Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I.R.S. Targeting of Conservative Groups Could Resonate in 2014
The New York Times' Five Thirty Eight Blog ^ | May 13, 2013 | Nate Silver

Posted on 05/14/2013 6:46:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

My rule of thumb is that a vast majority of alleged political scandals will have less electoral impact than the conventional wisdom initially holds.

There are two main reasons for this. First, voters weigh major issues like economic performance and the conduct of foreign wars heavily in making their decisions, leaving relatively little room for everything else. Second, the news media may overplay the lead story, scandalous or otherwise, on any given day, even though it may turn out to be relatively unimportant in the context of a multiyear political cycle.

But the recent admission by the Internal Revenue Service that it targeted conservative organizations with terms like “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names when they applied for tax-exempt status could be an exception. It has the potential to harm Democrats’ performance in next year’s midterm elections, partly by motivating a strong turnout from the Republican base.

Political scandals do not lend themselves especially well to data-driven analysis. But several years ago, I developed a series of five questions meant to determine whether a potential scandal “has legs.” Some of the questions have support in empirical literature, while others are more subjective. The exercise is modeled after Bill James’s “Keltner list,” a series of gut-check questions that were meant to test a baseball player’s suitability for the Hall of Fame.

The questions, with some minor wording differences from their original versions, are posed below. My conclusion, as you’ll see, is that the I.R.S. story scores relatively high, meaning it could have a substantial political impact.

1. Can the potential scandal be described with one sentence, but not easily refuted with one sentence?

In this case, the gist of the scandal can be expressed in 140 characters....

(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; Parties; Polls
KEYWORDS: 2014; 2016; internalrevenue; irs; obama; polls; teaparty; teapartyrebellion
Comments?
1 posted on 05/14/2013 6:46:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that the FBI has launched an investigation into the IRS. If so, that ought to leave a mark on Obama and the Dems.


2 posted on 05/14/2013 6:49:26 PM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

You mean the Obama controlled F.B.I. ?


3 posted on 05/14/2013 6:50:40 PM PDT by Newbomb Turk ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Gun Control.
Benghazi lies and the foreign policy failure it represents.
Obamacare costs and restrictions on care.
Invasion of AP phone records.
IRS gestapo tactics.
Immigration non-enforcement and associated costs.
Religious persecution.
Tax over-reach.
Stifled economy.
etc....


4 posted on 05/14/2013 6:52:36 PM PDT by G Larry (Darkness Hates the Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

Do you trust Obama’s FBI, under Eric Holder’s Justice Department, to fairly investigate Obama and the Federal Reserve’s Internal Revenue Service?


5 posted on 05/14/2013 6:52:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's next run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The comments by the libs at the Nate Silver’s blog attempting to justify the IRS’ actions are scary. They are endorsing naked, authoritarian suppression of the opposition. This shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s frightening all the same.


6 posted on 05/14/2013 6:55:21 PM PDT by Parmenio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We’ve seen this before, when the media will suddenly give a lot of publicity to a Democrat scandal for a little while, then it all dies down and is forgotten before the next election. One example that comes to mind is the uproar over Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardons in 2001, especially the one for Marc Rich. There was a brief period in the summer of 1998 when the media acted like they had definitely turned on Clinton for his lies in the Lewinsky investigation, but pretty soon they were back on board.


7 posted on 05/14/2013 6:57:08 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Nate Silver was ridiculed here on FR during the 2012 election cycle, he is a liberal, after all. But, the guy turned out to be right. So, we ought to listen to what he has to say. In this case, he is pointing out that the current outbreak of scandal virus could turn into a pandemic to the detriment of the Democrats in 2014. Democrats will do everything that they can to convince the low information voter that none of this matters (”What difference does it make”). We need to keep the issue alive and to frame it in a way that everyone can understand.

Obama has never had to play against a playoff level team. He could have a glass jaw and has given hints of a very thin skin who can’t stand up against pressure. We need to pour it on without overdoing it.


8 posted on 05/14/2013 6:58:07 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
How much did White House sabotage “resonate” in 2012? We're only beginning to get a glimpse of Obama’s huge bag of dirty tricks.
9 posted on 05/14/2013 6:59:46 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

[Nate Silver was ridiculed here on FR during the 2012 election cycle, he is a liberal, after all. But, the guy turned out to be right.]

I agree. No matter which side he roots he apparently uses a scientific formula to arrive at his results.


10 posted on 05/14/2013 7:04:06 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: old and tired
Well then the IRS should launch an investigation into the BATFE over Fast and Furious.

And the CIA should launch an investigation of the State Department over Benghazi.

And the FBI should start an investigation of the DOJ over the AP wiretaps.

And the DOJ should start an investigation of the IRS over the Tea Party 501(c)4 applications.

And the FEC should start an investigation over Mark Sanford's election in South Carolina.

Can't fathom why normal folks would like a smaller Federal Government.

11 posted on 05/14/2013 7:11:21 PM PDT by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Why shouldn’t we trust them? They’ve acquitted themselves in every previous investigation of themselves by themselves. /s


12 posted on 05/14/2013 7:13:56 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

White House sabotage combined with significant and often open vote fraud, then throw in the conservative “purists” that sat 2012 out, all gave us nobama2.

I think this IRS thing could crank up Tea Party type rebellion like 2010 and add more to a tsunami of poop coming at nobama and the libs.


13 posted on 05/14/2013 7:19:59 PM PDT by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Nate Silver was a member of Journolist. Thus his opinions/statements are automatically suspect - even when sprinkled with truth.


14 posted on 05/14/2013 7:20:41 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We need to use this to galvanize Tea-Party action for Tea-Party candidates in the primaries. A tsunami of grassroots origins that decimates the republiCRAT establishment and throws them out along with their ideological brethren in the democRAT party. NO CRATS OR RATS!


15 posted on 05/14/2013 7:22:24 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt
The battle cry needs to be: NO CRATS, NO RATS!
16 posted on 05/14/2013 7:24:19 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

Obama always exposes his fear by accusing others of what he is doing to them.

Obama knows that that which will undo him is what he should fear the most.

As a smokescreen defense he accuses others of what he is doing, and hopes to put them on defense so that he can continue doing to them what he fears that they will do to him.

For example, we should politicize, demonstrate strong political motivation, speak and behave in the most un-PC manner, bicker, argue, unseal his flunking University grades, place all his staff under oath, place Obama under oath and IMEACH and REMOVE Obama and his Commie pals.

The responsibility of an opposition party is to provide a check and a balance on the other political party.

Hence, it is time for Republicans to shed their sorry RINO skins and have a good old-fashioned, rip-roaring, verbal thrashing of the tyrannical Obamanation.


17 posted on 05/14/2013 7:25:10 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Reading the comments at the article link is enough to make me puke. Over and over it is reiterated (to paraphrase) “Tea Party types avoid paying taxes” or they advocate others not paying their taxes, implying illegal behavior that the IRS is right and proper to investigate. Aggh! Most TEA Partiers I know are so honest they squeak.

**Expletive Deleted** — I’ve been told more than a few times that in business dealings and such, I’m too honest for my own good. (That’s probably true, but it is how I was brought up, and I’m not changing now...)

Apparently, these nits don’t even recognize what “TEA” stands for: “Taxed Enough Already” does not mean that one does not pay their legal tax obligation! They also fail to recognize the NUMEROUS examples of their wondrous lib buddies found to have illegally cheated on their taxes.

As far as the scandal goes, I think many people across the political spectrum fear and dislike the IRS, so this thing could indeed have some legs outside conservative circles.


18 posted on 05/14/2013 7:29:03 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Thus his opinions/statements are automatically suspect

He did a helluva lot better than I did in 2012. How did you compare with his prognostications?

19 posted on 05/14/2013 7:31:47 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

20 posted on 05/14/2013 8:07:18 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

In 2008 I said Obama would lie, cheat, steal and defraud to win reelection. I also said the GOP wouldn’t know what hit them until it was too late. So in comparison, I did as well as or better than Nate Silver.

I’ve done a little research on Journolisters. You can’t trust them even when they’re telling the truth.

Don’t say I didn’t warn ya.


21 posted on 05/14/2013 9:07:10 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Is it possible that the link between democrat corruption, IRS corruption, and ObamaCare could resonate in 2014? Yes, thank God!


22 posted on 05/15/2013 5:56:10 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
"We’ve seen this before, when the media will suddenly give a lot of publicity to a Democrat scandal for a little while, then it all dies down ... There was a brief period in the summer of 1998 when the media acted like they had definitely turned on Clinton for his lies in the Lewinsky investigation, but pretty soon they were back on board"

I remember this. Scandals must have someone from the President's own party cross the line.

For Watergate, it was Senator Howard Baker, Republican from Tennessee, who put truth before party. When he publicly announced that Nixon was probably guilty of malfeasance, and decided to talk to GOP friends, the gig was up for Nixon.

For the Clinton scandal, there was not one Democrat who crossed the line. Many considered it, very carefully, but then the shrill voices in the Senate and leftie talking heads decided to try one last meme, "It's about sex!" And it worked. No Democrat jumped ship, and the impeachment vote and trial results were largely on party lines.

There's no "It's about sex" line this time. Using the IRS will bring over Dems, and spying on the MSM will piss off the MSM. I have a feeling that this one will go farther.

Curiously, the AP phone wiretaps would die away faster than any of them, but for the MSM their own ox was being gored, so this will fire them up about Benghazi and the IRS.

23 posted on 05/15/2013 9:11:24 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson