Veritigo_X
Member
This is one Vox article he'd probably agree with. I don't think any campaign strategist could look at Rubio's campaign and think he's doing a good job. Besides the ones working for Rubio himself, I suppose.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
This is one Vox article he'd probably agree with. I don't think any campaign strategist could look at Rubio's campaign and think he's doing a good job. Besides the ones working for Rubio himself, I suppose.
He's a douchebag, its not complicated.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I've never gotten the narrative against Silver. That is, the people saying that he's showing himself to be a fool this election, or whatever. I mean, there are basically two premises that people seem to be agreeing on, no matter where they fall in their opinion on Silver's analysis this cycle.
1. Nate Silver has, in the past, been very good about predicting the outcome of elections by doing statistical analysis of past trends. And,
2. This election is fundamentally different from any previous election, at least in the modern era.
If both these premises are true, then Nate Silver missing the boat on Donald Trump is exactly what you should expect to happen. In fact, if you want Nate Silver to be a guy who only analyzes presidential elections by looking at past data and you don't want him to become a pundit who flails around after each new piece of news, you should want him to be bearish on Trump's odds, because historically, Trump like candidates don't have a lot of evidence in their favor.
But then, I've never really read his arguments as "Donald Trump won't win" but moreso "We can't be certain that Donald Trump will win." And I do think he acts like a fool when he goes on Twitter and tries to bait Trump all the time. That's just silly.
Also, the Fivethirtyeight website still sucks.
1. Nate Silver has, in the past, been very good about predicting the outcome of elections by doing statistical analysis of past trends. And,
2. This election is fundamentally different from any previous election, at least in the modern era.
If both these premises are true, then Nate Silver missing the boat on Donald Trump is exactly what you should expect to happen. In fact, if you want Nate Silver to be a guy who only analyzes presidential elections by looking at past data and you don't want him to become a pundit who flails around after each new piece of news, you should want him to be bearish on Trump's odds, because historically, Trump like candidates don't have a lot of evidence in their favor.
But then, I've never really read his arguments as "Donald Trump won't win" but moreso "We can't be certain that Donald Trump will win." And I do think he acts like a fool when he goes on Twitter and tries to bait Trump all the time. That's just silly.
Also, the Fivethirtyeight website still sucks.
Perhaps. While looking around I did find this article where he pretty much gushes over Rubio's approach to immigration reform.
Stevens said:
No ragrets.
I agree.
That said, in any other year, these kinds of numbers would equal a near shoe-in for said candidate. I feel like if Mitt was polling like this, we wouldn't be looking at someone else asking when said other person will surge.
Basically, I'm asking - what is driving this wait and see approach? Is it really only endorsements?
Black Republican
Member
goodbye
Someone post that list of the bet, let's see who is about to lose.
We had dudes who were foolish enough to bet on Jindal when they had a GOD-LIKE BUSINESSMAN to back.
BertramCooper
Banned
There's clearly no room for Huck and Santorum in a race with Cruz and Carson.
I think they were joking.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Isn't Monmouth a notoriously bad polling place?
Orbis Tabula
Member
I imagine Colbert won't be thrilled, seeing as He Made Huckabee.
One factor of Trump's success in Iowa will be how well Carson does. He and Cruz share a lot of the same vote. If Carson and Cruz can split that vote enough, then Trump can squeeze through. But ultimately, Trump does not need Iowa. He wants it and will throw a tantrum if he loses it, but he has so many other states locked up at the moment, especially compared to Cruz, that he would be fine.
He def doesn't need Iowa. BUT if he does get Iowa, then Trump really becomes a thing.
I don't think I'm doing the first, since I'm not talking about using this sort of psychological argument as an argument that something is false. The context here is that this is the sort of theorizing people do when they're already convinced that they've got the right position - what's true about the actual issue in question is settled in that person's mind. My point was that this produces a new question - "how can reasonable people disagree with me on this?" - that people are often going to want to answer in this psychologizing way. It's a really common and useful thing to do. Like, teachers have to do this all the time; their job is not so much to come up with strong, logical arguments for whatever-it-is but to figure out why a student doesn't grasp those arguments. Now, as it happens I think this kind of psychologizing isn't irrelevant when it comes to thinking about whether things are actually true, but half of that relevance is in considering whether we're the ones who are biased, and that's not what I'm getting at here.
Second, I don't think I'm being pro-demonizing, although like I said it's an awkward sort of conversation to have in an ideologically diverse group. Basically, people are going to psychologize. Ruling it out as a subject of inquiry and conversation just means you're going to get really simple models of political opponents' psychology - sometimes even just implicit ones. Like 90% of the time someone looks at a high-stakes disagreement and just assumes that the other guy understands the stakes in the same way but has reversed values (hence "you hate America"). Much better to be able to ask if that's really very plausible and to work out an actually-realistic model of opponents' psychology that doesn't require conceding that there's a very good chance that they're right (given that it's permissible to be confident in one's political beliefs, and anyway good luck changing that). We psychologize everything; it's not just politics but how we typically respond to apparent rational disagreement. Look at two people disagreeing about something that happened to them five years ago and each will be looking for a way to explain why the other isn't remembering things right. And mostly we're really bad at it, but I think that's only reason to go explicitly and carefully. Obviously "pro-life is anti-sex" is heavily sloganized, and to the extent it's attributing a motive to pro-lifers it's going to be wrong in almost all cases, but that's my point. It's typical of the sort of psychologizing you're going to get when people aren't taking time to actually think through what's making their opponents tick. There are a lot of people who take this as what pro-lifers are consciously motivated by just because they don't recognize that this is something that deserves careful thought. I think I was clear in the last post about the ways in which this can go wrong, but nevertheless people are going to do it, so they should do it well.
Basileus777
Member
How dare you make a comedic debate thread instead of spending time pondering Bernie's platform.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Leadership!
I'm kind of surprised Rubio's former immigration stance hasn't been brought up much. Maybe it's simply because negative ad blitzes haven't really started yet+Trump is dominating all attention.
If there is a Rubio surge I expect Trump to use it as a flail and repeatedly strike him with it.
You're likely dead on about why it hasn't been brought up though, I'd like to add the addendum that the establishment wants Rubio and the others may not see the benefit in doing their best lobster impersonations.
JesseEwiak
Member
Sure, but that wasn't what his question was.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
ooooooh my god
Coriolanus
Banned
And the answer to "how much does REAL AMERICA hate muslims?" is revealed.
RIP establishment republicans.
Veritigo_X
Member
I found another article and it actually sounds like he's firmly in the Rubio camp of TV ads > ground game. When comparing Cruz and Rubio's campaigns he said, "Rubio has a much better vision of how to win."
He also says he doesn't think Trump is a serious candidate because he isn't spending money on ads and he won't even make it to the Iowa ballot (lol). This was a month ago, but still. It just sounds like he's just saying the same things other establishment republicans are saying.
Yellowtail
Member
Why would Trump need ads? He's getting more coverage than anyone else running could ever dream of. He doesn't need to pay money to put himself out there, everyone else does it for free. Why pay for what you get for free?
What I'm trying to say is this guy sounds like a grade A moron.
Jack Remington
Banned
I like to take people at their word when it comes to their motivations and assumptions. This is probably because I've spent so much time having my own motivations questioned, or dealing with people ascribing false motivations to the politicians I agree with. For example, "Obama hates America," or "Democrats support (insert any liberal policy) because they just want to control people's lives." Or, "Obama wants to take away your guns in order to pave the way for a dictatorship." It's infuriating when it's done to you, so I try to avoid doing it to others.
I do like to attack assumptions that are clearly baseless though, or at least get people to consider alternatives. Like I might ask, "If you knew that liberals want stricter gun control because they honestly think it would reduce murder rates, what would you say to them?" Or, "If liberals only want universal healthcare to control people's lives, why do the countries at the top of the freedom index all have universal healthcare systems?"
When it comes to abortion, most pro-lifers will tell you they believe abortion is murder. There are definitely some who have puritanical anti-sex attitudes as well, but there are filtering questions you can ask to identify these people. Like, "would you support easier contraceptive access to prevent unplanned pregnancies?" And if the answer is no, I'd ask why not.
Until I have a clear reason to do so, I really hesitate to "psychologize" anyone in a debate, just because of its potential to poison the well.
I do like to attack assumptions that are clearly baseless though, or at least get people to consider alternatives. Like I might ask, "If you knew that liberals want stricter gun control because they honestly think it would reduce murder rates, what would you say to them?" Or, "If liberals only want universal healthcare to control people's lives, why do the countries at the top of the freedom index all have universal healthcare systems?"
When it comes to abortion, most pro-lifers will tell you they believe abortion is murder. There are definitely some who have puritanical anti-sex attitudes as well, but there are filtering questions you can ask to identify these people. Like, "would you support easier contraceptive access to prevent unplanned pregnancies?" And if the answer is no, I'd ask why not.
Until I have a clear reason to do so, I really hesitate to "psychologize" anyone in a debate, just because of its potential to poison the well.
BertramCooper
Banned
"To whom my concern"
Also, is that THREE spaces between sentences?
Also, is that THREE spaces between sentences?
I believe it is. My aunt actually works at that hospital...
BertramCooper
Banned
I constantly have to correct writing from people who learned to type on typewriters and therefore automatically put two spaces between sentences. (Thank god for search and replace.)
Three spaces between sentences would probably give me an aneurysm.
Even his doctor thinks Donny is the healthiest individual OF ALL TIME. "I hereby assert that Donald J. Trump is so healthy that he could break Michael Phelps' Olympic record if he really wanted to."
Jack Remington
Banned
I love this article. My favorite quote:
"University of Wisconsin needs to make its case to the playoff committee by dominating Michigan State." Okay. A little easier said than done there. Jeb hasn't dominated Trump because he's not capable of doing so. He's not capable of doing it in the debates, in social media, or in interviews. He's already tried to attack Trump and completely failed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/25/jeb-bush-attacks-donald-trump-in-bid-to-save-candi/?page=all
Veritigo_X
Member
No history of ever using alcohol? k....
Edit: nevermind, I'm an ass.
Edit: nevermind, I'm an ass.
Uhhh, since when is two spaces between sentences wrong? As far as I know, it's one space after a comma, two after any sentence-ending punctuation.
Black Republican
Member
surprised Trump's disagreement with Scalia's comments didnt get more media play
Made too much sense.
Jack Remington
Banned
No history of ever using alcohol? k....
He just holds the glass, then tosses it out when no one's looking like Bruce Wayne does.
BertramCooper
Banned
Since computers, basically.
People were taught to put two spaces between sentences when using typewriters because typewriter characters are monospaced (i.e., all of the characters are the same width), which generally makes the text look really uneven. Two spaces were necessary so you could actually see the end of a sentence.
This isn't a problem when typing on computers because the characters are proportional (except when using a typeface like Courier, which is intentionally monospaced). Two spaces between sentences is overkill.
Veritigo_X
Member
Aw fuck, now I feel like an ass. His older brother died of alcoholism so he's avoided it all his life.
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a1939/esq0104-jan-ceos/
He doesn't explicitly say ads > ground game, just that Cruz can't win merely by galvanizing conservatives. In fact he doesn't mention why Rubio's "vision" is better; I guess that's step 2 in "establishment candidate -> ? -> nomination". However, he does make a lot of questionable pronouncements as per usual, such as where he blames Obama for unlimited campaign money:
Matthew 7:3 bro
thezerofire
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked