D'oh... there I go again... Americans like their politicians to have faith. In something.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:23 AM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

Ah for an edit function... I meant to say "more likely not to consider voting for an atheist".

Actually, the whole sentence is awkward. I'll just link to this Gallup poll from 2007. It's one sample, but it does show that Americans like their Americans at least to have the appearance of some religious belief. Ronald Reagan was not even an irregular church goer, not that service attendance is a requirement for belief.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:22 AM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

Know any elected atheists in the Federal government? There aren't any, or at least none that admit to it.

Genghis - Your link is out of date. California congressman Pete Stark came out of the closet as an atheist last fall, albeit a few months after the link you posted.

But that's really the exception that proves the rule (for now) - public opinion polls regularly show that Americans are more likely not consider voting for atheists than many other demographic groups, including women, African-Americans, homosexuals, Hispanics, and Mormons. America still likes its politicians at least to appear to have faith.

But it's also interesting to note that Karl Rove is an atheist, or, as he once put it, he has "not been blessed with the gift of faith."

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:16 AM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

An agnostic is an athiest without the guts to deny the existence of God.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:05 AM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

Most likely CNN's reporters just don't understand statistics very well.

The margin of error is a 95% confidence interval around the candidates' percentages. In a two candidate race, then it also essentially is a 95% confidence interval around the spread between the candidates (you're assuming any votes lost by candidate X go to candidate Y, so the spread really is just another way of looking at the one independent variable).

But note that "margin of error" only reflects random sampling error: that is, assuming you've picked a truly unbiased random sample of the population, then 95% of the time a candidate's true polling in the full population would be within the margin of error. As it happens, this range is determined only by the size of your polling sample, and is independent of the size of the population. Real polls, however, do probably have subtle biases (although polling firms do their best to minimuze them), and they're still just a snapshot of current opinion. And opinion will, of course, change between now and election day.

But the bottom line is that if your lead in a 2-candidate race is more than the poll's margin of error, then it's pretty safe to say you're actually ahead right now. So CNN's headline is misleading.

Posted at July 2, 2008 11:11 AM in response to Twisting The Truth: A Statistical Dead Heat? I don't think so

You're probably correct, but perhaps both are true. If Clark were jealous of McCain, that could explain the relatively dismissive tone he took towards McCain's experience being shot down. McCain being jealous of Clark would be irrelevant to this kerfuffle.

And while the original statement, egged on by Bob Schieffer, was inartful, it was still correct, IMO. George H.W. Bush was shot down also, but never (to my knowledge) cited that as a qualification for becoming president. Clark himself was also seriously wounded in Vietnam - also an instance of personal bravery, but not a qualification for being president, either.

Posted at July 2, 2008 10:32 AM in response to Gen. Clark Makes "News".

At least TPM (and others, such as The Columbia Journalism Review and Media Matters) is saying that the media reaction is both inaccurate and over the top.

You're right that it's still not substantive discourse on truly relevant issues, like foreign or energy policy. The most successful GOP tactic of the past 30 years was starting and perpetuating the meme that the mainstream media is "liberal", and, worse, that it is biased.

On this "issue" they're showing that they really are McCain's base.

Posted at July 1, 2008 4:39 PM in response to Webb Spokesperson: Um, No, We Didn't Attack McCain's Service

Careful... to many comments like this, and Bill O'Reilly might denounce TPM as a "hate" site, as he did to Daily Kos.

Posted at July 1, 2008 4:20 PM in response to Gen. Clark Makes "News".

He pulled rank on McCain.

I wondered about that myself. I'm not too familiar with military culture, but Clark rose to the top, becoming Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. That level of responsibility is relevant experience to the Presidency: you're commanding a large organization, with administration and bureaucracy. You're responsible for strategic decisions, not just tactical ones. Yet Clark's presidential run gained little traction.

Then there's McCain, a former naval fighter pilot who got shot down and served as a POW, who is pushing his military experience as a valuable qualification for his far more successful presidential run. Being a successful fighter pilot is quite hard, but it requires excellent reaction, instincts, and personal bravery. It doesn't require strategic thinking, however.

It's quite plausible to me that Clark might resent McCain's political success, and especially that his military service is viewed as such an asset, when his own far more relevant service wasn't enough to help his campaign.

So I do think Clark is being deliberate: he's not questioning McCain's patriotism or his service itself; he's merely saying that he thinks McCain's military experience isn't particularly relevant to being president.

The getting shot down line that Schieffer fed him was perhaps incendiary, but Clark certainly wanted to make the general point that McCain's service itself is not a special qualification for being president. And, on that point, I think he's right.

As, apparently, does John Derbyshire, The Corner's resident curmudgeon:

Let's keep in mind, though, that great acts of valor and endurance are no guarantees of executive good sense.

Posted at July 1, 2008 4:16 PM in response to Gen. Clark Makes "News".

Actually, the reaction is a sort of story in itself, albeit more appropriate fodder for Greg's Horse's Mouth blog, as it's precisely that reaction that is newsworthy: people are making wildly exaggerated claims about what Clark allegedly said. Clark never denigrated McCain's service itself; he repeated his admiration of it.

He didn't "dis" McCain, nor did he trash him, nor did he say anything untrue (and thus he in no way "Swiftboated" him). He did express his opinion that McCain's military service wasn't relevant to being president. The reaction from much of the media about this, and their mis-characterization of what Clark actually said, is the real story here.

Posted at July 1, 2008 3:53 PM in response to Webb Spokesperson: Um, No, We Didn't Attack McCain's Service