Nate Silver: The Campaign Fundamentals Now Favor Obama; He's a 60 Percent Favorite to Win

Over Romney, the most generic Republican.

Mr. Obama, if measured on the same basis in 2008, would have come out as a 57. However, note that the model does not consider the incumbent’s ideology rating because concerns that voters have about it should already be priced into his approval rating, which the model does evaluate.

If G.D.P. grows at 2.5 percent from now through November — that is the current consensus forecast in the Wall Street Journal panel of economists — Mr. Obama would be a 60 percent favorite to win the popular vote against Mr. Romney, and a 77 percent favorite against Mr. Santorum.

The GDP is now projected to be 2.5% through November? That's news to me.

But there you go. Nate Silver assumes, as I do, that candidates closer to the center will do somewhat better in the general (hence the old "run to the center" maxim after the convention), but I know a lot of people insist this is false.

But... Now Gallup has him suddenly losing five points, down to 43 again?

Posted by: Ace at 05:22 PM



Comments

1 If. If if if if if if if.

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 05:24 PM (MMC8r)

2 Center? Fuck that.

Let's be pure.

Posted by: I am the walrus, goo goo ga joo at February 16, 2012 05:24 PM (4sQwu)

3 all I got to say is that if Obama wins another election, I'm moving to Australia...

Posted by: Joshua at February 16, 2012 05:24 PM (Fn1aX)

4 "If G.D.P. grows at 2.5 percent from now through November"

Lol.


How is not having any principles and pandering to the lowest common denominator going to help you win the election? Oh.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 16, 2012 05:24 PM (NtrXN)

5 Gas @ $5? Oh well, LOL, nevermind.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:25 PM (QxSug)

6 Electability, baby!

Posted by: Mitt Romney 2012 at February 16, 2012 05:25 PM (5Rurq)

7 Nate Silver NYT, yeah I trust this asshole. <sarc>
But he is right. If something doesn't change we are sunk.

Posted by: Vic at February 16, 2012 05:25 PM (YdQQY)

8 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 16, 2012 05:25 PM (8y9MW)

9 Lowered expectations. Now if we had a Republican President.......

Posted by: Bosk at February 16, 2012 05:25 PM (n2K+4)

10 DOOM kitteh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiddles_cat.jpg

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 16, 2012 05:26 PM (ZKzrr)

11 SMOD, take me now.

Posted by: Andy at February 16, 2012 05:26 PM (5Rurq)

12 Real funemployment rate at 15% per the CBO : http://fwd4.me/0uhW

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 16, 2012 05:26 PM (lVGED)

13 Nate Silver assumes, as I do, that candidates closer to the center will do somewhat better in the general
***
Did you forget about me?

Posted by: President Precedent at February 16, 2012 05:27 PM (7BU4a)

14 Oh, is it time to panic again?

Posted by: runninrebel at February 16, 2012 05:27 PM (klyN8)

15 Meth is a hellava drug.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at February 16, 2012 05:27 PM (yn6XZ)

16 If a few million more disappear from the workforce?

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 05:27 PM (MMC8r)

17 Santorum can beat Obama.

Posted by: Amish Man at February 16, 2012 05:28 PM (BBlzg)

18 Good thing we had a tough primary to sort all this out and emerge with a solid candidate.

Posted by: brak at February 16, 2012 05:28 PM (Myak6)

19 2.5% is a reasonable projection based on US fed forecast

http://english.cri.cn/6826/2012/02/16/191s681415.htm

Posted by: Village Idiot at February 16, 2012 05:28 PM (utXSy)

20 WTF, 2.5% growth based on what?

We've seen that basically ingesting 40 million new, instant americans has done nothing to increase the effective workforce size cause gee, they all go on welfare, except for the H1B1's who put american college grads out of work. Even if you disagree, they ain't going to be bringing in enough foreigners to work to spur growth.

How much more money can be borrowed and spent on shit that ultimately goes bankrupt? The private sector is not happy. and I bet most companies are waiting until Nov 2012 is set in stone before hiring.

All that's left is numbers manipulation. What, is the effective workforce going to drop by another 10 million so as to bump unemployment down to 4%?

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:28 PM (QxSug)

21 If the economy is doing well, Obama gets reelected, but if it appears Obama will be reelected, will the economy do well?

Posted by: OK, it's half true at February 16, 2012 05:28 PM (Jg7uO)

22 brb, investin' in a little beachfront property in Costa Rica.

Posted by: Truman North at February 16, 2012 05:28 PM (I2LwF)

23 , note that the model does not consider the incumbent’s ideology rating
because concerns that voters have about it should already be priced into
his approval rating
***
Considering that a decisive number of voters have no idea to this day where Obama stands on the issues, this is essentially presuming the Republicans run another McCain "DemLite" campaign.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 16, 2012 05:29 PM (7BU4a)

24 Hey, I have a small favor to ask.

When the primaries eventually get around to my state, I'd kinda sorta like to cast my primary vote for a Republican candidate with a demonstrated history of conservative economics, one who proposes to make the economy the key issue in the general election.

Just as a, you know, sentimental, for-old-times-sake gesture on my part.

If one of those kinds of candidates gets into the GOP race, would someone call it to my attention? Thanks much.


Posted by: torquewrench at February 16, 2012 05:29 PM (aWrFJ)

25 And we don't actually win when we run to the middle.

Reagan ran as an unrepentant conservative and won in two landslides.

Bush 41 ran as an extension of the Reagan years and won in a landslide. When it was discovered he was a squish, he lost. Perot would not have pulled that many voters from the R camp if they thought Bush was actually conservative.

Dole lost (again, with help from Perot) by running to the middle.

Bush 43 barely won over the completely unelectable Algore- again, he ran to the middle. He won another squeaker (while prosecuting a war, no less) against the similarly unelectable John F-bomb Kerry.

John McCain ran as a moderate and lost handily.

If both groups are trying to occupy the same ground, and one is promising you more free stuff, you're likely to go with the group that promises you more free stuff.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 16, 2012 05:29 PM (8y9MW)

26 Romney can do it, but he has to do to Obama what he did to Newt in the debate leading up to the Florida primary.


Posted by: pep at February 16, 2012 05:29 PM (6TB1Z)

27 Gas @ $5 in September 2012 will be his doom. Diesel at $6 will be even doomier. The media will be unable to spin an economy grinding to a halt.

Posted by: Jimmah at February 16, 2012 05:29 PM (845uI)

28
"If G.D.P. grows at 2.5 percent from now through November"

And then they woke up.
(To a dry, runious wasteland that once was America...)

Posted by: Warthog at February 16, 2012 05:29 PM (WDySP)

29 The center has shrunk. That's why Barky's beenindependants to fuck their muthers everyday. Aint y'all been paying attention?

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at February 16, 2012 05:30 PM (yn6XZ)

30 how about looking at it this way, is there any undecided american left? No. 40% are bought and paid for by the left. Fuck em, right? The remaining voters are pretty much never going to vote for SCOAMF again. We saw from the last poll that the I's went D at a rate of 9/23, which isn't going to magically turn into 14/23 which is probably what Mackerel did in running his "hey, I want to be a footnote" presidential concession speech campaign.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:31 PM (QxSug)

31 Damn my fat fingers: The center has shrunk. That's why Barky's been telling independants to go fuck their muthers everyday. Aint y'all been paying attention?

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at February 16, 2012 05:31 PM (yn6XZ)

32 Yep, running to the middle is smart.

Northeast republicans run to the center every cycle (and stay there!). Look how well they do every 2 years. Let's emulate that success.

Posted by: lorien1973 at February 16, 2012 05:31 PM (0tkqC)

33 5 dollar gas? Bad housing market? High unemployment?
Republican or Democrat it's very tough to win in that environment.

Running to the center wins elections? News to me, John McCain, Dole, Bush Sr., others

Posted by: Big T Party at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (hC5jI)

34 the first question to ask yourself every time someone trots out "news" like this is "what do they have to gain from pushing this view point?"

the MFM is blowing every color of smoke they can to get the SCOAMF re-elected, and way too many smart people are falling for all sorts of unbelievable bullshit.

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (8MasJ)

35 The thing is, and it has been expressed before, the fact that the race is even close should fill you with greater fear than the possibilities of a 2nd term. Close to half the country wants more of him. That is more frightening, terrifying actually.

Posted by: BuckIV at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (AtjNL)

36 As I said this morning, by October they will be touting -10% unemployment. There will be 10% more people hired than there are employees to hire.

They are following the communist lie program. If the people do not believe your lies, tell bigger lies.

Posted by: Vic at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (YdQQY)

37 The GDP is now projected to be 2.5% through November? That's news to me.

Exactly right. Watch this:

"GDP Grows At 2.5%"

See?

Posted by: The MFM at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (FcR7P)

38 Oh yeah, GOP GOTV better be on fire this time. I hope Romney doesn't pull a Mackerel and forget to dust off the 72 hour campaign.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (QxSug)

39 Let's face it - the people of this country are largely mindless idiots who get their marching orders from the MSM. There's precious little to work around that.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (+inic)

40 52%ers rule us all.

Posted by: Lauren at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (dAm21)

41 Nobody but the most dedidicated are believing these numbers. 2.5% growth? 8.3% unemployment?

Most can look around and see that it's bullshit. Anyone who buys groceries can tell that inflation is here and it's real.

When gas gets past $4.50 it's a done deal. No growth and more layoffs.

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at February 16, 2012 05:32 PM (zxrQh)

42 and i almost forgot: the one indisputable fact we should be pushing every day, in every conversation is that Barry is a stuttering clusterfu*k of a miserable failure.

there is no way to hide that, even though they try.

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 16, 2012 05:33 PM (8MasJ)

43 Problem with forecast: What happens when Israel goes to war with Iran, as they almost certainly will prior to November?

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 16, 2012 05:33 PM (UYURY)

44 Reagan ran as an unrepentant conservative and won in two landslides.

This would be the abortion flip-flopping pro-amnesty Reagan?

Posted by: President SCOAMF at February 16, 2012 05:33 PM (qVUxp)

45 oops sock/off

Posted by: chemjeff at February 16, 2012 05:34 PM (qVUxp)

46 Haven't more people become permanently unemployed during Obama's term than he won by in 2008?

Posted by: O2012 at February 16, 2012 05:34 PM (Jg7uO)

47 Polling about Obama's popularity and likelihood of voting for him is inherently inaccurate. Say no to the stranger interrupting your dinner and he may call your boss and accuse you of being a racist.

