The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you realize that posts like these say nothing at all? You look unintelligent, and it makes discussions on this website appear worthless.

 If you think that the notion of Trump's winning Oregon is blasphemous, then offer an intelligent explanation, pointing at (for examples) demographics, trends, polls, and past performances in the state.

I could easily say, "OREGON. MIGHT. VOTE. FOR. TRUMP."; and that claim would be just as credible as your post, as you offer no explanation. Anyone can state something, but few people can argue for it.

The inherent political math makes it extremely difficult for a Republican to win statewide, at least with the types of candidates the party has been offering over the past few decades.

Basically in order to have a competitive statewide election a Republican candidate needs to accomplish three things:

1.) Keep down the margins from Liberal Democratic strongholds (Multnomah, Lane, and Benton counties).
2.) Perform extremely well in the Portland suburbs (Washington and Clackamas) and the Mid-Valley as well as flipping Marion County (Salem) and essentially tie or have a net plurality.
3.) Drive Democratic numbers to the floor in Southern and Eastern Oregon to maximize the vote margins and offset #1.

So for example Multnomah County alone provides a raw Democratic vote margin of 100k (2000) to 200k (2008 and 2016) votes and Lane County 15k (2000)-50k. (2008) for a low margin of 115k (2000) and a high of 250k (2008) that all need to be made up from regions #2 and #3.

What conditions would it take?

1.) Low turnout and large 3rd party vote from Sanders supporters in heavily Democratic areas of Multnomah, Lane, and Benton County where Nader got 6-7% in 2000 to keep down the margins to a more manageable 115k D margin.

2.) Running the table in what should be Trump's best regions of the state (Southern and Eastern Oregon) where his economic populist message should play significantly better than McCain '08 and Romney '12 and win most counties by roughly 70-30 margins and essentially garner an Obama > Trump swing and do closer to 2000 and 2004 Republican %. I do foresee some problems with his messaging in Deschutes and Jackson counties where there is frequently larger swings among higher-income socially-liberal and fiscally conservative type voters, although I can see Trump making some inroads into parts of Lane County that are more similar to Southern Oregon.

3.) Flipping the Portland suburbs and Mid-Valley region to make up the difference between Democratic margins in #1 and Republican margins in #2. This will be an extreme challenge. Although I can certainly see a Post-Obama Republican flip Clackamas and Marion counties, the reality is that in order to win statewide a Republican will need to perform extremely well in Washington County, which has been trending increasingly Democratic over the past few decades and is also becoming one of the more diverse counties in the state with a significant and growing population of Latino and Asian-American voters that find Trump's immigration rhetoric and language deeply disturbing. In addition, many of the higher income swing voters work in the Tech Industry (Intel) and for Nike, and are much less receptive to Trump's economic protectionist message.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's a really serious issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source.

What is the hell is the problem with white culture?

Because Black on Black crime is far more common than White on White crime.

This is like saying if 10 White people are killed and 9 of the killers are White and 50 Black people are killed and 45 of the killers of Black, that the "rate is the same" even though White on White crime killed 9 people and Black on Black crime killed 45.

What you're saying is objectively dumb.

Let's see if we can pull that thread a little bit further, and instead of just saying "black people are more in danger of being killed/killing people," ask why that is. Let's ask why the black incarceration rate is as high as it is, why the black poverty rate is as high as it is, why the black unemployment rate is as high as it is. Simply stopping at describing it veers pretty close to implicitly claiming that it's inherent differences in black people/culture that cause this divide, which is absurd.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Burning a book does not erase its meaning, but it does erase our ability to learn from it. There is no better way to ensure such atrocities as those associated with and inspired by that book are never again repeated than for people to read it in the proper context.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, and allow me to explain why.  First of all, superdelegates only make up a very small fraction of the total number of delegates on the Dem side--so small that they have never been able to influence the nomination on their own (at least to date).  Their vote is equal to that of a pledged delegate, not greater.  And it only seems fair that elected officials who are members of the party should be seated as delegates and vote for whichever candidate they support. 

Because superdelegates are unpledged, they can change candidates at any time before the convention, and frequently have.  Although Hillary Clinton had a significant lead in superdelegates for most of the 2008 campaign, many of them switched over to Obama after it became clear he would win the nomination, and Obama ended up winning a majority of them at the convention.  So while it seems undemocratic to use superdelegates, their influence has been greatly overstated by the news media.  They help to maintain stability and prevent the nomination of candidates that can undermine party unity.  If the GOP had this system in place, then superdelegates may have been able to stop Trump from becoming the presumptive nominee.  But because they don't, the party now has a nominee who threatens to divide the party and ensure defeat in November.

While I don't agree with the suggestion that superdelegates should have voted for someone other than Trump, Oldiesfreak raises a number of good points re:superdelegates.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here's an attempt to try and tie this into the current election:


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

What do you get when you rabble rouse hate
Talking as much as O'Reilly at eight
What are you at, with your orange hair
Clownish and garish without any flair
I don't like the look of it

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not hateful, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do
Doompety do


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompeda dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

Talk radio's fine when it's once in a while
Keeps you alert when driving mile after mile
But it's repulsive, revolting and wrong
Being Limbaugh on decaf all day long
The way that Glen Beck does

Oompa loompa doompety da
Given good manners you will go far
You will run Indiana too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

Who do you blame when your Bill is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a siamese cat
Blaming Monica's a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame
The First Lady and the Senator

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will crash glass ceilings too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompeda dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

What do you get running the DNC
A pain in the neck and an IQ of three
Why didn't you try staying Richmond's mayor
Or could you not bear governing there
Was L. G. good practice for being veep

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not greedy you will go far
You will live in the White House too
Like the - Oompa -
Oompa Loompa Doompety do

A++
Good post from True Federalist.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dinkins gets re-elected, for starters

With Re-Election of Dinkins then NYC would have remained the Crime Capital of America to these probably much worse than Chicago and Detroit. NYC now would not be like it is Today. It would definitely just like in the 70's, 80's and Early 90's with full of Crimes, Violence, Shootings, Stabbing, Kidnappings, Robberies, Drugs, Prostitution, Slums, Poverty, Graffiti and e.t.c.

Crime started to reduce under Dikins start again.

"Under Dinkins' Safe Streets, Safe Cities program, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly, both in terms of actual numbers and percentage, than at any time in modern New York City history."

Try Again.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There are occasions when they're appropriate (there is no better parallel to the way the White House is being run, with a multitude of factions who all hate each other, very little clear direction from on high and a leader who specifically wants a darwinian system of overlapping responsibilities than the Third Reich), and people of all sides need to drop the annoying tendency of lapel clutching at every comparison to anything as if the act of comparing is the same thing as equating. But mostly they're lazy and can be downright offensive as well.

But there is a wider point here. Historical comparison only works if the audience gets the history. It may well be that King Michael the Obscure of Belgium is the best comparison to Trump, but if no one has heard of him then comparing the two is rhetorically useless. A large part of the reason that everyone jumps for Hitler comparisons is the Second World War is one of the very few historical events that everyone has in common both through school and through films and TV. If you want a better standard of comparison then you need to teach better history.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

May I please remind you all that for that sort of posts, there's this thread?

I'm confused about what the delineating line between those two threads is supposed to be.