"During my long journey through the world of evil, I had discovered three sources of power: the power of an individual's inner freedom, the power of a free society, and the power of the solidarity of the free world."-- Natan Sharansky, "The Case for Democracy"

Buy "The Case for Democracy"

View NASA picture

Buy
The Sticker

CONTACT:
jk [at] threesources [dot] com
AlexC [at] threesources [dot] com
JohnGalt [at] threesources [dot] com

AlexC Bio
jk Bio
Johngalt Bio
LatteSipper Bio
Cyrano Bio
Ellis Wyatt Bio

Maybe the world is ThreeSources -- add a #3src hashtag to post your tweets


October 31, 2014

Electoral Calculus

Between Wednesday and today, 244,245 more ballots were returned by Colorado voters.
68,557 were unaffiliated with a party
76,542 were registered Democratic
96,427 were registered Republican

The derivative of the R-D margin, which I had projected at -1% per reporting interval, slipped to just -0.3%. The second derivative, i.e. the "momentum" of the Republican vs. the Democratic "ground game" is therefore positive at this point.

Turnout%2014%20general%20graph%2010-31.jpg


Eleven Year Update

I wrote this essay in May 2003, comparing the private sector amenities available to a customer buying an oil change to those at the State-coerced Clean Air Colorado emissions test.

I endured the latter yesterday (hmm, reminds me -- I need the former) and decided that the essay needs an update. Indulge me and read the old one, even if only to see how little my prose has matured in 138 months.

To be fair, some things have improved. I still have to drive ten miles (spewing foul exhaust all the way there and back) but now, instead of Boulder, I can take pleasant country roads to the Weld County location and grab a Starbucks a half-mile away. The web site lists wait times and I did not wait long right before noon on the second to last day of the month.

Being Weld County, the people are more pleasant -- although I was never greeted or thanked. I was waved into a bay when it was time and told where the waiting room was. The cheap seats had seat cushions and there was thankfully no TV. When completed, it was parked for 10-15 minutes before someone came to print papers and take my money. O blinding hour, Oh terrible holy day -- they take credit cards now!

To be clear, nobody was surly or officious. My only complaint -- except being forced to take an hour out of my day for "emissions theatre" -- was the long wait at the end to get me out. But the last oil change I got was at a Jiffy Lube in Longmont. They had a Starbucks machine in the lobby, satellite TV, comfy chairs, and staff that respected your time.

And the Great American Tire location of which I spoke so lovingly? It has been empty for many years. The market has spoken. But, pacé Sec Clinton, State coercion is creating jobs:

cleanairco.jpg

But johngalt thinks:

That help wanted sign looks rather permanent. Maybe the two free emissions tests per paycheck perk isn't really cementing that employee loyalty. Perhaps when government forces government to raise its minimum wage...

Government - Creating the jobs that even non-Americans won't do.

Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2014 12:39 PM

Community Organizers

Like many, I did not know such an occupation existed until one its ranks was promoted to the Oval Office. But I am not going to laugh anymore.

I'd be afraid to:

Two "Stop the Violence" organizers allegedly beat one of their colleagues so severely that he vomited blood and was left unconscious in critical condition.

Nikole Ardeno and Emanuel Velez, both 30, accused their former roommate of stealing their property, and allegedly punched and kicked him in the street until he had seizures. Arrested moments later, Ardeno was still wearing the same "Stop the Violence" T-shirt she had on the night before when she coordinated a march protesting two recent shootings, Washington Police Chief Chris Luppino said.

The victim, Joshua Magraff, also is a community organizer with the anti-violence group, and shared an apartment with the suspects until recently.


Hat-tip Insty, who adds, "That 'all property is theft' stuff? That's for other people's property."


October 30, 2014

Live Debate: Is There a War on Women? (Bumped)

Watch below on the Independence Institute.

Starring Kelly Maher, Susan Green and Laura Carno, according to Jon Caldera. Perhaps others as well.

live streaming video on Ustream

UPDATE: Here's the recording

But johngalt thinks:

This went down during my drive time and I wasn't able to get the content on my mobile device. I caught a few minutes when I got home, which consisted of one of the left ladies saying, "I'll be glad to stop hearing about women's reproductive issues in our politics as soon as politicians stop proposing new laws and regulations about women's reproductive issues." (I paraphrase but that was the gist, perhaps not as eloquently as I stated it.)

And I thought to myself, "Gee, perhaps politicians might stop proposing new laws and regulations about everything." For her part, Laura Carno made that basic point saying she is "pro choice" on medical care, energy, self-protection...

Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2014 12:30 PM
But jk thinks:

I saw this promoted in Amy Oliver's Facebook but with no times. I tuned in early to see staffers arranging tables and yukking it up a little. When I cam back it was over. Suppose somebody cached the stream somewhere? I mean besides the NSA.

Posted by: jk at October 29, 2014 1:58 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I expect i2i will post it. Then we can edit this post to include it.

Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2014 2:18 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Thank you for the edits brother!

Posted by: johngalt at October 30, 2014 3:38 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"Colorado was the first state to give women the right to vote." Really, Patty Calhoun? I thought that honor went to the Suffrage State. Turns out that it's true, as long as you discount Wyoming and Utah TERRITORIES.

Posted by: johngalt at October 30, 2014 7:05 PM
But johngalt thinks:

How long do you think it took for the conversation to turn to abortion?

Posted by: johngalt at October 30, 2014 7:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Who told the two lefty-ladies to wear all black? That was unfair to them vis-à-vis "optics."

Posted by: johngalt at October 30, 2014 7:17 PM
But jk thinks:

I don't know. I kinda liked it better when it was a blank, black rectangle.

No "happy warriors" on either side (Laura Carno is pretty good...) At 15:32, the trope that "The ACA is basically a Republican bill; Obama passed Mitt Romney's bill."

Can't. Take. It. Anymore. I made it to 26:23.

Posted by: jk at October 30, 2014 7:25 PM

Imagine there's a paycheck

Have you seen the new Chipotle bag slogan, offering "people something to read while dining?"

"Hope that, in future, all is well, everyone eats free, and anyone who works actually gets paid for it."

Okay, I made that up from a collision of two stories about Chipotle this week:

Useful Idiots: Chipotle Espouses Communist Rhetoric On To-Go Bags from 'Tea Party News Network', and;

Chipotle workers say they work extra hours for no pay from CNN Money.

So is the bag slogan a proletarian fig-leaf for the Bourgeiose Chipotle corporatists? For its part I am critical of TPNN's take that "the Mexican grill took another step to the left by writing slogans on their bags that include plainly Communist rhetoric" with the slogan:

"Hope that, in future, all is well, everyone eats free, no one must work, all just sit around feeling love for one another."

I wrote on their FB post, "Am I the only one who recognizes the difference between "no one must work" and "no one DOES work?"


One Movie Star I'll Listen To

First, I need to complement Reason. As elections near, the magazine (and The FBN Independents whom they constitute 33% of) are interminable to one of the libertario delenda est persuasion. But, they are cool about it. They are publishing articles, three at a time, suggesting the most strategic vote:

The GOPaean was penned by Grover Norquist. Perhaps my favorite moment of Atlas Shrugged Part III was his cameo as a nameless gub'mint bureaucrat. Great stuff -- but even better are his trenchant calls for little-l libertarians to vote Republican.

If the Democrat Senate candidate in North Carolina or Virginia wins by a narrow margin because several hundred or thousands of liberty voters voted for the libertarian third party candidate rather than the Republican Senate candidate how will this be understood by the media and by the national electorate? Will the media announce that the Democrat victories are actually a demonstration of the growing strength of the libertarian movement? Or will they argue the nation voted for big government? What message does your "message" vote send?
[...]
Well who is getting this message? When you watch the TV commentators on election night the tally they put up on the board is either, one, Republicans win and the nation wants lower taxes and spending and an end to Obamacare or two, Democrats win the Senate and the nation wants Obama's growing government. We don't get to write the script.

Liberty activists should remember that voting is only one political act. Speaking with your siblings, co-workers, neighbors, children and parents provides daily opportunities to advance liberty and multiply the voice and power of the liberty movement. Call your grandparents. Speak with the waitress. Don't whine that Republican candidates do not talk about liberty. You talk about liberty to everyone who will listen. Whining about other people is not work. It is whining. The struggle against statism is a great deal of work and the only person you control is you. Be the calm, coherent voice for liberty you wish the Republican candidate for Senate was.


Sen. Rand Paul wrote yesterday's GOP call. I've read most of the six and they are all worth a read. They are heavily invested in the big-L path -- I really do give them props for opening it up to powerful arguments from the evil Republicrats.


October 29, 2014

If You Like Your Healthcare Plan...

...and don't mind a 77% increase -- you can keep your healthcare plan!

Hugh Hewitt (h/t Jim Geraghty) warns of a post-election surprise.

Colorado health-insurance consumers relying on tax credits will see their share of premiums rise an average of 77 percent next year if they keep the same plans, according to the state's preliminary analysis.

The plans are not going up that much, but the bribes tax credits are going down.

One tires of pointing out how the left would behave were a private corporation to use any of these tactics.

But johngalt thinks:

And that is just the monthly premium increases. Don't forget that deductibles have been jacked up, usually to the limit allowed by the O-care law, as have maximum out-of-pocket annual limits.

"Pay more - get less." Who wouldn't vote for that?!

Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2014 2:35 PM
But johngalt thinks:

And another one I was just reminded of: coinsurance. That's the percentage of any medical costs that the insured has to pay AFTER the deductible is met. I recall they used to be around 5% to 10% depending on the plan you selected. Our choices this year are 30% or 40%.

Thanks, government, for making my health insurance "less expensive!"

Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2014 3:52 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Is this the best we can do? Chicagoans are laughing their arses off at us over this being called "aggressive." LOL

Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2014 2:38 PM
But jk thinks:

Need I tell a blog brother to "check his privilege?" (I hope so -- I think it would be a first!)

I had some similar thoughts -- though the silent follow to the car was creepy.

As it happens, I'll see your Chicago and raise you New York City. How about Woman walks ten hours around Manhattan. Attractive as I am, I cannot relate. Some of the remarks seemed genuinely complimentary and many seemed inept attempts to "hit on" an attractive woman. But mostly, I thought this is New York (and some sketchy portions thereof). In ten hours, that's the worst you have?

I'd accept recalibration -- especially from a ThreeSourcer with XX chromosomes.

Posted by: jk at October 29, 2014 4:49 PM
But dagny thinks:

Sorry, I'm confused. What is happening in the video here? Who is harassing whom and why?

Posted by: dagny at October 30, 2014 12:50 PM
But jk thinks:

The young lady whose voice is heard is attempting to film Governor Hickenlooper. His "muscle" -- and I do use the term loosely -- position signs to prevent her from capturing Hizzonner on camera, then they follow her to the coffee shop and to her car.

Posted by: jk at October 31, 2014 10:22 AM

Wave Propagation 2

Latest chart:

Turnout%2014%20general%20graph%2010-29.jpg

Did somebody say differentials?

The d(R-D)/dT values are 0.7%, -3.2%, -0.1%, -1.7% and -1.0% over the six data points. Extrapolated curve uses the most recent slope, -1.0% per interval.

But jk thinks:

Thanks, feeling a little better. Plus Rasmussen has Cory Gardner above 50% for the first time ever.

I remain worried about the vaunted Democrat turnout/fraud machine. That -- as much as math -- has me looking at the slopes.

Posted by: jk at October 29, 2014 1:02 PM
But johngalt thinks:

You mean, like "Republican" poll watchers in "Democrat County Clerk Hillary Hall's" * Boulder County Clerk's Office actually being Democrats? And not objecting when ballots with obviously non-matching signatures are counted anyway? That kind of "turnout" and "fraud?"

* In protest of the Boulder Daily Camera describing state election officials as "member[s] of Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler's staff."

Note the call to Boulder County Republicans to go to poll watcher training this Saturday morning and to volunteer in the clerk's office next Mon, Tues or Wed. Alert your righty BoCo friends.

Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2014 2:25 PM

I told you so

There are three great jk heterodoxies.

One: that oil does not come from dead dinosaurs, but a natural outgassing of the planet's core. Hydrocarbons are better connected to geology than biology.

The second was that Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe is epistemologically unfounded. I have "warmed" (get it? See what I did there?) to the idea, though I still consider it both wildly overwrought and a problem far less risky than its proposed solutions.

The third is calling shenanigans on the low fat, T-factor diet. I was on that. I weighed 270 pounds. I was by no means an early adopter of Atkins, but it was still considered "woo" by the medical community at large. I lost 80 pounds and never felt better. Alas, I have no skill at moderation and cannot keep dm/dt = 0 for very long. But I have the owner's manual now and can easily lose when motivated.

I hope to live long enough to deliver a "nanny-nanny-boo-boo!" on each of these to my friends who gave me the pitying, tinfoil hat/black helicopter looks. But today is a pretty good day to claim a win on #3.

Though completely discredited in respectable studies, the USDA and NIH are still dragging their heels. They cannot change their guidelines without an at-least-implicit mea culpa. So, they will do what government does -- who cares how many die?

The most current and rigorous science on saturated fat is moving in the opposite direction from the USDA committee. A landmark meta-analysis of all the available evidence, conducted this year by scientists at Cambridge and Harvard, among others, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded that saturated fats could not, after all, be said to cause heart disease. While saturated fats moderately raise "bad" LDL-cholesterol, this does not apparently lead to adverse health outcomes such as heart attacks and death. Another meta-analysis, published in the respected American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010, came to the same conclusion. The USDA committee has ignored these findings.

No doubt, accepting them would be another embarrassing reversal for nutrition experts. The USDA, the NIH and the American Heart Association have spent billions trying to prove and promote the idea that saturated fats cause heart disease.

In place of saturated fats, these agencies have counseled Americans to consume ever-larger quantities of unsaturated fats, which are found mainly in soybean and other vegetable oils. Yet a diet high in these oils has been found in clinical trials to lead to worrisome health effects, including higher rates of cancer.


They have to revise their guidelines every five years and there is little evidence they will incorporate new science this time around.

One almost wonders whether having the government set dietary guidelines is even, really, much of a good idea.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:00 PM | What do you think? [1 comments]
But johngalt thinks:

Now can we finally dispense with the fairy tale that goes, "Government is separated from religion by the Constitution, which means everything government does is driven by science?"

Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2014 12:36 PM

October 28, 2014

Quote of the Day

Salon doesn't score such honors with any frequency, but even I cannot fail to recognize sagacity:

"I am so pleased to be here with your senior senator, the passionate champion for working people and middle-class families, Elizabeth Warren!" [Secretary Hillary] Clinton roared. "I love watching Elizabeth, you know, give it to those who deserve to get it," she added. And who might "those who deserve to get it" be? Clinton, whose family foundation has collected up to half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs and whom many Wall Street Republicans are already prepared to support in 2016, didn't elaborate. . . . -- Luke Brinker

Hat-tip: James "All Hail" Taranto


BRIC Loses Another Letter

I received an interesting Facebook invitation yesterday. I have befriended a handful of people who share my last name in Brazil. I test the Portuguese translator in Facebook (it's sketchy) and address them all as "Cousin." After the re-election of überlefty President Dilma Rousseff the other day -- I was invited to a rally to impeach her.

I told "Cousin Luciana" to count me in in spirit and shared a WSJ link critical of Rousseff. The WSJ Ed Page is back suggesting that after the votes, the market voted.

Brazil's currency, the real, fell almost 2% and was trading at about 2.52 against the dollar at the end of Monday, close to its lowest point in a decade. Brazil's main stock market index was down 2.8% to its lowest close in six months. Those markets had rallied some in the last few weeks as challenger Aécio Neves had come close to Ms. Rousseff in the polls. So the Monday selloff was a case of investors pricing in the discount of continuing bad economic policy. A Brazil credit downgrade to "junk" status is likely on present trend.

Brazil is proof that democracy is no guarantee of prosperity. A country rich in resources and people has managed to squander both with an overweening state that buys votes via income redistribution and price controls on gasoline that force losses on producers. Those are Third World policy blunders in a country that fancies itself a First World aspirant. This explains Brazilís consistent economic underperformance (0.5% growth this year, following 2.5% in 2013) and 6.75% inflation rate.


Sec. Clinton was Right?

