That's in respect to the 700 volunteers he mobilized, not the registration of voters. Sounds pretty good. Well, sort of. The group he headed predated project vote. From the quotes about his previous activism and organizational skills it sounds like he was very effective. Have you noticed that I'm asked what seems like a rhetorical question, then I go out and do the research and find out that, yes, such-and-such group did accomplish a fair bit, then the questioner moves on to the next question? Okay. As I've said before, then you must be quite enamored with the job the Federal government has done during the last 30 years of McCain's tenure. I couldn't read your link as it didn't work, however I checked the SAT scores by state and Illinois does terribly measured by participation rate -- in fact, they're almost (but not quite) as bad as most of the southern states. In fact, Illinois does better in participation rate and score than Kansas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. etc. You know, Republican states. By score Illinois is now second highest in the nation for high SAT scores. Paste this into an excel spreadsheet and check like I did: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-08-28-sat-table_N.htm Not sure why you like to cherry pick Chicago rather than the whole state only when it's convenient. Alright, I do know -- it's because you're looking to reaffirm your beliefs. But cherry picking isn't a very logical way to discover truths. In trade, I'll quote the unemployment rate in Sun City.
I think it's cool you do your research and I respect your work ethic. A lot. You might want to check your SAT scoresheet. Only 8% of Illinois schools reported-none are in Chicago. (the CPS only reports ACT's and not as a district but by individual schools) Why do I cherry pick Chicago? Well for starters it's the third biggest city in the nation, it has a quarter of the population in Illinois and it's the city that OBAMA LIVES IN AND REPRESENETED IN SPRINGFIELD. I could make my point even better by JUST focusing on the schools WITHIN Obama's Ill Sen district. (don't get me wrong Obama actually has better district demographics than several others) You may find this to be an interesting read on suburban Illinois vs. Chicago testing. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/08/the-school-fund.html
Well thank you, it's very kind of you to say that. Sometimes I disagree with the Democrats (okay, often I disagree with the Democrats) and OFTEN I disagree with the Republicans lately, but I've tried to find the truth by doing research. I took the average of the VMW SATs to calculate it, then sorted the list. Again, Obama was a state Senator, not a Chicago senator. And McCain lives in Phoenix. How did it do? (And my follow up: why does it matter unless McCain was mayor?) Look I hear you, and Phoenix has been accused of inflating test scores. (Again: who cares?) But to get back on topic, the accusation was that Obama lacked experience which both you and I agree lacks merit.
I think a big PLUS for the Dems is that they conserve and build up the economy and then the Reps get elected and they spend the surplus and some.
That's one way to look at it. The other way is to look a little deeper and understand that when the Republicans take office they have to lower taxes and invest to jumpstart the economy that the Dems have almost ruined in the previous few years. For example, look at what kind of mess Reagan inherited from Carter. Not to mention the stock market collapse of 2000, and accompanying near recession, that Bush had to repair after Clinton... who had been very successful at hiding all sorts of terrible risks (like Al Qaeda's growth) under the rug and then Bush had to deal with the whole 9/11 disaster and then some. Still, under Bush, we were victorious, the Middle East is more free and more democratic, the economy boomed and millions of new jobs were created. The little pullback late last year and early this year? Natural, and gone. Look at the 2Q results: +3.3% growth, again. Oh well.
Wow, actually that ad reflected very poorly on Hillary. Her last statement is the fallacy of mockery, her first statement is guilt by association, and her second statement was misrepresentation. Now I'm glad she didn't win.