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 ...
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.
You mean the Obama controlled F.B.I. ?
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....
Do you trust Obama’s FBI, under Eric Holder’s Justice Department, to fairly investigate Obama and the Federal Reserve’s Internal Revenue Service?
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
Why shouldn’t we trust them? They’ve acquitted themselves in every previous investigation of themselves by themselves. /s
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.
Nate Silver was a member of Journolist. Thus his opinions/statements are automatically suspect - even when sprinkled with truth.
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!
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.
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.
He did a helluva lot better than I did in 2012. How did you compare with his prognostications?
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.