|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.
In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...
Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 21, 2013 (72 - 11:16pm, May 21)Last: GutsNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3822 - 11:15pm, May 21)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (2 - 11:12pm, May 21)Last: YR Misses Reggie BarsNewsblog: BBTF SOFTBALL GAME IN NEW YORK--AUG 17 (310 - 11:09pm, May 21)Last: LassusNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1048 - 11:05pm, May 21)Last: Textbook EditorNewsblog: Yanks, Manchester City awarded MLS expansion team (21 - 11:04pm, May 21)Last: puckNewsblog: Barry Bonds: Detroit Tigers' Miguel Cabrera 'the best' ... but not better than me (59 - 10:58pm, May 21)Last: Meatwads stronger now, ready for the houseNewsblog: JM Catellier: Is Pedro Martinez a First Ballot Hall of Famer? (123 - 10:53pm, May 21)Last: Howie MenckelNewsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (51 - 10:40pm, May 21)Last: TJNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1018 - 10:25pm, May 21)Last: Srul ItzaNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-21-2013 (21 - 9:47pm, May 21)Last: Der_KNewsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (70 - 9:22pm, May 21)Last: bigboy1234Newsblog: SB Nation: Five lost scouting reports (10 - 8:50pm, May 21)Last: RMc and His Roster of RubbishNewsblog: 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 DiFool2
|
|
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.
Expand/elaborate, please?
I'm talking about US latinos.
This has been confirmed in poll after poll.
Here's Pew from April.
/
Even third generation Latinos favor "Bigger Government providing more Services" by 58/36.
Gallup in July found the same thing.
Government doing too much vs. Government should do more: 35/56.
In general, Republicans are going to have to moderate their rhetoric as well as moderate their policies, and not just on immigration. Republicans lost in 2012 because of their views on immigration--more Latinos votes against Romney than McCain, and in amazing numbers in places like CO. But they're going to lose the next election because Reagan-era policies are no longer a 50% coalition. In addition, Republicans now need to win 52% or more.
You can limit money, which is important and which I support, but 1) money like water finds new routes, and 2) even if you eliminate money, congressmen will turn to lobbyists because no congressman has a staff capable of keeping up with every issue, so lobbyists more than money provide information, and often bill-writing expertise. Closing off financing of elections gives you more chance to separate politicians from lobbyists but it's not going to be flawless.
I think it makes more sense to think that the problems you mention, some of which I agree with, are caused not by a flaw in the system called lobbyists but by powerful bases of interests that will be heard one way or another. At some level the problems are not problems of lack of democracy but problems of democracy. People find ways to get heard. I'm curious though about how other countries deal with this. My sense is that the British are not exactly a model, that they are in some ways even more governed by corporate special interests than we are.
If those two agree with you, what are the odds that what you had to say was hideously wrongheaded? Probably somewhere north of infinity, I'd venture to say.
Even third generation Latinos self-identify as liberal at greater rates than the general population. The rhetoric doesn't help, but Latinos are most likely going to be a Dem voting block for some time.
But this is so abstract it's meaningless. Nobody goes to the polls looking to increase government spending as a % of GDP. People want concrete things: more jobs, an easier path to citizenship, better infrastructure, improved educational opportunities, etc.
I'm sure Latinos would would love to see more spending in certain areas. But the same is true of Republicans. Romney ran on a promise to dramatically increase military spending. "Larger government" seems to be code for "more spending on things I don't like" and "limited government" code for "less spending on things I don't like and more spending on things I do like."
Moreover, federal outlays as a % of GDP decreased under Carter and Clinton and increased under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. They spiked in 2008 and 2009 due to lower GDP. Over the last 2 years, they have declined. So the whole premise is whacked.
Sorry I thought you were referencing the whole Latin America stuff and not US specific. Ignore me, I was multi-tasking.
EDIT: Except the post below :), and my future posts which will be GREAT!
Is the arrow of causality:
(A) I like government and so vote Democratic
-or-
(B) I like the Democratic party (for reasons discussed above) which is "big government" and so I support what it supports.
Can it be some of both? I am just not sure why it has to be just (A).
although that's definitely true with music (1980s)!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Jesus Christ of all the flat out WRONG things you have said, this takes the cake, the only way you could top this is if you admitted you like Nancy Grace
It's an urban-centric view, but that's where the 'people' (and the votes) are concentrated...
Check the column I posted from Royko on Rostenkowski... that's how the old machines we've dispatched with worked. Those old machines didn't rely on statutory authority or regulatory oversight to keep the local bank from ripping off the guy who owned the barbershop - they'd simply squeeze the interests that caused the constituents to complain. The old machines didn't get the sick domestic worker to a hospital because there was an exchange or a medicare -- they called in a favor -- and the neighborhood would nod (and vote) approvingly because they knew the lady who got the help, but couldn't afford it themselves.
Again - I'm not longing for the days of powerful machines who pretty much did what they wanted - but those machines grew and thrived because they provided those services to fill in the gaps and cracks... they didn't fill them all and they did it in a shady way, but people got taken care of when they needed to be taken care of more often than not.
We've by and large eradicated that system - all well and good - but people don't want a theory that might, in a generation or so, bring down costs enough to allow their bright kid to go to college... they want their kid to go to college...
Big government has always been - it just used to be under the table and a lot more shady... It's a good thing that it's not codified and above the table, but most people still want it.
At UNB, my alma mater, tuition and fees for most programs this year is $6757, and $7757 for engineering. Only 20 years ago, all programs, fees included (and there were far fewer fees) were $2410, less than a third the cost. Minimum wage has doubled in that time, but no other wages/salaries have come close to doubling. Gas has increased by about 130%. Add to that the substantially tougher market for recent grads, and you've got trouble.
I hate to think this way, but the best thing long-term for the country's political system would be if the county stopped being so afraid of Al Qaeda and started becoming more afraid of China and India.
The right to petition is in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You're right about the gag rule, though, and JQA's role in eliminating it.
Yes they do, but many Conservatives prefer being ideologically pure- and willing to stay out in the electoral wilderness for extended periods of time- and Conservatives are pretty influential in the GOP right now
I should have said professional lobbyists.
Zonk, thanks (6310). That reminds me of Human Resources in government, which only provide a facade of "policy" to obfuscate the favours and nepotism that have always dominated hiring practices. Same result as before, except now we have a whole dept. of employees to make it appear that hiring is done fairly. When my dad started with the provincial Dept. of Transportation in the mid 1970's the HR branch was two people, and by the time he retired six years ago it was 26 people, despite it being a much smaller department overall. During this time no major programs were introduced (e.g. unemployment and life ins., Medicare, all levels of taxes, union dues, etc. were all there from the beginning), and payroll had advanced from the labourious process of manually writing and distributing cheques to electronic deposits.
I have largely outsourced my opinions on Latinos to my best friend (Latino, born in US but spent some of youth in Mexico, has a huge family all over the US). Well I have my own opinions, but one what they think I definitely defer to him, though of course non-Latinos get opinions too and also of course Latinos are not some monolithic block (unlike baseball fans).
In what way would this matter? I'm white and I'm not the final word on what white people want, nor does being white necessarily give me credibility in saying what white people want.(*) Indeed, there very well may be non-white people who are more equipped to say than I to say what white people want -- in fact, that's almost assuredly the case.
(*) And there are plenty of white people out there who don't have the slightest clue what white people want. The topic is susceptible to, and properly approached by, study and data. It has little to nothing to do with personal anecdote or opinion.
No, but I am a US voter. I hate this sort of passive-aggressive ######## attempt to shut down conversation.
The Republican party has had a consistent brand of claiming to want to shrink government for the last 30 years. Paul Ryan explicitly campaigned on lowering spending to 18% of GDP (the difference between 22 and 18% of GDP apparently making the difference between freedom and hellish socialism).
What's more, Latinos agree with Democrats on spending on things like healthcare over things like tanks.
That's what bothers me the most about Joe's stance. This is the same type of absolutist stance that Republicans in particular have about African-Americans despite having little insight in what we consider. I know a lot of African-Americans who believe that taxes are too high, that welfare policies need to be dismantled, that we should have school choice and that even we should have a tougher immigration policy. But the one thing that comes up the most, is how disrepectful Republicans are to the President and African-Americans as a whole in their rhetoric that seems at least partly race based. I don't know if Latino's feel the same way about immigration/Sotomayer/etc. but I have no doubt that Republicans don't have clue how harmful that there rhetoric is into persuading minorities to vote against them.
The brand is not reality, and voters know that.
Sure, but that's a different claim, one far more useful to discuss.
And when the Ryans of the world start talking about vocherizing Medicare**, and providing "supplementary" premium supports that aren't even indexed to real rises in the cost of medicine, you have to wonder what their answer is for the many millions of Marys, other than "that's a shame".
**Forget whether or not that was actually part of the final Republican platform. It's been a wet dream of right wing politicians for years, and they'd enact such a "reform" in a blink if they had the votes to do it.
---------------------------------------------
I've never said things were better in the good old days, although that's definitely true with music (1980s) and some other things.
It should go without saying that 90% of the best American music was made between about 1940 and 1970. Now on this issue there can be no debate. Choosing any other period is like putting cucumbers on a pizza.
no, but i downed a whole bottle of reposado tequila with my buddy jimmy last saturday and everything became clearer!
you are about right
1976/77 4 year school average Total tuition, room, and board = $2,577 (1935 public, 3977 private)
2006/07 4 year school average Total tuition, room, and board = $15,434 (1844 public, 28,896 private)
1976 1000 hours minimum wage = 2,300
2006 3000 hours minimum wage = 15,450
That's a 30 year spread, but that's the school costs data I found.
I once saw Martin Prado in the mall, and I was thinking seriously about tacos for lunch today.
This.
The more generic point should be that debates are better informed when there's a diversity of life experiences being brought into the conversation, and the life experiences of minorities in the U.S. (or any country) are not always the same as the life experiences of the dominant ethnic group, regardless of income or class status. Obama's crack about Chicago cab drivers** was a pointed reminder of that truism.
**When he was once queried about his "blackness", he simply replied, "Well, I lived in Chicago for a long time, and I can tell you, cab drivers know I'm black."
Now the RNC came out the next day and said that the chants were from Ron Paul supporters protesting something entirely different, but somehow I'm thinking that the optics of the way the whole thing appeared at first blush resonated a whole lot more than any subsequent attempts at explanation ...
Music was in the toilet when I was in High School and College (and most of my immediate generation agrees) It was better both before and immediatetly after
Completely forgot about that incident. I mean, you have to be an ostritch to think that Latinos might not be receptive to your message when the "important" base of your party treats them like this.
While there is an irony that a discussion of what the white guy Republican party needs to do to get Latinos back is being had by white guys, I didn't, nor will I, say that white people can't talk about minority issues. We absolutely can. I'm just more interested in hearing what Latinos think than what people think they think.
Yes it is, at least if we're talking about the GOP. It's not like they don't want to run 18-20%+ spending of GDP, they just want to run it on their own special interests. Dems want to spend it on their special interests.
There was great music in the 80's. Few people listened to it, opting instead for mass produced pop radio. (If everyone who claims to have been "into R.E.M. in the 80's" had actually been into R.E.M. during the 80's it wouldn't have taken until the 90's for R.E.M. to break, etc.)
There was great music in the 90's. Few people listened to it, opting instead for mass produced pop radio.
There was great music in the 00's. Few people listened to it, opting instead for mass produced pop radio.
There is great music today. More people listen to it than previous eras, because of the intartubes and such, but for the most part, people still listen to crap on mass produced pop radio.
The problem is that you were listening to the wrong music. R&B was in its hey-day with Michael Jackson, Prince, Earth, Wind & Fire and Whitney Houston. Plus, House music and techno were coming out of Detroit where I grew up. I was a kid then, but that was a golden age of music.
Beyond aesthetics, it's just demographics. There are so many 15-25 year olds now compared to that baby bust era. The good side for us was the it was notably easier to do things like get into competitive colleges (staggering to me how schools I considered absolute safeties would now be quite competitive) but the good side for these kids is the world is understandably much more structured around their tastes, and more of them are doing cool things.
Now it's probably 3000 hours of minimum wage.
Duke tuition and room, 1962-63 school year: $16,091 in 2012 dollars ($2100 then)**
Duke tuition, room, board and fees, 2012-13 school year: $56,056
1962 minimum wage: $7.66 ($1.00 then) - 2100 hours at minimum wage required
2012 minimum wage: $7.25 - 7732 hours at minimum wage required
And yes, scholarships, blah blah blah, as if they didn't have scholarships back then.
**West campus (men) only; East campus (women) included board, but I don't know the total figure. Fees back then consisted of a $50 (~$350) yearly athletic fee, period. That covered admission to all sporting events, with guaranteed front row Cameron seats to the swift of foot if you showed up five minutes early for the 6:00 freshman game. No weeks camping out in Bubasville were necessary.
1: I'm not
2: I work with some, so I polled them- they want their power back on (so do I), and they complained about the MTA (hey, so do I)
3: The impression I get, is that they vote Dem, even the ones who demographically should//could be Republicans (ie., upper middle class, religious/socially conservative) vote Dem- because they think the GOP is racist.
Another thing no one but Rany J talks about- American Muslims (mainstream Muslims, not Nation of Islam types) used to vote R, now they vote overwhelmingly D- not not because they think Obama is one of them- they are voting R because they think the GOP is biased against them.
I see 2 Dem voting non-christian white demographics groups left that the GOP has a near future shot at picking up support from- Jews and Asians (and I think it's likely their share of the Jewish vote is going to increase)... aside from that the GOP has to increase its share of the white vote- which it has been doing- but how long can it continue to do that? They will certainly never get over 75%- too many white simply abhor what the GOP is selling for that to happen- unless the Dem party becomes openly anti-Whitey*- in which case we can forget talk about election because we'd be moving into racial civil war territory.
*Yes I know that some delusional types think that's what the Dem party is NOW, but what delusional people think really doesn't matter- unless there are enough of them to win an election or three.
And your anal virginity.
Tamales are where it is at, but if you are going to have tacos at least have legit tacos. And Chorizo and eggs rules for breakfast. The key to finding good Mexican food is to look for the dump in the strip mall that is filled with Mexicans and eat there. Of course that is pretty close to the way to find any kind of great ethnic food.
The problem is that you were born 20 years too late. (smile) Check out Lorraine Ellison, Linda Jones, Bobby Blue Bland, the early Motown or Stax, the young Otis Redding, or any one of hundreds of singers and groups whose names are now sometimes remembered and sometimes not.
Or maybe you were born 40 years too late, and never got to drop in on 52nd Street in its heyday, with Bird, Miles, and all the rest. I only wish I could have been there for that myself.
Jews have been just about to vote for the GOP forever now. Any minute. No really this time. It might happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Once again, Nate Silver to the rescue...
People - Chicagoans, at least - that Nate also presented a Burrito Bracket 5 years ago...
Of course in reality there's been great music in every era since at least the 1920's, and the only question is how easy or hard it is to access some of the more obscure stuff today.
Finding good Mexican food is ridiculously easy where Sam lives.
You're not the only one. Thank God that 70% - 80% of all Jews are still takers and self-haters.
Not to go all David Gregory "Bibi is king of the Jews!" --
But there's an interesting article Haaretz concerning Netanyahu's miscalculations... it's paywalled and, of course, Haaretz is hardly a Bibi booster - but it lays pretty bare how badly he miscalculated by all but doing the unthinkable and out-and-out endorsing a US Presidential challenger.
We should ask Harvey about the '20s.
This is my attitude towards music/movies/TV shows. The sheer volume of stuff now makes it a better time than any time previous. We also benefit from the fact that the obscure stuff is far easier to access now, and the stuff you don't like is far easier to ignore.
That being said I think the only new music I've listened to in the past five years has been the new recordings of the artists I already listened to. I remain firmly convinced that there's lots and lots of great music being made right now...I just don't listen to any of it.
Yes. I know some cold warriors who basically say, "We had to let the Democrats do all that Big Society stuff so that we could fight the Cold War and save you from the commies. And now that the Cold War is over, that other stuff should go away, too." Poor bastards never realized they were fundamentally changing the nation so that a conservative/libertarian like me has never lived in a nation without a Civil Rights Act or EPA or...you get the idea.
As to China and India, I heard a story on NPR this morning along the lines of: 50 years from now, they will be the two biggest economies in the world and where all the focus is. I don't disagree that that is the trend but can two nations rise to such power next door to each other without coming to blows? We all agreed that a USA and CSA would fight a lot of wars with each other; doesn't the same logic hold with China and India? Maybe we can stay afloat selling them weapons.
One of the biggest things both share seems to be endemic governmental corruption. Which I thinks put a big barrier in both their ongoing future success. Not impossible, but it makes it harder. Of course they both have far enough to go that there is plenty of growth left in both.
Asians voted for Obama 3-1. Unless the Rs truly repudiate the racism (Asians, blacks, Latinos, Muslims, decent whites) and Christian fundamentalism (Jews, gays), I can't see them making many inroads.
Short term, that repudiation will be costly because their base will stay at home. Long term it's essential.
If Kadima could ever learn to coalition build on the left the way Likud has on the right, he could faux-endorse the challenger!
So you are a southerner- is it really true that the slurred lyrics on stuff like Radio Free Europe were because Stipe was drunk whenever he recorded their early songs? Even stuff that seems clear, like Drive 8, really weren't...
And why didn't Drivin and Cryin ever catch on? I mean Straight to Hell is the greatest country song of all time (Note I'm not a country fan and Drivin and Cryin were not a country band, so what I just said may upset actual country fans, too bad)
I have to admit I know a good deal about Motown (being from there) but a few of those I've never heard before. Otis Redding is a national treasure, I'll readily admit.
In all of the talk about AA's and Latinos, I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation for why Asians voted so overwhelmingly. Asian/AA populations as a whole aren't especially supportive of each other. I don't think anyone would classify Asians as Paul Ryan's taker class. Yet, Obama swamped Romney with them. I obviously have my thoughts on why, but I'd love to hear Joe justify that demo's votes in this election.
There's a major difference. Separating the US and a hypothetical CSA would have been a major river which both sides needed. Separating China and India is the world's biggest mountain range, which is damn near impassable for large numbers of troops.
I personally doubt either country will be dominant in just 50 years. Too many problems. The US is still poised to be on top (though less so relatively) if we can just get our #### together. That means we need to avoid the lunatic economic policies of the Rs and libertarians.
Is being the third biggest economy in the world such a horriblicious event? Somebody has to be third.
You have to wonder if India and China won't see that everyone's better off if they coooperate to make bazillions of dollars rather than fight for a decimation that would simply destroy the planet in nuclear hellfire at that point.
NTR Joe, but I am guessing it is because they entered the country from the Left Coast. We need more immigrants from the Right Coast!
It's a joke kids. Off to lunch.
Mmm-hmm.
Mmm-hmm.
Of course he would. Mexican-Americans will get right behind Marco Rubio.
Why exactly is it that these constituencies tend to be more politically liberal? Oh, they just do. Okay.
This ought to be good ...
Ya think?
One stroke, suckas.
See, when you use words like "contradistinction," you're to be taken SERIOUSLY.
That's always my initial reaction to the discussion of China or India taking over #1. Obviously a lot depends on what kind of China becomes dominant. But speaking as someone from a country that isn't even in the discussion, it's not so terrible not being #1.
And from earlier.
Not saying you're wrong, but that is not at all the image most of the rest of the world receives about America - patriotism can sometimes seem like its defining characteristic. It's interesting how different the perspective can be from inside/outside.
This is my favorite. Aren't the "dark arts of public persuasion" pretty much just politics of getting elected?
He was hilarious on Tuesday night declaring that Obama didn't have a mandate because of the popular vote before the west coast was counted.
That's always my initial reaction to the discussion of China or India taking over #1. Obviously a lot depends on what kind of China becomes dominant. But speaking as someone from a country that isn't even in the discussion, it's not so terrible not being #1.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply not being #1 would be bad (though I'd like it to be because others got better, not us worse).
My only point was: can the world's two largest economies share a long (albeit very tall) border, hold dissimilar cultures and not clash?
I don't think it's ever been done.
The Russians have beaten us to this. China's aircraft carrier, Russian-made. India's newest aircraft carrier, Russian-made. As are the jets that will be flying off of those carriers.
Shocking!
I am pretty sure US still leads in military exports.
Given those two things, I'd think Jeb is the go-to guy. For obvious reasons. Yes, he's a Bush. But, you know, Bushes are batting .750 in general elections.
.667. They reached on an error in their 3rd PA.
(I'm kidding.)
Bush v Clinton!
Clintons' are 100% in General elections!
Seriously though I really hope it is not Bush v Clinton in 2016. That would just be depressing (even though I like Team Blue's chances).
EDIT: And I am jealous of 6380 and 6381.
But according to some, the BABIP is only .500. </ducking>
.667. They reached on an error in their 3rd PA.
(I'm kidding.)
Awesome. I was thinking of how to work that in, and expecting a correction to .500.
Should have gone with intentional walk, though - ROE counts as an AB.
It has a really good chance of being modified. Don't know if it will be eliminated.
From now until inauguration cold be pretty interesting actually, which is unusual (though I suppose last time it was interesting too, in a terrifying way).
EDIT: I guess I owe you a cold drink.
I really wouldn't mind. Jeb is not his brother. I think he is maybe the one guy in the Republican party that can bring in enough folks from the middle - not to mention Latinos - in without alienating the base. His intellect is probably overrated (from standing next to his brother so often) but he isn't a dumb guy and from what I can tell is thoughtful. I think he'd be a fine president. And Hillary, if she's still got the energy, would be a good president, too.
I can't honestly think of anyone else in the R party who is both likely to run, might win, and I would like. Ditto the Democrats. I'd be fine with these two.
And if you disagree, fine. Ask yourself how you'll feel in 2015 if the Rs take over the Senate.
All we need is a crew of liberal Breitbarts to rent some Tea Party costumes at the Halloween store and start passing out cheeseburgers at the polling places. And then as a backup, we change Election Day to sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
----------------------------------------------------
One stroke, suckas.
In 1951 Collier's Magazine published a special issue on World War III (cover), where the U.S.-led U.N. troops smashed the Soviets into smithereens after an atom bomb was dropped on Washington. It ended with a women's fashion show in Moscow in 1960. Prominent figures from all over the spectrum contributed to it, as a "warning" to the Commies to stop messing with us. A total camp classic, though unfortunately most of the rest of the world saw it as a sign of total U.S. hysteria.
I. F. Stone reviewed it with one succinct headline:
Easy, One Hand: Collier's Wipes Out Russia.
He's oversimplifying, due to his bias and his ignorance. First, IME, and there is data to back this as well, most of the group we call "Latinos" prefer to think of and talk about themselves based on country/ies of origin and as HW and others have noted, they are not an amorphous, monolithic block, and have the same class/age/gender/education/religion division that whites and other groups have. Krauthammer's assumption that Rubio will kick ass with all "Latino" voters in his scenario is just partisan fanboyism. Second, Rubio is Cuban, which is only one relatively small part of the people Kraut is calling "Latino." I will assume that CK mentioned this and Treder didn't quote it, to give CK the BOTD.
That said, the Democrats talking about the GOP being done, going down, etc are far overstating that case for the same reasons as well. The GOP isn't going anywhere, and it will be a major factor in future elections and governance. Obama is back in charge in a nation with huge problems, some of his victory was simply due to his organization, back story, and personality, and it is tough to win three straight in any case. But this idea of the "quick Latino fix--good to go" is just another example of how pundits miss the boat by oversimplifying to cater to parts of their readership, and/or because they are ignorant themselves.
But it looks to me like Silver missed it because he didn't use the latest polls in his polling average. Heitkamp was ahead in four of the last five public polls in North Dakota (two by Mellman and two by Pharos), but Silver doesn't list any of those polls in his ND-Sen polls on the fivethirtyeight page. Silver used the Mellman polls in Ohio, so it's not like he systematically excludes them. It may not have been enough to overcome the North Dakota adjustments Silver used (his adjusted polling average was Berg +2.9 and his projected vote share was Berg +5.6), but it would have made it a helluva lot closer.
He didn't. He makes no mention of this rather pertinent, though inconvenient, fact.
But this idea of the "quick Latino fix--good to go" is just another example of how pundits miss the boat by oversimplifying to cater to parts of their readership, and/or because they are ignorant themselves.
Yep.
It will happen right before the Rapture, when Republican Jesus comes and kills all the Jews for not accepting his salvation. What a glorious day it will be!
Fair enough. I didn't want to click on it. That simply reinforces the point, as you suggest.
Wow.
Completely agree.
Probably my favorite clip of the entire election season was the guy going around the DNC asking Dems if they'd support a President Romney with a kill list.
Watching them pretend not to know what he was talking about was the very definition of funny/sad.
He's oversimplifying, due to his bias and his ignorance. First, IME, and there is data to back this as well, most of the group we call "Latinos" prefer to think of and talk about themselves based on country/ies of origin and as HW and others have noted, they are not an amorphous, monolithic block, and have the same class/age/gender/education/religion division that whites and other groups have. Krauthammer's assumption that Rubio will kick ass with all "Latino" voters in his scenario is just partisan fanboyism. Second, Rubio is Cuban, which is only one relatively small part of the people Kraut is calling "Latino." I will assume that CK mentioned this and Treder didn't quote it, to give CK the BOTD.
That said, the Democrats talking about the GOP being done, going down, etc are far overstating that case for the same reasons as well. The GOP isn't going anywhere, and it will be a major factor in future elections and governance. Obama is back in charge in a nation with huge problems, some of his victory was simply due to his organization, back story, and personality, and it is tough to win three straight in any case. But this idea of the "quick Latino fix--good to go" is just another example of how pundits miss the boat by oversimplifying to cater to parts of their readership, and/or because they are ignorant themselves.
Two things about this: 1) the Rs don't have to WIN the Latino vote. They need to get less pasted. 2) That's why I said policies, themselves must change and that Jeb is the guy to get this done, not Rubio. A Cuban-American calling for a hard-wall on the US/Mexican border is not what I'd call good salesmanship.
EDIT: W did well enough with the Latino vote and had a very out-of-step with his party POV on the immigration issue. Note to Rs: let the Bushes win that debate.
I suspect Stipe was drinking during the recording sessions - they were a rock band, they were always drinking. But I don't think he was just too sloshed to enunciate. Part of that effect is that Stipe has always been extremely self-conscious and averse to attention. If he were to grow up today, he'd probably be diagnosed with some sort of social disfunction of some sort or another; social anxiety disorder or something like that. It's an odd thing for a front man to have, but Stipe has always been extremely introverted like that. Part of the vocal sound of the early R.E.M. catalog is due to this; Stipe just mumbles the lyrics, because he mumbles pretty much everything. The other part is a intentional affect; the mumbles is part of what R.E.M. is attempting to accomplish artistically. Stipe *wants* to be a smeared blur of a personality, in direct opposition to the idea of a "rock band's lead singer" that was prevalent at the time.
It's weird to hear "why didn't D&C ever catch on?" You still can't get deep into a bar-band* set in the south without eventually hitting a cover of "Honeysuckle Blue." If they are looking to cache some old school cred, they'll throw "Scarred But Smarter" in there as well. D&C is pretty much a staple of the southern rock set in my world. I think they never really broke further than their sophomore album and "Honeysuckle Blue" as the single because they were essentially a cow-punk band a few years ahead of their time, and HB was the absolute height of their ability to write a catchy pop tune. Their followup albums were far more aligned to the nascent alt-country scene, mirroring a little harder edge Uncle Tupelo and/or Wilco than anything else. It also helped that Kevin Kinney sort of went freak-show weird for a while there after his brush with fame.
That's an ... odd ... construction.
"Darker" is a bizarre word there. Very bizarre.
D'oh. Stupid me. Intentional walk is too generous. .500 BA, .750 OPB due to HBP?
Catcher's interference.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main