|
|
|
|
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
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (81 - 4:22am, May 22)Last: vivaelpujolsNewsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (359 - 4:02am, May 22)Last: Robert in Manhattan BeachNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1056 - 3:41am, May 22)Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of AnaheimNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (5 - 3:33am, May 22)Last: Dr. HouseNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1049 - 3:28am, May 22)Last: FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substanceNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3836 - 2:46am, May 22)Last: BurlyBuehrleNewsblog: Barry Bonds: Detroit Tigers' Miguel Cabrera 'the best' ... but not better than me (63 - 2:30am, May 22)Last: the Hugh Jorgan returnsNewsblog: Yanks, Manchester City awarded MLS expansion team (24 - 2:12am, May 22)Last: the Hugh Jorgan returnsNewsblog: Dollar Sign on the Glistening Muscle: Scouting Ballplayers in 1980s Playgirl (26 - 2:07am, May 22)Last: base ball chickNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 21, 2013 (121 - 1:50am, May 22)Last: botemanNewsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (56 - 1:24am, May 22)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: JM Catellier: Is Pedro Martinez a First Ballot Hall of Famer? (128 - 12:57am, May 22)Last: Sonic YoukNewsblog: SB Nation: Five lost scouting reports (11 - 12:44am, May 22)Last: PerryNewsblog: BBTF SOFTBALL GAME IN NEW YORK--AUG 17 (311 - 12:07am, May 22)Last: Rafael Bellylard: Built like a FielderNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-21-2013 (22 - 12:01am, May 22)Last: esseff
|
|
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.
I don't actually think it'll happen (I'm also not really a "you guys"; I voted for Gary Johnson for President and a Republican for the House (who got 17% of the vote)). I'm saying, if I'm surprised, it's because the Republican leadership didn't get the guy they want. But I expect the Republican leadership to get the guy they want; and I think that'll be somebody being talked about now (Rubio, Bush, Ryan, maybe Christie).
They are at over 60 percent now - and that's with the other team running out a black guy. The last time it got this high, it produced the Bush landslide against Dukakis (if I remember Greenfields remark last night correctly), but barely carries NC now. They will have to make significant changes going forward.
True, but you could put Nancy Grace on the ballot for either party and she starts with with 50 million votes.
I had a Dem politico tell me that Schweitzer was his pick for '16 before Obama won in '08 - he hasn't changed his mind.
You can win a lot of the "Reality has a liberal bias" crowd over if you combine low corporate tax rates with high personal tax rates for the wealthy. But essentially none of the idealists, I think (but it might allow one to collect substantial corporate donations?)
After failing multiple times, it appears that Puerto Rico for the first time passed a referendum supporting statehood. The initiative has always failed previously - I believe this is the first time it passed.
The ballot question was a two parter -- "change the relationship" with the US as Q1, with 3 choices as Q2 (statehood, sovereign free association, and outright independence). It looks like 'change' is winning by about 6-8 points, with statehood running away as the Q2 choice (independence only 4%).
Incidentally, both Obama and Romney were on record saying that they'd support the 'will of Puerto Rico' regardless of the outcome.
Statehood requires congressional approval... but this might be an interesting topic to follow in the next year or so.
They have owned the nomination process for the GOP by and large for the last two cycles. How are they not the focus? They are the primary driver of candidate positions right now. The Democrats would be in the minority in the Senate but for this.
Focus on the gin. Stay on message.
The right, quite understandably, will never let this pass.
For the Dems, I bet Schweitzer runs. He's getting term limited out of his governor's chair, and he seems like he has what it takes to do well on the national stage.
Deval Patrick would make a certain amount of sense, too, since he's said that he won't re-up for governor again in 2014.
it's disappointing that this person continues to have the forum she does. i still cannot fathom what sen mccain was thinking.
just a horrendous choice
One interesting thing for me this election is figuring out who is "next in line" for the R's.
Is it Paul Ryan? Is it Christie? Traditionally, it's been the runner up in the nomination process, but no one seems to be treating Santorum like he's next in line. This is a weird cycle for Republicans.
