Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

wut

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/14/2777441/malala-yousafzai-obama-drones/

 

[theprodigy]

In fairness, having America stop invading other countries actually does do a lot to advance the cause of peace.

in fairness, that award was still obviously BS

 

[NYCmetsfan]

holy shit my i was goggling what I just posted about there are some crazy people in the world.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Remember its about the leaks not the person

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nyff-edward-snowden-doc-citizenfour-740060

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...s-girlfriend-lindsay-mills-moved-moscow-live/

 

[RustyNails]

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/14/2777441/malala-yousafzai-obama-drones/

Oh yeah I remember that. The way you worded it had me thinking she was a White House fence jumper.

 

[Chichikov]

Remember its about the leaks not the person

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nyff-edward-snowden-doc-citizenfour-740060

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...s-girlfriend-lindsay-mills-moved-moscow-live/

When have you ever posted not about the person?
This some sort of weird auto-straw man post, I'm confused.

 

[zero shift]

She's okay I guess.

So Trot.

 

[thepotatoman]

So, Wendy Davis's new ad sure is stirring things up. Seriously, bringing up his disability while doing a basic dumb "as a lawyer he represented XYZ" ad? Those ads are always dumb because everyone deserves representation in court, and he's just doing his job, but it could have at least been a standard fare ad if you didn't include a menacing wheelchair in the background while talking about it.

Strategically it's dumb too. That is supposed to be a long term big picture race, building up Wendy Davis's profile while getting as many democrats in Texas as possible registered and voting. That's not the type of race you throw a hail mary in.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So, Wendy Davis's new ad sure is stirring things up. Seriously, bringing up his disability while doing a basic dumb "as a lawyer he represented XYZ" ad? Those ads are always dumb because everyone deserves representation in court, and he's just doing his job, but it could have at least been a standard fare ad if you didn't include a menacing wheelchair in the background while talking about it.

Strategically it's dumb too. That is supposed to be a long term big picture race, building up Wendy Davis's profile while getting as many democrats in Texas as possible registered and voting. That's not the type of race you throw a hail mary in.

Ugly side of "class warfare" bullshit. Just a stupid ad.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

When have you ever posted not about the person?
This some sort of weird auto-straw man post, I'm confused.

Ive posted a lot criticising the ideology of the person, ive not talked about his love life, his personal happiness, etc.

Ive also defended much of the nsa programs with out resorting as much as mentioning greenwalds name. As well as criticizing some.

This is just really bizzare idolatry at play in those pices and greenwalds writings about snowden.

 

[Bel Marduk]

So, Wendy Davis's new ad sure is stirring things up. Seriously, bringing up his disability while doing a basic dumb "as a lawyer he represented XYZ" ad? Those ads are always dumb because everyone deserves representation in court, and he's just doing his job, but it could have at least been a standard fare ad if you didn't include a menacing wheelchair in the background while talking about it.

Strategically it's dumb too. That is supposed to be a long term big picture race, building up Wendy Davis's profile while getting as many democrats in Texas as possible registered and voting. That's not the type of race you throw a hail mary in.

I really wish she were doing better.. Her campaign must be awful for her to be losing by 10 points or so.. I would think Rick Perry and Louie Gohmert would have embarrassed Texas enough.

Maybe she shouldn't have admitted that abortion?

I dunno, maybe it will turn blue in 2018. The demographics are certainly there.

 

[Enron]

I really wish she were doing better.. Her campaign must be awful for her to be losing by 10 points or so.. I would think Rick Perry and Louie Gohmert would have embarrassed Texas enough.

Maybe she shouldn't have admitted that abortion?

She was sunk before that even happened anyways. Her latest ad is disgusting. Clearly not ready for Prime Time.

 

[East Lake]

Benji pls explain.

We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of “rights” is a “negative” one, demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a “right” to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a “right” to a “living wage,” for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

 

[benjipwns]

Explain what?

I'm not Rothbard and disagree with him on plenty, like for example his pre-death dalliances with David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot because he was tired of losing. He was better when he was hanging around with Karl Hess. He got worse after he ditched the Radicals for being too libertine.

Not surprisingly he started to downplay his favorable views of abortion as outlined there.

 

[East Lake]

You're not Rothbard? Who would extricate the starving child?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Ive posted a lot criticising the ideology of the person, ive not talked about his love life, his personal happiness, etc.

Ive also defended much of the nsa programs with out resorting as much as mentioning greenwalds name. As well as criticizing some.

This is just really bizzare idolatry at play in those pices and greenwalds writings about snowden.

Idolatry? You're still offended at the idea that Snowden did something courageous and deserves some respect given the risks he has taken to expose our shitty government. Your casual disinterest in civil liberties mixed with the constant defense of US imperialism and ignorance of US foreign policy in the Middle East is pretty stunning.

 

[Diablos]

Speaking of Braley, an update on the early voting:

We've got this Aaron. These clowns don't know what they're talking about.

 

[WayneMorse]

Denver Post's endorsement of Cory Gardner:

http://www.denverpost.com/portal/endorsements/ci_26701817/cory-gardner-u-s-senate?_loopback=1

Anyone from Colorado can shed light on the impact of this?

 

[RustyNails]

We've got this Aaron. These clowns don't know what they're talking about.

Sorry I was bored on a saturday morning.

 

[thepotatoman]

Anyone from Colorado can shed light on the impact of this?

They've had a long history of having their endorsements ending up winning, but hard to say if it's because of the endorsement or because they are just tuned into what Coloradans think. This is the first year with a new editor that is center-right, compared to the center-left editor we had before.

I can say the one campaign I was involved in for the democratic primaries this year happened to be the only race the denver post decided to make an endorsement in during the whole primary season. They endorsed her opponent because he is pro charter schools, and she still won by a fairly large margin.

 

[East Lake]

Explain what?

I'm not Rothbard and disagree with him on plenty, like for example his pre-death dalliances with David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot because he was tired of losing. He was better when he was hanging around with Karl Hess. He got worse after he ditched the Radicals for being too libertine.

Not surprisingly he started to downplay his favorable views of abortion as outlined there.

Also what's up with this holocaust denial stuff? Legit?

In 1940, the New York World-Telegram newspaper dropped Barnes' weekly column. The writer responded by complaining the action was due to a conspiracy against him, involving the British MI6 intelligence service, the House of Morgan, and all of the Jewish department store owners in New York City. Barnes alleged that the latter had threatened the publisher of the New York World-Telegram with the "loss of all advertising if he kept me on any longer".[21]

In particular, Barnes claimed that a historical black-out had covered up the real origins of World War II.[6] In his 1947 pamphlet, "The Struggle Against The Historical Blackout", Barnes claimed that "court historians" suppressed that Hitler was the most "reasonable" leader in the world in 1939, and that France's Premier Édouard Daladier wanted to commit aggression against Germany aided and abetted by a scheming and dishonest British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.[22] In the same pamphlet, Barnes claimed that as part of the alleged smear campaign that had been committed against Germany, Allied governments had falsely charged Germany with responsibility for crimes that she did not commit.[23]

"The courageous author [Rassinier] lays the chief blame for misrepresentation on those whom we must call the swindlers of the crematoria, the Israeli politicians who derive billions of marks from nonexistent, mythical and imaginary cadavers, whose numbers have been reckoned in an unusually distorted and dishonest manner."[28]

It is to the everlasting honor of Harry Elmer Barnes that when the records are in and the accounts are drawn, it will never be said of him that he was a Court Intellectual. Absolute fearlessness, absolute honesty, absolute independence have been his guiding stars. He has, therefore, been nothing if not "anti-Establishmentarian" in a world where such a quality has been so desperately needed. And his presence has been particularly vital precisely in leading the opposition to the great barbarity of our day – the war system and its manifold intellectual myths.

In the face of the two great wars of this century, and of the enormous pressures to fall into step behind them, Barnes has intrepidly led the revisionist movements in analyzing the causes, the nature, and the consequences of both wars. Revisionism, of course, means penetrating beneath the official propaganda myths spawned by war and the war-making state, and analyzing war independently of court pressures and court emoluments. But it also means more – and one of the problems in Revisionism has been the inability of many of its former followers to penetrate to its true nature and to understand its major implications.

Vintage Koch read for anyone bored by state no state.

This entry on the Holocaust Denial Timeline stands out the most, because it directly ties Charles Koch and the libertarian empire he built to the rise of the Holocaust denial industry:

"1966-67: American historian Harry Elmer Barnes publishes articles in the Libertarian periodical Rampart Journal claiming that the Allies overstated the extent of Nazi atrocities in order to justify a war of aggression against the Axis powers."

The real story behind “the Libertarian periodical Rampart Journal” which published this notable work of Holocaust denial garbage is that the journal was funded and published with the active involvement of a younger Charles Koch. As my print article "Charles Koch's Brain" reveals, in 1964, Charles Koch joined the board of trustees and became a director of the nonprofit which funded Rampart Journal, along with Rampart College and Freedom School, the corporate-backed libertarian indoctrination programs run by Charles Koch’s first mentor, Robert LeFevre.

The 1966 Rampart College promotional booklet features a photo of young Charles Koch holding a shovel ceremonially breaking ground on a planned new Rampart extension building, as his white-haired guru Robert LeFevre stands beside him, smiling. Under Koch’s influence and funding, LeFevre started publishing reams of what libertarians call “historical revisionism”—a euphemism for Holocaust denial propaganda—which the Holocaust Museum notes on its timeline.

But it goes much deeper than one author in a couple of journals. Under Koch’s watch, LeFevre hired one of the most notorious Holocaust deniers to head up the new Rampart College history department: James J. Martin, who later served as an editorial director at neo-Nazi leader Willis Carto’s “Institute for Historical Review,” the largest and the worst of all America’s Holocaust denial outfits.

LeFevre devoted the entire spring 1966 issue of the Libertarian periodical Rampart Journal to the theme of Holocaust denial and “historical revisionism.”

For example, in an article by Harry Elmer Barnes titled “Revisionism: A Key To Peace,” the author writes,

Even if one were to accept the most extreme and exaggerated indictment of Hitler and the national socialists for their activities after 1939 made by anybody fit to remain outside a mental hospital, it is almost alarmingly easy to demonstrate that the atrocities of the Allies in the same period were more numerous as to victims and were carried out for the most part by methods more brutal and painful than alleged extermination in gas ovens.

The article also claimed that FDR’s Jewish Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, planned a far worse genocide of Germans:

If the current Germanophobia is based on the assertion that Hitler and his entourage ordered the extermination of six million Jews, there is no doubt that the Morgenthau plan for postwar Germany envisaged the starvation of twenty to thirty million Germans in transforming Germany into a pastoral country.

In Deborah Lipstadt’s authoritative book “Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory,” the Libertarian movement (and Koch guru Robert LeFevre) are called out for their role promoting Holocaust deniers like Harry Elmer Barnes:

When “The Public Stake in Revisionism” -- in which [Harry Elmer Barnes] referred to the “doings real or alleged at Auschwitz” and described the Einsatzgruppen as "battling guerrillas" -- appeared in the journal of Rampart College, Robert LeFevre, the college dean, writing in the journal, demonstrated the academic community's willingness to regard Barnes's behavior as excusable excesses: "There are places where Dr. Barnes' understandable frustration is indicated by the use of emotive words and that may be unfortunate although it can be forgiven.”

Today Barnes's work is generally dismissed by scholars because of his obsession with a conspiracy theory related to America's entry into World War II. However, he remains something of a cult historian for members of the Libertarian party, who subscribe to Barnes's style of revisionist scholarship. They have kept his works in print and made his books widely available in their bookstores.

Indeed. Another prominent name on the Holocaust Denial Timeline is Austin J. App:

1973: Austin J. App, professor of English literature at LaSalle University in Philadelphia, publishes a pamphlet: “The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks with Fabricated Corpses.” The pamphlet becomes a foundation for future claims by Holocaust deniers.

Three years after Austin App called the Holocaust “The Six Million Swindle,” the Kochs’ Reason magazine published an article by the same author, titled “The Sudeten-German Tragedy.” In that same issue of Reason devoted to “historical revisionism” the Kochs and Robert Poole also published articles by noted Holocaust denier Percy Greaves—who taught at LeFevre’s Freedom School where Koch was converted to libertarianism, and who later served on the editorial advisory committee of neo-Nazi Willis Carto’s Holocaust denial outfit, the Institute for Historical Review.

Another contributor to Reason’s “historical revisionism” issue was Gary North, Ron Paul’s former Congressional aide and ideological guru. North is a leader of Christian Reconstructionism, a Christian libertarian movement that seeks to abolish the US state and replace it with an unregulated free-market economy with Biblical capital punishment requiring the stoning to death of homosexuals, blasphemers, unruly children, and women who engage in premarital sex. In his article in Reason magazine, “World War II Revisionism and Vietnam,” and in a subsequent debate in the letters page, Gary North sarcastically doubted the Holocaust, writing,

the anonymous author of “The Myth of the Six Million” has presented a solid case against the Establishment's favorite horror story—the supposed moral justification of our entry into the War.

Other Reason magazine writers who served on the editorial advisory committee of the neo-Nazi Holocaust denial outfit included Samuel Konkin and Reason staffer Louis A. Rollins, who was a regular contributor throughout the 1970s into the early 1980s. One of Reason magazine’s favorite regular monthly features was Rollins’ libertarian rip-off of Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary. A sample of what passed for wit according to Holocaust-denier guy L.A. Rollins:

majority rule, n. The moral equivalent of a gang rape.

looter, n. A civil rights worker.

assassinate, v.t. To recall a public official with one ballot.

Had Ted Cruz and the rest of his libertarian anarcho-Republicans not shut down the government, I would have been able to talk to the US Holocaust Museum last week about the role these libertarian figures played in the rise of today’s Holocaust denial lie-making machinery. I would have been able to get a comment from them on what they think about the fact that the CATO Institute published a book by Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes as late as 1980, with an introduction by Holocaust denier James J. Martin, whom they also paid to teach at a 1979 CATO Summer lecture series.... series…and about how all this was done under the direction of recently-retired CATO president Ed Crane, a staple in the Washington DC Republican Party lobby world, and CATO founder Charles Koch.

Today, that same CATO Institute is Ted Cruz’s biggest fan, glorifying Cruz by comparing him to “Ironman” and pushing him to run for president, all in honor of his lead role in shutting down the government to sabotage Obamacare.

"Instead of reading comic books, [Ted] was reading Adam Smith, he was reading Milton Friedman, he was reading von Mises, he was reading Frédéric Bastiat.”

Yes, both Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises taught at Robert LeFevre’s Freedom School when young Charles Koch was first indoctrinated in libertarianism; and in the issues of Rampart Journal listed in the “Holocaust Denial Timeline,” you can see Ludwig von Mises’ name on the Rampart Journal “Board of Academic Advisors” printed near the front of every Holocaust-denying issue.

Somehow it happened that today, the loudest bleaters about the Holocaust and the worst abusers of Holocaust analogies are the same Tea Party libertarians whose roots lie in the sordid effort to deny the Holocaust, but who today abuse, flog and inflate away the Holocaust by comparing every political dispute to the Nazi genocide. When you know where it all comes from, one Holocaust abuser looks like the flipside of the other.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/shuts-down-the-holocaust/43201b3a2936ec68c823ff596b0a27c529ea9350/

 

[PhoenixDark]

We've got this Aaron. These clowns don't know what they're talking about.

That article is about the GOP catching up to the democrat ground game in Iowa, it's hardly a positive report. Braley is done...

 

[Aaron Strife]

That article is about the GOP catching up to the democrat ground game in Iowa, it's hardly a positive report. Braley is done...

A huuuuge chunk of those early D/I voters didn't vote at all in 2010. How is that "hardly a positive report"? All the GOP has done here is shift when people are actually going to vote which doesn't matter if they were going to vote on Election Day anyway.

PD do you ever realize how problematic your analysis is when you just cherry pick small tidbits that might sound bad for the Democrats

 

[RustyNails]

"I'm very excited to be here to support your next Senator from Iowa, our friend Bruce Bailey," the first lady said commencing her speech on Friday.

"Iowa, if you want a leader that shares your values and will stand up for your families out in Washington, then you need to elect Bruce Bailey to the U.S. Senate," she said again a few sentences later.

Obama continued to mispronounce the Braley's name five more times until she was interrupted by an audience member, who made her aware of her continued slip-up.

"Braley?" she asked, looking quizzical. "What did I say? I'm losing it," she laughed. "I'm getting old."

.

 

[theprodigy]

A huuuuge chunk of those early D/I voters didn't vote at all in 2010. How is that "hardly a positive report"? All the GOP has done here is shift when people are actually going to vote which doesn't matter if they were going to vote on Election Day anyway.

PD do you ever realize how problematic your analysis is when you just cherry pick small tidbits that might sound bad for the Democrats

but if he didn't do that he couldn't troll the thread!

 

[thepotatoman]

Every forecaster now has Republicans favored to some extent, with Sam Wang being the one to move toward Nate Silver. Still clearly a toss up, but real hard to feel good for democrats winning.

I do wonder if we were too hard on Nate Silver. He's said some dumb things, but his forecast does seem to holding super steady.

 

[CygnusXS]

Initially read those as seat numbers instead of percentages and almost flipped out at the WaPo projection.

 

[Wilsongt]

Every forecaster now has Republicans favored to some extent, with Sam Wang being the one to move toward Nate Silver. Still clearly a toss up, but real hard to feel good for democrats winning.

I do wonder if we were too hard on Nate Silver. He's said some dumb things, but his forecast does seem to holding super steady.

You just summoned PD to troll.

Also, those WaPo numbers. Wow. Clearly not biased at all.

 

[thepotatoman]

A huuuuge chunk of those early D/I voters didn't vote at all in 2010. How is that "hardly a positive report"? All the GOP has done here is shift when people are actually going to vote which doesn't matter if they were going to vote on Election Day anyway.

PD do you ever realize how problematic your analysis is when you just cherry pick small tidbits that might sound bad for the Democrats

Grassley won by 31 percentage points in 2010. The polls saying Ernst is in a slight lead were already predicting that Democrats will do a good deal better than 2010. I don't think that statistic challenges the current polling like you imply it might. Better than 2010 is just a way too low a bar to hit.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Grassley won by 31 percentage points in 2010. The polls saying Ernst is in a slight lead were already predicting that Democrats will do a good deal better than 2010. I don't think that statistic challenges the current polling like you imply it might. Better than 2010 is just a way too low a bar to hit.

Grassley is an institution and was running against a nobody - I wouldn't be surprised at all if he won a significant amount of Democrats and Independents. I don't think that's an exact comparison. That would be like saying a Republican presidential nominee could win Maine based on Susan Collins' performance.

 

[thepotatoman]

Grassley is an institution and was running against a nobody - I wouldn't be surprised at all if he won a significant amount of Democrats and Independents. I don't think that's an exact comparison. That would be like saying a Republican presidential nominee could win Maine based on Susan Collins' performance.

Alright, then look at the 10 point gap for the Governor and the combined House vote. Point being that moving that 10 point gap to a 2 point gap is still going to create a lot of "better than 2010" style statistics, but the end result is still Ernst winning, just like the polls seem to be saying.

 

[Wilsongt]

Hahaha oh wow.

Apparently Thom Tillis and Berger were trying to invoke a case from 1972 in order to discriminate and ban gay marriage LOLOLOLOL

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Some guy calls up PPP.

http://www.youmail.com/youmail/voic...kRBQcKNQklBQ0NDSEVJwo1Cwo3Ch0PCjXl6eXJ0fHbCgw

 

[Aaron Strife]

Alright, then look at the 10 point gap for the Governor and the combined House vote. Point being that moving that 10 point gap to a 2 point gap is still going to create a lot of "better than 2010" style statistics, but the end result is still Ernst winning, just like the polls seem to be saying.

That's a closer comparison but keep in mind the Democrats aren't just turning out registered Democrats, but are also winning big with early-voting Independents. I still think Braley will win. The Dems' GOTV operation this year is massive.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/220469-turnout-fears-mount-for-democrats

The Democratic Party's worst fears about the midterm election look to be coming true.

Polling in recent weeks suggests turnout on Election Day could be very low, even by the standards of recent midterms. That’s bad news for Democrats because core groups in the liberal base are more likely to stay home than are people in the demographic segments that lean Republican.

A Gallup poll last week found that voters are less engaged in this year's midterms than they were in 2010 and 2006. Only 33 percent of respondents said they were giving at least “some” thought to the upcoming midterms, compared to 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2006. Even more troubling for Democrats, Republicans held a 12-point advantage when those paying “some” attention were broken down by party.

Historically, the core Democratic constituencies of young people, minorities and single women are more likely to skip voting in midterm elections. The current projections suggest that months of effort by the Democratic Party to engage those groups on issues such as the minimum wage and women's pay may have been in vain.



If the numbers hold, it could mean a rout for Democrats similar to the 2010 "shellacking" — President Obama’s description — that swept away their House majority.

"We cannot have 2010 turnout. If we have 2010 turnout among our key constituencies, we're going to have 2010 all over again. It's math," said Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who served as a pollster for President Obama's election campaigns.

Overall voter participation in midterm elections has hovered around 40 percent in recent years, compared to a 56 percent average for presidential years. But turnout levels are more resilient among older, richer and white voters — all of which is good news for Republicans.

According to the nonpartisan Voter Participation Center, nearly 21 million fewer African Americans, Hispanics, unmarried women and young people voted in 2010 compared to 2008. That's exactly the situation Democrats want to avoid this time around.

Some Democrats think the party hasn't done enough to pep up the groups that form its main pillars of support. Veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told The Hill last week that Hispanic voters would largely be unmotivated to vote in this year's elections due to President Obama's decision to delay an executive action on immigration.

“I think if we'd done something, it would have energized the Latino vote and drawn a clear distinction with the Republicans," Lake said.

Polling has further shown that young people are generally disengaged with this year's elections. A Pew Research poll this month found that only five percent of adults ages 18-29 were following the 2014 midterms very closely.

That could spell disaster for Democrats. National exit polls from the last midterm elections in 2010 indicated that voters aged 18-29 favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by 55 percent to 42 percent. Those figures were roughly reversed among voters aged 65 and older, who voted Republican 59 percent to 38 percent.

Tellingly, those voters who were 65 and older accounted for 21 percent of the votes cast in 2010, while only about 12 percent of the total voters came from the 18-29 cohort.

Turnout should be higher in states with high-profile competitive races. Michael McDonald, an associate professor at the University of Florida who specializes in elections, said that turnout may be low nationally simply because most of the county's largest states — such as California and Texas — don't have major competitive races.

"Half the population of the country doesn't have a Senate race this year," McDonald said.

McDonald noted that voter participation in Iowa, for instance, may even exceed 2010.

"Turnout may be down nationally, but within the key battleground states, certainly turnout looks to be robust so far," McDonald said. "Turnout in midterms is conditioned heavily on the competitive nature of the races."

Democrats are continuing to try hard to get their base to turn out. Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus last month announced a multi-state campaign drive to motivate African American voters to go to the polls. The effort started with voter outreach drives at 3,000 African American churches across the country on September 21.

 

[Aaron Strife]

New Iowa poll has Ernst up 1 (47-46). It's from Selzer

Their last poll had her leading by 6

My fundamental belief is this: most polls have showed this between tied and a small Ernst lead, but GOTV will save Braley.

 

[Wilsongt]

Bad news for Kay Hagan. Bad news for our sanity.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Full write up on the Selzer poll

Some reasons to be optimistic about a Braley victory:

The new poll reveals three potential reasons why this race has tightened in the final sprint:

• The Democrats' aggressive early voting push is aiding Braley, an eight-year congressman from Waterloo. They're rounding up ballots from Iowans who would not otherwise have voted.

• A majority of Iowa likely voters appreciate having a U.S. senator from each political party. Retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, 74, has been an old-school liberal street fighter for Iowa for 30 years. And Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, 81, who intends to keep adding to his 33 years in the Senate, is a conservative powerhouse.

• Likely voters find more of Braley's policy positions closer to their own views than Ernst's positions among 10 issues tested. A majority of likely voters favor six of Braley's stances to four of Ernst's.

They also have Ernst winning voters under 35 which is... kind of weird and I don't think will be reflected in the actual results.

 

[PhoenixDark]

A huuuuge chunk of those early D/I voters didn't vote at all in 2010. How is that "hardly a positive report"? All the GOP has done here is shift when people are actually going to vote which doesn't matter if they were going to vote on Election Day anyway.

PD do you ever realize how problematic your analysis is when you just cherry pick small tidbits that might sound bad for the Democrats

It's not about cherry picking. The democrats will more than likely lose the senate, that's just reality. Races that shouldn't be competitive (Iowa, Colorado) are now problematic due to just how horrible this second term has been. It's over...

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's not about cherry picking. The democrats will more than likely lose the senate, that's just reality. Races that shouldn't be competitive (Iowa, Colorado) are now problematic due to just how horrible this second term has been. It's over...

Whatever you say.

And Colorado is not "problematic." The polls there have been complete bullshit for years.

Dems will win CO and IA. 49-48-Orman split on election day with two runoffs. Bank on it.

 

[benjipwns]

Also what's up with this holocaust denial stuff? Legit?

Vintage Koch read for anyone bored by state no state.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/shuts-down-the-holocaust/43201b3a2936ec68c823ff596b0a27c529ea9350/

Libertarians in general approve of historical revisionism because it's a human endeavor and adds information, even if it's done by Progresssives like Barnes. I doubt Rothbard personally denied the Holocaust considering he was a Jew living through the period.

This anti-war stuff is likely why he was favorably cited:

In the 1920s, Barnes was noted as a vehement advocate that Germany had borne no responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1914, and had instead been the victim of Allied aggression.[4] In 1922, Barnes was arguing that the responsibility for World War I was split evenly between the Allies and the Central Powers.[5] By 1924, Barnes was writing that Austria was the power most responsible for the war, but that Russia and France were more responsible than Germany.[5] By 1926, Barnes argued that Russia and France bore the entire responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1914, and the Central Powers none.[5] In Barnes' view, "vested political and historical interests" were behind the "official" account that Germany started World War I.[6]
...
In 1926 Barnes published The Genesis of the World War, the first American book written about 1914 that was based upon the available primary sources. He argued the First World War was the result of a Franco-Russian plot to destroy Germany.[10] Wegerer wrote about The Genesis of the World War that it would be "scarcely possible to provide a better book than this one".[12]

Barnes was opposed to the idea of World War I as "just war", which he believed to have been caused by the economic imperialism of France and Russia.[12] In 1925, Barnes wrote:

If we can but understand how totally and terribly we were "taken in" between 1914 and 1918 by the salesmen of this most holy and idealistic world conflict, we shall be the better prepared to be on our guard against the seductive lies and deceptions which will put forward by similar groups when urging the necessity of another world catastrophe in order to "crush militarism", "make the world safe for democracy", put an end to all further wars, etc.[12]

The Rockwellian wing, which Rothbard split off with sometimes makes common cause with many an unsightly thought due to their fervent anti-war stance. Like Justin Raimondo. And Hugo Chavez.

 

[East Lake]

I don't find the being a jew thing that convincing. By the same token you'd think as a jew it might be odd not to address the topic of holocaust denial in the context of WWII. Omitting it would seem to leave out a relevant part of history and Barnes. Unless historical revisionism isn't really that important. If adding information is the only requirement then that seems to fit the view that looking the other way with holocaust denial is fine, but then looks like it means any sort of added information would benefit society, even things like the protocols of elder zion.

 

[kess]

The Federal Budget Deficit Is Back to Normal

The federal budget deficit has narrowed sharply, and is back to relatively normal levels.

With the government’s budget year having concluded at the end of September, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the deficit for 2014 was 2.8 percent of G.D.P., down from 4.1 percent last year. The deficit is now smaller than its average over the past 40 years of 3.1 percent.

 

[thepotatoman]

The Federal Budget Deficit Is Back to Normal

Yeah, stimulus seems no longer need, and we probably should think about lowering the debt to GDP a bit.

Redistribution on the other hand is needed quite badly right now.

 

[Chichikov]

The Federal Budget Deficit Is Back to Normal

Someone call Erskine Bowles to make sure he's okay.

Spoiler

the deficit is too low by the way.

Yeah, stimulus seems no longer need, and we probably should think about lowering the debt to GDP a bit.

Redistribution on the other hand is needed quite badly right now.

Inflation it too low, very low bond yields, high unemployment, why the hell should be lowering the deficit right now?

 

[East Lake]

In the capitalist sense Benji shouldn't harmful ideas be adding to human knowledge as well? Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying but I don't see how that wouldn't be the case in a society that really respects capitalism. In the same way I am able to conduct business in buying a smartphone I am free to believe or disbelieve in the 9/11 conspiracy, or that blacks are genetically inferior based on how well they sell the product (idea). When a business makes a bad product or engages in bad behavior I'm free to reject or to continue to conduct business with them. The free market decides. If I take a risky loan or work at a factory that has too many injury incidents and I get my hand crushed, I have gained knowledge and possibly wealth from the negative experience, and so have others.

So if there's holocaust denial writing out there society gains from having that writing available, if only to serve as a warning against bad behavior, right? Sure some may engage in holocaust denial and other bigotry but we all learn from the experience? Or do we? On the other hand you've said we've been doing more or less the same thing since medieval serfdom.

What's the difference in their core premises?

Technology and other innovations from liberty have granted us greater escape, but the claim of the state corporation is unchanged since Plato through serfdom and to modern democratic fascism.

Why hasn't the the state been changed since then? We've had a few thousand years to build wealth.

 

[Cat]

Greg Abbott: Texas gay marriage ban reduces out-of-wedlock births
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-...y-marriage-ban-reduces-out-of-wedlock-births/

Texas' very likely future governor, everyone. Ugh. We don't require couples that marry to procreate nor ban marriages of people who have had children out-of-wedlock.

The article also includes this info about the status of the Texas and Louisana gay marriage cases:

Last week, the court agreed to fast-track the Texas case. The request for expedited hearing came from Nicole Dimetman, a plaintiff in the case who is due to give birth to the second child with her wife, Cleopatra DeLeon, in March. The two were married in Massachusetts.

DeLeon bore the couple’s first child, now 2, and Dimetman quickly adopted the boy so she would have parental rights. The couple told the Express-News last week they hoped a victory in the courts would help them avoid another round of costly and stressful adoption requirements.

Victor Holmes and Mark Phariss, another gay couple living in Texas, are also appellees on the case.

Also this month, the court agreed to a request from Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to have the same three-judge panel that hears the Texas case hear his argument in favor of that state’s gay marriage ban. The final briefs in the Louisiana case are due Nov. 7. Hearing dates will likely be set before the end of the year.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Greg Abbott: Texas gay marriage ban reduces out-of-wedlock births
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-...y-marriage-ban-reduces-out-of-wedlock-births/

Texas' very likely future governor, everyone. Ugh. We don't require couples that marry to procreate nor ban marriages of people who have had children out-of-wedlock.

The article also includes this info about the status of the Texas and Louisana gay marriage cases:

That's the fucking stupidest and most contradictory thing I've ever heard from the GOP

And hoo boy does that say a lot

 

[benjipwns]

I don't find the being a jew thing that convincing. By the same token you'd think as a jew it might be odd not to address the topic of holocaust denial in the context of WWII.

I don't know of Rothbard taking the Holocause denialist position so I'm going to work with innocent until proven guilty like I would for anyone who hasn't denied the Holocaust.

I don't know why Rothbard would mention Holocaust denial when discussing the "origins of World War II" or why anyone else would for that matter.

In the capitalist sense Benji shouldn't harmful ideas be adding to human knowledge as well? ... So if there's holocaust denial writing out there society gains from having that writing available, if only to serve as a warning against bad behavior, right? Sure some may engage in holocaust denial and other bigotry but we all learn from the experience? Or do we?

Of course we do. A hypothesis is as only as good as the weakness of the null hypothesis. Just as profit and loss are both important.

but then looks like it means any sort of added information would benefit society, even things like the protocols of elder zion.

I think Jesse Walker's recent book is just one of many that illustrates how central such things are to the human existence and thus the value of understanding them.

On the other hand you've said we've been doing more or less the same thing since medieval serfdom.

Why hasn't the the state been changed since then? We've had a few thousand years to build wealth.

I went back to Plato in that quote. And why would it change if it's still defining the same thing? We still call them cats because their fundamental core features of identification haven't changed. We still call them guns because they operate by the same fundamental principle. So on.

 

[thepotatoman]

Someone call Erskine Bowles to make sure he's okay.

Spoiler

the deficit is too low by the way.

Inflation it too low, very low bond yields, high unemployment, why the hell should be lowering the deficit right now?

The average inflation rate of 2014 is 1.6%, really close to the FRB's target 2%. Average Unemployment for 2014 thus far is 6.3%, near the 6.0% median since 1970. And bond yields have been dropping since 1980.

The timing isn't 100% perfect, but part of economics is accounting for the political process, which can be pretty slow. I think it's easy to think things suck if they're not at all time highs, but usually those all time highs are bubbles which Keynesian theory teaches us to slow down. I'm not saying we should slam on the breaks, we just need to stop worrying about adding stimulus so much right this moment, and start thinking about what might be good ways to cut the deficit in the future, which should be by taxes.

I get that austerity has become a scary term given years of mostly Republicans acting like spending cuts are the one and only way to ever cut deficits, but that's obviously not true. Just sell it as belt tightening that has to come from somewhere, and I think there's plenty evidence that can be used to sell the fact that the people at the top need their belts tightened the most.

You might think it impossible for the public to accept something so negative, but people think the Republicans are better at economics, and they've been pumping austerity and belt tightening for years. People aren't dumb, and they know tough decisions sometimes need to be made, but when Democrats publicly talk like they can solve every last problem at once, they are going to think Republicans have a better economic plan.

If we want to be seen better at economics, we probably should be better about addressing the drawbacks to economic policies. Like when criticized about the deficit back in 2011, say you believe in america, and that in the future, with help from this stimulus, things will get better, and that's when we can address the deficit, but for now things are bad and the american people need help, and addressing the deficit right now will just make things worse. But cutting the deficit, fighting to keep spending intact, and basically promoting tax cuts just combines to sound like bull, so of course they're going to assume the republicans who promote nebulous spending cuts were responsible for the deficit.

In 2014, people are still feeling a recession. But a switch to tax increases would basically be sold by complaining about deficits (which is obviously easy to sell), data about the CEOs and Bankers and billionaires who are clearly not in recession anymore and have the ability to tighten their belts, that the people tightening their belts would be benefited by the better economy they're helping create anyway, and listing the ways you are continuing to help people that need it (like removing the sequester). They might call you a socialist for wanting to make the tax brackets more progressive, but they already call you a socialist no matter what, so no change there.

I mean you can Luntz it up, unilaterally replacing the word taxes with revenue increases or something, and generally polishing everything into making higher taxes on the rich sound as positive as possible, but in some ways that's still less patronizing than saying a vote for democrats is a vote for infinite spending, infinite tax cuts, and infinite deficit cuts, no matter the situation.