2012 presidential election predictions vs actual results

Electoral-Vote.com and the FiveThirtyEight blog both made highly accurate election predictions long before any votes were cast. They did it simply by looking at the results of state-by-state polls instead of national polls.

The graphic below shows the Electoral-Vote.com predictions a full month before any presidential debates occurred, compared with the state-by-state election results known as of early morning on the day after election day.

Virginia residents: Vote against Mitt Romney tomorrow!

Residents of Virginia, please go out and vote for Ron Paul (and against Mitt Romney) tomorrow!

It's a two man race in this state (Santorum and Gingrich aren't on the ballot) and Virginia has open primaries. That means even if you're a loyal Democrat or independent, you can cast a ballot against Mitt Romney in the Republican primary tomorrow.

DC-area homes of the 2012 presidential candidates

A bunch of websites are posting photos of the 2012 presidential candidates' homes, probably sparked by this Zillow Blog post. Here are the homes the candidates have in the DC area:

Newt Gingrich
7410 Windy Hill Ct, McLean, VA 22102
Value: $1,284,400

Rick Santorum
10607 Creamcup Ln, Great Falls, VA 22066
Value: $1,305,100

Jon Huntsman
2121 Leroy Pl NW, Washington, DC 20008
Value: $3,303,100

Immediately prior to his purchase of the home, it was used as the residence for contenders on the Bravo reality TV show "Top Chef: Season 7".

Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500
Value: $261,632,300

The deadbeat hasn't paid rent in three years! Zillow.com gets the zip code wrong. It's 20500, not 20006.

Ron Paul
I don't know were Ron Paul lives in the DC area, but he's trying to sell his Texas home over the internet for $63,500 more than Zillow thinks it's worth.

The Huffington Post is lying about Governor Rick Perry's college record

I have no love for Texas Governor Rick Perry. I think he would be a disaster as president. However, I also hate dishonest journalism.

Last week The Huffington Post tried to paint Rick Perry as a C and D student during his college years:

A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University. The future politician did not distinguish himself much in the classroom. While he later became a student leader, he had to get out of academic probation to do so. He rarely earned anything above a C in his courses...

The Huffington Post is lying. The article is titled, "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Cs And Ds." In fact, his transcript shows he got 20 B's, 27 C's, and 9 D's. That's twice as many B's than D's. An honest title for the Huffington Post article would be "Rick Perry's College Transcript: A Lot Of Bs And Cs," but an honest title wouldn't serve The Huffington Post's political agenda.

They said Rick Perry rarely got grades above C, but his transcript shows that he got lots of B's. They paint him as a C and D student when the transcript shows he got far more B's than D's. They said he was on academic probation when RICK PERRY'S TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO RECORD OF ACADEMIC PROBATION.

Finally, let me just say that it is illegal for universities to release college transcripts without the student's permission. It doesn't matter whether it's a Democratic or Republican politician, or an ordinary person like you or me, publicly releasing college transcripts is a violation of personal privacy. This should offend anyone who cares about civil liberties.

New study: You can't trust Paul Krugman

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is heavily politically biased—shocker! Here's the conclusion of a new study published in Econ Journal Watch:

Overall, our research finds that most economists don’t change their positions when the White House changes party. Only two economists changed their tune in a significant or moderate way. The strongest case is Paul Krugman. He explicitly supported deficit reduction in the 1990s and early 2000s under Republican administrations, then changed his view once Clinton entered office in 1993 and the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006. The case is strengthened due to his large number of comments. He is the most frequent contributor on our list, a fact that reduces the chance of error in our conclusion. Alan Blinder also changed his tune, though in a less significant manner than Krugman. He consistently supported deficit spending that resulted from Democratic policies and criticized deficit spending that resulted from Republican policy.

Four other economists—Martin Feldstein, Murray Weidenbaum, Paul Samuelson, and Robert Solow—changed their tune in a minor way. That leaves eleven economists with strong cases in favor of nonpartisan commentary regarding the budget deficit. Given such consistency, they appear to be close to impartiality.

So, Paul Krugman and Alan Blinder are untrustworthy due to their political bias. Which Democrats can you trust? Christina Romer, Larry Summers, Joseph Stiglitz, Laura Tyson, Alicia Munnell, Janet Yellen, and Robert Lawrence. Which Republicans can you trust? Glenn Hubbard, Michael Boskin, and Paul McCracken.

Only 17 economists were studied—eleven of them Democrats—so the absence of someone from the trustworthy category shouldn't be a bad sign. Ben Bernanke, Greg Mankiw, Robert Shiller, and Jeffrey Sachs are a few well-known economists who weren't studied.

The definition of High Broderism

"Broderism," named after Washington Post columnist David Broder, is a word invented by left-wing bloggers to express contempt for bipartisanship and political centrism among elected officials. A quick Google search for "Broderism" turns up lots of left-wing blogs and websites, but no right-wing ones and few moderate ones. Basically, if someone uses the word "Broderism," you can expect that they hate Senator Joe Lieberman.

Variants: "Broderism," "High Broderism," and "Higher Broderism."

American political ideologies explained

Conservative - a person who prays at the altar of God, Guns, and Ronald Reagan.

Moderate - a person who doesn't vote.

Liberal - a person who is left of center.

Progressive - a person who is left of Karl Marx.

Green - a progressive in love with vegetables.

Libertarian - a nutcase who hates government involvement in anything.

Socialist - anyone with whom libertarians disagree.

Democratic landslide?

The Democracy in America blog reports:

SOMETIMES I wonder if the Republicans have already given up on Congress this election year. Whether by circumstance or by design, the Democrats seem to have taken all of the advantages as they seek to expand their majorities, and they are using them. The latest, from the Wall Street Journal’s number crunchers, is that a slew of Democratic challengers are raising lots of money, coming close to or surpassing their opponents. Established GOP senators such as Alaska’s Ted Stevens, North Carolina’s Elizabeth Dole and Maine’s Susan Collins all face challengers with large war chests. On the House side, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nurses a large money edge over its GOP rival, and Democratic incumbents are holding their own as well, leaving cash for unseating Republicans. It feels like the Republicans just don’t want it.

Democrats are also reusing some of their winning tactics from 2006. Real Clear Politics’s Reid Wilson examines how the Democrats have embraced the centre in their Congressional recruiting, while the Republican caucus becomes more conservative. A big question in the caucus has been whether seeking ideological purity on the right will make the GOP a permanent minority party again while the Democrats rebuild their big tent. This is more likely than not, barring a period of Democratic corruption and misrule. Republican congressional leaders had better learn to run the opposite direction and, for that matter, to raise more money.

CNN doesn't understand the role of commander in chief

CNN producer Alexander Mooney displays his ignorance of the U.S. President's role as commander in chief:

John McCain directed his trademark straight talk toward a former president, flatly calling Jimmy Carter a "lousy" commander in chief.

The Arizona senator has long attempted to portray Barack Obama's policies as in the mold of Carter's, though the Republican has previously held back criticizing Carter so directly.

But in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun published Friday, McCain was decidedly more blunt than he has been in the past. McCain, who is a proponent of nuclear reprocessing, was asked why he thought Carter was against the process when he was president.

"Yes, because Carter was a lousy president," McCain quipped. "This is the same guy who kissed Brezhnev."

The term commander in chief only applies to the President's role as leader of America's armed forces. It only appears once in the entire U.S. Constitution where Article II, section 2, refers the President as "commander in chief of the Army and Navy." The "lousy president" comment was in response to a question about Yucca Mountain, which is under the control of the Department of Energy, not the Department of Defense.

While it may seem that I am being picky about the use of the term commander in chief, the distinction is important. President Bush tried to use his title as commander in chief to justify illegally spying on U.S. citizens. Furthermore, many American civilians wrongly believe they owe loyalty to the President because he is commander in chief. Members of the military owe loyalty to the President. For everyone else, the President is their employee and he owes loyalty to them.

As for Jimmy Carter, he was a lousy President. That's why he didn't get re-elected. He has done great things since leaving office, however, and fully deserved his Nobel Peace Prize.