Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Can This Really Be True?

The following rather flabbergasting statement appears in the description of Chuck Todd's new book (sheesh! that was quick!) How Barack Obama Won:
By the way, since 1928 there has not been a winning Republican presidential/vice-presidential ticket without a Bush or Nixon.

Uh, I dunno, wow?

11 comments:

jimf said...

> > By the way, since 1928 there has not been a winning
> > Republican presidential/vice-presidential ticket without
> > a Bush or Nixon.
>
> Uh, I dunno, wow?

That's because the Bush-entity and the Nixon-entity are actually
Thetans. They're billions of years old, you know.

Like the Canopeans of Doris Lessing's SF saga, they get reincarnated
from time to time and re-enter the world's stage.

There's more in heaven and earth, Horatio, . . .

;->

Anonymous said...

BFD.

Dale Carrico said...

BFD.

You took the time to make this comment? Weird.

Martin said...

Probably a typo. He means 1968.

Dale Carrico said...

It is a bit boggling to realize how far back Nixon/Bush goes back given that Nixon was Eisenhower's veep. But since the Hoover Administration (with Curtis as veep, right?) lasted through 1933, the 1928 definitely seems off. Also, Ford's veep was Nelson Rockefeller, and though the Nixonian era resignations probably make it true, strictly speaking, that there was no "winning ticket" involved there, it does feel like a rather precious verging on misleading point to make.

Dale Carrico said...

Oh, and, duh. I suppose Hoover's winning ticket was 1928 and so, if we concede the terminological minuet around Ford, then I guess the point stands after all. Huh.

Kyle Parry said...

The image of Chuck Todd doing any kind of minuet is quite comical, I must say.

Having never heard such a fantastic phrase as "terminological minuet," I Googled it...Only 1 search result on -- of all places -- a Wiki for Guild Wars (?):

This is a delicate terminological minuet. Is it the weapon that ignores armor, or is it the damage? I say the damage, which makes the question of whether JI causes armor ignoring damage (to occur) or not relevant. — Stabber (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

(!)

Anonymous said...

I guess the point stands after all. Huh.

The point does stand, of course, but one has to wonder what's so important about it.

That is, I'm not precisely sure what the point of the point actually is. There were plenty of Republican tickets during that time period that didn't include Nixon or a Bush. Of course these tickets were losing tickets, but any one of them might have won. Knowing this, the author's point seems less interesting already.

Furthermore, during the same time period there were two other Republican tickets of particular note. Both were losing tickets. However one had a Bush, and the other, a Nixon.

Todd offers us a piece of trivia -- which like all trivia is trivially true -- as if it were pregnant with some profound or shocking commentary. And Dale, your published reaction was one of shock. But I'm afraid there's not much in the way of commentary to be found there, least of all the kind at which we would want to 'wow'.

Rather we're left with the somewhat mundane observation that American voters often prefer to vote for familiar names and familiar faces.

And didn't we know this already?

Dale Carrico said...

The realization that there were no actually winning Republican tickets that do not contain the names Nixon or Bush -- names that that have come widely to be connected to the very worst most corrupt most criminal most hated most destructive most evil Presidents in the history of the Nation -- actually does meet the bar as interesting enough to take mild notice of, seems to me, even if I don't think there is really that much to be made of it. So I did note it, as you see.

But the fact that you, Brave Anonymous, fail to care about this at all a t a l l AT ALL!, although you do care enough to broadcast how little you care in this way, is duly noted, for whatever that's worth.

I daresay this isn't the last time I will have seen fit to note something I find marginally noteworthy that you do not.

I tend to think this is the sort of thing Republicans would rather not be noticed in these days of their well-deserved disarray and distress, but of course I would never suggest that this is your own motive for insisting so urgently we stop forthwith noticing this marginally interesting factoid, since, after all, I don't even know you.

Anonymous said...

Do you do this often? Change the subject to your reader's motivations? Well, here's what your response would have been if you weren't such an asshole:

Since 1928, the only times the Republicans were able to win a Presidential election, it was by nominating the most shameless, amoral, dirty-trickster liars they could find to obfuscate, misdirect, and mudsling their way to a victory which, in an honest campaign on the issues, would otherwise have been lost like every other.

Now that, if true, would be worth noting.

Dale Carrico said...

Do you often go on endlessly like this -- and Anonymously, one notes, how brave! -- commenting how unworthy of comment some random blog post is? If this incidental post is so very unworthy of note, then ignore it for heaven's sake like everybody else surely will if you're right. I never even invested this point with anything in the way of abiding interest until you started freaking out about it. How typical that you sputter about what an "asshole" I am while I generously allow you to rub your feces all over my Moot to no purpose.