Yes, we can.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I have no idea if it's at all valid, but I love www.fivethirtyeight.com .

I've been reading that site for a while, and it's become the political site I most often refresh through the course of the day. I have found his blog to be enlightening and insightful, and I actually had to read it for a number of weeks before I even became aware that he's a Democrat (though he's been letting that out more often of late). I don't know if the various percentages he has assigned to the races and the statistical analyses behind them are valid, but they seem to be pretty much in the ballpark of what I would expect based on my entirely unscientific impressions of the races.

[innerSpaceman]

Who blamed the Republicans for that? Was it Barack Obama???



It's seeming a little infantile of you to be changing the subject like that.


There, I'll concede that politicians wrongly blame the other side of the aisle on a routine basis, all in craven partisan lyinghood.



Now, can we address the subject of what a bonehead John McCain continues to be about the economic crisis, and how his every chosen move just digs him deeper into the hole of unelectability?


Or would you like to discuss mitochondria?

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Or would you like to discuss mitochondria?

I'll field this one, Leo.
Mitochondria is a cell's power station of sorts. It has two membranes. They can be round or elongated...

[innerSpaceman]

Is that the celluar equivalent of cut or uncut? Or is this getting too esoteric?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Mitochondria are what make Jedis.

[scaeagles]

ISM, this was a recent subject regarding McCain's attempt in 2005 to get some reigns on Freddie and Fannie. It was pointed out to me that the republicans could have passed it at that point in time without one dem vote but it didn't even make it to the floor.

Only bringing it up in that context of who is really in control of this process.

[innerSpaceman]

Apples (from the Riley Farm) and Oranges. A bill not making it out of committee has absolutely nothing to do with a situation where Republicans desperately seeking reelection won't go along with their party mandate when a bill is on the floor.

In fact, more Democrats would have voted for the bill had not so many Republicans voted against it. Midway through the voting, the word went out to the Dems from their leadership that they could vote their conscience, since Republicans were not supporting their party line.

So the only thing Pelosi had to do with the result was perhaps that less Democrats voted for the bailout than would have otherwise. She had zero to do with Republicans voting two thirds against it.



I fail to see the applicability of your comparison, and I call official shenanigans on you, Sir.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

In fact, more Democrats would have voted for the bill had not so many Republicans voted against it.

HA! A claim of shenanigans from someone using how the republicans voted to justify the dems not passing it? THAT'S funny. That's Kerry-esque.

I see your shenanigans and raise you two more, sir!

[innerSpaceman]

You can't change facts, that's how it went. There's no way of knowing how the Democratic vote tally might have differed, but they were released from their obligations to adhere to the party line as the (I believe four hour long) vote progressed.


I'm not justifying anything. There's no blame from me for the failure to pass this miserable piece of legislation. The Republicans may have voted no for the most craven of reasons, but I applaud them for their lack of support.

[tracilicious]

As representatives, they shouldn't be voting party line anyways. They should be voting the way their home state feels to the best of their ability. Public opinion was vastly opposed to the bailout, so kudos to all who voted against it for representing the public.