NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) Last night, the Dems scored a big Congress win, taking out Jim Oberweis in Illinois...in Dennis Hastert's old district...and on top of it, the nearly broke NRCC dumped a ton of money in to that race too. That was indeed a big win. Its a heavily republican district, or at least has been for a long time. My parents live in that district. Its heavily gerimandered, stretching from the west suburbs to the Mississippi. Oberweis spent a ton of money, Hastert was the guy before and he was popular, and McCain even made an appearance with Oberweis. And still, Foster won, spending a lot less money. The combination of anger at Bush, Oberweis' thoroughly unlikeable public demeanor, and a changing electorate all factored in. I think this might be a bit of a hint of what November will look like for Congress.

Rasmussen issues a Mississippi poll... 3/5, 816 LV Obama: 53% Clinton: 39% So the three polls out show Obama's lead as +14, +24 and +6. Kind of a wide range.

And the reason for your highlighting job?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 01:01 AM) If MI and FL are redone, or somehow seated, wouldn't that increase the number of delegates needed to win? As I understand it, the 4049 includes FL and MI.

Updated Delegate Scorecard for the Dems. This is assuming the delegate split in WY is 7-5 for Obama, though most other sites I've seen are predicting 8-4. Anyway, Obama leading by about 110 delegates total - 1570 to 1460. His lead in pledged delegates is 154. Currently, Clinton has 245 Supers, Obama has 201. That gap has been slowly closing. There are 9 states and 2 US territories left to vote. They represent 599 pledged delegates. There are 795 total superdelegates, of which 446 have endorsed a candidate already. That leaves 349 supers undetermined. John Edwards has 26 delegates to throw around, and he has yet to endorse a candidate. Plus the NC primary is looming. There are 4049 Delegates total - 2025 are needed to win. Then there are the FL and MI delegates, which were removed from the process, but may come back into play. I don't know how much they are worth. Here is a possibility to consider. It may occur that even after all the states are done, AND all the supers have committed, that STILL, neither candidate makes 2025 - due to MI and FL. That's if they aren't re-done. This has been your NSS delegate count update. Enjoy the madness.

Sorry I've been not posting or changing my weight. I was out of the country for 2.5 weeks, then very busy. But, I've been working on the weight, and its working. I have dropped 15 pounds so far in Feb, and I'm down to 243 from 258. 2 weeks of backpacking and eating nothing but freeze-dried food did the trick. So, PA, how do we weigh in here? I am a little out of the loop. Is there a schedule? I'll update my sig.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 8, 2008 -> 05:59 PM) Judging by the demographics in Mississippi I would think the ARG poll might be a bit more accurate. Except that ARG has been pretty unreliable before. We'll see. I think Obama wins, but I don't think he wins by 20.

Wyoming to go 8-4 or 7-5 for Obama in delegates. Two polls out for Mississippi on Tuesday... ARG, March 5-6, 600 LV Obama: 58% Clinton: 34% Insider Advantage, March 6, 412 LV Obama: 46% Clinton: 40% Weird they are that different. The IA poll is kind of a small sample size, but ARG tends to have problems. TIFWIW. Obama leads, but its hard to say by how much

No word on if Lin is in Tucson this year for ST. He was a disappointment last spring velocity-wise, though he did put together a solid season at Bristol after extended ST. He's probably headed for Kanny this year, but they might keep him back in Great Falls. He needs to add some velocity.

Miranda is in Tucson for ST. I am not sure if he is actually in the minor league camp or the major league one - you'd think he'd not be in the major league camp given he's a 20 year old who only got to low-A ball late last season. But he's actually got a plate appearance with the big club - an out, but an RBI in the act. Miranda had a very solid 2007. See posts above. I'd suspect he is headed for High A Winston-Salem, but its not out of the question he could be at AA Birmingham.

Lucy is in Tucson for his 2nd Spring Training with the team. He's also now on the 40-man roster (added late 2007 with the September call-ups). So far (through 3/7), he is 4-for-10 with 2 doubles and a run scored. Defensively, basestealers are 2-for-2 against him, though he does have a pick-off. If Toby Hall turns out to not be ready for the season due to his shoulder, the team may release him or put him on the DL. That opens the door for Donny, or possible Cole Armstrong, to step in. Lucy has the upper hand in that race given his higher level experience, time with the team last season, and the fact that he hits right-handed. But Armstrong has been hitting quite well so far this spring, so its certainly not a given that Lucy would get that slot if Hall can't go. Should be interesting to watch.

