Nate Silver, considered the best prognositicator coming out of the 2008 and 2010 elections. has his model up and running for 2012 election.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-67-8-percent/

He has Obama chances of winning at over 2/3 compared to Romney's chances at under 1/3. In otherwords, Silver's model has Obama twice as likely to win in November than Romney.

This is slightly up and attributed to the stock market rally last week with that being one of the sub-elements of the model's economic component.

As with everything Silver and the model, this is statistically-based correlation - in that market movments have been statistically-linked to election outcomes.

Silver's model is also at the level of electorial college votes which does away with some of the closeness you see in national polling; although the national polling figures into his model as well as individual state polling.

Certainly not any reason for Dems to get complacent, but also no reason to get bummed out by any of the cherry picking of polls we usually see to explain how Romney is going to win this thing.

This is interesting, and somewhat reflected here on this forum -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aw-to-move-on/

Poll: 56% Americans want opponents of the health-care law to move on

The Supreme Court ruling on health care did not win the law new supporters – but, in a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll, it does look like Americans want to see the national debate move past the law.

Fifty-six percent of all those surveyed want to see the law’s opponents “move on to other national issues” rather than “continue to block the law from being implemented:”

This poll won’t thrill Republicans. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling, they quickly pivoted to measures to stall Obamacare. Some are symbolic: A House vote to repeal the health reform law, scheduled for next week, is dead-on-arrival in the Senate. Some, like Republican governors opting out of the Medicaid expansion, are more concrete.

All of them though, are intended to do one thing: Make the future of health reform appear in limbo, part of a continuing debate over the law.

This Kaiser poll suggests that’s not how most Americans see the issue. Even though a lot of people don’t like the law – only 41 percent rated it favorably in this same poll – it looks like most see it as the law of the land going forward.

One other noteworthy finding from the Kaiser poll: It found 41 percent of Americans to be unaware of the Supreme Court decision.

That isn’t due to any dearth of news coverage. The decision story was front page news Friday pretty much everywhere in the country. But most Americans won’t notice the benefits until 2014, when 30 million gain coverage through Medicaid and private insurance. Until then, health reform isn’t something most Americans are obsessing about. And they think Washington should follow their lead.

You have just 38% wanting to continue to contest the ACA. With about 33% t-baggers in the country, they must make up the bulk of that 38% with likely a smattering of financial elites not happy with what they got and some on the Left still wishing for single payer. Most, however, want to move on or simply don't know or care about the issue.

This is reflected here with the first set of responses from the SCOTUS decision being the resident t-baggers' fear mongering. But didn't it all seem a little hollow compared to hot summer of 2010? The end-of-days responses seemed to remind one of 2010 screams of death panels and being somewhat blasé if not a little humorous - and nevertheless, pretty easily swatted down as being nothing but hysteria and hopeful thinking of turning the election tide.

The healthcare thread has now become the province of friends on the Left having a civil discussion between what-could-have-been and what-is-now-reality and where best to focus attention from here to eventually achieve the same shared ultimate progressive goals.

This doesn't bode well for the GOP as a wedge issue. I guess some of that results from their standard bearing (Mittens) having a rather nuanced history with the subject as well as their conservative darling on the Court (Roberts) seeming to them as having thrown them under the bus. It also has to do with the larger issue being the economy and so much happening since the ACA was put in place (Europe, oil prices, current slowdown). I'm also thinking that people, outside of the hardcore t-baggin 33%, may be just getting tired of the clowns and their clown issues.

Happy Fourth of July!!!

As Annie Leonard reminds us:

As Eric Liu, who co-authored The Gardens of Democracy with Nick Hanauer, put it to me:

"The purpose of citizenship is to force this country to live up, a little bit more than it did yesterday, to its stated creed of liberty and equality for all."

So if you're celebrating tomorrow, enjoy the picnics and fireworks.

But while we're gathered, let's also commit to strengthening our citizen muscles and working together to make some serious change in the year ahead!

And on this Fourth of July, as any other, I'll be feeling bad for the vastly inordinate number of people in my birthplace of Staten Island who get arrested on fireworks-related charges whose surnames just happen to end in vowels.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2...shore-accounts

Where the Money Lives

For all Mitt Romney’s touting of his business record, when it comes to his own money the Republican nominee is remarkably shy about disclosing numbers and investments. Nicholas Shaxson delves into the murky world of offshore finance, revealing loopholes that allow the very wealthy to skirt tax laws, and investigating just how much of Romney’s fortune (with $30 million in Bain Capital funds in the Cayman Islands alone?) looks pretty strange for a presidential candidate.

some other possible indicators -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...r-model-doing/

A while back, Ezra — with the help of political scientists at Yale, UCLA, and George Washington University — developed Wonkblog’s very own presidential election model. It uses only three variables: economic growth during the first three quarters of the election year; the president’s average approval rating as measured by Gallup in June of the election year; and whether or not a candidate is a member of the incumbent party.
Now that June is over, and the presidential approval data are in, the second of those variables is set for the 2012 election. I went through Gallup’s tracking polls and found that Obama had an average approval rating of 46.46, virtually indistinguishable from George W. Bush’s 46 percent June approval average in 2004. If second- and third-quarter economic growth stays at the first-quarter level of 1.9 percent, then the model predicts that Obama will win 82.5 percent of the time. Now, we won’t know the second-quarter GDP numbers until the end of this month (and the initial figures are often wrong and are revised later), and the third quarter hasn’t happened yet, so this could all change. But the president can find some comfort in the model now.

TPM composite polling has Obama up

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/

as usual Rasmussen is still in it advocacy polling phase* being the clear outlier as indicated here -

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...omney-vs-obama


* as clearly shown by Nate Silver's analysis of pollsters' relative predictive powers, Rassmusen early in the election year has outlier results that are clearly very partisan and as a result less accurate. As the election year progresses, Rassmusen begins to switch to results more consistent with other polling, less biased, and therefore, more accurate. After all, they have to maintain some level of reality in order to be taken seriously - it's an interesting business model.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And on this Fourth of July, as any other, I'll be feeling bad for the vastly inordinate number of people in my birthplace of Staten Island who get arrested on fireworks-related charges whose surnames just happen to end in vowels.

Public notice: before anyone starts setting off fireworks, think of all the veterans and refugees with PTSD near you to whom those fireworks brings them much suffering.

Originally Posted by Odin

Public notice: before anyone starts setting off fireworks, think of all the veterans and refugees with PTSD near you to whom those fireworks brings them much suffering.

Not to mention the cats and the dogs. Now, my critters are used to hearing Snap! Crackle! and Pop! from Isotopes Stadium, which is over a mile south west of the house, so they won't be too upset at tonight's display, though I might watch a few bits and pieces of it from my front porch. Unless Mother Nature decides to upstage the fireworks show with some much-anticipated and needed storms.

Originally Posted by Odin

Public notice: before anyone starts setting off fireworks, think of all the veterans and refugees with PTSD near you to whom those fireworks brings them much suffering.

Indeed. Not to mention the States that are in a severe drought and the vegetation is extremely dry. There's a ban on fireworks, except for the huge public one down on the Mississippi. Yet patriotism reigns supreme. Many of our neighbors think it is their right, to hell with the ramifications of possibly setting someones house on fire, to shoot off their beloved fireworks.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Indeed. Not to mention the States that are in a severe drought and the vegetation is extremely dry. There's a ban on fireworks, except for the huge public one down on the Mississippi. Yet patriotism reigns supreme. Many of our neighbors think it is their right, to hell with the ramifications of possibly setting someones house on fire, to shoot off their beloved fireworks.

In New Mexico the Governor has been trying to get the power to impose a statewide ban on fireworks ever since she was elected, because we had drought conditions and extreme fire danger this year as well. We can't even repeal a law forbidding local governments to ban fireworks across the board, and some towns are sitting inside tinderboxes. Public opinion is largely in favor - nobody wants fires in their area - but the fireworks makers and sellers pour a lot of money into the campaign funds of state legislators.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

In New Mexico the Governor has been trying to get the power to impose a statewide ban on fireworks ever since she was elected, because we had drought conditions and extreme fire danger this year as well. We can't even repeal a law forbidding local governments to ban fireworks across the board, and some towns are sitting inside tinderboxes. Public opinion is largely in favor - nobody wants fires in their area - but the fireworks makers and sellers pour a lot of money into the campaign funds of state legislators.

Pretty much says where the real power is these days. Money talks, doesn't it?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865558609/Jon-Huntsman-Jr-skipping-GOP-convention-calls-for-party-to-shift-focus.html

Jon Huntsman Jr. skipping GOP convention, calls for party to shift focus
By Lisa Riley Roche, Deseret News
Published: Friday, July 6 2012 11:24 a.m. MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — Former Utah governor and unsuccessful presidential candidate Jon Huntsman Jr. said Friday he won't be attending any GOP national conventions until the party shifts its focus. Huntsman, who dropped out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination in January after a disappointing third-place finish in New Hampshire, said he has attended virtually every GOP convention since 1984, when he was a delegate for Ronald Reagan.

"I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future, until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States," Huntsman said in a statement. "A future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as fiscal and economic deficits." He said he encourages "a return to the party we have been in the past, from Lincoln right on through to Reagan, that was always willing to put our country before politics." Huntsman's announcement means he won't be on hand to see the other 2012 GOP presidential candidate with Utah ties, Mitt Romney, formally nominated at the party's convention in Tampa, Fla., this August.

At the 2008 GOP convention in Minneapolis, Huntsman introduced Sarah Palin as the party's vice presidential pick despite losing his voice. Unlike most Utah Republicans, Huntsman had backed that year's eventual nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, over Romney. This election, Huntsman entered the race after stepping down as President Barack Obama's U.S ambassador to China, surprising many who had believed he would wait to run in 2016. Since leaving the race, Huntsman has taken on a number of new roles, including as a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank based in Washington, D.C. He has a family home in the nation's capital and a condo in downtown Salt Lake City.

E-mail: lisa@desnews.com Twitter: dnewspolitics

That is a huge absence -- and a glaring one. I don't know -- could he do what Jeanne Kirkpatrick did and make the switch?

As I pointed out in a thread I started here, a lot of Mormons must see that the GOP's "Economic Objectivism" - my personal neologism to replace "Social Darwinism" because first the righties get all butt-hurt when you call them the latter and second, it admittedly does have a second meaning, relating to eugenics, that doesn't necessarily apply to all of them (my alternative also gives proper "credit" to the primary expounder of contemporary Republican thought on economics) - is contrary to LDS teachings concerning charity etc., just as it flies in the face of Christian teachings generally.

Perhaps this factor is driving Huntsman's misgivings?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

In New Mexico the Governor has been trying to get the power to impose a statewide ban on fireworks ever since she was elected, because we had drought conditions and extreme fire danger this year as well. We can't even repeal a law forbidding local governments to ban fireworks across the board, and some towns are sitting inside tinderboxes. Public opinion is largely in favor - nobody wants fires in their area - but the fireworks makers and sellers pour a lot of money into the campaign funds of state legislators.

-- that's nothing. It's so dry in OH there are signs on the highways telling folx not to throw cigarette butts out of their cars

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is interesting, and somewhat reflected here on this forum -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...law-to-move-on



You have just 38% wanting to continue to contest the ACA. With about 33% t-baggers in the country, they must make up the bulk of that 38% with likely a smattering of financial elites not happy with what they got and some on the Left still wishing for single payer. Most, however, want to move on or simply don't know or care about the issue.

This is reflected here with the first set of responses from the SCOTUS decision being the resident t-baggers' fear mongering. But didn't it all seem a little hollow compared to hot summer of 2010? The end-of-days responses seemed to remind one of 2010 screams of death panels and being somewhat blasé if not a little humorous - and nevertheless, pretty easily swatted down as being nothing but hysteria and hopeful thinking of turning the election tide.

The healthcare thread has now become the province of friends on the Left having a civil discussion between what-could-have-been and what-is-now-reality and where best to focus attention from here to eventually achieve the same shared ultimate progressive goals.

This doesn't bode well for the GOP as a wedge issue. I guess some of that results from their standard bearing (Mittens) having a rather nuanced history with the subject as well as their conservative darling on the Court (Roberts) seeming to them as having thrown them under the bus. It also has to do with the larger issue being the economy and so much happening since the ACA was put in place (Europe, oil prices, current slowdown). I'm also thinking that people, outside of the hardcore t-baggin 33%, may be just getting tired of the clowns and their clown issues.

-- perhaps the people should be concerned- Roberts has ruled that the people can be taxed if they don't buy a product from a private 3rd party company. Even if they can't afford it

Originally Posted by sonrisa

-- perhaps the people should be concerned- Roberts has ruled that the people can be taxed if they don't buy a product from a private 3rd party company. Even if they can't afford it

That doesn't say they will be taxed; that's a political choice - both nationally as well as by each state deciding to take or not take the Medicaid expansion.

The Supreme Court's decision is no different than saying it's Constitutional for Congress to declare war; that doesn't necessarily mean war.

The Right likes to freedom fries hyperventilate over everything rather than deal with reality.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

As I pointed out in a thread I started here, a lot of Mormons must see that the GOP's "Economic Objectivism" - my personal neologism to replace "Social Darwinism" because first the righties get all butt-hurt when you call them the latter and second, it admittedly does have a second meaning, relating to eugenics, that doesn't necessarily apply to all of them (my alternative also gives proper "credit" to the primary expounder of contemporary Republican thought on economics) - is contrary to LDS teachings concerning charity etc., just as it flies in the face of Christian teachings generally.

Perhaps this factor is driving Huntsman's misgivings?

When economic distress that has long fouled up life in minority communities with conservative attitudes on religion begins to appear among majorities that long thought themselves exempt because they are white... things get ugly. Economic distress has infamously fed vice in depressed minority communities, and as a rule vice flourishes when its economic rewards become more reliable than the more 'accepted' ways of making a living. Meth is messing up rural white communities much as heroin bedeviled black (and Hispanic) urban communities with much the same result. But that is only one vice -- drugs.

It is worth remembering that the founder of economic objectivism, Ayn Rand, is as hostile to religion as Karl Marx. But if Marx stands for a collectivist community in which all are obliged to serve the common good whether through altruistic heroism or through compulsion (usually the latter), Rand is clearly for Devil-take-the-hindmost economics. She differs from most of the old-fashioned conservatives who believe firmly in the need for self-restraint in personal behavior as a necessity for the human dignity and decency that gives even the poorest among us a stake in the system. Beyond any question a world that fits the dream of Ayn Rand offers unrestrained indulgence to the highly-successful who may have squeezed out their small-scale competition and driven them into penury.

I have yet to see what is left for the rest of humanity -- hunger, peonage, and vice? Maybe I don't want to see that -- which explains why I am a liberal. Movement conservatives who have read more by Ayn Rand than by Edmund Burke see nothing wrong with hunger, peonage, and vice -- as long as people for whom they care nothing endure hunger, peonage is profitable, and vice gets them the prettiest girls (or boys) for their sexual indulgence.

Any valid manifestation of conservatism must offer the common person something worth protecting from radical assault or foreign takeover. A plutocrat like Henry Ford, by no means a nice person, recognized that the people who worked in his auto plants (and he made no pretense that anyone other than he was the real boss of any worker) had a stake in the system. The worker had to be granted conservatism as an 'opiate' with powers far stronger than those that Karl Marx ascribed to religion. Take away the consumerism in modern capitalism and people might become revolutionary socialists even if they have conservative values on religion. Socialism and Christianity, including the Mormon variety, are far from incompatible.

Unlike many on the Left I have not bashed the Latter-Day Saints. Sure, the religion has its cranky qualities (what religion doesn't?), but Mormonism has its virtues. It is communitarian; it promotes social cohesion among Mormons, and anyone who lives in Mormon country can more easily be a non-Mormon than an individualistic island. Even if Utah, the seeming preserve of Mormonism, is poor by most economic standards it doesn't have the economic extremes that the rest of America has, at least where the Mormons prevail. It has a low crime rate, perhaps because of 'depressed' use of alcohol and because of the scarcity of youth smoking (one of the strongest indicators of likely drug use by youth is early use of cancerweed products).

The affiliation of Mormonism with political conservatism is comparatively recent. It is much unlike the South in which conservative Democrats drifted into the GOP. Utah became a GOP preserve only in the 1950s. In a close Presidential race in 1948, Utah went for Harry Truman by nearly 9%. Race and ethnicity have not been big issues in Utah politics (as they have been in Church matters until recently) as they have been in the South. Apparently the Eisenhower Administration co-opted Mormons on anti-Communism and appointed Ezra Taft Benson to a cabinet post, legitimizing Mormons in political life as Democrats failed to. Ezra Taft Benson, an LDS apostle and only one step away from the Presidency of the LDS Church, brought the majority of Mormons with him to the GOP.

It will take time for people in 'conservative' religions to discover that Devil-take-the-hindmost economics characteristic of the Hard Right literally pushes people to the Devil (vice) just to survive. Economic objectivism is as anti-religious as Marxism (Ayn Rand was as hostile to religion as Karl Marx) and offers people no reason to not sell themselves to vice just to survive. Under extreme economic distress, family strictures against vices lead many to violate conservative values on sexuality -- most notably against selling out to prostitution. Ayn Rand, due to her hostility to both formal religion and to communitarianism, is at least as incompatible with Mormonism as is Karl Marx.

People with 'conservative' religions can vote for liberal politics.

Originally Posted by sonrisa

-- perhaps the people should be concerned- Roberts has ruled that the people can be taxed if they don't buy a product from a private 3rd party company. Even if they can't afford it

People who can't afford insurance will be given a hardship exemption from the non-payment penalty.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

People who can't afford insurance will be given a hardship exemption from the non-payment penalty.

Correct, and even before you get to that, the govt is giving subsidies to anyone making 130% to 400% of the poverty level, and in those states that take the federal dollars to extend Medicaid, it removes most of the people from the mandate even being an issue. If every state does the Medicaid extension, the Urban Institute has estimated that less that 2% of the population would be possible subject to the mandate penalty and surely some significant number of those are going to get the insurance.

The thing about the Medicaid expansion is that it not only helps directly by providing health care payments to the beneficiaries but it adds 10s of millions of dollars in spending in those states that do the expansion and thus greatly help their economies. That is likely going to be seen as a big reason most state will do the expansion. Because it comes from Federal deficit spending, it actually costs nothing and provides much.

Originally Posted by sonrisa

-- that's nothing. It's so dry in OH there are signs on the highways telling folx not to throw cigarette butts out of their cars

A fire to the north of Albuquerque was proved to have been started by a Village of Corrales fire patroller who tossed an electronic cigarette into the brush while he looked for fires.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

A fire to the north of Albuquerque was proved to have been started by a Village of Corrales fire patroller who tossed an electronic cigarette into the brush while he looked for fires.

OMG, if that wasn't so sad, it would be funny. (Shaking head in amazement)

This is really funny, but when you stop and think about it, really really frightening!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ns-129201.html

McCain: Palin was 'better candidate' than Romney

Holy cow, independents and moderate Republicans (I know there's a few of you still out there), think about that when you're ready to pull that voting lever!

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is really funny, but when you stop and think about it, really really frightening!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ns-129201.html




Holy cow, independents and moderate Republicans (I know there's a few of you still out there), think about that when you're ready to pull that voting lever!

Candidate. Not office-holder. She's a PR rep's delight. But, naaah.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Candidate. Not office-holder. She's a PR rep's delight. But, naaah.

Hey, this means I'm off the ignore list!

Alright! And I promise to behave - well, for as long as I can stand it.

Oh, and you posted this after my oinks on that other thread so they don't count.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hey, this means I'm off the ignore list!

Alright! And I promise to behave - well, for as long as I can stand it.

Oh, and you posted this after my oinks on that other thread so they don't count.

Okay. I'll trade you one meow for every oink and we'll call it square.