http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7825?in=00:29:55 I have no opinion on whether McCain is as vicious and heartless as the average Republican, but I hope for the sake of his party that Matt Iglesias is more arrogant and self-righteous than the average Democrat.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7825?in=00:27:30 Perhaps Matt is too famous now to bother with precise language, links, or references, so can someone help him back up his assertion that the Republicans "deny that global warming is real," or that any of the proposed legislation will prevent calamity? Words like "anthropogenic" or "primarily" can help even finger-painting majors appear merely ill-informed instead of plain stupid.

The wmv link seems bad. At least it's two other blokes entirely

Quoting Namazu: Perhaps Matt is too famous now to bother with precise language, links, or references, so can someone help him back up his assertion that the Republicans "deny that global warming is real"

Oh, you don't know any Republicans?

Jonathan Chait's skepticism about midwest anger might have some bite if these two were actually in Iowa. It seems to me bloggers went out more into the hustings in 2004, whereas now the MSM got the hint and tried to do it. Please, Mr. Wright, live-blogging from the hustings!

I think Chait is smoking his magazine with some funky weed. "Maverick" fits McCain, but more like a moderate conservative who recognizes when the Left has momentum and votes and offers a less interventionist measure to keep the party's image electable.

I'm beginning to dread these segments on the political horse race most of all, because more and more there's little information about the race, but more about the interlocutors' perspective. It's like we are the psychiatrists, only we aren't paid to have to listen to two people, who have no connection to any campaign, tell us what do in the warmth of our own homes without technology. Again, Mr. Wright, links and live-blogging, or just let the listeners spar in the forums.

Shorter Jon Chait: I'm a cynic about everything except a McCain presidency! He's so dreamy!

This is my first comment ever on bhtv, despite being an extremely faithful viewer: Matthew Yglesias is wearing a very cute outfit for this diavlog.

I'm not so sure, on the Republican side, that someone/Giuliani can't lose the first 5 or so primaries but then win Florida and be on his way. It's a risky strategy, but one big win--as part of an overall plan--would change everything and prove the nay sayers wrong.

Namazu: I did notice those times when Matt sounded like a strident partisan. I had the sense that he was kidding about "all Republicans are evil." I do grant that he was probably serious when remarking about global warming, and of course this is an unfair overgeneralization. However, those against doing anything significant in response to global warming do tend overwhelmingly to be Republicans, at least in my experience.

Quoting eskinol: The wmv link seems bad. At least it's two other blokes entirely

I just downloaded the file. It seems like the right one to me, at least now. Suggestion: If you experience glitches like this in the future, the people at BH.tv do like to hear about it, and tend to respond fairly quickly, especially during business hours. Emailing support@bloggingheads.tv to report an observation since as the one you made will probably get the problem addressed faster than posting something here in the forums. I'm not saying not to post complaints of a technical nature here, especially if you're looking for other people to confirm what you've noticed. I'm just saying that the email approach might get you satisfaction sooner. Good luck.

Baltimoron: Hustings is a good word.

Quoting somerandomdude: Shorter Jon Chait: I'm a cynic about everything except a McCain presidency! He's so dreamy!

LOL! However, as funny as your line was, I think he made clear that he wasn't infatuated with McCain. It sounded more to me like he just thought McCain was well-positioned to play off his (undeserved) rep as the maverick/straight-talker.

Quoting Baltimoron: I'm beginning to dread these segments on the political horse race most of all, because more and more there's little information about the race, but more about the interlocutors' perspective. It's like we are the psychiatrists, only we aren't paid to have to listen to two people, who have no connection to any campaign, tell us what do in the warmth of our own homes without technology.

I dunno. It's a matter of taste, certainly, and I do remember griping about one of the previous horserace-centric diavlogs, so I know where you're coming from. But I liked this one. I think both Jon and Matt spend a lot of time thinking about the possible permutations of the horse race, and they're both pretty smart about it, so I like hearing their speculations. Also, it being the day after the Iowa primaries (FINALLY!), it was good to have some post-caucus analysis. Me, I can't get enough of it lately, since I'm so happy about the outcomes.

Quoting basman: I'm not so sure, on the Republican side, that someone/Giuliani can't lose the first 5 or so primaries but then win Florida and be on his way. It's a risky strategy, but one big win--as part of an overall plan--would change everything and prove the nay sayers wrong.

I think Jon was right in pointing out that Team Rudy appears to have forgotten how significant early wins can be for building momentum, so most years, I'd disagree with you. But I think you might be right, this year specifically. I could easily envision Willard losing everything but NH, McCain not having as much of a comeback as some think he might, and Huckabee running out of money and/or plausibility from the perspective of the MSM. Add to that Huckabee's strength among evangelicals being less of a factor in the big states like FL, CA, and especially NY, where Rudy is a favorite son, and ... could happen. The weak point in all this, though, is that Rudy has done a lot of other things to hurt himself. If he starts coming back, I'd expect a barrage of attack ads and opinion pieces about his shady business deals, taxpayer-funded

basman: David Frum makes the same case in more detail here, if you're interested. I have to say, though, I can almost smell the flop-sweat of desperation while reading it.

There may be a consensus brewing among republican elites, but, being surrounded by conservatives of the less plugged-in variety, I can assure you that global warming denial is still a force to be reckoned with in the Republican Party. The typical argument will run like this: [it's a bitterly cold January day] [Republican glances out window] I see it's snowing. So much for that global warming these Democrats have been blathering about. So then you try to explain how you can't derive a reliable assertion about climate change from a single data point, and they tell you that you're just full of it, and that if there really were some odd weather problem, they'd be able to suss it out with the plain, home spun wisdom that has served them so well all their lives. I promise you, millions of Republicans still insist global warming is a hoax.

I don't get it. Yglesias' contingently phrased analytic critique may or may not be true, but arrogant? I don't think so. Toughly worded? Yup, and as analysis it certainly seems as if it might be true. Should he have said it more nicely? I think candidly expressing his (fairly well regarded) opinion is how he sees his job. (Update) Or is your problem simply the phrase "vicious and heartless as the average Republican?" If so, I think your irony detector may not be well calibrated. Either way, when you compare Drudge, Malkin, Hot Air, LGF, ACE, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, KOS, HuffPo, et al... Yglesias ends up looking pretty good.

Yes but I have yet to see a two legged horse both on the left side stand up straight.

Quoting namazu: Perhaps Matt is too famous now to bother with precise language, links, or references, so can someone help him back up his assertion that the Republicans "deny that global warming is real," or that any of the proposed legislation will prevent calamity? Words like "anthropogenic" or "primarily" can help even finger-painting majors appear merely ill-informed instead of plain stupid.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on GW:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263746 As far as whether any proposed legislation could prevent calamity, that is unlikely to be knowable, although I expect the best any realistic legislation could hope to do is to mitigate it very slightly, if at all. But there are other reasons completely independent of GW to increase energy efficiency and conserve finite resources. At current usage rates, proven oil reserves will run out in less than 50 years. Also, it would improve our national security if we could reduce our use of oil, thus lowering its price and putting fewer dollars in the pockets of hostile countries like Iran, Venezuala, Russia, etc. So security hawks, even those who don't think GW is real, should be for reducing oil consumption as much as is practical.

Why only one mention of John Edwards? He actually came in second in Iowa. And he is the real populist candidate in this cycle. Typical Washington insider disdain for the messenger of the unwashed rabble. Also polls consistently put him as the strongest candidate in a matchup against a generic republican.

Quoting testostyrannical: There may be a consensus brewing among republican elites, but, being surrounded by conservatives of the less plugged-in variety, I can assure you that global warming denial is still a force to be reckoned with in the Republican Party.

The typical argument will run like this: [it's a bitterly cold January day] [Republican glances out window] I see it's snowing. So much for that global warming these Democrats have been blathering about.

So then you try to explain how you can't derive a reliable assertion about climate change from a single data point, and they tell you that you're just full of it, and that if there really were some odd weather problem, they'd be able to suss it out with the plain, home spun wisdom that has served them so well all their lives.

I promise you, millions of Republicans still insist global warming is a hoax.

You are exactly right. Not only are the deniers still a major force in Republican politics, they are actually resurgent. We had almost reached a point of consensus that at least the warming was occurring, even if the cause was still disputed. But around the time Gore's movie came out there was a redoubling

One important episode in the life of the wingnut was when NASA had to correct a few years' of data. This fueled no small number of lunatic tirades about how the entire global warming concept is a Marxist plot to destroy American industry.

If you really think humans are responsible for a potentially catastrophic warming of the globe, then you'd better pray the question isn't going to be resolved in favor of the side least engaged in shameless cherry-picking. Two words: "drownded seals." Don't take my word for it: see what the science writers at the New York Wingnut Times have to say:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ht-on-climate/
But you're right about the second point: Marx could only have dreamt about the level of control over the global means of production afforded by an international carbon cap scheme.

Quoting IronDog: Why only one mention of John Edwards? He actually came in second in Iowa. And he is the real populist candidate in this cycle. Typical Washington insider disdain for the messenger of the unwashed rabble. Also polls consistently put him as the strongest candidate in a matchup against a generic republican.

I think the consensus is that Edwards can't do better anywhere than he could in Iowa, especially in the early states, and that he doesn't have the money for a long fight at full strength. I mostly agree with this view. I also doubt your claim about his matchup against a generic Republican has much worth. The last polls I saw showed Obama doing significantly better against all named candidates. I expect this advantage will only increase after New Hampshire.

Quoting piscivorous: Yes but I have yet to see a two legged horse both on the left side stand up straight.

That's because you were looking in a mirror. Both legs were actually on the right.

Come on guys it is a diva-log after all. Seriously, their detached, mischievous commentary is hilarious (and illuminating). More please.

CorkExaminer:

... diva-log ...

I like it! I'm also glad you introduced it after an all-male show.

Brendan, One way to see it is that: McCain wins in New Hampshire; Romney gets up-ended significantly as a result; and either McCain or Huckabee win South Carolina, increasing the Romney up-ending. Then, assuming Huckabee cannot go the distance, and that Thompson cannot revive himself--I thought he did quite well last night and do not count him out--who is really left for the January 29th Republican primary in Florida and for February 5th Super Duper Tuesday: Giuliani against McCain, I'd argue, on this set of not unrealistic assumptions. That is not a bad fight for Rudy: it's effectively one on one; he lets time begin to heal a few wounds; he's refreshed, not having exhausted himself in the run up contests; and he turned in a creditable performance last night. So, to reverse Chait's argument, it may be precisely by avoiding the dynamic of the run ups *this year*, as you note, Giuliani may have done himself a huge strategic favour and enhanced his possibilities. Thompson is following a variant of this strategy. And what strikes me about all this is how much it stands to reverse herd like-and some would say smug--conventional wisdom as

basman: Good points. So, are you saying you think Rudy punted on NH long ago to keep himself fresh? And if so, do you think he did this because he saw Willard as inevitable (at the time he made the decision)? That certainly was the conventional wisdom a while ago, before McCain rebounded.

Brendan, truth to tell, I have no idea how forward thinking or finely calibrated Rudy's strategy was. But it's looking pretty reasonable right now and, there is nothing like hind sight that works for us to make us look smarter than we are.

Quoting basman: Brendan, truth to tell, I have no idea how forward thinking or finely calibrated Rudy's strategy was. But it's looking pretty reasonable right now and, there is nothing like hind sight that works for us to make us look smarter than we are.

You might be right. As I've said elsewhere, this might be the one year where conceding all of the early primaries wouldn't be a guaranteed losing strategy. If things work out such that every one of the non-Huckabees keep each other in balance so that none of them becomes the clear alternative and none of them drops out, Rudy could come roaring back with wins in NY, CA, and FL. However, if McCain defeats Romney convincingly in NH, and Huckabee wins SC by a lot, I think Romney will be done for, and the race will become McCain vs Huckabee. I wouldn't bet the house, but I can't see Rudy overcoming his existing negatives against him with such a late start.

Quoting bjkeefe: You might be right. As I've said elsewhere, this might be the one year where conceding all of the early primaries wouldn't be a guaranteed losing strategy. If things work out such that every one of the non-Huckabees keep each other in balance so that none of them becomes the clear alternative and none of them drops out, Rudy could come roaring back with wins in NY, CA, and FL.

However, if McCain defeats Romney convincingly in NH, and Huckabee wins SC by a lot, I think Romney will be done for, and the race will become McCain vs Huckabee. I wouldn't bet the house, but I can't see Rudy overcoming his existing negatives against him with such a late start.

It is a truly fascinating horse race, that's for sure! American politics is by far the most interesting sport. ;-)