Election Day primer — and pushback against preemptive Democrat-media spin
Joshua Culling at the National Taxpayers Union has a handy primer on the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, plus overviews of state ballot initiatives across the country.
Read and bookmark here.
For NY-23, check 73wire, The Other McCain, Riehl World View, and TCOT Report.
Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com has analysis on NY-23 polls and concludes:
…my experience conducting surveys for political campaigns, especially in Congressional districts in non-presidential year races, taught me the value of the vote history available on registered voter lists. More often than not, surveys I helped conduct based on such lists came closer representing the true likely electorate than media RDD samples which, like the Siena survey, disclose little to nothing about their likely voter screen or demographic composition.
Add to that the potential advantages of a self-administered automated survey in getting voters to provide more honest answers about whether they plan to vote and who they plan to vote for, and I find it difficult to ignore the PPP results. Hoffman looks like he’s headed to a comfortable victory.
Democrats and their media water-carriers got a head-start with this preemptive AP piece downplaying anticipated GOP wins.
So:
Tea Party movement? Doesn’t mean anything.
Nationwide government health care takeover revolt? Doesn’t mean anything.
Gallup poll showing “Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group?” Doesn’t mean anything.
Tomorrow doesn’t mean anything.
Tomorrow doesn’t mean anything.
Tomorrow doesn’t mean anything.
Tomorrow doesn’t mean anything.
If they plug their ears, stamp their feet, and say it often enough, maybe they can wish tomorrow and the conservative surge all away.
***
Notice I said conservative surge. Not Republican. Read and send Doctor Zero’s excellent essay on the Stupid Party to every clueless GOP leader you know. Excerpt:
The radical nature of the current Administration makes the idea of “moderate” compromise laughable. What’s the moderate position on freedom-crushing trillion-dollar health care and environmentalist legislation? They’re okay, as long as the Democrats pinky-swear to keep the cost under $800 billion? That’s the kind of promise no politician could keep, even if it was made in earnest. A moderate Republican is someone who lives in a state of perpetual surprise as he ponders the monthly bills for nanny-state government. What’s the point of electing people who are guaranteed to spend the rest of their political careers complaining about how they’ve been played for fools?
Too much of the Republicans’ “Stupid Party” strategy is based on the mechanics of getting people with little elephants on their campaign signs elected. They view the election as the conclusion of a contest, when in fact it’s only the beginning. A successful Republican Party doesn’t have to be ideologically rigid, but it should insist on candidates who possess an intellectual foundation of conservative theory, and the ability to explain it at least as well as the thousands of people posting comments on conservative blogs.
***
Brace for Democrat dirty deeds, led by — who else? — ACORN.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Vets On The Watch
- Election Day primer — and pushback against preemptive Democrat-media spin | DC SMELL REPORT
- Riehl World View
- The Snooper Report
- Tel-Chai Nation
- PianoGuy
- James Raymond
- UrbanGrounds | Reminder: Go Vote Today
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: ACORN Watch, Media Bias, NY-23, Politics
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats libel 'Kill the Bill' crowd as racist, violent crackpots when 99.99% are patriots concerned with the evisceration of the Constitution
Legal Insurrection
» Look Who Really Is Killing American Soldiers (Hint, Not Israel)Mudville Gazette
» Protests in DCDoug Ross @ Journal
» Best Photos from the 'Kill the Bill' Tea Party Rally in DCMudville Gazette
» Smell the excitement, feel the heatStop The ACLU
» Do the Dems Have the Votes for Obamacare?Pundit & Pundette
» "Pro-lifers" cave, Obama the Unbearable orates
Okay, I see what y’all mean. I just checked it out with IE8 (not my usual browser) and when you go to the main page the right hand side is missing in action. Until, as you said, you click on something like “Archives” and then go back to the main page.
Well, that is a glitch – it looks like it affects IE mostly or exclusively. I believe Michelle uses Firefox (as do I mostly) and, if so, she won’t get the bad display.
