|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 20, 2010 12:47:09 GMT -8
I'd like to know just what makes Rubio an "extremist". Can't call him a racist, that would be awkward, I guess. Oh, by the way... for uwaztec: After thinking about it, I went back and deleted the gratuitous insults about Cranston. I think you are a nice guy, and if you liked him, well, fine. (I wouldn't do for Joe, though).  Yet, it's interesting that some certain politicians get dedicated bash threads on here, and nobody objects. I don't object. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 20, 2010 13:41:21 GMT -8
I'd like to know just what makes Rubio an "extremist". Can't call him a racist, that would be awkward, I guess. Oh, by the way... for uwaztec: After thinking about it, I went back and deleted the gratuitous insults about Cranston. I think you are a nice guy, and if you liked him, well, fine. (I wouldn't do for Joe, though). Yet, it's interesting that some certain politicians get dedicated bash threads on here, and nobody objects. I don't object. Sid, I knew you couldn't fake us out with that rough exterior. You're o.k. by me...even if you do like cats!  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 20, 2010 14:21:43 GMT -8
Sid, I think you are a good poster on here and I mostly enjoy reading what you have to say. I thought Cranston was a decent guy. Since I was a track guy, I followed his career a bit outside of politics. He ran the 100 meters in the seniors track circuit for a few years and was very competitive. My point is that you probably don't want to say stuff about people like you did in your last sentence.... bad karma. I thought Jesse Ventura was a decent guy. His career (a bit outside of politics) was admirable... Navy SEAL and all. He's still an idiot. He may not be too bright, but he was a damn good quote on numerous occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 20, 2010 14:30:36 GMT -8
There is no rulebook that says you have to be a genius to hold political office. Some of our best leaders were not geniuses. Truman comes to mind. Washington was a very practical and forceful leader but not a genius. Reagan was a darn good public speaker and a damn good actor, smart but not an intellectual.
Several of our more cerebral presidents were duds when it came to running the office. Take Wilson for example. He inspired the world to come together and form the League of Nations, but could not get the United States to join. He set up the means of long lasting peace in Europe, but could not get England and France to put aside petty animosities to make that peace work.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 20, 2010 15:00:15 GMT -8
There is no rulebook that says you have to be a genius to hold political office. Some of our best leaders were not geniuses. Truman comes to mind. Washington was a very practical and forceful leader but not a genius. Reagan was a darn good public speaker and a damn good actor, smart but not an intellectual. Several of our more cerebral presidents were duds when it came to running the office. Take Wilson for example. He inspired the world to come together and form the League of Nations, but could not get the United States to join. He set up the means of long lasting peace in Europe, but could not get England and France to put aside petty animosities to make that peace work. One of your "greatest" Senators of all time disagreed with Wilson on the League of Nations scheme. Interesting dichotomy; the "cerebral" Wilson versus the practical Lodge: Senator Lodge argued in 1919 against the League:
The United States is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her powerful good, and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come, as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance; this great land of ordered liberty. For if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 20, 2010 15:46:36 GMT -8
I'd like to know just what makes Rubio an "extremist". Can't call him a racist, that would be awkward, I guess. Oh, by the way... for uwaztec: After thinking about it, I went back and deleted the gratuitous insults about Cranston. I think you are a nice guy, and if you liked him, well, fine. (I wouldn't do for Joe, though). Yet, it's interesting that some certain politicians get dedicated bash threads on here, and nobody objects. I don't object. Glad you erased that. Even though I agreed with the sentiment and thought it was pretty clever, it was just not you. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 20, 2010 16:18:04 GMT -8
One of the more liberal senators that CA ever had was Alan Cranston, who served from 1977 to 1991 and who pushed through all sorts of liberal legislation. What most conservatives are either too young to know or have chosen to forget is that he would never have been elected to the US Senate but for the extremist efforts of the Republican right. The incumbent was a moderate Republican -- Tom Kuchel. He wasn't extremist enough, however, so the right threw him out in the primary and nominated instead the extreme right's own Max Rafferty -- the Blue Max. The problem was, if you are so extreme to be beloved by the extreme right, then you are not electable -- you lose the center. And so the extreme right, in being extreme, caused the election of perhaps the most powerfully liberal CA Senator in history. And so it is in Florida in 2010. Charlie Crist was a centrist and that is not acceptable to the extreme right. He trailed in primary polls by 30 points. So he dropped out and is running as an Independent. It is far from over but for now he leads in the polls. Granted, that's not an exact repeat of history -- but that's not the extremists fault; whether he wins or (very doubtful) a Democrat wins, the Republican right -- by it's own extremism -- will have caused the loss of a Republican Senate seat. And if Crist pulls it off, it would seem that he, along with MA's Brown, will be two Republicans who can't be counted on by the right to be ideological knee-jerk obstructionists. Maybe I won't have to retire to another country after all... www.newsweek.com/2010/07/19/the-resurrection-of-crist.htmlYoda out... Hmmm.... The pejorative "extreme/extremists" flogged ten times in one post... Keep it up YoYo. The more you do, the more pathetic it becomes in its impotence. P.S. If you end up having to retire to another country, good luck, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. And be sure to take your spawn with you. www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/florida/election_2010_florida_senateRasmussen shows a bias. Interesting that their bias is remarkably consistent. Interesting that you used that particular citation. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 20, 2010 17:07:25 GMT -8
Rasmussen shows a bias. Interesting that their bias is remarkably consistent. Interesting that you used that particular citation. Wanna talk about bias? Wanna genuflect to the traditional media? pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/103274/In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” . . . Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 20, 2010 17:28:07 GMT -8
Rasmussen shows a bias. Interesting that their bias is remarkably consistent. Interesting that you used that particular citation. Wanna talk about bias? Wanna genuflect to the traditional media? pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/103274/In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” . . . Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
Rasmussen is a polling firm. Polling is a mathematical exercise that determines the probability that obtaining a small sample of information might be extrapolated to draw a larger objective conclusion. If that polling process used by the firm is found to be a consistent outlier, then their predictions are worthless. Don't you think? You can find bias in the media. I ought to know I read Drudge all the time. A polling firm has a mathematical standard to meet, I should think. Therefore, you can make an objective statement about that firm's bias if the results they produce differ consistently from other firms conducting the same analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 20, 2010 20:31:29 GMT -8
Rasmussen shows a bias. Interesting that their bias is remarkably consistent. Interesting that you used that particular citation. Wanna talk about bias? Wanna genuflect to the traditional media? pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/103274/[/i][/quote] I am having trouble seeing your link as "traditional media". |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 21, 2010 12:39:16 GMT -8
[/i][/quote] I am having trouble seeing your link as "traditional media". [/quote] Well, the article mentions journalists from Time and the Baltimore Sun..... |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 21, 2010 12:41:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 24, 2010 6:59:01 GMT -8
Excellent point! But one election (observation) does not necessarily constitute a statistically viable sample. Rasmussen seems to have a bias. Or, at least that is the complaint from people I read where I go to get my information. I went to polling report.com to find out if they have a bias (using presidential job approval numbers) but I could not even find a reference to them anywhere I looked. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 24, 2010 13:06:25 GMT -8
Excellent point! But one election (observation) does not necessarily constitute a statistically viable sample. Rasmussen seems to have a bias. Or, at least that is the complaint from people I read where I go to get my information. I went to polling report.com to find out if they have a bias (using presidential job approval numbers) but I could not even find a reference to them anywhere I looked. Well, they were very close on the '04 election, too. In their final pre-election poll, they had Bush - 50.2%, Kerry - 48.5%. The actual results were Bush - 50.7% and Kerry - 48.3%. If they are biased toward one side or the other, I can't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jul 24, 2010 17:34:19 GMT -8
There are two kinds of pollsters, I think -- those that are biased in favor of one party or the other. And those that are unbiased. And the parties hire both kinds. When they want to appear that they are doing well, they release polls that they commission that are biased in their favor. Meanwhile, in the back room, they are reading unbiased polls that they also commissioned. Those are the ones that they rely on for campaign strategies, policy formation, etc.
I have no idea which kind Rasmussen is. But judging by who is quoting that poll, I think I can guess.
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 24, 2010 18:38:19 GMT -8
A good rule of politics in the modern age is to quote any data that gives you an advantage in the public eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 25, 2010 14:32:27 GMT -8
>>But judging by who is quoting that poll, I think I can guess.<< YoYo
You certainly are an expert on bias. Since you are willing to suggest that cited historical facts regarding the accuracy of a poll are a priori "suspect", based on who (someone you don't like) provided them, you expose yourself to be an epitome of bias.
Shoot the messenger, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 25, 2010 15:21:36 GMT -8
Shoot the messenger, anyone? THAT is fairly normal for the American political scene, so why not? |
|
