aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Former NH Senate Candidate Scott Brown to Endorse Trump Today
Huh. Would not have guessed that.
Former Massachusetts senator Scott P. Brown, a moderate Republican who two years ago ran for Senate in New Hampshire, will endorse Donald Trump at rally here Tuesday night, one week before the state’s presidential primary. Brown’s decision has been closely guarded for days, but it was confirmed by two people familiar with the event, where Brown will appear onstage with the candidate.Meanwhile, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott throws his support behind Rubio, claiming, as usual, that Rubio is the most electable. I am really questioning this "electability" factor, because it always posits that we should guess that other people like this person more than we do ourselves. Shouldn't we take our own feelings as primary? Not out of pure egocentrism -- but out of recognition that we know our own feelings the best, whereas guessing at what other people might like is fraught with error. That is, we're very good at knowing how we ourselves respond to something, and not very good at all predicting how completely different people will respond to something. If Rubio isn't very appealing to us, maybe there's a reason for that, and maybe, rather than assuming "Other people will love him," we should assume something closer to "Other people will find the same defects in him that we do." We've not had a great run of predicting the electability of candidates. Plus, there's an inherent idea in the electability argument that, stealthily, goes like this: Your own thinking can't be trusted. You're ill-bred and not very bright. Try to conjure what a better-bred and smarter person might like, and then do what he does. The reasons people don't like Rubio -- his shiftiness, for example -- aren't going to suddenly go over well with a different audience, either. If there's a candidate one likes, one ought to support him. Electability begins with one's own vote.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (MbrzC)
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: HH at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (DrCtv)
Posted by: Immigrant in CA at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (89P1m)
Posted by: GOP Big Money Donors at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (xwPSp)
*CRUNK*
Hillary's adamantine claw rips open the roof vent on the top of the Partridge Family bus. As the wildly painted bus careens down the twilit highway she drops through the vent inside.
HRC: "Cackle, cackle, I'll - oof - stuck there - get you, Sanders - and your sleazy agent."
Bernie and Reuben turn at the sound of Hillary's stealthy landing.
*KA-THUMMMP!*
Brenie: "What was that?"
RK: "You must have run over something - you got to be careful, the old girl can't take much abuse."
Bernie: "But the Road's clear - that can only mean...Hillary."
RK: "You ran her over?"
Bernie: "No! She's in the bus...somewhere."
Both look around the interior of the old tour bus and only see the shadows swaying about as the bus lurches about on its beat up suspension.
Bernie: "Aren't there any lights?"
RK: "All burned out - hey, light bulbs are expensive and the music industry is on hard times."
Bernie spots a shadow flash by, as if something large and lumbering tried to dart across the bus and failed. "She's out there!"
RK: "I'll take the wheel, you go get her!"
Bernie: "Are you mad? She'll eat my face! It's your bus, you get her!"
RK: "But I'm a stereotypical sniveling coward, I can only talk tough!"
A cackle floats from the back of the bus, chilling them to the bone as Hillary taunts them. "The Granite State's next, but the only rock you're going to see is a tombstone."
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (hLRSq)
First!
*gets a feeling that this thread, too, will end up a circular firing squad and eats all the crossbow stocks and longbow staves*
Burp!
Posted by: lurkingestlurker-Giant Plush Porcupine at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (k8xvx)
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (MbrzC)
SPOILER: he wasn't because people didn't. Still good line.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (zgHLA)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (jBuUi)
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (HSmrB)
Posted by: lurkingestlurker-Giant Plush Porcupine at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (k8xvx)
Posted by: Irony at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (BHaRb)
Posted by: Austin in TX at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (ovFa/)
Posted by: Mitt! at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (RD7QR)
LOL. That's like putting used kleenexes in a safety deposit box. I can't imagine anyone cares about Scott Brown's endorsement.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (zc3Db)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (jBuUi)
Posted by: Abby Normal at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (jzFjy)
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (/tuJf)
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (kXoT0)
It is how we rationalize our decision when we can't think of any other articulable facts. No, it wasn't a gut choice on our part, there are good reasons to support this person. This person is electable.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: Duke at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (EQNFN)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (xWW96)
--
3 I'll just flip a coin.
Posted by: HH at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (DrCtv)
--
lol that was good.
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (MbrzC)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (kzdjp)
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (jqZ8a)
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (kXoT0)
And Scottie.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (zc3Db)
Posted by: Benji Carver at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (OD2ni)
Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (H9MG5)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (wCF3s)
Posted by: Romney and Maverick! at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (gy/yC)
Posted by: Cheri at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (oiNtH)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (kzdjp)
717 608 Ok, I figure that I'll kill this thread now.
Now that O'Malley dropped out the Dems have 2 candidates, both crusty old white people, average age on election day 72.
Posted by: Timon at February 02, 2016 01:30 PM (KSonr)
Hey, remember the good old days when the MSM used to run stories about the ages of Republican candidates (Reagan, Bush I, Dole, McCain) and express grave misgivings about whether such elderly men could ever handle the stresses of the Presidency?
Yes, good times those were.
Posted by: OregonMuse at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (OWuDb)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (/tuJf)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (zc3Db)
---
I can't imagine any much cares about either endorsement.
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (MbrzC)
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (KGp9y)
Almost-willowed from last thread:
"Also go scope Scott Adams' post for today. Greatest bloggy-feeling blog post possibly of all time."
You know I'm almost impressed. It's not easy to bring up the possibility of election rigging without even mentioning anything that went down on the democratic side.
Posted by: joe at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (KUaJL)
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (fWAjv)
Brown, except for being a pretty boy, never has seems to grasp what the fvck is going on.
Like Palin, a little light in the head.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (jJRIy)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (0LHZx)
Same. I'll write in Ace
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (OD2ni)
You don't even need to vote for me, because as the most electable, I'm gonna win anyway.
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (jBuUi)
in a leisure suit.
http://tinyurl.com/zxar2ry
Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (DL2i+)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xWW96)
This should remind you of Failure Theater.
Posted by: moviegique at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (7zeA4)
Posted by: Fritz at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (UzPAd)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (kzdjp)
Also, was he off his meds and was it good for him?
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (/tuJf)
Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (wKcQA)
Posted by: Chan knows how you voted at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (8QB5o)
Posted by: Abby Normal at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (jzFjy)
---
You read wrong, he was asked if Brown would make a good vp while standing on the stage next to brown at a brown hosted event and said sure he would, what's he gonna say - "no that guy sucks"?
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (MbrzC)
-------------
Well. Then elect ME!
Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (Fmupd)
Yep. Friend posted Rubio won among people who are worried about who is electable? Bah. I think everybody has formed some sort of idea of what works but it hasn't actually worked.
Posted by: Lea at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (Q1RmS)
Call me old-fashioned, but I think you vote for the guy who you think would make the best POTUS, or at least the one whom you think best represents your interests.
Assuming your views aren't out of whack with everyone elses, this is the 'electable' candidate.
Posted by: looking closely at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (ji45d)
I'm not surprised about Scott Brown. I read that Trump had floated his name as a possible Veep.
Posted by: Abby Normal
You read wrong. Trump mentioned that in passing making nice nice at a Brown hosted event in NH. Was not a thing, although some people as usual immediately black ice spun out over it.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Naes at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (Ypc8j)
Posted by: fluffy at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (AfsKp)
It's almost like the GOP just lies to us, to keep us in line.
I guess a pimp's love really is different than a square's.
Posted by: Irony at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (BHaRb)
Posted by: Global Warming caused the Hill/Bern tie at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (NBhge)
Posted by: Stay out da bushes at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (rZJS9)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (kzdjp)
Mine is not. That is why Bob Dole needs the blue pill.
Posted by: Bob Dole at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (OD2ni)
Posted by: Lea at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (Q1RmS)
Im beginning to suspect that the man may turn out to be a Gowdy'esque disappointment.
Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (jhOn9)
Posted by: mrp at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (JBggj)
Larry Brown says he will endorse anyone who went to UNC
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (kzdjp)
Or Kansas or played in the NBA.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (jJRIy)
Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (BK3ZS)
Rubio is the best guy for SC? Really?
Posted by: looking closely at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (ji45d)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (kzdjp)<<<
Endorsements? Endorsements? We talkin' about endorsements?! Endorsements?
Posted by: Allen Iverson at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (H9MG5)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (kzdjp)
Or Kansas or played in the NBA.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (jJRIy)
Nah only UNC....Your first love is the one you always remember
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (kzdjp)
I think I'd rather throat punch the douche bag if it's all the same to you.
Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (X+nFp)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xWW96)
_____
Kinda like how there's a 1/64M chance that every precinct in Philly voted 100% for Obama. Shit happens yo!
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Joseph Lowery at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (FkBIv)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (1RNgT)
Posted by: Global Warming caused the Hill/Bern tie at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (NBhge)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (xWW96)
Abby Normal: ...I read that Trump had floated his name as a possible Veep.
Oh, dear heavens. Can't be serious. I hope it was just Trump babbling off the top of his head being "nice" again.
Posted by: mindful webworker - Great Scott! at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (Yu4ah)
Posted by: Mitt! at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (RD7QR)
Join the club.
Posted by: John McCain at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (8EJen)
Posted by: moviegique at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (7zeA4)
---
I can't wait for Season 8 of that show, it's going to be epic!
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (MbrzC)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xWW96)
_____
Kinda like how there's a 1/64M chance that every precinct in Philly voted 100% for Obama. Shit happens yo!
Kinda like cattle futures.
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (jqZ8a)
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (kzdjp)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo"
I thought Perry was, but we'll never know.
Posted by: Benji Carver at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (OD2ni)
I'm actually a bit surprised that Tim Scott has backed Rubio.
Posted by: looking closely at
VP or cabinet position marker.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (jBuUi)
Brown hosted a rally, someone says Brown for VP. What is Trump supposed to say? I'd never have a baby killer like that on my ticket? Probably a buzzkill at that event. Excellent idea he says. Doesn't cost anything, keeps the energy of the event, certainly isn't a commitment.
Posted by: blaster at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (Fy1TT)
Uh, you do realize he lost, right? He got beat by the Indian (feather not dot) from Oklahoma by way of Harvard.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (/tuJf)
I am really questioning this "electability" factor, because it always posits that we should guess that other people like this person more than we do ourselves. Shouldn't we take our own feelings as primary? Not out of pure egocentrism -- but out of recognition that we know our own feelings the best, whereas guessing at what other people might like is fraught with error.
Considering that in my lifetime, the definition of "electability" (with the exception of the sainted Ronaldus Maximus) has been "someone who won't scare the sleepyheads who don't pay attention to politics," I despise the term.
Conservatism and leftism are two distinct philosophical / political / economic choices. You want people who will vote for you because they share the same viewpoint you do, not people who will vote for you because you're good at mouthing soothing platitudes.
If your platform is, "I'm going to get the votes of the FSA," how, pray tell, do you plan to do that other than offering them more free shit, which is how we got into the mess we're in in the first place? If that's your definition of "electability," Mister Candidate, then drop the mask and join the other team.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (X6fMO)
Well, Scott is popular in SC, and SC is a critical state in the GOP primary circuit. Many would argue its the MOST critical one. I'm even going to go out on a limb and say that the guy who wins in SC this cycle is going to be the next POTUS.
So while you're right that in the grand scheme of things Scotts endorsement doesn't mean much, it probably means more than it that looks based on Scotts relatively low profile.
Posted by: looking closely at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (ji45d)
Romney could have done much better with his VP pick. I think Huck would have shored him up with evangelicals and is simply more personable on the campaign trail than "Whiz Kid" Ryan. But that's Monday-Morning quarterbacking on my part.
Posted by: Naes at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (Ypc8j)
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (MbrzC)
---------------------
Right? I'm just positive this will be the season we finally win!
Posted by: moviegique at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (7zeA4)
They all look alike to me. I'm horrible* with names and faces.
I would like to meet GREAT SCOTT! that Doc Brown called upon during times of stress.
*I used terrible, but google grammar suggested horrible as the appropriate word. Don't taze me bro, take it up with google grammar.
Posted by: Willburn Sooner at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (UHXR6)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (jBuUi)
It would be hilarious if we all did. What are the rules for electing people under pseudonyms? Didn't that bite Carter at some point?
Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (GDulk)
Glad to see Ace is catching up.
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (s5o+q)
Posted by: Benji Carver at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (OD2ni)
____
I liked Perry a lot. But after the debate "gaffes" he was done for. The MSM/Dems (There I go repeating myself) would have skewered him. Plus we were only 4 years removed from Bush, so Texas governor may not have been the best candidate.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (jhOn9)
---
Bank on it.
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (MbrzC)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (kzdjp)
has anyone noticed that the Dem ticket now consists of characters from Ironweed?
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (Vz7fy)
It's awful to ruin a good joke.
Posted by: Global Warming caused the Hill/Bern tie at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (NBhge)
Posted by: mindful webworker - Great Scott! at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (Yu4ah)
Mike Huckabee is now a "great, great personal friend" of the Don. But I don't think either of them are in for VP.
He'll pick a svelte minority lady and wrap this sucker up.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (X6fMO)
Posted by: Jollyroger at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (t06LC)
Posted by: Guest of the Scotts at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (65P4b)
Posted by: JackStraw"
Me turn to camera and cry when palefaces toss litter from cars.
Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (OD2ni)
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid
More like "On Golden Pond."
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (jBuUi)
Why? Dude never showed up to help Doc.
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (jqZ8a)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (jBuUi)
You are dating yourself Zombie.
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (xWW96)
Posted by: Ray Van Dune at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (qNI3R)
How about a crazy old hobo? Electable?
Why are THEY electable?!?!?!
this scares me to think about
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (Vz7fy)
Posted by: the guy from the Scott's lawn commercial at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (H9MG5)
That makes sense, though personally I'd shudder at the thought of two junior Senators being POTUS and VPOTUS. Cabinet, maybe. But I don't see Scott as a good VP choice (well, maybe except for his race). If he is, then any of the GOP candidates could still pick him.
Posted by: looking closely at February 02, 2016 02:16 PM (ji45d)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (0LHZx)
Whooooo! Get Rick-Rolled! Santorum 2016!
*pause*
That's all I've got.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:16 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xWW96)
Hillary sacrificed a dozen virgins to Ba'al (aka Bill Clinton) prior to the toss.
Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 02, 2016 02:16 PM (u0lmX)
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (s5o+q)
Ooh add him to the list of twitter celebrities who read the comments!
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile
It's a good way to avoid STDs!
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (jBuUi)
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid
More like "On Golden Pond."
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (jBuUi)
The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living And Became Mixed-Up Zombies?
(No offense intended to OUR zombie.)
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (s5o+q)
Open Borders!
Endless wars in the middle east!!
Shitty trade deals!!!
And cowardly Political Correctness!!!!
Posted by: Electable Marco! at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (yvwr7)
Posted by: x at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (nFwvY)
Not that I object to Rubio, who's become my default 2nd choice thanks to better candidates dropping out, but there's not that much of a win there.
It's going to be really awkward when Cruz beats him in NH, too.
Posted by: Cantankerous at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (326rv)
Posted by: sarahw at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (3fTXW)
Posted by: Eli Cash at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (Dc/ui)
yeah with her connections I'm surprised the coin didn't land on it's side 6 times
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (Vz7fy)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile
San Francisco values.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (FkBIv)
Scott Brown to endorse Trump
......................
Melania promises baked bean wrestling match with his daughter.
Posted by: wth at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (HgMAr)
In dead seriousness, I saw one of those "blind items" that said that yes, in fact, Rubio HAS had hair implants.
Doesn't make it true, but does make you wonder.
Posted by: looking closely at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (ji45d)
Posted by: Alix at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (MpfHK)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (/tuJf)
_____
Hehe, I was talking about Tim Scott. I try to avoid calling politicians by their first name. I never had much hope regarding Scott Brown.
Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (jhOn9)
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (Vz7fy)
I happen to know exactly which character you're thinking Hillary syncs up with, and it's revolting.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (xuouz)
Seems more like a kiss of death for GOP candidates --- as if to say, just bland enough for us to think he'll attract LIVs and "moderates" at the expense of Republican voters (you know, the people who are *in* the party).
Posted by: Lizzy at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (NOIQH)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (1RNgT)
The non-establishment candidates (Trump/Cruz/Carson)
had 61.8% in the polls, and they got 61.3% in the caucus
Rubio had 17.4% in the polls, got 23.1% in the caucus
So, basically, the establish vote is solidifying towards Rubio.
Trump lost 5.1%, with about 60% of that going to Cruz and 30% going to Carson. So I'm thinking the Evangelicals simply moved away from Trump, either because of Trump's comical attempts to try to appear religious, or because of Cruz's superior ground game.
Posted by: Optimizer at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (/q6+P)
Most electable, bitches! Bank on it!
Posted by: Romney and Maverick!
Word to your mother.
Posted by: Sen. Mikey Castle (R- DE) at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (326rv)
Uh, you do realize he lost, right? He got beat by the Indian (feather not dot) from Oklahoma by way of Harvard.
==========
How?
Posted by: mrp at February 02, 2016 02:19 PM (JBggj)
===
Spent any time in Philly?
I can definitely believe that every precinct in the city limits went for Obama.
Posted by: looking closely at February 02, 2016 02:19 PM (ji45d)
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:19 PM (gmeXX)
Because the Google implants in their brains makes their voters extra-compliant.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (hLRSq)
I believe Rubio would also go the Romney route. The GOPe says he's electable, but in the end, he won't be.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (tCjRC)
Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (wKcQA)
Scott Brown, go away. You are not relevant. And aren't you a carpet bagger moving from MA to NH to win an election? Talk about being electable NOT
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (voOPb)
----------
Santorum tapped into the populism wave long before Trump did.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (gmeXX)
You know what else helps electibility? Having a hugely successful data and gotv program. Like Cruz. But the GOP is now pretending that's somehow a bad thing.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (KGp9y)
Considering that GOTV and data programs are the national party organization's fucking job.....that's hilariously facepalm-worthy.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (j4wsR)
I can definitely believe that every precinct in the city limits went for Obama.
Northeast may have gone Romney. Maybe. I know most of my neighborhood voted that way.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (tCjRC)
Posted by: Valiant at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (2bqlb)
As in, shut up about which candidate is "electable" and just vote for the candidate you think is the best one. The one with the most votes wins! Isn't that great?
Posted by: Picky at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (ilSwI)
Sort of an unfair test. If Cruz ran against Warren for Senator from MA he'd be lucky to break 35%. Republicans don't win national office from MA, Democrats lose. And a Democrat has to try really, really hard to lose.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (/tuJf)
But then you look at what came after those events and you think it's a little more complicated than that.
We need a revolution of sorts, but I'd prefer it remain within the bounds of our Constitutional structure.
Posted by: JEM at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (o+SC1)
It can't be said enough: McCain and Romney were both sold--heavily sold--as the most "electable" candidates.
And to your point about how we ought to take our preference as to what counts as electable: I used to rationalize having blue states first in the GOP primary was a good test for the eventual nominee having appeal to moderates and Democrats. Which, predictably, resulted in moderate GOP candidates.
Obama destroyed that notion. Winning the Presidency starts and ends with winning your base and motivating your base. Nothing else matters. Anyone selling otherwise is a con artist.
Moderate candidates neither win over the base nor motivate. They are nothing but dull losers the general public avoids.
Posted by: RoyalOil at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (fQ/0p)
Anyone else having trouble keeping Scott Brown, Tim Scott and Scott Walker straight? Politics is becoming all a blur.
Posted by: zombie
Great Scott!
Posted by: scrood at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (3b9U4)
the Dems will all vote for the real Demonrat because they want the real thing, not the watered down version, conservatives won't hold their noses in sufficient numbers because they've seen this BS before, and the "electable" candidate will most probably lose, just like they did in 08 and 12
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (gdEom)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (xWW96)
Trump lost 5.1%, with about 60% of that going to Cruz and 30% going to Carson. So I'm thinking the Evangelicals simply moved away from Trump, either because of Trump's comical attempts to try to appear religious, or because of Cruz's superior ground game.
Posted by: Optimizer at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (/q6+P)
I fear this may be how it's playing out.
The GOPe is solidifying (to the extent those jelly-spined mudworms can solidify on anything) on Rubio, leaving Cruz and Trump to fight over the Outsiders.
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (s5o+q)
I'm glad Cruz won in Iowa, though, because he could go a while now and not win anything. Trump is ahead pretty much everywhere.
Posted by: MTF at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (TxJGV)
Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at February 02, 2016 02:20 P
Explanation please
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (voOPb)
Now I called a couple of months ago and have made no bones about it that Iowa would go Cruz/Trump/Rubio.
From here on out it is Trump/Rubio trading #1 and #2 spots with Cruz eventually falling by the wayside at the #3 spot.
Looks like the Obama Republican is back in the race.
Posted by: Drider at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (bdzyz)
I can definitely believe that every precinct in the city limits went for Obama.
... by OVER 100% in some cases. OVER 100% of ALL RESIDENTS, including children.
Sure, totes legit
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:22 PM (Vz7fy)
"Fuck Iowa, who the hell cares what those corn-fed, corn-bred, corn-pone knuckle-draggers think?!? Bless me, I got through it without screaming that anywhere near a microphone or camera!"
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:22 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (/tuJf)
_____
Uhm yeah. In Massachusetts. Some of you seem to have zero understanding of the world around you. It's fucking MA, as in the state where every 10/10 congressional seats are held by a Democrats and have been for decades. The state where Democrats control something like 70% of state house seats. The state where Ted Kennedy could have gone on live TV and killed a woman and still would have won an election.
The fact Brown came within striking distance of winning anything in that state is an achievement on its own.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:22 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:22 PM (tCjRC)
I mentioned it in previous threads: there's a good chance that Kasich, Christie, and Bush eat into the voters Rubio needs.
Posted by: Naes at February 02, 2016 02:22 PM (Ypc8j)
Ah, ok then. My bad.
I like Tim Scott from what I've seen of him but he definitely keeps a low profile.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (/tuJf)
Posted by: sarahw at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (3fTXW)
---
Candy would not have gotten away with that stunt in the debate, she probably wouldn't even have tried.
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (MbrzC)
Posted by: sarahw at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (3fTXW)
Newt could have (and should have) won the primary. It's a real shame that he went insane leftist on that attack on Mittens as a "vulture capitalist" and lost his mind on the couch with Pelousi ...
I have always liked Newt but he really blew it. And he certainly should have known better. he would have been a great candidate and would have taken Barky apart.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (zc3Db)
Anyone else having trouble keeping Scott Brown, Tim Scott and Scott Walker straight? Politics is becoming all a blur.
Posted by: zombie
Great Scott!
Posted by: scrood at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (3b9U4
Press conferences are a bitch
Posted by: Scott McClellan
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (voOPb)
>> sack of dung, Warren? Cool.
The problem is that Fauxcahontas represents too much of what Massachusetts is these days.
Reconstructing the Federal system isn't going to start with the state that gave us Bunker Hill.
Posted by: JEM at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (o+SC1)
I think that's how we got Obama.
Posted by: Emmie at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (ezXrF)
The difference is that the Dem voters know that the candidate is down-playing their extremism to get elected, they're in on the game; Dem voters know their candidate will go extreme in office. In turn, GOP voters are not in on the game, because they are told that their candidate must be (and continue to be, if elected) a non-extremist, Dem-lite in their views.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (NOIQH)
I can definitely believe that every precinct in the city limits went for Obama.
____
Sure. But many precincts had zero votes for Romney. That is statistically speaking, basically impossible. Errors alone should have produced at least 1 or 2 Romney votes.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (0LHZx)
Sure, totes legit
I remember that number being tossed around and greeted with silence from the media. Not to mention Black Panthers can threaten voters and be excused by the DoJ.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (tCjRC)
Posted by: JackStraw"
-------------------
The legacy of the Great Oklahoma Crab Herds is hard to beat.
Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (Fmupd)
Posted by: Valiant at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (2bqlb)
Words mean things.
Hillary's numerous unindicted felonies disqualify her.
Rubio's amnesty betrayal makes him unacceptable to the rank-and-file GOP voter, but fits in perfectly with the GOPe's mindset (assuming a mindset, there.)
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (s5o+q)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (kzdjp)
You are probably right, he totally fits UNC-CH asshole profile.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (jJRIy)
---
If we could get government back within the Constitutional prison intended for it, there would be no need for revolution of any sort.
Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (ZbV+0)
Gee, you're kidding. If I hadn't spent 35+ years living in MA and being politically active I might not have know that.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (/tuJf)
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (FkBIv)
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (Vz7fy)
Jaynestown!
Posted by: Gouverneur Morris at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (dQJCS)
I think that's how we got Obama."
Also, Common Core.
Posted by: joe at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (KUaJL)
Posted by: tu3031 at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (YFFpo)
Now for the endorsement you've been waiting on
The NCJ endorsement!!!
JACK COVER!!!!
Invented the taser
Cause that shit makes me laugh
Posted by: Navycopjoe aka the token Dem at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (PWFP/)
Christie (2%), Jeb (3%), and Kasich (2%) supporters all go to Rubio.
So with final tallies for the players being
Cruz 28
Donald 24
Rubio 23
My projection takes it to:
Cruz 34
Rubio 30
Donald 29
This is all Iowa, so it's moot. But ousting the R establishment is going to take doing.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: JEM at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (o+SC1)
My bet's still on the state with the Alamo.
Although that may not be the best analogy, come to think of it.
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (s5o+q)
Stop letting them manipulate you with those tools.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (mR7Es)
Absolutely correct. This city is equally as corrupt as Chicago, but no one ever mentions that nationally. And Kenney will make people yearn for the halcyon days of Street and Nutter.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (tCjRC)
We don't need any G** D*** Senator to become President. Senators say in the Senate and do Senate-like stuff.
There I said. Thanks for letting me get it off my chest.
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (LXJ1e)
VP or cabinet position marker.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (kdS6q)
Why? He's a US Senator and he is in a lock seat. Who the hell wants to be Sec of HUD? He isn't good enough to be a VP candidate.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (jJRIy)
And there is no one more shifty than Cruz and what he did to win in Iowa.
Come on, you support that, those fliers, telling people Carson was dropping out?
That goes completely against what Cruz is supposed to be good at: Character. That is the same kind of Character Obama has.
Posted by: petunia at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:27 PM (tCjRC)
>> prison intended for it, there would be no need for
>> revolution of any sort.
Achieving such will involve a revolution of sorts, it starts with a national mandate for voter ID for federal elections.
Posted by: JEM at February 02, 2016 02:27 PM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:22 PM (0LHZx)
horseshoes and hand grenades
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (/tuJf)
___
Then your initial comment calling Scott a loser is doubly stupid.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (0LHZx)
I had a friend who used to work for a corrupt mayor of New Orleans, when she came up to work for Street she was AMAZED at the corruption. We shocked someone from LOUISIANA with our corruption!
neat.
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (Vz7fy)
So you want Hillary v Trump for the general?
Posted by: JEM at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (o+SC1)
It seems old Bernie is a bit suspicious of the old coin toss, since the
chances of Beast winning 6/6 is 1:64. Can't say I blame him.
======
Seems to me that is statistically incorrect.
Each coin toss is a 50/50.
Every subsequent toss is still 50/50.
The subsequent toss has nothing to do with the previous toss.
IIRC, even though it seems intuitively "wrong," there is no statistical anomaly should you get 1000 heads out of 1000 tosses.
But then, I could be wrong--all I know is this stuff makes head hurt for thinking.
Posted by: RoyalOil at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (fQ/0p)
I too will be voting third party if this dumbass gets the nomination.
Posted by: mugiwara at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (meerr)
Posted by: forgotten at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (t3Zit)
Posted by: IC at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (a0IVu)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (kdS6q)
Why? He's a US Senator and he is in a lock seat. Who the hell wants to be Sec of HUD? He isn't good enough to be a VP candidate.
------------
A cabinet seat is a step down from Senator. Probably even a step down from a House member - depending on age.
Cabinet seats are overrated - high risk, low reward from a political ambition perspective.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head"
I guess you're right, but I felt that Perry at least would have punched back at Obama's slimy tactics. Instead, we got Mitt and the "Marquis of Queensbury" rules.
Posted by: Benji Carver at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (OD2ni)
James Monroe and Andrew Jackson were senators, so YMMV.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (tCjRC)
The thing about the "electability" argument is that THE central premise is that the candidate takes the base for granted. As in "I don't have to give you ANYTHING you want, because we both know you're gonna vote for me anyway. So shut the fuck up about your pet issues and pull the fucking lever".
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (j4wsR)
Posted by: petunia
--------------
Nah. I'm pretty sure that you're one of a kind.
Posted by: Chi at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (ENe42)
Much like motivating someone to get off the couch and fill a stadium.
Not the Velvet Room at the Holiday Inn like Rubio.
Not the Martin Luther King Jr. High School gymnasium like Cruz.
But thousands of seat like Trump.
Go for the 49 state win.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (Zs4uk)
Posted by: Diogenes at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (r65B3)
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (xWW96)"
Yep. Thanks for noticing.
Posted by: petunia at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (VoCyE)
Posted by: tu3031 at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (YFFpo)
Martha Coakley was miserable going out in the cold and glad-handing with average masshole red sox fans. I can't remember the exact incident but she threw up all over herself trying to seem with-it. She blew that race 5 different times.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (voOPb)
My rationalization, which I hope is the truth, is that while I dodn't want a President Trump, I really wanted him to continue f*cking with the GOP a few more weeks/months.
Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (wKcQA)
LOL. We're number one!
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (tCjRC)
Posted by: K-E at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (3mSJj)
seat) it was was just so epic. Turns out he was just another hack.
Thought the Brown win was affected by the impending Obamacare vote; he would have had the ability to stop it in its tracks had the Senate followed their rules (and not accepted Ted Kennedy's proxy to vote in his place before Brown was sworn in). Certainly gave the race a lot of outside donation and extra media attention.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (NOIQH)
Much like motivating someone to get off the couch and fill a stadium.
Not the Velvet Room at the Holiday Inn like Rubio.
Not the Martin Luther King Jr. High School gymnasium like Cruz.
But thousands of seat like Trump.
Go for the 49 state win.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (Zs4uk)
From your keyboard to God's ipad.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (xuouz)
So you want Hillary v Trump for the general?
Posted by: JEM at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (o+SC1)
--------------------
Well she was a Senator at one time. So she's disqualified too.
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:31 PM (LXJ1e)
He can do better in blue states than any other GOP candidate, silly! /sarc
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:31 PM (tCjRC)
Explanation please
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (voOPb)
---
IA == rarely becomes potus
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:31 PM (MbrzC)
Don't forget me!
Posted by: Augusto Pinochet at February 02, 2016 02:31 PM (CMbMd)
ace, there's another sometimes openly spoken premise you're missing. To far too many people, my vote is not my own to be cast or not as I see fit.
No, I am nothing more than a cog in a machine and if I say I am a Republican, well, then, gosh darn it, I owe my vote to whomever those in charge of the Republican party tell me I should vote.
The total and utter incoherence of claiming to believe simultaneously that the individual has inherent rights and individual rights supersede the collective and but but but you owe your vote is just a touch too nuanced and subtle for those who presume that I'm a window licking mouth breather.
Presume rant here about how if those who demanded that I was too stupid to see the electability of McCain and Romney showed a heartbeat's humility, mayhap I would listen now. They haven't. I won't.
Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (mf5HN)
Each coin toss is a 50/50.
Every subsequent toss is still 50/50.
The subsequent toss has nothing to do with the previous toss.
IIRC, even though it seems intuitively "wrong," there is no statistical anomaly should you get 1000 heads out of 1000 tosses.
But then, I could be wrong--all I know is this stuff makes head hurt for thinking.
Posted by: RoyalOil at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (fQ/0p)
_______
Each coin toss is 1/2. So the odds of winning 6 coin tosses is 1/2 to the power of 6 which is 1/64. The events are independent of each other, which is why each coin toss is 1/2 regardless of what happened before.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (kfcYC)
He can do better in blue states than any other GOP candidate, silly! /sarc
Volume!
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (jqZ8a)
But then, I could be wrong--all I know is this stuff makes head hurt for thinking.
Posted by: RoyalOil at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (fQ/0p)
Rosencranz and Guildenstern are dead.
Go read it. Or watch it. You only need to watch the first 15 pages, or 15 minutes.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (xuouz)
In fairness, the Santorums and Huckabees would have never been POTUS anyway
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (tCjRC)
Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (VdICR)
Stop letting them manipulate you with those tools.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (mR7Es)
Contrast that with the Democrat party:
Greater of 2 evils, better voter fraud.
Posted by: jwb7605 at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (DofIg)
Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (Fmupd)
Yes, the way they glisten in the moonlight as they sip delicately at the drawn butter is E-P-I-C.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (kXoT0)
The subsequent toss has nothing to do with the previous toss.
The question is not any given coin toss, it's all of them coming down in a particular pattern.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (9krrF)
"One is inclined to talk of popular taste when one should hunt for the chaps working the oracle."
Speculation about 'electoral viability' is one useful tool to shape the MSM Narrative.
Posted by: craig henry at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (PJP3H)
Posted by: IC at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (a0IVu)
I agree. Who cares?
Cruz did not get the endorsement of the governor of Iowa. The Fox crew seemed to think that would hurt him. It doesn't look like it did, does it?
Posted by: Donna and V. (sans ampersands at the present time) at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (u0lmX)
The turnout totals were
186,291 for the Republicans
9,901 for the Democrats.
More than 18 times as many people voting for the Republicans.
What does THAT mean?
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:34 PM (xuouz)
The algorithms behind our "electability index" are proprietary and highly confidential and thus may not be publicly divulged. Suffice it to say that we have not seen electability numbers as high we have encountered for Mr. Rubio since John McCain won the GOP nomination in 2008.
Posted by: The GOPe at February 02, 2016 02:34 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:34 PM (Vz7fy)
Certainly. People can generalize their feelings to other members of their group. However, those feelings can be influenced by greater loyalties to other groups. Inside-the-beltway Republicans do not have the same priorities as the working class Republicans. We do ourselves no favors by assuming the DC crowd share our other interests beyond attaining office, or believing they have more wisdom. Trust, but verify. And never assume a Democrat politician is honorable just because it is an American.
You may as well assume the car salesman has your best interests at heart.
Posted by: Obviously Obvious. Rambling and Ranting at February 02, 2016 02:34 PM (haWHk)
Posted by: zombie
Not as hard as keeping Barack straight.
Posted by: mooch at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (kfcYC)
Posted by: K-E at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (3mSJj)
These are political partisans talking - anything is possible in the cloud-cuckoo land inhabited by political partisans.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (hLRSq)
Q.v. Obama; Bill Clinton.
Obviously the way we have run elections does not work; the way the Democrats do it works wonderfully, but at the cost of your soul.
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (s5o+q)
Greater of 2 evils, better voter fraud.
Posted by: jwb7605 at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (DofIg)
Greater of 2 evils,
^^
FIFY
-----------
That we as Americans meekly allow the breathtaking amount of voter fraud that we do in this country is one of the main reasons that we are becoming a banana republic.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (kXoT0)
9,901 for the Democrats.
More than 18 times as many people voting for the Republicans.
-------------
Is that true? It does not jibe with the numbers I have seen reported - which could be wrong. Still that does not look possible.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (gmeXX)
The likelihood of getting six heads in a row is actually 100% -- if you use the Hillary Half Dollar, which has heads on both sides.
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (jBuUi)
Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD
This.
You're so smart and pretty!
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (1xUj/)
Posted by: WhatWhatWhat? at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (r9tFS)
Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (bpn7O)
I thought we we're sick of the same old bought and sold establishment types?
Posted by: Drider at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (bdzyz)
This post summarizes and distills my thoughts on why I have one candidate, for whom to vote.
I'm no idiot. I'll save my emotions for a Local Sports Team.
...and even with them, there is math involved.
Posted by: Slapweasel (Cold1) (T) at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (OQ9R7)
Posted by: Born Free at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (uGTin)
The turnout totals were
186,291 for the Republicans
9,901 for the Democrats.
More than 18 times as many people voting for the Republicans.
What does THAT mean?
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:34 PM (xuouz)
Democrats have better drugs? Just spitballing here.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (RD7QR)
If the election came down to Cruz v Sanders (or, even, the other Communist), it would be Constitution v Communist, faith in a higher power v belief in man, and rule of law v rule by elites, in a very big way.
And that could mean the difference between Two Corinthians (snerk) 7:14 and Matthew 24:2...
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
vs
And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Not to put too much importance upon the 2016 Presidential elections or anything....
Posted by: mindful webworker - decisions, decisions at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (Yu4ah)
I don't like it, personally, but all Rs eventually do some of it, and even most Dems. Trump whipped out his mom's Bible in Iowa, for example. And it sells well in the South.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (gyKtp)
Rubio uses the "Harvey Two-Face" half dollar.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (tCjRC)
well not quite 100% - remember my "devil makes it land on its side" thing
or jeez, lucifer might have some fun and just keep it hanging in the air for effect
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (Vz7fy)
The empirical stuff is that Rubio has high favorability ratings in polls, and that he's a lot of people's second choice in the primary. He also beats Hillary is general election match-ups, but of course those aren't very meaningful yet. The gut-level stuff is that he's a handsome, younger man with a beautiful family who is Hispanic with a heart-warming story and wears Beatles boots while giving speeches about the greatness of America. And, it's not just Republicans who think this. Bill Clinton apparently sees the younger him in Rubio (which makes me question liking Rubio).
Cruz and Trump have none of this stuff going for them. People seem to insta-hate Cruz (although they obv. warm to him after actually hearing him speak, at least conservatives do). Trump is entertaining as hell, but he's also hateable, has huge negatives with important demos, and loses to Hillary in general election polls.
Again, it's not all about your breeding, Ace.
Posted by: gts109 at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (KIvt1)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Dave at Buffalo Roam at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (m3Sth)
This election is likely a win for Republicans, whomever that will be.
Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (VdICR)
Posted by: jewells45 at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (l/N7H)
Hillary: "Hey, old man. Heads i win, tails you lose!"
Old Socialist in middle stages of dementia: "Okay".
Posted by: Flim Flam Man at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (qNcVh)
---
Um, that's more than intuitively wrong, it's nigh impossible. You'd expect 500 heads, with a variance of 1000(.5)(.5) or standard deviation or roughly 15 or so. Anything more than three standard deviation from the expectation is cause for alarm.
You may be thinking of the intuitive weirdness of tossing a coin 100 times and expecting six or seven in a row to appear at some point in the sequence.
Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (ZbV+0)
Why? He's a US Senator and he is in a lock seat.
Posted by: Nip Sip
In general, tend to level up pols from safe states or districts, because your party's Governor appoints his replacement -- or the local safe electorate holds the seat for you.
Similar logic holds when selecting the token cabinet member from the other party. Ideally choose one who will be replaced by a member of your own party.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: mooch at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (kfcYC)
Now, now, Mooch, the Rev Wright clearly explained things to you back in the day. Now sit your wide self down on that silk settee, scarf up your Wagu beef and lobster, and slurp your champagne like a good girl.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (LXJ1e)
The turnout totals were
186,291 for the Republicans
9,901 for the Democrats.
More than 18 times as many people voting for the Republicans.
What does THAT mean?
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR
I was mystified by that as well.
I assumed that it meant that the Dems and GOP merely conduct their caucuses differently.
It couldn't possibly be the case that the Republicans voters were 18 times as numerous as the Dem voters -- could it???
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (jBuUi)
You really y are a condensing prick that appears to have a reading retention problem since I was not calling Scott a loser just explaining that he did in fact lose his Senate seat.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:39 PM (/tuJf)
I don't like it, personally, but all Rs eventually do some of it, and even most Dems. Trump whipped out his mom's Bible in Iowa, for example. And it sells well in the South.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (gyKtp)
Or he could actually, you know, believe what he's saying.
I realize that's a very, very radical and unorthodox thought about a politician. But who knows? Maybe we're overdue for a good ol' Biblical miracle.
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:39 PM (s5o+q)
Posted by: James Mattoon Scott at February 02, 2016 02:39 PM (ScUhd)
Crows take turns flying by and snatching it out of mid-flip.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 02:39 PM (9krrF)
Uhm yeah. In Massachusetts.... The state where Ted Kennedy could have gone on live TV and killed a woman and still would have won an election.
...
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
You are correct. Ted Kennedy did go on live TV, he did kill a woman, and did win several elections.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (kfcYC)
Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (VdICR)
Oh, dear . . . (shakes head, purses lips)
Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (s5o+q)
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (gmeXX)
I got those numbers off the AOSHQDD. Could still not include all the dem votes though.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (xuouz)
Preference has cascaded.
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (jqZ8a)
Posted by: mindful webworker - what, me scripture? at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (Yu4ah)
Posted by: Rube the Lube at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (QW1hJ)
like this person more than we do ourselves. Shouldn't we take our own
feelings as primary? Not out of pure egocentrism -- but out of
recognition that we know our own feelings the best, whereas guessing at
what other people might like is fraught with error."
There is no Cournot-Nash equilibrium in politics.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (OrI3J)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Rube the Lube at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (QW1hJ)
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (LXJ1e)
Lost in all the R candidate analysis. The turnout totals were
186,291 for the Republicans
9,901 for the Democrats.
More than 18 times as many people voting for the Republicans. What does THAT mean?
Posted by: Ghost of kari
That what you think was the voter total for the Dems wasn't. It's ok though, the Dems do things weird.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (0LHZx)<<<
He is a loser. He's a double loser.
He only beat "Marcia" Coakley because she's an absolute disaster of a candidate, and even bigger double loser (losing to Scott Brown, and later to Charlie Baker for governor).
But, back to Scott, after being helped by what little Tea Party wave existed in MA, he decided to shit all over it when he got to DC, sucking up to Lurch Kerry, getting behind Dodd/Frank, etc.
So, after revealing his true colors, he lost reelection to Lieawatha, and his lame attempt at redemption in NH. Good riddance.
Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (H9MG5)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (jBuUi)
Could it?
bit.ly/1JW0vpj
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (xuouz)
I don't like it, personally, but all Rs eventually do some of it,
-----------
As you said, all pols play it up eventually - which doesn't bother me too much. Even Rubio did. Which as I said earlier today, sort of surprised me, because he is Catholic. We Catholics do not usually talk that way - though perhaps we should.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (gmeXX)
Could still not include all the dem votes though.
Since 90 precincts came up missing.
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (jqZ8a)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Bill Clinton at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (8QB5o)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (jBuUi)
Via Insty it was 180,000 Republicans and 170,000 Democrats.
Republicans turned out more voters than Democrats and both races were contested.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid
Not once but TWICE in my life I have flipped a coin and had it come to rest on its side. (One time it was a nickel [the thickest coin], but the other time it was a penny.) So it's not impossible.
In Iowa last night, if the coin has landed on its side, the delegates would have gone to Eugene Debs.
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (jBuUi)
Now, months later, Hillary has imploded far beyond my hopes and it looks like the dems might go to a brokered convention with Joe Biden as the candidate. So who to run against Biden? Don't run the young handsome guy, remember Paul Ryan? Do you run the man who can out-talk and out-flimflam him and still remain viable or do you run the smart, ambitious, dedicated but non-charming candidate? I don't know. Do you run Super Biden or the Anti-Biden?
Just spitballin' strategy. My heart's with Cruz, my gut with Trump.
Posted by: Hamlette at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (dToM4)
Yes, the way they glisten in the moonlight as they sip delicately at the drawn butter is E-P-I-C.---------Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes
Lost my brother to crab stampede. (sniff)
Posted by: Tilikum Cruel Assault Whale at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (uhftQ)
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (xuouz)
And there is no one more shifty than Cruz and what he did to win in Iowa.
Come on, you support that, those fliers, telling people Carson was dropping out?
That goes completely against what Cruz is supposed to be good at: Character. That is the same kind of Character Obama has.
Posted by: petunia at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (VoCyE)
______
Cruz has character where it counts: he stands by his principles. I dont mind if he plays dirty electorally to get them through. Its actually refreshing that we have a guy who does that and doesnt go the honorable loser route like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney or John McCain.
Rubio on the other hand campaigns against amnesty on principle and then ends up next to John McCain and Chuck Shumer trying to sell legalization-first immigration reform.
Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (jhOn9)
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (jBuUi)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: gts109 at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (KIvt1)
Tried that, found I couldn't afford the booze.
Posted by: Blanco Basura at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (4WhSY)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (0LHZx)
-----------
Yeah I'm confused on this too. Though to be fair, has that 171,000 been confirmed? Or was that merely a guess. But that is the number I see. It says to me that Iowa is still pretty democratic if it got almost as many voters than the GOP side with two old socialist fossils.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (gmeXX)
even most Dems. Trump whipped out his mom's Bible in Iowa, for example.
And it sells well in the South.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (gyKtp)
Or maybe Christianity is not something Cruz "does" but is instead something he "is".
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (OrI3J)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Lea at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (Q1RmS)
"We Catholics do not usually talk that way - though perhaps we should."
I'm catholic and will vote Cruz. Rubio is a putz.
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (8QB5o)
Posted by: Granny Clinton at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (od1KN)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (2cS/G)
basic statistics
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (LXJ1e)
Is that right?
I always thought that if you flip a coin 5 times and it comes up heads each time, the odds of it coming up heads again on the 6th toss are still 50/50.
I honestly don't know.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (Zs4uk)
Hard working Iowans don't think Democrats will cut their subsidies. So voted Republican to insure any winner will be beholding to them.
Posted by: Cynic at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (I0sxh)
Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (VdICR)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (0LHZx)
The Dems had 9,000 fewer voters caucasianing, er caucaulinging, er voting, than the Republicans did.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:46 PM (0LHZx)
----------
I can't say I approve of dirty tricks - though some are dirtier than others. That being said, Cruz does seem to have the what it takes mentality.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:46 PM (gmeXX)
9,901 for the Democrats.
More than 18 times as many people voting for the Republicans.
What does THAT mean?
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR
---------
Mea (mea... mea... mea...)
Culpa (culpa... culpa... culpa...)
I took those numbers and ran with them without corroborating.
I am not a journalist.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:46 PM (xuouz)
===
ugh
Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 02:47 PM (3ZtZW)
well, yes, the odds of a heads result IN THAT INSTANCE are of course still 50%!
BUT we're talking about the odds of the event H-H-H-H-H-H (6 consecutive heads outcomes), not just the event H
does that make sense?
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:47 PM (Vz7fy)
Little help here, Horde? I can't remember the absolutely disastrous thing she did.
There was some winter sporting event where Brown showed up to work the lines. I don't know if it was a Bruins thing or they were doing something wintry at Fenway, but it was nasty weather and Coakley said something like "why would anyone go out and shake hands with those people", when those people were 100K Boston sports fans.
Anyone remember what the event was?
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 02, 2016 02:47 PM (1xUj/)
I honestly don't know.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (Zs4uk)
You're absolutely right, the odds of the last coin are independent of any previous flips.
But the odds of all six being entirely heads or entirely tails are 1/64
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:47 PM (xuouz)
This comment is supposed to be funny?
Posted by: Harun at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (UBBWX)
each time, the odds of it coming up heads again on the 6th toss are
still 50/50.
---
That is the case. The odds of Hillary getting the sixth flip *given* the other five is just 50/50.
It's the odds of getting all six without knowing she got any of them that's 1/64
Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (ZbV+0)
I don't care about the motives of the people who vote for the candidate I favor as long as they vote for the candidate I favor. The votes are what matters. Anything within the rules it takes to get those votes is fair game. All that is legal isallowable. If mouthing soothing platitudesis allit takes, hell yeah, I'm in.
For example, I read where Steve King, whoever the hell he is, tweeted or stated or otherwiseimplied that Ben Carson was dropping out of the race last night. King alsowondered if this meant Carson voters would fall behind Cruz. This morning, Dr. Carson was bitching and whining all over the airwaves, claiming Cruz was running a dirty tricks campaign and so on. I found myself talking back at the screen, saying, 'Toughen up, buttercup.'
Posted by: troyriser at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (UWlp+)
Come on, you support that, those fliers, telling people Carson was dropping out?
That goes completely against what Cruz is supposed to be good at: Character. That is the same kind of Character Obama has.
Posted by: petunia at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (VoCyE)
There were no fliers... there was a tweet that cited a CNN report that Carson was suspending his campaign after Iowa. Guess what, CNN did report that so it was neither shifty nor dishonest at the time. Now if the CNN report turned out not to be true, that is on CNN NOT the Cruz campaign.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (OrI3J)
http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (xuouz)
See this:
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/694333241659002881
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/694333710976483328
Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (mf5HN)
I appreciate criticism of Rubio for his shiftiness. I do.
It's just that it's rich coming from a Trump supporter.
Posted by: AD at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (QWY55)
But the odds that you win all 1000 times is 1/2 to the power of 1000.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (0LHZx)
are you crazy? it will be EPIC
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (Vz7fy)
She called Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (/tuJf)
If that counts as dirty pool in presidential politics then the GOP better stick to middle school student council elections. If that.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (hLRSq)
hell he is, tweeted or stated or otherwiseimplied that Ben Carson was
dropping out of the race last night. King alsowondered if this meant
Carson voters would fall behind Cruz. This morning, Dr. Carson was
bitching and whining all over the airwaves, claiming Cruz was running a
dirty tricks campaign and so on. I found myself talking back at the
screen, saying, 'Toughen up, buttercup.'
Posted by: troyriser at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (UWlp+)
They were both citing a CNN story. If the Carson campaign wants to be mad at someone, perhaps they should direct their ire there.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (OrI3J)
There was some winter sporting event where Brown showed up to work
the lines. I don't know if it was a Bruins thing or they were doing
something wintry at Fenway, but it was nasty weather and Coakley said
something like "why would anyone go out and shake hands with those
people", when those people were 100K Boston sports fans.
Anyone remember what the event was?
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 02, 2016 02:47 PM (1xUj/)<<<
She called Curt Schilling a NY Yankee fan.
Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (H9MG5)
the honorable loser route like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney or John McCain.
THIS
It's the same thing people are responding to in Trump - this willingness to not play be the DC/MSM rules, such as using PC language, accepting the way issues are framed (from a Lefty standpoint), etc. Nothing less will even start to turn the tide back.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 02, 2016 02:50 PM (NOIQH)
Posted by: chavez the hugo at February 02, 2016 02:50 PM (ucDmr)
Sigh.
It is correct that each toss is independent of the others--the 6th has the same odds as the 1st assuming nothing has happened to alter the basics.
Where they speak of a 1/64 chance is the odds of a specific pattern--all heads, all tails, etc., when viewed from a position where none of the events has taken place. Obviously if 5 coins have come up heads, the odds of that series going 6 is 50/50 at that point. However, if the coins have yet to be flipped, the odds of the series coming up 6 straight heads is 1 in 64.
Sometimes I don't know which is worse, not knowing how these things work, or not knowing how to employ them in a meaningful manner.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 02:50 PM (9krrF)
At the hospital and msnbc is running a 'Carson accused Cruz of foul
play' line. Which is really making me dislike Carson because come on!
Carson hasn't really been running all that hard.
Carson has been selling a book, not actually running. There's always one of these fake candidates (sometimes several) in the Republican primaries.
Posted by: Naes at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (Ypc8j)
Given: event that happens very rarely; involves someone whose past behavior is questionable; event benefits questionable person. Sorta like Democrats always winning political contest that are withing 5%.
Posted by: Cynic at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (HSAmh)
isn't that really the question
btw Marc definitely had the plugs done. now watch the ears . . .
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (Vz7fy)
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (xuouz)
like the dems might go to a brokered convention with Joe Biden as the
candidate.
Unless Hillary withdraws due to indictment, there will be no chance of a brokered Dem convention. In a two person race (O'Malley is gone), it can't happen basically.
Much more likely, though, is an R brokered convention. A close 3 way race to the wire almost guarantees it.
Aaaand that's when the fight started.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (gyKtp)
Posted by: Buzzion at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (z/Ubi)
That is right, but the chance of getting six heads in a row is 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5
(That last 0.5 is the 50% chance.)
Posted by: Harun at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (UBBWX)
Posted by: gts109 at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (KIvt1)
Posted by: Naes at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (Ypc8j)
_____
Did someone call?
Posted by: Santorum and The Huckster at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (H9MG5)
That's it. She fired from the hip, but she'd miscalibrated the thing that goes up.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Shiggz at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (G7wcY)
Dems always win recounts.
OK, almost always, considering the Bush 2000 election.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (NOIQH)
Posted by: Buzzion at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (z/Ubi)
____
Well by that logic, Reagan was a shitty candidate since he lost MN in 1984.
Posted by: Santorum and The Huckster at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (0LHZx)
This comment is supposed to be funny?
Posted by: Harun at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (UBBWX)
Nyet comrade. Report this traitor to the department of social justice.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Herman 999 Cain at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (Ypc8j)
---
And since 2^10 is roughly 10^3, that probability is 10^-300.
Which is what can be described as vanishingly small.
Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (ZbV+0)
I always thought that if you flip a coin 5 times and it comes up heads each time, the odds of it coming up heads again on the 6th toss are still 50/50.
I honestly don't know.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (Zs4uk)
--------------
The odds of each toss being a head is (0.5)^1
The odds of every toss of six coming up heads is (0.5)^6
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (LXJ1e)
Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (Fmupd)
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:47 PM (Vz7fy)
I understand the concept of the odds being against a series of 6 heads in a row, but I still have trouble rationalizing the odds. I just can't wrap my head around how something that occurred in the past can effect the odds of something that hasn't happened yet.
It's a good thing I'm not in statistics.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (Zs4uk)
Posted by: chique testing testing at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (QlyN5)
Think that was a NHL winter classic event at Fenway.
... and she called Schilling a Yankee fan.
Double offense.
Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (H9MG5)
Posted by: Grey Fox at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (bZ7mE)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:54 PM (0LHZx)
It's just that it's rich coming from a Trump supporter.
Posted by: AD at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (QWY55)
I hope the GOP nominee is shifty.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:54 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (VdICR)
Ahem.
In BC and I's newest podcast, now with special guest appearance!, we discuss a Trump Biden debate and I reiterate my position that someone will be called a lying motherfucker, someone will take a swing and there will be hair everywhere.
GO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST NOW!
Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 02, 2016 02:54 PM (mf5HN)
Rubio has some real estate "profits" in Rezko-like deals that will be hammered hard by the MFM if he is the nominee. that and lack of executive experience. He will get exact opposite of Obama treatment.
Posted by: oddnot not liking these times at February 02, 2016 02:54 PM (g1MTt)
----------
Nassim Taleb has a funny story in one of his books that goes something like this if you toss a heads straight 1000 times, only an educated fool would say the next toss was 50/50. A common man would understand that you are dealing with a loaded coin.
I think that applies to Hillary.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:54 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Hillary! at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (DrC22)
===
That's cool. I'll do a write-in.
Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Hamlette at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (dToM4)
Posted by: brak at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (xwPSp)
each time, the odds of it coming up heads again on the 6th toss are
still 50/50.
I honestly don't know.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (Zs4uk)
The unconditional, independent odds of that one flip are 50/50 (actually just close to 50/50 since one side of most coins is slightly "heavier"). But the conditional odd of flipping heads after flipping heads 5 times previously is 1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2 or 1/(2^6) which equals 1/64.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (OrI3J)
Posted by: Cynic at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (I0sxh)
A candidate could tell me he thinks Peyton Manning plays for the Miami Yankees and his favorite baseball player is Mike Tyson. Who gives a fuck? Will he cut taxes? Yes, he gets my vote.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (0LHZx)
Then they passed it anyway. He was a candidate of convenience who didn't serve his purpose.
I think that has more to do with his fading from relevance than anything. There was national money going into that election and it ended up fizzling.
Well, maybe not fizzling. It ended up being a Big Fucking Deal.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Waiting for Ace at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (k47e3)
Posted by: Naes at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (Ypc8j)
_____
Did someone call?
Posted by: Santorum and The Huckster at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (0LHZx)
-------
Candidates for President tend to have recent books out during a campaign. So any candidate who does not do well is selling books?
Posted by: RioBravo at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (NUqwG)
All five surviving candidates are supremely UNelectable!
All of them.
Hillary is a felonious, traitorous deathly ill old drunken Cruella de Ville, with the highest "unfavorables" in polling history.
Sanders is a discombobulated ancient communist douchebag hippie, with more skeletons in his closet than the Chicago coroner's office.
Cruz is the most hated man in politics, left and right, and will inspire a Unified Coalition of the Dems and the GOP to pull every dirty trick to keep him out of office.
Rubio is a flip-flopping stand-for-nothing squish who inspires nobody.
Trump is a deranged bombastic egotistical train-wreck of a human being who will gaffe himself into irrelevance within weeks.
All of them have zero chance of winning. Zero. Unelectable.
AND YET....one of them simply HAS to win, as they are the only surviving candidates!
So, actually, since each contender has a disqualifying "unelectable" weight dragging them down, they all cancel each other out and we start from scratch, everyone even.
Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (jBuUi)
Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (6gR7l)
A candidate could tell me he thinks Peyton Manning plays for the Miami Yankees and his favorite baseball player is Mike Tyson. Who gives a fuck? Will he cut taxes? Yes, he gets my vote.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (0LHZx)
Yeah well if all 350 million of us were you we'd never be able to hear ourselves think.
I'll take my mixed blessings.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (xuouz)
Posted by: Elizabeth Warren
You no Elizabeth Warren. Warren say, "... in heap big election"!!!
Posted by: Chief Cloud Warren. Also daughter of chief. Guardian of the Holies, Speaker of Holy Words at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (WOyz5)
Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM
Croakley was a rotten campaigner, in a state that gets more than its share of doofuses, ne'er-do-wells and pathetic losers. IIRC, she rebounded from that loss to become a shill for the online sports gambling business.
Centerfold Scotty was a hot mess, too. But when you compare him to Lieawatha Warren, Chaaaaaahhhhlie Bakuh and The Honorable Martin J Walsh, he's just one among many.
Posted by: MrScribbler at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (GRl5a)
Well, that's two a youse so far, but she did something worse.
As I said, it was something about why would those idiot sports fans go out in that weather and Brown worked them all.
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (1xUj/)
http://tinyurl.com/znsz6z6
FFS
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (fWAjv)
It's February and you can lick the windows without pulling a Flick.
ZOMG - Global Warming - 11ty!
Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (DL2i+)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (2lndx)
So, I am getting emails from Rubio telling me how he won Iowa. Do I
ignore them and give them no reason to believe that I even read their
mail, or do I answer explaining that I would prefer Bernie, an honest
(and incompetent) enemy, to a two-faced "friend?"
Posted by: Grey Fox at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (bZ7mE)
You might explain the whole concept of "winning"... they seem to be fuzzy on that.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (OrI3J)
Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (LWu6U)
-------
Paging August, 2015.
August 2015, fall and winter 2015 are paging you. Something about candidacy-ending Trump gaffes?
August 2015, please pick up the solid gold courtesy phone.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (xuouz)
Trump isn't interested in VP, but if he was smart he would make Cruz either VP or SCOTUS.
If Cruz is VP, he'll stare at the back of Trump's head, and think
"SOON."
Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (VdICR)
Posted by: steevy at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (8HTq1)
----------------------
This is where I am. This whole electability argument is currently premised on Hillary, and I think it's 50/50 at best that she'll be around in November.
Posted by: iforgot at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (pC96u)
From what Rush is saying (assuming it's accurate), the saying the Cruz people played dirty with Carson is an understatement. Extremely disappointing. I also heard Rep. Steve King trying to explain himself on Ingraham's show.
I'll wait to hear more about it. But I am so disappointed. Cruz needs to fire folks,IMO, assuming he didn't instigate it, and offer a huge apology to Carson. It seems that he's kinda sorry but that's not good enough.
Posted by: chique testing testing at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (QlyN5)
But momma told me they liked me.
*sobs*
Posted by: !Jeb! at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (LA7Cm)
Lost in all the R candidate analysis. The turnout totals were
186,291 for the Republicans
9,901 for the Democrats.
More than 18 times as many people voting for the Republicans. What does THAT mean?
Posted by: Ghost of kari
That what you think was the voter total for the Dems wasn't. It's ok though, the Dems do things weird.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (kdS6q)
It looks like 165K for the Ds, 180K for the Rs. 48%/52%. Respectable, considering that IA went for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/02/ iowa-democrat-turnout-dropped-25-from-2008/
Posted by: Scooter Libby at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (3dOE/)
The Fort Worth Star Telegram is reporting the first case of the Zika virus in Dallas. Said to have been transmitted during sex. Any other exotic diseases need some place to incubate. We're apparently opening the doors here in North Texas. Man, ain't being a sanctuary city grand? *spit*
Posted by: Dead Parrot Society at February 02, 2016 02:59 PM (AJeMv)
Is Rubio more electable? Who knows. If based on general likability alone, he is probably moreso than Cruz or Trump. The former's televangelist schtick does not wear well, and the latter's penchant for being a blustering bully doesn't endear him to many. But, Rubio won't be so electable if he can't respond to Dem attacks well. Cruz is very good on that front, as is Trump.
Posted by: Chris at February 02, 2016 02:59 PM (gI9Bk)
----------------------
This is where I am. This whole electability argument is currently premised on Hillary, and I think it's 50/50 at best that she'll be around in November.
------------
Since we are talking about electability - Biden is imminently more electable than Hillary. IMO.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:59 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: mugiwara at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (meerr)
Posted by: MTF at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (TxJGV)
I don't do that, podcasts only confuse the voices in my head. Makes the voices in my head scared. And angry.
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: rebel flounder at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (3dOE/)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: mikeyslaw at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (Wkdli)
I honestly don't know."
Yes. But that's not what we're saying. The probability of the full 6 flip sequence is 1/64.
Posted by: joe at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (KUaJL)
The Supreme Court stopped that recount. They would of won if the recount had went forward. They cheat.
