Actually, amongst uncommitted voters he won that debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/opinion/polls/main647648.shtml

I'll take what you say under advisement. But it's hard to throw your heart behind a guy who gives a speech about the need to preserve the environment and conserve resources and then hops in a 9 mpg SUV and boogies.

As for Hillary...I met her once.

Never. Not ever.

Who hopped in the 9 mpg SUV?

Not Hillary. Nope - I'm still thinking of circumstances of when I'd even be TEMPTED to vote for her.

Not Obama. Something, something is out of synch with him. I don't like him or trust him. ('don't like' does not mean dislike BTW)

And, the links aren't working for the updates.

I put a new link in for his announcement to run, the rocketboom link does work for me. I believe he is talking about Obama, but all the links I'm finding on his suv driving are in active.

And the film clip I saw is gone. I thought YouTube might have it, but not.

personally. But so are Clinton, Obama, Biden, Vilsack and Kerry. Gore was in law school but left to run for senate in 1976. If you start disqualifying politicians on account of their being lawyers, the field really narrows. I agree with you (as you stated in another post) that he (Gore) is the best of the bunch, but not on account of his failure to actually get the license.

but is he electable?

Passed it on (n/t) (6+ / 0-)
Join me at http://blog.johnedwards.com

by elizabethedwards on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:54:11 PM PST

by DrFrankLives on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:59:26 PM PST
[ Parent ]
Thanks Elizabeth (6+ / 0-)
If you read 750 Posts down, that says you and your husband really are listening...

And this is good:

Where have you been? (1+ / 0-)
DailyKos has been around for several years now. Did you finally show up because you wanted our vote?

by Free Spirit on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 03:52:13 PM PST

Just letting you know (15+ / 0-)
Not taking the flame-bait.

Join me at http://blog.johnedwards.com

by elizabethedwards on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:51:46 PM PST
[ Parent ]

(*snort* - even got the dialect right. Nicely done.)

Whether you think this is sincere, is being done by a staffer rather than in person, or just think it's "scratching the belly of the blogosphere so it will roll over and wag its tail", the meta-issue is that it is being done, and done well and insightfully - and that contains a very important message itself.

EE stayed engaged in that DKos thread on John's announcement day from 1 PM to 5 PM - sending a completely unmistakable assessment of its importance. A self-identified staffer stuck around after as well. All comments appear to have been read - including flames (LOL).

An early "next generation" pol family.

with embarrassment from the 2006 elections.

The Prediction Markets Stumble
The "wisdom of crowds" crapped out in Election 2006.

Katherine Mangu-Ward | November 13, 2006

It's not often one finds oneself in a position to eat crow on behalf of more than 50,000 people—but here I am. My beloved election prediction markets have failed me this cycle, and so I'm here to apologize for the inaccuracy of the predictions I stole from those markets, and for the failings of the tens of thousands of traders who were supposed to illuminate the truth for us all.

Usually, when people—especially pollsters—predict election outcomes wrong, they say something like "No one could have guessed that the turnout would be so high in the southwestern part of the state" and leave it at that. They don't get fired, and they only occasionally even concede that they might have something to apologize for. And maybe they don't. After all, they're in the business of entertaining and informing, but perfect accuracy isn't required.

( ... Link ... )

Just a caveat lector. It's an entertainment field, like fantasy football; fun fluff with no actual contact with the planet's surface.

There was a time long ago when I thought the term "expert" had something to do with getting things right more often than non-experts.

"Data is not information; information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom"
- att. various.

Perfect.

Perhaps this isn't the time, but somewhere down the line I would love to have a discussion here regarding a question that has plagued me for several years: "Is this country ready, is it willing, is it able to elect a woman, a black or a Jew President of the United States?"

"If they buy the premise, they'll buy the bit."

--Johnny Carson

Until he self-destructed.

We went this through already once.

I explained that the majority was based on a two tossups: thus the probability of the democrats gaining the majority was practically 1/2 * 1/2 = 25%. The democrats won the lottery in both states. The prediction market gave a slightly higher winning probability.

Some student referenced by The Agonist gave unrealistically high probabilities, almost 50%.

The Mark Foley trick saved the election. Your source should give credit to the best campaign help of the Democratic party. Whoever they were. It is strange that nobody wants to know :-)

There was a time long ago when I thought the term "expert" had something to do with getting things right more often than non-experts.

The market was very accurate in predicting the number of tossups.

-- 101 ways to avoid the subjunctive mood

Seeing as obviously neither you or I believe the Foley story was a a complete piece of luck for the Dems out of the blue, then we must assume that all the pieces were in place in advance.

Whether it was Dem strategy (or Republican strategy, knowing how many Republicans - likely concentrated amongst those who knew their own personal seats were secure - could plausibly have thought it would be a good thing either for the nation or for the survival of the party for the GOP to lose the House) or whether certain journalists refused the story saying "there isn't enough there", while in fact secretly squirrelling it away and holding it back until it could have maximum effect - someone knew. And apropos of nothing in particular, I wonder if all the elements in the CIA are content with the way that life's been going lately?

All that was missing was that you and I and others lacked a crucial piece of data upon which the election may arguably have hinged. But it wasn't data that wasn't there, it was data that some knew - but the predictors didn't.

And when elections like this past so often hinge on pieces of data that are invisible, the idea of predictions markets - which still tacitly assume that they hinge on the visible and predictable - gets less tenable.

to those chat logs on Microsoft servers? Domestic government spies of course.

Even FBI had made an investigation on Foley, providing more possible leaking surface and cover for the trickster.

Media tried to obfuscate the original source by referring to individuals who provided logs after the story broke out.

And when elections like this past so often hinge on pieces of data that are invisible, the idea of predictions markets - which still tacitly assume that they hinge on the visible and predictable - gets less tenable.

If historical statistics doesn't prove otherwise, the market assumes that the shock probabilities are symmetric and have no effect to the expected average. (Some math details not explained here to avoid further confusion.)

(In the stock market the long term expected average is positive, but the negative shocks are stronger and shorter than the positive shocks. The stock market never crashes upwards.)

-- 101 ways to avoid the subjunctive mood