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 113 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 > 
   11201. Steve Treder Posted: December 02, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4314690)
Huckabee does a nice job sounding sane, and has that bumbling harmless old guy affect, especially when he talks to John Stewart. But the guy's seriously off the deep end with the religious stuff-- he lets it all fly when he's in front of his home crowd, and it ain't pretty. Being able to speak in both tongues is a cool power to have, but even Stewart has started to sour on the act.

Sure, but that bilingual capacity is something that none of the true-Teaper candidates of 2012 displayed.
   11202. Steve Treder Posted: December 02, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4314693)
Isn't this a chicken and egg thing? How can a stateless entity recognize anything?

They aren't a state, but they have an internationally recognized governing authority, and they have prominent leaders. They could (at least claim to) commit to recognizing Israel's right to exist. Whether rightly or wisely or not, they refuse to do so.
   11203. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 02, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4314718)
How much land is Jordan willing to return to the Palistinean people for this proposed new state?
   11204. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 02, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4314723)
My understanding is that the PA has recognized Israel's right to exist, but they haven't recognized Israel as a Jewish state, because to do so would require them to give up their claim that Palestinians have the right to return to their property in Israel without anything in return.
   11205. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4314767)
Sorry if this is inflammatory but these political threads were way better pro-Kehoskie. It gets tiring watching people knock over his ####### idiotic warmed-over talking points. At least DMN (wherever he is) and Ray and Good Face and whatnot provide some variation. Joe is just like a really poorly programmed Rush Limbaugh robot.

Yes, yes, all I do is spout GOP talking points, while the BBTF liberals are all incredibly open-minded, independent thinkers dedicated to dispassionate analysis of political issues. You're roughly the hundredth BBTF liberal to make this claim in this thread.

Anyway, it's funny to get bashed by someone ("Gotham Dave") whose name I don't recall seeing here before about three days ago. He must be another of those vaunted "lurkers" who only pop up when the content isn't to their liking.

***
By the way, since it's Dec. 1, someone should find and submit a new OT: Politics thread before Jim has to ask. (I posted October's and November's; I'll let someone else have December.)

Twenty-five liberals here talking among themselves over the past two days, but no one could be bothered to post a link. Typical freeloaders waiting for a handout.
   11206. Gotham Dave Posted: December 02, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4314774)
I’ve been posting on this site since pre-reg, but whatever. I mostly lurk and I didn’t know there was a rule against that. Also, I don’t remember claiming that the liberals here were all master orators with a cunning grasp of the facts, either. They just sometimes make posts that aren’t either goalpost-shifting or outright mistruths, which is not true of yourself, unfortunately.
   11207. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 09:41 PM (#4314781)
I’ve been posting on this site since pre-reg, but whatever. I mostly lurk and I didn’t know there was a rule against that. Also, I don’t remember claiming that the liberals here were all master orators with a cunning grasp of the facts, either. They just sometimes make posts that aren’t either goalpost-shifting or outright mistruths, which is not true of yourself, unfortunately.

I've never posted anything that didn't involve "goalpost-shifting" or "outright mistruth"? Let me guess: You're a liberal, right?

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. It's always great to hear from a fan, even the wholly unmemorable ones.
   11208. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4314793)
The only reason so many posters find Joe K's reasoning skills lacking is because of Hurricane Sandy. If not for the storm's timing, Joe's willingness to consider additional information and sometimes adapt his arguments to account for it would be hailed by everyone.
   11209. DA Baracus Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4314796)
The only reason so many posters find Joe K's reasoning skills lacking is because of Hurricane Sandy. If not for the storm's timing, Joe's willingness to consider additional information and sometimes adapt his arguments to account for it would be hailed by everyone.


That's not the only reason. We give out Cokes here all the time, but to the best of my knowledge Joe has never received or given out one, and as we know people like it when they are given things and so they are much more favorable to the givers.
   11210. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4314797)
Umm, guys... election's over. It's freaking December already.
   11211. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4314802)
The only reason so many posters find Joe K's reasoning skills lacking is because of Hurricane Sandy. If not for the storm's timing, Joe's willingness to consider additional information and sometimes adapt his arguments to account for it would be hailed by everyone.
That's not the only reason. We give out Cokes here all the time, but to the best of my knowledge Joe has never received or given out one, and as we know people like it when they are given things and so they are much more favorable to the givers.

Back-to-back funny posts by lefties. Wonders never cease!

I don't give out Cokes because they're very unhealthy, and I'm probably not on Nanny Bloomberg's or Michelle Obama's Christmas lists to begin with.

As for Sandy, like a lot of the discussions here, I can't believe that turned into a recurring 30-day debate. On a site full of stats fiends, I can't believe none of the lefties here can bring themselves to admit that maybe, just maybe, 2 percentage points of Obama's support might have shifted to Romney if not for Sandy and/or the "war on women."
   11212. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4314806)
I want to see Joe take his unskewing talents to the Hall of Fame threads, when Repoz provides us with a running total of the ballots. If nothing else, it'll provide him some mental relief as Obama's final victory margin swells with each passing day.
   11213. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4314809)
I can't believe none of the lefties here can bring themselves to admit that maybe, just maybe, 2 percentage points of Obama's support might have shifted to Romney if not for Sandy and/or the "war on women."

Perhaps if you remove the scare quotes from the "war on women", you might begin to understand one of the bigger reasons for Obama's easy victory.
   11214. Srul Itza At Home Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4314813)
The idea of an officially Jewish state is an inherently bad idea (just as bad as any other theocracy)


Being "Jewish" is more than a religious thing; I am a Jew and an atheist. The founders of Israel tended to be socialists and not religious.

If having a Jewish state is an inherently bad idea, the Jews living as Jews, a stateless people, among the Europeans, didn't work out all that well, either. If it had, there probably wouldn't be an Israel.

As of 1945, Jews in general are done taking the advice of the Goyim. As far as most of us are concerned, you've long since forfeited the right to tell us what is, and is not, a good idea for us.

   11215. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4314814)
Perhaps if you remove the scare quotes from the "war on women", you might begin to understand one of the bigger reasons for Obama's easy victory.

Person A declining to buy contraceptives or abortifacients for Person B doesn't constitute Person A declaring a "war on women." Glad I could clear that up for you.

(But anyway, the above seems to tacitly support my premise in #11211, so thanks for that.)

***
As of 1945, Jews in general are done taking the advice of the Goyim. As far as most of us are concerned, you've long since forfeited the right to tell us what is, and is not, a good idea for us.

The stridency of this comment seems at odds with Jewish voting patterns.
   11216. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4314816)
On a site full of stats fiends, I can't believe none of the lefties here can bring themselves to admit that maybe, just maybe, 2 percentage points of Obama's support might have shifted to Romney if not for Sandy and/or the "war on women."

Whereas I can completely believe that one of the righties here couldn't bring himself to admit that maybe, just maybe, his recurring theory about House incumbency stats being skewed by "the relatively modern trend of strategic retirement" might have been in error after the data from the previous page:

The GOP lost 52 seats in 1930. In advance of the election, 36 incumbent Congressmen retired or failed to get the nomination.
The GOP lost 48 seats in 1958; in advance of that election, 37 incumbent Congressmen retired or failed to get the nomination.
The Democrats lost 47 seats in 1966; in advance of that election, 32 incumbent Congressmen retired or failed to get the nomination.
But today, the battlefield has changed completely, as strategy has at last entered the world of politics. The Democrats lost 63 seats in 2010. In advance of that election, 34 incumbent Congressmen retired or failed to get the nomination.
   11217. DA Baracus Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4314824)
Back-to-back funny posts by lefties.


Coming from you I'll take "lefty" as a compliment.
   11218. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4314827)
Whereas I can completely believe that one of the righties here couldn't bring himself to admit that maybe, just maybe, his recurring theory about House incumbency stats being skewed by "the relatively modern trend of strategic retirement" might have been in error after the data from the previous page:

The info. on strategic retirements is interesting, but I'm still unconvinced by your (and BurlyBuehrle's) larger claims on House incumbency. If incumbency has gotten increasingly powerful, while demographics have trended in an unfavorable way for the GOP, what explains the huge Dem House majority of the 1970s and 1980s not only being so drastically reduced, but eliminated (first in 1994, and again in 2010)? If incumbency is increasingly powerful now, what explains the three shifts in power in the House since 1994, after ZERO shifts in power in the preceding 40 years?

You keep citing a piddly 3-percentage-point difference between imbalanced sample sizes with cherry-picked endpoints, while failing to explain how or why the Dems' prior huge majority dwindled away, or how or why the GOP was able to overcome the power of incumbency to take over the House in 1994 and then recapture it in 2010.
   11219. Tripon Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4314834)
If we have to keep on the 2012 election, let's actually analyze it. What could Romney have realistically could do to win in 2012 and didn't?
   11220. McCoy Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4314835)
Not be a Republican.
   11221. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4314841)
If we have to keep on the 2012 election, let's actually analyze it. What could Romney have realistically could do to win in 2012 and didn't?

Not be Mitt Romney. In tough economic times, running a candidate who has a car elevator was a bad idea, and running a candidate who has a car elevator paid for with p.e. dollars was even worse. Perhaps even dumber, when one of your biggest campaign cudgels is the unpopular Obamacare, you shouldn't run a candidate who implemented his own brand of Obamacare years before Obama.

The above aside, I still believe Romney could have won if he ran a better campaign and didn't allow Obama to so thoroughly define him before the general had really begun. With Romney's money, he should have been self-funding in the spring and early summer if contributions and SuperPAC money weren't sufficient.
   11222. McCoy Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4314842)
But seriously, I'd say he should have pivoted to the center earlier and chosen a different running mate.


In terms of grand plans I think he should have gotten his party in order and lined up when it became clear he was the most likely and electable candidate. Instead a bunch GOP'ers stood up to either line their own pockets or to increase their own power causing Romney to stick to the right, drain his cash, and kept him focused on an in-house fight that could only benefit Obama and the selfish members in his own party. I'm sure he tried to do it but generally when one looks through history the winners pull this off and losers don't.
   11223. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4314843)
As of 1945, Jews in general are done taking the advice of the Goyim. As far as most of us are concerned, you've long since forfeited the right to tell us what is, and is not, a good idea for us.


So the US should get the hell out of Jewish affairs and let Israel deal with the consequences of them doing what they think is a good idea for them? Sounds good to me!

Not that I'm supporting the Palestinians in this either. Both sides act stupidly and horribly; Israel had, and to an extent still has, legitimate reasons for acting aggressively and striking out at those around them. They've just gone too far too many times and have shown little interest in backing down and agreeing to a permanent peace solution on anything but their own terms. Both sides in this suck and deserve little sympathy.
   11224. McCoy Posted: December 02, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4314844)
Wouldn't ww2 be like the 9000th last straw?
   11225. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4314847)
Re: #11,218--
Glad to hear the info on strategic retirements was "interesting" before you glided to nevertheless being correct. As for your re-re-rehashed questions, if you were legitimately interested, but you just couldn't trust the insidious cadre of lefties here, you might have thought to seek the information for yourself. Your interest + Google = the answers.

I get why you repeat your points; that italicized invocation of "40 years" is always so strong and convincing, it's nothing short of a miracle that the House ever changed hands at all. But for the sake of argument, even if we assume that the House flipped (which I now doubt it did, let alone 3 times), Google can explain why.

Best of all, when you find all of the many, many sources and analyses supporting your position -- that the House's incumbency rate has NOT crept upwards -- you can totally rub our noses in it. I wonder why you haven't done this?
   11226. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4314850)
I can't believe none of the lefties here can bring themselves to admit that maybe, just maybe, 2 percentage points of Obama's support might have shifted to Romney if not for Sandy and/or the "war on women."
JoeK's convinced that the only reason Obama won was the weather and a pack of liberal lies, and his beloved right wing's simply a poor and innocent victim.
   11227. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:21 PM (#4314852)
As for Sandy, like a lot of the discussions here, I can't believe that turned into a recurring 30-day debate. On a site full of stats fiends, I can't believe none of the lefties here can bring themselves to admit that maybe, just maybe, 2 percentage points of Obama's support might have shifted to Romney if not for Sandy and/or the "war on women."
didn't obama have a majority of electoral votes just in states he won by 4+%? so, 2% seems a bit low to have made a difference.
Not be Mitt Romney. In tough economic times,
didn't romney's cred as a candidate stem specifically from his economic credentials?
   11228. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4314853)
Glad to hear the info on strategic retirements was "interesting" before you glided to nevertheless being correct. As for your re-re-rehashed questions, if you were legitimately interested, but you just couldn't trust the insidious cadre of lefties here, you might have thought to seek the information for yourself. Your interest + Google = the answers.

