Those Biased, MSM Polls...

By -
put Paul at between 8 and 10 percent in New Hampshire, and he actually got 8% -- maybe the MSM is biased in favor of Paul?

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy1:08 PM

    I was pretty bummed out. NB, it wasn't that I thought the polls were biased, but rather that I thought Paul supporters would turn out in greater strength than McCain or Romney etc. supporters. So if random surveys had Paul at 10%, I was hoping he'd actually get 12 or 13.

    I suspect Sean Hannity had something to do with this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Woody9:41 PM

    I think it was the weather, and Paul would have done better under normal conditions. Paul supporters were going to vote regardless of the weather. Who is really excited about McCain or Romney? Obama was looking at a major victory, but the old farts made it to the polls.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more