You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #143: goodness! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #135
143. goodness!
No, I think you pretty much have a lock on rudeness, but hey, that's personal stuff.

I am sorry that you take such vehement offense to the word "lackluster." (Actually, I'm mostly bored, and annoyed at myself for taking time to attempt to respond.) I thought your argument was that Rove had assumed 2004 would be a rerun of 2000, with respect to turnout, and now you apparently tell me that he was expecting "a significant increase over 2000 and the largest turnout since 1968." I am not being polemical; I really am that confused. And, frankly, I am tired of wasting my time trying to make your arguments make sense. This is not your best work. (But since you didn't make the OP, maybe it made more sense in the original.)

I've read your post quickly a couple of times looking for the source of your conviction that 60% turnout would blow up the LV models, and am still perplexed, since the figure seems very much in range; certainly perplexed that it would justify regarding the RV results as better. But mostly, I don't see why any of this matters much unless we are pounding the table claiming 99+% certainty that the polls give Kerry the win. And hey, who would do that?

What can I say? I am trying to be interested in your argument, but I'm not. The random ad hominem abuse probably has something to do with that, but beyond that, I just don't understand the obsession with the 3 million evangelicals. That's why I enjoyed pattim's post so much: instead of one big foggy Huh?, it was a point-by-point Huh? And the individual points are debatable (I had flagged undecideds as one point; now I would add that the argument on the "battle of attrition" may be overstated).

Why don't you catch your breath and see whether you can find a way to make this argument convincing to someone who doesn't already agree with you? There is no sign that you have succeeded in that so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC