Oh, and why did I leave it anonymous?
Because:
His concern was if I posted such a poll, answers would be based on his popularity, not the actual words.
Or maybe he meant based on my popularity, but gee, sure doesn’t seem like that’s helped me any, has it?
I disagree, this is no more a “gotcha” than asking someone what newspapers they read. One poster claimed a post was critical of Democrats, another poster put it up anonymously and gave us an open poll to indicate our assessment. I think the poll is fair and non biased, he was pretty careful to not indicate his “preferred” answer.
How was it a gotcha?
I made every effort to present it as neutrally as possible.
How would you recommend assessing the meaning behind a set of text like that? I thought, quite frankly, that this was as fair as I could get. What or where is this “gotcha” ?
I have no knowledge of the history of this poster, any GD agendas he may have or what refurbished post from another Doper he’s putting out there for whatever reason… I’m just going to answer the OP objectively before reading the background.
It’s written with a negative tone to both “Pubbies” and “Dems”, dripping with cynicism about political machinations trumping ideals of democracy regardless of party. Basically it’s saying the “Pubbies” overplayed a bluff and are powerless to do anything about it except to claim some kind of outrage from some moral high ground, but that their accusations (founded or not) of “immorality” and “corruption” in the “Dems” actions (evidently, in arranging for a Democrat to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacated seat in the Senate) ring hollow in the face of (a) their own past actions, to such an extent that equally partisan railroading in the other direction could go on for several years before things evened out, and (b) the will of the people (an ideal neither side bothers to acknowedge unless it’s in their favor).
Both parties are implied to have committed partisan power-grabbing actions that were “immoral” or “corrupt” (Dems), specifically “corrupting the Justice Dept.”, or grabbing power “by means illegitimate and illegal” (Pubs) - probably referring to the so-called election of George W. Bush in 2000 despite losing the popular vote, and carrying the electoral votes from Florida by a close margin in a state governed by his brother.
OK now I’ve read the back story, and this exactly why I don’t participate in GD. This kind of discussion would age me before my time. It corrodes the soul. For example, the intent of the OP appears to be to call in the SDMB to referee who’s being less/more vicious with partisan rhetoric on an Internet message board … It just seems to me to be a huge waste not just of mental effort, but of emotional energy.
Considering these circumstances, as improbable as a first baseman named Who, I’ll give you a pass on this one. My apologies.
Cheerfully accepted.
Your poll question is irrelevant to your argument with 'luci. In the poll you asked whether the paragraph was more negative towards Dems or the GOP. But so far as I can tell, your original argument was whether or not 'luci ever said anything negative about the Dems regarding their changing the law in Mass (that he “never said a damn negative thing about Massachusetts’ changing their law”) not whether or not he was more negative regarding one side or the other.
And 'luci says, he did say something negative about the Dems actions. He said they were “sordid and partisan”. That’s “one damn thing”.
I chose “roughly equal”.
I don’t care about the debate, I only care if I guessed right. 
Well now, hang on a second. To answer the poll question, the piece is more negative towards Republicans, that much is true. But it’s negative towards both parties, just in an entirely lopsided manner.
But being lopsided isn’t what you accused elucidator of. You said,
“you never said a damn negative thing about Massachusetts’ changing their law with regards to appointment of senators.”
elucidator cited that post as an example of something negative he said. And he’s right, he did say something negative.
Was his negative statement buried in a bunch of anti-Republican rhetoric? Sure. But I don’t see how that makes him wrong.
eta: Or what Simplicio said.
Fair enough.
The official Nemo verdict on this dispute is Bricker is right and elucidator is wrong.
I think that’s arguable. The sordid and partisan comment reads, to me, like the Reps backed the Dems into a corner. Do something “bad” or let the Reps continue to walk all over you. Then he says it’s the result the Reps wanted, so they can whine and bitch about how bad the Dems are.
I don’t get the sense whatsoever that he thinks the Dems did the wrong thing.
Maybe. I imagine you can argue it either way.
But in either case, the poll is dishonest. The argument was whether or not 'luci ever said a bad thing about the Dems actions in Mass. The poll asks a substantially different question: whether the passage quoted was more derogatory to the Dems or GOP.
The actual argument was about a debatable point. Bricker didn’t like that so he changed the question. The question he actually asked was sure to get everyone who read it to vote in the same way (there isn’t really any question that the quoted passage is more negative towards the GOP), but was irrelevant to the argument…
I disagree. If I said “Okay, I’ll admit Obama isn’t prefect. But he’s a thousand times better than any Republican could ever be.” would anyone honestly claim that this was an attack on Obama? The only reason I mentioned Obama was to contrast the Republicans as being so much worse.
Same thing with elucidator’s post. He only mentioned something the Democrats had done wrong in order to condemn the Republicans for doing something much worse. That doesn’t qualify as a condemnation of the Democrats.
Bolding mine.
I agree. elucidator needs learn need write more betterer.
Also I voted for it being more negative towards the Dems because I didn’t want them to feel lonely and left out.
My reasoning is the same as Little Nemo’s.
And of course revealing the reason and the players produces stuff like this – another reason I hoped to keep things anonymous.
I disagree, and I guess I can put forth my argument if you want. But its irrelevant to my point. My point is: the question asked in the poll was who was the passage condemning more. There isn’t any debate there, the passage was certainly condemning the GOP more. But that isn’t what the actual argument was about, the argument was whether 'luci had said a “damn negative thing” about the Massachucettes voting law change.
We can argue about whether or not the passage really qualifies as a “damn negative thing”, but that’s not the question Bricker actually asked in the poll. He switched the actual issue being debated with one that everyone would agree on to try and make 'luci look silly.
When someone places a seemingly negative thing in the midst of a larger context that negates it, it’s not truly saying a negative thing anymore.
In your view, does elucidator actually condemn the Democrats in any meaningful,way in that post?
Initially you simply accused him of never having said a damn negative thing about the Democrats. He provided a cite showing that he did.
Now you want a cite showing that he condemned the Democrats. And not just condemned them, but in a meaningful way. Quit moving the goalposts.
In this case, I don’t think it rises to the level of condemnation, but I don’t necessarily agree with your reasoning. Consider,
Is the above quote more negative towards democrats? Or republicans?
And yet, I’d say that’s a pretty loud condemnation of democrats (as well as republicans).