• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Republicans got rid of McCarthy. Democrats chose not to save him.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Let’s show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. don’t touch it.”

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

It’s a doggy dog world.

The words do not have to be perfect.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

Ron DeSantis, the grand wizard, oops, governor of FL.

Somebody needs to explain to DeSantis that nobody needs to do anything to make him look bad.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

You cannot shame the shameless.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the gop

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / z-Retired Categories / Previous Site Maintenance / Open Thread

Open Thread

by John Cole|  February 28, 20089:16 pm| 87 Comments

This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance

FacebookTweetEmail

So it looks like the entire election is going to be a competition between the candidates to see who can denounce people the hardest and the fastest.

*** Update ***

Apparently.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Tagged
Next Post: Things That Should Be More Common »

Reader Interactions

87Comments

  1. 1.

    calipygian

    February 28, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    I wonder if McCain is going to denounce and reject the endorcement of Bush Family Consiglieri Jim Baker. You know, the Jim Baker that defended the Saudi Monarchy against a lawsuit brought by his own fucking countrymen for their complicity in 9/11. And a Monarchy that provides money to Sunni insurgents in Iraq so they can kill Americans.

    Nah.

  2. 2.

    Jen

    February 28, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    Jon Swift today…

  3. 3.

    dnA

    February 28, 2008 at 9:27 pm

    Denouncing without rejecting is meaningless.

  4. 4.

    cleek

    February 28, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Catholics United, a national online group, also blasted McCain over the endorsement. “By receiving the endorsement of an outspoken critic of the Catholic Church, McCain once again demonstrates that he is willing to sell out his principles for a chance to win the Presidency,”

    your gripe hangs on the assumption that McCain has principles.

    he’s going to prove you wrong.

  5. 5.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    You know what they say about Papists. You can’t live with their endorsements, you can’t live without them.

  6. 6.

    p.lukasiak

    February 28, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    well, I want to give Tom in Texas ample time to lie about the second part in my Count Whose Vote series (and then have his lie repeated endlessly among the Obot blogs) so here is the link. This one is called “independents vs moderates”

  7. 7.

    jake

    February 28, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    The president of the Catholic League today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelicalist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has “waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church.”

    Uh, yeah. Is there anyone Bill Donohue’ncry hasn’t blasted?

    [crickets chirp]

    This is the stupid fuck who went to DEFCON 3 when Hillary Clinton couldn’t attend a St. Patrick’s Day parade.

    And WTF is an “evangelicalist”? Sounds like something out of T.S. Eliot.

  8. 8.

    cleek

    February 28, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    so here is the link

    and here is the summary:
    plead, bitch, whine, rationalize, distort, moan, groan.

  9. 9.

    tBone

    February 28, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    well, I want to give Tom in Texas ample time to lie about the second part in my Count Whose Vote series (and then have his lie repeated endlessly among the Obot blogs) so here is the link.

    Paul, I know you put a lot of thought and effort into that piece, but honestly – do you really think that kind of bloodless numbercrunching in February means anything for the general election?

    You’re parsing a selective set of data. You’re discounting states that “don’t count” because they caucus. You completely ignore the respective downticket implications of a Hillary or Obama candidacy. You ignore the fact that “moderate” Democratic primary voters are not representative of general election voters. You ignore the surge in Dem registrations that have largely been attributed to Obama.

    Does the phrase “missing the forest for the trees” mean anything to you?

  10. 10.

    Delia

    February 28, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    Yeah, Donohue’s a winger, all right, but we’re definitely in
    strange bedfellows territory now.

    I say, bring it on. If the MSM will run with this the way they do the Farrakhan nonsense, we can maybe watch St. John eat a few words.

  11. 11.

    Incertus

    February 28, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    If there were any indication that Donohue had actual clout in the Catholic community, I would be excited about this–civil war in the religious right, and all that. But so far as I’ve ever seen, the Catholic League is Donohue and a couple dozen computers, and dumb ones at that.

  12. 12.

    p.lukasiak

    February 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    You’re parsing a selective set of data. You’re discounting states that “don’t count” because they caucus.

    no, I’m not including states that caucus because there is no exit polling data — and because (as we’ve seen in Washington state) caucuses come up with completely different results than actual primary elections. I have, however, included data from the two caucus state with exit polls in the tables, based on estimated participation in those caucuses (250K in Iowa, 116K in Nevada), and note in an appendix that the overall conclusions remain unaffected (in fact, they are very slightly better for Clinton in terms of moderate support, and very slightly better for Obama in terms of total popular vote.)

    You completely ignore the respective downticket implications of a Hillary or Obama candidacy.

    and you assume that in November, Obama at the top of the ticket will be an asset downticket. I’m “ignoring” that because there is no way to know at this point what is going to happen.

