2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Who isn't biased, one way or another, Lola? Thanks for the congratulations and the welcome ... I'll pass 'em along to the interested parties. The colt is really perky and frisky, and has plenty of curiousity, if little confidence or coordination as yet ... very entertaining to watch, and momma is properly solicitous of her charge. Dad could care less ... he's stayed out in the paddock except for visits to the grain trough since before labor began.

Here's another poll, not quite so timel;y (its a few weeks old), but intriguing in its implication:

It would appear, by this poll, that Democrats as a group are less aware of the Democratic Candidates than are Republicans or Independents.


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
Silly to project, of course, but by this reading, it would appear the Republicans currently are the most politically aware faction, and are considerably better informed of Democratic Party issues than are Democrats, who trail even Independents in that regard. All in all, though, what I find most depressing is that 65% of all respondents could not name a Democratic candidate. That's an increase of awareness over the last such survey, in which the "Can't Name" crowd tallied 67%, but its still sadly indicative of just why politics in this nation are the mess they are; too few folks give enough of a damn to do much more than complain. Those who don't vote, and those who vote in ignorance, get the government they deserve. I resent their ability to inflict that government on the folks who DO care.

Give me your poll money, this isn't news - it has been know for many, many years. If we took a poll we would find most people believe it snows mostly in the winter months with some hangover in early spring and some early fall snows. But, then again - I maybe out in left field!!!!

Here are the elements from your links, Timber, that I find most relevant:

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm

1. Aubrey Immelman is a political psychologist and an associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm


http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html


Source: Washington Post, March 19, 2000


GW Bush's IQ is not a shining beacon. But I agree most with the second quotation. IQ scores are a long way from perfect. I've seen IQ scores taken at different points in one individual's life come out hugely different when taken at another time in the same individual's life. The best way to understand an IQ score is to know a lot about the circumstances under which it was taken. As far as I know, IQ scores are never or rarely used for college admission, for instance.

It's up to all of us to evaluate what we each think about the intelligence of our presidential candidates. And I've already said what my opinion is.

I have a mentor/friend who graduated from Harvard Medical School before he was 21. He was delivering babies before he was old enough to legally sign the birth certificates. He has contributed in a significant, noteworthy way to his profession. Numerous classic books and articles, etc. This to me is a measure of intelligence. Too bad a man or woman like this is too smart to run for president.

Just for the sake of completeness re: deducing conclusions about a President's performance on the basis of Congress election results, this month saw the belated release of VNS exit polls figures from last year's mid-term elections.

They're interesting - apparently the GOP benefited in particular from a higher-than-before score among women voters and Jewish voters, and of a rise in registered Republicans (at the cost of a diminished number of those registered Independent). They also include this one:

36 percent of those polled said their vote for in the House elections was "intended to express support for President Bush";
18 percent said it was intended to show opposition to him;
and thus we can deduce that for the remaining
46 percent of those polled, neither approval nor rejection of the President played a role in their choice.

See these Highlightsin a Yahoo News story.

Hope you'll post a photo, Timber...

Completely understand the perplexity about the Dem candidates. If you compare, inch by inch, pixel by pixel, the amount of media coverage given Bush vs. any or even ALL Dems, Bush would come out as the Spam to their Tournedos au Vin Blanc.
You've gotta have a somewhat wider vision and a deeper interest at this point to step around network news and see what the greater world offers. Otherwise you just stand there and say, Hey, what?

As on this forum, I think the general public that are interested are very polarized on the current state of things. In times like this one would think more people to be interested, instead I feel it drives many into neutral. They get burned out on the news, don't want to make the effort to stay informed so they end up either giving up, stick their heads in the sand, or simplify their life by voting for the incumbant. Sometimes I can't blame them, the gov't is so masssive and out of control, it seems hopeless. Ironically, those same people will raise holy hell if the price of petrol goes up a nickel, take away their rights and they'll gladly give them away.

As the sheeple go in this direction, the gov't gets more powerful, we lose rights because not enough would be voters care. What a freakin' conundrum.

Concerning yet other details, Italgato has been pointing out here that the Texas redistricting will gain the Republicans another 4-5 seats in the House. But presiding officer of the Texas Senate, Mr. Dewhurst, says the plan "could give Republicans 2 or 3 seats" extra.

Slightly limited damage, thus, perhaps. Still doesnt make the whole process any less odious, of course. Anyone heard of any poll numbers of how the Texan electorate has viewed these events?

Here,nimh.

Nice article, PDiddie.

Well, lots of Texans don't like damn fools and the whole thing right across the board looks like tomfoolery to many. More accurately, perhaps, tomdelayfoolery. Craddick -- he's tried to be helpful. Perry and Dewhurst haven't a leg to stand on between them. The transient Dems get cheered everywhere they go. From what I hear, people stand up and come over to shake their hands. It nop longer seems like that much of partisan issue outside of the media. Talk show hosts try to stir things up, condemning the Dems. But they don't get many callers on this subject, just a few strident Hang-Them-Commies types -- but even those guys don't seem all that connected to the issue anymore. It may come down to (here in Texas as in California) the money issue: Why're them damn fool legislators spending OUR MONEY calling ALL THESE SESSIONS just to make themselves feel good.... etc. etc.

PDid, It's interesting to find the majority of Texans are against the 'redistricting' move by the legislature that they elected into office. If they are so 'unhappy' with the legislature, they also have the power to remove all of them from office. Ya can't have it both ways: be responsible for their election, than complain they're not meeting their mandates. duh........

I am very much afraid that nimh either has forgotten or hasn't read much about poltical campaigns.

First of all, there is no denying the fact that BY HISTORICAL STANDARDS, THE GOP SHOULD HAVE LOST SOME 22 HOUSE SEATS AND TWO SENATE SEATS.

The post world War II average loss by a president's party in the first midterm after an election.

Do you understand that, nimh?

The party which holds the presidency has lost an average of 22 House Seats and 2 Senate Seats in the first midterm after a president's election.

In 2002, the Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and Five in the House.

This break with historical standards is all the more amazing if it is viewed through the perspective of posters like Mr. Blatham who insists that the leader of the party, George W. Bush, is both incompetent and under educated. Mr. Blatham offers no hard evidence to prove those contentions but there they stand.

Mr. nimh would have us believe that the Leader of the Party in the presidency has absolutely no effect on the races in the first mid-term after his election.

Newsweek comments(Nov. 18th 2002) P. 30

"For the first time since 1934, in FDR's first term, a president LED his party to gains in both chambers of Congress two years into his first term.

I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Nimh, if I hold the experts in Political reporting for Newsweek( certainly not a conservative venue) as a much better source that you.

Of course, Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush. All know that, but the popular vote means little, it is the electoral votes that count.

If the popular vote showed a person's popularity with the majority of the American people, William Jefferson Clinton would not fare very well since he garnered only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and less than half( 49%) in 1996.

Reagan gained the Senate in 1982( It had been Democratic just previously). Reagan KEPT the Senate in 1984. The House STAYED AS IT WAS SINCE 1954.

Reagan gained the Senate Twice. He lost it in 1986.

He never lost the House which had been Democratic since 1954.

I hope you will understand, Mr. Nimh, that Reagan gained the Senate twice and NEVER LOST THE HOUSE.

ON THE CONTRARY, THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE WERE BOTH

DEMOCRATIC

WHEN WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON CAME INTO OFFICE IN 1992,
'
Clinton's record is unblemished.

He lost the House in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

He lost the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

His Party, Clinton's party, the Democratic Party lost the House and the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998 AFTER HAVING CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES WHEN CLINTON WAS ELECTED IN 1992.

Please be so good as to review poilitical history.


If you have been attentive enough to read the C-SPAN Survey of Professional Historians, you would note that Reagan was ranked 11th in that survey and that William Jefferson Clinton was ranked 21st--just behind George Herbert Walker Bush.

Mr. Nimh is to be commended for providing a good link to the Yahoo story concerning exit polling.

I was very interested to not that

People identifying themselves as Republican went

up to 40% up from 36 in previousmid-termelections

People identifying themselves as Democrats went

up to 38% from 36 in previous mid-term elections

People identifying themselves as Independents

DOWN to 22% from 27% in previous mid-term elections.

and, last, but not least, women identified themselves as Republican 49% of the time, up from 46% in previous mid-term elections.

Very interesting. Thank you, Mr. Nimh, for the link.

Yes, you made your case perfectly clear the first time around, without caps. All I did was point out a flaw in the conclusions you drew from the above fact.



Umm, no, thats not what I said actually.



No problem whatsoever, Italgato.



When it comes to deciding who gets to be President, yes, but you were referring to the authority of the popular trust, as expressed in election results, as an indication of a President's competence.



Hm. Interesting semantics there. So, when Clinton has his party win back a few seats in a Republican-majority House like he did in 1996 and 1998, he "lost" the House, but when Reagan has his party lose a bunch of extra seats in a Democratic-majority House, like in 1982 and 1986, he hasnt "lost" it?

Clinton only "lost" the House and Senate once - in 1994. Reagan only "lost" the Senate once - in 1986. In all the other cases, the majority stayed the same. Thats what my review of political history tells me - but enough of the semantics. What was your point about Presidential competence and popular vote again?



No problem - glad to be of help.

Thanks for the link, PDiddie.

Lola- What a great quote in your post!!!

"The test for the president-elect willbe whether he possesses the EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE-the triumph of reason over rigidity and restraint over impluse to steer the course"

This is far more important than cognitive intelligence.

I quote from the dean of Presidential Historians, Fred I. Greenstein in his book,"The Presidential Difference.

Professor Greenstein, Professor of Politics at Princeton and head of the prestigious Woodrow Wilson School of Leadership Studies at Princeton writes:

quote

"The politically gifted, emotionally challenged William Jefferson Clinton provides yet another indication of the fundamental importance of emotional intelligence in themodern presidency. Clinton's political gifts ejnable him to thwart the Republican effort to remove him from office, but his psychic shortcomings were debilitating.
(Clinton) is likely to be remembered as a politically talented underachiever whose White House experience provides a reminder that in the absence of emotional soundness, the American presidency is a problematic instrument of democratic governance."

end of quote

I am very much afraid that you know little about the concept of cognitive IQ.

Anecdotal evidence such as that which you present is of little use and your feeling about IQ score persistence really is incorrect.

quote

"The stabliity of IQ over time in the general population has been studied for decades, and the main findings are not in much dispute among psychometricians...After about the age of 10, the IQ score is essential stable within the constraints of measurement error.
On the COMPARATIVELY RARE occasions when large changes in IQ is observed, here is usually an obvious explanation, The person had been bedridden with a long illness before one of the tests, for example,or there was severe emotional disburbance at the time of one or both of the tests."

Source.A. R. Jensen- Bias In Mental Testing.

May I respectfully suggest, Lola, that intuition is almost always trumped by empricial evidence.

Look it up first.

Italgato, Lola is a psychologist. She knows far more about cognitive intelligence than the rest of us, unless along with entrepreneur, attorney, owner of two houses, PhD candidate in some unnamed science, and holder of two master's degrees in engineering and economics you are going to now tell us you are a psychologist as well.

Mr., Nimh.

I really hope that you don't believe that a sitting president loses the House and Senate only once if he does not lead his party to get them back each time there is an election>

I must again point out to you that during the Reagan Presidency or indeed, BACK TO 1954, THE REPUBLICANS NEVER, NEVER , NEVER CONTROLLED THE HOUSE.

Therefore, Reagan and his Party could hardly lose what they had not controlled for THIRTY YEARS.

However, Clinton and the Democrats DID CONTROL THE HOUSE. THE DEMOCRATS HAD HELD THE HOUSE SINCE 1954.

The Democrats lost the House, which had been practically thier fiefdom, after Clinton had been President for two years.

Despite the stunning and marvelous displayput on by the brilliant and charismatic Clinton, the Democrats DID NOT regain the House which, please remember had been thier since 1954, either in the election of 1986 or 1988.

With regard to the Senate, it is clear that Reagan and his party gained the Senate in 1982, again in 1984, again in 1986 and lost it in 1988.

Reagan and his party never had the House. They could not regain it since the Republicans had it as long ago as 1954.

Reagan and party gained Senate twice, lost Senate once after his initial election. Never held House.

Reagan 2
Democrats 4

Clinton and his party never held the Senate or the House after his initial election.

Clinton 0'
Republicans 6

Italgato,

There have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm! You tickle me. But we do have you goin. Why don't you sit down here with me and drink a nice glass of wine and unwind. I'm getting worried about you. You're going to blow a gasket if you don't relax a bit. I do know about stuff like IQ tests and stuff........and a few other things too. Have you ever thought about taking a short vacation?

My point was that Clinton got only 43% of the vote in the presidential race in 1992.


My point was also that Clinton got only 49% of the vote in the presidential race of 1996.

Again, the popular vote does not matter. The electoral vote, as I am sure you know, is the deciding parameter.

Now, as to competence.

I put it to you that all of the bluster about competence or lack of competence is useless.

The measure of competence will be the vote on Nov. 2nd 2004.

Opinions about the lack of competence are interesting, however, since they have no measurable empirical ground, they are worthless.

Hobitbob: Instead of telling me that Lola is a psychologist( I doubt it very much since she is obviously unaware of the fact learned in Psychology 101 of the stability of IQ over the life span) why don't you, just for once, try to rebut the substance of my post.

I am sure you know the process.

EG.

It is not true that IQ has a stability over one's life span according to studies done by .... which say...

Instead of that, you offer gossip.

Try empirical evidence, it's much more persuasive--at least to me.