OCinBuffalo

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. Please explain the method you've used to determine variance in meaning between the posts. By all means, feel free to show your work. I have said the same thing 2 times now. Do you need a 3rd? That, and you have an awful understanding of what "the plan" was, starting with you thinking "the plan" was only about the military. The fact is that Reagan's plan included a comprehensive approach, and involved a wide range of people w/ widely different skill sets. The military was just one part, albeit a big part in terms of total $ spent, but that was due to the plan being shaped for, and directed at the mentality of the USSR. Military build-up was the tactic, not the strategy. And, massive waste in that build-up would undermine, not assist, the strategy. If you actually understood "the plan", because you actually were familiar with the material, you'd know that "the plan" could not have been predicated solely on military spending, for it's own sake. In fact, you'd also understand that military spending is the effect, not the cause. But you don't know any of this, because your conception of the entire thing...is based on stick figures drawn in crayon. It's always on my side. The only variable is time. How long will it take for people to familiarize themselves with the material, and realize that I'm right, or, for events to overtake them, and make it undeniable, and their past opinion irrelevant.

What motivation is there, for anyone, to be effective, never mind efficient or just showing up, if they know that they won't be rewarded properly for it, AND, that they won't be punished for being ineffective? I mean, have you been to the DMV? Yes, we have to have a DMV, and it has to be a collective. But, does it have to be a centrally-planned entity, run by the LCD? Are the current tactics, organizational structure and business processes of the DMV...the only way to do it? Sure we need to have collective entities...but that does not = there's only one way to do it. It certainly doesn't mean that we should lose our freedom to remove or modify that entity...because a political party wants to derive campaign funds and votes from it in perpetuity. In fact, "one-size-fits-all", and "only one way to do it"...are the most anti-American concepts there are. Did you miss the iPhone? What the big deal? We had a massive, pervasive platform in the Microsoft Mobile/.Net operating system for smart phones. Why didn't we just stick with that? It met all of the requirements. There was nothing wrong with it. Why didn't everybody just conform? After all, Microsoft people did the thinking, and many of them have multiple masters degrees. Why wasn't a small group of smart people doing the thinking for everybody no good enough? That OS/platform could have lasted 45 years...just like Medicare. Why did all these people want the freedom to do something else? Hehehehe. I see my intentional hook...got a fish. Man, if it was just a little easier...it wouldn't be as amusing, and not worth doing. It never fails to amaze me how often...in these long posts which are never read because they are too long...somebody picks out something in the middle of them to comment about. And, yeah, its purely an accident that I stick things like that in the middle. You know, it's funny, in my dealings, with now 56, Fortune 500 companies I've never met this nebulous entity whose name is "corporation". No. I've met this guy named Bob, right after meeting his assistant Mary. (Bob/Mary are far and away the most likely names I encounter...) Bob has a wife, kids, and a real set of problems, which Bob is asking me to help solve....because if they aren't, Bob ain't paying for his kid's college. Bob has a boss, or Bob is the boss, and Bob always has people that work for him, about which he almost always is genuinely concerned. He is concerned, because Bob made a series of promises, to both himself and his people, and the people that hired Bob, the board and shareholders, that he knows not only WTF he is doing, but, that he knows how the F to do it. Bob is usually worried about himself, sure, but not as much as he is worried about backing up those promises. He is loyal to his people, often to a fault, and genuinely pleased when they succeed. That's because...Bob is a person. A human being, who has human being dreams and fears. I meet a Bob about 80% of the time. There's an interesting book about liberals and cliches, and how cliches allow them to avoid thinking. I would argue, that it also means that they get to avoid talking to the real people, and replace them with the cliche: generals, officers, and soldiers in the military, and it certainly allows them to avoid talking to Bob. They wouldn't consider talking to Mary. After all Mary has no power, right? Power is what liberals care about, they just use Mary's "plight" to gain it. That's why they don't last long in my business. I buy Mary lunch once a week. Because she is also a person, in the corporation, who also has human being dreams and fears, and she has more power than you can possibly imagine...especially when it comes to scheduling meetings. The person in charge of the conference room schedule is no joke.

No. What you just wrote here is revisionist history. The facts are that Reagan did call in his senior flag officers and make it abundantly clear that he was about to spend a lot of $ on the military, but that it had to be run like a business, and that waste would get you fired. Any attempt to deviate from these facts by you, is by definition, "revision". Now, are you going to keep trying to tell us this didn't happen exactly the way I have described? (Please, please do it.... ) Yes, that awful black budget....that won the war in Afghanistan....and bankrupted the USSR, which won the damn cold war? You mean that black budget? The fact is that the wins for Reagan are now historical fact...and liberals don't like it. Because, going forward, every time a new foreign policy question arises, opposing Reagan...with buffoonery...hangs around their neck, and stinks to high heaven. Hence, the revisers of history most certainly are liberals. Why would a conservative/libertarian want to change a record of their ideas triumphing so soundly? Reagan spent a boatload of money on the military, covert, and overt, he both cut tax rates and closed loopholes, he fired up the entire country with optimism, and then backed it up with results....and it worked. We all won the cold war, because reasonable Democrats and Republicans worked together under Reagan's leadership. The far-left was put outside of the equation and ignored. All fact. Liberals look at a war(cold war), won, and refuse to admit they were completely wrong about it, strategically, tactically and operationally, 95% of the time. (Iran/Contra was one operation...how many operations like that were there in the Cold War? Were there 100s? Ks? 10K? Do you know enough to even be in the city, never mind the ballpark?) Instead, they try to tell us that 1 failed new DOD weapons system out of 50....means that there wasn't severe punishment for those involved, and that the other 49 don't exist. Hey Tgreg? Educate yourself: go and figure out the waste vs. effective systems, both in terms of total $ spent, and in terms of ratio. Right now, you are using a tired, old, proven inaccurate revision of history, and arguing against what, in your mind, is actually a stick-figure representation of reality. Let's see if you are as lazy as your candidate, or if you want to actually prepare yourself to debate this topic effectively. If you choose the former, you will get the same results here.

Yessssss...yesssss it's working, it's working.

Jesus....or....GG can come along and tip my hand. DC_Tom is #1 at scaring the fish away. GG and dev/null are distant 2nd and 3rd.

Not sure...you'd have to tell me what talk speaking is. ( If you gonna go for the shot...execution is everything. EDIT: I had something nasty here, but then, it wasn't = your mistake. Let's do a lacrosse analogy instead. Next time, make sure your feet are set, and your stick is vertical, before you shoot. Makes it harder to stop that way. Try again. Clown(I will keep this) ) Also...no amount of yelling at me...is going to make Nancy Pelosi less of a buffoon, or, make Democrat '= Idiot, every time she's on TV.

You don't know your history. Truth is absurd...to the ignorant. Now, you can go into all the histrionics you want. But, I am telling you: you don't know your history. Think about that for a second. Yeah...I do have it. Yeah...I will make you look like a fool with it. Yeah...it will be funny. Go ahead and call me. I've paid for whole weekends in AC off of clowns like you.

But they are not equivalent. Freedom is both the higher and the better idea, and here's why: Because we are free, I can form a corporation with friends. We agree to work as a collective, and share the profits equally, for now. Because we are free, we also could have given each guy a different share of the company, based on what they bring to it. Uh oh, trouble: one of my friends isn't holding up his end, but, we can't just kick him out. Because we are free, but also subject to the rule of law, we have to follow the law. If we do in fact --vote-- to approve a buy-out of my friend, we can boot him, but at least we send him on his way with his...real..."fair share". We can't just rip him off, because it's best for the collective. Similarly if the collective we've formed isn't working out, because we are free, we can dissolve it any time we want....or reorganize it, take on new people, etc. See? Corporations ARE people. Now, take everything I said....and in a collectivist society, turn it upside down. You aren't free, so you can't dissolve the collective and start over/modify it. That's because we are collective first, and free second, such as in Europe, or not free at all = Russia. Once a corporation is formed, and hires people, you can't fire them. The first people to get the shaft are always the shareholders, so unless you really have a good reason, there's no point in starting a new corporation. From the example above, I can't fire my buddy, and it's cost prohibitive for us to try to toss him out of the corporation. In fact that's the recurring theme in a collectivist, then free, society. It's not so much that you can't do things, as it is the process is sooo expensive, and the government has put in so many regulations, that you are prevented from doing them by default, because you run out of money, patience, or both. We can't dissolve corporations, or government entities without a massive national push to do so. But, the flip side of that = if there is a massive national push to do something stupid, since collective's "rights" are always valued over individual rights, that stupid thing will be done, no matter what. These LCD collectives...are no different than the Roman mob...or the French Revolution mob. No accountability and thinking only in base terms, appeals to the lowest common denominator(LCD, get it?). Therefore the mob is run by the LCD. As with the Ceasers....and liberal politicians of today...the mob is easily placated by handouts, because the mob, whose thinking is also LCD, is only concerned about today. Do you see the limitation here? Because we are free, for now, and much more so after Romney wins, our corporations have the ability to adapt, adjust and overcome competition, and other external challenges, as they present. The collectivist society will always lag behind in it's adaptability, if it can adapt at all: see Greece. The mob in Greece is making it impossible to do the right things right, in a timely fashion. The rights of the mob, because there are no individual rights, mean it's OK burn and loot, and destroy the country's financial future....because the LCD is in charge. And, the only people who will get elected...are those who promise the mob handouts. Freedom, if nothing else, keeps us safe from the LCD being in charge, of anything. Freedom is the superior approach, it's undeniable. See, the simple fact is: Americans of today are 200 years removed from the mob. Our founding fathers were 0 years removed from the mob, because all they had to do was visit Europe to find it. Thus, our founding fathers had a healthy respect for the danger of the mob and chose freedom as he best way to destroy that danger. Some people in this country, um, 30 year old college students = LCD, want to turn this country over to the mob. OWS is the mob. You got to see what the mob looks like. The choice as to whether to support them, or freedom, is up to you.

Well, let's consider that. I could respond with Al Franken for lots of things. How did Obamacare possibly get passed even after an R took Teddy Kennedy's seat? Response(it's like church): Al Franken. Why should we have voter ID laws in every single state? Response: Al Franken Al Franken is pretty much a Swiss Army knife response. I spelled it out above, as clear as can be. Again: what guarantees can you make to yourself, given the HYPOTHETICAL above...that you would be able to stick to what makes good radio...and not slide into what made Air America? You wouldn't succumb to the mean-spirited first, because you are looking to be political first, and leaving the entertainment value as an afterthought? I can see you as being Al. Tiny mallet in hand, hunched over, wailing on that stupid little bell, all bitter-face. "Damn people...damn ratings...I'm going to be funny...dammit"! Contrast: I've never seen a video of Limbaugh doing his show without a smile on his face for most of it. Al...couldn't help himself. So far, I haven't seen anything from you that makes me think you '= Al. As for me...when do I post anything without at least one ? That's not fake....I really spend almost every post with a smile on my face, too. No...I'm just trying to give you a complex. Next week, you'll be at work, hear something about a gay character and think of OCinBuffalo. Enjoy! Oh, your industry didn't romanticize Che, repeatedly? What would happen to me if I romanticized...(again proper use)Internet Explorer? Well, the first thing would be: all my people would quit. The fact that something like IE is allowed to exist in my profession, in any capacity, is something I work against every day, because it's shameful. You see a board game being turned into a preposterous movie, and laugh? Is this an example of "the art you work so hard to create"? Look, I'm not expecting every movie to be Godfather 2, but come on, why haven't we had anything even approaching that for so long? I respond with...Al Franken! (See its many uses?) I say you can't help yourselves. When you are more concerned about not offending people and injecting politically driven themes and characters...than entertaining them...(proper use of ellipses here)and inserting the regulation %s of tolerance and PC crap in every damn scene? You aren't doing art, you're doing compliance, no different than a banker. Forget new talent, better ideas, you need: a couple of compliance officers from Citigroup to come in. They can start with: do you have the correct # of minority, women, and disabled high school time travelers? What, you don't? See? You need those Citigroup guys. If that high school is in Iowa, and has 4 minorities total, out of 1600,(hell, suburbs of Buffalo could give you that too) does that mean at least one of them has to be a time traveler? Formulaic used to be the word...but now, since you put the politics first, Al? It's compliance. First, you don't like "Connect Four: The Movie"? I thought that was funny. And, I think that Monopoly thing has legs. Tell me evil, real, Monopoly or Die, wouldn't be a good movie. Hell it could be a game show. Slight change: make them run around Atlantic City, but, they start with the 2 million, everybody is made aware of that, and if they actually make it to the Boardwalk, they get to keep it, or whatever they have left. Community Chest indeed. Second, you are so right about the ellipses...I have no idea why, but this has been a thing recently. It's started to annoy me. Ass...now I am scrolling up looking for ... It's just laziness. It's always laziness with me. Or running out of time. Or being hammered. Or feeling pedantic. Or trolling people with long posts. Or...

"Millions of lunch-goers everywhere, are all on edge, thinking it's probably better not to start that inane conversation, and just eat their food quietly. This follows a massive restructuring of the TSA ....." So...why put her in charge of the House? Let her be a fundraiser/something else. Why in the hell do you want "idiot" being associated with "Democrat" in such a public way, every single time she opens her mouth? Or, do you like Biden? Look at this way: as soon as Gingrich became not even half the liability that Pelosi is, he was gone. If you won't do that, then you don't take the country seriously. Therefore, we have 0 reason to take you seriously. No amount of money, and not even an electorate that is majority Democrat....saves you from us not taking you seriously. Just ask Fauxchahontas...and then, ask Scott Brown. The majority of people....only care about Pelosi's batshit antics on TV. They don't need to know the details...they know batshit crazy when they see it. Why do I have to tell you what we all know, including you...but that you refuse to admit...for reasons passing understanding? Do you think that somehow you could make the Pelosi situation any worse by admitting it? No way. No friggn way. Just admit it and get it over with. You'll feel better, and gain some respect....starting with self-respect.

Yep, but 92 B = 2 million new teachers....destroyed Obama's 100k new math and science teacher thing. Made him look like a little fool. Also came in handy to contrast 2.whatever B for drilling. 92 B...for no jobs, and no real effect. Obama is lucky we don't tar and feather people anymore.

Still wrong. That's the first thing that came up with a simple search. Look..for reasons I can't remember, I ended up listening to lots of FDR speeches. He used "do nothing Congress" in them as a matter of course. I heard it at least 5 times, IIRC. He was constantly pounding the Republican Congress, that was elected to halt the New Deal and bring some sanity, with it. Truman merely took it...no different than Obama took "change" from Clinton. Give up? Or are you in the mood to read more FDR speeches? I assure you, I remember them, and I can find them. Yep. Perhaps that's why for the first time since the poll started, more people want single control of Congress today. We have serious problems, and I suppose more of us are willing to put aside the non-issues like abortion, and want them those problems addressed. If neither side is willing to work together, then we need to give one side power and empower them to get things solved. Now...which side do you want...the one whose leader will be Pelosi? Or Boehner? Every time I hear that Pelosi is a leader, of anything, I do a facepalm, thinking how the hell could anyone possibly think that giving Tip O'Neill's job to that assclown = keep control of the House? Dude...even if by some miracle, Dems got control of Congress again, it won't matter with the likes of Pelosi and Reid in charge. We know they will FAIL, and the Republicans will take it back again. Keep them as minority leaders...and you almost guarantee Republicans stay in charge. It's as simple as that.

This I believe the licensing on Elmo et al far surpassed PBS budgets nation wide. If not...the rest of it surely does. Never mind the corporate sponsorship that PBS currently enjoys. In a time where we are playing for the future of the country, I don't think asking PBS to find a way is too much to ask. Remember...I'm also the guy who wants us to stop forcing the military to buy shoddy equipment it doesn't need, and having to waste good soldiers on bad artillery...sailors on bad ships, etc. Also don't forget: Reagan increased spending on the military....but not before he called the entire cadre of flag officers into his office, and told them they had to run it like a business, and that waste would not be tolerated. The Bradley and the Osprey were the exceptions...not the rule. We deployed a buttload of new weapons systems in the 80s...and few failed. Because failure for Reagan = RIFfed. Or, fired. We saw the effectiveness of those systems = Gulf War. I may be wrong, but I don't see Romney deviating from his "should we borrow to get it" tenet...for anything. It's too easy of an opening for his opponents. He's simply not that dumb, and he knows whatever he does has to deliver...just like in a business. He's putting that standard on himself.

You are right...but things in Ohio don't look to be anywhere near as bad as advertised....or do I need to link you to my "poll", that has a sample size of 600k people?

If the Congress of 1932...could see the power that is wielded by this one? I don't think they could fathom it. However, I agree that the Czar system is a direct contravention of Congressional power....and that would should look to get rid of all of them...and reorganize our departments and agencies instead. Appointed Czars is a direct challenge to the Constitution. You may want to check out your history on that FDR thing. Here: http://www.ssa.gov/h...y/fdrstmts.html Truman is credited...wrongly. It was absolutely a phrase coined by FDR. Look, idiots abound, and one on them told you about Truman saying this...it's even on wiki . Just because Truman said it more often, or more prominently, doesn't mean he coined it. I didn't coin: "If you want something done right, put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite". With an 11% approval rating....I'd say this Congress has plenty to fear.

It's also rigged...to give itself more power. More than half the reason the budget/deficit/debt is what it is...is because in general...nobody wants to be part of the "do nothing Congress" ever since FDR called it that. So...they have to do "something"...even when nothing is the better choice. How many unintended consequences are we dealing with today...because "something" was done? More "oversight" is necessary...the more things you create. If you simplify the tax code, you also severely limit the power of Congress.. You do a flat tax/fair tax, whatever....you just took away 70% of Congress's ability to hold their constituencies hostage for campaign money. Hell a simplistic tax code would chase half of Congress out of the profession altogether...as it would no longer be profitable. How you do things as a Chicago Democrat...because we are all Democrats, and this is about maintaining the pecking order.... How you do things as a Massachusetts Republican...because every has their eye on you...and they can all take you out any time...especially the voters

Oh that's right...the media called the election and the debate 10 days ago = I have bunker with a water filtration system and those stupid Glenn Beck survival seeds...or whatever the F that was.(....and it would never be Glenlivet. Not ever.) Hmmm. I bet...you can find the logical fallacy you have deployed here...on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy I'll leave you to it....and then we will get to see you accuse everyone of using it all over this board for the next 50 posts. Which...will be funny...for me.

With Clinton....it helped that he was a successful 3? term(I know 2 for sure) Democratic gov...in a Republican state. Actually, I don't think that can be overstated. Romney may be garbage to you...but, he is garbage that got a lot done as a Republican...in THE Democratic state. In fact, I think any candidate should get a +5 for being able to get things done in a contentious State. I think it depends on the person...but...we should also be very wary of those who come from "machine" states....like Bush, Texas, and Obama, Illinois.

You would not be able to help yourself...the same way Al Franken...who had shown ability in doing comedy...for comedy's sake....not for the sake of politics...was unable to help himself. The funny part for me...is that you still don't seem to grasp this, what I would think would be simple, concept. I doubt you will now, even though I have spelled it out for you. More evidence...that you can't help yourself. Let us see....will you continue to prove me right with your next post? How about the one after that? Might be interesting to see how this plays out....might be yet another Evidence for why books seem to be doing OK....while the movie industry gets in deeper schit every day? I know...it's the damn Chinese...and not the quality of the work, right? Here's an idea: Stop making crap movies! If you're so fixated on inserting gay characters into movies...can we get the quality of "Dog Day Afternoon"...and not another remake of the 3 Musketeers..."This time...with a flamboyantly gay Dartanian!(As if, with that wardrobe...it would take a real actor to get that done)"? Or, how about one less "take this old story, make the bad guy the good guy, and the good guy the bad guy, and obtusely lay the blame for the entire plot...on Christianity". Ohhhh...compelling! "Yes, let's do Red Riding hood....with the Wolf being transgender, but oppressed by Christianity, so that's why he eats little girls, because he wants to be one". Now that's...motivation! I wonder...should we make a "good guy" Hitler-Goebbels buddy film, you know...those hilarious, rapscallion early years, when they were young? Why not? You don't bat an eye at romanticizing a scumbag like Che. So...should I book a flight to LA and prepare my pitches...or are you guys going to have better ideas than these by the end of the week? Wanna bet? You've done "Battleship"...really. So...when can we expect "Sorry"? You know, its a love story: the yellow piece loves the red...but keeps getting set back by the blue? How about "Connect Four: Red vs. Black...a story of the Buffalo Soldiers in the American West"? Look, you're the screen writer...there's got to be a way to work the game in. And...is that any better than: "Monopoly...a psychological thriller. Can they make it around the deranged old man's New Jersey playing field, and collect $2 million? Can you?"(of course...with the obligatory "capitalism sucks" message every 10 minutes). Hey...I dunno...it just comes out. EDIT: Everything in BOLD is mine...and I will be watching. Yeah...you're right. Still waiting for how one can be a hypocrite...in a hypothetical. But...should I only expect that from writer...and not a screen writer?

Perhaps...but the methods of achieving these are a lot different. So are the end results. I don't know about you, but I favor freedom and liberty....over Fascism and having every aspect of my life determined by some social science major, or a committee of them...who now works for the Fascist government OWS has installed, because that's the only job they are qualified to do. I mean...if you carry the stated methods and objectives of both groups to their conclusion....that's what you get. Just ask any OWS person(if you can find one)...and they will tell you that they will do...whatever "the committee" decides. Yeah...not Fascist at all. Then, ask a Tea Party member about freedom.

OWS is nowhere near = to the TEA Party, in any measure. The Tea Party is effective....OWS is defunct. Millions of Tea Party people, but it's nebulous and hard to put an exact # on, which is how they like it. 2k? of OWS people. Need I go on? No. OWS was a Democratic training mission for the "i have a graduate degree in living off government grants and teaching, and someday I aspire to be a 30-year old college student/political consultant/community organizer" people...financed by union/Hollywood $...and partially, not-so-subtly, run out of the Political Office of the WH. The Tea Party is run out of home offices, work computers, laptops in airports, and shared server space for $10 a month. Sure, big $ guys may give it money, but they do not run it. It was NEVER started by, nor is it driven by, the big $ guys. Everybody would quit otherwise. Best way to think of it: Tea Party people were going to show up at the meeting/rally anyway. Getting free pizza and a T-shirt once there...is just...nice. If you only knew how much the Tea Party has been up to....but you won't, not unless you go with them. I can't wait for the "Where did this ground game come from...in this state? WTF? Where did all these Tea Party people come from?" stories. The Tea Party doesn't want you to know, because they don't want Obama/media to know. They don't want their efforts exposed by the media, and potentially countered. All they want are the wins. They don't want the credit. Unlike OWS, this isn't how they make a living...they do that quite well on their own. They have no interest in a political career path, because they already have one. Thus, the TEA party IS and example of the "new party" you are talking about. OWS was a resume builder for future ACORN founders. -------------------------------------------------------- And, as far as your sig goes.....extending that logic means I get to spray paint your car. I do, because: if you drive to work every day on the same route as me...and I have to see your dopey bumper stickers every day, there's no way for me to avoid it. Hey, your logic = no regard for private or public property, if you are forced to see that property every day. Thus, the same goes for any signs in your yard/windows that I have to drive by on my way to the store. How about....a purple penis painted on your car, and a giant yellow vagina in your driveway/garage? No? But that's my artistic vision...and since it's my rock now, your logic says I have every right to rage against your machine...garage...lawn... Hey, it could be worse....I could paint a Rastafarian Mohammed on your car...and then you'd be in real trouble.

Do you REALLY want me to post EVERY single thing I have on this? OR, are you...by referring to Nate Silver( ) being sarcastic? If so, then you can deal with all the whining about the length of that post...I will blame it all on you. How about we start with something simple instead: https://docs.google....gxQ0F4OVE#gid=0 First, read the explanation at the top. Now, see? That's a sample of 648,755 of almost certain, never mind "likely" or "registered", voters....slightly more than a dubiously-sampled poll of 1000, isn't it? See the, now 8.5%(each time I look at it, it's different, has been as high as 11.5...low as 7%), swing away from Obama? See the ~196k missing votes(last time this was 151k)? Understand...there's nothing that says that these votes all can't be there next month. This is the first time this spreadsheet is being done, so there's no way to compare rate of "votes" at this point in time vs 2008. However, the trend in the data is obvious, and, as I said in the (), relatively consistent. And, before you say: yeah but Obama is still...stop...understand that Ohio Rs historically vote at the polling place more than Ds. Kerry had more requests than Bush, QED. This is also congruent with the decline in polling place registration of the top 3 Democratic counties in Ohio. In fact, their registration is down by double digits...one by 44%? Newsflash: I think that 44% is BS, also. Why? Because massive swings in these numbers, away from the historical norms, is BS, until somebody can show me sound data otherwise. No different than saying 2012 is a D +8-13 turnout election, and weighting your poll that way. In 2008, with a perfect storm of conditions...it was D +7. Do ANY of the conditions that created a D+7...exist for Obama today? No. Democratic Registration is down, because it's supposed to be down. We should expect it to be down. The only question: where is it down...and by how much?

Another thought....If you believe that Obama is a celebrity-driven, TMZ fan... If you buy the "self-image" thing about Obama...that we have heard, albeit, from ex-insider books, etc. Then: How much is Romney's "I have been in business 25 years, and I have no idea what you are talking about" line doing to that self-image Obama this morning? If we believe the first thing...then the second thing has to be in Obama's head today, doesn't it? If so, I'd be surprised if it doesn't stay in there for the duration. It wasn't a personal attack...so much as a..."Tax credits for moving jobs off-shore? WTF? You just don't know this stuff, do you"? Reminds me of talking economics...with someone who talks finance and marketing...and calls it economics.

But.... Expecting a D turnout = 2008, in 2012...is flawed. Especially when you consider that D registration is down...everywhere. Sooner or later...you all are going to have to own the fact that these polls were crap, and that I was right...60 days ago, when I first found the turnout problem in a Quin/NYT poll, long before anyone was saying anything about it. I certainly didn't get it from some media clown. (Remember when I wrote about baby boomer effect on elections, you liked it, and you asked me if I got that from somewhere? No. I do my own work.) And... Why would Democratic expectation that a PBS moderator would control the debate and try to shut down Romney...be flawed? Look: Romney even told old Jim that if elected, he was coming for them(PBS funding), even though he likes Jim and Big Bird. So, it's reasonable to expect Lehrer would have tried to help out...if he could have. The fact that Lehrer couldn't do anything was an effect...not a cause.

Any one else see the irony in...the widely recognized "first liberal"...bemoaning a small group of dominant men... .....while liberals currently support a small group of...well what would you call control over 1/6th of the economy by a board of unelected people, other than "dominant"...in Obamacare. Or, the EPA? Or, the DOE? Or, the IRS? Why is a small group of corporate "men"...worse than a small group of unelected government "men"? I mean...at least the corporate men have shareholders who can call a meeting and dump any of them, board or officers, or all of them, any time they want, especially if any of the 5+(for now) different government agencies that regulate business gets wind of anything that could even remotely effect the stock price, or the media does. Once appointed...how the hell do we extract ourselves from this board? Who is going to be doing the regulating in this thing? Answer: More government employees...whose only "stock" lies in making sure this board continues to expand the program's turf and control...with nothing and nobody having any real way to stop them? With anyone who tries being demagogued? You don't think? We need real solutions to SSI and Medicare...and how have Democrats responded? Would you define that response as "serious", "intellectual"....would you define it as "intellectual activity on par with Woodrow Wilson"? The first liberal has warned us....and now we have "too big to fail" banks in Dodd/Frank. But...that irony is probably too powerful...and too obvious...for the latter-day-liberal to handle. I'll do that one in the next post.