John McCain is the candidate that Conservatives love to hate. The grassroots either despises McCain or at best say they wish McCain could inspire more enthusiasm.
Look around. There aren't any McCain signs. No McCain bumper stickers except Anti-McCain bumper stickers. No McCain buttons except a few that have been vandalized to say "Non-McCain" or "Not McCain".
Sure, there are a few die-hards out there who say that John McCain is a true war hero or some such notsense. There are many of his comrades, some of them men known to be honourable, such as Tom McKenney, who has stated that McCain is anything but a hero, and the worst possible candidate. Of course we feel sorry for what ever suffering he endured in 'Nam, but that makes him one of thousands, and we arent about to suggest any of the others as a Presidential candidate.
What must be the most troubling to the GOP, is that while voters continue to learn how unreliable and vacuous, and hence vulnerable, Mr. Obama is, McCain still continues to drop in the polls. Particularly the recent FISA vote by BHO, and BHO's waffling on the war has got some of his potential supporters upset. Some of us have long wondered if McCain isn't simply a cats' paw placed to ensure that Obama gets elected, much as was done in Illinois in the Senate race where Alan Keyes served a similar function. The amazing poll results for lackluster quasi-libertarian Bob Barr (even despite his appalling neocon running mate WARoot) indicates the seriousness of the displeasure with the "presumptive GOP nominee".
Even though some of the people can indeed be fooled all of time, it is hard to imagine how the best the GOP can offer us is an irresponsible Navy-brat flyboy who graduated 894th in a class of 899, and particularly at a time when we are entering in to a potentially devastating economic & monetary crisis, and escalation of interventionist wars.
"Panic Grips the GOP as McCain Plummets in Polls"
Uh....
See that red, downward dip there at the right-hand side of the graph?
That would mean that Obama's lead has actually been decreasing, for about the past two weeks or ten days or so, which is far from "McCain Plummets in Polls." Not a huge decrease - just a point or three - but Obama's lead is clearly decreasing.
So, far be it from me to be a defender of McCain's chances for victory in November - I don't really care for him as a candidate, and I think his campaign is a comedy of errors - but there's no way you can say that he's plummeting in the polls right now. In mid-June, that would have been accurate. But certainly not now.
For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race for the White House is tied. Sunday’s numbers show Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 43% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, the two candidates are tied at 46%.
McCain is now viewed favorably by 57% of voters and unfavorably by 40%. For Obama, the numbers are 54% favorable and 44% unfavorable.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
This is only one Poll but it is interesting but hardly shows McCain in a slide. I think if the Campaign can get it together and define Obama with the voters as just another flip flopping politician from Chicago Ill. a state with the most inept corrupt governor in the country McCain could win.
As far as signs go people put them up now as a personal preference but generally they don't go up until a month or so from the election, they tend to disappear in the wind. Most of the fight is going on it the more competitive states were really the polling is probably more important.
Well, sure, if you cherry-pick when you want to start the trend, you can show a decline. But a five-point swing over three months is hardly "plummeting." And you might have been able to make the claim a month ago that he was in serious decline. But not now, when he appears to be reversing the tide, even if only slightly.
As I've said, there are lots of legitimate reasons to criticize John McCain. His likely defeat in November is certainly one of them, especially given his apparent unwillingness to do anything to avoid that defeat. So I don't know why you feel the need to go the extra mile and stretch legitimate reasons into inaccuracies when it's clearly not necessary to make your point.
if you cherry-pick when you want to start the trend...
It doesn't matter where you start.
I provided an "introduction" and a link (did you click the link?) to the article by Lendman who quotes recent polls. I wanted to make sure there was enough info to support my point. I don't see it as overkill since the 1st thing that followed was your disapproval.
...the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll came out June 25 ... in a two-man race, Obama leads McCain by 49% to 37% ...in a four-man race (including Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr), Obama outscores McCain 48% to 33% for a 15 point spread...Most significant is McCain's "passion gap" among conservatives - 58% support him, but 15% are for Obama and another 13% undecided. In contrast, 79% of self-described "liberals" back Obama. Further, and equally significant, more than half (55%) of McCain supporters lack enthusiasm, and only 13% are "very enthusiastic." It's mirror opposite for Obama - 81% of his backers are "enthusiastic" and nearly half "very enthusiastic."
His likely defeat in November is certainly one of them, especially given his apparent unwillingness to do anything to avoid that defeat
McCain lacks strong GOP support. The biggest single problem with McCain is his apparent willingness to take the whole party down with him, because he is too cocky to admit that he is ruining the party past what has already been done to it (if that is possible, eh?). If he really was the man of Honour he wants us to believe that he is, he would concede before St. Paul and give the GOP a chance.
Further, if you believe in the GOP principles, you would have to agree that John McCain is taking the whole country along with him as he flounders and drags down senate and congressional, even local seats.
"I wanted to make sure there was enough info to support my point."
Well, there's not. And that's my point. A month ago, there may have been. But today there certainly isn't, regardless of what this-or-that national columnist writes.
"The biggest single problem with McCain is his apparent willingness to take the whole party down with him, because he is too cocky to admit that he is ruining the party past what has already been done to it (if that is possible, eh?)."
He won't take the party down with him, as so little of the party is actually supporting him. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has done and is doing serious damage to the Republican Party.
If this turns out to be a Democratic tidal wave year, it will be because of the President and the War and the Economy, not McCain. He's a bit actor in his own campaign.
No, no, no. McCain will drag many seats with him, and the GOP appears to be taking the supporting role as the willing participant, not the innocent victim.
If it were Bush vs McCain, who would win? As much as Bush is viewed unfavourably, I would wonder if he is not more popular than "McNasty" in a head to head.
It doesn't matter where you start.
Wow.
Let's see, I'll try to use your discourse tools to help explain this to you.
PLUMMET - To drop or fall rapidly or precipitously; to plunge down
Looking at the graph, I don't really see it dropping or falling rapidly. In fact, I see it increasing recently. If "it doesn't matter where you start," would you care to explain the trend line between 6/29 and 7/14? (By the way, those are the past two weeks...probably a better indication of whether or not McCain "continues to drop in the polls")
Looking at the data you provided, I'd say the "story" of McCain "plummeting" in polls is either an example of your affliction with the extremely rare red-blue colorblindness, or a "story" that was news a month ago.
Proverbs 18:2 - A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
That nearby stuff is just "noise", the equivalent of "static" or "hum". Go back and look at the graph. The John McCain candidacy exists to lose votes for the GOP.
Shorter Regnad Kcin: "When the numbers don't back up my claims as I said they would, then I will claim the numbers are just 'noise.'"
ip...if mccain's numbers continue to rise I will say that I was wrong about "noise". If not, I will say that you were wrong. Ok? Let's see what happens.
"ip...if mccain's numbers continue to rise I will say that I was wrong about "noise". If not, I will say that you were wrong. Ok? Let's see what happens."
Well, no. That only works if you want to pretend that I'm somehow predicting a continued McCain surge, which I'm clearly not.
The dispute is whether your description of McCain's poll numbers as "plummetting" is accurate. And, clearly, it is not, at least not at the moment at which you're making the contention.
Again: it's unnecessary to make up reasons to not support McCain, yet you keep doing it, and you stand by the made-up reasons when called on it. Why? Why not just stick to the thousands of legitimate reasons that exist for not supporting him?
<deleted duplicate posting>
Again: it's unnecessary to make up reasons to not support McCain, yet you keep doing it, and you stand by the made-up reasons when called on it. Why? Why not just stick to the thousands of legitimate reasons that exist for not supporting him?
If we can't get this for Obama, why would you think that we could for McCain?
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Whether they are "plummeting" or just "steadily sinking" depends only on the conceptualisation of time. I am pointing out that the minor fluctuations are relatively devoid of meaning and a better understanding is obtained by filtering out the noise, which is a legitimate way of looking at the data. But you know that.
Smoothing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In statistics and image processing, to smooth a data set is to create an approximating function that attempts to capture important patterns in the data, while leaving out noise or other fine-scale structures/rapid phenomena.
Well, no. That only works if you want to pretend that I...
Actually you were implying that I was misrepresenting the data by smoothing out the short term features.
Several authors had recently suggested that McCain might be overturned at St. Paul due to his lousy prospects. You used the short-term fluctuations in the data to dispute that McCain continues to lose ground. My point is that a major GOP loss is not a good thing, and thus drags the whole country down with him. It's ok to dispute that Republican principles are important to the country, but dont dispute my representation of the data.
Maybe you think that a major crashing and burning of the GOP will purge out the chaff and give it a new start?
I sometimes get the impression that you believe that it is all about (flim-flam aspects of) marketing and not about principles. But as the GOP loses its base, what is going to be remaining?
"Actually you were implying that I was misrepresenting the data by smoothing out the short term features."
Actually, I'm not implying it - I'm stating it flatly. To claim that any of the polling data shows McCain is "plummeting" is just obviously false. Yet you keep trying to justify it.
Here's another graph, which includes even more of your preferred "smoothing":
Nobody can look at that and say that's a candidate whose poll numbers are "plummeting." It's a steady series of swings of two or three points for both candidates over a series of 18 months. Not plummeting.
"Several authors had recently suggested that McCain might be overturned at St. Paul due to his lousy prospects."
So? The Ron Paul folks have been saying that since February 5. That doesn't make that sort of conjecture any more credible. Now, if you can find a story quoting large swaths of actual GOP delegates who are openly contemplating dumping McCain because he's currently trailing by an insurmountable 2.3 points rather than some blowhard know-it-all pundits with axes to grind, then I'll take it seriously. And I'm a blowhard know-it-all pundit, so I know one when I see one.
Until then, it's wishful thinking by people who (like me) wish we had nominated someone else.
"It's ok to dispute that Republican principles are important to the country, but dont dispute my representation of the data."
I would never dispute the former, as I'm a firm believer in that exact notion myself - I've been writing much the same on here for almost four years.
But I will always dispute the latter when you are misrepresenting the data as badly as you are here.
"I sometimes get the impression that you believe that it is all about (flim-flam aspects of) marketing and not about principles. But as the GOP loses its base, what is going to be remaining?"
I apologize that you've gotten that impression. You are unfamiliar with my long history of ranting, on this very site, that the GOP must stand on its principles - limited government, free markets, low taxation, strong defense, individual freedom.
It's one of the reasons why I find McCain so anathema - his only principle is that he always knows what is best for everyone.
I look at your graph and see the picture above.
You are saying that GOP delegates are going to see only the area
indicated by the arrow and the question mark and point to that as a McCain upswing and take heart, rather see it as a blip of "noise" as I do.
That is a reasonable interpretation, but I still think mine is more likely. We will see.
You are unfamiliar with my long history of ranting, on this very site, that the GOP must stand on its principles - limited government, free markets, low taxation, strong defense, individual freedom.
As some one pointed out a few days ago, perhaps obliquely or maybe tongue-in-cheek, you do come across as being slightly left of center.
Perhaps you had hammered principles so hard in the past that you dont keep bringing it up.
It's one of the reasons why I find McCain so anathema - his only principle is that he always knows what is best for everyone.
This is almost same way that I see him. I see him as having handlers who have him act like he knows what is best for everyone.
As some one pointed out a few days ago, perhaps obliquely or maybe tongue-in-cheek, you do come across as being slightly left of center.
:D :D
More evidence that the perceived center of the world is wherever an arrogant person is standing.
Xian, the Chinese thought and think, maybe realize, they are at the center of the world, it is still the Central Kingdom isn't it?
"You are saying that GOP delegates are going to see only the area
indicated by the arrow and the question mark and point to that as a McCain upswing and take heart, rather see it as a blip of "noise" as I do.
That is a reasonable interpretation, but I still think mine is more likely. We will see."
I think it is most likely that the GOP delegates - the vast majority of whom ran with McCain and/or are pledged to McCain because they have some preference for him - will not abandon him because of a series of two- or three-point swings in the polls, which is all we have right now. I hope they do, but they won't, and it's a fantasy to think that they will. Unless he's 30 points down heading into Labor Day, McCain is the GOP nominee. He has defeated Ron Paul, and everyone else.
"As some one pointed out a few days ago, perhaps obliquely or maybe tongue-in-cheek, you do come across as being slightly left of center."
That's because I'm polite to our left-of-center commenters, which is unthinkable to some of the people on here, and because I'm mostly a small-L libertarian.
If we add up all the people who were polled, are we even close to one percent of the voters? NO.
Yes, McCain is one of the poorer canidates the GOP could have chosen, however, it is GWB & Co. whose actions over the past eight years has assured the White House will not be housing a Grand Ole Party canidate in 2009.
The plot thickens, er, sickens.
that looks like "plummet" to me
Yep. McCain has dropped all the way from 44 to 40 over the course of three months, with Obama gaining from 40 to 44.
It's a free-fall, all right.
Oh, I can read the title on my screen. It says McCain 38.3%, Obama 47.4%, Barr 2.6%, Nadir 4.2%.
Doesn't look like a free-fall to me. It's an expensive fall.
And it is right on schedule as an extrapolation of this trend.
Try this:
Ack! He's plummeting! Look out below!
:-)
he may be plummeting, and he may get killed in a 48 state landslide general election, but there is no way he is going to get booted out at the convention
He is not plummeting, or at least he wasn't when the original post was written.
He may very well get clobbered in a landslide, as it appears that he's not even trying to run a competent campaign.
He absolutely, certainly, 100 percent will not be replaced at the convention. Heck, yesterday there was a story about eight Obama delegates switching to Clinton. Yet we've not seen anything like that with McCain (partly because there's not really any alternative), despite the repeated claims by Ron Paul folks that their man will somehow garner a majority of delegates in St. Paul.
Again, I wish John McCain wasn't our nominee. But he is. Absent some sort of unimaginable scandal, he will be in September as well.
Oh come on, IP....look at the facts:
Coincidince? I think not! These facts speak for themselves. RON PAUL!!!!11!!!1
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Oh I do hope Regnad Kcin keeps coming back, because I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.
"Oh I do hope Regnad Kcin keeps coming back, because I haven't laughed that hard in a long time."
:-D
Narc, don't worry. I think IP is to the right of you. Illinois Republicans can tend so far to the left that they are indistinguishable ideologically from Democrats, e.g. Topinka.
"I think IP is to the right of you. Illinois Republicans can tend so far to the left that they are indistinguishable ideologically from Democrats, e.g. Topinka."
What's your definition of "left?" Does it have to do with issues and philosophy, or to be a conservative do I need to buy into the absurd notion that Ron Paul will win the nomination at the convention?
Where do you rank the neo-liberals running Chicago? Daley looks pretty right to most in my community. I guess it's all relative.
It's too bad it's become this polemical. After all, poor blacks in Chicago have a lot more in common with poor folks in rural downstate communities.
And if Daley has his way, they will all be living their within a few decades...
Regnad-do you really think Topinka is on the left with the democrats? Why do you say this? Other than her view on abortion, which is currently the law of the land, what is it? I happen to know her pretty well since I was one of her children issue advisors as well as the County Chairman.
...rural downstate communities. And if Daley has his way, they will all be living there within a few decades...
Daley is on the left for sure. I am sure that Xian has never been to southern Illinois or understands how people live there...However, it's true enough that the north of the state keeps building holding pens in southern Illinois for the unfortunate ones the north continues to generate.
On July 17th, 2008 at 09:53 PM, John E. Maloney said:
Regnad-do you really think Topinka is on the left with the democrats? Why do you say this? Other than her view on abortion, which is currently the law of the land, what is it? I happen to know her pretty well since I was one of her children issue advisors as well as the County Chairman.
Judy Bar-Topinka is a sort of Nazi version of Hillary Clinton, the poster child for what is wrong with the GOP in Illinois today. Further, her legacy continues under empty shell Andy F. McKenna.
Mr. Maloney, making anything permissible by law has Zero relationship with what might be considered to be truly just. The founding document of these United States, the Declaration of Independence, tells all that all are created equal, and endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Seven men did, without the consent of the governed, overturn the Declaration as well as the 10th amendment and the constraints of inner truth to disenfranchise now millions of children who were murdered under an edict permitted by this government that was entrusted to protect their rights as individuals. *** But, if they slip by the knife that Judy favours...next stop is the DCFS Gestapo and the "hard knock life"..."Judy Baar Topinka champions the return of orphanages to Illinois. Legislation she drafted created the 14 member Interagency Authority on Residential Facilities for Children. Topinka calls orphanages an idea "whose time has come," and says "the issue is not whether there will be orphanages in Illinois. The question is how and in what manner." Orphanages are called for, she says, because the state "will never have enough foster parents." In a telephone interview conducted March 18, she said the bill that she sponsored requires orphanages — the job of the Interagency Authority is to determine how to implement them." Take the kids away from the parents and put them in the orphanage. Way to go, Judy.*** August 2, 2002
2/22/06:
State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka announced today her support for Center on Halsted by awarding a $10 million link deposit to assist the Center with its funding efforts. The Center will serve as a future community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons and serve as an anchor for LGBT cultural, recreational and social service programs. The Center is scheduled to break ground next year.
Judy Baar Topinka: Pro-Homosexual Activist
As she seeks to become the next governor of Illinois, it is crucial, now more than ever, that Illinois voters understand that Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka holds extremely liberal values that are contrary to those embraced by the vast majority of Illinois Republicans. In fact, Judy Baar Topinka’s pro-abortion and pro-homosexual positions are in keeping with the Democratic Party Platform—and opposed to the national Republican Party platform to which she would seem to owe allegiance.
"Judy Bar-Topinka is a sort of Nazi version of Hillary Clinton..."
The Log Cabin Illuminati must have drove you to this madness. They're so sly. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Judy Bar-Topinka is a sort of Nazi version of Hillary Clinton, the poster child for what is wrong with the GOP in Illinois today."
I am fascinated by your views, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....
Daley is on the left for sure. I am sure that Xian has never been to southern Illinois or understands how people live there...However, it's true enough that the north of the state keeps building holding pens in southern Illinois for the unfortunate ones the north continues to generate.
Hee hee
I am fascinated by your views, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....
Dear Mr. IP:
Thank you for your interest in the R3volution.
We regret to advise you that Dr. Kcin is not writing a newsletter presently due to the many pressing matters that demand his time.
However, he and some of his conservative libertarian-minded compatriots are considering the establishment of a website featuring articles by local writers, educational resource materials, and other items of interest at the local, national and cosmic levels. Now that we are aware of your sincere desire to gain more information, we are pleased to keep you apprised of new developments and opportunities for your participation.
Yours truly,
Lilian (Nancy) McGill
Secretary to Dr. Kcin.
"Now that we are aware of your sincere desire to gain more information, we are pleased to keep you apprised of new developments and opportunities for your participation."
Heh.
Glad to see you are pleased, always it is such a joy to see young men wanting to better themselves.
Young men? maybe a little.
Well, Dr. Kcin, I hardly know where to begin. First a disclosure. I was known as the Head of the Orphange Commission for Judy Baar Topinka. (1993-1997) In fact she modeled her orphanage after the orphanage at Boy's and Girls Town that the good father Val Peter was the head of. Another disclosure, I had the same number of votes on the so called authority as DCFS had. Now how about that. In reviewing your argument, I hardly think that bringing back an orphanage makes Judy Baar a liberal. In fact, the "Transition Committee" (which I chaired by the way) thought it would be a grand idea for older kids that needed to get the hell out of the ghetto before they were killed by stray bullets. By the way, it was Newt Gingrich that got pillared for the orphanage issue-are you against zoos too?
As for your right to life argument. I think you are correct that it was wrongly decided, but not for the reason that you think. The right of privacy was cut from whole cloth and has given rise to the most awful precedents that allow faceless nameless bureaucrats to hide behind this new found right. This having been said, there is at least some argument that procedures during the first trimester would be allowed under the freedom of religion. You see, some believe that life begins with the first fetal heart beat. If you read the whole opinion in Roe vs Wade, this was one of the arguments-which is-when does God give a child an immortal soul. When some go so far as to think that contraception should be outlawed- then both sides take polar views on the subject.
Pro-homosexual? Every pol in Chicago marches in that parade. You sound like the Dairy King, and that is not a compliment.
Oh, did I mention. Lincoln Challenge Academy is an orphanage under my definition.
Mr. Maloney - it is possible that you and I agree on a few things although you are more of a relativist than I am. I am puzzled at how your Catholic upbringing has brought you to a rather Rorty-esque post-modern worldview as compared with Bambenek's more absolutist/objectivist view (my perception).
Life doesnt begin at conception, rather by the union of a live egg and live sperm, life continues through the process of conception. Heartbeat has not much to do with being alive if you're just an embryo. Heartbeat starts before things get too big for exchange to occur by passive diffusion.
There are several possible scriptural arguments against abortion but even secularists oppose murder. Perhaps murder should be allowed as an extension of freedom of religion?
"Every pol in Chicago marches in that parade". I dont believe it. Provide some roll-call proof. It is still a measure of being pro-homosexual.
Obviously Topinka is pro-homosexual. Dairy King? Only Dairy King I know of is the occasional DQ knockoff.
The orphanage bit was to show her Statist attitude. I consider DCFS to be a Nazi-ist Gestapo-like organization of the Police State.
I have nothing against zoos. I would have difficulty discerning whether Topinka should be displayed with the monkeys or the reptiles, though.
"The Republican Party: In favor of smaller government except when it pertains to what other people do in their bedrooms, since 2500 BC."
Could Regnad Kcin and "Porno" Pete LaBarbera be one and the same? I've never seen them in the same place together...
I hope this thread continues. It's so entertaining!
As promised, I went back to Pollster this week and looked at the McCain vs. Obama chart again.
It's the same story...A steady increase for Obama, and a steady loss of favour for John S. McCain.
Those short term fluctuations are noise, the overall trend continues unabated by posturing, attack ads or anything else.
It's funny that you post that at a time when Obama's lead in the Real Clear Politics average is the smallest it's been in months.
I really think you should do more polling analysis. It's among the most entertaining things I've seen on here. I especially like your "trendlines."
Hey, you referenced Pollster so I referenced Pollster. Comparing Apples with Apples.
This one seems to be self-updating.
*
The noise in the system seems to be the 5-10, maybe15 percent of polled voters who are "loose and rolling around", dont seem to capable of making up their minds (if it could be said that they have a "mind" and use it) and can be swayed or polarized temporarily by a clever ad, a particularly ugly attack item, etc.
The steady downward trend for McCain indicates the growing displeasure with him. The original author seemed to think that the GOP might recover from its death wish but that is certainly uncertain.
Honestly, it wouldn't have mattered if it were pollster.com or fivethirtyeight.com (my current favorite) or RCP or anyone else.
When your statistical analysis consists of hand drawing a trendline over a chart, you can pretty much claim it says anything you want it to. And you do, although I notice you're no longer claiming McCain "plummets," and have even edited the headline of this post after it was discussed (in IlliniBoard terms, that's called a "chump edit," BTW).
Either way, you're convinced McCain is doing so badly in the national polls that the GOP delegates will dump him at the convention in favor of Ron Paul. Nothing I can say (and no polling analysis I can post) will convince you of the ludicrousness of such a proposition, so all I can do is sit back and wait six weeks and see what explanation you'll come up with when that scenario fails to occur.
Hand-drawing a line is a valid method of establishing a trend, but you know that. There are 2 methods. One method seeks to establish support or vulnerability by drawing through extremes and another method seeks to represent the central tendency of the data by drawing a line through the points. In either case, McCain's trend is for declining support, increasing downward risk, and lower average polling numbers.
Actually I expect that the GOP convention in St Paul could well be a railroad job to ensure an Obama win just as what the GOP did in Illinois to get Obama into the Senate. My point is that Republicans don't like McCain very much, and I thought it was interesting to see some interest in transitioning him out of nomination. I thought it was particularly interesting since the commentary was NOT coming from the Ron Paul camp.
I expressed the observation that McCain is going down in the polls. Plummeting, sliding downward, sinking. Take your pick. (I edited the title long ago, sorry you missed the intended humour) I still think he is plummeting like a rock into deep hole. That rock might hit the sides of the well every now and then, but the overall direction remains the same. John S. McCain is losing ground and the GOP loses ground with him which is not a good thing.
"Hand-drawing a line is a valid method of establishing a trend, but you know that."
It's certainly not any way to establish anything statistically valid. But it is certainly entertaining.
"My point is that Republicans don't like McCain very much, and I thought it was interesting to see some interest in transitioning him out of nomination."
I agree. I'd also love for there to be some way for McCain to lose the nomination. But I can separate my personal wishes from made-up statistical analysis to support a ludicrous prediction.
"I expressed the observation that McCain is going down in the polls. Plummeting, sliding downward, sinking. Take your pick."
Those verbs aren't equivalent, so it's not a matter of taking my pick. You made one claim, and when called on it, went back and edited the post.
It's certainly not any way to establish anything statistically valid.
Quote your sources on the invalidity of hand drawn trend lines. Start with Analytic Geometry or start where you like.
You are welcome for being entertained, I guess.
Those verbs aren't equivalent, so it's not a matter of taking my pick.
They are really are equivalent. It's your perception of time that seems to be fuzzified. See "Introduction to General Systems Thinking" by Gerald M. Weinberg.
Although I have thus far resisted disrupting this wildly amusing exchange, I feel obliged to state my strong personal preference for "sliding downward" or "sinking" as opposed to "plummeting," if it's something happening to me personally. A guy always likes a fighting chance.
Heh.
Notice, in this video, the illustration of the plethora of statistical noise, which otherwise detracts from Wile E. Coyote's
plummetingsliding downward to great bodily harm:Very good.
Wile E. Coyote dont look much like McCain but I had fun imagining he was McCain.
It was a downward trend interrupted by a series of unfortunate events.