Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] immediate reactions

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] immediate reactions
  • Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:38 -0400


On Oct 3, 2004, at 1:59 PM, Lee Haslup wrote:

James Dasher wrote:

I forget who it was - a general, possibly 19th century? but not American, I don't think - who said, "War is a series of catastrophes resulting in victory."

His name was Georges Clemenceau and, amusingly, he was French. He was, among other things, the Prime Minister during WWI. You can read about him at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWclemenceau.htm

Hah! That is funny, in a sort of "WTF is the deal with 'freedom fries'" kind of way.

I didn't Google for it because -- well, partly out of pique.

If you've read _Cryptonomicon_ you may remember the passage where Randy Waterhouse is pondering the differences between his grandfather's generation and ours. And he basically thinks that, while they knew things, we know how to find the information we need. So I sometimes, for no very good reason, try to restrict myself to saying things I actually know. Especially on a discussion list like this one, where I know a lot of the people. (Well, probably only some of them now, the list has grown a lot.) They know when I'm saying things I actually know, versus things I looked up just to make myself sound better-informed. I can always retract or concede something later!

As to reactions the the debate, rather than reactions to the reactions of the reactions to the reaction to the war in Iraq: polls are starting to come out that Kerry's picked up a couple points, and Bush dropped a couple; though at least one poll says Kerry picked up a point and Bush none. But those are nation-wide, and comments on this thread have already started on them.

The poll everyone seems to be talking about is the Newsweek poll and it remains to be seen how well their results line up with subsequent polling. While I wouldn't accuse them or bias or anything they seem to have been the victim of one of those coincidences. If you look at the breakdown of their sample into Democrats and Republicans it appears that this week's poll has more Dems and fewer Reps than last week's poll that showed Bush ahead. The difference is only a few percent but it is enough to explain 100% of the difference in the results. I suppose one could argue that Bush did so badly in the debate that 6% of all Republicans changed their mind, not just about him, but about party affiliation as well. If so subsequent polling should show it.

Newsweek! That was it.

I've been too busy this weekend to spend any time catching up on the likely-voter-versus-voter-party statistical weighting debate.

(Did I really just say that?)

Thanks!

--
James Dasher
misterdasher dot com
IM misterdasher





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page