    You ignore the fact that “moderate” Democratic primary voters are not representative of general election voters.

    actually, its “independent” which is a meaningless term. While I note that different people may have somewhat different ideas about what “moderate” means, based on their political environment, those differences don’t matter in terms of most states.

    You ignore the surge in Dem registrations that have largely been attributed to Obama.

    yup. that’s not part of my data set.

    Does the phrase “missing the forest for the trees” mean anything to you?

    sure. My whole point is to say that there are a lot more trees in that forest than the Obama campaign is pointing out, and that the media is talking about.

  13. 13.

    ThymeZone

    February 28, 2008 at 10:47 pm

    Another thread fucked by the lukasiak obsession with meaningless bullshit about a failed candidacy?

    I’m out. Who needs this crap?

    Tell him to become a member of the Republican party, where there are people who really appreciate good crazy horseshit.

  14. 14.

    Jon H

    February 28, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    “no, I’m not including states that caucus because there is no exit polling data—and because (as we’ve seen in Washington state) caucuses come up with completely different results than actual primary elections”

    A more likely explanation of Washington is that Obama voters didn’t bother voting in the primary, knowing it was meaningless, but showed up at the caucus. Clinton voters were probably still motivated to vote because of Clinton’s 2nd place status, so did show up.

  15. 15.

    Jon H

    February 28, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Paul, if you’re going to be arbitrarily cherry picking data in an attempt at the increasingly difficult task of making a case for Clinton, why not just go all the way and base your conclusion entirely on a sample of one: yourself?

  16. 16.

    TenguPhule

    February 28, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Denouncing without rejecting is meaningless.

    Obviously you are not qualified to be a snobby media pundit.

  17. 17.

    S.W. Anderson

    February 28, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    calipygian wrote:

    I wonder if McCain is going to denounce and reject the endorcement of Bush Family Consiglieri Jim Baker. You know, the Jim Baker that defended the Saudi Monarchy against a lawsuit brought by his own fucking countrymen for their complicity in 9/11.

    There’s about as much chance of that as there is of Bush getting huffy with the Saudis over the number of Saudi fighters in Iraq for the purpose of killing our people.

  18. 18.

    PaulW

    February 28, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Report is out that Drudge just endangered Prince Harry by revealing he was secretly doing his duty for Queen and Country in Afghanistan. Guess *someone’s* not getting invited over for tea any time soon…

  19. 19.

    p.lukasiak

    February 28, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    A more likely explanation of Washington is that Obama voters didn’t bother voting in the primary, knowing it was meaningless, but showed up at the caucus

    well, much the same phenomenon was seen in the GOP caucus/primaries, both of which had delegates available.

    Moreover, while the votes counted on election night (those cast at the polls) showed a 3.1% obama lead, after the hundreds of thousands of mail in votes were counted, that gap was up to 5.5% — there was a gap of 12.6% in Obama’s favor, which suggests that his campaign had urged its supporters to vote in the primary.

  20. 20.

    p.lukasiak

    February 28, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    speaking of denouncing…
    when will either of the Dems be asked to denounce Al Sharpton…and how will they respond?

    *****
    oh and the 12.6% gap mentioned above was in the mail-in vote…just to be clear.

  21. 21.

    demimondian

    February 28, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    Sorry, Paul, but I live in Washington State — and (a) no, there was no GOTV effort by either campaign here for the primary, and (b) the primary was so hard to vote in that many people who did vote spoiled their ballots.

    But who am I going to believe, you, or my lying eyes which show my primary mail in ballot still sitting here unopened…hard to say.

  22. 22.

    GSD

    February 28, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    I will support whoever renounces denouncing.

    -GSD

  23. 23.

    demimondian

    February 28, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Oh, and…there were no polls in the 2/19 primary. There were sites where people could drop ballots on election day (we call them “post offices” here in Washington — what do you call USPS drop boxes there?) but there were no “polling sites”.

  24. 24.

    p.lukasiak

    February 28, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Sorry, Paul, but I live in Washington State—and (a) no, there was no GOTV effort by either campaign here for the primary, and (b) the primary was so hard to vote in that many people who did vote spoiled their ballots.

    But who am I going to believe, you, or my lying eyes which show my primary mail in ballot still sitting here unopened…hard to say.

    Just curious, did you vote in the primary?

  25. 25.

    tBone

    February 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    My whole point is to say that there are a lot more trees in that forest than the Obama campaign is pointing out, and that the media is talking about.

    OK. Maybe I should have asked “do you understand the phrase ‘missing the forest for the trees’?”.

    Examining a subset of Democratic primary voters may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but superdelegates would have to be out of their minds to let that kind of myopic analysis sway them.

  26. 26.

    p.lukasiak

    February 28, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    Oh, and…there were no polls in the 2/19 primary. There were sites where people could drop ballots on election day (we call them “post offices” here in Washington—what do you call USPS drop boxes there?) but there were no “polling sites”.

    thanks for that info. WHat do you think accounts for the wide difference between votes reported on election night, and the votes counted later?

  27. 27.

    p.lukasiak

    February 28, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Examining a subset of Democratic primary voters may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but superdelegates would have to be out of their minds to let that kind of myopic analysis sway them.

    you’ll get no argument from me there. My point is that the ‘electability’ arguments being promoted by the Obama campaign are equally, if not more, myopic. My point of view is basically that the superdelegates should wait and see what happens for at least a couple of months — as long as the campaign remains “clean”, keeping the focus on Democrats (and keeping the focus off of McCain) is a good thing.

  28. 28.

    ThymeZone

    February 28, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    OK. Maybe I should have asked “do you understand the phrase ‘missing the forest for the trees’?”.

    Examining a subset of Democratic primary voters may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but superdelegates would have to be out of their minds to let that kind of myopic analysis sway them.

    Snort. You are trying to explain the infield fly rule to a goldfish.

  29. 29.

    demimondian

    February 28, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    WHat do you think accounts for the wide difference between votes reported on election night, and the votes counted later?

    Absentee ballots in Washington State are subject to our state election law, which says that any absentee ballot with a valid postmark no later than midnight on the day of the election is valid. That’s different from, say, Oregon, where all elections are by-mail only, and any ballot must be in the possession of the electoral officials on election day if it is to be valid.

    That’s the reason for my crack about “post offices” — if you want to vote on election day in an all-mail election, you just drive to the post office and drop your letter in the collection box there, or, if you’re paranoid, you go to the counter and make sure the envelope is canceled in front of you.

  30. 30.

    tBone

    February 28, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    My point of view is basically that the superdelegates should wait and see what happens for at least a couple of months—as long as the campaign remains “clean”, keeping the focus on Democrats (and keeping the focus off of McCain) is a good thing.

    I think the chance of the campaign remaining (?) clean if it runs on for a couple more months is nil. The candidates are tired of it, the voters are tired of it – let’s wrap the damn thing up already.

    Snort. You are trying to explain the infield fly rule to a goldfish.

    I happen to speak fluent Goldfishese, you insensitive ichthyphobe.

  31. 31.

    demimondian

    February 28, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    No, I did not vote in the primary. FDDD and I talked about it, and chose to not file ballots.

  32. 32.

    demimondian

    February 28, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    I happen to speak fluent Goldfishese, you insensitive ichthyphobe.

    Ooo…I like goldfishies. Particularly filleted and fried, like catfish.

  33. 33.

    SGEW

    February 28, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    . . . as long as the campaign remains “clean”

    And “articulate,” of course. That’s what you meant, right?

    (joking, joking)

  34. 34.

    tBone

    February 28, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    Ooo…I like goldfishies. Particularly filleted and fried, like catfish.

    There’s a carp-eater in our midst. Hide the women and children.

  35. 35.

    demimondian

    February 28, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    Hide the women and children.

    Why would you hide the women and children from someone who eats goldfish?

    Unless…you’re one of them. A carp. A…fishman.

  36. 36.

    ThymeZone

    February 29, 2008 at 12:19 am

    Unless…you’re one of them. A carp. A…fishman.

    That would be his cousin, Phil A.

  37. 37.

    Tom in Texas

    February 29, 2008 at 12:34 am

    Moderates try to find a middle ground between individual liberties under the Constitution and a police state. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was pretty damn moderate. An Independent only cares if you can shoot straight. The problem with moderates is that they assume both sides of the spectrum are valid.

    You know who’s moderate?

    David Brooks.

    You can keep him.

    Fuck moderation. After the last decade there is no middle ground.

  38. 38.

    dnA

    February 29, 2008 at 12:41 am

    Ooo…I like goldfishies. Particularly filleted and fried, like catfish.

    Fried Catfish with cheese grits is what God eats for breakfast.

  39. 39.

    Conservatively Liberal

    February 29, 2008 at 12:48 am

    I was over at Kos and reading this diary by Meteor Blades and I came across this quote:

    “The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration’s diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries.” …

    “Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments. A Republican administration working with the Congress will respect the needs and quiet sacrifices of these public servants as it strengthens America’s intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities and reorients them toward the dangers of the future.” …

    “The current administration has casually sent American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals, realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined exit strategies. Over the past seven years, a shrunken American military has been run ragged by a deployment tempo that has eroded its military readiness. Many units have seen their operational requirements increased four-fold, wearing out both people and equipment.” …

    “The rule of law, the very foundation for a free society, has been under assault, not only by criminals from the ground up, but also from the top down. An administration that lives by evasion, coverup, stonewalling, and duplicity has given us a totally discredited Department of Justice.” …

    “Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness.” …

    “Our goal for NATO is a strong political and security fellowship of independent nations in which consultations are mutually respected and defense burdens mutually shared.”
    -Republican Party Platform 2000

    Since plagiarism is the theme this election season, I propose that the Democrats adopt this as their platform this year. It seems almost tailored to the current situation.

  40. 40.

    TenguPhule

    February 29, 2008 at 1:02 am

    So it looks like the entire election is going to be a competition between the candidates to see who can denounce people the hardest and the fastest.

    “Harder! Faster! Harder! Faster!”

    Our modern political process, a fucking bad pron movie.

  41. 41.

    Ninerdave

    February 29, 2008 at 1:06 am

    Oooh! Look Krista! TPM Muckraker…the Canadian edition!

  42. 42.

    lambert strether

    February 29, 2008 at 1:30 am

    Timezone burbles:

    Another thread fucked by the lukasiak obsession with meaningless bullshit about a failed candidacy?

    I’m out. Who needs this crap?

    Not you, fortunately for all of us.

    However, the superdelegates do, so they can make an informed decision, instead of letting the Obama campaign and our famously free press make their decisions for them.

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out…

  43. 43.

    mac

    February 29, 2008 at 1:37 am

    I usually think that the phrase is a sign of vulgar moonbatism. But my God. Just how bad is the Iraq war?

    “Chirp, chirp.”    (via hilzoy)

  44. 44.

    ThymeZone

    February 29, 2008 at 1:38 am

    instead of letting the Obama campaign

    Wow, man, that blog of yours is one mighty high mountain of complete horse manure.

    I mean, you might have the tallest manmade structure in the world there. How tall is that thing, anyway? Do you get snow on it in the wintertime? What kind of equipment does it take to pile roadapples that high?

    Whooooooeeeeeeeee.

    Folks, it’s worth the visit. Warning: Take refreshments, this fucking guy goes on for-ever.

  45. 45.

    Conservatively Liberal

    February 29, 2008 at 1:41 am

    The Clintonistas are on the rampage tonight! With the zingers and logic here, I am totally underwhelmed. ;)

    I hope Obama pulls off wins in Texas and Ohio and burns down those firewalls. What? They moved the goalposts to new firewall territory? Wow, go figure.

    If Obama pulls it off on the 5th, the fat lady will be in full throated song right afterward.

  46. 46.

    Conservatively Liberal

    February 29, 2008 at 1:49 am

    I think the “Boldly shrill…” line gives it all away too soon. You should let people find out for themselves, that way they waste more time reading it. Still, I gave it a shot. Yup, you are right.

  47. 47.

    Mike

    February 29, 2008 at 2:23 am

    Hillary, whose masterful, clockwork-like campaign has apparently figured out how the Texas primary works with a full five days to spare, may sue.

  48. 48.

    Pb

    February 29, 2008 at 2:35 am

    p.lukasiak,

    Thanks for another interesting peek through the looking glass there. Now…

    The meaningful distinction made by the word independent is that it encompasses the people who are registered to neither party. You’re right that it encompasses a microcosm of the political spectrum, but it isn’t a representative one. Of course, a lot of people who are registered to a party tend to vote for that party’s nominee. I could break it all down, but then again, so could you, and Pew pretty much did all the heavy lifting anyhow. Also note that there’s a large bloc of progressive independents with a history of voting for Democrats.

    As for moderate, that’s a term that not only means different things to different people — I’m sure a lot of people like to think of themselves as reasonable moderates instead of radical conservatives or liberals — but it also means different things in different parties. In the Democratic party, the moderates are the ones who know they aren’t conservative, but don’t want to self-identify as liberal.

    So, in a general election, who gets their votes? Well, John McCain already has a reputation as a moderate Republican. Currently, Obama is going for the reasonable label, whereas Hillary would have to shrug off the liberal label. So perhaps it’s no surprise that these projections show that Clinton is the weaker candidate against McCain. Maybe it’s because of those moderate voters.

  49. 49.

    p.a.

    February 29, 2008 at 3:18 am

    Am I mistaken, but when Repubs make the pilgrimage to Bob Jones U., we don’t hear a peep from Donohue, do we? From what I’ve heard, B.J.U. espouses the same ‘Whore of Babylon’ stuff.

  50. 50.

    Tom in Texas

    February 29, 2008 at 3:48 am

    By the way Paul, in the way of reconciliation I really enjoyed your work on the AWOL project. To be honest I didn’t connect your name on the byline of that Taylor Marsh piece until someone mentioned it.

