Maiello's Book-Almost Hits the Metaphorical Stands
Miami Fans Mistakenly Chant "Let's Go Eat" During Playoff Game
There's been a lot of post-election hand-wringing about how the Republicans can "reach out" to minority voters. If they can't win just by energizing their shrinking base of white people, what's next? Immigration reform? Marco Rubio? What's it going to take?
At the same time, you have former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan blaming the Romney loss on voters from "urban areas." Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
So, Luke, remember your dad, Tim Russert? Let's say he's sitting in a press room where House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is taking questions after announcing that she's staying put and is really excited about the next term, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Let's say he notices that she isn't alone up there on that podium; he sees there are maybe a dozen women who hold seats in the House of Representatives. They're standing behind her.
Fascinating piece in The LA Times about a call that Mitt Romney had with his donors. Romney basically repeats the 47% argument, without the blunt language. Obama won, says Romney, because he turned out throngs of people who want health care and the possibility of student loan forgiveness.
"Romney argued that Obama’s healthcare plan’s promise of coverage 'in perpetuity' was 'highly motivational' to those voters making $25,000 to $35,000 who might not have been covered, as well as to African American and Hispanic voters." [Read more]
David Petraeus's downfall at the CIA, resigning after his marital infidelity was exposed, has gotten the kind of press coverage generally reserved for winning the Nobel Prize or becoming the first man on Mars. Story after story about his resignation rhapsodizes about the greatness of Petraeus, his military brilliance, his reputation for "probity and integrity." He is hailed as the model of a modern general, without a whiff of Gilbert & Sullivan irony in that phrase. Some people even single out the resignation itself as a sign of Petraeus's lofty sense of honor, as if why he was resigning had nothing to do with it. [Read more]
Hi all. Just wanted to say thank you for the dialogue in the blogs about the recently-concluded elections. It was an exciting and sometimes harrowing ride, through the conventions, the debates, and a strange Election Day and night.
While doing so, I thought it fair to point out that for the second cycle in a row, yours truly outpicked Larry Sabato and Nate Silver in the Senate races, and in this cycle, the Presidential as well. [Read more]
Late in the week, The Daily called with the kind of assignment that no opinion writer could turn down. Obama has a chance to be the Reagan of the left, they said. If he gets a reasonable amount of what he wants in his second term, what will America look like? Writing this longer essay was an exercise in optimism and, though I tried to be realistic, I also found it kind of a tonic for cynicism. Things can get better, with just the ideas that Obama has expressed and hinted at. [Read more]
The pundits are pondering. They mention mandates and movements, margins and maneuvers and meetings in the middle. They wax wisely on who won and why they won and which way the wind will waft on Wednesday.
We love to mock them, these prattling experts and prognosticators. And yet we listen, we read, we react. We can't help ourselves. We want to know what it all means and what will happen next. We are determined to squeeze great meaning from great events. We are all pundits.
But the truth is that the great election of November 7, 2012, was all but meaningless. It represents neither a pivot point nor a portent. A poor candidate lost to a strong candidate, as as he was expected to do. A diverse majority of Democrats in the Senate will continue to play a weak hand weakly. A militant majority of Republicans in the House will continue to obstruct, ignoring calls for moderation as they have done for two decades. The federal government will hobble feebly along. [Read more]
It's noon and the Dow is down over 300 points (about 2.4% in this age of big numbers) and so, if it hasn't started already, people are going to try to say that the markets are rejecting the public's choice of a second Obama term, and of a larger Democratic majority in the Senate, or both of those things. [Read more]
President Obama won a second term last night and it wasn't even a squeaker. The Senate and the House stayed pretty much the same, but Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin and Tammy Duckworth are going to Washington.
Joe Walsh, Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin will wander off into an oblivion they so richly deserve.
Karl Rove was seen on Fox howling foul over Ohio with such naked grief his election night companions could only look on, astonished.
Donald Trump threw such an incomprehensible hissy fit on Twitter you just had to know the little guy was not happy. [Read more]
One of the interesting things about voting is that there isn't a good reason for it, especially from the perspective of modeling human behavior that's common in fields like economics. In order to illustrate why this is true, I've put today's Presidential election into a simple game theory framework:
For those interested, I'm doing a live-blog of Fox News Election coverage all day today. I will likely be in a home for the criminally insane tomorrow, but i do it for you.
5 AM EST.
I'm up and already nervous about what this election night will bring. I want the Democrats to win everything. I want the Republicans to lose in numbers large enough to show them the error of their ways. I'm so biased that way there's no pretending otherwise. I know it won't happen, but if I were wishing upon a star it's what I would be wishing for.
I'm an old-style liberal--a dreamer, an optimist, a pie-in-the-sky Pollyanna. There aren't many of us left, mainly because that kind of nonsense has been knocked out of the more sensible of us. With me it's still there, and at this late stage I have a feeling it's here to stay.
To vote in Ohio on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, you will need to bring a form of identification, either your driver's license or something that has your name and current address. If you're confused about where to go to vote, you can go to GottaVote Ohio or to the Ohio Secretary of State's webpage. Those sources also have information about the kind of ID you'll need to vote. [Read more]
Please join me Tuesday for a liveblog of the 2012 election. I have already explained in a separate post why I predict that Democrats will pick up one seat in an uphill Senate cycle. This blog details my view of the current state of the Presidential race, which explains why I believe President Obama is certain to win re-election, as well as the states and electoral vote total I think he will win. Would love to hear your different predictions, if any. Here we go: [Read more]
The Democrats are going to hold the Senate. Let's get that out of the way. The question is by what margin. That the Democrats hold it at all is a historical anomaly. Since direct popular election of the Senate began around World War I, the House had changed hands from one of the major parties to the other eight times -- and all eight times, the Senate did too. The Tea Party helped make this history in 2010, when the nominations of Sharron Angle (Nevada), Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), and Ken Buck (Colorado) cost it three seats in the Senate. Absent those clear mistakes, the GOP would likely have had 50 Senate seats for the last two years. This time out, the mistakes were Todd Akin (Missouri), and Richard Mourdock (Indiana). Like the other three mistakes, they were all the most conservative nominee in their respective primary fields. Mourdock, like O'Donnell, helped retire a more-liked and more-moderate Republican incumbent (Rep. Castle in Delaware, Sen. Lugar in Indiana). Lacking these latest two mistakes, the GOP would have 51 Senators for the next two years. This blog explains why, instead, there will be 54 Democrats (or Democrat-caucusing independents), and 46 Republicans (or Republican-caucusing independents). Before beginning, the author humbly notes that in 2010, he was one seat more accurate than both Sabato and Silver, as we all missed Nevada and Colorado, while I had Murkowski in Alaska and they did not. Onward to the Democratic gains likely on Tuesday, in what was supposed to be a Republican cycle: [Read more]
I don't read yesterday's (and this morning's polls) as that favorable. What gives? Very early Saturday morning (I'm going by east coast time throughout this post), Nate explained that the President's chance of winning was over 80% because of the 22 polls of swing states published Friday, he led in 19 and trailed in only 1. This seemed sensible. On Saturday, there were fewer published polls (at least listed at Real Clear Politics) and a couple of these were not positive for Obama. The most worrisome are a Tampa Bay Times Florida poll that shows Romney +6 and, perhaps even more troubling, a University of New Hampshire poll showing a tie in the Granite State. The Saturday polls that show Obama ahead were not exceptionally strong for h [Read more]
Ramona asks, flabbergasted, why this guy Romney is even able to make a race out of this. Over at Slate, Tom Scocca seems to have the answer. Race. Well, and gender. It's white guys who are giving Romney a fighting chance, even though, as Daggers like Articleman and DF have concluded, it's still Obama's election to lose. Even Time admits it. [Read more]
Many voices, from the hallowed blogs of Dag to the exalted table around which Mighty Joe Scarborough and his colleagues convene, have decried the lack of substance in this election (though I'm pretty sure I hear that complaint every time anyone is running for office - "This should be about the issues!"). Mika Brzezinski has called it the Seinfeld election - a race about nothing - though I'll leave up to the reader whether this reflects more accurately the election or her observational skills. [Read more]
Okay, I'm breathing again--raggedly, to be honest, but I'm seeing clearly and whatever fun writing I was so longing for last week will just have to wait. Mitt Romney is closing in on the home stretch and I can't stand it. What can I say that will change that? We all know there is nothing I can say that will change anything this monumental and incomprehensible. But I repeat: I can't stand it.
Before the devastation of Superstorm Sandy put the Presidential campaigning on hold (as of course it should, no matter how close in time the election is), it was clear that President Obama had moved up in the swing states, taking as the inflection point (the point for before/after comparison) October 23, the day after the third Presidential debate. One week after that date, it is easy to illustrate that the race has changed very slightly, but significantly, in the swing states that will decide the election. This blog does that, by taking the polling in each swing state, using October 23 as the break point to compare polling before and after, and also comparing the Obama/Romney matchup in "apples to apples" comparisons in which a given pollster (say, ARG) polled the [Read more]
In yesterday's David Brooks column, he offered a tepid endorsement of Mitt "Thurston Howell" Romney for President. Brooks games out what the next two years will probably look like under Romney or Obama. There's really nothing insightful or interesting there, so here's his conclusion: [Read more]
Against my better judgment and my general belief that the cake of this unrelenting election cycle has long been baked, I'm going to give Willard Mitt "I'd Shut Down FEMA" Romney a bit of advice, 100% gratis. Mitt Romney should spend the next week using his leadership, connections, management skills and even his own personal fortune to demonstrate exactly why he should be President by organizing a private relief effort for victims of Hurricane Sandy. [Read more]
The Eastern Seaboard is getting clobbered by a combined late-season hurricane and blizzard, flooding large areas and knocking out electricity in even larger areas. As I write this, the New York City subways are flooded, there has been an explosion at a Con Edison power station, and a large part of the Rockaways is burning while firefighters, trapped by the floodwaters, are helpless to stop it.
There was a bit of drama in Poll Land on Sunday, as a well-respected source in Ohio released The Ohio Poll, showing a dead heat between President Obama and Governor Romney. It was the third poll that ever showed Romney hitting 49 in Ohio (Obama has hit 50 19 times, including in the other two polls that showed Romney at 49). Indeed, two polls posted late Sunday night corroborated the theory of this piece that The Ohio Poll was taken during a modest recession in the President's poll numbers. Moreover, other state polls released Sunday were consistent with the race being roughly even in popular vote, with the President leading narrowly in key states. This race remains on course for a narrow Obama victory, most likely as a result of the President winning either Ohio (where he has led this week and most of the last two months) or Virginia (where he has seemingly moved into a tie). Here is why the data continue to favor that narrow Obama win: [Read more]