Politics

[NDFan4Life]

I don't have my head in the sand about it. I don't think it's a big deal. There's a difference. If there weren't an election around the corner, nobody would be talking about it. It's absurd to pin a one-off event that occurs abroad on the President, especially a President with the foreign policy track record of this one.

So the murder of 4 American citizens in Benghazi by terrorists and the resultant cover-up isn't a "big deal".

Nice to see that you'll toe the party line.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't have my head in the sand about it. I don't think it's a big deal. There's a difference. If there weren't an election around the corner, nobody would be talking about it. It's absurd to pin a one-off event that occurs abroad on the President, especially a President with the foreign policy track record of this one.

I think people would be talking about it regardless of the election. Emails were sent to Washington, the embassy was in trouble, Marines begged for backup, no help arrived, and our president blamed it all on a youtube video because he can't utter the words "muslim terrorists." Such a shame and an embarrassment.

Just saw the movie "Argo" and the parallels are there between the two situations and the two presidents (Carter and Obama)

 

[irishpat183]

Very good day for the President, both in state and national polls. Nate Silver, who has been called out by frustrated conservatives (who apparently believe math is some sort of newfangled gibberish) with increasing vigor, is not backing down. He bet Joe Scarbrough $1000 dollars, and continues to defend his method in his column.

Its obviously infuriating to conservatives that the math doesn't match their perceptions about the race, so they just dismiss Silver as an interested party because he, personally, is a progressive. The irony is apparently lost on those making the accusations - like Karl Rove and all the crazies at Politico. My belief is that Silver - regardless of his personal views on issues - has a better grasp of the empirical numbers here than his critics (who are only capable of thinking in a partisan fashion and do not understand that others may not do the same).

Here are a couple solid defenses of Silver:

Nate Silver's Critics
People Who Can't Do Math Are So Made at Nate Silver
Nate Silver is not an Outlier
The Nate Silver Backlash


Also, really great to see The Economist endorse the President: The Economist Endorses Barack Obama. I posted the New Yorker's endorsement last week. The Economist's endorsement is, not surprisingly, more tepid than the New Yorker's, but it always feels good to be on the same side of an issue with the people who you consider to be the smartest people in their field - the New Yorker and the Economist are that.

Says two NY publications. Go figure......Given the economic situation of your state, I can't believe they still let you guys vote. LOL

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think the administration denial and non-media coverage is much more interesting than the actual event. News outlets usually love smoking gun emails and political denials, regardless of substance. Not this year I guess...

Forget Benghazi -- I'm still waiting to hear what happened in Fast & Furious. We still don't even know the extent of that "program" and who made that decision.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Says two NY publications. Go figure......Given the economic situation of your state, I can't believe they still let you guys vote. LOL

I thought The Economist was British?

 

[Rhode Irish]

So the murder of 4 American citizens in Benghazi by terrorists and the resultant cover-up isn't a "big deal".

Nice to see that you'll toe the party line.

No, now you're selectively choosing which things I said that you want to argue with. As I said in my previous post (and did not think I needed to keep repeating), the death of the Americans abroad is always a "big deal," and when they die in the line of duty representing our government its a VERY big deal. I have little doubt that justice will find those who are responsible.

What I don't think is a "big deal" is the supposed cover-up, which is in my mind a right-wing media invention and a typical failure on the part of conservatives to understand nuance and complexity. Supposed "sources" with axes to grind aren't enough to make serious minds entertain accusations that the government (an in particular the President) just inexplicably decided to allow Americans to die when it was totally preventable. That only makes sense to the people who are incapable for viewing the President in a logical light.

I'm quite willing to accept that someone over there screwed up, but I'd like to see a legitimate and objective investigation into the situation. Trying this thing in the media (and inventing a far-fetched narrative) in an attempt to undermine the President ahead of the election is a typical republican showing of a lack of seriousness, and I'm not going to engage in it.

 

[pkt77242]

I think the administration denial and non-media coverage is much more interesting than the actual event. News outlets usually love smoking gun emails and political denials, regardless of substance. Not this year I guess...

Forget Benghazi -- I'm still waiting to hear what happened in Fast & Furious. We still don't even know the extent of that "program" and who made that decision.

You have got to be kidding about the fast and the furious. Go read the fortune article about it. It wasn't a big conspiracy to walk the guns. It is that our laws ****ing suck on gun control and put the agents in a no win situation plus the justice department lawyer for AZ seemed rather incompetent. I will add that I think the plan was flawed but it was no grand conspiracy to walk guns.

 

[RDU Irish]

GTFO of here with this garbage. I do not understand why we are talking about this still. The right will make an issue out of anything. It was a terrorist attack. You can't stop every crazy person on earth from doing crazy things. People are only talking about this because they're trying to make a political issue out of it.

I feel very badly for those who lost their lives and their families. I trust the President when he says that those responsible will be hunted down and brought to justice. His track record is impeccable in that regard. Beyond that, I'm sick of hearing about it.

Because it is OK to call Republicans liars but the minute your guy is caught knee deep in a big one .... GTFOOHWTS! You think lying for two weeks had nothing to do with politics? Or do you deny they lied for two weeks?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

You have got to be kidding about the fast and the furious. Go read the fortune article about it. It wasn't a big conspiracy to walk the guns. It is that our laws ****ing suck on gun control and put the agents in a no win situation plus the justice department lawyer for AZ seemed rather incompetent. I will add that I think the plan was flawed but it was no grand conspiracy to walk guns.

Who said it was a "conspiracy"? Reading comprehension much?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Says two NY publications. Go figure......Given the economic situation of your state, I can't believe they still let you guys vote. LOL

The Economist is British, and typically pretty conservative (on fiscal issue). If you read the endorsement, you'd know that it was less an endorsement of the President and more an anti-endorsement of Romney.

Also, not sure I get your point about New York - I don't live there anymore; I've moved to Boston. But New York funds the entire rest of the country's budgets with the revenue produce in the city alone. You can beat up on the northeast on a lot of things, I guess, but making money isn't a problem of ours.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

There are a lot of "smart" people who endorse a lot of things and candidates. Obama has his and Romney has his.

An endorsement by a magazine or a person doesn't make a particular candidate better or worse -- it's just a statement of the preferences of that magazine or person.

Unless of course the endorsement is by Lou Holtz. Or Jesus. Then you should vote the same way.

 

[RDU Irish]

There are a lot of "smart" people who endorse a lot of things and candidates. Obama has his and Romney has his.

An endorsement by a magazine or a person doesn't make a particular candidate better or worse -- it's just a statement of the preferences of that magazine or person.

Unless of course the endorsement is by Lou Holtz. Or Jesus. Then you should vote the same way.

I wonder who Manti is supporting?

 

[Rhode Irish]

I wonder who Manti is supporting?

I've actually thought about this. He and Romney are fellow Mormons; he and Obama are fellow Punahou School graduates. Identity politics overload!

 

[GoIrish41]

There's been so many inconsistencies from the administration, it begs to be investigated.

It is being investigated. Premature assignment of fault is not an investigation.

 

[irishpat183]

You have got to be kidding about the fast and the furious. Go read the fortune article about it. It wasn't a big conspiracy to walk the guns. It is that our laws ****ing suck on gun control and put the agents in a no win situation plus the justice department lawyer for AZ seemed rather incompetent. I will add that I think the plan was flawed but it was no grand conspiracy to walk guns.

Ummmm...no. It was a botched plan by the admin that involved gun walking and coverups. Dude, where in the hell are you getting your news?

 

[irishpat183]

The Economist is British, and typically pretty conservative (on fiscal issue). If you read the endorsement, you'd know that it was less an endorsement of the President and more an anti-endorsement of Romney.

Also, not sure I get your point about New York - I don't live there anymore; I've moved to Boston. But New York funds the entire rest of the country's budgets with the revenue produce in the city alone. You can beat up on the northeast on a lot of things, I guess, but making money isn't a problem of ours.

NY is a dumpster fire....you may "make money" but your COI, taxation, and budget issues even that out. It's horrible.

 

[RDU Irish]

This election from a prediction stand point basically comes down to a Gallup vs Silver method of thinking. Gallup is working along the lines that the % of voters would be prety evenly split between the two partys or even a 2% higher margin for the republicans with the perceived lack of excitement in the democratic party(notice i said perceived does not mean it is true) while the Silver method predicts about 7%-9% more democratic turnout. That is why you see the vast difference in their numbers. Alot of the big time media polls also subscribe to the Silver method. It should be an interesting night to see what actually happens. Both outfits have a decent rep. with Silver really building it on the last presidential election.

7%-9% + Democrat vs. Republican is consistent with the 2008 turnout if I am not mistaken. Any poll using that assumption is seriously flawed IMO. I have no idea what the "enthusiasm gap" is, but I am damned sure it is not as favorable to Obama as it was in 2008.

My opinion, this could be anywhere from an Obama squeaker to a Romney rout. That turnout number will be the determining factor and I think it has swung at least 5 points from 2008 (still +3 Dem) and could easily be 2X that (+2% Republican). I don't have all day to tear apart these polls but I would be curious what the percentages look like if Silver had a toggle switch to move turnout from +8% Dem to +2% Republican and how that effects his estimated odds.

 

[irishpat183]

Outlook on NY in 2013....

Eighteen states expect gaps in excess of 5 percent of their general fund budgets, with
13 states projecting gaps equal to or greater than 10 percent. The largest shortfalls
are expected in Nevada (40 percent) and New York (20.4 percent).


It's a black hole. There is no "money" in NY...only IOU's

 

[RDU Irish]

Silver disciples - honest question here. How does he address this sampling issue? My impression is he aggregates polls and does not modify any results, letting bad assumptions in both directions come out in the wash.

 

[irishpat183]

7%-9% + Democrat vs. Republican is consistent with the 2008 turnout if I am not mistaken. Any poll using that assumption is seriously flawed IMO. I have no idea what the "enthusiasm gap" is, but I am damned sure it is not as favorable to Obama as it was in 2008.

My opinion, this could be anywhere from an Obama squeaker to a Romney rout. That turnout number will be the determining factor and I think it has swung at least 5 points from 2008 (still +3 Dem) and could easily be 2X that (+2% Republican). I don't have all day to tear apart these polls but I would be curious what the percentages look like if Silver had a toggle switch to move turnout from +8% Dem to +2% Republican and how that effects his estimated odds.

Exactly. Obama won't get anywhere near the excitement that he got last election. Black voters and young people aren't going to come out like they did last time.

Democrats Dispirited About Voting in 2012

"Democrats' Relative Enthusiasm Is Lowest in a Decade"



If Obama wins...it will be very, very close this time.

 

[irishpat183]

"Democrats' current enthusiasm about voting is not only lower than it was in 2008, but lower than in 2004, when Republican George W. Bush won re-election."


Very telling

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Silver disciples - honest question here. How does he address this sampling issue? My impression is he aggregates polls and does not modify any results, letting bad assumptions in both directions come out in the wash.

I think what you are looking for is his adjusted polling average where he adjusts for house effect and any likely voter polls. He also adjusts for state fundamentals and projected economic shifts.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Silver disciples - honest question here. How does he address this sampling issue? My impression is he aggregates polls and does not modify any results, letting bad assumptions in both directions come out in the wash.

He addresses most every criticism that comes his way. He also thoroughly and systematically debunks them through thoughtful analysis of the statistics.

Here's his discussion of poll bias.
Poll Averages Have No History of Consistent Partisan Bias - NYTimes.com

 

[Ndaccountant]

Outlook on NY in 2013....

Eighteen states expect gaps in excess of 5 percent of their general fund budgets, with
13 states projecting gaps equal to or greater than 10 percent. The largest shortfalls
are expected in Nevada (40 percent) and New York (20.4 percent).


It's a black hole. There is no "money" in NY...only IOU's

These are as good as cash.....

 

[Rhode Irish]

Outlook on NY in 2013....

Eighteen states expect gaps in excess of 5 percent of their general fund budgets, with
13 states projecting gaps equal to or greater than 10 percent. The largest shortfalls
are expected in Nevada (40 percent) and New York (20.4 percent).


It's a black hole. There is no "money" in NY...only IOU's

Well, nobody I know in the northeast shares the fondness the rest of you guys apparently have for state government, so I'm not going to make a spirited defense of how the State of New York is run. I will say, however, that I'd much rather have the state be broke and the people making money than the other way around. What share of federal revenue do you suppose is generated directly or indirectly through that tiny little island at the mouth of the Hudson River? So yeah, we'll take our seat at (the head of) the table when we discuss how the rest of the country is going to spend our money.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It is being investigated. Premature assignment of fault is not an investigation.

No, but it sure is the American way.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

"Democrats' current enthusiasm about voting is not only lower than it was in 2008, but lower than in 2004, when Republican George W. Bush won re-election."


Very telling

The "likely voter" metrics take all of this into account. Obama still leads in the swing states that he needs. He's also leading by 0.3% in the RealClearPolitics Poll of Polls.

EDIT: Romney was up in the same poll by a point only a week ago.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Well, nobody I know in the northeast shares the fondness the rest of you guys apparently have for state government, so I'm not going to make a spirited defense of how the State of New York is run. I will say, however, that I'd much rather have the state be broke and the people making money than the other way around. What share of federal revenue do you suppose is generated directly or indirectly through that tiny little island at the mouth of the Hudson River? So yeah, we'll take out seat at (the head of) the table when we discuss how the rest of the country is going to spend our money.

