Letters to the Editor
-
A very different model would use a step function.
Like a random walk?
-
tristero and rollotomasi
First, writing about a Gail Collins oped tristero picks up one of Glenn's themes:
when she started answering questions, she got very Hillary — talking about carbon neutrality and H.M.O. payments and procurement reform, ticking off her five-point plans and three-part explanations. The large crowd, which had been standing in a high school gym for nearly two hours before she arrived, seemed to enjoy it. Her bond with the people isn’t a passionate one, but when it works, it’s a genuine connection that starts with the belief that she will work really, really hard on their behalf.
Apparently, to Collins, the reason Clinton won had very little to do with the fact she's willing to listen to voters. Or that she knows what she's talking about on a myriad of issues, any one of which is far beyond the capability of Collins' pea brain to master. Or that voters actually do care about these issues and care that someone has thought them through and can be articulate and organized in discussing them (flashback: "Is our children learning?" Oh such a charming manly codpiece of a man!). Or that voters weighed what Clinton proposed and concluded they were pretty good ideas, and that she made a better case than her rivals.
It is simply incomprehensible to the punditocracy that people who show up at candidate events are actually interested in policy questions, and hang on the words of even the wonkiest presentation.
rollotomasi:
The best analysis I've seen of how the polls could have been so wrong is Chris Bowers:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3156
He, eschewing catastrophe theory, presents all the not media backlash reasons. I still think that there was such a backlash, if only because I've found myself so often angrily defending Clinton from what i see as unfair treatment. She's my third to last choice, but that doesn't mean that the media should be systematically whacking her (and ignoring Edwards).
-
@ Paul Dirks
Yes, a one dimensional random walk, that is, confined to a line. A "directed" walk would go a distance ns, where n is the number of steps, and s is the step size. A random walk would be expected to go about the square root of n times s. If n is large, the distance of the random walk is much less than the directed walk. That is, the drunk walker does not stay where he is, but does not get very far, either.
-
Jim White.
How about, knowing...Each call:
"Hello, what do you want today Jim White?
You are in touch and NSA monitored you. Speak,
or forever hold your piece of Pizza Pie,
and know that THIS message is not approved.
This message will certainly be bug-tapped.
The secretary's amorous hot-line to The White House Nut House says, bless your leg, heart, liver, innards, and dear Life."
-
@bop
Good morning again.
-
Evidence of Massive Election Fraud in New Hampshire
Is pouring in from around the globe!
Sean Hannity and Fox News were caught on video surpessing the Ron Paul vote by leading his supporters on a merry chase down the rabbit hole! Remember this! The 90s were a figment of your imagination! Hillary = Bush! Obamaniacs and Pauliacs must unite to fight the New World Odor.
-
I'm serious Mr. A.J.
I will send pengwenn to your house to hang your stinky leg out the window on the way to the doctor if you don't tell us you are going today. Please don't joke on this.
Do I have your permission to send pengwenn or anyone else closer who will volunteer? Will your son or Michelle take you? Should I call one of them?
-
bebop-o
About the NSA.
Just because they didn't call doesn't mean they weren't, as the old postcards used to say, "Thinking of you!"
-
Robert Parry on why Obama, not Clinton:
Robert Parry fleshes out the history of the Clinton's triangulation and then concludes with the following.
Now, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign seeks a reaffirmation of those strategies from the 1990s, more maneuvering to the right as a way to buy some protection from the right-wing machine, more acceptance of the Republican frame of debate while counting on poll-tested phrases to finesse GOP attacks, more promises that some nice government programs might somehow transcend the need to stand up for principle.
By contrast, Obama’s appeal for a new paradigm that relies on the enthusiasm of young voters and the patriotism of rank-and-file Americans to leap past the stale politics of the Clinton and Bush years makes some sense.
Given Obama’s relatively thin résumé, his candidacy may require a leap of faith. But it is at least a leap toward something new and untested, rather than something old and failed.
If his campaign continues to gain momentum, Obama might be wise, too, to reach back to that earlier generation of Democrats who dared to challenge the deceptions of the Reagan-Bush years.
Rather than dip into the pool of accommodating careerists who now dominate Official Washington, Obama might look for experienced Democratic hands who suffered for their commitment to principle.
Along with bringing in newcomers from around the country, Obama also might consider former officials from the CIA, State Department and other federal agencies who sacrificed their careers rather than play along with policies that were either dishonest or harmful to the nation.
In short, the gamble of “Obama-mania” may be the Democrats’ safest bet.
http://tinyurl.com/2m4hf7
Reading all of the article is not so much an explanation as to how we got where we are, but a nightmarish reminder of how we got where we are and how we could continue to fall even farther down that rathole.
I'm not enthusiastic about Obama. But I've not underestimated how what a puny improvement Hillary Clinton would be if she were to win the White House.
Even so, the Republicans are out of the running. They shouldn't even be in the race. If I had my druthers the election should be between Edwards and Obama. The Republican field can spend their time helping Fred Thompson stay awake, and helping poor Rudy recover from his 9/11 turrets syndrome.