HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cleduc » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jul 13, 2012, 12:38 PM
Number of posts: 499

Journal Archives

I'm sure Rove bears a hunk of responsibility

and it's nice to see him appear to be headed towards getting what's rightfully coming his way.

But Mitt was the nominee who had some influence on what Rove did. Rove had $300+ mil at his disposal. Mitt had much, much more at his disposal and it was Mitt running his own campaign.

It was a bad defeat and there's plenty of blame to go around. But to me, the primary blame falls on Mitt Romney and the primary credit for beating him belongs to President Obama.

So far, and it's still early, I don't see much that's sinister in terms of

the administration and timeline.

Time line

- Late summer (up to Sep 22), they determine a link to Petraeus but they're monitoring it
- In Sept, they review legal charges and who to interview
- Late Sept, first interview with Broadwell - she turns over her computer
- Week before the election, they interview Petraeus, who had been in Libya, and I presume at that point, ask Petraeus about the classified documents recently found on Broadwell's computer
- The FBI determines that at this point, there isn't enough to bring charges and advise Petraeus' boss 5pm, the day of the election.
- The evening of the election and the next day, Clapper, Petraeus' boss asks that Petraeus step down
- the following day, two days after the election, Obama is told and Petraeus resigns

If the FBI haven't found enough to bring charges at that point, how serious can this be with respect to the Obama admin?

I'm sure the Republicans can try to make something of it but it has to be tough because Petraeus was a consideration as a GOP candidate for president and no matter what they say about Obama, Petraeus is far more in the wrong on this.

I buy it.

There was a smaller core who knew. They also knew that if they told folks widely about it, the money would dry up.

I posted about why their claim of not knowing their polls were off was bogus:

There's no good path out for them. Either they tell folks they got their polls wrong or they have to admit they defrauded their donors. The choice between those two is a simple one when looking forward.

Look no further than the GOP in disarray having to consider

lobbying folks who are not white to regain power.

Obama on election eve 2008: "change has come to America"

He was right.

Hopefully, in 2014, folks will help him finish what they started

I'd change that title to

"We told the Koch Bros, the Adelsons, the Kkkarl funders, etc that they can't buy elections. THIS TIME"

Because next time, you might not be able to say that.

They've got to get that sort of money out of politics.

Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill


They were real quick to put the fruitless and misguided search for weapons on mass destruction on the credit card and the lives of good American soldiers in graves. But dragged their heels to stop helping those good soldiers who survived their error.

There's a lot the GOP did over the last four years that disgusted me.

But that one was right up there near the top.

During the primaries, and even before, I wasn't a fan

but I think she's done a heck of a job for Obama.

The air mileage she racked up on behalf of Americans in this job is staggering. I think she set some records.

If she wants to recharge her batteries, God bless her.

She's 65 and going to be 69 in 2016. At that age, I can see why she might have some trepidation about another primary and run.

But my respect for her and what she's done over the last four years has grown substantially.

Here's what I posted on Politico:

Isn't polling supposed to tell you who is and isn't going to show up, etc? (Rhetorical question)

Much of the premise being discussed by the GOP about the polling in the article is fundamentally wrong.

When the GOP howled about the polls being biased in September, Nate Silver, Gallup & Mark Blumenthal (Pollster.com) all weighed in. In fact, Mark cited articles he wrote on the subject when this came up in 2004.

A good poll simply answers the questions about where people are on an issue. It isn't rocket science to design and setup a poll that will give one objective and meaningful results.

So only one of two things happened:

1) The Republican pollsters are or have become incompetent with polling

2) The Republicans digesting the polls knew what was going on but didn't want to let on out of fear their campaign funding would dry up.

Karl Rove has been at this game and interpreting polls since the late 70s. I choose door #2

And this is what I posted on Daily Kos
A common complaint about polling (1+ / 0-)
by the GOP during the election, including by Rove himself, was the "oversampling of Democrats" or party bias that was supposedly skewing the polls.

Nate wrote about it:
Poll Averages Have No History of Consistent Partisan Bias

Mark Blumenthal of Huff Post/Pollster.com weighed in it
'Unskewed Polls' Critics Miss Basics Of Party Identification

Gallup addressed it:
The Recurring -- and Misleading -- Focus on Party Identification

And they shot the claim down.

Here's what happened according to the exit polls (that are not absolutely precise but give us some idea):
State Party ID +/- (2008,2004) (+=Dems, =-Reps)
CO Dems +5 (-1,-9)
FL Dems +2 (+3,-4)
IA even (+1,-2)
NC Dems +6 (+11,-1)
NH Dems +3 (+2,-7)
NV Dems +10 (+8,-4)
OH Dems +7 (+8,-5)
PA Dems +10 (+7,+2)
VA Dems +7 (+6,-4)
WI Dems +5 (+6,-3)

When Bush won, Republicans were ahead in the exit polls. When Obama won, Democrats were ahead in the exit polls in the battleground states. The polls weren't lying, biased or skewing.

But again, Rove has been around this game since the late 70s. He knew this. This was not a revelation that only Nate Silver, Mark Blumenthal & Gallup knew.

Karl lied to keep the money rolling in.

So we're supposed to accept a campaign that set a new disgracefully low standard in lying to the American people was above lying about the polls that would detrimentally affect their ability to sucker billionaires and GOP supporters to fund them?

Scott Rasmussen has been around the polling game for a long time. He knew exactly what he was doing. So did Gravis. And they needed others like Gravis because poll of polls only allow one poll from each pollster.

These people knew exactly what they were doing and exactly where they stood. But like everything else about them and their candidate, it was all about using deceit to get power and money. So they're left with two choices:
1. Admit they lied to fleece people for dough
2. Pretend they were incompetent pollsters
#1 is far more damaging to their future so they're doing something they got really good and consistent at: lying about their incompetence.

How come the GOP don't need blacks?

Their reaction to losing Latinos 73%-23% or whatever it was is Romneyesque "ok, we need to flip-flop on immigration so we can get the Spics to vote for us!!!"

I've yet to hear one major Republican express concern about getting the black vote that they lost about 95%-5%.

Immigration is an "American" problem that just happens to contain a bunch of Latinos.
Food stamps or poverty is an "American" problem that doesn't just include blacks. And the reason a bunch of blacks are in poverty/unemployed very likely has something to do with the racism they're still up against.

The racism in this GOP party continues to disgust and sicken me. They don't get it because they're still filled with prejudice and hate.

I hope people like that are buried in US elections for a long, long time until the racists among them croak.

And for the record, I'm a snow white WASP.

Sorry if I offended anyone. The headline upset me.

This guy Jones can't even read exit polls

"Jones argued that despite the Orca crash and clear wins by President Obama on issues like health care and the middle class Romney "won on the vision for the future, on being a strong leader, on the deficit," he said."

Romney barely led on the deficit issue by 2 pts and the economy by 1 pt (both within the margin of error and therefore not a definitive "win") but Obama led on the rest of the questions.

The only question involving "strong leader" was:

"Most Important Candidate Quality"
Answers were:
Shares my values : 27% Overall 42% Dem 55% Rep
Strong leader : 18% Overall 38% Dem 61% Rep
Cares about people: 21% Overall 81% Dem 18% Rep
Vision for future : 29% Overall 45% Dem 54% Rep

Jones of the Romney campaign is misreading the answer on the "strong leader" which is focused on which quality was most important to voters. The question was not which candidate was the stronger leader. Among those whose most important candidate quality was "strong leader", Romney had more Republicans chose that answer but the others who picked other qualities didn't provide an opinion of who they thought the stronger leader was.

Put another way 18% thought "strong leader" was the most important candidate quality. 7 of the 18% were Dems and 11 (the balance) of that 18% were Reps. 82% didn't weigh in on that question. Nor did any say if they actually thought Obama or Romney was the stronger leader.

More specifically for example, the 21% folks who thought "cares about people" was the most important quality, (81% of whom were Dems), didn't say who they thought the stronger leader was.

The same applies to the "Vision for the future" answer.

No wonder Romney's folks had trouble interpreting the polls. Their key guys couldn't read them (or doubled down with another lie).
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »