2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Libruls, Timber? Did you mean Libs rule?

Nah, Tart, that was a meanspirited, scurilous slur, on the order of "The Shrub", or "The Lilliputian Presdential Wannabees" ... just puttin a little of the goose's sauce on the gander.

Good night! You people were up in the middle of the night! Thank God I was sleeping. I haven't been able to find where, if at all, Mr. Italgato has provided his source on Mr. Bush's IQ or SAT scores. And I'm also amazed that Mr. Italgato thinks an SAT of 1200 and therefore (big therefore) IQ of 120 is high. Pllllleeeeease. The top 10 percent? That's intelligent enough to stay on your toes as the president? Not in today's world. I wonder how he could have made it at Harvard with this IQ, especially since he hasn't made it on his own in any endeavor he's ever attempted. This of course is without commenting on the hazards of SAT score testing and it's ability to test for anything other than whether the person whose score is in question had the privilege of taking the test multiple times or the money to pay for a preparation test which teaches students how to beat the test. etc.

And I do disagree with Mr. Craven. The president's intelligence does indeed have a place in a political discussion. It's important when it's clear IMOpinion, that Mr. GW didn't get to be president on his own merit but was then and is now rather a figure head who is marketed to the American voter by a group of people whose agenda is not up front and honest. His intelligence is relevant when trying to make sense of his policies and in understanding what or whose agenda he is following. I prefer to have my presidents highly intelligent......... and sexy too......I agree with Tartarin, sexiness is a measure of a person's ability to get down and do what needs to be done.

Now you promised your source, Italgato, let's have it. We must not get sloppy with our sources. Oh and while you're at it, maybe you can provide us with his ed testing. Is it dyslexia (not the person, but the learning style) ADD, or what that interferes with his ability to express himself clearly on his own with out scripts and prompts. Or maybe you have a source that can explain his tendency to shoot himself in his own whacker every time he turns around. This to me is the most important factor in whether I feel safe with GW as my president.

Timber,

Yes marketing is what politics is all about. But you said you found it an unlikely possibility that someone with low intelligence could be elected president. Wow! Now that's a statement. Carl Rove can sell just about anything (for a time). He's good. Have you never seen inferior products, even fraudulent products sold successfully through marketing? If being elected president or graduating from a hoity toidy graduate program measures intelligence.......well, I think it's pretty thin ice you're standing on.

And I'll be proud to be called a librul any day.

Neither Truman nor Lincoln enjoyed much success at business, Lola. As for Italgato's reference to IQ and SAT ranking, I believe he may have been harking to a comment in an earlier post of mine which debunks the myth of Bush the Younger's putative unintelligence, to be found, replete with links to corroborative material, HERE

And oh, yeah, I was up damned near all night. Odd time of year for it, but we had a foaling here ... it was iffy for a bit, but momma and leggy colt are gonna be fine.

Lola, When I first learned about s-e-x, I thought NO WAY! Particularly since it was my older sister who gave me the "facts" and said that in her opinion it would be like sitting on a picket fence...

Imagine my delight when I discovered... well, you know! But maybe the greatest thing I discovery about sex is that it's fun and funny and it takes the whole person. Maybe that's part of what makes most women I know notice something in a guy which shouts "he's got it together!" Competence, humor, energy, responsiveness -- all these things are part of "sexiness." When they are missing (and I think you and I agree on who doesn't have 'em), fuggedabahtit: this is not a whole man, a complete man. When some guy who's trying to sell me a car (recent experience) doesn't have 'em, he has no credibility. When a doctor doesn't have 'em, I find another doctor. When a date doesn't have 'em, I go home early and turn off my phone. When a president doesn't have 'em, I build a bomb shelter and hope we'll all last long enough to vote him out of office.

Geeze ... the revelations ya come across here. I'd never have suspected you of bein' an avid fence-straddler, Tartarin :wink:

Just early polls, of course, but offering some indication of electorate mood being elsewhere than in the Democratic Camp:

Noteworthy, IMO, is that any specific Democrat fares far less well than does the generic "The Democratic Candidate". I gotta think that says something very important, even this early on.

More of interest at: PollingReport

Maybe Wesley Clark will help the Dems??

As for your previous post, Timber, OUCH!

Just teasin' Tart ... ya know I love ya!

As for Clark, I figure this is his training period. The DNC needs him in shape for his '08 Veep pairing with Her Hillaryness.

Do not believe the accuracy of polls, especially not by ABC and the Washington Post.

Please, what would the world become if we believed in corporate media polls ever again.

Same goes for the election process, of course. Fraud has become a second nature in the counting process.

A rumination on the accuracy of polls, and their insidious influence:
in 1960, a computer, a new, room-sized, vacuum-tube-powered behemoth of the sort theretofore disposed only by governments and ubergeek academics, was employed by a broadcast network to predict the outcome of the Kennedy-Goldwater election right there on TV for all to see and be amazed by. Early on, it became evident the computer's projections were at significant odds with the poll-driven projections expected to be borne out. The computer's opinion was dismissed, and its prognostications were not shared over the airwaves to the public, in the interest of avoiding embarrassment for those who had touted its uncanny predictive abilities. Despite the polls, and the bias of the contemporary media nabobs, Kennedy, in accordance with the computer's output, won handily.

Then again, even in this poll, which does sketch a much gloomier picture for the Dems than last week's Time/CNN poll, Bush's lead actually went down from 8% to 5% in just the one month. After all, a month ago in the same poll, Bush polled 48% against 40% for the Democratic candidate. I.e., Bush stays stable while "Don't know"ers go Democrat in inclination. So there's some hope in there yet.

On the other hand, Timber is absolutely right in pinpointing the other bad news for the Dems in polls like this: the anonymous, generic Democrat fares a whole lot better than Dean or Lieberman does. Its easy to say, oh dont want no Bush anymore, but apparently a lot harder to say, why, les' have Dean, instead. And there's no easy way out there for the Dems - Clark surely wont do better, its too early for Hillary, and too late for Gore.

On, err, a third or fourth hand (or something), again, one more relativation is in order tho. Just look at this page from the same site. Just last month, according to a Fox poll, 42% never even heard of Dean yet. And according to a CBS poll on Dean, 61% "hadnt heard enough" and another 16% was "undecided" when asked for an opinion on the guy. I.e. - to a significant part of the electorate, the guy is terra incognita - and many of these sorts will be included in polls like ABC's as well.

Thus, when asked to say, would you vote for Bush or Dean, to a great many people the question comes down to, would you vote for Bush or for someone you've never / hardly heard of. If you look at it that way, its only logical that the generic "Democrat" still does a lot better than Dean, Kerry or any of these guys half to three quarters of those polled hardly heard of, and the candidates' campaigns still have a fair opportunity at filling some gaps there.

I can't speak for all the polls, but I was "Gallup"ed a few weeks ago ... the pollster was scrupulous to determine, before asking about my preferences, to determine I had some familiarity with the subjects of the poll. Following completion of the questionaire, I engaged the caller in a bit of chat. I learned that many folks, those who exhibit or claim no familiarity with the candidates, get a polite "Thank you" and a hangup, as opposed to the full query-and-response routine.

Did you hear the latest in California? Three judges decided that the punch card voting system is prone to too many errors, and they have postponed the election to next March. The punch card voting system was never perfect in the past; the want perfect? I guess we'll never have another voting in this country.

Well, now Timber, that would mean a bias in a different direction because surely some of those who are uninformed at this early date will be interested enough by the time it's over to get up and go vote. The election has a long way to go and lots of ups and downs yet. But I think we may see Bush out the door this time. I will surely be disappointed if he isn't. But I remain hopeful until the bitter end.

Lack of success in business may be a trait shared by Lincoln and Truman, but what about GW's tendency to (metaphorically speaking) self mutilate.........or maybe I should say it a little more clearly.........his tendency to castrate himself every little chance he gets? Some would call it an inhibition, but I would say that's a huge understatement. Surely it's something having to do with Oedipus............... But, before you can say it, I know.........plenty of presidents have shared this tendency with Bush as well. Still, it seems very pronounced in GW.

And Tartarin,

Absolutely! Sexy is definitely a criterion worth noting.

Ohhh, and Timber. Adali Stevenson's daughter bought the house I spent my early years enjoying, living and doing mischief. She lived there until she died (or was it her daughter who lived there until she died, well it was one of them) a few years ago (probably 10 or so by now.) I was tempted to buy it back, but decided against it. Small world.

And congratulations to the momma horsey and welcome to the world to the colt.

That ain't the latest, c.i. , that's yesterday afternoon's news. Now, the entire 9th Circuit Court is revisiting the issue.
The second ring of the circus opens
I think it likely they will decide to examine the ruling, and that if they do, they are likely to reverse it. I also think it likely that whatever the whole court decides, the issue will wind up in front of the US Supreme Court. I hold little expectation of an October Election, as scheduled.

I checked out your link Timber. 115 IQ is not a great IQ. It is slightly above average, average being 90 to 110, but it's nothing to be bragging about. Even 120, as Italgato claims is not impressive to me. I like my surgeons, doctors, lawyers and presidents to be at the very top. Have you checked similar scores for other presidents? Like Bill Clinton? I'll bet his is way bigger. :wink: