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.

The Daily Beast: Barack Obama Is The Luckiest Politician Alive

I must say, this didn't actually occur to me until I read this article in the Daily Beast, but once they point it out I have to say that, yes, Obama is damn lucky. Let's review:

1. The 2004 Illinois Senate Race -- Prior to his star turn at the DNC, mind you, Obama FIRST faces Jack Ryan (not actually mentioned in the article) whose candidacy self-destructs in an orgiastic, smut-filled explosion when it's revealed he tried to get ex-wife 7 of 9 to bang him onstage in sex clubs (yes, clubs, plural). Ryan is shooed off the stage and replaced -- not by the second place primary finisher, but by Alan "Mr. Mosh Pit" Keyes, whose head-trauma-level craziness inspired Richard Pryor to say "now THAT guy's crazy."

2. The 2008 Presidential Race -- He squares off against Hilary Clinton in The Longest Primary Ever, where he opens the show by beating her like a drum in Iowa. He didn't walk away with this one the way he did in Illinois, but it still seemed like a stunning upset. In comparison, the actual election almost seemed like a non-event (enlivened at the end by Conservative America's sweetheart, Caribou Barbie). But through it all, he never lost his cool, recovered from stumbles like a seasoned pro (God 'n' Guns, Jeremiah Wright).

3. An now this, facing off against, as Latimer puts it, "the guy who lost to the loser last time."

"Maybe the “birthers” have a point after all," Latimer concludes. "Obama obviously wasn’t born in America; he was born on Fantasy Island, under a rainbow, in a pot of gold, serenaded by unicorns."

No Fucking Way.

So, hot on the heels of his "I'd have a better chance if I was Latino" non-joke joke ("ha ha, just kidding! But seriously, I wish I was a Latino."), Mitt actually tries to make himself a Latino

Jon Stewart 'splains it for you.

Jon Stewart sums it all up for you. It starts here, continues here, and comes to a big finish over here.

Needle's moving.....

.... but not because of the video. Yet. I think.

Over on 538, Nate is throwing his hands up in exasperation over a nutty set of polls showing Obama up in some places (Wisconsin) while down in others (New Hampshire), but generally ahead. But most of the polls were taken PRIOR to the 47% gaffe -- so I'm going to say the impact still really hasn't made itself felt.

Also, from a couple of days ago, Nate's "Better Know A District" profile of Kansas. His conclusion? Kansas  used to be merely moderately conservative, then it started drifting more and more into the deep red, and then it lost its fucking mind.

The Starting Point

So here’s an edited-together email exchange I had with a friend:

--------------------------

Him:

From the tape:

Mr. Romney said that “my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Then... he added a moment later: “I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be, uh, Latino.”

This is over, dude. Over.

--------------------------

Me:

I hope so. But I worry that half the nation is nodding their heads and going "yup, guy has a point..."

Remember how the GOP thought they had it locked up in 08 w/ "cling to god and their guns."

Plus, look at Missouri and see how little Todd "Mr. Rapey" Aikin's numbers have fallen. People will still vote for this douche because he’s NOT Claire McCaskill. Reminds me of that Pennsylvania Rep in 2006 who nearly got elected after he admitted to cheating on his wife AND trying to strangle his friggin’ mistress. Dude STILL got 47% of the vote. So nearly half the people in his district were either totally OK with cheating and attempted murder, or hate people the Dems THAT much. [NOTE: The Choking Man was Fightin' Mike Sherwood -- I looked it up.]

--------------------------

Him:

Yeah, I hear that. But seems that at this point, in a tight national election, this comment could kill him with the 5 percent of "independent" voters, whoever the hell they really are.

We will see. Obama's people in Chicago are rubbing their eyes this morning, surprised to see it's already Christmas.

Perhaps most telling: FoxNews.com still hasn't displayed the story ...

--------------------------

Him:

Well, here you go:

 Looks like they're going to play it straight – “I totally meant to say that”.

I think this is a smart approach -- the people this comment is likely to piss off are Obama supporters who were lost to him anyway. I really do think the other half of the country is going to nod their head and say "yup, he's got a point." The only people this might affect are the few last, true undecideds who, let's face it, are basically bllithering idiots who are watching "Honey Boo Boo" instead of the news, and will likely vote Romney anyway because, well, they're blithering idiots.

Because here's the thing -- and I hate to say this -- but he kind of does have a point. The 47% thing also has a grain of truth. I don't get as mad about the phrase 'entitlement society' as, say, Uncle Steve, but I recognize it exists, and that the Dems have basically kept themselves in office by pandering to this segment of the nation. I sort of view it as a dark bargain, in the same way the pro-business GOPers view their association with the evangelicals. By keeping this segment of society afloat, the Dems assure themselves of a solid base of unquestioning voters who will keep putting them in office so they can pursue their agenda. Again, it's a purely cynical calculation. Like gay marriage. I don't think anyone in Washington really gave a second thought to gay marriage until Karl Rove pulled it out of his ass in 2004 and turned it into an issue because, he rightly figured, it would rile up a lot of likely GOP voters. The Dems were basically forced to adopt the opposite position (which they also didn't care about) because, frankly, at that point where were the gays going to go?

This is the same kind of thing.

All these ignorant Teabillies, may of whom are on welfare or some other support program, aren't going to get offended by this because they don't self-identify as being on government support. They delusionally cling to the notion that they're one chinchilla farm away from having a rotating car elevator in the carport on their trailer.

I think this whole thing feels like tempest in a teapot, less like people are really outraged than Huffpost WANTS them to be outraged.

Of course, I could be wrong.

--------------------------

Him:

I hear you. And also you need to post this to a blog of some kind -- Among the Teabillies, or something you could call it. [So, here you go. -D.]

I am telling you -- I will bet $5 that this does register in the polls. The guy just dismissed half the country as being Welfare Queens. I think the entitlement society issue just CAN'T apply to that many people ...

We will see

--------------------------

Me:

I will actually take that bet -- if only in the hopes that I lose.

If it turns up, we should see it on 538, (which, if you aren't following you should be) in a couple of days.

--------------------------

Him:

Done. And to me, that's a lot of money.

--------------------------

Me:

William Saletan writes a deeply thoughtful, highly nuanced piece comparing Obama's 'God 'n' Guns' gaffe to Romney's '47%' gaffe -- and he totally supports your position about which is worse (hint, rhymes w/ Bomny's).

I, however, will bitterly cling to my position that this will go unnoticed because most of the people in this country are not deeply thoughtful and highly nuanced.

Case in point -- 15% of Republicans in Ohio think Ronmey killed Osama.

--------------------------

Him:

Hahaha. I just fucking love that.