The polling phenomenon is called preference falsification.


Posted by: Irwin Corey at February 16, 2012 05:34 PM (u3N3z)

48 >>>hence the old "run to the center" maxim after the convention

Romney will finally tack right?

I keed I keed. Put down the bazookas

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 16, 2012 05:34 PM (0q2P7)

49 Running to the center is better than running into a wall which is what Dole and Mackerel both did by being schlubby candidates.

It's common wisdom to turn to the center from either party after winning the nomination to start grabbing up those sweet, dumb I's. Whatever, you can keep the fiscal conservatism while making sure that the dumb I's know that they can still buy their goddamned pills and rubbers in either one of a RS or MR presidency.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:34 PM (QxSug)

50 Which proves we must run Santorum . . . somehow.
I think it's the part where he scares moderates the most that proves he will win.
Because "scaring the moderates" = Reaganesque landslide.

Posted by: Jimmuy at February 16, 2012 05:34 PM (7jkW7)

51 Who cares about the Independents? They're a buncha cowards and pisspots who lost the war.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 16, 2012 05:35 PM (+inic)

52 Oh, and a GDP growth rate of 2.5% is enough to guarantee re-election...really? Because Bush 41 sported a 4.2% growth rate in 1992.


Posted by: 18-1 at February 16, 2012 05:35 PM (7BU4a)

53 Run to the center? Seriously?

Posted by: The Hammer at February 16, 2012 05:35 PM (wo1YR)

54 Gas prices could hurt him badly. How is he going to keep those down around November? I'm sure there's a way.

Posted by: mare at February 16, 2012 05:35 PM (A98Xu)

55 Then again, Clinton won in 1996 cause the fucking internet bubble was pouring out jobs like it was going out of style, and because of a certain 3rd party pipsqueak. So, maybe I can't be too harsh on Dole.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (QxSug)

56 polls at this point are sh_t; the flatulence of various goofs and dweebs is worse

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (UqKQV)

57 I'm trying to find out how he figures 2.5% is so positive for the incumbent.

In a typical economy, 2.5% might be enough. But usually, there has been more vigorous growth before that, so that the economy is already recovered and now actually expanding at 2.5%.

In the current actual case, the economy is nowhere near where it was five years ago yet. Hence it is still "growing" in a deep hole.

Is he just assuming this situation is no different than the usual one?

Posted by: ace at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (nj1bB)

58 and lets not forget fighting voter fraud this time around, eh?

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (QxSug)

59 If we just had a a republican presidential candidate who would, you know take the focus off the economy further and fire up the left by talking about birth control. If we could just ignite a culture war we could win. Where can we find such a man of conscience?

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (r2dnH)

60 contraception to whether someone wants to ban it.
It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying “What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!

Posted by: Truman North at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (I2LwF)

61 campaign fundamentals -

real unemployment is at 15% by normal counting methods and at 25% by old time counting methods.

The economy has never recovered from 2008 because of Democrat policies since 2007.

OBama has become a dictator.

Yet he IS likely to get reelected because we decided to let the Soros bought MFM run 5000 debates to choose our candidates.

Posted by: Vic at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (YdQQY)

62 52

Yeah, but that was the Worst Economy In The Last 50 Years.

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (MMC8r)

63 Haven't more people become permanently unemployed during Obama's term than he won by in 2008?

That reminds me. We should extend unemployment benefits again...

Posted by: Mitch Boehner at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (FcR7P)

64 I'm done with this thread. Fuckin' Chicken Littles make my knuckles itch.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (yn6XZ)

65

As always with teh polls, let's always look at and insist upon the partisan breakdown.

Drudge has a headline of 15% real unemployment, and if that's the case, all teh shiny happy talk in the world isn't going to do jack shit for BO's reelection chances.

He also has another increase in the debt ceiling before the election

And finally, Geithner says BO's budget is unsustainable

It just occurred to me why we haven't had a budget for 400 days. Since the stimulus was passed, we have been doing continued funding budgets. That is with stimulus funds factored in, NO??

We have just seen the Congress ratchet the stimulus for two years, right?

Posted by: imp at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (UaxA0)

66 erah, from Insty, andI grabbed one too many lines of text. FM formatting

Posted by: Truman North at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (I2LwF)

67 @ 50 Because "scaring the moderates" = Reaganesque landslide.
IIRC, Reagan scared the moderates too.


But let's not make the mistake of assuming that "moderates" = "independents"

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (+inic)

68 MFM wants pubbies depressed....they will game this until November....

Posted by: FU52 at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (EaimS)

69 Running With The Devil was a popular Van Halen song.

Running To The Center, not so much.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (4q5tP)

70 Elections, shmelections. Who cares who wins the stupid elections? Let's trash some social cons! Nazis, all of them!

Posted by: AoSHQ severe meme generator at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (5hFF+)

71 Food prices have been steadily rising already, and so are Obama's approval ratings. He just is immune to blame for any economic ills.

Posted by: Greg at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (J3Ovp)

72 yeah, ace, you've said it before, Reagan had some 5%-8% quarterly growths. That is not going to happen. there is no movement to do that now. And fuck, even if it did, no would would notice it in time.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (QxSug)

73 57
I'm trying to find out how he figures 2.5% is so positive for the incumbent.

-----------------
Uh, I'm still here, don't forget about me.

Posted by: Affirmative Action & Lowered Expectations at February 16, 2012 05:37 PM (7jkW7)

74 ELECTABILITY!

I'm tellin' ya, Santorum can beat Obama.

America is BEGGING for a culture war!

Tired of the gay agenda? Yep!
Tired of our schools run by totalitarian Leftists? Yep!
Tired of the war on Christianity? Yep!
Tired of pop culture corrupting our youth? Yep!
Tired of materialism run amok? Yep!


Oh yeah, Murphy Brown! Time for Round # 2 bitch!

Posted by: basket case nation at February 16, 2012 05:38 PM (nMROO)

75 I'm trying to find out how he figures 2.5% is so positive for the incumbent.

I think there is a certain merit to Obama having bad numbers early on. If you start with 10% unemployment and 0% growth; then getting to 8.5% and 2% growth it says progress. While in a normal election, this would suck; but when you get used to the "bad" it becomes normal.

This also very closely relates to your "bonfire" post earlier. Once you get used to the bullshit; it almost seems okay.

Posted by: lorien1973 at February 16, 2012 05:38 PM (0tkqC)

76 Coal is $70 a ton - one half 2008 highs. NatGas is $2.50 - 1/4 old highs, crude oil production is way up - Inflation is a contained.

10-yr Treasuries yield only 2% - the markets don't see inflation - its a stupid myth for people who buy overpriced cheese in 8 oz packs.

The dollar is around 80 as measured by the DXY - stronger than four years ago.

Get a grip, wingnuts.

Posted by: Clarence at February 16, 2012 05:38 PM (z0HdK)

77 He also has another increase in the debt ceiling before the election

Um. No undecideds even know what this is.

Posted by: Truman North at February 16, 2012 05:38 PM (I2LwF)

78 Ear Leader could legalize pot... that might get him re-elected.


Posted by: redc1c4 at February 16, 2012 05:38 PM (8MasJ)

79 Silver must have gotten Whitney's crack pipe if he thinks Obama is in BETTER shape now than the summer of historic Hope & Change.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at February 16, 2012 05:39 PM (UU0OF)

80 I thought the 2.5% growth was the non-adjusted numbers and included the false growth from the holiday season?

Posted by: © Sponge at February 16, 2012 05:39 PM (UK9cE)

81 Ignore the polls. Machines are gonna fail.

Go with your gut. Your gut tells you Romney's the best, then go with him. It doesn't, don't.

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 05:39 PM (u1+3w)

82 "Oh, and a GDP growth rate of 2.5% is enough to guarantee
re-election...really? Because Bush 41 sported a 4.2% growth rate in
1992. "

Obama - D
HW - R

It's really that simple.

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (u1+3w)

83 Clarence obviously hasn't waited for pot to be legal...

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (8MasJ)

84 in comes troll with a set of misleading single, unrelated data points. Way to extrapolate from a single data point, troll.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (QxSug)

85 Hey, it's Greg, the TRUE CONSERVATIVE!!!

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (MMC8r)

86 I live in Michigan and the anti-Santorum ads are a hoot.

Be sure about one thing, give the Stormin' Mormon® the nomination and he will run the kind of campaign against Obama we only dreamed about in 2008.

Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (u3N3z)

87 Meh.


Nate Silver was a member of Journolist.


There is zero reason to trust or listen to anything that he says.


He's already proved to be a Demowhore once.


His so-called "models" and "analysis" are worthless due to his bias.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (XBdI0)

88 It's not that our candidate shouldn't move to the center in the general, it's that he should *start* *right* of center.

The ugly truth is that people do not trust Romney's conservative instincts. His campaign has done little to change that. He needs to adjust if he is going to be the nominee, imho.

Posted by: Y-not hasn't read the comments at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (5H6zj)

89 What would the the GDP be without the massive increase in debt?

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 16, 2012 05:40 PM (mP3uM)

90 >>>Food prices have been steadily rising already, and so are Obama's
approval ratings. He just is immune to blame for any economic ills.

Yeah, we already established you are a lying sack of shit when it comes to asserting polls.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 16, 2012 05:41 PM (0q2P7)

91 Machines are gonna fail.
You bet the fuck outta that, my friend.

Posted by: Th Democrat vote stealing machine in the inner cities at February 16, 2012 05:41 PM (I2LwF)

92 We will prove to the world that Karen Santorum is a dirty slut. Obama is a secondary target, because he's not married to Santorum. And that would make no sense since Santorum is only a repressed closet homo, not an open one. Oh, and Romney's hair is majestically f-a-b-u-l-o-u-s!

Posted by: AoSHQ severe meme generator at February 16, 2012 05:41 PM (5hFF+)

93 I grant little confidence in the proclamations of this government or the MSM. halving the labor participation rate doesn't lower unemployment in any meaningful sense, borrowing twice as much from China doesn't boost GDP in an organic way, and surveying Democrats about their favorite flavor of unicorn-provided skittles doesn't reflect the real mood of the country.....which, frankly, is sour, sullen, and pissed off.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 16, 2012 05:41 PM (kaalw)

94 Between the corrupt statistics the government releases and the cheerleading of the media, the public will buy the recovery narrative. Might as well plan for that, absent some Big Crisis.

