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…]
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…]
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…]
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.
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.
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.”
– 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
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 |
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.
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.
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.
Okay…I am stuck in traffic on Montlake. But I can, apparently drive and blog, so here is the thread. Enjoy the discussion while I enjoy the fragrence of car exhaust.
6:11: I made it to the Montlake Alehouse just in time for the start. Man…it took 30 minutes to drive from UW campus…a 20 minute walk….
6:15: This morning, Boehner was calling Obama un-American. This evening he has to introduce Obama to the entire nation. Awwwwwwkward.
6:18: Biden is doing a great job keeping that spot on his forehead stationary, while moving his head around it. Great party (and SOTU) trick!
6:19: Obama wears a red tie. Boehner wears a blue tie. This is the dawning of a new age of bipartisanship!
6:24: Even Boehner is being forced to clap (gingerly) at some of these tax ideas. Poor guy…it must hurt.
6:25: Eric Cantor is thinking, “Oh my God…we’re going to have to oppose this?!?”
6:34: Obama plots to get more young people into those institutes of liberal indoctrination…. Educated citizens == Bad for Republicans
6:35: Obama channels Rick Perry on illegal immigration. How can the Republicans not feel all warm and cozy inside?
6:39: Mitch McConnell was obviously heavily sedated prior to the SOTU address.
6:42: Republicans are all like, “boooooo…clean energy….bad, bad, bad.”
6:44: Watch…dollars to doughnuts, next week there is a house bill to prevent the military from investing in clean energy.
6:47: There Obama goes again, pandering to the “millions of innocent Americans”. What about the millions of guilty Americans????
6:49: Thanks, TV people, for that magnificent view of Holy Joe’s facial pores.
6:51: What kind of anti-American bastard is Boehner…he isn’t wearing a flaggy-flag pin!
6:55: Tax breaks for the wealthy or keep our investments? I wonder what Republicans would choose?
6:58: Obama argues for investing in the future. Yeah…like that is going to win over the selfish teabaggers.
7:01: Obama has a new theme…the divide between Washington D.C. and the rest of America. This could be a potent theme. But the follow-up was pretty weak. (I don’t think insider trading by congresscritters really highlights the problem.)
7:11: Joe Biden wipes away a small tear.
7:14: Obama uses graphical imagery to help us all live the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
It’s over. Obama was pretty much focusing on common (D & R) themes. “Send me bills and I’ll sign them.”
Now we can enjoy the Republican rebuttal followed by the Michele Bachmann second rebuttal….
7:29: Mitch Daniels seems angry. Given his approval ratings, I guess he has good reason to be angry.
7:30: “With a government as big and bossy as this one….” What a fucking pathetic whiner!
7:31: Gloom and Doom! What a pessimistic son-em-bitch.
7:32: Carl Ballard: “I’m surprised how political the speech is!”
7:33: “Being a businessman is the most noble of human pursuits”…which pretty much means that Mitch—the politician—is self-loathing.
7:35: Mitch Daniels looks like the very model of a modern undertaker.
7:38: Mitch criticizes “Obama” by quipping about freedom to choose the right light bulb. Apparently he doesn’t realize that the lightbulb thing was done by the BUSH administration…while he was director of the Office of Budget Management. What a fucking dolt!
Mitch Daniels gives the second worse Republican response. It will take generations to out bad Bobby Jindal. But damn he tried.
7:52: There seems to be a live Tarantula on Mitt Romney’s head!
7:53: Did anyone notice that both Mitch Daniels and Mitt Romney have defaced flaggy-flag pins on? There is a big blotch in the middle of the stripes. Some say, communists do that.
7:57: Poor Mitt…all those millions and he still cannot keep his hair under control…
It’s State of the Union season. So please join us this evening for a State of the Union under the influence edition of Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally.
We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Our normal starting time is 8:00 pm, but this week we start at 6:00 pm to catch the start of the SOTU address.
Of course we will be live-blogging the SOTU address from Drinking Liberally, so if you cannot make it to DL, join the discussion right here.
On another topic: Newt or Mitt?
Can’t make it tonight? There are also meetings on Tuesday evening of the Tri-Cities and Bellingham chapters. And Wednesday evening, the Burien chapter meets. So…with 230 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.
– Rick Sntourm thinks being forced to carry a rapist’s child is a gift from God.
– While the title of this piece seems to imply that any gains for women are a loss for men, I think the overall the discussion of electing women in Washington, and across the nation, is worth having.
– Thomas Friedman is full of shit.
– The Oscar nominations. Some years I’ve seen none of the nominated movies; this year I saw Moneyball, so I guess I’ll root for that.
Debate. Florida. Tonight. 6:00 pm local time.
This one could be an earth scorcher.
Consider this. The past couple of weeks of polls have had Romney leading Gingrich by double digits in Florida. Today, there were two new polls released, and Gingrich leads Romney by +8 and +9.
Romney needs to do something different—that could be quite interesting.
Gingrich needs to not screw up, yet remain on the attack. He needs to show is fangs, but probably not bite anyone but the media.
Santorum and Paul are there for the shits and giggles.
I’ll live blog when I can, but I may have a couple of interruptions.
Live stream is at NBC here.
6:08: Mitt comes out attacking Gingrich…but he is using too much, too soon. Clearly, when it come to attacking, Mitt is a novice.
6:10: Newt says Mitt is “a lousy historian.” Yeah…I’ll bet Mitt never earned a monthly “retainer” of $25000 to $30000 to serve as an “historian.”
6:12: I think Rick Santorum is saying something.
6:14: Ron Paul, “The delegates is what counts.”
6:16: Will Ron Paul run as a 3rd party candidate. “No plans to do that.”
6:18: Mitt on what is controversial in his tax returns: “No surprises.” “But the real question is the American people…”taxes too intrusive”, “lower tax rates”, “pro-growth tax policy”, blah, blah, blah.
6:21: Priceless: Newt gets Romney to volunteer that under his (Newt’s) tax plan, Mitt would have paid zippo, zilch, zero tax (’cause his income is all capital gains).
6:24: I think Santorum just burbled something.
6:25: Seriously…Santorum is almost incomprehensible tonight. He’s pullin’ a Perry.
6:26: Newt defends his $25,000 to $30,000 PER MONTH “historical consulting” retainer: We had a consultant come in and tell us the fine line between lobbying and citizen activism.
6:30: The debate briefly spirals out of control with Newt and Mitt arguing back and forth. Perhaps the moderators have fallen asleep?
6:32: Mitt thinks influence peddling is “not right.” I am sure he will shut down K-street should he become preznit.
6:37: Rick Santorum’s “Free Market”: let the banks fail, but help people get out from being underwater. Ron Paul’s “Free Market”: let the banks fail, and let people fail.
6:41: Newt: “Repeal Dodd–Frank and the economy will recover overnight.” Ummm….didn’t the economy tank—and remain tanked—before Dodd–Frank was passed?!?
6:44: Mitt, “The President has taken a VERY DANGEROUS PATH with regard to Cuba.” WTF?!?
6:44: Newt: Fidel Castro is going to hell.
6:45: Paul: “The Cold War is over!” “I don’t know why all the Cubans are so intimidating.”
6:47: Santorum: “Sanctions in Cuba should continue until the Castros are dead.” WTF?!?
6:48: Santorum seems to be claiming that Cuba has become a platform for Jihad. Perhaps he believes “Jihad” is waged by all people with darkish skin.
6:49: Mitt, again, claims that the “Navy is smaller than any time since 1917.” Politifact: Pants on Fire.
7:00: Santorum gets all scaremongery over Iran. Still…no evidence that they are developing a nuclear weapon.
7:02: Santorum: Pipelines and off-shore rigs are the safest way to transport oil. I guess that works…if we live in the Middle East.
7:03: Newt tries to justify is lunatic rantings about the need for English as an Official Language. Sure…that will solve the problem.
7:04: Mitt agrees. Paul…let the States decide what is best for them.
7:06: Newt and Mitt: Dream Act for foreign mercenaries Only!
7:08: Mitt relies on people “self-deport[ing]” when they are dying of hunger.
7:09: Newt on sugar, “In an ideal world you would have an open market”…but I couldn’t do anything about it. I tried.
7:11: Mitt: Just get rid of sugar subsidies.
7:11: Mitt: “Everything Obama has done has made it worse for Florida.”
7:19: Did Historian Newt just mis-remember the Terry Schaivo case? I think Newt said her husband wanted her to live.
7:21: Mitt wants NASA to be a collaboration between government, private business, and our educational institutions. Wait…isn’t that what’s going on right now?
8:03: I was in there up to 7:25—the final break. I was “on” for dinner, so during the breaks I was running out to the kitchen to prepare enchiladas.
Wrap-up:
Newt wins. He made no gaffes. He weaseled his way out of questions about his past ethics violations and failed House leadership.
Mitt isn’t very good on the attack—to me, his attempts fell flat.
What we have here, folks, is a two way race that is nearly tied: Mitt, the rich boy who desperately wants to be President and Newt, the self-confessed smartest man in the world, who knows the position needs him.
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!