*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[BuddyKnuckles]

Richardson set to endorse Obama according to the AP.

BTW BGPaiMei, can i use your all knowing gem of a quote in my sig as soon as Obama wraps up the nomination? Your old world view of politics is kind of humorous. Sad though that its going to pass you by without you even knowing it

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Hello 1950s. whats that? Sure, you want Maurile back? Ok, no problem, he's really out of touch here in the 21 st century anyway

 

[cstu]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Sure, after the election you can sit back and say "my vote didn't matter" but since no one knows the results in advance your vote does matter. I'm usually on board with your logic but you got me shuked here.

 

[Punchie]

NYTimes link

Richardson Endorses Obama

Article Tools Sponsored By

By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY

Published: March 21, 2008

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president this year, plans to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination on Friday at a campaign event in Oregon.

Mr. Richardson, a former congressman and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, dropped out of the Democratic race in January after finishing behind Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. Since then, he has been aggressively courted by his former rivals.

Mr. Obama’s address on race in Philadelphia on Tuesday appeared to sway Mr. Richardson, who sent word to the senator that he was inspired and impressed by the speech, in which Mr. Obama called for an end to the “racial stalemate” that has divided Americans for decades. Aides said the endorsement was locked down over the following two days.

In a statement, Mr. Richardson hailed Mr. Obama’s judgment and ability to be commander-in-chief — qualities that Mrs. Clinton has called into question in recent weeks on the campaign trail.

“I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world,” Mr. Richardson said in the statement, provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning.

“As a presidential candidate, I know full well Senator Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson are set to appear on stage together Friday at the Memorial Coliseum in downtown Portland, according to Democratic officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. An adviser to Mr. Obama also confirmed the endorsement.

The endorsement offers a timely boost for Mr. Obama, who has weathered the most tumultuous two weeks of a 15-month campaign. He has been seeking to reassure superdelegates that his efforts have not been thrown off course by a series of controversies, including inflammatory statements about the government and race in America made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime spiritual adviser and former pastor.

As the nation’s only Hispanic governor, Mr. Richardson could become a champion for Mr. Obama among Hispanic voters, who have been a key voting bloc for Mrs. Clinton in the primaries thus far. And his endorsement is also notable because he is a friend and admirer of Mrs. Clinton, and was widely viewed as a possible running mate for both her and for Mr. Obama.

At several debates last year, Mr. Richardson often came to Mrs. Clinton’s defense as other Democratic rivals criticized her. Since leaving the race, he has spoken frequently with Mrs. Clinton as well as her husband Bill Clinton, the former president, to whom he is particularly close. (They watched the Super Bowl together at the New Mexico governor’s mansion in Santa Fe.)

When Mr. Obama learned about the game-watching party, he called the governor. “You know, I’d be good company, too,” Mr. Obama told him, Mr. Richardson recalled in a recent interview.

Mr. Obama did not mention the endorsement as he flew from West Virginia to Oregon on Thursday night.

As a governor, Mr. Richardson is a superdelegate who would have a vote in the nominating contest if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton ends the primary season in June with a lead in delegates amassed during the 2008 primaries and caucuses. Mr. Obama now has an overall lead of 148.5 delegates, according to an analysis by The New York Times; a candidate needs 2,024 to win the Democratic nomination.

In his statement, Mr. Richardson, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Clinton, said “there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation’s security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally.”

In a prepared statement, Mr. Obama said:

“Whether it’s fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations.”

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Hello 1950s. whats that? Sure, you want Maurile back? Ok, no problem, he's really out of touch here in the 21 st century anyway

He's right. Take me, for example. I live in South Dakota, which has gone Republican in every presidential election since 1964. My state is a lead pipe lock to go for McCain, regardless of how I vote. On the off chance that SD's election is so close that my vote could be the one to swing our 3 electoral votes, it would mean that McCain was getting rolled nationwide, so our electoral votes wouldn't matter. There's just no way that my vote is going to affect the outcome of a presidential election.

Or consider another example. Say you were a Florida voter in 2000. Think your vote affected the outcome? Well, if you voted for Gore, your vote obviously didn't affect the outcome. But even if you voted for Bush, your vote still didn't affect the outcome. Bush could have done without your support and still carried the state by a few hundred votes. That was the closest election that any of us are likely to live through, and it still was nowhere near being a 1-vote margin.

It is vanishingly unlikely that any of us will ever be involved in any election that is decided by one vote, let alone a national presidential election. It's just not rational to vote with the expectation that you might be influencing the outcome. I vote because I feel an obligation to participate in the process and I want to send a message about the direction I think the country should go, but I'm not under any illusion that my individual vote really matters beyond that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

One point I forgot to mention. If we learned anything from Florida in 2000, it's that any election that came down to one vote would be decided not by voters but by state officials, the state legislature, or the courts. That marginal vote would definitely not decide the outcome.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I vote because I feel an obligation to participate in the process and I want to send a message about the direction I think the country should go, but I'm not under any illusion that my individual vote really matters beyond that.

Fortunately you're in South Dakota so your message is only seen/heard by a few.

 

[skol asylum]

NYTimes link

Richardson Endorses Obama

Article Tools Sponsored By

By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY

Published: March 21, 2008

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president this year, plans to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination on Friday at a campaign event in Oregon.

Mr. Richardson, a former congressman and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, dropped out of the Democratic race in January after finishing behind Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. Since then, he has been aggressively courted by his former rivals.

Mr. Obama’s address on race in Philadelphia on Tuesday appeared to sway Mr. Richardson, who sent word to the senator that he was inspired and impressed by the speech, in which Mr. Obama called for an end to the “racial stalemate” that has divided Americans for decades. Aides said the endorsement was locked down over the following two days.

In a statement, Mr. Richardson hailed Mr. Obama’s judgment and ability to be commander-in-chief — qualities that Mrs. Clinton has called into question in recent weeks on the campaign trail.

“I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world,” Mr. Richardson said in the statement, provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning.

“As a presidential candidate, I know full well Senator Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson are set to appear on stage together Friday at the Memorial Coliseum in downtown Portland, according to Democratic officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. An adviser to Mr. Obama also confirmed the endorsement.

The endorsement offers a timely boost for Mr. Obama, who has weathered the most tumultuous two weeks of a 15-month campaign. He has been seeking to reassure superdelegates that his efforts have not been thrown off course by a series of controversies, including inflammatory statements about the government and race in America made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime spiritual adviser and former pastor.

As the nation’s only Hispanic governor, Mr. Richardson could become a champion for Mr. Obama among Hispanic voters, who have been a key voting bloc for Mrs. Clinton in the primaries thus far. And his endorsement is also notable because he is a friend and admirer of Mrs. Clinton, and was widely viewed as a possible running mate for both her and for Mr. Obama.

At several debates last year, Mr. Richardson often came to Mrs. Clinton’s defense as other Democratic rivals criticized her. Since leaving the race, he has spoken frequently with Mrs. Clinton as well as her husband Bill Clinton, the former president, to whom he is particularly close. (They watched the Super Bowl together at the New Mexico governor’s mansion in Santa Fe.)

When Mr. Obama learned about the game-watching party, he called the governor. “You know, I’d be good company, too,” Mr. Obama told him, Mr. Richardson recalled in a recent interview.

Mr. Obama did not mention the endorsement as he flew from West Virginia to Oregon on Thursday night.

As a governor, Mr. Richardson is a superdelegate who would have a vote in the nominating contest if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton ends the primary season in June with a lead in delegates amassed during the 2008 primaries and caucuses. Mr. Obama now has an overall lead of 148.5 delegates, according to an analysis by The New York Times; a candidate needs 2,024 to win the Democratic nomination.

In his statement, Mr. Richardson, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Clinton, said “there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation’s security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally.”

In a prepared statement, Mr. Obama said:

“Whether it’s fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations.”

Obama/Richardson '08

 

[Pai Mei]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

 

[Hammered Finz]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

the "typical white person" comment won't help either.. that kind of remark is gold to the Rove-types..

 

[GSteps]

NYTimes link

Richardson Endorses Obama

Article Tools Sponsored By

By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY

Published: March 21, 2008

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president this year, plans to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination on Friday at a campaign event in Oregon.

Mr. Richardson, a former congressman and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, dropped out of the Democratic race in January after finishing behind Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. Since then, he has been aggressively courted by his former rivals.

Mr. Obama’s address on race in Philadelphia on Tuesday appeared to sway Mr. Richardson, who sent word to the senator that he was inspired and impressed by the speech, in which Mr. Obama called for an end to the “racial stalemate” that has divided Americans for decades. Aides said the endorsement was locked down over the following two days.

In a statement, Mr. Richardson hailed Mr. Obama’s judgment and ability to be commander-in-chief — qualities that Mrs. Clinton has called into question in recent weeks on the campaign trail.

“I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world,” Mr. Richardson said in the statement, provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning.

“As a presidential candidate, I know full well Senator Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson are set to appear on stage together Friday at the Memorial Coliseum in downtown Portland, according to Democratic officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. An adviser to Mr. Obama also confirmed the endorsement.

The endorsement offers a timely boost for Mr. Obama, who has weathered the most tumultuous two weeks of a 15-month campaign. He has been seeking to reassure superdelegates that his efforts have not been thrown off course by a series of controversies, including inflammatory statements about the government and race in America made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime spiritual adviser and former pastor.

As the nation’s only Hispanic governor, Mr. Richardson could become a champion for Mr. Obama among Hispanic voters, who have been a key voting bloc for Mrs. Clinton in the primaries thus far. And his endorsement is also notable because he is a friend and admirer of Mrs. Clinton, and was widely viewed as a possible running mate for both her and for Mr. Obama.

At several debates last year, Mr. Richardson often came to Mrs. Clinton’s defense as other Democratic rivals criticized her. Since leaving the race, he has spoken frequently with Mrs. Clinton as well as her husband Bill Clinton, the former president, to whom he is particularly close. (They watched the Super Bowl together at the New Mexico governor’s mansion in Santa Fe.)

When Mr. Obama learned about the game-watching party, he called the governor. “You know, I’d be good company, too,” Mr. Obama told him, Mr. Richardson recalled in a recent interview.

Mr. Obama did not mention the endorsement as he flew from West Virginia to Oregon on Thursday night.

As a governor, Mr. Richardson is a superdelegate who would have a vote in the nominating contest if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton ends the primary season in June with a lead in delegates amassed during the 2008 primaries and caucuses. Mr. Obama now has an overall lead of 148.5 delegates, according to an analysis by The New York Times; a candidate needs 2,024 to win the Democratic nomination.

In his statement, Mr. Richardson, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Clinton, said “there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation’s security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally.”

In a prepared statement, Mr. Obama said:

“Whether it’s fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations.”

Would have been nice had he done this prior to the Texas prima-caucus. Oh well, better late than never.

 

[skol asylum]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

I don't know how in the world he can close a gap of 7 points over 7+ months. Clearly unpossible given his track record.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Sure, after the election you can sit back and say "my vote didn't matter" but since no one knows the results in advance your vote does matter. I'm usually on board with your logic but you got me shuked here.

Yea, I dont get it. If we all had that attitude, then what?

 

[Jeremy]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

I'm not real alarmed. Rasmussen during that same time period had McCain over Clinton by 10%. Most other polls have it much closer than that for both Democratic candidates. There's a lot of time between now and November, and McCain hasn't really been put on the hot seat yet.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Sure, after the election you can sit back and say "my vote didn't matter" but since no one knows the results in advance your vote does matter. I'm usually on board with your logic but you got me shuked here.

Yea, I dont get it. If we all had that attitude, then what?

I don't know the best way for you guys to un-shuke yourselves. Maybe try to calculate the probability by hand that your vote will affect the outcome, making whatever assumptions you deem realistic.

 

[omally]

I don't know the best way for you guys to un-shuke yourselves. Maybe try to calculate the probability by hand that your vote will affect the outcome, making whatever assumptions you deem realistic.

If people's votes don't make a difference, then everybody should not vote on election day.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

I don't know the best way for you guys to un-shuke yourselves. Maybe try to calculate the probability by hand that your vote will affect the outcome, making whatever assumptions you deem realistic.

If people's votes don't make a difference, then everybody should not vote on election day.

Exactly, thats a dangerous gospel you're preaching there Maurile. Oh, also, why do you hate the troops? Especially the ones who died protecting your right to tell others not to vote?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Sure, after the election you can sit back and say "my vote didn't matter" but since no one knows the results in advance your vote does matter. I'm usually on board with your logic but you got me shuked here.

Yea, I dont get it. If we all had that attitude, then what?

I don't know the best way for you guys to un-shuke yourselves. Maybe try to calculate the probability by hand that your vote will affect the outcome, making whatever assumptions you deem realistic.

Why would you want to convince people not to vote? I get that my one vote or the 12 people I convince, alone, will not impact the election. If, however, you convince multiple people of your "your vote has no impact" mantra and people had that general attitude wont that impact elections? Isnt voter apathy to blame for many "bad" candidates that ended up in office. What are you trying to prove here?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Sure, after the election you can sit back and say "my vote didn't matter" but since no one knows the results in advance your vote does matter. I'm usually on board with your logic but you got me shuked here.

Yea, I dont get it. If we all had that attitude, then what?

I don't know the best way for you guys to un-shuke yourselves. Maybe try to calculate the probability by hand that your vote will affect the outcome, making whatever assumptions you deem realistic.

Why would you want to convince people not to vote?

Where have I done that? Maybe you have me confused with omally? All I'm doing is saying something that is true. Sometimes doing that is wrong, like when you're betraying someone's secret, but that's not the case here. Not only is what I'm saying true, but it is also obvious.

 

[D_House]

I asked this in another thread, but it'll probably get an answer here: in his books or speeches or whatever, has Obama ever stated if he identifies more closely with one race than another?

 

[whitem0nkey]

Bill Richardson and his beard just endorsed Barack Obama.

 

[D_House]

Bill Richardson and his beard just endorsed Barack Obama.

Like this guy a lot. Maybe he's looking for a VP spot?

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Bill Richardson and his beard just endorsed Barack Obama.

Like this guy a lot. Maybe he's looking for a VP spot?

I don't think there's any question about that. I assumed he was holding off on endorsing to get the VP nod from whomever won the nomination. Does this rule out Clinton selecting him in case she wins the nom.?

 

[thesurfshop19]

Bill Richardson and his beard just endorsed Barack Obama.

Like this guy a lot. Maybe he's looking for a VP spot?

I don't think there's any question about that. I assumed he was holding off on endorsing to get the VP nod from whomever won the nomination. Does this rule out Clinton selecting him in case she wins the nom.?

From MSNBC:

The Clinton campaign was publicly dismissive of the endorsement, after the New York senator failed to win it for herself.

Citing Clinton's victory in New Mexico in February, senior strategist Mark Penn said, "Perhaps the time when he could have been most effective has long since past."

I guess not.

 

[skol asylum]

If not VP, a very strong Sec of State.

 

[aardball44]

Bill Richardson and his beard just endorsed Barack Obama.

Like this guy a lot. Maybe he's looking for a VP spot?

I don't think there's any question about that. I assumed he was holding off on endorsing to get the VP nod from whomever won the nomination. Does this rule out Clinton selecting him in case she wins the nom.?

From MSNBC:

The Clinton campaign was publicly dismissive of the endorsement, after the New York senator failed to win it for herself.

Citing Clinton's victory in New Mexico in February, senior strategist Mark Penn said, "Perhaps the time when he could have been most effective has long since past."

I guess not.

Richardson must be one of those "insignificant" superdelegates.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Bill Richardson and his beard just endorsed Barack Obama.

Like this guy a lot. Maybe he's looking for a VP spot?

I don't think there's any question about that. I assumed he was holding off on endorsing to get the VP nod from whomever won the nomination. Does this rule out Clinton selecting him in case she wins the nom.?

From MSNBC:

The Clinton campaign was publicly dismissive of the endorsement, after the New York senator failed to win it for herself.

Citing Clinton's victory in New Mexico in February, senior strategist Mark Penn said, "Perhaps the time when he could have been most effective has long since past."

I guess not.

Richardson must be one of those "insignificant" superdelegates.

ok, i dont expect HRC's campaign to outright say "yeah, this one hurts". But, the absolute blind nonsense that Penn spews out is painful to read/listen to. So basically now Pelosi and Richardson have effectively come out supporting Obama and saying "end this thing now". As soon as Edwards jumps into the fray, do you think that will be enough to crack the stubborn Clinton wall? Or is she determined top take this thing to the convention?

 

[adonis]

Huge.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Bill Richardson and his beard just endorsed Barack Obama.

Like this guy a lot. Maybe he's looking for a VP spot?

I don't think there's any question about that. I assumed he was holding off on endorsing to get the VP nod from whomever won the nomination. Does this rule out Clinton selecting him in case she wins the nom.?

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

As soon as Edwards jumps into the fray, do you think that will be enough to crack the stubborn Clinton wall? Or is she determined top take this thing to the convention?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

 

[thesurfshop19]

ok, i dont expect HRC's campaign to outright say "yeah, this one hurts". But, the absolute blind nonsense that Penn spews out is painful to read/listen to. So basically now Pelosi and Richardson have effectively come out supporting Obama and saying "end this thing now". As soon as Edwards jumps into the fray, do you think that will be enough to crack the stubborn Clinton wall? Or is she determined top take this thing to the convention?

I'm obviously biased, but seriously ... flat out saying that someone is useless because he picked the other contender, after aggressively coveting his support ... is kind of monstrous. I'd love to see him as the VP on the ticket. Would pretty much complement Obama's perceived weaknesses pretty well.

 

[adonis]

If either richardson or edwards was on Obama's ticket as VP, I'd like it even more.

Just sayin.

 

[Moe Green]

Do you think their votes will influence the outcome of the election? They won't.

whoa. hold on there, cowboy. Did mine ears just deceive me? If every strong supporter of one candidate convinced one fence-sitter he knew to vote his way, isn't that an influence on the election?

Leeroy Jenkins can't cause "every strong supporter" to convince their fence-sitting relatives. Whether they all do, or some do, or none do, Leeroy Jenkins's doing so won't affect the outcome of the election.

Isn't this analogous to voting himself? It is an awful lot like saying, "Dude, sure, take the afternoon off to vote if you want to get out of the office. But don't bother to do it because you want to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote doesn't make a difference."

Yes, exactly. There may be plenty of good reasons to vote, but thinking that you'll affect the outcome is not one of them. This point should be extremely obvious and not at all controversial.

Sure, after the election you can sit back and say "my vote didn't matter" but since no one knows the results in advance your vote does matter. I'm usually on board with your logic but you got me shuked here.

Yea, I dont get it. If we all had that attitude, then what?

I don't know the best way for you guys to un-shuke yourselves. Maybe try to calculate the probability by hand that your vote will affect the outcome, making whatever assumptions you deem realistic.

You'd be more correct in stating that individual votes do not significantly affect outcomes. But every vote affects the outcome in some way or another.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

As soon as Edwards jumps into the fray, do you think that will be enough to crack the stubborn Clinton wall? Or is she determined top take this thing to the convention?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

um, actually yes i have. And when she is in the midst of her kitchen sink strategy, i didn't expect to see any visible cracks in her campaign wall. However, given the comments by Pelosi and now the endorsement by Richardson, i am curious as to seeing if there are any visible signs of HRC seeing the reality of the situation. Does anyone know of stories from HRC campaign people suggesting the inevitable? I think its a valid question and this thread seems to be a great place to gather hard to find info. So, i stand by my original question.

 

[adonis]

As soon as Edwards jumps into the fray, do you think that will be enough to crack the stubborn Clinton wall? Or is she determined top take this thing to the convention?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

um, actually yes i have. And when she is in the midst of her kitchen sink strategy, i didn't expect to see any visible cracks in her campaign wall. However, given the comments by Pelosi and now the endorsement by Richardson, i am curious as to seeing if there are any visible signs of HRC seeing the reality of the situation. Does anyone know of stories from HRC campaign people suggesting the inevitable? I think its a valid question and this thread seems to be a great place to gather hard to find info. So, i stand by my original question.

