The Fraud of Columbus

You are right, Michael, Columbus should have Googled, for the information, or read the 'Columbus' article, at Wikipedia, before attempting something, that no one knew had been done prior, since the Viking (who never explained things to Southerners, even when pillaging their cities; and the American Indian didn't own cell-phones to call. (my light-side chide :^))

I'd bet he never once thanked the Ship-rights, or the Sail-rights, or the Compass maker for making his voyage an easy task, with all probabilities already written, in the ledger, and on the maps, so Chris didn't need even make the trip, to prove what was there was actually there. Too bad, he couldn't get his crew to sail-on, westerly, across Ocean-blue, to really find the India he knew must be just beyond yonder wave.

Have you ever been 'to sea,' Michael?? Even in nice weather, it is extremely intimidating. I just suppose, but if anyone had told him how deep the water, he was crossing, Columbus wouldn't have even left port. Who, then, could fathom (pun intended) the ocean being thousands of feet deep, or that the world, they suspected was round, was 24,000 miles circumference??

Columbus didn't fail mankind, his crew failed Columbus, by refusing to go on, to the West, over just going home.

Columbus proved a number of things:

1. There was land, to the West, and there probably was more, yet farther West.

2. Going over the horizon did not mean you were sailing down hill, and couldn't return, up hill.

3. Most sailors, of that day, were not the adventurous kind.

4. There were plants, to the West, that no farmer had seen in Europe, or Asia.

5. Although Columbus didn't find all of the unknown world, he did prove there was an unknown world to explore (which happened, as the adventurous became adventurous)... and we haven't stopped being adventurous, yet, today. The stakes, for error, are a tad higher, today, though.

You, as a History teacher, need understand that those Adventurers, of old, didn't have Google, nor Michael, to give them the proper terminology. end of rant.

PS, I was taught that the America's were named after an 'Americus Vaspooshe,' or something like that sounding.(remember, please, my memory isn't getting better, only older) Chris did get the term, 'Indian,' stuck on the natives.

Navy,

We are recognizing Columbus for the wrong things. There are a great many myths perpetuated as fact about CC. Was he a courageous person. Sure. But there were lots of those in history.

Did he discover what we celebrate him for discovering. Of course not. Many of the myths surrounding Columbus actually come from a sensationalized story written by fiction writer Washington Irving (see: "The Life and Times of Christopher Columbus" volumes 1, 2, and 3). The idea for example, that CC was trying to prove the Earth was round comes from Irving's imagination, not from historical fact.

"...or that the world, they suspected was round, was 24,000 miles circumference??"

Again, people already knew what the circumference of the Earth was (even sans Google!). Pythagoras wondered if the world was round in the 6th century BCE. Aristotle in the 4th century BCE proved Pythagoras right with physical evidence (i.e., the movement of shadows of the Earth on the moon). And by the 3rd century BCE, Eratosthenes determined the Earth's shape and most impressively, its circumference (to within 1% accuracy by most accounts) using sticks, shadows, and basic geometry.

Also, it's Amerigo Vespucci. Come on now, Columbus may not have had Google, but you do.

Now, he should get credit for mapping the trade winds and adding news trade routes to the repositories of human knowledge. He was also a brutal torturer and mass murder. Pretty complex guy, actually.

I get Martin Luther King Day. I would even get Lief Ericson Day (since he actually landed in N. America first). Columbus Day makes no sense though.

You're right. The Western European Culture is the worst thing that ever happened in the world. Everyone else would live in peace and harmony without Christians mucking things up.

Benevolus,

I'm not sure where Arley got his number for 24,000 miles but I believe you are substantially incorrect in your assertion as applies to Western Europeans who funded the trip.

Ancient Greek philosophy was lost to most of Europe in the Middle Ages and was preserved by the Muslim scholars of the day. If I recall correctly it didn't really come back in fashion in Europe until the Rennaissance starting roughly 50 years after Columbus' Voyages. I seriously doubt Isabella who had only earlier that year reconquered Andalusia would have been willing depend on Greek by way of Muslim scholar's estimates of the size of the earth. So if he researched and found that as a number I would be willing to let it stand without challenge.

However this is all my opinion based on old learning, I don't have the time to look up all the specifics, you are welcome to do so to pick my position apart if you like.

Benevolus,

Also, why would you be on board with Lief Erikson Day? Is it more important that someone land on North America(also unlikely what is now the USA)than they land in Carribean Islands? Isn't it more important the lasting impact of the landing?

The point, historically anyway, I always took from things like Columbus day is that it began the European colonization that resulted in the USA. What does the fact that some Norsemen or Chinese people may have landed there first, if they didn't stick around to establish something have to do with anything?

You're right. The Western European Culture is the worst thing that ever happened in the world. Everyone else would live in peace and harmony without Christians mucking things up.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 6:51 PM

Really? That's what you got from my post? Seriously? I have really got to try this alternate reality out some of you seem to be on. It seems to be a fun trip

I vote we get rid of Columbus day, let's get rid of all holidays. Make all government workers, teachers and everyone else work everyday except weekends. Come to think of it let's get rid of weekends. I'm retired anyway, I got my piece of the cake, to hell with everyone else, its a dog eat dog world out there. What? not a good idea, oh well just saying.

I would rather celebrate the men who actually came to this land and settled this land than a man who never even saw the coast line.

This whole blog that Michael wrote reminds me of that South Park eppisode with the cloud of smug. The funny thing is... at least some of the people that Michael labels as "you", seem to have a pretty good grasp on the history of Columbus. I am wondering if Michael is trying to hint that everybody that belongs in his grouping of "you" did not have greater than a 3rd grade education, (thats about the time that the "to prove that the world is round" myth was dispelled in my school), or the schools he went to did not teach a lot of history. I lean towards the latter explaination, as he sure uses a lot of his opinion when lecturing about history. I guess that is the difference between us armchair historians and the professional types. This armchair historian tries not to place too much personal feelings when examining past events. Of course, I also don't make the mistake of judging history against current culture. I guess only "professional" historians do that.

SW,

"but I believe you are substantially incorrect in your assertion as applies to Western Europeans who funded the trip."

I am not incorrect in the least. Wasn't it in 1492 that Martin Behaim invented the globe? Seems like an awful lot needed to be known about the Earth for a guy to invent a system of navigation based on an actual model of the spherical Earth, no?

And FYI Greecian and Arab influences extended through Spain in terms of language, commerce, philosophy, art, and especially geography and navigation for hundreds or even thousands of years before Columbus.

Regarding your thoughts on Muslim/Greek translations...the Spanish were interested and privy to those schools of thought over 400 years before Columbus...

"In the 11th century, the School of Translators (Escuela de traductores) was founded in Toledo (see Tschanz, D. W. The Arab Roots of European Medicine in Online links) to transmit Arabic culture -- and especially science -- to Europe. There were two main periods of translation. In the first, the greatest translators were Johannes Hispanus, Domingo Gundisalvo and Gherardus Cremonensis (see Arzobispo Raimundo de Toledo, Escuela de Traductores in Online links), supported by Archbishop Raimondo de Toledo (1130--1187) (see Zahoor, A., Translators of Scientific Knowledge in the Middle Ages and Alfonso X el Sabio, Escuela de Traductores in Online links). Through their translations, they preserved many important writings of the great Greek and Arabic scholars. Many other European scientists learned to translate in Toledo and, when they returned to their home countries, Greek and Arabic science were spread over Europe."

http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v3/n10/box/nrm928_BX1.html

Clearly it is you that is incorrect. It may be worth your time to actually research your ramblings prior to posting. Chunk gets in trouble for the same thing.

SWNebr,

"Also, why would you be on board with Lief Erikson Day?"

I was referring to the actual Lief Erikson Day, instituted by Johnson in 1964. In my haste I put the conditional phrase "would be" but I did not complete the intended sentence. In fact, I am on board with Lief Erikson Day. I WOULD BE on board to make Erikson Day a national holiday (either in addition to, or in lieu of, Columbus Day).

For your own edification...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/07/presidential-proclamation-...

"The point, historically anyway, I always took from things like Columbus day is that it began the European colonization that resulted in the USA."

Erikson was the first European to set foot on what is today North American soil, so I am not sure what you are referring to. Columbus never made it to North or South America. Columbus did create the exportation of slaves from the new world, which was a terrible and tragic legacy of his exploration. How you draw a line from Columbus to the US is beyond me.

Also, you are mistaken about Erikson and colonization. He began the colonization of Canada (at Vinland) and the exploration of a navigable water route through the rivers and oceans of the extreme north. His colony also began spreading southwestward far enough that the British found them established (and then defeated them in battle) in Maine in the early 17th century.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Ericson%27s_Vinland

ROFLMAO @ Benevolus

Michael,

I think you need to ask Benevolus about alternate realities, he's an expert.

Benevolus,

I'm done, you win, I can't compete with your vast knowledge and superior research skills. Congratulations.

@ SWNebr:

TYFYC but that wuz 2EZ. It's alwz SSDD w/u.

#another childish post

Sorry, I'm old. What are you talking about?

Oh sorry, your chat-lingo and subsequent vapidity above led me to believe that you were more comfortable with a simpler, less meaningful (and abbreviated) way of articulating one's thoughts.

Now I am really at a loss with you.

Benevolus,

Yep LOL is about the extent of it for me, so please can you explain what was 2EZ or #another childish post about my comment?

As soon as you explain what is so funny, and why you childishly chose sarcasm rather than an adult debate.

Benevolus,

Fine, I didn't want to do it but if I must, I must. I apologize in advance for needing to resort to low quality citations, I don't have the time to research properly.

"I am not incorrect in the least. Wasn't it in 1492 that Martin Behaim invented the globe?"

You implied that Europeans knew the circumference of the globe. I didn't say anything about a flat earth I was commenting on an accurate measurement of the size of the earth. Only a complete fool would try to argue that Columbus set out to prove the earth was round, Michael apparently thinks that is the common perception. You then later give us the above comment which appears to me to be support for your earlier comment.

Martin Behaim's globe was consistent with Columbus's flawed estimates of the size of the earth, if that is your evidence of higher scientific learning in 1492, I think it supports my contention more than your's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim

I am happy to grant your citation to a molecular biology magazine for a debate about history, interest play there. I was thinking more along the lines of Greek literature than sciences but because the translation was inaccurate I still stand by my above comment re: Martin Behaim and Columbus' estimates of the size of the earth. I also question how much influence 200-300 year old translation of higher education had on a monarch who had just finally won a long war against the people offereing the translations had on this decision. I don't know, maybe Isabella asked for a reading of Pythagoras before she approved the venture.

Thank you for my edification. However, if you are talking about Johnson declaring a day in 1964; why did you post a link to Obama declaring a day in 2011.

BTW Happy Lief Erikson Day everybody!!!!!

Benevolus,

I decided to start a new post so this one doesn't get lost on you.

What is so funny is the fact that as support for your claim you cite an article from......wait for it.

AN ALTERNATE HISTORY WIKI PAGE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A FAN PAGE FOR FICTION ABOUT WHAT "MIGHT" HAVE HAPPENED.

When I am debating someone who will post that as support, I'm confident there is nothing I can do to persuade him.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

That is so funny I almost wet myself.

I wonder what the main page from your source says today.....oh yeah it is an article about President John McCain.

Benevolus,

How does it go?

TYFYC but that wuz 2EZ. Is this an appropriate place to use that?

SWNebr,

You are right, I actually had several websites open on various tabs, and I cut and pasted the wrong site...Here are some of the more appropriate citations...

http://www.history.com/topics/leif-eriksson

This researcher, using genetic and archeological evidence finds that there was in fact Norse influence in British colonies.

"Fred Brown uses 33 years of studying Viking accounts of journeys to America, genetic information, archaeological evidence, Old Norse language remnants, and sailing experience to pinpoint yet another Viking incursion in New England. His detective work to find Vinland is brilliant and masterful."

http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/SKU-000049818/Rediscovering-Vinland.aspx

"You implied that Europeans knew the circumference of the globe."

They most assuredly did, at least the best estimates anyway.

"Only a complete fool would try to argue that Columbus set out to prove the earth was round, Michael apparently thinks that is the common perception."

This myth is STILL taught in schools. It is cited as one of the most frequently made mistakes regarding the Columbus voyage. You are wrong on this point too.

http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovere...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1010/Christopher-Columbus-Five-things-you-thou...

In addition, the source regarding science and translation is perfectly reasonable. So you "granting" it to me unnecessary. It does support the premise that the exchange of information between the Muslim and Greek cultures from antiquity to then modern Spain was intact. The Spanish would have access to the surviving funds of knowledge were created in the ancient world. The spherical model of the world invented in 1492 demonstrates for a fact that Spain knew of those older philosophers who were modeling the Earth's circumference and shape.

"However, if you are talking about Johnson declaring a day in 1964; why did you post a link to Obama declaring a day in 2011."

Because...

"to honor Leif Erikson and celebrate our Nordic-American heritage, the Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-566) approved on September 2, 1964, has authorized the President to proclaim October 9 of each year as "Leif Erikson Day."

The president reaffirmed the resolution. Doesn't take a very clever person to read and figure that out.

"TYFYC but that wuz 2EZ. Is this an appropriate place to use that?"

It would be if I posted (1) something that was not factual (the citation was wrong, not my argument) and (2) if I had childishly spewed out chat/text slang instead of engaging you in debate.

Hopefully, you will "think [about] and analyze" your statements before posting them.

It is amazing how Google makes everybody a scholar, eh? Even those that spend less than 30 minutes on their skoolin. It makes it pretty easy to try to hide folk's ignorance as well... at least superficially.

Benevolus,

"This myth is STILL taught in schools. It is cited as one of the most frequently made mistakes regarding the Columbus voyage. You are wrong on this point too."

I'm looking into whether that is STILL taught in schools, I'll try to get back to you. However, since we have an certified Edgeumakator here maybe he can answer.

Michael, are you still teaching that Columbus sailed to prove the world wasn't flat?

But I am willing to concede I may have been too harsh. I thought that only a fool would argue that Columbus trope but I also thought any person who read that Leif Erikson's decendant established a thriving colony in North America and later defeated the British in battle defending that colony would not be foolish enough to believe it. I guess I was wrong there too huh?

I should have said no educated person would be foolish enough to argue that.

Benevolus,

BTW, I'm not sure the overview of a self-published book written by an aircraft toolmaker that has no editorial or customer reviews is really much of a better source that the Alternate History Fan Wiki. I'd wager the wiki page is more interesting reading though.

But because you are the expert on all subjects I guess I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge and research skill.

Seriously, do you even read the websites before you cite them as support for your positions?

OH WAIT!!!!!

He has a website, I missed that before, I'm sure I'll see it in the next AHR book review. You are once again infallible!

SWNebr Transplant,

Come now, I believe you STILL are being too harsh. It is obvious that someone who is an authority in multiple subjects such as Neurophysiology, Demographic analysis, water rights issues, AND the early modern era in history could believe that fan fiction is in truth, fact. I refer you to some of the posts above. I believe this is an "epic failure" ,as Michael would say, on your part.

Benevolus,

"The spherical model of the world invented in 1492 demonstrates for a fact that Spain knew of those older philosophers who were modeling the Earth's circumference and shape."

Does this not also then support my contention that Spain was basing its decision on faulty information? My point was never that they thought the world was flat, rather I was pointing out that they didn't have the accurate information of Pythagoras. If they did and were using it as you seem to be suggesting, why didn't they create a globe of the correct proportions?

SW,

Sadly you continue to be completely obtuse (purposefully ignorant?). Sadder still, you don't have any counter-arguments (no substance) or evidence to the contrary. Erikson was more relevant to the US than Columbus.

Why are you being so lazy? There is a great deal of scholarship and debate on the subject of Norse influence in present day USA.

Here is the proof. Try to keep up...

The following is from an article published in American Antiquity Robert McGhee. This journal is a peer-reviewed publication put out by the Society for American Archeology. http://saa.org/AbouttheSociety/Publications/AmericanAntiquity/tabid/124/Default....

McGhee writes: "The final country, Vinland, is so vaguely described that scholars have placed it anywhere between Labrador and Florida. A consensus seems to have developed over the past decades, however, that Vinland was most likely located in the vicinity of Newfoundland (Ingstad 1969; Jones 1982; Meldgaard 1961; Munn 1914)."

McGhee writes that in the historical record there is archeological (accounts and some physical evidence) from Thule culture Eskimos, Dorset Palaeoeskimos, and other tribes in the area of contact with Norse explorers.

These accounts are corroborated by Norse accounts of contact with these tribes from the same time period.

There is also the so called "Maine-Penny" recovered from a prehistoric Indian site. McGhee writes, "The largest component at the site belongs to the "late ceramic period," dating to the first half of the second millennium A.D.; two radiocarbon dates yield ages of 770 ? 70 years (A.D. 1180) and715 ? 110 years (A.D. 1235) suggesting an occupation during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and it seems likely that the Norse coin was associated with this component (Bourque and Cox 1981).

Approximately 5% of the stone tools recovered from this component are made from chalcedonies originating from the Bay of Fundy region of Nova Scotia, indicating trade with Indian groups to the north. All excavation units in this component also produced small quantities of flakes and tools made from Ramah chert, the distinctive material from northern Labrador mentioned previously in connection with the Sandnes point, indicating indirect trade with regions much farther to the north."

McGhee sites ample evidence of extended contact with natives along the coasts of Canada as well as present day Northern US. There is even some evidence of contact between Norse explorers and natives as far inland as Minnesota.

Chapman (1981) also points out that light skinned Indians, the Narragansetts, inhabiting New England were described as tall, and speakers of Latin-originating language.

An early reference to Norumbega comes from a French navigator and explorer Jean Allefonsce [1484-1544]

"The river is more than 40 leagues wide at its entrance and retains its width some thirty or forty leagues. It is full of Islands, which stretch some ten or twelve leagues into the sea. ...Fifteen leagues within this river there is a town called Norombega, with clever inhabitants, who trade in furs of all sorts; the town folk are dressed in furs, wearing sable. ... The people use many words which sound like Latin. They worship the sun. They are tall and handsome in form. The land of Norombega lie high and is well situated."

Another account cited by Chapman comes from an Italian explorer named Verrazano, who explored the area in 1524. He described natives "excelling us in size" and "of bronze color, some inclined more to whiteness" whose faces were "sharply cut".

Moreover, recent genetic research has linked certain diseases found primarily in those of European, namely, MS, to have also affected Narragansett Indians. Curiously, tribes father inland show no genetic history of MS. This constitutes a genetic implication of cross-breeding that leaves the Narragansett Indians as probable decedents of Norse explorers.

As we know, the Narragansett Indians were at war with the British in the early 17th cent. These "light skinned", "Latin-sounding", European genetic disease carrying Indians slaughtered a company of English soldiers then marched to Providence and set it on fire. But by 1676, the settlers had destroyed the tribe which then abandoned its territorial homeland and resettled elsewhere. http://www.history.com/topics/the-narragansett

Chapman, Paul. (1981). The Norse discovery of America. Georgia: One Candle Press.

McEvoy, B., et al. The scale and nature of Viking settlement in Ireland from Y-chromosome admixture analysis. European Journal of Human Genetics (2006) 14, 1288--1294.

McGhee, R. (1984). Contact between Native North Americans and the Medieval Norse: A Review of the EvidenceAmerican Antiquity, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 4-26.

All that to say, SWNebr, that indeed, the Norse (at least their descendants) were in fact at war with British settlers. You see, the reason you are wrong isn't that you question the reliability of sources--this is a fair thing to do actually. The problem is that you assume that because a source SEEMS unreliable, that it must be wrong. This is a logical fallacy (and indicative of lazy reasoning). One must say why a source is wrong rather than smugly and arrogantly laughing all while ignoring their widespread errors.

The sources I listed (purposefully) above are not at all incorrect. The website you were laughing at wasn't meant to be included in the original post. My mistake. Although, upon going back and rereading that wiki, there is much in the alternative history that is certainly accurate and true.

Bottom line: there is no question that the influence of the Erikson exploration was relevant to the formation of the US. I maintain that Erikson is more relevant than Columbus, but that formal education simply privileges one over the other. That is not to say that Columbus's explorations of the Caribbean were irrelevant. Simply that I would be more inclined to celebrate Erikson Day than Columbus Day, especially because there is no indication that Erikson was a mass murderer.

SWNebr,

"If they did and were using it as you seem to be suggesting, why didn't they create a globe of the correct proportions?"

Because the combination of theory and observation (something that emerges from that time period) is the foundation of human knowledge/science.

Mathematical theories are scribbled on parchment, chalkboards, and textbooks throughout history, but it isn't until observation and theory align that facts about the natural world are generated.

No observations of the circumference of the Earth existed at the time. Thus, any model based of the spherical Earth would have been necessarily based on theory. A proposed voyage around the world that tabulated distance, time, positions of the stars, etc., on a scale never before known by humans would have produced a valuable dataset indeed. It would be valuable because it would demonstrate the veracity of the THEORIES that were in existence regarding the circumference of the Earth. Theories that predated Columbus by nearly 2000 years.

SWNebr,

Here is more research regarding the connection between MS and Viking descendents in the New World. This comes from a professor in Harvard Medical School's department of Neurology...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7653241

Ben - Debating events of 500 years ago is interesting but I am curious. If you and I watch an event on the news last night and argue the outcome why do you put so much faith in history books to accurately represent "facts" that happened hundreds of years ago. Couldn't news and facts have been distorted then as they are today? Seems like a waste of time to attempt to prove every detail when the source of that detail was one person and edited over many centuries by the editors of each additional volume of that history book.

