Balta1701

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) Exit polls? Those people just voted, of course they show a tiny percentage as independent. Do you really think it makes any logical sense that just 1% of voters are independents? You have misinterpreted the label on those tables. Those 1-5% numbers are people voting for "Independent" candidates. There's a reasonable share in 2000 because there were several "Independent" candidates on the ballot...Nader and Buchanan, who drew non-trivial support. 92 and 96 involved Ross Perot as an independent candidate. The full table is how all self-identified "Independents" voted and how self identified "Moderates" voted in the last 30 years can be found in the other.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) When some democratic congressman submits a proposed bill to ban guns, citing the threat of AQ, I'll expect you to pounce on his use of fear mongering tactics to promote legislation. How about we just close the gun show loophole?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) 2004, the Dems ran out such an awful candidate that even though W was a buffoon, the independents still went to W in large numbers, along with the election (though that was also in part due to him still having some wartime support). I think you are confusing month-to-month party affiliation with real bases. The real bases are tracked over time, and the leftovers are the moderates/independents. Basically, barring landslide elections, the party bases vote for their party's candidate, in slightly higher or lower turnout values. The non-party affiliated, in the current model, are always the difference maker. No, I'm not confusing affiliation with real biases, I'm actually going to exit poll data rather than attempting to find the appropriate anecdote. In both 2000 and 2004 the self-described independents were essentially a non-factor. They split, with a small win to Kerry in 2004. The last Presidential Election where Independents mattered was 1996. If you go to "Moderate" voters, as classified in the exit polls, the Dems have won those soundly every year since 1992. That includes in 2004 when the Dems ran an "Awful" candidate and you said Independents went to W in large #'s (which they didn't).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) LOL I'm entirely serious. 2004 and 2008 were entirely base turnout elections. The Democratic Base turned out overwhelmingly in 2008, and Bush won in 2004 despite losing so-called independents.

Interesting...Bernanke is currently the only voting member of the Fed who is actually an academic, not a banker.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:24 PM) You seemed to be stated that they would have made all of the difference, I am just trying to figure out how exactly they would have done it. Turn it around then...how do you know it wouldn't have made a difference?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) Before I will agree, I want to see something that tells me that these two would have been a key vote somewhere that failed by one vote or two votes. Does the Fed actually publish their voting records? I always got the impression it was one of those cases where the real decision work was done behind the scenes.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:14 PM) It's been almost 10 years since 9/11. This is a new revelation? No, I'm just pointing out that AQ is now officially encouraging people to take advantage of the gun show loophole to commit terrorist attacks. That is actually new.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:10 PM) And yet you've ignored the single most key component in the general elections in recent history - where the independents go. Independents have been important in recent general elections?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) With six starting pitchers and a $125 million payroll? Really? I bet you we would.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) The Cubs are stuck with him, I never said any different. The difference is finding someone who will take on $10 million in your scenario. That again leaves the Yankees. Are you kidding? The White Sox would take on Zambrano for $10 million over 2 seasons and figure out what to do with it afterwards.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) This is his third year with the team and he's made a grand-total of 25 starts. It's been 2 calendar years since KW first tried to trade with him. Calling this his "3rd year" with the team takes some spinning.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) No, I've bought into the message that has existed for United States history that says s***ty economies aren't good for the incumbent. Alan Keyes could grab 45% of the vote in this economy. Alan Keyes could have grabbed 45% of the vote in 2004. "Democrat" and "Republican" in a Presidential race will get 45-55 if one of the candidates is revealed to be a mass murderer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:22 PM) So what huge policies would those two FRB governors have brought to the table that the other 17 members (including the FRB Chair and Vice Chair) did not? Hopefully a QE3. A resetting of the inflation target to 4% or so would also be nice.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) Who would take on the $25 million though? If that is the case, scratch the Dodgers and the Diamondbacks for sure. It probably takes out Detroit too, but it is possible Little Ceasar could decide to throw the cash on the table for him. That pretty much leaves the Yankees. The Cubs would kill to have someone take off that much of the deal. The problem is no one will pay that much to a complete nutcase, who isn't nearly as good as he used to be. Clearly I was saying that the Cubs would take the $25 million hit and the other teams would take on $10 million. You can't reply that the Cubs can't afford the $25 million hit, because they take it anyway if they just hold onto him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) Like I said teams know if the Cubs were just going to give him away, they would have already released him. They are going to ask for something if they send $10 million out. That is totally rational. If I were the Cubs, I'd be trying to get some team to absorb $10+ million of the $35-ish remaining on his contract, save myself at least a pile of the money he's guaranteed. I mean, i wouldn't turn down a prospect offer, but if your options right now are "Suspend him with pay for the rest of the season" and "trade him for virtually nothing but at least save $10 million or so"...wouldn't you do the latter?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) I can see how two FRB governors would have totally made it down to the 7% unemployment that Barack promised us with the stimulus plan too. Damned evil Republicans. Of course, anyone who paid attention to history might have noted that we'd already passed 7% unemployment before the stimulus itself was even passed. So clearly, the stimulus went back in time to cause the increased unemployment rise. Because otherwise, having blown through the unemployment estimate made 2 months beforehand would suggest to an honest viewer that much more radical steps needed to be taken. A much larger stimulus, and much stronger action from the Federal Reserve. But that would of course require honesty and would invalidate belief in stimulus time travel.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) With the chips they have, I think they would look to raid someone like Minnesota long before looking at Z even for cheap. Most importantly, I also don't see them bringing in those kind of guys after the way the Manny era ended up there. If the Cubs are insisting on "Raiding" someone they may as well just pitch him for the rest of his contract and pretend that these incidents never happened. That's the closest they'll get to getting value out of him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) Did I miss the shutdown of the Federal Reserve bank? Well clearly you missed the jump to 9%+ unemployment.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) Honestly it isn't because they didn't hold up the business of an entire entity to stop the opponents agenda. That is way closer to holding people hostage than just not voting on a single bill/issue. Seriously...having 2 open seats on the Federal Reserve at a time of the deepest economic hole in a century because you won't vote to confirm any nominee Obama sends forward isn't holding something of value hostage?

I'd certainly add Boston to that list since it appears Matsuzaka is gone for the long term and Wakefield probably isn't a full time starter any more.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) They should have just fled to Illinois instead. It'd be a more apt comparison if the legislators who did that never bothered to say why they were fleeing and never voiced an objection to any specific bill.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) "you" and "teams" are two different things being argued. Then...the "You" who would refuse to take him is probably the special circumstance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) The Yankees are one of the few teams that fall into that special circumstance because of their starting rotation. If there are several teams that would take him...then the circumstances aren't all that special.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) If I'm Obama, I take that chance. Legislation is basically at a standstill anyway, so no big loss. And if they hold firm on the debt ceiling, for example?