Something I found on the internets - who knows if its true. But if so, kinda cool:

'In the sticks' is just a reference to an area where there are lots of twigs, i.e. the countryside. It was first an American expression but is now used throughout the English-speaking world. The earliest citation of it that I have found is from the US newspaper the Florence Times Daily, November 1897:

... he gathered from 1 1/2 acres this year 21 barrels of corn. If any man "away in the sticks" can beat this, in the language of "Philander Doesticks," we exclaim, "let him stand forward to de rear."

For a time, the phrase became specifically associated with baseball. 'The sticks' were exhibition games, played in county locations, which baseball players organised to supplement their income outside the main season. It was not allowed by the rules of the US Baseball Commission, but the rules weren't often strictly applied.

I don't think Sandy will "decide" the election by any stretch - but movement over the past week has been towards Obama, both at the state and national level (except for the always reliable Scotty R!), so I do think it helps, not hurts, Obama . . .

I have serious doubts that this sort of routine, non-political action affects voters, but if it did, any positive has probably been wiped out by Leno's now oft-repeated line that "Hurricane Sandy has already created more jobs than Obama". Ouch, that one left a mark.

As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission - Mitt Romney, 1 Nov 2012

Not unexpected of course, and weasel worded enough to where it can mean anything, but Mitt is certainly living up to his public stereotype.

Can I go on record as saying I think "sandy" is a terrible name for a hurricane.

now oft-repeated

First I've heard of it. I probably don't listen to the folks who are "oft-repeating" it though. And Christie's lines have gotten quite a bit more repetition.

My mother's name is Sandy, so my family has been having some fun with this, at least.

I have serious doubts that this sort of routine, non-political action affects voters, but if it did, any positive has probably been wiped out by Leno's now oft-repeated line that "Hurricane Sandy has already created more jobs than Obama". Ouch, that one left a mark.

Jay Leno has been a one-man wrecking crew in recent weeks. He's been just as tough re: Benghazi.

There's the potential for a giant ###########. Though I have a real tough time believing a Paulite would actually take an action that would result in Obama getting the presidency via a plurality.

Couldn't happen that way. If no one gets an Electoral College majority the House of Representatives makes the decision, as noted earlier in the thread. However, the top three candidates are included in the vote (which would put Paul into the discussion in the HoR) and it's theoretically possible that if enough of the Tea Party Republicans decided to vote for Paul instead of Romney that some of the closely-divided states could swing out of Romney's column.

-- MWE

My mother's name is Sandy, so my family has been having some fun with this, at least.

When I hear "Sandy", I immediately think Olivia Newton-John in Grease. And I somehow can't relate her to a superstorm.

-- MWE

Bloomberg endorses Obama.

Jay Leno has been a one-man wrecking crew in recent weeks.

He's still relevant?
I thought the whole "leave the Tonight Show, fail at 10pm, beg for job back, screw Conan over" thing left him emasculated by popular culture standards.

From wikipedia:

"On July 1, 2010, Variety reported that only six months into its second life, Jay Leno's Tonight Show posted its lowest ratings since 1992.[22] By September 2010, Leno's ratings had fallen below those of Conan O'Brien when he had hosted The Tonight Show."

When I hear "Sandy", I immediately think Olivia Newton-John in Grease.

Same here.

Or one of the Alomars...

Bloomberg endorses Obama.

... on the basis of climate change, five days from an election. That's "leadership," Nanny Bloomberg-style.

***

He's still relevant?
I thought the whole "leave the Tonight Show, fail at 10pm, beg for job back, screw Conan over" thing left him emasculated by popular culture standards.

I'm guessing a lot more Americans know who Jay Leno is than Chris Christie, but I could be wrong about that.

Jay Leno has been a one-man wrecking crew in recent weeks.

Given Obama's steady rise in both the RCP average and 538 model since October 14, the question is for whom?

on the basis of climate change

And also marriage equality and reproductive choice. Remind me, which candidate is the nanny on those issues?

