Football programs are by far a net income generator for most major colleges. Not only do they pay for the salaries, travel, and stadiums, but the money pays for other sports that do not make money. I’m all for reductions in higher education, but don’t start with things that are money-makers.
OK, the Democrat debate came in third in terms of overall viewers, but it’s not their fault.
Many have pointed out the absurdity of comparing the ratings of a clown show wit that of a political debate (Do Not Taunt even taunted you about it) but I had already suggested a remedy and been ignored:
The DNC/CNN could have invited Donald Trump to their debate. 
:eek: :eek: :smack:
At the beginning of the show, CNN personal mentioned Trump several times. Probably just to boost their ratings. CNN also mentioned Ben Carson and showed the empty podium they had ready just in case Biden made an appearance. It’s not like CNN didn’t try to inject a little Trump into their debate.
Oh, I know. And I’m not going to dismiss him or even judge him, based on just one debate. But his comments on affirmative action and being “where the Democratic Party has traditionally been” made him sound like an old fashioned Zell Miller-style southern Democrat. He definitely seemed like his place on the far right of the stage was not accidental.
It’s last place in a completely irrelevant metric.
I watched both Republican debates, and not the Democratic debate. I can assure you this was not out of greater interest in Republicans’ ideas.
I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t think I made it up. If you’re not familiar with the blog post/column that it refers to, you can find it here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/
Noonan was certainly not the only pundit who thought Romney would win, but her piece gained particular notoriety. I know Nate Silver has referred to it on a number of occasions…The article sort of stands as the poster child for the problems that arise when you look very hard–in the wrong places–for clues about how a political race will come out.
That’s as silly as thinking Pataki’s some sort of a flaming liberal because he supports gay marriage and legalized abortion and that of course ignores ignores that everything else Webb said on the platform.
I’d be willing to bet that far more Democrats have already made up their mind.
No doubt, it’s like watching a car accident, it’s horrifying but you can’t look away.
Since 1956? As a fellow Democrat, I would be very interested in your explanation of this.
I suspect it’s something like:
'68 Nixon falsely claimed to have a secret plan to end the war, and won a squeaker.
'72 Nixon was up to all kinds of dirtiness.
'80 Reagan stole Carter’s debate prep book, and engaged in some fishy stuff with the Iranians to delay the hostage release.
'84 Reagan covered up his Alzheimer’s, maybe?
'88 Not sure about this one. Bush played some scummy McCarthyist politics with his flag factory and “card-carrying member of the ACLU” but politics ain’t beanbag.
'00 No explanation needed.
'04 Not sure about this one either.
I thought Sanders was the clearest and most straightforward. His language doesn’t seem to include ‘escape hatches’ like Hillary’s sometimes does, but rather seeks to define concretely the problems of income inequality, or a race-slanted justice system, or the risk we face from monster banks, along with plenty of anecdotes of him championing these various causes throughout his career. I think if he were elected POTUS and if both houses of Congress went blue we still wouldn’t see all of his proposals enacted, but I like where his focus is at.
Hillary definitely looked good. She was confident and comfortable, as always a little phony yet more relatable this time than on other occasions. Her game of hogging all the camera time like she was William Shatner was an act of political skill and cunning. She seemed like a lucid and polished politician with lots of good positions, some of which may turn out to be less than expected due to the fine print.
I thought Webb was the most interesting of the also-rans. Griping about his face time was a bit of a blunder, but OTOH he was getting shorted and fought for his chance. I think he is in the running for “gruffest US president”. I am leery of a military guy for POTUS, but in this case the military experience seems to have turned him into a disciplined and productive guy who has had a very successful and wide-ranging career. I think we could have a “gruff president”; I could picture this guy wielding power and exhibiting that longed-for quality of “leadership”, but need to take another look at his positions.
O’Malley was allright. I enjoyed his clever modulation of his Irish accent, there for effect one second and then gone in a flash. I guess I don’t agree with his “100% clean energy grid by 2050” idea. Don’t get me wrong, I think clean energy is a top global priority. However, I expect fossil fuels to remain too convenient to eliminate altogether. And what about places like Alaska, or Maine? Can they still burn a little natural gas if overall fossil fuel consumption is reduced 75-85%? I think so.
O’Malley didn’t come across as incompetent or anything, but he didn’t really grab my attention either. I’m not sure why not- I don’t know him any worse than Webb, but he just didn’t seem to stand out somehow.
I cannot imagine Chaffee as president. He repeatedly seemed silly to me, which is the opposite of gravitas. Everyone else could at least clear the gravitas bar.
Overall, it does seem like Sanders is changing the entire conversation, if not necessarily winning the election. I like the positions the dems are taking overall. I agree with the poster who said the winner was the Democratic Party. They express much more vision, will and insight than the GOP into what will move this country forward.
I think there is a place for new ideas. Especially when the old ideas are, “cut taxes no matter what, especially for the wealthiest.”
Can you provide some detail for how O’Malley is the best at making government work? He did bring up points from his resume, but to me it didn’t have the same punch as when Clinton or Sanders (or Webb) did it.
O’Malley has by far the most executive experience, and while not always popular he did accomplish the objectives he set out to accomplish, which demonstrates executive competence. As I mentioned before, he also is really into data driven governance, which I’m sure warms Nate Silver’s heart. There’s a ton of writing on O’Malley’s Maryland adminstration in the wonkier parts of the internet, but it’s an extremely important story that the media just isn’t all that interested in. But all the candidates from both parties should be spending a lot of time learning about this if they actually want to be good executives:
http://beyondtransparency.org/chapters/part-4/why-data-must-drive-decisions-in-government/
I agree that '84 and '88 don’t belong; and I’d certainly include '60 (with GOP victim instead of fraudster) before '68 or even '80.
But the 2004 fraud is very firm. Kerry would definitely have won without the Swiftboat lies, and GWB still needed multiple frauds to win Ohio, which swung the electoral vote. Moreover, America would have surely rejected this hapless incompetent if it hadn’t been put on a war-footing due to the felonious treasons and perjuries of Dick Cheney, et al.
It’s well known that Richard Nixon committed treason to get the South Vietnamese to withdraw from peace talks with the North until after the election.
Since the 1968 election was effectively stolen, Nixon’s 1972 resteal was tainted even without the Watergate crimes.
Since treason worked so well in 1968, Reagan did the same with Iran in 1980.
Since Reagan won in 1980 only by committing treason, he would not have had the opportunity to run as the incumbent in 1984 without said treason. And George HW Bush would not have been able to run as the incumbent vice president in 1988, negating his election credibility as well.
Jump to 2000, and a bad ballot design in Florida, having the Bush campaign cheerleader in charge of the state election in Florida, and the utter joke that the Supreme Court has become all came together in a perfect storm to deny the White House to Al Gore. That would have stained Bush’s “re-election” in 2004 even without the voter suppression and other irregularities in Ohio in that year.
To sum up, no legitimate Republican victories since Ike in 1956.
Much of this is pretty silly stuff. Reagan and GHW Bush were far superior politicians, in terms of winning elections, then their opponents, and that’s the main reason they won. Even if you think '80 was “stolen” (and I don’t), '84 and '88 were definitely not – Reagan stomped Mondale, and Bush stomped Dukakis. They used the Southern Strategy (especially in '88 with Willie Horton), but it was real politics, and our candidates lost.
This kind of nonsense is counter-productive, in my view. Republicans legitimately won elections – GHW Bush wasn’t even that bad of a president, in my view. The Southern Strategy exploited racism and was wrong, but the Republican party didn’t start to go nuts until the 90s, and didn’t go totally off the rocker until Obama was elected.
We all have our own opinions, I happen to think that a presidential candidate that interferes with negotiations to get hostages released in order to win an election is a criminal and should be in the big house, not the White House. Take away that act of treason, he doesn’t win in 1980 and Mondale runs in 1984 as the two time incumbent vice president, from then on is conjecture.
I don’t think it’s counter productive at all. Republicans indulge in this fantasy that the US is predisposed to elect Republicans, but in 2016 it will be 60 years since one was elected without some type of criminal activity.