July 7, 2010

The 2010 "Battle for the Senate" map.

Oh, my! Wisconsin isn't blue anymore.

59 comments:

MadisonMan said...

I haven't seen a lot of Johnson traction yet, though. Although, I'm not sure how I'd see it, since I don't watch TV or read many newspapers.

If Boxer and Reid both lose, I will be happy regardless of any other outcome.

Original Mike said...

Yes we can!

Original Mike said...

@MM: Yeah, I'd trade a Feingold for a Reid and a Boxer.

k said...

Is that because Meade lives there now?

wv ... detra. The whole raison.

MadisonMan said...

In other words, it doesn't feel much different now, Feingold political-wise, than it did during his last re-election bid.

garage mahal said...

Trade Reid for Sharron Angle? Oh boy.

bagoh20 said...

The map is mildly encouraging, but still disappointing. If the current failure on display worldwide showing the doomed nature of socialist ideology does not get people to rethink their leftist assumptions, then nothing will.

If the world finds some dramatic game changer like virtually free energy, then we can kick the can down the road again. Otherwise, the lessons will be painful. This is really for the young to take more seriously. Us old folks had our prosperity. We will not pay the price.

The future can be very bright if the people look to opportunity and not just ways to reduce risk. Freedom is scary business, but the alternative is far worse.

What does this have to do with Republicans versus Democrats? Not nearly enough.

AJ Lynch said...

Oh My!?

Lions and tiger and bears oh my!

Liberals & progressives and socialists oh my!

Big Mike said...

Feingold can thank Obama.

Original Mike said...

I'd trade a fence post for Reid.

AllenS said...

Wisconsin might not be blue, but Milwaukee and Madison surely are. And when they start to count votes, look out!

MadisonMan said...

Trade Reid for Sharron Angle? Oh boy.

Why not? It's not like Reid is doing anything useful, or proposing anything novel.

Comrade X said...

Why not?

because garage thinks if you kill the goose and cut him open there will a lot of golden eggs instead of minimum wage paychecks for government workers.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

It's not so much goose I'm smelling around here as it is lame duck.

Fen said...

Not much movement considering the rising tide of disgust with Dems.

Only solution is to create more open Dem seats by running them out of town.

AJ Lynch said...

Senator:

Please tell us the achievements you are most proud of and how those achievements have improved the country. Do not include your election to office.

garage mahal said...

Why not?

She's kRazY? Her handlers sure know it, they're threatening a lawsuit to keep her old website that was chock full of crazy hidden from the masses. At least she isn't advocating "2nd Amendment remedies" this time though.

MadisonMan said...

Her handlers sure know it, they're threatening a lawsuit to keep her old website that was chock full of crazy hidden from the masses.

Are you suggesting that a Political Party screwed up again by nominating a weirdo when just about any normal person could have won?

How often does that happen!!

Anglene said...

bagoh20: The map is mildly encouraging, but still disappointing. If the current failure on display worldwide showing the doomed nature of socialist ideology does not get people to rethink their leftist assumptions, then nothing will.

Looking over the "current failure on display worldwide", I can see a whole hell of a lot more assumptions that need re-evaluating than just those of the leftists. More or less red on the map is no guarantee of any move toward or away from political and economic sanity.

garage mahal said...

Are you suggesting that a Political Party screwed up again by nominating a weirdo when just about any normal person could have won?

The person Angle beat, Sue Lowden, suggested we could improve our health care system if bartered with chickens! Wonder how you give change?

AJ Lynch said...

Garage:

Lowden's economics anecdote re chickens was more lucid and smart than Obama's "save gas and inflate your tires" brain fart.

So give it a rest - most libs, even those from Haaaarrvaaard, just ain't very swift when it comes to economics and human motivation.

wv = hosimole

garage mahal said...

It's a proven fact properly inflated tires can save you hundreds per year. Never heard any explanation how could feasibly pay for health services with chickens.

garage mahal said...

Depending how much you drive and cost of fuel obviously.

Big Mike said...

garage drank the Kool-Aid

edutcher said...

That map still reflects the country four months out. I'll bet garage and his friends would kill to have the election today.

We still haven't seen how many more jobs can be lost, we haven't heard Pelosi Galore and Halo Joe tell us how great the economy is - while unemployment is valuable to the economy, we haven't had vacations ruined and the Gulf Coast impoverished by The Zero's incompetence.

And that doesn't even begin to address a possible September Swoon in the market, foreign policy disasters, terrorist attacks...

k said...

Is that because Meade lives there now?

All it takes is one good man.

I think Mrs. Meade said that.

Original Mike said...

"It's a proven fact properly inflated tires can save you hundreds per year.

Yes, compared to running around on 5 psi, properly inflated tires can save hundreds (of something) per year. It's been proven.

Irene said...

Did anyone else notice the photo of Carly Fiorina in the sidebar ad?

Catwoman!

AJ Lynch said...

" Garage drank the koolaid."

Hah Garage is a walking, talking ginormous jug of brainwashed koolaid.

Bruce Hayden said...

What has to be remembered is that all the Democrats have this time around is showing that their opponents are either corrupt or wacky. They don't have any credible policy issues on which they can run - all that they have tried has failed miserably, and they have shown themselves totally incapable of running this country effectively. So, no wonder the DNC, et al. are spending oodles of money right now on opposition research, trying to prove that their opponents are, indeed, wacky, corrupt, etc. (though the level of either allowed Democrats is an order or two of magnitude greater than Republicans).

AC245 said...

What has to be remembered is that all the Democrats have this time around is showing that their opponents are either corrupt or wacky.

...And setting up spoof candidate web sites to deceive voters and phish for personal information.

If Reid had genuinely just wanted to preserve what Angle's positions on the issues were, simple screen shots or quoted text would have sufficed.

Instead, his campaign set up a full-blown, deceptively-named "Real Sharron Angle" website, complete with all of the copyrighted content fro her earlier site as well as [and this is where he really stepped in it] working links to harvest contact information from people requesting more information or wanting to volunteer for his opponent.

Reid was smart to take his phishing site down so quickly. It looks like he dodged any criminal and civil consequences from his fraud, and by acting as a martyr he riled up his enraged gassy sycophants.

But in the end, I doubt even this stunt will save Reid. He's probably going to get swept out in November with the rest of the Democrat garbage.

MadisonMan said...

all the Democrats have this time around is showing that their opponents are either corrupt or wacky.

And I have to ask, again, why the Republican Party can't find someone just vaguely palatable to run in some cases.

Not that this is a problem unique to the Republicans. Democrats also find very bizarro candidates. It's very puzzling. What's an anti-incumbency voter to do? Hold one's nose and vote for the incumbent, or hold one's nose and vote for Bizarro Opponent.

Sometimes, the devil you know is better. Sometimes not.

Kev said...

What's an anti-incumbency voter to do? Hold one's nose and vote for the incumbent, or hold one's nose and vote for Bizarro Opponent.

This is why "None of the above" would be a great addition to every ballot. If neither candidate was palatable, the two parties would have to try again and again until they got it right. If they can't get it right, then maybe it's time for new parties--or no parties at all.

Revenant said...

And I have to ask, again, why the Republican Party can't find someone just vaguely palatable to run in some cases.

I can't say I've paid any attention to the Nevada race, but I see that Angle successfully sued to prevent the Nevada legislature from violating its own Constitution.

Which sounds pretty palatable to me, really. If she's "crazy", we could use more crazy in government.

Original Mike said...

Personally, I'd take crazy over stupid at this point.

garage mahal said...


Yes, compared to running around on 5 psi, properly inflated tires can save hundreds (of something) per year. It's been proven.


Actually it has.

Original Mike said...

Linky, linky?

garage mahal said...

OM
Honest to goodness, you are actually questioning whether properly inflated tires can save you money? You've never heard this?

Original Mike said...

Garage - I have no doubt that grossly under-inflated tires result in poor gas mileage. I am, however, quite skeptical that the average car in the U.S. is running around on tires so poorly inflated that topping them up would result in large savings. You said there would be savings of "hundreds (presumably dollars) per year." I'm asking you to back up that claim.

garage mahal said...

OM
Before I crush you with facts, how much on average do you think a set of tires costs? Say economy 15". Think it's in the $100s?

Original Mike said...

Fine. Continue.

garage mahal said...

Your link doesn't work. But just the cost of tires alone from under-inflated tires can run into the hundreds of dollars, correct?

AC245 said...

I'm asking you to back up that claim.

You're wasting time asking for GasRage to back up any of his claims. You'll get an endless stream of assertions, a lot of goalpost moving, and possibly a link to some low-quality source like wikipedia, an opinion column, or some college kid's class project.

You'd have more luck getting HDHouse to provide proof of his imaginary medical patents.

Original Mike said...

Mid price range for my car is $100/tire, so $400 for the set.

garage mahal said...

So under inflated tires can cost you $400 without taking into account fuel savings and safety concerns. If you do the math to calculate the extra fuel cars consume due to under-inflated tires, consider the Environmental Protection Agency standard that a 1% loss of fuel efficiency occurs for every 2 PSI of air under the maximum level. Add to that the 2003 Department of Energy report that states that vehicles average 22.3 miles per gallon and 12,242 miles per year, and you find that each of the 81 cars burned 144 extra gallons of gas due to under-inflated tires. At $2.25 per gallon, each car owner is spending $324 for gas each year that they really don’t need.

Dept Of Energy:

You can improve your gas mileage by up to 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure. Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.3 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires. Properly inflated tires are safer and last longer.

Dept of Transportation:
According to a National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 2001 survey, 26 percent of passenger cars and 29 percent of light trucks were found to have at least one tire that was 25 percent below the manufacturer's required level.

GAO:
GAO: The Department of Energy's designated economist on this issue indicated that, of the 130 billion gallons of fuel that the Transportation Research Board (TRB) estimated were used in passenger cars and light trucks in 2005, about 1.2 billion gallons were wasted as a result of driving on underinflated tires

Original Mike said...

Again. I don't doubt that underinflated tires cost money. My doubts are regarding the number of cars with underinflated tires. But fair enough, I yield.

garage mahal said...

I goofed one of the links, but I think you get the drift. I know it's not a link from a campaign spokesman as reported by Politico, AC245 most trusted source.

Brian said...

If you buy gas at $3 a gallon, and you drive 12K miles a year, and inflating your tires means you average 25 MPG instead of 23 MPG, you save:

$125.22

If you drive a gas guzzling SUV that gets 15 MPG, and with under-inflated tires it gets 13 MPG, and you drive 20K miles a year:

$615.38

But in order to get there, you concede you're driving a huge SUV with highly under-inflated tires and driving farther than the average American does in a year. You're prematurely wearing out your tires, too. You're driving a vehicle that's probably unsafe at high speed as well.

And you're getting gas mileage that none of the modern vehicles will be getting, because of higher CAFE requirements now.

AC245 said...

So under inflated tires can cost you $400 without taking into account fuel savings and safety concerns.

No. Mike said a full set of new tires costs him $400. All you've done is groundlessly assert that he pays this cost each year, and that he could somehow avoid paying for his tires altogether if he kept them properly inflated.


If you do the math to calculate the extra fuel cars consume due to under-inflated tires...

From your 1st Dept. of Energy link:
Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.3 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires. Equivalent Gasoline Savings: up to $0.08/gallon.

Doing the math:
12,242 miles per year at 22.3 mpg is about 550 gallons per year. 550 gallons @ $0.08/gallon yields a savings of about $44.

From your 2nd NHTSA link:
However, if the average per vehicle fuel and tread life savings ($32.22 and $11.03, respectively) over the lifetime of the vehicle are factored in...

From your 3rd link, which is just a GAO letter mostly regurgitating the NHTSA report from your 2nd link:
In addition, NHTSA estimates that this increased attention will enable drivers to save from $15 to $23 over the life of a vehicle because of better fuel economy.


Erroneous assertions, goalpost moving, links to contradictory estimates, and nothing at all which supports your claim that "It's a proven fact properly inflated tires can save you hundreds per year."

You fulfilled my low expectations of you, GasRage.

Original Mike said...

"No. Mike said a full set of new tires costs him $400. All you've done is groundlessly assert that he pays this cost each year, and that he could somehow avoid paying for his tires altogether if he kept them properly inflated."

Yeah, I didn't want to press the point ...

AC245 said...

Add to that the 2003 Department of Energy report that states that vehicles average 22.3 miles per gallon and 12,242 miles per year, and you find that each of the 81 cars burned 144 extra gallons of gas due to under-inflated tires.

I don't know how I missed this howler the first time through.

12,242 miles at 22.3 MPG requires ~550 gallons. You claim each car burned an extra 144 gallons due to underinflated tires. which means it took 694 gallons to travel 12242 miles, which yields 17.6 MPG.

That's a 21% reduction in fuel efficiency, which according to the EPA/NTHSA reports means that their tires were underinflated by 42 to 63psi!

(Alternately, if you meant that the 550 gallons should really be 406 gallons, then they had an original fuel efficiency of 30MPG vs. the 22.3MPG. That's around a 25% reduction, which means they were riding on tires underinflated by 50 to 75psi!)

lol

You're a joke, GasRage.

garage mahal said...

"No. Mike said a full set of new tires costs him $400. All you've done is groundlessly assert that he pays this cost each year, and that he could somehow avoid paying for his tires altogether if he kept them properly inflated."

All I asserted you fucking moron is that under inflated tires can cost you a new set of tires. Is there a bigger moron on the internet that will argue this? Yes. YOU. Where did I say he pays for fucking tires every year? Where did I say he would never have to pay for tires again?

I said I screwed one of the links, not that I would bother correcting something for you. Mike, yes. You never.

garage mahal said...

Here is the link to an informal survey I inadvertently pasted with that data.

During Earthweek last April, eight students from Carnegie Mellon’s Sustainable Earth Club—Diane Loviglio, Aurora Luchser Sharrard, David Kennedy, Staci Wax, Rachel Minkoff, Ryan England, Ryan Menefee and Caroline Chow— used digital tire gauges to measure the air pressure in the tires of 81 cars that were parked in the East Campus Garage, the Doherty Apartments Lot and the Morewood Lot. Based on the assumption that the optimum air pressure for fuel efficiency was the maximum air pressure stated on the tires’ sidewall, the four tires of each car were under-inflated by a total average of 20%. Only one of the 81 had the proper air pressure. (The suggested air pressure stated in owner’s manuals is based on passenger comfort, not necessarily fuel efficiency.)

If you do the math to calculate the extra fuel cars consume due to under-inflated tires, consider the Environmental Protection Agency standard that a 1% loss of fuel efficiency occurs for every 2 PSI of air under the maximum level. Add to that the 2003 Department of Energy report that states that vehicles average 22.3 miles per gallon and 12,242 miles per year, and you find that each of the 81 cars burned 144 extra gallons of gas due to under-inflated tires. At $2.25 per gallon, each car owner is spending $324 for gas each year that they really don’t need.

More than 3,000 individuals in the campus community applied for parking permits last year. Consequently, properly inflated tires would result in an annual savings of more than $972,000 for the campus community.

AC245 said...

BWAHAHAHAHA.

and possibly a link to some low-quality source like wikipedia, an opinion column, or some college kid's class project.

garage mahal said...

So, to recap, the claim "It's a proven fact properly inflated tires can save you hundreds per year."

True!

Anything else your dirty little dick beaters would like a crack at?

AC245 said...

And, naturally, the college kids you cite as "proof" are as clueless as you are, and base their calculations on the wrong numbers:

Based on the assumption that the optimum air pressure for fuel efficiency was the maximum air pressure stated on the tires’ sidewall, the four tires of each car were under-inflated by a total average of 20%. Only one of the 81 had the proper air pressure. (The suggested air pressure stated in owner’s manuals is based on passenger comfort, not necessarily fuel efficiency.)

From the NHTSA:
Manufacturers of passenger vehicles and light trucks determine this number based on the vehicle's design load limit, that is, the greatest amount of weight a vehicle can safely carry and the vehicle's tire size.The proper tire pressure for your vehicle is referred to as the "recommended cold inflation pressure." (As you will read below, it is difficult to obtain the recommended tire pressure if your tires are not cold.)

Because tires are designed to be used on more than one type of vehicle, tire manufacturers list the "maximum permissible inflation pressure" on the tire sidewall. This number is the greatest amount of air pressure that should ever be put in the tire under normal driving conditions.


Goodyear:
The inflation pressure on the side of the tire is the MAXIMUM operating pressure. It is not necessarily the right inflation for your vehicle. Always use the inflation recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. You can find it in your owner's manual, posted on the edge of the driver's door, on a door post or on the inside of the glovebox door.

You're a moron, GasRage.

A predictable moron.

garage mahal said...

And, naturally, the college kids you cite as "proof" are as clueless as you are, and base their calculations on the wrong numbers:

Didn't cite them as "proof" dipshit. Learn how to read. I merely gave the full cite to a paragraph I inadvertently pasted. So all could see it.

All you need to know is you can expect a 3.3 percent increase in fuel efficiency with properly inflated tires. That's a 8 to 9 cent/gallon savings.

With this caveat "Depending how much you drive and cost of fuel obviously." It's a factual claim.

7/7/10 1:43 PM

Obvious to anyone but you that is.

AC245 said...

All you need to know is you can expect a 3.3 percent increase in fuel efficiency with properly inflated tires. That's a 8 to 9 cent/gallon savings.

Yes, I highlighted that in my earlier comment. Doing the math:

12,242 miles per year at 22.3 mpg is about 550 gallons per year. 550 gallons @ $0.08/gallon yields a savings of about $44.

$44.

Your pre-goalpost-moving claim:

"It's a proven fact properly inflated tires can save you hundreds per year."

As I predicted, all you offered as "proof" was assertions, endless goalpost-moving, and garbage links that don't support your claim.

AC245 said...

Anything else your dirty little dick beaters would like a crack at?

Rage on, GasRage! Rage on!

garage mahal said...

You lose again moron.

There is nothing in my claim that isn't factual. My "goal post moving claim" WAS MY ORIGINAL CLAIM.

LOL