Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 62 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4251578)
Does anyone here actually believe the 2012 electorate will be more Dem than in 2008, when both Dem enthusiasm and turnout among blacks were at record highs?

I would buy that there are fewer Dems, fewer Republicans, and more independents, with independents now skewing right. That I'd buy, and that's also what the numbers say. I think you're somewhat misrepresenting the reality by just saying "the 2012 electorate will be more Dem". That's an oversimplification, IMO.
   102. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4251580)
The reason it is a dog whistle is shown on this thread, it sounds so innocent, but in reality it is all about making like as horrible, as miserable as possible. Oddly enough this process of making life hell for illegals does collateral damage to their friends and families, many of whom are citizens.
Again, it doesn't just "sound" innocent; it is innocent. The alternative is rounding people up physically, holding them in captivity for a while, and then forcibly shipping them out. (At gunpoint!) That's a lot harsher and more punitive than convincing them to leave voluntarily, and a lot harder on all these citizens who allegedly hang out with illegal immigrants.
   103. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4251581)
I stated in my summary the exact (granting that it's ridiculous to be this exact given the uncertainty in these numbers, but whatever) number Obama was losing:

I agree that it's dumb to get into such specifics re: a single poll, but it seemed like a good example of the issue as a whole.

More than anything, I agree with Zach's comments in #47 and #75. This widespread assumption among pollsters that the 2012 electorate will be even more favorable to Obama than the 2008 electorate seems bizarre and unexplained.
   104. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4251586)
I never said that. I said "Those who are IDing as "Independent" are voting more Republican this cycle." Based only on looking at this dataset, I'd argue that the reasons for the shirt in independents towards Romney is:

1) More new independents previously identified Rep than Dem, and would vote as such
2) Romney has picked up some votes among those who were independent in both 08 and now

And, I'd put slightly more weight on 1) than 2). Again, just based on this data. I'll show you the numbers I used if you like. :-)

Well, if this is true, it pokes a hole in the claims by others here that independents tend to ID with the winner. If Obama's path to victory is to win a higher percentage of a smaller number of Dems, along with a smaller percentage of Republicans and a much smaller percentage of a bigger number of independents, then that seems like a rough road, both politically and mathematically.
   105. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4251587)
This widespread assumption among pollsters that the 2012 electorate will be even more favorable to Obama than the 2008 electorate seems bizarre and unexplained.

Again, this assumes that independents will be just as kind to him as they were in '08, which they won't. You're handwaving them away.
   106. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4251590)
If the Nats have 'taken over the town', I can't see it. They have been placing 2-for-1 coupons in the Post every day since mid-August. I own an ice cream store in Gaithersburg and don't see any curly W's around here anywhere, much less everywhere...

The Nationals are a much bigger presence in Virginia. IIRC, there was a survey a year or two ago that suggested that 65% of the Nationals attendance came from the Old Dominion, 15% from DC, and the rest from Maryland (mostly). The Orioles were more successful in getting Maryland residents to identify with them, since they were in the same state, at least, even if not that close. A lot of people from the DC area went to Orioles games when DC didn't have a team, but many were transients rooting for the visitors, and most others didn't forge bonds strong enough to survive the emergence of a successful DC franchise.
   107. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4251591)
If Obama's path to victory is to win a higher percentage of a smaller sample of Dems, along with a smaller percentage of Republicans and a much smaller percentage of a bigger sample of independents, then that seems like a rough road, both politically and mathematically.

(shrugs) More votes than the other guy is still more votes than the other guy (unless it's the year 2000).
   108. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4251596)
Again, this assumes that independents will be just as kind to him as they were in '08, which they won't. You're handwaving them away.

I'm not hand-waving them at all. Much of my theory rests on Obama not winning independents.

(shrugs) More votes is more votes, unless it's the year 2000.

Right, except that the whole point of this debate is that it seems tough for Obama to win if he's getting fewer votes from people ID'ing as Dems and fewer votes from people ID'ing as Republicans while losing independents to Romney.

If all these polls showing a Dem+8 advantage are only yielding an Obama+3 lead, that seems like a problem for Obama vis-a-vis turnout and enthusiasm. Right now, Obama is substantially underperforming the party ID breakdown of these polls.
   109. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4251600)
Again, it doesn't just "sound" innocent; it is innocent. The alternative is rounding people up physically, holding them in captivity for a while, and then forcibly shipping them out. (At gunpoint!) That's a lot harsher and more punitive than convincing them to leave voluntarily, and a lot harder on all these citizens who allegedly hang out with illegal immigrants.


Except of course that isn't really the alternative. It is one alternative, but others include status quo (not going out of your way to make their lives miserable enough to want to leave) or enacting something like the DREAM act or any number of other things.

Is it the most miserable possible thing? No, of course not. Is applying pressure on immigrants in hopes of driving the illegal immigrants away (self deporting) innocent? Well the Hispanic community doesn't think it is innocent - they see it as an attack on people who are not white.

