by hilzoy
Just a couple of things I had to highlight. First, my quote of the day:
“After helping to foster the explosive growth of consumer debt in recent years, credit card companies are realizing that some hard-pressed Americans will not be able to pay their bills as the economy deteriorates.”
Really? All those credit card offers to people on the verge of bankruptcy had a downside risk? You don’t say.
Second: ladies and gentlemen, via TPM, our newest Senator:
There are some pretty pompous and humorless people in Washington. I love the idea that Al Franken is about to be set loose amongst them.
Al Franken won?
Good news for Monday morning! 😀
“Al Franken won?”
Not officially, yet. He won’t be seated by the Senate, apparently, until the lawsuits are settled, which may take weeks or months.
The Canvasing Board is due to certify him today, with a lead of 255 votes.
But, wait, does this mean we have to elect Tom Davis to the House?
I’ve always found Al Franken to be on only slightly on the humorous side of pompous, even before he began soapboxing about Rush Limbaugh. He was one of the least funny parts of his SNL generation.
Linkbusted, hilzoy. Here‘s what you want to be linking to.
NB: I believe that the Solid Gold host is Marilyn McCoo, FWIW.
I think the credit card story is even more interesting than you allow.
The toxic consumer finance products of the past decade share a common feature: those who peddled them expected to make their profits off of fees, charges, and punitive interest. In other words, the model was designed to place consumers in a position of distress.
That represented a major shift in how banks thought about profitability. The traditional model of lending put a premium on people with sound credit, those who were ‘good risks.’ The idea was that the lending institution would identify an acceptable rate of return on its capital, add to that a premium to cover the costs of administration and default, and then lend money at that rate to borrowers. Then, over time, the borrowers would pay down their debt, giving banks a steady and predictable return on their investment.
Initially, credit cards worked on something like that model. But that’s not how credit cards work anymore. In the industry, people who pay off their full balance at the end of each month are referred to as ‘deadbeats’ or ‘freeloaders.’ The profitability of credit card operations is contingent on large numbers of borrowers finding themselves unable to pay off their balance each month. The late fees, spiraling interest rates, and the rest are what drive profitability. That’s why companies have been extending offers to those with dubious credit, or those who face high degrees of financial stress. They’re profit centers. The ideal customer is one who can pay off the interest each month, along with some portion of the principal, but who never manages to get off the treadmill of debt. The balance they carry forward – $9,200 per household with a credit card, on average – produces obscene profits. Roughly two-thirds of credit card users roll over their balance on a monthly basis; less than third pay off in full each month.
So the industry walks a fine line. It wants consumers to be so overwhelmed by debt and spending that they’re forced to finance their purchases at usurious rates, yet not so overwhelmed that they can’t make their monthly payments. So long as the economy was growing and housing values increasing, the industry did fairly well. Consumers, pressed to the breaking point, could always refinance their mortgages to pay off their credit cards. And if they did default? Well, in many cases, they would already have returned more than they borrowed in interest and other charges. Bear in mind that someone who defaults on $5,000 of debt often only spent a few thousand; the rest of that sum is compounded interest and assorted fees. So if the bank recovers half the amount in a settlement, it’s doing pretty well – probably even turning a profit.
This has a lot in common with the subprime mortgage market. No one was stupid enough to believe that every subprime borrower was going to be able to make their payments. Instead, lenders counted on many not being able to pay off the loans. That was the entire point of an interest-only or Option loan, and of prepayment penalties. Just put the consumer on a treadmill of interest payments, and they’ll flood your coffers with profits. The denouement? Well, when the consumer has been squeezed dry, they’ll sell their home and pay off the balance.
In both cases, the industry was ultimately caught short by the collapse of the housing market. All of a sudden, there was nothing to backstop these loans. When consumers were squeezed dry, they actually didn’t have enough left to give. It was a rude shock to the industry.
