Small thing that's really starting to annoy me....
Like most of you, I was excited to see that groups are rating the performance of polls.
But these rating systems are using the current national popular vote count to measure pollster performance. Or...the national popular vote from 10am this morning. Or God knows when.
The problem is that using this morning's national popular vote margin is wrong. The national popular vote will shift toward Obama quite a bit. Nate Cohn (TNR's Electionate) estimated this morning that it could shift as much as 1.2%.
We do a ton of whining about the 1%. But we always couch our criticism the way Obama couches it: we're not against rich people. We're against rich corrupt people. In order to bolster our point, we cite the many humanitarians and self-less rich people who actually advocate for higher taxes, social freedoms, and other great causes.
All of that's fine. But where are these folks right now when the Democratic party actually needs them? The GOP is going to raise $1 billion+ from their SuperPACs. Where are Hollywood Democrats? Where are the rich musicians and athletes?
Obama is wrong on some issues (though there's always greater nuance than his critics imply, he's still wrong). He's too conservative on issues like civil liberties and the drug war. Liberals are right. The key to understanding why Obama is wrong? Liberalism. Liberalism is good. I read that somewhere. Let's review: Obama is either (a) a bit too conservative on these issues or (b) unwilling to take a political risk and stand up for liberal values. There. I've just explained the problem with Barack Obama without sound like a crazy person. See also: Occam's Razor. The End.
Oh wait - isn't my critique too short? Doesn't a critique of Barack Obama need to be incredibly complex? Doesn't it need to reference Ron Paul? Doesn't my critique need to use apocalyptic and dramatic language about the impending doom of society/the break down of the modern social order in order to appeal to the emotions of the reader? Don't I need to write in a dark tone? Shouldn't my critique imply that the problem with Obama is part of an incredibly complex and sweeping problem with liberalism itself? After all - this isn't just a case of a moderately timid/centrist Democrat. No, it's not simple. A 10 year old can't figure out this problem. This problem here is huge. It's expansive. It involves wealthy interests and the Fed. It involves Ron Paul.
They're like a bunch of children. "Up next: Why won't Obama release the photo of the half-exploded head of a leader of thousands of deranged religious fanatics? Is he just too weak? We'll hear both sides of the argument from a Middle Eastern expert as well as a drooling racist imbecile with a degree from Regent University."
Why have they obsessively focused on nitpicking the operational details of the Bin Laden mission? Why do they want the Bin Laden photos to be released?
It is because of their solemn duty to give the truth to the American people?
Is it because the media are "serious" people who want to dryly report the facts?
No. It's because they want ratings. Blood and violent accounts of commando missions draw ratings. If they can't shower the world with gruesome pictures of Bin Laden's half exploded head, then the next best thing is a lively debate over whether we should shower the world with gruesome pictures of Osama's exploded head.
Once upon a time, I told you of Obama's plot to eat our children and some laughed at me (instead of coating their children with garlic, which Obama cannot ingest without turning into a bat).
But no one was laughing last December when we all read in Politico that the President planned to announce the eating of all children during his State of the Union address. According to accounts extrapolated from various leaks from trustworthy conservative sources and Food Network hosts who were contracted to develop a marinade suited for children, this plan would sentence all children to be devoured, effective yesterday.
There are two tragedies going on in America: abortion and "anchor babies". Illegal immigrants are having "anchor babies" and they then receive American citizenship thanks to the 14th amendment. We should immediately amend the constitution to protect the UNBORN and repeal the 14th amendment, ensuring that the BORN are deported immediately.
I've always considered myself a student of political science and popular social movements. Discovering "what" people believe relatively easy. You can use polls, focus groups, or you can just listen closely. The more interesting question is "Why and how did people arrive at their beliefs?" The answer is always fairly complicated and nuanced.
Take the Tea Party, for example. Are they driven by racial animus? A principled stance against big government? GOP partisanship? Corporate astroturfing? Mental illness? Probably all of the above. And the answer varies across the movement.
Since no one has posted large sections of this transcript yet, I figured I would. I LOVED that press conference. He called out the Republicans and basically taunted them by repeatedly saying that they opposed tax relief for the middle class. And then he called out the 0.5% of the country (mostly bloggers) who behave petulantly every time he gets something EXTRAORDINARY accomplished by compromising 1% or 2% (the public option, as he points out, is a great example. As debated, it would impact almost no one).
Before you write your kneejerk reaction to my diary: Mark Warner is not God, it's a joke, so please don't throw that in my face in the comment section, because you'll only find that you've cured my recent insomnia.
There's a huge debate on the left right now. With all due respect to another diarist on the rec-list that frequently writes amusing and insightful things, this is an important debate for the Democratic base as we sort out what happened over the last 2 years.
This isn't one of those nuanced debates where the grownups in the middle are right and the folks shouting are all being overly dramatic. In the debate over Barack Obama, one side or the other is spectacularly wrong (there's a huge distance between the two)...and whoever is right, it has huge implications for 2012 and the future of our party.