Thursday Open Thread

Sorry everyone, I've been swamped at work and didn't know the last open thread was full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome. I'll be back soon.

Update: Have any of you had trouble accessing TalkLeft today? I am, and our webmaster says others have too. We are trying to figure out if it's a network issue or a server issue. Thanks.

< Flak Over FBI and DEA Impersonations
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A Tale of Two Executives... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    Brand D Executive 1) Hugging and kissing health care heroes who have come in contact with Ebola victims.

    Brand D Executive 2) A waffling which way is the wind blowing today quarantine policy for returning health care heroes.

    The cynic in me says "guess which one is up for re-election next Tuesday?"...but I'd like to think Obama would be this admirable and set this fine example regardless.

    And I'd hate to think what Cuomo would do if his opponents actually had a prayer of winning...lock Dr. Spencer in an abandoned subway tunnel deep underground a la "Twelve Monkeys"?  

    Did you catch Christie giving a former (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:44:01 PM EST
    councilman from Asbury Park a big ol' cup of STFU?

    What a blowhard that guy is...

    And he's been campaigning here for Larry Hogan, the GOP nominee for governor (Hogan's a blowhard, too, so maybe that explains what makes no sense to me: why anyone would want Christie in their corner).


    All over the news here... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:51:39 PM EST
    and yes, any and all politics aside, the guy is such a d*ck.  No class.

    ... I can't see how that scene yesterday helps him with voters, save perhaps for the low-information and submissive types who are almost always impressed by such mindless displays of political d*ck-swinging. But for most everyone else, yesterday's loudmouthed performance serves to once again remind us that the guy is nothing but an emotionally insecure bully, and the very type of abrasive and stunted personality you generally DON'T want anywhere near such an important position of power.

    That former Councilman, (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:06:27 PM EST
    James Keady, "sat down" as ordered by Governor Christie, but did not "shut-up" on the MSNBC Chris Hayes show.  I sure hope that Christie's vaudevillian entertainment, apparently so admired at one point, is now just seen as bald and bullying obfuscation.

    Big Island Update: (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    The lava flow that's presently threatening the village of Pahoa in the Puna district -- called the "June 27 flow," for the date its finger deviated from Pu'u O'o's main SE flow and started moving NE -- slowed down considerably during the overnight hours.

    This is a good thing right now, because it might allow state and county authorities more time to assess what needs to be done, not to save Pahoa, but to remove to the extent possible from the flow's path everything that's not nailed down. Because quite honestly, the current time-out will likely prove meaningless, and Pahoa will be cleaved in two within a few weeks if not sooner.

    With Big Island lava flows, what's out there on its leading edge isn't what counts, or what determines the level of damage it can cause. Rather, it's the potential volume of lava which may be following up behind it. And the Pu'u O'o vent has been a nonstop source for considerable and copious amounts of the stuff for the past 30 years running.

    Much the same thing happened in 1990 at the villages of Kalapana and Kaimu (of "black sand beach" fame) on the southeastern Puna coast. Pele's two month-long respite back then afforded people the time necessary to literally move out of harm's the famous "Painted Church" of Kalapana, Star of the Sea Roman Catholic Church, which Father Damien (now St. Damien) had built by hand back in 1870. With that church now safe, she resumed her flow and within six months had swallowed both villages whole, along with Kaimu's famous black sand beach.

    We'll see what happens. For those of you who are interested in following what's going on, the U.S. Geological Survey Observatory at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has set up a series of live webcams at Kilauea's Halema'uma'u summit and the Pu'u O'o vent in its east rift zone, and also atop Mauna Loa.

    It's been 30 years since Mauna Loa last erupted in 1984, and the its caldera at Mokuʻāweoweo (elev. 13,680 ft.) has once again been showing recent signs of expansion, a potential precursor to eruption. And as you can see from NASA's Jan. 2014 photo of the Hawaiian Islands from space, Mauna Loa is clearly visible on the southwest side of the Big Island (lower right corner of the photo). It is the largest single mountain by bulk and volume in the world, and the long black fingers emanating from its summit shows that its volcanic activity has historically had a very long reach.

    When viewing the webcams, please keep in mind that we're presently six hours behind the east coast, which will change to five hours two weeks from now, once you all go off daylight savings time. So if you check the webcams in the morning where you live, you might glimpse the bright red glow of the lava lake at Halema'uma'u and Kilauea's various active flows. But other times, you'll likely see nothing because it's still nighttime and pitch black.

    And hopefully, you'll be impressed enough by what you see that you'll want to come to the Big Island to visit the volcanoes for yourself. We're one of the very few places in the world where you can view such amazing activity in relative safety.


    Thank you again for the update, Donald (none / 0) (#48)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:32:14 PM EST
    I have been following this because we visited the Big Island with our kids in the mid-1990's, and we fell in love with it.
    It was amazing to walk on the caldera of a volcano, and also to witness a linear vent spewing lava into the sea.  During the daylight hours, a whole lot of steam erupting as the lava hit the ocean.  Even more spectacular at night, with the vent glowing, and the sparks flying as the lava hit the water.
    It makes you really respect the power of Nature (or, let's call it Pele, at least in a volcanic zone).  It really makes you feel small and insignificant as a human being, and to realize that, indeed, there are many things that we cannot do.

    In all likelihood, we will eventually ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:05:04 PM EST
    ... retire to Hilo. Its 200-plus inches of annual rainfall notwithstanding, we just love it over there. It's a funky old plantation town that still very much resembles its early 20th century heyday as one of the world's great sugar producers, and the tourists who do visit that side of the Big Island generally tend to be the more adventurous types who aren't willing to settle for the nominal resort experience. Younger Daughter is presently a student at UH-Hilo, majoring in tropical agriculture.



    We went to Hilo (none / 0) (#75)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 08:06:58 PM EST
    It was lovely.
    We rented a car, so we were able to go all over the Big Island.  Amazing what variety there was.  All of it wonderful.

    I live at the tip of a rain forest too (none / 0) (#93)
    by ZtoA on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    a temperate rain forest. This is the heart of the west coast real rain forest. Love the descriptions of the colors of the Quinalt old growth forest. I've never visited Hawaii, but your descriptions make it seem so much more accessible!

    Regarding the debate on polling (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    In the other open thread.  Here is the NYtimes take on it.

    "In 2010, the polls underestimated the Democrats in every competitive Senate race by an average of 3.1 percentage points, based on data from The Huffington Post's Pollster model. In 2012, pre-election polls underestimated President Obama in nine of the 10 battleground states by an average of 2 percentage points."

    There are a number of reasons for this, demographic changes continue to happen after the most recent census, and polling methods tend to favor traditionally republican markets.  But there is a good reason to suspect that Dems may be under-polled even as polling outfits continue to update their methods.  Obviously I would like this to be true, but it's also a convincing argument.  I guess we'll find out on Tuesday.

    That being said (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    Also in the same article:

    "The Republicans probably have a large enough advantage to withstand another round of modest polling errors. Even if there is another three- or four-point error in Colorado, for instance, the result would be a dead heat in a race that on its own is not at all sufficient for Democrats to hold the Senate. And the Republicans could just as easily counter the effect of any polling error by winning undecided voters, who tend to disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance -- along with their incumbent Democratic senator, Mark Udall.

    Even with the problems that polls have, the Republicans' advantage is clear enough to make them favorites to win the Senate. But if we wake up to the prospect of a Democratic Senate on the morning after Election Day, we should look to the challenges of modern polling as a big reason for the surprise."


    I also (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    have read that some polls are even using 2002 models. In the end we're just going to have to wait and see how right or how wrong the polls are next week.

    Good information (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    But also keep in mind that the polls that favored Republicans in 2010 favor them even more so this year.

    Obama's ratings are lower etc.. etc..

    Also we're finding out that Millenials are now less favorable for Obama so even if the get out the vote machine works like it did in 2010 without Obama on the ballot and with him less favorable it might not fight against the polling as we saw in 2010 and especially 2012.

    Who knows.  I think a republican victory is likely but now that the expectations have been raised for a big win anything short of that will be spun as a victory of sorts.

    Doesn't matter much either way.  Even if Obama does somehow hold on to the Senate or loses it just barely his agenda is over except for executive action and the Hillary vs. Republican X will start in full force November 5th.

    I'm already dreading it.   2 years of nothing but 2016 talk.


    maybe you'll get really lucky (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    And Elizabeth Warren will throw her hat into the ring, so we'll have primary 2008-redux before the general election.

    Oh wait, that's not what you want :)?


    Someone interesting will run (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    No way they just hand it to Hillary.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist but the media can't just have a meaningless primary.  Somebody has to pull a surprise in NH or whatever.    


    Not that anybody flying Brand D cares... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    but I do...Ralph Nader calls Hillary a menace, and calls Rand Paul an ambitious phony.

    Say the word Ralph, you've got my vote again. 5th (or 6th) time is a charm!


    Nobody (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:07:51 PM EST
    is saying that Obama has great ratings but have you looked at the approval ratings for the GOP? They're even lower hence all these polls with a few points difference.

    The GOTV thing was nothing in 2010. A lot of Dems sat home. Obama did nothing IIRC.

    Well, I guess it's more interesting to talk about 2016 than anything else. One election is barely minutes old before the beltway starts talking about the next one it seems. And we have a vacuum of leadership and so here we are.


    They may need to update their data (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    Colorado is trying an experiment this year - everyone got a mail in ballot, that they could mail in, or present to a voting official on election day and then vote. In 2010, around 1.77 million people voted in Colorado, so that's a good reference point (over 2 million people voted in 2012, but that was a presidential election year) So far, many more registered Republicans have voted than Democrats.

    According to returns released Monday more than 660,000 of Colorado's 3 million registered voters have already handed in their ballots.  

    Of those voters 32 percent are Democrats, 43 percent are Republicans and 24 percent are unaffiliated voters

    The numbers update as of today show 1,042,000+ votes cast - with 41.5% of the votes cast by Republicans and 32%+ cast by Democrats.  25% were cast by "Unaffiliated" -  official SOS site.

    So, while things are balancing out two new polls out show Gardner up by as little as 2 and as much as 7. Udall hasn't had a consensus lead since early September.

    As always, things could change, and Democrats could come out to vote, but I think it's reasonable to say that if they were scared of the incumbent losing, or if they were really interested in voting,  there would be many more Democratic votes than there currently are.  Now, only 17% of liberal Denver County voters have cast their ballots, so that could swing, but then again, only 22% of conservative El Paso County (Colorado Springs) voters have cast ballots as well.


    Dems always vote late in Colorado (none / 0) (#46)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    Unlike other states, Dems always turn ballots in later. You don't have to mail your ballot in and lots of people procrastinate and take them to a ballot box just before or on election day. While it is true this is the first year everyone received a ballot through the mail, a lot of us have had a permanent mail in ballot for years.

    Also, a lot of big counties take longer to process the ballots and report the numbers to the secretary of state's office. I live in a republican county and this is the first year I have seen Democratic volunteers going door to door to get every Dem ballot turned in. Also, Dems do well with unaffiliated voters which are the largest voting bloc in the state.

    Don't think you can predict anything right now based on turned in ballots.


    I haven't sent mine back yet (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:26:33 PM EST
    I always wait to the last minute and end up dropping it off on the last day. So there will be at least one more vote coming for Udall and Hickenlooper.

    Nice to see you Dissenter!


    You Too Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#61)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:28:56 PM EST
    I thought (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    this was the first year that everyone got a mail in ballot?  If so, how can you say for sure that "Dems vote later"?

    You also can't discount the "unaffiliated":

    According to Floyd Ciruli, a pollster with long experience in Colorado politics, most of the 411,000 new voters who registered during Udall's term are independents. Consequently, instead of tilting Democratic, party registration in Colorado is still evenly split, with a slight edge for Republicans among "active" voters -- the kind who participate in an off-year election. Says Ciruli: "The state is still in play." Or, as any resident of a Denver suburb will tell you: It's one-third, one-third, one-third.

    No not first year (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:48:11 PM EST
    This is the first year everyone was mailed a ballot but my ballot has been sent to me in the mail for years because I requested a permanent mail in ballot. Anyone could do that. That has been on the books for years. Its common knowledge out here that Dems turn in their ballots late. That is why they have such a good GOTV operation and their candidates ultimately end up winning. They know who has voted and then they concentrate their efforts on those that have not voted yet. They get the ballots in. They often come in late though.

    Dems are the third largest political party in the state. Republicans are second and Unaffiliated is the largest. Unaffiliated tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They end up breaking for Dems because the republicans constantly put up social conservatives. Women will break heavily for Udall as will Latinos.

    I'm not saying Udall can't lose. I am saying that there is a reason the Republicans haven't won a top tier statewide race in quite awhile and if you look at early ballots over the last 10 years you will see Dem numbers climb closer to the election. They live in larger counties and it takes more time to process the ballots and get the numbers into the secy of state. Its kinda normal for CO.

    I only got my ballot in early this year to stop the phone calls to my house. It is like an election ad/polling nightmare out here. Everyone wants this election over. Everyone is sick of it.


    One other thing (none / 0) (#55)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:56:02 PM EST
    Republicans vote for Dems out here all the time. There are a lot of pro choice, pro gay rights republicans out here and they vote accordingly so you can't predict anything based on returned ballots right now.

    Welcome back. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    I looked at your comment history and you've been around for a while but rarely comment.  Like what I've read in this thread so far.  

    Thanks (none / 0) (#58)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:14:58 PM EST
    Haven't been in a space where I could do this. Nice to be back. I did keep up with you guys though. Just couldn't post.

