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 1 day ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 11 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 11 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 12 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
Hits of the Day
- artappraiser (123)
- artappraiser (101)
- artappraiser (84)
- Michael Wolraich (67)
- SarahPalinGrrrrl (50)
Rasmussen poll shocker: Gingrich tanks in Iowa, Romney now on top
By Donal on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:23pm |Gingrich’s double-digit plummet is significant. It mirrors the pattern Rasmussen has seen since he began polling Iowa Republicans in August: For five consecutive months, a different candidate has come out on top each time. First it was Representative Bachmann, who won the Iowa GOP’s unscientific, nonbinding straw poll in August. Next was Governor Perry, then Herman Cain, then Gingrich. The latest poll has Romney on top for the first time.
“For all the turmoil, Mitt Romney’s support has actually been pretty consistent,” Rasmussen says. Romney’s lowest number in any Rasmussen poll of Iowa this cycle was 17 percent. His highest is his current total of 23.
URL:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1215/Rasmussen-poll-shocker-Gingrich-tanks-in-Iowa-Romney-now-on-top
- Add new comment
- 1917 reads
Comments
Mittmentum!™
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:48pm
If one just looks at the Ras polls for Iowa 8/4, 8/11, 10/19, 11/15, 12/13, Mitts polls 21%, 17%, 21%, 19%, and most recently 23%. (a nice round 20% average) One can interpret this as Mitt has won a certain segment of Iowa Republicans and is unable to convince any of the others to come on board the Mitt train to victory (especially given the spread is basically the margin of error in the last poll of 4%.) Once Mitt can break the 26% or 27% (and can one dare to dream of 30%), then I will consider that Mitt stands a chance in Iowa.
The last time Mitt scored a 27% was a mid-October poll by the U of Iowa, during the Cain surge.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:13pm
Interesting dynamic. Better method at this point might be to take (Romney + Paul - ((Romney + Paul) *.15)) for the coalition against Newt.
Newt isn't looking like he'll win in Iowa. He hasn't captured full support with Tea Party, he doesn't have the Evangelicals in the bag either... and he just lost the guy who's supposed to marshal his ground game. I don't see the coalition coming together.
Romney and Paul are training their guys to support each other for #2 - both seem to want Gingrich gone most of all. Gingrich is going to be #3 in Iowa is my current bet. Could fall either way between Paul and Romney on top at this point IMO.
by kgb999 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 7:42pm
TPM: All In Against Newt
by Donal on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:38pm
The bit in the Politico article that caught my eye was this:
Turns out he was discussing his Brain Science Initiative which has four main components:
I like how he slipped the elimination of capital gains tax into it. Sweet.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:42pm
Absolutely. Because people go into brain science because that's where the money's at! (That's sarcasm, in case it's not clear. People who are mostly interested in making money tend to go into careers in areas like the financial sector.)
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:52pm
Trends.
We are trending to chaos.
We are trending toward repub corporate oligarchy.
We are trending toward a point to where anyone who does not wish to orally satisfy corporate dicks shall be imprisoned.
America deserves the government they elect.
PERIOD.
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:21pm
Nate Silver, 2:47 pm Thursday:
Gingrich Momentum Slows, Polls Suggest
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:28am
The NYT has put a hit piece on Newt on the front page of its print edition today. While normally an attack by the "liberal" Times might act as a badge of honor for a GOP primary candidate, this piece brings up numerous instances of Newt doing the opposite of GOP primary voter preferences for the benefit of his favorite lobbies. It will surely bring him more negative questioning on the campaign trail. One line is particularly damning on the "do as I say and not as I do" front and suggests more is coming on that general theme, my bold:
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:03pm
Artsy, I've already got my bet down on Gingrich for the nomination, so I'll stick with it. Ultimately this "lame stream" and elite Republican media campaign against Gingrich may work to his advantage if he can use it to shore up the anti-establishment sentiment in the Republican party. Bachmann and Perry aren't doing a particularly good job of aggregating this sentiment. And while Romney is stuck in the image of a rich guy, Newt would be better at pivoting from that issue and rallyiing around the anti-establishment flag which is what has been propelling the tea party for the last two years.
by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:21pm
Newt seems like the least likely person to win, except for all of the other announced candidates, of course.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:23pm
Well, he just plummeted on Intrade. One thing that seems key in this whole calculus is the dead primary space in February before Super Tuesday. It would seem that Newt would have to get some major funding for advertising, otherwise Romney could wipe him out during this period.
by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:01pm
The Caucus on the road with Newt sez he is taking the weekend off and
....is scheduled to return to Iowa on Monday for a three-day campaign swing before Christmas, has pursued a nontraditional caucus strategy. He is relying on the strength of his brand, more than an on-the-ground organization, to rally support....
talks about all the fans he's been seeing and then adds
Mr. Gingrich said the positive reviews were encouraging. Yet it did not go without notice that nearly none of the people giving him accolades can take part in the Iowa caucuses that will play a key role in his political future.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:11pm
I just don't see where intrade would be much of an indicator, unless there is a high level of involvement from Republicans in Iowa, NH, and SC. It is these three that will decide how the campaign will flow for the rest of the year. If Mitt loses in Iowa and SC and just scratches out a victory in NH he's toast. Mitt's main thing is that he is the front runner, and an outcome as I just mentioned would destroy this label. The super Tuesday voters will see a candidate that has been rejected by the conservatives. Any of his weak supporters will bail - in part because of the 'no one wants to vote for a loser*' dynamic. He isn't a Ron Paul who has his devotees.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:13pm
Intrade is seen as an indicator because people put money behind their analysis. I'd generally trust the analysis of someone who invested a couple hundred bucks and moves their money based on current probabilities than someone who's analysis is based on having picked something already and therefore sticking with it.
Thing is, it's an investment market and we're pretty far out from final payout here; people are going to be betting based on where they think movement is going to be next ... not necessarily on who they think is going to win. Haven't looked, but if I were guessing ... I'd guess the market is probably moving with Ron Paul's observation that he seems to be heading in to a bit of a peak to capture short-term profit from the flux cycle. Huntsman would be the proper hedge.
Mitt's whole campaign is built around being able to sustain an abysmal finish in Iowa. Until the rest of the pack imploded so spectacularly, Romney in Iowa wasn't really even discussed as a likely outcome.
While you are assuming a "Romney is *the* frontrunner" narrative for some reason, what has actually been playing on the TV is that the Republicans want to elect anyone *but* Romney. There have been any number of "Frontrunners" ... all of them with WAY more stratospheric numbers than Romney has ever come close to. This observation is a cornerstone to the assessment that Newt's rise is insurmountable by Romney - he can't muster enough support to take the lead.
Nobody outside of a very rarified bubble sees Romney as the front-runner. That's the brilliance of the GOP strategy. He couldn't have lower performance expectations unless he was Ron Paul ... while Newt has become the great-white-hope of every media insider, culture warrior and Democrat in the universe. Newt is supposed to ride-high having solidified the crest that Romney is unable to secure.
These are Republican we're talking about ... angry Republicans. Newt has to be seen to slay Romney definitively in opening contests to prevent the narrative from totally ... otherwise the narrative totally flips again before Florida. Romney just needs a numeric path; he's already managed expectations pretty well and declared he's looking to a long slog. The safe money is on Newt's self-immolation before he can secure enough delegates to stop Romney.
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:07pm
This is true, but it was built on the notion that he would do bad in Iowa because the conservative religious element in Iowa GOP. The problem for Mitt is that the numbers in Iowa reflect his level of acceptance nationally. Who cares about Iowa when Florida looms ahead. But Florida has taken to Mitt just like Iowa has.
And to the extent he was the front runner within the MSM was that there would be this or that flavor of the month, but that in the long run, Mitt would outlast them, if for any other reason than he was seen as the one who had the best chance at beating Obama. Mitt's victory was predicated on the notion the Republican voters would in the end make the rational choice in order to put a R into the WH. When Cain surged, he was the "front runner," but it was presented with the cavet it is unlikely that to outlast Mitt. And so on.
I don't base my decision that Newt's rise is unsurmountable. It is based on the idea that in coming month, when it comes to time to decide, when all those who are of the "i don't know" mindset right now have to come down off the fence, only the smallest fraction of them will choose Mitt.
A few will go with Cain and Bachman and Perry - all of which have shown themselves to strike voters, rightly or wrongly, as unpresidential or not of presidential material. The rest will ponder upon Paul and Newt. (Santorum?) But Paul is like Mitt - he's been around the block already. If they haven't been comfortable with him already then why now? Newt, although a national figure, is still basically new - in the sense most people never had to ponder whether to vote for him, unlike Paul and Mitt.
For some reason, which is beyond me to some extent, GOP voters are ambivalent about Newt. Not crazy about him but at the same time don't have a huge problem with the idea of him being president. He is to GOP voters as McCain was to Democrats back in 2000.
The reality is that a good portion of the Republican voters don't like any of the candidates for the nomination. They are voting in the primary like many liberals will in the general election - for the lesser of two (or three or four) evils.
Newt doesn't have to slay Mitt definitively. He just has to keep the lackluster enthusiasm for Mitt right where it is. Obama's fear is not the GOP candidate, but apathy of the liberal Democrats. If the Mitt voter believes Mitt is going to lose, or has a real good chance of losing, what's the point of taking the time out to hit the polls. It doesn't really matter. So what if Newt or Paul wins. No big deal.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:49pm
Prediction markets have been studied to determine their efficiency with various results but I believe that they are usually a more accurate predictor than polls. As I recall, studies which showed them to be only marginally better than a simple poll often used sports betting to test. This has the problem of people's tendency to bet on their wished for outcome in a football game which they are less likely to do with other sorts of outcomes which they might analyze more dispassionately.
For election results polls can likely be as accurate very close to election day but further out the prediction markets are better predictors.
Shortly after 9/11 some general or other military connected person suggested prediction markets be set up for various terrorist possibilities. Cannot recall details but I think the idea was much like the way Intrade works. The public reaction to the idea of 'gambling' and of anyone hoping to profit in that area brought on a great deal of criticism and the idea died quickly, but I read a bit about them at the time and the idea seemed to have some merit, at least in theory. It seems though, that the choice must be yes/no to one outcome or else a choice of most likely among several known possibilities, one of which will definitely come about.
I would assume that the larger the pool of investors, the more accurate the prediction would likely be. Does Intrade ever advertise?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:04pm
This point made by kgb changes everything. If one's payout only happened at the end of the election (in a primary or caucus or the eventual nomination), so people attempted to gather as much of the stock of the eventual winner, it might be a more accurate predictor. But people can make money if they buy stock in the surge, then sell at its peak before plummets. They may believe in their eventual loss that makes them buy now because they perceive momentary success.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:18pm
I think that's a fair assessment. However, there is a payout that does only come at the end of the event .
All positions are either yes/no and shares settle at a fixed rate of $10 if the outcome is yes or $0 if the outcome is no. There always has to be buyer on the other side of any transaction - if nobody wants to buy your plummeting stock on an event, you ride it to the zero payout.
It's a pretty cool data tool if you understand what you are looking at.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/howItWorks/theBasics.jsp
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:35pm
I think that with GOP primary voters, conservative talk radio is an an important viral marketing machine, perhaps the all-important one to the voters who will come out. What they do with what the "MSM" does is probably what matters. I basically agree with Charlie Cook that it's way too soon to bet, but good luck to you on that anyways.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:55pm
The wrinkle with Iowa and the thing that is going to create the greatest barrier for Newt is that Iowa is a caucus. Newt has very little in a way of a network - boots on the ground. He seems to be relying on the networks that are non-affiliated with a candidate (such as the religious networks that operate year round) to get his "people" to the caucuses.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:08pm
Funny you just said the same thing I just posted above from The Caucus.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:12pm
"Brand management" is a great way to express the way Newt approaches life. Of course all candidates, and especially the campaign team, think in terms of brand management and marketing when it comes to campaigning. But Newt seems to me as someone who at a fundamental level approaches life, within and without politics, through the brand management prism. It is this paradigm that leads him to conceive of things like Contract with America and allows him to unabashedly shift his opinion on issues.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:26pm
Good point, that certainly helps Ron Paul and I think it's less of a stigma to be beaten by Paul than Romney.
The other thing about the Iowa caucus is that it is secret ballot. Therefore if I'm simply pissed off at the establishment Republicans and also really don't like Mormons I can vote to get my anger and hatred out without respect to what neighbors might think best.
by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:14pm
And there does seem to be a lot of anger out there - both focused and unfocused anger.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:37pm
Proportional allocation of delegates in the early states is a bigger problem for Newt than Iowa caucuses ... assuming he gets his crap together to even pull off a series of wins in the early contests (which seems increasingly less likely).
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:22pm
And his challenger is: Mitt? or Paul? Does Mitt have his shit together? well, yes he does (and does great in the debates), and he can't get a movement upward. Month after month after month. What is suddenly going to change that more than a quarter of the GOP would like to see him be president. The notion he is the best challenger against Obama has been out there a long time. He doesn't seem to have anything new to say - and his image as one of the rich Wall Streeters (and Mormon to boot) just lingers. Given the rest of the field why hasn't these people just thrown in the towel and get behind Mitt?
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:02pm
I'm not sure I get the question entirely. His challengers are both Romney and Paul. He has to beat them both. We won't actually know who has their shit together until after votes are counted.
A few weeks ago, that's what we were saying about Newt ... from 15 points back ... now his 15 points up from last week has already shrunk to 5. His numbers at this point are pure statistical noise.
Simply put, it looks like absolutely nothing is going to change. That's why things don't really look that great for Newt. We'll see how much of the flux settles out as solid Newt support in about a week or so.
Either way, I am going out on a limb and predicting a 3rd place finish for Gingrich in Iowa. Unless they go to war in the next week or so, Paul and Romney are preparing to tag-team the caucuses. And they've almost got a solid lock on the numbers to pull it off even if nothing changes between now and then.
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:10pm
But somebody has to win. Last one standing, I suspect.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:25pm
Your previous comment was about proportional delegates over the course of the nomination process and not just Iowa. Newt actually doesn't have to win Iowa, in my opinion, in fact he can come in third, get close in NH and then take SC in order to position himself for a win in Florida. Paul stands no chance in SC. Nor Mitt probably. Mitt will most likely take tiny NH, but everyone expects him, too. Unlike Newt in Iowa, Mitt has to have a big victory to come away from NH looking like a winner.
But remember that Iowa gave the victory to Huckabee last time around and none of these three guys fit the bill as the next Huckabee. Who will the Huckabee voters vote for? They will show up, without the need for some boots on the ground to get them there. With Perry and Bachman looking like sure losers, and many don't want to throw their vote away - they get to their second or third choice among Ron Mitt and Newt. It is anybody's guess.
Newt's previous 4% ratings says more about the voters looking around for the "winner," and this has led to flavor of the month. But unlike the other flavors, Newt has imploded like Perry and Cain once the spotlight was shown on them, or just whimpered into the background like Bachmann.
I would say they aren't noise at all -- there is some meaning behind them because the fluctuation in the numbers are coming from people trying to make a decision. That they haven't settled down says a lot. There is volatility. Newt may end up back at 5% in a couple of weeks. Anything can happen. Or he may be back up over 32%. Or he can remain flat. They just seem like noise because we haven't see the outcome yet. But there will be outcome, and then the stats that appeared as noise will suddenly make sense.
This is a political blog in the political blogosphere. So people will try to see the meaning in the mess. What is the pattern. It is all speculation. And some of us find that entertaining. I may be utterly wrong (I once thought Bachmann had a legitimate shot at getting the nomination). I am just trying to make sense out of what appears to be noise right now. Like I said pure self-indulgent entertainment.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:47pm
There are indeed a bunch of math and campaign narrative possibilities at the moment. Literally an open table. Pick a scenario you like or think current events and data are suggestive of ... and it's totally possible right now.
I didn't say Newt's numbers were devoid of meaning. I said they are statistical noise at this point. That term actually denotes a reasonably precise meaning.
I think there probably is meaning in the numbers ... and you nailed it, IMO - fluctuations. At the same time Newt hit what for the moment we'll call his "peak," around 70% of all voters said that they would consider picking someone else ... and 60% said they would like to see someone else enter the race. Same as when each of the other candidates that have risen and fallen rose and fell. Those are the voters that are causing these swings. For lack of a better term, they are driving a flavor-of-the-month cycle.
I have no idea what the political guys call it in their models, but I've always called instability flux. For my purposes I'm roughly interpreting the 70% as moderate flux and the 60% as heavy flux. Problem that I see with the current prevailing theory here is that the signal isn't in Newt's numbers ... the closest thing to a signal is in the flux. Interestingly, the levels of that flux seems to inversely correlate pretty well with the combined unwavering baseline support of Paul and Romney.
Now, my speculation is that until those voters settle down, it's literally musical chairs. I don't disagree at all that Newt has the potential to solidify support among these voters. But it really doesn't look like that is what is happening.
It's all a guess right now. Everyone who does data professionally is saying the same thing. Based on the data ... literally anything can happen in the next three weeks. There are suggestive indicators that the flux wave is moving on to Paul ... but not much indicator it is settling out into full support for anyone. Not sure where it goes after Paul ... Huntsman? He's been seeing a bit of extra notice of late. Roemer out of left field?
What ever happens next, if the cycle holds, Paul seems set to be peaking damn near right in time for Iowa. And both he and Romney clearly want to take out Gingrich ... along with everyone who's ever known or worked with Gingrich, apparently.
Romney has zero risk of being ascribed a "flavor-of-the-month" label. His campaign has been built on the assumption that he would take losses in the ultra-conservative early states to Tea Party darling [Bachmann/Perry/Cain/
Paul... Newt?], pick up steady delegates on the new proportional rules and pull even on Super Tuesday when the more moderate states weighed in. The idea was at that point either he'd have done better than expected in the early states and put it to bed then and there or be positioned for a war of math-based attrition. I don't know how smart or dumb it was ... but that's the Romney game plan and what his campaign was built for. It hasn't been much of a secret.OTOH. Newt is back from the grave. No organization. Pretty cash strapped. You don't think if his numbers tank or he does really crappy in Iowa that the same media guys who have been savaging him non-stop will slap "Plain Vanilla" over his picture on CNN and call him ice cream?
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:59pm
The SEC just announced fraud indictments against GSE execs for lies to investors and Congress. I'm wondering if that gives Gingrich an out on the Freddy Mac issue---that is, he was lied to also.
Since the man disgusts me and I hate his tactics it's revolting to bet for him.
by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:09pm
No kidding. He better break out with *something* like that before Ron Paul breaks out with an ad that says Newt was promoting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help the people signing his checks get away with lying investors and the American people.
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:38am