User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6980 seconds
53 querie(s) executed

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.
And a closer look than this, too.
Unless he's off in a consistent direction, and even then separating the wheat from the noise may not be easy, it's going to be very tough to know exactly what Silver is missing (should he miss).
Deliriously so, but if I had to bet I'm not sure I'd give long odds. His nose does look different. Surely that particular author wouldn't stoop to retouching, or a little shadow just for "emphasis"?
I won't do that, but if if we can skip the polls and go strictly by results, Ohio has also given a larger percentage of its vote to a few Democrats than the entire country did: John Kerry, George McGovern, and (just barely) Hubert Humphrey. Also, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter (1976) were just a smidge under their national averages.
Oddly, BOTH Bush and Kerry had better percentages in Ohio in 2004 than they did overall-- not by much for either man, obviously. Must've been a bad day in the Buckeye State for third party candidates.
Regarding polls, yeah it was kind of interesting and I'll keep reading, but I for one would love a non horse race topic to talk about. I just have no idea what it might be, especially since political news right now is pretty much all horse race (with a side of FrankenStorm).
And Joe K I thought you were reasonable about the Ohio 2% thing, so at least one liberal noticed. You are still wrong about 98% of everything else though - :)
G.O.P. Turns Fire on Obama Pillar, the Auto Bailout
Did they make it onto the Ohio ballot? Third parties have to petition in each state - huge hurdle to such a campaign - so it wouldn't surprise me if they simply failed and it was either/or at the top of the ballot in Ohio.
Since Romney's ideologically driven "solution" to natural disasters is to dismantle FEMA and let the states fend for themselves, it might not be a bad idea in the closing days for that position of his to be well publicized. It's just one of a zillion examples of how his Norquistian ideas about government would play out in the real world.
Why is it unpersuasive? The polls says that Obama and Romney are tied among people who intend to vote but haven't while Obama holds a commanding lead among people who have already voted. You don't need to know the color of their skin to know that isn't good for Romney.
Swing states
Supposedly, 30% of all NC AA's have already voted... that's not 30% of registered voters, that's 30% of the total NC AA population...
Canvassed a bit for the campaign this weekend and dropped off some stuff at Obama HQ last night - talking to the coordinator a bit, the campaign is outpacing its early voting targets in the swing states - they're thrilled with Ohio, Iowa and Nevada, happy with Florida, and feel that the early voting numbers in NC are good reason to keep an eye on the state election night. We gabbed a bit about RV vs LV screens - and one thing he mentioned is that they've either hit already or are well on track to hit (and surpass) their 'first time voter' numbers in most of the swing states... he cautioned that he wasn't saying we ought to pay more attention to the RV and than LV numbers, but just noted that first time voters generally get screened out in most LV models ("Did you vote in the last election..." is generally one of the LV/RV screen questions) - but that he thought LV models hadn't yet caught up to the surge they feel they've accomplished.
Sure, sure - it might be bubble insulation at work, but it felt like confidence, not nervous confidence or blustery confidence, just plain old confidence to me...
Oh, he wasn't proposing they'd win it -- just that CW has it as about a 4-5 pt Romney pick up and he thinks it will stay in within a pt or 2... he was more talking about watching it in the context of whether the networks put it in the too early to call or too close to call as soon as polls close.
With the increased importance in early voting I am not sure how this will work. Once upon a time the states will called (I think) because of exit polling, but doesn't early voting make exit polling less useful, especially if the early votign stuff is not counted early.
I guess I really am not sure how this works, and so I guess I am exposing my lack of knowledge on this.
Absolutely - but they do have tells - making a state "too early" to call vs "too close" to call... it's tea leaf reading to be sure, but if NC is "too early to call", it's good news for Romney... if it's "too close" to call, not so much, even if the state ultimately flips.
If so, it should be Electoral count, popular vote percentages, and exact time and network when the winner is declared.
That, and the fact the exit polls were way off in 2000 & 2004 (Shrum: "May I be the 1st to call you President Kerry?") should make one a bit skeptical about calls based on exit polls. Even with this caveat, it does seem like the networks hold back some of the exit poll detail that would be interesting to know. IIRC, it used to be fairly common for the networks to say something like "when all is said and done, we expect Smith to carry the state with 55% of the vote". Now they seem more likely to project Smith the winner without mentioning his final % of the vote until much later, when they are less likely to be wrong.
Wow... that's one hell of a scam.
If I'm understanding it right, you basically set up a charitable trust -- effectively 'renting' the charity's tax-exempt status to pay yourself an annuity until the trust matures, at which point the targeted charity gets a fair bit less in actual donations than the trust originally held - but you, the trust owner, makes a tidy tax free income on it.
Maybe this is one of those loopholes that Romney will eliminate? Oh wait, it was eliminated... but such existing vehicles were grandfathered.
Good work if you can get it!
