cabiness42

If Hillary decides to run, I don't think the Republicans can do enough in two years to stop her. She's just way too popular.

It's joking of course, but it does seem to work out that way. The Republicans are trying to kill off their base and the Democrats are trying to keep them alive.

I think it's the latter, 37% of yesterday's voters were 60+. Still, it's the Democrats own fault. They pass Obamacare, less old people die, and now there are more of them to vote Republican.

Damn all those 58-59 year olds that didn't die! It's all their fault.

No, definitely not over 5%. You would most certainly notice if the CPI went up more than 5% in one year.

I'm far too early in the sausage-making process to have any insight as to what the numbers will be before they are released, but the October numbers should be released Friday morning.

My county's returns are at 100%, and I am happy to report that the son of my disgusting, horrible b**** of an ex-boss lost his bid to be county prosecutor.

So f***ing tired of Jeter winning, he's such an awful fielder. Sorry, habit.

I'm just glad all those f***ing commercials are over! Worst election season ever. It got to where I was afraid to turn the TV on.

Just got back from voting. My tally: Libertarian = 6 Republican = 4 Democrat = 2 Independent = 1 Non-partisan (school board) = 1

If you're going to post John Oliver election rants, then at least post the best one ever: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/260mio/the-stupid-vote

greg775

In Chicago, you only get the 'I voted' sticker when you vote the second time.

Only way I consider VMart is if it's a very frontloaded deal. Not willing to pay him more than $6-8M for his third year.

Co-posting in both threads: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-...ing-the-senate/ Nate Silver's final analysis gives the Republicans a 76.2 chance of taking the Senate, with 53 Republican seats (22.5%) and 52 Republican seats (21.4%) being the most likely outcomes. Nate has the Kansas race as the only one without an at least 2:1 favorite.

Co-posting in both threads: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-...ing-the-senate/ Nate Silver's final analysis gives the Republicans a 76.2 chance of taking the Senate, with 53 Republican seats (22.5%) and 52 Republican seats (21.4%) being the most likely outcomes. Nate has the Kansas race as the only one without an at least 2:1 favorite.

All of that makes good sense, but don't forget the Sox also have a hole at DH. Gillaspie could become part of a DH platoon so signing Sandoval might make sense depending on what his cost is and what the cost is for the other guys you mentioned.

For a few brief seconds, before I absorbed the information, I just saw "McCarthy" and "signed" and thought, f***, Sox missed out on BMac.

Latest update from Nate Silver has the Dem odds down to 24.5%.

This is the 5th day after the end of the WS, so today is the deadline to extend qualifying offers to free agents.

Throw the book at them. And by book, I mean a real book, not the kind of book UNC athletes read.

Did you include Konerko and Paulino?

If I have negative equity in my house, I should bet my house on something that I think isn't likely to happen, right?

Does this guy have options left or does he have to be DFA'd if he doesn't make the team in the Spring?

The nation as a whole leans Democratic so the Democrats have an advantage in Presidential elections. Many individual districts, especially in Kansas, lean Republican so being anti-Obama works there. Candidates in Chicago and New York are not running anti-Obama campaigns.