text:
Register now for free, or sign in with any of these services:
Couldn't agree more. I am certainly not arguing that Rutgers has reached its fulll potential, or should be considered an elite, or even above average team right now. Certainly there is glaring room for improvement, mainly on the offensive side of of the ball, particularly the OC's and their overall philosophy. My beef is with people who equate room for improvement with total failure, and think that just because Schiano hasn't won the Big East yet that makes him the worst coach in the country who needs to be fired immediately. That kind of blinders-on, block-out-all-the-facts thinking is just plain stupid.
I may be the last optimistic New Jerseyan left. And damn proud of it.
The fact that many Johnny-Come-Lately, bandwagon fans--the very fans Syrcause supporters love to associate with Rutgers football--consider 48,000 tickets sold per game and 5 straight bowl appearances as a "terrible job" is a testament to just how remarkable a job Schiano has done. True, he hasn't won the Big East in ten tries, and his teams have seemed to plateau since that magical 2006 season, but that plateau is miles above where they were when he took over. You can argue that he hasn't achieved the goals he set for himself when he started this thing, but to claim the work he's done here is "terrible" only speaks to the ignorance and pessimism of the poster. Then again, this is Jersey, and the majority of its citizens are not happy unless they're complaining about something. Look at Mike Rice. All he's done is infuse a moribund basketball program with the kind of hope it hasn't had in years before even coaching his first game, and you already have fans saying "yeah, but..." No wonder the rest of the country looks down at the Garden State.
Holding the ball forever in the pocket despite having open receivers is not the fault of bad playcalling.
Taking off up the middle before your receivers even have a chance to run their complete routes is not the fault of bad playcalling.
Locking in on Sanu every single snap is not the fault of bad playcalling.
Throwing the ball into the dirt or sailing one way over the head of his receivers is not the fault of bad playcalling.
Throwing for a total of 29 yards versus Dodd's 176 is not the fault of bad playcalling.
Tom Savage was a Freshman All-American who has for some reason regressed to a QB who looks like the last thing in the world he wants to do is throw the ball to anybody not named Sanu. I've never seen a QB so gun-shy in my life. Blaming his struggles this year entirely on playcalling is simply sticking your head in the ground and denying the obvious. Yes, Dodd will struggle like any freshman, but to deny the fact that he provided a spark Savage hasn't been able to provide in 4 games is ridiculous to the point of being laughable. Savage got 4 chances to prove he's capable of pulling out of this funk and failed miserably each time. In one half of play, Dodd was more productive than Savage has been all season. The kid deserves the chance to keep that momentum going.
Tom: As much as your infamous "hollow" column from last year pissed me off, the "hollow 2-0 start" line above made me laugh out loud. Let it never be said journalists don't have a sense of humor.
Compared to football, baseball is nothing. Hate to break it to you, but the National Pastime is the NFL.
So another Big East football decision is made with an entirely basketball-first mentality. Shocking. Do the head honchos in Rhode Island even know what a football looks like?
Give me a break, dude.
fuhg: My brother played high school football with this kid. He's strong-willed, intelligent, and isn't being manipulated by anybody. As ru67 said, he's a grown man--a father no less--and can make his own decisions. Nobody will "forget him" next year, least of all the players on the team he inspired with his leadership. The only thing people will forget, mercifully, is your toxic, pointless, ignorant rants on these boards.
I'm a life-long Eagles fan, and Rex is just as entertaining, motivating, and laughably offensive as his pop was here. The only difference between the two that I can see, just based on one year of head coaching and 4 awesome episodes of Hard Knocks? Junior looks like he has the chops to actually craft a Super Bowl TEAM, not just a Super Bowl Defense like some other, older Ryan I could mention. Hell, I'm an out-of-shape 31-year-old dad who never played a down of organized football in his life, and I want to suit up for the guy after listening to him for 5 minutes on HBO. Rex rules.
Because every team plays a DIAA opponent, so who cares who it is? Because we have a relationship with the MEAC Conference, so we honor that by scheduling their schools. Because we have a long-standing rivalry with the service academies that actually means something to the long-time fans, as opposed to the Johnny-Come-Lately no-nothings like you. Because schedules are planned YEARS in advance, and ours are beginning to improve. For all those reasons, there is nothing wrong with playing Norfolk State in the opener, or Army , Tulane, and FIU as the other cupcake games. UNC will be a Top 25 team when we play them, which is hardly a gimme win. But perhaps the most important reason why everything you just wrote doesn't matter is that, despite what the editors at nj.com think, all you do is spew the same negative drivel whenever any article about Rutgers is posted. Most true fans balance their criticisms with some kind of logic instead of just ranting for a paragraph. You, however, seem to forget that.
Love when haters show their ignorance over the Norfolk States every year. As if Rutgers is the only one who schedules cupcakes. Penn State hasn't played a challenging out of conference schedule since before Joe Pa was in Depends.
Yup, but don't go looking for common sense or logic from Schiano bashers. You'll only give yourself a headache.
Sad but true, nick. Sad but true.
If Waters could've recruited kids like this, he'd still be here. The problem with Gary was that he never developed the ties to Jersey schools like Bannon and Hill--two Jersey guys--were able to do. That Rice has managed to pretty much match both of those coaches' best classes in his first year (assuming they all sign, of course) is impressive. What makes it damned near miraculous is that everybody and there brother is expecting Rutgers to have a not-so-great season this year with a depleted roster. That Rice and his staff were able to make young kids--who have been catered to all there lives and typically live very much in the here and now--see past that to future glory, bodes very well for Rutgers' future prospects.
I hardly think the loss of probably the 4th best TE on the team (a walk-on, not even a scholarship player) and the 5th best DB is going to lead to the death spiral of the Rutgers football program. Ditto for two offensive linemen whose names most people didn't even know until they read this article. Best of luck to the guys who transferred, but this is pretty much business as usual. In fact, there's a chance Schiano and co. knew about these moves back in the spring, considering they signed way more kids than most people thought they had scholarships for. Now we've got 12 open, so that really shouldn't be a problem.
Instead of listening to the Tom Waits version of "Jersey Girl" (singlular, not plural, Mr. Fan Man), I think I'll just pay a dentist to drill out both my ear drums. It's pretty much the same thing as listening to Tom Waits creak and groan his way throught any of his songs. Bruce sounds like Sinatra by comparison. Gotta love the Bruce haters on this site. I picture all of you salivating around your computers, waiting for nj.com to post another harmless article about a man 90% of the music world recognizes as a living legend, just so you can come on and post some meaningless whining under the laughable assumption that any Bruce fan gives a crap what you think.
In yesterday's article, you stated Buie was the 9th verbal. Now Lucas is the 12th. Who are the two who came in between?
Didn't Rutgers pass on Dion Lewis because he was "undersized?" Just sayin'. Besides, Huggins just released his Top Ten, and as promised, RU is on it. He's also seemed to be pro-RU since Day 1, so hopefully that counts for something.
I hate to defend the Ledger, but the phrases "he expressed interest in" and they were "actively recruiting him" might not mean any of those schools actually made him an offer. Pretty much every story the Ledger runs about RU tends to have facts distorted/omitted or at least is written with a negative bias, but in this case at least, there's a chance the ommission might be legit.


text:
Utah Jazz v Sacramento Kings
Palabras clave
Earl Watson of the Utah Jazz shoots the ball against the Sacramento... Fotografía de noticiasBaloncesto,Basket-ball - NBA Pro,California,Deporte,EE.UU.,Earl Watson,Encuadre de cuerpo entero,Mirando a la cámara,Pelota,Retrato,Sacramento,Sacramento Kings,Sleep Train Arena,Utah Jazz,VerticalPhotographer Don SmithCollection: National Basketball Association 2012 NBAESACRAMENTO, CA - NOVEMBER 24: Earl Watson #11 of the Utah Jazz shoots the ball against the Sacramento Kings on November 24, 2012 at Sleep Train Arena in Sacramento, California. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images Agreement. Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photo by Don Smith/NBAE via Getty Images)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Heads and Sticks Discuss Heads and Sticks
|Thread Tools
Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
Tonight I decided I would tune up my 13" tom and at the same time switch the stock head out with a new pinstripe. Bad idea. I took off the old pearl stock head and found an old new pinstripe to put on (I'll explain later) looking forward to tuning it so my kit would sound better.
I try to fit the pinstripe on the shell only to find that it cannot fit snugly. Not that its small or anything, the size is right but the length of the head or something about the metal part isn't quite right. At a desperate last attempt, I put the hardware on and try to screw down the tension rods but only one side of the rods (aka 3 rods out of 6) will fit on at any one time, whilst the other 3 dangle in the air and cannot reach the lugs!! I take the darn head off and put it on the floor and sure, enough, it rocks back and forth like crazy and is not level at all.
The reason why I said it's an old new pinstripe is because it is brand new, I bought it at a music shop sale mid to late last year, but it may have been their old stock. I had no idea old stock=completely defective heads.
I guess I'll go put my old stock head back on now. I think I will switch to Evans. I had a similar problem with another remo head I bought, not totally defective thankfully, but a bit banged up for a head that was supposed to be new. Evans seem to have much better quality control.
Is it just poor quality control by the shop/ Remo? Or should I have scrutinized the head more closely when I bought it? What can I do with the defective head? Should I just throw it out? It would probably be pointless to go back to the music shop for a refund for something I bought months ago right?
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
Are you sure the problem isn't with the shell itself. Do a little test to see if your shell is in round. Your old head might only fit because it shifted when the shell of the drum did too. If this is the case you will have problems with any head you try until you get the shell back perfectly round. I hope it is a head problem and not a shell problem because a new head is a much cheaper and easier fix.
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
Holy crap ive had these problems before to. I thought something was wrong with my drum at first but then i realized that it just didnt fit, so what i did was tried it on another tom of the same size and found out that indeed it was bent to rat shit. It might be something heavy lying on top of it in stock, or it getting banged up traveling to the store, or even on the car ride or bus ride home back to your own house. It could also e the case of being the companies fault wile building it
For me i switched to evans and just love it so much more than remo. I get better responses out of drums know and the tone is just amazing. I play metal and tune them really low and remo skins could really never take low tunnings very well, it would get to muddled and would sound bad, but evans sounds great tweaked to the max, but also sounds great when there increadibly loose
so in my humble opinion go with evans
and try a couple different ones out, see what you like. I use to have remo for the rack toms and evans for floor toms and bass drum, but also a remo for the snare
but know im all evans
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
Hi !
You could try to straight it up but it may not work...
You know what, every time I buy a new set of Remo
head for my 5 pieces kit, there is at least two problematic
heads... As an exemple, the bass drum Powerstroke 3 does
not fit on my Sonor... it's a standard 20" bass drum !! The last
snare side I got (diplomat snare side) was deffective (too much
material from one side) and the last ambassador I got was too
small in diametre... (14" snare head)
It also happen with Evans but not that much in my experience...
I never tryed Aquarian because they are rare in eastern Canada
but I would love to try their SuperKick bd head...
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
It would be the best $30 you ever spent. I love the SuperKick II
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
I thought about trying the coated ambassador over clear ambassador combo, but after this, I'm a little skeptical. What Evans heads would you recommend? I play indie and rock mostly, like lower tunings as well, never tried coated heads before. The EC2s look interesting but G2s seem to be the most commonly used.
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
I'm kinda on both sides of the Evans/ remo thing.
Eavns heads, straight up, great product, BUT I don't like the sound of them as much as Remo, especially when it comes to the single ply heads.
Coated Remo Ambassadors--I've used for years, and have never had a problem with a one.
No bad coating, no bent hoops nothing.
I USED to use Emperors, but hadn't in YEARS because they seemed to be real dead when you tap on them right out of the box (before you buy them), so I went with Ambassadors, and I loved them--and I also figured how can they screw up a single ply head?
Lots of ways, yeah, but I'm just sayin'.
I just put some Emps on my kit and they are really nice, but I checked them before I bought them (which I know many people can't for whatever reason).
Evans heads for all the consistency and quality, just don't have the crisp top end to the sound I want, especially the G1--it's not a crisp head to me like an Ambassador, but it's because of the film.
Evans uses it's Clear film for everything, and coats the Caoted heads.
They USED to use a White film, and THAT film was great.
It used to be the UNO 58 and I loved that head.
I could use any Evans top head I wanted, and the UNO 58 bottom head would give a brighter overall tone, but using the G1 (clear or Coated) would make the drum lose some life.
It didn't sound "bad", but it didn't sound as good as with the brighter UNO58.
For me, the White film is the difference, and it might have been a film similar to the one Remo uses for the Ambassador.
Now, if someone wants a beefier top end, without it being real crisp, then Evans is a fantastic head--and just going by looks, I think the frosted heads look cool as sh*t.
I used to love Aquarian heads and pretty much switched over to them for a couple years, but when they changed their film around '99-'00, their film just didn't hold up, and I didn't dig the sound as much--which really bummed me out.
The first use of the "new" heads, 3 or 4 songs into the set, and all the heads were dented to crap, and I hardy ever put a dent in one of my heads--and the previous film didn't dent, so I couldn't use them anymore.
Ambassadors last me without dents (even playing with double butt sticks) until the head just won't hold a tuning anymore--which is usually at least 3 or 4 months.
Kick heads (Coated Amb) last years and always sound great because of the way I do my beater impact patch, & how I can change them without messing the head up.
The snare head I use (Coated Emp w/top dot) lasted just short of a YEAR (on my main snare--a couple others have the same head), and it still sounded great for back beats, and rolls still felt....decent--but it was time to change it, so I think I get my moneys worth out of Remos.
But, between the 2 brands (Evans/Remo) for 2 ply heads (and if someone isn't going to be totally anal, and listen to every nuance in a head), then I'd say the Evans is a nicer, more consistent choice.
For Single ply, or different model types like a Black Dot, then I stick with Remo.
But either way, yes you should check the head over before you buy it--especially when it comes to blow out sales!
My band Artificial Agent here: http://drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116637
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
I have wanted to try the coated ambassadors for some time now, but some drummers I've talked to here have said that shops that stocks them here don't keep them well, added to that the hot and humid climate here, the coating gets sticky and comes off really easily. So i have to be extremely careful about buying coated ambs here. I've decided my next purchase will be coated G1s then some coated ambs for comparision sake
Thanks for all your information!
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
For what it's worth, I use (and have always used) Remo heads exclusively and have never had a problem or found a defect. I've used everything from clear Ambs (reso), coated Emps, clear Pinstripes, clear Powerstroke 3's, clear Powerstroke 4's (bass drum), and have always been happy with the outcome.
Just thought I'd throw that in there.
- Mike
Yamaha Birch Custom Absolute (recording); Tama Artstar II Birdseye Maple (live)
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
It must be the weather where you are for heads to store funny and do weird stuff.
I'm with Mikey, I've never had a bad Ambassador, and the only heads that were "bad" in the Emp range were a couple real dead ones (once they were on the drum) I sent back (& got good ones back), and a couple that got damaged in shipping in many years--a pretty good record I think.
I do find it odd that I basically "never" have had a problem with Remo heads, and there are people that have had nothing but trouble with Remo stuff...
You can check into the Remo's, but you have to go with the product that's not going to fail on you, so if that turns out to be Evans, then you have a great head and a nice sound out of them.
If you still kinda want to try Remo, but the conditions where you are screws up the coatings on heads, you could check out the Smooth White Remo head (Ambassador and Emp versions available), which is kind of an "in-between" sound of the Coated and Clear head sound.
The coated Amabassador just has that thin coating on it, so it's "basically" the same head--I'm sure there's some difference, but how much could be minor.
I really think that it's been the White film (as opposed to the Clear Hazy) that has been so durable and has held up to double butt sticks and not dented and has sounded good for quite a while--and actually, I was just thinking about trying these out (Smooth White) myself today.
I don't pound the crap out of the drums, but I do play hard & aggressive when songs call for it and that white film really holds up for me.
My band Artificial Agent here: http://drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116637
Last edited by KarlCrafton; 09-03-2008 at 08:39 PM.
Re: Defective Remo pinstripe !@#$
I've seen many defective Remo heads over the years, fortunately most of those weren't mine. I've seen Pinstripes especially the marching variety often defective out the box. I've personally had defective Fiberskyn Ambassadors and Fiberskyn Powerstroke (22") heads before. I've been using Evans all around now on both my kits and have not had any problems at all with quality. Evans does have a different tone than Remo though. I tried Aquarian, once and only once. I ordered 5 texture coated heads for my maple kit. (4 toms, 1 snare). I'm a jazz player mostly, so unless I'm pretending to be Buddy Rich, I don't play that hard, but within a few DAYs the coating was literally peeling off the heads. I've never seen this happen with ANY of Remo or Evans heads before. You could tap the drum and white coating would come off in a little dust cloud. Pretty soon big clear spots were in the drums and this defeated the purpose of the Aquarian "our coating resists chipping" heads. I've played on a snare drum that had an Evans G2 Coated on it for I'd say a good couple of YEARS and it only had two little spots where the coating was gone (the size of maybe a 5A tip for each) That's some tough stuff there....
|Thread Tools


text:
Register now for free, or sign in with any of these services:
Want to set your local edition?
Select an edition for more focused local news coverage when you visit AL.com.
Don't worry. You can change this setting at any time to another local edition.
I've been out of town for a few days so someone tell me,when was Urkel elected to the city council?
So it's 99 or none at all?None sounds about right to me.By the way,that huge sucking sound you hear is the worlds largest sigh of relief coming from the direction of Anchorage,Alaska.
I don't know who the scoundrels are posting this ghastly graffiti all over town but I can help narrow the search down - obviously they are not graduates of the Birmingham School System because all of the words are spelled correctly.
Just wait til the Butterbean Festival this weekend in Pinson.
This woman should abandon her bid for to become Bessemer's mayor and set her sights higher.She is obviously Jefferson County Commission material.
I'll return my check as long Bette Fine,Smooty and the rest of the oxygen thieves on that commission return the salaries they have received for doing nothing but making it almost impossible to work or do business in this county for the last 4-8 years.I'll take mine in cash,I don't trust any of them to write a good check.
AU6 - get a life...maybe you'll find your board a little more welcoming. Hopefully you realize that you can stop a running game if you put enough men on the line, but by doing so, you leave vulnerability with a passing game. Auburn had the mindset that they were going to do just that, no matter what. That's why they stopped one side of our offense and still lost.
That's just a beautiful picture of Bettye.Looks like she is basking in the afterglow of another one of her taxpayer fleecing decisions.I can't wait until we are no longer subjected to that mug in the news.
Wow,Muufuu,you are obviously a product of this fine Birmingham school system.I haven't seen that many spelling and grammar errors since my 5 year old came home from kindergarten with a hand written note to Santa Claus.
