"I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me."

October 10, 2006

Quotes That Need To Be Made Into Campaign Ads

"The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile."
- "would-be House Speaker" Nancy Pelosi,
April 12, 2003

Considering this weekend's developments in North Korea, every voter needs to think about this very carefully.

h/t: Hugh Hewitt

Posted by: Gary at 10:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

October 06, 2006

Moving On

When Matt Drudge stops posting headlines in a red 36-point font, you can pretty much guess that a story is losing its juice.

No, it's not completely over, yet. But the frenzy that is Foleymania seems to have worn out even the MSM. What the longer-term impact will be on Nov. 7th is anyone's guess. But I have a feeling it won't be as significant as most people thought it would be back at the beginning of the week.

The key here is that the GOP leadership in the House has closed ranks behind Hastert. If they hadn't, then the new story sucking all of the media oxygen would have been the turmoil they were in - the finger-pointing, the second-guessing, the back-stabbing, leaked anonymous comments, etc. Once again, Republican candidates would have been knocked off message and the MSM would have been framing the debate on behalf of their Dem buddies.

I'm getting the sense that most people - those who even know the whole story - have gotten to the point where they are just sick of hearing about it.

I actually hope Democrats keep trying to make this an issue. Because it'll come across as petty and underscore yet again to undecided voters that they offer absolutely nothing beyond "we're not them".

With five weeks to go - a long time in politics - the GOP's next step is to get back to the three issues that drive their base: fighting terrorism, protecting tax cuts from expiring and appointing judges.

And, oh by the way, if they don't than you could be looking at this: more...

Posted by: Gary at 11:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

October 05, 2006

Tradesports...WTF Is Up With That Anyway?

Seriously. It seems that every time I go to a blog these days they're quoting the latest "tradesports.com" rating of a particular race.

Excuse me. But what do these guys know about politics?

I mean, one way or the other, why would you rely on what price a particular politician is ranked at? They're no better than day traders at predicting Jack squat. What sells is based on what a large selection of schmucks interprets the way the political winds are shifting on any given day. Jesus, some people will bet on ANYTHING!

Just because a bunch of lemmings have a "gut" feeling about a particular match-up that makes them a seasoned expert? WTF?

Yeah, I know. People are putting money on this crap so they must be doing their research, right?

How about the dumbass who bet it all back in July that oil prices would hit $100 a barrel. He's looking like a smacked ass right about now.

Take my advice. Whatever their rankings...ignore this silliness.

Posted by: Gary at 11:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

1 See "The Wisdom of Crowds" It's not necessary that any single person there knows anything super about politics. It's only necessary that they know a couple of things, which everyone does. In the aggregate, they can make terribly accurate predictions. Particularly because they have money on the line. This differs from regular polling where the polled reacts to impressions given to her by the pollster. In other words, when you ask a pundit, he has a high cost to being wrong. But he often has a higher cost to arguing against "his side." At least, that's true for liberal pundits, since ostracism so frequently and rapidly follows any movement away from the herd. Lieberman. For the polled, the cost of saying what you believe could be a negative reaction by the pollster. The cost of lying is only your conscience, which is easily salved. For the betting group, the cost of being right is nil. The cost of being wrong is cashie money.

Posted by: Grayson at October 06, 2006 12:36 AM (3Vh45)

2 Gary---Coming at this from the perspective of someone who teaches political science, the political futures markets are much more fascinating and useful than public opinion polls because they are expressions of what people think is going to happen, instead of what they want to happen. Add to that that they are backing that opinion up with $$$ makes it a useful expression of information in a way that Zogby could only wetdream about. Markets by nature are turbulent but there are patterns that can be followed, and as they are becoming more well known they are proving to be much more useful than "instant" polls getting at changes in the dynamics of the races. Lots of bloggers are talking about them, but they really haven't broken into the MSM coverage all that much (mainly because, unlike the polls, they aren't run by the MSM outlets and arent' easy to spin and contort to get the outcomes they want).

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at October 07, 2006 09:49 AM (ajyBV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Wha-Wha-Whaaat?

Drudge bombshell on Foley mess: Page's IMs a "prank gone awry".

The American Thinker:

Present state of playÂ—the Dems and CREW are implicated; ABCÂ’s Brian Ross has his own Rathergate, the FBI and Ethics Committee are going to find out which Dems were involved and CREW will probably lose their tax exempt status. The Dems have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to use homophobia to win when they have no saleable platform or issues; the Republican base is charged up and once again Soros turned his gold into Dem dross.

The dam has burst!

Posted by: Gary at 04:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.