You are old.

I am younger than Chelsea Clinton apparently.

You are old.

That may be true, but I ain't that much older than Chelsea Clinton, which was the real shock.

A glance at where he actually stood while in the Senate shows Biden to be a corporate candidate with a nice, well-meant patter he can aim at the working class as needed. He's well-liked within the party, and will excite absolutely no one. He'll draw no support from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which is where Dem dark horses come from, and in failing to get any progressive support all but guarantees at least one strong challenger. (All of this assumes Clinton doesn't run.) I can see him polling third two months in advance of Iowa and dropping out before the caucuses.

As for Clinton, isn't she one more public fainting spell during a campaign event from being eminently beatable in the primaries or the general? It's easy to say 69 isn't old, but for today's permanent campaign it's pretty damned old, and what we know about her health tells us it's an issue.

I'll bet a sizable amount on "Other" (than Biden or HRC).

I also think the GOP can stay exactly this crazy for another couple of decades, losing Presidential elections unless unemployment skyrockets, but dominating at the local and state levels. As long as we allow the sort of gerrymandering we allow, there's not enough incentive for Republicans to move towards sanity, if that's still possible. I don't think it is, but that's another matter.

I agree with this, sort of. If HRC runs, HRC wins the nomination (and likely becomes President). Biden is not beating her, and likely no one else is either. However "the field" could beat Biden (If HRC does not run). I think Biden would be a favorite over any individual, but I might take the field against him.

I agree that Hillary would be the frontrunner based on what we know today, but she's starting to look OLD, and she's already had some moderately serious health issues. Four years is a long time; leaving aside an ennervated GOP that appears to have misplaced its business plan, I'm starting to think Hillary and Biden are both at risk for being displaced by a younger, more dynamic dark horse.

I think this from BM and GF is basically right. People should check out Hillary's current polling numbers. She is comically, ridiculously popular. If the primary election were held today, she'd get like 80% of the vote. Currently, there is not a "Biden/Hillary/field" race, there isn't even a race. There's just Hillary.

But, going to GF's point, the Democratic Party has a long and proud history of refusing to nominate the front-runner, for good or for ill. (As opposed to the Republicans, who always nominate the next in line.) A primary campaign is a long-ass time, and Clinton is not even a lock to run for president.

If Hillary runs, I'd put her at something like 1-to-3 odds to win the nomination. Even given the Democratic Party's history, Hillary is currently crazy popular with both the activist base and the rank-and-file primary voter types. She's going to be harder to knock off than any front-runner on the Dem side in my lifetime, and by a wide margin. (Hillary in 2008 had her foolish Iraq War support that opened up a space on her left for Obama, now with the war ending ad out of the news, and years of respected international service on her resume, that's not going to be an option for the underdog this time around.)

If Hillary doesn't run, then you probably get a race of Biden vs. Field, and this is the Democratic Party, so you bet heavily on Field.

Between its being Oscar season, the Ayn Rand reference, and the film buffs and Simpsons' fans on this site, it's probably worth posting Roger Eberts' review of one of the five nominees for Best Animated Short:

All five of the animated nominees are a joy to experience, even those that seem to have an unfair advantage. I'm specifically referring to "Maggie Simpson in 'The Longest Daycare,' " a perfectly enjoyable, non-verbal "Simpsons" spinoff that played before theatrical showings of last year's best picture Oscar winner, "The Artist."

Clocking in at 4:52, it offers at least a half-dozen sight gags per minute as perpetual toddler Maggie endures a challenging day at the Ayn Rand School for Tots. She's mistakenly placed with the diapered miscreants in the "Nothing Special" category, where she defends a grateful butterfly from the deviant wrath of Baby Gerald, a bad seed who makes Maggie's brother Bart seem like a model student by comparison.

It's great stuff, directed by "Simpsons" veteran David Silverman with above-average visual flair, with five writers (all "Simpsons" veterans) credited, presumably to share the Oscar love. But here's my beef: With a huge staff and two decades of "Simpsons" infrastructure behind it, isn't this really just a "Simpsons" episode cut down to bite-sized hilarity? Wouldn't the Oscars be better off nominating animators who don't have major studio backing?

I don't watch the Simpsons so I don't know if the short was only derivative, but it was a pleasure to watch.

I also think the GOP can stay exactly this crazy for another couple of decades, losing Presidential elections unless unemployment skyrockets, but dominating at the local and state levels. As long as we allow the sort of gerrymandering we allow, there's not enough incentive for Republicans to move towards sanity, if that's still possible. I don't think it is, but that's another matter.

I disagree for a couple reasons. I am not sure big money or the consultant class would be happy with this scenario, and they are two groups with big power in both parties, especially the GOP. So I think they would try things (even painful things) to get out of that rut.

Also your scenario means control over the judiciary/supreme court for the Dems for a generation. Would the GOP base sign up for perpetual minority/roadblock status while losing their pet rock of cultural issues (between the SC, President, and cultural trends there would be nothing to stop "creeping liberalism and moral decay"). I don't know how the GOP base reacts, but I suspect it might splinter and/or withdraw.

Additionally the demographic trends are going to continue. Even the younger envangelicals have (on average) more liberal views on many things than the elder group. And the wave of minorities is not going to stop and will impact the lower level races no matter how gerrymandered things get.

Finally change is natural. It always happens, and usually in very unexpected ways. If the bet is stay the same for years or change in unexpected ways, always take change. Of course I have no idea how the GOP will change (or the Dems for that matter), but I am pretty sure they will.

I think this from BM and GF is basically right. People should check out Hillary's current polling numbers. She is comically, ridiculously popular. If the primary election were held today, she'd get like 80% of the vote. Currently, there is not a "Biden/Hillary/field" race, there isn't even a race. There's just Hillary.

that's because of people like my dad who believe that barack obama is some kind of deviant radical who's driving the country apart, and that if only hillary would have been elected in 08, we'd have 0% unemployment, a $6 trillion budget surplus and the republican party would somehow be motivated by rational thought again.


hillary could be at 100% approval right now, but the moment that she is nominated as the democratic candidate for president, she becomes Huey P. Ledbetter-Marx in the eyes of the republican base, and her approval rating would be down to 60 at best.

"and her approval rating would be down to 60 at best."

Which would be plenty. In 1984 vs. Mondale, Reagan won 59% of the popular vote.

@306:

...can...

was key, there.

Your post makes abundant sense IF (it's too bad we can't change type sizes) you're talking about a group of people with the capacity for rational behavior, of seeking effect and rearranging cause, but you're not. There's a level of cohesiveness necessary to making the kind of coherent change you describe in order to aim at a sensible goal. That cohesive just isn't there. These are people, the most rational of whom demonstrably cannot add.

I wrote 'can' because I think it's not inevitable the party will continue to devolve into irreconcilable factions that are unable to put up the sort of convincing faux moderate the R's need to run in order to win a national election, but I do think it's likely. The current rift is enormous. It's similar in size to the rift that caused the Dems to win all of one Presidential election between the rise of Nixon's silent majority in 1968*** and Clinton being helped by a weak economy and Ross Perot. That was 24 years where the Dems only squeaked a Presidential victory because Nixon went mad.

The TPers have real political strength at the local and state levels. They aren't going anywhere any time soon, and you may have noticed they don't make deals. They may have to literally age out and even start to die off, the way the Democratic left did by the late 80s, for the Republican party to be able to remake itself again into a party capable of winning Presidential elections.

The more I think about it the more apt the analogy is to the Dems wandering in the wilderness. A quarter century out of Presidential power is not impossible. Only Nixon saved the Democrats from that.

***Nixon first used 'silent majority' in a speech in November, 1969, but he didn't invent the term.

That may be true, but I ain't that much older than Chelsea Clinton, which was the real shock.

As an Arkansan, I remember when she was born. I was a college senior. Talk about feeling old.

I don't like it when they sentimentalize Maggie. I like Maggie going after Homer with the nail gun. Maggie needs Homer to play off of to be effective. One of the episodes for the ages is where she says her first word. But, yeah, that short film, creatively, was better than most short films. It wasn't very Simpsony, though. The original Ayn Rand Daycare for Tots episodes with its parody allusions to The Great Escape and The Birds was way better, even if the production values have advanced since then.

hillary could be at 100% approval right now, but the moment that she is nominated as the democratic candidate for president, she becomes Huey P. Ledbetter-Marx in the eyes of the republican base, and her approval rating would be down to 60 at best.

Not to mention that all that Clintonian baggage will once again come to the fore. I believe someone has paid Lewinsky $12 million for her "memoirs"--when do you think that will be coming out? There are some things the Republicans will not give up on, no matter how often they get the short end of the custard pie.

Predictions are hard...especially about the future, but much as I am perplexed to see how the Republican Party will moderate, I still would bet on it happening. Losing the presidency is a big deal to some important groups in any party--activists who focus on the Supreme Court, the professional politico consultant class, the cohort of wannabe Cabinet officers who write op/eds for think tanks, to name just three. Now you have in those groups two with power but no people and one with people but no power. Once activists decide losing the Supreme Court is intolerable, smart people can make deals awfully quickly. An activist base that is dedicated to losing over a long, long term is unusual.

Parties don't tend to nominate under-competitive candidates for more than 2 cycles. The Democrats responded to McGovern by going to the center hard with anti-labor Carter in four years. The Republicans responded to Clinton by making GW Bush. Historically you'd bet on the Republicans nominating someone tending moderate in 2016 because it is rare to go symbolic after two consecutive defeats. If they lose in 2016, the pressure to nominate someone who can win in 2020 will be overwhelming.

The caveat and the reason the doubters could be right is that there are a few times when that didn't happen, especially the Democrats in their long national eclipse after the Civil War. A party with a totally solid regional base can sometimes sink into permanent second place status, but even then the comparison is tricky. The Democrats nudged to the center in 1864 (with the candidate not the platform), kind of punted in 68, nominated a Republican in 72, and then won the popular vote in 76. 80 they nominated a war hero and lost the popular vote by 10,000 votes (bigger in EC.) 84, 88, 92 they win the popular vote each time (though lose the EC in 88). The economy breaks up under them and they make a new Bryan coalition that is too weak to win the White House and so get beaten in 96, 1900, 1904, 1908. Luck into things in three-way 1912, carry over into 1916, then lose the first two of the 20s.

Then the Republican eclipse is really just FDR. They blow winnable, close elections in 48 and 60 and win in 52 and 56.

So there's precedent for a party losing a bunch of elections in a row but 1) generally the losing party has tried running to the center and 2) lost some very close elections. There isn't precedent for a party getting its ass kicked a bunch of elections in a row without doing something about it.

then won the popular vote in 76. 80 they nominated a war hero and lost the popular vote by 10,000 votes (bigger in EC.) 84, 88, 92 they win the popular vote each time (though lose the EC in 88).

Those popular vote victories/close calls depended on voter suppression of an extent which wouldn't be tolerated today. I'm not sure how that plays out, but I suspect that the series of close races kept the Dems from changing their policies. If today's Rs, who occupy the same role, can't suppress the vote or cheat the system (gerrymander, change the EC votes, etc.), they'll be forced to compromise in ways the old Dems weren't. I think that'll be true even though the Bourbon South would otherwise be willing to stay in the wilderness forever.

Greg, the thing about what you're saying is that the Republicans did nominate moderates each of the last two cycles. It was a "maverick" who made his name going against the party, and a formerly pro-choice/gay rights technocrat who pioneered statewide health care. I mean, you can argue that basically no one in the party is moderate, but the Republicans can, and have, Overton windowed that #### and changed what "moderate" means. These were moderates by the standards of the current voting public, and they were "electable" -- that isn't why they lost. So, the Republicans can't become more moderate by changing their Presidential nominees... that isn't the issue here.

I believe someone has paid Lewinsky $12 million for her "memoirs"--when do you think that will be coming out?

Oh, jeez... I think the opposition trying to make hay out of Lewinsky would help Bill Clinton if he could run again, never mind the wronged woman in the situation.

It's of course accurate that Hillary will lose non-committed-Democrat support once she becomes a Democratic candidate. And I'm sure the opposition will try to revisit 20th century dirt, just like they keep trying to push certain narratives about Obama that have never gotten any traction. But overall, I certainly think Hillary's affiliation with Bill and his presidency is far more a plus than a minus.

#313 As I've said before, the current Republican scene is lacking a Buckley. Somebody who is an unimpeachable conservative, widely respected in the party and willing to take on the crazy. Buckley largely drove the Birchers from the Republican scene.

David Frum sort of volunteered for the job, but was easily shouted down.

The TPers have real political strength at the local and state levels. They aren't going anywhere any time soon, and you may have noticed they don't make deals. They may have to literally age out and even start to die off, the way the Democratic left did by the late 80s, for the Republican party to be able to remake itself again into a party capable of winning Presidential elections.

Unless, of course, the current GOP strategy of paralyzing the economy via austerity measures pays off, and the voters somehow can't figure out how to put 2 and 2 together and hold them accountable for it. But so far it's only the hard core GOP voters who are blaming Obama for the sequestration deadlock, and we'll see what happens when the red state voters start to get laid off as a result.

Greg, the thing about what you're saying is that the Republicans did nominate moderates each of the last two cycles. It was a "maverick" who made his name going against the party,

Right, up until the point where the hard core social conservatives in the primaries more or less said it was their way or the highway, and both McCain and Romney capitulated. Take the Tea Party mentality out of the primaries and sure, McCain and Romney might well have stopped catering to the loons. The McCain of 2008 was a far cry from the "maverick" of 2000, and Mr. 47% spent most of his campaign running away from that other guy who was once allegedly the Governor of Massachusetts. Calling those two "moderates" during their general election campaigns is kind of like calling the 2012 A-Rod a Triple Crown threat.

Unfortunately, I feel pretty sure it's an exceedingly clever Jerry Lawler/Andy Kaufman gag -- but on the off chance it isn't, I have to say that I'm finding this 'feud' between Glenn Beck and the WWE to be entertaining.

I will be somewhat crushed if/when it turns out that Beck was in on things from the start - I hate it when people I take to be total wastes of flesh actually demonstrate a hint of the sly and wry.... Still - maybe I can look forward to Triple H (or whomever) kicking Beck's ass on Letterman at some point in the future.

David Frum sort of volunteered for the job, but was easily shouted down.

Frum ran quite a few folks off, first. Then when he tried to get the remaining folks to act like adults was himself booted from the room. Bad for the country but fun to watch.

Those popular vote victories/close calls depended on voter suppression of an extent which wouldn't be tolerated today. I'm not sure how that plays out, but I suspect that the series of close races kept the Dems from changing their policies. If today's Rs, who occupy the same role, can't suppress the vote or cheat the system (gerrymander, change the EC votes, etc.), they'll be forced to compromise in ways the old Dems weren't. I think that'll be true even though the Bourbon South would otherwise be willing to stay in the wilderness forever.

Absolutely on both counts. They would not have been quite as close if the disfranchisement didn't work (though the gap may also not be quite as big as we think, since intimidation worked to reduce black voting enough to save Democratic statewide and national candidates not eliminate black altogether, so Republicans won 48% in NC, 39% in Arkansas, 44% in TN, not so far off what you'd expect, the big gap was the very deep South, Georgia, MS, SC, ALA.)

Even with that Southern tinge, the party nominated exclusively northerners (and mostly New Yorkers with some Indianans) and, when they could find them, Union war heroes, so it wasn't like they were nominating Vardaman or even Wade Hampton. It's a party with an extreme base trying to win without shattering its base.

Greg, the thing about what you're saying is that the Republicans did nominate moderates each of the last two cycles. It was a "maverick" who made his name going against the party, and a formerly pro-choice/gay rights technocrat who pioneered statewide health care. I mean, you can argue that basically no one in the party is moderate, but the Republicans can, and have, Overton windowed that #### and changed what "moderate" means. These were moderates by the standards of the current voting public, and they were "electable" -- that isn't why they lost. So, the Republicans can't become more moderate by changing their Presidential nominees... that isn't the issue here.

That is also a good point. There's a separate question about the genuflection they required from Romney. If he hadn't had to act so riled up, he might have played the moderate more consistently, as he tried in the first debate. The party protected GWB from that in 2000, and could theoretically protect and support a candidate who wouldn't swing for the fences in the primaries. I agree that it isn't a magic bullet to have the perfect candidate. I also do think an organized party can help preserve a candidate in the way the party simply did not in 2012. GHWB looked better for having beaten back Robertson and Buchanan, not worse. It's hard to see how that happens now, I agree, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did happen.

Step one: skip Iowa. Write it off and make it seem like a sideshow for the losers.
Step two: whip the SC organization into line. That's the one state with a big gap between the organization and the base. The organization saved Bush in 2000 and McCain in 2008 but could not save Romney in 2012.

Major flaw in theory: if Arizona really moves itself way up, that will presumably be a major, major boost to a Tea Party-style candidate, and force an establishment candidate to keep fighting much longer.

Unless, of course, the current GOP strategy of paralyzing the economy via austerity measures pays off

I think Andy is on to something here. The wildcard is if things crater (economy or other "important things") then authoritarian populisim* can become real popular real fast and I can easily see the GOP sliding over into that territory and succeeding nationally (whether they deserve to or not is a different matter, because deserve has got nothing to do with it).

* I am using this term because it is somewhat descriptive of a wide variety of governmental movements from all over the spectrum from fascisim, to communism to FDR new dealism could all from some standpoints fit under this umbrella. Perhaps Charismatic Populism or Cult of Personality could also fit the populist waves that often come after/during dire economic times. And no I am not suggesting the GOP are communists or fascists.

Unfortunately, I feel pretty sure it's an exceedingly clever Jerry Lawler/Andy Kaufman gag -- but on the off chance it isn't, I have to say that I'm finding this 'feud' between Glenn Beck and the WWE to be entertaining.

I will be somewhat crushed if/when it turns out that Beck was in on things from the start - I hate it when people I take to be total wastes of flesh actually demonstrate a hint of the sly and wry.... Still - maybe I can look forward to Triple H (or whomever) kicking Beck's ass on Letterman at some point in the future.

how incredible is that?

If the Tea Party fades--big if!--I think the WWE making it into a figure of derision by having a heel character come out with his Tea Party sponsor to boos from the crowd while the announcers call them "scary men" will be some kind of weird indicator. A long way from the Iron Sheik! link

If the Tea Party fades--big if!--I think the WWE making it into a figure of derision by having a heel character come out with his Tea Party sponsor to boos from the crowd while the announcers call them "scary men" will be some kind of weird indicator. A long way from the Iron Sheik! link

Or Adorable Adrian Adonis for that matter...

Still, the WWE marketing folks aren't stupid -- perhaps even better than the politicos, I have to think they have a pretty good sense of where the heels and faces should be positioned relative to the audience.

Still, the WWE marketing folks aren't stupid -- perhaps even better than the politicos, I have to think they have a pretty good sense of where the heels and faces should be positioned relative to the audience.

Totally. They take chances and kill things that fail, so we'll see how well based this is. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had a clearer sense of the Tea Party's current status among their fans than anyone else.

Step one: skip Iowa. Write it off and make it seem like a sideshow for the losers.

The Giuliani strategy?

Still, the WWE marketing folks aren't stupid -- perhaps even better than the politicos, I have to think they have a pretty good sense of where the heels and faces should be positioned relative to the audience.

Maybe Linda McMahon should have hired them as political consultants.

I don't watch 'rasslin anymore but anything that gives Dirty Dutch Mantell a steady paycheck in 2013 is OK in my book.

Long, but interesting article.

The Giuliani strategy?

Ha! Touche

But it has worked in the past and could work again. But you do have to be able to win New Hampshire if you skip Iowa.

Step one: skip Iowa. Write it off and make it seem like a sideshow for the losers.



The Giuliani strategy?

Technically, the Guiliani strategy wasn't just skipping Iowa... It was skip Iowa, blow off New Hampshire, abide by the national party ban on Michigan, ignore South Carolina, pretend Nevada doesn't exist, and focus on Florida.

Technically, the Guiliani strategy wasn't just skipping Iowa... It was skip Iowa, blow off New Hampshire, abide by the national party ban on Michigan, ignore South Carolina, pretend Nevada doesn't exist, and focus on Florida.

To be fair I betb if he had had a chance in any of those states he would have tried. The idiots were those who thought he had a chance at all (which might include Rudy actually). But yeah if you skip Iowa you better do really well in NH.

And wow do I hate the duopoly those two states have. Really annoying.

Knowing Giuliani's mindset would be fascinating, no?

From the outside, his campaign looks like a perfect way to funnel $60 million to your favorite consulting companies. So it's tempting to think that he simply raised his profile and funneled money from donors to consultants knowing he couldn't win.

But...he ended up having to pay 200k in campaign debt from personal funds, saw his speaking fees drop when he cratered, and came out of it worse.

So it does seem more likely that he was duped by some combination of his ego and the consultant leeches who fastened on to him. If so, the agony for him must have been extreme when the scales dropped.

So it does seem more likely that he was duped by some combination of his ego and the consultant leeches who fastened on to him. If so, the agony for him must have been extreme when the scales dropped.

Agreed. Every politician is an egotist, of course, but Giuliani took it to a whole 'nother level.

You are old.

Indeed. If one is thinking of Chelsea as a little girl, keep in mind that it was 24 years before 2016 that she first entered the White House.

It's great stuff, directed by "Simpsons" veteran David Silverman with above-average visual flair, with five writers (all "Simpsons" veterans) credited, presumably to share the Oscar love. But here's my beef: With a huge staff and two decades of "Simpsons" infrastructure behind it, isn't this really just a "Simpsons" episode cut down to bite-sized hilarity? Wouldn't the Oscars be better off nominating animators who don't have major studio backing?

I thought the award was for "Best Animated Short," not "Best Animated Short By a Poor Person."

You read it here first - but the 2016 Dem darkhorse will be Brian Schweitzer and I think he's got the chops not to fall apart.

I've mentioned it here before, but a politico friend of mine told me the same thing in 2010 or so.

David Frum sort of volunteered for the job, but was easily shouted down.

David Frum was part of the administration/wing of the party that ran the Republican brand into the ground, and then tried to point the fingers at the people who opposed that wing. Not surprisingly, he was laughed out of the room.

Indeed. If one is thinking of Chelsea as a little girl, keep in mind that it was 24 years before 2016 that she first entered the White House.

I'm just going to be laying here in the corner with a bottle of wine for the rest of the day.

I'm just going to be laying here in the corner with a bottle of wine for the rest of the day.

The whole day, and just one bottle? God your old. 20 years ago, that wouldn't have lasted more than 2 hours.

I certainly don't think Giuliani's 2008 cause was hopeless. It was a wide open field, and I'd think he had the most name recognition of anyone in it, which is a good start. I dunno how popular he was going in -- certainly a lot of the post-9/11 popularity had worn off -- but I bet at least more so before he started than it was after he finished ;-)

And I do think it's possible to win the nomination without winning IA or NH. If anything, I bet that's more true now than ever, as media saturation seems to have exaggerated momentum swings (didn't like a dozen different people lead the Republican popularity polls at one point or another during the process?) But, as mentioned, somewhat weird circumstances (Michigan shenanigans, and Romney having unusual strength in Massachusetts-neighboring NH and Mormon-heavy NV) left no place for Rudy to make inroads. It's probably more important that he turned out to be a bad national candidate. On a superficial level, he didn't seem all that polished or prepared. And on a policy level, what was he offering, other than social stances that the primary voters didn't like? An even more aggressive foreign policy than the other guys already had? I don't think there proved to be much reason to point to him in a very large field and say "that's my guy."

Anyways, you can change procedures such as how you do the primaries -- it's certainly not like they make logical sense the way they currently are -- but 1) as I said, the Republicans have been nominating "electable moderates" anyway, and 2) procedural changes aren't going to quell the underlying issues. It's certainly true that the party dragging the electable moderate to the right does undo a lot of the point of nominating an electable moderate. The whole thing is like trying to get a fire truck somewhere where the guy driving the front and the guy driving the back want to go in totally different directions. I have no idea how it turns out. As mentioned, it's probably easier for them at this point to profit off discontent with Democrats than it would be to get their own house in order.

#337 I think that's a valid line of attack on Frum, (though it's worth noting that he left the administration fairly early on) but I don't recall it being used on him, The basis of most of the counter-attacks that I can recall basically centered on his lack of standing in the party.

His being Canadian didn't help.

I think Republicans have plenty of candidates for smart and somewhat open-minded conservative thinkers; Frum is just one among quite a few. What they haven't yet shown is that they have an audience for those thinkers. Without that, then Reihan Salam or Ross Douthat or whomever you choose is just talking to the wind. You can't be Bill Buckley by writing like Bill Buckley; you have to have the sense that your stances matter. And it's not clear that any of those people matter.

