Sunday, January 30, 2005
Time to stop using the word "spin"—let's start using the word "torque"
Because spin just isn't intense enough.
Usage example: "I'd give the torque on this one a 9.8 on The Mighty Corrente Ten Point Torque-age Scale™."
Or: "Surprise! The wingers are totally torquing the Iraqi election results."
Or not a surprise.
Look, I'm sure that the turnout numbers are entirely trustworthy—I'm not even going to let the idea that the numbers are as solid as the numbers in a Republican swing state cross my beautiful mind.
But honestly. These guys are playing the expectations game so hard, you'd think that Inerrant Boy came in second in New Hampshire again. Which should be enough to tell us what's really going on, yes?
Anyhow, here's something that's closer to a bottom line:
About what was expected, right? So why do I hear all these "history in the making" drums beating, anyhow? Looks kinda like the US election results in oh, about 1860, wouldn't you say?
Oh yeah. The early torque was that voting had approached 70%. Here's a little coverage, buried of course, on the methodolody behind those numbers:
But gosh. The MWs just ate those numbers up, didn't they? I just wish the wingers were as good at fighting real wars as they are at fighting frame wars. But then, since they're all chickenhawks, they wouldn't have any idea about that, would they?
Usage example: "I'd give the torque on this one a 9.8 on The Mighty Corrente Ten Point Torque-age Scale™."
Or: "Surprise! The wingers are totally torquing the Iraqi election results."
Or not a surprise.
Look, I'm sure that the turnout numbers are entirely trustworthy—I'm not even going to let the idea that the numbers are as solid as the numbers in a Republican swing state cross my beautiful mind.
But honestly. These guys are playing the expectations game so hard, you'd think that Inerrant Boy came in second in New Hampshire again. Which should be enough to tell us what's really going on, yes?
Anyhow, here's something that's closer to a bottom line:
The turnout appeared to follow predicted lines: High in the country's Shiite Muslim south and Kurdish north, where populations disenfranchised by the government of Saddam Hussein embraced the opportunity to gain power in Baghdad -- and low in areas dominated by the Sunni Arabs where the insurgency has been centered.
(via WaPo)
About what was expected, right? So why do I hear all these "history in the making" drums beating, anyhow? Looks kinda like the US election results in oh, about 1860, wouldn't you say?
Oh yeah. The early torque was that voting had approached 70%. Here's a little coverage, buried of course, on the methodolody behind those numbers:
There was no firm count of the number of people who voted, as Iraqi election officials in the evening backed away from an earlier estimate that turnout was approximately 72 percent. Sarid Ayar, spokesman for the electoral commission, said in the evening that the earlier numbers were "anticipations," and Reuter quoted him as "guessing" that maybe 8 million Iraqis voted, which would be a little over 60 percent of registered voters.
But gosh. The MWs just ate those numbers up, didn't they? I just wish the wingers were as good at fighting real wars as they are at fighting frame wars. But then, since they're all chickenhawks, they wouldn't have any idea about that, would they?
