lostfan

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 04:04 PM) Bobby Jindal is the clubhouse leader for 2012 IMO. I'd be surprised if Rudy makes another relevant national run for public office again (although it's debateable if his run this time even turned out to be relevant). It was relevant in the sense that his campaign will be used in political science classes for years to come as an example of "the absolute worst possible strategy to run a presidential campaign"

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) I think this talk about Rahm Emanuel being more of the same is so silly. It's the chief of staff, you want someone who is going to fight for your legislation, not some REALLY nice guy that is ineffective but is CHANGE cause he's so nice. Obama should've named his COS snuggles the bear. I was going to say something like that. Your CoS is supposed to be a partisan guy. Otherwise there is no point in having one.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) How about Vallas for Sec. Ed? Is that guy still around? He got booed at my school once.

What does FBWSA mean?

Lugar is like a thousand years old, I wonder if that's why, or is it just that he doesn't want to serve in a Democratic administration? He would be highly qualified for the job though and IMO the best pick.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) There is no way the Orioles would trade Roberts in a deal that is anchored by Javy Vazquez. The Orioles are a million miles away from being contenders. 2 years of Javy Vazquez won't do crap for them. Although, pitching for a bad team, Javy may thrive and become decent trade bait, but that's not worth the gamble of alienating the few die hards you have left and trading the face of the franchise for a journeyman pitcher. If Roberts doesn't sign, they'll either trade him for young players, or let him Robin Ventura it and walk when the contract expires. The O's actually have a lot of young talent. Their OF is solid with Scott-Jones-Markakis, they have some other missing pieces (like SS), but not as many as it seems, and they have a couple solid prospects too. Their SP was outstanding for most of '07 but this year was a train wreck, it's their biggest need. I won't suggest a trade involving Vazquez especially for Roberts, but they DO need pitching. Bad. But at this stage Vazquez's salary is probably more than Angelos wants to deal with.

I'd like to applaud the professionalism of the Bush administration in the transfer of power, so far everything seems to be running smoothly, and at least on the surface, apolitical.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 01:32 PM) ABC and CNN are confirming that Rahm-bo has accepted the Chief of Staff position. Joe Scarborough was being a drama queen about this this morning for no particular reason. Basically because Emanuel was talking out loud about how the move would affect his family and that means that the Obama camp somehow horribly stumbled with the decision. I guess now that the election is over they need stuff to talk about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) I have such an urge to point out the grammatical error here I can't resist... Anywho... That was from not reading the sentence after I backspaced a couple times and re-wrote it

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) Having gone through a state school as an undergrad, I think there's more than a few people who went through IU who couldn't answer that question. Just some of the memories I have, like the person in biology who said that we shouldn't care about any of this because the sun is just going to expand and destroy the earth anyway. Or the existence of math 001, which was basically the math I did in 7th grade. Whenever I have to peer review somebody's paper I'm sometimes shocked at the quality I see, or lack thereof. Most of them are about what you'd expect from a college student (fair to excellent) but occasionally I come across some genuinely awful ones that leave me scratching my head. I read one guy's paper that left me wondering how he possibly could've made it into a 300-level course, he almost did nothing right. He didn't even start off with a thesis, have a conclusion, or even take a side on a persuasive paper, it was indescribably bad, and that's not even taking into account that there was other, more minor stuff wrong with it like writing in the first person, bad grammar, not in MLA format, etc. And I reviewed this other woman's paper who didn't even try to get to 2000 words, she just stopped at 650 and turned it in.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) Didnt MSNBC call it for McCain? Probably.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 11:43 AM) I agree...the easiest thing would have been to say I read the "Alaska paper" and I also read various papers online when I get a chance. I don't think she could've gone wrong if she said she read TIME, either. Even if it was a lie, it wasn't like Couric would've done something like "oh, so you must know about such and such an article, then..." It's Katie Couric, she's a softballer.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 10:27 AM) For those of us who cant' see YouTube at work... what is the deal with this Africa thing you are talking about? In so many words, I believe it was a guy from the McCain campaign telling a Fox reporter (Shepard Smith I believe) that she was incredibly difficult to bring up to speed on a number of things, and that he was stunned at certain things she didn't know. The things he specfically mentioned were that she didn't know what countries were in NAFTA, she thought Africa was a country instead of a continent, and that she resisted preparation before the Katie Couric interview which would've averted the train wreck it turned into. He also said they advisors thought the questions were predictable, and all of them were fair albeit slightly snarky in tone.

I'm reading international editorials I'm reading across the net all seem to have one theme - they are all fawning over Obama, they're all excited that Bush is leaving and Obama is coming in simultaneously, and they're all optimistic about America and they're proud of us. I haven't seen this much pro-Americanism outside of a few isolated places since 9-11 to be frank. Though of course, there are some writers asking how he's going to meet the expectations he's been setting and wondering exactly what an Obama administration will bring that's new.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 08:52 PM) Women are minorities? By default even if not in reality, because one of them has never been a president or even VP before. The definition of "minority" when we talk about the president is very broad, basically anything that's not a white male, which every president in history has been up to now.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 09:20 AM) OK. Which proves that in national elections the "bradley effect" is negligible, it doesn't prove there is no bradley effect. To prove a negative, that it doesn't exist, you basically have to prove that no where is there a single person that tells a pollster they are voting for the black candidate and insteads votes for the white. To prove it does exist, you would need to find one person who did. Basically it is usually impossible to prove a negative in an academic sense. I think it's fair to say that while it's possible there may be a "Bradley Effect," it clearly did not have any significant impact on the total polling across the country.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 09:07 AM) Did they do one like this for Obama? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11...TION_RECAP.html Not specifically, but go to tab 3 and you can get the same data. Check out Indiana... wow. Almost the whole state is dark blue. White people there broke about 11% in favor of Obama.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 08:50 AM) This argument is dumber than the first one. Let it go people. Yeah... my current location is irrelevant, I'm still a product of the South Side. I'm pretty sure that applies to quite a few on this board too.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 07:44 AM) No. The effect is there as long as it applies to someone. What gets added to the information is the number of voters is insignificant, thus the effect is not a factor in National Elections. The poll predictions on 538 were all close to dead-on, all over the country. The only state he missed on predicting was Indiana and even then it was only by a couple of points (it was predicted to go barely red, ended up going barely blue). The actual election Bradley was in was a result of poor polling, furthermore, this year's GE polls were done nationally with different demographics all over the region, and to my knowledge none of them showed any significant anomalies.

I didn't remember offhand where Myanmar was, I had to guess because they were brown people and I knew it was in SE Asia. But that's like in a different category than not knowing where China is.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 10:10 PM) This is just stupid f***ing bulls***. The media perpetuating this is just terrible. Faux News included. What is bulls***? Really, this is a conclusion I came to weeks ago based off answers she gave, not the (relatively easy) questions Couric and Gibson were asking her. It's not something the media is perpetuating, it's the truth, being reported, and expanded upon by credible sources. Same as, say, Obama being a great public speaker, or McCain having a history of service.

Danks is from a pretty liberal part of TX (Austin), I had been wondering if he was a R or a D.

I think I can agree with you here.

I think that's a fair point, but I also think the type you're talking about are already Republicans. That demographic is out west too, and what I'm noticing is that there is no major difference in those states from '04 like there is in the south and the Appalacians (less population obviously but percentages would still be the same). Plus across the country the independents and conservative Dems started getting scared off her, I just don't see it as being a local trend.

Yeah, my god, that interview is f***ing hilarious. My god.