« Does Lamont Hurt Downticket? | Main | Lieberman on Mandates »

August 08, 2006

Random Thoughts

By Ezra

• So it's Lamont by four percent. I prefer not to think of this as a win. It's more a two-way tie for first.

• Somebody tell Marty that correlation is not causation.

• If this gets spun in the next few days as a microscopic margin so infinitesimal as to be mere statistical error, try and keep in mind the towering mandate the media agreed Bush had after his three -- not four -- percent win over Kerry. Lamont beat that spread by a point. I'd love, in fact, to see if Lieberman made any comments about the president's mandate in the days directly following the 2004 election. If he bought into the hype then...

August 8, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Random Thoughts:


"Somebody tell Marty that correlation is not causation."

For a man with a very long history of saying batshit crazy things, I think Peretz has really set a new personal best.

Posted by: Petey | Aug 8, 2006 11:47:09 PM

So it's Lamont by four percent. I prefer not to think of this as a win. It's more a two-way tie for first.

Or you could be more accurate, and think of it as a clear yet close win for Lamont. Lieberman is of course being a self-centered, entitled jerk.

Lieberman's personal problems do not make this "a two-way tie for first."

Posted by: Stephen | Aug 8, 2006 11:50:06 PM

This is like a man watching two women fighting, but instead of breaking it up, he shouts "CATFIGHT" to his buddies.....highly entertaining!!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 8, 2006 11:57:41 PM

The first commenter on that Plank thread had it right: with friends like Peretz, Lieberman really didn't need enemies.

Posted by: kth | Aug 9, 2006 12:00:29 AM

I kind of feel sorry for Fred, because he has to lead a fairly miserable existence. What depths of loneliness drive someone to spend hundreds of hours posting on the blogs of strangers he hates?

Posted by: Christmas | Aug 9, 2006 12:03:26 AM

Peretz is an idiot. Lieberman fell 50 points in the polls before Bill Clinton ever showed up. But I guess if Bill is responsible for 9/11, the disaster in Iraq, the record debt and the moral decline of the U.S. he may as well be blamed for this too.

Posted by: Mike | Aug 9, 2006 12:10:37 AM

I'm still a bit confused by Peretz's take on Clinton (and a host of other issues, to be completely honest). Peretz hates liberals, hates Clinton, and therefore assumes that liberals hate Clinton. Speaking as one of them, I can only attribute this to Jewish logic. Christians don't like Jews, Moslems don't like Jews, and they dislike each other. QED. I can't wait until he finds a way to blame Max Cleland next...is he above repeating the Osama slur?

Posted by: jfaberuiuc | Aug 9, 2006 12:27:46 AM

bayh has already come out in support of Lamont- expect more in the next couple of days. the tick tick tick off lieberman's shelf life - and of course the true death blow would be the endorsement of the Republicans who are what polling 9 percent with their actual candidate?

Posted by: akaison | Aug 9, 2006 12:40:14 AM

"bayh has already come out in support of Lamont- expect more in the next couple of days."

Expect pretty much all elected Democrats to endorse Lamont in the next couple of days, including a full 100% of Dems planning a Presidential bid.

Posted by: Petey | Aug 9, 2006 12:47:33 AM

"Peretz is an idiot."

I beg to differ. Peretz is batshit crazy. Peretz is an escaped mental patient. Peretz believes Bob Hope is controlling his thoughts via radio signals to the metal fillings in his teeth.

Please don't slur idiots by including Peretz in their number.

Posted by: Petey | Aug 9, 2006 12:51:16 AM

If you follow Ezra's "two-way tie for first" link, you get the 2004 primaries, where Joementum declares himself to be in a "three-way tie for third".

I'm notoriously bad at picking up on snark, but that's what I'm guessing it was.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Aug 9, 2006 1:43:27 AM

Okay, Petey, I seldom agree with you on the finer points of Democratic politics, but your last comment cracked me up.

Posted by: latts | Aug 9, 2006 1:56:40 AM

Marty Peretz has lost his mind.

Around the time Clinton endorsed Lamont we had Lieberman he would run as an independent and we had the debate. So there were two major events around that time that would have caused Lieberman's numbers to drop sharply.

But no, for Mary Peretz the explanation has to be that a popular Democratic president endorsed Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

Sad thing is Marty Peretz was an advisor to Al Gore during the 2000 election and played a key role getting Lieberman the VP slot. What the hell was Al Gore thinking listening to this nutjob?

Posted by: Nan | Aug 9, 2006 2:40:00 AM

Charles Franklin explains it all.

Posted by: Petey | Aug 9, 2006 4:20:31 AM

Do you have "winning issues" or something? This wasn't a gallup poll. These were actual results. It's not a tie, it's a win. Lamont won. OK?

Posted by: Toast | Aug 9, 2006 6:29:49 AM

Weirdest moment of the evening:

The song playing Lieberman off the stage at his concession/indie rally was the Rolling Stones' Start Me Up.

In other words, Mr. Better Morals in Entertainment exited the stage to Mick Jagger singing "You'd make a dead man cum..."

Posted by: Petey | Aug 9, 2006 8:53:57 AM

"a microscopic margin so infinitesimal as to be mere statistical error"

To quote legendary 20th century philosopher Charlie Brown, "aaaaaaaaauuuuuugh!" The POLLS are the statistics. The VOTES are the true values. Real numbers have zero variance and thus zero margin for error. There is a real and indisputable difference between the number 1 and the number 2, and there is an indisputable difference between 146,000 and 136,000.

I think "Wanker for Life" status accrues to anyone who makes the argument in real life that this election was not statistically significant.

Posted by: diddy | Aug 9, 2006 10:04:51 AM

Peretz just lied. The two polls right before the Clinton visit showed Lamont with a 4 or 10 point lead. And the trend was ominous because Lamont had erased a 50 point Lieberman lead.

Kos correctly predicted at the time, that Clinton was going to stop the Lieberman free-fall and make it a race.

It's still an open question how much Clinton helped - since Lieberman didn't win, but trying to blame Clinton for the loss is a classic neo-con mis-direction, and simply false.

Posted by: Samuel Knight | Aug 9, 2006 10:17:49 AM

I don't know about "Wanker for Life", but I do think that Ezra's claiming a 4% victory is a tie, combined with yesterday's post asserting that it didn't really matter whether Lamont actually won, is, well, bizarre. Must be that Beltway water supply.

Posted by: Toast | Aug 9, 2006 10:20:05 AM

I agree Toast, between this two-way tie thing and his delusional post about Francis Collins the other day, there must be something in the Beltway water.

Posted by: evilchemistry | Aug 9, 2006 12:20:25 PM

Oh Jesus guys, click the link if it looks weird to you. It's a joke.

Posted by: Ezra | Aug 9, 2006 12:30:51 PM

Ooops. My bad. Apologies.

Posted by: Toast | Aug 9, 2006 12:54:23 PM

Martin's newly finished portrait can be seen at MartinPeretz.com

Posted by: Wayne | Aug 9, 2006 1:49:54 PM

"Oh Jesus guys, click the link if it looks weird to you. It's a joke."

There is nothing at all funny about Holy Joe. Except when he tries to sing...

Ezra, I believe you're the victim of a Joemisunderstanding.

Posted by: Petey | Aug 10, 2006 8:46:48 AM

"If this gets spun in the next few days as a microscopic margin so infinitesimal as to be mere statistical error..."

Except, of course, that there is no such thing as 'statistical error' in an election - an election tallies the preferences of the entire voting population, while a poll only takes a few thousand people into account at most. Statistical error occurs when you're estimating the population's parameters from a sample. Elections don't have a sample, they directly examine the parameters. The fact that the media didn't laugh Holy Joe out of town for that stupid remark in 2004 is proof that journalists, like teachers, don't need to be trained in 'reporting' but in the subjects on which they are to report.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have my head to bang against a wall.

Posted by: Padraig | Aug 10, 2006 9:14:38 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.