So, if she’s checking the comments she’ll catch it. Otherwise Michelle’s email addy is in the “Contact” section if you want to let her know what’s not looking right.
Hitting refresh worked for me.
Wait…I thought firefox was the liberal browser and IE was the conservative one. Don’t tell me I am going to have to switch to Google Chrome.
After what they did June 6th, I will NEVER use Google again.
I think you’re kinda right. Except it might be IE that’s purging the right side content. Michelle uses Wordpress for blogging and just from a quick Googling I see IE8 seems to have some issues with displaying Wordpress blogs.
Where is the RNC stating they are sending lawyers, volunteers, etc… to watch for voter irregularities?
Lazy useless dolts.
I would have thought Opera or Safari were the liberal ones.
I have 10 browsers I use for diff purposes but I’ve never polled them for party ID.
I’m avoiding Chrome until they take out the code in the program that’s always phoning home to BigBro Google. There’s a good browser that uses the same “public” code as Chrome called “Iron” – just as fast as Chrome and it doesn’t phone home to anywhere.
SRWare Iron: The Browser of the future
Which one is hidden that you use to search for ahem…pretty pictures?
Okay, the refresh trick works, if you use it every time!
Strike that, no it doesn’t.
Which “one”?
b-cat, it’s a good idea to have a second browser if IE is your first, usual browser. Cuts down on the headaches.
Thanks, purple.
All righty… I have been pondering this issue and have decided I may be guilty to some extent of the same thing I accuse MM of doing, i.e, selectively choosing races. I hadn’t really looked a the downticket races in VA and NJ and it looks like, at least in VA, Dems are going to get walloped top to bottom. In NJ they probably will have their majority cut.
I still think that the “top three” races are poor indicators of any trend, for the reasons I have indicated, and that Cal 10 and ME Question One have as much validity to determining the national mood as any these races. But if you do want some proof as to a Democratic backlash, at least in those states, I think the state legislature elections are a far better indicator.
That’s why we like you chap, you can admit to being wrong. Next thing you know, you’ll be voting conservative.
You’re welcome, b-cat, even though I didn’t do anything to be thanked for, lol!
I checked Michelle’s site using the most common browsers – IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome (actually “Iron”, but pretty the same) and Safari. Safari is the Apple browser but I use the version for Windows (XP Pro in my case).
IE was the only one that displayed the page messed up, all of the others got it right.
I agree. I think congressional districts should be designated by counties. Then maybe I would have a representative that actually might represent me.
Amen – hadenough. Perhaps the folks that exposed the acorn housing mess can come up with a new approach to exposing voter fraud. The RNC can’t be counted on to do it.
Sounds rather like Dorothy clicking her heels together and repeating the magic mantra, only to open her eyes and find that she’s still in The Land of Oz.
Maybe a different chant might work:
“This isn’t happening!
This isn’t happening!
This is not happening…”
Yes, separating liberals from moderate R’s must be done carefully.
OT
Michelle has a Mac and probably uses whatever Commie browser comes on that religious apparatus.
BTW – I once wrote a browser for a class I was auditing. They’re way easier to code than you might think.
Wow, finally proof that this administration if full of Terrorist ass kissing traitors..
Vaccine for Terrorists before U.S. citizens & school children!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/pentagon-gitmo-detainees-receive-hn-vaccine-despite-white-house-claim/
Now you know why they won’t call it “swine” flu.
If Michelle is not satisfying your need for perfection, please, by all means, START YOUR OWN BLOG.
The three races mentioned are HUGE. Especially the New Jersey race even if it’s “same vs. “lame” again.
California’s 10th race is basically a gerrymandered district which favors the Dems. The Dems are expected to win. I have no clue about Maine’s Question 1 because it’s yet another state that’s given in to the “same” vs. “lame” dynamic.
I would say that if Republicans win the MAJORITY of these races then, yes it’s a surge and self-selection has nothing to do with it.
