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, June 19, 2017

OTP 19 June 2017: Bipartisan baseball: Dems best GOP, give trophy to wounded Scalise

The game at Nationals Park carried on a century-old bipartisan ritual, this one tinged with worry about Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise and their determination to answer the attack by coming together in sport. Democrats won in an 11-2 blowout.

In a final flourish of bipartisan camaraderie for the night, Democratic Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, his team’s manager, accepted the trophy, then gave it to his GOP counterpart, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, to put in Scalise’s office on behalf of the Democrats. After accepting it gracefully, Barton cracked, “Next year we won’t be so nice.”


(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: June 19, 2017 at 07:20 AM | 1275 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, ffs, congress, 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 13 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Lassus Posted: June 19, 2017 at 03:31 PM (#5478748)
Do you have anything serious to offer? What I said is 100% true.

As you consider your opinion to be truth, no, I have nothing more to offer. There is no point in arguing with someone who - like his Wrestlmania mentor - does not care what anyone else says.
   2. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: June 19, 2017 at 03:37 PM (#5478752)
As you consider your opinion to be truth, no, I have nothing more to offer.


The fact that people will now (continue to) hear "Slants" in public discourse, as they routinely hear "n___a" and "n____r," is empirical fact, not remotely "opinion." Nor is it even "thoughts on race." It just is.
   3. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 03:53 PM (#5478757)
Someone at the Trademark office really picked the wrong hill on that one.

The problem was the PTO standard, not the application of that standard to a particular case. The result wouldn't have been different if the Redskins trademark had been at issue, although it is possible that those with flexible principles might have reacted differently.
   4. Lassus Posted: June 19, 2017 at 03:59 PM (#5478761)
is empirical fact, not remotely "opinion." Nor is it even "thoughts on race." It just is.

Uh-huh

If a "hateful" term is put into circulation, it doesn't matter if the circulator is of the same race as the term. The impact on listeners is no different. If "n___a" coarsens listeners, it does so equally if every user is black or every user is white. Indeed, reading the word or hearing it on the radio gives the reader or listener no indication of the race of the writer or speaker.

You're a total quack.
   5. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:08 PM (#5478763)
You're a total quack.


No, you just wrongly disagree with what I said. None of the things you highlighted are matters of opinion.

In terms of coarsening of rhetoric and impact on listeners, it doesn't matter whether the R_____s owner is a white guy or a Native American. Listeners hear the term in public currency in either event. Just as if a team was named the "N_____as."

I've said it before, but I'll repeat -- the number of white ears that hear the word "n____r" and the number of times they hear it are higher now, by far, than in the bad old days. You can say, "Well, it's different because reasons," but that empirical fact is undeniable.

You have extreme views on "race." That leads you to believe mainstream people making straightforward empirical observations on modern communications and rhetoric are "quacks." Point of view distorts vision and all.

   6. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:15 PM (#5478768)
Morty C replying, #1497 (previous thread):
Our long national nightmare is over, according to Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow: "Let me be clear here. The president is not, and has not been under investigation for obstruction... He's not afraid of the investigation. There is no investigation. There is not an investigation of the President of the United States, period."

That sure sounds like someone whistling past a graveyard.




All the Best People, Vol. CXXXIV:

Then, Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow went to Fox News, where he alternately claimed that Schrödinger's Trump is and is not under investigation.

JAY SEKULOW: "There's been no notification of any investigation. Nothing's changed since James Comey said the President was not a target or a subject of an investigation. Nothing's changed."

CHRIS WALLACE: "Well, you don't know that he isn't under investigation now, do you?"

SEKULOW: "Well, no one's notified us that he is. I can't read people's minds."

...

SEKULOW: "So here's the Constitutional threshold question, Chris. The President takes action, based on numerous events, including recommendations from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General's office. He takes the action that they also, by the way, recommended. And now he's being investigated by the Department of Justice. …So he's being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the terminations!”

WALLACE: "You've now said he is being investigated after saying he isn't."

SEKULOW: "No, he's not being investigated!"

WALLACE: "You just said he's being investigated."

SEKULOW: "No, Chris, I said that the inves--, anything, let me be crystal clear so you completely understand. We have not received, nor are we aware of any investigation of the President of the United States. Period."

WALLACE: "Sir, you just said two times that he's being investigated."

SEKULOW: "No! [holds up document] The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal theory, Chris, of how the Constitution works. If in fact that it was correct, that the President was being investigated, he would be investigated for taking action that an agency told him to take. So that is protected under the Constitution as his Article 1 power. That's all I said. So, ah, I, appreciate you trying to rephrase it, but I'm just being really straight with you, Chris, this is--"

WALLACE: "No, sir, I did not rephrase it. The tape will -- Jay, the tape will speak for itself. You said he is being investigated. And it's not just--"

SEKULOW: "CHRIS! He is not, juh, Chris--"

WALLACE: "Jay. And he's not just being investigated for firing Comey. There's also the question of what he said to Comey when Comey was still the FBI director. So there's more than just the fact that he fired Comey."

SEKULOW: "Chris, let me be clear. You asked me a question about what the President's tweet was, regarding the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. That's what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be. So I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth, when I've been crystal clear that the president is not, and has not been under investigation. I don't think I can be any clearer than that."

WALLACE: "Well, you don't know that he's not under investigation, again, sir. I mean, you--

SEKULOW: "You, I cannot read the mind of, you're right, Chris. I can't read the mind of the special prosecutor. Chris, I--"

WALLACE: "Okay, well then, we're in agreement. You don't know whether he's under-- you don't know whether he's under investi-- you don't know whether he's under investigation."

...

WALLACE: "Does the President think that Rosenstein, because you've talked about this Constitutional theory that he took action on the advice-- although he says he didn't take it on the advice of Rosenstein-- does he think that Rosenstein should recuse himself? And is he laying the groundwork to fire Rosenstein and Mueller?"

SEKULOW: "I've had no conversations, and I've heard nothing about that at all. Nothing. I think this is, Chris, this points out, let me tell you one thing about the "Constitutional theory," as you call it. It's actually called the Constitution. You know, the President has certain plenary authority."

WALLACE [grinning]: "I think you called it the Constitutional theory, sir."

SEKULOW: "Yeah, it's the Constitutional theory, based on the Constitution."

WALLACE: "I understand that."

SEKULOW: "Not 'so-called.' It's the Constitutional theory. It's part of the Constitution. The President has inherent authority. [points finger] Here's what you're trying, here's what you're trying to do, Chris, and I appreciate it--

WALLACE: "Now you're reading minds again. Now you're reading minds again."

SEKULOW: "No, Chris. I deal with fact and law."

WALLACE: "Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. Because you don't know what I'm trying to do. Actually, what I'm trying to get is a straight answer out of you. Let me ask you this. As a matter of law, does the President think that he can be indicted under the Constitution?"

SEKULOW: "The President, I haven't had that conversation with the President. But the President can't be indicted under the Constitution for the activities alleged in something like this. Of course not."

WALLACE: "Why is that?"

SEKULOW: "Because there's not an investigation. And there's--"

WALLACE: "But you don't know whether there’s--. Oh boy, this is weird. You don't know whether there is an investigation. You just told us that."

SEKULOW: "Chris, you're asking me to spec-- so that what you're asking me to do is speculate on--

WALLACE: "It wouldn't matter, I'm asking you as a matter of law, not whether there's an investigation. [speaking deliberately] Does… the President... think he can be indicted? As President. That's a Constitutional issue, isn't it?

SEKULOW: "For, for, as for, that's for, for obstruction of justice? No, tha-- Constitu--"

WALLACE: "No, for any issue."

SEKULOW: "No, Chris. You know. Let's be realistic here. You know what the la-- what the answer is. Can Presidents be indicted for obstruction, you know what the position has been of the Department of Justice since the 1970s and again stated in 2000. That's not what President, that's not how you engage a President, there's a political process if somebody did something wrong. You're talking about. You're conflating a Constitutional process, criminal law, with a issue of political consequence. So I'm his lawyer, I'm not his political advisor.”
   7. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:17 PM (#5478769)
Ray, #1384 (previous thread):
I think [Donald Trump is] qualified because:
...
3. He's tireless and keeps up a very busy schedule by nature. He's used to doing a million things at once. That's what a president needs the ability to have, and that's something Hillary didn't have.
...
5. He is used to dealing with criticism and criticism comes with the job.



From Politico:
Trump is cognizant of the comparison to Nixon, according to one adviser. The president, who friends said does not enjoy living in Washington and is strained by the demanding hours of the job, is motivated to carry on because he “doesn’t want to go down in history as a guy who tried and failed,” said the adviser. “He doesn’t want to be the second president in history to resign.”

Tomorrow marks the end of energetic, steel-skinned Trump’s fifth month handling a million things at once as our President.
43 months, maybe, to go.
   8. Lassus Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5478770)
None of the things you highlighted are matters of opinion.

I have already noted that you consider your opinions to be facts.
   9. PepTech Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5478771)
according to one adviser. The president, who friends said does not enjoy living in Washington
Anonymous "friends" and nameless "adviser". Not evidence :) We only have the president's words to go on. Unless they're tweeted, in which case they don't mean what they say, but the opposite. Sometimes. Covfefe!
   10. Morty Causa Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:20 PM (#5478773)
Russia did something "bad" so Trump should be investigated for it?

No.


No. Russia did something bad, so it should and can be investigated, and that may lead to the President being investigated.

And again -- even if Trump HAD "colluded" with Russia it would have been legal.

No, it wouldn't have, but even if it were, that doesn't necessarily end matters. There's this thing called impeachment for the collusion as well as for the obstruction.
   11. BrianBrianson Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:24 PM (#5478776)
If Trump doesn't want to be remembered as someone who tried, and failed, I think there's an obvious solution.
   12. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:27 PM (#5478778)
Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow went to Fox News


Meh - I think Sekulow is more "PR flak with a JD" than "trump's lawyer"... Sekulow has basically been nothing more than a cable/talk radio flak for some time now. Of course, it makes his ridiculousness all the more glaring since he's on board for no other reason than to do that which he failed miserably at doing.

   13. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:30 PM (#5478779)
In terms of tomorrow's special elections, worth noting that there are actually two tomorrow: GA-6 and SC-5. We've spent a lot of time on GA-6, but what's interesting about SC-5 is that it's actually not that much more conservative a district than GA-6 (+9R Cook PVI vs +8R). And actually if you think that the GA-6's Cook PVI might be a little suspect (i.e., it's a much more conservative a district than DJT's vote share reflects), then there's an argument to be made that SC-5 might actually be an easier target for Democrats than GA-6. Yet almost all of the attention (and money) has gone into GA-6.

Mulvaney had represented the SC-5 since 2011 (he defeated a long-time incumbent conservative Democrat who had voted for the ACA). Actually, before Mulvaney the last GOP to represent the district was back in 1883. District lines were slightly altered after the 2012 election following the 2010 Census, so it may be a little bit more conservative than it was during the years when Spratt was an incumbent (the person who held the seat 1983-2011). But based on what we've seen in other 2017 special elections (i.e., Democrat overperformance that is quite a bit greater than a ~7.5% generic ballot advantage would indicate), a +9R district is not a guaranteed win for the GOP. Totally irrelevant obviously, but interesting to note that SC-5 was Frank Underwood's seat when he was in the House (the Democratic, Archie Parnell, made a campaign aide imitating Underwood in late May).

The GOP primary for SC-5 was actually two elections (because no one won a majority in the first election). Tommy Pope narrowly beat out Ralph Norman (11,900 to 11,782; 39,156 total ballots) on May 2nd, but then Ralph Norman narrowly beat Tommy Pope on the May 16th runoff (17,772 to 17,572). Both Norman and Pope were representatives in the SC House (Norman resigned his seat in February; Pope did not and is still a state representative). Norman ran unsuccessfully for the SC-5 in 2006.

There has been very little polling done (at least in terms of what is publicly available), but both show Norman to have a commanding lead, albeit from nearly a month ago. So it will be interesting to see what the actual margins are. If Norman wins by more than a few points (as the old polls indicate), then that would contradict the theory that we're currently in a +7.5D national mood (what the generic ballot indicates).

It's easy to overanalyze the results of special elections, but it seems to me that it could very well be that we learn more from the margins in SC-5 than we do from GA-6. That is, I'm not sure what a half point victory either way in GA-6 really tells us (particularly given how much money has been poured into the race), whereas a tight race in SC-5 could be interesting (actually a large GOP in SC-5 would also be interesting and informative).
   14. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5478781)
Trump is cognizant of the comparison to Nixon, according to one adviser. The president, who friends said does not enjoy living in Washington and is strained by the demanding hours of the job, is motivated to carry on because he “doesn’t want to go down in history as a guy who tried and failed,” said the adviser. “He doesn’t want to be the second president in history to resign.”


Why, it's almost as if EVERYTHING about Trump comes down to ego maintenance...

Gee, not like anyone saw THAT coming and possibly being a problem.

Still, the thought of making him all the more miserable while he continues to flail away at least gives the rest of us something interesting to do.
   15. PepTech Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:40 PM (#5478788)
Gee, not like anyone saw THAT coming and possibly being a problem.
It's *not* a problem, zonk. He *won* the election on November 8th, and that's all that matters. Why do you keep denying this simple fact?

On one level, this is a much simplified worldview. Have to give it that...
   16. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:44 PM (#5478789)
Covfefe sounds like something The Most Interesting Man in the World noshes on with his Dos Equis.
   17. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:45 PM (#5478790)
Meh - I think Sekulow is more "PR flak with a JD" than "trump's lawyer"... Sekulow has basically been nothing more than a cable/talk radio flak for some time now. Of course, it makes his ridiculousness all the more glaring since he's on board for no other reason than to do that which he failed miserably at doing.


When you're an official Trump spokesman, and you make the guy on Fox News smile in amusement, mock your "I can't read minds" evasion, and finally say "Oh boy, this is weird," that means that Kellyanne Conway's stock just went up 2 points.
   18. BrianBrianson Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:50 PM (#5478792)
Reading too much into individual races outside of a general election is probably a bad idea. They can be a lot more local and idiosyncratic. I'd also remain skeptical about applying the results to 2018 or 2020 - the stakes are a lot lower, turnout is usually well down, so you're not really sampling the same people.

Of course, that doesn't make it meaningless. If Dems win SC-5, I expect (R)s to start really worrying. Both is probably a full blown panic. If they win each by a couple points, not nearly so much (even though the difference between 48-52 and 52-48 is not actually very telling of the national situation).
   19. Yonder Alonso in misguided trousers (cardinal) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:55 PM (#5478796)
No, you just wrongly disagree with what I said. None of the things you highlighted are matters of opinion.


"impact on listeners" is an opinion.
   20. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:56 PM (#5478797)
I'm not sure what a half point victory either way in GA-6 really tells us (particularly given how much money has been poured into the race) . . .

I'd agree that you can't draw many conclusions from [easily] the most expensive House race ever, but if the Dems were to capture the seat and hold it in November 2018, which should be closer to a normal House campaign, then they'd have something to talk about, since such seats will be a key to capturing a House majority. However, the Dems chose this special election battle, and have invested unprecedented resources, so a loss would be somewhat of a bitter blow.
   21. dlf Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:59 PM (#5478799)
Mulvaney had represented the SC-5 since 2011 (he defeated a long-time incumbent conservative Democrat who had voted for the ACA). Actually, before Mulvaney the last GOP to represent the district was back in 1883. District lines were slightly altered after the 2012 election following the 2010 Census, so it may be a little bit more conservative than it was during the years when Spratt was an incumbent (the person who held the seat 1983-2011). But based on what we've seen in other 2017 special elections (i.e., Democrat overperformance that is quite a bit greater than a ~7.5% generic ballot advantage would indicate), a +9R district is not a guaranteed win for the GOP. Totally irrelevant obviously, but interesting to note that SC-5 was Frank Underwood's seat when he was in the House (the Democratic, Archie Parnell, made a campaign aide imitating Underwood in late May).


SC-5 is right across the state line from Charlotte. Charlotte itself is *much* more liberal than NC generally (HB2 was drafted to prevent local legislation in CLT that would have been fairly LGBT friendly), but through interestingly drawn lines (see, for example Alma Adams in NC-12), Republican Robert Pittinger (who was *almost* primaried out) represents a swath of town. However, once you cross the state line it becomes notably more conservative. You'd think that bedroom communities like Rock Hill and Fort Mills would mirror Charlotte proper, but they were home for Jim Bakker's PTL Heritage USA theme park / money laundering operation. GA-6 (Roswell, Marietta, Alpharetta, etc.) is much more like Atlanta proper than SC-5 is like Charlotte.

(And a useless aside, I presently live about 200 yards from GA-6 and spent about 10 months last year community back and forth to an apartment in SC-5 while working as a consultant.)
   22. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:00 PM (#5478800)
The annual softball game should be moved to Weehawken. At dawn.
   23. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:07 PM (#5478802)
Gee, not like anyone saw THAT coming and possibly being a problem.

It's *not* a problem, zonk. He *won* the election on November 8th, and that's all that matters. Why do you keep denying this simple fact?

On one level, this is a much simplified worldview. Have to give it that...


On the other hand all you guys do is sit here with smoke coming out of your ears ranting and raving and railing against Trump.

   24. Howie Menckel Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:08 PM (#5478803)
fascinating story, and I don't see this Florida fellow is a bad guy. his ideas made plenty of sense, and as noted they worked (kind of)

Law of Unintended Consequences, Chapter XLVIII

"Richard Florida is rethinking things.

Since publishing the best-selling book “The Rise of the Creative Class” in 2002, Florida has used his considerable speaking and writing heft to push mayors, urban planners and company executives to cater to tech-savvy young professionals.

His argument, in short, was that in order to save themselves from post-industrial ruin, cities needed to attract the best young talent in computer programming, engineering, finance, media and the arts so their towns could build economies based upon the venture capital and start-up companies the new workforce would produce..........

"Somewhere along the way, however, Florida realized that the workers he so cajoled were eating their cities alive.

In places like New York, San Francisco, Seattle and arguably Washington, the mostly white, young and wealthy “creative class” has so fervently flocked to urban neighborhoods that they have effectively pushed out huge populations of mostly blue-collar and often poor or minority residents.

“I think, to be honest, I and others didn’t realize the contradictory effect,” Florida said Tuesday at a panel discussion. He said he realizes now that prompting creative types to cluster in small areas clearly drove living costs to such heights that low-income and oftentimes middle-income households have been forced elsewhere, creating a divide he did not anticipate."
   25. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:18 PM (#5478807)
I'd agree that you can't draw many conclusions from [easily] the most expensive House race ever, but if the Dems were to capture the seat and hold it in November 2018, which should be closer to a normal House campaign, then they'd have something to talk about, since such seats will be a key to capturing a House majority. However, the Dems chose this special election battle, and have invested unprecedented resources, so a loss would be somewhat of a bitter blow.


Correction - a bunch of people have sent Ossoff a crapton of money. The DNC and DCCC - plus a few lefty PACs - have spent, but the lion's share of team blue side spending has been Ossoff running a digital ATM. Hard numbers are hard to come by -- but I'm betting the 'official channel' spends come out pretty close to even. The money difference is all coming from something bottomless. Quist had no trouble smashing Montana records using the same ATM - even while the DNC/DCCC only tossed in a late token.

I'll just reiterate again -- there are something like 50 GOP-held house seats with a better historical PVI than GA-6.... and while there may well be other, non-partisan factors at play -- this was still a 30 yo documentary maker who cannot even vote for himself against a Republican that has actually won state-wide office before.

Yes, I won't disagree that it will be a better blow not to win this one... because a ton of money - even from a bottomless source - did go into it and Democrats have been humping it mercilessly.

...but let's not pretend winning this seat wouldn't be pretty seismic.

That said, I suppose Republicans whistling past the graveyard if they win it by a point or actually lose the seat isn't something that I couldn't support anyway. So guess longer term, should Ossoff pull off the win, I probably ought to hope that Republicans do end up writing this off as some special case that 'doesn't count'. Nothing bad ever comes from your opponent failing to heed warning signs.
   26. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:18 PM (#5478808)
#20:
if the Dems were to capture the seat and hold it in November 2018, which should be closer to a normal House campaign, then they'd have something to talk about, since such seats will be a key to capturing a House majority.


Preparing an escape hatch already?
   27. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:20 PM (#5478809)
On the other hand all you guys do is sit here with smoke coming out of your ears ranting and raving and railing against Trump.


Yes.

Because some of us don't consider the periods between elections to be "offseason" between November matches.

I get that someone who thinks politics is just a spectator sport would see it that way... but most people see politics as just the final step towards something far more important: governance.
   28. Rickey! will gladly sacrifice your janitor Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:23 PM (#5478810)
However, the Dems chose this special election battle, and have invested unprecedented resources, so a loss would be somewhat of a bitter blow.


Most of the ad buys in the area are from GOP/Trump front groups.
   29. Rickey! will gladly sacrifice your janitor Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5478811)
On the other hand all you guys do is sit here with smoke coming out of your ears ranting and raving and railing against Trump.


Yes Ray. If people appoint a convicted pedophile to be principle of a kindergarten, normal people will rant and rave and rail until that problem is addressed.
   30. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5478812)
I get that someone who thinks politics is just a spectator sport would see it that way... but most people see politics as just the final step towards something far more important: governance.


Quite doubtful to the point of being naive.

   31. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5478813)
Covfefe sounds like something The Most Interesting Man in the World noshes on with his Dos Equis.


The people who matter know what it means...
   32. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5478814)
I get that someone who thinks politics is just a spectator sport would see it that way... but most people see politics as just the final step towards something far more important: governance.


No serious indicator agrees with your conviction that the "governance" is going bad. The chattering and political classes have their obsessions (*), to be sure, but the scope and texture of American life reach far, far beyond them.

(*) Should we really take seriously the rantings and ravings of a guy who said on Election Night that the stock market would "never" recover from Trump's election? Why would anyone?
   33. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5478815)
I'd agree that you can't draw many conclusions from [easily] the most expensive House race ever, but if the Dems were to capture the seat and hold it in November 2018, which should be closer to a normal House campaign, then they'd have something to talk about, since such seats will be a key to capturing a House majority. However, the Dems chose this special election battle, and have invested unprecedented resources, so a loss would be somewhat of a bitter blow.

Democrats don't need to be winning in +8R or +9R districts to re-take the House in 2018. I went through the Cook PVI ratings in some detail a week or so ago in a fairly detailed post or two. If they were to win nearly all of the +3R or less districts currently held by GOP (28 such districts) and hold on to all their current seats, then that would be enough to re-take the House. And actually if they win a majority of the +5R or less districts currently held by the GOP (48 such districts) and hold on to all their current seats, then they'll eke out a very narrow majority.

If they're winning in +8R and +9R districts in 2018 (even if they're open seats), then the Democrats are looking at a possible veto-proof majority in the House (i.e., a pickup approaching 100 seats). I really don't see that happening at this point (FTR, I'll be surprised if the Democrats net more than 30 seats).
   34. Howie Menckel Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5478816)

clearly we need an official pre-election point spread for tomorrow that everyone can agree on! then we'll see who covers
   35. PepTech Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:27 PM (#5478818)
I get that someone who thinks politics is just a spectator sport would see it that way... but most people see politics as just the final step towards something far more important: governance.

Quite doubtful to the point of being naive.
This is the point at which it is helpful to define terms. Which part is doubtful, Ray? "Most"? What do you see as the connection (if any) between politics and governance?
   36. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:33 PM (#5478820)
Gonfalon, #7: Not only were the characteristics listed by Ray the opposite of true, but they were silly anyway. "I think Trump is qualified because... (12) He's a carbon-based life form." To be sure, that, and the things Ray listed, may well be characteristics of people qualified to be president, but they're rather over inclusive.
   37. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:37 PM (#5478822)
I get that someone who thinks politics is just a spectator sport would see it that way... but most people see politics as just the final step towards something far more important: governance.

Quite doubtful to the point of being naive.


Free country... for now... people are free to view it all however they wish.

Personally, if and when the Democrats find themselves back in a position of 2 chambers + WH control -- but do so with Bozo the Clown in the WH and a congress paralyzed by Bozo squirting seltzer daily, I'd be a lot more pissed at the Democrats and the Democratic voters who delivered Bozo the win because it's not supposed to be about scoreboard watching.... but YMMV.

   38. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:42 PM (#5478823)
Democrats don't need to be winning in +8R or +9R districts to re-take the House in 2018. I went through the Cook PVI ratings in some detail a week or so ago in a fairly detailed post or two. If they were to win nearly all of the +3R or less districts currently held by GOP (28 such districts) and hold on to all their current seats, then that would be enough to re-take the House.

That overlooks the advantage of an incumbent aspect, which is what makes the open seat GA-6 an inviting target.
   39. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:42 PM (#5478824)
clearly we need an official pre-election point spread for tomorrow that everyone can agree on! then we'll see who covers


It's awfully hard for me to see how the seat how the spread could be legitimately called anything other than a pick 'em/toss-up... and I think the 'fair' line probably needs to be Handel by a point or two.

Again... it's a red seat that Democrats have never particularly contested. The GOP candidate is a former statewide office winner and the D candidate is a neophyte kid. The only thing that moves it from ~10 pts to a point or two is that Ossoff has had the luxury of a virtual ATM - but even then, let's not pretend that there hasn't been plenty of red PAC money pouring in, even if Handel is laps behind H2H on the spending.

I'm cautiously optimistic - but I think it's a coin flip.
   40. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5478825)
clearly we need an official pre-election point spread for tomorrow that everyone can agree on! then we'll see who covers


Well, partly it depends on what we're looking for. Evidence that the Republicans are in worse shape than they were on Election Day, 2016? That's all but guaranteed, isn't it? Evidence that the Democrats are on target to re-take the House? As 6-4-3 suggests in #33, the Dems could probably lose GA-6 by 4 or 5 points and still be in position to potentially re-take the House.

Or are we just looking at who out-performed expectations from the day before the election (i.e., today)? If forced to set a line on GA-6, I'd probably go tie - i.e., the party that wins the election "out-performed" expectations. But, understand, from a Republican perspective, those "expectations" are already baking in it being a very bad time to run for election as a Republican. And I know nothing about SC-5: I just learned they were having an election a half-hour ago or so, whenever I read it in this thread.
   41. dlf Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:45 PM (#5478826)
Most of the ad buys in the area are from GOP/Trump front groups.


I watch very little TV other than baseball games, but my wife will have Today on in the mornings semi-regularly. Almost every time I've seen an Ossoff ad I see a Handel one immediately thereafter and vice versa. I'm pretty sure that by now, everyone knows that Handel spent thousands on office chairs and Ossoff doesn't live in the district as those points, and similar ones, have been repeated over the air roughly a gazillion times.

I get that someone who thinks politics is just a spectator sport would see it that way... but most people see politics as just the final step towards something far more important: governance.


Quite doubtful to the point of being naive.



I don't understand this at all. Didn't we just spend the last 8 years discussing the governance or misgovernance - depending on one's POV - of the Obama administration? It certainly wasn't nearly a decade of re-trying the two campaigns and, because the topic was so limited, a need to move on to catcher throwing lane discussions.
   42. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:46 PM (#5478827)
However, the Dems chose this special election battle, and have invested unprecedented resources, so a loss would be somewhat of a bitter blow.

Most of the ad buys in the area are from GOP/Trump front groups.

Every non-Sam source I've seen that addresses the issue indicates that Dems are spending more on the race, although the GOP spending would itself be staggering in any other race.
   43. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:51 PM (#5478829)
That overlooks the advantage of an incumbent aspect


Actually, 6-4-3's analysis included this (as he said above, he had a couple of pretty detailed posts on this in last week's thread), which is precisely why 6-4-3 is giving the Dems only 50/50 or so odds of re-taking the House despite being up +7 to +8 in generic Congressional polling questions. The point is that the Dems need to do something like +3, but they're going to lose 4-5 points due to incumbency bias, which is how you get from +7.5 polling to even-money shot at retaking the House.
   44. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:51 PM (#5478830)
That overlooks the advantage of an incumbent aspect, which is what makes the open seat GA-6 an inviting target.

Sigh. Discussed incumbency advantage at length in my post(s) from a week or so ago...

In general, the "battlefield" for 2018 will mostly be +5R districts or less. If there are open seats in more conservative districts, then there might be an opportunity here or there. But it's simply wrong to claim that GA-6 and SC-5 are the types of districts that the Democrats need to win to re-take the House in 2018. None of the special elections so far in 2017 have been in districts that are normally competitive.
   45. dlf Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:52 PM (#5478831)
Well, partly it depends on what we're looking for. Evidence that the Republicans are in worse shape than they were on Election Day, 2016? That's all but guaranteed, isn't it? Evidence that the Democrats are on target to re-take the House? As 6-4-3 suggests in #33, the Dems could probably lose GA-6 by 4 or 5 points and still be in position to potentially re-take the House.


The other point in this one is that the GOP candidates who campaigned on supporting DJT (particularly Bob Gray, Dan Moody and Bruce LeVell) lost in the first round of the election with the GOPe candidate handily beating them. Not to make too much soup from one oyster, but the DJT election may be a unique cult of one unique personality rather than a harbinger of a new norm.
   46. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:54 PM (#5478834)
Every non-Sam source I've seen that addresses the issue indicates that Dems are spending more on the race, although the GOP spending would itself be staggering in any other race.


You must not read many sources then...

Still, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent nearly $5 million on TV ads boosting his campaign or slamming Handel, while other left-leaning groups chipped in about $1 million more.

In all, left-leaning groups and Ossoff combined for about $2 million more in ad spending than Handel and conservative allies during the runoff phase.

On the GOP side, two groups accounted for the lion’s share of spending.

The National Republican Congressional Committee shelled out more than $6.7 million on ads in the race. And the Congressional Leadership Fund – a super PAC with ties to Speaker Paul Ryan – spent about $5 million on airtime. The group said it spent another $2 million on other costs, including a field operation aiming to target 300,000 voters by Tuesday.

Two other conservative groups – America First Policies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – each chipped in at least $1 million more.


Ossoff's parity/lead is wholly due to him raising/spending about 5-7 times as much as Handel.

On the party side of the things -- the RCCC has outspet the DCCC 6.7 mil to 5 mil. PAC spending has been 7 mil red to about 2-3 mil blue.

The only DNC/RNC splits I find are a couple months old -- when they were essentially at parity -- but I doubt the DNC itself has made up for that "non-candidate gap".
   47. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 19, 2017 at 05:59 PM (#5478835)
clearly we need an official pre-election point spread for tomorrow that everyone can agree on! then we'll see who covers

At present on predictit.org, if I'm interpreting these correctly, it looks like the betting market has GA-6 at 52/48 Democrats (I'll take the under for Ossoff at 52% chance of winning) and SC-6 at 96/4 GOP (I'll take the under for Norman at 96% chance of winning).

FWIW, I think that we'll a Handle win of ~50.5% and a Norman win of ~55.0%.
   48. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:04 PM (#5478838)
The other point in this one is that the GOP candidates who campaigned on supporting DJT (particularly Bob Gray, Dan Moody and Bruce LeVell) lost in the first round of the election with the GOPe candidate handily beating them. Not to make too much soup from one oyster, but the DJT election may be a unique cult of one unique personality rather than a harbinger of a new norm.

On the other hand, in the GOP VA governor primary last week: a GOPe won a small plurality over two candidates who had allied themselves with DJT. On the one hand that is sort of a victory for the GOP establishment (it doesn't get more establishment than a former RNC chair); on the other hand, a majority of VA GOP primary voters supported candidates who allied themselves with DJT.
   49. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:06 PM (#5478839)
Otto Warmbier has died (young American just released from North Korea last week with severe brain damage).
   50. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:11 PM (#5478841)
Or are we just looking at who out-performed expectations from the day before the election (i.e., today)? If forced to set a line on GA-6, I'd probably go tie - i.e., the party that wins the election "out-performed" expectations. But, understand, from a Republican perspective, those "expectations" are already baking in it being a very bad time to run for election as a Republican. And I know nothing about SC-5: I just learned they were having an election a half-hour ago or so, whenever I read it in this thread.


There's actually been a fair amount of carping on this in lefty blogs and circles -- same was true in Montana and also in that dark red Kansas seat.

Of course - as noted above i/r/t Ossoff - people are complaining about official party apparatuses that actually are NOT leading the way. Sure - it definitely helps that the DCCC has dropped a huge amount of money in GA-6... but that doesn't change the fact that Ossoff alone has raised/spent something like 4-5 times what the 'official channels' did. Same with Quist -- the DCCC dropped a late token (about 250K) -- but Quist had trouble raising 6 mil (IIRC) himself.

Strictly speaking to partisans on the left - I can only roll my eyes at the ~Berniebros who continue to rant against cabals and backroom elites that are somehow 'failing' to back up Dem challengers in other, redder districts (or - that feature candidates that don't get the Blue Elite seal of approval).

It ought to be painfully obvious that the staid, stolid party apparatuses have only the most limited of rolls to play in 'deciding' who gets attention and who doesn't. They can certainly help with a snowball effect -- when the DCCC drops an ad buy, it then makes the Politicos and national news, and subsequently, helps juice the individual candidate's fundraising.... but that doesn't change the fact that modern digital fundraising and campaigning is actually as grassroots and able to stand on its own on its own merits as it has ever been. DCCC/DSCC/DNC involvement is pretty darn moot in a world where a single house candidate can raise millions.

And speaking strictly as a Democratic partisan - I'd far prefer that the official channels stick with seats where the candidate his or herself lacks the charisma or fundraising acumen to go it alone. That's where I'd prefer to see those channels go to bat.

The Quists/Ossoffs/etc should be left to their own devices.
   51. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:14 PM (#5478842)
#17:
When you're an official Trump spokesman, and you make the guy on Fox News smile in amusement, mock your "I can't read minds" evasion, and finally say "Oh boy, this is weird," that means that Kellyanne Conway's stock just went up 2 points.


Kellyanne Conway today, saying that Trump's rage tweet saying he's under investigation doesn't mean he's under investigation, because it's like 10,000 spoons:
“And that’s the President in his 140 characters, through his significant social media platform, Ainsley, telling everybody, 'Wow, look at the irony here.' ”

Conway stock had been up, but dropped sharply just before the close of trading.
   52. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:18 PM (#5478844)
“I think, to be honest, I and others didn’t realize the contradictory effect,” Florida said


Never heard of yuppies, Dick?
   53. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:20 PM (#5478846)
clearly we need an official pre-election point spread for tomorrow that everyone can agree on! then we'll see who covers

You can be my second anytime.
   54. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:28 PM (#5478849)
I get that someone who thinks politics is just a spectator sport would see it that way... but most people see politics as just the final step towards something far more important: governance.


Isn't Clapper in governance? Isn't this a site devoted to a spectator sport with a side topic spectating politics? Hasn't the last day been devoted to calling a horserace?

If people here are actively involved, good for you, but otherwise, where's any focus on substantive issues? Besides how many fat cats have ponied up on these horses.
   55. dlf Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:36 PM (#5478853)
And speaking strictly as a Democratic partisan - I'd far prefer that the official channels stick with seats where the candidate his or herself lacks the charisma or fundraising acumen to go it alone. That's where I'd prefer to see those channels go to bat.

The Quists/Ossoffs/etc should be left to their own devices.


My youngest has her first summer job. To encourage putting money into savings instead of one more frozen latte drink that all 16 year olds seem to NEED, I've promised that for every dollar she puts into her small investment account, I'll match it. She loved the idea and has already put half of her first lifeguarding check in and we are talking about the benefits of index investing & dollar cost averaging. I'd suggest that if the RNC / DNC want to encourage particular behavior by their flag bearers in the various Congressional elections, they could and should do much the same thing.

Of course I'm no fan of the political parties and resulting polarization (or vice versa) so I'm happy the few times when candidates are actually (as opposed to for show) largely independent of their parties.
   56. BrianBrianson Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:39 PM (#5478854)
And without knowing who's going to win, I do think it makes sense for both parties to be spending, as long as it's a close race. Given that an R loss is likely to panic them, it's a good "lottery ticket" as it were.
   57. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:44 PM (#5478855)
If people here are actively involved, good for you, but otherwise, where's any focus on substantive issues? Besides how many fat cats have ponied up on these horses.


Blame your boy...

I mean, there were plenty of OTP-before-there-was-an-OTP debates on the ACA... and they ranged far and wide from single-payer to nationalized systems, to the nooks and crannies of risk factors, subsidies, mortality tables, etc.

In the pre-Trump age -- the debates were around the efficacy of certain policy prescriptions, the longer term implications, cost-benefit, etc. You know - the stuff that comes with any policy pursued by a government that governs a country spanning a whole continent and 330 million people.

Now? Well.... I thought "don't be mean" was the underlying intent of any and all health care policy prescriptions, left or right.

It's hard to have a substantive debate on say -- Qatar and its place in the geopolitical world or regarding terrorism generally when the guy with the biggest microphone is directly contradicting his cabinet officials and as should be painfully obvious, has trouble separating what makes 'good TV' from actual policy.
   58. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 19, 2017 at 06:49 PM (#5478857)
Those of you in the GA-6 area will be lucky enough to see this last-minute ad buy tonight:
Image: Bleeding, unresponsive Rep. Steve Scalise being wheeled on an emergency stretcher after being shot.

Voiceover: Now the unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans. When will it stop? It won't, if Jon Ossoff wins on Tuesday.

Image: Photo of Jon Ossoff looking somewhat dazed.
Image: Kathy Griffin slowly lifting up Trump's bloody head, in front of two tweets and an anonymous message.
Image: Androgynous-looking protester throwing their head back and screaming.

Voiceover: Because the same unhinged leftists cheering last week's shooting are all backing Jon Ossoff.

Image: Giant Jon Ossoff head slides into the picture.

Voiceover: And if he wins, they win.

Image: Again, Kathy Griffin with Trump head, and screaming protester.

Voiceover: Stop them. Stop them now.

Image: Sad-looking Jon Ossoff head. Nancy Pelosi looking grim.

Voiceover: Stop Jon Ossoff. Stop Nancy Pelosi.

Image: Emergency responders rushing Steve Scalise to the ambulance.

Voiceover: Vote Karen Handel for Congress. Vote!
[Quintuple speed:] PrincipledLeadershipPACpaidforthisadandisresponsibleforitscontent.
   59. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:00 PM (#5478860)

Blame your boy...

That's always the response. Like Trump arose as some mutant bacteria in a pristine environment.

ACA was terrible law, neither affordable nor caring. I've got it and perhaps it'd defray hospital costs. I just don't go to the doctor.

Both parties are on a power trip to fight endless wars and line the pockets of their cronies, while tossing a few breadcrumbs to the hoi polloi. Overlooking the personal characteristics of their nominee, the Dems offered nothing to the working class that supported Obama as eight years went by and their economic standing deteriorated.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but the trash was loaded with firestarters long before. I see zero hope in American politics. But that's not new, either, God bless George Carlin's soul.
   60. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:03 PM (#5478862)
Every non-Sam source I've seen that addresses the issue indicates that Dems are spending more on the race, although the GOP spending would itself be staggering in any other race.

You must not read many sources then...

That source in #46, as even zonk belatedly concedes, also indicates that Dems are outspending the GOP in GA-6. Trying to break the funding into subcategories - and contending that some subcategories are more virtuous than others - doesn't change the fact that Dems are spending somewhat more on GA-6. Can't really have it both ways - touting the funding as a sign of support, while denying that there is a funding advantage. It's clear that Dems have made an unprecedented investment in GA-6, and the GOP has responded. We'll see if it works out, or even matters, in the long run.
   61. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:04 PM (#5478863)
Voiceover: Now the unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans. When will it stop? It won't, if Jon Ossoff wins on Tuesday.


Huh.

I thought Ossoff's position was that such things ought to be closely regulated and require a government-issued permit, but it sounds like he's backed off that oversight limitation?

Sad.
   62. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:07 PM (#5478865)
That source in 46, as even zonk belatedly concedes, also indicates that Dems are outspending the GOP in GA-6. Trying to break the funding into subcategories - and contending that some subcategories are more virtuous than others - doesn't change the fact that Dems are spending somewhat more on GA-6. Can't really have it both ways - touting the funding as a sign of support, while denying that there is a funding advantage. It's clear that Dems have made an unprecedented investment in GA-6, and the GOP has responded. We'll see if it works out, or even matters, in the long run.


Bob and weave man, bob and weave.

Ossoff is running circles around Handel financially -- GOP apparatuses are outspending Dem apparatuses.

If you want to pretend that the splits make no difference, well... like I said, hard for me to get too worked up in the grand scheme of things if you want to whistle past the graveyard.
   63. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:07 PM (#5478866)
fascinating story, and I don't see this Florida fellow is a bad guy. his ideas made plenty of sense, and as noted they worked (kind of)

Law of Unintended Consequences, Chapter XLVIII


"Richard Florida is rethinking things.

Since publishing the best-selling book “The Rise of the Creative Class” in 2002, Florida has used his considerable speaking and writing heft to push mayors, urban planners and company executives to cater to tech-savvy young professionals.

His argument, in short, was that in order to save themselves from post-industrial ruin, cities needed to attract the best young talent in computer programming, engineering, finance, media and the arts so their towns could build economies based upon the venture capital and start-up companies the new workforce would produce..........

"Somewhere along the way, however, Florida realized that the workers he so cajoled were eating their cities alive.

In places like New York, San Francisco, Seattle and arguably Washington, the mostly white, young and wealthy “creative class” has so fervently flocked to urban neighborhoods that they have effectively pushed out huge populations of mostly blue-collar and often poor or minority residents.

“I think, to be honest, I and others didn’t realize the contradictory effect,” Florida said Tuesday at a panel discussion. He said he realizes now that prompting creative types to cluster in small areas clearly drove living costs to such heights that low-income and oftentimes middle-income households have been forced elsewhere, creating a divide he did not anticipate."


I don't think he's a bad guy, either, and the gentrification forces had much more to do with basic economic trends than any individual author, but Christ, these consequences were as predictable as the next sunrise.
   64. TDF, FCL Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:10 PM (#5478870)
ACA was terrible law, neither affordable nor caring. I've got it and perhaps it'd defray hospital costs. I just don't go to the doctor.
So I have to ask - what did you have for insurance before the ACA?
   65. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:13 PM (#5478871)
Terrorism note: As of mid-afternoon, our fearless Terrorist Fighter-in-Chief has yet to utter a word or tweet about that murderous attack last night in London. He probably doesn't want to offend his hardcore supporters.
   66. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:18 PM (#5478872)
Through work. Kept getting to be more for less every year, though. Took my kid the the ER for a cut, they put on a bandaid. $125 copay, then billedby the ER doc as out of network. Another $400. For a bandaid.

The underlying problem witb healthcare -- education, too -- is any money pumped in immediately gets soaked up in admin. I was listening to NPR this morn (pretty much a joke) and some pol was yapping about Suboxone abuse, with a side story about opiate dealers getting murder charges. What about Big Pharma running wild with the idea that post-surgical opiates weren't addictive? The top dogs make their billions and get away scot free, every single time.

This country is immaculately ######. It's all fiddling to a bonfire now.
   67. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:24 PM (#5478873)
Isn't Clapper in governance? . . .

