Obama 58%, Clinton 41% in Wisconsin
Close race, eh? What? You think a 17-point margin is not close? Well, the political prognosticators were calling it even one day before the primary. One poll had Obama with a 5 point lead, another had Clinton with the same. The margin of error was +/- 3% or so, so they called each a tie.
Graciously giving the benefit of the outside range to the poll that predicted Obama, it would have shown 51% to 39%. That's 12 points. That poll could not even entertain the POSSIBILITY that there would be a 17-point spread.
You know, maybe these pollsters aren't looking at the right things, or asking the right questions, or talking to the right people. Or, the pollsters too-confidently think they have great insight and don't inspect their own processes.
I think they are trying to influence the results and/or provide employment for themselves. Releasing any "data" will influence a few people to change their behavior ("why bother voting", "damn! I have to vote to change that!", etc.). Showing a race is close will more likely have the candidates and media coming back for more polls. But showing a race is lop-sided will make it look like there is no longer any drama. Fewer polls are done just to show a huge gap in opinion.
Exit polls were wrong in 2004, and pre-election polls failed in the Wisconsin Primary. Time to stop wasting our time on speculation. Actually, that time has long passed. Now it's time to run the pollsters out of town on a rail. But not before we poll the populace on whether we should first use tar and feathers.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Take It To Them
Why do the Dems allow the media and GOP to define the way we talk about national defense and terrorism? Those bold enough to say we should not be in Iraq are accused of being pro-terrorism (see Chris Wallace's recent interview with GW). What's the response? Am not!!! Wow, strong stuff.
Reminds me of the old trap question to ask a politician: "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" You cannot answer the "when" without admitting that you do beat your wife. The only way to respond is to avoid the trap by taking it to the questioner.
The Dems need to attack the media and GOP by asking why they are unwilling to consider solution s to fighting terror that do not include sacrificing the very Americans we want to keep alive. Why has the current administration surrendered the moral high-ground in order to prove they are morally superior?
King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans twice, the latter in 279BC. Afterwards, he commented that one more such victory would utterly undo him. Hence, the phrase "Pyrrhic victory". How much more of this success at fighting terrorism with the military, with torture, with spying on Americans, can we take? What will we have left of what we cherished?
The question "what price freedom" does not mean "what freedoms do we give up to retain life". It means "there are some risks and costs to being free, but we understand and appreciate their significance". We do not compromise our ideals because of the risks to the citizens. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes arise from the government's intention to protect, and advance the fortunes of, its citizens at all cost. Every country in which that has happened witnessed the approach, and the citizens confidently said "it can't happen here". And it did. The majority of 1990's Americans would not have foreseen the day of waterboarding and warrantless tapping of citizens' phones. Yet here we are. There are actually average Americans now convinced those are necessary activities.
So, what will we allow in 5 years if we continue on this path? We have yet another chance to stop the slide, but it cannot be done with "am not!!!!". It cannot be done by having more of our soldiers killed in the vain hope of outlasting "the enemy" in a war of attrition.
Hmmm...maybe the Anti-Choice crowd merely wants to create more future soldiers. Why is the potential life more important than that of the 20-year-old soldier? Let's take it to the media and the GOP and press them on their disregard for the lives of the people standing between them and the so-called enemy. Show the voting records of the hawks and ask them why they don't make personal sacrifices for the war effort? What have they cut back on so that soldiers in Iraq can have more supplies, more armor and a better chance of surviving? How many of these ghouls have seen significant increases in their personal wealth during the war?
Ask GW: "how can you smile and laugh in public when our soldiers are dying in Iraq because of your decisions? Have you no empathy for those in the line of fire?"
Take it to them.
Why do the Dems allow the media and GOP to define the way we talk about national defense and terrorism? Those bold enough to say we should not be in Iraq are accused of being pro-terrorism (see Chris Wallace's recent interview with GW). What's the response? Am not!!! Wow, strong stuff.
Reminds me of the old trap question to ask a politician: "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" You cannot answer the "when" without admitting that you do beat your wife. The only way to respond is to avoid the trap by taking it to the questioner.
The Dems need to attack the media and GOP by asking why they are unwilling to consider solution s to fighting terror that do not include sacrificing the very Americans we want to keep alive. Why has the current administration surrendered the moral high-ground in order to prove they are morally superior?
King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans twice, the latter in 279BC. Afterwards, he commented that one more such victory would utterly undo him. Hence, the phrase "Pyrrhic victory". How much more of this success at fighting terrorism with the military, with torture, with spying on Americans, can we take? What will we have left of what we cherished?
The question "what price freedom" does not mean "what freedoms do we give up to retain life". It means "there are some risks and costs to being free, but we understand and appreciate their significance". We do not compromise our ideals because of the risks to the citizens. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes arise from the government's intention to protect, and advance the fortunes of, its citizens at all cost. Every country in which that has happened witnessed the approach, and the citizens confidently said "it can't happen here". And it did. The majority of 1990's Americans would not have foreseen the day of waterboarding and warrantless tapping of citizens' phones. Yet here we are. There are actually average Americans now convinced those are necessary activities.
So, what will we allow in 5 years if we continue on this path? We have yet another chance to stop the slide, but it cannot be done with "am not!!!!". It cannot be done by having more of our soldiers killed in the vain hope of outlasting "the enemy" in a war of attrition.
Hmmm...maybe the Anti-Choice crowd merely wants to create more future soldiers. Why is the potential life more important than that of the 20-year-old soldier? Let's take it to the media and the GOP and press them on their disregard for the lives of the people standing between them and the so-called enemy. Show the voting records of the hawks and ask them why they don't make personal sacrifices for the war effort? What have they cut back on so that soldiers in Iraq can have more supplies, more armor and a better chance of surviving? How many of these ghouls have seen significant increases in their personal wealth during the war?
Ask GW: "how can you smile and laugh in public when our soldiers are dying in Iraq because of your decisions? Have you no empathy for those in the line of fire?"
Take it to them.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Never Be A Condo President
Being a condo president is a thankful job, but still not worth it. Lots of responsibility, lots of time wrapped up, and all you can hope is that maybe, just maybe, over 50% of the residents will be kinda happy with what you do. Imagine how many things go wrong with a single-family structure. Multiply that by the number of units in the condo. That's about how many times you'll hear about issues in the building. And the same number of opinions on how it should be handled.
The only people that should be condo president are those that were forced to retire early and still have lots of energy and are looking for something to do. But not someone that just wants something to control, since everyone loses then.
Being a condo president is a thankful job, but still not worth it. Lots of responsibility, lots of time wrapped up, and all you can hope is that maybe, just maybe, over 50% of the residents will be kinda happy with what you do. Imagine how many things go wrong with a single-family structure. Multiply that by the number of units in the condo. That's about how many times you'll hear about issues in the building. And the same number of opinions on how it should be handled.
The only people that should be condo president are those that were forced to retire early and still have lots of energy and are looking for something to do. But not someone that just wants something to control, since everyone loses then.
Gotta Be On The Winning Side
I see this in politics and at work - people changing their vote or their opinion so that it is on the "winning" side. No candidate will win without votes. It starts with yours. In 2004, no one could tell me how Kerry got the nomination, other than to say "he had the best chance of winning". In the 70's, TV coverage of early voting in eastern states caused voting changes in western states. If a candidate was losing, people would vote for the opposition or not bother to vote. What the hell is wrong with people? Voting for the candidate you like sends a signal to other potential candidates. Voting for someone you don't like just to be on the winning side creates the pile of crap we call the 2008 candidates.
In the work place, people will change their professional opinion for fear it won't be chosen as the path. Dissent is the only way good decision makers can weight the options. Keeping an option secret guarantees it will not be chosen. If co-workers think less of you because your idea was not acted on, that's their problem, not yours. Speak up respectfully and things will be fine for you, and maybe even much better for everyone.
I see this in politics and at work - people changing their vote or their opinion so that it is on the "winning" side. No candidate will win without votes. It starts with yours. In 2004, no one could tell me how Kerry got the nomination, other than to say "he had the best chance of winning". In the 70's, TV coverage of early voting in eastern states caused voting changes in western states. If a candidate was losing, people would vote for the opposition or not bother to vote. What the hell is wrong with people? Voting for the candidate you like sends a signal to other potential candidates. Voting for someone you don't like just to be on the winning side creates the pile of crap we call the 2008 candidates.
In the work place, people will change their professional opinion for fear it won't be chosen as the path. Dissent is the only way good decision makers can weight the options. Keeping an option secret guarantees it will not be chosen. If co-workers think less of you because your idea was not acted on, that's their problem, not yours. Speak up respectfully and things will be fine for you, and maybe even much better for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)