I don't think so.Huckabee's a good example. He stuck in it until there was no possibility for him, in spite of leadership calls for him to quit and being mathematically out of the race.Hillary has much more support, much better shot at coming from behind, and is much more entrenched in her party than Huck was, and she's in it, I believe, until there is either a mass call for her to step down, or until the convention when super delegates decide it.She will still hold out hope that more things like the Rev Wright thing come out, which will bolster her support and lead her on. She has no way of knowing what will happen between now and the convention, so with her nearly 50% of the support, why not stay in it? She's come this far.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

I asked this in another thread, but it'll probably get an answer here: in his books or speeches or whatever, has Obama ever stated if he identifies more closely with one race than another?

Not that i know. Adonis would probably be the guy to ask on this one as he is as well versed in Obama history as anyone here at FBG.My guess, and this is pure speculation, would be that as a kid, growing up in an all white area (Hawaii), he would have related more to whites. But, as he matured, went to college, and began to learn more about his roots, he most likely began to learn more about his black heritage and leaned towards that. As an adult however, i bet he has found some sort of balance between the two. Pure speculation on my part, but i did have a few close friends growing up who were of a mixed racial family. They seemed to follow those types of patterns

 

[adonis]

I asked this in another thread, but it'll probably get an answer here: in his books or speeches or whatever, has Obama ever stated if he identifies more closely with one race than another?

Not that i know. Adonis would probably be the guy to ask on this one as he is as well versed in Obama history as anyone here at FBG.My guess, and this is pure speculation, would be that as a kid, growing up in an all white area (Hawaii), he would have related more to whites. But, as he matured, went to college, and began to learn more about his roots, he most likely began to learn more about his black heritage and leaned towards that. As an adult however, i bet he has found some sort of balance between the two. Pure speculation on my part, but i did have a few close friends growing up who were of a mixed racial family. They seemed to follow those types of patterns

I think he questioned this a lot growing up, trying to find an identity, but I think i've heard him say that if you look black, you're treated as black. So I'd say that while he knows he's half and half, the world treats him as a black man and that has to affect his views. Anyone else have any better information than that, feel free to correct me, but that's all I remember on it.

 

[adonis]

I asked this in another thread, but it'll probably get an answer here: in his books or speeches or whatever, has Obama ever stated if he identifies more closely with one race than another?

Not that i know. Adonis would probably be the guy to ask on this one as he is as well versed in Obama history as anyone here at FBG.My guess, and this is pure speculation, would be that as a kid, growing up in an all white area (Hawaii), he would have related more to whites. But, as he matured, went to college, and began to learn more about his roots, he most likely began to learn more about his black heritage and leaned towards that. As an adult however, i bet he has found some sort of balance between the two. Pure speculation on my part, but i did have a few close friends growing up who were of a mixed racial family. They seemed to follow those types of patterns

I think he questioned this a lot growing up, trying to find an identity, but I think i've heard him say that if you look black, you're treated as black. So I'd say that while he knows he's half and half, the world treats him as a black man and that has to affect his views. Anyone else have any better information than that, feel free to correct me, but that's all I remember on it.

Acknowledging that his presidential campaign has opened a racial debate, Sen. Barack Obama, who has a white mother and an African father, says if you look African-American, you are treated like one... When asked by Kroft if growing up in a white household had caused him to make a decision to be black, Obama replies, "I'm not sure I decided it. I think... if you look African American in this society, you're treated as an African-American. "It's interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that... I've become a focal point for a racial debate," says Obama.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

As soon as Edwards jumps into the fray, do you think that will be enough to crack the stubborn Clinton wall? Or is she determined top take this thing to the convention?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

um, actually yes i have. And when she is in the midst of her kitchen sink strategy, i didn't expect to see any visible cracks in her campaign wall. However, given the comments by Pelosi and now the endorsement by Richardson, i am curious as to seeing if there are any visible signs of HRC seeing the reality of the situation. Does anyone know of stories from HRC campaign people suggesting the inevitable? I think its a valid question and this thread seems to be a great place to gather hard to find info. So, i stand by my original question.

Okay then. What makes you think that Hillary would drop out? It is extremely unlikely that Obama will clinch the nomination any time soon. He's going to need to win over a decent number of superdelegates to win, just like Hillary. And Hillary has a legitimate argument against Obama, namely that he's going to face some problems in the general election, whereas she's already been throroughly vetted. I happen to think that Obama is still a stronger candidate than Hillary, but I don't think her "electability" argument is completely implausible either. And if you don't think that Hillary won't fight until the last dog dies, then you really haven't been paying attention over the past 16 years. She might not go all the way to the convention, but she's not going away any time soon.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And Hillary has a legitimate argument against Obama, namely that he's going to face some problems in the general election, whereas she's already been throroughly vetted.

I don't think this is actually a legit argument.

 

[commisholio]

And Hillary has a legitimate argument against Obama, namely that he's going to face some problems in the general election, whereas she's already been throroughly vetted.

I don't think this is actually a legit argument.

Doesn't this argument cut both ways - if Obama hasn't been throroughly vetted, what the heck has the Clinton campaign been doing for the last 2 years? Sitting on their oppo research?

 

[Pai Mei]

Richardson set to endorse Obama according to the AP.BTW BGPaiMei, can i use your all knowing gem of a quote in my sig as soon as Obama wraps up the nomination? Your old world view of politics is kind of humorous. Sad though that its going to pass you by without you even knowing it

Where did I say he wouldn't get the nom? I think the democrats might just be foolish enough to let him have it.Old world view of politics? Huh?

 

[Pai Mei]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

I don't know how in the world he can close a gap of 7 points over 7+ months. Clearly unpossible given his track record.

Actually there is no indication that Obama's numbers have stopped falling. John McCain's LARGEST lead over Obama in the general election was TODAY, March 21st, 2008, 49%-41%, at 8%. I'd say the public is still processing all the info and realizing what a fool Obama is. For all anyone knows, Obama's freefall may not stop until McCain holds a 16% lead over him.

 

[skol asylum]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

I don't know how in the world he can close a gap of 7 points over 7+ months. Clearly unpossible given his track record.

Actually there is no indication that Obama's numbers have stopped falling. John McCain's LARGEST lead over Obama in the general election was TODAY, March 21st, 2008, 49%-41%, at 8%. I'd say the public is still processing all the info and realizing what a fool Obama is. For all anyone knows, Obama's freefall may not stop until McCain holds a 16% lead over him.

Lots of polls out there all over the place. This one has a much larger sample size with McCain only up by 3%.Gallup Tracking 03/16 - 03/20 4377 RV 44 47 4 McCain +3.0

 

[Pai Mei]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

I don't know how in the world he can close a gap of 7 points over 7+ months. Clearly unpossible given his track record.

Actually there is no indication that Obama's numbers have stopped falling. John McCain's LARGEST lead over Obama in the general election was TODAY, March 21st, 2008, 49%-41%, at 8%. I'd say the public is still processing all the info and realizing what a fool Obama is. For all anyone knows, Obama's freefall may not stop until McCain holds a 16% lead over him.

Lots of polls out there all over the place. This one has a much larger sample size with McCain only up by 3%.Gallup Tracking 03/16 - 03/20 4377 RV 44 47 4 McCain +3.0

These are very likely more accuratehttp://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...atch_up_history

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Richardson set to endorse Obama according to the AP.BTW BGPaiMei, can i use your all knowing gem of a quote in my sig as soon as Obama wraps up the nomination? Your old world view of politics is kind of humorous. Sad though that its going to pass you by without you even knowing it

Where did I say he wouldn't get the nom? I think the democrats might just be foolish enough to let him have it.Old world view of politics? Huh?

go back under your rock

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

And the damage done by Barack Obama's speech continues to come into focus.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_election_2008

The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters.

He continues to fall in the polls after the speech. Obviously it hurt him. The key damage is that Obama continues to hemorrhage independent voters to McCain.

I don't know how in the world he can close a gap of 7 points over 7+ months. Clearly unpossible given his track record.

Actually there is no indication that Obama's numbers have stopped falling. John McCain's LARGEST lead over Obama in the general election was TODAY, March 21st, 2008, 49%-41%, at 8%. I'd say the public is still processing all the info and realizing what a fool Obama is. For all anyone knows, Obama's freefall may not stop until McCain holds a 16% lead over him.

Lots of polls out there all over the place. This one has a much larger sample size with McCain only up by 3%.Gallup Tracking 03/16 - 03/20 4377 RV 44 47 4 McCain +3.0

These are very likely more accuratehttp://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...atch_up_history

Here's a hint: none of them are accurate because the election is 8 freaking months away. This news cycle will be ancient history before we even get to the conventions, and by then there will be a whole new set of stories that will be driving these numbers up or down. What's happening in the economy and what's happening in Iraq will be far more significant than anything we are talking about right now, particularly since the candidates will have actual policy differences to discuss rather than who's minister has said more crazy ####.

 

[Pai Mei]

The new problem is that it is now impossible for Obama to win the White House in 2008. Once everyone has digested the "typical white woman" comment, he's done. That will be played and replayed and it is a simple task to essentially brand Obama as a racist going forward. I mean if you believe Kerry was "swift-boated", then this is a far easier job by comparison. But if the democrats install Hillary as the nominee, they'll have a riot on their hands. Ugly choices.

I see McCain in a landslide victory in November.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

As soon as Edwards jumps into the fray, do you think that will be enough to crack the stubborn Clinton wall? Or is she determined top take this thing to the convention?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

um, actually yes i have. And when she is in the midst of her kitchen sink strategy, i didn't expect to see any visible cracks in her campaign wall. However, given the comments by Pelosi and now the endorsement by Richardson, i am curious as to seeing if there are any visible signs of HRC seeing the reality of the situation. Does anyone know of stories from HRC campaign people suggesting the inevitable? I think its a valid question and this thread seems to be a great place to gather hard to find info. So, i stand by my original question.

Okay then. What makes you think that Hillary would drop out? It is extremely unlikely that Obama will clinch the nomination any time soon. He's going to need to win over a decent number of superdelegates to win, just like Hillary. And Hillary has a legitimate argument against Obama, namely that he's going to face some problems in the general election, whereas she's already been throroughly vetted. I happen to think that Obama is still a stronger candidate than Hillary, but I don't think her "electability" argument is completely implausible either. And if you don't think that Hillary won't fight until the last dog dies, then you really haven't been paying attention over the past 16 years. She might not go all the way to the convention, but she's not going away any time soon.

Very good points and an interesting question. Thank you IK. I have been paying attention, although i will admit that i have only recently become "active" in the political process. So maybe i am not fully aware of the complete history of Clintonian political methods. But, i can say the following as virtual fact: it is impossible for HRC to catch Obama in pledged delegates. It is nearly impossible for HRC to pass Obama in popular vote. Obama has the endorsement of Richardson, which i think we can agree is major at least in terms of name recognition and his history with the Clintons. Pelosi has stepped in and said it would be imprudent for the superdelegates to cast votes in opposition of the pledged delegate vote. To me that means she supports Obama. And lastly, HRC HAS to see the writing on the wall. I do give hr credit for being an incredibly smart person, albeit misguided of late. So, in my estimation she cannot possibly miss the obvious lunacy of her last push to be the nominee. Is there any reason to believe that she will bow out before the convention? What has to happen for her to take this step?My point is that the inevitable is occurring and HRC has to be aware of it. Can she really be that blind, stubborn, and disruptive to completely go against the reality of the situation?As for Obama's apparent limitations in electability, that is based entirely on what has been the recent history of the election process in this country. Does anyone still really feel that this is a typical election? Would i even be here if this was McCain v Clinton? Would millions of others like me still be here if that was the case? I think you underestimate the power of the largest generation (population wise) in US history. Gen X + the Millennial generation is about to turn the US political process on a dime. And unfortunately, a lot of old world, stuck in the mud political types will be stuck watching. The general election isn't won in March. Just look at any number of presidential elections in the past 100 years. Experience and "winning the big states" is not nearly as important as people are led to believe