The Commonwealth of Virginia's Ultimate Blog

Sunday, October 30, 2005

WaPo - "appears" versus fact

The Virginia blogosphere has been full of news this morning about the WaPo Poll. I'm a little disappointed to see the liberal heathens posting during church hours and Redskins football games, so I guess I don't have too much to add. These paragraphs jumped out at me though:
Kilgore appears to have won over some voters who don't see Kaine as a viable stand-in for Warner. "I think I'm going to go back over to [the] Republicans this time," said Richard Green, 67, a retired banker in Manassas who voted for Warner in 2001.

Kilgore's overall decline coincides with a backlash from his intensely emotional television ads about the death penalty.
Can anyone think of a principled reason why the first paragraph contains the weakening modifier "appears" while the second paragraph is stated as absolute fact?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It isn't because the Post endorsed Kaine.

Since it is "common knowledge" that the undecideds break against the incumbent, the question is, is Kaine the incumbent? His commercials with Warner suggest he is.

And with a popular incumbent, he certainly has done everything in his power to claim that mantle?

So, what are these "undecideds" waiting for, and are they more likely to find it in Kaine or Kilgore?

9:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because they have polling that strongly supports the latter?

10:55 PM

Blogger Addison said...

Because they have polling that strongly supports the latter?

That might be the case, but why do they evidence of the latter, but only appearance of the former? Did they fail to ask a question regarding the former? The article has at least anecdotal evidence that some people would have said they are voting for Kilgore after voting for Warner in 2001.

8:31 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home