Wallis

As a footnote - My previous post was meant to think about "current events". Ask Mike to talk about the Bush era Presidency and ask Sam to discuss the Bush era and you will hear 180 degree views. Sometimes history is in the eyes of the writer or editor and to point out specific events is sort of like trying to get decimal point precision with a sun dial.

Wallis

Benevolus,

I'm sorry but after you synthesized a webpage of fiction as fact your credibility in this issue is shot. You just continue to throw stuff against the wall hoping it will stick and make yourself seem more petty and ridiculous as you go. You are trying and twisting so hard just to keep from admitting you didn't know what you are talking about that you've exceeded rationality.

And you have the gall to call other posters childish, nice to meet you new Mr. Pot.

SW,

The above is actually a rather well put together argument (considering the hour). If you bothered to read it you might learn something. You would certainly learn that NOTHING I have posted is inaccurate.

I honestly didn't synthesize a webpage of fiction. And I admitted that including that citation was a mistake on my part. In reality, I synthesized information from history.com, rueters.com, the bbc.com, and several other sites. In my haste I cut and pasted the wrong citation. But everything I have written is accurate, as far historians and scholars have been able to deduce. There is nothing childish, whatsoever, about the research that went into the posts above.

Beyond that, you might be the least insightful/most vapid poster on here. Your admitted obsession with Michael lost you all your credibility a long time ago. I tend to have very little respect for someone like you, who is so willfully ignorant of another poster's arguments, and would rather resort to teasing and other forms of childishness.

Wallis,

I do not disagree with you. There are many pithy quotes about the inaccuracy of history...

"History is written by the victors." Churchill

"History is a myth men agree to believe." Napoleon

However, archeology and genetics are part of history research, but rely less on the accounts of men and women, and more on science and nature to draw conclusions. The research above comes from archeology (the radio-carbon dating and chemical analyses of tools, coins, structures, etc) as well as from genetic research from places like Harvard School of Medicine.

When there are written accounts, as well as genetic and archeological evidence to support the written accounts, I would argue that it is fairly safe to draw some strong conclusions.

So we can agree that Native Americans are not Native American. They traveled here from Asia therefore they are Asians.

Wallis

Benevolus,

Look, I realize it must pain you to be so blatantly wrong, but I'm afraid you are starting to come off like Sam. I'm sure you don't want to come off like Sam do you? You are clutching at the most sensationalist and non-academic sources in your Quixotic quest to show you are the expert on everything. Give Rocinante a rest and go to bed already.

Please give me a source that argues that a colony of Norsemen fought off the British in North America in the 18th Century. That was your argument that you cited above. And please give over the lie of you were synthesizing from several sources and accidently cited the wrong one. You cited the right source, you just didn't look at it. Your post is a clear synthesis from that page, nowhere else mentions the colony you spoke of. This is not a case of my thinking a source seems unreliable. The source itself agrees it is not a reliable history source, only you seem to think it is so. That is was I laughed at and still do. You even now are trying to argue that: "there is much in the alternative history that is certainly accurate and true". While that is certainly correct the accurate parts of the history is not what you cited. Who are you trying to convince here anyway?

During this time your argument has changed as well. Gone is the reference to the colony, now it is "light-skinned" Indians that PROVE it is possible that there was some interbreeding between the Norse and natives. Never mind the fact that the Norse sagas talk about how much they fought the skraelings at least they found one tribe that was amenable hundreds of miles from the acknowledged homesteads. Good thing they could sail around all the tribes that wanted to kill them to get to he lonely ones eh?

Furthermore, I find it fascinating that the "light-skinned" Indians spoke something that sounded like Latin. If they were descended from the Norse, why would they speak Latin sounding language and not an Scandinavian sounding one? Here is another flaw in your "argument".

You say I'm using a logical fallacy because I don't think your sources are valid. I say you clearly have no history training or idea what you are talking about. For example the link you provide to support your claim about the Latin-originating speaking Indians (again why not Scandinavian?) discusses the Narragansett Indians but doesn't say anything about their, at least according to you, Norse background and furthermore doesn't mention any Latin-originating language. In fact it says they were Algonquin speaking and also says they had good relationships with the Europeans until generations after first contact. Here using your own source I can refute at least two of your claims. 1. They weren't Latin-originating language speakers. 2. They weren't at war with the British in the early 17th century.

Let's look at another one of your "sources". You say that the article supports your claim that the Norse gave the Narragansetts MS. When I read that article there is no mention of the New World at all. I'm sensing a trend forming....Unfortunately I don't have access to the other articles you are citing, but based on your track record, I strongly suspect that they also fail to support your claims.

Benevolus,

You earlier commented that I don't often engage in substantive discussions, the reason is that most discussions here are based on pure opinion. I see no reason to argue about opinions, you can't convince anyone. In those cases I just try to point out obvious hypocrisy.

Here, however, you are trying to argue history based on thinnest circumstance and possibilities, some might even say smoke and mirrors. The sources I can double check you used are either clearly fiction (the Althistory Wiki) or don't argue what you say they do (history channel and medical journal).

I don't know where you studied history, but I know that in my graduate program, my peers would have gotten as good of a laugh out of your "sources" and I have and for that I thank you.

The Columbus link that exists where the Norse link does not is really quite simple. Please keep in mind I am not citing any of this I don't have the time to look back for citations, take from it what you will. 1492 is a little before my research but clearly it is closer than yours has been.

Columbus "discovered" new land that the Spanish Crown soon exploited. When other European nations saw the wealth that the Spanish had they wanted to get in on the action so they started sending out thier own groups to set up business in the New World. One of those powers were the British who established colonies that eventually rebelled and ultimately became us.

The Norse on the other hand, didn't spur any surge of further explorationand settleement and therefore didn't in my opinion lead directly to the establishment of the United States. Do you also contend that the Anasazi also led to the establishment of the US? After all they also lived in territory that is now the United States and no longer did by the time "Americans" got there.

I hope this hasn't been to vapid for you, if you have any other historical arguments you'd like me to debunk just let me know.

Michael,

Please forgive my Armchair History, I realize I significantly over simplified everything but I think Benevolus needs that simplification.

I know you and I seldom agree but I think we should be able to agree that if one is trying to make a historical argument citing to a fiction site and saying your sources say things they don't is not the way to go. I don't know if any chastizement is coming for Armchair History because I also noticed you didn't seem to mind him being disrespectful of officials.

"NOTHING I have posted is inaccurate."

"But everything I have written is accurate, as far historians and scholars have been able to deduce."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 10, 2012, at 11:55 AM

Seriously, are you delusional or something? just compare that with.

"Also, you are mistaken about Erikson and colonization. He began the colonization of Canada (at Vinland) and the exploration of a navigable water route through the rivers and oceans of the extreme north. His colony also began spreading southwestward far enough that the British found them established (and then defeated them in battle) in Maine in the early 17th century."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 12:55 PM

SW,

You continue to be completely ignorant and I am starting to question your general intelligence.

I have read fairly extensively about the Norse influence in North America, and there were Narragansett Indians as far south as Rhode Island. As I have demonstrated, these were almost certainly descendants of the Norse. They were also embattled with the British.

But you continue to ignore the main point (that Erikson is more relevant than Columbus) because you are desperate to be right (even though are yet again, as always, wrong again). I have provided ample evidence to support the claim that Erikson is more relevant than Columbus, evidence supported by peer-reviewed journals.

You, meanwhile, continue to be vapid, ignorant, and not worthy of a minute's more of my time. Keep pleasuring yourself with Michael, sir, I am certain that your talent for not actually contributing meaningful posts will continue to serve your childish ambitions well.

Wallis,

"So we can agree that Native Americans are not Native American. They traveled here from Asia therefore they are Asians."

That's a matter of preference of labels, in my opinion. I would suggest that the inhabitants of a place for tens of thousands of years ought to be considered native to that place. So, while people from the east may have migrated here, once established they would be, by definition, indigenous.

In other words, no I don't agree.

SW,

In trying to win your petty battle here, you are completely losing the war. You claimed that:

"I always took from things like Columbus day is that it began the European colonization that resulted in the USA. What does the fact that some Norsemen or Chinese people may have landed there first, if they didn't stick around to establish something have to do with anything?"

I challenged you to draw a direct line from Columbus to the USA, which you failed to do. I have also provided you with concrete archeological and genetic evidence from peer-reviewed sources that in fact Norsemen did stick around and established a great deal.

You are guilty of the exact same things that you accuse Michael of; i.e., ignoring the point, ignoring a question or challenge, ignoring clear evidence that contradicts his claims.

The only difference is, I haven't actually seen Michael engage in these behaviors, but in this blog, you are guilty of all of the above.

That's a matter of preference of labels, in my opinion. I would suggest that the inhabitants of a place for tens of thousands of years ought to be considered native to that place. So, while people from the east may have migrated here, once established they would be, by definition, indigenous.

In other words, no I don't agree.

If you are going to cite genetics then you have to accept the facts. "Native Americans" are Asian. Look at their genetic profile.

Big day for Gold today. Price action will either signal the next wave down or the next wave up. Will either exit the trade (already took 1/4 off at 1800) or will re-establish full position.

Wallis

Wallis,

I am not rejecting the genetic links between the inhabitants of Siberia, etc., and Native Americans. According to researchers at Penn, Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric Asians carried their genes up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas.

However, I am failing to see your point. According to researchers at Penn, ten thousand of years of separation eventually caused Asian and Native American genetic lineages to diverge. Today we draw official distinctions between Native Americans and Asians because ancient genetic links aside, there are absolutely enormous sociocultural differences between Asian and Native American groups.

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/penn-anthropologists-clarify-link-between-asi...

What is that you are arguing, Wallis? Are you suggesting that Native Americans are not indigenous to these lands?

Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric Asians carried their genes up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas.

And then the genetic lines diverged. Take your own advice and "accept the facts".

Benevolus,

I think you value your conjecture and conclusions too highly.

"As I have demonstrated, these were almost certainly descendants of the Norse. They were also embattled with the British."

First of all, you changed your story from the ridiculous Vinlander colony to now a Native tribe.

Second, aren't you like a demographer or water use specialist or neurophysiologist or something? Does your field accept such remarkable leaps from conjecture to conclusion? I know none of the fields I've worked in do. They are "almost certainly descendents" based on what? I showed that the sources you linked don't support that conclusion.

What is this based? They were light skinned? They spoke a Latin-originating language? They had MS? Personally I'm curious how the "study" you cites controls for later European introduction, but that is beside the point. What? How do these add up to they are descendent of Norse? The simple answer is they don't.

Benevolus,

"Moreover, recent genetic research has linked certain diseases found primarily in those of European, namely, MS, to have also affected Narragansett Indians. Curiously, tribes father inland show no genetic history of MS. This constitutes a genetic implication of cross-breeding that leaves the Narragansett Indians as probable decedents of Norse explorers."

This is all just conclusionary statements made by you, you have produced no support for it. But then you say that what you said PROVES it is true. Where is the citation that argues or supports this? I've already pointed out the one you cited doesn't discuss the New World. Look up bootstrapping.

