Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

Landrieu definitely has a better chance, for sure.

Bad news for Kay Hagan for reals. Smh. Also NC's state government is batshit insane. It's like they went to war with anything and everything social policy-wise because it turned blue in 2008.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Before you guys freak out about Silvers Predictions lets take a trip back to August of 2012
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...s-are-local-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

In Florida, Senator Bill Nelson’s fundamentals do not look awful. His approval rating exceeds his disapproval rating in most recent polls, and he has raised considerably more money than his Republican opponent, Representative Connie Mack, who easily won the Republican primary on Tuesday. Nevertheless, the race has been polled abundantly, and those polls have gotten tighter and tighter, to the point that the polling averages now show almost an exact tie. I now consider this race a tossup, perhaps tilting ever so slightly toward Mr. Nelson.

In Missouri, Senator Claire McCaskill got the opponent she supposedly wanted in Representative Todd Akin, who is a little more conservative than is optimal for the Kansas City and St. Louis suburbs. But Mr. Akin has led her in several consecutive polls, sometimes outside the margin of error, and his qualifications are fine, with his having been elected to the House six times. Ms. McCaskill has a big war chest, and this will be a nasty and negative race, but Mr. Akin’s polling lead has been consistent enough that I now view the race as tilting toward him.

Honorable mention for the Republicans goes to Wisconsin. I did not actually change the race rating here — I have Republicans with a 55 percent of winning, as I did in May.

To be fair to Nate he was right on the money with them having horrible candidates. And the fear is that one party usually wins all or the vast majority of the toss ups. But its worth noting its still a long ways out.

NC is a horrible state for democrats. The economy is terrible (which reflects on the republican state government, but at the same time the state was in poor shape with democrat leadership too) and they haven't expanded Medicaid. The NC ACA exchange has also been poorly run due to obstruction from the governor.

Bottom line: NC is a state where the lack of the Medicaid expansion hurts democrats, and will ultimately lead to Hagan losing. Withholding the expansion was a cynical ploy to maximize pain for poor and working poor voters, and I'd expect man to simply not vote in November.

Perhaps a Medicaid expansion ballot measure would increase turnout; I know Louisiana is trying to do it. Of course even that won't force the republican legislature to actually install the expansion, but it could drive democrat turnout. I think Landrieu has a solid chance of winning regardless though.

This completely misses an advantage dems have in NC, a motivating factor to get out. Namely their insane legislature and a basis for political organization in the Moral Monday protests.

 

[Diablos]

Also, I don't know about you guys but after glancing at the gaming forum for a couple days, it has become clear to me that my #1 priority when I go to vote in November is which party can better address the ongoing issues with Titanfall. Broken gameplay, subpar resolution -- we simply cannot stand for this. If Kay Hagan and other Democratic Senators can't deal with that then they all need to go!

 

[789shadow]

Also, I don't know about you guys but after glancing at the gaming forum for a couple days, it has become clear to me that my #1 priority when I go to vote in November is which party can better address the ongoing issues with Titanfall. Broken gameplay, subpar resolution -- we simply cannot stand for this. If Kay Hagan and other Democratic Senators can't deal with that then they all need to go!

Sure, Rick Santorum will do large amounts of damage to the social progress we've made, but he'll also require game developers to make all games in 1080p at a minimum framerate of 120.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'll buy the Moral Mondays effectiveness when it produces a political win. Let's see them turn out in November and impact elections.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

The nuclear summit is getting live coverage here in Holland it seems. Wonder how much they will show of the actual talking. Obama just sat down. He seems to be sitting next to Japan and Pakistan.

Edit: Holy shit they're showing a ridiculous video... can't believe they're wasting all these important people's time with this.... It's basically promoting The Netherlands...

Pretty sure Obama was laughing at the absurdness there, though he's good at making it seems genuine pleasure at the display.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So the media is pretending that the Dems pointing out silvers predictions aren't golden this far out is the same thing as unskewing.

 

[Diablos]

Sure, Rick Santorum will do large amounts of damage to the social progress we've made, but he'll also require game developers to make all games in 1080p at a minimum framerate of 120.

