Iowa Caucus

[Kung Wu]

I read your reply before looking at who you were replying to. Now that I know, did you expect anything different from him.

Nerd is my first and only "ignore". Now I know one more thing: Pay more attention to who posters are replying to.

Interesting, so since you ignored him can you see the text of his that I quoted, or only my response?

[DUShock]

Now that I think about it.... Republican voters are pretty embarrassing, too.

After this "Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, hey wait, SANTORUM!!!" debacle, it must feel kinda dirty and more than a little hypocritical to criticize Romney for changing positions on important issues. ;-)

Edit: Oops, forgot Mr Black Walnut, HERMAN CAIN and the CAIN TRAIN!

This seems to be a polling issue not a voter/electorate issue. The problem with polls is that it only deals with a very specific point in time.

[Wu du Nord]

TRUMP!!! I also forgot THE DONALD! It's worse than I remembered.

That's a bit disingenuous.

I should have put a winking smiley at the end of that. I thought the wording was sufficient to betray a joking tone. ;-)

You know there is a big difference between voters gathering new information on how politicians perform while stumping, versus the politician themselves changing their core beliefs. All you have seen is a large base of people with a fairly consistent ideology hunting for someone more in alignment with their belief system than the man with the most money. Looks like the man with the most money will probably win, as per usual though.

Unfortunately, that 'large base of people with a fairly consistent ideology' searching for their Prince Charming are on an ultimately quixotic mission. As has been pointed out numerous times (not here, not by me), not even Ronald Reagan could satisfy the discriminating tastes of that 'large base of people with a fairly consistent ideology'.

This seems to be a polling issue not a voter/electorate issue. The problem with polls is that it only deals with a very specific point in time.

Like elections, you mean? I don't track what you're saying.

[ShockTalk]

Interesting, so since you ignored him can you see the text of his that I quoted, or only my response?

I see his quoted text.

[DUShock]

Polling numbers before an election are subject to the whims of the sample at the time the poll is conducted. Polling is largely affected by the methodology and sample size which varies greatly from poll to poll. As we all know the only real poll that truly matters is when folks go to the ballot box or in this case a caucus room. If you are a political junkie and ever get an opportunity to travel to Iowa to witness a caucus I strongly encourage to do so it can be a raucous time.

[Wu du Nord]

Polling numbers before an election are subject to the whims of the sample at the time the poll is conducted. Polling is largely affected by the methodology and sample size which varies greatly from poll to poll. As we all know the only real poll that truly matters is when folks go to the ballot box or in this case a caucus room.

Are you tentatively suggesting that the radical swings between the GOP's front runners du jour have been the result of sampling error of a temporal nature?

If you are a political junkie and ever get an opportunity to travel to Iowa to witness a caucus I strongly encourage to do so it can be a raucous time.

The bits and pieces I've seen have been entertaining. Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to democratic process superiority rankings based on derived entertainment value. ;-)

[DUShock]

Are you tentatively suggesting that the radical swings between the GOP's front runners du jour have been the result of sampling error of a temporal nature?

No, but perhaps sample size and spatial modeling was limited and skewed results or quite possibly Iowa Republicans are a fickle bunch.

[Wu du Nord]

No, but perhaps sample size and spatial modeling was limited and skewed results or quite possibly Iowa Republicans are a fickle bunch.

Fickle Iowans are a more credible account than static (but heretofore unnoticed) Santorum support.

Yes? Yes.

Isn't that where I started?

[SB Shock]

Fickle Iowans are a more credible account than static (but heretofore unnoticed) Santorum support.

Why is it more credible?

[Wu du Nord]

Why is it more credible?

What would you consider evidence?

[SB Shock]

What would you consider evidence?

You made the argument, I'm just interested in what lead you to that belief.

[Wu du Nord]

You made the argument, I'm just interested in what lead you to that belief.

I am not a member of the tinfoil-hat brigade, and I, in all honesty, can't imagine what the point of claiming that 'Iowans secretly supported Santorum this whole time' could possibly be. Can you?

You asked for evidence, I just would like to know what you would consider sufficient evidence. It's a perfectly reasonable question.

If I say, 'the sky is blue,' and you say how do you know. I could show you a piece of cloth and say, 'this cloth is blue and it is the same color as the sky'. At that point, you could accept my proof, or you could ask how I know the cloth is blue. You see the problem? In the absence of previously agreed upon notions of proof, the bottom falls out of the whole discussion. I don't find you to be a particularly genuine or competent discussion partner, so I ask to see cash on the barrel-head before moving forward.

[SB Shock]

I don't find you to be a particularly genuine or competent discussion partner, so I ask to see cash on the barrel-head before moving forward.

Hello Mr. Pot

[Wu du Nord]

Hello Mr. Pot

Hello Mr. Bites-off-more-than-he-can-chew.

Do you like apples?

[DUShock]

Please pass the popcorn...