Goldy nails it:
Regardless of whether McKenna really is a different-kinda-Republican, the very fact that he relied on this image to pacify voters is a tacit admission that 21st century Republicanism remains outside the mainstream of Washington politics.
Uh-oh. It looks like the looney-tune Wingnut brigade is going to have to find some other “thing” to call a White House “scandal” (source):
CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
As Paul Waldman pointed out last week, the Republicans have a serious problem—Obama has nearly completed his first term, and their isn’t a real White House scandal anywhere in sight. Oh, sure, we had “beer summit-gate,” and then the moral fabric of our society was nearly put through the shredder by Biden’s “Big Fucking Deal!” But somehow the public responded with an amused or bemused smile and a vote for Obama—Biden.
This leaves the Republicans with a chronic case of scandal envy. (Oh…the humanity!) I mean, the Benghazi thing is, obviously, entirely vacuous. Suppose the White House had changed Ms. Rice’s qualified (and, in retrospect, partially wrong) assessment of the situation. Who gives a shit? What difference does it make? Waldman sums it up thusly:
If you’re looking at the Republican harumphing over Benghazi and asking yourself, “Why are we supposed to be so mad about this again?” you’re not alone. Let’s review: There was an attack on our consulate that killed four Americans, including our ambassador. Amid confusing and contradictory reports from the ground, President Obama waited too long to utter the magic incantation, “Terrorism, terrorists, terror!” that would have … well, it would have done something, but it turns out that he did say “terror,” so never mind that. But that’s not the real scandal! The real scandal is that Susan Rice went on television soon after and amid all kinds of “based on the best information we have”s and “we’ll have to see”s, said one thing that turned out not to be the case: that after the protests in Cairo, there was some kind of copycat protest in Benghazi, which was then “hijacked” by extremist elements using heavy weapons to stage an attack.
A sane person might say, OK, she was obviously given some incorrect information at that time, but it’s not a particularly meaningful deception. As people have been pointing out for weeks now, it’s not as though not using the word “terror” or saying there was a protest before the attack gave the White House some enormous political advantage. If you’re going to have a cover-up, there has to be something you’re covering up.
But the White House didn’t make the changes. It was at a number of stops through the intelligence screening process where the edits happened—on the road from a classified intelligence assessment to a public statement about something that was still under active investigation. The edits are even more comprehensible (well…to folks living in the reality based community, anyway) considering that the attack ended up at a CIA annex about a mile from the consulate. The existence of that CIA facility was a secret prior to the attacks.
So, our friends in the right-wing-nut-o-sphere are left without much of anything in the way of White House scandals, so far. But I’m thinkin’ that one of these days, some reporter is going to catch President Obama in an undisclosed smoke-free location with a coffin nail hangin’ from his lips.
“Impeach!!!!!”
Please join us tonight for a pint and some more post-election gloating thanksgiving at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.
We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.
Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. Tonight the Tri-Cities chapter also meets. The Longview and South Seattle chapters meet on Wednesday.
With 229 chapters of Living Liberally, including fourteen in Washington state, four in Oregon, and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter that meets near you.
SlateTV: The GOP’s mad rush to immigration reform.
Ed: Republicans try to reinvent themselves with minority voters.
The Losers Weepers:
Kimmel: This week in unnecessary censorship.
Sam Seder: So long, Twinkies.
The five funniest campaign videos of 2012.
Thom with more Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.
Mark Fiore: Newly frugal guy!
Young Turks: Rep. Allen West loses election & his grip with reality.
The Petraeus Surge:
Monika Eckhart goes to Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers’ Office.
Rush Limbaugh goes all apoplectic over a Twinkie joke petition!
Thom with the Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.
Pap and Katrina Vanden Heuvel: Obama should get tough against GOP obstruction.
Super-duper-scandal of All Time:
White House: West Wing Week.
Lawrence O’Donnell: Rewriting a blatant, malicious FAUX News conspiracy theory
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
The Seattle Times has more on Rep. Dave Reichert’s (R-WA-8) role in the Petraeus affair.
Humphries took Kelley’s concerns to the FBI cybercrime division, but later was worried that the FBI was dragging its feet — possibly for political reasons — and took his worries to U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert.
My read: Shortly before a presidential election, a renegade FBI agent is annoyed with how slowly the FBI is investigating the incumbent President’s CIA Director. He decides to leak information about the investigation in a way that might affect the election.
Reichert is duped into playing the intermediary. Rather than taking the disgruntled FBI agent to the House leadership (you know, the leadership position as defined in the Constitution), Reichert connects the man with Eric Cantor, who is the G.O.P. leader.
Clearly, this was an attempted political hit. But, Cantor isn’t as stupid as Reichert, and decided to not meddle in the investigation.
Please join us tonight for a pint and a post-election gloating and celebration at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.
We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.
Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. Tonight the Tri-Cities and Vancouver, WA chapters meet. On Wednesday, the Bellingham chapter meets, For Thursday, the Spokane chapter and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meet. And next Monday, the Yakima and Olympia chapters meet.
With 233 chapters of Living Liberally, including fourteen in Washington state, four in Oregon, and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter that meets near you.
The Seattle Times published a dreadful Op-Ed by Joe Delmore, a Seattle-based freelance writer. Delmore is mourning the defeat of Rob McKenna:
…it will continue what amounts to one-party rule of the governor’s office. Not since 1980, when an almost-forgotten John Spellman won the governorship, has a Republican gained the state’s highest office.
Because of this three-decade dry spell, Washington has gone longer than any other state in the union without having a Republican governor, according to The Weekly Standard.
Delmore does recognize part of the problem:
Like the national party, the state’s GOP has become more conservative, even reactionary, on cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage.
…but then he fails in trying to draw a parallel to the Democrats:
It’s also true that the Democratic Party has become rigidly partisan on these same cultural issues.
The Democrat’s position on abortion and gay marriage are pretty much mainstream positions, with a bit of forward-thinking social policy thrown in. In contrast, the position of many state Republicans amounts to going backward to the social policy of the 1950. Hardly equivalent.
Are there solutions? Delmore points out:
Secretary of State Sam Reed, one of the few Republicans to win statewide office, says the party must learn to appeal to more centrist voters. Former Republican state chairman Chris Vance said the party needs to know what it takes to win independents and win elections. “It is not enough to appeal to the base,” he asserted.
Both men are spot on. Moderate Republicans have become increasingly irrelevant in this state as the Clint Diddiers and John Kosters have become noisier and angrier.
But Delmore doesn’t buy it:
Those are views of a big-tent party, but won’t solve the problem for Republicans. Republicans must still remember their pragmatic conservative roots based on the fundamental values of hard work and enterprise, a belief in God and fiscal conservatism. Those quite valid ideas still attract people from all walks of life.
Ignoring that positions of the current crop of noisy Republicans bear no resemblance to true conservationism, Delmore’s prescription for Republicans seems to be, “more of the same, except for social issues.”
But isn’t this precisely what voters rejected in this past election? McKenna has always downplayed social issues. And before McKenna, Dino Rossi tried, albeit less successfully, to do the same thing. And Mike!™ McGavick, who the Seattle Times’ Joni Balter labled as taking a limited pro-choice stance, was all about hard work and enterprise. Washington voters weren’t buying what these Republicans were selling…even without the social issues.
Two closing comments. First, Delmore’s lamentations about “one party rule” ring hollow. We have these things called elections where (typically) a Republican and a Democratic candidate ends up facing off in a General election. Each candidate puts their ideas forward. The people vote for what they find compelling.
Republicans have a thirty year gubernatorial losing streak because their ideas and candidates have not resonated with the voters. The ideas and candidates from the Democratic side have.
Republicans aren’t going to start winning by embracing and shoring-up their conservative creds, while downplaying social issues. They’ve been there, done that. And failed.
Lastly, I found Mr. Delmore’s biosketch a bit odd (my emphasis):
Joe Delmore, a registered Independent, is writing a book on contemporary politics….
A “registered independent,” huh? I wonder what state he’s living in?
When Obama won four years ago, the Washington state rumor mill started swirling tales of a cabinet post for the newly re-elected Gov. Gregoire.
It didn’t happen, and it was never realistic to think it would.
With Obama’s re-election and Gregoire’s retirement from her two-term gig as Governor, this rumor come off as more realistic:
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire may wind up as Secretary of the Interior after President Obama completes an expected Cabinet reshuffle for his second term.
I hope so. Gregoire has been an excellent steward of Washington’s environs in her eight years at the top.
The tale of Petraeus’ resignation now involves two jealous women, a threatening note from one to the other and, ultimately, an FBI investigation of intimate relationships and potential security breaches.
The F.B.I. found no security breaches.
But one F.B.I. employee wasn’t convinced:
Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, said Saturday an F.B.I. employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower told him about Mr. Petraeus’s affair and a possible security breach in late October, which was after the investigation had begun.
[…]Mr. Cantor talked to the person after being told by Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington, that a whistle-blower wanted to speak to someone in the Congressional leadership about a national security concern. On Oct. 31, his chief of staff, Steve Stombres, called the F.B.I. to tell them about the call.
Here is what I don’t understand. If the whistle-blower wanted to speak to “Congressional leadership,” shouldn’t Reichert have taken this person to Speaker Boehner? Reichert brought this person to Majority Leader Cantor, who is only the leader of the House Republicans, not Congress.
What’s wrong with Reichert? Is the man brain damaged or something?
Last night Rob McKenna conceded the race for Washington’s next governor.
McKenna didn’t announce this himself. Rather, it was announced by Randy Pepple, his campaign manager, on a conference call with selected media. McKenna also released a YouTube “sincere appreciation” to his supporters:
About that conference call: once again, the McKenna campaign excluded The Stranger.
Fucking, seriously, McKenna? You’re gonna go all petty and paranoid right down to the bitter end?
Bizarre.
Earlier in the campaign McKenna’s black-listing of The Stranger led other (non-blacklisted) media to question the campaign about the practice. Their reasons: Because Goldy, before he worked for The Stranger, started, as a joke, the “No Reversing our Benefits PAC” (No ROB PAC). Oh…and because Dan Savage donated $500 to Jay Inslee (before the Primary election). Yet, when the Seattle Times decided to become a political action committee promoting McKenna’s gubernatorial bid, they didn’t lose their status as a media outlet with the McKenna Campaign.
This is high-school mentality—it’s the not-quite-emotionally-mature kid running for class president.
In the end, Rob hurt himself. I mean, how could the media take Rob’s “big ideas” all that seriously, when he showed himself to be so small and petty?
Bill Press rejoices.
Greenman: Hurricane Sandy’s double whammy:
Obama thanks his campaign volunteers.
Thom: Corporate personhood lost big on election day.
Mark Fiore: Perpetual campaign.
Thom with The Good, the Bad and the Very, Very Ugly.
Key & Peele: Luther & Obama’s Victory Speech.
Stephen on Obama’s re-election.
Tweety and Bill Maher: facts and reality.
Stephen does Rachel Maddow.
Young Turks: Election night highlights.
White House: West Wing Week.
Jon does Nate Silver.
Fallon: Romney concession phone call.
Andy Cobb: Voter suppression in Ohio.
Thom: What Karl Rove promised, but couldn’t deliver on.
Stephen: Romney uses Colbert SuperPAC slogan.
Lewis Black on Totally Biased.
Maddow: The aftermath.
Jon: McCaskill ‘legitimately raped’ Akin.
Ann Telnaes: Women kick Romney to the curb.
Ed and Pap: Extremist GOP no longer relevant in politics.
Bad Lip Reading: 2012 Debates Highlights.
Young Turks: GOP and the Latino vote.
Jonathan Mann: Karl Rove Goes Nuts:
Jon: Media coverage of marijuana legalization.
SlateTV: The GOP mad rush to embrace immigration reform.
Sam Seder: FAUX News in state of shock on election night.
Maddow: Some things that happened on Tuesday (via Slog).
Jon: Avalanche on Bullshit Mountain!
Ann Telnaes: The G.O.P.s not so happy hour.
Stephen on platonic friends.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
The blame game is on. Lacking polls to kick around anymore, pundits are looking for the cause(s) of Mitt Romney’s spectacular loss.
For months, we heard that the race was supposed to be a “nail biter.” And toward the end, we heard that Romney “had the momentum.” Things were looking promising for a Romney victory.
In the coming weeks, I’m sure we’ll see many hypotheses and analyses, and proposed turning points where the momentum was lost and Romney’s fate was sealed.
But here’s the fact: Romney lost because he was never ahead in the election. Unlike McCain in 2008, Romney was always losing the 2012 election.
This election was no spectacular loss. It was the ordinary loss of a candidate who was always behind. Period.
It was always in front of our eyes (and I did my best to point it out). The state head-to-head polls never showed Romney with much of chance of winning.
Here is a daily Monte Carlo analysis of the head-to-head polls over the two month leading up to the election (one week “current polls” window):
Romney did have “momentum” in this race. It started before the first presidential debate, following Obama’s post-convention bubble, around the 29th of September. The momentum ended with Romney at his strongest showing around the second presidential debate. Even at his strongest, Romney only had about a 25% chance of winning.
I suppose this was a turning point more than any other. If Obama had blown the second debate, Romney might have maintained his momentum and gone on to win.
But, instead, Obama gained the momentum. From the second debate forward, Obama’s lead grew slowly and steadily, and his chances of winning increased. By the last day of October, Obama hit a 95% probability of winning the election. He still had the momentum.
Hurricane Sandy made no difference whatsoever (as Mitt Romney seems to believe); nor Hurricane Christie. Obama’s win was well secured by that point.
To believe Romney had a chance was to dismiss hundreds of polls as simultaneously skewed. But, like 2008, in this election, aggregation of the state head-to-head polls gave an entirely accurate picture of the election.
At least one right-winger may have let on that he actually does understand why Romney lost:
“We’re outnumbered.”
— Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show.
I had to get up way early this morning to take Kathy to SeaTac, and had a few minutes to look at the election results in the gubernatorial race.
As things stood early this morning, Jay Inslee (D) was leading Rob McKenna (R) by 2.6% and a total of 50,209 votes. Of course only a fraction of the vote has been tallied.
To get a quick projection, I used the 2008 turn-out figures for total turnout by county (not turnout by party, just totals for each county). From there, I estimated the remaining votes left to be counted. Then I used the D & R percentages observed in the first ballot night drop to estimate the number of new votes expected for each candidate.
This last step is controversial. After all, we usually observe that later ballots are increasingly D-leaning. But, doing it this way should give us a worse case scenario for Inslee—if past trends hold this election.
What did I find? Inslee still leads at the end of the election, but by only 1.1%, not the healthier 2.6% observed at the end of election day. And, that translates to a 44,000 vote win for Inslee.
So…if the late ballots trend D (typical), Inslee should be in good shape. If they don’t trend at all, Inslee still wins in a squeaker.
However, if they trend R…we might even have to start talking “recount.” And then, may god(s) have mercy on our souls.
Polls are closing in the East, and we have ourselves a horse race!
The Montlake Alehouse has CNN on the TeeVee box, but I’ll sometimes switch to NPR when their election coverage starts.
(Note: Times in PST)
4:47: Via Twitter:
Larry Sabato @LarrySabato
OHIO: Vast majority of pre-election polls & now election exit poll show Obama up 1-3%. Either all wrong or Obama wins.
4:50: A few minutes ago, Wolf Blitzer called South Carolina for Romney. And when he showed the vote totals, Obama was leading by a 4 to 1 margin. There were only 10,000s or so total votes. Blitzer had some ‘splaining to do!
4:57: Huh…Obama is still up by 57% in SC, with 40,000 or so counted.
5:02: CNN projects a bunch of states and it is Obama 64 EVs to Romney 40 EVs.
5:25: I just put on NPR and heard Matthew Continetti say that we are heading for a national vote/electoral vote split. E.J. Dionne expresses some skepticism….
5:31: I was wrong! Mitt Romney takes Tennessee!
5:43: It’s Romney 82, Obama 64 EV over at CNN. Prepare the capsules, my friends…..
6:02: Well…it would seem Romney did NOT have a good chance of taking Michigan. CNN calls it for Obama.
6:13: Geez…with Michigan out of the picture, Romney has a very tough road to 269!
6:25: Huh. Obama is way up in Colorado. How could that be? I thought Republicans were WAAAAAY ahead in the early voting?!?
6:42: Axelrod’s mustache breathes a sigh of relief! Pennsylvania is called for Barack Obama. Huh…what happened to that momentum the Romney camp had going in Ohio PA (you know, without actually winning a poll)?
6:46: Elizabeth Warren beats Brown in MA! Ted Kennedy can now quit rolling over and over in his grave and be peacefully dead.
6:49: Donnelly is called for Indiana! It’s good for America when Republicans express their true feelings about women’s reproductive health issues…and religion.
6:57: Oh dear, Mitt Romney loses another home state…New Hampshire.
7:00: It isn’t a total loss for Mitt…they just called Utah for him!
7:02: Romney is up +2% in the popular vote. Somehow I think California will have something to say about that!
7:09: McCaskill is called for Missouri. Have I mentioned how good it is for Americans when Republicans express their true feelings about women’s reproductive health issues…and religion?
7:18: Down goes (not) Joe the (not) Plumber!
7:21: Obama gets New Mexico. Not a surprise, really, unless you are living in the 1990s or something.
7:24: They are getting at the crux of the issue in Florida. Whether Obama or Romney wins, why didn’t Romney WALK AWAY with Florida? The answer: Demography. Republicans rule the demographics that are, for the most part, shrinking.
7:51: Minnesota is called for Obama.
7:57: George Allen has conceded defeat in Virginia!
8:01: Obama gets a big batch of love (and electors) from the West coast: CA, WA, and HI
8:04: (via N in Seatle). We can now say that Paul Ryan’s major contribution to this election is that…it took an extra hour to call Wisconsin. And Wisconsin is called for Barack Obama.
8:06: CNN projects that Democrats will keep control of the Senate. This is a remarkable accomplishment. Over the past couple of years, our right wing trolls have spared no mercy pointing out how the math of hanging on to the Senate just doesn’t work. Shows what they know about math!
8:10: Romney gets North Carolina!
8:10: Obama gets Iowa!!!!
8:15: I hear that NBC has called the ELECTION for Obama.
8:16: In the mean time CNN calls Oregon for Obama.
8:18: And CNN now calls the race for Obama!
8:21: Ohio was called for Obama by PBS CNN and it was that that put him over the top.
8:37: It is hard to get too excited about any of the state or King County races, because King County will only do a single ballot drop tonight.
8:44: On the other hand…now that KC has dropped, Inslee has a pretty hefty lead! Unfortunately the SOS web site is constipated, or I would have some details. DelBene 55% Koster 45%.
8:50: Nevada goes to Obama!
8:53: Back to WA: Inslee 51.7% and McKenna 48.3. Don’t get too excited though. There are many more votes to count, and King County was expected to process more ballots for their Tuesday evening drop than usual.
| Obama | Romney |
| 98.9% probability of winning | 1.1% probability of winning |
| Mean of 311 electoral votes | Mean of 227 electoral votes |
Huh. Four years ago at this time, I was frantically entering the eleven new polls that had come out on election day. Today…not so much. We get only one rather inconsequential poll, although because it is Maine, and the Congressional districts are reported, we get three new polls for the price of one.
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| ME | Maine PRC | 01-Nov | 03-Nov | 905 | 3.3 | 53.3 | 42.2 | O+11.1 |
| ME1 | Maine PRC | 01-Nov | 03-Nov | 469 | — | 56.7 | 39.0 | O+17.7 |
| ME2 | Maine PRC | 01-Nov | 03-Nov | 436 | — | 49.7 | 45.7 | O+4.0 |
As a consequence, this analysis differs little from yesterday’s analysis.
After 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 98,946 times and Romney wins 1,054 times (including the 180 ties). Obama received (on average) 311 (+2) to Romney’s 227 (-2) electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would have a 98.9% (+0.1%) probability of winning and Romney would have a 1.1% (-0.1%) probability of winning.
My prediction: Obama wins. It’s almost certain.
Here’s our look back over the race from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 06 Nov 2011 to 06 Nov 2012, and including polls from the preceding seven days (FAQ).
The interesting thing is the very ragged, multimodal distribution of electoral votes seen in the graph below. The single most likely outcome in this race is an Obama victory with 303 electoral votes. There is a 9.2% probability of that happening.
Then it jumps to 332 electoral votes, with a 6% probability. And then to 318 electoral votes with a 3.8% probability. And so on.
The raggedness of the electoral votes distribution reflects that there are a non-trivial number of important states with large uncertainty. Florida is Romney’s but with only a 63% probability. Iowa is Obama’s but with only an 84% probability. North Carolina is in Romney’s column, but with a 74% probability, and Virginia goes to Obama, but with a 78% probability.
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama (full distribution here):
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!