Monday, November 06, 2006
there is no significant evidence of a "tightening" of the race
From the non-partisan Cook political report:
Gawd I hate our media. Hey, did you know that the states where Bush isn't popular hate religion? That's what Chris Matthews told me. Funny, you'd think Jesus would be more popular in the 46 states where Bush has a net negative approval rating, ya know, places like Texas and North Carolina and Indiana and Alabama.
But you would be wrong, apparently.
All Monday there was considerable talk that the national picture had suddenly changed and that there was a significant tightening in the election. This was based in part on two national polls that showed the generic congressional ballot test having tightened to four (Pew) and six (ABC/Wash Post) points.
Seven national polls have been conducted since Wednesday, November 1. They give Democrats an average lead of 11.6 percentage points, larger than any party has had going into an Election Day in memory. Even if you knock five points off of it, it's 6.6 percentage points, bigger than the advantage that Republicans had going into 1994.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of a trend in the generic ballot test. In chronological order of interviewing (using the midpoint of field dates), the margins were: 15 points (Time 11/1-3), 6 points (ABC/Wash Post), 4 points (Pew), 7 points (Gallup), 16 points (Newsweek), 20 points (CNN) and 13 points (Fox).
In individual races, some Republican pollsters see some movement, voters "coming home," in their direction, and/or some increase in intensity among GOP voters. All seem to think that it was too little, too late to significantly change the outcome. However, it might be enough to save a few candidates. None think it is a major change in the dynamics of races, and most remain somewhere between fairly and extremely pessimistic about tomorrow's outcome.
Gawd I hate our media. Hey, did you know that the states where Bush isn't popular hate religion? That's what Chris Matthews told me. Funny, you'd think Jesus would be more popular in the 46 states where Bush has a net negative approval rating, ya know, places like Texas and North Carolina and Indiana and Alabama.
But you would be wrong, apparently.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
misplaced priorities
I'd like to thank Brian Williams of NBC News for spending half of his f&%king show dishing on John Kerry's botched joke (without actually saying what the intended line was until the very end: "If you don't study hard and you're intellectually lazy, you get US stuck in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."), yet never getting around to mentioning this little side story, c/o Andrew Sullivan:
As Sullivan notes, the silence on this story shows not only the mind-boggling myopia of the press and puts the lie to Bush's faux indignation on the troops' behalf, but it also exposes John McCain for the fake that he is. Where art thou, O Straightest of Straight Talkers? Do you have anything at all to say about the president leaving a soldier to the whims of terrorists? Anything?
I didn't think so.
The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear. In a showdown for control of Baghdad, the Iraqi prime minister took orders from Moqtada al-Sadr, and instructed the U.S. military to withdraw from Sadr City. The American forces were trying both to stabilize the city but also to find a missing American serviceman. He is still missing.
As Sullivan notes, the silence on this story shows not only the mind-boggling myopia of the press and puts the lie to Bush's faux indignation on the troops' behalf, but it also exposes John McCain for the fake that he is. Where art thou, O Straightest of Straight Talkers? Do you have anything at all to say about the president leaving a soldier to the whims of terrorists? Anything?
I didn't think so.
charlatans
[crossposted at MBATR]
Before you make any snap judgments on the New Jersey gay marriage decision, please read this post from actual, for-real constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald. Before you make any judgment on any court case, please read said post from actual, for-real constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald. Before you listen to any talking head or pundit say anything about any case ever, please read said post from actual, for-real constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald.
It is probably the best discussion I've ever read about the concept of "judicial activism," what it actually means, and how one does and does not go about deciding if a particular case was decided with sufficient restraint. I can't summarize his point, or highlight the better parts because you just have to read it all. It's not too long, and I really believe the country would be a better place if everyone had to read it.
A side point that Greenwald makes that I want to highlight is the very counterproductive role of the pundit class in all this. We have a journalistic system in America that, for various reasons, is broken, and perhaps its most completely broken part is its punditry. Many of these guys, especially the ones who have backgrounds mainly in "think tanks," are not trotted out on the basis of their expertise, but merely on the fact that they're good at talking in front of the cameras and will take a reliably partisan view of the issue. Think tanks, in fact, along with the demonization of the media via the "liberal media" meme, have been a main avenue of media infiltration by what we can only call "professional conservatives." These are guys who don't actually have much expertise in anything, who went straight from their College Republicans chapter to some rightwing think tank that gives them experty-sounding cred straight to your TV screen (sometimes, but not often, working briefly in journalism along the way), but who are brought on solely to represent the conservative viewpoint. Their job is not to use their expertise to provide genuine perspective (because, again, they have no expertise), but solely to push the debate rightward. They are typically brought in to "balance" an actual expert on subject X, and unlike the expert who may or may not (but let's face it, usually does) end up taking a liberal tack on the subject, they are reliably partisan and always run to the right of the other pundit. Among our professional conservatives are such personalities as William Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez, John Hinderaker, David Brooks, Bill O'Reilly, and all the bloggers and talk radio wankers that make up the rightwing spin machine.
Am I not being sufficiently bipartisan in my smearing? Well, you tell me: how many "professional liberals" can you name, especially ones that actually get interviewed regularly on CNN and FOX? How many liberal "think tanks" do you know of?
These are the guys who get on TV and rail about judical activism, the guys Greenwald takes to task. Anytime you see these wankers, it is extremely important to remember: these people don't know shit. Nothing at all. They just read what you read in the newspapers, thought up a talking point to convince everyone that sounds good when you don't have time to actually think about it, and then got on TV and starting spewing their bullshit for the camera. It's all just a game and the refs are routing for the wingers.
Before you make any snap judgments on the New Jersey gay marriage decision, please read this post from actual, for-real constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald. Before you make any judgment on any court case, please read said post from actual, for-real constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald. Before you listen to any talking head or pundit say anything about any case ever, please read said post from actual, for-real constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald.
It is probably the best discussion I've ever read about the concept of "judicial activism," what it actually means, and how one does and does not go about deciding if a particular case was decided with sufficient restraint. I can't summarize his point, or highlight the better parts because you just have to read it all. It's not too long, and I really believe the country would be a better place if everyone had to read it.
A side point that Greenwald makes that I want to highlight is the very counterproductive role of the pundit class in all this. We have a journalistic system in America that, for various reasons, is broken, and perhaps its most completely broken part is its punditry. Many of these guys, especially the ones who have backgrounds mainly in "think tanks," are not trotted out on the basis of their expertise, but merely on the fact that they're good at talking in front of the cameras and will take a reliably partisan view of the issue. Think tanks, in fact, along with the demonization of the media via the "liberal media" meme, have been a main avenue of media infiltration by what we can only call "professional conservatives." These are guys who don't actually have much expertise in anything, who went straight from their College Republicans chapter to some rightwing think tank that gives them experty-sounding cred straight to your TV screen (sometimes, but not often, working briefly in journalism along the way), but who are brought on solely to represent the conservative viewpoint. Their job is not to use their expertise to provide genuine perspective (because, again, they have no expertise), but solely to push the debate rightward. They are typically brought in to "balance" an actual expert on subject X, and unlike the expert who may or may not (but let's face it, usually does) end up taking a liberal tack on the subject, they are reliably partisan and always run to the right of the other pundit. Among our professional conservatives are such personalities as William Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez, John Hinderaker, David Brooks, Bill O'Reilly, and all the bloggers and talk radio wankers that make up the rightwing spin machine.
Am I not being sufficiently bipartisan in my smearing? Well, you tell me: how many "professional liberals" can you name, especially ones that actually get interviewed regularly on CNN and FOX? How many liberal "think tanks" do you know of?
These are the guys who get on TV and rail about judical activism, the guys Greenwald takes to task. Anytime you see these wankers, it is extremely important to remember: these people don't know shit. Nothing at all. They just read what you read in the newspapers, thought up a talking point to convince everyone that sounds good when you don't have time to actually think about it, and then got on TV and starting spewing their bullshit for the camera. It's all just a game and the refs are routing for the wingers.
