Wednesday Open Thread

56
  by: Colorado Pols Wed August 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM MDT

People havin’ memory loss

Trying to get over

But if you try to get over

You gonna go under

–Del the Funky Homosapien


Full story: Wednesday Open Thread

56 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Libertad says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 3:56 PM MDT

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

    This will force Obama and his Super PACs to spend millions more in same states close to Chicago.

  2. Libertad 2.0 says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM MDT

    down to not un-negative 567 bilion points in most non-Democrat polls. This is just the beginning of America waking up to the William Ayers socialism bailout communist grappling hook water Higgs Boson stumble fraction killzone slurping unicorn turrets bosnia islamist threat stookie dookie halookie pie crayon wax crispy waffle blzzzzzzzzzzzttttttt whirrrr ERROR ERROR 404 not found  

  3. ScottP says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM MDT

    It’s a disturbing conversation to have about a disturbing incident and I don’t see why it needs to be a public conversation. A woman’s decisions about her pregnancy should NOT be up for public discussion. It should be a discussion between her and the people she trusts. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

    • MADCO says:
      Wed August 22, 2012 at 6:21 PM MDT

      64,000 reported rapes in 2010. In the US. ANd that’s just the ones that were reported.

      That’s about 175 per day.

      Or about one per every 7 minutes.

      Yes – it’s a disturbing conversation. About OUTRAGEOUSLY disturbing events.  64,000.  175 just today.

      And we can scream and cry about There outta be a law or laws don’t work it should remind us that there are laws. ANd they only work when the people we elect make them work.  Laws don’t enforce themselves.

      If no means no  and consent is required for consensual sex, why is it ever a question whether the rapist and his victim are married? dating? drunk? hot? at a party? friends? in a parking garage? armed? or any of a million other things that just don’t matter.

      Was there consent?  

      No? a rape occurred.

      The very conversation goes to the value of women.  If men can rape women, and then require them to bear the pregnancy, then men are more valuable than women.  Which, of course, is clearly true for approx 1/2 of our candidates for elected office.

      APologies to all rape victims who are not women, or women who were raped by other women.

    • dwyer says:
      Wed August 22, 2012 at 6:31 PM MDT

      A woman’s decisions about her pregnancy should NOT be up for public discussion.

      But it is not a private issue, it is up for public discussion because there are laws that dictate the parameters of that decision and it is also a wedge issue, politically, used by both sides of the public debate to activate their base and raise money.

      What “should be” is not “what is.”  

      • ScottP says:
        Wed August 22, 2012 at 6:42 PM MDT

        Which is what makes it so tiring for me.

        As long as there are people who make arguments that men are more valuable that women and as long as people want to make laws dictating what pregnant woman should do with their bodies we have to keep talking about it.

        I don’t want to talk about it, but I have to.

      • MADCO says:
        Wed August 22, 2012 at 6:52 PM MDT

        Don’t trivialize it, thank you.

        A wedge issue I tend to think of more as something that almost has nothing to do with anything,  certainly not the elected office candidates are seeking, but can be raised to remind or persuade voters of the “right’ candidate to vote for, even though the candidate can’t do anything about that issue.

        But if, Akin said, the justice for rape victims must include the victim being required by law to  birth the rapist’s child, well that is something law can change.

        • dwyer says:
          Wed August 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM MDT

          A wedge issue I tend to think of more as something that almost has nothing to do with anything,  certainly not the elected office candidates are seeking, but can be raised to remind or persuade voters of the “right’ candidate to vote for, even though the candidate can’t do anything about that issue.

          I think this fits the Republican position on banning all abortions.  It has been in the platform since 1980.  It requires a Constitutional Amendment (although in more modern times, the claim is that Congress can just change the meaning of person in the 14th amendment).

          BUT, in thirty years, the Republicans have NEVER put the amendment to a vote….not even in committee.

          Now, granted there are many laws restricting access but that is not the same as banning abortion.  What I like about what Akin did was that he, in effect, called their bluff.  The touted “personhood bill” that he, Ryan and 62 others “co-sponsored” is sitting in committee…where there has been NO hearings and NO vote.  EVEN if there were a vote in committee and it went to the House, and then it went to the SEnate and passed both houses…then it would have to be passed by 3/4s of the states.  To scream about “banning abortion” when there is nothing legislatively going on that would begin to do that…..is my definition of a wedge issue.

          You don’t have to agree.  But I think ScottP should go to law school and leave Political Science to bloggers….or tell us what is going on with the CU prediction of a Romney victory.

          • BlueCat says:
            Wed August 22, 2012 at 10:24 PM MDT

            know it all and the last person on the planet qualified to tell Scott (or anybody) what he should be doing or what requirements he needs to meet in order to express an opinion here. Your comments certainly don’t demonstrate any grounds for your delusional assumption of general superiority.  

          • Craig says:
            Wed August 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM MDT

            This is what defined a wedge issue which is an issue that can get people to vote for someone they otherwise wouldn’t support or against their own interests.  The Republicans have used this brilliantly for the last 30 years to get working poor white folks to vote for them, even though the Republicans have nothing for scorn for them.  Only now is this becoming an issue which Democrats are using.  We’ll see how big an issue it becomes, but two years ago the economy sucked even more than it does now and Sen. Bennet managed to beat Ken Buck basically solely on this issue in a wave Republican year.

  4. BlueCat says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 7:03 PM MDT

    more from the Romney stealth, “trust me” campaign front:

    WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney started to lay out his energy plan at a Tuesday event, but because there were reporters in the room, he decided against doing so.

    During a Houston fundraiser, Romney told a room of about 125 donors that he planned to unveil his comprehensive energy plan this week. He said his proposal will specifically relate to fossil-based fuels. But then, he said no more.

    “I know that we have members of the media here right now, so I’m not going to go through that in great detail,” Romney said, according to a pool report from the event.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

    Pretty much his stand on discussing any plans in any detail in public.  He resists even offering a short, simplified list of specific points on such questions as the above mentioned energy plan, ending the war in Afghanistan, exactly how he’d create jobs or reform medicare, achieving savings with no cuts. You name it. He wants to keep it secret.  

    He did offer a little something on higher ed. His plan is that students should shop around and borrow from mommy and daddy.  Doesn’t every kid have parents with spare money to lend?  He got ridiculed for cluelessness on that one so back to the secret “trust me” strategy.

    If Romney thinks he would lose if people knew what his plans actually are, if he even has anything coherent in mind beyond wanting to be President, really rich, and to pay even less in taxes than he does already, he must think most voters would hate them and he’d lose. That’s something we probably should take on trust. After all, he’s the one who knows what the plans are.

  5. ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 7:15 PM MDT

    Dang them tricky Muslims!

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad…

    UPDATE: On July 8, Colorado Governor John W. Hickenlooper issued an executive order that actually did lift the statewide fireworks ban: “I hereby rescind Executive Order D 2012-015. This Executive Order rescinds the state-wide ban on open burning, including campfires, warming fires, charcoal grill fires, fused explosives, and FIREWORKS.” See it here. He had issued the ban in an earlier executive order on June 14. This meant that Coloradans could not shoot off fireworks on July 4, but Muslims could at the end of Ramadan. And why did the police officers below not know that the ban had been lifted? Was it their malfeasance, or was the lifting of the ban not publicized for some reason, except to special groups?

    ————————————————

    Once again we see special rules for Muslims in accordance with the sharia and Islamic supremacism. Anywhere American law and Islamic law conflict, it is American law that has to give way.

     

  6. Fidel's dirt nap says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 8:49 PM MDT

    USA pro challenge.  Good for cycling, good for tourism, good for Colorado.  Can’t wait for the final this weekend.

    P.S. – if I am busted for posting this by “the powers that be”, feel free to take it down.

    • VanDammerVanDammer says:
      Wed August 22, 2012 at 9:26 PM MDT

      so many awesome places to catch the race and scream our lungs out for the peloton.  Think we might do the Canyon and catch them as they go thru Ned and then watch them rush down Broadway heading to Flagstaff.

      I used to be down & front for Philly’s Corestates 500 and always loved hanging out @ Manayunk’s Wall.

      • Fidel's dirt nap says:
        Wed August 22, 2012 at 10:34 PM MDT

        and $ 30 parking everywhere, so it may take some good planning to get the right spot VanDammer (of course if you take your bike, no problem).  I want to go to Flagstaff for the finish but I don’t think the kids will sit tight that long.

  7. dwyer says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 9:27 PM MDT

    I don’t know what institution within the University is

    issuing the prediction – Channel Nine just broadcast it.

    The claim is that CU has been correct since 1980.  Hell, I

    have been correct since 1980.

    • sxp151 says:
      Wed August 22, 2012 at 10:02 PM MDT

      There’s a broken link to it on CU’s web site.

      Michael Berry and Kenneth Bickers: “Forecasting the 2012 Presidential Election With State-Level Economic Indicators.” http://polsci.colorado.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52

      But considering that the model was only created recently, it seems a bit misleading to say it’s “correctly predicted every election since 1980.”

      It’s very easy to take a bunch of old data and fit some parameters to a model and get the model to predict the old data. Predicting the future is much harder than predicting the past. Oh well, science is hard.

    • sxp151 says:
      Thu August 23, 2012 at 1:57 AM MDT

      http://polisci.colorado.edu/im…

      I don’t know the standards of the field, so I can’t compare how this model holds up against any other model, but essentially what they did is to take eight (8) data points and a statistical analysis of a bunch of variables. The model was only recently devised, so as I suspected it has never successfully predicted an election outcome (only been fit to retroactively predict what happened).

      From the official CU press release:

      “For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”

      Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election.

      This is absolutely misleading, and at first I thought perhaps some uninformed publicity writer was responsible for it. But no, it’s one of the authors of the study implying that his model has been successfully used for 32 years to predict Presidential outcomes. Yes, that’s how you get publicity for your paper, but it obviously leads to confusion among people who are not sure how linear regressions work.

      It’s like if I suddenly decided tonight to count Libertad’s posts per day for the past eight days, then confidently predicted he will post 14.27 times on Thursday based on a statistical analysis of the temperature outside, Sean Hannity ratings, and word count of the day’s Wall Street Journal editorials. And then I claimed that my model successfully predicted the last eight days already, so we’re all in trouble. Well no it didn’t.

      In fairness, they do use election data from all 50 states, so it’s not as bad as using only eight data points, and they do note at the end that the model has never been successfully tested, but I’m pretty confident that using a different set of variables with the same analysis could produce a different result. In the end their success rate with state-by-state predictions is about 90%, measuring only which candidate wins or loses, not by how much. Neglecting everything except swing states reduces that success rate a lot. Yet somehow at the end of the paper they make predictions to four digits of each state’s vote share. FOUR DIGITS (e.g., Obama is projected to get 48.19% of the vote in Colorado).

      In short I would trust an election model that’s already made a single successful prediction over this.

    • sxp151 says:
      Thu August 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM MDT

      “The University has successfully predicted every American President since 1980″ says the newscaster. This is just absolutely false (the University would never predict an election, and these two professors at the University have never before made a prediction with this model). But you can totally understand why the 9 News writers chopped up the press release to read this way: because the press release and authors’ quotes are seriously misleading.  

      • sxp151 says:
        Thu August 23, 2012 at 3:38 AM MDT

        Table 2 of the actual study uses the headings “Democrat States” and “Democrat Electoral College Votes.” So you know who this study is by and for.

        • harrydobyharrydoby says:
          Thu August 23, 2012 at 7:12 AM MDT

          Personally, I’m proud to be able to confidently predict that Thomas E. Dewey will not win the 1948 election.

          Interestingly, Romney appears to be following a campaign strategy similar to Dewey’s:

          …given Truman’s sinking popularity and the Democratic Party’s three-way split (between Truman, Henry A. Wallace, and Strom Thurmond), Dewey had seemed unstoppable. Republicans figured that all they had to do to win was to avoid making any major mistakes, and as such Dewey did not take any risks. He spoke in platitudes, trying to transcend politics.

          Speech after speech was filled with empty statements of the obvious, such as the famous quote: “You know that your future is still ahead of you.” An editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal summed it up:

          No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences:

          Agriculture is important.

          Our rivers are full of fish.

          You cannot have freedom without liberty.

          Our future lies ahead.

          Part of the reason Dewey ran such a cautious, vague campaign was his experience as a presidential candidate in 1944. In that election Dewey felt that he had allowed Roosevelt to draw him into a partisan, verbal “mudslinging” match, and he believed that this had cost him votes.

  8. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 9:31 PM MDT

    As some of you know, I’m a victim advocate and completed training in April. The group I work with is recruiting new volunteers for an October training. I can’t discuss my calls whatsoever, but I can discuss the training and the general commitment, and put you in touch with the organization. Feel free to email if interested.  

  9. Phoenix RisingPhoenix Rising says:
    Wed August 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM MDT

    Why is it that the vast majority of these stories are about Republicans committing election fraud?

    Today’s edition: Rep. David Rivera is caught paying cash under the table to support a fake Democratic primary opponent.  Most of the fake Democrat’s campaigning consisted of mailers and ads attacking Jose Garcia using right-wing talking points.  Potential penalty?  5 years in prison.

    This not too long after a Republican running for the state legislature in Massachusetts was reported to have conspired with an election worker to switch the mailing addresses of hundreds of absentee ballot voters.

    And then we have the Speaker of the Michigan legislature, Republican Jase Bolger conspiring to commit perjury in order to deprive Democrats of a candidate.

    These are the types of election fraud that really affect our Democratic process, not some 1-in-10,000 individual voter fraud.

    • BlueCat says:
      Thu August 23, 2012 at 1:09 AM MDT

      comes to .07 per state per year so…. nowhere near as frequent as 1 in 10,000. In any given year,  that’s about 35 votes in all 50 states out of however many million votes are cast.

      • BlueCat says:
        Thu August 23, 2012 at 1:16 AM MDT

        What I was trying to say was according to stats cited by Jon Stewart from a Republican outfit tracking fraudulent voting over 10 years, the number averaged out to 0.7 cases per state per year or about 35 votes each year nationwide out of the millions cast. Nowhere near a 1 in 10,000 or even a 1 in 100,000 chance. Not sure how many million vote.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.