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

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

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 4 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   301. McCoy Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4763363)
This is how you flip.
   302. McCoy Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4763365)
Fair enough. Let's take out "powerful", and replace that with "high-profile".

Is it? It's high profile in that Bush was a governor of Texas and then Perry ran for President but outside of that why would the country know who the governor of Texas is/was?

Ann Richard was sort of famous in that she was the first female governor of Texas and a Democrat to boot. Has any governor of Texas besides the last two ever done anything at the national level? Nobody cares who the governor of Texas is and most people don't even know who it is most of the time. NY and CA governorships are much more powerful and higher profile than the governorship of Texas.
   303. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4763376)
I agree that CA's governorship is higher profile and more powerful.

While the governorship of NY traditionally was a high-profile seat of great power, I think the lustre of that office has dimmed - particularly in relation to Texas given Texas's much greater economic and population growth. Also - the NY Governorship has been a pretty weak position for a long time, given the continual gridlock between the State Senate and Assembly. The real action within NY happens at the local levels.

Even conceding that both CA and NY governorships have a higher profile than that for Texas, I still think Texas, due to its size, would rank in the top 5 and at the very, very worst, top 10.
   304. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4763381)
Obama didn't win that much a greater percentage of the black vote than many of his Democratic predecessors, but having a black candidate certainly increased the total black vote by a big percentage.


I think a larger driving factor behind Obamamania was that he had enormous support from young people--a demographic that usually doesn't vote much.
   305. Stormy JE Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4763382)
As for Cruz and Walker, they are 20 years younger than the average GOP voter. The GOP strongly prefers their candidates to be very old and longtime familiar brand names. Cruz and Walker don't meet either criteria.

Even if Jeb runs in 2016, this promises to be a wide-open field not seen in my lifetime. Thinking that Cruz and Walker are bound to fail because neither are altacockers is borderline insane. For example, most Tea Partiers, regardless of age, adore Cruz. Moreover, the junior senator from Texas today is almost certainly better known than the governor. As for Walker, he may not be a household name everywhere, but definitely a familiar face in Iowa and throughout the Midwest.
   306. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4763389)
Nonetheless, [Santorum] got 11 states in 2012 with very little organization or money, and came close in several others. If he plans ahead, raises more money, and the other candidates implode – it is possible he gets nominated.


The problem is there isn't any money for him to raise. The Religious Right is the loudest wing of the Republican Party but they don't have money. The country clubbers have the Republican Party's money, and they will do anything to stop Rick Santorum from getting nominated.
   307. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4763394)
Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.

This is like Pat Nixon demanding to know what was "so bad" about her husband. Nothing anyone could have said would have convinced her.
This is like Andy dodging the question, because he doesn't actually have an answer, but just "knows" it to be true.
   308. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4763395)
The problem is there isn't any money for him to raise. The Religious Right is the loudest wing of the Republican Party but they don't have money. The country clubbers have the Republican Party's money, and they will do anything to stop Rick Santorum from getting nominated.


I agree that the country clubbers have the GOP's money, and that Santorum scares them and they'll put their money behind any non-insane candidate who's opposing Santorum. I also agree that there isn't much money for Santorum to raise. But given how late he started and how disorganized his operation was in 2012, I think that he could raise substantially more in 2016 than the measly amounts he raised in 2012 if he started earlier and was better organized. Of course, this greater amount would still be much less than any candidate who's backed by the country clubbers.

Basically, my scenario for Santorum winning in '16 involves 1.) him starting earlier and being better organized than in '12, and 2.) all the reasonable candidates of '16 imploding or killing each other off. This is a longshot, which is why I pegged his odds around 5%.
   309. Stormy JE Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4763396)
FWIW, I am not alone in holding Governor Huckabee responsible for Todd Akin remaining in the Senate race after the colossally stupid remarks about abortion. Right when it appeared that Akin would withdraw from the race, Huckabee tossed him a lifeline.
   310. Stormy JE Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4763399)
Bill Clinton eulogizes Richard Mellon Scaife: Nemesis, then friend:
Scaife, who inherited a fortune from the Mellon banking and oil empire, steered millions of dollars to groups that savagely attacked the Clintons throughout the 1990s. Scaife backed media outlets and nonprofits that pushed scandal after scandal that buffeted the Clinton administration — from the Whitewater real estate controversy to the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky sex scandals to raising doubts about the deaths of Clinton aides Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

Scaife confidant Christopher Ruddy, who rose to prominence on the Clinton scandal beat at the Tribune-Review, arranged Clinton’s appearance at Saturday’s memorial. Afterward, he acknowledged his former boss “was the bete noire of the Clinton administration during those years, sort of like what the Kochs are to the Obama administration today.”

But Scaife became enamored with Clinton’s post-presidential philanthropic work on AIDS in Africa and other issues, and a thaw began, said Ruddy, now CEO of the conservative Scaife-backed media outlet Newsmax.

Ruddy and the late former New York City Mayor Ed Koch helped broker a July 2007 meeting with Scaife and the former president in the Clinton Foundation’s Harlem office, and Scaife donated more than $100,000 to the foundation. Still, Scaife raised eyebrows by praising Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his Tribune-Review later endorsed her over Barack Obama ahead of the Pennsylvania primary.

In introducing Clinton on Saturday, the chairman of Scaife’s media company, H. Yale Gutnick, a longtime Scaife friend, said the former president and Scaife “shared a mutual love of America,” according to Ruddy, who said Clinton talked about how Thomas Jefferson and John Adams initially clashed before finding common cause and becoming allies and friends.

And the Tribune-Review quoted Clinton saying, “Our differences are important. Our political differences, our philosophical differences, our religious differences, our racial and ethnic differences, they’re important. They help us to define who we are. … But they don’t have to keep us at arm’s length from others.”
   311. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4763400)
It's not that obvious; Obamacare wasn't designed to, and doesn't, benefit the vast majority of people, so it's entirely possible that 44% of respondents meant that they didn't know anyone who benefitted.

There may be some people who (a) only know wealthy people, (b) don't know any 21 to 25 year-old not on health insurance, and (c) don't know anybody who has been denied health coverage due to a pre-existing condition, and (d) are completely unaware such people exist outside their circle of acquaintances. But it's nowhere near 44% of the population. Actually I'd guess more of that 44% would make a distinction between "help" and "benefit" rather than project their own experience to the entire world.
21-25 year olds generally don't need insurance.

The most recent numbers touted by Obamacare supporters last month were that 20 million people had gotten coverage since Obamacare. That number is high for numerous reasons -- it counts people who got coverage having nothing to do with Obamacare, such as new Medicaid signups in states that rejected Medicaid expansion, or people who simply got coverage on their own (such as by getting a job, or by buying insurance without the exchange subsidies); it counts people who signed up on the exchange but never paid; it counts every single person under the age of 26 who got coverage, regardless of why; it's a gross, rather than a net, so someone who had their policy cancelled thanks to Obamacare and then bought one on the exchange is counted as an Obamacare success story. But even at 20 million, it's only about 6% of the population. Given that these people are not evenly distributed throughout the population - for instance, 30% of the number are Medicaid recipients -- it's hardly surprising that 44% of the population wouldn't know any of them.
   312. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:36 PM (#4763403)
The debt ceiling scare was a big one on Wall Street and Cruz will have to apologize for his key role to get anywhere w Wall Street no matter his wife's position.
You don't tell me your basis for these statements. Do you hang out in the boardroom at Goldman Sachs? Overhear all this stuff while bartending at the Greenwich Country Club? Are you best friends with John Paulson? Or did you just study at the Andy Moursand School of Narratives That I Think Should Be True So I'll Assert They Are?
   313. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:36 PM (#4763404)
#302: Has any governor of Texas besides the last two ever done anything at the national level?

John Connally was a prominent political figure for a long time, including a credible Presidential try in 1980.


[Mike Huckabee] was last in office 10 years before ’16-’17: I can’t remember last time a candidate that far removed from office won either the primary in either party.

Since 1900:
Reagan was 6 years removed in 1980. Nixon was 8 years removed in 1968. Eisenhower was 7 years removed from his "office." Wendell Willkie's 1940 run was the first and only campaign of his life. Herbert Hoover had also never held elective office. John W. Davis was 11 years removed in 1924. Charles Evans Hughes was 6 years removed in 1916, but had spent the intervening time on the Supreme Court. William Taft had held a slew of posts, but not the general election kind. By 1908, William Jennings Bryan was 13 years removed from office, but of course he'd already been the Democratic nominee twice before that.

So, if you exclude those with no incumbency at all, a 10-year gap will have happened only once (John Davis) in 116 years.
   314. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4763406)
I'll repeat this again, I think it's extremely poor analysis to eliminate Scott Walker on the basis of age when you leave in Paul Ryan (2 years younger), and your top candidate ends up being Rick Perry.

If your top candidate is Rick Perry--which I don't even necessarily disagree with, mind you--then guys whose only negatives are age don't have that big of a negative.

Bush the Younger was only 54 in 2000, when he was a runaway favorite. Is there THAT much of a difference between 48 and 54? I think most of Walker's strengths position him very well in the field.

When you look at the field and you ask yourself, who can win Iowa and New Hampshire? The only guys that have a realistic shot at that are Jeb and Walker.
   315. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4763407)
And John Davis's nomination was the result of an unholy mess of a convention which took over a 100 ballots before the Dems settled on a candidate, and inspired Will Rogers' famous quote about the Democratic party. Is there any video record of that convention? Must have been a sight to see.

Truth be told, I don't consider Willkie a real candidate, considering that FDR was the lock of all locks in 1940.
   316. GregD Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4763408)
I agree that Perry is underrated. He's an obvious talent. One thing that separates him from some of the others is that he's immediately likable (even if I am confident that I individually wouldn't turn out to like him.) But he's good at making people like him, and from profiles that seems like that and ambition have always been the things people noticed about him. That's hugely important (though it's not obviously present for either Hillary or Obama) and surprisingly rare. In part because being ambitious makes one less likable.

The problem for Perry is that his "oops" moment was even worse than it seemed. Peculiarly it was his admission of confusion that hurt him more than his confusion. No one cares about gotcha questions or whether you can name names--Herman Cain was right on that. But I don't think voters like weakness or concession. If Perry had bluffed his way through by saying--only three, why I'm not going to list three for one simple reason and that is that there at least seven cabinet level departments we should eliminate--he would have said something even less impressive but more helpful in a campaign.

It is easy in general to script comeback stories. The press loves reappraisals. There will be stories about Santorum's new commitment to building an organization, Hillary's efforts to be likable, Ryan's sensitive and empathetic side, etc. I assume Perry's glasses are his prep for stories about his studious side. And we'll get stories about how he recognizes he was underprepared in 2011 and didn't intend to run but then mistakenly jumped too soon but now has learned his lesson. Maybe they will stick.

Will he be prepared to defuse the counter to the comeback story that the press also loves--old habits revive. Hillary will be portrayed as once again unlikable, Santorum as disorganized, Ryan as callous. Will Perry be able to rebut the inevitable return of stories about his shallowness.

And is it possible to win Republican primaries while opponents are whispering that you are gay?
   317. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4763409)
So, if you exclude those with no incumbency at all, a 10-year gap will have happened only once (John Davis) in 116 years.


Bush has also been out of office for 10 years, and for that matter, Clinton 8.
   318. GregD Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4763410)
David, I--like you, I assume--have plenty of friends who work at big Wall Street firms and hedge funds. Some are true Republicans, some are social liberals who want a Republican president as long as NY and NJ and CT have socially liberal state policies, some are Democrats. Most--even the ones who lean Democratic--were pro-Romney, some powerfully. Most believed all the highest-ups were pro-Romney. All of them thought McCain disqualified himself, and believed that was widely held. None of them think that Cruz is an acceptable president, though some of them would happily go for anybody else, and somebody like Walker would probably win lots of support even among the ones who donate to Cuomo or Cory Booker.

Now, they could be bullshitting me, or they could be wrong, or--most obviously--their sample size is small, as my number of friends is moderately large but not infinite. But the firmness of their belief that Walker would get huge support and Cruz almost none is something I listen to. Time will tell!
   319. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4763415)
Some odd analysis in that one. The very conservative evangelical faction is "is small compared to the others, comprising around one-fifth of all GOP voters," but "gains significant strength" in the South "where they can comprise a quarter or more of a state’s electorate"?

"Very conservative secular voters" are an "influential bloc" that "never sees its choice emerge"?

The Iowa caucus is "crucial" because it "has traditionally “winnowed” the field to at most three candidates and usually two"? (Candidates finishing out of the top two in Iowa include both Hillary Clinton and McCain ('08), Bill Clinton ('92), and both Dukakis and Bush ('88).)
First, the article is about the GOP, so Hillary, Bill, and Dukakis are irrelevant. Second, since it said "at most three," I don't know why you're limiting your comments to "the top two." (Bush indeed came in third in 1988, though McCain did come in a smidge behind third in 2008.)

Second, what's odd about the analysis?
   320. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4763416)
I had second thoughts on including Ryan due to his age; perhaps he should be out. But he has much greater nationwide name recognition that Scott Walker, and I think that matters. Look at every candidate the GOP has put out since the put Wendell Willkie as the sacrificial lamb in 1940: every nominee had much higher national name recognition than Scott Walker has. The GOP doesn't select darkhorse candidates.


Bush the Younger had, among other advantages, the following advantages over Walker:

1.) Six years is a pretty sizable difference.
2.) Bush II was much better known nationwide in the summer of '98 than Walker is now.
3.) Bush II was pretty seriously running for president since at least 1996 - he had much more time than Walker has in terms of recruiting operatives, smoozing donors, establishing relationships with national power brokers, and the like.
4.) Bush II had experience in a presidential campaign even before running for POTUS: he was a pretty close part of his father's nationwide presidential campaign in 1988.
4a.) Bush II had accumulated vastly more campaigning experience in general back '98 than Scott Walker ever had: from his own campaigns as well as from helping his family members or family friends.
5.) Bush II had the backing of a finely tuned political operation largely set up by his father. Many of his key campaign managers, strategists, consultants, etc. in 2000 - such as Rove, Baker, Card, Teeter, and Ailes (Bush's shill inside Fox) were from relationships established by Bush I.
6.) Bush II is an alum of Andover, Yale College, and Harvard Business School. Those ties help a lot when raising money, moreso in the primaries than in the general.
7.) Bush's opponents in 2000 - John McCain, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes - were weaker than Walker's opponents in 2016 will be. Batshit crazy Alan Keyes got close to a million votes in the primary, 'fer cryin' out loud.
   321. GregD Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4763417)
If one wanted to argue though that Cruz could gain the nomination without Wall Street, that's a different question, and I would grant that's possible. I'm skeptical anyone can do it, and I think Rand Paul would be more likely to get there by that route than Cruz, but it's possible.

At this point, not just as a sop to Harveys, I would be tempted to take Wisconsin against the field on the R side.
   322. Mefisto Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4763419)
One more point in Walker's and Ryan's favor. Parties in a down cycle electorally will sometimes tend to nominate their candidates from the part of the country where the other party is strongest. This doesn't always work, but it's a fairly common strategy.
   323. Stormy JE Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4763422)
One more point in Walker's favor. Parties in a down cycle electorally will sometimes tend to nominate their candidates from the part of the country where the other party is strongest. This doesn't always work, but it's a fairly common strategy.

??? The Democrats aren't "strongest" in the Midwest.
   324. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:19 PM (#4763425)
For the general election the pertinent question is how many non-Democrat women would vote for Clinton strictly because she's female.

Again, lots. Especially if the Republicans nominate a candidate whose voting record and past statements will energize the Democratic base. I doubt if the Republicans will let us down in that regard. (smile)
Andy, that isn't even coherent. What does "energizing the Democratic base" have to do with people who aren't the Democratic base? And what evidence do you have that "bases" are "energized" by who the other party nominates, rather than who one's own party nominates?

And what evidence do you have that women in the general electorate (as opposed to already-politically active Democratic women) care whether the nominee is "one of their own"?
   325. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4763428)
One more point about Bush II's advantages over Walker:

- Bush II, like Walker, enjoyed the support of both the money men and the Limbaugh wing (since the Tea Party didn't exist in name then) of the party. In addition, even as early as mid-1998, Bush II had much greater support from the religious wing of the party than Walker currently has. Not that the religious wing is opposing Walker; just that Bush II's support from this faction of the GOP was greater.
   326. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4763436)
Re: #319--
what's odd about the analysis?

It's odd that a faction of 20% is described as "small" but where they soar up to 25%, they're "significantly strong." It's odd that a group that is so "influential" never sees its preferred candidate win. It's odd that Iowa is deemed crucial for traditionally reducing the wide-open primaries into a 2.5-horse race, when it often does not.

It's also odd to focus on Iowa's traditional acumen for being able to discern some, but not all, of the leaders from very finite groups of options. Also, "at most three" is a generous and silly criterion; when do we ever see a competitive slate of 6-7 serious candidates, let alone one that then gets "winnowed" to three by the flensing expertise of Des Moines?

You want to throw out the Democratic misses, fine. But let's also take out the tee-ball wins by sitting Republican Presidents. Since the Iowa caucuses began, in open years, Iowan Republicans have correctly picked their party's nominee twice in six tries. Good thing they go first.
   327. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4763437)
All in all, I am not completely writing off Walker - he may end up winning the primary. I'm just very skeptical that the GOP will go against a very strong tradition of nominating older, nationally known candidates. GOP primary voters are not just conservative in their politics; they tend to also be very conservative in going with known quantities.
   328. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4763439)
No one in the chattering classes gave Santorum a second's worth of thought leading into 2012, and he won 11 states and came close in several others. I think he's a dangerous lunatic, but the reality is that his world view matches that of a very large, very active portion of the party, and I think he could win a close contest (God forbid) if the other candidates implode. I also have Santorum's odds, in my mind, as closer to 5% than 10%.
Santorum did not "win 11 states." I mean, yes, he got the highest vote total in 11 states, but I don't know why you think that, e.g., getting 33% of the vote in Mississippi, which made him the "winner" there (Romney and Gingrich got 31%), is somehow more significant than him getting 35% of the vote in Illinois (behind Romney's 47%). There's no magic, other than PR, to having "won" a state.
   329. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4763441)
Gordon: You make an excellent point. It's possible, though, that 2016 will necessarily be different for the simple reason that there are only two Known Quantities in the Republican field and both have serious and obvious drawbacks--Romney's previous failure as the Republican nominee and Bush's last name. So it's possible the Republicans might be forced to do something unusual for them.

If you put a gun to my head today I would grimace and predict Romney will be renominated. Perry seems like he should be the favorite but... I just can't see it.

This is really the first time since the 1960s that it hasn't been obvious a couple years out who the next Republican nominee for president would be. And I continue to have trouble foreseeing anything but a deepening of the divide between the Religious Right and the rest of the party (which would already have disavowed itself of the Religious Right if it could without dooming itself.)

I might be wrong about this but from an observer's perch it feels like the Religious Right for a long time just marched in lockstep with the party's Powers That Be, but abruptly stopped doing so after George W. Bush. Rick Santorum garnering serious support for president is baffling and troubling.
   330. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4763444)
I think Perry is a thick-headed bully, but he's been nationally known for a long time, a loyal advocate for the three most important factions of the GOP, and he's old enough, telegenic enough, and should have access to big-time money. That should get him pretty far as long as he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth. Perhaps 3:1 is a bit too high, but I have to think that he is one of the strongest contenders.
Perry has another problem you haven't identified: Cruz. They're both from Texas, which means that if Cruz runs, it cuts into Perry's local base of support.
   331. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4763446)
No one in the chattering classes gave Santorum a second's worth of thought leading into 2012, and he won 11 states and came close in several others.

This overstates Santorum's strength as a candidate. In 2012, there was a sizable block of GOP primary voters who had doubts about Romney's conservatism, consistency, and, in some cases, religion. Those folks spent the campaign flitting from one stop-Romney candidate to another, accounting for the brief surges for candidates like Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich & Santorum, although their own limitations prevented those candidates from expanding their support to the level needed to secure the nomination, or even threaten Romney all that seriously. Santorum was mostly the last man standing of the anti-Romney candidates. He doesn't start the 2016 campaign where he left off in 2012.
   332. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4763451)
Santorum was mostly the last man standing of the anti-Romney candidates. He doesn't start the 2016 campaign where he left off in 2012.


This seems logical--but I personally know quite a few Religious Right types and to a man all the ones I know are ready to support Santorum. I don't know if there are any good polls on the matter, but take my secondhand anecdotal "data" for what it's worth :)
   333. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4763454)
Obama didn't win that much a greater percentage of the black vote than many of his Democratic predecessors, but having a black candidate certainly increased the total black vote by a big percentage.

I think a larger driving factor behind Obamamania was that he had enormous support from young people--a demographic that usually doesn't vote much.


Assuming that's true, that doesn't mean that they won't approximate those numbers for the first female candidate. Groups that have historically been excluded are more inclined to vote for one of their own, assuming that the candidate in question isn't an obviously cynical choice like Palin, or before her, Ferraro. In this respect, Hillary is much more like Obama, though not to the same extreme with regard to percentages.

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

Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.


This is like Pat Nixon demanding to know what was "so bad" about her husband. Nothing anyone could have said would have convinced her.

This is like Andy dodging the question, because he doesn't actually have an answer, but just "knows" it to be true.


Let's see how long you can resist telling me that Cruz's position on immigration isn't likely to cripple the GOP's chances among Latinos and moderates, while at the same time not gaining him more than a scattering of extra white votes that a Republican wouldn't have gotten anyway. You** may not want to call combining bigger walls with an extra effort in deporting people who've been living here for years "wacko", but there's a reason that it was a Republican was the person who first applied the term to him.

"Get tough" immigration proposals which hold out no hope for millions of people already living here are always going to be marginally more popular during a time of manufactured and misrepresented crises, but in the long run the public knows that the issue is a lot more complex than the Cruzes try to pretend.

**or I should say Joe, since IIRC on immigration you're relatively sane
   334. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4763457)
328 and 331:

I think we're talking past each other. I've been pretty consistent that I think Santorum is a long-shot candidate, and he's outside of my top 5 favorites to win. I've also been pretty consistent in that the ONLY way he'll win is if 1.) he does a much better job preparing than he did in '12 AND 2.) all the other major candidates withdraw or implode. Both are pretty unlikely to happen in isolation, and even less likely to happen at the same time.

As for the issue of "winning" 11 states you can use another definition that you like, but the main point is that he won a surprisingly large plurality of GOP support with little money or organization.
   335. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4763459)
You want to throw out the Democratic misses, fine. But let's also take out the tee-ball wins by sitting Republican Presidents. Since the Iowa caucuses began, in open years, Iowan Republicans have correctly picked their party's nominee twice in six tries. Good thing they go first.
You're missing the point of his claim -- which I do think was the weaker part of his analysis, btw, as opposed to his breakdown of the GOP electorate. It's not that Iowa picks the nominee; it's that Iowa eliminates the non-nominees. (It's a weak claim, because, well, duh. The whole point of primaries are to winnow, and the first one by definition will do a significant amount, since there's the most winnowing to be doing.)

As to the rest, you're reading it uncharitably. It doesn't say 25%; it says 25% or more. (Not that 5% is something to sneeze at in a 3-4 way race.) And the secular very conservative voters are influential but don't see their first choice emerge; don't see why that's complicated. For years the religious bloc in Israel never came close to electing one of its leaders as prime minister, but often determined who would be prime minister in an otherwise closely divided electorate.
   336. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4763460)
I personally know quite a few Religious Right types and to a man all the ones I know are ready to support Santorum. I don't know if there are any good polls on the matter, but take my secondhand anecdotal "data" for what it's worth :)

And all those Religious Right votes plus a fin will probably get Pope Rick about five stops on the Washington Metro. They're the only people who could ever imagine him being a serious candidate in a general election.
   337. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4763461)
I think we're talking past each other. I've been pretty consistent that I think Santorum is a long-shot candidate, and he's outside of my top 5 favorites to win. I've also been pretty consistent in that the ONLY way he'll win is if 1.) he does a much better job preparing than he did in '12 AND 2.) all the other major candidates withdraw or implode. Both are pretty unlikely to happen in isolation, and even less likely to happen at the same time.

I honestly don't know and don't care what Santorum's chances are to win the Republican nomination, but the voting pool in a general election expands to people who breathe through their noses. He's got as much chance of being our next president as a cartoon elephant.
   338. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4763464)
Santorum was mostly the last man standing of the anti-Romney candidates. He doesn't start the 2016 campaign where he left off in 2012.


While I mostly agree with this, Santorum was the consistent choice for So-Cons.
   339. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4763465)
Even if Jeb runs in 2016, this promises to be a wide-open field not seen in my lifetime.

That is certainly the key aspect of the race - and many here seem to be missing the point. Not only is there not a Republican front-runner, the race isn't limited to a few GOP titans who are universally regarded as the most viable candidates. The leading candidates are barely breaking double-digits in the GOP Presidential Candidate Polls. Comparing this race to past Republican nomination contests is largely apples to oranges. 2016 is going to have a winnowing process which will be affected by many things, including: (1) what happens in 2014; (2) who decides to run; and (3) issues that may not be that prominent at the moment. Folks making 2016 predictions, much less making them confidently or dismissing other predictions, are expecting way too much certainty in an uncertain process. I doubt we will know the 2016 GOP nominee until that candidate reveals himself, or herself, in the course of the primary debates and other campaign events. The race will be won based on what the candidates do going forward, not by exposing voters to what they have done in the past.
   340. Mefisto Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4763466)
??? The Democrats aren't "strongest" in the Midwest.


Sorry, my original comment wasn't clear. I meant to distinguish North and South. Thus, post-Civil War, the Dems tended to nominate Northern candidates. Post CRM, the Dems tended to nominate Southerners. The Rs have been less susceptible to this, but the temptation is always there to force the other side to defend its home turf.
   341. spike Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4763468)
??? The Democrats aren't "strongest" in the Midwest.

But Wisconsin hasn't gone red in over 20 years.
   342. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4763469)
337: I agree - while I think there's a very small chance of Santorum winning the GOP primary, the Dems would have to have something catastrophically, unrealistically bad happen for Santorum to win the general.
   343. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4763472)
And all those Religious Right votes plus a fin will probably get Pope Rick about five stops on the Washington Metro. They're the only people who could ever imagine him being a serious candidate in a general election.


Yes, that's correct. But he's going to enter primary season with a large chunk of the Republican voter base solidly in hand, creating the illusion that he will be a serious candidate that the media will gobble up--and the threat that, if the rest of the party remains fragmented four different ways, he could steal the nomination on a plurality. But the rest of the party *will* coalesce around one candidate (yet to be determined) to meet this threat, and he isn't going to gain a solitary vote more support than he already has today.

Piggybacking on 342, I can't imagine ANYTHING would make Democrats happier than Santorum getting the nomination.
   344. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4763474)
330: True. Walker and Ryan could also cannibalize each other's support, I suppose.
   345. spike Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4763477)
??? The Democrats aren't "strongest" in the Midwest.

But Wisconsin hasn't gone red in over 20 years.

Also, MI blue since 88, MN since forever, IA blue for 6 of last 7, OH 4 of last 6, IL since 88. So a huge majority of midwestern electoral votes (80 to 38), and a split of total states (ND, SD, KS, MO, IN, NE). I guess strongest might be overstating it, but it's a distinct Democratic advantage at the moment.
   346. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4763478)
Let's see how long you can resist telling me that Cruz's position on immigration isn't likely to cripple the GOP's chances among Latinos and moderates, while at the same time not gaining him more than a scattering of extra white votes that a Republican wouldn't have gotten anyway. You** may not want to call combining bigger walls with an extra effort in deporting people who've been living here for years "wacko",
Ted "Cruz's position on immigration" -- and of course by "immigration" you mean "illegal immigration" -- is irrelevant to about 110% of "moderates." People who feel strongly about amnesty one way or the other have already chosen their party.

but there's a reason that it was a Republican was the person who first applied the term to him.
Well, that reason wasn't immigration. It was actually his opposition, along with that of other non-moderates like Justin Amash and Rand Paul -- to the Obama administration's refusal to disavow drone attacks on Americans.
   347. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4763479)
Santorum was mostly the last man standing of the anti-Romney candidates. He doesn't start the 2016 campaign where he left off in 2012.

While I mostly agree with this, Santorum was the consistent choice for So-Cons.

I'm not disputing that, but Santorum had a very limited ability to expand beyond that base. He inherited much of the anybody-but-Romney support, but they won't start out with him in 2016. And it's not clear that even the social conservatives were that enthusiastic about Santorum. If Huckabee runs, I don't know that Santorum starts out as the leading candidate of the social conservatives. He has a chance, but I think he starts the race from a much different position than he ended in 2012. He will not have the status that some previous GOP runners-up enjoyed.

And just as a general disclaimer, while it is interesting, and sometimes even useful, to classify GOP voters by various sub-groups, a lot of folks have a foot in more than one camp. Candidates are going to have to appeal to more than one sub-group to win the nomination.
   348. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4763481)
And the secular very conservative voters are influential but don't see their first choice emerge; don't see why that's complicated. For years the religious bloc in Israel never came close to electing one of its leaders as prime minister, but often determined who would be prime minister in an otherwise closely divided electorate.

According to Olsen, this purportedly influential group always comes around to supporting someone else's choice: "They invariably see their preferred candidate knocked out early, and they then invariably back whoever is backed by the somewhat conservative bloc." That's a funny kind of influence. It's a bit like how the influential "small and weak" segment of prison inmates play a key role in determining what everybody watches on the communal television set, by sitting there afterwards while the show's on. The example Olsen gives is the secular very conservatives' support for Steve Forbes, who obligingly quit the race quickly enough to get out of George W. Bush's way.

Most of the analysis in his essay strikes me as thorough but facile and obvious (Evangelicals prefer openly religious candidates? No way!), with some claims that are odd or contradictory. There's superior analysis in the last 100 posts on this BTF thread.
   349. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4763482)
For all his faults, I think that Santorum is probably the most honest, sincere candidate of all the candidates from either party. Too bad his real views are absolutely horrifying.

Such is the nature of democratic politics: it'll tend to draw either dishonest shysters or honest lunatics.
   350. Stormy JE Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4763484)
330: True. Walker and Ryan could also cannibalize each other's support, I suppose.

I'm willing to wager that Ryan doesn't run. Being Ways and Means Committee Chairman is way more fun.
   351. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4763486)
I'm not disputing that, but Santorum had a very limited ability to expand beyond that base. He inherited much of the anybody-but-Romney support, but they won't start out with him in 2016. And it's not clear that even the social conservatives were that enthusiastic about Santorum. If Huckabee runs, I don't know that Santorum starts out as the leading candidate of the social conservatives. He has a chance, but I think he starts the race from a much different position than he ended in 2012. He will not have the status that some previous GOP runners-up enjoyed.

And just as a general disclaimer, while it is interesting, and sometimes even useful, to classify GOP voters by various sub-groups, a lot of folks have a foot in more than one camp. Candidates are going to have to appeal to more than one sub-group to win the nomination.


I agree with all of your statements, but at this point, isn't Huckabee the boy who cried wolf? I thought Huckabee was the best candidate in 2008, and would have been a credible challenger to Romney in 2012, but I just can't see him making waves in 2016. He'll be 8 years from governing, firmly ensconced in a Fox gig, and I question his desire to slog it out.

Basically, the core problem with the "next in line" analysis is that there is no one who you can really point to as next in line besides Santorum and no one really likes Santorum, even So-Cons.
   352. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4763487)
And just as a general disclaimer, while it is interesting, and sometimes even useful, to classify GOP voters by various sub-groups, a lot of folks have a foot in more than one camp.


Not really, not very many. It is remarkable how strongly fragmented the party has become over the past decade, especially the past half-decade. Nothing's universal and of course there's some crossover but there really is a lot of three-way mutual animosity going on. I hypothesize this is happening as a result of two unrelated phenomena that happen to be coinciding: the party trying to distance itself from overtly Christian morality and the Religious Right vehemently protesting it, and the Tea Party uprising against... whatever it is exactly the Tea Party is rising against.

None of these segments will vote Democrat under any circumstances--but if the party nominates the wrong candidate a lot of them will stay home.
   353. Mefisto Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4763493)
I'm willing to wager that Ryan doesn't run. Being Ways and Means Committee Chairman is way more fun.


Of course, there's a good chance the Dems take the House in 2016 if they take the Presidency.
   354. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4763495)
Of course, there's a good chance the Dems take the House in 2016 if they take the Presidency.

And a good chance that they do not, as in 2012, when they only picked up 8 seats.
   355. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4763496)
21-25 year olds generally don't need insurance.

21-25 year olds don't generally have big medical bills. That's not the same as having no use for insurance. In fact these are exactly the people who benefit most from insurance in the classical sense of the term 'insurance' - they are poorer than the average person and health maladies are a tail event for which insurance is a reasonable funding mechanism.

But even at 20 million, it's only about 6% of the population. Given that these people are not evenly distributed throughout the population - for instance, 30% of the number are Medicaid recipients -- it's hardly surprising that 44% of the population wouldn't know any of them.

I'm really not clear what you want to prove here. I think it's inconceivable that 44% of the people don't know somebody in their extended family or circle of regular but infrequent contact (e.g. friend on Facebook) who's not wealthy. Few people sit so deeply ensconced in a Paris Hilton-style bubble that they don't deal regularly with those outside their economic stratum. In your view this 44% is both horribly ignorant of the life circumstances of their compatriots and based on that ignorance they're aggressively hostile to attempts to ameliorate these circumstances. These really aren't sympathetic people.

My guess is that most of those 44% are somewhat like my mother, whose granddaughter is recovering from a life-threatening disease even though my sister doesn't have insurance. My mother doesn't quite connect the dots that this granddaughter would be facing insurance coverage problems for the rest of her life without something like Obamacare. Tribalism is a powerful force for cognitive dissonance.

ETA: And I see that somebody else used ensconced while I typed this. Ugh.
   356. Stormy JE Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4763499)
Of course, there's a good chance the Dems take the House in 2016 if they take the Presidency.

I'm willing to wager on that too because it ain't happening, no matter who wins the White House.
   357. Mefisto Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4763501)
And a good chance that they do not, as in 2012, when they only picked up 8 seats.


Certainly, and the successful gerrymanders of 2010 make it hard for Dems. But they only need 18, and that's close enough that Ryan might worry about losing his chairmanship.
   358. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4763502)
21-25 year olds don't generally have big medical bills. That's not the same as having no use for insurance. In fact these are exactly the people who benefit most from insurance in the classical sense of the term 'insurance' - they are poorer than the average person and health maladies are a tail event for which insurance is a reasonable funding mechanism.
Yes, you'd be right, if by insurance anyone meant catastrophic coverage only. But not only don't people generally understand the concept these days, but Obamacare outlaws that kind of health insurance. So, while I appreciate your clarifying language, I think my underlying point -- that young people don't need the health insurance that Obamacare provides for -- is unchanged.
   359. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4763503)
It's pretty well understood by all involved that "insurance" no longer means "protection against unbearable expenses" and now means "people who don't need medical care pay for people who do", isn't it?
   360. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4763505)
I think it's inconceivable that 44% of the people don't know somebody in their extended family or circle of regular but infrequent contact (e.g. friend on Facebook) who's not wealthy. Few people sit so deeply ensconced in a Paris Hilton-style bubble that they don't deal regularly with those outside their economic stratum.
You think that one either travels in Mitt Romney's social circles or hangs out with poor people?

Given that I've friended people from high school on Facebook (and I didn't go to a prep school or anything), I'm sure I have some Facebook friends who are poor, but I don't actually spend time with them, and it's not like they're posting about their Medicaid benefits. (I'm sure there are some welfare queens right here on BBTF, but I don't know about it.) Of the people I know well enough to know, I don't know anyone in those circles. Sorry if that makes me unsympathetic to you.
   361. zenbitz Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4763515)
I have no idea who the GOP nominee will be. But I bet google has a good guess.
   362. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4763523)
Piggybacking on 342, I can't imagine ANYTHING would make Democrats happier than Santorum getting the nomination.

I'd say that running against Cruz would delight us even more, though either of those two clowns would make for a perfect foil, Joe and Mrs. Nixon below to the contrary.

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

Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.


This is like Pat Nixon demanding to know what was "so bad" about her husband. Nothing anyone could have said would have convinced her.

This is like Andy dodging the question, because he doesn't actually have an answer, but just "knows" it to be true.

Let's see how long you can resist telling me that Cruz's position on immigration isn't likely to cripple the GOP's chances among Latinos and moderates, while at the same time not gaining him more than a scattering of extra white votes that a Republican wouldn't have gotten anyway. You** may not want to call combining bigger walls with an extra effort in deporting people who've been living here for years "wacko",

Ted "Cruz's position on immigration" -- and of course by "immigration" you mean "illegal immigration" -- is irrelevant to about 110% of "moderates." People who feel strongly about amnesty one way or the other have already chosen their party.


Thanks, Pat. I knew you'd come through. You can now serve as Joe's official spokesman on Cruz matters until he gets back.

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

For all his faults, I think that Santorum is probably the most honest, sincere candidate of all the candidates from either party. Too bad his real views are absolutely horrifying.

I'd agree with that, though I'd add Huckabee to that (very) short list. But that'd almost certainly change if either of them actually got within sniffing distance of the nomination. The last two candidates to stay 100% "honest" all the way through election day were McGovern and Goldwater. Pieties aside, it's not a recommended model for candidates who want to get elected.

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

It's pretty well understood by all involved that "insurance" no longer means "protection against unbearable expenses" and now means "people who don't need medical care pay for people who do", isn't it?

And what has it ever meant to a healthy person who carried insurance? Do healthy people get a refund of all their premiums after going 60 years without a scratch or a tumor like some Georgian yogurt eater?

Look, we get it that you don't like subsidizing medical care for those who can't afford to pay for their own insurance. So ####### what? I don't like having my taxes used for a lot of things you might approve of, but so ####### what to that, too.
   363. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4763525)
I agree with all of your statements, but at this point, isn't Huckabee the boy who cried wolf? I thought Huckabee was the best candidate in 2008, and would have been a credible challenger to Romney in 2012, but I just can't see him making waves in 2016. He'll be 8 years from governing, firmly ensconced in a Fox gig, and I question his desire to slog it out.

There is no cure for Potomac Fever, except death (and sometimes abundant evidence that you're unelectable). I'm not convinced that Huckabee's passing on a 2012 race against an incumbent President (and taking on a well-funded GOP front-runner) means he has no interest in an open 2016 election. Maybe he likes the Fox gig and the money that comes with it, but he might just want to keep the exposure and money flowing until some point in 2015 when he jumps in. I don't claim any inside knowledge of his intent, but it doesn't look to me like he has ruled it out.
   364. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4763526)
You think that one either travels in Mitt Romney's social circles or hangs out with poor people?

Given that I've friended people from high school on Facebook (and I didn't go to a prep school or anything), I'm sure I have some Facebook friends who are poor, but I don't actually spend time with them, and it's not like they're posting about their Medicaid benefits. (I'm sure there are some welfare queens right here on BBTF, but I don't know about it.) Of the people I know well enough to know, I don't know anyone in those circles. Sorry if that makes me unsympathetic to you.


You know your wife. Given that you've had a couple kids, odds are fairly good that she has benefited from Obamacare.
   365. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4763534)
You know your wife. Given that you've had a couple kids, odds are fairly good that she has benefited from Obamacare.
I don't understand your logic here, though I do in fact know my wife. Biblically, even. My kids aren't on Medicaid; we don't buy insurance through the exchanges, etc.
   366. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 05:22 PM (#4763536)
I don't understand your logic here, though I do in fact know my wife. Biblically, even. My kids aren't on Medicaid; we don't buy insurance through the exchanges, etc.


1. Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, so she's covered in the case of any kind of coverage gap.
2. It provides more financial stability if she wanted to divorce you.
3. It allows her (and you!) to keep your kids on the family insurance until they are 25.
4. Edit: and, I don't know the nature of your coverage, but if it had been purchased on the individual market, she benefited from maternity care being mandatory.
   367. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 03, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4763542)
Let's see how long you can resist telling me that Cruz's position on immigration isn't likely to cripple the GOP's chances among Latinos and moderates, while at the same time not gaining him more than a scattering of extra white votes that a Republican wouldn't have gotten anyway. You** may not want to call combining bigger walls with an extra effort in deporting people who've been living here for years "wacko", but there's a reason that it was a Republican was the person who first applied the term to him.

