MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 7 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 5 days ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 4 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 12 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 12 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 12 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
Hits of the Day
In Iowa, Romney has 24%, Paul 22%, and Santorum 15%
By Verified Atheist on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 4:07pm |Full breakdown (and this is Iowa, not national):
Romney: 24%
Paul: 22%
Santorum: 15%
Gingrich: 12%
Perry: 11%
Bachmann: 7%
What this means in a caucus state is something I'll admit I don't have a clue about!
URL:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-01/romney-leads-in-iowa-poll-as-santorum-gains-before-state-caucus.html
- Add new comment
- 3082 reads
Comments
In Iowa the delegates are allocated by districts. Romney in 2008 did well, beating Huck, in the urban areas, but was thoroughly beaten out in the rural areas. How Paul in his new surge will fare in the urban/rural split I don't know. But the pundits will look at the general totals for the most part. So if Romney wins with say 30%, he will be declared the winner, even if he doesn't have the majority of the district delegates. One reason for this is that the delegates are actually allocated officially at the state convention in June, when the race is basically over. In 2008, McCain won just 17% of the overall vote (and not a single district I believe) and yet was allocated all of the delegates at the state convention.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 5:43pm
There's a great piece in the NY Times today about how the campaign organizations are doing down the stretch. One important fact: a key measure of success in Iowa isn't raw polling but recruiting individual voters to speak on your behalf at each of the 1700 caucus locations. If no one will stand up for you in a precinct, that's a precinct you've likely lost.
Until recently, the Gingrich campaign had only 200 speakers lined up, meaning it would have to write off 1500 precincts. They've improved since, but they're still probably going to underperform their poll numbers. Meanwhile, Santorum had over 1000 speakers lined up.
by Doctor Cleveland on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 5:55pm
I question how big a deal it is to have a recruited effective speaker at the caucus. It sounds right at first blush, so to speak, and no doubt having that person there helps, but, unless he/she was paid shill available to tout any candidate, they would very likely be there supporting their choice regardless being recruited. If there were enough people present at the caucus who were committed or leaning in a way that would give a particular candidate a chance, then surely someone would speak up for that candidate whether the organization had a recruit there or not and the politicin' would start.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 6:19pm
my guess there are a lot of interesting group dynamics going on at these caucuses, each one different as they reflect the personalities of the individuals and groups involved. I'm sure there are some dominated by certain groups (such as the Christian fundamentalist) and it is difficult to stand up and speak one's mind in contradiction to wishes considering they live in the same community. Just the dynamic between the ones who have been coming to the same caucus for decades and the ones showing up for the first time is enough to tweak the outcome.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 6:44pm
I agree about the various dynamics. I campaigned for Deen in Des Moines finishing on the day of the caucuses. I really wished I could have attended one and watched it play out. Still, to emphasize the point I was making above, I cannot imagine a person with the knowledge and the speaking skills and the charisma to be a game changer within a given caucus and who was a strong supporter of a particular candidate to be a person who would be sitting home that night unless contacted and recruited by that candidate. Once they were at the caucus they would do what came naturally to them, they would campaign for their guy.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 6:59pm
Latebreaking: Santorum & Paul have switched places S at 21, P at 18....
by jollyroger on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:14pm
Looks like Santorum might be the final anti-Romney!
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:25pm
Somewhere, Dan Savage smiles...
by jollyroger on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:34pm
A frothy surge. Ick.
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:37pm
Surely, an historic google-bomb...one that will live for a *thousand years
*(get off my back, Godwin...)
by jollyroger on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:41pm
no, no, I think you're safe from Godwin. This time.
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:50pm
Whew, ya never know...hi2LisD, U2.
As the bumper sticker says "Happy 2012-How could it be worse?"
by jollyroger on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:53pm
For Dan's sake I hope it doesn't. It would be a shame given what he has done in his life that what he is remembered for is something so pathetically juvenile.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:07pm
give me a break! too pious by half.
by jollyroger on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:33pm
see my response to bwakfat. it has nothing to do with being pious, by half or otherwise. If Rush had done the same thing with Obama in 2008 campaign, no one would be thinking it was a clever and creative thing. But since Dan's on our side and Santorum isn't, we are willing to say it's super-duper. Rather than being pious, it is trying not to be hypocritical in what I deem appropriate and inappropriate - which of course neither I nor anyone else is perfect. Then again you might be one of those people who think pondering things like inappropriateness is for wussies, anything goes, and the rules only apply to the other side.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 10:56pm
I think this is one of those interactions where the first to trespass upon the limits of civilized discourse cannot be heard to complain if he is later skewered by a more adept opponent.
Santorum started it.
by jollyroger on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:06pm
Great. Now we're embracing "everything I learned about political discourse I learned in Kindergarten." In other words, it crossing the line, but since the other person crossed the line first, it's okay. And moreover, if someone states that it is crossing over the line, we'll attack him or her for pointing out the fact. Wonderful.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:11pm
If you prefer, how about they bring a knife, we bring a gun.
by jollyroger on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:16pm
No. You're being called out for ignoring facts and being nasty and idiotic. The google bomb was brilliant. Just because it violates your unrealistic and prudish sensibilities, doesn't take away from either it's brilliance or the good it did.
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:17pm
oh facts, huh. Such as?
It's a free country. You can think it's brillant. I can think otherwise. You can think I am prudish (an opinion I could care less about), whereas I think calling anyone "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex" is just not having the sense of humor of frat boy.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:36pm
What I find pathetic, is dissing Mr. Savage for a brilliant ploy that not only points out the juvenile and dangerous nature of a particularly odious politician, but effectively eliminated him before he could damage the country further.
Shame on you for belittling Mr. Savage..
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:34pm
Shame on you for believing someone is above criticism. As I pointed out on tmac's blog, I have the uptmost respect for Dan Savage, especially for his It Gets Better project on the web. He and his partner have been exemplary role models as adoptive parents. His advice column has evolved to become on one hand an entertaining diversion and a source of some seriously enlightened advice.
I even had the pleasure of going out for drinks with Dan with some other folks after he did a presentation at my college which I arranged. This was back in the day before he was famous outside the Stranger readership and did all of his public speaking in drag, because as he put it he was too shy to talk in front of a crowd just as himself. He had a warm, funny and compassionate personality, and when others would have soaked up the attention in an ego trip, he seemed to just be interested in what people had to say.
But putting this out on Santorum in a successful bomb - which of course means any kid doing a search for their homework will get this at the top of the results - reinforces the notion in the homophobic crowd that being gay is just about anal sex among other things. It will change no one's mind - if anything it just makes the homophobes even more entrenched in their hatred of gays. Which is not to say that Santorum is a hateful, homophobic wingnut. But there are more mature and creative ways for Savage to could have utilized his position in the liberal community.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 10:49pm
I doubt very much he would appreciate your ugly characterization of gays, or his own legacy. You met him, ooooh, I'm so not impressed. So have thousands of others. How like you to use that idiotic argument from non-existant authority.
There is no authority you present that justifies your comment. Your criticism is pathetic. Rick Santorum is dangerous, odious, and stupid. Now a lot more people are aware of that, and your weak excuse is "but but but if the GOP did it!!!!--!!!" . Dude, the GOP does it regularly, as I recall, and have ruined many a brilliant career. Ask Anthony Weiner.
Stop acting like a pompous, clueless fool. You're no champion for gays, and I doubt you count any among your close friends. If you did, you'd understand is that all they ask for is to be treated like anyone else. An obvious fact, that your school marmish complaint lays bare.
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:09pm
Where did characterize gays in an ugly fashion? The only characterization I provided was what a homophobe would perceive. I wasn't trying to impress you with the fact I had a drink or two with Dan. It was to show that part of my respect and admiration for him comes in part from a personal interaction I had with him. But you obviously just want to find something to criticize me for daring to not see all those on our side as pure angels incapable of stepping over the line - from a personal judgment as to where the line is.
I have had many gay friends over the years (there was a period of time when my entire inner circle of friends were gay - nothing like being the only breeder at the cabaret sipping martinis), did canvassing to defeat an anti-gay initiative, work on a number of gay initiatives and events, including bringing Dan Savage to my small community (one of the best attended events on campus in people's memory, bringing college students and community members together to discuss just about everything) and so on.
If you think putting a crude definition to Santorum's name is somehow brillant and causes people to somehow see the light, fine. I don't. In this one particular case I think Dan stepped over the line. Not the end of the world. So calm down. Breathe. Your rush to make assumptions about who I am, who I have counted as close and dear friends, and what I believe only makes you seem like the fool.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:24pm
Hello? You're being stuck-up. It HAS caused people to see the light, about RICK SANTORUM.
Good grief, no one outside of political junkies on the east coast even knew who he was. Why do you think his numbers were so stagnant?
It's horrid to not acknowledge success due to some personal ick factor. You're simply out of touch, and probably always have been. Which would be fine, if you could manage to accept people as they are and appreciate who they are.
It wouldn't hurt to lose the "Oh you're all so Kindergarten," either. You seem a stuck-up mean girl from middle-school, and have been responded to accordingly. Get over it.
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:58pm
My gosh - I expressed my opinion on a political blog. What could I have been thinking.
Now you'll love this attitude: I want you to go review all the names you have called me in your responses because you disagree with my point of view. And guess what - I am a voter who is not rich, have been pretty much poor all my life in part because I work for nonprofits rather than the for profit sector. You claim to care about the average man. But my opinion means nothing to you. One moment I trust fund baby and next the stuck up mean girl. Actually you seem like the latter on this thread: how dare I have an opinion that is different than yours. I must hate gays, never been friends with gays, etc. etc. And then I when I point out "he started it" is not an excuse and comes across like kids pointing fingers at each other in Kindergarten, I've got to watch my tone. Kettle calling the pot black indeed.
And then as evidence you point out his numbers were stagnant and no one knew who he was...and now they do. Basically you're saying he was a nobody until this google bomb brought him to prominence. Not exactly what Savage had in mind. Actually I think it had neither positive or negative - those who were inclined to support him are still inclined to support him, and those not inclined to support are still not inclined to support him. That his national poll numbers rise are basically within the margin of error speaks to this fact. What little bump he might have actually had can be attributed to the media attention he has received because the far right in Iowa have decided to get behind him.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:12am
Actually, you aggresively screeched out an untrue assertion, backed it up with a pathetic appeal to authority, and proceeded to continue to back yourself into a corner, as far as I can tell. I am sorry you have an issue with anal sex. I'd stay away from "the girl with the dragon tattoo," if I were you. The "average guy" won't because as far as the polls show, he doesn't have a much of a problem it, gay connotations or not.
Your thinly veiled contempt for the masses deserved every name I could think of and more. People like you is why we're not winning every election there is. Are you so blind that you don't see your contempt as a negative?
Thin skins don't win elections, and frankly, your moralizing is tiresome. I'm sure my nasty mean attack has shaken your tender sensibilities, but 2012 won't be easy. Least of all with addle-pated prudes angering the masses with their condescending elitism.
by bwakfat on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:27am
...and THAT, sir, is my opinion. Imagine that. Now I'll leave you to your overbearing presence at DAG.
by bwakfat on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:29am
I've already read the Tattoo - so too late on that front. And if you think my problem is with anal sex, you are utterly clueless about why I have an issue with it. (I mean how can I think Brokeback Mountain is one the great films in recent years and have actually scolded some folks who said they wouldn't see it because of those few seconds of anal sex.) And I have veiled contempt for the masses - when it the total opposite - I do have contempt for homophobes, but not the masses by virtue of them simply being the masses. Your belief that it is a frothy mixture-fecal-matter-and-lube rhetoric that is what going to win elections show utter contempt for the masses.
And guess what - you've shaken nothing in me. At this point it hard to think of someone on the blogosphere I could care less about what he or she thinks of me or claims I believe. I will be going to sleep soon and I will sleep soundly and peacefully. I will breathe and go about my day should I be lucky enough to have another day. And then I will go back to work and do what I do helping families in poverty. Happy New Year.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:47am
And why don't you enlighten me as to how just that particular definition and Santorum name on a web page and nothing else points out the juvenile and dangerous nature of Santorum. No, seriously, I would like to know. And do you really think there is even a single voter who was seriously thinking about supporting or voting for Santorum, who, upon reading this decided to withhold their support?
At best it was something for within the choir in order get a cheap (and crude) chuckle. I think we all know that.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:01pm
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:12pm
Whatever. Just keep believing the guy who never could get above 5% in the national polls had his political career destroyed by Dan's google bomb. Oh, aside from a surge in Iowa, 5% is the highest he has scored on the gallup poll and that was its most recent results. So if anything Santorum is gaining some Santorumentum (who knows he might reach 8%) - so I guess it hasn't been so big time.
So like I said whatever.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:32pm
No, Dan Savage ensued it kept to 5%, Mr. head-up-you-nether-regions elitist limousine liberal.
You want to know what works, Trope? Populism. Check out President Obama's numbers after he went populist, although you, yourself, constantly denigrate and minimize all the recent populist actions, of which Mr. Savages' google-bomb was a spectacular forerunner. Clueless, somewhat liberals is just what the president and the dems DON'T need. Go ahead and denigrate the masses because you find them vulgar and coarse, that's worked so well in the past that it brought us a GOP majority in the last 30 years. I'm quite sure everyone Mr. Savage rightly ridicules and despises would thank you in person, if possible.
So, no. Not whatever, just quit with the elitist, prudish, I'm-so-above-the-average-man tripe. You're comments are the comments of a clueless silly, rather prudish old-maid dowager with a private income, no work experience, and an unrealistic and outdated sense of how to win an election.
What I find ugly, however, is how thoroughly you are trying to soil this brilliant tactic of Mr. Savages. So once again, shame on you.
by bwakfat on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:45pm
How is "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex" in any way populism? I mean, really. This phrase may be brilliant to you. It isn't to me.
And if you want to convince me - show me something, anything, that indicates "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex" has kept Santorum to 5%.
And if not seeing "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex" as appropriate political discourse is being elitist, then I am elitist. If it prudish, then I am prudish. If it means I think I so above the average man, then I guess I think so.
Actually I think the average man in this country would be repelled by this phrase, and would not hold it against Santorum (whatever his view of him), but on the person who posted it to the world wide web. So I am not denigrating the masses because I find them vulgar and coarse. I am denigrating this particular web splash page for being vulgar and coarse - and because the people in general are not vulgar and crass, they will not respond well to it.
Deep down I just don't think you even believe this is how one wins elections in this country.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:56pm
The average man in this country likes "Family Guy" and "American Idol," so either you're an idiot, or you have no business spouting nonsense about the "average guy."
People have become vulgar and crass, and if you can't understand that, accept it, and not despise those "average" Americans, you won't win any elections, nor will you win over any hearts and minds.
Deep down, I am an average American, and have always loved and embraced the mob. Try it sometime, just remember, the higher the perch, the harder the fall. I pity you, and wish the world could be as safe, innocent, and honorable as you pretend it is.
It's not.
by bwakfat on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:03am
So who is the person spouting elitist I'm-so-above-the-average-man tripe.
You basically saying Dan by saying "a frothy mixture of..." is just speaking the language of the average man, getting down to his level. While I know that on an entertainment level Family Guy appeals to a large number of the population, I do have a bit more respect for them than you do it would seem. I guess you must have pulling your hair out watching Obama give his racism speech in Philadelphia - how dare he speak to the average as if they had a brain.
In the end, the fact that you will see my disapproval of "a frothy mixture of..." as believing the world is some safe, innocent, and honorable place indicates to me (and thus an assumption on my part), you're just going to attribute a whole host of ideas and notions to me that make no sense.
I deal with poverty issues and people in poverty everyday, aside from my own financial situation. So please don't tell me what I think and know about the plight of the average family in this country. That you believe you do know because I believe "a frothy mixture of..." is an appropriate example of political discourse, again says any further debate with you is pointless.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:24am
I'm rooting for any of those wild and crazy guys, BUT 'Myth' Romney.
by Aunt Sam on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:56pm
I think the best outcome (meaning the most damaging for Republicans), would be to turn this into a three-way race for several months, with Romney stalled at 25-40% in the polls and two distinct rivals polling from 20%-30%, but each having strongholds in different primary states.
My ideal outcome would be for Santorum to win Iowa, and Paul to show so much momentum that he comes in a strong second to Romney in New Hampshire. (Santorum has no prayer in New Hampshire, and has no organization anywhere but Iowa, and Romney has what's essentially a home-state advantage in New Hampshire, but a libertarian like Paul could near enough to Romney to wreck the Mittmentum; because he has home-field advantage, Romney has to win big in New Hampshire.)
I actually suspect Romney will take control of things by South Carolina, but a boy can dream.
by Doctor Cleveland on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:06pm
South Carolina has a strong right wing Christian constituency. As of mid-December Newt had a 20 point lead, and given he is even with Romney in the national polls, Newt can still take it. SC is a winner take all state so this will be a short-term blow to Mitt. Next up would be Florida with Mitt limping in and licking his wounds.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:11pm
True, and while I hope that the religious right vote sets Mitt back, I'm also mindful that SC has often been the place where the GOP Powers That Be push the establishment candidate through; the post-New-Hampshire firewall. And the Governor of South Carolina has already endorsed Romney.
I'd be happy enough for South Carolina to throw a wrench into Romney's plans, and ideally to weaken him in the run-up to Super Tuesday, I just can't bring myself to count on it.
by Doctor Cleveland on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:26pm
Come on, let go and give in to the dream, swan dive into the warm waters of Lake Brokered-Convention-in-Tampa, feel the soft breezes of Paul and Santorum delegates screaming at the Gingrich delegates and the wondering sighs of the Mitt Delegates pondering how it all went so terribly wrong.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:32am
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 1:46am
Not to mention the "reporters" from the Daily Show. It could be quite the interesting contest between the inside brew-ha-ha and the outside brew-ha-ha to get their attention.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 2:34am
It makes me suspect he's really just setting up for the 2016 elections. An Iowa win would make him more memorable next time around.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:48am
At this moment Santorum is probably also looking at Huck's wins in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana and pondering a few more wins - and then off to Fox News for his own show. And this would give him name recognition throughout the Republican base. Perfect to prepare for 2016.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:48am
My three cents:
Paul has a huge ground game in Iowa, where he has consistently polled well. Santorum is just a new flavor; I'm skeptical that his support is deep or that his organization is strong.
That said, Santorum may pick up the other candidates' supporters if they're disinclined to support Paul. In that case, he could win by the last anti-Romney-standing principle.
Romney will pick up very few supporters other than Huntsman's. His best hope is second place, but it won't matter much in the overall campaign b/c he was never expected to do well in Iowa.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 2:20pm