RULE #1
EVERY TIME THE WHITE HOUSE HAS FLIPPED, THE WINNING PARTY SNAGS A STATE IT FAILED TO GRAB THE LAST TIME THEY FLIPPED IT. Those states may have been new to the union, or the demographics simply changed, which is the case since the 1960's. But the winning party in a flip always, without fail, gains states.

Republicans' first flip from the Democrats: 1860
Democrats' first flip from the Republicans: 1884

White House Flips since 1884:
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1888 back to R: NE,CO,KS
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1892 back to D: CA,WI,IL
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1896 back to R: ND,KY,WV,MD,DE,NJ,CT
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1912 back to D: OR,NV,AZ,NM,OK,CO,ID,MT,WY,ND,IA,OH,ME,MA,RI,NH
1920 back to R: MO,TN,OK,KS,NE,SD,MT,ID,WY,UT,CO,NV,AZ,NM,WA
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1932 back to D: WA,UT,MN,CA,SD
1952 back to R: FL,TX,VA
1960 back to D: PA,DE,CT,HI
1968 back to R: NC,SC,AK
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1976 back to D: WI,OH,KY,TN,FL
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1980 back to R: WA,MI,TX,PA,NY,CT,MA,ME
INCUMBENT DEFEATED* 1992 back to D: MT,WA,OR,NV,CA,CO,NM,IA,IL,MI,NJ,CT,VT,NH,ME
2000 back to R: WV,GA
2008 back to D: IN,NC,FL,VA,NE2

Note: this rule holds before the 1860s, but parties and party status changed from 1796 thru 1856, so we are focusing on the last 150 years with the modern parties.

RULE #2
IF AN INCUMBENT IS DEFEATED, THE VICTORIOUS PARTY GAINS MORE THAN ONE STATE IN THE FLIP RULE.
From the above, the minimum number of states gained has been two, the maximum is, well, not very pretty for the loser. Again, if the national desire to flip is strong enough to boot an incumbent, that rage spreads farther than a few electoral votes.

RULE #3
IF AN ELECTED PRESIDENT WINS RE-ELECTION, THEY GAIN STATES WHEN RE-ELECTED. They may lose a few they won at their first go, but they always pick up some. (Ex: Bush in 2004 lost New Hampshire but gained New Mexico and Iowa)

YEAR: STATES WON IN RE-ELECT NOT WON IN INITIAL ELECTION
1864: WV,MO,KS,NV
1872: LA,NJ,DE,NY,OR,FL
1900: WA,UT,WY,SD,NE,KS
1916: UT,WA,CA
1936: PA,DE,CT
1956: LA,KY,WV
1972: WA,HI,TX,MN,MI,WV,MD,NY,PA,CT,RI,ME
1984: HI,GA,MD,WV,RI
1996: FL,AZ
2004: IA,NM

Now, which of these rules bodes well for President Obama?

Posted by: CAC at 05:35 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey, it's more time than NBCNews gave it.

I was gonna add this to Ace's post earlier but I got busy with this job and shit.

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:15 PM | Comments (110)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

"And, sadly, there simply aren't enough lifeboats."

Nigel Farage is the leader of the UK Independence Party and is a member of the European Parliament.

Another one bites the dust. Country number four, Spain, gets bailed out and we all of course know that it won't be the last. Though I wondered over the weekend whether perhaps I was missing something, because when the Spanish prime minister Mr Rajoy got up, he said that this bailout shows what a success the eurozone has been.

And I thought, well, having listened to him over the previous couple of weeks telling us that there would not be a bailout, I got the feeling after all his twists and turns he's just about the most incompetent leader in the whole of Europe, and that's saying something, because there is pretty stiff competition.

Indeed, every single prediction of yours, Mr Barroso, has been wrong, and dear old Herman Van Rompuy, well he's done a runner hasn't he. Because the last time he was here, he told us we had turned the corner, that the euro crisis was over and he hasn't bothered to come back and see us.

I remember being here ten years ago, hearing the launch of the Lisbon Agenda. We were told that with the euro, by 2010 we would have full employment and indeed that Europe would be the competitive and dynamic powerhouse of the world. By any objective criteria the Euro has failed, and in fact there is a looming, impending disaster.

