Broadwell graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1995. She majored in political geography.[10] She earned a master's degree in international security from the University of Denver's Josef Korbel School of International Studies in 2006.[11][12] She earned a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 2008.[13][14] Broadwell is a Research Associate in the Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership Fellows.[15] In 2008, she entered the Ph.D. program at Department of War Studies at King's College London.[16]

And the initial thrust of RDP's simpering is that she isn't a high acheiver.

EDIT: To be fair I never had a really attractive woman really come on to me and make me actively say no either.

Well, that's the kicker isn't it. Most of us are faithful not because we are noble, moral animals, but because infidelity requires work, and we're normally lazier than we are horny. But take any of us out of the routine and put us in the star/athlete/powerful man of history mold where women might, on occasion, actively show interest in us without us having to do any work? At that point, the primate will take over near every time.

Now that there's a *second* general involved in the whole Petraeus thing, I really think I'm going to need one of those organizational chart-tree things you see in a cop TV or movie in which crime families are being investigated.

Broadwell graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1995. She majored in political geography.[10] She earned a master's degree in international security from the University of Denver's Josef Korbel School of International Studies in 2006.[11][12] She earned a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 2008.[13][14] Broadwell is a Research Associate in the Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership Fellows.[15] In 2008, she entered the Ph.D. program at Department of War Studies at King's College London.[16]

The most consistent data on infidelity come from the General Social Survey, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of Chicago, which has used a national representative sample to track the opinions and social behaviors of Americans since 1972. The survey data show that in any given year, about 10 percent of married people — 12 percent of men and 7 percent of women — say they have had sex outside their marriage.

University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively.

Not to pile on Ray, but that's a pretty darn good educational background. It's not like she has a B.A. in Womyn's Studies from the Hollywood Upstairs Academy of Learning.

Don't knock it -- the Hollywood Upstairs Academy of Learning Womyn's Studies department actually offers minors in Temptation...

That said, I'm a little wary of declaring a forty year old a "high achiever" based exclusively on her *academic* resume

Sam, if you want to take those figures and skew them up from where they sit to a majority of 65% or higher (or whatever "the primate brain" dictates to you), or if Good Face wants to say that a 28% faithlessness rate means that being faithful is not the norm, I have some Jeter gold gloves I'd like you each to present to the Captain with your apologies. Your position is not supported by the data.

I know that BTF is floor-to-ceiling with geniuses and Masters of the Universe, but I am pretty comfortable calling Broadwell a "high achiever" in the context of American society as a whole. YMMV.

Also, it probably bears mentioning that so far the only "scandalous" information to come out about Jill Kelley is that she's a socialite with a twin sister. Have we seen any actual evidence that she slept with either Petraeus or Anthony?

From the records, it appears that the charity fell far short of its mission. While the origins of the seed money used to start the charity in 2007 are unclear, financial records reviewed by The Huffington Post reveal that the group spent all of its money not on research, but on parties, entertainment, travel and attorney fees.

By the end of 2007, the charity had gone bankrupt, having conveniently spent exactly the same amount of money, $157,284, as it started with -- not a dollar more, according to its 990 financial form. Of that, $43,317 was billed as "Meals and Entertainment," $38,610 was assigned to "Travel," another $25,013 was spent on legal fees, and $8,822 went to "Automotive Expenses."

Well, it's not extra-marital 'scandal' -- but HuffPo has an article up about a 'cancer charity' that Kelley ran that seems to have mainly been a tax-free slush fund.

Going back a whole bunch of pages: from a Henry Farrel post (mostly) about pundits and the aftermath of the election:

"at last count, you could have subtracted 4.7 points (!) from Obama’s margin in every state and he would still have won"

But I'm in my early 40's, and the people I know who I would call "high achievers" (*NOT* me) in their fields wrapped up their advanced degrees fifteen years ago. They weren't entering PhD programs in 2008.

Since you brought it up Ron.... In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

or if Good Face wants to say that a 28% faithlessness rate means that being faithful is not the norm, I have some Jeter gold gloves I'd like you each to present to the Captain with your apologies. Your position is not supported by the data.

Since you brought it up Ron.... In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

She is one of those people who has been forever in higher education, as a substitute for entering the real world. And when she tried to finally enter the real world by "writing" this book - well, you see how well that went.

That's because the Ominous Black Panther was stationed at one of them!

And Republicans in the other 58 were afraid he might show up, so they didn't go to the polls.

Seriously though, how you can explain a 19,605 to 0 margin? The likelihood of that actually happening would have to be infinitesimally small.

I can't. I think 19,605 to 0 raises a red flag.

Seriously though, how you can explain a 19,605 to 0 margin? The likelihood of that actually happening would have to be infinitesimally small.

In my book, serving the military is the real world. YMMV.

Shouldn't something like this happen in Ohio? Florida?

They weren't entering PhD programs in 2008.

Broadwell served in the United States Army and the United States Army Reserve. She was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the Reserves in August 2012.[17]

Broadwell was Deputy Director of the Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.[4] She also worked with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.[4]

Broadwell met Petraeus in 2006 when he was a speaker at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.[18] She was a graduate student at the time.[18] According to the Charlotte Observer, she told him about her research interests after he spoke.[18] He handed her his card and offered his help.[18] She began a doctoral dissertation that included a case study of his leadership, with Petraeus fully cooperating.[18] Broadwell then co-authored a biography of Petraeus, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, with Vernon Loeb that was published in January 2012.[19] Her account of the razing of Khosrow Sofla was criticized for minimizing the destruction.[20]

Broadwell has also written for the New York Times and the Boston Globe.[21][22] Her public speaking engagements have included addressing a group of Republican women in October 2012 organized by the then Colorado House Majority Leader Amy Stephens.[23][24]

I think 19,605 to 0 raises a red flag. And so should liberals, since they're fond of the disparate impact argument when it comes to showing discrimination.

I am not against someone looking into it, but I doubt anything will come to light.

*can we break out the General Betray-us ad in the Times again?

It should be looked into.

Since you brought it up Ron.... In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

Seriously though, how you can explain a 19,605 to 0 margin? The likelihood of that actually happening would have to be infinitesimally small.

Also, check this out People go to vote, ballots already cast in their names; Others vote more than once

0 votes in a division sounds implausible. Rigging voting to yield 0 votes in a division sounds implausible. But never underestimate the chutzpah of politicians and their machines.

even Neifi Perez, I'm pretty sure has had 4 for 4 days.

Obama won 93% of the vote among blacks nationwide. And I don't have the breakdown, but I'm guessing Obama might do even better among concentrated urban blacks. He's gonna score pretty high in places like that.

And I would be especially suspicious of anyone "bragging" on Twitter about anything, particularly something that would require some effort for virtually zero personal benefit (i.e. voting multiple times in a presidential election).

Let's say in those precincts the "true" baseline is 98%. We would still expect to see 392 Romney votes.

Agreed. Robert A. Caro's second book about LBJ and his rigged Senate race against Coke Stevenson in 1948 has a long and wild story about vote-rigging in South Texas. 0 votes out 20,000 seems nuts, as does guys being stupid/ballsy enough to rig it that way, particularly when in a totally clean vote in those divisions, Obama was quite likely to pull in around 95-97% anyway. But you never know.

But never underestimate the chutzpah of politicians and their machines.

Besides, as spycake alluded to, this isn't one large block of 19,605 votes. This is 59 different blocks that have been picked to exaggerate the result. So each block of voters is really only, on average, 332 people.

So each block of voters is really only, on average, 332 people.

And there is no way all of the 19,605 voters being tallied up were black. So even the baseline we're using is not really completely representative.

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods - clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia - fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

Isn't Ray usually the first one to shout "small sample size"?

Using the 93% as a baseline we would have expected to see 1,372 of the 19,605 votes be for Romney or other candidates (did any of the third party candidates receive votes there, if they were on the ballot?).

Let's say in those precincts the "true" baseline is 98%. We would still expect to see 392 Romney votes.

Yeah, 0 is simply implausible.

But it's NOT "0 votes out of 20,000" -- at least, not logically so... you can't just arbitrarily combine precincts that share a common trait (Romney shutouts), then claim you've created some random sample

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods - clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia - fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

I know I could have voted several times last Tuesday had I wished to.

So was Obama blanked in any divisions in Utah or Idaho?

Again...

This is statistically illiterate...

Someone with a better grasp of statistics than I really needs to jump in here

What is "almost exclusively"? Could there not have been 100 or 200 non-black voters out of the 19,000? That's only .5 or 1%. I don't know about Philly, specifically, but I have a number of white friends here in NYC that live in black neighborhoods. One of them, actually, has lived in a black neighborhood in Philly in the past.

Break those areas of millions into much smaller chunks

Philly only has about 1.5 million inhabitants. FYI, about 1/2 the size of Chicago.

How many of the 19,605 were white voters, or at least non-black? And how many of _that_ subset would we expect to have voted for Romney?

Apparently about 6. 4? :)

What is "almost exclusively"? Could there not have been 100 or 200 non-black voters out of the 19,000? That's only .5 or 1%. I don't know about Philly, specifically, but I have a number of white friends here in NYC that live in black neighborhoods. One of them, actually, has lived in a black neighborhood in Philly in the past.

First - rural precincts simply don't have the reporting machinery of urban areas, so it's tough to get a full examination -- but yes, there were multiple precincts in Utah at least where Romney shut out Obama.

From TFA:
"In Millard County’s Flowell precinct, Romney won 14-0. In its Garrison precinct, he won 17-0. In Sanpete County’s Mount Pleasant 3 Unincorporated precinct, Romney won 14-0."

Not exactly the same thing, statistically.

The problem you guys have is with the number 0. Zero. Zero. Zero.

However, I don't see how anyone can claim there are no voting problems or that fraud is under-detected. It would be trivial to pull off. It is one of many areas where bipartisan efforts should be made (as a start, I'd say increased security around voting locations and government issued (i.e. free (i.e taxpayer supplied)) photo IDs. Voter fraud is mostly small in the US because most people are fairly honest. I know I could have voted several times last Tuesday had I wished to.