TrueBlueGED

Like the logo, dislike the name.

To say she's not your type is one thing. To say she doesn't look good in that gif is quite another. You're insane.

1) Yes, I'm talking about the national vote. First, Obama won by margins large enough to make state variation irrelevant--there's not going to be enough state-level asymmetry to overcome 4 and 7 point national margins. It's not a perfect correlation, but state results really do follow national results. If Clinton had won the national vote by 4 points, she'd have also won the Electoral College. Second, the only post-election survey that has a sample designed to be representative of all 50 states (put differently, the only survey we can use to analyze state-level outcomes with confidence) is the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. It has ~50,000 respondents sampled in a way to make the state results representative of each state's population. It's only been around since 2006, so we can't use it for baseline comparisons. Third, I know people's views may be skewed by recent history, but the popular vote has been "right" in all but 5 presidential elections. Again, there's a massive correlation between state and national results to the point where they'll only diverge in elections that were closer than both of Obama's wins. Fourth, if you think I'm going county by county in the battleground states for the last four elections to compare turnout and population shifts, you're out of your mind. I'd also note, you're not doing this to prove your assertion either. Fifth, the Dems could have run a corpse in 2008 and still won. Obama's skin color at the top of the ticket did help bring more African Americans to the polls, but it had little to do with his victory as his victory exceeded (by quite a bit, I might add) the boost he got from it. Sixth, if it was all about skin color, I once again ask you to explain why he won Iowa by 7 points, a state where 95% of people are white. 2) No. What you said, and what I challenged, was that Obama got elected because of his skin color. Given that such a hypothesis is insufficient to explain his large vote shares, there has to be something else in play. African American turnout could have been flat from 2000/4, and he'd still have won. The numbers prove this. More importantly, monocausal explanations for election outcomes are inherently fallacious and tend to come about because somebody has a narrative they want to be true. Elections turn out as they do because of a litany of things occurring simultaneously. This is not a debatable point. Economics, groups (including race), incumbency, wars...all of it. See the "Change and Continuity in the (year) Election" series if you want some easy to read information on the topic. To suggest the back dude won because of blacks is, well I'll be nice and call it narrative-serving. But it's simply not true. The research and evidence on the topic flat-out disprove such a contention. You can continue to believe it if you want, but that's a fictional world of your own creation, created to serve your psychological well-being by reinforcing your existing belief structure. It's neither reality, nor supported by anything within the realm of reality. Contrary to why you'd like to believe, I'm not ignoring your point, I'm engaging it head-on and bludgeoning it into what I can only hope to be death. If you had said "Some African Americans had a larger than usual motivation to vote for the first African American to head a major party ticket for president" I wouldn't have said a peep. But you so desperately want race to be irrelevant in 2016 relative to 2008 and 2012, you just had to go and say he won because of skin color. Nope, sorry, not having it. You picked the wrong forum to spew that baseless drivel.

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun 4m4 minutes ago Sharks have agreed to eight year deal with Brent Burns believe to be worth around $8 M a year on average Brent Burns is awesome and he's totally worth that right now. But man, that takes him to 40.

And yet your explanation is the election turned on more African Americans turning out. Why isn't your view that Obama won because fewer white people voted? Oh, right, let me think here, gee, I wonder...Never mind that your initial post was about Obama's election (see: 2008), not re-election (2012). Obama won in 2012 by 4 percentage points nationally. African Americans made up 13.4% of the electorate in 2012, compared to 12.1% in 2008...in other words, he still won by more than the larger share of the electorate being African Americans can cover. African American turnout was up 1.7 percentage points...but non-Hispanic white turnout was down 2 percentage points. Again, why focus on the increase in African American turnout when the decline in non-Hispanic white turnout was larger? It's also worth noting that non-Hispanic whites still exceeded their share of the eligible electorate in actual turnout by a greater amount than African Americans. Lastly, look at the trendline in Figure 1 on page 3: African American turnout rates have been steadily increasing. There was a slightly larger jump from 2004 to 2008 than in previous sequential elections, but that rate of increase also leveled off quite a bit from 2008 to 2012--the average increase in African American turnout rate for Obama's two elections is the same as for the previous two. I guess those blacks voted for Gore and Kerry because of skin color too. Or, ya know, there are alternative explanations for rising African American turnout rates. Just admit you're wrong. It's okay to be standing in a self-made hole on the internet and decide to climb out rather than continue digging.

Over 9 million more people voted in 2008 than in 2004. George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 by 2.5 percentage points; Obama won in 2008 by 7 percentage points. African Americans were 11% of the electorate in 2004, and that number only grew to 12.1% in 2008. Obama did better with African Americans than Kerry did, and more were likely uniquely motivated to turn out to vote for the first African American at the top of a ticket in history. But it doesn't explain the election--Obama did better than Kerry with all groups, including whites (41 to 43%). Obama won Iowa, a state with a 95% white population, by 9 percentage points. I could go on, but I've wasted enough time proving your level of ignorance on this topic.

This is false. Obama's victory margin far exceeded the increase in African American turnout relative to average.

How did nobody come up with this idea when we were trying to figure out how to be more approachable to new posters? This is great.

You're nuts.

Good move by the NHL. Wouldn't want every ASG to be as fun as last year's! :rolleyes:

1) Of course I miss the game we score goals in. 2) We're not scoring again for a week :lol:

I don't know how you live.

If either of you laughed at Woody for renting movies at Family Video, I demand you retract said mocking.

If Trump can win the Super Bowl, the Bills can win the presidency.

Super Bowl.

But the man or the woman can change institutions. I would argue that Trump changed the institution of decorum for the worse. That doesn't get erased because he won, particularly when he's shown no interest in changing. Look at the difference between how Trump handled the whole Hamilton thing on twitter versus how Pence handled it on TV this morning. That genie can't just be put back in the bottle as it's been normalized over the course of nearly a year and a half. This is the kind of thing myself and other wussy liberals were warning about throughout the campaign. Now we get to enjoy the consequences.

Down to 385. That one stings.

So you're saying, this Pu is a floater?

My enthusiasm for that combination is not enough to overcome what the remainder looks like. That's one fugly lineup.

I got what you meant, I'm just not sure I agree it's valid. I mean it's valid in the sense that it's not arguing to convert him to a goalie, but it depends on the argument being made. If it's a skill set argument that's one thing, but if it's based upon performance after so few games, that I'd have to reject.

I'm not sure I agree with this. He has what, 10 NHL games at center? I think some players are certainly more susceptible to injury than others (whether that's play style or genetics...probably either or both), but being able to separate that from just a run of bad luck takes a lot of time. Don't think we've had enough time with Lehner, but the health book on Bogo and Kane is pretty much written.

...where Donald Trump would be selected.

Bold prediction: we don't score 1 goal. Whether that means we get shut out or get >1, I'll let you decide :p

Dudacek, I'm not quoting your giant wall of excellent text. I read your initial post as a giant shoulder shrug, but I obviously got the tone wrong. Let's have sex. But there are many (or were, I think they've abandoned us for the time being :lol:) who were saying it's hard to judge things with the injuries. Particularly when it comes to coaching. Hell, Tim Murray himself even falls into that category.

Is it your contention that the president elect hasn't done anything to violate the norms of decorum? My position is not that the crowd should have booed Pence (they shouldn't have), but that complaints about it from Trump, Pence, surrogates, or supporters, rings especially hollow given what Trump himself brought to, and was applauded for, the campaign. On a more humorous note, shocking to see President-elect Trump be in favor of safe spaces :w00t: