Comic for Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

Posted: 7:55 am, Tuesday, February 12th

Holy shit, seriously, China is insane. These are the first summer Olympics I've ever looked forward to, and it's simply because the Chinese government could do just about Goddamn anything. Man, lions on horseback? Wow. (By the way, Pete's carnivore calvary air support? Totally piloted by T-Rexes. One of my all-time favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips.)

As disoriented as I am from the lions-on-horseback thing (damn!), I m'ise well stay loopy. Frances Bean is *how* old? Holy crap.

And here's a poor dead gorilla, too. Just wild stuff all over the freaking place today.

Alright, alright, I need foundation back into the real world. Is the CPAC still utterly, totally, batshit insane? Check! Are the Goat Fuckers still insufferably conceited dicks? Check! Does GTAIV still make me squeal like a schoolgirl? Check!

Whew. I'm back and I'm good. And, I guess, I've covered everything I need to today. Maryland, DC, Virginia - it's your turn to support my homeboy. Turn out, holla!

bullfrog

skt -- Tuesday, February 12 2008, 08:25 am

you draw nice lions.

The one in the third panel took me forever.

One of the tabloids had this incredibly cheesy picture of Cap'n Average all excited for spring training yesterday, and these photoshopped heads all floating around in a thought bubble or something. I'd hoped it was on-line, but in a way, what the Daily News gave us on the web was even better:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/11/2008-02-11_derek_jeter_springs_for_stability.html

The juxtaposition of the headline (which makes little sense) and the picture (which is awesome) really warmed my heart. I will also spring for the stability of those chumps exiting the postseason in the first round again.

I'm fascinated that the MLB article just glosses over the wads of cash the MFY are getting from the city, or did I miss it?

Zero

That article comes directly from the Ministry of Information, evidently, Zero, so, no, no mention whatsoever. They do mention the last good moment in Goat Fucking history, though, Cap'n Average's unnecessary dive into the stands for a ball he already had in his mitt. How'd that season wind up? Wankers?

He's playing old school Zelda! How endearing is that...

Also: I'm no Yankee-hater, really. I mean I don't like them but I usually reserve baseball hatred for the Mets and the Cubs. But MAN, that article was insufferable.

Can't wait for that climatic moment when Mara finds her next boyfriend on the steps of the New York Public Library steps...or is that the steps of New York Life?

Besides, PETA is too focused on Westminster right now to even notice about China. (Go beagles!)

Patience and Fortitude are the lions on the NYPL - the New York Life building is actually pretty plain. It's right down the street from my office (as opposed to across the street, as the library is).

I think PETA realizes it's not going to get anywhere with China.

Huh! Trivia about the lions: They were originally named Leo Astor and Leo Lenox after the NYPL founders.

http://www.nypl.org/pr/lions.cfm

Having been in Beijing in October, I'm fascinated at the cluster-fuck the Olympics could easily turn into. They might have the horses okay with lions on their backs, but the traffic, pollution, and unintelligible public transportation system--not to mention an only-so-modern airport--is really going to make the event an ordeal for most of the folks attending or participating.

But the missiles! The anti-raincloud missiles!

Actually, ad, there was a question involving the Texas democratic primaries that 2.0 and I were kicking around the other day.. Hell if I can remember it, though. 2.0, if you're around, do you recall?

Being a relative newbie to the state, not sure I can answer, but I will say that people are really excited around here-- Texas hasn't counted for a long time. There are even rumors of a debate somewheres in Austin.

Hmm...a Texas Debate. I can see Obama and Clinton go at it on dual mechanical bulls.

I think our questions about Texas were:

1. Given that there aren't that many Democrats (proportionally) in Texas, and that Texas is a large state, is the number of Democratic delegates in Texas proportional to the size of the state or the number of Democrats?

--If they are proportional to the state wouldn't that mean the Texas, and its Democratic constituents, would have a DIS-proportional effect on the outcome of the primary?

2. What sort of political coverage (in particular democratic political coverage) are you getting out there? This question comes from the two Republicans J and I met while stumping for Obama in Times Square. They took our picture to prove to their friends that "people really do support Obama." Are Texans--judging by the local news station only--aware of Obama's message and his momentum?

Okay-- I can't really answer #1. Though I would say that your assumption about the disproportional effect, were the answer to your question 'yes', would be the case.

I can answer #2, but the answer will be skewed. See, I live in the bluest part of the state--Austin. Certainly the city centers of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso also skew blue, but as is the trend in the past, minorities tend to vote in lower numbers (and percentages) than the generally white, conservative (fiscally and socially), Republicans that make up the rest of the state.

So, we're getting some coverage. This from the woman who doesn't tend to watch local newcasts and gets almost all of her news from NPR. I will say things are ramping up a bit. The Austin-American Statesman has been running more political stories on the front page--mostly about Clinton/Obama. And our local NPR station--KUT--has been doing work as well. But, again, I refer you to the paragraph above. If I were in the suburbs of Houston, I may have heard very little about Obama or Clinton.

But, one of Obama's first rallies was in Austin and drew tens of thousands of folks. Also, when he was here for the Texas Book Festival in October of 06, the line to see him stretched for four blocks.

Another complicating factor to all this is the long-dormant, but once-powerful group of Texas Democrats-- LBJ was a Dem from TX. That's the old party, who would tend to favor Clinton in all this.

I'll stop now, but feel free to ask more about this crazy state. :)

I think it was mostly question 1 I was wondering about. Since Austin is the bluest part, we were wondering if Austin's districts carried the most delegates. (Since I imagine my homeboy will do well in Austin; it's his demo.)

The dude who took the swearing-in photo of LBJ was on Antique Roadshow last night, apropos of almost nothing.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5528612.html

Good luck figuring out how it is going to work out for the Dems here in the Lone Star State. I got a few paragraphs in and my eyes started crossing.

Basics: 126 delegates from the primary election, 46 at-large delegates from the convention, plus the super-delegates. Not sure how that ranks against other states as I can't find a listing of how many delegates each state gets.

That was very informative. Thank you ad.

I guess we shall see how it all shakes out, eh? I am feeling positive about Obama tonight, though I do think there may just be a Clinton win. I expect a disproportionate celebration on her part if this does occur.

Is anyone else finding her brushing off of the last batch of states a bit insulting? She keeps highlighting that he's winning in states with high black populations and "activist" caucus states, and that these losses were anticipated, expected, and understood. Ok, great, but how are those wins any less meaningful than the big state wins that she logged? To me that he invigorated a population that has historically felt underrepresented is MORE significant. That he is able to move people whose life's work is politics says something about his substance.

I realize she has to say something about these losses, but "expected" and "understandable" suggests she'd rather African Americans and activists stay home. Shouldn't she be concerning herself with improving her performance in these key groups?

Not good for the general if she pulls off the nomination.

I'm pretty sure that Democratic delegates get assigned by how many Dems historically voted in a state. Not sure if this translates down to the city level, but it would make sense that it does.

Question 1 is a bear! I think I know some of the answer though. All said - the answer is it's a 50/50 mix. Half of the delegate count comes from the percentage of the total Electoral college Texas has and Half comes from what percentage of the National vote for the last 3 Dem presidential candidates came out of Texas.

Each state is assigned a number of Base (delegate) votes using an "Allocation Factor" multiplied by 3,000 arrived at through a calculation involving the following factors:

A) The state's popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections.

B) The total popular vote in the Country for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections.

C)The state's Electoral Vote a.k.a Congressional Districts.

D)The total Electoral Vote of all states (538).

The formula for determining a jurisdiction's Allocation Factor is:

Allocation Factor = ½ × ((A ÷ B) + (C÷ D))

The number of Base votes assigned to a state is Allocation Factor × 3000 (Fractions 0.5 and above are rounded to the next highest integer).

The crazier thing about Texas is that they divide the delegates proportionally based on State Senate District - not Congressional District like everyone else. I think there are 31 State Senate Districts in Texas. The good news is that the smaller districts around the bigger cities have more delegates - so I think this helps Barack. Also, only 168 are assigned by the popular vote. 42 go to the State Convention to decide. 25 are Superdelegates (i hate these). 35 actually go unpledged to Denver.

Holy shit, Pete, that is well done.

And Superdelegates suck, that's for sure. How awesomely undemocratic that shit is.

Also, the Donna Brazile lady on CNN and the NewsHour has been recycling her line about how they can't jump a building in a single bound and nobody wants to see them in spandex for a few days now.

Yeah, sorry for the length on that one. It's a snowy day here in the 'Burgh and work is slow. After looking it over again, 2.0 has a very valid point. Since they use the General election popular vote, the numbers include non-Dems. In 2000 there were 6.4 million presidential votes cast in Texas. Roughly 60% went to the Idiot. In 2004 there were 7.4 million cast - Idiot won 61%. So, the large outpouring of Republican support he got would most definitely raise their delegate count for this Democratic Primary election.

Not at all, dude, that was really informative.

Wow, this has been a very educational Fivebucks forum today. Being a big CNN watcher, I am right there with you Bullfrog that one time was too much with the superman does not equal superdelegate comment.

And, 2.0, I totally agree with you on how kind of disturbing it was to hear Hilary so offhandly dismiss the wins in the states due to the African American vote and the caucus states (which I saw on CNN this morning).

Evidently, my favorite Brit* has her own show on the telly debuting tonight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/prog_parse.cgi?FILENAME=20080212/20080212_2230_4288_23844_45

* Lily Allen is probably not actually my favorite Brit.

Good article on superdelegates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?ref=politics

Superdelegates = dumb.

Also, this article contains the quote that 2.0 was talking about earlier regarding Clinton and the African American/Caucus votes:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

One of the quotes is, "These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

In a not so indirect way, she implies that the African American voters are NOT voting based on who they think the best candidate is, but rather based simply on the fact that Obama is black. I can't really picture Obama dismissing the votes of women so easily, for instance, if he had lost a primary based on the fact that a lot of women voted for Clinton.

HOMEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOY!