livestock, lipstick, and liquidity: politics thread

by **phdave** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 20:28:12

Camp Holdout wrote:no one has brought up that john mccain didn't know who prime minister zapatero was in an interview on miami radio right?

I linked to an article about it when it first happened. It was in Spanish. It's not my fault if you can't read Spanish.

by **dajafi** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 20:31:10

phdave wrote:
dajafi wrote:While this is good news in the sense that it's favorable for my candidate, in another I think it just kind of makes me doubt Nate's model. Obama gained something like 25 points of "win percentage" in two days!

Did you read this?

On the strength of an abundance of state and national polling, Barack Obama has retaken the lead in our Electoral College projection. Our model now forecasts him to win the election 61.2 percent of the time; it also gives him a slight, half-point advantage in the popular vote. Yesterday, Obama was projected to win the Electoral College just 45 percent of the time, so this is a rather dramatic move upward.

How can the numbers move so sharply in just 24 hours? I have tweaked the model slightly at a couple of points recently in order to make it more sensitive to new information. But these adjustments are very minor, and their effects are fairly trivial. The principal reasons these numbers have become more volatile are twofold. Firstly, we're finally getting into crunch time. The closer we get to the election, the smaller the true margins of error in the polls, so relatively small advantages can become more meaningful. But secondly, we have a lot more data to look at. If Barack Obama looks like he's moved up a point or two between two or three polls, that may not be particularly meaningful, and our model will tend to treat it as noise. If, on the other hand, Obama appears to have gained a point or two between 20 or 30 polls, which is what we're getting on a daily basis nowadays, we can say with more certainty that a real shift in the electorate has occurred.

Oh, I read it. I'm just not sure I buy it--particularly the premise that "crunch time" makes noise any less noisy. But certainly I hope he's right.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 20:54:14

Often the big confounding factor are the undecideds, who are erratic to say the least. Most polls show them at just under 10% or so. But if Obama starts breaking 50 consistently, I'd say the game is over.

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 21:28:22

TenuredVulture wrote:I think it's his opposition to free trade, which is not consistent with libertarianism, and verges on black helicopter paranoia.

He doesn't oppose free trade

by **pacino** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 21:59:46

The Dude wrote:I asked this before, and didn't get an answer, and I missed the deadline on the last politics thread, but how is Ron Paul a "crazy" libertarian? Looking at all his beliefs, he's the definition of a libertarian. So why is someone like RT, who is a self-proclaimed libertarian, calling him a bad example? Thanks in advance.

because people who call themselves libertarian really only mean in regards to doing drugs or gay dudes...most ignore all the other stuff

by **Philly the Kid** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 22:00:30

I gotta tell ya, right now -- mid-late Sept. i really have no sense of either candidates in terms of anything of substance? All I see is a chess-match, and I hear sound bytes of Obama on the trail and he isn't saying anything exciting or making any real points. He isn't exciting people. Obama-mania peaked too soon. McCain isn't saying much either.

When is the first debate? And will it be a farce with pre-control from campaigns? (that's rhetorical question)

by **pacino** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 22:08:47

you will never be impressed, who cares

by **Monkeyboy** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 02:01:20

So how much of this 1 trillion dollar economic solution do you think Bush and the neocon crew will be able to siphon off for their friends?

by **CrashburnAlley** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 02:33:04

Naomi Klein for President plz.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCHBLt-w9wE[/youtube]

by **Laexile** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 03:51:12

The Dude wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I think it's his opposition to free trade, which is not consistent with libertarianism, and verges on black helicopter paranoia.

He doesn't oppose free trade

His stance on free trade is confusing.

I was at the "Rally For The Republic." Paul supporters are a mixed bag. Some think Paul is for no laws and anarchy. They want to be able to use their guns on their mountain state compounds and do what they want. He has a good share of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I met a few people who insist they know the true interpretation of the Constitution. No one is allowed to disagree or have a voice if it doesn't fit that. Paul does talk about strict Constitutional interpretation. Maybe this seems too rigid for a party that has a more relaxed tone.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 09:39:00

Laexile wrote:
The Dude wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I think it's his opposition to free trade, which is not consistent with libertarianism, and verges on black helicopter paranoia.

He doesn't oppose free trade

His stance on free trade is confusing.

