NorthSideSox72

City Battles Giant Blob. Do news headlines get any better than that?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) BTW, the get the most out of my gift, I'm shopping in Mexico You sure about that? With the dollar so weak, the US may be the best place to do your shopping right now.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) After all the hullabaloo and 75 bps we are only a few points from last friday's close. Seems like wasted Ammo from the Fed. A stock market reaction was not their main motivation for the move.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) I think Baltimore gets an unfairly bad rap--I really enjoyed it. The Inner Harbor area is nice, but I'm not so sure about the rest of it.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) Would anyone be interested in doing a SoxTalk mock stock market game online? Only if its not just stocks. Can we trade futures and options too?

Melissa Isaacson is the best sports writer in Chicago. Mariotti belongs reporting on the comings and goings of Britney Spears. That's about his level of depth.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 11:12 AM) Funny how nobody seems to mention the human cost in this. We all talk about government bloat and all that, but how do you think the economy would handle suddenly having to absorb hundreds of thousands of jobless people? Everybody seems to think that this wouldn't have an effect on the economy. The theory goes that if you have lower taxes, more money in people's pockets, they will spend more. Spending more means creating business growth, and that means jobs. The idea would be a shift of the jobs from public to private sector. But you are certainly correct that it would cause significant tremors in the short run. Any plan to transition to something like this needs to take that into account.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) as usual, Edwards making a late surge (up to 19.2% RCP Average) but it's not gonna be enough to grab 2nd. It might be. Edwards is trending up, Clinton trending down, and remember too - Clinton left SC for most of the week, and it ws all over the press. QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:40 AM) he's not a true frontrunner anymore - the media made that certain. No, John Edwards made that certain.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 09:06 AM) So who would he go with? The "secret meeting" between Clinton and Edwards last weekend now looms larger, doesn't it? I really don't know. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. His issues and statements seem to align better with Obama, but that meeting was interesting to see happen. Of course, he'll probably meet with both of them about it before its all over.

WSJ grabs on to the Edwards as Kingmaker theory.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 08:03 AM) One of Bloomberg or Paul, or maybe both, is going to run in a third party candidacy. I have no doubt. If we get Clinton versus Romney, there is going to be a yawning chasm in the middle of the country, begging for ANYONE else to run. That's the other possiblity for Bloomberg. And Paul may consider it too. It would be interesting to see a race like that - Clinton, Romney, Bloomberg and Paul. To actually have 4 candidates run that could get significant votes would be unique in recent history.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 09:57 PM) hmmm.... interesting point. If McCain wins, I bet he wears thin on America in the first 2 years. I just cant get the Bloomburg / Obama meeting out of my head. It might have been something so minor (looking for an endorsement), but it just stands out to me. Perhaps the Bloomberg meeting should tell you something else... Bloomberg may endorse Obama. And if he does, he'll do it right after SC, with a week to go to NY primary.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 09:22 PM) Dude, don't you realize I've watched too many damn elections in the past 8 years with high hopes for the results only to have my hopes dashed on virtually every single one other than last year's congressional election and Iowa? At this point, if I wasn't being overly pessimistic, i'd be setting myself up for a nervous breakdown. Stop trying to give me hope, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised. I knew it!!!!!!!!!!! I was totally going to post something about you seeming to WANT Obama to lose. Then I thought, ya know, he's probably just trying to keep his expectations low. Don't worry, Obama is still a long shot.

Thought you Iowans, particularly the Iowa Staters... RAGBRAI 2008 is going through Ames (overnight town), as well as going near or through Iowa City (overnight in North Liberty). Here is the route.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 09:03 PM) In a situation eerily mirroring New Hampshire, pollsters are now finding a dramatically tightening race in South Carolina. Dramatically tightening? Here are the Obama leads in the polls conducted this weak, in time order, most recent first... Obama +16 (685 LV) Obama +8 (400 LV) Obama +15 (811 LV) Obama +7 (LV, number not disclosed) Obama +15 (624 LV) Notice a few things? For one, the average is a double digit lead. For another, the polls with the lowest totals are the ones with smaller numbers of respondants. And one of them, the Clemson +7, has numbers that are nowhere near the other polls for all 3 candidates, including a near-50% undecided number. Basically, Obama has a huge lead. That Clemson poll looks like an outlier, given its 10-15 points off on each of the leading candidates from the other polls (unless of course they know something no one else does). And it also started its count on the 15th, instead of the 21st or 22nd like the others - it was mostly before the debate. Just wanted to provide a broader picture than the two polls that happen to be best for Hillary (one of which needs a big BS sign on it).

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 02:48 PM) I'm looking at from Williams point of view of going for it now. Right now, I think everyone agrees the biggest weak spot on this team is the rotation. You go into 08 with a rotation of Buehrle-Vazquez-Cain-Count-Floyd, all the sudden the back end doesn't look all that bad. Obviously you're taking a risk with Joe and his back at 3b, but if you were a 72-90 team last season, and want to win now, you are going to have to take some risks. Well... you offer Crede-MacDougal-???, and see what happens. If they come back and say "replace Crede with Fields", then you say "Then its just Fields", and do the deal (if they take it). Heck, throw in MacDougal too - I don't think he's that useful to the team anymore. At that point, you can TRY to sign Crede long term, FWIW. You can always start over at 3B in 2009, worst case - maybe Uribe recovers, maybe you find a free agent, maybe Getz can learn 3B... there will be possibilities then. So yeah, if that is what it would take, I'd trade Fields for Cain.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) Alright, so if Cain was really on the table, do you change the offer to Fields for Cain, and go with Joe at 3b?? Maybe offer Crede and MacDougal, plus a reliever prospect (Perez, Vasquez, etc.). Might still come up short, but worth a shot. I like Crede and all, but I think this team needs to stay with Fields.

So here are some fun facts about the Dem superdelegates to consider... Back before the Iowa Caucus, Clinton held a 159-59 lead, almost a 3x margin, among pledged superdelegates. As of today, the superdelegate count favors her by a 200-114 count. That means that, since Iowa, its been Obama 55, Clinton 41, among supers. And there are, right now, still about 500 uncommitted superdelegates. Just something to think about. The supers don't all appear to be ready to endorse Clinton. In fact, since things got underway in the primary/caucus season, its been Obama in the lead.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) That makes them both sound like bad options. I think they are both pretty good options, with McCain being the better one of the two. I think we agree. McCain is a pretty good option. Look at what each of he and Romney have "flip-flopped" on. McCain has stuck to the same core beliefs and priorities, as far as I can tell. When he does get criticized, its for the debacle of campaign finance reform, or other issues where his legislation when awry - because he had to compromise to get it through. Romney on the other hand has, as others have said, changed his stated beliefs dramatically on a wide variety of issues. And I actually have a lot of respect for a politician who doesn't just follow the party line all the time. McCain's stances sometimes put him with the Dems, Richardson's put him with the GOP on occasion. That is not at all a bad thing to me. So I fail to see the problem with considering changing parties. Its their stances on the issues, and their overall beliefs and priorities, that are important. Dem or GOP is just a label. I have far more respect for McCain than I do Romney.

Its very subjective - unless the person has been President before. I think experience does matter, but not always in a good way either. And there are differences between Senators, House Reps, Governors, Mayors, business execs, and other areas that are commonly referred to as experience for the job. Experience is part of the whole picture.

I enjoy both. Depends on who I am with, and what kind of a vacation I need.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) Another gem from the debate: Hillary attacks Obama for his "Present" votes and says you can never have an honest debate with him because he always has some explanation for why he voted the way he did. I didn't know it was a bad thing to get context instead of just looking at a voting record. I believe she said that he "never takes responsibility" for his votes and actions. Again, the Rovian method of projection. Obama has been much more clear as to the reasons why he did or did not vote for the things he did, than Hillary has been.

Well, the Rudy effect is at full steam in Florida now - the state he went to 2 weeks ahead of everyone else to try to get a win. He had a substantial lead there at one point. But, just as with every other state he campaigned in, the more time he spends there, the more his numbers fall. He's really just not a likeable guy. Average position in the last 5 polls in Florida of the candidates: McCain: 22.6% Romney: 22.2% Giuliani: 19.0% Huckabee: 14.4% Paul: 5.4% Please Rudy, do us all a favor and just get the hell out of the way.

Oh yes, and yet another factor here. As Balta has pointed out, a lot of the Superdelegates (who are not attached to results of primaries, and who are 19% of the total) are still on the sidelines, waiting to be associated with a winner. Which means, as long as he is in it, that they are more likely to endorse Obama for that reason. Because you see, more than anything, the Dems want the prize - a win in November. And as long as Obama continues to look like a much more electable candidate (his numbers against various GOP candidates are best among Dems), then he gives them the best chance at that. Slick Willy was nice and all, but these folks want Dem control of 2 branches of government in a year, and that trumps loyalty.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 10:21 PM) So Obama has to basically win SC by double digits in order to get back into this race? Oh, one other thing I should have added. Winning Super Tuesday, or even winning the most delegates, will probably not win the nomination. That's why both candidates are still very alive. Look at the math... If Edwards keeps pulling his 15 or 20% (as he has outside of Nevada's bizarre caucus), then that means one of Clinton or Obama would have to beat the other candidate by that much in delegates to win before Denver. In other words, even if Clinton beats Obama on average by 10 or 12 points on Super Tuesday, Clinton still doesn't have 50%. Why does this matter? Because that means Edwards has the chance to endorse a candidate, pushing his delegates to that candidate - pushing them over 50%. So unless Edwards leaves the race and doesn't endorse, or Edwards starts falling way down (like below 10%), or one of Clinton/Obama win by 15%+ across the board on Super Tuesday, that is where we are headed.