Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Your Next Republican Preznit! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6431)

bjkeefe 01-27-2011 06:16 PM

Another hat in the ring?
 
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6...arronangle.jpg

Ken Layne passes along news from Iowa that a certain someone dropped in for a visit and (this is HEADLINE NEWS):

Quote:

... doesnít rule out presidential bid
No word on how many "Second Amendment remedies" she promised this time.

bjkeefe 01-29-2011 05:35 AM

Re: The all-important Pence-Daniels faceoff
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 195910)
I continue to find the Mike Pence for President bubble completely mystifying.

Wonder no more. Seems like he was too honest for the job.

Which means it's all Mitch Mitch Mitch*!

==========

* Outside of Indiana, some restrictions may apply.

bjkeefe 01-30-2011 03:54 AM

DeMint: against running before he was for it
 
Blue Texan says:

Quote:

Why not? He's exactly where the GOP is on almost everything, he just doesn't sugar coat it.
The quoted link leads to this:

Quote:

Washington (CNN) Ė News that South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint will travel to Iowa on March 26 to address a conservative forum organized by Rep. Steve King is sparking another round of chatter that DeMint might launch a dark horse bid for the White House in 2012.

The Republican gadfly has been adamant in denying such intentions for more than a year Ė just Wednesday, he gave CNN's Wolf Blitzer a flat "No" when asked if he plans to seek his party's presidential nomination.

But the ground may be shifting in DeMint-world, and several of his closest advisers and political confidantes are now telling CNN that he is at least open to a presidential bid if a suitably conservative candidate fails to emerge from the early and wide-open GOP field.

[...]

Aside from Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, who is currently deciding between a presidential run and a gubernatorial bid in his home state, DeMint's advisers are having a difficult time envisioning a candidate that he could get behind.
The Pence issue is gone!

Also:

Quote:

Since November's elections, DeMint has been working on finishing a new book set for publication this summer, "The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me."
Because nothing says "I'm not interested in running for president" like "I have a book about myself coming out."

And just read this a few times:

Quote:

Peter Brown, a prominent South Carolina donor and a member of DeMint's kitchen cabinet, predicted that DeMint could warm to the idea of a White House bid as the rest of the field takes shape. Brown said potential candidates like Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich are failing to generate any kind of broad excitement among conservatives.
Just how conservative do you have to be to meet DeMint's criteria?

I suppose this is one hint:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6...overyinsti.jpg


(pic. source)

bjkeefe 01-31-2011 03:42 PM

Huntsmentum!
 
Jon Hunstman, last seen trailing everybody including Donald Trump, is fawned over by America's Favorite Re-typer of GOP Press Releases. In their typically understated fashion, they headline the piece:

Quote:

Barack Obama braces for Jon Huntsman 2012 bid
Link here.

operative 01-31-2011 04:57 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196513)
Jon Hunstman, last seen trailing everybody including Donald Trump, is fawned over by America's Favorite Re-typer of GOP Press Releases. In their typically understated fashion, they headline the piece:



Link here.

Huntsman is the candidate Obama is most afraid of facing (which is why he chose him to go to China). So your best bet is that too many Republicans refuse to support him because he accepted an Obama offer. Otherwise, Obama is toast in 2012.

chiwhisoxx 01-31-2011 05:39 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196527)
Huntsman is the candidate Obama is most afraid of facing (which is why he chose him to go to China). So your best bet is that too many Republicans refuse to support him because he accepted an Obama offer. Otherwise, Obama is toast in 2012.

An incumbent president with an approval rating above 50% is "toast" if the Republicans nominate a guy with about .04% name ID who has zero appeal to his base, and who oh by the way worked for the man he'll be running against? Were you trying to see how many ways you could defy what we know about United States presidential elections in one paragraph?

bjkeefe 01-31-2011 05:40 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196527)
Huntsman is the candidate Obama is most afraid of facing (which is why he chose him to go to China).

Ah, rapid response from the operative. No One Could Have Predicted.

Yes, of course this is how people like you see it. It's not possible that Obama was looking for opportunities to ride the magical unity pony, is it? Everything about him must have a sinister explanation, mustn't it?

Also, I look forward to your desperate attempts to spin away this from May 2009:

Quote:

John Weaver, a one-time senior strategist for John McCain's presidential campaign who now advises Huntsman, said the governor put country ahead of personal partisan interest. Huntsman was national co-chairman of McCain's failed bid against Obama.

"It's no more complicated than that, though it is so unusual in Washington everyone has to take a magnifying glass to it," Weaver said after Obama introduced Huntsman in the White House Diplomatic Reception Room.

"He was asked by the president to serve in a major diplomatic post, in a mission with a country most important to our economy, in dealing with Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Jon is uniquely qualified and thus you don't turn your nation down," Weaver said.

Obama said he knew Huntsman's nomination "wouldn't be the easiest decision to explain to some members of his party." But Obama said Huntsman was "the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party and is always willing to sacrifice on behalf of our nation."

Elected to his second term in November, Huntsman said he wasn't looking for a new job and didn't expect "to be called into action" by McCain's winning rival.

"But I grew up understanding that the most basic responsibility one has is service to country," he said, standing with Obama as his family looked on. "When the president of the United States asks you to step up and serve in a capacity like this, that to me is the end of the conversation and the beginning of the obligation to rise to the challenge."

chiwhisoxx 01-31-2011 05:43 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196539)
Ah, rapid response from the operative. No One Could Have Predicted.

Yes, of course this is how people like you see it. It's not possible that Obama was looking for opportunities to ride the magical unity pony, is it? Everything about him must have a sinister explanation, mustn't it?

Also, I look forward to your desperate attempts to spin away this from May 2009:

Building on my "quoting the West Wing at every turn" binge, there's a great quote about serving in administrations you might not agree with on everything: "The president is asking you to serve. And everything else is crap."

operative 01-31-2011 05:55 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 196538)
An incumbent president with an approval rating above 50% is "toast" if the Republicans nominate a guy with about .04% name ID who has zero appeal to his base, and who oh by the way worked for the man he'll be running against? Were you trying to see how many ways you could defy what we know about United States presidential elections in one paragraph?

Unemployment will not be beneath 8% before election day. So unless you think that the entire economic-retrospective model of voting behavior is bunk (which would be an unwise position to hold), you should be second-guessing your dismissiveness.

And in the modern media era, you don't need significant name recognition before the primaries begin. Huckabee had little name recognition and managed to win Iowa; had it not been for the fact that Huckabee was a big government conservative, he might've won the nomination.

operative 01-31-2011 05:56 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196539)
Ah, rapid response from the operative. No One Could Have Predicted.

Yes, of course this is how people like you see it. It's not possible that Obama was looking for opportunities to ride the magical unity pony, is it? Everything about him must have a sinister explanation, mustn't it?

Also, I look forward to your desperate attempts to spin away this from May 2009:

There wasn't anything sinister about it. It was just politics. Same as his selection of Hillary Clinton for sec of state. Heck, same as him going back on his word, not taking public funding, and proceeding to massively outspend his opponent. And if you don't see that, then you're a fool.

operative 01-31-2011 06:08 PM

Huntsman makes it (un)official
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48533.html

By choosing Huntsman to be ambassador to China, Obama inadvertently gave his strongest potential foe an even stronger resume.

chiwhisoxx 01-31-2011 06:13 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196544)
Unemployment will not be beneath 8% before election day. So unless you think that the entire economic-retrospective model of voting behavior is bunk (which would be an unwise position to hold), you should be second-guessing your dismissiveness.

And in the modern media era, you don't need significant name recognition before the primaries begin. Huckabee had little name recognition and managed to win Iowa; had it not been for the fact that Huckabee was a big government conservative, he might've won the nomination.

First of all, I didn't know it was an iron clad truth that unemployment can't possibly be below 8% on election day. And retrospective voting models are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. This should be an illuminating discussion, as I'm sure you've spent a lot of time with the retrospective literature, reading Key, Downs, and Fiorina. One model of retrospective voting involves a snapshot, but others involve a running tally, where people are constantly changing opinions as events evolve. Things are going to change between now and November of 2012, which will alter people's evaluations. And since you've read Fiorinia, you know how important mediated retrospective evaluations are. People don't base these opinions based on pocketbook issues like personal finance, but instead of macroeconomic issues mediated through various media filters of their choice. The story leading up to the election in most media outlets will be about how the economy is recovering, because it will be. Even in your bizarrely confident prediction that unemployment will stay above 8%, getting near that number will constitute a significant improvement.

