Is David Frum Really This Dumb?

David Frum writing at The Moderate Voice - I mean, NRO, as if there's much difference some days:

While a sizeable majority of voters say Republicans have lost in 2006 and 2008 because they have been “too conservative,” a sizeable plurality of Republicans say, it is because they have “not been conservative enough.”

Frum's myopic Beltway to DC view is showing. Internally, he defines Reagan conservatism in terms of a theoretical construct. The people of Macomb County don't see it that way. The bulk of the American population doesn't give politics deep thought. And that isn't a knock, in good part, it's how representative government was designed.

What people in the heartland define as conservatism today is what they perceive of George Bush. And that simply ain't it.

For now at least, a leadership that can define conservatism as small government, solid values, sound economics and genuine apparent strength in National Defense can and will win in America everytime out when going against a Liberal agenda.

But then why should Frum recognize that? Like some other allegedly conservative pundits making their living between NY and DC, they're apparently more interested in remaining comfortable inside that particular bubble - a bubble that most Americans recognize as the empty illusion of intelligent thought and leadership with more shine than substance that it actually is.

Comments

[The CryptKeeper]

Bush is a "conservative" like Obama's a moderate Democrat, and also like Godzilla is a small iguana.

[jharp]

Never have understood Reagan conservatism.

Was it the record deficits? Or the record spending?

Or the tax increases?

[mark l.]

gallup traditional

49-47.

drip, drip, drip....

[Todd]

"For now at least, a leadership that can define conservatism as small government, solid values, sound economics and genuine apparent strength in National Defense can and will win in America everytime out when going against a Liberal agenda."

George W. Bush was supposed to embody conservatism and everything you just wrote is the antithesis of theis country's experience for the past 8 years.

Small government? Government spending has soared under Bush, replete with the socialism of 2008 where many financial services companies have been effectively nationalized. Solid values? Cronyism, corruption and the evisceration of the US Constitution are the essence of terrible values. Sound economics? What is that, a joke? National debt of $11 trillion, a stock market that is down 35% during the 8 years of Bush, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That's the conserative economic record for the past 8 years. Genuine apparent strength in National Defense? I don't think so. There are many generals on record as saying the military is stretched way too thin, and is effectively broken under the strain of a nearly 6 year old war and occupation. Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their strongest position since 2002 according to the State Dept. And, of course a country can't be strong militarily if it doesn't have a strong and fundamentally sound economy.

The Republicans and George W. Bush have wreaked havoc on this country for 8 years with their conservative policies. No matter how much lip service John McCain or any Republican pundit can pay to defining conservativism, the record is there for everyone to see. The electorate is not that stupid to believe this packaged bunch of bull.

[Todd]

Pew Poll

Obama 52-36

drip, drip, drip

http://people-press.org/report/465/mccain-support-declines

[mark l.]

todd-

your desperation grows, as mine diminishes.

I believe that gallup is a tracking poll, with rolling averages, so the 3 pt gain is far more significant, in that it is weighed against previous days averages.

the single day number from last night must be horrible for obama.

[mark l.]

your pew number is based upon a 57% support for a generic dem, among the sample.

do you want truth, or propaganda? oh that's right, you are an obama supporter.

[jaime]

"Was it the record deficits? Or the record spending? Or the tax increases?"

It was the Marxist policies, like the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

[jharp]

Today. Since our resident know nothing polling expert loves Gallup so much.

"Obama 51% to McCain 44% using Gallup's expanded model."

And really mark l., go over to intrade.com.

A $1 wager on McCain wins you $9. How could anyone with half a brain pass that up if he felt McCain had much of a chance at all.

And no, I don't think you have half a brain. Maybe 1/4.

[mark l.]

one more small point about that gallup number...

in 04, they had it 49-49.

final result?

51-48. Bush had a 3pt swing, from their final poll.

aside from 49-47 being a statisical tie, the history of the gop candidate closing with 2/3 on undecideds is not a favorable position for obama. You seriously need obama above 50%, becuase most pollsters agree that he won't exceed his polling.

[jharp]

Reagan also brought us the failed war on drugs that pissed away at least a trillion.

What is it about the Republican's ability to lose wars?

[jaime]

"gallup traditional

49-47."

Ah, the Right Wing Desperation Bizarro World where the last 4 years never happened, rears its ugly head.

So, the absolute 100% BEST case scenario is that McCain loses by 2 points.