Knowing Giuliani's mindset would be fascinating, no?

I doubt it. Every other word is 9/11.

The whole day, and just one bottle? God your old. 20 years ago, that wouldn't have lasted more than 2 hours.

He's probably planning to use a glass, too.

Was it Frum's kid who had a hilariously awful baseball article on FrumForum that we ripped apart?

#344 Yep.

Not to mention that all that Clintonian baggage will once again come to the fore. I believe someone has paid Lewinsky $12 million for her "memoirs"--when do you think that will be coming out? There are some things the Republicans will not give up on, no matter how often they get the short end of the custard pie.

Two problems with this. First is, the Clintonian baggage won't matter. That HRC put up with Bill's philandering and kept her marriage together will reflect well on her, not poorly. It's also sufficiently exhausted that the MSM won't be pressing her on any of it. The story will be, 'those wingnuts won't leave her alone'. The second is 'Well, what of it'? If the Dems ran a George Washington clone the Republicans would attempt to paint him as the second coming of Satan. You assume it'll be all smears, all the time, so what matters isn't what they say (since they'll be saying it regardless), but what they can prove.

Speaking of the last OTP thread, the Chinese have become real players in the supercomputer game, with their Tianhe-2 aiming to reach 100 petaflops by 2015. Iirc industry folks estimate we'll reach 1 exaflop (10 to the 18th, or one quintillion FLOPS by 2018. Predictions aren't facts, but that belief makes me wonder if Moore's law (transistor count doubles every 2 years, though transistor count doesn't always directly correlate with speed) is becoming obsolete.

It sounds like we have a lot of people in the computer biz posting on this site. Are any of you primarily hardware guys?

edit: maybe not, wrt Moore, and speaking of the cell discussion, and the computation necessary to simulate one:

"IDF: Intel says Moore's Law holds until 2029

Pat Gelsinger, head of the Digital Enterprise Division at Intel, says that Moore's Law will continue to apply for the next few years. In his keynote address at the Intel Developer Forum in Shanghai, he said that the performance of supercomputers would be measured in zettaflops (10 to the 21st power floating-point operations) per second by around 2029. With that power, he said it would be possible to make weather forecasts that would be sufficiently accurate for 14 days. He expects by 2017 it will be possible to create a complete genetic simulation of a cell, which would require an exaflop (10 to the 18th power floating-point operations) per second."

http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/IDF-Intel-says-Moore-s-Law-holds-until-2029-734779.html

I don't have any serious reservations about seeing where all this takes us. We're not much of a species, so any possibility of radical improvement seems worth pursuing, and any course likely to lessen the influence of religion is valuable on that basis alone.

With that power, he said it would be possible to make weather forecasts that would be sufficiently accurate for 14 days

I always thought the limits to forecasting were caused by the difficulties in gathering sufficiently precise/accurate data and the chaotic nature (small variances in inputs create large variances in outputs) of fluid dynamics.

@348: someone else will know more, but computationally based weather forecasting began with large, interacting grids that increasing computing power allowed us to break down into smaller and smaller pieces. You need extreme granularity to account for all the possible interactions of ever smaller pieces and thereby extend your predictions in time. I'm assuming that's one of the things that the increased computing power lets you do (in real time, obviously).

The sufficiently precise data you mention is available once we have enough computational power and speed to process that data, which also lets us better calculate the behavior of apparently chaotic systems.

I certainly don't think Giuliani's 2008 cause was hopeless. It was a wide open field, and I'd think he had the most name recognition of anyone in it, which is a good start. I dunno how popular he was going in -- certainly a lot of the post-9/11 popularity had worn off -- but I bet at least more so before he started than it was after he finished ;-)

No, Giuliani's 2008 cause was indeed hopeless. He's pro-choice. He's quite moderate on a number of issues that were always going to be deal-breakers with the Republican primary electorate. Giuliani's vote totals reflect well the popularity of his concatenation of views on the right (socially moderate, fiscally squishy, internationally bugnuts crazy war-mongering). Noun-verb-9/11 is not a platform with meaningful support on the right.