You know, this deal makes things worse not better. A hundred billion [euro] is put up for the Spanish banking system, and 20 per cent of that money has to come from Italy. And under the deal the Italians have to lend to the Spanish banks at 3 per cent but to get that money they have to borrow on the markets at 7 per cent. It's genius isn't it. It really is brilliant.

So what we are doing with this package is we are actually driving countries like Italy towards needing to be bailed out themselves.

From the information provided on YouTube, he was speaking at the European Parliament on June 13th, joint debate, European Council meeting. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 03:41 PM | Comments (148)
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

It's time to fire her. Her intent here is obvious: She cannot win the trial and she knows it. Nevertheless, she feels she needs scalps -- some jailtime -- to either prevent riots or make her career, or both.

So she's pressuring Zimmerman, by both her absurd overcharging of Murder Two and now a threat to jail his wife, by throwing a trumped-up perjury charge against her.

It's time for her to go.

Short Day: I'm under the weather. I think I'm knocking off for the day.

Posted by: Ace at 02:32 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Compare and contrast: An alarmingly high number of NYC residents want the government actively nannying their soft drink purchases, and the inevitable agitation to ban everything else that's bad for you has begun.

51% of NYC residents oppose this -- which means 49% do not oppose it.

The government seems to be a fine lifelong teacher... of adults, bossing them about and setting up rules and, one day, chores.

In a bizarre inversion, while adults need the supervision of government teachers their whole lives, children don't need government teachers to actually teach them at all. "The Blue School," a "progressive" school set up by The Blue Man group and their wives, is losing teachers and students because, get this, it turns out that maybe children don't know best how to educate themselves.

“It’s all fun and games until you realize your second-grader can’t read,” a parent wrote on Urbanbaby.com.

And parent Marina Brolin added, “I think they don’t push [reading] as much.”

...

School officials say students decide their own curriculum, and have no set arrival time.

...

Some experts said parents who choose progressive schools shouldnÂ’t expect to see the same results as they do from a conventional school.

As Allah notes in the first link, this campaign to ban soda will never target Starbucks' mocha sugarchino's, because upscale white people like those. See, they have the ability to make sound decisions.

They will, however, impose laws restricting the liberty of poorer, less-white folks, though. They must, you know. Those people need their guidance (aka "liberty-stealing laws").

And that same cohort is meanwhile sending its kids to a school without a curriculum -- kids decide themselves what they want to learn, or if they'd rather learn through play (also known as "not learning") -- and not even a scheduled start-time.

So note the massive difference in how this cohort treats rich white children versus poor minority adults: Their children, the white and affluent ones, don't even need teachers in school, while poorer and browner adults need teachers at the movie theaters and McDonald's, and in fact in all facets of their lives.

It's truly repulsive.

While presuming to know so very much about how others should live their lives, they know so very little.

Good advice is not the same as a good law.

I concur with the advice content here: Sugar's bad for you, our bodies were not built to process so much of it. We crave it because it's supposed to be fairly rare. Stunted berries here and there, some sugaring in milk.

It's now abundant, and yet our tastes have not changed. It still tastes wicked-good.

And yes, too much of it leads to diabetes and obesity.

But this is the basis for a ban? Have we learned nothing?

Alcohol destroys a good number of people -- some people are just alcoholics. They can't handle it. They like it far too much.

We banned that too.

It didn't work out.

I'm both incense and shocked by the people who presume to know so much know almost nothing at all.

I'd like to pass a law, myself. It will be beneficial for society. This law shall mandate that the government create liberty schools, to teach the most incorrigible members of the Neo Prohibitionist class that they are destroying liberty in order to feel superior. Anyone expressing a Neo Prohibititionist thought is required to attend Liberty Classes from 8am to 6pm on either Saturday or Sunday, with one night per week, 7pm to 9pm, for extended learning.

This law will mandate that such people attend these classes for one year, or until they demonstrate a likelihood of reform.

How can they object? After all, It's good for them. Anything that's good for someone ought to be enacted into coercive law.

Posted by: Ace at 01:09 PM | Comments (332)
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.

"I've got a crush on Obama."

Light content warning.

I was watching this, hoping it would ultimately signal whether it was actually anti-Obama, or actually pro-Obama (and just embarrassing), or pro-Obama but in a cheeky, silly way, or just some guy who wants attention on YouTube.

I still have no idea. I've checked his website and it offers no clues as to his intent; he just embeds the video, and offers it on iTunes.

He doesn't seem on the level, but who knows. Sometimes irony and meta-commentary get so thick you don't understand what the heck someone means.

What I do know is that this guy is not going to get invited to be on The View.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (200)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

And by detailed account, I of course mean ten seconds, and by ten seconds, I do not mean that exaggeration where people say "And they only spent like ten seconds on it!," I mean their first-ever explanation of Fast & Furious lasted ten seconds, by the watch.

The full report, noting the chastisement of Holder, was all of thirty seconds; but for those wondering what this was even about, they were told that Fast and Furious was a "failed operation that sent US guns into Mexico." Which part failed? People getting their news from NBC could just think that the guns failed to arrive in Mexico, which might strike them as a good thing.

And it would have been a good thing, since the guns that arrived killed 300 Mexicans, including attorneys general, and two US border guards.

Thanks to @popinjayrose.

NBCNews World Report

I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this messaging.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Kaus notes that defeats have historically produced readjustments, and re-thinking. Parties have previously engaged in painful, but ultimately fruitful self-examination after losses.

Given the current Full Metal Cocoon of the left, is such a thing even possible for the Democratic Party any longer? Why engage in painful reassessment if you can just tune into Rachel Maddow and hear a parade of guests reassure you that it's just because Koch money bought the presidency, and just because your "communications" were off, and because you were just too kindhearted and sweet-natured to Republican opponents?

If repudiation is to be had at all, the Democrats prefer to blame the candidate personally for his tactical decisions and incompetence; they don't like examining the message.

I suppose that, leg tingles and all, they might do something like this with Obama; they already dislike him, and they'll hate him for his loss.

But while Obama certainly has a great many personal flaws one could point to as reasons for a loss, such an exercise would still avoid self-examination. After all, Obama wasn't on the ballot in Wisconsin. He rather famously had other "responsibilities" precluding him from even appearing in Wisconsin (namely, fundraisers just a helicopter ride away in Chicago and Minnesota).

There is much chatter that the right is too captive to its most vocal members. Has anyone in the media or Democratic Party (but I repeat myself) noticed that perhaps they are even more so?

And it's worse for them: The Tea Party is unpopular with the public. But merely unpopular.

What does the public believe about the Democratic Party's most strident members? What does the public believe about... Occupy, for example?

The Tea Party's policy prescriptions -- austerity, limited government -- are unpopular but conceivable.

How about Occupy's? If the media faithfully reported Occupy's stated agenda, how popular does the media imagine that would be?

I already know the answer-- because the media has refused to report on Occupy's actual membership, philosophy, and goals. So the media has tipped their hand regarding how warmly these facts would be received.

The very fact that they have refused to report this -- casting Occupy deliberately vaguely as merely a "reform" minded movement -- demonstrates that they understand the real truth of Occupy would be political poison.

Speaking of... LauraW suggests you read this Daily Kos post on Chicago teacher's 90% vote to strike, in order to get a 24% raise.

The typical arguments are offered in the comments. Like, teachers are the one salaried profession in the world expected to do some work while off the official clock.

But some people aren't having it.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

They say they didn't even really have "members," per se.

And yet they have a membership list, including one Barack H. Obama, and membership dues, which they say Barack H. Obama was late in paying.

Two members of the Chicago New Party say they don't remember Obama, but they also remember him not joining.

[W]hat exactly is the argument being offered here? Two members of the Party, Dan Swinney and Amy Sherman, were at the meeting Obama attended in 1996 according to the minutes. Both claim they don't recall him at all. Nevertheless they are both certain that even if Obama was there, he didn't join. It's a very selective memory lapse.

Obama's dues are listed as late in 1997. Apparently he paid his dues for 1996, and then was noted as late four months into 1997.

Maybe he tried socialism, but didn't inhale.

But he did join the New Party.

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to Moron Goy on Twitter.
This probably more accurately quantifies 'consumer confidence.'

If you were alive during the Carter years, this graph is rather stunning. I'm not THAT surprised- a lot of people are hurting right now.

But I would not have guessed we were quite so close to what life was like under Carter's level of suckage.

Posted by: LauraW at 09:21 AM | Comments (240)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.