The Suicide Watch
Sunday, May 11. 2008
Hi Kiddos!
Generally speaking, I am not a big fan of bunting or the hit and run, trading bases for outs often is a losing proposition.
Here are my thoughts on the botched attempt last night.
#1.) You can't blame mosquitoes -- too early in the year.
#2.) You can't blame Bill Hall, he was standing next to Sveum, there is no way Bill Hall to miss a signal, as there is no signal to give -- Sveum just tells Hall to run.
#3.) You can't blame Dale Sveum. I know it has become en vogue in Milwaukee to run through Dale's stop signs, but it looks like he got the signs correct from the dugout.
#4.) You can blame Jason Kendall for missing the sign. I am not sure why he did, but he certainly didn't do what he was supposed to.
#5.) You can blame Ned Yost for not understanding the game situation -- Here is a recap of the game situation before Yost called for the squeeze
Essentially you have a pitcher that is struggling, walking 2 batters on 9 pitches, and a professional batter in Kendall that is certainly able to take a walk -- squeezing without seeing a pitch.
#6.) You can blame Ned Yost for not understanding the run expectation of the situation.
Run expectation.
For bases loaded and 1 out, the "Runs Expectation" is about 1.66, if the squeeze fails (2nd, 3rd 2 outs) the Expectation falls to about .612. If Kendall strikes out or pops up, i.e. bases loaded 2 outs the Run Expectation is .785. Therefore putting on the squeeze in last night's situation reduced our chances of scoring runs. I am sure someone is wondering about the DP...
#7.) You can blame Ned Yost for overestimating the chance Kendall hits into a DP. -- Anytime a runner is on first base, and there are less than 2 outs, hitting into a DP is a very real possibility FOR ANY BATTER. Kendall has hit into a grand total of 0 DPs this year. Last year, over 200 major leaguers hit into more DPs than Kendall, so I think the likelihood that Kendall hits into a DP (especially against Springer) is entirely overstated (Kendall's GO/AO has trended downward as well). Also, if it was a foregone conclusion to Yost that Kendall was going to hit into a DP, why not PH him? Furthermore Kendall has decent wheels, and the IF was playing in -- a DP was unlikely.
#8.) You can blame Yost for playing for one run, when everyone knows our BP has been whoring up runs pretty regularly. -- As the old saying goes, you play for one run, you get one run. Getting 2 or 3 runs in last night would have given Gagne a little more cushion to work with, if you haven't noticed, Gagne has been struggling.
#9.) You can blame Yost for not having Kendall acknowledge the sign -- Most teams run competently have the batter signal back to the coach, that the squeeze is on for 2 reasons. First, the obvious reason is so you don't run your team out of the inning. Secondly, if Kendall swings away he could kill the runner coming down the 3rd base line. Make all the jokes you want about Hall's recent lack of production, no one needs to see him taking a line drive at point blank range.
#10.) You can blame Yost for failing to properly understand his team's ability to execute -- No one seems to pay attention to Dale Sveum, players run through his stop signs continually and the team makes a lot of blunders at the plate and on the field. Yost does not seem to understand, that the Brewers are not exactly the tightest ran team in MLB right now, and calling a play like the squeeze was probably doomed from word go. Perhaps a struggling team should get back to and stick to the basics.
At the end of the day, I think Yost wanted to show everyone how smart he was, perhaps even smarter than Tony LaRussa, and I think he outmaneuvered his team out of a win.
Not so random video...
Generally speaking, I am not a big fan of bunting or the hit and run, trading bases for outs often is a losing proposition.
Here are my thoughts on the botched attempt last night.
#1.) You can't blame mosquitoes -- too early in the year.
#2.) You can't blame Bill Hall, he was standing next to Sveum, there is no way Bill Hall to miss a signal, as there is no signal to give -- Sveum just tells Hall to run.
#3.) You can't blame Dale Sveum. I know it has become en vogue in Milwaukee to run through Dale's stop signs, but it looks like he got the signs correct from the dugout.
#4.) You can blame Jason Kendall for missing the sign. I am not sure why he did, but he certainly didn't do what he was supposed to.
#5.) You can blame Ned Yost for not understanding the game situation -- Here is a recap of the game situation before Yost called for the squeeze
a.) Ron Villone enters the game in the bottom of the Eighth.
b.) Fielder hits a HR
c.) Russ Springer replaces Villone (Springer 7.50 ERA 7BBs/7IP)
d.) Hart flies out to center
e.) Hall BBs on 4 pitches.
f.) Hardy gets an IF single
g.) Dillon BBs on 5 pitches.
h.) On the first pitch to Kendall, Hall is caught stealing home.
Essentially you have a pitcher that is struggling, walking 2 batters on 9 pitches, and a professional batter in Kendall that is certainly able to take a walk -- squeezing without seeing a pitch.
#6.) You can blame Ned Yost for not understanding the run expectation of the situation.
Run expectation.
For bases loaded and 1 out, the "Runs Expectation" is about 1.66, if the squeeze fails (2nd, 3rd 2 outs) the Expectation falls to about .612. If Kendall strikes out or pops up, i.e. bases loaded 2 outs the Run Expectation is .785. Therefore putting on the squeeze in last night's situation reduced our chances of scoring runs. I am sure someone is wondering about the DP...
#7.) You can blame Ned Yost for overestimating the chance Kendall hits into a DP. -- Anytime a runner is on first base, and there are less than 2 outs, hitting into a DP is a very real possibility FOR ANY BATTER. Kendall has hit into a grand total of 0 DPs this year. Last year, over 200 major leaguers hit into more DPs than Kendall, so I think the likelihood that Kendall hits into a DP (especially against Springer) is entirely overstated (Kendall's GO/AO has trended downward as well). Also, if it was a foregone conclusion to Yost that Kendall was going to hit into a DP, why not PH him? Furthermore Kendall has decent wheels, and the IF was playing in -- a DP was unlikely.
#8.) You can blame Yost for playing for one run, when everyone knows our BP has been whoring up runs pretty regularly. -- As the old saying goes, you play for one run, you get one run. Getting 2 or 3 runs in last night would have given Gagne a little more cushion to work with, if you haven't noticed, Gagne has been struggling.
#9.) You can blame Yost for not having Kendall acknowledge the sign -- Most teams run competently have the batter signal back to the coach, that the squeeze is on for 2 reasons. First, the obvious reason is so you don't run your team out of the inning. Secondly, if Kendall swings away he could kill the runner coming down the 3rd base line. Make all the jokes you want about Hall's recent lack of production, no one needs to see him taking a line drive at point blank range.
#10.) You can blame Yost for failing to properly understand his team's ability to execute -- No one seems to pay attention to Dale Sveum, players run through his stop signs continually and the team makes a lot of blunders at the plate and on the field. Yost does not seem to understand, that the Brewers are not exactly the tightest ran team in MLB right now, and calling a play like the squeeze was probably doomed from word go. Perhaps a struggling team should get back to and stick to the basics.
At the end of the day, I think Yost wanted to show everyone how smart he was, perhaps even smarter than Tony LaRussa, and I think he outmaneuvered his team out of a win.
Not so random video...
North Carolina + Indiana primaries today.
Tuesday, May 6. 2008
North Carolina and Indiana are rocking the polling stations today. Generally at this point in the year, primaries are a formality as the nominees have been chosen. This year however, things are much different
Where do things stand as of now?
Here are the latest totals (estimated):
Here is an updated table that includes Clinton's win in PA (12 net delegates) and Guam.
What the hell is a Guam?
Guam is this fantastic little island in the Pacific --
Guam is located about 2 inches via orange arrow away from South Korea:
Guam is interesting, as its population (~173,000) cannot vote in the general election but are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary.
Over 4,500 people voted in Guam on Saturday, and Obama won by 7 votes (2264-2257). Despite Obama's win, he and Clinton split 4 delegates 2-2.
What happened in PA?
About 2.3 million democrats showed up to vote in PA, with Clinton getting about 55% of the vote -- which is pretty much spot on with what the polls predicted, as noted above Clinton gained 12 delegates in the Quaker State.
So this was good for Clinton?
Definitely. Clinton needed to win PA, and she did convincingly. It should be noted though, Clinton was leading Obama by 20+ points earlier in the year, so while Clinton won, Obama took a lot of her votes away over the course of the primaries.
What happens today?
North Carolina (115 delegates) and Indiana (72 delegates) are voting today. The 187 delegates in play tonight, represent roughly 50% of the remaining delegates, and are the 2 largest states (delegate-wise) that have yet to vote in the Democratic primary.
Indiana is an open primary, so any voter (GOP or Ind.) can cast a vote today in the Hoosier state.
North Carolina has a modified primary, which allows unaffiliated voters to vote in either primary, but registered GOPs cannot vote in the DEM primary and DEMs cannot vote in the GOP contest. About 21% of NC's voters are non-affiliated, and with the GOP nomination wrapped up, a significant number of those Independent voters may participate in the DEM contest.
Indiana first?
Sure. Indiana will have 47 delegates assigned at the congressional district level and 25 at the state level.
Here is a picture of the congressional districts in Indiana.
There are nine districts in Indiana. Here is a table summarizing how they are distributed
Looking at this table, you can see that there are 3 districts with 4 delegates, 1 with 5, and 5 with 6. Taking this a step further, 8 of the 9 districts have an even amount of delegates, this means unless one candidate gets over 58% of the vote in the even-delegated districts -- the delegates will be shared equally. (The number in parenthesis would be the next threshold to win additional delegates -- for example in a 6 delegate district, if a candidate gets 75% of the vote they would win 5 of 6 delegates)
Therefore it is very likely that at the district level, there will be a net gain of one delegate. It is certainly in the realm of possibility that Clinton could get 58.34% of the votes in a rural district allowing her to win 4 of 6 delegates, however that would likely be negated by Obama winning 4 of 6 delegates in the Indianapolis district.
The state-wide delegates (25 of them), are allocated according to the state-wide vote. So if Clinton gets 55% of the state-wide vote -- she will get 14 delegates, Obama would get 11.
What do the polls suggest?
The polls suggest that Indiana will be competitive. Most polls suggest that Clinton will win, but with a narrow margin, something like a 52-48 outcome.
What do you think will happen?
I think Clinton will win the state-wide vote, and pick up a delegate at the district level. I would guess she will gain 2 delegates overall in Indiana.
What about North Carolina?
North Carolina has 115 delegates -- 77 of them at the district level, 28 that will be doled according to the state-wide vote.
Here is a super cool picture of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.
Using the same methodology that we did for Indiana, here is the table with the district/delegate breakdown.
Seven of the thirteen districts have an odd number of delegates, as opposed to Indiana where all but one district had an even number of delegates.
What do the polls suggest?
Obama has polled well in NC, consistently showing a 10 point lead, this contest should not be as close as Indiana will be.
What do you think will happen?
I suspect that Obama will win the state wide vote in the vicinity of 55-45%, roughly allocating him 16 of the 28 state-wide delegates. I think he will win 5 of the 7 odd-numbered districts, giving him a net of 3 delegates at the state level.
This means overall I think Obama will be +7 in NC.
What will happen at the end of the night?
If my predictions are accurate at all, Obama should be about +7 in NC, and Clinton +2 in Indiana giving Obama a 5 delegate advantage.
Wow only 5 delegates after all of this, it hardly seems worth it.
Probably. However victories in IN and NC will help to sway the super-delegates, and that represents Clinton's only chance at winning the nomination.
According to the table at the very top of this article, there are only 405 pledged delegates left -- Clinton needs 419 delegates to win the nomination which exceeds 405, so she will absolutely need to rely on the love of the superD's. Obama needs 286 delegates for the nomination. He would need to win all of the remaining primaries at a 70% clip to win the nomination before the national convention -- this is entirely unlikely.
So can Clinton win the nomination?
I think so. It is unlikely however. If we assume that the remaining 405 pledged/primary delegates are split evenly (Clinton 205, Obama 200). Clinton would need 214 of the remaining 286 (75%) Super Delegate votes -- I don't think that sort of spread is likely to happen.
It is important to keep in mind that none of the 796 Super D's are etched in stone, and they could (and have been) changing what column they end up in. All 796 could decide tomorrow to support either Clinton or Obama.
Random Video?
Sure
Where do things stand as of now?
Here are the latest totals (estimated):
| Candidate | Pre-ST Delegates | ST Delegates | Post-ST Delegates | Total Pledged Delegates | Super Delegates | 5/5 Overall Total Delegates | Delegates Needed to win (2025) |
| Barack Obama | 72 | 847 | 573 | 1492 | 247 | 1739 | 286 |
| Hillary Clinton | 47 | 834 | 457 | 1338 | 268 | 1606 | 419 |
| Available | 18 (Edwards) | 0 | 405 | 423 | 281 | 704 | // |
| Total | 137 | 1681 | 1435 | 3253 | 796 | 4049 | // |
Here is an updated table that includes Clinton's win in PA (12 net delegates) and Guam.
What the hell is a Guam?
Guam is this fantastic little island in the Pacific --
Guam is located about 2 inches via orange arrow away from South Korea:
Guam is interesting, as its population (~173,000) cannot vote in the general election but are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary.
Over 4,500 people voted in Guam on Saturday, and Obama won by 7 votes (2264-2257). Despite Obama's win, he and Clinton split 4 delegates 2-2.
What happened in PA?
About 2.3 million democrats showed up to vote in PA, with Clinton getting about 55% of the vote -- which is pretty much spot on with what the polls predicted, as noted above Clinton gained 12 delegates in the Quaker State.
So this was good for Clinton?
Definitely. Clinton needed to win PA, and she did convincingly. It should be noted though, Clinton was leading Obama by 20+ points earlier in the year, so while Clinton won, Obama took a lot of her votes away over the course of the primaries.
What happens today?
North Carolina (115 delegates) and Indiana (72 delegates) are voting today. The 187 delegates in play tonight, represent roughly 50% of the remaining delegates, and are the 2 largest states (delegate-wise) that have yet to vote in the Democratic primary.
Indiana is an open primary, so any voter (GOP or Ind.) can cast a vote today in the Hoosier state.
North Carolina has a modified primary, which allows unaffiliated voters to vote in either primary, but registered GOPs cannot vote in the DEM primary and DEMs cannot vote in the GOP contest. About 21% of NC's voters are non-affiliated, and with the GOP nomination wrapped up, a significant number of those Independent voters may participate in the DEM contest.
Indiana first?
Sure. Indiana will have 47 delegates assigned at the congressional district level and 25 at the state level.
Here is a picture of the congressional districts in Indiana.
There are nine districts in Indiana. Here is a table summarizing how they are distributed
| Number of delegates | Number of districts | Threshold for advantage |
| 4 | 3 | 62.51% |
| 5 | 1 | 50.01% (70.01%) |
| 6 | 5 | 58.34% (75.01%) |
Looking at this table, you can see that there are 3 districts with 4 delegates, 1 with 5, and 5 with 6. Taking this a step further, 8 of the 9 districts have an even amount of delegates, this means unless one candidate gets over 58% of the vote in the even-delegated districts -- the delegates will be shared equally. (The number in parenthesis would be the next threshold to win additional delegates -- for example in a 6 delegate district, if a candidate gets 75% of the vote they would win 5 of 6 delegates)
Therefore it is very likely that at the district level, there will be a net gain of one delegate. It is certainly in the realm of possibility that Clinton could get 58.34% of the votes in a rural district allowing her to win 4 of 6 delegates, however that would likely be negated by Obama winning 4 of 6 delegates in the Indianapolis district.
The state-wide delegates (25 of them), are allocated according to the state-wide vote. So if Clinton gets 55% of the state-wide vote -- she will get 14 delegates, Obama would get 11.
What do the polls suggest?
The polls suggest that Indiana will be competitive. Most polls suggest that Clinton will win, but with a narrow margin, something like a 52-48 outcome.
What do you think will happen?
I think Clinton will win the state-wide vote, and pick up a delegate at the district level. I would guess she will gain 2 delegates overall in Indiana.
What about North Carolina?
North Carolina has 115 delegates -- 77 of them at the district level, 28 that will be doled according to the state-wide vote.
Here is a super cool picture of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.
Using the same methodology that we did for Indiana, here is the table with the district/delegate breakdown.
| Number of delegates | Number of districts | Threshold for advantage |
| 4 | 1 | 62.51% |
| 5 | 4 | 50.01% (70.01%) |
| 6 | 5 | 58.34% (75.01%) |
| 7 | 2 | 50.01% (64.3%) |
| 9 | 1 | 50.01% (66.67%) |
Seven of the thirteen districts have an odd number of delegates, as opposed to Indiana where all but one district had an even number of delegates.
What do the polls suggest?
Obama has polled well in NC, consistently showing a 10 point lead, this contest should not be as close as Indiana will be.
What do you think will happen?
I suspect that Obama will win the state wide vote in the vicinity of 55-45%, roughly allocating him 16 of the 28 state-wide delegates. I think he will win 5 of the 7 odd-numbered districts, giving him a net of 3 delegates at the state level.
This means overall I think Obama will be +7 in NC.
What will happen at the end of the night?
If my predictions are accurate at all, Obama should be about +7 in NC, and Clinton +2 in Indiana giving Obama a 5 delegate advantage.
Wow only 5 delegates after all of this, it hardly seems worth it.
Probably. However victories in IN and NC will help to sway the super-delegates, and that represents Clinton's only chance at winning the nomination.
According to the table at the very top of this article, there are only 405 pledged delegates left -- Clinton needs 419 delegates to win the nomination which exceeds 405, so she will absolutely need to rely on the love of the superD's. Obama needs 286 delegates for the nomination. He would need to win all of the remaining primaries at a 70% clip to win the nomination before the national convention -- this is entirely unlikely.
So can Clinton win the nomination?
I think so. It is unlikely however. If we assume that the remaining 405 pledged/primary delegates are split evenly (Clinton 205, Obama 200). Clinton would need 214 of the remaining 286 (75%) Super Delegate votes -- I don't think that sort of spread is likely to happen.
It is important to keep in mind that none of the 796 Super D's are etched in stone, and they could (and have been) changing what column they end up in. All 796 could decide tomorrow to support either Clinton or Obama.
Random Video?
Sure
Remember Me? The Quaker State is voting today...
Tuesday, April 22. 2008
Are there still primaries? I thought everyone gave up and went home.
There are still primaries, and crazily the Democratic ones are meaningful! McCain has secured the nomination for the GOP but the DEMs are still battling it out. It's been 6 weeks since our last event, so let's shake off the cobwebs and get after it...
Where do things stand right now?
Depending on the Super Delegate count Obama has an overall lead of anywhere from 120 delegates to 150 delegates. There are 10 events left for the DEMs including today (PA, Guam, NC, IN, WV, OR, KY, PR, MT, SD). These 10 "states" have 566 pledged delegates associated with them. Obama has 1416 total pledged delegates, Clinton has 1253.
What is at stake today?
Pennsylvania has 158 pledged delegates that will be tied to today's primary. PA represents 28% of the outstanding delegates and is the largest remaining event for the DEMs. (North Carolina with 116 delegates is on May 6th).
What do the polls suggest will happen?
Since there have been six weeks since the last event — there have been no less than a billion polls taken in the Quaker State. After sorting out the polls here are my conclusions.
1.) Obama has eaten into Clinton's lead. In January, PA was a lock for Clinton over Obama and Edwards, as she had enjoyed leads in the 20 to 30 point range. Currently the polls suggest Clinton is in the lead, but at most she enjoys a 10 point lead over Obama.
2.) Clinton should win the statewide vote. The majority of the polls indicate that Clinton will be the choice of PA's voters. If you average the polls — they indicate a 49%-43% spread for Clinton.
3.) Newly registered DEM voters may make the polling data problematic. When polling companies embark on polling ventures, they get a list of registered voters in a party -- new voters, and party jumpers are not likely to be called upon to have their opinion counted as they are more than likely not on the list. With the DEMs recording record turnout in every single state, you can be guaranteed that there will be a substantial amount of votes cast by people that have not been polled.
What sort of primary is PA?
PA is a closed primary — that means only registered DEMs can vote for Obama/Clinton (the same is true of course for the GOP).
PA voters will not be able to change parties at the poll, as March 31st was the cutoff for party jumping. Interestingly the DEMs picked up 33,000 new voters this cycle, and 46,000 refugees from other parties. PA now has over 4 million registered DEMS compared with 3.2 million GOPers. Here is a quick story about PA voter registration.
In 2004 John Kerry won the Democratic primary getting 51% of the vote of about 2.94 million voters. It will be interesting to see if PA can send more than 3 million Democratic voters to the polls today.
How will the delegates be awarded?
Pennsylvania has 19 congressional districts that look something like this.
More PA district info here.
103 of the delegates will be awarded proportional to the district-wide vote. 55 will be allocated proportionally to the state-wide vote.
So what's the best case scenario for either Democratic candidate?
We should know by now it is all about the delegates and not the popular vote. Let's take a closer look at the congressional districts in PA, and how many delegates they are allocated.
In PA, congressional districts have either 3,4,5,6,7 or 9 delegates allocated to them. The second column is the number of districts with the corresponding delegates in column. The 3rd column represents the percentage that a candidate would have to win to capture an net gain in delegates over their opponent. For example in a district with 3 delegates, a candidate would only need to win 50.01% of the vote to gain one net delegate. In a district with 4 delegates, a candidate would have get 62.51% of the vote to gain net delegates, which would be a 3-1 (net +2) victory.
Basically, if the overall vote is close (no candidate > 60%), the only place candidates will gain delegates is in districts that have been allocated an odd number of delegates?
Correct. If we look at the table -- we see that 13 of the 19 districts have odd numbers of delegates assigned to them. This means that if Clinton wins all 19 districts and the numbers are close (under 60%), the best she could hope for is a 13 delegate gain in the Pennsylvanian primaries.
Obama or Clinton would need a couple of landslide district victories to gain significant ground.
What about the statewide allocation?
35 delegates are awarded proportional to the statewide vote. So if Clinton garnered 55% of the vote she would get 19 (Obama 16) of the delegates. 20 PLEOs will also be awarded proportional to the statewide vote as well -- these PLEOs (party leaders) should not be confused with the unpledged superdelegates like: US senators, congressmen, rather PA PLEO's are people like: mayors, city leaders, Mike Schmidt, the guy on the Quaker oat box and the Phillie Phanatic.
You mean this guy is a PA PLEO?
Probably not, but it would be cool if he was -- but we are getting sidetracked.
If Clinton were to win 55% of the statewide vote (assuming she would win 55% in each and every district as well), she would gain
13 delegates at the district level
3 delegates at the state level
2 delegates at the PA PLEO level.
For a total of 18 delegates -- this probably represents the best case scenario for Clinton. The 18 delegates represents about 15% of Obama's lead. This is probably nothing for Obama to worry about.
In reality however, Obama is probably going to win some of the urban districts even if he loses the statewide vote. If Obama wins the statewide popular vote -- this race would be effectively over as I think Clinton would throw in the towel.
How's about a random video?
You bet!
There are still primaries, and crazily the Democratic ones are meaningful! McCain has secured the nomination for the GOP but the DEMs are still battling it out. It's been 6 weeks since our last event, so let's shake off the cobwebs and get after it...
Where do things stand right now?
Depending on the Super Delegate count Obama has an overall lead of anywhere from 120 delegates to 150 delegates. There are 10 events left for the DEMs including today (PA, Guam, NC, IN, WV, OR, KY, PR, MT, SD). These 10 "states" have 566 pledged delegates associated with them. Obama has 1416 total pledged delegates, Clinton has 1253.
What is at stake today?
Pennsylvania has 158 pledged delegates that will be tied to today's primary. PA represents 28% of the outstanding delegates and is the largest remaining event for the DEMs. (North Carolina with 116 delegates is on May 6th).
What do the polls suggest will happen?
Since there have been six weeks since the last event — there have been no less than a billion polls taken in the Quaker State. After sorting out the polls here are my conclusions.
1.) Obama has eaten into Clinton's lead. In January, PA was a lock for Clinton over Obama and Edwards, as she had enjoyed leads in the 20 to 30 point range. Currently the polls suggest Clinton is in the lead, but at most she enjoys a 10 point lead over Obama.
2.) Clinton should win the statewide vote. The majority of the polls indicate that Clinton will be the choice of PA's voters. If you average the polls — they indicate a 49%-43% spread for Clinton.
3.) Newly registered DEM voters may make the polling data problematic. When polling companies embark on polling ventures, they get a list of registered voters in a party -- new voters, and party jumpers are not likely to be called upon to have their opinion counted as they are more than likely not on the list. With the DEMs recording record turnout in every single state, you can be guaranteed that there will be a substantial amount of votes cast by people that have not been polled.
What sort of primary is PA?
PA is a closed primary — that means only registered DEMs can vote for Obama/Clinton (the same is true of course for the GOP).
PA voters will not be able to change parties at the poll, as March 31st was the cutoff for party jumping. Interestingly the DEMs picked up 33,000 new voters this cycle, and 46,000 refugees from other parties. PA now has over 4 million registered DEMS compared with 3.2 million GOPers. Here is a quick story about PA voter registration.
In 2004 John Kerry won the Democratic primary getting 51% of the vote of about 2.94 million voters. It will be interesting to see if PA can send more than 3 million Democratic voters to the polls today.
How will the delegates be awarded?
Pennsylvania has 19 congressional districts that look something like this.
More PA district info here.
103 of the delegates will be awarded proportional to the district-wide vote. 55 will be allocated proportionally to the state-wide vote.
So what's the best case scenario for either Democratic candidate?
We should know by now it is all about the delegates and not the popular vote. Let's take a closer look at the congressional districts in PA, and how many delegates they are allocated.
| Number of delegates | Number of districts | Threshold for advantage |
| 3 | 1 | 50.01% |
| 4 | 5 | 62.51% |
| 5 | 6 | 50.01% (70.01%) |
| 6 | 1 | 58.34% (75.01%) |
| 7 | 5 | 50.01% (64.3%) |
| 9 | 1 | 50.01% (66.67%) |
In PA, congressional districts have either 3,4,5,6,7 or 9 delegates allocated to them. The second column is the number of districts with the corresponding delegates in column. The 3rd column represents the percentage that a candidate would have to win to capture an net gain in delegates over their opponent. For example in a district with 3 delegates, a candidate would only need to win 50.01% of the vote to gain one net delegate. In a district with 4 delegates, a candidate would have get 62.51% of the vote to gain net delegates, which would be a 3-1 (net +2) victory.
Basically, if the overall vote is close (no candidate > 60%), the only place candidates will gain delegates is in districts that have been allocated an odd number of delegates?
Correct. If we look at the table -- we see that 13 of the 19 districts have odd numbers of delegates assigned to them. This means that if Clinton wins all 19 districts and the numbers are close (under 60%), the best she could hope for is a 13 delegate gain in the Pennsylvanian primaries.
Obama or Clinton would need a couple of landslide district victories to gain significant ground.
What about the statewide allocation?
35 delegates are awarded proportional to the statewide vote. So if Clinton garnered 55% of the vote she would get 19 (Obama 16) of the delegates. 20 PLEOs will also be awarded proportional to the statewide vote as well -- these PLEOs (party leaders) should not be confused with the unpledged superdelegates like: US senators, congressmen, rather PA PLEO's are people like: mayors, city leaders, Mike Schmidt, the guy on the Quaker oat box and the Phillie Phanatic.
You mean this guy is a PA PLEO?
Probably not, but it would be cool if he was -- but we are getting sidetracked.
If Clinton were to win 55% of the statewide vote (assuming she would win 55% in each and every district as well), she would gain
13 delegates at the district level
3 delegates at the state level
2 delegates at the PA PLEO level.
For a total of 18 delegates -- this probably represents the best case scenario for Clinton. The 18 delegates represents about 15% of Obama's lead. This is probably nothing for Obama to worry about.
In reality however, Obama is probably going to win some of the urban districts even if he loses the statewide vote. If Obama wins the statewide popular vote -- this race would be effectively over as I think Clinton would throw in the towel.
How's about a random video?
You bet!
Game 1 Recap. Brewers v. Cubs (Sheets v. Zambrano)
Wednesday, April 2. 2008
What I liked!
1.) The Brewers winning on the road. I am not sure what the Brewers' problem has been these last couple of years on the road, but starting the season off with a road (4-3) victory sure made me feel good.
2.) Ben Sheets. What a great performance by Benny! He showcased his good control and power, handcuffing the Cubs for most of the game. Sheets won this game for the Brewers.
3.) Guillermo Mota's awesome cool blue glove. Remember a few years back, where stupid Mike Piazza charged Mota, and Mota whipped his glove at Piazza?
If I were Mota, I would never throw my awesome blue glove at an enraged Mike Piazza -- a regular brown/black glove? You Bet, but not the blue one. The Brewers should start marketing those.
4.) David Riske. Riske ended up being the closer as Gagne vultured the win. He pitched like a closer as well, never giving the stupid Cubs a chance to get into this game again.
What I didn't like!
1.) Tony Gwynn Jr. batting second. Admittedly, I am not the biggest TGJ fan, however I feel that he is a very solid 4th/5th outfielder for the Brewers to have. I would rather have seen Gabe Gross playing CF against the Cubs while Mike Cameron is serving his 25 game timeout for gulping greenies. That said, the decision to start Gwynn over Gross is certainly a defensible one. Ned Yost made some headlines this offseason with his decision to buck the traditional "pitcher in the 9-hole" strategy and actually bat the pitcher 8th, and Jason Kendall 9th. The theory behind this, is that you will give your #2 hitter more opportunities to drive in runs. The million dollar question therefore becomes "Why do you put Tony Gwynn in the 2-hole knowing he can't hit his way out of a paper bag?" -- I just don't understand this.
2.)Tony Gwynn Jr. stealing third with 2 outs in the first. TGJ is one fast cat, with 2 outs he will score on any sort of base hit, there is no advantage to getting 3rd, especially with ROY Ryan Braun at the plate. Please, no more stealing 3rd with 2 outs.
3.)That Fukudome guy. Whoa. There was a lot of speculation this off-season that the newly acquired Fukudome might not be able to contribute more offense than the Cubs enjoyed from RF last year from Jacque Jones. It was postulated that Fukudome would probably have an "adjustment" period where he got acclimated to the way we roll in the U.S. of A. It looked like to me that Fukudome's "adjustment period" was the time it took him to walk from the on-deck circle to the plate. He managed to go 3 for 3 with a walk -- only lacking a triple for the cycle. This guy is going to piss me off a lot in the next few years I can tell.
4.) Eric Gagne. Ok, Gagne got hit hard, giving up 3 runs and blowing a save in the 9th. This would have been par for the course in 2007. To his credit, he did settle down and finally retire the side. What bothered me though was his incessant "fanning" he was doing every time he threw a pitch. I am not sure why he needed to fan him self off in the cold March Chicago weather -- I do know it will get old very quick. There was a play where Gagne was required to run to 1st, and his shirt became untucked -- to the point where I thought his pants were going to fall down and expose big pink polka dot clown underwear. Gagne probably needs to tighten his operation up a little for his next appearance.
5.) Prince glaring at umps. There were 2 plays in the 9th inning which thoroughly pissed off our vegetarian giant.
Felix Pie hit a routine groundball to Prince. Neither Prince nor Gagne seemed to want to get to first base, and Pie beat Prince to the base. Actually, Pie was probably out if you watch the replay, but really Prince could have taken the ball to base immediately and it would not have been close.
Then Prince dove for a ball bouncing down the line which was called foul, had it been called fair an out would have been easily recorded. The ball was foul, but Prince insisted on glaring down at the home plate umpire throughout the AB. Pick your battles Prince.
6.) Yost Bunting. I am not a big fan of bunting. Especially by position players when they have 2 strikes. In the 9th inning, Rickie Weeks got on base, and Yost called for the bunt by TGJ (who shouldn't have been in the 2-hole!). Once TGJ bunts Weeks to second, you know that they are going to intentionally walk our best hitter in Prince Fielder. Thankfully Ryan Braun and Corey Hart came through -- but I am not a big fan of bunting especially when Prince will be then denied his hacks.
Go Brewers! Cubs Suck! -- Next up -- Lilly v. Suppan on Wednesday afternoon.
Random Video
2008 Milwaukee Brewers Postition Player Preview
Saturday, March 29. 2008
With baseball season starting up in a few days, my good buddy Conor, sent me a preview of the Brewers positional players in 2008, with all sorts of research and numbers. However, being the big jerk that I am, I decided to dilute his reasonable approach and interject my own thoughts (In Hulked-out green) and bastardize his effort. Go Crew!
2007: .242 BA /.301 OBP/.309 SLG/.610 OPS; 3 HR
2007 NL avg C: .257/.318/.394/.712
Offense — Doesn't K much & BBs enough to be noticeable…BB/SO ratio for 2008 should be around 45/45. Should GIDP appx. 15 times for 500+ PA — compare to Estrada's 16 in 464 PA for 2007. Little to no power at the plate — 20-25 2B, 0-1 3B, 0-3 HR is a safe bet. Kendall was known as solid baserunner, but is no longer a base-stealer. Yost's plan to bat Kendall 9th & the P 8th is a very good sign, as it'll utilize Jason's offense most efficiently. You certainly can't ignore that he had successful Lasik eye surgery this offseason, and has raved about how much better he can see.
Defense — Known for good all-around defense, excluding his arm strength (weak). Widely expected that our pitchers improve at least slightly over '07 due to his presence alone — not to mention improved team D.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have Craig Counsell as your catcher? If so, I'd like you to meet Jason Kendall. Of course the Brewers could have simply put a mask on Counsell's melon to check that out, but they decided to sign Kendall to a 2-year contract.
Brewer Radio announcer Jim Powell has to be pissed about this development. For the last 5 years, JP has been on Kendall's case for being paid 10 billion dollars a year to hit a bunch of groundballs. Johnny Estrada was one of the most disliked players in Milwaukee in a long time, — I tend to think Kendall's slap-approach to hitting will get on the fan's radar as well.
Speaking of Lasik surgery — I drove a good buddy of mine to have Lasik surgery the other day. After the surgery he got issued a pair of dark sunglasses. On the drive home I probably talked to him for 15 minutes before I realized he was sleeping — I am going to get me some glasses for the office! — Jason's old man, Fred, predated Lasik and just wore his glasses while catching. That's old school!
2007: .288/.395/.618/1.013; 50 HR
2007 NL 1B: .284/.365/.481/.846
Offense — The beast returns! Finished with 90/121 BB/K in 2007, BB total likely to grow, K total has good chance to shrink. Will likely be first Brewers player in franchise history to draw 100 BBs or more. Repeating 50 HR is probably unlikely, but should eclipse 40 with ease. Chance at first 40 2B — 40 HR season is very good (35 2B in 2007).
Defense — Not a gifted defender… has a hard time bending to get the ball (5'11" 280 lb. frame). Probably on same tier as Weeks defensively — well below average but not atrocious. D will likely be improved in 2008; I'd expect his scooping/bad throw receiving to be better.
The other day I was bumping around on one of the greatest tools on the internet, the "Oracle" on baseball-reference.com. Basically the Oracle is based on the principle of the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon." If you enter two players, the Oracle will tell you if the players were teammates, or if the players have any teammates in common. It was just a matter of time before I got to wondering if there had been any players that suited up with both Prince and Cecil Fielder. Turns out there is:
I was sad to learn that David Bell was the only oracle-chain between Prince and Cecil, apparently with Bell playing with Cecil in 1998 in Cleveland, and with Prince in 2006 for the Brewers of course.
Why would the oracle do this to me? Clearly David Bell is the most boring player to have ever stumbled out onto a MLB diamond. I was confident that the oracle would have revealed to me a storied home run hitter, or a legendary slugger — Hell, I would have settled for a portly, crafty left-handed pitcher — but David Bell?
I knew the oracle was more powerful than that, — I had faith that the oracle could and would rewrite baseball history to produce me something I could write about in this blog. Quietly and somberly I clicked "Find new chain". The word "illuminated" would soon take on a whole new meaning for me, I knelt at the altar of the oracle, and was rewarded with Russell Branyan.
Russell Branyan, the messiah of "The Three True Outcomes", is the oracle-chain between Prince and his father. Draw your own conclusions, — the oracle is a powerful tool.
2007: .235/.374/.433/.807; 16 HR
2007 NL 2B: .272/.341/.418/.759
Offense — We finally saw the real Rickie after his recall to MLB — more importantly, after the procedure to clear scar tissue out of his wrist (from the original surgery) was a success. He re-joined the Crew on August 10th… his line for Aug was .327/.500/.519/1.019; Sept./Oct. was .245/.409/.571/.981. At the time of his demotion (7/31), he was at .212/.330/.363/.693… raised his OPS by over 100 points in 25 games. Has a great chance to draw 100+ BBs, especially since higher SLG means more BBs. Will SO over 120 times, but the BBs & SLG make that just fine. Steals bases ridiculously efficiently (59/68 career MLB) — he's a legitimate 30 HR/30 SB threat in 2008.
Defense — He's improved a bit, but still a well below average fielder for 2B. His biggest area in which to improve imo is turning the DP — he turned out far too many god-awful throws to Fielder for a MLB 2Bman (and keep in mind no throwaways/bad throws on DPs can be counted as errors, as by rule the scorer can never assume the DP would've been completed). Expect more modest improvement defensively.
Bernie Smith. You are probably wondering what a picture of Bernie Smith is doing in the Rickie Weeks summary. It should be entirely obvious that Bernie Smith was the first player from Southern University to be an Opening Day starter for the Brewers. Bernie Smith played RF for the Brewer, Weeks plays 2b like he should be a RFer. Southern University has produced about a dozen or so players to make it to the bigs. In his short career Weeks has out produced all of them — except for this guy:
2007: .277/.323/.463/.786; 26 HR
2007 NL SS: .279/.337/.420/.758
Offense — Tough hitter to strike out… 2007 40 BB/73 SO… expect him to be around 45/65 in '08 or better (see 2003 @ Huntsville (AA), repeating a level at full health (just like 2008), BB/SO was 58/54). This would result in improvement from 2007's .323 OBP. May not hit 26 HR again, but will be over 20 again given a full, healthy season. Should again reach 30 2Bs. Very good choice to bat 7th.
Defense — Our best INF defender…doesn't have plus range, but good hands, arm, & DP-skills. Routinely takes proper routes to balls, especially ones hit back up the middle (one area where some SSs struggle).
Did you know J.J. Hardy and Chris Capuano share the same birthday? Did you know that they share their birthday with Ned Yost? I wonder if they go to TGIFridays for cake and ice cream and have those servers sing them that crazy birthday song, with sparklers, and those crazy candles that when you blow them out, they REFREAKING IGNITE (it never gets old.).... Probably not.
2007: .254/.315/.425/.740; 14 HR
2007 NL 3B: .280/.348/.456/.805
Offense — High-ankle sprain (right leg) suffered while trying to rob a HR mid-season affected Bill for the rest of the year. He hurried back (on DL 3 weeks, was supposed to be out 6-8 wks.), and wasn't able to succeed. Bill has commented that, since this is his plant leg for his swing, he was robbed of a lot of his power. He tried adjustments in his swing to get by day-to-day, but obviously was nowhere near his real potential. He may never hit 35 HR again, but should be a lock for 25 given a full season. His BBs should return as his power comes back, but Billy always has & always will strike out a lot.
Defense — In a way, it's too bad that Braun couldn't stay at 3B & let Hall continue his improvements in CF. In the second half of 2007, his fielding improved to being barely below-average, after starting off as horribly as one might expect a first-time OFer to do at the most challenging OF position. I think he would have been at least average in CF in 2008, but we'll never know. His D at 3B is regarded as being average to below-average, but should improve marginally with time. He's happy to know he finally really has a set position.
It will be good to have Bill Hall back in the infield. Bill Hall is awesome!
Bill Hall struck out the mighty Casey....
Miller Park never had a retractable roof until Bill Hall got a little warm one day...
On the Fourth day, God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Later that afternoon Bill Hall batted them into their orbits.
Bill Hall understands Yogi Berra
Bill Hall hit for the cycle once, in the same AB
Bill Hall turns Miracle Whip into Secret Stadium Sauce.
Bill Hall caught a foul ball once, playing center field.
In between innings Bill Hall discovered the largest possible prime number, and then successfully divided every single smaller number into that bad boy — without a remainder. Bill Hall never leaves a remainder.
Bill Hall cannot be cloned
Bill Hall is his own father and brother.
Bill Hall understands the balk rule
Bill Hall ate just one
Bill Hall won an Emmy for his play at 2b
Roger Clemens is hiding from Bill Hall.
The Hall of Fame used to be called — The historic baseball center at Cooperstown.
Bill Hall is his own firewall
More Bill Hall Facts Here
2007: .324/.370/.634/.1.004; 34 HR
2007 NL LF: .278/.358/.478/.835
Offense — Stellar ROY campaign will be hard to repeat (not in terms of counting stats like HR, H, etc.). Ryan had a high BABIP (Batting Avg. on Balls In Play) — .367 — which is best understood as plain ol' good luck. Not many, if any, players sustain it at that level. Paired with his insane split against LHP (.450/.516/.964/1.480) in the small sample of 128 PA (again, simply unsustainable #s), and it's clear Ryan's due for a regression in '08. This'll have nothing to do with the 'sophomore slump' guys like Haudricourt will stamp on it — just Ryan returning to earth. Look for lower BA, much better BB rate (2007: 29 BB/112 SO in 492 PA), lower SO rate, and less SLG in '08.
Defense — Nothing left to be said about 3B. Not only does the move to LF help the team defense, it utilizes Braun's tools — speed, arm strength, athleticism — most effectively. LF also best hides his flaws (arm accuracy, release, hands) as the defensive position of lowest impact. Some absolute butchers that play LF in MLB: Manny Ramirez, Adam Dunn, Carlos Lee, Alfonso Soriano, and more. The Cameron signing has such a domino effect — improved D at CF & 3B, Braun's offense will carry the highest impact/value possible, and the pitching staff will see its numbers improve noticeably (plus Kendall will help at least a bit). The only negative of the move is a downgrade in D at LF — very palatable since it's the least important position.
"The Hebrew Hammer". One of my pet peeves about baseball, is when a new young player bursts on the scene, and is given a "fresh" nickname like "The Hebrew Hammer" — when in reality the nickname has been used many times before in the history of the game. Hell, the first Hammerin' Hank was this dude.
Probably the most famous "Hebrew Hammer" was Al Rosen who played for the Tribe, wore a lot of muscle shirts, launched a lot of bombs, and won an MVP award.
Did you know Sandy Koufax, was born Sanford Braun? Did you know that Ryan Braun lived for awhile in a house formerly owned by Hammerin' Hank Greenberg? That's pretty good for a dude that isn't a practicing Jew.
2007: .242/.328/.431/.759; 21 HR (10 home/11 road)
2007 NL CF: .273/.336/.426/.762
Suspended for the first 25 games in 2008 — tested positive for 'greenies' in '07
Offense — The most important factor to consider is that PetCo Park (SD's stadium) is the most pitcher-friendly park in all of MLB. It's suppressed Cameron's numbers to the highest extent that any ballpark could/can. At home, he posted a line of .229/.316/.413/.729. Compare that to his road .254/.341/.449/.789 — which is a safe bet for how he'll fare overall in 2008. Since Miller Park plays very well to the HR, it is regarded as favoring hitters — even though overall it comes out almost exactly 'neutral' every year. Cameron's offensive game is basically Rickie Weeks's 2007 line — low(ish) BA, good BB rate, high SO rate, decent or better SLG. He's been near the top of the league in pitches per PA for some time now, averaging over 4.
Defense — He's no longer the elite fielder he once was, due to the natural decline of his physical skills with age. His instincts are still top-notch, and his fielding overall is at worst average, and more likely above-average. Good range, good arm, decent speed. Aside from the domino effect he has on team D, Cameron will be a significant upgrade himself in CF. While the Gold Glove is typically awarded to the best-hitting player who isn't a terrible fielder (or Derek Jeter — an awful fielder since day one, yet won 3 from '04-'06), usually a 3-time winner — like Cameron — is nothing to scoff at.
I really don't have anything to add for the "new guy", who probably has more experience than the rest of the team combined. Mike Cameron was traded from the Reds to the M's for future HOFer Ken Griffey Jr. Hopefully Ned Yost will hook up Mike with a coffee pump in the dugout, so he doesn't have to resort to using greenies to find his edge.
2007: .295/.353/.539/.892; 24 HR
2007 NL RF: .275/.344/.442/.786
Offense — Corey's shown what he can do, bottom line. The biggest impact for his 2008? Yost can no longer run Kevin freakin' Mench out there instead of Corey. His power numbers should grow, BB rate should increase (both just from experience & from higher SLG), and SO's should decrease. The thing to watch is how/if Corey progresses stealing bases (23/30 in '07). He, like Rickie is a very legit 30-30 threat. Paired with Yost's expectation for the Brewers to run more, 30 SB seems like a mere eventuality for Hart.
Defense — A high school 1Bman, Corey has transitioned very well to the OF through his professional career. He was average or above-avg. in RF last year, and only slightly below average in CF in limited PT. He will likely be above-average this year, and as 2007 progressed you could see him begin applying his flowing speed to his fielding. There will be some dramatic catches in the OF for 2008 between three speedy men.
Kevin Mench sucks! Hip readers will recognize the above photo as the character "Mike Bolton" from the awesome movie "Office Space". Why is Mike Bolton's picture in Corey Hart's summary? — because I am genuinely afraid that Brewer Nation will eventually drive Corey Hart to either shoot himself in the face, or even worse accept a trade to the Cubs.
In "Office Space" Mike Bolton's main source of conflict comes from sharing his name with the assclown singer Michael Bolton. Corey Hart bears the same cross as Mike Bolton. — Brewer Nation, I think we need to put in place, a moratorium on referring to the 1980's suckmonkey in the same train of thought or conversation as our rightfielder. Do you really think Corey doubles over in laughter when someone shouts, "Hey Corey, it's night, where are your sunglasses?" No. Do you think you are the first person to yell "Never Surrender Corey!" No, of course not. This needs to stop. Preferably Now.
If we were talking about cool musicians like Willie Nelson, Snoop Dog, or Adam Ant — it would be an entirely different situation, however, we are linking our stud outfielder to this buttmunch:
Gabe Gross: A 4th OF most teams would die to have, Gabe will be yet another .350+ OBP bat for the Crew. He'll give days off against RHP to each member of the starting trio, and can easily fill the 2nd lineup slot. Solid defender is arguably the 2nd-best fielding OF behind Cameron. If an injury strikes in the OF, we have a very capable replacement (Dillon would be next in line then).
I really am rooting for Gabe Gross. He was a QB for Auburn. I am a big fan of collegiate QBs becoming baseball players, except when they are Josh Booty, or Drew Henson. I sometimes wonder how former college QBs that fail at the MLB deal with the fact that Darren Erstad was able to hang around in MLB for quite a few years, even though he was a punter.
Joe Dillon: Joe's come a long way since a back injury seemingly ended his professional career in 2002. He retired & didn't play at all in 2003, but was able to rehab & get back (sadly, he's probably an obvious HGH abuser) for 2004 with the Marlins' AA & AAA clubs. After destroying the AAA's PCL in 2005 & 2006, the Fish cut ties with him. He played 2006 for Japan's Yomiuri Giants, then found his way to Nashville (AAA) in 2007 at age 31. After compiling a .317/.405/.605/1.010 line over 319 AB, he got the call to Milwaukee. A tough hitter to SO, with a good-but-not-great BB rate, Joe has a chance to carry a .350 OBP as well in 2008. He can play the IF (save SS) & corner OF spots serviceably, and should be a nice 'super-sub.'
What is not mentioned above is that Dillon actually went back to Texas Tech in 2003 (where he played college ball with Stubby Clapp) and coached for a year until his back felt better.
Craig Counsell: What Braun is to defense, Craig is to offense. Without question the best IF defender on the roster, Craig cancels out nearly all that contribution by stinking royally with the lumber. His lone redeeming offensive quality is a good BB rate, and not striking out much. As long as Yost doesn't fall in love with giving him too many starts, he should provide a much-needed defensive boost for late innings, in addition to being a solid 'off-day v. RHP' guy. Will also likely serve as the main pinch-runner, since Gwynn doesn't offer anything we don't essentially get from Gross (Gross can hit, Gwynn can't)
I am one of the few people that can lay claim to seeing Craig Counsell play his first professional game. The year was 1992, the place was Bend Oregon. The Colorado Rockies had just made their selections in the 1992 draft, and in the 11th round — they selected Craig Counsell. The Bend Rockies were a short-season team in the Northwest League. I had season tickets and was especially excited to watch the son of a Brewer's front office play for the inaugural Rockies team. Little did I know I was also watching future Brewer superstars Angel Echevarria and Juan Acevedo play with Counsell. The other future Brewer employee to play in that game was Boise Hawk pitcher Daron Sutton.
I always thought Counsell could hit better if he didn't do this:
Vinny Rottino: Racine, WI boy (grad of UW-La Crosse) likely to be a reserve IF, so Dillon's 'swingman' ability to play both corner OF & IF won't leave the IF over-exposed in case of injury. In addition, Vinny would serve as the 3rd/emergency catcher — he's seen action there in the minors, but isn't regarded as good enough to be a viable MLB backup. He doesn't BB much, but doesn't SO much either. Similar offensive game to Joe Dillon, but Dillon has more pop. Vinny is a solid contact hitter that can play 3B, & 2B, plus he could probably handle 1B.
Vinny is a hard guy to root against, especially since he played his college and HS ball in Wisconsin. Plus MLB needs another Vinny, since Vinny Castilla retired
Mike Rivera/Eric Munson: One of these two will be the backup C, as the Crew decided to part ways with an aging Damian Miller this offseason. Rivera we've seen (low OBP, more pop than Estrada, better defender — but not a good one)… Munson is a former #1 draft pick that hasn't panned out that way. He's basically a LH batting version of Rivera, with a better BB rate — but not by much. Eric is not known for his defense, either. Neither one is much to get excited over, but will be solid/serviceable backups. Perhaps one is in AAA while the other is in MLB?
Well I guess we have to have a backup catcher. I do want to clear up a couple of things:
1.) Eric Munson is NOT the son of Thurman Munson
2.) Mike Rivera is NOT the son of Bombo Rivera:
Senate Showdown 2008 #1, A Study in Fliptitude
Monday, March 17. 2008
What is Fliptitude?
The suffix "-tude" means "condition" or "state". The means "Fliptitude" is defined as the state of fliptity. 2006 was a banner year for fliptity as the DEMs flipped 6 seats from Red to Blue in the Senate, giving the DEMs a 51-49 advantage and control of one of the branches of the US Congress. (Of course the DEMs flipped the House as well). Both the DEMs and the GOP would love to see the senate in their majority as a new President is ushered into the White House.
Who has the advantage in 2008 with regard to fliptity?
Initially the DEMs did. There were 33 seats that had expiring terms, 21 of these seats were held by the GOP, so the simple math tells us that the GOP has more ground to defend, or more chances to lose seats.
This can't be all bad for the GOP, after all incumbents have a pretty high success rate at reelection.
This is true however, 5 GOP senators retired, one died, and one resigned his seat.
Pete Domenici (NM), John Warner (VA) and Wayne Allard (CO) all stepped down, regardless of the fact that they probably would have easily won their seats in 2008. These 3 seats are very competitive in 2008, and would not have been had these dudes hung on for another 6 years.
Chuck Hagel (NE) and Larry Craig (Bathroom), both retired as well, and would have coasted to reelection as well, but their seats at this point are not nearly as competitive as the NM, VA and CO seats.
Craig Thomas (WY) passed away, and Trent Lott (MS) resigned in the middle of his term -- neither seat should be competitive in 2008 -- but this adds two more seats to the 21 that the GOP were already defending.
So after all of that there are 35 seats that need butts in them -- the GOP is defending 23 of those seats.
It would be neat to have a table that has all of the seats, ranked in their order of fliptitude
Yes it would -- See the table below. The most vulnerable seat (VA) is listed at the top, the least vulnerable seat (RI) is at the bottom -- I have included approval ratings for now, and I will include polls as they become available.
I have included the 2004 election results as a point of reference, and of course the delegates each state has in the electoral college. Arbitrarily I will assume that a state will stay the same color in 2008 it ended up being in 2004, until polling data suggests otherwise.
I think that there are 9 (marked either "flipped" or "leans") seats that are the most critical to watch. States marked "Likely" could certainly come into play later, but at this point I think the incumbent is probably safe.
Table of Fliptitude
Current Talley Blue=4, Red=0,
(Senate would be 55-45 DEM controlled)
The suffix "-tude" means "condition" or "state". The means "Fliptitude" is defined as the state of fliptity. 2006 was a banner year for fliptity as the DEMs flipped 6 seats from Red to Blue in the Senate, giving the DEMs a 51-49 advantage and control of one of the branches of the US Congress. (Of course the DEMs flipped the House as well). Both the DEMs and the GOP would love to see the senate in their majority as a new President is ushered into the White House.
Who has the advantage in 2008 with regard to fliptity?
Initially the DEMs did. There were 33 seats that had expiring terms, 21 of these seats were held by the GOP, so the simple math tells us that the GOP has more ground to defend, or more chances to lose seats.
This can't be all bad for the GOP, after all incumbents have a pretty high success rate at reelection.
This is true however, 5 GOP senators retired, one died, and one resigned his seat.
Pete Domenici (NM), John Warner (VA) and Wayne Allard (CO) all stepped down, regardless of the fact that they probably would have easily won their seats in 2008. These 3 seats are very competitive in 2008, and would not have been had these dudes hung on for another 6 years.
Chuck Hagel (NE) and Larry Craig (Bathroom), both retired as well, and would have coasted to reelection as well, but their seats at this point are not nearly as competitive as the NM, VA and CO seats.
Craig Thomas (WY) passed away, and Trent Lott (MS) resigned in the middle of his term -- neither seat should be competitive in 2008 -- but this adds two more seats to the 21 that the GOP were already defending.
So after all of that there are 35 seats that need butts in them -- the GOP is defending 23 of those seats.
It would be neat to have a table that has all of the seats, ranked in their order of fliptitude
Yes it would -- See the table below. The most vulnerable seat (VA) is listed at the top, the least vulnerable seat (RI) is at the bottom -- I have included approval ratings for now, and I will include polls as they become available.
I have included the 2004 election results as a point of reference, and of course the delegates each state has in the electoral college. Arbitrarily I will assume that a state will stay the same color in 2008 it ended up being in 2004, until polling data suggests otherwise.
I think that there are 9 (marked either "flipped" or "leans") seats that are the most critical to watch. States marked "Likely" could certainly come into play later, but at this point I think the incumbent is probably safe.
(Senate would be 55-45 DEM controlled)
| State | DEM | GOP | Approval - Disapproval | Notes |
 |  Mark Warner |  Jim Gilmore | John Warner (ret.) 59%-34% | John Warner would have won this seat easily had he not retired, instead it will be contested by two former governors -- Mark Warner (no relation) and Jim Gilmore. Warner has the early lead and Virginia may have a senate seat flip parties for the second election in a row. (Webb beat Allen in 2006) Flipped Blue |
 |  Tom Udall |  Steve Pearce | Pete Domenici (ret.) 61%-30% | After serving about 35 years in the Senate, Domenici decided to retire. Domenici would probably have coasted to victory in 2008, but probably would have taken some heat for his involvement in the US Attorney mess. Both Udall and Pearce currently are serving in the US House. Prior to serving in the House, Udall served as NM's Attorney General for 8 years. This is a very competitive races that: Leans Blue |
 |  Mark Udall |  Bob Schaffer | Wayne Allard (ret.) 44%-43% | Wayne Allard promised to only serve 2 terms in the senate, and he kept his word stepping down in 2008. Udall has been serving in Congress since 1999, and Schaffer represented CO in Congress from 1997 to 2003. Much like NM, CO is a western state that is trending more blue. Both of the Udall's are cousins of OR senator Gordon Smith. This will be a great contest that currently: Leans Blue |
 |  Jeanne Shaheen |  John Sununu (2002 50.8%) | 47%-44% | In 2002 Sununu beat former NH governor Jeanne Shaheen, aided by illegal phone-jamming. Sununu is the incumbent senator that is most likely to lose his seat in 2008. He is already behind in the polls which does not bode well. Leans Blue |
 |  Al Franken |  Norm Coleman (2002 49.5%) | 49%-43% | Coleman won his seat in the senate after Paul Wellstone was tragically killed in a plane crash while campaigning in 2002. Coleman is very vulnerable and a number of Democrats lined up to challenge Coleman for his seat. Comedian/Author Al Franken looks to be the last man standing for the Democrats and should be able to raise enough money to give Coleman a serious run Leans Red |
 |  Tom Allen |  Susan Collins (2002 58.4%) | 73%-23% | Collins is one of the most moderate Republicans in the senate today -- if there is a RINO in the senate, Collins may very well be it. Collins is very popular with her constituents, but so was Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island who lost his seat in 2006. Maine is a liberal state and may prefer a Democrat that organizes with the Democrats rather than one who aligns with the GOP. US Rep. Tom Allen has been serving Maine for the last 10 years and will prove to be a formidable opponent: Leans Red |
 |  Jeff Merkley |  Gordon Smith (2002 56.2%) | 48%-43% | Gordon Smith is one of the more unpopular senators with his constituents, as evidenced by his office being protested in 2007. Jeff Merkley is the Speaker in the Oregon House of Representatives, and has been pushing pretty hard for Smith's seat. Gordon Smith has entered a no-man's land by starting to push himself away from the current administration. Oregon is a swing state and Merkley could be helped if the Democratic nominee has a good showing in the Beaver State: Leans Red |
 |  Mary Landrieu (2002 51.7%) |  John Kennedy | 54%-42% | Landrieu is the best and probably the only chance the GOP has at capturing a senate seat in 2008. Like most other Louisiana politicians, Landrieu took a lot of heat for the before and after handling of Hurricane Katrina. Kennedy will put up a tough battle, a former Democrat, he converted to Republicanism so he could run against Landrieu: Leans Blue |
 |  Mark Begich |  Ted Stevens (2002 78%) | 62%-34% | Ted Stevens is the poster-boy for pork projects -- like his his proposed bridge to nowhere While the rest of the country is appalled by such spending, Alaskans seem to see it as Stevens just bringing home the bacon. The GOP in Alaska has got a lot headlines lately with both Stevens and the Murkowski's linked to corruption probes. Stevens is currently 84, and Alaskans may view Anchorage mayor Mark Begich as an agent of change in a race that: Leans Red |
 |  Kay Hagan |  Elizabeth Dole (2002 53.6%) | 51%-23% | Dole made headlines in 2004 when she was elected to lead the NRSC (National Republican Senate Committee) who basically recruit dudes to run against Democratic Senators every two years. In 2006 she lost 6 seats to the Democrats, which of course did not sit well with Republicans. Dole is a very vulnerable senator and would probably be beat by a strong candidate. Kay Hagan whose experience is limited to state government, probably is not tall enough to go on this ride: Likely Red |
 |  Rick Noriega |  John Cornyn (2002 55.3%) | 42%-43% | Cornyn is probably the senator most aligned with the current administration up for election in 2008. This makes him vulnerable as neither Bush nor Cornyn are terribly popular these days. Noriega has been representing Texas in Congress for the last 10 years. If Noriega can put together a solid campaign, Cornyn could certainly be beat -- until then this race: Likely Red |
 |  Scott Kleeb |  Mike Johanns | Chuck Hagel 59%-35% | Chuck Hagel, a very vocal critic of the Bush administration decided to retire from his seat in the senate. Had he run, Hagel would have claimed victory easily. Former governor Mike Johanns threw his hat into the ring, and probably would have been a pretty good race if someone like Bob Kerrey would have run for the Democrats. If nothing else Scott Kleeb is dreamy, however this race: Likely Red |
 |  Frank Lautenberg (2002 53.9%) |  Joe Pennacchio | 39%-45% | Lautenberg is both one of the most liberal and oldest dudes in the US Senate. Lautenberg is always in the GOP's crosshairs, because Lautenberg never seems to have a stellar approval rating. Pennacchio is currently serving in the NJ senate, but probably will not be able to muster enough hot sauce to beat Lautenberg: Likely Blue |
 |  Michael Cone |  Lindsey Graham (2002 54.4%) | 51%-40% | Lindsey Graham is not very popular these days, and his senate career may come to an end in 2008. However, I suspect his stiffest competition will come from the GOP in the primaries and not from a Democrat. I don't know who Michael Cone is, he could have chose to address that on his site, but he didn't. When I googled him, that picture came up. I suspect he is one of the dudes in that picture, if someone knows let me know, and I will draw a circle around him: Likely Red |
 |  Ronnie Musgrove |  Roger Wicker | Trent Lott retires | Wicker was appointed to the senate after Trent Lott retired to make more money lobbying his colleagues. Lott was a popular senator and would have cruised to victory. Wicker before becoming a senator, represented MS in the House. While Musgrove will have some visibility as he used to be the Governor of MS, probably will be overmatched by Wicker: Likely Red |
 |  Andrew Rice |  James Inhofe (2002 57.3%) | 46%-41% | Inhofe remains one of the senate's most conservative members and is a huge favorite among evangelicals. While Inhofe is getting up there in years (73), Andrew Rice probably is way too green to put up a serious scrap for this seat. Rice is a state senator. Likely Red |
 |  Vivian Figures |  Jeff Sessions (2002 58.6%) | 60%-32% | Jeff Sessions is a very conservative member of the senate that is not exchanging Christmas cards with any civil liberty organizations. He is a popular figure in Alabama and even though he has made comments like "I used to like the KKK until I found out they were pot smokers". He will probably beat state senator Vivian Figures easily: Solid Red |
 |  Bruce Lunsford |  Mitch McConnell (2002 64.7%) | 52%-39% | Mitch McConnell is currently the highest ranking GOP senator, which should make him safe, right? -- Probably not. If anything he has the largest target on his back of any GOP senator. This is not to say that he is the most vulnerable, rather a dude the DEMs would like to see in the retirement phase of his life. The key for the DEMs will be to nominate a solid candidate. Businessman Bruce Lunsford is probably the front-runner in the move to "Daschle" McConnell: Solid Red |
 |  Bob Tuke |  Lamar Alexander (2002 54%) | 53%-36% | In 2006 one of the fiercest Senate battles was in Tennessee which featured Democrat Harold Ford throwing down against Bob Corker. Tennessee Democratic Party leader Bob Tuke will probably not provide the same resistance that Ford did in 2006. Solid Red |
 |  Vernon Jones Dale Cardwell |  Saxby Chambliss (2002 52.7%) | 52%-36% | Chambliss won his seat in 2002 beating Max Cleland, using an ad that portrayed decorated war veteran Cleland as a OsamaBL/Saddam Hussein supporter. Chambliss is a hard-core conservative, but is not terribly entrenched. Vernon Jones and Co. will probably fall short: Solid Red |
 |  Max Baucus (2002 62.7%) |  Kirk Bushman | 72%-23% | Baucus besides having one of the coolest names in the senate, is also one of the most popular and powerful Democrats in Washington. Kirk Bushman seems like a nice enough guy, but will probably get passed over for the 30 year vet., especially if you recall GOP Conrad Burns got bounced in 2006 by Jon Tester in MT. Solid Blue |
 |  Tom Harkin (2002 54.2%) |  Steve Rathje | 58%-37% | Harkin who once had presidential and vice-presidential ambitions is currently the chair for Agriculture, which probably is a good thing if you represent Iowa. I don't imagine that Iowans will trade whatever Steve Rathje brings to the table for the Chair of Agriculture: Solid Blue |
 |  Tim Johnson (2002 49.6%) |  Joel Dykstra | 70%-26% | Two or three years ago Johnson's seat was probably 1 of 2 hot targets for the GOP (LA being the other). In Dec. of 2006 Tim Johnson suffered stroke-like symptoms and nearly died. Miraculously Johnson regained his ability to talk and walk, and now is the most popular senator in Washington. None of the more prolific SD Republicans wanted to run against Johnson, so state senator Joel Dykstra is stepping up to the plate -- he is overmatched: Solid Blue |
 |  Larry LaRocco |  Jim Risch | 60%-32% | Like Larry Craig, this seat unexpectedly became up for grabs in 2008. In just about any other state this seat would be be up near the top of this table in flipability. However Idaho is pretty gosh darn red. LaRocco is the last Democrat to serve in Congress, and Risch was the Governor of Idaho for a few months, so both candidates are going to familiar to Idahoans, and this race may turn out to be competitive. In another state this match is a toss-up, in Idaho it is : Solid Red |
 |  Dick Durbin (2002 60.2%) |  Steve Sauerberg | 52%-38% | Durbin created some headlines a few years ago comparing our troops to Nazi's, however, after the smoke cleared he remains one of the most powerful senators in Washington. Sauerberg is a physician. The GOP could have a very tough time in 2008 if Obama secures the nomination Solid Blue |
 |  Carl Levin (2002 60.6%) |  Bart Baron | 54%-36% | First elected in 1978, Levin is a popular senator that chairs the Committee on Armed Services. A popular and powerful senator Levin is unlikely to get much of a challenge from dudes like Bart Baron. Solid Blue |
|  Erik Fleming |  Thad Cochran (2002 85.6%) | 65%-29% | Cochran is a moderate southern GOP, that has been serving MS in the senate for almost 30 years. Fleming is a state representative that stands little chance in beating Cochran. Ronnie Musgrove would have been a more suitable opponent for Cochran, however, he decided to target the more vulnerable Rodger Wicker Solid Red |
 |  Keith Goodenough |  John Barrasso | Craig Thomas passed away | Barrasso is an accomplished physician who was appointed by the Wyoming governor to man the seat vacated with the passing of Craig Thomas. Keith Goodenough is a guy who lives in Wyoming with a fantastic last name. Barrasso is by no means a household name, or an unbeatable candidate, but he is good enough to beat Goodenough. Solid Red |
 |  Jim Slattery |  Pat Roberts (2002 82.5%) | 51%-35% | Pat Roberts is a very conservative fairly popular senator from the red state of Kansas. Before the shift of power in 2006 Roberts chaired the Senate Committee on Intelligence. Jim Slattery represented Kansas in the US House for 12 years in the 80s and 90s, so he has a better track record than most Democrats in Kansas. Still this race: Solid red |
|  Lions v. Christians |  Michael Enzi (2002 73%) | 65%-26% | Enzi is a conservative senator that is served well representing a very conservative state. He is probably helped out by the fact that if the Democrats present a solid candidate, they will probably focus on the more vulnerable Barrasso Locked Red |
 |  Joe Biden (2002 58.1%) |  Washington Generals | 63%-33% | Joe Biden doesn't do so well in presidential primaries, but he does well in the Delaware senate elections. Biden will be elected to his 83rd or 84th consecutive term representing Delaware Locked Blue |
 |  Mark Pryor (2002 54.1%) |  Baby Harp Seal | 56%-37% | Mark Pryor is not a powerful senator like a Durbin or Levin, but Arkansas seems to like him well enough. The GOP failed to find someone to run up against him, (especially if Clinton wins the nomination) so he will cruise on in to victory. Locked Blue |
 |  Jay Rockefeller (2002 63.1%) |  Landslide | 61%-32% | When you think of West Virginia, you don't necessarily think of one of the richest families in the history of the USA. Rockefeller. First elected in 1984, Rockefeller will hold this seat without any sort of organized effort Locked Blue |
 |  John Kerry (2002 80%) |  Jeff Beatty | 47%-45% | John Kerry is not the most popular senator, despite the publicity he has gotten running for the presidency four years ago. Some GOPs have thrown their hat into the ring. They will lose Locked Blue |
 |  Jack Reed (2002 78.4%) |  Sacrificial Lamb | 66%-27% | This is probably the safest senate seat in 2008. Jack Reed is a popular Democrat in Rhode Island. The GOP will probably not even bother to field an opponent to contest this seat. Locked Blue |
Bill Foster, Wyoming, Michigan & Florida, and a delegate update.
Sunday, March 9. 2008
I am going to apologize in advance for this long article, but a lot has happened since I last reared my ugly head. First did you hear about Bill Foster?
You mean Bill Fox Foster? The fastest recorded beer-chugger from The Man Show? That guy was awesome!
Yeah he sure was, however I am referring to Bill Foster the scientist.
Oh right! You are referring to the scientist who was exposed to gamma radiation and became Black Goliath?
No. I am talking about this Bill Foster.
Oh. Who the hell is that guy?
Bill Foster is the new representative for IL-14 in the House of Representatives.
Oh. That beer-chugging guy, or Black Goliath would have been cooler selections for the House.
Absolutely. Unfortunately the beer-chugger died 5-6 years ago, and Black Goliath is needed to battle the other gamma radiation victims that have unfortunately decided to use their newfound powers for evil.
Bill Foster sounds like a pretty neat cat though. Born in Madison WI., and educated at the UW (Go Bucky!) and Harvard, Bill Foster founded "Electronic Theater Controls" and is a very distinguished engineer.
Foster beat Jim Oberweis, an Illinois dairy farmer, who seems very concerned about immigration in a special election for the 14th Congressional District of Illinois.
What was so special about this election?
This election was held to find a replacement for former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert who resigned his seat mid-term.
Hastert shown with pig, -- it is not clear which is which.
Cheapshot!
Duly noted. However here are some highlights from the distinguished gentleman from Illinois career (Recap Here).
1. Received $70,000 from Jack Abramoff
2. Took bribes from Turkish officials
3. Slandered George Soros, calling him a drug dealer.
4. Told the Columbian government to deal with Congress directly and bypass the President.
5. Commented that New Orleans should be bulldozed after Hurricane Katrina.
6. Shady real estate dealings, and sweet deals for family members that are lobbyists.
7. The apex though was the Mark Foley Scandal.
Bill Foster won 53%-47%, in a district that has been represented by the GOP for the last 22 years, and supported Bush in 2004. This seat was hotly contested with both parties (and candidates) throwing millions of dollars into the mix.
How does this affect the presidential election?
Well Foster was supported by Obama, which eventually will chalk up another superdelegate in Obama's column. Oberweis was supported by McCain. It probably is not fair to say this election is an indication of how the general election would turn out if Obama and McCain were the nominees -- but it should be noted that the GOP is probably going to lose ground in the House and Senate and will have their national budget (read: McCain better start raising some coin) spread pretty thin.
OK. What about Wyoming?
Wyoming held their caucus on Saturday with Obama winning easily.
Wyoming has Democrats? -- I figured that the "Wyoming Democratic Caucus" was a ploy by the Wyoming GOP to lock any Democrats that wandered in from Colorado in the basement until after the November elections.
Nope. There are about 60,000 registered Democrats in Wyoming. 9,000 of them rocked the vote on Saturday (up from 675 in 2004). There is not much to say other than Obama won 61%-38% and won 7 of Wyoming's 12 delegates.
So where do things stand after last Tuesday and Wyoming's caucus?
The 10 delegates remaining from Super Tuesday not yet allocated are from CO which Obama won.
Obama picked up the following: (bold = winner)
OH -- 66
RI -- 5
VT -- 9
TX -- 99 (61 in the primary, 38 in the caucus)
WY -- 7
Clinton picked up the following: (bold = winner)
OH -- 75
RI -- 13
VT -- 6
TX -- 94 (65 in the primary, 29 in the caucus)
WY -- 5
Whoa! Obama won Texas?
Well he won the caucus, and ended up with more delegates, but I am not sure it is accurate to say to he "won" Texas, as Clinton clearly won the primary. This is becoming a recurring theme for the Democrats in 2008, "Who is winning?" -- Obama can claim more delegates, Clinton can claim more primary votes, and the list goes on.
One thing that has gotten on my radar is Clinton claiming she can win "the big states", therefore she should be the more attractive candidate in the general election. It has been interesting to observe that Obama has generally won the more urban areas in the primaries, and Clinton has won the more rural districts -- however, Obama has won the more rural states, and Clinton has won the states with the larger urban areas.
But let's look at Clinton's claim, that she would win "big states".
I will define "Big states" as states with the most electoral votes, being CA, TX, NY, IL, FL and OH.
I think it is a fair assumption that no DEM is going to win TX, and no GOP is going to win CA, NY or IL -- that is to say that Obama and Clinton will probably win the same amount of delegates in these states. FL and OH could be a little different though.
The other part of Clinton's claim is that "small states don't matter" -- which of course is true in a landslide -- however, if Al Gore would have won NH in 2000 he would have been President. The reality is, in a close election the important states to win are the swing states, not necessarily the large states. NY is going blue in 2008, and TX is going red -- we don't need to wait for the nominations to know this.
The states that the parties will be targeting are states like NM, NH, WI, OR, CO, MO and of course the two biggies FL and OH.
So how would Clinton and Obama fare against McCain in the swing states?
I'm glad you asked -- Survey USA recently put their robo-pollers to use, calling 600 dudes in all 50 states and basically asked them "Who do you like McCain or Clinton/Obama?". Here are the results in mapular form.
As you can see -- the only "big state" that Clinton wins that Obama doesn't is Florida -- however Obama more than makes up for it by winning IA, CO, NH, MI and others. In either case, good news for the DEMs and the GOP appears to have some work to do.
The whole survey is here, and is a great read -- especially if you look at the maps from 2006 which had Obama winning only IL and DC from McCain. This shows me that the drawn-out DEM primary has probably overall gotten them a few more votes.
If you have made it this far, you probably should watch this.... See you in Mississippi!
You mean Bill Fox Foster? The fastest recorded beer-chugger from The Man Show? That guy was awesome!
Yeah he sure was, however I am referring to Bill Foster the scientist.
Oh right! You are referring to the scientist who was exposed to gamma radiation and became Black Goliath?
No. I am talking about this Bill Foster.
Oh. Who the hell is that guy?
Bill Foster is the new representative for IL-14 in the House of Representatives.
Oh. That beer-chugging guy, or Black Goliath would have been cooler selections for the House.
Absolutely. Unfortunately the beer-chugger died 5-6 years ago, and Black Goliath is needed to battle the other gamma radiation victims that have unfortunately decided to use their newfound powers for evil.
Bill Foster sounds like a pretty neat cat though. Born in Madison WI., and educated at the UW (Go Bucky!) and Harvard, Bill Foster founded "Electronic Theater Controls" and is a very distinguished engineer.
Foster beat Jim Oberweis, an Illinois dairy farmer, who seems very concerned about immigration in a special election for the 14th Congressional District of Illinois.
What was so special about this election?
This election was held to find a replacement for former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert who resigned his seat mid-term.
Hastert shown with pig, -- it is not clear which is which.
Cheapshot!
Duly noted. However here are some highlights from the distinguished gentleman from Illinois career (Recap Here).
1. Received $70,000 from Jack Abramoff
2. Took bribes from Turkish officials
3. Slandered George Soros, calling him a drug dealer.
4. Told the Columbian government to deal with Congress directly and bypass the President.
5. Commented that New Orleans should be bulldozed after Hurricane Katrina.
6. Shady real estate dealings, and sweet deals for family members that are lobbyists.
7. The apex though was the Mark Foley Scandal.
Bill Foster won 53%-47%, in a district that has been represented by the GOP for the last 22 years, and supported Bush in 2004. This seat was hotly contested with both parties (and candidates) throwing millions of dollars into the mix.
How does this affect the presidential election?
Well Foster was supported by Obama, which eventually will chalk up another superdelegate in Obama's column. Oberweis was supported by McCain. It probably is not fair to say this election is an indication of how the general election would turn out if Obama and McCain were the nominees -- but it should be noted that the GOP is probably going to lose ground in the House and Senate and will have their national budget (read: McCain better start raising some coin) spread pretty thin.
OK. What about Wyoming?
Wyoming held their caucus on Saturday with Obama winning easily.
Wyoming has Democrats? -- I figured that the "Wyoming Democratic Caucus" was a ploy by the Wyoming GOP to lock any Democrats that wandered in from Colorado in the basement until after the November elections.
Nope. There are about 60,000 registered Democrats in Wyoming. 9,000 of them rocked the vote on Saturday (up from 675 in 2004). There is not much to say other than Obama won 61%-38% and won 7 of Wyoming's 12 delegates.
So where do things stand after last Tuesday and Wyoming's caucus?
| Candidate | Pre-ST Delegates | ST Delegates | Post-ST Delegates | Total Pledged Delegates | Super Delegates | 3/8 Overall Total Delegates | Delegates Needed to win (2025) |
| Barack Obama | 63 | 843 | 474.5 | 1380.5 | 201 | 1576.5 | 448.5 |
| Hillary Clinton | 48 | 828 | 352.5 | 1228.5 | 242 | 1470.5 | 554.5 |
| Available | 26 (Edwards) | 10 | 608 | 644 | 344 | 1002 | // |
| Total | 137 | 1681 | 1435 | 3253 | 796 | 4049 | // |
Obama picked up the following: (bold = winner)
OH -- 66
RI -- 5
VT -- 9
TX -- 99 (61 in the primary, 38 in the caucus)
WY -- 7
Clinton picked up the following: (bold = winner)
OH -- 75
RI -- 13
VT -- 6
TX -- 94 (65 in the primary, 29 in the caucus)
WY -- 5
Whoa! Obama won Texas?
Well he won the caucus, and ended up with more delegates, but I am not sure it is accurate to say to he "won" Texas, as Clinton clearly won the primary. This is becoming a recurring theme for the Democrats in 2008, "Who is winning?" -- Obama can claim more delegates, Clinton can claim more primary votes, and the list goes on.
One thing that has gotten on my radar is Clinton claiming she can win "the big states", therefore she should be the more attractive candidate in the general election. It has been interesting to observe that Obama has generally won the more urban areas in the primaries, and Clinton has won the more rural districts -- however, Obama has won the more rural states, and Clinton has won the states with the larger urban areas.
But let's look at Clinton's claim, that she would win "big states".
I will define "Big states" as states with the most electoral votes, being CA, TX, NY, IL, FL and OH.
I think it is a fair assumption that no DEM is going to win TX, and no GOP is going to win CA, NY or IL -- that is to say that Obama and Clinton will probably win the same amount of delegates in these states. FL and OH could be a little different though.
The other part of Clinton's claim is that "small states don't matter" -- which of course is true in a landslide -- however, if Al Gore would have won NH in 2000 he would have been President. The reality is, in a close election the important states to win are the swing states, not necessarily the large states. NY is going blue in 2008, and TX is going red -- we don't need to wait for the nominations to know this.
The states that the parties will be targeting are states like NM, NH, WI, OR, CO, MO and of course the two biggies FL and OH.
So how would Clinton and Obama fare against McCain in the swing states?
I'm glad you asked -- Survey USA recently put their robo-pollers to use, calling 600 dudes in all 50 states and basically asked them "Who do you like McCain or Clinton/Obama?". Here are the results in mapular form.
As you can see -- the only "big state" that Clinton wins that Obama doesn't is Florida -- however Obama more than makes up for it by winning IA, CO, NH, MI and others. In either case, good news for the DEMs and the GOP appears to have some work to do.
The whole survey is here, and is a great read -- especially if you look at the maps from 2006 which had Obama winning only IL and DC from McCain. This shows me that the drawn-out DEM primary has probably overall gotten them a few more votes.
If you have made it this far, you probably should watch this.... See you in Mississippi!
Pour me a cup of Ned? -- I mean a cup of Joe?
Thursday, March 6. 2008
Props to The Yost Infection -- (who probably should market some T-shirts) -- for digging this quote out of a JS game recap
Of course -- Yost responded in his typical light-hearted way -- Really, I meant he lashed out as if he was tweaked out on the finest Columbian import he could find in Arizona.
Seriously though, why get pissed off about this? Especially when you readily concede drinking over a half gallon of coffee a day -- Why not just either admit you consume a lot of coffee or just chuckle about it -- we all have our vices after all, and I am sure it takes a lot of caffeine to come up with some of the stupid shit he pulls.
The rest of the story is awesome....
Including these tidbits...
He needs not one, but two "travel coffee pumps"? -- Apparently they haven't heard about how to run an IV yet.
Awesome. Shouldn't some batboy or Gabe Kapler be manning the coffee pump? Here is why people care though, Yost was too busy jamming coffee down his pipe rather than watching the game.
And of course it is not his damn fault.
Now, is Ned being truthful? I don't think so -- Here is a quote from a MLB piece done last year....
It seems to me that if you have swallowed down 8 cups of coffee by 8AM -- your daily consumption is probably closer to 25 than it is to 7. Of course math is probably on Ned's side.
I must admit for the very first time in my life, I am in awe of Ned. If I could drink 25 cups a coffee each day without shitting my pants or scratching imaginary mosquitoes, I certainly would. I almost want to see Ned make it through 2008 just to see if he can up his intake to 30 cups.
Here is one more
Cactus Juice: In the game Sunday against the Angels, first baseman Prince Fielder's glove was knocked off by a hard, high liner. Fielder scrambled without his glove to pick up the ball and record the out. Asked what he thought of that play, manager Ned Yost had to admit that he didn't see it. "I was getting a cup of coffee (in the dugout)," said Yost, who drinks about 25 cups a day
Of course -- Yost responded in his typical light-hearted way -- Really, I meant he lashed out as if he was tweaked out on the finest Columbian import he could find in Arizona.
"Why would you write that? I don't drink 25 cups of coffee a day," Yost said. "Maybe seven or eight or 10, but not 25. And why is that anybody's business, how many cups of coffee I drink? That's the stuff that (ticks) me off."
Seriously though, why get pissed off about this? Especially when you readily concede drinking over a half gallon of coffee a day -- Why not just either admit you consume a lot of coffee or just chuckle about it -- we all have our vices after all, and I am sure it takes a lot of caffeine to come up with some of the stupid shit he pulls.
The rest of the story is awesome....
Including these tidbits...
Yost's pot in his office is always only about half full when he talks to the media, and he gets the clubhouse attendants to bring out two travel coffee pumps to the dugout in the spring so he doesn't have to travel so far to get more.
He needs not one, but two "travel coffee pumps"? -- Apparently they haven't heard about how to run an IV yet.
It even caused him to miss a nice defensive gem earlier in the week when first baseman Prince Fielder had his glove knocked off yet he still made an out when he scooped up the ball and touched the base.
"I was turned around pumping the coffee," Yost said. "I saw Prince cover first base and everybody was going nuts."
Awesome. Shouldn't some batboy or Gabe Kapler be manning the coffee pump? Here is why people care though, Yost was too busy jamming coffee down his pipe rather than watching the game.
And of course it is not his damn fault.
"They only put like four or five (cups) in there," Yost said. "But I'm not the only one drinking it."
Now, is Ned being truthful? I don't think so -- Here is a quote from a MLB piece done last year....
Even at 8 a.m., after his eighth cup of coffee, it's difficult to get Brewers manager Ned Yost to talk about anything other than his favorite topic: Today.
It seems to me that if you have swallowed down 8 cups of coffee by 8AM -- your daily consumption is probably closer to 25 than it is to 7. Of course math is probably on Ned's side.
I must admit for the very first time in my life, I am in awe of Ned. If I could drink 25 cups a coffee each day without shitting my pants or scratching imaginary mosquitoes, I certainly would. I almost want to see Ned make it through 2008 just to see if he can up his intake to 30 cups.
Here is one more