There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over lending to people who are bad risks. That certainly happened. But a lot of the loans that have soured were made to people who might well have turned out to be good risks, had they been given honest loans. There’s very good data to show that if you take otherwise identical families, and put one in a 30-year loan and the other in an option ARM, the former will make its payments while the latter will eventually default. Lenders knew this perfectly well. But they also knew that it was more profitable to get five years of interest payments, and then have the loan paid in full through refinancing or a sale, than to have a loan paid down over thirty years. Similarly, credit card lenders are fully well aware that cards with high interest rates and fees create their own defaults – that consumers who might otherwise have paid off their debt get trapped on the treadmill. But that’s the whole point of the fee structures. It’s not that they need fees this high to offset high rates of default, it’s that they set the fees so high precisely to generate the degree of financial distress that creates high profits, of which high default rates are an inevitable byproduct.
The point of this extended screed is simply this. The problem of the past decade isn’t imprudent lending, but rather, predatory lending. Even if all of these loans hadn’t defaulted, they still would have been destructive and morally indefensible. The financial services industry was allowed to morph from a sector that provided Americans with products that increased their quality of life, to one that sold them products designed to trap them in a spiral of debt. This was more profitable (at least in the short term) for the industry, but incredibly bad for the overall economy and the nation. And that was deliberate. The answer isn’t companies that exhibit greater foresight – that will just yield usurious products which are less likely to ruin lenders, a pyrrhic victory. It’s greater regulation.
Franken’s first foray into the MN election was to differentiate himself from Coleman: “I’m the New York Jew who grew up in St. Louis Park.”
Oh, rats. Your link isn’t bad. Monday morning, first work day of the year. I blame Not Enough Coffee.
Slarti: I’ve always found Al Franken to be on only slightly on the humorous side of pompous, even before he began soapboxing about Rush Limbaugh.
OMG, Slarti, you’re a Rush Limbaugh fan? The things we discover…
Uh…what? Maybe it’s Not Enough Coffee for you, too.
I suggest you re-read.
We finally got him out of the House this time. Well, he got himself out, and his fellow Virginia Republicans prevented him from trying to get into the Senate, preferring to put up the hopeless Jim Gilmore to be buried by Mark Warner.
You mean there’s more than one Tom Davis?
Franken has other skills too, as revealed in my photo, which somehow made the top of Reddit a while back.
I guess I didn’t answer the question.
No. Not even a little bit. Any particular reason why you thought that?
Any particular reason why you thought that?
Your rather specific objection to Al Franken making mock of Limbaugh in particular, given how many other lying liars on the right Franken has also made mock of.
This was more profitable (at least in the short term) for the industry….
Oh, the joys of the modern quarterly-report mentality…
Franken has other skills too
wow. that’s just plain freakish.
I used to wait tables at a upscale restaurant on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Franken often brought his family in for dinner. From that experience I will say that he is a very nice person; further, his wife Frannie is an absolute jewel.
I ran into him in the street once, shortly after his book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” came out. The conversation turned to politics, and I commented that I thought it was amusing that he was being taken as a serious political commentator on the cable news shows–after all, his background was writing skits for Saturday Night Live. He was offended. Because he saw himself as a knowledgeable political analyst (I should note that I had recently entered a Ph.D. program in Political Science). But with further conversation it became clear his did know what he was talking about. And he had a quick mind. Further, in the process of the conversation he referenced sources like his friend Norman Ornstein. Which just goes to show he has been connected to serious political thinkers for a long time.
I too LOVE the idea of Senator Franken.
I used to get credit cards in the mail weekly. Literally. I was offered lines of credit in the gazillions of dollars usually at no or little interest for the first six months.
Then, after a few years of lots of offers of credit, gradually I realized that I was no longer getting credit cards in theh mail. What? Am I no longer regarded as a person of good credit? No more offers of 50,000$ credit, the first six months at no interest?
I think what happened is this: I never had credit card debt. I paid my card off monthly. I only used cards during the six months no interest window. When the six months passed I moved on to a new card. Eventually the credit card companies noticed and stopped extending me credit.
