0
   

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2005 03:31 pm
Thanks

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2005 03:34 pm
Yer weccum.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2005 03:49 pm
I would recommend however that you actually go through and read the entire link I originally posted, as it seems to bring up some excellent points about how the original report was severely flawed.

CBS and NBC reporting on the content of the report itself tells us nothing. The 'alternative voting methodolgy project' page tells us nothing as well except an opinion of different ways it could be done based upon the CONCLUSIONS of the EM report, not a critical look at the report itself.

Thanks for the links, I still need to do some more studying on the one I posted before I can decide whether there is merit to it or not.

Here's a line from it, though:

Quote:
"While we cannot measure the Response rate by actual Kerry and Bush voters, hypothetical response rates of 56% among Kerry voters and 50% among Bush voters overall would account for the entire Within Precinct Error that we observed in 2004."

This, apparently, is the basis for their statement in the Executive Summary(p.4), that states "It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons, in general, that Kerry voters were more likely to participate in exit polls than Bush voters.

No data in the E/M report supports the hypothesis that Kerry voters were more likely than Bush voters to cooperate with pollsters, and, in fact, the data provided by E/M actually suggests the opposite might be true.


It seems there is some debate as to the veracity of the E&M report. I would highly suggest ya read the entire one I linked so you can edify me on how they in particular are wrong, that is if you like. If not, that's cool too.

Thanks again for the links

Cycloptichorn

edit: Forgot the best part:

Section D: The same polls more accurately predicted the Senate races

Interesting...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2005 04:06 pm
I have read the Utah report, Cyc. I suggest you research the backgrounds of its principals. At the very least, the panel's objectivity might by some be considered a matter of dispute. I read it as a partisan attempt to resuscitate an already interred, maggot-infested dead horse. Some folks just can't - or don't want to - accept reality.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 12:48 am
Thomas wrote:
I guess Lola will feel confirmed in her views, but I think he, too, thinks too much about marketing and too little about the product marketed.


Well, yes Thomas, I do feel confirmed. But I think the product should be good as well, not because that will win elections, but for ethical and moral reasons. It is after all the values I share with the Democrats I want marketed. In my opinion, the Democrats have a better product. It's the expertise of the marketing and the commitment to pursue excellence in marketing that has been so lacking. Democrats need to get smart and do it really fast. I'm seeing encouraging signs this early. I don't know how long it will take, but we better get a move on.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 01:11 am
Lola wrote:
Thomas wrote:
I guess Lola will feel confirmed in her views, but I think he, too, thinks too much about marketing and too little about the product marketed.


Well, yes Thomas, I do feel confirmed. But I think the product should be good as well, not because that will win elections, but for ethical and moral reasons. It is after all the values I share with the Democrats I want marketed. In my opinion, the Democrats have a better product. It's the expertise of the marketing and the commitment to pursue excellence in marketing that has been so lacking. Democrats need to get smart and do it really fast. I'm seeing encouraging signs this early. I don't know how long it will take, but we better get a move on.


So, if Republican policies are inferior to those of the Democrats, and yet are more widely accepted, it is a matter of marketing? What follows from this is that marketing trumps substance. Therefore, if Democratic policies are to triumph through improved marketing, we are to assume it was really their inherent superiority?

This is the mantra of losers: Our product is really better than our competitors, but they are better marketers. Consumers can't possibly determine what is the superior product without being driven by marketing.

At some point the makers of broccoli flavored cola will come to realize that marketing cannot work miracles.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 04:44 am
What was the GOP's share of votes as a percentage of-

1-All Americans and
2-Americans eligible to vote.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 06:21 am
spendius wrote:
What was the GOP's share of votes as a percentage of-

1-All Americans and
2-Americans eligible to vote.


Large enough to win under the established laws.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 06:33 am
* Is the disenfranchisement of minority voters not the only irregularity you struggle with?
* Does America's diet of pork-barrel politics and rich, cheesy candidates have you in a bind?
* Tired of your personal healthcare concern constantly being a #2 priority?
* Are you anxious to get moving but know you'll need some help?

Stop waiting for a movement - make it happen!

http://www.sojo.net/images/sojomail/050401_bottle.jpg

http://www.sojo.net/images/sojomail/050401_moveon.gif

* Made from safe, gentle, organic ingredients, including all-natural fiber from real grassroots
* Easy to swallow - not gritty or uncomfortable like more "radical" remedies
* Clinically proven effectiveness without animal testing - we use all human volunteers

Happy April, fools.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 07:11 am
George:-

Yeah-I know that.My cat does too.

I thought you were discussing the tyranny of a minority not having a pedantic thrum.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 07:22 am
OK, I deserved that - for my moderately shitty response.

I am intrigued. What is "a pedantic thrum"?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 08:05 am
It's when you stamp your foot whilst shouting something as simple and obvious as it is self-serving.A lady thing usually.

That's not bad off the bat.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:49 am
Actually, It's quite good. Hell, I may use it myself - without attribution, of course.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 04:46 am
Your turn then George_

Define "moderately shitty".

Don't rush.I'm not back till Monday.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:56 am
"Moderately shitty" is a term I occasionally use when I wish to concede a fault or excess, make light of it, and avoid dwelling on it - all at once.

It isn't nearly as colorful as "pedantic thrum", a phrase which I will soon find an opportunity to use against Lola.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 10:50 am
Heh

Quote:
I have read the Utah report, Cyc. I suggest you research the backgrounds of its principals. At the very least, the panel's objectivity might by some be considered a matter of dispute. I read it as a partisan attempt to resuscitate an already interred, maggot-infested dead horse. Some folks just can't - or don't want to - accept reality.


So, Timber, you have no argument at all to make about the actual conclusions of the report; you are going to merely attempt to shoot the messenger instead?

Seriously? Because it does raise some serious questions about the conclusions found in the EM report.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 02:31 pm
Cyc, I know this is gonna disappoint ya, but what I draw from the Utah report is precisely what I said earlier - its a dead-horse issue. No matter how far the point is stretched,, no matter how frantically the point is spun, there just ain't no "There" there. If folks wanna grab at straws, fine. Thats how straw men get built.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 10:34 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
"Moderately shitty" is a term I occasionally use when I wish to concede a fault or excess, make light of it, and avoid dwelling on it - all at once.

It isn't nearly as colorful as "pedantic thrum", a phrase which I will soon find an opportunity to use against Lola.


Okay, george. I'm ready. Let's here your best shot. Pedantic thrumb........to what use can you put it against me?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 10:36 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Lola wrote:
Thomas wrote:
I guess Lola will feel confirmed in her views, but I think he, too, thinks too much about marketing and too little about the product marketed.


Well, yes Thomas, I do feel confirmed. But I think the product should be good as well, not because that will win elections, but for ethical and moral reasons. It is after all the values I share with the Democrats I want marketed. In my opinion, the Democrats have a better product. It's the expertise of the marketing and the commitment to pursue excellence in marketing that has been so lacking. Democrats need to get smart and do it really fast. I'm seeing encouraging signs this early. I don't know how long it will take, but we better get a move on.


So, if Republican policies are inferior to those of the Democrats, and yet are more widely accepted, it is a matter of marketing? What follows from this is that marketing trumps substance. Therefore, if Democratic policies are to triumph through improved marketing, we are to assume it was really their inherent superiority?

This is the mantra of losers: Our product is really better than our competitors, but they are better marketers. Consumers can't possibly determine what is the superior product without being driven by marketing.

At some point the makers of broccoli flavored cola will come to realize that marketing cannot work miracles.


Hi there Finn.......I'm going to give you a little time to catch up and then you can re-phrase that question so that it makes sense.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 06:53 am
Lola wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:


So, if Republican policies are inferior to those of the Democrats, and yet are more widely accepted, it is a matter of marketing? What follows from this is that marketing trumps substance. Therefore, if Democratic policies are to triumph through improved marketing, we are to assume it was really their inherent superiority?

This is the mantra of losers: Our product is really better than our competitors, but they are better marketers. Consumers can't possibly determine what is the superior product without being driven by marketing.

At some point the makers of broccoli flavored cola will come to realize that marketing cannot work miracles.


Hi there Finn.......I'm going to give you a little time to catch up and then you can re-phrase that question so that it makes sense.


I thought Finn's reply was both sensible and witty.

Yours, in turn was not quite a thrum, but it was a bit pedantic.

I'll be watching for my moment -- The question is will the lady choose the cigar or the thrum???
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 03:26:58