NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) Well, I guess McCain would be better then Guiliani, Huckabee, or Romney. But I still don't like him much either. Man, these candidates are all a steaming pile of poo. If McCain wins the nomination, I may be voting GOP again come next November. If Clinton or Edwards wins the Dem nomination, I'd almost assuredly vote for McCain.

With all the Iowa talk, it may be missed that something very interesting is happening in New Hampshire for the GOP. John McCain, written off as politically dead back in the fall, is now showing as either tied or in the lead in 3 recent NH polls. If McCain surprises in Iowa and makes a good showing there, he may still have a shot at the nomination.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 08:42 AM) http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_des_moi...terselzer_1.php Interesting. On the one hand, it sure does seem bizarre to have your results rely on something so unusual. On the other hand, as it says in that article, the Register is looked at as the most reliable poll in Iowa. And of course with this year's Dem race so tight, there is certainly an argument that if such a turnout ever happened, this might be it. I don't know. Hard to say. I certainly wouldn't throw it out, given its the Register, has a larger pool than most other polls, and the race is so sensitive this year. But I would take it with a grain of salt.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 01:13 AM) Plus a 90 win season where the Sox were trounced by a surprising Detroit team and a Minnesota team that played absolutely ridiculous baseball down the stretch, to go along with a 2003 season where the Sox were like literally probably 4 bouncing balls that make it to the outfield away from going to the playoffs. If you deny the thought that Kenny Williams has built some very good teams - which you essentially are with the above statement - then you are basically denying fact. His current team is in the worst shape it has ever been in, so he will be given a shot to put a good team back on the field. I'm not sure he can, but there have been some steps towards improvement over the past 3 months. It's been a pretty crappy offseason, but I'm generally happy with the core group of players towards the future. I agree about whay Kenny has done thus far, but I disagree with the idea that the current team is in the worst shape its been. The team was far, far worse in late 2007 regular season than it is right now.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 01:40 PM) The more I think about this spin on things from KW the more I think we didn't have any money at all to sign players to improve this team and we must have been going to write one of those rubber checks to Torii Hunter. QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) This team has plenty of $-dont listen to any of what runs out of Williams mouth Its not some sort of checking account he has, that either has a balance to work with or doesn't... its an investment portfolio. The team has money most certainly, but not unlimited funds - the money spent has to be attached to a return. The Sox decided Hunter was WORTH 5/75 to them, not because they had $75M sitting around, but because they thought the return would be positive at that salary. So they had the money for Hunter, but that money isn't necessarily there for other possible players. Its case-by-case.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 10:04 PM) you got it. except for the Register Poll. in that i'm actually right - it's not spin. 60% were new voters and 45% were independents or republicans. That is NOT a good basis for an accurate poll. not even you can deny that. Where are you seeing this 60% new voters thing? And what exactly do you mean by new voters? All I see is 800 likely DEMOCRAT voters in the poll (per the article from the DMR).

Two major outlets, CNN and the DSM Register, published their final polls. Results... CNN (12/26-30): Romney: 31% Huckabee: 28% Thompson: 13% McCain: 10% Paul: 8% Giuliani: 8% Register (12/27-30): Huckabee: 32% Romney: 26% McCain: 13% Thompson: 9% Paul: 9% Giuliani: 5% So its Romney and Huckabee. It looks to me like Iowa is going to end Thompson's campaign - he isn't even bothering with NH, and he can't get better than 3rd in IA. He's done. Then there is Giuliani, who doesn't have a significant lead in ANY of the first SIX primaries and caucuses. He has a lead in FL on 1/29 - the 7th state. He is also done, I think. And McCain needs a good showing in IA and a win in NH to have a shot.

But... this CNN poll shows that maybe Barack's support isn't entirely out of the picture... Clinton: 33% Obama: 31% Edwards: 22%

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) I do know that their final poll in 2004 had the top 4 predicted correctly. This one may be too jumbled and close to pick correctly though. As long as Hillary finishes 4th or worse I'll be happy. I've become an ABC (anyone but Hillary) person in the last 2 months. The Register certainly tends to have the pulse of Iowa. But Reddy is also right about this 7 point lead for Obama looking like a possible outlier. In any case, its going to be very, very close.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) I find it hard to believe that someone with a 28000 sq ft home can connect with the poor. QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 05:34 PM) lol wow. which would you have picked? and by the way - he only made so much money as a trial lawyer because he was DAMN GOOD. He worked his ASS off and was an incredible lawyer. and remind me what barack obama has accomplished with his life? other than being in the senate for 2 damn years and deal coke. Alright, cool it down a bit you two. John Edwards' hipocrisy does not make him Satan, nor does Obama's drug experimentation make him nothing more than a coke dealer. Back on a more political note... I'll amend my earlier analysis to say that Edwards needs to win Iowa to have a chance - because of the financial collar around his neck. The only candidates that could survive losing Iowa are Hillary (who is fine as long as she is Top 3 and close), and Obama (who has a small chance if he stays very close in Iowa, because of his strength in NH and SC).

