“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”
The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.
“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”
With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.
“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”
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.
Gallup routinely puts bare bones poll results up on their website. For instance they generally only mention or list the final poll result of any election including the 1980 election. I'm not sure why wondering why they didn't post every single poll they did means one has to invalidate all the polls that are not listed on the graph. Would you be ignoring these polls if they sided with you while the Gallup poll went against you?
Finally, regardless of what polls you want to use you were wrong. Arguing about which link to believe is simply you goal post shifting. No matter what link you look at your initial stance was completely and utterly wrong.
This is a little long, but it would make a great T-shirt.
We're living in this moment. If the system is broken now then it has always been broken.
What would be the point of posting a graph that includes some polls but not all of them? That aggregate graph showed less than 70 polls, so it appears Gallup wasn't releasing a new poll every week, let alone every day.
Despite your protests, I haven't been ignoring anything. I simply find it curious that a batch of official Gallup polls apparently aren't reflected in the graph Gallup currently uses on its website to exhibit its 1980 polling. It's not like we're talking about some 1972 city council race here. The 1980 U.S. presidential election was a big deal and it's still discussed heavily. It's hard to believe Gallup would exhibit anything other than its best, most complete info. on its own website.
Stop being so ambiguous. If you thought I was wrong, just say so.
Ha ha. I'd like that as a T-shirt, too.
That's not right. The new Congress convenes a couple weeks before the Inaguaration, so if he wins both races Ryan would resign his seat effective on Inaguration Day. I think he could do this any time after election day and a special election would be held to fill the seat, perhaps without a break in representation. Generally, most states do give the office to the runner-up if the winner resigns or doesn't take office for whatever reason.
And? I don't know what your point is on this. That they could have listed everything? So? Again, the graph doesn't validate itself while invalidating the other polls.
No you don't simply find it curious. You've routinely used the absence of those polls on the graph as an excuse to ignore them.
Stop being so ambiguous. If you thought I was wrong, just say so.
Cute, but do you now think you were wrong or right when you said that almost all polls had Reagan trailing until late October?
My point is simple: The political scientist linked by MCoA apparently could only get his hands on less than 70 polls for all of 1980. That suggests Gallup released less, if not far less, than 70 polls itself, which means it shouldn't have been that difficult for Gallup to average all of its 1980 polls and then post it in graph form. Are we supposed to believe that a company that interviews hundreds if not thousands of people every day couldn't be bothered to average 50 of its own polls for one of the most important elections in U.S. history?
No, I really do find it curious. Honest. I've never heard of a polling company randomly ditching valid data points, especially their own data points.
Thanks to the aggregate poll MCoA linked that apparently was only released two days ago, it appears Reagan was in much better shape than the conventional wisdom would have us believe. But I stand by my prior comments with regard to the narrative of the 1980 election, Reagan trailing in the Gallup poll from August or September until almost Election Day, etc. It's simply not possible for Reagan to have both been recognized as the prohibitive favorite all summer and fall *and* have been the underdog as of the Oct. 28 debate, the latter of which has been the standard narrative in article after article, book after book, interview after interview.
Sure. And the crises of the moment may not be all that serious.
IMO, FWIW, WIVL, I think we're half to 2/3 of the way through deciding how we will adapt our constitutional system so that it does what we, as a people, want it to with regard to international commerce and providing a safety net. We're clearly not who we were when the constitution was written and we plainly want protections that are, in the strictest sense, unconstitutional (at least wrt original intent). Thus, we'll either figure it out or we'll fragment.
There is also the issue of what our role in the world is. I can imagine either of these leading to fragmentation...eventually.
I suspect, though, we'll work it out. There is simply too much benefit to being part of the union no matter how much some groups hate other groups.
Well, fine. You find it curious but that is not all you think of it. You've routinely ignored it. Secondly, they are not ditching data points. It was a graph and it came with no analysis. They weren't formulating or postulating anything. It was a simple graph trying to impart some information.
Thanks to the aggregate poll MCoA linked that apparently was only released two days ago, it appears Reagan was in much better shape than the conventional wisdom would have us believe. But I stand by my prior comments with regard to the narrative of the 1980 election, Reagan trailing in the Gallup poll from August or September until almost Election Day, etc. It's simply not possible for Reagan to have both been recognized as the prohibitive favorite all summer and fall *and* have been the underdog as of the Oct. 28 debate, the latter of which has been the standard narrative in article after article, book after book, interview after interview.
Well, you're wrong on your narrative and you're wrong on what you think people are telling you. Reagan, according to some polls, was trailing before the debate. Him trailing in some polls and the race being too close to call in others at that point doesn't alter the fact that in the summer Reagan was leading and at times had a large lead. Nobody on this board made the claim that Reagan was the prohibitive favorite nor has anyone said anything close to that. You're creating a strawman with that one.
So when you say "it appears. . ." is that your way of saying that you were wrong when you said that Reagan was trailing in almost all of the polls until late October?
They're not ditching data points? What else would you call it if, in fact, Gallup failed to include some of its 1980 polls in the graph it now uses to display its 1980 polling?
Really? The aggregate poll to which everyone keeps referring shows Reagan taking the lead in early June and never relinquishing it. When a political candidate holds a lead for five consecutive months leading up to Election Day, he's the prohibitive favorite.
Link
Why?
Are we to believe that Gallup took no polls before September? Why wouldn't Gallup list polls from before September? It doesn't make sense that they would list data points than they have on their OFFICIAL WEBSITE
It is different for Congressmen - no appointments, just special elections.
There is an actual technical definition of "prohibitive favorite"?
So far everyone has said that Reagan had a lead in the summer and just because some people claimed (I have no idea if anyone claimed he never relinquised it) that he kept it doesn't mean they were claiming he was the prohibitive favorite.
If a football team scores a touchdown on their first drive and the opposing team scores a touchdown but misses the extra point in their first drive is the first team the prohibitive favorite to win the game if they hold a 7-6 lead through the 3rd quarter? If someone said that the first team was leading 7-6 and they were leading 7-6 through 3 quarters does that mean they are claiming that they are the prohibitive favorites?
Apples and oranges. Showing full data for a portion of a race is different than showing incomplete data for the entire race.
What do you mean you "have no idea if anyone claimed he ever relinquished it"? For three or four pages, this aggregate polling graph has been treated like gospel, and it plainly shows Reagan never relinquishing the lead after June.
Uh-oh, this is decidedly un-saber. We're not talking about one game here. We're talking about ~70 data points, a clear majority of which consistently showed Reagan ahead.
Ah, the hand wave.
What it clearly shows is that Gallup in presenting these graphs didn't have it as their goal to list every single poll they did that year.
Well, you've created some strawmen who you claim treat it like gospel but as far as I can tell I have never claimed he never relinquished the lead and I know I've quoted or responded to other posters who who haven't stated that Reagan never relinquished the lead. But again even if someone did make that claim that doesn't mean they claimed he was the prohibitive favorite. This is you just goal post shifting again.
Which still doesn't mean someone is a prohibitive favorite. Do you know what prohibitive means?
And the point of this would be what, exactly? Why would Gallup not only revise history, but revise history in a way that makes their 1980 work appear even less accurate?
Huh? The data in the aggregate poll plainly shows that Reagan never relinquished the lead. If I was an idiot for claiming Reagan was behind (based on Gallup polls that actually showed him behind), then anyone who claims Reagan relinquished the lead after June 1980 would also have to be an idiot, since the latest data plainly shows otherwise.
Ah, the famous BBTF literalism rears its ugly head once again.
Yes, I know what "prohibitive" means. In the most literal sense, prohibitive favorites are rare in politics, sports, etc., but that doesn't mean the phrase has no utility. A presidential candidate who leads in the polls for 150 straight days leading up to Election Day can accurately be described as the prohibitive favorite.
You're attempts to limit the conversation only to Gallup's data is tiresome and desperate. We have other data to draw from, and you've ignored but the part you like.
