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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 106 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 >  Last ›
   10501. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4311414)
Well, now that I'm more educated, I'm less likely to support the GOP. Funny how that works.

I'm guessing you were never a big GOP supporter in the first place.

***
The Panama Canal treaty was great. It did not harm US interests, helped our standing in Latin America, and showed we could do the right thing. I eagerly await someone telling me I am deluded and why.

I don't see how it helped our standing in Latin America. It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.
   10502. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4311417)
Greg, I suspect he was talking about Taylor Fladgate Tawney 30.

That makes oodles more sense.

...though I still plan on getting very, very drunk on £4 port this weekend.
   10503. Ron J2 Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4311418)
Further to Rant' comments, Taylor Fladgate 30 is pretty much the top of the line in any Ontario liquor stores (other than the flagship stores with the huge Vintages section).

But I've done some of my dabbling at the Chateau Laurier and Taylor Fladgate 20 is the entry level port there. They have some that are significantly more expensive than the Taylor Fladgate 30. Never got around to trying them though.
   10504. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4311419)

The Panama Canal treaty was great. It did not harm US interests, helped our standing in Latin America, and showed we could do the right thing. I eagerly await someone telling me I am deluded and why.


At the time, it was bashed by Republicans (and Reagan in particular) as the greatest sellout in American history.
   10505. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4311420)
It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.


Why would that have been a particularly desirable outcome?
   10506. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4311423)
But I've done some of my dabbling at the Chateau Laurier and Taylor Fladgate 20 is the entry level port there. They have some that are significantly more expensive than the Taylor Fladgate 30. Never got around to trying them though.

I was at a place last weekend which allowed me to purchase a 4 litre fish bowl full of Tequila Sunrise. I didn't catch their port selection though.

I do love the diversity of experience drinking cultures provide.

   10507. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4311426)
I don't see how it helped our standing in Latin America.


Really? How do you think it impacted our standing in Latin America?

It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.


Complete non sequitor.
   10508. spike Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4311427)
...though I still plan on getting very, very drunk on £4 port this weekend.

You really need to look at Rants' last post.
   10509. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4311428)
@10428:
Given that, how exactly was my use of the word "powerful" some sort of dishonest offense?

a measly 3-percentage-point difference in a statistical analysis of two imbalanced samples with cherry-picked endpoints.


It is dishonest because you used the phrase "so powerful." You dishonestly and inaccurately positioned me as championing recent incumbency as this super powerful irresistible force. You did so so that you could pretend to score points by yourself characterizing it as "measly." You did all this while conveniently ignoring the simple fact that in my original post on the topic, I called the increase in HoR incumbency "marginal."

two imbalanced samples with cherry-picked endpoints. You also steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a lot of at-risk incumbents have, in recent years, tended to retire rather than risk losing and being tossed out of office. And yet I'm the one arguing dishonestly. Utterly comical.


I already explained the reasons for the samples and endpoints, but again, you conveniently ignore that explanation. I also invited you to suggest alternative endpoints, or to present your own data. You did neither.

Do you have any data to support your theory that incumbents have, in recent years, tended to retire in numbers out of step with the historical figures? That is what would be required to prove your theory that retirements account for the marginal increase in incumbency rates. Actually, don't bother: facts aren't your strong suit. I'll get them, because I'll enjoy watching you try to squirm out of their irrefutable truth.

Here are retirement figures more recent than the 1995 study I cited:
2012: 42 House members chose not to stand for re-election -- 9.6%, or exactly in-line with the historical number of ~10% that I cited earlier. (If anything, less retirements, because I said that in the 1940 to 1994 timeframe, the percentage of Reps seeking re-election was "high 80s/low 90s.")
In 2010, 37 incumbents retired (20 R, 17 D). That's 8.5% -- again, exactly in-line with the historical number of ~10%.
In 2008, 33 incumbents retired. 7.6%
In 2006, 28 incumbents retired. 6.4%

I couldn't find numbers for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, or 2004. Where are all the retirements? No, really, where are they? Obviously, the five elections I couldn't find are still sitting there...but is it likely that these five elections are outliers from the 1940 to 1994 and 2006 to 2012 data - all of which is consistent? Given the consistency of the data, I would think the burden is on you to come up with some data showing that there was some massive wave of incumbents choosing not to stand for re-election out of step with the historical -- and contemporary -- norms.

In your mind, do the numbers above cast any doubt on your contention that
a lot of at-risk incumbents have, in recent years, tended to retire rather than risk losing and being tossed out of office
??

   10510. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4311433)
At the time, it was bashed by Republicans (and Reagan in particular) as the greatest sellout in American history.


Viewed in that light one can consider Iran-Contra to be nothing more than mere one-upmanship.
   10511. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4311439)
You really need to look at Rants' last post.

I'll just balance it out with the way too expensive Chartreuse. I don't foresee any problems!

My long-running winning the lottery dream is to open a pub/library. Ideally near a university somewhere with mostly academic material. And a standing offer to buy a copy of any dissertations as they are completed. Just need enough money to not worry about the whole "profit" thing. And there'll be plenty of room on the payroll for specialized liquor consultants...
   10512. BrianBrianson Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4311443)
I'm guessing you were never a big GOP supporter in the first place.


As a thirty year old white guy making ~$50k/year who's married to a woman, that's a problem for them. I've voted for candidates from the pretty right wing to the extremely left wing; usually "how competent is this person likely to be?" is the main question I ask myself.

But the relative change is interesting, because it illustrates the point really well.
   10513. zonk Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4311447)
Tawny" written on the label for £3.99.



I can't see that being tawny, unless its an exceptionally bad batch that was contaminated with rat #### or something. A quart of Taylor Fladgate Tawny 30 is $153.29 at my local (government run) store.


"Tawny" just means the port is red grape based and was aged in a wooden barrel -- if it doesn't have a year with it (10-30-40-etc), you can assume it's just the minimum aging... about two years.

I love ports; absolutely love them... but don't bother with a bad port - it's worth paying more for a fine bottle/glass, which WILL get quite expensive. It's just not something you're going to want to necessarily 'split' a bottle of with someone - it should be enjoyed in smaller servings, a glass or two at a time. Drinking a port already drunk is a waste...

The odd thing is that I generally dislike the sweeter liqueurs and liquors - I don't care for bourbons, abhor stuff like SoCo, schnapps, etc. But a good port? Nothing finer...
   10514. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4311453)
On the Asians being oppressed in American issue:

Being the model minority means you're a target from those above and below you in the social strata.

During the L.A. Riots for instance, Korean shopkeepers and Liquor store owners bad to personally protect their shops with rifles and guns from rioters who resented them for selling them 'vices' (tobacco, liquor, etc) and not living in the area, and participating in the larger community. Of course, if they did, they would have faced severe discrimination from the very same people who were rioting.
   10515. zonk Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4311455)
Taylor Fladgate is excellent - I've never owned a bottle myself, but have splurged on some of the more expensive single glasses and never come away disappointed, despite the fact many of those single glasses have been more expensive than some of my standard bar tabs.

I don't claim to be a port expert - but folks I know who do claim to be such have told me it's the top of the heap.
   10516. Srul Itza Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4311456)
YR:

1. It's Srul, not Saul
2. Ge cocken offen yam.
   10517. Srul Itza Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4311461)
I might have been more likely to toss my vote away like I did in . . . 2000 (voted for Nader).


YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!! IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!
   10518. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4311464)
Really? How do you think it impacted our standing in Latin America?

It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.

Complete non sequitor.

How is it a non sequitur? Your theory is that the Panama Canal Treaty helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America, but there's not a lot of evidence to support that. Central America was one headache after another for the U.S. throughout the 1980s, and then leftism swept South America in the '90s and early 2000s, just as the Panama Canal was being transferred.
   10519. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4311467)
1. It's Srul, not Saul


My mistake. Well, autocorrect's mistake, but you'd think by this time I'd know to proofread. Apologies, especially because this was the second time I'd made this specific mistake, by my recollection.

2. Ge cocken offen yam.


Nice. Tun Sie Ihrer Mutter mit, dass Mund kussen?
   10520. zonk Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4311472)
How is it a non sequitur? Your theory is that the Panama Canal Treaty helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America, but there's not a lot of evidence to support that. Central America was one headache after another for the U.S. throughout the 1980s, and then leftism swept South America in the '90s and early 2000s, just as the Panama Canal was being transferred.


Yeah - national populaces tend to be upset when your 'freedom fighters' tend to sidelight as drug runners, that blow up nuns... You'd be surprised how often people who may not necessarily like their "leftist" governments either, tend to rally around the powers that are in power when bombs from the 'rebels' rip through cafes.

Our central American 'headaches' are legacies of more than a century of bad/short-sighted policies, all of which are tied back to the basic fallacy that we'd be greeted as "liberatots"/"job creators"/"civilizers"....
   10521. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4311476)
My long-running winning the lottery dream is to open a pub/library. Ideally near a university somewhere with mostly academic material. And a standing offer to buy a copy of any dissertations as they are completed. Just need enough money to not worry about the whole "profit" thing. And there'll be plenty of room on the payroll for specialized liquor consultants...

I always wanted a four story building with the world's best used book shop on the first floor, a 40 table pool / snooker / 3-cushion billiards emporium above it, with gambling openly encouraged and road players provided with free lodging on the third floor, in order to avoid their usual embarrassment of having to sleep in their cars. Topped with a jazz club on the fourth floor with great acoustics and a cheap cover charge. It would be a little slice of World War II Norfolk grafted onto the Washington, DC of the 2010's, just to give our modern gizmo-obsessed robots an idea of what life might be like when you're not staring at your hand-held device during every waking moment.
   10522. Spahn Insane Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4311479)
I love ports; absolutely love them... but don't bother with a bad port - it's worth paying more for a fine bottle/glass, which WILL get quite expensive. It's just not something you're going to want to necessarily 'split' a bottle of with someone - it should be enjoyed in smaller servings, a glass or two at a time. Drinking a port already drunk is a waste...

All true. Port's meant to be sipped, in modest quantities, post meal or with dessert.

If you can find any stateside, I'm partial to the ports of Quinta de la Rosa.
   10523. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4311480)
Our central American 'headaches' are legacies of more than a century of bad/short-sighted policies, all of which are tied back to the basic fallacy that we'd be greeted as "liberatots"/"job creators"/"civilizers"....

You mean like this?
   10524. Spahn Insane Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4311481)
I will say, though--if you're gonna get drunk on port, make it a 4-(British)pound-a-bottle port. There's a very wide variance between good ports and bad ones.
   10525. Srul Itza Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4311484)
YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.


Are you sure this isn't another case of an Onion article being mistaken for the real thing?
   10526. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4311488)
YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.

Dude, he uses his super scientific ToughtPrint technique to 'read between the lines.' It's not like he's just making #### up.


I think the only invocation of science came when another poster said evolutionary theory made voting for Hindis adaptive or something. I think I'm mainly offering opinion here, but I do notice my request for the neurophysiological correlate of these hard-coded evolutionary adaptations went unfilled.


We're getting to the point where not even the Onion would print this ####.
   10527. BDC Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4311495)
I don't drink much fortified wine, but, being an awfully interesting man, when I do, it's usually Madeira. More for the inherently interesting qualities of how it's made than anything else. One wine book I read once opined that Madeira, being already cooked and put through ten kinds of hell (originally, shipped around the world in pipes used as ballast), is impervious to any kind of spoilage and will easily outlive you if you put it in a window in full sunlight. I love factoids like that.

There's a Norwegian akvavit, Linie, that traditionally got a similar treatment. As a spirit, akvavit is less prone to spoilage anyway, but it makes it a very romantic drink (and like Madeira, it's legitimately delicious, too).
   10528. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4311498)
It is dishonest because you used the phrase "so powerful." You dishonestly and inaccurately positioned me as championing recent incumbency as this super powerful irresistible force.

Yikes. If my use of the word "so" was dishonest hyperbole, then what is the above?

You did so so that you could pretend to score points by yourself characterizing it as "measly."

I didn't use the word "measly" until 24 or 36 hours later. Do you think I was playing some sort of long game here? This is really bizarre.

Here are retirement figures more recent than the 1995 study I cited:
2012: 42 House members chose not to stand for re-election -- 9.6%, or exactly in-line with the historical number of ~10% that I cited earlier. (If anything, less retirements, because I said that in the 1940 to 1994 timeframe, the percentage of Reps seeking re-election was "high 80s/low 90s.")
In 2010, 37 incumbents retired (20 R, 17 D). That's 8.5% -- again, exactly in-line with the historical number of ~10%.
In 2008, 33 incumbents retired. 7.6%
In 2006, 28 incumbents retired. 6.4%

What is this supposed to prove? Given that not every congressman wants to remain in the House until he or she dies — thank God — there will be retirements in every cycle. The discussion was regarding *who* retired and *when.* You want us to believe it was a big coincidence that 20 House Dem incumbents just happened to retire in the wave election of 1994 and then watched as their seats were won by Republicans. You also want us to believe it was a big coincidence that 12 House Dem incumbents just happened to retire in the wave election of 2010 and then watched as their seats were won by Republicans. It's absurd.

I couldn't find numbers for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, or 2004.

Wikipedia has every election going back decades. Here's 1996; just change the year in the URL for the rest.

In your mind, do the numbers above cast any doubt on your contention that

a lot of at-risk incumbents have, in recent years, tended to retire rather than risk losing and being tossed out of office

??

No, absolutely not. I don't believe it was a big coincidence that 20 House Dem incumbents retired in 1994 and saw their seats won by Republicans. Are you seriously claiming that none of those 20 took notice of the political winds — or perhaps the polling from their districts — and decided to get out before they were thrown out?
   10529. zonk Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4311504)
I will say, though--if you're gonna get drunk on port, make it a 4-(British)pound-a-bottle port. There's a very wide variance between good ports and bad ones.


Is there such a thing as a British 'port'? I was under the impression that like true 'champagne' needing to originate from a specific French region, "ports" were only produced from a specific area in Portugal (northern Portugal... the Douro region, I think?)... I know Madeiras have to come from the islands of the same name....

That said - I also know that Portugal has/had a long, long, long (as in, 2-3-400 years) 'special' import/export relation with England regarding its wines that included exclusivity, so I imagine that "British ports" might actually be proper Portuguese ports simply distributed via England...
   10530. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4311507)
Yeah - national populaces tend to be upset when your 'freedom fighters' tend to sidelight as drug runners, that blow up nuns... You'd be surprised how often people who may not necessarily like their "leftist" governments either, tend to rally around the powers that are in power when bombs from the 'rebels' rip through cafes.

That explains Nicaragua. What explains Panama, El Salvador, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, etc., etc.?*

(* Other than the U.S. schools many of their leaders attended.)
   10531. Spahn Insane Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4311508)
Is there such a thing as a British 'port'? I was under the impression that like true 'champagne' needing to originate from a specific French region, "ports" were only produced from a specific area in Portugal (northern Portugal... the Douro region, I think?)... I know Madeiras have to come from the islands of the same name....

I'm not sure about that--I asked the same question of a server recently who was telling me about a California vineyard producing its own "port" (i.e., "Is it really port if it's not made in Portugal?"). Perhaps they get around it by calling it "American Port."

Say, you ever been to the Douro Valley? Spectacular (albeit harrowing) drive.

EDIT: Re the original question, Wiki sez: "Port wine (also known as Vinho do Porto, Portuguese pronunciation: [?vi?udu?po?tu], Porto, and often simply port) is a Portuguese fortified wine produced exclusively in the Douro Valley in the northern provinces of Portugal.[1] It is typically a sweet, red wine, often served as a dessert wine though it also comes in dry, semi-dry, and white varieties. Fortified wines in the style of port are also produced outside Portugal, most notably in Australia, South Africa, Canada, India, Argentina, and the United States."
   10532. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4311511)
The port I got drunk on actually wasn't bad, it was a Fladgate Late Bottled Vintage. I just drank too much too fast, smoked one cigar too many, and followed it up with a ride in a the middle of the back seat of a Jetta being driven by an ex-military.
   10533. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4311514)
Is there such a thing as a British 'port'?


Ipswich?
   10534. Spahn Insane Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4311515)
That said - I also know that Portugal has/had a long, long, long (as in, 2-3-400 years) 'special' import/export relation with England regarding its wines that included exclusivity, so I imagine that "British ports" might actually be proper Portuguese ports simply distributed via England...

But they still have to be produced in Portugal. You're right about the "special" relationships, though, which is why so many port producers have Anglo-sounding names (Sandeman, Offley, etc.).
   10535. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4311523)
Both Australia and America make Port. Only fortified wines from the Douro Valley of Portugal may be called port or Porto within the EU but manufacturers outside of the EU can do whatever they like. Well, they still have to follow their local wine laws but they can call their stuff whatever they like within those guidelines.

   10536. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4311527)
Is there such a thing as a British 'port'?

Ipswich?


I would have gone with Dover, but I guess that works, too.
   10537. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4311529)
That explains Nicaragua. What explains Panama, El Salvador, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, etc., etc.?


Argentina: 1- The "dirty war"
2- pissed off at us for supporting the Brits during the Falklands conflict,

Venezuela: 1- turned leftist for its own internal reasons, turned anti-US because their Gov has sought to portray us as the "big bad" largely for internal reasons+ Chavez thinks Bush tried to have him overthrown in a coup (personally I'd like to think that if we were behind it, it would have succeeded)

Brazil? when did they start hating us? Moreover, Brazil's version of leftism light is the type of "leftism" that didn't bother anyone here (except the Birchers) during the cold war, why should it bother us now?

el Salvador? seriously? do you have any idea how much we effed with them in the 70s and 80s?

   10538. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4311531)
You also want us to believe it was a big coincidence that 12 House Dem incumbents just happened to retire in the wave election of 2010 and then watched as their seats were won by Republicans. It's absurd.


Your theory seems to be that the marginal increase in incumbency can be entirely/mostly explained by vulnerable incumbents retiring.

Assuming that 2010 was a wave election, shouldn't a historically unprecedented number of Dems have retired to avoid defeat? And yet, only 17 did (12 of those seats flipped to R, 5 stayed D), a number *not at all* out of step with historical numbers in any other election. Perhaps more damning to your argument, MORE Republicans retired than Dems in 2010. How can that be so in a GOP wave year, since, according to you, "vulnerable incumbents tend to retire in recent years?" A historically unprecedented number of incumbent Dems did NOT retire. Rather, we saw almost precisely the amount of retirement we'd expect to see in any other election year (if anything, we saw *less* retirement in 2010 than we might expect based on historical precedent). How do you explain this? How does it fit within your theory that most retiring incumbents are vulnerable? Were the 20 GOP Reps who retired in 2010 also "vulnerable?" (In fact, isn't it at least as likely that one of the major contributing factors to 12 of those 17 seats flipping was precisely because there was no incumbent running?) Were the incumbent Dems who chose not to retire and who were defeated just bad at reading the tea leaves? Since they lost, by definition, they must have been "vulnerable incumbents." Why didn't they all retire, too?



The numbers tell the story: whether an election is a Dem wave, a GOP wave, or a status quo election, essentially the same number of Representatives retire in election after election after election. And then, after accounting for these retirements, we examine incumbency rates. And we find that they have increased in recent years.

It is a basic principle: if we hold Factor X constant in a given system (here, retirement rates), and the output of the system changes (more incumbents seeking re-election won re-election), Factor X almost certainly isn't the explanation for that change.

EDIT: Here is a scholarly article (from PolSci dept at U of Cal) addressing your contention. Its conclusion: "when the bias induced by strategic retirement is removed, much of the apparent incumbency advantage and its increase over time remain evident." http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011_jtp_strategic-retirement.pdf

   10539. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4311533)
That said - I also know that Portugal has/had a long, long, long (as in, 2-3-400 years) 'special' import/export relation with England regarding its wines that included exclusivity, so I imagine that "British ports" might actually be proper Portuguese ports simply distributed via England...

It's always been my understanding that port is by definition Portugese, but has a special popularity in Britain dating to the Napoleonic period. At the height of his power Napoleon was able to maintain a quasi embargo on Britain which covered almost all of Europe. As Britain didn't produce its own wine that meant that almost the only wine coming in was through the one nation that was free of Napoleonic rule - Portugal. I think port had always existed as a product in Britain, but the early 19th century was it's hey-day.

As for the £4 bottle of port under discussion, it's British in that it's being sold in Britain, it is still a product of Portugal.
   10540. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4311534)
Oddly enough the most commonly available port in liquor stores in America also generally tend to be among the best of the port makers. Taylor Fladgate, Fonseca, Dow's, and Sandeman are all commonly available and all make good ports.

   10541. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4311541)
Romney to meet with Obama at White House.

I assume if lunch is served, that Romney will be given the option of baked crow, or just a slice of humble pie.

Maybe they'll split the bill, and Romney will cover 47% of it.

   10542. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4311543)
It's always been my understanding that port is by definition Portugese, but has a special popularity in Britain dating to the Napoleonic period. At the height of his power Napoleon was able to maintain a quasi embargo on Britain which covered almost all of Europe. As Britain didn't produce its own wine that meant that almost the only wine coming in was through the one nation that was free of Napoleonic rule - Portugal. I think port had always existed as a product in Britain, but the early 19th century was it's hey-day

It goes back about century before the Napoleonic Wars. Like almost everything its popularity is based largely on taxes and food preservation.
   10543. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4311547)
By the way, speaking of food history, has anyone watched "The Supersizers Go" with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins? Each episode is a different historical period in which they have to live (food, drink, dress, social activities) for a week. It's more entertainment than history but I find them jolly good fun.

Here's the episode on the Regency which should cover that era.

EDIT: I'll bow to what I'm sure is McCoy's superior knowledge in this area.
   10544. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4311552)
   10545. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4311554)
I think retro-shiite was trying to say that it was a £4 bottle, not a 4 lb bottle, rather than the origin of the product. At least that's how I took it.
   10546. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4311555)
Romney to meet with Obama at White House.

I assume if lunch is served, that Romney will be given the option of baked crow, or just a slice of humble pie.

Maybe they'll split the bill, and Romney will cover 47% of it.


How much do you want to wager Romney is only going because Obama promised him free stuff?
   10547. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4311556)
I love Port but I can't spend over $50 on a bottle so is there something reasonably priced ?
   10548. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4311557)
Republican leaders embrace their party's diversity.


I dunno, I see a guy on the bottom row who looks like he might be part eggplant.
   10549. spike Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4311559)
Republican leaders embrace their party's diversity.

Looking on the bright side, at least that means Bachmann didn't get a chairmanship.
   10550. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4311560)
How is it a non sequitur? Your theory is that the Panama Canal Treaty helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America, but there's not a lot of evidence to support that. Central America was one headache after another for the U.S. throughout the 1980s, and then leftism swept South America in the '90s and early 2000s, just as the Panama Canal was being transferred.


So to you "standing" means they run their country how we want them to? That is crazy. The feelings of the Latin American people and governments towards the US was improved by the US handing the canal back to Panama.

This is not in a vaccuum, the alternative is we kept it. Would the standing of the US in the region been improved by the US keeping the canal?

Your implication that handing over the canal caused (incited) the "wave of leftism" is silly. Things happen, both good and bad. Some of them relate to the feelings in the region about the US, the vast majority relate to other things.

But seriously do you think the handover was a bad idea? If so why? Your arguing about "standing" is more than a little odd, especially since it was one of three points in favor and not the most significant.
   10551. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4311565)
I meant to add that Portugal and England hand been trading wines for over 400 years by the time the Napoleonic Wars came around.

The big dust ups started in the mid 1600's when England and France, among other things, got into a trading war which after a series of raised tariffs resulted in England banning French wines. This resulted in increase sales of Portuguese wine but at the time their wine was largely watery crap. English merchants moved inland to the mountainous Douro region and established routes to Oporto. After the War of Spanish Succession England and Portugal signed a treaty that among other things taxed Port at a third less than French wines which created a boom period for Port.

What we have come to know as Port didn't exist until the latter half of the 18th century. Up until that point Port makers did not add brandy during fermentation. They stated doing so in the last half of the 18th century and it wouldn't become universal until the 1840's and 1850's.

