The Duhbate: Segment That's Number #2 - BFG edition

[Ed Oscuro]

I heard something interesting on the radio re the "currency manipulator" labeling promise from Romney: Apparently Obama made this pledge during his first campaign, as did Kerry and Bush. Going back to 1994 none of the Presidents have done this for reasons that must be clear even to the candidates - at the same time that everybody tacitly admits that China does manipulate their currency. Who is a bigger currency manipulator? Japan, for one. Israel is another, as is Libya, as is Taiwan. Basically a who's who of people we love about the world

It sure looks like the more moderate Romney some people were hoping for is - and this shouldn't have been a surprise to me - finally appearing. However, how we got here - with a candidate who has been almost singularly resistant to trusting the American people to digest a set of actual plans - still offends me. As do the implications from the rhetoric flying around Washington. It would be interesting to see how a President Romney would tee off against fiscal conservatives in his own party (and even on his own ticket, if you count Paul Ryan, as you probably should) but in a kind of horrified, can't-take-my-eyes-off-this-wreck kind of way.

One other boil-your-knickers kind of moment: Check out the list of companies that are ditching President Obama with heavily Republican-slanted campaign funding sprees.

The two may certainly be interrelated, and probably are, but they're distinct phenomena and disentangling the causality between the two is a sticky wicket.

Of course they're interrelated - I also agree that disentangling the causality between them (which implies a relationship) makes things unfortunately difficult. But I shouldn't diss your useful post here, as the NOMINATE scores are somewhat new to me. All I've really read on the subject is part of this book; never seem to have time to read more of it.

[Domino]

You are one of the biggest right wing hacks on the board in a country that is pretty far right. Where the fuck do you get off trying to pretend you're a centrist. You won't shut up about unions and high taxes. You've never said anything that was remotely left of Limbaugh. You're a cartoon.

Would you consider your views 'balanced'? Being dishonest and evasive about your far-right-wing politics isn't neutrality, and you aren't fooling anyone.

I bet you had dreams of physically beating up right-wingers. Don't worry, it's the perfectly normal left-wing action to do.

[Ganelon]

Details aside, a recession-era deficit reduction plan comprised entirely of cuts with zero new revenue (with the backdrop, if I may mention it, of one of the largest wealth gaps in the nation's history) is one hell of a "compromise".

Well, remember that it was all in the name of accepting the debt ceiling increase. I'd say that it was a bit tactless for Republicans to wait until that point considering there were no real alternatives by then other than to harm the reputation of US credit, but the act did drive home the point about balancing spending with cuts.

The Bush tax cuts aren't permanent because Republicans at the time didn't have the votes to make it so and haven't since. Anyway, that was just an example I used to illustrate that neither side scored a complete victory. I think I've mentioned this before but I agree that if Republicans really expect to continue the tax cuts, then they need to take responsibility for Bush 43's irresponsible spending. Get rid of the huge deficit he put the country in first and then we can talk about cutting taxes. That said, you can't blame Romney for Bush's faults.

One other boil-your-knickers kind of moment: Check out the list of companies that are ditching President Obama with heavily Republican-slanted campaign funding sprees.

Wrong link? I know big banks turned tail now that they're stable again. No good deed goes unpunished...

[Ed Oscuro]

Look further down the page toward the infobox. Terrible design, I know.

[BulletMagnet]

but the act did drive home the point about balancing spending with cuts.

That's just the thing, there was no "balancing" at all - the entire thing was cuts. Moreover, I have no idea why the Reps would have been so supposedly antsy about Obama going overboard on new revenue sources: wasn't his previous stimulus package composed almost entirely of cuts as it was? This is starting to sound like the aforementioned NRA dementia concerning Obama's supposed hostility towards gun rights, when he's treated the issue as much like a third rail as Romney has: seriously, all this crap you hear on the right about Obama being the "most radical President in our history" and whatnot, where in heaven's name are they getting this?

Anyway, that was just an example I used to illustrate that neither side scored a complete victory.

I still maintain that one side's victory was a LOT closer to "complete" than the other's, even if the former refuses to acknowledge as much. If you're selling your house and somehow allow the buyer to haggle you down to letting it go for 20 bucks, you don't say to yourself "Well, at least he didn't get it for free", and moreover don't sit there and politely listen to him when he comes back to complain that the price, on second thought, was still too high. You screwed yourself over and he was happy to let you do it, end of story.

I think I've mentioned this before but I agree that if Republicans really expect to continue the tax cuts, then they need to take responsibility for Bush 43's irresponsible spending. Get rid of the huge deficit he put the country in first and then we can talk about cutting taxes.

It'd be nice if more conservatives acknowledged this simple matter of fact...if they did, heck, we might even be able to get some of them to admit that Reagan had actual faults.

That said, you can't blame Romney for Bush's faults.

True, but you CAN blame him for taking the same course Bush did, in many respects...and in any case, conservatives have done their damndest to pin the Bush recession on Obama, which is an even greater stretch (once again, with nary a peep of protest from the rank and file...except maybe yourself, heh).

[Ed Oscuro]

Aside from the wars, I think the Presidential recession blame game is mostly misguided, for a reason Ganelon mentioned - Presidential control of the economy is very slight (it's mostly "let's see how bad I can spook investors!" Hardly what you'd call control, anyway, since it's usually the pack reacting to whatever they think they don't like). Some of what's happened with lax regulation and deregulation can be blamed on both parties. Where I think Obama (and Bush) got it obviously right is on taking strong stimulus measures (and there are the bailouts, which aren't as bad as people think). Last I knew, it seemed that Romney was still fairly clear on stimulus being a "job-killing policy." I recall Paul Ryan saying that you don't want stimulus, either.

It's a shame they didn't get into the Eurozone financial mess at all during the debates, because that could have been the most enlightening exchange, at least with respect to Mr. Romney's views. I expect Obama would have wanted to dodge making some bold assertions, but it's quite common to find economists and even political scientists who decry the austerity measures as "job-killing policies." In Europe's defense, there is a good reason - being broke - for having austerity, and another not-good-but-unavoidable reason that doesn't apply to us (the monetary union means you can't float your currency relative to everybody else's, or print money).

[mesh control]

PURE HATRED

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey Mesh, don't get all uppity, thinking you're entitled to that good climate 'n' all. This climate belongs to us, I mean, U-S!

"This is an election of great consequence" indeed. Can't have people spoiling it, bringing in these uncomfortable side issues that don't win Romney votes.

This climate change stuff reminds me of this now, for some reason...

Here is a neat list of major papers and their endorsements for President. Obama has 36 to Romney's 27, but the total circulation is over 9M in pro-Obama papers, and just under 5M for pro-Romney papers. I could've sworn it was 5.5M for Romney last night - maybe I was looking at the "no endorsement" column. It's fun to see who is and who isn't endorsing candidates you'd think would have close ties due to hometown (or religious, in the case of Salt Lake City papers) affiliation, and to see who isn't endorsing anybody at all (Christian Science Monitor isn't listed but is one of those).

Anyway, this story isn't over. Also from that site:

[CMoon]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11 ... ama-romney

This is interesting to me because you have a lot of staticians here all saying Obama is very likely to win the election on Tuesday, and the news has continued to play this up like its a close race. Is it really a close race? Has it ever been a close race? Really thought like McCain came off as a stronger contender than Romney ever did (especially before he picked such a godawful running mate.) Better to not even talk about Romney's running mate. I just wonder how much fervor has been entirely generated by the media and that Romney has had little chance of winning all this time?

[Udderdude]

It was a closer race after debate #1.

Still looks like Obama is going to take it, barring any voter machine shenanigans.

[Ed Oscuro]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11 ... ama-romney

This is interesting to me because you have a lot of staticians here all saying Obama is very likely to win the election on Tuesday, and the news has continued to play this up like its a close race. Is it really a close race? Has it ever been a close race? Really thought like McCain came off as a stronger contender than Romney ever did (especially before he picked such a godawful running mate.) Better to not even talk about Romney's running mate. I just wonder how much fervor has been entirely generated by the media and that Romney has had little chance of winning all this time?

Morning Joe vs. Nate Silver: The Bet
Erick Erickson at RedState: This Race is over

I am not gonna sleep easy...well, actually I am, but I won't feel certain about this until the returns come in and they've settled it. If I was in the Romney camp I'd be very frazzled right now. As it is, I'm hoping people don't get complacent and stay away from the polls, banking on Obama winning (come on, it's an hour or two of your time, at most, every 1460 days or so).

Just as interestingly, I think that the data on young voters shows that - if the trends hold - a lot of what's not going to be seen as politically feasible now or for a decade after this election will eventually be feasible. We have the health care legislation - for now - but we also need to work on climate change, infrastructure, and education. The will is there, but these young voters don't make up the sizable voting majority yet. It'll take more than a close Obama win to change the makeup of the House enough to change. Many Democrats running in state races would benefit from a heavily Democratic turnout as well.

[Ganelon]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11 ... ama-romney

This is interesting to me because you have a lot of staticians here all saying Obama is very likely to win the election on Tuesday, and the news has continued to play this up like its a close race. Is it really a close race? Has it ever been a close race? Really thought like McCain came off as a stronger contender than Romney ever did (especially before he picked such a godawful running mate.) Better to not even talk about Romney's running mate. I just wonder how much fervor has been entirely generated by the media and that Romney has had little chance of winning all this time?

Those predictions for an Obama win are all projections based on a number of calculated variables. The news is reporting the latest national poll results, such as the ABC/Post, Rasmussen, and Politico polls, which show a dead heat. Naturally, the news can't really push much for intuition-based mathematical models over actual surveyed data. The jury is still out on which source will ultimately prove to be a better predictor of the election.

McCain wasn't even close to Obama in pre-election polls. Obama was several points ahead of McCain for the entirety of the race, without any noticeable change after the Palin VP selection (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... ccain.html). That's why McCain was desperate enough to show up on SNL. The only aspect pundits were afraid of in 2008 was the Bradley effect subverting poll results. But now that we know the Bradley effect didn't hurt Obama at all in 2008 (he slightly outperformed polls even), pollsters have more faith that poll numbers reflect actual voter turnout today.