I don't know the answer. Ask Gallup. They are the ones that did it.
Huh? The data in the aggregate poll plainly shows that Reagan never relinquished the lead. If I was an idiot for claiming Reagan was behind (based on Gallup polls that actually showed him behind), then anyone who claims Reagan relinquished the lead after June 1980 would also have to be an idiot, since the latest data plainly shows otherwise.
Well, let's first get the elephant out of the way. Gallup polls didn't say he was losing all the time like you claimed nor did you have access to the Gallup's data when you made the claim or defended your claims so stridently. The graph came after the fact. You argued vociferously from a position of ignorance on this subject. Secondly, yes if somebody is using the aggregated data as proof of something and they claim the opposite of the aggregated data they are being either stupid or dishonest. Now then if they simply didn't have the aggregated data and they made these claims and then upon seeing the aggregated data realized they were wrong and changed their opinion we would say they learned something.
Ah, the famous BBTF literalism rears its ugly head once again.
Yes, I know what "prohibitive" means. In the most literal sense, prohibitive favorites are rare in politics, sports, etc., but that doesn't mean the phrase has no utility. A presidential candidate who leads in the polls for 150 straight days leading up to Election Day can accurately be described as the prohibitive favorite.
I'm sorry but you made a specific claim/accusation against me and other posters. If you didn't mean what you said then you should have quickly retracted what you said and explained what you really meant. Instead you doubled down and insisted that we were claiming Reagan was a prohibitive favorite. Nobody made that claim and nobody besides you insinuated that when they were talking about the poll results. It is a goal post shifting strawman argument on your part. And hell, you are still insisting that people, who never even talked about the aggregated data, as stating that Reagan was a prohibitive favorite. Just because you've made up a new definition for a clearly defined word doesn't mean the rest of us have to play along.
As if this has actually been about being right for the last forty eight hours.
On Paul Ryan: David Frum is apparently not thrilled with the choice. He's never been on the hard right, but on Friday's "Left, Right, and Center" he said that Ryan would be a bad pick because he'd overshadow Romney as a candidate. Today, he wrote:Back when I would actually vote GOP on occasion Frum was an important voice in my political thinking. It's nice to know he has stayed true to his reasonable approach to politics.
My question is more whether the regional representation system meets the needs of the populace any more. Certainly the fact that slavery was highly concentrated in a few select states made getting rid of it a lot more difficult. I just think that when the country was a lot less developed, the representatives at different levels were adding a lot more value in developing or policiing their bailiwick. The local representatives now perform far fewer local duties and are becoming more concerned with representing the ideology of the political parties.
At a recent family reunion on my wife's side, some old mementos were being put up for auction. A few of her family members were state senators or representatives, Republican. There was an old index card or post card of one of them who was running for re-election in the 1950s. On the card he explained that he had helped get more school funding and that he helped two of the local highways in the district get built. Now I have no idea if he was actually any help, but this seems to be the reason for having an elected offical at any level - to help the members of the district and to have some knowledge of the issues they face.
Now in 2012 we have a fellow running for the US Senate. Said candidate apparently lived here at one time, then went off to Washington DC for 24 years where he became a hedge fund manager, making many millions of dollars. Now he is back, running a million TV ads where his two main issues seem to be the federal deficit and "stopping Wall Street/Washington insider corruption." (I guess he would know.) Plus other ads complaining about attack ads, and still others with a woman I take to be his wife. Having TiVo, I am privileged to not watch any of these at regular speed. In none of them does he appear to mention or acknowledge the state he is supposedly going to represent (Wisconsin.)
I am not going to vote for this fine fellow at any time in my life. Even if I did vote for him, he's only representing Wisconsin in the nominal sense. He will be representing the Republican Party. Given that I'm not really receiving full value representation through the antiquated regional model, let's disband it and go parliamentary. The rich guys like this fine fellow can be in the House of Lords or whatever we call it, the Republicans and Democrats can continue, but regional representation only allows for two parties unless you have regional blocs. The regional blocs are pretty much extinct.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
Person agrees with me therefore is reasonable. Film at 11.
Joe and McCoy clearly should put each other on ignore. Reading over their exchange was excruciating.
No, the Parliamentary system isn't perfect. A Joe McCarthy could still wield power in a Parliamentary system. A Parliamentary system can still have a war machine. A lot wouldn't change when you move from one coalition to the next. But it at least makes it much easier for new forces to arise through new parties. Unlike the USA, where it's essentially impossible bar a regional approach, and regional politics are dying. The possible formation of new parties creates competition and fear among the existing parties. It's clear in 2012 that at least the Republican party has no fear of anything.
I honestly don't understand this; I was under the impression that the off topic threads were the ones reserved for a pretty much anything goes dicussion, as long as what was said did not get excessively personal or actually advocate violent crimes. Given that, it would be inevitable that someone or several someones would be offended by something that was written in the thread(s). Why then, knowing this, would these someones read the off topic threads, especially one that is obviously about politics and is very likely to include partisan feelings, strongly expressed. I don't like brussels sprouts, I know I don't like brussels sprouts, I'm not going to eat brussels sprouts, so I just avoid them without making an issues of it. The world might be a happier place if people who don't like discussions about politics (or basketball or soccer, etc) would just avoid those threads and stay with the ones that don't offend them.
No. Seriously. This crap is beginning to bore me. (This should also clear up a lot of excessive space on my Facebook feed for more music related posts. So keep an eye out for that, my dear audience!)
In partial parting, I leave you with the following;
The GOP is hopelessly enthralled by the rabid, populist right and no serious person could ever vote for them again until they break free of this neo-fascist element that currently guides what passes for "thinking" for them. (Note: Sam's first political axiom; "Populism is always stupid.")
Libertarianism as it exists in the world - i.e. right wing libertarianism in America - is hopelessly compromised by the fact that it has not mechanism for dealing with actual power in the world, being content to hand-wave any power structure that doesn't theoretically descend from the authority of "the state" away as if it doesn't exist; because I guess it "shouldn't" or something. Until libertarians generate some critique of power that doesn't rely on magical thinking to suppress non-authorized brokers it will always fail.
There are three social segments which the state should deploy due to the markets failing to address it sufficiently; the military, healthcare and education.
It's been 18 pages and I've yet to see Joe say a single word worth reading. Yes, actually, I do assume I'm smarter than you, Joe. But that's not trolling, regardless of what you might like to think. It's not like I make a secret of the fact.
Unless otherwise notified, it's probably safe to say my position going forward will be well represented by taking the posts of MCoA, dp and CrosbyBird, muddling, and shaking over ice with two jiggers of gin or whiskey. Serve in a lowball over rocks.
Cheers.
s/
Yeah, your thoughts will be sorely missed.
Well, this gets to be a tautology, but no. A lot of old people voted for the GOP--mostly due to a Mediscare campaign.
From the file of why you do not nominate congressmen from the Midwest file--they have opinions about electoral issues in other states.
If the Ryan pick actually moves Florida further away from Romney, it will be a truly disastrous choice. Still cannot believe he did not pick Rubio.
Take it to a baseball website.
Ever since Ryan introduced his Medicare overhaul proposal, today's seniors are being scared to death about its implications even though, if implemented, it would not change the system one iota for anyone 55 or older. "Mediscare," indeed!
Once you open the door it stays open.
Right. History started in 2010.
What's your point?
The point is . . . I misread your point.
When you are targeting seniors with images that they, not their children's children, are being pushed off of a cliff, that's Mediscare.
We don't discuss politics when we visit. He talks, I listen. We don't discuss.
You mean like when GOP chairman Reince Priebus goes on the Sunday shows and attacks Obama for making $700 billion in Medicare "cuts" which involve zero changes in benefits for current seniors? Reductions which the Republicans in Congress voted for? Cuts which Ryan incorporates into his own budget plan?
Yes, I think that's true. People's lives are mostly good, which in some respects fuels a lot of denialism. When you haven't had any crises for a long, long, time, it's easy to think that no crises are a given going forward.
In some respects in this country we have been in the modern, comfortable epoch since about 1955. I would place it after the implementation of the Salk vaccine. In 1955 you had TV, recorded music, roads were rapidly improving, there was light at the end of the tunnel on racial issues, and so on. Many small improvements since then, but I probably would be comfortable as an adult living at any point in that time frame. Now some of those improvements can be very important. Advances in reproductive techology allowed me to have a family, and nothing else really comes close in personal impact. The Internet is nice, but I could easily live without it, providing everyone else was too. In 1955 I'd just read the Sporting News and magazines more.
I am worried about our socialeconomic ecosystem becoming less diverse. It may be that as cultures develop you go from low diversity (almost everyone has to be a farmer, even the rich have to own farms as part of their wealth) to high diversity (lots of things being developed, plenty of niches) back to low (dominant infrastructce, ridiculous wealth if you hit the jackpot on something popular or are well connected, toil away or on the dole otherwise.) Time will tell.
Now guess how many fingers he's holding up.
No. Seriously. This crap is beginning to bore me.
In partial parting, I leave you with the following;
The Democrat Party is hopelessly enthralled by the rabid, populist left and no serious person could ever vote for them again until they break free of this socialist element that currently guides what passes for "thinking" for them. (Note: Ray's first political axiom; "Taxes are always too high.")
Liberalism as it exists in the world - i.e. left wing liberalism in America - is hopelessly compromised by the fact that it has not mechanism for dealing with actual freedom in the world, being content to bow down before any power structure that theoretically descends from the authority of "the state" as if it always should exist; because I guess it "should" or something. Until liberals generate some critique of power that doesn't rely on guns to suppress non-anointed minorities it will always fail.
It's been 18 pages and I've yet to see Sam say a single word worth reading. Yes, actually, I do assume I'm smarter than you, Sam. But that's not trolling, regardless of what you might like to think. It's not like I make a secret of the fact.
Unless otherwise notified, it's probably safe to say my position going forward will be well represented by taking the posts of MCoA, dp and CrosbyBird, and holding the opposite of what they say, and shaking over ice with captain morgan's and a coke. Serve in a lowball over rocks.
Cheers.
r/
also, one thing i'm curious about w/r/t a true universal healthcare environment is the effect it would have on medical malpractice insurance. if all healthcare costs were paid for by the government, wouldn't that significantly limit the long-term liabilities for doctors when an accident occurs, and results in serious medical complications?
* Picking Ryan doesn't matter much, but as VP picks go it is interesting (less so than Palin, but more than Biden). Obama is still favored to win, but with slightly more variance in the result which I guess is good for Romney, because it doesn't matter how much you lose by if you are Romney, so if you are behind then variance is good.
* Having been alive for the 1980 election (15) I can say it was obvious to me Reagan was going to win for a while before the election.
* Ray has a low opinion of Liberalism and Democrats. I am shocked.
I go by the name Jay Z because my first name is Jay and my last name begins with a Z. Please note that my name does not have a dash in it, as does the rapper whose real name is Shawn Carter. That's a joke, son.
I am a white male protestant (Lutheran.) From the looks of it Dad earned a little below the average income (worked a grinder in a feed mill) and Mom didn't work after they got married (teacher beforehand.) They both grew up on farms. State college education. Middle class, I guess. Nothing too ritzy.
And of course for women, the distance to actual equality was even farther in the future.
I'm not saying 1955 was the nadir. But I can understand why invoking the 1950s as any kind of golden age makes people uncomfortable since the issues that had to be swept under the carpet to create national comity were pretty big ones. And while conflict is uncomfortable, I think conflict is preferable to keeping that situation in place. So I wouldn't trade 2012 for 1955.
I remember my mom (god-fearing polish christian) voting for Carter in the 1980 election because Reagan was a "hawk", and she was scared we would all go up in a puff of nuclear cloud. We lived 7 or 8 miles from a primary target AFB.
There, now can we please move on.
Finally, there is no way I could ever vote for the Republican party as it is currently constituted. They are so fundamentally anti-science and anti-knowledge its sickening. Note, I do not think all Republicans are like this.
Never say never (when I say "whiskey," I mean bourbon and Scotch--not much into the Irish or Canadian). I've developed a taste for port recently myself, though, for which my recent trip to Portugal's to blame. Fortunately, the ruby/tawny split between me and the missus (I'm the former, she's the latter) has proven surmountable. (Actually, I like the whites better than either, but most restaurants here don't carry them, and ports generally, while delicious, aren't very versatile--they only work as a dessert wine for me.)
and considering his regime's further dealings with iran, where they sold weapons in violation of an existing arms embargo (not to mention the fact that they then destroyed documents to impede investigations into the affair), shouldn't there be more skepticism about his overall performance as president.
and does anyone else get a kick out of the fact that he refused to negotiate with the air traffic controllers union, calling them hostage takers, but when he was actually confronted by actual hostage takers, he showed absolutely no hesitation in negotiating with them?
After watching the Marcus Dupree 30-on-30 documentary last night, today I learned that Philadelphia, MS, has a black mayor now.
At the risk of reviving an old topic (sorry), Carter was very unpopular (much moreso than Obama, for example). The only reason he was polling close to Reagan is that Reagan scared people. Note that the "ballpark" they both were in was the high 30s or low 40s. Basically, the undecideds didn't like Carter but were scared of Reagan. Reagan then had a good debate performance that reassured people that he wasn't as crazy as they feared and the undecideds - who really didn't want to vote for Carter - broke heavily for him. (P.S. I was 12 in 1980)
When even Texas is to the left of California on an issue, you know you have problems.
But for a place like Philadelphia--55% white according to the all-knowing wikipedia--to elect a black mayor in a two-person election is pretty amazing, and obviously would have been inconceivable in the golden age of 1955.
That's pretty much a Carter die-hard fantasy.
i mean, what do you think precipitated that? do you think they just liked reagan more, so they decided to give him a office-warming present? and do you think that actually reflects well on reagan, that he was more well-liked by terrorists than that weak-minded hayseed jimmy carter?
or do you think reagan actually offered something more concrete in exchange for the hostages, such as the guns he later sold to iran in violation of the aforementioned embargo. wouldn't that make him an appeaser?
i mean, if reagan didn't actually engage the iranians prior to his taking office, what is it that you think precipitated their goodwill gesture?
again, i wasn't alive, so maybe this was all explained somewhere 30 years ago, but it does seem like reagan did something untoward here, does it not?
I'm confused by the need to put that "in cocktails, however" bit on the end of your obviously true statement.
Gods. If you're going to drink spiced rum, drink Kraken.
That's a good summary, thank you for pointing it out. Mostly I was focusing on the technological differences in picking the Salk Vaccine. Before that in the 20th century you've got WWI, flu epidemic, Depression, WWII - lots of treacherous stuff. After that the technological existence is probably something I could tolerate. A minority would not draw the line there for cultural reasons, of course. 1955 was probably a significant improvement, at least in some places, from earlier but no where near where we would want to be. I apologize for any misunderstandings.
now that does seem like a somewhat less egregious explanation.
No. Reagan had a Democratic House of Representatives throughout his tenure and a Democratic Senate after 1986 - both houses looked into this without reaching the conclusions suggested in #1787. It is true that Carter was desperate to get the hostages released to salvage his re-election but was unsuccessful, as was often the case in his endeavors.
Iran released the hostages when Reagan became President because they knew the crazy cowboy was going to bomb their asses back to the stone age if they didn't. Just like he would do to Qaddafi after the terrorist attack at the Berlin disco in 1986.
DB
Billy Beer.
I think 1793 was sarcasm.
Both were around before Carter. Try Dogfishhead and Jet Blue.
Maybe, by 1797 was much funnier sarcasm.
And FLIP!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main