Whoa. I think I need to sit down. Maybe eat some more ice cream and read the latest news over Titanfall res. Omg. I stand with Rick, life is good!

 

[zero shift]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...net-has-and-hasnt-reduced-poverty-in-the-u-s/

The article says that the people who did the measurements used a different form of inflation measurement than the government did. That probably explains why the past had such higher poverty than the present. I mean I'm sure the trends line up but not the extremity.

I spent time looking for other measures of poverty and it its kind of shocking to see how many different measurements there are.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Cross posting from the Cosmos thread but if you need a reminder that many libertarians are just as bad a religious fundamentalists on science look no further than this article:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/five-things-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-gets-wrong/

 

[pigeon]

I spent time looking for other measures of poverty and it its kind of shocking to see how many different measurements there are.

That's because technological progress really does lift all boats without necessarily addressing the fundamental inequalities in society. In 1995, it might seem reasonable to put "mobile phone" on a list of luxury goods that only very rich people would own. But if you'd done that, your poverty measurement would be totally out of whack today, because you foolishly assumed that we'd never have a world where cell phones are cheaper than regular meals.

 

[sc0la]

Minimum wage today is still a bit higher in terms of real dollars than most of the last 30 years.

This isn't really accurate.

Source: WaPo

It has varied up and down a bit but the over all trend of the last 30 years of minimum wage is stagnate, and doesn't compare to the late 60s/70s (or even early 80s) in relative buying power.

However, what people don't realize is that tuition costs have greatly outpaced the minimum wage and inflation.
It's really not practical to expect you to pay your tuition with your minimum wage job during college. At best you might be able to battle some of the interest costs of your loans and have some spending money.

I don't think anybody would argue with you on these points, but is that what we aspire to? Work full time at a crap job to maybe offset some interest and buy some burritos?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why did Reid start his attack on the Koch's?

It gets them money

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why did Reid start his attack on the Koch's?

It gets them money

Won't get them votes though.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Won't get them votes though.

They can buy those.

NC is a horrible state for democrats. The economy is terrible (which reflects on the republican state government, but at the same time the state was in poor shape with democrat leadership too) and they haven't expanded Medicaid. The NC ACA exchange has also been poorly run due to obstruction from the governor.

Bottom line: NC is a state where the lack of the Medicaid expansion hurts democrats, and will ultimately lead to Hagan losing. Withholding the expansion was a cynical ploy to maximize pain for poor and working poor voters, and I'd expect man to simply not vote in November.

Perhaps a Medicaid expansion ballot measure would increase turnout; I know Louisiana is trying to do it. Of course even that won't force the republican legislature to actually install the expansion, but it could drive democrat turnout. I think Landrieu has a solid chance of winning regardless though.

You're right as always PD, a state Obama won once and came within 2 points of winning again is far less likely to elect a Democrat than Louisifuckingana

 

[Wilsongt]

I guess if you can't attack the gays and abortion anymore, it's time to attack Science.

Taxpayers fund creationism in the classroom

Taxpayers in 14 states will bankroll nearly $1 billion this year in tuition for private schools, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies.

Now a major push to expand these voucher programs is under way from Alaska to New York, a development that seems certain to sharply increase the investment.

Public debate about science education tends to center on bills like one in Missouri, which would allow public school parents to pull their kids from science class whenever the topic of evolution comes up. But the more striking shift in public policy has flown largely under the radar, as a well-funded political campaign has pushed to open the spigot for tax dollars to flow to private schools. Among them are Bible-based schools that train students to reject and rebut the cornerstones of modern science.

Decades of litigation have established that public schools cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. But private schools receiving public subsidies can — and do. A POLITICO review of hundreds of pages of course outlines, textbooks and school websites found that many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact. Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method — teaching, for instance, that theories such as evolution are by definition highly speculative because they haven’t been elevated to the status of “scientific law.”

And this approach isn’t confined to high school biology class; it is typically threaded through all grades and all subjects.

One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra — to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists.”

Some 26 states are now considering enacting new voucher programs or expanding existing ones, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. One concept that is gaining popularity, on the table in eight states: setting up individual bank accounts stocked with state funds that parents can spend not just on tuition but also on tutors or textbooks, both secular and religious. On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the approach constitutional; lawmakers there are already working to broaden eligibility.

Voucher advocates talk of soon reaching a tipping point, at least in a few key states, when so many students will receive private education on the public dime that everyone demands the option.

Already, about 250,000 students take advantage of vouchers and tax-credit scholarships. That’s just a fraction of the 55 million public school students in the U.S., but it’s up about 30 percent from 2010. Some states have built growth into their laws. In Florida, for instance, public subsidies are set to rise from $286 million this year to about $700 million in 2018 even without further legislative action, as long as demand remains high.

The shifting of public funds to religious schools, especially at a time when scientists are making great strides in understanding the origins of the universe, alarms advocates of strong science education.

“I don’t think the function of public education is to prepare students for the turn of the 19th century,” said Eric Meikle, project director at the National Center for Science Education.

Critics also contend that the growth of voucher programs undermines the bipartisan drive to set uniformly high academic standards across the U.S. through the Common Core, which covers math and language arts, and the Next Generation Science Standards, which set out clear expectations for teaching about evolution and the origins of life. Voucher schools are free to ignore those standards and set their own curriculum, generally with little state oversight.

Participating parents, however, say it’s only right that the state should help them pay for an education that reflects their values. In many cases, that means the book of Genesis rather than “The Origin of Species.” Gallup polls consistently show that nearly half of American adults believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Leah Fernandez, a Georgia mother of two, said she wants her children exposed to all views but used state subsidies to send them to a Christian school because she views a biblical education as essential. When she thinks about her priorities for schools, she said, “My children’s spiritual development is for sure No. 1 on the list.”

More at the link.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century.

Awww, they're gonna miss out on the best parts!

Honestly, I never really thought I'd see math become one of the things attacked by creationists. I mean, I knew they were anti-science, but I always kind of figured math was one of those things they would leave alone. They could fudge numbers and stuff, but I assumed math was a little more...I dunno, sacred, for lack of a better word. I guess now they'll start pushing that pi=3 again.

 

[Wilsongt]

Awww, they're gonna miss out on the best parts!

Honestly, I never really thought I'd see math become one of the things attacked by creationists. I mean, I knew they were anti-science, but I always kind of figured math was one of those things they would leave alone. They could fudge numbers and stuff, but I assumed math was a little more...I dunno, sacred, for lack of a better word. I guess now they'll start pushing that pi=3 again.

You must not have seen the topic where an idiot who is running for governor in Arizona was skeptical of math because it included letters.

 

[PhoenixDark]

They can buy those.


You're right as always PD, a state Obama won once and came within 2 points of winning again is far less likely to elect a Democrat than Louisifuckingana

Obama isn't on the ballot this November. And with respect to Louisiana, Landrieu has a popular last name, is a chairwoman in the Senate, and has a nice war chest. Of course her chances are better than a red state junior senator's.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

You must not have seen the topic where an idiot who is running for governor in Arizona was skeptical of math because it included letters.

I've been trying to forget.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama isn't on the ballot this November. And with respect to Louisiana, Landrieu has a popular last name, is a chairwoman in the Senate, and has a nice war chest. Of course her chances are better than a red state junior senator's.

I said in my original post that Landrieu is a far better politician than Hagan, please try and keep up.

She's also the only elected statewide Democrat in Louisiana in recent times. All else equal, NC is more likely to elect a Democrat than LA. I don't know how you can question that.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I said in my original post that Landrieu is a far better politician than Hagan, please try and keep up.

She's also the only elected statewide Democrat in Louisiana in recent times. All else equal, NC is more likely to elect a Democrat than LA. I don't know how you can question that.

You're right. But I'd argue LA is more likely to elect a Landrieu democrat than NC is likely to elect a democrat senator. That's my point about name recognition, money, and influence. It's not about Landrieu better a better politician as much as it's about her being an establishment entity.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well... it's motivated the same way. I mean, obviously the Dems wouldn't have anything to say if the predictions looked good.