Posted by: Cynic at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (HSAmh)
It doesn't. The problem is definition of "the event". You see six coin tosses as six events when actually it's many different events, including sets and subsets of events (say all coins, or coins 2, 4, and 5, or the first four, or all but #3 because f*** coin 3).
It's equally wrong to view the result of a given coin toss as being dependent on the others as it is to view the cumulative result as being independent on any given toss. It's also an easy mistake to make if you're not used to thinking in those terms, which is why I am refraining from ranting and cursing and such on this point because honestly, I get the issue.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (9krrF)
Well that was pretty frigging bad. Perhaps the only thing more sacred than a Kennedy in MA is the Sox and calling Curt "bloody sock" Schilling a Yankee fan was like calling the Pope a Satanist.
But Schilling was also the DA who through the Ameraults (sp) in jail for that bogus crap at their daycare center and she never relented even when it was obvious that the whole thing was made up. A lot of people never forgave her for that.
And she was just a plain good awful candidate. She made Hillary look young and vibrant.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (/tuJf)
The drumbeat is getting louder.
We've heard it before.
Run from it. For God's sake, run from or you'll end up where you were before. Ranting on AOSHQ all day.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (qCMvj)
https://youtu.be/7n15Oe7Hlk4
Posted by: Buzzion at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (z/Ubi)
2012. Now THERE was an election that was a big heap of steaming horseshit.
Posted by: Tex Lovera at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (wtvvX)
Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (Fmupd)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (/tuJf)
Posted by: Marcus T at February 02, 2016 03:02 PM (GGCsk)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2016 03:02 PM (qCMvj)
that the Cruz people were falsely claiming he was going to drop out,
that's way dirty. Makes me think there's something to all the stories
about people who know Cruz hating him.
Posted by: gts109 at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (KIvt1)
Cruz did not falsely claim Carson was dropping out. His campaign truthfully linked to a CNN story where CNN said Carson was "suspending his campaign" after Iowa or some such.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 03:02 PM (OrI3J)
As to actual policy, Brown is less reliable than Mitch McConnell...so it's no surprise he'd back a left-wing fake Republican like Trump. He would probably prefer Hillary to Cruz, anyway.
Posted by: DRayRaven at February 02, 2016 03:02 PM (9YRwm)
DOJ will stall and stall until right up to the election and appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Special Prosecutor will stall through the election and declare it against public policy to indict a sitting President.
Enraged citizens march on and burn the Capitol and White House (actually the last part is implausible, unlike the other parts).
Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 02, 2016 03:02 PM (k8tEg)
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (5FQVt)
I am really questioning this "electability" factor, because it always posits that we should guess that other people like this person more than we do ourselves. Shouldn't we take our own feelings as primary? Not out of pure egocentrism -- but out of recognition that we know our own feelings the best, whereas guessing at what other people might like is fraught with error.
astute
we are not herd, we are horde
we know our gut feeling every single election, and we get "stuck" with what is force fed to us
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (qCMvj)
Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (hLRSq)
The profanity is soothing.
Actually, we classed it up, what with having company and all.
I think BC even wore pants.
Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (mf5HN)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (9krrF)
Posted by: Mr. Stay Puft at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (e8kgV)
I was looking at it as a progressive event with seemingly increasing odds instead of a predictive event.
When's the next flight to Vegas?
I've got this shit down now.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (Zs4uk)
--------------
How about against the Constitution? How does a President indict himself? That would be one very honest President.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 03:04 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: gts109 at February 02, 2016 03:04 PM (KIvt1)
I was looking at it as a progressive event with seemingly increasing odds instead of a predictive event.
When's the next flight to Vegas?
I've got this shit down now."
Funnily enough, the term for this misconception is Gambler's folly.
Posted by: joe at February 02, 2016 03:04 PM (KUaJL)
Posted by: mugiwara at February 02, 2016 03:04 PM (meerr)
If not, then I see a gap in jurisdiction with the Special Prosecutor claiming lack of jurisdiction over a sitting President and Congress claiming their own lack of jurisdiction as well.
Oh well its only the rule of law.
Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 02, 2016 03:04 PM (k8tEg)
AND YET....one of them simply HAS to win, as they are the only surviving candidates!
You know who this helps, right?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2016 03:05 PM (659DL)
Posted by: Y-not at February 02, 2016 03:05 PM (E7zwb)
I honestly don't know."
Yes. But that's not what we're saying. The probability of the full 6 flip sequence is 1/64.
Posted by: joe at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (KUaJL)
It all doesn't matter. The Hildebeast's campaign fucking cheated. It's the democrat way.
Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 03:05 PM (Fmupd)
-----
Phrasing!
Posted by: andycanuck at February 02, 2016 03:05 PM (WOyz5)
I've got this shit down now.
Cards are even worse. Also, they kick your ass out if they catch you counting in the casinos.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (9krrF)
Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (3ZtZW)
If not, then I see a gap in jurisdiction with the Special Prosecutor claiming lack of jurisdiction over a sitting President and Congress claiming their own lack of jurisdiction as well.
Oh well its only the rule of law.
-----------
There is no gap. Impeachment is a political remedy not a judicial one - though it has qualities of a trial.
A special prosecutor has not jurisdiction over the President - as he is nothing more than an agent of the President.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (gmeXX)
the saying the Cruz people played dirty with Carson is an
understatement. Extremely disappointing. I also heard Rep. Steve King
trying to explain himself on Ingraham's show.
I'll wait to hear more about it. But I am so disappointed. Cruz
needs to fire folks,IMO, assuming he didn't instigate it, and offer a
huge apology to Carson. It seems that he's kinda sorry but that's not
good enough.
Posted by: chique testing testing at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (QlyN5)
Again, they were citing a news article from CNN. I guess you could argue that they should have done the networks job for them and called the Carson campaign to verify BUT would they have been able to believe any denial?
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (OrI3J)
Well, if he were elected, we would at least have a smokin' MILFy First Lady, so there's that.
Posted by: logprof at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (vsbNu)
Or
Are willing to move there
Posted by: Bubba at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (R6wzt)
---
There are no circumstances under which I would vote for Rubio. Hence there's no point in my voting for him in hopes some other people will vote for him.
Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (ZbV+0)
Trump is driven by pure ego. If we can rely on that ego, he will work 18 hours a day, turn things inside out and upside down, fire people, change laws, shake things up, all for praise.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (Zs4uk)
But I have to tell you, I have to tell you,
Posted by: McCain-whack-a-mole at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (qCMvj)
------------
I prefer him in the Senate if he is not the nominee. But there could be worse things than having him as VP. I actually could see him being VP to Rubio to bring along the insurgent vote.
Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (gmeXX)
the entire concept "electability" is ridiculous. It is a made up word from political consultants who only have a job every 4 years and who's track record of results consists of consistent losses.
"Electability" is synonymous with "Shut up you stupid rube and do as your told. Forget about the person who you want to vote for and represents your values and pull the lever for this milquetoast jackass who goes against everything you believe in because I said so."
Let's look at recent results: We've been told for the past 2 years or more that Cruz, Trump and Carson are not electable- the guys that just took the 1, 2, and 4 spots.
And the guys that we have been told were most electable? They have all either dropped out already or took 2% or less in Iowa (with the exception of Rubio but, up until the last 6 months, he was considered unelectable too, until Jeb shit the bed entirely).
Posted by: Damiano at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (XItbt)
He's a bald boy.
Bald boy.
Bald boy.
Watcha gonna do?
Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 02, 2016 03:08 PM (rwt9d)
Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (mf5HN)
This is a vicious vicious lie.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at February 02, 2016 03:08 PM (gW5Vg)
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 02, 2016 03:09 PM (gyKtp)
Or worse....
Posted by: Sam "Ace" Rothstein at February 02, 2016 03:10 PM (OD2ni)
My brother had the genius idea that he could win the lottery by tracking the numbers that had come up lot in the past and assuming that those that had were on average less likely to come up again in the future. We had a heated debate about it that ended with the trump card, "just because you're a lawyer doesn't mean that you know everything."
He's since come over to my side but I still needle him about it.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 02, 2016 03:10 PM (8ZskC)
I would vote for a Kim Jong Un if he was running against Imelda.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2016 03:10 PM (659DL)
Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (3ZtZW)
He won't be VP; regardless of the nominee the GOPe will control who gets the VP nod (see Bush41) and there's no way they'd ever tolerate Cruz as President of the Senate.
Posted by: Country Singer at February 02, 2016 03:11 PM (GUBah)
Trump also at one point suggested Orca Winfrey would be a superb VP.
She certainly has the YUUUUUUUUGE part of it down pat.
Posted by: torquewrench at February 02, 2016 03:11 PM (noWW6)
Posted by: eleven at February 02, 2016 03:11 PM (qUNWi)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 02, 2016 03:11 PM (2cS/G)
You have to know your shit so cold, that you can keep up a banter with the dealer, waitress, other players, etc AND seem like a rube from Nebraska.
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 03:11 PM (jqZ8a)
As I said, it was something about why would those idiot sports fans go out in that weather and Brown worked them all.
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (1xUj/)
You had it right in your post "that she sneered that there were better things she had to do than stand out in the cold shaking hands"... it was about the NHL Winter Classic at Fenway with the Bruins plying the Flyers (B's won 2-1)
But Schilling was a Brown supporter, and "Marcia" made herself look more out of touch calling him just another Yankee fan.
Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (H9MG5)
Posted by: MTF at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (TxJGV)
Posted by: Anna Puma at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (xcJZI)
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (5FQVt)
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (OrI3J)
Yep, I think it was either therightscoop or thegatewaypundit that had the timeline of events.
CNN called it out on their program, it was misinterpreted by everyone.
Posted by: McCain-whack-a-mole at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (qCMvj)
Posted by: joe at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (KUaJL)"
What are the odds of the coin standing on its side like Dick York in that Twilight Zone episode?
He can then hears people's thoughts and hears Dr. Bellows planning to steal company money to bet on a horse.
Posted by: Benji Carver at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (OD2ni)
"SOON."
with the scalp weasel replying
http://tinyurl.com/z396pwo
Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (DL2i+)
Posted by: steevy at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (8HTq1)
I agree there shouldn't be, and interesting note about the Special Prosecutor.
But what I'm getting at is what happens if a Special Prosecutor is "unable to complete their investigation" by the time She Who Will Not Be Denied is elected.
I do not believe there is precedent for an impeachment (for "high crimes and misdemeanors") for acts committed PRIOR to the Presidency.
And, it seems that there is no plain-text, Constitutional basis for that (as one would assume that a crime prior to election is just a "garden variety" crime with prosecutor in charge of the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.
So my fear is that the Special Prosecutor (as you say) may lose jurisdiction, and the new DOJ (run by Shrillary) has no interest in proceeding, and the Congress punts because they would be in uncharted waters.
Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (k8tEg)
Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (Fmupd)
Posted by: Skip at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (hk3Fb)
the entire concept "electability" is ridiculous.
But it's pretty funny if you remember the old Ace.
Posted by: t-bird at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (3U4+k)
====
When all of this started I saw little difference between the two. Both are just first term Senators taking advantage of a moment's race-pandering on the Right to fulfill outsized ambitions.
Speaking of which: All the politician candidates are Senators, pretty much. That completely sucks.
Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 03:14 PM (3ZtZW)
They are not even making the slightest attempt to hide what they are doing.
Posted by: Kreplach at February 02, 2016 03:14 PM (sELnb)
"That being said, Cruz does seem to have the what it takes mentality."
Thats how I view it. Dems hate Trump, but they fear Cruz.
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at February 02, 2016 03:14 PM (8QB5o)
I don't give a short fart about the spouse of the chief of the county mosquito abatement district. I apply the same rule to all other public offices. It's a job. I am only interested in the performance of the individual in the job.
I'd be perfectly happy to never see or hear from any First Spouses ever again, other than on the odd occasion specifically requiring such public attendance.
Posted by: torquewrench at February 02, 2016 03:15 PM (noWW6)
I don't know what Rubio's soft-selling, except for his votes in the Senate in which it's obvious that he was either fucking rolled by the donks or he is a donk.
Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 02, 2016 03:15 PM (EjBTO)
Or
Are willing to move there
Posted by: Bubba at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (R6wzt)
Where's the best place that has a warm climate?
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2016 03:15 PM (qCMvj)
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2016 03:15 PM (TOSyM)
Maybe they just kept flipping it until they got it "right." Didn't bother to count the "wrong" flips.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 02, 2016 03:15 PM (LA7Cm)
Riiiight! Thank you.
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 02, 2016 03:16 PM (1xUj/)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2016 03:16 PM (qCMvj)
The sidebar has the most incredible video. Its a Finnish TV production
showing women how to resist rape. There are no words on this one, it's
so unbelievable you have to see it for yourself.
Posted by: MTF at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (TxJGV)
That has to be the most ludicrous and DANGEROUS thing I've seen in a long time. Those lessons won't stop a rapist under any circumstances.Personally, I'll continue teaching my daughter on how to draw from a concealed position.
Posted by: Our Country Is Screwed at February 02, 2016 03:16 PM (jxbfJ)
You really think he's that bad? If Hillary gets the nod and dodges the indictment, you would rather she be in the big seat?
Rubio is not close to being at the top of my list but Clinton is one of the most vile politicians of my lifetime. Rubio is definitely not as bad as she is.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 03:17 PM (/tuJf)
Maybe they just kept flipping it until they got it "right." Didn't bother to count the "wrong" flips.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill
BOOM!
Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 03:17 PM (jqZ8a)
Heads I win, tails you lose plus you have to give a mill to my foundation.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2016 03:17 PM (659DL)
Honestly..some would pick Sanders over Rubio?? Really??? Eh.. I call bullshit.
Posted by: jewells45 at February 02, 2016 03:17 PM (l/N7H)
While we quibble over crossing the Bridges of Konigsberg, real statistics is being done. It's "The Art of The Probable."
Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 02, 2016 03:18 PM (xq1UY)
Ah, the Clinton Clause, where otherwise improbable events take place because F*** You, We're Clintons.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 03:18 PM (9krrF)
Posted by: Anthony at February 02, 2016 03:18 PM (A+FdC)
The Obama economic miracle continues.
Green shoots! Spring of recovery!
Posted by: torquewrench at February 02, 2016 03:19 PM (noWW6)
Watched that. You've got:
-The one-handed shove
-The two-handed shove
-And, last resort, the ol' swing your purse at him
I'm sure this will help thousands of women in Finland.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 02, 2016 03:19 PM (LA7Cm)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 02, 2016 03:19 PM (2cS/G)
Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at February 02, 2016 02:54 PM (mf5HN)
---
How without itunes?
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 03:20 PM (MbrzC)
When a critical outcome will be equally a failure under either, you look for secondary objectives to satisfy. In this case, if you get amnesty no matter what, burning down the corrupt Grand Old Quislings becomes a priority.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 03:20 PM (9krrF)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 03:17 PM (/tuJf)
My sentiments exactly.
Posted by: chique testing testing at February 02, 2016 03:20 PM (QlyN5)
Trump takes over and fixes it in a few months.
Not because he particularly likes skating, or he needs the money from tickets, he just wanted the credit for being able to get something done in a hurry.
This whole country is a skating rink and it needs fixing now. Not after a few years of committees and reports, but now.
Cruz can't do it because he's going to battling the right as well as the left.
Trump can bring the right along because they will see which way the wind is blowing.
Posted by: jwest at February 02, 2016 03:21 PM (Zs4uk)
" Its a Finnish TV production showing women how to resist rape. "
Watched that. You've got:
-The one-handed shove
-The two-handed shove
-And, last resort, the ol' swing your purse at him
I'm sure this will help thousands of women in Finland.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 02, 2016 03:19 PM (LA7Cm)
We should edit that video and add in the deployment of .45ACP and the following event of the raper meeting the reaper
Posted by: Our Country Is Screwed at February 02, 2016 03:22 PM (jxbfJ)
Please don't comb-over his negatives.
Posted by: Disengenious Democrat Crossover Voter at February 02, 2016 03:22 PM (fbovC)
I'm taking OJ, cause no one else is yuuuge enuf!
Go big or go home!
And my polls? Still amazing. Can't believe
myself how amazing they are. Schlong; crippled; menstrual problems. Did I cover all the essentials?
Posted by: mnw (flair and ballads) at February 02, 2016 03:23 PM (GXwGP)
1000 Quatloos to whoever takes his white board and beats him with it on national TV.
Posted by: Cheri at February 02, 2016 03:23 PM (oiNtH)
I've been hearing that since the early days of Bush's first term. Still hasn't happened.
Given where we are right now I think there is less appetite for amnesty than at any point in decades. Obama and the left thoroughly poisoned the well.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 03:26 PM (/tuJf)
sequence is 1/64. 2 heads, two tails, two heads, or 1 tail, 3 heads then
2 tails, or alternating heads and tails, so on and so on.
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 02, 2016 03:19 PM (2cS/G)
Exactly.
Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 03:27 PM (OrI3J)
Spooky-action-at-a-distance comes into play at this point.
Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 02, 2016 03:30 PM (xq1UY)
This, plus ineffectively or insufficiently different is useless at discontinuities, plus let their folly be their grave.
Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 03:31 PM (DL2i+)
It's not like Hillary supporters know what they're seeing regarding head.
Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 03:32 PM (DL2i+)
Electability begins with one's own vote.
But. but if we do that, no one will think we know what 5 dimensional chess is....let alone how to play it.
Posted by: Paladin at February 02, 2016 03:32 PM (hxLER)
Posted by: Immolate at February 02, 2016 03:35 PM (iO98h)
Posted by: Anna Puma at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (xcJZI)
Bill already does, when I'm around.
Posted by: Granny Clinton at February 02, 2016 03:40 PM (od1KN)
After his first loss to Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey was slated to fight contenderJack Sharkey before he (Dempsey) could get a rematch for the championship. Sharkey was a notorious whiner, a stickler for the rules.Sharkey was also known to take a dive or two, like he did with the giant Primo Carnera a few years later.
In the 7th round, Sharkey turned his head to complain to the referee about low blows (photographic evidence shows the blows as borderline since Sharkey was wearing his shorts unusually high). While Sharkey's head was turned to the ref, Dempsey blasted Sharkey with his famous left hook and won the fight.
Anyway, was Dempsey wrong or immoral to take advantage? Do his actions strike you as somehow dishonest or dirty? If so, then you need to find a fantasy world where it's all sunshine and rainbows and the pretty flowers pick themselves.
Posted by: troyriser at February 02, 2016 03:40 PM (UWlp+)
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 02, 2016 03:46 PM (iQIUe)
Posted by: LTCHAM at February 02, 2016 03:49 PM (MzYgJ)
Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 02, 2016 03:50 PM (6gR7l)
Posted by: Joseph P. Kennedy at February 02, 2016 03:57 PM (Bdeb0)
Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 04:14 PM (MbrzC)
Too bad for Liberal Scotty that it will eventually be Cruz/Allen West.
Posted by: OrsonSnow at February 02, 2016 04:19 PM (dXevi)
Isn't it more usually argued the other way around -- IE 'imagine what a worse-bred and dimmer person might like' (or at least people who only sporadically pay attention to politics). There's supposed to be this decisive middle 5 or 10% of independents/moderates who don't do a lot of thinking about politics which you want to try and appeal to, right?
All that said I think you're right that we are often wrong to assume others' tastes are so fundamentally different from our own... albeit a lot of the people who make the electability argument are only doing so because they think their tastes are closer to the average uninformed/independent/moderate voter.
Posted by: metzengerstein at February 02, 2016 04:19 PM (bYrMj)
"Huh. Would not have guessed that."
Ace , you are usually more observant than that.
You missed the part about the Donald floating Scott Brown's name as Veep a couple weeks back. This was simply payback and kissing the butt of your crony benefactor between two crony liberals. - and I mean liberal in the bad sense not the classical liberal sense.
Abby Normal got it too.
Posted by: Unsk at February 02, 2016 05:09 PM (YkhAJ)
If Rubio is "shifty" what do we make of Trump who 1. Supported Hillary 2. Supported Single Payer 3. Thought Mitt Romney's Immigration stance was too harsh only 3 years ago. Holding a liberal real estate billionaire out as a conservative populist is an "ill-bred and not very bright" thing to do. I get the idea of supporting Cruz (although I disagree). But supporting Trump, because you think Rubio represents the disloyal "dealmaking" establishment is idiotic. When you think stupid things, people then ask you to "conjure what a better-bred and smarter person might like..."
Posted by: dark matter at February 02, 2016 05:21 PM (bbLBH)
Have you ever though of moving to DC and working for ther RNC? I could use your thinking.
Posted by: Rance Prybar at February 02, 2016 05:30 PM (whD2m)
Posted by: jay hoenemeyer at February 02, 2016 09:21 PM (uvj0z)
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0633 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0258 seconds, 514 records returned.
Page size 269 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)