Member since: Sat Jan 5, 2008, 07:45 PM
Number of posts: 41,819
Number of posts: 41,819
- 2017 (16)
- 2016 (5)
- November (5)
- 2014 (8)
- January (8)
- 2013 (28)
- 2012 (146)
- 2011 (14)
- December (14)
- Older Archives
You may have seen Karl Rove's latest electoral map. It is non partisan (and maybe even a little generous with South Carolina as a toss up) and pretty accurate.
Obama starts with 220 solid (double digit or much much more) and Romney with 92. Leaning Obama 64 and Romney 79.
Basically Romney has to run the table with his leans and toss ups and has to turn atleast one Obama lean..
Obama takes his solids and leans and wins. if he wins AZ, FL or VA there is virtually no way for Romney to get close with all of the rest of the leans without turning a couple of leans from Obama to Romeny.
So what is the twice divorced college drop out Machievellian political hackmeister up to?
Some at DU have speculated that he is trying to scare Republicans to start donating real money.
If that was his agenda then he wouldn't have used this map, this one makes it look like a lost cause. This is the map you use if your trying to convince people not to waste good money after bad on Romney and spend the money on Senate and Congressional states/districts.
So here is an alternate theory. The Bush/Republican establishment are leaving Romney to his own devices. Team Romney isn't hiring a bunch of traditional Republican campaign staffers but his own gang. In the meantime Rove and the rest of them use their PAC funds to help Republicans run Congressional candidates in key Republican districts and States where the President is thought to have a possible impact.
Romney goes down to a historic landslide and cannot run again in 2016.
In the meantime the Bush machine has quietly been working hard to get people elected.
Over the next 4 years Obama is saddled with fixing the deficit, fixing the entitlement funding problems and getting the economy back on track. In 2016 the Jeb Bush comes back to reunite the Republican Party and they run on a whole list of social agenda items and cutting back the size of the government and reducing taxes.
With a whole fistful of IOUs in his pocket Jeb is able to lock up Iowa, NH and S. Carolina and a grateful party is reunited behind Jeb Bush and the Bushes finally get to run the 'smart son' who makes the Republicans giddy at the possibility that Jeb's Mexican born wife will be able to undo the damage of the Republican anti-Hispanic campaign.
So is Karl Rove trying to undermine support to Romney?
Don't know but this map sure isn't going to help Romney raise money?
Posted by grantcart | Mon Apr 30, 2012, 10:49 PM (10 replies)
Briefly surfacing from an extended road trip and bracing for another long one I normally don't have but a few minutes to check in with the Greatest, LBN but wanted to offer a couple of big picture numbers that are useful to remind other Democrats, persuade uncommitteds and shut down right wing talkers:
1) Four out of the last five US Presidential Elections have been won by Democrats.
Without getting into the contentious questions of 2000 and 2004 it is a simple fact that over the past 20 years the US people have voted for Democratic Nominees in all elections except 2004 which was the middle of a hot war and no American electorate has ever switched administrations in the middle of a hot war. If somebody refers to 2000 you can remind them that the election was won by a Democrat but the electoral college was won by Bush, these facts are not in dispute.
The whole meme that this is a conservative leaning country is not sustained by electoral facts.
2) The combined total of votes for Democratic nominees over Republican nominees in the last 20 years is 271,837,637 versus 250,746,871 for a difference of 21,090,766, not a small number.
So when the Republicans try and frame the discussion by stating they are going to "take back the country" or that the Democratic Party is somehow outside of the mainstream of America, simply say "21,090,766". They will ask what you are talking about and you can tell them that in the last 20 years the Democrats have 21,090,766 votes than Republicans and that there point is nonsense.
3) The polls are showing a close election. They are only if you think that 2 + 2 is closer to 22 than 4.
We have two sets of widely reported facts;
1) Obama has a 70+ solid lead among non white (African Americans/Hispanics) which account for roughly 20% of the population.
Obama has a 20 point lead among women.
Obama has a 20 point lead among young.
Obama is slightly behind Romney in angry white males that don't fit the above categories.
If you take the first two (1. 70% of 20 is `14+)(2. 20% of the remaining 80% is 16+) then all of the relevent polls show that Obama has a 30 point advantage and Romney would have to be ahead of all white males 65-35 for the total polling to be even close.
And yet while national tracking polls all show a tight race individual state polls don't.
Obama is showing big leads in Blue states, leads in Purple and closer than you would think in some Red States.
A sampling from Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
NH Obama 51- 42 (UNH) Remember this is Romney's 'home state'
AZ Romney 42-40 (AZSt.)
OH Obama 45-38 (FOX)
NY Obama 57-35 (Marist) 60-35 (Siena 60-35)
NJ Obama 49-40 (Quinnipiac)
NC Obama 49-44 (PPP)
NM Obama 52-46 (Ras)
CO Obama 53-40 (PPP)
VA Romney 46-41 (Roanoke)
I didn't cherry pick these polls but included all of the polls from the last 2 weeks including blatant Republican pollsters like FOX and Rasmussen.
What accounts for the discrepancy between two radical sets of numbers, one from national polls and the other from combining the aggregate of states or various groups?
You could talk about how minorities, Democrats and the young are more under reported in landline national polls and local polls take greater care to be more representative.