Don’t get in a huff, Chaps. Die hard Dems like you can’t vote in all the races, okay?
Chaps said:
Ummm, no. It’s a gerrymandered district without a hint of competition in it. You can’t say the same for NY 23, which, at one point was highly competitive between Dem, Dem Lite, and Conservative. Where are the choices in the CA district?
Wait a sec. Weren’t you the same person, hailing from this same district, that said Owens would win? Ummm, okay. Wishful thinking. Perhaps, I should let you borrow my Yoda, 8 ball doll… he’s more accurate than you’ll ever be.
Dems would love it to be all about “infighting” even though they got some infighting of their own. Why is that? VA is a fickle state that changes with the prevailing winds. NJ, not so much… a rather strong Dems state (I have family who live there and can attest to this) which consistently front Dem vs. Dem lite candidates.
I would actually prefer that Hoffman remain an Independent and not be included in the Republican Party. They backstabbed him and he doesn’t owe them anything.
I don’t have much hope for NJ even if Christie wins. It’s a dying state along with much of the East Coast Corridor. VA was predictable because it’s evenly divided.
Redpill, perhaps I should let you borrow my Yoda, 8 ball doll instead of Chaps. The Repubs have gotta a lot of problems and I’m beginning to think even if 2010 is their year, they still need to reassess where they go from here. Do they continue to be Dem lite or an actually distinct, separate party?
I’m sorry but I don’t have your faith. I’ve lived under the reign of Maurice Hinchey and all his Dem cohorts for far tooo long in the state of NY to really think anything will change.
The test will be if conservatives will stay within the Repub party or break away and form a strong, third party. Lame and Same just don’t cut it for me anymore.
McCain was the straw the broke my party loyaty.
Oops:
Meant loyalty… not loyaty.
Where’s that spell check, Michelle?
chap is just trying to take some of the satisfaction away from us watching the pendulum swinging solidly back to the right a full year before expected. Analyze, deconstruct, minimize and revise all you want. Real change is on the way.
May I say again sir chap, with all due respect – thumb firmly against nose, pinky extended toward monitor –
PHHHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBT!!! Thank you.
Only Trotskyite Revisionists use Google Chrome.
BTW, I just voted (3PM Eastern) in N VA. Turnout, while not heavy, seemed above average for the time of day.
Don’t be daft, emjem. The ONLY reason it was competitive for the Democrat was vote splitting. Look at the percent Democratic vote in that district since 1982:
2008 – 35%
2006 – 37%
2004 – 29%
2002 – 0%
2000 – 23%
1998 – 21%
1996 – 25%
1994 – 18%
1992 – 21%
1990 – 38%
1988 – 25%
1986 – 0%
1984 – 29%
1982 – 28%
So maybe liberals should claim a momentum swing in their direction if Owens gets anything over 37%, which he probably will.
No I said Owens could win, but only if the vote split just so. I have always maintained that the natural ceiling of support for Owens was about 35%, give or take, meaning Dede and Hoffman would have to split almost exactly. My apologies for not predicting at the time Dede would drop out and the endorse the Dem. That was a real oversight by me. But the fact that Owens had any shot is incredible and says more about the right than it does the left.
I never claimed it was all about infighting; just NY 23. But the fact remains that a good number of liberals are really hoping for Hoffman to win for no other reason than it will force a lot more tough primaries in the GOP.
Chaps said:
That’s really funny…your sudden back-tracking deniability. You never made “that” call. C’mon…
So, when a paper like Watertown Daily Times ENDORSES Owens, and there’s pushback against Hoffman because he’s an “outsider” there isn’t a push, a hope, and a prayer, by the Dems to get Owens over the finish line? Okay.
I don’t remember you giving a “ceiling” to Owens’ support or you qualifying your prediction. If you could link where you said as much I might believe you.
