home

Wednesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:43:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is meeting the next several days in Denver, and events kick off this evening.

For those of you online, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Problem With Exchanges As Reform: Medicare Eligibity Age, Mandates And Subsidies | Obama Fundraises at Birthday Party >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Muslims and Atheists are evil (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 07:21:04 PM EST
    They keep following the Golden Rule and simply won't live down to their reps.

    New data from polling firm Gallup shows that out of all the religious groups in the U.S., Muslims are most likely to reject violence, followed by the non-religious atheists and agnostics.

    -- RawStory
    Edger, I trust Gallup (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 07:43:34 PM EST
    not very much. nor any other poll... I think that academic research is better.

    I mention this because of my continued statements to ABG about polling-- if you haven't been reading my tomes on polling, I understand... ABG hasn't either, I guess (Depending on which ABG is posting, lol).

    I think this is a wonderful area for research, but polls have such inherent weaknesses that I can't rely on them for more than a day.

    Attitudinal research has a lot of problems. Polls, pollsters, and the News media-- corporate or otherwise, make it worse. The nuance involved in finding long-term answers can't be found in polling. For instance, polls asking about Fredonia, worded in certain ways, make people think Fredonia is a terrorist haven, and should be attacked... irrespective of Fredonia existing in a Marx Brothers' movie.

    Oh well, my continued complaint... not directed at you, because I trust Edger. I don't trust polls simply because they exist.

    Ugh. Too many years of editing masters' thesis and PhD dissertation questionnaires. Folks that fail wind up doing polling, lol.

    Let me take that statement back... there are a few, a horribly small minority--incredibly small, the population of many desert towns could beat the crap out of them based on numbers alone--people who do polling using 'scientific' quantitative methodology. the rest can predict tomorrow.

    Any attitudinal study is constrained by the day and time and outside affairs-- the rest of the world-- the study was conducted. The next day may see reversals, and often does.

    Sorry for the pontification. I miss the chance to lecture and demonstrate in class these concepts, especially among PhD students. For example, act horribly toward them for three days, give a survey or poll, then ask the same question after acting normally in three weeks. Likely there will be different results.

    Parent

    Do you believe (none / 0) (#11)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:49:35 PM EST
    That most people in this country support raising the taxes on the rich? If so, why?

    The evidence in terms of voting patterns and responses to issues based on elections says no.

    So I guess the question is that on every issue we discuss here the sentiments of some group or population become a background part of the discourse.  When it is argued that Obama failed for example, it assumes that the population is generally disposed to the arguments you would like him to make.

    My point: polls are faulty but given the infrequency of elections and the inability to conduct controlled studies on a daily basis, what else do we have to judge whether our opinions are shared by other large groups or not.

    Polls aren't perfect but they are some evidence.  Not dispositive but better than nothing.

    They do tell us something,particularly when multiple polls conducted by different groups tell us about similar trends.  

    So if Gallup said that liberals support the deal and no other poll says anything remotely close, I take your point. But if a group of polls tells us a similar story, I think that is a material piece of evidence that has to be factored into the discussion.  

    And you take the good with the bad. Those same polls show Obama at his lowest level of popularity. I am hard pressed to argue that the ten or so polls saying the same thing are to be ignored.

    Parent

    They do. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    That most people in this country support raising the taxes on the rich? If so, why?

    The evidence in terms of voting patterns and responses to issues based on elections says no.

    Why do you think Obama supports this?  Why do you think Dems ran on this for 8 years?  Because they do.

    Parent

    I think Obama says he supports it because (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    it's popular with average people who vote, but I don't think he truly believes in it enough to actually do anything about it; it falls victim to the Helpless, Hapless President thing, you know, the one where he shrugs his shoulders, shakes his head, and bemoans how, as much as he wanted this for the American people, the best he could do was...maintain the status quo.

    Congressional Dems do the shrug and shake and blame those uncooperative Republicans.

    Really, what I think is that most of them are packed so full of sh!t it's leaking out of their ears.

    Parent

    A real Lefty on ConMan-in-Chief Obama (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:51:14 AM EST
    "The truth is that Barack Obama's actions are entirely rational, understandable and even predictable if you suppose him to have been a vicious, vacuous and cynical right wing operative from the very beginning.

    The historic pattern of post-sixties Democratic candidates has been to come in on the high tide of public disgust at Republican rule, but to push the pro-corporate agenda further than would be allowable under Republicans."

    http://www.blackagendareport.com/obama-fake-debt-ceiling-crisis_smarter-than-you

    Parent

    And majorities elected bush. (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:16:07 PM EST
    Twice. There are so many factors that go into electing someone that we can't really pull one issue from an election.

    That's where polls have value. The help to see behind the vote.

    Parent

    D00d (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:16:16 PM EST
    that only tells you polls and elections are not the same.  Do you remember how W won in 2004?  It wasn't on the I LOVE THE RICH platform.  It was more like YOU WILL ALL DIE IF I DON'T WIN.

    You are not doing us favors here on our shared joint mission, as of last night, to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

    Seriously.  People agree with us.  Let that sink in.  People do not think the rich should fleece us unto eternity.  I know it seems like a blessing from above, but it is objectively true.

    Parent

    And you are just this close (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:18:39 PM EST
    to losing me as someone who pays attention, because if I phoned Obama tonight, I think he would be well aware of the fact that the Bush tax cuts for the rich are a juicy bargaining chip because PEOPLE AGREE WITH US.  He does!  A majority does!  There are obstacles, but, trust me, Obama knows this is a winner.  

    Why don't you?

    Parent

    A nonsensical statement. (none / 0) (#37)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:23:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I never said a word about (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    'controlled' studies. I'm  a sociologist, and as such, familiar with the limitations of the one-shot attitudinal poll.

    It ONLY says what the respondents felt at THAT MOMENT IN TIME.

    Any subsequent poll, asking different people, does not change/add to/subtract from the limitations or the attitudes of the previous poll. but additionally, the second poll IN NO WAY reflects support of the first poll, UNLESS THE SAME PEOPLE ARE ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS.

    If you ask different people different questions a week later, guess what? It is a snapshot of the attitudes/opinions of those asked AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

    I'm simply talking about methodology at this point.

    In the future, I will write about the disconnect between attitudes and actions.

    Science can be your friend. the most ideologically-driven, roughly 25 percent, well, their actions, votes, whatever, may be predicted.

    That leaves about 75 percent who have made no decision, even with extremely strong attitudes.

    Polls don't offer evidence, they offer talking points. The external situation creates the reality upon which they are focused.

    Yes, a quarter of the population will vote either democratic or republican no matter what. But three-quarters of the population DON'T.

    Please read Karl Popper about "All Crows Are Black," if you have questions. Then study the Thomas Theorem.

    You might change your mind on the efficacy of polls. Or not. I'll continue to criticize the results, so long as the methods fall short of scientific approaches.

    By the way, attitudinal surveys are the cheapest and easiest to do. Has Gallup yet explained its non-inclusion of cell phone numbers? I think that exclusion may bias the results somewhat.

    Parent

    Michigan Survey Research Center (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:53:34 PM EST
    From the dim recesses of studies long ago.... Haven't kept up with the latest in institutes/organizations/groups doing attitudinal research.

    The caution that you keep giving about polls being one-shot/slice of time, etc. needs to be made...and, not just here.  For many and in general, the various polls and inside-the-polls are all that we have to get a sense of the pulse on a sorta realtime basis.

    But, it would be nice to see reprinted genuine research into attitudinal clusters & personality types and how the voter votes.  In the 60s, I had to read (for poli-sci) a number of those studies. The most memorable to me were performed by (sp) Eysinck on holding clusters of attitudes & related predictability and Adorno et al on The Authoritarian Personality (the well-known curved continuum.)So much of the early work was published by the Michigan Survey Research Center.

    Parent

    Eyesink's studies have been (none / 0) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:48:22 PM EST
    re-examined... I'll find a link for you tomorrow. Pretty much, they follow that 25 percent measure I mentioned. Attitude doesn't equal action except for the extremes. IIRC, that's what Eyesink concluded, isn't it?

    there have been some meta-analyses, but with any aggregated data the correlation becomes inflated.

    I know I can find those links, but it's bedtime... hope you don't mind waiting, Christinep.

    I wish I could give a seminar to the news media. The talking heads seem to think that polls, especially one-shot attitudinal polls, mean that today people will have the same attitude in 6 months or 6 years.

    I think the above paragraph says more about the lack of education amongst the faces on television than the public.

