Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v3kr18$3v6n2$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Cuomo Recants on Ivermectin Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:29:26 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 31 Message-ID: <v3kr18$3v6n2$2@dont-email.me> References: <7fqcnaOYXPhO48r7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <v3a3do$1nurk$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-D790D2.09021830052024@news.giganews.com> <v3abh6$1p68a$2@dont-email.me> <_hGdnR09YZZiWsX7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v3amom$1r705$3@dont-email.me> <qqgl5j5gkd239vf3pmlnb659o41qjltnga@4ax.com> <v3fgme$2rmnp$1@dont-email.me> <pfjq5j9pr0hktf93b0117roobpfr402l8f@4ax.com> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 18:29:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f1e7cd7af021c36e38ff91ee439e5b25"; logging-data="4168418"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RyAlVJMepek1wvC8luCSZpD7QDBcswUA=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:MkGWMy2FjNnonPmA3Nibn2vMabI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <pfjq5j9pr0hktf93b0117roobpfr402l8f@4ax.com> Bytes: 2811 On 6/3/2024 1:06 AM, The Horny Goat wrote: > On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:02:22 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> > wrote: > >>> I dunno - George Wallace got full coverage when he ran in 1968 though >>> everyone knew that even if he carried a few states in the DeepSouth >>> he'd never carry America (though Newsweek magazine DID publish their >>> Nixon, Humprey and Wallace covers they had made up in anticipation of >>> the result (including a "Deadlock" cover and their cover for their >>> International edition). >>> >>> I kept that issue for a lot of years but have probably ditched it by >>> now... >> >> That example argues for a "blind" numerical threshold of support. > > How so? I totally fail to see how taking 5 or 6 states all in the Deep > South gives one a snowflake's chance in hell of getting 270 electoral > votes (or whatever it is these days) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election > > Just like I wonder why Nixon figured the Watergate break-in was a good > thing given that he surely must have known he was heading for an epic > win in 1972....(hint: he got them all except Mass.) and it is simply > not credible that a break-in would influence more than 3 or 4 states > at most. There's no objective threshold for either inclusion or exclusion, so an arbitrary pre-established compromise may be the best that can be done.