The fiercely independent thinking RWDBs of the Australian media and blogosphere have been out and about reciting talking points from the discredited Republican Noise machine ever since Barack Obama won the Presidency last week. For the life of me, I can’t understand why Antipodean wingnuts take their wingnutty duties so seriously, but I’m sure that many are still firmly in the faith-based alternative universe, and thus allergic to facts. But for anyone who’s been wondering about some of the most egregious memes around the joint, here are some links to set the record straight.
Myth #1: The Obama turnout meant that Prop 8 won in California.
But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin
- Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com
Myth #2: The Democrats’ victory wasn’t comprehensive.
What happened? Overall, the Democrats gained a bit in 2004, a lot in 2006, and some in 2008. But we knew that (see the time series plot in the blog entry linked above). We also see a bit of scatter. Beyond this, yes, there are some patterns. In 2006, the Democrats particularly gained in Republican areas–see how those dots in the lower left of the second graph are way above the 45-degree line? In 2008, the swing is more uniform… Returning to the “How well did the Democrats actually do in 2008″ question, I think that one problem is that people are comparing Obama’s vote to Kerry’s vote but then comparing the congressional Democrats in 2008 to the congressional Democrats in 2006. I think it’s more appropriate to compare 2008 to 2004 in both cases. As Paul Krugman put it, “Maybe the reason people don’t see this is that the Democratic House gains were spread over two elections.”
Myth #3: Obama would be politically sensible to govern as a moderate gradualist.
So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.
- Paul Krugman.
Kim,
I agree with every word you’ve written above, and every word in Paul Krugman’s column.
The only caveat I would make is that what Krugman calls “progressive”, would be called “neo-liberal economics lite” by most here at LP.
For example, as the leading American trade economist, Krugman isn’t about to call for America to resile from NAFTA or walk away from the Doha round.
Likewise, notice that he mentioned “tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent”. I wouldn’t think that “tax breaks for the middle class” is the first thing that springs to mind to most LPers when they hear the word “progressive”.
Anyway, Krugman is spot on about fiscal expansion and better healthcare and unemployment benefits. I hope Obama gets the chance to make a real difference in those areas.
And I sincerely wish the blogospheric RWDBs would just pipe down for the moment. Guys, take the lead from McCain’s gracious concession speech, stop sniping at Obama, give him a chance to govern with all our best wishes, and see what he does with it.
Gotta echo Paulus. FFS, Obama’s not even in the job yet. We can all still dream of true “progressiveness”. Give him until about January 21, then even LPers will start their sniping. Don’t forget, before BO does anything, there’s a hell of a lot he has to un-do.
Amen to that 2nd last paragraph Paulus. High time something happened for americans, in those areas.
Ah, but which nation’s RWDBs are the chickens and which the eggs?
Didn’t we get #2 and #3 versions of Rudd from NewsLtd, before (and after) it moved into hysterical beat-up mode in late February? Indeed, are not the media & GOP / Liberal memes almost identical? Somewhere Stateside in the last week, probably Huffington Post, I read a call for Obama to construct a coherent narrative (albeit with a synonym of “narrative”). He’s also a dork, to match Rudd’s nerd/wonk. So smart USA media watchers might be watching for a Yankee version of NewsLtd08’s modus operandi.
If the same ex-Aussie pro-globalisation, NeoLib/ NeoCon “Kingmaker” media baron runs key print etc media in Oz, UK & USA, I guess the same meme and modus operandi should be expected.
Anyone looking for a good dissertation / thesis?
PS Is the Oz equivalent of Myth #1 “the states will turn to the Coalition now ALP is in government”?
Just for the record, I made a comment about Obama and Prop 8 on another thread. All I said is he could have said more, and there are other people in America who think so too.
The Democrats’ victory was comprehensive. It just wasn’t a landslide. For US Presidential Election landslides see 1964, 1972, 1984.
And we don’t know what kind of President Obama will be until he starts governing.
I think requesting conservative columnists go easy on Obama because he’s not even in office yet etc is going to be called a double standard given the marvellous levels of respect the Left accorded Pres Bush.
Silver and Gelmans observations are probably reasonable as based more in facts and stats. Krugman’s is just an opinion and should be seen as that. Where in the world outside of say Venezuela are we seeing someone institute a significant progressive agenda and surviving politically? I think Obama certainly has permission from the electorate to pump prime out of the recession but beyond that he needs to recognise he puts himself at political risk.
Krugman suffers from the usual delusion that 5% etc of the population votes differently equals some vast realignment of the country’s politicial beliefs. To be fair this is not a delusion the Left has a monopoly on by any stretch of the imagination, both sides play this game. Make just a couple of balls up even just a couple of humdinger gaffes in a campaign and it could be all reversed back.
Even this current election where you could argue right now there is legitimate desire for change don’t be surprised as people actually see what that change is support starts to peel off, even quite quickly.
Both sides of politics have to confront the reality of you can try to implement a more extreme version of what you want but greatly increase the risks of losing power early and seeing them reversed or going for something more moderate and having a chance at institutionalising those changes.
This thread isn’t about what Obama may or may not do as president.
It is about how Wingnuts construct myths and lies to prevent their heads from exploding.
It is about what myths and lies are constructed.
And it is about the pathos of Australian wingnuts prancing about on a leash, shaking a cup to the tune of the American Wingnut Barrel Organ.
The classic Australia wingnut as described by Katz, has been and remains Currency Lad, but I think that if he doesn’t calm down, his head will explode. The mythology or medication clearly isn’t working.
“He’s also a dork…”.
I know what you mean, DC, but Obama’s not a “dork”, which I have always taken to mean a bit clumsy, both physically and socially (just like one of my brothers).
He’s a “wonk” perhaps, as you say, although just plain “intelligent” will do, after the smirking chimp.
If you watch Obama move, he is as graceful as a cat, and even reminds me a little of Mandela, whose wonderful rythmical dancing entranced the world in 1994. Not at all dorky.
Hypocrisy. For years I’ve been reading much the same sort of unhinged stuff about George Bush.
Smells to me of sniping at someone I didn’t/wouldn’t vote for = patriotism.
Sniping at my preferred candidate = unhinged wingnuttery.
Get on with the patriotic dissent you anti-Obama Patriots.
Wondering what to do? Just follow the template of anti-Howard, anti-Bush stuff,there is PLENTY of it in print.
Paulus, how is:
* higher taxes on the affluent
* better [government-funded] healthcare and unemployment benefits
the least bit neo-liberal lite?
I’m not sure exactly what Krugman is proposing re tax breaks for the middle classes in the US, but given the already very moderate amounts of income tax at least those in the better-off half of the middle classes in the US pay (28c in the $ for every dollar earned between 78K and 164K), I’m personally far from convinced that further cuts are well justified, especially because there are even opinion polls indicating that such people generally don’t find their tax burden onerous. What is surely far more justifiable is a scrapping of the 10% tax people pay on the first 8K of their income, and significant reduction of the 15% tax they pay on the next 20K. Those earning under 32K in the US appear to pay substantially more tax than those here (going just by the tax brackets anyway).
Moderated
http://www.alternet.org/election08/106276/america_is_a_center-left_country_no_matter_how_much_the_corporate_media_say_otherwise/?page=3
Here is some info as to what Americans think as revealed by various polls. I don’t know how credible these polls are but what they suggest is that there is a vast disconnect between what Americans actually think and believe and what some [the MSM and RWDB blogs for example] try to present.
There is nothong really surprising there, it seems most Americans want less military presence around the world, better health care [oops socialism], cutting tax cuts to the wealthy and other simple stuff that the RWDBs say shouldn’t be even contemplated.
re: Myth#1
Actually true. I was very surprised the Proposition 8 passed so I actually looked at the stats. While young /first time voters (regardless of ethnicity) were in favor of gay-marriage, the overwhelming majority (80%+) of Blacks & Hispanics voted against gay-marriage which is why it passed.
A word to the wise Kim, you shouldn’t be so creative with the truth if you’re going to accuse others of lies. Failing that, you should at least check the facts in a story regardless of whether or not you like it’s content.
(PS – I thought Obama was pro-”Civil Union” and anti-”Gay-Marriage” anyway, so I guess you could say the Prop 8 results were consistent with his numbers. What’s your point anyway?)
Grace @ 10 Obama’s Dressed-Down Look: ‘The Dorky Dad’? (SLIDESHOW)
Maybe not an intellectual Dork, but …
Note the bike (kid carrier cut off left) and the skid-lid. Anyone hazard a guess on how long before the “latte/ chardonay sipping” tag appears?
Hmmm…should read 70%+
OK I’m easily confused by numbers particularly when the sets overlap.
But it seems to me that this [from the post]:
“Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin”
refutes this:
“Myth 1. The Obama turnout meant that Prop 8 won in California”
because this [from Nanuestalker] “the overwhelming majority (80%+) of Blacks & Hispanics voted against gay-marriage which is why it passed.”
is only a partial subset of the turnout which is the object of the myth.
As Nanuestalker says “While young /first time voters (regardless of ethnicity) were in favor of gay-marriage”.
Its the first time voters that the myth is about. And they voted for prop 8.
Those who had not voted before because they were too young, are of course, a totally different (and more traditional/mainstream) kettle of fish compared to those who had not voted before because there was no black person for whom to cast their vote.
“Its the first time voters that the myth is about. And they voted for prop 8.”
Actually ‘against’.
hannah’s dad -
As I said on another thread (if you can forgive the generalisation), the US is 50/50 with respect to the left & right of centre. Obama’s turnout included about a million black votes in Califoria which represents an unusual turnout for black community. Proposition 8 passed by about 1/2 million votes with a small majority of whites voting against it. The swing for Proposition 8 is easily identified.
I’m surprised that Obambots are so defensive that the analysis shows that they didn’t just follows like sheep on every issue, although Obama’s avoidance of the gay-marriage issue in the campaign may have a lot to do with that.
I haven’t been able to find any detail anywhere, but according to a sentence in today’s SMH apparently Obama’s meeting with the American Imbecile at the White House wasn’t all beer and skittles. It seems GWB believes (still believes?) the ravings of the RWDBs.
Nanu, where are your figures to support the idea that a million black voters voted on Proposition 8? There was quite an extensive analysis in a DailyKos article showing that the number of blacks who voted for Proposition 8 was not enough on its own to push it through (and indeed, if no blacks had voted at all, it almost certainly still would have passed).
Even if the fact that Obama was black doubled the size of the black turnout (and I suspect it’s pretty unlikely to be that high), there simply aren’t the numbers to suggest that had Obama not been the candidate, Prop 8 would have failed. Which is admittedly not what I believed originally, when I assumed the CNN exit poll numbers were accurate.
wizofaus -
Just look at a many exit polls as you can and you will easily identify the pattern.
This is strange argument:
if no blacks had voted at all, it almost certainly still would have passed
I should point out that if no whites had voted it would have passed and if only whites had voted it wouldn’t have.
The fiercely independent thinking RWDBs of the Australian media and blogosphere have been out and about reciting talking points
As someone who enjoys reading RWDB blogs, Im looking forward to Kim supplying some links to support this claim.
Nanu, actually I did, and initially came to the same conclusion as you. Read the DailyKos article. There’s a very good reason to be suspicious of the usefulness of those exit polls (hint: they recorded that over 10% of voters are black, whereas only about 6.2% of the population is black, and out of that, a quite high percentage are not eligible to vote relative to other races because of age or criminal records etc.).
And yes, you are right: the result would have been the same if all white voters stayed home. I’m not so sure we can say it would have been the same if all eligible white voters turned up to the polls, but whatever. Nobody’s suggesting the result is due to white voters.
Oh, and for the record, according to those same exit polls, nationally African-Americians made up 11% of voters in 2004 and 13% of voters in 2008, while making up about 13% of the population. One would hope national exit poll stats were somewhat reliable as far as that sort of stat goes, even if they help demonstrate that exit polls for a particular state were rather unreliable.
So there’s not a lot of reason to assume there was a massive increase in black voter turn-out this election, or that blacks were significantly over-represented at the polls.
wizofaus -
The point is that the Proposition 22 majority of 2000 was for all sense & purpose neutralised and the result of Proposition 8 probably would have been different had there not been a doubling of the Black vote and an increase (can’t remember how much) in the Hispanic vote, the majority of which were voters who supported Proposition 8.
It’s just one of those things that happens to be a fact, but not worthy of further analysis.
Im looking forward to Kim supplying some links to support this claim
Some have a tendency to recite & embellish other people’s diatribe without fact checking. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen for example.
True, it not an exclusive domain of the left, but the left is much better at it!
Here’s P. J. O’Rourke, who argues that Obama’s victory is an epochal cestruction of the Right:
A choice bit:
Read it and weep RWDBs.
At last an honest conservative, whose credentials are beyond reproach.
What amazed me during this election is how the usual suspects in Australia went out of their way to defend the McCain-Palin ticket. Right-wing windbags in this country felt the need to answer obscure Democratic attacks that most of their readers probably knew nothing about. Strange. I can’t recall Left-leaning newspaper commentators doing the same for Obama (mind you, there’s only about 3 Left-leaning columnists in the entire country).
Katz-
Read it and weep
You didn’t get it did you?
GB –
It’s not that the right was louder because their numbers were so great, they just made more sense than the ranting of the left.
I’ll leave that judgment up to persons I respect.
Huh?
The classic Australia wingnut as described by Katz, has been and remains Currency Lad, but I think that if he doesn’t calm down, his head will explode.
.
It did. No-one noticed.
For every wingnut there are unfortunately more than one moonbat.
Dear Nanuestalker,
The translation of Katz’s comment follows. My Tax Invoice will be sent by registered mail.
Your judgement is of no interest to me because I respect neither you nor your opinions.
Please note that I have attempted to keep translation to words of two syllables or less, as per your instructions, but sometimes in the interest of accuracy this is not possible.
Adrian -
You do know what a rhetorical question is don’t you?
DFTT Time.
Well at least we know hysteria isn’t being wasted by you Gummo!
DFTT Time GMAFB!
Dear Nanuestalker,
Due to the fact that my last Tax Invoice remains unpaid, I will not be correcting your latest grammatical error.
Tax invoice? Never got it, please resend.
Anyway my signature grammatical errors are the only thing I’m truly good at.
Katz @ 32 – I lost interest in anything P J O’Rourke had to say several years ago, because he’s a broken fucken record. He used to be funny and clever (for a RWDB), but I don’t believe he’s had an original thought for about the last 10 years. I tried reading “CEO of the couch” (or whatever it’s called) fairly recently, and it bored me shitless about 2 pages in.
“The Bachelor’s Companion”, otoh, is still a cracking read.
Nanuestalker, I don’t know if you’re being ironic but as far as this partisan can see the Left is grossly under-represented in our opinion pages – and there’s precious little ranting.
Give me an example of the last left-wing rant you read in an Australian newspaper – sadly they’re few and far between.
O’Rourke isn’t bad in small doses.
GB -
Melbourne papers are a real shocker for left-wing rants. I read the OZ to escape from them or should I say balance them out (not that the OZ offers balance) I don’t like rants from either side as they’re unproductive. I suppose at the same time, there’s nothing wrong with stirring the pot though . Besides sensationalism sells papers.
Nanuestalker, you’ve got to be joking.
Anyone who manages to appear to be defending JANET ALBRECHSTEN and ANDREW BOLT needs some serious psychiatric help. I mean, serious.
Left wingers are quite irrelevant when THE AUSTRALIAN (a NATIONAL PAPER) publishes the tripe of Ms Albrechsten. Sensationalism does not make up for flat out lies or headlines such as “IS AMERICA RACIST AFTER ALL?” a couple of hours after Obama wins the presidency – a historic moment, already embittered by a mere attention grabbing article from someone who deep down knows better! The woman needs to be dunked in a toilet and flushed three times. Then, force fed a course in logic and explained to that she can’t have it both ways on the race issue.
For the love of all things sane…
Still no links
Meg -
Yobbo wants links from Kim and I’d be equally glad to receive them. As to whether I’m joking or not I would like some links to what I’ve said that causes that question. Shall we start with my response to Hysterical Gummo …
“True, it not an exclusive domain of the left, but the left is much better at it!”
I might add that this has nothing to do with Kim’s usual unsubstantiated commentary. As to your feigned offence to “IS AMERICA RACIST AFTER ALL?” read the article, it more a commentary on the left’s position that the right is racist. Obambots introduced the accusation that anyone opposed to Obama was fundalmentally racist including the Clintons who proactiveness in civil rights /equality speaks to the contary.
Nanu, “result of Proposition 8 probably would have been different had there not been a doubling of the Black vote”
a) there was no doubling of the black vote – indeed not even close. At most it increased by about 25%.
b) whatever increase in the black vote there was, it was not enough to change the outcome anyway. The proposition almost certainly passed by more votes than number of black voters who voted for it. In other words, as I said before, if every single black voter had stayed home instead, it still would have passed.
Erotema wrote:
Here’s a youtube of O’Rourke on his current view of conservatism.
David,
Interesting that this is a rant on science and you can’t even get a species right.
In any case, the green left mob are just as capable of getting their science wrong – this one at catallaxy shows how.
“Monkey Smells Own Finger and Faints” is, Andrew, a wonderfully scientific/anthropological study of both the origins of conservatism and it’s inevitable consequences. The RWDB’s only seek to suppress it in their on going war on science.
wizofaus -
Please do me the courtesy of at least referring to what I said in full context.
It’s an indisputable fact and as I indicated before I wouldn’t analyse it too much. The post was a beat up by Kim to begin with.
The full quote in context Nanu, only shows you to be wrong AND illiterate.
FDBama [aka "Climate change we can believe in"]-
I’m still waiting for your incites into global warming at the Cat. Once again you fail to present anything resembling an argument or even a fact Drongo.
O’Rourke really gets stuck into his fellow conservatives in the link supplied by Katz. Once you mask out his incessant anti-liberal prejudices[*], it’s not a bad read. I just wish he had done it six years ago, when it would have made some difference.
But I don’t hold it against him. He’s getting on. He has to think of his retirement. And wingnut welfare – once you get beyond the ideological comformity – is so lucrative and so addictive.
[* I don't know if he professes them because he believes it, or just to keep the Weakly Standard readership happy.]
I just went to the opinion pages of The Age (our best newspaper and the only one willing to editorialize in even a vaguely left-leaning direction) and clicked randomly in the opinion pages. What was the first thing to come up? An opinion piece by the chief of staff to a minister in the Kennett Government who now works at the IPA (a right-wing think tank).
Enough said.
FDB, please note that we recommend our recent publication ‘Literacy for Wingnuts’, which is currently our bestseller, outranking even ‘How to Still Believe in the Free Market’, for which we still have great hopes in the pre-Christmas buying spree (if it eventuates).
In particular, Mr Stalker should rote learn Chapter 10 “How To Withdraw Gracefully Without Making a Complete Fool of Yourself”.
Adrian -
You continued ad-hom’ highlights your inadequacies and your low self-esteem . I guess it’s to be expected if you’re an admirer of CCWCBI.
The worst comment from the right was from Greg Sheridan complaining that Obama was an ‘enigma’, Sheridan who is paid buckets of $$ as a journalist can’t be bothered to do some basic research on what Democrat friendly foreign policy think tanks are saying.
Geoff,
If that was the worst comment from the Right, then they have nothing on the Left’s use of hyperbole, exaggeration etc. etc.
Back in the real world all sides in politics will generally lie, overstate the truth and bend reality to make a point. Deal with it.
And for you Mr Reynolds, I heartily recommend our remaindered publication, “Cliches, Jargon and other Plagues of Modern Communication”, which can be purchased at the ridiculous price of $4.99 at all discount bookstores.
Unfortunately it was one of our weakest sellers, due in part we believe to the fact that most people see nothing wrong with the above language vices. The title may have something to do with it as well. Not to mention the decision to adorn the cover with a picture of a rat.
Thanks, acme. I was looking for another of your publications – I understand it is a small one – Titled “True and Untrivial Statements Made By The Great Left-Wing World Leaders”. Is it still in stock? I need a laugh.
Andrew, re the whole food miles thing – the first objections to the idea that buying locally made produce was better for the environment I read came from distinctly left-leaning sources.
Then again, it was a lefty/greeny type that supposed calculated that you produced more CO2 walking to the store than driving.
Yobbo @ 25 – actually I had in mind the RWDB commenters on threads here about the US election. And I’m sure if you want to read Janet Albrechtsen etc. you can find the links for yourself.
wiz,
Maybe we should all just grow our own food in our backyards. Thank of what that would do for urban sprawl – or would it then be rural sprawl?
Mr Reynolds, thanks for your enquiry, but you must be thinking of another publisher. We would never use a word such as ‘untrivial’ in one of our titles, or even in the text, (assuming that we still employ sub-editors in these difficult times), since such a word does not exist, and if it does it shouldn’t.
However, you may be interested in ‘Reality: How to Make It Meet Your Needs’, which you may find amusing. Mind you, I have a feeling you may have already read it.
Here’s the rebuttal of O’Rourke by Bill Kristol
Andrew, no, the only truly green solution is to not eat at all. Death is by far the most effective way to reduce your carbon footprint.
(oops, forgot obligatory reference to thankfully-now-updated kid’s game on ABC website)
Sorry, Acme – I meant Non-Trivial. Does it come in blocks of 10? I think it would still fit under the 50g letter limit for postage.
As for the other item, I do not condone the use of illicit drugs. Perhaps you should send it to Kevin – he seems to have a serious problem with reality when it comes to whether he has made an error or not. Some element of self-medication may be of assistance to him.
Andrew, I’m starting to grow more food in the backyard. Lots of us can. It wouldn’t provide all the fruit and vegies you need, but why not? What are people afraid of? A bit of vitamin D and seeming like a hippie? Bloggers are the last people who should be worried about their image.
They had “victory gardens” during the war – think of it as patriotic.
No worries Mr Reynolds.
We actually received a bulk order recently, care of the Liberal Party, Canberra, but they insisted that it be delivered in a brown paper package for some reason.
GB,
I have no objection to us growing some of (or all of, if that is what you want to do) your food in the backyard. You should just realise that this is probably not the most efficient method of growing food and is probably dumping more carbon into the atmosphere than having it done on an industrial scale.
.
Acme,
You mean you have no remaindered copies of your own publication? I am not surprised the Libs sent them back to you. The weighty tome of “True and Non-trivial Statements Made By The Great Right-Wing World Leaders” is far more useful.
Mr Reynolds, I purchased a copy of your latest offering and, though weighty, its pages are mostly blank (except for a few comments by a Mr. Hitler that were barely coherent).
Never mind, it’s doing sterling service keeping my monitor at the correct height.
Mr Irving,
If that was so then we must both have a namesake with odd writing predilictions. Mr. Hitler was much closer to being a socialist than I would feel comfortable with.
Yobbo @ 25 – actually I had in mind the RWDB commenters on threads here about the US election. And I’m sure if you want to read Janet Albrechtsen etc. you can find the links for yourself.
It’s your made up thesis. Don’t ask me to prove your work for you. It would be a waste of my time because 99% of what you type is completely made up, worthless trash.
Saying it exists doesn’t mean it does exist. Link it or GTFO, as they say.
Myth Number 1 gets an outing at Bolt’s blog
Saying it exists doesn’t mean it does exist.
And saying it doesn’t, and even if it does I’m too lazy to look for it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. GWYWSE (Go Waggle Your Willy Somewhere Else).
First attempt Yobbo, #3.
http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2008/11/economist-gives-obama-few-pointers.html