Well written, Jeff. I focused on the financial/pragmatic element of alternative fuels, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is those ideals that need to be occassionally backed up with republican fodder (pragmatism) to evoke any change. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
I mean no disrespect to those of you who disagree with my conclusion. But shrugging off the numbers by saying "the polls are inconsistent" or "the only poll that counts is the one in November" is burying your head in the sand. Virtually all of the polls, except for the Newsweek poll that obviously overstates Gore's position (and which I did NOT use) and the Voter.com poll that obviously overstates Bush's position, are within a 10-point range. Although technically they all have a 3- or 4-point margin of error, the fact that 20 to 30 of them have all converged on that range all but eliminates the probability that the numbers are outside that range. Within that, there's a predominant midrange cluster that has Gore holding a lead of maybe 3 to 6 points. He is definitely, definitely ahead. Even when polls disagree, each poll is internally consistent. That is, you can look at it over time and see patterns. What I did in the article was to look at those trends within each poll. You can't just brush off those trends by saying polls are inconsistent, because in each case we're talking about the same polling organization and method, with varying data over time. If you're a Gore supporter, I can understand why you choose to discount these numbers. You fear complacency. You want to assume that the race can still be lost, so that you and your friends will go all out to make sure you win it. That's wise. But if you're a Bush supporter, discounting the polls is a dangerous self-delusion. You're in denial. Trends in numerous polls show that your candidate is in serious trouble. You need to face up to it and do what you can to turn things around. I see no objective factors on the horizon that are likely to propel Bush to victory. But we all have free will, and if you believe strongly in Bush, you can make at least a small difference in the outcome of the race, with your vote if nothing else.
I think there is some confusion over who wrote what article. The first one from the wall street journal wasnt written by WIll. This article is the one that shows confusion about the polls. It has two of three it cites as Bush leading Gore by about 4 points and one with the opposite, yet then it goes on to say that averaging the 3 polls shows Gore in the lead by a point (i dont understand how they averaged out to that but...) Wills article in The Slate links to a track of basically 3 or 4 main polls over time and most of these, except for the Voter.com#'s do have Gore taking the lead. Which polls are right? Its basically the same thing with the arena vote. Polls are polls. Here is the sad part. For Bush, basically he thinks what wins over people in the SOuth and Southwest is the same thing that wins over people acrosst the country and he is wrong. HE then goes on to make stupid mistakes and this hurts his chances even more of wining northern states. Gore is just as pathetic. I have yet to hear anyone ever say anything good about him particularly. Most people I know are either going to vote for him because he is 1 a)democratic (although the distinction has grown smaller and smaller b)was the VP during Clinton era and those were some pretty proseprous times and the most cited one c)because hes not BUSH. It sure would be nice if either nominee could actually do something POSITIVE whihc makes people energetic and excited about going out to vote for them. ------------------ Remember.... You are not really drunk until you must hold on to the grass to keep from falling off the earth.
Jayz, Great points. However, I personally have started to believe that Gore has more potential than Clinton. Perhaps Clinton merely paved the way for the centrist Democratic philosophy (i.e. Gore wouldn't have had a chance leading the party to the middle in 1992). Gore, though, seems to not raise such an emotional ire with conservative republicans, so perhaps they won't burden his presidencey down with so many frivolous legal actions. Centrist democrats are starting to do novel things. Gore is using the gas price to make a further argument against oil dependencies. The fact that the economy has included sectors for environmental businesses, means that Gore is free from his words about the automotive combustion engine. He can now make his case for renewable energies while the people are focused on their wallets. This is Clintonesque in method (using the public's short attention spans with issues such as school violence to launch gun control measures) but can now be used to solve an entirely different set of ends (i.e. making sure that Houston isn't 25m up under water in 50-100 years and all of you bums don't come crowding me out in the high ground). ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
