Brad DeLong channels Cosma Shalizi:
Haven’t you just constructed an enormous and pointless intellectual apparatus involving […], in increasing order of implausibility, speaking intelligent aquatic waterfowl, options pricing, Vulcans, teleportation, Bayesianism, and time-travel just in order to be able to say the obvious thing: “The probability of an HRC victory is uncertain: it might be as low as 0.45 or as high as 0.95, and we will be able to sharpen our estimate as election day comes closer”?
Well, I laughed. Maybe you just had to be there. Or read the whole thing. Note that the order of implausible events is nicely snarky.
Clinton calls Trump a unifier.
Click the link, it’s worth it.
PS. If anyone knows how to embed that sort of video in WordPress, please share. Never mind, the Clinton people provided one.
Add John Boehner to the list:
“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
I don’t see it in the archives, but it’s hard to believe I haven’t blogged my favorite Ted Cruz joke yet:
Q: Why should people hate Ted Cruz on sight?
A: It saves time.
OK, it’s my only Ted Cruz joke so far, but comments are open.
Previously: Tell Us What You Really Think
We deserve better.
Cruz Pre-Taps Fiorina. Photo: Flickr/Gage Skidmore
My brother is being resasonable about what he calls “The Brooklyn Dodgers,” namely Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’s non-answers at the most recent debate.
WHEN A CANDIDATE for high office can’t respond to a simple question with an honest answer, attention should be paid. More often than not these days, that kind of behavior is just greeted with a shrug by the members of the elite media, but specific acts of evasion are worth studying. Because if something’s important enough for a candidate that they concoct a ludicrous non-response, there’s probably a sore point under there somewhere.
And when a candidate won’t directly answer the question, it’s also legitimate to speculate why that might be.
I’m not talking here about the positions on the issues that the candidates are taking, and whether they are logically consistent or wise. I’m not fact-checking. I’m just looking at evasive responses, and what they mean.
There follows multiple examples. I think this a model of what news analysis during campaigns should be.
PS. That said, reasonable surmise #2 appears to have been disproved by events? Could the reason Bernie hadn’t released his returns have been as simple as the returns being back home, the family is on the campaign trail, no one else had the key?