Dems give up hope of 2008 Presidential bid?

"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)

jeff wrote:

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.


Point being that she won't be running against Bush. And whoever runs on
the other side will likely not position themselves in a pro-Bush
profile. So if the repubs nominate a moderate to soft conservative that
is not aligned with Bush, they'll likely pull enough anti-Bush red and
blue moderates to take the election.

HRC has too many skeletons and can't overcome her controversial
position. Even a favorable press would have a field day with her.
Obama doesn't have enough skeletons or track record even if he is on the
foreign relations sc. Ill. legislature experience isn't gonna cut it,
Chicago machine ain't what it used to be. He probably can't get the nod
at the convention.

So the dems will have to find somebody's favorite son or an also ran and
we'll have to put our weight behind that candidate.

xorbit wrote:
jeff wrote:
rb608 wrote:
"Opus" wrote in message

snip

snip

snip

snip snip snip snip *SNIP*

It's *JANUARY 2007*, goddam it.

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.

"JR" wrote in message
...
xorbit wrote:
jeff wrote:
rb608 wrote:
"Opus" wrote in message

snip

snip

snip

snip snip snip snip *SNIP*

It's *JANUARY 2007*, goddam it.

Yeah! Ain't it GREAT!

Op

"xorbit" wrote in message
...

Point being that she won't be running against Bush. And whoever runs on
the other side will likely not position themselves in a pro-Bush profile.
So if the repubs nominate a moderate to soft conservative that is not
aligned with Bush, they'll likely pull enough anti-Bush red and blue
moderates to take the election.

HRC has too many skeletons and can't overcome her controversial position.
Even a favorable press would have a field day with her. Obama doesn't have
enough skeletons or track record even if he is on the foreign relations
sc. Ill. legislature experience isn't gonna cut it, Chicago machine ain't
what it used to be. He probably can't get the nod at the convention.

So the dems will have to find somebody's favorite son or an also ran and
we'll have to put our weight behind that candidate.

That didn't stop the Dems from nominating Carter and Clinton. And I imagine
there are numerous other examples of candidates having no REAL presidential
experience, on both sides of the isle. What will matter to the Dems is the
public poll ratings of the out front candidate, IMMHO.

Op

xorbit wrote in :

HRC has too many skeletons

Yeah, for all we know, she's a recovering alcoholic with 3 DWI's

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

Opus wrote:

That didn't stop the Dems from nominating Carter and Clinton. And I imagine
there are numerous other examples of candidates having no REAL presidential
experience, on both sides of the isle. What will matter to the Dems is the
public poll ratings of the out front candidate, IMMHO.

Op

Both were governors, not freshmen senators.

"xorbit" wrote in message
...


Opus wrote:

That didn't stop the Dems from nominating Carter and Clinton. And I
imagine there are numerous other examples of candidates having no REAL
presidential experience, on both sides of the isle. What will matter to
the Dems is the public poll ratings of the out front candidate, IMMHO.

Op

Both were governors, not freshmen senators.

And that somehow makes the two of them more qualified, in what manner?

Op