And so it starts...

Thought we'd all be living in a tax free paradise, did you?

Think again!

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/23/4027807/kansans-would-lose-property-tax.html

On the one hand this... and on the other hand that...

So, over here on the Daily Beast, we have Michael Tomasky getting a little ahead of himself and contemplating the now-not-totally-impossible scenario of an Obama landslide. It strikes me as a little overly fanciful - in addition to the GOP collapsing into a frothing mess of internal strife, he predicts an end to gridlock as the weary populace rises up and tells congress 'Okay, come on, guys, you went hard at him for four years, gave him your best shot, and he kicked your asses in a royal way. Now grow up,' and congress, naturally, complies.

Ummmm... OK.

So back over here on 538, noted hater of kittens and killer of unicorns Nate Silver examines the also not-totally-impossible scenario of an Electoral College dead heat.

Jesus, if THAT doesn't chill your blood, I don't know what will.

I mean, only 12 years ago we had an election decided by the Supreme Court, and given how tightly things are divided right now, it seems likely that it's only a matter of time before this actually DOES happen.

I tell you what, though, fuck the "liberal media conspiracy" - if this actually DOES go down, you'll see every media outlet from Fox News to Mother Jones simultaneously cream themselves. Sure, Brian Williams will be up there talking about what a great lesson this is in our great Constitution, but you'll have everyone else losing their fucking minds.

In other words, I lose the bet....

Him:

So, Nate Silver seems to be saying here:

"I can't state with 100 percent confidence that David owes his friend $5, but "there's a case to made" that he does, indeed, owe his friend the money.

Well, fuck.

I mean, this is good news, the good news I wanted, in fact.

Part of me, though, was hoping this might shake things up a little, that Romney might try to brazen this out and it might actually turn this election into a real horse-race instead of the drubbing it now seems destined to turn into.

And, frankly, part of me was afraid the doubling-down might work.

See, here's the thing. In all the outrage, I think people are missing -- and willfully overlooking the actually meaningful point that Romney was fumbling to make. When he dismissively referred to people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it," people flipped out. Of course, your knee-jerk reaction might be "people ARE entitled to food and healthcare, and Romney's a douche for implying they aren't." 

And a lot of people apparently HAD that initial reaction, and the debate never really progressed past their.

But I think the fundamental question that need to be asked, and that neither Romney NOR Obama has pushed is this: "ARE people entitled to food and healthcare that is PAID for or SUBSIDIZED by the government?"

I mean sure, people need food, but does the government need to pay for it? That's a pretty powerful -- and ugly -- argument  I can see why Obama wouldn't want to have it.... but I'm mystified as to why Romney seems to be avoiding it as well. It would certainly blow things open for him... one way or the other.

Here's the argument as I see it: If you're a conservative, you're thinking "why should my hard-earned tax dollars go to support indolent welfare queens who sit around all day sucking on the government's tit?" If you're a progressive, on the other hand, you should be arguing that, yes, there's a very real justification for spending tax dollars to feed the poor. 

Samuel Johnson supposedly said "A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization." (I say supposedly because I've seen this quote -- or a variation thereof -- attributed to everyone from Jesus to Hitler. But I've actually SEEN the quote in Boswell's Life of Johnson, so that;'s the one I'll go with.) And there's a certain strain of old school democratic politics that holds to that line: The old-fashioned, Kennedy-bloodline limousine liberals. This is the impetus behind the civil rights movement, the war on poverty, equal right for women and many of other social justice causes the Democrats have championed over the years. The labor movement fit into this mold very well, since the initial impetus for the labor movement was founded as much in social justice as in economic need.

It would have been a nice change to see Romney and Obama actually stick up for the fundamental philosophies of their parties -- both the upsides and the downsides.

But it seems like everyone's going to turn a blind eye to the deeper meaning of the comments, and just let Romney slip down the drain.

Anyway, to make along story short, your $5 is on the way.

Republicans are just too damn busy to talk to pollsters.

According to Scott Walker, conservatives are too busy being "makers" to talk to pollsters, and are therefore under-represented in all these polls showing Obama has the lead -- except Rasmussen -- which shows him up by a hair. I mean, it totally makes sense, right? The Republican half of this country is working their fingers to the bone all day to carry the layabout Democratic half while it sits around the house all day, watching cat videos on the internet (which they pirate from their GOP neighbors) and smoking pot. Plus, they hate the "lamestream" media (also pot-smoking hippies) and avoid talking to them at all costs. As a result, conservatives have been under-represented in every poll since the dawn of time. True fact. Look it up.

"Because it makes a better headline than '5 dipshits change their minds', that's why."

Here, read the first few paragraphs, quick:

Mitt Romney's '47%' comment alienated undecided voters - latimes.com:

Seriously. You have to be be fucking kidding me.

And the the LA Times calls themselves a news organization. I mean -- what the fuck -- 9 people? That's all they could find? In ALL of LA? It's like they walked down to the bathroom and reported on the 9 guys they saw in the hall on the way there. If you're going to try to tell me the LA Times didn't have the resources to find more undecided voters than that, then it says one of two things.

1.  There really ARE no undecided voters left. There might be a few people with their heads so far up their asses that not only do they they not realize it's an election year, but they're not even sure what an election IS, or...

2. The LA Times is about to file for bankruptcy, because they've clearly replaced their reporters with their janitorial staff.

But wait, it gets better -- these are voters from ACROSS THE NATION. Yes, a Subway manager from Indiana, a dog-groomer (from who knows where), and a teacher from Michigan. This quote from "software company employee Tim, though, summed it up:

“It made me think of how the world looked at George W. Bush as a buckaroo — shoot first and ask questions later,” Tim said. “My gosh. Comments like that don’t help and they reveal the character of a person.”

My gosh. A buckaroo?

Jesus Fucking Christ.

If I was the LA Times, I would throw myself out of a window.

Get Your War On hits the Bullseye.

Don't know if you follow Get Your War On, but if you don't, you should be. Accounts Payable has exactly the reaction I was imagining most Romney supporters had to this video -- "OK, he's right, but you don't say it out loud!"

Maybe I should change the name of this blog....

.... to 'Dick-Riding 538.com." I mean, I know the initial nature of the bet was to track the polls after Romney's "47%" flub, but I keep finding more to love there that just poll numbers.

Case in point, more... eh.... poll numbers. But sort of different.


The Statistical State of the Presidential Race - NYTimes.com:


This time, Nate is analyzing the old politician's bromide about how meaningless polls are (you know "you can't trust the polls," etc). Turns out maybe you can. Nate went all the way back to 1936, made some adjustment for the thinness of the data and found out that the polls are actually right (as in, the candidate they predicted would win actually won) a startling 80% of the time. The two notable exceptions being Dewey/Truman in 1948, and Bush/Gore in 2000.

So, you know, Obama's got THAT going for him, at least.