Kerry -- WAY WAY OFF THREAD BUT INTERESTING.

Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences at
the time. Polls don't purport to show what the preferences will
necessarily
be in the future. Everyone understands that distinction, don't they?

You truly believe that those polls were accurate? You've got more faith in
pollsters than I do.

Or, I suppose, one could conclude that the polls WERE accurate, and that
those Democrats who supported Dean so strongly simply showed the loyalty of
a bunch of alley cats?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:4i6Yb.197204$U%5.1028608@attbi_s03...
Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences
at
the time. Polls don't purport to show what the preferences will
necessarily
be in the future. Everyone understands that distinction, don't they?

You truly believe that those polls were accurate? You've got more faith
in
pollsters than I do.

Or, I suppose, one could conclude that the polls WERE accurate, and that
those Democrats who supported Dean so strongly simply showed the loyalty
of
a bunch of alley cats?

Huh? How do you infer the strength of any individual's support from the
poll results? A bunch of people are asked to express whatever (perhaps very
small) preference they may have at the moment, well before the actual vote.
Is there some reason that such a preference should establish a debt of
"loyalty" that overrides future deliberations or developments?

--Gary

Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:4i6Yb.197204$U%5.1028608@attbi_s03...
Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences
at
the time. Polls don't purport to show what the preferences will
necessarily
be in the future. Everyone understands that distinction, don't they?

You truly believe that those polls were accurate? You've got more faith
in
pollsters than I do.

Or, I suppose, one could conclude that the polls WERE accurate, and that
those Democrats who supported Dean so strongly simply showed the loyalty
of
a bunch of alley cats?
--

Come on Jay..... Dean melted down right there in your state. That speech
that ended in the scream killed him. I had no doubt that he would have such
a melt down sooner or later. I was hoping it would happen after he had won
the Dems nomination. Maybe October or so.

Gig G

Gary Drescher wrote:

Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences at
the time.

Perhaps. A lot depends on how many people are polled and where. You have to get
the opinions of a good cross-section of the public. IIRC, that basically means
at least 4,000 people in a wide range of disparate places. I've seen results
published in which they interviewed 347 people at Times Square in one day. That
is not going to give you a statistically significant result of anything other
than, perhaps, the popularity of the businesses located there.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:9O3Yb.333342$na.490595@attbi_s04...
This newsgroup appears to be a microcosm of the nation right now. We have
a
small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead
over
Bush in the polls,

Probably wrong on all counts. It is just as easy to say that we have a small
band of left wing fanatics who are panicking over the fact that Bush
continues to lead in the polls despite all the media attention given to
Democrats right now, so they are attacking Bush's military record in order
to show that Kerry's record, at least, is no worse.

It all depends on who is doing the polls and how you interpret them. The
entire message from both sides seems to be, "Well, we don't care about
integrity or how anyone stands on the issues. What we care about is who is
the most popular man in the nation. The most important quality in a
President is popularity. Image is more important than substance."

Looks like I will be voting Libertarian again this year.

So they impose on newsgroups by starting multiple
off-topic threads, hoping that enough repetition will make their theories
sound less nonsensical. All in all, it's very entertaining and reassuring.

Sounds a lot like the Bush Air Guard threads.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Give it a rest, Big John.

Big John,

Try alt.politics - you'll find many a person to debate with there.

John Harlow wrote:

Try alt.politics - you'll find many a person to debate with there.

And for Bog's sake, don't cross-post it here!

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

Really not all that interesting. Yes, JFK is trying to model himself after
JFK, something he has been doing since he was a teenager. He is probably
using the same PR playbook that JFK did. You can find a very unflattering
portrait of Kerry on the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry web site if you
are interested in that sort of thing.

What would be interesting would be Kerry's (or any candidate's, for the
matter) opinion on issues relevant to general aviation -- security, the
aviation trust fund, airport conservation and protection, access to
wilderness airports, taxation, TFRs, the Washington ADIZ, international
travel restrictions, etc. So far the various candidates have treated
aviation the way they always have, as something that is only of interest to
a tiny minority of people. Why risk having an opinion that might offend a
significant portion of the electorate simply to let pilots know what you
think? (It would also be interesting if Kerry managed to hold an opinion on
anything for longer than five minutes, but that is also off topic.)