KevinG

Living in Madison, WI I see Bernie stickers and signs all over the place. I would say they are about equal to or slightly more than the Hillary stickers I see, and out number the Walker stickers 2 to 1. But Madison is weird. Me, too.

I was there about a month ago. I travel for my work and take the opportunity to check out baseball stadiums. I have been to 10 so far. This is what I did not like about US Cellular. 1) Getting to the Park. I was in the west burbs and thought I would take the PACE bus to the park. Didn't look closely that the PACE bus only makes one round and left my stop at 4:45 pm for a 7:10 game. Would have thought it would have made a couple of stops or trips for people who actually work for a living. So then I had to drive the Cell and pay 20 bucks for parking. So that was annoying. Yes I should

I don't mind publicly funded stadiums and projects. They do bring in money and can help vitalize an area. However what galls me is the sheer hypocrisy of governor Walker. He is saying it is alright to increase taxes to pay for this arena, but we will not increase taxes to pay for schools or roads or other things to help all of Wisconsin. The return on investment for these things surly outweighs the return on investment of this new arena. Also US Cellular is one of the worst baseball stadiums I have been too.

Today, the Governor of Wisconsin and the GOP controlled legislature officially put its priorities front and center. They are willing to tax its citizens for a private sports team (and donors to Walker's presidential PAC) to the tune of 250 million dollars or more. But will cut funding to public education and other infrastructure. http://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/gov-walker-signs-bucks-arena-deal/34671700 Priorities!

Especially in baseball when the home team has such an advantage.

It was never my intention to say that Nader cost Gore the election. My intent was to show how third party candidates or fringe candidates are often extreme and will pull votes from establishment candidates. Third party candidates do not pull in new voters. They take and divide the already small voting population. There are probably going to be about 240 million eligible voters in 2016. With about 130 million actual votes cast. Which means 90 million people will not have their voice heard. Obama got 65 million votes, Romney got 60 million. Say for example a moderate third party candi

If everyone who continually lamented about the two party system actually got together and voted for someone outside of the two party system we would have a winner. The problem is third party candidates are often more fringe then the Democrats or Republicans. Trump if he runs as an independent will take votes away from GOP, he will not take votes away from the Dems. In 2000 Nader took votes away from the Dems not the GOP. A solid centrist candidate could do it. Really the Whig Party is very appealing to me right now. http://www.modernwhig.org/platform

We'll, it would actually. First off Trumps views are not different from any other GOP candidate. He just says it in his Trump way. Blunt, and to the point are ways I have heard him described. His popularity speaks to a large segment of GOP voters. A large segment believes what he says and agrees with how he says it. If you don't think this says something about the current nature of the GOP you are being wilfully ignorant. Sure many Republicans are probably embarrassed by him, but not enough to move him from the font runner status. I guess you have to ask yourself, if the presi

But he is leading the polls right now. And this is after saying dome really hateful things (unknown what the Megan Kelley thing will do to his numbers). What this means is a plurality of GOP voters believe and supports his hateful message and views. Trump is exposing the true nature of today's GOP.

How about that NL Central? 3 of the 4 top teams in the NL are in the Central. Which will probably mean someone in the NL Central will not make the playoffs and having a better record then the winner of the NL East. Looking forward for some good baseball down the stretch.

Interesting analysis of the debate and the Trump factor by Howard Fineman over at HuffPo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-gop-debate-trumpism_55c446ede4b0d9b743dbb5d7?kvcommref=mostpopular Admittedly left leaning, but interesting. He more than any other candidate is pushing the GOP field to the right and far far right. Trump is obviously tapping into something here, really going for the young/middle aged, uneducated, white, male vote. Who has a strong voice in GOP politics right now.

man this kids table debate is turning into a real shit show. Each of these guys is trying so hard to distinguish themselves with their true conservative credentials they are saying some pretty crazy stuff. Santorum is the son of Regan? Jindal will use the IRS to go after Plan Parenthood? Graham is going monitor Mosques (which already is happening to my shock)? Fiorina looks like she is setting herself for a VP nomination. Bush/Finorina 2016? Could that beat Clinton/Clark ticket? Doubt it?

If my understanding is correct, it works out this way. The RNC/DNC set up the schedule and then have sponsoring organizations (for example tonight's debate is sponsored by FoxNews and Facebook.) The sponsoring organization is generally a media outlet who puts up the money, time cameras, hosts, etc for the debate. It is then up to the sponsoring organization and the National Committees and candidates to figure out the rules. Be it the time, the questions, who is on stage, etc. There is a bunch of stuff that goes into this (ie who stands where, if you can directly respond, etc.) The spo

Here is there DNC's schedule of debates http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/ Definitely a lot less and a lot less definition (thus far) then the RNC schedule http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/ Tonight's debate is a joke. It is so early in the process all you have is name recognition. But really a good business model on FoxNews part. Limit the field to 10 candidates. Make the "bubble candidates" spend money on ads (mostly on your network, because that i

Man it seems as though the Brewers are having a fire sale right now. The cubbies got Dan Harren, that seem like a marginally good pickup. I am not sure on the players they gave up (a minor league inflielder and pitcher I think). The Cubs are not on hook for much (if any money) and he will be an inning eater late in the season. And who knows maybe the might flip him to the Dodgers or something.

We don't have a long complicated history with lions. We have a long complicated history with race. So there is that. Also there are many is society that see the actions by police as justified, whereas I would say 99% of our society agree that this denist is an asshat (though, Ted Nugent feels differently.) People like to hear that they are right or that people agree with them (thus the major polarization of our politics right now.) It is just easier then having people tell us why we are wrong about the police shootings, global warming, the Iran deal. People just like to be reafirmed

I guess some people are willing to send our soldiers into another war in the Middle East. This is what I don't understand, like all of the GOP's outrages over things Obama have done, there is no other real plan or way to solve the situation. Let's play a thought game here, so congress or the next GOP president ends the deal with Iran. Iran now has all of their centrifuges with no oversight and able to enrich uranium to whatever they want, but the US continues its sanctions (maybe even to a greater effect). They are still on track to get a nuclear weapon. What are the sanctions doing t

I guess I failed to make my point (or did I?) The next president I am sure is able to make his or her own decision on the Iran deal. The merits of the plan are up to them and congress to ultimately figure out. And my post was not about the merits of the plan. That is to be debated another time. But here is the dangerous and stupid thing about what Walker is suggesting. He is saying after becoming elected (not sworn in as President) he would work with foreign leaders to dismantle the plan. Which is a completely illegal and unconstitutional thing to do. By working with foreign govern

I think or at least I would hope that whatever side of the political divide you are on we all can agree that Trump is a moron and is neither good for the political process and probably detrimental to GOP. He is exposing the worst parts of the far Right Wing of the GOP. And in effect he is making the other candidates say and do equally stupid stuff just to get some much needed air time. You look at Rand Paul going after the tax code with a chainsaw, Graham destroying his phone and calling Trump a Jackass, etc. It is shameful what Trump is doing and what he is making the others do as well.

I thought he would have been a good fit for the Cubs. I think the Cubs will remain quiet this trade deadline (it is not the popular thing to do, but the right one), get some guys during the waiver period and make a couple of big moves this offseason.

That was quick. Tulo goes 0 for 5 with an RBI and then immediately gets traded. What a weird game last night against the Cubbies. I do love Hawkins though (though he was often a dumpster fire). Every time his name comes up I love to tell my favorite Latroy Hawkins story. Back in 2004 or 2005 he was pitching for the Cubs. At one point, as so often was the case at that time, Kerry Wood was either hurt or on the DL. So in one game that summer in the six or seventh inning, Pat Hughes and the Late Great Ron Santo were in the booth, calling the game, chatting as normal (probably about c

I would agree, but getting swept by the Phils this weekend was not in the plans.

Fixed it for you, I think you had the wrong sport. Cause 17 to 7 is ridiculous for a baseball game. And I don't want a team coming off a 17 run game to play my slumping Cubbies.

It is easier to attack the author as biased, then to refute the evidence that was presented.