  51. 51.

    Xenos

    February 29, 2008 at 5:44 am

    Am I mistaken, but when Repubs make the pilgrimage to Bob Jones U., we don’t hear a peep from Donohue, do we? From what I’ve heard, B.J.U. espouses the same ‘Whore of Babylon’ stuff.

    I have been waiting in vain for open conflict between the cavaliers and the roundheads. Think about it – a minority of catholic voters are so authoritarian that they join in with this enormous, somewhat gormless mass of lowbrow evangalical types. The result? Five Franco-ist supreme court justices, placed in power by evangelicals.

    What an incredible swindle is being pulled off here. The Southern Baptists and the Southern Methodists and the Crystal Cathedralists and even the Mormons have become electoral cannon fodder for a Roman Catholic legal ascendancy.

    They have even established a “Regent University” to promote a monarchist movement, to be accomplished by putting authoritarian Catholic judges in power over themselves. Cromwell is spinning in his grave (serves him right, anyway).

  52. 52.

    PAULQX

    February 29, 2008 at 6:19 am

    This election is only going to be one thing, a complete fraude. There is no way the right-wing, after stealing two elections with narry a wrist-slap, and with a solid majority in the supreme courte to back up any legal “problems” they may run into, are going to turn over the reigns of power. America is no longer a Democracy. The concentration camps are built and waiting to be used. The laws are now on the books that the federal govt. can declare a state of emergency and call in the military, lock anybody up with no reason given and no right to trial. If you complain too loud BlackWater may pay your house a visit and of course are not legally responsible for anything they do. Brownshirts anyone?

    Go out and vote, why not, but don’t expect your vote to count. Dont expect a fox to suddenly become a lamb. This fascist regime we now live under is never going to give up power short of an overthrow. Hopefully it will be peacefull and before a nuclear or biological war is started, but I fear it will have to be bloody and with more casualities at home and around the world.

    Kepp Safe

  53. 53.

    AkaDad

    February 29, 2008 at 6:37 am

    I strongly denounce and reject this thread.

  54. 54.

    Xenos

    February 29, 2008 at 6:40 am

    Paulqx-

    while the legal groundwork may have been laid for a fascist takeover, there has to be enough public support for it. I just don’t see it out there.

    McCain, for all his faults, is not a Bushist. There is not candidate out there that will perpetuate the mischief, and we are going to see an orgy of shredding and hard-drive melting rather than an armed takeover of the country. They had their shot, and have blown it already.

  55. 55.

    jake

    February 29, 2008 at 6:49 am

    I strongly denounce and reject this thread.

    I denounce your rejection and substitute my own.

  56. 56.

    SGEW

    February 29, 2008 at 6:59 am

    I will reject this thread, but will not denounce it. Or is it the other way around?

  57. 57.

    cleek

    February 29, 2008 at 7:13 am

    i renounce this thread and all of its works and the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, so that i shalt not follow or be led by them. beeyach.

  58. 58.

    Xenos

    February 29, 2008 at 7:30 am

    Get thee behind me, thread!

  59. 59.

    Krista

    February 29, 2008 at 7:44 am

    Oooh! Look Krista! TPM Muckraker…the Canadian edition!

    Yeah, I was watching that last night on the news. Get the popcorn, boys and girls. Will the Prime Minister go down for this, or will a convenient Libby-esque figure take the proverbial bullet?

  60. 60.

    Cassidy

    February 29, 2008 at 7:59 am

    This election is only going to be one thing, a complete fraude. There is no way the right-wing, after stealing two elections with narry a wrist-slap, and with a solid majority in the supreme courte to back up any legal “problems” they may run into, are going to turn over the reigns of power. America is no longer a Democracy. The concentration camps are built and waiting to be used. The laws are now on the books that the federal govt. can declare a state of emergency and call in the military, lock anybody up with no reason given and no right to trial. If you complain too loud BlackWater may pay your house a visit and of course are not legally responsible for anything they do. Brownshirts anyone?

    Go out and vote, why not, but don’t expect your vote to count. Dont expect a fox to suddenly become a lamb. This fascist regime we now live under is never going to give up power short of an overthrow. Hopefully it will be peacefull and before a nuclear or biological war is started, but I fear it will have to be bloody and with more casualities at home and around the world.

    Way too much paranoia before breakfast…

  61. 61.

    p.lukasiak

    February 29, 2008 at 8:32 am

    That’s the reason for my crack about “post offices”—if you want to vote on election day in an all-mail election, you just drive to the post office and drop your letter in the collection box there, or, if you’re paranoid, you go to the counter and make sure the envelope is canceled in front of you.

    demi…
    I’m trying to account for the differences between ballots counted on election night, and those counted after. Do you think that the “post office” ballots are counted first, because they require no verification of postmarks, etc? (I’m really just trying to figure it out at this point).

