Steve Dyer

famousbeyoncefans:

Someone said “put a ring on it” and the President couldn’t help himself!

A reader writes:

For all the big talk about their GOTV efforts, what the Romney campaign really could have used was a community organizer. Oh the irony.

Another:

Obama executed quantifiable long-term plans, adaptable short-term planning, an innovative GOTV initiative and plotted better ad strategies, while Romney had the ORCA trainwreck, inaccurate internal polling, poorly informed managers and insufficient fiscal planning (e.g. coffers too low in July to react to the Obama ad blitz seems so minor league!).  Not to mention its upper management was rewarded with bonuses in September, right after the languid convention and the embarrassing European trip.

On the macro level, if you take the entire campaign at its face value as a business - a job creator, even? - the Obama campaign had a higher return on investment, ran a better strategy, implemented better tools and metrics to achieve its targets, spent its money more wisely, had a more efficient staff org chart and better managers.  In the free market system, it was a strikingly successful example of entrepreneurial acumen.  Romney and Rove were beat at their own game.

Another makes a great connection:

Remember that the first words out of Byron York's mouth upon witnessing his first Obama Rally in 2008 were "We're going to need a bigger boat," referencing the point in Jaws where the shark first appears. Do you remember the name of the boat they used that ended up being destroyed? It was the Orca.

Another:

Thought you guys might be interested to know ORCA was only unprecedented if you ignore Houdini, Obama For America's program to facilitate volunteers digital scrubbing of lists in '08. It was exactly as ORCA has been described and like ORCA, it crashed. Around 11am if memory serves. But unlike ORCA, no one missed it. We had a back-up plan in place that worked just fine. I wasn't on staff this cycle, and was only in a swing state the last few days, so I could be wrong about this, but I heard not one peep of Houdini 2.0.

Another testimony to the success of Obama's ground game:

Watching Romney's communications person's hubris regarding what turned out to be the disastrous ORCA was something that had to be seen to be believed. The myth of Romney as business genius surely must be put to rest if every aspect of his campaign is studied.  Surely he mastered the art of pillaging honest businesses to make money for himself and his investors, but running a business? Not so much. He would have failed as a CEO of an actual company that made or sold anything.

I live in Ohio. I am a married woman in her forties who resides in Ohio. I'm a mother. I voted for George W. Bush twice. I was impressed and swayed by the Obama message and campaign in 2008 and voted for him them, much to the dismay of my husband. I can't say I was overwhelmed by Obama's accomplishments as POTUS the last four years, but given the amount thrown at him from a resistant Congress and the crazies who make up the birthers, conspiracy theorists and Donald Trump, I gave him a bit of a pass. I'd rather someone is on office I believe at least will give due consideration and thought to his decisions whom I disagree with, than someone who will decide for the most politically advantageous decision. I went into this election pretty much undecided. It didn't take long to see Mitt Romney's craven desire to win won over his faith or belief in humanity and the country.

I had very little to do with the Obama For America website this election, however, in an attempt to escape the onslaught of harassing television and radio ads, direct mail pieces and a phone that rang so may times a day I ended up unplugging it, I voted early. Low and behold, a few days after I voted I received an email from OFA thanking me for voting. It had an invitation to a get out the vote event at a neighbor's home a few blocks from my home. When I clicked the response box that I could not attend a window popped up giving me several alternatives to helping the campaign such as making phone calls. Get out the vote opportunities continued to pop up in my email the remaining weeks of the campaign.

On election day, I got several text messages from OFA asking me to make a few calls. Can you make 5 calls? No. Can you make 3 calls? No. Can you make 1 call? Yes. That's a ground game.

michcoll:

Mr. G’s communal kitchen signs. Print and use at your own discretion.

The Dick Morris award "is given for stunningly wrong political, social and cultural predictions." A round-up of nominees:

"Here comes the landslide… The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor," -  Dick Morris, The Hill.

"There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same. Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us," - Peggy Noonan, WSJ.

"In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence—from crowd sizes to each side's closing arguments—give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more," - Karl Rove, WSJ.

"Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals," - Michael Barone, Washington Examiner.

"Both political science and the political polls too often imply a scientific precision that I no longer think actually exists in American politics. I have slowly learned that politics is a lot more art than science than I once believed. Accordingly, what follows is a prediction based on my interpretation of the lay of the land. I know others see it differently--and they could very well be right, and I could be wrong. I think Mitt Romney is likely to win next Tuesday," - Jay Cost, Weekly Standard.

"Feels like 1980 to me: Same failed president, same crisis-plagued globe, same upbeat GOP nominee written off four years ago who won the key debate, same chance to get the Senate. Romney is the president-elect on Wednesday, with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Colorado. Senate tied 50–50 after Ohio brings in Josh Mandel. Let the rebuilding begin," - Hugh Hewitt, National Review.

"Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of the commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney. But many others in the media project very favorable maps and projections for Obama but those doing so fail to realize or accept how heavily-skewed polls distort any average or analysis that relies on them,"- Dean Chambers, UnSkewedPolls.com.

"I'm projecting Minnesota to go for Romney. Now, that's the only state in the union, because Mondale held it -- native son Mondale held it when Romney was -- when Reagan was getting 49 states -- the only state that's voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections. But this year, there's a marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference. Romney: 321 Obama: 217," - George Will, Washington Post.

"Romney wins the Electoral College with room to spare — somewhere around 300 electors. All four marriage votes in the deepest of blue states (Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine) will be won by traditional-marriage supporters. This will happen even though supporters of same-sex marriage have outspent us by gargantuan amounts. … In Minnesota and Iowa, Mitt Romney will defy expectations and score truly historic wins. A state with longest track record of voting for Democratic presidential candidates — nine election cycles — will vote for a Republican. The marriage amendment will be part of the reason" - Brian S. Brown, National Organization For Marriage.

Remember when Hal was busted for cooking crystal meth?

memesymamas:

Because fuck you human…

epic cat bath [video]

thesuperjew:

Obama mentions his wife in his victory speech: “…The woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago”

Romney mentions his wife in his concession speech: “… The woman I chose to marry”

It’s amazing how someone’s views on equality can come out in one simple sentence

This video is brutal, but you really should watch it:

(Via Glenn Fleishman on Twitter.)

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

ohshawty:

justin’s face with white ppl

now let’s see justin’s face with black ppl

Nate Silver, whose models give Obama a high probability of winning reelection, has offered one of his critics a bet. “Putting your money where your mouth is,” is a time-honored principle of integrity in my view but the NYTimes Public Editor is very upset. Margaret Sullivan, however, never offers an argument against betting instead treating it as unseemly.

[Betting is] inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.

“I wouldn’t want to see it become newsroom practice,” said the associate managing editor for standards, Philip B. Corbett. He described Mr. Silver’s status as a blogger — something like a columnist — as a mitigating factor…

…When he came to work at The Times, Mr. Silver gained a lot more visibility and the credibility associated with a prominent institution. But he lost something, too: the right to act like a free agent with responsibilities to nobody’s standards but his own.

The closest to an argument against betting is this:

…whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.

My best parse of the argument is that by betting Silver has given himself an interest in the election and this hurts his credibility. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

A properly structured bet is the most credible guarantor of rigorous disinterest. In order to prove his point, Silver is not required to take the Obama side of the bet! At the odds implied by his model (currently between 3 and 4 to 1) Silver should be willing to take either side of a modest bet. Indeed, we could hold a coin toss, heads Silver takes the Obama side, tails he takes Romney.

In fact, the NYTimes should require that Silver, and other pundits, bet their beliefs. Furthermore, to remove any possibility of manipulation, the NYTimes should escrow a portion of Silver’s salary in a blind trust bet. In other words, the NYTimes should bet a portion of Silver’s salary, at the odds implied by Silver’s model, randomly choosing which side of the bet to take, only revealing to Silver the bet and its outcome after the election is over. A blind trust bet creates incentives for Silver to be disinterested in the outcome but very interested in the accuracy of the forecast.

Overall, I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge.

It's bullshit. It's trending on Twitter. It has a good chance of eclipsing the positive job report. So, well done Fox.

Obama is not Hitler. Obama is not a socialist. Obama is not a Muslim. With that in mind, let's turn to a recent Romney event and see the real crazy....

One sorry woman claims she has lost all of her freedoms because of Obama. But when asked to name these freedoms that Obama has taken away from her, she can't name one. Another sorry woman even calls Obama an atheist and a Muslim. What is going on here? It's an existential crisis at the social level. The root of this groups being (white, American, superior) has been deracinated and is exposed to an unknown and unknowable sun. Alien Obama brings uncertainty to the things that once seemed so true, so real, so unbendable. Obama has, of course, never harmed these people physically or economically. They are still doing well enough. They have their cars and their weight. But judging from the sound of their voices and the confusion of their thoughts, they seem totally devastated. What made them this way? The damage their president caused is purely psychic. For these broken people, looking at Obama is like looking directly at the sun.

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

 

Gaston’s Ultimate Mission to Obtain Some Taco Bell (X)

Everyone is talking about President Obama calling Mitt Romney a "bullshitter" in the Rolling Stone interview. I think it's a non-story; Rolling Stone is a magazine for adults, the president is an adult, and "bullshitter" is simply not that bad a word. (Unless you're Mormon.) But the thing that makes me want to stand up and cheer in the Rolling Stone interview is this bit about Ayn Rand that Talking Points Memo highlights:

Have you ever read Ayn Rand?
Sure.

What do you think Paul Ryan's obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?
Well, you'd have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a "you're on your own" society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

Right the fuck on. Any president who can carve the thesis of Ayn Rand's "philosophy" to shreds in a single paragraph is my kind of president.

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Bob Schieffer announced the topics for tonight's debate. They are:

* America’s role in the world
* Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
* Red Lines – Israel and Iran
* The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
* The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
* The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World...

Drezner is disappointed:

Here are the following areas and topics that apparently won't be discussed:

1) The eurozone crisis

2) Latin America

3) Russia

4) Africa

5) Foreign economic policy

6) India

7) North Korea

Now I get that some of these topics won't come up in a foreign policy debate that lasts only 90 minutes. But I'm also thinking that maybe, just maybe, it would be a better foreign policy debate if they actually talked about, you know, SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!!

A friend of Fallows has similar objections:

No questions on the Pentagon or defense spending -- a clear point of difference between the candidates.

No questions on the criteria for the use of force, whether in Iran or Syria or ... Mexico.

No questions on the war powers of the President, either regarding Iran or drones or targeted killings.

No questions on civil-military relations.

Maybe Schieffer will shoehorn some of these issues into his announced topics, or maybe the candidates will broaden their answers. I hope so. Otherwise, this will be a truncated and woefully inadequate one.

NBC announced this weekend that beloved comedian Louis C.K. will be hosting Saturday Night Live for the first time ever next Saturday, November 3rd, with musical guest Fun. It’ll be SNL’s last episode before this big election thing everyone’s been talking about, so C.K. seems like kind of an odd selection since he isn’t really much of a political comedian (or a sketch comedy actor, for that matter). Either way, it’s a bold, high-profile hosting pick that’ll make for a particularly exciting Election Week episode and a big comedy event to look forward to. Just don’t expect Louis C.K. to dress up fancy. He’ll probably just show up in his trademark black T-shirt and blue jeans, unless David Lynch is able to convince him otherwise. That’s assuming that this whole thing isn’t just a ploy by Jerry Seinfeld, who’s probably using Louie as a pawn in his scheme to be the actual host of SNL November 3rd.

---

See more posts by Bradford Evans

1 comments