Benevolus,

"I challenged you to draw a direct line from Columbus to the USA, which you failed to do."

Maybe you missed the post where I sketched out my theory. As I said, it's not official or anything but at least it is true. Let me repost if for you so you don't miss it again.

"The Columbus link that exists where the Norse link does not is really quite simple. Please keep in mind I am not citing any of this I don't have the time to look back for citations, take from it what you will. 1492 is a little before my research but clearly it is closer than yours has been.

Columbus "discovered" new land that the Spanish Crown soon exploited. When other European nations saw the wealth that the Spanish had they wanted to get in on the action so they started sending out thier own groups to set up business in the New World. One of those powers were the British who established colonies that eventually rebelled and ultimately became us.

The Norse on the other hand, didn't spur any surge of further explorationand settleement and therefore didn't in my opinion lead directly to the establishment of the United States. Do you also contend that the Anasazi also led to the establishment of the US? After all they also lived in territory that is now the United States and no longer did by the time "Americans" got there.

I hope this hasn't been to vapid for you, if you have any other historical arguments you'd like me to debunk just let me know."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Oct 10, 2012, at 8:59 PM

Benevolus,

I think I see part of the problem. You said:

"In trying to win your petty battle here, you are completely losing the war."

I don't see history as a battle or a war for the truth, apparently you do.

I don't suppose you can debate without being self-congratulatory or insulting to those who disagree can you?

SW,

"I showed that the sources you linked don't support that conclusion."

Read the peer-reviewed articles I have posted. There is a raft of archeological evidence (as well as scholarly consensus) of the existence of Vinland. There is also highly reputable genetic evidence (Harvard Med School) suggesting that not only were Norsemen in present day/Canada and the US, but also their lineage can be traced to New England at the arrival of European explorers.

Furthermore, the written record of two explorers (one French and one Italian) described tall, light-skinned natives. Given the written accounts, plus the archeological and genetic evidence, we can reasonably conclude that there was a strong Norse presence in present day Canada/USA. This presence predates Columbus by a few hundred years, and this presence was established by the time the British arrived.

SW,

"This is all just conclusionary statements made by you, you have produced no support for it. But then you say that what you said PROVES it is true. Where is the citation that argues or supports this?"

Wrong again. I already posted the supporting citation, you just chose to ignore it. This comes CM Poser at Harvard Med School.

"Multiple sclerosis is most frequently found in Scandinavia, Iceland, the British Isles and the countries settled by their inhabitants and their descendants, i.e. the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This suggests that the Vikings may have been instrumental in disseminating genetic susceptibility to the disease in those areas, as well as in other parts of the world."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7653241

Please note: the phrase "the countries settled by their inhabitants and their descendants, i.e. the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand"...the article most certainly links the spread of MS to indigenous people in Canada and the US (i.e., the Narragansett Indians) via the Norse.

I can email you the full PDF if you like...I am sure you aren't interested enough to purchase the article.

SW,

"Please keep in mind I am not citing any of this I don't have the time to look back for citations, take from it what you will."

You accuse me of tenuous arguments, but your "link" is pure speculation and conjecture. If it is "true" that the Spanish/Columbus inspired the Brits to look for colonies of their own, there is surely a record of that, right? Please find me the account of British leaders officially recognizing Spain/Columbus as a competitor for colonization. Should be easy to find I would think.

You see, I have actually given you evidence for my position, but you're okay simply assuming that this is link is "true"?

Furthermore, even if Columbus inspired the British (officially or otherwise), why would we credit him? Why not a hero who actually came here to establish colonies? John Smith seems like a more appropriate candidate than Columbus.

"The Norse on the other hand, didn't spur any surge of further explorationand settleement and therefore didn't in my opinion lead directly to the establishment of the United States."

I have proved this to be patently false. Archeological evidence was found in Maine spreading north through Canada to Newfoundland. There is even evidence (albeit not as concrete) to suggest that the Norse made it all the way inland to Minnesota. Scholarly evidence of Vinland, the fact that the Norse copulated with natives and created settlements along the Eastern seaboard, all point to both exploration and settlements that predate Columbus.

SW,

"I don't suppose you can debate without being self-congratulatory or insulting to those who disagree can you?"

You have been just as self-congratulatory:

"...if you have any other historical arguments you'd like me to debunk just let me know."

And just as insulting:

"...are you delusional or something?"

"...yourself seem more petty and ridiculous as you go."

"I should have said no educated person would be foolish enough to argue that."

So don't give me the 'holier-than-thou' speech. If you'd like to keep a conversation civil, a good place to start might be refraining from using childish text/chat-lingo utilizing expletives.

Benevolus,

Do you have anything other than base conjecture to show the Narragansetts are descended from the Norse, becausen nothing I've seen establishes this. You've posted a couple of hypotheses and said they prove the fact.

I would appreciate if you would email me the pdf's since you seem to put so much credence in them.

Please send them to:

Benevolusknowsnohistory@gmail.com

SW,

"Second, aren't you like a demographer or water use specialist or neurophysiologist or something?"

For the record (for the third time now), I have a master's degree in demography from FSU. I am currently seeking a PhD in Geography, specifically in GIS. I was doing a GIS project for a class that had to do with access to water and water rights (which is how I came across this site).

I am not a neurophysiologist (whatever that is), but now that you mention it, for 5 years I did date a woman with her PhD in neuropharmacology. She was obsessed with her research (i.e., her rats). Which meant that if I wanted to see/talk to her, the subject was typically about uptake inhibitors an nicotine addicted rodents, and the location was typically her lab.

May I ask, what is your background?

SW,

More insults I see? I will be emailing nothing to that address. You can create a more mature address, and I will send the articles there. Or, you can remain an ignorant child who is in way over his head in this discussion.

I just find it interesting that I stated a fact - Native Americans are Asian and an argument ensued and I was "proven incorrect". Just for stating a fact. That is my point. Some on this board argue for the sake of it.

Wallis

Wallis,

Why do you ignore the genetic split? That is my point of contention with you. Native Americans share an ancient genetic connection to Asians, true, but after the lines diverged and over the course of 10,000+ years, they ceased being Asian (almost entirely). They are also indigenous to the land mass that we currently call the Americas. This means that they were native to these lands prior to colonization per the definition of indigenous.

More evidence of interaction between Vikings and Indians...

"Analyzing a type of DNA passed only from mother to child, scientists found more than 80 living Icelanders with a genetic variation similar to one found mostly in Native Americans. (Get the basics on genetics.)

This signature probably entered Icelandic bloodlines around A.D. 1000, when the first Viking-American Indian child was born, the study authors theorize. (Related: "Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade.")"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101123-native-american-indian-vi...

Benevolus,

Good News! I have found a book that explains it in terms that you can likely understand.

It is American Moments series "The Jamestown Colony"

I found it on google scholar so I didn't even have to pay.

I direct you to pages 6-7. Hopefully this link works, if not let me know and I'll walk you through how to find it.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v9dXDRTug0AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=timelin...

Benevolus,

I'm really surprised you don't know this...a neurophysiologist is one who studies neurophysiology.

What you you like to know about my background?

I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi.

Actually I have a BA and MA in history. I 'm trying to decide if I'll ever go back for the PhD, what do you suggest? The majority of my research had been Early Modern Europe particularly Habsburg lands. Like I said, 1492 is a little before my time, I really focused more on 16th and 17th centuries.

In your studies, is it encouraged to take a couple of outliers, especially ones that don't say what you want the to say and conclude facts from them with the certainty you've demonstrated here?

but after the lines diverged and over the course of 10,000+ years, they ceased being Asian (almost entirely).

If Asians breed with Asians over 10,000 years they will still be Asian. I have no idea where you are going with this but I will let it drop.

Benevolus,

I'm almost impressed, after only three days of repeated attempts you found a popular source that ALMOST supports your suppositions. As Maxwell Smart says "missed it by that much".

The title of the article seems to support it but the article itself leaves much in doubt. Lots of inconclusive language in it.

"Despite the evidence, for now it's nearly impossible to prove a direct, thousand-year-old genetic link between Native American's and Icelanders"

I don't know why they would say that, you've proved it in a mere three days of online searches.

SWeak,

"you've proved it"

I proved long before this...you've just finally begun to see reality. And that 's great because quite frankly, you have been unimpressive as of late.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rich-worried-and-buying-ad-time/

I know Mike is against this sort of stuff. Ben are you against him.

We all know that this is what I spew 24/7.

Benevolus,

I have responded to your question, actually I did it before you complained but then later posted a citation for your edification.

Will you finally explain to me whether the conclusions based on limited "proof" is acceptable in your chosen field of study?

SW,

You are still missing the point, SW. I am arguing against your premise that Erikson is less relevant than Columbus on the grounds that his voyages had no lasting impact in the US.

If there is archeological evidence (the Maine Penny) http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/vinland/pop_archeo2.html as well as stone tools recovered from this component are made from chalcedonies originating from the Bay of Fundy region of Nova Scotia, indicating trade with Indian groups to the north (McGhee, 1984) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDYQFjAE&url...

And if there are written accounts from two separate explorers (French and Italian) of "light-skinned Indians" with "Latin-sounding" language who "exceeded [the explorers] in height.

And if there is genetic evidence that links Native groups to the Norse.

And if there is scholarly consensus that Vinland was real and and was located in Newfoundland.

Then I would argue that the proof is fairly substantial that the Norse were all along the eastern seaboard of North America, and therefore, Erikson's voyages did have a lasting impact. This is what I am talking about when I say you are wrong, and there is proof. I stand by both statements.

Wallis,

Am I against who? The guy in the article?

Benevolus,

Even if someone were to accept all of that conjecture as "proof" that there is genetic material in North America, how do you think this argues that Erikson was more influential to the creation of the United States than Columbus? Did you read the Jamestown book I linked?

The Maine Penny link is said to be proof of trade, not evidence of contact. One trinket kept for interesting value is not evidence of "substantial" Norse influence, they didn't take any Norse culture.

Furthermore, why on earth would the Norse introduce Latin-sounding language to Indians? They didn't speak Latin, if the Narragansetts spoke a Norweigan sounding language you would have at least a little credibility.

Finally, and for at least the third time, please tell me if in your field of study, such selective evidence is taken as "PROOF" on which a person bases claims with the certainty that you have here?

SW,

Regarding "latin-sounding" language, that was the description of Jean Allefonsce. It makes sense actually, because both Eric the Red and Leif were Christians. During the Christianization of Scandinavia, it makes sense that converts may have been exposed to Latin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia

Also, I responded to your question. For the second time, taken all together, genetic evidence, evidence of trade, evidence of settlement, and evidence from written accounts, there is substantial proof that your position is weak.

Here is the bottom line for me SW, and then I not comment on this topic with you anymore.

I have provided ample support to substantiate the claim that Erikson/Norse voyages were more relevant to North America than those of Columbus.

To this point, you have not made any convincing argument to the contrary. You gave a half-hearted effort that was not at all researched (your words) and which clung together by the thinnest of logic (Columbus could have inspired the British to come to the US) which you claimed as "truth".

The research above affirms my point, Erikson and the Norse were relevant to North America. I asked you to explain how Columbus was more relevant. You have completely failed to do so, thus, I remain unconvinced that you know what you are talking about.

Benevolus,

I just want to clarify then, in your studies, hypothesis based on at least four "if" statments are taken as conclusive proof?

"To this point, you have not made any convincing argument to the contrary. You gave a half-hearted effort that was not at all researched (your words) and which clung together by the thinnest of logic (Columbus could have inspired the British to come to the US) which you claimed as "truth"."

You must not be reading, I posted a citation that supports my (and history's accepted) position.

Look at page 6-7 of the Jamestown book I cited above. not just my opinions, although when I said it originally, I didn't support it because I considered it such a basic thought that people should know it. You have proven to me that at least some people who are educated are woefully ignorant of history.

I don't need to convince you that I know what I'm talking about, anyone other than you who reads this can see that you are wrong. I know I can't convince you of anything, YOU ARE THE EXPERT ON EVERYTHING AND NEVER WRONG. We've established that you think this of yourself on many occasions. I could no more convince you of anything than I could convince a stone, you both have roughly the same ability for reflection.

Although you have touched on one of the few things that bothers me. People who don't know anything about history spouting off nonsense. It isn't you I'm talking to here, it is anyone who would be stupid enough to believe you. Although granted, outside of yourself I can think of no one that uninformed.

"You have proven to me that at least some people who are educated are woefully ignorant of history."

And you have proven that a person with a supposed master's degree in history can still be an abject moron with no expertise in anything except his own self-righteousness.

Benevolus,

"I asked you to explain how Columbus was more relevant. You have completely failed to do so"

I have posted a link, have you read it? Please don't lie about what I've posted. If you haven't read it fine say that but don't just keep repeating the same lies, you're as bad as Romney.

Benevolus,

I reject your most recent contention but I thank you for admitting that you are an example of an educated person being woefully ignorant of history.

SW,

No lies, I simply didn't see the post.

Good of you to finally change back to the actual discussion though. You are showing progress in terms of this whole debate thing. I know from this discussion that you are not a very good historian, but maybe your inexpert opinion would be somehow enlightening...

Here is the problem with your argument. If we are to assume, as you and your source do, that it was competition that drove England to bolster their navy and start a massive exploration and colonization effort, then Portugal deserves as much credit as Spain. As far as exploration goes, Portugal was a major player at the time, right? My understanding is that as a result of Prince Henry's exploration of Africa, the Portuguese had trading posts all along Africa's so called "gold coast". My understanding also is that by 1488 the Diaz had made it to the Cape of Good Hope, which opened the road to India. And by 1498, da Gama actually made it India under a Portuguese flag.

It stands to reason that England was more worried about Portugal and their successful ventures than Spain and Columbus's failed attempt to get to India. By your logic, if we are going to credit Columbus for inspiring competition, shouldn't we then have a 'Prince Henry Day' and 'da Gama Day' also?

Finally, it was Ferdinand and Isabella who took Columbus up on his offer, and funded the explorations, right? In other words, Spanish royal policy/funding made the exploration possible (Columbus didn't build that!). So rather than celebrating Columbus for not making it the US, doesn't a 'Ferdinand and Isabella Day' make more sense?

I would argue that the US has perpetuated the myths surrounding Columbus for centuries--beginning with Irving's The Life and Times of CC. Moreover, I would argue that our textbooks have had a Columbus-centric perspective since mass textbook production came into play. Not taking credit from Columbus and his advernturesome spirit, the logic of why Columbus, and why not others, doesn't make any sense.

^^^ That should be: "Life and *Voyages of CC".

Benevolus,

I never left the "actual discussion" I responded to your question yesterday and referred you back to it another 3 or 4 times while you "conveniently" didn't read it. ;)

You can suppose about my background all you like, the point is that you have been wrong.

I see that you have once again changed tack and have another new argument. Fortunately, this time you don't appear to be basing it on weak sources and gossamer wings.

You are absolutely correct Prince Henry and other Portuguese explorers had a significant impact on Spain and then other nations. You might find it important to note that Leif Erikson appears to have had no real influence on Prince Henry, so I'm glad you appear to have abandoned that flawed position.

"It stands to reason that England was more worried about Portugal and their successful ventures than Spain and Columbus's failed attempt to get to India"

As I recall, this statement is incorrect, although I could see why it might seem so to someone who did a quick google search. By the time the British got significantly involved it was the Spanish they were chasing not the Portuguese, after the Treaty of Tordesillas and the vast wealth the Spanish were raking in, Much of the rest of Europe seemed to be more interested in finding thier own gold and silver sources in the New World. Remember there was an approximately 100 year gap between Prince Henry and the time that the British were really in a position to get in the game. You might want to double check on that though, like I said Britain really isn't my supposed area of research other than the amount of supposed undergraduate classes on British History so my knowledge of that is really no more than probably most supposed Early Modern History students. Surely an Expert on All Things would know better.

Your more basic question of why there is a Columbus Day and not a day after any of these other Early Modern Explorers might be valid. I would imagine that the popularity of any other such day in the United States would be limited at least in part to less powerful Portuguese and Spanish populations than Italian historically and the lobbying that Italians did.

SW,

There were two claims. One was that the voyages of Erikson were more relevant to N. America than those of Columbus (which, as I demonstrated, is clearly the case). The other claim (from you) was that one can trace a direct line from Columbus to the US. The conversation was devoted almost entirely to the former. That is what I meant by returning to the discussion. So you are wrong, this is not a new argument. This is me critiquing your original claim.

"You might find it important to note that Leif Erikson appears to have had no real influence on Prince Henry, so I'm glad you appear to have abandoned that flawed position."

I never claimed that Erikson influenced Henry. So I cannot abandon a position I never occupied. However, now that you mention it, John Cabot claimed Newfoundland and other areas of Vinland for the British Crown in 1497. The sagas of Viking explorations in N. America would most certainly have been known to the leaders in the British Isles. So it stands to reason that Cabot's return the exact places the Vikings discovered in N. America was no accident.

"By the time the British got significantly involved it was the Spanish they were chasing not the Portuguese..."

You are wrong again (this is becoming a pattern, friend). Cabot was exploring for Henry VII in the late 15th century and his son after him. At the same time England was exploring and looking for places to establish new colonies, Portugal was setting up trading posts all along Africa. In addition, while England was ramping up their exploration efforts, da Gama had found a route to India. Portugal was a major player when Britain "got in the game", and Britain would have certainly been chasing Portugal (one could defend the claim that all of western Europe, including Spain, was chasing Portugal). In any event, the impetus for British investment in exploration, would have been provided as much by Portugal, as by Spain.

"Remember there was an approximately 100 year gap between Prince Henry and the time that the British were really in a position to get in the game."

This claim depends on when you define Britain as being "in the game". If it's John Cabot's voyages (followed by Sebastian Cabot and then Gilbert Humphrey) that mark the beginning of Britain's interest in exploration and colonization, you are certainly wrong.

Also, keep in mind that the Portuguese had de Albuquerque conquering major Indian cities in 1511, and Magellan sailing around the world in 1522, so even if you put England in the game with Raleigh in 1585, you are still off by over a quarter century!

AltHist. Benevolus,

I'm glad you took a couple of days to look up some stuff on Portugal.

"There were two claims. One was that the voyages of Erikson were more relevant to N. America than those of Columbus (which, as I demonstrated, is clearly the case)."

I'm sorry I thought you were arguing that he was more relevant to the United States not N. America. In any case you are wrong, arguing N. America is easier to refute. How much of an impact did Erikson have on the Native Americans v. the amount of impact by Columbus? A couple of interactions then largely left in peace or the beginning of an invasion that almost completely removed all land and power from the Native Americans. I'd say Columbus was more relevant there as well.

It is clear that you have no real grasp on this era in history, so much so that I'm no longer surprised you believed a fiction site was historically accurate.

The comments that you make that are the most ridiculous as far as your arguments go are the ones like this: "The sagas of Viking explorations in N. America would most certainly have been known to the leaders in the British Isles. So it stands to reason that Cabot's return the exact places the Vikings discovered in N. America was no accident."

Did Cabot call his discoveries Vinland?

A shockingly large amount of your "proof" and "clear evidence" is these types of statements. One can't prove anything by saying "it stands to reason" or "would most certainly". There is nothing to back up your opinions. Its fine for you to have these opinions but that doesn't make them right.

I'm afraid pointing out your historical failings is beginning to bore me. Please give me some citations that support your "stands to reasons" or "most certainly's" because it is clear your opinions, although amusing are tremendously historically innaccurate.

Ben and Mike - Do I still look desperate for mentioning that the past suggests that the President is going to lose. He is behind in more and more popular polls these days.

Wallis

SWeak,

You are an absolutely horrible historian...which is weird cause you have a master's degree (allegedly) in the subject. Was it an online degree or something?

Seriously, that was your weakest retort yet. You claim (and still without evidence) that Britain was influenced by Columbus, prompting them to begin exploration, thus leading to the formation of the United States. That is the most asinine, inaccurate, and frankly the most irresponsible argument from a "historian" I have ever heard. You are right, this clearly is not your area of expertise. And readers should be lead far astray by taking any of your digital gibberish as anything other than ill-informed, poorly researched (your words) chicken scratch.

Here is what your addled and unimpressive brain won't let you understand: I am not trying to "prove" a connection between between Cabot and the Vikings, I am saying that it would be an amazing coincidence if he just randomly sailed directly to Newfoundland (i.e., Vinland) and claimed it for England. Henry VII, probably new what he was doing when he commissioned the expedition. Where would the most detailed accounts of Newfoundland come from if not the Vikings.

Also, your argument about N.America and Columbus is equally ridiculous. I'd buy S. America. Columbus did a great deal of harm (and is certainly not worthy of celebrating) there. But again, you draw no connection between Columbus and N.America and more specifically, the US (your original claim).

You are really bad at arguing and especially bad at arguing history. Go back to school. Seriously. Or just quit arguing. You are embarrassing yourself.

Wallis,

"Do I still look desperate for mentioning that the past suggests that the President is going to lose."

Not speaking for Michael, if you go back and look at my comments, you will find that I said this would be a close election. I argued that it could easily be similar to Bush/Gore, and Obama could win the electoral votes needed, but lose the popular election.

If you are still claiming that Obama could lose a close election, I agree. If you are claiming that it will be a Romney landslide, then that does seem like wishful thinking.

Remember, Obama has a lead in Ohio and Wisconsin, and the polls suggest a statistical tie in Colorado and Florida. Curiously, I was reading that Obama is gaining ground in Arizona, and may actually make that a close race.

All signs point to a photo finish.

3 words to save the economy

Gay Bridal Registry!

Ben,

I am on to you:)

Benevolus,

Way to bolster your Historian cred by calling Native American "Indians". Or are you now talking about the Battle of Diu? Were the Vikings there as well? I really need to check out this Alternate History site, it sounds like a hoot!

Wallis,

Thanks for the invite but I like women. Try an airport bathroom, I hear Republicans have had success there in the past.

Taking another 1/4 off gold this am. Don't like the one day countertrend.

Watching Gold have a 1/2 position. If today holds rally could resume. If today doesn't hold lots of downside to follow.

S&P 500 is close to a bad setup. Still long but that index could be turning. If the topping pattern does occur could see a fast move down. Not out or short yet but ready to hit the button.

Wallis

Wallis,

A month ago when you were predicting a Romney landslide while ignoring the ever-widening gains in the polls for Obama, you seemed a bit delusional.

However, giving credit where its due, after reviewing the gains Romney has made among likely voters in Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, I think that the scenario you describe (minus Romney carrying all of New England--that's still delusional) is actually possible.

I'm not willing to go as far as you are quite yet, all signs at this point indicate a dead heat, as Michael and I predicted. However, it seems that the entire fate of the Obama campaign rests on tonight's debate. I recall that Michael was trying to argue that debates do not matter, but I cannot remember a presidential debate in recent history that is as important as the one tonight. An Obama win keeps him in the race. And I think a Romney win will send Obama packing. It should be interesting watch.

The data suggested a Romney win a while ago. The fact that you thought I was delusional made me more confident in the data.

The consensus is normally wrong.

Wallis

Wallis,

The numbers prior to the first debate indicated no such thing. That much was demonstrated to you. And while the first debate opened the possibility of your prediction, I think the second debate just closed that possibility.

I would guess that Obama will see a corresponding bump in the polls after his narrow win tonight. The race will remain close. No landslide.

The debate reminded me of when my twin brother and I would try to convince our parents that the other one did something bad.

The numbers prior to the first debate indicated no such thing. That much was demonstrated to you.

Ben since you are so good at looking at the charts and the numbers and forecasting please give me your estimates of the following:

S&P 500, Gold, Silver, Oil, NG, USD and the following stocks: SD,CHK,MGM,LVS,WYNN.

Thanks for engaging in forecasting.

Wallis

The data suggested a Romney win a while ago. The fact that you thought I was delusional made me more confident in the data.

The consensus is normally wrong.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 7:25 PM

Examples of the consensus not being wrong in past elections: 2008, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980 and so forth.

What data are you talking about? Are you still stuck on the Gallup polling? The poll that showed Obama's job approval at 50?

Of course it does beg the question, if consensus is normally wrong as we approach election day and consensus swings to Romney, will you suddenly have a change of heart and declare that Obama will win?

Wallis,

I defer to you and your vast amount of expertise in the market. Where numbers matter most to me (and where I have formal training) are in the political geography/demography world. Incidentally, predicting a precipitous rise in the value of gold, I did invest in MUX in May. You will notice that that investment hasn't done too badly.

I do think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the value of gold (and silver) is inversely proportional to the strength of the economy. If I am right about that, it stands to reason that as the economy continues to recover, we can expect the price of gold and silver to level out, and then begin dropping.

I get the impression that you can crunch numbers with the best of them, but I have to second Michael's question, as the consensus swings from Obama to Romney, does the consensus magically become correct then? It seems that this is a simple case of 'if I'm not with the consensus, the consensus is wrong, and if I am with the consensus, then it's right'.

But that's why we vote for president, yeah? To establish a majority opinion (i.e., consensus) as to who the country believes is its citizen best suited to be in charge?

Maybe you meant something else by consensus, but in presidential voting, isn't it the other way around, isn't the consensus usually "right" (except in the Jackson/Adams, Hayes/Tilden, Harrison/Cleveland, and Bush/Gore elections)?

You guys crack me up. You can't deal with facts. I say there is a probability something is going to occur and over 75% of the time it happens. You guys just state your opinions and then debate others opinions.

I told you two that if you go back almost 100 years the data was predicting a Romney victory and if history repeated (it normally does) Obama would be Jimmy Cartered and his numbers would erode before our eyes.

That appears to be happening. And yet both of you are saying my logic is wrong and you proved that I was wrong. We shall see what happens. Difference between me and you two is we can see if I was right or wrong. You guys just spin everything to your favor and always claim that you two are right and everyone else is wrong.

Mike you need to actually learn something about politics. When a President doesn't even have a majority of the people thinking he is doing a good job he is going to get fired. Obama is going to get fired.

Now maybe an Atomic Bomb can save Obama or something else that isn't foreseeable otherwise Obama is toast.

Wallis,

"I say there is a probability something is going to occur and over 75% of the time it happens."

You say that, sure, but nobody knows what that means or where you are getting your data. All attempts to get you to reveal your methods and sources have been ignored.

Look. Nobody is spinning anything but you. If memory serves, the "100 years data" you are referring to has to do with approval ratings. I showed you several presidents with ratings lower than Obama's at the time (47% or so if I recall he is right at 50% now). It really is you that will not listen to facts. There are too many contradictions that your "data" (that you won't reveal) cannot explain.

The fact is, Wallis, now you seem desperate to believe again. Pretty much everyone who has studied elections understands how close this thing is. And bear in mind, a majority of the US public thought Gore was the better option, and the electoral college ending up putting Bush in office.

Here is what you don't get, if Obama wins Ohio (where he has a slight lead) and either Florida, Colorado, or Virginia, Obama wins the election with ease. Remember Wallis, no Republican (not that Romney is one) has ever lost Ohio and won the White House.

That is why Romney/Ryan are desperate enough to risk taking fake pictures in soup kitchens in Ohio so as to appear like they give a tinker's **** about the poor.

Betting odds for Romney are 2/1.

Obama is 4/11.

I am getting pot odds to bet Romney.

Wallis,

Everywhere that I have looked the money line is around Romney +200.

http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/political-props.jsp

So you are right, Romney is actually a good bet, because Vegas and all the websites have him as the underdog still (though before the debate he was +300 or more!), and as we have discussed, I think he has a decent shot at winning.

If I were to bet, I suppose I would put money on Romney. Under Colin Cowherd's "victory tax" logic, if Romney wins, the guy I like loses but I get paid off, and if Obama wins, I pay my "victory tax" to the Gods of luck. Cowherd is funny.

Finally! A website showing the real Romney tax plan.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Wallis you seem to be having issues recalling certain things. You said: "I told you two that if you go back almost 100 years the data was predicting a Romney victory and if history repeated (it normally does) Obama would be Jimmy Cartered and his numbers would erode before our eyes."

The main problem with this statement is that is not what you said: "For the last 100 years the Presidents job approval rating has predicted the election."

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Aug 26, 2012, at 3:30 PM

Which was posted on Pre-Convention Polling blog.

The original issue was that job approval ratings did not begin until the 1930s, so now you are trying to change what you said to be more correct. The other issue is that your blanket statement just was not true as has been illustrated.

Also, I have to ask, when 50% stopped being a majority?

You are right, though, his national lead did erode. So did his state leads, but they didn't disappear, and even now in those states before the second debate those leads were already beginning to strengthen again.

"Also, I have to ask, when 50% stopped being a majority?"

Because 50% approve and 50% disapprove?

Just a theory.

Michael,

50% never was a majority, not too good with math concepts are you?

A 50% majority is not optimal.

Actually bberry there isn't a poll out there that shows 50 approve and 50 disapprove. Take the latest Gallup approval of Obama.

53% Approve

42% Disapprove

Obviously that doesn't add up to 100% but you don't assign the other 5% to one of the two categories at whim.

So when 50% Approve you cannot automatically assume that 50% Disapprove.

I think most people would use the term plurality to describe 50%, rather than majority.

You surely wouldn't expect Michael to know that.

UNINSTALLING OBAMA..................... █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete.

Evidently Gallup predicted the winner:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/20/us-usa-campaign-gallup-idUSBRE89J02720...

And this link points to a graph and an electoral map. Interesting.

http://assets.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_election_2012_daily_one_sheet.pdf

By all accounts, Romney has to win Ohio to win the election. That is a tall order, as most major polls (including FOX) have Obama as the favorite. Obama also has a better ground game there--his field offices in Ohio out number Romney's 3-1.

Remember, no Republican candidate has won the election and lost Ohio. The only way Romney can break history and do it this year is if he wins FL, NC, CO, NV, VA, and NM.

That too is a tall order.

I would not be surprised to see Romney win the popular vote and lose the election.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority

According to Webster a majority is more than 50%.

Are two people with Masters degrees or in a Masters program going to continue to argue this point?

Wallis

The point that I was making is that a MAJORITY more than half of the American people do not think the President is doing a good job. History suggests that when 50% or less of the population think that way the incumbent loses.

MIke and Ben are on the record that this trend will not repeat itself. Maybe it will not but the odds are it will.

When this stat was pointed out Obama was in a big lead and Mike even had his electoral college assumption at 320ish for Obama. I would think that today that count would be less. The numbers suggested at the time that the Carter effect would occur and Obama's numbers would erode (which they have).

That was the only point I was making then. The President may win but the race is a lot closer than many thought 6 weeks ago - which that was a wrong assumption then.

I still think that Romney wins the popular vote and wins. I think that the Moderates and the Republican turnout is great. I think that the college vote is a lot less than 2008.

Mike and Ben would both of you say that the last 4 years of Obama is what you though it would be? I posted in Mike's blog after the 2008 election that if Obama were a stock I would short him then. His popularity was unsustainable. His message of Hope and Change meant something different to everyone who voted for him. The Hope is gone and all that we have left is Obama saying that Romney is worse then Obama. That isn't what the marginal voter voted for in 2008.

Well Mike, it was example. A poll may receive 50%percent of it's votes for one option but that wouldn't mean 50% is a majority, since 50% is never a majority.

Wallis,

"Are two people with Masters degrees or in a Masters program going to continue to argue this point?"

Who else was arguing this?

"The point that I was making is that a MAJORITY more than half of the American people do not think the President is doing a good job."

You are wrong on two counts. First, 53% of the country approve of Obama according to Gallup. In other words, the majority of the country approves of Obama. Try to be objective, Wallis.

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

Second, there are plenty of examples, which you continue to ignore, of presidents being reelected with approval ratings under 50%. I pointed out at least 4 on another blog (but you simply ignore those for the sake of convenience I suppose).

"The President may win but the race is a lot closer than many thought 6 weeks ago..."

This is a new argument from you. You predicted a Romney landslide. None of the data suggest that then and none of the data suggests that now.

"Mike and Ben would both of you say that the last 4 years of Obama is what you though it would be?"

There is much room for criticizing Obama. But Romney has completely changed his mind on every major issue since the primary. We have no idea if the 'war is an option in Iran, pro-life, cut taxes for the wealthy, privatize social security, etc' Romney will be in office, or the 'let's be peaceful and diplomatic with Iran, women should be respected, I will never cut taxes for the wealthy, social security will not be privatized' Romney will be in office.

He may end up being even MORE liberal than Obama if he runs the nation like he ran Mass. Or, he may run us directly back to the horrible conservative policies that nearly ruined the economy in 2008.

Given the choice between Obama, who has been a serviceable president, and Romney, who has few detailed plans for anything, and is running on idea: 'you know this other guy is going to be bad, I don't have any plans, but trust me, I won't be so bad'...I think I will stick with 'the devil I know'.

I'll go with Romney.

Michael,

Have you looked up Plurality yet?

Rasmussen has the candidates tied at 48% in Ohio. A tie typically won't favor the incumbent as the independents will usually side with the challenger...especially seeing the damage the Obama campaign has suffered with the economy and with Libya.

It's an uphill battle for Obama at this point.

Mark my words.

Mickel,

Why do you cite a conservative-leaning poll and ignore every other one? Check Real Clear Politics....they show the average of all the major polls...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1...

Romney appears to be going stronger in Ohio (Obama led by 10 at one point), but as of right now, Ohio appears to be still leaning Obama. If the election were today, I think Obama would win Ohio and, thus, the election.

Also, I was reading that Romney/Ryan have a combined 21 stops in Ohio between now and Nov 6th. That is a sure mark that they recognize they are playing catch-up there.

If anyone is fighting an uphill battle, it's Romney facing an incumbent president with an approval rating over 50%. This is why betting lines still favor Obama (though certainly not as heavily as before).

Ben - what you have is a race between an incumbent President who is supposedly 'all that and a bag of chips'; and a challenger, whom according to you, and perhaps even Mr. Hendricks...is worse than "the devil they know". If this race is so close, and the Democrats are in such a strong position to be competitive in this race, then why is the Obama campaign being reactionary, instead of pro-active on the their 2nd term agenda? Why is the campaign working so hard in traditional blue states?

I cited a real clear politics link in a post above. I cited the Rasmussen poll, because it is well known, and reputable. Calling it "conservative" is a bit of a stretch. I believe that the libs have been cherry-picking during their polling throughout this election...seeing as they have been polling Democrats at +13 (average) up until the last couple of weeks. The polls are beginning to reflect a "closer to reality" electorate as of late for the purpose of maintaining credibility. The Gallup poll for Oct 25 shows a 48% tie, with the upward trend going towards Romney.

Obama got no bounce from the convention, (the media/polls reported a bounce...however I believe it was contrived) or from the debates. This election was his to win. With the polls trending towards Romney (and I believe the polls are still left-leaning) the end of Obama's presidency is in sight.

Ohio is in play, so is Wisconsin and both campaigns are diligently working those states. Traditional Blue states are seeing more Obama campaign attention as well. Is he worried? He should be. Perhaps that's one reason why team members are willing to commit voter fraud.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/24/okeefe-bombshell-corruptocrat-jim-morans-so...

I should note that Patrick Moran resigned his position as Representative Jim Moran's Field Director.

The election of 2010 was a huge landslide away from Obama and towards conservatism. This election, I predict, will be similar.

I have not read Malkins works but have seen her occasionally on FNC. I believe she is a well-known conservative who will be pooh-poohed by the left and left-leaning as rabidly partisan. I believe she and Sean Hannity personify the right, much as Rachel Maddow and Wasserman-Schultz personify the left.

The link points to a video that wasn't the work of Malkin, but merely embedded on her sight.

The fact that she might be "poo-poohed" just goes to show how many raw nerves she truly strikes. However, the difference between Malkin and Wasserman-Schultz is fact-checkers actually find results that favor the assertions of Malkin.

Mickel,

Rasmussen has long been criticized for engaging in "partisan polling". I don't really know what their methods are but what I do know is that Rasmussen curiously had Romney leading at one point in Sept when every other poll in America showed the exact opposite. In fact, this is nothing new, they almost always have conservatives leading, and hence most conservatives cite Rasmussen as opposed to other polls, because they like the results there. As a result, Rasmussen has earned the reputation as being aligned politically with the right.

Also, Obama got a substantial bump from the DNC. That is why around mid to late September he had around a 10 point lead in Ohio and Romney looked like a definite loser.

The first debate I think convinced a lot of folks that Romney is a viable alternative, and now Obama is only running a 3-4 point lead in Ohio.

In any event, if Ohio is in play, it only just barely. Romney is absolutely on the ropes there, and it seems likely that he will lose that state. Which means he needs VA, FL, NC, IA, and CO (or NM and NV instead of IA). Interestingly, the Romney campaign cancelled its trip to VA because of the hurricane, and now has a slough of Wisconsin visits back on the schedule. This is a logical maneuver because Romney is gaining in WI according to Marquette Law School poll.

Many speculate that Romney is trying to make Wisconsin the new Ohio because Obama's lead has stabilized in Ohio and throwing more money after a losing cause is not a good idea at this point when every dollar counts. Romney seems to be "broadening the map" going into the final days of the campaign.

"This election, I predict, will be similar."

That is laughable, Mickel. Romney is not a conservative. He has changed his mind on every single issue since the Republican primary and made a beeline for the center in the debates. He also ran up massive debt and spending in MA, started Romneycare (i.e., "socialism"), and basically has been criticized by conservatives his entire career as being a RINO.

Obama and Romney are the same leader. Just watch their duet during the 3rd debate, where Romney agreed with/said the same thing as Obama about 15 times. This election is sorta like going to get a new car and finding out all you can possibly buy is a Toyota Camry.

If anyone is fighting an uphill battle, it's Romney facing an incumbent president with an approval rating over 50%. This is why betting lines still favor Obama (though certainly not as heavily as before).

Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 9:50 AM

???

Laugh all you wish Ben - I could have cited the Gallup poll, which had Romney up by five overall on the very same day. Last Friday, Gallup had Mitt up by 5 on their daily tracker. The same day Rasmussen had Mitt and Obama tied at 49 in Wisconsin. This is proof of partisan polling? Maybe partisan towards the liberals. Look at the jump conservatism took during the Scott Walker recall. The unions and the libs failed miserably. Madison is a haven of liberal ideology. That same last Friday the ABC News/Washington Post poll favored Romney on Friday by 50 to Obama's 47. Now don't tell me they lean conservative.

And like I said...I believe Obama's convention 'bump' of 10 points was contrived by an all too willing media. Or are you trying to tell me that there has been a 15 point swing by likely voters towards Romney since the convention? Don't you think that's startling? Are you sure this President can re-elect?

Again, laugh all you want. But the majority of people in this nation have had enough "hope and change". You say Romney and Obama are the same leader. I think your statement is ridiculous. In the third debate, Romney rope-a-doped Obama into looking like a poor sport. Obama IS commander in chief; you think he would have OWNED that debate. Instead, he didn't hurt Romney and he didn't help himself. Obama's approval rating will be determined by the next election.

Mickel,

Obama still enjoys a lead in the majority of the polls in Ohio. I am not sure why being objective is so hard for you.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1...

I don't disagree with your assessment of third debate. Romney seemed to be 'kneeling on it', so to speak. Although, Romney did absolutely nothing to distance himself from Obama with regard to foreign policy. In fact, he went as far as to agree with Obama on many of his points. And FYI Gallup has Obama winning 2 of the 3 debates, the third one 56% to 33%.

The bottom line is, Romney could certainly win this election. No argument there. But Romney, like it or not, is engaged in a serious battle, and like it or not, Romney moved WAY left of conservative for the debates. This is not surprising given Romney's record. He has never been taken seriously by the right as a real conservative, and rightly so.

You, Mickel, have no idea which Romney would lead this country...the spend crazy, Romneycare moderate Democrat/Republican Romney who agrees with Obama on foreign policy, looks nothing like a conservative, and would never cut taxes for the top 1%? Or is he the extreme conservative Romney who would go to war in Iran and would gladly cut taxes for wealthiest Americans?

"I am not sure why being objective is so hard for you. "

The polls I cited were the polls published last Friday. Perhaps it is you that is not being objective, as your poll shows Ohio only. Why not show the national poll?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romne...

Heck, even Politico shows a statistical tie between the candidates. Again...as I've said all along...that favors the challenger.

The Des Moines Register and the Detroit News have backed Romney. Other papers that backed Obama in 2008 and now back Romney are Florida Today, the Orlando Sentinel, the Pensacola News Journal, Naples Daily News and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel -- plus the Quad City Times, on the border between Iowa and Illinois.

You said Ohio was backing Obama. However, early voting shows Romney leads Obama by 7 in Ohio:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Gallup-Shock-Romney-Up-7-with...

From the article: But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

I forgot to add this:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-obamas-job-approval-drops-7-points-3-days

Interesting that above you had said this:

"He has changed his mind on every single issue since the Republican primary and made a beeline for the center in the debates. He also ran up massive debt and spending in MA, started Romneycare (i.e., "socialism"), and basically has been criticized by conservatives his entire career as being a RINO."

Funny - because I was plugged in to the primaries and the general election debates; and I don't recall Romney changing his mind on every single issue. I also did not find where there was a massive debt in MA. after Romney left office. I recall many conservatives in the 2008 election vocalizing that Romney was a RINO, however I've not heard any nationally known conservatives say that about Romney concerning his entire career, or for the duration of his entire career.

Please provide links to support the above assertions. Politico and Huffington Post and Daily KOS don't count. But you already knew that...(just trying to maintain the spirit of objectivity)

maybe Romney's positions are "still evolving"?

Mickel,

If you are denying sources based on bias, and willing to include Breitbart, Malkin, etc., aren't you are being hypocritical? It seems to me that you are. Maybe you can explain why you don't have to adhere to your own rules for "objectivity".

"Why not show the national poll?"

Because the argument was about Ohio. The national poll is not relevant to the Ohio poll. The MAJORITY of the polls in Ohio show that Obama has a lead. This is a fact. It is also a fact that according to Gallup, Obama and Romney are locked in at 48% apiece among registered voters. Another fact is that Romney enjoyed a 7 point lead among likely voters, but has lost ground there since the debates.

"However, early voting shows Romney leads Obama by 7 in Ohio"

You are not very familiar with elections and voting, huh? Republicans are more likely to vote early and more Democrats are likely to vote on election day. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158420/registered-voters-already-cast-ballots.aspx

More Republicans asked for absentee ballots, so that more Republicans are returning them is obvious. You aren't saying anything.

"Again...as I've said all along...that favors the challenger."

You say that, but you don't explain yourself. Watch this...cats are really dogs, I have said this all along. Now, will you take me at my word, or would you like an explanation?

Here are a litany of sites that all point out how Romney has flip-flopped.

Some highlights include: Obama' stimulus, abortion, gun rights, support for Reagan, the no tax pledge, and global warming, just to name a few.

Please provide links to support the above assertions.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2012/10/29/romney-flip-flops-on-fema/#.UJB4s8U3bpc

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/mitt-romneys-biggest...

http://www.businessinsider.com/14-bald-faced-mitt-romney-flip-flops-that-were-du...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/full-flop/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mi...

So, Doodle, Mickel, et al...

Are you ready to join Republican Gov. Chris Christie in praising Obama?

"The federal government's response has been great. I was on the phone at midnight again last night with the President, personally, he has expedited the designation of New Jersey as a major disaster area," Christie, a top surrogate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said on NBC's "Today."

"The President has been outstanding in this and so have the folks at FEMA."

"the President has been all over this and he deserves great credit." Obama, he said, "told me to call him if I needed anything and he absolutely means it, and it's been very good working with the President and his administration."

Benevolus, yes, I will give him credit; I also credited him with the drone strikes against the jihadists and finally giving the order to eliminate bin laden. Are you going to tell me that any other president would not have given the same order, under the same circumstances? That being stated, I still do not like his social and financial policies. And anything about Romney's policies, at this point, is pure speculation. We all know ALL politicians say one thing and do another.

I don't know which presidents would have diverted our resources to Afghanistan, given the orders to begin an elaborate training regimen for the raid, had the nerve to test the sovereignty of another nation and essentially invade an ally (albeit a suspicious one), and then give the ultimate order.

Here is what I do know: Bush didn't, and if you take Romney at his word, he would not have.

"It's not worth moving heaven and Earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." M. Romney

I do agree with you though...All talk about Romney and who he will be if/when he enters office is pure speculation.

I do know that almost nobody that I could find on this board offered their support to Romney during the primary. Actually, Mike and I both were among the only posters predicting a Romney win in the primary (as well as giving him a chance to win the presidency).

Benevolus, do you believe the plan to get bin laden was conceived, trained for, and executed within the time span of two, two and a half years? I, personally, do not believe that. I may be incorrect in my position, but if you could go back through Michael's blog for a couple years or so, I predicted a one term presidency. I asked Michael to make note of the date; I do not know if he did so. Next Tuesday will show us who lives, in Michael's words, in an alternate universe. If Obama wins a second term, I will freely admit that I live in that alternate universe.

Doodle,

"Do you believe the plan to get bin laden was conceived, trained for, and executed within the time span of two, two and a half years?"

No. But I do think that step one in getting bin laden was diverting resources and military assets away from Iraq and into Afghanistan. Which Obama did. I also have read that a focus on SpecOps rather than large standing forces is necessary for the modern battlefield, which Obama has also done. I also think that Obama took seriously the military's development of "the courier" as a viable intelligence link to bin laden--who eventually led us to the compound. I also have read that Obama was advised against giving the final order from both his secretary of defense and his vice president. I also have read reports that Obama ordered more helicopter support which proved to be wise given the mechanical failure of one of the choppers. I also know for a fact that Obama risked his presidency on the decision because a failed mission that killed our most elite fighters would have been a political disaster.

Like I said, Romney wouldn't have done (and Bush wasn't able to do) what Obama did do.

"I may be incorrect in my position, but if you could go back through Michael's blog for a couple years or so, I predicted a one term presidency"

I think many of us saw this as a one-term deal. I argued with my friends before the election in 2008 that McCain or Obama or Clinton or any other living breathing American was resigned to one term in 2008-2012 because likely the problems created by Bush's tenure were too vast and enduring to over come in one term.

I do think that Obama did enough to make a strong argument for a second term, especially late in his presidency. What is really surprising is that the Republicans are having such a tough time beating "the worst president of all time", "a Kenyan, nazi-socialist Muslim who hates American". You would think that would be a pretty easy win for the right, right?

"If Obama wins a second term, I will freely admit that I live in that alternate universe."

Why? I think no matter the outcome of the election we will both still inhabit a country (on the same planet, in the same universe) that is divided sharply and contentiously along political lines. Whether you are right or wrong, the political demographics of the country aren't going to change much.

^ I should add the caveat that the political demographics aren't going to change much for awhile.

A look at who supports Obama indicates that Americans 18-29 are running at 60% for Obama, and Hispanics are running at 68%. As the baby boomers pass on and as the country becomes more Hispanic, the political demographics of the US will likely change drastically unless the right can market itself successfully to younger and more diverse generations.

In my alternate universe, there is more personal responsibility and less dependence on the nanny state. There are way too many success stories that with hard work, "gumption", and imagination, anyone can succeed. The burgeoning national debt frightens the bejibbers out of me and I see no end to the continuing increase. As I have posted a couple of other times, I see absolutely no advantage in becoming like Europe. Most of their financial problems I see as a percursor to our own.

Benevolus,

I don't disagree with Gov. Christie that Obama has apparently done his job well in this case. I think it might be to early to know what help the Federal Government will need to proffer but that is another issue.

Are you ready to join President Clinton in praising Romney: "the man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold"?

"A look at who supports Obama indicates that Americans 18-29 are running at 60% for Obama, and Hispanics are running at 68%. As the baby boomers pass on and as the country becomes more Hispanic, the political demographics of the US will likely change drastically unless the right can market itself successfully to younger and more diverse generations."

I'm not sure this is an accurate prediction. Have Republicans had majority support among young voters ever? What's the saying about young conservatives and old liberals?

Wait, and so you will admit that these are fantasies and that these concerns aren't apart of this reality if Romney loses? I don't get it?

SW,

Romney was a good governor and certainly a good businessman. After watching the debates, I don't think he'd be a terrible president either (I just think Obama would be better). However, Romney's switching from Democrat (or RINO) to arch-conservative, then to centrist alarms me more than a little bit simply because we don't know what to expect (that and his lack of a coherent fiscal plan).

"I'm not sure this is an accurate prediction. Have Republicans had majority support among young voters ever?"

You are missing the point, SW. The fact is, the majority of voters are 45+ this year, and probably will be for the next several decades. But this will not remain the case as the boomers pass away.

Hispanics will be an increasing voting bloc in the US, and they are majority Democratic. Within our lifetime we will see Hispanics comprise 1/3 of all Americans. Also, minority children as of 2010 made up more than 50% of the children born in the US, if current trends hold, these folks too will likely be majority Democratic.

So, we are going to see enormous increases in the 65+ over cohort as the boomers move through retirement. But as these demographically large generations pass away, the portions of voters under 45 will return to a majority (take a look at the age/sex graphs--figure 1--for population projections for the US), and they will be mostly non-White. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf

This will, like it or not, have a drastic impact on the political landscape of the US. Unless the Reps do a better job of marketing to under 45, AND to minorities, they will see their power increasingly diminished over the next several decades.

The only speculative question in all this is yours: will minorities and the young 'obey' the saying you reference and 'turn Republican' as they age, or is that saying too simplistic to put much stock for the future?

I would argue the latter.

I found this to be an interesting bit of evidence supporting the case that this election is shaping up to be a lot like Bush/Kerry '04.

Total Favorable/Total Unfavorable

Obama 62%/38%

Romney 55%/43%

Obama has net favorability of +24; Romney +12

Bush 61%/39%

Kerry 57%/40%

Bush was +22; Kerry +17

Of course, from the last 10 elections, 6 times the candidate with the highest net favorability won, so it is far from a perfect metric. Nonetheless, there seems to be good reason to view this election as a redux of 2004.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158465/obama-ahead-point-favorability-measure.aspx

Benevolus, just re-read your 4 p.m. post from 10-31-12 and beg to differ with your claim that we will all still inhabit tne same universe. Did you not read Michael's post that some of us live in an alternate universe?

Doodle,

So, if I am understanding you, the idea is that if Obama wins it means you are delusional for believing what you do, and if he doesn't it means you aren't?

Multiple universe theory is so confusing.

in a nutshell

Benevolus,

I don't think I missed the point at all, we appear to be addressing the same point. You seem to be saying that because 18-29 year old voters vote Democratic today means they will always vote Democratic. I am saying that young voters have generally voted Democratic but that Republicans continue to get elected. Are they "obeying" a saying or is that just the way it works out sometimes? If it is a saying to be "obeyed" why has it been the case historically?

Also, I thought you were talking about possible future voting, that seems pretty speculative to me. Can you explain why that isn't a speculative question? Or is it just not speculative since you said it and therefore must be correct? After all we've established YOU CAN NEVER BE INCORRECT AND EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS TRUTH!!!

SW,

"You seem to be saying that because 18-29 year old voters vote Democratic today means they will always vote Democratic."

No. That isn't what I am saying at all. You did, as I said (as always?), miss the point.

Also, why do you continue to ignore the Hispanic portion of the argument. You are conceding that I am right, I take it?

Here is why you are missing the point this time. I am not suggesting any speculative switches like you, just facts and figures. In a few decades when the boomer bubble is no more, there will be a balance of young to old voters that slightly favors the younger. So, irrespective of possible 'later-in-life changes of heart' the PORTION of voters under 45 (who have tended to vote Dem) will be larger relative to older voters that it is at present, and thus, voters under 45 will be more relevant in the future elections.

"I am saying that young voters have generally voted Democratic but that Republicans continue to get elected."

Wow. You are thick. That is because THERE ARE MORE OLDER VOTERS as a result of the boomers. Although, the boomers as a cohort aren't always so easy to pin down politically. In some states, the over 65 crowd is staunchly Democratic. Nonetheless, once there are as many/more voters under 45 than there are voters over 45, the EFFECT OF THE OLDER VOTERS WILL BE MITIGATED!!!

You see, there are degrees of speculation SW. The sun will rise tomorrow, and gravity will still behave tomorrow the way it did today, these are not particularly speculative statements.

The difference between us SW, is that I actually am relying on mathematical formulas that have been highly accurate in projecting future population changes in the past. You seem to be happy relying on a pithy saying for your evidence. Sorry, but I will stick with the best facts and numbers available.

Doodle,

I promise that if Obama wins I won't believe you are delusional in the least. How's that?

If Obama wins, I will still consider myself delusional. IMHO: I will begin to wonder how the USA, like so few nations in history (any?), was able to rise from relative obscurity, to world super power in less than 200 years, in spite of the mistakes we have made.

Doodle,

Well does that mean that if Romney wins the 47-48% of your fellow citizens who voted for Obama are delusional? That seems presumptuous. But, then again, maybe you are right. I am betting that many Americans felt like you after the 2004 election. See, you can empathize with the Dems. Reelecting George W. Bush seemed pretty unthinkable, yet we did it anyway, and it turned out to be a mistake that **** near ruined country's economy (maybe even the country!).

SW,

Think about it like this: Obama won NC in 2008 by .3% of the vote. It was 49.7% Obama to 49.4% McCain.

The 18-25 voters cast 16% of the votes and Obama carried them by a 48 point margin (74% to 26%). Thus, the youth vote in NC was enough to tip the scales in Obama's favor.

Now imagine that the Reps successfully marketed themselves to the youth vote (and the minority vote for that matter, which will be even more consequential down the road) in 2008. States like Indiana and NC would have been wins for McCain rather than Obama.