And of course name ID is important. Especially in primaries. Huckabee received a lot of attention because he filled a particular void (which Huntsman isn't doing; tons of Romney overlap) and had personal charm (we have no evidence Huntsman possesses this in droves yet). And he still probably isn't your best example, seeing as to how he never got within driving distance of winning the nomination.

bjkeefe 01-31-2011 06:29 PM

Re: Huntsman makes it (un)official
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196547)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48533.html

By choosing Huntsman to be ambassador to China, Obama inadvertently gave his strongest potential foe an even stronger resume.

He'll never even come close in the Republican primaries. Which in many ways is a pity.

bjkeefe 01-31-2011 06:32 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196546)
There wasn't anything sinister about it. It was just politics. Same as his selection of Hillary Clinton for sec of state. Heck, same as him going back on his word, not taking public funding, and proceeding to massively outspend his opponent. And if you don't see that, then you're a fool.

All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

operative 01-31-2011 06:48 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 196549)
First of all, I didn't know it was an iron clad truth that unemployment can't possibly be below 8% on election day.

Nothing's ironclad. But I (and most economic analysts) would be rather surprised if it was below 8% come election day.


Quote:

And retrospective voting models are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. This should be an illuminating discussion, as I'm sure you've spent a lot of time with the retrospective literature, reading Key, Downs, and Fiorina.
Key and Downs are outdated (though without the latter, we might not have contemporary rational choice theory work). Fiorina is pretty good.

Quote:

One model of retrospective voting involves a snapshot, but others involve a running tally, where people are constantly changing opinions as events evolve. Things are going to change between now and November of 2012, which will alter people's evaluations. And since you've read Fiorinia, you know how important mediated retrospective evaluations are. People don't base these opinions based on pocketbook issues like personal finance, but instead of macroeconomic issues mediated through various media filters of their choice.
Hence the note about the unemployment rate, the easiest economic indicator for people to understand.

Quote:

The story leading up to the election in most media outlets will be about how the economy is recovering, because it will be.
The national media will spin a pro-Obama (or just anti-GOP) narrative no matter what. That's been the case for a very long time. Media narrative tends to be fairly non-important.

Quote:

Even in your bizarrely confident prediction that unemployment will stay above 8%, getting near that number will constitute a significant improvement.
Only over what it got to under Obama. That's still substantially higher than the normal national average of 5-6%.

Check the exit poll data from 08. People who voted for Obama had very high expectations and believed that things would get better. Things have not gotten better. There is no conceivable way that unemployment will be lower on election day 2012 than it was on inauguration day 2008.

PS the running snapshot school of thought gives way too much credit to the American voter. The data on voter awareness, information level, etc. has been fairly consistent through the years (starting with The American Voter and going onward). The American voter knows little and doesn't keep up to date on things.

Quote:

And of course name ID is important. Especially in primaries. Huckabee received a lot of attention because he filled a particular void (which Huntsman isn't doing; tons of Romney overlap) and had personal charm (we have no evidence Huntsman possesses this in droves yet). And he still probably isn't your best example, seeing as to how he never got within driving distance of winning the nomination.
Huntsman is Romney without key faults (Romneycare, flip-flopping on various issues, etc.). McCain didn't win the nomination in 08 so much as Romney lost it, due to his flaws as a candidate.

Huntsman also has something very important: tons of money. And, he likely will be able to pick off 08 Romney donors who have been standing back and waiting to see if someone better will step in 08.

Huntsman would fill the McCain role--he has the foreign policy cred and the moderate reputation.

I think the best case you have against Huntsman being able to get the nomination is by gaming out the early primaries. I don't think Huntsman can win Iowa (if Huckabee runs, he wins it. If he doesn't, Thune wins it. If Thune doesn't run, something crazy like a Santorum victory could happen).

But Huntsman can go over very well in New Hampshire. He'd be competing with Romney and (if he runs) Daniels, and I think he'd stand a chance. The rumor is that Romney will also skip South Carolina. I think that Huntsman has a chance there. He stands a good chance in Florida.

The GOP has no frontrunner. We still don't know if Thune, Daniels, etc. will even run.

By the way, I'm actually not as convinced on economic-retrospective as a lot of other people. But I think that it's fairly safe to say that at this point, the model (well, various models within the general philosophy) is the most widely believed-in model among political scientists. If Obama were to win reelection, it would poke a fatal hole in the theory.

operative 01-31-2011 06:50 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196557)
All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

You're the one using the loaded words (sinister). It's politics. Obama's been a hard-nosed, cynical politician his entire career, starting with when he got his mentor knocked off the ballot on technicalities to take her place, for his very first seat.

chiwhisoxx 01-31-2011 06:59 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196561)
Nothing's ironclad. But I (and most economic analysts) would be rather surprised if it was below 8% come election day.




Key and Downs are outdated (though without the latter, we might not have contemporary rational choice theory work). Fiorina is pretty good.



Hence the note about the unemployment rate, the easiest economic indicator for people to understand.



The national media will spin a pro-Obama (or just anti-GOP) narrative no matter what. That's been the case for a very long time. Media narrative tends to be fairly non-important.



Only over what it got to under Obama. That's still substantially higher than the normal national average of 5-6%.

Check the exit poll data from 08. People who voted for Obama had very high expectations and believed that things would get better. Things have not gotten better. There is no conceivable way that unemployment will be lower on election day 2012 than it was on inauguration day 2008.

PS the running snapshot school of thought gives way too much credit to the American voter. The data on voter awareness, information level, etc. has been fairly consistent through the years (starting with The American Voter and going onward). The American voter knows little and doesn't keep up to date on things.



Huntsman is Romney without key faults (Romneycare, flip-flopping on various issues, etc.). McCain didn't win the nomination in 08 so much as Romney lost it, due to his flaws as a candidate.

Huntsman also has something very important: tons of money. And, he likely will be able to pick off 08 Romney donors who have been standing back and waiting to see if someone better will step in 08.

Huntsman would fill the McCain role--he has the foreign policy cred and the moderate reputation.

I think the best case you have against Huntsman being able to get the nomination is by gaming out the early primaries. I don't think Huntsman can win Iowa (if Huckabee runs, he wins it. If he doesn't, Thune wins it. If Thune doesn't run, something crazy like a Santorum victory could happen).

But Huntsman can go over very well in New Hampshire. He'd be competing with Romney and (if he runs) Daniels, and I think he'd stand a chance. The rumor is that Romney will also skip South Carolina. I think that Huntsman has a chance there. He stands a good chance in Florida.

The GOP has no frontrunner. We still don't know if Thune, Daniels, etc. will even run.

By the way, I'm actually not as convinced on economic-retrospective as a lot of other people. But I think that it's fairly safe to say that at this point, the model (well, various models within the general philosophy) is the most widely believed-in model among political scientists. If Obama were to win reelection, it would poke a fatal hole in the theory.

Well, it's nice to find someone else who's actually read the stuff. I wasn't expecting that.

I will say, the one plausible scenario I see for Huntsman is an early Romney collapse. The legal battle over Obamacare is accelerating faster than I think most of us anticipated, and it's going to be a signature issue for the GOP in 2012. As has been said before, this is obviously going to be a huge problem for Romney, and this could eliminate the overlap problem for Huntsman. Although there's probably some Huntsman overlap with Thune and Daniels as well; he'd be a lot better off if both of those guys stay out.

bjkeefe 01-31-2011 10:42 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196562)
You're the one using the loaded words (sinister). It's politics. Obama's been a hard-nosed, cynical politician his entire career, starting with when he got his mentor knocked off the ballot on technicalities to take her place, for his very first seat.

All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

operative 01-31-2011 11:31 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196589)
All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

You persist making a judgment not backed by reason. I'm stating a fairly obvious conclusion based on Obama's political history: like most politicians, Obama is cynical opportunistic. I guess this is where you return with some canned response that approximates "No only Republicans and Joe Lieberman are!"

operative 01-31-2011 11:32 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Oh, and have you forgotten:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...jkPpGB4NA.cspx

bjkeefe 01-31-2011 11:51 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196595)
You persist making a judgment not backed by reason. [...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 194115)
Are you just trying to bait me tonight?

.

bjkeefe 02-01-2011 03:26 AM

On the road with the Huckster
 
The host of the FoxNews show "Huckabee" is visiting Israel, sucking up to Bibi, playing the victim card, and just to make it extra special, he has Jon Voight in tow.

Yeah, that Jon Voight.

In other news, one of the operatives at the important webnewszine Conservatives4Palin leaps on a Politico item to cackle about the Huckster's low campaign coffers and asserts without evidence, "itís already clear that Mike Huckabee isnít running for the Presidency."

Worshiping St. Sarah means you can ignore polling data, evidently.

bjkeefe 02-01-2011 04:01 AM

Re: Another hat in the ring?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196175)
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6...arronangle.jpg

Ken Layne passes along news from Iowa that a certain someone dropped in for a visit and (this is HEADLINE NEWS):

Quote:

... doesnít rule out presidential bid
No word on how many "Second Amendment remedies" she promised this time.

Now, this is out of the box campaigning!

Don Zeko 02-02-2011 03:03 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Jon Chait has crackerjack analysis and a great graph of Huntsman's place in the race. Come on Glenn Back, throw your hat in. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7500/image003l.gif

And really, this graph is right up there with the following. Truly sublime.

http://www.jamphat.com/rap/jamphat_files/image096.jpg

bjkeefe 02-02-2011 03:29 PM

Re: Huntsmentum!
 
Wow. Less sane than Mitch Daniels? That's gotta leave a mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 196792)
Jon Chait has crackerjack analysis and a great graph of Huntsman's place in the race. Come on Glenn Back, throw your hat in. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7500/image003l.gif

And really, this graph is right up there with the following. Truly sublime.

http://www.jamphat.com/rap/jamphat_files/image096.jpg


bjkeefe 02-04-2011 01:21 PM

Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Found here.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2...ergopchart.png

Quote:

One dimension is obvious: we can classify the candidates from left to right, from relatively more moderate to relatively more conservative. But another dimension that is often salient in the primaries, and perhaps especially so for Republicans next year, is what we might think of as the insider/outsider axis: whether the candidate is viewed as part of the Republican establishment, or as a critic of it.

[...]

There are two more kinds of information embedded in the chart. First, the area of each candidateís circle is proportional to their perceived likelihood of winning the nomination, according to the Intrade betting market. Mitt Romneyís circle is drawn many times the size of the one for the relatively obscure talk-radio host Herman Cain because Intrade rates Mr. Romney many times as likely to be nominated.

(I should note that there are several cases in which I am in considerable disagreement with the bettors at Intrade about the viability of each candidate. But using their figures as the basis for drawing the circles at least lends some objectivity to the assessment.)

I have excluded candidates like Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey or Jeb Bush of Florida who have strongly denied any interest in running in 2012, even though some of them trade at nonzero values on Intrade.

Finally, the color of each circle reflects the region the candidate is from: blue for the Northeast, red for the South, green for the Midwest, and yellow for the West.
I'd quibble a bit with a few elements; e.g., I'd call Santorum and DeMint, especially, and Huckabee and Bachmann, to some degree, more insider-y than they are shown.

chiwhisoxx 02-04-2011 01:40 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197087)
Found here.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2...ergopchart.png



I'd quibble a bit with a few elements; e.g., I'd call Santorum and DeMint, especially, and Huckabee and Bachmann, to some degree, more insider-y than they are shown.

It seems like part of the issue with charts like this is that "insider" is difficult to nail down. That's partially because in most cases people use it to mean two things: Actually being a part of the Republican establishment, and running as someone who is part of the Republican establishment. I assume you want to move people like DeMint closer to insider because even though the ethos of his campaign would be anti-Washington, it's hard to get away from the fact that he's a United States senator.

bjkeefe 02-04-2011 01:57 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 197091)
It seems like part of the issue with charts like this is that "insider" is difficult to nail down.

Agreed. I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of it.

Quote:

That's partially because in most cases people use it to mean two things: Actually being a part of the Republican establishment, and running as someone who is part of the Republican establishment. I assume you want to move people like DeMint closer to insider because even though the ethos of his campaign would be anti-Washington, it's hard to get away from the fact that he's a United States senator.
Yes, that he's a Senator is of it. But another part is the reality that for all of his talk, he votes the party line on everything that matters, and in fact, is one of the principal whip hands for getting everyone else in line. That he sometimes tries to out-crazy the rest of the crazies does not make him an "outsider." It merely means he's doing his bit to establish a negotiating position on a bill or move the Overton Window on an issue.

For Santorum, not only was he high up in the party before losing his Senatorial reelection bid in 2006, he has since spent all of his time staying affiliated with various PACs, 527s, and other lobbying interests, all of which march in lockstep with the Republicans currently in charge, if occasionally farther to the right. And on that final note, see the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

On Huckabee, I'd give him some outsider points because the Club for Growth types hate him, but he gets more insider points for having a show on FoxNews. If there is any organization that is more in sync with whatever the Republican Party is doing at any given moment, I can't think of it.

chiwhisoxx 02-04-2011 02:35 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197094)
Agreed. I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of it.



Yes, that he's a Senator is of it. But another part is the reality that for all of his talk, he votes the party line on everything that matters, and in fact, is one of the principal whip hands for getting everyone else in line. That he sometimes tries to out-crazy the rest of the crazies does not make him an "outsider." It merely means he's doing his bit to establish a negotiating position on a bill or move the Overton Window on an issue.

For Santorum, not only was he high up in the party before losing his Senatorial reelection bid in 2006, he has since spent all of his time staying affiliated with various PACs, 527s, and other lobbying interests, all of which march in lockstep with the Republicans currently in charge, if occasionally farther to the right. And on that final note, see the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

On Huckabee, I'd give him some outsider points because the Club for Growth types hate him, but he gets more insider points for having a show on FoxNews. If there is any organization that is more in sync with whatever the Republican Party is doing at any given moment, I can't think of it.

This is a good point, and one that probably isn't talked about enough. There are lots of problems with Fox, like the quality of the coverage, the sensation list and tabloidly feel to a lot of it (Greta Van Sustren anyone?). But one of the most annoying things for conservatives is that Fox is *much* more partisan than it is ideological. That isn't to say Fox isn't conservative; they are, to be sure. But they're much more interested in sticking to the party line and twisting themselves into knots defending Republicans than they are standing by principles. It's probably out of a desire to stay in the good graces of these politicians, so they'll come do shows on Fox and whatnot, but it's pretty obnoxious either way.

operative 02-04-2011 02:59 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197087)
Found here.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2...ergopchart.png



I'd quibble a bit with a few elements; e.g., I'd call Santorum and DeMint, especially, and Huckabee and Bachmann, to some degree, more insider-y than they are shown.

Paul as a moderate??? I love Nate Silver as much as the next stats geek, but wow, one could not make a more egregious error.

bjkeefe 02-04-2011 03:27 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 197100)
Paul as a moderate??? I love Nate Silver as much as the next stats geek, but wow, one could not make a more egregious error.

Good point.

On the other hand, there is this from last year, for example: "National Journal Ranks Ron Paul 140th Most Conservative Member of House."

On another measure, there's the US Chamber of Commerce perspective from 2009. By their lights, he "scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamberís scorecard ... The Republican with the lowest Chamber score was Paul. Even Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who wants to regulate everything except Fannie Mae, scored 14 points higher than Paul on the Chamberís scorecard."

There's also the perspective of the hawks and Hawkins, who simply will not forgive his statements about Our Glorious Adventure in Iraq and his isolationist views in general.

All this is to say, really, that there is some limitation to how well a one-dimension axis can describe someone's political positions.

operative 02-04-2011 08:34 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197105)
Good point.

On the other hand, there is this from last year, for example: "National Journal Ranks Ron Paul 140th Most Conservative Member of House."

On another measure, there's the US Chamber of Commerce perspective from 2009. By their lights, he "scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamberís scorecard ... The Republican with the lowest Chamber score was Paul. Even Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who wants to regulate everything except Fannie Mae, scored 14 points higher than Paul on the Chamberís scorecard."

There's also the perspective of the hawks and Hawkins, who simply will not forgive his statements about Our Glorious Adventure in Iraq and his isolationist views in general.

All this is to say, really, that there is some limitation to how well a one-dimension axis can describe someone's political positions.

Exactly, it's a methodological shortcoming. I actually think that one could more accurately capture varieties in political philosophy, using a Cartesian plane, if the basic approach was altered: instead of relying on an artificial, uncertain middle, make the origin anarchy. Your negative x limit approaches Communism, positive x is hyper state capitalism. Negative y limit is transformative authoritarianism (eg Pol Pot), positive y is traditionalist authoritarianism (eg theocracies).

bjkeefe 02-04-2011 09:19 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 197154)
Exactly, it's a methodological shortcoming. I actually think that one could more accurately capture varieties in political philosophy, using a Cartesian plane, if the basic approach was altered: instead of relying on an artificial, uncertain middle, make the origin anarchy. Your negative x limit approaches Communism, positive x is hyper state capitalism. Negative y limit is transformative authoritarianism (eg Pol Pot), positive y is traditionalist authoritarianism (eg theocracies).

Good idea.

operative 02-04-2011 10:38 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197158)

Pournelle comes closest to my idea but doesn't quite hit it. 'Irrational' and 'reason enthroned' are rather poor ways to attempt to categorize authoritarian movements.

bjkeefe 02-04-2011 11:39 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197158)

Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 197169)
... my idea ...

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9709/roflba.gif

bjkeefe 02-04-2011 11:59 PM

Newt pulls ahead
 
In the fund-raising race, that is.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/1...epalinpout.jpg

operative 02-05-2011 09:32 AM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197176)

Excuse me while I find the appropriate eye rolling emoticon.

graz 02-05-2011 10:04 AM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 197194)
Excuse me while I find the appropriate eye rolling emoticon.

Look, we understand, you took the test and are aligned most closely with Pol Pot. Sure, it hurts, but those authoritarian instincts of yours aren't easy to suppress. Carry on 独裁者.

kezboard 02-05-2011 08:47 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Ugh, I hate the political compass test. I've taken the test a few times and every single time I've come out as further along towards the libertarian end of the spectrum than I am towards the left end. This is wrong. Their definition of "libertarian/authoritarian" is absurdly broad -- I bet that nearly all BHTV commenters would come out on the libertarian side. I suppose this distinction might be useful in distinguishing political ideologies in a historical or worldwide context, but for making political distinctions between citizens in contemporary English speaking democracies it really isn't, at all.

bjkeefe 02-05-2011 09:43 PM

Re: Hurrah! The first Nate Silver chart of the 2012 race!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kezboard (Post 197251)
Ugh, I hate the political compass test. I've taken the test a few times and every single time I've come out as further along towards the libertarian end of the spectrum than I am towards the left end. This is wrong. Their definition of "libertarian/authoritarian" is absurdly broad -- I bet that nearly all BHTV commenters would come out on the libertarian side. I suppose this distinction might be useful in distinguishing political ideologies in a historical or worldwide context, but for making political distinctions between citizens in contemporary English speaking democracies it really isn't, at all.

Or maybe ... just maybe ... what we hear bandied about by those who start every third sentence with "As a libertarian, I ..." is not the best definition for the term?

I also end up very far out on the libertarian axis (and about as far on the liberal one). This does not bother me.

I suspect you're right that most Bhtv commenters would get results considerably to the libertarian side of that axis as well. We did, a while back, have a few people take it and report their scores, starting here, if you're interested. (Threaded mode will help.)

I agree with your larger point, though: there's not a whole lot more use in this two-axis description than there is in the 1-d, left-right concept.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.