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

Monday, September 11, 2017

OTP 11 September 2017: Hurricane Irma wreaking havoc on minor league baseball playoffs

There are 18 minor league affiliations that play playoffs every season, and those playoffs all have different formats – some with one wild card, some with split first-half/second-half winners, some with a required 8-10 team playoff grouping. This season, the issues caused by Hurricane Irma will lead to 3 of those 18 championships being cancelled and turned into co-champions.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 07:54 AM | 1783 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: minor league baseball, minor leagues, playoffs, 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 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. BDC Posted: September 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM (#5529566)
First! But I got nothing. Guess I will just disavow antifa and get that over with for the week.
   2. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM (#5529571)
Hurricane Irma wreaking havoc on minor league baseball playoffs

Utica is available.
   3. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM (#5529580)
The ever building GOP Civil War continues apace ... Bannon Declares War on the GOP

“Stephen Bannon — President Trump’s former chief strategist who left the White House in August — declared war Sunday against the Republican congressional leadership, called on Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic adviser, to resign, and outlined his views on issues ranging from immigration to trade,” the Washington Post reports.

“Bannon, in an interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) of ‘trying to nullify the 2016 election.’ … He blamed them for failing to repeal and replace former president Barack Obama’s signature health-care law and made clear that he would use his Breitbart perch to hold Republicans accountable for not helping Trump push through his agenda.””


The important thing to remember is a few BernieBots are unhappy, somewhere, so really both sides do it.
   4. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5529582)
More evidence ... Bannon plotting primaries against slate of GOP incumbents

President Donald Trump’s closest allies are planning a slate of primary challenges against Republican senators, potentially undermining the party’s prospects in 2018 and further inflaming tensions between GOP leaders and the White House.

The effort is being led by Steve Bannon, Trump’s bomb-throwing former chief strategist, who is launching an all-out war against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment. Bannon has begun holding private meetings with insurgent challengers, vowing his support. He’s coordinating with conservative mega-donor Robert Mercer, who is prepared to pour millions of dollars into attacks on GOP incumbents. Bannon has also installed a confidant at an outside group that is expected to target Republican lawmakers and push the Trump agenda.

The activity has alarmed senior Republicans, who worry it will drain millions of dollars from the party’s coffers to take on Democrats in the general election. McConnell has repeatedly expressed concern to the White House about the danger primaries pose to his members, stressing that it could imperil his narrow four-seat majority, according to three people with direct knowledge of the discussions.


But then again the Democrats have too many candidates for open nominations. So yeah exactly the same as Primary challenges against current office holders.
   5. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:13 AM (#5529584)
No worries mates, we can pretend she will run and is a threat to win the nomination in 2020. If you can deny Climate change there is nothing you can't discount.

Clinton Will Not Run for Office Again

Said Clinton: “I am done with being a candidate.”


But ... but ... the book tour!
   6. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM (#5529585)
But then again the Democrats have too many candidates for open nominations. So yeah exactly the same as Primary challenges against current office holders.
No, it's totally true that spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight is completely different than spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight.
   7. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:19 AM (#5529591)
No, it's totally true that spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight is completely different than spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight.


You realize money is not everything right? And that there is a tiny little difference between a primary contest to determine which candidate should run for the not-occupied-by-our-party seat and trying to sabotage/replace the same party office holder already in office, right? Incumbency matters and punting it is generally regarded as dumb.

If you don't see the difference then that explains much about your political "analysis" to date.

EDIT: And of course the vast majority of the money spent in primaries is not "your party's". But so what, right?
   8. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:22 AM (#5529595)
No, it's totally true that spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight is completely different than spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight.


Except -

I doubt the official apparatuses (DNC/DCCC/DSCC) will be spending much in Dem primaries. Conceivable - but unlikely to be much. OTOH, the GOP counterparts have already spent a fair bit just to keep Crazy Roy Moore from unseating Strange and if I'm not mistaken, also spent in places like GA-6 just to get their preferred candidate into the finale. Official apparatuses will spend to defend incumbents at a much higher rate than official apparatuses will spend to settle a contested primary to challenge for a seat.

Regardless, on the blue side at least, the money spigot has shifted decidedly towards individual candidates via vehicles like Actblue, etc.
   9. Morty Causa Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:22 AM (#5529596)
I should mention that I hate to pick on Jolly Old. We are simpatico in many ways. It's just that he's so exactly that New Left post-liberal type who only accepts law and culture and its processes when it gives him what he wants, what he thinks is right, especially when they are agonizingly slow to change in a way he wants, and those who differ in view from him can be disregarded, should be disregarded, and cast into the reject pile however it can be done. He's a typical Social Justice Warrior who only accepts his views his way. That societies, especially huge complex societies, are an amalgamation of different people and antecedent diverse cultures that the political system must find a way to accommodate, is something that he can't comprehend. His side should dominate win because, dammit, it's just right.
   10. Morty Causa Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5529597)
Again, I've not defended racially based affirmative action, but the complete shrugging off of old school (i.e. anti-black) American apartheid with a "that was then, this is now" cliche is a continuing feature of conservative amnesia.

That's really laughable.

"For 350 years white colonists and white Americans stole your ancestors' livelihood and your property? Sorry about that, but I'll tell you what----I promise we won't do that any more! Now shut up and stop bothering me."

You know, that's been going for a lot longer than 350 years. Try thousands and thousands of years. And White Americans didn't invent it. In fact, not only has that sort of discrimination among peoples been prevalent everywhere at all times, it was very much the way it was in Africa. Get off those preconceptions that you got from Saturday morning black hat/white hat western oater when you were a child in the '50s. You're a big boy now.
   11. Traderdave Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5529599)
Is it premature to liken the Republicans of 2017 to the Whigs of 1851 or so?


   12. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:28 AM (#5529601)
I should mention that I hate to pick on Jolly Old. We are simpatico in many ways.

And I don't like picking on you, either, since there are plenty of times when you've got a lot to contribute, and not just about movies. But when it comes to race, arguing with you is like punching a tar baby, and at some point I have to recognize that there are better ways to spend one's time. It's the sort of discussion that in our case might prove productive in person, but not in an open forum like this.
   13. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5529604)
Is it premature to liken the Republicans of 2017 to the Whigs of 1851 or so?


Probably.

GOP struggles to control its own agenda

Rather than dictating the agenda of Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers oftentimes find themselves at the whims of a capricious White House, Democrats in the minority and a calendar that’s getting increasingly packed ahead of campaign season next spring.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) predicted in January that tax reform, Obamacare repeal and a border wall would all be done by now. Instead, Obamacare repeal may be completely dead at month’s end, there are just broad strokes on tax reform, and many Republicans oppose the border wall being pushed by their own president.

Now GOP lawmakers across the party’s ideological spectrum are agonizing about the party’s stark lack of achievements after getting rolled by Democrats in debt ceiling negotiations this week.


Not certainly, but probably.
   14. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5529606)
And we controlled all the banks, so that made it really easy!


And you're responsible for all the wars of the world :-)
   15. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:40 AM (#5529609)
I doubt the official apparatuses (DNC/DCCC/DSCC) will be spending much in Dem primaries.
When I said "Your party's," I was using shorthand; I meant all the money spent by partisans, whether part of the formal party apparatus or not. There's a finite pool of money out there for electing Dems or Republicans; some of it gets funneled directly to a candidate, some through the party apparatuses, some through independent PACs, but at the end of the day, if you spend it on the primary it's not there for the general.
   16. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:44 AM (#5529614)
No worries mates, we can pretend she will run and is a threat to win the nomination in 2020. If you can deny Climate change there is nothing you can't discount.
Look, I don't think she's running, but saying, "So-and-so says that they're not running, so that settles it" is stupid.

"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." 1962 -- six years, of course, before he ran for the Oval Office (again).
   17. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:45 AM (#5529616)
You know, that's been going for a lot longer than 350 years. Try thousands and thousands of years. And White Americans didn't invent it. In fact, not only has that sort of discrimination among peoples been prevalent everywhere at all times, it was very much the way it was in Africa.


IIRC it was Muhammad Ali's longtime confidant Bundini Brown who said, after returning to America from the Foreman fight in Zaire, "I'm so glad my grandpappy got on that boat!"
   18. BrianBrianson Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:45 AM (#5529617)
No, it's totally true that spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight is completely different than spending lots of your party's money on a bitter primary fight.


There's a big difference between a lot of candidates for open seats (or those held by another party), and a lot of primary challengers for incumbents within your own party.
   19. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:51 AM (#5529623)
Traderdave Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5529599)
Is it premature to liken the Republicans of 2017 to the Whigs of 1851 or so?

The going the way of the Whigs prediction? That's so 2009, and, IIRC, didn't exactly work out as hoped.
   20. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5529626)
No worries mates, we can pretend she will run and is a threat to win the nomination in 2020. If you can deny Climate change there is nothing you can't discount.

Clinton Will Not Run for Office Again

Said Clinton: “I am done with being a candidate.”

But ... but ... the book tour!


8 years ago
Hillary Clinton says she won't run for president again

Posted by
CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston
October 12th, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday she would not run for president again, and brushed off suggestions that she is being marginalized in the Obama White House.

Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, said "No" three different times when asked by NBC's Ann Curry "Will you ever run for president again? Yes or No?"

"This is a great job," Clinton said in the interview broadcast Monday. "It is a 24-7 job. And I am looking forward to retirement at some point."


Now, she may well not run again. But claiming that a congenital liar won't do something in the future because the congenital liar said she wouldn't do something in the future is a fool's errand. Particularly when we've already been around this particular merry go round once before.
   21. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5529628)
Misirlou, you've probably got more important things to do than post here, but hopefully you can let us know if you and yours are doing alright... along with any other Floridians about. We have an office in Bonita Springs and are starting to hear about the conditions in Naples and Fort Myers - mostly the consensus appears to be "it could have been worse". We'll see once the drones get up over the mobile home parks.

I don't see much of anything from Key West yet, except the "it could have been worse" vagueness... and that they're completely without water, power, and cellphone coverage.
   22. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5529629)
The ever building GOP Civil War continues apace ... Bannon Declares War on the GOP

Suddenly, Bannon is to be taken seriously by Bitter Mouse? Hmmm.
   23. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5529630)
Look, I don't think she's running, but saying, "So-and-so says that they're not running, so that settles it" is stupid.


When the history of losing candidates suggests she won't run again, when her age suggests it, when party dynamics suggest it, and when the candidate herself flat out says she won't run again ... then sure it might happen that she runs again, but only deranged lunatics will obsess on the chance that she does.

So, I anticipate many posts from the usual suspects talking about how she is going to run again.
   24. Morty Causa Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5529631)
And I don't like picking on you, either, since there are plenty of times when you've got a lot to contribute, and not just about movies. But when it comes to race, arguing with you is like punching a tar baby, and at some point I have to recognize that there are better ways to spend one's time. It's the sort of discussion that in our case might prove productive in person, but not in an open forum like this.

Fine, but if you will pause and reflect, you should be able to see that the discussions transcended race. You're the one that can't get out of the New Left '60s. You can't see the bigger cultural picture and higher political and philosophical principles that you simply ignore. For you, the discussion begins, ends, and can only be about race in a very local sense. Too bad. You seriously need to work at broadening your scope, or at the very least, at not derailing every attempt at a "higher" discussion back to the '50s and '60s and Jim Crow.
   25. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5529633)
Suddenly, Bannon is to be taken seriously by Bitter Mouse? Hmmm.


It is not me that needs to take Bannon seriously, it is all the GOP office holders in his sights. Last I checked his jihad was only against them and not me. He starts going after Data Architects posting on baseball websites and then maybe I need to take him seriously. Maybe.
   26. GordonShumway Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:57 AM (#5529635)
Hubert Humphrey ran for and lost the Democratic primary for POTUS in 1960 to a young charismatic senator. He won the nomination as the establishment favorite 8 years later despite a strong challenge from the liberal wing of the party, then lost a close election in the general. He made a strong showing 4 years later, running in the Democratic POTUS primary.

I don't see why Clinton can't run again and make a strong showing in the primary like Humphrey did in 1972. Who knows, if all breaks right for her, maybe she can win the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2020.
   27. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5529636)
I can't tell if #26 is sarcasm or not.
   28. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 11:59 AM (#5529638)
When the history of losing candidates suggests she won't run again, when her age suggests it, when party dynamics suggest it, and when the candidate herself flat out says she won't run again ... then sure it might happen that she runs again, but only deranged lunatics will obsess on the chance that she does.

So, I anticipate many posts from the usual suspects talking about how she is going to run again.


It's not that she "is going to." It's that only a naive simpleton without even a basic grasp of how the world works completely rules it out.
   29. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM (#5529639)
When the history of losing candidates suggests she won't run again, when her age suggests it, when party dynamics suggest it, and when the candidate herself flat out says she won't run again ...
All of those things could have been said after 2008, too.
   30. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM (#5529640)
BTW -

I suppose Sunday night TV review ends with GoT.... but last night's Rick & Morty was absolutely outstanding. In the running for best episode of the series. Seamlessly blending apings of Stand by Me, Training Day, and House of Cards on top of a foundation of The Wire? It was a brilliant episode.
   31. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5529641)
I don't see why Clinton can't run again and make a strong showing in the primary like Humphrey did in 1972. Who knows, if all breaks right for her, maybe she can win the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2020.


The dynamics are a tiny bit different, but like I said there is a minuscule chance. If you think it larger than that, well, I welcome a diversity of opinions.
   32. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM (#5529642)
I don't see why Clinton can't run again and make a strong showing in the primary like Humphrey did in 1972. Who knows, if all breaks right for her, maybe she can win the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2020.

The dynamics are a tiny bit different, but like I said there is a minuscule chance. If you think it larger than that, well, I welcome a diversity of opinions.
I assume he wasn't serious. But the biggest difference, of course, is age; Humphrey in 1972 was 12 years younger than Hillary will be in 2020. Well, that and Humphrey had a penis.
   33. The Good Face Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5529643)
Hillary will run if she thinks she has a reasonable chance of getting the nomination. What it would take to convince her of that, I don't know.
   34. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5529645)
All of those things could have been said after 2008, too.


She ran and lost in the general in 2008? Really? Historically it is much easier to run again after losing in the primary than it is after losing in the general election, for pretty obvious reasons.

Nixon lost in the general and after 8 years was able to run again (and win the nomination and the election). Adlai Stevenson lost in the general and then won the nomination again (as a sacrificial candidate against Eisenhower).

I am not remembering any other examples*. And to be clear I have never stated she won't run again - I am skeptical but it could happen, who am I to put limits on the vanity of politicians - but I completely reject the chance she will win the nomination.

But hey, that is why they run the races.

* To be clear, examples of losing in the general and then winning a following nomination.
   35. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5529646)
Well, that and Humphrey had a penis.
Don't rule out Hillary having one.
   36. GordonShumway Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:10 PM (#5529647)
I can't tell if #26 is sarcasm or not.


It's not.

Four years is a long time in politics. The wounds of the 2016 election will close (though they may not fully heal). In 2020, Clinton will still be wealthy, famous, connected to important people in and related to politics, and experienced in running for POTUS. She still has strong support among affluent white women, who believe that she was cheated by misogyny/Trump. Those qualities should make her a reasonable candidate. She'll be 73 years old, 0 months on Election Day 2020; Bob Dole was 73 years, 3 months old and John McCain was 72 years, 1 month old when they ran for president. Clinton's age will be a factor, but shouldn't be disqualifying.
   37. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:11 PM (#5529648)
Dewey lost in '44 and came back in '48.

ETA: And won, per the Trib :)
   38. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM (#5529653)
When I said "Your party's," I was using shorthand; I meant all the money spent by partisans, whether part of the formal party apparatus or not. There's a finite pool of money out there for electing Dems or Republicans; some of it gets funneled directly to a candidate, some through the party apparatuses, some through independent PACs, but at the end of the day, if you spend it on the primary it's not there for the general.


There's really not ("a finite pool of money"...)....

As (I think) BM has posted previously - ActBlue is raising absolutely jaw-dropping amounts of money. Granted, the nature of it is such that it goes where contributors decide they want it to go -- but the fact remains that ActBlue outraised the DNC and the RNC and the RCCC and the DCCC combined in Q1... and might very well add the corresponding Senate committees to the lapping in Q2.

Its fundraising by hangover year Q1s has gone from ~17 million (Q1 2013) to 27 million (Q1 2015) to 111 million (Q1 2017). Unique donors have gone from 467K (Q1 2013) to 783K (Q1 2015) to 4.125 million (Q1 2017).

If it were a straight up tech company looking for investors, they'd be lined up out the door. That's a rocket ship adoption and 'revenue' growth rate - and it shows no signs of slowing down.

EDIT: Sorry - was looking for Q2 numbers quickly and didn't find them... but to add Q2 -- raised 137 million in Q2 2017 (vs 22 mil Q2 2013 and 48 mil Q2 2015) and total donors were 4.65 million (vs 525K and 1.275 in 2013 and 2015).
   39. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:18 PM (#5529658)
Well, that and Humphrey had a penis.

Don't rule out Hillary having one.


Or getting one, if she thought it would secure her the nomination.
   40. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:18 PM (#5529659)
Dewey lost in '44 and came back in '48.


Thanks. Good catch.
   41. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:19 PM (#5529660)
She ran and lost in the general in 2008? Really?


There are many distinctions without differences you can make.
   42. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5529661)
Four years is a long time in politics. The wounds of the 2016 election will close (though they may not fully heal). In 2020, Clinton will still be wealthy, famous, connected to important people in and related to politics, and experienced in running for POTUS. She still has strong support among affluent white women, who believe that she was cheated by misogyny/Trump. Those qualities should make her a reasonable candidate. She'll be 73 years old, 0 months on Election Day 2020; Bob Dole was 73 years, 3 months old and John McCain was 72 years, 1 month old when they ran for president. Clinton's age will be a factor, but shouldn't be disqualifying.


And if there again is a lack of other "serious candidates," the super delegates will make her the frontrunner again.
   43. BDC Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5529662)
Humphrey had a penis

He also had a severe hernia which kept him out of WW2, and gave him trouble for years thereafter, I believe.

As long as we're going to have a Hubert-Humphrey's-groin thread, we should be thorough.
   44. Heart of Matt Harvey Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5529663)
I met Hubert Humphrey on the Senate Subway. Perhaps the same trip Marion Barry caught a bullet from a Black Muslim.
   45. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5529664)
And I don't like picking on you, either, since there are plenty of times when you've got a lot to contribute, and not just about movies. But when it comes to race, arguing with you is like punching a tar baby, and at some point I have to recognize that there are better ways to spend one's time. It's the sort of discussion that in our case might prove productive in person, but not in an open forum like this.

Fine, but if you will pause and reflect, you should be able to see that the discussions transcended race. You're the one that can't get out of the New Left '60s. You can't see the bigger cultural picture and higher political and philosophical principles that you simply ignore. For you, the discussion begins, ends, and can only be about race in a very local sense. Too bad. You seriously need to work at broadening your scope, or at the very least, at not derailing every attempt at a "higher" discussion back to the '50s and '60s and Jim Crow.


If for once you'd admit as a starting point that I'm against race-based affirmative active, instead of brushing that aside** in pursuit of greater game, it might help. Up to now you don't seem to be capable of doing that.

** Or implying that I'm lying when I say that.
   46. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:30 PM (#5529668)
Dewey lost in '44 and came back in '48.

Thanks. Good catch.

Dewey's final insult came when a cake baker on Staten Island refused to put his likeness on top of a wedding cake, on the grounds that his little mustache and dapper dress looked too suspiciously gayish.
   47. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:31 PM (#5529669)
If for once you'd admit as a starting point that I'm against race-based affirmative active,


Why would he admit something that isn't true? You show no actual indication here in your reasoning that you're against it when push comes to shove.

You say "not 4" while also saying 2+2.

You may prefer other policies, but as long as those aren't happening you're happy to resort to race-based AA.
   48. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:35 PM (#5529674)
Cleveland won, then lost, then won again. Apparently WHH lost in 1836 but "won" in 1840, and boy did THAT teach him a lesson. And Ol' Hickory himself lost in 1824 before coming back, twice :)

   49. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5529676)
And if there again is a lack of other "serious candidates," the super delegates will make her the frontrunner again.
This seems pretty unlikely. They've been wrong on her twice now, this last time in a MOST embarrassing fashion, losing to The Apprentice. In a candidate vacuum, the supers are more likely to draft Biden than HRC.
   50. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5529677)
If for once you'd admit as a starting point that I'm against race-based affirmative active,

Why would he admit something that isn't true? You show no actual indication here in your reasoning that you're against it when push comes to shove.

You say "not 4" while also saying 2+2.

You may prefer other policies, but as long as those aren't happening you're happy to resort to race-based AA.


Yet another one of your "logical" assumptions and assertions, backed up with no actual evidence, only doubled down assumptions and assertions.

By your sort of reasoning, I must believe every murder is deserving of capital punishment, regardless of all other surrounding circumstances.
   51. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM (#5529678)
And if there again is a lack of other "serious candidates," the super delegates will make her the frontrunner again.


Yeesh, you sound like a Bernie Bro.

Who do you think these "super delegates" are? Mythical, unnamed creatures that hide in caves until summoned by Her Clintonness every four years?

They're federal, state, and local elected Democratic officials as well as state party chairs and state committee members. IOW -- the very same people that certain posters gleefully post stories about saying HRC should STFU/go away.

The idea that they're going to line up behind her for a 3rd run is delusional. I mean, I've got no doubt there remain some fans of hers - but it's ridiculous to pretend large chunks of the pool want to go through that again. It was perfectly logical for SDs to line up for her in 2016 - she was the lifelong Democrat who had dutifully done her part to bring the party back together in 2008 running against a guy who had been a Democrat for all of 6 months.... and they still got torched and raged at for it. The idea that they'll go to that well again is just silly.

   52. Morty Causa Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:44 PM (#5529679)
45:

Well, I'm willing to admit you say that now, and maybe even that what say now, taken in toto, doesn't raise questions about your commitment to that principle. And leave it at that.

However, the point now is you won't, or can't, address the actual substances of a post on a particular topic. If you were committed to honest and forthright discussion and debate, you would. Indeed, and feel free to correct me, I don't think you've discussed a topic, certainly not one having to do with race, on a higher plane.

Doesn't speak well that you can't or won't do that. That you haughtily look for a way to bail out. And that is so characteristic of New Left identity-types then and now.
   53. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:44 PM (#5529680)
Who do you think these "super delegates" are? Mythical, unnamed creatures that hide in caves until summoned by Her Clintonness every four years?


So far that's exactly what's happened. Twice.
   54. Morty Causa Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:47 PM (#5529681)
Humphrey had a penis

He also had a severe hernia which kept him out of WW2, and gave him trouble for years thereafter, I believe.

As long as we're going to have a Hubert-Humphrey's-groin thread, we should be thorough.


Didn't Hunter S. Thompson write when someone said HH was one of a kind, "Just to make sure, I say let's castrate him."
   55. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5529682)
Are we talking repeat losers? William Jennings Bryan lost three times. Adlai Stevenson lost twice in a row. Henry Clay lost twice.
   56. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5529684)
So far that's exactly what's happened. Twice.
To borrow a theme, you go right ahead and firmly believe that things will continue as they did before; that will work out nicely, I'm sure.

It's tempting to say "no one is that stupid" but, after all, we do have President Trump, so there's a lot of stupid out there, and the SDs bear their share of blame. Who knows, maybe Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley could have kicked some ass if the SD superstructure wasn't in place. Or that old guy from Vermont, I forget his name.
   57. Morty Causa Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5529685)
50:

Remember when you and I and another BTF poster engaged in an extensive, and heated, discussion about race and AA some years ago. Who was that guy? I haven't seen him around much since, and he was posting a lot before.
   58. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5529686)
HH was one of a kind, "Just to make sure, I say let's castrate him."

