Board Reaction

[OnTheRocks]

EIL, you heard it here first....one of two things will happen in 08:

 

1) McCain gets TONS of money for the primaries, gets the nod, and loses the general election to Hillary.

 

2) The repub primary voters decide on Giuliani and he defeats Hillary.

 

If my life depended on it, I think that #1 would be my prediction. McCain is a modern day Bob Dole. If he runs, that means the repubs don't want it.

 

Watch and see. 

830062[/snapback]

i am beginning to believe that Hillary will indeed get the Dem nomination.

a caveat is that with a Dem majority in the Senate and House, voters may remember the bad taste of a full Republican White House, Senate and Congress and think they don't want to go through that with a full Democrat leadership accross the board and leave the Dems to come up short for the White House.

 

on the Republican side, I just don't believe these election results were the Right turning their back on conservative values. i think it was just the opposite. i think they wanted to get rid of the clowns that ran on Conservative platforms and pissed in the face of their constituents and they will hold their next candidates to the fire to make sure they are truly Conservative. That counts Rudy out. I just don't see him with his limited experience getting a National Election nominatation. the further we get from 2001, the less chance he has. I can see him getting a position on a Republican winners cabinet however.

McCain? I don't see it happening with him either. He is already looking very old. I think he has flip flopped too many times and won't make it out of the primaries.

 

My guess is, if my theory is correct that the true conservatives are going to regroup and their choice may be Newt Gingrich. He learned his lesson a few years ago. He was a conservative, got into power and found out what some of the Republicans that lost two days ago found out. Conservative Republican voters don't sit around and let people piss in thier face and get away with it. They get voted out of office.

He has spent a ton of time in Iowa re-creating himself over the past 9 months. He has been quietly working on his campaign for over a year. He has a ton of baggage, but it isn't secret baggage. There isn't anything a Dem foe will be able to pull out of the bag at the 11th hour on Newt that voters won't already know.

 

Of course....I have no idea what I am talking about. I just had a few minutes to type all this crap while I wait on hold with my insurance company.

[VABills]

Of course....I have no idea what I am talking about.  I just had a few minutes to type all this crap while I wait on hold with my insurance company.

830799[/snapback]

 

Damn it sounded almost like you slept at a holiday inn last night.

[Buftex]

Are you kidding me? Bush wouldn't piss if his pants were on fire! His plodding "Stay the course" crap combined with his unceasing loyalty (or stupidity if you will) to his neocon cronies speaks of someone who wouldn't change course if his life depended on it.

 

What more than likely happened is Pelosi got on the phone and said "You know that guy you got calling the shots in Iraq? Well by the time the transition begins next year we'd like it if........."

830791[/snapback]

 

 

As much as I loathe what GW has done, I am holding out hope that he finally sees the light...or at least starts listening to the same three people he knows. Listen to his own father, Baker, Skowron, etc...

 

BTW, Bush claimed (laughably) that he never said "stay the course"....or maybe he meant that he never meant "stay the course." Can you remember any presidents' words having to be so deciphered by his people so much, to do spin control...I guess his inability to say what he means is one of his charms!

[X. Benedict]

 

Of course....I have no idea what I am talking about.  I just had a few minutes to type all this crap while I wait on hold with my insurance company.

830799[/snapback]

Vote for Gingrich, so easy even a caveman could do it.

 

Actually I think it would be great if he ran. He would be an interesting candidate.

[Bungee Jumper]

Actually I think it would be great if he ran. He would be an interesting candidate.

831015[/snapback]

 

So would Hannibal Lechter.

[Johnny Coli]

My guess is, if my theory is correct that the true conservatives are going to regroup and their choice may be Newt Gingrich.  He learned his lesson a few years ago.  He was a conservative, got into power and found out what some of the Republicans that lost two days ago found out.  Conservative Republican voters don't sit around and let people piss in thier face and get away with it.  They get voted out of office.

830799[/snapback]

 

Not looking good for the Newt '08 campaign.

 

You don't bring me flowers, anymore.

If former House Speaker Newt Gingrich runs for president, he may not get much support from his home state.

 

Exit polls conducted with Tuesday's elections indicate only 30 percent of Georgia voters think the Republican would make a good president, while 63 percent say he wouldn't. Seven percent declined to answer the question.

 

[snip]

 

Gingrich's firmest support in Georgia came from voters who strongly approve of President Bush's performance; nearly three out of five such voters said the former speaker would do a good job. Among the voters who strongly disapprove of Bush's work, only 6 percent said they thought Gingrich was suited for the White House.

[Wacka]

Some of Newt's baggage is outright distortion by the left.

The story about him serving his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital is mostly made up.

 

They were already getting a divorce, when she found out she had cancer. Newt was visiting her in the hospital and SHE said he should bring the papers in for her to sign.

 

I saw one of the few interviews she ever gave and SHE said this.

[OnTheRocks]

Not looking good for the Newt '08 campaign.

 

You don't bring me flowers, anymore.

831574[/snapback]

that article doesn't give any information.

 

it was a single question. it didn't give any options?

like lets say, would you vote for NG if he were the Rep. running against a Democrat?

 

On the other hand, Al Gore didn't win his State in 2000 but ran a pretty tight race with Bush. This article is pretty lame don't you think?

[Johnny Coli]

that article doesn't give any information.

 

it was a single question.  it didn't give any options?

like lets say, would you vote for NG if he were the Rep. running against a Democrat?

 

On the other hand, Al Gore didn't win his State in 2000 but ran a pretty tight race with Bush.  This article is pretty lame don't you think?

831603[/snapback]

I think the numbers are very informative. It's not like Newt Gingrich is some political newcomer where people don't know where he stands on issues. He's also been a pretty ubiquitous talking head on the news shows. If only 3 out of 10 people in your home state think you'd be a good president, that's a pretty tough hurdle to get over. Better than 6 in 10 think he wouldn't. No ambiguity there. Based on those numbers in a Newt-friendly state, what do you think his numbers would be in the northeast? Can you have poll numbers in the negative?

[EC-Bills]

Can you have poll numbers in the negative? 

831608[/snapback]

 

Please don't say something like that. Last thing we need is HA trying to explain that it is statistically possible.

[KurtGodel77]

I really expected this board to be a wreck after yeasterday...  There are the few diehard hold outs that are squealing like stuck pachyderms though, but most here have "manned" up to the results and seen it for what it is worth.

 

I guess people really wanted to see change... I now feel most times here it is fairly balanced... People are trying to give the dems a shot.

 

Or am I on glue?  

 

Of course the Dems will now just eff it up.

 

 

830035[/snapback]

I think it's more a question of people saying no to neocon Republicans than yes to Democrats.

[Orton's Arm]

Please don't say something like that.  Last thing we need is HA trying to explain that it is statistically possible.

831613[/snapback]

Actually, the last thing we need is people commenting on my stats knowledge when they don't know the first thing about stats. Or maybe you think you do know something. Fair enough. Now it's time for you to prove it.

 

Bungee Jumper and I spent about ten pages arguing about regression toward the mean. Suppose someone were to score 140 on an I.Q. test. This could be someone with an I.Q. of 140 who got the right score; it could be someone with an I.Q. of 150 who got unlucky, or an I.Q. of 130 who got lucky. It's more likely this person will be a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150, because there are more people with 130 I.Q.s than there are with 150 I.Q.s. Should this person retake the test, their expected score the second time around is a little less than 140, because the chances are stronger that the 140 score implies a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150.

 

Bungee Jumper disagrees with this, even though it's correct. But I'd like to hear why you disagree with it. If you're going to talk trash about my stats knowledge, you need to be able to back it up with a cogent explanation. If you're a little anxious about coming up with a convincing explanation, I suggest you go here. You won't find anything with which to refute me, but you'll learn a great deal about regression toward the mean. Maybe more than you wanted to know.

[Bungee Jumper]

Actually, the last thing we need is people commenting on my stats knowledge when they don't know the first thing about stats. Or maybe you think you do know something. Fair enough. Now it's time for you to prove it.

 

Bungee Jumper and I spent about ten pages arguing about regression toward the mean. Suppose someone were to score 140 on an I.Q. test. This could be someone with an I.Q. of 140 who got the right score; it could be someone with an I.Q. of 150 who got unlucky, or an I.Q. of 130 who got lucky. It's more likely this person will be a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150, because there are more people with 130 I.Q.s than there are with 150 I.Q.s. Should this person retake the test, their expected score the second time around is a little less than 140, because the chances are stronger that the 140 score implies a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150.

 

Bungee Jumper disagrees with this, even though it's correct. But I'd like to hear why you disagree with it. If you're going to talk trash about my stats knowledge, you need to be able to back it up with a cogent explanation. If you're a little anxious about coming up with a convincing explanation, I suggest you go here. You won't find anything with which to refute me, but you'll learn a great deal about regression toward the mean. Maybe more than you wanted to know.

838527[/snapback]

 

STOP REFERENCING HYPERSTATS. It's garbage. That's nothing more than a half-assed explanation for people like you who don't have the math skills to balance a checkbook. Pick up a stats textbook if you want to understand the subject.