2012 republican presidential nominee IV: NEEDS MORE BOOING

This thread needs a makeover.

1) Turn it into a comedy poll. (Officially, that is--unofficially, it always has been.)
2) Get the Rolling Stones into it somehow.
3) Make it more in the style of a Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Recommended to iatee:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/models-based-on-fundamentals-have-failed-at-predicting-presidential-elections/#more-29633

(Follow-up to some back-and-forth we once had as to whether the economy was always the most important issue in an election.)

quality lolpic

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1rm69uZug1qa7yfto1_500.jpg

well I don't think I ever said "nothing else matters", I just said it was always the most important factor - and even if it only explains 40-50% of the result, as silver suggests here http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/which-economic-indicators-best-predict-presidential-elections/ - it would take a fairly extraordinary election for something else to play a bigger role. even if the economy tanks, I don't think david duke could beat obama - ideology does matter. and campaign effects exist - even if the economy tanks, I don't think mitt romney could beat obama if he decided to only air ads with him in a bikini singing 'ALL AMERICANS WILL BE MORMONS WHEN I AM PRESIDENT'. so there are def ways obama could win even if the economy sank into a depression. it's just not super likely given a 'fairly normal campaign' and w/ a candidate w/ a 'fairly normal ideological views'.

w/ a 'fairly = w/ 'fairly

I know you never meant "nothing else matters," and I agreed with you that, in most every election, yes, it's the economy. The one specific one we disagree on is '68, where I just think other issues took precedence.

did I? I mean 1968's an outlier election all around cause it was a major structural shift in the party composition + a war, that's to say an election where the ideology and candidate effects were pretty huge. I think what I was arguing was that even when it seemed like the economy 'didn't really matter', it still plays an important role - 1968 happened w/ the backdrop of a strong economy, and if he had happened w/ an economy in chaos, nixon would have won by even more. it might not have won or lost an election but it doesn't stop existing as a variable when the economy isn't in chaos. if the gop falls apart in coming decades (I think there is a decent chance this happens) there will be some unusual elections.

We're right back to where we left off. I conceded that the economy's always a factor (how could it not be?); I was saying then, and now, that in certain elections, though--an outlier, of course, or a perfect storm--it won't always be the most important factor. '68 was just such a perfect storm. And I thought then, and still do, that it's just semantics when you try to prove something in the negative (i.e., even though the economy was strong, it's still a major factor by virtue of it not being weak).

it's not just semantics, when we look at these things as variables, 'factors' exist whether they're expressed or hidden in the narrative. as far as the weight of various variables go, that's a good example of an election where it'd be given less weight - like, let's give it 20%. that 20% contributed to the fact that the popular vote was actually quite close between nixon and humphrey. in a world where some other major event happened that hurt nixon in another variable + there was no electoral college, humphrey wouldn't be far from winning the election, and 'the economy', despite not having changed, now seems pretty important.

basically in both cases the economy mattered '20%', in one of them it seems more relevant to the story because it was part of the group of factors that lead to a majority popular vote, in the other story it seems like something that should be downplayed because it was part of the group of factors that lead to a .7% gap in the popular vote.

if you want a baseball analogy, the run scored in the 1st inning and the run scored in the 9th inning both contributed 'the same amount' to a 2-1 victory, but the one in the 9th always seems more important. a strong economy can be a run in the 1st, even if that 2nd run doesn't come it doesn't change the value of a run, which was 'nothing in a loss, but the game was closer than it woulda been'.

But in your baseball analogy, both runs are 50% determinative; in the '68 election, the economy (I contend) was not equal to Vietnam or civil unrest in deciding the election.

Let's end this on a point of agreement; the economy was worth about 20% as an issue in '68.

interestingly the economy increases in determinativeness (there's a word) as it swings above OR below historical trend. above 2-3% it becomes very kind to incumbents, below that and the opposition has an easy lift. but right at that mark, it "stops mattering!" or, more accurately, is held at equilibrium and neither side can make a broadly-legible case on economics. and so politics tends to express itself on other issues.

2-3% growth, obviously

I think my main point was that 'stops mattering' doesn't make the factor disappear, it just makes its effect less prominent in the narrative, and as you say, decreases its determinativeness. also there's only 100% of determinativeness to split up so even w/ a strong economy in 1968 it prob lost share to other factors.

sorry everyone else

GREEN BAY, Wis.—Mitt Romney has long been criticized for being awkward on the stump, but his wife, Ann, defended her husband in a radio interview today, rejecting a host's statement that Romney is "too stiff" on the campaign trail.

Per ABC News' Emily Friedman, Ann Romney told Baltimore WBAL radio that she's working to show another side of her husband. Asked about criticism that Romney is "too stiff," Ann Romney laughed and replied, "I guess we'd better unzip him, and let the real Mitt Romney out because he is not."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ann-romney-unzip-him-let-real-mitt-romney-170357495.html

Unzip...stiff...get thee to the comedy poll!

guys Sarah Palin is hosting the Today Show

didn't she used to be a politician at some point?

8.5 years of political exp (6 in Wasilla, 2.5 in Juneau).

It's really a toss-up between her entertainment career and governing careers re: longevity.

Oh wait, I missed her Wasilla City Council exp from 1992-96. So make that 12.5 years!

Looking at these numbers, I'm reversing my position. She's totally qualified to run for national office. (PLZ RUN FOR NATIONAL OFFICE AGAIN!)

They should start the show with the camera sneaking up on her unawares, as she sits at a desk absorbed in her favourite newspapers and periodicals. She then looks into the camera and winks.

Then explodes.

each show starts with her performing a different clarinet solo

The Maverick at once merges with the Lamestream Media, effecting a Broadcast Singularity. A supernova of bullshit is all that remains.

trig is the weatherman

i say this palin gig will last about as long as the rest of the gigs she's had

Todd Palin is the key grip

In a Weigel post on the primaries today:

The electorate is like Tom Servo at the end of The Wild, Wild, World of Batwoman, screaming "End! EENNNND!" at the TV screen as it plays yet more b-roll of Rick Santorum feeding cheese to people.

santorum and manchego

Read that as 'Mandingo' and thought "Do I really want to know."

Former Bush speechwriter and now Washington Post hack Gerson wants Romney to pick Ryan as a running mate and says:

Commentators tend to exaggerate current trends, so Obama is now generally viewed as invincible. But his Gallup approval remains south of 50 percent — a traditional indicator of vulnerability. Majorities disapprove of Obama’s job performance on the economy, the federal debt, job creation and health care. When is the last time a Democrat was so feeble on the health issue? Americans overwhelmingly believe the country is on the wrong track. Obama is essentially tied with a generic Republican opponent.

But Romney, who speaks politics awkwardly, now faces his largest political task: He must be something more than a generic Republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-may-be-a-weak-candidate-but-obama-is-a-weak-incumbent/2012/04/02/gIQAHAlhrS_story.html?hpid=z2

he must become a stereotypical one!

The problem with Ryan is I don't think he is going to appeal to many more voters than the ones who were going to vote for Romney anyway.

I agree, but some conservative commentators (and mainstream media hacks) are living in a bubble where Ryan is perceived as brilliant idea man

Worked for Newt, didn't it.

Please forgive me, I'm weak...anyone see you-know-who this morning?

The Easter Bunny isn't due til Sunday.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/Lordvoldemort.jpg/300px-Lordvoldemort.jpg

apropos of nothing:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17icnbuwaaosbjpg/medium.jpg

sits to pee?

looking for the one next to the glory hole

District of Columbia goes to Some Like It Hot; Rushmore takes Maryland. Wisconsin polls don't close until 9:00, but "Tumbling Dice" expected to win handily.

lol at dc gop primary

They should start the show with the camera sneaking up on her unawares, as she sits at a desk absorbed in her favourite newspapers and periodicals. She then looks into the camera and winks.
― clemenza, Monday, April 2, 2012 6:38 PM (Yesterday)

From TPM:

Early risers on Tuesday were greeted to the sight of Palin jokingly flipping through newspapers on the Today Show couch, a play on her famous answer to Couric where she was unable to answer which papers she read.

Sorry for quoting myself, but if you're starting to think like the people who write comedy bits for The Today Show, that may be a troubling sign.

i hope lots of people boycott the today show, then palin runs out to grab a cab and is hit by a bus. #amancandream

Did she do the "Oh hi there! I didn't hear you come in!" bit?

"how's that quitting your job thing working out for you?"

Meanwhile:

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/553115394.jpg