If his predictions don't change as we approach the election... well, I'm sure we'll get plenty of statistics ignorance and idiocy, but hopefully it won't go as far as unskewing.

Yeah, its motivated by the same thing but if you read the memo its actually nowhere near the same thing

Nate Silver and the staff at FiveThirtyEight are doing groundbreaking work, but, as they
have noted, they have to base their forecasts on a scarce supply of public polls. In some
cases more than half of these polls come from GOP polling outfits. This was one reason
why FiveThirtyEight forecasts in North Dakota and Montana were so far off in 2012. In
fact, in August of 2012 Silver forecasted a 61% likelihood that Republicans would pick up
enough seats to claim the majority. Three months later Democrats went on to win 55
seats.

In 2012, Democratic senate candidates won in nearly half of the states where Mitt
Romney beat President Obama (five of 12: North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Indiana, &
West Virginia), proving that senate races are not merely a referendum on the President
or on any single issue but a choice between the two candidates on the ballot. Nate Silver
predicted that Heidi Heitkamp had only an 8% chance of victory and Jon Tester had just
a 34% chance. In 2010, he predicted that Majority Leader Reid had just a 16% chance
and Michael Bennet had only a 34% chance in Colorado. All four are senators today
because they were superior candidates running superior campaign organizations who
made their elections a choice between the two candidates on the ballot. Only three
Democratic incumbent senators have lost reelection in the last ten years, and our
incumbents are once again prepared and ready

We don't minimize the challenges ahead. Rather, we view the latest projection as a
reminder that we have a challenging map and important work still to do in order to
preserve our majority.

It presents the issue with there 1) not being a lot of polling 2) Silver not having the greatest track record this far out.

That's it. That's not unskewing or saying polls are wrong. Yeah, I hope we don't see that but its just frustrating to see them jump at that as proof dems are 'just as bad as republicans.'

 

[Averon]

The media actually take Silver's numbers seriously now? I remember back in '12 when they did everything in their power to discredit the guy.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The media actually Silver's numbers seriously now? I remember back in '12 when they did everything in their power to discredit the guy.

The numbers are in line with the media narrative of "Dems in Disarray." If he found a 60% chance of dems maintaining the senate I'd imagine the media would be full of challenges to his credibility.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The media actually Silver's numbers seriously now? I remember back in '12 when they did everything in their power to discredit the guy.

They like him when he fits the narrative. Dems losing! Bush Unpopular!

They hate him when it doesn't: Republicans to pick up 2012 seats! Dead heat!

 

[TacticalFox88]

The numbers are in line with the media narrative of "Dems in Disarray." If he found a 60% chance of dems maintaining the senate I'd imagine the media would be full of challenges to his credibility.

lol

The notion that somehow the media is liberal is such a colossal fallacy I can't understand how anyone seriously believes it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You're right. But I'd argue LA is more likely to elect a Landrieu democrat than NC is likely to elect a democrat senator. That's my point about name recognition, money, and influence. It's not about Landrieu better a better politician as much as it's about her being an establishment entity.

I think her being a better politician is a culmination of a variety of things. I think her chances are roughly even with Hagan's though and she'll probably be forced into a runoff. (The last time this happened was in 2002 in a Republican year, and she did win)

I hope her brother Mitch Landrieu wins the governor's race - failing that, win the open Senate seat after David Vitter predictably wins.

The media actually Silver's numbers seriously now? I remember back in '12 when they did everything in their power to discredit the guy.

He's so effeminate!

Rasmussen Alaska poll has Mark Begich tied with his opponents... except Joe Miller who he leads by 11. If only we could be so lucky.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If Hillary runs and is at 90% win probability against Jeb Bush/Rubio/whoever, I'd expect the media to once again play the dead heat card. It's not about accuracy for networks, it's about getting people to watch your shows.

 

[TacticalFox88]

If Hillary runs and is at 90% win probability against Jeb Bush/Rubio/whoever, I'd expect the media to once again play the dead heat card. It's not about accuracy for networks, it's about getting people to watch your shows.

Logically speaking, if you got the most accuracy, empirically speaking, wouldn't you get people to watch your shows because they respect your credibility?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Logically speaking, if you got the most accuracy, empirically speaking, wouldn't you get people to watch your shows because they respect your credibility?

Over the long term that is a way to build a loyal viewership among some viewers. But with the news-as-entertainment approach we get from the networks, excitement/suspense/drama are what they use to drive viewers during the election season (and outside of it). Unfortunately, it works wonderfully so they are not motivated to change. Credibility is, um over-rated when you're able to drive ratings that way.

 

[PhoenixDark]

GOP U.S. Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land renewed her call Monday for a repeal of the federal health care reform law on the fourth anniversary of the controversial legislation commonly known as Obamacare.

“The reality is that Obamacare as a whole does not work for Michigan families,” Land, R-Byron Center, said on a conference call with reporters. “Obamacare needs to be repealed because it increases the cost and it’s already caused a massive loss of plans.”

minutes later:

Land declined to say definitively whether she supports one of the key tenets of the law — the expansion of Medicaid coverage for low-income families that has been backed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and goes into effect April 1 in Michigan.

“Obamacare does not work,” Land said Monday. “I applaud Gov. Snyder for doing what’s best for Michigan families while complying with the federal mandate.”

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140324/POLITICS03/303240075#ixzz2wuJtNCpy

lol

 

[GaimeGuy]

Question. I don't mean to sound like a conservative asshole but, to stop people from gaming the system by staying unemployed and collecting welfare or what have you, why not just make it mandatory to sign up for a staffing agency after eight months of unemployment?

you do realize that while unemployed, you have to be looking for a job to qualify for most forms of welfare, right?

No one gets welfare that can't make the argument they're not trying.

And no one gets included in unemployment numbers that isn't actually looking for work.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in october 2013 was 7.3% for the United States.

That means 7.3% of the people in the country who have a job or are looking for a job are unable to find a job, despite their efforts.

For every 927 people that are working, there are 73 people who can't find work despite their efforts.

 

[zero shift]

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in october 2013 was 7.3% for the United States.

That means 7.3% of the people in the country who have a job or are looking for a job are unable to find a job, despite their efforts.

That's how unemployment is measured? People who have jobs that looking for work but can't find it?

For every 927 people that are working, there are 73 people who can't find work despite their efforts.

Link?

 

[GaimeGuy]

That's how unemployment is measured? People who have jobs that looking for work but can't find it?



Link?

For the first part: Yes, that's how it's measured.

For the last part: That's just what the unemployment rate means in natural language. A / (A + B). A is the number of unemployed people that are looking for work. B is the number of people employed. A + B is the total # of workers.

Within a group of 1000 workers, 73 of the 1000 won't find work. Or for every 927 people employed, 73 people will be unemployed. Or the unemployment rate is 7.3%. or for every 1000 workers, there are only 927 jobs.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

minutes later:

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140324/POLITICS03/303240075#ixzz2wuJtNCpy

lol

Terri Lynn Romney.

 

[AndyD]

That's how unemployment is measured? People who have jobs that looking for work but can't find it?



Link?

I think he left out the "not".

Counted are people who do not have jobs but are looking for work but can't find it.
The people not counted are the people who do not have a job and are also not looking for one.

The having a job but also looking is the under-employed number. For example someone with a law degree but working at starbucks may be trying to find employment as a lawyer, and if unable, they are classified as under-employed. They have a job, but they are nevertheless looking for a better one to suit their skills, and are unable to find that better job.

 

[GaimeGuy]

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm For underemployment numbers.

 

[Aaron Strife]

minutes later:

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140324/POLITICS03/303240075#ixzz2wuJtNCpy

lol

Nate Silver called her a great candidate.

She's doing exactly what Snyder did to get elected, trying to weasel out of holding any actual positions so she can pretend like she's moderate.

 

[Black Mamba]

How is that Lean Republican if its literally 50-50?

Its also showing that Republicans aren't likely to get the gains to keep their potential majority in 2016. They need a net 10 or so to really feel confident about that.



There was a stupid slate article saying its bad to call for that because she's a good judge. Which is completely missing the point. She should resign because the supreme court is not only about writing good desenting opinions its about getting the best majority judgement and that's not gonna happen if we have a conservative replace her.

