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.