• 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 media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Beware of advice from anyone for whom Democrats are “they” and not “we.”

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

I really should read my own blog.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

You cannot shame the shameless.

So many bastards, so little time.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Giving up is unforgivable.

She burned that motherfucker down, and I am so here for it. Thank you, Caroline Kennedy.

The unpunished coup was a training exercise.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

I have other things to bitch about but those will have to wait.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • 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
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Elections / Election 2010 / Your Guess is As Good as Nate’s

Your Guess is As Good as Nate’s

by John Cole|  October 10, 20103:00 pm| 92 Comments

This post is in: Election 2010

FacebookTweetEmail

I wish every pollster and statistician in the public eye were this honest:

Sometimes, however, a thorough and objective analysis of the data leads one to the opposite conclusion: that the competition is too sure of itself. Our model figures there is a very wide range of potential outcomes because that is the only responsible forecast. We’re not being meek or wishy-wishy: instead, we are firmly, boldly, affirmatively and happily embracing the uncertainty. This is not because of any intrinsic property of our forecasting model; rather, it is because of the particular set of circumstances on the ground this year.

If anything, I worry that our model implies too little uncertainty. Generally speaking, forecasting models based on past data tend to overrate their accuracy when applied to out-of-sample data, although I design my models with this principle in mind to try to minimize such effects.

So, if you force it to pick an number, our model projects a Republican gain of about 48 seats (that projection could change, of course, by Election Day). But because of the high amount of uncertainty intrinsic to the forecast, I couldn’t really take any great dispute with a model that made a “best guess” of 56 seats, or 37 seats, instead.

Obviously, the GOP will pick up seats. But this may not be a bloodbath after all.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Where’s the profile of John?
Next Post: Taking Sides »

Reader Interactions

92Comments

  1. 1.

    Moses2317

    October 10, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    I hate to sound like a broken record, but the way we make sure that uncertainty breaks in our favor is for us all to get out there and canvass, phonebank, write letters to newspaper editors, and talk to our friends, family, and neighbors about how Democrats have fought for them and Republicans want to fight for billionaires and corporate interests.

    Let’s get out there and keep our Democratic majorities.


    Winning Progressive

  2. 2.

    Menzies

    October 10, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    That is the greatest gift Nate Silver has given us – a look into exactly how pollsters do their business and an admission that polls aren’t the be-all and end-all.

    I still get annoyed, because his forecast looks horrifying for my (current) side, but he’s quite honest about what he does. Hard not to appreciate that.

    His commentariat, on the other hand . . .

  3. 3.

    sherifffruitfly

    October 10, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Less scoreboard-staring, more nitty-gritty work getting out the vote, touting accomplishments, etc.

  4. 4.

    El Cid

    October 10, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    I’m crossing my fingers, but if Democrats do happen to keep both houses, I promise to torture some right wingers I know and on the radio.

  5. 5.

    Martin

    October 10, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    I’ll keep repeating this:

    Generic ballots disfavor the incumbent. Their name recognition and actual accomplishments are lost in that kind of ballot. Since Democrats have so many incumbents, they’re going to be disfavored in House polling.

    Named ballots favor the incumbent for the same reasons. Democrats should be underperforming the Senate polls (not good) and overperforming the House poll.

    The other polling trend, which we might have seen briefly but then it vanished, is that Democrats are favored by people that come late to the game on elections. Democrats should get somewhat stronger in these remaining weeks. How much is hard to say, though.

  6. 6.

    gbear

    October 10, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    The polling is in: I can, without reservation, state that the outcome in my household shall be no votes for republican affiliated candidates, and one vote for every democratic affiliated candidate. Bar death, hospitalization or incarceration, I will guarantee this outcome.

  7. 7.

    The Dangerman

    October 10, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    CA absentee completed yesterday; voted against Whitman and for Cannabis. Then had a drink. Good day.

  8. 8.

    ruemara

    October 10, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    If we gotv, we win. It’s pretty damn simple. Conservatives win because the American Electorate DOES. NOT. VOTE. They are clueless, ignorant, lazy and won’t vote. When they get even a 10th of the facts and hike their butts to the booths, we get more progressive policies. Pollsters look at numbers of likely voters, these skew conservative and older. If younger voters get out there and people who tend not to vote in midterms, we win. I think I’m lucky, I don’t know any unmotivated young people, but I know they’re out there.

  9. 9.

    Corner Stone

    October 10, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    @El Cid: I’ve got a lunch bet with one of my wingnut friends that D’s hold the House.
    I told him it will be a cheap date because I’d provide the sweet trash talking dessert for free.
    We freakin better hold. Crazy ass crazy town.

  10. 10.

    quaint irene

    October 10, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Bar death, hospitalization or incarceration, I will guarantee this outcome.

    Two little words. Absentee ballot.

    Only local elections here in New Jersey, but I still sent away for the form….just in case.

  11. 11.

    General Stuck

    October 10, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    The “get government out of my medicare” fractured fairy tales election. I have no clue what will happen E day.

  12. 12.

    gbear

    October 10, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    @quaint irene:

    I like going to vote in person. I enjoy running into my neighbors there so it’s a fun thing to do. We still use paper ballots here so there’s no concerns about the machinery. MN really does have it’s shit together when it comes to elections.

  13. 13.

    bk

    October 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Big tits. Another SASQ installment.

  14. 14.

    bk

    October 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    @bk:

    Wrong thread!

  15. 15.

    Moses2317

    October 10, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Also, too, while I liked the recent video about how if we don’t vote, everyone loses, I think a more compelling theme for us in these final weeks of the elections is “When Progressives Vote, Everyone Wins.”

  16. 16.

    gbear

    October 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    @bk:

    Wrong thread!

    Actually, it was an acceptable response to every thread on BJ.

  17. 17.

    Corner Stone

    October 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @gbear: Co-sign?

  18. 18.

    Ross Hershberger

    October 10, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Been saying it all along. Reading polls for this race is like reading the newspaper from a satellite. Too little resolution to get any usable data.

  19. 19.

    JPL

    October 10, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    hahaha.. I just got a call from the Rep hall of fame wondering who I would support in 2012… For Huckabee press 1, Gingrich, Pence, Romney, and Obama. After pressing the appropriate code for Obama they gave me a number to call to remove me from their list. I’m sure they did this for all the answers, yeah right.
    What no Sarah?

  20. 20.

    Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther

    October 10, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    Ahem. I’ve been calling “no bloodbath” for some time now.

    But does anyone listen to ellaesther? Nooooo….

  21. 21.

    Oliver

    October 10, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    “…this may not be a bloodbath after all.”

    Guess again.

  22. 22.

    D0n Camillo

    October 10, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    @The Dangerman:
    You done already? I’m still googling all the state and city (SF) propositions. I love living in a state that allows mail in ballots no questions asked. That’s one thing California does right.

  23. 23.

    demkat620

    October 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    Well, I have everything crossed. Especially here in PA07. Would love to see Lentz hold Sestak’s seat.

  24. 24.

    Bruce (formerly Steve S.)

    October 10, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    I wish every pollster and statistician in the public eye were this honest

    It’s not that it’s honesty, it’s science. What the people who didn’t pay attention in junior high science class don’t understand is that most science is not “mix quantity A of chemical B with quantity C of chemical D under condition E and get predictable reaction F.” They simply weren’t paying attention the day the teacher told them about probability, which is what Nate Silver is of necessity dealing with. The same problem exists with climate science, of course; climatologists aren’t predicting that horrible things will happen to our planet, but their models don’t rule it out either.

    I blame television. There are now a hundred forensic crime shows on the tube and in every one of them the heroes figure out with complete certainty the meaning of sparse and ambiguous data. So stop watching TV.

  25. 25.

    aimai

    October 10, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Doesn’t anything more than 37 mean a loss of the house? Not a blood bath, but a serious blood letting?

    aimai

  26. 26.

    The Thin Black Duke

    October 10, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Unlikely as it sounds, there are people with a conscience in this country who define themselves as “moderate Republicans” and these poor wretched misbegotten souls are going to find it damned hard to vote for Batshit Fucking Crazy. In this less than perfect world, I’ll take whatever tainted victories I can get.

  27. 27.

    demkat620

    October 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Well I hope you all ate before now.

    Isn’t this just completely the pattern they have shown over the years.

    Karl Rove has a pearl clutching moment.

    “Have these people no shame?” Rove said of the attacks leveled at him and the Chamber. “Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies? This is just beyond the pale. How dare the president do this?”

    “This is a desperate and I think disturbing trend by the President of the United States to tar his political adversaries with some kind of enemies list, without being unrestrained by any facts or evidence whatsoever.”

  28. 28.

    The Dangerman

    October 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    You done already? I’m still googling all the state and city (SF) propositions.

    Yup; luckily, in my city, there was only one local proposition and it was an easy one. As for State propositions, I googled the SofS’s voter pamphlet; except for Cannabis, almost everything else was some sort of horseshit nonsense (my favorite was 23; it’s backers should be amongst the first against the wall during the revolution). I think there was only 1 other yes (perhaps 2; I forget now – I may have started drinking right after voting against Whitman).

