Mitt's co-chair to campaign says peace out, sucka!!!

[maxiep]

Who's cabinet was Emanuel potentially going to be on had he not taken that job?

He left Clinton's White House to make his money. He was being recruited to run for the IL 5th District, and he turned it down. Thanks for playing, though.

 

[MickZagger]

He left Clinton's White House to make his money. He was being recruited to run for the IL 5th District, and he turned it down. Thanks for playing, though.

He had already served 5 years. He did his time with Clinton, then decided to go make his money. Pawlenty is bailing to get his money before he was ever a part of a cabinet. Probably because he knows there's no shot Romney's going to be elected. Thanks, come again.

 

[tlongII]

M is the roman numeral for 1000

FYI - Rome was a Republic...e.g.- Republicans. Just sayin'.

 

[Denny Crane]

If the Romney campaign needs a shake up, now is a good time and this is the right move.

Good for Palwenty to get out of the elected office game. He didn't run his own campaign all that well, either.

 

[PapaG]

Obama's campaign chair scares the bejeebus out of me.

"It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again..."

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If the Romney campaign needs a shake up, now is a good time and this is the right move.

Good for Palwenty to get out of the elected office game. He didn't run his own campaign all that well, either.

Good point, it is time for a shake up on the Romney campaign and this new offer gives a good reason for Palwenty to leave. This will be a non-story in a couple of days if it's not already.

I still wonder about the timing on this seven figure salray offer . . . guessing a few phone calls made, couple elbow pokes and all of sudden Palwenty has this great offer. That whole political world is one big game and we are the pawns . . .

 

[julius]

FYI - Rome was a Republic...e.g.- Republicans. Just sayin'.

Yeah, good point. Cept that Republic and Republican don't mean the same thing. Just sayin'

 

[PapaG]

Good point, it is time for a shake up on the Romney campaign and this new offer gives a good reason for Palwenty to leave. This will be a non-story in a couple of days if it's not already.

I still wonder about the timing on this seven figure salray offer . . . guessing a few phone calls made, couple elbow pokes and all of sudden Palwenty has this great offer. That whole political world is one big game and we are the pawns . . .

The new spin is that Wall Street is already putting their guys in place for a Romney administration.

 

[julius]

The new spin is that Wall Street is already putting their guys in place for a Romney administration.

yeah, because that'll go over so well. Wall street has such a great reputation and PR team on their side.

Barring Obama killing someone or sleeping with a underaged girl (or boy), there's pretty much nothing that Romney can do in the next month or so that will help him.

 

[PapaG]

yeah, because that'll go over so well. Wall street has such a great reputation and PR team on their side.

Barring Obama killing someone or sleeping with a underaged girl (or boy), there's pretty much nothing that Romney can do in the next month or so that will help him.

If Obama kills someone, it will be Bush's fault, anyhow. Speaking of Wall Street...

Wall Street convictions.

When we think of cronyism and the problems of cronyism and crony capitalism, we think in terms of economic loss and gain,” Schweizer said in a phone interview. “What we’re showing here is that cronyism is now permeating our justice system. So, it’s not just a question of dollars and cents, it’s a question of whether you’re going to face legal jeopardy or not on what you’re doing.”

“The issue of a revolving door — people who go in and out of, for instance, the Department of Energy who go work for energy companies then come back to the Department of Energy — is always there,” Schweizer added. “But, we’re not used to associating the top leadership of the Justice Department with the revolving door. And, I think that’s what makes this so troubling — because you can’t trust them. All their financial interests are tied up with these large firms that do an enormous amount of business with Wall Street.”

In the report, GAI details how the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations both actually took down financial criminals — unlike the Obama administration. Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, GAI points out how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents.”

“Clinton’s DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L (savings and loans) executives, senior officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI adds.

But, despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.

The Bush and Clinton administrations’ track records on prosecuting white-collar crime, and the Obama administration’s failure to do so, Schweizer said, is “evidence that this has less to do with some sort of partisan or philosophical issue.”

http://dailybail.com/home/special-report-inside-the-department-of-justices-unprecedent.html

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/r...ankers-after-2008-financial-meltdown/?print=1

 

[PapaG]

The hubris and arrogance of the Obama voters amazes me. Every properly sampled poll has the race almost tied, yet they are convinced that Romney has no shot. An incumbent polling below 50% at this point of the race is the underdog, usually.

 

[julius]

The hubris and arrogance of the Obama voters amazes me. Every properly sampled poll has the race almost tied, yet they are convinced that Romney has no shot. An incumbent polling below 50% at this point of the race is the underdog, usually.

538.com

But you go ahead and keep telling yourself he has a chance.

 

[PapaG]

538.com

But you go ahead and keep telling yourself he has a chance.

What is 538.com? Any poll that has D+9 in a national sample is bogus, and even with that ridiculous demographic sample, Romney is still within the MoE. Keep on telling yourself it's over. I hope the rest of the lazy freeloaders feel the same way and don't get off the coach on election day.

 

[PapaG]

LOL

A New York Times blog is your proof??? LMAO

What an idiotic source of "proof". You're joking, right?

 

[PapaG]

The CBS/NYT model has Democrats a +9 in Florida when in 2008 they were only a +3 and an even split in the 2010 midterms. Ohio’s sample has exactly the split in 2008 (D+8), which is nine points better than Democrats did in the midterms. Pennsylvania’s numbers (D+6) come closest to a rational predictive model, somewhere between 2008′s D+7 and 2010′s D+3, but still looking mighty optimistic for Democratic turnout.

You should probably take a statistics course, julius.

 

[julius]

What is 538.com? Any poll that has D+9 in a national sample is bogus, and even with that ridiculous demographic sample, Romney is still within the MoE. Keep on telling yourself it's over. I hope the rest of the lazy freeloaders feel the same way and don't get off the coach on election day.

sorry, wrote down the wrong address.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

but hey, keep using the talking points. To quote John Lennon, whatever gets you through the night G.

When you have hard line conservatives throwing him under the bus, and complaining that in this election (of all elections) the R's are losing, only you look the fool G.

 

[julius]

You should probably take a statistics course, julius.

you should take a class in "reality".

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

[PapaG]

If Nate Silver says it's over, then it's over. :MARIS61:

 

[PapaG]

FWIW, I had no idea who Romney's campaign chairs were, nor Obama's, either.

 

[julius]

It's a safe bet that Obama has around 233 EV's.

Washington 12, Oregon 7, California 55, New Mexico 5, Hawaii 4, Minnesota 10, Illinois 20,Michigan 16, New York 29, Pennsylvania 20, Maine 11, RI 4, Ct 7, New Jersey 14, Delaware 3, Maryland 10, WDC 3, Vermont 3.

I think it's a safe bet that those are going for Obama.

Added together, that's 233.

So you're telling me that he won't be able to make up 37 EV's by winning Florida, and a combo of either Ohio or Virginia, or Colorado and one of the other 2?


Really?

 

[julius]

If Nate Silver says it's over, then it's over. :MARIS61:

well, he's far more accurate and logical than you are, so yeah. He was pretty much on the ball for the whole McCain/Obama election.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's a fair question.

Silver is absolutely a Democrat and very biased along those lines. He literally cheers for good news for Democrats and bad news for Republicans. He downplays good news for republicans too. I follow him on twitter and read his articles fairly regularly.

Anyhow, I think it's quite possible that this kind of obvious bias along with misuse of the polling data can help shape public opinion. A stream of "Romney's dropping in the polls" feeds on itself and he drops further, or really does drop.

And you really do need to look at the polling methodologies used. They survey 1000 people. 500 say "Romney" and 500 say "Obama" but the poll results are 56% Obama, 44% Romney. That's because they fudge the result by multiplying Obama's results by 1.5 (or some number like that) and divide Romney's by the same. They figure there are 1.5x more democrats than republicans or some other justification.

The thing is, the flaw in that logic is Democrats voted for Reagan. And Bush, and W. Republicans voted for Clinton, and obviously quite a few did for Obama.

 

[julius]

Here's a fair question.

Silver is absolutely a Democrat and very biased along those lines. He literally cheers for good news for Democrats and bad news for Republicans. He downplays good news for republicans too. I follow him on twitter and read his articles fairly regularly.

Anyhow, I think it's quite possible that this kind of obvious bias along with misuse of the polling data can help shape public opinion. A stream of "Romney's dropping in the polls" feeds on itself and he drops further, or really does drop.

And you really do need to look at the polling methodologies used. They survey 1000 people. 500 say "Romney" and 500 say "Obama" but the poll results are 56% Obama, 44% Romney. That's because they fudge the result by multiplying Obama's results by 1.5 (or some number like that) and divide Romney's by the same. They figure there are 1.5x more democrats than republicans or some other justification.

The thing is, the flaw in that logic is Democrats voted for Reagan. And Bush, and W. Republicans voted for Clinton, and obviously quite a few did for Obama.

and you got this "they multiply #'s by 1.5" from where?

(I think it rhymes with "bass" and "class" and "my ass")

 

[Denny Crane]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/

Stage 1. Weighted Polling Average

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/poll-methodology

Weighting

Weights– the adjustments made to ensure a poll’s subjects are comparable by age, race
and other demographic qualities to the overall population — are computed in two stages.
First, an initial weight, or pre-weight, is computed to make sure all subjects in the sample
have an equal chance of being called. This is followed by demographic balancing using a
rim weighting procedure.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/02/weighting-and-other-poll-controversies.php

Weighting and Other Poll Controversies

(an excellent read)

http://www.dailykos.com/special/Methodology

Typically, poll respondents represent a greater proportion of whites, older people, and women than found in the American public as a whole. Because of this, PPP weights its polls for race, age, and gender to ensure its surveys properly represent the population. (Note: PPP does not weight for party identification.) Based on a combination of census numbers, voter participation in past elections, and poll response, PPP develops target ranges for the share of poll respondents that should fall into each of these categories.

After contacting a sufficient number of respondents, PPP uses a random deletion process to achieve an appropriate gender and race balance, which generally involves removing excess cases of white and female voters. PPP then uses a statistical formula to adjust for age imbalances, which creates the final results. Even though the final results are weighted, the number of respondents by gender, race, and age is not necessarily identical every week.

Using a statistical formula to weight the results can result in a round number of respondents in each demographic category because the Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation Poll generally has a base of 1,000 respondents. However, an examination of the raw data (which is also provided each week) demonstrates that this pattern does not exist at the individual respondent level, but rather is merely a by-product of weighting.

(&c)

 

[barfo]

Here's a fair question.

Silver is absolutely a Democrat and very biased along those lines. He literally cheers for good news for Democrats and bad news for Republicans. He downplays good news for republicans too. I follow him on twitter and read his articles fairly regularly.

Anyhow, I think it's quite possible that this kind of obvious bias along with misuse of the polling data can help shape public opinion.

You are funny, Denny. You constantly quote Gallup and Rasmussen, which are definitely run by Republicans, but you don't ever suggest that maybe their results might be biased (even though all evidence suggests they are).

A stream of "Romney's dropping in the polls" feeds on itself and he drops further, or really does drop.

And you really do need to look at the polling methodologies used. They survey 1000 people. 500 say "Romney" and 500 say "Obama" but the poll results are 56% Obama, 44% Romney. That's because they fudge the result by multiplying Obama's results by 1.5 (or some number like that) and divide Romney's by the same. They figure there are 1.5x more democrats than republicans or some other justification.

The thing is, the flaw in that logic is Democrats voted for Reagan. And Bush, and W. Republicans voted for Clinton, and obviously quite a few did for Obama.

Your argument doesn't make sense. They don't change the votes of the people they poll. If they poll D's who say they are going to vote for Romney, then THAT result also gets multiplied by the demographic adjustments. They don't just call and say "Romney or Obama? Ok, bye". They also collect information on party affiliation, age, gender, etc. etc.

barfo

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Romney has the debates to convinve people that he will be better for the economy (possible) and that he is the type of person citizens want as the face of our nation (tough).

I hear he is not that good at debates, but I think he still has chance and the debates are where he can swing this thing.


I also think it is very easy for Oregonians to be apathetic towards this election. Obama is going to win Oregon, neither canidate seems interested in Oregon because we aren't a swing state . . . the reality is my vote and my opinion means nothing. Why should I spend time really getting to know the canidates when I have zero impact on who the next president is going to be. I'm going to vote, but without being assured about Romney, I will vote for the incumbant knowing my vote means nothing

 

[maxiep]

He had already served 5 years. He did his time with Clinton, then decided to go make his money. Pawlenty is bailing to get his money before he was ever a part of a cabinet. Probably because he knows there's no shot Romney's going to be elected. Thanks, come again.

Or, he was a two-term governor who hasn't made much money and saw this as his chance. kthx.

 

[Denny Crane]

You are funny, Denny. You constantly quote Gallup and Rasmussen, which are definitely run by Republicans, but you don't ever suggest that maybe their results might be biased (even though all evidence suggests they are).

To the contrary, Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in 2008. Link.

I don't make any claims about Gallup's polls. Except that he's been polling for a long long time - since I was a kid. However, they were not the most accurate in 2008, and overestimated Obama's support (biased, indeed!).

Your argument doesn't make sense. They don't change the votes of the people they poll. If they poll D's who say they are going to vote for Romney, then THAT result also gets multiplied by the demographic adjustments. They don't just call and say "Romney or Obama? Ok, bye". They also collect information on party affiliation, age, gender, etc. etc.

barfo

No, they call and say "Romney or Obama" and when there's no answer, they record "Obama".

Anyhow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/17/gallup-poll-race-barack-obama_n_1589937.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Romney has the debates to convinve people that he will be better for the economy (possible) and that he is the type of person citizens want as the face of our nation (tough).

I hear he is not that good at debates, but I think he still has chance and the debates are where he can swing this thing.


I also think it is very easy for Oregonians to be apathetic towards this election. Obama is going to win Oregon, neither canidate seems interested in Oregon because we aren't a swing state . . . the reality is my vote and my opinion means nothing. Why should I spend time really getting to know the canidates when I have zero impact on who the next president is going to be. I'm going to vote, but without being assured about Romney, I will vote for the incumbant knowing my vote means nothing

How does the debate go?

Romney: Your economy sucks
Obama: You suck

That's the campaigns' strategies so far. Romney provides too little specifics on his own. Obama does not want it to be a referendum on his performance.

Who wins this exchange?

Romney should trivially be able to produce a slew of stats showing the economy is bad. That should at least make him look in command of the facts.

The people watching may take Obama's word that Romney sucks, but he'll be standing right next to him and people can judge for themselves.

 

[barfo]

To the contrary, Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in 2008.

As of election day. He's pretty clearly not the most accurate pollster *right now*. I predict that Rasmussen's numbers will gradually come in line with the other pollsters by election day, and he'll get a pretty good final result again. And only fools will believe that Romney was actually winning in late September just because Rasmussen said so. Whether his polls are bogus today due to intentional bias or accidental bias is unknown to me, but it certainly must be tempting to put your thumb on the scale in September, knowing that you'll only be judged by your November accuracy.

barfo