[QUOTE=chalsall;316358]As the saying goes, "assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

Is this data known? Or only assumed to be known?[/QUOTE]

Could we say at the very least that they are fairly strong suppositions? I do consider the Oklahoma example to be stronger. California can produce unpleasant surprises.

[QUOTE=kladner;316360] California can produce unpleasant surprises.[/QUOTE]Like BSD and LSD?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;316323]But, there are certain 'givens' already assumed to be known. If California went to Romney everyone should start watching for the 4 horsemen. Same thing if the incumbent were to take Oklahoma.[/QUOTE]

I'll admit they pretty much have [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fullpage/2012-presidential-elections-fantasy-game-game-changer-15177994"]it[/URL] called, I'm talking overall possibilities:

[CODE][COLOR="Blue"]WA+OR+CA+CO+NM+MN+WI+IL+MI+FL+DC+MD+DE+NJ+CT+RI+MA+NY+NH+VT+ME+HI[/COLOR]=
[COLOR="Red"]NV+ID+UT+AZ+MT+WY+ND+SD+NE+KS+OK+TX+IA+MO+AR+LA+IN+OH+KY+TN+MS+AL+GA+SC+NC+VA+WV+PA+AK[/COLOR][/CODE]

[QUOTE][COLOR="Red"]AK=MT=WY=ND=SD[/COLOR]=[COLOR="Blue"]DE=DC=VT[/COLOR]=3
[COLOR="red"]ID[/COLOR]=[COLOR="Blue"]HI=RI=NH=ME[/COLOR]=4
[COLOR="Red"]NE=WV[/COLOR]=[COLOR="Blue"]NM[/COLOR]=5
[COLOR="red"]NV=UT=KS=IA=AR=MS[/COLOR]=6
[COLOR="Red"]LA=KY[/COLOR]=8
[COLOR="red"]OK[/COLOR]=[COLOR="Blue"]OR=CT[/COLOR]=7
[COLOR="blue"]CO[/COLOR]=[COLOR="Red"]AL=SC[/COLOR]=9
[COLOR="red"]MO[/COLOR]=[COLOR="Blue"]MN=WI=MD[/COLOR]=10
[COLOR="Blue"]MA[/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]=IN=TN=AZ[/COLOR]=11
WA=12
VA=13
NJ=14
NC=15
MI=GA=16
OH=18
[COLOR="blue"]IL=[/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]PA[/COLOR]=20
[COLOR="Blue"]NY=FL[/COLOR]=29
TX=38
CA=55[/QUOTE]

really my reasoning of ties is based on one possible tie and transforming it.

3 gives 5 on 3 and you can pick to switch 1,2, or 3 at a time giving 15+30+10 = 55 ways to switch these states alone to give other ties. how many ties are there ? there's still at least 1 way to tie with the remaining undecided states I can tell you that.

[QUOTE=xilman;316362]Like BSD and LSD?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure about BSD. I don't necessarily see LSD in a negative light. That is, unless you are referring to a major Chicago thoroughfare with those initials: Lake Shore Drive. It is facing some possible unpleasant side effects from Hurricane Sandy. Peripheral winds are causing waves forecast to be as high as 20 feet at this end of Lake Michigan. I just heard on the radio that closing the Drive is being considered because of possible flooding.

EDIT: The "unpleasant surprises" to which I referred were such characters as Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, as well as the passage of Proposition 8. Then there's Darrell Issa..... ):

EDIT: Make that waves 18-23 feet, with winds gusting to 60 mph.

BSD : Blue screen of death, Aka windows or..
any of those [URL="http://www.acronymfinder.com/BSD.html"]http://www.acronymfinder.com/BSD.html[/URL]
as for LSD
[url]http://www.acronymfinder.com/LSD.html[/url]

[QUOTE=firejuggler;316373]BSD : Blue screen of death, Aka windows or..
any of those [URL]http://www.acronymfinder.com/BSD.html[/URL]
as for LSD
[URL]http://www.acronymfinder.com/LSD.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

I thought perhaps Paul was referring to Free BSD OS. BSOD didn't occur to me. :no: The acronym site is great! Thanks!

Those engaged in the abortion-related subdiscussion should at least try to familiarize themselves with the current status of U.S. law, and the important precedents along the way. In that regard, this NYT piece about recent nueoscientific findings and their potential to affect the debate is timely:

[url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/can-neuroscience-challenge-roe-v-wade/?ref=opinion]Opinionator | The Stone | Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe V. Wade?[/url]
[quote]The turn to legislation based on alleged neuroscientific findings in search of an end-run around the protections provided by Roe v. Wade is popular among Republicans. Mitt Romney voiced his strong support for such legislation in 2011, when he wrote in a piece in National Review, “I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.” Since viability is, according to Roe v. Wade, the point at which the state’s interest in protecting “the potentiality of human life” becomes compelling enough to override its interest in protecting the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her body and its reproductive organs, Idaho’s statute and others like it would either be found unconstitutional or, if upheld, entail overturning a fundamental aspect of Roe v. Wade.

[u]For neuroscientific findings of fetal pain to serve as a basis for permitting states to prohibit abortion prior to viability, they must tell us something about the nature of a fetus that makes the state’s interest in protecting it more compelling than its interest in protecting a woman’s right to make basic decisions about her own body[/u]. As pain sentience does not serve as a basis for legal prohibitions in general (or else mousetraps and deer hunting would be prohibited), the statutes’ real purpose is to use potential evidence of pain sentience in fetuses to indicate the presence of something far more compelling — namely, personhood.[/quote]
The pain stuff is interesting, but so far I am of the opinion that the current consensus (in the sense that current law mostly hews to it) of using viability as the threshold between potential and actual personhood (and note that even in the "actual" case the rights of the mother are still crucial, they simply no longer apply exclusively) is the most-reasonable one. Yes, medical advances have pushed that threshold back somewhat, but not beyond the common third-trimester proxy for viability. There is an interesting discussion to be had in this regard, namely of "viability at what cost"? If medicine could keep a fetus alive as early as (say) week 20, but only at tremendous cost, would it make sense to add some kind of "reasonable viability" interpretation to existing law? Of course this is the kind of discussion no politician actually seeking office will ever engage in, because admitting that we have finite resources and hence that "life at what cost?" decisions get made every hour of every day in practice is political poison.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;316323]But, there are certain 'givens' already assumed to be known. If California went to Romney everyone should start watching for the 4 horsemen. Same thing if the incumbent were to take Oklahoma.[/QUOTE]

My apologies in advance, but one down.
[URL="http://dc.curbed.com/archives/2012/10/onefourth-of-apocolaypses-horsemen-shows-its-head.php"]
http://dc.curbed.com/archives/2012/10/onefourth-of-apocolaypses-horsemen-shows-its-head.php[/URL]

[QUOTE=kladner;316360]Could we say at the very least that they are fairly strong suppositions? I do consider the Oklahoma example to be stronger.[/QUOTE]IMHO, It will take more than 20 more years before more than half of Oklahoma would vote for a black man for president.
(This is based upon my [U]personal[/U] experiences with Okies and ex-Okies. When I visited Oklahoma for the 1994 eclipse, there was still convict labor being used in the community. I was advised "We don't talk to him boy, he is a convict".)
Oklahoma is further 'south' than Texas in some ways.

My point exactly, spoken as a native-born Texan. (Please don't take this as Texas chauvinism. I got out when I was 20, and it was a long time before I even thought of going back for more than family visits.)

About two years ago I drove from Chicago to various points in Texas. My route took me across Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. The further I got from Chicago the more virulent the messages on church sign boards became. I found myself quoting Monte Python, " 'elp 'elp, oim bein' oppressed!", just seeing them.

Zeta-Flux,

Thank you for the reminder.