February 5, 2008: Super Duper Tuesday

Thanks for the information. I am not surprised, but I am predicting that the Clinton machine, will, if desperate enough and if they see they may lose, will pull out all of the stops and use every racist in the USA against Barack. The Clintons are and always will be, as Bob Herbert of the New York Times said in 2000, "low class"

0 Replies

Here we go again. If you vote for Obama your high class. If you vote for Hillary your low class and uneducated.

0 Replies

I am not knocking Obama and his education; apparently he is very educated and smart and organized. However; so it Hillary. The Obama's are both graduates of Harvard Laws School and the Clinton's Yale Law School.

When They Were Young

I think in the end it comes down to who trust more and like more rather than any educational background or great differences in policies. For the life of me I can decide. But then I am not really following the media or the hype from the commentators or supporters. When you get right down to it; there is not much different than even McCain and Hillary and Obama except maybe a domestic difference; don't really know how McCain is on domestic issues other than the immigration issue and I agree with him there. Oh I forget; McCain don't mind staying in Iraq for another 100 years as long as it is only Iraqis doing the fighting and dying and Hillary and Obama want to start at least thinking about withdrawing troops at some point but the specifics are a little murky there.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Here we go again. If you vote for Obama your high class. If you vote for Hillary your low class and uneducated.

I think the original post meant that the Clinton campaign is willing to go to any level to get the vote. The events in South Carolina speak for themselves. No one is saying that Clinton supporters are "low class", only that her campaign is willing to descend to whatever level is required to get every vote. High class people can run a low class campaign.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
Here we go again. If you vote for Obama your high class. If you vote for Hillary your low class and uneducated.

I think the original post meant that the Clinton campaign is willing to go to any level to get the vote. The events in South Carolina speak for themselves. No one is saying that Clinton supporters are "low class", only that her campaign is willing to descend to whatever level is required to get every vote. High class people can run a low class campaign.

True there is nothing to be gained about calling names. Everybody, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, George Bush, Romney, McCain, et al have gotten stuff right and have shown commendable human sides. But honestly, can you think of anything about the Clintons that you would describe as high class?

0 Replies

Not to a bunch of people who have been so jaded by the republican witch hunt during Clintons term that nothing anyone brings up even though they be facts will be believed. It just a waste of time to defend him because the people who hate him are closed minded.

0 Replies

Am I understanding the complaint correctly?

Polling companies conduct surveys to find out who people are voting for.

As part of that survey, they ask some statistical questions such as age, race, education level, and views on several hot election topics.

The people participating in the surveys answer the questions.

The results of those surveys are categorized according to candidate and each of the statistical questions and hot topic answers.

Those results are then summarized in narrative form.

The results of those surveys show certain generalized attributes of supporters of each candidate based on answers to statistical questions those supporters answered about themselves.

Is the complaint over semantics and the keywords used to describe those generalized attributes or is the complaint about the trends the surveys show?

Or is the complaint about something else entirely?

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Not to a bunch of people who have been so jaded by the republican witch hunt during Clintons term that nothing anyone brings up even though they be facts will be believed. It just a waste of time to defend him because the people who hate him are closed minded.

You're probably right. And I feel the same way about George W. Bush who has been a disappointment to me in several ways, but who has also gotten some of it right too. You know the kinds of posts that will follow anybody attempting to defend him.

That piece on Obama I posted a page or two or three back I would describe as a classy piece written by somebody who does not support Obama, but who sees him as a class act. You can be classy and right. You can be classy and wrong. And you can be right and low class. Smile

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Am I understanding the complaint correctly?

Polling companies conduct surveys to find out who people are voting for.

As part of that survey, they ask some statistical questions such as age, race, education level, and views on several hot election topics.

The people participating in the surveys answer the questions.

The results of those surveys are categorized according to candidate and each of the statistical questions and hot topic answers.

Those results are then summarized in narrative form.

The results of those surveys show certain generalized attributes of supporters of each candidate based on answers to statistical questions those supporters answered about themselves.

Is the complaint over semantics and the keywords used to describe those generalized attributes or is the complaint about the trends the surveys show?

Or is the complaint about something else entirely?

My problem with many polls is that the questions often seem to be worded to generate a specific response and those are less generalized than they purport to be. This is probably why many are so far off the mark in the actual results we see. But the averages of all such as Nimh has attempted to consistently show should give us a general idea of the pulse of the country on any given day. I think that pulse is guided by the current events of the day. Poll questions on Iraq for instance will likely pull different responses on a day filled with bad news than they would on a day in which the news has been good. Questions on the economy will be answered differently in a week in which General Motors posts good quarter gains and the stock market is soaring than they will be answered in a week in which Yahoo posts disappointing earnings and the market tanks.

Then again probably a lot of votes on election day will be cast on such emotional criteria or on ideological prejudices rather than on any objective thought. I wish we had a better way to do it.

0 Replies

But do the answers to questions on age, gender, income and education levels change with opinions about the hyped issue flavor of the day or the way a question is asked?

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

But do the answers to questions on age, gender, income and education levels change with opinions about the hyped issue flavor of the day?

Back in the dark ages and by virtue of my 'position' at the time, I was commissioned to run a couple of scientifically conducted telephone polls. The demographic questions are mostly to use to evaluate whether a truly random cross section of the population was reached. If mostly senior citizens or mostly twenty somethings etc. are polled, the results cannot be considered to be a good cross sample.

They also use this information to produce other statistical analysis, i.e. among senior citizen X number supported whatever and X number opposed; among Republicans......among parents.....among singles....etc. etc. etc.

I am guessing that some in all age groups and categories will be influenced by emotional response to things though.

0 Replies

There are some people who do not read History or have forgotten it. Rabel evidently does not remember that Bill Clinton was impeached, not for sexual indiscretions, but for Obstruction of Justice. Rabel evidently does not remember that on his last day of office, Clinton signed a plea bargain which indicated that he would have his law license suspended for six years. He also admitted lying in that plea bargain.

That, to my mind, is "low class". Clinton only proved it recently by shamelessly maligning Barack Obama.

The comment concerning the Clinton's Law Degrees at Yale and comparing them with the degree of Obama from Harvard is out of kilter.

Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review. The Clintons did not reach such heights. The Clintons were journeymen students. Obama was at the highest pinnacle.

0 Replies

Wrong
I was there during the Republican witch hunt and what I know is that there isn't a politician alive who could have survived a 40 million dollar investigation by the government. Not Reagan, not either Bush, not any politician who has held office in the last 28 years. The republicans house did impeach him but the Senate showed SOME intelligance not because they felt guilty about the character assaniation but because they knew that if impeachment stood every politician in the country would be at risk. What you fail to acknowledge is that he was impeached for a private act that the government didn't have any business being involved in. They put him in a position where most men would lied about sex. Having said that I think Bill Clinton showed very poor judgement but he ant the only one either in government or business who shows poor judgement.

0 Replies

Romney is livid over the WV outcome.

0 Replies

my prediction is this.
A White Male will replace Bush and continue the
same old Drama.
My name is Rama

0 Replies

There has been no rebuttal of the first paragraph below:

There are some people who do not read History or have forgotten it. Rabel evidently does not remember that Bill Clinton was impeached, not for sexual indiscretions, but for Obstruction of Justice. Rabel evidently does not remember that on his last day of office, Clinton signed a plea bargain which indicated that he would have his law license suspended for six years. He also admitted lying in that plea bargain.

That, to my mind, is "low class". Clinton only proved it recently by shamelessly maligning Barack Obama.

The comment concerning the Clinton's Law Degrees at Yale and comparing them with the degree of Obama from Harvard is out of kilter.

Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review. The Clintons did not reach such heights. The Clintons were journeymen students. Obama was at the highest pinnacle.

0 Replies

I do hope that the prediction that a white male will replace Bush is not based on the same old racism. I do know that the Clintons will use every dirty trick in the book including covert attacks on Barack Obama's race!!!
He is clearly much more highly qualified than Hillary Clinton and, besides, who would wish for a two person Presidency. That is what we will have if Hillary becomes President. Or is anyone foolish enough to think that Bill will ever keep his mouth shut?

0 Replies

MarySzy wrote:

There has been no rebuttal of the first paragraph below:

There are some people who do not read History or have forgotten it. Rabel evidently does not remember that Bill Clinton was impeached, not for sexual indiscretions, but for Obstruction of Justice. Rabel evidently does not remember that on his last day of office, Clinton signed a plea bargain which indicated that he would have his law license suspended for six years. He also admitted lying in that plea bargain.

That, to my mind, is "low class". Clinton only proved it recently by shamelessly maligning Barack Obama.

The comment concerning the Clinton's Law Degrees at Yale and comparing them with the degree of Obama from Harvard is out of kilter.

Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review. The Clintons did not reach such heights. The Clintons were journeymen students. Obama was at the highest pinnacle.

totally interesting that significant problems facing america are relegated to sound bites ranter than "this is a difficult problem that needs to be faced but, I'm going to avoid any of that and offer more some bites about "illegal" aliens when I should be addressing far more difficult problems such as "terrorism" or "economics" or 'Infrastructure' or public health or education '

0 Replies

Ok, it's 7:01

who won?

0 Replies

From childhood on, I've not entirely understood the need for delegates, though at a young age I watched a variety of conventions that were not decisive at the outset and delegates went one way or another.

I still don't get almost anything about our elections, why votes don't count equally no matter where you live, who you are. I can see variation in representation re populated and unpopulated states in the House, but that's as far as I can stretch that. All the rest is manipulation to me, verging on ludicrous... whoever wins this present fray.

Fear of mob rule, piazza rule, is still the modus operandi, far as I can see it, and I resent this.

0 Replies

February 5, 2008: Super Duper Tuesday

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know