If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign
Grey Satterfield wrote:
On 8/23/06 5:52 AM, in article , "Jack Linthicum" wrote: The [Lieberman Web] site crashing is due to cronyism. They dropped a full fledged operator using a dedicated server for some friend of a campaign manager who wanted to help his buddy and save a few bucks. All the polls now show the race as nearly dead-heat, 44 Liberman 42 Lamont last I saw. The poor schmuck Republican has enough baggage to fill a 747 and still he wanders onto cable TV like he had a chance. Interesting. If that's what happened, it certainly makes sense. Sending out amateurs to do the work of professionals is a recipe for disaster. Grey Satterfield Either way, publicly accusing someone of sabotage without a shred of evidence is a recipe for slander. John Mullen |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign
John P. Mullen wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article , "Jack Linthicum" wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/23/06 8:40 AM, in article ps.com, "Jack Linthicum" wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/22/06 9:56 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen" wrote: Well, I don't see him winning. Blaming Lamont for his website crashing is, to say the least, uncool and not the behavior one would expect of a seasoned legislator. Last I heard, he hasn't apologized, either. He's not yet on the ticket. I hear his is doing OK with the signatures, getting about 80% valid, but there is still the matter of the petition circulaters. They must be registered voters in Connecticut. That will be harder to check, but if he used out of state help, he probably won't make the cut. And, his recent public statements don't seem to be helping. According to the article below, he has gone from leading Lamont by 10 points to a statistical tie in just one week. The issue is very much in doubt and Lieberman could certainly get beat again, although I think his chances are better than John seems to believe they are. It looks as if it is going to be a very close election. Grey Satterfield Close is the only way Joe can win, the state is 24% Republican, 33% Democrat and 43% independent. He needs many people who don't care one way or another about the war and his closeness to the Republicans, and those will be hard to come by. http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/ Yep. I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece, "Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so, it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate, who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast. Grey Satterfield The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split. Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it didn't do that. Grey Satterfield Eh? The first line of the lead paragraph is, "Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont are in a statistical tie in the race for United States Senate in Connecticut." Because of the margin of error, they are, in fact, tied. The poll estimates the true proportion by use of a sample and if a difference is within the margin of error, it is considered a tie, not a statistical tie, because there is no statistical evidence that it is not a tie. Putting it another way, any result of statistical sampling is statistical in nature. Even a lead of ten points is "statistical," because we do not know the true population and it could be very different. Millions of young soybean plants would give their all to print the redundant word "statistical" in every published report of any statistical result were to be added. Statistically yours, John Mullen No statistics were harmed in the generation of this email. And another example of how a certain political bent keeps people with that philosophy from actually reading 'anything' for content. Comprehending and understanding is, of course, never a possibility. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign
On 8/23/06 7:43 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/23/06 5:52 AM, in article , "Jack Linthicum" wrote: The [Lieberman Web] site crashing is due to cronyism. They dropped a full fledged operator using a dedicated server for some friend of a campaign manager who wanted to help his buddy and save a few bucks. All the polls now show the race as nearly dead-heat, 44 Liberman 42 Lamont last I saw. The poor schmuck Republican has enough baggage to fill a 747 and still he wanders onto cable TV like he had a chance. Interesting. If that's what happened, it certainly makes sense. Sending out amateurs to do the work of professionals is a recipe for disaster. Either way, publicly accusing someone of sabotage without a shred of evidence is a recipe for slander. John Mullen It appears that the facts have not yet been definitively established. I assume that the investigation will get to the bottom of the debate. Until then, it would be a good not to get to righteous either way, it seems to me. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign
On 8/24/06 5:43 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum" wrote: John P. Mullen wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article , "Jack Linthicum" wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/23/06 8:40 AM, in article , "Jack Linthicum" wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/22/06 9:56 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen" wrote: Well, I don't see him winning. Blaming Lamont for his website crashing is, to say the least, uncool and not the behavior one would expect of a seasoned legislator. Last I heard, he hasn't apologized, either. He's not yet on the ticket. I hear his is doing OK with the signatures, getting about 80% valid, but there is still the matter of the petition circulaters. They must be registered voters in Connecticut. That will be harder to check, but if he used out of state help, he probably won't make the cut. And, his recent public statements don't seem to be helping. According to the article below, he has gone from leading Lamont by 10 points to a statistical tie in just one week. The issue is very much in doubt and Lieberman could certainly get beat again, although I think his chances are better than John seems to believe they are. It looks as if it is going to be a very close election. Grey Satterfield Close is the only way Joe can win, the state is 24% Republican, 33% Democrat and 43% independent. He needs many people who don't care one way or another about the war and his closeness to the Republicans, and those will be hard to come by. http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/ Yep. I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece, "Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so, it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate, who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast. Grey Satterfield The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split. Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it didn't do that. Grey Satterfield Eh? The first line of the lead paragraph is, "Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont are in a statistical tie in the race for United States Senate in Connecticut." Because of the margin of error, they are, in fact, tied. The poll estimates the true proportion by use of a sample and if a difference is within the margin of error, it is considered a tie, not a statistical tie, because there is no statistical evidence that it is not a tie. Putting it another way, any result of statistical sampling is statistical in nature. Even a lead of ten points is "statistical," because we do not know the true population and it could be very different. Millions of young soybean plants would give their all to print the redundant word "statistical" in every published report of any statistical result were to be added. Statistically yours, John Mullen No statistics were harmed in the generation of this email. And another example of how a certain political bent keeps people with that philosophy from actually reading 'anything' for content. Comprehending and understanding is, of course, never a possibility. Now who's being "emotional"? "Give us the gift to see ourselves as others see us," indeed. Grey Satterfield |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign
Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/23/06 7:43 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen" wrote: Grey Satterfield wrote: On 8/23/06 5:52 AM, in article , "Jack Linthicum" wrote: The [Lieberman Web] site crashing is due to cronyism. They dropped a full fledged operator using a dedicated server for some friend of a campaign manager who wanted to help his buddy and save a few bucks. All the polls now show the race as nearly dead-heat, 44 Liberman 42 Lamont last I saw. The poor schmuck Republican has enough baggage to fill a 747 and still he wanders onto cable TV like he had a chance. Interesting. If that's what happened, it certainly makes sense. Sending out amateurs to do the work of professionals is a recipe for disaster. Either way, publicly accusing someone of sabotage without a shred of evidence is a recipe for slander. John Mullen It appears that the facts have not yet been definitively established. I assume that the investigation will get to the bottom of the debate. Until then, it would be a good not to get to righteous either way, it seems to me. We all know this Turk is some Communist Liberal Pinko Cater Clinton Kerry Clinton (gotta get Hillary in) symp with a hatred for Jewish Senators from Connecticut. Thenagain he may be a hacker who hits a vulnerable (that's a bull's vulva for Hines and Oilver) site and moves on. Joe2006 was on a server with 70 other 'clients' including a site selling guitars. http://rotophonic.com/ Day 17 in the Hunt for the Lieberman Hacker - Hacker already found August 23, 2006 Posted by rotophonic in : Technology, Politics, Joe Lieberman , trackback , bookmark in del.icio.us Joe2006I'm not sure what they're investigating, but the FBI probably isn't looking too hard for the person who defaced Lieberman's website. The hacker has already been found. Zone-h.org spoke on August 10th with a Turkish hacker who admitted to defacing Lieberman's site. Was this Turkish hacker working for Ned Lamont? Had he been enlisted by legions of bloggers to ruin Lieberman's chances? Not even close. Here's what Roberto Preatoni discovered: We tried to contact the attacker who disclosed that he indeed attacked Senator Joe Lieberman's website and defaced it, but being a Turkish guy, he really didn't have a clue about who Senator Joe Lieberman was. Being Muslim we asked him if his attack was anyway politically motivated and the answer was: "I did it just for fun". Being also asked if he was the coordinator of the Denial of Service attacks which have been effecting Senator Joe Lieberman's site he declared that what he did was just to deface the site, then moving to the next target. " Did you get that last bit? The hacker admitted to defacing the site, but simply moved on to the next vulnerable site in his list. As I reported before, this was no Denial of Service attack. I can vouch for the risks that unpatched sites running Joomla! run. After an automated scan of my server's pages on August 20th looking for mentions of Joomla! and the ext_calendar module (both terms would be found in that article), a computer based in Turkey attempted to load a hack onto my system. Fortunately, I'm not running Joomla!, and it certainly backs up the story that this was simply a random incident and Lieberman's site was defaced along with probably hundreds or thousands of others that day. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b...or_hack_attack CT-SEN: Lieberman Aide Acknowledges There's No Direct Evidence Of Lamont Hacking By Greg Sargent | bio I just got off the phone with top Joe Lieberman adviser Dan Gerstein, and he acknowledged to me that the Lieberman camp doesn't have any direct evidence that the Lamont campaign -- or Lamont supporters -- are behind the alleged hack attack on the Lieberman campaign web site. Gerstein reiterated the belief that Lamont "supporters" were behind the attacks, and said he wanted Lamont to condemn the tactic, but said: "We are not putting the blame on the Lamont campaign." Asked if the Lieberman campaign knew who was behind the alleged attacks, Gerstein said: "We don't." Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith has directly accused Lamont supporters of being behind it, adding: "If Ned Lamont has a backbone in his body, he will call on these people to cease and desist." And Gerstein earlier today said of Lamont, "Their supporters are doing these [attacks], we've demanded they get them to stop and they refuse to do it." But when I asked Gerstein if the Lieberman campaign any had evidence that Lamont backers were behind the attack, he didn't answer directly. He said: "Here's the thing. We are not putting the blame on the Lamont campaign...We think it's very important for them to put out a statement throughout the Net roots that they not only don't support these tactics, but want them to stop." I noted that the Lamont campaign Web coordinator, Tim Tagaris, had posted a statement disavowing any campaign involvement and calling on anyone doing the attacks to stop. But Gerstein said that still wasn't enough. "We asking it to come directly from Ned Lamont and that they aggressively circulate that statement." The argument the Lieberman campaign appears to be making, then, is that though they don't have any evidence that Lamont supporters are behind the attack, the candidate himself should demand a cessation of the attack from any supporters who might have done it. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001314.php http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/8/153827/3493 a list of those also on Joe's server |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign
"Grey Satterfield" wrote , "Jack Linthicum" wrote: John P. Mullen wrote: The first line of the lead paragraph is, "Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont are in a statistical tie in the race for United States Senate in Connecticut." Because of the margin of error, they are, in fact, tied. The poll estimates the true proportion by use of a sample and if a difference is within the margin of error, it is considered a tie, not a statistical tie, because there is no statistical evidence that it is not a tie. Putting it another way, any result of statistical sampling is statistical in nature. Even a lead of ten points is "statistical," because we do not know the true population and it could be very different. Millions of young soybean plants would give their all to print the redundant word "statistical" in every published report of any statistical result were to be added. Statistically yours, John Mullen No statistics were harmed in the generation of this email. And another example of how a certain political bent keeps people with that philosophy from actually reading 'anything' for content. Comprehending and understanding is, of course, never a possibility. Now who's being "emotional"? "Give us the gift to see ourselves as others see us," indeed. Nice riposte, Grey.... Now, with all of us reduced to the rational and clear as to the statistical nature of statistics, we'd best collectively admit that since none of us vote in Connecticutt, we'll have little to say as to who the winner in November is likely to be. We should also agree that polls and surveys, whatever their nature and intent, fall into four categories...the first and largest those which almost any fool could have predicted the outcome going in and which are taken for purposes of confirmation or to support the high incomes of pollsters. Second comes the polls which turn out, after the fact, to have been correct. These are the ones pollsters and political operatives post on their walls to celebrate their wisdom and foresight. Position number three is held by all those many polls and surveys which emerge as dead solid wrong. All involved work hard to forget these as soon as possible. Bad exit polls? Don't try to fix'em. Banning them is preferable. Pollsters who deliver the wrong results are equally consigned to unmarked graves as rewards for their inaccuracies. But even the best of pols and coprporations may fall victim to inaccurate polling/testing/surveying. Raised to imagine CocaCola's marketing department and strategizing to be first rate and cutting edge, would any of us have been willing to say early on that "New Coke" was worse than a bad idea. In last place fall the polls which reflect statistical or augury by internal animal organs (what actually happens in most polling shops) ties. They are carefully preserved along with the quaintly crafted legends of "Margin of Error" to allow those who created and took them to preserve some credibility. I once had a very stute political operative tell me that if "our side" commissioned a poll and it came out to be tied or nearly so, that meant we were way behind, for every poll, even those carried out be media-supported and non-partisan bodies, will be at some point, either in creation or in application, biased towrd a desired conclusion, and pollsters ineviotably create polls to reinforce the conceptions or misconceptions of those paying the bill. The state in question does have some tradition of electing both "Independents" (nominal, admittedly) and Party members (with distinctly model adherence to the public principles and platform of their affiliations). Our ancestors apparently distrusted the residents of the state enough to accord them the notorious "Wooden Nutmeg", awarded in a commercial vein, but likely a statement on loyalty and fidelity as well. But all the fooferaw of primary victories and party participation aside, the decision in November will be made by two groups, the first and vastly the larger, those who didn't vote at all in the Primary, the uncaring and the unwashed, but bestirring themselves on some bright Autumn morn to trundle off to the polls. Name ID gives Lieberman some edge in this bunch. The second group are those Republicans who view their own candidate as unelectable or unpalatable and cast ballots for another. Even in Connecticutt, Lieberman should far outpoll Lamont among this group. After all, Lowell Weiker (sp?) used to get elected based on substantial votes from members of the other party. At this point in time and probably until late the night of Election Day, none of us really know who'll win. With only two viable candidates, any guess we might individually make will be only half wrong, but in politics, half wrong is all wrong. I'd tend to give the edge to the smarter campaigner, the one able to uncover and exploit "pockets" of voters who need to be cajoled to the polls. One guess....If the traditionally Democrat minority voters turn out for Lamont, he'll win. If a modest portion of them support Lieberman out of loyalty/name ID, he'll win, as will he if minorities, seeing no real "stake" in the outcome, sit home or turn out in modest numbers. I've no "feel" at all for the smaller number of Hispanic voters in the state, but unlike African American voting blocks in many US states, the Black voters in Connecticutt seem far less "pulpit controlled" than in many locales, far less so than Chicago or NYC. I would expect to see more Black elected officials (especially the Senator from Illinois) on the Lamont campaign trail than the traditional faces such as the Reverend Jackson. TMO |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Lieberman to consider Iraq Pullout
Leadfoot wrote:
One, it's a little late and the timing is a little suspicious. Two, Joe might need a new job and he would be a leading candidate to replace Rumsfeld http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/...nate_lieberman Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot "walk away" from the Iraqis. snip And, on top of that ... Lieberman to consider Iraq pullout plan By SUSAN HAIGH ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker's proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ut_Senate.html What is real interesting is that the "fellow lawmaker" is a Republican who has been hammered for his support of the Iraq occupation and is now considering changing his stand. Ain't politics grand? :-) John Mullen |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Rumsfeld Must Resign | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 1 | May 13th 04 08:24 PM |
God Honest | Naval Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 04:45 AM |