jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:That Ocean County bit is probably a bit misleading, as it takes into account all those tiny little shore towns--Toms River, which I would guess is the biggest district in the County passed its budget.

Brick's about the same size and they voted theirs down.

Thought TR had more old people. Surprising.

The old people live out in Lakehurst.

So does voting down mean you're for teachers or against teachers?

Both my grandma's live in Toms River

Huge retirement communities in the town, though only one lives there

jeff2sf wrote:So does voting down mean you're for teachers or against teachers?

It means you're against it teachers. Except it might mean you're against administrators, but they never get rid of themselves, so then it's futile.

It would really play havoc with all this if you broke down each budget into per pupil numbers and that was on the ballot.

By my count in Burlington County, 5 budgets passed, 29 failed. Plus the four regional districts failed.

Just wow.

Star Ledge reporting that 54% of school budgets were voted down, which is a lot less than it looked like when I glanced at the results last night. But still, that's pretty high. Again, though, I do think looking at that number might be a little misleading without taking into account the size of the district.

None of the big districts matter because they don't pay for their schools. The state does.

Our final votes are finally in and our budget (Collingswood) passed by 880 to 604.

jerseyhoya wrote:None of the big districts matter because they don't pay for their schools. The state does.

Even if we leave out the urban districts, there's still a huge variation in size between say Edison and Lavalette. If there was a pattern where a lot of the small "sending" districts voted down the budget and the larger districts approved (or vice versa) that would mean something different about the attitudes of NJ voters towards schools and Christie than if 54% of the voters voted against school budgets.

I'm not saying I've discerned such a pattern, just to say that simply counting the number of budgets defeated or approved isn't the end of the story.

Sounds like Crist is going indy.

A lot of variables in that race.

jerseyhoya wrote:Today is the first ever televised prime minster debate in the UK

First we gave you McDonald's, now have our lame campaign structure!

FUCK, I missed it. Are they having any more?

Yes the next two Thursdays

phdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:phdave is EastFallowfield

http://philliesphans.com/viewtopic.php_f=1&t=42202&start=2325.html

I'm sure we are not the only ones who felt the need to point out that quote. It's begging to be underlined, highlighted, copied and pasted, retweeted, etc.

jerseyhoya wrote:Yes the next two Thursdays

I was thinking the British version of these things would be better, much better, than their American counterparts. I mean, Prime Minister's questions is great, spectacular. But, I dunno, from everyone's reactions on here, it sounds like maybe they are just as bad.

The thing is, about a year, maybe a year and a half from now, the people who aren't on social security will have jobs again, and won't have time for this shit.

I'm calling a bigger-than-last time victory for Obama in 2012, based solely on my belief that he basically got into office at the exact right moment in the economic cycle (i.e., just past its worst moment), so that, by 2012, the state of the country will be similar to the way it was, in, say, 1984: the "young" part of an economic boom. Reagan, of course, won an enormous landslide (49-1 by state count). I don't think it is possible for any Democrat, much less Obama, to win on that scale - Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee: these places will never vote for a black guy.

If I had to guess now, he'll probably lose Indiana, but pick up Missouri and maybe Arizona and New Mexico. It's tough for a Dem to win more than what he won last time (stunned he got Indiana still, and made South Carolina as close as it was), but he'll have no trouble getting that second term.

He won New Mexico by 15% last time.

jerseyhoya wrote:He won New Mexico by 15% last time.

Ah, stupid memory, dead from exhaustion. I thought he didn't for some reason. Ah well, should have looked it up.

So now that I did bother to look it up, I'm not sure there really are that many more on the board that any Dem could win that Obama didn't win last time, except maybe Missouri and Arkansas, so no matter how good things are, I guess his second term will actually probably be less of a win than his first, because I doubt he could win Indiana again. Unless the Republicans really decide early they can't win and just run some asshole rather than waste anybody good.

Anyway, I need to get caught up on my back issues of The Economist so I am all ready for this election in the UK. Also, I nearly panicked earlier in this thread, jersey, when you put up the "I Voted" sticker, because I thought I had somehow missed the Pennsylvania primaries. Me likes to vote.

So, for you Dems out there, who should I vote for: Specter or Sestak? I've been busy and haen't had time to really sit down and think this through yet, so I am still listening to either side on this one.

And how about in the gubernatorial primary? I need to do my homework, obviously, but I am interested in what people here have decided, if they are voting, and their reasoning.

Damn, I sort of stopped reading fivethirtyeight.com after the 2008 election. Stupid of me.