Republicans defect to the Obama camp
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
No, you are being deliberately obtuse here. If you voted for Ross in the '92 election when you would usually vote D, then went back to voting D the next year it doesn't show a pattern of voting for Ross and therefore a "defection" from the Reform Party.
I don't care how many people they put in there, if they don't give a pattern to suggest that they are "defecting" the article doesn't provide enough information to reflect a "defection". It is likely that they didn't include the information because it didn't support their assertion of "defection".
Right. That's what I'm doing....
I'll happily say that people are "defecting" regularly. I do not think that one incident of support though represents a pattern. One is not "defecting" if there is no pattern to defect from.
I have stated consistently that this story does not give enough information for me to judge whether or not these people "defected" from anything.
uscitizen
Villified User
Did the article say it was a pattern ? They mentioned a few which is technically plural hence Republicans. But they did mention some significant ones, they did not mention joe blow in Ky defecting
A "defection" implies a pattern.Did the article say it was a pattern ? They mentioned a few which is technically plural hence Republicans. But they did mention some significant ones, they did not mention joe blow in Ky defecting
No, one cannot defect from something they have no real loyalty to.
Hence my examples. If you once voted for Ross, but then later returned to your regular voting pattern when did you defect? Did you defect from Ross?
You are obfuscating and pretending you don't understand what I am talking about because you realize that I have a valid point, but don't want to admit it.
If an editorial article later represented your "defection" from Ross Perot basing it on the one time you voted for him would you find it based on reality?
The article gives one example for each of them of support, then says it is a "defection" without showing a pattern of behavior that would allow me to judge whether it is a defection or a return to a regular pattern.
Also, a person who consistently changes and supports people over party can constantly be supporting people of different parties, maybe even to the point of donating enough to be a "Ranger" all without "defecting" from their regular pattern.
While I do not say that they haven't "defected" I will state that this particular story doesn't give enough information on any of their examples to show that there has been a "defection".
I am not. I have even stated above about somebody donating money. How many times did this person donate money previously to the R party? To the Dem party? Such an example of their pattern of behavior would be evidence of a "defection".
You sir, are being deliberately obtuse.
No action done once can be considered a pattern of usual behavior, or loyalty, that somebody has "defected" from. Somebody could hate Kerry enough to donate a ton of cash to defeat him, yet return to the D Party immediately thereafter, it would not be a sign of "defection" from Bush as much as it would be a sign of a one time difference in their normal pattern.
When the only evidence presented was one-time worth of donations such patterns cannot be determined.
This particular story limits itself such in scope that determination of "defection" is impossible.
Personally I am speaking to the editorial in question and not to the fact that I believe that many Rs are "defecting". I do believe that. It is just this particular story is not a good example in that it doesn't present the patterns of behavior that one could use to determine such a pattern/loyalty.
