lostfan

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2016 -> 12:47 PM) Ha, there is one clear theme here... All three are people that the Democrats have painted as extreme right wingers. They have been saying the same thing for so long, that no one even notices when an actual right winger comes along. In fact they have been crying wolf for so long, they had to come up with a new label because the old one meant nothing anymore. I mean I get her playing to the middle now, but I don't get pretending that it is authentic. I don't really think it's authentic, she is not that magnanimous, she's ruthless. I'm not a "both sides do it" kind of person but in this case they really do. It's hilarious to me when I hear conservatives talk about how far left Obama is. When he ran he was the "most liberal senator in U.S. history" according to whatever that organization is that makes these sorts of things up for them to cite, but so was Kerry. Both of them are ordinary center-left Democrats, though. Even Sanders isn't that far left. There is no organized political left in this country basically.

This guy has a similar take to what I did about Clinton's intentions with that speech. In Her Alt-Right Speech, Hillary Gave the GOP a Mafia Kiss

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) The headlines on CNN yesterday and the way NPR started their story this morning were both "Trump, Clinton trade accusations of racism" so I'm not too hopeful. Trump flailing around with Anderson Cooper when pressed on supporting his claim that Clinton is a bigot and finally landing on "I don't know, maybe she's lazy" was entertaining. Another solid confirmation of TNC's thesis that many on the right only see racism as a rhetorical or political tool and not something people are legitimately concerned about and impacted by. CNN has been completely lost since about a year after Obama got elected. They have no idea what they're doing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 10:31 PM) You missed no republican leaders criticizing the speech and now An oppo dump on Bannon showing he is a horrible person that beat his wife and would marry her unless their twins were "normal". When they found out they were he gave her a prenup. Hillary gave them an out on this mess, Obama did too, and I think I figured out why. Republican leaders have been dog-whistling to white nationalism for decades now (this didn't just happen out of nowhere, Trump is just the blacklight in a hotel room), and any of Trump's 16 challengers could've given the same speech, but chose not to. By doing this, Hillary is trying to cause permanent damage in the GOP coalition, where they'll have to completely re-form as something else.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 02:40 PM) Also a nice story for today: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/one-bl...m_source=Eloqua Although a not so great ending. speaking of activists in black communities: https://www.facebook.com/newerachicago/?fref=ts

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 01:32 PM) Is he getting paid more than usual though? If so, I fail to see what the problem is. Offset language has been included in deals before, so has deferred payments for signing bonuses. In either case, if the dude is getting more consideration for those extra clauses, I don't see why it's so s***ty on the Chargers' part. Going to the media was dumb, i'll agree with that. Basically, he's the 3rd overall pick (top overall non-quarterback), and they're trying to give him the type of contract provisions you'd give to someone you picked 22nd.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 12:55 PM) Yeah Hatley was the most screwed over by ownership cheapness. Yeah, they got a little better about that under Angelo, and when they got a new CBA and everything. The team isn't run like that anymore thank God.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) Clinton has a speech coming up in a bit about the Alt-Right and it's ties to Trump's campaign. Vox has a bit of a primer on exactly what the Alt-Right movement is: The alt-right is more than warmed-over white supremacy. It’s that, but way way weirder. I don't know if you remember Gamergate but that was like the raw version of this.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 11:46 AM) I didn't realize you couldn't trade first round picks later (when they were unsigned)...although makes sense cause I can't remember it happening (at least not recently...thought it happened a bit back in the days where holdouts were far more common). Chargers have always done this, reminds me of the Bears back in the 90's where they had a similar type of issue where they were making a hardline stance (it might have been as part of the Curtis Enis negotiation). I wonder if there are other teams who don't agree to the offset language on principal. Either way, Spanos hasn't made a lot of good decisions recently as it relates to his ownership of the franchise and this is just another one that will look bad amongst players (including how they kicked Weddle to the curb last year). That was both Enis and Benson, back when a top 5 pick was paid like a starting running back. Both of them had a lot less leverage than Bosa though and the Bears weren't being nearly as petty.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 25, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) The scale is straightforward and was a huge win for owners. That an owner can get a top 5 pick and try to exploit it is ridiculous. This should be used as an example why Spanos should not be allowed to move the team. He should be forced to sell. If you are an NFL owner would you want your teams money being funneled to this idiot crying poor? This is the baffling part, cuz the 3rd overall pick would've been paid a LOT more than he'd have been paid before the rookie pay scale was implemented. I don't know why the Chargers think they're getting over.

I think Trump watched a couple of 90s hood movies, reruns of Good Times, and binge watched the Wire and decided he's ready to start talking to black people.

The AP tried really hard to find a scandal in the Clinton Foundation documents but there's really just nothing there. Yeah, a lot of noise from the extremely loud anti-Clinton chorus, but there's no actual evidence of anything they are implying. The worst thing anyone found was that she met with some donors (not a scandal. this is routine politician stuff). Some got access for various reasons, some were turned down.

Bosa's negotiations with the Chargers remind me of Cedric Benson's negotiations with the Bears. Angelo (who was at the time still a good GM who made good decisions usually) said something along the lines of "any future offer will reflect his now-diminished value to the team, as he has missed valuable time" At the time, people thought the Bears were playing games and should have caved, but in hindsight nobody takes his side lol. They didn't need him that year (or ever, really).