Now I have only one credit card and I never get offered more by anybody.
YOur market forces at work!
Your rather specific objection to Al Franken making mock of Limbaugh in particular, given how many other lying liars on the right Franken has also made mock of.
No, Jes, he didn’t say what you are claiming. He probably mentioned Limbaugh specifically, since the Franken book he is talking about used Limbaugh’s name in its title. FWIW, I’m with Slart; the book was terrible, not funny, and crude. Which pretty much describes Al Franken’s entire comedy career, except for the self-help guy, who was just terrible and not-funny.
Honestly, the only qualification Franken has for the Senate is that he’s not Norm Coleman, which was enough of a qualification to get me to vote for him. I’m still hoping that this race turns out to be a tie, and that there’s an obscure Minnesota law requiring there to be another election, with both of these clowns prohibited from running again.
since the Franken book he is talking about used Limbaugh’s name in its title
Oh, that initial comment was meant for a thumbnail review of one of Franken’s books? Perhaps Slarti should have clarified that. But then, Slarti never clarifies anything, so thank you for that.
Which pretty much describes Al Franken’s entire comedy career
I haven’t actually read Franken’s book about Rush Limbaugh and the other Republican idiots like Alan Keyes. But Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them was well-written, funny, and no cruder than a comedy writer needs to be when dealing with utter scumbags.
In fact, my chief problem with Al Franken is that he is far nicer and more respectful to the scum of American politics than they merit. But then, I suppose if he treated them as they deserve, it wouldn’t be as funny, because squishing dung beetles is only funny if you’re a Republican dung beetle…
It’s one nearly everyone is very familiar with. Possibly I ought to have picked one more obscure? Not sure what your point is, here.
On the contrary: I washed three sliding doors, the three-paned mitered glass in my breakfast nook, and all of my wife’s car windows yesterday. Much clarity ensued.
I mean, if a reference to Al Franken’s first book dealing specifically with politics isn’t clear, I’m not sure what is.
Al Franken appeared on a Book TV panel back in 2003 with Molly Ivins and Bill O’Reilly, moderated by Patricia Schroeder. Lies and the Lying Liars was one of the featured books.
Alas, I can’t find a link to the video but here’s a Buzzflash interview with Franken after the event.
Jes, isn’t it a little early to start in on your sibling rivalry with Slart? Most of us haven’t had caffeine yet.
I saw Slart’s comment about “even before … Rush Limbaugh” as being a contrast point to reduce the possible appearance of bias in his opinion of Franken: as in, as a conservative, he didn’t think much of Franken’s humor even when you take his broadsides against Republicans out of the picture.
On the contrary: I washed three sliding doors, the three-paned mitered glass in my breakfast nook, and all of my wife’s car windows yesterday. Much clarity ensued.
Shiny!
I mean, if a reference to Al Franken’s first book dealing specifically with politics isn’t clear, I’m not sure what is.
You made no reference to a book: you referred to Franken “soapboxing”. In British lexicon, “soapboxing” refers to making a political speech, not to making fun of an obscenely offensive radio Republican.
That’s close enough that I don’t think it needs amending, Catsy.
I don’t speak British, Jes 😉
FWIW, I’m with Slart; the book was terrible, not funny, and crude.
I have no idea what kind of Senator he’d make, but I have to admit that I laughed through “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot” from cover to cover. My fondest wish, never granted, was that Limbaugh would sue him for libel, so that they could arge in court, for the public record, whether Limbaugh was, in fact, big, fat, and an idiot.
What good times those would have been.
I washed three sliding doors, the three-paned mitered glass in my breakfast nook, and all of my wife’s car windows yesterday.
Slarti, you have to cut that stuff out. You’re making the rest of us guys look really, really bad. 🙁
Thanks –
I saw Slart’s comment about “even before … Rush Limbaugh” as being a contrast point to reduce the possible appearance of bias in his opinion of Franken
Thank you for clarifying what Slarti meant, since apart from window-glass, Slarti never clarifies anything.
I clarified some butter over the weekend.
Oh, maybe that’s not what you meant. You might have clarified on that point.
How can I clarify on your cooking skills, Slarti?
I made rice bread over the weekend. It did not entail clarifying butter.
Oh, ghee, can’t you all just be nice?
[Jes, I’m sorry I can’t give you the video, I’m sure you would enjoy it.]
Franken is no lightweight clown. Read that interview if you need proof.
Russell: My fondest wish, never granted, was that Limbaugh would sue him for libel, so that they could arge in court, for the public record, whether Limbaugh was, in fact, big, fat, and an idiot.
Rupert Allason, former Conservative MP, once sued the British comedy program Have I Got News For You because he’d been called a conniving little s**t.
He lost the libel case, which means that (as the presenters of HIGNFY were not slow to point out) since Allason was declared in a court of law to be a conniving little s**t, no one could be sued for calling him that any more.
here’s a nice clip of Franken taking on the noxious Ann Coulter.
Al Franken won?
Good news for Monday morning! 😀
Jes, where has your hate of stolen elections gone? For that matter, why did the only mention of Franken vis a vis MN at Obwi occur at the moment the canvassing board is about to name Franken? Imagine similar silence during Bush v. Gore.
stolen! Franken stole the precious! the sneaky little thief, he stole it! he cheatses! we hateses the tricksey filthy Franken!
b.t.w., what’s a “canvassing board” and what does it do? and what’s a MN State Supreme Court? and what do either of those things have to do with anything?
Jes, where has your hate of stolen elections gone?
You’re forgetting, bc – I don’t define “stolen election” the way Republicans do. I know your definition of a “stolen” election is one in which the non-Republican candidate is declared the winner, but for me, any election where the result is determined by the radically unRepublican method of counting all the ballots, and declaring the winner to be the candidate who got the most votes, is not a stolen election.
Count every vote. Decide the winner that way. It may not be the method that gets you the most right-wing government, bc, but in most countries it’s fondly known as democracy.
And it seems to have elected Al Franken. Which is good news for Monday morning.
C’mon cleek. My point isn’t so much the merits as the outrage exhibited and the scrutiny given and lack thereof depending on party affiliation. I took a good, hard look at Bush v. Gore as I’m sure the ObWi community did (I didn’t even know about ObWi back then so I can’t say for sure ;)). But when it’s a democratic candidate . . . .
But I always like Lord of the Rings analogies, so long as you actually read it before the films were announced (otherwise, your just a pretender!).
It’s true that Hilzoy didn’t devote a lot of blog space to Coleman’s attempt to steal the election by preventing the counting of votes, bc, but I assume she figured she’d take the high road because the attempt is not succeeding.
method of counting all the ballots,
But not this one, or this one? And there are so many others . . .
Or how about counting the election day results instead of the recount when it favors Franken even though the total votes exceed, in that precinct, the number of voters who actually signed in? Is that the democracy you are talking about?
My point is that you give the Dems a free pass because, apparently, that is what is supposed to happen (a dem gets elected). Forget democracy.
I’m not entirely sure the process has been a sham. I’ll admit that. I have serious doubts, however, when the vote “finding” mysteriously dried up as soon as the press started paying attention. And the statistical improbability of the additional Franken votes being real when the other dem candidates didn’t fare nearly as well. And look at the darn ballots themselves. Franken should be ashamed. But then look at his routines, he doesn’t have any shame . . .
the outrage exhibited and the scrutiny given and lack thereof depending on party affiliation
i can’t speak for anyone else, but to me, the whole MN process seemed like it was well under control and relatively free from the kinds of shenanigans that surrounded FL-00. no need for outrage, since it was all proceeding along as smoothly as could be hoped for.
But I always like Lord of the Rings analogies, so long as you actually read it before the films were announced
LOTR is the reason our cat is named “tricksey”, and not “trixie”.