[Anon]

Obama is going to win, at this point there is little doubt of that, but I suspect it will be closer than the polls are indicating.

The important thing is going to be whether his supporters are right about him or whether those of us who think he's a total radical are right about him. Is he going to raise taxes on the middle class as I believe, or will he really cut them as he says he will?

[jharp]

I'm getting a kick from the redneck pollster we have here, mark l.

Did you know mark, that McCain is a longer shot that convicted felon Senator Stevens?

Pretty damn funny.

[mark l.]

jharp-

you are using a gambling poll as your proof?

makes me chuckle.

the gambling poll, given the payout rates, tells me that the people who are betting on obama are morons. no punter worth his salt would place a bet with so little to gain.

It does tell me that those who believe in obama's chances have no real sense of what they are doing and believing, consistent with democrats at large.

take a look at your much beloved 538.com.

they have obama loses oh, wins presidency at 80%.

since their number for obama winning alone provides for close to 100%, the implication of these geniuses, is that obama has an 80% chance of losing oh.

[mary]

"But this I didn't guess, though perhaps I should have:

[O]ne of my sources, who is very well connected, tells me that Noonan was at first rumored to be looking to write a regular column for the New York Times. [...] But the rumor has escalated beyond the Times and gone straight to the White House: my same source says now the word is that Noonan may be being courted for the job of press secretary for an Obama administration.

Yes, she welcomes our new insect overlords."

http://ace.mu.nu/

Excuse me, I think I'm going to barf.

[jharp]

The important thing is going to be whether his supporters are right about him or whether those of us who think he's a total radical are right about him. Is he going to raise taxes on the middle class as I believe, or will he really cut them as he says he will?

Posted by: Anon | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 02:30 PM

In case you didn't know the tax laws are not enacted by emperors decree.

There is a thing called the United States Congress that has somewhat of a say. And with heavy democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House, yes, there will be a middle class tax cut.

Conservatism is dead.

And all of America will prosper because of it.

[mark l.]

jharp-

at what time, on election night 2004, did you realize that the exit polls that you undoubtably believed(I did too), were wrong?

9pm, for me.

I'm trying to spare your feelings from getting hurt...and your spirits crushed. If the election were held today, I'd put obama's chances at 75%. It isn't for another 7 days.

[jharp]

they have obama loses oh, wins presidency at 80%.

since their number for obama winning alone provides for close to 100%, the implication of these geniuses, is that obama has an 80% chance of losing oh.

Posted by: mark l. | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 02:31 PM

You are a buffoon.

Which is it?

80 % chance he wins? In line with intrade.

Or 80 % chance he loses?

You've topped yourself with your dumbest post yet.

[mary]

"There is a thing called the United States Congress that has somewhat of a say. And with heavy democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House, yes, there will be a middle class tax cut."

Weren't you the one ranting about it not being a cut but being a credit?

That means he will ultimately bring back taxes for people who aren't paying taxes now and then give the tax credit.

If the "rich" can work anywhere on their computers and they leave the country, taking their taxable salaries with them, then they aren't contributing anymore are they?

[mark l.]

noonan is a speechwriter.
she gained her fame from writing for one of the most gifted orators in us history.
I have zero doubt that she would not want to write the speeches for obama, whose oratory exceeds reagan's.

dems would be wise to take her into the fold...

although, in some previous speeches by the messiah, i thought there was already a hint of noonan. God help mccain if she auditioned by helping him with his wednesday night infomercial.

[jharp]

jharp-

at what time, on election night 2004, did you realize that the exit polls that you undoubtably believed(I did too), were wrong?

9pm, for me.

I'm trying to spare your feelings from getting hurt...and your spirits crushed. If the election were held today, I'd put obama's chances at 75%. It isn't for another 7 days.

Posted by: mark l. | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 02:38 PM

More ignorance from mark l.

We are not talking about exit polls you buffoon. Do you even know the difference?

And where did you come up with the 75% number? Pulling a number out of one's rear end is not a scientifically recognized legitimate polling process.

[mark l.]

no jharp-

'You've' topped yourself with your dumbest post yet.

[jharp]

If the "rich" can work anywhere on their computers and they leave the country, taking their taxable salaries with them, then they aren't contributing anymore are they?

Posted by: mary | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 02:40 PM

An utterly idiotic remark. Have you been hitting the bong?

[jaime]

"they have obama loses oh, wins presidency at 80%.

since their number for obama winning alone provides for close to 100%, the implication of these geniuses, is that obama has an 80% chance of losing oh."