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) They don't seem likely to be sharing the same pool of voters. Do you have a theory as to why that seems to be so? (serious question, btw, not some kinda snark) Well, you wouldn't think much of it - Richardson is more moderate fiscally, Obama more moderate on some social issues. But there are some common threads there. For one thing, they are the two racial minorities running - which may not matter to your or me, but may matter to some. Particularly, for example, Hispanics - which is a quickly growing minority in Iowa. But also, I think both of them are seen as not quite mainstream Dems. Clinton is a Clinton and is wishy-washy as can be, Edwards is a very liberal Dem... Richardson and Obama are more centrist than Edwards, but are outsiders unlike Hillary. Most of all, I think Edwards and Clinton are seen as the same old same old from past Prez elections. Obama and Richardson are new. I can see a few threads there.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 02:55 PM) I can't say I've seen him play much so I have no personal opinion of his defense. A quick look at one defensive measure, David Pinto's Probabilistic Model of Range, says he's indeed subpar, but was better than Ryan Braun, G. Atkins, Miguel Cabrera, Josh Fields, Casey Blake, Jose Bautista, Mark Reynolds, and Ty Wiggington. http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/023949.php His FPct of .932 was 2nd worst in all of baseball (Braun was worst at a horrid .895), Range Factor was 3rd worst at 2.38, and Zone Rating of .763 was a bit better but still in the bottom half. He's pretty bad out there. Comparatively, Fields' FPct of .958 would have been good for about 16th among 21 qualified 3B in 2007, his RF of 2.69 would be right around average, but his ZR of .713 would be second to last. He has decent range, and he has a good arm (that from watching him play), but needs to work on the glove - which is something more easily fixed I think than range and arm.

Here is another random thought, not Edwards-related. If you look at the Dem polls carefully, there is a recent trend in Iowa. Richardson seems to be sharing a pool of voters with Obama. The polls where Richardson picks up a few, inevitably, Obama loses a few. And vice versa. Yet another reason why I'd love to see Richardson drop out after Iowa and join Obama. Unfortunately, I think that's unlikely.

I just saw something on Edwards that I had completely forgotten about - he took public funding. He's already spent so much of it, that he has only a small amount left for everything after Iowa. So small that he won't really be competitive. Edwards is basically throwing everything on Iowa.

With the caucus on Thursday, and looking at how things look in NH and SC down the line, here is the official NSS72 take on what the Iowa caucus means for each candidate... If Clinton wins Iowa, then she has the nomination in hand, as long as Edwards and Obama are still splitting the others. If after Iowa one of Obama or Edwards drops and endorses the other, then game on. If Clinton finishes 2nd in Iowa, no biggie, she is still right in it - especially if Edwards wins (because Edwards is far behind in NH). If she finishes 3rd, she's in deep trouble, but not dead. She needs to win or come close to winning. If Edwards wins Iowa, that will help him in NH, but maybe not enough. A win in Iowa probably makes it a 3-way race going into NH for the first true primary (depending on how others do). If he finishes 2nd, still beating Obama or Clinton, he's a long shot (because again of NH), but he's still got a chance. If he's 3rd or worse, he's done. If Obama wins IA, like Clinton, that would probably ensure a lead in NH, so he becomes the clear leader and likely to win the nomination. If he loses to Clinton but beats Edwards, and its a close race, then he still has a remote shot. If he comes in second to Edwards, similar - still has a shot, and NH is probably a true scramble. If he finishes 3rd, especially if its a distant 3rd, then I think he is pretty much done. For Richardson, its all on Iowa. If he wins Iowa, which is highly unlikely (but not impossible), he's got a decent shot. If he finishes 2nd or maybe a close 3rd, displacing one of the big 3, he may still have an outside shot - especially if its Clinton he beats out. Anything 3rd or lower, he's toast, basically. At that point, his influence could be big on the race if he drops out then and endorses someone. Biden is a non-factor for himself, but his 5 or 7% draw could be meaningful to someone else if he endorses someone after Iowa. Dodd and Kucinich, well, forget about it.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) actually, something like this is perfectly valid because the people that actually respond to this pollster are people who obviously would switch to one of those three if theirs isn't viable. No... read the question in the poll. They were not given an option of not polling with one of them - it was forced 1 of the 3. They may or may not switch.

As a follow-up, I found that poll Reddy is referring to. And actually, those numbers are not removing the other candidates - there is a valid choice of "another canididate" that got 14%. So actually, that poll is really: Clinton: 30% Edwards: 29% Obama: 22% All Others: 14% So Obama really does appear to be falling back. But, again, that 14% is mystery. There is a secondary question there, which asks who their choice would be if they had to vote for someone else failing the 15%, just as Reddy had cited in a previous poll - and that is very heavily towards Edwards: Edwards: 62% Clinton: 21% Obama: 17% On the one hand, that seems to point heavily to Edwards for those votes. But, its not that simple. In some precincts, Biden or Richardson could get 15%. In other ones, one or more of the big 3 will NOT get 15%. And further, a lot of people (who knows how many) won't budge at all if they fail to get 15% (or not show up for the 2nd vote at all). Basically, its still a big mess.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) Yea, but wouldn't this be exactly what happens using the 15% factor? The lower tier would essentially get thrown out, right? No. If you don't get 15% in a given precinct, you have the option of standing pat, not polling with anyone, or moving to another candidate. Some will do each, and its impossibly to say which ones and for whom. And in some precincts, candidates like Richardson and Biden will indeed have 15%, so why have the other precincts simply give up the votes when it would be better to leave them out of the pool? Obama has lost momentum to Edwards. the unfortunate thing is, those two tend to vie for a similar pool of voters, partially. Its possible that could result in handing it to Clinton. Its hard to say. This will be interesting to watch.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) It's a HUGE gamble for Musharraf that includes severely compromising his friendship with the US which is one of the only stable things left in his government. In a sense, I'd argue that Bhutto's party had everything to gain by her death. She was a failed prime minister twice over who could never seem to walk the talk on the moderate principles that she claims to embrace. Could be her own party I suppose. Who is ready to step up in her party though? Because it sounds like her son is stepping in.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) New Poll from Insider Advantage taking out the lower tier candidates: Insider Advantage 12/28 - 12/29 788 LV Clinton 30% Edwards 29% Obama 22% Clinton +1.0 Except that Iowa isn't taking out the lower tier candidates. How is that a realistic model? All the polls I have seen published that are valid on their face (large enough sample, not oddly biased like ARG, not sloppy methods like Zogby) show a 3-way statistical dead heat. Edwards has momentum. I am not sure why Obama's momentum stagnated recently. Clinton hasn't had any for some time.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) Except that Musharraf had absolutely nothing to gain by killing Bhutto. Yes and no. He had everything to gain, but everything to lose. Its a matter of deciding if he thought her martyrdom would cause a surge beyond her level of popularity as it was. That's not such a simple thing - could go either way. And I am not saying it was him involved - I said someone inside. Could be others.

With all the talk about the tight 3-way race among the lefties, let's not forget that Iowa is looking very close for the GOP as well. 3 polls out in the past week (that are not Zogby or ARG and that use a decent sample size), show this (from oldest to most recent): ------------QC Times--Strat. Vision--Mason-Dixon Romney____27_______27________27 Huckabee___34_______29________23 Thompson___11_______15________14 McCain______8________14________13 Giuliani______8_________4_________5 Paul________8_________4_________5 Romney and Huckabee are very close, though Huckabee seems to be possibly be fading a bit. Thompson and McCain are both still within striking distance, at least of making some noise. Giuliani and Paul appear to be non-factors in Iowa. Hunter doesn't even register in the polls. Speaking of NH, that tells us some things about what is at stake in IA for these folks. Last 3 valid polls there... ----------Rasmussen--USA/Gallup--BG/UNH Romney____31_______34________28 McCain_____27_______27________25 Giuliani_____13_______11________14 Huckabee___11________9________10 Paul________7_________9_________8 Thompson___3_________4_________3 So, to me, here is what this does to Iowa... --Romney, if he wins Iowa, becomes the clear leader --Huckabee has to win Iowa or at least stay close, because he's well down into 4th in NH --McCain, if he can pull off an upset in Iowa and win, becomes the leader. Even if he places 2nd or 3rd, with his strong NH, he still has a shot. --Thompson must win Iowa to stay alive. --Giuliani is out of the running in IA and 3rd in NH - he is near-death at this point in the race. I don't see how he can win. --Paul and Hunter are done.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) Any fellow Soxtalkers in the Plainfield/Joliet/Shorewood are want to stop by for a beer, drop me a PM. You can stop by and see me in person to find out if I really am the devil or not. Happy New Year to all, and be safe! Only if you promise that you look like the guy in your avatar.

Mrs. Clinton, while trying to illustrate her experience by proxy as the First Lady, has this gem in the Trib: So, the fact that she was allowed classified access and access to high level decision makers without ever being elected or even having a security clearance is a GOOD thing?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 09:29 AM) Considering that the suicide bomber was directly behind the shooter, I'm sure the shooter was a 'casualty' and therefore cannot be caught and made to answer any questions. That's convenient as well. First rule.