Yeah. No more magic money = automatic depression. Not a lot of political capital associated with the 'we're gonna be really ****ed for a while, but it's much better than total armageddon' position.

What? That doesn't even make sense. It's hard to capture a distribution with a single statistic--conceded--but of all the reasons to claim that the median is the best choice here, claiming that it incorporates outliers well is fantastically wrong. It's usually selected for precisely the opposite reason.

Anyway, you can all now return to discussing politics.

Anyone who says texas' economy sucks is just wrong, and they likely know it. There's a good reason why 750k people have moved there.

Re: Perry being awesome

It's all comparatively speaking. He's a very clear top tier candidate.

You're completely misreading the point. I was accused of cherrypicking data by using the median, which couldn't really be further from the truth.

I should have been more explicit but my last line in that comment was supposed to indicate that I wasn't responding to the surrounding political conversation, just the remark on using the median statistic as a measure of central tendency. It ignores the "information" in the tails of the distribution (like what percentage of the distribution takes the minimum value, for example).

Just being a nit, perhaps, but that comment struck me as I was skimming.

seriously bro your avatar is scary

Finally. For the last few months I've been worried that the candidates from which to choose have been much too liberal with their "gay apologies."

Well done.

Odds for Republican Nominee (courtesy of Bodog sportsbook)

Rick Perry 7/5

Mitt Romney 2/1

Michele Bachmann 7/1

Jon Hunstman 10/1

Sarah Palin 10/1

Ron Paul 20/1

Rudy Giuliani 30/1

Herman Cain 40/1

Newt Gingrich 40/1

Gary Johnson 50/1

Rick Santorum 50/1

I know nothing about Texas' economy but this is obvious correlation != causation

Rumors are circulating that Christie is re-considering a run. He has many high level people from different segments of the repub establishment pushing hard for him to get in. He is also being courted heavily by influential people not normally associated with the repub party which says a lot for his potential as a candidate. Money and organization will not be a problem for him so he has some time. I believe there is a better than average chance he enters the race.

If he enters the race he will be the repub nominee.

Christie debating Bachmann and Perry? Yes please.

Christiecorndog.jpeg one time!!!!!

Dude probably takes three at a time.

Let's say Christie does enter, would it make the list of candidates > 2008?

nom nom nom

Rick Perry would roast that Kevin James looking mother****er in a debate and serve him rotisserie style.

I don't know about Christie. I live in New Jersey, and he's done an amazing job of doing the exact opposite of what he said to get elected and pissing a lot of people off. That could come back to bite him.

What did/do you think "subsidizes" means?

Ninja edit: Nice ninja edit.

I thought twice and decided to not go down that rabbit hole again.

What rabbit hole? It seems a fairly straightforward subject resolvable by simply answering the question I posed. If subsidizes = "gives money to" then the federal government subsidizes Texas. If subsidizes = "gives more money to than it takes from" then it does not. The end.

Ah. For me it's the former. Reason I use a word like subsidize is because Texas needs that money to run itself. Without it they'd be a lot worse off.

This seems to be a fairly obvious observation. Why would anyone call you a moron for making it?

So is Romney actually done like some people have claimed or is this all just "a new serious challenger appears" excitement that will go away?

I think Stewart is hilarious. I just believe that he is able to use his show as a tool to convince many that conservatives are the enemy and do not have their best interests in mind, when the fact is, that neither side does.

The programs that the two sides promote make money for their particular special interests.

However, Stewart has just as sharp of forked tongue as your politicians. When Rep. Gifford was shot, he was all on the warpath about how repubs use rhetoric that is uncalled for. He pointed out Palin's map with the targets on it. I don't like Palin one bit, but found nothing wrong with the map. Those targets represented the politicians they thought they had the best chance of removing from office & therefore, they needed to concentrate their interests on them. Makes perfect sense to me.

But to really show how two faced he is, he used the analogy of the Teabaggers, whom I don't support, as hostage takers in a bank, who after getting all of their demands, say "Oh, yea....we get to shoot the hostages, too, right?"

Another example is when he showed a montage of guests on FOX that were touting their books attacking liberals......well, if you do the same search on CNN & CNBC, you're going to find just as many authors attacking conservatives.

What he does is serve up to his viewing audience what they want & expect to hear, in order to drive up his ratings & make him money.

I even believe this war between him and FOX goes on due to a concerted effort between the two, as they both benefit from it.

So, what I'm saying is, many of his followers believe he is telling the truth, just like Reverend Jones who convinced his followers to drink the cool-aid.