Monday Open Thread [10.1.12]

Filed in Open Thread by on October 1, 2012

After examining all presidential polls since 1972, Nate Silver explains:

“Data suggest that polling in presidential elections has no history of partisan bias, at least not on a consistent basis. There have been years, like 1980 and 1994, when the polls did underestimate the standing of Republicans. But there have been others, like 2000 and 2006, when they underestimated the standing of Democrats…In all but three years, the partisan bias in the polls was small, with the polling average coming within 1.5 percentage points of the actual result. (I use the term “bias” in a statistical sense, meaning simply that the results tended to miss toward one direction.)”

So Nate Silver had to take time out of his weekend because some right winger babies cannot handle reality? Seriously, if every radical right wing conservative disappeared tomorrow, can you imagine how much better our society would be, instantly?

WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr previews Wednesday’s debate, and has a couple of good tips for President Obama:

“Obama will have to avoid intimations of arrogance or overconfidence. Al Gore marred an otherwise strong night with his rather dismissive sighs during a 2000 debate with George W. Bush…Obama’s aspiration is for a showdown in which he calmly, perhaps even amiably, maintains focus on the subjects that have consistently given Romney such trouble. Every mention of the number 47 will be a victory for Obama.”

I worry that Obama will be too long winded, too detailed and soft spoken in his conversational style.

Is it possible that Republican voter suppression will backfire in a big way? The Economist’s ‘Lexingon Notebook’ notes that Republican efforts to suppress black and low-income votes has energized the Democratic base like “rocket fuel”, to quote the chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, Jim Burn. In short, the voter-ID law could end up being a net positive for the Democrats.

Michael Kinsley:

If, as seems possible, Mitt Romney is not elected U.S. president on Nov. 6, he will not be the first presidential candidate to run on the issue of competence and then lose because he ran an incompetent campaign. He will not even be the first governor of Massachusetts to do so.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis, who was ahead in the polls just after the Democratic convention, declared in his acceptance speech: “This election isn’t about ideology. It’s about competence.” Then he proceeded to blow his large lead and lose to George H.W. Bush, who turned out to be a tougher old bird than anyone suspected.

It would be hard to think of two politicians more different than Dukakis and Romney. […]

Even if Romney wins the election, because of some unpredicted development between now and Nov. 6, the judgment on his campaign is fixed: It has been terrible. Despite his success in business, he’s a lousy politician. And if he loses the election, that will be a comment not just on his campaign strategy but also on his whole way of thinking.

About the Author ()

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    Did you see the picture of that conservative blogger who figured out that polls were skewed by looking at them and squinting?

  2. SussexWatcher says:

    Former Georgetown Mayor Brian Pettyjohn, a Republican, has filed as a write-in candidate for the 19th Senate seat vs. Bodie and Hovington. Shit is gonna go down.

  3. Jconnor says:

    Yep

  4. WWB says:

    Has anybody else heard anything about this bogus claim circulating that Delaware has become “the first state to ban parents spanking their children?” I just spent the last few minutes reading the new law and the portion of the law that it amends. The claim is bogus, of course, but who could have been behind it? Parenting and homeschool blogs are all over it.

  5. pandora says:

    I think DelawarePolitics Blog covered this nonsense a while ago.

  6. Aoine says:

    @WWB – look at it the way Oscar Wilde looked at fox-hunting:

    “the unmentionable chasing the uneatable”

    thats how I see the homeschoolers and the DE Family COuncil trying to look at legislation – they will never understand it because they dont want to,…

  7. The voter ID law doesn’t work to suppress the vote because it was never designed nor intended to do so. It is just the opposite, it is designed to encourage turning out the vote by ensuring the integrity of the process.

  8. Liberal Elite says:

    “The voter ID law doesn’t work to suppress the vote because it was never designed nor intended to do so.”

    This is wholly untrue. If it wasn’t then we’d be seeing some sort of real effort to help people who don’t have IDs get one.

    This whole effort has always been about putting up a roadblock for the poor, the elderly, minorities, and others who are on the fringes of society.

    My own mother (95 years old) has no ID. She hasn’t driven in 20 years or so. She wants to vote, but she’s exactly they type of person they hope will stay at home on election day…

  9. Room 222 says:

    @LE – now do you know why he is referred to a “delusional”?

    he actually BELIEVES that bunk – and you had a GREAT rejoiner

    also ask him WHY getting a birthcert costs these folks money….why there is no transportation – and out west it can be hours of driving

    etc etc etc – its all about supression

    i suppose he thinks poll taxes were encouraging African-americans to spend wisely

    and if he is so concerned he can volunteer to go out and drive these old folks around and/or pay for they paperwork – put your money where your mouth is David

  10. Dave says:

    I’m an advocate for a voter id. Actually I advocate a national id. However, in recognition that such a thing is a change, it is irresponsible to require the id for services/functions for which no id was previously required unless there was a plan for ensuring that everyone has id and that plan was implemented.

    There are efficient ways of achieving that using existing mobile services (libraries, vaccinations) and fixed locations (fire stations, shopping centers, and other fixed locations) along with a phase in period.

    The absolute condition (id vs no id) is untenable give the real desire to have some form of id. It should not be a question of whether to have or not have. The question should be how and when. It is unacceptable to disenfranchise citizens who don’t have id. It is also unacceptable to enfranchise those who are not citizens. Regardless of whether the problem is widespread (let’s say it’s not), it does not change the fact that in the scheme of things in a nation of 300 million people there is a real need for some form of acceptable identification for every person.

    I’m not suggesting we implant a chip. But consider the benefits of such a thing for missing children. Why do our pets rate a greater standard of care than our children? Obviously, chip implantation is a bridge too far, but the debate should not be whether id is necessary, it should be how to do it without affecting our freedoms. The burden of proof for voter id should be whether any citizen who does not have the means to obtain an id is disenfranchised.

  11. jason330 says:

    Disenfranchisement of Democratic voters is the stated goal of the voter ID advocates. They’ve been very unguarded about it.

  12. puck says:

    Doesn’t anybody remember back when proposing a national ID card was a third rail in politics? It would make us too much like the Soviet Union, the thinking went. I guess a few Supreme Court decisions and a Patriot Act later, the Soviet Union is looking pretty good to conservatives.

    Here’s a clue: Nearly all election fraud happens BEFORE Election Day. And it’s not done by individuals without ID; it’s done by political operatives with spreadsheets.

  13. jason330 says:

    I’m ready for a national ID. It would take this bullshit issue away from Republicans and would be a baby step toward national health care.

  14. heragain says:

    Aoine & WWB, I brought it up here, too.

    FIRST, let me repeat that crazy right wing homeschoolers are not all homeschoolers, or even a majority. But the political left is totally FAILING to reach out to the mass of left and moderate homeschoolers. And it’s gonna bite us in the ass, bigtime.

    The organized groups that bother to mention, let alone claim to advocate for, homeschoolers are fundraising millions off them with these scare tactics. Delaware has more homeschoolers than you think, and many of them homeschool because it seems to them the best way to meet their children’s needs, particularly children with special needs. the state has pretty much cast them off, but their inboxes are full of “we know how hard it is for you, let us help you” from people like the ghouls at HSLDA.

    don’t blame the people doing the work if you let those kids go.