Generally agree.

Big night for Hillary. She kicked his ass in Ohio.She needed to kick his ass in Ohio. She didn't kick his ass in Texas, no matter how those goofy bastards count up their primus secaucus votes. She needed to kick his ass.

Now comes Mississippi and Wyoming. By the time they get to Pennsylvania they'll be back to where they were before Hillary's big night.

Pa. looms large, but it won't swing the delegate count that much even if Hillary sweeps all of the areas Maria talked about, such as suburban Philly. Simple math at this point. Neither is going to make 2025, so barring the unforeseen this thing's going to Denver and the superdelegates.

I don't think Barry wants that second seat. I don't want him to take the second seat. He can do more good someplace else.

That's sad about Swayze. Never good news when the diagnosis involves the word pancreas.

In the past, there has been limited impact by choice of vp.  VP's sometimes help deliver their particular state.  The selection sometimes brings factions of the party together (which has an indirect impact on results).

But this time - Hillary not offering it to Obama would be disastrous for her chances.  Not sure that's true the other way around.

The Quayle choice is an example of a choice that hurt.  After one term he was viewed as such an idiot that it played a limited role in the fact that Bush sr. was a 1 term president.  Many people thought Bush sr. should have replaced Quayle for the 2nd round.

Nixon and Johnson used the  office of veep to get the presidency.

I've officially become one of the mad deleters myself - but in case you didn't see my reply before I deleted it - I just want to repeat that you have a memory like a steel trap - and just know that there's someone out here who appreciates it.  (anyone else get that washer remark?)

Apropos of nothing:

wake me when the game is over.

Adam Morgan.  Not doing a great job of it, mind you, but I give you points for trying.

daveto just claimed Im denny (dont know why my apostrophe button isnt working - just getting letters with French accents on them).

Dennys claim to fame was that he was a serial plagiarizer.  If I valued davetos opinion, Id take offence at such a comparison.  Interestingly, such attempts at insult were not uncommon from adam morgan.  If you disagreed with him, especially politically, hed ridicule you with insult rather than argument.  Because some mistook adam for reasonably bright, they tended to ignore such insults to others out of some weird fellow feeling for the guy.

Denny was also well known for arguing against a mistaken interpretation of what you were saying - ironic that Ive accused daveto (again) of just that here.  I said the Quayle factor was a small role in Bush sr.s defeat - daveto responds  that it was news to him that Clinton needed Quayle.  Almost every conversation I have with daveto goes like this.  Ill respond that I didnt say what hes accusing me of - hell respond with an insult.  I respond with a link saying what I said.  He responds with an insult.

Now I really do think that daveto understands the difference between saying the Quayle factor was a small role and saying Clinton needed Quayle.  So Ive got to assume, like adam morgan, hes deliberately putting this out there and relying on your (all who like him here) feeling toward him, and therefore you willingness to ignore both the deliberate misinterpetation of my view and the deliberate attempt at insult as a response.

Now - I may have told you I thought you were dumb, but I dont recall actually spelling that out.  Care to point me in the direction where I said that (apparently cant do question marks either - grrrr).

I dont actually think Ive considered the question as to whether you are dumb or not - I think a bunch of you have said some stupid things in these threads - but nothing of yours that I can recall (which frankly isnt very much, stands out as dumb.)  That doesnt mean I agree with you.  I really dont think any of you are dumb.  I dont think daveto is dumb.  I therefore have to think hes being deliberately misleading.  I dont see another option.

So - I think the adam morgan thing is rather apt.  Glad to see it caught your attention.

I'm content being boring.  But I'd rather have fun than be funny - and frankly, I've had fun with these election threads.

Interesting too - I consider myself "lightened up" with you (don't know why the quotation marks are now working); but certainly not with daveto.

For the record stuff - Ele was the first to call Adam on his stuff - chastising him for dating just weeks after the alleged death of his wife and child.  But daveto doesn't yet get the extent of Adam's deception.  He should chat more with his "heart" friends - they've been known to talk and squawk off-fray.

I had had several negative interactions with Adam - which you could say predisposed me to dislike him.  The fact is, I continued conversations with him, simply because his willingness to occasionally be verbally abusive meant nothing to me.  And as I've said before, when I first heard his tragic news, I believed him.  I even top posted a long note to him giving out some personal information perhaps a little more personal than I should have given.  I wrote him out of compassion - the fact that we weren't admirers of each other seemed so particularly meaningless.

The Adam went on about dates, and cousins he wanted to fuck, and the details he told weren't particularly consistent.  Even his discussions of what it was like in his academic department didn't ring true.  Added to this was an insane post about how he thought he had invented a formula for making stock predictions and wanted peoples' opinions.  Our interaction in that thread looked like it would be our last.

Now more for the record stuff - my top post only seemed like it was about truth and honesty.  What it was really about was friendship (at least my version of it good or bad).  I became convinced he was lying.  I remembered Ele's post disbelieving his every word.  But I saw people I considered friends (in some way) responding to Adam, giving heartfelt advice.  It's not uncommon for people to feel attracted to someone who's gone through a tough spell.  Adam's posts were designed to attract attention.  Each post was about how he was now being pursued by attractive women - was it too early to date?  what should he wear? etc.  People were understandibly opening up to him - I felt some were even attracted to him.  I found that abusive.  He was abusing these people.  I didn't want to write a "here's why I don't believe you post".   I didn't want to name the person.  I talked to some others, off-fray, who agreed with me that his story was becoming more obviously bullshit, but we agreed it couldn't be proven, and calling him on it crossed a line.  Then he posted again - I think twice more.  And I had his stupid stock prediction posts.  I saw more emotional, kind responses to him.

Really I wanted him to stop abusing others.  You can lie all you want as long as it's not mocking others.   I couldn't take reading the responses he was getting.  Maybe I'm rationalizing, but it was the responses that killed me.  I didn't want to see people abuse.  It really wasn't about the lying (sure, lying is bad...).

So - just wanted him to stop.  Didn't want to get in a pissing match.  I posted the liar post figuring he'd know it was him, but also thinking he wouldn't dare respond.  Figured some others would clue in.  Saw the possibility he'd be named.  Of course, the thread took a life of it's own when he was one of the first to respond to it.  And then, in spite of wanting to throttle him, I tried to defend myself for not naming him.

At first, people were angry with me, and still wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I backed off.  daveto certainly seemed very sympathetic to Adam.  I think SF1 was taken aback - really his reaction amazed me the most.  I never understood the attraction to Adam, but I was in the minority there.  (I'm gathering ghost wasn't fond of him either.)   But when you see through something you have this built in expectation that most everyone will be able to see through it too.  I was amazed at the resistance to see through him.  A lesson for me.

Gradually, it became the prevailing opinion that at least some of the things he said weren't true.  In fact, almost every personal detail he gave wasn't true, going way before his alleged tragedy.  But that really doesn't matter.  What mattered to me was that his abusive posts stopped.  It really was about (my version of) friendship.  There was fallout from this though.  I basically began taking much more crap from others.  Dawn and I had a permanent falling out over issues relating to this.  I'm not saying it was the right thing to do - I'm only saying I did it out of a sense of having to do something for friends.  And I'd do it again.

The willingness to gloss over things when you like someone (or,  The willingness to be blind to faults when you are fond of the person who has those faults)is reallly an amazing phenomenon.  Funny, but that's been my point with you guys on Obama as well.

I don't recall Quayle's reputation going to far one way or another between 1988-1992.  There was the Murphy Brown business, but that was more of a Rorsarch test that made people who didn't like him like him less.

Obviously, Bush managed to get elected with Qualye on the ticket in 1988, and not in 1992, leading to the conclusion that it was mostly due to the names on the top of the ticket.