Duke to forfeit games to Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's

[Robb]

[quote billhoward]
The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.

If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.[/quote]
Sure, but that's not what she said.  All she told us is that she switched votes BECAUSE she didn't want to end up voting for a loser.  That's like cheering for the Yankees just because you like to be on the winning side (as frequently as possible) - for your own personal satisfaction.

If she'd said, "I wanted to vote for Bishop, but didn't think he had a chance to win and I strongly dislike Black, so I decided to vote for Nifong to be sure that Black lost," then I can understand that as a rational, reasonable position to take.

Of course, it's also extremely possible that that's what she DID say and the reporter just misquoted her...

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Robb]Sure, but that's not what she said.  All she told us is that she switched votes BECAUSE she didn't want to end up voting for a loser.  That's like cheering for the Yankees just because you like to be on the winning side (as frequently as possible) - for your own personal satisfaction.[/quote]


Well, then you'd only be in the company of about 50% of America ::rolleyes::

Note: I am not saying that Yankees *fans* are bandwagon, only the majority of people who cheer for the Yankees. A very different thing.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not surprised.

[WillR]

[quote billhoward][quote Robb][Q]"I wanted to vote for Bishop, but I knew he didn't have a chance [of winning]," said Lynn Fofanah, a black woman interviewed Tuesday moments after she voted. "So I voted for Nifong."[/Q]

This one's my favorite.  Way to make your vote count for something, genius!  Congratulations on picking the winner, though.  ::rolleyes::[/quote]

The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.

If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.[/quote]


Actually she isn't even pragmatic.  She may however be delusional.  Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count.  I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.  In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.

[Robb]

[quote WillR]
Actually she isn't even pragmatic.  She may however be delusional.  Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count.  I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.  In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.[/quote]
I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking.  I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%.  Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.

[WillR]

[quote Robb][quote WillR]
Actually she isn't even pragmatic.  She may however be delusional.  Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count.  I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.  In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.[/quote]

I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking.  I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%.  Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.[/quote]

I actually don't disagree with your line of thinking.  I was going to write at the end of my previous post to vote for who you want not to vote for who you think has the best chance of winning.  I will go vote in the next election, but i have a hard time imagining that Joe Candidate looks at the results, and my +1 contribution and takes away a much different view of the message the voters sent.    Still, on Wednesday he/she can look at the results and take away what they will from the numbers that my vote is hiding among.

[Ken '70]

[quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

[/quote]

Except he's not a politician, he's a DA.  There is a difference.

[nyc94]

[quote Ken '70][quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

[/quote]

Except he's not a politician, he's a DA.  There is a difference.[/quote]

No, when the DA is an elected position they become politicians.

[David Harding]

[quote WillR][quote Robb][quote WillR]
Actually she isn't even pragmatic.  She may however be delusional.  Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count.  I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.  In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.[/quote]

I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking.  I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%.  Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.[/quote]

I actually don't disagree with your line of thinking.  I was going to write at the end of my previous post to vote for who you want not to vote for who you think has the best chance of winning.  I will go vote in the next election, but i have a hard time imagining that Joe Candidate looks at the results, and my +1 contribution and takes away a much different view of the message the voters sent.    Still, on Wednesday he/she can look at the results and take away what they will from the numbers that my vote is hiding among.[/quote]We could bring the "My vote doesn't matter because there are so many other people voting" argument back home and say, "There are so many other people at Lynah cheering, my voice can't be heard."  But we do cheer, and the fact of everyone cheering is impressive.

[Ken '70]

[quote nyc94][quote Ken '70][quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

[/quote]

Except he's not a politician, he's a DA.  There is a difference.[/quote]

No, when the DA is an elected position they become politicians.[/quote]

Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics.  For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Ken '70]Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics.  For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician[/quote]

While the Wiki is a useful reference, I don't think its exactly a source that can be considered the end-all-be-all technicality dispute reference.

And, even if you did prove that members of the judicial system aren't *technically* politicians? So what? The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.

[ugarte]

[quote DeltaOne81]The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.[/quote]That hardly makes you the winner of the argument, Delta. Grandstanding may be expected of any politician but abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing. And you really should distinguish between "what voters have come to expect" and "what voters deserve." If Nifong doesn't truly believe that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute it is not OK in the context of an election.

[nyc94]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote Ken '70]Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics.  For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician[/quote]

While the Wiki is a useful reference, I don't think its exactly a source that can be considered the end-all-be-all technicality dispute reference.

And, even if you did prove that members of the judicial system aren't *technically* politicians? So what? The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.[/quote]

I don't see anything in the Wikipedia link that supports what you're saying, Ken.
"A politician is an individual involved in politics to the extent of holding or running for public office.
In Western democracies, the term is generally restricted to those officials who attain their position through election campaigns, rather than all members of the state bureaucracy."

[DeltaOne81]

[quote ugarte][quote DeltaOne81]The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.[/quote]That hardly makes you the winner of the argument, Delta. Grandstanding may be expected of any politician but abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing. And you really should distinguish between "what voters have come to expect" and "what voters deserve." If Nifong doesn't truly believe that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute it is not OK in the context of an election.[/quote]

Hey, I don't know what Nifong believes or doesn't - and at no point was I attempting to argue or say that Nifong's behavior was appropriate (or wasn't).

I was merely defending Bill's point - which is what Ken was arguing:
[quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.[/quote]

I never meant to say it was appropriate. All I was doing was agreeing that its not surprising. And Ken didn't try to prove that it wasn't appropriate, All he tried to prove was the technical definition of politician - which, technically true or not, still doesn't make the behavior surprising.

[Ken\'70]

3rd paragraph, last sentence, "Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work."

If anyone has another authority to cite relative to who are and aren't politicians I'd be interested.  Wiki's conformed to my everyday understanding of the term.

[Ken\'70]

[quote WillR]  I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.  [/quote]

You never know when 1 vote counts.  One afternoon in '67 or '68 I was headed home from Cornell when, leaving campus, I remembered that a fraternity brother of mine was running for a student government position (could have been something called SCARB, but very fuzzy at this point).  It was late afternoon and I wasn't sure the polls were still open, and what a hastle to go back to campus, park etc.  But he was a good guy, and the smartest, hardest working fellow student I ever knew at Cornell, so I turned around and got to the Straight to vote just before the polls closed.  He won by 1 vote.  (FWIW, this is him http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/hadleybio.html )

But by all means, please stay home next election, it makes my vote that much more important.