You sir, are a moron. Do yourself a favor. Go back to 538. Go ahead, don't be scared. Go back to 538. Start scrolling down. On the left side of your screen, you will see the odds of who wins what state. 538 says Obama has an 84% chance of winning Ohio, you dumb fuck.

That number you keep throwing around about losing Ohio and winning the election, means, retard, that Obama doesn't need Ohio to win. It's a sign of his strength.

[jharp]

'You've' topped yourself with your dumbest post yet.

Posted by: mark l. | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 02:45 PM

Please enlighten me. I'm always willing to learn.

Which is it?

80 % chance he wins? In line with intrade.

Or 80 % chance he loses?

[mark l.]

jharp-

"at what time, on election night 2004, did you realize that the exit polls that you undoubtably believed(I did too), were wrong?"

sorry to repeat the question, but it does bear relevance to your current reliance on any number other than the actual vote.

have you ever come to the realization that the exit polls were wrong in 04?

[Anon]

Conservativism is dead for the time being but that doesn't have much to do with the Democrats going on an unprecedented tax and spend binge.

George Bush is no conservative, if he had governed as a conservative and if the Republican Congress had governed according to their principles then McCain would win in a landslide. They didn't and now the Republicans and the country are going to pay the price.

[mary]

jharp, why is it idiotic? The "rich" as BO calls them mostly can work from home on a computer. Home doesn't have to be in the good ole USA, does it?

It is the middle class, who actually have to go to work at their jobs who will suffer. They can't afford to leave the country. And, if you have to "clock in" you can't work from home.

[anon]

Rich people won't have to leave the county, they will do what they've alwasy done..transfer their assets to non taxible vehicles...Warren Buffet will continue to pay 17% in taxes because he can afford the best tax lawyers to work the loopholes.

The middle class and upper middle class who depend mostly on earned income don't have that luxury. When Obama finds out that taxing the rich isn't as easy in practice as it is in theory he's going to have to find an easier target...and that is the middle class who can't afford tax lawyers and can't put their savings into exotic off shore instruments.

[chris]

More librul propoganda

http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/0046/McCain-Obama_10_26_08.pdf

[jharp]

sorry to repeat the question, but it does bear relevance to your current reliance on any number other than the actual vote.

No, it doesn't you fool.

have you ever come to the realization that the exit polls were wrong in 04?

Yes, exit polls have been proven to not be accurate.

And we are not discussing exit polls. Get it?

Now if you'd knidly answer my question.

Which is it?

80 % chance he wins? In line with intrade.

Or 80 % chance he loses?

[mary]

Intrade is always right. WS will be packing up and moving en masse to Canada.

[IslamoLlama]

For the record, liberals have been calling David Frum a 'tard for years now and none of you ever listened. I guess that's another point in "the Dirty Fucking Hippies were correct" column.

[jharp]

jharp, why is it idiotic? See below.

"The "rich" as BO calls them mostly can work from home on a computer."

Wrong.

"It is the middle class, who actually have to go to work at their jobs who will suffer."

They are getting tax cuts, bozo.

"And, if you have to "clock in" you can't work from home."

Wrong again.

[chris]

You people are so damn ignorant. It doesn't matter where you work, as a US citizen you are taxed on your worldwide income. Unless you plan on giving up your citizenship, you're stuck. And even if you do, unless you go to a tax haven (good luck with that) you're pretty much guaranteed to pay a higher marginal rate than you would pay in the US.

Clowns...

[mary]

jharp. you don't read do you?

"COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.

U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.

Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner."

http://tinyurl.com/6pbzxy
http://ace.mu.nu/

[mark l.]

you want a summary of the election question that obama has failed to answer:

if you voted for bush in 2004, why would you now vote for obama?

the answer that no one wants to give, is that obama is an african american.

did the bush voter of 2004, strike anyone as possessing any people who favored affirmative action?

i understand if the turnout would suffer among the bush 04 contingent, a very good possiblity, but there is a manifest group among democrats who for various reasons do not believe obama represents their party.

puma, anyone?

[chris]

I see that the resident redneck statistic-type analyst is hinging his pathetic McLame Victory scenario on the fact that Obama is black. Maybe this is the overriding factor in your little shithole, but plenty of people just think that 8 years of George Bush is more than enough.

[mark l.]

chris-

the preimse of you victory is based on minorities truning out. increased white turnout with narrower margins is racist, increased minority turnout with a sharper divide is not?

this is your scenario for an obama win.
diminished white voter turnout, increased minority turnout. you have the second part of the scenario sewn up, but the effects are seen in states that are already blue. Forget the exit polls of early voters, which I anecdotally take as good news...

obama is losing among white voters, as have every democrat in recent memory. Kerry lost by 17pt among whites...

record turnout is your enemy if you want obama to win. modest increase still provides a window, but massive increase will dilute the support among minority voters.

demographics advantages don't lie-
mccain does better among white voters,

[mark l.]

the follow up question, which may very well favor dems, is that if you didn't vote for bush in 04, why would you vote for mccain? sadly, the only reason would probably be a rational/irrational fear of the democratic nominee.

I don't know how to predict those voters, along with democratic defections, but there is a segment of white democrats, who will not support an african american.

They are part of your base, so they are your guys. If you want to admit that your party has racist elements, feel free. If obama loses, it won't be becuase of racism in the gop, it will be due to the racism in the democratic party.

[jharp]

jharp. you don't read do you?

"COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.

U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.

Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner."

Posted by: mary | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 03:13 PM

Yes, I read but hadn't yet seen this.

And I couldn't be happier. Thanks for posting.

What are trying to say here, mary? That the homeless don't have the right to vote?

[Lala]

Dow closed up 892 points.

[jharp]

"Dow closed up 892 points"

That's nice. And all it took was $800 billion taxpayer dollars.

[chris]

Up 892???!!! Wow, it's only down 32% for the year! Sounds like a time for a carrier landing!

[jharp]

Is our resident uneducated redneck hillbilly statistician pollster still around?

Please, mark l, take a looksey. And take special note "strong leads accounting for 272 electoral votes"

"As the national polls flicker around, the map at Pollster.com now has Obama not just winning, but with "Strong" leads in states accounting for 272 electoral votes. They waited a bit before finally moving New Hampshire from the "Lean" category. Pollster has Obama winning the race even if he loses Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida. The problem for McCain is that Obama also leads in all those states except for Indiana. Barring disaster (or disastrous complacency), the only question now is the size of Obama's victory."

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/013432.php

http://www.pollster.com/

Is it... ... is it over?

[Todd]

The Obama stock market rally is on !!!

[jaime]

"the preimse of you victory is based on minorities truning out..." "mccain does better among white voters"

Well, as Warner Wolf used to say "let's go to the video tape."

Historic Black Turnout. Check:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_el_pr/early_voting

"Blacks are already surging to the polls in parts of the South, according to initial figures from states that encourage early voting — a striking though still preliminary sign of how strongly they will turn out nationwide for Barack Obama in his campaign to become the first African-American president."

Depressed White Turnout. Suprise:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/post-abc_tracking_in_the_final.html

"Obama is outperforming any Democrat back to Jimmy Carter among white voters, getting 45 percent to McCain's 52 percent...Whites in the East and West tilt narrowly toward Obama (he's up 8 and 7 points, respectively), and the two run about evenly among those in the Midwest. "

[Todd]

todd-

your desperation grows, as mine diminishes.
---------

No, Mark. My desperation is finally virtually gone. The idiot chimp is only a week from being out of office and Obama is on the verge of victory.

No matter how many desperate attempts you try to post outlier polls showing sligher Obama leads, it's not gonna matter. You are trying to get the electorate to vote for a terrible candidate, John McCain and an even more horrible VP in Sarah Palin.

They are toast. Like Ted Stevens.

[mark l.]

"Is it... ... is it over?"

saw that your guy was in PA, with clinton going tomorrow, and biden hitting it on the weekend.

do you think that your candidate believes it is over? and why the focus on pa? that one is in the bank, right?

as for projections:

electoral-vote.com, using the avgs of polls in 2004 came up with this piece of beauty:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/nov/nov01.html

kerry 298-bush 231. Bush actually won 286-251.

using the same rationale that you are offering, 'poll averages are more likely to be correct than indivudal polls', they provided a result missed the final result by 102 evs.

I remember having the same discussion with you breathern 4 years ago, worst case scenario:

you are completely correct. at that point I will be 1 for 2, which would be consistent with your brethern being 1 for 2.

i am looking at the same generic numbers present in 04, the gallup poll trending mccain with a week to go, but currently within the margin of error...should I be worried? not nearly as much as I was a week or even two weeks ago.

I like the way things are going.