Careful, you are sounding like a R.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Press Release
November 2, 2012
Contact: Katy Davis

Study: Media Framed Benghazi In Obama’s Terms

Democrats’ Depictions of Events Referenced More Than GOP’s

Free Speech and Consulate Security Were Leading Issues

Leading newspapers framed the Benghazi attack story in terms of a spontaneous protest (the Obama administration’s version) four times as often as a planned terrorist attack (the Republican version), according to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University and Chapman University. The study also found that the most frequent theme of the coverage concerned hate speech vs. free speech, followed closely by security problems at the consulate.

According to CMPA President Dr Robert Lichter, “This story shows both the extent and the limits of a president’s ability to shape the news of a foreign policy crisis.”

CMPA analyzed news coverage of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya from September 12 to October 12 in five nationally influential newspapers: the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. The study is based on a computer-assisted analysis of 2572 words and phrases related to the attack in 348 news stories. The study’s methodology is described below.

Major Findings:

The Benghazi attack was depicted in terms related to a spontaneous protest (emphasized by the Obama administration) over four times as often as a planned attack (emphasized by Republicans) – 17% vs. 4% of the coverage, respectively.

Terms related to spontaneous protest prevailed over those of a planned attack by margins of almost 7 to 1 (20% v. 3%) in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, 5 to 1 in the New York Times (16% v. 3%) and Washington Post (20% v. 4%), and about 2 to 1 in the Los Angeles Times (12% v. 5%) and USA Today (13% v. 7%).

The terms mentioned most frequently were related to the theme of hate speech vs. free speech, which accounted for 30% of the coverage, reflecting protests over the film “Innocence of Muslims.”

The second most frequently mentioned theme, with 29% of the coverage, concerned security problems, reflecting debate over security levels and preparations at the Benghazi consulate.

The free speech/hate speech theme was referenced most frequently in the Los Angeles Times (44% of the Times’ coverage), where the video and its producer were something of a home-town story; USA Today (35% of its coverage); and the Wall Street Journal (29% of coverage). The security theme was referenced most heavily in the Washington Post (35% of coverage) and New York Times (30% of coverage).

The Study’s Methods:

Our computer-assisted analysis identified five major themes in the coverage, defined by the words and phrases that appeared with reference to the attack. We identified them as:

1. Hate speech vs. free speech, reflecting debate over the film “Innocence of Muslims,” which set off violent protests in the Middle East – terms like “anti-Islamic;” “deeply offensive,” and “freedom of expression.”

2. Security problems, reflecting debate over security levels and preparations at the Benghazi consulate – phrases like “lax security,” “security lapse,” and “misread warning signs.”

3. Spontaneous attacks, based on (mainly Democratic) characterizations of the attacks as spontaneous and unplanned– terms like “not premeditated,” “opportunism,” and “spontaneous demonstration.”

4. Planned attacks, based on (mainly Republican) characterizations of the attacks as the outcome of a previously planned attack (such as “organized,” “premeditated,” and “well-plotted.”

5. Terrorists, based on words describing individuals involved in terrorist activities- terms like “Al Queda,” “jihadist,” and “Islamist.”

Note: In this study, percentages of the coverage are based on the total number of words and phrases that were related to the Benghazi attack.

CMPA: Media Framed Benghazi In Obama’s Terms

 

[RDU Irish]

He addresses most every criticism that comes his way. He also thoroughly and systematically debunks them through thoughtful analysis of the statistics.

Here's his discussion of poll bias.
Poll Averages Have No History of Consistent Partisan Bias - NYTimes.com

Using his evidence, 1980 results were 7 points more favorable to Republicans than polls indicated. Given I view Obama as a "welcome back Carter" president, I predict more similarities to that election than 2008. And state polling was in its infancy so hard to pull much from that data in 1980.

It also looks like a statistical anomoly that 2008 results happened to have zero dispersion from the mean, thus resulting in his "incredible" accuracy. Odds of that level of accuracy in the future seem low to me, especially considering a sample set of 10 with a range of outcomes of +7.2 Dem to +3.2 Rep with only one of the last five presidential elections being + Rep.

Now look at incumbents on the state level.
1984 Dems +.1%
1992 Dems +2.9%
1996 Rep +.1%
2004 Dems +.8%

Challenger outperforms polls consistently, when they win they outperform by a large margin, hmmmm.......