Tax Day.

The 2012 Pulitzer Prize winners were announced and includes even more proof that journalism is dying: both the Huffington Post and Politico won one.

The Buffett Rule was defeated in the Senate yesterday. The Democrats fell nine votes short of the required 60. Susan Collins voted with the Democrats. Mark Pryor crossed over to vote with the Republicans.

Space Shuttle Discovery is set to make its final flight today (though not under its own power) on its way to its final resting place at the Smithsonian. D.C. people, it'll pass over the National Mall between 10 and 11 am.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (166)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Still sick but I'm beginning to think I may recover. How come no one ever turned me on to the healing power of hobo brains before?

The shortest story ever written:

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:40 PM | Comments (794)
Post contains 817 words, total size 9 kb.

Nobody knows what turnout is going to be until election day. You can make some pretty good guesses, based on visible enthusiasm for candidates, months out. But you aren't going to nail the actual breakdown in voter ID. Exit polling in 2010, for example, showed a 36R-28I-36D split. Independents broke heavily for the Republicans, and that made the difference in the Red Wave. For months, some firms started shifting over their partisan ID in sampling to the right, and these firms ended up exaggerating Republican strength (prime example : Pat Toomey, who won by 2% but averaged at least double that in polling).

In the hotly contested 2004 Presidential election, voter ID split 37R-26I-37D. Even when Democrats enjoyed their own wave of pain in 2006, voter ID was only 38D-26I-36R, a D+2 edge. Independents, again, made the pain far worse. The 2008 "landslide" for President Obama did see a marked shift in voter ID (one that Gallup and Rasmussen both insist has totally evaporated) from the 2004/2006 cycles to 39D/29I/32R, which marks (so far) the high point for Democratic advantage, D+7. President Obama and the Democrats have taken hits in their image with the voting public since, so that edge is not what it was.

I could understand polling firms showing between R/D+0 and D+4 for a Presidential cycle, as there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and the Republicans make up some of the gap by being more likely to vote. That phenomenon itself is no big secret, we often discuss the difference between registered voter and likely voter polls and results. But polling firms shitting out D+10, D+11, and higher samples have no excuse. It is incredibly laughable that these polls are averaged with those using far more realistic samples (R+0 to D+4), and in so doing prop up the President's numbers.

It is amazing what happens when polling firms switch from registered to likely. Public Policy Polling enjoys a high rate of accuracy for its final polling. When election day comes closer, they shift over from registered to likely voter pools, and, surprise, the Republicans typically (but not always) do better. Just look at their Walker poll already mentioned here. Polling this far out is meaningless not because the electorate can change it's minds, but the polling firms themselves often use voter samples that will, months later, look laughable.

Not accusing anyone here. Just a thought.
Oh, and by the way, Rasmussen is showing the generic congressional ballot preference is 46% for the Republicans, 36% for the Democrats. A bump I can only assume came either entirely from Scott's bald head or a "unity" bump coinciding with the end of the primary.

Posted by: CAC at 04:26 PM | Comments (181)
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

In the first video clip, Diane Sawyer asks if people can possibly relate to someone who has a car elevator in his garage. She of the $10 million NYC pied-a-terre she bought from Robert Redford (steeply discounted from $15 million).

She uses the "such unimaginable wealth is all so incredible to me I have difficulty saying the words" voice.

So not the exact Soap Opera Acting I predicted, but I close substitute.

In the second clip, Romney goes on to tell Obama, on behalf of all of us, that We Need To Talk. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM | Comments (560)
Post contains 105 words, total size 2 kb.

And this is registered voters. This does not screen for likely voters, or adjust for voter intensity.

Even incumbents who went on to lose -- Carter, Bush the Elder -- started out ahead of their challengers. Even if they did have weaker numbers supporting them.

The only other incumbent who began (and ended) by losing to his challenger? The hapless Gerald Ford.

On the Other Hand... Romney's the only challenger with an underwater favorable/unfavorable rating in a long, long time.

