Support NeoGAF

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Firstly. 65-76 isn't a bracket on the poll.

Uh, that's the point. The sample size would likely be really small.

I do see that it could be part of the reason......but I don't believe for a second that 22% of the population disappears between 18-29 and 30-44... and then another 27% would have to die in 45-64....which is what would be the case if your explanation was the true explanation.

Its just poor practices by pollsters.

Here's the age demographic census data for 2000, from Wikipedia:

Roughly 60 - 65 million people in each age bracket, except for 65+, where there are only 35 million people. But besides just having enough people to poll, the age brackets are based on voting trends for people in approximately the same stage of life, who will have similar values (theoretically). 18 -29, young adulthood, likely single and starting their careers; 30 - 44, established careers, married and having children; 45 - 64, middle age and preparing for retirement; 65+, retired.

You can fudge it with a year or two here and there, but basically a 75-year-old isn't going to have a wildly different worldview from an 80-year-old or a 65-year-old. While a 25-year-old and a 35-year-old are often in very different stages of life.

 

[AlteredBeast]

If Newt wins Florida its gunna be a fun couple months.

Also. Those ranges in the projected vote range column are absurdly huge.

True. There is no way a vote swing in the high double digits can be taken seriously. That is kind of a stupid margin if you think about it.

 

[Brinbe]

Think those margins are bad? Just wait till after the debates, like the one tonight...

Though a part of me wonders if Romney gets an underdog boost if Newt's margins get too large. This GOP electorate seems to hate consolidating around the supposed front-runner.

 

[Learn2read]

I hate that pollsters do it like this. 11 year range first bracket, then 14, then 19......and we all know they do this to make the differences look larger than they really are. (not referring to this poll specifically. Just in general)

Not really, those are pretty valid voting blocs.

Those are pretty valid general breakdowns of the population into different stages of life. Not much use in an additional split between 45 and retirement.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Chait's take made me laugh:

"My view all along has been that any remotely plausible candidate could beat Mitt Romney. My current view is that there are no remotely plausible candidates, which leaves us with Newt. So we have the immovable object meeting the irresistible force, except the exact opposite."

 

[Sirpopopop]

In some ways, yes. Take a look at the balanced budget amendment votes back in the 90s and today. In the 90s it received strong bipartisan support, today it hardly received any Democratic support (if any at all, can't recall the exact numbers).

There are other issues like cap & trade, and health care, where the Dems have swung further right.

After all, those were Republican ideas co-opted by Obama.

As for the BBA - I can argue that one reason it received no support today from Dems is that they now realize it's a dumb idea that is implausible to apply in the real world.


Though, if you're looking for an area where Dems have moved further left - I would say that you should look towards social issues.

 

[Stinkles]

Chait's take made me laugh:

What happens when a pathetically weak force meets a hilariously fragile object?

A fart is born.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

And just a few hours later, Newt is now 84% to win.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/florida

It'll be 99 by the time Wednesday rolls around.

 

[NihonTiger90]

Still 9 days for all this to change, as it seems to flip back and forth every week.

 

[Tristam]

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

Voting records? How do you think interest groups rank members of Congress? There are methodological difficulties when it comes to measuring voting records across decades, but it's certainly possible to approximate the claims, so it's unfortunate that your incredulity was followed by a handful of joke responses to what really is an excellent article.

 

[Open Source]

I'm not really sure how "even-handed" one needs to be with respect to stopping historical revisionism.

Because the proper way to stop historical revision (that you disagree with - history has been revised many times, probably in some ways that you favor) is to lie, distort, and exaggerate? That's an awesome argument.

 

[Tim-E]

And just a few hours later, Newt is now 84% to win.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/florida

It'll be 99 by the time Wednesday rolls around.

Obama is going to stop shaving and attend debates over Skype from Hawaii if Gingrich wins the nomination.

 

[nib95]

Gingrich to win?!! As in, the one who said he'd just do away with Judges that disagreed with him?! Clearly his seedy past didn't seem to have an impact either.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Because the proper way to stop historical revision (that you disagree with - history has been revised many times, probably in some ways that you favor) is to lie, distort, and exaggerate? That's an awesome argument.