The fact that you do not react at all to it (even when explained to you) and yet Hispanics and the Sheriff Joe's of the world do is a perfect example of a dog whistle. They (both groups) here it and respond. You do not.

EDIT: Added a not to the last paragraph - so it made sense.
   110. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4251603)
Part registration is done for a variety of reasons. Once you register most people will stay in their party affiliation, even if they are not voting this way. We have had someone (Bob D I think) mention he was registered R so he could influence primaries, but nationally voted D (sorry if I am getting the specifics wrong). The whole south is filled with folks who registered as D years ago and have been voting R nationally. Recently my understanding is a fair number of GOP types have stopped identifying as R, but are still pretty darn likely to vote R (many Tea Party types do this).
I registered as a Democrat when I first registered (and then again when I first registered in NJ 20 years ago), and I've never changed. It's just a PITA to change, and to no real gain. (There aren't enough Libertarian primaries to matter.)
   111. phredbird Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4251605)
romney must use the 'obama is a nice guy but doesn't know what to do' tactic. anything else will seem desperate. romney needs to turn the debates on the idea that he can govern, since he did that in massachusetts, whether or not he actually did that well(i don't know enough about his governorship to state one way or the other).

but that's just my feeling.
   112. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4251608)
Is it the most miserable possible thing? No, of course not. Is applying pressure on immigrants in hopes of driving the illegal immigrants away (self deporting) innocent? Well the Hispanic community doesn't think it is innocent - they see it as an attack on people who are not white.

According to you and Andy, but not according to actual polls of Latinos. At just 5 percent, immigration ranks ahead of only "not sure" (3 percent) and terrorism (3 percent) as Latinos' biggest concern. [source]
   113. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4251614)
I think there's a definite opening for a candidate who can assuage the populace's fear about "not sure."
   114. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4251617)
Right, except that the whole point of this debate is that it seems tough for Obama to win


Well only if the pollsters, all of them, are not capturing a random sample. Otherwise if they are then it doesn't matter how odd the results, the fact that Obama is winning in the polls means he is likely winning in the minds of the electorate.

By pointing out the "odd" numbers regarding Party ID the implication is the poll is not random somehow. But as we have discussed (to death) Party ID from pollsters doesn't really show that at all.
   115. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4251627)
Meanwhile, Drudge has just lost his status as a Man Who Matters.

Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.
   116. DA Baracus Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4251630)
Did he not learn from Breitbart?
   117. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4251631)
According to you and Andy, but not according to actual polls of Latinos. At just 5 percent, immigration ranks ahead of only "not sure" (3 percent) and terrorism (3 percent) as Latinos' biggest concern.


Which proves what? No one said it was their biggest concern. All I have said is it is driving a solidification of the Latino vote to the D vote. In fact I explicitly stated earlier (last thread) that it didn't matter that much because the GOP was pretty close to the floor of Latino (I think I said Hispanic - interesting the difference in usage of those two words - very regional in nature i believe) vote and there wasn't much that was going to change the current vote away from Romney.

None of that says anything about whether it is seen as an attack. My personal knowledge say it is. the reading I have done says it is. It is perfectly OK for you and David not to believe it.
   118. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4251633)
By pointing out the "odd" numbers regarding Party ID the implication is the poll is not random somehow. But as we have discussed (to death) Party ID from pollsters doesn't really show that at all.

If a truly random sample shows a Dem+8 advantage but only an Obama+3 lead, that seems like a possible problem for Obama vis-a-vis enthusiasm and turnout. It's not the equivalent of a generic Dem beating Obama by 5 points, but it's in the ballpark.
   119. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4251636)
Meanwhile, Drudge has just lost his status as a Man Who Matters.

Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.

Do you have the YouTube link(s)?
   120. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4251638)
Which proves what? No one said it was their biggest concern. All I have said is it is driving a solidification of the Latino vote to the D vote. In fact I explicitly stated earlier (last thread) that it didn't matter that much because the GOP was pretty close to the floor of Latino (I think I said Hispanic - interesting the difference in usage of those two words - very regional in nature i believe) vote and there wasn't much that was going to change the current vote away from Romney.

No one has said that? Andy has been claiming for days that Romney could have been getting a much bigger chunk of the Latino vote if only he hadn't uttered that incredibly racist and offensive term "self-deportation."
   121. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4251645)
I would be interested in reading a study of how legal immigrants feel/vote about illegal immigration issues.

This is probably an incredible oversimplification, but it is interesting to me that the republican party, which is theoretically more in favor of a free market than the other guys, wants to artificially restrict the labor market because of immigration issues.
   122. Fresh Prince of Belisle Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4251648)
Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.


It's probably way overblown, but Buzzfeed's been looking at some of the sneak peek quotes and not finding them in the original video, so is speculating that it's an unedited version of the edited 2007 video.
   123. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4251651)
No one has said that? Andy has been claiming for days that Romney could have been getting a much bigger chuck of the Latino vote if only he hadn't uttered that incredibly racist and offensive term "self-deportation."


