I don't know - but if you look at someone like Nate Silver over at 538 who has done all the math, he probably has a super-detailed Excel file telling you just how to adjust it.

Is that just your opinion? What basis would you make that claim? We've got a Democrat governor, split U.S. Senate seats, and a 5-4 split in favor of Republicans in the U.S. House. Someone might want to let the Republican know that Missouri is a "GOP stronghold". It may be after this November election, but the Democrats won't have anyone to blame but themselves if that happens. It certainly won't be because the GOP blew everyone's socks off.

Fantastic. Tell me more about this Nate Silver fellow.

My point being, dismissing the poll out of hand and waving your hands about bias without really knowing anything, is, well, MBBFian.

Yeah, but we tend to think the disparity is greater than it actually is. In the 1984 election Reagan won a landslide victory, but failed to get 60% of the vote. For a lot of reasons, historical party ID being high on the list, the split with the American public is very rarely more than 60/40. A 60/40 national election would be an historic loss for the Dems, but it would still mean forty percent of voters preferred the Dems.

Thinking a 75% vote in a primary is an accurate representation of public opinion is silly.

A couple of points.

1 I think you're thinking of Rasmussen. RCP is just a poll average.

2 The underlying poll for Obama approval comes from Mason-Dixon. I looked, but I couldn't find a house effect number for them. The chart I saw had an others row, but that was only one or two point pro-R.

i didn't dismiss it out of hand. i just said - take into account it's bias.

i'm at work - actually trying to work today too and get some stuff done, so i didn't exactly have the time to go look up what the bias was...but i do recall that it's decently significant.

fair enough. i stand corrected i guess.

thanks jphillips.

Too much of the conversation in this thread is made "without looking at the [fill-in-the-blank] you linked."

If it's any consolation, I didn't really catch your mistake until JPhillips pointed it out. There's a pollster on every corner these days, having their names & abbreviations occasionally run together is probably bound to happen to a lot of people.

I think the key to the post that he quoted is "national" swing state. West Virginia and Arkansas, at the state level, are very heavily Democratic. But neither have been in-play for the past three presidential elections.

I think the point of your post is still largely valid, but that you may have missed the "national" part.

Dola... I should say that they haven't been in play for the Democratic candidate in the past three presidential elections (although if Hillary would have been the candidate, I think both would have gone to the Ds).

Are bike paths the road to one world socialist government?

The decision in the Prop 8 Trial is supposed to be released this afternoon. Here's hoping bigotry gets a big fat black eye.

I'd be stunned if the verdict was anything other than what appears to be a foregone conclusion, it's not exactly as though the judge in the case doesn't have a vested interest. Regardless, this is just the next step on the road to the Supremes, neither side should get too high or too low based on today's ruling.

Unconsitutional on both due process and equal protection.

This, immigration, and health care should just be fast-tracked to the Supreme court.

Would save a hella lot of time & money.

Of course, depending on the issue, and the winner below, one side or the other might want to drag things out in hopes of a surprise retirement/death + Obama appointment.

Should be an interesting few years at the Supreme Court either way.

Did anyone wish our president a happy 49th birthday today?

He never takes my calls.

That makes me feel better. He never takes mine either. I got drunk dialed by Biden once though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what part of health care would go to the Supreme Court? I haven't been following it closely.

13 states have sued - I haven't read the lawsuit but here it is.

Healthcare Lawsuit By State AGs Attacks Health Insurance Law - Constitutional Law - CourtSide

tell me about it. they better enjoy it now because the chances the rest of the appeals judges are all gay is very slim ;)

So this would kill the bill in all states? Hopefully it doesn't see the court this year as my business is supposed to get a $12,000 credit (or something like that) through this bill.

But this doesn't seem to have much of a chance. Commerce Clause has been pretty well decided and even this court has yet to rule against laws in that area.

I've seen two conflicting accounts about who appointed this judge, it was either Ronald Reagan or George H W Bush. I guess neither of those presidents cared about his sexual orientation even though they were part of the GOP.

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times
Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com
Wikiepedia says it was Reagan that originally nominated him and then again by GWHB.

Kagan confirmed, 63-37. Those 37 are as ridiculous as Obama was when he voted against Roberts.

Yep...expecting a Supreme Court Justice to have been a judge...insanity.

Yep, I'm sure THAT'S what their opposition was all about...

You do realize that out of the 112 people to have ever served on the Supreme Court, 40 of them had no prior judicial experience.

details...facts...you expect him to care about things like that?

And being a Supreme Court judge isn't really at all like being any other kind of judge (except for Federal or State Apppellate Court Judge). Of the 72 justices who have had "judicial experience", I wonder how many of those were just state or district court judges. Probably quite a few.

The best-qualified supreme court justicies, IMO, are those with academic backgrounds. Because all they're really doing is writing opinions. Any legal job outside the government or academics - you're judged on the money you bring in.

I think there's a pretty good argument that the Supreme Court should be a mix of former judges and non-judges.

I did not...that really explains a lot though. Thanks.

Interesting list really...

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience

Amazing how much of an impact that FDR had court wise.

is s/he gay?

Yes he is gay

really!?

Reagan nominated him and he was rejected by the Democrats in power. It was over the fact that he was part of a club that excluded women (insert joke here) and had represented the USOC in a lawsuit to prevent the Gay Olympics. George H W nominated him later on and got him through.

Reading through his background, he seem pretty libertarian and definitely on the conservative side. He had a lot of supports from groups like the Heritage Foundation and was attacked by the NAACP, women's groups, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Go figure.

Yep. But that isn't the specific conflict of interest that concerns me most.

My concern stems more specifically from the fact that he's got a steady partner/regular companion. Having him rule on this particular subject which could have direct impact on his own personal life seems a bit much. Any notion of impartiality flew out the window with that bit of info afaic.

by that definition you'd have to have a celibate (preferred) or at least single judge ruling on that to avoid impartiality.

the legal basis of his opinion is extremely sound. you're just pissed off because he didn't rule the way you would have liked him too.

Actually, I'd prefer one who doesn't stand to directly benefit from sanctioning his own behavior.


If you'll recall, I advised both sides of the issue to get neither particularly high nor low on the basis of this ruling, as this is just a step to move things on to SCOTUS. You'd apparently be surprised how little anger I've got over this, it was barely a blip on my radar in the grand scheme of things frankly.

a straight judge could have just as much bias.

and you conveniently ignored the point of my post where i pointed out that regardless of his sexual orientation, the legal arguments that he used in his ruling are all established point of law. so he could be a sheep-fucker for all i care at that point -- if he's using the correct legal precedents to frame his decision his own conduct is immaterial.

Would you feel the same way about a smoker ruling on a smoking ban?

Great post. I very much agree with this, though I think JPhillips raises a good point that, after all's said and done, some sort of mix is best.


Well, that's what happens when you're President for over a decade. :D

The argument against same-sex marriage is that it will lessen or diminish or corrupt or even destroy straight marriage. So, by that logic, a straight judge would have to have recused himself, too. Because that judge might have been married or wanting to marry one day. So he would have had an interest in keeping marriage uncorrupted.

And, of course, by this logic, a woman could never rule in a sex discrimination suit. A Jewish person could never rule in a religious discrimination suit, etc.

Underlying all this is the wrong-headed and simple assumption that only straight white male non-disabled protestants between the ages of 18 and 65 are free of bias. That they are the default American and that everything deviant from that operates as some sort of affectation. Note--not that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a better American than someone who is not. It is that a white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65 is a more real American than someone who is not. That they exist outside of bias because their beliefs are, ipso facto, America's beliefs. They don't just run the country. They are the Country.

(This assumption actually drives most of the dog-whistling about "real America" from the neocons. And it explains why it can seem so hard for red and blue to talk to each other. The conversation starts with an assumption so inherent to some folks that they don't even realize that they are making it, and so alien to some folks that it does not even occur to them that someone else would believe it.)

To me, America stands for the idea that the state should not prejudice a person for being a non-[white male non-disabled protestant between the ages of 18 and 65]. And I personally believe that America's strength comes from our diversity and that no one group of Americans can ever represent the default "American." But, mileage seems to vary pretty significantly on this point.

Zoinks. Well said. Nice post.

Yep, that's definitely a YMMV thing. I'd put that ("diversity") in the top 5 of our greatest weaknesses without any real hesitation, to the point that it might ultimately be the primary source of our downfall.

Not really surprising that would be your response.

And you Southerners made your own bed in the diversity department by bringing all those slaves over from Africa.

I think the word is xenophobe.

Yeah, this country sure has gone to shit once those negroes were allowed to be free.

GA Gov runoff update: Although Deal leads by about 10k votes with roughly three-quarters of precincts counted, it looks to me as though Handel will drag him down from behind at the end. She's still got most of Fulton, DeKalb, and part of Chatham & Muscogee counties still to come in & she's solidly beating him there.

She looks to be going to win largely on the basis of the most Dem counties in the state, enough to make me wonder if there wasn't considerable crossover voting going on.

I don't know why you'd think that. Deal is infinitely more beatable than Handel, it would seem he should be the Dem's choice if they want to push the worse candidate.

At least 1/4th of the GOP isn't going to vote for her after her support of gay activist groups was revealed, nominating her virtually guarantees Barnes as the next governor.

Also, latest h2h polling shows Deal beating Barnes by 5 points (49-44 IIRC) while Barnes beats Handel by 3-5 points (I can't recall the exact number).

Maybe I'll have one race out of four go my way after all. Still not finished, but Deal's lead is 2,418 with virtually everything counted with the exception of 1 precinct (out of the whole state) of votes cast today and 9 more precincts of in-person early voting. Presumably there's some provisional ballots out there too but typically not a significant number.

My stomach hurts.

edit to add: Except now perhaps Fulton's totals don't yet include absentee ballots (distinct from early voting totals).

Hmmm...I thought Barnes was beating both. I think Deal is probably one of the shadier/dirtier guys in the race (you probably feel the same way about Barnes...as do I), but some of his land and money dealings have raised their fair share of eyebrows. Then again, in Georgia all you need to do in convince everyone you will ban gays and abortions and re-instate the rebel flag to win.

Ugh... the potential to elect an out and out crook for Governor in GA increases. Heck, that's probably the reason Deal ran for Governor in the first place - because he knew ethics charges would have booted him from Congress.

I swear the GOP is in a different world. I'm on vacation in FL and it appears the biggest issues in the GOP Gov and AG primaries are who hates healthcare reform more and who loves the Arizona immigration bill more.

On average, you will live a longer life in Chile, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Slovenia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates than you will in Florida.

Handel conceded about a half hour ago, endorsed Deal.

I just don't understand...

Obama hosting Ramadan dinner - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

It's a local matter? The killing of 3000 people is a local matter? It's pure stupidity to allow this to happen. That mosque will be destroyed by relatives of those killed in 9/11.

What don't you understand, other than rational thought? What does this have to do with Obama, should he sign an executive order not allowing anything but a church to built near the WTC? I mean, I don't think it's the best idea, seems a bit like a bad decision on somebody's part, but this is America (at least the last time I checked). Obviously it's been approved locally, the council rejected the landmark status (wouldn't have mattered anyway) and the mayor endorses it.

But because Obama is hosting a dinner in which he'll talk about religious tolerance, something is afoot? Seems just like Tea Party, where spending was ok when Bush was in office, but suddenly they want to take America back and reel in spending when a democrat is doing it (and one of a different color). Just so some perspective can be interjected into your existence...an article from last year.


I know, I know, we still blame Bush for too much.

So the First Amendment is now "PC garbage"? Last time I checked, Al Qaeda wasn't the one building the mosque, it was a long time American imam, who preaches interfaith communication.

There is a decades old actual Mosque (which this building isn't, although it will have a "prayer area.") that isn't that much further from ground zero. Will relatives of those killed in 9/11 destroy that one too?

Wow...I'll shutup...I'm continually amazed at how naive people are. I can't wait for this country finally to collapse and people to stand around and ask "what happened"

Every single person? Is an Islamic community center insulting to those Muslims who had relatives in the WTC killed by those who use parts of their religion for their hate crimes? I think THAT was the real insult to them.

Do you think an Eastern Orthodox church in Russia and a Evangelicalist church in Topeka are the same exact religion as well?

How many blocks away would be acceptable?

edit: Do you really want the federal government to have the power to step in and overrule local authorities and stop a private property owner from building a legal house of worship because of public pressure largely from people that don't live close to the site?

I think it is much more likely (though both are a bit of a stretch) for this country to collapse from spending shitloads of money on wars and national defense then from Muslims gaining a "stronghold" in lower Manhattan. History seems to show quite a few empires collapsing from overspending on their military.

Agree completely with part I.

Part II is an example of equal ignorance in my opinion.

I am not saying the differences in religion are of the same level as the example necessarily. But anyone who thinks that all branches and masjids in Islam are the same are very much mistaken. There is greater variance in Islam than just Sunni and Shiite.

I'm continually amazed at how ass-backwards and bigoted some people are.

This is probably the most intelligent choice. Maybe you should take your postings to the Jesus is great, Islam is the devil thread. Still don't know what people building a mosque near ground zero has to do with Obama, unless I'm missing some new Michelle Bachmann/Ann Coulter bit.

Opening up a muslim mosque near ground zero is not intelligent at all. That iman had to know that there would be backlash and that it would stir a lot of feelings against the proposed mosque. I have nothing against muslims but they have no business opening up a mosque within sight of the World Trade Center site.

This has nothing to do with the first amendment in my opinion because this screams of a publicity stunt.

Again, there already is one separate from the group that is looking to build the Islamic community center. And their "mosque" has been on that same block in Manhattan near current ground zero for 40 years. They had to move on that block to a smaller space because of financial difficulties recently, so their center can't accommodate their full numbers. (See: hxxp://masjidmanhattan.com‎ )

So, in other words, there have been Islamic prayer and community centers in the WTC area for longer than there was a Twin Towers. The existing mosque had to move to a smaller location nearby, and can't service all the local Muslims that would like to gather there. Sounds to me like if any place could use an Islamic center....

There's not a first amendment exception due to publicity stunts FWIW.

And this is hardly a publicity stunt.

I agree with this. I also think W could be a compassionate and open minded guy on a personal level. I just think he was surrounded by unilateral thinking Nixon bred sleazebags in Cheney and Rove.

Amen. I can't stand the liberty despising, hate-filled idiots who have to make it their personal crusade to prevent a Muslim community center dedicated to moderate Islam and interfaith communication built a few blocks from the WTC site... a site which probably needs this more than anywhere else.

I wonder how people became so freedom hating in the US.

We can say the same thing about Obama!

yup cheney & rove are there at the WH every day.

Well, I'm with ya in ignoring Joe Biden...but there's good ole Rahm and Jarrett that should not be overlooked.

no offense but I think Obama is much more responsible for the things that go on than W ever was. W's inner circle, IMO, carried much more weight with him than Obama's inner circle does, so for better or worse Im much more willing to hang responsibility for the good and bad that goes on directly on Obama than I was when I painted the Admin as bad under W.

's okay, I'm continually bewildered by how naive some people are.

You'll get there, it's the next step after "amazed" I think.

I wonder how people became too stupid to recognize an enemy when it stares them in the face & screams its intentions.

Well there you go, you do have something in common with the terrorist ;)

We all know that your definition of "enemy" is ridiculous, which pretty much invalidates your point.

:lol:

Of course, I guess the Muslim's parents would most likely be with Jon on this one, since they're not exactly down with teh gays either.

Are you speaking about Muslims or religion as a whole?

Hear hear!

To Jon, my cousin in Seattle, who is a patriotic American and Muslim, and has assimilated to US culture, speaks English better than most whites, is a associate at a law firm in Seattle. is "the enemy" and his father, who is a retired Colonel in the US Army and a practicing Muslim is "the enemy".

Kill all the moooslims!

Those are really popular suddenly!

That's a pretty close minded racist thing to say...

They should just make everyone happy and make the area a big Christian shrine.....I'm sure that would work out.

I don't understand quite how this area became on track to become a Muslim "prayer area" or whatever, but let the free speech win out. City, state, federal government shouldn't keep any otherwise lawful religious institution out, but at the same time, people have the right to try to protest or engage in whatever lawful means they can come up with to keep it out.

I'm sure we'd see plenty of discontent from the far left if the area became "too Christian".

Amazing - all that and he could legally beat his wife if he lived under an Islamic state!

I certainly wouldn't consider him the "enemy", but if he's all that "patriotic", I'm not sure how strict a Muslim he's being. (Not that you have to be patriotic to live here).

And I'm not anti-Muslim. I just had one living in my house for the last 3 days. My biggest problem with him was this lack of a concept of time, but I'm down whit whatever religion he wanted to practice. (Even though I do find Muslim law pretty deplorable).

Sorry DT, but you're talking purely out of your liberal ass on this one. Or does Mr. Webster not suit you?

Main Entry: en·e·my
Pronunciation: \ˈe-nə-mē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural en·e·mies
Etymology: Middle English enemi, from Anglo-French, from Latin inimicus, from in- 1in- + amicus friend — more at amiable
Date: 13th century

1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly
3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force

What element is missing? What simple word in plain black & white do you not understand?

Any American that would attempt to deny with a straight face that "enemy" is wholly applicable to Islam is either in denial, a damned fool, gullible beyond measure, or willfully acting in collusion.

My make believe God is better than your make believe God.

They have a right to build it and can do what they want with their land. But it's still a dick move in my opinions and basically trolling. I'm sure there are plenty of other areas they can create their Mosque and tell fairy tales and sprinkle pixie dust on each other.

i think it is the generalization that leaves the door open to valid discord. You use it while, for the most, part generalizations are inaccurate when dealing with humans almost always. But you know that anyways...

The Bible has just as much stuff in it like this. Selling your daughters into slavery, stoning people for working on weekends, even justified rape of virgins (after you kill all the children and married women). I could go on and on with what the Bible condones and demands of people.

This shouldn't be a "Islam causes a shit ton of problems" discussion. It should be a "religion causes a shit ton of problem".

Careful, you may start getting death threats for speaking poorly about that "religion". At least you didn't draw a damn picture... :eek: WTF? Are we still in the dark ages?