• 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 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
PhoenixDark said:
PantherLotus said:
This is the same planet in which Occupy and BLM exist and we're trying to pretend DWS couldn't rally the base because of Obama. OK!
Click to expand...

Neither are competent or well organized groups. One is dead. The other seems to think top down change exists, which must be why so little effort goes into actual political processes that actually impact people's daily lives (state elections, prosecutors, judges, sherrifs, school boards, etc). But yes, protest Bernie Sanders and Hillary some more...
Click to expand...

It's almost like they could've used some direction and leadership.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
DWS has had to deal with an aloof democrat president who doesn't seem to care about the health of his party on the state level (see: coal and the dismantling of the democrat party in rural areas/the south).
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Barack Obama, mastermind of the Southern Strategy.

PD, you posted this in another thread, and I'm genuinely confused how you rectify this thought:

PhoenixDark said:
The other major problem is that democrats haven't given their base a lot to truly be excited about. All of Obama's major domestic "accomplishments" are divisive, with opposition far more excited than the supporters. Look back at 2010. Democrats literally didn't have anything to run on. What was there to run on in 2012 outside of supporting the president? And 2014 was like 2010.
Click to expand...

With this one:

PhoenixDark said:
I'd just note the article didn't say progressive, it said aggressive. Point being those two years were the most productive legislative period since LBJ. Say what you want about Obama but it would be hard to deny he has more domestic legislative "accomplishments" than any modern president, and most older ones outside of LBJ.

That two year period is what sparked the tea party.
Click to expand...

It would be one thing if you said they had a message but it wasn't effective. But you're arguing they ran on nothing!... but then you also just talked about how productive 2009-2010 was. I'm confused.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Ah yes, Barack Obama, mastermind of the Southern Strategy.

PD, you posted this in another thread, and I'm genuinely confused how you rectify this thought:



With this one:



It would be one thing if you said they had a message but it wasn't effective. But you're arguing they ran on nothing!... but then you also just talked about how productive 2009-2010 was. I'm confused.
Click to expand...
PD caught going out of character.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Ah yes, Barack Obama, mastermind of the Southern Strategy.

PD, you posted this in another thread, and I'm genuinely confused how you rectify this thought:



With this one:



It would be one thing if you said they had a message but it wasn't effective. But you're arguing they ran on nothing!... but then you also just talked about how productive 2009-2010 was. I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Firmware must be bugged/
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Actually those arguments aren't contradictory. The problem with the 2009-2010 legislation period politically is that it none of it excited the base or had direct/noticeable impact on people's lives. Dodd-Frank doesn't rally the base or excite anyone. It's a bill that doesn't do what it was advertised to do (end TBTF banking), and is largely divorced from most people's daily lives. Obamacare was toxic in 2010. Most people don't even know a credit card bill was passed during that period either. Etc

In short, productive doesn't equal effective. Democrats did a lot of things during that period that had little to do with the major voter focus: the economy. That was the time when an infastructure bank, minimum wage increase, small business tax cuts/credits, etc would have been very effective and very popular. Those are issues you can sell to constituents. Instead democrats went home in August 2009 and 2010 with nothing to stand on outside of some stimulus projects, I guess.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Gotchaye said:
But you've still got to do this. Pro-choicers need to have a theory that explains why pro-lifers get it wrong and that points towards steps that could be taken to get pro-lifers to see that they're going wrong or at least to preventing young people who are making up their minds from making that same error.
Click to expand...

I think this is wrong for two reasons: first, because you seem to be endorsing illogical arguments; second, because I think discussion should generally remain civil, and the proposal is nothing more than demonizing others with whom one disagrees. On the first point, I'll clarify that I think what you've said is fine to the extent the explanations come in the form of logical arguments that undercut or rebut the beliefs to be challenged. But I don't think you're limiting it in that way. The "anti-sex" smear isn't meant to undercut or rebut the claim that life begins at (or the rights of personhood inhere from) conception, for instance. It's meant to trump the claim and sidestep any argument about it. "I believe life begins at conception and should be protected against others from that point forward" is not refuted by "No, you're just anti-sex" or "No, you just hate women." This is important not only because logical argument is more likely to succeed at the end of the day (however long "the day" is), but also because it provides a rational foundation for a challenger to reject the others' beliefs.

It's also important because logical argument is more conducive to civil discussion, which, presumably, we all care about. The psychological theorizing--"You are anti-sex" or "You hate America" (to use a right-wing example off the top of my head)--are personal attacks that are more likely to inflame passions than to advance the discussion. That's especially the case when coupled with ignoring the rationale put forward by the person whose beliefs are being challenged. And it's true even when the group engaging in a discussion is ideologically homogenous, because such theorizing is nothing more than "othering" a group and then demonizing them. That kind of behavior reduces the likelihood of civil discussion when members of the first group do discuss the issue with the targeted "others." The better approach here is to give the benefit of the doubt to the other person and address their arguments.

Your statement that explaining "these priorities and errors in terms of the psychology of well-meaning people with imperfect information who are nevertheless truly committed to protecting human life" is "beside the point" is spot on, but then, the original psychologizing that prompts the response is also beside the point. The discussion should never have been moved from the merits of the arguments to the qualities of the people making them in the first place.
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
Makai said:
I bet on Paul on main stage. Yes
Click to expand...

This was absolute horseshit, Makai. Yes won dirty in that market. Like Lakers Kings 2002 game 6 style dirty.

Glad you won some money at least, but fuck CNN. Changing their rules to allow him in because one poll showed "signs of viability" and they wanted to be "as inclusive as possible." What is the point of having rules if you won't follow them? These media buffoons are playing games while real people's money is at stake.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The Technomancer said:
good lord
Click to expand...

LOL. What is funny is that underneath it all, the real base thing they are asking people to do is vote for them to do absolutely nothing while they get paid and have great benefits.

Isn't that what they truly believe all people on welfare do?
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
New NBC/WSJ national gen election numbers:
Clinton 50, Trump 40
Clinton 48, Cruz 45
Clinton 46, Carson 47
Clinton 45, Rubio 48
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Cheebo said:
New NBC/WSJ national gen election numbers:
Clinton 50, Trump 40
Clinton 48, Cruz 45
Clinton 46, Carson 47
Clinton 45, Rubio 48
Click to expand...

Funny that even republicans are like, "nope--Carson is too insane even for us" but the general public doesn't even know at this point. She'd beat Carson by 15.
 
M

Makai

Member
Jack Remington said:
This was absolute horseshit, Makai. Yes won dirty in that market. Like Lakers Kings 2002 game 6 style dirty.

Glad you won some money at least, but fuck CNN. Changing their rules to allow him in because one poll showed "signs of viability" and they wanted to be "as inclusive as possible." What is the point of having rules if you won't follow them? These media buffoons are playing games while real people's money is at stake.
Click to expand...
Have you seen how long they let people go over time? There are no rules.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
As long as Carson is beating Clinton, you shouldn't take these polls seriously. It's pretty crazy the the general public still thinks Carson is a mildmannered neurosurgeon genius.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Diablos said:
Lawl.

Rubio is troubling though...
Click to expand...

Obama was losing to Cain around this time in 2011. I agree Rubio is probably the best opponent but he shares many of the weaknesses all the republican candidates have in terms of demographics and unpopular positions. And he's also showing quite a surprising level of incompetence, campaign wise. I'd imagine his general election strategy would mirror Romney's in terms of overspending on consultants, pedestrian technology, etc.
 
M

Makai

Member
https://www.gop.com/2016-gophq/event_schedule/?schedule_type=debate

A whole bunch of debates are stacked in January - March. B-Dubs claimed the Fox News Iowa one. I call dibs on these three:

January 14, 2016
South Carolina
Location: North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center
Aired On: Fox Business Network
Click to expand...

February 13, 2016
South Carolina
Aired On: CBS
Click to expand...

March 2016
Florida
Sponsors: CNN/Salem Radio
Click to expand...

Happy to do more, but I'd like to at least make one per month. Any theme recommendations? Super mainstream things like Batman and Star Wars that everybody is familiar with are best.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I'm thinking Cruz in Iowa; it's tailor-made for him.

After that: alllll Trump.

If Trump somehow wins Iowa (and then presumably New Hampshire), it's game-over.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Obama was losing to Cain around this time in 2011. I agree Rubio is probably the best opponent but he shares many of the weaknesses all the republican candidates have in terms of demographics and unpopular positions. And he's also showing quite a surprising level of incompetence, campaign wise. I'd imagine his general election strategy would mirror Romney's in terms of overspending on consultants, pedestrian technology, etc.
Click to expand...

Rubio's campaign staff has gone on record saying that campaigning is overrated and that money is better spent on TV ads and appearances than at an Iowa town hall.

It's been talked about a bunch in articles over the last couple weeks, but seeing this Vox article that compiles his campaign's strange decisions makes me wonder what the hell he is doing?

Furthermore, said conventional wisdom continues, the way to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire is to work hard on the ground. The candidate should spend a lot of time there. The campaign should build up a network of local relationships, winning over supporters one by one. And the campaign should focus on organizing, to identify committed voters and make sure they actually turn out to the polls. (Organizing like this helped power Barack Obama to victory in Iowa in 2008.)

Yet Rubio doesn't appear to be focusing on any of this:


  • Though a win in New Hampshire could ensure that Rubio's the only mainstream Republican left standing, he's spent fewer days there this year than any other GOP candidate except Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum, according to WMUR.
  • In Iowa, Rubio has "rarely left the Des Moines area for campaign events," according to Alberta and Johnson.
  • Rubio has just seven paid New Hampshire staffers, according to Pindell — far fewer than Jeb Bush's 20, Donald Trump's 15, and even Carson's 10.
  • And Iowa and New Hampshire politicos have both complained that Rubio's campaign seems uninterested in winning their endorsements. (Unsurprisingly, Rubio hasn't gotten many.)
Now, it's not that Rubio is ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire. Indeed, his operation has spent millions on ads in each state. His team just doesn't appear to be spending time on this nuts-and-bolts campaign activity that so many political professionals think is crucial to actually winning.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to have these problems back in September when he wasn't the GOP's last hope, but the fact that this is the approach the campaign is taking in mid-December is insane. If this this the approach he's taking during the primaries, his GE strategy should be fun to see (if we even get to see it...).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
That logic is odd. I mean, sure, it says that we can't be particularly confident in Trump's victory... but it also says we can't be confident in *any* candidate's victory, not just Trump specifically. If we use the 95% margin at 52% of variation explained, then we can say with 95% confidence Clinton will get between 13.5% and 71% of the vote, and nobody's saying "Hillary doomed, 13.5% of the vote possible". You need stronger supporting evidence to suggest that Trump is actively *unlikely* to lose, which is heavily implied by the piece, and all they offer is that Trump is endorsement low. Okay, but we have qualitative reason to believe that Republican voters aren't paying attention to endorsements this year, so why cling to it like a cast iron rule?
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Crab said:
That logic is odd. I mean, sure, it says that we can't be particularly confident in Trump's victory... but it also says we can't be confident in *any* candidate's victory, not just Trump specifically. If we use the 95% margin at 52% of variation explained, then we can say with 95% confidence Clinton will get between 13.5% and 71% of the vote, and nobody's saying "Hillary doomed, 13.5% of the vote possible". You need stronger supporting evidence to suggest that Trump is actively *unlikely* to lose, which is heavily implied by the piece, and all they offer is that Trump is endorsement low. Okay, but we have qualitative reason to believe that Republican voters aren't paying attention to endorsements this year, so why cling to it like a cast iron rule?
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you already have your conclusion and working backwards to fit the numbers into your narrative.
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
Plinko said:
LOL. What is funny is that underneath it all, the real base thing they are asking people to do is vote for them to do absolutely nothing while they get paid and have great benefits.

Isn't that what they truly believe all people on welfare do?
Click to expand...

I spend a lot of time reading the comments on National Review, Red State, and WSJ, so let me weigh in.

There are two core beliefs that nearly every Republican has and one fringe belief that is sadly getting more common, which largely contribute to this.

The first is that in the near-total absence of government, everything would largely take care of itself.

The second is that Democrats ruthlessly advance an extreme left agenda that will severely damage the country.

I'll throw in a 2b: that once a liberal policy is enacted, it is nearly impossible to undo.

The third, which is not universal but increasingly common, is that Democrats know their agenda will damage the country, but they pursue it anyway, either to buy votes, to set up a tyrannical government, or possibly bring about the end of days.

If these are your beliefs, it makes perfect sense that you'd want to pay someone to prevent the advance of evil. It's a siege mentality. They aren't worried about going on the offensive right now, just stopping the barbarian horde from breaching the gates.

Like Ronnie said, "Government is the problem."
Or (I'm paraphrasing here): "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

If government is the problem, then so is governing.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Crab said:
That logic is odd. I mean, sure, it says that we can't be particularly confident in Trump's victory... but it also says we can't be confident in *any* candidate's victory, not just Trump specifically. If we use the 95% margin at 52% of variation explained, then we can say with 95% confidence Clinton will get between 13.5% and 71% of the vote, and nobody's saying "Hillary doomed, 13.5% of the vote possible". You need stronger supporting evidence to suggest that Trump is actively *unlikely* to lose, which is heavily implied by the piece, and all they offer is that Trump is endorsement low. Okay, but we have qualitative reason to believe that Republican voters aren't paying attention to endorsements this year, so why cling to it like a cast iron rule?
Click to expand...
NateSilver and 538 is in a self-dug hole that's turning into a quicksand everyday. They are clearly trying to backpedal by churning out any buzzfeed pop-stat that shows Trump in a favorable statistical light. It's clear that Trump candidacy follows absolutely no historical trend. Silver was trying to punditize Trump polling by saying Trump has no chance, its too early, etc. It reeked of notice me senpai drama.

All of this could have been resolved by Silver at the outset claiming that the external factors outweigh more than anything this cycle: frustration of republicans, anti government hysteria, etc, so therefore take his predictions with a grain of salt. Now the dude is practically resorting to saying " Guyz, Trump has odds of getting the nomination between 1% and 100%"
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Once again it seems people haven't bothered to read the article.

If you take 538 as saying "here's what we think based on very little while we wait for the real data to arrive" there isn't much contradiction to be found. I certainly don't think they are asserting things as strongly as their critics seem to think.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
RustyNails said:
NateSilver and 538 is in a self-dug hole that's turning into a quicksand everyday. They are clearly trying to backpedal by churning out any buzzfeed pop-stat that shows Trump in a favorable statistical light. It's clear that Trump candidacy follows absolutely no historical trend. Silver was trying to punditize Trump polling by saying Trump has no chance, its too early, etc. It reeked of notice me senpai drama.

All of this could have been resolved by Silver at the outset claiming that the external factors outweigh more than anything this cycle: frustration of republicans, anti government hysteria, etc, so therefore take his predictions with a grain of salt. Now the dude is practically resorting to saying " Guyz, Trump has odds of getting the nomination between 1% and 100%"
Click to expand...
A lot of folks underestimated at the start of this cycle just how much GOP primary voters hate - and I do mean HAAAAAATE - their own party's leadership. "Democrats are going to do what Democrats do," they reason; "at least they're upfront about their evil, misguided ways." But the folks they trusted to fight the Democrats? The Republicans whom they sent to DC every two years? They're worse. They promise big things and fierce fights against the big, evil man who's been occupying their White House, but they crumble and cower every time.

If Trump does indeed win nomination, when scholars look back on this primary season they'll pinpoint this contempt for the party as a key factor.. if not the key factor in his success. Voters are fed-up, and Trump has capitalized on this sentiment brilliantly.

With that said, I'm really looking forward to the first wave of "My God, What Have We Done?!"
(Read it in David Byrne's voice!)
articles after he secures nomination.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Veritigo_X said:
Rubio's campaign staff has gone on record saying that campaigning is overrated and that money is better spent on TV ads and appearances than at an Iowa town hall.

It's been talked about a bunch in articles over the last couple weeks, but seeing this Vox article that compiles his campaign's strange decisions makes me wonder what the hell he is doing?
Click to expand...

Excuse me but, according to Stuart Stevens (esteemed Daily Beast columnist and, surely a complete coincidence, Romney's top 2012 campaign strategist), the Vox is just as unhinged from reality as The Blaze. Therefore we cannot take anything it says seriously, because both sides do it.

https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/674226414934036480
https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/666333851363360768
 
R

RustyNails

Member
HylianTom said:
A lot of folks underestimated at the start of this cycle just how much GOP primary voters hate - and I do mean HAAAAAATE - their own party's leadership. "Democrats are going to do what Democrats do," they reason; "at least they're upfront about their evil, misguided ways." But the folks they trusted to fight the Democrats? The Republicans whom they sent to DC every two years? They're worse. They promise big things and fierce fights against the big, evil man who's been occupying their White House, but they crumble and cower every time.

If Trump does indeed win nomination, when scholars look back on this primary season they'll pinpoint this contempt for the party as a key factor.. if not the key factor in his success. Voters are fed-up, and Trump has capitalized on this sentiment brilliantly.

With that said, I'm really looking forward to the first wave of "My God, What Have We Done?!"
(Read it in David Byrne's voice!)
articles after he secures nomination.
Click to expand...
Aye.

And since the GOP is in a civil war between freeper crazies and the establishment, the endorsements are not going to matter for shit. Jeb has how many endorsements? More than everyone combined I assume, and he spent $33m in ads. Dude is slumming with Gilmore, Fiorina and Christie at 3%. I mean if you want to do stats, thats your feasibility right there. Nothing "traditional" is going to matter. Normally the establishment shut down the freeper nonsense pretty quick. But not this election. They're the ones shutting down establishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom