|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
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
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4460 - 6:09pm, May 25)Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The ShipNewsblog: SB Nation: The Rotation: The worst baseball conversations (12 - 6:09pm, May 25)Last: Steve Balboni's Personal TrainerNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1233 - 6:04pm, May 25)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: Raissman: Could 2013 be last year for John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman on Yankees radio broadcast? (1 - 6:02pm, May 25)Last: TriponNewsblog: McCoy: Brandon Phillips playing to Joe Morgan's level? (11 - 5:58pm, May 25)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 25, 2013 (23 - 5:45pm, May 25)Last: Harveys WallbangersNewsblog: Flip Flop Fly Ball: George Brett - Jeans, Black Bucks, No Socks (2 - 5:40pm, May 25)Last: I Am Not a NumberNewsblog: Miguel Cabrera thrown six pitches at once, hits them all out of the park (9 - 5:40pm, May 25)Last: escabecheNewsblog: Who Are the Top Baserunners in Baseball? | Articles | Bill James Online (24 - 5:32pm, May 25)Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants toNewsblog: Curtis Granderson has fractured left pinky finger (15 - 5:25pm, May 25)Last: RMc and His Roster of RubbishNewsblog: SI: Alex Sanabia : I didn't know spitter was against rules (11 - 5:12pm, May 25)Last: zenbitzHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1982 Ballot (4 - 5:09pm, May 25)Last: Mr. CNewsblog: Perry: Hawk Harrelson reacts to blown call by Angel Hernandez (22 - 4:56pm, May 25)Last: GamingboyNewsblog: Flip Flop Fly Ball: Diamonds Aren’t Forever – Five Base Baseball? (5 - 4:37pm, May 25)Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)Newsblog: Manny Machado equals Ty Cobb in win over Jays (7 - 2:41pm, May 25)Last: Sunday silence
|
|
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.
Because unlike the Panama Canal, which is about commerce -- "we" (or at least, I) don't see health care in the same light, where the goal isn't/shouldn't be "maximum profitability".
You'll note that Reagan was quite popular among the 20 somethings- that cohort is now 50ish
Romney won among 45-64 year olds by 51 to 47%
There was one age cohort that Obama did better in 2012 than 2008- 30 to 44 year olds (some of whom were in the 18-29 cohort in 2008)...
In 2000, Bush won only one age cohort- 30 to 49 year olds- again those were 20 somethings when Reagan was President...
But while people tend to stay with one party, they don't always - 65+ year olds were Romney's best cohort, but 12 years ago the 50-64 cohort voted for Gore 50-48% over Bush- obviously some Gore voters in that cohort in 2000 went for Romney in 2012 [which if I may speculate quite frankly has to do with gay marriage and Obama's race and does not mean that today's 50 somethings will become more conservative as they pass retirement age]
Bingo regarding Reagan -- but regarding the last item, I think it's worth noting that the (Churchill, I think?) cliche about people naturally becoming more conservative (how does it go? A young person not liberal has no heart, an older person not conservative has no brain or something like that?) is and has actually always been flat out wrong... Party ID does very much tend to calcify.
As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with Panama controlling the canal, but it's unclear why the U.S. was in any way obligated to give it to Panama, or how it was in the U.S.'s best interests to just give away a strategic asset that now generates $800 million per year in profits.
As for Medicaid, I wouldn't want it to be my health plan.
Like a catastrophic-care plan? Those have been available for years, but Obamacare might be the end of them.
At the local level this is definitely not always true. I was in a state house district in which the incumbent made only one campaign appearance, at a dinner at which he fell asleep. He won something like 60-40 over a hard working and motivated third party candidate. If the incumbent had run a solid campaign it would've been 80-20 or something like that. This happens not infrequently, when no-hopers make a good show of it against a lazy incumbent and crack 40%. I think this is theoretically possible at the level of the Presidency -- Mondale, for example, probably could have out-campaigned Regan and still lost by 200+ EC votes.
Has there ever been a Presidential election in which the loser clearly ran a better campaign than the winner? And has there been one in the TV era?
If you know you're going to win regardless, do you really even "run a campaign?"
As I mentioned before it isn't so much an individual changing his mind as he gets older but the fact that as the group gets older more and more people from that group vote. So two things happen. One the extremists from one side tend to balance out the extremist from the other side as they start to vote and two, what was considered liberal 20 years earlier has now become more mainstream and even possibly conservative in the present day. So if you're motivated enough in the political process to vote at 18 or so you probably aren't going to change your political lean much as the years go by. But if you didn't really care much at that age by the time you do start voting the things you care about will be mainstream enough that you'll care more about other issues when deciding to vote and those other issues that you care about at an older age tend to be conservative issues.
Why shouldn't they be over? With the prohibition against lifetime spending caps in the base plan, it eliminates what catastrophic care plans always were to begin with: an upsell boondoggle that the seller of the base plan was ingeniously able to create.
It would have been like car manufacturers deciding to sell cars together with engines, bodies, wheels, etc... but only offering drive-trains as a separate add-on.
The word "clearly" causes all kinds of problems because victory tends to cloud the subject. Just like in football one can say the loser clearly should have won but didn't but you can't really say the loser clearly won the game but lost in the final score.
The Democrats of 2012 are the party of socially moderate tweaks to existing programs and fiscal sanity. They're basically the 1982-92 era GOP. Barack Obama is George H. W. Bush with a tan.
The GOP of 2012 are reactionary, not conservative.
They probably should change that url link at the end.
My dad always says that Humphrey in 68 ran a much better campaign than anyone expected, and made a close race out of something that looked like a catastrophe in the summer.
Megyn Kelly in GIF form has quite a bit more je ne sais quois
I think GHW Bush ran a marginally better campaign than Bill Clinton did. Of course he was essentially running against 2 opponents and that fractured his campaigns attention. I suspect Nixon/Kennedy is a better example though.
I used to enjoy the old SSI computer game "President Elect". One of the things I liked to experiment with was the absolute minimum you could do and still win in some of the very one sided campaigns.
According to the game, Nixon could have done absolutely no campaigning and refused to debate and would still usually win in 1972.
Ford (debate gaffe aside) likely ran a better campaign than Carter, which is why he almost pulled it out despite Watergate, pardoning Nixon, sitting on his thumbs as Saigon fell, and trailing badly during the summer... though "better" is a relative term, Carter was not a good campaigner and his primary win was inexplicable in the first place.
I'm not sure Bush 1 ran a notably worse campaign than Clinton, and in his quixotic way Perot out-campaigned either of them...
And if there's a part of the electorate that's diminishing almost as fast as angry white men, it's people who give a #### about planting and maintaining puppet governments all over the globe.
Carter (if my memory is correct) ran through the primaries in a different way than before. He used the spread out nature of the primaries back then to his advantage by focusing hard on Iowa and using that win to win down the line, sort of bootstrapping his way up. He was also different for a Democrat. I remember folks commenting how he was a "ray of light" at the time because he was so different than the others (and the generic Democrat), including his (at the time) optimism.
In some ways it was the mirror image of the GOP this year, where Carter was one of the few conservatives in the field and the liberals failed to rally to an anyone but Carter candidate and so he slogged along collecting delegates. He was helped by being an outsider at a time Watergate made being an insider a bad thing.
What does this "base plan" cost? Also, the idea that there's a "prohibition against lifetime spending caps" is pure fantasy in a single-payer system, let alone in a system of private insurers.
And yet you still wonder why the BTF kids cry when you and Szym fight. It's our fault, isn't it?
Are you hoping the answer is yes or hoping the answer is no?
No.
I hate this. Either one of them is going to win or Chambliss is going to win by moving to the left during the campaign (as he's already started to do) and then drop it when he's back in office. Vomit.
It's usually attributed to Churchill, but he said nothing of the sort; he was a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35. link
/looks it up.
Well, not the origin, but a canonical example according to Wikipedia.
"Pretty much any pithy saying can beand is attributed to Lincoln, Twain,
or Churchill."
- Winston Churchill
Well, yes. Well, yours, and Dan's. He put on a *lot* of weight after the pregnancy, and of course, you kids will suck the joy of life out of pretty much everything.
- Will Rogers / H.L. Mencken / Theodore Roosevelt
I guess it's *possible* that Eric Erickson puts together some sort of nutter-wing/######## coalition to run strongly against Chambliss from the right. Possible, but unlikely. There's a reason he moved from "flailing minor league wacko in Macon" to "blogger-turned-Fox-News-persona."
There's no way in hell Karen Handel beat Chambliss. I really don't see any way a Teaper challenge from the right untracks Chambliss. As you say, if he is threatened from the right, he pivots moderately left at which point he becomes, what, Sam Nunn with an R next to his name?
Oscar Wilde?
Sam Nunn is before my time, I don't know anything about him. I think Chambliss wins the primary, but it will be a nasty reflection of the right vs far right fight that is coming to parts of the country. Erickson? Handel? Price? Broun? Well, they'll win Cobb County. Neal Boortz was thrown around as a challenger, though it was never serious, but I wish he would because that would be a great source of humor. Chambliss is clearly threatened from the right, and he's clearly tracking towards the middle in response, and to questionable authenticity given that he's a turd of a person. And by moving to the center he'll make the already difficult task of a Democrat unseating him basically impossible.
You know who was a turd of a person? Mark Taylor. Or, as spike points out, Zell Miller. If Eric Erickson runs a Teahadi attack on Chambliss' right and that moves Chambliss back towards the Ben-Nelson-of-GA zone, well, that's a win for me. Hell, I might go vote in another GA GOP primary to help him out. I agree that it will be an ugly primary if the nutters run someone against him, but I think that's a good thing. The GOP - especially the GA state GOP - needs a healthy dose of sunlight.
I was dining in the hotel bar Monday night, and David Frum was on CNN*, and he made a really good observation, I think. He pointed out that the GOP never runs any candidate on a platform of ideas that will lead the nation. They always run on a platform of opposition to whatever the Dems are trying to do. There is no way this strategy wins them executive positions in any strong case, going forward. It may keep them the House for a while, though.
*other takeaways from this event; Frum seems vaguely sane these days; James Carville still terrifies me just to look at his mummy like visage; cable news advertising explains their demographics perfectly.
I don't think that the sunlight will help in this one. I think we'll just get... burned.
I loathe Saxby Chambliss and want to see him lose, but then someone who infuriates me will win instead. Ugh.
I detest Saxby as much as the next semi-rational primate, but never close the door to the church man. You don't save the choir. You save sinners.
Ah, but I don't go to church.
Not since she passed, 35 years ago.
probably way late on this, but I saw moderate R Susan Collins of Maine doing a Debbie Downer on the Rice Secretary of State bid today after their meeting.
Is that the end of the line for Rice? Can anyone get 5 R votes without Collins being one of them these days?
Granted that Collins left a little wiggle room for "more information", but then she also strongly endorsed the Kerry idea, which seemed like a pretty clear signal to the White House...
Susan Collins votes with her party at the lowest rate of any Senator in either party. (Or at least did in the 112th Congress.)
Is that the end of the line for Rice? Can anyone get 5 R votes without Collins being one of them these days?
If Rice gets voted down on a party line vote, that's just another nail in the Republicans' coffin, further continuation of their collective Obama Derangement Syndrome. This entire ridiculous episode is like 2012 version of Joe McCarthy's battle cry of "Who Promoted Peress?"
Sure you do. You just call it something else.
1. John Kerry *really wants the job.*
2. John Kerry is Susan Collins' friend.
3. Susan Collins will stump for her friend.
4. The GOP *really wants John Kerry to go to State.* (because that means Scott Brown gets to run for the Senate again, against a non-incumbent, having been an incumbent himself not two years prior.)
5. Susan Collins will stump for her party.
Agreed on the thought that opposing Susan Rice is a pyrrhic victory at best for the GOP.
God bless Grover Norquist; he's the only guy in Washington who is standing up for YOU and against the lobbyists.
What you mean, "YOU", Kemo Sabe?
I've read his major books but don't follow his blog, but hasn't he come out with some of that Angry Old Man #### more than a few times before?
Yeah, the constituencies regarding which "winning" here matters would seem emphatically outnumbered by those in which it doesn't, or in which this is perceived as petty and annoying if not worse. It's the kind of mindless terrier-like smallball stuff that likely creates more enemies than friends. Everybody sees it for the hyperpartisan drama-queen silliness that it is.
I'll add a 6. Susan Collins essentially just announced that she's not following Olympia Snowe into retirement and will be running in 2014.
Yeah, the constituencies regarding which "winning" here matters would seem emphatically outnumbered by those in which it doesn't, or in which this is perceived as petty and annoying if not worse. It's the kind of mindless terrier-like smallball stuff that likely creates more enemies than friends. Everybody sees it for the hyperpartisan drama-queen silliness that it is.
And when you add the racial aspect, it's just one more indication that the Republicans have simply written off the idea of expanding their share of the black vote beyond the Clarence Thomases and Thomas Sowells and a handful of anti-gay rights ministers. Going after Rice isn't major suicidal the way that harping on Rev. Wright would have been, but the net loss to the GOP is likely to be on the order of 10 to 1**, even if the total numbers won't be that big.
**Yes, a number pulled out of my hat. But how many votes are the Republicans going to attract with this newest obsession? And how many black and / or women voters in swing states might be reminded of this moronic crusade come next election time, and reminded of their Republican Senator's negative vote?
Obama now at 50.9 -- looks almost certain to top 51% with a margin of victory that actually looks like it's going to be closer to 4%.
BTW - Dave Wasserman has a google docs spreadsheet he updates with certs, so it's been what I've been following.
As the Post pointed out, the change in the primary structure made Bolling an enormous underdog. Anyway, the real blame is on the inability for anyone to run for (edit: immediate) re-election.
True. Though I am surprised that Bolling didn't try to get his pound of flesh from Cooch in the primary. He gave the usual "for the good of the party" platitudes but is also refusing to endorse.
Agree about the moronic reelection rule. I didn't (and would never) vote for McDonnell, but he's a far saner and competent option than Cuccinelli. I'd love to see Tom Periello run, but I'm not sure he'd be able to overcome the big money that McAullife will have.
Ok, so Collins is a right-wing hack who didn't care what Rice said in the meeting - she's a company man through and through, and is not to be seen as credible no matter what she says.
Check.
And the right-wingers who can't stand Collins for the most part won't use her now as the "voice of reason" in this case.
Just checking. Wouldn't want anyone to be cherry-picking a moderate's views...
Maine isn't a blue state. Maine is ####### weird.
It's not the reelection, it's the potential primary... Stuff like this might keep people like the moron governor from considering a challenge.
the moron governor is pretty much toast, right?
Who knows... it's so easy to get on Maine GE ballots that they're forever getting situations where a plurality candidate can win statewide with ease.
Terry McAuliffe seems spectacularly ill-suited as a gubernatorial candidate, no? I'm sure he'll raise a lot of money again but his likability quotient is zero and people seem to tolerate slick suits more in DC than back at home. But I don't know what the Dems farm team looks like in Va.
Yeah - I'm not sure I see a Dem knocking off Collins straight-up... The Maine Dems have fielded decent candidates against Collins her last two cycles and come up well short... Chellie Pingree, who's very well known in Maine, from a powerful Maine family, and generally well-liked (and current the ME-1 congresswoman) lost to her by about 15 in 2002, while Tom Allen (former Portland mayor and also former ME-1 congressman) lost by about 25 in 2008. Pingree and Allen are/were probably the two best possible candidates the Maine Dems could field and each could probably win an open seat election, but it's pretty clear that the only way Collins leaves the Senate is retirement or primary.
The McAuliffe gubernatorial bid is an interesting one -- Cucinnelli's wingnuttery aside, it's interesting that BOTH Terry and Cooch are not native Virginians... I think it's actually a real test of just how powerful that northern Virginia/DC suburban/exurban area has become. Remember that McAuliffe lost the 2006 Dem primary to Jim Webb for VA-SEN, despite significantly outspending Webb. As someone noted upthread, I'd love to see Perriello get in the race, but I'm not sure he'd fare much better in the GE.
I will call it Mosque.
Yes, please. It will also be interesting to see what Bolling decides to do next.
I personally go to Temple.
The University. All the time. In my head.
GO OWLS!
//OMG -
"Our staff:
Chuck Rogers, Editor-In-Chief
Mr. Rogers presently writes all the content for CFC.
"Techdude", Technical Editor
Accomplished computer expert "techdude" has an A.A.S. in Network Technology and Security from Inver Hills Community College. He specializes in detecting document and photo forgeries."
Susan Collins is not a ####### moderate. Susan Collins voted for an amendment to defund birth control on a highway bill. She cosponored legislation to audit the Fed. She participated in hijacking the country's credit rating last summer.
Susan Collins is a Republican. She votes with party leadership at a very high rate. Her only high profile defections were on ARRA and confirming judges.
That was safety school.
Headlines like this don't encourage me with regard to their rigor in fact-checking:
//now I can't even tell if this is a satire site anymore. If so, these guys are riding the edge beautifully.
Debunking the NOAA's October State of the Climate
Norquist Goes After The Tax Traitors
Dean Chambers Uncovers Voter Fraud
Seance Proves Rice Is On Al Qaeda Payroll
Maine GOP claims voter fraud
Wisconsin GOP: 200,000 fraudulent voters
Definitive Proof of Politifact's Bias
That would be Bill James. Those government life thieves have finally met their match.
Sorry, I think I'll stick with the Conservapedia for all of my hard-hitting conservative thought.
That's gold.
This is a top-shelf satire site.
That sentence alone should be sent in for a Pulitzer.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main