Skip to comments.
Tancredo endorses Oberweis for (R) Ill Senate
self
| 03/09/04
| chicagolady
Posted on 03/09/2004 7:50:04 AM PST by chicagolady
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: JohnnyZ
You have forgot the basic tenet of illinois politics, if you don't belong to the daley mob,you don't get ahead, capice.
Why the heck do you think fitzgerald was sent to washington, instead of going after the daley mob?
21
posted on
03/09/2004 8:46:51 AM PST
by
dts32041
( "Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.")
To: m1-lightning
I'd also like to know how a US Senator has any relation to investigating fraud committed by a state level political official in Illinois. US Senator traditionally selcts US Attorney for home state that is appionted by President, e.g Peter's selection of Patrick Fitzgerald. US Attorney is in charge of investigating state/municipal corruption.
22
posted on
03/09/2004 9:11:38 AM PST
by
TheRightGuy
(ERROR CODE 018974523: Random Tagline Compiler Failure)
To: TheRightGuy
I understood that. I don't understand this: Georgie isn't in jail today because fitzgerald has been pulled to DC to investigate the CIA leak.
23
posted on
03/09/2004 9:25:11 AM PST
by
m1-lightning
(God, Guns, and Country!)
To: m1-lightning
I understood that. I don't understand this I suppose the original poster feels that "out-of-sight = out-of-mind" and that US Attorney's office will fall back into its own look-the-other-way mode so long as Patrick Fitzgerald remains in Washington on the CIA leak assignment. It's one conspiracy theory that makes almost makes sense ;^)
24
posted on
03/09/2004 9:42:23 AM PST
by
TheRightGuy
(ERROR CODE 018974523: Random Tagline Compiler Failure)
To: TheRightGuy
I remember Jim Ryan mentioning that the FBI should get involved with the investigation. However, the Dems wouldn't bite. If they would have taken his advice to begin with, then there wouldn't be any of these conspiracies.
25
posted on
03/09/2004 10:06:20 AM PST
by
m1-lightning
(God, Guns, and Country!)
To: unspun
Thanks unspun!
To: July 4th
Great POLL story in todays Suntimes
Few pluses, many minuses to early poll-watching
March 9, 2004
BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement
Just three months ago, the media were all but ordaining former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the Democratic presidential nominee -- and we had the polls to back us up.
"Word that Howard Dean is picking up the endorsement of ... Al Gore came as Dean was already moving into a clear lead over his rivals," reported USA Today on Dec. 9, 2003.
" 'This is the first time in our national polling that we've seen Dean pull ahead,' said Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll. He said some of the other candidates, notably Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, show 'rapid sinkage.' "
Rapid sinkage? I think Mike Ditka can help with that.
But that December poll did indicate that Kerry was toast. He had 7 percent support from likely Democrat voters, putting him just two percentage points ahead of Carol Moseley Braun and four points ahead of Al Sharpton. And that's with a margin of error of +/- 5 percent.
Fast forward to March 2004. Kerry's the sure nominee and Dean's at home. As the saying goes, Dean was doing great in the race until it was time for people to actually start voting.
That's the thing about those polls: they're kind of a racket.
Of course, the pollsters will tell you they're not in the prediction game, they're in the windsock game. These surveys aren't designed to tell us who's going to win; they let us know which way the political breeze is blowing at any given moment. And because the media love to report on elections as if they're horse races, we breathlessly give you the results of the polls week after week. So from now until November, you'll be hearing story after story that goes something like this:
"In the latest poll results, Democratic contender Joe Candidate has surged ahead of Republican Senator Molly Incumbent.
"Thirty-eight percent of registered voters who didn't hang up on the pollsters said that if the election were held today and they weren't late for work and it wasn't raining, they'd vote for Joe Candidate, primarily because he was so funny on 'Conan' the other night.
"Thirty-four percent said they prefer Molly Incumbent, 20 percent are undecided and eight percent said they had never heard of either candidate but did know the names of all the remaining contestants on 'The Apprentice.'
"The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus five percent."
Filling in the margins
Let's examine that whole "margin of error" thing. Does "plus or minus five percent" mean Joe Candidate might have only 33 percent of the vote, while Molly Incumbent could have as much as 39 percent? Or does it mean the 4 percent differential, when coupled with the five percent margin of error, means the race is the dreaded "statistical tie"?
I love that term, "statistical tie." As opposed to what, an artistic deadlock?
Beyond that, doesn't the phrase "margin of error" imply there's a way of checking the poll against a survey of, like, everybody?
To: raloxk
With all due respect, ALL of IL is NOT a cesspool - ONLY those 'urban' areas controlled by the socialists, er, demoncRATS, like Crook County, er, Cook County.
Granted RINOs like ex-gov George Ryan are compliciant in the rampant corruption, but he and his cronies will soon be all in a Fed prison. It'll take time to 'clean house', but it will get done.
28
posted on
03/10/2004 6:11:02 AM PST
by
Condor51
("Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments." -- Frederick the Great)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson