'In the sticks' is just a reference to an area where there are lots of twigs, i.e. the countryside. It was first an American expression but is now used throughout the English-speaking world. The earliest citation of it that I have found is from the US newspaper the Florence Times Daily, November 1897:

... he gathered from 1 1/2 acres this year 21 barrels of corn. If any man "away in the sticks" can beat this, in the language of "Philander Doesticks," we exclaim, "let him stand forward to de rear."

For a time, the phrase became specifically associated with baseball. 'The sticks' were exhibition games, played in county locations, which baseball players organised to supplement their income outside the main season. It was not allowed by the rules of the US Baseball Commission, but the rules weren't often strictly applied.

I have serious doubts that this sort of routine, non-political action affects voters, but if it did, any positive has probably been wiped out by Leno's now oft-repeated line that "Hurricane Sandy has already created more jobs than Obama". Ouch, that one left a mark.

There's the potential for a giant ###########. Though I have a real tough time believing a Paulite would actually take an action that would result in Obama getting the presidency via a plurality.

My mother's name is Sandy, so my family has been having some fun with this, at least.

Jay Leno has been a one-man wrecking crew in recent weeks.

When I hear "Sandy", I immediately think Olivia Newton-John in Grease.

Bloomberg endorses Obama.

He's still relevant?
I thought the whole "leave the Tonight Show, fail at 10pm, beg for job back, screw Conan over" thing left him emasculated by popular culture standards.

on the basis of climate change

I feel badly for people who got hurt by the real estate implosion, but this article is a prime example of liberal media bias. The family in that article presumably stopped paying their mortgage — on a home that was worth less than the mortgage balance — for six months or a year, which culminated in the home being foreclosed. Thereupon, they filed a lawsuit which allowed them to remain in the home for another 30 months without paying anything, for a total of 36 to 42 months of mortgage- and rent-free living. But now, the San Francisco Chronicle apparently wants us to be outraged because the family received only $13,000 after suing over some procedural error.

Given Obama's steady rise in both the RCP average and 538 model since October 14, the question is for whom?

... on the basis of climate change, five days from an election. That's "leadership," Nanny Bloomberg-style.

And also marriage equality and reproductive choice. Remind me, which candidate is the nanny on those issues?

And also marriage equality and reproductive choice. Remind me, which candidate is the nanny on those issues?

There have been reports of three electors at least thinking of voting Paul instead of Romney. One of them has actually asked to be replaced -- couldn't vote for Romney.

There's the potential for a giant ###########. Though I have a real tough time believing a Paulite would actually take an action that would result in Obama getting the presidency via a plurality.

I'm guessing a lot more Americans know who Jay Leno is than Chris Christie, but I could be wrong about that.

You feel sorry for them, but you have no sympathy for someone following the rules in place for them to get relief? That sounds as phony as your "I support teachers...let's fire them all and offer them their jobs back at a 50% pay cut."

The procedure for someone in an untenable mortgage situation (ie, someone you supposedly feel sorry for), is that they stop paying their mortgage. Otherwise, they are not deemed to be "in need", and thus not eligible for relief. Yes, that entails a risk of foreclosure, but when a bank says, "OK, we are going to restructure your debt." and while in that process, initiates foreclosure proceedings, that's some pretty bad faith. In that situation, it is OK to feel sorry for the deadbeats.

Bloomberg believes 13-year-olds should have access to the morning-after pill without parental notification or consent, but he doesn't believe a 40-year-old should be allowed to buy a large soda.

I don't think Sandy will "decide" the election by any stretch - but movement over the past week has been towards Obama, both at the state and national level (except for the always reliable Scotty R!), so I do think it helps, not hurts, Obama . . .

I have serious doubts that this sort of routine, non-political action affects voters, but if it did, any positive has probably been wiped out by Leno's now oft-repeated line that "Hurricane Sandy has already created more jobs than Obama". Ouch, that one left a mark.

Kimmel is obviously a professional jerkass, but It's not clear to me that Leno is even a human being. He reacts like some sort of automaton.

Not according to the RCP Archives page for Oct. 14, which shows Romney with a 1.3 point lead at that point.

I'm confused. Are we really arguing that anything Jay Leno says is swaying the election, and for Romney? Also, pretty sure he's a lifelong Democrat. I know he's married to one of those Hollywood liberal types.

No one said anything about "swaying the election."

People have no right to a mortgage modification. In this particular case, the people lived mortgage- and rent-free for a minimum of 36 to 42 months *and* received a check for $13,000 afterward. How much more do you propose they should have received?

Dunno about that, but I sure know the guy who's not afraid to go to that RCP link for October 14 in order to back himself up.

Enough to cover their legal bills?

Look, the big culprit here is the stupid requirement that you must stop paying your mortgage in order to be eligible for relief. I was recently able to re-fi because the market turned around and I now had the 80% LTV necessary. I didn't get relief on the balance or interest rate, but was able to lock in the debt from a previous variable rate. I had been saying to the bank for years that "Look, I have no problem paying this now, and even if rates got up a little. But if they go up a lot, I won't be able to. You hold the debt here. I'm not asking you to take on more, just lock in what I have, otherwise, instead of payments, you'll be getting another house." The response was always "Nope, since you are making your payments, we're not going to discuss it." That's just crazy. They could have had a nice 5-6% loan right now ( if they had done this a couple of years ago), but instead, they got their money and I have a nice 3.5% loan with somebody else.

I looked at the wrong date. The graph has Obama gaining 1.0 point since Oct. 14. That's better than 0 points, but it's hardly a sign of major momentum, as Spike seemed to be claiming.

It's a screwup not really bad faith and the jury did't think the fraud was intentional which it probably wasn't. The homeowners by not paying their mortgage and living in their house rent free for years probably saved around 100,000 dollars in mortgage payments. $13,000 plus those savings doesn't really make me feel sorry for them. If they couldn't afford the house they shouldn't have bought it.

How is any of this the bank's problem? Like the people in the San Francisco Chronicle article, you signed a contract. They were free not to modify the loan, and you were free to refi elsewhere.

Are you kidding me? If that is the case, then there are a long list of lenders such as BofA, Wells Fargo, Country Wide etc committing the same screw up. My mother went through the same situation with her house because of the death of my father and was told the same thing by the bank that as long as she kept up the payments she would not be eligible for a adjustment. So she goes ahead with not paying, gets sent countless paperwork by the bank to fill out and when she did , she was sent more that asked the same f'ing questions. When she or I called the company they would not have any update but wound instead ask for paperwork that they already had been sent 3 or 4 times. Finally she was able to go through with a short sale and got lucky that the lender approved it. Then right after she moved out, those same a-holes sent her notices asking her if she was aware that she qualified for a loan modification through HARP. So yes there are cases of people buying houses that they should not of purchased but there are also a lot of cases of people getting caught with bills they cant afford who have to use equity in their house and help up losing the house. But I guess the simple narrative makes for the easiest talking points. FYI my mom was only making Soc Sec benefits which is $1300 a month so I guess she should be happy with the $16,000 she saved by not paying the mortgage.

Apparently, you looked at the wrong spike, too -- because "steady rise" doesn't mean "major momentum" by any semantic understanding I'm aware of...

Then where did you get that original "0.0 points" claim from?

P.S. That same Archives page also shows both candidates in a "tie" at 47.4% each. I don't care what you want to call it, but if you're going to talk about numbers, at least get the numbers right.

It's the bank's problem if they breached the contract -- even if by "technicality" -- to which they were also a party... though, technically -- I'd be willing to bet it's not the same bank that actually backed the original mortgage, but that still doesn't relieve them of the terms no matter how many bundlings downstream they were from the originator.

Yes, but if it were to knock down Arthur Bryant's instead, that WOULD be a federal disaster.

If you cannot afford your mortgage payments you should not buy the house that gets you those mortgage payments. Period.

RCP isn't a one-day average, so it's unclear why you keep referring to the Oct. 14 archives page as if it would tell us much of anything.

How is any of this the bank's problem? Like the people in the San Francisco Chronicle article, you signed a contract. They were free not to modify the loan, and you were free to refi elsewhere.

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report notes that the early vote in Virginia is not going the way the Obama campaign hoped: “Today’s new 10/31 numbers even more troubling for Obama. His best counties way off 2008 pace.” He elaborates that as of yesterday, 185,489 ballots had been cast in Obama localities, compared to 214,783 by this point in 2008, while 115,908 in McCain, compared to 117,224 in 2008.

He adds, “Obama strongholds Arlington -20.0%, Fairfax –20.9%, Richmond -13.7% (vs. just -9.2% statewide). Hmm…” and “In Romney strongholds, enthusiasm up. Hanover (33.1% Obama) turnout up 6.2%, Buchanan (coal country) up 14.5% vs. 2008.” ...

If you cannot afford your mortgage payments you should not buy the house that gets you those mortgage payments. Period.



Or have your spouse get sick and die either. That really puts a cramp in your mortgage payment.

Actually it tells us twice, in their own words, that the "RCP Average" showed Romney at +1.3 points. If you don't want to refer to that number, then you have to go to the various individual polls, which is NOT what you were citing when you first made your original claim.

Owning a home carries with it tremendous amounts of risk. Always have and always will. People for some reason tend to ignore the risks until it bites them in the ass and then they complain about the mean old baddies the banks.

It's almost like some sort of hurricane hit Virginia and made it impossible for people to vote.

sitting around twiddling their thumbs all day with no money to pay for their thumb polish

Bloomberg believes 13-year-olds should have access to the morning-after pill without parental notification or consent,...

Of course we want loving parents involved in critical life decisions of their 13 year old children, but in fact it plays out rather differently wrt the MAP and notification.

The banks bear a responsibility to their investors and quite clearly they made bad choices. Buyers bear a responsibility to themselves and their families and quite clearly they made bad choices. The government bears a responsibility to all of us and quite clearly they made bad choices.

The idea that 13-year-olds should have access to the morning-after pill, or even to abortion, without parental notification or consent but those same 13-year-olds can't get their ears pierced, go tanning, or be given an aspirin by the school nurse, is patently absurd.

Joe, the hurricane hit Northern Virginia quite badly. Arlington and Fairfax county in particular. They shut down early voting for two days. O'Donnell just ordered extended early voting in the affected counties to compensate.

but the wasteland states -- who already get tons of over-representation as it is -- would never give up any power.

Teenage girls should have access to all health care services, including aspirin or any other medication, without parental consent. The right to get your ears pierced or to get a hideous tan isn't as fundamental as the right to make one's own health decisions, but I'd support those too. I'll sign a petition to that effect. Would you sign a petition in favor of guaranteeing a female's right to make her own reproductive decisions free from any interference from any parental, religious, or governmental authority?

In a phone conversation, Mr. Silver described the wager offer as “half playful and half serious.”

“He’s been on a rant, calling me an idiot and a partisan, so I’m asking him to put some integrity behind it,” he said. “I don’t stand to gain anything from it; it’s for charity.”

He added that he is feeling the strain of being under attack and vulnerable to criticism as Election Day approaches.

“It’s a high-stress time,” he said.

I can understand and sympathize with that.

But whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.

It’s also inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.

The banks bear a responsibility to their investors and quite clearly they made bad choices. Buyers bear a responsibility to themselves and their families and quite clearly they made bad choices. The government bears a responsibility to all of us and quite clearly they made bad choices.

For 13-year-olds? No, I would not.

Do you believe the average 13-year-old girl is mature enough to consent to have sex with a 40-year-old?

zonk,

Do you think it's possible that the fact that you refer to them as "wasteland states" is one reason they might be hesitant to hand over some of the power they have to you?

The history of world politics is a history of the majority screwing with the minority because they can. When it comes to New York and California vs Montana and Idaho in a pure democracy, which pair do you think should be more concerned?

It’s also inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.

So it's not a nanny state when the government is trying to put in place a restriction that aligns with your political beliefs?

Are you under the impression that the only way a 13-year-old girl can need morning-after contraception is if she consented to sex with another man? Think about that a little.

Where are you going with this? Are you referring to rape? Consensual sex with another minor? (And what do you mean by "another man"?)

When we've reached the point where we pretend that 13-year-olds don't need parents but 40-year-olds need the mayor of New York City to make their beverage selections, then, yes, I'm comfortable calling it a Nanny State.