|
|
|
|
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: Matt Harvey challenged Jon Rauch to a fight (83 - 5:10am, Jun 20)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: [OTP-June] Economic Times: Hope politics, sports don’t get mixed up: Manmohan Singh (2287 - 4:57am, Jun 20)Last:  Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Sports on Earth: Super-Royal (48 - 4:55am, Jun 20)Last: BrianBriansonNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread June, 2013 (645 - 4:36am, Jun 20)Last:  Swedish ChefNewsblog: ESPN.com: Yankees Acquire Fartinez (28 - 4:09am, Jun 20)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Former New Orleans baseball player Gene Freese dies at age 79 (5 - 3:55am, Jun 20)Last: esseffNewsblog: Neyer: Computing Manny Machado's shot at the record (48 - 3:02am, Jun 20)Last: OCFNewsblog: Perry: Josh Hamilton and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad night (52 - 3:01am, Jun 20)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (1131 - 2:45am, Jun 20)Last:  zackNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (237 - 2:11am, Jun 20)Last:  CrosbyBirdNewsblog: Deadspin: Manny Ramirez is Leaving Taiwan (9 - 1:17am, Jun 20)Last: RollingWaveNewsblog: OT: NBA Finals and June thread (1028 - 1:12am, Jun 20)Last:  Los Angeles El Hombre of AnaheimNewsblog: Murphy: Ruben Amaro Jr. doesn't "do" five-year plans, but the Phillies need a good one (36 - 1:07am, Jun 20)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Draft signings (142 - 1:07am, Jun 20)Last:  Der_KNewsblog: ‘Old man’ Arroyo pitching better than ever (14 - 12:42am, Jun 20)Last: base ball chick
|
|
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.
Not remotely, no - seems very Klosterman.
It's amazing, how much I don't know. Is it that you're accessing the surreptitious email account from your own computer?
Some of the bafflement over how an atheist can possibly be a moral person is genuine. I've probably had a half-dozen conversations with very religious friends over the last decade who asked me a ton of well-intentioned questions about how I can tell right from wrong, if that's not derived from God.
Meanwhile, the subject of atheists and office interests me. Republican Presidents in particular have gotten a pretty free pass on this topic, at least in my lifetime. It was said of Eisenhower before he ran for President that he needed two things if he wanted to win: a political party and a religion. (He chose one of each.) Nixon and Reagan, in particular, were not very active in their religions, whatever they were. Nixon always said he was a Quaker, but I don't believe he was ever seen at Meeting or could have told you much about the Friends. Reagan was noted for rarely going to church, but talking in a rosily unspecific way about the Almighty.
This is without getting into the many old-timey Presidents who had very little religion or even personal belief. Being extremely casual about religion was a very acceptable line for a politician BITD, despite the belief current among today's right that the further back you go the more people thought about Jesus 24/7.
If someone has the ambition and drive to find the email server in question, they probably have the wherewithal to trace IP addresses for access to that account. But on a more general level, if someone is convinced enough that you're doing something worth investigating that deeply, odds are you've already given away the game that you're doing something on the down low. And if you've given them enough cause to kick off the hunt, odds are you've done something in a publicly verifiable way at some point in the process.
Run around all you want. A man is guilty of only the things he is caught doing, after all. But if you're banging the secretary, and someone comes at you with a "dude, we have some reports that you're banging the secretary," just cop the deal and save everyone the time and energy.
Especially ironic given how fawned over he is among Evangelicals today.
It seems to me that this is a bright line sort of thing. Yes, because Petraeus confessed immediately, he was likely not going to be blackmailed and yes, he did not hand over any really important classified information. But we probably want those to be hard no's for a guy in that position. Because maybe the next guy (or gal) is deathly afraid of an affair being revealed, or starts ramping up the types of classified information that is shared.
Real Housewives of Tampa.
Remember when David Petraeus was the unassailable genius of impeccable moral certitude who was going to save us in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm sure Caligula won some battles somewhere too, right?
He expanded the empire in Libya and if my classical history recollections hold, Rome also made its first forays into England under Caligula...
Sheeeeit - by late 2007, he was being measured for the role of James Matoon Scott in the Republican remake of 7 Days In May with a surprise new ending.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-12/news/35069798_1_natalie-khawam-marcelle-khawam-paula-broadwell
love that Kelley has a twin, too. waiting to hear which of these characters gets amnesia first, or fakes their own death....
Do people here believe that the timing of the shoe dropping here -- Obama supposedly found out the day after the election, and let's assume arguendo that that was true -- was pure coincidence?
I just want to understand the level of delusion people are operating under.
And if you answer or ask your own questions in reply, please answer my question as well.
1.2 million dollar homes are a dime a dozen in San Francisco, they are still quite large and a bit rare in most of Florida... I agree that there is nothing lavish about the party though. Its a typical wealthy high class party. Drinks, food, nice home, live entertainment... see them all the time on TV and movies to show that the other half lives better, not Caligulesque.
Not if they're on the water.
We're operating under the delusion that you're looking for a conspiracy to latch onto, because you want one to exist very badly.
Maybe, maybe not, don't know enough yet, it may be that he knew before hand, or maybe not.
no you are not, you are the deluded one and desparately tryng to convince yourslef taht, no it's everyone else who is deluded- and it's a pity, since you were one of the few anti-Dems who didn't imbibe the pre-election OMG the polls are skewed koolaid...
Caligula was born before Caesar?
that's not a "delusion," that's a logical inference.
I can't decide if this works best read in "Kevin Costner laboring with Southern accent" voice, or "Rush firing up the dittoheads" voice.
I'll go with pure coincidence, because I can't imagine why anyone would lie about it. Seriously - I can't come up with a good conspiracy theory as to why they would lie about when Obama found out.
I would sooner believe that the Great Turkey will put cans of cranberry sauce in my stocking next Wednesday night.
Caesar was there long before. Off memory also, but I'm pretty sure it was Claudius who was next.
Edit: Coke to McCoy.
There aren't too many $1.2 mil "mansions" on the water in Florida. A waterfront mansion, if the word means anything, probably starts at $4 mil.
Did the President find out about the FBI Investigation of Gen. Petraeus the day after the election?
Evidence for: public statements of all parties involved.
Evidence against: wharrrgarbl
Tough call.
Well, the vice president's son killed someone in a hit-and-run, and they tried to keep that quiet during the election, so I guess anything's possible...
He will if you've been a bad boy this year.
I'm not asking whether someone lied about when he was told. Please re-read my question, which assumes arguendo that he truthfully found out the day after the election.
I'm asking whether a decision was made to keep him in the dark about it until after the election.
If the year was 2011, would Obama still have been told on November 7th?
If, however, we assume that the FBI did follow this line becasue of what is currently being reported, it does not surprise me that noone wanted the president to know, till after the election, especially if the first thing he has to do is accept a resignation. that would really change the news cycle. It may or may not effect the election, but it would likely cause people to be nervous about thier future employment.
Also, they want to be really, really sure... as if they were wrong... this type of thing is a real career shortener. Either way not letting him know ahead of time can be a very smart CYA type of thing.
Don't forget that his potential running mate and new best buddy tried to blow up half of the top military brass. I'm sure there are links to Fast and Furious somewhere here.
According to the timeline linked above, the good general didn't start tapping the biographer until after he resigned his commission and started working at CIA (circa Nov 2011.)
Ray, please read the same timeline and explain to me where the "missing time" is where the POTUS was being protected from... Whatever it is he was being protected from.
Because all conspiracies work best in the passive voice.
That can't be right. Julius Caesar went into England. And then came home because of all the weirdoes painted blue. I remember translating the passage where one of his men jumped off the boat and immediately sank to the bottom because of all his armor.
You're wasting your time, but it's entirely plausible Obama was told the day after. In a well-run, politically savvy Presidency, if I'm Obama's chief of staff, and assuming I know everything about the story, I'll know a number of things, including
a) this is a politically very sensitive matter
b) it's irrelevant to real national security
c) the president is best shielded from political fallout by not knowing about the story until after the election
d) protecting him politically is part of my job, therefore I specifically don't tell Obama until the day after the election
The alternative would be to tell the president the story in a private meeting in, say, mid-October, ask him how he wanted it handled, then handle it that way. That he was told stays our dirty little secret.
Serious question in return, and not that it makes it right, and so on, but:
Do you think there's ever been a presidency that operated differently?
See this is the thing I don't get. Exactly how is it harmful to Obama that Petraeus has to resigns?
Oh I know the right wingers would have assumed that it was some kind of cover for Benghazi, but let's face it they already know the truth and nobody else cares.
Yes.
