Our nominee is probably getting stuck in a pincer attack

[kiahzero]

So, either Edwards or Kerry is going to be our nominee. Sorry Kucinich and Sharpton supporters, the delegate count doesn't look too favorable for your guys. The voters have spoken, and these two candidates are the ones that are doing the best.

So, whoever locks up the nomination, which could be as early as Super Tuesday, will have to fend off attacks from the Bush Administration. These attacks will likely be that Kerry or Edwards is a class-warrior, is pro-abortion, and is a tax & spend limosuine liberal. I probably missed quite a few in there, too.

At the same time, should Nader decide he's going to run, which seems a forgone conclusion, the candidate will be fending off attacks from the left, that there is no difference between Bush and the Democratic nominee.

How exactly does one fight both? The fact of the matter is that you have to play to the center to win in the General Election. Right-wingers recognize this. They see the wink when Bush says he's a "compassionate conservative." Liberals, for whatever reason, seem to be unsatisfied when liberal candidates try to do the same. When our candidates move to the center for the GE, we crucify them.

So, now Kerry or Edwards will have to either ignore Nader as he leeches off progressive voters who learned nothing from 2000, or respond to his attacks and lose moderate voters.

The people spoke in the Democratic primaries; just because they didn't agree with the other candidates doesn't mean that they "deserve another four years under Bush" or any such nonsense. Bush needs to go. The Democratic nominee is the only one with hope of kicking him out of office.

[ibegurpard]

1. We wouldn't crucify them

If they actually didn't GOVERN that way.

[kiahzero]

2. This is not the voting record of someone just like Bush

http://archive.aclu.org/vote-guide/Kerry_J.html

Is it the best voting record in the world? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than what Bush will give us with four more years in office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22260-2004Feb7.html

But 20 years ago, in his first Senate campaign, Kerry talked a different language about national defense, denouncing President Ronald Reagan's military buildup and calling for cuts of about $50 billion in the Pentagon budget, including the cancellation of a long list of weapons systems, from the B-1 bomber to the Patriot antimissile system to F-14A, F-14D and F-15 fighter jets.

<snip>

Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate includes thousands of votes, floor statements and debates, committee hearings and news conferences. That long paper trail shows that, on most issues, Kerry built a solidly liberal record, including support for abortion rights, gun control and environmental protection, and opposition to costly weapons programs, tax cuts for wealthy Americans and a 1996 federal law designed to discourage same-sex marriages.

But there are exceptions to that generally liberal voting record. Kerry voted for the welfare overhaul bill in 1996 that President Bill Clinton signed over the vociferous opposition of the party's liberal wing; supported free-trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement that organized labor opposed; backed deficit-reduction efforts in the mid-1980s, which many other Democrats opposed; and was distinctly cool toward Clinton's health care proposal, which died after being pilloried as the embodiment of big government.

What a surprise - yet another examination of Kerry's voting record that points to Kerry being just left-of-center.

Then again, others see Kerry as quite liberal:

Although Kerry describes himself as a fiscal conservative and moderate on other issues, he ranked as the ninth most liberal senator in the National Journal's comparison of voting records for 2002. He ranked even higher -- more liberal than Kennedy -- on economic issues, although about the same on social issues and more conservative on foreign policy. Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, rated Kerry more liberal than Kennedy during the time they served together in the Senate, although by only 1 percentage point.

Perhaps you should re-examine the group think that "Kerry's Bush-lite?"

[Kenneth ken]

3. I will accept

your premise AFTER THE CONVENTION - if it turns out to be true.

Right now, only SOME of the voters have spoken.

Feel free to repost this then; since the first paragraph is WRONG, I'm not going to bother to read the rest.

[kiahzero]

4. So...

Describe to me in what ways the sample of Americans that have currently is unrepresentative of the total population? In what way is the first paragraph WRONG?

Just so you know, statistically valid surveys use between 1,200 and 1,500 people for their sample. Our sample size is much, much larger.

Since I'm not trying to get you to change who you're voting for in the primary (By all means, vote for Kucinich in the primary), would you mind reading the rest?

[Kenneth ken]

5. I don't care about "the sample"

You wrote, "The voters have spoken..."

I replied that only SOME of the voters have spoken; I stand by that assessment. Therefore, your first para is wrong, becaus eit is not 100% correct.

No, I don't much care for reading the rest of your thoughts. I'll worry about the GE after the convention.

[Mairead]

6. Do you know the difference between a statistically valid

sample and a collection of people who've chosen to vote in a caucus or election?

If you don't know the difference, then I would strongly recommend that you learn it. If you already know it, then how should we interpret your implicit claim that there is no difference?

[kiahzero]

7. Yes, I recognize the difference

My claim is that the statistically valid sample allows us to make meaningful, statistically valid claims about the population (the collection of people who've chosen to vote in a caucus or election).

Perhaps I should have phrased my statement: "The voters are speaking..." I believe Kucinich has 2 delegates, and Sharpton has 16 or so. Unless there is a radical difference in the 33 states that have yet to vote (and since my claim that the 17 states that have form a statistically valid sample is not disputed, this is highly unlikely), neither Kucinich nor Sharpton will win the nomination.

[Mairead]

10. erm, noooo, I don't think you do recognise the difference

Not if you're serious about "since my claim that the 17 states that have form a statistically valid sample is not disputed". What do you think I'm doing, if not disputing it?

The most fundamental of all requirements for valid statistical sampling is that the conclusions you draw by examining the sample must be valid for the whole population. Which means that the sample must be identical to the whole population, apart from the number of individuals involved. Therefore, the individuals in the sample must always be selected randomly so that all members of the population have an equal opportunity to be included in the sample. Voters are not selected randomly. They're self-selected, and primary voters are a subset of all voters, so there is no practical way for primary voters ever to be a valid sample.

[MoonRiver]

8. Give me a break!

The voters obviously want * out above all. I'm starting to believe that a ham sandwich could defeat this catastrophic faux administration. Kerry is the better candidate, imho, and has a huge groundswell of support. But if Edwards unexpectedly wins the nom, he will also take down the House of *. Slam dunk.

[Old and In the Way]

9. While not getting hung up on the current primary trend (and yes,

I agree that the results to date clearly indicate that Kerry will be our choice...but let's humor the people here who believe it's still a horserace), I think Kerry/Edwards should focus their message to the center and go for the moderates/indies who make up the voting middle. The progressives on the left will follow us...maybe crying in their teacups, but most are smart enough not to waste their vote on Nader.

Frankly, I think a Nader rerun is a joke, simply an old man who needs his ego massaged. Maybe he'll drag a few moderate Republicans to vote for him, but except for some 18 year old politically naive idealists, I don't think it will amount to enough to worry about.