Happily retired now, after ~ 35 years of dedicated public service, ending up as the Executive Officer of a federal agency of some importance (at least to me). But, unfortunately, it appears that my nonpartisan expertise counts for little here. Oh, well.
   68. Covfefe Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:28 PM (#5478875)
I struggle to see how 66 fits into the ACA caused it paradigm... I mean, perhaps in the 'weak sauce' paradigm, I suppose... But if one's primary complaint about money being soaked up by administrative costs -- it seems to me that a hard and fast 85% MLR ratio (post-ACA) versus no such thing (pre-ACA) paints the line pretty clearly.
   69. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:31 PM (#5478878)
Happily retired now, after ~ 35 years of dedicated public service, ending up as the Executive Officer of a federal agency of some importance (at least to me)

So would that be the Federal Citizen Information Center, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, or the Millennium Challenge Corporation?
   70. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5478881)
So would that be the Federal Citizen Information Center, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, or the Millennium Challenge Corporation?

No, everyone has heard of the agency I worked at, and could even figure out its mission from its name.
   71. TDF, FCL Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5478882)
#66 - Yeah, that's not an ACA issue, that's a medical expense issue. At the time, what you would consider "affordable" is really national healthcare, which couldn't get passed. But the ACA is worlds better than what was available on the open market before, both in terms of affordability and guaranteed coverage.

EDIT: My employer at the time dropped our health coverage after the ACA went into effect because they thought it would raise their prices too much; instead, they gave us a raise that approximated what they spent previously. I was able to get better coverage through the exchange than I had through work for the same amount of money.
   72. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:44 PM (#5478884)
So would that be the Federal Citizen Information Center, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, or the Millennium Challenge Corporation?

No, everyone has heard of the agency I worked at, and could even figure out its mission from its name.


Ah, the celebrated Federal Bureau of Obfuscation!
   73. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:47 PM (#5478886)
But, unfortunately, it appears that my nonpartisan expertise counts for little here. Oh, well.


This is some seriously funny ####.
   74. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:48 PM (#5478888)
I'm too cynical about it all. I was reading just a bit of Chomsky's first political book, and it could've been written today. Little has changed because the underlying structure of permanent war remains unchallenged. Again on NPR, a former general was pretty much arguing that we own Afghanistan for good, now. The sorrows of empire, as Chalmers Johnson has it. With all the focus on investigating conspiracy theories, nobody's watching the President double down on war. Maybe I missed the discussion here of US shooting down a Syrian fighter. In Syria.

I do understand why people tune it out. The consequences are too painful to contemplate, let alone articulate. I'd rather watch a ballgame or discuss religion and philosophy. Something detached from the endless sufferings of human destiny.
   75. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:50 PM (#5478890)

This is some seriously funny ####.

A sense of humor means everything.
   76. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5478892)
Were you at EPA? I've heard stories.
   77. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:53 PM (#5478894)

A sense of humor means everything.


And this band had it ...

Don't rely on no-one else ...
   78. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:54 PM (#5478895)
they gave us a raise that approximated what they spent previously. I was able to get better coverage through the exchange than I had through work for the same amount of money.


I wonder if yours is a common story. I would think single payer will triumph eventually. After I'm dead.
   79. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:58 PM (#5478898)
I'll probably live into my 80's regardless, pretty good health in my 50's so far. Some preventive maintenance would help.

   80. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:02 PM (#5478902)
Through work. Kept getting to be more for less every year, though. Took my kid the the ER for a cut, they put on a bandaid. $125 copay, then billedby the ER doc as out of network. Another $400. For a bandaid.
Perhaps you shouldn't have taken your kid to the ER for something that just required a bandaid?
   81. Rickey! will gladly sacrifice your janitor Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:03 PM (#5478904)
Every non-Sam source I've seen that addresses the issue indicates that Dems are spending more on the race,


I realize it's probably difficult for you to read what with your head being covered in #### from your own ass, what with it being buried up there for some three decades plus now, but I said the AD BUY. Aside from the fact that the GOP is not trailing in money/spend by any rational measure, a large portion of the Dem spend is GOTV effort in working class neighborhoods of the district; namely the Pleasantdale Road corridor of Gwinnett. To summarize a friend on the subject, the GOP is spending tons of cash to convince the rich Fulton and East Cobb suburbanites that Jon Ossoff was the second trigger man at Shoot A Gooper Baseball Player Fest. The Dems are spending tons to get suburban housewives from Gwinnett, central Fulton and West Cobb to canvass the apartments and tract homes where the people who clean the GOP base's pools live.
   82. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:03 PM (#5478905)
No, everyone has heard of the agency I worked at, and could even figure out its mission from its name.
NSA?
   83. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:07 PM (#5478907)
Don't rely on no-one else ...


We made 'Speak English Or Die', and that record, it's a ####### anomaly. We weren't trying to do anything when we made that record. We wrote a bunch of ####### ridiculous songs that made us laugh. The whole twenty-two minutes, or whatever it is, is just a big inside joke. And it worked; it ####### worked. And people… Well, not everybody, 'cause some people hated it. Some people thought we were racist, and those people are stupid. But a lot of people got the joke all over the planet and laughed along with us, and it was ####### awesome."
   84. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:14 PM (#5478910)
Perhaps you shouldn't have taken your kid to the ER for something that just required a bandaid?


When I was a kid, I fell backwards, hit my head on the bedframe. There was blood everywhere, just gushing, I was screaming, my parents were totally freaked, rushed me to the ER. The doc washed it off, stanched the bleeding, put a bandaid on it, said he's fine. And I was.

A year or two later, again I fell, hit the back of my head on a wooden couch, it bled some, not much, so my parents waited. Washed it off, put stuff on it trying to get the bleeding to stop. It wouldn't. Wasn't bleeding a lot, but it just wouldn't stop. Took me to the ER, doc cleaned it off, said "He needs stitches."

Sometimes, with kids, you just can't tell.

Yeah, I was a clumsy little twerp.
   85. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:14 PM (#5478911)
Perhaps you shouldn't have taken your kid to the ER for something that just required a bandaid?

Probably. She cut her knuckle to the bone with a knife. Not a major wound, but I figured the copay was worth drying her tears and easing her fears.

Ha -- she just texted that her neighbors are having a Carlo and Connie moment from The Godfather. Yuppies, no less.
   86. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:14 PM (#5478912)
We made 'Speak English Or Die', and that record, it's a ####### anomaly. We weren't trying to do anything when we made that record. We wrote a bunch of ####### ridiculous songs that made us laugh. The whole twenty-two minutes, or whatever it is, is just a big inside joke. And it worked; it ####### worked. And people… Well, not everybody, 'cause some people hated it. Some people thought we were racist, and those people are stupid. But a lot of people got the joke all over the planet and laughed along with us, and it was ####### awesome."


It can be two things ...
   87. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:18 PM (#5478914)
84 -- when she was little, she bounced off our bed and took a header against thr nightstand. Made a little hole. Still got the scar.

She's super emotional. I'm pretty detached and rational in an 'emergency', but still the pushover in the face of tears.
   88. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:19 PM (#5478915)
She cut her knuckle to the bone with a knife. Not a major wound


Reminds me of the old Mad Magazine movie take-off, where John Wayne takes a bullet to the noggin and says "Only a flesh wound!"
   89. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5478916)
We made 'Speak English Or Die', and that record, it's a ####### anomaly. We weren't trying to do anything when we made that record. We wrote a bunch of ####### ridiculous songs that made us laugh. The whole twenty-two minutes, or whatever it is, is just a big inside joke. And it worked; it ####### worked. And people… Well, not everybody, 'cause some people hated it. Some people thought we were racist, and those people are stupid. But a lot of people got the joke all over the planet and laughed along with us, and it was ####### awesome."