"Get tough" immigration proposals which hold out no hope for millions of people already living here are always going to be marginally more popular during a time of manufactured and misrepresented crises, but in the long run the public knows that the issue is a lot more complex than the Cruzes try to pretend.

**or I should say Joe, since IIRC on immigration you're relatively sane

Andy, this reminds me of Reagan's old quip: "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

Without a doubt, Ted Cruz is unpopular among illegal immigrants and ardent open-borders types, but the former can't vote — or, at least, aren't supposed to vote — and the latter aren't going to vote for any Republican anyway. Meanwhile, among Latino citizens/voters, immigration is not, and has never been, a high priority when it comes to voting and public policy. (In case you haven't noticed, Latino U.S. citizens haven't exactly been packing the streets to demand amnesty, open borders, etc.)

Beyond all of that, Latinos are big into identity politics. That's how Republican anti-amnesty Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval has approval ratings in the 60s — and only token Dem opposition in his 2014 reelection race; the last poll has him up by 24 points — in a state that went for Obama by 13 and 8 points, and Republican anti-amnesty New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has approval ratings in the 60s in a state that went for Obama by 15 and 10 points.

You're dreaming if you believe Ted Cruz would be a net negative among Latinos.
   368. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4763548)
1. Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, so she's covered in the case of any kind of coverage gap.
Our youngest was born before that "benefit" -- which is of course a cost to most people, rather than a benefit -- took effect.
2. It provides more financial stability if she wanted to divorce you.
I'm on her policy, not vice versa, but why a policy that incentivizes divorce would be deemed a benefit, I'm not sure.
3. It allows her (and you!) to keep your kids on the family insurance until they are 25.
Not sure why you think this is a benefit to us, rather than a detriment. Might be a benefit to the kids, if in fact they needed insurance at those ages, which people generally don't. But that's two decades off, anyway.
4. Edit: and, I don't know the nature of your coverage, but if it had been purchased on the individual market, she benefited from maternity care being mandatory.
Nope. Like most Americans, we have employer-provided health care, and it covered maternity care anyway, and that was before Obamacare.

In any case, these "benefits" are all hypothetical benefits that someone who became pregnant after Obamacare might benefit from -- not ones we actually did already benefit from, which was the claim I was responding to.
   369. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4763551)
I'm on her policy, not vice versa, but why a policy that incentivizes divorce would be deemed a benefit, I'm not sure.


Somebody failed feminism class.
   370. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4763553)
Somebody failed feminism class.

Since divorce on average, makes women and children worse off economically, and men better off economically, it's hard to call it "feminist" with a straight face.
   371. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 06:42 PM (#4763554)
You're dreaming if you believe Ted Cruz would be a net negative among Latinos.

Latino icon Ted Cruz got 35% of the Latino vote in his home state Senate election 20 months ago. Of course, 35% would be an improvement for the GOP at the national level.
   372. spike Posted: August 03, 2014 at 06:46 PM (#4763557)
Since divorce on average, makes women and children worse off economically, and men better off economically, it's hard to call it "feminist" with a straight face.

because economics are the most important thing, self-determination be damned. Sheesh.
   373. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 03, 2014 at 06:48 PM (#4763558)
Of course, 35% would be an improvement for the GOP at the national level.

Indeed. A 25 percent improvement over Romney's share of the Latino vote.
   374. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:15 PM (#4763565)
Our youngest was born before that "benefit" -- which is of course a cost to most people, rather than a benefit -- took effect.


But not to women who have children.

I'm on her policy, not vice versa, but why a policy that incentivizes divorce would be deemed a benefit, I'm not sure.


Allows her to get rid of the freeloader, as we find out from your answer.

Not sure why you think this is a benefit to us, rather than a detriment. Might be a benefit to the kids, if in fact they needed insurance at those ages, which people generally don't. But that's two decades off, anyway.


Most parents consider things that benefit their children to benefit themselves, but in any case, you know your kids, so you know two people who benefited from Obamacare.

   375. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:16 PM (#4763566)
because economics are the most important thing, self-determination be damned. Sheesh.

Of course it's not. I'm just pointing out that no-fault divorce has hardly been some unmitigated boon to women.

Also, the studies generally show that divorces that are not for cause (i.e. no abuse, adultery etc.) don't actually make the people any happier.
   376. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:18 PM (#4763567)
Most parents consider things that benefit their children to benefit themselves, but in any case, you know your kids, so you know two people who benefited from Obamacare.

Actually, they haven't yet. If it turns out they're continuously in school (almost all of which offer plans) or employed with benefits up to age 25, they'll never benefit.

Also, plenty of companies provided coverage to employees children over 18, as long as they were in school, long before Obamacare. I was covered by my parents' plan from age 18-25 (while in school) way back in the 90's.
   377. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:33 PM (#4763575)
Also, plenty of companies provided coverage to employees children over 18, as long as they were in school, long before Obamacare. I was covered by my parents' plan from age 18-25 (while in school) way back in the 90's.


Yes, health insurance used to be much cheaper in the early 90's.
   378. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:44 PM (#4763579)
Most parents consider things that benefit their children to benefit themselves, but in any case, you know your kids, so you know two people who benefited from Obamacare.
Again, no. Assuming arguendo that this is deemed a benefit, and assuming it would benefit them specifically¹, my kids have not benefitted from a policy that won't affect them for two decades. (The arrow of time -> how does it work?)


¹ Which would basically require that they neither be in school nor employed during that time, since in the former case they'd be on our plan anyway, and in the latter they could have their own.
   379. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:47 PM (#4763580)
because economics are the most important thing, self-determination be damned. Sheesh.
Ah, yes, the modern feminist idea of self-determination, where dependence on the government rather than a spouse is somehow autonomy.
   380. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:53 PM (#4763583)
Ah, yes, the modern feminist idea of self-determination, where dependence on the government rather than a spouse is somehow autonomy.


You don't have to sleep with the government.
   381. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4763584)
Marriage is rape!
   382. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4763585)
You don't have to sleep with the government.

Too bad. It has three huge branches.
   383. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:04 PM (#4763587)
Of course, 35% would be an improvement for the GOP at the national level.


Indeed. A 25 percent improvement over Romney's share of the Latino vote.

As Cruz's official BTF spokesman (and possibly the only one around here), what sort of odds would you demand to put up $100 that Cruz will be our next president? I'm just trying to quantify your confidence.
   384. Lassus Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4763592)
Marriage is rape!

This was once considered insightful contrary mockery. However, that was 1991 or so.
   385. Kurt Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:18 PM (#4763594)
As Cruz's official BTF spokesman (and possibly the only one around here), what sort of odds would you demand to put up $100 that Cruz will be our next president? I'm just trying to quantify your confidence.


