Shodan needs work on his reading skills

[RTFirefly]

Shodan would make a perfect WorldNetDaily writer. His standards of factual truth and argument are sufficiently low, and he can write passably. I’ve urged him to send them his resume.

But his main debate technique in my current GD thread, when pinned down, is to claim that he’d been talking about something else - as if we couldn’t read the previous posts. Or maybe he can’t. He can’t seem to read the very posts he’s responding to very clearly.

He said a couple of things along the way that, though digressions, I thought I could answer quickly and get back to the main thread. However, his technique of saying one thing, then claiming the discussion was really about something else, extended response time considerably. So I decided to give his digressions their own thread. As a result, don’t expect this OP to have any organization; I’m just taking out the trash from my GD thread and dumping it on the curb.

It really started when he made a comment about Mondale:

Mondale - who was on the short end of one of the greatest landslides in American political history.

Simple enough, right? A quick check of the historical record revealed that Mondale lost the 1984 popular vote by a margin of 17.74%, and I pointed out:

If you’re talking about 1984, seven Presidential elections in the 20th century alone (1904, 20, 24, 32, 36, 64, 72) had a greater margin of victory in the popular vote, and one more (1928) fell short by only a quarter of a percentage point. It’s absurd to call nine of the 25 Presidential elections in the 20th Century, “one of the greatest landslides in American political history.”

Shodan responded:

Mondale carried only two states in the Electoral College. By my standards, (and everyone else at the time) that was a landslide.

Me:

Who said it wasn’t? But you claimed it was “one of the greatest landslides in American political history.” Not hardly. It was the eighth biggest landslide in the past 25 Presidential elections.

Backpedal much?

Shodan:

I know you liberals don’t want to understand the Electoral College system, but losing 525 to 13, doesn’t strike me as a a ringing victory. YMMV.

No shit, dummy. It was a landslide. But it wasn’t one of the greatest landslides in American history; plenty of Presidential candidates in just one century have done worse than Mondale.

That’s a trivial digression, of course, and I’m not going to spend any more time on it. Shodan did actually make one comment germane to the OP:

Face it, conservative ideas are mainstream now. The Dems can yell and scream and stamp their feet to their hearts’ content. If they don’t move towards the center, they will lose.

Now he may be right on that, and he may be wrong; we can’t see the future. But I pointed out:

This is not how the Republicans got to where they are today. The Republicans were the minority party in the 1970s, and became what they are now by actually moving further to the right as they unified around their message. Then they sold it to the American people. It took awhile, sure, but did it work? Sure looks like it.

and:

In 1975, it looked like the Republican party was a relic of history. Aren’t you glad they didn’t heed the same advice then (with party names reversed, of course)?

Shodan’s response was:

I’m thinking mostly of the days when the Democrats were the party of McGovern. Or Clinton’s health care plan, also a swing back to the days of the Great Society. Big government, big spending, that sort of thing. Nixon managed to push them back towards the center with his victories, but there remains a hard core of liberalism, which is mostly fallen by the American political wayside.

I was puzzled by that, since the subject was the Dems of 2002:

Funny, you were pretty clearly suggesting that the Dems should move to the center now. 1972 was a long time ago.

Backpedal much?

And Shodan’s final reply:

Sometimes. Not just now. I thought we were talking about the Presidental elections of 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2000, and the Congressional elections of 1994, and 2002. The Democrats did not do as well in those elections as they had hoped.

Damn, I’m perplexed. Maybe he was talking with the voices in his head. These elections had all come up tangentially, but none of them in reference to his claim that the Dems need to move toward the political center.

Along the way, Shodan digressed:

The exciting thing about being a conservative is that we are the party of new ideas.

And said, not in so many words, that the Dems didn’t. My response:

I’d claim the Dems have plenty of new ideas, but if you want to debate that, please start another thread. This thread is about what the Dems should have done this fall, and what they might do now.

His curious reply:

No offense, but read the title. The Democrats lost because they were perceived as having no new ideas.

That sure wasn’t in the thread title, nor was it in my OP, which said:

To say that what the Democrats stand for is a lot less clear is an understatement. They seem to be content to be “not the Republicans” and leave it vague after that.

At some point, though, you’ve got to stand for something. If the people don’t know what it is you’re selling, after awhile you’ve got to expect them to stop buying it.
<snip>
For about the last three election cycles, I’ve been asking, as a Democrat, “Where’s OUR ‘Contract with America’?” When are the Dems going to state a handful of essential principles and issues, and run on them?

Nothing about the youth or age of the ideas, just that the Dems have got to say what it is that they stand for.

Reading the OP is a good thing.

One last one - I’d responded to another poster:

[S]ince the Reagan tax cuts, the Dems have been the more fiscally responsible party, demonstrated by their taking the deficit from $300B to zero in under a decade.

Shodan’s response:

Clinton took office, when the Democrats controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. What was the first thing he tried to do? Increase the deficit by $16 billion.

Gee, revisionist history much?

Not *Sixteen Billyun Dollars!!!

Well, that sews it up right there. Even if the legacy of $200B and $300B deficits Clinton inherited went away on his watch, rather than during the Reagan or Bush presidencies, increasing the deficit by $16B in a trillion-dollar budget in 1993 convincingly demonstrates that Democrats are the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

I bow to Shithand’s superior wisdom. What else is there to do?

[IzzyR]

OK, I disagree with your first, second, and probably fourth.

1. You keep talking about popular vote and Shodan keeps talking about electoral votes. Don’t know if either is more valid, but there’s no sense in talking cross-purposes. (How does the Reagan landslide rate in terms of electoral votes? I don’t know, but I think pretty high up there.)

2. Shodan is making sense - you are not understanding him. His point is that he feels that the center of this country has moved away from where it was in the McGovern era, but that a core of Democrats are still there now. He is saying that unless the Democrats jettison that faction now they are doomed. Reread his posts.

3. Agree with you

4. Probably wrong. What difference does it make how much it went up - it certainly didn’t go down. I certainly wouldn’t say it convincingly proves the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, but it does tend to undercut any claim they might make about being the party of fiscal responsibility. (Needless to say, pointing to any one year - or even longer periods - is simplistic. Still it is a valid point that calls for a response).

Overall - OP not justified.

[Shodan]

Just two things, friend -

By “landslide”, I meant “electoral landslide”. Which is why I mentioned the final tally in the Electoral College. (And my snide comment about liberals and the Electoral College, which was a reference to the unfortunate events of 2000.) Not sure how much clearer I can make it. Electoral.

Second, the pattern is to give my opinions, and to offer examples of why I think that way. Dems had no new ideas, and so they lost in the elections of 2002. Mondale lost in 1984, because he had no new ideas. The Republicans won in 1994, because their Contract with America was a new idea. And so on.

All these are examples of what I am talking about.

Your thoughts on the deficit are a little difficult to follow. You claim that the deficit disappeared because of Clinton and the other Democrats, yet when the Dems controlled all three branches of government, their first idea was to increase the deficit, not to eliminate it. The deficit did not disappear until two years after the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans, who forced a shutdown of government to force their budget thru.

Not sure how you get from the Democrats having control of the federal government and attempting to increase the deficit, to patting them on the back for eliminating it - something that happened two years after they lost control of Congress, and which Clinton, who was in charge of the only branch of government controlled by the Democrats, fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening.

Not interested in a pissing contest about who can read and who can’t. Shall we just say that I am sorry I wasn’t able to make myself clear, and leave it at that?

Regards,
Shodan
As far as I can remember, my first Pitting. Hooray.

[minty_green]

Not here to flame, just to point out some problems with your argument here and in the original thread.

Your thoughts on the deficit are a little difficult to follow. You claim that the deficit disappeared because of Clinton and the other Democrats, yet when the Dems controlled all three branches of government, their first idea was to increase the deficit, not to eliminate it.

There was a recession on in 1993. Both RTF and I have made the point that deficit spending is a reasonable reaction to an economic recession. If you accept that point, then your complaint about 1993 is without merit. Plus, the $18B figure you cite as teh size of the deficit increase is pretty small potatoes anyway–it’s not like Clinton and the Dems went on an orgy of spending.

The deficit did not disappear until two years after the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans, who forced a shutdown of government to force their budget thru.

True enough. Of course, the R’s lost that shutdown battle quite resoundingly. But both Clinton and the Democrats in Congress took up the charge on the balanced budget, and it worked amazingly well. Bush’s tax cuts, however, are promising to squander that gain for good, since the R’s are basically as incapable of restraining spending as the D’s are.

[RTFirefly]

Re Electoral College: nice of you to finally explain. In the thread, I just kept saying, “What you said was wrong - there are lots of bigger landslides,” and you’d say, “well, it wasn’t exactly a ringing victory.”

I won’t even argue whether or not popular or electoral vote is the appropriate way of measuring how much of the mountain is falling on the landslide’s loser. The EC is how they decide winners and losers, but when you’re miles away from winning, the question is, “Which way more accurately measures how many miles?” And I frankly don’t care what you think. I went to the stats to make my case, you handwaved in rebuttal.

I don’t care if there’s a hard core of McGovernites left in the Democratic Party or not. There’s a hard core of Goldwaterites left in the GOP, and it hasn’t hurt them. We don’t know whether THIS party, NOW, should move to the center. But my point was, and is, that one recent counterexample says that moving to the center isn’t always the answer for the minority party to become the party in power. That still stands unrebutted.

[Scylla]

Just out of curiosity, was it one of the greatest electoral landslides?

[Dr.Lao]

According to my rough eyeing of electoral vote results from this page at least two elections had a canidate collecting a greater percentage of electoral votes. 1820 James Monroe got 231 out of 232 electoral votes (99.6%) and 1936 FDR got 523 out of 531 electoral votes (98.5%). That is compared Ronnie’s 525 out 538 electoral votes (97.6%) in '84. That makes him number 3, unless someone can find another example. The Washington elections might work in there somehow since that was before the reforms to the system in 1800 when VP’s got voted on separately.

[elucidator]

Shodan you ain’t been “pitted”. This is a relatively mild rebuke for poor technique and (perhaps) less than honest sniping. december has been pitted, Wildest Bill (R.I.P) was pitted, Scylla has been pitted. You’re getting a bit of an upbraiding, something of a dressing down, apparently more in hope of reformation than disdain. The kindly rebuke that suggests “Go forth, and sin no more.”

Of course, certain persons, widely respected for geniality, probity and avuncular wit have never been pitted. Think on these examples, and reflect.

[Guinastasia]

I’ve never been Pitted.

[Starbury]

Here is what Cecil has to say about presidential landslides.

[grimpixie]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**I’ve never been Pitted. **

Wasn’t there a “Pit yourself” thread a while ago? We could try and find it for you

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**I’ve never been Pitted. **

I think most people would be intimidated by the prospect of pitting a person with a 5-digit post count. IMHO, of course.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**There was a recession on in 1993.
**

No, there was not.

The country’s last recession began in July 1990 and lasted until March 1991. But the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) did not officially declare the downturn over until December 1992.

So when Clinton claimed we were in recession and that we needed to spend more money and increase the deficit, he was lying.

*Originally posted by minty green *
**
Both RTF and I have made the point that deficit spending is a reasonable reaction to an economic recession. If you accept that point, then your complaint about 1993 is without merit. **

But since there was no recession, my complaint remains.

*Originally posted by minty green *
**
Plus, the $18B figure you cite as teh size of the deficit increase is pretty small potatoes anyway–it’s not like Clinton and the Dems went on an orgy of spending.
**

Same problem with this as with RTFirefly’s argument. The logic seems to be that the Dems deserve credit for doing the opposite of what they were trying to do, because they only tried to do the opposite a little.

By that reasoning, every time someone charges something on their Visa card, they deserve credit for eliminating consumer debt in America. After all, it is only a few dollars increase.

And the person who cuts up your credit cards and puts you on a budget had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**
Re Electoral College: nice of you to finally explain. In the thread, I just kept saying, “What you said was wrong - there are lots of bigger landslides,” and you’d say, “well, it wasn’t exactly a ringing victory.” **

No sir, and if you are going to quote me, please have the courtesy to do so correctly.

I know you liberals don’t want to understand the Electoral College system, but losing 525 to 13, doesn’t strike me as a a ringing victory.

Please note the reference to the Electoral College and the totals of 1984.

Perhaps you didn’t notice them the first time, but if you are going to cut and paste them into your own Pit thread, please do not pretend I was misleading if I was not.

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**
Reading the OP is a good thing.
**

Something on which I am sure we can agree.

Regards,
Shodan

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
No, there was not.

Yes, there was. Despite your insistence on a narrow, formalistic definition of “recession” as three straight quarters of economic decline, the country was still widely perceived to be in an economic downturn in the early months of 1993. As you will not from the data in that .pdf, consumer confidence was just as low in '93 as it had been in '90-92, and the index of leading economic indicators had only begun to recover.

[Shodan]

minty -

If you are going to make up your own definitions for words, please let us know ahead of time.

This is especially true when it comes to a technical subject such as economics. This is not being narrow or formalistic, it is being accurate.

Of course, that would depend on what your definition of “is”, is.

Regards,
Shodan

[IzzyR]

I agree with minty here. It makes no difference what the technical definition of the word “recession” is. If the country was indeed in an economic downturn at the time, the same basic argument can be made regardless of whether the word “recession” applies.

[minty_green]

Shodan, it is a narrow definition of “recession” because the economy could contract for two out of every three quarters ad infinitum, and you would never have a recession by those criteria. Yet the goal of recessionary spending would still be served by deficit spending in such circumstances, just as it was served in the early part of Clinton’s first term.

[Maeglin]

This is especially true when it comes to a technical subject such as economics. This is not being narrow or formalistic, it is being accurate.

Total nonsense. The definition of “recession” is constantly disputed, especially by economists with considerable “technical” knowledge. The dictionary definition of recession is recognized by most experts as woefully inadequate.

If you are a subscriber to The Economist, you may view an entire article on the subject here.

If not, the following are a few tidbits:

According to a popular rule of thumb, recessions are defined by at least two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. However, the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s official arbiter of recessions, takes a more sophisticated approach. A recession, it says, is “a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income and wholesale-retail trade.” The NBER’s recession-dating committee does not actually look at GDP figures, because they come out only quarterly, not monthly, and are continually revised. Last year’s figures intially showed that output fell in only one quarter, but revised figures now show three consecutive quarters of decline.

The NBER defines a recession as an absolute decline in economic activity. However, some economists view it as a period when growth falls significantly below its long-term potential. This makes more sense where an economy’s potential growth rate shifts over time, or when comparing economies that are growing at different speeds. Suppose country A has a potential growth rate of 4% and country B one of only 2%. A growth rate of 2% in country A will cause unemployment to rise, but in country B it will leave unemployment unchanged. By this definition, country A would be in recession.

There is much more in this article worth reading, so I do hope you have access to it.

[Shodan]

However, the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s official arbiter of recessions, takes a more sophisticated approach. A recession, it says, is “a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income and wholesale-retail trade.”

The cite I linked to was from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

So even by their “more sophisticated” standard, there was no recession.

Originally posted by IzzyR
If the country was indeed in an economic downturn at the time, the same basic argument can be made regardless of whether the word “recession” applies.

minty’s own cite makes it clear that the country was not in a downturn.

…the index of leading economic indicators had only begun to recover.

So the line of argument seems to be that the country was in a recession that wasn’t a recession, a downturn where the economic indicators were heading up, and that an attempt by the Democrats to increase the deficit was laudable evidence that they intended it to disappear.

No wonder I have trouble reading. The words don’t seem to mean what I thought they did.

Regards,
Shodan

[Cervaise]

The words don’t seem to mean what I thought they did.

Spindle jar the Christine’s into process my again salamander a flexing repeated for? Translucent create it’s behind refuse cool, mauve larger via clocked frozen boiling that – is queue on spherical ink sandy. Angle?