0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 01:32 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
timber, You're still not "getting it." I never said anything about it being high or low in California. Got that?

Didn't say you did, c.i. , just pointing out my own personal impression that this year's Presidential Election, so far, is a much smaller deal to a much greater portion of the national population than historically has been the case, despite all the media hype to the contrary. Now, admittedly, most of the nation doesn't give much thought to a general election untill after Labor Day, something which really calls to question any projections made this far in advance. At this point in the process, the only folks really involved are the political junkies and the press which panders to trhem ... on whchever side of the aisle. Right now, most folks just don't care. That'll change, of course, and in several of the articles previously cited, its noted that primary turnout is not a given as an absolute indicator of general election turnout, though despite abberations of considerable magnitude, there is a general correlation. We shall see.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 01:47 pm
c.i.

I really understand you - and wonder a little bit more about timber's reaction.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 01:54 pm
What is it you wonder about Walter?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:05 pm
Well, as far as I could notice, you still said nothing about

Quote:
Something of a disconnect between your perception and the reality, there, c.i. , or at least so it would seem from the numbers as recorded and reported.


I might have missed and/or misunderstood something, and certainly I don't want to pick on such. :wink:
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:12 pm
NP, Walter. Again, I just don't think folks are as worked-up about the elections, primary or general, at least so far, as some folks, particularly politics junkies and newsfolks, seem to think.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:23 pm
Gee, how hard is it to say: "Sorry c.i., I was wrong to accuse you of a "disconnect between your perception and the reality", this time at least -- I now realise that all you said was, "in California, the voter turnout was something on the range of 43%" - and you were obviously perfectly correct on that, so it was a bit silly of me to mount my high horse about it"?

One thing you gotta give Scrat ...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:30 pm
Sorta hard to retrace from a position I don't think I held. I wasn't disputing the numbers per se, but rather took issue with the inferred perception of what was meant by the numbers. Oh well, perception is in the eye of the beholder Laughing
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:32 pm
Oh, it was straightforward enough - it was all in just the one post of yours here:

timberlandko wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
timber, That 7.2% sounds awfully low. I think in California, the voter turnout was something on the range of 43%.

<quote from article snipped>
Something of a disconnect between your perception and the reality, there, c.i. , or at least so it would seem from the numbers as recorded and reported.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:35 pm
Well, now that has been quoted and re-quoted enough :wink:
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:35 pm
Well, for sake of putting this to rest, I will say my response was predicated on what I inferred, perhaps wrongly, to have been the thrust of c.i. 's post. Dunno how much plainer I can make it. Most folks just aren't as into this election thing as some folks would like to think ... that's all.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:41 pm
And besides ... as long as everybody's picking on me, nobody's picking on each other ... and as Martha says (or, at least, before her conviction, said), "That's a good thing" :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:49 pm
Your d*****ed eagle, timber, is picking at me on any thread you're in.
So this is only kind of revanche.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:55 pm
Some of us just get a little riled up when every once in a while we meet a poster who just wont ever fess up to even the most casual or blatant of mistaken personal allegations ... hell, we all at times go pretty damn stubborn when debate is fierce, but especially when its not about all that much, really, its usually easy to just recognize and apologise for the odd mistake once in a while, upfront - I've sure done that thing Scrat just did often enough, and I surely appreciate it on his part ... its probly a sign of our insulated existence that we tend to suddenly get agitated about netiquette in a way we dont hit on much anything else ...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 02:59 pm
Meanwhile, I had a funny moment of synchronicity ...

Just moments after I posted this:

nimh wrote:
timberlandko wrote:

The sentence Timber didn't finish (you know, where he trailed off in a "...") continues as follows:

Quote:
... although it was higher than in the past two presidential election years.

I.e., turnout was the highest of the past decade.

I came across this! Laughing

Quote:
THE ART OF THE WELL-PLACED ELLIPSIS: From a Bush campaign press release:

Quote:
"In My First Hundred Days In The White House, I Will Roll Back George Bush's Tax Cut..." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Manchester, N.H., 12/27/03)

From Kerry's actual remarks:

Quote:
In my first hundred days in the White House, I will roll back George Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest so that we can invest in education and health care.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 03:03 pm
nimh wrote:
One thing you gotta give Scrat ...

Cool

(But just one.) :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 03:22 pm
Well, a sense of humour makes two <winks>
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 03:25 pm
I enjoy his "editorial" style. It shows promise of bias.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 03:34 pm
I already got the bias but what I need is editorial Style!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 03:48 pm
When somebody cuts and pastes, ya don't need editorial style!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 03:59 pm
http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/Tax%20Burden.jpg
From Internal Revenue Service - Statistics of Income Division

"Tax cuts for the rich" is just a buzzphrase. The chart above is for taxable year 2002, and shows that over 1/2 of all personal income tax collected through the taxable year was derived from 5% of the taxpayers, while less than 5% of total revenue derived from the lower 50 percent of the tax-paying population. "Tax cuts for the rich" may make a nice soundbite, but fails to hold up under scrutiny. In point of fact, the lower 50% of taxpayers now bear less of the overall tax burden than ever before, while the upper 25% pay a larger share of the total than ever before.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/31/2025 at 02:11:27