I was at the "Rally For The Republic." Paul supporters are a mixed bag. Some think Paul is for no laws and anarchy. They want to be able to use their guns on their mountain state compounds and do what they want. He has a good share of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I met a few people who insist they know the true interpretation of the Constitution. No one is allowed to disagree or have a voice if it doesn't fit that. Paul does talk about strict Constitutional interpretation. Maybe this seems too rigid for a party that has a more relaxed tone.

There's the whole North American Union conspiracy element. I'm not sure if Ron Paul himself believes there's a conspiracy afoot, but many of his supporters do. They see NAFTA as a precursor to a kind of EU in North America.

The lack of coherence is the nutty part.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:35:06

No, the years long associations with anti-semetic truthers is the nutty part.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:36:38

pacino wrote:you will never be impressed, who cares

what's your problem?

why don't you tell me what Obama or McCain are putting out there right now on the campaign trail that is firing you up?

by **pacino** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:39:16

i don't feel the need to prove anything to you

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:45:52

CrashburnAlley wrote:Naomi Klein for President plz.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCHBLt-w9wE[/youtube]

Sure glad I didn't post this or I'd have been ripped to shreds...

Naomi is great, her analysis is excellent, i've referenced her before...

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:47:55

pacino wrote:i don't feel the need to prove anything to you

That's fine. I didn't ask you to "prove" anything. Maybe you could list a clip online or a just something you feel your man is communicating that excites you.

If you got such a big problem with me, then why don't you just not respond to things I post, and I won't respond to things you post. I got no personal beef with you -- but clearly you have one with me.

by **pacino** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:55:30

No, you do exactly that when you seek for people to justify their votes. Then when they do, you challenge the very idea that they can vote for either horrible man. I just got tired of reading posts where you challenge people to justify their votes. It's ridiculous and you should be ashamed you do it on such a consistent basis. You should be ashamed for your views on 9/11 as well, and that completely invalidates anything you've ever written. You're opinions are a joke to many in this thread, and it frustrates me that some have replied to your posts as though you are a forbearer for Democratic Party thought (laexile). I've said my piece on the matter.

by **dajafi** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 13:12:26

Philly the Kid wrote:
pacino wrote:you will never be impressed, who cares

what's your problem?

why don't you tell me what Obama or McCain are putting out there right now on the campaign trail that is firing you up?

I think your reference to "Obamania," or however you put it, pretty much invalidates any complaint you might make as to the lack of substance.

pacino's right here. None of us are trying to convince you of anything, because your own views are so unassailably fixed. It would be a waste of time... which, for most of us, is really saying something.

by **dajafi** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 13:27:40

Philly the Kid wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:Naomi Klein for President plz.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCHBLt-w9wE[/youtube]

Sure glad I didn't post this or I'd have been ripped to shreds...

Naomi is great, her analysis is excellent, i've referenced her before...

So basically, you both might mock the fanboy/girl adulation for Obama (or Palin), even as you do the exact same thing with Naomi Klein and her somewhat simplistic left-wing blather.

This isn't to say that her core premise--that crony pseudo-capitalists manipulate economic disaster to accomplish immensely profitable rules changes--is wrong. Pretty clearly, it's correct. (And her journalism a few years back around what the nuttiest of this bunch tried to accomplish in Iraq was masterful.)

Maybe I'm a little worked up about this because, when my wife and I bought a home last year, we did essentially what Sullivan held up as the ideal: trimmed our sails in terms of what we wanted and took a mortgage we could afford, in a neighborhood we didn't entirely love. (When I think about the likely current value of the place we bought, compared to the purchase price, it's like the distilled essence of every 8th-inning lead Chad Durbin and J.C. Romero have barfed up this year.)

So yeah, I'm a little pissed that now our tax dollars are going to bail out both the dimwits who didn't live within their means, and their Masters of the Universe Wall Street enablers who helped entice them into irresponsible action.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 13:34:48

So, wait, you take a guy from a washed never very good rap group, a blogger who's claim to fame is being both homosexual and a nominal conservative, and some lady who makes money telling rabid lefties what they want to hear.

Why should I waste even 8 minutes of my life watching that?

Archived

livestock, lipstick, and liquidity: politics thread