You and other liberals have overestimated this situation. This isn’t about the Republicans and it never was. It’s about the conservatives and how they align. As usual, liberals judge a situation that they DON’T understand and never will. Yet, they are the ones that think strong-arming moderate and conservative Dems for the sake of “party unity” is the way to go.
Both parties have BIG problems. Neither has good solutions to solve this country’s problems. I want a freaking alternative. Dems want the same Kabuki, party politics above country approach that they accuse Republicans of doing.
You’re all the same. And I’m tired of it. Once my husband is retired from the military, I will no longer be an absentee NY voter. Same vs. Lame in that state is not the way to go for me. For Dems. For Repubs. Okay. I’ll take my chances on Colorado where there’s a significant portion of Independents in the state.
And don’t call me DAFT. At least I have the courage to go it alone politically and don’t need my mommy to hold my hand to caste a vote. Can’t say the same for you, Chaps. The only “daft” person in this conversation is the person who thinks his party’s “political structure” still works for him. They don’t care about you, just your vote and how to control you and your life.
Nah, as far as I see it, I’m a free agent. My vote’s not automatic. Yours is… and that’s why this country is in rough shape.
So, you claim that nobody voted for a Democrat in the 2002 race? Suspect statistics, as usual. Besides, with candidates like Hughes and Scozzafava, no matter who you voted for in that district, you were voting for a liberal so the natural Democrat vote was always split until this election. We’ll see tonight what the true percentage of leftist/Democrat voters is in that district now that we have a clear difference between the candidates (and the Democrat can’t run to the right of the Conservative – as he was doing with Scozzafava). I agree that the big news from the district is that conservatives have had it with LOTE candidates. I don’t think Democrats should be happy about it, though, although I know that’s the party line and your obligated to repeat it. Contested primaries should lead to better candidates for Republicans and better results.
Kneejerk leftist rhetoric. They think anyone who isn’t a Marxist belong in an asylum.
emjem, you can feel free to believe me about what I predicted or not. You can also feel free to search the old posts if you want. You can also feel free to shov– well I won’t go there. Fact is I said multiple times Owen’s ceiling was about 35 and then after Dede dropped out predicted he would pick up some of her voters out of spite to Hoffman. Plenty here, you know…the ones that pay attention, could corroborate this.
We all know the WTD is the gold standard in newspaper endorsements.
This is not a surprise seeing as you so rarely actually read what I post and instead conjecture about what you think I should think.
That is the most absurdly, laughable, contrary to all levels of reality, and dare I say…DAFT thing you have ever written. Of course it is about Republicans. NY 23 is about trying to reclaim conservative influence in the GOP. This is about forcing the GOP to run more conservative candidates. This is about you telling the GOP they cannot take conservative support for granted. If it wasn’t then everyone here would not have given one whip about what Newt or Boehner or Steele did. there would not have been multiple posts by MM with pictures of people returning their GOP fundraising requests.
They will no doubt miss you.
Hmmm…lets see. In my lifetime I have voted for 50% Democrats, about 40% Republicans and 10% independent. So that makes you about as wrong on that subject as you seem to be on everything else.
i am sorry but anyone who thinks that NY 23 is competitive for a Democrat, absent the extraordinary circumstances we saw, is either daft or disingenuous. Feel free to pick one.
Yet backed up by FACT, as usual, unlike anything you post. Check here, for example for 2002.
You know why this is? Take a guess…because parties often do not run candidates in UNWINNABLE districts.
Once this is over, I’m sure the news will be full of “spin”, both from the winners declaring a “mandate” and losers saying “it wasn’t important”. Don’t forget the ones demanding recounts too, especially from those who thought Acorn fixed it for them.
Why is Blank Scattering allowed to run in every district?
S/he must be the Lyndon LaRouche of New Yor politics.
In case my point was too obscure – I’m saying that democrats and liberals probably received votes that were lumped into the Blank/Scattering category.
In other words, chap’s data looks accurate. Ya gotta bring your A game when debating him!
Still haven’t read that link, huh? Not surprised.
What the hell link are you talking about?
The one you didn’t read.
Oh. Was it one of those where you linked to the success of tort reform in bringing down tort costs, yet failed to connect that in any way to an actual reduction in the growth of heath care costs? Cause there were an awful lot of those being thrown around. I am not sure I could identify yours specifically.
Chaps said:
Actually, I don’t put much stock in what you say. I suspect other posters feel the same. Perhaps, it’s your personality? Or your politics? Or, when you get your gander up you turn condescending verging on jerkiness (is that a word?). Yes, you seem reasonable on the surface and you have exhibited those tendencies when you “choose” to. I recognize that. Now if you want to be insulting instead of just fessing up… that only confirms what I first said. Since, there are times I don’t hang out here a lot, yes, I would like you to link your comments since I don’t go out of my way to update myself on your latest predictions. I’m sure that there are other posters who don’t hang out on this blog a lot (like 30 pieces, Zero, etc.) who check in from time to time and have no freaking clue about your latest tidbit. I’m sorry I don’t keep track of your latest wine/food pairings.
Well, given that it is THE newspaper in Watertown, yeah, I would think that significant. I’ve also seen the national media TRASH Hoffman. Now, why is that? Perhaps, because they’re pushing for Owens?
It’s not surprising because I don’t frequent this blog as much as I used to. You know, real life and all. My life doesn’t revolve around what you say on a given basis, Chaps. I’m basing my comments on your “predictions” and the comical deniability you’re now applying to them.
You can call me DAFT all you want but what I think is really DAFT is how a liberal thinks they can READ anything into what is, at most, a very fluid political situation with the Republican party. Yes, some think it’s ABOUT the Republican party while others want a bit of separation from it. I would PREFER that Hoffman remain an Independent beholden to his voters and we will see if he does it or not. Time will tell.
You want to know what it’s REALLY about? Perhaps, it’s about a party that’s hard to distinguish from the Dems. Perhaps, it’s about Republicans not keeping their promises and getting a little too comfy in Washington. Perhaps, it’s about people who’ve decided to look at their choices a little more closely than automatically choosing the Repubs. Perhaps, Dems could learn from this.
I think it’s about people and THEIR unwillingness to caste an AUTOMATIC vote. That’s why there are more people who self-identify as Conservatives than as Republicans. So, no… it’s too simplistic to believe it’s all about the Republican Party anymore.
Just as I’m sure they missed you unless you are currently voting absentee. Who couldn’t miss that adorable amount of arrogant self-importance?
Good for you. As have I. Sometimes the only choice is Democrat… I could leave it blank, put in another name, or vote one of the more acceptable slots such as Conservative or Independent.
Where have I been wrong? Please cite some examples. I’m curious. Did I make a far reaching prediction like you tend to? What other things have I been wrong about? Or is it that I don’t take your word for it like other posters do that you think I’m now wrong about EVERYTHING. I tend to comment not prognosticate. I leave that to Karnac and you.
Not that you’re ever wrong about ANYTHING. Never. You’ve already admitted you perhaps “misjudged” the NY 23 race. It’s also laughable that you and other liberals think you understand the Republicans when even many Republicans don’t get them anymore.
Yet, you felt qualified to speculate and on them.
Here you go sweets. Here is one from literally right after Dede conceded.
Here is one from October 22, when Owens was polling at 33%.
No. I admitted I did not predict Scozzafava dropping out and then endorsing Owens.
I am freaking brilliant, but I am not Nostradamus.
If you say so. It helps if you know the latest wine/food pairings, flattering his ego, and you remember every freaking thing he’s said on this blog the past couple of months.
