Newt Wins South Carolina
Or
I Was Wrong
Whoa! Was I ever wrong.
As mac was quick to note first thing this morning! Thanks, mac! Ha ha!
Well, as Peirce says, there's nothing like a good, clear, unequivocal error to move inquiry along... So I prefer to think of myself as having advanced the discussion...
S. rex suggests that it might be because conservatives hate the MSM more than they hate adultery. That's pretty good. I've got no better ideas.
Or maybe...since the MSM reported it, perhaps conservatives think that it didn't really happen... I guess it doesn't count until it turns up on Conservapedia ("The Trustworthy Encycopedia").*
Admittedly, it seems to be he-said/she-said... I'm really just going on the fact that it fits into a Newtish pattern of douchebaggery.
But, anyway, the good news is that this will make the nomination longer and bloodier. I really want to see conservatism reap what it has sown, and see Newt and the psycho wing of the GOP put the party into a tail spin that ends in a burning heap of electoral rubble in November. It'd be poetic justice. Don't forget: without Newt, no Bush '43. Without Bush '43, no Iraq war. Without the Iraq war, good odds of a quick victory in Afghanistan We're talking about a guy who has harmed this country immeasurably. And we're also a party that will continue to use his destructive, scorched-earth tactics until they lead to electoral disaster. Policy disaster for the country has already happened, and won't do the trick. Until it leads to direct, prudential, political defeat, they won't eschew the strategy. And, hell, maybe not even then.
On the other hand, you see what my predictions are worth...
* Recent sidebar post on the front page of Conservapedia:
Or
I Was Wrong
Whoa! Was I ever wrong.
As mac was quick to note first thing this morning! Thanks, mac! Ha ha!
Well, as Peirce says, there's nothing like a good, clear, unequivocal error to move inquiry along... So I prefer to think of myself as having advanced the discussion...
S. rex suggests that it might be because conservatives hate the MSM more than they hate adultery. That's pretty good. I've got no better ideas.
Or maybe...since the MSM reported it, perhaps conservatives think that it didn't really happen... I guess it doesn't count until it turns up on Conservapedia ("The Trustworthy Encycopedia").*
Admittedly, it seems to be he-said/she-said... I'm really just going on the fact that it fits into a Newtish pattern of douchebaggery.
But, anyway, the good news is that this will make the nomination longer and bloodier. I really want to see conservatism reap what it has sown, and see Newt and the psycho wing of the GOP put the party into a tail spin that ends in a burning heap of electoral rubble in November. It'd be poetic justice. Don't forget: without Newt, no Bush '43. Without Bush '43, no Iraq war. Without the Iraq war, good odds of a quick victory in Afghanistan We're talking about a guy who has harmed this country immeasurably. And we're also a party that will continue to use his destructive, scorched-earth tactics until they lead to electoral disaster. Policy disaster for the country has already happened, and won't do the trick. Until it leads to direct, prudential, political defeat, they won't eschew the strategy. And, hell, maybe not even then.
On the other hand, you see what my predictions are worth...
* Recent sidebar post on the front page of Conservapedia:
The Economic Collapse blog reports: "In an absolutely startling report, the World Bank revised GDP growth estimates for 2012 downward very sharply, warned that Europe could be on the verge of a devastating financial crisis, and declared that the rest of the world better 'prepare for the worst.' "[3][Wow. Christianity requires guns and a getaway plan. I forgot that part from Sunday school... That last link is kinda worth clicking on just for the head-shake factor. Wow. These poor people are sad.]
Do you have the 4 G's? God, gold, guns and a getaway plan?[4] Please see: Resources on becoming a Christian
posted by Winston Smith at
9:25 AM
4 Comments:
Dude, you know what I wanna know? What percentage of the white evangelical voters are perpetrators/victims of adultery/divorce.
I bet it's huge.
If Statisticasaurus Rex can live up to his name, could he perhaps locate any data on such matters?
Not his area--but the Google say:
About 25%.
I don't recognize the source:
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released
If I was going to address this question, I'd probably use the General Social Survey (http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/). I'd want to build a multivariate model to control for other demographics that might be related to both the probability of being an evangelical Christian and of getting divorced. You could also use church attendance as a proxy for how devout someone was. It looks like Bradley Wright has done some of this, but I haven't evaluated that work.
Also, the main-stream-media comment was mainly intended as a joke. I have no professional insight into the SC primary.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home