Balta1701

No idea how reliable their work is since I don't know if I've heard of them before, but Public Policy Polling has a new one out with Obama 50 Clinton 39. Edit: In Wisconsin.

A hearty congratulations to the Bush Administration and to the major telecom companies in this country, as they're now completely immune from breaking the law.

QUOTE(shipps @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 06:28 AM) The only thing missing is the acceptance speeches. Balta: "This award is an expression of hope for America!" Tex: "I'm so sick of hearing about hope! It's not a good campaign theme!" SS2k5: "Where's the beef?"

Johan Santana Livan Hernandez.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 07:07 AM) Oh, so Obama is just as dirty as the rest? He's not a saint in politics? Surely, you jest! The law stinks. But since McCain is the one whose name is on the damn bill, the least he could do is follow his own law, the bastard. I don't mind either of them opting out of the system, the system as it stands is total garbage and this only helps hasten its reform. The thing I mind is that McCain got himself set up for the best of both worlds. He took out a loan late last year to pay for his campaign after accepting the matching funds. But because he didn't use the matching funds as collateral for the loan, he's able to sneak out of the matching funds now that he won the nomination. So basically, had he not won the nomination, he was going to use the matching funds to pay off his campaign debt. And if he won the nomination, he left himself enough wiggle room to get out of the spending requirements before he was locked in so that he could take advantage of the fundraising windfall the candidate would get. So he has the best of both worlds...if he loses, the government pays off the loans for him, and if he wins he's still able to avoid the spending limits.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 08:28 PM) in other words he's pretty screwed. There's a real good chance you're correct on that. But no way to know for sure without knowing what his testimony says.

QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 08:13 PM) If Clemens were to admit to using right now, would he get introuble for perjury? It depends on what he told Congress. He testified in front of them under oath last week. If he said specifically that he never used steroids, and then were to do exactly that, yes, he could face perjury charges. That testimony is currently not public, so he may have taken the 5th at places and we wouldn't have found out unless someone were to leak it. He could also have left himself wiggle room by saying he never Knowingly took steroids or some dodge similar to that. If he told Congress he never took steroids, and there was a test done proving that the needles McNamee had were used on Clemens to inject a steroid, then he could face perjury charges that way also.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) I think she would be considered too liberal to run with McCain. The far right wingers would go completely insane with rage. She basically has the same problems, with the same people, as McCain. from the article: Hutchison has had some disagreements with conservative Republicans. She's been criticized for her support of legalized abortions, embryonic stem cell research, her vote in favor of a children's health insurance bill that President Bush vetoed and recently for changes to a law requiring a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border. And, let's face it, if the Republicans need to pick a person from Texas to carry that state, then we'll be putting McCain and Mondale in the same sentence from now on.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 05:56 PM) I think if you make Going back to the same CNN piece, the cutoff point they draw between the $600 and the $300 is at about $3000. It may be interesting in that there may be a range where you get something between $300 and $600 depending on your overall income, the article is a bit unclear on that, it seems to depend on how much you actually owed last year and whether or not it was greater than zero.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 05:54 PM) wait so... like... will i be getting $600 bux? my 2007 income was probably around the $7-8k mark (college... yay) - and this $600 doesn't change according to how much you pay in taxes/make/etc? i'm just trying to figure out if i'm included in this whole thingamabob. From that description, as long as you file a 2007 tax return, yes, you should get $600 back, and that will not change the amount you pay in taxes either of these years.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 03:50 PM) I think we have all learned that endorsements are largely worthless. I'm not sure I've seen a case this term where a newspaper endorsement has made a difference, but i.e. Kennedy, we've seen some major polling moves in certain states created by local endorsements. It seems to vary with the state and with the person.

Hillary to reportedly pick up the endorsement of former Ohio Senator/Astronaut/Hero/only guy you can say "Godspeed" to whenever you want John Glenn.

This man is clearly nuts, but then again, we owe a crazy man for most of what we know about the steroids era as it is.

It appears to be official...McCain is going to maneuver his way out of the federal matching funds system for the primaries to get himself out of the pre-convention spending limits.

Even a broken clock....

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) 40 miles one-way. Plus we've lost 6 programmers in the last year (only 1 left voluntarily) which means my work load has sky-rocketed. Where ever these high-paying programming jobs are, they're not around me... The other 6 programmers took them.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 11:05 AM) Texas Polling Obama - 38 Clinton - 48 Posting those results doesn't do much unless you tell me the date of the Poll. January 30th-31st. Hence, pre Super Tuesday, and pre-the last few days before Super Tuesday where BO had those big gains.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 10:37 AM) *IF* he could get her elected. Here's the question. Would she promise Edwards the VP slot to beat Obama in the primary if she thought it would kill her in the general?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 10:31 AM) If it could get her elected, she'd grab him in a second. The Constitution keeps the VP in line, I've read a number of references to where the President and Vice President do not meet for months. I dunno about that. All of the reports I've read about the 2004 race have said that the Kerry campaign was particularly unhappy with the way Edwards performed as a VP candidate, not to mention the fact that he seemingly didn't even make a single state competitive for them.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 10:00 AM) Honestly, no clue. 3 Possibilities: 1) He told Obama on the phone he is already decided on Hillary 2) Told Obama on the phone he doesnt need to meet with him Obama is his man. 3) Obama thinks he doesn't need an Edwards endorsement anymore. THe "window" has passed and Obama has momentum. And if he thinks #3, then we need to start thinking about shifting the dunce cap from the person currently in office.

QUOTE(Princess Dye @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 09:48 AM) Besides, you just know that Thome's back will take all this into consideration and manage to be injured enough to allow Swisher plenty of 1B time Thusly, Owens and Quentin and Swisher will all play together some 30 games anyway, plus the platooning. So no one's development gets curbed. It certainly wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to just plan to give Big Jim some extra days off since we have the ability to move Swisher to 1b and RF. The more times we can rest Jim, especially against Lefties, the better this team will be in the long run. The best possible way to use Jim is to maximize his # of at bats against Right Handed pitchers, who he destroys. If that means he gets more rest against lefties so he's healthier, so be it. JD could clearly also benefit from some extra days on the bench or at DH.

Huckabee press release. As far as what I'm reading out there goes, the guy in charge did some sort of back of the envelope calculation, without bothering to see which districts still needed to be counted, and declared that there was no need to count the last bunch of those votes because McCain had won. And since then he's spent his time avoiding phone calls on the subject and trying to avoid Huckabee's lawyers. At least the Republicans have moved on from trying to make sure votes for Gore weren't counted to making sure only the right kind of Republican votes are counted. Eh? Eh? Eh? Thank you thank you we'll be here all week.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 07:51 AM) Then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I just don't think you can win without up-the-middle defense. It's why Gary Matthews got a $10 million contract. No it's not. His defense helped yes, but he got that contract because he put up an .866 OPS during his contract year. With some chemical assistance btw.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 02:01 AM) Just less games. He'll be Oak's DH if he's healthy. Where will Jack Cust play? Anyway, if he winds up healthy, he gets dealt to whichever team needs a bat the most at the trade deadline.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 10, 2008 -> 04:56 PM) So Obama won Maine, giving him 4 states won over the past couple of days. And there's about 3 states due to go to the polls tomorrow right? Also, what are Obama's chances of winning in Texas or Ohio? Those 2 seem to be the big ones left, and the pattern seems to be Obama winning the smaller / medium states (and more of them), and Clinton winning the larger states. What impact will Obama winning either Texas or Ohio have on the overall shape of things? If he could somehow finish a sweep on Tuesday, giving him 7 wins in a row (which is entirely possible)...that's some potential momentum. You get a test for that in Wisconsin on the 19th. The problem is, momentum from wins tends to die off with a half life of a couple days. As the calendar spreads out, the momentum from a win will tend to do the same. If he could take both Ohio and Texas, that puts him pretty close, but still not there.