|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.
In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...
Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 21, 2013 (27 - 8:53pm, May 21)Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&TNewsblog: Barry Bonds: Detroit Tigers' Miguel Cabrera 'the best' ... but not better than me (52 - 8:52pm, May 21)Last: Ray (RDP)Newsblog: SB Nation: Five lost scouting reports (10 - 8:50pm, May 21)Last: RMc and His Roster of RubbishNewsblog: JM Catellier: Is Pedro Martinez a First Ballot Hall of Famer? (118 - 8:45pm, May 21)Last: MoeballNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3815 - 8:45pm, May 21)Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)Newsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (67 - 8:34pm, May 21)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (47 - 8:09pm, May 21)Last: SweatpantsNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1046 - 7:50pm, May 21)Last: FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substanceNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-21-2013 (20 - 7:46pm, May 21)Last: esseffNewsblog: USA Today: “Diamondbacks’ Pat Corbin continues dominance vs. Rockies” (1 - 7:42pm, May 21)Last: ShoeGritNewsblog: WaPo | Ryan Mattheus breaks throwing hand punching a locker, adds to bullpen disarray (15 - 7:39pm, May 21)Last: John DiFool2Newsblog: Yanks, Manchester City awarded MLS expansion team (18 - 7:32pm, May 21)Last: Manny CoonNewsblog: Rare Feat Not Done Since Pete Rose (6 - 7:29pm, May 21)Last: esseffNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1012 - 6:54pm, May 21)Last: Der_KNewsblog: Living up to expectorations: The Alex Sanabia spitball clip (6 - 5:42pm, May 21)Last: Perry
|
|
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.
stegals views might be colored by Arlen Specter who might be seen as 'spineless'. Certainly his switching from Republican to Democratic was in a sense 'distasteful'.
I sort of don't agree with this at all. Especially if you consider that the Occupy movement was the brainchild of a few situationalists. They had an anti-cooption program hard-coded into their DNA. And the TP started out wanting less government, rather than more. Occupy was about using government productively to address economic inequalities.
Plus, the Teapers can't craft a metaphor to save their lives. Occupy's really good at it.
This whole coalition thing is nonsense. Romney lost because he couldn't convince women to vote for him.
This. The crazy #### that other Republicans were saying on rape and abortion didn't help him, although I'm not sure how much it really hurt him in the end.
Cant' recall who said it, but he/she was right: If Glenn Beck and Michael Moore could ever stand to be in the same room, they'd find they hold many similar beliefs.
Thus the co-opting of the Catholic hierarchy of late. Certainly it's been easier to build a coalition on culture war identity for decades, and that's not going away overnight, but I do honestly think we saw the religious right lose the culture war they've been fighting for 40 years, last night. Not a battle; the war.
I know that Obama was leading among Catholics in the final Gallup poll, 52-45. Not sure where it shook out but I'm guessing he won with Catholics.
What does that have to do with the Occupy movement? Moore had sh!t all to do with Occupy until it grew legs and started walking.
Edit: This article provides some good background.
I understand that. The issue I'm having is to what degree the TP is a "cultural majoritarian" movement when their ardently voiced cultural concerns about gays, abortion, contraception, and so on are being proven to be ever-less in synch with the larger modern-day American culture. They're majoritarian within the GOP, obviously, but that's the entire frickin issue we're discussing.
According to CNN exit polls, Obama won 50-48 among Catholics.
The Latino demographic is hardly a monolith either.
Here's one political analogy: Vietnamese : Asian :: Cuban : Latino
There's a major segment of the Vietnamese-American population for whom anti-communism trumps all other political values, and that tends to put them in the Republican party. My Long Beach district (CA 47) has some Orange County in it - I think quite a bit of Westminster, and it's probably got a pretty large Vietnamese population. The Republican, DeLong, did better in those Orange County neighborhoods than in Long Beach. (There are other reasons for that, as well.)
But Vietnamese-Americans do not have the same policy-affecting clout that Cuban-Americans have. And the U.S. now has normal relations with Vietnam. And the group that I'm talking about are very much an older generation; those values are fading with their children and grandchildren.
Once upon a time, among Chinese-Americans, there were some old-line Kuomintang anti-communist hardliners as well. They're probably still around, somewhere. But there's bit so much recent immigration - from China, from Taiwan, from ethnically Chinese communities in Southeast Asia - that it all gets swamped out.
I'm interested in how the GOP elite will try to win their party back.
Wow, and that's with the threat of eternal damnation hanging over them.
I agree with MCoA. The Tea Party was in large part about conservatives attempting to rebrand themselves after the Bush II years*. That the Tea Party basically looked like the GOP is not a conincidence.
*Not to be confused with actually disagreeing with that many of his positions.
The Republican Party is actually three parties; the Goldwaters, the Libertarians, and the Dixiecrats. From Reagan* until Obama, the Goldwaters ran the party, the Dixiecrats were the foot soldiers, and the Libertarians were useful idiots. In 2009-10, the Dixiecrat foot soldiers overthrew the Goldwaters and took complete control of the party (the coup had been going on for years.) The Libertarians are still useful idiots.
The Tea Party is the Dixiecrats. It is the religious right. It is the "southern base." It is perfectly conceivable to me that the Dixiecrats spin off as their own party again. It's what Dixiecrats *do.* They have no conception of moderation, cooperation, or "go along to get along." They are fundamentalists in every aspect of their political being. They don't compromise. Not even with their own party fellow-travelers, when push comes to shove.
*Reagan's ascendancy was the culmination of another coup, where the Goldwaters took power from the Rockefellers, a brand of Gooper that just doesn't exist anymore outside of petting zoos and David Brooks' porn folders.
Some would cite cultural issues. Some would point to demographics. Some might even say Hurricane Sandy.
Nope, these fools are all wrong, the real answer remains, as always, LIBRULMEDIABIAS.
"Similarly, when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal."
(actual quote!)
We find it to be an interesting topic, Ray. You might want to engage in it, rather than labeling it as concern trolling, or perhaps ignore it if you don't think it's interesting.
Then his commenters pointed out a guy like Limbaugh doesn't care about truth, only money - and if lying gets him more money, so be it.
the race really hasn't been a high concern of mine for one reason or another, but when i found myself wanting to get a feel for what was happening, this thread turned out to be one of the most informative i've ever waded through.
the usual gang of idiots had their say on both sides but still managed to stay on the debate and not resort to nasty insults and gratuitous snark -- or just enough to keep it btf-style -- for which i'm grateful.
but i would like to mention one poster in particular. i want to say that mccoy and his analysis and general observations were refreshingly concise and precise. his posts were particularly effective retorts to some of the sillier pronouncements of some other posters, and helped me in my political discussions with people offsite.
I'd love to talk about the election, its causes and consequences, with our resident conservatives and Republican partisans, Ray. Hell, I even took Joe off of ignore just for that purpose.
That's a hard conversation to have when they're hiding in their bathrooms refusing to leave the house because they'd have to admit they were wrong.
For me, one of my favorite Twain quotes sums it up - one that I wish were more true than it is, but it suits for both Silver and the Tea Party today:
""Every time the magic of folderol tried conclusions with the magic of science, the magic of folderol got left." - A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court
I'm not an Obama voter.
But, please, tell us what you think will gain back the Senate and White House for the Republicans. They SHOULD have won. I have a lot of sympathy for the pundits. The activity and circumstances of the last 4 years, viewed through the prism of history, led to the obvious conclusion that Obama, and the Democrats, were going down. To be honest, I wasn't so sure they wouldn't - that there may well be a chance the analysis leading up to the election might be wrong.
But it wasn't. The prism of history is misleading when the circumstances aren't precisely aligned with those of the past.
I grant that the Rs were close to winning a lot last night. But that gets them not a lot. Some change in direction/attitude is needed.
If you disagree, elaborate. If you think different changes - those of us on the outside are all over the map on it - please elaborate there as well.
I don't wish to talk AT you. If you feel that is what is going on, I think you're wrong but I apologize if it came off that way.
Well, one similar belief.
Do you really mean that, or do you just want them to be here so you can do your typical schtick?
Generally Republican; held my nose and voted for Romney. I feel the party has drifted far to the right in trying to cater to a few bases. Centrist is easily the best play to get elected (Romney did a fair job of this near the end, but by then, it was probably too late). The base of the party just needs a strong leader who can tell some of the more radical portions of the party to stop saying stupid things and start "re-packaging" the brand. That's probably a poor term, but just avoid obviously inflammatory quotes, make a concentrated effort to soften the image towards minorities (I don't believe the party is full of racists, but if public opinion is anything like what's being said here, I imagine everyone thinks the Republicans want to go back to the mid 1800's), and play up fiscal conservatism, I'd say there's a decent chance next election. Obama was an extremely strong candidate 4 years ago and after Bush II, I doubt there would have been any chance for him to lose. This year, the Republicans should/could have gained ground, but didn't.
Maybe if a lot of the TP split, that'd be a good thing in the long run. Would allow a complete rebuild, cut out a lot of wingnuts, and probably gain a lot of support in the future (of course, that means effectively conceding the next 12-20 years of elections, but if you view it in the Civilization "let's fast forward to 100 years in the future," it might work).
That didn't happen. Instead, the GOP won the two 2009 Governor races, and swept to victory in the 2010 mid-terms (although they left a couple of Senate seats on the table though poor candidate selection) while also make huge gains on the state level. Even with Obama's re-election, they held on to the House and again a large part of the Senate problem was poor candidate selection in a few key races.
Going forward, the economy is still a huge issue. Obama will get some credit for any significant improvement, but public patience is not unlimited. Six-year elections of two-term Presidents have featured some of the biggest incumbent party defeats of any off year elections. If Democrats can't win back the House with Obama on the top of the ticket, I don't think they will when he isn't on the ballot, and the Senate is a very difficult landscape for Democrats in 2010.
That's not to say that the GOP doesn't have problems. But political parties constantly adapt to changes in the political environment, and new issues arise in ways that are not always anticipated. Winners get to gloat, but it is very difficult to keep the political pendulum from swinging back and forth despite the concerted efforts of many to keep it one way or the other.
Edited American to California; likely that some companies will move across the US.
Why do people still pay for porn, anyway?
(warning: language and soothing background music)
Have you learned nothing from The Wire?
Well, both probably. I really do mean it. Contrary to popular belief, I am capable of carrying on conversations and such. (Except with Dan, apparently. Dan seems to be genetically incapable of not getting pissed off at me, a fact I find amazing to be honest.)
See, I agree with this so far. Especially the bit about Romney's debate pivot to the center being too little, too late. Especially too late. At that point he had allowed himself to be defined as Bain Capital. As to the radicals, I would argue that it's incumbent on the strong leader to not merely get them in line and hide them long enough to win elections. Said leader needs to work on bringing said radicals into the 20th century, so at least those of us in the 21st can recognize them as functioning humans.
Two responses here. First, you are absolutely correct in that it doesn't matter if the party is really full of racists or just plays a party full of racists on TV. Perception is reality. Second, Jay Smooth.
I think this actually aligns with what people here have been saying all day, yes?
Well, this is the crux of the matter right here. There are real questions as to whether the current Republican party can adapt to the changes happening right now. I agree with Steve that today's discussion has been interesting.
My analysis is about the same as everyone else's. If the Republican party were to change its platform such that it agrees with me they'd be in great shape :)
My guess (probably wishful thinking) is that the real change will come from the dead-end culture warriors dying off. My impression is that young Republicans aren't particularly opposed to gay marriage, and are generally much more socially liberal than the older set. Of course, this also involves conceding the next 12-20 years of elections.
I see this a lot, but I don't really understand it. Why does the prism of history tell us that Obama should have lost? Just because the economy isn't great?
Well yeah. This is *the question.* Is the GOP a party capable of adapting, evolving and reconfiguring itself to fit modernity, or is it structurally compromised in such a way that the demands of modernity will tear it apart as it tries to reconfigure? It's not an empty question. Political parties are not immortal. They come and go. The Whigs are no longer with us. And the current coalition of parts that make up the larger GOP certainly looks, to me, to be poorly configured to deal with the stress of reconfiguration.
Who are the libertarians? How do you distinguish them from the Goldwaters? There can't be many true libertarians in the GOP.
Ron Paul is in the GOP, as is Rand.
Wow. That is 10 minutes of pure awesome.
They break up their food into small bites before they eat it. Be careful, they remain hidden, sometimes as spies.
I think this is the general assumption, yes. "Bad economic growth and 8% unemployment = incumbent loses." I'm not sure we have enough data in the historical models to really validate that assumption, personally. But even if we grant the assumption, it's perfectly possible that today's electorate is more informed than previous electorates, and graded Obama less harshly due to a longer memory/easier access to historical reminders than previous electorates would have. (That is to say, it's a lot easier for voters to Google up those graphs that Andrew Sullivan loves to run showing the collapse of the economy at the end of 2008 and then the steady but slow growth of jobs from the bottom of the trough circa Q2 2009. In past elections, someone on the teevee would have had to have put that on the screen intentionally.)
How is it bigoted to call out and acknowledge the success of the Democrats relying on campaign surrogates to hold latinos within the coalition?
I wonder how many of you live in latino districts. I do - one of the largest concentrations. You notice how involved certain non-profits and certain leaders are in explaining the laws, fighting off police harassment or sustaining the neighborhood economy. Not unlike any other ethnic neighborhood throughout history. Democrats have been incredibly successful in buying off and turning over the leadership.
One historical party in Canada (Progressive Conservatives) imploded after one bad election and disappeared after being the ruling or opposing party for 136 years.
The other historical party in Canada (Liberals) imploded after one bad election, and might disappear as well (after 145 years of being the ruling or opposing party).
Yes, but the demographic trends are running against them.
The Democrats are doing much better with younger voters; the Republican strength is with older voters. This generational turn over has had a dramatic effect on issues like gay rights leading to more and more support for gay marriage. Opposition to Gay Marriage does not need to be a core Republican value. Smaller government and strong defense, those are the core values. The Social Issues are the result of a decision to tie their wagon to the evangelical movement. There are plenty of other areas where they could sync up with evangelicals, while downplaying opposition here.
The Latino issue is also relevant, because they are a growing part of the electorate.
The Latino vote is a place where Republicans could probably make inroads -- I think that on a lot of social issues they would like up well with the Republicans -- if they could get past the immigration issue. I don't see how a change in immigration policy really affects the core Republican issues; it seems more like a pandering to a part of their base.
Concur (and thanks for the Jay Smooth link); sadly, I'm kinda waiting for some parts of the party to fade away or maybe new young blood to come in and just lock them in the attic. The only thing I would fear more than a two party system is something closer to a one party system, since I think competition (in any area) leads to both sides having to evolve, grow, and adapt.
I think Jon Huntsman, if he made it past the primaries, would have had a better shot than Romney. He was my preferred candidate this year, and the primaries made me feel like the R's were making a big mistake.
Josh Jordan, NRO "Numbers Muncher" has a twitter feed that is an excellent source for these.
According to those UofColorado professors, that should have led to a Romney landslide. After all, it predicted the prior elections back to 1980.
*snicker*
This is... just... just... Pure, unadulterated joy.
But that's a tiny, tiny group. This is mostly semantics of course, but I would say that the GOP is two parties with a few other little groups like the libertarians floating around. Actually, if you're going to break it into three groups, I think it would make more sense to say that it's Goldwaters, Dixicrats, and Evangelicals (like Bachmann).
"mjs" hit it on the head in #5440. The next time you engage in an honest dialogue with a non-liberal here will be the first. Hell, even your "took Joe off ignore" shtick is dishonest. It's amazing how often you quote me if you have me on "ignore." (Maybe there's a bug in the site Mr. Furtado needs to work on.)
Regardless, I haven't been "hiding" anywhere. I was here all day yesterday and continued last night's post-election discussion until almost 9:00 AM today. Unfortunately, your idea of "discussion" was your typical "Republicans are racist nutter racists who hate blacks, brown people, and gays, and spend their free time engaging in racism, racism, and other forms of racism" shtick. (Admittedly, you had plenty of company; it wasn't just you.)
As for the GOP and elections, if more and more people continue to become dependent on government, the GOP will continue to lose elections. It's really as simple as that.
Mitt Romney isn't a hard-right conservative, and he didn't lose because he's a hard-right conservative. A couple candidates — Akin and Mourdock — lost because they're idiots, but they're not representative of the GOP brand any more than Cynthia McKinney was representative of the Dem brand. And contrary to the whole "the Tea Party is killing the GOP" concern trolling, the Tea Party remains a net positive for the GOP. The Tea Party cost the GOP a few seats, but grassroots progressives cost the Dems some seats as well. But in both cases, a few such losses are preferable to having Beltway hacks dominate if not dictate the candidate-selection process. It's not like the GOP hit home runs with retreads like George Allen and Tommy Thompson.
I was in the anyone-but-Romney camp for most of the GOP primary, I donated $0 to his campaign, and I bet $0 on the election. I wanted Romney to win and expected Romney to win, more for economic/historical reasons than because I'm a big Romney fan, but if the U.S. could survive full Dem control of the U.S. government in 2009–10, including a filibuster-proof Senate for much of 2009, then it can survive a few more years of split government. Obama had far more political capital in 2009 than he has today or will have in January 2013.
Explaining the law to the citizenry, fighting off police harassment and sustaining the local economy is a bad thing?!
That whole post was bizarre. I'm beginning to think that poster's a bot running on the old Hammurabi engine from 1979.
The famouse anonymous quote is crass and cynical and unalterably true: progress happens one funeral at a time. I'm not sure the GOP can hold it's internal structure together long enough for the angry, white Boomers of the south to die out in throngs.
I did call them "useful idiots," right?
I really don't distinguish the Dixiecrats and the Evangelicals at all. If anything, I give evangelicals more leeway, because I know quite a lot of evans who hate the politicals of their persuasion more than any of us do here. (In the process of ####### up our politics with their religion, the evans have also managed to completely and utterly #### up their religion with politics.)
https://twitter.com/search?q=#natesilverfacts&src=typd
I don't think it's all doom and gloom; for all the problems there may be with the GOP, the presidential race could have gone worse. Romney wasn't a particularly strong candidate and there were times (not many) when it was believed he had a decent shot (or maybe I'm just buying into what I heard). If there isn't measurable progress in the next four years (anything big the Democrats can hang their hat on), I think a lot of the goodwill brought in by "Hope and Change" will evaporate
Being lectured on "honest dialogue" by you is, quite honestly, the icing on this week's cake so far, Joe. Seriously. That's just pure comedy gold. (Note: here I am, in this very thread, on this very page, engaging MJS in honest dialogue. You seem to be confused.)
No, Joe. It's quite simple. Over the past three months I've seen your posts in two ways. Either someone else quoted you, and I quoted their quote of you, or I saw something you wrote before I logged into BTF with my account/password and the ignore feature too effect. It's not a bug, really. Jimmy doesn't need to sort it out for me this time.
One of the reasons you and I can't have nice things is your inability to read for comprehension, I think. That's not entirely snark, either. You really do seem incapable of reading anything that doesn't confirm your own bias with any degree of intellectual honesty. (To answer your retort, yes, I'm quite capable of reading other points of view without bias and with intellectual honesty. As MJS points out, there's a distinction between me engaged and me bored with you and throwing knives for fun.)
That's all I needed to hear. You're running back to the echo chamber because thinking through things at any level other than that which confirms your own bias is too hard for you to deal with. That's regrettable, but not unexpected.
I see you've got the talking points memo memorized.
The sneer is gone from Mitten's lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence upon his blonde and vapid mate.
And now the media gives the results, and admits Nate Silver's right,
And now the GOP is shattered by the force of Obama's night.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Freeperville - mighty Mittens has struck out.
But they don't call them on it in public? Private censure is cheap. I don't have much respect for that. If you're not going to curb your own dogs, don't blame those who think you're one of them.
Disagree. Last night's election is big news for a couple-three reasons. First, it sets in stone the gains of the last four years from a liberal perspective. Obamacare is not going to be overturned. Second, it puts a Dem in the Oval Office should any SCOTUS openings come up. Third, it puts a Dem in the Oval Office as the recovery starts to pick up steam and really gain traction. The fight for 2012 is the fight to be the sitting admin when the economy kicks back into gear, because she who sits the throne during those years will sit the throne for years to come.
Definitely can see that argument; if Obamacare "works," the recovery continues (hopefully it does, regardless of who is President), and it gets the best candidate (I would say regardless of politics, but that's a pipe dream) on SCOTUS, would definitely call this a big win. If Obamacare "fails" or is vastly unpopular in execution, no SCOTUS appointment, or the economy doesn't improve per expectations... Honestly, if my side loses but it leads to things getting markedly better in the US, I'll try not to complain too much.
Weird being in a reasonable discussion after watching/reading nuts on both sides of aisle over the past few days. Maybe I'll rethink some of my hateful thoughts about this thread and the participants.
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they have to live with these people.
Hey, if you need to take a break and throw brickbats, I'm okay with that. I'm not averse to some nutpunching myself, on occasion.
Ron (and even more so Rand) differ sharply with a lot of "common" libertarian ideas and are probably closer to Goldwater conservatives. For one Ron is a big federalist, and on numerous issues (abortion, drug legalization, etc) talked about "leaving things to the states". Both are also very hesitant to endorse fully open borders. Ron is also a very strict constitutionalist, which if you do a very narrow and limited reading of it, it is a good start for libertarians, but not complete.
Ron also ran as the Libertarian candidate in '88 and ended up leaving the party shortly after that over some ideological differences.
I suppose they are the torch bearers for the current "mainstream" quasi-libertarian movement in the GOP, but I'm not sure they differ much from Goldwater conservatism (at least what I understand about Goldwater conservatism).
Yeah, how was that supposed to happen, anyway? I know Romney said he'd overturn it, and I know Obama people acted concerned that Romney would overturn it, but... wouldn't it take some kind of repeal passing both houses before the President could do anything about it anyway? How likely was that ever going to be?
EDIT: Got that backwards.
However likely (or unlikely) it was, it's exponentially less likely now. Repealing the ACA was *the* fundamental political promise from the GOP in 2012, at least as far as the Teapers were concerned. Go listen to the unhinged woman rant in that link up there. Note how often she mentions Obamacare and socialism and how utterly unconnected her concerns are to "the economy." That's the GOP/TP base.
Wouldn't it be possible to just enact some cleverly designed executive orders that cut into certain key aspects of the bill to render it effectively useless?
Either way, the GOP lost the election because they were painted in a really bad light on things that were really legitimate gaffs that enforced a lot of common perception of them. that and because the demographics is increasingly going against them and they seem to be the only once that doesn't realize it.
I had hoped that it was clear that I was not conflating the Libertarian wing of the GOP with the Libertarian Party itself. Clearly I was unclear in that regard.
Well, that and Obamaphones.
Other aspects, as RW says, could have been screwed over by executive orders and such. Some sort of regulatory system would probably have been left in place, but it would have been far worse and left far more people without coverage.
50.8
48.3
Actual as of now.
50.4
48.1
Terrible. Nate should probably kill himself.
I read quite well, actually. You accused me of "hiding," despite knowing I was here for about 18 straight hours yesterday and today, and I corrected you.
On a per capita basis, welfare dollars in the United States are spent on a roughly 3:2:1 ratio among blacks, Latinos, and whites. In yesterday's presidential election, the Dem candidate secured votes on a roughly 3:2:1 basis among those same demographics. Sure, some people — mostly higher-income whites — voted against their economic interests because of drone strikes or abortion or whatnot, but people generally vote their wallets. The Dems like to expand the welfare state, blacks and Latinos disproportionately benefit from those expansions, and blacks and Latinos disproportionately vote for Dems. It's not that hard to connect the dots.
That was clear, but what was unclear was the distinct between the Libertarian GOP wing and the Goldwater wing. I guess Barry was a litter more hawkish, I believe he was a proponent of Vietnam (maybe that's was just for campaign purposes?). I'm much too young and not well read enough to know the full range of Goldwater's brand of conservatism and just how different it is from a modern GOP flavored libertarian views.
Yes, I did pick up on that.
Mainly, I was thinking about the third-party aspects of her rant, and how much she sounds like Democrats when they talk about Ralph Nader.
Dude... I got sent that whole video - she's got a youtube version that is an odd mix of a webcam showing nothing, then occasionally swinging around to view a monitor with Drudge up, her bag of chips, and then back to darkness - by someone else.
Three things from it...
1) The YouTube video is longer and better
2) That's a schadenfreude bridge too far... I feel more sorry for people like that than anything else
3) Despite 2), I'll just say she's gonna get her wish -- her 15 minutes of viralness with more people getting her stuff looks about to happen
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main