Short: Beating up Nate Silver

Nate Silver has been the conservative media's favorite pincushion lately, maybe even more than Obama himself. Here's the article where some blowhard decided that attacking Silver's build and vocal pitch was a good lead-in for complaints about his methods.

Of course, complaints about the methods are just a gloss over the real problem--his results. Until Romney's uptick in most polls after the first debate, conservatives were complaining about almost all the polls. I thought I was late covering the issue earlier this month, but the conservative jerks are giving us a second act now. This election can't come soon enough because I AM FUCKING TIRED OF THE STUPIDITY.

I'll be checking back on this issue and holding the predictions against reality, as any good scientist would. (Yes, scientists also swear.)

Image: mockpaperscissors.com

Update 11/5/12. It turns out that my rage at the stupidity lasted only until the weekend. This past weekend and today I've been the soul of equanimity. Tomorrow is the big day, the turning point of American civilization according to some. I'm both more cynical and more hopeful than to believe that. See you down the rabbit hole!

Post-election update. Here's my round-up on how the polls did.

Another stupid Hollywood endorsement

Generally celebrities are too self-absorbed to take the time to study political issues. That makes the endorsements of Jon Lovitz, Madonna, and George Clooney worthless to anyone who doesn't get their entire news quotient from E! and People magazine. This endorsement is worthless too. Enjoy!

A sensible endorsement of Romney

The Des Moines Register has the best rationale for voting for Romney that I've read. Some of their arguments:

• Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority — and rightly so.
• [Obama's] best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House.
• Romney had to tack to the right during the primary season. Since then, he has recalibrated his campaign to focus on his concern for the middle class, and that is believable if ...

The editorial has a mostly accurate critique on Obama's shortcomings. It isn't nearly as strong on its critique of Romney--they are giving him a generous benefit-of-the-doubt. The editors accept Romney's five-point economic plan at face value, which is an abdication of their responsibility to drill down and see if the plan holds up.

I can't be that generous to Romney. He owes his nomination to his fairly hard-right positions. If Romney becomes president there will be little holding him to his late arrival to moderation, and many Republicans pushing him to the right. I'm not going to take that chance. The argument that a nearly 50-50 Senate will be enough to keep him moderate is weak and could fray in the next election.

As I've said before, I'd prefer sworn enemies among the Dems and Repubs forced to negotiate than take my chances with one party rule. It still looks like the least risky scenario. So that's my endorsement of Obama--he's not great, but it's less of a risk.

Hat tip: Meep

Image: desmoinesregister.com

Campaign ads I'd like to see

Romney isn't a magic "job creator." When he was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation.

Taxing the rich can't close our deficit, but the Democrats are still trying.

I support the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan deficit reduction plan. It's miles better than any of the partisan plans.

I definitely won't give in to the crazies in my party.

Here's the math on my proposal.

We're all going to have to sacrifice at least a little--every single one of us.

I don't hate the guys in the other party.

Here are some truths I learned from the other party.

  Please - always reality check your candidate.

Image: politico.com

Romney as a bipartisan?

This is what Romney is saying now in his stump speeches as he campaigns in Florida:

"[We] are going to have to do what we’ve done before, which is reach across the aisle. We have to build bridges to people in the other party. We have to recognize this is not a time in America for us to pull back, and to divide and to demonize. It’s a time in America for us to come together, to look for common ground, for places where we have agreement."

He also said this in the third and last debate:

"America’s going to come back, and for that we need a president who knows how to work across the aisle."

Hey, it sounds great. I'm all for bipartisanship. I even foolishly thought the super committee would work. But excuse me if I have some doubts about how strongly Romney supports bipartisanship. It didn't seem to be a talking point for him when he was running for the nomination. He also doesn't seem to be pushing the idea among his fellow Republicans. Marco Rubio says the Senate must be in GOP hands:

"Voters understand that electing Mitt Romney but allowing the Senate to remain in the hands of a Democratic majority means many of the things our country desperately needs aren’t going to happen." 

What are the chances that Romney and/or the other Republican leaders are going to work with the Dems if they don't need their votes to pass legislation? I don't actually want to find out. I'd prefer that divided power forced the two parties to work together, despite Romney's proclamations. After all, the last bipartisan era in this country was dead before the president was even inaugurated. Romney doesn't strike me as more capable of delivering on that illusive promise.

Image: newsrealblog.com

Extra. I found one Republican who did actually sound bipartisan--Charlie Bass of New Hampshire. I guess it'll just be him, Romney, and Ryan reaching across that aisle.

Short: A tragedy in NYC

A nanny became deranged and stabbed two children, killing them. On the surface, it is a mystery why she did it. However, the New York Times article captured some fascinating details, especially the contrast in the living conditions of the wealthy family versus that of the nanny.

As a scientist who has also studied a bit of sociology and came away thinking that it was much more than just polemical trash, I appreciate the descriptions of the nanny's living conditions: she earned extra money selling cheap jewelry door to door; she started behaving strangely after her dream of having her own apartment was shattered.

In contrast to her struggle is her employers' wealth, but also their reserve. Only one neighbor in the building was quoted, and she didn't even know the children's names. I'm not trying to hint that there is some sort of cosmic justice in this tragedy, because killing innocent children is not just. But I sense something about the rich and the poor--I'm just not sure what it is.

Image: people.com

No specifics again! Obama's turn

You might think that this will be another screed about Romney's vagueness. Well, not this time for a refreshing change. The culprit for this post is President Obama. Specifically, this line during the Oct. 22 debate:

"First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it's something that Congress proposed. It will not happen."

Whoa. If the sequester will not happen, what will?

That's a huge statement with no clarification of what he means by it. And Obama seems to have gotten away with it... as he should considering the precedent set by Romney and his definitive statements about the deficit and cutting government by attrition during the first debate. Romney was been getting away with not explaining these claims and for the lack of detail his tax plan and his economic growth plan. So it's only fair that Obama gets a pass on his sequester claim.

How will Obama keep the sequester from happening? Well, duh, they'll start negotiating right after the election, of course! The talks are obviously not going to start before the election. Obama could add that they'll also start negotiating the changes to the Bush tax cuts after the election too.

Do I need Obama to be anymore specific than that? Not really. By now I generally know his bargaining position. Getting too detailed could cost him some votes that he'll need, and Lord knows neither candidate is going to blow those votes at this point. Not Romney, not Obama. This doesn't make them equivalent in their vagueness, but it levels the playing field a bit.

 Image: washingtonpost.com