Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5856
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Ghost of LL

  1. doesn't matter but the ump got that call wrong.  the ball hit the ground foul but came back fair and hit the batter while he was in fair territory.  batter is out.  so many umps call that a foul ball when it hits behind home plate,

    Yep—Auburn has to get 5 outs that inning.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. 2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    Ok here is a legitimate criticism. She has overseen, forever, a political party that is partially to blame for the fact that we as a country are in deep deep trouble financially. She is uniquely positioned to help solve the problem by facing the inevitable requirement to reform entitlements, but has completely ignored it for decades.

    Even worse, she has been given a golden lottery ticket of a shit show Republican Party and President that have demonstrated even worse fiscal management than the Democrats. All she would have to do is re-position the Democratic Party as the fiscally responsible party, ala Blue Dog Democrats, and waves of moderate Republican and Independent voters would migrate wholesale to the Democratic Party. And in the process, she would help solve the fiscal problem, a problem which is so serious it threatens our country more than just about any other issue, save for nukes from terrorists.

    But no. Instead of doing those things she just sits there peddling the same bullshit year after year with her thumb up her ass. She is disgusting.

    I think that's a critique of the Democratic Party as a whole.  Nancy Pelosi can't snap her fingers and turn the party into one of fiscal conservatism, even if she wanted to (and she doesn't).  Her caucus wouldn't go for it, and she'd be sitting on a backbench within a week.

  3. 2 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

    Her best days--as ineffective as they were--are long behind her. Her name is a dog whistle for the Fox News crowd. She needs to get out of Dodge and make way for a younger, inspired "leader".

    Whoa whoa whoa--I get a lot of the criticism of Nancy Pelosi.  From a policy standpoint, she is too liberal for my taste.  She is haughty and arrogant, which is remarkable that it stands out among the haughty and arrogant denizens of Washington.  And from a House-management perspective, she is only ever concerned with that 218th vote--she never looks for broad agreement (because that would probably result in a narrower bill, which also conforms to my preferred style of governance).

    But "ineffective"?  Really?  That's your critique?  

    She held her caucus together to push through a trillion-dollar stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare.  She held that caucus together despite the complete and total incompetence of the White House's legislative affairs department in those years.  No Democratic speaker has ever been able to get healthcare done.  None--not Jim Wright, not Tip O'Neill, not even Sam Rayburn.  And they all tried.  But only she was able to hold together the Democratic caucus.

    "Ineffective"?  You've got to be out of your mind.

    • Like 5
  4. 1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:


    Just a couple of things that you may find interesting:  The Dem in the 39th is Gil Cisneros, who, quite literally, won the lottery. To the tune of $220 Million. He's mostly self-funding.  He's a navy vet.  After winning the dough, he and his wife started a foundation to give scholarships to latino kids. 

    Of those 3 suburbs that you mentioned, two, Diamond Bar, and Chino Hills are interesting.  They used to be upscale bedroom communities populated by upper middle class white folks;  now they are very very Asian. Chino Hills is 33% Asian (almost all Chinese as far as I can tell) and Diamond Bar is 53% Asian.  Snoop lives there  too.   I wish I had some insight as to how that will impact the election, if at all, but I don't. 

    Anyway, Royce is retiring for the same reason Issa is retiring.  The  voters are sick of his shit and were gonna toss his ass out anyway.  

    Thanks for the local knowledge.  I didn't know that.

    I had an uncle who used to live in Diamond Bar.  I spent the summer out there with him in 1988.  Only time I've been in an earthquake.  But yeah--it was a standard-issue Southern California suburb, filled with a bunch of white Republicans (including a shocking number of Mormons--it was also the first time I met a Mormon).

    I'm going to be real interested in watching that district.  

  5. 2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

    this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what people who are suicidal are going through. i hope you take some time to ruminate on the topic, learn a little bit more about it, and come back to the thread with a more enlightened take.

    I think it's uncharitable to say that BrazilHorn is "unenlightened."  His take is basically right--people with mental illness should be encouraged to seek treatment, not subjected to the type of scorn or shame that causes their "pride" to prevent them from doing so.

    But, at the same time, yelling at someone "get help!" isn't particularly constructive.  It's like telling someone with cardiac disease "run twenty miles in the Texas summer to the cardiologist to get treatment."  It doesn't do much to address the issue.

    • Like 1
  6. I guess this is where this goes:

    April_2018_-_5_year_trend_graph_700.jpg

     

    That's really amazing that AUS increased its traffic from March to April.  I don't know how to account for that.

    Two things of note--first, Delta keeps growing, up 26% year over last.  They're going to overtake United before too long.  Second, BA is filling up that 744, with an increase of 24% year over last.  And Norwegian enplaned 6,648 on 20 (I think) flights in April.  That means there were only 6,880 seats on that route--they had a 97% LF in April.

  7. 2 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

    And now the administration has pre-existing conditions in its crosshairs.  Don't think about switching jobs or insurance companies in the future guys.  Keep that nose to the grindstone just where you are now.  Know your place.

    https://gizmodo.com/trump-regime-says-obamacare-shouldnt-protect-people-wit-1826662463

    According to the article even 59% of Republicans support protection for people with pre-existing conditions.  But I suspect those low level R's aren't donating enough to make their voice heard.

    Excellent.  Just wonderful news.  Trump's polling numbers were never so low as when he was talking about healthcare and tax cuts for the rich.  So he should totally spend all of his time talking about healthcare and tax cuts for the rich.

  8. Just now, TornACL said:

    He looks fucking terrible. I know the president ages quickly but.....damn he looks terrible.

    You think?  Because my reaction was that he hasn't aged a day.  He's always looked that terrible.  

    What the fuck would age him--his schedule is the same, and it's not as though he understands any of the issues faced by the country.

    • Like 1
  9. 3 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

    For real? from your bottle?  Dang I missed a story somewhere.

    Damned sure going to miss Bourdain.  Really enjoyed his shows and his quirks.   Never would have guessed he had so much troubling him that he would do something like commit suicide.  Hope he found the peace he was missing.

    RIP

    It does illustrate that everyone is facing his own crises.  And when you have a mental illness, those crises can overwhelm.

    It's weird--a lot of people say that they would commit suicide if they had a terminal painful physical illness, both to end the pain and to spare their loved ones from watching their decline.  And somehow that is viewed as a rational decision.  It may not be the decision that you would make for yourself, but most people view it as rational.

    But when it's a mental illness--whoa, that's "selfish" or "irrational."  But it sure doesn't seem that way to the sufferer.  To him, it appears to be a rational decision to end the pain and spare his loved ones from being further impacted.  To them, it's not selfish, it's selfless; it's not irrational; it's the only rational decision.

    That's what mental illness does to you.  It's tragic.  But it's an illness all the same.  He died of an illness just the same as if he'd have died of cancer.

    • Like 6
  10. There aren't a lot of things I watch on tv.  But Bourdain's show was one of them.  It was never trite.  It didn't try too hard.  It just gave a touch of honesty and insight sprinkled in with your food porn.  Which is probably a reflection of its creator.

    I'm really upset by this one.  I don't really know why--he was a celebrity whom I never met.  But he made his show and wrote his books in a way that left me thinking that I did know him, and that he was a friend.

    • Like 5
  11. 54 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

    Last time we had this discussion, Ghost of LL gave an argument for why Mein Kampf was not directly influential itself, but rather it became widely distributed by mandate after Hitler came to power.  But Mein Kampf was not instrumental in Hitler's rise to power or the influence & control of the Nazi party.

    I think the constitution clearly has more lasting influence than the declaration of independence.  It still directly effects the lives of Americans to this day; other nations have used it as a conceptual basis for their constitution.    

    I have absolutely no memory of that discussion.  I mean, my conclusions were right (unlike Ryan's conclusions about Halsey, who did act foolishly).  But it's still funny to have someone recount an opinion I wrote and having absolutely no recollection of having written that opinion.

  12. The Influence of Sea Power Upon History by Alfred Thayer Mahan

    Caused a global rethinking of the purpose and importance of navies.  In the United States, it led directly to the reconstruction of the United States Navy, which had been neglected after the Civil War.  It caused the Kaiser to conclude that Germany needed to be a major sea power, which led to an arms race with Britain that caused Britain's rapprochement with France before World War I.  The Kaiser thought it so important that he ordered every German navy ship to have a copy on board.

  13. 25 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    Assuming you agree with LL's theory that it gives more power to the party, do you think that the party is more likely to push a moderate or a fringe candidate in the general, assuming it's a purple district?

     

    Well, I think it's both, isn't it?  You'd have the party pushing a more moderate candidate.  But at the same time, if you had an extremist with a strong base of support on some single issue, s/he could have enough votes to overcome the party's preferred candidate.  

    So I could see the choice often coming down to those two options (as it often does in a normal primary), and it isn't at all clear to me which candidate this system advantages.  My suspicion, however, is that in most races it's going to work to the advantage of the party's preferred candidate just because of the size and diversity of these districts.

  14. 10 hours ago, Disco Strangler said:

    Recent history has shown that polls are worthless.  People hide their true voting intention.  The Rooskies use the poll results to quell turnout - why vote, since Cruz is going to smoke Beto?  It’s hopeless, so Dems stay home.  

    I don't see any evidence to support this theory.

  15. So it appears that both the Democrats and Republicans avoided catastrophe yesterday in California's "jungle primary."  Democrats got a candidate on the November ballot in every congressional race they are shooting for in November; Republicans got a candidate on the gubernatorial ballot on November.  The latter may be every bit as important as the former--if the Republicans didn't have a candidate in either the Senate or Governor's race, that would likely have a very negative impact on Republican turnout.  As it is, John Cox won't beat Newsom in the governor's race, but at least he'll turn out some Republicans.

    That outcome is interesting from a broader political-science standpoint.  And let me state my bias upfront--I think the jungle primary is something that sounds really interesting in a PoliSci classroom, but it sucks in real life.  It was intended to weaken political parties--because that is seen as a desirable outcome for some reason--but in practice it strengthens them.

    This jungle primary reflected that practical effect:  Democratic voters didn't want to have a congressional election with two Republicans on the ballot.  But how can the individual voter know which Democratic candidate to vote for when the effect could be to split the Democratic vote?  In swoops the DCCC, which signaled to voters which congressional candidates to coalesce behind.  The result is that Democratic establishment candidates had a good night; candidates supported by Bernie Sanders had a very bad night.

    The same thing worked on the Republican side.

    So now all these races have candidates backed by the party apparatus.  And there's no Libertarian or Green candidate on the ballot in November--it's a straight Democrat v. Republican contest in which the parties had an instrumental role in picking the candidates.  I don't think that's what they had in mind in those PoliSci classrooms.

    As to the results, even though there wasn't a Democratic apocalypse, there were some results that should encourage Republicans.  

    In CA07--kind of a swing district currently held by Democrat Ami Bera--Bera leads with 51.6% with just 20.6% of the vote counted.  That's damned near exactly what he got two years ago.  There are a lot of votes to be counted, but if that number holds, it's hardly indicative of a blue wave. 

    In CA10, Jeff Denham got 38% and the Republicans generally got 52% of the vote.  That's a major Democratic target.  On the one hand, Denham shouldn't be happy that among the Republican voters, he only got 72%--that's roughly the same number Dan Patrick got in his primary, and I don't think Dan Patrick should be feeling particularly good about his world.  But in Dan Patrick's race, Republican voters outnumbered Democrats 3-2--not so in CA10.  BUT--and it's a big "but"--the Republicans still have to be encouraged that they had more votes than the Democrats.  That's a big deal in a swing district (but it's still a swing district, albeit one that Denham is probably now favored to win).

    In CA22--Devin Nunes got 58% of the vote.  I mean, I guess that's good.  It means he'll likely be reelected.  But damn--2 years ago he got 68%.  That's a 10-point drop.  And there was no other Republican candidate on the ballot (and the Libertarian got less than 1%).

    And something for Bera, Denham, and Nunes all to be somewhat worried about--isn't this jungle primary the one in which they're going to get their best numbers?  Primaries still have lower voter turnout, which means that only those motivated to vote will do so.  And those motivated are generally going to be motivated by a candidate they know.  And since an incumbent naturally has a higher name recognition, that should generally favor an incumbent.  

    I don't know--just a thought.

    That also goes for Carbajal in CA24.  He only got 53% of the vote, which is just a little bit below what he got two years ago.  That's not the stuff of a blue wave.  I'd also note that turnout was really low--only about 120,000 people voted.  That's down from 208,000 in the primary in 2016 and 311,000 in the 2016 general election.  I don't know that I have a real good explanation for that.  It may be that with only three candidates on the primary ballot, nobody felt any real urgency to take time out of their day to go eliminate the distant-running superfluous Republican.  I guess I'll go with that working theory for now.  But it's something that bears watching.

    In CA25, Steven Knight is in the same boat as Jeff Denham.  He got 53% of the vote (again, on fairly weak turnout).  I think he is the distinct favorite.  But Katie Hill, the other candidate that made it through, is really interesting.  She's a 30-year old bisexual who is the executive director of a big nonprofit in the district.  She's running on universal healthcare, among other things.  I don't know--and maybe I say this only because she's a cute blonde bisexual--but I think this is going to be an interesting race.

    In CA31, Democrat Pete Aguilar actually ran behind his Republican opponent.  This was (again) on a minuscule turnout--I guess nobody cared to go vote to eliminate the extraneous Democrat in the race.  But at the same time, it calls the whole "Democratic enthusiasm" theory into question.  The same is true in CA35--only 39,000 people voted.  That's incredible.

    CA39 is an open seat that went for for Clinton but was held by Republican Ed Royce.  Republican candidates got 54% of the vote, which is maybe what they should get in that district (but obviously a helluva lot better than Trump did).  This one had 17 candidates on the ballot, so I'm not sure what I can take from that.  It's a suburban district in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties (suburbs like Fullerton, Diamond Bar, and Chino Hills).  Cook PVI has that as an "even" district.  It's worth watching, but based on these results, I'd have to say the Republican is the slight favorite.

    In CA48--the Democrats got a candidate on the ballot.  That's pretty damn good when they had eight candidates running against Dana Vladimirovich Rohrabacher, and their top two candidates split their vote share almost evenly.  All-in, Republicans got more than 50%, but Rohrabacher himself only got 30%.  I think he needs to be really concerned.

    The Democrats also got on the ballot in CA49--Darrell Issa's district.  And there, the Republicans only got 48% of the vote.  That's definitely looking like a flip to the Democrats.

    In CA50--a safe Republican seat, Duncan Hunter got less than 50% with only two Republican challengers--one getting 13% and one getting 2%.  Man, I just always think that's dangerous when you're an incumbent and you're (1) getting less than 50% and (2) getting less than 75% in your own party.  As I said--it's a safe Republican seat.  But if there is a blue wave, this could be one of the surprises.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 3
  16. Dude--you fucked up too/to twice in one sentence.

    To your points, though--I agree completely with your critique of the Clinton presidency.  And I think that assessment has become fairly commonplace.  For that reason, I don't think Bill Clinton could be elected to shit. 

    Just watch at how few candidates are going to want him to campaign for them this year.  He's radioactive.  It's not just the #metoo stuff; black people don't care for him much, either.  He took their votes for granted and blew every dog-whistle imaginable to court the white working class vote.  "Super predators," indeed.  If he were to show up at a Democratic rally, half the crowd would boo him.

×
×
  • Create New...