"Come into my lair" said the spider to the fly.Be careful what you ask for Mr.Bell you may get it.This guy is a very well educated lawyer so he debates for a living.I can't wait to see him chew you up and spit you out.Just try not to speak too much and your ignorance will not be as obvious.
Just one sentence in this article should rule this lady out of the job.He said he would have been interested in dating Horn but"she didn't want to".Although I can see why.Geez, did you get a good look at that mug.Now I know where "Urkel" from Family Matters ended up.
BroMoz - Could it possibly be the fact that he has no previous mugshots from other arrests because there aren't any? Geez, you think that just because he is white that the B'ham News is withholding his picture. Get a clue - racism goes both ways.
Sad thing is that after all of Bama's years of continuous probation, Auburn is STILL the most penalized team in NCAA history :-)
Shelia,your village called,their idiot is missing.
I'd rather be 12-2 than 5-7 any day.
Did the "Reverend" really need a bullhorn for that meeting?Were those attendees hearing impaired?Hell,he could have held that rally in a good sized walk-in closet.If that is all the support Larry can muster up on a weekend then the "caravan" to Tuscaloosa should consist of a couple of Yugo's,a Volkswagen Beetle and of course the "Reverends"Cadillac.
When you think about it this is a very clever way of taking a bribe.He can always say he won that money.Got to give LALA credit for being original.That being said,I want all the faithful bingo players to realize one thing.If they can rig these machines to pay on command then it stands to reason they can also rig them to not pay at all.So all you blind sheep just keep lining up and Uncle Miltie and his kind will be glad to fleece you one dollar at a time.
Why don't they declare West End a public nuisance.They should qualify just from the shootings they had there today.
I would bet that most of the people we read about on this site committing these murders every day have an IQ at or about that level. Hell, we have a mayor and several county commissioners with a combined IQ less than 58!


text:
While channel surfing happened to see this documentary on emigrants which featured Martha Graham dancer Fang Yi in New York in ballet class and rehearsal maybe about 15 minutes. Will be replayed on WETA digital channel 26.1 1am. Washington DC.
This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)
Destination America "The Golden Door" 2005 Documentary on PB
Started by cantdance , Jan 09 2009 06:55 PM
No replies to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):


text:
As used in this section "state institution of higher education" means an institution of higher education as defined in section 3345.12 of the Revised Code.
(A) The chancellor of the Ohio board of regents shall do all of the following:
(1) Establish policies and procedures applicable to all state institutions of higher education that ensure that students can begin higher education at any state institution of higher education and transfer coursework and degrees to any other state institution of higher education without unnecessary duplication or institutional barriers. The purpose of this requirement is to allow students to attain their highest educational aspirations in the most efficient and effective manner for the students and the state. These policies and procedures shall require state institutions of higher education to make changes or modifications, as needed, to strengthen course content so as to ensure equivalency for that course at any state institution of higher education.
(2) Develop and implement a universal course equivalency classification system for state institutions of higher education so that the transfer of students and the transfer and articulation of equivalent courses or specified learning modules or units completed by students are not inhibited by inconsistent judgment about the application of transfer credits. Coursework completed within such a system at one state institution of higher education and transferred to another institution shall be applied to the student's degree objective in the same manner as equivalent coursework completed at the receiving institution.
(3) Develop a system of transfer policies that ensure that graduates with associate degrees which include completion of approved transfer modules shall be admitted to a state institution of higher education, shall be able to compete for admission to specific programs on the same basis as students native to the institution, and shall have priority over out-of-state associate degree graduates and transfer students. To assist a student in advising and transferring, all state institutions of higher education shall fully implement the information system for advising and transferring selected by, contracted for, or developed by the chancellor.
(4) Examine the feasibility of developing a transfer marketing agenda that includes materials and interactive technology to inform the citizens of Ohio about the availability of transfer options at state institutions of higher education and to encourage adults to return to colleges and universities for additional education;
(5) Study, in consultation with the state board of career colleges and schools, and in light of existing criteria and any other criteria developed by the articulation and transfer advisory council, the feasibility of credit recognition and transferability to state institutions of higher education for graduates who have received associate degrees from a career college or school with a certificate of registration from the state board of career colleges and schools under Chapter 3332. of the Revised Code.
(B) All provisions of the existing articulation and transfer policy developed by the Ohio board of regents shall remain in effect except where amended by this section.
Amended by 128th General AssemblyFile No.9, HB 1, §101.01, eff. 10/16/2009.
Effective Date: 09-26-2003; 2007 HB2 05-15-2007


text:
Hi just trying to upgrade my memory and having difficulty, can anyone advise? Machine is a 2.8 quad core mac pro, it came with 4gb of RAM on 4 sticks of 1gb each, I bought 4 gb on two sticks and am having difficulty getting them all to work. Whichever way I configure them the bottom riser seems to have a red light and not be recognized. Right now I have 6GB all off the top riser. Hmmmm?
Any advise appreciated! Tom
How old and what version is your Mac Pro? Did you buy RAM that is supported by your Mac?
it was bought in jan 2009, and is a mac pro3, 1. Quad core intel xeon. 2.8ghz. strangely just as I was typing this the computer lost power completely which it has never done before. Is the first riser over heating now its the only one?
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


text:
The Illusions of the Intelligentsia:
The Moral Question and the Secularists
Call it "the purge of eggheads" or the "tide of anti-intellectualism," or what you will, there is no denying that the intelligentsia as a class has suffered a considerable decline in public esteem since its dizzying rise of the 30's and 40's. Many members of the class have reacted to this with cries of outrage, and certainly many of the attacks have come from dubious sources and been dubiously motivated. But there has also been considerable soul-searching, to which process this essay in self-criticism by Robert E. Fitch will, we believe, make a genuinely clarifying contribution. Certainly, few are likely to deny that the issues he raises are real and basic, whether we accept the direction of his answers or not.
It was the good fortune of this American republic that its founders were members of an intelligentsia. It was also the good fortune of that intelligentsia that its members were men of affairs, who held responsibilities as statesmen, businessmen, lawyers, farmers, and churchmen. Since then things have changed. The American intelligentsia has become a separate class—of writers, teachers, scholars, clergymen, scientists, and artists. This class was restored to political influence as the Brain Trust under the New Deal. Apparently its leadership was repudiated in the "revolt against the eggheads" in the presidential election of 1952.
If at this moment I choose to write about the illusions of the intelligentsia rather than about their positive skills and their true visions, it is because it would seem that the time has come for critical self-examination. Speaking as one who is a member of the class under consideration, I must insist on the importance and on the lightness of this criticism. It is no fairer to say that a critic of the intelligentsia must be a fascist than to say that a critic of the government must be a Communist. Fascism, like Communism, is not peculiarly an attack upon the intelligentsia, any more than it is an attack upon free enterprise in business, or upon the independence of labor unions, or upon the autonomy of the family or of the church or of science or of the arts. Moreover, the historical record does not suggest that the members of the intelligentsia have distinguished themselves above the members of other classes in the resistance either to fascism or to Communism.
The illusions to be considered are four in number, and may be labeled and defined as follows. There is the illusion of the elite —that this class is especially fitted to rule. There is the illusion of monopoly—that this class has a monopoly of the wisdom which is its professional concern. There is the liberal illusion—that in a world Where all things are relative man is free to choose any thinkable abstraction and to make his own values de novo. There is the civilized illusion—that religious faith is an unnecessary support to moral ideals.
The first two of these illusions are generic in character. They may be found in any class. There is probably no class in history that has not had messianic delusions of grandeur concerning its special fitness to govern. There is no class that does not tend to believe, too, that it must have a monopoly of the particular value in which it specializes.
For instance, from the end of the Civil War until 1932, the American businessman was able to persuade not only himself but the rest of the country that his class was most fit to rule. Furthermore, he had a quite natural conviction that, whatever might be the other virtues and vices of his class, it must have a monopoly of business brains. But by 1932 neither of these illusions could stand. The American public decided that the businessman was no longer fit to rule—either directly or indirectly—and gave the power of government to a combination of other classes. Worse than that, the public became convinced that the businessman did not have even business brains, and so proceeded to turn over a large portion of business to the state.
The third and fourth illusions I have listed are quite different in character. They, too, are not the property of any one class, but they gain a peculiar intensity among the intelligentsia. Certainly there is room here for disagreement and for debate. Some people will deny the prevalence of these illusions. Others will assert that these are not illusions at all; that on the contrary they are just honest statements of fact. I have no desire to coerce the convictions of anyone; but let us see what persuasiveness there is in the argument.
The Illusion of The Elite. The belief that persons of intelligence and of wisdom are the most fit to govern is as old as Plato and Confucius, as modern as Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, and as recent and contemporary as the hero worship of Adlai Stevenson. Its formula is essentially that of the enlightened, benevolent despot. Nor does it really surrender the formula in the context of democracy, except to convert the despot into a sort of political prima donna of the people. Perhaps Nehru in India today comes closest to approximating the ideal at its best.
One finds a current elaboration of the formula in an article by Gerald W. Johnson in The American Scholar (Winter 1952-53). In the course of an elegiac essay on Governor Stevenson, Mr Johnson tells us that, apart from luck, there are three qualifications for the successful President. The first is a matter of histrionic talent—"a genius for interpretation." The second is a "thorough comprehension of the operations of the mediocre mind." The third is a "well-nigh limitless intellectual agility."
The first talent, one notes, is the talent of the expert in public relations. Concerning the second qualification, let us remark how it combines both the vanity and the snobbery of the intellectual. Is it, indeed, the case that the mind of the American people is a "mediocre mind"? And if it be such, does the leader in a democracy comprehend that mind with his intellect? Does he not, rather, intuitively apprehend it, partly through frequent and intimate association with it, and partly because there is in his own mind some healthy element of vulgarity? As for the third trait, I can only say that among the successful leaders in church, or in state, or in business that I have been able to observe there has been in evidence plenty of agility, but I have never been able to persuade myself that the agility was essentially intellectual.
Whomever Mr. Johnson is describing in his ideal President—it appears to be Adlai Stevenson and it might be Franklin D. Roosevelt—it is certain that he is not describing the President of whom he speaks most fondly in his essay—George Washington. By any of the criteria of the intelligentsia George Washington would never have held a position of leadership. There has been some convincing argument recently that Washington was unskilled as a military strategist, that he was guilty of stupidities as a commander in the field. It is maintained, with a show of evidence, that the really talented fighting man was the brilliant but unappreciated Benedict Arnold. All of this may be true. There was only one thing wrong with Benedict Arnold: he was a traitor.
And suppose that the first President of the United States had been selected primarily for his intelligence and his wisdom. One can believe that just about any other candidate might have received the honor—a Jefferson, an Adams, a Madison, a Hamilton— anyone but George Washington. The father of this nation was not first among the minds of his people. He was first in the hearts of his countrymen.
Let us ask the key question: what are the talents of the chief executive in a democracy? Some measure of intelligence and of wisdom, to be sure. But also, strength of character, the ability to evoke trust and to instil confidence, the ability to keep poise under pressure, the capacity for good judgment that must often be swift and intuitive, the knack for surrounding oneself with other men of talent and for making them pull together as a team, a genius for foresighted action in accord with democratic principles, an executive genius.
The members of an intelligentsia may have the wisdom; they may even have the strength of character. It is rare that they have the other qualities. As a rule the saint or the sage is no executive. As a rule—except for an occasional Lincoln or Gandhi—the good executive is neither saint nor sage.
The Illusion of Monopoly. I have suggested that the intelligentsia may be deficient in prudence and skill in practical affairs. But surely they must have wisdom, a knowledge and a love of the supreme values of life. If the doctor has a monopoly on medical skills, the engineer a monopoly on mechanical skills, the businessman a monopply on business skills, then it is only reasonable that the intelligentsia should have a monopoly on the wisdom which is the specialty of their craft.
Most of the time this is no illusion. Or it is only a partial illusion, to the extent that one thinks that the wisdom or the skills cannot be shared at all by those outside the ranks of the professionals. But at a time of social revolution, it becomes an illusion. It even becomes a radical falsehood. At such a time wisdom is taken away from the wise and given to others.
The issue has its classical illustration in the challenge of Christianity to Hellenistic culture. It was the philosophers of Greece and of Rome who were possessed of the official wisdom. Saint Paul was so conscious of the conflict that, in contrast to this wisdom, he chose deliberately to speak of the foolishness of his faith. Certainly the Hellenistic thinkers had a genius of intellect and of style way beyond that of any of the Church Fathers. Yet the critical question for the social historian remains: where did the true wisdom reside? Was it in the fading wisdom of Greece and of Rome, or in the insurgent foolishness of the Christian faith? Is it possible that in this context only the fools were the truly wise? Whatever one thinks absolutely of the merits of the case, the gross pragmatic judgment of history is clear.
The issue is illustrated again in the French Revolution. The French intelligentsia of the Age of Reason were not radicals. Voltaire and the Encyclopedists were still flirting with the ideal of the enlightened, benevolent despot. The truly revolutionary figures of the 18th century—a John Wesley in England and a Rousseau in France—were both of them outcast from the official enlightenment of the times. Yet it was the foolishness of a Wesley and of a Rousseau that contained the vital ferment for the new wisdom that was brewing.
The rise of Communism is another instance of the same thing. Karl Marx was numbered among the fools in the 19th century. It was not until the 20th, after his prophecies had reached both fulfillment and failure, that it became respectable among the intelligentsia to discuss dialectical materialism. In both the Russian and the Chinese revolutions there was a Menshevik phase—longer in China—when the intelligentsia could participate happily in social change. But when the radical doctrine of the Bolsheviks finally triumphed, the wisdom of the wise in Russia proved to be as vain and irrelevant as did the Confucian wisdom of the mandarin in China.
If we do not find the same phenomenon in the American Revolution, that is because our revolution was not a social revolution. Indeed, it was primarily a ratification of what had long been the status quo in this country. The significant social revolution had been initiated in the 17th century and, by the time we were ready to assert our independence, John Locke's theory of the revolution was almost a hundred years old, and respectable. Burke was consistent in his conservatism when he denounced the French Revolution and applauded ours. In our case the intelligentsia were simply making explicit an established wisdom.
What all this amounts to—apart from the special instance in our own history—is that the intelligentsia can suffer from a hardening of the categories of their wisdom. At this point the intelligentsia cease to be the intelligent. It is not a question of whether we are favorably impressed by the revolutions cited—Christian, or Communist, or French republican. The fact remains that in each instance the intelligentsia failed to cope with the problem in all its seriousness. When this class fails, men will turn from intelligence to blood and iron and terror, or to faith and hope and love—and out of these things they will fashion a new wisdom. But their turning away from intelligence is because the wisdom of the wise has become folly.
The Liberal Illusion. This is the illusion that everything in this world is relative, so that man is free to choose and to create his own values as he will. It may be called the liberal illusion only in a special, etymological sense of the word liberal, for the historic liberals of the 18th century entertained no such illusion.
The evolution of this illusion can be traced in three stages, through three centuries, as focused on three men of science. In the 18th century—under the influence of Newtonian mechanics—Christians, deists, and atheists found inevitable the belief in an objective, universal moral law. In the 19th century, under the influence of Darwin and evolution, the moral law appeared to support free competition and the survival of the fittest, and began to take on the character of an immoral law. By the 20th century, under the aegis but not under the authority of Einstein, the principle of relativity became the new absolute, and was applied to all values, moral, political, aesthetic, even logical and mathematical.
The critical impact on our thinking came from the science of anthropology. There is a straight line from William Graham Sumner's Folkways to Ruth Benedict's widely read Patterns of Culture, and, whether explicitly or by indirection, its teaching is that all values are relative to the mores. One finds the same notion in Justice Holmes's correspondence with Harold Laski. It was written into a decision of the Supreme Court by Chief Justice Vinson. Innumerable treatises in aesthetics, in ethics, and in the social sciences take this dogma for granted. And even in that branch of neo-orthodox theology which is most influential among American Protestants today, while there is an insistence upon the categorical character of God's command, there is the repudiation of any natural moral law to be discerned by the mind of man.
Of course within the context of loyalty to American traditions and American values, an ultimate relativism need not exclude a critical and creative attention to the things that we have cared for in this country. One thinks of the historical studies and of the analyses of current events by writers like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Sidney Hook, or James Burnham. I simply raise the question —and I do not know what would be the answer of any of these men: are the values that they cherish merely American values, or are they rooted in some universal and objective order of values? Because if they are merely American values and not universally human values, then the best defense of them is nothing more than an enlightened nationalism.
Whether it is an illusion, or a correct report of the facts, that all moral values are relative to changing cultures, everyone is obliged to face the consequences of entertaining such a belief. I see only two sets of consequences in the record. One is the practice of a soft relativism: let us learn to tolerate all differences, let us live and let live. This is the luxurious relativism of a prosperous and comfortable society where there is room for everyone. The other is the practice of a tough relativism which knows there are too many lives, and that there is not enough for all to live on, so that the strong must take away from the weak.
When circumstances press hard enough the soft relativist becomes a tough relativist, or else he becomes extinct. The logic of the movement from one extreme to the other is illustrated in the career of a Jean-Paul Sartre. In his early Existentialist phase he was a soft relativist, although already a desperate and disillusioned one. In his present Communist phase, he has simply turned to the toughest of all tough relativisms in the modern world.
But either under a soft or under a tough relativism it is clear that there can be no sanctuary for the values of a genuine intelligentsia. Truth, beauty, wisdom, justice, liberty: there is no reason why we should respect these things. Nor is there any device, ultimately, by which we can distinguish them from falsehood, ugliness, folly, injustice, and slavery. And if the members of an intelligentsia disclaim any service to these higher values, there is no reason why we should respect them either.
This does not mean that these values can be the monopoly of some class or institution: that is a sure way to suffocate them. Nor does it mean that these values should be enforced by coercion: that is a sure way to destroy them. But we may believe with Thomas Jefferson that such values, as more than mere human inventions, are rooted in nature, or in nature's God, so that the minds of free men may come upon them and learn to cherish and to enlarge them.
The Civilized Illusion. This is the illusion that religion is pure superstition; that, far from being the carrier of the great values of mankind, it is mere superfluous baggage which impedes rather than helps us on the march.
If I venture to call it the civilized illusion, this is because I am thinking of a brilliant passage in Susanne K. Langer's Philosophy in a New Key where she describes how an urban, industrialized culture may separate man from the springs of a natural piety. I should say—although Mrs. Langer would not—that the separation from nature is only one step this side of the separation from God. The civilized illusion, let us say more simply, is a preoccupation with the fruits of life with an accompanying contempt for its roots.
It would be impossible to document the prevalence of this illusion among the intelligentsia. One finds only symptoms of it here and there: in the tone of a book, in the temper of discussion in a learned society, in the way a Harry Allen Overstreet takes over the moral values of Christianity but omits the religious faith, in the curious manner in which an Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., goes out of his way in a friendly review of The Irony of American History to inveigh against something he calls "compulsory godliness," in Lewis Mumford's apparent appropriation and paraphrasing of Reinhold Niebuhr's doctrine of man with the careful exclusion of Niebuhr's theology, in the tremendous furor in the press over Whittaker Chambers' suggestion that the question of Communism is finally a question of religious convictions. If these are just isolated symptoms and prove nothing, then well and good. But if they reflect a pervasive condition, then the issue is joined.
Historically the important fact is that the great values of democracy have arisen and flourished chiefly within the context of the Hebrew-Christian-Protestant faith. This fact points to countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Great Britain, and the United States, where a specific religious tradition was both the antecedent and the nurse of democratic values. There are, of course, scandalous exceptions —like the connection between German Lutheranism and the Nazi movement, and the present tie-up between Dutch Calvinism and rabid racialism in South Africa. It is demonstrable, however, that both of these instances are in contradiction to the preponderant impact of Lutheranism and of Calvinism over the rest of the world. In any case, the great stable democracies—unlike the unstable, anti-clerical democracies—have this religious foundation.
The ideological ingredients of this fact are threefold. There are three beliefs which underlie any viable democratic culture. Let us state them in the order of their chronological emergence. First there is the Hebrew prophetic passion for social justice—which, unlike Greek, or Hindu, or Chinese concepts of justice, is radically egalitarian and humanitarian in tendency. Next there is the New Testament concept of the sanctity of the individual person as a child of God and as a sinner for whom Christ died—a more drastic notion of the preciousness of personality than anything found in rationalism or in romanticism. Finally, there is a peculiarly Protestant development of the various liberties—personal, political, civil, and economic —liberties which are secular in function, but which rest on the foundation of the spiritual freedom celebrated by a Saint Paul or a Martin Luther. If these values are arranged schematically rather than chronologically, then the sacredness of the person lies at the center, and liberty and justice are its two chief implementations.
The crux of the issue is whether or not these values can be fostered and creatively furthered without the foundation of religious faith. The humanist maintains that this is quite possible, and presently desirable. It is not within the compass of this essay to provide proof one way or the other. However, by any calculus of probabilities based on historical evidence, the humanist must be at more of a disadvantage than the theist in establishing his case. If there is any point of agreement among assorted distinguished philosophers of history—Augustine, Hegel, Marx, Spengler, Toynbee—it is that the values of any culture are tied into the total cultural Gestalt, and that, when the religious and metaphysical foundations are ripped out, the values perish also.
Let me confess, finally, that in this whole discussion I have a selfish interest. That is, I am selfish for the interests of the class of the intelligentsia to which professionally I belong. Others of my colleagues may be concerned chiefly with the ruthless violence with which we are attacked. I am concerned more with our own frailty and futility in the fight.
For it seems that we are weak and divided. We spend more energy in berating one another than in standing together against a common foe. At one extreme we exhibit arrogance, intolerance, and self-righteousness. At the other extreme—and in greater numbers, I fear—we show ourselves to be cowardly, complacent, and eager desperately to hang onto the small comforts of life at whatever cost to the ideals we should cherish. In either case we bring ourselves into contempt before men.
But no man fights without faith. Least of all the intelligent man. If that faith were great enough, it might endow us with sufficient humility to know that there are others elect besides ourselves, to know that the wisdom of which we wish to be the guardians is no private possession of our own. It might also give us that courage in the fight which is born of the great conviction that the liberty and the justice and the truth whose banners we fly are written into the very laws of nature and are part of the eternal decree of its Creator.
This does not mean that triumph is always sure. If, indeed, the times are out of joint and freedom must fail for a while, then we should be able, like Socrates, to drink the hemlock with dignity, and in the confidence that there is a more terrible judge than death. But if the prospect is still hopeful—and I am convinced that it is—let us strike out like Voltaire to crush the infamous thing, wherever its infamy may lie, like warriors of a king before whom even the most infamous thing must yield to a greater power and glory.


text:
I think when you look at where these two candidates are going and what they're saying, it reflects kind of the strategy, President Obama asking his supporters to vote for revenge, Governor Romney asking our -- our -- asking Americans to vote for love of country, very sharp contrast. And, again, I think this gets back to their desire, their assessment that they need to still energize core Democratic voters.
In your poll today, George, as you know, there's a difference in intensity between self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats, of about percentage points, Republicans saying they're certain to vote relative to the Democrats. And what I hear from the president is kind of an energizing the base message. Governor Romney, you know, has a much bigger message that I think resonates strongly with a lot of those undecided out there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Ed Gillespie, thanks very much for your time this morning.
GILLESPIE: Thanks for having me on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Our powerhouse roundtable is standing by. That conversation kicks off in just 90 seconds.
(UNKNOWN): Oh, my god. It's washing everything away.
(UNKNOWN): They keep telling you to go, go, go. Where are you supposed to go?
(UNKNOWN): Uh-oh. Uh-oh.
CHRISTIE: The Jersey Shore took an absolute beating, and New Jersey kind of took it in the next worse than any place, I think.
(UNKNOWN): Up to 100 homes have been decimated and left in a rubble that is still smoking even today.
(UNKNOWN): You don't understand. You got to get your trucks here on this corner. We're going to die. We're going to freeze. We got 90-year-old people.
OBAMA: You're going to OK. Everybody's safe.
(UNKNOWN): My youngest daughter yesterday, Faith, said, "Daddy, I want to go home." I told her, "It's going to be a while, honey."
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hurricane Sandy this week affecting so many millions in the Northeast. Back now on the roundtable, talk about the political impact, as well. We're joined by George Will, Cokie Roberts, Ron Brownstein of the National Journal, our political analyst Matthew Dowd, and Donna Brazile.
And, George, that was a bit of a surprise in this final week, but now we're coming into this final week, and both campaigns back to full speed campaigning. Do you see either side having momentum in these final 48 hours?
WILL: If there's been a momentum change, it's because of the hurricane, which may have slowed Romney's momentum at all, but I'm not sure how many Americans out there, after nine months of intensive campaigning, are paying attention to this. Now, David Axelrod has said that a presidential campaign is a MRI for the soul. At the end of it, you know the souls of both these guys. I think the country knows. I think they know that, as we Goldwater voters say, this is a choice, not an echo election, and they're ready to vote.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Matthew Dowd...
ROBERTS: They've already voted.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... when you look at -- so many have already voted, exactly -- you look at our ABC News-Washington Post poll, 48-48 today. You go back six months, almost exactly the same. It doesn't move.
DOWD: Well, that's -- well, that's what they -- the most interesting thing about this, which is why it's very akin to 2004, is the stability of this race, with a few slight rises and falls. This race -- there was no Romney momentum after that first debate. He took back three or four points. The race went to where it was, and it stayed there for three weeks.
I actually do believe Sandy has had an effect. I think Monday morning, Mitt Romney would have won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College. I think that's what would have happened. I think what happened in the course of this week, because the president's handling on it and his approval on it, you can see a slight change in his approval rating and a slight change in a very strong approval on him and a slight change in his favorability. And in a race that's razor-thin, that slight movement can shift it from a million vote loss in the popular vote to a million vote gain.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And the president has been at that 50 percent level now in approval.
ROBERTS: That's right. And that's a very important number, because we know presidents can get re-elected at that number. It happened again in 2004. But you really felt this week like the air went out of the -- the Romney balloon. From the -- from the first debate on, it was just blowing up and up and up. And even though the numbers weren't changing that much, there was a real sense of movement in that campaign. And it just seems to have completely dissipated.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And I want to bring this to Ron Brownstein with a question I just asked Ed Gillespie. You see that especially in these state polls, in the battlegrounds, which show this consistent lead for the president, but you also heard Ed Gillespie there, they think there is just something fundamentally wrong with those polls.
BROWNSTEIN: They think it's going to be a different electorate. I mean, they think the electorate is going to be like 2004, when through the efforts of Matt and his colleagues, for the first and only time ever, Republicans equaled Democrats as a share of the vote on Election Day in a presidential election. That was a country, though, George, that was -- 77 percent of the voters in 2004 were white. We're talking about an election this time where it's going to be 74 percent, 73 percent, or 72 percent.
And you see two very different coalitions for the president. In the Sun Belt, he is relying on this growing minority population, plus the upscale white women, where he's running very well, states like Virginia, Colorado, Florida. In the Rust Belt, however, in that firewall of Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, he is running significantly better than anywhere else in the country among those blue-collar white voters, and that is kind of the last line of defense that Romney has not been able to get over.
BRAZILE: Well, George, thank you, because I think President Obama has regained his altitude following that first debate, when many people just went back and said, "What happened?" He has a slight tailwind, especially in these battleground states.
I've been to many of them. I've been on the radio. And people are so enthusiastic. Six months ago, I couldn't get anybody to return my call. I just...
They were like, "Stop it." But two days ago, they were not just returning calls, they're bringing people to the polls. As you know, in Ohio today, it's all souls to the polls. The polling stations are opened for, you know, five hours, and people are going out and they're voting early.
ROBERTS: The long lines at the polls are really something.
DOWD: The problem with the Romney campaign's theory of the race and what Ed said, the problem with that, it's like the line, "Are you going to believe me or your lyin' eyes?" And their theory is, which is every time you feel a losing campaign, these three things happen. The first thing happens is, don't believe -- the public polls are wrong. That's the first sign of a campaign that's about to lose. The second thing, we're going to change the nature of the electorate, and you're not seeing it reflected in the polls. And the third thing is, the only poll that counts is Election Day. When you hear those things, you know you're about to lose.
WILL: But the polls are all over the map.
DOWD: No, they're not.
ROBERTS: They've been so consistent.
WILL: Well, Gallup -- Gallup and Rasmussen are much more encouraging to Romney than the others. In fact, there are campaigns in this country today who've hired two poll takers because they're not sure what they can get from one.
DOWD: George, there's 23 polls, 21 of them are -- are in the president's favor.
WILL: ... this is our first presidential election since Citizens United. We began this with all the talk about the power money that was going to be unleashed. Obama campaign spends a billion, Romney campaign spends a billion. Procter & Gamble this year will spend $3 billion advertising detergent.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But there was such concentrated spending.
ROBERTS: ... billion dollars over five white women in Ohio. That's what we're doing. That's right.
ROBERTS: ... bought them -- bought them a house.
ROBERTS: But -- but it has been very helpful to the TV stations.
BRAZILE: And 67 super PACs have sprung up over the last 30 days, mostly Republican super PACs, and it's not making a difference...
ROBERTS: ... it could make a difference in the Senate and House races, however.
ROBERTS: ... place that we didn't expect to see this...
BROWNSTEIN: And the reality is, you are going to see a lot of Republicans come out and you're going to see enormous racial and ideological polarization in this race. You know, Obama's formula for victory, 80 percent of the non-white vote, 40 percent of the white vote, if minorities are at least the 26 percent they were last time, in your poll this morning, 38 and 78, right on the tipping point.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Ron, I want to bring -- I want to bring that question to Matthew Dowd, because I wonder when you look at it, and you see how sophisticated each side is, how much money they both had, are we into an era now where almost every presidential election is going to be this close, kind of like grandmaster chess? You almost always play to a draw?
DOWD: Well, if you take a look at the -- three of the last four, they've been within two or three points a race, which is unprecedented in modern times. The other thing that's happened is, 35 years ago, 80 percent of the people lived in the target states that people concentrate on in these campaigns, 80 percent of the voters lived in the target states. California was a target state; Texas was a target state; New York was a target sate.
Today, less than 20 percent of people now live in the target states. And what that's driven, because of the polarization of this country, and how we've spent our money, into this 49-49 situation, that's going to be very difficult, and we could have this conversation for anybody to govern in the...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to get to that conversation in our next roundtable, have to take a quick break right now. And when we come back, what to watch for on election night, what to expect the day after, and all that talk this week about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Look at "Saturday Night Live."
(UNKNOWN): I would like to give a sincere thanks to President Obama for how he handled the situation. On Election Day, I'm voting for Mitt Romney, but if I had to pick one guy to have my back in a crisis, it would be Barack Obama. He's been amazing. You know, so kind, such a leader, a true inspiration. Again, I'll be a good soldier. I'll vote for Romney, but I'm going to hate it.
OBAMA: I've shown my willingness to work with anybody of any party to move this country forward. And if you want to break the gridlock in Congress, you'll vote for leaders, whether they're Democrats, Republicans, or independents, who feel the same way.
ROMNEY: When I'm elected, I'll work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. I'll meet with them regularly. I'll endeavor to find those good men and -- and good women on both sides of aisle who care more about the country than about politics.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And after a bitter campaign, both candidates promising bipartisanship if they're elected. We're going to get to that in a little bit. I'm back here with the roundtable.
George Will, probably the biggest display of bipartisanship this week, those photos of Governor Christie and President Obama touring the storm damage in New Jersey. How much difference does that make?
WILL: Well, aside from, as I said, slowing whatever momentum Mitt Romney had, anything that gives the president a chance to look presidential -- and all presidents go to disaster areas, it's not a unique policy on the part of Mr. Obama -- but -- and then to have him with a man who sort of exemplifies fist-in-the-mouth Republican partisanship, Mr. Christie, it obviously couldn't hurt.
STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of Republicans grumbling about Governor Christie's fulsome praise of the president.
DOWD: Well, you had Hurricane Sandy, and then you had the Christie bear hug, and the Christie bear hug, I actually believe, actually did more for the president in this slight movement, as I said, in his approval rating than actually even really his handling of the -- of the hurricane.
You had a guy that was more engaged with the president than the Democratic governor of New York and the major of New York City, that -- and that, I think, an iconic figure, I think, did more for him. And I think there's a lot of Republicans out there that are thinking, like, wow, did you really have to go that far?
ROBERTS: You know, what's so interesting, though, about this bipartisan business, is that there's a cognitive sort of dissonance going on here, because at the same time that the candidates are closing with this and thinking that this is the way to appeal to the American people, and Americans say they are for this, and many more people identify as independents than ever before, but at the same time that that's happening, we have this totally polarized electorate where we see them at 48, 48, 49, 49, and so, you know, what does the country really want? Does it really want bipartisanship? Or does it really want to just kill the other guy?
BROWNSTEIN: You know, and not only that, but you have the Congress increasingly behaving in a quasi-parliamentary manner. We have the highest level of party-line voting since the late 19th century. And voters are behaving in a parliamentary manner. If you look at the polls, George, this week, this month, in the key Senate races, at least 80 percent of the people voting for Obama in almost all contested races are voting Democrat for Senate, at least 80 percent who are voting for Romney are voting Republican for Senate. And it's up to 90 percent correlation in Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, so enormous pressure on members to stand either with or against the president, because they're being sent by the...
STEPHANOPOULOS: And I want to talk about what that means for whoever gets elected in a little bit, but let's focus first, because we still have an election two days away, on what's going on in those battleground states. Let's start out with Ohio. And, Donna Brazile, I'll come to you on this. You know, 11 out of the last 12 public polls have the president with this small lead, but in the past -- and then -- and Ron Brownstein has used this term -- Ohio has been Heartbreak Hill for Democrats, especially John Kerry, at the very end, it slips away. Does the president have what it takes to prevent that?
BRAZILE: Absolutely. First of all, he's doing very well with working-class whites. I believe he's up a percentage point or two. He's doing good with union households. The rescue of the auto industry has helped him, 1 out of 8 Ohio voters have some affiliation with the auto industry.
I think all of that, combined with the fact that he has a terrific ground game, I know the Republicans discount, you know, this whole notion that you can win on the ground in three days. I used to tell Bob Shrum, our noted Democratic guru, that if you just leave me $10 at the last -- in the last 48 hours, I can make up 2 to 3 percentage points. I think in this race here, the Obama team will make up at least 3 to 4 percentage points on the ground.
WILL: Ohio has really -- it's Ground Zero for suffering in the -- in the age of globalization. They lost -- in the first decade of this century, they lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs. They have one of the worst records in the country of keeping their college graduates in their state. They have the fewest congressmen since the Civil War.
So it's a state in decline. But it also is participating in the recovery somewhat, in part because of policies touted and bragged about by a Republican governor.
DOWD: The signs of Ohio -- the signs of the Democrats' advantage -- the signs of the Democrats' advantage in Ohio actually started to show up in 2004. If 60,000 or 65,000 people had switched their vote, John Kerry would have won Ohio, lost the popular vote, and won the Electoral College.
And those signs, Ohio is a state that's like Pennsylvania, which used to be a swing state, in my view, and the economics and the dynamics of Ohio are now moving in a place that it's no longer a, quote, unquote, "reliably Republican state" or a state Republicans could count on the Electoral College. It's now moving in a direction much more akin to Pennsylvania than the other states that Republicans could rely on.
ROBERTS: Which is one of the interesting things about the Electoral College, because it does shift. You know, people complain that -- as you said earlier, New York's not in play, California's not in play, these great big states. But the truth is, it does shift. And so the different states rise up in different elections and become the focus of attention. And it really does make it an election where the whole country has to be paid attention to in a way that it would not be without the Electoral College.
BROWNSTEIN: You know, only two Democrats have reached 50 percent of the vote in Ohio since 1940, and yet Ohio I think in this election exemplifies the central, most intriguing paradox of how this is unfolding. On a national basis, Obama is looking at the poorest performance among working-class whites of any Democratic nominee since Walter Mondale in 1984. He's at 32 percent among non-college white men and 39 percent among non-college white women nationally in your ABC tracking poll through the whole run. But in Ohio, he's 10 points better among both of those groups than he is nationally. Wisconsin and Iowa, as well.
BROWNSTEIN: ... because the Bain story, the Bain story has a cultural and emotional resonance in the Midwest that it doesn't have in the Sun Belt, not as powerful in Colorado, Virginia. In Ohio, the idea of the rich guy coming to town, shutting down the factory and taking the profits just resonates. It detonates.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... made a difference, George?
WILL: Sorry?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Isn't that where money made a difference?
ROBERTS: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That early spending in Ohio on those Bain ads?
WILL: Probably. And if it works, Mr. Obama will have a mandate not to be Bain Capital...
WILL: ... but there's another side of this, also. Mitt Romney may have been the man who came to town and shut some plants down. Barack Obama is the man who came and tried to shut down the coal industry.
WILL: Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania are three important states where coal matters, and it will be interesting to see in southwest Ohio how...
