Wonkiest Bitchslap Ever: Nate Silver Demolishes Scott Rasmussen

For those of us that have been complaining about the obvious Republican bias in Scott Rasmussen's polls since Obama was sworn in, all while the mainstream media called us hyperbolic, we now finally have the definitive takedown by numbers guru Nate Silver following the 2010 elections.

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

In the past, Rasmussen 's goal was to use his biased polls to help shape the media narrative for the Republicans (well, mission accomplished). The trick though was to fix his methodology as the actual voting approached so he wouldn't look like such an outlier, but apparently he got too cocky this season. Can we all now agree to ignore Rasmussen forever?

Understanding the Tea Party

Hope this hasn't been posted here yet. I just saw it and adore it.

Conservative Group Mailer Warns of "Obamavilles"

Greg Sargent at The Plum Line reports on a lovely piece straight out of the Minitrue RecDep. A shadowy conservative group called the 60 Plus Association is sending out mailers warning Virginians that they may soon end up in an "Obamaville" if they don't vote out the Democrat, Rep. Gerry Connolly. Connolly, they point out, supported the dreaded stimulus.

Greg Sargent:

What's particularly interesting about this mailer is that the "Hooverville," of course, was a symbol of government inaction in the face of the poverty and widespread misery of the Great Depression. But the 60 Plus Association, which is devoted to free enterprise and less taxation, is warning that "Obamavilles" will result if we don't roll back government.

What's the other big issue for the 60 Plus Association, you ask? They want the extension of the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% ... presumably so the Koch brothers don't have to join a bread line.

Church v. State, Take Two -- O'Donnell Says She Won

A quick update on one of the more amusing stories of the week. Talking Points Memo and ABC News report the latest spin from Christine O'Donnell after her belly flop on con law on Tuesday.

"It's really funny the way that the media reports things," O'Donnell told ABC News this morning. "After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like 'what?'"

O'Donnell told ABC News "her line of questioning to Coons was not because she didn't know the First Amendment, but to the make the point the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear anywhere in the Constitution." (As ABC's Jon Karl and Gregory Simmons point out in their report, "the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's declaration that Congress 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' as a legal separation between government and faith.")

Based on our earlier discussion on Library Grape, this line of defense isn't at all surprising, but reviewing the video again I never hear her actually say "where is the phrase separation of church and state." A reminder of what she actually said:



Coons quotes the language of the establishment clause and O'Donnell sits there smugly, saying nothing while the audience gasps and chuckles at her. They discuss it further and at no point does she articulate this abstruse conservative argument that "the phrase" separation of church and state isn't present so it's not valid to interpret it that way, regardless of Thomas Jefferson's Danbury letter explaining the intent of the clause and two hundred years of legal precedent -- no, she demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge, period. No points awarded.

Speaking of this narrow argument from the right regarding the establishment clause, Steve Benen makes some excellent points:

One can obviously read the Constitution and see that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" isn't there, but a basic understanding of history and the law makes clear that the phrase is a shorthand to describe what the First Amendment does -- it separates church from state.

Indeed, a variety of constitutional principles we all know and recognize aren't literally referenced in the text. Americans' "right to a fair trial" is well understood, but the exact phrase isn't in the Constitution. "Separation of powers" is a basic principle of the U.S. Constitution, but it isn't mentioned, either. More to the point, you can look for the phrase "freedom of religion" in the First Amendment, but those three words also don't appear.

Ultimately, if you're relying on extremist candidates and right-wing media personalities for constitutional scholarship, you're going to be deeply confused.

Fence Straddlers vs. Demagogues

In the afterglow of yesterday’s monumental ruling on Prop 8 I’ve begun to see the stirrings of anger among progressives towards the overly careful Obama position on gay marriage. It’s unquestionably a fence-straddling position and a disappointingly outdated circa 2007-8 one at that. One hopes Obama will find some courage on this issue (we all know where he actually stands and is simply unwilling to engage this issue now for political reasons), but in the meantime advocates for marriage equality should be focusing their ire at the forces of reaction and retrenchment not obsessing on the caution of our allies (I’m looking at you John Aravosis).

The GOP has in recent months embraced every conceivable bogeyman in order to scare their base to the polls and many do so cynically for political advantage. From African American revanchists, communism, Islam, anchor babies and a general off-white menace, they’ve now once again begun to activate one of their old favorites -- those afflicted with The Gay. I think hearing Newt Gingrich this last week demagoguing both the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Prop 8 decision (while cutely tying it in with the vote on Kagan today) put me over the top on this. Gingrich doesn’t really care about either of these issues, but he cynically knows it will energize the reptile brains of the Republican base for the fall elections.

Let’s stay focused on the true enemy and not tie ourselves in knots when our politicians act like politicians. There is no moral equivalence between our side being pussies and their side being evil. And, yes, Nate Silver is right when he tweets, “In 30 years time, the fact that the Barack Obama was opposed to gay marriage is going to look really silly.”

PS-I’m not against pressuring Obama from the left on this and tons of other issues, but I think some on the left lose all sense of proportion when their leaders are too cautious.

Republican Answer to the Debt: No More Recovery Act Signs

Suspiciously fashion-conscious and single Republican Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois came out to Morning Joe today to inform us he has finally decided what he wants to cut to get a handle on the deficit. Recall Schock was on months earlier and was challenged by Scarborough to tell him what he would cut (since he wouldn't shut up about the budget deficit) and he didn't really have an answer. Months have passed and Aaron is now ready to educate us on the path to fiscal sanity.



Even Pat Buchanan laughed at this. The worst part of this flimflammery, besides the point it does nothing to deal with debts or deficits (less than a sneeze to either) is the transparent cynicism of the Republican Study Committee trying to take away the signs that show Americans what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act actually funded while going around the country saying the stimulus did nothing. I'm still not certain if Schock is dumb or cynical or a nice mix of both, but I do understand why he might want those ARRA signs taken down since they might be embarrassing the next time he shows up at a ground-breaking or ribbon-cutting in his district with the voice of Rachel Maddow ringing in his ears.

Muppet Guitarist Wants You to Vote Glenn Beck in 2012

Apparently Janice of Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem wants you to help recruit Glenn Beck for President in 2012, if this video from Main Street Bites Back is any indication.

With this, their war on the NAACP, and their loses last night in Alabama in both the 2nd district and gubernatorial races, could it possibly be that the Tea Party movement has jumped the shark? They were the crazy, scary people of 2009, but it seems more and more they are the crazy, funny people of 2010.

His Armies Didn't Gather: Teabagger Loses Tonight in Alabama

YouTube celebrity and Tea Party favorite, Rick Barber, apparently didn't have a firm enough commitment from Presidents Washington and Lincoln to get the Republican vote out in Alabama's 2nd Congressional district runoff today. Maybe his supporters were too busy LARPing to make it to the polls. It wasn't even close -- Councilwoman Martha Washington Roby defeated him 61% to 39%. Maybe Barber can play dress up and do a Dodge Challenger ad.

Here's one of Barber's ads, filmed in his basement, to jog your memory.

Annals of Stupid, June 9th edition

Via Buzzfeed, we now have incontrovertible logic that the president is to blame for the Gulf oil spill. Quod erat demonstratum, McShitforbrains.

Goodbye, Blanche

Fingers crossed. Let's face it, we need a symbol. We need some catharsis after being screwed during the health care debate by Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and other Conservadems. None of the others are up this cycle, but we have Blanche and she is awful. Here's hoping that the senator from Walmart will finally leave the good people of Arkansas alone so they can have a chance to be represented by a real Democrat. Her future, on Fox News or K Street, awaits her.

You’ll Never Convince Your Crazy Uncle, So Why Waste Time Trying?

A brief rant. I am generally loathe to link to that fetid abyss of Washington media insider-ism known as Politico, but this article really appalled me more than usual and my object of derision isn’t the reporter so much as the whole point of this event and the White House staff/president that orchestrated it.

President Barack Obama battled with Senate Republicans in a tense closed-door meeting Tuesday, facing tough criticism from his GOP adversaries — including John McCain — on issues ranging from health care to border security.

Senators and other sources inside the meeting described the gathering as “testy” and “direct” — and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused Obama of acting two-faced by asking for GOP support on regulatory reform only to push forward with a bill supported mainly by Democrats. Others felt that the meeting may have made already tense relations between the two parties even worse.

"The more he talked, the more he got upset," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said. “He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

The White House said that Obama made a plea for bipartisanship on some of the country’s most pressing issues — and he urged Republicans to stand up to their base and compromise with the Democratic Party.

Assuming the president’s time is valuable, what is the point of attending an off-the-record, or at least media-excluded publicity event with your political opponents in an election year? Honestly, I’m looking for answers here. Does it help Obama? It’s not televised, so we don’t get to see him dissect his opponents as he did the House Republicans previously or even have a substantive public debate as was done (at times) at the Health Care Summit in February (or as is done almost daily with members of Congress inside the White House). Does it allow Republicans to leak to their media accomplices like Politico who write stories about how testy and “thin-skinned” Obama was? Check. Does it let John McCain pretend he’s still running for president? Check. Even McConnell, while he seemed to enjoy lunch and appreciated that the head of the executive branch had to trundle down to the Senate to visit the minority caucus on their own turf, admitted nothing was agreed to or could be agreed to at this meeting. Will it stop Republicans or creatures of the Washington media from saying Obama isn’t trying hard enough to work with Republicans? You are hilarious.

Look, I’m not against the parties having dialogue and as I mentioned they do so every day, but in an election year where the benefits of compromise are near zero and the opposing party’s base thinks you are the Anti-Christ, it would seem one could find a more productive use of the president’s time. Instead of trying to make Republicans comfortable with you, why not spend more time trying to get your base excited about voting in November?

Craziest Utterance of the Week Award

This has been a remarkable week for the crazy and it's only Wednesday. Just in the last two days we've seen John McCain and Peter King decrying the Mirandizing of American suspects (sadly, but not surprisingly, the media isn't pointing out that Miranda is about the constitutional protections afforded everyone regardless of nationality under US jurisdiction); we've seen Joe Lieberman suggest that law enforcement be empowered to strip an accused (merely an accused) of their American citizenship. But the award has to go to Michael Brown, former FEMA director. Brownie has a theory about President Obama and the BP rig oil spill:

This is exactly what they want, because now [Obama] can pander to the environmentalists and say, 'I'm gonna shut it down because it's too dangerous.'

Brownie believes Obama wanted a spill like this -- delayed acting on it (Brownie of all people is accusing Obama of delaying his response to an environmental emergency) -- simply because he wanted to score points with environmentalists and stop offshore oil production forever. Chris Matthews, and Anderson Cooper have called Brownie out on this madness, but he's sticking to his guns. This crazy theory might have a little less of the crazy stink to it if President Obama in April hadn't both opened up large portions of the East and Gulf Coasts to future drilling and mentioned in a town hall how safe this drilling was, much to the annoyance of environmentalists. But maybe that was his plan all along, to do a reverse double fake?! It might also help Brownie if Obama was now foursquare against new drilling ... but unfortunately he's not there yet.

I have a crazy theory of my own. It involves a disgraced former Bush official hoping to endear himself to the teabagger crowd in order to goose his talk radio ratings.

More Proof Conservatives are to Blame for Everything

Via Ezra Klein, a very interesting academic paper by J. Lawrence Broz, political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. Professor Broz finds some striking correlations between financial collapses and the politics of the governments that bring them. Fancy that? And conservatives have been telling us for decades that it's just a natural cycle. Cycle? Yes. Natural? Not so much.

Financial cycles of boom and bust are as old as finance itself -- a fact that has led some observers to infer that human nature may be a fundamental cause of financial cycles. But “politics” also influences financial cycles by way of government policies and regulations. I argue that policies and regulations vary predictably with the partisan character of the government, creating a partisan-policy financial cycle in which conservative, pro-market governments preside over financial booms while left-wing governments are elected to office after crashes.

This is something I think most people who have been around awhile feel instinctively, so it's nice to see research backing it up.

One of These Things is Not Like the Other

Kim Strassel managed to get under my skin Sunday morning. Somehow she landed on the This Week roundtable and tossed a smoke grenade on the topic of violent, anti-government rhetoric on the Right.

(http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-financial-regulation-10406844 about 1 minute, 30 seconds in.)

The question was raised following former President Clinton’s remarks about how all of this reminded him eerily of the anti-government rhetoric of the ‘90s (which of course led to the Mura Federal Building bombing). Strassel’s ‘argument’ was that liberals seemed to think it was fine when Code Pink interrupted congressional meetings and back then it was just “public discourse” and “considered good.”

Just a small pet peeve. If one of the central arguments you dust off whenever someone argues a principled point with you is, ‘well the other side was bad once too,’ then you represent a not so serious political perspective. And if your points of comparison are substantially dissimilar, then don’t expect anyone to consider your perspective serious at all.

Look, I’m not arguing liberals are inherently morally superior when it comes to overheated rhetoric versus people on the Right. America has seen violent, anti-government rhetoric from the Left in the past, but now, as in the ‘90s, it’s primarily from the Right and the troubling thing is that conservative politicians are embracing these folks rather than distancing themselves. When Congressman Steve King sympathizes with the nut who flew his plane into the IRS building or suggests the Tea Party come to DC and take over the place and prevent the elected government from functioning, he should be ostracized by others on the Right. They should be coming forward to say this is unacceptable. Instead we hear crickets.

PS-I have yet to find a liberal that has a positive thing to say about the antics of Code Pink. No congressperson I know of thought their interruptions of hearings were a good thing. And as annoying as Code Pink was/is, I don’t recall them ever calling for a violent revolution.

Grave Robbers

This week, if you were to meet a Republican time traveler from the 1860s or 1980s, you would discover them more shocked than usual. They would stumble on notables of their party, officially celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Confederacy in the state of Virginia. A governor of the Grand Old Party saying, before finally relenting after a chorus of criticism, that mentioning the role of slavery in the conflict was “not significant” enough to be included in the original proclamation.

They might be confused to find a black Democratic president who considers himself an inheritor of their legacy, and who began his long path to the White House from the same old granite steps in Springfield that gave rise to President Lincoln’s career, being pilloried by members of Lincoln’s own party with terms of “secession”, “interposition” and “nullification.”

In fairness, they would also find a comically out of his depth leader of their party who was also black and while not knowing the details of how he came to that post and how he remains there, they may reassure themselves for a moment that their party has made some racial progress.

The 1980s time traveling Republican would be delighted to arrive the week of the largest nuclear arms control agreement since the 1980s, but to the startling awareness that such agreements are no longer proudly bipartisan consensus. Rather they would learn that the leading lights of their party are now against the very idea of nuclear arms reductions and consider those who are, dangerously weak and naive (all while continuing to fetishize the Reagan name, if not his actual foreign policy principles). Reagan would be more confused than usual as to why we hadn’t reduced these unusable weapons even further, given the absence of the Soviet Union the last 20 years.

What are they and we to make of this? Nixon’s grand project is now complete. Congratulations GOP, you are now proud owners of the legacy of the Confederacy. Enjoy that. Continue to court the intemperate, red-faced crowds with their misspelled signs and see how history will judge you.

You have also this week betrayed your beloved Ronnie. And as divisive a figure as he remains, you‘ve managed to abandon his one issue that previously all sides had agreed upon. You are now the party of Bolton and Cheney, Fox News and Palin. I guess you can now stop trying to put Reagan on the $50 bill (although I’m sure you would still love to stick it to that Union general).

You’ve managed to scare off the icons you worship. They’ve gone back through that wormhole, glad to be rid of you.

Jake Tapper is a Douche

I'm proud to announce a new blog. You will find here the sort of thoughtful, insightful cultural and political analysis that one only finds rarely these days. With that, and with the warmest Easter greetings, I would like to say, without delay, that Jake Tapper is a douche.

The name of this blog and the nom de guerre I've purloined are of course from P. G. Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster stories. Psmith (the P is silent, an affectation Rupert adopted to distinguish his surname) was one of Wodehouse's favorite characters. He was rare in the Wodehouse universe for his sly intelligence and socialistic leanings. From wikipedia:

Psmith is a somewhat selfish young man; however, he is generous towards those he likes. In a typical example from Leave it to Psmith, he perceives Eve, trapped by the rain under an awning, and decides, chivalrous gentleman that he is, to get her an umbrella. Unfortunately for Psmith, he does not, in point of fact, possess an umbrella. He solves this problem by appropriating another man's umbrella; when confronted by the umbrella's owner, Psmith attempts to comfort him by saying it is for a good cause, and, later, when relating the story, says, "Merely practical Socialism. Other people are content to talk about the Redistribution of Property. I go out and do it." (Another of Psmith's quirks is his penchant for nominal socialism, observed mostly in his casual use of "Comrade" as a substitute for "Mister.").

Welcome, Comrade! Let the games begin!