    Talk to you tomorrow, remind me to find the references, if not links, please!

    Parent

    How can you make these claims? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:28:19 AM EST
    That most people in this country support raising the taxes on the rich? If so, why?

    The evidence in terms of voting patterns and responses to issues based on elections says no.

    Why do you consistently make these claims when a 30-second Google search would tell you whether it's right or wrong? - particularly when at the same time you're arguing for the use of polls.  Polls have consistently shown that majorities (usually large majorities) of Americans favor taxing the rich.

    And you wonder why people give you flack for just making $hit up ...


    Parent

    I almost troll rated that comment. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    The whole point of Obama's endless useless blathering about revenues was to underscore that people agree with him.  That's why he was so reasonable.

    To ignore the popular support for ending tax cuts for the rich is a major error and makes me wonder what rock ABG has been hiding under.  

    His vision of the political landscape, if this is a genuine indication, is blurred at best.

    Parent

    If you actually read ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:47:23 PM EST
    the article you'd see that "moderate democrats" favored it more than liberals.

    Of course, the big news is that 46% disapproved and only 39% approved.

    I read more than the article (none / 0) (#12)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    I read the actual poll which also asked the question without political affiliation and on a straight liberal, moderate, conservative basis.

    No need to make me a non reader to criticize the thought.  Just criticize the thought.

    Parent

    You said ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:58:09 PM EST
    Debt deal most popular with liberals.

    Not true.  The poll found it was most popular with "moderate Democrats".  

    So whatever you read or didn't read.  Your statement was wrong.

    Parent

    51% is a bare majority (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    And, please, only 58% of all Democrats think it's a good bill. Those are truly dismal numbers, and if other polls reflect the same numbers -- and those kinds of numbers hold -- then Obama is in serious re-election trouble.

    And you think this is something to crow about? Jeez. Basic analysis skills sorely lacking.

    I never said (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:21:44 PM EST
    The bill was liked. It is disliked by almost everyone.  But the fact that liberals like it most flies in the face of the narrative here.

    That's the point no on has actually addressed here.

    Parent

    Stop trying to google you're ... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:34:06 PM EST
    way out of your mistake.  Your link above clearly states that a larger portion "moderate Democrats" support the deal than "liberals".

    You're just like the administration you shill for. Always lying about what the data says.  And then pretending you were referring to something completely different.

    It doesn't work when George W. Obama does it.  And it does work when you do it.

    Actually (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:20:05 PM EST
    They all reference the same poll. I found the info on kos didn't want to give that link to the poll because kos is avocet conservative around here.

    Anyway, you are now a number of comments in and u still haven't commented on anything of substance. Your only point is to try to find some way to call me a liar.  

    How about we just concede that I lied so u can talk about the poll instead of which link was the more accurate one.


    Parent

    ABG, you neither understand the (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:41:29 PM EST
    strengths nor the limitations of polls. You certainly don't understand the methodology.

    Please stop embarrassing yourself. You are no pollster. You are no statistician.

    Parent

    If we look at only the current situation (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    for answers, we will not come up with any. Only by pulling back, looking at what's taking place from a Macro point of view will things become clearer.

    If you`re a member of the Ultimate Elite, a card carrying member of the Board of Directors of the Oligarch Class, what do you see? You see the wholesale deterioration/destruction of the middle/poor class worldwide. But, what looks like a chaotic, spontaneous  explosion is really a carefully crafted program, a program whose chief arcitects are Obama & Geithner.

    It has been revealed that in the top secret strategy meetings Obama/Geithner have totally bought into the idea that in order for America to prosper into the next century a 30% reduction in our standard of living must take place. Of course, when I say "America" I mean the lower 99%, and when I say, "prosper" I mean, "relatively."

    There simply is no way, with today's information-age technology, the rise of Asian developing countries, and the decadence of the old, Western Societies, for us to be able to compete internationally, and keep our prior standards of living.

    I believe that has been the goal of the Ruling Class, at least since Reagan. Everything, from the "dumbing down" of our citizenry, to the consolidation of our media, has been to further that one goal.

    It makes sense to me, and it puts into proper perspective the seemingly contradictory actions of our "Transformational" President.

    p.s. My analysis of the situation assumes that the theft of our Democracy by the Plutocrats remains unchallenged. If we could somehow revert back to a progressively based, Egalitarian form of governess our prospects for a bright future, of course, becomes much more plausible. Whether that can be accomplished without violence, obviously, becomes the $64,000 question.

