Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.
--snip

So... let me try to understand. Election not a slam dunk in your opinion, maybe indicating an evenly divided electorate.

Most people already decided, maybe indicating little change in the current state of mind of the electorate.

then...

Polls put McCaskill far behind, maybe indicating a wide margin of victory for Akin since McCaskill's behind.

See? How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.

Furthermore, McCaskill is not "far behind" in the polls according to my research. She's ahead.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.

The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.

Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.

Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.

We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.

Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.

Akins only made it interesting.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.

Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.

Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.

We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.

Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.

Akins only made it interesting.

You're not originally from this planet, are you?

I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion. It is clear to me that we have dramatically different standards of proof, of cheapshots, of English, of the concept of linear, sequential time... that kind of stuff.

You've failed to convince me, or instruct me, or persuade me. There's been a bit of aggravation and a bit of amusement, but I've got better things to do than to teach you to sing. I withdraw from the field of debate. See ya!

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion.

I never expected to convince you of anything when 1) you deny published and summarized research, 2) makes denials without every having learned any of this stuff, and 3) attack phrases because you cannot dispute the concept, and 4) reply only with insults such as calling me 'dumb'. I had to confirm this was not UG.

Meanwhile, interesting that McCaskill has increased her polls by 15%. A major shift in any election. Implies MO does have a higher percentage of moderates. Also curious why such a major change did not get reported in any of my information sources.

In some polls, this race is still close. Just wondering is this one could become a barometer for national results now that exposed extremist rhetoric might have created a backlash against soundbytes reasoning.