LawTalkers - Politics As Usual

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Politics As Usual (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=580)

Our Objective Media

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
*sigh* Depression is the emotion Kerry generates for me.

And Bush?

Our Objective Media

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And Bush?

Rage

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
http://www.drudgereport.com/tootsie.JPG

a guy who has such perfect hair, and doesn't spend all his time trying to get laid, can't be trusted in my book.

Our Objective Media

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If Kerry leads by 8% and the margin of error is +/-3%, and he wins by 2%, then the poll is "wrong" statisitically, but practically is irrelevant, as he still won.

Not in the sense she means. If people say one thing to the pollster, and then vote differently, it doesn't mean that poll is wrong, it just means that the poll and the vote are measuring different things. (I think this answers Hank's point too.) She means that the poll is not accurately measuring how the population will answer the poll.

As for Club's point about Congress, congressional districts are so gerrymandered that I'm not sure there's a whole lot of connection between that question on a national level and the breakdown of seats. For more on this, here's a post from Kevin Drum from a a few days ago:

Quote:

HOUSE HORSE RACE....I just talked to polling guru Ruy Teixeira to find out what he thought about the the LA Times poll showing Democrats with a huge nationwide lead over Republicans in congressional races (see previous post for details). He made a few points:

His rough guess is that the real Democratic lead right now is 10-11 points.
However, historically Republicans always outperform the congressional polls. So if the election were held today, the actual Dem lead would probably be several points lower.
The conventional wisdom is that any seat that was won with a majority of 55% or more in the previous election is not in play. However, if there's a real surge for the Democrats, some of those seats could turn out to be contestable after all.
There are models that predict House results based on nationwide vote percentage, but it's too early for any of them to be useful. Still, he says, "there's a real chance the Democrats could pick up a bunch of seats."

Well, it may be too early for pollsters with genuine models to make any guesses, but since I have no reputation at stake it's not too early for me. Take a look at the results of the past three elections:

In the 1998 congressional race, Republicans won 50.3% of the vote nationwide and 51% of the House seats.
In the 2000 congressional race, Republicans won 50.1% of the vote nationwide and 51% of the House seats.
In the 2002 congressional race, Republicans won 52.5% of the vote nationwide and 52.7% of the House seats.

I may not have a fancy computer model, but those results seem strikingly consistent to me. If the Democrats can produce a 2-3% nationwide lead in the congressional election this year, it seems to me they might be able to produce an actual win in House seats as well — although a win of uncertain size due to gerrymandering and other uncertainties. You heard it here first.

The NYT's op-ed page is particularly worth reading today. The column by Paul Krugman suggests the answer to club's post yesterday about crediting the government for arresting that Somali in Ohio. Under Ashcroft, the DOJ is so PR-oriented that it's hard to have faith in what they're saying. Ashcroft too consistently makes terror-related headlines at times that seem much too convenient.

But the better column is David Brooks', about the sorts of educated elites who support Democrats and Republicans ("professionals" and "managers"). Brooks and his new book have received a lot of criticism lately, well-deserved in my view, but this column is the sort of thing he turns out at the top of his game. I'm not going to try to summarize it because I'll sound like Brooks when he's off his game, but check it out.

Our Objective Media

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As for Club's point about Congress, congressional districts are so gerrymandered that I'm not sure there's a whole lot of connection between that question on a national level and the breakdown of seats. For more on this, here's a post from Kevin Drum from a a few days ago:

True, but if you or any of your bloggers think that the DEMS have any material lead right now, they are engaging in wishful thinking. Frankly, I'm OK with that, because it may lower DEM turnout in the fall.

Our Objective Media

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
True, but if you or any of your bloggers think that the DEMS have any material lead right now, they are engaging in wishful thinking. Frankly, I'm OK with that, because it may lower DEM turnout in the fall.

The Ruy Teixeiras of the world make their living doing this shit, but I just find it hard to care too much what the polls are saying. The elections will be decided by what happens in the real world in the next five months, not by polls taken in June.

Our Objective Media

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Ruy Teixeiras of the world make their living doing this shit, but I just find it hard to care too much what the polls are saying. The elections will be decided by what happens in the real world in the next five months, not by polls taken in June.

agreed

Pope Aspergur Grinch Syndrom?

Not to pick on any particular poster, but holy shit, does this article remind anyone of anyone? I mean, we all have our specialties in religion, public safety, Gilligan's reruns, useless sports trivia, polygamy, etc. etc. etc. But who knew there was a name for you people?

From today's New York Times (from a fairly interesting article):

---Asperger's syndrome. The disorder is also called "the little professor syndrome." ---

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/ny.../15subway.html

Story about a guy who just can't stop f'ing with the NY transit system.

Ha.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The NYT's op-ed page is particularly worth reading today. The column by Paul Krugman suggests the answer to club's post yesterday about crediting the government for arresting that Somali in Ohio. Under Ashcroft, the DOJ is so PR-oriented that it's hard to have faith in what they're saying. Ashcroft too consistently makes terror-related headlines at times that seem much too convenient.

what f'ed about this whole topic is that the difference between some nut who spouts that he wants to blow up a mall, and an actual fanatic who will if not stopped, is hard to tell until the fanatic gets closer than we can accept.

Why the fuck are we turning Saddam over to the Iraqis? We have legitimate reasons to hold him until he is tried and convicted.

I don't see why they just can't smother him in a sleeping bag and get it over with. I am sure that death would be a welcome change to being tortured by having panties stuck on his head 24/7 anyway.

Out out, damn Spot

Citing an 87% absentee record for Senate votes, Governor Romney of MA calls on Kerry to step down:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...resign?mode=PF

What are the Senate rules on this anyway?

Out out, damn Spot

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

What are the Senate rules on this anyway?

Are there any?

I think the last sentence explains the issue best:

"Under current state law, the governor would appoint someone to fill the remainder of Kerry's term, which is set to expire in 2008."

Out out, damn Spot

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Citing an 87% absentee record for Senate votes, Governor Romney of MA calls on Kerry to step down:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...resign?mode=PF

What are the Senate rules on this anyway?

I am overcome with admiration at the non-partisanness of this whole thing. I'm sure that the Republican administration would be sure to appoint a liberal Democrat to the position. Kind of like I'm sure the TX legislature gerrymandered, uh, I mean, redrew, the districts here in the middle of the normal cycle as an overall bid for fairness.

ETA given the political affiliations of the players, I'd think they'd be just as happy not to have Kerry voting. Romney must be up for reelection this year, and be expecting to lose. And, it was 87% of roll call votes.