Jake

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) Unfortunately, at this point, the electoral college is all we have, and it's better than the alternative of a pure popular vote. I'd love to hear of a better system to replace it that they'd actually implement, but removing it in favor of a popular vote isn't something I'd be interested in them doing...ever. Again, I'm sure some people are in favor of it now, short term, because they can't see the forest for the trees and it happens to favor at the moment, but long term (which they aren't seeing), it would destroy what little choice the people currently have. If the electoral college is replaced by a superior system, that's not a popular vote, I'd be all for such a change. But if the alternative is moving to a popular vote, no thanks...I'd rather keep the flawed system we have now. I don't think it's the best system, but I prefer it to the electoral college and it really has a legitimate chance to upseat it with popular support. I'm not fathoming the issues that make electoral college better than pure popular vote...can you make some sort of argument (you don't have to do an exhaustive analysis, I understand these things can get long-winded) for your stance? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't know what a present-day pro-electoral college argument sounds like so it is hard for me to weigh pros and cons.

There are some that probably will, I agree, and some probably should. I just hope that Congress agrees to negotiate each separately so that there is no chance that everyone gets f***ed over because they can't agree about one part of the taxes. They could dig into the deficit substantially if they let them expire, but from what I can tell it would probably end any notion of recovery.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) Ask the same question Wednesday. Once BO is reelected, it will be the top new story until it's resolved, I'm sure. What confuses me is why the Republican campaign hasn't given this attention. They could have been accusing BO of having a master-plan of giant tax increases because that's technically what the current laws call for.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) I don't understand why you think Moustakas is an MVP candidate. He was the 3B equivalent of Beckham last year. WHAT? Beckham has struggled to be a positive value player. Moustakas, in his first full season, put up a 3 WAR and saw his OPS rise from the year previous. He's now 24 and there's no reason to think he should decline or do anything but get better. He's an extremely valuable player. If Moustakas had a .600 OPS last year, he'd be more like Beckham...but he's not.

They scored.... Time for more Cutler-Marshall show

What...the...hell Charles Tillman

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) I disagree, completely. If you thought about it -- at all -- you'd realize why a pure popular vote is a terrible idea. Then again, most people haven't bothered to think about it, because it's not popular to think for yourself these days, but repeat what others tell you. Just so happens that the current Democrat montra is electoral college = bad, because massive expanding population of voters on your side = good, at least while it's in their favor, that is. I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect, and perhaps a better system could replace it, but I am saying moving to a pure popular vote opens elections up to a multitude of problems, including what they call in corporate world, a hostile takeover. If you spent any amount of time *truly* thinking about it, you'd realize how bad of an idea this is. A pure popular vote would silence minority populations, be they white, black, catholic, jewish, etc...and make it so only the vast majority is heard -- and in a more dangerous yet conceivable situation -- even if it's a specific majority that rises, be it based on race or religion. That's NOT what we do here anymore, and for good reason. I thought we've learned what this can do to a nation already? Need people see signs such as 'whites only' again in order to remind you what happens when a single majority rises and can control elections? Like I said, think about it. I understand your argument, and this is the very problem with rule by democracy and why we don't make laws this way (by popular vote). California is in shambles because they let laws go up for popular vote all the time. However, what about the electoral college addresses those shortcomings? All it does is focus attention, arbitrarily, in a select few places. If gaining votes only counts in a handful of states, why is that more fair?

I like it

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) Well that is 6 straight pass attempts, back to back games we start game looking like the running game be decent and we passaholic. Yep. Cutler has made a few really inaccurate throws and a few others where it looked like receivers and QB weren't working on the same route.

BUT BUT IF YOU TAKE OUR SEPTEMBER STATS WE'RE THE WORST OFFENSE EVER ALSO, IF SEPTEMBER STATS COUNT BRENT MOREL IS BETTER THAN DAVID WRIGHT

KW Jr. has about a 10% of spending time as an MLB 5th OF. Book it. /Nate Silver but really, he's athletic and though he is very old for the level he held is own in AA last year

Anyone hear the murmurs about "taxmageddon"? Is there any chance of us actually letting all of those expire?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 4, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) the electoral college has problems, but a pure popular vote isn't the answer either, because it disenfranchises people in rural areas. i'm not sure what the answer is though. You'll have to tell me how my vote counts less in Pontiac, Illinois in a popular vote versus the electoral college

Also Sam Adams Old Fezziwig, damn good stuff! Why oh why can't I get a sixer of this stuff?

Nate Silver's article today basically lays out the current status of the election. If polls are reliable at all, Obama is about to win. Maybe not by a ton, but he will win. The uncertainty in his model is almost solely the off chance that most polls are leaning Democrat by >1 point.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Nov 3, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) I like how the Bulls are beating bad teams while the Pacers lose to them Goes to show that the Bulls are an above average team no matter if Derrick Rose is there or not. Tommy Thibs is the reason the Bulls are as good as they are. And of course Derrick Rose just adds to it but... I'm impressed at how hard Thibs gets his players to play for him. Nobody ever questioned the Bulls' ability to overachieve in the regular season but its still impressive when you watch them bring it every single night Given the relatively small amount of leverage a coach has over a player with a guaranteed contract, I agree that is pretty remarkable what he gets out those guys.

delicious

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) Cool. I just wanted to make sure they wouldn't toss my ballot for missing a spot. I will now vote for me for Congress. Unfortunately, your vote won't be counted Your ballot will count, but no one will know that you voted for yourself -- they don't tabulate write-ins unless there are enough write-ins cast that if they were all the same person, they'd win.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) yea there's a lot of stats on that if you look. it's pretty clear the Democrat voting demographic has a lot of intersections with the obesity demographic. There are some key demographics for D's that are fat. I'm not sure if we can neatly resolve this question. Poor people tend to be fatter, women tend to be fatter, and minority women tend to be the fattest. I think the one thing we can settle on is that America has a weight problem.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 1, 2012 -> 08:57 PM) not sure what's going on in that video. Hugo Chavez bad and Obama bad? is that the narrative? Chavez says that he would support/vote for Obama if he were American. Then it cuts to Fidel Castro's daughter, who I believe is actually an American citizen, saying she would vote for Obama. It then mentions that the EPA sent out an email that had a picture of Che Guevara in it (this actually happened, some "rogue" staffer sent it out as a joke without permission). Then it cuts back to Hugo Chavez claiming that if Obama were Venezuelan, Obama would vote Chavez. Then Romney says he approves the message in a fairly heavily American accent, lol (I am just a tick short of fluent in Spanish now 8)) QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 02:17 AM) With a few days remaining, does Romney truly have a shot at this? I have a gut feeling that as bad as Obama is, Romney might be the worst president ever, even worse than Quayle would have been. And I'm a lifelong Republican saying this. Romney has a shot, but not much of one. If Rasmussen is the lone correct polling service, like many in certain echo chambers believe, then Romney will have a great Tuesday. However, it doesn't have a great track record, despite putting more resources into their polls than just about anyone not named Gallup. They have had 4+ point Republican leans in a couple elections. There was one election when they came out looking decent, at least in the choosing of winners, though. I don't think at this point anything could change much voter-wise, so the only way Romney has a chance is if all of our information has been incorrect or something random happens -- it won't really be possible to know if he won because of the 10-20% chance he does happens or if the polling data was incorrect. It's the toughest part of political science, there are very few events to judge your models against.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) Get Ready for the Phony Debt Fight "The Debt" is going to be used as an excuse to unnecessarily cut Social Security and Medicare regardless of who wins Interesting. I had been intrigued by the notion of Social Security cuts and even privatization, but I realized after research that the motivations behind the calls for that are almost surely ideological. Social Security has been running at a profit for so long that $2 trillion of our debt is actually owed to the Social Security fund -- so it is hard for me to say that it is near insolvency when it still has TOO much money AND provided the government pays back the debt, they will have >$2 trillion in the bank to cover any potential tough times in which they run at a deficit. Last time I looked at it, the next time it really should get some serious attention would be about 20 years from now.

Some token of gratitude is nice so the guy knows that he isn't just a tool for you to get things from.

All I can say about NCAA vs NBA or any pro league... I like to watch sports because I like to see the very best in the world at their craft do work. The NCAA has a very limited interest to me because the talent can't touch the NBA, save 1 or 2 players in a given game. The main novelty of the NCAA is to see who might become good enough for the better league, and occasionally something to keep you occupied when nothing else is going on. It gives people with no more pro markets nearby something to watch. In the end though, I want to see the best in the world at play.

I don't think we'll make a splash just to do it. I'm okay with bringing Youk in at a reasonable price instead of selling the farm for someone like Moustakas (who would be AWESOME on the right deal)

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Nov 1, 2012 -> 08:28 PM) I feel like Dunn is an example of overrated walks actually. You know why? Because his 0-19s with a couple walks and 0 runs scored destroy us. 0-8s and 0-11s all over the place. 0-15 with a run scored and a walk in July against Detroit and Boston. He goes 5-6 games without RBIs that kill us. His game offends me but it is what it is- in no way is it perfect for the 3-hole though; that is as arguable as a topic gets! He drove in Youk 10 times- 3 times each month? He drove in De Aza 22 times which was the most- a whopping 3.6 times per month. Drove himself in 41 times lol. Boom or bust. I'd like to see all the hrs he hit this year: against who and the situation. Other than that 2 hr game at the end of the year, I'd be willing to wager the majority were meaningless and more importantly against bad, mopup-style RH pitchers with no velocity. All a hunch. I hate every second I watch him. When his HR total was at about 30, it was reported that about 2/3 occurred when the game was within a run OR put the game within a run. A smaller, yet oddly high amount gave us the lead. I'm operating off of memory here so someone should try to verify. Also, he hit 15 HR in 215 PA against LHP vs. 26 HR in 434 PA against RHP. sOPS+ actually higher against lefties (134) than righties (117). He's obviously far more exaggerated as a boom or bust batter against lefties, though.