Thirty-five percent of Americans see Romney favorably, while 47 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts governor. He's the first likely nominee to be underwater – seen more unfavorably than favorably – in ABC/Post polls in eight presidential primary seasons across the past 28 years.

That said, who cares.

I don't believe this is one of those elections where things like that come much into play. Some elections are had during relatively good times, where the public is choosing which man they'd rather have helm a sailing-smoothing ship.

This is not one of those times.

Plus, I don't expect those low favorability numbers to continue. No one will ever really love Romney, but most will end up with a "favorable" impression, if just a bit.

Few have truly strong opinions on Romney:

Romney's also got an enthusiasm gap: Just 12 percent see him "strongly" favorably, about half as many as see him strongly unfavorably. Intensity of sentiment on Obama is more even, tipping slightly to the positive – 30 percent strongly favorable, 26 percent strongly unfavorable.

That'll change a bit too. By November, 42% of the electorate -- the liberal vote -- will hate him.

Posted by: Ace at 12:53 PM | Comments (295)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Meanwhile, the DC Board of Elections is reacting to this helpful exposure of potential illegality by... investigating O'Keefe & Crew.

“I have directed our attorneys to conduct a thorough investigation and refer all evidence to law enforcement authorities for appropriate action. Our polling places are open to the media and observers who want to legally document our procedures for checking in voters. There is never any justification for disrupting the voting process with fraudulent activity. We will take any and all appropriate actions to ensure the integrity of our voting process and we will vigorously seek to hold anyone and everyone accountable for interference with that process to the fullest extent permitted by law.”

The only block he gets is when... a pollworker asks for ID. Funny how that works.

Videos at Breitbart.

Posted by: Ace at 12:40 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't normally call out a troll by name, but join me in telling one in particular:Suck it Greg.

Walker currently beats everybody, enjoying a 50% showing against all challengers:

Tom Barrett (D): 45 (49)
Scott Walker (R-inc): 50 (46)
Hari Trivedi (I): 2
Undecided: 3 (3)
Kathleen Falk (D): 43 (4
Scott Walker (R-inc): 50 (47)
Hari Trivedi (I): 3
Undecided: 3 (5)

Doug La Follette (D): 40 (45)
Scott Walker (R-inc): 51 (46)
Hari Trivedi (I): 3
Undecided: 6 (9)

Kathleen Vinehout (D): 38 (44)
Scott Walker (R-inc): 50 (46)
Hari Trivedi (I): 5
Undecided: 7 (10)

Tom Jensen, director of PPP, also notes that Walker's ads have been devastatingly effective in both defending himself and tearing his potential opponents apart:

The biggest change is probably that this was our first time using a likely voter screen, We found with almost all of the recall elections last summer that the electorate just wasn't as Democratic as 2008, even if people were at least more excited about the recalls than they were about the 2010 elections. Gov. Scott Walker gains a few points as a result of that.
The other thing is that independents have flipped from our last poll, from supporting Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett by 12 to going for Walker by three. We've seen independents go back and forth on Walker several times over the last year, though I'm not certain what causes that. Walker's been very aggressive about getting on the air and that may have helped firm up his standing, especially as Democrats fight amongst each other over their nominee.... Screening this poll for likely voters (as opposed to just registered voters) has had one other notable effect: Walker's job approval has ticked up, from 47-52 to 51-48. But it's had an even bigger effect on Barrett's favorables, which went from 41-33 to 41-45, a fall of 12 points. Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk saw a much smaller net drop of 5, going from 31-42 to 36-52. Barrett's been the target of some tough attacks both from certain unions (which are backing Kane) as well as Walker, who has aired ads going after both leading Democrats, but apparently has made Barrett his focus.

Oh, and if you think the good news stops there, a big bounce for Romney in Wisconsin as well: Romney now trails Obama 50-44, down from a massive 53-39 lead for the President.

So...keep up the fight in the Badger state.