That said, we don't vote as America. We vote as the United States of America. As one of the forecasts mentioned, Romney could easily win or near tie in the popular vote yet still lose the electoral vote, and consequently the Presidency, by a large margin. Hence, it may be more important to take a close look at the poll results of swing states, which the projections may have already accounted for. Obama is ahead on all the electoral maps but there's plenty of error margin. The GOP is counting on more Republicans to vote (as predicted by other polls) than Democrats, which appears to be the main reason they think they can overcome the odds.

I, like most people in the US, think that Obama is going to win. I believe Romney will be better at compromising in a fairly balanced Congress but he carries a large unpredictability factor. Both are intelligent and capable candidates. For my vote, I haven't made up my mind yet and don't expect to until Tuesday. Machiavelli said it's better to quickly choose a side on all matters unless you want to be hated by each side but luckily, I'm no prince.

[Ed Oscuro]

Those predictions for an Obama win are all projections based on a number of calculated variables.

No shit?

Excuse me while I go swallow my surprise with a BITTER PILL, sir.

I believe Romney will be better at compromising in a fairly balanced Congress but he carries a large unpredictability factor.

I believe I can touch the sky. I think that at this point, unless we're talking in epistemological terms, you should have a better clue than Belief: "He could be shit, he could be great, so I'm going with I DON'T FUCKING KNOW!"

I should point out that both of Obama's races have been against so-called "mavericks;" but he also was an outsider and was able to more or less chart his own course (so it was thought). Your unceasing belief in miracles baffles me - there is literally no reason to think, especially given how far he has collapsed towards Obama's position (i.e. the third debate), that Romney is likely to shake things up in any meaningful way. "A fairly balanced Congress" must be code for "I want Romney to win so those obstructionists in his own party have to back him." But guess what - those guys signed a Pledge!

Machiavelli said it's better to quickly choose a side on all matters unless you want to be hated by each side but luckily, I'm no prince.

Romney clearly has Machiavelli beaten. Even factoring in the ways in which different formats let a person shake up their Etch-A-Sketch and redraw it to suit the audience, I think the old conniver didn't realize how damn desperate ideologues can be (from either extreme, of course) to convince themselves that a few dogwhistles (I Like Big Bird) aimed their direction prove their man's undying dedication to their most important and sacred causes.

[Ganelon]

No shit?

Well, that's why I had quoted CMoon. Don't worry, Ed; I'll be sure to undermine your intelligence next time.

But I'll bash your bloodlust now. I mentioned last time that I trust more in a person's record than his talk, did I not? For Romney, do you really want to continue the debate over what Romney's actual legislative record is? Since your opinions based on rhetoric are even less grounded on the actual facts than mine are, the the conviction behind your argument seems ironic. As you note, Romney's rhetoric is clearly meant to please every audience, so it's baffling why you choose to only cherry pick "severe conservative" from it. Debates require the opposition to attack the incumbent's stances, so they're not an open window to a candidate's mind either. Even high school debates involve people taking positions they may not actually believe in just to "win" the debate.

I put the term "I believe" there to reiterate my personal opinions. If there's no certainty there, then why try to sound so sure? You're free to have your own opinions on the candidates as long as they can't be disproved by fact. Unless there's a clear reason why my educated guess that Romney will be a moderate that has more success working across party lines is incorrect (all of which I listed reasons for earlier), then please cut the argumentation. You're free to make your own opinions on the candidates; as long as they have some basis in reality, I won't immediately jump on them because there would be nothing to prove that mine are more accurate (I suppose depending on the definition of "sky," you can touch it so I wouldn't bother there either).

EDIT: I'm not a fan of how people on either side are so quick to decide that if someone isn't with you, then they're against you. It's not just something I've noticed here but in other online groups as well. I already mentioned that I hadn't made up my mind yet folks still interpret any favorable reception of Romney as a strong Republican endorsement. I'm not so weak-willed to base my vote on factors outside the candidates themselves but if regular folks who share a common interest act in such a partisan manner, then how are politicians supposed to act?

[Ed Oscuro]

But I'll bash your bloodlust now. I mentioned last time that I trust more in a person's record than his talk, did I not? For Romney, do you really want to continue the debate over what Romney's actual legislative record is?

I don't think the gap is as you indicate. A Romney win would almost certainly be accompanied by Republican gains, or at least holding the Democrats to few gains, in the national and assorted state legislatures. I don't see those guys signing on to a "moderate Romney" legislative agenda to match his gubernatorial record. So, check off the Happenin' in an Arizona Sno-Cone's Chances box.

What would he actually accomplish? He's said that he likes whatever details of the healthcare act he's being asked about (except for the mandate, i.e. those fiddly insurance and pool coverage details that hold it together), as he should; it's essentially what he passed in Massachusetts. So I see no divergence between what he's said (recently) and what he's accomplished, with the exception that now he wants to deliver it without paying, as a 'fix' to Obama's version. Again, you would need at least majorities to undertake the first part of his plan - which would either be defunding Obama's healthcare or repealing it entirely, and the second step would be passing a Republican-lite version of the plan (even though it ain't broke).

Romney won't criticize much about the Act except the mandate, which is pretty necessary to keep the whole thing tied together. I suppose it'd be his prerogative if he wanted to just unravel the whole thing (which would lead to him rightfully taking the blame for fucking it up), but that doesn't square with actually keeping it going.

