The pollsters start talking about 2012:

Monday, November 8, 2010

The 2012 Senate Class

There were a ton of competitive Senate races in 2010 and the playing field could be even wider in 2012. Since the beginning of August PPP has polled on the approval ratings of 18 Senators who are up for reelection next time around…

…The three least popular and conceivably most vulnerable Senators up next time that we’ve polled on are Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, and Debbie Stabenow….

…Missouri was extremely brutal for Democrats this year and McCaskill has not built up a lot in the way of crossover support from Republicans and independents during her first term in the Senate…

Claire McCaskill

Approval [%] 40/53

Spread [%]-13

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): try as you might, you can’t do much when you’re in the minority party (January 29, 2010)

Uh, Claire, you got to dance with them what brung you (January 21, 2010)

What do Democrats stand for? (January 20, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): take the job for a spin and see what it’ll do (January 1, 2010):

…A question. If the only two Democratic U.S. Senators to the right of you by voting record are Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson, and the right wingers and teabaggers in Missouri won’t vote for you anyway, and you’re not overly concerned about re-election, why don’t you take the job for a spin and see what it can do rather than cater to all the fear mongering obstructionists and the inside the beltway cocktail weenie circuit…?

Those teabaggers will never vote for you, Claire. They never have, they never will. Work on turning out your base.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – because insurance company profit margins need to be protected (September 17, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): open forum in Hillsboro – photos (August 11, 2010)

Rude, loud, and obnoxious. And to think that there wasn’t a dirty anti-war hippy anywhere in sight.

After driving five hundred miles (in eight and a half hours) round trip I had time to reflect and process the event at Jefferson College in Hillsboro. The seemingly impotent rage coming from some of the people in attendance was stunning in its force.

They’re pissed that Obama is president. They’re pissed that McCain isn’t. They’re pissed that Jim Talent isn’t their senator. They probably voted for George W. Bush twice (and probably his daddy twice). They’d probably be pissed if you pointed out that dubya is and was a monumental screw-up – it reminds them that they made that particular choice. They didn’t vote for Claire. They’ll never vote for Claire. They’re outraged that their sense of entitlement about calling the shots in what others should believe and even how the open forum should have been run isn’t accepted or catered to.

To them a late entering African American woman breaking the “sign rule” is an outrage upon civilized society and is pointed out instantly. It is enough of an outrage so that some jerk can jump out of the stands and try to rip it away (for God’s sake, it was a Rosa Parks poster). Yet, a bunch of people can stand after that with their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and there’s not a whisper from the crowd.

They’re pissed that Claire asked how many of them were on Medicare (several hundred) and then asking how many wanted off (a handful) – pointing out the crowd’s hypocrisy about government health care. No matter what anyone does they’ll be pissed and stay pissed. And they ain’t voting for any Democrats. Ever.…

[emphasis added]

What did we tell you?

Okay, this is funny, in a sort of inside baseball polling sort of way.

There’s a bit of a dust up between the Great Orange Satan and their former polling company.

A different polling company, Public Policy Polling, posted the following on their blog:

We actually do our polls…

One of the unfortunate things about yesterday’s news regarding Research 2000 is that it will have some people wondering if there are even more firms putting out poll numbers without actually conducting polls. Well we do conduct our polls and as a result get a pretty good volume of irate e-mails and phone calls from people telling us to never to call them ever again. Below is a small sampling, although I’m very disappointed I couldn’t find the e-mail from the lady in Alaska chiding us because our interviewer didn’t sound Alaskan…

____________________

From: [….]

Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:51 PM

To: PPP Information

Subject: ??

ENOUGH with the phone calls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You people are out of control!!!!!!!!!!!

I am on the DO NOT CALL list for a reason and people like you are the REASON!!!!!!!!!!!

Cease and desist calling my house!!

It is 8:45 PM on a Sunday night … totally Inappropriate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_______________________________

From: [….]

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 1:47 PM

To: Jensen, Tom

Subject: Unsolicited phone calls in NC

I just received one of your calls. It is my policy to respond to lengthy surveys only when reasonable compensation is offered. You don’t work for free, neither do I.

I had to laugh at the indignation. Been there, experienced that.

Ages ago when I was helping to run a mom and pop polling operation we had a great interviewer who was a master at converting refusals (the randomly selected interviewees who balked at responding to the poll). Having a number of those failed interviews can really screw over your poll. This individual, while working through the difficult cases in our geographically stratified sample, would engage the interviewee with, “Would you please answer the questions? I just need to complete one more interview and then I can go home.” Invariably the interviewee would relent, the phone call would get completed, and the data would be recorded. Then, our interviewer would repeat the process until that portion of the sample was cleaned out. It was a thing of beauty to behold.

Uh, oh, this isn’t good.

BREAKING: Daily Kos to Sue Research 2000 for Fraud

Kos, at the Great Orange Satan:

Research 2000: Problems in plain sight

More on Research 2000

I have just published a report by three statistics wizards showing, quite convincingly, that the weekly Research 2000 State of the Nation poll we ran the past year and a half was likely bunk….

Much to his credit Kos is being very open about the situation stating, “…I hereby renounce any post we’ve written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling…”

From 1997 to 2002 I helped run a mom and pop operation that did relatively small sample legislative district polling in Missouri. We were held together with spit, baling wire, and duct tape. Large amounts of caffeine helped, too. The opinion research game is brutal. I’ve always said that the mechanics are straightforward, it’s the logistics that are a nightmare.

I cannot imagine the nightmares and pressure of doing weekly national polls.

Maybe the lesson in this is that if you’re going to commission a lot of polling (and spend a lot of money) do a lot of digging before, during, and after.

This is not good.

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D), from April 27, 2008:

…And so the president’s [George W. Bush] poll numbers dropped down to where they are now, twenty seven. Satan is at twenty nine. [laughter, applause] Some of the lowest poll numbers in the history of the republic, since we’ve been keeping poll numbers…

[emphasis added]

From Plunderbund:

28% of Americans Believe the Military Should Have No Civilian Oversight?

by Joseph on June 26, 2010

….Does ANYONE really think we should have unbridled military control? Without civilian oversight?

Did Rasmussen limit their call list to 14 year old boys who just watched Taps for the first time?….

I’m almost surprised that the number was that low.

The Rasmussen poll:

28% Say Civilian Control of Military Bad for U.S.

Friday, June 25, 2010

….a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 44% of U.S. voters think civilian control of the military is good for the country.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) think it’s a bad idea to have civilians with the final say over military leaders. Another 28% are not sure which course is best….

….The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on June 23-24, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence….

[emphasis added]

That just may be about right, given the number of batshit crazy people in America right now.

What would Lincoln or Truman have done?  

Rasmussen conducted a poll of 500 likely voters in Missouri on June 2, 2010. The margin of error is 4.5%.

3* 2010 Missouri Senate Race

Roy Blunt (R) – 45%

Robin Carnahan (D) – 44%

Some other candidate – 4%

Not sure – 6%

Do you think “Some other candidate” might be Chuck Purgason?

Interesting. These Rasmussen numbers have Roy Blunt’s (r – lobbyists) numbers trending down. Maybe it’s about the oil.

11* In the long-term, will the recent Gulf Oil Spill have a devastating impact on the environment, a major impact, a modest impact, a minor impact, or will it have little lasting impact on the environment?

47% Devastating impact on the environment

35% Major impact….

12* Who should pay for the clean-up from the oil leak – the companies who were drilling for oil, the government or both?

81% Companies who were drilling for oil

1% Government

17% Both

1% Not sure….

There is something of a caveat. The founder of the Great Orange Satan has issues with Rasmussen:

….Remember, Rasmussen has two modes — the narrative setting mode, which he’s used to great effect this year to fuel the “Democrats are doomed” narrative, and the “get it right” mode he uses the closer we get to the actual election. Well, we’re not that close to November yet, but apparently he felt threatened by having such massive outliers vis a vis other pollsters. So he rushed new polling more in line with the composite polling trendlines.

It’s kind of hard to set narratives when you become a laughing stock in the political world.

.

Nate Silver also has some issues:

Blast from Rasmussen’s Past

…While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong.** Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.

Although Rasmussen has certainly gotten a lot of things right, their high pollster rating was mostly based on their strong performance in 2004 and 2006. Their rating is likely to go down now that we’ve found their 2000 data, and are adding in the 2008 data, when their performance was mediocre.

So, we’ll take this interpretation of the senate race in Missouri with a grain of salt.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) issued his latest legislative update video (something that Fired Up! has been reveling in) and in it he took time to lament being the target of an [our word] “alleged” push poll:

…one of the other things that we’ve had a lot of, um, ethics bills in, in the Ethics Committee and Government Accountability Committee this week. Um, with one of the things that I’ve think we should propose is a legislation on, um, ethical push polling. Recently in my home district this week the Democrats launched a push poll. And what a push poll is, uh, I’ve had several constituents call and, uh, tell me about the push poll as far as what they ask is, yes, would you vote to re-elect Representative Hoskins, and when my constituents ask yes, they provide, uh, some false and misleading and untrue statements about myself or my family. And then after they provide that information then they say, well, would you still vote for Representative Hoskins knowing these other things that we’ve told you. When several of my constituents asked who was paying for the poll, uh, the polling company, uh, did not, would not disclose that. And I think that that’s something, and, you know, ethically that our voters and constituents should know who is paying for the polling and so they can determine themselves if it’s a biased poll or not…

Representative Hoskins also put the same story in the written version of his January 28, 2010 “Capitol Report”:

….The House Committee on Governmental Accountability and Ethics Reform met again this week to hear testimony on several ethics reform bills.  One ethical reform the legislature should address is proper disclosure for campaign rhetoric. I was the subject of a prime example of campaign rhetoric just this week.  Disguised as a “survey,” a company called Liberty Polling conducted a biased telephone “push-poll” in my district. When asked who paid for the “survey,” Liberty Polling would not answer the question.  The issue here is not that there was a poll, but that it was veiled and not actually a survey at all.  In the name of good ethics and transparency, whoever is paying for the “survey” should be disclosed, especially when the recipient of the call requests that information.  I appreciated hearing from a number of constituents that you did not welcome this call. I won’t commit space here to go into details about what I was told about the calls, but I’d be happy to discuss it further if you would like….

This is amusing on so many levels. There’s the republican propensity to join the “cult of the victim.” And there’s the “isn’t that mean when they say something untrue about me”, but it’s okay when the republicans demonstrably do that to somebody else on your behalf. And, finally, there’s the basic misunderstanding of polling.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research has a lot of useful information on polling practices:

Fraudulent Polls  vs. Message Testing

The fact that a poll contains negative information about one or more candidates does NOT in and of itself make it a ‘push poll.’ Political campaigns routinely sponsor legitimate “message-testing” surveys that are used by campaign consultants to test out the effectiveness of various possible campaign messages or campaign ad content, often including negative messages. Political message-testing surveys may sometimes be confused with fake polling, but they are very different. One way to tell is that message-testing surveys exhibit the characteristics of a legitimate survey, such as:

At the beginning of the call, the interviewer clearly identifies the call center actually making the calls. (However, legitimate political polling firms will often choose not to identify the client who is sponsoring the research, be it a candidate or a political party, since that could bias the survey results.)

The interview contains more than a few questions.

The questions usually ask about more than one candidate or mention both sides of an issue.

Questions, usually near the end of the interview, ask respondents to report demographic characteristics such as age, education level, and party identification.

The survey is based on a random sample of voters.

The number of respondents falls within the range of legitimate surveys, typically between 400 and 1500 interviews.

AAPOR stresses that these criteria apply most of the time, but exceptions will arise. Journalists and members of the public are encouraged to investigate allegations of “push polling” to ascertain whether or not the calling activity was carried out for legitimate research purposes….

….Issues in Message Testing

Despite their legitimacy of purpose, message-testing surveys occasionally generate vigorous complaint. They are sometimes the subject of public controversy in political campaigns, and may appear in press stories about dubious campaign practices. AAPOR recognizes that message tests may need to communicate positive or negative information in strongly political terms, in a tone similar to campaign advertisements. Still, these surveys should be judged by the same ethical standards as any other poll of the public: Do they include any false or misleading statements? Do they treat the respondent with fairness and respect…?

[emphasis added]

People are caught off guard when they get a random sample poll, because, well, they were selected at random. The odds of any one person getting called are pretty steep and so most people who are called don’t tend to record the actual conversation with the poll interviewer (as if they’re sitting around waiting with a recording device or pencil and paper). And since it can be a unique experience (that random sample thing again) people who are called might not get all of the details of the conversation committed to memory, especially if they aren’t very aware of what to look for (see the AAPOR information above).

Absent a recording of an interview I’m not willing to call anything a “push poll.” In the past I’ve seen legitimate polls (I was interviewed for one) with candidate contrast questions characterized as a “push poll” in the local paper by a few outraged recipients. Testing the unpleasant (to the individual) facts in a candidate’s or politician’s record does not necessarily make that phone call part of a “push poll.”

It is not a given that Democrats, as Representative Hoskins stated in his video, sponsored the poll. It’s entirely possible that republicans, worried about Denny Hoskins’ numerous missteps are testing his (and their) vulnerability. Now that’s a possibility that should really make him nervous. If it were an independent republican expenditure Denny Hoskins wouldn’t have been told about it.  

There’s been a bit of discussion about transparency when it comes to polling by Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com and Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com.

The mechanics of executing a scientific random sample poll are relatively straightforward, the logistics are a nightmare. The people involved need to understand what they’re doing (duh) and what it takes to get valid results.

You don’t need a massive building and gigantic corporate infrastructure to pull off an accurate poll, though the available logistical support inherent in those entities can help a lot. What is absolutely essential is a thorough understanding of the science and the art of polling and a phone bank (or other contact system) with intelligent well trained interviewers. Mom and pop operations can produce good stuff, it’s just that it’s a really tough grind to do it with a relatively small number of people day in and day out.

Transparency when you publicly release your data is very important. The thing is though, if a candidate’s campaign spends a small fortune on a poll and releases the data to the public they’ve just given their opponent some of the benefits of the poll for free. The crosstabulations in a campaign poll are used for voter targeting. See the conflict?

But, when you publicly release the results there’s an obligation to release a minimum amount of information about your methodology so the public and others in the opinion research business can gauge the validity of the those publicly released results.

Why bother? Without methodological transparency the authority conveyed by a poll labeled as such, which may or may not have actually been executed with a valid methodology, can have significant influence on the media and the public at large.

From 1994:

AAPOR Finds Frank Luntz in Violation of Ethics Code

Wednesday, April 23, 1997 — The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced Wednesday that a 14 month investigation found pollster Frank Luntz violated the Association’s Code of Professional Ethics and Practices.

AAPOR found Luntz, who heads the Luntz Research Companies in Arlington,Virginia, repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on public attitudes about the Republicans’ “Contract with America.” In particular, the AAPOR inquiry focused on Luntz’s reporting, prior to the November elections in 1994, that his research showed at least 60 percent of the public favored each of the elements in the GOP “Contract.” When later asked to provide some basic facts about this research, Luntz refused.

AAPOR holds that researchers must disclose, or make available for public disclosure, the wording of questions and other basic methodological details when poll findings are made public. This disclosure is important so that claims made on the basis of opinion research findings can be independently evaluated. Section III of the AAPOR Code states: “Good professional practice imposes the obligation upon all public opinion researchers to include, in any report of research results, or to make available when that report is released, certain essential information about how the research was conducted…”

Yep, that “Contract on America” has had a significant impact on our national consciousness. At the very least we should all be given the opportunity to judge if that influence is valid or not.

More of the same about misinformation and the Faux News Channel.

On health care reform – via Think Progress and the Great Orange Satan:

First thoughts: Obama’s good, bad news

Posted: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:16 AM by Domenico Montanaro

….Here’s another way to look at the misinformation: In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX. In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma. What’s more, a good chunk of folks who get their news from broadcast TV (NBC, ABC, CBS) believe these things, too. This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself….

“…not as much about the filter itself…”

Au contraire, mes amis. Watching television news does make you stupid. It’s just that some networks make you more stupid than others.

That is now, this was then (September 13, 2007): Repeat it enough and some people will believe it’s true

…Program on International Policy Attitudes, October 2, 2003 [pdf]

….An analysis of those who were asked all of the key three perception questions does reveal a remarkable level of variation in the presence of misperceptions according to news source. Standing out in the analysis are Fox and NPR/PBS–but for opposite reasons. Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions. NPR/PBS are notable because their viewers and listeners consistently held fewer misperceptions than respondents who obtained their information from other news sources.

The table below shows this clearly. Listed are the breakouts of the sample according to the frequency of the three key misperceptions (i.e. the beliefs that evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that WMD have been found in Iraq and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq) and their primary news source. Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions-and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.

The sad part? Viewers of CBS had almost the same tendencies towards misperception as viewers of the Faux News Channel.

There you have it, watching certain cable television networks will make you really stupid.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Via a Twitter post from our friends at Fired Up!:

NPR’s “Political Junkie” blog lists Bond’s senate seat as an “expected GOP loss” in 2010: http://bit.ly/bjlgw 16 minutes ago from TweetDeck

It’s this comment on the NPR post  “Earlybird Ratings Of 2010 Senate Races” (in itself, innocuous enough) which is so telling:

Putting Missouri in the W column for Dems is silly. I live in the state. Carnahan is out-polling any Republican right now on pure name recognition. I can tell you this. Dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies are growing in Missouri with every passing week. By next fall, any politician running for statewide office who’s associated with Obama and his radical economic policies is going to feel the wrath of Missouri voters.

Conservative grassroots are up for a knock-down, drag out fight in 2010.

Also keep in mind Obama lost Missouri in 2008. Does anyone really think his popularity is going to increase from his blank slate, MSM lovefest, POTUS run in 2008?

Uh, yes the republicans will have all the money they need. And the lobbyists, too. True, Obama didn’t win the state, but then again, John McCain barely did and it took a while to figure that out.

And the polling? Well, that would be a foal of a different color:

A Carnahan Advantage in Missouri Senate Race

The closest state during the 2008 presidential election, Missouri shows early signs of opportunity for Democrats to pick up the senate seat currently held by Republican Kit Bond. A new Democracy Corps survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows Secretary of State Robin Carnahan leading Republican Congressman Roy Blunt 53 to 44 percent and leading former Treasurer Sarah Steelman 54 to 42 percent.

At this early and uncertain stage, Carnahan starts off the contest with a strong personal and professional standing that puts her in a position to defeat either potential opponent. At the same time, it appears as if Steelman may be the tougher foe with a stronger profile than Blunt and the potential to run a fresh outsider candidacy that Blunt cannot offer.

President Obama provides a slight boost to Carnahan, even in a state he failed to carry, with a 56 percent job approval rating (compared to 58 percent nationally) and voters preferring, by a 49 to 40 percent margin, a senator who will mostly support Obama’s agenda to get things done rather than one who will mostly oppose his agenda to provide balance.

This report is based a Democracy Corps survey of 800 likely voters in Missouri conducted April 28 – 30, 2009. The survey is subject to a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.

[emphasis added]

We’ve covered this particular poll before: Democracy Corps Poll – Missouri Senate 2010: Robin Carnahan (D) v. the republicans

Or, how about this SurveyUSA poll from April 2009?:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

All

57% – approve

40% – disapprove

3% – not sure

“…Dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies are growing in Missouri with every passing week….”

Okay. What color is the sky in their world? Ah yes, if republican wishes were reality there would be a bronze statue of George W. Bush on every street corner in Iraq.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

…A man can convince anyone he’s somebody else, but never himself…

Newt. Again.

By MATT BAI

Published: February 25, 2009

…”If you said to me that I could only consult with one individual, and my job was to bring the party back, Newt Gingrich would be the guy,” says Frank Luntz, the pollster who has worked with Gingrich going back to the 1994 Contract With America, the 10-point agenda that Republicans waved around on their way to the majority. “This guy would be the perfect ‘Behind the Music’ story, because he was on top, and then he lost it all, and now he’s back and bigger than ever. It’s perfect….”

[emphasis added]

In 1997 the American Association for Public Opinion Research had a few things to say about that work on the “Contract on America”:

AAPOR Finds Frank Luntz in Violation of Ethics Code

Wednesday, April 23, 1997 — The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced Wednesday that a 14 month investigation found pollster Frank Luntz violated the Association’s Code of Professional Ethics and Practices.

AAPOR found Luntz, who heads the Luntz Research Companies in Arlington,Virginia, repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on public attitudes about the Republicans’ “Contract with America.” In particular, the AAPOR inquiry focused on Luntz’s reporting, prior to the November elections in 1994, that his research showed at least 60 percent of the public favored each of the elements in the GOP “Contract.” When later asked to provide some basic facts about this research, Luntz refused…

[emphasis added]

…AAPOR holds that researchers must disclose, or make available for public disclosure, the wording of questions and other basic methodological details when poll findings are made public. This disclosure is important so that claims made on the basis of opinion research findings can be independently evaluated. Section III of the AAPOR Code states: “Good professional practice imposes the obligation upon all public opinion researchers to include, in any report of research results, or to make available when that report is released, certain essential information about how the research was conducted.”

Richard A. Kulka, chair of AAPOR’s Standards Committee noted that AAPOR’s investigation of Luntz began in January 1996, after receiving a complaint from a member. According to Kulka, “AAPOR tried on several occasions to get Luntz to provide some basic information about his survey, for example, the wording of the questions he used. For about a year, he ignored these

requests. Subsequently, he provided partial information, but still refused [t]o let us make any of the information public, arguing that the results were [p]roprietary, even though he had been discussing the conclusions of the survey n public for nearly two years.”

AAPOR’s President, Diane Colasanto, adds “When researchers make [p]ublic arguments based on their research data, then refuse to say how their [r]esearch was conducted, that harms the public debate on issues and reduces he credibility of all survey and public opinion research.”

AAPOR is an organization of over 1,400 research professionals from government agencies, colleges and universities, non-profit organizations, and commercial polling firms. It is the primary professional association representing public opinion researchers, and has a strong interest in protecting and strengthening the credibility of survey research. The organization was founded in 1947 by such pioneers of polling as George Gallup, Hadley Cantril, and Paul Lazarsfeld.

Luntz is not a member of the organization.

###

[emphasis added]

That’s right, there’s nothing new under the republican sun. To them it’s the 1990s all over again. And you remember those years, don’t you?