Happy Birthday to Charlie Daniels, job creator!

charlie_daniels_bday.jpg

Hat-tip: Rhonda Vincent

UPDATE: Tweeps not following @CharlieDaniels are making a big mistake. He provides homespun wisdom, conservative politics, and pretty pictures 140 characters at a time.

2016 Posted by John Kranz at 1:29 PM | What do you think? [0 comments]

Wave Propagation

Colorado election return data update from Monday, 10/27:

Republicans down 1 point to 43%.
Democrats steady at 32%.

Margin closer by 1 point at 11%.

(Unaffiliateds up one from 23% to 24%.) So really, I would call this "unchanged."

Turnout%2014%20general%20graph%2010-27.jpg

Back story here.

UPDATE: The graph appears to show a slight rise in the D turnout so I extended the percentages to the first decimal place. Democrat turnout is up, 0.7%. Republicans down 1.0 and U's up 0.3%.

But jk thinks:

We are completely screwed. Well, it was fun.

Posted by: jk at October 28, 2014 1:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:
But johngalt thinks:

The wild card? Denver and Boulder unaffiliateds.

http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2014/10/27/2014-midterm-all-mail-voting-spikes-early-turnout-compared-to-2010/

Posted by: johngalt at October 28, 2014 3:05 PM

Otequay of the Ayday

In an article about Ms. Clinton's "gaffe" last week:

The senator has no clue where jobs come from and doesn't pretend to. She's a collection of categories, not a thoughtfully realized human being - a (pseudo) Native-American, feminist, populist, Harvard law professor. She no more knows where jobs come from than first-graders know where babies come from. She only knows that they exist and that something icky happened to make it so.

You guessed it - not Hillary, Elizabeth. But the article, the latest from the "Stimulus That!" blog of Communities Digital News contributor and economics professor Jim Picht, is more than just a single entertaining quote. It goes on to explain how Democrats and Republicans conspire to distract the electorate with one issue while a more important one goes unnoticed:

There are other things more important to making the job-creating activity profitable than the corporate tax rate. The regulatory environment is probably the most important of those. New York is less likely to attract new businesses and new jobs by cutting business taxes than it is by making it easier to start or expand a business, easier to hire new employees if there's a chance of a bigger profit, and not making it hard to get rid of those employees if the hoped-for profit doesn't materialize.

There is a great deal that our elected officials could do to make America a more vibrant business environment and American job markets more robust. The first step is honesty: Recognize where jobs come from, and where they don't. Businesses aren't the grit in our economic engine; they are the engine.

Taxes are the shibboleth that political parties and members of Congress use to identify enemies and avoid doing anything useful. It is impossible to be pro-consumer and pro-worker without being pro-business, yet Hillary wants to beat the horse of tax rates. Republicans are happy to go along. [Italics in original]


October 27, 2014

Political Ad of the Year

Jon Caldera is involved.

But johngalt thinks:

E, A, H, T and R can also be rearranged to spell "HEART." Just sayin'.

Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2014 3:07 PM

October 26, 2014

Review Corner Hiatus

Review Corner will be going dark for a few weeks. ThreeSources apologizes for any inconvenience, but reminds readers that "Two and a Half Men" will be returning to TV, so they are not entirely out of intellectual stimulation.

I'm going to tackle four books at once. Charles Murray recently posted what Prof. Greg Mankiw called A great and balanced essay on Ayn Rand which was well received on these pages. The same Murray wrote The Curmudgeon's Guide for Getting Ahead [Review Corner] which recommended that agnostic and atheist study some religious materials and try to come to terms with adult and intellectual religious concepts.

I've publicly opined that my eleven years of Catholic education included very little intellectual rigor. Two friends studied with Jesuits, who are known to be more demanding that way than the diocesan priests and laity I encountered. I took the liberty of asking one of these friends for a book (I think I distinctly said "a" as in "one" but I do not have access to the tape) to catch up a little. He asked two friends, added one of his own, and showed up with three books comprising 1400 pages. No pit'churs. No "for Dummies" concatenated to any of the titles.