Is it not safe to assume that they finished the interviews on November 2nd (a Friday), collected all the information they had (Saturday/Sunday), prepared the report for the White House (Monday) and then decided interrupting him on election day might not be the best timing? Was waiting one more day really that terrible, given that they might have to tell Romney as well (in the alternate reality) the next day?
Now, if you think that they did keep the information from Obama until after the election, what is the reason?
Was it to keep it from getting out? Well, Obama's most sworn enemies (Republicans) had known since "late summer", and didn't make a peep about it (even "off the record" to a reporter). If they didn't give a #### about the information, why would it be so important to "bury it" until after the election?
Seriously, answer me that. Where is the scandal that harms Obama in this story? Why would they keep it from him until it after the election (if you assume they were done investigating, which doesn't seem to be the case according to the timeline)?
Caesar raided Britain twice, but never attempted and colonization. The first invasion with the purpose of establishing Roman control took place in 43 AD under Vespasian, during the reign of Claudius, successor to Caligula.
It may not have been harmful (in terms of reelection), but if he had to resign before the election it would have created a lot of uncertainty, and a ton of headaches. If Obama knows a month before the election and they wait till after the election to have him resign it just looks bad... nothing really terrible or traumatic, but it would be food for a lot of attacks that would likely drive the news more unpredictably than it currently is going.
I still think I have a good novel in me somewhere.
Agreed, but I think its at least plausible that the timeline was devised for that reason. Delays (if they occured) in these types of investigations happen all the time for mundane reasons though, so that is possible as well.
"Real" national security?
And the ultimate _conclusion_ may be that this didn't harm national security, but the issue is whether a _threshold_ has been met to inform the president.
Oh I won't. As long as you don't forget that the potential running mate/aspiring terrorist is also ####### his CIA handler.
but but but there are people who REALLY want there to be a scandal that is so bad that it forces Obama to resign or would even lead a Demo Senate to vote to remove him...
Stirs the pot; throws a wildcard into the comfortable lead they were sitting on going into the election.
Now, Ron, since I answered your question:
Do you think the timing of this dropping just after the election was a pure coincidence? Having regard for your good faith in these discussions, I expect an answer from you that is actually responsive, not a dodge like the others did.
Not my bag at all. I haven't said a word about Benghazi, and I don't think the timing of this had anything to do with Benghazi, or anything to do with whether Petraeus testifies on that and in what capacity. I haven't hit Obama over Benghazi at all. My issue has been the timing of the Petraeus thing as relates to the election.
I expect the others to link me to buying into a conspiracy floated by the right wing about Benghazi, but I didn't expect it from you.
I dodged a bit I admit- I have seen zero evidence that it was anything but a coincidence- but i think it is plausible that there may have been a politically motivated delay
but others did not- some openly said that yes they thought to was a coincidence+ others said it was entirely plausible that someone decided to not tell Obama until after the ellection.
You may not be in that camp, but I'm sure that you are aware that there are folks on the right convinced that Benghazi is or has the potential to be a presidency destroying scandal- so to them this whole Petraeous thing HAS to be connected to Benghazi
Yes. All I've said is that pre-election it creates a lot of uncertainty. I don't think there is a Big Scandal here; I just think they may have kept it quiet for election purposes. I don't think that's impeachable or treason or anything, just dirty politics. Because as soon as this comes out, Petraeus has to resign, and it throws a monkey wrench into the smooth sailing they were doing leading up to the election.
Why this is met with an OH MY GOD VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY LOON LOON LOON reaction is left as an exercise for the reader.
Then - gasp! - you aren't disagreeing with me.
Then, here again, those "others" are not disagreeing with me. "It's plausible" is all I'm saying.
Okay, if this is a matter of law enforcement, never, under any circumstance should you cop to it. Tell them all to #### right off. But if you're wife comes to you and is like "honey, what's this draft email I found in this account that was open on your work laptop?" Sharp edge, clean cut, cauterize the wound. Don't be a ##### about it.
Just to be clear, Ray. I'm not dodging your question. I'm mocking you for thinking it's an important question.
Then regardless of how "important" or non-serious the question is, what's your answer?
Well, aren't you the smartypants? The last 2 posters mentioning the subject specifically said Britain, not England.
edit: oh, and, "King of the who?"
The thanks I get for humoring a paranoid (on issues that might favor the right).
You forgot to capitalize The Others.
