The DSCC is an Apparent Product of SC Public Schools. New Ad Offers Flawed Math and Faulty Logic.
August 5, 2008
If you haven’t seen the ad, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has it out for Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC).
In its latest television ad critiquing her effectiveness, citing Roll Call’s “power rankings” the DSCC claims that Liddy Dole ranks 93rd among her colleagues.
“Only six other senators ranked less effective,” the ad claims.
First, I either missed the constitutional convention or somebody’s math is off.
100 senators – 93 senators = 7 senators. (NOTE: I’m aware there was an open seat, but there are still 100 positions in the Senate).
Second, Roll Call notes that among “the general factors affecting this member’s score,” she has “too few terms or years in office in Congress to have significant clout.”
Let me understand this.
The DSCC expects voters to elect a new senator who would have even fewer years or terms in office and would be even less effective?
If “effectiveness” is more important than ideology, wouldn’t the DSCC want Senator Dole to remain in office to gain the seniority she needs for the people of North Carolina?
Nice work, DSCC.
– Wilson Charles
Entry Filed under: Wilson Charles -- Politics and Finance. Tags: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, DSCC, Elizabeth Dole, Roll Call.
4 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Learn to Count | August 6, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Before graduating to addition and subtraction, maybe you should learn to count.
From the Power Rankings
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/power_rankings/overall.tt
93. Sen. Dole (R-NC)
94. Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN)
95. Sen. Voinovich (R-OH)
96. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK)
97. Sen. Corker (R-TN)
98. Sen. Craig (R-ID)
99. Sen. Barrasso (R-WY)
That is six, count em, six senators with less clout than Dole
The list is missing a senator because Trent Lott had resigned when the list was compiled and his replacement had not yet been appointed.
2.
otherbrooksbrother | August 6, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Thanks, #1. You really are a moronic douche, aren’t you?
I recommend changing your nom de plume to “Learn to Read.”
We appreciate you pointing out the web address where the power rankings are located. In our attempt to hide the source of the ad’s claim we completely neglected to link to the address you provided.
Oh, wait. Never mind. Wilson linked it in his second sentence. My bad.
I also appreciate you pointing out the inconsistency in his math.
No. Hold up. That was unnecessary, too.
Wilson clarified his statement for you. In case you missed it, it reads a little something like this “100 senators – 93 senators = 7 senators. (NOTE: I’m aware there was an open seat, but there are still 100 positions in the Senate).”
Truth be told, you’re a liar, #1.
With your comment, you either aren’t being honest with yourself or you aren’t being honest with the readers here.
Even if what you said was true, you still don’t even attempt to address the fact that Senate effectiveness is based largely on seniority, and since Senator Dole is both a junior member and a member of the minority party, she will automatically rank lower.
You also don’t address the fact that a replacement would rank lower than that right off the bat.
If you wanted to say, “I don’t like Senator Dole because of ____________, _____________, and ______________,” that would be one thing. We could have a civil discourse and possibly accomplish something that would include, but not be limited to, raising the level of debate. That’s not what you’re doing, though.
With that said, beat it. Take your disingenuous “argument” somewhere that won’t call you out for being the “yes girl” you are.
Oh. Thanks for stopping by.
– Bo Burdette
3.
Learn to Count | August 7, 2008 at 9:50 am
Thanks for inviting me to have a “civil discourse” after calling me a douche.
Now lets get to the seniority.
Elizabeth Dole has six years of seniority. Yet there are 4 Senators with even LESS seniority who rank HIGHER than Dole.
85. Vitter – 4 years seniority
87. DeMInt – 4 years seniority
91. Casey – 2 years seniority
92. Tester 2 years seniority
93. Dole – 6 years
So Dole is so ineffective that even additional seniority is no consolation. She ranks behind even David Vitter, who is a scandal plagued dead man walking.
4.
Bo Burdette | August 20, 2008 at 7:29 pm
For anyone else who thought my comment responding to “Learn to Count” was too harsh and that I unfairly judged her, Marty Kady of THE POLITICO made my point about how disingenuous the commenter was where he writes “Having just returned from the Tobacco Road campaign trail, this Scorecard contributor noticed that Hagan’s strategy is to go right after Dole, ripping her in public forums, press releases and advertisements, trying to chip away at the sterling image Dole has cultivated as North Carolina’s favorite daughter.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0808/North_Carolina_Senate_race_tightening.html?showall
– Bo Burdette