Prize for winning the GOP nomination: becoming the answer to the trivia Q "Who'd Hillary beat?"

[DSeid]

Wow.

And it’ll work too, just like the man in Canada who sprinkled elephant repellant on his lawn everyday.

2016 - No Obama takeover of Texas by special ops forces. See how well deploying the state guard worked?

[SlackerInc]

I happened to see a genius comment pop up in the two minute window before the NPR mods deleted it (unfairly, IMO) and copied it:

Here is the problem for Governor Abbott:

His Texas army has to evade the Death Panels AND the ACORN troops who are still loyal to Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers.

They cannot fight Obama’s troops. They are outgunned and outmanned. However, if they can work their way north - keeping East of California to avoid the homosexual armies, and West of Denver to evade the remaining pot-smoking brigades who still fight on Obama’s side… they should be able to reach Alaska (undetected by the blacks and jews) and invade Russia from Sarah
Palin’s house.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

I happened to see a genius comment pop up in the two minute window before the NPR mods deleted it (unfairly, IMO) and copied it:

The trick is to keep the snark believable (to the nutjobs, anyway). That was great, but I wasn’t positive it was satire until it got to Alaska.

[SlackerInc]

Maybe the problem, then, was that the mods didn’t understand it was satire.

[parkona_driveway]

Here’s a current summary of betting odds at the European sportsbooks:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

The Democratic party is heavily favored to win, with odds translating to nearly 60%, and of course Clinton is the presumptive nominee. Elizabeth Warren is a distant second to represent the Democrats.

Bush is the Republican frontrunner, but the nominee’s name will more likely be something other than Jeb.

I have no preference.

[SlackerInc]

Interesting. I think the Republicans would kill for a 40% chance. I don’t believe it’s remotely that high.

Does this mean you can bet 30 euros on the Democratic nominee to win 20? Easy money IMO, although the disadvantage is that you have to tie it up for over a year. If they are offering odds like that in October of next year, I will be scraping up all the money I can to make a quick and easy profit.

[ElvisL1ves]

@parkona_driveway

Bush is the Republican frontrunner, but the nominee’s name will more likely be something other than Jeb.

Neil? Jenna?

[parkona_driveway]

@SlackerInc

Does this mean you can bet 30 euros on the Democratic nominee to win 20? Easy money IMO, although the disadvantage is that you have to tie it up for over a year.

Ladbrokes supposedly is offering odds of 4/5 (I can’t find the listing on their site), so a bet of 30 would pay 24 if my math is correct. But the waiting time is awkward for sure.

Sportingbet has the Republicans at 7/5 (bet 30 to win 42). If you forced me to choose, I would probably bet Republican because a lot can happen in 18 months, and I expect the economy to deteriorate further from here.

@ElvisL1ves

Neil? Jenna?

LOL, did I screw up my phrasing? I should never attempt to be clever

[SlackerInc]

@parkona_driveway

If you forced me to choose, I would probably bet Republican because a lot can happen in 18 months, and I expect the economy to deteriorate further from here.

Predicting the economy will deteriorate at all over the next 18 months goes against most forecasts, but you’re entitled to be a contrarian. The use of the adverb “further”, however, is completely unwarranted:

All told, the U.S. has added an amazing 3.3 million jobs over the last 12 months. In fact, we’ve had 12 consecutive months of job growth over 200,000 – the first time Americans have seen this since 1995, and only the second time since 1984. It’s also the first time we’ve seen private-sector job growth over 200,000 for 12 consecutive months since 1977.

What’s more, February was the 53rd consecutive month of positive job growth – the best stretch since 1939 – and the 58th consecutive month in which we’ve seen private-sector job growth, which is the longest on record.

[ElvisL1ves]

@parkona_driveway

I expect the economy to deteriorate further from here.

From what facts do you conclude the economy is deteriorating?

[SlackerInc]

@ElvisL1ves

From what facts do you conclude the economy is deteriorating?

I’m guessing the same “facts” that lead a Ron Paul-loving acquaintance of mine to believe that under Obama, inflation has skyrocketed, as have taxes on regular working folk, and the budget deficit. All false in reality.

[parkona_driveway]

@SlackerInc

… and the budget deficit. All false in reality.

Sorry, I was busy replying to the above. Which source are you using for budget deficit calculations?

[parkona_driveway]

@SlackerInc

The use of the adverb “further”, however, is completely unwarranted:

@ElvisL1ves

From what facts do you conclude the economy is deteriorating?

Briefly, employment is improving, but from low levels. And the details are generally worse than the headlines – real earnings, labor force participation, income inequality.

First quarter GDP was flat, and this morning’s headlines suggest a substantial downward revision due to the very latest data such as the trade deficit.

The (anemic) recovery since the “Great Recession” has been fueled by deficit spending and interest-rate suppression, neither of which can continue indefinitely IMO.

[SlackerInc]

@parkona_driveway

Sorry, I was busy replying to the above. Which source are you using for budget deficit calculations?

How about the Washington Post?

When President Obama took office in 2009 at the height of the recession, the annual budget deficit came in at 10.1 percent of gross domestic product – a level not seen since the end of World War II. In the five years since, the budget deficit has been sliced more than half. New figures in Obama’s just-released budget put it at only 3.7 percent of GDP in 2014.

[SlackerInc]

And since this is the Elections board, it’s useful to compare the “(anemic) recovery” to the Romney’s 2012 election promise for how low he could bring unemployment if the voters chose to switch horses in midstream:

The 5.6% rate under Obama can also be compared to Mitt Romney’s statement in 2012, during his presidential campaign, that adoption of his policies would bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017. Romney viewed this as an ambitious goal, but achievable if one would follow the policies he advocated. It was achieved under Obama already by September 2014. One did not hear, however, any words of congratulations from Romney or others in the Republican Party to mark that success.

Oooh, what a burn! (It is, however, political malpractice on the part of the DNC that they have not been running ads replaying Romney’s words and making hay out of this.)

That site also shows, BTW, that the unemployment rate now is lower than it was at the same point in Reagan’s presidency.

P.S. Go ahead, sputter and fume for a while…I’ll wait.

[ElvisL1ves]

@parkona_driveway

Briefly, employment is improving, but from low levels.

So it’s not deteriorating, it’s improving. Thanks for clearing that up.
You’re right about the low levels, but could have briefly explored how they got that way.

The (anemic) recovery

So a recovery that isn’t fast enough (I agree) is actually a deterioration. Interesting.

the “Great Recession”

Caused by policies we would *never *want to return to, right?

has been fueled by deficit spending and interest-rate suppression, neither of which can continue indefinitely IMO.

So you expect the recovery to turn around and become a deterioration, right in time for the election. Interesting thing to hope for, that.

[parkona_driveway]

@ElvisL1ves

So it’s not deteriorating, it’s improving. Thanks for clearing that up.

Show me where I said employment was deteriorating. I said the economy, customarily measured by the (deteriorating) GDP.

[ElvisL1ves]

YOU brought up employment to support your claim that the economy is deteriorating. The confusion is not mine. Your other claims are speculative, not factual.

So, again, by what actual facts do you conclude that the economy is, at present, actually *deteriorating *(employment and stock prices notwithstanding)? I do hope you have more than “Because Fox says so”.

[parkona_driveway]

@ElvisL1ves

YOU brought up employment to support your claim that the economy is deteriorating.

I was responding to Slacker. Employment is the bright spot at the moment.

My evidence of economic deterioration is the crappy GDP.

[SlackerInc]

@parkona_driveway

Show me where I said employment was deteriorating. I said the economy, customarily measured by the (deteriorating) GDP.

Wrong again. This graph takes us up to January of this year; this news release covers the only report so far this year. No actual decline in either one since early 2009. I suppose you could say “the *derivative *of the GDP declined in the most recent quarter” but that’s not a thing AFAIK.

The next report will be on May 29. If that shows an actual decline in GDP, then you’ll look prescient. But I would bet it’s not going to show that.