I get why you repeat your points; that italicized invocation of "40 years" is so strong and convincing, it's nothing short of a miracle that the House ever changed hands at all. But for the sake of argument, even if we assume that the House flipped (which I now doubt it did at all, let alone 3 times), Google can explain why.

Best of all, when you find all of the many, many sources and analyses supporting your position -- that the House's incumbency rate has NOT crept upwards -- you can totally rub our noses in it. I wonder why you haven't done this?

Ah, so you've just been toying with me for the past 2-3 weeks, waiting for me to discover some big truth via Google that will crush my spirit. I was curious why you kept insisting you were right without making much of an attempt to describe why you were right, but now I understand it was all a big game. Has BurlyBuehrle been in on this the whole time, too?

To recap for posterity, the Dems held 292 seats in the House in 1976 and 269 seats in 1982. According to Gonfalon Bubble and BurlyBuehrle, incumbency has gotten stronger over the past 30 years (while demographics have gotten more unfavorable for the GOP), and yet somehow, the Dems' majority declined and declined, culminating in the Dems losing the House in 1994. The Dems then retook the House in 2006, but then — despite the increasing power of incumbency and the increasingly unfavorable demographics facing the GOP — the Dems lost the House again just four years later, to a Republican Party that's allegedly at risk of never winning another national election unless it dramatically rebrands itself.

Who are you going to believe? Gonfalon Bubble and BurlyBuehrle, or your own lying eyes?
   11229. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4314856)
JoeK's convinced that the only reason Obama won was the weather and a pack of liberal lies, and his beloved right wing's simply a poor and innocent victim.

Funny, coming from a guy who would have voted for Romney if only he was Asian.

***
didn't obama have a majority of electoral votes just in states he won by 4+%? so, 2% seems a bit low to have made a difference.

I haven't been checking the updated state-by-state numbers, but in an essentially zero-sum game, if Obama won by 4 points, all that would have been required was for Romney to shift 2.0001 percentage points of support away from Obama's column to Romney's.
   11230. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4314857)
Poor Joe; the liberals have stolen his Google, too.
   11231. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4314858)
I submitted a new thread for December.
   11232. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4314859)
As of 1945, Jews in general are done taking the advice of the Goyim. As far as most of us are concerned, you've long since forfeited the right to tell us what is, and is not, a good idea for us.

Speaking as a fellow atheist Jew, I don't think a Jewish state is such a terrible idea. I think creating a Jewish state in Palestine was one of the most insane and counterproductive ideas to be followed through on in modern history. If people feel the need to blame a particular group for the ongoing conflict, I'd go with the brilliant minds that determined that partitioning Palestine wouldn't result in an endless cycle of violence. Had they used even a little bit of common sense or just looked back a few years to see the revolt in the area that arose in part due to Jewish immigration, maybe they'd have looked elsewhere.
   11233. McCoy Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4314862)
Such as?
   11234. DA Baracus Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:38 PM (#4314863)
I haven't been checking the updated state-by-state numbers, but in an essentially zero-sum game, if Obama won by 4 points, all that would have been required was for Romney to shift 2.0001 percentage points of support away from Obama's column to Romney's.


Go ahead and do that and get back to us with the results.
   11235. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4314865)
Go ahead and do that and get back to us with the results.

Is this another pedantic "gotcha"? What's your point? That instead of a 4-point spread and Romney needing 2.0001 of them, it might be a 5-point spread with Romney needing 2.5001 of them?

Are you conceding that Sandy and the "war on women" might have made a 2.0001-point difference, but claiming they couldn't possibly have made a 2.5001-point difference?
   11236. tshipman Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:45 PM (#4314868)
As for Sandy, like a lot of the discussions here, I can't believe that turned into a recurring 30-day debate. On a site full of stats fiends, I can't believe none of the lefties here can bring themselves to admit that maybe, just maybe, 2 percentage points of Obama's support might have shifted to Romney if not for Sandy and/or the "war on women."


You realize that if you assume uniform swing, Romney needed about 5 points?
Romney lost because latinos and African Americans turned out in greater numbers than they had anticipated. I think you can explain about 1 point of the late lead by Obama with Hurricane Sandy. I don't know how you can quantify the "War on Women" stuff, because it was all stuff defined the Republican party. I mean, if Republicans weren't so stridently anti-abortion/contraception funding/etc, then they wouldn't have retained some of their voters. Romney obviously felt like it was a net positive enough. If you mean Akin/Murdock, I mean, those are Senate candidates. I doubt they affected Romney that much at all. Less than a quarter of a point.

Not be Mitt Romney. In tough economic times, running a candidate who has a car elevator was a bad idea, and running a candidate who has a car elevator paid for with p.e. dollars was even worse. Perhaps even dumber, when one of your biggest campaign cudgels is the unpopular Obamacare, you shouldn't run a candidate who implemented his own brand of Obamacare years before Obama.


Let's take the best possible candidate: How much better do you think Huckabee does against Obama? Romney did about 1-2 points worse than the fundamentals. How would Huck have done?
   11237. zenbitz Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4314871)
Israel seems to have lost the moral high ground in the last 30 years or so. They have all the cards, but the also have the most to lose.
   11238. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:51 PM (#4314873)
You realize that if you assume uniform swing, Romney needed about 5 points?

Why would Romney need a 5-point swing? If he lost by 5 points, and we're assuming it essentially remains a zero-sum game, Romney would need half of Obama's margin of victory plus 1 vote in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado.

Let's take the best possible candidate: How much better do you think Huckabee does against Obama? Romney did about 1-2 points worse than the fundamentals. How would Huck have done?

Huckabee is your best possible candidate? At the presidential level, I prefer experienced candidates rather than Obama-type celebrities, but among others, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both would have done better than either Romney or Huckabee. (And to be clear, both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have far better resumes than Obama had in 2008.)
   11239. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:53 PM (#4314877)
Are you conceding that Sandy and the "war on women" might have made a 2.0001-point difference, but claiming they couldn't possibly have made a 2.5001-point difference?

Even if they did, so what? It seems very unlikely to me that Sandy had a noticeable effect on the vote in swing states, though I suppose it's possible. As others have pointed out though, the forecasting models (at least the skewed ones) all had Obama as a solid favorite before Sandy hit. As for the "war on women," whether it affected the election results or not, it's not a one-time issue. Regardless of what you think of the way it was discussed, it represents a real difference between parties and is probably going to be a net-negative for the GOP for as long as they take the stances they do.

So I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.
   11240. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4314878)
In the last two decades, the GOP has generally held onto its gains in the House despite increasingly unfavorable demographics. Some people might think this might be an argument FOR the advantages of incumbency, not against them.

It would be great to see if any of those people have ever written that argument down someplace. But Joe always has very sound reasons for what he thinks, and if he knows that Google is some kind of spirit-crushing trick, then I'm not going anywhere near the damn thing.
   11241. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4314880)
Even if they did, so what? It seems very unlikely to me that Sandy had a noticeable effect on the vote in swing states, though I suppose it's possible. As others have pointed out though, the forecasting models (at least the skewed ones) all had Obama as a solid favorite before Sandy hit. As for the "war on women," whether it affected the election results or not, it's not a one-time issue. Regardless of what you think of the way it was discussed, it represents a real difference between parties and is probably going to be a net-negative for the GOP for as long as they take the stances they do.

So I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.

I've repeated the point about 20 times: But for Sandy and/or the "war on women," we might be talking about president-elect Romney, rather than about a GOP that allegedly needs to dramatically rebrand itself in order to have any hope of winning back the White House in the future.
   11242. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4314881)
Israel seems to have lost the moral high ground in the last 30 years or so. They have all the cards, but the also have the most to lose.

They got some of it back the past couple weeks, but seem determined to punt it all away with the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem.
   11243. DA Baracus Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4314883)
Is this another pedantic "gotcha"?


I'm asking you to do 5 minutes of research to back your claim. Apparently that is too much to ask.

Are you conceding that Sandy and the "war on women" might have made a 2.0001-point difference, but claiming they couldn't possibly have made a 2.5001-point difference?


Concede what? I haven't argued that. Gonfalon Bubble and Andy did, take it up with them.
   11244. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4314884)
In the last two decades, the GOP has generally held onto its gains in the House despite increasingly unfavorable demographics. Some people might think this might be an argument FOR the advantages of incumbency, not against them.

Yes, and every gain comes at the expense of an incumbent, the power of whom has supposedly been on the rise. Quite a conundrum.
   11245. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:01 AM (#4314886)
Baracus:
Concede what? I haven't argued that. Gonfalon Bubble and Andy did, take it up with them.

I was not part of that "Sandy/women/Romney's path to victory" debate.

Kehoskie:
Yes, and every gain comes at the expense of an incumbent, the power of which has supposedly been on the rise. Quite a conundrum.

Each gain comes with its own incumbency. As the failure of wave elections to reduce the increasing trend towards incumbent advantage has shown, it's in the aggregate that this has mattered. Which party is in the lead in a given election cycle is not the pivotal point, or else the Democrats would currently have a 60-year majority, not the 40-year one that you can't seem to shake. Oh, if only there were some way to verify this.

Baracus:
I'm asking you to do 5 minutes of research to back your claim. Apparently that is too much to ask.

Well, you're asking him for five minutes, plus there's my five minutes... and pretty soon it's putting a real dent in Joe's schedule.
   11246. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4314888)
I've repeated the point about 20 times: But for Sandy and/or the "war on women," we might be talking about president-elect Romney.

Again, so what?
   11247. DA Baracus Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:05 AM (#4314889)
I was not part of that "Sandy/women/Romney's path to victory" debate.


Sorry, I was lumping you in because of the joke from earlier.
   11248. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4314891)
I'm asking you to do 5 minutes of research to back your claim. Apparently that is too much to ask.

It is when we're debating a pure hypothetical. Whether the number is 4, 4.5, or 5, it doesn't substantively change the discussion at all.

***
Again, so what?

New to the BBTF political threads, huh?
   11249. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4314897)
New to the BBTF political threads, huh?

I do my best to avoid them, though I'm familiar with how they operate. This issue just seems particularly trivial to me.
   11250. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4314904)
Funny, coming from a guy who would have voted for Romney if only he was Asian.
Absolutely! Sadly, if he were an Asian-American, the GOP would spend all their time wondering about his birth certificate.

Besides, I'm not wrong. You DO think the the weather and shadows swung the vote. I'm not misrepresenting you.
   11251. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:24 AM (#4314907)
I do my best to avoid them, though I'm familiar with how they operate. This issue just seems particularly trivial to me.

If you think debating issues that might have made the difference between an Obama win and a Romney win is trivial, you have, indeed, done a fine job of avoiding BBTF's political threads. Ha ha.

***
Absolutely! Sadly, if he were an Asian-American, the GOP would spend all their time wondering if he was a Real American.

Well, you do have to wonder about highly educated, high-income Asian-Americans who generally vote for liberals, especially after the Dems' sordid history with Asians (e.g., FDR and the Japanese-Americans, LBJ and Vietnam, etc.). I guess, sometimes, the GOP just can't win.
   11252. DA Baracus Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4314912)
It is when we're debating a pure hypothetical.


Actual election results are a pure hypothetical. Okay then.
   11253. Tripon Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4314913)
Okay, the GOP can't win ever. Lets move on to the next topic.

Nintendo needed to do a better launch. Day 1 Firmware updates larger than a gig and over a hour simply should not happen for a new console.
   11254. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:32 AM (#4314915)
If you think debating issues that might have made the difference between an Obama win and a Romney win is trivial, you've done a fine job of avoiding BBTF's political threads. Ha ha.


"If things that happened hadn't happened, the results might have been different," seems like a trivial statement to me.
   11255. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:32 AM (#4314916)
Each gain comes with its own incumbency. As the failure of wave elections to reduce the increasing trend towards incumbent advantage has shown, it's in the aggregate that this has mattered. Which party is in the lead in a given election cycle is not the pivotal point, or else the Democrats would currently have a 60-year majority, not the 40-year one that you can't seem to shake. Oh, if only there were some way to verify this.

This sort of hand-waves the incumbents who lose. In the above scenario, incumbents who lose don't matter, while new incumbents are increasingly powerful. The elections of 2006 and 2010 seem to indicate otherwise.

***
Actual election results are a pure hypothetical. Okay then.

Who's debating the election results? Obama won. We're debating whether Sandy and/or the spurious "war on women" might have been enough to swing the election from Romney to Obama. We still don't know the exact margin of victory in terms of vote count, so focusing on that is pedantic.
   11256. Tripon Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:36 AM (#4314918)
A debate implies that both sides are interested in the subject. Uh, that's not true in this case.
   11257. Tilden Katz Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:53 AM (#4314925)
Well, you do have to wonder about highly educated, high-income Asian-Americans who generally vote for liberals, especially after the Dems' sordid history with Asians (e.g., FDR and the Japanese-Americans, LBJ and Vietnam, etc.). I guess, sometimes, the GOP just can't win.


Highly educated Asians reject the GOP for the same reason all highly educated people do: the GOP is controlled by its base, and that base thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, climate change is the product of a cabal of evil, scheming scientists, and that schools to the left of Bob Jones are wretched hives of scum and villainy. And since education and support for gay rights are closely tied, they probably also object to the booing of gay soldiers, candidates calling for the nullification of all extant gay marriages, and regular comparisons of gay people to those who engage in bestiality.

And why would Asians care about what FDR and LBJ did generations ago when John McCain was using the term "gooks" in this century?
   11258. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4314926)
A debate implies that both sides are interested in the subject. Uh, that's not true in this case.

Sorry, I'll let you get back to talking about video games.
   11259. tshipman Posted: December 03, 2012 at 12:56 AM (#4314927)
Why would Romney need a 5-point swing? If he lost by 5 points, and we're assuming it essentially remains a zero-sum game, Romney would need half of Obama's margin of victory plus 1 vote in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado.


Romney finished behind Obama by roughly 5 points. He actually lost by more in Colorado than in Pennsylvania, so Romney's smoothest path to victory actually is Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. You seem to refer to "swing" in a different way than most people do. A 5 point swing typically refers to Romney gaining 5 points vs. Obama. But if you'd prefer using your own formulation, Romney would need a 2.5 point swing. The absence of Sandy made up less than half a point of Obama's swing using your formulation.

The "War on women" stuff is sort of impossible to know, since it was based on policies strongly favored by the Republican party.
   11260. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:00 AM (#4314931)
And why would Asians care about what FDR and LBJ did generations ago when John McCain was using the term "gooks" in this century?
The GOP still think we can "take the country back" to 1950, so FDR references are still totally relevant.
   11261. zenbitz Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:02 AM (#4314932)

Isreal/Palestine is a microcosm for many other conflicts. The vast lump in the middle on both sides don't hate each other. But the fringey marginal fanatics (Israeli fundamentalist settlers and Islamist fundamentalists) will fight to the death. It should be arranged. Maybe they can take all the reasonable folks and they can form a coalition government in Isreal/Palestine proper.

The wackos on both sides can have the west bank and all the guns and ammo they can carry. There's even already a convenient barrier.
   11262. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:05 AM (#4314934)
Highly educated Asians reject the GOP for the same reason all highly educated people do: the GOP is controlled by its base, and that base thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, climate change is the product of a cabal of evil, scheming scientists, and that schools to the left of Bob Jones are wretched hives of scum and villainy. And since education and support for gay rights are closely tied, they probably also object to the booing of gay soldiers, candidates calling for the nullification of all extant gay marriages, and regular comparisons of gay people to those who engage in bestiality.

Obama gave a similar answer as Rubio re: the Earth's age during the 2008 campaign, but that didn't get blown up into a big deal because ... well, I'd be tempted to call it media bias, but I don't want my old friend "formerly dp" to get all fired up again.

As for the rest of the above, I think it mentions "gay" more times than I heard during the entire campaign. The idea that huge numbers of right-wingers sit around plotting to deport or otherwise oppress gays is little more than MSNBC or Daily Kos nonsense.
   11263. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:18 AM (#4314938)
The "War on women" stuff is sort of impossible to know, ...

Absolutely, which is why I'm astonished we're still talking about this almost a month later.

In the days after the election, liberal after liberal here said that the GOP would have to radically rebrand itself if it was to have any hope of ever winning the White House again. After about the fiftieth person said this, I opined that if the flawed Romney might have come within a hurricane and/or a spurious "war on women" from winning the election — as some exit polling and the biggest-ever gender gap suggest — then maybe the GOP isn't as dead as people think.

I didn't foresee a nearly 30-day debate of that idea, but I guess a lot of the open-minded liberals here object to anything that runs counter to their preferred narrative of the GOP being both hopelessly lost in the wilderness politically and doomed by demographics electorally.
   11264. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:33 AM (#4314943)
Bip.
   11265. tshipman Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:37 AM (#4314945)
In the days after the election, liberal after liberal here said that the GOP would have to radically rebrand itself if it was to have any hope of ever winning the White House again. After about the fiftieth person said this, I opined that if the flawed Romney might have come within a hurricane and/or a spurious "war on women" from winning the election — as some exit polling and the biggest-ever gender gap suggest — then maybe the GOP isn't as dead as people think.

I didn't foresee a nearly 30-day debate of that idea, but I guess a lot of the open-minded liberals here object to anything that runs counter to their preferred narrative of the GOP being both hopelessly lost in the wilderness politically and doomed by demographics electorally.


Well, part of it is that you're just wrong about that. We know that campaigns make about 1-2 points worth of difference (each), and the economic fundamentals predicted a 2-3 point Obama win. Barring a collapse, Obama was a pretty safe bet to be re-elected. Romney actually ran a below-average campaign, and Obama ran a better than average campaign. It was probably theoretically possible that a different candidate could have won, but not anyone in the actual field. We know that the actual Republican field was weak because a flawed candidate who was not most Republican voters' first choice actually emerged.

As to your point about how close the GOP is to winning a presidential election: you, and other people on the board, are predicting that they'll have to moderate their policies. The gentle reader will notice that Joe himself is advocating changing policies: he talks about the "war on women" as something that if done differently, would have caused different electoral results. Most of the liberal commentators are suggesting immigration reform, Joe is suggesting moderating on womens' issues like birth control and abortions. This is a difference in tactics, not in strategy.

I do think that the GOP is fairly likely to win in 2016. If they do not, they will be very likely to win in 2020. That party will bear little resemblance to the 2012 GOP, similar to George Bush's platform in 2000 vs. Romney in 2012.
   11266. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:38 AM (#4314946)
It didn't get "blown up" because his commitment to scientific truth has been deep and long-standing.

Yes, as opposed to Marco Rubio, who spends his weekends at meetings of the Flat Earth Society.

There's always a special reason for the free passes Obama gets.
   11267. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:55 AM (#4314950)
As to your point about how close the GOP is to winning a presidential election: you, and other people on the board, are predicting that they'll have to moderate their policies. The gentle reader will notice that Joe himself is advocating changing policies: he talks about the "war on women" as something that if done differently, would have caused different electoral results. Most of the liberal commentators are suggesting immigration reform, Joe is suggesting moderating on womens' issues like birth control and abortions. This is a difference in tactics, not in strategy.

I've done no such thing.

The entire "war on women" was comprised of (1) two idiot Senate candidates engaging in performance art over an issue that theretofore hadn't remotely been a part of the national debate in 2012 and wasn't possibly going to be something they could move in the Senate had they won, and (2) Georgetown not paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control.

Since absolutely no one who's even remotely in a position of power in the GOP wants to ban birth control or is trying to ban abortion in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger, the whole "war on women" was bogus. It was trumped up by liberals and then parroted over and over and over again by a compliant media that overwhelmingly wanted Obama to win. (This same media largely and shamelessly ignored that the Dem opponent of "war on women" warrior Richard Mourdock co-sponsored the very same "forcible rape" bill that made Mourdock a "war on women" warrior. But, hey, I'm sure it was just an innocent oversight, with no bias involved.)
   11268. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:56 AM (#4314951)
I didn't foresee a nearly 30-day debate of that idea, but I guess a lot of the open-minded liberals here object to anything that runs counter to their preferred narrative of the GOP being both hopelessly lost in the wilderness politically and doomed by demographics electorally.


Isn't it possible that the liberals aren't the only ones in this discussion who dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't confirm their worldview?
   11269. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:04 AM (#4314952)
Isn't it possible that the liberals aren't the only ones in this discussion who dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't confirm their worldview?

Unpossible.
   11270. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:16 AM (#4314958)
The entire "war on women" was comprised of (1) two idiot Senate candidates engaging in performance art over an issue that theretofore hadn't remotely been a part of the national debate in 2012 and wasn't possibly going to be something they could move in the Senate had they won, and (2) Georgetown not paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control.
(3) The actual GOP platform.
   11271. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:18 AM (#4314960)
(3) The actual GOP platform.

Such as?
   11272. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:19 AM (#4314963)
Isn't it possible that the liberals aren't the only ones in this discussion who dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't confirm their worldview?
Of course not. If not for the lying media and a bad turn of the weather, we'd all be getting ready to swear fealty to President Romney.
   11273. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:21 AM (#4314964)
Such as?
No exceptions for rape or incest on the anti-abortion plank, for one.
   11274. tshipman Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:26 AM (#4314966)
So wait, Joe, you think that Murdock/Akin were significant tailwinds on Romney? Like to what extent do you believe that senatorial candidates in Indiana and Missouri affected Virginia and Colorado?
   11275. McCoy Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:33 AM (#4314968)
Binders full of women.
   11276. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:36 AM (#4314969)
No exceptions for rape or incest on the anti-abortion plank, for one.

So the GOP, by being anti-abortion, has declared a "war on women," but when Obama and Democrats opposed the proposed ban on sex-selective abortion — the vast majority of fetuses aborted via sex-selective abortion being, of course, female — it's not a war on women.

The endless double standards are so confusing.
   11277. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:42 AM (#4314970)
So wait, Joe, you think that Murdock/Akin were significant tailwinds on Romney? Like to what extent do you believe that senatorial candidates in Indiana and Missouri affected Virginia and Colorado?

I hate to answer a question with a question, but do you believe the "war on women" would have dogged Romney throughout the entire campaign at anything close to the same level if it had remained centered on Sandra Fluke's birth control needs rather than on Akin and Mourdock's "legitimate rape" stupidity?

To whatever extent the gender gap in 2012 — the biggest-ever such gap — was because of the "war on women," I have to believe it was because of "legitimate rape" and not because women sympathized with a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown who didn't want to pay $6 per month for birth control.
   11278. Tripon Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:47 AM (#4314972)
Okay Joe, have fun arguing with yourself.
   11279. McCoy Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:54 AM (#4314973)
Okay Joe, have fun arguing with yourself.

Never gonna happen. Too many people can't pass up his trolling.
   11280. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 02:59 AM (#4314974)
Never gonna happen. Too many people can't pass up his trolling.

Someone needs to explain to McCoy what the word "trolling" means. He's used it about a thousand times here, but never correctly — unless he's using the special BBTF definition:

trollingverb
the act of disagreeing with a liberal or with liberal ideology
   11281. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 03:18 AM (#4314979)
Never gonna happen. Too many people can't pass up his trolling.
Joe's not trolling. He's looking for a fight.
   11282. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 03:20 AM (#4314980)
So the GOP, by being anti-abortion, has declared a "war on women," but when Obama and Democrats opposed the proposed ban on sex-selective abortion — the vast majority of fetuses aborted via sex-selective abortion being, of course, female — it's not a war on women.
If you can't see a difference between the two, then this is just another issue where you're not going to get why most people disagree with you WRT the GOP's abortion platform.
   11283. tshipman Posted: December 03, 2012 at 03:21 AM (#4314982)
I hate to answer a question with a question, but do you believe the "war on women" would have dogged Romney throughout the entire campaign at anything close to the same level if it had remained centered on Sandra Fluke's birth control needs rather than on Akin and Mourdock's "legitimate rape" stupidity?

To whatever extent the gender gap in 2012 — the biggest-ever such gap — was because of the "war on women," I have to believe it was because of "legitimate rape" and not because women sympathized with a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown who didn't want to pay $6 per month for birth control.


Women voted for Obama at a high rate because his administration had policies that were favored by women. To the extent that the "war on women" mattered, it mattered because of policies like equal pay law, contraceptives inclusion and legal abortion being favored in large numbers by women. Obama promoted policies that women liked. That's why they voted for him. I'm relatively certain that Todd Akin and Joe Mourdock's comments had very little impact except on their own chances to be elected.

I mean, if you want to put it in Republican-speak: Obama gave a bunch of handouts to women that they wanted. That's why they voted for him. Romney generally opposed those policies--excuse me: handouts.
   11284. Tilden Katz Posted: December 03, 2012 at 03:33 AM (#4314983)
So the GOP, by being anti-abortion, has declared a "war on women," but when Obama and Democrats opposed the proposed ban on sex-selective abortion — the vast majority of fetuses aborted via sex-selective abortion being, of course, female — it's not a war on women.


So do you support the GOP party platform on abortion? If not, which parts do you disagree with and why?
   11285. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 03, 2012 at 03:58 AM (#4314984)
So the GOP, by being anti-abortion, has declared a "war on women," but when Obama and Democrats opposed the proposed ban on sex-selective abortion — the vast majority of fetuses aborted via sex-selective abortion being, of course, female


Yes, why aren't the dames all riled up about this solution in search of a problem?
   11286. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 03:58 AM (#4314985)
If you can't see a difference between the two, then this is just another issue where you're not going to get why most people disagree with you WRT the GOP's abortion platform.

I see the difference, but not the real-world impact that justifies the "war on women" claim. I never heard Romney claiming he would try to ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother.

***
Women voted for Obama at a high rate because his administration had policies that were favored by women. To the extent that the "war on women" mattered, it mattered because of policies like equal pay law, contraceptives inclusion and legal abortion being favored in large numbers by women. Obama promoted policies that women liked. That's why they voted for him. I'm relatively certain that Todd Akin and Joe Mourdock's comments had very little impact except on their own chances to be elected.

I mean, if you want to put it in Republican-speak: Obama gave a bunch of handouts to women that they wanted. That's why they voted for him. Romney generally opposed those policies--excuse me: handouts.

So after liberals spent months insisting there was a GOP "war on women," now you're saying there was a null impact, or that Sandra Fluke resonated more than "legitimate rape"? (And after screaming about the idea of Obama "handouts," you're now using it as shorthand and/or acknowledging the reality of the situation?)
   11287. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 04:07 AM (#4314987)
Yes, why aren't the dames all riled up about this solution in search of a problem?

Solution in search of a problem? Per the last worldwide estimates I've seen, over 160,000,000 more females have been aborted than males. You want to see a "war on women," that's it.
   11288. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 03, 2012 at 04:07 AM (#4314988)
Obama gave a similar answer as Rubio re: the Earth's age during the 2008 campaign


Similar answer to a very different question. Rubio was asked a straightforward scientific question ("How old do you think the Earth is?") and gave a theological answer. Obama was asked a distinctly theological question ("If one of your daughters asked you — and maybe they already have — “Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?") and gave a theological answer. Rubio was asked a question suitable for adults and was expected to give an answer in that light. Obama was asked a question specifically about how he would talk to children and responded as such.

But please, y'all keep trying to act like it's the libruls who are the real Creationist science-hating snake-handlers, that'll fly like science says bumblebees can't.
   11289. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 03, 2012 at 04:12 AM (#4314989)
Yes, why aren't the dames all riled up about this solution in search of a problem?

Solution in search of a problem? Per the last worldwide estimates I've seen, over 160,000,000 more females have been aborted than males. You want to see a "war on women," that's it.


So this was, what, a proposal for the UN? To end the worldwide civil war of women against women?
   11290. Tripon Posted: December 03, 2012 at 04:20 AM (#4314990)
Solution in search of a problem? Per the last worldwide estimates I've seen, over 160,000,000 more females have been aborted than males. You want to see a "war on women," that's it.


So what your solution then? Strict abstinence? Force all pregnant women to give birth? Force more women who are pregnant with a potential male to commit abortion? Let me ask you this. Do you actually care Joe, or have you latched onto another argument that you think you can concern troll with?

Because really, if you want to prevent unwanted abortions, the best practical way to do it is make sure women have a safe and alternate way to make sure that unwanted pregnancies does not happen. Like say, mandate to insurance companies that coverage of birth control.

But since I know you are just trying to concern troll on this, you'll just pick another random topic to prove your point. (Whatever it is, I'm not even sure you know what it is.)
   11291. tshipman Posted: December 03, 2012 at 04:26 AM (#4314992)
So after liberals spent months insisting there was a GOP "war on women," now you're saying there was a null impact, or that Sandra Fluke resonated more than "legitimate rape"? (And after screaming about the idea of Obama "handouts," you're now using it as shorthand and/or acknowledging the reality of the situation?)


Policy resonated more than soundbites. I think that everyone understood that Todd Akin was a jackass and something of a simpleton. But yeah, making sure that birth control is included in insurance plans was a big deal for a lot of women. Keeping abortion accessible was a big deal. Equal pay, etc.

I don't remember railing about "handouts" but I do think that it's poor terminology to describe groups voting based off policy.
   11292. BrianBrianson Posted: December 03, 2012 at 05:29 AM (#4314994)
Joe's not trolling. He's looking for a fight.


Not even that, really. He sees a bunch of middle aged, professional, white guys* taking positions that he identifies as the liberal half of the policy dichotomy, and so he identifies us as liberals who must be argued down. That "Huh, all these middle aged, professional, white guys are negative about Republicans might be our problem, not theirs" never crosses his mind. Fighting is what he's looking for; I'm pretty sure he's perplexed we haven't watched enough FOXNEWS to parrot the same opinions.

*With a couple of exceptions, but the underlying model is sound.
   11293. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: December 03, 2012 at 06:25 AM (#4314998)
I never heard Romney claiming he would try to ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother.
This harkens back to the awesome Daily Show video of GOP convention goers tying themselves into knots, claiming that Romney should have the right to believe in different from the Republican official position on abortion -- it's a free country! -- but that women who want abortions should not have that same right.
   11294. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 03, 2012 at 08:46 AM (#4315010)
Here's a take from a guy who said that he didn't plan to vote, but if he had, he would've gone back and forth between Romney and Gary Johnson. He own pre-election forecast slightly overrated Romney's likely percentage of the popular vote:

When Internal Polls Mislead, a Whole Campaign May Be to Blame

In the seven key swing states, turns out that Romney's internal polls overrated his numbers from 1.0 in Ohio to 9.1 points in New Hampshire, with an average "Romney bias" of 4.7 points. No wonder that Romney actually thought he was going to win, given that his pollsters were little more than a bunch of yes-men.

   11295. Gotham Dave Posted: December 03, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4315049)
The entire "war on women" was comprised of (1) two idiot Senate candidates engaging in performance art over an issue that theretofore hadn't remotely been a part of the national debate in 2012 and wasn't possibly going to be something they could move in the Senate had they won, and (2) Georgetown not paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control.

Sandra Fluke’s testimony was about how a friend - who had ####### tumors - was unable to get important medicine covered by insurance that she paid for because it had the side effect (in this case) of preventing pregnancy. But nope, in Joe K’s world, it was just that that slutty slut whore harlot wanted him, Joe Kehoskie, personally, to pay for her to have promiscuous sex with the whole G-town basketball team. And they wonder why women are repulsed by Republicans. How can anybody be this ####### dense?
   11296. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: December 03, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4315065)
How can anybody be this ####### dense?


They get all their news from Rush Limbaugh.
   11297. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 03, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4315117)
While it's great that people like Phoenix's mayor are taking a week, going on food stamps, and getting a sense of how crappy that is, it's sort of a joke that his conclusion is, in part, 'it's hard to eat well'. No, it isn't. It isn't remotely ####### possible.

Two slices of cheap white bread, two slices of cheap cheese, and two slices of processed turkey is your dinner. Welcome to the surplus labor pool, folks!
   11298. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 03, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4315118)
Sandra Fluke’s testimony was about how a friend - who had ####### tumors - was unable to get important medicine covered by insurance that she paid for because it had the side effect (in this case) of preventing pregnancy.


And Obama never said that if you had a small business you didn't build it. But the truth is boring and filled with liberal bias, and so more creative methods of interpretation are required.
   11299. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: December 03, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4315292)
Once I finish "the Devil in White City" I will reread "Nixonland". From what I remember there aren't too many people in that book on the left or on the right that come up smelling like roses in that book. One of the chapters in there dealt with MLK going to Chicago to fight for housing rights for minorities and having stones and bottles thrown at him during the protest march.

And I graduated from SF State in '94 which explains a lot.
   11300. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 03, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4315640)
So what your solution then? Strict abstinence? Force all pregnant women to give birth? Force more women who are pregnant with a potential male to commit abortion? Let me ask you this. Do you actually care Joe, or have you latched onto another argument that you think you can concern troll with?

Because really, if you want to prevent unwanted abortions, the best practical way to do it is make sure women have a safe and alternate way to make sure that unwanted pregnancies does not happen. Like say, mandate to insurance companies that coverage of birth control.

But since I know you are just trying to concern troll on this, you'll just pick another random topic to prove your point. (Whatever it is, I'm not even sure you know what it is.)

Comical. The topic isn't unwanted pregnancies; the topic is unwanted females. Do you not understand the difference?

Selecting 160,000,000 females for death seems like much more of a "war on women" than refusing to give Sandra Fluke $6/mo. for birth control.

***
Sandra Fluke’s testimony was about how a friend - who had ####### tumors - was unable to get important medicine covered by insurance that she paid for because it had the side effect (in this case) of preventing pregnancy. ...

Nonsense. Sandra Fluke wasn't traveling the country talking about tumors; she was claiming that birth control that costs as little as $6 per month was really $100/mo.:

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they've struggled financially as a result of this policy. — Sandra Fluke

The closest Fluke ever came to discussing "tumors" was when she mentioned a friend — a gay friend, no less! — who had polycistic ovarian syndrome but allegedly stopped taking her medication for financial reasons (medication that costs $6/mo. on the low side and $100/mo. on the high side).

That aside, the idea that "40 percent" of the female students at Georgetown Law are struggling to come up with $6/mo. for birth control is utterly laughable, and would have been utterly laughable if the left-wing media had an ounce of credibility left.

(EDIT: Forgot about the new thread. The above will be my final reply in this one.)
Page 113 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1190 - 5:42pm, Nov 28)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5109 - 5:39pm, Nov 28)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogBaseball's most underrated Hall of Fame candidates. | SportsonEarth.com : Anthony Castrovince Article
(25 - 5:31pm, Nov 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(18 - 5:31pm, Nov 28)
Last: Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-28-2014
(9 - 5:16pm, Nov 28)
Last: Batman

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(44 - 5:15pm, Nov 28)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(615 - 5:14pm, Nov 28)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogJon Lester has plenty of options in addition to Red Sox - Sports - The Boston Globe
(13 - 4:54pm, Nov 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(46 - 4:47pm, Nov 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogMarlins seek lefty balance in lineup, on mound | MLB.com
(3 - 4:39pm, Nov 28)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(28 - 4:38pm, Nov 28)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1143 - 4:14pm, Nov 28)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(11 - 2:54pm, Nov 28)
Last: KJOK

Hall of MeritBrian Giles
(57 - 2:42pm, Nov 28)
Last: Bleed the Freak

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(59 - 2:41pm, Nov 28)
Last: Bleed the Freak

Page rendered in 0.8460 seconds
52 querie(s) executed