I guess that depends on what you call "the basic facts." He seemed to have those down just fine. I'm not going to waste time arguing the specifics.
I said, "Bush supporters don't know Bush's positions." You replied with: "Yeah, but you can say that about either candidate."
The same study showed that Kerry supporters mis-perceive some of his positions as well, and I'm sure this is true on other issues.
Anyway, I'm thoroughly sick of talking about the election with you. I won't reply to your posts on the subject in the future, and you can feel free to do the same to me.
No, but when the author can't even get the basic facts straight in the first couple paragraphs
Nothing empty about it. Just because I wasn't specifically addressing you doesn't mean it's empty, does it? Are you that self-centered? Can I not make general comments in addition to specific ones? I didn't realize that was a restricted activity.
warhawk, I think we can all agree that the 2000 election was not the central point of that editorial.
I don't see how you can call it "just another hit piece on Bush" like it's part of some kind of smear campaign talking about the guy's fictional illegitimate children or something. It dealt with his record as well as Senator Kerry's record and made a perfectly reasonable case.
As for the rest "not being worth your time," I don't see how you figure that.
The whole article is "mute" (moot) because you disagree about the handling of the 2000 election debacle?
It seems that if you are still supporting Bush it would be well worth your time to consider. But I can't say I expected any different from someone with your attitudes.
You mean you were making an empty statement? I agree.
Which clearly indicates I wasn't referring to the study you were looking at but was making a more general statement on the candidates.
Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates
Maybe, but that's not what this study showed.
Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates, depending on the issues important to you...
Well worth a read, even to those that are never going to agree with the final sentence. Looking at my buddy Warhawk - I'd be genuinely interested to read his (and others') coments.
All of these problems are inconsistent with the minimum procedures needed to protect the fundamental right of each voter in these particular circumstances of a statewide recount under the direction of a single judge. Because this is a statewide "remedy" being imposed, there "must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."
Given the Florida Supreme Court's stated desire to dock in the December 12 safe harbor, there is no time remaining to implement a constitutionally sound recount.
Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.
Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.
That editorial is a great read!Agreed. While it is certainly easier to bash Bush than to extol John Kerry, and while it (obviously) paints a partisan picture, it's good to read all that kind of stuff without Michael Moore voiceovers.
Oh the one that say's conservatives are victims of mental defect? That's not biased at all.
If you want the why's of it there are papers that better explain it (e.g. read Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition).
Looks like Bush pulled off another first. Got the New Yorker to come out for Kerry. The first time in it's 80 year history it's ever backed a political candidate.
This is an absolutely brilliant bit of writing. This is a must read.
There are rules for settling electoral disputes of this kind, in federal and state law and in the Constitution itself. By ignoring them—by cutting off the process and installing Bush by fiat—the Court made a mockery not only of popular democracy but also of constitutional republicanism.
And in a update to our earlier gossipy story of the day, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-People-Ashlee-Simpson.html
Acid Reflux Disease...in your teens...uh huh...
Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates
They think their candidate represents their views, but he does not. And yet they'll still vote for him... isn't that wrong?
I feel like your objections are based more on how you think people will react to the report than the report itself, which is not unworthy of consideration, but it's still a different point.
That was more of a blanket statement, yes, each side is individually wrong and right at times, unfortunately, both are telling their respective sides they are always right and the other side is always wrong, because it is easier, and people believe it.
Well worth a read for anyone that hasn't.
Prepare to lose a few hours of your life to that site
I really wish they wouldn't call this "unlocking files for Half-Life 2"...sadists