Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mitch McConnell previews Republican message for the fall



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is offering a preview of Republicans' 2010 message today. AP Photo

1. In a speech to a group of young Republicans today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) will cast the GOP as the party of change and checks and balances -- a preview of the Republican message heading into the fall campaign.

"This isn't about who's on top," McConnell is expected to tell the Young Republican Leadership Conference in a speech later this morning in Washington. "It's about following through on the kinds of changes Americans want to see."

With that rhetoric, McConnell is hoping to tap into the successful message employed by Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) in his stunning special election victory in January. Put simply: President Barack Obama promised change but it wasn't the change you wanted. Republicans can bring about the right kind of change.

McConnell also is expected to present the idea of the need for checks and balances in Washington, telling the crowd that the midterm election is about "reversing the damage Democrats have done".

In that, McConnell is seeking to tap into the American public's longstanding belief that divided government is the best solution; in the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, a majority (51 percent) said that it would be better to have Republicans in charge of Congress to "act as a check on the president and his agenda".

McConnell is on far shakier rhetorical ground, however, when he argues that Republicans "got our groove back" by breaking out of the "Washington echo chamber" to listen to and empathize with voters.

Poll after poll suggests that voters are far from sold on the Republican brand and that the rise of GOP fortunes is directly tied to an erosion of confidence in Obama and the Democratic party not any Republican renaissance.

Again, the Post poll. Forty-three percent of those tested said that they had either a "great deal" or a "good amount" of confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country while 32 percent said the same of Democrats in Congress and just 26 percent said it of Republicans in Congress.

McConnell, of course, knows all of that but also knows he has to rally his party behind the idea that the American public now believes Republicans, not Democrats are the ones genuinely in touch with their hopes and concerns.

"If there's one thing we've learned over the past few years, it's that Americans don't particularly care about who's up and who's down, as long as the people they elect put the interests of their constituents and the interests of the country first," McConnell will say in his address today.

Expect to hear lots more of that sort of rhetoric coming from Republicans in the next 110 days.

2. National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Cornyn (Texas) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) will hold a fundraising luncheon for Wisconsin Senate hopeful Ron Johnson (R) later this month, according to an invitation obtained by The Fix.

The event, which is slated to take place on July 29 at the NRSC headquarters in Washington, will mark the Senate Republican leadership's first formal fundraiser for Johnson, who is running to take on Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in the fall. Tickets to the event range from $500 to $2,000.

Johnson raised $560,000 in the second fundraising quarter and has $940,000 on hand, according to FEC numbers released this week. Feingold, a prolific fundraiser who spent more than $9 million on his 2004 re-elect bid, raised $1.4 million in the same period and has $4.3 million in his campaign coffers.

Johnson was endorsed yesterday by the Club for Growth as well as conservative kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), making for one of the few instances this cycle where national Republican leaders are backing a candidate that also has the support of DeMint and other more conservative elements of the party.

Filing in the race closed on Tuesday. Feingold faces no primary opposition, while Johnson will have to fend off two GOP competitors, businessman David Westlake and Stephen Finn -- neither of whom are expected to give him much trouble. The primary is September 14.

Both Feingold and Johnson are already up on televison with ads. Johnson went up last week with his third TV ad of the race, a 30-second spot in which he warns that America has reached the "tipping point" when it comes to national debt and spending. Feingold, meanwhile, began airing a new TV ad on Tuesday charging that Johnson is "willing to hand over the Great Lakes to the oil companies."

3. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) political action committee will announce today that it raised $724,000 in the second quarter of the year and had $939,000 on hand heading into the stretch run of the 2010 election.

Among 2012 presidential contenders, Pawlenty, who had to deal with a legislative session for about a month of the quarter, came up just a slightly shy of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Palin's Sarah PAC collected $865,000 in the second quarter and finished with $1 million cash on hand. Pawlenty doled out roughly $84,000 to candidates running for office this year for the quarter -- just a hair less than Palin's $87,500.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the other potential 2012 GOP presidential contender with an active PAC, outpaced all of his rivals -- collecting $1.8 million in the second quarter and proving, yet again, why he will start the next presidential race as frontrunner.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised a whopping $3.5 million primarily via his American Solutions group but that organization is not a federal committee -- like the PACs of Romney, Tpaw and Palin -- and is therefore not subject to the same donation rules.

In Senate fundraising news, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) raked in $2.7 million in the second quarter, and despite spending heavily on a tough primary and runoff, ended June with $1.9 million in the bank.

Lincoln's number will likely exceed Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who dispatched an easy primary but had only $362,000 in the bank at the end of April. Boozman hasn't released his second quarter totals to date.

In Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet (D) announced more than $1.2 million raised between April 1 and June 30, which is more than both his potential GOP opponents: former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton ($900,000) and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck ($417,000)

Bennet's primary opponent, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, has yet to announce his fundraising numbers. Romanoff was endorsed by former President Bill Clinton recently but faced a $3.5 million-to-$500,000 cash disadvantage at the end of the first quarter.

In Kansas, Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) continues to win the cash dash against Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) in next month's Kansas Senate Republican primary, which serves as the de facto general election for Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-Kan.) seat. Moran outraised Tiahrt $538,000 to $451,000 in the second quarter and has a million-dollar edge in cash on hand.

4. Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch is dropping out of the Democratic governor's primary, leaving state Treasurer Frank Caprio unchallenged for the party's nod in the race to succeed term-limited Gov. Don Carcieri (R).

Lynch is expected to announce today that he will drop his bid, according to the Providence Journal. He had been struggling to compete with Caprio in the polls and the money race. Caprio raised $320,000 in the second quarter and reported $1.7 million cash on hand as of the end of June. Lynch has not yet released his numbers, but had $695,000 on hand at the end of March. The state Democratic State Committee also recently endorsed Caprio over Lynch.

(Worth noting: The committee also passed over Lynch's brother, Bill, a former state Democratic Party chairman who is running to succeed Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D) in the 1st district. The endorsement went to Providence Mayor David Cicilline instead.)

On the Republican side, former Carcieri communications director John Robitaille recently received the endorsement of state Republicans and has been leading former state Rep. Victor Moffitt in public polls. Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican senator, is pursuing a bid as an independent, as are four others. And software engineer Ken Block is pursuing a bid under the Moderate Party banner. Chafee raised $155,000 in the second quarter and has $419,000 on hand; Robitaille has not yet released his numbers.

5. Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is the latest Democratic incumbent to trail in a GOP-sponsored poll.

A Tarrance Group poll obtained by The Fix and conducted for the campaign of former Arizona state Sen. Jonathan Paton shows Paton leading Giffords 45 percent to 44 percent in her battleground southeastern Arizona 8th district. The poll was conducted among 300 likely voters between July 6-7.

The numbers in the poll show the district is ripe for the picking. President Barack Obama's disapproval is at 56 percent, and 55 percent of voters say it's time to look at electing a new member of Congress. (Home state Sen. John McCain won the district by six points in 2008.)

Giffords is seen as a member of Congress with a bright future -- she's often mentioned as a potential challenger to GOP Sen. Jon Kyl in 2012. But in a tough year for Democrats nationally, Giffords has supported the economic stimulus legislation, cap and trade bill, the energy bill and the health care bill - votes which could be used to tie her to the Democratic leadership in Washington.

One factor that works in Giffords' favor is her fundraising prowess. She announced Wednesday that she raised nearly $600,000 in the second quarter and has more than $2.2 million on hand - one of the biggest campaign funds of a vulnerable Democrat.

And, Paton must still survive a Aug. 24 primary from Iraq war veteran Jesse Kelly before he can even begin the race against Giffords. (For even more on the race, check out our writeup here; the 8th was the inaugural winner of the Fix's "Choose your own House race" contest.)

With Aaron Blake and Felicia Sonmez

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 15, 2010; 7:09 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How Jan Brewer won (on immigration)
Next: "Worst Week in Washington": The Nominations!

Comments

Did McConnell have his teeth in this time?

Posted by: knjincvc | July 20, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

he Republicon Party is an accident looking for some place to happen. The only question is whether it will implode or explode. Its leaders are full of "bs" and the gas pressure is in the red zone. None of the weirdos have a clue of the cause but they all have a solution.

Posted by: marrobcastle | July 18, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris, didn't you even stop and think about why the Paton campaign would be releasing that "poll" to you before they released their FEC filing?

Paton’s flimsy “poll” against Giffords shows he’s too afraid to release the results he got from polling primary voters. He obviously doesn’t have better numbers than Jesse Kelly, but likes to continue the storyline that he is the front runner. The fact that he has to tout a “poll” with a 5.8% margin of error is a joke – a distraction from the reality that all of us constitutional conservatives truly see.

Paton’s fund raising numbers were abysmal compared to last quarter. He burned through all his Republican establishment donors and now has to release a “poll” to try to sell himself as a “candidate with a real shot” to conservatives. This won’t work – we all see through his snake oil sales pitch.

It’s amateur hour over at the Paton campaign, even though his staff is full of high-paid consultants. If I was Daniel Scarpinato, I would be wondering why Paton’s fundraisers get paid so much more than him when they have nothing to show for it.

Posted by: AZ08ConstitutionalConservative | July 16, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party is a joke. Look at their leaders, Stain man Steele, Sun Tan Man Boehner, and Turtle man Mcconnel. These guys can't open their mouth without making a gaffe. But there's more, Sara Money Making Palin, Rush off Limbaugh, Sharon crooked Angle, Rand from Paul, and Michelle Bach-man. These guys and ladies are an embarrassment to the Republican Party not that the Republican Party hasn't always been an embarrassment, just look what they did in Eight years, ruined the Economy almost ended our way of life an expect the American people to put them back in office to finished the job. How dumb do they think we are. The Republicans created this mess and now were going to ask the Republicans to get us out of it? Especially these new Tea Party Republicans that the Elected Republicans support and don't denounce their crazy positions. That doesn't make much sense. The Republicans haven't changed their spots, they still believe their tactics that got us into this mess works. I'll trust the Democrats any day over the Destructive, ignorant, foolish, Republican Party. At least their trying. The Republicans haven't governed in over a year. Oh Thank God they haven't governed or we'd proberly be over the cliff by now.

Posted by: amosdefnails | July 16, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

I think, with a statistical margin of error of 3.5 percent, Sen. McConnell got his groove back after a trip to Jamaica.

Posted by: mattrandolph | July 15, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's an example of a recent poll, where the POLLSTER tells us to ignore the results because they are within the margin of error:

"Their recent Washington poll, for example, shows Democratic Senator Patty Murray leading by a not-statistically-significant four-point margin (37% to 33%) over challenger Dino Rossi in a combined sample of landline and mobile phones."

That's what "not-statistically-significant" means.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/surveyusa_polls_cell_phone_onl.php

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

From now on, just ignore any pollster that says any result within the margin of error. It is meaningless.
----------------------------------
I do ignore polls within the margin of error. Don't I always say that one needs to look at a scattergraph of all the polls and look at the trendlines. It's only looking at ALL the polls that one can get a feeling for where the polling is. And if the trendlines are within the margin of error, then the trendlines mean the candidates are too close to call.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"Others here like zouk and brigade do very little else, so I'm a Mote to their beams."

---

Nice little Scriptural reference. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Posted by: Brigade | July 15, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

See, that is the problem with this blog. I can link to university sites, I can list pedigree, I can make convincing arguments.

But in the end, the droning on of the liberal ignoramuses on this blog drown out every sensible voice on this blog. Loudness is not the same as convincing. We were talking math today and liberal opinion somehow comes to dominate. IT's not like the numbers lie, except in Obama land. you so called Degreed Libs should be ashamed.

I have been the sole voice of conservstism for a many lonely years on this blog. I am pretty sure my education and income is in then upper ranges here but this blog allows for even the pitiful to post non-stop (hello drivl) as equally intelligent as everyone else.

Carry on cilliza

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Fine 12 bar discount one of the finest math educations in the world.

From now on, just ignore any pollster that says any result within the margin of error. It is meaningless.

Good luck with that.

Also, spending leads to prosperity.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

After reading through t scores, p values, anova, basketball games, black scholes option pricing and assorted diversionary tactics, this is the statement of zouk that I disagree with:

"Just as saying that a one point lead with a 3 point margin is NOT a lead".

Zouk, I believe you are wrong. It is possible the person has a lead, and equally possible the person is lagging by 2 points.
The pollster does not know.

This is the simplest thing about statistics and something that should be easiest to understand.

From reading all the comments on this subject, I think you, zouk, are alone in your interpretation of what margin of error means.

Or does someone else out there agree with zouk?


Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Dead Ped Walkin'

tick tock tick tock

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 4:14 PM
===========================================
I wonder which of the party has more "Peds" or "Pedos;" hence, the statistics rigged in their favor!

We can use a bimodal distribution (just the Democrats and Republicans) or make it more complcated by including the Tea Party and the Independents.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"....The only person tested he leads is Jan Brewer, who doesn’t have particularly high name recognition on the national level at this point.


Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 4:08 PM
=====================================
If Jan Brewer had name recognition, she'd be beating Obama by say 20 - 30, may be 40 - 50 points?

So how about saving everyone time and money and declare a winner from the Republicans by a coin toss?

Now lets' see, the coin has two sides and one edge, there are four candidates to select from, one side of the coin has 0.00000001% more metal due to a different design.....

Can you gives us some numbers to muse/amuse on?

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Forecasting is a different chapter in the mathematics book. It is heavily reliant on trend analysis with fluctuations. there is the famous Winter's method which handles seasonality, not named for the season, but the guy.

I only used the basketball example to show that there is a real result but that there is some uncertainty in that claim. I had no idea this would become the meme for the day.

BTW, the most interesting forecasting stems from Black Scholes models of stocks with a certain volatility as the random variable. this was "invented" as a result of considering gases in a balloon for example.

This was one of my favorite classes - an elective in Financial engineering. We were taught how to price all sorts of bizarre creatures, but especially derivatives and futures.

American Express collectibles was my project.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

To follow up on bsimon1's point: Pollsters sample the "score" periodically, much like sampling the score of a basketball game, for example, every five minutes. If the two scores get farther apart or stay proportionately the same over time, they may be able to accurately predict, within a margin of error, the final score.

If the scores cris-cross frequently, then it becomes harder to establish a clear trend and predicting the outcome is more problematic.

And if the scores are separated by less than the margin of error all the way to the end, it's anybody's ballgame.

Pollsters love that last situation because they get commissioned to do more and more polling when, in Magic 8-Ball terms, "Things Are Cloudy." When a candidate has been up by 20+ points in a poll for six months, they feel less inclined to throw more money at pollsters.

Of course the only numbers that really count are the final scores. But people love to play with polling and predictions, so numeromancy (magic with numbers) probably won't go out of style any time soon.

Posted by: Gallenod | July 15, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Dead Ped Walkin'

tick tock tick tock

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

This is hilarious:

In case one wonders whether PPP’s sample is to blame, the partisan split favors Democrats by five points, 39/34. That’s probably overstating the actual size of the gap and the percentage of Democrats in the general population, which means that the independents got short shrift as well. Also note that this poll surveyed registered voters, not likely voters — a sampling technique that would tend to favor Democrats and Obama a little more.
The news is almost uniformly bad for Obama in the poll. His approval rating is now seriously underwater at 45/52. That gets even worse among independents, 40/56. He doesn’t get above 46% in any matchup with Republicans, not even Jan Brewer, whom he beats 44/36, with 20% undecided.
For Palin, the numbers show she can play against Obama. She pulls 8% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 and 35% of those who “don’t remember” (?!?), which puts her on par for outreach with Gingrich (9%, 40%), Romney (9%, 32%), and slightly better than Huckabee (6%, 32%). If that’s not vindication for those who argued that Palin couldn’t do as well with unaffiliated voters, it’s cetainly something close to it.

Update: There seems to be some confusion in the comments over the number of people who claimed not to remember how they voted in 2008. That was 9% of the respondents in the survey (combined with those who voted third party). Since Obama won the 2008 popular vote by seven points (53/46) and this Dem +5 poll shows only 46% of respondents acknowledging their vote for Obama, I’d say it’s a healthy probability that most of that 9% voted for Obama and don’t want to acknowledge it now. Of that 9%, Palin wins 35%, Gingrich wins 40%, and so on.


Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

This is priceless, We found one person who DOESN'T beat Obungler:

PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46
in 2012 polling

No, this is not coming from Rasmussen or an internal GOP poll, but from the normally Democrat-sympathetic Public Policy Polling. PPP pitted Barack Obama against five potential Republican challengers for the 2012 presidential campaign, and the only one Obama beat was … Jan Brewer. Even that, PPP admitted, resulted from Brewer’s lack of name recognition. The headline, though, is Sarah Palin’s dead heat with the President:

He trails Mitt Romney 46-43,
Mike Huckabee 47-45,
Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46.

The only person tested he leads is Jan Brewer, who doesn’t have particularly high name recognition on the national level at this point.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Didn't we see (3) up above verbatim only a few days ago? Does anyone care how much Pawlenty's PAC has raised, or Palin's?

More interesting is how very little of what Palin has raised ends up going to what donors thought they were giving for. Sounds like Sarah has an IRS interview in her future.

And what is it with the hideous pictures atop these entries? Barbour, Brewer, McConnell, and Ensign not long ago ... Can't one if the minions dig up any less scary photos?

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

ddawd writes
"pollsters aren't trying to predict what the score will be at the end of the game (election day). They are trying to determine what the score is right now."


My point remains the same. They take a sample, say a 5 minute excerpt from the game; they don't know the score, but use the excerpt to try to calculate it. Given the right model, they might be able to do it accurately; presumably a larger excerpt (10 minutes, or 30, etc) would improve their accuracy rate.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 15, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Better post a lot short timer. It will have to last.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Uh, guys, not all distributions follow bell curves. There are many others. Bimodal distribution is more common in political analysis.

The nice thing about bell curves is that if they apply you know a LOT about the data. IQ distribution is a bell.. 10 IQ points comprise a standard deviation. So 68% have IQs between 90 and 110, 95% between 80 and 120, 99.7% between 70 and 130.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

To predict a final basketball score from the score thus far would be an act of extrapolation, nothing to do with sampling. The extrapolation would be weighted by a few factors but sampling has nothing to do with it.

And frantic googling can't salvage a bogus claim to expertise once exposed.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey Staticians,

Look what have you done! Look at McConnell's picture and even he is confused!

By the way did you guys talk about box plots, normal vs. log-normal, parametric vs. non-parameteric stuff?

And I have Kurtosis on my foot between two toes. Do you have any remedies?

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

DDunce, I already posted the link revealing your utter ignorance.

and the idea that everyone disagrees with me is just another example of your idiocy. the same people think Obungler is doing a splendid job. your sample is as skewed as your low IQ.

But Math and econ are not opinion based efforts. so you can stack up all the liberals you want that think raising taxes and government spending leads to prosperity. It will never make it so. Just as saying that a one point lead with a 3 point margin is NOT a lead. such is the state of our country these days, churning out arrogant mush brains like you who actually think they are capable of making decisions for the rest of us. I think the voters have decided what WE ALL think about you arrogant mush brained libs making our choices for us. you can take next year off, Like it or not.


Now I have wasted enough time trying to futily educate a pinhead like you.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

More insults from zouk, but digging himself ever deeper trying to sound as though he knows stats. which he clearly doesn't.

Degrasso: comments appreciated. Ì use the profanity in protest of the tolerated pedophilia goad. I rarely swear in speech. CC has ignored every question about why that abhorrent insult gets a pass. And is still ignoring.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Don't take it personally, though. There's a reason that 100% of the people on here who knows anything about the topic says you're wrong.

It's kind of like your opinion on just about any topic.

But yeah, keep telling yourself that we're all such meanies.

Anyways, Chris C keeps referring to 37, noa, and others. I think we all know who the "other" is, so you won't have to put up with our harsh words for long.

I'd say I'd check back here for a paper, but we both know you aren't going to link to one.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Somebody's spending too much time playing on Excel. Back to 12Bar's question. It was meant as a reference to nonlinearity. Bsimon had it about right, so there's no need to reiterate. Just remember the original comment:

"The margin of error introduces a small probability, usually 5 percent, that the result could instead fall within the prescribed range of error."

The key error is that there is a small probability that the result falls OUTSIDE the range of error. Spouting Anova, t-tests, and p-tests won't change that.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 15, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I am wondering if we have to send the tuition fee for the statistics classes?

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"this was really a very simple point but as usual the same gang of pedants wanted to jump ugly all over Zouk and show that he was lying about some feature of his posts."

hahahahaha, awwwwwww, why must everyone be so MEAN to wuvable ol' zook???

Anyways, still waiting on that paper.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The sound you hear is DDunce slinking back under his rock, hoping no one really noticed his outburst of stupidity.

His first claim was that he knew next to nothing about Stats. He then followed up by demonstrating that his first claim was correct, but his method suggests otherwise.

typical lib. they know so much. all wrong.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, pollsters aren't trying to predict what the score will be at the end of the game (election day). They are trying to determine what the score is right now.

It's really more of the realm of political scientists to predict the end score.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Basics

ANOVA is a set of statistical methods used mainly to compare the means of two or more samples. Estimates of variance are the key intermediate statistics calculated, hence the reference to variance in the title ANOVA. The different types of ANOVA reflect the different experimental designs and situations for which they have been developed.


http://www.statsdirect.com/help/analysis_of_variance/anova.htm

god you're an idiot.


Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
One way (one factor, fixed effects)

Two way (two factors, randomized blocks)

Two way with repeated observations (two factors, randomized block)

Fully nested (hierarchical factors)

Latin square (one primary and two secondary factors)

Crossover (two factors, fixed effects, treatment crossover)

Kruskal-Wallis (nonparametric one way)

Friedman (nonparametric two way)

Homogeneity of variance (examine the ANOVA assumption of equal variance)

Shapiro-Wilk W (examine the ANOVA assumption of normality)

Agreement (examine agreement of two or more samples)

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I was trying to dumb it down for liberals by using the basketball example.

In your case, it was clearly "not dumb enough".

I had no idea how incredibly dense so-called educated liberals are:

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#two

confidence level - 95%
population - 1000000
percentage - 50
answer 3.1 confidence interval

this is similar to many polls

example 2:

confidence level - 99%
population - 1000000
percentage - 50
answer 4.08 confidence interval

notice I have only changed the confidence level by 4%. the result is a change in the confidence interval of 0.98. clearly not linear, right. you can try it with other combinations.

Now does anyone out there want to continue claiming that the distribution within a sample is Uniform and it does not matter where in that interval you lie?

this was really a very simple point but as usual the same gang of pedants wanted to jump ugly all over Zouk and show that he was lying about some feature of his posts.

and thus is the nature of the disease on this blog. It does not fundamentally lie with 37's carpet posting.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Ok, zook. Link me to a paper involving two samples that uses ANOVA to compare them.

Of course you won't.

No one expects you to admit how you're a complete fool. It's just fun to point it out to the rest of the world.

Now go back to your three hundred and ninty seven thousand economics PhDs and your naked models and your boats and your history of not scarring little children. Grown ups are talking.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Gallenod writes
"I can see some utility to the basketball game metaphor for polling prior to an election."

For the basketball game metaphor to work, you have to block the pollsters' view of the scoreboard. They are watching an excerpt of the game & trying to predict the final score based on the play they view during that time. If you let them see 5 minutes of game time, they might be able to accurately project the outcome. As you let them see more of the game, their likelihood of accurately predicting the final score increases.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 15, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

12barblues writes
"Here's the example. Candidate X polls at 48% with a margin of error +/- 3%, with 95% confidence. Candidate Y polls at 49%.

I think CandidateX's REAL polling could be anywhere within 45% to 51%. CandidateY's REAL polling could be within 46% to 52%. (95% of the time, the other 5% of the time, their numbers could be outside the range).

Therefore Candidate X and Y could be tied, Candidate X could be ahead by 5 points (51% to 46%) at the extremes. Candidate Y could be ahead by 7 points (52% to 45%). Or anywhere in between. The pollster does not know."

That last bit bears repeating:

"The pollster does not know."

What we do know is that some combinations in your example are impossible. i.e. CandidateX could be at 51, but if so, CandidateY must be at 49 or below.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 15, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Starting in 2011-next year-the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be
increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided.
It doesn't matter if you're retired. Your gross income WILL go up by the amount
of insurance your employer paid for. So you'll be required to pay taxes on a larger
sum of money that you actually received. Take the tax form you just finished for
2009 and see what $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 additional gross income does to
your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it puts you into a
much higher bracket. This is how the gove! rnment i s going to buy insurance for
fifteen (15) percent that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases,
but it's not really a "tax increase" as such, it a redefinition of your taxable income.

Also, go to Kiplinger's and read about the thirteen (13) tax changes for 2010 that
could affect you.

Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every
single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because
an election is coming in November. So vote intelligently, based on your values.
But also adjust your tax withholding, or increase your savings, so that you aren't
surprised and put in a jam when your federal income taxes are due on April 15, 2012.

Fight organized crime! De-elect the D's.

Posted by: leapin | July 15, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

32% approve of the Democrats in the Congress.

26% approve of the Republicans in the Congress.

Translation - Republicans got their Groove back.

Groovy!

Does anyone know what time does the Brooklyn Bridge go on auction?

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The basketball example is retarded, so it's fitting that zook used it. Pollsters aren't trying to predict the score at the end of the game. They are trying to predict what the score is RIGHT NOW. You don't need a pollster or a statistician to determine a basketball score since you have a scoreboard that puts the numbers right up there.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

DDunce,

your ignorance is palpable and can not be ignored.

ANOVA stands for analysis of variance. yes, It can use t test for parametric distributions of sufficient size but there are other methods available/necessary for funky distributions. Social science misfits like yourself would not have learned how to understand when each particular test is appropriate, as is clear from your rant.

Is it really possible a school would graduate you with that high level of ignorance and hubris?

I am now going to drop this topic. I am sure it has bored most of the readers to death.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I have to head out for a while, so I'll quit harassing everyone for now. But, I'm still hoping for clarity on the example.

special note to 37th: keep up the whining...it makes it all the sweeter when we can cherish your absence.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Any time we start arguing about p values and anova and sampling theory, I begin to suspect there's a smoke screen going up.

We SHOULD be able to agree on the two simplest concepts: what an confidence interval means and what margin of error means.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

@zouk,

Here's the example. Candidate X polls at 48% with a margin of error +/- 3%, with 95% confidence. Candidate Y polls at 49%.

I think CandidateX's REAL polling could be anywhere within 45% to 51%. CandidateY's REAL polling could be within 46% to 52%. (95% of the time, the other 5% of the time, their numbers could be outside the range).

Therefore Candidate X and Y could be tied, Candidate X could be ahead by 5 points (51% to 46%) at the extremes. Candidate Y could be ahead by 7 points (52% to 45%). Or anywhere in between. The pollster does not know.

Further, as near as I remember, the chances within the error band are equal, not the bell curve you describe.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"...The "approval" numbers for Obama are not going to translate 100% into votes for the democrats -


The liberals can think that is the case - but it isn't..."

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 1:16 PM
======================================
But the one percent margin does translate into Republicans getting their Groove back, correct?

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I can see some utility to the basketball game metaphor for polling prior to an election. I have a little statistical training, though probably just enough to be dangerous rather than proficient.

Adding a time dimension (counting down to the end of a game or to an actual election) changes the model from an static analysis of fixed data to a progressive one.

In basketball, a 5-point lead with 15 minutes remaining means very little. A five-point lead with 15 seconds remaining us generally decisive. A 5% polling lead means much less 15 weeks before an election than it does 5 days before an election.

As others have commented, the model for selecting the sample is far more important in a poll result than how the margin of error is calculated. Any results within the margin of error can be considered a statistical tie, though I know from my own statistics training that it is possible for one person to score higher than another on every single trial but still have the result be considered "statistically insiginificant" when you run the analysis. What would be useful to know would be the "confidence level" of the results, the calculation of which will depend on some part on the margin of error.

However, discussing the time factor and the margin of error calculations at the same time are an apples/oranges debate. They're both relevant to polling, but the margin of error and time remaining are independent variables.

Posted by: Gallenod | July 15, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"comparing two drugs for an effect is ANOVA. this is a procedure that uses set p values, with alpha and beta, false positives and false negatives balanced in some thought out way."

Um, no. When you're comparing two groups, you use a student-T test, not ANOVA.

Enlighten us some more, please.

I've been wondering how Republicans think that tax cuts lead to deficit reduction. I think I'm starting to understand.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Fine, one last word on it.

the formula you seek relates sample size, confidence interval and confidence level, only. In most social science, the confidence level is established by tradition, medicine is 99.99, military is 95, others can be 90. this could be any number but it is not in practice.

the confidence interval can be therfore manipulated by increasing the sample size. If I ask more people, I get a more accurate rendition of reality.

Using this formula, I can determine the sample size needed to find any particular combination of interval and level.

now consider small changes in one of the measures. do you really think that shrinking or expanding the confidence interval has no effect on the confidence level as we keep the same sample size. so as I move around within the region of interest, I can find various combinations of accuracy and variability. It is NOT a Uniform distribution across the space. the sample size calculation ios also not linear BTW.
all this assumes a random sample.

this very simple view should convince you that of course the almighty Zouk is correct as usual and the other charlatans should crawl back under a rock.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"...a majority (51 percent)...."
===================================
I need to freshen up on my statistics.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

How do "Change" and "Republicans" go together? Those certainly would be "Strange Bedfellows."

But getting the groove back within days of the string of shoe-in-the-mouth disasters indicates that the Democrats too will have their groove back after the infighting.

Posted by: kishorgala | July 15, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and I gotta take my kid out now, so if you have a response I won't read it for several hours.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 15, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


What you really want to do is ban the anti-Obama remarks -

Your interest in civil behavior is only a cover.

Otherwise, your own postings would be different.


Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Noacolor, re your post at 12:38 p.m.,

I can offer one suggestion as to why you would be banned. The guidelines clearly say, "User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site."

I consider myself pretty darn liberal (not as much as a few posters, perhaps, but still well to the left of Mark, for example) and agree with probably some 90%+ of your positions. I despise bigotry in any form, including homophobia.

Nevertheless, I am incredibly uncomfortable with your willingness to slip discussions of sex, or profanity into your posts, either by using a foreign accent or a space, most of the time. I'm in my late 50s and you're welcome to call me a prude. Regardless, my friends and family know that if I drop an F-bomb, they'd better steer clear, because I am EXTREMELY angry.

I agree with you completely on Zouk's favorite "nickname" for you-- it's disgusting that he uses such a phrase. His claim that it stands for "Pedestrian" is juvenile and about as opaque as glass. (And I doubt there's anyone here with even a tenth of a brain who'd believe such a thing of you. I'm well aware that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.)

So your claim that "Yeah I do some name-calling, undisputed, but mine is relatively mild, never savagely personal and, the important point, far from routine," is not the case. I would suggest that you drop the language and ignore the taunts. Letting someone like Zouk push your mental buttons is just stupid-- he's not worth the time or effort. I seriously doubt it's a "personal" thing with CC-- I think he just sees that you fly off the handle and overreact far too easily. I suspect he's got a pretty thick skin-- you have to, to be a blogger, but your insulting him ("your execrable sycophancy for Republicans") doesn't help matters.

I would much rather see you moderate your posts and stay on this blog. Your comments, when on topic, are really interesting.

I hope you'll take this as constructive criticism, rather than an attack. Like I say, you're welcome to think of me as a prude-- I don't care-- but I really would much rather see you stay.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 15, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Call me simple minded, but I'd like to understand JUST confidence level and margin of error.

Not p values which I barely remember and shudder when I do.

It's important to me that I understand what polling really means.

Zouk, don't think I agree with you, because I don't. I'm still trying to get to one simple example.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Or, I should have said, please use THIS example:

We are 95% sure that x falls between 48 and 54% This is a confidence interval.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

@BB,

Can you put your comment into the example? I'm just a CPA here.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

12 bar gets it.


Are you sure you're a liberal?

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The shape of the curve depends on the nature of the measurement. More generally put, one can state it as there is an X% probability that the measurement will fall into the range of A to B (or A ± B). This is one of the more entertaining threadjacks out there.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 15, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

You seem to have adopted a scorched earth strategy--if you have to go down, you're going to try to get everyone else blocked.


______________________________________


12Bar

Seriously - there has been no enforcement on here for a long time - so when one sees "anything goes" - then it is easy to fall in to that mode.

To suddenly start banning out of the blue - in response to some partisan lynch mob - that is not right.

If bans are going to go in - yea, everyone should know the rules and be able to follow them.

I could make a list off the top of my head here of posters - and their uncivil behavior on this blog - it is extensive.

Ddawd for one has to be kidding - going back years he has been harassing other posters on this blog - why is he suddenly in charge of standards ????


Yes - the violence in Chicago is an excellent point on several levels - the first being that several posters on this blog are trying to pin the violent charge on the Tea Party - and that is complete hogwash.


But it goes directly to another issue: what has Obama done for the inner cities ? Democrats are supposed to care about the innercities - nothing of any substance is getting done.

Chicago is almost a free-fire zone - it is serious.

Calling someone a racist isn't going to help any of the gunshot victims.

Anyway - I have a valid point that these complaints are more partisan based than anything else.

If these complaints were NOT partisan based - then there would be calls to ban several others on here.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Cool dawd, we made it!

But of course Rs are already announcing plans to repeal it:

'They're not campaigning on it in earnest -- at least not yet -- but Republican leaders say that, given the power, they would like to do away with Wall Street reform much like they have already discussed repealing health care reform.

"I think it ought to be repealed," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, in response to a question from TPMDC, at his weekly press conference this morning."

See what I mean, Mark?

I mean, how in god's name can people want to vote for a party that wants to allow Wall Street to screw us all over again?

Posted by: drindl | July 15, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I think we could all get a jump start on next week by simply ignoring the ill effects of Neocolor and DDUNce now, beat the rush and the censor.

It is after all, these two bigots that love to use prohibited words whenever they can cleverly sneak them through the filters.

good riddence to all of the stooges.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

ddawd wrote: We are 95% sure that x falls between 48 and 54% This is a confidence interval.
---------------------------------
Or, in 95 out of 100 times of sampling, the result will fall within 48 and 54%. Is that right?

Is the result EQUALLY possible anywhere within the 48 and 54%. Or is zouk right, that the shape of the error band is itself a bell curve?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

here is what government schooled liberals believe about samples:

A: your candidate is ahead by 5 points with a sample error of 5

B: your candidate is behind by 5 points with a sample error of 5 points.

According to the geniuses on this blog, those conclusions are exactly identical.

If I concluded that to any of my clients, I would be fired on the spot.

the error bars do not make anything in the middle meaningless.

you stooges best stick with something you know, like insults and rants.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Present and unaccounted for


Ask 10 people on the street what they think of Obama - you don't need to know the margin of error to figure out what is going on in the country.


The "approval" numbers for Obama are not going to translate 100% into votes for the democrats -

The liberals can think that is the case - but it isn't

Plus - people simply are not answering the phone for pollsters anymore like they used to - so it is extremely difficult to get a sample which is well balanced.


That will take about a week for them to understand what goes into that.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

"The p-value is not the probability that a finding is "merely a fluke." (Again, this conclusion arises from the "rule" that small p-values indicate significant differences.)
As the calculation of a p-value is based on the assumption that a finding is the product of chance alone, it patently cannot also be used to gauge the probability of that assumption being true. This is subtly different from the real meaning which is that the p-value is the chance that null hypothesis explains the result: the result might not be "merely a fluke," and be explicable by the null hypothesis with confidence equal to the p-value."


No wonder conservatives need their own version of wikipedia. Every word that comes out of their mouths seems to be refuted by the liberal bias of reality.

Thanks for the schooling, though. I'm sure we can all agree we got our money's worth.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Also, FinReg cleared filibuster, 60-38. Are Republicans still pushing the endless bailouts meme?

In any case, I'm guessing that we have one party who seemed to be more interested in preventing future recurrences of this economic meltdown than the other. I wonder which one is which.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

DDunce, with the usual foul level of ugliness has once again shown her utter ignorance.

comparing two drugs for an effect is ANOVA. this is a procedure that uses set p values, with alpha and beta, false positives and false negatives balanced in some thought out way.

a p value on its own is only done to a single column of numbers, investigating the probability that the result happens by chance and is not the result of the effect being measured.
the usual wording is that "there is a 95% chance this is caused by the effect, but there is a 5% chance it is caused by random phenom you have not considered".

OK, I' m doing schooling liberals on stats for today. Let me rest by pointing out that you all seem to have just as foggy a notion of how econ works. and the results from that confusion are evident to the voters. you could take a poll if you doubt me. and the result is so overwhelming, you need only ask three or four people.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Mark, I agree with you that the Dems need to focus on the issues and highlight what type of change McConnell is talking about. Also I think the Republicans may want to be careful about nationalizing this election too much, because if it really comes down to a choice between Democrats or Republicans running the country all the poll numbers show that the public will side with the Democrats."

Mark, that is what I am asking.. what should Democrats say about Republicans other than they are the party of no?

All they are talking about doing is undoing..

getting rid of HCR and financial regulation, bringing back bush tax cuts and every other policy that caused the financial meltdown in the first place... oh, and starting a war with Iran.

I think they are talking about this... what do you think they should be highlighting, then?

Posted by: drindl | July 15, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Backpedal all you like zouk, many of us here took statistics in college and have a 100% confidence you have no idea what you're talking about. As if the conclusion you're a phony needed any more support.

Bsimon understands, DDAWD understands, you're trying to wing it. Taught grad school? Not possible.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"A basketball score with time remaining had nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of a sample. This comparison can only reflect a deep and fundamental misunderstanding if statistics and probability.

This is GED level thinking.

Posted by: Noacoler"

Seriously. HS grads are aware that score is kept by a scoreboard. This is the most bizarre example for sampling error I've ever seen.

Zook, it would have just been easier to point out that there is probably an undecided category than to push this nonsense you've been pushing.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

1. I think the GOP messege will resonate with voters, as they remember being sucked into the lies of then candidate Obama. I will close Guantanomo Bay, he will pull us out of Iraq, he will improve the economy, ect. None of that has happened. GOP candidates have a great platform on which to run and it begins with slowing inflation through reducing spending and the ntl. debt. The GOP will win on that messege this year, and beyond if they can produce real results in office.

2. Ron Johnson has a real shot to win in Wisconsin. He will cruise through to the GOP nomination and has an even money shot of beating Feingold in the GE. With the Club for Growth & the NRSC backing him, he's a shoo in for the GOP nomination and Wisconsin is now definately on the rader for R's to try to pick up the majority in the senate.

Posted by: reason5 | July 15, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

12BB, I'm probably the second least statistically knowledgeable person on here (thanks, zook!)

Another thing to keep in mind is that most polls aren't one or the other. Presumably there's a no opinion option meaning that likely the gap is greater than 51-49.

But for discussion, let's just go with 51-49. So what the pollsters are saying is that during this snapshot in time, there are X number of people who think that a Republican congress is a good thing. We are 95% sure that x falls between 48 and 54% This is a confidence interval.

This is very different from p-value zook mentioned. And like most things in life, zook is wrong about what p-value means. P-value is not a false positive rate as he says. I'm better in talking about drugs, so I'll do that. Suppose there's a drug that is given to one hundred people and a placebo given to another 100 people. The people given the actual drug experience a 5 point drop in blood pressure after a week.

The question we are asking is whether the drug is different from the placebo. After running statistical tests, you determine the p-value to be 5%. Now someone who pretends to have taken a statistics class and own a yacht and hook up with thousands of models and not surreptitiously photograph little children will tell you this represents the false positive rate.

The p-value answers this question.

SUPPOSING the drug is really no different than a placebo. How often do you get the experimental result that you got (5 point difference among 100 people who got drug vs 100 people who got placebo)?

This is very different than saying there is a 5% of chance we got this result by a fluke.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I think there is still some confusion over the error bars thing.

It is not accurate to say every result within the error bars is the same. As you wander toward the edges of those bars, the probability of real world mirroring, falls. If you step outside, it means you are now below the 95% probability for example.

you could construct some error bars around 99% with the same center. Or you could broaden your reach and settle for 90%. these result in different summary statistics with different required sample sizes. It is for this reason that I claim that it is not true to say any result within the error bar is some mushy unknown quantity.

I think for the most part most everyone here is getting this despite the snarky name calling.
My main point in the beginning was to dispute the notion that any result within any stated margin of error is meaningless and a tie. It is not.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Can people please stop posting their "citizen's arrest" of rudeness on the blog?

Let the moderators moderate; nobody likes a tattletale. When the hammer comes down it's going to be for their own documented cases and not yours.

Posted by: theobserver4 | July 15, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

1. In a speech to a group of young Republicans today, Senate Minority Leader "Mitch McConnell (Ky.) will cast the GOP as the party of change and checks and balances -- a preview of the Republican message heading into the fall campaign.

"This isn't about who's on top," McConnell is expected to tell the Young Republican Leadership Conference in a speech later this morning in Washington. "It's about following through on the kinds of changes Americans want to see."


And that would be what? where is the 'message'?

As Lindsay Graham said recently, he asked a group of teatards who were saying 'they wanted their country back'
what they would do it with it then and what he got was dead silence.

Posted by: drindl | July 15, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I notice that CC again calls me out as a prime offender here. That seems odd. Yeah I do some name-calling, undisputed, but mine is relatively mild, never savagely personal and, the important point, far from routine. Others here like zouk and brigade do very little else, so I'm a Mote to their beams.

I guess it's personal, isn't it, Chris.

I got banned for calling out racists, nit for personal attacks. The racists got a pass, as did and as do the truly savage and routine attackers. Somewhere way past double standard, no?

And I resent being placed alongside 37th. I've never spanned this board.

Do what you will. Most of the people u enjoyed reading are long gone. And that never included you, cillizza, with your execrable sycophancy for Republicans.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

What groove?? All these GOP imbeciles have done is successfully sew the seeds of discontent with gov't (as in overall gov't). Can they really expect to take back the House and gain in the Senate by drawing attention to the shenanigans that went on for the last year? Putting holds on every attempted agency appointment, compromising with Democrats and then refusing to vote for the bill, and apologizing to Big Business when they continue to hoard money and lay workers off?

That's a losing proposition boys. Now that you've aggravated Americans to the point that they're paying attention during a mid-term you're going to have to offer something different than "No" or "repeal HC reform". You might just lose seats for the 3rd cycle in a row and relegate yourselves as a regional party.

Posted by: theobserver4 | July 15, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

12bar, your understanding as of 12:21 is correct.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 15, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

McConnell is full of crap. Lets see him spell out exactly what they're going to do. And lets see them fix the economy without spending a dime. Don't forget, everything Obama's doing is bad for the economy, so you're not allowed to go anywhere near things he's done. It's amazing how you lo-life propaganda pushers bash Obama for the stimulus when you had one of your own you were going to pass. But you don't want to talk about that. And your stimulus would've went to the outsources that are getting a zero tax rate on all their overseas operations, and the rich that don't even need it. If you clowns had any ideas you would've used them and took credit for them. The first thing you cronies are going to do is pass those crooked trade deals with Panama, Columbia & South Korea, and put a few hundred thousand more American out of work. You've been hounding Obama to pass them since he took office. At least Obama hit the Chinese with a tariff on steal and auto tires to keep China from taking over what's left of those industries. And he killed that Bush Mexican trucker program that was destroying American drivers. And he actually got China to move their currency. It's not much, but it's better than anything those neo-freaks will do. All they're interested in is pocketing our tax dollars. No, robbing our tax dollars. And McConnell about all those amendments to stop everything from war-profiteering, to fraud and abuse of tax-payer money in the Middle East. All the Republicans - 58 I believe - voted to keep the war-profiteering and fraud and abuse of tax-payer money. And these are the clowns preaching fiscal responsibility. Go Figure! These young independents are going to learn the hard way.

Posted by: HemiHead66 | July 15, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

12bar. you have it mostly correct. the sample result with a error bar of 5 points means that there is a 95% probability that the actual result is in that range. But it is not accurate to say they could easily trade places. there is only a five percent chance that the numbers are wrong.

you must also remember that this analysis insists that the samples are completely random, which is almost impossible in the real world, with phones being used during the daytime only to people who answer, etc.

this is why polling firms use very advanced methods of adjusting their samples. this is much more contentious than error bars. for example Rasmussen uses likely to vote responses, which seem to have the best historical results. Other firms use registered voters or other criteria. If someone wants to make a stink about sampling theory, this is the place to do it, not in whether a one point lead is significant.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

moonbat wrote
"The margin of error introduces a small probability, usually 5 percent, that the result could instead fall within the prescribed range of error. It does not mean anything within the error is the same mushy result. It is 95 percent sure the one point lead is there."


NO, No, no.

The polls say they are 95% confidence that the results fall within the margin of error. i.e. if the poll reports 45% with an MOE of 3%, they're 95% confident the result is between 42 and 48. They are not 95% sure there is a 'lead'. Your students should ask for their money back.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 15, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

@noacoler,

I just commented on Facebook. Go see.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

Read CC's post at 8:05. He doesn't really talk about criteria.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I am going to say this again - I don't know where Obama thinks he is going with all these false charges of racism.

If the NAACP did not have Obama's approval for their "resolution" - I would be surprised.

There has been no statement from Obama in opposition to the NAACP "resolution" - so the nation has to take it as Obama's own policy.


The first clear point is - this is not helping race relations one bit. Everyone knows this. So anyone - who is claiming that their goal is racial progress - should not be partaking in these false charges.


Let's go to a political level - Obama unleashing his partisan attack dogs to call the Tea Party racist - How smart is that ?

Taking a position which is offensive to a large group of Americans - calling them and their friends racists - is simply divisive.

It is not a good move at all for Obama.

Let's take the purely cynical election strategy that Obama wants to motivate his rather narrow base to vote in November.


But at what cost ??? How many extra votes is Obama going to squeeze out of his base - in exchange for this racially-charged and offensive language from his own interest group ???

It is just completely inappropriate for the President of the United States to engage in these sorts of tactics -

Yes - it is unAmerican to attempt to de-legitimize the political beliefs of 80 million people in this country.


To treat the Tea Party like it is a renewed KKK is just ridiculous - are the memories of what the KKK really was that short ??


We have a situation in which the President is CAUSING RACE RELATIONS TO GO BACKWARDS.

For his own personal political gain, not for the good of the nation.


That is the truth - and the leftists will just respond with rudeness and name-calling I don't care.


And that is just the problem - the leftists have lost all respect for the truth.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

A basketball score with time remaining had nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of a sample. This comparison can only reflect a deep and fundamental misunderstanding if statistics and probability.

This is GED level thinking.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

pathfinder -- forget about trying to reason with him. you are dealing with someone without an ounce of grey matter.

god, get that horrible picture off my screen -- this man is too ugly to be even a funeral director.

Posted by: drindl | July 15, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

@noacoler,

Please read the example below and tell me if this is right, based on 95% confidence level with margin error +/- 3 points. I'm more interested in what the truth is, than stroking my own ego.

"What I remember from stat is that it means that 95% of the time, the result will be within the margin of error. In other words, if candidate X is polling at 45%, with margin of error of 3%. That means his real polling is between 42%-48% most of the time (95% of the time).

Same with the other candidate. If the two candidates are polling WITHIN the margin of error, they could trade easily trade places in the poll. Since the pollster doesn't know which one is REALLY ahead, they call it tied."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

By early next week, hopefully 37th, noa and others who clearly violate the rules of the comments section will be gone
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | July 15, 2010 8:05 AM |

thank you chris.

good riddance to the most vile poster ever on the fix.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"@37th,

You seem to have adopted a scorched earth strategy--if you have to go down, you're going to try to get everyone else blocked. Good luck with that, since CC already has his list. Isn't that what he's been telling us? He ALREADY has his list."

12Bar--can you post what you are referring to here? I'm curious to see the criteria used.

Posted by: drindl | July 15, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

present-and-unaccounted-for,

At the risk of sounding Ped (antic), I will school you leftists on math, no charge since you are such charity cases anyway.
-----

Let me school you on something. Blue states PAY way more money into social programs than red states. Yet, red states USE many more social programs than blue states.

So while democrats fight to make social programs available to you, and agree to pay for them, republicans fight to kill social programs while using them.

Though you may disagree with our position, you have to agree that it at least makes more sense than yours.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | July 15, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Zouk's explanation of statistics is false.

Margins of error reflect the fact that a sampling is a subset of the whole. You have a bag of 100 marbles, 60 black and 40 white. Reach in and pull out ten. You might get 4 black and six white, because it's a sampling, not a cross-section.

If you know the total you can calculate the reliability of your sample. Take a larger sample and you have a more reliable result.

If you're an idiot you'll say white is in the lead.

This is basic, basic stuff. And to think zouk claims to do math fir a living. That is not at alll believable. A bright high school kid understands this better than zouk.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

McConnell also is expected to present the idea of the need for checks and balances in Washington, telling the crowd that the midterm election is about "reversing the damage Democrats have done".

-----

In the last 3 months of the Republican administration, our economy shed almost 3 million jobs. Since then, our economy has been creating about 100,000 jobs per month. So what McConnell proposes is that we give power back to the Republicans so we can start hemorrhaging jobs again.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | July 15, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


I think this entire boycott - acting like children routine - has been completely ridiculous.

In addition, the atmosphere on this blog was not created by me.


I have been complaining about the hostile comments - harassing other posters for a very long time.

To all of a sudden start blaming me for anything - when all this other stuff goes on - which is far worse - is ridiculous.

These points are valid.

And your position is motivated by your partisan beliefs.

In addition, you may not believe it, but there is a group of leftists on this board who are seeking to dominate the place with their views. Whether you believe it or not, it is true.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

@present,

Since you are a teacher, perhaps it won't bother you to translate your statistical understanding into MY example, posted just below.

Please delete the snark as I find it to be personally insulting. No teacher worthy of the name would be snarky, would he?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Present and unaccounted for


There is a thing called astroturfing - organizing a bunch of people to voice complaints - and falsely creating the impression there are thousands, millions of people with the same views.

In reality, it is just one small group pushing what they want.


This is what has happened with these emails to Chris.

Instead of defusing the situation, this blog has gone down even further - because now the leftists feel that they have a chance to push out opposing views.

This is all about the leftists pushing out opposing views.


If the leftists were really concerned with bad behavior, their complaints would be much different - and extending to many others on this blog.


It is ironic that the leftists want illegal aliens to stay in this country, but a banned poster has committed a far more serious offense.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

At the risk of sounding Ped (antic), I will school you leftists on math, no charge since you are such charity cases anyway.

Sampling theory is quite distinct from confidence intervals and p-values. a p value is a range that results from a pre set accuracy in a vector of statistics. the p value represents the probability that your result could have happened by accident. so for example, when you test a new drug and want to make sure it is safe, you set an accuracy of 99.99% just to be sure. If it is something less important, you could choose 90%. now the statistics themselves determine the p value based on how spread out they are. a p value of over 95% is the rule of thumb for pretty darn sure it is not by accident. It still means there is a 5% chance that your effect is a random fluctuation in something.

now in sampling theory, the difficulty lies in the fact that we are sampling a population, not representing the entire population. We could accidentally ask an unusual part of the population and that would reflect as inaccurate. so the bigger the sample, the more likely it is that we did not miss the main aspect. the margin of error in sampling theory is the probability that we "missed" the important part of the population. It does NOT mean that any result within that error bar is equally likely.

Let's go back to the basketball metaphor. If you are winning by one point with one minute to go, you ARE winning but there is a non-zero probability you could still lose. When the clock ticks down to 10 seconds, the chance of losing is dwindling. but the fact remains that you are still winning. Likewise in a random sample poll, the error measures the inability to ask every single person. It has nothing to do with whether they might change their mind in an hour, it has to do with the inexact fit between reality and the reduced sample.

I hate to rain on your liberal parade, but I taught this stuff to grad school for years.

any questions?

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

@ddawd,

You must have recent stat education. Please read this and tell me if this is right or wrong.

"What I remember from stat is that it means that 95% of the time, the result will be within the margin of error. In other words, if candidate X is polling at 45%, with margin of error of 3%. That means his real polling is between 42%-48% most of the time (95% of the time).

Same with the other candidate. If the two candidates are polling WITHIN the margin of error, they could trade easily trade places in the poll. Since the pollster doesn't know which one is REALLY ahead, they call it tied."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse


@37th,

You seem to have adopted a scorched earth strategy--if you have to go down, you're going to try to get everyone else blocked. Good luck with that, since CC already has his list. Isn't that what he's been telling us? He ALREADY has his list.

Since you are in your last week of blog life, you should be looking for a new blog home, since that seems so important to you. Try RCP--believe me, you'll only get approval over there with the long knives.

Gee, are we ever going to MISS your carpet posting about your favorite issues--how whites are treated unfairly in the U.S. and how violent and criminal blacks are (chiefly the President). [heavy sarcasm]

This is it, Bud, tick-tock tick-tock.

And no one deserves it more than you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Obviously Mitch McConnell and his fellow radical right Republicans think they can fool the American public again -- and polling data suggest they could be right (pun intended).

They're counting on the short memory of the voting public. Which party's policies and practices let the private sector almost destroy the economy and plunge us into another Great Depression?

The Republican Party, that's which one.

During the 2008 campaign, President Obama frequently cautioned that it will take years to get out of this deep recession the Republicans produced. The President has made great strides, but as he said 2 years ago, it will takes years to revive the economy.Sadly the Republicans have adopted a Big Lie approach to government and engaged in scapegoating just like a fellow named Adolph did in 1920s Germany. Don't believe it? Go to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and view the film at the beginning of the exhibits. The parallels between the Nazis and today's Republican/Tea Party are incredibly frightening.

Posted by: dl49 | July 15, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

12Bar


Another hostile comment from you

based on your partisan love for Obama.

What are you upset about?

That I said that people who voted for Obama should be responsible for their vote -

That voting for an inexperienced and unqualified person makes you responsible for what happens ???

Yes, I said that.

And it is correct.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

zook, among the coursework you had to do to earn your nineteen thousand economic PhDs, did any of them mention anything about statistical significance?

Seems like someone who is that educated should know about that sort of thing as opposed to someone who makes up academic credentials to try and impress a message board, but that's not you, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 11:15 AM


Calling out the nasty elelment on this blog for future reference.

As I have maintained for quite some time, the posters Drindl, DDawd, Neocolor and KoolKat were the original rule breakers who began the spiral down into the mud. Other posters followed suit. the solution is therefore quite simple.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

ddawd and 12 Bar broadwayjoe leichtman

Any reasonable person can see why the environment on this blog went downhill -


You have some leftists with really hostile comments.

Then the leftists don't like the response they get.

Then the leftists start to gang up - and they start a multi-person fight here -

The leftists are gleefully going to war in these fights.

There are few issues discussed.


Then add in Noacoler and broadwayjoe -

AT that point, the leftists blame the entire hostile atmosphere on someone else.

This is completely ridiculous.

The organizing of fights - the ganging up - that is the inappropriate conduct which has been going on in this blog.

And then there is a pretend innocence which is silly.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

@37th,

You may think that CC is carefully reading your excuses, whining, and finger pointing, but YOU ARE WRONG.

He's already made up his mind about you, and you are on the Short List, if you know what that means.

It means CC has already filled out your pink slip. Your last day is a week away.

Your first name will be "remember".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Last time I checked the Republicans had much lower approval ratings than Obama. It is incorrect to assume every voter (or even a majority of voters) who are unhappy with the conditions we have now will be voting Republican in the fall.

But then if your like gridlock you should vote Republican.

If your number one objective in life is to "Stop Obama" and the country be dammed - then by all means vote Republican.

Not only will that vote be an endorsment of total congressional gridlock - by giving the Republicans control of one or more of the congresses your vote will usher in a reprise of the endless and mindless "investigations" by the House of everything Obama - remember all those "Travelgates" - maybe the Republican kunckleheads can even dig up another Paula Jones. Won't that be fun - and good for the country too!

Brian on the Death Pannels!

Posted by: alfa73 | July 15, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"If there's one thing we've learned over the past few years, it's that Americans don't particularly care about who's up and who's down, as long as the people they elect put the interests of their constituents and the interests of the country first," McConnell will say in his address today.
------------

Yes, the country knows that the Republicans put the interest of their "constituents" first. As long as constituents is interchangeable with Big Business, Wall Street, and Big Oil.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | July 15, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I understand perfectly why you liberal are messing up the economy so bad.

1. you know nothing about math, in this case, statistics
2. you think you do.

Obungler recovery update:

More than 1 million American households are likely to lose their homes to foreclosure this year, as lenders work their way through a huge backlog of borrowers who have fallen behind on their loans.

He knows nothing either, clearly.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

12Bar


Another hostile inappropriate comment from you.

Did you ever consider that your attitude as contributed to the atmosphere on this blog ??

You have been filled with hostile comments for a long time.

So, you can just stuff it.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

12Bar


Another hostile inappropriate comment from you.

Did you ever consider that your attitude as contributed to the atmosphere on this blog ??

You have been filled with hostile comments for a long time.

So, you can just stuff it.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

One has to consider the sample size and nature of sample. Standard deviation as generally defined is not the margin of error for a finite sized sample. The best early work done on this was actually by someone who worked for the Guinness brewery in Dublin.

Also consider the nature of variation. There are probably fluctuations of 1 - 5 points from day to day. So, even if a ridiculously large sample size were used for the poll, one cannot get the margin of error below a certain level. The average will fluctuate for reasons other than the sample size.

The upshot of all of this is the poll at best means that the race is in play. Which is, of course, exactly the message that the Republican party wanted to get across by releasing this poll.

Well, I created this identity originally to tweak JakeD and his claims of having registered another name in preparation for JakeD2 being banned. As the new comments section will make that unnecessary, time to go.

Jake in 3D signing off. Permanently.

Posted by: JakeD3 | July 15, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

As pathetic as it is that the republican party trashed the economy with its policies, by lying us into a war, and by putting both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a Chinese credit card, and then persuaded the idiots in their base that the only way out was to cut or end social programs that they were against since their inception (Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits), it’s even more pathetic that they got so many of these same morons to hate the unemployed:


Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don't even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/jon-kyl-extend-bush-tax-c_n_642862.html

Now, two national polls released Tuesday revealed that registered voters think it's more important to help the unemployed than to reduce the deficit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/unemployment-deficit-polls-voters_n_646600.html


These polls put a nail in the coffin of the GOP’s attempt to shaft the unemployed, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

GOP FAIL.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | July 15, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

ddawd


You are making hostile comments again


That is why people respond to you - they find your comments inappropriate.


If you think that your comments filled with deceptions and half-truths will never ever get a response, you are wrong.


Calling people racist is not the way to any racial progress - by the way.


And if you believe your comments in that direction are appopriate, you are wrong on that as well.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

37th, hopefully the new comments section will allow individual blocking of people's comments. That way we can block you and you can also block everyone else. It's win-win. We don't have to listen to your racist ranting, and you can have what you always wanted, a message board all to yourself.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 11:21 AM
----------------------------------
That would be sweet. Almost like going to heaven without having to die.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

@all,

Just to double check for my own benefit, is my description of confidence interval and margin of error correct?

I don't want to look at polls with the wrong statistical theory.

I took quite a lot of stat, but it WAS a long time ago.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Bobby WC


The problem is Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall Act


All of a sudden - the banks decided that that loans in general were just not that profitable - compared to their Wall Street operations.

It became profitable to put up branches - and instead of loaning that money to the community - the banks sent that money to their Wall Street people.

NOW watch - the Wall Street divisions leveraged that money - sometimes as much as 30-1 - and gambled it on Wall Street.

So a small market movement might mean a profit multiplied thirty-fold.


Then the banks tell us - when they got into trouble - that if the whole system collapsed, they would not be able to make loans anymore to the general economy.

But they were not doing that to begin with.

Add onto that all the games at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

37th, hopefully the new comments section will allow individual blocking of people's comments. That way we can block you and you can also block everyone else. It's win-win. We don't have to listen to your racist ranting, and you can have what you always wanted, a message board all to yourself.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

This is mathematically false. A lead is a lead. The margin of error introduces a small probability, usually 5 percent, that the result could instead fall within the prescribed range of error. It does not mean anything within the error is the same mushy result. It is 95 percent sure the one point lead is there. It is like leading in a basketball game by one with a minute to go. You are winning but the game is not over.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 15, 2010 11:06 AM
----------------------------------
Are you sure?

What I remember from stat is that it means that 95% of the time, the result will be within the margin of error. In other words, if candidate X is polling at 45%, with margin of error of 3%. That means his real polling is between 42%-48% most of the time (95% of the time).

Same with the other candidate. If the two candidates are polling WITHIN the margin of error, they could trade easily trade places in the poll. Since the pollster doesn't know which one is REALLY ahead, they call it tied.

Isn't that how it works?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

zook, among the coursework you had to do to earn your nineteen thousand economic PhDs, did any of them mention anything about statistical significance?

Seems like someone who is that educated should know about that sort of thing as opposed to someone who makes up academic credentials to try and impress a message board, but that's not you, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

McConnel has a groove, eh? Is it in his forehead? I guess some voters will go for the whole, 'Sure I beat you and cheated before, Baby, but I've changed!' line. I'm hoping it's only the same 28% who usually do.

Posted by: irae | July 15, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Moonbat flunked stats. The odds are 5% for the result falling 2 standard deviations outside the mean. So, there is a 5% chance that Giffords or Paton is up by 10 points or more.

Posted by: JakeD3 | July 15, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse


Let's be serious - even today - the attacks start coming from the left.

Then people respond -

There are a great deal of inappropriate comments on here.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I used to be a Republican but I trust them about as much as far as I can throw Karl Rove's fat *ss. If they were to win control of the House and/or Senate much less win back the presidency in 2012 they would return to their borrow and spend and religious nuttery. I don't particularly like the democrats but I like them better than the Republicans, Southern Republicans especially.

Posted by: msgrinnell | July 15, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

It's going to take more than 2 lifetimes to reverse the damage the Republicans did under Bush.

Mitch McConnell must be talking to the psychos who weren't on this planet from 2001 to 2008, or the others who don't have any memory of those years.


Posted by: lindalovejones | July 15, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Any poll showing a 1 - 3 point difference is a tie, based on margin of error. Should be careful with polls.

..............

This is mathematically false. A lead is a lead. The margin of error introduces a small probability, usually 5 percent, that the result could instead fall within the prescribed range of error. It does not mean anything within the error is the same mushy result. It is 95 percent sure the one point lead is there. It is like leading in a basketball game by one with a minute to go. You are winning but the game is not over.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 15, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers, you are right about the banks not wanting to loan for small returns - but part of it is no meaningful profit - interest rates may actually be too low to allow for a recovery in the housing and building industry.

What your brotherinlaw can also tell you is people are actually loosing money by asking to borrow money - the banks preapprovals are worthless - they are done by data entry clerks with no authority to grant a loan.

They have you pay for appraisals and inspections (about a $1,000.00) before they will give your loan a real review - they say you have a small clitch on your credit report, something they knew when they gave you the preapproval.

Loan denied - when you point out that FHA guidelines and VA guidelines allow for the loan they tell you they now have their own stricter rules.

The con is they want to be able to claim they are trying to give loans but people do not qualify - it is a lie - Congress knows what is happening but remains silent.

In Texas the law so favors real estate agents you cannot effectively sue them for fraud - one inspector told me he has people paying for 3-6 inspections on different homes before they find one where they can get a loan - the real estate agents and owners are desperate so they lie about everything on the Sellers Disclosure.

People are just giving up - I know of one couple who gave up after spending nearly $6,000.00 in appraisal fees, inspection fees, and bank fees to only learn they will never get a loan - home after home was a mess so they had to start anew - to get nowhere

Bobby WC

Posted by: bobbywc | July 15, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Republicans make policy for the rich and business. They follow the money. Is that bad or good? Depends on who you are.

The Republican credo is what's good for business is good for America. Right now that might sound good for job recovery, but they don't have a successful track record on deficits, the environment and long-range energy policy (not that the Dems are excelling). I am skeptical but open minded. Let's see what Repubs have up their sleeves.

We Americans must abandon the notion of bubble economics and making a quick buck at the expense of long-range planning. We sacrifice tomorrow for today. Growth needs be sustainable, which means a lower rate or perhaps just above zero. Slow but steady. That's where business and "people" are incompatible. We need a combo of strong business and prudent regulations to make money and provide jobs but also to protect people and property. We don't want corporatocracy. We want democracy.

As an American I support whichever party is in power. But, with all the Republican griping I have seen nary an idea or proposal to fix the economy. If the Republican plan is to return to bubblenomics (deregulation and more chaos) then I say to Democrats, do what Republicans did to you. Say NO. People come before businesses.

Posted by: citizen4truth1 | July 15, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

McConnell is a big immigrationist. He is married to Elaine Chao who is big on H-1b and was Secretary of White Race Replacement under George Bush. The GOP in its groove is as much for legal immigration as the Democrats. We have to vote out McConnell and Lindsey Graham as much as the Dems.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | July 15, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD: Let's hope it doesn't look like the new comment section of the Massachusetts Sun Chronicle:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/13/paywalls-us-press-publishing

Posted by: Blarg | July 15, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I would have thought that a poll result saying people want split government would be higher than 51%. Anyone know what this number has looked like historically? (I wish Chris C would post some context when using these poll results)

Republicans have effectively ceded the position of being deficit reducers. After Kyl and McConnell have insisted that tax cuts should not be paid for, they cannot also say they are against deficits. Dems need to seize this and run on the message that Rs want to create these huge deficits in order to give these upper class tax cuts while cutting off unemployment to those who need it most. The Dems simply must be forceful. Selling the public on R obstructionism won't be easy, but it's the truth and it simply must be done.

Anyone know anything about the new comments section? I'm looking forward to it,

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse


YouCanPostThis,
Nice post for a mentally challenged child. Did you read the article? Can you even read? What was your point besides proving you are a typical GOP moron?

Posted by: AugustWest1 | July 15, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Mark, my brother-in-law runs a small design/build in the Maryland suburbs of DC. He says that the he has had several clients with good credit, steady income and 20 years of equity built-up in their houses denied loans to make improvements on their homes. I think part of the problem is that everyone, including bandks, wants to chase the big return, not the smaller, steady return.

The small, steady return is what will rebuild small businesses and Main Street. I think Wall Street and the banks are shirking their duty to return the favor to the little guys who helped them out of the ditch. Much nicer to just stick that little guy for 29% interest on his credit card.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 15, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell continues to prove he is an imbecile. He confirms how out of touch he is with most Americans with his 1950's gibberish.. His position on the unemployment benefit extension, which is now the position of all GOP congressman, will be the death knell for him and the rest of the GOP. Unfortunately 60% to 70% of Americans think that extending unemployment benefits is more important than the deficit. As usual the GOP tried to pander to the Tea Party to the detriment of the GOP. Keep up the lame work, Mitch McConnel.

The GOP forgets that Bush's deficits were more the the cumulative total of all prior presidents. How do they expect to reduce the deficit by spending more than the taxes received. Good luck with that.

Posted by: AugustWest1 | July 15, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Mark, my brother-in-law runs a small design/build in the Maryland suburbs of DC. He says that the he has had several clients with good credit, steady income and 20 years of equity built-up in their houses denied loans to make improvements on their homes. I think part of the problem is that everyone, including bandks, wants to chase the big return, not the smaller, steady return.

The small, steady return is what will rebuild small businesses and Main Street. I think Wall Street and the banks are shirking their duty to return the favor to the little guys who helped them out of the ditch. Much nicer to just stick that little guy for 29% interest on his credit card.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 15, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Nothing new from the Republicans...supporting the same policies that drove America into the ditch is NOT a winning ideology.

If I were a Republican I'd be insulted at how gullible/stupid the GOP Leadership thinks I am...they so obvisouly support policies that favor Corporations and the wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF AVERAGE CITIZENS and you people keep supporting them against your own self-interest...

As long as the GOP crowd is willing to shoot themselves in the (economic?) foot it's difficult to have a sensible conversation about policy.

Oh, right, Republicans don't have any policies that haven't already failed in front of everyone...they just want to thwart the hippies - at any cost.

Losers.

Christopaths, Bigots, & old, white people are not a good base for a national Party.

Posted by: russcarter1 | July 15, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Mark, my brother-in-law runs a small design/build in the Maryland suburbs of DC. He says that the he has had several clients with good credit, steady income and 20 years of equity built-up in their houses denied loans to make improvements on their homes. I think part of the problem is that everyone, including bandks, wants to chase the big return, not the smaller, steady return.

The small, steady return is what will rebuild small businesses and Main Street. I think Wall Street and the banks are shirking their duty to return the favor to the little guys who helped them out of the ditch. Much nicer to just stick that little guy for 29% interest on his credit card.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 15, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I can see all these lefists on here - pretending that they are suddenly the good guys - and they are having reasonable conversations now with their echo chambers filled with half-truths.

Fine - but the archives are there - and we all know what has been going on.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod,
That is where I think the internet banking comes in. If there is a vacumn then someone will fill it (especially in banking), but then again the internet banks could be owned by Bank of America too for all I know.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 15, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Right Mitch . . .

The Republicans are all ready to screw the country up again huh?

Posted by: palmtree2001 | July 15, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod: Move to Massachusetts. It seems like half the towns around here have their own community bank. As far as I can tell, they're all independent of the big banks.

Posted by: Blarg | July 15, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Gallenod and Vigor.

Another poster has reminded friends that George Steinbrenner's vast estate will pass, unouched, to his heirs because of the Republicans. Another millionaire/billionaire looked out for by his friends in the GeeOhPee.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 15, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse


Has Obama slipped a secret provision into the financial regulation bill ???

Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.

In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Andy: Thank you, that does make sense.

I may have started thinking along those lines, though, because most of the locally-owned banks in my area have been acquired by a larger, out-of-state, Big Bank in the last few years. One way to keep smaller banks from gaining on you is to acquire them and then keep them operating as "local" banks even though they're part of a giant conglomerate. A couple of years after they're acquired the parent bank then changes the name of the local bank.

Aside from the few credit unions in the area, I can only think of one local bank that's still truly locally owned and independent of CitiBank, Wells Fargo, or one of the other Big Banks.

Posted by: Gallenod | July 15, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1 | July 15, 2010 9:19 AM


The Clinton Free Trade deals have hurt our economy - seriously.

AND - Hillary went fundraising on Wall Street to raise money for 3 campaigns in 10 years.


You don't think the Clintons were trying to gain favor on Wall Street with these policies ???


Were the Clinton policies motivated more by the future prospects of Hillary's fundraising - OR BY WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY ???


The economic crisis is too grave to be filled with partisan half-truths.

I don't believe Obama has taken the economic crisis seriously enough. He treats it like a partisan issue which should be twisted around to blame someone else.


Meanwhile Obama is obsessed with doing "something big" - and Obama is not really interested in putting a priority on the economy which he regards as mundane.


This is true.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod, I cannot resist: the actual motivation is that being able to get access to fed funds at near 0% gives big banks that can speculate on financial products [still] the incentive to infinitely leverage while doing no real work. Thus they can afford to lend only to big biz [that maintain their payroll accounts in the bank] and tell small biz to screw off. They are not in the same business as the local bank in the town of 600 three mi from the farm where I grew up. They have no stake in any community. That bank, as I recall, was begun by the truck and farm implement dealer, with investment from the hardware store owner, the doctor, the vet, and the pharmacist, who also owned the ice cream parlor. They may have got money from the lawyer, but I think he was a drunk.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 15, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Gallenrod,
I don't think that is the case for three reasons. One Citibank is basically owned byt the administration right now, and if they got one sniff that they were doing that, they would disovle the board and force them to lend. Second, the larger banks don't want smaller/mid level institutions gaining too much ground, because if they do they will turn around and surplant the Large NY banks. Regional mid sized banks like PNC, Chevy Chase Bank, Suntrust, M&T, Soveriegn etc have the size and capitol to join forces and overtake the large banks if they are too conservative with their lending.
Lastly, is the issue of the rise of the internet banking industry. Entities like E-trade, or Ameritrade i think have already spun off personal and buisness banking divisions that could theoritically compete with the larger traditional banks. These groups have certain advantages over folks like citi or chase, since they don't have branches that cost a significant amount of overhead. Many buisnesses these days never see their customers much less their money so why do they need to see their banker.

I also feel that the big banks have been waiting to see how the FinReg bill came out before they moved forward. I think once Reid gets this made into law, Wall Street will start to rebound somewhat, especially the financial sector. If their is one thing that banks hate, it is uncertainty, and that is what they have had for the past year.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 15, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

jhtlag1: Republican strategy for the last 30 years (and particularly since 2000) has been to reshape the Judicial branch to protect their stakeholders' interests. They realize control of Congress can shift every two years and the White House every four, but a judicial appointment is for life (generally 20 years or more).

Democrats, for the most part, still seem to subscribe to the quaint idea that you should appoint qualified, non-ideologues to judgeships. They got a rude shock from Bush v. Gore and several decisions since then. They still aren't nominating people as liberal as Thomas and Scalia are conservative, but that day may come.

So, just bear in mind that Republican strategy both in elections and governance (majority) or opposition (minority) is based on control of judicial appointments and it generally makes sense (regardless of whether or not you agree with their goals).

Posted by: Gallenod | July 15, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod,

I am no defender of the banks - they abused the people - but today a Texas Veteran land Board loan for a disabled ver is 3.92 - it was as low as 3.83 - how does a bank loan money at that rate and make money? It cannot not.

I qualify for a $200,000.00 mortgage and cannot get one because of the low interest rates

Posted by: bobbywc | July 15, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Just to be safe, we should probably apologize to BP again.

Posted by: motogp46 | July 15, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

You just have to look at McConnell to know that he's disengenous.

Posted by: wd1214 | July 15, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

You jusst have to look at McConnell to know that he's disengenous.

Posted by: wd1214 | July 15, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Getting their groove back?! ROOOOOOOOOFL

A recent Time Magazine poll shows Republicans STILL polling worse than Democrats.

STILL!!

Mitch McConnel is a delusional old idiot, he's the perfect spokesman for the GOP.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | July 15, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Getting their groove back?! ROOOOOOOOOFL

A recent Time Magazine poll shows Republicans STILL polling worse than Democrats.

STILL!!

Mitch McConnel is a delusional old idiot, he's the perfect spokesman for the GOP.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | July 15, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Hey youcanpost that moron w was appointed by the supreme court and he is a criminal. Obama is a decent and intelligent man and that moron w an idiot.

Posted by: davidsawh | July 15, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

gallenod asks
"are there any whispers in the wind that the big banks are deliberately hoarding cash to impede economic recovery, turn the electorate unruly, and thus hurt the Democrats in November?

Nah, they couldn't be that self-serving, could they?"


There could be such whisperings, but they ignore that the banks are required to hold more cash reserves now, to help avoid those pesky bank runs.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 15, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

McConnell needs some hormone shots, STAT.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 15, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

bb, bobby, andy, blarg, jhtlag, I gotta work. Just wish there were Dave! and JD [not JakeD; JD was a port contractor in VA and an econometrist of a fiscally conservative type] and bhoomes as well as jhtlag to have a real converation with about what works and what doesn't and how we get the parties into problem solving. "Brigade" has many serious suggestions from the right and were it not for a weakness for trading insults with similarly personally insulting liberals who appear in the afternoon [you know who you are] I would have high hopes for him as a serious conservative contributor. And USMCMike is in Baghdad so his time is limited. ProudtobeGOP was often delightfully snarky from the right the way mariewilson1 is from the left, and we could handle that here, but actual issue thought and debate is really more fun for some of us then insulting our neighbors, even through the internet.

Last, a note to Leichtman: Did you see the smoking gun on the R contrib to the TX Green Party? The quarter mil is apparently from Bob
Perry.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 15, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1 | July 15, 2010 9:19 AM


Clinton could have vetoed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Obama is more than happy to give Clinton and his budget director credit for the balanced budget of that time.

You have to be honest - and not just come up with a bunch of half-truths - and say that adds up to Blame Bush for everything.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

mcconnell is a walking corpse with no morals. He and others of his ilk have caused the problems this country is experiencing and won't do anything to repair the damage they have wrought. Have all these fools forgotten the catastrophe that moron w caused?

Posted by: davidsawh | July 15, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Andy & Mark: Not that I want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but are there any whispers in the wind that the big banks are deliberately hoarding cash to impede economic recovery, turn the electorate unruly, and thus hurt the Democrats in November?

Nah, they couldn't be that self-serving, could they? ;)

Posted by: Gallenod | July 15, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

To clarify my earlier post concerning pending "Fix" blog moderation:

Blog moderation is being used as the cover for a covert government program of ideologically-driven censorship of the internet speech of extrajudicially and unjustly "targeted" Americans.

It's the likely reason that virtually all of my submitted comments to New York Times web articles do not post -- and I'm talking about ON-TOPIC comments, not "rants."

Examples from WaPo and NYT here:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-censors-net-political-speech-targeted-americans
http://nowpublic.com/world/how-u-s-spy-ops-censor-web-political-speech

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 15, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Oh shut up. And you know what? I'm a conservative, tend to vote Republican. What's the plan? Are the pubs just going to funnel more money to their districts now? Why are they (we) going to be better than the Democrats? I hope this is more than we just scored a touchdown.

Posted by: jhtlag1 | July 15, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Their message is "Don't you just hate it?"

Posted by: whocares666 | July 15, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

So the Repubs win in Nov. the economy takes a nose dive - will this mean Obama gets to blame the Repubs and guarantee his reelection - there is an old adage - be careful what you wish for.

Bobby WC

Posted by: bobbywc | July 15, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Lincoln Chafee is going to be in a lot more trouble in this race once the voters realize his tax plan specifically calculates, on his own website, how much money he'll raise from taxing Amputee veterans' equipment! see for yourself: http://www.ChafeesTaxPlan.com

Posted by: JacobIL | July 15, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Bad reporting to say: " Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is the latest Democratic incumbent to trail in a GOP-sponsored poll." "Paton leading Giffords 45 percent to 44 percent." Any poll showing a 1 - 3 point difference is a tie, based on margin of error. Should be careful with polls.

Posted by: jdi123 | July 15, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

McConnell's argument is a neat twist. See how great things were in '95 - '00? Of course, it's an implicit argument for Obama's reelection.

Incidentally, there are those who mostly go for jugular now who might post substantive comments. Back in the day, Zouk wrote some interesting comments from the right. And, perhaps if there was the prospect of real discussion, some of those who have dropped off would return. Dave is gone, but not forgotten.

For those who prefer to keep throwing water balloons, I'm sure there can be an unmoderated comments section.

Well, gotta get the kiddies to preschool. Will try to post later.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 15, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Mark and Andy,

Nice discussion - Mark how do we get more Ingles on board on both sides - it seems self preservation is the norm and not the American people.

BObby WC

Posted by: bobbywc | July 15, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I look forward to the new format. It will be nice when we can discuss the actual topics of the parent post without having to wade through canned, off-topic rants.

#1: The Republican strategy since Obama took office has made the best of the hand they were dealt. Their whole strategy has been to prevent the Democrats from doing anything to improve anything on the theory that if things don't improve voters will turn back to them in frustration. It appears to be working. It's unlikely any benefits from any Democratic initiative will pay any benefits until well after the 2010 elections. And, if there is any improvement next year or beyond and the R's do reclaim the House they will be quick to try and take credit for any emerging benefits (from the actions of the earlier, D-controlled Congrest) as a result of them now being in power.

Given the electorate's apparently weak grasp of causality, it might just work.

However, I take polls this far in advance of Election Day with a mountain of salt. I'll be more interested in where the numbers are in mid-October.

The R's worst nightmare is that the D's retain control in 2010, things start improving in 2011, and voters come to the conclusion that the D's aren't so bad after all. If that happens, any gains they may make in 2010 will likely be erased in 2012. That's why they're so desperate to grab as much as they can now to build momentum.

The R's are dogmatic, but they're not stupid. Their main goal, aside from regaining power, is to limit Obama's ability to reshape the judiciary. In particular, they don't want Obama possibly appointing replacements for Scalia or Kennedy (the two oldest conservatives) on the Supreme Court, let alone other judgeships through 2016.

#5: I'm rooting for Chaffee. The political environment would benefit from more truly independent, moderate middle-of-the-road candidates both running and winning elections.

Posted by: Gallenod | July 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't put much stock in Inglis sudden bipartisanship. Its easy for him to be reasonable now that he lost his primary.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Mark,
I guess I just don't know how to unfreeze the credit market for small and mid sized buisness without the government directly loaning to them, which is very touchy if you ask me. The large banks are hoarding cash right now, and I dont' know how you stop them from doing that, especially given the fact that the new law requires them to keep more money in reserve. I do think the Fed should have injected some more money in the market right now so that small banks have cheaper access to cash, which should increase lending. The problem is they are so worried about inflation (which isn't happening at all right now) that they want to wait a few months.
The good thing is that the private sector is slowly hiring people back. If that continues then we can expect the economy to keep going up (albeit slowly). The big concern I have is a double dip recession, since we can't go lower in terms of interest rates, and the GOP has basically said no way to any new spending, but most economists say that most likely won't happen, but the recovery may be very slow.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 15, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

sounds like 37th is back again under
Youcanpost this with that same old cannard that he has been posting for weeks that:
"Clinton repealed Glass Steagall - which was a barrier between banks and wall street"

knowing full well that it was the Gramm/Leach/Bliley bill that was signed and threatened with a Senate override.

he never gives up, he never goes away.


Posted by: leichtman1 | July 15, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Andy, I have read what he has said, as well as what LG has said about this phenomenon. As a management side labor lawyer I am accustomed to looking for the points of agreement to build on, as well as the points of contrast to highlight. Inglis and LG recognize we are all in the same boat, which so many Americans have trouble accepting. Institutionalizing "us and them' works for 24/7 cable, for TEA persons, for some identifiable elements on the left, and during campaigns for office. But it cannot be allowed to become the American way of problem solving. [Think Sunni and Shia, if you will].

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 15, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Has McConnell ever specified what kind of "change" the Republicans will bring? He promises to reverse Obama's agenda, but then what? What will the Republican Congress do in the next term that's different from their actions under Bush? If all they can promise is that they'll take the country back to 2008 or 2006, that that's not "change". I think voters are intelligent enough to realize that.

Posted by: Blarg | July 15, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Oops! Sorry 'bout that!

Posted by: TOMHERE | July 15, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that the GObP's agenda from Day One has been: OBAMA MUST FAIL.
Of course the TRUTH never got in the way of their fantasies, did it?

Posted by: TOMHERE | July 15, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that the GObP's agenda from Day One has been: OBAMA MUST FAIL.
Of course the TRUTH never got in the way of their fantasies, did it?

Posted by: TOMHERE | July 15, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that the GObP's agenda from Day One has been: OBAMA MUST FAIL.
Of course the TRUTH never got in the way of their fantasies, did it?

Posted by: TOMHERE | July 15, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Mark et al,
Have you seen Congressman Bob Ingles on the national new shows lately talking about the hijacking of the Republican party by the extremist elements. He comes across being a very bright statesman who has some nice calm advise for the GOP. They should listen to him (as well as others from the GOP intelligencia and this is NOT Gingrich, btw) if they really want to offer an alternative vision for America from what the President and the Democrats are presenting. I'm not saying I would vote for him, but I do beleive our country needs good lawmakers like Ingles and its a shame that he was ousted in his primary by a Tea-party extremist.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 15, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Andy, I greatly fault the Admin for not having attended to the Warren-Biard call for stimulating community and local bank lending. A very successful client of mine has just moved his biz accounts from Wells Fargo to University Federal credit Union because of WF's across the board no credit for small biz policy.

Most places do not have a billion dollar credit union with 100k+ members, and there has to be an available community banking and local thrift system again. Of course, I do not think the Rs are friends of local banking, either - that is not my point. But to the extent that small biz is our biggest employer, and to the extent that home buying is a metric, no credit outside the credit unions is hell on a recession.

Because Warren has testified for a year to various congressional committees about what should be done, I give the BHO Admin some credit - she is part of the Admin. Does the blame fall entirely on Congress? The Ds control all the committees. That does not let Ds off the hook. I post this near rant because that is what my small biz clients,about half of whom are default Ds, are p.o.'d about. The Ds have to draw a distinction with the Rs to get them back, but they will not be enthusiastic about politics at all until the local banks are lending, especially for interim financing.

Two stories: I reported last year that a 45 year old plumbing concern laid off 5 b/c without interim financing they could only do cash calls, not bid construction and commercial jobs. The two remaining plumbers are busy. The five laid off pipefitters? I dunno.

A small research outfit I represent slashed salaries and now keeps a $250K+ balance, b/c they cannot get interim on contracted projects from publicly traded corps and the gov, so now they are self funding. These guys are the lucky ones, and closely enough knit to share the sacrifice. If they had been union, they would be dead in the water, unless the union local was very progressive, for a union.

I am trying to paint a picture. I know my experience is with many small bizzes - usually @$1m gross or so - and a couple of medium biz's - most years $10-$20M gross - and one very large non-profit. So I see the world of hurt where employment contracted and where it could expand, as opposed to big biz, cumulatively sitting on $1T+, supposedly.

I am in an area that is still growing. The experiences I report may not be meaningful in the rust belt; I do not know. But I think this blog could aggregate info from small biz type folks from around the country and we all would learn something. In the afternoon, a woman calling herself 12BB, in CA I think, could give us some perspective. I know that "optimyst", who used to post here, is a CPA servicing small biz on the east coast.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 15, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

vigor


It has been said before - Bill Clinton's policies led to the economic collapse.

Clinton did the Free Trade deal which have destroyed millions of American jobs.


Clinton repealed Glass Steagall - which was a barrier between banks and wall street.


Clinton deregulated the derivatives markets


Clinton had his long-term appointees in control at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the epicenter of the mortgage crisis.

Who did Obama have at the White House yesterday? Clinton.

To try to blame the Republicans for all this is just a complete lie.


It lends nothing to the discussion about which direction the country should be going


Blaming Bush is just a waste of everyone's time - it is not the truth - and the only purpose is to give Obama political cover for his own horrible policies.

;

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

vigor


It has been said before - Bill Clinton's policies led to the economic collapse.

Clinton did the Free Trade deal which have destroyed millions of American jobs.


Clinton repealed Glass Steagall - which was a barrier between banks and wall street.


Clinton deregulated the derivatives markets


Clinton had his long-term appointees in control at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the epicenter of the mortgage crisis.

Who did Obama have at the White House yesterday? Clinton.

To try to blame the Republicans for all this is just a complete lie.


It lends nothing to the discussion about which direction the country should be going


Blaming Bush is just a waste of everyone's time - it is not the truth - and the only purpose is to give Obama political cover for his own horrible policies.

;

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't the "change we wanted" when we elected Obama and Democrats in 2008 a change FROM Republicans. Some voters may not have received what we wanted, but Republican policies were exactly what we didn't want. Perhaps a third party is needed to prevent the vacillation between two increasingly radical alternatives.

How come the focus is always on political strategies to win control of government power rather than policy agendas that offer better alternatives for voters? I haven't heard one concrete policy idea from Republicans since 2008. How does one contrast nothing with what Democrats are putting forward, as bad as that might be?

The whole political system is a mess that virtually guarantees bad government for most Americans.

Posted by: wireknob | July 15, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

TO: Chris_Cillizza @ 8:05 a.m
cc: webmasters and editors at The Washington Post. Co.

Chris, before you "dream," read this article:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-uses-spoofed-web-pages-and-urls-censor-internet

I believe the evidence shows that "The Fix" is the 24/7 target of a paid blog-spamming campaign waged by powerful entities -- seeking to induce media outlets to impose self-censorship that benefits their ideologically driven propaganda infowar.

Their goal, I believe, is to prevent your readers from posting comments that contain links to articles that expose wrongdoing they seek to suppress.

For some examples, please read the articles and links therein at:

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 15, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"the midterm election is about "reversing the damage Democrats have done".

No, the last two years have been about reversing the damage of the previous decade of Republican rule.

Did you forget TARP?
Did you forget IRAQ?
Did you forget Torture?
Did you forget $4 gas?
Did you forget about 10% unemployment?
Did you forget about tax cuts for the rich while they spent 8 TRILLION dollars and now complain about Tax and Spend?

Republicans did that and we're still hurting.

and in the meantime, ANY attempts at repair were obstructed by REPUBLICANS.

Go ahead be dishonest with yourselves.

Posted by: vigor | July 15, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

First, CC those of us who come here on a regular basis know that you try very hard to keep the comments section as free of the bad elements as best you can, and I am looking forward to seeing what the "new" comments section will be.

Mark, I agree with you that the Dems need to focus on the issues and highlight what type of change McConnell is talking about. Also I think the Republicans may want to be careful about nationalizing this election too much, because if it really comes down to a choice between Democrats or Republicans running the country all the poll numbers show that the public will side with the Democrats.

On that same point the poll that is quoted that says that 51% of the people polled think the GOP should control congress as a check on the president, but when that same question was asked before the 02 election when the GOP had control of the House and the Democrats had a one seat majority in the Senate (also Bush was running very high in approval). The numbers were much better for the Democrats (55%) indicating they should have gained seats, which they obviously didn't. So if we take that into consideration the GOP may be overplaying their hand with this 'checks and balances' argument. Also the Democrats could make the argument (and should) that checks and balances require honest bipartisanship, which the GOP has not shown that they are willing to do. With the Financial Regulation passing, HCR, service Act, etc all being passed with no GOP help it is hard to argue that the republicans will act as a real check.

#4-I think Lincoln Chaffee winning will be good for Rhode Island and for the GOP as a whole (if they listen) since it will show that Moderate conservatives can win in New England if they offer middle of the road arguments.

#5-CT jay, I agree you should always assume a poll done by the campaign is going to show anywhere from 5-10% favor in the wrong direction. Giffords will be fine and with the money she has I would expect her to win with 5-8% when it is all said and done.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 15, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Chris


All I can say is the general atmosphere here has produced the back-and-forth.


There is a group on here who harasses other posters - and attacks. At one point it appeared they were taking shifts.

I called you - and I spoke to you about this - I said there was a group of people attack the other posters on almost a minute-by-minute basis.


I also posted numerous complaints - calling out the bad behavior of other posters - and the constant sexual slurs which are inappropriate. The result has been no enforcement.


The result has been the result. People just post their opinions and ignore other people. However, the general atmosphere of leftists constanting sniping and making false charges can not be ignored - that atmosphere produced the results we have here.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

The same level of treatment the democrats gave Bush when he was in office - that same level should be OK when talking about Obama.

The democrats set the standard.

If one wants to see the standard - look back at the anti-war demonstrations against Bush - look at those anti-Bush signs.

And then tell me that anything at a Tea Party rally has not been within the bounds set earlier by the anti-Bush people.

The Tea Party signs are tame compared to the signs of the democrats.


I would like to point out too - the anti-war rallies have stopped. The wars have not. Those rallies were anti-Bush, not anti-war. They were just using the war to go after Bush.


It is that simple.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Seventy four per cent do not believe that Congressional Rs make the right decisions for the country. Joe Barton and Paul Ryan's plans to privatize HC certainly don 't help in that regard as we see already in the Wisconson Feingold race.The D Senate campaign has a two to one money advantage and Reid has almost ten times more than Angel yet not mentioned McConnell's message should be if you liked our economic policies in 2008 just wait and see what we can bring back in 2011.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 15, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Seventy four per cent do not believe that Congressional Rs make the right decisions for the country. Joe Barton and Paul Ryan's plans to privatize HC certainly don 't help in that regard as we see already in the Wisconson Feingold race.The D Senate campaign has a two to one money advantage and Reid has almost ten times more than Angel yet not mentioned McConell's message should be if you liked our economic policies in 2008 just wait and see what we can bring back in 2011.
m

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 15, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

All,

With a new comments section just days away, I am not going to continue this cat and mouse game with 37th/youcanpostthis.

By early next week, hopefully 37th, noa and others who clearly violate the rules of the comments section will be gone and those --like Fairlington Blade, MarkinAustin and many others -- who really have built a community of political junkies in this comments section will have more power to lead by example.

A boy can dream.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | July 15, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama has now turned the NAACP into a political organization - a wing of the radical left of the democratic party.


The speeches given yesterday go far beyond simple mischaracterizations and sterotyping.

What we have in this country right now is the leftists demanding restraint from one side - while there is absolutely no restraint or respect coming from the other side.

The leftists use sexual slurs - and show no respect. This is not the basis for any dialogue. We have two sets of rules now. At the core of the false charges of hidden racism is the democrats thought they had a monopoly on protest - on being out there with a cause. But they don't.


This is not what America is supposed to be about. The rights of all Americans are not being respected here.


The democrats are trying to de-legitimize their opposition.

This is not a battle of ideas - this is one side saying that their opponents are not legitimate. This is not American - this is not how America is suppose to work.


Is this what is in store everytime Obama's poll numbers go down ??? It certainly seems that way. It seems that Obama believes the solution to all his problems is to start calling someone a racist. This is the sign of someone who should leave office immediately and resign because he just can not handle the job.

Now Obama is telling us that Al Queda is racist. What kind of silly ridiculous statement is that ? It is a sign of a person who simply should not be in the position he is.

Time to start evaluating Obama just like everyone else - no more media free pass.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

The Rs continue to run on McConnell's message:

"Republicans can bring about the right kind of change."

All the Ds need do is aggressively compare positions, as Carville suggested. If the Rs succeed in making this merely a plebiscite on whether the public likes Ds, the Ds will lose. If the Ds succeed in making the comparison they can win, because the Rs "solutions" are even less well regarded. In other words, the Ds cannot just call the Rs "The party of NO". The Ds must point out what Boehner actually wants to do and draw the comparison.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 15, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

If the campaign releases a Republican sponsored poll showing the gop candidate only one point ahead, it is really good news for Giffords. Sort of like an early Rasmussen poll showing her 1 point behind. In real world terms, that means 5 or 6 points ahead.

Posted by: CTJay | July 15, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


Seriously - the uncivil behavior on this blog has been completely out of control for years.


The personal attacks have gone wild on this blog for a long time.


To suddenly ban one person - when everyone else is still engaging in extreme comments - how is that right ?


There have been many antagonistic comments on this blog - but once those comments are allowed, how can you fault anyone for commenting back?


I find the sterotyping of the Tea Party movement offensive - and several posters have responded by continuing their silly rants - complete with sexual slurs and false charges of racism.

If you ban one, you should ban everyone who has had bad behavior.

But to respond to a PARTISAN LYNCH MOB - which are acting like a bunch of children who have not gotten their way - is just ridiculous.


If these people are constantly emailing you complaining - that is wrong.

This is exactly what I have said all along - there is an organized group here operating together - to harass other posters. Their goal is to push out all other points of view.

All I can say - I have complained many times about the hostile comments on this blog - and nothing was ever done about it.

Chris - if you are suddenly going to start enforcing rules - tell everyone WHICH rules you intend to enforce - so everyone can follow them.

But to one day suddenly say you are enforcing some rule - without addressing any of the other uncivil behavior - that is just wrong.

And what you have done is simply respond to a PARTISAN LYNCH MOB - which certainly does not have civil behavior as their goal.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Fair to say Mitch McConnell appreciates the free ad in this Washington Post blog for his upcoming speech to the Young Republican Leadership Conference. Can Tim Kaine or Harry Reid get in on this free pub? Just askin'. Check.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 15, 2010 7:28 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company