Avon Barksdale
Member
I'm using a OnePlus One.
-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
I'm using a OnePlus One.
Black Mamba
Member
He's still using numbers, they're just soft data points, not hard ones.
It's like when people say gas prices will determine the election. Well, they didn't last time. And that's because there's other shit that matters.
Nate seems to refuse to accept that there actually isn't enough data.
His "establishment always chooses" is proved how? How many GOP primaries have there been without the incumbent? Now how many in the modern era (at least post civil rights when the GOP flipped in the South). Now how many when the base hated the establishment with this much gusto? How many times was the non-establishment pick a extremely well known celebrity? Etc..
You end up with like 1 or no other data points.
I don't understand why he chooses to fall on this sword.
Regardless, 538 is a mess of a website. I had such high hopes. I even posted about how much I was looking forward to the site. 80% of the articles are just boring dumb shit, the other 15% is bogus crap, with 5% interesting. Sigh.
Coriolanus
Banned
Sturgeon's law is a cruel mistress, mate.
BertramCooper
Banned
I hope Trump drops out of the next debate and instead does some sort of crazy live stream event at the same time that pulls everyone away from the debate.
This is more what I mean, when I said he isn't using the numbers. He's focused entirely on softer data points and almost refuses to acknowledged what the poll numbers are saying, that Trump is the likely nominee at this point in time and it would take a huge turn around for an establishment candidate to take it from him. Historical trends are only so helpful in situations like the one we find ourselves in right now. It just feels like, to me anyway, that he's acting more like Wolf than Nate right now.
I know what you mean, I was hyped. Now I feel like 538 would be better off as a monthly magazine. If they only had to put together like 6 to 10 articles a month they'd be able to keep the quality up.
The internet and 24 hour news cycles are not kind to actual news and analysis.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
We've been here before. Nate Silver is good at aggregating data for specific election contests and is not good at predicting outcomes in political matters outside of that. I would trust his typical political analysis less than that of the median poligaf member, and by no means am I trying to exalt poligaf in that comparison.
Poodlestrike
Banned
This. Nate's a statistician, not a scout. If he's got a ton of data to work off of, he's fantastic. If he doesn't, he's just as fallible (if not more so) than anybody else.
...continues apace!
Trump not the only one pissed off at RNC over next debate
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Trump not the only one pissed off at RNC over next debate
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
These lunatics can't even agree over the simplest things.
Sounds like everyone wants to get their big lines in early and doesn't want to risk that they won't get to use them. Also they want more time to hit Hillary.
Well, they all seem fairly united in their desire for opening and closing statements.
Black Mamba
Member
Honestly, the debates need a higher threshold. 2 hours is fine if there's 5 or 6 candidates rather than 10 or 11.
It should be Trump, Carson, Rubio, Jeb!, Cruz and maybe Fiorina.
Then put everyone else in debate #2. Let that one bit the big one.
Time for opening and closing statements and the debate in 2 hours this way.
It should be Trump, Carson, Rubio, Jeb!, Cruz and maybe Fiorina.
Then put everyone else in debate #2. Let that one bit the big one.
Time for opening and closing statements and the debate in 2 hours this way.
RustyNails
Member
RastaMentality
Banned
CNN: Jeb Bush's presidential campaign raised $13.38 million in the third quarter, according to a campaign aide.
Yep. It's time to start admitting guys like Rand and Christie aren't going to win and deserve to sit at the kid's table with Blanche.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
What a colossal waste of money. He's in the single digits!
Lol, I love seeing how weak the networks really are in all of this. Flash back a few cycles and the media was the kingmaker. Now, they have done everything in their power to take down Trump and they just built him higher than anyone could have imagined. Now, CNBC is being directly called out for their greed and they will capitulate in the end. Glorious.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Is Pataki still running?
Is there any way to find out?
Is there any way to find out?
I think so, we would have heard something if he dropped. Plus Colbert would have done a "hail the glorious dead" thing for him.
Both Hilldawg and Bernie raised basically double Jeb in terms of campaign funding. Fuck yeah dems!
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Bush has PAC money though.
I know, but just to point it out, so did Scott Walker. Keeping the campaign funded is priority number one in the primaries and while $10 million on hand is nothing to scoff at, Jeb will need to expand his ground game and get dirty as shit to move back up in the polls and I'm not convinced that flooding the airwaves with $100 million in attack ads will resonate as well with the current GOP voters.
BertramCooper
Banned
Campaign money >>>> PAC money
Even for a PAC that Jeb! has basically admitted on multiple occasions that he's directly involved with.
Black Mamba
Member
PhoenixDark
Banned
Is that third quarter Bush total campaign money or PAC?
Campaign money wins this. Bush doesn't have anyone building a true voter registration infrastructure. His presence in states is pretty tepid.
Both nominees are going to raise 1b+ and have lots of PAC money. How they money is spent is the key. Romney blew his on ads. Obama rebuilt the greatest political/grassroots machine of all time.
Campaign money wins this. Bush doesn't have anyone building a true voter registration infrastructure. His presence in states is pretty tepid.
Both nominees are going to raise 1b+ and have lots of PAC money. How they money is spent is the key. Romney blew his on ads. Obama rebuilt the greatest political/grassroots machine of all time.
I agree. I think two hours is reasonable. But fit fewer candidates (3-5) in there and let them have a meaningful debate, not 30 second one liners from a dozen of them. We're past the initial introduction to the cast, now we need to hear the substance from the top of the field.
SenorArdilla
Member
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Also late to the debate impressions but I didn't have a chance to watch until yesterday. Night and day difference between D and R debates, good god. People complain that the D debate was boring but that's how a presidential debate should be. You should not be 'entertained' by the process of electing president, the candidates should come across as experienced, knowledgeable, and professional. The RNC has a huge optics problem going into their next debate in my opinion, the R debates were already a joke but now people actually have a point of reference.
Format: I sympathized with Webb concerning the way the debate was allocating speaking time. As he noted, unless someone says his name, he basically never gets to talk until the moderator asks him a direct question. But the majority of questions were directed to Sanders/Hillary which meant they got to talk back and forth and everyone else was hung out to dry. Yes, the candidates did agree to the rules Anderson, but I'm sure the rules also said they would try to apportion equal speaking time which they clearly weren't. I liked Anderson being more aggressive in following up, but I think he should have done more to keep people from ignoring questions and actually cut Hillary off rather than protesting and then giving up.
Webb: Of the three lower tier candidates, I think he came across the strongest (aside from the noticeable 'uh what?' moments). He spoke with gravitas and was consistently able to leverage his military experience into answers in a persuasive way without being hokey. I thought he had the best designed and delivered answer to the "Greatest Threat" question for example, but somewhat predictably, once he had to talk about social/economic issues he really started to flounder.
Chafee: He needed to speak with more energy and came across too timid. He also seemed unprepared or wrongly prepared and his answers were oftentimes hard to follow. His response to the identity question was way more convoluted than it needed to be and it seemed like he really just wanted to say the granite metaphor even if it came at the expense of clarity. Considering his political history, he should have had a more succinct and straightforward response to this question rather than trying to come up with a clever soundbite that was immediately neutralized by Anderson (pretty soft granite).
O'Malley: I'm not sure how to gauge his performance. He had this pattern where once he got going talking for a while his cadence and tone of voice seemed to level out in a weird way. When he was doing shorter answers or responses it felt more human, but on some of his longer answers it almost seemed like he was trying not to vary his inflection (this might be just me though). I still don't feel like he was able to overcome the 'why should we vote for you if your own state doesn't even like you' problem, but maybe his repeated "we actually did that in Maryland" argument resonated with people. I think he had an over-reliance on emotional distractors, but those usually play well.
Clinton: Her performance was a reflection of her entire candidacy. She's very strong overall, but she has significant points of vulnerability and weakness that she struggles to address. The flip-flopping and wall-street coziness were the most obvious failures, and I'm shocked that she didn't have better answers to those questions given how much preparation she clearly did. That's going to be a real problem for her moving forward given how transparent the decisions were and how unconvincing she was at trying to explain them. I think she needs to refine some of her more non-political arguments like her gender as a selling point; it's a legitimate issue to raise but she needs to explain why beyond simply pointing it out.
