A 1% greater margin of victory in no way translates to a double-sized mandate. I followed all of your calculations. Is that you, Batman, posting as wnes?! Don't get yourself exiled again for sillly and ugly name-calling.
The vast majority of Connecticut residents oppose the war, believe it was a mistake and favor withdrawal. Some of them voted Lieberman anyway, but on that issue -- the one that primary voters overwhelmingly identified as the most important to them -- he does not represent his constituents interests. He was similarly on the wrong side of their interests on Shiavo, Social Security, school choice and Alito. And, considering Bush's rock bottom ratings in CT, I would assume they are not too happy about Joe being his favorite "Democrat." Joe will lose in November because he is way out of touch with voters in CT. 52-48 is not a blowout, but as I've said before a total unknown coming back to the tune of a 55% turnaround against an entrenched incumbent is not only remarkable but is actually unprecedented. That wasn't me posting as wnes (I don't even know him) but you do look awfully silly when you act like it was no big deal.
Uh no, a 1% greater margin of victory is 2.02%. 4% relative to 2% is 100% increase, or 2x of original quantity. Politics may be your forte, but math is definitely not, giddy. Go ask a Republican who has math/engineering background and then come back to argue with me. Why is it ugly to point out your ineptitude, aka dumbness? Do you have anything to refute?
A slight increase in the margin does not double the mandate. Would a .001 margin of victory increased to .002 double that mandate as well? Doubling the raw vote count might double the mandate, but doubling a small margin does nothing of the sort. What was that that Mark Twain said about statistics? I just refuted you and reported you to the mods. I'm tired of this name-calling.
I know it was wnes; he just stooped to name-calling so I suggested the similarity with your posting style. I know this was an upset, but it was one that had been forecast for weeks or months. Lieberman had been criticized and targeted for years...
LOL ... giddy, you outdid yourself one more time. That's proof positive to me your inability to grasp simple math concept is beyond hopeless. What's even more hilarious is that you have to resort to kindergarten kiddie tactics. Let's not worry about math and stuff, how about just looking at this gem of yours in that same post: In which general election did Bush win 51% of popular vote, 2004 or 2000? Who was the sitting VP in that election, Cheney or Gore? Answer these two questions, honestly. If the word "dumb" is too harsh for D&D, what alternative and milder adjective do you suggest?
I get the math, but it's BS to claim that a margin doubled is twice the mandate regardless of how many votes that actually represents. Who's the one calling names here, bud? On 10,000,000 votes cast the growth (your example) from a 1% advantage to a 2% advantage is a net gain of 200,000 votes (400,000 minus 200,000). My example from a .001 vote count advantage to a .002 advantage is a net gain of 200 votes (400-200 and remember based on 10 Million Voters) yet your argument would determine that both of these counts would result in a "2Xmandate." I say no way. I guess you are free to interpret your stats any way you like, but don't require the rest of us to follow. Well you said that the 51% vote was 2000-- I mistakenly assumed you were talking about the 2000 election because you invoked the mandate language. Gore was the sitting VP in the 2000 election; Cheney in 2004. Do I pass? Look, I admitted that I made a hasty mistake and assumed the wrong election to which you were referring. If you wish to mock me and make that your crowning glory, I'll allow it. You could probably milk it for years. You must be desperate for some reason.
Lieberman has consistently voted for the Democrat for Senate leadership unlike Zell Miller and he has voted with the majority of the Democrats on more than 90% of the issues and appointments. Yes he has taken a few stands opposite from the majority of the Democrats but if you look at those situations he wasn't alone. For instance on the Terry Schiavo situation I don't recall him voting for Frist's bill while he did think that the tube shouldn't be pulled that was one where he was joined by other prominent Democrats like Jesse Jackson while on the Republican side the Republicans were far from united on that issue. As for social security there have been plenty of Democrats who have called for social security reform. The last sentence in your paragraph shows though there is one issue that dominates your thinking on this. Not Schiavo or social security. Ann Coulter doesn't do alot of things that are rational and suspect she is jumping on Lieberman's bandwagon the same way a guy like Giddyup is because they see the leftwing of the Democratic party making a cause out of defeating him. Its more about publicity and not Lieberman's record. Except that both have voted for the respective leaders from their party which when it comes to controlling power in Congress is really the main thing that matters. As I've said before I don't agree with Lieberman on several issues and definately disagree with him regarding Iraq. I don't live in CT and don't have a dog in the fight, although if I was in CT I would be cautious about tossing out a Senator with seniority who has done a lot for CT at a time when the Democrats are possibly poised to capture the Senate for a neophyte. What I'm surprised at is what I see as a demand for ideological purity from many supporters of the Democratic party who frequently criticize the Rebuplicans when they harshly enforce ideological purity in their ranks.
Batman says Lieberman's NOT a Democrat so just forget it all... Who do I defend? Bush. Lieberman. Unborn children. Van Gundy. See the pattern?
Giddy, despite your greater effort this time to put up more real numbers in an attempt to illustrate your "point," you still failed miserably. First, .001 vote count advantage (assuming we both agree it actually means .501 vs .499) based on 10 million voters is 2,000, not 200. That's a difference of an order of magnitude, not trivial by any vote counting statistical standard. Second, we all know the term of "mandate" is a reference to Dick Cheney's claim in the 2004 general election with regard to Bush's victory margin over Kerry. As a reminder the difference in the popular votes was about 3 millions, which is equivalent to a little over 2% based on overall 122 million votes casted. I see you have some basic understanding of the concept of percentage. That's the good news. But the bad news is you simply become clueless when the exact same concept is being applied to another case where the quantity associated with total votes is scaled down. Even if the victory margin, either in the form of raw vote count difference or in percentage difference, were much smaller than the actual number, as a victor Cheney would still be entitled to his bravado. But if so, don't cry foul when the other side does the same to your side. More importantly, don't try to come up with nonsensical numbers to make ridiculous counter argument. Oh did I, really? Where? Go check post #99 again. Well, if you spin too much, you can only get yourself confused. Good, thank you. Giddy, everyone can make dumb mistake. If I did, feel free to mock me too. Some topics are inherently ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Some are irrefutable facts, including those drawn on logical inferences based on simple math application. Contrary to your misconception, I don't feel elated when I have to expose your obvious blunders you are reluctant to relinquish. I take pleasure only when I am engaging with thoughtful and meticulous "opponents."
No, I suggested a .001 increased margin of victory (.50001/.49999 vs .50002/.49998) to be compared to your 1% increased margin of victory (.501/.499 vs .502/,498). The calculator did the math. If I misreported something, blame my eyes who could find the decimal point on my pocket calculator. A 10,000,000 X .50001 = 5,000,100 10,000,000 X .49999 = 4,999,900 B 10,000,000 X .50002 = 5,000,200 10,000,000 X .49998 = 4,999,800 Scenario B which represents a .00001 increase in vote count nets 400 more votes. Scenario A which represented a 200 vote differential. Therefore the doubling effect of going from a .001 margin to a .002 margin netted 200 additional votes... a 2Xmandate in your book. and We don't all know the reference you had in mind. I generally thought you were referring to something coming out of the Rove camp, but I had no specific scenario in mind. If you mean something specific, it is best to specify. I think I demonstrated how the math works. I think the mandate language comes from an unexpected victory rather than any narrow margin of victory. Remember, Kerry/Edwards was supposed to waltz right into the White House. My numbers were not nonsensical. I stuck to your strict "doubling" suggestion. Is .001 X 2 NOT .002? I did no spinning; I did math. Can I go out for recess now? As soon as I recognized my mistaken interpretation of your reference I pointed it out. My blunders were not blunders at all. .50001 X 10,000,000 is what it is. Actually you blundered by converting it to .501 which is not what I suggested. You suggested 1 and 2% margins of victory; I suggested .001 and .002. Your rule of thumb suggested that either of those increased margins in victory would double the mandate. I question that conclusion. Am I still not meticulous? Your rush to judgement blinded you, I guess. Why can't we discuss and debate without mocking? I am not above lowering myself to the level of the discussion but I rarely initiate the stooping.
Without attempting to say I haven't been guilty in the past of saying something like, "With all due respect, (fill in the blank) that is just a load of crap!" ...or something like that, when irritated enough by someone's obstinancy, you could have phrased your disagreement with giddy in another way. "I beg to differ! You may have overlooked... " You think what?? Clearly you are misinformed." "Wake up and smell the coffee!" "With all due respect... did you get your beauty sleep last night?" And so on. The possibilities for another way of stating your disagreement, short of dumb and dumbness, which giddy clearly feels is uncalled for, are there. It may require typing a extra word or three, but avoids a definitive judgement on giddy's mental capacity, which he finds offensive. (Your momma!! works for some folks, but seems déclassé from where I sit) Keep D&D Civil.
deckard, I appreciate your intervention, but could you state it more strongly? I think anyone would resent having dumbness assigned to them... wouldn't you? At any rate, my argument is correct (pending wnes' rebuttal ). I admit that I haven't done math in years, but these calculators are wonderful tools. <b>Keep Liberals civil</b>... oh, I'm in trouble now!!!!!!!!
A mandate is an authority to command given to a representative by "the people". It has nothing to do with an unexpected victory and is indirectly related to margin. Cheney/Republican invoked it because Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, leading people to say he won but didn't have a mandate. 2004 comes around and he gets the largest number of votes ever and so that side then said - "see - mandate".
giddy, I spoke out in your defense... what would you have me do? OK. WNES, CUT IT OUT!!!!! Now, I've been called a traitor to my country here, by members praised by the likes of Sir Jackie, and conservatives, for the most part, stayed silent. To be fair, certainly not all. And I'm supposed be get exercised about "dumb and dumber?" Seriously, I think wnes shouldn't have used the language, and should issue an apology, but it's not my job! My job is to point out how stupid, radical, and extreme Bush and the Republican Congress is. Keep D&D Civil.
How much can one expect from an old hippie? I appreciate your speaking up; I just thought you could be more to the point with wnes. You are right; I have not come to your (liberal) defense in the past. I will try to do better from here on out. I do put a value on civility and do a pretty good job of adhering to it. Whle some of the main offenders (T_J, bigtexx) seem to be gone, you never know from where the offensiveness will erupt. "If not me, who? If not now, when?"
A few points... Math makes my head hurt. All politics is local except when its not. Lieberman is not a moderate Democrat. I don't see Rove, Hannity, and others of that ilk going out of their way to play up other moderate Dems in the interest of civility. The whole purpose of the Texas redistricting was to do away with moderate Dems. The whole purpose of many of the forced votes since Bush became Presiden is to stick it to moderate Dems... see Max Cleland. The way the House of Representatives have been run (only bills that have a majority of support from Repubs will be allowed on the floor) is to further polarize the political process. So, it's obvious that the folks running the Republican party now see an advantage to having Lieberman pursue the course he is taking... most likely in the hopes that his campaign allows the GOP reps to sneak by while the attention is on Lieberman-Lamont. (Note: I like Chris Shays... he's a good guy, I played basketball with him a few times when I lived in DC, and he's not a complete sellout... still, I'd be happy to see him go because anyone that votes for the current House leadership and allows the Congress to forfeit its Constitutional duty deserves to go.) Lieberman is not a particularly smart politician or his ego has forced his political smarts into the closet. He's really turned into a pathetic figure who will be forced to exit public life under less than stellar circumstances... he will not be loved by either Dems or Repubs.
Sorry giddy, but once again you showed you still haven't "woken up and smelled the coffee." [THANKS Deckard!!] First, .001 is the same as 1 thousandth, which is 1 tenth of 1%. These are rigid math terms NOT subject to different interpretations. Second, I never denoted 1% margin of victory to .501 (over .499) [In case you are wondering, I did say 1% margin of victory is 51%], so you are misquoting me again, purposedly or otherwise. Regardless, there is no sense at all whatsoever when you say .001 increased margin of victory is .50001 (over .49999) but 1% (aka .01) increased margin of victory is .501 (over .499). Third, as rimbaud wisely pointed out, "mandate" is indirectly related the margin of victory. The sheer raw votes obtained by one side are utterly meaningless if you take into NO consideration of the votes the other side gets. Here's what you said in post #104: "A slight increase in the margin does not double the mandate. Would a .001 margin of victory increased to .002 double that mandate as well? Doubling the raw vote count might double the mandate [emphasis added], but doubling a small margin does nothing of the sort." So, according to you, if Bush's votes were increased from 62,040,610 (actual number in 2004) to 2 x 62,040,610, or 124,081,220, and Kerry's votes got similarly inflated from 59,082,111 to 118,056,222, Bush's mandate might be doubled (never mind the percentage of vote count difference is still the same)?? Fourth, if Cheney had the audacity to claim mandate on the ".001 margin," so do I, with the .002 margin. OK the margin was 1% (aka 51% of popular votes), but it really doesn't matter what the exact number was, because Lamont's victory margin over Lieberman simply (almost) doubles Bush's margin of victory over Kerry. That's the gist of all the BS so far. Maybe I overestimated your political savvy -- for which I apologize -- as I suppose you understood perfectly what I meant by (Cheney's) mandate. Nonetheless, no "un-misinformed" (THANKS Deckard again!!) person in 2004, including Republican, Democrat, or Nader supporter, would say Kerry/Edwards was supposed to "waltz" into the White House. All the signs suggested the opposite, that is, a tight presidential race that could possibly go down to the wire. With all due respect [THANKS Deckard one more time!!], I don't think you did. I am afraid not. [No credit to Deckard this time] Maybe maybe no. See I am raising my level up to yours (well, at least Deckard's) in this post. How's that? That's up to you.