While I disagree with the argument the article makes, I think at this point in time the conclusion is correct. Ginsberg should stay.

Barring an affliction that occurs like this month, Ginsberg retiring will not take place immediately no matter what. That means she'll serve out this term and probably the next. That means at best by the time any nomination is up, it's almost the election.

Now, that leaves us with some problems.

1. Will the GOP allow a vote on anyone for the 2014 midterms? the answer is obviously "no."

2. Will Reid change the filibuster rules? Absolutely not right before the election for a SCOTUS member.

That means there will be no vote before the election. And I'd go so far as to say until the new senators are sworn in.

Let's be realistic. Almost everything says the GOP will gain Senate seats. Even if they don't get a majority back, at best it will be 52-48 and likely 51/49 or 50/50 with Biden being the deciding vote.

So, now we have problems. There is no way in hell a 48+ GOP Senate is voting for anyone Ginsberg-like into the Court. There is also no way Reid gets rid of the filibuster with 52 or less votes.

There's always the possibility the GOP filibusters everyone for two years but I find this doubtful.

So what would the outcome be? Obama would be forced (and you know he'll acquiescence) to nominating the most far right candidate the Dems will be willing to vote for. This would be a pretty bad outcome for Democrats and liberals. Yeah, it's better than replacing Ginsberg with Scalia but it's still a bad replacement.

However, if Ginsberg waits another 2 years and retires, what then? Well, I'd argue the odds are very good we'll still have a Dem President but now we'll have 57+ Dem Senators as well. And after this slaughter, the GOP will be forced to allow a more liberal replacement and if not, Reid will have the authority to bypass the filibuster.

Sure, there's a risk the dems don't win the white house (however, gaining Senate seats is even more likely) but I think it's worth that risk.

So we can have a very mediocre replacement for Ginsberg or we could ride it out and take a small risk to achieve a bigger payout with a good Ginsberg replacement.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

While I disagree with the argument the article makes, I think at this point in time the conclusion is correct. Ginsberg should stay.

Barring an affliction that occurs like this month, Ginsberg retiring will not take place immediately no matter what. That means she'll serve out this term and probably the next. That means at best by the time any nomination is up, it's almost the election.

Now, that leaves us with some problems.

1. Will the GOP allow a vote on anyone for the 2014 midterms? the answer is obviously "no."

2. Will Reid change the filibuster rules? Absolutely not right before the election for a SCOTUS member.

That means there will be no vote before the election. And I'd go so far as to say until the new senators are sworn in.

Let's be realistic. Almost everything says the GOP will gain Senate seats. Even if they don't get a majority back, at best it will be 52-48 and likely 51/49 or 50/50 with Biden being the deciding vote.

So, now we have problems. There is no way in hell a 48+ GOP Senate is voting for anyone Ginsberg-like into the Court. There is also no way Reid gets rid of the filibuster with 52 or less votes.

There's always the possibility the GOP filibusters everyone for two years but I find this doubtful.

So what would the outcome be? Obama would be forced (and you know he'll acquiescence) to nominating the most far right candidate the Dems will be willing to vote for. This would be a pretty bad outcome for Democrats and liberals. Yeah, it's better than replacing Ginsberg with Scalia but it's still a bad replacement.

However, if Ginsberg waits another 2 years and retires, what then? Well, I'd argue the odds are very good we'll still have a Dem President but now we'll have 57+ Dem Senators as well. And after this slaughter, the GOP will be forced to allow a more liberal replacement and if not, Reid will have the authority to bypass the filibuster.

Sure, there's a risk the dems don't win the white house (however, gaining Senate seats is even more likely) but I think it's worth that risk.

So we can have a very mediocre replacement for Ginsberg or we could ride it out and take a small risk to achieve a bigger payout with a good Ginsberg replacement.

I forgot how slow the senate moves. So yeah. Your probably right. A 2016 senate is much more likely to get a great judge on the court. But I'm expecting either Kenedy or Scalia to leave the court before 2020. They'll both be in their 80s by then.

Its horrifying how much is going to ride on the 2016 election. We really need Hilary.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I forgot how slow the senate moves. So yeah. Your probably right. A 2016 senate is much more likely to get a great judge on the court. But I'm expecting either Kenedy or Scalia to leave the court before 2020. They'll both be in their 80s by then.

Its horrifying how much is going to ride on the 2016 election. We really need Hilary.

Someone has to save the democrat party from the tarnishing it has had over the last few years.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Someone has to save the democrat party from the tarnishing it has had over the last few years.

While much of the current situation of the party can be blamed on Obama's choice of Health Care over the Economy and endless searches for "Bipartisianship" which is code for right-wing solutions I think Obama's greatest achievement will be building the party into the multi constituencies it is today. His work really made women, latinos, youth part of the base and moved us past the DLC type rhetoric on the campaign trail which will work its way into politics. A Hilary presidency will have to thank Obama, without his work especially 2012 onward she'd not be the favorite she is.

 

[Black Mamba]

I forgot how slow the senate moves. So yeah. Your probably right. A 2016 senate is much more likely to get a great judge on the court. But I'm expecting either Kenedy or Scalia to leave the court before 2020. They'll both be in their 80s by then.

Its horrifying how much is going to ride on the 2016 election. We really need Hilary.

If a Dem can win the White House in 2016, that could lead to an eventual Ginsberg, Scalia, Kennedy, and possibly breyer replacement on the Court (w/outside shot of Thomas). That's to add to Roberts, Alito, Sotameyer, and Kagan.

Assuming the Dems were to hold for 8 years, you're talking about a massive court shift since 2008.

 

[Frank the Great]

Cross posting from the Cosmos thread but if you need a reminder that many libertarians are just as bad a religious fundamentalists on science look no further than this article:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/five-things-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-gets-wrong/

I am very impressed by the stupidity of this article.

 

[B-Dubs]

Cross posting from the Cosmos thread but if you need a reminder that many libertarians are just as bad a religious fundamentalists on science look no further than this article:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/five-things-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-gets-wrong/

That's a whole lot of stupid in a very small article.

 

[zero shift]

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm For underemployment numbers.

I'm confused on U-1: "U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;" So that means of everyone who is looking for a job only 3.9% won't find one by 15 weeks?

While much of the current situation of the party can be blamed on Obama's choice of Health Care over the Economy and endless searches for "Bipartisianship" which is code for right-wing solutions I think Obama's greatest achievement will be building the party into the multi constituencies it is today. His work really made women, latinos, youth part of the base and moved us past the DLC type rhetoric on the campaign trail which will work its way into politics. A Hilary presidency will have to thank Obama, without his work especially 2012 onward she'd not be the favorite she is.

This is a good point. Obama seemed to solve the problem Dems have had since the 80s. The lack of a firm base.

Cross posting from the Cosmos thread but if you need a reminder that many libertarians are just as bad a religious fundamentalists on science look no further than this article:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/five-things-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-gets-wrong/

The best parts:

Any time a scientist begins a sentence with “Many of us suspect,” it is codespeak for “we sit around and discuss it at the bar.”

On January 1st, we had the Big Bang and on December 31st, I am alive, less than a tiny fraction of a millisecond before midnight. That can’t be right — it took me a whole day just to write this article.

Oh, Cosmos is not being literal? Oddly, a number of religious critics, Tyson included, insist that too many religious people believe the Book of Genesis is taken literally by people who read the Bible. Unless we accept that figurative comparisons help make large ideas manageable, a year is no more accurate than six days — it is instead a completely arbitrary metric invented to show some context for how things evolved.

It seems odd to be critical when religion does it and then invent a new timescale for how the universe came to be. It’s almost like we are to believe that short timescales are opiates for the masses.

 

[benjipwns]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio

This can sometimes be more useful to grasp the state of employment than the standard unemployment rate.

 

[zero shift]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

I was looking at this earlier. The problem is that includes seniors. Ideally when looking at employment it would be 18 to 64. The Wikipedia one is interesting.

 

[benjipwns]

That's my fault for just grabbing the main one, you can find other versions like that of it elsewhere:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/32445
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm