For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Pre-primary polls dead-wrong again!
As NewsBusters reported yesterday, polls released Tuesday morning showed Romney with a 7 point lead over McCain in California, and Obama with a 13 point advantage against Hillary there.
Yet, according to CNN.com, with 95% of California precincts in, Clinton leads Obama by 10 percent, and McCain is ahead of Romney by 8 percent.
How can these polls be so wrong? Also, did Hillary's Crying Game II give her the boost she needed?














Comments Policy
Disinfranchised
February 6, 2008 - 11:18 ET by botgThere is a huge controversy in San Diego County.
It seems that thousands of registered republicans have been reclassified to non-partisan and were not allowed to vote in the republican primary.
Not reported in the MSM
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
This whole thing is fishy to me.
February 6, 2008 - 11:52 ET by mattmMcCain is not the choice of true Republicans. Look at the caucus states - they went for Romney.
States like Florida, where the Dems had no delegates, and other Left leaning states went for McCain.
I've said, since 2006, that the 2008 election would be the most fraud-filled election since 1960, but I thought it wouldn't happen until the general election, not start during the primary...
America is in big trouble folks...
Say what?
February 6, 2008 - 12:22 ET by ChaitealoverBotg: where are you hearing about this? I took a quick run through the local news outlet websites and saw nothing. I don't doubt it, I just want to learn more. Is it in all precincts or limited to just one?
Chai
“The question of what kind of President each candidate would make is infinitely more important than all the ‘horse race’ handicapping that dominates the media.” —Thomas Sowell
Later
February 6, 2008 - 16:44 ET by ChaitealoverOn my way to work I heard it reported as 'people who voted Republican last time but were actually registered as non-partisan' didn't understand why they couldn't vote Republican this time. Which makes the question actually: were they disinfranchised or were they not paying attention to the rules? I wonder how many of them then decided to vote for one of the Democrat candidates?
A questionable practice that I heard about last night was that the non-partisans that were voting for the Democrat presidential candidates had to fill in a circle at the top of their ballot to indicate that they were doing so or their vote wouldn't count. Sounds like something easy to miss, doesn't it? I suspect [for no good reason] that most of those voters would have been younger, less experienced voters voting for Obama, so I wonder how many votes it cost him?
Chai
“The question of what kind of President each candidate would make is infinitely more important than all the ‘horse race’ handicapping that dominates the media.” —Thomas Sowell
sorry Chai
February 7, 2008 - 03:20 ET by botgi just got your postings. I had a late night at work. This was the whole topic this am on Rick Roberts and yesterday afternoon on Hedgecock (don't know about today). There were endless calls from people on both shows. Nothing on Signon SanDiego
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Botg
February 7, 2008 - 12:23 ET by ChaitealoverThere was a thorough report on KUSI this morning. The precinct captains called the Registrar's office to verify the registrations of all those who complained. All but 5 had registered either as "Independent" or "declined to state," as far back as the 90's, so it looks like they had voted Republican so long that they just forgot what they had marked on their form.
Chai
“The question of what kind of President each candidate would make is infinitely more important than all the ‘horse race’ handicapping that dominates the media.” —Thomas Sowell
Chai
February 7, 2008 - 22:08 ET by botgi only know what i hear, thanks for the clarification, i hope that is all it is. Remember it is the registrars word at this point. Gad i hate to have to be such a cynic.
I have been NP for years and usually voted in the repub primaries, i was suprised that i could not this time, but understood the rule change and kicked myself. Not sure if i will re-register as a repub as long as they nominate moderate-liberals.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Obama is claiming to have
February 6, 2008 - 11:19 ET by MaximusBraveheartObama is claiming to have won more states and more delegates per this article in Politico:
The Obama campaign attached an Excel spreadsheet containing
“state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night,
which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton — bringing the to-date
total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton.”
http://www.politico....
That article also had this GREAT comment from naragonl
on Politico. Funny I FORGOT all the reasons I don't "care" for Hillary.
This reminded me. Sure hope she does get the nomination:
Quote: interesting: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the
most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she
says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or
'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder
of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed
authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers
over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key
votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone
who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote
in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election,
her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed
authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two
recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw
their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno
has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' -
Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights
Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to
be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web
Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice
Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell
was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced
to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons,
Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House
security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of
up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread
use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied
knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's
involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White
House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty
years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends
the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be
awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office
fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and
their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one,
Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White
House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than
two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the
'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband
not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the
Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as
Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was
spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill
lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to
settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license
for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House.
---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and
obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I
do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times
under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her
Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate
in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists
in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get
Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for
a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White
House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture,
china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate,
Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a
bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by
asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012
many records of their time in the White House, including much of
Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits
to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from
New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to
the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even
on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup
of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the
plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume’. Sounds
more like an organized crime family’s rap sheet.
http://www.politico....
They were slightly wrong in
February 6, 2008 - 11:23 ET by shawn228They were slightly wrong in CA, but they said along CA was too tight to call. They also said McCain would win big last night and that certainly happenned. Poll seemed to be pretty darned accuratate other than The Golden State
Can't we all get along?
Shawn
February 6, 2008 - 11:26 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
They were 23 points wrong on Clinton-Obama, and 15 points errant on McCain-Romney. You call that "slightly wrong?" ns
Noel
February 6, 2008 - 11:39 ET by shawn228Depends on which poll Noel.
This one had Clinton ahead and was off by calling for Romney by 2 percent which is a within the margin of error.
The polls have been wrong
February 6, 2008 - 11:25 ET by HumanEventsThe polls have been wrong plenty of times before and in fact Survey USA had Hillary ahead 42-32 while Zogby the same day had Obama ahead 49-36!
Also, California is often a let down for us in modern times. Seems like every presidential election we hear that California is in play for the GOP, only to have sKerry, Algore, Bubba, etc. win by 10 or more points.
And they did say Hillary won the vast hispanic vote there. (Could some of them have been illegals who weren't polled?)
As for her tears part 2, I'm sure it made at least a small contribution. Every little bit helps, and everything Hillary does is calculated to win the WH. And she really did a good acting job on those tears and looking "touched" and "moved". They say she can't pull off what her "husband" did in terms of charisma and that is so true. But when it comes to tears, I think she ranks up there with him when he did that Ron Brown funeral crocodile moment for the camera.
The Unfairness of Ariz vs. Mass.
February 6, 2008 - 11:44 ET by JayTeeAs we see the McCain advantage in “Winner take all voting” where Romney wins his Home state by over 50%, but McCain takes 18 Delegates from Mass. to Romney’s 22, Followed by McCain under 50% in Arizona, but taking ALL the delgates, there isn’t even a home state advantage in the Winner Take all format. The MIX of winner take all and proportioning is a problem.
Pick one, pick the other, but don’t mix them. I think we will see the RNC change the way the Primaries function over the next few years, where Primaries follow the Democratic example, proportioning of Delegates based upon percentages of the votes. At least that would leave a better taste in your mouth for fairness, or a Delegate count that represents the Citizen’s votes.
We are a diverse Country, and getting more so every decade that goes by. I think we will see more 3 and 4 Candidate races in the future, as the diversity of states start making itself known via 33% by 33% by 33% splits in Primaries. This will result in Platforms being more representative of the majority of voters.
A winner take all in the Final Election at the National level, the Electoral college, is a way to finalize an Election. But the Primaries are a method to determine nominees and platforms that are broadly appealing and representative of all the states at the BEGINNING of an election cycle.
What we are seeing is a single issue or two, driving a candidate to win 40% of the vote on a few issues, while losing 60% to other issues/candidates. Do we want to go forward as a Political party without the 60% of voters and the issues that they voted upon having an influence upon our Nominee’s positions ?