If I'm understanding it right, you basically set up a charitable trust -- effectively 'renting' the charity's tax-exempt status to pay yourself an annuity until the trust matures, at which point the targeted charity gets a fair bit less in actual donations than the trust originally held - but you, the trust owner, makes a tidy tax free income on it.
Maybe this is one of those loopholes that Romney will eliminate? Oh wait, it was eliminated... but such existing vehicles were grandfathered.
Good work if you can get it!
Of course if you complain about any of this, then obviously you hate religion.
Which arrangements?
I'll be happy to complain about them - just give me something real rather than vague...
I'm pretty sure the Republicans would have dragged out any and all financial items they found politically useful to use against Kerry. If none of it seemed memorable or politically useful, then maybe there wasn't anything really worth complaining about...
Well a big chunk of it (fair or not) was that he was not advocating policies that helped him out, like lowering the taxes on the wealthy. Romney has a very pro-rich agenda, which makes his "richness" a bit more fair game.
EDIT: And what everyone else said. I think the internet is slow here in MN.
The problem with 2004 is that the Republicans had a president who came from money and whose family was profiting from oil/middle eastern money. They weren't going to bring up wealth in that campaign.
Because Kerry both released his tax returns and wasn't campaigning that the richest Americans are overtaxed. No one cares that Romney is wealthy per se. The objection is to how he feels they ought have separate rules that guarantee their wealth incumbency in perpetuity, and allow them to pay proportionally less than middle class Americans.
I thought the DSCC was foolish to think recruiting Bob Kerrey would help them hold the NE-SEN seat - though, I'm awfully glad that they haven't bothered to waste any money there... but interestingly, the seat has moved from Safe GOP to Lean GOP -- and a poll from the Omaha paper says it's a 3 point race.
I'm not buying that - for one thing, the GOP got a candidate less likely to say something stupid about rape (hint: the candidate has lady parts) and for another, retreads always seem to go out with a whimper... but it is worth noting that Crossroads (Rove's SuperPAC) has just gone up with an ad buy.
I wouldn't bet money on Kerrey here if you gave me 10 to 1 odds, but if it pulls some PAC/RSCC money away from other places - that's a good thing.
I don't know...
It IS worth noting that Kerrey was actually voted against DOMA back in 1996 -- one of only 14 Senators to do so (all 14 were Democratic - 32 Dem Senators voted yes)... If he were to be elected - and like I said, I don't think he will be - I think he'd actually be fairly left of anything I'd expect out of a blue Nebraska seat. He's certainly further left than Nelson.
Again, though - doubt he'll be elected.
- Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui) October 30, 2012
I can't imagine how even Republicans can ####ing stand this guy. He has the courage of conviction of a banana slug.
I got mine a couple of weeks ago and have been saving it for this upcoming weekend. Invite some friends over and make a drinking game out of it. Also be sure and have some suitable theme music playing softly in the background.
10m voters will eventually cast their votes as
5m Obama.
5m Romney.
1m vote early. 500k of those are African-American.
680k Obama.
320k Romney.
Look! Obama's leading!! Except,
End result:
5m Obama.
5m Romney.
As a predictor, in the sense you're looking at it (i.e. out of context) early voting is meaningless.
Is he? Maybe we should have a drone blow up the WND offices, just to be sure.
Read the article again:Now, there's no guarantee that Time has correctly surveyed the Ohio electorate, but they have not made the basic methodological error you've claimed. They are properly separating likely voters who have yet to vote (whom they survey as tied) from people who have voted already (whom they survey as significantly tilted to Obama).
"I think it's great you gave that dead girl another chance..."
Even more interesting, the exit polls will announce that Romney has a lead on Obama (because more of them waited until Election Day), and that might lead people to make further errors in judgement.
What 5658 said.
The problem is, the math doesn't really add up to anything reasonable. If a third of Ohio's voters have voted early, as claimed by Sunday's PPP poll and others, and if Obama leads this group by roughly 2 to 1, and if Obama and Romney will split the Election Day vote, as alleged by those polls and others, then Romney would lose Ohio by roughly 10 points. Does anyone really believe that's a real-world outcome?
In poll after poll of Ohio, somewhere between 5 and 10 percent more respondents are claiming to have voted than have actually voted according to the Ohio sec. of state numbers. If early voters skew heavily toward Obama and the polls are over-counting early voters, that will wreak havoc with the projections.
But in this case, the money really DID come from Americans, so there is nothing wrong with it.
Maybe Obama's team saw through the ruse and knew it was okay to keep the money.
;)
Is there a law that says the political donations have to be done by the person saying they are doing them?
Or could a corporation donate millions of dollars to a campaign by setting up a lot of fake people/accounts and donating the max through those accounts?
People would go to jail on that one.
In fact the people who donated money to Obama's campaign as fake Osama probably broke the law by doing so.
Heh. That's what I thought.
It seems to be a common occurrence for people trying to catch Democrats/liberals in scams that they get caught possibly breaking the law while doing it (ex: James O'Keefe).