UPDATE Gallup has finally started it's daily tracking of the Presidential Race. Amongst registered voters Romney's bounce over the President has now been confirmed, he leads Obama 47-45. Better, he carries 90% of the Republican vote right out of the gate, leads Obama amongst independents, and amongst those certain to vote, Romney also edges the President. Romney is now ahead in the Presidential race, as I suspected he would be the moment the nightmare primary would finally, finally end. Romney now averages a 2 point lead. It is our job to make that grow.

Update #2 Sidebar Daily adjusted. I should have waited for the Gallup release before adjusting my numbers, but fixed now. I also added the Rasmussen and Gallup Daily Tracker margins (listed as RasTrack and GalTrack) to the bottom of the bar. If another company starts a daily tracker, I'll average them out and list just one.

Posted by: CAC at 11:03 AM | Comments (306)
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

A "rule" -- written by unelected bureaucrats -- proposes that a vote on unionization must occur quickly after the union's request of such.

Those in business and labor are expecting a vote in the Senate, perhaps as early as next week, on a joint resolution for congressional disapproval that would block the regulation. A Senate Republican leadership aide told The Hill that a vote on the measure was expected sometime over the next two weeks.

...

Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce oppose the rule, which would speed up union elections. Glenn Spencer, vice president of the ChamberÂ’s Workforce Freedom Initiative, has said in the past that a vote on the joint resolution is likely the most significant labor vote this congressional session.

“This vote is coming soon, and it’s the Senate's opportunity to tell the board that it has gone too far,” Spencer told The Hill.

Why is Obama's bureaucracy pushing this?

Because a union might be campaigning for unionization a year before they ask for a vote. If they ask for a snap election, the company has no time to lobby against it.

Lou Dobbs was just discussing this on Fox. When a vote is taken 11 to 15 days after the request, the unions win almost 90% of votes.

When a vote is taken 36-44 days, unions win less than 60% of the votes.

So obviously the quickie vote is in the unions' favor.

Is it in the company's favor? No, of course not.

Is it in the worker's favor? No -- because workers, armed with more information (the argument by the company against the union) make different decisions than they do when they make hasty ones.

Obama's new rule, then, has a main intent of denying important, decision-affecting information to workers.

It's also unconstitutional for a federal bureaucracy to make new law.

Here's a brief digest of the history of executive law-making:

In the beginning, the Congress wrote and passed all laws. There were no federal bureaucratic "regulations" -- Congress had to specify what was permitted and what was impermissible.

As the national government grew larger, with more fingers in every pie, Congress discovered it could not possibly keep up with the myriad micro-laws -- "regulations" -- they had to write. Like, if they passed a law that trucks traveling on the interstate highway system had to have pollution controls, well, what level of carbon monoxide production was permitted?

They began empowering a federal agency to write the actual law -- which they called "regulations" -- while Congress just wrote the big-picture main thrust of it, and then delegated rule-making power to the executive branch.

This was challenged as far as constitutionality. Congress cannot delegate a power to the executive that the Constitution says lies with -- and must lie with -- Congress itself.

But the Supreme Court permitted this "regulatory state" by creating a distinction between "law" -- which only Congress can pass, as the Constitution says -- and mere "rule," a minor bit of specification in support of the law Congress passed.

There's a lot of mischief exploitable here, obviously.

But to the extent this law/rule distinction makes sense it surely must mean that a "rule" which shifts the balance of power dramatically between citizens cannot in any twisted sense be called a "rule," but must be called a "law" requiring the regular Constitutional practice of a majority vote in Congress.

You cannot override the inconvenient Congress by simply making every law you can't pass into a "rule" that unelected bureaucrats write up and enact into law on their own nonexistent authority.

Lawmaking is supposed to be inconvenient. It's supposed to take some effort. It's supposed to be exposed to the process of blocs of competing interests lobbying one way or the other and Representatives, accountable to their constituents, voting one way or the other.

We cannot, even if we wished (and we should not wish) to delegate the power reserved to Congress, in trust of The People, to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.

Now, even though Congress may vote on a joint resolution to block this-- and this cannot be filibustered in the Senate -- it still requires The President's signature to block the rule:

Under the Congressional Review Act, the joint resolution cannot be filibustered and can pass the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

Despite not needing 60 votes in the Senate, it is still a difficult road forward for the joint resolution since it will need Democratic votes to pass. Further, to overturn the rule, the joint resolution would have to be signed by President Obama, who has received labor backing for his reelection bid, after it had passed in both the House and the Senate.

Note how ass-backwards this all is: You don't need any such Constitutional dignities to pass the rule in the first place, but to stop it, you need a majority vote and the President's signature.

Shouldn't it have taken a majority vote and the President's signature in the first place?

This out-of-whack unconsitutional system creates a strong bias in favor of bureaucratic, not democratic, power. The President's bureaucrats can make new law with no authority whatsoever, and no Constitutional procedures observed -- and to stop them, it requires a formal law.

Which he can veto.

Terrific, huh?

This is what I'm talking about when I say Obama will become a tyrant in 2013 if he is still in office. With Congress still arrayed against him (in all probability), he will just go the Soviet Route and rely on his unelected bureaucrats unconstitutionally passing laws on its own (or, rather, his) authority.

Democracies end when power is moved farther and farther from actual democratic processes. First, the state governments (standing closest to the citizen) is diminished in favor of a centralized government that answers chiefly to bureaucrats, lobbyists, and the permanent Washington government establishment; then the elected members of Congress are diminished in favor of unelected bureaucrats in the Executive (who, in many cases, really can't even be fired).

One line of attack removes power from the nation at large to Washington DC; the second line of attack removes power even from the elected tribunals from the country and pushes it into the hands of bureaucrats who answer only to the Executive (if they answer to anyone at all).

This must not stand. Because if it stands, the American Experiment will not.

Posted by: Ace at 10:32 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 1097 words, total size 7 kb.

I believe this thinking was predicated on there being an actual economic recovery -- a recovery does wonders for a government's balance sheets.

It never occurred to Yglesias -- or, for that matter, anyone in the White House -- that this recession was actually severe and needed some serious thinking about how to mitigate it.

Despite the fact that, of course, Obama ran on a campaign claiming that the recession was the Worst Thing Eveh.

He said it. He just, apparently, did not believe what he was saying.

Perhaps he should have listened to himself.

They also never considered that the massive new burdens with which they were shackling working people and job creators were actually sabotaging the recovery that they thought, incorrectly, was inevitable and even un-delayable.

They were wrong.

Please re-elect them.

They've gotten so much right so far, I just can't wait to see what miracles they might have in store.

Posted by: Ace at 09:36 AM | Comments (213)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

This review was submitted by reader/commenter JJ.

...

This past weekend, friend and author Harry Stein ("How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and Found Inner Peace," "I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican") let me read the galleys to his soon to be released book "No Matter What, They'll Call This Book Racist" (Encounter Books, release date 4/17/12). In light of the Soldedad O'Brien Critical Race Theory embarrassment and the geschrei from the usual gang of thugs about voter ID laws, I half-jokingly told Harry that he could delay publishing the book, but the minute it goes to press something else is sure to happen. Cue the Trayvon Little shooting.

Race-baiting, demagoguery and the perpetuation of the eternal victim myth have allowed the left to keep black America in bondage for over 50 years while the merchants of multiculturalism eat away at our society and pervert Dr. King's credo of content of character over color of skin. The book dovetails history with current events as it examines, as the libbos like to say, the real "root causes" of why black America is the way it is; affirmative action, the absent black father, multiculturalism and today's black culture that applauds reprehensible behavior as "authentic" while persecuting "Uncle Toms" and "sellouts" who have rejected this and embraced and thrived in mainstream America. There's also a fascinating chapter comparing the lives and beliefs of the forgotten Booker T. Washington and the wrongly celebrated W.E.B. DuBois and, crucially one spotlighting black conservatives who are the hope for the future. And, by the way, who knew that Eldridge Cleaver, in his later years, not only castigated black America for embracing Islam but became a conservative and Republican?

Here's a taste, courtesy of the author: more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:10 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 917 words, total size 6 kb.