Guaranteed Rate of mediocrity, sure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) A Governor Ordered to Serve as a Public Defender Amid a funding crisis, Missouri’s top public defender appointed Governor Jay Nixon to represent a poor client. I read that memo and I was like "oh he's not going to..." (3/4 down) "oh s*** he really is!"

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) Trump should drop out now. Vegas is never wrong on something this important. This means the race is over and there's no reason for Donald to even proceed. He's defeated. Should drop out and give somebody else a chance. The professional Republicans are talking about convincing Trump to drop out (that's the only way) but that's a long shot, and then they would have the same issues that led to them getting Trump in the first place. The ballot registration deadlines are approaching very soon and then you'd have LITERALLY a group of party elites LITERALLY in a private conference room LITERALLY choosing the next nominee who wasn't nominated by votes. And it'd be someone like Cruz, who at this point would get crushed just as bad. This isn't just something you can turn around.

For everyone's convenience, can we have a list in advance of situations in which spontaneous public summary execution is justified? Thank you.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 12:55 PM) Bovada has Clinton -350. Yeesh. I can't read betting lines. what does this mean?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 12:45 PM) We'll re-normalize around Clinton +6/8 is my gut feeling, but as you said, who knows how many more times Trump will shoot himself in the foot over the next 92 days. I'd put the over/under on that around 45 if we count a whole debate's worth of f*** ups as one incident. Like you said though, people started coming around on Clinton after the convention. Her favorables still aren't great, but she's getting close to at least being even. If you're even or -5 and your opponent is -35/-45, you're going to walk away with the thing and that's before the Democrats' general EC advantage they have right now. A couple more states drop into the "safe" category for Clinton, and we're pretty much calling the election in August. Obama never had a showing like the week Clinton just had even in 2008. edit: 538's forecast doesn't show GA going to Clinton, by the way. She's approaching 350 without getting Georgia. Georgia feels like the Democrats' version of Pennsylvania, though--the state they're always hoping that they can actually flip this time but lol nope it's gonna state red IIRC the biggest lead Obama had nationally in any poll was 9 points. Hillary's been kissing double digits.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 12:39 PM) Don't forget VA! Clinton's also drastically reduced ad buys there. Spooks for Clinton Doesn't this dope know that actually Clinton is unqualified because reasons? VA used to be a deep red state but it's almost a safe state for Dems in presidential years now. Let's give Hillary right now the states that are either already locked up for Dems or have trended Dem in the last several elections: NH, PA, MI, WI, IA. That puts her at 257. CO and VA are just about out of reach for Trump right now too, and we are at 281. Right there, before we are even talking about OH, VA, FL, NC, or NV, the election is over.

We are still in convention-bounce territory but the difference is Trump actually came out of convention season with a net negative, so Hillary's numbers opened way up. The numbers will narrow back like they usually do but where to? Hillary isn't winning the general election by 12 points (probably, who knows what other permanent damage Trump will do to himself in the next 90 days) but Obama won by 7 and won by a 2:1 electoral margin and Dems came out of that with 60 senate seats and a huge majority in the House. (that they'd later f*** off but that's another topic)

HOLY s*** this electoral map looks really ugly for Republicans. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ This is the part of the election where polls actually start giving you useful information - Clinton is already in Obama 2008 territory and it's still the first week of August. Obama didn't get this far ahead until late October. The map hasn't even bottomed out yet, this all happened in a week. Obama had 365 EV, right now, Clinton would win 354 (IN going blue that year was a fluke), and GA and AZ have been swinging blue (which is unheard of). The debates could change this of course but I see no reason to think Trump will all of a sudden sharpen up and get his s*** together, this isn't the Republican primary we're talking about anymore. This is probably similar to what it looked like trying to run against Reagan in the 80s.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2016 -> 11:31 AM) It's ridiculous how structurally favorable things are for more rural (Republican) people. Senate obviously lol, Californians get 1 Senator per 19,166,260 people, Wyoming-ans get 1 per 291,329. With capping the House at 435 and then Democratic voters just naturally clustering together more than Republican, there's a huge advantage there even before you get to gerrymandering. You got several million more votes than Republicans nationally? Enjoy your 10% deficit in House seats! This is why, even though states like Illinois and Maryland are gerrymandered for Democrats, I don't really care that much about it. If they weren't gerrymandered it'd be EVEN MORE lopsided. The House was intended to be sort of a reactive barometer to the national mood and the Senate was a check against that. We don't need two Senates.

If popular vote could be used as a guide, Dems would've taken the House back in 2012, but gerrymandering makes it almost impossible for Democrats to actually win seats that way. It has to be a huge blowout win like 2008 (and like this election is setting up to be, God willing). Unfortunately 2010 was a census year... thanks for that, flakes

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 4, 2016 -> 04:33 PM) We should do a poll. I'm thinking 90 to 95 percent of this board would cite itself as a Democrat. Surprises me. I did not know a majority of Sox fans were Democrats. I thought some ingrained South Siders were Republican. Really? Cook County is one of the most hardcore Democratic strongholds in the entire country. The city hasn't had a Republican mayor in almost a century. People who grew up on the South Side are almost always Democrats.