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

Sunday, September 02, 2012

OTP - September 2012 - Because it’s Labor Day after all

Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: September 02, 2012 at 01:22 PM | 8483 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 85 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 80 81 82 83 84 85
   8401. GregD Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4250939)
I find this Churchill anecdote my favourite.
That is awesome!
   8402. tshipman Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4250940)
I think most politicians would be fun to have lunch with, as long as you didn't talk about politics. For the most part, they're open and charismatic people with interesting life experiences.

   8403. Greg K Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4250948)
That is awesome!

I actually just stumbled across this one I hadn't seen before, must be from the newest season of QI.

Churchill also participated in the creation of the abbreviation "OMG"
link
   8404. zonk Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4250958)

The real funny part about 2004 was the liberal insistence that polling was oversampling Rs and was skewed in favor of Bush...
At least I think Liberals can see the humor in that now...


I'd have to go pretty far back in my digital memory to recall whether I had any crow to eat or not... I rather think not/remember not, mainly because:

1) I never fell in love the candidacy of John Kerry. I tried, I desperately tried, but he kept fumbling in the red zone constantly and consistently on Iraq. From the "for it before I was against it" to the fateful moment in August when he came flat out and said he'd have still voted for the AUMF even knowing then what he knew now. I mean, I get where he was coming from -- you can't just mea culpa the biggest question of the election... but it was just so deflating.

2) Team Red ran an absolutely brutal, buzzsaw of a campaign. From my standpoint, Team Blue just got outplayed by a better team (political campaign-wise). I know MCoA has touted the idea that Kerry actually 'outperformed' his polling, but strictly from a campaign perspective - Team D got beat everywhere... GOP ads were more crushingly effective, GOP GOTV was still a finely tuned machine, and the candidate styles clearly leaned Bush.

3) The map pretty clearly dictated that Kerry's only path to victory required Ohio -- or drawing an even harder inside straight of Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada.

I still held out hope - and watched Ohio rather late into the night - but I definitely don't recall any Pauline Kael'ing on my part.

   8405. GregD Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4250970)
I did think Kerry was going to pull off a squeaker. I never thought though that he got cheated. We took a lickin.
   8406. Ron J2 Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4250972)
in fact an overwhelming % of our elected pols are people most normal people would not want to eat lunch with


Really? I've met a few (I live in a government town after all) and have generally liked those I've met. I've never met anybody who had a bad word to say about Walter Baker as a f'rinstance. (Granted Baker's far from the norm and he's been dead for quite a while)
   8407. just plain joe Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4250979)
I think most politicians would be fun to have lunch with, as long as you didn't talk about politics. For the most part, they're open and charismatic people with interesting life experiences.


I agree with this. I know or have known several politicians (on the local level) and found them all to be engaging and well-informed. I'm sure that some politicians are completely clueless but people who are not genuinely outgoing would have trouble getting elected to office. Many, many years ago I dated a young woman whose father was the mayor of our town. He was an engaging and well-spoken person who probably knew 95% of the people in our small (25,000 people) town by name. Any conversation with him was bound to be interesting as he knew a great deal about many different things.
   8408. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4250984)
I'd have to go pretty far back in my digital memory to recall whether I had any crow to eat or not... I rather think not/remember not, mainly because:

I though Bush was going to win easily, and was quite surprised it was as close as it was... I really didn't start paying significant attention to the Polls until I discovered RCP some time in 2006.

What I remember here in NYC was how so many out of touch NYC liberals were absolutely flabbergasted that Bush won- these were people who had not voted Bush in 2000, were ideologically opposed to his administration AND thought/believed that the Bush administration was such a complete and utter trainwreck, that he'd lose so many votes as compared to 2000 that he'd lose in a landslide- as far as I could tell they either paid no attention to polls or convinced themselves that the polls were biased...

   8409. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4250993)
I though Bush was going to win easily, and was quite surprised it was as close as it was...

Me too - I had no illusions or expectations of a Kerry victory. I was very pessimistic and barely watched any election coverage the night of. I was in the "how on earth can people vote for this guy *again*?!" category, but at the same time it didn't suprise me that people would, if that makes sense.
   8410. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 02, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4250995)
I did think Kerry was going to pull off a squeaker. I never thought though that he got cheated. We took a lickin.

I just assumed Kerry was going to lose, although I had a 30 minute thrill when I heard those first exit poll numbers.

in fact an overwhelming % of our elected pols are people most normal people would not want to eat lunch with

I can't remember any big time pols in my book shop, just a few congressmen and former congressmen whose names don't mean much to anyone outside Washington and under the age of 50. But there were a fair number of media figures who were extremely interesting to talk to, in particular Lars-Erik Nelson of the Daily News, William Safire, Kevin Phillips, Michael Barone, Pat Buchanan (also a small time pol), and the pollster Charlie Cook, who my manager said was the most interesting of the lot. The (unintentionally) funniest one was a paleocon from the Washington Times (later dropped for being too paleo) who salivated over my Russian history section, and assumed from the decidedly anti-Communist slant of most of the books that I naturally shared his worldview on everything else.
   8411. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4251004)
The most exciting/scary voting process I've ever seen was one I had no part of, but affected me greatly: the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Yes = Quebec separates from Canada
No = Quebec stays in Canada

The final vote was

Yes = 49.42%
No = 50.58%

There were more spoiled/invalid ballots cast than the difference between Yes/No.
There was a 93.52% voter turnout that day in Quebec.

It was a nail-biting night for the rest of Canada, as the percentages never moved that much away from 50/50.

How crazy could have things gotten if "Yes" had won?

On October 27, Bloc Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard's office sent a press release to all military bases in Quebec, calling for creation of a Quebec military and the beginning of a new defence staff in the event of Quebec's independence.[14] Bouchard declared that Quebec would take possession of Canadian air force jet fighters based in the province.


   8412. Greg K Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4251008)
My dad still talks about Chretien's last ditch speech at the Unity Rally. (edit: or perhaps it was the address to the nation on TV? My memory sucks) He always says he's never seen a politician so clearly scared out of his mind as that.

CBC had a great documentary on the 95 vote as I recall. Last time I checked the CBC site it cost about $950 on DVD though.
   8413. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4251012)
I regret that Quebec failed to go solo. We haven't had a real relationship breakup in the Americas for a while.
   8414. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4251013)
   8415. PreservedFish Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4251014)
What I remember here in NYC was how so many out of touch NYC liberals were absolutely flabbergasted that Bush won- these were people who had not voted Bush in 2000, were ideologically opposed to his administration AND thought/believed that the Bush administration was such a complete and utter trainwreck, that he'd lose so many votes as compared to 2000 that he'd lose in a landslide-


I was one of those people,

as far as I could tell they either paid no attention to polls or convinced themselves that the polls were biased...


but I never thought the polls were wrong. I thought that Kerry could eke out a win.
   8416. zonk Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4251026)
One odd factor regarding 2004...

I think a large part of whatever liberal myopia existed regarding the election tie very neatly back to Iraq --

To wit, I think the opposition to going into Iraq was MUCH, MUCH deeper and wider than either the media or the congressional votes would have you believe in the 2003 context. You could have taken virtually any of the major marches and rallies in opposition to going into Iraq and I think you'd have found larger numbers at those single events than you would have at entire months of Tea party rallies. I generally think protest marches are a waste of time, so I rarely do -- but I walked in the Chicago protest and I don't know that I've ever seen a crowd that big.

Plenty of folks like me went into 2004 -- as Iraq clearly became the expensive, bloody quagmire that the neocons had promised up and down it wouldn't, and the WMD phantom was reduced to a tasteless joke at the correspondents dinner -- thinking that the curtain had been pulled back on the Wizard of Babylon...

I still had in my mind, two things: 1) Even in a war now recognized as a mistake, America has always been reluctant to switch horses midstream, and 2) John Kerry was just not the right person and did not run the right campaign to carry that message... he was a overly focused group'ed failure of rationalizing how the electorate would/could/should perceive an opponent of a war gone sideways, rather than a candidate that simply respected the message that it was a mistake then, it had proven to be a mistake "now", and it required a change in course to fix the error.

I think a different candidate and different campaign could have unseated Bush in 2004 -- not in blowout fashion, mind you, but the election was close enough that I think a better combination of candidate and campaign could have pulled it off.
   8417. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4251032)
I think a different candidate and different campaign could have unseated Bush in 2004 -- not in blowout fashion, mind you, but the election was close enough that I think a better combination of candidate and campaign could have pulled it off.

I think Gore could have won quite handily if he had decided to try again.

It would be like giving people a "do-over", politically. ;)
   8418. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4251044)
You could have taken virtually any of the major marches and rallies in opposition to going into Iraq and I think you'd have found larger numbers at those single events than you would have at entire months of Tea party rallies.
My experience was different. I was a reporter in Orlando during the run-up to OIF, and once was assigned to cover an antiwar rally. It was held in a downtown park on a Saturday. Just as I walked up, the woman on stage said, into the mic, "Where is everybody? I know you're out there; maybe you just couldn't make it today." My immediate thought: That's an unfortunate quote to have lead this article. An organizer, IIRC, later told me they expected 10 times the crowd that showed.

That rally gave me another bad quote. One of the speakers was a relative of Terry Anderson, the AP correspondent held hostage by Hezbollah in the 80s. (No, I don't know why this relative was special enough to be made a speaker.) I asked him what America should do to counter terrorists. His response: "First, we have to understand them." Internally, I dropped my head at such a stereotypical bleeding-heart lib answer.

I walked away from the rally thinking, Yes, America needs a new presidential administration, but it also needs a new opposition.
   8419. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4251053)
Me too - I had no illusions or expectations of a Kerry victory. I was very pessimistic and barely watched any election coverage the night of. I was in the "how on earth can people vote for this guy *again*?!" category, but at the same time it didn't suprise me that people would, if that makes sense.
I'm in this group as well. I thought there was simply no chance that the electorate would switch leadership at a time when the country was involved in two wars — the "don't change horses in mid-stream" argument is a powerful one politically. On top of that, Kerry was an uninspiring candidate with no plan whose biggest argument was "I'm not that guy."

(I don't claim to be some svengali; in 2004, I thought John Edwards was the future.)
   8420. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4251066)
Pa. court rules voters can cast regular ballots without ID

HARRISBURG - A Commonwealth Court judge issued an injunction today blocking Pennsylvania's controversial new voter ID law from taking full effect before the presidential election, clearing the way for voters without government-issed identification to cast regular ballots on Nov. 6.

Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. in essence ruled that the general election would be - like the primary - a soft rollout of the law.

"I reject the underlying assertion that the offending activity is the request to produce photo ID; instead, I conclude that the salient offending conduct is voter disenfranchisement," he said.

That disenfranchisement, Simpson said, involved requiring those without identification to cast provisional ballots, which could be challenged at a later date.

During the primary, the law - Act 18 - permitted voters without identification to cast regular ballots.

"The injunction will have the effect of extending the express transition provisions of Act 18 through the general election," Simpson wrote.
   8421. PreservedFish Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4251074)
On top of that, Kerry was an uninspiring candidate with no plan whose biggest argument was "I'm not that guy."


Why does that sound familiar?
   8422. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4251077)
Why does that sound familiar?
This election is very much a comp of 2004.
   8423. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4251079)
That disenfranchisement, Simpson said, involved requiring those without identification to cast provisional ballots, which could be challenged at a later date.


So people were able to vote despite not having ID, and the judge calls that "disenfranchisement" rather than potential voter fraud.
   8424. bunyon Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4251083)
in fact an overwhelming % of our elected pols are people most normal people would not want to eat lunch with

Nonsense. Most would be an absolute blast to have lunch with.


Now, you'd want to not take more cash with you than it would take to cover lunch and a tip. And you wouldn't want to be left alone, at any point, with them, lest you be beaten/molested/cheated/killed. And whatever you do, for the love of god, don't enter into any kind of business arrangement with them.
   8425. Gonfalon B. Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4251091)
I think a different candidate and different campaign could have unseated Bush in 2004 -- not in blowout fashion, mind you, but the election was close enough that I think a better combination of candidate and campaign could have pulled it off.

Hillary Clinton sat out a 2004 race that it turned out she would almost certainly have won, then ran in 2008 when she would have won if not for Obama and her own 2004-era war vote, but I suspect that she (and the Dems) are going to have a hard time in 2016. If so, she'll join John McCain in the "kick yourself and your bad timing for the rest of your life" club.

I find this Churchill anecdote my favourite.

I'm partial to these.
   8426. zonk Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4251093)
So people were able to vote despite not having ID, and the judge calls that "disenfranchisement" rather than potential voter fraud.


It seems a stretch, but it might be that the judge actually looked at the evidence -- or lack thereof -- of "potential voter fraud", took another listen to the law's proponents who made pretty darn clear that they had no such evidence that such a law was needed, and maybe even applied a bit of logic around the loopiness of 'voter fraud' having any impact. I'm reaching here, but just maybe the judge decided freeper phantasms about buses hauling hordes of illegals across state lines to vote in some magical revolving voting booth was just that -- fever swamp gases.

...but I'm only speculating.
   8427. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4251102)
I suspect that she (and the Dems) are going to have a hard time in 2016.
I'd say this depends on how the GOP reacts to a Romney loss. If the Tea Partiers win the argument over how conservative the candidate must be, then it could be another long election cycle. But if the party elders and/or The Money decide, "Enough purity ########; let's win," then the GOP's chances look better.
   8428. bunyon Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4251110)
I suspect that she (and the Dems) are going to have a hard time in 2016.

I'd say this depends on how the GOP reacts to a Romney loss. If the Tea Partiers win the argument over how conservative the candidate must be, then it could be another long election cycle. But if the party elders and/or The Money decide, "Enough purity ########; let's win," then the GOP's chances look better.


It also depends, a lot, on how things go the next four years if Obama wins. If the economy is humming along and no major wars or terrorist attacks or scandals have hit during a second Obama adminsistration, I'd say the Democrat in 2016 will do okay. If any of those things isn't true, they'll probably get shellacked.

With the caveat, of course, that the Republicans could once again run a terrible candidate.
   8429. zonk Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4251116)
I suspect that she (and the Dems) are going to have a hard time in 2016.

I'd say this depends on how the GOP reacts to a Romney loss. If the Tea Partiers win the argument over how conservative the candidate must be, then it could be another long election cycle. But if the party elders and/or The Money decide, "Enough purity ########; let's win," then the GOP's chances look better.


Well, I think an awful lot depends on a theoretical Obama term 2, also -- if we see an uptick in economic fortunes in term 2, then in theory -- you'd think folks like Biden, Clinton, and other cabinet members probably get a leg up.

What will be interesting from my perspective is whether we get a Mark Warner-esque 3rd way/centrist or someone blessed by the left.

Personally, I'm hoping Brian Schweitzer runs -- because I really do think he'd be the best of both worlds (economic populist -- but enough charisma and Warren-esque vociferousness that the left would give him a pass on a number of issues where he's center, if not right-center).

Plus - he's just a really fun politician.

Schweitzer-Christie debates would be ones for the ages... I think the odds are no worse than 3-1 that punches would get thrown.
   8430. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4251124)

Churchill also participated in the creation of the abbreviation "OMG"
link


If I had to choose the figure from the first quarter of the century who would be most likely to coin "OMG", it would be Jackie Fisher.

On the other hand, my best friend claims to have invented "LOL" in the early 90s.
   8431. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4251128)
This election is very much a comp of 2004.

How so? The 2004 election was a referendum on two unpopular wars during strong economic times. In 2012, the media barely remembers that Afghanistan is still going on, and the economy is the worst in decades.
   8432. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4251130)
It seems a stretch, but it might be that the judge actually looked at the evidence -- or lack thereof -- of "potential voter fraud", took another listen to the law's proponents who made pretty darn clear that they had no such evidence that such a law was needed, and maybe even applied a bit of logic around the loopiness of 'voter fraud' having any impact.


Clearly there's a mistake here. A judge, looking at evidence and judging based on the laws of the state? That can't be right. Ray read something else. ON THE INTERNET!
   8433. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4251132)
It is possible though, and my understanding is most pollsters are expecting a turnout model in between 2008 and 2010 in favorability to the two parties. — Bitter Mouse

So you posted thousands of words, only to make the very same point I've been making for weeks.

If pollsters are expecting an electorate that's somewhere between 2008 and 2010, which is what they say when interviewed, then they shouldn't be releasing polls that use samples showing a bigger Dem advantage in 2012 than Dems had in the landslide 2008 election.

***
No, there are other ways
1: Some of those who formerly described themselves as Indies are now describing themselves as Dems
2: People who were 14-17 in 2008 and 16-17 in 2010, can now vote- while voter turnout among 18-21 year olds tends to be very low- there is some and in recent years it has been disproportionately Dem- in 2008 Obama won the 18-29 cohort by 2:1, his worst age cohort was 65+, and how do I put this, the upper end of that cohort (where he did even worse) is dying off
3: You area ware that the 1996 electorate looked much morelike the 1992 electorate than the 1994 electorate?

Your math doesn't work, esp. #1.

There's been a split between party registration and party "identification" for a few decades now- Dems have more than a +10 registration advantage- yet haven't polled near that level of party identification in along time

If by "long time" you mean 2008. Dem+7 was a fairly big advantage.

Dems 41
Repub 33
Indies 26
That's Dem +8
If all Dems vote for the Dem and all Repubs vote for the Repub, and Indies go 16-10 in favor of the Repub, then the Dem wins by 51-49, +2, less than when the Dems, had a +7 "advantage"

It's not that hard, it's not "counter-intuitive" - you are just grasping at straws,

*I'm* grasping at straws? When's the last time exit polls showed Dems with 41 percent party ID?
   8434. PreservedFish Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4251134)
How so? The 2004 election was a referendum on two unpopular wars during strong economic times. In 2012, the media barely remembers that Afghanistan is still going on, and the economy is the worst in decades.


The economy and the wars are similar though, as the singular issue - in each case the incumbent is arguing that the right decisions were made, that patience is needed, and that America must stay the course that's been charted. The opposition has no idea how anyone could possibly agree with that stance and is dumbfounded that the incumbent actually might win again.

And then you have the similarities between Romney and Kerry - ######### out of touch flip-flopping elitists.
   8435. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4251137)
You could have taken virtually any of the major marches and rallies in opposition to going into Iraq and I think you'd have found larger numbers at those single events than you would have at entire months of Tea party rallies.
My experience was different. I was a reporter in Orlando during the run-up to OIF, and once was assigned to cover an antiwar rally. It was held in a downtown park on a Saturday. Just as I walked up, the woman on stage said, into the mic, "Where is everybody? I know you're out there


Years ago I worked in a small office building overlooking Cityhall park in NYC, this was before Giuliani turned the place into an armoured fortress, and so you'd have rallies and demonstrations there every now and then...

One day, I heard a demonstration start, some guy was yelling in a mike, and I heard the crowd respond, and it was a HUGE crowd, from inside my office it felt like you were in the middle of a 60,000 seat crowd whole the hometeam was driving. and the guy with the mike was barely getting his voice out over the crowd when the crowd really got loud...

and I'm thinking, how'd this happen, I was outside 1/2 and hour ago, barely anyone out there, I go to a window (OK someone else in my office looked first and told everyone else we had to see what was going on)- there were 3 people on a small stage, 1 guy at the mike, two men by his side, behind them were 5-6 men, standing erect, hands over their chests staring straight ahead, by the way they were dressed (specific type of suit) it was pretty obvious who these people were- Nation of Islam

in front of the stage was a bunch a news camera crews... and a few tourists milling around

NO crowd, the crowd noise was coming from these big ass concert-type speakers on either side of the stage, the speaker's speech was obviously timed to the crowd "reaction"

This went on for about 20 minutes, when the speech was over, the crowd noise cut off abruptly, I thought it was hysterical- that night I turned on the local news, I saw "coverage" of the event on 2 stations- coverage consisted of a mention there was a "rally" at City Hall, a few snippets of the speech- a closely cropped camera angle where you didn't see either the loudspeakers or the lack of a crowd... and no mention of the sparse turnout
   8436. booond Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4251138)
2004 it was the war and 2012 it is a slow recovery. Both presidents were damaged a bit but each time the opposition has run a weak, stiff stooge. Same story, different players.

Coke to the Fish
   8437. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4251140)
Nonsense. Most would be an absolute blast to have lunch with.


ok ok I concede defeat
   8438. spike Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4251143)
So people were able to vote despite not having ID, and the judge calls that "disenfranchisement" rather than potential voter fraud.

Perhaps he was persuaded by the state admitting in court there was no evidence of any.
   8439. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4251145)
Your math doesn't work, esp. #1.


Please forgive me, but my math "works" just fine, you on the other hand have demonstrated a high level of mathematical ineptitude in this thread.
   8440. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4251146)
The economy and the wars are similar though, as the singular issue

Historically, voters keep the incumbent during wartime and vote against the incumbent during weak economic times. If Obama wins, he'll be bucking history rather than being the latest in an electoral trend.
   8441. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4251148)
Please forgive me, but my math "works" just fine, you on the other hand have demonstrated a high level of mathematical ineptitude in this thread.

Your math is nonsense. If a bunch of people who previously claimed to be independents are now identifying as Dems, and if a bunch of people who previously identified as Republicans are now identifying as independents, it would yield more than the net Dem+1 shift you claimed in your example. This is second-grade math here.
   8442. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4251149)
How so? The 2004 election was a referendum on two unpopular wars during strong economic times. In 2012, the media barely remembers that Afghanistan is still going on, and the economy is the worst in decades.
It's better than it was in 2008.
   8443. JL Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4251150)
ok ok I concede defeat

I worked with a die-hard Republican who hated Bill Clinton. Met him at a charitable fund raiser and came back gushing about him. He admitted that he did not want to like him but could not help it. I know someone else who said the same thing about former senator Al D'Amato of New York. These guys may have policies you don't like, but they have to be likeable to a large enough segment to get elected. I suspect the vast majority could at least make lunch interesting and enjoyable.
   8444. PreservedFish Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4251155)
Historically, voters keep the incumbent during wartime and vote against the incumbent during weak economic times.


OK. But they are still similar elections, for the reasons I listed.
   8445. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4251157)
Your math is nonsense. If a bunch of people who previously claimed to be independents are now identifying as Dems, and if a bunch of people who previously identified as Republicans are now identifying as independents, it would yield more than the Dem+1 advantage you claimed in your example. This is second-grade math here

If this was a thing, someone besides you and a few right wing blogs would agree. But it's not.
   8446. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4251158)
It's better than it was in 2008.

Here we go again.

If you have a great house in early 2008, it burns down in late 2008, and it's only 75 percent rebuilt in 2012, you're not better off. Even if your house is completely rebuilt, you're still not better off. "Better off" is when you have more than the previous high point, which might be true for some people but most certainly isn't true for the country as a whole.

I didn't believe this was even debatable, but I guess there's nothing the lefties around here are too self-conscious to play dumb about if doing so might make Obama look better.
   8447. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4251161)
beating a dead horse, Joe said:
It doesn't have anything to do with what I think is "right"; it's about the reported numbers in prior elections. The Dems had a Dem+7 advantage in 2008 and they won big. I find it hard to believe the Dems will have a bigger party ID advantage in 2012 but win by a smaller margin than in 2008. If the theory is that people identify with the winner, such a result would be entirely counterintuitive.


I said:
No, there are other ways
1: Some of those who formerly described themselves as Indies are now describing themselves as Dems
2: People who were 14-17 in 2008 and 16-17 in 2010, can now vote- while voter turnout among 18-21 year olds tends to be very low- there is some and in recent years it has been disproportionately Dem- in 2008 Obama won the 18-29 cohort by 2:1, his worst age cohort was 65+, and how do I put this, the upper end of that cohort (where he did even worse) is dying off
3: You area ware that the 1996 electorate looked much morelike the 1992 electorate than the 1994 electorate?


Joe said:
Your math doesn't work, esp. #1.


I'll spoon feed you Joe.

Dems were +7 in 2008 right?
for shits and giggle
Dems 40
Repubs 33
Indies 27 (14 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total 54-46 in favor of Dems
Then in my #1, some Dem leaning indies may actually move from Indy to Dem- Dem's go up from +7- but the actual vote doesn't move

Dems 42 (include 2 who used to be indy)
Repubs 33
Indies 25 (12 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total is still 54-46 in favor of Dems even as their "advantage" went from +7 to +9
if 1 of those Dem voting Indies votes R, then the Dem's overall total will go down 53-47- even while their partisan identification edge went up
   8448. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4251162)
Heck, I'd love to have beer or three with W.
   8449. booond Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4251164)
vote against the incumbent during weak economic times.


FDR says hello
   8450. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4251165)
If this was a thing, someone besides you and a few right wing blogs would agree. But it's not.

Those links have nothing to do with the basic math problem in Johnny's example.
   8451. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4251167)
*I'm* grasping at straws? When's the last time exit polls showed Dems with 41 percent party ID?


excuse my language
that's not grasping at straws that was a ####### math hypothetical- are you being deliberately obtuse or is reading comprehension not your strong suit?
   8452. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4251168)
Here we go again.
That's right. You continue to argue that America was better off smack in the middle of the greatest economic meltdown in 80 years.
   8453. PreservedFish Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4251170)
Here we go again.

If you have a great house in early 2008, it burns down in late 2008, and it's only 75 percent rebuilt in 2012, you're not better off.


Joe, the 2008 election took place while the house was still smoldering and plans for rebuilding were still under debate.
   8454. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4251176)
Joe, the 2008 election took place while the house was still smoldering and plans for rebuilding were still under debate.

Right, are you better off in the house that's still standing, but asking "hey, do I smell smoke?"
   8455. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4251177)
I'll spoon feed you Joe.

Dems were +7 in 2008 right?
for shits and giggle
Dems 40
Repubs 33
Indies 27 (14 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total 54-46 in favor of Dems
Then in my #1, some Dem leaning indies may actually move from Indy to Dem- Dem's go up from +7- but the actual vote doesn't move

Dems 42 (include 2 who used to be indy)
Repubs 33
Indies 25 (12 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total is still 54-46 in favor of Dems even as their "advantage" went from +7 to +9
if 1 of those Dem voting Indies votes R, then the Dem's overall total will go down 53-47- even while their partisan identification edge went up

You don't need to spoon-feed me. You need a refresher on second-grade math. Your posts are high in snarkiness but very low in basic math competency.

Aside from the basic math problems, your examples are also historically illiterate. Obama won independents by a wide margin in 2008, not the *1 point* you used in your 2008 example above.
   8456. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4251178)
From the third link @8445:

Since then, the same thing has occurred in every election: The losing side objects to the partisan composition of polling. The polls then proceed to get the final result roughly correct.


This is the entire deal, right? It's simple. It's obvious. It's real-world tested in elections from at least 2004 onward. It's what happens.

Why anyone continues to engage Kehoskie on this subject is just beyond me. The facts are obvious. He has no use for facts.
   8457. bunyon Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4251179)
If you have a great house in early 2008, it burns down in late 2008, and it's only 75 percent rebuilt in 2012, you're not better off. Even if your house is completely rebuilt, you're still not better off. "Better off" is when you have more than the previous high point, which might be true for some people but most certainly isn't true for the country as a whole.

I didn't believe this was even debatable, but I guess there's nothing the lefties around here are too self-conscious to play dumb about if doing so might make Obama look better.


Joe, I'm not a lefty by any stretch but surely you don't think 2008 was rollicking good economic times? The #### hit the fan in 2007 and was seen hurtling toward us earlier than that. I don't think Obama has handled it brilliantly, but 2008 was not good times, in any sense.
   8458. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4251182)
it would yield more than the net Dem+1 shift you claimed in your example.


I claimed nothing, I was simply showing how partisan voting shifts between D/R and I can produce the patterns you claim to be counterintuitive.

I don't claim to know what is actually going on, but I am trying to show what could be going on to explain current polling results- but I guess the only possible explanation inside your thickhead is that pollsters are cooking the books- in which case all speculation is useless since its all proceeding from a false assumption.




   8459. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4251183)
Joe, I'm not a lefty by any stretch but surely you don't think 2008 was rollicking good economic times? The #### hit the fan in 2007 and was seen hurtling toward us earlier than that. I don't think Obama has handled it brilliantly, but 2008 was not good times, in any sense.


This doesn't facilitate Joe's talking points, thus Joe will ignore it (at best.)
   8460. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4251184)
So you posted thousands of words, only to make the very same point I've been making for weeks.


No. Really, no kidding, no. You keep talking about party self identification and I am talking about turnout model. They are not the same. Turnout model is about demographic trends (as I stated). Party identification has nothing to do with turnout model.

The turnout model will likely be between 2004 and 2008, adjusted for demographic changes. Closer to 2008, because it is a presidential election, but the younger demographic won't turn out as big. Fortunately (for Obama) they have aged into an age which does tend to vote more. And he is an incumbent.

Party self identification has nothing to do with it. And I am still waiting for an answer from you why all the polls keep showing what they do. Random chance? Conspiracy? What?
   8461. zonk Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4251186)
How does 2004 qualify as 'strong economic times'?
   8462. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4251189)
that's not grasping at straws that was a ####### math hypothetical- are you being deliberately obtuse or is reading comprehension not your strong suit?

Pro tip: A hypothetical should actually have a basis in reality. If your hypothetical has never actually happened before and is highly unlikely to happen this time, it's a senseless and time-wasting hypothetical.

***
That's right. You continue to argue that America was better off smack in the middle of the greatest economic meltdown in 80 years.

Yeah, you're right. It's much better to be unemployed while the stock market rallies than to have a house and job while the stock market declines. You guys are out of your minds.
   8463. spike Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4251190)
are you being deliberately obtuse or is reading comprehension not your strong suit?

{I_want_to_believe.jpg}
   8464. Jim Furtado Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4251191)
Someone needs to submit a link for October.
   8465. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4251193)
You don't need to spoon-feed me. You need a refresher on second-grade math. Your posts are high in snarkiness but very low in basic math competency.

Aside from the basic math problems, your examples are also historically illiterate. Obama won independents by a wide margin in 2008, not the *1 point* you used in your 2008 example above.



I see you have trouble both with reading comprehension and elementary grade math, somehow the fact that you are a Romney supporter goes hand in hand with that, but I have now wasted several minutes of my life arguing with a moron, so I guess that means you win
congratulations.
   8466. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4251194)
Yeah, you're right. It's much better to be unemployed while the stock market rallies than to have a house and job while the stock market declines. You guys are out of your minds.
You concede that the markets are strong — something that was not true in 2008. You're also conceding that supply side economics doesn't work. Awesome. Thank you.
   8467. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4251197)
Joe, I'm not a lefty by any stretch but surely you don't think 2008 was rollicking good economic times? The #### hit the fan in 2007 and was seen hurtling toward us earlier than that. I don't think Obama has handled it brilliantly, but 2008 was not good times, in any sense.

Once again, it's better to have a house and a job during a financial crisis — even a job that might be extinct in 6 months or a year — than to have no job during a "recovery." That this even needs to be explained to people is comical.

***
I claimed nothing, I was simply showing how partisan voting shifts between D/R and I can produce the patterns you claim to be counterintuitive.

I don't claim to know what is actually going on, but I am trying to show what could be going on to explain current polling results- but I guess the only possible explanation inside your thickhead is that pollsters are cooking the books- in which case all speculation is useless since its all proceeding from a false assumption.

Yes, you showed a "pattern" that was mathematically impossible. If the 2008 electorate was Dem+7, and then a bunch of people left the GOP and are now independents, and another set of people stopped calling themselves independents and ID as Dems, that would yield much more than the 1-point increase in the party split. Again, this is second-grade math, and you're failing miserably at it.
   8468. PreservedFish Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4251198)
I don't know how you can argue about "2008" without being more specific. In spring the house seemed pretty fine, maybe not perfect, but pretty good - it was a major fire hazard but few were aware of it. In the fall it was ablaze. On election day it was a pile of ashes and you were crashing on your friend's couch and trying to figure out what the #### to do.
   8469. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4251202)
Those links have nothing to do with the basic math problem in Johnny's example.


They do have to do with the larger set of arguments you're apparently trying to make. Do you have the party ID numbers from the 2008 election? I can get them from the CNN poll. I'll be happy to step through the math from there.
   8470. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4251205)
Why anyone continues to engage Kehoskie on this subject is just beyond me.


For the same reason people used to engage RossCW or SBB (On his Jack Morris threads).
   8471. robinred Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4251209)
Maybe Kehoskie and JSLF can settle this by taking an IQ test (insert winking emoticon here).
   8472. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4251211)
You concede that the markets are strong — something that was not true in 2008. You're also conceding that supply side economics doesn't work. Awesome. Thank you.

How does this matter? Lefties like you have spent decades mocking the idea of trickle-down economics. Now you seem to love trickle-down economics that lack the trickle. Funny stuff.

***
I see you have trouble both with reading comprehension and elementary grade math, somehow the fact that you are a Romney supporter goes hand in hand with that, but I have now wasted several minutes of my life arguing with a moron, so I guess that means you win
congratulations.

I'd be embarrassed, too, if I was stridently making mathematical claims that a second-grader could punch holes in.
   8473. Greg K Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4251220)
trickle-down economics that lack the trickle.

Is this a thing now?
I swear I've read it like 18 times in the past week.
   8474. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4251226)
Someone needs to submit a link for October.

Done.
   8475. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4251228)
How does this matter? Lefties like you have spent decades mocking the idea of trickle-down economics. Now you seem to love trickle-down economics that lack the trickle. Funny stuff.
It's only funny because of how badly you misrepresent the opposing argument. The entire lefty argument for decades has been that trickle-down economics lacks trickle. That's why it's bad.
   8476. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4251230)
34.3% 33.1% 32.6%


The above is Rasmussen's party identification for October 2011 (order is R-D-I)

here is November 2011:

34.3% 34.9% 30.8%


what happened? 1.8% moved from I to D
as a result, the partisan edge went from + 1.2 Repub to +0.6 Dem

Those Is wwho moved were probably already D leaners/voters anyway, so the shift in "edge" may have no effect on an actual vote- in fact the vote could actual go the other way if some Is who leaned D, still stay I, but now lean R.

   8477. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4251240)
Maybe Kehoskie and JSLF can settle this by taking an IQ test (insert winking emoticon here).


Joe would win, I'm not that smart, I mean it actually took me until this page of this thread to realize that Joe was not arguing in good faith.
   8478. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4251245)
They do have to do with the larger set of arguments you're apparently trying to make. Do you have the party ID numbers from the 2008 election? I can get them from the CNN poll. I'll be happy to step through the math from there.

I know the party ID numbers from 2008, and I also know that Obama won independents by a solid margin. Please explain how there could be a net shift of 2008 independents toward Dems, and a net shift of 2008 Republicans toward independents, with only a net +1 increase for the Dems in the Dem/GOP party ID split.
   8479. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4251249)
It's only funny because of how badly you misrepresent the opposing argument. The entire lefty argument for decades has been that trickle-down economics lacks trickle. That's why it's bad.

And yet, despite higher unemployment, lower household income, higher underemployment, etc., etc., you keep claiming that people are "better off" now because of things like the stock market indices. Very strange.
   8480. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4251253)
The above is Rasmussen's party identification for October 2011 (order is R-D-I)

here is November 2011:

34.3% 34.9% 30.8%


what happened? 1.8% moved from I to D
as a result, the partisan edge went from + 1.2 Repub to +0.6 Dem

Those Is wwho moved were probably already D leaners/voters anyway, so the shift in "edge" may have no effect on an actual vote- in fact the vote could actual go the other way if some Is who leaned D, still stay I, but now lean R.

What does 2011 have to do with anything? Was there an election in October 2011? If your point is so easy to make, why don't you use the actual 2008 numbers rather than crazy hypotheticals and irrelevant 2011 polling data?
   8481. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4251255)

I know the party ID numbers from 2008, and I also know that Obama won independents by a solid margin. Please explain how there could be a net shift of 2008 independents toward Dems, and a net shift of 2008 Republicans toward independents, with only a net +1 increase for the Dems in the Dem/GOP party ID split.


So what are the actual numbers? I can't do anything with the fact that you *know* them. You want a hypothetical with numbers, then please give me the numbers. I can get party ID numbers from the CNN poll.
   8482. spike Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4251256)
Is this a thing now?

Of course it is. Where else would it have come from?

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dicintio/121001

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/25/president-obamas-trickle-down-tyranny/

A classic attempt to take one's own political weakness and claim that it's actually your opponent that has the problem
   8483. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4251257)
So what are the actual numbers? I can't do anything with the fact that you *know* them. You want a hypothetical with numbers, then please give me the numbers.

Huh? You just claimed you could "step through the math." Please do so, based on the parameters laid out in #8478.
   8484. Jim Furtado Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4251264)
Page 85 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 80 81 82 83 84 85

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 18, 2014
(55 - 7:40pm, Apr 18)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(32 - 7:39pm, Apr 18)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1666 - 7:37pm, Apr 18)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(321 - 7:34pm, Apr 18)
Last: Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(52 - 7:31pm, Apr 18)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogEscape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig’s Untold Journey to the Dodgers
(21 - 7:27pm, Apr 18)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(7 - 7:22pm, Apr 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(318 - 7:17pm, Apr 18)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-18-2014
(29 - 7:10pm, Apr 18)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(153 - 7:00pm, Apr 18)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(75 - 6:50pm, Apr 18)
Last: DanG

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(82 - 6:18pm, Apr 18)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogDesign Room: Top 10 Logos in MLB History.
(75 - 5:29pm, Apr 18)
Last: Zach

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(898 - 4:58pm, Apr 18)
Last: Grunthos

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(93 - 4:19pm, Apr 18)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.8699 seconds
52 querie(s) executed