The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on May 21, 2008, 09:30:13 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3321956
Oh my.
I was hoping to see Pedro Picasso at this bonfire; Pedro Picasso of course being the one who still believes the Impeached One won the presidency in 1992 and 1996 by Rooseveltian or Reaganian proportions.
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 07:51 PM
Original message
Question: My Stepdad Says LIEberman Won In A "Landslide". Anybody Help Me Out?
He's a repuke, and I don't remember lieberman winning by any landslide. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Won what? He lost his state party's nomination!
Lamont appears to have defeated Lieberman by more than 10,000 votes, according to unofficial vote returns. With 95 percent of the precincts reporting, Lamont led Lieberman 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent. The vote tally was 139,496 to 129,271. A hefty 42 percent of registered Democrats voted in the hotly contested primary, which many considered a referendum on the Iraq war.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2006...
Perhaps the bare blue primitive isn't aware who's the U.S. Senator from Connecticut most recently elected, or re-elected? Typical of a primitive.
tcfrogs (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. LIEberman beat Lamont in the General Election, though
Running as an independent.
bunkerbuster1 (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. If a 50-40 win is a "landslide," then Repuke Stepdad is correct.
I doubt most people would say that failing to win a clear majority of votes is a landslide, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#Senate_elect...
Most basic standard elementary Political Science 100 textbooks define a "landslide" as a margin of 10% or more.
But we're talking primitives here, who don't know excresence about politics.
And then:
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. In the general election, where Lieberman won his senate seat:
Lieberman: 564,095 votes
LaMont: 450,844 votes
Schlesinger: 109,198 votes
Hmmm.
450,844 + 109,198 = 560,042
Looks like the blunkerbluster primitive in the comment about a "clear majority" has faulty arithmetic skills.
564,095 is more than 560,042, obviously a majority, and a clear one, of the vote.
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Depends on how you define landslide
Since the republikkans are defining a 2-3% victory in 04 as a mandate, he may feel 10% is a landslide (in all fairness, that is fairly sizeable)
But, it's hardly a landslide in the LBJ (64), RR (84) and Clinton (96) vein.
Uh oh. The panned primitive's been drinking the same stuff Pedro Picasso's drunk.
Also, the panned primitive forgot to mention the landslides of 1972, 1980, and 1988.
DuStrange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Well, maybe not the Clinton '96 one.
According to the Wiki, the percentages were 49.24% for Clinton and 40.71% for Dole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential...
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. election results are here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_United_States_...
Lieberman defeated Ned Lamont in the general election by 10 percentage points. That's a pretty hefty margin. Of course, MANY of those votes were crossover republicans or independents who would have likely voted republican under other circumstances.
Clovis Sangrail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. what constitutes a landslide?
He lost the party nomination by 4 pts and won the general by 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#Senate_elect...
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Lieberman won the 2006 CT election with 50% of the vote
...while Lamont got 40%. "Landslide victories" have a much bigger spread -- 20 percentage point difference or more. Calling Lieberman's win a landslide is akin to when Bush** called his 3% "victory" over Kerry a mandate.
Oh my.
The primitives, really, should read some of those easy-to-read, easy-to-understand, college freshman textbooks about politics. Such textbooks don't use big words or abstract concepts, and so should be easy to absorb.
-
I'd say an independent beating a Democratic in a Democratic state is a f'n landslide in itself.
-
DuStrange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Well, maybe not the Clinton '96 one.
According to the Wiki, the percentages were 49.24% for Clinton and 40.71% for Dole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential...
What happened to Ross Perot's almost 9%? What happened to the BIG LIE that Ross Perot drew votes equally from those who would have otherwise supported Dole and Clinton?
-
Hey Frank, have you seen Pedro Picasso over there lately? I haven't noticed one of his posts in a long time.
-
Got Forced Ignorance?
-
Hey Frank, have you seen Pedro Picasso over there lately? I haven't noticed one of his posts in a long time.
He's around (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=Atman+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&as_qdr=d&btnG=Search)
-
Hey Frank, have you seen Pedro Picasso over there lately? I haven't noticed one of his posts in a long time.
It appears that sometime in mid-December 2007, Pedro Picasso began seeking some sort of help for his extreme paranoia--the guy's a freaking paranoid about everything and anything.
I disremember how I learned of it; I think a primitive somewhere spilled the beans.
Anyway, I never did find out if such "treatment" was via psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health counselor, or, so help me, Buddhist "serenity instructor."
I was however greatly encouraged to learn that ostensibly Pedro Picasso is trying to deal with a problem via natural means, rather than through chemical pharmaceuticals.
It looks as if Pedro Picasso's been counseled to stay away from situations that draw attention to himself, because it exacerbates an already abnormal and extreme paranoia.
-
He seems to have a bad habit of posting the same threads/topics repeatedly. Maybe he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves. :whatever:
Remember when many DUers thought Kerry was "one of them" for conceding? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6049276)
Remember after Kerry conceded in 04, how many of us thought "Maybe he's one of them?" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6049198)
-
Hey Frank, have you seen Pedro Picasso over there lately? I haven't noticed one of his posts in a long time.
He's around (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=Atman+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&as_qdr=d&btnG=Search)
Wow.
What a wealth of commentery.
I've looked around, spanning Skins's island, and have seen him occasionally, but rarely.
Keeping a low profile, apparently; no wild off-the-wall comments.
-
Hey Frank, have you seen Pedro Picasso over there lately? I haven't noticed one of his posts in a long time.
He's around (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=Atman+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&as_qdr=d&btnG=Search)
I've been avoiding GD:Primaries, so perhaps that's why I haven't seen him.
Thanks, Chris.
-
Hey Frank, have you seen Pedro Picasso over there lately? I haven't noticed one of his posts in a long time.
He's around (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=Atman+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&as_qdr=d&btnG=Search)
I've been avoiding GD:Primaries, so perhaps that's why I haven't seen him.
Thanks, Chris.
You know, maybe that's why I've seen him only rarely.
When going into GD-primaries, I generally go in there looking for the Fredda Warberg (or Weinberg or whatever) non-primitive "owning" the Obamaite cali primitive, and don't notice the other primitives while looking for just these two specific ones.
I mean, hey, with 4900-5100 primitives, that's a lot to watch.
-
Hey Frank, have you seen Pedro Picasso over there lately? I haven't noticed one of his posts in a long time.
He's around (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=Atman+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&as_qdr=d&btnG=Search)
I've been avoiding GD:Primaries, so perhaps that's why I haven't seen him.
Thanks, Chris.
You know, maybe that's why I've seen him only rarely.
When going into GD-primaries, I generally go in there looking for the Fredda Warberg (or Weinberg or whatever) non-primitive "owning" the Obamaite cali primitive, and don't notice the other primitives while looking for just these two specific ones.
I mean, hey, with 4900-5100 primitives, that's a lot to watch.
Perhaps we should tag them for migration purposes.