How Much Would It Hurt To Be Specific?

Just a quicky post linking to something from Yglesias' blog (link).  Here's the key quote:

To which I ask, if “the whole idea is to cut spending,” then why not propose spending cuts? It’s a lot easier to pass a budget than to pass a constitutional amendment. Surely, if a majority Americans are clamoring for “robust spending cuts” as DeMint claims, then the GOP would benefit in the midterms by proposing such cuts. Instead, the GOP either cannot or will not propose anything specific; rather, they continue to push for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy without any spending offsets. That really should end any serious consideration of what this balanced budget amendment is all about.

But the larger point here is that the Republican Party is refusing to detail an actual agenda in advance of the November elections. There are plenty of things a Speaker Boehner really might do if the GOP were to regain the House majority in the fall. But instead of talking about which of those things they’ll attempt, Republican leaders continue to play to their base with notions of ACA repeal and radical changes to the constitution that require 2/3 majorities and approval of 38 states. The answer of the pundit class seems to be to sort of laugh off this talk of amending the constitution since it “won’t happen” — to which the follow-up should be, what will happen if the GOP takes over Congress? Voters should probably hear the answer before going to the polls.

This fits in very nicely with my complete disdain for the Tea Party/GOP.  When pressed, the answer seems to be, "We'll figure out the spending cuts, so can I have my tax cut now, please?"  The weighty manner in which the government deficit is discussed is a front.  We'd see serious answers otherwise.  Why be specific and risk ideas being discussed, when my political position is improved by transparent pandering and fear-mongering.

As a side point;  I'm with Krugman, Klein, and Silver on how Ryan's blueprint is bogus, with the effect of spending cuts taken credit for but not showing the deficit worsening impact of his tax cuts.  But at least, Ryan is showing the government programs he wants to gut (Primarily Medicare).  A constitutional balanced budget amendment requiring a super-majority to pass a tax is not only fantasy land (And bad economics), it's also completely disingenuous.  But then again, what was I expecting?.

Ack... I may end up buying a subscription to the NYT

I really like the free internet.  All the free news and analysis that you can read.  Links to the best sources.  All that.  Reading about the paywalls being formed has made me worried.  Will I eventually have to pay for this great stuff I've been getting for free?  I mean it hasn't happened yet.  And usually when I run into a paywall (Like the WSJ), you can do a google search on the article's headline and get a free full version being posted by somebody else (I have no idea how they aren't getting sued for stealing content).

But remember that the NYT announced that they would have a pay wall (link).  Maybe they'll back down if Murdoch's own play fails (link).  Maybe not.

But, I can get my news from other sources, right?  Well, Krugman's blog is part of the NYT.  And now, so will Nate Silver's (link).  Yikes.  If all the best web content gets put behind paywalls, big content will have forced my hand.  Again.

(Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan)

UPDATE:  Nate has his own take on this change on his blog (link).   I'm disappointed to hear that his posts will reduce in frequency over the next 9-10 weeks during his transition.  However, it's good to hear that he'll be up and running by September, just about the time that political news junkies like myself will be going completely nuts.

Nate is fixated on Rasmussen. Good for him.

A few posts ago (link), I mentioned the 'house effect' on Rasmussen polls and even linked to Daily Kos' take (link) that its all part of a right-wing conspiracy (For the record, I don't buy it).  Since then there have been several blog posts by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com on Rasmussen and why their results are so odd.  Here's part of his latest (link) on the Wisconsin Senate Race:

But if we indeed take this result literally, it is pretty ridiculous. Johnson is good on the stump and has started to generate a lot of buzz among the conservative and tea-party intelligentsia. He has some upside potential -- and may well defeat Feingold in the end. But common sense would dictate the number of Wisconsinites (even "likely voters") who know who Ron Johnson is right now is closer to 6.8 percent than 68.

I've had a lot of criticisms for Rasmussen Reports over the past couple of weeks. Many of the problems their polls exhibit are common to other pollsters throughout the industry, if they seem to be a bit exacerbated in Rasmussen's case.

But the fact is that Rasmussen is the 500-pound gorilla in the room. They drive a lot of traffic and narrative. They account for something like 30 percent of all horse-race polls that have been released thus far this election cycle.

I love that Nate is drilling in on the pollsters and making them accountable for not only their accuracy, but also their methodology.  Polls very often make headlines and can be used to nudge people towards stronger views than they might have had without the headline.  Pollsters may even want to influence our opinions.  So, taking 'em down a notch is very worthwhile.  Their results should be called into question, especially when they don't make sense.  

Go Nate!

Here's The Logic Of That Little Tidbit

The other day, I posted that 28% of Republicans thought the oil spill in the gulf made them more likely to support offshore drilling.  Huh? What?

Well, Nate Silver come through with the logic:

At the same time, if you do give people an "illogical" response, sometimes they're going to pick it! This question was immediately preceded by one about support for offshore drilling overall. It may be that some of the respondents had an instinct to dig in their heels and wanted to appear consistent, using the question to reaffirm the support for offshore drilling that they'd already expressed. That is, saying that the spill makes you more likely to support offshore drilling may not literally be true but instead may mean something more along the lines of "you're damned right I support offshore drilling!".

It may also be that some people were confused by the question, or were not paying much attention to it. A lot of people might have taken PPP's call while ironing their clothes, or watching TV, or getting their kids ready for soccer practice. They might have been zoning out, and heard blah-blah-blah-blah oil spill blah-blah-blah-blah more, and thought it was the choice used to express that they had become more concerned -- not more supportive -- of offshore drilling. There is arguably some evidence of this in that the percentage of people selecting this response feel a bit off and do not always track underlying opinions about offshore drilling. For instance, 17 percent of liberals picked the "more likely" response, even though only 33 percent of them supported offshore drilling to begin with, and 29 percent of African-Americans did, even though just 44 percent of them support offshore drilling.