As for McCain being the Eventual nominee, and all this NOISE about not voting at all even though you’re a Republican. . . just remember, if we Survived Jimmy Carter as President, we can most certainly survive McCain or most anyone else.McCain’s Immigration stance at the National level has already been neutralize by his home State passing new State laws, and only the States issue driver’s licenses. You can have an opinion at the National level, but States are starting to rule on Immigration.
I think any Republican Anger at the Presidential nominee will be reflected at the local election level for Congress/Senate races. McCain/Clinton can pick their Cabinets, but they can’t pick their Congress.
If the Republicans want to
February 6, 2008 - 12:26 ET by Hero SquadIf the Republicans want to really make it reflective of finding the best candidate that has the best chance to win the General Election, they should do what you suggested, BUT I would add that they should adjust delegates based somewhat on the political makeup of each state.
Winning in a state that always goes to Democrats in the General Election is all well and good, but it's highly unlikely that it will actually convert into an electoral win in November. Weigh them lighter.
Winning in a state that always goes to the Republicans in the General Election is a good sign that you're reaching your base... but it's likely you'll carry that state no matter who is the candidate. Weigh that light-to-medium.
Winning in a "purple" state... now that's your meat and potatoes. If you have a candidate consistently taking these states, you might have locked in on someone who can swing these key states in your favor. Weigh them heaviest.
Either that, or reshuffle your primaries to front load the contests in those purple states (after Iowa and NH).
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
good ideas Hero
February 6, 2008 - 13:38 ET by SouthJersey1953Lots of good ideas. Funny but I always complained that the NJ Primary (when it was in June) left us out. Now that we got moved to "Super Tuesday" I want us to move back. I can't believe >50% of the 'so-called' Republicans voted for McLame. Move us back to the back of the pack. Our votes shouldn't count for selection of a candidate.
Nothing but RINOs in '08 - Grrrr!
Jumping in to the subject
February 6, 2008 - 12:28 ET by BDJumping in to the subject of Arizona, it appears that as usual, the border communities in Cochise County voted for Romney.
This is Undoubtedly due to the feeling of abandonment by McCain in the McCain-Kennedy fiasco.
I would also assume that McCain did well in the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix-Scottsdale-Tempe-Mesa) which is too far from the border to feel the pain.
Looking on the bright side of this as an Arizonan, perhaps we can convince McCain to drop out of the senate ala Bob Dole to run full time for president. A good indicator of how McCain would govern would be to see who he would place as his seat. I would bet it would be a liberal like Dem Governor Janet Napolitano rather than a conservative like Sherriff Joe Arpaio.
Hillary won where she needed to.
February 6, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Missouri ConservativeShe won comfortably in New York, New Jersey, and California - the big Democrat powerhouses. I have to think that helps her in terms of Super-delegates.
It looks like Hillary won the blue states, and Obama won the red states (save Illinois).
I would LOVE to see Hillary win the nomination through super-delegates and strongarming the DNC into seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Chelsea Clinton
February 6, 2008 - 11:38 ET by GothampcWhen Chelsea Clinton runs for POTUS, do you think she's going to claim passing out coffee at a polling place as political experience?
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7827524
of course she will
February 6, 2008 - 13:40 ET by SouthJersey1953that is a no brainer.
Nothing but RINOs in '08 - Grrrr!
and she'll have the
February 6, 2008 - 16:51 ET by Cape Conservativepictures to back her up!!! A little more than what her momma can offer ;-)
Assumptions
February 6, 2008 - 11:40 ET by KC MulvilleHow can these polls be so wrong? If a random sampling of voters produces inconclusive results, then the pollsters and pundits have nothing to sell. If pollsters keep telling candidates and the media that "we can't say for sure" then what good are they? If people need to see something, sonner or later, they'll see what they want to see.
When your profit depends on seeing "something there," you'll declare something where there's nothing. That's where error lives.
KC
February 6, 2008 - 11:45 ET by shawn228"The Democrats won quite a few contests, but most of those victories were too close to call until the last ballots were counted."
Losing around 25 seats sounds more than "a few". I remember them taking back the house before 7 pm pacific time. It was the senate that was too close to call at the end but the polls said the democrats would not win the senate remember?
Can't we all get along?
True
February 6, 2008 - 12:10 ET by KC MulvilleYeah, I probably should have phrased that better. But I was thinking more against the idea that you could look at those results and make sound, scientific conclusions based on the results. You can't draw conclusions from any of that, and yet pundits do it all the time.
Wittgenstein said, "About those things we should not speak, we should remain silent." The polls can't speak about anything conclusively, but they speak anyway ... so error follows. Oddly enough, the polls are digging their own graves, and each mistake merely means they're digging faster.
Interesting commentary in
February 6, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Free ThinkerInteresting commentary in WSJ regarding media spin of Tet offensive during Vietnam. I think it is easy to see this is the model and not much has changed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120226056767646059.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Duplicate Replaced with a better one...
February 6, 2008 - 12:26 ET by mattmOn lies and lying:
"The young ought to be temperate in the use of this great art until practice and experience shall give them that confidence, elegance, and precision which alone can make the accomplishment graceful and profitable. Patience, diligence, painstaking attention to detail -- these are the requirements; these, in time, will make the student perfect; upon these, and upon these only, may he rely as the sure foundation for future eminence. Think what tedious years of study, thought, practice, experience, went to the equipment of that peerless old master who was able to impose upon the whole world the lofty and sounding maxim that "Truth is mighty and will prevail"-- the most majestic compound fracture of fact which any of woman born has yet achieved. For the history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sewn thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie well told is immortal." - Mark Twain in "Advice to Youth," 15 April 1882
Lies
February 6, 2008 - 12:20 ET by mattm"A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Attributed to Mark Twain, but could also be Spurgeon.
...or Joe
February 6, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Hero Squad...or Joe Biden.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
I think it was Biden who
February 6, 2008 - 13:06 ET by Chris NormanI think it was Biden who said, "Give me liberty or give me death"...
→ Chris
February 6, 2008 - 14:34 ET by Cool ArrowI think he said "or give me a fresh, clean, articulate death".
♣ a seal
I was under the impression he said,
February 6, 2008 - 15:39 ET by FastEd"Give me!"
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Concur with your
February 6, 2008 - 16:36 ET by BDConcur with your sentiment.
I am fairly certain that I shall spend the next fourty+ years rehashing the GWOT and informing the future youth of America on what ACTUALLY happened in comparison to what the press is telling them actually happened.
Key points unmasked in this battle with history so far.
1.) US forces did not simply surrender the mission of destroying AQ at Tora Bora to a bunch of thugs.
2.) The US had sixteen actual reasons for attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam, not just the classic WMD line....
3.) US forces WERE greeted as liberators in Iraq initially. That is until the bad guys started beheading the friendlies...
4.) US forces did NOT kill 600,000 Iraqi's in the first three years of the conflict.
5.) Iraqi freedom expanded GREATLY during the US occupation.
6.) The Iraqi Infrastructure HAS been repaired to beyond pre war levels.
7.) US Casualties have been unprecedentedly LOW!
8.) Behaviour of US troops has been unprecedentedly HIGH!
9.) Torture by US interogators has been NIL!
10.) Very few members of the press have been out with the combat troops on a daily basis. Those who do it regularly are rarely members of the MSM and can be counted on one hand.
Etc, etc, etc.
Joseph Stalin said it best,
February 6, 2008 - 13:04 ET by Subsailor599Joseph Stalin said it best, "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."
Actually, Joe Biden said it
February 6, 2008 - 14:34 ET by Hero SquadActually, Joe Biden said it better.
OK, I'll stop now.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
If McCain is the GOP
February 6, 2008 - 14:04 ET by Dan The Man 2If McCain is the GOP nomination and it seems to be swinging that way, then he should pick Lieberman as VP. That way he could siphon off some Dim votes. Lieberman would not be a bad choice as they have about the same values and he is a principled man. After all Lievberman is not a Dim any more, they threw him out.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
My only thought against
February 6, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberMy only thought against your idea is that McCain did lousy in the south. Huckabee is pining for VP, and he did all his damage south of the Mason-Dixon...
I agree with you on Lieberman, though!
Vee Pee Hucka-Bee... well
February 6, 2008 - 14:31 ET by Jack BauerVee Pee Hucka-Bee... well at least he'll be the first holder of the office to rhyme.
(Okay -- that's a Leon level assertion-guess, anyone want to check the 43 previous holders, knock someone out.)
Vee Pee Hillary - rhymes and is more likely Jack
February 6, 2008 - 14:40 ET by Dee BunkIt's going to be President Obama with V.P. Hillary
Nursery Rhymes
February 6, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Jack BauerDee Bunk -- damn your superior Rap rhyming talent.
I believe it's "Master
February 6, 2008 - 14:46 ET by Hero SquadI believe it's "Master Dee", now.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Funneeee Hero. Is there a
February 6, 2008 - 15:07 ET by Jack BauerFunneeee Hero. Is there a "flash" in there as well?
:-) Either that, or a "Kool
February 6, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Hero Squad:-) Either that, or a "Kool Moe..."
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Master Dee to you little grasshoppers anyway : )
February 6, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Dee BunkDon't know nothin 'bout rap just the facts Jack just the facts!
If that turns out to be true
February 6, 2008 - 15:48 ET by FastEdthen we pee, bleed lots, cough up much moola. Then Obama talks with mama Bill, passes torch to earthen scorch, 'publicans be warring, but we control global warming, gettin the money, while lovin my honey in the NEW white house. Obama's in the house, clinton's still a louse, but I'm in charge, we're livin' large, and the rest of the country are bording the barge.
(I really need a job - look what unemployment is doing to my mind!!)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
If McCain has the sense God
February 6, 2008 - 15:03 ET by GothampcIf McCain has the sense God gave a pissant, then he will need to pick Huckabee as VP.
If the Republican Party has the sense God gave a maggot, they better start throwing Southern Evangelicals a bone or they are going to find themselves minus one core voting block.
What bone do I get?
February 6, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Joe ShlabotnikSo, what bone do those that are both fiscally and socially conservative get? All I see we've gotten are two turds.
Very funny bit on The Daily
February 6, 2008 - 14:26 ET by balboaVery funny bit on The Daily Show last night, looking at the different ways the networks tabbed yesterday's primaries, from Super Duper Tuesday to Tsunami Tuesday.
thedailyshow.com
Anyone note that the DEAD
February 6, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Jack BauerAnyone note that the DEAD are endorsing Obama?
Don't panic, it's only the Grateful Dead.
The actual dead (departed, deceased, are no more, shuffled off this mortal coil, approaching the light)
will all be voting for Hillary come November.
Is that a national prediction,
February 6, 2008 - 15:49 ET by FastEdor just in the Chicago area?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
McCain tells critics to calm down?
February 6, 2008 - 14:42 ET by NCConservativeI just read this article on Yahoo news (I know, I know...).
My one question is this: why is McCain "reaching out" to everybody on earth except conservatives?
And if he expects conservatives to support him come November, he'd be better served by not telling them to "calm down."
The more times goes by, the less and less I like this man.
well duh NC
February 6, 2008 - 15:01 ET by candanceHe's not afraid of conservatives. He knows that when the time comes we will all be so afraid of the Democrats we will reluctantly trudge to the voting booth for him.
As I've said on here before, if the DNC nominated Stalin the GOP would put up Hugo Chavez because he's not as bad.
Point taken, Candance
February 6, 2008 - 16:06 ET by NCConservativeI guess I'm just surprised at the ever-increasing smugness he has about it all. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of telling someone whose vote you eventually want (or need!) to basically be quiet and stop complaining.
candance...what if we DON'T vote McCain?
February 6, 2008 - 17:57 ET by LionKingThink about. A vote for McCain or Hillary/Obama is a vote for a liberal. Consider voting for the Constitution Party for president, but help the Pubs regain congress.
The CP is truly conservative. [platform]
lionking
February 6, 2008 - 18:01 ET by candanceDon't worry dude - I'm way ahead of you. Just trying to give an answer to NC's question.
Lion King... I'm going to
February 6, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Clear thinkerLion King...
I'm going to write-in Fred for this election because I no longer vote for RINO's, but after the election I will take a very long hard look at the CP.
Keep mentioning this to people because I think it may end up being our salvation.
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
Ash Wedneday
February 6, 2008 - 15:12 ET by ricklailBeing a Baptist, I am not familiar with Lent. I understand that you give up something for those 40 day before Easter. If you would meet me you could tell that I haven't missed many meals in my life. So I can't give up food. Thought about not reading anything that Leon writes for that period but that is not a real sacrifice. Could shut out anything that Hillabeast, O'Bama or McCame says but again that does not hurt. Can't give up politics totally. Any suggestions?
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
Giving up something isn't
February 6, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Hero SquadGiving up something isn't always good for the economy. My mom taught me that it's also OK to do something for Lent instead of give something up, if it's something that falls into that "sacrifice/benefit" realm. For example, exercising more (or in my case, start exercising).
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
I think that I am going to
February 6, 2008 - 15:40 ET by ricklailI think that I am going to give up NASCAR. I just saw where Jimmy Johnson was smozing Pelosi.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
rick... Don't give up
February 6, 2008 - 15:44 ET by Clear thinkerrick...
Don't give up hope. Maybe the NASCAR guys are planning to push San Fran into the ocean, pave it over, and make it one big race track. Pelosi will be needed for this to happen, right?
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
It was a shame that when
February 6, 2008 - 16:50 ET by ricklailIt was a shame that when the Marines did the commericial in SF they didn't just go ahead and overtake the city. Looks like if they want any recruits from Berkeley they are going to have to do just that. Did you see where SF is going to bulldoze Alcatraz and build some kind of global center there?
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
If that were the case
February 6, 2008 - 17:10 ET by FastEdI'd suggest making the isle a "munitions" target.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Step away from your retreat -
February 6, 2008 - 15:51 ET by FastEdhe was just trying to squeeze some oil out of that snake-oil sales person.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
rick, the point is to give
February 6, 2008 - 15:36 ET by motherbeltrick, the point is to give up something that you will miss if you give it up. When I was a kid, we gave up candy, or chips, or something like that. If you love to snack, you could give up a snack food. The other point about it is, that if you give up that certain thing, you take the money you would have spent on it, and donate it to the needy. (prayer, fasting (in some fashion), and almsgiving are the 3 pillars of Lent).
(doing the fasting thing with no eating between meals is still the hardest one for me, since I swear I was BORN nibbling! LOL)
Thank God for language
February 6, 2008 - 16:27 ET by KC MulvilleOriginally, in the English language, "meat" meant all food in general. To give up meat, then, meant that you couldn't eat at all during the day. Later, the defintion of meat narrowed to simply mean animal flesh, and the definition of "abstinence from meat" changed along with it.
Now, if we can only "evolve" the language so that the the word "meat" only describes ... say ... fried foods, then we can all enjoy a broiled steak and stay within the rules.
Blasphemy?
February 6, 2008 - 15:53 ET by KhyrisAlabama, Tennesee, Arkansas....
These three states gave their delegates to "God's Candidate" Huckabee ....
.... and were then all hit by a tornado later that same day.
What do you religious types think about this? Coincidence? Or is God punishing those sacreligiously following a false prophet who uses God's name for his own selfish ends?
I think God gave us free
February 6, 2008 - 15:57 ET by motherbeltI think God gave us free will and He's not into throwing lightning bolts or tornadoes for every little thing that displeases him.
If He were, He would have destroyed the world by now.
I guess that's really the
February 6, 2008 - 16:04 ET by KhyrisI guess that's really the question tho...
Is using faith as an excuse to become the most powerful man in the world really seen as a "little thing" by staunch evangelicals?
Also, your own opinion of that aside, do you think that this might affect highly religious voters in future primaries who might take this as a "warning'?
Khyris???
February 6, 2008 - 17:51 ET by LionKingDid you notice how well romney did in Utah? Is that a coincidence or does faith matter to some?
It might, but also his
February 6, 2008 - 17:58 ET by BDIt might, but also his reputation in Utah stems from his repairing of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics when they were sprialing down.
I recall seeing him at the podium welcoming people to the olympics. He seemed quite popular with the locals.
You missed the point, LionKing
February 6, 2008 - 18:02 ET by RJ...was it on purpose? He was talking about the candidates, not the voters.
As you well know, Huckabee is running specifically on his religion, while Romney is not.
"I really like Mike Huckabee." -uber lib Mika Brezinski
RJ...I disagree
February 6, 2008 - 18:06 ET by LionKingHuckabee is running around saying vote for me because I am a baptist...that's the media.
As I have said before...I am not electing my spiritual leader so a person's faith is not the deciding factor, but I consider it as a measure of their character.
Exactly, LionKing
February 6, 2008 - 18:19 ET by RJKhyris asked: "Is using faith as an excuse to become the most powerful man in the world really seen as a "little thing" by staunch evangelicals?"
You responded: "Did you notice how well romney did in Utah? Is that a coincidence or does faith matter to some?
So I pointed out that Huckabee, not Romney is the one running on his faith.
And... "vote for me because I am a Baptist." is using faith as an excuse to become the most powerful man in the world.
BTW, I get it that your vote is for the best man for POTUS, not your spiritual leader. :^)
Thanks both for the
February 6, 2008 - 19:32 ET by KhyrisThanks both for the replies,
I'd like to clarify it a bit tho... using faith as an excuse (etc) is a double edged sword amongst the staunchly religious... depending upon how sincere they find you to be. So yes, in both respects faith matters to some, but that really wasn't the question.
The question was that amongst those to whom faith matters enough that Huck's use of faith is not merely "little thing"... either pro or con... will there be any reaction to the coincidence of bedlam visited upon the states that voted for him that day?
You're throwing a monkey
February 6, 2008 - 16:09 ET by balboaYou're throwing a monkey wrench into a lot of people's world views on this board...
Hold Your Nose & Vote McCain
February 6, 2008 - 16:03 ET by GothampcMcCain's mother says that the Republican base will have to hold their noses and vote for her son.
"Asked if her son can go on to be the G.O.P.'s nominee, Roberta McCain said, "Yes, I think holding their nose they're going to have to take him."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/Story?id=4187172&page=1
I'll hold my nose and vote for him against Obama
February 6, 2008 - 16:06 ET by Dee Bunkbut I'm not sure if it's Hillary. It isn't likely that he'll win against either of them either way.
McCain's only halfway to
February 6, 2008 - 16:06 ET by KhyrisMcCain's only halfway to the necessary delegate count... it's still possible for another candidate to win. Maybe not likely, but entirely possible. If we went in for this "Candidate of Inevitability" nonsense, we'd have voted Hillary into office last November.
How can the polls be wrong? and Hillary's tear
February 6, 2008 - 21:01 ET by DelsaHow can the polls be wrong? and Hillary's tear. The polls say what the pollsters want them to say. If obama is up hillary voters may turn out. Same with McCain/Romney.
If Hillary's tear can sway voters, then Democrats are dumber than I thought.
Romney bows out? Here's a
February 7, 2008 - 14:14 ET by mattmRomney bows out?
Here's a happy couple.