There are a few suchcrises breweing, but odds are that Obama will benefit from a general perception of at least a weak recovery.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (yK8YH)

95 The question is moot.

Posted by: mayan calendar at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (GTbGH)

96 2.5% growth prediction? Well that's it then. I well remember all the economists predicting the imminent housing market collapse a few years ago. And of course you never ever see the word "unexpected" in an economics news story.

Posted by: Heorot at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (Nq/UF)

97 Admin stops pretending it has a long-term debt plan

“'We’re
not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that
long-term problem,' Geithner told Ryan. 'What we do know is we don’t
like yours.'”

Links: http://tinyurl.com/8yqrv7o; http://tinyurl.com/8y5hxp4

Posted by: Miss80s at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (d6QMz)

98 The other guy makes a good point. RS would be an interesting choice. What makes us so sure that, aside from the decadent liberal center, that most americans aren't ready for some good old fashioned social conservatism. Just as long as you stay away from internet porn and the pill, maybe people are sick of the left and teh ghey mafia.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (QxSug)

99
Those figures are going to fluctuate every day. And it's only freakin' February.

Turn off your Gallup-boners, you tards.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (QMtmy)

100 candidates closer to the center will do somewhat better in the general (hence the old "run to the center" maxim after the convention), but I know a lot of people insist this is false.

How about you win the Republican primaries by expressing your conservative ideal in conservative terms, and win the general election by expressing your conservative ideals in dumbed-down terms, and then you govern according to your conservative ideals
There seems to be a conflation of "The Center" and "The low info Voters who decide elections". You don't have to move to the center to get the slow to come with you, you have to believe what you say and say it in small words.

Posted by: motionview at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (i+DU3)

101 "As always with teh polls, let's always look at and insist upon the partisan breakdown."
Eh, why bother? If they wanted to bullshit they could always just lie about the individual answers they recieved. Even if you listened to a recording of all the questions and answers, you don't know what's been omitted. You just have to trust what they tell you or don't trust them at all.

Posted by: alidade at February 16, 2012 05:42 PM (xXhWA)

102 60
contraception to whether someone wants to ban it.

It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then,
when people objected, responded by saying “What’s wrong with bacon?
You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!

Posted by: Truman North at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (I2LwF)

Here's the hat tip to Professor Reynolds at instapundit I am sure you intended to give but forgot.

Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 05:43 PM (u3N3z)

103 However, since RS is an open borders nut and rubs bitches the wrong way, he's a non-starter.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:43 PM (QxSug)

104 If you get a chance crack open that CBO unemployment report linked on Drudge. The economy is not rosy.

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 16, 2012 05:43 PM (SzAZ7)

105 Meh. Let's see polling data after supremes decide on Obamacare. Either struck down as "worst govt power grab EVER" or stands and is "Really Worst power grab EVER".
Obama is coasting through the eye of the hurricane and is about to enter the back half. The issue that stoked the Tea Party will be revived

Posted by: Shecky at February 16, 2012 05:43 PM (jsI0f)

106 there is no evidence, in the modern era, that a person more conservative than Reagan can win on a national level.

the last person who did so successfully was fuckin' Coolidge in the 20's.

and Reagan, as we all know, was an abortion flip-flopper, signed international climate change treaties, was pro-amnesty, raised taxes, and was a former Democrat.

now if you want to say "hey, the country has shifted further to the right, so maybe we are ready for a guy more conservative than Reagan" - fine, make that argument. but in doing so you are purposefully going for a riskier strategy than simply "I want SCOAMF out unconditionally". you are saying instead "I want SCOAMF out, but only if it means a *real conservative* is elected, otherwise, no thanks".

Posted by: chemjeff at February 16, 2012 05:44 PM (qVUxp)

107 Argument: Centrism is the holy grail.
Counterargument: John McCain.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 16, 2012 05:44 PM (NtrXN)

108 Silver's a liberal. He's been given his marching orders to start lying and thus demoralize the conservative base. He's doing what he's told....and paid.

Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at February 16, 2012 05:44 PM (MPtFW)

109 11
SMOD, take me now.

THIS.

Posted by: shibumi at February 16, 2012 05:45 PM (z63Tr)

110 Media runs the polls. Media oversamples libs. Take a breath.

Posted by: Joe Mama at February 16, 2012 05:45 PM (Mn5qB)

111 Posted by: Truman North at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (I2LwF) Here's the hat tip to Professor Reynolds at instapundit I am sure you intended to give but forgot.
Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 05:43 PM (u3N3z)


Yep. Already did it. A couple posts down, in 66. But I appreciate your paternalistic snark

Posted by: Truman North at February 16, 2012 05:45 PM (I2LwF)

112 More importantly, Silver has Obama in a better position than he was in 2008. No one could seriously sit there and say more people have turned toward Obama than have turned away in the last few years. Gas keeps going up, and unemployment is high and the President is in a better position to win? Not possible.

Posted by: Big T Party at February 16, 2012 05:45 PM (hC5jI)

113 Zombie Reagan!

Drink!

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 05:46 PM (5H6zj)

114 "There seems to be a conflation of "The Center" and "The low info Voters who decide elections"."

I'd argue this is the central flaw in Ace's view of politics. He somehow sees the vital deciding bloc or margin of voters as simultaneously (a) borderline retarded and not just low- but almost zero-information but also (b) totally up on (at least by election day) a candidate's positions, and also (don't know where he's getting this from) fiscally right-of-center but socially left-of-center (when the truth is almost surely the other way around).

To the extent that low-to-no-info voters decide elections, though, I'd argue they do so based almost entirely on the cliched "optics." Which is bad for Santorum, probably (even though I've been arguing for a week that Santorum might be a better candidate than Romney), because he can't seem to get that "who farted?" look off his face.

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 05:46 PM (u1+3w)

115 People lie to polls. Poll-takers manipulate the data. Media lies about what the numbers say and mean.

I'm honestly amazed anyone even cares about these things anymore at this point.

Nobody knows anything.

Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter for a Rogue Planet at February 16, 2012 05:47 PM (GBXon)

116 >>You don't have to move to the center to get the slow to come with you,
you have to believe what you say and say it in small words.

Hope and Change! Hope and Change!

And since we live in a post-literate age, better have some slick and easily-redrawn images. Remember all those copies of Shepard Fairey's plagiarized portrait going up on walls, Mao-style?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 16, 2012 05:47 PM (ZKzrr)

117 We're not biased-- you bagger kooks are the biased ones. We actually cannot ever be said to be biased, since we are the ones who set the middle for the debate. Baggers.

Posted by: Your betters in the MFM at February 16, 2012 05:47 PM (I2LwF)

118 Anyone recall the Bush years, when employment was defined as "full employment"? When you could quit your job and get two job offers that day? Never any time for your family, or to practice your guitar? Do you really want to go back to that hell?

Posted by: DNC Braintrust at February 16, 2012 05:47 PM (845uI)

119 Also, think about this: dipshit got 52% of the general, 48% to McShame. Do we really really think that dipshit hasn't pissed off more than 2.5% of the population since 08? This scumbag is in far deeper shit than the media is letting on. Guaranteed.

Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at February 16, 2012 05:47 PM (MPtFW)

120 "there is no evidence, in the modern era, that a person more conservative than Reagan can win on a national level."

There's also no evidence that a person less conservative than George W. Bush can win.

We're in uncharted territory here no matter who's the nom.

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 05:48 PM (u1+3w)

121 Guys, can we just get on with the fucking already?

Posted by: The Chicken at February 16, 2012 05:48 PM (ZW9en)

122 get a grip on my dick, Clarence. Squeeze me tight, honey........

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 16, 2012 05:48 PM (UqKQV)

123 (OK, fine, HW, but he had an exceptionally weak opponent - yes, weaker than Obama - and The Legacy to run on.)

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 05:48 PM (u1+3w)

124 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 16, 2012 05:29 PM (8y9MW)

Yes, but THIS time is different!

Posted by: Carl Rove's rectum at February 16, 2012 05:48 PM (nEUpB)

125 Second look?

Posted by: Sweet Meteor of Death at February 16, 2012 05:49 PM (ZW9en)

126
But... Now Gallup has him suddenly losing five points, down to 43 again?


True Conservative Greg hardest hit.

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 05:49 PM (MMC8r)

127 Hey Clarence, didn't you play the part of the Ape-in-a-costume in Trading Places?

Posted by: Crowsting,who knows that Obama=SCOAMF at February 16, 2012 05:49 PM (61BD9)

128 Whatever, Nate. Unemployment as a bellweather says you're full of Pelosi. $5/gallon gas say you're full of Reid. That the thrill is gone says you're full of 0bama.

Posted by: eureka! at February 16, 2012 05:49 PM (4e3Me)

129 These polls have more holes in them then Whitney Houston.

Posted by: Cast Iron at February 16, 2012 05:49 PM (EL+OC)

130 Inflation is a contained.

Momma buys the groceries.

Posted by: toby928© at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (GTbGH)

131 Guys, there's always me!

Posted by: 4 Year Morphine Induced Coma 2012 at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (ZW9en)

132 From Miss80s first link @ 97:

"Geithner tried to downplay the significance of the long-term problem,
acting as if the nation can cross that bridge when it comes to it. But
as Ryan pointed out, the Treasury Secretary, more than anybody, should
recognize how problematic it would be for bond investors to lose faith
in America's finances. If they stop buying U.S. bonds, a crisis can hit
much sooner than a chart would suggest. Furthermore, virtually every
budget expert recognizes that the longer the nation waits to do address
its problems, the more drastic the possible solutions have to become.

So, now that the administration itself has acknowledged it has now
plan, it's time for the media to follow suit and stop blaming the lack
of a debt plan on Republican unwillingness to agree to tax increases."


Thanks. I think.

Posted by: Retread at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (joSBv)

133 Coal is $70 a ton - one half 2008 highs. NatGas is
$2.50 - 1/4 old highs, crude oil production is way up - Inflation is a
contained.

10-yr Treasuries yield only 2% - the markets don't see
inflation - its a stupid myth for people who buy overpriced cheese in 8
oz packs.

The dollar is around 80 as measured by the DXY - stronger than four years ago.

Get a grip, wingnuts.


Posted by: Clarence at February 16, 2012 05:38 PM (z0HdK)



If you play a Beatles song backwards, you'll get this about Clarence, the 5th Beatle:

Hey Paul.....Let's get rid of Clarence and steal all his good ideas.......


Posted by: © Sponge at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (UK9cE)

134 Here's how far gone down the tubes some people are. My cousin lives in a western suburb of Chicago. A young guy, a Republican, is running to be cousin's state Senator. Guy is a fiscal conservative. Vows to revoke all of Quinn's tax hikes. Promises to fight for pension reform, limit public employee unions from striking, cut spending, practicing Catholic, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and that's just the first page of his website.

Cousin loves him. Says he "will save Illinois".

Who does cuz like for President?

You got it. Obama. Polar opposite of everything he says he likes in this senatorial candidate.

The only explanation I can come up with is DNA. He can no more imagine himself voting for a Republican for President any better than he can imagine himself growing wings and flying.

Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (u3N3z)

135 People do not lie to pollsters, but usually regarding politics, people don't know or care very much. As the election draws closer, polls will become more accurate

Even then, watch out for the Usual Sampling Bias--but those polls in 2008 were mostly accurate during the last few weeks

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (UqKQV)

136 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at February 16, 2012 05:47 PM (MPtFW)

Thank you. A voice of reason.

We are talking about 2.5% after four years of Obama's shit-show. I'm not supremely confident, but I am not tearing my hair out yet.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 16, 2012 05:51 PM (nEUpB)

137 wow, we only had to borrow 10% of GDP to get 2.8% GDP growth.

Posted by: O2012 at February 16, 2012 05:51 PM (Jg7uO)

138 Foster the billionaire was on with "Andrea Mitchell, NBC news" and he made a joke and she didn't get it. http://tinyurl.com/84f8a96

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 16, 2012 05:52 PM (oZfic)

139 10-yr Treasuries yield only 2% - the markets don't see inflation

The Fed doesn't care about yield.

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 05:52 PM (MMC8r)

140 >>Momma buys the groceries.

---

Yeah. Anyone who does grocery shopping regularly knows prices are up. In some cases, prices are "the same" but the products are sold in smaller sizes.

You know who knows this? Old folks.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 05:52 PM (5H6zj)

141 Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (u3N3z)

Well? You know what you have to do.

Beat him to death at your family's Independence Day picnic.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 16, 2012 05:53 PM (nEUpB)

142 **139 10-yr Treasuries yield only 2% - the markets don't see inflation

The Fed doesn't care about yield.**

cause the fed is buying our own debt because the yield is too low for rational people to buy it.

How is the ben bernake not in jail?

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:53 PM (QxSug)

143 but really, nothing troll said has any relationship to reality. No inflation, but the price of goods has doubled, along with the value of gold and silver. hmmm. why could that be?

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:54 PM (QxSug)

144 just run on fiscal, there is already an assumption Republicans are socially more conservative (true or not) are social conservatives going to vote for the Dem that will wack partial birth abortion children? or get the feds into your church?
that is probably the only think socially that should be said at this point. everything else fiscal, because there are millions hurting.so don't waste time

Posted by: willow at February 16, 2012 05:54 PM (TomZ9)

145 A young guy, a Republican, is running to be cousin's state Senator. Guy is a fiscal conservative. Vows to revoke all of Quinn's tax hikes....

---

Jim Matheson, our only "Democrat" rep here, is running ads now that tout how conservative he is. Of course, he follows his party leadership like a good little sheeple, but in his heart he's conservative. Yeah, right.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 05:54 PM (5H6zj)

146 "just run on fiscal"

When has this ever worked?

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 05:54 PM (u1+3w)

147 Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 05:52 PM (5H6zj)

I'm not old, and I know it. It is so blatantly obvious that I am stunned when I hear that there is no inflation.

And I do 99% of the shopping, and we buy almost no processed food, so I am talking about basic foodstuffs.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 16, 2012 05:55 PM (nEUpB)

148 131
Guys, there's always me!


Posted by: 4 Year Morphine Induced Coma 2012 at February 16, 2012 05:50 PM (ZW9en)

Yeah, I'll snooze off in a morphine drip paid for by the health insurance plan "that if I like it I can keep it" and long about year two of my coma, when Obamacare kicks in, some bureaucrat in Washington will make a judgment about the quality of my life and next thing I know I'm waking up in a bathtub full of ice wondering why I got a fourteen inch incision in my lower back.

Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 05:55 PM (u3N3z)

149 **Yeah. Anyone who does grocery shopping regularly knows prices are up. In some cases, prices are "the same" but the products are sold in smaller sizes. **

yeah, the guy who invented the bubble bottom container, which bows up into the container to take up volume, is now a rich man. Sort of like how Cheesecake Factory puts all their entrees on top of about 1 pound of rice, it makes you think you're getting a lot of value.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:55 PM (QxSug)

150 The bag of pizza rolls that used to be $5.99 is now $10.99, but we promise to make it $19.99 if we win. Bacon will be sold by the quarter gram.

Posted by: DNC Braintrust at February 16, 2012 05:55 PM (845uI)

151
Its clear the One is gain___ at the expense of the Republican BrouHaHA (Primary Race), andI suspect this is temporary. And the Dem are throwing out everything they have now from every source, including the MSM, to keep the Republicans off balance. Great politics which seems to be working.

Why in the ---- are the Republicans talking about secondary issues when they have strong issues available. Like the economy, which still stinkshere in Michigan, the deficit, the budget and its deficit, DOJ scandals, Obamacare is not a money saver, but a deficit builder, and dozens of other issues. Welfare, medicare, SS, WAR and WAR and ........OOF, I just don't understand. Attack the opposition, not the guy whois going to be sitting justdown the aislefrom you at the Republican convention.

Posted by: Mister Money at February 16, 2012 05:55 PM (wN82N)

152
Who the F knows at this point?

Yes our candidates suck, but to thinking people it shouldn't matter, any various manner of cacti should be able to win.

As far as polls, the left media will continue to hype over sampled democrats and make it seem inevitable. All bad news all the time on the repub nominee. All good news all the time on OdipO. This will be an uphill fight. The other thing about these polls is I believe (and actually know) people who will not say to a pollster what they really feel about OdipO. Its weird, they will only say it in whispers. I have come to the conclusion this may be the one and only time ever that "don't believe the polls" isn't just a desperate candidate saying. At least that is my hope.

You will not see bad economic news coming out of the cbo or the bls. They have been captured. Fast and Furious, national debt numbers, homeless, job loss, not counting people, none of this will be heard starting at the convention. The Fed will buy securities to keep a floor on the stock market.

Its gonna seem really tough, gotta try to keep people positive in the campaign.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 16, 2012 05:56 PM (r+9M6)

153 @147
Yeah, you know it b/c you shop.

I just mean that old folks tend to be even more money conscious assuming they're on fixed incomes.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 05:56 PM (5H6zj)

154 If Obastard is re-elected, all I willhave to say to my "fellow Americans" is FUCK YOU. My citizenship will be purely a legal construct - there will be no shred of genuine loyalty to these brain dead mongoloids who have unjustly inherited this land.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 16, 2012 05:56 PM (jfeoD)

155 My main hope is that all the first-time voters who came out to vote for the black guy in 2008 because that was "historic" don't bother to show up. Or at least, in Indiana and Wisconsin, forget they have to bring a photo ID (which they don't have because, according to the Democrats they vote for, they're too stupid and lazy to get one, heh).

The hardcore 'bots from 2008 are still pretty hardcore, though, and just as robotic.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 16, 2012 05:56 PM (ZKzrr)

156 The chocolate ration is up to 20 grams, so we have that going for us.

Posted by: toby928© at February 16, 2012 05:56 PM (GTbGH)

157 @144, willow is embracing my proposed campaign slogan of "embrace the evil."

Yes, mean right wingers are like cruel Leonidis who will make you stand, whereas Obama only demand that you kneel.

GOP 2012 because fuck you, stop acting like a bitch already.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:56 PM (QxSug)

158 Isn't it time the formatting issues got fixed? Want some help?

Posted by: Mister Money at February 16, 2012 05:57 PM (wN82N)

159 Coal is $70 a ton




You know that is the same BTU as 5 barrels of oil and 30$ cheaper than
just one barrel. Why is this stuff not flowing to power plants like MAD?
Yup, cause it is no longer cost effective to burn coal to harness
energy. Thanks Obama for my necessarily skyrocketing energy costs thanks
to coal plants dropping off line.

Natural Gas? Sameo Sameo. You know the easiest way to choke a highly industrialized automated economy? Raise the energy prices. It's amazing, Obama managed to get energy prices up even in a flagging economy.



Oil I'm surprised your not bragging about $100 barrels of oil. Obama was happy with that price.

10-yr Treasuries yield only 2%,

It's easy to keep yield down by monetizing your debt.

The dollar is around 80 as measured by DXY

Oh thank you Europe for sucking so much harder than we do. You make our currency look decent in comparison.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 16, 2012 05:57 PM (0q2P7)

160 Foster the billionaire was on with "Andrea Mitchell, NBC news" and he made a joke and she didn't get it.


She got it. The person writing the article that you linked did not.

Posted by: fluffy at February 16, 2012 05:58 PM (Lpgtj)

161 Gas is as expensive in February as it was back in July, but they tell us that's good.

The whole chocolate rations thing again.

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 05:58 PM (MMC8r)

162 >>Why in the ---- are the Republicans talking about secondary issues when they have strong issues available.

Because Obama started the conversation by forcing believing Christians to pay for other people's abortifacients. His puppetmasters aren't stupid.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 16, 2012 05:58 PM (ZKzrr)

163 All you roll you own'ers who used to buy Marlboros until we made them $7 a pack aren't helping the whittle chillen. If we win, we will close the pipe tobacco loophole.

Posted by: DNC Braintrust at February 16, 2012 05:58 PM (845uI)

164 yeah, the guy who invented the bubble bottom container, which bows up into the container to take up volume, is now a rich man.
-----

The worst is coffee. Can't find a 1 lb bag any longer. First they went to 12 oz and now 10 oz bags are popping up. Pretty soon Shady Ed the Opium Man will be selling dime baggies of Kona Blend.

Other things affected are cereals and kitty litter.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 05:58 PM (5H6zj)

165 "Oh thank you Europe for sucking so much harder than we do. You make our currency look decent in comparison."

The EU: Geopolitical Fat Bridesmaid

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 05:59 PM (u1+3w)

166 cause the fed is buying our own debt because the yield is too low for rational people to buy it. How is the ben bernake not in jail?
Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 05:53 PM (QxSug)



It's not the Fed's job to provide Americans with a savings vehicle.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 16, 2012 05:59 PM (jfeoD)

167 Guys, there's always me!
Posted by: 4 Year Morphine Induced Coma 2012


Don't worry, we'll wake you up...

Posted by: Bi-partisan Obamacare Panel at February 16, 2012 06:00 PM (FcR7P)

168
She got it. The person writing the article that you linked did not.


Posted by: fluffy at February 16, 2012 05:58 PM (Lpgtj)
I don't know, there was that long awkward silence and he had a big smile on his face for us to watch during the long silence. But, hey, he got andrea mitchell, nbc news to change the subject.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 16, 2012 06:01 PM (oZfic)

169 The govt stats do *not* take the rise of food or energy prices into account when measuring inflation.


so there you go


Everything you know is wrong.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 16, 2012 06:01 PM (XBdI0)

170 Also, think about this: dipshit got 52% of the
general, 48% to McShame. Do we really really think that dipshit hasn't
pissed off more than 2.5% of the population since 08? This scumbag is in
far deeper shit than the media is letting on. Guaranteed.


Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at February 16, 2012 05:47 PM (MPtFW)

Bingo. The bong hitters and white guilters have already voted to "make history" and there is no excitement in the empty suit. Look how 0bama is trying to feed the base as much as he can. Many progressives see him as a sellout and know the Savior schtick was just that.

Most telling will be the crowds, or lack thereof, when the asshole deigns to do public events. Aside from bussed in/paid union hacks and gimme gimmes, dollars to donuts that we won't see the 40,000-80,000 hordes, even with free concerts.
He is the Pet Rock president and, as I said earlier, the thrill is gone. Coupled with the pain he has inflicted on so many, and the ABO mentality amongst the GOP and indies even, he's in a world of hurt. As you note, the MFM knows it but will do their damnest to prop him up. We are in for a helluva ride.

Posted by: eureka! at February 16, 2012 06:02 PM (4e3Me)

171 @166, i don't know what your point is. But what the fed is doing is quite insane.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:02 PM (QxSug)

172 I'm only half joking when I suggest that firing up the LHC ripped time and space. It's like the world has gone mad.

Posted by: toby928© at February 16, 2012 06:02 PM (GTbGH)

173 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at February 16, 2012 06:02 PM (7W3wI)

174 Bleh, this kind of prediction is nonsense.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 16, 2012 06:02 PM (r4wIV)

175 106
there is no evidence, in the modern era, that a person more conservative than Reagan can win on a national level....


Posted by: chemjeff at February 16, 2012 05:44 PM (qVUxp)

There was no evidence, in the modern era, that a person more radically leftist than John Conyers could be elected on a national level.Until 2008. Then there was evidence.If 2008 proved anything it is that the American voter is perfectly capable of anything if they are sufficiently frightened and deceived.

Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 06:03 PM (u3N3z)

176 Have you guys seen Art Cashin's comments today? http://tinyurl.com/76yhdrl sorry to link business insider but they have a good accompanying discussion.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 16, 2012 06:03 PM (oZfic)

177 114 Knemon - I've alsocalled the independents uninformed and worse.I don'tthink the majority of them are stupid. They choose not to study this stuff as much as we do. Sometimespolitics are complicated enough that you need to in order to get it right. And we still fuck up even being more informed.

They do rely on "optics" whatever their grey matter. And yes that's bad for Santorum.

Effective damage control might make me less frightful of his chances in the general. But today's dustup with Andrea Mitchell and one of his backers was doubling-down, not damage control. I suspect double-down might be Santorum's personal preference as well. If so, that ain't good.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 06:03 PM (yK8YH)

178 As someone who has read thousands of research reports and analyst summaries over the last twenty years, this Nate Silver piece strikes me as one of the clumsiest, most convoluted, amateurish things I've ever read. It's one of those things you slap together to fill a column 9 months away from an election because you know that it doesn't matter and nobody will remember anything written in February anyway. Now I'm writing a meaningless comment on a meaningless blog post about a meaningless column. The meta-absurdity of this is fucking depressing.

Posted by: Current TV Legal Dept. at February 16, 2012 06:05 PM (+lsX1)

179 Eh. There's cause for pessimism of late, but not because Nate Silver says so. He got too many projections wrong the last time. I'll grant that he was mostly accurate, but anyone who follows polls is going to be mostly accurate--without the help of whatever "model" he's using. Here's the bottom line: if the official unemployment rate goes up again and stays there, Obama's will probably lose. If it stagnates he'll probably win. If it continues to drop, he'll certainly win. Given that the unemployment rate is being artificially held down by workforce reduction, I assume either the last or middle scenario will happen. The first scenario could happen, but there would have to be an incentive for people to re-enter the workforce, but since the GOP just caved again on unemployment extension, no such incentive exists or will exist this year.

Also, Dick Morris has noted that the DLS has changed the way they calculate unemployment to artificially lower unemployment rates. Gallup now has unemployment back up to 9%. Usually, Gallup is a pretty good indicator of what the DLS numbers will look like. It'll be interesting to see if the DLS numbers for February track with Gallup's.

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at February 16, 2012 06:06 PM (qam4I)

180 Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 06:03 PM
-----

If Santorum is the nominee, we'll polish his ass to a fine sheen. Same with the other two.

Shit, at this point I would work to get Ron Paul! elected.

You just need to resign yourself to that fact and not fret about it. Work for your guy now, but don't get all dooms-y about what will happen in November.

Remember all the great advice we gave Joffen a couple of days ago about one step at a time, etc? Use that.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:06 PM (5H6zj)

181 When everyone has starved to death, no one is hungry.

This works for unemployment, too.

Posted by: Joe Stalin at February 16, 2012 06:07 PM (MMC8r)

182 @181
I've got it --- Eat the unemployed!

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:08 PM (5H6zj)

183 or the GOP can do the my cousin vinny campaign, "everything SCOAMF has said is bullshit. Thank you."

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:08 PM (QxSug)

184 Posted by: Reactionary at February 16, 2012 05:56 PM (jfeoD)

Good riddance.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 16, 2012 06:09 PM (nEUpB)

185 @183
I bet Mrs. Santorum would look great in a cat suit! rrrrow!

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:09 PM (5H6zj)

186 Knemon, I don't know that it will work, I know even within our own we fight like cats and dogs about every.damn'd.thing. so i'm hoping if we minimize the message and make it Fiscal large because if we don't financially repair this ship we we are done , maybe we win?

Posted by: willow at February 16, 2012 06:09 PM (TomZ9)

187 >>>How is the ben bernake not in jail?

He has money laundering program in place so no one is the wiser. He loans money at close to 0% which then gets re-invested at 2% in us treasuries by the member banks. Essentially he is bribing folks at 2% to hold onto US debt so it doesn't look like monetization.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 16, 2012 06:09 PM (0q2P7)

188 166, i don't know what your point is. But what the fed is doing is quite insane.
Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:02 PM (QxSug)


I must have misunderstood your beef. Most complaints I've heard are that the Fed is driving down rates, and is therefore evil.
So, I guess I'd ask, so what if it buys our debt? The Fed CANNOT stop Congress from spending. Frankly, we should be glad of that. It's bad enough havnig a bunch of freely elected morons in charge of it - how much worse to have unelected bankers in charge?

Posted by: Reactionary at February 16, 2012 06:10 PM (jfeoD)

189 like to add and work for the most conservative of candidates down ticket that we can find.

Posted by: willow at February 16, 2012 06:10 PM (TomZ9)

190 I know Slu said use brackets earlier but my browser won't deal with it.Switch from IE9 to something else ? Download something ?. This formatting shit's getting me down.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 06:10 PM (yK8YH)

191
It's not the Fed's job to provide Americans with a savings vehicle.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 16, 2012 05:59 PM (jfeoD)
Yes but by devaluing they are depreciating everyone's savings vehicle.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 16, 2012 06:11 PM (oZfic)

192 have to go pick up kid . back in a few.

Posted by: willow at February 16, 2012 06:11 PM (TomZ9)

193 I am not having trouble with spaces or line breaks running Safari 5 on a Mac. Can you try that, Society?

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:11 PM (5H6zj)

194 ace 177 -

I'd agree it's not so much a matter of intelligence as just that most people don't give a shit about this stuff until they feel obligated to because everyone else is finally tuning in after the conventions (of course, we're still talking in the universe of the 40-50% who even bother to vote).

So but they're susceptible to easy narratives.

And I agree with you (I know you've been dialing it back but i Can't. Let it. Go.) that "get that rubber off your dick there sonny" is a bad narrative.

But, and I haven't seen you address this much, and if I've missed it I apologize, there is also a huge obvious narrative that They are just waiting to spring on Romney - Mormonenhass. Just because it's been almost entirely absent from the primary (that one incident at the Perry rally aside) doesn't mean it's not going to be Topic A (or at least B) starting the day Romney clinches the nomination.

You said in a thread yesterday that "the dude who wants to take your Pill away" is obviously less electable than "the dude who is a devout Mormon but tries not to talk about it."

At some point, not to tell you how to do your job, this might be worth a post.

As a new resident of Utah, I'm particularly interested in this angle on things. Anecdotally, while the Mormons I talk to here are sorta psyched that one of their own might be within reach of the nomination, they're also worried that they're about to be forcibly taken from the "kooky but benign" shelf and placed on the "threat to humanity" shelf.

What say you?

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 06:12 PM (u1+3w)

195 Or are you trying to do bold and whatnot? I've simply not bothered to do that any longer.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:12 PM (5H6zj)

196 Nate and Intrades agree at 60%. I disagree. While I'm full of fear that Obama will win, there one thing I can't get past: in 2008, Obama's Perfect Storm election, he got 52.8% of the vote. He cannot duplicate that. Impossible, simply impossible.