DOWD: At this point in time in the campaign, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and what happened with the (inaudible) with most everybody believing that climate change is bringing in this, the argument that I don't -- Mitt Romney is not going to be making at this time is that somehow his environmental policies or somehow his climate policies are going to affect the coal country, is not an argument anywhere in this country Mitt Romney wants to make.
BROWNSTEIN: ... Ohio last weekend, and the most common indigenous plant is a yard sign that says, "Stop the war on coal. Fire Obama." But are there enough people there to overcome what is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the president has an advantage in Ohio, even if it's a small one, that puts more pressure on Governor Romney to do better in, I would say, one of two states, Donna Brazile, Wisconsin or this late play for Pennsylvania.
BRAZILE: And I think it's a foolish gamble, because -- I mean, John McCain did that four years ago. He tried to go into Pennsylvania and stir up a lot of, you know, last-minute support, and it wasn't there. President Obama has a strong lead in Pennsylvania, in large part because the volunteers there have enlarged...
STEPHANOPOULOS: He's not much above 50 in Pennsylvania...
BRAZILE: Well, but -- but, George, I mean, we won the state by 10 points last time. I think the suburbs going -- that Mitt Romney is relying upon in Philadelphia, they're not going to come out in support.
ROBERTS: Well, particularly because of women. I mean, this is a place -- Pennsylvania is a perfect place where this is a problem, because you have those Philadelphia suburbs, and that's where all this conversation about contraception and rape and all of that are having a hold.
And, you know, it's very interesting, because women have not traditionally voted on those issues. They've voted on economic issues. But when you ask African-Americans and Hispanics what issues they vote on, they say the economy, as well. And yet they have turned off the Republican Party in huge numbers because of civil rights and immigration.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Governor Romney is going to those suburbs today.
ROBERTS: And I think women -- I think women are having the same reaction this time around, where they are beginning to feel unwelcome in the Republican Party, and if that happens, that's a big problem.
WILL: ... lot of Republicans think about Pennsylvania, they think of Lucy and the football. It always looks good; it's never there. But in 2010, Republicans elected a governor, both -- both legislatures, 12 out of 19 congressmen, elected two...
BROWNSTEIN: But you know why, George? The big reason -- the big reason, in 2008, Barack Obama won those four suburban counties outside Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, and Bucks, by a combined 200,000 votes. They moved. And the question is, in this election, as in northern Virginia, as in the suburbs of Colorado, you're seeing the same dynamic in these states. Can Obama hold those college-educated white women on non-economic issues?
BROWNSTEIN: So far, he is.
DOWD: If Mitt Romney was ahead in Ohio, there'd be no play that they're doing in Pennsylvania.
DOWD: I will take the Philadelphia Eagles to win the Super Bowl this year sooner than I will take Mitt Romney...
STEPHANOPOULOS: David Axelrod is going to shave his mustache...
WILL: One thing we can probably agree on is, early in the evening, when the results come in for Bucks County, the largest of the collar counties around Philadelphia, we'll probably know...
STEPHANOPOULOS: We'll also already know -- I want to get to something else, because we also already know on -- in two states especially, three states, so much of the vote is in, 70 percent of the vote already in, in Colorado, 70 percent of the vote already in, in Nevada, more than 40 percent of the vote already in, in Iowa. And in all -- in two of the three states, George Will, right now President Obama in Iowa and Nevada has built up a pretty strong lead.
WILL: Well, we've been saying this all year long. This isn't a persuasion election; it's a mobilization election. And the early voting indicates -- actually, both sides are doing rather well. That's why so many people have voted. And it'll be a marginal difference that decides this election.
ROBERTS: But, you know, what -- when we talk about all these sort of traditional things, I think the two parties are looking at two different electorates. And the Republicans, as you heard earlier, are looking at independent voters, and that makes all the sense in the world, you know? Independents generally sway elections.
But this year, with things so polarized, the Democrats, instead of looking at independents, are looking at ethnic groups. So it's non-whites and women. And it's really a question of which electorate...
BROWNSTEIN: ... if you're talking about moving independents. The denominator is changing the composition of the electorate, which is key...
BROWNSTEIN: ... which is key for the Democrats, how they view it.
BRAZILE: It's also growing the electorate. It's also growing the electorate. You know, I was shocked when I went up to Chicago a few months ago, and back in the day, when Matt and I were running campaigns...
DOWD: I had hair.
BRAZILE: ... yeah, mine was darker, the field department was actually one of the largest components of a campaign. Now it's the analytics. I mean, they've matched up this technology with the field operation, where they know exactly who voted in 2008, didn't show up in 2010, and that's why the Democrats have been able to double the registration, 1.8 million new people, and part of this early voting, especially a quarter of the vote in North Carolina, is early voting.
DOWD: Independents -- independents are not -- 30 percent...
DOWD: ... what we say are not really independents. There's only about 5 percent or 6 percent of people that are really independent that are truly independent. They've already sort of picked their tribe or picked their team on it, and I think the theory that -- every time that the Romney folks say this, they say look at the independents in that poll, oh, we're winning them. But don't look at the overall number in the poll, because we're losing.
ROBERTS: ... where those independent voters are going to make a difference, though, is -- I keep coming back to it, because it's going to matter in the end -- is the Senate and House, because when you say, you know, that the candidates have...
ROBERTS: ... yeah, to have 80 percent or 90 percent of the presidential vote, that is still that 10 percent to 20 percent, and those are the independents...
BROWNSTEIN: You know, look, that is also -- we have to say -- you know, indicative of something else here. I mean, we're talking about this enormous racial polarization. Democrats clearly have a problem with whites. The incumbent president struggling to get 40 percent of the white votes. But Republicans are looking at losing, again, 80 percent or more of this growing non-white population. Mitt Romney, a candidate in a country that is now almost 40 percent non-white, is basically relying on whites for 90 percent of his vote.
DOWD: ... biggest problem facing the country...
BROWNSTEIN: And in the long run, that is not a...
DOWD: ... divides at every level that exist.
BROWNSTEIN: You know, Romney could equal the best performance ever by a Republican challenger among whites, Eisenhower '52, Reagan '80, Bush, and Bush '88, and lose. And so what is the message of that to Republicans if that happens on Election Day, if he wins 58 percent or 59 percent...
STEPHANOPOULOS: And what does that mean, George Will? And this gets us to the next part of the conversation. What does mean for whoever wins coming in the day after, almost certain to face kind of a very similar lineup in Washington than one they have right now, Republicans in control of the House, maybe a few fewer states, Democrats probably in control of the Senate, maybe by a seat or few -- seat or two fewer. What does this mean for the next president and the prospects of getting done what he needs to get done?
WILL: Well, you've just answered the question in posing it. The country is supposedly seething with fury at the status quo and seem to be poised to replicate it. That is, Washington, on the morning after, may very well -- particularly if Obama wins and the Democrats hold the Senate -- it will be Washington as it is today, only more so.
ROBERTS: Except that there are some issues that have to be dealt with, and that's the -- that's the question of whether people will then say, OK, this election's behind us, and let's actually move on to try to deal with some of these...
DOWD: The dysfunction (inaudible) the dysfunctional that is going to be even more exacerbated, which I didn't think was possible, is going to be more exasperated because we're going to have a president elected with no mandate, no real vision, and no real majority. And everything that you just laid out on this is that the system -- the political system is broken. People feel no ability to sort of -- they feel like they have to choose between two alternatives that they don't really like in the course of this. That's why we have close election after close election.
WILL: Matt, I disagree. I don't think the political system's broken. I think it's working beautifully. It's a representative system.
DOWD: It is absolutely broken.
BROWNSTEIN: It struggles to deal with the level of party-line unity and quasi-parliamentary behavior that we're -- that we're experiencing, and especially when you consider, in 2004, George Bush, it's a campaign you helped won, won the narrowest re-elect margin of victory in the popular vote for a re-elected president ever. Obama today is probably saying, you know, 2 1/2 points looks pretty good. I mean, you're talking about a country that is split as closely as can be, and I'm actually -- I'm with you. I'm not totally pessimistic about doing the big deal on the budget in 2013, a la 1997, when the country sent back a Democratic president, a Republican Congress. If the country sends back divided country, it might say we have to get this done. But looking forward, the question is, when the country is so closely divided and the parties are so deeply divided, how do we function unless...
BRAZILE: ... 2010, after that election, even that was a contentious election, but yet the president was able to muster the support with the Democrats and Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts...
BRAZILE: ... the payroll tax, unemployment...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... I was struck this week to read that -- this was in Politico, but you hear it also in talking to people that actually liberals seem to be getting a touch more nervous at the prospect of President Obama winning. Of course, they want him to win, but they are a little bit nervous that he is going to sell out to the Republicans on the budget.
BRAZILE: Well, they're worried about the grand bargain being, you know, a grand attack on entitlements at the expense of, you know, extending the Bush tax cuts for another two, two, four years.
ROBERTS: ... look, if he really -- if he says -- does what he says he's going to do, that's going to happen, not the Bush tax cuts for everybody, but -- but certainly entitlements will be addressed, if he does what he says he's going to do.
BRAZILE: And the Democrats are really pushing the payroll tax cut extension...
DOWD: He will lose -- he will lose four years of his -- in my view, he will lose four years of his presidency if he's re-elected if he doesn't within the immediate aftermath of Election Day go back to what he said in 2008, when he was running, and said basically I was elected because I was elected to bring the country together. It's more divided today than it's ever, it's more polarized than ever. He should, within 24 hours, reach out and say we can't allow this to happen...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... what he is going to do, right?
BROWNSTEIN: He's almost certainly going to go back to the deal that he negotiated with John Boehner during the debt ceiling crisis. And the big question will be -- and I think you could pass that in the Senate if he wins -- the big -- and you'll probably pass it in the House -- but the question will be whether Boehner would be willing to bring it up without support from a majority of Republicans, which it probably won't happen? I mean, that'd be the critical question, if he wins in 2013.
ROBERTS: He's more likely to do that than -- than previous speakers...
WILL: He didn't mean it in 2008. He wouldn't mean it in 2012. he does not think he was elected to shrink the government...
WILL: The reason the country is so divided is one candidate wants more government, more taxes, and more redistribution of income. The other wants less of all three, and there's no way, unless we dissolve the electorate and elect a new electorate, you're going to have...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to -- I want to pull back, because, again, we still have an election on Tuesday. Don't want to get too far ahead of it. And I want to ask all of you to talk about other things you're going to be watching for through the night on Tuesday?
DOWD: Well, to me, I'm going to focus really on this historic divide that I think we're going to see, and I think that is an unbelievable thing. What you're going to see in this election, as we've had the run-up to this, is young versus old, black versus white, single women versus married women, the geographies, the West Coast versus the East Coast, which you've seen it's going to be even more so (inaudible) and that incredible divide that we're -- and it's going to be faith, divide by spirituality, people that go to church every Sunday versus people that believe in God but don't go to church every Sunday. That incredible divide -- we talk about our political divide, but that cultural divide that exists in this country is something that somebody -- maybe not a political leader -- somebody is going to have to address, because that's what's causing much of the difficulties we're having.
BRAZILE: Well, George, of course, I'm going to focus on the whole issue of voter intimidation, voter suppression, because as you well know, 33 states tried to impose onerous, burdensome rules that...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Many rejected by the courts.
BRAZILE: ... would cause a lot -- rejected, but there is still a lot of confusion, a lot of confusion.
ROBERTS: ... Supreme Court might be having arguments on that on Monday.
BRAZILE: And, look, we might -- you know, when I think about Florida (inaudible) my blood pressure, you know, somehow jumps up, but this is going to be a very close election. And clearly, in some of those states where we've had this contentious battle over voter I.D., that's something I will watch on Tuesday night.
WILL: Blacks vote one way, whites vote another, but they do so in a context of unimaginably improved race relations in this country. We can't postulate a national crisis from this kind of demographic result in the voting.
What I'm going to watch for is a proposition, Proposition 30 in California. One in eight Americans lives in that state. They're being asked to solve their problem, which some of us think is caused by high taxes, by raising their taxes. If they don't do that, the big issue of 2013 is going to be a number of blue states -- California, Illinois, New York -- coming to Washington, trying to offload their debts on the American taxpayer, and that will be a fight that no one's anticipating. But if that proposition goes down, as I think it will, that will be an issue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you also have to keep an eye on Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate.
WILL: Well, Gary Johnson, who knows? He's on 48 ballots. In Colorado, for example, Colorado is voting on legalizing marijuana. He may be the only candidate in history who handed out marijuana rolling papers with his...
WILL: But, anyway...
BRAZILE: How do you know that, George?
WILL: The question -- the question is...
(UNKNOWN): Somebody told him.
WILL: The question really is, in Colorado, is he going to take more votes away from Romney or from the libertarian counterculture types who are trying to legalize marijuana?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Cokie?
ROBERTS: I'm going to be watching women. I think that -- I'm very curious to know whether this year Republicans have done to women what they've managed to do to Hispanics and blacks, and -- and voter ID, I think, is just contributing to that.
BROWNSTEIN: Upscale women.
ROBERTS: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: I think in terms -- in terms of the result, there are two things I'll be watching. The two most critical questions, what is the minority share of the vote? What is the white share of the vote? Does the minority share of the vote continue to grow, as it has every election since '92? The second thing I think is this anomaly where the president is running better in the Upper Midwest among working-class whites than anywhere else. If he can hold that and increase the minority share of the vote, it's going to be a much better night for him.
STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, and we'll come back with your predictions in just a minute. That is coming right up.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And we are back now with election predictions. I have to take a pass, because I'm anchoring on Tuesday night...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So I'll give you a sealed one. But, George Will, you go first.
WILL: I forgot my exact number. I guess you have a graphic here. I guess the wild card in what I've projected is I'm projecting Minnesota to go for Romney. Now, that's the only state in the union, because Mondale held it -- native son Mondale held it when Romney was -- when Reagan was getting 49 states -- the only state that's voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections. But this year, there's a marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Big win for Romney right there.
ROBERTS: I think I said 294 for Obama, and that was because I didn't give him Colorado, because he couldn't get them all. I mean, at some point, the law of averages kicks in. But I did give him Virginia, and I think that's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're giving him Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa, all the big states he's focused on?
ROBERTS: Well, Iowa I don't think we can call a big state.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's a battleground.
BROWNSTEIN: So I in the popular vote believe Obama will win the narrowest margin of re-election -- popular vote victory for any re-elected president ever, and in the Electoral College, I have him at 288. It could be 303, it could be 271. The one thing I feel strongest about in there, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Ohio, Romney has not shown he can break through there, and as long as that's true, Obama is at least at 271, which is what counts.
DOWD: I have Electoral College similar, 303 Electoral College votes for Barack Obama. I think that's been a pretty stable number over the course -- it could vary by a few, but I think it's pretty stable.
The one thing -- and I also predicted a very, very, very close -- I think by 0.6 percent win on the popular vote. I am not as confident in that as I am in the Electoral College. I think there is still a chance that Mitt Romney wins the popular vote, but he loses the Electoral College. There's still a chance it's divided, the popular vote versus the Electoral College.
ROBERTS: Particularly because New York -- particularly that New York and New Jersey may be not getting to the polls.
BRAZILE: Yeah. And that could depress turnout in the Northeast. I think I gave President Obama 313. I've been going back and forth between 303, 313. I'm still worried about some, clearly, North Carolina.
The other thing is that, in order for Mitt Romney to win, he has to have a large turnout on Tuesday, and 6 out of 10 people voting must support him just to overcome the huge numbers that President Obama has racked up in the early voting in those battleground states. On the popular vote -- and it's hard to talk about -- but I do believe that President Obama will eke it out barely.
ROBERTS: It's a tie. It's a tie.
BRAZILE: But he -- but it's -- it's a tie.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It is going be a tight race. And just very quickly, we have about 20 seconds left. Anybody see Republicans taking control of the Senate?
ROBERTS: No.
ROBERTS: I think they -- I think they pick up two seats or one, depending on how Angus King caucuses.
DOWD: I predict the 2016 presidential race starts Wednesday. The 2016 presidential race starts Wednesday morning.
ROBERTS: Oh, it's already started.
STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. Well, that is the last word today. For all of you at home, go to abcnews.com/thisweek to submit your election predictions. And tune in next Sunday to see who got it right. Plus, Donna and Matt are standing by to answer your questions on Twitter @donnabrazile and @matthewjdowd. Just use the hashtag #thisweek.
And now, we honor our fellow Americans who serve and sacrifice. This week, the Pentagon released the names of two servicemembers killed in Afghanistan.
And we will be right back with a look ahead to "This Week."
STEPHANOPOULOS: That is all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News" with David Muir tonight, and all day tomorrow on ABC, a day of giving. All of our programs, starting with "GMA," will be joining a call to action to help those affected by Hurricane Sandy. For information on how you can help, please visit abcnews.com.
And Tuesday night, Diane Sawyer and I will be at ABC's election headquarters in Times Square with our entire political team -- there we were rehearsing yesterday -- for live coverage of Your Voice, Your Vote 2012. It begins at 7:00 Eastern and continues all night long.
So much coming up, and I'll see you tomorrow on "GMA."


text:
60" Mitsubishi DLP - 3d glasses ready
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barksdale AFB, La
Posts: 1,238
Re: 60" Mitsubishi DLP - 3d glasses ready
Originally Posted by
People get tricked into thinking a skinnier screen is somehow better and they end up paying much more for it.
The fact that LCD's are "better" has nothing to do with how skinny they are, although there are many who prefer a wall-mountable set. LCD's offer better clarity and color vibrancy, as well as better viewing angles. At the same size, an LCD offers better visual quality than a DLP. The DLP's advantage is in it's price versus size. Neither LCD nor plasma can match DLP in those regards.
To it's credit, aside from replacing the bulb, a DLP will last "forever" whereas an LCD will begin to fade, and not evenly either. An LCD tends to have it's greens fade first, giving everything a reddish or blueish tint, but this takes years to occur. If you're looking to keep a set for decades, and don't mind replacing bulbs, the DLP is the more reliable choice. If you plan to replace your set every 8-10 years (or less, as those around here seem to do), an LCD is no worse than a DLP.
Regardless, any set you buy today will be nothing more than a stopgap until OLED takes off. By 2015, OLED should be as affordable as LCD is today. By 2020, OLED should be the default technology.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Medion


text:
Thank you volunteers, candidates and illustrious helpers at Bikeside Speaks!
Bikeside Speaks was a great success. We had tons of speakers, from Mayoral candidates Kevin James, and Austin Beutner, to CD 15 candidates Candice Graham, Gordon Teuber, Justin Brimmer and John Delgado. And 1 of 2 candidates for City Controller: Cary Brazeman. We had notables like Don Ward and Glenn Bailey. And we were surprised […]Read more