-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
empty vessel
Member
The class war is fundamentally about bargaining power. Bargaining power, bargaining power, bargaining power.
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012...ws_as_biased_in_the_tank_for_mitt_romney.html
Interesting that he called out Fox News.
Newt Gingrich said:
Interesting that he called out Fox News.
Corporations have already won. Even the working class has been indoctrinated to talk about how unions are destroying everything.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Wow!
thezerofire
Banned
I think this is really funny
Something weird going on. Newt to appear on a CNN show next year perhaps.
He's just mad they and the rest of the GOP establishment rallied for Romeny.
Newt probably found out that Ailes doesn't want him back at Fox.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-on-rosen-controversy-no-tougher-job-than?ref=fpb
So will liberals hand wring over Obama's "weak" phrasing as they did with Romney's comments on Fluke?
Well, Kosmo, Rosen didn't call Romney's wife a whore dozens of times. Ill-advised is fine, though I'd have preferred a straight up "stupid."
eBay Huckster
Member
More faux outrage for the faux outrage god.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Wait. Really? I didn't even know this. Holy fuck. I guess they are trying to associate any stupid thing someone says with Obama. lol wow.
But remember. When workers organize for bargaining power they are "union thugs" when entrenched business interests do it they are "job creators"
Watching Human Planet (BBC documentary, super awesome) and seeing all the stuff people do all over the world really made me feel like I am living like a king.
Because the GOP are masters at manufacturing outrage.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Even if not, it's still ammo repubs can use (even if for a short while). Hilary really should have kept to herself rather than make that particular attack on Anne.
Of course I expect the Reps to make a mountain out of a molehill. But when Rosen made those comments, friggin David Axelrod IMMEDIATELY went to twitter to denounce those comments. Why the fuck did he bother acknowledging such an otherwise useless thing?
Hobbestetrician
Member
Answered your own question. If he hadn't of come out and denounced it then the Right would just add "And no one from Obama's campaign has denounced it!" to the list of mountains they would have created.
Obama fired women because misogynistic rap lyrics.
Goldwater was a crazy reactionary who wanted to abolish the new deal, go to war with the soviet union and use nukes in Vietnam.I wish the GOP had someone like goldwaterI can't get behind any of these candidates
And he didn't even the excuse of being stupid.
The Chosen One
Member
Yep, that's why I said this:
When I woke up this morning I had no idea why Hilary Rosin's mug was on the front page of all the politic blogs and websites. She's just some random strategist who isn't affiliated with any current campaign. Her words carry absolutely no weight.
But this shows that despite the fumbles from the previous 6 months, Republicans still know how to spin the media to their narratives.
I wish the GOP had someone like goldwater
Vote Libertarian. Seriously! Don't sell out your principles and support Romney just because he's the GOP flag-bearer.
Raising the power of a third party in America is a critical component in the solution to many of our problems.
Invisible_Insane
Member
lol fptp
:'(
It's true, DasRaven. In the American political system voting third party does nothing but aid the major party candidate with which your chosen candidate has less in common.
Rovian politics is not a safe long term strategy, the country has caught on, and in poll after poll the likeability of Republicans is piss poor, and much of the blame is placed squarely on their shoulders (only 29% of people polled think Obama is responsible for economic mess)
These tactics are pitiful, and quite frankly, hallow. In 2000 and 2004 these tactics worked to defeat the two most boring Democratic candidates in a long time, guys so bland they make Mitt Romney look like he has a personality. Two guys that no one could get passionately behind, and one of the two elections was essentially stolen.
The Republican brand is going further and further away from the mainstream, more and more people are understanding it for what it is, the demographics in the country are changing, and it's going to have to develop some basic sense of human decency, or be pushed out of American politics in the near future.
These tactics are pitiful, and quite frankly, hallow. In 2000 and 2004 these tactics worked to defeat the two most boring Democratic candidates in a long time, guys so bland they make Mitt Romney look like he has a personality. Two guys that no one could get passionately behind, and one of the two elections was essentially stolen.
The Republican brand is going further and further away from the mainstream, more and more people are understanding it for what it is, the demographics in the country are changing, and it's going to have to develop some basic sense of human decency, or be pushed out of American politics in the near future.
Manmademan
Member
Because voting Nader in 2000 definitely got those third party voters what they wanted, right? right?
no one is buying that argument ever again. ever.
No individual vote will determine the outcome of anything, so if you feel obligated to vote due to societal norms or whatever, you might as well vote in a way that best reflects your actual preferences.
Besides, people place far too much importance on voting (especially for presidential candidates) and not nearly enough importance on applying pressure on the government for specific issues. Being politically aware and active should go beyond picking a person you think will suck the least every couple of years.
I'm thinking about doing that. Last time I did I felt so much better. But I keep coming back to it. Politics is as addicting to me as it is awful and soulcrushing.
RustyNails
Member
Voting for 3rd party in America is voting for someone other than a winner. Conscious voting is bullshit as well. Might as well not vote at all. Vote for the person who has the best chance of making the change you want happen.
It's not addiction untill you become poll junkie
speculawyer
Member
So . . . "we tilted the poll to reflect a different world that we would prefer and it gave us a result that we prefer". LOL!
How can they call themselves "News"? Bill Maher's right . . . they live in a bubble.
RustyNails
Member
Of course Fox News has a poll that has Romney leading Obama, magically erasing the 6-8 point deficit he had overnight.
RustyNails
Member
Actually RealClearPolitics' average on Nov 1 2008 was an almost exact margin by which Obama won over McCain
empty vessel
Member
They are winning, but in capitalism they are always winning. We still struggle through political organization (and by this I do not mean electoral politics). The nature of capitalism may be that capital always wins (until it doesn't, which isn't anytime soon), but we can make it better or worse.
Indeed. I think that when one thinks about proposed policy, thinking about how it affects employee bargaining power vis-a-vis employers should be zeroed in on in order to evaluate it. Even things like health care, which at first glance don't seem to have much to do with bargaining power, can be reduced to that and in fact should be viewed through that lens. That's not to say this is the only consideration, but so many people overlook it (which is why we are losing).
speculawyer
Member
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
You guys have to remember that when a woman goes into the voting booth planning to vote against Romney, in part because of the stance he took on birth control, she will also remember all the conservative members of Congress that were opposing that insurance be required to cover contraception.
It's also really interesting that this issue got hyped up around the same time the Buffett Rule was being discussed. All conservative congressmen and presidential candidates can be shown as standing in line to defend the right of the rich to keep their money and the right of employers to deny contraception. Because trickle down and religious freedom or something.
I actually think social issues could become a big factor on independents this election, and may even affect down ticket voting. If the economy improves and Obama still wins a landslide just because of how he played social issues, then I guess he really was playing 11th dimensional chess.
It's also really interesting that this issue got hyped up around the same time the Buffett Rule was being discussed. All conservative congressmen and presidential candidates can be shown as standing in line to defend the right of the rich to keep their money and the right of employers to deny contraception. Because trickle down and religious freedom or something.
I actually think social issues could become a big factor on independents this election, and may even affect down ticket voting. If the economy improves and Obama still wins a landslide just because of how he played social issues, then I guess he really was playing 11th dimensional chess.
I have to say, while I understand the passion and philosophical stance you take with this outlook, it is just deeply flawed in the wake of how our electoral system actually works.
If you feel obligated to vote due to societal norms or whatever- or maybe even a sense of civic duty as a citizen- you have a choice between two parties on the ballot who can actually become President (barring an unprecedented catastrophe like a major party candidate dying a day before election day).
It is at this point that your claim starts to become tenuous- if, and only if, you literally like and dislike the Democrat and the Republican equally, and have absolutely no preference between the two, will your vote for a third-party candidate reflect your actual preferences.
If you do prefer one candidate over the other, then your third-party vote is instead contributing to something called the spoiler effect, a demonstrably real and seriously shitty side effect of First Past the Post (aka "Winner-Take-All") electoral systems.
Here's how it works. On policy and issue stances, third parties tend to align with one of the two candidates more, and the other one much less. Voters attracted to a third-party candidate are overwhelmingly more likely to vote for the major-party candidate that has the most in common with theirs than for the other major candidate. As a result, votes for a given third party are composed largely of voters who would have voted for a specific one of the two major party candidates on the ballot if they were the only options. But when the votes are counted, there is no proportional distribution, and the person with the most votes wins everything, even if that doesn't represent a majority of the voting population.
The end result? Voting for the third-party candidate has the ultimate impact of helping only the major-party candidate who has less in common with the candidate you voted for. And at this point this is obvious to both major parties. It becomes in their best interest to aid certain third parties to the detriment of their opponent. So you have Republicans making anonymous contributions to the Green and Communist parties, and Democrats donating to the Libertarian party, etc., when they start to do well. They know third parties have no chance of winning, so the better they do, the more it benefits their own chances.
This is insane, and it traps us in a two-party system while making it very difficult for the will of the majority of the voting public to be accurately represented. The spoiler effect ensures that one of the two major party candidates will always win, while voters hoping to change the system by voting third party aid only the person on the ballot they have the least in common with.
Your options in the voting booth, if you want your preferences to be accurately represented but don't actually want to elect a Democrat or a Republican, are:
1) Vote strategically: align with the candidate with which you have the most in common and vote for them, hoping to ensure their victory or at least deny a victory to the candidate you dislike more
2) Turn around and go home; your preferences will be reflected in that the total number of votes cast will be lower and both candidates will have to work harder to get a win by having the most of the remaining votes.
This sucks, a lot, but it's the reality of the American voting system. And tragically, this is just the very beginning of the myriad issues with it.
This video summarizes what I talked about here and more, and it's easy to jump from there to other videos explaining what else is wrong and what needs to be done to affect any real change.
While I disagree with many of the responses, that one is exactly my point. If he's a GOP-leaning voter, but has serious concerns about the GOP flag-bearer, do you think he's somehow persuadable to vote DEM?
From experience, I tend to doubt it, and I've really given it a go here in AZ. I think it's much more reasonable to suggest that they consider the Libertarian party which holds many of the charms of the old GOP that many people of that ilk miss, but without the "Gov't in you pants" ideology of the current GOP.
And speaking of poll junkies, the RCP poll of polls just hit a G.E. reset, they shifted about 60 EVs from Lean Dem/GOP to Toss Up including the usual suspects. A reasonable decision since neither candidate had a significant lead in them. Looks like the new break point is an average +10 in the poll of polls to move to Lean and +20 to move to Likely. Current score: 227DEM-170GOP
Raven, I implore you to watch the video I've linked above, and also this one on a contrasting voting system called the Alternative Vote.
The point is that, if he's a GOP-leaning voter, has serious concerns about the GOP flag-bearer, voting Libertarian will ultimately help the Democrat. His true options are to vote for the Republican strategically, hoping that he wins and gets the candidate he absolutely does not want to vote for out of office, or to stay home on election day, finding there is no way to express his true preferences within our current system.
edit: I may have misunderstood, but if you're saying it's a good idea to try to persuade them to vote for the Libertarian and thus deny the Republican their votes (strategically instructing them to vote non-strategically), then you are right that it's effective. I just wish our voting system didn't make it so.
I appreciate the offer, but I'm well versed in AV having volunteered in no less than 3 campaigns (NC, NM, and AZ) to implement IRV systems and currently working to implement an open primary process. Spoiler effect is certainly something to consider, but strategic voting is also not a positive outcome. Better that he deeply research the positions of the available choices and affirmatively vote his interests than stick to his default position because of "I don't care," or "I don't want to help the opponent."
I'm fairly sure that if the current breadth of the GOP doesn't serve his interests, he's probably more concerned that it isn't moderate enough rather than conservative enough.
There is a more moderately conservative party in this country. He should look into it.
And no, I'm not conspiring to deny the GOP votes, I'm just suggesting to truly understand the options available. Most people don't even know that there are legitimate third, fourth, and even fifth parties in each state.
I'm glad that you're familiar with the concepts, but surely none of the instant runoff campaigns or the primary reform you're working on now will have any impact at all on the general election, right? And that is all we're talking about here. (In fact, unless I'm remembering a different event, there's only been one statewide election using IRV so far, for like a judicial seat or something).
Of course strategic voting isn't a positive outcome. The fact is that it's just a necessary, in fact crucial, part of First Past the Post voting. Your potential Libertarian voter doesn't have the option of affirmatively voting his interests no matter how much research he does- unless he actually does prefer one of the major-party candidates- because of the spoiler effect.
Your second paragraph is fundamentally optimistic in a way I wish I could get behind... your voter should look into every party that exists in his country. And it's nothing but a good idea to support those parties and their candidates, and assist in communicating their message more effectively. But actually using his one general election vote on any of them will not serve his interests, and could ultimately benefit the Democrat (who I assume he would prefer win less than the Republican).
I don't know what qualifies as a legitimate party in your eyes, but there were seven parties that appeared on the ballot in Florida in the 2000 election, all of which I'd consider "third" parties
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Not actually a John Edwards moment, but this is the real Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IYbsOC0_E0&feature=player_embedded#!
Edit: Also found this to be interesting:
Edit: Also found this to be interesting:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked