Rick Santorum announces 2016 presidential run

[Backlighting]

Just what we need...another bible thumping politician.

This guy just rubs me the wrong way.

[william.scherk]

FiveThirtyEight.com has a rather sour look at Santorum's chances in the GOP race (takehome: dismal), but also has this useful graphic:

[Selene]

Yeah, just like that old loser John McCain in 2008, so, the "takehome," [guess this is new jargon] was also dismal,

Therefore, what can we conclude about the probative value of the last post?

Like John McCain was really going to be the nominee....ha!

A...

[william.scherk]

Takehome, or take-home. From English Language and Usage, a question and answer.

Q -- "There is one expression I came across recently - 'The take home is ...'. The full sentence was “The take home is that regular use of caffeine produces no benefit to alertness, energy, or function”. Can anyone explain what does the beginning of the sentence mean? And does it have something in common with another expression 'to drive your point home'?"

A - The take-home or the take-away of something is its most important point or lesson. It's the one part you should carry (home) with you to remember.

Readers may have a different 'take-home message' from the FiveThirtyEight.com story I linked to, if they read it. Since reading it may be an issue for a few, I will give a little more information: First, the headline.

Rick Santorum’s 2016 Bid Shows Just How Far The GOP Field Has Come

Excerpts:

This is a crowded, tough field.

Santorum also has an ideological problem. He was incredibly reliant on born-again and evangelical Christians in 2012, winning that constituency in 11 of the 19 states where he was on the ballot and that had an entrance or exit poll. Take that group away, and Santorum didn’t win the vote in any state that had an entrance or exit poll.

But while Santorum had little serious competition for the religious right in 2012, this year, that ideological space is crowded. In the last two national surveys from Fox News and Quinnipiac University, Santorum was languishing in 10th place among white evangelicals. Apparently, he hasn’t carried over any goodwill from his 2012 bid. He’s in the same place with born-again and evangelical Christians as he is among Republicans overall. He’s even trailing Gov. Chris Christie!

[...]

So “values voters” have a lot of options, but maybe Santorum can woo other wings of the GOP? Again, it’s unlikely. Santorum’s record on fiscal issues has been ripped by economic conservatives. In 2012, the Cato Institute called him a “Big Government Conservative” thanks to his votes for No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drug benefits and “the bridge to nowhere.” During that election, the Club for Growth said he was “plagued by the big-spending habits.”

He also has little to offer establishment Republicans mostly concerned about taking back the White House. Santorum won two Senate elections in Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, but his 2006 defeat by over 17 percentage points was by far the worst for any incumbent that year. His statements on contraception, gay rights and women working outside the home suggest it’s unlikely that he would win over the middle.

-- and a reproduction of the chart at the story:

-- as for a reason for your knicker-knots, Adam, not a clue. The probative value of my last post is nil, of course, since we are not in court. Perhaps there is something in the story you dispute.

Edited May 27, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

-- as for a reason for your knicker-knots, Adam, not a clue. The probative value of my last post is nil, of course, since we are not in court. Perhaps there is something in the story you dispute.

William, you seem to be loosing your edge here.

Definition of PROBATIVE

1 serving to test or try

2 serving to prove

Now it also has a "legal" definition.

Funny how you assumed one when I meant the other.

A...

[william.scherk]

Docket 2015-007 Lumper V Splitter. En banc. Judge Ollie Livingston recording.

-- as for a reason for your knicker-knots, Adam, not a clue. The probative value of my last post is nil, of course, since we are not in court. Perhaps there is something in the story you dispute.

William, you seem to be loosing your edge here.

Definition of PROBATIVE
1 serving to test or try
2 serving to prove

Now it also has a "legal" definition.

Funny how you assumed one when I meant the other.

1. Which was the definition of probative value you meant? I am confused. Maybe something like this: after reading my brief comment, you ask: (bearing in mind the 2008 Republican nomination history, McCain) what can we conclude about the value of William's post in terms of proving its claims? Or, what can we conclude about the value of William's post, in terms of testable hypotheses; does William's post offer any material that serves as a test or trial of matters of fact?

I don't know what you were getting at in your original sneer. "Probative value" is assessed in legal realms. Thus my first impression was that you were asking what is the 'proof value' in my brief comment and illustration. If I am 'loosing' my fine edge, your comments help to sharpen it, so thank you.

From another angle, the phrase 'probative value' is what was put in play -- not the shorn word alone; we can find "probative value" as a concept best-defined in legal dictionaries. Even so ...

Here's the definition of probative from the American Heritage dictionary:

1. Furnishing evidence or proof.
2. Serving to test, try, or prove.

You could assess the probative worth/value/weight of my first comment in the referenced article, or in my words.

Probative value in the legal sense, in my first comment? Negligible. In the pedestrian sense? Uncertain, needs testing. Your apparent interest in testing, trying, discussing the article and its analysis? Nil.

***************************

2. What do you think of Santorum's chances, and what do you think about the evangelical vote? So far your remarks are procedural, stuck to the surface of words. Your thoughts on the politics of Santorum are far more interesting and valuable, I'd say, than scuffling over word choices and meanings.

Can Santorum expect to have the same success in primaries that he had in 2012? The article says no. If you have some reason to doubt that particular conclusion, well, get at it and show your reasoning.

***************************

3. One more circle round the drain, from another angle, hoping to understand and respond to your question, including my gloss on your knicker-twist:

William: FiveThirtyEight.com has a rather sour look at Santorum's chances in the GOP race (takehome: dismal), but also has [a] useful graphic:

Adam: I contrast the 'dismal chances' John McCain faced in the 2008 Republican primaries. If the take-home message in 2008 was also dismal for McCain at this point, therefore, what can we conclude about the proof value of your last post, William? I suggest that if you take an early 'snapshot' of GOP candidate polling, it might be indicative, or it might be irrelevant to the final state of the game. Think about it: where was John McCain in the GOP polls in May 2007? I caution you in getting too far ahead of facts.

-- look at this from my POV, Adam. I have pointed to an article that assesses Santorum's chances as, in my own words, dismal. I point to an analysis.

And you bite my finger.

************************

4. If I take seriously your comparison between Santorum's present polling numbers among evangelicals -- and McCain's 2007 polling numbers among evangelicals, here is what I find:

Giuliani, McCain Lead Among Evangelical Republicans April 2, 2007

One of the largest religious groups in the U.S., representing about one-fifth of the electorate, white evangelicals are a strong Republican constituency. According to the 2004 exit polls, 78% of this group voted for George W. Bush while 21% supported John F. Kerry. In 2006, the exit polls showed that 72% of this group voted for Republican congressional candidates and 27% for Democratic congressional candidates.

What are the candidate preferences of white evangelical Republicans at this early stage of the 2008 presidential campaign? The Forum’s analysis of the findings from a recent survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press provides an interesting early reading

-- compare the table of results from 2007 here with the table from the present:




So, there you go, Adam. Polls, polls, analysis, ranking, hindsight, foresight. Given what I understand, Santorum is going nowhere. In 2007, McCain was one of the top two candidates with Evangelical voters. In 2015, at a roughly comparable time in the election cycle, Santorum is with the bottom-dwellers.

Probative value of this comparison to you, Adam? I don't know.

*************************

5. All procedural matters stamped and filed, what is your beef, Adam?

*************************

6. Forgive me for going on. This is an example of a comment that has slid out of drydock before its time. If we have a disagreement on facts or conclusions, an imbalance between our opinions, if we have contradictory findings or claims, it is in both our interests to solve them, in my humble opinion.

Edited May 28, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Where is your post on Governor Pitaki's chances?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Scott Walker for ability and will to take on the Fed bureaucracy. Anyway, I think the top spot will go to a governor with a Senator as #2. (Walker-Paul?)

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Adam, I give you the floor on Pataki, as you lived near/under his administration for his ten year reign. If he can get himself some money, some endorsements, a pulse in the polls, an organization, and a spot at the GOP debates, I'd say he could offer some decent triangular action via Establishmentarianism. If he undermines the appeal of Paul, Cruz, Rubio, etc, it could make Bush seem a more balanced candidate, in the acceptable middle-zone sweet spot. If Pataki can help intensify the contrast between a 'right-way' Cruz/Huckabee/Santorum/Walker/etc and a left-way Pataki, he could be useful setting topics for the final thrash-out (Establishment Candidate Or Not) the GOP must finesse to defeat Hillary. On the whole, I'd say his candidacy would tend to benefit Bush. That's my far-away-by-the-igloo take-home.

I don't know enough about Pataki to estimate his powers or reach or impact on the race. Some say he is a complete long-shot.

Here's his announcement video. It made me want to gird my loins, grab my spear, and go out to hunt dangerous game.

You?

Edited May 29, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Yes Bill, he is a long shot according to the "prognosticators."

It is too early to waste time on this William.

The real issue is whether Evita can get the nomination.

If she does, it is over.

We deserve what we get and we will more than likely transform into a different America.

A...

[william.scherk]

The real issue is whether Evita can get the nomination.

If she does, it is over.

We deserve what we get and we will more than likely transform into a different America.

Could it get any worse than it is after eight years of an Obama?

If Hillary struggles through the minefields and gets the Democratic nomination, she will have to beat this guy. He is apparently staking a position to the populist, progressive left of the Democratic grandee:

-- insert reference to Eva Peron's "shirtless ones" ... Malley as a descamisado.

Edited May 30, 2015 by william.scherk