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 21 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >  Last ›
   2001. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 12, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4266519)
I'm fascinated by this perception, because I've seen it in print many times, but if nothing else, Ryan's plan and his inteviews pretty conclusively establish that he is NOT numbers driven or detail oriented.

I guess you missed Ryan destroying Obamacare, to Obama's face, back in 2010.
   2002. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 12, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4266523)
Have there been a bunch of v.p. debates that clearly moved the needle after a clear win by one of the candidates


Maybe, just maybe Dukakis lost by 7.7 instead of 8.7 because Bentsen clobbered Quayle...

   2003. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 12, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4266528)
I guess you missed Ryan destroying Obamacare, to Obama's face, back in 2010.
You mean RomneyCare.
   2004. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 12, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4266531)
I guess you missed Ryan destroying Obamacare, to Obama's face, back in 2010.


numbers driven and detail oriented implies a grasp of how numbers work and actual [technical] details, what you get form Ryan is a string of assertions, which assertions contain numbers and references to details, but no true details, and even if accurate (which frequently Ryan's are not), the numbers he spits out have no actual connection to the details he references.

I wouldn't expect you to notice something like that- because you have demonstrated and inability/refusal to engage actual details and numbers throughout this thread-
   2005. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 12, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4266534)
I wouldn't expect you to notice something like that- because you have demonstrated and inability/refusal to engage actual details and numbers throughout this thread-

Except, of course, for being the first person to notice the "details and numbers" have been favoring Romney for months.
   2006. McCoy Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4266553)
Except, of course, for being the first person to notice the "details and numbers" have been favoring Romney for months.

That's an odd thing to crow about.

That's like crowing about being the first person to say the numbers add up to 12 simply because you were insisting for months that 7+6=12. As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.
   2007. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4266559)
That's an odd thing to crow about.

That's like crowing about being the first person to say the numbers add up to 12 simply because you were insisting for months that 7+6=12. As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.

Ha ha. So that will be the spin if Romney wins?

It's funny how many of the usual suspects here went AWOL as soon as Romney pulled ahead. (Not unsurprising, but still funny.)
   2008. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4266563)
Well, I firmly believe that Admiral Stockdale's terrible performance was one of the nails in Ross Perot's coffin, but that's hard to substantiate. And it's only one example, so even if I could prove my thesis (which I can't!) it wouldn't do much.

Curtis Lemay hurt George Wallace (yes, Wallace had no chance to win, but he did have a chance to influence who won).
   2009. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4266578)
Ha ha. So that will be the spin if Romney wins?
The same as it is if Romney loses. The Liberal Media Conspiracy never rests.
   2010. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4266589)
The same as it is if Romney loses. The Liberal Media Conspiracy never rests.

That's for sure.
   2011. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4266604)
Woo hoo! HIGH FIVE!
   2012. McCoy Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4266629)
Who went awol? How is you being wrong about things two months ago spin?
   2013. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 12, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4266659)
Who went awol? How is you being wrong about things two months ago spin?

How was I wrong two months ago? For predicting that Romney could (and would) win, when just about everyone else — including the libertarians — was predicting an Obama win, if not an Obama blowout?

I might ultimately be proven wrong on Nov. 6, but my prior predictions are looking good today.
   2014. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 12, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4266720)
The people who were most off the mark were those insisting that presidential election was essentially over before any of the debates or the candidates had spent the bulk of their advertising budgets. It wasn't over in September, and it's not over in October.
   2015. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 12, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4266721)
In 2000, it wasn't even over in November.
   2016. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4266745)
How was I wrong two months ago? For predicting that Romney could (and would) win, when just about everyone else — including the libertarians — was predicting an Obama win, if not an Obama blowout?

Here you go. Follow your hero down:

Perfect melding of mind and body
   2017. zenbitz Posted: October 12, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4266827)
I was clearly wrong. but when faced with a Romney campaign that refused to do anything to help themselves (until the Debate) I just projected that trend to continue. Stupid physical science background!
   2018. Lassus Posted: October 12, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4266885)
As at this point I shouldn't be surprised by the positive reactions of that brand of partisan, but that might have been the single most humiliating performance that I've seen in a formal debate, national or otherwise.

Er, at least you aren't partisan? Yay?

Actually, after re-reading, I can't even figure out who you are trying to skewer. So, er, never mind?
   2019. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 12, 2012 at 08:25 PM (#4266913)
How was I wrong two months ago? For predicting that Romney could (and would) win, when just about everyone else — including the libertarians — was predicting an Obama win, if not an Obama blowout?

Funny, but when you could've gotten 3 to 1 on multiple betting sites just over a week ago, you weren't biting even then.
   2020. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 12, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4266991)
I'm waiting to see what kind of line Bill Bennett is putting action on before I commit.
   2021. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 12, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4267093)
Funny, but when you could've gotten 3 to 1 on multiple betting sites just over a week ago, you weren't biting even then.

Back to the pool-hall shtick, I see. This was asked and answered, several times.
   2022. Jay Z Posted: October 12, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4267136)
I also see that the famous GOP party discipline has reasserted itself bigtime, Romney has walked back from quite a few "Primary Romney" positions towards the center, with nary a peep from the nutters...


Yeah, that is probably their defining feature as a party through all the years. Issue change, level of conflict with the Dems changes, but there is always discipline. The major challenges I can think of (TR in '12, Perot) were outside the party at the time. If you or your issues are on the outs, you pretty much have to walk away.
   2023. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 13, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4267942)
Yeah, that is probably their defining feature as a party through all the years. Issue change, level of conflict with the Dems changes, but there is always discipline.
If Romney had taken his presidential debate positions in the Republican primaries, he would have been rejected outright, but there's no one peep from the right on his re-discovered moderate stances. If it had been a Democrat, the left would have thrown a fit. Instead, when people point out Romney's flip-flops, all you get is a defiant "So what!" In it's own way, that's pretty admirable.
   2024. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4267953)
If Romney had taken his presidential debate positions in the Republican primaries, he would have been rejected outright, but there's no one peep from the right on his re-discovered moderate stances.


That's what Paul Ryan is there for. Ryan, along with all of the advisers and strategists for policy positions, assure the base that Romney is lying to the general electorate, not them. They're not wrong.
   2025. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 13, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4268027)
If Romney had taken his presidential debate positions in the Republican primaries, he would have been rejected outright, but there's no one peep from the right on his re-discovered moderate stances.

I never heard lefties complaining when Clinton pulled off his infamous "pivot to the center."

Anyway, Romney is holding at +1.0 at RCP, while he's back up 49-47 in Gallup's LV poll. Obama's approval, meanwhile, has cratered 5 points in 3 days at Gallup, to just 48 percent (among adults, not LV or even RV).
   2026. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 13, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4268056)
I never heard lefties complaining when Clinton pulled off his infamous "pivot to the center."
I did, and I still do. Just in this thread (and/or its predecessors), Clinton's gotten ripped for supporting and signing into law the Financial Services Moderization Act that repealed part of Glass–Steagall. His welfare revamp was, and still is, considered a betrayal of liberal politics.

And didja notice? Even Joek's not going to defend his boy. He just moves on to the next attack.
   2027. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 13, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4268072)
And didja notice? Even Joek's not going to defend his boy. He just moves on to the next attack.

If you thought anything in #2025 even remotely constituted an "attack," you must not spend much time out in the real world.
   2028. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 13, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4268193)
If you thought anything in #2025 even remotely constituted an "attack," you must not spend much time out in the real world.
On, I didn't mean that post specifically, I was just pointing out that that is what you do. You're not going to defend Romney's policy shifts. Nobody's bothering to defend Romney's policy shifts. They're just moving onto the next attack.
   2029. bobm Posted: October 13, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4268262)
Posted this afternoon on nytimes.com; more bad news on the foreign policy front for Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/world/middleeast/us-suspects-iranians-were-behind-a-wave-of-cyberattacks.html


The New York Times
U.S. Suspects Iranians Were Behind a Wave of Cyberattacks
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: October 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials are increasingly convinced that Iran was the origin of a serious wave of network attacks that crippled computers across the Saudi oil industry and breached financial institutions in the United States, episodes that contributed to a warning last week from Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that the United States was at risk of a “cyber-Pearl Harbor.”

After Mr. Panetta’s remarks on Thursday night, American officials described an emerging shadow war of attacks and counterattacks already under way between the United States and Iran in cyberspace.

Among American officials, suspicion has focused on the “cybercorps” that Iran’s military created in 2011 — partly in response to American and Israeli cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz — though there is no hard evidence that the attacks were sanctioned by the Iranian government.

The attacks emanating from Iran have inflicted only modest damage. Iran’s cyberwarfare capabilities are considerably weaker than those in China and Russia, which intelligence officials believe are the sources of the overwhelming number of probes, thefts of intellectual property and attacks on American companies and government agencies. ...

Iran has a motive, to retaliate for both the American-led financial sanctions that have cut its oil exports nearly in half, and for the cybercampaign by the United States and Israel against Iran’s nuclear enrichment complex at Natanz.

That campaign started in the Bush administration, when the United States and Israel first began experimenting with an entirely new generation of weapon: a cyberworm that could infiltrate another state’s computers and then cause havoc on computer-controlled machinery. In this case, it resulted in the destruction of roughly a fifth of the nuclear centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium, though the centrifuges were eventually replaced, and Iran’s production capability has recovered. ...

The United States has never acknowledged its role in creating the Stuxnet virus, nor has it said anything about the huge covert program that created it, code-named Olympic Games, which was first revealed earlier this year by The New York Times. President Obama drastically expanded the program as a way to buy time for sanctions to affect Iran, and to stave off a military attack on the Iranian facilities by Israel, which he feared could quickly escalate into a broader war.


The earlier NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html


From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet. ...

These officials gave differing assessments of how successful the sabotage program was in slowing Iran’s progress toward developing the ability to build nuclear weapons. Internal Obama administration estimates say the effort was set back by 18 months to two years, but some experts inside and outside the government are more skeptical, noting that Iran’s enrichment levels have steadily recovered, giving the country enough fuel today for five or more weapons, with additional enrichment.

Whether Iran is still trying to design and build a weapon is in dispute. The most recent United States intelligence estimate concludes that Iran suspended major parts of its weaponization effort after 2003, though there is evidence that some remnants of it continue. ...

Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.

“We discussed the irony, more than once,” one of his aides said. Another said that the administration was resistant to developing a “grand theory for a weapon whose possibilities they were still discovering.” Yet Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice. ...

But by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush’s advice. ...

Mr. Obama has repeatedly told his aides that there are risks to using — and particularly to overusing — the weapon. In fact, no country’s infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran. [Emphasis added]
   2030. BDC Posted: October 13, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4268270)
I never heard lefties complaining when Clinton pulled off his infamous "pivot to the center."

What? I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 precisely because of the pivot to the center(-right). One can argue that the pivot cost Al Gore the Presidency. Party discipline over on the left is notoriously nonexistent :)

   2031. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 13, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4268291)
I voted for Jerry Brown as a write-in in 1992 over Clinton's enthusiastic endorsement of NAFTA.
   2032. tshipman Posted: October 13, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4268296)
Nobody's bothering to defend Romney's policy shifts.


A brief defense of Romney's policy shifts:

Romney's policies he pretended to endorse in the primaries were insane. He was for tighter money, complete deregulation, trade war with China, invasion of Iran, scary levels of abortion prohibition and a ridiculous, budget-busting tax cut. At least, in the unlikely event that he wins, he won't have committed to policies that would bankrupt and threaten the country.
   2033. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 13, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4268304)
A briefer defense of Romney's policy shifts:

He doesn't want to lose the election.
   2034. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4268637)
#2033 is really what it boils down to, and I don't have much of a problem with it. Beyond that, all of the "flip-flopper" allegations aside, I just haven't seen any real flip-flops over which most conservatives should get excited.

Romney has backed off on reversing Obama's (illegal) Dream amnesty, but we always knew some form of that would happen anyway, whether within the law or by maintaining the status quo. Otherwise, what is there for conservatives to get excited about? McCain did a couple full flip-flops on immigration back in 2008, and then, as an added bonus, took a couple gratuitous shots at Sam Alito. Romney might have moved to the center a little, but he hasn't made a big show of poking right-wingers in the eye, like McCain did.
   2035. Lassus Posted: October 13, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4268696)
   2036. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 13, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4268788)

—> Fixed link.
   2037. Lassus Posted: October 13, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4268824)
Oops. Curses. Thanks. I blame Raul Ibanez.
   2038. robinred Posted: October 13, 2012 at 11:51 PM (#4268892)
Nah. It's all on Jose Valverde.
   2039. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 14, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4268957)
The idea of the Daddy-Mommy-children single unit family - the "nuclear family" - evolved in post-War America. It's called "nuclear family" because the idea of the thing developed in the "nuclear age" - post atom bomb and all that.

Not really. The term "nuclear family" is meant to distinguish a particular type of family from the "extended family." Much like the nucleus is the center of the atom, a married couple and their offspring are the center of the larger family.
Apparently Sam and his pop etymology has never heard of a cell nucleus -- a concept which long predates the popularizaton of atomic theory.
   2040. Jay Z Posted: October 14, 2012 at 12:45 AM (#4269045)

A brief defense of Romney's policy shifts:

Romney's policies he pretended to endorse in the primaries were insane. He was for tighter money, complete deregulation, trade war with China, invasion of Iran, scary levels of abortion prohibition and a ridiculous, budget-busting tax cut. At least, in the unlikely event that he wins, he won't have committed to policies that would bankrupt and threaten the country.


Okay, you say he lied to the base, someone else is saying he's lying to the center. Let's see what I think they would do:

tighter money - not sure what that means in 2012, raising interest rates? I don't expect any effectual change in those policies
complete deregulation - well anything that helps the big finance boys, of course
trade war with China - the GOP is anti-free trade now? not happening
invasion of Iran - have to be different from Obama in every way. I have no idea what they really want to do foreign wise
scary levels of abortion prohibition - won't have the congress to do it anyway, not sure they want to take the carrot away from the values voters anyway

Why can't they lie to their base? It's the advantage of having a more loyal base, you can give them less and they won't walk away. The SoCons have gotten nothing for years and are discouraged, don't have the money to play the game any more most likely, but they'll still vote, so who cares?

Not sure how typical this much pivoting is, or if it's new politics. If there are already two plans, then I am assuming plan 3 is what they actually want to do and are not saying. I know there is always platform crap that will never happen, and Reagan said he would balance the budget, many have said similar things, but this seems new. Maybe they figure the independent press is at a low ebb and they won't be called on it. They're the experts, I guess.
   2041. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 14, 2012 at 05:17 AM (#4269254)
Ok. I can, sort of, see the point. The problem here is that I'm a quarter of the way into teaching myself economic history for a new project,*** and I've grown very annoyed with the way that capitalism gets naturalized in so much of the literature. The idea that once feudalism "weakened", then the natural human capitalist tendencies could be freed. The notion that a population shock like the Black Death produced the oppportunity for proto-capitalist improvement first struck me that way, though it doesn't have to be taken that way. I overreacted because suddenly people were talking about an obscure things I've developed strong feelings about, sorry.
As long as we're talking about things that annoy us, I am sort of irked that the Marxistly-popularized term "capitalism" has become the common term for the free-market system.
   2042. McCoy Posted: October 14, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4269288)
Ohio numbers through Friday:

Democrats-325,000
Republicans-279,000.
   2043. McCoy Posted: October 14, 2012 at 09:29 AM (#4269291)
How was I wrong two months ago? For predicting that Romney could (and would) win, when just about everyone else — including the libertarians — was predicting an Obama win, if not an Obama blowout?

I might ultimately be proven wrong on Nov. 6, but my prior predictions are looking good today.


So you weren't wrong because apparently a debate two to three months after your statements were made can be considered "details and numbers"? Again, what were you right about? What numbers were you right about? What details were you right about?
   2044. BDC Posted: October 14, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4269300)
Apparently Sam and his pop etymology has never heard of a cell nucleus -- a concept which long predates the popularizaton of atomic theory

Oddly enough, OED has the earliest sense of "nucleus" as coming from astronomy (as in the nucleus of a comet) with citations back to the late 1600s. The word in Latin simply means "nut" – it's related to Latin nux – and is used in that plain sense in English in the early 1700s in agricultural texts. OED gives the first use for cell nuclei in 1833, and its first use for atomic nuclei in 1844 (by Michael Faraday; this was several decades before the atomic nucleus was observed, but he theorized its presence).

The first citation for "nuclear family" is from good ol' Bronislaw Malinowski, in 1924. The first for "nuclear energy" is 1927. The concepts are separate, but there's some accidental interplay among them; my original bringing it up was mostly to point to its suggestive confusions. The same interplay might be true of the nuclei of cells, but "nuclear" in that sense is not so often used as an adjective. (In fact, OED considers "nuclear" as a biological term to be "obsolete," though they have citations through the year 2000; it's not something you say every day, as you do with "nuclear power." "Honey, the nuclear substance in this egg is a bit runny.")

À propos of nothing, the German words for "nuclear energy" and "nuclear family" are "Atomkraft" and "Kernfamilie." I reckon there's little confusion there.

   2045. greenback calls it soccer Posted: October 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4269326)
Posted this afternoon on nytimes.com; more bad news on the foreign policy front for Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/world/middleeast/us-suspects-iranians-were-behind-a-wave-of-cyberattacks.html

When you get your first inkling of this stuff from Glenn Greenwald and Thomas Drake, as I did, you have a little different picture of the political implications.
   2046. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4269336)
As long as we're talking about things that annoy us, I am sort of irked that the Marxistly-popularized term "capitalism" has become the common term for the free-market system.

Tell you what: You and your fellow capitalist enthusiasts stop tagging every government action this side of private property protection with the "socialist" and/or "collectivist" label, and perhaps we can have a productive discussion.

But in the meantime, you also might consider directing your complaint to the followers of Ayn Rand, who use "capitalism" with pride, and not with any Marxistly-popularized scorn.
   2047. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: October 14, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4269476)
   2048. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 14, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4269512)
(CNN) -- Former U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter -- who embodied a dying breed of liberal Republicanism, switching to the Democratic Party at the twilight of his political career -- died after a lengthy battle with cancer, his family announced Sunday.
That's some terrible writing.
   2049. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 14, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4269516)
So you weren't wrong because apparently a debate two to three months after your statements were made can be considered "details and numbers"? Again, what were you right about? What numbers were you right about? What details were you right about?

I'm not getting into this nonsense with you. I've said over and over for the past 9 to 12 months that if the economic situation remains roughly the same (or worse) on Election Day as it was in early 2012, that Romney would win, regardless of what Nate's model or any other polling was saying in the spring and summer.

As for the debate, people wouldn't even have been watching if they were as happy with Obama as Nate's model was predicting (~85 percent chance of an Obama win as of Oct. 4). If Obama was cruising to reelection, 70 million people — the most since 1980 — wouldn't have watched the first Romney/Obama debate in the first place. Romney wouldn't even have had the opportunity to change minds.
   2050. bobm Posted: October 14, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4269518)
[2048] Is the Times much better?

Arlen Specter, the irascible senator from Pennsylvania who was at the center of many of the Senate's most divisive legal battles - from the Supreme Court nominations of Robert H. Bork and Clarence Thomas to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton - only to lose his seat in 2010 after quitting the Republican Party to become a Democrat, died Sunday morning at his home in Philadelphia. He was 82.
   2051. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 14, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4269606)
If Obama was cruising to reelection, 70 million people — the most since 1980 — wouldn't have watched the first Romney/Obama debate in the first place. Romney wouldn't even have had the opportunity to change minds.

Why in the world would you think people watched the debate in order to be persuaded, as opposed to rooting for their own "team"?
The debates are terrible and uninformative, everybody knows it, and that's exactly the way the Ds and Rs like it.
   2052. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 14, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4269654)
So the debates are terrible and uninformative, but people watch them anyway, just for the fun of it? I suspect you're overestimating the number of political junkies in the U.S. by about 40 million.

If this election was in the bag, the first debate wouldn't have attracted the biggest audience in over 30 years.
   2053. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 14, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4269937)
So the debates are terrible and uninformative, but people watch them anyway, just for the fun of it?
Yes. I don't watch Angel games to learn something. I watch with a serious rooting interest. That's how most people watch political debates, and that's happening more and more as politics has become yet another sporting event.
   2054. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 14, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4269970)

If people only watched the debate because they already had a serious rooting interest, then what explains the 4- or 5-point shift to Romney? Was it an impulse buy, like a pack of gum in the checkout lane?
   2055. Gonfalon B. Posted: October 14, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4269997)
As for the debate, people wouldn't even have been watching if they were as happy with Obama as Nate's model was predicting (~85 percent chance of an Obama win as of Oct. 4). If Obama was cruising to reelection, 70 million people — the most since 1980 — wouldn't have watched the first Romney/Obama debate in the first place.

The second Reagan-Mondale debate was watched by 67.3 million people, out of 236 million Americans. The first Obama-Romney debate was watched by 67.2 million people, out of 314 million Americans.

Voters must have been incredibly unhappy with Ronald Reagan in 1984.
   2056. Portia Stanke Posted: October 14, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4270020)
Joe Biden with a puppy. That is all.


I am at once disappointed and relieved that this was not the Ozzy Osbourne image I expected.
   2057. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 14, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4270070)
Why in the world would you think people watched the debate in order to be persuaded, as opposed to rooting for their own "team"?

Undoubtedly many do watch the debates to root for their "team" or political party, and most of those folks are unlikely to change their rooting interests. However, there are a considerable number of Independents and weak partisans who don't vote a straight ticket every election. Those folks are greatly influenced by the debates when there is a clear winner, and those folks also determine who wins most elections.
   2058. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 14, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4270110)
Why in the world would you think people watched the debate in order to be persuaded, as opposed to rooting for their own "team"?


I'm going to side with Joe on this one. The fact that Romney appears to have gotten about a 4-point poll bounce out of the debate suggests that at least some people were watching it to help them decide who to vote for. I do think there's at least a hint of a 1980-style undercurrent, where a lot of people are somewhat underwhelmed with President Obama but haven't/hadn't been convinced yet that Romney's any better. I still think Obama's the favorite, but I also think if the next debate is even a toss-up, the race may become the same shortly thereafter.
   2059. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 14, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4270153)
The debates are terrible and uninformative, everybody knows it, and that's exactly the way the Ds and Rs like it.

Well, if you're talking about "issues", then the only way the debates could become really "informative" would be to have (on the economy, for instance) Glenn Hubbard** sit in for Romney and Paul Krugman sit in for Obama, with an equally knowledgeable moderator giving them free reign and no strict time limit, but having the power to administer an electric shock to either of them any time they strayed off the factual reservation. They would take questions from the moderator, a carefully selected audience, and from each other, with time allowed for rebuttal.

Of course such a debate might run longer than a Yankees-Red Sox tripleheader, and everyone would have to be provided with one of Jim Bouton's greenie jars, but at least we'd be hearing positions a bit more to the point than the bromides that presidential candidates give out.

**the economist, not the former Braves' second baseman

   2060. McCoy Posted: October 14, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4270556)
I'm not getting into this nonsense with you. I've said over and over for the past 9 to 12 months that if the economic situation remains roughly the same (or worse) on Election Day as it was in early 2012, that Romney would win, regardless of what Nate's model or any other polling was saying in the spring and summer.


So you are crowing now that you will be in right in 3 weeks?

As for the debate, people wouldn't even have been watching if they were as happy with Obama as Nate's model was predicting (~85 percent chance of an Obama win as of Oct. 4). If Obama was cruising to reelection, 70 million people — the most since 1980 — wouldn't have watched the first Romney/Obama debate in the first place. Romney wouldn't even have had the opportunity to change minds.

Um, an 85% chance of winning doesn't mean that 85% of the voters are going to vote for Obama.

1992 had 69.9 million viewers.

Ever since 2000 the citizens of America have taken a more active interest in the election than in years past. I think some off the cuff assumption that the polls were/are wrong because of TV ratings for a debate is a silly assumption to make.
   2061. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4270662)
So you are crowing now that you will be in right in 3 weeks?

I'm not "crowing" about anything. You claimed I was "wrong two months ago" (#2012) and I asked what you were talking about.

Um, an 85% chance of winning doesn't mean that 85% of the voters are going to vote for Obama.

Did I make this claim? No.

1992 had 69.9 million viewers.

And what happened in 1992? The incumbent lost, despite an economy that was much better than the economy in 2012. This is a point I've been making for nearly a year now, with many of the lefties here claiming the sample size is too small, or this time would be different, etc., etc. (And with 3 weeks left, this time might be different, but it's certainly not the cakewalk people here were predicting for Obama no more than 2 weeks ago.)

I think some off the cuff assumption that the polls were/are wrong because of TV ratings for a debate is a silly assumption to make.

Did I connect TV ratings and the polls? No. I contrasted the huge interest in the debate with Nate's model essentially predicting the election was in the bag for Obama (i.e., ~84 percent chance of victory as of the day of the debate, and trending higher).

Aside from 2012, the three other debates with the highest viewership occurred in 1980, 1992, and 1976. Election results? Incumbent lost, incumbent lost, and incumbent lost. Small sample size or not, if I'm Obama, I'm nervous about the trend.
   2062. McCoy Posted: October 15, 2012 at 07:36 AM (#4270723)
Again, I think you are losing sight of what 85% means. It doesn't mean cakewalk or blowout. You can have a 3 point lead and have a 75 to 85% chance of winning the election.
   2063. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 15, 2012 at 09:26 AM (#4270771)
This isn't exactly new news to many people here, but it's worth noting that the GOP's attempts to rig the balloting aren't just restricted to trying to keep potential Democratic voters off the registration rolls and out of the voting booth. They're siccing their operatives on Gary Johnson as well.

Spoiler Alert! G.O.P. Fighting Libertarian’s Spot on the Ballot

Around the country, Republican operatives have been making moves to keep Mr. Johnson from becoming their version of Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate whose relatively modest support cut into Al Gore’s 2000 vote arguably enough to help hand the decisive states of Ohio and Florida to George W. Bush.

The fear of Mr. Johnson’s tipping the outcome in an important state may explain why an aide to Mr. Romney ran what was effectively a surveillance operation into Mr. Johnson’s efforts over the summer to qualify for the ballot at the Iowa State Fair, providing witnesses to testify in a lawsuit to block him that ultimately fizzled.

Libertarians suspect it is why Republican state officials in Michigan blocked Mr. Johnson from the ballot after he filed proper paperwork three minutes after his filing deadline.

And it is why Republicans in Pennsylvania hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive in Philadelphia, appearing at the homes of paid canvassers and, in some cases, flashing an F.B.I. badge — he was a retired agent — while asking to review the petitions they gathered at $1 a signature, according to testimony in the case and interviews....

Robert Gleason, the Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman, vowing that the state will become far more competitive for Mr. Romney than Democrats realize, said he was not about to give Mr. Johnson an easy opening to play a Nader to Mr. Romney’s Gore in Pennsylvania this year.

“This election will be close — if you remember, Bush lost by only something like 143,000 votes in 2004,” said Mr. Gleason, noting that his party has managed to disqualify tens of thousands of Libertarian signatures. “So we play the game hard here.”
   2064. bobm Posted: October 15, 2012 at 09:43 AM (#4270782)
[2062] Again, I think you are losing sight of what 85% means. It doesn't mean cakewalk or blowout. You can have a 3 point lead and have a 75 to 85% chance of winning the election.

ISTM that the observed negative impact of the debate against an incumbent who gave a lackluster convention speech in a down economy was not as unlikely as 85% chance of winning would indicate. Based on the 538 post prior to debate 1, it seems that it was viewed as an important opportunity for Romney but unlikely to be a game changer. It was not clear to me that the 538 model explicitly bakes in a "debate bounce" for the challenger when it is an incumbent/challenger race to adjust the chance of winning prior to the debate and the impact of same showing up in post debate polling.

What is also not clear is how reliable the polling data was, in the sense of stability/persistence, ie voter commitment to one's candidate. Did Romney sway lukewarm/reluctant Obama supporters (who were indistinguishable in top line poll numbers from die-hard supporters) or rather convince many of the (purportedly few) undecideds? Only history can be a guide as to when to discount a lead for strength or quality of voter support.
   2065. GregD Posted: October 15, 2012 at 09:43 AM (#4270783)
But Republicans are the real libertarians! All the libertarians here tell me so!

Interesting to see whether the Wash Post poll gets backup from other national polls or looks like an outlier.

One possibility that I've seen floated is that there's a push-pull that is happening below the narrative. That some people saw Obama ahead and reacted against that to Romney, starting before the debate and in reaction to Obama's good numbers the weeks before. As Romney's numbers spike, some are turning against him. We credit Romney's win--it was a win--in the debate with the first wave. If Obama does well this week, we'll credit that for the movement in his direction. But one explanation is that a chunk of the population doesn't want either one to win, and reacts against the frontrunner. The undecided aren't underinformed, but equally turned off. One possibility then would be to not peak too much before election day. The other is that all those people in the mushy middle will just stay home.
   2066. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM (#4270799)
Interesting to see whether the Wash Post poll gets backup from other national polls or looks like an outlier.

Yeah, that Post poll showed Obama +3 among likely voters, which is actually a gain of a point from before the first debate. God knows what any of this means, however, though it did throw the RCP average back into a tie. Are we having fun yet?

   2067. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM (#4270802)
One possibility that I've seen floated is that there's a push-pull that is happening below the narrative. That some people saw Obama ahead and reacted against that to Romney, starting before the debate and in reaction to Obama's good numbers the weeks before. As Romney's numbers spike, some are turning against him. We credit Romney's win--it was a win--in the debate with the first wave. If Obama does well this week, we'll credit that for the movement in his direction. But one explanation is that a chunk of the population doesn't want either one to win, and reacts against the frontrunner. The undecided aren't underinformed, but equally turned off. One possibility then would be to not peak too much before election day. The other is that all those people in the mushy middle will just stay home.

Greg, this "Jolly Old" wonders if elections are less complicated over there in your "Jolly Old".
   2068. GregD Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4270806)
Jolly Old, any chance you're confusing me with Greg (UK)? I live in New York, where elections are indeed less complicated in some ways.
   2069. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:10 AM (#4270812)
I've noticed that the last few weeks that Obama polls better on the weekend than during the week, obviously Obama voters are more likely to be gainfully employed during the week and unavailable for polls than Romney voters

:-)

and before JoeK gets his panties in a bunch, I'm joking, I have as much evidence for that assertion as righties do for the converse
   2070. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4270817)
But one explanation is that a chunk of the population doesn't want either one to win


I'm not sure how/if that's affecting polling, but I'm fairly hopeful that most Americans wouldn't want either man anywhere near the White-House in an ideal world.

   2071. GregD Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4270827)
I'm not sure how/if that's affecting polling, but I'm fairly hopeful that most Americans wouldn't want either man anywhere near the White-House in an ideal world.
I'm sure this is true but also sure this is in part an outcome of the parties' effort to make sure to take the bloom off the other guy. None of these perceptions exist in a vacuum.
   2072. Greg K Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM (#4270830)
Greg, this "Jolly Old" wonders if elections are less complicated over there in your "Jolly Old".

Seems like a good time to jump in and say the new season of "The Thick Of It" is great! Not sure about less complicated, but it sure leads me to believe elections here have more swearing than in the US.
   2073. Randy Jones Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4270835)
I'm not sure how/if that's affecting polling, but I'm fairly hopeful that most Americans wouldn't want either man anywhere near the White-House in an ideal world.


“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
--Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
   2074. GregD Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM (#4270843)
Which sums up why I gave up on Douglas Adams in high school. No matter how you tie yourself in knots, you're still stuck in this world, where making claims about no one being allowed to hold a job doesn't mean the job goes unheld, but leaves it to someone who's even worse. If on these lines, hypocrisy is the discovery of adolescence, then the discovery of adulthood was, to me, the impact of relative difference. Thanks, Ralph Nader! People who you find unattractive and hypocritical but who are marginally less bad than the alternative have real-world consequences more important than one's own state of moral purity.
   2075. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4270847)
Seems like a good time to jump in and say the new season of "The Thick Of It" is great! Not sure about less complicated, but it sure leads me to believe elections here have more swearing than in the US.
obviously you're not familiar with rahmbo.


and i'll second the endorsement of "the thick of it". i'd rank it below "arrested development", but other than that, i'm not sure there's been a better comedy in the last 20 years.
   2076. Randy Jones Posted: October 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4270851)
Which sums up why I gave up on Douglas Adams in high school. No matter how you tie yourself in knots, you're still stuck in this world, where making claims about no one being allowed to hold a job doesn't mean the job goes unheld, but leaves it to someone who's even worse. If on these lines, hypocrisy is the discovery of adolescence, then the discovery of adulthood was, to me, the impact of relative difference. Thanks, Ralph Nader! People who you find unattractive and hypocritical but who are marginally less bad than the alternative have real-world consequences more important than one's own state of moral purity.


Uh huh. Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't take the quote literally. Something tells me it was more a comment on human nature than a suggested course of action.
   2077. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4270880)
I'm going to side with Joe on this one


Fool.
   2078. Morty Causa Posted: October 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4270886)

Not to beat this in the ground, but I don’t think much of superior pronouncements like Adams’s about politics. Politics is hard. And deadly. It’s a grease pig contest where the pig can eat you. Why do I loathe self-satisfied judgmentalism like Adam’s (and we all do it). Because it’s the same old lament based on the hoary assumption that one’s sensibilities trump everything. It’s a stance that leaves begging the examination and testing of those state of the art sensibilities. It’s working the unfalsifiable stance of the last refuge of the cynic.

What Adams’s sentiments really are, though, to the extent they have any content at all, are a comment on the human nature of the humans who make comments like that. An equally and maybe bigger underlying assumption is that there is a right way, maybe even a perfect way (the enouncer's way), to go at something, that perfection not only exists but is attainable, and that professionals/experts can't be trusted, have no incentive or expertise, to work toward getting you there. How's that work with other people in other lines of work? That priest/minister/whatever can't be trusted to help me get toward enlightenment--he prays too much. That neurosurgeon is always studying up on the brain--how can you trust him? It’s a way of putting down without having bona fides. It’s the sour grapes (those Germans, they have a word for everything) of the judge and high executioner without portfolio.
   2079. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4270909)
That priest/minister/whatever can't be trusted to help me get toward enlightenment--he prays too much.


This statement is 100% true in a manner that in no way whatsoever supports the intent of your rant.
   2080. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4270912)
The art of living as a human being is in a large part the balancing the ideal and the real. The second-worst mistake people make is the Adams error of discovering that the world is an imperfect place and then throwing their hands up in disgust. The worst mistake people make is the use of the world's imperfection as justification for bad behavior.

The truly decent and the quietly humble will generally spend their lives as low-level office workers. We should see this as a failing of both the world and of the decent and humble.

Satire is the lowest form of art.

I'm feeling gnomic.
   2081. Morty Causa Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4270919)
This statement is 100% true in a manner that in no way whatsoever supports the intent of your rant.


That wasn't a rant. That was a reasoned argument. I understand your confusion, this place having become what it is.
   2082. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4270937)
The truly decent and the quietly humble will generally spend their lives as low-level office workers.


Losers.
   2083. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4270947)
Koch Industries, the Wichita, Kan.-based company run by the billionaire Koch brothers, sent a voter information packet to 45,000 employees of its Georgia Pacific subsidiary earlier this month.

In it was a letter, dated Oct. 1, from Koch Industries president Dave Robertson implicitly warning that "many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences" of voting for President Obama and other Democrats in the 2012 elections, a list of conservative candidates the company's political action committee endorses and a pair of editorials: one, by David Koch, supporting Mitt Romney, and the other, by Charles Koch, condemning Obama.

"While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit," Robertson's letter--first published by InTheseTimes.com--begins. "If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills. This is true regardless of what your political affiliation might be."


Link.
   2084. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4270958)
Well, if you don't like what the Koch Brothers are doing, go out and start your own company.
   2085. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4270968)
Jolly Old, any chance you're confusing me with Greg (UK)? I live in New York, where elections are indeed less complicated in some ways.

Yeah, I thought for whatever reason the other Greg had just dropped the UK part of his handle. There was also the coincidental factor that your join date time was almost exactly five hours ahead of the time when you made that last post. I misread as being the local time of your last comment and thought that meant you were in the UK.
   2086. DA Baracus Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4270973)
At least the Koch Brothers didn't copy/paste like Seigel did?
   2087. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4270977)
Well, if you don't like what the Koch Brothers are doing, go out and start your own company.


While it's obvious bullshit for employers to pull this mafioso "we'd hate for someone to get hurt if you peons vote wrong" stunt, blanketing Georgia Pacific seems a bit like preaching to the choir. Although, I guess GP has a large target audience for this sort of intimidation in Florida as well as GA.
   2088. DA Baracus Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4270979)
The President of the Central Mississippi Tea Party, a woman named Janis Lane, believes that women are too “mean, hateful” and “diabolical” to vote, and likely should not have been given the right. In an interview with the Jackson Free Press, Lane told the interviewer, “I’m really going to set you back here. Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote.” She went on: “Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I’d much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.”


