record show Bartles still has not said (1) word about what happened in Colorado yesterday.>And Fili, really, you can stop pandering to Jeffrey at any time as this is the same Jeffrey who said he was a conservative because he had (2) loving, caring, supportive parents who gave him a quality education yada yada yada ie a true believer, which is fine. And I get the fact that 538 is trying to attract more conservatives for stimulating discussion, but please feel free to stop your Rep pandering at any time.Or not.>Was thinkin’ yesterday how the Dems controlled the House from 1954 to 1994 and at the same time Reps had major success at winning the presidency and it appears Reps may be controlling the House for a considerable time period which could have the same effect ie Dems controlling the executive branch or having more success than Reps in the foreseeable future.Again, the yin and yang of politics.>and repeating what I said in the previous thread, Nate is only as good as the polls, if they’re wrong, he’s wrong er he’s no genius …Have a nice day!

  62. Realist says:

    @shiloh,It appears you are missing the point re: Jeff (and I have no idea whether or not he’s the same Jeffrey from the old 538).The point is that he is an articulate conservative, who thinks about the notions behind his principles, and can explain in a clear, sane fashion the logic behind his principles, without resorting to talking points.In other words, he actually contributes something that makes me think.That is why I’d like to see him return.

  63. Jean says:

    It seems the Tea Party is more interested in primarying their own in 2012.http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/03/potential-tea-party-targets-for-2012/

  64. Bart DePalma says:

    Alki wrote: “BTW where is Bart? Is he staying away so as to not rub it in, or is he worried he may gloat?”Actually, I took most of yesterday off and had to catch up today. However, I do not plan to rub it in. I have been in your place before. What goes around comes around.Alki: ” Seriously, dude, are you really buying the nonsense you are spouting because if you are then you are on the same level as an Angle?”Whatever. I am just rattling off the polling data. If you did not get our message last night, you are pretty much hopeless. Remember, I told you this was coming back in December 09 and you laughed. He who laughs last…Alki: “Hold the fire to Congress’s feet”. LMAO.”That’s what the Dems said after the August 09 town hall meetings and the 9/12 march. The Tea Party has only become larger since then. 22% of the voters were actual TP members – which is larger than the members of labor and every Dem special interest group combined.Alki: “The debt ceiling needs to be raised next June or the feds run out of money. What are you teapers going to do?”There is no TP platform. IMHO, the GOP should enact a budget this spring with a small rainy day fund, refuse to raise the debt limit above that budget total and then openly negotiate with the Dems about what to fit under that ceiling. The Dems will have no choice but to go along because they cannot borrow more without the GOP House.We shall see what our elected representatives actually do. The voters are watching.

  65. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart,I recall you stating several times that Keynesian economics doesn’t work. I explained the mechanism by which Keynesian economics works (at least in theory).Can you explain the flaw(s) in Keynesian economics, specifically why it would not have the effect on the economy that the theory would suggest? After all, I’ve explained how it does work. The least you can do is explain how it doesn’t work.

  66. shiloh says:

    Speaking of Nate and geniuses:Rasmussen Reports Polls Were BiasedWhile waiting for the remaining results to trickle in from states like Colorado and Alaska, I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year β€” including from FiveThirtyEight β€” because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates.Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again β€” and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.~~~~~Mentioned yesterday ~ All fame is fleeting …A Rasmussen survey in Hawaii showed Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) leading challenger Cam Cavasso (R) by 13 points two weeks ago, 53% to 40%. The final results showed Inouye winning re-election by 51 points, 72% to 21%.~~~~~Rasmussen to critics: But I was right! πŸ˜‰

  67. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “59% of voters want Obamacare repealed.”Realist: “All of it? Parts of it?”It was an all or nothing poll.BD: “59% believed the average Dem in Congress is more liberal than the respondent.”R: “What percent believe that the average Republican in Congress is more conservative than the respondent?”Good question. If I recall correctly, about a third. Nearly 20% said they were more liberal and the rest said about the same. The GOP has hardly been governing as a conservative party for years.BD: “55% believed that Dem policies over the past two years are out of the mainstream.”R: “What percent believe that Republican policies are out of the mainstream?”Question was not asked as the election was a referendum on Dem policies and no GOP policies have been implemented since 08. We will have to wait until the GOP actually offered legislation to find out.BD: “59% believe that the government is a threat to their individual rights.”R: “In what way? I believe that it is, too, but probably in a very different way than you do.”It was a general question Ras has asked a handful of times starting in 09. Given that 59% is larger than the GOP share of the vote, I am sure that folks like you were included.BD: “75% believe that the government can only sometimes or rarely be trusted.”R: “Again, in what way? I believe that, too, but probably in a very different way than you do. And, more importantly, I believe that it’s easier to rein in government than the alternatives.”The government has been pathologically lying to the voters of both ends of the spectrum for years. The progressive radio station was in full rant this morning when I went into the office at the thought that Obama would betray them and work with the GOP. (Fat chance) That is why Ras has been dividing up the respondents into a Political Class and others rather than left and right. Its an interesting dichotomy.B: “66% believe that members of Congress do not care what the voters think.”R: “All members? Just Democrats? Do they believe that the solution is to abolish Congress? Or do they have another solution in mind? What solution might that be?”Members in general without any reference to party. If the voters wanted to abolish Congress, they would have been gathering with rifles instead of swarming to the ballot box. It appears the voters remedy was to hand out pink slips.BD: “50% say the Tea Party is good for America”R: “If I understand filistro correctly, she’d be among them.:::heh:::Filistro is scared of the Tea Party, but has been spinning like a top for the past week acting like she does not care.

  68. Mainer says:

    And Raz and Bart….Raz and Bart on and on and on……Bart these numbers you so proudly present are just about worthless to any one but some one such as yourself. No wonder Raz is getting rich.Couple of funny stories, or maybe not so funny stories. A friend stopped by a little bit ago to drop some tools off and told about awaking this AM to see his elderly father sitting in front of the TV. When asked if he had stayed up all night watching the election he replied no but had gotten up real early so he wouldn’t miss the Republicans throwing Nancy Pelosi out of her speakers office. Guess my friend had a hard time explaining that one to his now quite indignant father.A good friend called earlier quite ticked off as a couple of his employees had been in asking how long he thought it would take before they would be seeing additional money in their pay. He had no idea what they were talking about but was informed that as they had just helped elect Republicans in place of spendthrift Democrats it shouldn’t take long before they would be seeing more take home pay. I suspect my staunch Democrat friend will be seeing a little more in his take home just as soon as he cans those two nitwits.Lastly my neighbors wife is on the war path this day because Sarah Palin didn’t feature in all of the election coverage last night….when I tried to explain to her that maybe it was because Sarah wasn’t running for any thing this time she really got huffy “Well why not? Did the good old boys crowd her out like Angle and ODonnell?” I think maybe my good wwife is right….we need a new fence….a really high one. How could I have had that next door and not known it? Used to be such a nice neighborhood.

  69. Bart DePalma says:

    Shiloh:Comparing polls out 21 days from the actual vote and within the margin of error of the election is silly. The Dems usually show up at the last minute in midterms. That is why I was waiting for the final weekend polling.Actually, Ras under-projected the GOP House pickups, although not as bad as Nate.Ras had all the Senate seats that went Dem as either Dem or tossup.Interestingly, Ras did offer something of an after action report on his 2010 polling. He is looking at including cell phones and is a bit puzzled about Nevada. He admitted to underestimating the NV Dem vote by about four points and noted that most other pollster did as well. He says he will be looking to see of that state’s model needs to be adjusted for 2012.

  70. shrinkers says:

    @Jean What a list of Teaper primary targets! My favorite name there is Scott Brown. Just last January, he was being hailed as The Second Coming. There was talk about Scott Brown as a Tea Party Presidential candidate. He was The One, the Savior, the Guy, The Man, Top O The Heap and King Of The Mountain. How quickly they eat their own!

  71. shiloh says:

    Realist, you are missing my point as Jeffrey is indeed Jeffrey from the old 538 as he told me he is … and Jeffrey could be the second comin’ of conservatives, which by fili’s continued ad nauseam gloating he must be.ie panderingEnough already, Jeffrey will return when Jeffrey returns and please, no ticker tape parades …Again, we’ll just have to agree to disagree as some 538 liberals appear to be having “withdrawal symptoms” w/out a conservative sounding board to debate, sorry Bart. ;)take care

  72. Realist says:

    @Bart,It was an all or nothing poll.Exactly my point. The poll is meaningless when it’s an all-or-nothing poll. You can point to it all you want, but it provides insufficient information to act on it in a meaningful way.R: “What percent believe that Republican policies are out of the mainstream?”Question was not asked…Again, exactly my point. Very relevant question, but not asked. You keep describing the election as a love-fest for Republicans. It’s also plausible that it’s an avoid-avoid choice.BD: “59% believe that the government is a threat to their individual rights.”R: “In what way? I believe that it is, too, but probably in a very different way than you do.”It was a general question Ras has asked a handful of times starting in 09. Given that 59% is larger than the GOP share of the vote, I am sure that folks like you were included.Again, exactly my point. You supplied it with an implied narrative that isn’t borne out when you dig a little deeper.The government has been pathologically lying to the voters of both ends of the spectrum for years.Not the government per se, but the people within the government. I get the impression that you, being a sole proprietor, are unfamiliar with the behavior of large organizations. It doesn’t have to be government for this behavioral trait to manifest itself. Any large organization (defined as > a couple hundred) will do. For-profit, non-profit, community, government…they all exhibit this behavior of trying to hide embarrassing data.If the voters wanted to abolish Congress, they would have been gathering with rifles instead of swarming to the ballot box. It appears the voters remedy was to hand out pink slips.What’s intriguing about that explanation is that it describes an avoidance behavior, rather than an approach behavior. Avoidance enthusiasm is a fickle creature.Filistro is scared of the Tea PartyOn some level, she is. So am I. I suspect that giving enough face time to them will make Pelosi and Reid seem positively angelic to mainstream Americans. They haven’t yet learned how to market effectively, and avoiding the harsh limelight of unscripted public speaking cannot survive beyond the campaign trail.

  73. shiloh says:

    Too funny as Bart is already apologizing/spinning/rationalizing for Rasmussen. btw, Scott Rasmussen appreciates your support lol.Again:Let the record show Bartles still has not said (1) word about what happened in Colorado yesterday.take care

  74. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart, you said:”Actually, Ras under-projected the GOP House pickups, although not as bad as Nate.”True, but that’s an apples-and-oranges comparison. Nate pointed out that Rasmussen overstated the Republican House vote by an average of 5 points. I looked at Nate’s average (tracking it until I couldn’t see straight anymore and had to go to bed)…he was off by a whopping 0.15 points. Yes, he was off to the left, but Rasmussen was more off by a factor of thirty-three.So it depends on what factor you use. Do you bet on who will win the game, or what the point spread will be? Both are legitimate bets, but they are looking at very different views.Yes, Nevada caught all of the pollsters with their pants down. That will be an interesting one to examine over time.

  75. dr_funguy says:

    Here is the point you are missing.Some people (me) think that the TP is good for America in that it gives expression to a greater diversity of opinions. I wish they would start an actula, you know, party. We need more parties on the ballot.But even though I think their existence is good for the country, I think that their “policies” are terrible for it. Such as they are, if any, so to speak.Actually I haven’t heard of any TP policies, only slogans.

  76. Mainer says:

    Nevada was off for sure but maybe not so much that one couldn’t see a way for Reid to do wht he did with a strong ground game.Colorado would seem to be a bigger polling trip wire. Did any one see that all coming together (oooh where did Maes finish % wise I want to see what the Republicans do if he got <10%)?Rubio’s finish kind of bruised some polls as well.Here in Maine the just beaten by a hair second place govonor candidate was polled in a distant 3rd last week and the Democrat that had been listed in a virtual tie ended up in a no show 3rd. Now there is some crap polling.

  77. Monotreme says:

    @dr_funguy:Some people (me) think that the TP is good for America in that it gives expression to a greater diversity of opinions. I wish they would start an actula, you know, party. We need more parties on the ballot.But even though I think their existence is good for the country, I think that their “policies” are terrible for it. Such as they are, if any, so to speak.Hear, hear.Y’all have heard me mention Jefferson County, Colorado as an excellent Western bellwether county.Here are the county’s election returns, which I think further cement its bellwether status:http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/Jefferson/22579/39348/en/summary.html

  78. dr_funguy says:

    Nothing is ever “very plain” in politics.When folks (like BDP) say this election was a referendum on or repudiation of Obama policies that is a totally subjective statement without factual basis, a hypothesis. It is fact that Dems lost X seats in the House and Y in the Senate, the why is harder to assess. Here are some fairly simple tests that would help test that hypothesis versus an alternative hypothesis that most of the losses are directly related to economic conditions.A simple regression of numbers of seats lost by the majority vs. net change in disposable income; same test vs. other economic indicators (unemployment [generally not a good predictor in the past]). To the extent that Republican do better than predicted by such a model, one can argue that other factors are in play. It doesn’t provide cause and effect but supports one position or another.Another hypothesis (stated as fact by himself): “The only Dems who survived in a swing (not blue) district or state apart from Harry Reid were the ones who repudiated some or all of the Obama policies”. Well, I am translating this to: swing district Dems were more likely to win if they voted against certain bills.One could look at Dems who voted for vs. those who against the stimulus, healthcare or any other specific bill and compare their chances of getting reelected. A contingency test (such as Chi-square) would determine if those who voted against eg. health care reform, were significantly more likely to be reelected than those who voted for it. If you think it only applies to swing districts, well then use that sample… Unless you provide some quantitative, objective analysis you are just, as usual, blowing smoke. BTW has Colorado gone from swing State to true blue?

  79. dr_funguy says:

    Apologies for 2x posting but I didn’t want this to be a reply to an earlier thread.Nothing is ever “very plain” in politics.When folks (like BDP) say this election was a referendum on or repudiation of Obama policies that is a totally subjective statement without factual basis, a hypothesis. It is fact that Dems lost X seats in the House and Y in the Senate, the why is harder to assess. Here are some fairly simple tests that would help test that hypothesis versus an alternative hypothesis that most of the losses are directly related to economic conditions.A simple regression of numbers of seats lost by the majority vs. net change in disposable income; same test vs. other economic indicators (unemployment [generally not a good predictor in the past]). To the extent that Republican do better than predicted by such a model, one can argue that other factors are in play. It doesn’t provide cause and effect but supports one position or another.Another hypothesis (stated as fact by himself): “The only Dems who survived in a swing (not blue) district or state apart from Harry Reid were the ones who repudiated some or all of the Obama policies”. Well, I am translating this to: swing district Dems were more likely to win if they voted against certain bills.One could look at Dems who voted for vs. those who against the stimulus, healthcare or any other specific bill and compare their chances of getting reelected. A contingency test (such as Chi-square) would determine if those who voted against eg. health care reform, were significantly more likely to be reelected than those who voted for it. If you think it only applies to swing districts, well then use that sample… Unless you provide some quantitative, objective analysis you are just, as usual, blowing smoke. BTW has Colorado gone from swing State to true blue?

  80. Realist says:

    dr_funguy,A simple regression of numbers of seats lost by the majority vs. net change in disposable income; same test vs. other economic indicators (unemployment [generally not a good predictor in the past]). To the extent that Republican do better than predicted by such a model, one can argue that other factors are in play. It doesn’t provide cause and effect but supports one position or another.Now that is something I could get behind. It would take me a bit longer than I normally have time for, but I’d love to see it if someone else wants to take a stab at it.BTW has Colorado gone from swing State to true blue?I’d say no. Two House seats went from D to R. Then again, some California and Washington seats did, too, so maybe that’s not a good metric.

  81. Mainer says:

    funguy a couple of other items that might fit your concept. Compute the money spent both for and against a given candidate or candidates and as a good friend has suggested when it was spent and then see how many of the wins and losses were at least related to that factor. Some of you are way beyond me in how that might be done but I really think some sort of look at the effect of money is needed.Another interesting thing to look at would be not the Manchin effect where supposedly he won because he ran away from the Dems, the president and their programs but how many lost be cause they did. Not sure how one would structure that but you sharp guys probably know.Finally I would love to see some one put the lie to the whole concept of this was a vote against incumbents….. or we want out siders it sure didn’t look like it to me unless one was perhaps a targeted Dem with a gazillion ads tearing him or her down.

  82. Monotreme says:

    @Realist, @dr_funguy,This tweet from Ben Smith at Politico is a start. Very very small N.@benpolitico Re #hcr: Of 8 Ds who switched from no to yes, 5 lost, 2 retired; of 5 who switched from yes to no, 2 won, 2 lost, 1 retired

  83. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “It was an all or nothing poll.”Realist: “Exactly my point. The poll is meaningless when it’s an all-or-nothing poll.”Why? The Dems presented Obamacare as an all or nothing proposition where if you removed parts, the plan would not work. For example, all those individual parts which poll well when there is no price tag attached are paid for by having an unaccountable board slash a half trillion from Medicare and through the individual mandate, both of which are VERY unpopular.The GOP is going to offer complete repeals as well.This should be an all or nothing question.R: “What percent believe that Republican policies are out of the mainstream?”BD: “Question was not asked…”R: “Again, exactly my point. Very relevant question, but not asked.”What precisely are GOP policies? The Dems completely shut out the GOP over the past tow years and the GOP campaigned on conservative policies they have not implemented since Dubya came to town a decade ago.R: “You keep describing the election as a love-fest for Republicans.”Oh heavens no! I am calling this a libertarian conservative wave in the summary at my blog. I repeatedly keep posting here that the GOP better do what the voters told it to do.BD: “59% believe that the government is a threat to their individual rights.”R: “In what way? I believe that it is, too, but probably in a very different way than you do.”BD: “It was a general question Ras has asked a handful of times starting in 09. Given that 59% is larger than the GOP share of the vote, I am sure that folks like you were included.”R: “Again, exactly my point. You supplied it with an implied narrative that isn’t borne out when you dig a little deeper.”What implied narrative? The figure suggests that a super majority of voters do not trust government no matter who is running it.BD: “If the voters wanted to abolish Congress, they would have been gathering with rifles instead of swarming to the ballot box. It appears the voters remedy was to hand out pink slips.”R: “What’s intriguing about that explanation is that it describes an avoidance behavior, rather than an approach behavior.”Care to expand on that? I do not consider voting to change a government an avoidance behavior.

  84. Bart DePalma says:

    dr_funguy wrote: “When folks (like BDP) say this election was a referendum on or repudiation of Obama policies that is a totally subjective statement without factual basis, a hypothesis.”In case you missed it, here is the evidence:Nearly every Dem in a competitive district who voted for the Porkulus and/or Obamacare was tossed out of office.The network exit polling have a third of voters saying that the “economic stimulus plan” hurt the economy and another third saying it made no difference. Heavy majorities of both groups voted for the GOP.In the network exit polling, a plurality of 48% of respondents, and in the Ras exit polling, 59% of respondents want to repeal Obamacare. 87% of these folks voted GOP in the network exit polling.In the Ras exit polling, 52% think this was a referendum on President Obama’s agenda.That was a two by four message whacking the Dems in their collective heads.

  85. Scott says:

    Tweety just put up a couple of hypothetical South Carolina Republican polls that showed what we were talking about:Romney tied for the lead in Iowa, up a b it in New Hampshire, and behind Sarah Palin in South Carolina.

  86. Realist says:

    @Bart,“The poll is meaningless when it’s an all-or-nothing poll.”Why? The Dems presented Obamacare as an all or nothing proposition where if you removed parts, the plan would not work.Because I’m still not convinced that the electorate understands the big picture of that legislation. They’re told over and over again that they can have it all if we just went after those awful lawyers, but that’s not borne out by the facts.In other words, I don’t think they understand the big picture. It takes a lot of effort to get it all, and I’m one of the few people I know personally who has taken the time to understand it. I’m not surrounded by idiots, either.For example, all those individual parts which poll well when there is no price tag attached are paid for by having an unaccountable board slash a half trillion from Medicare and through the individual mandate, both of which are VERY unpopular.Exactly. I’d love to see the poll results to a question that asks, in essence, if the cost of having these benefits is those cuts and this mandate, is it still worth it? Right now, based on my own conversations with intelligent people, I don’t believe most of the electorate understands that they can’t have one without the other. From what I hear personally, most people think you can.What precisely are GOP policies?Seriously? After you’ve been reminding us nonstop for over two two years what they are, you ask this question?I repeatedly keep posting here that the GOP better do what the voters told it to do.Hmmm. I looked at the ballot results, and I saw votes for Republicans, not Libertarians. Quite a confusing message, if they wanted Libertarians, isn’t it?The figure suggests that a super majority of voters do not trust government no matter who is running it.And yet, they elected a bunch of people to run it. Surely they trust these new people, right? Or don’t they? What does it mean to trust government?Care to expand on that? I do not consider voting to change a government an avoidance behavior.Assuming voters come to the ballot box believing that there are two choices (in most cases, their behavior suggests that this is the case), then there are three possible motivations for a particular vote:1) I like both candidates, but I like A more than B, so I vote for A2) I like A but don’t like B, so I vote for A3) I don’t like either one, but I dislike A less than I dislike B, so I vote for A1 is approach-approach. 2 is approach-avoidance. 3 is avoidance-avoidance.You claim we saw 2 (lovefest for conservatives). I suggest that 3 is also a plausible explanation (throw the bums out).

  87. Todd Dugdale says:

    I’m not seeing this as “anti-incumbent”. In the Senate, each Party had 10 incumbents re-elected. 37 seats were up for election. 54% of incumbents stayed in office.In the House, 182 Democrats and 154 Republican incumbents were re-elected. That breaks down to 71% of Democratic incumbents re-elected, and 86% of Republican incumbents re-elected.The numbers don’t support a “throw the bums out” narrative.

  88. Realist says:

    @Bart,In the Ras exit polling, 52% think this was a referendum on President Obama’s agenda.Which supports the avoidance hypothesis.

  89. Realist says:

    @Todd Dugdale,The numbers don’t support a “throw the bums out” narrative.Depends on your definition of “the bums.”In the avoidance hypothesis, “the bums” means the Democrats.

  90. shiloh says:

    Bart, do you still live in Colorado?just wonderin’ ;)take care

  91. Michael Weiss says:

    121 votes separate the candidates in CA11. That’s about 0.2%, which is within the margin of error for nearly any voting method.In other words, if this holds, it’s a tie. Everything that’s left is probably a charade of deciding which votes are in and which are out. The criteria have no choice but to have a component of arbitrariness.This is what happened in Washington in 2004, and in Minnesota in 2008.But nobody wants to talk about the fundamental issue: what do you do when the number of votes separating the candidates is greater than the margin of error of the voting method?

  92. Todd Dugdale says:

    Well, if someone puts forward the idea of an “anti-incumbent wave”, then all incumbents would be “the bums”.It’s worth pointing out (as DK is noting) that 95% of the members of the Progressive Caucus were re-elected. It was the Blue Dogs who were the real “bums”.

  93. Bart DePalma says:

    As I figured, Obama used his press conference to figuratively engage in his very real habit of scratching his nose and giving the finger to the voters. You can sum up his comments as:1) If the economy was doing better, the voters would love my policies.2) The voters do not want us to spend “the next two years to re-litigate the arguments we had over the last two years.”3) I look forward to having the Republicans work on the unfinished items on my agenda.4) BTW, while we sit down and figure out “over the next several years what kinds of budget cuts we can make” (after my second Administration is through), I have a list of more spending to enact before my enemies er…the Republicans are seated.To their immense credit, the Dem media started acting like reporters rather than groupies and repeatedly raised the obvious fact that the voters rejected his policies and repeatedly asked what Obama would do comply with the voters’ message. The weasel tap danced and refused to admit that the voters had even delivered a message.Clinton pretended that the 1994 voter message was not directed at him, but he had the intelligence not to further infuriate the voters by pretending there was no message.I am uncertain whether Obama represents the epitome of arrogance or of utter detachment. 2012 cannot come fast enough.

  94. Bart DePalma says:

    Todd Dugdale wrote: Well, if someone puts forward the idea of an “anti-incumbent wave”, then all incumbents would be “the bums”. It’s worth pointing out (as DK is noting) that 95% of the members of the Progressive Caucus were re-elected. It was the Blue Dogs who were the real “bums”.The only place a member of the Progressive caucus can get elected is the rare district where self identified liberals are over 50% rather than their national average of 20%. Thus, it would take a miracle of God or death for any of them to be tossed out.

  95. shrinkers says:

    To use Bart’s argument:The massive landslide elections of 2006 and 2008 were a complete and total repudiation of the policies of conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans. The public spoke clearly : Republican social policies, economic policies, military policies, energy policies, education policies, all of it, belonged in the trash.What did the Republicans do after that? Did they stand chagrined, and say, “Gosh, we screwed up, let’s start obeying the will of the people” ?No. They began a massive campaign of disinformation, lies, distractions, and obstructionism. They declared their first mission was to create “Obama’s Waterloo.” We saw the creation of birtherism, Tentherism, SecondAmendmentism, lies about “death panels,” accusations of the President being a socialite muslin from Kanye, use of the filibuster more in 2 years than in the 2 decades of the 50s and 60s. If indeed ’06 and ’08 represented the will of the people, the Republicans set themselves the task if ignoring, circumventing, confusing, and, if possible, changing that will.The Republicans went on the attack, turned town hall meetings into riots, dug in their heels, and committed enormous ad buys to spread their spin and their lies.But now Republicans think Obama and the Democrats in Congress should roll over and play dead. Screw that. It’s time to push harder for the things the public said it wanted in 2008, the things the Republicans have been lying about and misrepresenting ever since.Bart, you still believe Rasmussen, even though 1) his questions are clear partisan nonsense, and 2) Nate has shown Ras’ unquestionable bias. It’s simply another aspect of the Republican attempt to destroy the President.It’s time to fight back.

  96. Realist says:

    @Bart,1) If the economy was doing better, the voters would love my policies.That’s probably true, regardless of how you feel about it.2) The voters do not want us to spend “the next two years to re-litigate the arguments we had over the last two years.”Probably also true. I doubt anyone wants the next two years to be nothing but treading water. Of course, treading water is exactly what we’re going to have.3) I look forward to having the Republicans work on the unfinished items on my agenda.A fine message to give. It makes clear that his intention is not to roll over. Whether his actions will match his words remains to be seen.4) BTW, while we sit down and figure out “over the next several years what kinds of budget cuts we can make” (after my second Administration is through), I have a list of more spending to enact before my enemies er…the Republicans are seated.Really, he said that he won’t entertain the notion of cutting anything for the next six years? Please link to the transcript or video that shows this.Oh, and also the part where he says the next President will be a Republican. Or a Tea Partier. Or whatever.To their immense credit, the Dem media…Was this NPR? Or are you one of those who believes that if it isn’t Fox or Drudge or TNR, it’s a commie rag?If anything, I’d offer the line of questioning as evidence that they aren’t Democrat mouthpieces.The weasel tap danced and refused to admit that the voters had even delivered a message.Or perhaps, just perhaps, the message isn’t as clear as you believe it to be.I am uncertain whether Obama represents the epitome of arrogance or of utter detachment.He’s arrogant, I won’t disagree there. But I think I understand what’s behind it.2012 cannot come fast enough.I don’t know about that. Given that the economy is going to have a pretty rough next couple of years, the upcoming battles are going to be a mighty entertaining sideshow.

  97. dr_funguy says:

    Please, you repeat yourself.How about a statistical test?I will repeat myself, I _suspect_ (that means I don’t have good numbers but would like to see them) that the actual economic conditions are a good predictor of this election… What part of quantitative analysis do you not get?”Nearly every”? and compared to what?

  98. filistro says:

    Speaking of “entertaining sideshows”… Michelle Bachmann is running for Conference Chair, the post just vacated by Mike Pence who has “national ambitions.”Word has it that Boehner and Cantor want Jeb Hensarling for the CC, and Jeb already has it sewn up. But Bachmann is going to have plenty of support from the freshman House members…Popcorn, anyone? πŸ™‚

  99. Mainer says:

    Odd BArt but I think you represent the epitome of ignorance, arrogrance and delusion. Damn man you are one up on the president. You might have some relevance here but for a few things…ok quite a few things: You have bitched and cried about this president since the last election, nothing (and I mean nothing the man has done could come close to meet your warped approval) you can not bring yourself to not use slam terms such as “Porkulus” to show you displeasure at some thing many of us do beleive has helped so you denigrate not just the president but much of your audience. You can not see one instance where your side has been over the top, in the way or intentionally disingenuous. You treat your lies and theirs as fact and call into question or totaly ignore those that call you and them on such L I E S. Your idea of compromise is that an elected president of these United States should drop every thing on which he ran and do your bidding. Bart you are right I too look forward to 2012 so that we may cram back into dark spaces all that you espouse. You are the poster child of why this country is mired where it is. You can’t lead,you will not follow and you don’t realize how much in the way you are. How does it feel to go through life as a freaking speed bump?

  100. filistro says:

    You can’t lead,you will not follow and you don’t realize how much in the way you are. How does it feel to go through life as a freaking speed bump?I just thought it was worth repeating.Carry on…

  101. shrinkers says:

    @BartThe only place a member of the Progressive caucus can get elected is the rare district where self identified liberals are over 50% rather than their national average of 20%.1) I assume you have the numbers to back this up?2) So you’re saying, politicians win elections when they represent the people in their district. This is supposed to be an insight?3) As usual, you avoided the point — that progressives were re-elected, and Blue Dogs were not. Which rather negates your argument about a supposed rightward electorate.So, you’ve shown you’re capable only of sidestepping and tap dancing, since you have no arguments in response, and no facts to back up the deflections you attempt.By the way, you’ve never told us — Do you taste your dog food before you buy it?

  102. shortchain says:

    Bart,Actually, the GOP cannot even start to work that so-called agenda until January. My bet is that, other than some lame kabuki to fool the credulous members of the tea party organizations, they won’t make a serious effort even then.It’s going to end up just like its predecessor, the “contract for America”.

  103. dr_funguy says:

    Yeah, know anybody with an excellent elections database and statistical know-how?I used to know of someone like that, but they Were Assimilated.

  104. dr_funguy says:

    Hey Filistro – I hear Campbell resigned today. Now that _is_ news.

  105. shortchain says:

    By the way, I’m having trouble commenting. I kept getting a message that I’ve already commented on this thread, and there’s a 1-minute rule — and I kept getting that message even when I waited longer than 1 minute.I had to go in and delete a cookie to get that comment in.

  106. shiloh says:

    Barted:2012 cannot come fast enough.Since Reps/teabaggers want limited govt., taxes cut er no help from Washington etc. etc.please explain to me how all these newly elected Rep governor’s in PA, OH, MI, SC, FL, AZ, OK etc. are goona lower astronomical unemployment in all their states ?!? as Americans don’t make anything anymore as “we” move to a service economy ie health care and of course if you cut any kind of state/federal govt. programs by definition you are cutting more state and federal jobs.again a catch-22 as Michael Weiss’ cause and effect My Great Depression thread pointed out.>Please, anybody, tell me how America is gonna get out of its unemployment hole by continuing to lower taxes which aren’t paid for and again, America doesn’t make anything anymore as Wall St. just moves $$$ around makin’ the rich richer.The old adage: You have to have $$$ to make $$$.>Indeed, when 2/4 years from now all these states w/Rep governors, who don’t want any help from Washington, still have high unemployment somebody is gonna have to pay the piper, eh.So yes Reps, enjoy last night, but now or come Jan. what are you gonna have to help the citizens of your state.>Cut the military, people lose jobs, cut SS, people lose jobs, cut education, people lose jobs ..Re the military an old saying: We’ve done so much w/so little for so long, we’re now capable of doing anything w/nothing!Solutions to our economic problems ?!? anyone, anyone, Bueller and oh the irony of Kasich, who was in favor of NAFTA, getting elected Ohio’s governor.>btw Bartles: Oh, hell yeah! Indeed lolReid is history.take care Bartles …

  107. filistro says:

    @Doc… I hear Campbell resigned today. Now that _is_ news.Wow, Doc… I didn’t even know that till I read your post and did a search.Now what? Surely not the NDP. Maybe it’s time for the SoCreds again. They could always dig up Vander Zalm and fit him with bionic implants, he’s only what… 90 or so? A mere boy in Zalm years.

  108. shiloh says:

    You can undo all of Obama’s programs until hell freezes over, but how is that gonna create jobs for the unemployed?btw, a Rep congress is impotent w/out senate approval and of course Obama can use his veto power, but I do encourage bachmann, blackburn, boehner, cantor, joe wilson, rand paul, etc. to continue to act like vacuous children …Who have no clue how to compensate for all their continued tax cuts!apologies to vacuous children

  109. Just Sayin' says:

    Mainer: You can’t lead,you will not follow and you don’t realize how much in the way you are. How does it feel to go through life as a freaking speed bump?No truer words to describe most of the conservatives in my district. They simply don’t know how to vote for their best interest. They are easily spinned.

  110. Bart DePalma says:

    shrinkers wrote: “The massive landslide elections of 2006 and 2008…”They were half to a third of the 2010 election.”…were a complete and total repudiation of the policies of conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans.”Apart from the tax cuts, what libertarian conservative policies? Dubya was the administration which set the standard for fiscal profligacy until the last two years. With the exception of war weariness, the GOP was kicked out in 2006 and 2008 for the same reasons as the Dems were just kicked out in 2010 – profligacy and corruption. People, on the eve of the 2008 general election, the Gallup poll found that only 26% of Americans were satisfied with their government, tying the low following the Watergate Scandal. Obama and about 80 Blue Dogs win election on promises of tax cuts and a “net spending cut.” Then Obama triples down on government.shrinkers: “What did the Republicans do after that? Did they stand chagrined, and say, “Gosh, we screwed up, let’s start obeying the will of the people” ?”The GOP was completely out of power and was ignored by a Dem media devoting 24/7 of worshipful coverage on the new government. I have no idea what the Republicans said after the election. However, they are hitting the proper tone of humility now as they repeat over and over that we are here to do what the voters sent us here to do. We shall see whether that ends up being true. In contrast, Obama made it very clear he gives less than a damn what the voters think and openly mourned the “good public servants” who were kicked out by their constituents for pissing all over them and voting for the Porkulus, Cap & Tax and Obamacare.shrinkers: “The Republicans went on the attack, turned town hall meetings into riots, dug in their heels, and committed enormous ad buys to spread their spin and their lies.”Give it a rest. The President gave well over 150 speeches lived on the television explaining his programs. The Dem members of Congress gave thousands more. The Dems media spent hundreds of thousands of man hours further getting the word out. The voters damn well understood what Dem policies involved. They REJECTED them. Do you get it yet?shrinkers: “But now Republicans think Obama and the Democrats in Congress should roll over and play dead. Screw that.”No, according to the Ras exit polling, 56% of voters say Obama “should change course in response to the election results,” but only 19% believe he will do so. The voters are not stupid. They know who Obama is now.shrinkers: “Bart, you still believe Rasmussen, even though 1) his questions are clear partisan nonsense, and 2) Nate has shown Ras’ unquestionable bias.”Ras basically pegged this election, while Nate was off.Ras was right all along about the growing voter anger, the Dem media polling that dominated Nate’s model was wrong until they were forced by the oncoming election to put up their LV screens.

  111. Bart DePalma says:

    shiloh wrote: “You can undo all of Obama’s programs until hell freezes over, but how is that gonna create jobs for the unemployed?”You have just lowered the current and prospective cost of doing business substantially just by reversing Obama’s mistakes.

  112. mclever says:

    Think Obama hasn’t done enough?244 Accomplishments of President ObamaThis list of accomplishments was compiled in September, but I thought it worth the reminder as we enter political silly season between the election and the seating of the new Congress.

  113. shortchain says:

    Bart,By how much, precisely, have you lowered the cost of doing business?When was the last time the cost of doing business was lowered by that amount?How much did employment jump as a result?If you cannot answer these questions with at least some authoritative documentation to back you up, you are engaging in nothing but wishful thinking.

  114. Scott says:

    You have just lowered the current and prospective cost of doing business substantially just by reversing Obama’s mistakes.This argument is bull. Total bull.It is a FACT that the current administration has created more jobs in the past year than were created during the entire previous 8 years.You are suggesting reversing the policies of the past 2 years to get us back to… when the economy was on the brink of collapse? When companies couldn’t shed workers fast enough?Your argument doesn’t hold even the slightest bit of water. Yours isn’t a job-creation tactic. It is simply the continued drum-beating of “Government bad. Government bad. Government BAD!”

  115. shiloh says:

    State Unemployment of newly elected Rep governors …NV ~ 14.4%MI ~ 13%FL ~ 11.9%SC ~ 11%OH ~ 10%GA ~ 10%AZ ~ 9.7%TN ~ 9.4%NJ ~ 9.4% PA ~ 9%AL ~ 8.9%NM ~ 8.2%TX ~ 8.1%WI ~ 7.8%AK ~ 7.8%ME ~ 7.7%UT ~ 7.5%OK ~ 6.9%WY ~ 6.8%IA ~ 6.8%~~~~~ok, was gonna make a couple jokes re: OK and WY, but after OH just elected Kasich governor, I’ll keep quiet.Included Christie, elected in 2009, ’cause he deserves extra credit πŸ˜‰ having helped Meg Whitman lose by appearing at one of her campaign rallies. :)Question: how do these states w/newly elected, limited govt., Rep governors hope to sustain or lower their states unemployment rate w/out help from the federal govt.Good luck to NV, MI, FL, SC and OH ~ especially SC who elected Nikki Haley, god love her, and FL who elected a crook, ok GA elected a crook also.So many political crooks, so little time lol and Jan Brewer will lower AZ’s unemployment by increasing the prison population!It’s kinda amazing how OH can go from a total frickin’ incompetent crook, Rep. Taft to (4) years later, Rep. John Kasich.ok, easy explanation $$$, $$$, $$$and if your states not on my list one can only hope your citizens try harder next election cycle dagnamit! :)America, you can do it!>Reagan: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’Bush41’s savings and loans scandal late ’80s. U.S. taxpayer’s ($160 million) bail out mostly TX where the oil industry went belly-up!and so it goes.but please U.S. Govt., don’t tread on any of these states led by Rep, limited govt. governors …So it shall be written, so it shall be done!

  116. Jean says:

    Kind of sums it up. From a Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial:”But whether or not Minnesotans rode the national wave on Tuesday, we’re confident of one message they meant to sent to Washington: Divided government is no excuse for paralyzed government. If one or more houses of Congress are in Republican hands for the next two years, those hands are obligated to join in governing this country. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell had it wrong last week. Republicans first job isn’t to see to it that the President isn’t re-elected in 2012. Their first job is to improve the lot of Americans. With their election certificates comes a duty to help put more people to work, fix crumbling infrastructure, improve public education and protect the planet from climate change. Tuesday’s winners won not only a share of government’s power, but also accountability for its fruitful use.”

  117. shiloh says:

    Bartles, you’ve been avoiding my fact filled posts today, which is very wise! :)ok, most everybody at 538 avoids my posts ’cause no sense arguing sound logic, eh and again, ITA posts are a real waste of time. ;)and since Bart is the bashful type, let me help him out and congratulate CO’s new freely elected Democratic gov., Hickenlooper and it’s current and now freely elected Democratic senator, Michael Bennet. :)Re: the Reps big $$$ advantage this election cycle ~ you can dress up a pig w/erman and pearls, but it’s still a pig ie o’donnell, angle, buck …>We now return you to Bart avoiding everyone’s questions …btw, Bart made one of typical, inane posts over a year ago predicting CO would be Ruby Red Nov. 2010, but alas, Nate zapped everyone’s comments at the old blog.Bart again, at least your a consistent winger troll, which is all we ask …

  118. shrinkers says:

    @ScottYou are suggesting reversing the policies of the past 2 years to get us back to… when the economy was on the brink of collapse? When companies couldn’t shed workers fast enough?Yes, That is what Bart is recommending. Through all the spin and obfuscation and misdirection, that is what the Republican Party wants.Because, during that dark time, the gap between the very rich and everyone else got immensely wider. And that is the whole point of Republican policy.

  119. dr_funguy says:

    Well at least you have company.He has ignored mine too, except to repeat his unsubstantiated bloviation.

  120. WA7th says:

    So, here’s my critique of the election night live blog:It never even occurred to me to go visit that other site last night. I haven’t been over there in weeks.’Nuff said?’Nuff said.

  121. shrinkers says:

    @Bart”They were half to a third of the 2010 election.”The Dems won both houses and the presidency. The Republicans even now have a smaller majority in the House than the Dems did.”Dubya was the administration which set the standard for fiscal profligacy until the last two years.”Yes, when a Republican is in the White HOuse, the economy tanks, and the debt skyrockets. You and the rest of the Republican Party supported Bush. Now you pretend not to because Republican policies really are that toxic.”With the exception of war weariness, the GOP was kicked out in 2006 and 2008 for the same reasons as the Dems were just kicked out in 2010 – profligacy and corruption.”I assume you have proof of that?”People, on the eve of the 2008 general election, the Gallup poll found that only 26% of Americans were satisfied with their government, tying the low following the Watergate Scandal.”Thank you for reminding us, yet again, of how badly 8 years of Republican policies screwed up the country. We still haven’t recovered, have we?”Obama and about 80 Blue Dogs win election on promises of tax cuts and a “net spending cut.” Then Obama triples down on government.”No, Obama has cut the deficit both of his first two years in office. Again, you lie.”I have no idea what the Republicans said after the election.”You don’t read what you yourself write? That explains a lot!Me: “The Republicans went on the attack, turned town hall meetings into riots, dug in their heels, and committed enormous ad buys to spread their spin and their lies.”Bart: “Give it a rest. The President gave well over 150 speeches lived on the television explaining his programs.”Ah, so you don’t deny that the Republicans did this, I notice. Instead, you continue the attacks. Thank you for demonstrating exatly what I was talking about!”… according to the Ras exit polling … “As pointed out, Ras’ questions were partisan nonsense, and Nate showed that his numbers are blatently slanted.”Ras basically pegged this election, while Nate was off.”Wrong. Did you read Nate’s article?”You have just lowered the current and prospective cost of doing business substantially just by reversing Obama’s mistakes.”Again, I assume you have proof of this? And proof that the policies the Republicans pushed on us duing the Bush years will not have the same effect now that they did then?

  122. shiloh says:

    Small correction: ;)Bush41’s savings and loan bailout w/your tax dollars = $160 billion, not million.

  123. DC Petterson says:

    WA7thThank you for the critique!I think Michael did a tremendous job. Insightful and brilliant with the numbers thing. We are lucky to have him here!

  124. shrinkers says:

    @ShilohBush41’s savings and loan bailout w/your tax dollars = $160 billion, not million.And under Obama’s execution of Bush’s TARP spending, nearly all of the TARP money has been repaid. With interest.

  125. shrinkers says:

    … oh, and we avoided a second Great Depression, and more jobs have been created in the last two years than under eight years of Republican policies.

  126. shiloh says:

    shrinkers, as my mom said to me a couple mos. ago, everything is Obama’s fault πŸ˜‰ JFK’s assassination, the Vietnam War, 9/11, the Bay City Rollers, Menudo, ABBA.ok, those last (3) are my embellishments.Republicans have always been better at messaging er controlling the political rhetoric, which is how they win elections. It’s no secret.2010 they also had a big $$$ advantage because of Roberts and Alito. Hey to the victors go the spoils …Again, it truly is amazing Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th president of the United States of America. An anomaly in America’s time/warp continuum!but, but, but I’ll call your Roberts and Alito and raise you Sotomayor and Kagan as this is how corporate America stays in control by keeping the Supreme Court conservative.

  127. WA7th says:

    I know you are all wondering what happened yesterday to all those state attorneys general who joined the lawsuit against healthcare reform.(crickets chirping)Well, since you asked, I’ll tell you.Many were not up for re-election this year. The only one who lost a race to retain the same office was Troy King(R) who was primaried by Luther Strange.Here’s what happened to the rest:AL-King-R- Primaried by eventual winnerAZ-Goddard-D- Lost Gov generalCO-Suthers-R- Re-electedGA-Baker-R- Lost Gov primaryID-Wasden-R- unopposedMI-Cox-R- Lost Gov primaryNE-Bruning-R- unopposedNV-Cortez Masto-D- Re-electedND-Stenehjern-R -Re-electedPA-Corbett-R- elected GovernorSC-McMaster-R- Lost Gov primarySD-Jackley-R- Re-electedTX-Abbott-R- Re-elected

  128. WA7th says:

    @shiloh, Fili might let you get away with criticizing her pandering, but she’ll whup you fer sure for disparaging ABBA.

  129. Monotreme says:

    Today’s quiz: who said it?Republican or Democrat?”It may well be that the determination of the government (in which, gentlemen, it will not waver) to punish certain malefactors of great wealth, has been responsible for something of the trouble; at least to the extent of having caused these men to combine to bring about as much financial stress as possible, in order to discredit the policy of the government and thereby secure a reversal of that policy…”

  130. shrinkers says:

    @WA7th wrote:I know you are all wondering what happened yesterday to all those state attorneys general who joined the lawsuit against healthcare reform.Thanks for that bit of info! Enlightening.

  131. shrinkers says:

    @MonotremeToday’s quiz: who said it?This is just a guess now, but it sounds like Teddy Roosevelt.

  132. shiloh says:

    Actually, at the risk of being called a panderer, there are a couple ABBA songs I like, a guilty pleasure to be sure, like The Bee Gees Saturday Night Fever which I liked from day one, even though Disco did suck!Attica! Attica! Attica!

  133. Michael Weiss says:

    “It never even occurred to me to go visit that other site last night. I haven’t been over there in weeks.”That truly makes me feel great. Thanks for that.

  134. mike says:

    a conservative friend of mine has informed me that Dino Rossi is 0-3. the good news for dems is that people like Robin Carnahan and Elaine Marshall still have jobs and can come back, whereas Dino Rossi and Republican Charlie Crist saw their political careers die.

  135. mike says:

    man, the network coverage sure sucked as usual. Only displaying select races (ad nasuem at that) while tons of other races went completley unreported. I had to look online to find out Dana Titus had lost, and Melissa Bean was also losing by a small margin. You would have thought that would have warranted attention, instead of the 10,000th display of Barbara Mikulski not surprisingly winning again in Maryland by like a 35% difference.I’ll never forget in 06, a lady going over the contests says “Byrd wins”. She probably didn’t even know his first name, or that he was the longest serving senator ever.

  136. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart,It appears you missed this, so I’ll restate it.I recall you stating several times that Keynesian economics doesn’t work. I explained the mechanism by which Keynesian economics works (at least in theory).Can you explain the flaw(s) in Keynesian economics, specifically why it would not have the effect on the economy that the theory would suggest? After all, I’ve explained how it does work. The least you can do is explain how it doesn’t work.

  137. mike says:

    not sure why they haven’t just called Alaska for Lisa Murkowski yet. She is clearly the winner. Sure, some of those write ins won’t be hers, and a few can be disqualified, but she’s up by 7%!!!. Surely, not that many are going to be thrown out.

  138. mike says:

    wouldn’t it be funny if somebody spelled Murkowski correctly, and then spelled Lisa wrong?

  139. mike says:

    another bad break for the dems: had Ethan Berkowitz run for senator instead of governor, we would be saying “Senator Elect Ethan Berkowitz” right now.

  140. mike says:

    so Bill Clinton spends absurd amounts of time in Florida trying to get Kendrick Meek elected, who gets a mere 19% of the vote, while completely ignoring Blanche Lincoln in his home state. yeah, that was real intelligent.

  141. robert verdi says:

    The GOP gains in the state houses are not to underestimated. It is from here future House and Senators can be found.

  142. Bart DePalma says:

    MW:

    Keynsianism fails for many of the same reasons socialism fails:

    1) governments do not create wealth, they can only take it from Peter and give it to Paul after removing a cut for the bureaucracy.

    2) governments are utterly incapable of matching the private sector unlocking the most efficient use of capital. The private sector is concerned with ROI, the government is concerned with satisfying political objectives. See e ARRA.

    3) Supply and not demand drives economic recoveries. Until businesses expand, there are no jobs. While there are no jobs, people save the cash the government gives them. See the ARRA welfare payments used to reduce the debt oercentage.

    4) To the extent the government invests in an area, it crowds out the private sector.

    I do not have time to write an essay this morning before court, but that hits the high points.

  143. Bart DePalma says:

    Folks,Serious question.Now that the election is over, what will be the purpose of this blog? Apart from reading the election post mortems over the next couples weeks, I am about ready to check out of poll following until the next election cycle starts.

  144. Mainer says:

    Actually that is a good question Bart. And you are up early this morning, must be a fine day in Colorado. I suspect that while there may well be a drop off in polling compared to what we have just experienced one would hope that we will be seeing out of different sources information that might indicate where we really are in this land.From last nights dust up on here it is obvious that we need some polling that is more focused and better quantifiable that we can disect and that leaders can use to check the pulse of the nation. I also suspect that we are going to be seeing stuff on 2012 very soon so I do beleive that we will have plently of poll stuff to ruminate on.I would also like to use this space and time to look at some broader issues such as taxation policy. I keep saying that I would like to go back and revisit some thing GROG put on here on taxation that I though deserved a good shake out (no snark just some interesting ideas that made me curious) I can’t be the only one that would like to lean on their elected officials to fix this tax system but I don’t buy into simplistic answers such as just cut it and all will be better. We have some sharp people on here and with a good reasoned debate we might draw others. What would be wrong with becoming a forum known not just for flamming each other but one where intelligent, reasoned debate occurs?I beleive we will be seeing polling on issues such as DADT, CO2, energy policy, or how we are going to revive this economy. Hey maybe if we push it we could even get others to want to look at it (a reach I know but strange things do happen).I suspect that others may check in and out over a time as will I depending on work (semi retired but when there is business to do I’m out of here and completly focused on that other than a little lurking)and maybe getting other view points and observations to be brought back later is also good. As long as the core group hangs in there this will continue and it may well be a little more chummy from time to time but that is cool too. Oh Bart a comment (again not meant to be snarky, ok maybe a little) you really do need to have a new picture on your business web site. The one you have now in front of that door…..the way the cross pieces of the door are arranged behind you makes one want to wait for an animation effect where you do the upraised hand thing and a glowing light to appear around your head. Free advice from the last person in the world you want as an image advisor but look at it and see what I mean. Oh and Bart keep feeding the Raz stuff. Yes we are going to pick at it. But I do like seeing where he is coming from even if I don’t buy much of it. Shared information makes us all a little more aware and that is a good thing.

  145. shortchain says:

    Well, hey, sure, Bart, check out until the polling starts on how the next Congress’ policies are following the “will of the people”. Based on your own comments I’ve seen here and there, that will be about January 22, 2011.There seems to be a bit of an odd attitude in your comment of “well, we elected our representatives, now let them do their work until the next election cycle” — which is in, may I say, sharp contradistinction to the attitude you displayed after the last election. Odd, that. I wonder what could distinguish the two cycles…As for me, well, the election ain’t over here. We’re facing a recount and, if it goes like the last one (and the GOP is desperately soliciting money for hiring lawyers to make sure it takes as long or longer) we’ll have an un-elected and lame-duck GOP governor, who is hell-bent on running for President as a teabagger favorite, with a GOP majority in both houses of our legislature.Given that Tiny Tim Pawlenty has never shown any sign of wanting to set aside the legislature anyway and just govern by dictatorial fiat, we have nothing to worry about, hey?That certainly has no political interest, natch. Nothin’ to see here. It’s only never happened before.And of course, there’s no interest in following the pilgrim’s progress of the teabagger representatives, to see what happens when they reach Congress and, you know, actually try to enact some of your agenda. I’m anticipating the hell out of that spectacle, because I guarantee you, something’s gotta give when idiocy meets reality.

  146. filistro says:

    What will be the purpose of this blog?Good question. I think it will likely continue to be a place where bright people get together every day to talk politics. Don’t you?And unlike many of our friends on the right ;-)… I believe there is much more to politics than just elections. I like thinking and hashing over the human, personal aspect of politics, how people organize and express themselves politically… and, always, WHY they do that. If you’re a lover of racehorses, for instance, there’s a lot more to talk about than just the Triple Crown. Or, putting it another way… it’s more fun to talk about horses than races.

  147. Scott says:

    I plan to continue to use it for cheap plugs.Oh, and all that other junk that filistro said also. πŸ™‚

  148. shrinkers says:

    @BartNow that the election is over, what will be the purpose of this blog? What it says on the splash page: “Political Commentary from the Fringe”.For example, here’s something to talk about: why Health Care Reform won’t be repealed or de-funded (see here). Since Republicans have spent two years opposing PPACA, and campaigned on repealing it, whatever will the nutbat Tea Party do when the newly-minted Republican majority fails to follow its will? PPACA will be implemented. Expect more riots — but directed at whom?Another topic: The Tea Party lost at least 3 seat pickups in the Senate that should have been easy targets for the Republicans (if Murkowski decides to caucus with the Dems, that would be 4 seats). Yet the Teapers scare the Republican bosses spitless, and have proven quite capable of mucking up the nominating process. How much influence will they be allowed to have in the next two years?And on a related note, all of those 3 or 4 Senate losses are due to Palin endorsements. Will she continue to be a force in Republican politics, simply on the strength of her fanbois?And, what kinds of policies are the Republicans going to be pushing now that they have the House? How are those policies going to be spun? Will they be bad or good for America? Will any of them pass the Senate or be signed into law by the President? Can the Republicans dictate American law without actually working with the Democrats? And if they do work with the Dems, after spending years demonizing the Democrats, painting them as socialists who intend to destroy America — what will their insane and brainwashed base do? Lots to talk about over the next year before the next Presidential campaign gets into full swing.

  149. mostlyilurk says:

    I’d be interested to see or hear about the progress that the newly elected republicans/tea partiers are making with regard to their campaign promises and the plans being made to replace them if they fail to deliver on those promises. Bart, IIRC, that was something that was important to you during the campaign. That being the case, I’m wondering if it remains important and/or worthy of discussion here.

  150. shrinkers says:

    @filistroAnd unlike many of our friends on the right … I believe there is much more to politics than just elections.I think that’s an important point. To many on the right, “government” is only about keeping score. How many seats can Your Guys win? There is no actual “governance” that is supposed to go on. So the only interesting bits are elections and opinion polls (since the latter can be used to influence elections).To those of us on the left, “government” is about doing the business of the nation, implementing those policies which benefit the country. It’s a foreign concept to many on the right.There are exceptions on the right, of course, people who actually want to do governing. But not many.

  151. Mainer says:

    Ah Scott the cheap plug artist……more power to you. Maybe one of the reasons I really like this site is that most of us have no illusions of who or what we are. Cheap plug away. Ok maybe Mr. U will have some thing to say but I bet not.And yes Bart how is it that we should now wait paitently for your side to do its thing when you wouldn’t do that for our side? Bart if there is any thing I could now do to make our system better it would be that our side would be in your sides face 24/7. You have had 2 years of having the serve and then bitching if any one dared to even attempt a return. I now want you to just get that which you have been dishing out…..nothing more just the same thing. You and yours are not going to like it because it sucks but you will still have one thing we never got and never will get from your side. We will try to work from facts and reality. Doesn’t mean we will always be right but at some point your propagada machine has got to return to a level of sanity which it just does not have right now. You just had a good election night, no question about it but at what cost? If you can not…..will not see the looming down side then you are a diservice to your own cause.

  152. filistro says:

    milurk… you and I are thinking along the same lines. Also shrinkers, but that goes what without saying. Since I first encountered the guy, he’s had the uncanny ability to know exactly what I’m thinking…(sometimes before *I* do.)I really want to talk about process now… and whether McConnell is making a huge mistake, given the mood of the country, by saying out loud that the GOP’s #1 goal is to take down the president.I mean… sure, we all know that’s all they care about… but should he really be SAYING it?I’ve actually just submitted a new blog entry to Mr U about partisanship and its relation to patriotism. Maybe when he wakes up he will post it and we can chew it over.(Mr U keeps very odd hours. I think he might actually be a bat πŸ™‚

  153. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart, you said:”Keynsianism fails for many of the same reasons socialism fails:”Interestingly, the reasons you give for possible failures of Keynesian policy have nothing to do with the reasons socialism fails. But that’s a topic for another day.”1) governments do not create wealth, they can only take it from Peter and give it to Paul after removing a cut for the bureaucracy.”This is demonstrably wrong on several fronts:As we discussed previously, government has proven repeatedly to be capable of investing money more effectively than private industry.Keynesian policy is intended to get money moving when private industry is unwilling to do so on its own. Therefore, by definition, there will be more economic activity during a recession with Keynesian countercyclical activity than without.Money that you call the “cut for bureaucracy” doesn’t go in a black hole, never to be seen again. It goes to pay people, who buy goods and services.Incidentally, what is your definition of wealth? I ask because I don’t think your definition matches that of economists.”2) governments are utterly incapable of matching the private sector unlocking the most efficient use of capital. The private sector is concerned with ROI, the government is concerned with satisfying political objectives. See ARRA.”While it’s true that the goals of the two differ, this doesn’t make your first statement true. I have repeatedly provided concrete evidence of government investments that unlocked capital on a scale rarely seen in the private sector.More importantly, as I stated before, the only way for this statement to be true:”governments are utterly incapable of matching the private sector unlocking the most efficient use of capital”…you must mean that the worst private sector investment has performed better than the best government investment.Do you still stand behind that statement?”3) Supply and not demand drives economic recoveries.”This is demonstrably false. We have an economy with excess supply and insufficient demand (I can show you the evidence if you doubt me). When that occurs, you have recessions. Always. An economy with insufficient supply and excess demand creates an overheated economy. Again, always.If you want to improve the economy, you either take supply out (which will slowly improve it) or you put demand in (which will more quickly improve it). This is not rocket science.”While there are no jobs, people save the cash the government gives them. See the ARRA payments used to reduce the debt percentage.”This is true to a degree. For people who have income in excess of basic expenditure needs, they will put the excess into savings or debt reduction. This is why it is better to have the money go to infrastructure projects than to welfare payments, ceteris paribus. So you try to ensure that welfare payments go to people who are otherwise in fiscal deficits.More in the next comment

  154. Todd Dugdale says:

    I’m in MN, too, and the recount is going to be horrible. We’ve already seen Tony Sutton screaming and making threats. He seems to think that a recount is a WWF cage match.The election is probably going to live on until January, and MN is going to have national attention. The irony is that Pawlenty vetoed the electoral process reforms that would have made the recount nearly painless.I’m particularly interested to see what happens to the all of the rage from the Right. If it dissipates, it will be hard to re-establish in 2012.

  155. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart, part two:I agree that the ARRA could have targeted cash injections into the economy somewhat better than it did, particularly in the area of the tax credit. This is not an area in which we differ.Where we differ is that you seem to believe that no amount of targeting could have made it good enough. I don’t believe that. But that’s a judgement call, so there’s no point in discussing it further.”4) To the extent the government invests in an area, it crowds out the private sector.”And, assuming that there is private sector investment potential in that area, Keynesian economic policy dictates that government should stay out of it.So, in fact, on this point you agree with Keynesian economic policy.So, now that I have rebutted all four of your points, the ball is in your court.First, explain the holes in my argument rebutting your first point.Second, provide your definition of “wealth.”Third, show me where the current economy is not supply rich and demand poor. I’ll be happy to provide as much evidence as necessary to show that the current economy is supply rich and demand poor.Fourth, do you still stand behind the assertion that the worst private sector investment has performed better than the best government investment?Finally, explain the mechanism by which supply drives an economic recovery.

  156. Michael Weiss says:

    I agree with many of the others here. There will be much to talk about in the coming months.Lord knows, I have plenty to say, and hope to get some deeper policy discussions going. It’s far more interesting to me than the polling horse race, frankly.

  157. shiloh says:

    @rvThe GOP gains in the state houses are not to underestimated. It is from here future House and Senators can be found.~~~~~True, but many Reps/Dems keep sayin’ the economy will slowly recover or not recover at all for some time, so as “we” found out in this election for many Dems, incumbency was a hindrance, not a help. Just like 2006/2008 was an anomaly for the Dems ~ 2010 was an anomaly for Reps. And if the next election is a high turnout Dem wave election, as Dems have reached their low ebb in Congress = little less than 200 and “we the people” finally figure out Reps are all about big business and keeping the rich wealthy. OK, that will probably never happen lol.Things change quickly in politics, just ask Hillary and Martha Coakley, btw Coakley won re-election on Tuesday in a Massachusetts statewide landslide in a very bad year for Dems otherwise. And oh Colorado was also a very good state for the Dems, eh Bartles.This is the real reason Bartles would take a break, as he needs time to reconcile his CO winger disappointment in an otherwise great year for Reps.Again, the yin and yang.And John Boehner is now the face of the Rep party.Let me repeat, incoherent, cry me a river, play golf in Scotland on the taxpayer’s dime, helped cover up for a child molester, Mark Foley ~ on a good day, is drunk after lunchtime yada yada yada is the new face of the Rep party.hmm, Reps can’t demonize Nancy Pelosi anymore ~ Oh the humanity!>It will be interesting to see how many those newly elected Rep governors lower their states unemployment w/no help from the federal govt. Indeed, maybe secession would be their best option. ;)>>>Yea Bartles, there’s plenty to discuss, but if you want to check out, it’s a free country! πŸ™‚ … but as Don Henley will tell ‘ya, You can check out, but you can never leave!Yea, Bartles must really be depressed ’cause Dow is up 194 today and normally Bart would be barting the reason being the Rep takeover of the House or some such nonsense.ok, Obama didn’t give a speech today, so the Dow is up! ;)and just a passing thought, Obama is still president! πŸ™‚ and Bartles has nothin’ to talk about. Bart you’re lying! ;)>>>Did I mention John Boehner is now the face of the new and improved Rep party, good luck w/that …>Mentioned at Joker’s after the 2006 election, most of the intelligent Rep posters left the political forum and after the 2008 election, they all left, but, but, but after 2004, y’all remember 2004, when clueless John Kerry was ahead by about (2) pts. most of 2004 and still managed to grasp defeat from the Jaws of Victory, because he was a god awful candidate! etc. Well after the election, many conservatives took a couple mos. off from the political forum just to gloat and then most slowly returned. 2005 was not-stop, scorched earth debating re: cheney/bush’s Iraq War, go figure.Getting close to 3,000 characters as the crowd cheers …take care Bartles

  158. Todd Dugdale says:

    Seconded. It might be smart to use a little propaganda of our own, though.I think the Left should spend the next two years screaming “Where are the jobs?”. “Jobs” was the magic word a lot of Republicans used to win. They also avoided any specifics. If there’s one thing everyone should have learned from this election, it’s that swing voters respect results. I don’t think any of these Republicans have ideas about creating jobs. They are merely concerned with poaching jobs from one part of the country to another in a race to the bottom – and that’s at best. At worst, it’s just about lowering wages and worker protections for the jobs that are already there. But if the Right spends two years in impeachment hearings and witch hunts instead of dealing with the economy, they will lose the swing voters.

  159. mclever says:

    Michael,And if you continue making such informative, discussion-worthy posts, why, I may be forced to keep coming back to read them! And occasionally comment or question when I feel I can add something…:-)

  160. marc miwerdz says:

    Paging Dr. Dean~~stat~~Dr. Dean?__BTW congrats for banning MR not only for his profanity but for his narcissistic attempts to “hijack another thread”

  161. shortchain says:

    Todd,I think the Republicans have very definite ideas about job creation. They, like Bart, believe in the magic of the tax cut and deregulation fairies. Cut taxes and eliminate regulation, and we’ll all have jobs. That is, all of us except those people who have been raised to live on welfare and have no skills.Yes, that’s an idiotic belief — and completely unsupported by any evidence that would convince anyone with half a brain who actually studied the issue with an open mind and attention to history — but that’s the only one they have. My bet is that they’ll run with it.The fact that this idiotic plan happens to be in line with the dreams of the very wealthy, namely to transfer even more of the wealth from everybody else to them, means they will not suffer for espousing this plan, politically.What I’m wondering is how the teabaggers are going to hold their representative’s feet to the fire without the organization power of Fox News and without the backing of the Koch brothers. I’m taking bets right now that the teabaggers, already more fragmented than a bird-struck windhield, will simply fall apart into tiny little angry pieces and be left to mumble to themselves out in the cold.

  162. Bart DePalma says:

    Michael and other economics junkies here like me might enjoy these two videos of rapping Hayek and Keynes debating stimulus.http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252486/keynes-v-hayek-rematch-jonah-goldberg

  163. Mr. U says:

    Yes, I’ve been hangikng upside down in the closet for several hours. I also am having internet issues at home. I’ll post Fili’s article when I get to work. Can’t do it from the Droid.

  164. shrinkers says:

    @shilohAnd if the next election is a high turnout Dem wave election…This seems likely, since 29 million people who voted for Obama in 2008 stayed home on Tuesday. If they vote in 2012 (and there is every reason to think they will) it will be another massive Democratic victory.

  165. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart,”Michael and other economics junkies here like me might enjoy these two videos of rapping Hayek and Keynes debating stimulus.”Not all that amusing to me. It misses the point entirely.Incidentally, I’m really surprised you consider yourself to be an economics junkie, given how weak you are on the fundamentals.

  166. Mainer says:

    Todd you are so right. We have lost an awful lot of jobs up here in the land of cold, blackflies and lubster…..problem is most of them didn’t go out of country they went to the Confederate States of UnAmerica. Saddly our workers don’t get additional benefits or training when that happens so in a total bit or irony we are better off when victims of China than when we are when beggared by say North Carolina.Also I am sick to death of every one catering to certain groups of voters that don’t really have a clue what is going on. Classic case in point. My state is not rich, we have areas that are dirt poor, rural and going down one notch at a time. We had multiple candidates running for govonor. two Indies were not running with the pack but one of them had some pretty good ideas….hmmmm the rural poor areas didn’t even seem to realize they were in the race. The Democrat in normal times would have run the Republican into the ground and she had some ideas that had merrit but she finished a distant 3rd and got next to nothing in the poor rural areas. Then we had an Independent candidate that had ideas that could work, ways to rein in our state gov costs and revitalize education and our manufacturing base and export potential in all areas of the state including the rural poor areas and we had a Republican teaper….no ideas other than to slash taxes when we already can’t balance the budget, cut government services, transportation, environmental controls and social safety nets……you know the stuff the really rural really poor sections of our state either have or finish their dodo bird walk……..yup the areas most in need of government services, new jobs and present safety nets went all in for the social conservative teaper that brags about wanting to be able to tell Obama and the Federal government to go to hell. We have some areas of the state this week that may have a hard time finding friends in the rest of the state any more because the rest of the state is showing signs of resentment that people most in need are more interested in God, Guns and gays and telling that black SOB in Washington off than they are in improving their lot in life.All we have nationally is this situation writ large. There is an answer to this some where but I’m not sure progressives are going to like the sound or the smell of how we are going to have to go abot this.

  167. shiloh says:

    Bartles, good news!Rome Adventure is on TCM today at 3:30. Go home, set your DVR and watch it later w/the wife! :)solo estoy diciendobtw, Angie Dickinson was a babe, Suzanne too …>hmm, 538 doesn’t have to be all about politics as Nate talked about sports, the Olympics, food … not that any of us would ever change the subject.How ’bout an O/T forum, ok, ok, Reps never go O/T ;)Did I mention John Boehner is now the face of the Rep party and Angie Dickinson was a babe!>and speaking of MR, he’s currently feverishly trying to change his static IP, which isn’t all that difficult and coming up w/a new and exciting nom de plume. But alas, a leopard can’t change his spots er shots er shilohbuster …

  168. shortchain says:

    Here’s another prediction: the desire, so often expressed, on the part of the teabaggers, and their GOP co-travelers, that the WH “compromise” with the GOP, will vanish instantly.While Bart is still here, perhaps he could clarify now what “compromise” on extending (or not) the Bush tax cuts would be acceptable.Let’s hear it, Bart. All or nothing (quelle compromise!), or for those making less than 250K?

  169. Todd Dugdale says:

    I think the Republicans have very definite ideas about job creation. They, like Bart, believe in the magic of the tax cut and deregulation fairies. Cut taxes and eliminate regulation, and we’ll all have jobs. That is, all of us except those people who have been raised to live on welfare and have no skills.“Agreed. But the reality is that this approach only leads to the same number of jobs, only with lower wages, no security, and no worker protections. No employer is going to hire two people to do one job, even if the wage is cut in half.What is going on right now? Any job openings are filled by temporaries, who work with no benefits and no security. And we aren’t seeing unemployment go down. It’s a lateral move. That isn’t job creation; it’s just a shift in existing jobs.We already have the conservative dream option in place. Hire temporaries. And it’s not “creating” jobs. “What I’m wondering is how the teabaggers are going to hold their representative’s feet to the fire without the organization power of Fox News and without the backing of the Koch brothers.“Me too. Their only real power is in Party primaries, and those are a long way off. Their influence is over-rated, IMHO. This election was about independents frustrated with a bad economy, not about the base. The Tea Party bozos will give the Republicans a free pass; we all know this.Just like the evangelicals, the Tea Party is another demographic that the Republicans pay lip service to, but ultimately do nothing for. The difference now is that the Party organisation is marginalised. It is more vulnerable now to fringe elements taking control than ever. The Republican primaries will be very interesting.

  170. Michael Weiss says:

    Todd Dugdale, you said:”No employer is going to hire two people to do one job, even if the wage is cut in half.”No, but if an employer can get labor at a lower cost, then the marginal cost of providing more goods and/or services drops. This allows the business to offer the goods/services at a lower price, which, assuming a fairly elastic demand curve, would potentially support the additional job.

  171. Mainer says:

    The trouble is Mike that the appearance seems to be that even while industry is squeezing every last drop of productivity out of the work force and demanding concessions to drop over head that is isn’t much being passed along to the consumer in the form of lower prices but piled on the bottom line to be hoarded or larded onto management bonus structure. I keep saying that we used to have people running manufacturing in this country that knew how to make stuff, build plants, develope whole new products, not any more. Now what is left of manufacturing in this country is owned and run by bankers, capital groups and lawyers. These people don’t want to make stuff they want to make money, maybe sell stuff if they have to but make stuff, Y U K that requires spending money and having yuky workers and all that not fun stuff. Oh and they do not like to take risks unless it is with some one eleses money or is a sure thing with all the rules and regs stacked in their favor. So right now they buy what products they have to, treat what workers they have left like peons and sit on trillions waiting for the next sure thing. There will be no return of manufacturing in this country and what other business there is will be taken own and gutted one after another until there is nothing left and the rich move on to greener pastures.

  172. Todd Dugdale says:

    That’s pretty much what I see here in MN. If you look at Emmer’s positions, he is largely saying “screw the rural parts of the State”, at least as far as infrastructure and jobs go. For the rural (and exurban) areas, it’s a “way of life” issue, and social conservatism appeals to them. It’s not about “socialism” or any other Tea Party rhetoric. They want things to stay the same, which is unrealistic.At least here in MN, the rural population doesn’t really want good education. If they had it, the young people would move away for better opportunities. They do want “jobs”, but only certain kinds of jobs, and only certain kinds of employers. Nobody who has a lot of unskilled jobs is going to locate in the middle of nowhere. And the owners of such a company would have to be the right sort of people (i.e. conservative evangelical). And the lousy transportation infrastructure can’t be an issue for the putative job creator. And they can’t bring in a lot of “city folk” to manage such an operation, of course. Tourism is out, too, because it just brings in decadent city dwellers.Aside from all of that, they really want “jobs”. It’s magical thinking.The big underlying issue is that it’s not the 1950’s anymore, and they sense that. They desperately want things that they can’t have: to freeze the clock, and to have ideal jobs. This makes them vulnerable to the magical appeals of the Republicans.

  173. shrinkers says:

    Mainer.Yes. You’ve got it. Which is why I laugh when I hear people say we should elect Congresspeople and Presidents who will “run the country like a business.” Oh? You want someone who will take all the profit for himself, starve the workers, ship all our jobs overseas, then carve up the country and sell it for more profit, leaving all the citizens to fend for themselves? Drive the nation out of business and retire with a multi-billion-dollar golden parachute? No thanks.Bush/Cheney tried that. Notice the economy tanked just as they were on the way out the door. Similar to many another American CEO.No thanks. I don’t want someone who will run the country like a business. I want someone who will govern America like a country.

  174. Todd Dugdale says:

    This allows the business to offer the goods/services at a lower price, which, assuming a fairly elastic demand curve, would potentially support the additional job.“As someone who has worked in manufacturing for twenty years, I have never seen that happen. There is always someone willing to undercut you to get the work, or any short-term gains go to the management.That’s the basis for contract manufacturing, really. And off-shoring, of course. It only works in a vacuum. If Employer A can get workers for a lower wage, then so can Employer B. The price advantage disappears quite quickly.Services are different, to a certain degree, because you can’t off-shore a plumber. However, if a local plumber cuts his labour cost and his price, one of two things will happen in the real world: others will match his price, or his customers will wait a long time for service (because he’s now swamped). If and when he does hire additional help, he is most likely just hiring from his competitor, who has had to lay off workers. Again, it’s a lateral move. No new jobs are created; they are just shifted around.

  175. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “Michael and other economics junkies here like me might enjoy these two videos of rapping Hayek and Keynes debating stimulus.”Michael Weiss wrote: “Not all that amusing to me. It misses the point entirely.”:::rolls eyes::: What a grump. MW: “Incidentally, I’m really surprised you consider yourself to be an economics junkie, given how weak you are on the fundamentals.”:::chuckle::: You can lead a Keynesian to water, but you can’t make him drink deep of reality.My first impulse was to offer a similarly snotty response post discussing various b_tch slappings delivered her on the topic, but then I remembered my promise to Fili to be nice.I will simply note that Keynesianism is now 0-3 in the United States – New Deal, stagflation and now the Porkulus.Among serious economists who do not use Keynesianism as a fig leaf to promote their desired expansion of government, what was left of the theory’s credibility after late 70s and early 80s stagflation and monetarism was finished off by the Porkulus.Among a supermajority of voters, the question is no longer even close. In the fresh exit polls, a third of voters think that Obama’s record setting Keynesian adventure damaged the economy and another third simply believe it was a useless waste of nearly a trillion dollars of debt.

  176. GROG says:

    @shrinkers,You’re saying that all businesses run their business like you described above. You made a sweeping generalization that businesses “will take all the profit for himself, starve the workers, ship all our jobs overseas, then carve up the country and sell it for more profit, leaving all the citizens to fend for themselves? Drive the nation out of business and retire with a multi-billion-dollar golden parachute?”So are you in favor of the Fed Governmnet seizing control of all businesses in the U.S.? Do you think the government can essentially run the private sector more efficiently and honestly than businesses do? Why should we let people have the freedom to own a business if they’re going to behave the way you describe? My grandparents started a business in 1947 and it continues to thrive 63 years later. It has never done anything like you described above. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575477661420876100.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  177. GROG says:

    @Michael Weiss,The WSJ link above was intended for you. I was interested in what you thought of the article concerning the Keynesian economics and Obama’s policies.

  178. Todd Dugdale says:

    I keep saying that we used to have people running manufacturing in this country that knew how to make stuff, build plants, develop whole new products, not any more. Now what is left of manufacturing in this country is owned and run by bankers, capital groups and lawyers. These people don’t want to make stuff they want to make money,” What you said. Yes. Creating jobs is something that only happens as a last resort. Management views hiring more people as a failure on their part. They are punished for it.

  179. GROG says:

    Management views hiring more people as a failure on their part. They are punished for it.Not in my business. There is nothing more we would like to see than our sales increasing to the point that we need to hire people.

  180. Michael Weiss says:

    Todd Dugdale, you said:”If Employer A can get workers for a lower wage, then so can Employer B. The price advantage disappears quite quickly.”You’re thinking about competition over the share of the pie. I was talking about increasing the size of the pie.Note that I said “assuming a fairly elastic demand curve” in my comment. For inelastic demand, you are correct that you’re only talking about share of the pie, and this causes a race to the bottom. For elastic demand, the calculus is more complex, because a lower price translates to a higher demand.”… if a local plumber cuts his labour cost and his price, one of two things will happen in the real world: others will match his price, or his customers will wait a long time for service (because he’s now swamped).”And, for many plumbing services, demand is inelastic. If your basement is flooding, you’re not really very price sensitive. On the other hand, for plumbing services in construction, the view is a little different. Demand is more elastic (though dependent upon several other business sectors like electricians, carpenters, etc.), and more dependent upon free capital.So, yes, some scenarios produce the outcome you described. Other produce the outcome I described.The all-or-nothing positions in these debates need to stop.

  181. Mainer says:

    No GROG most legit small business does not do that. But unfortunatly it appears that much of what would pass as large business has,does and will. You skipped my major requirement for this to happen, that to be that the business be owned and or operated by bankers, capital groups or lawyers. Local or even regional family owned firms have a much better track record on this up until they sell to some bigger out fit and then it seems to generally be gut and run from then on. Hats off to your family for being that exception.No GROG I don’t think any of us want the government running business. Hell even the Rusians and China have figured that one out….well to a point any way. Maybe a better way to say it would be to ask when some one wants to run the governmnet like a business “which business and which business leaders?”What gauls me is this fake insistance that raising the tax rate on those over 250,000 bracket is some how going to crush small business. I have talked to small business owners all arounf my area, many of the owners are friends or old classmates, and they don’t buy it. Just because a business is a subchapter S does not make them small. I would wager that your family firm is an S or sole propritorship. I would not be surprised that they have had some of the same employees or family groups working for the mfor much of their existence. I’m betting they value their work force. Large industry in this country today is just the opposite. Their labor is just a cost and a problem all the better to be reduced or eliminated. Just an odd aside but has any one else noted how CEO’s claim they do all the cut throat things they do because they owe it to the stock holders and how they have to answer to the stock holders and then do every thing possible to not listen to or heed the stock holders but just the board that they are in bed with? Just seems like an odd disconnect.

  182. shrinkers says:

    @BartIt does not escape anyone that you failed to address a single point Michael made, or answer a single question he asked. Instead, you provided your unsupported opinion about past events, and resorted to elections results in an illogical attempt to supply the opinion of non-economists regarding economic theory.Do you have any actual answers to the question or points Michael raised? Or just sidestepping tapdances and irrelevant asides?

  183. shortchain says:

    It’s nice to hear that, in GROG’s demesne, they treat the peasants well.As a former wage-slave to a large corporation with a very short name (actually, several), Todd is far more correct about the attitude in corporate America. And, when somebody does have to be hired, HR is there to make sure that person carries the minimum cost to the company.Small businesses, of course, cannot afford an HR department, but, without one, they’ll never become big businesses. It’s a quandary.I love the WSJ pushing the tax cuts for corporate R&D. One company I worked for cut its R&D and laid off a bunch of scientists and research engineers — but they kept their R&D spending at the same level, on their books, by reclassifying their acquisitions department as “R&D” — and I’m willing to bet that, if they do get a tax cut for corporate R&D, it will mean us taxpayers will be paying for their acquisitions department.Imagine me tugging my forelock in your direction, your lordships.

  184. Michael Weiss says:

    Bart, you said:”What a grump.”Fine. Call me what you like, but I don’t enjoy most forms of proselytizing masquerading as humor. Jon Stewart and SNL (sometimes) are rare exceptions, but that’s mostly because they have genuine talent in the humor side.”My first impulse was to offer a similarly snotty response post discussing various b_tch slappings delivered her on the topic…”Go for it. I gave you five targeted points to respond to, and you have chosen instead to deflect to a video that plays reducio ad absurdum with economic policy. That hardly helps your credibility.”Among serious economists who do not use Keynesianism as a fig leaf to promote their desired expansion of government, what was left of the theory’s credibility after late 70s and early 80s stagflation and monetarism was finished off by the ARRA.”That Keynesian theory has been poorly used as an excuse for various policies that are at odds with the intent does not disprove the theory. People use good ideas as excuses for bad implementations all the time. The fact that a drill makes a pretty bad hammer doesn’t mean that the drill isn’t a good tool.”Among a supermajority of voters, the question is no longer even close.”What’s remarkable in that statement is that you are either implying that a supermajority of voters are economists, or that one doesn’t have to be an economist to understand economics. Or are you trying to say something else entirely? If so, please make it clearer.”In the fresh exit polls, a third of voters think that Obama’s record setting Keynesian adventure damaged the economy and another third simply believe it was a useless waste of nearly a trillion dollars of debt.”Really? If it were possible to prove one way or the other, I’d easily bet you a grand that less than a third of voters could even explain what Keynesian economic policy is. So this is a poll I’ve got to see. Please provide the data.Oh, and don’t forget the other five questions above, either.

  185. Gainsbourg says:

    Mainer:”A good friend called earlier quite ticked off as a couple of his employees had been in asking how long he thought it would take before they would be seeing additional money in their pay. He had no idea what they were talking about but was informed that as they had just helped elect Republicans in place of spendthrift Democrats it shouldn’t take long before they would be seeing more take home pay. I suspect my staunch Democrat friend will be seeing a little more in his take home just as soon as he cans those two nitwits.”Your friend should’ve told them that their pay would drop because producers need money in order to invest in these hard times. And that since they’re not producers they need to make a sacrifice for the good of the free market. Hillarious anecdotes, by the way. You sound like a real cool person.

  186. shrinkers says:

    @GROGDo you think the government can essentially run the private sector more efficiently and honestly than businesses do?I think in some areas businesses can be more efficient and honest, and in some areas government can be. Do you disagree?If you agree that private interests are better at some things, and government is better at others, then the disagreement is merely on where the dividing line is.No purpose is served by either side pretending the other has no dividing line. The question is only about where to draw it, and whether it is a razor-sharp divider, or a flexible membrane that adjusts to circumstances.I still prefer a government to function as a government rather than as a business. The interests of governance and of profit are not the same, and we should not pretend they are.

  187. Todd Dugdale says:

    BDP wrote:”Among serious economists who do not use Keynesianism as a fig leaf to promote their desired expansion of government, what was left of the theory’s credibility after late 70s and early 80s stagflation and monetarism was finished off by the Porkulus.“Translation: all of the economists who reject Keynesian economics think Keynesian economics don’t work.Brilliant.

  188. GROG says:

    I think in some areas businesses can be more efficient and honestThat’s not what you said ealier. You said businesses starve workers, ship jobs overseas………etc. I think government should be completely out of the business of business. When people say gov’t should be run like a business, they’re talking about making sure you don’t spend money you don’t have, running up debt that will be impossible to ever pay back, making sure revenues exceed expenditures. Basic things like that. Our government no longer does that. They are not incented or motivated by profit or even break even. They’re incented by votes, and that often means they must spend money they don’t have and run up unsustainable amounts of debt and deficits.

  189. GROG says:

    @Todd,History tells us Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Not economists.

  190. Michael Weiss says:

    GROG,I read the WSJ editorial. It is fundamentally wrong about the following:1) It wasn’t over $1T. Funny how it started out being $720B, which was rounded to $1T, and how it’s over $1T.2) They said “Mr. Obama’s economic policies to date have been based on the belief that government can drive growth by handing out checks to consumers…”The money handed to consumers was in two parts. The first was the tax credit, which was more intended to fulfill a campaign promise than to improve the economy. The second was defensive spending, to stop the death spiral of people going into bankruptcy.Neither of those were intended to drive growth. That they didn’t drive growth, therefore, should come as no surprise. I don’t know a what point they were sold as driving growth. The only time I remember hearing Obama talk about it was at the bipartisan roundtable, where he was clear about the defensive nature of that money. I’m sure he’s said other things at other times, I just don’t know what they are.3) They say “investment will be greater and growth will be faster with a permanent reduction in the tax penalty on capital that will permanently increase the value of that capital.”No doubt. But these tax breaks aren’t free. They cut government revenue, which increases the debt. So you do it only as long as you have to. This, by the way, is the rarely-mentioned flip side to Keynesian policy…that the countercyclical approach means putting the brakes on when the economy heats up.4) “He [Obama] wants to cut taxes on capital because he says the economy needs the stimulus, even as he wants to raise other taxes on capital that he says won’t hurt growth. Huh?”This is an old chestnut that few people bother to question. The other “taxes on capital” in question are not actually business taxes at all. They are personal income taxes and capital gains taxes. Raising those from the current level, especially as a means of providing corresponding tax breaks to the actual businesses, is net stimulative. I’m already well over 2000 characters, so I won’t go into detail here as to how that is, but I can do so later if desired.

  191. shiloh says:

    Shocking Bart would deflect to reducio ad absurdum as usually his distractions are your basic utter nonsense! ;)solo estoy diciendo

  192. Michael Weiss says:

    GROG, you said:”History tells us Keynesian economics doesn’t work.”Except that it doesn’t. The amount spent on getting out of the Great Depression was well over three times the amount spent on getting out of the Great Recession. Keynesian countercyclical policy requires a huge amount of expenditure in a severely depressed economy.

  193. mclever says:

    @shrinkers: “The interests of governance and of profit are not the same, and we should not pretend they are.”Indeed. Well said.

  194. shrinkers says:

    @GROG, You failed to answer what I asked. Do you feel that government is better at some things, and business is better at others?”I think government should be completely out of the business of business.”I mostly agree. My major point is that we disagree merely on where the dividing line is. Perhaps you mean something slightly different by “business” than I do; that is certainly a reasonable discussion to have. Should layout out highways be in the area of government or business? Should fire departments be run as for-profit businesses? Should we hire mercenaries or rely on a publicly-funded armed forces under command of a government official? And so on.I also would not say government should be “completely” out of business, because government surely has a legitimate role in such things as safety regulations, anti-trust laws, contract litigation, product liability, and so on. The FCC serves a purpose. So does the FAA.Some schools are run for-profit, thus proving that education can be run as a business. Should government get out of the business of public education, or is there a place for both public and private schools?The simplistic statement that “government should be completely out of the business of business” ignores the reality of the word we live in. Reality is not simplistic.

  195. mclever says:

    To those so worried about government debt and deficits, I just gotta ask:Did you buy your house without a mortgage?

  196. Michael Weiss says:

    mclever, you said:”To those so worried about government debt and deficits, I just gotta ask:Did you buy your house without a mortgage?”This is the crux of the investment portion of “Re-ARRA-nging the Economy.” The problem is that our government is not only going into debt for things like houses, but also for things like dinner at a restaurant. The former is good use of debt; the latter isn’t.

  197. Todd Dugdale says:

    So, yes, some scenarios produce the outcome you described. Other produce the outcome I described.The all-or-nothing positions in these debates need to stop.“Sure, I’ll concede that it could happen. It’s not all-or-nothing. I’m looking at what is likely to happen, however, and basing it on my experience. Productivity has greatly increased, and real wages have stagnated or decreased, depending on the sector. This hasn’t led to big increases in employment. In theory, it could. But it hasn’t. Undoubtedly, there are isolated cases where it has, but in the “big picture” declining wages have really just led to declining wages, and not to more jobs. One party of the labour/management compact is not fulfilling their end of the bargain, it seems to me. Some people are saying that, in order to rectify this, we must have more faith in the party that has failed to live up to their end of the compact.Can we agree on that?

  198. GROG says:

    @MW,Thanks for your response. We can debate endlessly on whether Keynesian econ got us out of the Great Depression or if it extended far, far longer than it should have. History shows that this country had severe depressions before the 1930’s which were dealt with with little government intervention. We don’t hear about them because they didn’t last very long.

  199. Michael Weiss says:

    Todd Dugdale, you said:”Productivity has greatly increased, and real wages have stagnated or decreased, depending on the sector. This hasn’t led to big increases in employment.”No, it hasn’t. Increased efficiency only translates to more employment when the change that caused the efficiency increase doesn’t, in and of itself, come from elimination of labor. The efficiency increases we’ve seen in the past two decades have mostly been from either automation or shifting human labor to lower-wage markets.The wage reductions that would have come from automation in the 1990s was offset by the increase in economic activity spurred by the new economic frontier of the Internet.There was a smaller, though still economically important, version of this with “Web 2.0” (i.e., social online applications) and the ability to feasibly do these things with mobile phones. Because this one was smaller, it had less of a countering effect to the forces driving wages down.What’s interesting (if you look at it dispassionately) is that this has actually led to many more jobs. It’s just that they’re mostly in China and India.

  200. shiloh says:

    (2) HP headlines that made me πŸ™‚Sarah Palin Complains About Invasion Of Privacy On First Episode Of Her Reality TV ShowDems Who Voted Against Unemployment Benefits Soon To Be Unemployedcarry on

  201. shrinkers says:

    I posted this to the wrong thread. Please excuse the double-posting (bad shrinkers, bad bad bad…)@Michael -I don’t think Bart will respond to your economic points. I think it’s telling to see what response he did have — deferring to a piece of alleged “humor” and citing election statistics. As we’ve stated, many people on the right are concerned more about elections than they are about policy.That his soundbites make good election-time advertising jingles, but very bad policy, is not a bug, but a feature. The bad policy means, if followed, the problems continue, and thus the advertising gimmick can be used for yet another election cycle. None of which requires any actual comprehension of economic theory.I am also beginning to suspect that many people on the right take serious and legitimate questions as being snarky comebacks that don’t actually require a response. I don’t think they like having their talking points examined, since these are accepted as truths beyond rational thought.So when you ask something like, “What is your definition of wealth?” or “Can you dispute the points I made?” or “explain the mechanism by which supply drives an economic recovery,” all Bart hears is “Neener, neener. neener!” because he really isn’t capable of examining the dogma lying beneath his talking points.

  202. shrinkers says:

    LOL!

  203. shortchain says:

    Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to appear stupid in the eyes of those with even a modest knowledge of it.

  204. shrinkers says:

    @GROGOur government no longer does that. They are not incented or motivated by profit or even break even. They’re incented by votes,I gave this statement some thought. You’re right, that too many elected officials are motivated by votes. I agree, that is a Very Bad Thing.But I feel they also should not be motivated by “profit or even break even.” They should be motivated by what’s good for the country. As I said before, business motive is not the same as good governance. Sometimes those interests run in parallel; but oftentimes, not.Our government should be run in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It should not be run as a business.

  205. shortchain says:

    Neither Bart nor Grog ever answer questions whose answers would reflect badly on their faith, let alone ask themselves questions of that sort.Their attitude is “all that is important is known.” A pleasant attitude, for late-imperial times.

  206. Michael Weiss says:

    GROG, you said:”History shows that this country had severe depressions before the 1930’s which were dealt with with little government intervention. We don’t hear about them because they didn’t last very long.”The second statement is mostly true, though there are many other reasons we don’t hear about them. Among the reasons: they were frequent and of similar names, so they’re hard to keep straight; they were dwarfed by the Great Depression, so they seem less important in comparison; they happened to people who are now dead, so we have lost the “immediacy” factor.As to your first sentence, it all depends on what you mean by “little” government intervention. The Panic of 1857 was combated with the stimulative effect of government deficit spending, for example. The Panics of 1884 and 1890 were addressed with bank bailouts. Even the Panic of 1907 had a lot of government involvement in addressing it.

  207. Todd Dugdale says:

    MW wrote:”What’s interesting (if you look at it dispassionately) is that this has actually led to many more jobs. It’s just that they’re mostly in China and India.“Okay, I see your point more clearly now. “The efficiency increases we’ve seen in the past two decades have mostly been from either automation or shifting human labor to lower-wage markets.“Still, it hardly supports the conservative idea that “unfettering” business will create jobs. Unless those jobs are building robots or workers are willing to move to India, it seems that business is quite unfettered already.

  208. Michael Weiss says:

    Todd, you said:”Still, it hardly supports the conservative idea that ‘unfettering’ business will create jobs.”It’s just that some regulations do, in fact push industry elsewhere. So it’s not a pure correlation between the two. Some business tax cuts, and some deregulation, will improve employment. But not all cases. Just as some income tax cuts will improve consumer spending. But not all cases.It would be so much easier to live in a black-and-white world, wouldn’t it?

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