carpandean

I'm sure the left-leaning here would argue (rightly or wrongly, as you say) that the politicians on the right use their power to create policy that helps them become even richer at the expense of the less fortunate. Unfortunately, these days, both parties act in their own best interests, often in direct contradiction to the ideals on which they were supposed to be built. It's getting harder to tell them apart.

To a degree, yes. Politicians need to realize two things: 1) Those who voted against them are "the people" too. It should matter to them whether they won by a landslide or by a narrow margin. For example, Bush (GW) should have taken the tightness of his victory (basically a coin toss) as a sign that his views were basically no more or less popular than his opponent's, and thus should have been very willing to compromise. Likewise, the huge swing toward the republican party in this last election should be a sign to Obama that his policies are not as popular as he thought. I wouldn't say that either president saw/sees it that way, but they should (have). 2) A victory for a candidate is not universal support for that candidate's whole platform. Voters are usually faced with two (real) options in an election and have to choose the best -- for lack of better term -- portfolio of stances. For example, I tend to be economically conservative (e.g., wanting smaller government), but socially progressive (e.g., supporting gay marriage.) When I take one of those "who is your best candidate" tests, there are usually 2-3 candidates just above 50%, but none higher. Elected officials should want the most accurate and representative polls that they can get (not just ones that support their beliefs) in order to gauge the will of the people on individual issues. Politicians should serve only as a mechanism to best balance the often heterogeneous will of the population within the confines of internal (e.g., budgetary) and external (e.g., other nations and groups) constraints that they face. Unfortunately, that is why a straight polling democracy could not work, even with advanced technology. Issue-by-issue stances could not all be executed; some compromises and tradeoffs need to be made.

The term "low intelligence" voter is not correct. It would be insulting, as well as inappropriate. The idea is better described as "low information", "uniformed" or "willfully ignorant" voters. These voters exist at all levels of raw intelligence, political bias, education level, affluence, etc. Blind allegiance to either party (often initially due to parental bias or later due to some appealing ideals accepting without personal critical thought) or deciding based on a single, seemingly self-serving issue (without consideration of the consequences of it or any other policies supported by the corresponding candidate) are common examples. In general, though, any voter who exercises their right to vote without making an effort to inform themselves first is a danger to the process and even, potentially, themselves. As Ben Franklin said, "A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” Now, part of the problem is complacency/disinterest/laziness, but it is also a practical one. There is so much information out there, mostly with unspecified underlying bias (in either direction) that one could spend every waking hour sifting through it, attempting to discern the "truth" and still not be successful. So, even those that do choose to inform themselves will still end up with just a version of the truth. Of course, information (or lack thereof) is not the only problem with the system. Ben Franklin also saw the other one: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Voters and politicians, alike, on both sides have not only discovered this, but blatantly and unapologetically exploited it. In fact, its the greatest (largest) commonality that the sides have. I love this country and the ideals on which and systems with which it was founded, but too many citizens within do not appreciate what it is or what it would mean to lose it.

If you mean Buffalo and Arizona, then at best they will have a combined 33.5% chance at him, so smart bet would be that you are correct. If you include Edmonton (they haven't done as much obvious tanking, plus "neither" wouldn't really fit for three teams, but ...), then it's closer to a coin flip (45/55).

Bright sides, man. Actually, since they can't catch 9 teams in the West, they've locked up at least a 2% chance at McDavid (17th only has a 1% chance.)

Boston is going to make it a moot point shortly (up 5-3 in the third), but you are correct. Two head-to-head and Boston can't win either (or even lose one in OT/SO, since the Sabres can't reach 30 ROW), which means that the Panthers would pick up 4 points, enough to put them out of reach. They are officially out.

Buffalo should do it ... for a chance to start a game. #tankcommanderforaday

NHL.com with a weird glitch. Shows Arizona winning 3-2, but has the Canucks going 1 for 4 in the shootout and Coyotes going 0 for 2. Then, in the Box Score, it has Zack Kassian scoring on the first attempt for Arizona (though, both columns say Canucks at the top.)

The problem is that Ovechkin can get away with that precisely because he is so "talented ... at achieving it." It leaves your teammates basically short-handed, so you need to be able to cash in at a relatively high rate to justify it. In gym class, we called that cherry-picking. It was fun every once in while, but wasn't generally effective.

It wasn't just for Schoop and Jeremy. I'm sure GMTM was sweating in a bit, too (not that you'd know it.) I know I'll sleep better having made that move. Heck, even after making it, I'm not confident. If we hadn't made it, I would have all-but-guaranteed drafting 3-4 this year.

We can only hope that they face teams mailing it in behind their backups like we did against Columbus and Vancouver. Not likely, but possible.

Won't be a problem for too much longer. Players born in '97 will play next year and nobody can wear 99.

On (2), perhaps we'll find out that the Sabres team is actually good at one thing making goalies look good by allowing lots of low % shots. Thus, no matter who steps in, he will find it easy to look good (in save %.)

I should have put this here instead:

Interesting stats: Chris Stewart: Before New Years: 37GP 5G 5A 10P (0.270 PPG) After New Years: 24GP 6G 9A 15P (0.625 PPG) Antoine Vermette: Before New Years: 37GP 10G 15A 25P (0.676 PPG) After New Years: 26GP 3G 7A 10P (0.385 PPG) In particular, in March: 14GP 2G 2A 4P (0.286 PPG) Maybe, Vermette was acting Tank Commander in Phoenix Arizona. If they call up some eager young buck, then perhaps he improves their team.

Marner turns 18 in May and currently has: 41G 69A for 110P in 53GP (2.08 PPG) The season in which Hodgson turned 18 (in February), he had: 40G 45A for 85P in 68GP (1.25 PPG) Even the next season (and a year makes a big difference in juniors), Cody had: 43G 49A for 92P in 53GP (1.74 PPG) Interestingly, when Stamkos turned 18 (in February), he had: 58G 47A for 105P in 61GP (1.72 PPG) Also, Tavares turned 18 much earlier (September) in his draft year, but still only put up: 58G 46A for 104P in 56GP (1.86 PPG) Though, clearly both were drafted more as goal scorers than Marner would be. Some others: Taylor Hall: 40G 66A for 106P in 57GP (1.86 PPG) Tyler Seguin: 48G 58P for 106P in 63GP (1.68 PPG) RHN (in WHL): 31G 75A for 106P in 69GP (1.54 PPG) Yakupov: 31G 38A for 69P in 42GP (1.64 PPG)

To be accurate, they got a 1st that the Sabres were in possession of (actually, the worst of two), not their own 1st.

If we only lose 1 more, then it won't matter. The leads are 3 and 4 points, 2 more doesn't hurt us.

Now, that would be tanking!

Traded!

Neuvirth to Isles.

But even in the best case scenario, we are four times more likely to get Eichel than McDavid. Eichel would be just a little less thrilled than McDavid. Any of the other three would be a lot less thrilled than even Eichel.

While the extra 6.5% chance at McDavid is nice, it's the extra 66.5% chance of getting McDavid or Eichel that I'm aiming for.

In fairness, I believe Flynn's jersey was tucked in at the time.

The Jets' war room had more guys with computers. Has to better, right?