Buy the rumor, sell the news.
Here was my bleary-eyed FB post after midnight:
I've been watching Fox News a bit tonight. They sure are cheerleaders, except for Juan Williams and the blonde woman panelist (whose name I don't know), who seem to be pretty objective.
Karl Rove kept insisting that he had some secret key to how Ohio would turn around.
Poor Sarah Palin was almost in tears when talking to Greta van Susterneneneren about how the Constitution should guide Obama to compromise with the House.
Look, I'm not going to claim the GOP is racist riddled at all... but I do think there's a difference between the GOP's struggles with minorities and Democratic struggles with 'white men'.
To wit - I'm a straight, white male that has been continuously employed in a private sector, non-union job for nearly 20 years now. Yes, I'm partisan and ideological - but I just really don't see what the Democratic party has ever done or positions its taken that should 'offend' me. I can't think of a Democratic politician or officeholder of any real note that has said anything that should offend me as a SWM.
If I were AA, Latino, etc - I just don't think that same equation holds. Obviously, there are Latino and AA Republicans - but I think (in fact, I know, based on knowing a few of them and discussing it) they'll privately admit that yes, there's a lot of garbage you have to grit your teeth and ignore to vote your philosophy.
Most people simple don't get into politics enough to bother wading through that.
That's the GOP's problem - I don't see any obstacles to Democrats picking up further chunks of the white male vote... at least not structurally. I do think there are obstacles for the GOP on the flipside.
This can't be repeated enough. The next phase of denialism within the GOP seems to be lining up behind "the Latinos will vote Republican once they realize you want to eat their babies; you can't buy them off forever." This will be couched in terms like "Nats Homer's" bit about "second and third generation immigrants." It is incumbent for the party in denial to establish that the Latino vote will not behave, historically, like the African American vote and be sticky to "whatever party is representing the counterweight to the old Confederacy." They need Latinos to be more like Irish and Italian immigration waves, breaking and assimilating within a couple of generations. This might happen, if one of the major parties doesn't spend a massive amount of energy alienating them via poorly concealed racial animus. Unfortunately for the GOP's plan, the GOP seems pretty much destined to do exactly that, and if the do, the Latino vote will be as sticky to the Dems as the African American vote is today.
Regarding the old guard it is all gut instinct that tells me no on HRC (And I have a very low confidencein my gut). I think Biden is a near mortal lock to run unless health issues stop him. I think he has been a fine VP, but who cares it is VP.
On the GOP side I think folks that think it is a name right now are right. When was the last time a GOP presidential nominee went to an unknown from four years prior? My guess is it will be some white dude with a bunch of money in the bank, but that is profiling on my part (and fits all parties for most of the history of the US).
Minor edits.
Amy Klobuchar
Deval Patrick
Andrew Cuomo
Charlie Crist
Tester/Schweitzer/Other Random non-coastal Westerner.
Paul Ryan
Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
Nathan Deal
Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
My early money would be on Rubio... Personally, I think I see him in the same way that a lot of highly partisan Republicans see Obama... but, I suppose, maybe that's a good thing for the GOP.
Right.
I know a lot of Republicans. Grew up with them, love many of them. While they genuinely don't get WHY they're offending minorities and the ones I know are NOT racists or bigots, the party and the message it puts out clearly is offending and alienating minorities. I'm not really arguing they need to dramatically change their principles. But they do need some change and they need to figure out how to articulate their principles without insulting and offending. That can be difficult, but it is, in essence, politics.
It seems to me that the Rs are overrun with impolitic leaders. The message is far more harsh than most of the people supporting the party actually believe.*
* Yes, there are racists and bigots in the party. But the vast majority of folks who voted Republican yesterday aren't.
James Buchanan was 65; Zachary Taylor and Bush I were both 64.
Women age slower and get stupid slower, medicine and health is much improved. I have a hard time thinking of this as an issue, YMMV.
QFT. zonk in 2016.
the governor was not interested in conceding even though he understood the math. karl rove had hitched his wagon to the governor and helped convince folks with dollars and influence that the governor's campaign approach would work. when the governor wasn't ready to concede karl had to step in and provide cover that would somehow justify the delay to what many said was inevitable.
that was it. two guys joined at the hip and one doing what he could while mrs. romney worked the governor to help him get where he needed to be
I think it is an issue. People slow down - it's completely natural. Look at the toll the presidency exerts on younger folks. I think she may well be fine at 69 but I wouldn't bank on her being fine at 72, or certainly at 77. (She might be - not trying to knock old folks, but I'd prefer someone younger).
I'd like to know who (if anyone) Obama wants to see elevated to front-runner status on his side - that makes a difference.
***
HW on Rove: Hmmm. Okay, I can buy that.
I was in a hotel in Jersey Monday night. When the Saints went up 21-3 I started flipping the channels and landed on HBO, about a quarter of the way into "Game Change." You should watch it. It's entertaining and informative (even if I suspect Steve Schmidt isn't nearly as likable as the character he writes for himself.) It ends with the McCain-Palin campaign getting hotter and hotter, stirring up the crackpots in the base in an attempt to bail out a losing effort, then closes with the fight between Schmidt and Palin about her desire to give a VP concession speech.
The final scene is an ominous panning of the soon-to-become-Tea Party crowd in Arizona chanting "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah" after McCain concedes. The message is clearly "and now this is the face of the party."
I was struck by that, in that I recalled quite clearly the assumption that coming out of 2008 Sarah Palin was an unstoppable force who was so clearly the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2012 that other options should just get in line to be her veep already.
Today she's a failed reality TV star coasting in checks from the fetid swamps of Fox News commentariat gigs.
Keep this in mind as you guys project the candidates for 2016.
And agin QFT. I really don't think a majority, a plurality, or even all that many of voters for Romney are racist. I do think a few percent voted for the R instead of the D based on bias.
I think the primary voters on the GOP side have a bit more influence, but not a plurality there either.
I recall a recent poll claiming that half of registered Republicans surveyed doubted that Obama was born in America.
I missed Rove's initial statement about having secret knowledge - plainly ridiculous - but the OH call was too early, even if it did prove accurate. We as a nation will survive a concession after midnight.
I mean - forget Romney - Crossroads raised and dumped an absolute ton of money into Senate races and what did it get them? It looks like about $300 million essentially got them the NE-SEN seat (that they win in a walk anyway) and a hold in AZ-SEN, and probably another hold in NV-SEN.
I still have issues with CU - and I'll echo some folks from a few pages back that I have moderately changed views on CU as it relates to the free speech issue - but I think that might be the best news of this entire cycle... unless you want to say that SuperPACs formed a bulwark from this being a GOP wipeout in the House/Senate (and I don't buy that) -- the money effect seemed to be especially muted this cycle.
True. I am exhausted this morning.
Voting down Puerto Rican statehood would not be a good way to start mending bridges with the Latino community. Then again, they may be that stupid.
I heard Romney asked all of his staffers to leave the room, and then started screaming in German.
I prefer (C), then (B) and then (A), but Dems seem to really like grand bargains so (A) might be where the smart money goes.
Right. I think a good politician should be able to craft a message that appeals to the base without scaring people in the middle. Yes, it will be hard. But that is what politicians are supposed to do - appeal to diverse elements, bring folks together. Any bum can get up and stir up emotions and lose.
Caught the early flight from Boston, eh?
Larry M - Don't think capitulation is an option. Bend, yes.
QFT.
i have seen that youtube. when favre signed witht he vikings that version went to all packer fans. it's tremendous
It's pretty simple: The GOP should stop making coded appeals to bigots, and stop pretending that they aren't. This isn't 1972, and the changing demographics are going to just keep grinding them down if they keep pandering to the worst elements in the country.
EDIT: coke to Matt in 4838, and many others after that.
* My understanding is you have to keep a DC, probably just the Monuments area, White House and Capitol, for Constitutional reasons, but could carve out the rest as a state. But I am not a lawyer so no idea if this is true.
Yeah, Florida was obvious before Ohio.
Senate: Kelly Ayotte, Jean Shaheen
House: Ann Kuster, Carol Shea-Porter
Gov - Maggie Hassan
The binary racist/not racist use here obscures far more truth than it reveals. Most of the people who voted Republican yesterday would should a significant racial if they took the test here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ for instance. Most of the people who voted Democratic would too; the difference is that most of Democrats make half-assed attempts to acknowledge that's a bad thing, and they should work on it. Not so much for the Republicans.
"the blonde woman panelist [on Fox] (whose name I don't know), who seem to be pretty objective."
That would be Kirsten Powers, who is a Democrat. And she is pretty objective; refreshing to see anyone from either party who will veer from the talking points faxed out each morning.
518 upstate represent!
Isn't this code for "We should start seeing other people"?
EDIT: Thanks Howie. That is her. Fetching, smart and a Democrat for the trifecta.
They _can't_ support it anytime soon.
You say this like it's a bad thing. It had been a while since I've listened to that song and you reminded me of it.
No but I've seen many other variants. I really, really dislike football. The main things I know about Favre is that he played for the Packers and he's from a city in Mississippi that is the approximate location of the last bare-knuckle heavyweight title fight in boxing history.
Correct vicinity, but "at the hip" isn't exactly where Rove & Romney were joined, I'm pretty sure.
Detectives believe orifices were involved.
While this is true in the aggregate, it is not true in the specific. You can't assume Hillary Clinton will be whip smart into her 80s just because she's a woman. Find out how her mother and aunts fared and get back to me.
At Romney headquarters, the defeat of the 1 percent
Is there some reason instead of "statehood", VA and MD couldn't just annex large chunks of DC. Do we really need another state for that?
I suppose I don't think OH was literally called too early - it was pretty clear where it would end up. I'm just saying, if I'm the candidate, I don't feel obligated to concede just as soon as there is some idea of a decision. Otherwise, he should have conceded with the last group of polls that came in. I was mostly responding to the idea that Romney should have conceded "earlier". It was pretty damned early for an election as close as this one and I don't blame a campaign for moving deliberately. It isn't as if he waited until today or threatened lawsuits or something.
I admit to knowing next to nothing about Puerto Rico. Is there a reason it should be a state?
I'm with you there, sure. It's his campaign, after all - not ours, not the media's...
That doesn't necessarily mean they're all racists & bigots. They could simply be idiots.
They could, but they don't want to.
Senate: Kelly Ayotte, Jean Shaheen
House: Ann Kuster, Carol Shea-Porter
Gov - Maggie Hassan
Yep, I mentioned last night that someone on Facebook said this is the first time that has happened in any state. I don't know if that's true or not.
(Worth noting that they're not all Democrats. Ayotte is Republican and from what I understand holds all the standard party views, including the ones that seem anti-woman.)
I'm pretty firm in my belief that well over half the voters in both parties are idiots. So, I agree.
I see people like Andy are trying to explain the election by calling the GOP bigots and such. I think that analysis is expected, but it's far too complex and misses the mark. (And don't latinos typically vote Democrat? What chance does the GOP really have trying to win an election by turning latinos into GOP voters? It would be like trying to turn gays or blacks into GOP voters. Or, on the flip side, like Democrats trying to turn Evangelicals into Democrat voters.)
Basically, my read of the results - FWIW - is that it's somewhat hard to unseat a sitting president, and enough people felt that while the economy is still bad, it was bad when Obama inherited it, so they didn't blame him for it.
Fox News had been hammering away at the Libya/Benghazi thing, trying to make hay with it. The problem is that, no matter what the merits of the argument against Obama with respect to that (and I honestly haven't followed it enough to know), nobody was listening except Fox News viewers and Rush Limbaugh fans and the like, who were already poised to vote for Romney.
Obviously passing Obamacare didn't hurt Obama enough to lose the election.
I don't think it's possible for the GOP to open their mouths without people who hate the GOP deciphering coded bigotry in their statement.
This made me laugh. Thanks.
DC residents want to be a separate state and not folded into Maryland or Virginia as far as I know, and that is good enough for me (OK I admti to my partisan bias also would love to see it, because it would be a mortal lock Democratic state).
Puerto Rico I also favor because I believe in self determination and if they want to be a state and are already citizens (they are) then they should be a state. I have no idea where they would fall in the spectrum. Likely Dem I guess based on racial profiling, but very possibly not because of the multifaceted cultural issues. I like diversity and the big old melting pot and so am in favor of new voices in the US. IOf course if they wated to remain as is or become an independant country I am OK with that also.
I cheerfully concede the point. Somehow I sometimes manage to forget that we're talking about the Party of Creationists here.
Ray, you do realize that throwing all Latinos (and "blacks" and "gays") into a big pile and assuming they all must think, act and vote alike is, well, you know, sort of kind of a racist position to take, right?
They have no interest in being a dependent country. Simplifying: status quo or statehood (so, more $, but some loss of identity/autonomy) are the only two options that are popular.
DC was created out of land given by Virginia and Maryland. Congress gave back Virginia's in 1846 (what we now call Alexandria). So if there's any state annexation to be done, DC becomes part of Maryland.
Is the national GOP immigration stance the pro-legal immigration, against illegal immigration? Is it all about "they took our jobs"? Of course I'm sure a lot of people will read that as racism or being xenophobic, but is their stance primarily an economic issue?
It is a new era of commity, I agree with Ray.
I don't think racism is the reason Obama won, but I do think the GOP has a long term race issue they will need to deal with. It might just go away, but I doubt it.
All very reasonable. My thought was that they are just so different - culturally. However, I'd guess maybe not anymore so than Hawaii was. I'm just not old enough to remember it.
I do think that bringing them in will require some sort of compromise with the Rs. I don't know what it would take, but they'd have to be paid off to allow PR in. DC wouldn't really be much of a stretch as their EVs already count.
Governor Moonbeam! I was shocked when I found out it was him running last time and not a relative of his with the same name. The guy is like the Cher of politics.
Is there some reason instead of "statehood", VA and MD couldn't just annex large chunks of DC. Do we really need another state for that?
I think that would make Virginia a solidly blue state, which is probably worse for Republicans (and therefore less likely to happen) than adding DC as a new state.
So my technique was to basically sit there with my laptop with the networks in the background, and going back and forth with my Nate Silver chart, a more standard CNN chart showing what the more traditional outfits had pegged as the swing states, and the results as they were streaming in. Also keeping up with this BBTF thread, which I actually found an invaluable tool to figure out what notable things were happening in real time and a reasoned quick analysis from people. And I wasn't seeing ANYTHING breaking for Romney.
Nate was nailing every state. So while a more standard map like CNN had claimed to identify swing states, Nate's prediction chart simply didn't have some of these states as swing states, and when he did have a shade there, it was something like 75% for Obama or whatever. So there really weren't very many true swing states, certainly not as many as the networks thought.
And so the take-away lesson from the people who had it wrong was "Oh, the polls were wrong." When really Nate's model more accurately evaluated the polls. So their premise was wrong, leading to a wrong assessment of what had happened. It reminded me of things in baseball like in 2009 after ARod went crazy in the playoffs; people didn't consider that maybe their premise that he choked in the postseason was wrong; instead, they thought he had finally overcome his choking. Well, here, the networks didn't consider that maybe their assessment of which states were swing states was wrong.
They just need to get the issue off the table. If they do it early, then they have time to recover with the base but if they run the same immigration discussion in 2016 that they ran this year, they'll lose a ton of accessible votes.
But in the Senate and House they would get representation. Plus Congress would have less power to randomly meddle with DC then and congress generically loves that stuff. The Dems get bribed with more comrades (Commie allusion on purpose), but the GOP has no reason to go along with it.
Biggest issue is with the notion that the right couldn't have, at minimum, arrested its aggressive decline in popularity with Latinos (which, no, are very much not a homogenous group - but thinking like Sam's 4971 can be extended to suggest that no level of aggregation is appropriate, which is simply not useful).
I agree that race and ethnicity are complex issues, but there's nothing particularly complex about the rhetoric of "self-deportation" and "Nobody's ever had to ask me for my birth certificate." There was nothing very complex about the fixations over Rev. Wright, "Kenya", or "not really an American", all of which have been in the air for long stretches of time over the past four years. And if the Republican base really rejected that kind of crap, do you think that their candidates would have been offering it?
And do you think that blacks and Latinos don't notice it? Here's one sliver of evidence from a WaPost article this morning:
The instinctive reaction of many whites when they read that is to start arguing back and picking nits, but then they start scratching their heads and say that they can't figure out why more minorities won't listen to what they have to say about the economy. It might be better for everyone concerned---particularly for the Republicans---if some of these white people would just STFU and start listening to what's being noticed about them, and come to terms with America's changing demographics.
? What I'm saying is that, e.g., black people as a group will tend to vote heavily Democrat. Am I incorrect?
It's the same conversation over and over: if a Republican says something offensive to a Latino voter, the Republican response is to explain how the problem isn't with what they said, but how it was unfairly interpreted-- so obviously the problem lies with the person doing the interpretation, rather than with the person who uttered the initial statement. And this works if you're addressing white people who think that nonwhites should just get over race already, but it doesn't work when you're trying to convince the offended people to cast a vote for you. Interpretation (or deciphering, as you put it) is a fundamentally subjective activity-- denying someone their interpretation is denying them their subjectivity.
Not sure, but I might've voted for him in the Democratic primary in Arkansas back in '92. (I know my gf at the time ran into his daughter campaigning for him.) Even then, he seemed like a figure from the semi-distant past.
Newsletter? Subscribe me!
And BTW if anyone stuck with PBS last night, he or she could have avoided all the BS spinning on the commercial networks, and gotten rather clear headed ongoing analysis from the entire PBS crew. They waited for three networks to call a state before assigning it to a candidate's column, but that slight delay didn't really matter in the long run.
I don't know about that. Palin is pretty rare in the polititican that just did not care anything about government. Didn't care about reforming, didn't care about making it as limited/useless as possible. She just wanted one thing, and that was to make Sarah Palin a brand. But I feel that just about everyone else in politics is in it to make some sort of difference.
Let me put it this way, who gives up a Governor's seat TWO YEARS IN HER FIRST TERM JUST BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT ANYMORE. That's just a gross misculation on whomever tried to put her there in the frist place. That's simply a person who doesn't belong in Political office.
In fairness, this approach works moderately well for Republicans when it comes to dealing with women - not perfectly, but if they got ~45% of the Latino and Black vote, they'd be winning left, right, and center (well, right and center anyhow).
I think it all netted out to near zero and incumbancy and a great ground game ended up winning it for team blue. What happens to that ground game really matters though, and can/will Obama shift from building Brand Obama to building Brand Democrat (I suspect no, sadly).
Andy, I don't see that the GOP product has changed very much in this respect over the years - not that I agree with your premise but whatever the GOP is now it has been already. And it didn't stop Bush from winning in 2000 or 2004, when people like you were still around calling the GOP bigots and racists.
So I do think the issue is irrelevant to explaining the results of last night, yes. Because:
How many of the people who were bringing the roof down had any prayer of voting Republican? That's what you're missing.
Mostly that Maryland state politics are a complete mess*, and if you didn't notice DC went over 91% for Obama last night. Neither VA nor the DC residents want to be mixed in with non-Northern Virgina. I don't know that statehood is required per se, but it's an abomination that there is no legislative representation for 600,000+ Americans, especially when said legislature has so much control over the DC government. The only reason they don't have representation is because of that 91%, the Republicans won't allow it since it's 5 guaranteed democratic congressmen. I know nothing about Puerto Rican politics but I imagine that there are similar issues there.
*Almost as bad as District politics.
That would've required watching (or for that matter having) TV, & while I hate myself every now & then, I didn't want to subject myself to that particular punishment. Watching an episode from the first season of Haven via Netflix made for a far better experience.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main