-Link
   2089. GregD Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4270984)
That was my grandmother right there. Only voted in one presidential election in my lifetime--to go and vote against Mondale because she did not believe a woman should be VP. Though she had raised 3 children as a single mother and worked into her 80s.


Not that she had any high thoughts about men's capacities, either mind you.

She voted in every county option election to maintain the ban on beer and liquor sales.
   2090. Greg K Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4270989)
The truly decent and the quietly humble will generally spend their lives as low-level office workers.


Losers.

That is a great read and really helps clarify why I've grown to detest Jim. (Or at least did, I haven't seen the last couple seasons).

Also it is comforting to read confirmation that my choice to be a "loser" has some kind of logical sense to it.
   2091. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4270994)
While it's obvious ######## for employers to pull this mafioso "we'd hate for someone to get hurt if you peons vote wrong" stunt, blanketing Georgia Pacific seems a bit like preaching to the choir. Although, I guess GP has a large target audience for this sort of intimidation in Florida as well as GA.

So, it's OK for unions to tell their members who to vote for (and use money taken from their pay to support candidates the individual members may well oppose), but it's not OK for employers to tell worker who they think would be bad for America their business?

   2092. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4271005)
So, it's OK for unions to tell their members who to vote for (and use money taken from their pay to support candidates the individual members may well oppose), but it's not OK for employers to tell worker who they think would be bad for America their business?


Have you ceased claiming that union vote intimidation, to the point that it actually exists, is wrong?
   2093. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4271012)
Have you ceased claiming that union vote intimidation, to the point that it actually exists, is wrong?

I think unions are perfectly free to say "Hey, this guy's policies will lead to more jobs/pay/benefits for our members, you should vote for him.", which is exactly what the employers are doing. Anything beyond that is wrong, whether done by employers or unions.
   2094. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4271038)
I think unions are perfectly free to say "Hey, this guy's policies will lead to more jobs/pay/benefits for our members, you should vote for him.", which is exactly what the employers are doing. Anything beyond that is wrong, whether done by employers or unions.


Shall we classify the "if you vote wrong, well, it'd be a shame if anything happened to your nice little job here, wouldn't it?" implied gangsterism as something "beyond that?"
   2095. McCoy Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4271040)
A union is a coaltion of people who share a common trait. In a union all are equal. That is not true in a employee/employer relationship. Big difference.
   2096. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4271045)
The President of the Central Mississippi Tea Party, a woman named Janis Lane, believes that women are too “mean, hateful” and “diabolical” to vote, and likely should not have been given the right. In an interview with the Jackson Free Press, Lane told the interviewer, “I’m really going to set you back here. Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote.” She went on: “Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I’d much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.”

Sounds kind of like what I sometimes think about Republicans. Bad lot---all of em. Although the Women's Auxiliary Branch of the Yorktown GOP has admittedly produced some good card players.

   2097. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4271051)
Shall we classify the "if you vote wrong, well, it'd be a shame if anything happened to your nice little job here, wouldn't it?" implied gangsterism as something "beyond that?"

Nah, that was just a suggestion that they'd be wise not to refuse. And like I said, they can always start their own company.
   2098. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4271073)
Which sums up why I gave up on Douglas Adams in high school. No matter how you tie yourself in knots, you're still stuck in this world, where making claims about no one being allowed to hold a job doesn't mean the job goes unheld, but leaves it to someone who's even worse. If on these lines, hypocrisy is the discovery of adolescence, then the discovery of adulthood was, to me, the impact of relative difference. Thanks, Ralph Nader! People who you find unattractive and hypocritical but who are marginally less bad than the alternative have real-world consequences more important than one's own state of moral purity.
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
   2099. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4271095)
Shall we classify the "if you vote wrong, well, it'd be a shame if anything happened to your nice little job here, wouldn't it?" implied gangsterism as something "beyond that?"
Uh, no. First, laying people off is legal; breaking kneecaps or burning down businesses is not. Second, in one case the threat is a personal one -- if you don't personally give me money, I will harm you -- while in the other it's a general one -- if he gets elected (regardless of who you personally vote for), then bad things will happen.
   2100. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 15, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4271096)
What's with the Doug Adams hate fest?
Page 21 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHurdles remain in Mets-Rockies deal for Tulowitzki, Gonzalez
(2 - 4:30pm, Jul 25)
Last: Willie Mayspedes

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(930 - 4:29pm, Jul 25)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(22 - 4:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Brian

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(405 - 4:19pm, Jul 25)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3161 - 4:16pm, Jul 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(96 - 4:03pm, Jul 25)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(108 - 3:58pm, Jul 25)
Last: AROM

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(84 - 3:55pm, Jul 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogLa Russa: Asterisk for tainted stars
(17 - 3:46pm, Jul 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(28 - 3:45pm, Jul 25)
Last: winnipegwhip

Newsblog7-25-14 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 2:57pm, Jul 25)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogRick Cerone: “Robinson Cano . . . what a fool!”
(259 - 2:56pm, Jul 25)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(15 - 2:35pm, Jul 25)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(39 - 2:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(6 - 1:38pm, Jul 25)
Last: Moeball

Page rendered in 0.6848 seconds
52 querie(s) executed