myStrangerFace Yeah, it's a copy of that.

G g

Refresh

Nov 16, 2012 G g commented on Okay, Slog, You Asked for It.

Love. Maybe this could be formatted/implemented like the "What you're not wearing" series: you can post 5-10 photos once per week or so. Maybe Monday mornings when we all need to feel better?

Nov 8, 2012 G g commented on An Early Pollster Post-Mortem.

Two things stand out about this table to me: 1) Quite a few of these "Actual Result"s appear to be from election night, and the final result will be different numbers (this is almost certain for president and R74, and possible for the other three). 2) I notice that S360 chose to plot the margin for the executive races (ex: "D+12") but the "yes" vote percentage for both the initiatives and referendum. Did they do that because it makes their totals look better than if they did percents all the way around or if they did margins all the way around?

Nov 7, 2012 G g commented on Little Drama in Today's Ballot Drop, as King County Heads Toward Record Turnout.

The new drop has improved King county's approval rate of R74, from 65.48% to 65.66%. That means today's ballots were about two percent better (in King) than the earlier ones. Ref-74 is a shoe-in.

Island County also switched from "no" to "Pro" with later ballot drops, and -- just for fun -- San Juan County is not only the most "pro-" county (70% !), but it even supported R74 at higher rates than it supported Obama ("only" 67%).

Nov 5, 2012 G g commented on Why We Won't Have a Final Vote Count in Washington State on Tuesday Night (And Why We Will Have a Solid Projection in Close Races).

This mostly works ok unless there are late developments in a race that would make later ballots skewed one direction or another (ex: Sanders' state supreme court loss). But for very, very close races, the number of outstanding ballots matters: counties only report a) ballots on hand (lots more arrive after election day) and b) their estimate of what the total turnout will be (which usually doesn't have better than +/- 2% accuracy). It will be nice to have the projections available, but they won't be any more accurate than the statistics feeding the model. And not (much) more accurate than the past mathsy slog commenters' projections using the same limited information.

Nov 1, 2012 G g commented on New Washington Poll: Inslee Up Narrowly, Marriage Equality Passing, Pot Legalization Passing, Ferguson Ahead in AG's Race.

@6: This pollster actually goes about it in a pretty smart way: "It asked voters if they were uncomfortable about any of the topics raised and also if they lied" on any of their answers. They then adjust some of the answers based on known correlations (initial research that this is based on I believe was about the Bradley affect/race). [Description of the methodology is here, and refers to the previous round of this poll: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/… ]

Oct 22, 2012 G g commented on Caption This Photo!.

For sale!: lecturn spacious enough to conceal two alter boys for those extra-long sermons!

Oct 3, 2012 G g commented on The First Debate: Let the "Romney Comeback" Narrative Begin.

Romney was a moderate for the first time tonight. My hope is that Obama was willing to lose this debate in real time in order to win it tomorrow by demonstrating cases of Romney contradictions...using clips from the debate alongside older clips. The Obama campaign will have to go big and roll them out immediately -- before tomorrow night's news cycle can further the "Romney's game-changing debate" narrative. But that's wishful thinking and I think it's more likely now that we see a closer election instead of an Obama Mandate election.

Oct 1, 2012 G g commented on FUCK YES: City Council Passes New Rules for Landlords.

@21: Where does it say the homeowner/lessor is responsible for an inspection fee that is $500? I read the whole thing (not just the .pdf this article links to), and it doesn't say that. The way I initially read it, it seemed that the $12 goes toward paying for the inspections of the 10% of the units -- but perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part (shouldn't this bill explicitly state how the inspections are paid for? IT DOESN"T SAY. Not even implicitly.). However, if it IS the case that the landlord pays the full cost of inspections, it would be absurd if the inspection costs were much over $100: full home inspections for prospective buyers are in the $200 to (rarely) $500 range, but those are very in-depth inspections. These rental safety inspections are simple and include exactly 13 check-boxes, all listed within the bill (examples: #10: garbage can access; CHECK; #13: working smoke detectors; CHECK).

Oct 1, 2012 G g commented on FUCK YES: City Council Passes New Rules for Landlords.

As both a landlord of a single condo unit in Seattle and a tenant in the apt I now live in, I can't comprehend how $12/year would phase a rental owner (or renter, for that matter) -- the advertising value of being able to state "registered; passed inspection" is arguably worth more than that, as is the value (for a tenant) of knowing you live somewhere that meets minimum health health and safety standards. I imagine quite of few of the large, dilapidated complexes (I'm picturing several buildings in U-district and Cap Hill...some of which I lived in in my college days) are going to have some problems with how the inspections turn out for them, but isn't that the point? Why have safety standards if we ignore it when they're not met?

@16: I dunno about that. A better move in the same direction (but requiring change at the federal level) would be to stop allowing federal mortgage interest deductions for non-primary/vacation homes.

Sep 7, 2012 G g commented on A Credible Plan for Amply Funding Public Schools.

Regarding @4 (myself): I came across this on the googles and internets: "Aggregate realized capital gains fell from $895 billion in 2007 to $236 billion in 2009." This is total in the U.S. (A google search of the quote will bring up articles). True, this is likely worse than anything we'll see in the near future, but it serves as an indication of the degree to which revenue from your proposal can vary on the high end: it could drop by a factor of four! That's a much less reliable revenue stream than even sales tax. I think your proposal could still work, but this hurdle would somehow have to be overcome in the structuring of the law. And the biggest danger for a program to have a revenue stream that dives when the economy dives is that it will be underfunded right at the time when the legislature is forced to find cuts.