bmags

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) There is one huge good reason, and that is deficit and debt. That doesn't mean it is the best idea of course - but to say there is no good reason, is missing the elephant in the room. The debt doesn't need to be dealt with while there is 8% unemployment and 20 year borrowing rates are negative or under 1%.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 07:33 PM) Teague looked good last night. His defense was awesome and he was able to make some nice passes and penetrate. It was nice watching someone young and fast and athletic. You can tell he's learning, he is pretty passive in the offense at times watching the action. That will come with time. He's so raw, raw at kentucky, I really want him to play this year a lot. I hope Hinrich stays injured.

I understand that people like Keurig. I can't stand it. I've started using those Chem-ex filters when I have time on the weekends. Coupled with dark matter coffee, damn good cup. But, yep, can't stand Keurig. Also, tried playing around with a surface. I had my mind open, really wanted to like it. But, it's lags were very distracting compared to when i've tried out the nexus and ipad tablets.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) My dad runs a small business (trucking company) and has lots of employees that are earning in the range that puts them generally just out of reach of things like Medicaid. There is a company insurance plan and he offers them the chance to be on it -- they could take a small pay increase if they had their own health insurance, basically as a thank you for saving him some money. They would almost without fail take the pay increase, not buy insurance, and respond simply that they could go to the emergency room for healthcare. I think those days are over now. Except those people could go on the state insurance exchanges.

Except there's no good reason to raise taxes right now.

I think this "tax hikes only for the wealthy" is a dangerous path to go down. If you want to argue that these important services are important (they are), then you can't also argue "but someone else should pay for them".

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:51 PM) They're proportional to their representatives, not their populations. Small states get a boost due to the 2 free Senators. Which are now capped.

Again, I just don't understand how equal representation at a presidential level = underrepresentation of their interests. And I won't. I don't see a good argument for how 1 person in ND is more important than 700 in California in each level of government.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:24 PM) I'm not sure that's true, at least anymore. I seem to recall the numbers shifting on that, a lot, in recent time. Can't recall the numbers though. See: maryland.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) Based on what? We're 8 years removed from a Republican winning with a ~4 million vote margin. Obama is only the second democratic president since FDR to win with 50% of the vote. If a national vote, republicans could finally whip a fever into that huge block of conservatives in NY and CA that are drowned out. There are more republicans in california than there probably are in the gulf coast.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:43 PM) Exactly. Sorry, richest and most important area of the country, we have to dilute your vote by 700% so the 400 people in north dakota can get a bunch of federal money to build their expensive road to serve 14 people.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:42 PM) It doesn't. Their voices are still drowned out, possibly even easier, when speaking of popular vote. It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. I would, disagree.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:59 PM) will it though? yes in theory they'll bear the same weight, but in a national popular votes the candidates will be in: NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, etc etc etc - they won't give a crap about North Dakota, and thus, I don't see it as being all that different in terms of everyone's vote "mattering". The candidates will just assume ND goes Red just as they do now. Senate and Presidential voting are two very different things. And the highest percentage of minorities exist in urban areas, thus the GOP candidates will have a MUCH harder time overcoming that obstacle. It's not a balanced playing field for both parties as it is now. As opposed to now, where candidates are in North Dakota non stop for their 1 electoral vote for a heavily red state.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 07:16 PM) In all honesty, the polls deserve as much credit for being spot on than Nate does. If some of the polls has been way off, so would have been his projections. Exactly, the only ones really off were Gallup and Ras.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:13 PM) Except there is a fundamental difference here. Baseball statistics are the result of play. Election projections are based on polls of what is going to happen. (past results versus future results, just in case you are missing the disconnect there) Those are polar opposite things there, unless you are trying to tell me that Nate Silver can predict baseball ABs, games, and seasons to somewhere between 98 and 100% accuracy. Exactly, Nate's new job is way easier. He's essentially just analyzing constant snapshots. Fivethirtyeight final "projection" was based off that day's polls.

I initially read Sprint bought US Cellular but they just bought a bunch of their markets in the midwest. We still have US Cellular likely on our stadium.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:14 PM) FWIW, I really liked Gary Johnson's platform and I've always favored democrats. Yeah? Big fan of the gold standard?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:05 PM) I just find it pretty humorous when Twitter would have looked very similar for liberals if it had been around in November 2000. I remember reading some of the same sorts of things on message boards back in the day. Especially on issues you agree with him on anyway. Absolutely, that's why I'm reveling.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 05:04 PM) I see your point, and that's the problem with the two party system. It's gotten to the point that it doesn't matter who the person is. It's what party they are aligned with. Well, I disagree. I think both parties have legitimate platforms with real policies.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) No way, because he would never get on the ballot. That's the problem with the GOP right now. The vast majority of the party doesn't care (or care enough) about those social issues, but a very strong minority does. And that minority has a good hold on the primary elections. So you have to come off as extreme and then get back towards the middle come election time. But at that point you've already got quotes and video clips saying those extreme things, so it doesn't play with independents and moderate voters. Romney is closer to Obama than people think, especially on social issues. But like McCain he was forced to look much more extreme than he really is. Exactly. No reason R's should have lost Lugar's seat, but 14% of their electorate voted convincingly for a dude only 14% of the electorate wanted.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) There were many I know whose position was "anyone but Obama". So to them it didn't matter who the GOP rolled up there, that's who was going to get their vote. But why not? These men leading are just leaders of policy. If they disagree with the policy, why would you want that person in charge? Overall who these men are mean a lot less than the institutions they run. Those people seem like they have a pretty good handle on how to vote to better their policy interests.

Morning Comrades. I'm very pleased with last night. My contention that if you aren't happy with Democrats you can still reform them while in power appears to have worked out. Some great new senators elected, and excellent state democratic wins.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:44 AM) It's over. ??

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:30 AM) No. Pretty much, i think he'd have to sweep nevada, colorado, iowa, florida and virginia? THat might be off.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 11:46 PM) There are several reports coming from VA saying that turnout resembles 2008 if not greater, at least in terms of sheer numbers. I suppose we won't know for sure until the numbers come out though. I'm wondering if, sheer numbers terms, their growing population in nova is making up for dead loss.