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 62 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 >  Last ›
   6101. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4298429)
It proves the libruls were so reluctant to vote for a negro that the split the vote with a lesbian. I think.


Yeah, but with the rampant vote fraud - I think it probably came out above even... with AA lesbians being the tiebreaker.
   6102. Howie Menckel Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4298430)

Drunk Nate Silver worth a Twitter folo

https://twitter.com/DrunkNateSilve1

When I go to bars, I often take a sip of beer and simply must correct the listed alcohol content on the bottle #drunknatesilver

I just ran an aggregation of ancient calendars and, like GOP polls, the Mayans were completely wrong #drunknatesilver

I just called @taylorswift13 and told her when and where we are going to get back together #drunknatesilver

I tried to model the next time Dick Morris would be right about something, but I had no previous data to aggregate #drunknatesilver

Chances I renegotiate my contract with NYT? 538% #drunknatesilver

The chance I am sober at any point in the next month? 0.0000% #drunknatesilver

   6103. Tilden Katz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4298431)
My thoughts on them is either (i)they are not really libertarians, they think its cool to say they are but they are really "bog standard conservatives; or (ii) seriously deluded about what the GOP is and stands for.


Harassing gays and getting government in vaginas is a far less serious assault on liberty then increasing the highest tax rate by 3%.
   6104. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4298432)
Joe is presumably referring to the fact that, while Obama won more than half of the delegates awarded in the primaries, he didn't win by so much that he could take the nomination without support from superdelegates. I'm not sure what this proves, but there it is.


Seriously? So his argument is that because Obama used the Democratic Party's nomination mechanism to secure the nomination, from which point he went on to be elected POTUS, he didn't really win the nomination at all, but was awarded it by someone else?

Why does this argument not surprise me? Why am I not in the least bit taken aback by the fact that Joe thinks the only way Obama succeeded was via a gift from others?

Good ####### lord.
   6105. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4298433)
My thoughts on them is either (i)they are not really libertarians, they think its cool to say they are but they are really "bog standard conservatives; or (ii) seriously deluded about what the GOP is and stands for.


There's a pretty big difference between Northeastern libertarians (Ray, David and Dan all qualify here) and Southern or Midwestern libertarians. The latter are much more militia oriented types.
   6106. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4298435)
Return?!??

Seriously. I get FTL interstellar capabilities, it's going to be millennia before I return to this rock.
   6107. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4298436)
I'm glad to see that JoeK is hale and healthy and posting away...
I'd also note that if anyone thought that possibly he was punking us pre-election... well no.

I gotta give the Unskewed Polls guy credit. Unlike the bloviators like Rove and Will, he's admitted he was wrong and has tipped his cap to Nate. And he's not taking his site down.


I dunno, in addition to the gay baiting, blaming Rasmussen was kind of weak too.
(in case anyone cares, unskewed's "method" of unskewing the polls- was to re-calculate each to match Ras' partisan identification tracking poll- the problem with blaming Ras for that is 3 fold- 1 is that Scott Ras himself said YOU CAN'T DO THAT- 2 unskewed made it worse by cherry picking the single most favorable Ras result - and 3- Ras' partisan tracking is land line only - which may be why Ras himself does not use his own partisan tracking numbers to adjust the partisan composition of his other polls.
   6108. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4298438)
Joe is presumably referring to the fact that, while Obama won more than half of the delegates awarded in the primaries, he didn't win by so much that he could take the nomination without support from superdelegates. I'm not sure what this proves, but there it is.

It proves that white Dems didn't race to vote for Obama in the Dem primary, as seemed to be the claim by others above.

***
Seriously? So his argument is that because Obama used the Democratic Party's nomination mechanism to secure the nomination, from which point he went on to be elected POTUS, he didn't really win the nomination at all, but was awarded it by someone else?

Why does this argument not surprise me? Why am I not in the least bit taken aback by the fact that Joe thinks the only way Obama succeeded was via a gift from others?

Good ####### lord.

Uh, no, I didn't say any of those things, or even hint at any of those things. I simply pointed out that Dems didn't go so overwhelmingly for Obama that the nomination was actually secured during the primaries.
   6109. zenbitz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4298439)
How about Asians? More free stuff mongers I guess.



Mongers. Mongols. Asian hordes! We should build a wall.


EDIBLE DOG WHISTLE!
   6110. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4298440)
There's a pretty big difference between Northeastern libertarians (Ray, David and Dan all qualify here)


I was referring to "enthusiastic" GOPers- Ray, David and Dan don't fit that bill since all seem to be driven more by Dem-hatred than anything else, oddly Dan seems to be the leats reluctant GOP supporter of the bunch
   6111. steagles Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4298442)
does anyone have a graphic that compares the states that romney won/lost in the republican primaries against the ones that he won/lost in the general?

i may be a bit rusty on this, but it seems like santorum beat him in the primaries in at least 3/4 of the states that romney went on to win in the general.
   6112. zenbitz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4298443)

@6024 - In vision of the future where machines replace all the manual labor jobs - I am saying there is still a place for folks of mean intelligence in "hard" jobs. You said they couldn't do them at all. I am saying they probably can do them, just not as well as smarter folk. We are not taking about some future-future society where ALL human work is done by machines.

What if programming robots was no harder than driving trucks?
   6113. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4298447)
Harassing gays and getting government in vaginas is a far less serious assault on liberty then increasing the highest tax rate by 3%.
Nice.

I stopped reading Reason due to false equivalence like this. "Sure, the Bush Administration lied us into war and started up wholesale domestic warrantless surveillance, but the Dems want to make motorcycle helmets mandatory, so both parties are terrible."
   6114. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4298449)
i may be a bit rusty on this, but it seems like santorum beat him in the primaries in at least 3/4 of the states that romney went on to win in the general.
Gingrich crushed Mitt in South Carolina.

Speaking of which, red states that went purple-r than Arizona (R +11.1) in 2012: South Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, North Carolina. I'm most surprised by SC (R +10.6).
   6115. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4298450)
[6075] Wait, so this Dondero guy is a "former aide to Ron Paul"?

Wonder where that leads?

Oh ... here.


In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim's Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim's home/office as a "base." Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps "sternly" is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: "Just do what I say NOW."



"Bobby," a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.



He is what I would describe as "out of touch," with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)
   6116. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4298451)
I used to find it odd that many Libertarians hated the Dems but thought the GOP was just fine and dandy... I mean I can see one concluding that the Reps were the lesser of two evils- but I've run into may a self-proclaimed libertarian who not only hates the Dems but is an enthusiastic GOPer...

Nothing strange about this. If I know 50 libertarians, the Second Amendment is probably the top issue for 49 of them. (And taxes are No. 2.)
   6117. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4298452)
Uh, no, I didn't say any of those things, or even hint at any of those things. I simply pointed out that Dems didn't go so overwhelmingly for Obama that the nomination was actually secured during the primaries.


Okay. So what?
   6118. Tilden Katz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4298453)
Nothing strange about this. If I know 50 libertarians, the Second Amendment is probably the top issue for 49 of them.


Who cares if the broad next door can get the medical care she wants, so long as I got my six shooter!
   6119. DA Baracus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4298454)
Uh, no, I didn't say any of those things, or even hint at any of those things. I simply pointed out that Dems didn't go so overwhelmingly for Obama that the nomination was actually secured during the primaries.


Well duh. How else was life supposed to imitate The West Wing?
   6120. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4298455)
I assure you, the moment I feel that I'm being talked down to, I will gladly say as much. That said, the worry over paternalism (Andy's or otherwise) was, in fact, condescending. Ray's comments about how the Democratic Party is full of the real racists was way more paternalistic than anything else. It stripped any semblance of intelligence or agency away from minorities, and implied that they are either too dumb or too naive to understand why they even vote for Democrats.

He wasn't being condescending and paternalistic to you or in conversations with you (beyond just a little bit); he was being condescending and paternalistic about you in conversations with us.(*) Overly liberal whites tend to do that and it's very easy to spot.

(*) He was doing the precise opposite of talking down to you.
   6121. The Good Face Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4298456)
@6024 - In vision of the future where machines replace all the manual labor jobs - I am saying there is still a place for folks of mean intelligence in "hard" jobs. You said they couldn't do them at all. I am saying they probably can do them, just not as well as smarter folk. We are not taking about some future-future society where ALL human work is done by machines.

What if programming robots was no harder than driving trucks?


Then we'd have machines do it. Just like we'll have them driving trucks very soon!

But seriously, it wouldn't work for the same reason dumb people today can't get jobs as rocket scientists or hedge fund quants. Sure, they won't be as good at it as smarter folks, but they still could do it! Now who's gonna hire them?
   6122. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4298458)
Uh, no, I didn't say any of those things, or even hint at any of those things. I simply pointed out that Dems didn't go so overwhelmingly for Obama that the nomination was actually secured during the primaries.


Swell. So what's your point again? Given the choices of white men, a white woman, and a black man, the democratic voters made a close decision between the emasculating harpy and the Kenyan Muslim?
   6123. bob gee Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4298459)
drunknatesilve1 = funny, but fakegushanson was hysterical. and i don't tweet, but i'd sometimes read the fake GH for a good laugh.
   6124. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 08, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4298460)
Joe, I know following a thread can be tough in conversations like this, but my point, which you immediately parsed in a Democrat/Republican binary, was in response to SBB's claim that there's nothing we can do to address systemic/institutional racism.

I never made any such claim; please try to follow along. The question was whether national politics could do much about it (to whatever extent it exists.) The same question could be asked of many of the things fundies rail on about in the political arena.

   6125. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4298462)
The Dems have a deeper bench with Latinos? Really?


Let's look, for example, at the composition of the New Mexico State Senate, to pick a southwestern state and legislative body at random.

With the dual exceptions of Sue Beffort and Gay Kernan, it seems like every one of the Republicans is a non-Hispanic white man. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the last names on the first five Democrats on the list are, in order, Pinto, Munoz, Martinez, Cisneros, and Campos. So, y'know, you do the math there.

It's possible that I'm grossly mistaken, of course, and that Stuart Ingle, Sander Rue, or Steven P. Neville are under-the-radar examples of the GOP's diversity. But I kind of doubt it.
   6126. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4298463)
Speaking of which, red states that went purple-r than Arizona (R +11.1) in 2012: South Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, North Carolina. I'm most surprised by SC (R +10.6).


SC is 28% black, which is almost the entirety of its purpleness.

Indiana and Missouri are states that will likely go back and forth forever, NC is heading towards wherever Virginia is, and GA and SC are solid red states with large black minorities.
   6127. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4298464)
Swell. So what's your point again? Given the choices of white men, a white woman, and a black man, the democratic voters made a close decision between the emasculating harpy and the Kenyan Muslim?

What's the deal here lately? More than a few lefties seem to have adopted this weird shtick where, after a specific point is made, they come back with, "What's your point?"

I've already repeated the specific point in question about three times: White Dems weren't nearly as enthusiastic for Obama during the 2008 Dem primary as is now commonly alleged (and as was alleged or at least intimated on the last page). That's it. This wasn't intended to be a controversial point, as it's essentially indisputable. It was simply a reply to a claim made by someone else.
   6128. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4298465)
I've already repeated the specific point in question about three times: White Dems weren't nearly as enthusiastic for Obama during the 2008 Dem primary as is now commonly alleged (and as was alleged or at least intimated on the last page).


Please give me a cite # for where it was allegedly alledged.
   6129. McCoy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4298468)
He was doing the precise opposite of talking down to you.

Hearing up of himself?
   6130. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4298469)
It proves that white Dems didn't race to vote for Obama in the Dem primary, as seemed to be the claim by others above.


Or, you know, it might prove that he was running against another candidate that was pretty popular within the party too.... but YMMV
   6131. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4298471)
Hearing up of himself?


Well, that is a triple negative, so by the transitive property, it qualifies.
   6132. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4298472)
I've already repeated the specific point in question about three times: White Dems weren't nearly as enthusiastic for Obama during the 2008 Dem primary as is now commonly alleged (and as was alleged or at least intimated on the last page).


Yeah, but that's wrong. The party had two good candidates, and most of the voters were extremely excited about one or the other. Just because Hillary supporters really, really liked Hillary, it doesn't necessarily follow that the party as a whole was unenthusiastic about Obama.

I can understand how this would be confusing after the demoralizing shitshow that was the 2012 Republican primary, where voters had to be dragged behind Romney kicking and screaming as all the alternatives collapsed one after the other, but it's the truth.
   6133. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4298473)
Seriously? So his argument is that because Obama used the Democratic Party's nomination mechanism to secure the nomination, from which point he went on to be elected POTUS, he didn't really win the nomination at all, but was awarded it by someone else?



Did he give promise them all free phones?
   6134. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4298474)
Let's look, for example, at the composition of the New Mexico State Senate, to pick a southwestern state and legislative body at random.

Governor of New Mexico: Susana Martinez, Republican.

Regardless, choosing a Dem-leaning state full of Dem-leaning Latinos doesn't prove much. The simple fact is, despite all of these Dem Latino officeholders at the local and state levels, the Dem party goes with non-Latinos in races for higher offices like U.S. senator and governor. The Dems have just one Latino U.S. senator and zero governors, and are outnumbered by the GOP in both categories.
   6135. McCoy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4298477)
People on BTF are slow learners. Don't argue with an "opinion as fact" troll.
   6136. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4298478)
Hearing up of himself?

I was thinking "talking up to you," but come to think of it, he indeed was hearing up of himself.
   6137. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4298479)
Yeah, but that's wrong. The party had two good candidates, and most of the voters were extremely excited about one or the other. Just because Hillary supporters really, really liked Hillary, it doesn't necessarily follow that the party as a whole was unenthusiastic about Obama.
Or, you know, it might prove that he was running against another candidate that was pretty popular within the party too.... but YMMV

Now tell me about the racial breakdown of the 2008 Dem primary vote, which was the actual topic of discussion.
   6138. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4298481)
People on BTF are slow learners. Don't argue with an "opinion as fact" troll.


I was trying to be magnanimous.
   6139. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4298483)
Now tell me about the racial breakdown of the 2008 Dem primary vote.

Obama's run three incredibly well-disciplined and organized campaigns, probably the best three of any of our lifetimes. Can't you just accept that? The guy is a fantastic organizer and manager, both strategically and tactically.

In the recently-completed campaign, blacks and Latinos particpated and voted; Teapers brayed at the moon and lazily sat on their asses. Deal.
   6140. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4298484)
Obama's run three incredibly well-disciplined and organized campaigns, probably the best three of any of our lifetimes. Can't you just accept that? The guy is a fantastic organizer and manager, both strategically and tactically.

In the recently-completed campaign, blacks and Latinos particpated and voted; Teapers brayed at the moon and lazily sat on their asses. Deal.

Completely non-responsive to anything I've said here. Nice little rant, though.
   6141. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4298485)
I've already repeated the specific point in question about three times: White Dems weren't nearly as enthusiastic for Obama during the 2008 Dem primary as is now commonly alleged (and as was alleged or at least intimated on the last page). That's it. This wasn't intended to be a controversial point, as it's essentially indisputable. It was simply a reply to a claim made by someone else.


You really need to drop this binary view of all things...

The simple fact is that 2008 was awfully unusual primary. As I said several pages ago regarding HRC, she was able to stick around as long as she did -- rather than belly-flopping, as most early leaders in a primary do who get overtaken by a comet, because 1)she's a damn good politician in her own right, and 2) she's a pretty popular Democrat herself.

2008 was an embarrassment of riches within the party - sure, sure, it had its moments of rancor and ugliness, and yes, it turned into a grudge match towards the end...

But there were plenty of Democrats - including many of the younger pundit set - who had absolutely no problem with that primary going on forever... it was never a case of the 'disliked' frontrunner being challenged by an upstart - and while HRC did have more institutional/establishment support in 2007, it wasn't even a 'grassroots' vs. 'establishment' matchup once we got into the weeds.

The plain and simple fact is that most rank-and-file Democrats liked both candidates an awful lot. I volunteered an awful lot in the 2008 primary, visiting Iowa, Wisconsin, and Indiana in addition to some canvassing in Illinois... I can't tell you how many times I'd knock on the door or phone bank a Clinton supporter who, far from being angry (the PUMA movement was loud, but extremely small in real terms - seriously, we're probably talking a few hundred), would be sympathetic with a "...against anyone else/any other year" and would readily say that s/he hoped Obama would accept a veep slot if Hillary won.

It amazes me that someone who seems to hate 'big government' has such a consistent "top down", hierarchically ordered view of everything - a small number of HRC activists developed real psychoses about Obama, hence, it must be omnipresent within the rank and file... It was nothing of the sort - I wouldn't even need both hands to count the number of Democrats I canvassed or phone banked in 2008 (and I must have hit numbers in the 1000s) that had any sort of visceral reaction against Obama. The vast, vast majority that weren't convinced simply liked Hillary more... it's as simple as that.
   6142. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4298486)
I assure you, the moment I feel that I'm being talked down to, I will gladly say as much. That said, the worry over paternalism (Andy's or otherwise) was, in fact, condescending. Ray's comments about how the Democratic Party is full of the real racists was way more paternalistic than anything else. It stripped any semblance of intelligence or agency away from minorities, and implied that they are either too dumb or too naive to understand why they even vote for Democrats.


He wasn't being condescending and paternalistic to you or in conversations with you (beyond just a little bit); he was being condescending and paternalistic about you in conversations with us.(*) Overly liberal whites tend to do that and it's very easy to spot.

(*) He was doing the precise opposite of talking down to you.


I guess since DIABD shot down your initial BS, you have to double down with something equally incoherent. Naturally you don't cite a single post that shows any evidence of your BS claim. As usual, it's nothing but throwing #### at the wall and hoping that it'll stick.
   6143. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4298488)

Governor of New Mexico: Susana Martinez, Republican.

Regardless, choosing a Dem-leaning state full of Dem-leaning Latinos doesn't prove much. The simple fact is, despite all of these Dem Latino officeholders at the local and state levels, the Dem party goes with non-Latinos in races for higher offices like U.S. senator and governor. The Dems have just one Latino U.S. senator and zero governors, and are outnumbered by the GOP in both categories.


Again with this top down, hierarchical view of things...

Am I the only that finds this odd?

It just seems so incongruous - an acidic opposition to all manner of concentrated authority... except - when it comes to the symbolic.
   6144. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4298490)
Yeah, that hillbilly center the Celtics had back in the 60's used to whoop on Big Wilt at every opportunity.

In those odd moments when I wonder who'd I'd pick for the basketball team to win one game to save my life, I'm pretty sure my first selection is Bill Russell.
He's playing D against whoever the other side has as THEIR first choice.
(end basketball digression)
   6145. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4298491)
You really need to drop this binary view of all things...

The simple fact is that 2008 was awfully unusual primary. As I said several pages ago regarding HRC, she was able to stick around as long as she did -- rather than belly-flopping, as most early leaders in a primary do who get overtaken by a comet, because 1)she's a damn good politician in her own right, and 2) she's a pretty popular Democrat herself.

2008 was an embarrassment of riches within the party - sure, sure, it had its moments of rancor and ugliness, and yes, it turned into a grudge match towards the end...

But there were plenty of Democrats - including many of the younger pundit set - who had absolutely no problem with that primary going on forever... it was never a case of the 'disliked' frontrunner being challenged by an upstart - and while HRC did have more institutional/establishment support in 2007, it wasn't even a 'grassroots' vs. 'establishment' matchup once we got into the weeds.

The plain and simple fact is that most rank-and-file Democrats liked both candidates an awful lot. I volunteered an awful lot in the 2008 primary, visiting Iowa, Wisconsin, and Indiana in addition to some canvassing in Illinois... I can't tell you how many times I'd knock on the door or phone bank a Clinton supporter who, far from being angry (the PUMA movement was loud, but extremely small in real terms - seriously, we're probably talking a few hundred), would be sympathetic with a "...against anyone else/any other year" and would readily say that s/he hoped Obama would accept a veep slot if Hillary won.

It amazes me that someone who seems to hate 'big government' has such a consistent "top down", hierarchically ordered view of everything - a small number of HRC activists developed real psychoses about Obama, hence, it must be omnipresent within the rank and file... It was nothing of the sort - I wouldn't even need both hands to count the number of Democrats I canvassed or phone banked in 2008 (and I must have hit numbers in the 1000s) that had any sort of visceral reaction against Obama. The vast, vast majority that weren't convinced simply liked Hillary more... it's as simple as that.

This is an incredible amount of words that still managed to be non-responsive to the issue at hand. If you want to believe that almost 100 percent of blacks voted for Obama while a majority of whites went for Clinton but all of those millions of people made a colorblind decision, you're certainly free to do so, but you'll be wrong.

For people who are beyond obsessed with racial issues as they pertain to the GOP, you seem quite blind to the racial reality that played out right within your own party just four years ago.
   6146. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4298492)
If we want to look at it, there's a sort of neat infographic thingy at the NY Times breaking down the 2008 Democratic primaries by state.

Obama came in at -3 or better among whites in 11 states, and was at -30 or below in 9. He won big with men and lost small with women. He dominated the young and got hammered among the old. He was at +24 or better among blacks in every state. He did better with the more educated.

Joe's correct on a narrow point that doesn't prove anything. White Democrats were absolutely flipping out for Obama by the time the convention rolled around.
   6147. zenbitz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:27 PM (#4298493)
But seriously, it wouldn't work for the same reason dumb people today can't get jobs as rocket scientists or hedge fund quants. Sure, they won't be as good at it as smarter folks, but they still could do it! Now who's gonna hire them?


Same person who would hire them to play Farmville all day. From each according to his abilities... and all that.
   6148. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4298495)
This is an incredible amount of words that still managed to be non-responsive to the issue at hand. If you want to believe that almost 100 percent of blacks voted for Obama while a majority of whites went for Clinton but they all of those millions of people made colorblind decisions, you're certainly free to do so, but you'll be wrong.


Yes, yes... clearly - based on your simpatico understanding of the Democratic party and your demonstrated skills from just a few days prior in divining the leanings of the electorate - I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the Democratic party faithful in the 2008 primary.

I do however, apologize for not tweeting the response... I know some minds wander when the discussion trends past 128 characters.
   6149. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4298496)
Joe's correct on a narrow point that doesn't prove anything. White Democrats were absolutely flipping out for Obama by the time the convention rolled around.

Yes, if by "doesn't prove anything," you mean the entire point being discussed. The third and fourth pages of that breakdown make my point here irrefutable.
   6150. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4298498)
Yeah, that hillbilly center the Celtics had back in the 60's used to whoop on Big Wilt at every opportunity.

In those odd moments when I wonder who'd I'd pick for the basketball team to win one game to save my life, I'm pretty sure my first selection is Bill Russell.
He's playing D against whoever the other side has as THEIR first choice.


You're a very wise man, Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes.
(end basketball digression for good)
   6151. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4298499)
This wasn't intended to be a controversial point

Oh lord.
   6152. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4298501)
Yes, yes... clearly - based on your simpatico understanding of the Democratic party and your demonstrated skills from just a few days prior in divining the leanings of the electorate - I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the Democratic party faithful in the 2008 primary.

Yes, I was off by ~2 points in a presidential-election prediction that was made for fun. Obviously, I have no chance of ever being right about anything ever again.

I do however, apologize for not tweeting the response... I know some minds wander when the discussion trends past 128 characters.

I don't care how long you write; I was complaining that your long screed was entirely non-responsive, which it was.
   6153. Bowling Baseball Fan Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4298502)
People on BTF are slow learners. Don't argue with an "opinion as fact" troll.


Insert "any internet forum" in place of BTF
   6154. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4298503)
This wasn't intended to be a controversial point
Oh lord.

Hey, it's not my fault that the same people who obsess over racial issues as they pertain to the GOP get mighty defensive when some of the same questions are asked about their own party's faithful.
   6155. Bob Meta-Meusel Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4298505)
Nothing strange about this. If I know 50 libertarians, the Second Amendment is probably the top issue for 49 of them. (And taxes are No. 2.)


As someone said further up the page, that may be true in the South and Midwest, but not in the Northeast. If I know 50 libertarians (and I might), I'd say the Second Amendment might be the top issue for two or three of them. The Libertarians I know tend to agree with the Republicans on economic policy (wanting lower taxes and less regulation) and with the Democrats on social issues (wanting to keep the government out of things like gay marriage, abortion, and any other social issue where they feel the Republicans want to put government into people's bedrooms). The libertarians here in many cases are what used to be the "Rockefeller Republicans", socially liberal but economically conservative northeasterners who feel totally alienated by the Republicans having sold out to the religious right, but unwilling to accept the Democrats' positions on economic and foreign policy. They're usually pro-second amendment (because they want gov't out of everything), but it's not generally a lead issue for them.
   6156. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4298506)
If we want to look at it, there's a sort of neat infographic thingy at the NY Times breaking down the 2008 Democratic primaries by state.

Obama came in at -3 or better among whites in 11 states, and was at -30 or below in 9. He won big with men and lost small with women. He dominated the young and got hammered among the old. He was at +24 or better among blacks in every state. He did better with the more educated.

Joe's correct on a narrow point that doesn't prove anything. White Democrats were absolutely flipping out for Obama by the time the convention rolled around.


Well, it would be a valid point -- except for the fact that, except for caucuses where voting isn't a matter of marking a single circle on a ballot, rather, you actually win by weeding the votes down via a "viability" process that allows people to move to 2nd and 3rd choice candidates (and, I might add, in such scenarios - Obama cleaned up... including in places like Iowa, Idaho and Maine, which are hardly AA bastions) -- the vote totals tell us nothing about relative feelings towards either candidate.

I'm certainly not saying that there wasn't any racial identity playing a role in the primary -- I'm just saying that such a "point" is the equivalent to awarding the Cy Young based on pitcher wins or MVP based on RBI... it's ignorant, surface-level thinking.

People voting FOR Obama weren't voting against Clinton and people voting FOR Clinton weren't voting against Obama... Both candidates were very well liked and if there was a way to adjust time so they don't run against each, I can almost guarantee each would have won a primary.

In most elections - you only get to pick one candidate... sometimes that's the lesser of two evils - the 2008 Democratic primary wasn't that - it was a simple matter of some people liking Obama more and some liking Clinton more, but - except in the caucus states - you only got to vote for one of them.

As any number of data points showed after the GE -- Obama virtually all of those Clinton supporters just a few months later when they again had the choice of a Caucasian (with a woman accompanying him!) and a black guy...
   6157. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4298508)
Well, it would be a valid point -- except for the fact that, except for caucuses where voting isn't a matter of marking a single circle on a ballot, rather, you actually win by weeding the votes down via a "viability" process that allows people to move to 2nd and 3rd choice candidates (and, I might add, in such scenarios - Obama cleaned up... including in places like Iowa, Idaho and Maine, which are hardly AA bastions) -- the vote totals tell us nothing about relative feelings towards either candidate.

I'm certainly not saying that there wasn't any racial identity playing a role in the primary -- I'm just saying that such a "point" is the equivalent to awarding the Cy Young based on pitcher wins or MVP based on RBI... it's ignorant, surface-level thinking.

People voting FOR Obama weren't voting against Clinton and people voting FOR Clinton weren't voting against Obama... Both candidates were very well liked and if there was a way to adjust time so they don't run against each, I can almost guarantee each would have won a primary.

In most elections - you only get to pick one candidate... sometimes that's the lesser of two evils - the 2008 Democratic primary wasn't that - it was a simple matter of some people liking Obama more and some liking Clinton more, but - except in the caucus states - you only got to vote for one of them.

Zonk, thou doth protest too much.

If you honestly believe that blacks went overwhelmingly for Obama while whites went for Clinton, and that all or even a vast majority of those people made their decisions on a colorblind basis, you're dreaming. You seem to want us to believe that it was just pure coincidence that blacks all went for Obama while whites mostly went for Clinton. It would be silly if you and the others here weren't so serious about your racial claims vis-a-vis the GOP.

As any number of data points showed after the GE -- Obama virtually all of those Clinton supporters just a few months later when they again had the choice of a Caucasian (with a woman accompanying him!) and a black guy...

Yes, Democrats voted for the Democrat over the Republican. Where's Claude Rains?
   6158. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4298509)
Obama's run three incredibly well-disciplined and organized campaigns, probably the best three of any of our lifetimes. Can't you just accept that? The guy is a fantastic organizer and manager, both strategically and tactically.


so why can't he do a better job of running the country?

:-)
   6159. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4298511)
I forgot all those buses full of Somalis pouring into Iowa for the caucus. I knew there had to be some explanation. The many white Dems voted for Obama explanation cannot possibly be right!
   6160. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4298512)
Hank the Cat, a Maine coon who ran on a platform of “Jobs, Animal Rescue/Spay & Neuter programs, and Positive Campaign Reform” received 6,000 votes in Virginia's Senate election


Don't blame me, I voted for Bill ...
   6161. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4298518)
2008 was an embarrassment of riches within the party - sure, sure, it had its moments of rancor and ugliness, and yes, it turned into a grudge match towards the end...

But there were plenty of Democrats - including many of the younger pundit set - who had absolutely no problem with that primary going on forever... it was never a case of the 'disliked' frontrunner being challenged by an upstart - and while HRC did have more institutional/establishment support in 2007, it wasn't even a 'grassroots' vs. 'establishment' matchup once we got into the weeds.


I will say this, though. If that primary goes the other way and the GOP gets a Clinton to rail against, this proto-realignment we're seeing begin to take shape doesn't happen.
   6162. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4298522)
I think Joe is trying to revive the PUMA meme. I have no idea why he thinks this is useful or meaningful, but hey, it's Joe. At this point, Joe being Joe is equivalent to Manny being Manny.
   6163. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 08, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4298523)
On HW's comment regarding adapting to climate change: While I am of the believe that climate change / global warming is, in part, a man-made phenomenon and should be countered, not nearly enough energy is spent on the idea of 'if the world is going to get warmer, how should we respond?' Responding to climate change is likely to be a lot cheaper than reversing it (the best approach combines the two).
The most sensible approach, imo, involves drawing up a list and at a minimum start doing what we know we'll end up doing anyway. Minimize economic dislocation where possible, particularly by seeding alternate energy investment, and ensuring that things that work and promise at least a break even return, like domestic solar panels, retrofitting insulation, and cool roofs, are well-funded.

He'd quit it by 1950. You can keep hammering a guy for something he did and then apologized for and disavowed, but it's not very worthwhile.
Well, it's worthwhile for him in that he's distracted the conversation once again with yet one more version of "Yeah but whuddabout...!", and you fell for it.

“We didn’t think they’d turn out more of their base vote than they did in 2008, but they smoked us,” said one Romney operative. “It’s unbelievable that that they turned out more from the African-American community than in 2008. Somehow they got ‘em to vote.”
As someone noted upthread, plenty of that had to do with blatant attempts by righties to suppress the vote. The billboards were particular offensive. And invigorating. Well done, righties!
   6164. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 08:20 PM (#4298524)
A freeper to-do-list:

Today, I instructed my wife to prepare for post Obama election by doing the following:

1. Close out our bank accounts, checking accounts, savings account.

2. Eliminate and exist from all medical service programs, insurance, and destroy all medical records and ID numbers.

3. Destroy and toss all cell phones.

4. Take out and smash all black boxes in our vehicles. Will put on the road my 69 mustaang.

5. Cut up all credit cards and call to stop all transactions.

6. Call and stop propane gas shipments, will now burn firewood. Already have more than 500 cord stacked as a backup.

7. Buy only the bare necessaities and pay all bills with a money order.

8. Plan all travel areas, use back roads to avoid TSA agents.

9. Do not use landline telephone only in an emergency.

10. Call and turn off Direct TV.

11. End all computer web services.

12. Build a gate at the end of our driveway and keep it locked. Inform all friends and relatives to call first prior to a visit so the gate can be unlocked.

13. Get involved more heavily with local Tea Party to establish a third party, no more money to the GOP under any circumstance!

The list may be updated to include other more secret actions that the government need not know about here!


The comments are actually pretty funny; how far over the edge do you have to be when fellow freepers start mocking you?
   6165. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 08, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4298527)
I guess since DIABD shot down your initial BS, you have to double down with something equally incoherent. Naturally you don't cite a single post that shows any evidence of your BS claim. As usual, it's nothing but throwing #### at the wall and hoping that it'll stick.

There was nothing incoherent about it. Four people, a "bipartisan" cross section, knew exactly what was going on. No one ever claimed you were "talking down" to DIABD -- precisely the opposite. You (and not just you) lapsed into a blatantly obvious, "I'm talking to a black person now" pose (*), through which you condescended to the rest of us.

(*) Which was quite perceptibly and rightfully characterized as "You're pretty for a black woman" in a different guise.
   6166. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4298531)
I think Joe is trying to revive the PUMA meme. I have no idea why he thinks this is useful or meaningful, but hey, it's Joe. At this point, Joe being Joe is equivalent to Manny being Manny.

Nope. Just pointed out some revisionist history that was posted here. That's all.
   6167. Howie Menckel Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4298533)
amusing: "I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl."

I was one of the first posters to thank her for the thoughtfulness in her post, because I don't very often read comments here that bring something new to the table.

I am not at all surprised that she responded, in part: "I didn't find myself the least condescended to..... I assure you, the moment I feel that I'm being talked down to, I will gladly say as much."

Notice that your post says "all of this 'great post, DevilInABlueCap!'....." which is, well, stereotyping. There was at least one poster who you battle with involved, so you conflated all of us into your little foolishness of a response.

You condescendingly generalized about all favorable responses to her comment, and (ironically) condescendingly decided to speak for her. But you, quite indisputibly now, were wrong. Might as well man up on that.

Your little fantasy about any poster in here being scared to offend, or needing to condescend to, a black poster, is your problem. And the problem of a couple of others, as you include them. Not every compliment made to another poster is based on some insecurity.

Next time keep your BBTF grudges better focused, and don't start assuming that you know the history of a variety of posters. You'd be surprised, I can tell you that.


   6168. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4298534)
You are amusing, SBB: "I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl.


I don't want to slow your roll here, Howie, but that quoted bit is actually mine. So I'm amusing. Sugar Bear is not amusing. A fact which is blatantly obvious already.
   6169. Howie Menckel Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:12 PM (#4298535)
My sincere apologies, obviously, especially if said poster didn't back the original thought later on.

I just won't stand idle and have anyone claim motivations to me that are so distasteful, is the point. Nothing is more manipulative.....


EDIT: ok, wasn't THAT far off.
here's one of the dumb SBB posts:

"I've had the experience of seeing plenty of white people condescend to and patronize black people. I brought that "to the table" and was accordingly able -- as were others -- to easily identify it."

Impressive to be able to identify condescension even when the person in question couldn't identify it!

that could be a great new employment growth spurt - helping black people find out when they're being condescending to, because, you know, it's so hard for them to figure out for themselves.
lol


   6170. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4298536)
My sincere apologies, obviously, especially if said poster didn't back the original thought later on.


Minor infraction at best. SBB did agree with me, as did Ray. It was, in fact, noted as one of the strangest alignments of posters in BTF political circle jerk history.
   6171. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4298539)
The comments are actually pretty funny; how far over the edge do you have to be when fellow freepers start mocking you?

That was going to be my comment! And they are.
Was she supposed to have all that done by the end of the day?
Cut off DirectTV???? From my cold, dead hands.
14. Post all plans on a government-monitored conservative (i.e. subversive) website.
Call? Dude. You done threw away the cell phones and don’t use the land lines.

The great thing is the people who left these mocking replies have "You didn't build that - B. HUSSEIN OBAMA", "Never been more disgusted with American Voters", and "REPEAL OBAMACARE" and such as their signatures.
   6172. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4298542)
Impressive to be able to identify condescension even when the person in question couldn't identify it!

It's not really that impressive.
   6173. Howie Menckel Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4298546)

At last, we agree.

   6174. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4298548)
At last, we agree.

I'm glad to hear you're on board with shooting me into space.

What?
   6175. Morty Causa Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4298551)
   6176. rr Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4298552)
I'm glad to hear you're on board with shooting me into space.

Yeah, but after a month or two you'd be sick of space and would start posting intergalactically about politics and the Mets.
   6177. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4298553)

If you honestly believe that blacks went overwhelmingly for Obama while whites went for Clinton, and that all or even a vast majority of those people made their decisions on a colorblind basis, you're dreaming. You seem to want us to believe that it was just pure coincidence that blacks all went for Obama while whites mostly went for Clinton. It would be silly if you and the others here weren't so serious about your racial claims vis-a-vis the GOP.


It's always amusing when people quote a response they didn't read... to wit -- "I'm certainly not saying that there wasn't any racial identity playing a role in the primary"

But again, I understand when you think in 1s and 0s, it's gets confusing when there's a '2' in the stream...


I will say this, though. If that primary goes the other way and the GOP gets a Clinton to rail against, this proto-realignment we're seeing begin to take shape doesn't happen.


I don't know... I think Clinton still wins 2008 in a relative walk - McCain still gets punished for Bush (and more than likely, the GOP might not have even gotten a Palin to rally around... they might have ended up with Lieberman! Man... that's an alternate reality I'd have loved to watch).

So then - the question becomes how does HRC govern?

Well, in fact - her health care reform proposal in the primaries actually had a mandate, while Obama's did not... this was one of the very areas of daylight between their platforms, and it was so technocratic (at the time) that I really doubt it mattered.

I have to think something approaching the same stimulus bill passes... I'd expect that she would have gone through with the same sort of auto-bailout... and if memory serves, I think HRC actually did slightly beat Obama among Latinos.

Maybe instead of health care reform - her signature first term issue is something like immigration reform... but not sure that really changes much.

AA turnout has pretty much consistently risen cycle to cycle, both relative to the composite electorate and as a function of the demographic... Ditto Latinos...

I think both Obama and Clinton ultimately govern as center-left Democrats.

Either HRC or Obama are talented enough politicians that I think either ends up harnessing the change in fulcrum effectively.

   6178. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4298554)
Interesting news on the Canadian legal front. Pzizer's Viagra patent is found to be invalid. Inadequate disclosure at the time the patent was filed.

Quoting from the decision: “Pfizer had the information needed to disclose the useful compound and chose not to release it. Even though Pfizer knew that the effective compound was sildenafil at the time it filed the application, it limited its description,” Justice Louis LeBel wrote in the decision.

There has been a “certain complacence” amongst patent lawyers that if the disclosure information was sufficient to satisfy the patent office, then that patent was unassailable -- a not quite quote from a lawyer not involved in the case.


I don't have an in-depth knowledge of how it works in Canada, but US law requires an "enabling disclosure" (i.e., enough detail to "enable" a person having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention), and even if the USPTO holds that you have that, a court could rule otherwise on appeal. It's a frequent way that patents are invalidated - particularly biotech patents.

Interestingly, in the US, until very recently you needed to disclose the "best mode" of your invention, i.e., the best way that you knew of to practice your invention. But that is effectively no longer a requirement, so companies now are beginning to strategize to hold back the best mode as, essentially, a trade secret.

At any rate, for those who were unaware, Obama recently signed into law sweeping changes to the US patent system, to bring us more in line with the rest of the world - most prominently moving us to more of a "first to file" system. (Currently, and until March 2013, the US is "first to invent.") Really the system we are moving to is more accurately described as "first to publish as long as you file within 1 year."

</end patent law lecture>
   6179. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4298555)

Yeah, but after a month or two you'd be sick of space and would start posting intergalactically about politics and the Mets.


I'd be fine with shooting the Mets into space, too... and I'm not sure many Mets fans would be upset about it, especially if we left Dickey earthbound.
   6180. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4298556)
#6164

If I'm that guy's wife, I'm cashing out the bank accounts, taking the vehicles, heading out of town and leaving a note behind saying "They came for me already, save yourself!"
   6181. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4298557)

At any rate, for those who were unaware, Obama recently signed into law sweeping changes to the US patent system, to bring us more in line with the rest of the world - most prominently moving us to more of a "first to file" system. (Currently, and until March 2013, the US is "first to invent.") Really it's more accurately described as "first to publish as long as you file within 1 year."


I mentioned this a few pages back -- Obama signed it, but it was actually a pretty much bipartisan bill... Leahy was the grandfather in the Senate, but it had an even mix of sponsors, with Lamar Smith introducing the House version.

In fact, without looking up the vote, I'm fairly sure that it had something like an even proportion of Democrats and Republicans both voting no and yes ~300 to ~100 in the House.
   6182. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4298558)
Ray - is the patent law move positive or negative in your opinion? Lateral?
   6183. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4298559)
I'd be fine with shooting the Mets into space, too... and I'm not sure many Mets fans would be upset about it, especially if we left Dickey earthbound.

That's ok. Josh Thole would be a better Captain than Janeway.
   6184. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4298560)
I'd be fine with shooting the Mets into space, too... and I'm not sure many Mets fans would be upset about it, especially if we left Dickey earthbound.

That's ok. Josh Thole would be a better Captain than Janeway.


I'll remind you that it's still not settled whether you ride inside or on the rocket...
   6185. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4298561)
I mentioned this a few pages back -- Obama signed it, but it was actually a pretty much bipartisan bill... Leahy was the grandfather in the Senate, but it had an even mix of sponsors, with Lamar Smith introducing the House version.


Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it was a partisan thing on behalf of Democrats.
   6186. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4298562)
I'd be fine with shooting the Mets into space, too... and I'm not sure many Mets fans would be upset about it, especially if we left Dickey earthbound.


What sort of moral monster fails to turn R.A. Dickey into a spaceman?!
   6187. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:02 PM (#4298565)
Ray - is the patent law move positive or negative in your opinion? Lateral?


From the perspective of how it has affected and will affect me personally, it's been a pain in the a$$ to learn the new law and explain it to clients. It is fairly complex.

From a broader perspective? Meh. I kind of like the current US law and saw no pressing need to change, but it's fine, I guess. Many of the requirements favor corporations, though, especially the aspects of making it easier for a corporation to take control of the patent application, and to show ownership in the event the employee/inventor(s) refuse to sign due to a dispute. As to the central issue of moving closer to first to file, most corporations already behave this way anyway - because they frequently file foreign applications - and so that aspect doesn't affect them as much as it affects small inventors and small businesses.
   6188. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4298568)
So.... a very interesting development from the conservative media in regards to immigration...

I don't want to overstate Sean Hannity's influence on Republican policy thought process, but let's face it - John McCain was forced (and really, had to) do a 180 on immigration in 2008, while I do think Romney's 2012 primary stance was all about boxing out Perry (too bad for him that no one knew Perry was a walking disaster and he could have saved the trouble).

I'm genuinely interested if Sean gets left out on an island, or, if more yakkers join him -- even if it's just a "Fine, whatever" rather than an actual "evolution", as Hannity described it.

I have no doubt that there would be Republicans who would face primary challenges if they supported a bill with a path, but I think a number of them would sign on to something like McCain's old bill even if only for political expediency if they knew they weren't going to branded as apostates up and down the AM dial and on Fox.

   6189. Howie Menckel Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4298569)

Boehner also touting immigration reform now.

could be an interesting 2 years...

   6190. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4298570)
Hannity is, moreso than any of the other talking head class on the right, a company man and a loyal soldier. Someone in the party has decided that demographics are destiny and that they have to get to solving their problems with Latinos sooner rather than later, probably because they see the same pattern developing there that has led to the AA electorate being so sticky and loyal to the Dems.

Angry white people are either going to come to grips with modern America and their lack of a majority, or they're going to bleed off into a new version of the same old Dixiecrat song.
   6191. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4298575)
That's fascinating and on one level heartening. While it would be interesting to watch the Republicans continue to mutate, in a two-party system even a dysfunctional party will win some of the time, and I have no interest in watching the 2009-2012 Republicans in power.

The Republicans have been a very well-run organization for most of the last half century. I am not a Republican, but they have generally run like pros. Even when they tacked right, they were savvy about their choices. They seemed to lose control over the party to Tea Party types--despite the funding I do think it was in some ways a spontaneous and certainly uncontrollable movement--in 2010 and then in Congressional negotiations in 2011 and then in a primary season that looked like it was out of some 1968-1972 Democratic nightmare, a self-immolation. I am sure the party guys know all this. Can they make it stick? Can they either whip up enough support to give Boehner a majority of the caucus, or force Cantor to back down or--smarter still--run a coup on Boehner, install Cantor then make him be the deliverer of the bad news to the remaining Tea Party crew? If I had to bet, I would bet yes since an insurgency actually capturing a party is a hugely unlikely event.

If a nominee can survive a primary in 2016 without having to talk nonsense about self-deportation and enjoying kneecapping immigrants who were brought here as children, the angry white guys will bite down and vote for him in the general. The trick is protecting his flank in the primaries, which they utterly failed to do this go-round but did very well for Bush in 2000 and in almost every prior campaign.
   6192. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4298576)
does anyone have a graphic that compares the states that romney won/lost in the republican primaries against the ones that he won/lost in the general?


The states in bold are the ones that Romney won in the general election:

Romney won the delegates for the following states/territories:
Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Santorum won the delegates for the following states/territories:
Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee

Paul won the delegates for the following states/territories:
Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Louisiana

Gingrich won the delegates for the following states/territories:
Georgia, South Carolina

So Romney swept all of the states that Santorum and Gingrich won in the primaries.
   6193. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4298577)
"I've had the experience of seeing plenty of white people condescend to and patronize black people. I brought that "to the table" and was accordingly able -- as were others -- to easily identify it."

Impressive to be able to identify condescension even when the person in question couldn't identify it!


It's not really that impressive.

Especially when you don't feel the need to supply a single example of this so-called "condescension" you love to ramble on about. But then I guess I should allow for your extraordinary ESP powers.

that could be a great new employment growth spurt - helping black people find out when they're being condescending to, because, you know, it's so hard for them to figure out for themselves.


It's even more elegant than that: If you don't quote a black person when making a point, then you're accused of being a "spokesman" for them, and if you do quote a black person, then you're being "condescending". Heads he wins, tails you lose. Whereas Sugarboy remains a fearless and objective observer without a single axe to grind.

Yeah, that's a tough act to see through. But maybe he can call in Allen West to be a third party referee.
   6194. Tilden Katz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4298578)
An overview of possibilities for Obama Cabinet 2.0

I don't think there's anyway Kerry is picked as SoS, due to the Scott Brown factor.
   6195. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4298580)
Andy, you've lost this one. Listen to Sugar Bear and <gulp> Sam.
   6196. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4298581)
Anyone but Erskine Bowles for Treasury.
   6197. McCoy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4298582)
The trick is protecting his flank in the primaries, which they utterly failed to do this go-round but did very well for Bush in 2000 and in almost every prior campaign.

Bush in 2000 was a bit of a fluke. The top contender was the moderate McCain whom the base absolutely hated and did not trust. The crazies had splintered off (Buchanan) the year before leaving the base to either swallow McCain or go for anything that looked palatable besides him. Were they going to nominate Keyes? Of course not. Forbes? Of course not. So Bush just had to be less "moderate" than McCain, which isn't very hard to do.

The set of circumstances that led to Bush getting the nomination were and are very rare and you can't really count on that happening during most election years. The flukiness of 2000 is why I've never understood why people think Rove was some kind of political genius. He wasn't.

First Bush got through because he was Reagan's VP. There was virtually no chance he wasn't getting the nod. Reagan was considered by many to be the whacko who tacked hard to the right. Dole and McCain was part of the orderly procession thing where they were the last powerful men standing in a field of nobodies.

Romney was sort of a hyrbid this year. He wasn't really all that powerful within the GOP or in the government but he had name recognition and a power base setup from 2008, no one was around that was more powerful than him, the field was weak and full of loonies.
   6198. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4298583)
[6188][6189] That's a *very* interesting development.

My Tea Party, Glenn Beck loving parents are here for the weekend, I'll be curious to get their reaction. I haven't talked politics with them since before the election, so I'm going to have to regard the entire thing as a fascinating sociological endeavor; I might as well throw some water on the grease fire ...
   6199. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4298584)
McCoy, do you think it's so uncommon in Republican primaries? The uncommon part was that Bush was not inherently next in line--Quayle thought he was. But Republicans clear the aisles except for one serious contender. The two fight it out and then the loser concedes and gets it the next time. But within that framework, there had been a series of small explosions--Robertson in Iowa, Buchanan twice, of a movement ready to say none of the above. In 2012, that group seemed to be running the show for a while, thus the circus wheel turning and turning.

But if you go through, you get Reagan running against Bush to his left, Bush running against Dole--a kind of muddle, the Bush-Buchanan that doesn't fit, Dole-Buchanan in 96, Bush-McCain 00. Romney-Pawlenty or something like that would seem like the next in the series, but the series broke down.

   6200. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4298586)
if the CBS story about Romney's people unskewing the polls and deciding to go to Pennsylvania because they were so far ahead in Ohio is true, then someone should excommunicate the whole lot from the party. Like Josh Marshall, I can't believe it is literally true though.
Page 62 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4166 - 12:35am, Nov 23)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(552 - 12:33am, Nov 23)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(12 - 12:17am, Nov 23)
Last: rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(96 - 12:07am, Nov 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(17 - 11:55pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(965 - 11:50pm, Nov 22)
Last: steagles

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(10 - 10:33pm, Nov 22)
Last: puck

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.6626 seconds
52 querie(s) executed