Rudy's last act as Mayor of New York

[blutic]

I think it funny.
People that post to this thread are not from New York (barring  several)
Tend to your own State. Let New York take care of itself.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by blutic
I think it funny.
People that post to this thread are not from New York (barring  several)
Tend to your own State. Let New York take care of itself.

There's nothing wrong with a healthy interest in politics regardless of where it's located.  Hillary Clinton is a national figure serving in a national institution, and she is therefore worthy of discussion by everyone.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[GRUNHERZ]

THe Roman empire was the most multiethnic/multicultural/multireligious/gayrights/liberal permissive and in the end most socialist/communist culture in all of history yet they were militaristic opressed women crushed revolts/dissent and were one of the greatest slave users of all time, they were also the most powerful and technologically advanced for their time. They even had a few BLACK (or as you libs would say African-American ) Caesars IIRC.

Kinda wierd huh?


As for the communist remark, well read up on the food distribution schemes and associated things especially towards the end.

[midnight Target]

OK Toad.
So your comment about the Plebians was strickly historical and made no reference to either Hillary or Lazio supporters...Is that correct?

The acreage stat is (IMO) not too awfully significant....

but Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate?

The Roman Empire lasted until the plebeians learned they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" and do no honest work themselves.

Why are these rates significant if you were not referencing the difference between the rates for the supporters of each candidate (Clinton and Lazio). If your reference was "strictly historical" why is it relevant to this issue?

It seems obvious to me you were making the point that the Clinton supporters were the ones "voting themselves bread and circuses". And since these people tend to be urban as pointed out by others in this thread........the connection is again obvious.

I promise to never throw out the "Race Card" without a logical explanation. I would also like to point out that I never called YOU a racist. I think your comment is a wonderful example of the racism unconsciously exhibited that we still have to deal with in our society.

[Toad]

No, it's an overall observation; the "bread and circuses" approach is eventually unsupportable by any society, past or present.

Note once again that the posted stats show results for BOTH candidates.

The "acreage" stat isn't important in any way that I can determine. It's a "gee whiz" filler.

OTOH, add the rates together for both candidates in the Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate categories.

What does it say about our society then? Taken TOGETHER? A good thing? I don't think so.

YMMV.

(BTW, if it bothers you that Hillary's supporters lead these categories... and that it appears "racist" to even post the comparison... that again is in your mind. In my mind, the problem is that the combined total of these stats is pretty high... too high.)

[Kieran]

Tah Gut/DMF-

Point to any, any  female politician that is more universally disliked. Your polls mean nothing in that context.

I stand on my original observation.

[midnight Target]

(BTW, if it bothers you that Hillary's supporters lead these categories... and that it appears "racist" to even post the comparison... that again is in your mind. In my mind, the problem is that the combined total of these stats is pretty high... too high.)

OK Toad. I accept your explaination as I realy have no way of knowing what was in your mind. S!

OTOH Combining a 12%  rate and a 5% rate doesn't give you 17%. The combination of the 2 would be weighted toward the greater population base and would end up somewhere between 12% and 5% probably closer to 12 than 5.

[midnight Target]

Indira Gandhi

Of course she's gone now.

Did Maggie Thatcher ever have an approval rating lower than 40%?

[Toad]

The % are looking only at the folks who actually voted, I believe. So a few things. The stats are probably not representative of anything except that. In other words, in the overall general population of the State of NY (voters and non-voters alike) the percentages could be either higher or lower.

I think in the limited voting group, you could add the percentages.

Lots of stuff missing in these "quick" stats. For example, the % in any category for Hillary or Lazio could be either urban or rural. The stats don't say where they live, just who they voted for. One must assume that the candidates each had supporters in both areas.

So, summing up once again, to me the important thing is that "bread and circuses" will never work... and it seems that b&c is becoming a popular philosophy.

[Mighty1]

Plus you have to look at WHO they polled!

I remember Gore boasting about how his approval rating was better than Bush's but he failed to mention that they only polled Democrat counties.

Polls don't mean diddly!

[Kieran]

As long as Hillary has eyes on the Democratic nomination for 2004 and there is the least possibility of her getting it, I will be very interested in all that she does. That is what we are supposed to do, right? Stay abreast of our political leaders? Her being a very integral part of one of the most corrupt administrations in recent history makes me doubly interested.


I don't apologize at all for those feelings, she earned my distrust, ten-fold.

[Udie at Work]

Originally posted by Kieran
As long as Hillary has eyes on the Democratic nomination for 2004 and there is the least possibility of her getting it, I will be very interested in all that she does. That is what we are supposed to do, right? Stay abreast of our political leaders? Her being a very integral part of one of the most corrupt administrations in recent history makes me doubly interested.


I don't apologize at all for those feelings, she earned my distrust, ten-fold.

DITTO to that!


 She said back in her Senate campain that she would serve out her full term, which should eliminate her from the 2004 race.  So I fully expect that she will run.  She'll do it just to be the first woman to run for President.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Toad
(BTW, if it bothers you that Hillary's supporters lead these categories... and that it appears "racist" to even post the comparison... that again is in your mind. In my mind, the problem is that the combined total of these stats is pretty high... too high.)

C'mon, Toad, you're stretching here.  I've already stated that there's a a strong statistical relationship between income level and party affiliation.  I'd be happy to run a quick analysis of the entire NES dataset from 1948 to 2000, which contains the pooled responses of over 48,000 people over that 50+ year span.  I can absolutely guarantee you that not only will income be a statistically significant predictor of party affiliation, but it will also be a powerful one.  Now, guess what factor also stands as the most important predictor of which candidate we vote for in an election?  Party affiliation.

So generally speaking, those with lower incomes tend to be Democrats and vote with the Democratic party.  It's pretty obvious that those with lower incomes are going to receive higher levels of public assistance than those with higher incomes.  Unfortunately, there are also connections between low income/poverty and both pregnancy rates and violent crime.

I never really saw your argument as racist, but it does fail to recognize the demographic realities driving voting behavior.  I'm sure I could pick out some other statistics like white-collar crime to show that Lazio supporters are all embezzlers, but that's just as empty an argument as the one you're making.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Kieran
Point to any, any female politician that is more universally disliked. Your polls mean nothing in that context.

I didn't say that Hillary Clinton wasn't the most disliked female politician.  In fact, I think you're probably correct there judging by her overall disapproval rating.  Where you're wrong again is in claiming that she is universally disliked.  Sorry, but this just isn't the case given the statistically even split between those who approve of her and those who disapprove of her.  With a 44% disapproval rating, not even a majority of those polled dislike her.  That's hardly "universal."

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Mighty1
Plus you have to look at WHO they polled!

I remember Gore boasting about how his approval rating was better than Bush's but he failed to mention that they only polled Democrat counties.

Polls don't mean diddly!

Did you check out the link I provided?  It consisted of an idex of polls from various respected polling organizations such as Gallup.  Gallup employs very scientific methods of randomization to ensure an accurate cross-section of respondents.  In addition, even if this particular poll was somehow biased in favor of Democrats, the results over time suggest a consistent pattern of support (or lack of support) for Hillary Clinton.  It's very, VERY unlikely that Gallup and three other polling firms would consistently oversample Democrats in the long run.  As these poll results coincide with other polling firms and with previous polls by the same firm, they're probably pretty reliable.  As well, polling organizations "weight" results that oversample one party over another, granting more statistical weight to those respondents whose party has been undersampled.

In other words, polls do mean diddly whether you agree with them or not.  I think a healthy cynicism of polls and polling techniques is a good thing... we should always know the exact question asked, for instance, and we should know how many people were polled.  However, I do think your blanket condemnation is unwarranted.

-- Todd/Leviathn