Laramie County, where Cheyenne and more than half the state's population reside, has already reported 100%. There are 3 counties left, all very rural. Teton has almost no people, but what is there are yuppie resort towns - I'd call that Obama territory. But I don't think he can make 60% into 64% with what is left.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 8, 2008 -> 02:25 PM) Unfortunately, Wyoming doesn't exactly have a big urban center that won't be coming in until the end of polling. Clearly you've never been to the bustling metropolis that is Cheyenne.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 8, 2008 -> 11:25 AM) I'd like to see some scrutiny sent Obama's way, regardless of where it originates. So far, he's gotten a free pass from the media, as was pointed out by that SNL skit recently done. It would be ironic if a comedy skit turns the tide in this primary season, as it appears it just may happen that way. The media has been known to have a "build them up to tear them down" mentality. Obama just may be heading into some catagory 5 rapids where up to known he's been on a leisurely canoe trip down a calm river. I don't think Obama was getting a free pass, but, I do agree about the media's tendency in this. Obama didn't start getting the same level of scrutiny as Clinton until he was the clear leader in the race. Now he's getting it. But with Clinton getting some new momentum (though she's still behind), things will probably shift again. Its just a question of when.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 07:22 PM) So no wall to wall reports on the Obama advisor calling Hillary a monster today? I am shocked! Meh, its more of the same crap. And Clinton has spewed a lot more of it than Obama or McCain have. So its not exactly huge news.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 08:10 PM) I'm surprised nobody is talking about this at length in this thread yet. Chicago probably has one of the most inefficient local governments I've seen anywhere in the country. There's so much nepotism and good-old-boy mess going on that it stifles the government. Howcome no other big city seems to have these budget problems all the time? If all that was streamlined, eliminated, and cleaned up (corruption) the gov't could probably still provide all those services and lower taxes a good amount. But nobody ever takes them to task so it just gets perpetually worse. 1. Other cities DO have these problems. Most of them do, in fact. 2. People have historically, especially in the last 2 or 3 decades, not made an issue of it because the city has done so well. Its gone through a virtual renaissance. 3. Also during that period, until recently, the city appeared to run much better than others. The streets are cleaner, potholes are fixed faster, things work better. Ask people who lived in Chicago but also in other cities (myself included). Its only been the last few years where people have noticed that the quality has dropped a lot, but the high taxes continue. That's when there is trouble.

Overall, contracts and injuries aside, I'd rather have Ventura than Crede. I think Ventura is more valuable offensively, but I'd call their defense a draw. But, it should be noted, I think we know very little of what "Crede in his prime" really is. Right now, there is no telling. It could be late 2005 and into 2006 Crede, or it could be 2004 and early 2005 Crede. Hard to say. Plus his back... I think we'll know in a few years what Crede really brings to the table as a hitter.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) From what he has been known to do, I would hardly call that losing his temper. More like putting a brat back in her place. A much better response than Obama saying 'Hey, I answered 8 questions, that's enough' and leaving just because he didn't like the questions, or the reporter. Much better? I'd call it identical. Methods might be different, but its basically the same "look, I've discussed this, I'm done with it" type response. And I personally see no problem with either one. Neither one might have been a great idea politically, and certainly they both appeared a bit impatient and unprofessional. But its nothing that should be a big issue.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 12:26 PM) We might be seeing Brian Anderson as a reserve OF'er after all. I have noted he has thrown out at least two base runners ths spring. He seems to be hitting the ball pretty good too. Uribe could be our 2bman?! Maybe? I think the only way BA comes north in April is if someone in the outfield is still injured at that point. Even then, its unlikely. I also think that Richar is fading fast for the 2B spot. That leaves Uribe and Ramirez to battle for the spot. If Richar is in AAA come April, that means both Uribe and Ramirez are on the 25-man roster - one as a 2B, the other as a utility IF. Seems like the bench might be shaping up as: Owens/Quentin (whichever doesn't get the LF job) Ozuna Hall Ramirez/Uribe (whichever doesn't get the 2B job) With Richar going to AAA. That's not a bad bench, if Hall is healthy enough to be near-normal. If he's not, then you might see him released and Lucy or Armstrong taking that slot.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 11:24 AM) http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ah0i...n&type=lgns Just saw this article on Yahoo with the WS Odds. For how bad people think the Sox are going to do, those are pretty good odds. Anyone remember what our odds were before 2005? I bought a ticket in Feb of 2005, and got 20-to-1. Laid down $20, on a lark, while in Vegas at a conference. Got $420. And it was the only time I have ever bet on a season result before or since.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 11:14 AM) Either that or NB has already split its electoral votes. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 11:35 AM) Sort of. Due to the way that Nebraska allocates electoral votes, Obama and McCain would split the votes. I know. I just thought it looked sort of funny.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 11:09 AM) Northside, What part of "almost" did you miss. Yes in every election there are going to be different results, but at the same time most states follow trends and do not switch from one side to another often. Lets look at Illinois: http://www.270towin.com/states/Illinois Notice the big blocks of blue and red. California: http://www.270towin.com/states/California Ny: http://www.270towin.com/states/New_York Since 1988 (20 years) not once have either of those states gone Republican in a Presidential election, yet you claim that states often change. You then say 50% to 66% of the states dont change (notice I said almost once again so now your basically just starting to agree with me lol). I stand by what I said, most states historically vote the same way over blocks of time. That does not mean that when fundamental shifts occur in political philosophy that the state will blindly follow a party, but it does say when all things are considered and when looking at a span of 20 years (end of Reagan till now) not many states have significantly changed. Iowa has gone Republican once in that time period, and Im sure i could find a few other examples of states changing, but for the most part they remain constant. What that says is unless Hillary or Obama can flip a state that has gone Republican over the last 20 years, the chances of them winning are not very good. The electoral votes per state has not drastically changed and if anything I believe that the red states gain more electoral votes each time at the expense of the blue states due to population increases. Im not sure why you brought up Bonds, that has nothing to do with this as and my guess is just to try and distract the point and make some issue about something else you disagree with me on. At the end of the day, my opinion is my opinion, and you cant argue predictions or what I think will happen. I am a democrat, I voted for Gore and helped Wisconsin go Democrat in that election, but just because I want something to happen does not necessarily mean that I believe it to be true. There is a site with the voting record of every state, you can do research instead of throwing around 50%-66% because honestly 2 out of 3 states voting the same is a lot of damn states. And VP does play a role, which is why Democrats like guys like Edwards from the South who can maybe flip a state. I just brought up Bonds because your tone was a little strident - "the results are already in". You state it as if it were fact, when its far, far from it. That's the parallel. And honestly, it doesn't matter if all but 2 or 3 states always vote the same - if 2 or 3 don't then the verdict is clearly not in. It just means that the focus is narrower on where heavy campaigning will occur. And I'll throw this log on the fire - this is exactly why the electoral college does more harm than good today. It effectively disenfranchises roughly two-thirds of the voting populace, if not more.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 09:42 AM) Pratt im not going to lie I just skimmed your article but my guess is that you have stumbled on the fact that states almost always vote the same way, and unless you get a candidate who can successfully flip one (like Clinton with Arkansas or if Gore had won Tennessee) the results are already in, and Republican's will win. The even bigger problem for Democrats is that McCain could flip a Democratic state. states always vote the same way? Then why is it the map of states, who votes for whom, is different every single time? What you are saying applies to probably half or two-thirds of the states. But that's the key - the states that DO change from time to time, and that even if they haven't changed, tend to run very close. To say the results are in now is like saying Barry Bonds didn't use steroids.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 09:31 AM) First off why do you get to post two game threads. Also please inform the folks that this is the game that Sox fans have waited for since the tragic news of late 2005. WSCR is covering this one with and is the only spring training game with Stone. Enjoy I actually just started the threads because I was bored, but, I hadn't thought that the usual game thread starting rules applied during ST. I guess I forgot the rules during the offseason. And thanks for adding that about Stone - that should be fun to listen to.

For people looking at the two new bullpen arms we acquired - Linebrink and Dotel - you may be a bit disappointed in their performances in ST thus far. So let's add some perspective. Turns out that Mr. Dotel never does well in ST - in fact he pretty much always stinks. So I wouldn't worry too much about his ST numbers. On the other hand, Mr. Linebrink is a bit inconsistent, doing well some years and poorly others. But overall, he does reasonably well. Of course, they've only pitched a combined 5 innings so far, so its probably not worth investing much into yet anyway. But when ST is done, you can keep in mind how these two usually do in March.