The Democrat Thread

[Soxy]

I just really laugh at people who want to see government run health care. NEWS FLASH: IT WILL NOT BE ANY BETTER THEN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

 

No offense personally, bmags. It just is not an issue I will EVER trust the government to get right. People will die that don't today. It's just about that simple.

 

/waiting for 10 billion articles from leftist blogs telling me how I'm wrong and how f'ed up today's sytem is (yes, s*** happens), but I know from personal experience from working in the industry. It will not be better, but just go on drinking the kool-aid.

I think that depends. I make less than 20k a year. I have minimal health insurance and no dental or vision plan. Even a s***ty government program would be better for me.

 

When I start making in the upper 6 digits, then yeah, private health insurance will be better.

 

But for the working poor, well, it sucks currently.

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree, but one is lesser of two evils. What do you think the government is going to do with all this information? People b**** all the time about the Patriot Act, now we are giving them carte blanche access to every medical record in the country? How long will it be before they decide what they will treat and what they won't? Etc.?

 

Absolutely, there's problems with today's health care, but it will get MUCH worse under the government.

I don't have a complete answer, but I have a general idea - not-for-profits. Its not a perfect solution, but it netralizes some of the biggest problems in each. If we can find a way to have medical providers and health insurance to be not-for-profit but privately held, I think we could have a real answer there. And we don't necessarily have to force it - it can be promoted and taxed into strength if we handle it right.

 

[bmags]

We'll see.

[bmags]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...elective_m.html

 

The Bradley Effect - discredited.

 

edit: this wasn't meant to be a reply to AHB.

 

TO YOU, NorthSide

[NorthSideSox72]

TO YOU, NorthSide

1. I wasn't even referecing the Bradley election, which I think is a very different scenario than this Presidential election. To use that as a single reference is missing the important differences.

 

2. The fear vote is not just about race, when I refer to it.

 

3. I am not talking about just the currently "undecided" here, as the article assumes.

 

4. I don't think it will be any 6-9 points. More like 3-5, to take a wild ass guess.

 

[bmags]

1. I wasn't even referecing the Bradley election, which I think is a very different scenario than this Presidential election. To use that as a single reference is missing the important differences.

 

2. The fear vote is not just about race, when I refer to it.

 

3. I am not talking about just the currently "undecided" here, as the article assumes.

 

4. I don't think it will be any 6-9 points. More like 3-5, to take a wild ass guess.

 

Granted this usually is the case with incumbents, but usually in an election like this, many undecided votes swing to the party not in power, as well.

[bmags]

actually I still don't understand, the theory that people would say that they would vote for Obama in polls, but actually are going to vote for McCain is all pointed to this election that people coined "the bradley effect". I just reallllly disagree. Especially with Obama over 50%, I think that is pretty close to accurate. McCain's campaign is reeling and looking disheveled, that's not exactly presenting a trusted alternative.

[NorthSideSox72]

Granted this usually is the case with incumbents, but usually in an election like this, many undecided votes swing to the party not in power, as well.

There are all sorts of swing and other factors involved, that included. What I am getting at is, what is NOT reflected in the polls? That is what I am theorizing about. I think most other factors are already in those numbers.

 

[Balta1701]

There are all sorts of swing and other factors involved, that included. What I am getting at is, what is NOT reflected in the polls? That is what I am theorizing about. I think most other factors are already in those numbers.

Well, see, that's interesting. Because at least this year, one would sort of expect that the things "not reflected in the polls" might be things that would benefit Obama more than McCain. For example, if there was a non-trivial increase in turnout amongst young people or African Americans compared to a normal year, a pollster standardizing his data based on likely voter models using inputs from 2004 might very well miss that. On the other hand, a lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side for Senator McCain might well wind up depressing his turnout. There's always the cell phone thing there as well. And Obama's ground game vs. McCain's total lack of a ground game.

 

I'm citing Kos here but it's the Democrat thread so I'm ok... ...Turns out that Gallup this year is putting out 2 different versions of its likely voter model, sort of with this in mind. Prior to this week they'd been just publishing their "Registered voter" results because you couldn't tell how likely some people were.

