Pages

Labels

Showing posts with label Kos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kos. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

PPP poll for Daily Kos/SEIU: Romney 49%, Obama 47%.

Kos says:
That's a pretty disastrous six-point net swing in just a week, and the first time we've ever had Romney in the lead. It is inline [sic] with all other national polling showing Romney making gains in the wake of his debate performance last week....

Among women, Obama went from a 15-point lead to a slimmer 51-45 edge. Meanwhile, Romney went from winning independents 44-41 to winning them 48-42. And just like the Ipsos poll showed last week, Romney further consolidated his base. They went from supporting him 85-13 last week, to 87-11 this week while Obama lost some Democrats, going from 88-9 last week, to 87-11 this week....

... Obama's debate performance was an epic blunder. Romney gave his partisans a reason to get excited about him and they've responded. It should come as no surprise that people like to fight for people who are fighting for them.
That last sentence hints of anger that might be paraphrased as: We gave you a billion dollars and you didn't even bother to engage for 90 minutes.

What's one billion divided by 90? Obama threw away his supporters' money at the rate of over $11 million a minute. (And he wants to be in charge of spending all our money and much, much more for the next 4 years. Do the math!)

Friday, October 5, 2012

"Yes it could be a hanky. But it falls kind of heavy, and stays uniform in it's [sic] fold."

"Plus it is flat.  I have never seen a man's hanky be so uniform and flat coming from a front pant's pocket.  Back pocket, yes, breast pocket in a jacket, yes.. but not the front pant pocket."

Daily Kos, theorizing that Romney had a "cheat sheet" during the debate, during which no notes were permitted.

It was a hanky. So Obama's would-be helpers — attempting to besmirch Romney — succeeded only calling attention, once again, to what nearly everybody thought they saw on Thursday: Romney's superior preparation, ability to think on his feet, and eloquence.

ADDED: Gawker gives the history of debate conspiracy theories, and in one of them I — of all people — am the conspiracy theorist. 

Friday, August 10, 2012

"It's Jon Huntsman Sr, right Harry?"

Kos points the finger.

Or should I not have blogged this? Should Kos be getting traffic for dropping this rumor? How is what he's doing different from what Reid did? We shouldn't be feeding off rumors like this...

Sorry. I know I don't need to post this. It's silly for me to say "Or should I not have blogged this?," since obviously I haven't hit "publish."

Yet.

ADDED: Huntsman denies it, but says Romney should release more tax records.
This matters, because Huntsman is a longtime backer of Romney — he has long been close to Romney; he supported his early campaigns; he was the national finance chairman of Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign; and he has raised a lot of money for him over the years. (He backed his own son in the latest GOP primary.)

Monday, April 16, 2012

Scott Walker crushes the competition...

... in the Daily Kos's Public Policy Polling poll.
These numbers show a drop for Democrats from PPP's last survey of the race, which of course makes you ask, why? What's changed? Our pollster, Tom Jensen, offers his thoughts:
The biggest change is probably that this was our first time using a likely voter screen...
Ah ha ha ha! They finally polled likely voters. Oh, how lovely it was living in fantasy land. What's changed??!!! They decided to try... the real world.

What an embarrassment!

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Lefty bloggers irked that SOPA activism is moving Republicans and not Democrats in Congress.

David Dayen at Firedoglake:
The problematic figures here are the institutional Congressional Democrats, the ones who don’t have an election coming up, or whose seats are safe, who simply welcome the campaign checks, mostly from the entertainment industry, and the power and influence that goes along with them....
The Tea Party, Dayen says, has "struck fear" into the Republican Party, but the Democrats don't respond to their grassroots because "the progressive movement inspires laughter." Quoting Kos:
You have an entire wired generation focused on this issue like a laser, fighting like hell to protect their online freedoms, and it’s FUCKING REPUBLICANS who are playing the heroes by dropping support?

Those goddam Democrats would rather keep collecting their Hollywood checks....
Fascinating. There's long been this assumption that young people take their political cues from the entertainment industry, but it's pretty obvious that no matter how much they like movies and music, they care more about what they personally do on the internet than the entertainment industry's financial interests.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Matt Rothschild — editor of The Progressive — arrested for taking photos of someone getting arrested for taking photos.

There's a rule against taking photos from the gallery of the Wisconsin Assembly. On his shirt, Rothschild had taped a sheet of paper taped with the free speech provisions of the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions.
Like many of the others who filled nearly every seat in the Assembly gallery, Rothschild said he was fed up with the arrests in recent weeks of citizens who defied the Assembly ban on displaying signs, and shooting photos and video....

A contributor to the liberal blog Daily Kos helped draw protesters to the Capitol Tuesday by calling for a "Concealed Camera Day" protest. Comedian Stephen Colbert had great fun on his show Monday night, noting that Wisconsin residents, under the concealed carry law that kicked in Tuesday, will now be able to carry concealed weapons in the Capitol but are not allowed to shoot video of legislative proceedings.
Where's the inconsistency? You can carry a camera, and you can't shoot the gun.
When the Assembly was called to order a little after 6 p.m., protesters sat in the upstairs gallery with signs clearly attached to their shirts. 
There's also a rule against signs. And "public displays" and "demonstrations." Here's video edited from the point of view of the demonstrators. Go to 2:40 to get to the scene inside the gallery. There's singing — "Deep in my heart/I do believe/Walker won't be Governor some day" — and confrontation with the police — "Did you see that guy pushed me?... Don't you ever put your hands on me again or I'll sue you."
About five police officers stood at the back of the room at the time. Soon people starting holding up their cell phones to shoot video. Assembly pages first asked these individuals to put away their phones but, when they were rebuffed, police officers moved in to make arrests.
That is, as we've observed in the past, the photography-related arrests occur only after a person is warned and decides to accept arrest rather than stop.
While the arrests were being made, some protesters yelled at the police. Others simply asked them why they were making arrests. "You could refuse to do this," one protester said to an officer.
Here's the "Concealed Camera Day" post from Giles Goat Boy in the Daily Kos:
Starting Tuesday, November 1st, Wisconsin residents can apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons, and they can then carry those concealed weapons throughout most of the state Capitol building. Guns will soon be allowed in the Assembly gallery, but silently filming from the gallery will get you arrested. Weird, eh?...

For those of you who can show up, here are a few things to know:

1. There is no central meeting place. Bring a camera, even if it's just your cell phone....

3. Some activists might choose to quietly record the proceedings, as is their first amendment right. They might be arrested. This is their choice, and is not required of you to be part of this action. If you do choose to film the proceedings or display signs, you too might be subject to arrest, citations, or jail, so you are more than welcome to simply be a silent observer. More than anything, we want to fill up the gallery with peaceful, quiet witnesses.

5. As I just said, this is a peaceful action. Remain quiet and do not disrupt the Assembly proceedings....

6. This is not a demonstration against the concealed carry law, it is an action meant to point out hypocrisy and to support the first amendment rights of those who have been arrested and jailed.
What was the "hypocrisy"? If you're carrying a "concealed camera," there's no violation of the rules at all. And the demonstrators obviously were not following Goat Boy's rules, because they were not keeping a quiet vigil with concealed cameras. From what I can see, they were disruptive and distracting, which is the reason for the viewpoint-neutral rules of the Assembly.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Daily Kos blogger calls WaPo columnist "the journalistic equivalent of a 'fluffer'" and says "she has an uncontrollable crush on Paul Ryan."

Rubin's writings about the Norwegian massacre deserve criticism, but aren't liberals supposed to refrain from writing about women like this?

IN THE COMMENTS: Chip S. said:
From the Journolist Manual of Style:

"You're no lady" = horrible sexism.

"the journalistic equivalent of a fluffer" = incisive commentary.
(Link added.)

Friday, June 17, 2011

Mickey Kaus says: "Weiner is a victim of web-driven macho partisan cocooning."

That sounded like a great string of words, but then I realized I couldn't grasp the concept. I had to say it out loud. Victim. I get it. Weiner is the victim. Okay. Web-driven macho partisan cocooning. Web-driven partisan cocooning I would get. But what was macho about it? Didn't Weiner leave when he got double-teamed by Nancy and Debbie. And then Obama stuck his toe in and said what he would do if it were him. That wasn't macho. Then a porn star delivered the final blow. Maybe that was macho.

But, reading on, I see that the cocoon Mickey is talking about is Weiner's lefty friends on the web, including Daily Kos people and the lady-fans Weiner found on-line. They made him feel so powerful that he made mistakes. But I'm back to the same question. What's macho about that? Kaus thinks that Weiner thought that the lefty bloggers would fight for him. And that's macho... why?

Sorry. A middle-aged politician sitting at home masturbating because young women thought he was cool when he yelled at that guy that one time is not macho. And it doesn't get more macho because he's counting on lefty dweebs with blogs to type out a defense for you.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

"[I]n case you were wondering where the domestic-surveillance component of Wisconsin's continued slouch toward East Berlin was, there you are."

Anti-Walkerites are disturbed that Wisconsin law enforcement is monitoring social media to learn of plans to for direct action like storming the state Capitol. But I think it would be incompetent not to pay attention to these things.

Hey, people, Twitter and Facebook are public speech — quite visible and searchable. The notion that you have an expectation of privacy there is sheer lunacy.

Ask Anthony Weiner.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Kos's pollster, PPP, surveyed Wisconsin districts about recalling Republican state senators.

The post about the results says they asked "a battery of questions" — ow! — and that the "links to full results are at the end of this post," but I can't find the promised "links," so I'm limited to discussing what they chose to write up in the post (which, of course, is written in the most partisan way). [UPDATE: The links to the individual polls are now displayed over at Kos.]
One basic question asked whether respondents approve of the job performance of each senator—those numbers are in the first two columns after each incumbent's name. Four senators have negative ratings, and one is even—not particularly welcome news for Republicans. 
Considering the drubbing they've been receiving in the (incredibly biased) media, I think the approval numbers are pretty strong. If there are sufficient signatures for a recall election, the Senators will have to go back to their districts and campaign, making the argument to their constituents that what the GOP legislature and governor have been doing is good. They'll run ads and do debates and sharpen the issues and arguments. Think their somewhat eroded popularity will grow back?
We also asked whether respondents support or oppose the idea of recalling their senators. As you can see in the next pair of columns, this question doesn't test as well—pluralities say they favor recall in just three districts—but in a way, it's the least important question we asked. 
Oh, yeah, the question with the bad numbers... it's not important! Ha! The reason it's (supposedly) not important is that if enough signatures are collected, there will be a recall election. It doesn't matter that people don't want it. They're going to get it.

But... if they don't want it, when they get it, they're going to be annoyed at getting stuck with another election, and they will be receptive to what should be one of the strongest arguments the incumbent Senators will make:  

You elected us in November, and we have been working hard at the difficult job you elected us to do. Some people who didn't get their way last November have been yelling and screaming and doing everything they can to change the results of the last election. They want a do-over. Tell them no. No do-overs until the next election.

Portray them as crybaby children who can't accept a loss and cry "do-over." Portray them as anti-democratic sore losers who won't accept the results of a legitimate fair election.
Three Republican incumbents actually trail "generic Dem": Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, and Dan Kapanke. Two more have very narrow leads and garner less than 50% support: Rob Cowles and Sheila Harsdorf. And one more, Alberta Darling, holds a clear lead but is still potentially vulnerable.... 
But a key thing to remember, though, is that if any of these senators have to face a recall election, we'll need an actual candidate to run against each of them. In that regard, Wisconsin's recalls are very different from California's, where in 2003 voters were simply asked if they wanted to remove Democratic Gov. Gray Davis from office. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected (with less than a majority) by means of a separate ballot question....  In Wisconsin, if a recall election makes it on to the ballot, there is no California-style first question—we go directly to a head-to-head between candidates (with a possible stop along the way for primaries). So for a recall to succeed, we'll need to convince voters to support a real live Democrat—and that means we'll have to recruit some good candidates.
So the incumbents can argue both that recall is a bad idea and that the specific alternate candidate isn't better. The "generic Democrat" is a vague repository of hope for something better. A specific candidate is a much riper target.

Now, what about the recall efforts against the Democratic Senators? Did Kos poll that? If you push for recall elections, you're asking for your guys to get challenged too. I don't know how those recall efforts are going, but the complaint against the 14 who ran to Illinois to obstruct the legislative majority is very specific. They too were sore losers who wouldn't accept the results of a fair, legitimate election. They came home to Madison on Sunday and participated in a big parade where they were cheered and called "The Fabulous 14." I think some of the images of them preening about their fabulousness in front of throngs of Madison-style protesters and "union thug" types would work really well in some devastating ads in some of the districts around the state. I don't expect Madison's own Fred Risser to get booted out, but some of those 14 districts are not that safe for Democrats.

Who will win and who will lose in the recall madness?

Friday, March 11, 2011

"Somebody ought to use that image of the handcuffs on the door in print and TV ads. I think that can have a powerful and visceral effect."

Says a commenter over on Kos, where they swiped Meade's photo and used it without attribution and without linking back to the Flickr page, pursuant to the Creative Commons license.

Protesters handcuffed Capitol doors shut

The blogger assumes the police put the handcuffs on the doorknobs, but that wasn't the perception Meade had Wednesday night:
Protesters are locking the Capitol doors shut from the inside using metal handcuffs, Meade reports from the scene.

He told me that just now, by phone. He got out, and is warning others not to go in. Obviously, it's a terrible fire hazard to make it so people cannot get out of the building easily. Presumably, protesters think it's a good idea to keep the police out, but it is dangerously stupid.
Of course, it's terrible if the police did it too. Indeed, there needs to be a serious investigation into the police behavior throughout the protest. Meade and I have seen quite a bit of evidence that the police were, if not colluding with the protesters and facilitating their activities, turning a blind eye to all sorts of things that they would not have permitted in the normal course of performing their duties. Why did they retreat on Wednesday and allow the building to be retaken? I assume there are some good reasons for letting a mob take over a public building, after hours, and to block the state legislature the following morning. But how dare the police make such an abject public demonstration of their ineffectuality?

ADDED: Is anyone using the Wisconsin Open Records law to get access to the communications between the police and the protesters?

UPDATE: Meade has been trying to get an authoritative interview from the police. He was over at the Capitol on March 11th and got as far as a police escort into the office of Wisconsin Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs. Tubbs was there, but talking on the phone. He shunted Meade to a secretary, to take Meade's name and number. A phone call was promised. We're still waiting for the phone call.

UPDATE 2: Tubbs called Meade back at 2:15 pm on Saturday to say that the matter is under investigation. He said he'd have more on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.

Friday, December 17, 2010

So who did the conservative bloggers decide were the most annoying left-wing and the most annoying right-wing bloggers?

From The 8th Annual Right Wing News Conservative Blog Awards:
Most Annoying Left-Of-Center Blogger

3) Matt Yglesias (6)
3) Kos/Daily Kos (6)
2) Charles Johnson (10)
1) Andrew Sullivan (11)

Most Annoying Right-Of-Center Blogger

4) Allah (4)
2) Dan Riehl (5)
2) Debbie Schlussel (5)
1) David Frum (8)
More awards at the link, of course. I'm just a particular fan of the concept of annoyingness.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Holbrooke's last words: "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."

As noted in the Daily Kos "morning warm-up," along with scoffing at No Labels ("the latest political insider group that pretends to be above politics") and a kicks at Michael Steele ("lesbian-bondage-strippers everywhere cheer") and 3 other Republicans.

Man, No Labels can't catch a break. And it's not just that they're so non-partisan that all the partisans disapprove. They're surpassingly lame too. And they stole their logo! And hilariously lamely tried to deny that they stole it: "Conceptually, what I was trying to figure out was how to get away from the elephant and how to get away from the donkey... I’m sure his thought process was similar."

Thursday, December 9, 2010

"George Will is like a twelve-year-old girl for Mike Pence. Maybe they should have a sleepover, and George can braid Mike's hair."

From the Daily Kos "Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up."

Bonus cultural reference material:
Jerry: "Elaine, I really don't pay much attention to men`s faces."

Elaine: "You can't find beauty in a man?"

Jerry: "No... I find them repugnant and unappealing."

Kramer (entering): "Hey!"

Jerry (pointing at Kramer): "To wit."

Kramer: "What?"

Jerry: "No, Elaine and I were just discussing whether I could admit a man is attractive."

Kramer: "Hmm. Oh, yeah. I'll tell you who is an attractive man: George Will."

Jerry: "Really!"

Kramer: "Yeah! He has clean looks, scrubbed and shampooed and...."

Elaine: "He's smart...."

Kramer: "No, no I don't find him all that bright."

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

It's the Obama I voted for: Obama the Pragmatist.

Now, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how "the media is just beside itself over how pathetic [Obama's] performance was yesterday" in the news conference about the tax compromise. And Rush is saying that Obama "knows full well that he had a meltdown yesterday."

Here's the video:



Rush says he can tell that Obama...
... has been festering, this has been effervescing inside him, that he's unappreciated, that he did something nobody else has done, and they wanted it for a hundred years, and by golly he got it.  He didn't get everything he wanted, he got 99%, and they don't appreciate me,...

So he's essentially telling them, look, I gotta back off on some of this stuff if we're to get anything done.  And that infuriated 'em even more because the question was, "Where you gonna go to the mat, what are your core values?" And he withered.  He caved.  And that made them even angrier.  I know it's hard to comprehend.  But these people on the left, they are truly enraged.  It is a lifestyle.  They are never happy.  I looked at the comments on the Daily Kos website, they are hilarious.  But they're real.  And it went on for ten pages.  I mean they are just fit to be tied because Obama is not what they thought he was....
I must say... I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there. You could say he's beaten down, but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man. I never believed in Obama the Messiah, and I fretted about the signs that he was a left-wing ideologue. But when it came down to a decision between Obama and McCain, in the midst of a terrible economic crisis, I put my trust in Obama. I said:
I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama. 
I thought that Obama would have some independence from the Democrats in Congress and that he'd use his common sense and pragmatism to work out some solutions. The more he departs from left-wing ideology and struggles to get to good solutions, the more I like him.

When I watch that video, I don't see a melt-down at all. I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Kos and Research 2000.

"While the investigation didn't look at all of Research 2000 polling conducted for us, fact is I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else. I ask that all poll tracking sites remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases. I hereby renounce any post we've written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling."

Okay. So then... this one?
• 39% of Republicans want President Obama to be impeached.

• 63% think Obama is a socialist.

• Only 42% believe Obama was born in the United States.

• 21% think ACORN stole the 2008 election....
We all talked about that. It was garbage?! Here's what I had to say at the time (boldface added):
Yes, we have to stop first and wonder how good are the Daily Kos/Research 2000 pollsters. I picked up this story at Talking Points Memo, where there's no information about why I should trust this poll. How did they locate their 2,000 "self-identified" Republicans, who, TPM tells us represent "the psyche of the minority party's base"?...
Here's the Kos post announcing the results of the poll. It begins with this mind-boggling sentence:
"As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic  world." It turns out this poll was designed to help him with that theory.

How independent and reliable is Research 2000?
Now, Kos is distancing himself from Research 2000. But I want to know the whole story. What's going on with that book of his?

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The terrible things those "self-identifed" Republicans think...

... according to a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll. Yes, we have to stop first and wonder how good are the Daily Kos/Research 2000 pollsters. I picked up this story at Talking Points Memo, where there's no information about why I should trust this poll. How did they locate their 2,000 "self-identified" Republicans, who, TPM tells us represent "the psyche of the minority party's base"?

And I know that plenty of conservatives won't call themselves "Republicans." I'd like to see a poll that delves into the reasons people who call themselves "Republicans" choose to call themselves "Republicans" and why others reject the label, despite being conservative.

Also, I wonder if some people who aren't conservative at all lie to pollsters — especially a poll with a lefty name like "Daily Kos" — so they can skew the results and give those folks the results they imagine the poll is designed to produce: that non-liberals are evil/stupid.

Nevertheless, let's read the results of this poll:
• 39% of Republicans want President Obama to be impeached.

• 63% think Obama is a socialist.

• Only 42% believe Obama was born in the United States.

• 21% think ACORN stole the 2008 election -- that is, that Obama didn't actually win it, and isn't legitimately the president, with 55% saying they are "not sure."...

• 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president.

• 23% want to secede from the United States.

• 73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools....

• 31% want contraception to be outlawed.
Wonderful anti-Republican PR results. They justify the fears people who are not Republicans have about the Republican Party. I don't like thinking people are this extreme, and I wish I could see how the questions were worded. The full survey (and the questions) were not out at the time TPM put up this post, and releasing the results in this form reinforces my suspicion that the motivation of the poll is to generate anti-Republican PR.

How would you word questions to ask "self-identified" Democrats if it were your goal to generate anti-Democrat PR? How would you smoke out all the flaky and stupid suggestions they'd go along with if a pollster offered it in a rational-sounding form and didn't interject amazement at the answers? Then how would you reword the questions to publish the results to make the best propaganda for your side?

(I once submitted to a poll where I was asked various questions about abortion rights, and the pollster started coming back with "Really?" and "Are you sure?" in a shaming way that made it obvious they were trying to get people to say they supported laws restricting abortion so they could attack some politician — probably Russ Feingold. It was really unprofessional!)

ADDED: Here's the Kos post announcing the results of the poll. It begins with this mind-boggling sentence: "As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic  world." It turns out this poll was designed to help him with that theory.

How independent and reliable is Research 2000?