  29. 29.

    demkat620

    October 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    @aimai: The GOP needs a net of 39 nseats to take the house.

    There are at least four pick up opportunities for the Dems so the real number is 43.

  30. 30.

    weichi

    October 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Sure, maybe it won’t be a bloodbath.

    But it could also go better for the Republicans than even a Karl Rove fever dream could hope for.

  31. 31.

    Triassic Sands

    October 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    But this may not be a bloodbath after all.

    Then again, it may be a bloodbath. Or not. Or…

    That’s what uncertainty is all about…uncertainty. There are any number of prominent seats that I wouldn’t bet on under any circumstances (assuming the bet mattered in some tangible way). Tossing a coin would reflect a greater sense of certainty than I could ever muster.

    For example, I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen in Nevada. I spoke on the phone at length yesterday with a friend in Las Vegas. He began by practically screaming his outrage that someone as stupid and bizarre as Angle could be a major party nominee. Then, he switched to Reid, and if I hadn’t heard what he said about Angle, I would have had to conclude that nothing could get him to vote for Reid. He despises Reid and went on at length about all the incredibly stupid things Reid has done and what a spineless POS he is. He actually spent more time criticizing Reid than he did slamming Angle. And that makes sense to me. A candidate like Reid offends me in a way that a candidate like Angle doesn’t — since he’s a Democrat, he at least offers the pretense of representing my interests and beliefs. But the gulf is so huge that voting for him is a sickening thought. In the case of Angle, nothing could ever entice me to vote for her. Even though I strongly oppose failing to vote, if somehow Angle were running against an opponent even worse than she is (I know, that idea makes one’s head really, really hurt), I wouldn’t vote for her. I would abstain entirely. Reid is bad enough that he raises the thought of abstention, but reality can’t support the idea of not voting against Angle.

    Listening to his take on Reid, one would be tempted to think that here was the worst candidate in the history of candidates, but in November my friend is going to vote for Reid (against Angle really) and he’ll do so without a second thought. I’m grateful I don’t have to choose between the likes of Angle and Reid, not because it isn’t easy to identify Reid as being better, or more accurately, nowhere near as bad as Angle is, but because the idea of voting for Reid is as distasteful as any voting choice I’ve ever faced. Still, given the choice, I’d consider it my duty to vote against Angle, and by default, therefore, in favor of Reid.

    What a mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.

  32. 32.

    NobodySpecial

    October 10, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    I dislike that whole ‘generic’ thing as well. If there’s one thing that people uniformly say when asked about it, it’s that Congress is corrupt….but THEIR guy is ok. There’s a reason incumbents win at a 90%+ rate besides the gerrymandering.

  33. 33.

    Delia

    October 10, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    We’re not being meek or wishy-wishy: instead, we are firmly, boldly, affirmatively and happily embracing the uncertainty.

    So Nate has become the Heisenberg of pollsters. Well, a lot of people never came round to his views, either.

  34. 34.

    Ross Hershberger

    October 10, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    I was reading physicist Lisa Randall’s book Warped Passages last night. It’s about particle physics, hidden dimensions, etc.
    Great quote:

    “Florida is sort of a quantum state, where repeated measurements yield different results”.

    I love her for that.

  35. 35.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Mid terms don’t usually go well for the party of the sitting president. According to Wikipedia, in the last seventeen mid-terms the president’s party lost an average of 28 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate.
    The Republicans don’t need to take many more seats than the historical average to get back into the majority.

  36. 36.

    James E. Powell

    October 10, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    In many important ways, the Republicans already won this cycle because they went from being a totally discredited brand to a plausible, if not probably, majority in the house.

    They managed to do it by exploiting their continued control of the corporate press/media and by working as a solid team to prevent Obama and the Democrats from accomplishing anything worthy of being an election-winning issue.

    The Democrats had their chances. They ought to have demonized the Republicans and their policies from Day One. They ought to have pushed harder to the left on health care. They should have put a jobs bill up for vote, and forced a very loud and very public filibuster. They should have put the tax cut extensions up for a vote. But they didn’t, and they are going to lose because they didn’t.

    There don’t seem to be very many prominent Democrats who care about keeping their majority. Despite their frustrations with Obama and the Democratic leadership, the professional left is far more interested in a Democratic majority than the Democratic leadership.

  37. 37.

    DaveInOz

    October 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    I wouldn’t underestimate Obama’s GOTV campaign, ‘Organising for America’. This sort of operation hasn’t existed before and its effects will be flying under the radar of predictions based on prior behaviour.

  38. 38.

    andy

    October 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    If the Dems hold the House it is ESSENTIAL that they find a way to kill the filibuster in the Senate next session.

  39. 39.

    Origuy

    October 10, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.): One thing that my high school science teachers drilled into me was error analysis. It’s not enough to make the measurement, you have to figure out the “plus or minus” value too.
    Lack of understanding of science by the members of our media doesn’t just show up in reporting on the sciences.

  40. 40.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    @James E. Powell:
    The import of your first sentence just continues to astonish me. The Republicans did everything but impregnate the dog and scatter trash all over the yard yet here they are, contenders.

    I would add to your list of possible reasons for this the Dems’ choice to forgo investigations of any aspect of Republican misrule. If the Republicans do retake the House you can bet that a couple of dozen investigative committees will be convened to look into every aspect of Obama’s time in office. Apparently the Democrats have already forgotten how Clinton was treated after the 1994 mid-terms. Either that or they just don’t have the stomach for governance.

  41. 41.

    Suck It Up!

    October 10, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    @The Thin Black Duke:

    “moderate Republicans” and these poor wretched misbegotten souls are going to find it damned hard to vote for Batshit Fucking Crazy

    let’s hope they aren’t Collins and Snowe type moderates.

  42. 42.

    debbie

    October 10, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    I just find it really hard to believe that the majority of voters will vote for the party who wants to go back to the way it was before November 2008.

    This talk of an enthusiasm gap is irrelevant. I never skipped an election during the 20 years there was a Reagan or Bush in the White House. Not even being unenthusiastic about any of the Democratic candidates kept me away from the polls. You hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

  43. 43.

    Linda Featheringill

    October 10, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    @DaveInOz:

    GOTV:

    flying under the radar of predictions based on prior behaviour

    Absolutely.

    I don’t know how many supporters we would have to get to the polls in order to shift the balance by about 5 points but I’ll bet somebody does. And I believe that OFA is going after those voters.

  44. 44.

    WereBear

    October 10, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    I don’t believe the past is a reliable predictor in this case; and that is what a lot of the analysis is based on.

    The Republicans haven’t screwed up this badly since the Great Depression; we’ve never had an opposition party this mired in Looneyville, ever; and the last election was a record breaker in terms of Democratic registration and voting.

    I think a lot of this crap is the usual MSM wanting suspense where there isn’t any. Any time I see the Republican Usual Suspects on teevee rolling their eyes and sweating into their silk ties, I have my suspicions confirmed. They are whistling past the graveyard; and it’s their graveyard.

  45. 45.

    Mnemosyne

    October 10, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    @debbie:

    I just find it really hard to believe that the majority of voters will vote for the party who wants to go back to the way it was before November 2008.

    Here’s the thing, though — the Bush economy didn’t really take a nosedive until close to the election. People have a perception that things were better under Bush because the bubble was still being inflated and the house of cards hadn’t crumbled yet.

    People still desperately want to believe that this is just a minor glitch and we can get back to the way things used to be. The Democrats probably should have made it much more clear to people that there is no turning back and the economy is a total shambles based on worthless pieces of paper, but I don’t know that that would have saved them, either.

    People want to believe this is all a short-term problem and everything will normal tomorrow, and they do not want to hear otherwise. Voting for Republicans is the equivalent of shoving their fingers in their ears and shouting, “LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

  46. 46.

    Montysano

    October 10, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    @James E. Powell:

    In many important ways, the Republicans already won this cycle because they went from being a totally discredited brand to a plausible, if not probably, majority in the house.

    Well said. You go on to say that “the Dems had their chance”, and to a point they did. But to try big moves like you advise (force filibusters, etc.) is risky; the media will not report the story; they’ll pick a narrative that draws eyeballs and run with it. In fact, the “Dem bloodbath” narrative is much more a media creation than a popular uprising. The Tea Party makes good teevee, so it’s Tea Party 24/7.

    Based on absolutely nothing but my gut, I remain optimistic. However, if the GOP wins big, then we’ll know for certain Where We’re At As A Country.

  47. 47.

    Montysano

    October 10, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Here’s the thing, though—the Bush economy didn’t really take a nosedive until close to the election.

    Funny that, eh?

  48. 48.

    JoyfulA

    October 10, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Nobody seems to be mentioning cell phones. Are pollsters reaching cell phone-only voters? My under-30 relatives don’t have landline phones, and under-30s are supposedly a bastion of the left.

    So it’s altogether possible that pollsters aren’t calling a large subset of likely D voters.

    Yes, I will nag my younger relatives to vote.

  49. 49.

    Mnemosyne

    October 10, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    @Montysano:

    Oh, they tried to keep the Jenga game going until after the election, but contrary to what Rove tried to claim, there is such a thing as reality and it will bite you in the ass eventually.

  50. 50.

    jon

    October 10, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    The Democrats won a lot of districts they probably had no business winning in the 2008 election. Keeping those seats was never going to be easy, while winning more seats is almost an absurd thought. Will 2010 be a bloodbath? Probably not, but I have had lowered expectations ever since the Summer of 2008 when I looked at the economy and said that this is likely to be a one-term presidency and fixing the economy was going to make for incredible unpopularity while shoving bad news under the rug was going to be less and less possible.

    I’m just Mr. Fucking Sunshine and Everything, and I’ve yet to see any reason to change.

  51. 51.

    FlipYrWhig

    October 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    @James E. Powell:

    They ought to have demonized the Republicans and their policies from Day One.

    @Dennis SGMM:

    I would add to your list of possible reasons for this the Dems’ choice to forgo investigations of any aspect of Republican misrule.

    I think you both underestimate how much hue and cry there would have been from the cable news and the “respectable” media like the NYT and WaPo if that had happened. The story would immediately have been, “Obama promised a new era but now he’s presiding over an incredible polarization.” Then when Republicans didn’t cooperate, they would have been off the hook, because, you see, Obama would have started it with his demonization and polarization and partisan witch hunts, and whatever happened to common sense and working together, and everyone would repeat it and repeat it until it was _the_ reason why the stimulus was down to the wire, the health care bill was down to the wire, Wall Street reform was down to the wire, etc. And then when the Republicans stood to gain seats in this election — because that’s what happens, especially after the Democrats have been practically running the table since ’06 — that would be the reason, and a message would have been sent, which was that The American People were sick of toxic levels of partisanship, and what Obama really needs to do in the next two years is reach out more to the other side.

    And that’s where we are anyway.

    And that’s the best-case scenario. Because it’s also possible that that terrible, horrible “partisanship” and “polarization” would have led all the Nelsons and Liebermans and Lincolns and Landrieus and Mike Rosses and Heath Shulers and Michael Arcuris to act WORSE.

  52. 52.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 10, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    .

    .

    Chill the fuck out.

    I got this.

    .

    .

  53. 53.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I disagree. What’s the effective difference between a pearl-clutching hue and cry and a steady undermining? Did Obama’s conciliation get him one Republican vote in the House? Did it prevent the neutering of HCA or the financial reform bills? All it did was make him look like someone shouting “Marquis of Queensbury Rules!” in a saloon fight.

  54. 54.

    Raenelle

    October 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    This is completely anecdotal, but I’m pretty sure, based on it being like this 100% of the time in my 63 years, that it’s going to be worse than we expect.

  55. 55.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    @Raenelle:
    I’m thinking 1994 mid-terms – and Clinton was white.

  56. 56.

    Alice Blue

    October 10, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    About the whole “generic” thing . . . the primaries are over and everyone knows who the candidates are. I don’t understand why “generic ballot” polls are still being taken.

  57. 57.

    Micheline

    October 10, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Raenelle,
    Where do you live?

  58. 58.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    @James E. Powell:

    They should have put a jobs bill up for vote, and forced a very loud and very public filibuster.

    They DID do this

  59. 59.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    If the Republicans do retake the House you can bet that a couple of dozen investigative committees will be convened to look into every aspect of Obama’s time in office. Apparently the Democrats have already forgotten how Clinton was treated after the 1994 mid-terms.

    How did that work out for the Republicans?

  60. 60.

    uloborus

    October 10, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:
    It got us HCR and financial reform, both of which contained the most important provisions they needed to, whether or not they contained anyone’s particular favorite provision. It got them in a political climate that roughly resembles Thunderdome. And in the case of HCR it was passed even though no president for the last hundred years was able to do it. So, you know, I actually think his strategy must have been pretty damn awesome. Obama walked into a bar fight yelling ‘Marquis of Queensbury rules!’ and then *won the fight*.

  61. 61.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    Did Obama’s conciliation get him one Republican vote in the House?

    Rep. Joseph Cao (R-Louisiana) on the first healthcare bill.

    Cao, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Delaware) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) on FinReg.

  62. 62.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    @Nick:

    How did that work out for the Republicans?

    Well, other than NAFTA, DOMA. DADT, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, twelve years of Congressional majorities and two terms of George W. Bush, not so well.

  63. 63.

    NR

    October 10, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    Axelrod says he’s hoping for more bipartisanship after the election.

    If this is going to be the position the White House takes, get ready for a Republican president in 2013.

  64. 64.

    NR

    October 10, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    @James E. Powell: Spot on. The worst thing about these last two years is what a lost opportunity they were. Obama could have destroyed the Republican party; when he was elected, the voters absolutely hated the Republicans and were desperate for strong leadership in a new direction. Instead, Obama made the resurrection of the GOP his mission in life, co-opting and endorsing their policies at the expense of what large majorities of the country wanted. And so the results of the upcoming election will not be a surprise to anyone.

  65. 65.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    @NR:

    Obama could have destroyed the Republican party; when he was elected, the voters absolutely hated the Republicans and were desperate for strong leadership in a new direction.

    This fucking bullshit is never going to die, is it?

  66. 66.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    @Dennis SGMM: Yeah, cause all that happened because they were assholes to Clinton.

    1.) Investigations
    2.) ????
    3.) VICTORY!

  67. 67.

    uloborus

    October 10, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:
    Sigh. Okay. NAFTA, signed by Clinton in 1992. DOMA 1996. DADT 1994. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is the only one passed after the Republicans were utterly humiliated in their attempt to impeach a wildly popular president, who got more popular as they tried to impeach him.

    Clinton’s problem was his attempt to pass health care reform – which, incidentally, failed because he was very aggressive about it and laid out a clear path of what he wanted passed. This resulted in his own party whining and deserting him. That demoralizing defeat let Newt take control.

    You’re rearranging history to create a narrative to match your private belief that clapping harder passes legislation.

  68. 68.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    @Nick:
    You asked how that worked out for the Republicans. I told you. You’re the one ascribing the cause. On the other hand, it could be that the Democrats seem to be chronically incapable of gaining control of the narrative and couldn’t do so even if someone delivered it to them stunned in a crate.

  69. 69.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    @uloborus:
    Rearranging history? You mean that those bills weren’t signed into law?

  70. 70.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    Rearranging history? You mean that those bills weren’t signed into law?

    Yes, half of them BEFORE Republicans even had Congress.

  71. 71.

    uloborus

    October 10, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:
    They were signed into law BEFORE the event you’re saying let them be signed into law happened. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans’ impeachment attempts being useful. Indeed, the 1998 midterm elections saw them losing seats despite the regular rule of midterm elections going against the sitting president.

    Clinton was popular as Hell after the impeachment. It was a fiasco for the Republicans.

  72. 72.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 10, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    My point, such as it was, was that the Republicans got pretty much everything that they really wanted from Clinton then they still jammed him at the first opportunity and took Congress and the White House.

  73. 73.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    My point, such as it was, was that the Republicans got pretty much everything that they really wanted from Clinton then they still jammed him at the first opportunity and took Congress and the White House.

    Yes they did, what does this have to do with anything?

  74. 74.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    it could be that the Democrats seem to be chronically incapable of gaining control of the narrative

    Yes they are, because the corporate Republican-owned media DOES…NOT…ALLOW…THEM.

    Do you know how the media is spinning Carl Paladino’s “no one should be proud of being dysfunctional homosexuals and we shouldn’t teach our kids this” comments today?

    “controversial” not “wrong” not “hateful” not “mean-spirited”, “controversial,” as if to say, there’s logic to them.

  75. 75.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 10, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    @Nick:

    President Obama has done everything he could possibly do for the American People, the rule of law, and world peace.

    This fucking bullshit is never going to die, is it?

  76. 76.

    uloborus

    October 10, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:
    Except that the jamming came LATER. They swept into power because Clinton acted exactly the way you’re suggesting Obama should and fought loudly and publicly and threw his all into passing health care reform. Which failed. Disastrously.

    The impeachments were a humiliating loss for the Republicans. As such, prosecuting Bush & Co held very high odds of absolutely scuttling the Dems’ ability to get anything done since they took power. I’d love to have Cheney in prison. I’d rather have gotten HCR.

  77. 77.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas: I’m sorry, the next time you link my name with a blockquote, it better damn well be something I actually fucking said you twerp.

  78. 78.

    Yutsano

    October 10, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    @Nick: Bad troll! No doughnut!

  79. 79.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    @Dennis SGMM: Here’s how CNN is spinning Paladino’s comments

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/10/carl-paladino-targets-gays/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_politicalticker+(Blog:+Political+Ticker)

    Carl Paladino targets gays
    New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino criticized gays Sunday, saying he didn’t want children “to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option,” compared to heterosexuality.

    He “targeted” them, “criticizing” them for, existing apparently. This is CNN…CN-fucking-N!

    And oh, I just found out, Elisabeth Hasslebeck, the right wing princess of The View is bringing her “unique viewpoints” to Good Morning America starting tomorrow. This is, of course, because Obama didn’t use the bully pulpit, right?

    When the media decides it only wants to report news, or spin it in a way, that reinforced a right wing narrative, how are Democrats to counter that?

    If your plan is a torch-wielding mob using lamppost as battering rams in the front doors of major news networks, then count me in.

  80. 80.

    NR

    October 10, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    @Nick:

    This fucking bullshit is never going to die, is it?

    The truth tends to stick around, no matter how inconvenient it might be for some people.

  81. 81.

    NR

    October 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    @uloborus:

    I’d rather have gotten HCR.

    I would too. Too bad we didn’t.

  82. 82.

    Nick

    October 10, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    @NR:

    The truth tends to stick around, no matter how inconvenient it might be for some people.

    No, bucko, apparently it doesn’t. But professional left fantasies do.

  83. 83.

    Sentient Puddle

    October 10, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    When Nate was saying that he was putting together a House forecast model, I was wondering how the hell he would actually do it seeing as there’s so much less data to go off of. Individual polling of districts is scarce, the generic ballot has obvious flaws, the Cook report feels like it’s totally out to lunch this cycle (they seriously have CT-Sen a toss-up, which makes no goddamned sense). Looks like the answer he’s come up with is “It’s hard.”

    I’d still put my money on 20-30 seat loss.

  84. 84.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 11, 2010 at 12:46 am

    @Dick:

    You didn’t say “This fucking bullshit is never going to die, is it”?

    Is every balloonbagger a fucking lying twerp, or just you?

  85. 85.

    debbie

    October 11, 2010 at 7:49 am

    @Mnemosyne:

    Here’s the thing, though—the Bush economy didn’t really take a nosedive until close to the election.

    But none of the promises he made about what his tax cuts would bring came true. Job growth was stagnant, median income fell, and the rapid growth of income was limited to the upper tiers.

    Looking back, Republican economic policies proved to be nothing more than a sham. Why aren’t the Democrats pointing this out?

  86. 86.

    Nick

    October 11, 2010 at 7:57 am

    @debbie:

    Looking back, Republican economic policies proved to be nothing more than a sham. Why aren’t the Democrats pointing this out?

    They are, every damn day.

    markknoller Mark Knoller
    Obama just used the economy-in-a-ditch-while-Republicans-sip-Slurpees riff at Dem rally in Philadelphia. Speech #21 with that line.

    Why do some of you insist on criticizing them for not doing things they’re actually doing?

  87. 87.

    Nick

    October 11, 2010 at 7:57 am

    @debbie:

    Looking back, Republican economic policies proved to be nothing more than a sham. Why aren’t the Democrats pointing this out?

    They are, every damn day.

    markknoller Mark Knoller
    Obama just used the economy-in-a-ditch-while-Republicans-sip-Slurpees riff at Dem rally in Philadelphia. Speech #21 with that line.

    Why do some of you insist on criticizing them for not doing things they’re actually doing?

  88. 88.

    debbie

    October 11, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Nick, if all Democrats were doing this effectively, there wouldn’t be talk of some sweeping Republican victory. This message isn’t getting through on the local level. Obama may be speaking more specifically, but each race is its own entity, and it is those Democrats who need to be speaking just as directly.

  89. 89.

    Nick

    October 11, 2010 at 9:39 am

    @debbie:

    Nick, if all Democrats were doing this effectively, there wouldn’t be talk of some sweeping Republican victory.

    Just take a look at Swing State Project and at the ads Democrats are running. Take a look at the ads run by Debbie Halvorson on SS (Rachel Maddow highlighted it as the best of the cycle), Tarryl Clark, Paul Hodes, Russ Feingold, Jack Conway, etc. A lot of candidates are losing while doing the same thing Obama is doing.

    This message isn’t getting through on the local level.

    No, because the MEDIA is the filter it can’t get through.

  90. 90.

    debbie

    October 11, 2010 at 11:18 am

    @Nick:

    No, because the MEDIA is the filter it can’t get through.

    Aren’t you doing the same sort of thing that you’ve criticized me for doing?

    The bottom line, regardless of whose fault it is: The Democrats aren’t communicating their message well enough. I don’t care who you choose to blame for this, if they’re not communicating, they’ve failed. If we all know the media’s against them, why hasn’t the Democrats adjusted their message? When something doesn’t work, you fix it. You don’t just sit there, doing the same thing and bemoaning its continuing ineffectiveness.

    I live in Ohio, which I think is a swing state, and I’ve seen all kinds of political ads. Democrats are pushing the same old generalized kind of thing they’ve usually done over the past two years, like Wall Street and NAFTA. I’ve yet to hear a single ad where they say what they will do.

    And it’s not like they haven’t had opportunities. For instance, Rob Portman (running against Fischer for Senate) brags in every ad that he has a plan to bring jobs to Ohio on his Web site. When you go there, all you see are 6 skimpy bullet points with absolutely no detail. They’re as generic and empty as vanilla foam. Why aren’t the Democrats calling Portman out on this?

    And more generally, why aren’t the Democrats calling out the Republicans for lack of specifics? The public knows what the Democrats would do — it’s what they’ve been trying to enact for the past two years — but does anyone know what the Republicans would do? No, they don’t, because the only thing they get specific about is coming up with new ways to say “No.” How cohesive a policy is that? What is it they intend to do when the time comes for them to say “Yes”?

    The Democrats aren’t fighting hard enough for what they say they want.

  91. 91.

    Nick

    October 11, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    @debbie:

    If we all know the media’s against them, why hasn’t the Democrats adjusted their message? When something doesn’t work, you fix it. You don’t just sit there, doing the same thing and bemoaning its continuing ineffectiveness.

    How are the Democrats supposed to adjust their message for outlets that don’t want to broadcast their message?

    The media doesn’t want to broadcast ANY message from the Democrats. Why is this THEIR fault?

    I mean I guess they can, you know, become Republicans. That seems to get them on TV.

    Why aren’t the Democrats calling Portman out on this?

    Fisher has no money, because no corporate interests are sponsoring him, so all he has is his Twitter, where he has been relentlessly blasting Portman or months.

    why aren’t the Democrats calling out the Republicans for lack of specific

    Do you listen to the President, the VP? Candidates all across the country have been doing this, Swing State Project has a running list showing Democratic ads. You’re just not seeing them, because THE MEDIA WON’T SHOW THEM TO YOU!

    I mean you’re getting into “why do you let your husband beat you” territory.

  92. 92.

    debbie

    October 12, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Your wife-beating analogy is bullshit and totally bogus. Whether or not I’m seeing every ad is irrelevant; what I’m seeing is enough to see Democrats are behaving as if they’ve got nothing or have lost whatever knowledge they ever had of strategy.

    One example of what I’m talking about: I’ve gotten close to 10 mailing pieces from the Ohio Democratic Party against Matt Carle, who’s running for the state Senate. They all look the same (dark and gloomy); they all have the exact same tone. I’ve also gotten several for a few other races, but I have to ask: Why is there such an out-sized campaign against this Carle guy? Does he really warrant that much attention? Couldn’t the money have been spent better? Plus, every single piece from the Democratic Party is negative; surely there could have been just one, listing the good that the Democrats have done.

    Another, on a more local level: The Republican running for city auditor (Jewish) implied in an ad that the incumbent (Black) was a Moslem and had bestowed a job on a fellow mosque member. The incumbent is a Christian and has always been one. Now, where was the outrage from the local party over this? The ad continued to run for several weeks, and only recently has that bit been taken out of the ad. Meanwhile, the Republican’s campaign says they “stand by” what they said. The Democrats should be all over this.

    Lovely that Fischer’s on Twitter, but what’s the percentage of older voters (those most likely to vote) that use that platform?

    It just seems to me that there isn’t a well-rounded, far-reaching campaign going on. Great that they adapt to the new media, but they can’t leave the “old ways” behind, either.

    And speaking of Fischer, I caught a response from him during the recent debate where he laid out exactly how he was, in fact, creating jobs for Ohio. There’s nothing of this in his TV ads. It’s all Kasich and Wall Street. Well, I think even the stupidest Buckeye’s picked up on this connection. Isn’t it time to pivot to accomplishments and saying what it is the Democrats will do for people?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Mike S (Now with a Democratic Congressperson!) - Turneffe Flats Resort, Turneffe Atoll, Belize 4
Image by Mike S (4/25/25)

Recent Comments

  • JaySinWa on Late Night Open Thread (Apr 26, 2025 @ 3:56am)
  • NotMax on Late Night Open Thread (Apr 26, 2025 @ 3:54am)
  • Black Onion on Let’s Talk About Mental Health (Apr 26, 2025 @ 3:35am)
  • AlaskaReader on War for Ukraine Day 1,156: A Brief Friday Night Update (Apr 26, 2025 @ 3:35am)
  • Rose Judson on Late Night Open Thread (Apr 26, 2025 @ 3:32am)

Registering HS Kids to Vote in PA

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

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

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17

Betty Cracker’s Corner

Personal News: Valley of the Shadow
Balloon Juice Sponsored GoFundMe
Questions Answered, What’s Next
One last thing, and then we’ll speak of it no more
Personal News: Medical Update
Personal News: Health Update II

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

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

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Keep the PA Supreme Court Blue

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 © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!