Another big development to port was engineer work on the Cachao river. Up until the late 18th century a waterfall in the river made it impossible to transport goods to and from a good chunk of the Douro region. Once they removed the waterfall it made a good chunk of area available for cultivation and that area proved to produce better quality grapes.
   10552. zonk Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4311568)
I love Port but I can't spend over $50 on a bottle so is there something reasonably priced ?


The Quinta de la Rosa that Retro mentioned is quite good -- I'm not sure how readily available it is in the US, though - I only had it because my brother's restaurant's liquor guy happened have to a parcel my brother picked up.... I'm not 100% certain if it was just a special deal or what, but he priced it at the lower end of the port section on his menu, and I found it to be quite good, as Retro mentioned. In fact, I thought it was better than a couple of the high end glasses on his menu that I've tried.
   10553. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4311571)
By the way, speaking of food history, has anyone watched "The Supersizers Go" with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins? Each episode is a different historical period in which they have to live (food, drink, dress, social activities) for a week. It's more entertainment than history but I find them jolly good fun.

I saw most of the first season. I found it interesting but a little threadbare.

I love Port but I can't spend over $50 on a bottle so is there something reasonably priced ?


Stick with a well known brand and get their basic tawnys. You should also be able to find 10yr old Tawnys for under $30 at this time of year.
   10554. Ron J2 Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4311580)
#10547 As I said, my (limited) experience with port is that you get what you pay for. I know some of the good ports get around the price sensitivity by selling small bottles.

I have heard that Niepoort 10 is a decent price/quality value but I can't speak from experience.
   10555. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4311583)
Quinta de la Rosa is available by me, though not in every shop. You have to go to some of the better ones to find it. For instance Calvert-Woodley has a 10 year old Tawny port in a 500ml bottle for 26 dollars and a 2006 LBV (500ml) for 21 dollars.
   10556. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4311586)
I have heard that Niepoort 10 is a decent price/quality value but I can't speak from experience.


I would assume Nieporent would be cheap.
   10557. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4311594)
If it's not wrong to support politicians who share one's background and cultural outlook, then why do you keep complaining that Asian-Americans are underrepresented at the highest levels of government?
I'm just pointing out that Asian-Americans are underrepresented in the upper levels of national government. It's not a complaint, it's a factual observation. Nowhere have I said that white voters shouldn't vote for white candidates, or blacks for black candidates, etc.

As for movements, a town near my own just elected the nation's first Vietnamese mayor. My own city has had a Chinese mayor and several Asian-American council members. It takes a while for people to become politically active, and for the voting population to be come accustomed to new voices.
   10558. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4311597)
Your theory seems to be that the marginal increase in incumbency can be entirely/mostly explained by vulnerable incumbents retiring.

Again, that marginal increase was only 3 percentage points, and it might not even be an increase if the samples were balanced and/or some year other than 1980 was used as the cut-off.

Assuming that 2010 was a wave election, shouldn't a historically unprecedented number of Dems have retired to avoid defeat? And yet, only 17 did (12 of those seats flipped to R, 5 stayed D), a number *not at all* out of step with historical numbers in any other election.

Oh, so now you're acknowledging the possibility that at-risk incumbents might retire, but complaining that I haven't doubled down on it by projecting "historically unprecedented" numbers of retirements in certain years?

Given that Dems had only held the House for four years in 2010, which meant there were fewer long-term Dem incumbents than in the '90s, and given that political pundits were still predicting in late 2009 that the Dems would enjoy a "permanent majority" for years to come, it's probably not surprising that a "historically unprecedented number of Dems" didn't retire in 2010.

Perhaps more damning to your argument, MORE Republicans retired than Dems in 2010. How can that be so in a GOP wave year, since, according to you, "vulnerable incumbents tend to retire in recent years?"

How is that damning? Politicians generally try to ensure their seats will be retained by their own party. Years like 2010 are the best possible time for incumbents of the winning party to pass the torch. This is Politics 101.

A historically unprecedented number of incumbent Dems did NOT retire. Rather, we saw almost precisely the amount of retirement we'd expect to see in any other election year (if anything, we saw *less* retirement in 2010 than we might expect based on historical precedent). How do you explain this?

I just did; see above.

How does it fit within your theory that most retiring incumbents are vulnerable? (In fact, isn't it at least as likely that one of the major contributing factors to 12 of those 17 seats flipping was precisely because there was no incumbent running?) Were the incumbent Dems who chose not to retire and who were defeated just bad at reading the tea leaves? Since they lost, by definition, they must have been "vulnerable incumbents." Why didn't they all retire, too?

If you've been in the House for 30 years and then you lose, that's an ignominious ending to a long political career. If you've been in the House for two years or four years, as was the case with a lot of the House Dems who lost in 2010, it's a different story.

EDIT: Here is a scholarly article (from PolSci dept at U of Cal) addressing your contention. Its conclusion: "when the bias induced by strategic retirement is removed, much of the apparent incumbency advantage and its increase over time remain evident." http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011_jtp_strategic-retirement.pdf

I'm glad you're (finally) conceding that there's such a thing as strategic retirement. I'll read the linked article in a few minutes.
   10559. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4311598)
From that WND article YR linked to:

He explains his observations:

“On election night after initial voting reports declared him the winner, Obama once more unconsciously pointed to a confession. Before his anxious and relieved supporters, Obama spoke of his pride in his daughters but commented, ‘But I will say this for now, one dog’s probably enough’ – on the surface referring back to promising his daughters a puppy after his 2008 victory,” Hodges said.

“But stay with his spontaneous right-brain image. Understand he could have chosen any matter on which to comment and any description but his brilliant unconscious mind which always speaks in a symbolic right-brain language – and carefully chooses its images – selected ‘one dog is enough.’

“Read his confession that America has just elected a dog of a president – and once was enough,” Hodges said.

“He suggests that he’s dogging it as president, faking it as an illegal president in a second way now with a stolen election. That he’s a real ‘dog’ for such deception. The image of a dog further suggests: a pet favored by the media and blind supporters who would not dare to explore his illegality by birth or unfair election; that he will dog or haunt America for another four years because a dog also bites especially a wounded one. (And Obama is deeply wounded beyond belief.) Once again Obama unconsciously points to his deceptive anger and indeed he has bitten/assaulted America in multiple ways, both covert and overt, and plans on more of the same.”
   10560. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4311601)
Argentina


Argentina has a long and complicated economic history, the short version is that the Argentinian left has generally been incompetent in economic matters while the Argentinian right has been incompetent and criminal in economic matters. My favorite little scrap of evidence is that the current Argentinian peso is worth 10 trillion of the first peso, the peso moneda nacional. Imagine if a current US dollar was worth 10 trillion of an 1890 dollar and you see a hint of their economic miseries.
   10561. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4311614)
Imagine if a current US dollar was worth 10 trillion of an 1890 dollar and you see a hint of their economic miseries.

I wonder how much a Confederate dollar is worth now or a banknote from the Bank of Missoula is worth nowadays. Our money supply wasn't always so neat and tidy.
   10562. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4311623)
So to you "standing" means they run their country how we want them to? That is crazy.

No, that's not what I said.

The feelings of the Latin American people and governments towards the US was improved by the US handing the canal back to Panama.

Where is the proof of this? In what ways was that alleged good will exhibited toward the U.S.?

This is not in a vaccuum, the alternative is we kept it. Would the standing of the US in the region been improved by the US keeping the canal?

The Panama Canal wouldn't have existed without the U.S., and the same might be true for Panama itself, at least the independent Panama. I don't see why the U.S. was under any obligation to give the canal and canal zone to Panama, and given the instability in the region at the time, it was a risky promise on Carter's part. Beyond that, it's not like the U.S. had been occupying the entire nation; only the narrow canal zone.

Your implication that handing over the canal caused (incited) the "wave of leftism" is silly. Things happen, both good and bad. Some of them relate to the feelings in the region about the US, the vast majority relate to other things.

I didn't say that, either. I simply pointed out that the region trended in the opposite direction of U.S.-style liberty and democracy during the same period that the U.S.'s standing in Latin America allegedly increased due to Jimmy Carter's largesse.

But seriously do you think the handover was a bad idea? If so why? Your arguing about "standing" is more than a little odd, especially since it was one of three points in favor and not the most significant.

Well, my (futile) attempt to undo the Panama Canal Treaty in the 1990 Central New York Model Congress notwithstanding, I no longer believe it was a bad idea (or, more accurately, it was a bad or risky idea that worked out well, as Panama is booming now). I just don't believe it helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America.
   10563. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4311627)
He explains his observations:


This guy needs to get his meds adjusted


   10564. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4311630)
   10565. DA Baracus Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4311635)
From that WND article YR linked to:


That must have taken forever to write from all the times the writer had to stop laughing between sentences.
   10566. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4311639)
One of Romney's campaign guys has published a deeply delusional op-ed in the Washington Post it's easy to see how his campaign was so out of touch they thought they were winning,
   10567. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4311647)

The Panama Canal wouldn't have existed without the U.S., and the same might be true for Panama itself, at least the independent Panama. I don't see why the U.S. was under any obligation to give the canal and canal zone to Panama. It's not like the U.S. had been occupying the entire nation.


Lets put it this way, say England, France, or China had a canal in the U.S. that they owned and operated. Do you think the U.S. would have let that continue to exist? In fact, England faced the same situation in Egypt with the Cairo canal and with U.S, pressure to give it up, and they did.

Besides, running that Panama canal costs hundred of millions to run and maintain, and billions to update when it needs it. Its easier to let Panama to run it and pay the fees when needed.
   10568. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4311654)
No, that's not what I said.


Yes it is. You directly equated standing with the politics of the region - which is silly.

I don't see how it helped our standing in Latin America. It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.


The Panama Canal wouldn't have existed without the U.S., and the same might be true for Panama itself, at least the independent Panama. I don't see why the U.S. was under any obligation to give the canal and canal zone to Panama. It's not like the U.S. had been occupying the entire nation.


Completely nonresponsive. Would the standing of the US in the region been improved by the US keeping the canal? Because those are the two options - give it back or keep it.

I no longer believe it was a bad idea. I just don't believe it helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America.


Again 'standing in Latin America' was just one of my points. I should think it would be obvious that returning control of land to a nation would be seen to be a positive to those people, especially given the reputation of the US in the region. This action by Jimmy Carter was a step - though small - towards improving our reputation in addition (not coincidentaly) to being the right thing to do. I am glad you have come around to the liberal way of thinking on this.
   10569. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4311656)
One of Romney's campaign guys has published a deeply delusional op-ed in the Washington Post it's easy to see how his campaign was so out of touch they thought they were winning,
I don't find much objectionable in that op-ed-- it seems like a predictable attempt at face-saving sprinkled with some dishonesty. I think he's wrong on his interpretation of the events, but what else is he supposed to write after the campaign he ran failed so badly?
   10570. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4311657)
The big dust ups started in the mid 1600's when England and France, among other things, got into a trading war which after a series of raised tariffs resulted in England banning French wines.



I bet the Dutch were indirectly involved as well cause that's how they used to roll.
   10571. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4311663)
I bet the Dutch were indirectly involved as well cause that's how they used to roll.

Actually depending on the when they were pretty directly involved in English trade. England and the Dutch had wars in the 1650s, 1660s, and 1670s stemming from trade.
   10572. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4311664)
Again, that marginal increase was only 3 percentage points, and it might not even be an increase if the samples were balanced and/or some year other than 1980 was used as the cut-off.


I will repeat the explanation for the endpoints and unbalanced samples, since you seem to be unable to recall it. The original statement was that incumbency had increased in the past 30 years. Thus, 1980 seemed like a logical endpoint. I'll cheerfully run the numbers for any endpoints you want, however. With respect to the imbalanced samples, I was able to find numbers going back only as far as 1964 at a quick search. I have now found the numbers going back much further. The average HoR incumbency, for 15 election cycles:

1982 to 2010: 94%
1952 to 1980: 92%

Again, we come up with a marginal increase in incumbency.

How is that damning? Politicians generally try to ensure their seats will be retained by their own party. Years like 2010 are the best possible time for incumbents of the winning party to pass the torch. This is Politics 101.

The bit about wanting to retire in a year when your party is likely to do well is probably true. But in the context of your larger argument, it demonstrates that retirement cuts both ways: those 20 Republicans who retired were (I assume) very likely to be re-elected in 2010. That would have driven the incumbency percentage for 2010 up. This is why when the HoR retirement rates hold steady, as they have for the past ~75 years, it seems dubious to use retirements - strategic or not - to explain the increased incumbent retention rates that are evident. As in, retirements are just as likely to come from the winning party (for strategic reasons) as they are from the losing party. Do you have any evidence to refute this?

I'm glad you're (finally) conceding that there's such a thing as strategic retirement.


When did I ever deny its existence? What I've maintained is that strategic retirement fails to account for the increase in the rate at which incumbents are re-elected. I continue to maintain that.
   10573. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4311665)
Oh, and in case you were wondering what the Unskewed Polls guy was up to - it's barackofraudo.com!

Makes me wonder if Joe's behind this guy, in an attempt to make Joe's interpretations look sane by comparison.

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

One of Romney's campaign guys has published a deeply delusional op-ed in the Washington Post it's easy to see how his campaign was so out of touch they thought they were winning,

A few choice quotes:

He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift....

He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor
   10574. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4311667)
From #10566
I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.


What?!

Romney was the default primary winner when this whole thing started two years ago. Short of some HUGE event completely derailing his progress (illegal taxes, affair, whatever), everyone knew he'd simply outlast the crazies running against him.
   10575. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4311669)
I don't find much objectionable in that op-ed


I didn't say "objectionable" I said delusional, as in his business about winning seniors meant that Romney has successfully altered the debate over "entitlements"


and my, oh my, he won a majority of people making 50k+ a year!!!!!
   10576. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4311673)
Lets put it this way, say England, France, or China had a canal in the U.S. that they owned and operated. Do you think the U.S. would have let that continue to exist?

Panama might not have existed at all but for the U.S.'s involvement, and Panama reaped huge rewards from the U.S.'s presence, both in terms of economics and (relative) political stability. It's not a coincidence that Panama has the highest per capita GDP in Central America.

Besides, running that Panama canal costs hundred of millions to run and maintain, and billions to update when it needs it. Its easier to let Panama to run it and pay the fees when needed.

Ha ha. I hope you're not in charge of the BBTF Investment Fund. The Panama Canal generated $800 million in profits last year.
   10577. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4311674)
I think he's wrong on his interpretation of the events, but what else is he supposed to write after the campaign he ran failed so badly?

Good point. When you're stuck with a lemon, the best you can do is try to sell lemonade. I love the way he makes a big point out of Romney's winning young white voters by 7% (most of whom were concentrated in safely red states), as if that's something to brag about when every other group is overwhelmingly against you.

   10578. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4311677)
Romney was the default primary winner when this whole thing started two years ago. Short of some HUGE event completely derailing his progress (illegal taxes, affair, whatever), everyone knew he'd simply outlast the crazies running against him.

Romney: 2012 Republican primaries = Cleveland Indians: 1954 American League, minus the Yankees and White Sox. Too bad about the World Series and general elections.
   10579. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4311678)
Ha ha. I hope you're not in charge of the BBTF Investment Fund. The Panama Canal generated $800 million in profits last year.


Do you really think Panama would allow all, most, or even some of that to get back to the United States? It is kinda interesting that in this instance, you're okay with governmental instruction in another entity's business. Or is it only okay when you know its screwing over another government instead of a private business?

There's no reason to run the Panama Canal other than 'firsties'.
   10580. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4311681)
He trounced Barack Obama in debate.


well he did the 1st one didn't he?
and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.


I guess I missed that part, but he most certainly inadvertently drew attention to the Randian/libertarin belief in a moocher/taker dichotomy that seems to lie behind some "conservative" economic ideas...

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed.

... by running the hell away from Ryan's tax plan and refusing to offer any details, and then doing a 180 during the 1st debate... so oooh yeah, he brought the fight to the Dems on entitlement reform... NOT.


   10581. spike Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4311683)
I love the way he makes a big point out of Romney's winning young white voters by 7%

You have been told repeatedly that Barack underperformed this election.
   10582. Spahn Insane Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4311685)
I bet the Dutch were indirectly involved as well cause that's how they used to roll.

Directly involved, in fact. Another prominent port house, Niepoort, is Dutch-owned to this day.
   10583. Lassus Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4311686)
On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Congratulations on winning the majority vote of the minority of population. I recommend sticking with that strategy.
   10584. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4311687)
On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Congratulations on winning a majority vote of a minority of population. I recommend sticking with that strategy.


If you're relying on this very small data point, the goal of the Republican party should be then is to elevate as many people into this group and see what policies they can promote to help do that. Just cutting taxes won't accomplish that.
   10585. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4311693)
Do you really think Panama would allow all, most, or even some of that to get back to the United States? It is kinda interesting that in this instance, you're okay with governmental instruction in another entity's business. Or is it only okay when you know its screwing over another government instead of a private business?

There's no reason to run the Panama Canal other than 'firsties'.

I'm not following any of this. The U.S. built and controlled the Panama Canal. How or why would Panama have been able to prevent the U.S. from repatriating earnings from the Canal?
   10586. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4311695)
If the Canal was in American hands it probably would not be so profitable if at all profitable. Within a few short years after the transfer of owenrship Panama doubled the amount of revenue being taken in by tha canal. This was largely achieved through canal work and a change in the pricing system that had been left unchanged since 1912.

As owners of the Canal they were spending over 300 million a year in Panama while taking in 500 million in receipts and that doesn't include armed forces expenses and expenses not incurred inside Panama but having to do with the canal.
   10587. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4311697)
If you're relying on this very small data point, the goal of the Republican party should be then is to elevate as many people into this group and see what policies they can promote to help do that.


no, relying on this data point the GOP goal has been to suppress/hinder the vote of the people under this group as much as possible.

elevating more people into this group runs directly contrary to their open and obvious goal of concentrating wealth...

   10588. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4311700)
Has anyone linked to this chart from Pew Research? It's been up multiple places, but this link is to Kevin Drum @ Mother Jones. Drum makes a fine point about the demographics of branding and the youth vote:

The Pew study reminds me of a great chart that the New York Times produced back in 2006 showing the effect that presidents have on brand loyalty to their party. Basically, a popular president gains the votes of 20-year-olds, and those voters retain much of their loyalty to the president's party for the rest of their lives. The opposite happens with an unpopular president. So Democrats spent eight years with a president that 20-somethings liked (Clinton), then Republicans suffered through eight years with a president they hated (Bush), and now Democrats have eight years of a president that 20-somethings like again (Obama). That's 24 years worth of 20-year-olds who are likely to retain a fairly strong loyalty to the Democratic Party.

   10589. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4311702)
I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

What?!


What indeed- it was those people who backed him- who gave him his super delegate count- no, those people did not PERSONALLY like Romney (though they likely disliked hims less than Newt)- Romney was absolutely the choice (among those running) of the establishment

Some of this guys stuff is just more recycled koolaid, this little nugget is just blatantly dishonest
   10590. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4311703)
If the Canal was in American hands it probably would not be so profitable if at all profitable. Within a few short years after the transfer of owenrship Panama doubled the amount of revenue being taken in by tha canal. This was largely achieved through canal work and a change in the pricing system that had been left unchanged since 1912.

As owners of the Canal they were spending over 300 million a year in Panama while taking in 500 million in receipts and that doesn't include armed forces expenses and expenses not incurred inside Panama but having to do with the canal.

This just shows the inefficiency of the U.S. government, not that the Panama Canal isn't a high-performing asset.
   10591. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4311705)
Well Sam I did link to the source material in #10440 (and I got there through the same article you linked to), but it is an interesting enough article I'll let it slide this once :)
   10592. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4311707)

This just shows the inefficiency of the U.S. government, not that the Panama Canal isn't a high-performing asset.


Then why do you want the U.S. to run it!?
   10593. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4311709)
Has anyone linked to this chart from Pew Research? It's been up multiple places, but this link is to Kevin Drum @ Mother Jones. Drum makes a fine point about the demographics of branding and the youth vote:

A quibble I have with studies like these is that they do not account for the non-voters and what they do when they move into the age range when they do in fact start voting. As the link notes 20 somethings tend not to vote and don't start to vote in very large numbers until they get older which of course means that these studies are not actually measuring the age groups' true tendencies.
   10594. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4311711)
Then why do you want the U.S. to run it!?

Exactly. It reminds me of the selfish 4 year old who doesn't play with a toy or could not care less about it until some other 4 year old shows an interest in the toy. Then it is, "mine, mine, mine".

For the record the US has historically been "inefficient" when it comes to the Panama Canal. This isn't a Democratic thing or a Republican thing, it is an American thing.
   10595. spike Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4311712)
So, like Republicans and government service then?
   10596. zonk Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4311714)
Hegemony yestaday, Hegemony t'day, Hegemony forevah!
   10597. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4311715)

no, relying on this data point the GOP goal has been to suppress/hinder the vote of the people under this group as much as possible.

elevating more people into this group runs directly contrary to their open and obvious goal of concentrating wealth...


Except that has shown to be a losing strategy the past two elections. There's only so much voter suppression you can do. At some point, you need to build up your brand instead of trashing somebody else.
   10598. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4311716)
Then why do you want the U.S. to run it!?

I don't know. Why do you want the same government that couldn't manage the Panama Canal to maximum profitability to control the healthcare system for 312,000,000 people?
   10599. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4311717)
Then why do you want the U.S. to run it!?


Of for ####'s sake, Joe wants the US to own the Panama Canal for the same reason Reagan and McCain and all of the righties of the 80s wanted to retain it, which is the same reason the righties are aghast at leaving Iraq or Afghanistan. They have an animal-level instinctual belief that when you take territory, you never relinquish it again. It's part of the drive toward empire.
   10600. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4311720)
I don't know. Why do you want the same government that couldn't manage the Panama Canal to maximum profitability to run the healthcare system for 315,000,000 people?


Man, that's really non-responsive. And government run healthcare in this country is doing pretty well for people who use Medicare/Medicaid. Or are you saying that they're not being taken care of?

If you're referring to 'Obamacare', you know as well as I do that is not run by the government, but is a set of regulations that has to be followed.

I actually wish we had a government run system that I can pay into, it would probably be cheaper for me, and I can pay in time and less money instead of a lot of money that I do right now if I get sick.
Page 106 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBoswell, WaPo: For streaking Washington Nationals, runs like this don’t come around very often
(11 - 3:34pm, Aug 22)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogBrisbee: Rusney Castillo reminds us how screwed amateur players can be
(3 - 3:34pm, Aug 22)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogPete Rose’s Reckless Gamble
(2 - 3:32pm, Aug 22)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4939 - 3:29pm, Aug 22)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogDRays Bay: Rays to Montreal? “Smart chronicler” says yes
(18 - 3:28pm, Aug 22)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogA Look Inside Baseball's Ever-Evolving Stimulant Culture | Bleacher Report
(33 - 3:28pm, Aug 22)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogVotto appears. . .and speaks | The Real McCoy | Cincinnati Reds baseball news
(8 - 3:24pm, Aug 22)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-22-2014
(12 - 3:22pm, Aug 22)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-22-2014
(33 - 3:22pm, Aug 22)
Last: The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee)

NewsblogFG: Ben Revere and the Emptiest Batting Average Ever
(8 - 3:21pm, Aug 22)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(292 - 3:09pm, Aug 22)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogCuban outfielder Rusney Castillo to sign with the Red Sox for $72 million
(51 - 3:07pm, Aug 22)
Last: Nasty Nate

Newsblog10 episodes of ‘The Simpsons’ every sports fan needs to watch
(57 - 2:52pm, Aug 22)
Last: Alex meets the threshold for granular review

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(508 - 2:21pm, Aug 22)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogBA (Badler): Seven Reasons Why MLB’s New International Rules Are Backward
(3 - 2:13pm, Aug 22)
Last: SouthSideRyan

Page rendered in 0.7873 seconds
52 querie(s) executed