They didn't get to him. The VP was HHH, Jr. His son HHH III "Skip" was longtime state Attorney General who lost the governors race to Jesse "The Body" Ventura. There is an HHH IV "Buck" who ran for state-SOS in 2002 but lost.
   59. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5529687)
Also, Duh, Jefferson got beat in 1796 and did nicely in 1800.

DavidFoss, I believe the theme is "was nominee, lost the general, then came back to win at some later date".
   60. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5529688)
All of those things could have been said after 2008, too.

She ran and lost in the general in 2008? Really?
No; that wasn't one of the quoted things. The quoted things were her being a "losing candidate" (which she was in 2008), "her age," "party dynamics," and a "flat out" denial from the candidate.
   61. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:56 PM (#5529689)
Who do you think these "super delegates" are? Mythical, unnamed creatures that hide in caves until summoned by Her Clintonness every four years?

So far that's exactly what's happened. Twice.


Yes, I think I already covered what happened in 2016... in 2008, she hadn't even yet lost a primary and came into the race as the most well-known Democrat, wife of a popular former President. It was no less logical that she'd leap out to a big lead in endorsements.... and big chunks of them started heading to the exits after the dust cleared on Super Tuesday.

Again, it's delusional to pretend that this pool of elected Democrats and Democratic party officials are going to hop on board for a 3rd run. They've got their own races and own states to win in -- the reason to jump on board early is to get a good spot in line for co-fundraising and appointments.... and I highly doubt there are many willing to bet their chits on a 3rd spin of the wheel.
   62. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5529692)

I suppose Sunday night TV review ends with GoT.... but last night's Rick & Morty was absolutely outstanding. In the running for best episode of the series. Seamlessly blending apings of Stand by Me, Training Day, and House of Cards on top of a foundation of The Wire? It was a brilliant episode.


Speaking of Sunday night TV AND David Simon, did anyone watch The Deuce last night?
   63. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5529693)
Most Americans were, in fact, born when the "White Caucus" consisted of every member of one branch, every member but 4 ever of a 2nd, and almost every member of the 3rd.

Hmm. I always thought that the House and Senate were the same branch.
Silly me, you're right. Let me rephrase:

Most Americans were, in fact, born when the "White Causus" consisted of every member of one branch, almost every member of the 2nd, and every member but 1 of the 3rd. The median age of Americans is 37; Clarence Thomas was nominated just 26 years ago.
   64. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:04 PM (#5529698)
To borrow a theme, you go right ahead and firmly believe that things will continue as they did before; that will work out nicely, I'm sure.


Nice strawman. I didn't say firmly believe. I said I don't rule it out.

In stark contrast folks on your side are all but ruling it out.

But pretending that past events don't inform us as to the likelihood of future events is silly. She firmly denied in 2009 that she'd run again, only to run again. So why one would cite her 2017 denial is a mystery.

The supers initially backed her in 2008 and in 2016. So why one would be certain that they won't do so again is a mystery.

These are people who thought that a candidate who would ultimately lose to Donald F Trump was the best candidate the party had to offer. Their judgment is not exactly at all times impeccable. She had structural flaws as a candidate that were impossible to ignore... and yet people tried. (Indeed, we still see it, with "But Hillary's emails!!" She's exactly the kind of person for whom it is utterly unsurprising that such an issue arose.)
   65. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:12 PM (#5529705)
Who do you think these "super delegates" are? Mythical, unnamed creatures that hide in caves until summoned by Her Clintonness every four years?




So far that's exactly what's happened. Twice.


This is so wrong it is pretty amazing. Super delegates have granted HRC exactly zero victories and also zero losses. Pretending otherwise is as ridiculous as pretending the investigation which started in Trump's own Justice department is being done as revenge for Trump winning the election.
   66. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5529708)
Nice strawman. I didn't say firmly believe. I said I don't rule it out.

In stark contrast folks on your side are all but ruling it out.
Sigh. I don't have a "side", Mr. Binary.
These are people who thought that a candidate who would ultimately lose to Donald F Trump was the best candidate the party had to offer. Their judgment is not exactly at all times impeccable. She had structural flaws as a candidate that were impossible to ignore... and yet people tried.
Yes, they bet, badly, on the wrong horse, and lost essentially everything. They won't do it again.

HRC might very well run - I take her denials as seriously as you do. She just wouldn't get very far. The SDs want to win. They thought HRC was their best shot, and were spectacularly embarrassed. 2008 didn't embarrass them, because Obama won and made Dems happy happy joy joy. 2016 embarrassed them and has led to Circus Maximus. I'll give better odds than Bivens that the SDs don't line up behind HRC.

   67. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5529709)
It's tempting to say "no one is that stupid" but, after all, we do have President Trump, so there's a lot of stupid out there, and the SDs bear their share of blame. Who knows, maybe Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley could have kicked some ass if the SD superstructure wasn't in place. Or that old guy from Vermont, I forget his name.


FTR -

I oppose trashing of SDs. They are what they are and I firmly support the Democratic Party keeping them in place because should a Donald Trump clone ever come close to winning the nomination, I very much expect them to veto the choice. That's why they exist and if nixing a completely unfit candidate tears the party apart and costs an election, so be it. I'd rather live with that than a ridiculous, dangerous buffoon atop the party ticket because what if he wins.

We can quibble about the extent to which they should involve themselves in going "on the record", especially early in a party campaign -- but my opinion now remains the same as last year and in 2015. It's a big party, slating candidates for 10s of thousands of offices. It's about far more than just selecting the Presidential candidate, but also selecting the party's standard bearer and all that goes with that.

If potential candidates for 2020 want SD support, well.... they've got a good two years to earn it. Be a party booster. Press the palms, raise the cash, tout candidates for other offices.

BTW - while she certainly was the frontrunner in 2008, stories of SD coronation of Clinton in 2008 are somewhat overstated...

A parsing of SDs on the even of Iowa --

The Associated Press contacted 90 percent of the 765 superdelegates, mostly elected officials and other party officers, who are free to support anyone they choose at the convention, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Barack Obama by more than a 2-1 margin among those who have endorsed a candidate. But a little more than half of those contacted — 365 — said they haven't settled on a Democratic standard bearer.

"The fact that under half have publicly committed shows me how open the Democratic race still is," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant who is not affiliated with any campaign. "It's a sign that the race isn't totally done in many people's minds."

Clinton has the endorsement of 169 superdelegates. She is followed by Obama, 63; John Edwards, 34; Bill Richardson, 25; Chris Dodd, 17; Joe Biden, 8, and Dennis Kucinich, 2.

Superdelegates tend to support the front-runner, said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University. "They want to be on the winning side," he said.

So why don't more of them back Clinton, who leads in national polls?

"They are still concerned about her ability to win the general election," Rohde said.
   68. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:15 PM (#5529714)
Nice strawman. I didn't say firmly believe. I said I don't rule it out.

In stark contrast folks on your side are all but ruling it out.


No one is ruling out her running. She might. I mean I doubt it, but it could happen. I am near ruling out her winning though. And of course, I am not making fun of people for thinking she might run again, I am making fun of the deranged sorts who are going to post obsessively about everything she does for the next three years, because of a combination of Clinton derangement and a desire to relive the magical election of 2016.
   69. Swoboda is freedom Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:20 PM (#5529716)
Speaking of Sunday night TV AND David Simon, did anyone watch The Deuce last night?

I did. Liked it enough to give the second episode a go. The subject matter is pretty grim, but so was Baltimore drug dealing.

Simon can be hit and miss. I loved the Wire (probably my favorite show of all time), and Homicide: Life on the Street. Generation Kill was pretty good.

I really didn't like Treme though nor The Corner.
   70. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:21 PM (#5529717)
ANd by February, 2008 --

Hillary Clinton is starting to lose her overwhelming lead in superdelegates, the Democratic party officials whose votes she is counting on to help her close the gap with Barack Obama. He has received a steady flow of backers in recent days while building a streak of 11 straight primary victories. After once leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in the superdelegate chase, Clinton now has 241 to his 181, according to the latest Associated Press tally.
   71. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:22 PM (#5529718)
So irritated that I missed it and forgot to record it. I'm sure it won't be that big an issue, but I'm interested to see how it goes.

I liked Treme, but recognize that it really wasn't that great.
   72. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:22 PM (#5529719)
No one is ruling out her running. She might. I mean I doubt it, but it could happen.


And if all you were doing was stating this abstract mundane comment, nobody would be arguing with you. But instead, your posts on this page speak for themselves.

I am near ruling out her winning though. And of course, I am not making fun of people for thinking she might run again, I am making fun of the deranged sorts who are going to post obsessively about everything she does for the next three years, because of a combination of Clinton derangement and a desire to relive the magical election of 2016.


Umm, she's the one who is making the rounds on a book tour. That makes this discussion newsworthy and relevant.

And you're the one, in post 5 above, who brought the subject up in this thread.

Really now.
   73. zenbitz Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:23 PM (#5529720)
Old white guys complaining about affirmative action is like my son's flag football team complaining about the refs while winning 30-0 at the half.
   74. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:23 PM (#5529721)
She had structural flaws as a candidate

No dick and no TV show.
   75. BrianBrianson Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:24 PM (#5529722)
Clinton formally entering the race and doing poorly after 2008 and 2016 would probably been seen as humiliating for her. So I buy that she's unlikely to enter unless she has a very significant chance of at least securing the nomination.

And it's very tough for me to see the Democratic establishment pushing her again after a loss to Trump that should've been a cakewalk. I think it's far more likely that Schumer, Pelosi, and Ellison show up at Franken's house in an unmarked van in the dead of night with a hood and a shotgun and anoint someone that way than Clinton gets the support of the leadership.

But even that's unlikely. Large number of Democrats are mulling running in 2020. They're not going to be hurting for candidates. Generic ballot is hard-D. Trump's started low and imitated a coal miner in the approval polls. Democrats have no obvious standard bearer. If you've ever wanted to run for president as a Democrat, 2020 is a fine-looking opportunity.
   76. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5529723)
So while we amateurs discuss politics the professionals are voting with their feet.

Michigan Republican announces he won't seek re-election
In a statement Monday, the two-term lawmaker says serving has been an honor but he has decided that the best course is "to spend more time with my family and return to the private sector."

The announcement comes on the heels of two other GOP retirements last week, with Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Dave Reichert of Washington state saying they will step down at the end of their terms.

Trott represents a district west of Detroit. Democrats, in the minority, hope they have a shot at winning back control by capitalizing on the GOP retirements and open seats.


Republican Retirements Endanger Paul Ryan’s Majority

“Trump is fracturing the party to the point where the risk of wholesale retirements and resignations will be high from mainstream lawmakers who came to Washington to do business,” said one senior GOP strategist. “The people who got into public service because they had a successful life, wanted to have rational conversations with rational people on a regular basis, and are now finding the idea of coddling activists around Trump’s daily Twitter habits not very appealing.”

Already, Republicans are bracing for additional pivotal retirements. The GOP watch list includes two swing-district members from Michigan: Reps. Fred Upton, the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Dave Trott, a junior lawmaker from suburban Detroit. Trump carried both their districts, but these R+4 seats (according to the Cook Report’s Political Voting Index) would be vulnerable in a Democratic wave.

With every Republican retirement from a competitive district, the GOP math of holding its House majority becomes increasingly difficult. Retirements both serve as a signal that the political environment is bad, while also opening up opportunities for the opposition that hadn’t existed before. Name-brand members of Congress can win under tough circumstances, but it’s exceptionally difficult for lesser-known recruits—even the most talented among them—to run against punishing political headwinds.


   77. Morty Causa Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5529725)
Yes, they bet, badly, on the wrong horse, and lost essentially everything.