What are you talking about, bc? Sure, those challenges are ridiculous, just like the vast majority of Coleman’s challenges were. But if Franken hadn’t made challenges like that, the bogus “count” (excluding all challenged ballots) being announced day to day during the challenge period would have shown Coleman’s lead increasing to many hundreds of votes and the screaming about a “stolen” election from the right would have been even more deafening once the challenges were all denied.
Maintaining relative parity in ridiculous challenges was really the only option under the reporting system, as both campaigns came to realize — the skyrocketing percentage of ballots challenged shows that.
As long as they were all counted in the end, it’s not a problem, though it does suggest that reporting procedures should be changed for next time to avoid the overwhelming incentive for bad challenges.
Some examples of ridiculous Coleman challenges for bc.
“I assume she figured she’d take the high road because the attempt is not succeeding.”
It was mostly because I got bogged down in all the explanations, and I figured Nate Silver was sort of a one-stop shop for MN coverage. I almost wrote about Lizard People, though.
bc,
If you think Franken “doesn’t have any shame”, I wonder what you think of Coleman’s shamelessness. When the incomplete tally showed him a few votes ahead, Coleman was calling on Franken to concede gracefully. Now that the completed tally shows Franken a few votes ahead, Coleman apparently thinks grace isn’t everything he cracked it up to be. Now that’s shamelessness for you.
In all honesty, I do think that elections which get decided by a few hundred votes out of millions cast are a lousy way to run a democracy. When the margin of victory is that small, one can fairly say that the outcome was a function of what the least-committed, most-marginal handful of voters had for breakfast on election day. I thought that about FL 2000, and I think that about MN 2008. Right or wrong, my view has at least the virtue of consistency.
If I had my way, elections that close would be settled by a “do-over”. I have no idea whether Dubya would have won a do-over in FL 2000. But unless you were in favor of one back then, your outrage is laughable now.
Al Franken will be a far, far better Senator than Dubya has been a President. At the very least, if he turns out to be a “clown” (as the otherwise estimable JMN called him), the clownishness will be intentional.
–TP
“Thank you for clarifying what Slarti meant, since apart from window-glass, Slarti never clarifies anything.”
Probably no amount of clarification is going to help someone who expects an Amnerican to use regional slang from some other country.
“…(I didn’t even know about ObWi back then so I can’t say for sure ;))”
ObWi started in November of 2003. (I first came along ObWi sometime in, I forget, March or April of 2004, myself.)
“My point is that you give the Dems a free pass because, apparently, that is what is supposed to happen (a dem gets elected). Forget democracy.”
You seem to be begging the question because it’s a Democrat who has won. The recount was conducted on live tv (in front of James Lileks, no less); it’s all been totally transparent. If you’d care to point to any reputable, or remotely neutral, source, pointing to any skulduggery, by all means so so. But protesting simply because you don’t like the results — which were pointed out to be entirely predictable as most likely by Nate Silver, back in early November — won’t get you anywhere.
“I almost wrote about Lizard People, though.”
I did, I did!
You can read an endlessly detailed as-it-happened account here, bc. When you find some facts there that support your accusations, do please let us know.
“And the statistical improbability of the additional Franken votes being real when the other dem candidates didn’t fare nearly as well.”
In fact, that was what was most statistically probable, back in reality.
From November 10th, 2008:
A lot of numbers follow. Point being that what happened is what was expected to happen if certain criteria were met, so it’s no surprise at all unless you were willfully not paying attention to news you didn’t want to read.
Which, as I recall, I’ve specifically told you before here, with the same damn links, and which you ignored last time.
FWIW, Al Franken has been actively involved in politics for two decades. Long before his first political book, he was actively involved in the Dukakis for President campaign. Since I was a Dukakis staffer working with campaign surrogates during the spring and summer of 1988, I got to know him a bit then. In person he’s a smart, funny, and very personable guy. I have no doubt that he’ll make a fine Senator.
If I had my way, elections that close would be settled by a “do-over”. I have no idea whether Dubya would have won a do-over in FL 2000.
It seems unlikely, if the do-over was fair, since Bush lost by several thousand votes the first time round… once all the ballots were counted, which of course the Republicans consistently and riotously opposed.
A first-past-the-post system is simply vulnerable to these kind of close results. That’s not the only version of democracy available, but if it’s a given in advance that that is the rule, complaints should be directed at the system, not at results you don’t care for.
Having never found him funny, I saw Slarti’s initial comment as reinforcement of my view of Franken’s comedic value.
So as not to leave that opinion unclarified, I took Slarti’s “soapboxing” reference to mean that he also finds Franken constantly being on the same old soapbox — even about Limbaugh, the Pompous One himself — as wearing thin.
Anyhow, while not being a fan of Franken’s comedy, I also share hilzoy’s anticipation of seeing what happens when he is set loose on the decorum-minded Senate.
BTW, J. Michael Neal: I believe if it ended in a tie, the Franken-Coleman election would be settled by a coin flip (seriously).
—
Observer: “The point of this extended screed is simply this. The problem of the past decade isn’t imprudent lending, but rather, predatory lending.”
FWIW, I thought your well-written post offered spot-on analysis and may have gotten lost in the humorous (for me) Jes-Slarti spat.
P.S. As a big fan of butter — just having had some leftover Christmas butter cookies for breakfast this morning (not exactly the Breakfast of Champions) — I don’t think I have ever clarified any.
I notice that bc is – purely by coincidence, I’m sure — repeating the talking points of today’s Wall Street Journal editorial. Nate Silver points out where their facts are all wrong.
“It seems unlikely, if the do-over was fair”
Presumably a lot more people would have been motivated to come out and vote than had voted the first time, given the new knowledge of how close the election was/would be. How that would play out in favor of one side or another, I have no idea how anyone could say.
The importance of butter in cookies. Also. And.
Not only that, but there would have been a truly insane amount of money and people flooding into Florida once it was known that it would decide the winner, and there’s no way to know how that would have changed things.
I don’t get the WSJ editorial page. The WSJ seems to run a first rate news reporting paper. Yet, the editorial page, IMHO, is a fantasy (for the most part). How does one jibe with the other?
Usually I try to explain to myself that most of the people who read the WSJ think that the news pages “report” what’s going on but that the editorial pages “know” what’s going on.
Really, I am mystified.
For the record, Al Franken was, earlier today, officially declared the winner by the state Canvassing Board. And, as expected, Coleman is suing (within the next 24 hours, they say) to overturn the decision.
But Coleman is now trying to overturn an official result.
That’s the Canvassing Board that, as Nate Silver pointed out in the post I linked to in my earlier comment:
But I guess Pawlenty and Jesse Ventura’s appointees are crypto-Democrats. Like so many other insidious infiltrators everywhere. And Ritchie was elected by the people of Minnesota!
Obviously the people can’t be trusted. They might be Democrats, too.
That was the most enjoyably rich article on butter I have ever read, Gary — actually, it was the first article on butter I have ever read (although I have noticed some good writing on food pages).
Those pictures jumped right off the computer screen and made me think of the oatmeal cookies — just plain simple oatmeal cookies (well, with raisins) — a customer brought in last week that were absolutely divine. Oatmeal cookies — never was a chocolate chip person — are my favorite and I must have approached double digits eating these.
“Once butter is melted, it’s gone.”
A quote that almost made me weep over butter.
“How does one jibe with the other?”
I don’t understand what you don’t understand. Like most major newspapers in the late 20th century and early 21st, the WSJ has adhered to the practice of a complete “firewall” between editorial dept. and news dept. Just as, say, the NY Times and Washington Post and most other major papers do. (Smalltown papers, not so much.)
What’s not to understand about this?
As for why, it surprises me not that, at least until the Murdoch buyout, the WSJ owners found the news department’s good reporting an asset, causing lots and lots of people to buy and read the paper, and make advertising profitable. That fact gave the editorial department a vehicle for their own twisted views.
