OCinBuffalo

Oh please. A running team? Yes, a running team with a HOF QB throwing to solid WRs and a HOF level Tight End that nobody could cover for 3 years. That kind of "running team". At best they were a "balanced attack". But, a "running team"? No.

Because, if we can get a #2 for him, it's completely worth it. And, that salary is an incentive for a trading partner. Actually, that salary makes the deal more likely. We didn't realize how many good WR we had on this team. And, we don't even know how good Beasley is to boot. What if he is as good as he looked in camp? --- At some point, you have to make a decision that it's better to move a guy when he has some value, than hold onto him until he doesn't. Or, play him until his contract runs out, and then he walks, and then you get nothing = what he Bills have been doing for the last 10 years. The Pats keep ending up with a bevy of 2nd round draft picks, that they use to move around in the draft and pick the exact players they want, usually for value, rather than reaching. Bad picks aside, the strategy works flawlessly in terms of putting them in position to make the right picks. How do they do this? Because they trade veteran players with multiple years left on their contracts. See: Randy Moss, the most recent example. Edit: What if we had traded London Fletcher to the Redskins when we decided to go to the Tampa2? What would they have given us? At least their #2, probably more. Instead, what did we do? Let him stay here, then let him walk, and end up there as a FA anyway.

Check this out: NFL Playoff "what if" analyzer. It's a fun tool, just click on the week/team you think will win and it will adjust. I was able to make it so that Bills beating the Jets = no playoffs for them. Requirements, I think: The Jets have to lose to the Bears. If this doesn't happen, I don't see how this works. The Colts and Jags have to win out. Week 16 The Bengals have to beat the Chargers or Week 17 The Broncos have to beat the Chargers Bills Vs. Pats is irrelevant. Ravens/Steelers also irrelevant. If the above happens, and the Bills beat the Jets, then they are done, and that would be two(2) division opponents booted out of the playoffs by us. The "losing culture of the Bills" has been bandied about on this board lately. Fine. Changing the losing culture has to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Sweeping the division in the last 3 games, and booting 2 teams out of the playoffs in the process, would be a hell of a beginning, and completely worth the loss of draft position. Football is a team game.

I did. And, you are right. Boy, Easley has a long way to go to make the team, never mind get on the field. Not sure if this has a lot of effect on an Evans trade right now, but, if he comes back and looks good in OTAs...then that adds fuel to the fire.

As I said in the original "Shanahan goes to DC" thread almost a year ago: Never Underestimate the Dark Side of the Snyder. Who do you think demanded that McNabb be extended? Shanahan? Why? Why would a coach give away a motivational tool in the middle of a season? It wasn't Shanahan. I'd lay $1000 on Snyder. Snyder made his money from junk mail. In that business, you look for a new trend, and then immediately and fully commit your resources to it. Then, you find a new trend. Sound familiar? This is the exact business model of the Redskins. Snyder: "Such and so had a good last four games of the season? Sign him up for 5 years and $100 MM". "Extend McNabb!" Then:"What do you mean Adam Archuleta doesn't fit our defensive scheme?" "What do you mean Albert Haynesworth doesn't want to play the 3-4?". "What do you mean McNabb can't play, he trended well 3 weeks ago!" But....how then does sitting McNabb make any sense at all? Easy. Never Underestimate the Ego of the "Ultimate Leader". Shanahan has to establish his dominance over Snyder. Even it that wasn't the case, the "ultimate leader"'s ego would tell him it was anyway. These two men are the perfect combination of ego and stupidity. And, it is as I said it would be: hilarious. Edit: And, just in case you wanted to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt, or, blame it on some over-zealous PR person, you can forget it. Mike Shanahan's guest speaking profile here. Again, he refers to himself as "the Ultimate Leader". :lol: :lol: :lol:

As I said in the shoutbox yesterday, I have an idea/prediction regarding Shanahan, and of course Snyder, and the Redskins: Lee Evans for their #2. If that's too much, then #3 and #4 this year. Based on this draft chart, I'd say Evans is worth at least a 2. He is a #1 WR that is proven, and he forces teams to gameplan for him. Assuming the Skins are picking somewhere around #10, the number 2 we would get is a fair trade by the numbers. Regardless, wouldn't you take a #3 and #4? Hold on, I understand that the Redskins have decent WRs. But, that is a fact, and facts don't apply when we are talking about the Redskins. Dan Snyder is a headline whore(see every single move he has ever made), and his whoredom passes for a marketing department, along with his co-opting of the DC media(edit: who make their living on Dan Snyder headlines, btw). Because of this, he NEEDS to make big splashes. His entire plan appears to be based on them. Hey, you can call this a stupid idea, and I would be inclined to agree , but "aggressive"(read: stupid) is the Redskins hallmark. Teams that are in real need of WRs, and listed in order of feasibility imho, are: Raiders(Al Davis, period. Almost as bad as the Skins) Chefs (terrible passing game, and with Cassle's supposed ability, this is also very feasible, a "add one more player" thing) Panthers(with Clausen now starting, this is a very feasible idea, and with Steve Smith there would be no excuses) Browns(same argument as Panthers, new, supposedly awesome QB, "needs a veteran WR" blah, blah) Rams(same as Panthers and Browns) Titans(I don't know about this idea, since I don't know who plays QB for this team, and if they even care who their QB is) Bears(Does Cutler need weapons? They are leading their division, but look at their stats on O. Horrible) The reason I didn't include the Jags and the 49ers is: neither of these teams seems interested in throwing the deep ball. The Titans could be in this category as well, but, if Kerry Collins is still their QB next year, who knows?

Awesome thread title. Friggin hysterical. Although....if we hadn't had these liberal "social justice" programs being applied to these Caribou for so long, the herd would have been thinned, and there would be less deaf and retarded ones.

Remember you are a relative newb here. Some of us have played the conner game for pages upon pages only to realize that should have skipped that with a simple: "You are an idiot" Let's see you invest the same amount of hours on trying to educate the blatantly ignorant, only to have it be forgotten by the time the next round of Huffington Post/Salon/MoveOn headlines are posted on the same subject. I once spent 4 days talking economics with conner, and thought he actually learned something, only to have it all washed away the next day by conner misinterpreting one more in a long line of Paul Krugam "non-denial denials" that the stimulus failed. I will give you the fact that it seems odd, on a message board of all things, for posts to be so rapidly shut down....but in conner's case, 95% of the time it's justified. He is not the only perennial tool we have had, Molson_Golden comes to mind. Often I think conner is Molson_Golden. Molson was fond of creating sock puppets that would "agree" with him. Perhaps conner is just a puppet that stuck? Conner saying he has an education, besides being hysterical, and ironic, is probably defined by Bachelor of Arts at best, more likely Juco.

But, as you may know, they don't care about either of these tenets. "None of us are as cruel as all" of us means what it says. They will do these things because they can. These people aren't a homogeneous group in any respect, and there is no structure or leadership. And, the skill sets are vastly different. There's a whole lot of people that started showing up after the Scientology thing, so they could be "cool" too, but do not have any computer science ability. The newbs can be made to do all kinds of stupid things, like destroying their own machines, which only add to the hilarity and make the group even more difficult to define or profile(which is why they don't mind the newbs). GG displays his "internet people hater" badge once again. Nope. You have this wrong all day. Assange has 0 control over these people. They are about a 100% free market on the internet, regardless of whoever is saying/doing what. 100% means 100%. No taxes, no regulation, no censorship, no governmental involvement at all. If anything, these guys are conservatives/libertarians about this. Many of them make racist statements, not to be racist, but to exercise their rights in an in your face manner, and again, because they can. They often do this to specifically antagonize people like GG. Well, from a technology standpoint, anything is possible. But, only from a "fixed point in time" perspective. If you talk in terms of "controlling the internet for 2 months" it can be done. Just like "taxing the internet" would be effective, for about 2 months.(See the Eliot Spitzer thread where I said he would be done in 2 days, and he was) Too many people think of the internet as a machine that can be regulated. It is not. It is rapidly becoming a high level organism, complete with its own immune system. If it is attacked by government disease, it will either attack and remove the invader, or, it will evolve new functionality that makes the attacker irrelevant. The "stereotype" was never accurate, it's just a way for insecure ignorant people to comfort themselves. I can put myself behind proxies, and other things, you would have an very hard time breaking. Good luck! In fact, Good Luck!, is pretty much the standard response to anybody who thinks they will ever be able to really control the internet. It's way too late for that, and besides, the ability to withstand nuclear attack is inherent to the design. If we can deal with that, we certainly can deal with a few Democratic politicians/Google/Microsoft/Net Neutrality pissants. Yes, and if that was the only way it worked, you would be right. It isn't, so you aren't. Again, remember that you can always get a bunch of script kids to do whatever you want, you just have to post it right. While they are doing that, you can be doing other things. I haven't done anything wrong, and I don't support doing anything illegal. But, I do support doing anything that stops any government from spreading their disease where I work. Show me one(1) industry where government hasn't caused more problems than it's solved, or, as in the case of Wall Street, hasn't been completely corrupted and/or ineffective. You can't.

Another example of: "Let's suggest anything, anything at all, however ridiculous... ...as long as it keeps us from having to admit that our ideology is patently retarded, and, that the problems facing governments the world over are directly due to that failed ideology". -Progressives

It's 100% accurate wrt diplomacy. What did you not get a lot of sleep before posting? IF you are talking about Afghanistan, which is a war, not diplomacy, then that's different. However, we we SPECIFICALLY told that the diplomatic problems that we had with everybody we aren't at war with, were directly due to Bush. Normally, I don't wish for old men to die, but in Carter's case, that would be the best thing for the country, and probably for his legacy as well. All he has done in his post-Presidency career is reinforce the fact that he is the worst President in my lifetime. Again, I don't mind Clinton because at least he has some credibility.

Complicated questions with intentionally simple answers. No wiggle room, just make the decision. I threw in the last question to start trouble. I put it in to see if people really take the Cheats seriously in a historical context. Because, after all, moral victories only really count when taken in the historical context. Of course, if you are in high school, your only historical context is the Cheats. This is where the myth that Tom Brady is anywhere near as good as Joe Montana comes from = high school/college kids feeling insecure about the FACT that the NFL talent of today is watered down at best, and trying to play it off. Cry all you want, but when you get done talking, the fact that, pound for pound, the Bills and Dolphins teams of the 90s would destroy the Jets and Patriots teams of today, will still remain. This is the reason why we want to beat Miami, and couldn't care less about the Pats. Why should I care about a team who wins SBs with their kicker, while only getting to the SB based on other teams teams beating themselves? We've never cared about the Jets, because there's never been a good reason to, and Namath is an embarrassment.

Actually, there is evidence that Philip of Macedon was as much a butt monkey, if not more so. And, from my cultural understanding, which is not as good as my military, it was more along the lines of: You were a penetrator or You were a penetratee. The guys in charge got to do the penetrating, as it was their right. Therefore, most of the Hellenic leadership was technically...bisexual. And, bisexual is not gay. But, that's not really the right way to look at it. To put things in today's terms, a better example would be: DC_Tom is the penetrator and conner is the penetratee The rest is obvious. It doesn't make Tom "gay". It just makes him "dominant".

Oh please. We know all about you squids. But hey, a political document that was ordered by political professionals, and was created by the military professionals who work for their boss, and who sure as hell aren't looking to get put on record as for/against whatever the next set of political professionals want... ...says it's no big deal. Why bother with things like context, nuance, ulterior motives and military CYA games? Let's just take this document at face value. And why not? Apparently X. Benedict thinks everything the Pentagon writes is sacrosanct. Including everything that came out during the Bush years, including the WMD findings.

Let me quote myself: And in response to that, you said: Your lack of reading comprehension skills strikes again. Another example of liberal inferiority. All kidding aside, I have a real problem with people, like you, that deluded themselves to the point that they actually believed Bush was responsible for the a-holes being a-holes. Your entire belief system is the root cause of the problem here. We need to kill off these retarded beliefs once and for all, because sooner or later they are going to get a lot of people killed. I will explain: 1. It was the far-left tools like yourself that were running around since 2005, telling us that our foreign policy wasn't working BECAUSE of Bush. 2. Unfortunately, rather than having serious people as his advisers, Obama has been saddled with the same tools that were spreading #1. 3. Now that these buffoons have been exposed as exactly what they are, we don't have anywhere to go. Obama has been selling the "I'm not Bush, I'm awesome, and let me apologize for the past stupidity" position since the beginning. Where do we go from there? "I'm Obama, I'm humble, and now that I know how this President thing works, you can expect me to start making demands? He's already proven he's weak to people that only respect strength. There's no place to go, because no matter how tough he talks now, he's already ACTED weak. Strong actions, like bombing North Korea, is the only way he gets his credibility back. But, even then, those actions can be said to be purely for show. Now, do you see why we have to kill of these retarded beliefs? No? I will continue: Is Dr. Evil going to stop being Dr. Evil, because of your moronic delusions about Bush, or Obama? Of course not. Should we ever treat Dr. Evil as a serious person with whom we should "engage"? Of course not. Should we ever believe that, just like in the Christmas specials, the bad grinch is actually good, it's just a matter of perspective? Of course not. But, the idiots like you deluded themselves into believing that talking to the Dr. Evils of the world would somehow get results. So, idiots like you advised Obama that this was the case. And, idiots like you created failure after failure for Obama, and more importantly, the country. Now, the idiots like you advisers are all quitting the mess they created. Yes, it's not Obama's fault entirely, not as long as there are far-left idiots like you working for him. And, not as long as we have your "Speak loudly, but carry a tiny stick" belief system keeping us from getting results.

Uhh...you do understand that if the President asked the Pentagon for a "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with the Systematic Ass-raping of 60-80 Year Old Women"....they'd also not predict a mess, right? And, the Pentagon, both geographically and ideologically, is a loooooong way away from Ft. Hood, Texas, or Ft. Benning, Georgia. My initial reaction: Don't tell me that you don't realize that the request for this report came directly from the political office of the WH. The table of contents of this thing gives it away. On second thought, maybe they aren't so slick after all. Well, then again, I'm a veteran consultant, and I am used to writing, never mind reading these docs. Reading...... EDIT: Yep I stopped reading about halfway through, and it's as I said. There's lots of what, where, when, and very little how. Well, let's say: it's all the W's made up to look like how. You just take any W, say it in reverse, and wham! That's how! Douchebag VPs are very fond of this activity...which is why they are douchebags. I don't doubt the veracity of this work, but it's also largely based on theory, not practicality. And, "giving guidance" is not how, and it sure as hell isn't: "what happens when the guidance fails to guide" , and what are the actual regs, and who is in charge of, and which sergeant is designated training NCO, etc. Example: Saying things like, "you shouldn't make big changes to the shower and bathroom facilities beyond low-cost, unit-funded adaptations where appropriate"....is just about the most subjective thing I have have ever heard. This could be interpreted a 1000 ways. Worst case: a unit funds crappy outhouses and and forces the gays to use them, because that is the base commander's interpretation of low-cost, unit-funded, appropriateness. Any "prediction" based on this language is, by definition, inaccurate. To sum it up: without knowing exactly what the regs are, and what they mean, and testing them in the field, and then reporting the feedback, and analysis, etc., saying that "we don't predict problems" is... ...exactly what the political hack who ordered the report wanted to hear. However, there's no REAL way to know what to expect, or what's happening until you get back all of the data and it's been analyzed. I want to see things like readiness reports Xref disciplinary action as a deployment date approaches. That will get us some answers. Only then will we know how well the program is doing. Only then will we know the size of the "the problem".

Their armies aren't our army. It's as simple as that. The problems here are incremental based on size of force. The larger the army, the more and larger the # of problems. If this is handled poorly, then the problems become exponential, and if they become pervasive, then that's when the real morale problems start. Perhaps you don't understand how big the army is? Put it this way: just getting the training I want done will take at least 2 years, and that's pushing it. Talking about the experiences of our allies is great, but the simple fact is that our army is near as big as all of theirs, combined. And, we have a diverse culture, they don't. We have a huge range of religious beliefs, they don't. And on and on. This isn't really helpful, and I think it's in there more for a nod to our allies than anything else. Also, from your pdf, end of chapter 8: The bold tells you all you need to know. Look, just because the military gets shot at, doesn't mean they are dumb. They spent a whole chapter doing a historical compare and contrast that would make any PR exec proud...and whose to say it wasn't written by one? But the reality is what's in bold. It's a plain as day.

Please understand this is an attack on you or anybody, but, a.) you really have to live it to understand it, this is not something you can read in a book b.) I'd love to know the ranks and units, ships whatever of those for/against, cause it's real easy for an enlisted chairborne ranger who worked in an office all day, or in garrison, to act as though this is no big deal. It's a whole other ballgame for a combat officer. Office personnel don't get calls a 3am to come sort out a blanket party that got out of hand. They don't have to call parents and tell them that their kid, and the officer's responsibility, is in the hospital, and they don't have to stand at attention while the Division commander squishes them for an hour. c.) since non-vets like you haven't had to deal with b.), perhaps you should defer to those who have? Or, better, if you support lifting the ban, you must also support training and support for the company grade officers that are going to have to deal with this mess...while they are also preparing to go to war.

Since everything the military does, at least in this country, is based on "historical perspective". I am not sure WTF Tom is saying here. Again, as I said, "military exigency" is priority #1. "Social Justice" is priority #1235...if it is even on the list. All of this "Democrats decided it was time for black men to..." stuff makes for great HBO Series/Movies, but it's fiction. So X., your answer is: Yes. Because, gay has not been proven to be inherent. But really, it's not about morale directly. That's an after affect and will only be a problem if the process is completely FUBAR. Company and Field grade officer training will be vital and that will cost serious $$$ that I am not sure makes logistical sense. If we are to assume that since 10% of the population in general is gay...then we can also assume that only 3-5% of the Army is, because come on, we can't be giving gays all the credit for the arts...and also accept that they want to be sitting in a muddy firing position eating pork loaf MREs, instead of dancing on Broadway. So, again, it's about bang for the buck. Women soldiers means more men in the field, and smarter men as well. Smarter men in combat means less dead soldiers, which in turn means less soldiers that have to be trained, which means the soldiers we have get more training, which means less dead soldiers and more elite soldiers, all of which costs less $$$. Say what you want, but when you get done talking, that simple, cold arithmetic, remains, like it or not. At some point here, if we aren't already there, 40-50% of the enlisted troops will be women. That's a big deal, and the cost of changing around the BOQ, for example, was clearly worth it. In contrast, gays will only ever make up, at best 5% of enlisted, and maybe 10% of officers? Here's the real problem: how the hell does a 24-year old(adjusted for war time) company commander explain to a 34-year old first sergeant that his life is going to be a living hell for the next 1.5 years, and the only thing the company will get is a 3-5% retention rate? The sergeant has already started thinking of the army as "his", and the sheer lunacy of spending that kind of money and time on political douchbaggery will make that top kick crazy. That's where the morale problems start, and that company commander had better be one hell of a salesman, hence the training I mentioned above. If anything, and ironically, I can hear the argument from some grizzled Command Sergeant Major: "Sir, we should take the money they want to spend on gays, and spend it on women. Screw the politics, that's what got my buddies killed in Viet Nam."

Of course we have to raise taxes at some point. As I said, there's a time for everything. Now is not that time from an economic perspective. From a political perspective, Democrats would be idiots to walk into the trap that has been set for them on this. You have forgotten the GOP strategy that occurred before this election: this wasn't about GOP ideas and them doing something, this was about STOPPING leftist doltery. If nothing gets done, that's a win by default for the GOP, since they promised "nothing more", first. 90% of America calls it Obamacare, and you are being dumb if you try and make that point instead of any others. I am well aware that we should be calling it "TidesFoundationCare" or "PelosiCare" or "SorosCare". The reason calling it Obamacare is justified: at any point he could have stepped in and lead on it, but he failed to until it was too late. Same old song. You have no clue what you are talking about in terms of who is getting what from who or where now, and how that changes, or how the "underagenda" of this asstastic bill is starting to work. Spare me the nonsense. People(as in the kids of the 30k union workers) are going to be pushed onto state plans, which WILL be turned into a Federal public option....unless we tear down this affront to our freedom and process of law, and then punish those who would use legal and legislative douchebaggery to subvert the will of the people. As I have stated numerous times: I am for unions in general, but they are pushing me, and many others away, and, they are doing it in a way that endangers their existence. It's as if they have no respect for those who came before them, and are willing to risk everything that was built. Union workers have a choice to make. Either they force the bosses to play ball with everybody, and make concessions, or, they risk an all-out war. IMO, since this is not 1935, or 1965, the unions will not enjoy the public support they have had in the past. Public opinion created the unions, and it can destroy them as well. If an all out war starts, IMO, the unions will lose, big. I believe that union workers, especially the government ones, will NOT allow the bosses to gamble with their jobs. I believe that they will demand concessions be made so that they don't lose everything. This would be the reasonable course, and, therefore, yes, structural changes are on the horizon. The alternative is pissing of the whole country, cause, wholesales privatization at all levels of government, effect. No, I just demand that you comprehend WTF I write if you choose to quote it. And, this is round 2 on you still not getting it.

Dude, let me assure you that the average female "service member" is about 5 points down the scale from that at least. I was going to give you an image, but I decided to spare you. And, the hot ones turn biatch real fast once they realize they have 20 guys to pick from.

That's because: 70% of "the troops"(starting to get PC ) are professionals, and wouldn't let ANYTHING get in the way of them and carrying out their orders. More importantly, the chain of command and discipline that is, in some cases literally beaten, into the average "troop", requires that individual scruples are put aside...in everything, literally everything. However, 70% is not 100%, and that's the problem. This isn't about opinion polls. As a company commander, do I want to go into combat with 30% of my troops...a whole platoon, having a serious morale problem? What exactly am I supposed to do...focus my people on accepting gays, or focusing the ones that aren't quitting in 1 month, on how to do the job as a team, because we are going to get shot at in 2 months? I am just guessing, but from my experience, I bet a significant portion of the 30% are from elite units. Who exactly is to say that 40% of the troops in that 30% aren't elite? Should we toss them out? They will follow orders, but don't expect them to like it, and, don't expect them not to carry out their own "training" missions at night. Regardless of everything, there's only so much an officer can do if people want a problem child out of the unit. Do you think some flag officer is going to preside over the separation of some elite sergeant/chief, that he/she relies on every day, because the NCO won't accept gay people? Keep dreaming. The only way anything really changes, no different than racial integration, is when this entire generation of officers/NCOs retire, and only if the next one truly believes in the change. As has been said, it can be done, but it needs some sort of example to base training on, and ironically, "don't ask don't tell" pretty much removes the chance to get that example. I'd lay 1k on the fact that the above in bold is the real answer that the flag officers tell each other...that you will never hear at a pentagon briefing. The gay thing is not like the women thing, because the gay thing can be argued as a character/morale issue, and, gays or no gays isn't about filling the ranks like the women thing is. War will always come down to cost/benefit. Having gays doesn't provide any more benefit, for the cost, than not having them does, on the logistical math. You can character assassinate them all you want, but this is the root cause of the current opposition from the generals and admirals.

Of course he does, and so do I. You think that the House will allow Obama, or anybody to raise taxes? Even if they have to pass a retroactive bill, they will. Not to mention, the Pelosi mess has not passed a friggin' budget, so there's going to be hell to pay. You think the Democrats have a leg to stand on with Obama at 39 and the recent election? If you do, you are dreaming. Taxes either go down or stay the same, for everybody. You might want to prepare for that reality. Well, pBills, since the unions just kicked kids off of 30k of their employees, and then asked NYS to pick up the tab, what exactly do you think is going on here? Do you think the 70% who opposes Obama care, or the 61% that oppose Obama in general, are just going to lie down now that the agenda(which I identified years ago) is being exposed? Again, you are dreaming if you think it doesn't get at least seriously overhauled, if not, ripped out. Ever hear of the Laffer curve? And, sooner or later all of the states will simply have to start laying off union employees, breaking the power of the unions. This is going to be a structural change in government. And, happily, that structural change will force spending/taxes down, which, just like it did with Reagan, WILL create jobs in a down economy. (Again, there are times to raise taxes and times to spend...a recovering economy right after a recession is NOT the time for either). Edit: Oh, and hey, moron, if you are going to quote me, get it right. Conservatives don't believe they are superior because they joined a group, of where they live, because they nod their heads when Oprah speaks, or anything else that requires collectivism. If they believe they are superior at all, they think it's due to what they do individually.

Which only serves to once again prove my point: you simply don't have the ability to argue with me.

This is similar to the racist "communism has failed because it's only been tried by people of color, and Eurotrash. If it was tried by white western nations, it would succeed" statement that we hear from the supposedly "sensitive" leftards. They won't admit that we have never seen a single country where it works, with hundreds where it has failed. I get it. But, I don't think this is "what it is". Again, I think that there has been a misguided political calculation here. Surely you can raise more money from the "creative class" than you can from blue collar/rural. You can also get more volunteers and ground game people. But both of these pale in comparison to the concept of suddenly forcing millions of generationally trained voters to stop and think, or worse, permanently break the tradition of auto-voting Democrat. I honestly believe that the current Demcrats want to disown the Southern Democrats once and for all. They seem to want to play to minorities and try to force the south into a break even in terms of Congress???? Too bad they don't realize how many white professionals have moved South. For all I know this idiocy started in the NYS Legislature...another group of idiots that can't seem to realize they are losing the game. How else can you describe this?