    Obama nominates Republican to be (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:07:42 PM EST
    US Attorney for Utah:

    President Barack Obama tapped Sen. Mike Lee's legal counsel to be the next U.S. attorney for Utah, a move that infuriated Democrats from the state and ended a lengthy political drama over who would claim the high-profile position.

    The White House on Tuesday announced the nomination of David Barlow. He will need to win Senate confirmation before he can claim the spot as Utah's top federal prosecutor, a job that has remained vacant since the end of 2009.

    "I am pleased to nominate David Barlow to serve the people of Utah as a United States attorney," Obama said in a statement.

    Barlow has worked as Lee's top legal counsel since shortly after the freshman GOP senator won his 2010 election. Before that, Barlow was a partner in the Chicago office of Sidley and Austin, where he spent 10 years working on class-action suits involving pharmaceutical companies.

    That is the same office where Michelle Obama worked as an associate and where in the early 1990s she met Barack Obama, who worked there as a summer associate.

    Lee also worked for Sidley and Austin in Washington.

    Utah Democrats blasted Barlow's background and expressed confusion over why the president would pick a Republican when qualified Democratic lawyers expressed interest.

    "We are very disappointed in the decision," said Todd Taylor, the executive director of the Utah Democratic Party. "What's the deal? Is there something in his background that we don't understand or is there some sort of deal that was cut between the Obama administration and our senators? And what are they giving up for this? There are a lot of fine-print details on this that don't make any sense."

    I think Utah Dems have some catching up to do...things make more sense when you stop thinking of Obama as a Democrat.

    cronyism n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:54:47 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't on principle (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:20:43 AM EST
    object strenuously to the occasional appointment of a Republican to posts like this.  It's generally good politics and it confuses the heck out of a fair number of Gopers.

    But OMG, a crony of MIKE LEE?  Mike Lee is one of the worst of the worst, a collossal dim bulb and a slavishly devoted Tea Party guy.  The interviews I've seen with him in the last weeks (and he's been all over the TV) have left me with my mouth hanging open in astonishment at his ignorance and fanaticism.

    Parent

    Debt deal most popular with (none / 0) (#3)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    Liberals.

    I didn't see that coming and I am betting few here did either.

    I think it shows how important it is to constantly question our assumptions about what people outside of the hard core politicos really think.

     

    Perhaps you should search around (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    for analysis of said poll.  Basically, self-described liberals are easier to please than self-described conservatives.  And yet in what direction does the policy tilt?  Should we clap louder or should we expect more?

    Parent
    I have a hard time seeing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:19:13 PM EST
    much of anything positive in this deal.....

    A Democratic President should do very well among his base, and he is doing all that well...those numbers seem weak to me...

    This deal by itself may result in only limited harm to the economy in terms of immediate cuts....if we are lucky....

    The deal sets a bad precedent.

    And the deal could result in the dismantling of the New Deal a la' the Super Catfood Commission.

    And, Obama just appointed a very conservative Republican to be U.S. Attorney in Utah....and, yes, there were Democrats available.

    Hopefully, Obama will do something for his base--soon.  

    Parent

    Like (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:01:22 PM EST
    Getting behind the repeal of DOMA, making birth control free for folks with insurance, Etc. While we were all focused on the debt.

    When BTD makes the focus of what defines a liberal the two deals, I can't fault him for disagreeing but I do disagree with the perspective.

    Kevin Drum just said it best:

    "Still and all, in two years Obama has done more to enact a liberal agenda than George Bush did for the conservative agenda in eight."

    Supportable statement. One which dems should be embracing but are not for any number of reasons.  The dems we elected in 2008 have actually done a very good job overall IMHO.

    But the nature of politics and the Internet and the speed of our narratives and short attention spans cloud our perceptions in the same way that a robbery on your street changes your belief about the rate of crime in your city.

    I honestly believe that the next elections will bring much of this back into perspective.

    Parent

    It would be nice to see (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:10:56 PM EST
    strong liberals appointed to the Commission....

    Parent
    I hope they serve ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    them all a cat-food buffet.

    Parent
    What is funny (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    is you do not realize MKS was a reasonably strong Obama supporter in 2008 and since.

    Yeah, free birth control was totally part of the debt ceiling deal.  Oh, was it not?

    Parent

    I don't make comments (none / 0) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:29:36 PM EST
    Based on past and future support and want to be treated the same. If I love Obama on one issue, I can hate something else he does with a passion.  Like the wars or the drug enforcement.  

    I am not the one claiming that he's defined by one issue or is a prison who deserves complete loyalty.

    At the same time, the all evil Obama, all the time channel seems equally silly.  There is more of that here, I hate that all or nothing perspective and push against it.  

    So here I am the Obot. Other places I am the sexist. Other places I am the commie.

    In any one day I am a feminist, sexist, racist, affirmative action crusader who loves Obama and bush and hates the elderly but wants them all to have free healthcare and a safety net.

    My allegiance is to Team anti-hive mind.

    Uniformity of thought in a place like this isnt helpful.  I never argue a point I disagree with but I do argue points I don't support as much as others if it broadens the discussion a bit.

    People don't like O here so I tend to come here when I want to defend him.

    That's ABG 101 I guess.

    Parent

    Have you considered (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:57:59 PM EST
    the possibility that playing this game could be  alienating even more from Obama?  ABG 102?

    Parent
    Denying science (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:51:29 PM EST
    does not do you any favors, ABG, nor does accusing people of being part of a hive-mind. Especially when the same could be said about Obama supporters on this deal and others.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by chrisvee on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    it certainly has that effect on me!

    Parent
    Much of the problem (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    stems from the too weak Stimulus.  I thought it was okay at the time but it simply was too small given the magnitude of the problem.

    I underestimated how big the problem was.

    The weak economy has lead to a cascade of other problems.....

    But this latest deal could have been  done better.....There was a way to win this even with a bad economy.

    Parent

    Whatever it is (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    the birth control is NOT free.  When it's offered via for-profit health insurance companies, it will likely cost you more in increased premiums (so they can make a profit off the birth control) and lowered off-setting benefits that it would be better to just buy the d*mned birth control yourself....

    Low income people will most likely STILL get birth control the old fashioned way....planned parenthood.

    I'm sick of this OBAMA gave us free stuff in our health insurance!....NOT! NOT! NOT!  People should stop being so naive.

    Parent

    Hard to find anything Obama has done (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:22:37 AM EST
    for liberals that is equivalent to the war on Iraq, which was numero uno on the conservative agenda for GWB. Maybe if he had enacted a trillion dollar stimulus bill, all paid for by taxes on the rich.

    Parent
    Compromise as an end unto itself (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:23:04 PM EST
    Compromise as a means to good policy ends is wonderful.....

    But it does appear that compromise has become the end objective.

    The Reagan method, should one try to use that formula, is to not actually yield an inch while sounding reasonable.

    Parent

    This is my ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:28:46 PM EST
    favorite finding:

    Perhaps most tellingly, 92 percent of Muslims surveyed said they did not believe any Muslim in their community had sympathy toward al Qaeda terrorists, but just 56 percent of Protestants and 63 percent of Catholics said the same.

    C'mon, DHS trot off to those protestant and catholic churches and round up all those al Qaeda sympathizers.

    ;)

    Parent

    I'm actually a little surprised (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    that 8% said yes.

    That aside, I thought it was much more interesting that Jews in the US tended to trust Muslims more than every Christian denomination.

    Let's just say that's not what I was expecting.  Although I'm afraid it's probably not a reciprocated emotion.

    Parent

    Ah (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:46:58 AM EST
    But as Jeff has been talking about the pitfalls of polling - could it be possible that Muslims may be more inclined to answer in that particular way?  Could you think of a reason why that may be so?

    Parent
    And yet...when confronted with real (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:36:32 PM EST
    people, right here, who identify as liberal, who say, in no uncertain terms, that they do not approve of the deal, who lay out with great specificity why they don't like it, who can recite chapter and verse from diverse and multiple sources why the deal will be bad for the economy, you choose to ignore them and insist that poll results are more dispositive of what people believe.

    Okay, then.

    When you start getting responses like, "Oh, liberals like the deal?  Well, I'm a liberal, so...I guess I must like it, too!" then you might have something.

    Your polls aren't convincing anyone, ABG, because we're not people who form opinions based on polls.  How many times do you think you will need to be told this before it sinks in?

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:02:18 PM EST
    will never sink in, because he's (or she) is not interested.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#8)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:27:38 PM EST
    who are the people you are calling "hard core politicos"?

    Parent
    Everyone you associate with (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    except for you, of course

    snick/snick

    Parent

    If you (none / 0) (#16)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:09:30 PM EST
    Take the time out of your day to post a comment on a political blog comment section that only politically interested people like you read, you are probably a hard core politico.

    (said in best Jeff Foxworthy southern drawl)

    We are the unusual ones. Clearly not normal (in a positive way I think). But yeah, we are freaks.

    And when you have the "freaks" of any population in any way claiming to be the heart and soul of a majority outside of their bubble, there is a perception gap that is real and important to focus on.

    I have a hard time getting folks here to believe that liberal economic theory is, on the whole, a minority opinion and an increasingly small minority at that.  We can't solve the problem because people don't really believe that the problem exists. That's what the blame put on the current gen of dems tells me.  We are missing a much bigger movement.

    We are winning handily on social issues (gay rights, choice, racial issues, humanitarian issues) but losing mightily on Econ issues and have been for decades.

    Clinton knew it, Obama knows it and whoever comes after them will know it as well.  Until we right the ship from the ground up.

    Parent

    Minorities (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:41:48 PM EST
    can exert influence.  A la the Tea Party.

    Btw, here are your majorities on Bush tax cuts for the rich.  The fact that you didn't know this makes me lol:

    * The new Gallup poll shows that 59 percent of Americans -- and a majority of independents -- supports either ending all the Bush tax cuts or just the ones for the wealthy.

    Indeed, Gallup finds that Obama's proposal -- ending the tax cuts for the wealthy but not for everyone else -- has the support of 44 percent, more than any other solution.

    The fact that you are willing to assert otherwise is nothing but a joke.

    Parent

    Your two points are not at odds (none / 0) (#63)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    The tea party has traction/influence when the position they advocate for is popular w/the public at large.

    When it is not, they are ridiculed, e,g. birthers.

    Parent

    How is it (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    that our position (ending tax cuts for the rich) is popular at large YET we have not accomplished it?  Where's our traction?

    The tea party I am sure is made up of birthers.  They've just learned to keep their mouths shut.  The media just refuses to make that connection.  

    At some point you're going to have to acknowledge that this uphill battle about taxes is not as uphill as you think.  The reason it seems so uphill is either through lack of political will or dazzling strategy, you can choose.  But do not try to tell me our position is not popular.

    Parent

    I am not (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    who doesn't want to see those w/more pay more?  I don't think that's the point ABG is trying to make either.  The point seemed to me was what information can we obtain and subsequently leverage if/when we bridge the gap between polling data (however unreliable) and election results?  The popularity of higher taxes on the rich vs. the inability to elect officials who would implement that policy was an example.

    In other words, we are too focused on the desired end result w/o a clear understanding of the means to get there.

    Parent

    Obama and most Dems (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    that we elected wanted to let the cuts expire.  This isn't even a "more and better Democrats" issue.

    This goes back to the fall of 2010 and the unwillingness of Dems to make the GOP look like @ssholes.

    This is entirely about political willpower.  

    This isn't about passing a bill, it's about letting the cuts expire.  

    We could have 0% Dem representation in Congress and this could happen.

    Parent

    Sorry, but I disagree, and by disagreement (none / 0) (#72)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    provide a corollary to the point I made earlier.  This is only about willpower if you believe raising taxes would've been an acceptable risk in the midst of a fragile economic recovery.

    This democrat did not think that was a good idea.  I am not alone.  I'm sure the Dems realized that.  What then is the best approach to achieve the end-result of getting taxes raised w/o providing ammo in the future that your policies contributed to economic downturn should it happen?  Pretty sure the answer isn't push it through anyway and let the chips fall where they may.

    Parent

    Well what's the answer for 2012? (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:13:39 AM EST
    The economy won't be doing too well then either.

    Let them expire, and then get the GOP to stop a bill including only middle-class tax cuts.

    Parent

    Yes or something similar (none / 0) (#74)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    At least it will be fresher in voters minds that we tried Republican policies and they didn't work.

    Parent
    Be nice if we had some strong (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    Dem policies to contrast with . . . .

    Parent
    Do (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:58:19 PM EST
    you consider yourself a liberal?

    Parent
    That one is easy (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by sj on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:52:31 AM EST
    ABG will shout from the rooftops that he is a liberal.  All while selling our priorities down the river.

    Parent
    He has a liberal hat, remember? (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    The fact that he has to tell people when he has that hat on tells you pretty much all you need to know - that and the way he references liberals as "they" and not "we" is another clue.

    Too bad he's not on the receiving end of a few clues, huh?

    Parent

    Gosh, why didn't Republicans say (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:55:58 PM EST
    they like the deal? I just can't imagine why!

    Parent
    Independents don't much like it either (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    CNN
    Independents
    Approve 35%
    Disapprove 62%

    Gallup
    Independents
    Approve 33%
    Disapprove 50%


    Thought the administration was gearing all their policy decisions to attract Independent voters. So far, he evidently is badly misjudging what Independent voters want as far as policy is concerned.

    Parent
    Haven't you posted this comment before? (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:23:25 PM EST


    Parent
    ad nauseum (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:54:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Do (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:01:00 PM EST
    you consider yourself a liberal?

    Is this deal popular with you?

    Parent

    This made me smile... (none / 0) (#44)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:59:42 PM EST
    and I needed one.  
    "Pro Tennis Player Flies to Wrong Carlsbad, Lands in NM"

    As she was waiting with her bags for tournament transport to pick her up late Sunday night, a man approached. "What are you doing here?" the man asked. "Are you playing tennis?"

    "Yeah, it's a tennis tournament," Jovanovski replied.

    "Here?"

    After waiting 15 minutes, the 19-year-old Serbian called the tournament again, wondering where her ride was. She was told the driver was looking for her.


    "I am the only person here," she told them. "How can you not see me?"

    "Are you in Carlsbad in California or in New Mexico?" the voice at the other end of the phone asked.
    Loved that last bit (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sj on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    Jovanovski said she will remain in Carlsbad to practice for another tournament in Toronto - the one in Canada.


    Parent
    links must be in html (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:11:57 PM EST
    format or they skew the site and I have to delete the comment as I can't edit them. Use the link button at the top of the comment box or the code below and preview before posting. Thanks.

    The unemployment story (none / 0) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    The job market is still pretty grim. Most of the hiring is being done by small businesses while bigger businesses continue to shed jobs. 57% of July's layoffs came from just 5 companies-Merck & Co., Borders Group Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boston Scientific Corp. Health care reform and defence cuts conducted by the Obama administration are really putting the squeeze in private sector profits in health care and defence industries. Many of these better paying jobs will now get offshored. HSBC and Goldman Sachs have also announced major cuts in their workforce in this country. So financial sector jobs will also get affected because of the financial reform bill.
    This CNN article lists the companies cutting most of the jobs.
    A lot of people in this blog keep screaming that the Obama administration has been too friendly towards private companies in health care, defense and financial fields. Yet, owing to reforms conducted by the current administration, companies in the mentioned sectors are feeling extremely pressured by the government. When the job numbers come out, many among you will once again blame the President for the layoffs but will forget to mention where the job losses occurred because actual facts may contradict neat and simple narratives (based on your ideologies) you would like people to believe.
    The purpose of this post is not about defending each of the President's economic policies. Far from it! It is simply a protest against intellectually lazy posts and rants that have become quite common here. Economics is complex, politics is complex. They always do not fit into little ideological boxes in ways that you would like.

    Be specific (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:53:26 PM EST
    Which "lazy" post are you talking about?

    Parent
    dog bites man (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:12:52 AM EST
    all you're saying with your comment is that the owners of these companies, & their lapdog CEOs & other parasites, will be pocketing more cash for themselves (& betting against the U.S. in the unregulated derivatives market) as these companies "shed" <cough> jobs, jobs that will now evaporate or be moved overseas

    that behavior is perfectly consistent with the behavior of the plutocrats & asset strippers who have supplied the vast, vast preponderance of Obama's funding since 2007 & before - indeed, they are the same parasites

    talk about intellectual laziness - get back to me when the Obama administration enacts real rather than bogus financial reform

    Parent

    What nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 04:09:04 AM EST
    For example, "HSBC and Goldman Sachs have also announced major cuts in their workforce in this country." Can you imagine Lloyd Blankfein and the CEO of HSBC (who just announced 40,000 layoffs) holding a meeting with their top brass and yelling, "Omigod!! The SEC is actually going to pretend to enforce some regulations, and it won't be as easy to conduct our criminal activities as it has in the past. We have to fire thousands of workers. We could, of course reduce our bonuses to 50 million dollars........nah, just kidding."

    It couldn't possibly be that they're laying off all those workers because the Ponzi scam they were running blew up and destroyed most of the world's economies and as a result those workers' services won't be needed any longer?  Nope, it had to be because the mere threat of obeying rules and regs they were allowed to disregard for decades may be dusted off and, at least the pretext of enforcement, may be implemented.

    Your "explanation" may work in Ditto Land, or with the Tea Party, but not here. Most of us have at least a high school education.

    Parent

    i was wondering why (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    Politalkix & ABG & some of the other Obama fans so often sound like Republicans . . . oh wait

    Parent
    A "protest against intellectually ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:40:39 AM EST
    ... lazy posts and rants that have become quite common here"?

    From you?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Having read your linked to post (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:36:38 AM EST
    Lockheed-Martin is the only company where I see a direct government impact.  

    Parent
    Reply to lilburro (none / 0) (#81)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    See link for Merck.
    "Many other big drugmakers have slashed their workforces in recent years to ensure profit growth as they face patent expirations that will subject them to generic competition, the costs of healthcare reform and efforts by insurers to keep a lid on drug prices".

    link for policy effect on medical device companies like Boston Scientific.

    "A downside to this factor will be a 2.3 percent excise tax to be placed on medical device manufactures beginning in 2013, which would accelerate the outsourcing of production to lower-cost areas in the U.S. and abroad," according to the report. But the Medical Device Makers Association, representing some 400 device makers nationwide, is staunchly opposed to the tax and has lobbied Congress to repeal the measure."

    linkOver 400 health-care companies, venture capital firms and other associated organizations, including Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX), Kimberly-Clark Corp. (KMB)'s health-care unit and the National Association of Manufacturers, pushed for the repeal of a 2.3% excise tax on medical-device manufacturers. The tax is designed to help offset the cost of the health-care overhaul Congress passed in 2010.

    "If this tax is implemented in 2013, it will undermine our industry's ability to create and maintain good jobs in the U.S"

    Parent

    OK... PLEASE READ AND COMMENT (none / 0) (#82)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:38:29 PM EST
    on my latest diary, published Thursday night, even if you just reply, "You have lost your frikkin' mind."

    Please?

    Great piece (none / 0) (#83)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    G.  R.  E.  A.  T.

    Full to the brim with life.  What else is there to be filled with?

    I just listened to this song, BOTTLE OF SMOKE by the Pogues (LINK), to get myself roaring for the day.  And Here's the lyrics, since you'll never understand a word Shane McGowan says:

    Thanks and praises
    Thanks to jesus
    I bet on the bottle of smoke
    I went to hell
    And to the races
    To bet on the bottle of smoke

    The day being clear
    The sky being bright
    He came up on the left
    Like a streak of light
    Like a drunken fuck
    On a saturday night
    Up came the bottle of smoke

    Twenty fucking five to one
    Me gambling days are done
    I bet on a horse called the bottle of smoke
    And my horse won

    Stewards inquiries
    Swift and fiery
    I had the bottle of smoke
    Inquisitions and suppositions
    I had the bottle of smoke

    Fuck the stewards
    A trip to lourdes
    Might give the old fuckers
    The power of sight
    Screaming springers and stoppers
    And call out coppers
    But the money still gleams in my hand like a light

    Bookies cursing
    Cars reversing
    I had the bottle of smoke
    Glasses steaming
    Vessels bursting
    I had the bottle of smoke
    Slip a fifty to the wife
    And for each brat a crisp new five
    To give me a break on a saturday night
    When I had the bottle of smoke
    Priests and maidens
    Drunk as pagans
    They had the bottle of smoke
    Sins forgiven and celebrations
    They had the bottle of smoke

    Fuck the yanks
    And drink their wives
    The moon is clear
    The sky is bright
    I'm happy as the horses shite
    Up came the bottle of smoke



    Parent
    oops, sorry for the language flub (none / 0) (#84)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    on those lyrics, feel free to cut them, J or BTD or whomever.  Censors keep sleeping.

    Parent
    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment