Actually, the title is a lie. I voted, did phonebanking, and even drove a long way to a neighboring Red state to do GOTV, for all the good it did. But in Kos's Diary today named
"More Accurate Than Nate Silver"
-- a deservedly crowing one, with props to Nate Silver and Drew Lizner for their almost-as-close election predictions, there is a thread that IMHO bears close attention. Minerva comments:
Worried about one possible implication (2+ / 0-)
What happens next time when DailyKos or 538 forecasts a narrow Dem win?
Since the pros have showed they can nail it with polling science, do marginal voters then decide they don't have to bother with turning out?
I'm not a marginal voter (I may be marginal in some ways, however I ALWAYS vote). And I'm not so concerned with "forecasts (of) a narrow
Dem win." But although it's unpleasant to face and admit, there is probably some prediction level of "our" success that would have made it less likely for me to do MORE than voting (phonebanking, GOTV, and so on).
How about you? If reality-based predictions, from reputable sources, of Obama and other Dem likelihoods in your state/county/city of winning reached 98%, or 95%, or 99.9%, or 99.99% -- would that have affected what you'd do before and on election day?
Is it a slippery slope? Would some of us hold back at 85%? Or 89%? I think Minerva makes a really important point. One worth exploring. So look into your own soul (or, for those of us who are atheists, your innermost thoughts), and take the poll below.
With best regards
Lurker Since '03
The hurricane was worse than we expected. When the power lines came down and the fire started, I thought we were goners. Now, I almost wish we were.
And that's why I do wish we hadn't voted for Mr. Romney.
But it was so hard to vote for a Democrat, after voting Republican all my life.
And I shouldn't admit it, but it was especially hard to vote for a man who wasn't white.
I remember when sports teams were all white.
If someone talked about a black golfer, it would have been a joke.
And I'm a good Christian, so I have to be against abortion.
Plus, was Obama even born in this country?
Obama is a funny name. Is he really a Muslim?
Lots of people I know, and the TV and radio people, say those things.
Mr. Romney seemed sincere, and he said nice things.
I think he was more like me and my husband than that Obama.
But what I forgot is that we weren't just voting for a man.
We were also voting for a type of government.
A type of government that can really make a difference after a hurricane.
Since we couldn't afford premium fire protection, the firemen came to our house last, when it was too late.
And we had to wait our turn at the hospital, since we were outbid at the emergency room auction office.
And to beat it all, the drug company that imported the antibiotics that they gave my husband were no good -- too cheap, I guess.
I wish I hadn't voted for Mr. Romney.
I haven't had the time or energy or desire to post comments on Dkos for many months. Let alone write a diary.
Got a bit tired of the Obama Pie Fights, too.
I visit Dkos maybe once a week, scan the diary list, read a few. That's all.
Got sucked into logging on when I saw that Nurse Kelley was ill (if you haven't left her a get well soon wish, do it now, okay?).
I didn't plan -- maybe not ever again, who knows -- to write a diary, but I forgot to log off DK and then saw this shocking article on Yahoo News.
Shocking: Top 0.1% of U.S. earns half of all capital gains
Shocking that it was on Yahoo, so prominently posted.
Even more shocking that it was from Forbes.
The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains
Since I was still logged on, and have not seen mention of this, I diaried it.
Maybe this is the Taxpayer Protection Pledge for the OWS movement:
"I, (politician's name here), pledge to vote for a return to 1978 Capital Gain Tax levels."
Check out the article, by Robert Lenzner, Senior Editor of Forbes.
And send your wishes to Nurse Kelley.
Now I'm back to (occasional) lurking.
Yes, I know that a diary is supposed to be filled with important content.
(I also know that it's supposed to have a snappy title, not a self-denigrating one.)
Today, I'm not in the mood to follow rules.
And all I really have to offer is a link.
A link to a story in this week's New Yorker magazine.
It's available online, for free.
In the article, entitled "Letting Go," Dr. Atul Gawande basically tells the reader how to have the best possible death (it may not be easy or fun, but it will be better for the dying patient and his or her family), and tells America how to solve the health care crisis.
If you're interested in either issue, or if you expect to die some day, if you visit (Diary Plug) The Grieving Room,
READ THIS ARTICLE.
The recent diary
on the posting/banning "rules" for the IGTNT diary series has garnered more than a thousand comments.
It's a sad but fascinating study of human nature, as a few posters at IGTNT believe that they should have either the "free speech right" or the "moral imperative right" to post anti-war statements, while the majority, and the diarist above, believe that doing so might be offensive to family members of the dead (especially non-Kossacks) who visit the site to see references to their loved ones who died.
IMHO, three issues are paramount:
- Who will see the content of the IGTNT diary, and how will it affect them?
- What is the purpose of a "funeral?"
- "Wasted Life Vs. Wasted Death"
I usually find that the time between Christmas and New Year's Eve is a quiet time for me -- off from work, and a brief respite from the parties of the two aforementioned holidays. Maybe that's why this long article in the NYT
entitled "Hard Choice for a Comfortable Death: Sedation"
seemed to stimulate a lot of thought.
I won't quote from the article, since if you are interested, it is well worth reading the whole thing (and doesn't cost anything). It basically explores the use of sedation at the end of life, and the "paradox" which that use raises: that while sedation may make the patient (and maybe the patient's family, or the hospital staff) more comfortable, it is also likely to hasten death by depressing respiration, and at higher doses by making the patient unable to eat or drink.
Since DailyKos has so many deeply thoughtful contributors -- those who visit The Grieving Room especially come to mind, as well as all our wonderful docs, nurses, and other medical staff -- it might be very enlightening to hear what any interested parties have to say about this...
No, I am not talking about Obama here.
Name any recent president.
The five who preceded him -- Carter, Reagan, G.W. Bush, Clinton, and W -- were all actively or passively complicit in the deaths of many human beings who once lived in the Middle East.
Jimmy Carter, with help from Zbigniew Brezinski, began to arm the "Islamic Freedom Fighters" against the Soviets, who would eventually help to spawn both Al Qaeda and the Taliban
Remember the Iran-Iraq war, in which a million lost their lives? -- part of Reagan's strategy, as was continued arming of the Mujahideen.
The First Iraq War -- a component of G.W. Bush's Middle East strategy, with Saddam's help.
The Iraqi Embargo -- tens of thousands, maybe more, children died because of it -- part of Bill Clinton's Middle East Strategy.
And, of course, there is no need to discuss W's contribution to the debacle.
Maybe I'm not very forgiving, but if I owned a ceramics store located next to a children's clothing store, I'd have a sign at the door, for parents:
"IF YOU OR YOUR CHILD BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT."
We've done a lot to break Afghanistan.
With lots of help from other countries, and from elements of its own population.
We have at least some responsibility to help fix it.
From 2004 on, I began giving limited amounts of money (which is all I have) to progressive candidates around the country, with the help of sites like Kos and ActBlue.
I canvassed for Obama in 2008, even going to nearby states that were more in play than my own.
I support the rights of gay people -- they should have every right that I do, whether that means marriage or the ability to adopt or whatever. It's trite to say, but although I am not gay I have gay friends. Even if I didn't, I know what's right. And I know that the right of two men or two women to marry has absolutely no effect on anyone else's rights.
But in spite of that, I did nothing to help the No On 1 campaign.
Did not send a penny.
Did not make a phone call.
Bill and Michael of Maine and your gay brothers and sisters:
I am ashamed.
I will behave more honorably, will behave more in line with what I say and believe, next time this issue comes to the ballot box.
Furthermore, I believe that the No On 1 campaign lost due to three reasons, and that they are worth thinking about, especially for those who behaved dishonorably, in this election/balloting, as I did (continued below the fold).
UPDATE: DeDe's on the ballot. Does not need "Write Ins." But some Repubs still need help NOT to vote for Hoffman. Purity Trolls, Please read no further.
Let's face reality.
- This is a conservative district. The wingnuts will be out in force to vote for one of their own, Hoffman.
- But even in this conservative district, there are some Republicans -- 20 per cent by a recent poll -- who were supporting Ms. Scozzafava.
- There exist a class of Republicans, lifelong Republicans, perhaps even non-rabid-right-wingnut Republicans, who just won't be able to case a vote for a Democrat.
- Even though they (the Repubs referenced just above) would likely have gone in and voted in the special election for Ms. Scozzafava.
- In this race, a vote that is not for Hoffman will be a vote for Owens.
- If you know any non-Wingnut Repubs in the district...
Suggest they vote for DeDe.
The race is going to be close enough that even a small number of voters who do NOT vote for Hoffman will in effect help to elect a Democrat. (NOTE: I am neither Repub nor Troll.)
ACORN has fired the two workers who gave advice that was arguably illegal and certainly immoral to two conservative activists dressed as a pimp and a prostitute.
Clearly, these two workers -- at least one of whom, to me, seems to have been serious about that advice from the video -- should have been fired.
In addition, I believe that ACORN as an organization should not only NOT be supported by progressives and Democrats, but should be abolished entirely.
My reasoning? Doing this will allow us to Abandon and Abolish other corporate or organizational entities whose members (I would say a minimum of two such members) have behaved despicably.
For example, the Finance Industry should be A & A'ed (as we'll call it for convenience henceforth) since clearly more than two members of it (think Madoff and Stanford) have had unethical dealings in the past few years.
More than two CongressCritters have been convicted of crimes, so Congress must be A & A'ed.
The Presidency, clearly, must be A & A'ed -- between oral sex in the Oval Office and illegal wars, that's a no-brainer.
The Medical Profession, the Legal Profession, the World's Oldest Profession -- who is on YOUR LIST to be A & A'ed? Remember, if it is legitimate to do this to ACORN...the sky's the limit!
The current recclist diary
on abortion stories has brought wetness to my eyes, many times so far.
For two reasons.
The first, and most obvious, is the sincerity and honesty of most of the posters of abortion stories, encouraged by the sincere and honest example of the diarist.
The second reason?
The extreme Black or White Thinking, no shades of grey, un-nuanced comments of too many posters.
So I'd like to propose what was, for me, a useful exercise...
Now Dkos is a self-selective place. On abortion rights, our Overton Window goes from:
Absolutely no restrictions on abortion until date of birth, and free
Restrictions on Third Trimester Abortions, Mandatory Counseling, etc.
So we don't see examples of completely anti-choice comments, as we would in what, sadly, is known as "the real world."
But as we scroll through the comments, we see things like (note: recced 15 times so far):
Fuck You is an outstanding argument! (15+ / 0-)
I'm pro-abortion. Yes, no foolin', I think abortion is a good thing.
In the interests of transparency: I've always liked the original Star Trek, but never got into the later ones. Oh, I'd watch an episode here or there if it was on and someone else was watching, but as good an actor, for example, as I knew Picard to be, I just liked the original ensemble acting: Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and Checkov, plus the occasional guest star. Saw all the movies with them, too. My favorite, the number I forget, but the one in San Francisco, with the whales.
Tonight, I'd give the new movie about three stars out of four (this may be more generous than a non-original-Star Trek fan might be). In fact, I have my reservations how much someone who had never seen the original series would like this movie. (Anyone have a thought on this?) Loved seeing Leonard Nimoy in a great supporting role. A few quibbles: the new Spock's voice, the new Checkov's hair, a bit more "Raiders of the Lost Ark" scenes and last minute rescues than I needed. But a good origin/creation story, with some nice twists.
So why am I p*ssed off? Because of the coming attractions. And because I've been following the unfolding Wesleyan University stalker/murder story for the last two days...