Thursday, June 26, 2014

In Regards to Erick Erickson on MS and Consequences

Erick, I share so many of your sentiments in your piece. That said... you said, “There must be some consequence. I am just not sure what it should be.”

Must there be? Let’s look at the specifics with Cochran. Undoubtedly, his campaign turned to things detrimental to Republicans and to Republican principles, and he won. He won using the perqs of incumbency. He won with pork both delivered and promised. He won with a boatload of campaign cash. He won by smearing a large section of his party’s voters with lies.

But he barely won. He needed all of that, plus a military background he used to better effect than before, to barely win. He needed all of that, against an opponent who had serious flaws as a candidate, to barely win.

And he is old.

The type of Republicanism he exhibited or represents is on its deathbed in Mississippi. Take away the incumbency, the influence of delivered pork, the campaign cash connections developed over decades, and a candidate-just-like-Cochran loses that primary. Take it all away- because time is going to, relatively quickly. In other words, the battle was lost in Mississippi, but the war there is already won. We will get Senators there more in tune with the voters. All we lost was some time, but time is on our side.

The consolation prize is that we will get a Senator who will help us dislodge Harry Reid. That is not a small thing.

Instead of searching for immediate consequences, why not search for immediate opportunities? While the methods used to bringing black voters into the primary electorate were odious, it does not follow therefore that we must attack them for turning the primary.

My career is now in retail, and the hardest sale to make to a person is always the first one.

The new voters may have believed some lies, but at the same time they pulled the trigger for him knowing he is a Republican and knowing his voting record. Say what you will about Cochran, but he votes with the GOP an overwhelming majority of the time. That shows that the majority of the GOP agenda is not seen as show-stopping to these crossover voters. They weren't voting to help the Democrat win, they were voting to help Cochran-- a Republican-- win. We have first time customers here. Instead of focusing on consequences for those who treated us like crap, let’s focus on converting first time customers into long-term customers.

I follow quite a number of black Republicans and black conservatives, not of the celebrity type. It does not take much talk to realize that they see incredible tone-deafness on the right with regards to how to engage black voters. Bemoaning the crossover voters, who apparently mainly were black, is unlikely to change their perception.

We’ve been handed an opportunity here. Let’s expose the lies that have been told about who we are and for what we stand. Let’s convert some of these new voters. It will not be easy. In fact, the only sale harder to make than the second, is the first. But regardless that it was done at our expense, the first sale was made. Set the record straight, and make the sale. Always be selling. Always be closing.

We will convert only a percentage, but the message that will be sent is a powerful one: we are going to win, and we are going to transcend the lies.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

MS: Democrat "Statistically Tied" With McDaniel

From this Politico article:

Within the past two weeks, private Democratic polling has shown that the party’s nominee, former Rep. Travis Childers, would start a general election statistically tied with McDaniel. A race against Cochran, who is well-liked by independents and many Democrats, would be difficult to the point of futility.

A few comments:

  • It is generally a mistake to ignore polling data.
  • The above is not polling data.

We have no idea of the context of the above. For example:

  • When (who?) says they were "statistically tied," what is the margin of error? Were the results at the edge of that range, or towards the center?
  • What is meant by "within the past two weeks?" Does that mean one poll in that time showed that, or many? How many polls were conducted that show this statistical tie? Were there others conducted that did not show that?

That is not to say that the race, should McDaniel win the runoff, is not closer now than conventional wisdom suggests. However, when I see reference to private poll data without the poll data being released, I cannot help but wonder if there is a reason that the full results were not being released, even if just the topline data. I don't discard the possibility that what is being leaked is accurate, but I also do not take it at face value.

As is often the case with regards to publicly released poll information, more data is needed to help us truly evaluate where things lay.

Monday, June 2, 2014

Some thoughts on Bergdahl

  • It is good that Bergdahl is no longer with the Taliban. He belongs to us.
  • Since the administration claims that they needed to move quickly due to Bergdahl's "deteriorating condition," a full, unredacted medical report must be issued, preferably to the public, but at a minimum to Congress.
  • If the administration lied about his medical condition and simply ignored the law for whatever purpose, then it clearly has less respect for the law than any previous Presidential administration-- including Nixon's. Not just for this matter, but for this on top of all of the other times they have treated the law as malleable or irrelevant.
  • A full military investigation needs to happen expeditiously.
  • If Bergdahl deserted, he needs to be subject to a court martial and punished as severely as allowed within the code, especially since men died searching for him.
  • If it is found that Bergdahl collaborated with the enemy, he should be executed. Honorable men died for him.

Edited to add:

She's right.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

On Memorial Day, A Way Look At Europe.

I am a Euroskeptic- in as far as it is being directed so far.

But the rise of the 'far right' in Europe worries me. While the press overseas tilts to the left (perhaps even further) than ours does, I don't catch them nearly as frequently conflating 'the right' with 'the far right,' in as far as saying the center-right is really no different. As such, I worry about these. What the media generally describe as 'far right' in Europe is ugly, whatever label is used for it. The rise of it is not cause for celebration. Sure, some policies may have pressure applied, but the risk is high.

It seems somehow appropriate to think of the unsavory recent history of Europe on this day. And learn from it.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Hypocrite

Via Instapundit:

The commander of the 341st Missile Wing at the time of the failed exercise, Col. Robert Stanley, fired the officer in charge of security. But Stanley himself was later forced to resign amid a scandal related to hundreds of missile officers cheating on exams, as 60 Minutes recently chronicled. Stanley maintained, though, that his officers had failed the drill by only a few seconds and that it was presented in a different way than usual.

Sounds like a reasonable enough defense: they came close to succeeding and they had been thrown a curveball.

But if that is a good defense, why did he fire the guy who was in charge of security?

Source link

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Udall Being Propped Up Completely By The Under 30s

This morning, Quinnipiac releases the second half of their writeup on their recent polling of Colorado. Topline numbers for the Senate race: Udall 45, Gardner 44.

The numbers are even worse than that suggests for Udall.

  • His lead is entirely due to those under the age of 30. He captures that cohort by 31 points!
  • That age cohort, though, really knows absolutely nothing about Gardner. 72% of then haven't heard enough about him to form an opinion. Only 12% view him unfavorably.
  • Udall trails among every other age cohort, with his biggest deficit coming among seniors (who happen to be the most reliable in terms of turning out). Gardner takes them by 8 points.
  • Udall's approval rating among age cohorts: 39% for those between 30-49 as well as those 65+. On the 50-64%, it's 42%. The under 29s? 50%.
  • On question after question, that age cohort has very high "DK/NA" or "Haven't heard enough" responses; this is a sign of a lack of engagement which to me further suggests potentially weak turnout. Naturally, that is "if the election happened today."
  • In the Presidential horserace questions, Clinton loses to Paul by 5 points, with the under 30s splitting evenly at 43%. I read this in conjunction with what I mention above to mean that the under 30s are not opposed to a Republican. They just don't want what I will call "the same old Republicans." Jeb Bush is the only GOP name tested in this survey with more than 25% unfavorable responses from the under 30s.

Those are some really ugly numbers there, and it may be time to start moving Colorado up on the list in terms of seats most likely to flip. Barring some significant improvement by Udall with those 30 and over (if these crosstabs truly capture the Colorado landscape), he is going to lose.

Other quick notes... The number one issue cited by respondents was Healthcare. Udall trails by 21 points among those citing that issue as their main one. Second is the economy. Udall trails by 13 points among those... Christie (tied) and Huckabee (down 1) are competitive versus Clinton, whereas old guard Jeb Bush loses by 5.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Structural Aspects of Mail-in (and Early) Voting for GOTV Efforts

The above is in reference to Oregon.

I have a theory. Let's leave aside the who (be it SIEU, or whoever) is involved in any structural advantage. The fruits of GOTV efforts result, in part, from the man-hours expended. There are a limited number of bodies available to throw at the task, so to increase the man-hours you extend the voting time window. The party that gets the most benefit from GOTV efforts therefore benefits more from extended windows.

Tied in with this, I believe GOTV efforts generally are more favorable to Democrats, due to the fact that urban areas, with their higher population densities, tend to favor them. Higher population densities mean less ground to cover for ground-level GOTV efforts, which makes them more efficient in those areas.