No one this month has said it! :)

Seriously though I disagreed with Andy on that. Romney might have gotten a better rate of Hispanic voters if he had different opinions, but right now the whole GOP is poison for Hispanic voters. Long term this is a GOP problem, but hey its not my problem.
   124. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4251661)
Right now, he's pimping a second secret Obama "race speech," but these remarks: 1. from 2007; 2. were covered by the media at the time; 3. aren't much of a secret because it's been on YouTube for years. Weaksauce.
You've got to appreciate the effort, though.
   125. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4251663)
I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Barack Obama said something disqualifyingly stupid in a prepared public statement in 2007, but I guess it could be. Here's the text of the speech if anyone wants to read it.
   126. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4251664)
This is probably an incredible oversimplification, but it is interesting to me that the republican party, which is theoretically more in favor of a free market than the other guys, wants to artificially restrict the labor market because of immigration issues.

Yes, Republicans who generally like cheap labor now want to restrict low-skilled immigration, while Dems who complain about wage stagnation pretend there's no connection between labor supply and wages. It's an interesting issue.
   127. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4251666)
which is theoretically more in favor of a free market than the other guys


The GOP is very much in favor of the freedom of capital. Money must be free. Labor, not so much. Though to be fair there are two groups here, the big money GOP which is fine with immigration and has zero trouble with illegal immigration (cheap labor and really cheap labor respectively). Then there is the border patrol fanatics which give every appearance of just plain not liking brown people.

This is where the legal immigrant (and native US citizen) Hispanics come in. Many of the tactics to hurt illegal immigrants, profiling, showing papers and so on end up harassing all of the Hispanic population (not just the illegals).

It is a bit like drone attacks (yes this is a stretched analogy, try not to freak out) even if you get a large majority of bad guys you are still hitting innocents and the innocent populations get pretty annoyed about the whole thing - even if the drone attacks are "justified" and the alternative is worse.

So my opinion is these tactics do have collateral damage. Because the GOP is so loud about it they accumulate the damage. Even when it is not very fair (example Obama's record the first few years were pretty aggressively anti-illegal. The GOP gave him cover to do that though by wanting even more and claiming Obama was soft on the issue).
   128. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4251668)
Still no word on Michelle's "whitey" tape, btw...
   129. DA Baracus Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4251670)
   130. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4251672)
Meanwhile, Drudge has just lost his status as a Man Who Matters.


just? as in right now?
I think he lost that status (to the extent he ever had it) several years ago.
He's just a guy who collects headlines (usually right leaning).

I think he jumped the shark back in 2004 when he posted raw (and very misleading) preliminary exit poll data
   131. DA Baracus Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4251674)
I was hoping the video would be Obama hugging Breitbart. That would make a lot of people's head explode.
   132. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4251677)
Yes, Republicans who generally like cheap labor now want to restrict low-skilled immigration,


No the Republicans who generally like cheap labor, do not and have never wanted to restrict low-skilled immigration.
The Republicans who generally do not like low-skilled immigration are currently a bit louder and active
The Republicans who generally do not like immigration at all are also currently a bit louder and active
   133. bobm Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4251679)
I suppose I'm ignoring the housing situation and the role that equity spending played in consumer spending during the previous generation, but the fact remains -- I don't see a situation where wages rise until two things happen:

1) Snapper-esque protectionism in some form -- corporate tax penalties for offshoring, etc

2) A cease to the organized movement to shrink union power

What we need is wage growth... a humming job market will only go so far to accomplish that.


Or

3) health care spend stops rising and / or an end to tax-free employer sponsored health care ?
   134. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4251682)
Another day, another $165,000,000 in taxpayer money being used by Obama to bribe voters:

Durbin: Feds to write $165 million check to state for unused prison

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said today that under President Barack Obama’s directive, the federal Department of Justice will purchase the long-unused Thomson prison in northwestern Illinois, cutting a check and bypassing the objections of a veteran Republican U.S. House member who had blocked the sale.

[...]

The prison is expected to draw workers and business from neighboring Iowa, a swing state where Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are battling.
   135. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4251687)
Everywhere I'd go, I'd get two questions. First, they'd ask, "Where'd you get that funny name, Barack Obama?" Because people just couldn't pronounce it. They'd call me " Alabama," or they'd call me "Yo Mama." And I'd tell them that my father was from Kenya, and that's where I got my name. And my mother was from Kansas, and that's where I got my accent from.


Whooo boy, that'll piss off them Kansans...
   136. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4251688)
Another day, another $165,000,000 in taxpayer money being used by Obama


Obama spending US tax money? What a freaking outrage. Who does this guy think he is, President or something?
   137. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4251699)

Amnesty for the DREAMers by executive order, $165,000,000 for an unused prison in his home state without Congressional approval, tens of millions more to cover liabilities from unannounced layoffs, also without Congressional approval. Apparently Obama believes he's king rather than president.
   138. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4251701)
Another day, another $165,000,000 in taxpayer money being used by Obama to bribe voters:


The damn thing was built by the state 10 years ago and has never been used, it was appraised at $220mm and the Feds actually plan on using the damn thing. The sale was being blocked by a Republican Pol who claimed that Obama/Holder planned to transfer Gitmo inmates there...

Basically this thing was going to waste because of GOP paranoia, when that paranoia was essentially nullified, it was being blocked because the GOP didn't want a white elephant to be turned into a functioning entity in a swing state during an election year.

Sorry Joe, but this whole episode speaks more poorly for the GOP than Obama, the real question for Obama is why did he wait do long- and my guess is he waited to get maximum electoral leverage out of this.
   139. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4251703)
Amnesty for the DREAMers by executive order, $165,000,000 for an unused prison in his home state without Congressional approval, tens of millions more to cover liabilities from unannounced layoffs, also without Congressional approval. Apparently Obama believes he's king rather than president.

Indeed, and when the Republicans get back the presidency in 2016 or 2020 or whenever, it will be more of the same. The opposition party always complains about the ruling party actually using their power. Nothing to see here.

Edit: Oh and this prison purchase was a no-brainer, should have been done long ago.
   140. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4251705)
The damn thing was built by the state 10 years ago and has never been used, it was appraised at $220mm and the Feds actually plan on using the damn thing.

Please stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

This prison was built in 2001 for $140 million and has sat vacant ever since. (Great job, Illinois.) Since when do properties appreciate by 50 percent after sitting vacant for a decade?

This was an Illinois bailout engineered by Illinois politicians and a president from Illinois, and it was timed to bolster Obama's electoral chances in Iowa.
   141. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4251708)
No the Republicans who generally like cheap labor, do not and have never wanted to restrict low-skilled immigration.


I suppose I'm this kind.
   142. SteveF Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4251715)
One has to wonder how many illegals will actually come forward and register with USCIS to get their papers since the policy can be changed as readily as it was enacted.
   143. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:00 PM (#4251721)
Here's the text of the speech if anyone wants to read it.

The list of broken promises and incorrect claims in that speech is longer than my arm.
   144. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4251724)
Is it longer than the Long Arm of Rudy Law?
   145. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4251729)
And the number of votes this game-changing "October surprise" will swing is as long as his arm.
   146. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4251730)
[double post]
   147. steagles Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4251732)
Please stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

This prison was built in 2001 for $140 million and has sat vacant ever since. (Great job, Illinois.) Since when do properties appreciate by 50 percent after sitting vacant for a decade?

This was an Illinois bailout engineered by Illinois politicians and a president from Illinois, and it was timed to bolster Obama's electoral chances in Iowa.

the sestak affair
fast and furious
solyndra


been there, done that. it's distinctly possible that there's something untoward here, but since you people have gone nuclear so many times in attempts to smear obama, you have no credibility on the subject.
   148. Tilden Katz Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4251735)
the sestak affair


This was seriously the best one. Offering a retired admiral a position in the Department of the Navy is worse than Watergate!
   149. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4251740)
This prison was built in 2001 for $140 million and has sat vacant ever since. (Great job, Illinois.) Since when do properties appreciate by 50 percent after sitting vacant for a decade?
It's a big piece of property, buildings have been built, parking lot, power, water, security, etc. There's a lot of value in that. And I don't know about other places, but property appreciates a lot in my neck of the woods over a decade.

This was an Illinois bailout engineered by Illinois politicians and a president from Illinois, and it was timed to bolster Obama's electoral chances in Iowa.
It would have been just fine with the GOP if Obama were throwing money at the DoD.
   150. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#4251746)
It would have been just fine with the GOP if Obama were


... fill in the blank.
   151. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4251762)
My favorite part of the "they vote for Democrats because of federal bribe money" bit (and it is, in fact, just a bit, a sketch, a comedy routine) is the largest individual recipients of such money are the elderly. the bribery scheme is so fiendishly effective, so terrifyingly efficient that the elderly voted against the Democrats in 2008 and it is the seniors that will stop Obama from winning a landslide victory.

A few meager dollars here and there completely locks up the poor, the minorities, just a pittance and they accept the bribe, but seniors they are totally different. They ignore the easy bribe. I guess. Or something. Basically the whole government bribing people is more than a little silly.

Mostly it is silly because people are elected to serve the interests of the people. The government is supposed to help out its citizens. It is supposed to make its lives easier. The safety net is not a bribe it is functioning as designed - which is why every industrialized nation on earth has one.
   152. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4251766)
It's a big piece of property, buildings have been built, parking lot, power, water, security, etc. There's a lot of value in that. And I don't know about other places, but property appreciates a lot in my neck of the woods over a decade.

The prison was built for $140 million in 2001 and promptly sat vacant for over a decade. Since there isn't much of a market for vacant prisons, that should have made it a buyer's market for the federal government. But instead, Obama is circumventing Congress to pay $165 million in order to bail out his home state's mistake. (Obama was in the Illinois Senate back then; I wonder if he voted for this debacle a decade ago. He might have wasted taxpayer money twice on the same deal.)

***
A few meager dollars here and there completely locks up the poor, the minorities, just a pittance and they accept the bribe, but seniors they are totally different. They ignore the easy bribe. I guess. Or something. Basically the whole government bribing people is more than a little silly.

What are you talking about? Trillions of dollars have been spent on the welfare state. Only a liberal would call that a "few meager dollars."
   153. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4251778)
What are you talking about? Trillions of dollars have been spent on the welfare state. Only a liberal would call that a "few meager dollars."


Well like I said, the people (poor and minorities) you claim are completely bribed by the government to vote for Democrats get MUCH less money than the people (seniors) the GOP is counting on. Seems to me if bribery were all it took Seniors would definitely be voting D and especially Obama.

I am just wondering why bribery works so well for the poor and minorities and not so well for seniors. Crazy of me to expect consistency.

BTW - Meager was describing the relative amount of money spent on poor and minorities versus seniors. It was a word used for effect, and not an absolute measure of dollars. You certainly seem to be very exacting when it suits you, and not at all when it doesn't. No matter.
   154. Jay Z Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4251781)
3) health care spend stops rising and / or an end to tax-free employer sponsored health care ?


If the administrative staff and profit takers take a haircut that would help. Not so much if they just lay off nurses.
   155. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:17 PM (#4251792)
Well like I said, the people (poor and minorities) you claim are completely bribed by the government to vote for Democrats get MUCH less money than the people (seniors) the GOP is counting on. Seems to me if bribery were all it took Seniors would definitely be voting D and especially Obama.

What has Obama done for seniors that they should "especially" be voting for Obama?

***
3) health care spend stops rising and / or an end to tax-free employer sponsored health care ?

Hey, don't worry. Obama promised the assembled masses in Hampton, Va., back in 2007 [see #129] that all of us will be paying up to $2,500 per year less for health insurance and that electronic billing will result in additional savings. He "promised" this would be true, so it must be.
   156. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4251797)
Why not just guarantee a minimum level of income for every household (say, $40k) and cut all government-administered welfare systems? This would preserve the "welfare state" by providing for the poor, would eliminate government waste, and would re-institute some level of personal responsibility. Everyone is satisfied.
   157. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4251806)
Median household income is $50,000. You want to set the minimum at $40,000? Tens of millions of people would be smart to quit work and just go on welfare.

(There's also no chance this would eliminate waste, but that's another story.)
   158. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4251811)
Well, it would eliminate a lot of potential for waste by eliminating government oversight for certain services. Granted, you'd need to spend a lot of money to ward off fraud, but you'd be able to eliminate medicare, tons of social services, etc.

I'm just spit-balling on the number. I have no idea what it should be.

And you eliminate the government's ability to make choices for lots of people, which is almost always good.

   159. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4251814)
A new National Journal Poll has the race tied at 47%, with a D+7 sample even.
   160. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4251819)

Say it ain't so, Barry O.

This new video isn't looking so good for Obama. It turns out he's been peddling a phony transcript for five years, without all sorts of angry deviations he made from his prepared remarks:

“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family."

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.
“Now here’s the thing,” Obama continues, “when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.’”

That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”

It’s a remarkable moment, and not just for its resemblance to Kayne West’s famous claim that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but also because of its basic dishonesty. By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11.

Exclusive: In heated ’07 speech, Obama lavishes praise on Wright, says feds ‘don’t care’ about New Orleans [VIDEO]
   161. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4251825)
Does somebody seriously want to claim that there wasn't more than five times as much damage to New Orleans as to New York City? I could be convinced, maybe, but it doesn't seem likely.
   162. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4251828)
Does somebody seriously want to claim that there wasn't more than five times as much damage to New Orleans as to New York City? I could be convinced, maybe, but it doesn't seem likely.

Does somebody seriously want to claim that being located below sea level shouldn't have required better preparations by the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana? The idea that a hurricane was more of a federal issue than a local/state issue is one of the greatest shams ever perpetrated by the media on the American public.

Without a doubt, the federal response was lacking, but the idea that George W. Bush is more to blame than Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco (and their predecessors) is patently absurd.
   163. Lassus Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4251841)
Since when do properties appreciate by 50 percent after sitting vacant for a decade?

I'd imagine quite often, actually.


This new video isn't looking so good for Obama.

Adorable.


   164. Tilden Katz Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4251858)
A speech from five years ago about an event that occurred seven years ago. A video that gives us no new information. Why hasn't Mitt Romney been asked to apologize for the racism in his church the way Obama has countless times for his?
   165. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4251875)
Joe, you can't seriously believe that video is going to move the needle.
   166. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4251881)
The video on page 2 of the link in #160 is remarkable. The video switches back and forth between Obama speaking in Hampton and then Obama's subsequent comments distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. Obama was using his phony preacher voice in Hampton, but he spoke in his usual voice when backtracking from Wright. If you only listened to the audio, you'd think two different people were speaking. It's really amazing that Americans reward phonies like that, from either party.

Joe, you can't seriously believe that video is going to move the needle.

Et tu? First the liberals don't want me to have any fun, and now ...
   167. McCoy Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4251883)
Sir, we've lost containment!
   168. McCoy Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4251884)
Joe, you can't seriously believe that video is going to move the needle.

If this continues Obama is liable to lose a vote or two in Utah.
   169. Lassus Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4251889)
The video on page 2 of the link in #160 is remarkable.

Maybe to someone on the first day of forensics training in 10th grade.
   170. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4251892)
The video on page 2 of the link in #160 is remarkable. The video switches back and forth between Obama speaking in Hampton and then Obama's subsequent comments distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. Obama was using his phony preacher voice in Hampton, but he spoke in his usual voice when backtracking from Wright.


The Republicans have squeezed all they can from the Reverend Wright stone.
   171. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4251900)
Apparently, Newt was just on FOX saying this video is a nontroversy.
   172. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4251909)
The Republicans have squeezed all they can from the Reverend Wright stone.

More like a missed opportunity than squeezing all they could. Going hands-off with Wright was another piece of dumb strategery by McCain.

***
Apparently, Newt was just on FOX saying this video is a nontroversy.

"I usually think Newt is a total right-wing idiot, but he agrees with me on this, so his opinion is dispositive."
   173. spike Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4251976)
Holy cow - how many magic Obama bullet stories do we have to go through? They don't work.
   174. Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4251978)
What does Newt think about the Yankees comeback tonight with 3 runs in the bottom of the 9th to tie and winning in the 12th?
   175. Lassus Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4251979)
Hey, a vote for Newt is a vote for a moon colony. Good enough for me.
   176. booond Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4251987)
Hey, a vote for Newt is a vote for a moon colony.


Moonbat
   177. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4251992)
Mr. Etch-a-Sketch goes back to the sketching board.

Romney Softens on Immigration, But Will it Help Him With Hispanics?

The GOP nominee says he won't revoke visas awarded to youth under Obama's new policy.

Mitt Romney’s advisers have long insisted that economic doldrums—not immigration policy—would turn Hispanic voters toward the Republican nominee.

But Romney’s decision to break his silence on allowing young illegal immigrants to stay in the United States reflects a shift in that failing strategy and an implicit admission that the increasingly powerful Hispanic vote could, in part, cost him the election.

After months of mostly stonewalling about President Obama’s order to stop deporting children brought to the United States illegally by their parents, Romney told The Denver Post on Monday that he would not repeal those temporary visas. When Obama made the announcement in June, Romney criticized it as a politically motivated maneuver and said he would “replace and supersede” the order with a “long-term solution.”

Romney’s amended immigration policy comes as a new CNN poll shows 64 percent of registered voters supporting Obama's move. Polls also show Obama trouncing Romney in the fast-growing Hispanic community. Four million more Hispanic voters will be eligible to vote in 2012 than in 2008, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, though their turnout has lagged behind black and white voters.

“With Romney’s current level of support among Latinos, he loses," said Ana Navarro, who advised former GOP nominee John McCain on Hispanic issues. “He has no option but to keep trying to make up ground.”
   178. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 12:20 AM (#4252009)
“With Romney’s current level of support among Latinos, he loses," said Ana Navarro, who advised former GOP nominee John McCain on Hispanic issues. “He has no option but to keep trying to make up ground.”

Hey, if a McCain 2008/Huntsman 2012 advisor said it, it must be right.
   179. GregD Posted: October 03, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4252018)
The shift on immigration seems so poorly executed. Everyone knows you have to move to the middle and no one expects a candidate to practice a false and foolish consistency. But there's a professional practice; making your shifts early on in the summer so they are old news by now. Romney ran on one position, then said he wouldn't say his position, now ends up essentially endorsing Obama's position, while drawing attention to his own inconsistency in the last weeks of the election. It's a head scratcher.
   180. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 03, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4252020)
I will be very surprised if Obama's debate strategy isn't simply to compare/contrast Romney's stance on every issue to Romney's prior stance on every issue earlier in the year/decade/career.

It'll be like one of those Daily Show video clip montages where the politicians say one thing, followed by the reverse thing they said when they were in the opposite position politically (incumbent party vs opposing party).

   181. tshipman Posted: October 03, 2012 at 12:56 AM (#4252023)
I will be very surprised if Obama's debate strategy isn't simply to compare/contrast Romney's stance on every issue to Romney's prior stance on every issue earlier in the year/decade/career.


Doubtful. Obama's strategy since the beginning has been to paint Romney as a heartless and "severe" conservative. Why start with the flip-flop stuff now?
   182. Jay Z Posted: October 03, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4252028)
Why not just guarantee a minimum level of income for every household (say, $40k) and cut all government-administered welfare systems? This would preserve the "welfare state" by providing for the poor, would eliminate government waste, and would re-institute some level of personal responsibility. Everyone is satisfied.


My 87 year old mother would love that. She is a household of one, and lives in a small town. Even adjusted for inflation it would probably be more than she and dad ever took in.

I'm liberal, want the safety net, but I'm not sure the UBI is the most efficient. Healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds, who can work, should be working if at all possible. If there aren't enough jobs, that's another issue, but they should be putting in their 40 hours at the Kwik-e-Mart or whatever. My mom is too old for that. Still volunteers a bit and is a very healthy 87, but she is old.

Dad passed on some years ago. Had to retire a bit early because of a heart ailment. Wanted to keep working out of choice and for something to do, which he did from time to time until his weak heart would kick in again, until it finally got him at 71. People get old, can't do the same things anymore.

I think you still need Medicare and SSI. I don't believe the private sector could ever provide those products at any affordable price, so the gov's the only option.
   183. GregD Posted: October 03, 2012 at 01:08 AM (#4252029)
Yes Axelrod apparently decided that the flip-flop critique actually helps Romney by making him look reasonable and not doctrinaire.
   184. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: October 03, 2012 at 04:47 AM (#4252095)
Why not just guarantee a minimum level of income for every household (say, $40k) and cut all government-administered welfare systems? This would preserve the "welfare state" by providing for the poor, would eliminate government waste, and would re-institute some level of personal responsibility. Everyone is satisfied.

How would it re-institute personal responsibility unless everyone were allowed to keep the $40K whether they worked or not? If you had to stop working for $30K to get the $40K, why would you work? OTOH, if you could have $70K by keeping your job, you might do it.
   185. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:07 AM (#4252102)
You've got to realize that a $40k payout to every individual over 30 or some such thing would have very different effects in different parts of the country. In New York City, it wouldn't be enough to get anyone an apartment if he couldn't already afford one. In Kansas, it would practically let him live in a 4-bedroom house and drive an Audi.
   186. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:10 AM (#4252104)
There have been plenty of Nationals hats and shirts in Prince George's County and, from what little I've been there, Montgomery County, but not so much in places that are also suburbs of Baltimore (some, though, and more before this year--I'd say the Orioles had this season just in the nick of time).
   187. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:35 AM (#4252107)
This Nats fan and DMV resident (5-generations deep in DC) is glad so many of these politicians and their employees are out of town. While they're putting on a show in the churches and synagogues they visit every 2 or 4 years, DC sporting tickets are a lot easier to come by.
   188. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:56 AM (#4252108)
I'm liberal, want the safety net, but I'm not sure the UBI is the most efficient. Healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds, who can work, should be working if at all possible.


Why?
   189. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:13 AM (#4252115)
I'm liberal, want the safety net, but I'm not sure the UBI is the most efficient. Healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds, who can work, should be working if at all possible.

Why?

Take your pick....

If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

---II Thessalonians 3:10, King James Version (Oxford Standard, 1769)

He who does not work, neither shall he eat

---John Smith, Jamestown Colony

Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

---Morelly, Code of Nature, 1755

He who does not work shall not eat

---Lenin, The State and Revolution, 1917
   190. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:02 AM (#4252139)
People should contribute to society, being a parasite is no good. Incentives to work are fine.

People should not starve even if they do not contribute, society should be better, more generous, than the worst of its citizens (and starving is no good).

   191. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:10 AM (#4252145)
The shift on immigration seems so poorly executed.


X by the Romney campaign seems so poorly executed (fill in your own X). What have they done that has impressed anyone so far? I can't think of anything they have pulled off that has impressed me in either the Primaries or the main campaign.

One reason I am picking on them now, is everyone picks on the losing candidate, I want to pick on them win or lose. If they win it will be a miracle and despite their crappy campaign. There sense of timing is terrible, the messaging is always slightly (or worse) off tone. The basic mechanics keep getting screwed up, they have played the debate expectations game wrong, and their candidate keeps up a steady stream of minor gaffes. I guess they choose a VP candidate at basically the right time and the pick of Ryan is defensible I guess but it sure wasn't great or anything.

To be clear I don't think Obama has run a great campaign, but it has been solid with few mistakes and an OK (bit boring) message that they are hitting.
   192. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:22 AM (#4252149)
Take your pick....


Thanks for Googling up quotes, Andy. Do you want to take a cut at answering the question, now?
   193. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:25 AM (#4252152)
X by the Romney campaign seems so poorly executed (fill in your own X). What have they done that has impressed anyone so far? I can't think of anything they have pulled off that has impressed me in either the Primaries or the main campaign.