    Just curious (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    I only got my ballot in early this year to stop the phone calls to my house.

    How did they know who you had voted and who you voted for?


    Voting (none / 0) (#85)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 09:32:20 PM EST
    They don't know who you voted for as the ballots don't get counted until election day. However, the parties can check on the names of people who returned ballots. When your ballot has been returned, the signature is matched and your name is checked off as voted. Our ballots have two envelopes. One to return the ballot to the elections office (either through mail, drop off box, etc) and a second envelope which contains the actual ballot. That envelop and the ballot itself contains no identifiable information.

    It takes time to process the ballots and report numbers to the secretary of state office so that is why big counties like Denver often lag in reporting. They have a lot more ballots to deal with at election time than other counties.


    It's public information, Jim. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 10:26:05 PM EST
    When you request and receive an absentee / mail-in ballot, it's so noted on the voter rolls, and both major parties have access to the information on those rolls. Further, most states -- but not all (Hawaii being one of the few that don't) -- also require a voter to declare his or her party preference or political affiliation when they first register, and that's also part of the public record.

    While the individual votes you cast on that ballot are not officially counted and tallied until Election Day, that ballot is recorded as having officially been received by the city / county clerk's office, or whoever's in charge of collecting the ballots and counting the votes in your district. Both parties will regularly check to see who's turned in their ballots, because neither has any interest in wasting money on postage, phone banks, etc., to contact people who've already cast their votes.



    Maddow did her show (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    from CO a couple of day ago and there was a lot of information about past elections and voting habits.   Anyone interested in what may happen next week should watch it.  I'm sure it would be easy enough to find on the show site.
    One on the things discussed is how often polls have predicted republican victory incorrectly.   But it was a lot more than that.

    Link (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    It's on this sliding list of videos under the featured video

    Titled Colorado Voting Something

    Can't link to specific videos for some reason.


    Right (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:47:04 PM EST
    That's an argument for people who think they're going to lose. She sure did tout them all the time in 2008 and 2012 - now, not so much.

    I also posted a piece earlier about how polls have been getting better and better.

    How 2014 is like 2010, and how it's not.

    And considering the Dems this cycle are losing the support of Latinos, single women, and millenials, it does not bode well for lots of success.


    I Don't even know what that means (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    its not and argument at all.  It's a history lesson.  Clearly you are invested in this for some reason.  I'm not particularly but Udall will win.   Wanna bet?

    Hello there, dissenter (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 09:49:31 PM EST
    'Mind saying what Republican county houses you?  BTW, thanks for the reminder about larger counties and voting processing times.

    Douglas (none / 0) (#88)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 10:20:26 PM EST
    As a volunteer for Udall (none / 0) (#84)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    let me just add that I sweat over the slow voting practice in Denver ... not unusual for Democrats here (usually I vote at the end as do all my Democratic friends -- who knows why, but that is another topic), but still, the push is on.  On another thread, I referenced former President Bill Clinton's rally appearances for Senator Udall earlier in the week.  Just a note here that the theme from President to Senator to local Jefferson County Congressman Perlmutter is Get That Vote Out Sooner Rather Than Later.  As you say, we'll see.

    We'll see also how well the targeting works.  That, in itself, is something ... especially as I relate back to the status (or non-status of it when walking precincts 20 or 30 years ago.)  The amount of information is incredible; and yet, you have to wonder about the limits of tech targeting.

    Certainly, one of the most significant aspects this year may be the growing understanding about why polling Colorado's Latino community has been so troubling in the past.  Per Latino Decisions (headed by a Nevada expert who correctly called the 2010 Senator Reid victory when others saw certain loss), a number of pollsters--such as Quinnipiac--demonstrably & significantly under-poll Latinos (either unstated or in the 5 to 7 percent area ... under-polling by half.)  Additionally, pollsters have tended to reach a more affluent group of Latinos and/or conduct the poll in English ... practices which, according to Latino Decisions and other Hispanic activists, ignore the realities of the Colorado Latino community (e.g., those descended from the 17th century settlers or those with recent immigration experiences in their family.)  I recommend the Latino Decisions discussions: it has certainly been an eye-opener for me.  In that regard, a poll in the past few days by Strategies 360 (as reported on Pollster.com) shows a one-point Udall lead using the cautions described by Latino Decisions as well as their own methodology ... Please note that Strategies 360 is the only polling operation that has correctly called the past two elections in Colorado.

    A special key to the Colorado Senate race then: (A) Ensure that Denver & its suburbs GOTV ... and a bit more (B) Enable the growing Latino vote.  As for the latter:  In my usual fashion, I turn to anecdotal evidence ... when a few weeks ago, my husband and I spent time in near West Denver precincts (@60% Hispanic) and were buoyed, indeed, to find tremendous support (sometimes of the anybody-but-Gardner-variety) at the 60+% level for the Democrats.  But, again, all I can say is "We'll see."

    In all honesty...even after 40 years of knocking doors and making political calls for the Dems...this one seems unknown to me.  But then, we felt the same way working in Senator Michael Bennet's 2010 campaign too....  It is the multiple-ways-of-voting thing ... besides early mail-in, there are designated drop-off points (which I used) and, on election day, in-person at selected sites until 7:00pm.  A plethora of choices; does that make it easier or more confusing or lull one or ???  I am one of a number of people who will say that no one really knows what is going to happen in Colorado.

    In closing: I would feel confident with the range of numbers--other than Repub-leaning Suffolk, Rasmussen, and Q throughout the country this year--if the opposition were the usual right-wing goomball.  But, there is a flow of anti-incumbency periodically in the country; and, this is one of those periods ... and Cory Gardner is the spiffed up, smooth brand of right-wing ideologue ... he markets well with a bright smile, but the ideology is most obviously just beneath the campaign surface.  


    Thanks for doing the hard work (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 09:41:44 PM EST
    Our neighborhood never gets targeted by the Dems which has always made me sad. But today a Udall volunteer was going house to house reminding Dems to get their ballots in. I was so excited to see him. He wasn't coming to my house as we turned our ballots in early this year but he was hitting up some of my neighbors so I took this as a very positive sign. It looks to me like GOTV is in full force. Fingers crossed.

    Thanks again for doing the hard work. It is really appreciated.


    I read this (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    earlier today and Georgia is particularly hard to poll due to the fact that the white vote is now 58% instead of 62% four years ago.

    I really think mid terms are hard to poll IN GENERAL and then you have to add the technology problems along with some other issues of people moving to cell phones. I think they're still trying to perfect their models for these kinds of things.


    pet races (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:23:04 PM EST
    right now for me are Georgia and NH.  Winning Georgia would be a huge statement, IMO, about the direction this country is headed.  Plus what's his face just comes across as a total jerk.  That, and I would experience significant schadenfreude seeing Scott Brown lose again.

    What about CO? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    If dems lose that state isn't it also a huge statement?  Don't look at single results as statements.  For every one there is a counter.

    GA is only competitive because she is an old political name.   If she didn't have the name recognition that race would be over.


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    Sorry. Nunn's name has very little to do with and more to do with the idiot the GOP nominated. Another old white guy who thinks the "little women" aren't capable of doing a "man's job". A guy who said in a deposition that he was proud of sending jobs to China are some such and the fact that GA has the highest UE in the nation.

    For me, it would be (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    the "Nunn" name that I would have to get over.  But, of course, it would be easy, first of all, the Nunn is the daughter, Michelle, not the father, Sam, and second of all, this Nunn is running against the Jurassic Republican, David Perdue.

    This will always be Sam Nunn to me (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:41:40 PM EST
    illustrating how icky it would be if a gay man was in there

    This is a photo from the Clinton era DADT debate.


    On that subject (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:47:45 PM EST
    Yes, it is always (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:19:56 PM EST
    important for the country to know what Ted Cruz thinks.  For a "Canadian" he is very patriotic--I think he sings the Star Spangled Banner in the key of ....eh.  

    It's a cable news thing (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:23:21 PM EST
    they are morally obligated to get the Hatfields opinion of any McCoy related story.

    The other thing I like about this pic (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:28:06 PM EST
    is that it looks like John Warner is lost deep in some imagined man on man sexual tableau that could unfold in that bunk.

    less so, IMO (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    Because in my mind at least Colorado is a purple state and Georgia is a red state.  So the Dems losing CO, and a swing state swinging, is less of a statement than Republicans losing GA.  

    Of course she is an old political name - otherwise she wouldn't stand a chance.


    Al Jazeera America (none / 0) (#22)
    by ZtoA on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:18:07 PM EST

    The three states' lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim -- ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too -- 1 in 11 -- are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities.If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week's electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate -- and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count.

    Those commentators (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    were getting weird last night.

    First, they get Tim Hudson - and they start putting graphics about how old he is... They they start saying it out loud - as if we couldn't read the cr@p on the screen.

    Then, an inning and a half later, Tim is retired.
    They start with graphics of how many pitchers lasted as short a time as he did. Then, they say that stuff out loud for us illiterates.

    Anyway - these guys are always searching for a tale to tell. They can't just watch a game. It has to be about something.

