-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Taking the Vote for Granite
Author: BobR
Date: 01/11/2012 13:52:50
Anyone with a pulse knows that New Hampshire had their Republican and Democratic primaries yesterday (yes, there was a Democratic primary, despite the news coverage amounting to zilch). As expected, Mitt Romney won the Republican primary, with Ron Paul coming in second and John Huntsman taking third. The only mild surprise there is John Huntsman, who is hoping to leverage this into more face time on the news. Will he be the next candidate experiencing a media bump (and comensurate rise in the polls)? Not likely - considering SC is next.
These first three contests take a fairly good snapshot of three diverse areas of the country - the Midwest, New England, and Deep South. Assuming no candidates drop out, they will likely be microcosms of the voting that will occur in other states in their regions (the Rocky Mountain states and west coast are another story, yet to be written). Those with a social conservative agenda (ie: Santorum) will do well in the Deep South.
Romney does have momentum going into the SC race, though, and there is a certain subset of voters that aren't really committed, and will vote for the candidate they think will win, because they want to vote for a winner (so they can lay claim to some sort of political savvy later on). Romney's two early wins are a huge boost to his campaign. I will make the prediction that he will not win SC, but he may do better than he would have otherwise.
What's far more interesting about yesterday's results are the numbers. Let's compare the results of the 2012 Republican and Democratic results against those from the 2008 race for both the Republicans and Democrats. As of this writing, 95% of the results are in, so the numbers aren't 100% accurate, but I can't imagine them changing drastically:
I find these raw numbers to be fascinating. Compare the 2008 race with the current 2012 race. There was no incumbent... there was a lot of excitement on the Democratic side with a "black" man and a woman as the two front runners. The fields on both sides were still wide open. This year we have an incumbent Democratic president. The Republicans are framing this race as "we must defeat President Obama in 2012 and 'take our country back'".
New Hampshire is an "open primary" state. That means that you do not have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary. Democrats and "independent" voters can vote in that primary as well. Barack Obama is running essentially unopposed; he got 90% of the vote. Some may point to his huge drop in the vote total as indicative of dissatisfaction among the Democrats, but if that were true, they'd show up and vote for one of his opponents in the primary (and about 10,000 did). Instead, I would argue that they assumed he'd win and didn't feel the need to vote in that primary.
So - considering that independents and Democrats didn't vote in the Democratic primary, one would assume they'd vote in the Republican primary instead. The number of votes in the Republican primary should have increased in some inverse relationship with the number of voters that decreased in the Democratic primary.
Instead, approx 239,000 voters just stayed home this year. Only 5000 more voters voted in the Republican primary.
I don't know how many voters in New Hampshire consider themselves to be independent. Whatever the number, they didn't seem panicked enough by President Obama nor inspired enough by any of the Republican candidates to even show up on election day.
That, I think, speaks volumes.
These first three contests take a fairly good snapshot of three diverse areas of the country - the Midwest, New England, and Deep South. Assuming no candidates drop out, they will likely be microcosms of the voting that will occur in other states in their regions (the Rocky Mountain states and west coast are another story, yet to be written). Those with a social conservative agenda (ie: Santorum) will do well in the Deep South.
Romney does have momentum going into the SC race, though, and there is a certain subset of voters that aren't really committed, and will vote for the candidate they think will win, because they want to vote for a winner (so they can lay claim to some sort of political savvy later on). Romney's two early wins are a huge boost to his campaign. I will make the prediction that he will not win SC, but he may do better than he would have otherwise.
What's far more interesting about yesterday's results are the numbers. Let's compare the results of the 2012 Republican and Democratic results against those from the 2008 race for both the Republicans and Democrats. As of this writing, 95% of the results are in, so the numbers aren't 100% accurate, but I can't imagine them changing drastically:
| 2008 votes | 2012 votes | |
| Mitt Romney | 75,500 | 95,700 |
| Barack Obama | 104,800 | 45,000 |
| Total Republican | 234,800 | 239,700 |
| Total Democratic | 287,500 | 55,000 |
| Total Voters | 527,200 | 289,300 |
I find these raw numbers to be fascinating. Compare the 2008 race with the current 2012 race. There was no incumbent... there was a lot of excitement on the Democratic side with a "black" man and a woman as the two front runners. The fields on both sides were still wide open. This year we have an incumbent Democratic president. The Republicans are framing this race as "we must defeat President Obama in 2012 and 'take our country back'".
New Hampshire is an "open primary" state. That means that you do not have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary. Democrats and "independent" voters can vote in that primary as well. Barack Obama is running essentially unopposed; he got 90% of the vote. Some may point to his huge drop in the vote total as indicative of dissatisfaction among the Democrats, but if that were true, they'd show up and vote for one of his opponents in the primary (and about 10,000 did). Instead, I would argue that they assumed he'd win and didn't feel the need to vote in that primary.
So - considering that independents and Democrats didn't vote in the Democratic primary, one would assume they'd vote in the Republican primary instead. The number of votes in the Republican primary should have increased in some inverse relationship with the number of voters that decreased in the Democratic primary.
Instead, approx 239,000 voters just stayed home this year. Only 5000 more voters voted in the Republican primary.
I don't know how many voters in New Hampshire consider themselves to be independent. Whatever the number, they didn't seem panicked enough by President Obama nor inspired enough by any of the Republican candidates to even show up on election day.
That, I think, speaks volumes.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
Raine on 01/11/2012 14:07:29
good morning. I would say that Barack Obama was the real winner last night.
Raine on 01/11/2012 14:07:29
good morning. I would say that Barack Obama was the real winner last night.
Comment by 
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 14:08:45
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 14:08:45
Morning 
I think one of my fave stats from last night was a CBS poll saying that 1/3 of Republican voters who voted in the primary wanted someone else to vote for
I think one of my fave stats from last night was a CBS poll saying that 1/3 of Republican voters who voted in the primary wanted someone else to vote for
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 14:13:13
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 14:13:13
the pale white lifesaver used to be coconut I believe
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 14:25:13
Actually, only about 1/3 were satisfied... This is what I read from CBS
12 points since October-- that says to me that a longer primary season is proving to be really bad for the GOP candidates.
Raine on 01/11/2012 14:25:13
Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
I think one of my fave stats from last night was a CBS poll saying that 1/3 of Republican voters who voted in the primary wanted someone else to vote for
The survey finds that 58 percent of Republican primary voters want more presidential choices, while just 37 percent say they are satisfied with the current field. The percentage of Republican primary voters that wants more choices has increased 12 percentage points since October.
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 14:29:03
wow - I heard that wrong then - that's just stunning! I mean, I know that Dems are like herding cats and we are a giant tent party so much that we looked rathers scattered but I've never seen a party implode like the Repubs have -they have made their tent so small its now just an umbrella
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 14:29:03
Quote by Raine:Actually, only about 1/3 were satisfied... This is what I read from CBSQuote by wickedpam:
Morning
I think one of my fave stats from last night was a CBS poll saying that 1/3 of Republican voters who voted in the primary wanted someone else to vote for
12 points since October-- that says to me that a longer primary season is proving to be really bad for the GOP candidates.The survey finds that 58 percent of Republican primary voters want more presidential choices, while just 37 percent say they are satisfied with the current field. The percentage of Republican primary voters that wants more choices has increased 12 percentage points since October.
wow - I heard that wrong then - that's just stunning! I mean, I know that Dems are like herding cats and we are a giant tent party so much that we looked rathers scattered but I've never seen a party implode like the Repubs have -they have made their tent so small its now just an umbrella
Comment by 
BobR on 01/11/2012 14:34:33
BobR on 01/11/2012 14:34:33
What I found interesting in the NH Democratic primary this year is that Vermin Supreme got almost twice as many votes as Randall Terry. 
The majority of the non-Obama vote for the Dems was for write-ins.
The majority of the non-Obama vote for the Dems was for write-ins.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 14:37:23
Raine on 01/11/2012 14:37:23
Comment by BobR on 01/11/2012 14:39:23
BobR on 01/11/2012 14:39:23
FYI - I made a mistake in the 2012 Dem primary totals (I left out the write-ins). The totals have been corrected.
As always - the Management regrets the error...
As always - the Management regrets the error...
Comment by BobR on 01/11/2012 14:43:32
BobR on 01/11/2012 14:43:32
Keep in mind that John McCain won NH in 2000 and 2008, and endorsed Romney this year.
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 15:23:52
That is a very interesting sastistic (misspelling intentional) indeed.
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 15:23:52
Quote by Raine:Mitt got about 39% of the vote. that is only a little more than the amount of people satisfied with the GOP candidates. Wow indeed.
That is a very interesting sastistic (misspelling intentional) indeed.
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 15:46:07
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 15:46:07
Alright now that I've heard Mr. Supreme's platform of ponies for all and zombie preparedness I think he's got my vote!
Comment by 
Scoopster on 01/11/2012 15:48:41
Scoopster on 01/11/2012 15:48:41
Morning all 
I don't know what happened last night. One moment I was on the computer playing games & watching Mitt Romney deliver a speech, and the next...
...then I woke up, groggy and sore from the keyboard being pressed to my face. I had slept thru my alarm by almost an hour!
Let this be a lesson to you all - do not drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence of Mitt Romney.
I don't know what happened last night. One moment I was on the computer playing games & watching Mitt Romney deliver a speech, and the next...
...then I woke up, groggy and sore from the keyboard being pressed to my face. I had slept thru my alarm by almost an hour!
Let this be a lesson to you all - do not drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence of Mitt Romney.
Comment by BobR on 01/11/2012 16:13:03
BobR on 01/11/2012 16:13:03
Quote by Scoopster:
Morning all
I don't know what happened last night. One moment I was on the computer playing games & watching Mitt Romney deliver a speech, and the next...
...then I woke up, groggy and sore from the keyboard being pressed to my face. I had slept thru my alarm by almost an hour!
Let this be a lesson to you all - do not drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence of Mitt Romney.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 16:32:32
Raine on 01/11/2012 16:32:32
Last night Bob and I were discussing how wealth can give people more loopholes. thus the (as is common knowledge around these parts) the wealthy can easily become more wealthy. Today I was pointed towards this article written in 1999. IT's a really good read. This part brought it all together for me wrt the conversation we had. Read the whole thing, please. I think this is worthy of discussion.
It a problem that has long been a pink elephant in the room.
This innocent or not-so-innocent fraud masks an important factor in the distribution of income: At the highest levels of the corporate bureaucracy, compensation is set by those who receive it. This inescapable fact fits badly into accepted economic theory, so it is put aside. In the textbooks, there is no bureaucratic aspiration, no reward for bureaucratic achievement, no bureaucratic enhancement by merger and acquisition, and no personally established compensation. Bypassing all of this is not a wholly innocent fraud.
It a problem that has long been a pink elephant in the room.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 16:43:56
Raine on 01/11/2012 16:43:56
THIS.
“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess. These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.â€
—Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) makes what Jonathan Bernstein calls "the best self-refuting argument ever."
Comment by BobR on 01/11/2012 16:47:16
If they're not in Washington, then they're in recess. This is stupid.
BobR on 01/11/2012 16:47:16
Quote by Raine:
THIS.“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess. These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.â€
—Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) makes what Jonathan Bernstein calls "the best self-refuting argument ever."
If they're not in Washington, then they're in recess. This is stupid.
Comment by 
TriSec on 01/11/2012 16:52:04
TriSec on 01/11/2012 16:52:04
Didn't the President back them into this trap?
I thought I read somewhere that he had requested some legislative matter or another, and the GOP came back and basically said "Can't do it; we're in recess." Then he immediately did the recess appointments...
I thought I read somewhere that he had requested some legislative matter or another, and the GOP came back and basically said "Can't do it; we're in recess." Then he immediately did the recess appointments...
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 16:52:14
oh lord
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 16:52:14
Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:
THIS.“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess. These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.â€Â
—Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) makes what Jonathan Bernstein calls "the best self-refuting argument ever."
If they're not in Washington, then they're in recess. This is stupid.
oh lord
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 16:55:17
he did indeed. I wrote of it here in this blog. He wanted to have a meeting about raising the Debt Ceiling and the GOP said no -- we are in recess.
So Obama did a recess appointment...
Raine on 01/11/2012 16:55:17
Quote by TriSec:
Didn't the President back them into this trap?
I thought I read somewhere that he had requested some legislative matter or another, and the GOP came back and basically said "Can't do it; we're in recess." Then he immediately did the recess appointments...
he did indeed. I wrote of it here in this blog. He wanted to have a meeting about raising the Debt Ceiling and the GOP said no -- we are in recess.
So Obama did a recess appointment...
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 17:06:55
Raine on 01/11/2012 17:06:55
Let me try to explain this a little more clearly:
So, basically before making these appointments he requested a debt ceiling increase. Congress responded with a 'NO, please wait, because we are not in session.''
The other irony? HE made those appointments in between the congressional sessions -- giving people like Cordray (and the members of the NLRB) 2 years instead of one.
Congress got played at their own game.
Obama Will Delay Debt-Limit Increase Request, Official Says
Because Congress won’t be in session in the next 15 days, Obama agreed to the joint request from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican. The House of Representatives is scheduled to return on Jan. 17 and the Senate plans to reconvene on Jan. 23.
“The administration is in discussions with leaders in both houses to determine the best timing for submission of the certification and any subsequent votes in the two houses,†Earnest said.
The other irony? HE made those appointments in between the congressional sessions -- giving people like Cordray (and the members of the NLRB) 2 years instead of one.
Congress got played at their own game.
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 17:09:33
nice
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 17:09:33
Quote by Raine:
Let me try to explain this a little more clearly:So, basically before making these appointments he requested a debt ceiling increase. Congress responded with a 'NO, please wait, because we are not in session.''Obama Will Delay Debt-Limit Increase Request, Official Says
Because Congress won’t be in session in the next 15 days, Obama agreed to the joint request from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican. The House of Representatives is scheduled to return on Jan. 17 and the Senate plans to reconvene on Jan. 23.
“The administration is in discussions with leaders in both houses to determine the best timing for submission of the certification and any subsequent votes in the two houses,†Earnest said.
The other irony? HE made those appointments in between the congressional sessions -- giving people like Cordray (and the members of the NLRB) 2 years instead of one.
Congress got played at their own game.
nice
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 17:19:44
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 17:19:44
woohoo, got my app in for this years communtity garden - can't wait for spring! 
Comment by 
livingonli on 01/11/2012 17:23:09
livingonli on 01/11/2012 17:23:09
Good day. The GOP is the party of idiot America and they get what they deserve.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 17:26:43
Raine on 01/11/2012 17:26:43
I am deeply disappointed in whoever is doing the tweeting at Current TV.
They are tweeting InfoWars stories.
They are tweeting InfoWars stories.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 17:29:54
Raine on 01/11/2012 17:29:54
and yes, it does link to an AP Story, so I want to know why they are even reading InfoWars at all in order to get access to news.
Comment by livingonli on 01/11/2012 17:31:28
I wonder if that's part of why Keith is becoming dissatisfied over there. I do want to check out Jennifer Granholm's show when it starts up but she will be on the same time as Rachel so I would have to catch one of the repeat airings.
livingonli on 01/11/2012 17:31:28
Quote by Raine:
I am deeply disappointed in whoever is doing the tweeting at Current TV.
They are tweeting InfoWars stories.
I wonder if that's part of why Keith is becoming dissatisfied over there. I do want to check out Jennifer Granholm's show when it starts up but she will be on the same time as Rachel so I would have to catch one of the repeat airings.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 17:53:58
i was wondering that too, but this is the only thing I have seen linking the network to Alex Jones.
So I don;t know.
I am left wondering that as well. A
Raine on 01/11/2012 17:53:58
Quote by livingonli:Quote by Raine:
I am deeply disappointed in whoever is doing the tweeting at Current TV.
They are tweeting InfoWars stories.
