NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 7, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) If Adam Dunn and Alex Rios continue hitting like this, yes. If They begin resembling Adam Dunn and Alex Rios, then no. Nailed. The Sox have been making up ground pretty well with those two being next to worthless. If those two start to hit like they usually do - which I think will happen, just a question of when - then this team definitely can compete with DET or anyone else in the division.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:24 PM) Because if the fully undeclared vote splits itself evenly every time, or basically redefines itself such that it winds up being a split every time because different groups of people move into the "Independent" group (which you already allowed) then the term itself is meaningless, except in the sense that the median voter is probably somewhere within it. First, it doesn't split evenly every time. Second, even if it does, the makeup changes, so its still important in that sense. Third, if it splits evenly all the time and the parties vote their parties every time, we'd always have elections going nowhere, wouldn't we? By purely the nature of their size being similar to each party base, a % point change in independents is just as important as a % point change in a party's turnout. So already you are at an even level. Now add to that the shifting, and the fact that moderates are not the same as independents as I said before, and its clear with basic stats that they have huge importance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:12 PM) There is one way I could see Z ending up on the Sox, and that is if they were willing to trade him straight up for Jake Peavy. I'd stick with Peavy, no doubt in my mind.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:17 PM) But if independents are split down the middle, as they were in 2000 and 2004, then the election turns entirely on base turnout. Which has been entirely the case for the last 3 elections now. Which is why I scoffed at the notion that independents had any impact on recent presidential elections. Because they didn't. Oh come on, you are a scientist, you have to know stats better than that. You have two groups will will vote for their party pretty much exclusively (again, barring a landslide, which we haven't had in a long time), who vary based on turnout. You have a third similar size group that also varies on turnout BUT is fully undeclared going in. How can you say that third group doesn't have an impact? It has, by nature, the same impact at a base level, and effectively more impact due to volatility.

What if... we said that anyone running for US Congress had to have a net worth of less than $1M? Yes I know, its not a practical idea, and I wouldn't even want to do it. But here is the discussion... what would the result of that be? How would that change things? What would elections, and Congress, be like?

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) I'd bet money that if Ozzie doesn't come back next year, the Sox new manager will be Sandy Alomar jr. No. I think Fisk could be great as a bench coach, but not as a manager.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) I can only hope. And now this is going to be in the back of my mind, so I'll be even angrier when they don't fire Ozzie and probably just end up extending him. Um, they did extend him, in the offseason as I recall (or was that a dream? nightmare?). Ozzie will be in town for another few seasons most likely. And if I had to bet on a candidate for the job in the next few years if Ozzie goes, Ventura is at the top of my list.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) 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. Ah, I see that now. Still no different in my view though, as you seem to be confusing a split among independents as meaning they have no effect. Furthermore, people also forget, since independents as a group are pretty similar in size to the base following of either major party... a few % points there are just as important as a few % points of base voters. Finally, and importantly, independent and moderate are not the same. A bunch of people today who probably are tea-partiers would call themselves independents, but they are not swing voters or moderates.

Sox fans, meet your next manager.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) 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). 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?

LOL, this Weiner press conference is a train wreck, I can't stop watching. Someone actually asked him how his wife felt. She was "disappointed and unhappy". REALLY?!?!?!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:30 PM) 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. 100% disagree. 2008 was all about Obama convincing the non-base people to look for CHANGE. The base GOP all hated him, the Dems were going to vote for him anyway. 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.

Weiner on TV, and he's admitting it! It was his weiner!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Independents have been important in recent general elections? LOL

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) No, I'm not. If unemployment is terrible in november 2012, the independents will swing away from the incumbent. Only if the candidate is someone they are willing to even vaguely consider. I think your idea only works for a GOP candidate that an independent could find SOMETHING to line in... Romney is seen by Dems as relatively moderate... Gingrich is seen as a smart, driven guy... something, anything. Palin's support in that crowd is laughably bad.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) Be angry that the guy cannot stay healthy. Or at the very least, not act like there's something wrong with anyone who is angry at his inability to pitch 5 games without an ear falling off. The fact that he will have small injuries this year should not be a surprise to anyone, its to be expected. That doesn't upset me. What does upset me is that he said he had the issue in his previous start, but chose to just push though it... had it even worse in this most recent game, and again, chose to push through it... then proceeded to pitch the game away. He really should have learned by now to speak up when he's hurting, because he just hurts the team worse when he tries to tough it out.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 02:34 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. And yet you've ignored the single most key component in the general elections in recent history - where the independents go.

Some town in SW Iowa is being evacuated due to an earthen dam breaching.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) If unemployment is still hovering around 9-10% this time next year, the independents and moderates will vote anything but obama. I'd say that applies to roughly half of the GOP field, but everyone has their limits. Palin is a very known commodity, and look what those middle of the road people think of her. She's past the line for that crowd.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) Palin's following is considerably larger than ron paul's and has her own propoganda network. I don't think Iowa will like her. But unless Romney gets Mccain like support from independents, then Palin continues to be a real threat, especially terrifying considering anyone the republicans throw for 2012 has a good chance to win the election. People seem to continuously forget this... you can't win the general without getting a pretty significant portion of the moderates and non-gutter independents. Can't be done. And Palin cannot do that. Other GOP candidates might be able to though, especially if the economy is still this bad at election time.

Nothing wrong with drafting Ozney, if at the right round. The joke wasn't drafting KW at all - it was drafting him in the 5th round instead of the 40th, and trying to act like he's a prime prospect.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) Thanks everyone. Here's our little Sydney Parker: Wow, that's a very alert-looking kid for that new. Congrats M!

So here's my prediction for the truly long term on this whole recession... I don't think there will be any governmental collapse, or even another depression. But I do think we are going to make our way through years mroe of flushing out individual problems. Financial markets regulation, OTC investment regulation, retail banking rules and protection, mortgages and loans, housing production, housing bubble, tech bubble, inflation snap-back, government debt, state and local gov't dependence on the feds, pensions, oil and gas prices... one hit after another, and as we get hit hard with each one, we make changes. Not great ones, but still some improvements. But these things have ALL been bad for a lot longer than since 2007. So think of this as a maturation process, call it the great flush. 10 years from now, we'll look back at this experience as having been good for the country. These were and are all needed, for the long term health of the economy. Sucks for now, but will look like a necessary evil in a decade.

Interesting to note... Pat Quinn is calling the legislature back for a special session to fund summer construction projects. That funding was left on the table when they recessed, due to differences between the House and Senate. If funding isn't given, somewhere between 30 and 40 thousand jobs are lost. On the other hand, not funding means a nice chunk is taken out of the state's spending. This should be interesting to watch. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) 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? As I said earlier, there is another option, and the GOP'ers know that. They are reasonably sure that Obama doesn't have the balls to act against their obviously stupid tactics. And they are probably right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 12:44 PM) LOL, that is a liberals dream. Palin is Ron Paul with big boobs. She has a crazy cult-like following, and totally repulses the vast majority of her party. She doesn't have a chance. I sincerely hope you are right. Ron Paul, despite his crazy, has an actual discipline and thought process to his policies. Palin is just a wave-rider.