Obama's current advantage is slightly less when estimating the preferences of likely voters, which Gallup will begin reporting on a regular basis between now and the election. Gallup is providing two likely voter estimates to take into account different turnout scenarios.

 

The first likely voter model is based on Gallup's traditional likely voter assumptions, which determine respondents' likelihood to vote based on how they answer questions about their current voting intention and past voting behavior. According to this model, Obama's advantage over McCain is 50% to 46% in Oct. 9-11 tracking data.

 

The second likely voter estimate is a variation on the traditional model, but is only based on respondents' current voting intention. This model would take into account increased voter registration this year and possibly higher turnout among groups that are traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and racial minorities (Gallup will continue to monitor and report on turnout indicators by subgroup between now and the election). According to this second likely voter model, Obama has a 51% to 45% lead over McCain.

In other words...if they apply the 2004 results to 2008, they get a closer race than what they're polling now. That's version 2. On the other hand, if they ignore what happened in 2004 and use what they've been hearing on the phone as a way of calibrating their likely voter model (i.e. how likely are you to vote in this election as a question), their likely voter screen winds up widening the gap quite a bit.

 

So, if this election is a repeat of 2004 in terms of what groups turn out and in what numbers, then you're right and it's a closer race than the tracking polls see. Interestingly, I think this is how Zogby does his tracking poll, he normalizes everything by the makeup of the electorate in the last election. On the other hand, if the Obama campaign truly is doing something new and can bring new voters to the polls, then it will be a lot wider than you predicted.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, see, that's interesting. Because at least this year, one would sort of expect that the things "not reflected in the polls" might be things that would benefit Obama more than McCain. For example, if there was a non-trivial increase in turnout amongst young people or African Americans compared to a normal year, a pollster standardizing his data based on likely voter models using inputs from 2004 might very well miss that. On the other hand, a lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side for Senator McCain might well wind up depressing his turnout. There's always the cell phone thing there as well. And Obama's ground game vs. McCain's total lack of a ground game.

 

I'm citing Kos here but it's the Democrat thread so I'm ok... ...Turns out that Gallup this year is putting out 2 different versions of its likely voter model, sort of with this in mind. Prior to this week they'd been just publishing their "Registered voter" results because you couldn't tell how likely some people were.

In other words...if they apply the 2004 results to 2008, they get a closer race than what they're polling now. That's version 2. On the other hand, if they ignore what happened in 2004 and use what they've been hearing on the phone as a way of calibrating their likely voter model (i.e. how likely are you to vote in this election as a question), their likely voter screen winds up widening the gap quite a bit.

 

So, if this election is a repeat of 2004 in terms of what groups turn out and in what numbers, then you're right and it's a closer race than the tracking polls see. Interestingly, I think this is how Zogby does his tracking poll, he normalizes everything by the makeup of the electorate in the last election. On the other hand, if the Obama campaign truly is doing something new and can bring new voters to the polls, then it will be a lot wider than you predicted.

I've mentioned before that Obama's positive X factor is that wave of newly registered/invogorated voters. They are a tough group to predict.

 

[Balta1701]

I've mentioned before that Obama's positive X factor is that wave of newly registered/invogorated voters. They are a tough group to predict.

The interesting thing I'd say is, if you believe what Gallup seems to be saying about what happens when they base their likely voter model on what people say over the phone...they may well actually exist.

[bmags]

Super intellect Sarah Palin mistook supporters for protestors while campaigning in Richmond today. The supporters screamed "louder! Louder" because they couldn't hear. Palin responded "I hope those protesters have the courage and honor to give veterans thanks for their right to protest."

[lostfan]

Whoooooops!

 

Why Was McCain Involved With ACORN?

October 14th, 2008, 11:43 AM EDT

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But McCain and his supporters think there is when Obama has the ACORN relationship, and they’re using it in advance to claim the election will be fraudulent. But John McCain was their keynote speaker at a February 2006 rally held by the organization that he is now negatively trying to tie to Obama.

 

Mark Ambinder has the video of McCain telling ACORN, “What makes America special is what’s in this room tonight. That’s what makes America special.” It’s at 1:54 into this video:

 

In fact as Firedoglake points out, Republicans live ACORN, too:

 

Both Gov. Charlie Crist and Secretary of State Kurt Browning have said they don’t mind ACORN being active in Florida’s election process. When reporters asked Crist if there was a problem with ACORN here, he said, ‘No.’

