In January, the website EconStories released the first epic rap battle between Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes.

At The Economist Buttonwood Gathering, the two met again live on stage.

Video below the jump. more...

Posted by: Slublog at 10:52 AM | Comments (55)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Come on, you knew this post was coming. It's been a decent interval but let us get it over with and move on.

I put the video below the fold because sometimes CNN vids are a pain to load and slow the site down. Take a look at it and then let's discuss.

The most glaringly stupid thing about her making the disunity excuse is that she ran as a write-in candidate two years ago after losing the primary. I really don't want to hear about a lack of unity from a person who demands it but never gets around to giving it.

Yes, according to exit polls she did come close to matching Coons in independents (she ran 3 points behind him) but close isn't good enough in a state where Democrats are an overwhelmingly large part of the electorate.

Look at how voters identified themselves by ideology...23% liberal, 66% moderate, 17% conservative. Coons cleaned up with liberals and moderates winning those groups 88 and 66 percent respectively. Do you really think those two groups were simply waiting for the ok from Karl Rove and John Cornyn to vote for O'Donnell?

If only there were some way to test the theory that liberal Democrats are popular in Delaware and that it hand nothing to do with Karl Rove giving a 'true' conservative the stink eye....Oh wait! There is.

Let's look at the House race which covers the same territory in Delaware.

The Democrat won that race 57-41. Now let's check the Coons/O'Donnell race margin..hey look! Coons won 56-40! The only logical question is, why does Karl Rove hate Glen Urquhart?

You can compare the Senate exit polls on party and ideological breakdowns with the House ones and they are essentially the same.

Karl Rove and the NRSC had nothing to do with O'Donnell's defeat. In fact, as bad of a candidate as I think O'Donnell is, she had little to do with her defeat. It's a deeply blue state that actually likes liberals. We had a chance to get a moderate-liberal Republican and passed on it. To me, that was tactically stupid. Yes, Castle would have been a pain in the ass but not as big a one when there were 47 or 48 Republicans in the Senate. The power of the moderates is when they are all the deciding vote, add a cushion and they are manageable. Personally, I would have liked to have had another no vote on HCR in the Senate but others didn't think that was important enough.

In a state like Delaware, the universe of voters for a candidate like O'Donnell is simply not enough to win. If you are looking for a candidate to make national conservatives feel good, she was awesome. Alas, only people in Delaware could vote. You either accept you are going to get a squish like Castle in a place like Delaware and take what benefit you can get from them or you consign the Republican to irrelevancy in a number of states.

Here's what really bothers me about this race and people's positions on it...every party and movement is going to nominate a stinker every now and then. It happens. Usually though you just politely turn away and ignore them. In this case a lot of folks not only didn't want to ignore O'Donnell (that was RINOism!) but embraced and promoted her.

That was a mistake, not because of what it meant in Delaware (a lost cause without Castle on the ballot) but what it means nationally. O'Donnell was a lousy candidate. She had a sketchy personal story, no record of achievement before coming to the race and no real ability to further the conservative message. We spent a lot of money and time on a candidate that had no shot. If you were a Democrat and wanted to hurt conservatives or the tea party by making someone the face of those groups, you'd pick Christine O'Donnell. The fact that a lot of conservatives willingly did that is simply an unforced error we should not repeat.

Added: Something I forgot but saw mentioned in the comments...the exit polls showed Coons beating Castle 44-43. I have to say that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. First, it's a hypothetical that ignores what happened for the last 6 weeks. The race obviously got a lot more attention with O'Donnell, how many Democrats came out to vote against her that might have stayed home otherwise? How many more conservatives came out for her that hated Castle? Obama, Biden and the DNC don't show up with Castle as the Republican (they didn't go because they were worried, they did it to raise O'Donnell's profile nationally and in PA to hurt Republicans). You can't assume the electorate that showed up and answered that question is the one that would have showed up had Castle won the primary.

Here's the O'Donnell interview on CNN: more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:28 AM | Comments (1304)
Post contains 845 words, total size 6 kb.

The oh so fun Connecticut race isn't the only one that has yet to be decided. A partial roundup of the races that are too close to call:

--In North Carolina, Bob "The Washington Strangler" Etheridge is talking recount and is mumbling something about election irregularities without offering evidence. Here's the funny thing, though. After the state "refined" the votes, Ellmer's lead fell by 453, which conveniently puts the margin separating them into automatic recount territory. I'm not saying there's funny business going on, but it's just so...oh, I don't know...interesting that ballots found after an initial vote always seem to benefit the Democrat. Just saying, you know?

--In NY-25, the GOP candidate has just taken the lead.

--The Senate races in Alaska and Washington state are going to be multi-day (or week) count-a-thons. I'm a little nervous for Rossi, since that state's Democratic party has a history of finding ballots in close races.

--New York residents still don't know which party will control the State Senate. And they may not know for weeks.

--And finally, what would a close election post be without a nod to Minnesota? The governor's race there is headed for a recount. I don't know about the rest of you, but I look forward to the strange and interesting places they'll find "lost" votes this time!

--Dave in Texas points out another close race. Republican Blake Farenthold holds a 799-vote lead over incumbent Democrat Solomon Ortiz. Ortiz, like Etheridge, is talking up "discrepancies" in the vote. Man, it's really strange how the Democrats didn't make much noise about those "discrepancies" in 2006 and 2008.

Oh, well. Those must have been much cleaner elections or something. That's all.

But Wait, There's More! - Republican David Harmer is behind Democrat Jerry McNerny in CA-11 by only 121 votes, with absentees and provisionals yet to be counted.

Posted by: Slublog at 07:00 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 317 words, total size 3 kb.

Secretary Of State Susan Bysiewicz, a shameless Dem party hack mentioned here before, decided to call the election for Malloy (D) yesterday, in advance of an actual certain vote count, using 'facts' that she has discovered inside her rectum.

The Associated Press on Wednesday afternoon had called the race for Malloy based on BysiewiczÂ’s statements, but withdrew its call later Wednesday after its vote count showed Foley with a lead of 8,424 votes over Malloy, with all but 1.5 percent of the precincts counted. The lack of hard numbers from Bysiewicz contributed to the APÂ’s decision.

When the AP tells you you're a hack, you're an outrageous fucking hack.

Both Malloy and Foley assume victory and are assembling their transition teams.
Oh Goody!

Maybe they can both move into the same office and have two desks and both live at the Governor's mansion. My Two Governors. I smell a hit sitcom!

Photocopied ballots, polls running out of ballots, questionable transfers, polls in a heavily Dem area staying open late, dead people voting, a nakedly partisan and dishonest Secretary of State presiding over it all...oh yes.

This is Democrat Nirvana. Look at the beautiful world they'd like to create for all of us.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:36 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Alright, I think by this evening I'll be able to announce a winner in the House contest. Thanks to the kind donation of our friends and fellow morons over at Acorn Souvenirs the winner will be getting a limited edition Captain KickAss bobble-head doll!

They donated one for the winner of the Senate contest, too, but it looks like it's gonna be a while before things get sorted out in Alaska, Colorado, and Washington.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:45 AM | Comments (318)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

UPDATE: Helicopter Ben defends himself.

QE2 is underway, to the tune of about $600 billion (or $1 trillion, depending on how you count it). Possible outcomes? Ruin, devastation, trade-wars, skyrocketing inflation. Unlikely outcomes? Fiscal sanity, probity, stability. Solution? Get rid of the Fed entirely. The harm it has done over the years far outweighs the good.

Other QE2 assessments? Mish prods the QE2 corpse with his toe, and announces "He's dead, Jim." Brad Delong: The mountain labored, and gave birth to a mouse.

more...

Posted by: Monty at 03:19 AM | Comments (116)
Post contains 936 words, total size 9 kb.

Well I don't know about you but I felt kinda hung over today and I didn't even drink last night. Somehow I got buzz-cheated.

The Mini-Cannon That Will Blow Your Mind

Here's a home-built mini-cannon that's an accurate scaled down model of a Napoleonic-era cannon. But don't be fooled by its small size - you could seriously injure or even kill someone with it. Further proof of the power of firearms even with just a pinch of gunpowder.

And in a semi-unrelated note I've given instructions to my family that in the unlikely event of my death I would like a real cannon to be fired and the 1812 Overture played at my funeral. And if they can time it just right so the cannon fire and church bells match the recording, I will be very pleased.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:30 PM | Comments (773)
Post contains 768 words, total size 8 kb.

From John King's State of the Nation on CNN:

JOHN KING, HOST, "JOHN KING USA": Â….. Many have said now that the Republicans have a majority in the House, more conservatives in the Senate, where will we know, when will we know if you're serious about keeping your promises about spending and the debt. If there's a vote in the Congress on raising the debt ceiling so that the government can continue to print money and spend money, should Republicans say no?



SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I think Republicans will say no, unless that raising of the debt ceiling is accompanied by some -- some dramatic spending cuts, something that would direct us toward a balanced budget in the future, Republicans will not support an increase in the debt limit.



What I hope you'll see from Republicans right out of the box, as soon as we get back, is a moratorium on earmarks. Americans and connected the dots. They realize if we're all up there trying to bring home the bacon, we're going to bankrupt our country. And if Republicans in the House and the Senate both take a pledge to not ask for earmarks and to have a moratorium on -- on them in the Congress, I think it will show Americans, at least at the beginning, that we are serious.



So there are a number of other things we need to do to demonstrate that we're -- we're serious. And one of those is to de-fund Obama Care, and, as soon as we can, hopefully, have a vote on balancing the budget.

The Democrats' big strategy is to impel the Republicans to own a piece of their failure. They want us to own their failure by voting to lock it in place.

We should decline. And yes, that means shutting down the government if necessary (and it probably will be necessary), and yes, we have to do that anyway, even knowing the risks.

The public elected us to cut spending. We have to cut spending. We start with a 5% across the board cut (except for the military) and and freeze in federal pay raises (except for the military) and then on top of that begin zeroing out as many programs as we can, and cutting others as much as we can.

We need to cut $100 billion every year. That is going to be tough -- both politically, and practically (I don't think a lot of people are aware of how hard this will be), but we need to do this.

There are going to be some extremely tough votes: Like voting to cut aid to college students.

Parents are not going to like that. Republican parents are not going to like that. Conservative Republican parents reading this site right now are not going to like that.

But these are the things that have to be chopped to really have a chance of cutting $100 billion. We're not going to cut that much simply by reducing foreign aid. We're going to have to cut a lot of things that people actually... well, kind of like.

We have to do this. Whether or not we'll be punished epically in 2012 like the Dems were in 2010, I don't know. But we're locked in to this now.

I hope everyone understands what we've voted for, here.

It's not just going to be "fat" and money that goes to other people. To be serious about cutting federal spending, we have to cut popular subsidies for the middle class.

But again, we have to do it.

Posted by: Ace at 05:03 PM | Comments (371)
Post contains 639 words, total size 4 kb.

One of those things that starts out a little funny, then gets old and annoying, then gets a little funny again, then gets really funny.

Posted by: Ace at 04:33 PM | Comments (105)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

There is injury.

And there is insult.

Posted by: Ace at 03:41 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.