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

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

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