This seems to have become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. All political calculations, by all pols, are political calculations and "managed" for optics. But Romney's core message is his plasticity and lack of a guiding center, so any time he does a basic political calculation it actually feeds into the negative image of him as a soulless automaton. I have no idea how he would break that cycle.
   194. booond Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:48 AM (#4252159)
X by the Romney campaign seems so poorly executed (fill in your own X).


Often there's a lot of shaking to clear an Etch-a-Sketch.
   195. GregD Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4252185)
X by the Romney campaign seems so poorly executed (fill in your own X). What have they done that has impressed anyone so far? I can't think of anything they have pulled off that has impressed me in either the Primaries or the main campaign.
They took down Rick Perry. I don't think that was a given. Perry had huge momentum and a great reputation as a fundraiser. He made the conservatives happy yet his record was mixed enough to give him room to pivot in the general. There was a reason the pros were looking to him as the fireman from the bullpen. He blew himself up, in part, but Mitt helped it happen and fast. If Perry got his legs, he would have been able to survive gaffes 2-3 weeks later. They needed to puncture the balloon right away. Romney ran a perfectly competent primary in a complicated situation. It is hard though to think of something he has done really well in the general. Maybe it'll be tonight. The first days of the convention were reasonably well managed, I guess.

This seems to have become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. All political calculations, by all pols, are political calculations and "managed" for optics. But Romney's core message is his plasticity and lack of a guiding center, so any time he does a basic political calculation it actually feeds into the negative image of him as a soulless automaton. I have no idea how he would break that cycle.
I kind of think the opposite, though I could be misreading it. I think they know he's seen as plastic man so have emphasized his rigid ideological bent, which 1) is obviously untrue and 2) causes bounceback every time he pivots. They put him in a situation where he couldn't pivot and then unsurprisingly he realized he had to pivot.
   196. McCoy Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:50 AM (#4252224)
So I'm guessing the other political thread got shut down.
   197. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4252229)
I'm liberal, want the safety net, but I'm not sure the UBI is the most efficient. Healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds, who can work, should be working if at all possible.


Why?

Take your pick....

Thanks for Googling up quotes, Andy. Do you want to take a cut at answering the question, now?


Because any citizen has both rights and responsibilities, and while the question all too often gets diverted by meaningless buzzwords such as "givers" and "takers", we all have a moral responsibility to contribute to our own independent well-being. The only serious questions are the extent to which work requirements should be modified by particular circumstances**, and whether or not the government should be required to furnish work to people who can't find it for one reason or another, and who don't have independent means of financial support.***

But of course any "healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds" without any independent source of income*** should be working to support themselves one way or another, either through the normal job market or through some sort of public works project, and I'm sure that most 25 to 30 year olds would agree.

**such as disability, pre-school aged children, etc.

***I put that qualifier in to distinguish what I'm saying from the Leninist version of forcing every able-bodied person to work. If a millionaire's child can live off his inheritance, as long as he's paying his full share of taxes, I don't care if he spends all his time playing video games on a yacht.
   198. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4252247)
we all have a moral responsibility to contribute to our own independent well-being


...

But of course any "healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds" without any independent source of income*** should be working to support themselves one way or another.. (emphasis in the original)


From whence this moral "necessity" of work?
   199. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4252250)
So I'm guessing the other political thread got shut down.


New month, new thread, not shut down as in bad things happened.

So are people watching the debate tonight? What channel?

I am DVRing it. I picked a random channel (whatever was nearest that had the debate when I went to set the recording - so I guess not truly random). I may not watch it, but I wanted to record it incase something interesting happened. I have plenty of room on the DVR, so why not.
   200. rr Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4252251)
So are people watching the debate tonight?

I will be wokrking, so no. Plus I heard that there may be some baseball being played tonight.
Page 2 of 62 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-16-2014
(95 - 11:32pm, Sep 16)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(10 - 11:21pm, Sep 16)
Last: Esoteric

NewsblogBryan Cranston’s One-Man Baseball Play Inspired By ‘Looney Tunes’ Is Incredible
(14 - 11:18pm, Sep 16)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(248 - 10:37pm, Sep 16)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(21 - 10:30pm, Sep 16)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogVox.com: Major League Baseball’s human-trafficking problem
(7 - 10:29pm, Sep 16)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-16-2014
(26 - 10:01pm, Sep 16)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(262 - 10:00pm, Sep 16)
Last: rr

NewsblogLonestarball: Jonathan Papelbon suspended for 7 games
(13 - 9:51pm, Sep 16)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogNew approach on offense has Pirates in playoff contention this season
(2 - 9:38pm, Sep 16)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogToronto Blue Jays’ Marcus Stroman gets no defence from his manager after nearly hitting a batter in the head
(22 - 9:27pm, Sep 16)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2704 - 9:00pm, Sep 16)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(52 - 8:55pm, Sep 16)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(43 - 8:38pm, Sep 16)
Last: spike

NewsblogMLB announces postseason plans, with various notable points
(16 - 8:32pm, Sep 16)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

Page rendered in 0.9950 seconds
52 querie(s) executed