Because that makes Ray's fee-fees feel better.
(I've just referred to Robot-Boy's fee-fees. We are through the looking glass, people!)
Speaking of trials in absentia, does anyone know of a decent article on the subject for a layperson not ignorant of the law, but not extremely well-versed in it, either?
I can not disagree with this assessment. The fact that she has an identical twin pretty much places them squarely in the "if not successful social climbers due to sexual abilities, probably porn stars" bracket.
Alright. I'll try again.
Yes. Pure coincidence.
Now my question(s) for you :
Why do you feel there is someone to 'blame'? Why do you think Obama set up the system, and what is the other 'problem' if he did know about it?
Far fewer people would go to jail without trial, anyway. Which would be fine with me.
That little "I'm getting my picture took!" head-tilt gets me every time.
There are exercises a woman can do for that problem.
That's who the world needs to be run by--eunuchs and Monty Pythonish Hell's Grannies.
Anyone else surprised that Those Exercises aren't handed down like holy writs from mother to daughter? It would be like dad failing to tell you there was an exercise that made your penis larger.
So Bush was in on it. What's your point?
thread is useless without
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/petraeus-wife-holly-furious-affair-article-1.1200586
in the first one, Mrs Petreus looks like a tourist who just stumbled upon some "cool kids" and talked her way into the picture.
In the second one, she looks like a proud mama [but that's actually Mr. Kelley] trying to stay positive even with his choice in spouses [that's Mrs. Kelley], being a God-fearing woman and all..
Just a matter of time before the Reverse Vampires show their involvement...
Eric Holder knew. Is that specific enough for you? Holder apparently didn't inform Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/jon-stewart-looks-back-on-his-interview-with-paula-broadwell-video/2012/11/13/8902a718-2d9e-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html
I would have loved to have seen the look on her face if he jokingly said something like "Sounds like you got a bit of a crush on the guy!".
Look. I know I'm not suppose to speak for transgenders, or gays, or lesbians, or whatever oppressed minority it is we're defending these days, but by god, I feel I can speak for heterosexual white men, goddammit. And you know what. Ain't a white, heterosexual man alive that goes home with *that* wife when *that* woman is rubbing your inner thigh suggestively. None. Anyone says different is ####### lying.
I can't imagine why women don't hang out here.
Ain't a white, heterosexual man alive that goes home with *that* wife when *that* woman is rubbing your inner thigh suggestively. None. Anyone says different is ####### lying.
No, really.
They don't like sports and have no sense of humor?
Newsflash, Lassus: women are interested in athletes, not athletics. And certainly they are not interested in joining geeks on a website who call themselves "primates" and yell past each other.
She has also been all over the world with the military, and is a physical fitness wiz, who kickboxes etc.
???
Is this the part where you pull that concerned pony-tail guy ######## and hope she's into sensitive types more than the bad boy cartoons? Because man, I just love that part of the program. Later we can talk about evolution and the end of desire or something.
Equality is taking the same punch in the face I deliver to Ray Ray and laughing about it after.
The ####?
All the guys talking down to her attractiveness are looking at the badly composed snapshots and the oily complexion from action photos and ignoring the fact that her body is solid state physics below the fold.
No, she isn't, and why in the world would one "expect" this? As far as I can tell from Amazon, she's written exactly one book - and I use the term "written" loosely since her Petraeus book was ghost written.
I've heard of public figures such as athletes using ghost writers; I've never heard of actual authors doing so. Indeed, it makes no sense.
Nor has she been impressive or exuded intellectualism in her interviews about this book.
Nor did she act professionally, obviously, in covering her subject.
A bunch of useless, basket-weaving degrees.
Broadwell could ride her current status to a lifetime of ease, consultantcy gigs and speaking fees and never work another day in her life. Isn't that like, libertarian Yahtzee!?
This is both ridiculous and boring. I expect better from you than "disliking an extreme puts you solidly at the opposite extreme."
Either this is a joke, or you're really that stupid. Hoping for the former, betting on the latter.
another Broadwell accolade, in NY tabloid fashion
"They nailed it! Paula Broadwell voted ‘most likely to be remembered’ in high school"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/paula-broadwell-voted-remembered-high-school-article-1.1200771
What sort of degrees do you find more awesome, worthwhile, and difficult? CPA? MBA? Be still my heart.
Ridiculous is par for the course, but boring is a real insult.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main