Dems give up hope of 2008 Presidential bid?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2383247.shtml

Op

"Opus" wrote in message
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2383247.shtml

I love the presentation: Clinton, 45%, Obama, 28%, Neither one, 11%.

Call me silly, but if you take 45% and 28% out of 100%, "Neither one" would
seem to garner more like 27%. 'Course, I'm living in a fact-based universe.
:-)

(FWIW, no way in hell do I believe 45% of Dem voters prefer HRC. Thay have
*got* to be making that **** up.)

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
"Opus" wrote in message
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2383247.shtml

I love the presentation: Clinton, 45%, Obama, 28%, Neither one, 11%.

Call me silly, but if you take 45% and 28% out of 100%, "Neither one" would
seem to garner more like 27%. 'Course, I'm living in a fact-based universe.
:-)

(FWIW, no way in hell do I believe 45% of Dem voters prefer HRC. Thay have
*got* to be making that **** up.)

Joe F.

Man, I hate early overanalysis of elections. I always felt that the
analyses often swayed voters more than the issues.

In this particular one, however, I was too distracted by determining
when they chose to use the spelled-out numbers "three" or when they
chose to use the digital representation "3". Sometimes they even used
both in one sentence: "three in 10".

Aren't there guidelines for this type of stuff?

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
In this particular one, however, I was too distracted by determining
when they chose to use the spelled-out numbers "three" or when they
chose to use the digital representation "3". Sometimes they even used
both in one sentence: "three in 10".

I recently started trying to use voice recognition software (Dragon) for
writing reports. It's actually quite good, but that number thing can be
annoying. It seems to be programmed to use the spelled out version for
anything less than ten, so if I dictate "three in ten", it will transcribe
it exactly as you wrote it, "three in 10".

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
news:Bdmth.13182$pb7.2379@trndny09...

I recently started trying to use voice recognition software (Dragon) for
writing reports. It's actually quite good, but that number thing can be
annoying. It seems to be programmed to use the spelled out version for
anything less than ten, so if I dictate "three in ten", it will transcribe
it exactly as you wrote it, "three in 10".

This follows the style rule The Associated Press
promulgated (not necessarily first) before 1940.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On Jan 23, 3:24 pm, "Don Phillipson"
wrote:
This follows the style rule The Associated Press
promulgated (not necessarily first) before 1940.

Yeah, it's generally the convention I use in normal writing; but when
dictating an engineering report with a lot of numerical references,
it's inconveniently inconsistent.

Joe F.

riverman typed:
rb608 wrote:
"Opus" wrote in message
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2383247.shtml

I love the presentation: Clinton, 45%, Obama, 28%, Neither one, 11%.

Call me silly, but if you take 45% and 28% out of 100%, "Neither
one" would seem to garner more like 27%. 'Course, I'm living in a
fact-based universe. :-)

(FWIW, no way in hell do I believe 45% of Dem voters prefer HRC.
Thay have *got* to be making that **** up.)

Joe F.

Man, I hate early overanalysis of elections. I always felt that the
analyses often swayed voters more than the issues.

In this particular one, however, I was too distracted by determining
when they chose to use the spelled-out numbers "three" or when they
chose to use the digital representation "3". Sometimes they even used
both in one sentence: "three in 10".

Aren't there guidelines for this type of stuff?

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handou...eslnumber.html
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

riverman wrote:
Man, I hate early overanalysis of elections. I always felt that the
analyses often swayed voters more than the issues.

In this particular one, however, I was too distracted by determining
when they chose to use the spelled-out numbers "three" or when they
chose to use the digital representation "3". Sometimes they even used
both in one sentence: "three in 10".

Aren't there guidelines for this type of stuff?

--riverman


There are guidelines. Typically, you spell out numbers one through nine,
unless they are part of a unit of measure. Numbers 10 and above are
always used as numerals. Hence the three in 10. Numbers are spelled out
at the beginning of a sentence.

Tim Lysyk

rb608 wrote:

"Opus" wrote in message

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2383247.shtml


I love the presentation: Clinton, 45%, Obama, 28%, Neither one, 11%.

Call me silly, but if you take 45% and 28% out of 100%, "Neither one" would
seem to garner more like 27%. 'Course, I'm living in a fact-based universe.
:-)

(FWIW, no way in hell do I believe 45% of Dem voters prefer HRC. Thay have
*got* to be making that **** up.)

Joe F.



if she garners the nomination, the red state south will become a neon
bright crimson state south. folks down here don't give a damn if she's a
capable candidate. the visceral vibes alone kill her as someone who can
carry the south. imo, the dems only hope down here is for a new blood
moderate... i'll be surprised if she gets 25% of the dem vote in nc, but
the party machine and the general swell of humiliation, fear, and
disgust with bush politics and policies might surmount even such a
"wrong candidate" in nc. we'll see. i'm still on the obama train til we
get derailed...

"jeff" wrote



if she garners the nomination, the red state south will become a neon
bright crimson state south. folks down here don't give a damn if she's a
capable candidate. the visceral vibes alone kill her as someone who can
carry the south. imo, the dems only hope down here is for a new blood
moderate... i'll be surprised if she gets 25% of the dem vote in nc, but
the party machine and the general swell of humiliation, fear, and disgust
with bush politics and policies might surmount even such a "wrong
candidate" in nc. we'll see. i'm still on the obama train til we get
derailed...


I gave Obama a few of my hard earned bucks the day his Exploratory Committee
was announced. From what I have seen so far I can vote FOR him, not
against whoever else is on the ballot.

But I think his is an uphill battle.

As for Red states turning crimson ... on election day, once a red state,
even a pink one, it doesn't much matter if by 1% or 45% ... our system
simply isn't suited to a modern world where the electronic media powered
interaction of ideas leads to far less geographical uniformity of thought
than 200 years ago. Hell, I hear there are even liberals in North Carolina
now !! and I heard a rumor of one being seen in Texas.


It ain't going to happen, but IMHO we need both Instant Runoff Elections and
results based on the true popular vote, all voters matter not just those in
'swing states'.