I feel badly for people who got hurt by the real estate implosion, but this article is a prime example of liberal media bias. The family in that article presumably stopped paying their mortgage — on a home that was worth less than the mortgage balance — for six months or a year, which culminated in the home being foreclosed. Thereupon, they filed a lawsuit which allowed them to remain in the home for another 30 months without paying anything, for a total of 36 to 42 months of mortgage- and rent-free living. But now, the San Francisco Chronicle apparently wants us to be outraged because the family received only $13,000 after suing over some procedural error.

You feel sorry for them, but you have no sympathy for someone following the rules in place for them to get relief? That sounds as phony as your "I support teachers...let's fire them all and offer them their jobs back at a 50% pay cut."

The procedure for someone in an untenable mortgage situation (ie, someone you supposedly feel sorry for), is that they stop paying their mortgage. Otherwise, they are not deemed to be "in need", and thus not eligible for relief. Yes, that entails a risk of foreclosure, but when a bank says, "OK, we are going to restructure your debt." and while in that process, initiates foreclosure proceedings, that's some pretty bad faith. In that situation, it is OK to feel sorry for the deadbeats.

Given Obama's steady rise in both the RCP average and 538 model since October 14, the question is for whom?

Obama has gained 0.0 points at RCP since Oct. 14.

... on the basis of climate change, five days from an election. That's "leadership," Nanny Bloomberg-style.

What's the problem here? There is a time limit on when you should endorse? You don't get to endorse someone based on an issue like Climate Change? And what does leadership have to do with endorsing - do only true leaders endorsements matter?

Well, the 15th through the 19th was rerun week and the Tonight Show got a .7 rating. I believe ratings for last week come out today but I believe new shows get about 2.7 rating.

And also marriage equality and reproductive choice. Remind me, which candidate is the nanny on those issues?

Ah, yes. Bloomberg believes 13-year-olds should have access to the morning-after pill without parental notification or consent, but he doesn't believe a 40-year-old should be allowed to buy a large soda. World-class leadership.

I'm guessing a lot more Americans know who Jay Leno is than Chris Christie, but I could be wrong about that.

Does not mean they watch him. The only folks I know that do are in the 60+ age bracket who watch the Tonight Show regardless of who hosts it. Not sure that is the group of undecided's that either side is trying to get.

Yes, that entails a risk of foreclosure, but when a bank says, "OK, we are going to restructure your debt." and while in that process, initiates foreclosure proceedings, that's some pretty bad faith. In that situation, it is OK to feel sorry for the deadbeats

It's a screwup not really bad faith and the jury did't think the fraud was intentional which it probably wasn't. The homeowners by not paying their mortgage and living in their house rent free for years probably saved around 100,000 dollars in mortgage payments. $13,000 plus those savings doesn't really make me feel sorry for them. If they couldn't afford the house they shouldn't have bought it.

And also marriage equality and reproductive choice. Remind me, which candidate is the nanny on those issues?

Jesus. Well, his proxies.

There have been reports of three electors at least thinking of voting Paul instead of Romney. One of them has actually asked to be replaced -- couldn't vote for Romney.

There's the potential for a giant ###########. Though I have a real tough time believing a Paulite would actually take an action that would result in Obama getting the presidency via a plurality.

I could see certain flavors of Paulites that might be willing to do this - not all Paulites are created equal - some of them might be the survivalists/Randian types, but I know other Paulites that are wholly 'fortress America/get rid of the military/I hate foreign adventurism' types... In other words - they don't necessarily agree with his safety net/etc stances, but they so hate anything approaching neoconism that it overrides any and all other concerns.

What's more - those types are also the sort who -- frankly, say exactly what I've been saying... So long as people like Dan Senor are heading up Mitt's foreign policy team, he can pretend to be "just like Obama" all he wants at a debate - the truth is that his advisers would drive the show because those are the sort of people that will be influencing him.

Those types of Paulites aren't fans of Obama either (though, the ones I know will admit he's a wee bit better... they just say that both are so far from their ideal, the distinction doesn't matter). So, yeah -- I could see one of those types deciding to make a point, even if that point ended up leading to an Obama term 2.

The question is whether it's one of those particular types of Paulites that got an EC vote.

Can I go on record as saying I think "sandy" is a terrible name for a hurricane.

My first GF was Sandy, but I'd now rather think of her by her real name, Cassandra.

---------------------------------

Obama has gained 0.0 points at RCP since Oct. 14.

Not according to the RCP Archives page for Oct. 14, which shows Romney with a 1.3 point lead at that point.

Something like 1.2 million people between the ages of 18-49 watch Leno and it comprises about 40% of his audience.

I'm guessing a lot more Americans know who Jay Leno is than Chris Christie, but I could be wrong about that.

I'm confused. Are we really arguing that anything Jay Leno says is swaying the election, and for Romney? Also, pretty sure he's a lifelong Democrat. I know he's married to one of those Hollywood liberal types.

... on the basis of climate change, five days from an election. That's "leadership," Nanny Bloomberg-style.

The Des Moines Register waited until October 27th to endorse Romney. I did not see any complaints about that type of leadership.

Heh...

Jay Leno...

Jay Leno is going to swing the election...

Heh-heh...

It's been a crappy day at work, so I just want to say thanks to the Clap and Joe for giving me a smile. Much obliged!

Jimmy Kimmel and Jay Leno. Kimmel is obviously a professional jerkass, but It's not clear to me that Leno is even a human being. He reacts like some sort of automaton.

I'm guessing a lot more Americans know who Jay Leno is than Chris Christie, but I could be wrong about that.

I'm guessing a lot more Americans have seen Christie on TV in the last 72 hours than Leno, and probably credit him with knowing a bit more about Sandy and the government relief efforts than Jay.

Not to worry - Rush is making sure more folks know about the Governor - "He's fat and a fool. Don't listen to Governor Christie. He doesn't know what he's talking about…"

Not according to the RCP Archives page for Oct. 14, which shows Romney with a 1.3 point lead at that point.

Let me guess who the guy is who is bad at math.

The Des Moines Register waited until October 27th to endorse Romney. I did not see any complaints about that type of leadership.

I'm guessing the same person doing the complaining about Bloomberg is also the same person who is bad at reading numbers. Am I right?

You feel sorry for them, but you have no sympathy for someone following the rules in place for them to get relief? That sounds as phony as your "I support teachers...let's fire them all and offer them their jobs back at a 50% pay cut."

The procedure for someone in an untenable mortgage situation (ie, someone you supposedly feel sorry for), is that they stop paying their mortgage. Otherwise, they are not deemed to be "in need", and thus not eligible for relief. Yes, that entails a risk of foreclosure, but when a bank says, "OK, we are going to restructure your debt." and while in that process, initiates foreclosure proceedings, that's some pretty bad faith. In that situation, it is OK to feel sorry for the deadbeats.

People have no right to a mortgage modification. In this particular case, the people lived mortgage- and rent-free for a minimum of 36 to 42 months *and* received a check for $13,000 afterward, despite owing more than the house was worth. How much more do you propose they should have received?

Bloomberg believes 13-year-olds should have access to the morning-after pill without parental notification or consent, but he doesn't believe a 40-year-old should be allowed to buy a large soda.

So he's against both teen pregnancy AND obesity? Well, I never!

Something like 1.2 million people between the ages of 18-49 watch Leno and it comprises about 40% of his audience.

I am surprised it is the large a percentage of his audience. Thanks.

If only Colin Powell and Mike Bloomberg had the leadership skills of Donald Trump.

I don't think Sandy will "decide" the election by any stretch - but movement over the past week has been towards Obama, both at the state and national level (except for the always reliable Scotty R!), so I do think it helps, not hurts, Obama . . .

I have serious doubts that this sort of routine, non-political action affects voters, but if it did, any positive has probably been wiped out by Leno's now oft-repeated line that "Hurricane Sandy has already created more jobs than Obama". Ouch, that one left a mark.

Apparently the liberal media is suppressing this "Leno" figure quite well -- I too have not heard this oft-repeated remark.

I think the hurricane doesn't directly help Obama or hurt Romney as much as it simply overshadows the race and prevents much movement. In a close race where the incumbent is probably the slight favorite, that's going to benefit the incumbent and hurt the challenger. (Of course, if your view is that it's a close race and the challenger is the slight favorite, it may hurt the incumbent, although I think incumbents may be generally benefitted by nonpolitical distractions.)

Kimmel is obviously a professional jerkass, but It's not clear to me that Leno is even a human being. He reacts like some sort of automaton.

Leno was on Marc Maron's WTF podcast a couple of months ago and came across, well, as human. He had tons of cool stories about his early days. He used to open for Jazz greats and Blues guys. He paid his dues, I guess. Interesting life.

Not according to the RCP Archives page for Oct. 14, which shows Romney with a 1.3 point lead at that point.

Let me guess who the guy is who is bad at math.

Dunno about that, but I sure know the guy who's not afraid to go to that RCP link for October 14 in order to back himself up.

Joe's curious adventures into math kind of reminds me of the days when we used to hear about "white man's arithmetic" from some of the more risible black nationalist types.

Not according to the RCP Archives page for Oct. 14, which shows Romney with a 1.3 point lead at that point.

I looked at the wrong date. The graph has Obama gaining 1.0 point since Oct. 14. That's better than 0 points, but it's hardly a sign of major momentum, as Spike seemed to be claiming.

***

I'm confused. Are we really arguing that anything Jay Leno says is swaying the election, and for Romney? Also, pretty sure he's a lifelong Democrat. I know he's married to one of those Hollywood liberal types.

No one said anything about "swaying the election."

No one said anything about "swaying the election."

So let's stop talking about Jay Leno. You've brought up enough bad comedy the last two days. I'm still trying to regain the ability to laugh after your link to that guy redistributing Halloween candy.

People have no right to a mortgage modification. In this particular case, the people lived mortgage- and rent-free for a minimum of 36 to 42 months *and* received a check for $13,000 afterward. How much more do you propose they should have received?

Enough to cover their legal bills? Look, the big culprit here is the stupid requirement that you must stop paying your mortgage in order to be eligible for relief. I was recently able to re-fi because the market turned around and I now had the 80% LTV necessary. I didn't get relief on the balance or interest rate, but was able to lock in the debt from a previous variable rate. I had been saying to the bank for years that "Look, I have no problem paying this now, and even if rates got up a little. But if they go up a lot, I won't be able to. You hold the debt here. I'm not asking you to take on more, just lock in what I have, otherwise, instead of payments, you'll be getting another house." The response was always "Nope, since you are making your payments, we're not going to discuss it." That's just crazy. They could have had a nice 5-6% loan right now ( if they had done this a couple of years ago), but instead, they got their money and I have a nice 3.5% loan with somebody else.

Dunno about that, but I sure know the guy who's not afraid to go to that RCP link for October 14 in order to back himself up.

RCP isn't a one-day average, so it's unclear why you keep referring to the Oct. 14 archives page as if it would tell us much of anything.

The graph of the RCP average plainly shows Romney at 47.4 and Obama at 46.4 on Oct. 14 and both of them at 47.4 today, for a net +1.0 gain for Obama since that date.

Enough to cover their legal bills?

They lived mortgage- and rent-free for 36 to 42 months, if not longer, in a house in San Francisco or San Mateo. That had to be worth a minimum of $100,000, which I'm quite sure covered their legal bills.

Look, the big culprit here is the stupid requirement that you must stop paying your mortgage in order to be eligible for relief. I was recently able to re-fi because the market turned around and I now had the 80% LTV necessary. I didn't get relief on the balance or interest rate, but was able to lock in the debt from a previous variable rate. I had been saying to the bank for years that "Look, I have no problem paying this now, and even if rates got up a little. But if they go up a lot, I won't be able to. You hold the debt here. I'm not asking you to take on more, just lock in what I have, otherwise, instead of payments, you'll be getting another house." The response was always "Nope, since you are making your payments, we're not going to discuss it." That's just crazy. They could have had a nice 5-6% loan right now ( if they had done this a couple of years ago), but instead, they got their money and I have a nice 3.5% loan with somebody else.

How is any of this the bank's problem? Like the people in the San Francisco Chronicle article, you signed a contract. The bank was free not to modify the loan, and you were free to refi elsewhere.

I looked at the wrong date. The graph has Obama gaining 1.0 point since Oct. 14. That's better than 0 points, but it's hardly a sign of major momentum, as Spike seemed to be claiming.

Apparently, you looked at the wrong spike, too -- because "steady rise" doesn't mean "major momentum" by any semantic understanding I'm aware of...

So I just read that former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has endorsed Bob Kerrey in Nebraska. A little surprised by that. Can't hurt Kerrey, but I am not sure how Hagel is viewed by voters or Republicans.

It's a screwup not really bad faith and the jury did't think the fraud was intentional which it probably wasn't. The homeowners by not paying their mortgage and living in their house rent free for years probably saved around 100,000 dollars in mortgage payments. $13,000 plus those savings doesn't really make me feel sorry for them. If they couldn't afford the house they shouldn't have bought it.

Are you kidding me? If that is the case, then there are a long list of lenders such as BofA, Wells Fargo, Country Wide etc committing the same screw up. My mother went through the same situation with her house because of the death of my father and was told the same thing by the bank that as long as she kept up the payments she would not be eligible for a adjustment. So she goes ahead with not paying, gets sent countless paperwork by the bank to fill out and when she did , she was sent more that asked the same f'ing questions. When she or I called the company they would not have any update but would instead ask for paperwork that they already had been sent 3 or 4 times. Finally she was able to go through with a short sale and got lucky that the lender approved it. Then right after she moved out, those same a-holes sent her notices asking her if she was aware that she qualified for a loan modification through HARP. So yes there are cases of people buying houses that they should not of purchased but there are also a lot of cases of people getting caught with bills they cant afford who have to use equity in their house and help up losing the house. But I guess the simple narrative makes for the easiest talking points. FYI my mom was only making Soc Sec benefits which is $1300 a month so I guess she should be happy with the $16,000 she saved by not paying the mortgage.

How is any of this the bank's problem? Like the people in the San Francisco Chronicle article, you signed a contract. They were free not to modify the loan, and you were free to refi elsewhere.

It's the bank's problem if they breached the contract -- even if by "technicality" -- to which they were also a party... though, technically -- I'd be willing to bet it's not the same bank that actually backed the original mortgage, but that still doesn't relieve them of the terms no matter how many bundlings downstream they were from the originator.

Are you kidding me? If that is the case, then there are a long list of lenders such as BofA, Wells Fargo, Country Wide etc committing the same screw up. My mother went through the same situation with her house because of the death of my father and was told the same thing by the bank that as long as she kept up the payments she would not be eligible for a adjustment. So she goes ahead with not paying, gets sent countless paperwork by the bank to fill out and when she did , she was sent more that asked the same f'ing questions. When she or I called the company they would not have any update but wound instead ask for paperwork that they already had been sent 3 or 4 times. Finally she was able to go through with a short sale and got lucky that the lender approved it. Then right after she moved out, those same a-holes sent her notices asking her if she was aware that she qualified for a loan modification through HARP. So yes there are cases of people buying houses that they should not of purchased but there are also a lot of cases of people getting caught with bills they cant afford who have to use equity in their house and help up losing the house. But I guess the simple narrative makes for the easiest talking points. FYI my mom was only making Soc Sec benefits which is $1300 a month so I guess she should be happy with the $16,000 she saved by not paying the mortgage.

The shuffling of MBS' here seems to be the real problem to me --

A friend of mine - not in any foreclosure trouble or anything - was just complaining about this last weekend... His loan - a prime loan originally with Chase - has been bundled and sold 3 times just this year. He's rather pissed about just dealing with the paperwork that will be required for this year's taxes.

It boggles my mind how it has come to pass that so much 'commerce' in our system amounts to nothing more than paper shuffling and bets against various rates and such.

Dunno about that, but I sure know the guy who's not afraid to go to that RCP link for October 14 in order to back himself up.

RCP isn't a one-day average, so it's unclear why you keep referring to the Oct. 14 archives page as if it would tell us much of anything.

The graph of the RCP average plainly shows Romney at 47.4 and Obama at 46.4 on Oct. 14 and both of them at 47.4 today, for a net +1.0 gain for Obama since that date.

Then where did you get that original "0.0 points" claim from?

But anyway, that RCP Archive page for October 14th says, "RCP Average: Romney +1.3" Today's RCP Average says (as of a minute ago) "Tie". But just in case you want to give it another look, here is is once again, all unskewed: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/10/14/

P.S. That same Archives page also shows both candidates in a "tie" at 47.4% each. I don't care what you want to call it, but if you're going to talk about numbers, at least get the numbers right.