It’s been symbiosis that at least benefited the owners and the editorial department (even though said editorial department sometimes found their assertions contradicted by the news side — but they found that with the news reporting of other papers, to, and live with it, and in any case, there was nothing they could do about it).
So what’s not to understand?
(How reliable the news department stays under Rupert Murdoch, alas, remains to be seen.)
A quote that almost made me weep over butter.
Howzabout a cooking thread, kitty-san?
Tuesday Recipe Blogging: Cookies! (On cooking, childminding, and chewy chocolate gingerbread cookies.)
TPI thought that about FL 2000, and I think that about MN 2008. Right or wrong, my view has at least the virtue of consistency.
which was my main point. As long as the same standard and scrutiny applies, fine by me.
But protesting simply because you don’t like the results — which were pointed out to be entirely predictable as most likely by Nate Silver, back in early November — won’t get you anywhere.
. . .
so it’s no surprise at all unless you were willfully not paying attention to news you didn’t want to read.
Which, as I recall, I’ve specifically told you before here, with the same damn links, and which you ignored last time.
Gary, take a chill pill. It’s not like I’m TRYING to score points in the Gary Farber Challenge. Point your ACME Snark-o-Blaster somewhere else, please.
First, I don’t recall you having “told me” anything along these lines before. Maybe you did way back in November, I simply don’t recall and, as I can’t seem to search ObWi archives very well, I couldn’t find anything. Not that it doesn’t exist; I just couldn’t find it.
Second, I didn’t see that Silver talked about the issue I raised (and no, it wasn’t based on the op-ed you mentioned. I have been following the recount on Powerline and the Star Tribune). I’m talking about before the recount, during the canvass. Coleman’s initial count was reduced from 700+ to around 210 or so. Why? I’ve not seen a good explanation yet. The only corrections that are to occur during this time are clerical errors, but, from what I’ve read, the corrections overwhelmingly favored Franken (even when compared to other Dem candidates). Again, I didn’t see a Silver analysis of the statistical probability of that happening on his website. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe any problem at that phase is taken care of in the recount. I don’t know. But an explanation would seem to be in order. I haven’t seen any such explanation.
And while Silver did predict Franken in November, he later predicted Coleman (albeit with a caveat about the challenged or absentee ballots). So I don’t see your point about a November prediction having anything meaningful to add. If it did, why not simply avoid the recount and let Silver determine the winner? Maybe he and Lott could do some battle of the brains?
And Silver (maybe inadvertently) writes things that are simply wrong. Frex, he references a “lack of evidence” being at issue in Coleman’s earlier challenge before the MN Supreme Court. That was not the case. The Court simply said that any evidentiary issues needed to be raised in the election contest phase, not the recount.
My main point wasn’t the merits-it was the attention paid to what is a meaningful issue regardless of political persuasion in light of 2000 (even if the process is arguable going as it should). It appeared to me that many were simply ignoring the issue. In that, I am obviously wrong, even though the lack of posts at ObWi were, again, noticeable).
“…and no, it wasn’t based on the op-ed you mentioned. I have been following the recount on Powerline”
Oh, well, then.
Oh, well, then.
Nice, editing, Gary.
Nobody’s reading this anymore, but I have to chime in for Franken’s Stuart Smalley book, “I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone it People Like Me” which is so insanely funny and spot on that whenever I see it [say packing for a move] I can open it at random and it will make me laugh.
They made a bad movie out of it, “Stuart Saves the World” – I can’t figure out why the movie sucked so, since Franken was involved [and starred], but it’s the same sucky-movie mystery that is responsible for Art School Confidential, the adaptation of a Daniel Clowes comic, which was made by the same team [Terry Zigoff and Dan Clowes] that adapted his Ghost World, which was great. How did this end up sucking so? It is unfathomable to me. I need to pack, though.
“Nobody’s reading this anymore”
Ghost World is extremely great. So there!
This sounds rather alarming.