StrangeSox

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 24, 2016 -> 06:55 AM) That's a pretty bad abuse of statistics there. They are averaging two polls, one of which is from 2/18-21. The 3/20-22 poll should be weighted more, possibly up near 100%. Rcp just does simple aggregation of the latest polls , no weighting etc.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 25, 2016 -> 06:52 AM) If Kasich gets the nomination, it's because at least one of Trump/Cruz has asked their delegates to support Kasich. No, there won't be a lot of Republicans staying home because Republicans really, really, really, really hate Hillary Clinton. The difference is that Kasich can get the independent voters and even some of the Sanders supporters that Trump and Cruz have no chance at getting. What would Sanders voters find appealing in Kasich?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 24, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) Winning a primary is so different than winning an election. Kasich would crush Hillary and every poll out there shows it. In a general election, you win by the swing votes, you don't win because of your base votes, and the swing votes would handily go to Kasich. I don't know whether Cruz wins and I'm most certain that Trump loses or at least I hope he does cause I absolutely am convinced he's the most likely candidate to ruin or country. I thought the political science conventional wisdom was the opposite, that it's almost always about motivating your partisan base?

Cruz, doing his best to challenge trump for worst candidate.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) Don't like what Trump has to say? Wait until his next event. Sometimes even the next sentence! He seems to have a few issues he really cares about but seems pretty clearly uninterested in anything else. It's a big, rambling word salad like any other time he actually has to address specifics.

Trump's interview with the WaPo editorial board was...interesting.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 11:45 AM) People can describe Garland as a centrist all they want. The chart is looking at things analytically, and Garland is as far left of center as Aliso is right of center. The Republicans know they are an underdog to win in November. If they really thought Garland was a lot closer to the center than what they would get from Hilllary, they would confirm him. 1. The "chart" shows a big question mark for who the potential nominee would be. I don't know that it necessarily shows what Garland's position would actually be. 2. If you go to the paper linked in the article, you'll find that they ranked Roberts to the right of Alito in this 2007 analysis of potential GWB nominees. Based on the actual results (there hasn't been a major conservative opinion that Roberts joined which Alito didn't to my knowledge), I'd say this specific methodology is somewhat questionable. The paper also doesn't even mention Garland or any liberal nominee since it was examining potential GWB judges. I can't find anywhere that's reported a numerical Martin-Quinn score for Merrick Garland. The methodology specifically says it's for SC Justices, so I'm not sure how they measure non-SC Justices. 3. We still have Republican Senators praising Merrick Garland as the type of reasonable moderate Obama would never nominate in March 2016. 4. Republicans are in a crappy position but politically this is probably their best play. Their crazy base won't punish them for all-out obstructionism but will primary them for any sort of compromise with Obama. If they win the Presidency, great, they're much, much better off. If they lose the Presidency but retain the Senate, they're no worse off. If they lose both, Garland probably still gets confirmed by the next Senate, or someone still pretty ideologically moderate will be confirmed instead because Clinton is pretty centrist herself.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) Alito is a windsock. I was always fine with Roberts, and still am. But Alito is useless. How far he is from center is simply dictated by Republican edict. Exactly. Thomas is really radical, but he's consistent. Roberts is obviously willing to sometimes buck Republican politics in major votes. Kennedy can kinda be a mess, but he stakes out his own positions. Alito just votes the same way Republicans in Congress would vote, and probably shouldn't be on the court. Comparing opposing a guy who has turned out to be a hack to blocking anyone at all is a joke.

That's not what that chart shows, and the article describes him as centrist but obviously far too the left of scalia, but so are most judges. As was already pointed out, just a couple of weeks ago Orin Hatch named garland as the type of ideologically moderate justice Obama would never nominate. At least you seem to be dropping the pretense that the cloture votes against a specific nominee who went on to be confirmed anyway are comparable to categorically refusing to consider any possible nominee.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 10:50 AM) I'm not dead set on making excuses for the GOP. I'm dead set against both parties changing their tune when the other party is in charge. The Republicans are hypocrites just as much as the Democrats, but you reap what you sow. Obama in 2006: "I am concerned that President Bush has wasted an opportunity to appoint a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor and has instead made a selection to appease the far right-wing of the Republican Party." Obama in 2016: Nominates somebody much farther left than O'Connor. [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/18/upshot/potential-for-the-most-liberal-supreme-court-in-decades.html?_r=0] Obama was against a specific nominee who never faced a real threat to be blocked and was actually confirmed. The GOP Senate is against any possible nominee even getting a hearing. There's no ~both sides~ here. Obama, a Democrat, nominating a moderate liberal is not a shock and it's the norm for liberal Democrat presidents to nominate people inline with their judicial philosophy. Obama picked a candidate that Orin Hatch said would be a reasonable consensus nominee a couple of weeks ago. The court's ideological balance will shift, but it's been conservative for decades and there's no reason it should stay that way. eta: OBama has nominated someone much farther right than RGB. If you want to make a 2006 comparison, you need to take into account that Obama didn't choose a mirror of Alito but more realistically a liberal version of O'Connor.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 10:37 AM) I'm not talking about the Democrats. I'm talking about Biden, Clinton, Obama and Reid. Those four voted to block the nomination process from going forward. Those four have no standing to complain about anybody else blocking a nomination process from going forward. Doesn't really matter if the process gets blocked in committee hearings or in a cloture vote. This is why you shouldn't make "show" votes. You're on the record with your vote. Don't come out now and say you only voted for it because you knew it would fail. But they did know it would fail, and this isn't comparable at all. I don't think anyone who isn't dead set on making excuses for the GOP buys this argument (see also: the non-existent "Biden Rule")

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) Sure, posturing. If they had anywhere close to the 40 votes to prevent cloture, I'm sure those four would all have come to their senses and allowed a vote. The Democrats had 40 votes to prevent cloture if they wanted to, but they didn't. The nominee received an up-or-down vote and was confirmed.

Posturing cloture votes against a specific nominee (who, shockingly, has turned out to be the biggest hack on the court) are not the same thing as flatly refusing to even hold hearings on any nominee whatsoever. They didn't make this bed.

Pretty amazing that Trump has managed to get the GOP to back Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz announced that Frank Gaffney was joining his foreign policy team last week.

Illinois cuts off funding for its public universities

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 20, 2016 -> 08:41 AM) Obama should just find the right wingiest nominee and possible and see what the Republicans do then. I think they'd be happy to confirm Scalia 2.0, so there'd be no reason for Obama to do that. Republicans would get a SC nominee they'd love, and Democrats would lose the political advantage of Republicans opposing even moderate nominees from Obama. On that note: McConnell: No Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Even if Democrat Wins Presidency

Inside the Protest That Stopped the Trump Rally The plan worked better than they'd ever imagined. Then the trouble began. I can't remember if this was posted here already or not, but it's some pretty good background on the organizing that went into the anti-Trump protests and how events unfolded.

I don't think that semantics argument about why the Constitutional norm of the last 230 years is actually wrong would carry much weight with anyone.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 12:26 PM) The Repubs need to 'advise' Obama with a list of people they WOULD approve of, and make sure there are plenty of women and minorities on it. Besides it's not their prerogative to tell the President who he can choose from. That would be the Senate trying to usurp executive power.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) I respect your opinion more than most...so I'd like to hear your opinion on how you would have liked to see management handle it. Beyond steve's summary I haven't paid attention to this situation much at all, but from the headlines-view it just seems like another symptom of poor management and poor leadership. This is definitely a hot take though so don't put too much weight on it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 09:26 AM) I like motorcycles, but they are dangerous riding correctly (with how often cars miss you), I can't believe the risky behavior people do on them. I'm always amazed at the completely legal stuff riders in California pull, flying between cars doing 80+ down the lane stripes.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) I think the whole situation is a ploy to make the Sox significant some way in Chicago. All of the focus is usually on the other side of town now that they have gotten much better at baseball. well at least in my case, it's completely backfired and reinforced my opinion that the management of this team from top to bottom has been a s*** show for years and won't be improving any time soon.

This season is already off to a fantastic start.