Saturday opinion.
Cholera in Haiti:
Hospitals in Haiti are reporting 1,500 cases of cholera, and the Pan-American Health Organization expects the number of cases to rise.
• Amount of money spent by Linda McMahon to get herself elected Senator in CT: 41.5 million (CT has 2 million registered voters.)
• Worth of this actual billboard on I-95: priceless
Connecticut Post photo\Christian Abraham (with permission)
Added: The Day (New London) endorsement of Blumenthal:
The Connecticut Republican Party should forever be embarrassed it selected Ms. McMahon for this race over Rob Simmons, a former congressman, decorated veteran and party loyalist, and for one reason only - she had money.
EJ Dionne:
I "get" the Tea Party. I just disagree with much of what it's saying and would insist that it's neither as novel nor as large as its supporters and some press accounts would suggest. And I'd urge thoughtful conservatives such as [Peter] Berkowitz to apply the example of their distinguished forebears, notably William F. Buckley Jr., by challenging the sometimes exotic extremism that is now taking hold on parts of the right, including parts of the Tea Party.
Newsweek:
Despite doom-saying about Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK poll (full results) shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared to 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK poll since February 2010. However, his approval rating, which is notably higher than many recent polls of the president’s popularity, may be evidence of a closing "enthusiasm gap" more than a sea change in voter attitudes, and may not substantially affect Democrats’ fortunes come Election Day. In 1994, NEWSWEEK polls showed a similar steep climb in President Clinton’s approval between late September and late October, but Democrats still suffered a rout in the midterms.
There's a lot of close races that'll be decided by who comes out to vote. Newsweek is, of course, a very D "leaning" poll. But I do like this:
Pollster Larry Hugick says that while Republicans are still likely to come out on top on Nov. 2, the results of the new poll show it might not be the runaway domination some commenters have suggested. "The idea that the Democrats are just going to sit this one out doesn’t seem very likely," he says. "While there’s no question that Republicans are going to pick up seats, the question is how many."
Robert Shrum: Okay, this one's creative. Dems scrape by in the House, keep the Senate, there's civil war in the GOP, and Jeb Bush is the peacemaker.
Following a disappointing midterm, he's likely to be both the most viable nominee and the most electable Republican for 2012. He has potentially the strongest financial base among traditional big money givers; he's also acceptable to most of the shrunken minority that kidnapped the party's primaries this year. He stood with them — rallying to their favorite Marco Rubio in the Florida Senate race--without joining them explicitly or mouthing their off-the-wall rhetoric.
It's a fun piece of fiction.
Mark Blumenthal on Gallup criticism and Frank Newport response:
While I agree that a "micro" focus on small subgroup inconsistencies is often inconclusive, simply brushing aside criticism as griping from partisans about results they "dislike" misses the larger issue. The results of Gallup's traditional likely voter model, using their traditional assumptions about turnout, have been very different as compared to other pollsters this year. Given Gallup's outsized influence on the campaign narrative, we need to understand all we can about why their results look the way they do. Critical analysis from all corners is warranted, whether we dislike the results or not.
Carl Bialik:
Political scientists tend to rely on one of three types of prediction methods. Veteran forecasters, notably Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg, combine data with impressionistic analysis, drawing on decades of experience calling races as well as interviews with hundreds of candidates. In the purely statistical camp is Nate Silver, who gained attention for his computer model that accurately predicted the 2008 presidential election and has developed a similar tool for House races. And a number of political scientists have produced mathematical models that, for the most part, treat the election as a single race.
Most political fortune tellers have Republicans taking control of the House, but a few see the Democrats emerging with a narrow edge...
Though there is major potential for error with these forecasts, Prof. Bafumi says, "no one wants to know about that too much."
Yeah, forecasters. Just tell me what's gonna happen, not what might happen. And woe unto you if you are wrong.