we should all realize that we are all human and that we make mistakes. Just because someone is the leader of a major liberal blog doesn't mean that they can do no wrong. I know that this is obvious as you read it, but we have developed this subconsciousness about folks like Chris, Jerome, Kos, and others.
We all make mistakes. Chris at least has admitted his. Lets realize the problems that were made, learn from them, and move on.
IL-6, as other bloggers have said is a battle in a much larger war in the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party - and we won't win every single one. However, at the end of the day, we will prevail because we are right.
Thanks for admitting you goofed. We all make mistakes. No long lasting hard feelings.
I've just been fighting in the trenches on this on for a long time and feel like core to my fight was that no one believed what I was saying. Then this post confirming it.
Hopefully some learning will come out of this.
Given Mike's frontpage post, I think that you should write an extended version of this on the frontpage. This subject of conventional wisdom in DC and the bloghsphere deserves more attention.
I think no more anecdotal polling data. If they have it, they should show it. I heard too about polling data in the 6th, but no one I know has ever seen it. The question always was: well, if they've got this great data that shows how weak Cegelis is and how strong Duckworth is -- then why won't they publish it?
You can't hide it and selectively release bits and pieces. The republicans tried to do so with their "Contract on America".
A 14-month investigation into Luntz's work found that he repeatedly had refused to disclose the questions and methodology of polling work he had done during the development of the Republicans' 1994 "Contract With America," of which he claimed to have been a chief architect -- a hotly refuted claim among critics.
Luntz said that the information in question was proprietary...
Donors don't produce the cash without polling numbers first. They had polling numbers & didn't show them because they were much lower than they expected. They just kept telling everyone whatever marketing rhetoric they wanted to hear: Duckworth will get 50% (+/-) of the vote. She's polling that well.
When the campaign's PR contractors never released any info of substance, it was obvious. Lots of marketing hyperbole, smoke & mirrors.
Duckworth will never survive Roskam. I'm certain he already has something & is just waiting for the right time to hit her with it during the election cycle.
I believe the "Friends of Tammy Duckworth" FEC report showed tens of thousands of dollars going to polling businesses. If those numbers had been any good, they would have leaked the numbers to the media to demoralize grassroots guerillas like the notorious M.I.C.
But they didn't. Instead, their surrogates kept saying they had great numbers that they were not releasing for long term tactical reasons.
It was bullsht -- I'd say self-evident bullsht -- but I fully expect the folks that fell for that line to do so again next time. While every claim from the Cegelis campaign was subject to intense scrutiny from the media, old and new, but they ate up every statement from the superflaks at the Duckworth campaign like it was made of sugar.
Just embarassing.
I am even more embarrassed for those who volunteered for Duckworth after watching her commercials and seeing all the media coverage. Do they believe everything they see on TV?