I said nothing of the sort? Tennessee legislators want to pass a law preventing conversations about "the minority experience" from interfering with founding fathers hagiography? It's risible. It shouldn't pass. Full Stop.

 

[Byakuya769]

Completely independent and nonpartisan!

But probably still closer to the truth than the industry-provided figures, I reckon. Still, where was all this concern and denigration of the temporary nature of construction jobs with stimulus infrastructure projects? And other non-job jobs like researching monkeys smoking crack or whatever?

And when you've got everyone except the environmental groups and their allies on the left saying it's a no-brainer, it's probably a no-brainer.

We really need to design a chart for the course of postings of new "non-biased" posters.

It always starts "above the partisan fray," but then it becomes crystal clear (really it's always clear) where their schtick lies.

 

[Tim-E]

Gingrich to win?!! As in, the one who said he'd just do away with Judges that disagreed with him?! Clearly his seedy past didn't seem to have an impact either.

God, I hope the GOP electorate keeps buying into this. "he tells it like it is!" hopefully won't wear off. Fortunately "Tellin it like it is" is just going to piss off minorities, independents, women, etc. so this dude has no chance in hell of winning a general.

It's ridiculous how giddy this shit is making me.

 

[Manmademan]

Gingrich to win?!! As in, the one who said he'd just do away with Judges that disagreed with him?! Clearly his seedy past didn't seem to have an impact either.

I've been saying it all year. The republican base (especially SOUTHERN republicans) do not like Mitt Romney. At all. With all of his money and ground game he got crushed by a joke character (Huckabee) in 2008, and it seems to be happening again with a SERIES of Joke Candidates, of which Gingrich had the most staying power.

It's not even the mormon thing. Most of the PA republicans I speak to are utterly convinced that Romney will simply say whatever his audience wants to hear and isn't a man of conviction. it's *really*, *REALLY* hard to turn that kind of perception around.

Look at his performance in Iowa- he was quick to paint it a win, but got less votes than he did in 2008, despite not campaigning there in 2008. The more the base hears and sees of him, the less they actually like him.

If we look at the rise and falls of the "not romneys" over the past year, it's clear the base is looking for anyone else to prove themselves competent, and in winning South Carolina it looks like Gingrich may have done so- and his shady past notwithstanding, Gingrich DOES have the base convinced that he actually believes in conservative values- something Romney is going to continue to struggle with and eventually fail at. Again.

 

[AlteredBeast]

We really need to design a chart for the course of postings of new "non-biased" posters.

It always starts "above the partisan fray," but then it becomes crystal clear (really it's always clear) where their schtick lies.

Unfortunately there are all too few "non-biased" posters. Basically, anytime someone says they are fair-minded but lean one way or the other, they are in reality either a foaming at the mouth black-armband wearer or heartless/racist/sexist capitalist.

 

[Learn2read]

Dang, Gingrich with a 60% unfavorability score

 

[A27_StarWolf]

That was a nice break from the internet.

So I heard that Newt Gingrich got more female supporters in South Carolina? That doesn't make much sense.

 

[ToxicAdam]

So I heard that Newt Gingrich got more female supporters in South Carolina? That doesn't make much sense.

Why, because Romney has nice hair? That's a pretty sexist assumption.

Newt is from Georgia, is a better speaker and has more name recognition. It shouldn't be too surprising.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Why, because Romney has nice hair? That's a pretty sexist assumption.

Newt is from Georgia, is a better speaker and has more name recognition. It shouldn't be too surprising.

I think he was referring to Newt's infidelities.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I think he was referring to Newt's infidelities.

Yeah, but it's not like women are uniquely offended by marital infidelity? That's been the assumption in a lot of the reporting, but I'm not sure why.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Why, because Romney has nice hair? That's a pretty sexist assumption.

Newt is from Georgia, is a better speaker and has more name recognition. It shouldn't be too surprising.

I don't think it's a sexist assumption at all. He has been married three times and has had multiple affairs...

Yeah, but it's not like women are uniquely offended by marital infidelity? That's been the assumption in a lot of the reporting, but I'm not sure why.

Well his treatment of women in this scenario would suggest that fewer women than men would support him...

 

[ToxicAdam]

People only care about infidelity when it's 1) fresh 2) happens to someone in a different party.

Clinton cleaned up with women when he ran. They still flock to see him today.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Dang, Gingrich with a 60% unfavorability score

And this is why he'd get shredded in the general. Older, non-Republican voters remember him from the 90's, and everyone else will take one look and be horrified. He'd make Palin look likable by comparison.

I don't think it's a sexist assumption at all. Me has been married three times and has had multiple affairs...

And by age 19, damn son. You been busy.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

And this is why he'd get shredded in the general. Older, non-Republican voters remember him from the 90's, and everyone else will take one look and be horrified. He'd make Palin look likable by comparison.


And by age 19, damn son. You been busy.

I know what the ladies like.

 

[Tim-E]

I cant imagine how crushed Romney is going to be if he keeps losing momentum and eventually the nomination. Dude has been running for president since 2007 and it's gotta hurt to see "the inevitable" fall apart completely.

 

[TestOfTide]

That was a nice break from the internet.

So I heard that Newt Gingrich got more female supporters in South Carolina? That doesn't make much sense.

It's south carolina. I wouldn't be surprised if half the people there think Birth of a Nation is a true story.

 

[FLEABttn]

As for the BBA - I can argue that one reason it received no support today from Dems is that they now realize it's a dumb idea that is implausible to apply in the real world.

I think to some extent, the Dems think narrative has changed on spending where under a BBA, defense spending essentially goes nowhere and safety nets are destroyed, because it's a lot easier to argue to the general electorate how money is better spent on preventing crazy muslims from killing us versus helping the lazy poors.

I'm hoping they've also realized the Keynesian implications of a BBA where they're constitutionally mandated to decrease the GDP in recessions/depressions.

 

[Tim-E]

It's south carolina. I wouldn't be surprised if half the women there think Birth of a Nation is a true story.

You mean it isn't?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I cant imagine how crushed Romney is going to be if he keeps losing momentum and eventually the nomination. Dude has been running for president since 2007 and it's gotta hurt to see "the inevitable" fall apart completely.

He and Hillary could commiserate together.

 

[Learn2read]

I think I'd actually prefer Romney even if he's a stronger candidate.

I'd much rather talk about his taxes for 10 months (and thus shift the conversation on taxes from the GOP's terms) and his vulture capitalism than just keep talking about what an asshole Newt is.

With Gingrich the GOP would just lose an election, with Romney the GOP could lose and argument they've spent decades winning.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

People only care about infidelity when it's 1) fresh 2) happens to someone in a different party.

That's probably true, but I think its the circumstances surrounding Newt's disloyalty that most people find appalling. His actions can very well be viewed as sexist and a complete disregard of what his female partners felt and thought. His disrespect for these women, I had assumed, would certainly make him unfavorable in the eyes of many female voters. Clearly that didn't happen.

Still, I'm glad that people prefer to vote on policy than on a person's personal life.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I cant imagine how crushed Romney is going to be if he keeps losing momentum and eventually the nomination. Dude has been running for president since 2007 and it's gotta hurt to see "the inevitable" fall apart completely.

http://mencken.info/2010/08/lame-ducks/

 

[JCreasy]

I cant imagine how crushed Romney is going to be if he keeps losing momentum and eventually the nomination. Dude has been running for president since 2007 and it's gotta hurt to see "the inevitable" fall apart completely.

Yeah. I'm starting to think that Mittens might be in a little trouble.

The concrete is starting to dry. And there are things like this which are funny because they seem so true lol . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lrsIaxIfmNQ

 

[Manmademan]

I think I'd actually prefer Romney even if he's a stronger candidate.

I'd much rather talk about his taxes for 10 months (and thus shift the conversation on taxes from the GOP's terms) and his vulture capitalism than just keep talking about what an asshole Newt is.

With Gingrich the GOP would just lose an election, with Romney the GOP could lose and argument they've spent decades winning.

Not only would they lose the election, it's highly likely that with gingrich's high ass negatives he would "drag down" republicans in leaning or vulnerable districts.

So gingrich as the nominee could mean Democrats retaining the senate or (coming close to) retaking the house.

A romney campaign run wouldn't really have this effect.

 

[Open Source]

I said nothing of the sort? Tennessee legislators want to pass a law preventing conversations about "the minority experience" from interfering with founding fathers hagiography? It's risible. It shouldn't pass. Full Stop.

Legislators? No, just a few fringe characters. They're not even "tea party" leaders - apparently they are members, but if we judge the group by a handful of individuals, I can tell you some crazy shit that people out here in Oakland say. Since they are Democrats, do we get to make wild accusations about what the Democratic Party is trying to do?

Take a look at what "even-handed" refers to in my original quote. It refers to avoiding distortions and misrepresentations, creating a straw man. By saying even-handedness is unnecessary in cases where you're trying to prevent historical revisionism, you're saying that distortion and misrepresentation is OK in those cases.

 

[el retorno]

Yeah. I'm starting to think that Mittens might be in a little trouble.

The concrete is starting to dry. And there are things like this which are funny because they seem so true lol . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lrsIaxIfmNQ

Wow I've never heard the "you came here to listen to the people" "no no no" at 1:40. That'd make a great soundbyte in a campagin ad.

 

[LosDaddie]

People only care about infidelity when it's 1) fresh 2) happens to someone in a different party.

Clinton cleaned up with women when he ran. They still flock to see him today.

While true to an extent, Repubs typically run on a platform of Family Values and oppose gay marriage on the basis of "sanctity of marriage".

A guy on his third marriage having a legit shot of carrying those banners for the Repub party is...highly enjoyable to me.

 

[Rentahamster]

Voting records? How do you think interest groups rank members of Congress? There are methodological difficulties when it comes to measuring voting records across decades, but it's certainly possible to approximate the claims, so it's unfortunate that your incredulity was followed by a handful of joke responses to what really is an excellent article.

Yes I know about the Poole/Rosenthal analysis and the survey results. They were included in the links I listed. It provides an ideological construct to map out legislators on the liberal/conservative spectrum and compare their voting to each other and their predecessors in order to analyze trends over time.

You can objectively take the voting record and spit out numbers based on your model so that you can show that “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” That statement in itself can be supported by a particular analysis of the numbers. However, it is all maintained in the subjective nature of the author and the piece to put forth a thesis that doesn't really prove anything. The memo in the article makes the point that polarization is bad. The quoted contributor, Hacker, takes this a step further in saying that rightward trends of polarization are bad. Compared to what? Compared to whom? Compared to past legislatures? Compared to the middle? It doesn't take into consideration legislative content and shifts over time, which are also influenced by subjective forces of interpretation. It also fails to properly incorporate (I think, I don't have the book in front of me) the 2 dimensional nature of the analysis.

Ask a Republican which party has become more radical over time and he'll say it's the Democrats. Ask a Democrat which party has become more radical over time and he'll say it's the Republicans. "Moving roughly six times to the right" is essentially useless as a soundbite. One could easily take the same stats Hacker uses to come to the conclusion that the Republicans are only following the will of the middle since their curve matches it more than the Democrats', and that it is the Democrats who are out of touch. This would be equally as subjective, and pointless. We all have our internal barometers of what constitutes left and right and trying to digest this data through a partisan lens when everyone else uses a slightly (or very) different standard for their own analysis isn't going to magically create some sort of enlightened objective truth in the vast turmoil of political social dynamics.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Not only would they lose the election, it's highly likely that with gingrich's high ass negatives he would "drag down" republicans in leaning or vulnerable districts.

So gingrich as the nominee could mean Democrats retaining the senate or (coming close to) retaking the house.

A romney campaign run wouldn't really have this effect.

A Gingrich nomination would be apocalyptic for the Republican brand. I wonder what they would re-brand themselves as this time. The Tea Party was only a few years ago, would they be able to get away with it again so soon?

 

[Flo_Evans]

I cant imagine how crushed Romney is going to be if he keeps losing momentum and eventually the nomination. Dude has been running for president since 2007 and it's gotta hurt to see "the inevitable" fall apart completely.

I am sure he has enough spare cash laying around to soak up the tears.

 

[JCreasy]

A Gingrich nomination would be apocalyptic for the Republican brand. I wonder what they would re-brand themselves as this time. The Tea Party was only a few years ago, would they be able to get away with it again so soon?

Concerned White House Aides Say Obama Has Not Stopped Laughing Since Saturday Night: http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/...as-not-stopped-laughing-since-saturday-night/

 

[AlteredBeast]

A Gingrich nomination would be apocalyptic for the Republican brand. I wonder what they would re-brand themselves as this time. The Tea Party was only a few years ago, would they be able to get away with it again so soon?

One that actually cares about improving quality of life for the impoverished, sick, feeble, and elderly? One that welcomes all under a banner of fiscal responsibility that in turn frees everyone under it from unnecessarily high taxation, the need to serve in unjust foreign wars, and from being leery of a neighbor who looks, feels, worships, or behaves differently.


That would be cool...and not at all possible in its incarnation.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Concerned White House Aides Say Obama Has Not Stopped Laughing Since Saturday Night: http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/...as-not-stopped-laughing-since-saturday-night/

:lol

I imagine this isn't far off.


Unrelated, but I was moved by this, especially in light of Gifford's retirement.

 

[Kusagari]

I want to see Mittens go insane if Newt wins the nomination. Refuse to support him, maybe even run as a third party!

 

[Evlar]

I think I'd actually prefer Romney even if he's a stronger candidate.

I'd much rather talk about his taxes for 10 months (and thus shift the conversation on taxes from the GOP's terms) and his vulture capitalism than just keep talking about what an asshole Newt is.

With Gingrich the GOP would just lose an election, with Romney the GOP could lose and argument they've spent decades winning.

It's an interesting argument but I'm not sure it would work out that way. Romney would end up losing, I truly expect that, but the consequences of making him into a banner of bad incentives would fade pretty quickly. The terms of the campaign, i.e. Romney representing Republican ideals as vulture capitalist, would get pushed into the same memory hole that Bush's bailout of the banks and such disappear into.

Gingrich and Romney both present the same long-term problem for the Republican party, though from different angles. The party is a coalition of distinct interests (like all major political parties) but it's becoming harder and harder to find a coherent central political thesis that holds the parts together. It's split on religious lines, regional lines, economic lines, and even theory of governance lines; the last one represented by the division between the traditional law-and-order conservative viewpoint on social matters and the growing laissez faire libertarian wing, who on matters of sex and drugs look like the caricature of liberal villains that conservatives use to scare their children at night.

The battle between Romney and Gingrich is being fought on the grounds of regionalism, religion, and personal morals, not on policy grounds or (evidently) effectiveness in reaching out beyond the party. It's a campaign about the party, not the country. Whoever wins this nomination is going to be captain of a ship in mutiny.

 

[JCreasy]

OMG!

Democratic Congressional Campaign Manager's Family Pet Killed, Painted With With "Liberal"

http://aden4arkansas.com/?p=964

RUSSELLVILLE—On the heels of a weekend of positive news coverage for the campaign of Democratic Congressional candidate Ken Aden, Aden’s campaign manager returned home to find his family pet slaughtered, with the word “liberal” painted on the animal’s corpse.

The Russellville Police Department is investigating, and a report will be made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Monday morning.

Jacob Burris, who has served as Aden’s campaign manager since late October, arrived home with his family Sunday evening, and his four children discovered the gruesome scene as they exited the family vehicle to enter their home.

The family pet, an adult, mixed-breed Siamese cat, had one side of its head bashed in to the point the cat’s eyeball was barely hanging from its socket. The perpetrators scrawled “liberal” across the cat’s body and left it on the doorstep of Burris’ house.

WHAT IN THE HELL!!

Seriously!?

 

[Tim-E]

http://mencken.info/2010/08/lame-ducks/

Let us have a Constitutional amendment providing that every unsuccessful aspirant for the Presidency, on the day his triumphant rival is inaugurated, shall be hauled to the top of the Washington Monument and there shot, poisoned, stabbed, strangled, and disemboweled and his carcass thrown into the Potomac. What we’d have gained if that amendment had been on the books in 1896! and in 1912!

:lol