Then, in what I consider to be a completely secular coincidence, a fourth book found its way onto the pile. My sister, cleaning out her late husband's bookshelf found a book my father's Aunt Mattie had inscribed to him on his birthday in 1949. I had never heard of it, but The Seven Storey Mountain was a surprise hit of that year. I started it the day after Dad's birthday (He'd have been 101) and have been surprised to hear it referenced in two of the other three books. (This is probably the liberty equivalent of "There's this fellow called Hayek..." But I was unaware.)
Seven_Story_inscription.jpg

I am not certain what the plan is. I've now read a couple chapters of each -- and they are all quite good in their own way. I may continue to cycle through them. I know ThreeSourcers will suggest that it is just like one's first day in prison: that I should grab the 800 page, 17-lb. monster with the microscopic type and "kick its ass" first. I'll take that under advisement... It calls for Mortimer Adler's "syntopical reading" of digesting multiple books on the same topic without perhaps a sequential read through all the sources.

four_books.jpg

But, whatever happens, I am going to be busy. I may post some quotes along the way (I am furiously flagging both things I like and things with which I seriously disagree.) In "The Seven Story Mountain. Thomas Merton ends up in a Trappist Monastery. If that happens to me, I hope they have good WiFi.


But johngalt thinks:

And an excellent brewing program, no doubt.

I had independently decided to "study some religious materials and try to come to terms with adult and intellectual religious concepts" so I will share here the title I have selected. It was actually recommended by my father, from whom I willingly borrowed it. 'The Pagan Christ' is, as has been summarized to me, the story of the authoritarian highjacking of the Christian religion by the Romans. Before that it was a more personal and individualistic belief system. Now you can see why my interest was piqued.

While the author has been called names by some displeased reviewers and has had his scholarship questioned, I thought I should read it and form my own opinions. Can I read 200 pages in the time it takes jk to read 1400? Probably not, but I'll give it the ol' college try.

Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2014 2:29 PM
But jk thinks:

Bloody Romans. What have they ever done for us?

Posted by: jk at October 27, 2014 3:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"Always look on the briiiight, side of life!"

Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2014 7:20 PM

October 24, 2014

Sec. Clinton Shares Her Economic Wisdom

"Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."

Hat-tip: Washington Free Breacon

UPDATE: great comment on this from former state rep Shawn Mitchell on Facebook. Reproduced with permission:

That is not econ 101, it's lefty econ 101. It's not demand that created jobs. Demand reflects people who are hungry or cold or unsheltered. But their wants do nothing to fill themselves. It's a supplier's insight to spot current demand or having a vision of *possible* demand, and then risk, investment, work and offering and seeing it through that creates the value and the attendant jobs.

All the demand in the world will not plant the crops that feed the hungry, sew the clothes the cover naked, or build the computers that efficiently manage information. Ultimately, of course, demand is necessary for any product or service to succeed in the marketplace, but demand isn't sufficient and in itself, it's futile. It doesn't create the product or the jobs necessary to make and market the product.

A farmer needs see enough mouths and market, and then needs to bust his hump through the seasons to supply. A homebuilder has to see residents and potential move ins, and then risk or recruit the investment capital to hire the workers to build the homes. Demand does squat except offer opportunity to risk takers with drive and vision.

And that's just current demand. Sometimes visionaries *create* demand. What demand was there for Henry Ford's model A? What demand was there for photocopiers? For yellow stickit notes? For apple Coumputers? For cell phones? For smart phones. Entrepeneurs envisoned new things and new ways and with great commitment and risk created the products that the public truned out to want. Demand created nothing. Vision, risk, and work created the products and the jobs.

2016 Posted by John Kranz at 6:05 PM | What do you think? [3 comments]
But johngalt thinks:

Why do tax-and-spend politicians insist on referring to nominally market-based economic policies as "trickle down?" Because by the time they get done with it, a trickle of wealth creation is all that is left.

Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2014 6:22 PM
But jk thinks:

Well played.

One thing that is really staring to disturb me is this new syntactical construction on the left. "Don't let anyone tell you that..." or Paul Krugman's "... these stories are false." I liked it better when they prevaricated with nuance.

Posted by: jk at October 25, 2014 12:29 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I have the opposite response. I'm glad that they aren't disguising the lies any longer. Fewer people will fall for them and, at the same time, it betrays a definitive state of panic that the stealthier tactics have failed.

Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2014 2:17 PM

Otequay of the Ayday

The liberal Denver Post endorsed Mr. Gardner, chiding the Democrat for failing to talk about substantive issues. Mr. Gardner has jumped on that contrast, too, ramping up his focus on kitchen-table issues like the economy, energy, education and the environment -- which polls show are resonating well with independents and Denver suburbanites, crucial voting blocs. He also seems to be holding his own among Hispanic voters.

Mr. Udall has now all but given up on claiming he has a winning message; his campaign has been reduced to promising that the party's vaunted ground operation will grind out a surprise victory. And maybe it will. But this year's Colorado is hardly proving a blueprint for future Democratic campaigns. It's modeling gone wrong.

The inestimable and ever-grounded Kim Strassel: The 'Colorado Model' Goes Thud

Special Bonus Quote:

If Colorado is serving as a model for anything these days, it's the risks of Democratic overreach.

Eadray the whole ingthay. It is short, sweet, and packed with peanuts.


Catch a wave...

and you're sittin' on top of the world!

I just commented on The Three Sources Platform? post that, in Colorado's 2012 general election, less than 1 percent of the ballots returned were by registered Libertarians or American Constitution Party members. That doesn't seem like much until one considers that the turnout amongst registered Democrats was 35% and Republicans 37%, with Unaffiliateds making up 28% of the vote. The narrow 2-point margin between the parties whose candidates might actually win can easily be swamped by an unequal split amongst U's, and the minor party votes may or may not make a difference in any individual race. (Usually, it should be noted, not.)

The 2012 election results were mixed, with Democrats and Republicans winning about equally, Democrats having a slight edge in both legislative houses. So the question now becomes, what does 2014 look like? We won't know for sure until election weeks come to an end on November 4th but because of the Secretary of State's practice that I highlighted last week, early voting returns tabulated by party affiliation are available to the public and are updated Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week. So how do they look? Not good for Democrats.

Republicans are up 7 points to 44%.

Democrats are down 3 to 32%.

The margin is therefore up from 2% to 12%. (That's plus 10 points, boys and girls.)

(Unaffiliateds are down too, from 28% to 23%)

And this breakdown has been fairly consistent since the first of four data dumps, starting last Friday, as shown in the graph below.

Turnout%2014%20general%20graph%2010-24.jpg

Keep up the good ground game, GOP!

But jk thinks:

Sorry, you put up a graph and guarantee that all the text and any links will be ignored. Should I be concerned with the slope?

Signed, Differentials in Denver

Posted by: jk at October 24, 2014 4:43 PM
But johngalt thinks:

And a graph with pretty colors, no less.

No, I think you should not fear the slope. Notice that I posted this today, and not two days ago. Over that interval the slope of all three curves is nearly zero.

Furthermore, conventional wisdom, if you believe one Jon Caldera, is that early voting is dominated by Democrats while Republicans can be counted on to rally at the end.

And yet, I will repeat my disclaimer: "We won't know for sure until election weeks come to an end on November 4th." But can we agree that a 10 point better showing than 2 years ago is tectonic in its significance? I nearly fell off my Herman Miller chair when I saw that. Particularly when all indications are that Unaffiliateds are leaning more our way than the liberal overreach way.

Any reluctance I have in posting this comes from a fear of invoking the prevent-defense, and not from a fear of the true sentiments of the electorate.

Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2014 5:01 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Editor's note: Important text has been emphasized for the reader's convenience. (I would have added color and flashing arrows too, but I'm not that good with HTML.)

Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2014 5:12 PM
But jk thinks:

Thanks for speaking slowly and using very small words. It is appreciated.

Posted by: jk at October 24, 2014 5:45 PM
But dagny thinks:

Because so many Democrat operatives that might work on that, "prevent defense," read Three Sources to keep up to speed???

Posted by: dagny at October 24, 2014 6:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Alright you Grinches, if I am left to be encouraged by this in solitude then so be it. I pledge to keep graphing each new set of data and we can all watch for the vaunted Udall ground-game ballot dump whenever it may come about, together.

Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2014 6:17 PM
But jk thinks:

It's a tough room, man, I may have mentioned that before.

Posted by: jk at October 24, 2014 6:41 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Still not as tough as FB. Man, it got brutal over there. I had to say I was w, wr, wro, uh, not right enough this week.

Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2014 6:50 PM

Don't click this. Comments (2)