Anyone want to compute, as an exercise, the conditional probability that nine out of thirty-some questions, all selected randomly from a pool of 5000 distinct questions, would be?

Answer: the possibilities depend on some assumptions, but basically there are three possible classes of soution:

(1) A pool of Democrat operatives submitted something like 30 percent of ALL questions (call it 1500) and CNN didn’t notice.

(2) There is an exceedingly small probability(*) of (30/5000) * (9/5000), or about 0.0000108, that the choices were random and independent, or

(3) CNN was actually quite selective in choosing — and vetting — the questions.

(* this can be computed better, but it’s a weekend and I’m tired. If you want to make a more proper calculation, dropping the simplifying assumptions, using Bayes Rule, feel free. Personally, I don’t think most of the numbers about the universe of discourse are good enough to think of this as anything other than a back-of-envelope estimate anyway.)

I suspect the so-called support for the left in this country is more exagerated than real. Keep in mind the last Democrat who ran as a liberal and won was Johnson. Carter barely defeated Ford and that is more due to Ford’s pardon of Nixon and the fact that he was the only apointed President along with Carter seeming to be a Southern Conservative in ‘76. Clinton never won a majority and both elections had more votes against him than for him. Again Clinton did not campaign as a lefty and for the most part did not govern to left yet if he really was so popular then question is why did Gore lose? 2000 should have been a 1984, a landslide for Gore. A year in politics is an eternity so right now it is way to early to make any calls. Nevertheless the Democratic lineup is unusally weak and the Republicans in comparision are rather strong and have real records not smoke and mirrors. And that will come out in the real debates when Hillary or whomever the Democrats choose get the the tough questions that require answers and not platittudes and spin.

Is the problem that some of these questioners are getting paid while journalists carry Dem water for free?

Oh yes, he had to step down afterwards–but that made it even worse–as in, by g_d if such a thing is true, you’re gonna meekly quit your job when you get a little resistance on the accusation?

So, CNN manages to be both a viciously aggressive liar and a spineless cowardly wimp at the same time–no mean trick!

These so called debates are devolving.

Incidentally, almost no one watched the debates that we remember from years ago. This utter nonsense is what garners attention now. I’m not sure how you end up with a decent, serious candidate from all this.

Duncan Hunter could debate Kucinich on the war. That would be interesting and maybe we’d learn something and it would raise both of their profiles.

Why not?

Hillary was asked one question that blew up in her face and made her look like the equivocating flipflopper I thought only Kerry could be, and now she’s not to be asked any questions that don’t allow her to just pontificate meaninglessly. Meanwhile the Republicans are challenged by plants on policies they did not put in place and likely never would have supported. (Only Dems actually get away with being overtly racist and anti-gay.)

Conservatives have always been, are and will always be challenged on a daily basis and we have the well-constructed arguments, ideas and principles to prove it. Dems haven’t, don’t, won’t, and do not. The current crop of candidates and the Drive-Bys prove it and perpetuate it. If you never challenge someone, they never develop intellectual toughness. The Dems have no intellectual toughness.

It ain’t the Republicans that don’t think quick on their feet, bud.