Heaven forbid you challenge him on his hypocrisy but it’s okay that he’s now the “authority” on the following:
1. Tort reform.
2. Election races… even the obscure, uninteresting ones.
3. Padded predictions. He can handicap predictions but if you call him on it you are the one who is wrong.
4. Blog recall. If you don’t remember what he said on a given topic you’ve already lost the argument.
It’s hard to have a conversation with someone who shows his charming/affable side when it suits him until you challenge him on his belief systems. I get challenged a lot here and I’ve changed some of my positions (even my party affiliation) but for anybody to say Chaps is a “secret conservative” (even if it’s now a well-known inside joke) are only kidding themselves.
It’s like having a “direct conversation” with Zyzzyg. It’s not what you think it is, only what they want you to believe.
And yet you claim to be.
I did? Where? Please link then and PROVE it. I will “willingly” concede that I speculated. Saying I would like Hoffman to win doesn’t mean he will or that I’m speculating that result.
Let’s get one thing clear. I’m not your “sweets.” I find that condescending and if you want to maintain your “affable/reasonable” reputation on this blog, you’ll knock it off. I do not call you special pet names if you do not call me special pet names. You have done that with a certain female poster because she got your gander up and you liked to do the same with her. You will not be doing it with me. I’m old-fashioned like that. I make it a priority not to give ANYBODY pet names. Just a little pet peeve of mine. I might have, in the past, exempted trolls in that but I don’t do it anymore. It feeds the wrong sort of behavior.
I am well aware he was leading at one point. Now he isn’t. Polls are fluid. I’m brilliant too!
I tried to have a debate about that. No one was interested in actually debating with facts.
Yes. When you misstate what I predicted, you are indeed wrong.
No. When someone claims to recall what I said, and calls me a liar when I say that is not what I predicted, and then is proven wrong when I actually show the posts, then you have lost the argument.
Listen, emjem. You want to mess with me, fine. You seem to get off on that a lot lately. But don’t get all huffy when I directly challenge you, especially when you claim to know what I said better than I. You know what they say about the bull and horns.
Yeah, that’s the one – when you were claiming that tort reform had no effect on health care costs. Of course you never seemed to realize that it doesn’t matter which dollar you save – it’s the saving that counts, and as I pointed out we saved around 40% of our tort costs. That translates into a net savings to the state (and businesses and individuals) of about 10 billion dollars, which leaves more money for other obligations like, oh, for instance, health care.
Wow. Your cognitive dissonance from one post to the next is amazing.
Really because I could swear you basically said you “misjudged” the situation to another poster. Perhaps, I’m mistaken. You did admit the Dems are gonna get a walloppin’ in VA even if they front weak candidates. So be it.
No, I don’t really think you’re “brilliant.” I’ve met “brilliant” people in my life who turned out to be stupid, flawed people outside their profession.
People are gonna say I’m a pessimistic downer but here’s the truth… people are flawed creatures. They suck. And they don’t change. I think my pugs have more loyalty, love, and intelligence than many people I’ve met in my life.
Brilliance is in the eye of the beholder. Luck can be on your side. Every decision you’ve ever made was the right one. Sometimes, though, there are humans who break the mold. Nostradamus was one of those. You, no. Me, no.
Sorry to go all philsophical but I’d rather just cut through all the BS.
/sarc off
And yes, I know you just made an egocentric funny.
Michelle
Are you going to live blog tonight?
Oh, txvet. That is a doozy. Try reading your own source. That $10 billion figure is for THE ENTIRE tort system, which includes a LOT more than just med mal. You should have known that based on the fact that the study was done 3 years BEFORE med mal reform.
And maybe you should stop pretending to know more about Texas than I do. We started passing tort reform legislation in 1995. The 2003 bill was just the most recent piece. I could give you a link, but you wouldn’t read it anyway.
And by the way, you might also point out to me where exactly I mentioned “med mal” in:
You may live there, txvet. But I can read. And you tried to cite a figure that had zip to do with med mal reform. You want to claim the great success of med mal reform yet continually ignore the fact that health care spending, in reality, continues to rise at a rate that pretty much matches the rest of the US. So spare me your theoretical ramblings about how it should obviously bring health care costs down.
We were discussing med mal tort reform and you know it. Don’t try to be cute.
chapoutier said:
No one was interested because a) you’re a liberal b) you’re in a profession too invested in a “lack of” tort reform. Some states have it with mixed success.
Actually, you were all about how Hoffman would “split” the vote which would make the race go in Owens’ favor. Ummm… that was a scenario you played, right?
Actually, I wasn’t around for most of your “speculations.” I’m not saying you lied. I’m saying you denied that you speculated that if Hoffman split the vote, Owens “could” win (prediction padding). Perhaps, I wasn’t specific? I haven’t lost the argument because there was never an argument to be had. You like it both ways. You padded your outcomes with language such as “could.”
I’m not messing with you. There’s nothing to mess with. You’re like every other liberal in my life who’s ever BS’d me. You would be the last person to know what I “get off” on. Liberals like to think they know “better” when they don’t. When you call me “sweets” isn’t that just to demean me because you look down on people? You condescend and I’ve grown used to it but I don’t excuse it. So, if you want to continue down the whole “emjem has grown huffy because she doesn’t like being challenged,” line of thought then so be it. Any poster who’s “acquainted” with my contributions knows differently. For someone who says I know what they said more than the actual poster, it’s interesting that you’re speculating my own motivations. You don’t know. And you never will.
You “claim” you know the Republican party too, but you don’t. Not really. Republicans don’t. Politics is a shifting, fluid thing. It’s not static, just as polls, allegiences, positions aren’t.
In the end, I’m beginning to wonder if you know anything about humans at all if they don’t exhibit the same patterns, thoughts, beliefs, etc. that you do.
Yeah, OT, but the issue off page display has come up several times, so it’s an excusable OT.
I believe Michelle uses Macbook Pro and I’m guessing she also uses Firefox for Nac for doing some webstuff. Apple’s default browser is Safari. The Windows version of it is pretty good.
Making a browser is relatively easy to do, AlohaGuy – making a good browser is another animal! As the interwebs get more complex – e.g diff streaming media formats – you gotta constantly be rewriting the code. Then they’s the always ever-new virii and other nasty netbugs to factor in.
But it’s fun to have a “hobby browser”.
Ah, for the simple days when there were no browsers, just BBS….
You may be able to read, but you don’t show much understanding of what it is you’re reading, which may be why you try to snow people with a blizzard of useless and irrelevant statistics. By trying to treat health care costs in isolation, you ignore the financial benefits from tort reform overall – which, once again for the terminally stupid, goes in the same pockets.
Maybe you were. I wasn’t. The data is clear. We saved a bunch on tort reform (even prior to the 2003 law, which seems to be the only one you’re aware of.) The only reference I ever made medical malpractice costs was to note that the tiny savings you were sneering at were actually pretty important to the doctors who were paying the malpractice premiums.
Wow, it’s really amazing that you either didn’t read my post or neglected to add that I wasn’t around when you made these posts.
Other posters as well have said the same thing. How am I any more wrong than them (especially the ones who were around when you decided to “speculate”).
I said this too… also admitting I didn’t remember because I wasn’t around when you gave Owens a “ceiling.”
Other commenters are basically saying what I’ve said. At first it was a prediction, then speculation, then you you didn’t take into account Scozzafava dropping out and endorsing Owens.
It’s all about context, Chaps. I basically admitted I didn’t know what you said when you made the post about the “ceiling.” The only cognitive dissonance seems to be coming from you.
So your argument was that Texas was saving on health care costs by addressing tort reform in areas that have nothing to do with health care?
Can we also save on health care costs by switching to GEICO for our car insurance?
Which is a pretty stupid argument when the issue is whether medical malpractice costs significantly reduce health care costs overall. Not whether it significantly helps the doctor’s bottom line. But I would not expect you to either understand the difference.