How badly was that initial bet? Even so, it seems to me that it wouldn't have taken much for her to win. A tweak here and a tweak there. She was mostly unlucky--that is, Trump with his chainsaw approach was very lucky.
   78. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:34 PM (#5529731)
But even that's unlikely. Large number of Democrats are mulling running in 2020. They're not going to be hurting for candidates. Generic ballot is hard-D. Trump's started low and imitated a coal miner in the approval polls. Democrats have no obvious standard bearer. If you've ever wanted to run for president as a Democrat, 2020 is a fine-looking opportunity.


Frankly, going all the way back to 2000 -- NOT being the obvious standard bearer looks like far more of a benefit than actually BEING the obvious standard bearer.

Obvious standard bearers have a really, really shitty record - on both sides - in GEs over the last 20 years.
   79. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:36 PM (#5529734)
Really now.
Ray, I don't know what you think you're arguing.

HRC running as a candidate has been brought up, and mocked, by pretty much everyone. Then you asserted, in 42, that the SDs would push her to frontrunner. The pushback (well, mine, anyway) has been against that assertion.

You added something about the lack of other credible candidates, and I would counter that SDs are more likely to back The Rock than HRC.
   80. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:38 PM (#5529735)
Yes, they bet, badly, on the wrong horse, and lost essentially everything.

How badly was that initial bet?
The initial bet was fine, at the time it was laid. In 2017, and all points forward, it was bad, and will preclude the SDs jumping on that horse again.
   81. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:39 PM (#5529736)
. Then you asserted, in 42, that the SDs would push her to frontrunner. The pushback (well, mine, anyway) has been against that assertion.


Strawman. I made no such assertion.
   82. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:42 PM (#5529739)
Speaking of Sunday night TV AND David Simon, did anyone watch The Deuce last night?

Very good beginning in terms of characters and early 70's Times Square atmospherics, though since the date given at the beginning was 1970, I had to wonder about that bird's eye view of lower Manhattan that had the Twin Towers in their full glory, two years before the South Tower was completed. But must had cost a fortune to replicate so many of those old landmark places, and although I've never been a porn fancier it made me nostalgic for those old school city characters.

The one other discordant note was the scene in the pool room where Frankie tries to drag his wife away. The problem is that there weren't any pool rooms in Manhattan back then with liquor licenses. It was either pool rooms with no bars like McGirr's or the 7-11, or bars with maybe a few 7 ft. bar tables, but in the scene there were a seemingly endless numbers of tables, and all regulation size, with a bar in the background----Uh-uh, no could've been.

   83. PreservedFish Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5529741)
The problem is that there weren't any pool rooms in Manhattan back then with liquor licenses.

Tell that to Scorcese
   84. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:49 PM (#5529746)
David N, #32:
Well, that and Humphrey had a penis.


Lyndon Johnson gave it back to him? Cite, please.


Mouse, #23:
When the history of losing candidates suggests she won't run again, when her age suggests it, when party dynamics suggest it, and when the candidate herself flat out says she won't run again ... then sure it might happen that she runs again, but only deranged lunatics will obsess on the chance that she does.


Hillary Haters: "I wish I knew how to quit you."
   85. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:49 PM (#5529747)
Best tweet of the day:
Stephen Miller ‏Verified account @redsteeze 2h2 hours ago

On this sobering of all anniversaries. Let's take a moment to genuinely reflect back & say thank you for the fact that twitter did not exist
   86. The Good Face Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:50 PM (#5529750)
Why would he admit something that isn't true? You show no actual indication here in your reasoning that you're against it when push comes to shove.

You say "not 4" while also saying 2+2.

You may prefer other policies, but as long as those aren't happening you're happy to resort to race-based AA.


Andy's the guy saying, "I vastly prefer unicorn juice to diet coke! And I'm on record saying so for quite some time! How DARE you imply that I'm a fan of diet coke?!". And when the bartender says, "We don't have unicorn juice. Nobody has unicorn juice. It doesn't exist. So what will you have?", Andy replies, "Diet coke.".
   87. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:52 PM (#5529752)
You seriously have to wonder how stupid the people designing these things are:

Social media users are going crazy over a seriously confusing condom wrapper.

A user on Reddit shared a photo of the slogan-covered contraception after being handed them by a group of safe sex campaigners on their college campus.

The condoms are emblazoned with the words “Go further without consent” — preceded by a random doughnut cartoon.

Needless to say, the snap puzzled many social media users.

One user wrote: “What. What is it trying to say? I know what it says, ‘Rape!’ But what did they think it said?”

Another added: “I actually read that as ‘go further without consent’ wtf.”

But, it turns out, the slogan isn’t as controversial as it first appears.

The doughnut actually stands for “do not,” making the true meaning “do not go further without consent.”


The condoms are for sale with customized condom maker Say It With A Condom.


   88. PepTech Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:55 PM (#5529753)
Strawman. I made no such assertion.
Sure, whatever.
42. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5529661)
Four years is a long time in politics. The wounds of the 2016 election will close (though they may not fully heal). In 2020, Clinton will still be wealthy, famous, connected to important people in and related to politics, and experienced in running for POTUS. She still has strong support among affluent white women, who believe that she was cheated by misogyny/Trump. Those qualities should make her a reasonable candidate. She'll be 73 years old, 0 months on Election Day 2020; Bob Dole was 73 years, 3 months old and John McCain was 72 years, 1 month old when they ran for president. Clinton's age will be a factor, but shouldn't be disqualifying.


And if there again is a lack of other "serious candidates," the super delegates will make her the frontrunner again.
In my post #79, I did include that you limited your assertion to the scenario that lacked other credible candidates, something you conveniently left out when quoting me in #81.

This is why I (periodically) call you out as a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest, by the way. I quoted you fully, addressed your condition in good faith, and you respond with a snippet that omits portions of my reply, then criticizes as if *I* had been the one omitting. Fortunately the record is clear.
   89. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 11, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5529757)
The problem is that there weren't any pool rooms in Manhattan back then with liquor licenses.

Tell that to Scorcese


Good point, but as I remember Mean Streets, that pool room was more of a semi-underground private club that paid off the cops whenever there was any commotion.** The two major pools rooms in the Times Square area in 1970 were McGirr's on 8th & 44th and the 7-11 on Broadway at 43rd, and neither of them had bars. Nor did Ames, where The Hustler was filmed just off Times Square, though that room closed before 1970. I probably shot pool in a good 6 or 8 Manhattan rooms between 1966 and 1989, and never once did I see liquor being served openly, or any sign of a bar.

And more to the point, Mean Streets didn't advertise its authentic nature on quite the level that The Deuce has, so I'd allow it a bit more poetic license.

Not that it really matters, since if the pilot was indicative of what's to come, The Deuce promises to be, in the jargon of the time, the stone nuts.

** As you can see at the end of that clip.
   90. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:10 PM (#5529764)
I remember starting Mean Streets once, quite awhile ago actually, and finding it so dull that I didn't bother finishing it. Maybe a re-watch would have a different result.
   91. PreservedFish Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5529767)
Oh man, I love that movie. Robert Deniro is hilarious and insanely charismatic. There's something very sweet and modest about the movie especially in contrast to his later work.
   92. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:22 PM (#5529769)
In my post #79, I did include that you limited your assertion to the scenario that lacked other credible candidates, something you conveniently left out when quoting me in #81.

This is why I (periodically) call you out as a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest, by the way. I quoted you fully, addressed your condition in good faith, and you respond with a snippet that omits portions of my reply, then criticizes as if *I* had been the one omitting. Fortunately the record is clear.


Oh, please. You completely mischaracterized my initial statement, which had the word "if" in there. Then in post 88 you bolded "the super delegates will make her the frontrunner again," again effectively ignoring the "if."

Quoting it (fully!) and yet ignoring it in your summary wrap up still makes you intellectually dishonest.
   93. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:26 PM (#5529770)
Andy's the guy saying, "I vastly prefer unicorn juice to diet coke! And I'm on record saying so for quite some time! How DARE you imply that I'm a fan of diet coke?!". And when the bartender says, "We don't have unicorn juice. Nobody has unicorn juice. It doesn't exist. So what will you have?", Andy replies, "Diet coke.".
Well, that, plus the fact that he has never actually sought out a bar that doesn't serve Diet Coke, has never asked bars to stop serving Diet Coke, and denigrates anyone else who criticizes Diet Coke.
   94. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5529775)
Andy's the guy saying, "I vastly prefer unicorn juice to diet coke! And I'm on record saying so for quite some time! How DARE you imply that I'm a fan of diet coke?!". And when the bartender says, "We don't have unicorn juice. Nobody has unicorn juice. It doesn't exist. So what will you have?", Andy replies, "Diet coke.".
Well, that, plus the fact that he has never actually sought out a bar that doesn't serve Diet Coke, has never asked bars to stop serving Diet Coke, and denigrates anyone else who criticizes Diet Coke.


Recognizing your obsession with Andy, zenbitz's #73 is briefer (how couldn't it be? ZING!) and more accurate.
   95. Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™ Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:35 PM (#5529778)
The supers initially backed her in 2008 and in 2016. So why one would be certain that they won't do so again is a mystery.

Yes, it's indeed a mystery as to what would be different about candidate Hillary in 2020 as compared to 2008 and 2016 that might affect her level of support among the party. That she was not then, but is now, the candidate who'd already lost to Donald Trump in a general election is surely a trivial detail that will be of no moment to the supers.

EDIT: Yes, I realize you used the word "certain," which if read literally makes your argument pointless; no future event (eastern sunrises excepted) is "certain," insofar as "certain" = "100% likelihood." But I'd say Clinton's loss to Trump makes it pretty freaking unlikely.
   96. Traderdave Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:39 PM (#5529780)
Her biggest role in '20 will be a convention speech and likely not the keynote.
   97. Greg K Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:39 PM (#5529782)
The doughnut actually stands for “do not,” making the true meaning “do not go further without consent.”

Maybe the condoms were designed by Claire Dunphy
   98. The Good Face Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:40 PM (#5529783)
Recognizing your obsession with Andy, zenbitz's #73 is briefer (how couldn't it be? ZING!) and more accurate.


Mocking those who suffer injustice and racial discrimination because some people don't suffer injustice and racial discrimination would be something you'd support.
   99. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5529787)
These Hillary 2020 posts are so mundane. When can we get to the REAL excitement: negotiating the terms of the cash wagers over whether or not she'll run, followed by three years of chatter about who was too afraid to bet, who might welch on their bet, and regular reminders that the bet is on?
   100. Traderdave Posted: September 11, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5529788)
These Hillary 2020 posts are so mundane. When can we get to the REAL excitement: negotiating the terms of the cash wagers over whether or not she'll run, followed by three years of chatter about who was too afraid to bet, who might welch on their bet, and regular reminders that the bet is on?
Page 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 20 November 2017: Sheriff’s official suspended 10 days over Cubs World Series sneak-in
(687 - 3:25pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogJoe Morgan Wants To Keep Steroid Cheats Out Of Baseball Hall Of Fame | MLB | NESN.com
(145 - 3:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(177 - 3:05pm, Nov 22)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogWhat's next for Maitan and other former Braves | MLB.com
(9 - 2:41pm, Nov 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogSources: MLB hammers Atlanta Braves, declaring 12 minor league players free agents
(81 - 2:35pm, Nov 22)
Last: Khrushin it bro

NewsblogA Discussion of WAR Wherein I Ardently Attempt to Avoid any WAR-Related Puns | Sports-Reference.com
(36 - 2:21pm, Nov 22)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-22-2017
(6 - 1:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: KJOK

NewsblogFinding the best spot for Giancarlo Stanton
(9 - 1:42pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1502 - 1:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogProspectus Feature: Bill James vs. The Noise - Baseball Prospectus
(11 - 11:58am, Nov 22)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(250 - 11:52am, Nov 22)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogShohei Ohtani MLB posting deal reached | MLB.com
(3 - 11:30am, Nov 22)
Last: sotapop

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(213 - 10:36am, Nov 22)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Phillies Voting Thread
(15 - 9:41am, Nov 22)
Last: Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant

NewsblogOT - November* 2017 College Football thread
(193 - 1:02am, Nov 22)
Last: Shredder

Page rendered in 0.6685 seconds
47 querie(s) executed