In my best analysis, I can't see anything other than that the real division lies between Romney's promises and his other promises (or, this season, I should probably just say his "face turn" and his "heel turn" since that almost captures it better; he's been very light on actual details). How he would govern would probably be Obama-lite with some dog bones thrown to convervativism, while Real Ultra Conservative Saiyans would probably spend the four years bitching about his inevitable slide away from their principles even more fiercely than Obama's critics from the left (I won't say leftist because that doesn't really fit it).

And if there's anything I'm not feeling right now, it's bloodthirsty. I am definitely not ready to celebrate anything. I'm not taking an Obama win for granted.

[Drum]

Romney is going to lose hard. Ganelon, I will bet you 100 US dollars that he loses the election. 100 bucks for what you claim is a 50/50 thing is a pretty good bet.

[Ed Oscuro]

EDIT: I'm not a fan of how people on either side are so quick to decide that if someone isn't with you, then they're against you.

See also: Victim complexes.

Look, I don't know where this is coming from - I am generally going out of my way to be friendly here, and that's my intention, although it has slipped when I see you repeating the latest mindless talking points. Excuse me if I show a bit of frustration at your willingness to enter a dialogue but only with one side of the equation in mind, and without any apparent willingness to consider that might be wrong (which, to assure you, I do myself all the time - unfortunately I am not seeing a case where somebody is carefully challenging my beliefs). It may well be that you only have been able to see this one side of the discussion, so let me do my best to illustrate what else I have seen.

A good example illustrating both your point, and mine following, is in the saga of Nate Silver (as I think was mentioned in the article I linked above).

I'm for using some logic and looking at the facts - which just happens to involve responding to claims about the facts or making an argument. If I have some fact wrong, an easy "I DON"T BELIEVE YOU!!11ONE" doesn't rebut it; it shouldn't be that hard to debunk it. Plug in something to your favorite search engine and go! Arguments aren't about making somebody feel good (or making them feel bad, for that matter). You need another fact, and if your counter-fact or debunking is based on "I believe this and it is dear to me" you haven't done much to make me believe you. Alternatively you could show the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the facts. That is probably more elaborate than we need. What we need is some high school ability to recognize which facts are relevant, and which facts aren't facts at all.

We haven't spent a lot of time talking explicitly about the traditional conservative economic plan this time around. I have my thoughts about that, but I am very willing to allow that there might be different paths to a healthy economy being put forward by both parties. This discussion hasn't been about that, as far as I can tell.

Here is a (lousy) argument about the facts: "The current polls are a better indicator about who will win than an analysis of the polls."
But guess what: "The current polls" is an ambiguous term. Do you mean this poll or that poll? Did you pick the polls you like, or did you pick a poll at random? As soon as you start to average them, you're already making use of a part of Nate Silver's methodology.

So now we have a break to a new argument: "The best way to predict who will be President is by reading whatever poll averages are current right now." I think once we start questioning other ways of predicting who will be President that don't fit in that neat box - like looking at approval rating trends for both the President and his challenger, and looking at historical approval ratings of Presidents who were and weren't elected - that simple argument for reading the poll averages today starts to look pretty shabby.

So then we just need to figure out whether this election will be totally unlike all other elections in memory, where the President loses the election despite having a much higher approval rating than Presidents who lost re-election (or election, in Ford's case), and an approval rating no lower (though near the bottom of the pack) than other Presidents who won reelection. Flip a coin. Will it be different just because we're crrrraaaaaazy people and I Had It My Way? Or should we be mature and realize that yes, trends helped Nate Silver predict the previous election with almost unerring accuracy, and it will likely do so again this time?

Silver's bet is that Obama will win, but that bet is not based on the belief "Obama must win." It's based on the belief that Obama's chances of winning are 85%.

Nate Silver uses math and arguments from probability to estimate Obama's probability of reelection at 85%. Joe Scarborough offers some platitude about "THE POLLS," tossup something or other, and then says people who use math and arguments should be banned from using the Internet until the election is over. (No, seriously.)

100 bucks for what you claim is a 50/50 thing is a pretty good bet.

Haha, you've been reading the same stuff I've been reading

That's exactly the claim Scarborough implies, and it's the claim Silver rejects. Some people had fun with weighted bets, but Joe doesn't want any part of those because he hopes that people will just flip a coin and nobody will notice.

We've seen this before - pundits go out there and they say "TOSSUP!" or "MCCAIN WINS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT" and we're supposed to forget after the election. It's shameful.

[BulletMagnet]

I believe Romney will be better at compromising in a fairly balanced Congress

Glad you mentioned this: I can't help but shake my head at the fact that, not only are Congressional Republicans openly saying "vote for Romney, because there's no way in hell any of us will ever budge an inch for the other guy", but Romney's openly adopted the line, and many ("liberal media") newspapers are basing their endorsements on it. One more time, folks: if those "radical" and "America-hating" Democrats had done anything half as brazenly, selfishly obstinate (sorry, "balanced") back during the Bush years (or any other time), would any of them not still be enduring a firestorm of criticism from all directions down to this very day?

Oh, and typing this in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy (in case anyone's curious my neck of the woods didn't make out badly in terms of damage/flooding, though the power remains out and will continue to remain out in a number of areas), I was ever-so-thrilled to read this:

Yes, Christie has forcefully avoided politicking post-Sandy -- as he noted when asked about his praise for Obama.

And he was right to do so.

But true bipartisanship includes the need to make clear his belief that the incumbent's vigorous response to the disaster would have been more than matched by Mitt Romney had he been president.

Read that last paragraph again: by saying that Obama had done a good job responding to the hurricane, Gov. Christie was NOT practicing bipartisanship: to be a TRULY bipartisan Republican you MUST take EVERY opportunity to raise your own party's profile at the expense of the opposition, no matter the context or circumstances. End of story.

THIS is the mindset that governs the leadership of contemporary conservatism, one that, once again, would get any liberal with the lack of brains and excess of brass to voice it thrown mercilessly to the wolves, and rightly so.

Anyone who still says "both sides do it equally" or "both sides need to back down" simply isn't paying attention.

[Ed Oscuro]

Wow, that's really something. Nice find BM! MediaMatters isn't a partisan group, either, so pay attention to them.

THIS is the mindset that governs the leadership of contemporary conservatism, one that, once again, would get any liberal with the lack of brains and excess of brass to voice it thrown mercilessly to the wolves, and rightly so.

A thought about this, though: There often are black sheep (not meaning to force a pun) within organizations. I think something that can be confusing or offputting to somebody is to see an assertion like this. I did say that I get the feeling that the Democrats are trying to hew more closely to the facts - official, secret Washington business aside, as that's a constant cauldron of troubles - than the Republicans, on the whole. That isn't to say there aren't outliers or outstanding examples on either side. It's possible to be more principled a Republican than the Republicans as a whole, and I daresay it's possible to be more principled than the Democrats too.

What I read this sentence of your saying, at least reasonably, is not that Democrats are sacrificing members to principle (I am being urged by a local politician to vote a straight party ticket, and one of the choices experience tells me is probably not the right one), because that is clearly not true. However I do think it is fair to say that the Democrats are not interested in nativism, hyper-partisanship, or extremist positions. One thing that the Democrats are routinely accused of is hyper-liberalism - this is an utter joke, especially when considering the leftist traditions of European politics. There are actually very many good, even doctrinaire and unexciting (i.e., Paul Krugman's economic prescriptions) plans that scare many Democrats because they're "too extreme." Compare this with the right and open support for many right-wing economic theories, some of which are better baked than others (and few of which have really stood a trial by fire, although I'm getting offtopic here).

[BulletMagnet]

MediaMatters isn't a partisan group, either, so pay attention to them.

I don't think that assertion quite holds water - the site itself declares that its goal is "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". It's definitely a liberal watchdog, though its services are needed and appreciated: I do wish it'd focus just a bit less attention on Fox News (if you still believe that network is anything but the media wing of the Republican party you're beyond help) and a bit more on the so-called "mainstream" media sources which are by and large owned by conservative demagogues easily comparable to Rupert Murdoch.

There often are black sheep (not meaning to force a pun) within organizations...It's possible to be more principled a Republican than the Republicans as a whole, and I daresay it's possible to be more principled than the Democrats too.

True, but again, the stuff I've been quoting all this time is NOT coming from fringe candidates and outliers: this is the official stance of the party at large, and while not everyone who calls himself a Republican agrees with it, they certainly aren't making much of a fuss about it (sort of an eye-rolling "boys will be boys" attitude, rather than "wait a sec, these people are ruining my party, and the country while they're at it"). I dunno, how high in the party hierarchy does one have to go before one starts saying "okay, I'm a little worried now"? I'd say that the Senate majority leader by himself was enough, especially since he's never felt any need to walk back a word of what he said, but I've linked several other examples, and they're far from the only ones.

[Ed Oscuro]

MediaMatters isn't a partisan group, either, so pay attention to them.

I don't think that assertion quite holds water - the site itself declares that its goal is "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". It's definitely a liberal watchdog, though its services are needed and appreciated: I do wish it'd focus just a bit less attention on Fox News (if you still believe that network is anything but the media wing of the Republican party you're beyond help) and a bit more on the so-called "mainstream" media sources which are by and large owned by conservative demagogues easily comparable to Rupert Murdoch.

OSHI-

Even given that, though, I think in a strong sense it is nonpartisan, in that it doesn't focus on specific parties, although if it was Democratic-affiliated mainly, then that would be enough to fit it. Anyway, not much use in trying to draw fine distinctions or to save face over that mistake

There often are black sheep (not meaning to force a pun) within organizations...It's possible to be more principled a Republican than the Republicans as a whole, and I daresay it's possible to be more principled than the Democrats too.

True, but again, the stuff I've been quoting all this time is NOT coming from fringe candidates and outliers: this is the official stance of the party at large, and while not everyone who calls himself a Republican agrees with it, they certainly aren't making much of a fuss about it (sort of an eye-rolling "boys will be boys" attitude, rather than "wait a sec, these people are ruining my party, and the country while they're at it"). I dunno, how high in the party hierarchy does one have to go before one starts saying "okay, I'm a little worried now"? I'd say that the Senate majority leader by himself was enough, especially since he's never felt any need to walk back a word of what he said, but I've linked several other examples, and they're far from the only ones.

Yes, but then you made an assertion about the Democrats as well. There is a difference but I think we can go overboard trying to draw it too broadly or finely.

[BulletMagnet]

Yes, but then you made an assertion about the Democrats as well. There is a difference but I think we can go overboard trying to draw it too broadly or finely.

You'll hafta help me along with this one, as the only "concrete" statement I've made (I think) concerning the Dems is that they are nowhere near an "equal offender" in terms of obstinacy and obstruction on purely partisan terms, and that anyone who considers him/herself informed should quit saying that they are. If I went beyond that at some point I forget where it was, heh (and, in case anyone reading this hasn't heard me say this before, I am not a registered Democrat).

[Ganelon]

What would he actually accomplish?

I would expect Romney to follow more of the Ryan plan. Romney has the record, rhetoric, and support to focus more heavily on tough cuts that are necessary to keep our future generation from falling into hopeless debt. A health care conversion from mandate to "a la carte" voucher would be be more economical for people at large, although I agree it would disrupt the whole point of Obamacare. These are of course mere deductions since nobody can say for sure what will happen.

If Romney is elected, then Democrats need to control a house—likely the Senate—in order to prevent an unstable flow of tax cuts, social restrictions, and/or meddling in foreign affairs. I'm not sure a Romney Presidency will mirror the GOP taking over Congress though and haven't seen anything that would necessarily link them. Some folks believe that one party—either one—needs to win in both the legislative and executive branches to bring real change but I'm too concerned about the extremes of both parties to concur with that mentality.

Look, I don't know where this is coming from - I am generally going out of my way to be friendly here, and that's my intention, although it has slipped when I see you repeating the latest mindless talking points. Excuse me if I show a bit of frustration at your willingness to enter a dialogue but only with one side of the equation in mind, and without any apparent willingness to consider that might be wrong (which, to assure you, I do myself all the time - unfortunately I am not seeing a case where somebody is carefully challenging my beliefs). It may well be that you only have been able to see this one side of the discussion, so let me do my best to illustrate what else I have seen.

I didn't say you weren't polite, just that you're needlessly on the attack at all times. Folks were making some opinions earlier so I thought it was open season to make some final points the weekend before the elections—my regrets if that wasn't the case—but then you go at it again. I wasn't the one who incorrectly assumed you were responding to my comment and insulting my intelligence.

If we're going to have a discussion, then we need actual lines of discussion. We've discussed all we could last time, and then I drew the line on the sand as to what has no clear answers and would be pointless to argue circularly over again (e.g. what exactly Romney will do if he gets elected). I brought up Romney's unclear post-Presidency agenda here but think that he'll go a particular way based on his record. I never backtracked from my claim that I only look at the record to predict future behavior. What I see from your end is that Romney will definitely stay on the far right based on overwhelming rhetoric. In your latest post, I didn't see any newly introduced facts either, just the same reiterated viewpoint. I respect that opinion since it's a possibility, but the facts aren't in your favor or mine. You could've easily reiterated your viewpoint without attacking mine. Now, if you do have a fact that was missed last time or that was newly uncovered, then speak away. Otherwise, if I have nothing stronger than opinions, then I don't see any point in attacking yours or trying to convince you.

As for Nate Silver, I'm not sure what he has to do with anything. I doubt he has a bone to pick with either side. As for Scarborough's response, like I said, "I'm not a fan of how people on either side are so quick to decide that if someone isn't with you, then they're against you." Ultimately, Silver is using a predictive model that has had solid success in one Presidential election and may be right again. What's to argue? However, prediction models aren't really news. You could likely make a prediction model based on ants, weather, and a million other variables that in hindsight would've successfully predicted every US election. It's long-term accuracy into the future that really proves a model. On the other hand, polls accurately capture a subset of peoples' opinions now. That's why they're reported in media outlets instead. If you're saying that I'm claiming current polls are a better predictor of the election than mathematical models, then you've misread. Based on electoral maps based on state polls, it's clear to anyone that Obama has more electoral votes heading into the election and thus needs less to win.

Romney is going to lose hard. Ganelon, I will bet you 100 US dollars that he loses the election. 100 bucks for what you claim is a 50/50 thing is a pretty good bet.

Ha, I'm not a fan of even bets. However, if you're that confident of Romney losing hard, then I'll bite if you're up for a spread of the popular vote (not electoral vote), say, Obama by 3 percentage points.

One more time, folks: if those "radical" and "America-hating" Democrats had done anything half as brazenly, selfishly obstinate (sorry, "balanced") back during the Bush years (or any other time), would any of them not still be enduring a firestorm of criticism from all directions down to this very day?

They did do that in the Bush years. Remember when I brought up the Bush 41 years? People blame Bush 41 for that time instead of the Democrats though. For better or worse, Presidents get most of the credit and blame. As for GOP talking points, didn't I already mention the GOP-passed debt ceiling bill last time? There will be some cooperation if Obama ends up with another GOP Congress. Harry Reid recently said he won't work with Romney either: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... rk-romney/
I find it all a bunch of political rhetoric. I'm sure a Democratic Congress and Romney find some ways to compromise too.

As for the New York Post editorial, I'll repeat it one more time: "I'm not a fan of how people on either side are so quick to decide that if someone isn't with you, then they're against you." I'm not sure folks like Murdoch and Trump would be considered GOP leaders though, although radio heads like Limbaugh would probably say the same and they're arguably influential in the base. That's one reason I wish the Tea Party movement had been more successful; that would've ensured the ouster of traditional out-of-touch Republican leaders. I'm afraid I don't have an opposite side equivalent of your specific comment anywhere since it's such a specific case.

[BulletMagnet]

That's one reason I wish the Tea Party movement had been more successful; that would've ensured the ouster of traditional out-of-touch Republican leaders.

Aren't the Tea Partiers the ones who have been the worst of the bunch when it comes to knee-jerk opposition to absolutely anything Obama gets behind? They sure as anything haven't improved matters along those lines since they took office.

As for Reid, I'm splitting hairs a bit here, but if I read his comments correctly he says he'd oppose Romney when the latter proposes things the former disagrees with (which, mind you, would be a lot), but does NOT advocate opposing him just to oppose him, as Republicans have giddily done with Obama (of note, off the top of my head, are a load of still-unfilled government appointee positions thanks to Congress' refusal to approve his nominees, not to mention lock-step opposition to such radical efforts as helping veterans find employment or allowing rape victims to sue contractors when it happens on their watch). In otherwords, despite the dumb things that the Dems have done and will continue to do in matters like these (Reid's insistence that Romney paid zero taxes is a prime example of overplaying one's hand and shooting oneself in the foot), I wouldn't expect another debt ceiling fight from their side of the aisle.

[Drum]

What would he actually accomplish?

I would expect Romney to follow more of the Ryan plan. Romney has the record, rhetoric, and support to focus more heavily on tough cuts that are necessary to keep our future generation from being in hopeless debt. A health care conversion from mandate to "a la carte" voucher would be be more economical for people, although I agree it would disrupt the whole point of Obamacare. This is of course a mere deduction since nobody can say for sure what will happen.

If Romney is elected, then Democrats need to control a house—likely the Senate—in order to prevent an unstable flow of tax cuts and social restrictions. I'm not sure a Romney Presidency will mirror the GOP taking over Congress. Some folks believe that a party needs to win in both the legislative and executive branches to bring real change but I'm too concerned about the extremes of both parties to concur with that mentality.

Look, I don't know where this is coming from - I am generally going out of my way to be friendly here, and that's my intention, although it has slipped when I see you repeating the latest mindless talking points. Excuse me if I show a bit of frustration at your willingness to enter a dialogue but only with one side of the equation in mind, and without any apparent willingness to consider that might be wrong (which, to assure you, I do myself all the time - unfortunately I am not seeing a case where somebody is carefully challenging my beliefs). It may well be that you only have been able to see this one side of the discussion, so let me do my best to illustrate what else I have seen.

I didn't say you weren't polite, just that you're needlessly on the attack at all times. Folks were making some opinions earlier. I thought it was open season to make some final points the weekend before the elections—my regrets if that wasn't the case—but then you go at it again. I wasn't the one who incorrectly assumed you were responding to my comment and insulting my intelligence.

If we're going to have a discussion, then we need actual lines of discussion. We've discussed all we could last time, and then I drew the line on the sand as to what has no clear answers and would be pointless to argue circularly over again (e.g. what exactly Romney will do if he gets elected). I brought up Romney's unclear post-Presidency agenda here but think that he'll go a particular way based on record. I never backtracked from my claim that I only look at the record to predict future behavior. What I see from your end is that Romney will definitely stay on the far right based on overwhelming rhetoric. In your latest post, I didn't see any newly introduced facts either, just the same reiterated viewpoint. I respect that opinion since it's a possibility, but the facts aren't in your favor or mine. You could've easily reiterated your viewpoint without attacking mine; attacking with opinions has never made any sense to me.

As for Nate Silver, I'm not sure what he has to do with anything. I doubt he has a bone to pick with either side. As for Scarborough's response, like I said, "I'm not a fan of how people on either side are so quick to decide that if someone isn't with you, then they're against you." Ultimately, he's using a predictive model that has had solid success in 1 election and may be right again. What's to argue? However, prediction models aren't really news. You could probably make a prediction model based on ants, weather, and a million other variables that in hindsight would've successfully predicted every US election. It's long-term accuracy into the future that really proves a model. On the other hand, polls accurately capture a subset of peoples' opinions now. That's why they're reported in media outlets instead. If you're saying that I'm claiming current polls are a better predictor of the election, then you've misread.

Romney is going to lose hard. Ganelon, I will bet you 100 US dollars that he loses the election. 100 bucks for what you claim is a 50/50 thing is a pretty good bet.

Ha, I'm not a fan of even bets. However, if you're that confident of Romney losing hard, then I'll bite if you're up for a spread of the popular vote (not electoral vote), say, Obama by 3 percentage points.

While I actually do think Obama will win the popular vote despite the current doubt over it, I have reservations that it will be over 3%, so I'm not taking that bet. However, you made my point for me pretty well, so I feel $100 richer anyway!
Last offer: $50 payout to me if Obama wins, $150 payout to you if Romney wins. Surely that's a bargain if you believe this is such a close race!

[Ganelon]

Aren't the Tea Partiers the ones who have been the worst of the bunch when it comes to knee-jerk opposition to absolutely anything Obama gets behind? They sure as anything haven't improved matters along those lines since they took office.

First of all, make sure you're not confusing the Tea Party movement for the Tea Party Caucus. Anybody voting for additional defense funds or constrained rights isn't a true Tea Party follower. That said, true Tea Partiers were certainly against most of Obama's policies, including anything that restricts rights (e.g. Obamacare) and anything that raises federal spending. They did have a clear message though and didn't care at all for traditional Republican leaders who voted for earmarks or excessive spending. But then reality set in that the ideal wasn't going to happen, and with differing roadmaps about as bad as the Occupy movement, they fell into decline.

As for Harry Reid's comment, I believe that the ultimate result would be the same on either side: agree with our policies or we won't pass anything. If the GOP really didn't intend to get anything done, they could've just not passed the debt ceiling bill at all and really made Obama—as well as themselves—look bad. But this is of course a matter of opinion and it's hard to tell until we get a Republican President and Democratic House or Senate for an extended period of time.

I'm actually a big fan of Reid's Bain investor gambit. That would be my vote for best strategem of the campaign so far. It was an excellent political play that succeeded in damaging Romney's image for a whole week. It may have been better to wait for a more opportune time, such as closer to the election, to throw that out there though. Trump's $5 million donation for records was alright as well but ill-timed and too repetitive now.

While I actually do think Obama will win the popular vote despite the current doubt over it, I have reservations that it will be over 3%, so I'm not taking that bet. However, you made my point for me pretty well, so I feel $100 richer anyway!
Last offer: $50 payout to me if Obama wins, $150 payout to you if Romney wins. Surely that's a bargain if you believe this is such a close race!

Well, I have high risk aversion so I wouldn't do that bet for either Obama or Romney. Plus, Vegas has much better payouts right now for a Romney win. Since I think it's a close race, I'm only willing to bet on the popular vote. My last offer: $100 payout to you if Obama (or Romney if you prefer) beats a 2% spread, $100 payout to me otherwise.

[Ed Oscuro]

I didn't say you weren't polite, just that you're needlessly on the attack at all times.

Truth, justice, and the American way.

Motherfucker.

Yeah, how dare me not just smile real broad when people are spouting nonsense? Fucking inconsiderate bastard that I am, that don't fly.

I'm actually a big fan of Reid's Bain investor gambit.

Wait...weren't you just...oh fuck it, I'm outta here.

[Ex-Cyber]

The problem with the focus on polls is not that they're a poor predictor of the election outcome, it's that they aren't technically a predictor of the election outcome at all. They measure P(randomly chosen voter votes for Candidate X) rather than P(Candidate X wins the election). The difference is analogous to the difference between a loaded coin coming up heads 52% of the time and 1000 flips of that coin having mostly heads (for which the probability is about 89% if I'm estimating it right, but I suspect some undue rounding error in the program I wrote to estimate it).

Clearly, this indicates an urgent need for reform: we should conduct elections by randomly selecting a single ballot and declaring all of its choices the winners, so that we don't need complex mathematical models in order to interpret poll results.

[Ganelon]

Yeah, how dare me not just smile real broad when people are spouting nonsense? Fucking inconsiderate bastard that I am, that don't fly.

I'm not sure if I understood your comment, but I don't see anyone spouting nonsense here. If you see nonsense that you can counter with fact, then by all means call it out. I'm just suggesting that you don't write a diatribe when you disagree with an opinion and don't have solid facts to show for it. If you're sick of an opinion that can't be proven either way, then it's probably best to ask the person to please refrain from repeating it.

Wait...weren't you just...oh fuck it, I'm outta here.

Not sure what you're confused about here. There's a big difference between respecting strong players of the political game and believing the actual validity of their points. It's similar to the difference between winning a debate and making the most honest points in a debate.

And in this case, since we don't have Romney's pre-2010 tax returns, it's still not clear whether Harry Reid's "zero tax" assertion is true or not. Bloomberg even recently uncovered a tax shelter that Romney was able to use for 15 years to defer capital gains taxes thanks to a legal grandfather loophole (that for some reason was ignored by mainstream media): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-2 ... tions.html
The accounting is too complex for me to fully understand but it doesn't seem to signify nearly zero total annual taxes as many folks have suggested. However, it certainly lends more credibility to Reid's line of thinking and indicates Romney's attitude towards his taxes.

[Ed Oscuro]

Wait...weren't you just...oh fuck it, I'm outta here.

Not sure what you're confused about here.

I'm not confused about anything right there.

If anybody wants to do some last-minute research on their vote tomorrow (I'm not sure about the laws in all states, but at least some do allow you to take notes into the booth with you), some sites will help you see and research the ballot for a look ahead of time:

https://www.pollvault.com/ (doesn't appear to be complete and putting in my street address seems to have brought up the State House District 63 race, which I would like to vote on but am pretty sure will not be in my ballot)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page (click the map)
http://www.propublica.org/ (supposedly this works but I haven't seen an actual list of ballot entries)

Just look up your district and you're good to go.

If anybody's up to it, I'll post my ballot choices later. (and just the choices, with one short line of explanation per item max; I promise!)

By the way, speaking to the "nobody knows what Romney's position is," that site has an interesting (and very informative) look at the candidates' positions on climate change here.