  62. 62.

    John S.

    February 29, 2008 at 8:38 am

    However, the superdelegates automatic delegates do, so they can make an informed decision vote for Hillary, instead of letting the Obama campaign devil and our famously free press his minions make their decisions for them.

    Fixed for Hillaryspeak.

  63. 63.

    Scrutinizer

    February 29, 2008 at 8:39 am

    Lambert:

    Here’s another idea:

    When you’ve got them by the balls, the heart and head soon follow.

    Just what we need: the Curtis Lemay approach to politics. That’s just what we need to turn this country around!

    Oh, wait…

  64. 64.

    pharniel

    February 29, 2008 at 8:39 am

    Way too much paranoia before breakfast…

    There can never be enough paranoia friend citizen. Trust the Computer. Happyness is mandatory.

    It is funny that about 20 years after raiding steve jackson games for ‘writing a hacker manual’ (a/k/a Gurps: Cyberpunk) that hte current administration has been reading Pranoia and treating it as a governance guide.

    Gamers, doing our part in fucking up the country.

  65. 65.

    John S.

    February 29, 2008 at 8:41 am

    I’m really just trying to figure it out at this point arrive at a conclusion where Obama looks bad and Hillary looks good

    Edited for clarity.

  66. 66.

    Cassidy

    February 29, 2008 at 8:42 am

    There can never be enough paranoia friend citizen. Trust the Computer. Happyness is mandatory.

    Ha! Never thought I’d hear that again….

    I’m just hoping Cheney isn’t cloned.

  67. 67.

    maxbaer (not the original)

    February 29, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Maybe Obama should just reject and denounce all of his supporters now and get it out of the way.

  68. 68.

    p.lukasiak

    February 29, 2008 at 8:54 am

    By the way Paul, in the way of reconciliation I really enjoyed your work on the AWOL project. To be honest I didn’t connect your name on the byline of that Taylor Marsh piece until someone mentioned it.

    okay, you’re forgiven ;-)

    what really annoyed me wasn’t that you mischaraterized my results (I mean, i did include information about TOTAL votes before even mentioning the “democratic” breakdown in the piece) but that your characterization was more widely linked to than the original post — and then people started extrapolating about what I did based on how you characterized my work.

    And it bugs the crap out of me when people accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, when I don’t publish anything like these “Count Whose Vote” pieces without using the same kind of thoroughness I used with the AWOL thing. I didn’t ‘cherry pick’ the data and exclude caucus results because they were inconsistent with my main argument — I excluded them because there was no data that was relevant to my main argument — and there were broad inconsistencies within the caucus data itself.

  69. 69.

    chopper

    February 29, 2008 at 9:17 am

    damn you scott beauchamp! i reject and denounce you!

  70. 70.

    tBone

    February 29, 2008 at 9:17 am

    However, the superdelegates do, so they can make an informed decision, instead of letting the Obama campaign and our famously free press make their decisions for them.

    Yes, it’s too bad the Hillary campaign has been so reticent to make their case to the superdelegates, giving the Obamabots and MSM a free pass to distort the narrative. If only the HRC campaign could be more assertive!

  71. 71.

    demimondian

    February 29, 2008 at 9:20 am

    Paul — no, the ballots on hand are counted first. All ballots must be mailed in, period; as far as I know, there are no explicit drop boxes.

    Washington’s results move from Republican to Democratic, and from moderate Dem to liberal Dem, over time as the count progresses. King County (home to indigo-blue Seattle and the mostly blue Eastside suburbs) is last to come in, bringing roughly one third of the state’s population. Pierce County (home to Tacoma and Olympia, the second largest county, and also another 20% of the population) is relatively purple, and the liberal and progressive parts of the county come in second to last, usually. Finally, Snohomish County, home to another tenth of the population in Everett, comes in late.

    Coming from the East, as I do originally, it is hard to realize just how concentrated the West’s population is. 60% of the state is in the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett metropolitan corridor. As far as elections go, the rest of the state is just noise. The cities return results slowly, but are very liberal; the rural areas return results fast, and are moderately to very conservative.

  72. 72.

    tBone

    February 29, 2008 at 9:22 am

    I didn’t ‘cherry pick’ the data and exclude caucus results because they were inconsistent with my main argument—I excluded them because there was no data that was relevant to my main argument—and there were broad inconsistencies within the caucus data itself.

    Understood, but when you use a limited data set, I think it’s fair for people to question the validity of any broad conclusions drawn from that data.

  73. 73.

    CrazyDrumGuy

    February 29, 2008 at 9:38 am

    Denounce and reject, John. Gotta do both.

  74. 74.

    demimondian

    February 29, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Oh, and other data: we’ve had two separate elections in the past four years (Gregoire in 2004, and the School Levy proposition in 2007) in which the results behaved exactly as you described, and in which the effect was sufficiently significant that the outcome actually changed as a result of the counting of the absentees.

    The statistical drift you saw is not unusual, and has nothing to do with GOTV or any campaign activity. It’s normal in our elections.

  75. 75.

    p.lukasiak

    February 29, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Understood, but when you use a limited data set, I think it’s fair for people to question the validity of any broad conclusions drawn from that data.

    tbone, there is a difference between raising questions in that fashion, and being accused of ‘cherry picking’ the data.

    another person has looked at the data (there are problems with it — his michigan numbers make no sense, and he entered Alambama’s “black democrats” where New Hampshire’s black dems should be) and includes what looks to be actual participation numbers (or estimates) for the caucus states (bottom left of chart). Now, his total votes come to 907K in caucus states, and breakdown 2-1 for Obama overall. Even assuming that every caucus participant was a democrat (rather than the 78% democratic average from all primary states), including those numbers in my calculations would have no real impact on the point I was making, because we are talking about over 20,900,000 primary voters, and 16,300,000 democratic voters.

    And while its fine to criticize a data set based on its exclusion of some results, in order for that criticism to be truly valid there has to be some reason to suspect that the excluded data would substantial alter the conclusions drawn from the data that was used.

    (I mean, seriously… the estimates for Obama’s popular vote lead, based on the highly internally-inconsistent caucus numbers reported on sites like CNN, was 85K. My Obama lead was 128K — because I simply assigned all uncommitted in Michigan to Obama. And people were complaining that I left out caucus states?)

  76. 76.

    p.lukasiak

    February 29, 2008 at 10:17 am

    The statistical drift you saw is not unusual, and has nothing to do with GOTV or any campaign activity. It’s normal in our elections.

    Demi, I understand what you are saying, but there was drift on a ‘county by county’ level as well. I’ll crunch those numbers, and get back to you, to see how much drift there was.

    On election night, looking at where ‘complete’ returns had come in from, I’d estimated that when all counties reported 100% that Obama’s 3.1% would expand to 4-6%. (King County was only “85% complete”, and was an obvious Obama stronghold — at that time, i didn’t know that “100% reporting” was different from “100% of votes counted!)

  77. 77.

    cleek

    February 29, 2008 at 10:18 am

    the estimates for Obama’s popular vote lead

    do you have a calendar ?

    it’s a nearly sure-thing that predictions even nine days out will be wrong by at least 5%. but there are 9 months to go.

  78. 78.

    tBone

    February 29, 2008 at 10:40 am

    (I mean, seriously… the estimates for Obama’s popular vote lead, based on the highly internally-inconsistent caucus numbers reported on sites like CNN, was 85K. My Obama lead was 128K—because I simply assigned all uncommitted in Michigan to Obama. And people were complaining that I left out caucus states?)

    Fair enough. It just seemed like a somewhat suspect omission, given how vocal you and others have been about the unrepresentative and ultimately unimportant nature of the caucus states.

    I think the larger point here is that people are naturally going to question the validity of your numbers when you’re so obviously biased toward one candidate. That may not be fair, but it’s reality – one of the dangers of advocacy.

    FWIW, the reason I keep pressing you on this stuff is I think you’re more objective when defending your points than you may have been in originally presenting them. (That, and it annoys ThymeZone.)

  79. 79.

    demimondian

    February 29, 2008 at 10:44 am

    Actually, Paul, there is a drift in county by county, and, yes, that’s also normal.

    Bear in mind how *big* our counties are. King County (where I live) runs from Puget Sound on the West to the crest of the cascade mountains on the East. The extreme eastern boundary of urban pressure (by virtue of the Growth Management Act of 1992) is about a mile east of my house, fourteen miles east of the Sound; beyond that, population density drops discontinuously.

    What that means is that the county itself looks like a microcosm of the state — the western side is urban, liberal, and reports slowly, and the eastern side is rural, relatively conservative, and reports fast.

    Sorry, Paul — there’s nothing the least bit interesting about the behavior here. There was not GOTV for the primary, there was no campaigning, there was…nothing. The pattern of returns only sounds surprising if you aren’t familiar with the state or the region.

  80. 80.

    jcricket

    February 29, 2008 at 10:54 am

    More Republican plagiarism . Are there no honest Republicans left? Tee-hee.

  81. 81.

    p.lukasiak

    February 29, 2008 at 10:59 am

    I think the larger point here is that people are naturally going to question the validity of your numbers when you’re so obviously biased toward one candidate. That may not be fair, but it’s reality – one of the dangers of advocacy.

    Yeah, I understand that. The problem that I have is that I saw very little/no valid counter-arguments, just criticism/reaction based on their own biases.

    I mean, I would look at my first piece and say “You’re numbers show that the differences in Democratic party support is not all that great — and while the views of Democrats should be considered, overall its not much better than a draw for Clinton in that category — and you data provides no suggestion that Democrats would abandon either candidate. Independents show a marked preference for Obama, and since the Democrats won’t abandon either nominee, appeal to independents should play a more signficant role than appeal to Democrats.” (Indeed, my second piece is an answer to my own criticism of my first piece)

    Instead, I got “Oh, so Indepenent voters shouldn’t count?” I never said that.

  82. 82.

    tBone

    February 29, 2008 at 11:16 am

    The problem that I have is that I saw very little/no valid counter-arguments, just criticism/reaction based on their own biases.

    Granted. In fairness, though, we Obamabots are lazy and don’t like math. And concentrated ingestion of MUP dust interferes with higher cognitive function. You can’t expect us to mount a logically sound counterargument in that state. :)

    I do appreciate your willingness to defend and reevaluate your points. I wouldn’t bother engaging you if I thought you had slipped as far into the fever swamp as certain other unmentionables around here.

  83. 83.

    demimondian

    February 29, 2008 at 11:25 am

    I should add a picture of the geography of Western Washington, since I don’t think my original post on King County really explains how much of the county is rural. Here’s a picture of King County. The urban islands east of the main blob are small cities such as Carnation and Duvall; demographically like their rural neighbors.

  84. 84.

    Ed Drone

    February 29, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    and here is the summary:
    plead, bitch, whine, rationalize, distort, moan, groan.

    You left out cavil, nit-pick, obfuscate, bully and threaten, all of which are part of the armory, ready to use at any moment.

    Ed

  85. 85.

    Rick Taylor

    February 29, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Via Obsidan Wings, an economist estimates the costs of the Iraq war at three trillion dollars. Please tell me again about how we liberals just love spending other peoples’ money on useless projects?

    Appetites whetted, Stiglitz and Bilmes dug deeper, and what they have discovered, after months of chasing often deliberately obscured accounts, is that in fact Bush’s Iraqi adventure will cost America – just America – a conservatively estimated $3 trillion. The rest of the world, including Britain, will probably account for about the same amount again. And in doing so they have achieved something much greater than arriving at an unimaginable figure: by describing the process, by detailing individual costs, by soberly listing the consequences of short-sighted budget decisions, they have produced a picture of comprehensive obfuscation and bad faith whose power comes from its roots in bald fact. Some of their discoveries we have heard before, others we may have had a hunch about, but others are completely new – and together, placed in context, their impact is staggering. There will be few who do not think that whatever the reasons for going to war, its progression has been morally disquieting; following the money turns out to be a brilliant way of getting at exactly why that is.

    Next month America will have been in Iraq for five years – longer than it spent in either world war. Daily military operations (not counting, for example, future care of wounded) have already cost more than 12 years in Vietnam, and twice as much as the Korean war. America is spending $16bn a month on running costs alone (ie on top of the regular expenses of the Department of Defence) in Iraq and Afghanistan; that is the entire annual budget of the UN. Large amounts of cash go missing – the well-publicised $8.8bn Development Fund for Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority, for example; and the less-publicised millions that fall between the cracks at the Department of Defence, which has failed every official audit of the past 10 years. The defence department’s finances, based on an accounting system inaccurate for anything larger than a grocery store, are so inadequate, in fact, that often it is impossible to know exactly how much is being spent, or on what.

  86. 86.

    jcricket

    February 29, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Via Obsidan Wings, an economist estimates the costs of the Iraq war at three trillion dollars. Please tell me again about how we liberals just love spending other peoples’ money on useless projects?

    But remember, we can’t afford to expand S-CHIP, there’s no money for improving public education, funding headstart or even fixing the VA. But Bush’s grand adventure in Mesopotamia (aka the Money Pit, starring Tom Hanks) is apparently worth $300 trillion in borrowed money.

    Oh, and we can’t ever let the average person get out of a bankruptcy, no more Pell grant money for you, etc.

    What $300 trillion could have bought in the last 8 years, not to mention how the debt payments will be crippling on us for years to come is just astonishing. Of course somehow this will all be “bad for the Democrats”

  87. 87.

    TenguPhule

    March 1, 2008 at 4:28 am

    Of course somehow this will all be “bad for the Democrats”

    Of course its bad for the Democrats. They have to fix it.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • beckya57 on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:33pm)
  • John S. on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:33pm)
  • TBone on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:33pm)
  • Mousebumples on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:32pm)
  • H.E.Wolf on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:31pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!