The president has been all over this and he deserves great credit." - Chris Christie
"One thing he’s gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [the hurricane] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly" - Michael "Brownie" Brown
Edit: A gold star for Gold Star.
At this point, Team Romney probably needs to hope that whatever "momentum" they've had has been enough, because I'm pretty sure the election is locked in place as of today. Barring something truly terrible happening that makes Obama look Bush-Katrina-esque, the 2012 general election officially "is what it is." Any campaigning will be seen mostly as dancing on the graves of victims.
Also funny how Obama, who gets bashed even within his party for being too hands-off, suddenly is Mr. Hands On with Sandy. I'm sure the election being a week away has nothing to do with it.
I think it interesting that even though the media narrative (non-Nate Silver and other models and aggregators) is a race too close to call, every survey I have seen has people thinking (but really large margins) that Obama will win the election (including surveys of political professionals).
I don't know that people's expectations are that accurate in large groups though (wisdom of the crowds always struck me as possible but iffy, good for some things though I suppose).
This is a new one on me. He is aloof, willing to negotiate with himself*, too centrist (or a Kenyan Socialist Muslim - whichever), but too hands off. Not one I have heard much of.
* By this I mean he negotiates before he has to, condeding things he doesn't seem to need to. Poorly phrased thugh I admit.
If you're scoring at home:
- Campaigning after a hurricane = "dancing on the graves of victims";
- Fundraising in Las Vegas the day after four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack = perfectly acceptable.
Yeah, because, you know -- it's not really newsworthy when the GOP convention keynote speaker heaps praise on the President...
It really ought to be noted...
FEMA was created under Carter, elevated to cabinet level under Clinton, then demoted and placed into the hands of a political hack whose 'experience' was judging horses... It ought to be noted that current FEMA chief Craig Fugate is a former firefighter and former head of Florida's Emergency Management.
Again... it all comes back to the central idea of people who think government can do no right proving the point by getting in office and then, well, doing nothing right.
There is a difference between working with Obama, cooperating, and then keeping your mouth shut, versus praising Obama to the sky. It was the praise I was referring to, not the working with Obama or doing his job - that's all.
What an asinine comparison...
A monster storm engulfs the entire eastern seaboard from Maine to the Carolinas, killing dozens, leaving millions without power, and thousands still in harms way... as opposed to -- what, exactly... were the guys with the RPGs in Benghazi going to next invade Florida?
This Jonah Goldbergian stupidity at its finest -- find two clumps of 'facty' material and just chuck 'em shouting with gusto "THEY'RE BOTH APPLES! THEY'RE BOTH APPLES!"
From what I've seen, most politicians who ask for help and get it are pretty honest in their comments.
It should be noted that Christie mentioned Obama's name MUCH sooner in this address to the press than he mentioned Romney's name during the keynote speech.
Mitt Romney in the eyes of Massachusetts: 35% favorable, 58% unfavorable. That's pretty remarkable.
But only yesterday, Obama's campaign people were warning that the storm shouldn't be politicized. The rules change so quickly with you guys.
***
I've actually used the phrase on this very site.
But anyway, how was it a statement against interest for the governor of New Jersey to say what absolutely everyone expected him to say, and what the circumstances essentially required him to say? This wasn't a hidden microphone catching Christie endorsing Obama over Romney.
If you don't mind, I think I'd prefer my lecture on politicizing things from someone with a scintilla of credibility on the topic...
Hey, if this is considered "politicizing", then it's a Republican who's done it. Blame him, not the Democrats.
All he had to do was say "Thanks to the President for declaring it a disaster and for FEMA for stepping in to help. We're working together to get this done."
Instead, he sounded like he wanted to give Obama a bro-hug and an political endorsement.
No, the Republican said what everyone expected him to say and what basic decency and courtesy required him to say. But now Dems are acting as if Christie endorsed Obama over Romney. It's absurd.
Does that clear things up?
I'm sure because of the election it is and will be blown up many times over but there really is no fire behind the smoke.
Yes, yes, yes... let the crocodile tears flow...
Given that Romney was on record earlier this year proposing cuts to FEMA, while a major disaster just elicited this from the GOP Convention keynote speaker says:
It's beyond me why -- when the "size, scope and responsibilities of government" seem to be the underlying theme of choice behind the whole election -- anyone would bother to highlight it.
Shorter Joe: There is no emoticon for my outrage over the opposition not being as stupid as I'd like them to be for my politically expedient purposes!
But hey, Joe, in the spirit of attaboys, let me praise Romney for not holding a press conference hours after landfall after he did with Benghazi!
(Much) shorter Zonk: It would be an outrage for Romney to politicize Sandy in any way, but it's perfectly acceptable and smart politics for Obama & Co. to do the same.
No kidding. It really sucks for Ambassador Stevens and the guys who tried to save his life that they weren't attacked a few weeks later. If it had happened now, maybe Obama would have cared a little more and maybe they'd still be alive.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main