He's a known commodity now. He's no longer cool enough to get the Obama girl dancing. He's got a record. I simply refuse to believe he can pick up any McCain votes, or at least any in a statistically significant way. And I cannot believe he reduplicates his own votes.

The only question is, how much lower than 52.8% will he dip. If he hasn't lost 2.9%, I'll eat my shorts.

Really, where does he get new votes? Immigration? It's a pittance. Plus, conservative demographics balance it what with their bigger families.

Obama has to run the table, thread the needle, pull off a miracle. I don't think it's possible.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at February 16, 2012 06:12 PM (deaac)

197 "Now Gallup has him suddenly losing five points, down to 43 again?"


Must be all that Catholic support his "compromise" garnered.

Posted by: johnny at February 16, 2012 06:13 PM (AfBnQ)

198 Fuck it. Let's nominate Pat Buchannan!

Also, can we get a candidate who want to have a "national discussion" about repealing the Civil Rights Act..

How about a poll tax? Let's talk about bringing back the poll tax. That's a winner, I'm sure.

We need to campaign solely on issues that will repel 80-90% of the electorate.

Liberty or ... uh ... four more years of Obama and a stacked left-wing Supreme Court!

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 16, 2012 06:13 PM (BXqkH)

199 Ace.
I get your apocalyptic concerns about Santorum in a general, but I have exactly the same concerns about Mitt. And barring some late entrant, those are the two choices we've got.

Do I agree with either on everything? Of course not. But I do know who I'd feel more confidence in, were he sitting behind the Resolute desk.

Barring some idiocy (see support for Arlen Spector) Santorum has shown that he's willing to take the arrows on the big picture stuff. That means something to me. He lost his last election by a lot, but he also didn't burn Bush (to use a biblical turn of phrase he'd probably appreciate) in the process. To the best of my knowledge, he went down with his ideals intact. Can you say the same for Mitt? I have no doubt that if he'd decided to announce for re-election, he'd have done so from Camp Casey.

I'm scared too, but I have to believe that the general public will more likely support someone who actually believes what they are saying over someone who is the epitome of the cynical poll driven politician. And besides, there will already be one of those in the race. The Dems want Mitt not just because they can portray him as a rich plutocrat dog-torturer, but also because they know that ambiguous contrasts favor them.

Santorum wouldn't be my first choice by a long shot. In fact, he usually comes off as a pious scold, rather than a happy warrior. But there's a palpable sense in this country that something is horribly wrong, and we must dramatically change course. If thats the case, then I feel like Santorum is better positioned to benefit from those fact than Mitt.

Besides, who better to win with a hail Mary play.

Posted by: AtlasMugged at February 16, 2012 06:14 PM (+K0Rc)

200 Again, does anyone have Jeb Bush on speed dial?

Posted by: Old Coach at February 16, 2012 06:14 PM (qhDb6)

201 I like to use a football analogy (and if I stole it from someone on this site in the first place, I apologize):

To most voters, politics is like the NFL for marginal/casual fans. If something huge happens - Suh's stomping incident, Perry's "oops" moment - you might hear about it, but you don't really tune in until the post-season.

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 06:15 PM (u1+3w)

202 Y-Not: I'm on a Win7 PC. Spacing, word wrap and any special formatting is erratic. Not even predicatably so, which I could deal with.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 06:16 PM (yK8YH)

203 in 2008, Obama's Perfect Storm election, he got 52.8% of the vote. He cannot duplicate that. Impossible, simply impossible.

That's where I'm at. He can't possibly go up.

The black turnout will be less. He's not 'historic' this time. He's pissed people off on every issue. He's rallying his base with the class warfare, but a lot of white people looking for racial absolution aren't going to be as needy this time around.

He can't go up, only down, so how far will it be?

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 06:16 PM (MMC8r)

204 Yes but by devaluing they are depreciating everyone's savings vehicle.
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 16, 2012 06:11 PM (oZfic)


Congress is doing that. Congress spends. Not the Fed. Devaluation comes from congressional overspending.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 16, 2012 06:16 PM (jfeoD)

205 Ace--

Are you aware that Nate Silver is raging leftwing dipshit? He knows baseball, not politics.

Posted by: Fresh Air at February 16, 2012 06:17 PM (2M1g0)

206 134
The DuPage/Kendall/KaneAxis of Death used to be ground zero for Country Club Republicanism, which has become Creased Pants Democrat. My very first"activist" election wasbreaking knee caps forold Denny Hastert in 94. Good days, they were.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at February 16, 2012 06:17 PM (Ec6wH)

207 If a country buying its own debt by printing money doesn't move you, then there's the other side of it all. The fed is apparently buying the bad paper from insolvent states, so that the insolvent states don't have to face the piper and adopt better policies. The old argument for inevitable financial sanity goes like this, you eventually run out of other people's money, sucks to be you California. Now, no one but the fed is buying Cali's debt (which is worthless and is being used to pay lifeguards $200K, for example). So, the bad policy making continues, the reckless are being rewarded and everyone else who actually provides growth is punished. Or to put it another way, no one in America wants to bailout blue states that refuse to stop giving public sector union thugs a big truck of cash. ooops, the fed is doing that for you, without even asking. And it's all done off books, so who knows what's going on. At least we know what's going on with the Bailout Spending SCOAMF.

And if that's the case, what exactly is the point of the federal reserve? I used to think I was smart and understood it all and thought that Ron Paul was a weirdo. But WTF? This is insane.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:17 PM (QxSug)

208 198 Clubber - thanks for reminding me - I keep leaving out the Court.

Anyone sitting out this election to teach anyone a lesson can own the 2+ Supremes that Barky hangs on us for the next 25+ years.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 06:17 PM (yK8YH)

209 "The only question is, how much lower than 52.8% will he dip. If he hasn't lost 2.9%, I'll eat my shorts."

Unfortunately he does not need a majority to win (see clinton 1992) , if there is a strong third party run by someone or enough idiots on the right who intend to sit this one out or vote for BO, he may be your president till 2016

Posted by: runner at February 16, 2012 06:19 PM (WR5xI)

210 @194
I think it's very difficult to have that discussion.

There are a couple of folks who are willing to have it, but most seem to fall into one of three camps: ignorance is bliss (fingers in ears); knee-jerk defensives (bigot!); and people who *really* think the religion is evil.

My husband and I are able to get into frank discussions with LDS folks we know, but I have not been able to have those same discussions here. Usually it turns into me being called a bigot and others jumping in to either defend something they know nothing about or slur the LDS folks because they have their own agenda. Literally the same things I've discussed with my friends get me called a bigot by folks here. So be it. I've given up.

The LDS church has been running advertising and spent time at either the last or the previous (I forget which now) General Conference talking with its members about how to describe the religion, including getting them to use the term LDS more and Mormon less. I assume they have a plan for dealing with the media onslaught, but I am not 100% convinced they are really able to be fully honest with themselves about where some of their vulnerabilities (in terms of perception) lie.

I guess we'll see if Mitt is the nominee.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:20 PM (5H6zj)

211 The demographics of the electorate have gotten more left-wing since 2008.

Every year the electorate grows more left-wing due to immigration. And not the immigration of this year. But the aging of the immigrants and their children during the boom years of immigration in the last decade or two.

If nobody has noticed, every year Univision keeps setting viewership records. Those aren't Republican voters.

And not, white right-winger birth rates aren't nearly enough to make up for the hispanic immigration and birth rates. Which is why the % of non-hispanic whites has been shrinking so quickly.

This electorate hasn't changed as fast as the population because so many hispanics were immigrants and illegal and couldn't vote. But their children can. And every year more of their children turn 18.

The demographics do spell doom for the right wing unless whites in the rest of the country start voting as reliably Republican as whites in the south. Which is unlikely.

Repubs need to find some right-wing Mex-Americans quickly.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 16, 2012 06:20 PM (BXqkH)

212 "Are you aware that Nate Silver is raging leftwing dipshit? He knows baseball, not politics."

Nah. He's about as fair a leftie as you'll find. I read him. He loves numbers more than ideology. He is one of those kind of guys who will actually go against his ideological bent if the numbers tell a different story.

Seriously. He's the left's Scott Rasmussen.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at February 16, 2012 06:20 PM (deaac)

213 the counter point to the clueless voter theory is that the GOP nominating voters are also responding to what they see without being full of Ace's knowledge juice. They like RS over MR and NG. which is fine.
Republicans have won elections before, they just have to not do what Mackerel did in running his "hey, I want to be a footnote" presidential concession speech campaign.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:21 PM (QxSug)

214 >>Barring some idiocy (see support for Arlen Spector) Santorum has shown
that he's willing to take the arrows on the big picture stuff. That
means something to me. He lost his last election by a lot, but he also
didn't burn Bush (to use a biblical turn of phrase he'd probably
appreciate) in the process. To the best of my knowledge, he went down
with his ideals intact.<<

That's super. Sure he got his ass beat in epic fashion. Sure he would turn off vast swaths of voters in a general election. But you know what's really important? Preserving Rick Santorum's ideals. That's what this election is all about.

Santorum '12
Let me put my morals in you

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 16, 2012 06:22 PM (+lsX1)

215 Ynot, interesting. That has not been my experience so far; the Mormons I talk to about this have been willing to discuss it candidly (although inside they might be thinking "why does this Gentile persecute us so?")

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 06:22 PM (u1+3w)

216 if there is a strong third party run by someone

I'm not sure I can see who that would be at this late date. Even Herr Doktor Kookoobananas.

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 06:22 PM (MMC8r)

217 @211. Then if that's the case, the America enters Great Depression 2.0. Fuck, why not let SCOAMF serve 4 terms. America being a prosperous place isn't a sure thing, we lived in Reagan's shadow for a brief 27 years. The only thing that sucks is that there's no other free country remaining.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:23 PM (QxSug)

218 ...as opposed to that epic winner, "one term Mitt"

Posted by: AtlasMugged at February 16, 2012 06:24 PM (+K0Rc)

219 Oh wait, I see now you were saying "here" in reference to AoSHQ, not wherever you were from before Utah. Oops.

Posted by: Knemon at February 16, 2012 06:24 PM (u1+3w)

220 The fed's printing like mad right now to get Obama reelected.

Posted by: red at February 16, 2012 06:25 PM (A+59T)

221 "The demographics do spell doom for the right wing unless whites in the rest of the country start voting as reliably Republican as whites in the south. Which is unlikely."

Not so fast. Conservatives have families about 20% larger than liberals. I checked that last week in another online debate. And it's only going to get worse for libs there.

Furthermore, the graying of America bodes well for Republicans. Older means more conservative. That's what Fox News is all about.

One more factor: libertarians. Ron Paul gives young people a reason not to be embarrassed to be Republicans. That's why we need him to stay in the party. We need to kiss his butt a little.

Yes, the Hispanic vote is leans hard to the left ... about 2 to 1. But it's only part of the mosaic.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at February 16, 2012 06:25 PM (deaac)

222 Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:17 PM (QxSug)



If they're continuing to buy up bad state debt, that's a problem. And a different kind of problem from that of buying federal debt. The federal government has control of the monetary system - owns it. They can't tax us more right now, so for now there's printing. It's the less-bad solution. The states, however, are supposed to act within that system and be limited by tax revenue.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 16, 2012 06:25 PM (jfeoD)

223 This is why they want the only issue to be birth control. If it is -5% GDP but the GOP will take away your birth control he will win. Numbers mean nothing when the GOP will take away your right to shag whenever your want, who you want and what sex you want.

2.5% will happen because they control the numbers that they use. Then be changed in February 2013 down big.

Posted by: Tjexcite at February 16, 2012 06:26 PM (sk1Ym)

224 The funny thing is that the left is bringing in El Salvador and Mexico into this country for the obvious reasons that they consider them surefire votes (and they could give a fuck about America as a community or our history, so whatever openborders for everyone).

However, from where I live, the hispanics are quite prole, they love Jesus, SUV's and drunk driving. The very definition of the type of people liberal scumbags hate.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:27 PM (QxSug)

225 "Unfortunately he does not need a majority to win (see clinton 1992) , if there is a strong third party run by someone or enough idiots on the right who intend to sit this one out or vote for BO, he may be your president till 2016"

Good point. Hence our need to kiss Ron Paul's butt.

And speaking of butts, Rosanne Barr is polling at 6% in the general election ... against Obama. That's got to seriously scare the Dems.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at February 16, 2012 06:27 PM (deaac)

226
The only way I see the win is if our guy gives people a reason to vote for him, because I am telling you more than 50% of people can't stand Odumbass, but you got to get em to the polls instead of saying screw it, we're boned.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 16, 2012 06:30 PM (r+9M6)

227 10-yr Treasuries yield only 2% - the markets don't
see inflation - its a stupid myth for people who buy overpriced cheese
in 8 oz packs.

Get a grip, wingnuts.


Posted by: Clarence at February 16, 2012 05:38 PM

I assume that your mommy buys all the groceries in your house and drives you to school, so I can see how food and fuel inflation would be a myth to you

And where's that shine box I told you to go home and get?

Posted by: kbdabear at February 16, 2012 06:31 PM (Y+DPZ)

228 @215
Yes, talking in person no problem...although there is a certain line they have trouble crossing.

But on discussion boards I have had no luck. If I recall there was one fella (?) here who, when someone brought up the African Americans/priesthood thingy, said "yeah, I'm not going to defend that" instead of calling people bigots. But that's been rare from what I've seen.

I made a point that Mitt's cultural/faith heritage gave him an edge in caucus states, I think this was around Iowa, and that was apparently some big faux pas here. I did not say that the Church was using Ward lists, but just pointed out that it was a very tight knit community and that would help in a caucus state. Anyway, the funny thing is I had this same conversation with my friend who lived in Iowa for a number of years and she confirmed it. I guess one of the guys from her old Stake is a big GOP guy in IA and works on campaigns networking via his church contacts. (Nothing wrong with that, btw.)

The Romney campaign strategy seems to be "shut up, that's why." I don't think it will work in the general and it seems to be failing in the primary.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:31 PM (5H6zj)

229 211 Clubber - don't forget sheer attrition through aging of the more conservative older generation of American citizes, the relentless liberalizing of an increasing number of their kids going to college and their "I deserve I job because I have student loans" mentality.

We probably need Tea Party teachers and professors more than candidates.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 06:33 PM (yK8YH)

230 @212

You do know Nate Silver was a member of Journolist, right?


He's just a whore for the Dims.


His numbers and models are about as trustworthy as the average AGW warmanist's.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 16, 2012 06:34 PM (XBdI0)

231 heatherradish Hope and Change! Hope and Change!
is a concession that yes the slow-witted do decide our elections? Do you think they have gotten any less slow in the past 4 years? We need to fashion and deliver a conservative message that is true at a high level and understandable and a lower level.

Posted by: motionview at February 16, 2012 06:34 PM (i+DU3)

232 I probably need a teacher, too given the spelling and sytax of that last post.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 16, 2012 06:35 PM (yK8YH)

233 You can actually go with an ideological candidate if he's personally likeable and/or if he lies about being ideological.

Perception is reality. I say this is Obama's high water mark. The GOP is beating up on each other, the economy is "improving" and gas prices have only started to tick up.

And...foreign policy disasters are boiling under the surface.

A few attack ads on the guy, a few stupid rambling speeches, stories on how Dems won't let him campaign for them and he looks much weaker.

But it won't happen with Santorum. We can't let our nominee be like the health care bill: you'll know what's in him when you nominate him.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 16, 2012 06:35 PM (T0NGe)

234 I didn't read all the comments but the earlier ones seemed to be pretty critical of Silver's models. That may be a mistake. As I recall his 2008 and 2010 predictions were pretty well on the money. In my opinion we should not be ignoring what this guy says about the way the election itself is going (even if his politics are wrong).

Posted by: CBHJ at February 16, 2012 06:36 PM (9VSWS)

235 checking in on the wingnut bubble lol i will be back to see your heads explode when Obama cruises to re-election!

Posted by: DruggyBear at February 16, 2012 06:37 PM (2M0JI)

236 The fed's printing like mad right now to get Obama reelected.
Posted by: red at February 16, 2012 06:25 PM (A+59T)

That's very interesting, isn't it!?#$ I wonder how many congresspersons are aware of allthe dirty tricks being played currently. Cynical, however prob. accurate.
People can be truly evil.

Posted by: so....... at February 16, 2012 06:39 PM (rZZA3)

237 Oh baloney. He's toast. Quit freaking out.

Posted by: iggy at February 16, 2012 06:41 PM (5Cwv4)

238 and I will feast on your tears 235 when obama loses. Also, that feeling you'll get when Romney turns Obama into a pile of jelly in a debate. Yeah, every time that happens, which will be often for the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure will stutteringly fail to defend his miserable failures, an angel will get his wings.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at February 16, 2012 06:42 PM (QxSug)

239 235 <------- See? Our trolls are the worst.

That 'triple dog dare' scene in A Christmas Story? Yeah, our trolls are more juvenile than that.

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 06:44 PM (MMC8r)

240 I'm trying to find out how he figures 2.5% is so positive for the incumbent.



In a typical economy, 2.5% might be enough. But usually, there has
been more vigorous growth before that, so that the economy is already
recovered and now actually expanding at 2.5%.



In the current actual case, the economy is nowhere near where it was
five years ago yet. Hence it is still "growing" in a deep hole.



Is he just assuming this situation is no different than the usual one?

Posted by: ace at February 16, 2012 05:36 PM (nj1bB)

I'd go with the "he's lying" model for that ace.

Posted by: Oldcat at February 16, 2012 06:46 PM (z1N6a)

241
USA Today front page. Manufacturing going gang busters. Yep. Expect to see bullsh*t stories like this on every front page and in every news broadcast for the next nine months. Wow. Obama has turned everything around.

No matter thatmillions of people have dropped out of the job market.

No matter that 19 million people are underemployed or working two crappy jobs so that they can try to pay some of their bills.

No matter that our state governments are bankrupt and are starting to increase fees and taxes at an alarming rate which will hurt the working poor and middle class the worst.

No matter that our federal government is still overspending at alarming rates and leaving the debts to our children and grandchildren who will face massive tax increases or a severe cut off of all government services which will make the Greek riots look like childs play.


No f**kin' worries mate. Obama is getting the job done! The economy is awesome! The republicans want to implement a theocracy! You'd be a fool and a racist not to reelect Obama!
xoxoxo The media

Posted by: Some guy you don't know in Wisconsin at February 16, 2012 06:47 PM (0aByc)

242 I also seem to remember people pointing out that gummint projections of growth are always biased high. What if growth is <2%?

Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 06:49 PM (MMC8r)

243 My cock could beat Obama.

Over the head.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 16, 2012 06:51 PM (niZvt)

244 Ugh. Obama could not have picked a better person to run against than Rick Santorum.

Kick Obama's disillusioned base into overdrive? Check. Squish liberals who wouldn't bother to vote for Obama will fight tooth and nail to stop President Santorum.

Scare the moderate dumbasses? Check. They view Santorum as a religious fanatic.
Whether or not that's true, Santorum isn't helping matters with the way he talks.

Demoralize the conservative base? Check. All of our sucky candidates do this, Santorum is no different.



Posted by: Justin at February 16, 2012 06:52 PM (yoAYX)

245 I also seem to remember people pointing out that gummint projections of growth are always biased high. What if growth is <2%?


Posted by: nickless at February 16, 2012 06:49 PM (MMC8r)
They 'corrected' each quarters 2 percent estimate to 0 percent in 2011. Eventually.

Posted by: Oldcat at February 16, 2012 06:52 PM (z1N6a)

246
Oh, I forgot to add... it's been posted before I know but...

The unemployment rate under Clinton 5%. Wow. Awesome.

The unemployment rate under Bush (W) 5%. Scary. Another great depression.

The unemployment rate under Obama 8%+ Wow. Recovery. Fantastic.


xoxoxo The Media

Posted by: Some guy you don't know in Wisconsin at February 16, 2012 06:53 PM (0aByc)

247 The Romney campaign strategy seems to be "shut up,
that's why." I don't think it will work in the general and it seems to
be failing in the primary.

Posted by: Y-not goes and gets another bottle at February 16, 2012 06:31 PM (5H6zj)
History shows that candidates that can't win a primary have an overall poor showing in the general election.

Posted by: Oldcat at February 16, 2012 06:54 PM (z1N6a)

248 I'm sorry it took so long for me to respond. I was blowing this dude I met for drug money while this other guy was cornholing me.

Posted by: Clarence at February 16, 2012 07:02 PM (LHiZO)

249 Rawk! Rick Santorum! Rawk! Birth Control! Rawk! Contraceptives!

Posted by: Establishment Parrot at February 16, 2012 07:13 PM (uHzQL)

250 Who is this Obama guy ...?

Posted by: Honey Badger at February 16, 2012 07:19 PM (GvYeG)

251 Just between you and me that Clarence guy is a friggin human vacuum.

Posted by: DruggyBear at February 16, 2012 07:19 PM (789+D)

252 Rawk ... chawk ... Jayhawk ...

Posted by: Honey Badger at February 16, 2012 07:21 PM (GvYeG)

253 Ace: " Now Gallup has him suddenly losing five points, down to 43 again?"

As Ace knows only too well, that's the Gallup Daily Tracker - the old 'wait 'til tomorrow & he'll have made a miraculous recover' Daily Tracker.

Is Ace's theory that none of us can remember back four years ago to the LAST year spent on the Daily Tracker roller coaster? I guess so.

Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at February 16, 2012 07:26 PM (vahvH)

254 Got it. Funny-that.

Nate Silver and many pollsters rae "accurate" as they close in on elections. They are quite partisan early-out. Obama and his group truly believe in the "inevitability" mindset. They will nudge for everything they can until theelection.

Posted by: bathenbroad at February 16, 2012 07:30 PM (rZZA3)

255 Obama: "Elections have consequences"

Santorum: "Erections have consequences"

Posted by: AtlasMugged at February 16, 2012 07:34 PM (+K0Rc)

256 The latest survey I conducted had my Baraky at 100%.

Then again I only asked Aiesha, Lakeesha, Waneeka, Maneesha, Poopeesha, Deshawn, LaWayne, and Leroy about it.

Posted by: Michelle Obama at February 16, 2012 07:41 PM (51Nv7)

257 Guys, understand that Silver is statistical baseball analyst. If Jay Cost says something, pay attention. If Silver says something, take a couple of salt tablets and ignore it. He is not the Left's Scott Rasmussen. He doesn't poll anyone; he crunches numbers. GIGO.

Posted by: Fresh Air at February 16, 2012 07:57 PM (2M1g0)

258 that Clarence guy is a friggin human vacuum

Maybe Clarence can be packaged and reshaped into a ZPM? They're based on vacuum energy.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 16, 2012 07:59 PM (QiDwH)

259 I'm trying to be optimistic about November:

In 2008, (thanks to the fawning, faking, uninformative mass media outlets) the obama-voters likely believed their candidate would be 'better' for the USA. Mostly, they didn't know much about him or his background and had *no idea* what kind of shit he would try to pull.

Now, they're not as ignorant--they have truth all around them--Everyone knows someone who's lost their job. Everyone sees prices skyrocketing and businesses closing. The scandals are creeping out of the closet no matter how hard the MFM tries to cover....

More people than ever are looking at the headlines full of hope-springs-eternal, and thinking "WTF?" cuz they know it's a crock. So much for all that talk of "recovery."

Add all of that to the fact that SCOAMF *barely* won as it was.

Our most important mission is to GOTV--To beat the margin of fraud, no matter who's running against that a-hole.


Posted by: Generic Postr at February 16, 2012 08:02 PM (szPD/)

260 History shows that candidates that can't win a primary have an overall poor showing in the general election.

That's pretty silly. I don't think Romney's losing anything, I just think the primary electorate has been so ginned up against him that they'll pick anybody (Santorum) just anybody (Santorum) instead of him.

It is a really hard case to make that Santorum is more conservative than Romney. I've heard the arguments, but I'm not convinced. Gingrich, yes. Santorum, no way.

This is the problem with the next great hope, we end up having to dig up "Oh what did he say?" because we ignored what he said when he was getting <3% in the polls.

Shit is getting real, this ain't the Ames Straw Poll anymore.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 16, 2012 08:09 PM (T0NGe)

261
I guess um.....Media Matters.....for taxes and such. Ahem.....

>>>>> The Richmond Tea Party group is blasting the IRS for allegedly failing
to grant tax exempt status to the pro-limited government
organization.“The Internal Revenue Service has served Richmond Tea
Party (RTP) with unreasonable requests to obtain a tax-exempt status,
fitting the pattern of the Federal Government’s forcing liberty groups
to spend inordinate time and money complying with their demands during
this critical 2012 election year,” RTP claims in a press release. <<<<<<<

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 16, 2012 08:13 PM (r+9M6)

262 As far as Obama's invincibility

2008 wasn't a blow out.

And since, where is the evidence that he's done anything but hemorrhage support in virtually every demographic?

Posted by: AtlasMugged at February 16, 2012 08:16 PM (+K0Rc)

263 After seeing the collective media whack-off to Obama that was 2008, along with the steady streak of stories like Journolist and this new Media Matters collaboration, I don't buy one word of anything that comes out from any of these organizations. It's all about the "narrative". End of story.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 16, 2012 08:25 PM (Y5I9o)

264 I don't think we have done enough infighting yet. I think we can slander each others favorite presidential candidates some more and increase Obastard's chances to 75%.

Because if does not win, what is the difference between other candidates and Obastard?

Posted by: Tushar at February 16, 2012 08:36 PM (6bGT8)

265 How about a poll tax? Let's talk about bringing back the poll tax. That's a winner, I'm sure.


Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 16, 2012 06:13 PM (BXqkH)


Think about the merits of poll tests every time my friggin' in-laws explain to me how great Obama is.

Posted by: Will Danagher at February 16, 2012 08:36 PM (u3N3z)

266 Dude . . . if you are going to go all bipolar on us every time there is a shift in polling between now and November, it's going to be a bumpy ride. Why not just swallow a handful of pills, down the rest of that quart of Valu-Rite®, and chill out. Or blow your head off, whatever.

Posted by: Adjoran at February 16, 2012 08:36 PM (VfmLu)

267 joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions

You are Nativist scum. My family are immigrants and aren't on welfare. Want to discuss the Trailer Park Whites or Ghetto Hood rat Blacks. But you are OK with that.

Posted by: American Nationalist at February 16, 2012 09:10 PM (l52K6)

268 Yup, Obama with a 60%-77% majority. This sounds real.

Posted by: Z Ryan at February 16, 2012 09:32 PM (tsC/8)

269 Everything is going according to plan. There will be no one to stop us this time.

Posted by: The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016, K. Rove, Chairman at February 16, 2012 09:40 PM (A7TPS)

270 When gas is sitting at a minimum of $4 a gallon, possibly closer to $5 on election day, and has been above $4 across the country since spring, people are going to feel the pain. GDP will drop, real prices will skyrocket. Even the MFM will not be able to gloss over the issues.

Posted by: William Teach at February 16, 2012 09:54 PM (Pq9u/)

271 259 and 266
Yep. Take heart tho we're posting on an award winning CPAC site.

Posted by: iggy at February 16, 2012 10:21 PM (5Cwv4)

272 I think you are missing the point on Generic Republican. Generic does mean most like the average but most like what people think of when they think Republican. When most people think generic republican they don't think North Eastern Moderate they think Midwest Conservative. If there is a Generic Republican in this race it's Santorum. He holds all the typical Republican positions and is from middle America. Romney's biggest problem is that he ISN'T the Generic Republican. If he were, with his money advantage, this race would be over already.

Posted by: Rocks at February 16, 2012 10:24 PM (19AIg)

273 Nate Silver is and always has been a Democratic Party hack.

Posted by: deepelemblues at February 16, 2012 11:55 PM (lFU4D)

274 By the way, Silver isn't saying that Obama currently projects to win 60% of the vote. He's saying that Obama has a 60% chance to win the election. There's a big difference there. Even in a strict two-man race, he could win the election with just 50.1% of the vote.

Maybe we should actually look at the data, or at least the analysis before jumping to the conclusion that it is stupid, ruined by bias or uses fatally flawed methodology.

Or, I guess we could just reject it because we don't like the conclusion.

Posted by: Just a guy at February 16, 2012 11:56 PM (gnViO)

275 Everyone is already locked in but Professional White women. They are the swing voters, and they're torn.

Yeah, BS numbers from the BLS look good, but they still pay more every week at the gas pump, and the grocery store, and for clothes, and everything else. Prices are not going DOWN. And Wages are stagnant.

There's a great story: Obama ran the printing presses, making everything more expensive to pay for his goody handouts to cronies. He made the US weak (and will make it a sitting duck with less than 300 nukes) and unable to respond to Iran's saber rattling moving gas up to $5 a gallon and beyond (Brent is $120 today). And the only solution is a guy who will drill everywhere, beating cheap Chinese labor with cheap American energy, and by the way lowering your electricity/gas bills every month while Obama jacks them up every month like he promised.

While basically admitting you're soft on social issues, the way Obama does with gay marriage. No one believes him on anything, and for most of America (which backs Gay Marriage) that's a plus.

That's a recipe for Romney, or someone like him. An economic issues RINO. Does that suck? Sure. But if I'm lost in the Desert I do pretty much everything to survive. It's Bear Grylls time without the room service at the hotel. More like Survivor Man.

Santorum screams Beta Male loser, he might get five professional women votes. Romney has the amused mastery of the Alpha male. That KILLS with women. Who are the only ones not locked in already.

Obama is down because gas prices went up. Again. THAT not social issues is the path to victory. America is a hard-left nation, where jokes about Whitney Houston being a crack addict (true by the way, she admitted it on Oprah in 2009) gets radio hosts suspended. Rick (I want you barefoot and pregnant) Santorum is a sure-fire loser. Suicide for the GOP.

Posted by: whiskey at February 17, 2012 03:00 AM (L03mw)

276 "Santorum screams Beta Male loser"
Agree --but so does Obama, so that is not a huge problem for anyRepublican challenger although the contrast withRomney is better.

Posted by: JPS at February 17, 2012 10:26 AM (aY76I)

277 "But there you go. Nate Silver assumes, as I do, that candidates closer to the center will do somewhat better in the general"

I know this is supposed to be the wisdom of the enlightened political class. I also have seen little evidence of it.

My proof against it:
McCain
Dole
Ford
Reagan (was no where near the center and won)

Posted by: firewithfire at February 17, 2012 11:38 AM (lcwvr)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0763 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0302 seconds, 285 records returned.
Page size 157 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat