HorsesAss.Org

  • Home
  • About HA
  • Advertise
  • Archives
  • Donate

Poll Analysis: The post-debate polls trickle in

by Darryl — Sunday, 10/7/12, 2:39 pm


Obama Romney
100.0% probability of winning 0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 342 electoral votes Mean of 196 electoral votes

Electoral College Map

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Lousiana Maine Maryland Massachusettes Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Electoral College Map

Georgia Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Connecticut Florida Mississippi Alabama Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

A rather paltry 15 new polls covering 10 states have been released since my previous analysis. What makes this new batch of polls interesting is that most of them are post-first-debate polls. And looking at them, it’s clear that Romney will get either a boost or a bump from the polls. (My prediction was that Romney would get an acute advantage, but a long term disadvantage from the debates—it’s simply to early to test that prediction.)

Here are the polls, including some in seven or eight swing states:

start end sample % % %
st poll date date size MOE O R diff
CO U Denver 04-Oct 05-Oct 605 4.0 47 43 O+4
CO Gravis Marketing 03-Oct 04-Oct 1438 2.8 45.9 49.4 R+3.5
CO McLaughlin 30-Sep 02-Oct 300 5.7 46 50 R+4
CT Quinnipiac 28-Sep 02-Oct 1696 2.4 54 42 O+12
FL Rasmussen 04-Oct 04-Oct 500 4.5 47 49 R+2
FL WeAskAmerica 04-Oct 04-Oct 1200 3.0 46 49 R+3
HI Civil Beat 26-Sep 28-Sep 1684 2.4 62 30 O+32
MO Rasmussen 02-Oct 02-Oct 500 4.5 46 49 R+3
NV Gravis Marketing 03-Oct 03-Oct 1006 3.1 48.9 47.8 O+1.1
NM PPP 02-Oct 03-Oct 778 — 52 43 O+9
OH Rasmussen 04-Oct 04-Oct 500 4.5 50 49 O+1
OH WeAskAmerica 04-Oct 04-Oct 1200 3.0 46 47 R+1
VA Rasmussen 04-Oct 04-Oct 500 4.5 48 49 R+1
VA WeAskAmerica 04-Oct 04-Oct 1200 3.0 45 48 R+3
WI PPP 04-Oct 06-Oct 979 3.1 49 47 O+2

Before the debate, Obama had lend in 5 consecutive Colorado polls, but by margins of from 3% to 6%. Now Romney takes two of the three new polls and three of nine current polls (currently defined as polls taken in the past three weeks). Obama’s goes from winning 97% to 91% of the simulated elections.

In Florida, Romney leads Obama in two new post-debate polls, albeit by small margins. With fourteen current polls, and the fact that two polls aged out—one that barely went to Romney and one that was weak for Obama—there is almost no difference in the projected outcome of an election held now for Florida.

In Missouri, Romney leads Obama by +3%, his smallest lead of the current polls. That causes his chances to drop from 100% to 99.9% in the state.

Obama barely leads in the new Nevada poll. The +1% is his weakest showing of the current polls, except for one late September tie. His chances drop from 99.5% to 99.2% as a consequence.

No sign that New Mexico is flipping over to Romney. Obama’s +9% lead is right up there with three other polls that were from +9% to +11%.

Two new polls in Ohio split between the candidates, and by +1% each. The WeAskAmerica poll is the only current poll, of ten, in which Romney leads. Obama still wins 100% of the simulated elections.

Romney take two of two Virginia polls. Prior to these polls, Romney lost 13 polls in a row, dating back to early September. But with Obama leading in the eight other current polls, his chances have dropped from 100% down to 99%.

Wisconsin is still in Obama’s column after the debate gives Obama a rather weak lead over Romney by +2%. This is Obama’s weakest showing among the current polls, but he still takes 100% of the simulated elections.

Now, after 100,000 simulated elections informed only by state head-to-head polls, Obama wins 100,000 times and Romney wins 0 times. Obama receives (on average) 342 to Romney’s 196 electoral votes over the simulated elections. These are the identical numbers we had before. The results suggest that for an election held now, Obama would have a 100.0% probability of winning.

Of course, the very abrupt change in momentum that we may end up seeing in the aftermath of the first debate is not fully represented in this analysis. My three week polling window smooths the results over three weeks. (The window will shrink to two weeks very soon.)

We can assess the race with less smoothing by shrinking that window. In the following table, I’ve shrunk the window a number of times. The results clearly show that Romney has gained the initiative in the short run, even if he still is the probable loser in an election held now:

Window
O-prob
R-prob
O-EV
R-EV
21 Days
100%
0%
342
196

14 Days

99.2%
0.8%
316
222
7 Days
94.5%
5.5%
299
239
5 Days
77.5%
22.5%
285
253
3 Days
90.7%
9.3%
293
245

Current poll windows below five days tend to start reversing the trend. Fewer polls become included as “current polls”, which means more older polls then get averaged in (at least with the modest pace of polling right now).

Romney’s peak chances occur by assuming only the post-debate polls, when available, should be used—that is, any prior strengths or weaknesses observed through polling in the recently polled states is entirely discarded. Romney peaks out at a 22.5% chance of winning an election held now under that scenario.

The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 07 Oct 2011 to 07 Oct 2012, and including polls from the preceding 21 days (FAQ). Even with a small handful of post-debate polls, we see Obama’s momentum stopped, and the uncertainty in outcome increased (that is, there is more spread between upper and lower 95% limits) .

Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
[Read more…]

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Bird’s Eye View Contest

by Lee — Sunday, 10/7/12, 12:00 pm

Last week’s contest went unsolved was won by wes.in.wa yesterday! It was in Dundee, Scotland.

This week’s is another random location somewhere on earth, good luck!

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

HA Mormon Study

by Goldy — Sunday, 10/7/12, 7:00 am

[HA Bible Study is on hiatus through the November election as we honor Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by studying the scriptures of his Mormon religion.]

Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-63
If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;

Discuss.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!

by Darryl — Saturday, 10/6/12, 1:05 am

Liberal Viewer: Fox News lies about Libya attack response?

Thom: Right Wingers and the poll truthers.

Jonathan Mann: The Romney Shake It Up Song:

Thom and Pap: Koch front group seeks revenge against Florida Justices.

Debate:

  • Ann Telnaes: Romney shapes up for the debate
  • Jonathan Mann: Romney fires Big Bird:
  • Mitt’s debate: Mostly fiction.
  • Kay and Peele Luther on Obama’s first debate performance.
  • Jimmy Fallon joins the debate
  • Obama: Mitt was fact checked by his OWN CAMPAIGN! (via TalkingPointsMemo.)
  • Young Turks: Advice for Obama’s next debate.
  • Ann Telnaes: No mention of the 47% in first debate.
  • MockitTV: Obama and Romney make America great again
  • Young Turks: Why did Obama lose the first debate?
  • Big Bird responds.
  • Thom: Hey, Media, how can Romney lie all night and be “the winner?”
  • Sam Seder and Ari Berman: Mitt lies his way to a debate victory.
  • Mitt Romney: Protect big oil, fire Big Bird
  • Susie Sampson’s Tea Party Report: Debate!
  • Tweety and Louis Black: The day after the Denver debate
  • Conan: Mr. Romney and Mr. Bird.
  • The great Mitt Romney cheating conspiracy theory (multiple videos).
  • Maddow: History favors the challenger in first debates
  • Young Turks: Did Mitt cheat?
  • Sam Seder: No mention on 47% in the debate.
  • Stephen praises FAUX News for something important.
  • Martin Bashir: The two faces of Mitt Romney and John Sununu’s ugly remarks
  • Young Turks: Breaking down the debate.
  • Health care: Out of luck.
  • Ed and Pap: Republicans full of “Dog Hope” after debate
  • Tweety unloads over Obama’s performance (via TalkingPointsMemo).
  • Lawrence O’Donnell: Nobody won!
  • Young Turks: Some lies during the debate.
  • Jon: The Debate (via Political Wire).

Thom: More Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA):Evolution, Big Bang ‘Lies straight from The Pit Of Hell’

Thom with some Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

Romney flip flops on his 47% comment!?!

George Takei: “We’ve got to be actively involved in the electoral process.”.

G.O.P. Voter Suppression:

  • Zina Saunders: Daryl Metcalfe Says You Don’t Deserve To Vote!.
  • Maddow: US court forces Ohio to reinstate early voting
  • Gavin Newsom with Rosario Dawson: Disenfranchised Latino vote is a major problem.
  • Sam Seder: PA Judge blocks GOP voter ID law
  • Maddow: Mixed messages on voter ID as Pa. slow to obey court
  • Mark Fiore: Voting with Right Wing Ralphie.

Steve Martin, home crafts expert, makes an endorsement:

White House: West Wing Week.

Thom: Has the GOP/Right Wing Media Jumped the Shark?

TEH NEW TRUFERISM:

  • The crackpot Jobs Numbers Truferism movement emerges. (via TalkingPointsMemo).
  • Maddow: Good jobs news drives right to delusion
  • Young Turks: The unemployment rate ‘conspiracy’
  • Romney campaign resists FAUX News’ Job Report Truferism (via TalkingPointsMemo).
  • Sam Seder: The Right Wing freak-out over jobs numbers.
  • The politics behind the jobs numbers

Ann Telnaes: The Supremes begin a new term.

Sam Seder: Rick Santorum Rick Santorum wants to kill and eat Big Bird.

Mitt Romney’s Disdain For The Middle Class: He Said It, He Meant It.

Young Turks: Tucker Carlson makes a fool of himself over 2007 Obama speech.

Thom with The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here (via TalkingPointsMemo).

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Small Sample Size

by Carl Ballard — Friday, 10/5/12, 7:08 pm

Not to pick on Goldy since you can see the same sort of stats everywhere. But the No President Since FDR Has Won Reelection with Unemployment Above 7.2 Percent stat has always bugged me. So let’s break it down.

There have only been 3 presidents who lost reelection since FDR. Ford, Carter, and G H W Bush. In all three of those elections the unemployment rate was above 7.2 (in the first Bush’s case it was 7.3, and in the other cases it was lower than it is now, but higher than that, you can get the historical data here). I bet in at least 2 of FDR’s reelection victories, unemployment was well above that. So it’s only 3 for 5.

Really, what people are saying is the last 3 times the unemployment rate was above 7.2, presidents lost their reelection bids. Well, there are plenty of streaks in politics that are larger than 3 that probably don’t mean a whole lot.

Of course there’s an implied corollary: that presidents won when it was below 7.2. All right. That gives us Truman, Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and W Bush. That brings the streak up to a more respectable 9, if you’re willing to read more into what people are saying than they actually say. Still, I can’t imagine going up to too many political scientists and saying you have 9 data points (or actually more than 9, but don’t look back further than that) and having them take you seriously.

A 9 game winning streak doesn’t guarantee a win in the next match. That doesn’t mean the unemployment rate doesn’t matter. People who are unemployed, and people with unemployed friends and family, are going to vote based on that.

It’s not controversial to say high unemployment is probably a hindrance to a presidential reelection bid. But there are way too many other factors to assume that 7.2 is a magic number.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Open Thread 10/5

by Carl Ballard — Friday, 10/5/12, 8:01 am

– The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.

– Romney Dominated Debate, Say Pundits Trying To Figure Out GOP Candidate’s Policies

– Rob McKenna wrote on Slog yesterday.

– Good jobs numbers. Also, it’s tough to find stories that don’t frame it as political (I understand why people frame it like that this close to the election, but still).

– In the choice between love and hate, choose love. Help stop bigotry against our Muslim neighbors.

– Bugs and poop are in our future.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

One More Debate Thing

by Carl Ballard — Thursday, 10/4/12, 7:36 pm

I know you don’t come to HA for my opinions on a national issue. And the debate has been the main thing in the news all day. Still, there’s one thing that surprised me that hasn’t got much play. When I was listening to the debate, the thing that I thought was Romney’s biggest fuckup was his joke about wanting tax breaks to ship jobs overseas.

The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.

It’s funny because of all the lives he’s ruined.

Sure, chronicling all of Romney’s lies and figuring out the policy is probably more important than getting into this. And since people are saying Romney won the debate, pointing out that this is a pretty big gaff goes against the storyline. But still, it seems like the biggest fuckup of the night.

Now, I say it didn’t get much play. But one important person brought it up the next day, even if he soft peddled just how disgusting it was:

The Mitt Romney we all know invested in companies that were called pioneers of outsourcing jobs to other countries, but the guy on stage last night, he said that he doesn’t even know that there are such laws that encourage outsourcing. He’s never heard of them! Never heard of them. Never heard of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. He said that if it’s true, he must need a new accountant. [laughter] Now, we know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant. [laughter]

That’s President Obama, who probably would have done better to say that on the stage, but nonetheless is saying it now. I know the difference between them on outsourcing isn’t as great as I would like. Obama still favors policies that will let too many of America’s jobs get outsourced. But at least he doesn’t want businesses who do that to be able to write it off as a business expense.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Post-debate thoughts

by Darryl — Thursday, 10/4/12, 3:37 pm

I left my home in Redmond at 6:00 pm yesterday for a trip to a destination a little outside of the little town of Carbonado, WA. The timing was pretty good for debate listening, as the traffic on I-405 meant I would hear most of the debate without a whole lot of interference from 60 MPH road noises. I caught just over an hour of the debate, as my aural sense was required for other tasks shortly after 7:00 pm.

Listening to the debate didn’t give me opportunity to see Obama’s “big crash”. Aurally, things simply did not come off all that negative for Obama. What stuck out for me was Mitt Romney doing two things:

  1. Back-peddling, flip-flopping, and pivoting away from the “severe conservative” positions he held during the G.O.P. debates. For the six or so years Romney has been running for President, he has given Americans a portrait of his positions that, oddly, differ greatly from his positions while running for Senate and while running for and being Governor of Massachusetts. Last night, the Etch-A-Sketch moment happened—Romney shook up the slate. He erased that mix of conservative, ALEC, and teabag-inspired positions that got him through the primary. Obama was dumbfounded—he probably was thinking what I was saying: “What the fuck, Mitt?!?”
  2. Lying. Romney repeatedly said things that are factually false—and did so with conviction and, well…swagger! Although Obama sometimes pointed out Romney’s “erroneous” statements, I think he was caught off guard by it a bit. He was probably thinking what I was saying, “What a FUCK, Mitt!”

When I turned off the radio shortly after 7:00 pm, my impression was that Obama came off as too timid, and should have been nailing Romney MUCH harder on his Etch-A-Sketching and untruthful statements. Timidity in a debate isn’t good unless your opponent is self destructing. And Romney wasn’t acutely self destructing.

But he was undergoing a chronic self-destruction. I mean, the media isn’t going to let him get away with lying and wholesale abandonment of the positions and policies he used to get through the primary, are they? In other words, after hearing the words each candidate was saying, I was pretty convinced that Romney had created some self-inflicted damage.

I didn’t get home until about Midnight, when I did a quick scan of the news feeds, only to learn that Obama got clobbered. Devastated. Destroyed.

Alas, I had a busy morning, so I didn’t look into it too much. Later, an Obama-supporting friend of mine on the East Coast emailed me a scathing critique of Obama, starting with an, apparently, disingenuous tribute to his and Michelle’s anniversary.

Huh! That opening bit sounded warm and genuine from the right lane of SR-520.

While eating lunch today, I spent a few minutes exploring the media reaction. I think David Frum helps me understand things:

Romney, the multimillionaire, arrived in a suit, shirt and tie that looked like they’d been purchased at Macy’s. I doubt he’ll ever wear them again, but for one night, he looked the way most non-zillionaires look when they dress for business. His manner was warm, engaged, and respectful. He looked at the president when the president spoke, and his expression revealed no asperity or disdain.

Oh shit! No wonder I couldn’t clearly see Mitt’s victory…I just couldn’t see his cheap suit, and where his eyes and Obama’s eyes were pointing. (I’ve mentioned during the G.O.P. debates about Mitt’s habit of staring attentively—almost artificially so—at his speaking opponent, so I can picture that.) Apparently, if I had watched the debate with the sound turned down, Mitt would be the hands-down winner.

The only problem: there were words spoken, as well. And while I agree that Obama didn’t attack Mitt nearly as effectively as he could have, that hardly compares to lying at Americans, right in their own living rooms—or cars. Or “disappearing” his long-held controversial positions, as if they’d never “happened.”

The problem for Romney is that a victory on style is ephemeral. The debate has left behind a record in the form of words. Going forward, he can lose the cheap suit, but will still be left with all those words…and they cheapen the whole package.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Dirty Pool

by Carl Ballard — Thursday, 10/4/12, 8:03 am

I don’t really know how the pool report is supposed to work. But when the First Lady came to town, I asked if I could go. But they weren’t letting reporters, or whatever I am, in. But they were gracious enough to let me have a copy of the pool report. For the most part, it was a fine recap, but it starts out oddly snarky.

She delivered a very similar speech to the one she gave in August at the Democratic National Convention. In fact, there was nothing new.

She started by sharing a “little secret” that she has shared many times before: that she fell in love with her husband because of his character.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see that sort of thing in the papers. But does complaining that it’s the same as the speech at the DNC or saying that a “little secret” has been shared before really help other reporters, and whatever I am, know what happened at the event?

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Baumgartner Endorses I-502

by Lee — Wednesday, 10/3/12, 10:44 pm

The I-502 campaign picked up a somewhat unexpected endorsement today. Republican Senate candidate Michael Baumgartner:

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Baumgartner on Wednesday endorsed Initiative 502 to legalize retail sales of pot, calling the war on the illicit drug a matter of national security.

The freshman state senator, who is challenging Democrat Maria Cantwell, worked several years ago for a State Department program in Afghanistan to help farmers grow wheat instead of opium poppies.

He said his experience in Helmand province — and watching the U.S.-funded efforts to eradicate Mexican drug cartels — convinced him criminalizing marijuana for adults only enriches traffickers and takes law-enforcement efforts from pursuing organized crime.

As soon as I saw someone with Baumgartner’s resume getting into this race as a Republican I was curious where he’d fall on this issue. Now we know. He appears to have a better grasp than his challenger, Maria Cantwell, who put out a statement against I-502:

Asked for Cantwell’s position, spokesman Kelly Steele emailed this: “While I remain a strong supporter of our state’s medicinal marijuana laws, I don’t believe it should be legalized for recreational purposes based on concerns expressed by law enforcement and the current drafting of the initiative. Whatever the result, I will honor the will of the voters’ decision in November.”

This issue should be a no-brainer for Democrats to support. Nearly 60% of Washington voters support some form of legalization, and even higher numbers of liberals and Democrats do. The severe racial, civic, economic, and environmental impacts of marijuana prohibition are well understood by large numbers of left-leaning voters. Yet both Cantwell and Inslee continue to alienate a big part of their base by remaining on the far right fringe on this issue. For Cantwell, her lead is probably insurmountable anyway, but Baumgartner is showing how a smart Republican might be able to win a closer race in this very blue state.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Prezidential Debate Thread

by Carl Ballard — Wednesday, 10/3/12, 6:02 pm

This is on domestic issues.

6:04: The economy. Jobs. What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating jobs.

– Obama: 4 years ago, we went through the worst financial crisis since the depression. We’ve begun to fight our way back. The auto industry and housing are coming back. Romney’s perspective is if we cut taxes, skew to the wealthy, we’ll be better off. I think we have to invest in energy and education. Fix the tax code to help people who invest in America. Are we going to double down on the old policies that got us into this mess?

– Romney: I’ve met people across the country. Mentioning swing states. Can you help us? The answer is yes. Get energy independent, open trade, make sure people have the best skills and education, balance the budget, champion small business. Complains about big government without mentioning that shrinking government is part of the problem (in the recession).

6:10: Obama wants to lower corporate taxes. Lovely. Fucking lovely. And he’s being a deficit hawk. Boo.

6:13: Romney is talking about clean coal. So that’s a lie, because that doesn’t exist.

6:14: Obama is now talking about tax cuts for the middle class. Sure. Now he’s going after Romney’s tax plan because there aren’t the specifics about the loopholes that he says he supports.

6:18: Romney is saying he won’t add to the deficit. But the math doesn’t really work.

6:19: Obama: “Romney’s big bold idea is ‘never mind.'” My tax plan lowered taxes for 98% of small businesses and families, but for incomes over $250,000 we should go back to the rates under Clinton.

6:21: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

6:23: Obama: The approach Governor Romney is talking about is the same that was tried in 2001 and 2003.

6:24: Romney is whining about not having the last word.

What to do about the federal debt. My answer is don’t care until we’re out of a recession.

6:27: Romney: The debt is immoral. Raising taxes slows down the rate of growth. I want to cut spending. He doesn’t seem to realize that cutting spending hurts the economy.

6:28: Obama: When I came into office we had 2 wars that weren’t paid for, 2 tax cuts that weren’t paid for and an economic crash. Now we’ve cut discretionary budget the most since Ike. $2.50 in cuts for every $1 of income.

6:31: Romney says Obama should have supported Simpson Bowles, but his plan isn’t Simpson Bowles.

6:34: Obama is going after the oil companies’ corporate welfare “when they’re making a profit every time you’re at the pump.” Don’t take a deduction for moving a plant overseas.

6:37: If you drink every time one of these people mentions a swing state or a city in one, enjoy blacking out.

6:38: Is Romney joking about how he shipped jobs overseas and didn’t get enough of a tax cut???????

Entitlements. Do you see a major difference on Social Security?

6:40: Obama: Social Security’s basic structure is sound, but it may need some tweaks. My grand mother raised me, and she ended up living alone by choice. The reason she could be independent is Medicare and Medicaid. And that’s what I think of when people talk about entitlements. So strengthen the system over the long term. Don’t overpay insurance companies or providers. Use that money to lower drug costs to seniors and preventive care.

6:43: Romney: Neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for retirees or near retirees. So stop listening. Now he’s saying Obama cut Social Security. I doubt he’ll mention that it’s the same as his VP proposed.

6:44: Obama: I think it’s important for governor Romney to present his plan. It’s called premium support, but it’s actually a voucher program. If you’re 54 or 55, you should listen because it will effect you. You can have a voucher, but it won’t keep up with inflation.

6:46: I have become fond of that phrase Obamacare. If you repeal it, seniors will be harmed, and insurance companies will be the primary beneficiaries.

6:48: Romney is talking about means testing for Medicare. Boo.

On the economy: What is your view on federal regulation? Should there be more?

6:52: Romney says regulation is important, at the same time it can become excessive. It can become out of date, and hurt the economy. Dodd Frank designates banks too big to fail (?). I would repeal and replace it. He doesn’t say what he’ll replace it with (but he does say he’ll keep some of it).

6:54: Obama: We had excesses from all sectors. So we had the toughest reforms since the 1930’s. We made sure all the help was paid back with interest. Does anybody think the problem is we had too much regulation of Wall Street?

6:56: Romney:Try to get a loan today. As if loans were easy to get before Dodd Frank.

Do you want to repeal health reform?

6:57: Romney: Health care is too expensive. Craft a plan at the state level, and get costs down.

6:59: Obama: When I was running for office, people weren’t able to get insurance. Families would go bankrupt if they got sick. If they had a preexisting condition they couldn’t get coverage. There might be an arbitrary limit. We worked on this and on jobs. If you’ve got health insurance, companies can’t jerk you around. If you don’t have insurance, you can essentially have a group rate. The irony is we’ve seen this model work well in Massachusetts.

7:02: Romney: In my state Republicans and Democrats worked together. OK, fine, but why didn’t he ask other Republicans to work with Democrats?

7:03: Romney: A president has to work across the aisle. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

7:04: Romney: The Democratic legislators in Mass could give some advice to Republicans in Congress about working across the aisle.

7:06: I was hoping for more zingers.

7:08: Are there any clinics not in swing states?

7:11: Obama: Romney will replace it but won’t tell you what he’ll replace it with. We don’t know the details of his tax plan, of his replacement of Dodd Frank, of repeal of Obamacare. Is he doing this because his plans are too good? No.

The role of government. Do you believe there’s a difference as to how you view the mission of the Federal government.

7:14: Obama: The first role of government is to keep people safe. But also, the Federal government can create the opportunities. There are some things we can do as individuals, but there are some things we can do together. Now he’s talking about Race to the Top. Boo, again.

7:15: Romney: I love great schools. Every state should make the decision on their own. The pursuit of happiness means something something God.

7:18 All federal funds should follow the child, not to the school district.

7:19: Obama: The Ryan budget would cut the education budget by 20%.

7:22: Obama: We’ve cut out the middle men on student loans. Our priorities make a difference.

7:23: I hope that “your own facts” line wasn’t his zinger.

A meta question about partisanship.

7:25: Romney: Since I worked with Democrats when they were 87% of the Mass legislature, I can totally work with them in Congress.

7:26: Obama: I’ll work with anyone as long as they have good ideas for building the middle class.

Closing statements:

7:28: Obama: Thank you and Romney. This was a terrific debate. 4 years ago we were going through an crisis. I still believe in lots of people in swing states. Make sure everyone has a fair share and plays by the same rules. I fought every day for the middle class and those trying to get into the middle class.

7:30: Romney: This is about the course of America. There are two paths and they lead in 2 different directions. I’ll get incomes up again. If I’m president I’ll create 12 Million jobs. If Obama is elected, Obamacare will be installed, and there will be a made up amount of health care premium increase.

7:33: I actually think this was a pretty good debate. People had a chance to get into the weeds a bit, but there was some real discussion. I’ve edited it a bit to make it more clear who was saying what.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Poll Analysis: Romney takes back a couple more

by Darryl — Wednesday, 10/3/12, 3:09 pm


Obama Romney
100.0% probability of winning 0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 342 electoral votes Mean of 196 electoral votes

Electoral College Map

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Lousiana Maine Maryland Massachusettes Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Electoral College Map

Georgia Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Connecticut Florida Mississippi Alabama Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

The previous analysis had President Barack Obama leading Gov. Mitt Romney by 344 to 194 electoral votes. Obama’s victory margin was “statistically significant,” as the analysis suggested he would win an election now with certainty.

There were a plethora of new polls released in the last couple of days. So now, after a Monte Carlo analysis using 100,000 simulated elections, informed entirely by state head-to-head polls, Obama wins 100,000 times and Romney wins 0 times. Obama receives (on average) 342 (-2) to Romney’s 196 (+2) electoral votes.

This is two consecutive analyses in which Mitt Romney has gained electoral votes. Is this the end of the Convention bump for Obama? Will Romney be able to keep adding a couple of electoral votes a day?

If so, with 34 days to go, he’d still lose by five—with only 264 electoral votes. In other words, to win, Romney needs to shake loose more than two electoral votes a day, on average, through election day.

That’s the analysis. The big picture in this race can be seen from the time trends from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 03-Oct-2011 to 03-Oct-2012, and including polls from the preceding 21 days (FAQ).

[Read more…]

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Open Thread 10/3

by Carl Ballard — Wednesday, 10/3/12, 8:03 am

– Michelle Obama came to town.

– Another anti-Inslee ad with someone who isn’t a great spokesperson.

– More Italians bought bikes than cars last year. Next year, Washington?

– I like the idea of Olympia as mighty metropolis.

– The Thurston County Chamber of Commerce opposes it. The Olympian opposes it. If that is not reason enough right there to support Thurston County Proposition No. 1, it’s time you turn in your Occupy Olympia underpants.

– Richard Conlin makes the case for Surface-Transit-I-5.

– Twitter has really given people the opportunity to pack so much wrong into so few words.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Debate!

by Darryl — Tuesday, 10/2/12, 7:14 pm

Okay, so I show up at the Montlake Alehouse and Goldy is sitting here with his daughter but wearing ear buds.

“I can’t be social right now, I’m live slogging the gubernatorial debate.”

So, I decided to do the same thing. Mostly, I’m leaning over, reading Goldy’s screen and writing it here. At least until Goldy catches on.

7:15: Catch the livestream here.

7:16: I’m jumping in on the middle of things and I hear McKenna trying to claim that failure of immigration reform is not a partisan issue.

RIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHH!

7:17: McKenna doesn’t want undocumented persons to have drivers licenses because it serves as an ID, too. Why wouldn’t we want undocumented persons to have ID?? I’ve never understood that. Shouldn’t they be able to show their landlord a picture ID like anyone else?

7:18: To carry Inslee’s point a bit further: Isn’t it better to document otherwise undocumented people so that when anyone interacts with them they have a valid way of knowing they are really interacting with who they think they are interacting with?

7:24: Inslee gets cut off by the moderator and McKenna complains that Inslee didn’t give specific examples. And then McKenna doesn’t give examples. Nice.

7:25: McKenna claims that the Inslee Plan is to raise taxes and give pay raises to his biggest donors. Yeah…that’s grounded in reality.

7:27: Inslee, twice now, suggests that McKenna is the (property) tax raiser he is the candidate who will not raise taxes. True or not, I’m not sure how credible the whole thing comes off as.

7:29: McKenna, “Drive by shooting!” Ooooh…scary. Rob tries a little “scare ’em into voting for you strategy, a la George W. Bush.

7:31: McKenna seems to be spending more time doing “meta-analysis” of what Inslee is saying than he is actually presenting his own positions. “Notice what my opponent is doing…making false accusations and….”

734: Both Goldy and I are streaming the debate on our computers. But the TV in the Alehouse has the baseball game on. Seattle is up on the Angels one to nothing.

7:35: Goldy seems to be taking this VERY seriously. I guess that’s what happens when you are actually paid to blog.

7:39: I briefly lost my feed, and now Goldy’s feed is like a minute ahead of mine! Damnation.

7:40: McKenna is on a first name basis with Mr. Blethen.

7:41: On I-1185, Inslee’s argument is weak…he should just point out that the fucking initiative is unfuckingconstitutional.

7:45: Other than a pro-environmental statement by Inslee, I can’t really find a difference between the candidates on the coal trains. (FWIW, I am pro-Coltrane, but undecided on coal train.)

7:56: It’s over. Inslee wasn’t, what I’d call, daring. He was sticking with his talking points. Since his is clearly up in the polls, that is a reasonable (if unsatisfying) strategy.

McKenna, on the other hand, came off as whining way too much. As I said, he whined about Inslee more than he actually answered questions. To me, it came off as rather pathetic.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Drinking Liberally — Seattle

by Darryl — Tuesday, 10/2/12, 4:00 pm

Please join us tonight for an evening of politics and conversation over a pint 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’s DL tonight? There are other Washington state chapters of DL meeting over the next week. The Tri-Cities chapter also meets tonight. The Spokane chapter and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meet this Thursday.

With 232 chapters of Living Liberally, including thirteen in Washington state four in Oregon and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter that meets near you.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print
  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 329
  • 330
  • 331
  • 332
  • 333
  • …
  • 1037
  • Next Page »

Recent HA Brilliance…

  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 5/19/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 5/16/25
  • Friday! Friday, 5/16/25
  • Wednesday! Wednesday, 5/14/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 5/13/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 5/12/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 5/9/25
  • Friday, Baby! Friday, 5/9/25
  • Wednesday Open Thread Wednesday, 5/7/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 5/6/25

Tweets from @GoldyHA

I no longer use Twitter because, you know, Elon is a fascist. But I do post occasionally to BlueSky @goldyha.bsky.social

From the Cesspool…

  • For a few Rubles on Monday Open Thread
  • Four Seasons Gaza opening Spring 2028 on Monday Open Thread
  • Vicious Troll on Monday Open Thread
  • FKA Hops on Monday Open Thread
  • Elijah Dominic McDotcom on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • RedReformed on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Vicious Troll on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Roger Rabbit on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Elijah Dominic McDotcom on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Roger Rabbit on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!

Please Donate

Currency:

Amount:

Archives

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

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!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.

© 2004–2025, All rights reserved worldwide. Except for the comment threads. Because fuck those guys. So there.