Or you could point out that there is an entire industry of pollsters and broadcasters who have a great deal to make if the election is a close horse race. If it is basically seen as a done deal contributions to both sides will be done and that will mean as much as a billion dollars of lost advertising. Only a fraction of the polls will be done. So a close national race generates hundreds of millions of dollars in broadcast advertising and millions of dollars in additional polling revenues.
4) Finally a number with teeth in it 60-38
Intrade the political futures market where people put money up the President has been absolutely steady at 58-61 and Romney has been stuck on 38 for months.
Posted by grantcart | Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:38 AM (3 replies)
If being a Christian in an age where the right dominates much of the Church wasn't enough of a challenge, being insulted on a fairly regular basis here really does test your ability to share the "Grace" of your faith.
The word "Church" comes from the Greek ekklesia and means "those that are called out".
As you celebrate the Sacred day of Good Friday I share your feelings of profound pain that humanity experiences that is captured fully in the cruxifiction of the Rabbi Jesus and as you approach experiencing the joy of the Resurrection of that spirit I wish you and your family a happy holiday.
Posted by grantcart | Fri Apr 6, 2012, 10:11 AM (3 replies)
Site was first discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125125166
Now this is just so stupid you have to wonder why the hell they would be wasting money on crap like this but they are.
There are so many things wrong with this but let's just look at the basics:
1) The Dow Jones Industrial was founded in 1890 and took 119 years to get to 6626 on March 2nd, 2009 roughly 6 weeks after the President was sworn in. In just three years the DJI has increased another 6586 points to close at 13252 on March 12th. The facts are that this is the greatest three year increase in capital in the history of the world, so why would the President be aligned with communists by any thinking person?
2) The phone is tied to the CCCP which ceased to exist in 1991.
3) Why Nikita Krushchev? Just seems strange to pick out THAT particular dead communist. Why wouldn't you pick out Marx, Engels, or Lenin. Nikita? Really?
4) The shoes show double possessive apostrophe's "Nikita's Krushchev's" which is like a Junior High level grammatical mistake.
Lame, uninformed, illiterate, and without anything actually funny.
Does the Romney campaign disavow this shit?
It is clearly tied to the Romney campaign and all donations to the site go to the campaign.
Posted by grantcart | Thu Apr 5, 2012, 02:39 PM (10 replies)
Posted by grantcart | Wed Apr 4, 2012, 06:57 PM (1 replies)
As previously noted September 1st, 2012 will mark the first day of the Post Republican Primary campaign and we, along with the Republicans will find out exactly what the Republican Party has purchased in its nominee.
Kind of like a Surprise Party in reverse.
Here Romney surrogate Ehrlich is giving us a teaser:
After the convention Romney will begin to tell us his "real" opinions on women's issues.
Hey conservative cavers/freepers/and other lurkers on the right - what do you think Romney's 'real' views are and why would the 'gender gap' "dissipate rather quickly".
Man you guys have fallen for one of the greatest political con jobs in history and I am loving every second of it.
Posted by grantcart | Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:57 PM (7 replies)
On edit: Obviously I wasn't careful enough in my original OP because some thought that I meant that the analogy meant I thought that they made equal contributions to their professions. I don't think anyone who knows Satchel Paige's career could confuse it with anyone except Conkrite in its star and professional quality.
It was meant as a more humorous comparison of Paige's most famous anecdote where he tells the rest of the team to sit down while he strikes out the side. Olbermann is reminiscent of THAT anecdote.
Paige gave decades of superstar performances and may have done some of it with a rotator cup tear. For those that appreciated the humor of Paige and admire the contributions of Olbermann, even though he seems to self destruct, here is the OP with a tongue in cheek analogy of the two;
For those that don't know the great Satchel:
Satchel Paige was probably the greatest human to ever play baseball.
There are many famous stories about Paige but this is the most well known:
He also pitched for a semi-pro team named the Down the Bay Boys, and he recalled that he once got into a jam in the ninth inning of a 1–0 ballgame when his teammates made three consecutive errors, loading the bases for the other team with two outs. Angry, Paige said he stomped around the mound, kicking up dirt. The fans started booing him, so he decided that “somebody was going to have to be showed up for that.” He called in his outfielders and had them sit down in the infield. With the fans and his own teammates howling, Paige struck out the final batter, winning the game.
Paige was also famous for saying very funny things, like "Avoid running at all times."
Paige's contract was always in limbo and was a mess of legal arbitration.
Olbermann, like Paige, has flashes of brilliance, is a brilliant player unable to play well in a team sport, seems to have a lot of unusual contract problems, and says strange memorable things.
Olbermann is unquestionably brilliant.
Olbermann is not a good team player.
Olberman is going to sue Current TV.
Olberman, explaining his situation with Current TV:
‘You know, if you buy a $10 million chandelier, you should have a house to put it in. Just walking around with a $10 million chandelier isn't going to do anybody a lot of good, and it's not going to do any good to the chandelier.' And then it turned out we didn't have a lot to put the house on, to put the chandelier in, or a building permit, and I, I should have known that," he said, acknowledging that he believed he was akin to the chandelier.
I believe that Satchel Paige was convinced that he too was a $ 10 million chandelier in a cheap house.
Final closing ironic note: KO would be pleased as punch to be compared to Satchel Paige, would get the analogy and probably agree with it, and SP would be pleased as punch to be still remembered and used as a point of comparison thirty years after he died.
Posted by grantcart | Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:06 PM (22 replies)
Go to Page: 1