    I had to turn the sound down - alternating between totally off, and low enough that I could hear ambient sound, and the yacking was unintelligible although still annoyingly audible.

    It's like they forget they are on TV and (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:32:26 PM EST
    not the radio - that if they aren't saying anything, we can't still see the game.  It drives me nuts when they get so caught up in their conversation they forget to actually call the plays as they're happening.  Or - my favorite - going little-screen-in-the-corner so they can keep talking on a bigger screen to someone who may or may not have anything earth-shattering to say.  Grrrr.

    It's all annoying as hell when you're watching, but if you're doing things around the house and have the broadcast on, it's exactly like listening to the game on the radio.  You don't necessarily mind them reading the graphics to you if you're not in the same room to see them on the screen.

    The constant talk does usually get to me at some point - they do it with football, too - and we sometimes have to just hit the "mute" button to get a break from the droning.  

    Cheer up - baseball is over for a couple of months@


    The exception being... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    if your a NY Mets fan...the convo between Gary, Keith, and Ron up in the booth is usually much more entertaining than what's happening on the field.

    But in this case you guys are right...an exciting 7 Game Series speaks for itself, the booth and graphics team just needs to stay out of the way!

    Congrats San Fran, 3 in 5 years, not too shabby.  Way to represent the league playing real baseball, the National League.

    Though this year I wouldn't have minded KC outta the AL either.  A helluva season and playoff run to reward their long-suffering fans.


    Drinking game (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    Every time Ron tells you he went to Yale or when he says, "Back when I was playing...."

    Double shot... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    when Keith says "Oh my lord!" after a particularly boneheaded Mets blunder.

    If you did that, ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    ... you likely wouldn't make it past the sixth inning of most games.



    I much prefer (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    listening to the games than watching them on TV.
    But even when you just listen, the TV commentary is not nearly as good as the old radio commentary.
    But then, I'm an old f*rt, so what do I know?   ;-)
    Many congratulations to the Giants.
    Next year, it's the St. Louis Cardinals' turn!
    Go, Cards!

    My grandfather used to ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 10:37:23 PM EST
    ... watch Dodger games in TV in the 1980s and '90s with the sound off, while listening to Vin Scully do the play-by-play on the radio. While it took a little getting used to for me, I began to see a method to his madness.

    I used to have the TV on w/o sound (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 10:43:22 PM EST
    so I could listen to Jerry Coleman on the radio for Padres games.

    You know, it wouldn't be so bad if ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    ... they actually had something compelling to say, rather than simply feeling a constant need to fill in dear air. That's where I think older announcers from the prior era like Red Barber, Mel Allen, Phil Rizzuto and Ernie Harwell were so good at what they did. They knew baseball, quite obviously loved the game, and could seamlessly weave a great story into their play-by-play. They didn't just babble away mindlessly like the guys and gals on Fox Sports and ESPN.

    And speaking of old announcers from a bygone era, Vin Scully will be returning for the 2015 season at age 87, which will mark his 66th year behind the mike as the Dodgers' radio and TV voice. I grew up listening to him, and apparently the one concession he's made to age is that he's only doing the home broadcasts, with occasional road games in the Bay Area, San Diego and Phoenix, because those places are an hour or less away by plane -- but no more cross-country travel.



    Vin Scully (none / 0) (#65)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:05:43 PM EST
    Has been announcing as long as I've been alive.
    If he is up to announcing, then, go Vin!

    I agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    Tim McCarver was a gas bag but his chatter had more to do with baseball strategy and why they should or shouldn't be doing some sort of technical move during the game.

    The two color guys now just wax poetically about heart and guts and how amazing a guy sis playing and it really didn't help my knowledge of the game or explain what was going on in terms of how the game was being played.

    To me that is the main job of a color announcer in baseball.  When I'm at the park I can see it all for myself.  How the infield is playing etc...  On TV you have a small window on what's happening and the color announcer is supposed to clue you in to what your eye can't see.

    They didn't do that well.   The ESPN Radio broadcast is much better and quite frankly more entertaining because for the most part they stuck to the baseball.


    Long before I ever moved here, ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    ... the old Hawaii Islanders of the AAA-level Pacific Coast League had a longtime media director and play-by-play announcer named Chuck Leahey, who was also the sports director for the local CBS affiliate KGMB-TV. From most all accounts he was a colorful character, and is still very much-beloved and respected by longtime older residents, even though he passed away in 1982.

    In 1965, Leahey hired and took under his wing a brash 21-year-old guy named Al Michaels, who had just been fired by the NBA Los Angeles Lakers after only four games as that team's radio color man, apparently because Chick Hearn took a very strong dislike to him. Michaels sought out Leahey shortly afterward while on a trip to Honolulu with his parents and on a whim, asked him for a job.

    Michaels would serve as Leahey's sidekick at KGMB-TV and radio station KGU-AM for five years, providing color commentary on Islanders and University of Hawaii football / basketball broadcasts, announcing high school football games and working as a TV sports anchor. In 1968, Leahey promoted him to be the Islanders' play-by-play guy, while graciously consigning himself to be Michaels' color man.

    Michaels freely credits Chuck Leahey as his mentor, not only as the guy who taught him how to call a ball game, but as the person who eventually sent him packing -- only this time, in a very good way.

    Leahey had been in the broadcasting business for a very long time, and over the years he had built up a considerable network of connections with teams and stations around the country. When word came from a good friend in the Cincinnati Reds' front office that they were looking for a new play-by-play announcer for the 1971 season, he strongly recommended that they consider Al Michaels for the position, and sent them an audiotape of his protégé working an Islanders game.

    The Reds listened to that tape, were very impressed and hired Michaels on Chuck Leahey's recommendation. He was on his way.

    Listening to some of the guys who are now calling games and doing color on Fox Sports and ESPN, I have to wonder if their primary mentors and inspirations weren't game show hosts, rather than sports journalists and broadcasters.



    You ain't bad at color commentary yourself, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:18:47 PM EST
    Donald.  In fact, you're first string.

    ... than in broadcast. I've appeared in a few local broadcasts, podcasts and webcasts over the years on issues relating to Hawaii politics, and whenever I've listened to myself afterwards, I think I come across as overly self-conscious of the fact that I'm on the air, rather than in print.

    To that effect, I sound less than spontaneous, the sort of guy who just by listening to him, you'd think he's obviously hiding something or is guilty of something, whatever it is -- even if I'm on your side of the issue! I'm probably the one you want behind the scenes crafting the message, and certainly not out in front before the cameras and microphones delivering it.



    Runoff baby (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    Tired of all the election talk?

    Too bad.

    60% chance this baby goes to overtime.

    My bet is 2 of 3 states go to a runoff with LA all but ascertain.

    AK and GA the other likely and maybe all three.

    I thinks repubs win them all if they go overtime but that won't mean more emails, more cash requests and weeks more of mind numbing analysis by the chattering classes.

    Can't wait!

    The conventional (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    wisdom here in GA FWIW is that both the governor and the senate race are going to have a run off.

    Anonymous source, but...
    Report: Darren Wilson Expected to be `Eased Out' of Police Department

    A source tells MSNBC that Wilson - who fatally shot Michael Brown that touched off months of protests - will be "eased out" of the Ferguson Police Department and might resign.

    Can't see how he could stay in the dept and actually do any work there.

    Maybe they could put him in charge of (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:56:46 PM EST
    community relations?


    Well, with the police chief reportedly being asked to step down, this seems like the next logical step.  It's all going to be for naught if the department itself doesn't undergo some major changes to its approach to policing.

    They may think that closing the door on Johnson and Wilson will make it all go away, but I don't think it's going to be that easy.


    mayor says he's not asking chief to step down.

    But he wants to spend more time with his family (none / 0) (#40)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:55:51 PM EST

    I thought the whole department (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    was being replaced.  No longer?

    Original report by CNN may have been premature (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    Thomas Jackson, Ferguson's police chief, said Tuesday evening he would not step down despite reports to the contrary.

    But discussions among the Missouri congressional delegation, the Missouri governor's office and the St. Louis County Police have included considering replacing Chief Jackson, an official briefed on the talks told the New York Times.
    "While there is precedent and practice of the St. Louis County Police Department contracting with other municipal governments for police services, we currently have no indication that Chief Jackson's separation from the Ferguson Police Department is imminent. Furthermore, there have been no discussions between St. Louis County Police, the congressional delegation or the governor's office regarding a contract between St. Louis County Police and Ferguson." link

    Big Eyes (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:22:13 PM EST

    Big Eyes is an upcoming biographical drama film directed by Tim Burton. The film will focus on the American artist Margaret Keane, whose work was fraudulently claimed in the 1950s and 1960s by her then-husband, Walter Keane. The film tells the story of their heated divorce battle wherein Margaret accused Walter of stealing her paintings. Margaret Keane will be played by Amy Adams, with Walter being portrayed by Christoph Waltz. The film is scheduled to be released on December 25, 2014, by The Weinstein Company.

    Saw the preview of this last week (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    when I went to see St. Vincent. It looked interesting. The other movie preview that interested me as much if not more was The Imitation Game. Film is about "Alan Turing, a key figure in cracking Nazi Germany's Enigma code that helped the Allies win World War II."

    It stars Benedict Cumberba...


    Yes the Turing movie looks great (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    its weird I never even knew about the fraud part of the Big Eyes story.  I never liked the art so I guess I never paid any attention to any story about it.   It's all news to me.  And fascinating. Never thought I would see a "Keane" movie but I totally will.

    Also almost embarrassed to admit I'm really looking forward to the new Ridley Scott Moses movie Exodus-Gods and Kings


    Jian Ghomeshi is in the news (none / 0) (#25)
    by ZtoA on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    He had a very popular radio program from the CBC which was also picked up by NPR. Eight women have now come forward and accused him of assault. This article explains why it is so hard for women to press charges against a sexual abuser.

    I read about his problems this morning ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:21:10 PM EST
    ... in the Vancouver Sun's online edition. Judging by these various media accounts, Mr. Ghomeshi sure seems like a real piece of work, to say the least.

    Eric Frein (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 06:00:36 PM EST
    caputered in Penn.

    Wait, what? (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:14:16 PM EST
    they found his soiled diapers?  He's been wearing diapers?  

    hmmm (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:23:29 PM EST
    State police Lt. Col. George Bivens, speaking at a news conference at the Blooming Grove Township Building in Pike County, said evidence found suggests the 31-year-old is still in the area being searched. That includes soiled diapers -- snipers have been known to use diapers to stay in position for long periods of time -- and a distinctive brand of cigarettes, Bivens said.

    Apparently it's not clear the diapers are his.  I guess I get the staying in one spot thing but when bloodhounds are looking for you ?  I don't think so.


    NBC news (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    FWIW said the diapers tested positive for his DNA. Ewww. I would hate to have been the lab person tasked with that job.

    I guess so. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:41 PM EST
    That is what I read. I guess he did not want to take the time to poop in the woods.

    The Diaper Sniper (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    how humiliating

    He was also hiding close to mommy's (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 08:15:07 PM EST
    house - according to this article.

    I'm trying hard _not _ to picture a line of Action-Whacko collectable figurines, replete with scale model assault rifles, scale model body armor, scale model gas guzzling SUVs, and more importantly, scale model Depends diapers.


    It's my neck of the woods (none / 0) (#81)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 09:05:11 PM EST
    Yep, I am a country gal. Even once lived in Canadensis. A long time ago. I was even born in Scranton. Let me list I grew up in Ft. Lauderdale and worked in San Diego for most of my career. So not all country, heh. I like to think of myself as worldly. Yeah, worldly. And my house was once my Grandfather's dairy barn. Can't get more worldly. All kidding aside, I am extremely happy that this guy has been apprehended and all in once piece. I figured it would be a shoot out resulting in more deaths and sorrow. It also created an uneasy feeling when you would leave the house at night. I was about a 30 minute drive from his house. Lots of woods and I can get lost in my own back 2 acres. It is 48 degrees right now which is good sleeping weather, if you are snug as a bug under the comforter in a big ol king size and a bathroom really close by. It is bad enough that Depend commercials have become the norm as for so many who are lucky to have them when they are needed. But this guy, well, he had the entire forest to relieve himself. He just did not want to leave a scent. But he did anyway. Maybe the next Lincoln commercial will have Matthew doing an endurance run on the highway. You know what I mean.

    Glad balance is restored to neck of the woods (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 09:20:45 PM EST
    one of the coolest houses I've ever seen was in an old barn.   In Pennsylvania actually.

    Two new factlets today. Where the heck is (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    Burkina Faso?  What is the definition of "demonyn"?

    Burkina Faso is in western Africa, (none / 0) (#77)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 08:22:33 PM EST
    on the hump of the continent. It is a land-locked nation bordered by, among others,  Mali, Niger, Ghana.

    A demonym is a word used to (none / 0) (#78)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    describe the people who live in a particular place. You are a Californian. Californian is a demonym.

    Does that mean that Californians are ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 10:31:28 PM EST
    ... demon spawn of the Left Coast? :-)

    In your google search box, (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 08:26:35 PM EST
    type definition: demonym

    What comes up will be a collection of definitions, with suggested corrections to your spelling as necessary.  Here's one:

    A demonym ˈdɛmənɪm, also referred to as a gentilic, is a name for a resident of a locality and is usually, though not always, derived from the name of a locality.


    Yes, I know the answers. And so do you. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2014 at 08:37:23 PM EST
    Per Wiki, the U.S. Has a military base in Burkana which supports our military interventions in the Sudan.