Does he get to beg off for "health" reasons, too?
   386. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4763596)
Lassus: exactly what response do you expect to tshipman's #380? Note that it is clear he isn't joking or mocking.
   387. bobm Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:35 PM (#4763598)
Ah, yes, the modern feminist idea of self-determination, where dependence on the government rather than a spouse is somehow autonomy.

Whatever happened to "Julia"?
   388. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:37 PM (#4763599)
Lassus: exactly what response do you expect to tshipman's #380? Note that it is clear he isn't joking or mocking.


Are you serious? My point isn't that all marriage is rape. My point is that if you have to be dependent on someone, it's generally preferable to be dependent on the government as opposed to someone that you have to sleep with but don't want to.

Have you never had a sister, daughter, wife or mother?

It reminds me of that joke:
Q: What would the founding fathers say about gun restrictions?
A: Who the #### let women vote? And who's that in the White House? Is that one of Thomas Jefferson's kids?
   389. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:40 PM (#4763603)
As Cruz's official BTF spokesman (and possibly the only one around here), what sort of odds would you demand to put up $100 that Cruz will be our next president? I'm just trying to quantify your confidence.

Does he get to beg off for "health" reasons, too?


Sure can, and this includes mental breakdowns and / or temporary institutionalization. (smile)

But seriously, the answer is yes. The bet would be made now if we'd agree upon the odds, but it'd be contingent upon an actual declaration on Cruz's part. I'm looking to take advantage of Joe's touching faith in a major moron, but I'm not looking to win by an Act of God.
   390. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:51 PM (#4763606)
Too bad. It has three huge branches.


What are we, Japanese?
   391. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4763612)
Always classy Kentucky Democrats sending out racist tweets about Mitch McConnell's wife:
"Google Elaine Chao, #Mitch MConnell's wife," Groob tweeted Saturday morning. "No mention of Kentucky, she is Asian."

I believe they have made similar comments before - not well received.
   392. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:20 PM (#4763614)
Looks the United States isn't going to just roll over and let Canada's Rob Ford claim the title of worst municipal official in North America without a fight - Marion Barry In Wrong-Way Crash On Pennsylvania Avenue:
D.C. Council member Marion Barry was released from a hospital Sunday after a wrong-way car crash Saturday night in which he drove a vehicle into an oncoming lane of traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue in Southeast. . . . Police said Mr. Barry was cited for driving on the wrong side of the road, expired tags and not having insurance.

I note that Barry's office blames health problems, but he's done that before under circumstances that strain credulity. Still, he'll have to be on top of his game to catch Ford.
   393. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:37 PM (#4763618)
I note that Barry's office blames health problems, but he's done that before under circumstances that strain credulity. Still, he'll have to be on top of his game to catch Ford.


What makes Ford un-toppable is that Ford admits it, and does it again while still in office. I have a healthy respect for Barry's ridiculousness, but come on, nothing tops Ford.
   394. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:40 PM (#4763620)
Always classy Kentucky Democrats sending out racist tweets about Mitch McConnell's wife:

This isn't the first incident with Elaine Chao and the local Democrats. They've been trying to find that ideal point at which they can say "ching chong bing bong!" and not look like they're saying it.
   395. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:47 PM (#4763621)
One good bit of news today, though, is that Kent Brantly (the American doctor infected with Ebola) is reportedly improving.
   396. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:57 PM (#4763625)
Are you serious? My point isn't that all marriage is rape. My point is that if you have to be dependent on someone, it's generally preferable to be dependent on the government as opposed to someone that you have to sleep with but don't want to.
Better to rape taxpayers, I guess.
   397. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 10:11 PM (#4763627)
What makes Ford un-toppable is that Ford admits it, and does it again while still in office. I have a healthy respect for Barry's ridiculousness, but come on, nothing tops Ford.

This may be one of those "career" vs. "peak" arguments.
   398. Ray (CTL) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 10:55 PM (#4763641)
You're dreaming if you believe Ted Cruz would be a net negative among Latinos.

Latino icon Ted Cruz got 35% of the Latino vote in his home state Senate election 20 months ago. Of course, 35% would be an improvement for the GOP at the national level.


Andy projects his fevered positions onto the pet classes he knows better than and calls it fact.
   399. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4763642)
This isn't the first incident with Elaine Chao and the local Democrats. They've been trying to find that ideal point at which they can say "ching chong bing bong!" and not look like they're saying it.
The important thing, though, is that Republicans Are the Real Racists. Because Jesse Helms.
   400. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:01 PM (#4763643)
This may be one of those "career" vs. "peak" arguments.


This is a great point. Frankly, I'm not even sure who has the career and who has the peak. They're like Mantle and Mays.

Which is better:
\"##### set me up." or “Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine. But am I an addict? No. Have I tried it? Probably, in one of my drunken stupors."

That's a tough call. I mean, Barry's quote is certainly more repeatable, but Ford's is so bizarre you have to listen to him say it a few times to believe you just heard it.

Tough, tough call.

Edit: How can I forget: "Oh, and the last thing was Olivia Gondek, that I wanted to eat her #####. I’m happily married. I’ve got more than enough to eat at home."

Is the crack smoking quote even Ford's best quote????
Page 4 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(616 - 6:33am, Jun 21)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogHow Major League Teams Are Using Bobbleheads to Skirt Tax Laws
(8 - 6:23am, Jun 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOTP 2018 June 18: How Life Imitates the Congressional Baseball Game
(1000 - 6:12am, Jun 21)
Last: I Am Merely a Fake Lawyer

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(1365 - 1:48am, Jun 21)
Last: tshipman

Sox TherapyA Pleasant Trip So Far
(17 - 1:23am, Jun 21)
Last: Chip

NewsblogFormer MLB pitcher Kevin Brown reportedly held two mail thieves at gunpoint until police arrived
(261 - 1:15am, Jun 21)
Last: baxter

NewsblogBBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018
(118 - 12:37am, Jun 21)
Last: Ray (CTL)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER wants to be in the room where it happens, June 20, 2018
(156 - 12:34am, Jun 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogKelvin Herrera Trade Start of Something Big for Nationals
(44 - 10:20pm, Jun 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-20-2018
(15 - 9:46pm, Jun 20)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-19-2018
(53 - 9:07pm, Jun 20)
Last: Hank G.

NewsblogDeadspin: Former Blue Jay Kelly Gruber Disinvited From Canadian Baseball Hall Of Fame Festivities
(14 - 8:17pm, Jun 20)
Last: TomH

Gonfalon CubsClicking
(71 - 4:05pm, Jun 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogGrumpy Gossage Napalms His Bridges:BWitz:NYT (reg req.)
(103 - 3:54pm, Jun 20)
Last: SandyRiver

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(3812 - 2:29pm, Jun 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.7792 seconds
46 querie(s) executed