You come into this country
You can't get real jobs
Boats and boats and boats of you
Go home you ######' slobs
Selling hot dogs on the corner
Selling papers in the street
Pushing, pulling, digging, sweating
Where you come from must be beat

[CHORUS]
You always make us wait
You're the ones we hate
You can't communicate
Speak English Or Die

You don't know what I want
You don't know what I need
Why must I repeat myself
Can't you ######' read?
Nice ######' accents
Why can't you speak like me
What's that dot on you head,
Do you use it to see??


Sly ... very, very sly ...
   90. Hysterical & Useless Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5478917)
still the pushover in the face of tears.


If you ain't a pushover for your kid's tears, you ain't got no heart.

Me, I'm just a pushover, period.
   91. PepTech Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:34 PM (#5478919)
Seems a good a time to ask as any… What constitutes a White House official? There's a story about Spicer today… Just wondering. What are the staff positions that the press considers a "White House official"? Butlers? Staff aides? How many aides are there? How come no one can triangulate this kind of leaked info with actual people?
   92. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:34 PM (#5478921)
The music's great. Plus it really does look like they were having a blast.
   93. Franco American Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:43 PM (#5478923)
I will undoubtedly die from some treatable condition 'cos I hate paying money to a doctor to tell me I'm sick. And I hate medicine that doesn't come from a whiskey bottle.

...being in sound mind upon this subject, and having declared this wish repeatedly to my close friends-do hereby state my desire to be buried at sea. More specifically, I wish to be buried at sea at as close a possible point as the American poet Hart Crane died by choice in the sea; this would be ascrnatible, this geographic point, by the various books (biographical) upon his life and death. I wish to be sewn up in a canvas sack and dropped overboard, as stated above, as close as possible to where Hart Crane was given by himself to the great mother of life which is the sea: the Caribbean, specifically, if that fits the geography of his death. Otherwise—whereever fits it".
   94. Morty Causa Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:01 PM (#5478930)
No, everyone has heard of the agency I worked at, and could even figure out its mission from its name.

Since you characterized yourself as a non-partisan, that agency can only be the Ministry of Silly Talks.
   95. Rickey! will gladly sacrifice your janitor Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:08 PM (#5478932)
Since you characterized yourself as a non-partisan, that agency can only be the Ministry of Silly Talks.


One rarely agrees whole heartedly with Morty, but on this occasion it's obvious. Clapper may have put in 30+ years drawing a government paycheck due to his inability to compete in the private sector, but the idea that the boy is "nonpartisan" is ####### idiotic.
   96. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:11 PM (#5478933)
Seems a good a time to ask as any… What constitutes a White House official? There's a story about Spicer today… Just wondering. What are the staff positions that the press considers a "White House official"? Butlers? Staff aides? How many aides are there? How come no one can triangulate this kind of leaked info with actual people?

I don't think that there's a generally accepted standard. It's whoever an editor is comfortable running with.

FWIW, when I read "White House official," I think someone with Stephen Miller's rank or higher (his official title is "Senior Advisor to the President"). So not necessarily one of the top staffers, but someone fairly high up on the food chain who has enough credibility to convince an editor that they're in a position to know something. It's also not necessarily the seniority of the position; it could also be perceived proximity to DJT or his family (e.g., if Hope Hicks tipped off a White House reporter, then it would likely receive far greater weight than something a staffer of comparable rank would usually get, because she's been with the campaign so long and is very close to Ivanka).

It's almost certainly one of the political appointees, rather than a butler or another staff member who typically stays on beyond an administration.
   97. Jay Z Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:32 PM (#5478939)
Perhaps you shouldn't have taken your kid to the ER for something that just required a bandaid?


Perhaps the layman cannot determine the proper course of treatment.

I had a bad cut lip from playing basketball once. Friends suggested stitches. Doctor said with the position of the cut it would heal quickly, wasn't necessary.

I am not a doctor. The friends were not doctors. The doctor was a doctor, and had the knowledge that further treatment was unnecessary.

I want people making doctor visits when needed. The USA is doing an excellent job of training its citizens out of going to the doctor in reasonable circumstances</sarcasm> Health care is a social issue, really no other way to improve it other than focusing on society and the betterment of individuals. But then you don't believe in society.
   98. Morty Causa Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:45 PM (#5478942)
Hey, David believes everyone can be his own doctor and lawyer and scientist and economist and...
   99. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:47 PM (#5478943)
I want people making doctor visits when needed
Okay, but what does that have to do with making ER (not doctor) visits when not needed?

I want people to call the fire department when it's needed, but that doesn't mean you should waste department resources to put out a candle on a birthday cake.
   100. PepTech Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:58 PM (#5478945)
FWIW, when I read "White House official," I think someone with Stephen Miller's rank or higher (his official title is "Senior Advisor to the President"). So not necessarily one of the top staffers, but someone fairly high up on the food chain who has enough credibility to convince an editor that they're in a position to know something...

It's almost certainly one of the political appointees, rather than a butler or another staff member who typically stays on beyond an administration.
Kind of what I would expect, which means one would think A) there would be a relatively finite number of folks in the pool, and B) it's someone or someones that were believed to be loyal but apparently aren't. I mean, every "anonymous" official these days would have to know DJT hates leakers, or is leaking at his behest. Or both. I mean, that shouldn't be a "both" scenario, but who knows in these times.
Page 1 of 13 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
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJeffrey Loria has ‘no sad feelings whatsoever’ about selling the Marlins - Sun Sentinel
(9 - 12:07am, Aug 21)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOTP 14 August 2014: The American Pastimes of Rock ’n’ Roll, Baseball and Poetry
(2841 - 12:04am, Aug 21)
Last: Srul Itza At Home

NewsblogMLBTR: Dodgers Acquire Curtis Granderson
(27 - 11:57pm, Aug 20)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogMLB umpire protest: Umps unlikely to get sympathy from fans | SI.com
(18 - 11:37pm, Aug 20)
Last: Robert S.

NewsblogCC Sabathia went from lowest low to highest high in two weeks | New York Post
(14 - 11:29pm, Aug 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogAin't no WEEKEND OMNICHATTER until someone gets punched in the face, for August 19-20, 2017
(257 - 10:06pm, Aug 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogDaren Willman:"Breaking down the quality of contact chart (exit velocity / launch angle)
(3 - 9:53pm, Aug 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogReusse: Twins' altercation in 1967? Part about a gun on team bus was avoided
(1 - 9:34pm, Aug 20)
Last: winnipegwhip

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(1809 - 9:29pm, Aug 20)
Last: 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em

Sox TherapyThe Gauntlet
(77 - 8:46pm, Aug 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogJake Arrieta is pitching like an ace again — just in time for free agency - Chicago Tribune
(9 - 7:57pm, Aug 20)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com

Gonfalon CubsNow or Never
(106 - 7:06pm, Aug 20)
Last: Andere Richtingen

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(159 - 7:00pm, Aug 20)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogArthur: Buster Posey Has Quietly Become A Lock For Cooperstown
(114 - 6:18pm, Aug 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogGregg Olson: Orioles' emphasis on talented, structured bullpens is nothing new - Baltimore Sun
(4 - 5:23pm, Aug 20)
Last: Sunday silence

Page rendered in 0.8412 seconds
47 querie(s) executed