 

ACORN supported a law signed by Governor Crist which changed the rules last year to restore the voting rights of about 112,000 former convicts.

 

[Connecticut Congressman] Chris Shays? He supports ACORN too. Shays put out a press release stating, “Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) today announced the availability of free tax assistance for low- and moderate-income residents of Bridgeport, Norwalk and Stamford.”

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger? According to the San Francisco Chronicle on 7/9/08, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB1137, a bill designed to help California homeowners avoid foreclosure.” He was joined by “members of community group ACORN, which helped draft the measure.

 

[Florida Republican] Senator Mel Martinez even awarded a grant to ACORN: According to the Times-Picayune on 10/3/03 the [then] U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez recently announced that his agency has awarded grants to Xavier and Tulane universities as well as ACORN and the city of New Orleans. The money will be spent to remove lead, educate the public about the dangers of lead-based paint and support research.

 

Mitt Romney, as Massachusetts governor, and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota both signed Acorn-sponsored bills into law.

 

Does the McCain campaign actually do its homework?

[BigSqwert]

Palin, who refuses to give a press conference, accuses the MSM on Limbaugh of trying to "shut me up."

[NorthSideSox72]

Palin, who refuses to give a press conference, accuses the MSM on Limbaugh of trying to "shut me up."

She's just a disaster. America should be proud of our two Prez candidates - best pair in some time. But the VP candidates leave something to be desired, and Palin in particular is just an embarassment.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Those who hire Saddam lobbyists, shouldn't attack "terrorist sympathizers"

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

 

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

 

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

 

Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[bmags]

tpm is angry,

 

Remember the US Attorneys

It's time again to remember the backstory of the US Attorney Firing scandal. The firings were one thing. But the story behind the firings, what led to them, is key to understanding the current 'vote fraud' scam being played by the Republicans and the media outlets that are going along with the scam.

 

Remember, the US Attorneys in question were all either Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. In every case, they were appointed by George W. Bush. In most of the cases their firing was tied to 'vote fraud' claims stemming from the 2004 election.

 

The pattern was very consistent. During the final weeks of the 2004 campaign Republican partisans started pressing claims of widespread voter fraud. In many, though not all cases, the examples they pointed to were not even allegations of voter fraud, but allegations of voter registration fraud: examples of people being registered more than once, non-existent people being registered, etc.

 

The Republicans making these claims argued that these problems with registration cards were opening the coming election up to widespread vote fraud. Logically, this makes no sense. And, more importantly, all evidence shows this has never happened, certainly not in any widespread sense. Every person who claims otherwise is either ignorant or speaking in bad faith.

 

Nonetheless, CNN and other national news outlets and especially local media outlets, either out of ignorance or bad faith, ran hard with these stories -- just as CNN is doing now.

 

After the election, there was a lot of pressure from Republicans in states like Nevada, Washington, New Mexico, etc. (not surprisingly, all key swing states) to have local US Attorneys prosecute these cases. The word came down from Washington, DC, particularly the political office at the White House that this was a top priority. And the local US Attorneys launched into it.

 

But there was a problem. Most of these were ethical prosecutors. And when they looked into it there just wasn't anything there. Most of the stories weren't even true. And those that were, were obviously isolated and in most cases not done with malice. The number of people who could actually be prosecuted could be counted on one hand. Local Republicans got angry; Karl Rove got angry. And the US Attorneys got fired.

 

That's the real story of the US Attorney firing scandal. And what we're seeing today is textbook -- exactly the same as what we saw in 2004 and 2006. It's a scam. And the very recent history should be enough for news networks like CNN and others not to let themselves become complicit in this disgrace.

 

--Josh Marshall

 

[lostfan]

Palin, who refuses to give a press conference, accuses the MSM on Limbaugh of trying to "shut me up."

This coming from the same woman who said the results of the abuse of power investigation weren't legit because they didn't interview her, completely ignoring the fact that she ignored the subpoena.

 

The irony is that if the MSM HAD shut her up, that was the best thing they could've done for the McCain campaign.

