View Diary: Why I hope Gore is our next President [update] (420 comments)
I guess you've (none)changed your tune since this posting, so I'll largely ignore it.
If Edwards had 48% in an online, voluntary poll, you bet I'd be pleased, since it would that Edwards had a great deal of support here, and a good activist base. I would be realistic about what this told me about dkos, and doubtful that this told me much about the netroots and Democratic primary voters.
asdf (none)If Edwards had 48% in an online, voluntary poll, you bet I'd be pleased, since it would that Edwards had a great deal of support here, and a good activist base.
Why would the poll be "representative" (a word you repeatedly use) in that case?
If it is not representative, what legitimacy do you have to claim: "it would that Edwards had a great deal of support here, and a good activist base."
I would be realistic about what this told me about dkos, and doubtful that this told me much about the netroots and Democratic primary voters.
I never laid any claim here about Dem. primary voters. since dKos is highly trafficked, there will be a very strong correlation with netroots.
div fix: trying again (none)
Did anyone claim that a dKos poll (as of yet) is scientific?
"The substance is that Gore lost a very winnable election."
I think that I exposed that to be a myth: a 12% margin, partly handed by Clinton's BJ did not make it a "winnable election".
"knowledge of polling."
I think I showed how little you seem to know of polling and perhaps statistics with the MOE comments above.
"And, fuck you about the troll."
Based on your more constructive comment, I don't think that you are troll. So I retract that part of my comment earlier :)
"Seems your unable to deal with constant defeat so you can only insult."
I think that the readers should be allowed to judge for themselves on whose arguments won and whose lost.
But I do think that you are unable to accept the apparent fact that Gore is quite popular over at dKos (and most likely around the netroots-at-large).
thanks for the discussion.
My bad for messing up the formatting, folks.
Reply II (none)"Did anyone claim that a dKos poll (as of yet) is scientific?"
Yes. You did: "Well, apaprently some 48% of Kossacks disagree with you." But, since the poll is not representative there is no evidence that 48% of kossacks disagree with me.
"a 12% margin"
No, I came up with several critiques of your 12% Claim and you made no response. The 12% deficit exists only in your head.
"knowledge of polling."
Quite the contrary, you only demonstrated that you know next to nothing about polling. Sure, you can play with numbers, but even this historian isn't fooled. The problem is that you don't have a representative sampling. You've got a self-selected group of hardcores.
Is Gore popular? Yep. Never said the contrary, he probably has very large numbers, maybe around 20%. What I've tried to show on this thread is that he is not a strong candidate for the nomination in 2008 based on his campaign track record. I think I've been pretty successful at that, but of course, I'll leave that up to others.
I accept your apology. I would say that though I find your analysis deeply flawed, I do respect that you're making a serious argument that deserves to be engaged.
It was a simple retraction not an apology (none)"I accept your apology."
I did not apologize. I only retracted my statement that you may be a troll, based on one decent comment that you made, despite my reservations on many other comments you made in this diary.
"I would say that though I find your analysis deeply flawed"
that's wondeful spin!
But, since this diary has become unreadable due to the formatting problem, let us "take it outside" and debate at length under a comment inside a diary of mine here.
See you there.