October 31, 2004
— Ace Useful if unsurprising tally of currently projected electoral votes.
— Ace I know it sounds crazy, but hear the author out:
Sen. John Kerry has gotten the white-glove treatment from the press, garnering more praise from journalists than any other presidential candidate in the last quarter-century, according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
"It's not just that John Kerry has gotten better press than President Bush before this election, he's gotten better press than anyone else since 1980. That's significant," said Bob Lichter, director of the D.C.-based nonpartisan research group.
"Kerry also got better press than anyone else in the days before the primaries as well," Mr. Lichter added.
In October alone, Mr. Kerry had a "record-breaking 77 percent positive press evaluations," compared with 34 percent positive for Mr. Bush, the study states.
Unprecedented, untrammeled accolades for Mr. Kerry were more than debate-related bounce, however. Since Labor Day, he also had a total of 58 percent positive stories, with just 36 percent for Mr. Bush.
— Ace Mickey Kaus will of course spin this as some clever reverse psychology on the mass-murdering cave-dweller's part.
The big news in Osama bin Laden's message to American voters was not his intercession in our election; that clumsy ploy was not as successful as his pre-election panicking of Spain's voters.
Nor was the news his delight in the "pet goat" sequence in Michael Moore's Bush-bashing film, and his admonition that "Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you," echoing the central Kerry theme. Nor was it the frustrating fact that our Global Enemy No. 1 is alive and well and still at large.
The unremarked news is that this mass murderer evidently seeks a kind of truce. Although some coverage of his pre-election message noted an unexpected "conciliatory tone," we have not fixed on the reason for this change in his attitude.
"Each state that does not harm our security will remain safe," bin Laden promised, which was "why we did not attack Sweden, for example." His unmistakable import: if the U.S. were to stop our war on Qaeda terror, which has killed or captured an estimated 75 percent of his closest collaborators, that would be what he called "the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan ..." Stop warring on terror and you will "remain safe."
Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer."
He moves on to other foreign interlopers in our election:
Bin Laden was the second outsider to try to influence our election in an "October surprise." I suspect the first was Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. arms inspector, said to be miffed at the Bush administration's refusal to support his bid for an unprecedented third term.
He has long known about the presence of "nuclear trigger" explosives (evidence of Saddam's nuclear ambitions?) in one of Iraq's thousands of ammo dumps. But, The Wall Street Journal reports that with exquisite political timing, on Oct. 1 ElBaradei sent a "reminder" to a Baathist science minister renewing the U.N. interest in these particular explosives. That produced a dutiful letter from the Iraqi bureaucrat to the U.N. nine days later that was promptly leaked to CBS News, which apparently turned to the more credible New York Times to do most of the reporting.
He lets the NYT entirely off the hook for its role-- something I've come to expect. The New York Times is like a very exclusive club, or rather, perhaps, a very exclusive cult. Once you're inducted, you don't say anything negative about it.
Even if you're a conservative who knows better, like William Safire or David "It's a balanced newspaper" Brooks.
— Ace Kerry holds 5 point edge in battleground states.
It would probably be a good idea to vote.
— Ace This might be very good news indeed.
OTOH, Frank Luntz says that Bush needs to be up by at least three in order to win (due to new voters and late-undecideds voting against him, plus, you know, fraud), so if this poll is merely accurate, Bush is still only fifty-fifty to prevail.
The article is worth reading, because it does endeavor to spin this as really bad news for Bush.
It's not just news-- it's hilarious liberal desperation.
Update: But the New York Times goes, as usual, a little farther.
If any of you are fans of Mickey Kaus, you know that Times' reporter Adam Nagourney is their go-to guy for liberal cocooning. For example, when the last NYT poll in 2002 showed a massive movement towards Republicans, Nagourney buried that interesting finding until nearly the end of the article, and wrote some idiotic article about the polls' findings about voter anxiety and the like. He gave it the following headline:
Poll Finds Americans Like Cheese
Okay, not that, but something equally anodyne and boring. The New York Times "newspaper" deliberately refused to report its own discovery of actual news in order to not distress its archliberal constituency.
At any rate, the latest NYT poll finds that Bush is ahead by three-- cause for some alarm to liberals, given the poll's Democratic skew.
And what's the headline?
Once again, Nagourney deliberately avoids mention of the actual news-making part of the poll in favor of a non-newsworthy headline that won't discombobulate liberals too much.
The first two paragraphs:
The nation is girding for tomorrow's presidential election, worried about the integrity of the voting system, divided over the legitimacy of President Bush's election four years ago and anxious about the future no matter who wins the contest, according to the final New York Times/CBS News Poll of the 2004 campaign.
The poll shows that Mr. Bush and his opponent, Senator John Kerry, remain locked in a statistical tie as they head into the final 48 hours of the race. But the poll registered an increase in Mr. Bush's job approval rating, as well as an increase in the number of Americans who said the nation was heading in the right direction. Republicans described this as evidence that Mr. Bush was picking up speed in these closing days of the campaign, but Democrats dismissed the numbers, saying that both figures remain dangerously low for an incumbent.
Nagourney waits until the sixth paragraph to actually let you know Bush is up 49-46-- not really a "statistical tie" at all, because any statistician can tell you that any lead indicates at least the probability that one man is ahead, even if you can't be sure of the margin. This lead isn't big, but neither is it tiny.
Nagourney has waited far, far longer in his articles to inform his readers of what the poll actually says. He's slipping a bit. I expect better/worse from him.
Loose shit, Adam.
— Ace Must read post from American Digest. You will not be disappointed.
Caution: Contains some very violent images, including the 9-11 attacks and the Paul Johnson beheading.
Thanks to See-Dubya for pointing out this needs a content warning.
— Ace Never got around to providing the answers to this quiz, but I guess George, Morpheus, Michelle and other readers got almost all of them. Still, just to make it official, here are the songs: more...
— Ace Another 175,000 jobs likely added this month.
Thanks to Insty.
— Ace When JB read the stat that said whenever the Redskins lose before the election, the incumbent loses, Bradshaw began saying "Say it ain't so" while Long said "Ain't gonna happen."
Blaster Says Don't Worry About the Redskins Losing: "With the Sox winning, all sports predictors and curses are now null and void."
That sounds pretty good to me.
Thanks again to GregS, who lives in Yahoo photos.
— Ace Funny how that didn't seem to get much play on the MSM.
Thanks to Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy.
Thanks to GregS.
— Ace Pretty unbelievable.
At some point American Jews are probably going to notice that, while there is a lot of overt anti-semitism in more insular parts of the Heartland, the political left is filled with the not-so-stealth British version of polite and sophisticated Jew-hating.
— Ace What if the Electoral College splits 269-269 (it's actually quite possible; a lot of likely state splits will yield this result), and then the election is thrown into the House of Representatives?
No problem, you say. The Republicans control more state delegations and thus would elect Bush from the House in the event of a tie.
But that assumes that the Democrats don't refuse to come to Washington, DC, thus denying the House a lawful quorum. Which, based on the partisan hatred among leftists, and the previous gamesmanship in Texas, isn't too far-fetched.
What would happen? Would Hastert tell the Sergeant of Arms and the Federal Marshals to begin rounding up/arresting runaway Democrats and holding them prisoner in the well of the Congress?
Would the Supreme Court be forced to intervene-- again -- and make the controversial decision that, given a refusal to comply with Constitutional requirements, the normal rules of quorum are temporarily suspended?
Could the Democrats negotiate for some prize-- like a Democratic Vice-President, in exchange for their cooperation?
— Ace Honestly, I'm not just creating argument threads because I got nothin' myself (well, there's some of that, I guess), but I kinda think this is funny.
Okay, so everyone can sorta name their favorite make-out songs. For whatever reason, they work for you. A lot of them probably because they were actually playing one of the first times you fooled around.
But what are the worst make-out songs of all time? Whether because the beat is all wrong, the song is just plain goofy and silly, or because the lyrics are just inappropriate or annoying.
I don't know the worst make-out song, but right now, I'm thinking that it would be sorta a drag to try to make out to Billy Joel's Allentown. You know, it's hard to feel sexy when you're being informed "They're shutting all the factories down."
Tangential Update: I posted this once before, expecting a lot of links, but no one seemed to care.
Patti mentions Puddle of Mudd's She Hates Me as a bad make-out song, although I always sorta like those angry ones.
Anyway, one of the weirdest things I found trolling on the internet (of a non-pornographic nature, I mean) is this site, in which people compulsively compile "X-Men Music Videos" to pop/rock/punk songs, featuring clips from the two movies.
You can view She Hates Me, acted out by Jean, Rogue, and Wolverine there.
I don't know. Am I the only person who finds this bizarre, funny, and kind of endearing simultaneously?
If it were just one guy making these videos, I don't think I'd care. But there are a whole group of people who really feel the need to put Cyclops into Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It.
October 30, 2004
— Ace An electoral college map is here to help keep you in your prognostication.
Make your predictions:
House GOP Gains or Losses. Currently 227-207 with 1 independent. Sabato predicts the outcome will be something like 232-235 R to 200-203 D. Note how many seats you think the GOP will pick-up or lose (+5, -3, etc.)
Senate GOP Gains or Losses. Currently 51-48+a Vermont douchebag. Recent predictions seem to call for about 3 net GOP gains in the Senate. Again, call the pick-up or loss (+2, -3).
Presidential Election: Popular vote share. Call the percent of the popular vote that Bush will receive to the nearest half-percent.
Presidential Election: Electoral Share. Call the number of electors you think Bush will win.
Presidential Election: Time of Declaration. Call the time you think that the first of the major broadcast and cable news networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC (sorta) and Fox) declare an overall winner in the contest. Be aware-- they're not going to do so very quickly this time around.
Presidential Election: Swing States! Call who will win the following states: OH, FL, MI, MN, IA, WI, PA, CO, NJ, HI, NM, NH.
Presidential Election: Tiebreaking Uncategorizable Prediction! Make your bold call of an interesting happening that will occur on Election Night. Will James Carville put another trash can on his head? Will Peter Jennings announce that "Tonight the nation had a temper-tantrum"? Will Dan Rather break down and demand, "What the fuck are you people-- morons?" Humorous and serious predictions welcome.
Overall winner decided by me.
Prize? You get to lead the line when we do a mass "Victory Lap" through the comments of the blogosphere. Plus the usual dumb non-prizes.
Clarification: Cedarford reminds me that Louisiana probably isn't electing a Senator on Nov. 2; it's probably just forwarding two men to a runoff to take place in December. This sort of screws everything up, because, of course, I want to judge a winner shortly after the election, if not that night.
So, because the Republican in LA is favored to win, I'm going to assume that Vitter will win so long as he makes it at least to the run-off (which he will). This is a sorta goofy workaround, since the person who predicts "right" by my rule may turn out to be wrong, but I don't know how else to handle it, given that people have already made predictions, and I don't want everyone to modify their predictions based on this wrinkle.
So I guess we'll just take Vitter as an in-the-bag pick-up for the Republicans, at least as far as these predictions, even though he's really not.
Another clarification: When picking the time of declaration, include a time zone, or else I'll just assume you mean Eastern time. Eastern Standard or Eastern Daylight, whatever the hell we'll be in on Nov. 2. I can never keep that straight.
Yes, very presumptuous of me and all. Very East-Coast-Centric. But we need a default. We can't have this prediction contest descending into a two-week disputed affair with the threat of outright political violence.
Help a Blogger Out: Try to respond to the questions specifically posed, or else it's going to be difficult for me to include you as a candidate for the actual winner. Like, don't just tell me which states Kerry will win. Tell me which of the states I asked about he'll win.
And yeah-- I should have asked about Oregon. It slipped my mind.
— Ace The Unpopulist has a poll I had never heard of. Seems that, in Iraq, Bush garners the most support from the Kurdish north, whereas Senator Kerry draws the most support in the centers of the insurgency, such as Sadr City.
More foreign support for Kerry. Yayyy.
— Ace Fuck all these lunatic leftist bastards. This sort of talk is what leads to political violence.
Update: Fresh from Bill Burkett's magic typewriter, Tim Blair has the evidence of the Rove-bin Ladin tactical alliance.
You know, it's sorta funny, isn't it, that Saddam Hussein and OBL could never work together because they disagreed on a few minor points over the proper way to kill Christians, Jews, and problematic Muslims, and yet Rove and bin Ladin seem to get on so swimmingly.
Thanks to the Unpopulist.
— Ace Gee, I guess it's Halloween already. Korla Pundit finds separated-at-birth liberals and monsters.
Karla really has a lot of time on his hands. And apparently a frightening familiarity with Fangoria.
— Ace As if there were any doubt anyway.
45 queries taking 0.6772 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.