The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So how many percentage points would you in your wisdom discount the RCP poll? Taking their bias into account, of course.

I don't know - but if you look at someone like Nate Silver over at 538 who has done all the math, he probably has a super-detailed Excel file telling you just how to adjust it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But I don't really see Missouri as symbolic of that. It swung red in an election where the President got 53% of the popular vote. Missouri has gone from a national swing state to a GOP stronghold.

Is that just your opinion? What basis would you make that claim? We've got a Democrat governor, split U.S. Senate seats, and a 5-4 split in favor of Republicans in the U.S. House. Someone might want to let the Republican know that Missouri is a "GOP stronghold". It may be after this November election, but the Democrats won't have anyone to blame but themselves if that happens. It certainly won't be because the GOP blew everyone's socks off.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't know - but if you look at someone like Nate Silver over at 538 who has done all the math, he probably has a super-detailed Excel file telling you just how to adjust it.

Fantastic. Tell me more about this Nate Silver fellow.

My point being, dismissing the poll out of hand and waving your hands about bias without really knowing anything, is, well, MBBFian.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

I think the central to midwest portion of the US is really pissed off.

Yeah, but we tend to think the disparity is greater than it actually is. In the 1984 election Reagan won a landslide victory, but failed to get 60% of the vote. For a lot of reasons, historical party ID being high on the list, the split with the American public is very rarely more than 60/40. A 60/40 national election would be an historic loss for the Dems, but it would still mean forty percent of voters preferred the Dems.

Thinking a 75% vote in a primary is an accurate representation of public opinion is silly.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Real Clear Politics? What's their house bias against (D)'s again? I don't recall, but I know they're hardly viewed as an impartial pollster. And that's without even looking at the poll you linked.

A couple of points.

1 I think you're thinking of Rasmussen. RCP is just a poll average.

2 The underlying poll for Obama approval comes from Mason-Dixon. I looked, but I couldn't find a house effect number for them. The chart I saw had an others row, but that was only one or two point pro-R.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Fantastic. Tell me more about this Nate Silver fellow.

My point being, dismissing the poll out of hand and waving your hands about bias without really knowing anything, is, well, MBBFian.

i didn't dismiss it out of hand. i just said - take into account it's bias.

i'm at work - actually trying to work today too and get some stuff done, so i didn't exactly have the time to go look up what the bias was...but i do recall that it's decently significant.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A couple of points.

1 I think you're thinking of Rasmussen. RCP is just a poll average.

2 The underlying poll for Obama approval comes from Mason-Dixon. I looked, but I couldn't find a house effect number for them. The chart I saw had an others row, but that was only one or two point pro-R.

fair enough. i stand corrected i guess.

thanks jphillips.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i didn't dismiss it out of hand. i just said - take into account it's bias.

i'm at work - actually trying to work today too and get some stuff done, so i didn't exactly have the time to go look up what the bias was...but i do recall that it's decently significant.

Too much of the conversation in this thread is made "without looking at the [fill-in-the-blank] you linked."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fair enough. i stand corrected i guess.
thanks jphillips.

If it's any consolation, I didn't really catch your mistake until JPhillips pointed it out. There's a pollster on every corner these days, having their names & abbreviations occasionally run together is probably bound to happen to a lot of people.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Is that just your opinion? What basis would you make that claim? We've got a Democrat governor, split U.S. Senate seats, and a 5-4 split in favor of Republicans in the U.S. House. Someone might want to let the Republican know that Missouri is a "GOP stronghold". It may be after this November election, but the Democrats won't have anyone to blame but themselves if that happens. It certainly won't be because the GOP blew everyone's socks off.

I think the key to the post that he quoted is "national" swing state. West Virginia and Arkansas, at the state level, are very heavily Democratic. But neither have been in-play for the past three presidential elections.

I think the point of your post is still largely valid, but that you may have missed the "national" part.

[Swaggs]

Dola... I should say that they haven't been in play for the Democratic candidate in the past three presidential elections (although if Hillary would have been the candidate, I think both would have gone to the Ds).

[JPhillips]

Are bike paths the road to one world socialist government?

Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns
By Christopher N. Osher
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/04/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 08/04/2010 10:59:15 AM MDT

Dan Maes said Denver's B-Cycle bike-sharing program was promoted by a group that puts the environment above citizen rights. B-Cycle places a network of about 400 red bikes for rent at stations around Denver.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."

"This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed," Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor's efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes "that's exactly the attitude they want you to have."

"This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms," Maes said.

He added: "These aren't just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor. These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to."

[larrymcg421]

The decision in the Prop 8 Trial is supposed to be released this afternoon. Here's hoping bigotry gets a big fat black eye.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The decision in the Prop 8 Trial is supposed to be released this afternoon.

I'd be stunned if the verdict was anything other than what appears to be a foregone conclusion, it's not exactly as though the judge in the case doesn't have a vested interest. Regardless, this is just the next step on the road to the Supremes, neither side should get too high or too low based on today's ruling.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Unconsitutional on both due process and equal protection.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd be stunned if the verdict was anything other than what appears to be a foregone conclusion, it's not exactly as though the judge in the case doesn't have a vested interest. Regardless, this is just the next step on the road to the Supremes, neither side should get too high or too low based on today's ruling.

This, immigration, and health care should just be fast-tracked to the Supreme court.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

This, immigration, and health care should just be fast-tracked to the Supreme court.

Would save a hella lot of time & money.

[molson]

Of course, depending on the issue, and the winner below, one side or the other might want to drag things out in hopes of a surprise retirement/death + Obama appointment.

Should be an interesting few years at the Supreme Court either way.

[JediKooter]

Did anyone wish our president a happy 49th birthday today?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Did anyone wish our president a happy 49th birthday today?

He never takes my calls.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

He never takes my calls.

That makes me feel better. He never takes mine either. I got drunk dialed by Biden once though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

This, immigration, and health care should just be fast-tracked to the Supreme court.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what part of health care would go to the Supreme Court? I haven't been following it closely.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe I'm missing something, but what part of health care would go to the Supreme Court? I haven't been following it closely.

13 states have sued - I haven't read the lawsuit but here it is.

Healthcare Lawsuit By State AGs Attacks Health Insurance Law - Constitutional Law - CourtSide

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

it's not exactly as though the judge in the case doesn't have a vested interest.

tell me about it. they better enjoy it now because the chances the rest of the appeals judges are all gay is very slim

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

13 states have sued - I haven't read the lawsuit but here it is.

Healthcare Lawsuit By State AGs Attacks Health Insurance Law - Constitutional Law - CourtSide

So this would kill the bill in all states? Hopefully it doesn't see the court this year as my business is supposed to get a $12,000 credit (or something like that) through this bill.

But this doesn't seem to have much of a chance. Commerce Clause has been pretty well decided and even this court has yet to rule against laws in that area.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd be stunned if the verdict was anything other than what appears to be a foregone conclusion, it's not exactly as though the judge in the case doesn't have a vested interest. Regardless, this is just the next step on the road to the Supremes, neither side should get too high or too low based on today's ruling.

I've seen two conflicting accounts about who appointed this judge, it was either Ronald Reagan or George H W Bush. I guess neither of those presidents cared about his sexual orientation even though they were part of the GOP.

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times
Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com
Wikiepedia says it was Reagan that originally nominated him and then again by GWHB.

[molson]

Kagan confirmed, 63-37. Those 37 are as ridiculous as Obama was when he voted against Roberts.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by molson

Kagan confirmed, 63-37. Those 37 are as ridiculous as Obama was when he voted against Roberts.

Yep...expecting a Supreme Court Justice to have been a judge...insanity.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

Yep...expecting a Supreme Court Justice to have been a judge...insanity.

Yep, I'm sure THAT'S what their opposition was all about...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

Yep...expecting a Supreme Court Justice to have been a judge...insanity.

You do realize that out of the 112 people to have ever served on the Supreme Court, 40 of them had no prior judicial experience.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

You do realize that out of the 112 people to have ever served on the Supreme Court, 40 of them had no prior judicial experience.

details...facts...you expect him to care about things like that?

[molson]

And being a Supreme Court judge isn't really at all like being any other kind of judge (except for Federal or State Apppellate Court Judge). Of the 72 justices who have had "judicial experience", I wonder how many of those were just state or district court judges. Probably quite a few.

The best-qualified supreme court justicies, IMO, are those with academic backgrounds. Because all they're really doing is writing opinions. Any legal job outside the government or academics - you're judged on the money you bring in.

[JPhillips]

I think there's a pretty good argument that the Supreme Court should be a mix of former judges and non-judges.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cartman

You do realize that out of the 112 people to have ever served on the Supreme Court, 40 of them had no prior judicial experience.

I did not...that really explains a lot though. Thanks.

[rowech]

Interesting list really...

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience

Amazing how much of an impact that FDR had court wise.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd be stunned if the verdict was anything other than what appears to be a foregone conclusion, it's not exactly as though the judge in the case doesn't have a vested interest. Regardless, this is just the next step on the road to the Supremes, neither side should get too high or too low based on today's ruling.

is s/he gay?

[tarcone]

Yes he is gay

[Flasch186]

really!?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I've seen two conflicting accounts about who appointed this judge, it was either Ronald Reagan or George H W Bush. I guess neither of those presidents cared about his sexual orientation even though they were part of the GOP.

Reagan nominated him and he was rejected by the Democrats in power. It was over the fact that he was part of a club that excluded women (insert joke here) and had represented the USOC in a lawsuit to prevent the Gay Olympics. George H W nominated him later on and got him through.

Reading through his background, he seem pretty libertarian and definitely on the conservative side. He had a lot of supports from groups like the Heritage Foundation and was attacked by the NAACP, women's groups, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Go figure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

really!?

Yep. But that isn't the specific conflict of interest that concerns me most.

My concern stems more specifically from the fact that he's got a steady partner/regular companion. Having him rule on this particular subject which could have direct impact on his own personal life seems a bit much. Any notion of impartiality flew out the window with that bit of info afaic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep. But that isn't the specific conflict of interest that concerns me most.

My concern stems more specifically from the fact that he's got a steady partner/regular companion. Having him rule on this particular subject which could have direct impact on his own personal life seems a bit much. Any notion of impartiality flew out the window with that bit of info afaic.

by that definition you'd have to have a celibate (preferred) or at least single judge ruling on that to avoid impartiality.

the legal basis of his opinion is extremely sound. you're just pissed off because he didn't rule the way you would have liked him too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

by that definition you'd have to have a celibate (preferred) or at least single judge ruling on that to avoid impartiality.

Actually, I'd prefer one who doesn't stand to directly benefit from sanctioning his own behavior.

you're just pissed off because he didn't rule the way you would have liked him too.

If you'll recall, I advised both sides of the issue to get neither particularly high nor low on the basis of this ruling, as this is just a step to move things on to SCOTUS. You'd apparently be surprised how little anger I've got over this, it was barely a blip on my radar in the grand scheme of things frankly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, I'd prefer one who doesn't stand to directly benefit from sanctioning his own behavior.

a straight judge could have just as much bias.

and you conveniently ignored the point of my post where i pointed out that regardless of his sexual orientation, the legal arguments that he used in his ruling are all established point of law. so he could be a sheep-fucker for all i care at that point -- if he's using the correct legal precedents to frame his decision his own conduct is immaterial.

[Passacaglia]

Would you feel the same way about a smoker ruling on a smoking ban?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The best-qualified supreme court justicies, IMO, are those with academic backgrounds. Because all they're really doing is writing opinions. Any legal job outside the government or academics - you're judged on the money you bring in.

Great post. I very much agree with this, though I think JPhillips raises a good point that, after all's said and done, some sort of mix is best.

Originally Posted by rowech

Amazing how much of an impact that FDR had court wise.

Well, that's what happens when you're President for over a decade.

[albionmoonlight]

The argument against same-sex marriage is that it will lessen or diminish or corrupt or even destroy straight marriage. So, by that logic, a straight judge would have to have recused himself, too. Because that judge might have been married or wanting to marry one day. So he would have had an interest in keeping marriage uncorrupted.

And, of course, by this logic, a woman could never rule in a sex discrimination suit. A Jewish person could never rule in a religious discrimination suit, etc.

Underlying all this is the wrong-headed and simple assumption that only straight white male non-disabled protestants between the ages of 18 and 65 are free of bias. That they are the default American and that everything deviant from that operates as some sort of affectation. Note--not that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a better American than someone who is not. It is that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a more real American than someone who is not. That they exist outside of bias because their beliefs are, ipso facto, America's beliefs. They don't just run the country. They are the Country.

(This assumption actually drives most of the dog-whistling about "real America" from the neocons. And it explains why it can seem so hard for red and blue to talk to each other. The conversation starts with an assumption so inherent to some folks that they don't even realize that they are making it, and so alien to some folks that it does not even occur to them that someone else would believe it.)

To me, America stands for the idea that the state should not prejudice a person for being a non-[white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65]. And I personally believe that America's strength comes from our diversity and that no one group of Americans can ever represent the default "American." But, mileage seems to vary pretty significantly on this point.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The argument against same-sex marriage is that it will lessen or diminish or corrupt or even destroy straight marriage. So, by that logic, a straight judge would have to have recused himself, too. Because that judge might have been married or wanting to marry one day. So he would have had an interest in keeping marriage uncorrupted.

And, of course, by this logic, a woman could never rule in a sex discrimination suit. A Jewish person could never rule in a religious discrimination suit, etc.

Underlying all this is the wrong-headed and simple assumption that only straight white male non-disabled protestants between the ages of 18 and 65 are free of bias. That they are the default American and that everything deviant from that operates as some sort of affectation. Note--not that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a better American than someone who is not. It is that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a more real American than someone who is not. That they exist outside of bias because their beliefs are, ipso facto, America's beliefs. They don't just run the country. They are the Country.

(This assumption actually drives most of the dog-whistling about "real America" from the neocons. And it explains why it can seem so hard for red and blue to talk to each other. The conversation starts with an assumption so inherent to some folks that they don't even realize that they are making it, and so alien to some folks that it does not even occur to them that someone else would believe it.)

To me, America stands for the idea that the state should not prejudice a person for being a non-[white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65]. And I personally believe that America's strength comes from our diversity and that no one group of Americans can ever represent the default "American." But, mileage seems to vary pretty significantly on this point.

Zoinks. Well said. Nice post.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

And I personally believe that America's strength comes from our diversity ... But, mileage seems to vary pretty significantly on this point.

Yep, that's definitely a YMMV thing. I'd put that ("diversity") in the top 5 of our greatest weaknesses without any real hesitation, to the point that it might ultimately be the primary source of our downfall.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep, that's definitely a YMMV thing. I'd put that ("diversity") in the top 5 of our greatest weaknesses without any real hesitation, to the point that it might ultimately be the primary source of our downfall.

Not really surprising that would be your response.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep, that's definitely a YMMV thing. I'd put that ("diversity") in the top 5 of our greatest weaknesses without any real hesitation, to the point that it might ultimately be the primary source of our downfall.

And you Southerners made your own bed in the diversity department by bringing all those slaves over from Africa.