Sanders: I was extremely disappointed with Sanders because I think he squandered an amazing opportunity to sell socialist ideals to the American people. I am flummoxed as to why he refused to do any debate preparation. He didn't need to prepare for engaging with other candidates, but he should have focused on creating solidly persuasive ready-made answers going in. Instead we got the same tired rhetoric that America has been exposed to with "Occupy Wall Street". He spent too much time talking about why capitalism is bad but almost no time on explaining what socialism actually is and why it's a good thing. I'm not saying he should have been academic, but he's delusional if he thinks the only thing stopping Americans from embracing socialist ideas is that they've never heard someone like him talk about it before.
Sanders is not a salesmen and that's what he needed to be if he wants to create true political change and not merely force candidates to slightly alter their positions on a couple issues. All he's doing right now is getting the attention of highly engaged people who already agree with him by throwing out traditional rhetoric. That works great at rallies and protests filled with like-minded people, but if you want to actually change the minds of people who disagree with you, you have to speak to them, not your supporters.
Format: I sympathized with Webb concerning the way the debate was allocating speaking time. As he noted, unless someone says his name, he basically never gets to talk until the moderator asks him a direct question. But the majority of questions were directed to Sanders/Hillary which meant they got to talk back and forth and everyone else was hung out to dry. Yes, the candidates did agree to the rules Anderson, but I'm sure the rules also said they would try to apportion equal speaking time which they clearly weren't. I liked Anderson being more aggressive in following up, but I think he should have done more to keep people from ignoring questions and actually cut Hillary off rather than protesting and then giving up.
Webb: Of the three lower tier candidates, I think he came across the strongest (aside from the noticeable 'uh what?' moments). He spoke with gravitas and was consistently able to leverage his military experience into answers in a persuasive way without being hokey. I thought he had the best designed and delivered answer to the "Greatest Threat" question for example, but somewhat predictably, once he had to talk about social/economic issues he really started to flounder.
Chafee: He needed to speak with more energy and came across too timid. He also seemed unprepared or wrongly prepared and his answers were oftentimes hard to follow. His response to the identity question was way more convoluted than it needed to be and it seemed like he really just wanted to say the granite metaphor even if it came at the expense of clarity. Considering his political history, he should have had a more succinct and straightforward response to this question rather than trying to come up with a clever soundbite that was immediately neutralized by Anderson (pretty soft granite).
O'Malley: I'm not sure how to gauge his performance. He had this pattern where once he got going talking for a while his cadence and tone of voice seemed to level out in a weird way. When he was doing shorter answers or responses it felt more human, but on some of his longer answers it almost seemed like he was trying not to vary his inflection (this might be just me though). I still don't feel like he was able to overcome the 'why should we vote for you if your own state doesn't even like you' problem, but maybe his repeated "we actually did that in Maryland" argument resonated with people. I think he had an over-reliance on emotional distractors, but those usually play well.
Clinton: Her performance was a reflection of her entire candidacy. She's very strong overall, but she has significant points of vulnerability and weakness that she struggles to address. The flip-flopping and wall-street coziness were the most obvious failures, and I'm shocked that she didn't have better answers to those questions given how much preparation she clearly did. That's going to be a real problem for her moving forward given how transparent the decisions were and how unconvincing she was at trying to explain them. I think she needs to refine some of her more non-political arguments like her gender as a selling point; it's a legitimate issue to raise but she needs to explain why beyond simply pointing it out.
Sanders: I was extremely disappointed with Sanders because I think he squandered an amazing opportunity to sell socialist ideals to the American people. I am flummoxed as to why he refused to do any debate preparation. He didn't need to prepare for engaging with other candidates, but he should have focused on creating solidly persuasive ready-made answers going in. Instead we got the same tired rhetoric that America has been exposed to with "Occupy Wall Street". He spent too much time talking about why capitalism is bad but almost no time on explaining what socialism actually is and why it's a good thing. I'm not saying he should have been academic, but he's delusional if he thinks the only thing stopping Americans from embracing socialist ideas is that they've never heard someone like him talk about it before.
Sanders is not a salesmen and that's what he needed to be if he wants to create true political change and not merely force candidates to slightly alter their positions on a couple issues. All he's doing right now is getting the attention of highly engaged people who already agree with him by throwing out traditional rhetoric. That works great at rallies and protests filled with like-minded people, but if you want to actually change the minds of people who disagree with you, you have to speak to them, not your supporters.
Black Mamba
Member
If Trump did it and then tweeted this gif about it, I would vote for him in the general.
thankfully, i'm in cali
mightynine
Member
And now we know why Piyush was begging the RNC and CNBC to change the rules for the upcoming debate so that he could play at the big table. He needs the money. Maybe he should suspend his campaign for a book tour?
mightynine
Member
As a Louisianian screwed over by Bobby's incompetence, I feel I've earned the right to occasionally call him by the name given to him by his parents and the name that is printed on the ballot.
That said, if he's not interested in using his birth name, he should have it legally changed.
I doubt Hillary would prefer to be called Hilldawg but I'm going to keep doing it because it's an awesome name.
Black Mamba
Member
I agree. It's not like when we call Mitt Romney Mittens.
It's like when people say "Barack Hussein Obama" in an attempt to use it as a pejorative.
His name is Bobby Jindal. You can also call him asshole, fucker, inhaler of bag of dicks, etc. But the way people use "Piyush" is clearly a reference to his skin color and ethnicity and I think that's wrong. I know you don't mean it the same way as Hussein (look at that awful muslim!) because I'm sure you feel no ill will towards Indian people, but it's akin to when people call a heterosexual say "faggot" but don't actually have any issues with homosexuals. It's just not a proper way to scold someone.
Right. And that's fine. Like Mittens. The issue is what the word "Piyush" entails.
How were you screwed over by Bobby Jindal's incompetence?
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
No it isn't. He should be called Piyush to remind him he's the son of immigrants, since he is now doing his best to make life fucking hard for other immigrants. He also talks as if his ancestors came here on the fucking Mayflower.
He is so obviously one of those people who desperately wishes he could say his great great great grandaddy fought in the Civil War for the confederates and walk around thumping his chest about how much of a red-blooded American he is. Fucking wannabe and a complete tool.
Obama leaving troops in Afghanistan is such a poor foreign policy move. He is proving how awful he is at dealing with the Middle East and is showing just how weak he is and how much he doesn't care about what the voter who voted him in think. This is going to hurt Hillary in the general if she wants to be just like Obama, and she is going to get hammered at the next GOP debate because of it.
Am I doing it right, PD?
mightynine
Member
You're right - I certainly do not mean it in the same way, and it more of just being generally frustrated with Jindal in general that I don't even want to call him what he wants me to call him. But I get your point as well as should watch myself.
As to NeoXChaos' question, personally I've not been affected, but I'm certainly frustrated by Jindal's balanced-in-name-only budgets that have continued to ravage higher education and health care in the state and his overall absentee landlord act the last few years to build toward a presidential campaign doomed for failure from the start. We'll spend years cleaning up his mess - one certainly not helped by lawmakers who talk big but cower when it's time to do anything about it.
RustyNails
Member
I am ambivalent on the Afghanistan decision. The country is notoriously difficult to manage. Iraq fell to ISIS under Obama's watch, and he is just making sure Afghanistan does not end up with a similar fate. It would be absolutely disastrous on his record. As we were pulling troops out on the last day, we saw a taste of things to come. Kunduz was captured. Had we pulled out all the way, our little project wouldve been over. So I understand the reasoning.
But, the Afghanis seriously need to get their shit in order. It's their problem.
But, the Afghanis seriously need to get their shit in order. It's their problem.
FloydtheFathead
Member
I thought you were being serious for a second. I think you forgot to insert somewhere about the world burning and using his middle name.
Retromelon
Member
Hehe haven't we argued about this like twice a couple months back
Props to everyone with decency
Nah, PD is a subtle troll. Not full on hate troll.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Haha I was just thinking, "I feel like I've written this several times before."
Honestly, I'm happy to call him whatever. It doesn't change that he is a poor governor with some absurd, baseless views about the world.
He doesn't read NeoGAF.
Retromelon
Member
That is a fine opinion to have. My problem is with people that bitch about republican dirty tactics all the time but won't hold themselves to a higher standard. We're above this sort of thing am I right poligaf
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked