Feb
26
2014

Rumblings of worry among the Left over 2014.

(Via Hot Air Headlines) The entertaining bit about this Bill Press piece is not that he’s hilariously wrong about where the evvvvvvillllll Koch Brothers fall on the donor scale, or perhaps scale of donors; nor is it that he seems to think that there’s more than a physics’s chance* of the Democrats retaking the House.  It’s that his basic point is, in fact, sound: by all means, the Democratic party should concentrate on the 2014 elections first**.  But the likelihood that the institution in question will think clearly on that subject? …Well, that’s another physics’ chance.

Moe Lane

*I’m trying this phrase out: it means “having this will happen would not actually violate any of the laws of physics – so you must assign a probability to it – but as a practical matter? Do not lose sleep over it.” What do people think?  It may need some work.

**As should the GOP, of course.  One advantage we have there is that most of our credible candidates are either governors up for re-election this year, or Senators up for re-election in 2016.  The former absolutely HAVE to pay attention to the current situation and the latter need to make the decision right now whether or not to run for higher office***.

***It would not surprise me at all to hear that Rand Paul and/or Marco Rubio eventually decide that they’re young enough to plan to run in 2024. Or go with a VP slot.  I’d counsel that, actually: as the Democrats persist in showing us, the Senate is an awful place from which to draw our Presidents.

6 Comments

  • acat says:

    I think what you’re after, with your phrase, is a “thermodynamic miracle”, i.e. it is *possible* to put 100 live cats into 100 of Dr. Schroedinger’s boxes, wait a week, and get all 100 out alive… but it is extremely unlikely. .
    I tended to use the phrase “low order risk” for these, but I ran across “thermodynamic miracle” and .. it seems more poetic.
    .
    I agree with your assessment of the Dems’ chances of focusing their effort on burning the 2016 GOP front-runners of the moment, instead of on winning 2014. It would take a miracle.
    .
    Mew

  • techsan says:

    I generally go with “a small but non-zero chance” for the same purpose.

  • Finrod says:

    Personally I’m a fan of the phrase ‘infinitesimal chance’, myself.

  • PubliusNV says:

    Infinitesimal is good. “could only be measured on a Planck scale” is possible (the Planck length is much smaller than a proton).

  • Herp McDerp says:

    Hmm. I read “a physics’s chance” as having something to do with laxatives. Not something I’d want to get behind …

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com