Coons (D) - O'Donnell (R) Debate thread 7:30pm EDT CNN

10.13.10 | Perdogg

[maica]

Did you notice who wrote the article that you linked? A fellow at Center for American Progress and an editor of the New Republic. Apparently they co-authored a book called “The Emerging Democratic Majority.”

That has been a majority that came and went very quickly.

I don’t take anything they say as fact, even the time of day.

However, the world of a half century ago and the voting patterns related to it, have as much relevance to today as the voting patterns of 1910 had to 1960.

I don’t care how men or women voted in 1960. A different world: before “the pill” and before “The Great Society.” That was not the point of my replying to your post with the Washington Post link.

My point was that using those writers was not a credible source.

[ansel12]

LOL, get real, you don’t have a point.

You keep pushing that women did not vote for Richard Nixon in 1960 instead of JFK, but that is the undeniable fact, on the flip side men did vote for JFK in that election.

Every article that needs to use that information will, because it is accurate.

By the way, the voting patterns have not changed much over the 100 years that you mention, except for blacks, who voted one way from 1870 until 1932, and then suddenly and permanently reversed themselves in 1936.

[af_vet_rr]

I find it interesting to see how many are focusing on her single flub of the evening after she hit so many homeruns....

If you are going to go around complaining about judges legislating from the bench, then you should be ready to have an example or two.

[af_vet_rr]

When is their news “fake, or false”, you did not explain that.

Is a couple of airheads sitting around and sounding like airheads when trying to talk about the news actually news? Is Lindsay Lohan shooting up heroin really important news? Is some airhead actor sleeping around with some other airhead really news? I would hope that you just consider that stuff trash and sleaze meant to pull in the inbreds who worship Oprah and Jerry Springer and not actual news.

I consider Hollywood gossip or idiots giving their opinion on the news to be fake news. I hope you would do the same.

[af_vet_rr]

I guarantee you that if you spend an hour watching one of Fox’s “news” shows in the morning or afternoon and then take an hour to browse around Free Republic, you will learn much more from Free Republic. Freepers do a good job of filtering out a lot of the crap that makes it on the air.

[ansel12]

I don’t have television, so I don’t watch any of them. Since you have adopted the left’s attack word (Faux) against Fox, which they mean to be fake or untrue, I was curious about what great untruths you have uncovered during watching them.

If you don’t like Fox because you don’t like their format, or because of the stories they cover, then you can say it without using the word that the left is striving to attach to them as a brand.

[af_vet_rr]

I don’t have television, so I don’t watch any of them. Since you have adopted the left’s attack word (Faux) against Fox, which they mean to be fake or untrue, I was curious about what great untruths you have uncovered during watching them.

If you don’t like Fox because you don’t like their format, or because of the stories they cover, then you can say it without using the word that the left is striving to attach to them as a brand.

I'm not going to stop using a term or a word just because the left uses it. I got the term from Freepers and I think it fits. Fox spends way too much time obsessed with the kind of sleaze that only appeals to trailer trash/Jerry Springer/Oprah Winfrey watchers. If you can come up with a short and amusing phrase to describe what Fox News has turned into, then by all means do so.

I do believe you not having a TV means you're ahead of the rest of us. I don't think I could wean myself off of some TV shows, but I've cut out stuff like Fox and made more productive use of my time.

[Bigg Red]

I agree. This was a big mistake on her part. But, it was certainly the only one that I could see.

[ansel12]

Then you are using a word that the left created as a propaganda word against non liberal news, and that the left is trying to spread into the population as a branding label for Fox news, there is no excuse for that unless you support their goal.

[af_vet_rr]

Then you are using a word that the left created as a propaganda word against non liberal news

The fact that you are without a TV shows. Fox runs a lot of the same sleaze and airhead commentary that CNN and HLN do these days so I wouldn't exactly call them "non liberal" news, LOL. They may have blocks here and there where they run news that matters to real Conservatives, but they are certainly helping with the dumbing down of America.

and that the left is trying to spread into the population as a branding label for Fox news, there is no excuse for that unless you support their goal.

As I said, if you've got a better label for what Fox News has become these days, let's hear it. I don't know when they started going down hill. Maybe it's because they are run by a RINO, maybe it's because Murdoch brought in a bunch of investors from Saudi Arabia, who knows. I just know that a lot of their shows have very little substance, seem to exist to stroke the vanity of their hosts, and can't be left on with small children in the room.

If you have a better label for what they've become, trot it out for the rest of us.

[ansel12]

It seems over your head, go ahead and use your new word if you find it just too complex to deal with what I pointed out to you.

[af_vet_rr]

It's not over my head, it's that I'm not going to let the left define what I say. I picked up the phrase from a Freeper, and those of us who have watched Fox go downhill know exactly what we mean when we use it. What's really bad is that the sleaze is not confined to the broadcast Fox network or Fox News, the sleaze even occasionally makes its way onto the Fox Business channel.

If you have a better phrase to describe what Fox News has become, share it.

[Zeppo]

I know that google news claims that their selection of articles and headlines is done by machine, with no human intervention, the following screenshot makes me wonder (I visited the linked page for the big headline, and could find no immediately-apparent reason for associating the headline with any story about O'Donnell):

[seekthetruth]

There is no “D” in November! I, for one, will remember that and vote “R” on November 2, 2010!

[maica]

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: STRATEGIES AND STRUCTURES OF AMERICAN POLITICS

Page 26

This page from google books has a very comprehensive table on the male-female GOP-Dem voting percentages for every presidential election from 1960 onward. The numbers are very interesting. In 1960 women voted 51%GOP, 49%Dem. That is what could be called a margin of error. It certainly is not a significant difference, although you are correct. Women voted in a higher percentage for Nixon.

I wasn't pushing any position about the Nixon-Kennedy election. I replied to your original comment that I personally do not use the Washington Post to validate any point that I make on this or any forum.

I wrote that I was for Nixon and my friend was for Kennedy to give you some idea that I was old enough to be aware of the political scene in 1960. Where we went to school I was a marked minority in my Nixon preference, but that could have been because it was a Catholic school.

[ThermoNuclearWarrior]

You don't have to donate to Christine O'Donnell's campaign, but frankly it's ridiculous for you to have already written her off. She has a very good chance of pulling this out. It's people with your attitude who let races slip away. Look at how many close races we have at the moment that were never expected to even be competitive for our side. Also donating money to a campaign isn't the only way you can support a candidate and help them to victory.

O'Donnell Gains 8 Says Rasmussen; Hannity Appearance Helps

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/15/odonnell-gains-8-says-rasmusse

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608377/posts

O’Donnell Outpaces Coons in Fund-raising (2 to 1)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/15/odonnell-outpaces-coons-in-fund-raising/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608447/posts

http://www.christine2010.com/

http://teamchristine2010.com/