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.

Posted by: Ace at 01:59 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1 first!!

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (MbrzC)

2 And the Beat Goes On.....

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - ReFit your Conniptions at the Outrage Outlet! at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (hLRSq)

3 I'll just flip a coin.

Posted by: HH at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (DrCtv)

4 first

Posted by: Immigrant in CA at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (89P1m)

5 Elect the guy with the Hispanic sounding name. Trust us.

Posted by: GOP Big Money Donors at February 02, 2016 02:00 PM (xwPSp)

6 Speaking of the beat....

*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)

7
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)

8 I'm not that surprised by Brown, hosted some event a few weeks back for Trump.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (MbrzC)

9 Dennis Kucinich, of all people, had the best line about this. IIRC, when asked if he was electable, he answered, "I am if people vote for me!"

SPOILER: he wasn't because people didn't. Still good line.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (zgHLA)

10 I for one welcome our new Crumpio/Clinders overlords!

Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (jBuUi)

11

#cointossesmatter

*hic*


Posted by: Hillary Clinton at February 02, 2016 02:01 PM (HSmrB)

12 darnit!

Posted by: lurkingestlurker-Giant Plush Porcupine at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (k8xvx)

13 "Electability" is short for "To Hell with your guy, support my guy".

That's all it is.

Posted by: Irony at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (BHaRb)

14 Wait - you're saying that I should trust myself when it comes to voting? But then what are all those pundits for?

Posted by: Austin in TX at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (ovFa/)

15 I'm definitely the most electable candidate!

Posted by: Mitt! at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (RD7QR)

16 Brown's decision has been closely guarded for days,

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)

17 Anyone else having trouble keeping Scott Brown, Tim Scott and Scott Walker straight? Politics is becoming all a blur.

Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:02 PM (jBuUi)

18 I'm not surprised about Scott Brown. I read that Trump had floated his name as a possible Veep.

Posted by: Abby Normal at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (jzFjy)

19 I have never refused to vote for the R candidate. I will not vote for Rubio.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (kXoT0)

20 Jeff Duncan (R-SC) just endorsed Cruz.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (/tuJf)

21 #17, you forgot Scott Adams.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (kXoT0)

22 "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."


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)

23 A couple of weeks ago, someone asked Trump about Brown as his VP and he thought the idea of having this pro-abortion centrist was "excellent." You know, because of how conservative Trump is.

Posted by: Duke at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (EQNFN)

24 I think endorsements mean exactly jack.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (xWW96)

25 Rubio, electability, well not in my view.

--
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)

26 Well that Brown endorsement should put Trump over the top for sure?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (kzdjp)

27 Waves dejectedly to the food thread as it disappears.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (jqZ8a)

28 #17, you forgot Scott Adams.

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)

29 Will Brown's hot daughters be there?

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (OD2ni)

30 If it's Scott Brown, flush it down.



Ayla on the other hand...

Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:04 PM (H9MG5)

31 claiming, as usual, that Rubio is the most electable.

Presidents McCain and Romney agree.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (wCF3s)

32 Hey, remember us?

Most electable, bitches! Bank on it!

Posted by: Romney and Maverick! at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (gy/yC)

33 I don't see Brown's endorsement as meaning much of anything unless you are a conservative.

Posted by: Cheri at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (oiNtH)

34 I wonder who Jim Brown is gonna endorse?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (kzdjp)

35 willowed:

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)

36 Let's argue about who is the most conservative because that is a lot easier to agree on than who is the most electable.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (/tuJf)

37 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)
---

I can't imagine any much cares about either endorsement.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (MbrzC)

38 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)

39 Good thing I refreshed before submitting the comment.

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)

40 Who was the guy that ace was pushing/endorsing recently?

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (fWAjv)

41 WTF? Trump must have promised his hot wife a gig on his beauty contests?



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)

42 That is very surprising, I would have bet large sums of money he would have endorsed the mailman's son.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (0LHZx)

43 Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at February 02, 2016 02:03 PM (kXoT0)

Same. I'll write in Ace

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xuouz)

44 Me scalp paleface Scott Brown in great election.

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (OD2ni)

45 I myself am the most electable anonymous genderless risen-from-the-dead Haitian animated corpse!

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)

46 RK: "But I'm a stereotypical sniveling coward, I can only talk tough!"




in a leisure suit.

http://tinyurl.com/zxar2ry

Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (DL2i+)

47 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.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xWW96)

48 Well, that's what they ARE doing, Ace. They're just cloaking it in the whole "other people will..." gambit. That way they're not to blame.

This should remind you of Failure Theater.

Posted by: moviegique at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (7zeA4)

49 Rubio's Grill isn't bad like a Chipotle. But it's nothing to get excited about.

Posted by: Fritz at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (UzPAd)

50 Larry Brown says he will endorse anyone who went to UNC

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (kzdjp)

51 I deliberately stayed away from the blog, etc, for the overnight stuff, but, I gotta ask this, the plump, sweaty, H sticker covered, dark haired boy behind Hillary in all the coverage, "Was he some sort of weird 'product placement' in a vain hope to lure Millennials away from The Bern?"

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)

52 Scott Brown narrowly lost a Senate race in NH not too long ago. His endorsement just might mean something.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (/tuJf)

53 Electibility is a one-word tautology.

Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at February 02, 2016 02:07 PM (wKcQA)

54 My erectability is sunsational. No weally.

Posted by: Chan knows how you voted at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (8QB5o)

55 I read that Trump had floated his name as a possible Veep.

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)

56 If there's a candidate one likes, one ought to support him. Electability begins with one's own vote.


-------------

Well. Then elect ME!

Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (Fmupd)

57 >>We've not had a great run of predicting the electability of candidates.

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)

58 Electability: Was Romney "electable"? How about McCain?

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)

59
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)

60 Romney WAS the most electable in 2012. It's not mutually exclusive to be the guy who has the best chance to win, and then lose. Who would have done better in 2012? Santorum? The Huckster? Newt? Herman Cain?

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (0LHZx)

61 So a proven loser and current private citizen made a recommendation. Okay.

Posted by: Naes at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (Ypc8j)

62 @6 wins...something.

Posted by: fluffy at February 02, 2016 02:08 PM (AfsKp)

63 An excellent point Lauren.

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)

64 If we're voting on who we like best as most electable, I vote for Adam Baldwin of Firefly.

Posted by: Global Warming caused the Hill/Bern tie at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (NBhge)

65 The election will come down, as it always does, to 51% vs 49%. It will be a question of a couple of million votes in the popular vote - no matter who the candidates are.

Posted by: Stay out da bushes at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (rZJS9)

66 I have it on good authority that The "Unsinkable Molly Brown" will endorse Jeb

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (kzdjp)

67 "54 My erectability is sunsational. No weally."


Mine is not. That is why Bob Dole needs the blue pill.

Posted by: Bob Dole at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (OD2ni)

68 Also 'electable' seems to mean less conservative to some people. I don't think we see any evidence at all that that works.

Posted by: Lea at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (Q1RmS)

69 Since Scotts election, has anyone heard from him? Has he made any impact in the Senate?

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)

70 What's the burning issue du jour for Republican and independent voters in NH?

Posted by: mrp at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (JBggj)

71 50
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)

72
What's all this talk about erectability?

-- Bob Dole, blue pill junkie

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at February 02, 2016 02:09 PM (BK3ZS)

73 I'm actually a bit surprised that Tim Scott has backed Rubio. I like Scott; I don't hate Rubio (ie he's got many shortcomings, but he's still a zillion times better than any Democrat), but I just don't see why Scott is doing this.

Rubio is the best guy for SC? Really?


Posted by: looking closely at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (ji45d)

74 >>>Larry Brown says he will endorse anyone who went to UNC

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)

75
And for reference, wiki's current list of endorsements:

http://tinyurl.com/z88nbb6

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (kdS6q)

76 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)

Nah only UNC....Your first love is the one you always remember

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (kzdjp)

77 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.


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)

78 47 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.
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)

79 when brown can stick around...

Posted by: Joseph Lowery at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (FkBIv)

80 Finally, the question of who Scott Brown will support has been answered. It's like a giant weight has been lifted off my shoulders.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 02, 2016 02:10 PM (1RNgT)

81 Judging by the feelings of the base, I'd say most electable is Jeb Bush getting gang raped on the jukebox.

Posted by: Global Warming caused the Hill/Bern tie at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (NBhge)

82 GOPe has quite a string of unelectable electables to it's credit.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (xWW96)

83 Centerfold Scotty? Somehow, that's appropriate. I'm sure that will push Trump 'way over Cruz.

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)

84 15 I'm definitely the most electable candidate!
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)

85 This should remind you of Failure Theater.

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)

86 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.
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)

87 Let's argue
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (/tuJf)

No!

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (xuouz)

88 H. Rap Brown will announce his endorsement at the next BLM riot

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:11 PM (kzdjp)

89 "Romney WAS the most electable in 2012. It's not mutually exclusive to be the guy who has the best chance to win, and then lose. Who would have done better in 2012? Santorum? The Huckster? Newt? Herman Cain?

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)

90
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)

91 I won't make any decisions until Jackie Brown's endorsement nails down the blacksploitation vote.

Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (jBuUi)

92 I think investing huge meaning in a throwaway answer to a shout from a crowd is wrong.

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)

93 >>Im beginning to suspect that the man may turn out to be a Gowdy'esque disappointment.

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)

94
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)

95 >>LOL. That's like putting used kleenexes in a safety deposit box. I can't imagine anyone cares about Scott Brown's endorsement.

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)

96 60
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)

97 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)
---------------------

Right? I'm just positive this will be the season we finally win!

Posted by: moviegique at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (7zeA4)

98 Scott Brown, Tim Scott and Scott Walker

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)

99 James Brown just announced that Trump makes him "feel good" but he's leaning toward Cruz because he's "got a brand-new bag."

Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (jBuUi)

100 Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:06 PM (xuouz)

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)

101 "Unelectable!!!" has been the punchline of bitter ironic humor for quite a while around here.

Glad to see Ace is catching up.

Posted by: filbert at February 02, 2016 02:13 PM (s5o+q)

102 I thought Perry was, but we'll never know.
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)

103 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)
---

Bank on it.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (MbrzC)

104 John Brown wants to invite everyone down to Harpers Ferry for his endorsement announcement: Please bring a side arm

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (kzdjp)

105 This is all very interesting, but . . .

has anyone noticed that the Dem ticket now consists of characters from Ironweed?

Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:14 PM (Vz7fy)

106 Oops, I meant most electable is 'Jeb Bush getting gang raped on the pinball machine'.

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)

107 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)

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)

108 I don't see Brown's endorsement as meaning much of anything unless you are a conservative.Posted by: Cheri at February 02, 2016 02:05 PM (oiNtH)Scotty Centerfold was the accidental senator who barely put down his hand from taking the oath of office before he was asking Chuck Schumer whether he should spit or swallow. His endorsement holds as much water as the coveted Thomas E. Dewey endorsement.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (X6fMO)

109 But on a serious note, has Rubio been getting hair implants or something? On the pic in the thread below it looks a lot thicker than it has been. Maybe he got the name of a good doc from Joe Biden in exchange for the bill in which he publicly and repeatedly blew Schumer.

Posted by: Jollyroger at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (t06LC)

110 I"vet got a friend of mine who is a big Rubio supporter posting things about him being the next president, etc. I'd just like him to be the next senator from Florida. You know, since he hasn't shown up for that job yet.

Posted by: Guest of the Scotts at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (65P4b)

111 "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"


Me turn to camera and cry when palefaces toss litter from cars.

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (OD2ni)

112 has anyone noticed that the Dem ticket now consists of characters from Ironweed?
Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid


More like "On Golden Pond."

Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (jBuUi)

113 I would like to meet GREAT SCOTT! that Doc Brown called upon during times of stress.



Why? Dude never showed up to help Doc.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (jqZ8a)

114 99 James Brown just announced that Trump makes him "feel good" but he's leaning toward Cruz because he's "got a brand-new bag."
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)

115 I'd like know what former Presidents Dole, McCain, and Romney think on this.

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (qNI3R)

116 How is an old mean drunk witch electable?

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)

117 Seed your lawn candidate.

Seeeeeed it!

Posted by: the guy from the Scott's lawn commercial at February 02, 2016 02:15 PM (H9MG5)

118 #90
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)

119 Romney WAS the most electable in 2012. It's not mutually exclusive to be the guy who has the best chance to win, and then lose. Who would have done better in 2012? Santorum? The Huckster? Newt? Herman Cain?

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)

120 47 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.

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)

121 Glad to see Ace is catching up.
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)

122 You are dating yourself Zombie.
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)

123 112 has anyone noticed that the Dem ticket now consists of characters from Ironweed?
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)

124 I can unite the entire country around warmed over Bushisms, such as

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)

125 Tim Brown was just on the radio here

Posted by: x at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (nFwvY)

126 So there were two Iowa polls taken entirely after the last debate. Emerson had Trump/Cruz/Rubio at 27/26/22, Opinion Savvy had them 20/19/19. So in the one Rubio met expectations and in the other he outperformed but not nearly as much as Cruz. So why is he winning so much?

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)

127 The GOP was always going to go down in flames last time. There was no hope. I still think Newt, however, would not only have put up a fight, he would have done real damage to the opposition and positioned the party for recovery.

Posted by: sarahw at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (3fTXW)

128 You mean the ass clown who couldn't even beat that lying sack of dung, Warren? Cool.

Posted by: Eli Cash at February 02, 2016 02:17 PM (Dc/ui)

129 Hillary sacrificed a dozen virgins to Ba'al (aka Bill Clinton) prior to the toss.

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)

130 You are dating yourself Zombie.
Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile


San Francisco values.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (FkBIv)

131
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)

132 109
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)

133 Its a matter of relativity. You really want to say that Cruz is more likable to the average American as Cruz or Trump?

Posted by: Alix at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (MpfHK)

134 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)
_____

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)

135 has anyone noticed that the Dem ticket now consists of characters from Ironweed?
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)

136 Excellent take on the whole "electability" game, Ace.

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)

137 The idea of Perry was pretty good. The actual Perry turned out to be kind of a dumbshit. But it wasn't his fault, it was the danged back pills!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 02, 2016 02:18 PM (1RNgT)

138 Here's my observation about yesterday:

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)

139 Hey, remember us?

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)

140 #93
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)

141 Kinda like how there's a 1/64M chance that every precinct in Philly voted 100% for Obama. Shit happens yo!
===

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)

142 I have come to hate the electibility argument for many reasons. Romney was touted as electable and he was far from it. Hillary may be the nominee this year, and she is probably the weakest candidate the Dems have thrown up in a while - even less likable than Kerry who at least ran as a potentially credible anti-war candidate at a time when the anti-war feeling was growing. If there was a time to worry less about electability, now is the time. Even still, Reagan was touted as electable. The bottom line is the elactability argument is really a shallow argument. I have no problem with people factoring it into their own voting, but I find it has very little persuasion.

Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:19 PM (gmeXX)

143 "Why are THEY electable?!?!?!"

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)

144 Dole, McCain, and Romney were "electable," too. Where'd that get us?

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)

145 Since Cuz has been my candidate for months now, I'm a little concerned that I feel disappointment that Trump didn't take Iowa.

Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (wKcQA)

146 From what I know about Senator Tim Scott. He seems like a good guy, fairly conservative. With that said, i will not vote for Rubio.

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)

147 Who would have done better in 2012? Santorum?

----------

Santorum tapped into the populism wave long before Trump did.

Posted by: SH at February 02, 2016 02:20 PM (gmeXX)

148
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)

149 Spent any time in Philly?
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)

150 Rubio's amnesty betrayal must be enough to disqualify him.

Posted by: Valiant at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (2bqlb)

151 I think the only true measure of electability should be "did they get elected?"

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)

152 >>You mean the ass clown who couldn't even beat that lying sack of dung, Warren? Cool.

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)

153 Y'know, the problem for me is this: every so often I'm inclined to think we need a Cromwell, a Napoleon, a guy prepared to run the corrupt powers-that-be out at saber's-edge.

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)

154 The election ash-heap is littered with GOP "electable" candidates.

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)

155 17
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)

156 "electable" = "RINO squish" who, if elected, which isn't likely, will get in the White House and act like a Demonrat Lite.

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)

157 Rubio is Mitt junior.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 02, 2016 02:21 PM (xWW96)

158 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)


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)

159 Even though I'm no Trump supporter I really like his impact on the race. He clarifies the positions of other candidates. He has an amazing ability to zero in on weaknesses and pound on them.

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)

160 145 Since Cuz has been my candidate for months now, I'm a little concerned that I feel disappointment that Trump didn't take Iowa.
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)

161 Well now that we got the Huckabee/Santorum state out of the way it should be real interesting.

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)

162 Spent any time in Philly?
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)

163 Once again, in soundproofed limousines across the land, the political intelligentsia heaves a collective sigh of relief and screams to the heavens,

"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)

164 134 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)

_____

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)

165 Someone on Twitter this morning mentioned the GOPe despises Cruz. To me, that's a feature, not a bug. McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, et al, want Rubio. That enough is reason for me to not vote that way.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:22 PM (tCjRC)

166 126 It's going to be really awkward when Cruz beats him (Rubio) in NH, too.

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)

167 >>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.

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)

168 I still think Newt, however, would not only have put up a fight, he would have done real damage to the opposition and positioned the party for recovery.

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)

169 I still think Newt, however, would not only have put up a fight, he would have done real damage to the opposition and positioned the party for recovery.

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)

170 155 17
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)

171 >> You mean the ass clown who couldn't even beat that lying
>> 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)

172 Try to conjure what a better-bred and smarter person might like, and then do what he does.

I think that's how we got Obama.

Posted by: Emmie at February 02, 2016 02:23 PM (ezXrF)

173 An "electable" Democrat usually means that they're a good enough liar about their true feelings that they can *fool* LIVs and moderates. See: Obama pretending to not be full-on abortion supporter and SSM supporter in 2008.

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)

174 Spent any time in Philly?
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)

175 ... by OVER 100% in some cases. OVER 100% of ALL RESIDENTS, including children.

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)

176 111 "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"


-------------------


The legacy of the Great Oklahoma Crab Herds is hard to beat.

Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (Fmupd)

177 150 Rubio's amnesty betrayal must be enough to disqualify him.
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)

178 Nah only UNC....Your first love is the one you always remember

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)

179 We need a revolution of sorts, but I'd prefer it remain within the bounds of our Constitutional structure.
---
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)

180 >>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.

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)

181 No true Scotts man.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 02, 2016 02:24 PM (FkBIv)

182 Wyatt you know full well a ton of philly precincts no one even bothers to show up and vote, they just deliver the boxes of premade votes to the Dem

Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (Vz7fy)

183 Adam Baldwin?
Jaynestown!

Posted by: Gouverneur Morris at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (dQJCS)

184 "172 Try to conjure what a better-bred and smarter person might like, and then do what he does.

I think that's how we got Obama."

Also, Common Core.

Posted by: joe at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (KUaJL)

185 When Brown beat Coakley to take that senate seat (the KENNEDY senate seat) it was was just so epic. Turns out he was just another hack.

Posted by: tu3031 at February 02, 2016 02:25 PM (YFFpo)

186 Blah who cares
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/)

187 Good looks Optimizer, I agree. If Carson drops, I'd say his votes (9%) go 60-40 for Cruz and Trump, with the moe going establishment. Half of Rand Paul's votes (4.5%) vanish in accordance with libertarian behavior, and the remainder splits 50-50.

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)

188 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)


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)

189 The gope has two main tools: lesser of two evils and electability.

Stop letting them manipulate you with those tools.

Posted by: eman at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (mR7Es)

190 182 Wyatt you know full well a ton of philly precincts no one even bothers to show up and vote, they just deliver the boxes of premade votes to the Dem.

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)

191 I'm going to say it:

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)

192
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)

193 I actually do like Rubio more than you... so maybe there are others like me.

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)

194 Look at the bright side; if Rubio doesn't win, the GOPe will force a brokered convention and just give him the nom.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:27 PM (tCjRC)

195 >> If we could get government back within the Constitutional
>> 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)

196 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)

horseshoes and hand grenades

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (xuouz)

197 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)

___

Then your initial comment calling Scott a loser is doubly stupid.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (0LHZx)

198 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.

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)

199 >> We don't need any G** D*** Senator to become President. >>> Senators say in the Senate and do Senate-like stuff.

So you want Hillary v Trump for the general?

Posted by: JEM at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (o+SC1)

200
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)

201 Rubio: All the electability of Romney without any smarts or discernable achievements.

I too will be voting third party if this dumbass gets the nomination.

Posted by: mugiwara at February 02, 2016 02:28 PM (meerr)

202 Ted Cruz must be for us since they are uniform in their opposition to him. Starting to think Trump's job is to split the mad as hell vote allowing the establishment stooge to win.

Posted by: forgotten at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (t3Zit)

203 I don't know, do endorsements really matter for folks? It doesn't for me personally. I like Time Scoot but his choice is not going to sway my opinion. Frankly, with the LIV crowd if Oprah or Ellen or any of the Kardashians endorsed a candidate, it would get them out to vote in droves.

Posted by: IC at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (a0IVu)

204 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.

------------

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)

205 "137 The idea of Perry was pretty good. The actual Perry turned out to be kind of a dumbshit. But it wasn't his fault, it was the danged back pills!
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)

206 We don't need any G** D*** Senator to become President. Senators say in the Senate and do Senate-like stuff.

James Monroe and Andrew Jackson were senators, so YMMV.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (tCjRC)

207
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)

208 "so maybe there are others like me."
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)

209 Electability means someone can motivate a lot of people to get off the couch and vote.

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)

210 I want a Hillary coin...it always comes up kankles.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 02, 2016 02:29 PM (r65B3)

211 "157 Rubio is Mitt junior.
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)

212 185 When Brown beat Coakley to take that senate seat (the KENNEDY senate seat) it was was just so epic. Turns out he was just another hack.
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)

213 Explanation please
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)

214 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!

LOL. We're number one!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (tCjRC)

215 How can Rubio be 'more electable' when it looks like he won't even win Florida?

Posted by: K-E at February 02, 2016 02:30 PM (3mSJj)

216 >>When Brown beat Coakley to take that senate seat (the KENNEDY senate
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)

217 209 Electability means someone can motivate a lot of people to get off the couch and vote.

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)

218 199 >> We don't need any G** D*** Senator to become President. >>> Senators say in the Senate and do Senate-like stuff.

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)

219 215 How can Rubio be 'more electable' when it looks like he won't even win Florida?

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)

220
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)

221 >>>Y'know, the problem for me is this: every so often I'm inclined to think we need a Cromwell, a Napoleon, a guy prepared to run the corrupt powers-that-be out at saber's-edge.


Don't forget me!

Posted by: Augusto Pinochet at February 02, 2016 02:31 PM (CMbMd)

222 If there's a candidate one likes, one ought to support him. Electability begins with one's own vote.

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)

223 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)


_______

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)

224 Democrats will no doubt without exception find Rubio most appealing of the Republican line up. Almost as appealing as their own candidate, I'm sure, and almost enough to have them pull the lever for him in November. Almost.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (kfcYC)

225 How can Rubio be 'more electable' when it looks like he won't even win Florida?

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)

226 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)

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)

227 IA == rarely becomes potus

In fairness, the Santorums and Huckabees would have never been POTUS anyway

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:32 PM (tCjRC)

228 Ironweed: Bernie Sanders is Tom Waits without the charm or the good posture.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (VdICR)

229 189 The gope has two main tools: lesser of two evils and electability.
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)

230 The legacy of the Great Oklahoma Crab Herds is hard to beat.
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)

231 Every subsequent toss is still 50/50.

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)

232 Great post. have to agree with Ezra Pound on this:

"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)

233 203 I don't know, do endorsements really matter for folks? It doesn't for me personally. I like Time Scoot but his choice is not going to sway my opinion. Frankly, with the LIV crowd if Oprah or Ellen or any of the Kardashians endorsed a candidate, it would get them out to vote in droves.

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)

234 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 - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:34 PM (xuouz)

235 How can Rubio be 'more electable' when it looks like he won't even win Florida?

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)

236 I can think of some critical endorsements that would certainly help Trump with the dems I know who seem inclined to vote his way ... but all that will wait for the General

Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:34 PM (Vz7fy)

237 "Shouldn't we take our own feelings as primary?"
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)

238 17 Anyone else having trouble keeping Scott Brown, Tim Scott and Scott Walker straight? Politics is becoming all a blur.

Posted by: zombie

Not as hard as keeping Barack straight.

Posted by: mooch at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (kfcYC)

239 How can Rubio be 'more electable' when it looks like he won't even win Florida?


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)

240 One of the reasons we (the Right) have dug ourselves into this hole is because we all too often got wrapped up in chasing the will 'o' the wisp of "electability" while ignoring and sacrificing our underlying principles, while the Democrats never, ever truly sacrifice their underlying principles, they just brazenly lie themselves into "electability".

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)

241 Contrast that with the Democrat party:
Greater of 2 evils, better voter fraud.
Posted by: jwb7605 at February 02, 2016 02:33 PM (DofIg)

Greater of 2 evils, better all the voter fraud.
^^
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)

242 186,291 for the Republicans
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)

243 Everyone is wrong about the statistics of the coin toss probability.

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)

244 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.

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/)

245 I just don't see any scenario in which Cruz beats Hillary.

Wish I could, but I don't.

Posted by: WhatWhatWhat? at February 02, 2016 02:35 PM (r9tFS)

246 >>>Jeb Bush getting gang raped on the pinball machine'

"Clue" really has changed.

Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (bpn7O)

247 Eh, Cruz/Rubio. Tomato/Tomata.

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)

248
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)

249 "He's electable" is just GOP Inc. short-hand for "Jam this sock in your mouth and bend over". I'll see another President Clinton before I'll do that again. How's that for "knowing myself"?

Posted by: Born Free at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (uGTin)

250 234 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 - 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)

251 I don't necessarily see Cruz as a great holy man, or anything, but...

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)

252 I think Cruz, with his frequent Christianity mentioning stuff, is positioning/strategizing to do well on Super Tuesday in the South. Four weeks away. He can afford a 3rd in NH now that he has his Iowa cred.

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)

253 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.

Rubio uses the "Harvey Two-Face" half dollar.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 02, 2016 02:36 PM (tCjRC)

254 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.

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)

255 I don't think the view that Rubio is electable is based on the establishment's view of Ace's ill-breeding. Instead, it's based on two basic ideas, one empirical and one gut-level, both of which reinforce each other.

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)

256 186,291 for the Republicans
9,901 for the Democrats.


___

Where do you get 9901 from?

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (0LHZx)

257 I want to see the 10th Amendment win and D.C. become a swampy museum city. Or White vs Texas overturned. We have to get out.

Posted by: Dave at Buffalo Roam at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (m3Sth)

258 234 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?


This election is likely a win for Republicans, whomever that will be.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (VdICR)

259 Goes both way. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.

Posted by: jewells45 at February 02, 2016 02:37 PM (l/N7H)

260 Hillary! is no stranger to parlour tricks.

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)

261 IIRC, even though it seems intuitively "wrong," there is no statistical anomaly should you get 1000 heads out of 1000 tosses.
---
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)

262
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)

263 Not as hard as keeping Barack straight.
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)

264 (0.5)^6

basic statistics

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:38 PM (LXJ1e)

265 234 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 - 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)

266 >>Then your initial comment calling Scott a loser is doubly stupid.

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)

267 252 I think Cruz, with his frequent Christianity mentioning stuff, is positioning/strategizing to do well on Super Tuesday in the South. Four weeks away. He can afford a 3rd in NH now that he has his Iowa cred.

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)

268 I don't need to be electable.

Posted by: James Mattoon Scott at February 02, 2016 02:39 PM (ScUhd)

269 or jeez, lucifer might have some fun and just keep it hanging in the air for effect

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)

270 164

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)

271 This election is likely a win for Republicans, whomever that will be.
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)

272 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)

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)

273 It couldn't possibly be the case that the Republicans voters were 18 times as numerous as the Dem voters -- could it???



Preference has cascaded.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (jqZ8a)

274 Argggh. CHRONICLES, not Corinthians.

Bah! I blame Trump's hair.

Posted by: mindful webworker - what, me scripture? at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (Yu4ah)

275 ..

Posted by: Rube the Lube at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (QW1hJ)

276 "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."




There is no Cournot-Nash equilibrium in politics.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (OrI3J)

277 I saw the Condensing Pricks open for Bowling for Soup at the Whiskey back in 2006.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 02, 2016 02:40 PM (8ZskC)

278 278 is the new First

Posted by: Rube the Lube at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (QW1hJ)

279 I knew Lord Grantham was getting sick on Downton Abbey but I didn't know it was because of a chest-burster from Aliens.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (LXJ1e)

280
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)

281 >>>Then your initial comment calling Scott a loser is doubly stupid.

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)

282 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)

Could it?
bit.ly/1JW0vpj

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:41 PM (xuouz)

283 I think Cruz, with his frequent Christianity mentioning stuff, is positioning/strategizing to do well on Super Tuesday in the South. Four weeks away. He can afford a 3rd in NH now that he has his Iowa cred.

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)

284 I got those numbers off the AOSHQDD.

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)

285 171,000 voted in Dem Caucus. No idea where people are getting 9000 from.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (0LHZx)

286 @243 Zombie

"..which has heads on both sides."

And never gives it.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (8QB5o)

287 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)


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)

288 I got those numbers off the Decision Desk

http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:42 PM (xuouz)

289 well not quite 100% - remember my "devil makes it land on its side" thing

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)

290 Way back last fall, I thought the GOP should run Rubio against Hillary because that would fully occupy the dems in the business of attacking a young (un-Hillary), attractive (un-Hillary), hispanic (un-Hillary) and that might work out very well.
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)

291
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)

292 My bad

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (xuouz)

293 I actually do like Rubio more than you... so maybe there are others like me.

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)

294 reL 289:

I meant "on its edge," not "side". Sigh.

Posted by: zombie at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (jBuUi)

295
BTW - today's DMR estimated Iowa Dem turn out was somewhere in the 200k area.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (kdS6q)

296 Yeah, count me among the skeptical on the 18x figure. Could the Dems really have that much trouble counting 9,000 or so votes?

Posted by: gts109 at February 02, 2016 02:43 PM (KIvt1)

297 Try to conjure what a better-bred and smarter person might like, and then do what he does.

Tried that, found I couldn't afford the booze.

Posted by: Blanco Basura at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (4WhSY)

298 171,000 voted in Dem Caucus. No idea where people are getting 9000 from.

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)

299 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 maybe Christianity is not something Cruz "does" but is instead something he "is".

Posted by: redbanzai at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (OrI3J)

300 After a year where Iowans took the time to see candidates, ask them thoughtful questions, and became volunteers and leaders themselves, tonight 171,109 Iowa Democrats came together with their neighbors to engage in a spirited discussion on the future of our country. We saw passionate, engaged Iowans turn out in all 99 counties, and for the first time ever, the IDP ran both a Tele-Caucus and satellite caucus locations, fulfilling our promise to expand participation and improve on an already incredible process.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (0LHZx)

301 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.

Posted by: Lea at February 02, 2016 02:44 PM (Q1RmS)

302 @283

"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)

303 Cackle cackle cackle... I told all of y'all wingas that the "Granny" will not be denied! That Marco boy will make a fine Cuban houseboy for Huma and me. Heh. Suckas....

Posted by: Granny Clinton at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (od1KN)

304 Fipping coins? I thought the Dems wanted to take money OUT of politics.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (2cS/G)

305 264 (0.5)^6

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)

306 ...Republicans voters were 18 times as numerous as the Dem voters...

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)

307 The thought of a Trump Biden debate makes me want to punch things.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 02, 2016 02:45 PM (VdICR)

308 171,000 voted in Dem Caucus. No idea where people are getting 9000 from.

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)

309 In 2008, 222,000 Dems voted in the Caucus, FWIW. So if anything I guess we can say that Dems are 15% less engaged this year vs 2008...which is a good sign, I suppose.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:46 PM (0LHZx)

310 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.

----------

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)

311 186,291 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
---------
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)

312 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.

===

ugh

Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 02:47 PM (3ZtZW)

313 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.

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)

314 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).

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/)

315 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)

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)

316 "Elect the guy with the Hispanic sounding name. Trust us."

This comment is supposed to be funny?

Posted by: Harun at February 02, 2016 02:48 PM (UBBWX)

317 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.
---
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)

318 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.Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 02, 2016 02:12 PM (X6fMO)

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+)

319 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)




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)

320 I got those numbers off the Decision Desk

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)

321 The reasons people don't like Rubio -- his shiftiness, for example -- aren't going to suddenly go over well with a different audience, either.

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)

322 If you toss a coin 1000 times, the 1000th time the odds are 50/50 you will win. Just like toss 1 is 50/50 and toss 634 is 50/50. Every toss is 50/50.

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)

323 The thought of a Trump Biden debate makes me want to punch things

are you crazy? it will be EPIC

Posted by: YesThatBlackOrchid at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (Vz7fy)

324 >>Little help here, Horde? I can't remember the absolutely disastrous thing she did.

She called Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (/tuJf)

325 Posted by: petunia at February 02, 2016 02:26 PM (VoCyE)


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)

326 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+)


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)

327 >>>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/)<<<

She called Curt Schilling a NY Yankee fan.

Posted by: Moron who voted for that moron at February 02, 2016 02:49 PM (H9MG5)

328 >>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.

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)

329 it is snowing like a mfer here. thank god tthe wife just got home. what a mess.

Posted by: chavez the hugo at February 02, 2016 02:50 PM (ucDmr)

330 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.

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)

331 301
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)

332 ...the odds of it coming up heads again on the 6th toss are still 50/50...

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)

333 Cruz-Trump or Trump-Cruz?

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)

334 Thanks alex. I need a twitter fu master whose dojo I can study in.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (xuouz)

335 290 >> 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.

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)

336 Scotty Too Hotty Brown is a shitty candidate and the only reason he won the senate in Massachusetts is because he ran against probably one of the crappiest candidates to have ever run for office.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 02, 2016 02:51 PM (z/Ubi)

337 "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. "

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)

338 I think Carson should drop out, but if it's true 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)

339 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)

_____

Did someone call?

Posted by: Santorum and The Huckster at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (0LHZx)

340 She called Curt Schilling a NY Yankee fan.
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)

341 Excellent point about electability!!!!

Posted by: Shiggz at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (G7wcY)

342 >>Sorta like Democrats always winning political contest that are withing 5%.


Dems always win recounts.
OK, almost always, considering the Bush 2000 election.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 02, 2016 02:52 PM (NOIQH)

343 336 Scotty Too Hotty Brown is a shitty candidate and the only reason he won the senate in Massachusetts is because he ran against probably one of the crappiest candidates to have ever run for office.
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)

344 316 "Elect the guy with the Hispanic sounding name. Trust us."

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)

345 339
Don't forget about me!

Posted by: Herman 999 Cain at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (Ypc8j)

346 But the odds that you win all 1000 times is 1/2 to the power of 1000.
---
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)

347 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)

--------------

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)

348 Glad IA is over. That means the primary has begun in earnest, with real votes, not just polls. I like this much better.

Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (Fmupd)

349 does that make sense?

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)

350 Test

Posted by: chique testing testing at February 02, 2016 02:53 PM (QlyN5)

351 Damn pixy.


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)

352 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)

353 I've resigned myself to having a GOPe candidate. Can't fight city hall and all that. And if we're going to have a GOPe guy it might as well be Rubio.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 02:54 PM (0LHZx)

354 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)


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)

355 The thought of a Trump Biden debate makes me want to punch things.
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)

356 Surprising endorsement. So too for Tim Scott. Crazy primary.

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)

357 If you toss a coin 1000 times, the 1000th time the odds are 50/50 you will win. Just like toss 1 is 50/50 and toss 634 is 50/50. Every toss is 50/50.

----------

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)

358 All three top candidates have electability issues. Both Rubio and Cruz have a formidable smarminess factor. Of course the Dems are equally limited. There are no Bill Clintons or Barack Obamas in this race.

Posted by: Hillary! at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (DrC22)

359 I've resigned myself to having a GOPe candidate. Can't fight city hall and all that. And if we're going to have a GOPe guy it might as well be Rubio.

===

That's cool. I'll do a write-in.

Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (3ZtZW)

360 #335 Hillary will not be indicted, and Biden will step into the fray with her and Sanders as the Great Unifier at some point is my guess. The Obama nomination was all about the dance of the Dem superdelegates and I would bet they are NOT happy these days.

Posted by: Hamlette at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (dToM4)

361 Trump will get bored with it and drop out after SC

Posted by: brak at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (xwPSp)

362 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 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)

363 Try flipping a coin 12,800 times. You might get a run of 6 heads or 6 tails. If you flip a coin 128,000 times you almost assuredly will get a same 6 run. At 1 flip a second you could do 12,800 in 4 hours.

Posted by: Cynic at February 02, 2016 02:55 PM (I0sxh)

364 I really hope Brown didn't win because his opponent didn't know what team Shilling played for. I want to think we live in a world where people don't vote based on stupid shit like that.

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)

365 The whole point of Scott Brown taking that seat was the dems needed it to be the 60th vote for Obamacare.

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)

366 When does Ace get back? I'm tired of Debbie Wasserman Schultz filling in for him.

Posted by: Waiting for Ace at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (k47e3)

367 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)

_____

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)

368 Here's the real truth:

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)

369 "Electable" means "malleable" in Establishspeak. The GOPe knows full well Trump would be more likely to beat Hillary.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 02, 2016 02:56 PM (6gR7l)

370 364 I really hope Brown didn't win because his opponent didn't know what team Shilling played for. I want to think we live in a world where people don't vote based on stupid shit like that.

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)

371 Me scalp paleface Scott Brown in great election.
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)

372 She called Curt Schilling a NY Yankee fan.
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)

373 She called Curt Schilling a NY Yankee fan.


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/)

374 The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It's based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.


http://tinyurl.com/znsz6z6

FFS

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (fWAjv)

375 I'm a window licking

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+)

376 Speaking of the decision desk, I pulled it up on the tv last night while on the treadmill. I almost pulled a Harry Reid Eyeball when it started showing Clinton at .1%!

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (2lndx)

377
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)

378 At what point do we start swinging our handbag at Rubio to deter his attacks?

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at February 02, 2016 02:57 PM (LWu6U)

379 Trump is a deranged bombastic egotistical train-wreck of a human being who will gaffe himself into irrelevance within weeks.
-------
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)

380 Cruz-Trump or Trump-Cruz?

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)

381 The only thing wrong with yesterday's result is that it gave the establishment renewed hope.

Posted by: steevy at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (8HTq1)

382 So who to run against Biden?
----------------------
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)

383 Ok.

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)

384 "So, basically, the establish vote is solidifying towards Rubio. "


But momma told me they liked me.


*sobs*

Posted by: !Jeb! at February 02, 2016 02:58 PM (LA7Cm)

385 280

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/)

386 O/T...

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)

387 I don't understand taking the electability argument as meaning your own thinking can't be trusted. They're saying one candidate might appeal better to more people than another. Period. Why take that personally if you don't happen to support that person? It seems like you're straining to find things to criticize whenever Rubio is mentioned...RDS, maybe?

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)

388 So who to run against Biden?
----------------------
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)

389 Every top of the hour news break I've heard today has sounded more or less like this. "Cruz and Hillary win the Iowa caucuses, but the real winner was Marco Rubio for outperforming his poll numbers slightly more than Cruz! Does this mean Cruz is finished? Yes."

Posted by: mugiwara at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (meerr)

390 Between Cruz, Trump and Carson the nice Iowa voters gave over 61% of their votes to candidates the GOPe hates with burning passion.

Posted by: MTF at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (TxJGV)

391 "GO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST NOW!"

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)

392 off fall guy sock.

Posted by: rebel flounder at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (3dOE/)

393 RUBIO / Black Woman 2016!!

FTW

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (0LHZx)

394 there can be only one.

Posted by: mikeyslaw at February 02, 2016 03:00 PM (Wkdli)

395 "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."

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)

396 ...considering the Bush 2000 election...

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)

397 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 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)

398 >>Well, that's two a youse so far, but she did something worse.

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)

399

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)

400 This should be linked to as the response to any statement moo moo makes.

https://youtu.be/7n15Oe7Hlk4

Posted by: Buzzion at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (z/Ubi)

401 You no Elizabeth Warren. Warren say, "... in heap big election"!!!

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)

402 All the CoC money will be going to Rubio now. I hope Heb! spent most of their donors out.

Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (Fmupd)

403 Coakley not Schilling ....

Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2016 03:01 PM (/tuJf)

404 Will Brown do another Playgirl spread using Trump's hair to cover his nether-regions?

Posted by: Marcus T at February 02, 2016 03:02 PM (GGCsk)

405
Scott Brown oozed Democrat.
So does Trump.

Two peas in a pod (plus a secret handshake

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2016 03:02 PM (qCMvj)

406 I think Carson should drop out, but if it's true
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)

407 Scott Brown is a RINO's RINO, and he always was. The only benefit to having him win that Senate race in MA was adding another R to the pile to (theoretically) block Obama/Reid with filibusters.

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)

408 FBI will recommend prosecution
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)

409 Rep Jeff Duncan (R) South Carolina has endorsed Cruz.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (5FQVt)

410

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)

411 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)



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)

412 /starts twitching

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (9krrF)

413 Interpreting [Punxsutawney] Phil's behavior, the Groundhog Club emcee proclaimed, "There is no shadow to be cast! An early spring is my forecast!"

Posted by: Mr. Stay Puft at February 02, 2016 03:03 PM (e8kgV)

414 I get it now.

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)

415 Special Prosecutor will stall through the election and declare it against public policy to indict a sitting President.

--------------

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)

416 Chris, agreed 100%. It's some kind of weird defense mechanism.

Posted by: gts109 at February 02, 2016 03:04 PM (KIvt1)

417 "414 I get it now.

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)

418 So if it were to come down to Rubio vs Bernie, I'd vote third party but pull for the Bern to win. Bernie is decent on guns, doesn't want to take due process rights away from male college students like the Rube, and Bernie even seems to support American workers over border jumpers, again, unlike the Rube.

Posted by: mugiwara at February 02, 2016 03:04 PM (meerr)

419 Can Congress indict a sitting President for high crimes committed prior to the Presidency?
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)

420 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!


You know who this helps, right?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2016 03:05 PM (659DL)

421 If there's a candidate one likes, one ought to support him.
---

This!

Posted by: Y-not at February 02, 2016 03:05 PM (E7zwb)

422 395 "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."

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)

423 Any other exotic diseases need some place to incubate. We're apparently opening the doors here in North Texas.
-----
Phrasing!

Posted by: andycanuck at February 02, 2016 03:05 PM (WOyz5)

424 When's the next flight to Vegas?

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)

425 Who would want Cruz as a VP, honestly? Sure he might bring some voters to the table - although I doubt that - but really the guy would be a complete pain in the ass, constantly.

Posted by: Bigby's Coin Flip at February 02, 2016 03:06 PM (3ZtZW)

426 Can Congress indict a sitting President for high crimes committed prior to the Presidency?
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)

427 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)


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)

428 Hmmm . . . trying to think of something positive to say about Rubio . . .

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)

429 No Ace your vote doesn't really count unless you live in a battleground state
Or
Are willing to move there

Posted by: Bubba at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (R6wzt)

430 Is Rubio more electable? Who knows. If based on general likability alone, he is probably moreso than Cruz or Trump.
---
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)

431 Scott Brown was always pandering.

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)

432

But I have to tell you, I have to tell you, he Rubio is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.

Posted by: McCain-whack-a-mole at February 02, 2016 03:07 PM (qCMvj)

433 Who would want Cruz as a VP, honestly?

------------

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)

434 Ace hit the nail on the head.

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)

435 Rubio is nothing. A junior senator with no life experience. So young ... yet bald.

He's a bald boy.

Bald boy.
Bald boy.
Watcha gonna do?

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 02, 2016 03:08 PM (rwt9d)

436 I think BC even wore pants.

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)

437 I also anticipate this line of attack for Super Tuesday -- The Carpetbagger vs. The Texan. Remember 'New York values'? It will dent Trump's numbers.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 02, 2016 03:09 PM (gyKtp)

438 "Cards are even worse. Also, they kick your ass out if they catch you counting in the casinos."

Or worse....

Posted by: Sam "Ace" Rothstein at February 02, 2016 03:10 PM (OD2ni)

439 Funnily enough, the term for this misconception is Gambler's folly.

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)

440 There are no circumstances under which I would vote for Rubio.

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)

441 Who would want Cruz as a VP, honestly?
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)

442 "I'm not surprised about Scott Brown. I read that Trump had floated his name as a possible Veep."

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)

443 I count cards at the casino.

All three make me bust.

Posted by: eleven at February 02, 2016 03:11 PM (qUNWi)

444 Flipping a quarter 6 times....T,H,T,T,T,T. The science is settled.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 02, 2016 03:11 PM (2cS/G)

445 Cards are even worse. Also, they kick your ass out if they catch you counting in the casinos.



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)

446 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/)




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)

447 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)

448 May the Democrats suffer Electile Dysfunction.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (xcJZI)

449 If Carson did not want the news of him suspending his campaign for NH and SC being used to influence his potential voters to vote for someone else he shouldn't have broadcast it on CNN. Where Cruz could have avoided controversy ( doubtful , it's politics) is released Carson's subsequent statement. Though I think that's Carson's job myself .

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 02, 2016 03:12 PM (5FQVt)

450 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)


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)

451 "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)"

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)

452 If Cruz is VP, he'll stare at the back of Trump's head, and think



"SOON."


with the scalp weasel replying

http://tinyurl.com/z396pwo

Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (DL2i+)

453 436 Chaps?

Posted by: steevy at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (8HTq1)

454 @427
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)

455 And in other news -- DJIA: -335

Posted by: Soona at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (Fmupd)

456 I make it that Scott Brown was a squishy Republican at best so backing Trump is a no brainstorm

Posted by: Skip at February 02, 2016 03:13 PM (hk3Fb)

457 Ace hit the nail on the head.



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)

458 I actually could see him being VP to Rubio to bring along the insurgent vote.

====

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)

459 Hey great news, DHS has said it's going to reduce border surveillance by 50pct.

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)

460 @310 SH

"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)

461 "Well, if he were elected, we would at least have a smokin' MILFy First Lady, so there's that."

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)

462 yeah, remember, Gore and Kerry were probably also supposed to be electable. Hillary too.

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)

463 No Ace your vote doesn't really count unless you live in a battleground state
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)

464 Unsurprised about Scott. Didn't know about Brown; maybe he sees Somali problems up northeast, so figures Trump as the one most likely to help.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2016 03:15 PM (TOSyM)

465 ""Yes. But that's not what we're saying. The probability of the full 6 flip sequence is 1/64"


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)

466 it was about the NHL Winter Classic at Fenway with the Bruins plying the Flyers (B's won 2-1)


Riiiight! Thank you.

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 02, 2016 03:16 PM (1xUj/)

467

NOOD

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2016 03:16 PM (qCMvj)

468 447
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)

469 >>There are no circumstances under which I would vote for Rubio.

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)

470 ""Yes. But that's not what we're saying. The probability of the full 6 flip sequence is 1/64"


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)

471 Maybe they just kept flipping it until they got it "right." Didn't bother to count the "wrong" flips.

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)

472 Some people here are really going off the rails today. RDS, TDS, CDS.. seems everyone has a case of it.

Honestly..some would pick Sanders over Rubio?? Really??? Eh.. I call bullshit.

Posted by: jewells45 at February 02, 2016 03:17 PM (l/N7H)

473 What are the statistical odds of 90 different precincts having their results come up missing? In the given circumstance, it appears to approach 1:1.

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)

474 Maybe they just kept flipping it until they got it "right." Didn't bother to count the "wrong" flips.

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)

475 I like Rubio. Sure, he's as conservative as Cruz, but he's conservative enough, and he's inspirational, which is something we will need to attract nonalligned voters, and those Dems who are sick of Hillary's BS, but otherwise not willing to vote for a doctrinaire conservative.

Posted by: Anthony at February 02, 2016 03:18 PM (A+FdC)

476 "And in other news -- DJIA: -335"

The Obama economic miracle continues.

Green shoots! Spring of recovery!

Posted by: torquewrench at February 02, 2016 03:19 PM (noWW6)

477 " 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)

478 So the probability of any particular six flip 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)

479 GO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST NOW!

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)

480 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.

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)

481 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)

My sentiments exactly.

Posted by: chique testing testing at February 02, 2016 03:20 PM (QlyN5)

482 The skating rink in New York had been broke for 6 years and it looked like the democrats would need another 10 to fix it.

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)

483 477
" 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)

484 I think all conservatives and republicans should take a good hard look at Marco Rubio. The youth, the vitality, the fact that he can not only speak one language but Is cunnilingious, the desire to work with the 'other side'.

Please don't comb-over his negatives.

Posted by: Disengenious Democrat Crossover Voter at February 02, 2016 03:22 PM (fbovC)

485 Cruz? Oprah? You kiddin' me?

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)

486 Whenever I hear the word electability I immediately think of Karl Rove and want to retch.

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)

487 >>In this case, if you get amnesty no matter what, burning down the corrupt Grand Old Quislings becomes a priority.

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)

488 So the probability of any particular six flip
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)

489 (sigh) They weren't six consecutive coin flips. They were six individual coin flips, in separate locations, putatively without communication between flippers or knowledge beforehand.

Spooky-action-at-a-distance comes into play at this point.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 02, 2016 03:30 PM (xq1UY)

490 In this case, if you get amnesty no matter what, burning down the corrupt Grand Old Quislings becomes a priority.

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+)

491 Maybe they just kept flipping it until they got it "right." Didn't bother to count the "wrong" flips.

It's not like Hillary supporters know what they're seeing regarding head.

Posted by: DaveA at February 02, 2016 03:32 PM (DL2i+)

492 If there's a candidate one likes, one ought to support him.
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)

493 Awesome deductive reasoning there Ace except for the part where you left out that we also have extensive approval and favorability information out there to stare at. That goes a long way toward analyzing relative potential support. That and kittens.

Posted by: Immolate at February 02, 2016 03:35 PM (iO98h)

494 448 May the Democrats suffer Electile Dysfunction.


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)

495
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+)

496 If you hurt a criminal they will arrest you. A UK student came home and found a burglar in the house. He chased him around and out and jumped on a motorcycle. The student pushed the guy over and he broke his leg. The cops arrested the student.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 02, 2016 03:46 PM (iQIUe)

497 SCOTT BROWN IS A 2 TIME LOSER. IDIDNT THINK TRUMP LIKED LOSERS

Posted by: LTCHAM at February 02, 2016 03:49 PM (MzYgJ)

498 In about two or three years, we will read and hear that "former REPUBLICAN (!!!!) United States Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio has been indicted for ________________" I can't decide whether the blank will be filled with charges related to perversion or finances. We live in the Age of Dumb, but GOP primary voters have not yet reached the point where they ignore obvious sleaziness and Marco reeks of it. His Mr. Sunshine act wears thin too quickly to make it past March.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 02, 2016 03:50 PM (6gR7l)

499 Electability begins with one's ability to acquire the votes of dead Illini.

Posted by: Joseph P. Kennedy at February 02, 2016 03:57 PM (Bdeb0)

500 re:last coms
never mind... was blocking the script that enabled it.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at February 02, 2016 04:14 PM (MbrzC)

501 This is a blatant audition for a running mate position.

Too bad for Liberal Scotty that it will eventually be Cruz/Allen West.

Posted by: OrsonSnow at February 02, 2016 04:19 PM (dXevi)

502 "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."

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)

503 "Former NH Senate Candidate Scott Brown to Endorse Trump Today"

"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)

504 "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 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)

505 "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."

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)

506 Scott Brown : I know where you live . I do .

Posted by: jay hoenemeyer at February 02, 2016 09:21 PM (uvj0z)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0683 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0217 seconds, 514 records returned.
Page size 269 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

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)
News/Chat