I wonder if that's part of why Keith is becoming dissatisfied over there. I do want to check out Jennifer Granholm's show when it starts up but she will be on the same time as Rachel so I would have to catch one of the repeat airings.
i was wondering that too, but this is the only thing I have seen linking the network to Alex Jones.
So I don;t know.
I am left wondering that as well. A
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 18:08:50
I Was wrong. This makes things even more uncomfortable.
Raine on 01/11/2012 18:08:50
Quote by Raine:Quote by livingonli:Quote by Raine:
I am deeply disappointed in whoever is doing the tweeting at Current TV.
They are tweeting InfoWars stories.
I wonder if that's part of why Keith is becoming dissatisfied over there. I do want to check out Jennifer Granholm's show when it starts up but she will be on the same time as Rachel so I would have to catch one of the repeat airings.
i was wondering that too, but this is the only thing I have seen linking the network to Alex Jones.
So I don;t know.
I am left wondering that as well. A
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 18:20:40
Raine on 01/11/2012 18:20:40
And this google search:
infowars site:current.com
I'm really scratching my head as to why Current, who is trying to become a legit media outlet is allowing itself to be associated with a VERY well known conspiracy theorist.
This is nutz. It really hurts any credibility it wants to achieve. It has a community on the website for Infowars. That would be like Rick Santorum having a community at Planned Parenthood.
infowars site:current.com
I'm really scratching my head as to why Current, who is trying to become a legit media outlet is allowing itself to be associated with a VERY well known conspiracy theorist.
This is nutz. It really hurts any credibility it wants to achieve. It has a community on the website for Infowars. That would be like Rick Santorum having a community at Planned Parenthood.
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 18:41:26
why not write Current to express your concerns?
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 18:41:26
Quote by Raine:
And this google search:
infowars site:current.com
I'm really scratching my head as to why Current, who is trying to become a legit media outlet is allowing itself to be associated with a VERY well known conspiracy theorist.
This is nutz. It really hurts any credibility it wants to achieve. It has a community on the website for Infowars. That would be like Rick Santorum having a community at Planned Parenthood.
why not write Current to express your concerns?
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 19:16:13
I sent a few DM's.
Raine on 01/11/2012 19:16:13
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
And this google search:
infowars site:current.com
I'm really scratching my head as to why Current, who is trying to become a legit media outlet is allowing itself to be associated with a VERY well known conspiracy theorist.
This is nutz. It really hurts any credibility it wants to achieve. It has a community on the website for Infowars. That would be like Rick Santorum having a community at Planned Parenthood.
why not write Current to express your concerns?
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 19:42:37
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 19:42:37
I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'You people." Don't people know who pagorative that is?
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 19:54:49
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 19:54:49
I'm just trying to dig the blog out of the Infowar ditch.
Comment by Scoopster on 01/11/2012 19:56:13
Scoopster on 01/11/2012 19:56:13
Quote by Mondobubba:
I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'You people." Don't people know who pagorative that is?
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 20:01:26
nothing sets my teeth on edge like the "You people" phrase
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 20:01:26
Quote by Mondobubba:
I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'You people." Don't people know who pagorative that is?
nothing sets my teeth on edge like the "You people" phrase
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 20:26:57
Was there something wrong with digging into this concern? I think it is was worthy of looking at.
Current TV wants to be known as progressive. I personally think Conspiracy Theorists are not worthy of a burgeoning progressive media outlet.
How is that a ditch? I have long spoken about my media concerns here.
Raine on 01/11/2012 20:26:57
Quote by Mondobubba:
I'm just trying to dig the blog out of the Infowar ditch.
Was there something wrong with digging into this concern? I think it is was worthy of looking at.
Current TV wants to be known as progressive. I personally think Conspiracy Theorists are not worthy of a burgeoning progressive media outlet.
How is that a ditch? I have long spoken about my media concerns here.
Comment by TriSec on 01/11/2012 20:32:51
I have no idea what any of this is about.
< hangs out over here with the Republicans in blissful ignorance >
TriSec on 01/11/2012 20:32:51
Quote by Mondobubba:
I'm just trying to dig the blog out of the Infowar ditch.
I have no idea what any of this is about.
< hangs out over here with the Republicans in blissful ignorance >
Comment by TriSec on 01/11/2012 20:35:26
TriSec on 01/11/2012 20:35:26
Dear Apple:
Playing songs from the same album out of sequence does not constitute "shuffle" when there are 300 other songs on my ipod.
Thank you.
Playing songs from the same album out of sequence does not constitute "shuffle" when there are 300 other songs on my ipod.
Thank you.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 20:55:12
What? Did you mean to type pejorative and to use it as an adjective?
That aside, who said "You People"?
Raine on 01/11/2012 20:55:12
Quote by Mondobubba:
I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'You people." Don't people know who pagorative that is?
That aside, who said "You People"?
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:03:42
I was trying to be light hearted in my post. I do agree on the cred issue.
Mondo regrets his error
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:03:42
Quote by Raine:Quote by Mondobubba:
I'm just trying to dig the blog out of the Infowar ditch.
Was there something wrong with digging into this concern? I think it is was worthy of looking at.
Current TV wants to be known as progressive. I personally think Conspiracy Theorists are not worthy of a burgeoning progressive media outlet.
How is that a ditch? I have long spoken about my media concerns here.
I was trying to be light hearted in my post. I do agree on the cred issue.
Mondo regrets his error
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:04:30
Yes. A clueless customer.
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:04:30
Quote by Raine:What? Did you mean to type pejorative and to use it as an adjective?Quote by Mondobubba:
I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'You people." Don't people know who pagorative that is?
That aside, who said "You People"?
Yes. A clueless customer.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 21:04:39
Raine on 01/11/2012 21:04:39
Perhaps it was meant to say "how pejorative that is"
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:06:23
Ugh! I dislike that too. They need to get a random number geek on that issue stat. The shuffle has long suffered from a lack of real randomess.
Speaking of Random. I wonder whatever happened to the lad.
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:06:23
Quote by TriSec:
Dear Apple:
Playing songs from the same album out of sequence does not constitute "shuffle" when there are 300 other songs on my ipod.
Thank you.
Ugh! I dislike that too. They need to get a random number geek on that issue stat. The shuffle has long suffered from a lack of real randomess.
Speaking of Random. I wonder whatever happened to the lad.
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:06:51
YES!
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:06:51
Quote by Raine:
Perhaps it was meant to say "how pejorative that is"
YES!
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:07:50
It never comes across in a nice way, ever! There is always a certain verbal sneer with it.
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:07:50
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Mondobubba:
I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'You people." Don't people know who pagorative that is?
nothing sets my teeth on edge like the "You people" phrase
It never comes across in a nice way, ever! There is always a certain verbal sneer with it.
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:10:07
Mondobubba on 01/11/2012 21:10:07
Oh speaking of Current, apparently KO and his corporate masters have settled their little spat. I saw something about on der Huff Post.
Also, KO was the question on "Jeopardy" answer on Mondee evening! I think that's why he took the night off.
Also, KO was the question on "Jeopardy" answer on Mondee evening! I think that's why he took the night off.
Comment by wickedpam on 01/11/2012 21:16:07
exactly.
wickedpam on 01/11/2012 21:16:07
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Mondobubba:
I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'You people." Don't people know who pagorative that is?
nothing sets my teeth on edge like the "You people" phrase
It never comes across in a nice way, ever! There is always a certain verbal sneer with it.
exactly.
Comment by BobR on 01/11/2012 21:55:35
It can be a noun OR an adjective.
BobR on 01/11/2012 21:55:35
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:
Perhaps it was meant to say "how pejorative that is"
YES!
It can be a noun OR an adjective.
Comment by livingonli on 01/11/2012 22:38:44
He does seem to have vanished from the internet. I know he's not on facebook, but I think he's on twitter.
livingonli on 01/11/2012 22:38:44
Quote by Mondobubba:
[
Speaking of Random. I wonder whatever happened to the lad.
He does seem to have vanished from the internet. I know he's not on facebook, but I think he's on twitter.
Comment by Raine on 01/11/2012 23:53:16
Raine on 01/11/2012 23:53:16