0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 07:00 pm
Italgato, Am I missing something here? Your quote, "I am heartened. I have contributed to the Dean Campaign....."
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 07:19 pm
No, Cicerone imposter- You haven't missed anything. I have contributed to the Dean campaign. I think that if Dean got the nomination, it would be the best thing that happened to America.

It is my OPINION that Dean would be viewed as another McGovern by the American voting public. That is why I contributed to his campaign. I really did.

$15.00
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 07:31 pm
Michael Tomasky wrote:
To most of America, the tacit support of Bill Clinton, if indeed Wesley Clark has it, is a plus, not a minus. All but the most ideologically dyspeptic Americans understand that this country was in better shape under Clinton, and if a potential Clark administration looks to the country as if it will govern like Clinton did, well, that's not something that will scare America off from Clark.

It's been hilarious to read some conservatives bellyaching about liberal Bush hatred. It exists, but it doesn't come close to matching the right's Clinton hatred. But let them keep it up. They'll pat one another on the back. And three-quarters of America will ignore them.


Wrong Again
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:13 pm
I read Michael Tomasky's column and, after reading it carefully I must reject it.

Why? Tomasky may think he is bright but he is really stupid with numbers.

At the end of his column, he says that three fourths of America loves Bill Clinton.

But in his column he says that 30% of the people( right wingers) do not like Bill Clinton.

Tomasky also adds that a small portion of the extreme left wing does not like Clinton- Let's say 5%

Well 30%( right wing) and 5% (left wing) is 35%

35% is much higher than the 25% that Tomasky leaves us with when he says at the end of his column that three quarters of the people love Clinton.

Is something wrong with Tomasky's reasoning, his math skills or both?

ps- P Diddie. Iread the whole article. I usually do. I am not afraid to read left wing articles. The left, however, is not eager to read right-wing articles, usually because the left is limited in vocabulary and comprehension.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:21 pm
Where di you get the five percent? If you are making up figures to use in your argument that the author of the peice can't add, aren't you defeating your own arguement?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:25 pm
Quote:
The Clintons are controversial. A chunk of this country hates them. But it's a relatively small chunk, maybe 27 percent, or 30. Granted, it's a vociferous 27 or 30

this is the only quote of figures I found in the article,and thrse figures are rough estimates, really the author's estimates for the sake of arguement. Criticizing figures which were not meant to be taken as hard data is a bit silly, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:33 pm
Percentages of polls are never 'hard' data. Most honest ones will state there can be a variances of x percent.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:37 pm
But the numbers the author uses,and Italgato attacks, are not from the poll, they are rhetorical exemplars. Attacking the numbers is not logical.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:48 pm
Dear Professor Hobibob. Tomasky says maybe 30%. I'll take that figure. He also says the "Media elite was against Clinton. I put the media elite at 5%. Too high? OK 1%. 30% and 1% equals 31%

At the end of his article , Tomasky says

"It doesn't come close to matching the right's Clinton hatred...and three quarters of America will ignore them.

Wrong

100% minus 31% equals 69%.

69% is not three quarters and if Tomasky doesn't think 6% is a lot he should review the election of 2002.

Tomasky is obviously blissfully unaware that the 30% went up( way up) when the election of 2002 took place. In that election, which all tradition said would result in Republican losses( The party in power has almost always lost seats in an off year election) can you imagine, the 30% right wing were joined by so many others that there were 35 Million votes cast for GOP candidates compared with only 31 Million cast for Democratic Candidates( source- Newsweek- Nov. 18th 2002.

Here is a public which apparently far exceeds Tomasky's 30% of haters which voted for members of the party led by, the left wing tells us, an incompetent and undereducated President.

To paraphrase General Custer -

Where did all those XXcceXXx Voters come from????
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:53 pm
You are absolutely right-Percentages of Polls can never be hard data. Tomasky was way off.

The only hard data that counts is the data from Nov. 2002. The votes that gave the Republicans two more Senate seats and Five more House seats.

And here is my prediction, CI. At this time, more than a year before the election of 2004, I predict that the Republicans will add to their seats in the Senate and also in the House.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:55 pm
italgato, I find it amusing that you, who are so proud of your two MS's, your law degree ("My two years in JAG"), your two houses, your import-export business, your son who is in a top ten law firm, your muscular 6'5' physique, etc.., are unable to understand the use of rhetorical figures in the article. You can't prove or disprove numbers which are not a sample of anything.They represent the authors opinion, nothing else. Surely there are other dead horses out there for you to beat. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:59 pm
Quite right< Professor Hobibit-"Rhetorical exemplars" and therefore quite useless in the world of reality.

The world of reality tells us( not using rhetorical examplars) that the Republicans added two Senate seats in 2002 and 5 House seats.

The redistricting in Texas will add three to five Seats to the Republican column.

Rhetorical exemplars indeed!

My rhetorical examplar says that Bush will win 53% of the vote in November 2004.

He will win over a large slice of Independents and Reagan Democrats while Nader will slice off a couple of Million Democratic votes.

Those are my rhetorical exemplars.

Can I prove that I am correct?

No- I cannot. But Tomasky cant either.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 11:02 pm
Professor Hobibit- You are in error. I was in JAG but I do not have a law degree. I never said I did have a law degree. Also, as I already told you( you might have missed it( I have two and a half houses.

I own one jointly with my brother.

Otherwise you are correct.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 06:23 am
Italgato wrote:
P Diddle's post on redistricting yesterday indeed misses the "reality" of what is occuring. [..]

"Republicans say that the remapping could give them from three to five seats."

Some of the philosophizing on this post is interesting but I do hope that the realists understand that, in the final analysis, any president, yes, even Bill Clinton, who could not really get any of his favorite legislation passed during his eight year tenure, must have his party in control of the Senate and the House.


Two things.

Point of PDiddie was that, when all of these TX tactics turn out to have succeeded, they might well incite many other states to start undertaking redistrictings at any moment they can see political benefit in it as well.

Some of those states will be Democratic. So the final outcome of the process thats now started may well involve a bit more than those "three to five" seats, and could turn out to the benefit of either party. In the meantime, arbitrarily-timed, partisan redistrictings will have added a degree of anarchy to the system.

Second, the point of posts like c.i.'s and others', that insist to vote "for anyone who can beat Bush", is not to make it possible for that "anyone" to pass "all of his favorite legislation". Its about, at least, stopping the Bush-Republicans from passing theirs. As in: even something approaching deadlock would have less destructive effects than the current free rein to Bush politics.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 07:13 am
Yes, nimh, and stop Bush from packing the courts with fanatical right wingers.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 07:43 am
I am an eight and a half foot tall polar bear...the richest in the world.....I have had sex with many women under the full moon.....I own the entire North Pole and part of Canada......although it is difficult without opposable thumbs I have read the entire library at Alexandria, because I am also timeless and Ancient......the offspring of my mating with women are leaders in business, philosophy, politics military and known for their stamina as lovers.

Italgato descends from my mighty bloodline. Do not oppose him. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 08:57 am
If you're concerned about the courts, look at this. It's from the web site of TheocracyWatch which is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University

http://www.4religious-right.info/

Quote:
The Federalist Society

Last Update February 8, 2002

The Federalist Society formed twenty years ago in reaction to the powers the Supreme Court was granting the federal government. The federal government became a champion of civil rights, ending the Jim Crow laws of the south that legalized segregation. It was a force against discrimination. It imposed laws on states and industry to protect the environment and to protect worker safety. It established minimum wage laws. It gave women the right to choose an abortion. And the Supreme Court consistently upheld a separation between church and state.

The Federalist Society is a network of lawyers, elected officials and scholars who want to free corporations from government regulations and end a separation of church and state. In a sense, it represents a fusion of corporate wealth and Religious Right ideology. It provides legal rational for their interests.

The Topic of this web site titled 'States Rights' shows how a powerful member of the federalist society, Attorney General John Ashcroft, reverses his enthusiasm for states rights once he becomes part of the federal government. Ashcroft now uses his position to impose his ideology on the rest of the country.

Some prominent leaders of the Religious Right play a dominant role in the Federalist Society. For example former President of the Christian Coalition, Donald Hodel is a board member. Twenty four of President Bush's top cabinet members and most of his court nominations are members of the Federalist Society. The list includes John Ashcroft, Attorney General; Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy; Gail Norton, Secretary of the Interior; and Theodore Olson, Solicitor General. Other notable members are Justices Scalia and Thomas, Orrin Hatch, Kenneth Starr.


http://www.4religious-right.info/religious_right_fedsociety2.html
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 06:26 pm
the Federalist Society, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! The VRWC!

Now, match the same with material holders in due course of The Carlyle Group Question
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 07:20 pm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 07:42 pm
"Unified Republic Party" is an oxymoron. It's like this government's continued declaration that our economy is growing - while 90,000 people lose their jobs every month. Keep buying that message, and I've got a island for sale.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 02/04/2025 at 10:57:35