Last week’s contest was won by Liberal Scientist. It was the Costa Concordia docked in Palermo, Italy.
This week’s contest is a random location somewhere on earth. Good luck!
by Lee — ,
Last week’s contest was won by Liberal Scientist. It was the Costa Concordia docked in Palermo, Italy.
This week’s contest is a random location somewhere on earth. Good luck!
by Goldy — ,
by Darryl — ,
[Update: An analysis using some newer polls can be found here.]
Since the previous analysis in this race, five new state head-to-head polls representing four states have been released.
start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
FL | Mason-Dixon | 24-Jan | 26-Jan | 800 | 3.5 | 44 | 48 | R+4 |
FL | Quinnipiac | 19-Jan | 23-Jan | 1518 | 2.5 | 45 | 45 | tie |
MI | EPIC/MRA | 21-Jan | 25-Jan | 600 | 4.0 | 48 | 40 | O+8 |
MN | PPP | 21-Jan | 22-Jan | 1236 | 2.8 | 51 | 41 | O+10 |
PA | Keystone Poll | 17-Jan | 22-Jan | 614 | 4.0 | 41 | 30 | O+11 |
Two new polls come from Florida, where the media markets are currently flooded with Republican primary ads. The newest poll from Mason-Dixon gives Romney a small +4% lead over Obama. The slightly older Quinnipiac poll has the race all tied up at 45% a piece.
In Pennsylvania, Obama leads Romney by an impressive +11%. That’s even better than Michigan, where Obama leads Romney by +8% in the new poll. The Pennsylvania poll is more favorable to Obama than the newest Minnesota poll that has Obama up by +10%
In the previous analysis, Obama would have won with a 71.9% probability, and his average electoral vote total was 284 to Romney’s 254.
Now, a Monte Carlo analysis using 100,000 simulated elections gives Obama an expected electoral vote total of 306 to Romney’s 232 for an election held now. Obama is at a 95.1% probability of winning that hypothetical election to Romney’s 4.9%. By traditional statistical inference, we would say Obama’s lead is “significant”—that is, it’s unlikely to be due to sampling error.
Obama | Romney |
95.1% probability of winning | 4.9% probability of winning |
Mean of 306 electoral votes | Mean of 232 electoral votes |
by Carl Ballard — ,
Here at HA, we’ve been pretty (and deservedly) tough on Rick Santorum. But there’s no animus, no political disagreement, no division that can bring any thing but sadness from this story (h/t).
The three-year-old daughter of Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has been admitted to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the candidate has cancelled his Sunday morning campaign events to be at her side.
Santorum campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said Saturday night that the former Pennsylvania senator and his wife, Karen, were with Bella at CHOP. Gidley said Santorum planned to return to campaigning as soon as possible in Florida, where the Republican primary is Tuesday.
Bella Santorum has Trisomy 18, a genetic condition in which a child has a third copy of material from chromosome 18, instead of the usual two, causing a wide array of physical and mental problems.
Bella was not expected to survive until her first birthday – half of infants with Trisomy 18 do not survive their first week, according the National Institutes of Health. Some children have lived to their teenage years, but with significant medical and developmental issues.
I can’t imagine how difficult this is for his family. Here’s hoping Bella gets well enough soon enough that we can go back to making fun of her father’s horrible political positions shortly.
by Darryl — ,
Young Turks: Barney Frank to marry his partner.
Darcy Burner: Never Give Up:
Young Turks: Conservative’s more likely low IQ and racist.
White House: West Wing Week.
Countdown with Dan Savage: Same-sex marriage equality.
The GOP Gladiatorial Games:
[Read more…]
by Darryl — ,
UPDATE: An analysis using newer polls can be found here.
As promised, here is my first analysis of a 2012 match-up, using state head-to-head polls, between Pres. Barack Obama (D) and former congressman Newt Gingrich (R).
The Monte Carlo analysis gives Obama an average of 416 electoral votes to Gingrich’s 122. Obama won all 100,000 of the simulated elections, suggesting he would certainly win an election held now.
Now you can see why the Republican Establishment cannot let Newt get the nomination. He loses badly against Obama.
Obama | Gingrich |
100.0% probability of winning | 0.0% probability of winning |
Mean of 416 electoral votes | Mean of 122 electoral votes |
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
[Read more…]
by N in Seattle — ,
Last night, the Bertha Knight Landes Room in Seattle’s City Hall was the venue for the first big forum of candidates for Washington’s open First Congressional District. It may seem odd that the event was held in a location that is not within WA-01’s new boundaries (in fact, none of Seattle is in the reconfigured CD). The reason is that the forum was sponsored by the Metropolitan Democratic Club of Seattle, which does have some influence beyond the city and the county.
The great majority of the numerous candidates for the House seat attended the confab. In alphabetical order, the participants were:
Yes, that’s right … a Republican spoke before the MDC in bluer-than-blue Seattle!
The other three candidates were absent. One Democrat (Steve Hobbs, Lake Stevens, State Senator from LD-44) cancelled at the last minute. Neither Republican John Koster (Arlington, candidate in WA-02 in 2000 and 2010, former State Rep from LD-39, Snohomish County Councilmember) nor Republican-turned-independent Larry Ishmael (Issaquah, 2006 and 2008 candidate in WA-01, environmental economist) ever intended to attend the forum. I would characterize those three individuals as, respectively, Conservadem, Teahadist, and Inconsequential.
Former Governor and Congressman Mike Lowry was the moderator. Each candidate got to respond to six questions, as well as make closing remarks. From the audience, I took notes on the event, which are displayed below (I’m being kind to those who don’t care about this stuff, hiding the rest behind that “more” link). For the record, I took no photos during the event (my cellphone doesn’t sport a camera). Also, I didn’t start detailed notes until nearly the end of answers to Question 1.
[Read more…]
by Darryl — ,
One of the things we “learned” this week is that gubernatorial hopeful Rob McKenna is against same-sex marriage.
On Wednesday, McKenna told KCPQ-TV (3:47):
I will vote to maintain the current law and the current definition of marriage.
I guess he has given up on the line, “I hold the same views as President Obama.”
Goldy wrote about this under the headline, “McKenna Finally Admits He Opposes Gay Marriage”. But is McKenna only now admitting he opposes same-sex marriage?
I mentioned last June that McKenna has previously taken a stand on the subject:
In 2004, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing issued a controversial ruling that same-sex couples could marry. The Seattle Times, sprung to action to find out where candidates in state-wide races stood:
…King County Councilman Rob McKenna, criticized the ruling’s wording as too broad and said its argument that there is no compelling state interest to deny marriage to two people in a committed relationship could leave marriage open to blood relatives or those practicing polygamy.
“It threatens to destroy all standards we apply to the right of marriage,” he said.
One might argue that McKenna was only criticizing the wording of a ruling, rather than the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage.
Closer scrutiny reveals that as bullshit. I encourage you to read the ruling for yourself—it’s well-written, and includes some amusing word play. Judge Downing:
…concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.
The ruling doesn’t “open up” incestuous or polygamous marriages. To do so, it would have addressed an additional set of state laws that are narrowly targeted to toward protecting compelling state interests in prohibition of incestuous or polygamous marriages. It didn’t touch on those at all.
No…what McKenna was doing was using a bullshit “legal-like” argument to express his opposition to same-sex marriage, while not quite saying so.
by Carl Ballard — ,
So, I know this is old news, but Rick Santorum is trying to ruin sweater vests. Oh sure, he’d say he’s just wearing them, sometimes. I’m sure he thinks he’s conveying a certain downhomieness, and campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire in winter, it makes sense to wear them. And who knows, he may genuinely like wearing them. But since they’re still fairly uncommon, if he goes far in the presidential nominating process, sweater vests may be associated with him. And that’s pretty terrible for those of us who wear them but don’t share his dipshit politics.
I am wearing one right now. I wear either a sweater vest or a sweater to work for most of the winter here in Seattle. Whoever the GOP nominates will be horrible on policy, but hopefully whoever they nominate doesn’t do to the sweater vest what Tucker Carlson did to bow ties.
by Darryl — ,
That’s right. It is another Republican debate.
They say, debate is what catches de-fish, and what a stinkin’ mess we have here.
So go grab some tartar sauce if you prefer, or a bag of Cheetos and play along.
The live stream can be found on CNN or here.
5:15: The topic has been on illegal immigration. Romney parses classes of illegals and who he is concerned about and who not.
5:16: Newt says he doesn’t want to grab a grandmother in a church. He goes for young women now. (Older women while in high school).
5:17: Mitt yells at Romney about calling him “anti-immigrant”. Apparent “anti-immigrant” is a “highly charge epithet”. I can think of worse.
5:21: The debate has turned in to a bickering match between Mitt and Newt.
5:24: Paul is pro-Cuba. Santorum is TOTALLY OUTRAGED by Obama’s policy in Central and South America. Nothing he says connects with anyone.
5:25: Santorum again sounds the alarm bells about Iran and al Qaeda in Cuba.
5:29: Mitt was saying something about unemployment and housing, but I was fading out….
5:31: It back to Mitt and Newt are airing dirty laundry. It is very personal and awkward!
5:33: Newt seems to be losing this Fannie-Freddie argument, but it is hard to tell. Ron Paul: the topic doesn’t interest me at all.
5:36: Santorum wants to shrink Fannie and Freddie until it can be drowned in a bathtub.
5:37: Santorum: “If these guys (Mitt, Newt) don’t quit bickering, I’m going to sent them to their rooms without dinner.”
by Carl Ballard — ,
– Jay Inslee’s piece on marriage equality in Washington State.
– Mitt’s Income vs. Your Income (h/t)
– I’ve been really grateful for these pieces by Ta-Nehisi Coates debunking the notion that slaveholders could have been compensated before the civil war to end slavery.
– There’s still some off season left, but next season maybe isn’t looking great for Mariners fans.
– SOPA
by Darryl — ,
In the previous installation, President Barack Obama was leading Mitt Romney by 290 to 248 electoral votes on average, with a 77.5% probability of winning. Today there were four new polls released, and Obama slips a little bit:
start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
FL | Suffolk | 22-Jan | 24-Jan | 600 | 4.0 | 42.2 | 46.8 | R+4.7 |
NY | Marist | 18-Jan | 19-Jan | 554 | 4.5 | 58 | 35 | O+23 |
NC | Civitas | 09-Jan | 11-Jan | 300 | 4.0 | 39 | 48 | R+9 |
WI | Marquette Law School | 19-Jan | 22-Jan | 701 | 3.8 | 47.9 | 39.9 | O+8.0 |
Obama and Romney alternate wins in the four Florida polls taken since early December. In this one, Romney leads Obama by +4.7%.
In North Carolina, Romney currently leads Obama by +9% (48% to 39%), but Obama lead by +1 in the previous poll and they were tied in the poll before that. Romney is at a slight advantage, although I am a little suspicious of the Civitas polls—they come from a conservative think-tank. But their polling track record isn’t horrible.
In Wisconsin, Obama is up by +8.0% over Romney, 47.9% to 39.9%. In fact, Obama has led in all eight polls taken in Wisconsin since December 2010 (i.e. over a year). Finally, no surprise, New York has Obama up by a solid +23% over Romney.
After 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 71,946 times and Romney wins 28,054 times (including the 1,246 ties). Obama receives (on average) 284 to Romney’s 254 electoral votes. Obama has a 71.9% probability of winning and Romney has a 28.1% probability of winning.
Obama | Romney |
71.9% probability of winning | 28.1% probability of winning |
Mean of 284 electoral votes | Mean of 254 electoral votes |
by Carl Ballard — ,
The Seattle Times has an editorial decrying the political ploys involved in Rob McKenna adding his name to the anti-health care reform lawsuit. Not McKenna signing up for a lawsuit that would overturn the entire law and claiming he’s only opposed to one part. Not McKenna going against the specific wishes of Governor Gregoire. No, the people who are writing a law that says the AG’s office has to have a client are the people engaging in a political ploy.
FOUR liberal Democrats in the state Senate have introduced a bill to strip the state attorney general’s power to challenge a law. Their proposal is blatantly political and would damage the balance of power in Olympia.
The senators are Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles, both of Seattle, Karen Keiser of Kent and Karen Fraser of Olympia. Senate Bill 6286 would allow the attorney general to challenge the constitutionality of a law only at the request of “the state officer with authority over the subject matter” — most likely the governor.
You know, the other day when Mike McGinn called The Seattle Times conservative, some of their reporters had their feefees hurt.* Might I suggest if you don’t want people pointing out how conservative your paper is, your paper might not want to take so many conservative positions (although in fairness, they’re much more pro-status quo and corporate power than they are pro one party over the other, that just generally coincides with conservatives). If you don’t want to be considered conservative, you might not want to have your editorial board use liberal as an insult. You might not want to have it go to the mattresses for a conservative attorney general.
Anyway, to the substance: Yes, this is a response to an out of control AG acting against the wishes of the governor. They’re responding to a blatantly political act by McKenna. Why doesn’t The Seattle Times condemn that?
Clearly this bill targets Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, who joined a lawsuit against the Obama health-insurance law despite the opposition of Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat. McKenna is running for her job, and these four senators don’t want him to have it.
Maybe he should have thought of that before he decided to try to use his office to unilaterally overturn a law that will benefit large numbers of Washingtonians for political reasons. In any event, some day The Seattle Times Ed. Board can explore how attempting to have 5 conservative justices overturn one of Obama’s signature issues has nothing to do with politics. But here’s the part that really got me:
They are free to campaign against him and to make issue of him putting the state’s name to a lawsuit led by the attorney general of Florida. But it is wrong to take away McKenna’s power and the power of future attorneys general, Republican or Democrat.
Wrong? Wrong! It’s wrong for legislators? To try to legislate?!??!
The Seattle Times doesn’t seem to understand the basics of our separation of powers. If members of the legislature feel the law could be improved, they are quite free to change the law (even for political reasons, they are politicians). If they feel a member of the executive branch is getting too powerful or is abusing the power given it by past legislatures, they have a duty to try to reign them in. Disagree with them if you like, but don’t pretend that legislators legislating is somehow underhanded.
by Darryl — ,
Mitt Romney has mostly been the G.O.P. front runner for at least the past year. There are transient exceptions.
Most recently, from early November to mid-December of 2011, Newt Gingrich lead the Republican pack in the national polls. But Americans remembered why they despised Gingrich—an arrogant motherfucker, who is mean, nasty, and corrupt. Mitt re-took the lead as the first polls of 2012 came out.
Yesterday, a Rasmussen poll found Newt in the lead by a remarkable +7. And today, the Gallup tracking poll put Newt up by +3.
Once can be a fluke. But not twice in a row. It appears that Newt taken the lead—perhaps for a few days, or maybe right up to the convention.
One of the implications for me is that I should probably start doing state head-to-head matchups of Obama against both Newt and Mitt. When I started this year’s batch of analyses I wrote:
At this point, I am only doing analyses of an Obama versus Romney general election. As much as I would like to see one of the weaker candidates take the G.O.P. nomination, I’m pretty certain Republicans will, as they did in 2008, act rationally, and chose the candidate that performs best against Obama in head-to-head polling. That is currently Mitt Romney. As the Republican primary circus continues, I’ll reassess. If, say, Santorum trickles on up to the front (eww!) or there is a crazy surge for Ron Paul, or the Mittster takes a tumble after unintentionally tweeting a photo of his underwear, or Rick Perry challenges the rest of ‘em to a duel (and wins), I’ll switch do doing analyses for the new front-runner(s).
Mitt didn’t magically Tweet a bulge in his underwear, but he did release his tax forms. That’s pretty much the same thing. So, while I still believe Republicans will ultimately act rationally and pick the candidate who performs best against Obama, I’ll give you the same analyses for the mean motherfucker who thinks knows he is the smartest man in the world.
I started collecting poll information for Newt last night. Perhaps I’ll have the first Obama—Gingrich analyses out by tomorrow.
by Darryl — ,
Day by day it gets harder to defend Republicans against the charge that they are collectively stark-raving mad. I don’t know why I try any more:
An Oklahoma lawmaker files a bill to ban the making and selling of food or products that use aborted human fetuses.
State Senator Ralph Shortey says he’s done research and found reports that companies have used stem cells in the research and development of food.
[…]“There is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors,” says [State Senator Ralph] Shortey.
Okay, so it’s not really insanity. You see, some of these “concerned” lawmaker types just haven’t yet learned how to filter truth from fiction, fact from rumor, science from made-up-shit-designed-to-freak-people-out that one occasionally comes across whilst doing “research” on the InnerTubes.
This reminds me of a previous State of the Union address where some stark-raving mad indiscriminate presidential speech writer slipped into the speech some InnerTube weirdness about the dangers of human animal hybrids.