[BigSqwert]

http://www.palinaspresident.com/

[BigSqwert]

From Ben Smith today:

I just got an astounding email from a Republican consultant I know well. He's a guy who's always thought Obama had a "glass jaw," and was always among those agitating for hitting Obama harder. Recently, he conducted a focus group in an upper-Midwestern state, showing them the kind of ad he thought would work: A no-hold-bars attack , cut for an independent group, which hasn't aired. I'm just going to reprint his amazed email about the focus group:

Reagan Dem

s

and Independent

s

. Call them blue-collar plu

s

.

S

lightly more Target than Walmart.

 

Ye

s

, the

s

pot wor

k

ed. Ye

s

, they believed the charge

s

again

s

t Obama. Ye

s

, they actually thin

k

he'

s

too liberal, con

s

ort

s

with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRE

S

IDENT...but they

S

TILL don't give a f***. They

s

aid right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're

S

TILL voting for Obama.

 

The two mo

s

t unreal moment

s

of my profe

s

s

ional life of watching focu

s

group

s

:

 

54 year-old white male, voted

K

erry '04, Bu

s

h '00, Dole '96, hunter, Na

s

car fan...hard for Obama

s

aid: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He'

s

gonna be a bad pre

s

ident. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to ta

k

e over all of Wall

S

treet and ban

k

er

s

and the car companie

s

and Wal-Mart run thi

s

county li

k

e we u

s

ed to when Reagan wa

s

Pre

s

ident."

 

The next wa

s

a woman, late 50

s

, Democrat but

s

trongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bu

s

h in 2000. "Well, I don't

k

now much about thi

s

terrori

s

t group Barac

k

u

s

ed to be in with that Weather guy but I'm

s

ic

k

of paying for health in

s

urance at wor

k

and that'

s

why I'm

s

upporting Barac

k

."

 

I felt li

k

e I wa

s

ta

k

ing crazy pill

s

. I

s

at on the other

s

ide of the gla

s

s

and realized...thi

s

really i

s

the Apocalyp

s

e. The

S

eventh

S

eal i

s

bro

k

en and it

s

time for eight year

s

of pure, deliciou

s

crazy....

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

From Ben Smith today:

This says it all, doesn't it? Seriously.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

From Ben Smith today:

There are a lot of crazies in this country. Those two examples are a good picture, because they are double-crazy. One, they actually believe some of the B.S. rumors out there about Obama. But two, they actually think a financial nanny state is a good thing.

 

Scary.

 

[lostfan]

There are a lot of crazies in this country. Those two examples are a good picture, because they are double-crazy. One, they actually believe some of the B.S. rumors out there about Obama. But two, they actually think a financial nanny state is a good thing.

 

Scary.

Double crazy is about right. The "Stupid Vote" in full effect.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Russians Invade Alaska... Palin Clueless (ok, it's just a joke... but still...)

 

Via TPM:

Gov. Palin has spent the last six weeks telling us she's on lookout if Russia tries to mount an invasion of the US through Alaska. But while she's down here in the Lower 48 trying to get her crowds to think that Barack Obama is in league with Muslim terrorists, the Russians themselves just landed in Anchorage. According to Bloomberg, more or less the entire senior management of the Russian oil and gas monopoly Gazprom just showed up in Alaska to meet with Palin's Department of Natural Resources and the CEO of ConocoPhillips to see if they can get in on that big pipeline projects she keeps bragging about that she says is going to lead us to energy independence.

 

Via CNN:

The campaign of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the Alaska governor was unaware of a visit by Russian oil officials to Anchorage on Monday.

 

Eight high-level officials from Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled oil conglomerate, traveled to Anchorage earlier this week to meet with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the chief executive of ConocoPhillips to discuss energy projects and the possibility of expanding into new markets.

[kapkomet]

There are a lot of crazies in this country. Those two examples are a good picture, because they are double-crazy. One, they actually believe some of the B.S. rumors out there about Obama. But two, they actually think a financial nanny state is a good thing.

 

Scary.

And you honestly don't think, after some of the quotes that have hit this week, that RSO isn't for a "financial nanny state"? I know, not that extreme, but seriously, stop and think about it. People need to be really careful what they wish for.