Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races

Keeping a close eye on developments in the 2008 U.S. Senate races

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Saturday Briefs

  • CNN's "Duh" Headline of the Day: "Numbers give Democrats edge in 2008 Senate races" Ummm, no kidding, CNN. At least the article makes the following accurate observation: "As of now, only one Democrat -- Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- appears to face a major fight."

  • Nebraska: Expect Jon Bruning to get very nasty against Mike Johanns in the 2008 Republican Senate primary. Very nasty.

  • New Hampshire: Odds are, if Sprintin' John Sununu is talking about Iraq, he is probably lying about his record.

  • Idaho: I get the feeling that Larry Craig wants to stick it out as long as he possibly can. Let's hope his court date on Wednesday goes well.

  • Colorado: Backwards Bob Schaffer's internal polling says that he is only two points behind Congressman Mark Udall if a Green Party candidate gets seven points. (Keep in mind that in neither the 2006 CO-Gov race nor the 2004 CO-Sen race did a third party candidate exceed 1% and even Ralph Nader only scored 5% in Colorado in his 2000 Presidential run and only 1% in his 2004 bid.) Schaffer continues to embarrass himself. That could be why Schaffer's Republican primary opposition, County Commissioner Wayne Wolf, continues to score positive local press.

  • A Nobel Prize-winning economist calculated that Bush's Iraq War is costing us $500,000 per minute.

  • 22 Comments:

    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    How is Schaffer embarassing himself by looking at the results of his poll? He said, "If". He didn't say he expected the Green candidate to get 7 points. And if you take the Green candidate out of the equation, Schaffer is only five points behind Udall.

    I know you're modus operandi is, no matter the situation, call Bob Schaffer "backwards" and "embarassing himself". But it might do you well to at least pace out those insults, instead of using them in literally every news story you cover in Colorado. Everytime you insult him, especially in cases like these where it's not really warranted, it just makes you look more and more partisan, and your "analysis" less and less reality-based.

    5:38 PM, September 22, 2007  
    Blogger JeremiahTheMessiah said...

    Well VA, I would respond by asking, which day did Bob Schaffer announce for US Senate?

    7:43 PM, September 22, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - I would pace myself on saying that Schaffer is embarrassing himself if Schaffer would pace himself on how often he made himself look bad.

    As for me looking "more and more partisan," according to you, it's an irrelevant standard because you're going to regard anything I post as "partisan cheerleading," a phrase you've included in your comments ad nauseum.

    Countless media outlets at this point have suggested that Republicans can expect to lose several Senate seats in 2008. Heck, Bob Novak himself put the expected GOP Senate losses at between five and eight seats. But if I suggest that Dems may pick up half a dozen seats and that several more may be competitive, well then that's just "partisan cheerleading," huh va blogger?

    If the reality of the situation favors the Democrats, then it's not "partisan cheerleading" to suggest that Dems will pick up seats - it's accurate observation.

    7:44 PM, September 22, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Partisan cheerleading aside, Bob Schaffer correctly citing his polling numbers in not embarassing, in any imaginable scenario. Is it likely that the Green candidate scores 7 points? No, but Schaffer didn't say that he would.

    What's really egregious about this particular case is that polling usually doesn't reflect what the final vote will be. In fact, that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to take a snapshot of the race at the moment, to allow the candidates to strategize from there. And at the moment, there are enough people, for whatever reason (but most likely due to not seriously thinking about the Senate race in 2007) who feel they would back the Green candidate. So talking about how third-party candidates don't get large vote totals is entirely irrelevent.

    It just boggles my mind how you can, with a straight face, take someone as innoculous as Schaffer accurately describing what the poll said and turn it into an attack on him. Its just simply incredible. If you can find something "embarassing" about Bob Schaffer saying something that's 100% correct, and something that you know is 100% correct, what wouldn't you find "embarassing" about anything he does?

    The reason I call you more and more partisan isn't because you think Democrats will pick up more than four seats this year; hell, Republican blogs are predicting the same thing. The reason I'm calling you "more and more partisan" is for crap like this right here. Its for your ability to take a newspaper article where Bob Schaffer tells the truth about what the polling numbers showed, and how you're able, no matter how weak the argument and no matter how shameless the attack, to find something, anything with which to criticize him. When you get to the point where you start lobbing partisan bombs on candidates when they simply read numbers from a piece of paper, you know that you've crossed the line from "analysis" to "ridiculous".

    8:47 PM, September 22, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - I have no doubt that Schaffer's poll said that the Green Party candidate got 7%. That's not what I find embarrassing for Schaffer; you're again (either intentionally or not) missing the point. What I find embarrassing for Schaffer is that, with no third party candidate breaking 1% in 2004 or 2006, for Schaffer's poll to indicate that the Green Party candidate is at a relatively whopping 7%, Schaffer's poll must likely be a pretty questionable indicator. Yeah, no kidding, a poll is a snapshot - and the last several election cycles indicate that Schaffer's snapshot could very well be wildly off the mark.

    And when you couple that with Schaffer's repeat did-he-or-didn't-he campaign announcements, his possible votes-for-contributions scandal (followed by his conspicuously skipping the state Board of Education's ethics discussion meeting), and the overreaction to Wayne Wolf's entry, Schaffer's campaign has repeatedly demonstrated that it's more than a little bush league. That's several embarrassing incidents in just a few months for Backwards Bob.

    All of that may just be "crap" to you, but I find it interesting and rather telling. (And if so much of what I post is "partisan cheerleading" and "crap", why do you continue to read the blog several times a day?)

    11:51 PM, September 22, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Really, now? Any poll that has a third-party candidate at more than what they have historically garnered is now wildly off the mark? Are you really willing to stand by that standard, or are you just making it up off the top of your head to defend your incomprehensible "analysis"?

    No one is disputing that the Green Party candidate is unlikely to gain 7% of the vote in November 2008. But what you're labelling as "embarassing" is Bob Schaffer reading accurately the poll results that were found. If you find the poll results questionable, then by all means, scrutinize them. But to say that someone is "embarassing" by simply reading numbers off a sheet ridiculous, and indicative of how low you'll stoop to find anything negative about anyone with an (R) next to their name.

    However, what's more inane is to take everything that Bob Schaffer does and lump it in with the same one-sided analysis that you have done for the last three months. In your eyes, all Bob Schaffer has done is make a fool out of himself. But no one who isn't a rabid partisan as you are feels the same way. Take a look at Chris Cillizza. He had a sit-down interview with Schaffer just recently (an event which you failed to cover, for whatever reason), and he found Schaffer to be a very capable candidate.

    I fail to see how you find Schaffer's accurate reading of poll results to be "telling". What is it telling of, exactly? According to you, its telling how he's "backwards" and "embarassing", but for what exact reason? As far as I can tell, there's no reason for criticism on this news story other than the fact that he's a Republican.

    And the reason why I continue to read this blog is 1) there's no other viable alternative (as much as it pains me to see that you are the only one focusing solely on the Senate races), and 2) because sites like MyDD, against their better judgement, have invited you to post your partisan cheerleading on their site every week. I wonder if you'll be so brazen to post such an inane comment this Sunday about Bob Schaffer.

    3:10 AM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - I'll repeat myself and, I guess, use smaller words (uh oh - derision!):

    It's not embarrassing for Schaffer to "read numbers off a piece of paper" or however it is that you keep framing it. What is embarrassing, again, is that Schaffer's poll (the text of which I could not find anywhere... hmmm... I'd love to scrutinize the methodology but it appears unavailable...) would result in such unlikely dynamics as to call into question the very reliability and accuracy of the poll. Yeah, given repeated historical precedents of Green Party and other third Party candidates not breaking 1%, for the Green Party candidate to score 7%, that would call into question the accuracy of the poll. Schaffer could quash that by releasing the entirety of the poll with questions asked, etc. We'll see if he does.

    And do you think it was a shrewd campaign move by Schaffer to announce and then take it back and then announce again and then months later respond to a reporter's question with "if I announce for the Senate next year" calling into question whether or not he thinks he's actually a candidate? Do you think Schaffer effectively handled the brouhaha over the possibility of his having traded votes on the state Board of Education for campaign contributions? I'm not making these things up, va blogger. They actually happened, and, yeah, they make Schaffer look foolish at best, corrupt at worst.

    As for not posting about Schaffer's interview with Cillizza at WaPo's The Fix, I was doing Schaffer a favor! Did you watch that interview? He looked incoherent and was essentially making the case for Democrats! What great insights from Schaffer did I miss?

    Schaffer was basically asked two questions.

    1) Why did you take a while to get in in 2008, instead of getting in right away in 2004? Schaffer's rambling answer included the brilliant note that in 2004, Republicans had the luxury of being able to wage a "divisive" (his word) primary and still win -- only, quick history lesson for Schaffer, the CO-GOP didn't win the Senate race in '04.

    2) Why are Democrats doing better lately in Colorado and how can Republicans get CO back in the GOP column? Schaffer's answer is even better than the previous answer because he's basically laying out how strong the Democratic platform is. He's saying that since guys like Bill Ritter and the Salazars are pro-economic growth and pro-agriculturee etc., they're representing "Republican values" and "conservative themes". Very insightful. Basically Schaffer is saying that voters responded better to how Democrats implement economic growth better than Republicans. He's spending half the interview making the case for Democrats!

    I thought I was doing Schaffer a favor by not highlighting this interview. What deep insights on the race did I miss? The last forty second of the interview video laced with baseless ad hominem attacks against Udall? Seriously, what deep insights did I miss from Schaffer?

    And then in the text below the interview video, there are whoppers like Schaffer saying Bush's Iraq Surge was "probably" the right thing to do. Probably? Does Schaffer need more information to say definitively whether the Surge was good or bad? Is he hedging? Maybe the top issue to debate and he can't be definitive.

    9:58 AM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    So your problem isn't with Bob Schaffer, its with the poll results. You would find anybody "embarassing" if they were reading them, whether its Bob Schaffer or Keith Olbermann, right? And you would find any news outlet "embarassing" for reporting the poll, right?

    The fact is that you're changing your story yet again to defend your ridiculous assertion. No, the results of the poll aren't "questionable". Why did the Green Party candidate get 7% of the vote, which historically over-performs their previous outings? Because the election is still 14 months away, and people haven't dedicated themselves to either Schaffer or Udall, and therefore are more willing to say that they support a third-party. That doesn't just happen in Colorado, that happens everywhere. While the fact that the poll was commissioned by Schaffer's campaign indicates that its possible the poll was weighted in his favor, the performance of the Green Party candidate doesn't call into question the accuracy of his poll. You are the only person who believes it does, and given your track record of accepting any poll that is favorable to Democrats and "calling into question" any poll that is favorable to Republicans (see: NC, KY, OR, NH, et al.), its not a particularly convincing argument. You come across as a whiny "sore loser" who can't accept the possibility that Mark Udall isn't a slam-dunk candidate, despite the fact that Colorado is a purple state with a Republican registration edge and the seat is open. Even if (and there's no guarantee) Colorado turns out like Minnesota did in 2006, polls this far out still had Klobuchar and Kennedy neck-and-neck. (Speaking of Minnesota, 6 polls showed the third-party candidate, who recieved only 3% of the vote, getting 4% or more in pre-election polling. I guess that "calls into question" their reliability, right?)

    So because there's no legitimate reason to believe Schaffer's poll is unreliable (after all, its not like its a PPP poll), and because its not unusual for third-party candidates to over-perform in pre-election polling this far out, there's nothing to "quash" by releasing the text of the poll.

    Try as you might, I'm not referencing the rest of Schaffer's campaign. I'm talking about this specific instance. And your pathetic excuse for not posting the Fix interview is utterly laughable. You really expect people to believe you were "doing Schaffer a favor"? Given your propensity for treating materials as dubious as Daily Kos diaries as front-page news, it seems odd that you would completely neglect to post an exclusive interview by a respected political source with a Senate candidate. Then again, its not the first time you completely ignored a development in the Senate races that wasn't favorable to Democrats. The NRSC launched www.DontMarkWarner.com, apparently right under your nose, despite the fact it was reporting on several blogs and political newspapers.

    One might even think, what with your pattern of blindly accepting any poll that is favorable to Democrats and "calling into question" any poll that is favorable to Republicans, and completely ignoring stories that show Republicans in a favorable light while posting the most inane stories that are negative against Republicans, that your so-called "coverage" of the Senate races are hopelessly and overwhelmingly tilted to one side, and are far, far from objective or analytical.

    11:23 AM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    "So your problem isn't with Bob Schaffer, its with the poll results. You would find anybody "embarassing" if they were reading them, whether its Bob Schaffer or Keith Olbermann, right?"

    va blogger, it's not the physical act of reading poll results that I find "embarrassing" - why can't you accept or understand that? It's that Schaffer would have his camp conduct a poll that would lead to such questionable results. Do you get the difference? Seriously, do you get the difference?

    And, I asked in my last comment, what deep insights from Schaffer did I miss in the interview with Cillizza? What did he say that was so insightful or noteworthy that I missed? Please share it with us because it is clearly lost on me. Seriously - in your next comment please list Schaffer's new insights revealed in that interview that make it so newsworthy.

    va blogger, I post stuff I find interesting. There are countless campaign events and interviews with Democratic candidates that I don't link to because it doesn't add anything new. In Oregon, Merkley and Novick have both kicked off statewide tours. In Minnesota, profiles of Franken have been done in recent weeks in the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. But it doesn't seem to me to add much new insight, so I don't link to it. Candidate X holds campaign event or fundraiser - ok, so what? So don't act like my leaving out something from a Republican is a giant slight. And DontMarkWarner.com obviously misrepresents the Warner record so I won't give it the time of day.

    You said that you read this blog because "there's no other viable alternative." Clarify - there's no other viable alternative for what? What value does this blog add for you?

    11:57 AM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger demomoke said...

    The reason Schaffer looks like an idiot here is because he actually believes that this poll is true!

    Hell, the poll wouldn't be any less "true" in VA blogger's sense of the word if Schaffer's campaign had publicized a poll saying he'd win a five-way race with Udall, a Green, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny! Just because he's reading it off a piece of paper doesn't make it true.

    It doesn't make Schaffer look any smarter when he makes claims based on equally fanciful statements like "I'm close IF a Green gets 7% of the vote," conveniently omitting the high probability of a Green not coming close to that.

    12:23 PM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Mokey-- that's a bit ridiculous. First of all, there's no way to be sure that the Green candidate won't actually get 7%. While we find it unlikely, its certainly within the realm of possibility, and to be truthful, it wouldn't be neccesarily all that shocking if it did turn out to be true on Election Day. Calling it "fanciful" or comparing it to a made-up five way race is very over-the-top.

    S2G-- Where was this "hard-hitting" "analysis" when the poll was first released? Its now two weeks later, and you're just now calling the results of the poll "embarassing"? That's why I interpreted your post as saying that his comments were the target of your "insult".

    But more than that, there is simply no legitimate reason to find the results questionable. Especially given your track record on this issue, where you blindly accept PPP's results, and even find their results to be more reliable than other polling firms, where you, without even seeing any evidence of it, blindly accept Chuck Schumer's word that his polling shows Jeff Merkeley within single-digits of Gordon Smith or Ben Chandler beating Mitch McConnell. Where was your never-ending skepticism then?

    Let's face the facts here. The ONLY reason you find the results of the poll "questionable" are because you don't like the results. There is an angle to play, one which I happen to agree with, that because the poll was commissioned by Schaffer, that it was perhaps weighted in his favor. But you've made it clear that you accept partisan polling as completely accurate when Democrats do it, so while that is a legitimate argument, you unfortunately can't make it.

    This ruse of trying to say that the 7% (nevermind the 4% MoE) for the Green Party invalidates the results, even after I just explained to you, clear as day, why that would happen, and gave you specific examples from other races that prove my point, just doesn't hold any water. Stop your weak attempts at defending your ridiculous argument, and just come clean with the fact that you don't like the results of the poll, and that's the sole reason why you find the results questionable.

    1:26 PM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - once again, please stop misrepresenting the facts.

    "But more than that, there is simply no legitimate reason to find the results questionable."

    Yes there is legitimate reason. No third party in CO in '04 or '06 broke 1% and Schaffer's numbers have the Green Party at 7%. That is a reason. Deal with it.

    "where you blindly accept PPP's results, and even find their results to be more reliable than other polling firms"

    In North Carolina, PPP's approval #'s for Dole aren't too different from Survey USA's approval #'s for Dole. Dole's numbers appear to be the great outlier. Now why would that be? I wonder if Dole has an interest in inflating her own approval numbers.

    Now, I'll ask a third time, since you've dodged the question twice. Since you've accused me of omitting items about Republican candidates and cited the Cillizza interview with Schaffer, tell us what great, new or unique insights did Schaffer reveal in his interview with Cillizza that made the interview so worthy of being highlighted. Please share with us.

    2:34 PM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    You're intentionally being obtuse.

    1) The election is 14 months out. People, not having made up their minds yet and not really seeing any campaigning in the state, are more willing to say they'd vote for a third-party than they are closer to Election Day. Once Udall and Schaffer start locking up support, you'll see the number decrease.

    2) This happens in just about every race where there is a third-party.

    3) Furthermore, though looking at past elections can tell part of the story, there's no way you can be certain that the Green Party candidate won't perform better than other candidates did in '04 and '06.

    4) With a MoE of 4%, that number could easily be lower than it says in the poll.

    5) I've given you several specific examples of this happening in other races. In Minnesota, the IPM candidate got 3% in the election. Six polls, from Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, the Univeristy of Minnesota, and the M-SP Star Tribune polled him at 4% or higher. Are these polling firms "questionable"? Using your selective and inane standard, yes.

    In Arizona, the Libertarian candidate got 3.2% in the election. Three polls, from SurveyUSA and Zimmerman Research, polled him at higher than that pre-election.

    In Maryland, the Green Party candidate got 1.5%. SurveyUSA and the Baltimore Sun put out three polls that polled him higher than that.

    In Missouri, a Rueters/Zogby poll put the Libertarian candidate at 6%. He ended up with 2.2%

    In Washington, a SurveyUSA poll in August 2006 put the three third-party candidates at a combined 9 points. Collectively, they recieved only 3% of the vote.

    Simply put, showing a third-party candidate with a higher total than they may recieve in the general election does not mean that the poll or the pollster is questionable. You either don't know enough about polling, or you do and are ignoring it in order to continue your ridiculous argument, but either way, the fact remains that the only reason you don't like the poll is because of the results it shows.

    Deal with it.

    In North Carolina, SurveyUSA hasn't done a poll in over 10 months. Almost an entire year has gone by since they polled Dole? Why oh why do you continue to bring up significantly outdated polling to defend the results of a partisan polling firm? I've conceded that Dole's approval ratings are likely inflated in her internal numbers. I've said it from the beginning, and I've never said anything otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that PPP is a partisan outfit who seems to have an interest in defeating Dole, and whose methodology has been proven to be unsound. Attacking Dole's polling doesn't exonerate PPP.

    I found Schaffer's interview to be interesting, and Cillizza's recap doesn't make him out to be either "backwards" or "embarassing". Perhaps that's the reason you didn't include it?

    And can you point to something in particular on the NRSC's site that "misrepresents" Mark Warner's record? If you're going to call them liars, at least have something to back it up with. I've lived in Virginia all of my life, including when Warner was Governor. Everything I've seen on the site looks accurate, especially the parts where they explicitly cite their sources. I understand that, since you're not a Virginian, you don't know much about Mark Warner's term as Governor, and since he's a Democrat, you automatically believe everything that's good about him and don't believe anything that's bad about him. Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works.

    3:22 PM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - you have yet to offer an answer to either of my two questions (which I'll repeat AGAIN at the end of this comment), but I'll indulge you with your question.

    First, I'll point out, much to your chagrin, that I had the pleasure of voting for Mark Warner for Governor in 2001 as a resident of and registered voter in Virginia. So, knock off the ongoing condescension. You're misinformed and misguided and flat-out wrong about so much, not the least of which is my residential history.

    As for the DontMarkWarner website:

    1) The ham-handed "Warner Liberal Facts" section blatantly misleads about Warner's record. One such "Fact" says:

    "In 2002, Gov. Mark Warner vetoed legislation banning 'partial birth abortion'. Then, in 2006, Presidential Candidate Warner claimed he favored 'restrictions on late term abortions.'"

    To solely point out that he vetoed a piece of legislation without saying WHY he vetoed it MISLEADS voters. He vetoed the particular bill in question solely because IT DID NOT MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. As Warner's press release clearly lays out:

    "as I have said consistently, I am opposed to all post-viability abortions - except to protect the mother's life or her health - and I would sign a bill banning this troubling and rarely-used procedure, if the bill contained such an exception as required under the Constitution."

    To use this veto as an example of Mark Warner not supporting 'restrictions on late-term abortions' is intentionally misleading. (And I'd doubly note that none of these "Facts" include citations to their sources, not that you have a problem with that, so long as it casts aspersions on a Democrat.)

    2) There's also a section on the site named (again in awfully ham-handed fashion) "Mark's Liberal Agenda in the News" with some fairly loaded headlines like "We Can't Afford Mark Warner" and "Mark Warner's Haunting Record". The phrase "in the News" would suggest that the headlines and links go to actual news outlets. In fact, they link to conservative opinion blogs, not actual news outlets. To present it as "in the News" is obviously an intentional misrepresentation.

    So, yeah, I put no stock in the NRSC's hacky hit-site, and I won't help promote their intentional misrepresentations of Mark Warner's record.

    Now I'll repeat two questions that have gone un-answered by you:

    1) Since you've accused me of omitting items about Republican candidates and cited the Cillizza interview with Schaffer, tell us what great, new or unique insights did Schaffer reveal in his interview with Cillizza that made the interview so worthy of being highlighted. Please share with us. (Note: I didn't ask if you found it interesting - I asked what new insights made it worthy of mention. Again, please list these insights.)

    2) You said that you read this blog because "there's no other viable alternative." Clarify - there's no other viable alternative for what? What value does this blog add for you?

    6:25 PM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Thank you for conceding that Schaffer's poll is legitimate, and that your complaints about it were nothing more than partisan whining.

    In reference to the first point, please find out the factual inaccuracy in the NRSC's statement. Did Mark Warner veto the legislation? Yes or no? Since you already confirmed that the answer is yes, what about the NRSC's fact is inaccurate? It states, correctly, that Mark Warner vetoed the legislation, then it states, correctly, what he said later on. You just confirmed that everything it said is true, so where is the misrepresentation?

    2) If you'd bother to read the blogs (funny, you've never had a trouble treating liberal blog diaries as newsworthy items), you'd find that all of them extensively reference their posts. In fact, the Virginia VirtualCon blog incorporates the relevent news stories into the post itself. Its not "ham-handed" to post to a story that accurately reports then cites news relevent to Mark Warner. I'm sure they could re-create it if they wanted to, but that seems a bit silly.

    That makes you 0-2. And we haven't touched upon the biggest fact that the NRSC presents (which both of the blogs that you outright dismissed bring up), which is that Mark Warner repeatedly and vehemently denied that he would raise taxes, making it one of the central campaign promises when he went around currying favor in traditionally conservative areas, then in office drafted and passed the largest tax increase in state history. Not only that, but he put the tax increase up for referendum to the people, who rejected it. Then he coaxed the General Assembly to pass it, despite the people's objections. Breaking a central campaign promise then passing a tax increase behind the backs of the voters is something you can guarantee will be talked about. And you can also guarantee it won't be so easy for Warner this time around to lie to Virginians about what his intentions are if elected.

    1) I find Cillizza's impression of him to be an insight, given that I have never seen Bob Schaffer before or heard him speak. All I've seen are news articles and election results. The interivew, and Cillizza's take of him, contrast the notion that he's either "backwards" or "embarassing". It must be why you ignored it.

    2) I've said it before; no other blog I've found focuses exclusively on Senate races and catologues the various stories daily. Of course, I read the Hotline every day, and they are readily on top of the news, but they don't cover everything. You don't either (obviously), but the site covers a lot. Now, if only most of your stories weren't helplessly biased and drenched in misleading "analysis".

    9:16 PM, September 23, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    "Thank you for conceding that Schaffer's poll is legitimate, and that your complaints about it were nothing more than partisan whining." Ummm... who said what now? Are you dreaming? I reached my boiling point on this presenting a very clear comparison that you refuse to accept. You happily compare a Maryland race to a Colorado race, but can't see the value in comparing a 2004 and 2006 Colorado race to a 2008 Colorado race. So, on this, I toss my hands in the air. You want to keep intentionally missing the point to prolong an argument, I won't indulge you any further.

    As for the anti-Mark Warner site, I said that the site misrepresents Warner's record, and you then asked for examples of misrepresentation. I gave you examples of misrepresentation, and then your request for examples of "misrepresentation" mutated into "factual inaccuracy." Yeah, he vetoed the legislation. And, yeah, the GOP hack site still misrepresents his record. He explained why he vetoed the bill, and it does not undermine his support for late-term abortion even though the NRSC is deceptively offering it up as such. It was solely because the bill did not make an exception for the life of the mother. Had the bill included the exception for the life of the mother, he would have signed the bill.

    If you want to argue that this is somehow not a misrepresentation, then one can say that almost every Republican in the Senate opposes funding the troops in Iraq or that just about every Republican supports verbal attacks on American soldiers and veterans or that every Republican Virginia state legislator who supported the bill that Warner vetoed effectively supports letting mothers die at childbirth. Are you sure you want to be that intellectually dishonest, va blogger - that would be a new low, even for you.

    "(funny, you've never had a trouble treating liberal blog diaries as newsworthy items)" va blogger, what on earth do you mean by this? I'm not the editor of a newspaper. I post on stuff that I find interesting. End of story. If I find a blog post interesting enough, I mention it. I hardly have time to read all 86 bajillion blogs out there. Seriously, get a life, man.

    As for the conservative blog's content, that's not germane. What is germane is that the NRSC's hack site refers to the blog posts as "News" instead of "Opinion" or "Blogs" or whatever, in an attempt to convince cursory readers that these loaded headlines come from newspapers, which, again, is a misrepresentation, plain and simple.

    And Cillizza offers no impression of Schaffer whatsoever. Cillizza is entirely neutral, presenting information, not his personal impressions. So what information was so interesting? That Schaffer could simply manage to get an interview with Cillizza?

    "no other blog I've found focuses exclusively on Senate races and catologues the various stories daily... the site covers a lot." va blogger, you're very welcome for the valuable service I provide you. Please, the display of gratitude is just too much!

    12:21 AM, September 24, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Please be clear, I don't owe you anything.

    I didn't say that there was no value in looking at previous Colorado races. In fact, I said exactly:

    3) Furthermore, though looking at past elections can tell part of the story, there's no way you can be certain that the Green Party candidate won't perform better than other candidates did in '04 and '06.

    My point in bring up all of those races, however, was not for comparison. It was to show you that many, many polling firms show third-party candidates overperforming. That is the ENTIRE basis for your disapproval with the poll, so you claim. Then I show you several clear examples of respectible polling firms that have done the exact same thing, and you ignore it. Since I thoroughly disproved your improvised and ill-guided standard, the only reason that remains for you to dislike the poll is its results.

    In the face of such overwhelming evidence, you simply gave up. I consider that a concession.

    Please reconcile:

    I post on stuff that I find interesting. End of story.

    with:

    Note: I didn't ask if you found it interesting - I asked what new insights made it worthy of mention.

    Which is the standard for your site? What you find interesting, or what "new insights" each individual story provides. Its not exactly clear when you contradict yourself.

    However, I do think the content of the blogs is entirely germane. You look at the "In the news" section, and you click and link, and you find two things: One, they are clearly blogs, and two, each blog post extensively incorporates and cites news articles. Furthermore, you are the last one to complain about a point being "germane"; this argument started as a discussion about polling, and you're trying to bring up Bob Schaffer's campaign announcement, which had nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

    8:31 AM, September 24, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    I think va blogger has officially become unhinged at this point.

    va blogger - The standard for my blog is what I find interesting, not what you find interesting. If you want to discuss what you find interesting, start a blog. I asked what was so insightful about the Schaffer interview, what new revelations came out from it, that omitting it was so wrong, and you provided me with nothing.

    You've pretty much gone off the deep end, so I'm done with this string.

    11:14 AM, September 24, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    You have the lowest standard for labelling people as "unhinged", ever. Conspicuously, you only seem to use this label for people who a) you disagree with, and b) prove you wrong.

    12:10 PM, September 24, 2007  
    Blogger Matthew said...

    Actually, according to Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, who writes The Fix (what I consider the most accurate Senate forecasting blog on the Internet), Schaffer has immproved his position, Guru... he's at #3 on The Line... Mark Warner is now the most likely winner... having said that, all I would do here is show the donations that Schaffer has received from George W. Bush and if I found any pictures of Bush with Schaffer, I'd like full page ads with them both (like Franken did in Minnesota)... and Schaffer wouldn't be able to recover.... I'm sure Chuck Schumer will be able to come up the goods on this front... and if we pound away at the fact that we need 60 votes to change policy, then Schaffer will move back up to the most vulnerable spot on the line.

    11:16 PM, September 24, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    matthew - Colorado dropped to #3 on The Line not because Schaffer is doing better but because Mark Warner's entry in Virginia and Jeanne Shaheen's entry in New Hampshire rocket those states up the list.

    9:14 AM, September 25, 2007  
    Blogger Matthew said...

    I agree with you, Guru... there are degrees of "better" I guess... I, in no way, wanted to imply that Schaffer was doing "better"... Mark Warner and Shaheen were recruiting wins, for sure.

    8:24 PM, September 25, 2007  

    Post a Comment

    << Home