• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RustyNails

Member
Bam Bam Baklava said:
RCP is such trash. Picking and choosing what polls they "like" to be included. Huffpost uses everything available and lets the aggregate sort itself out, the proper way.
Click to expand...
Iirc, RCP's average had Obama beating Rom Rom by 0.5 points, whereas he actually won with 4 points. But that has also a lot to do with Obama's legendary gotv drive.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Cheebo said:
I mean worried in terms of a general election.
Click to expand...

now that, I can largely agree with

and yeah, like everyone else keeps saying, electability arguments that solely take 12-month-out polling into account are farcical at best

RustyNails said:
Iirc, RCP's average had Obama beating Rom Rom by 0.5 points, whereas he actually won with 4 points. But that has also a lot to do with Obama's legendary gotv drive.
Click to expand...

a lot of that was that god tier GOTV operation, and part of that was the LV screens just flat-out being weird that year
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
CTE7TCsXAAAyPT1.png


oh.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
The Ipsos/Reuters polls aren't in the RCP average because they only use LV/RV polls, not Adults. (They also don't use web only polls.)

RCP doesn't "weight" the polls, it's a straight average of the ones that fall in the date window.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
I'm sorry, but the "shouting" comment was tone deaf. I do not believe Sanders is a sexist. However, one does not have to be sexist to say things that have sexist overtones. An inability (or refusal) to see that is an example, in my opinion, of privilege. Something I, myself, a white male have been guilty of in the past. While watching the debate with my mother (who was leaning Hillary going into the debates, but was probably closer to undecided), her initial reaction to Sander's comment was "Of course she's shouting, because she's a woman!" It's a common line of attack levied against women who speak their mind. Sander's campaign's response to it has been to clutch their pearls and act shocked. Some of his supporters just pretend its a non-issue.

Is Joe Biden racist? Of course not. However, he said things that had a racist over tone when he called Obama "clean" in 2008. Our words, and the way we frame them, have context. Bernie Sanders is not exempt from living in a world of context. His campaign then went out of their way to make it look even worse for themselves. Which means he's either letting them control his message, or they're all incompetent. As I mentioned in my post, this is one reason I wouldn't support him, and why I wouldn't trust his campaign to sell socialism to the mainstream. If someone slightly mischaracterizes him, what are they going to do? Explain to all of us how we're all wrong, and Bernie knows best?

Politics involves the art of perception. He should know that, and his campaign staff should definitely notice that. One of Bernie's greatest problems is that he fails to understand, even at a fundamental level, the basics of intersectionality.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
eBay Huckster said:
now that, I can largely agree with

and yeah, like everyone else keeps saying, electability arguments that solely take 12-month-out polling into account are farcical at best



a lot of that was that god tier GOTV operation, and part of that was the LV screens just flat-out being weird that year
Click to expand...

Yep. There were a lot of screens that assumed republican turnout would be higher because of anger over obamacare, or that democratic turnout wouldn't be anywhere near 08 because the base was disillusioned. Neither turned out to be true, really
 
D

dramatis

Member
Las7 said:
Bernie Sanders used the word "shouting" during the Democratic presidential debate, he was referring to the tone of the gun control debate. Which he has done on several occasions within the same context. For Clinton to misconstrue his words just shows she is falling into the same tone she used against Obama.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Hillary points out that men think a certain way about women when they express themselves. She was not misconstruing Bernie's words; she was merely pointing out that this is a thing women have to deal with when it comes to perceptions.

To make it a fixation about 'going negative on Bernie' is fairly self-centered on Bernie instead of, I don't know, maybe even thinking about how women are actually perpetually dealing with this problem. Instead you call a statement about the difference in perceptions between males and females slander. Because god forbid a woman actually raise concerns about how women are treated. A woman is criticizing us? Well, she's slandering us. Good job Las7. You've certainly proved the point about how a woman talking is elevated to shouting.

If you think it was wrong of her to say so, that's nice, but don't go defending the VP remarks by saying Bill Clinton did it before. Because clearly you guys prided Bernie on being so above it all but now you're chomping at the bit to attack Hillary at every step.

If you are right and Hillary is losing, then you'll be vindicated next year. Why the need to attack her? Oh right, because she's leading the polls. And leading in media coverage. And Bernie didn't get a debate bump, she did.

ivysaur12 said:
CTE7TCsXAAAyPT1.png


oh.
Click to expand...
This is kind of sad
 
W

Wall

Member
Damn, I wanted to reply to Pigeon's post about the Glass-Steagal issue, but he can't reply to what I am saying, so I think that would be bad form.

I'll just say that he is right, though, Glass-Steagal wouldn't have prevented firms like AIG from failing. However, preventing bank failures was never really the intent of the law.

The law, or one like it, would and could accomplish other things.

I'll just leave it at that.

I also hope Sanders doesn't go negative on Hillary. It won't work, and there is no point in doing it. It doesn't accomplish anything.

I'm against anything that takes the debate away from the ideas in this primary and puts it further into the realm of personality politics than it already is.
 
N

noshten

Member
adam387 said:
I'm sorry, but the "shouting" comment was tone deaf. I do not believe Sanders is a sexist. However, one does not have to be sexist to say things that have sexist overtones. An inability (or refusal) to see that is an example, in my opinion, of privilege. Something I, myself, a white male have been guilty of in the past. While watching the debate with my mother (who was leaning Hillary going into the debates, but was probably closer to undecided), her initial reaction to Sander's comment was "Of course she's shouting, because she's a woman!" It's a common line of attack levied against women who speak their mind. Sander's campaign's response to it has been to clutch their pearls and act shocked. Some of his supporters just pretend its a non-issue.

Is Joe Biden racist? Of course not. However, he said things that had a racist over tone when he called Obama "clean" in 2008. Our words, and the way we frame them, have context. Bernie Sanders is not exempt from living in a world of context. His campaign then went out of their way to make it look even worse for themselves. Which means he's either letting them control his message, or they're all incompetent. As I mentioned in my post, this is one reason I wouldn't support him, and why I wouldn't trust his campaign to sell socialism to the mainstream. If someone slightly mischaracterizes him, what are they going to do? Explain to all of us how we're all wrong, and Bernie knows best?

Politics involves the art of perception. He should know that, and his campaign staff should definitely notice that. One of Bernie's greatest problems is that he fails to understand, even at a fundamental level, the basics of intersectionality.
Click to expand...

Politics involve the art of perception and Hillary came off pretty badly making such insinuations. She should notice this is what lost her the race last time around. One of the main reasons her favoribility has always been down in the dumps is precisely such Trump like tactics which she should be above. The calculating demeanor is something she would continue to struggle with, her continual struggle to connect with the constituents.
It's pretty clear how this was taken at large, a calculated move by Clinton week after the fact after extensive polling with focus groups on the subject. She got her bump but the check is coming.


dramatis said:
Hardly. Hillary points out that men think a certain way about women when they express themselves. She was not misconstruing Bernie's words; she was merely pointing out that this is a thing women have to deal with when it comes to perceptions.

To make it a fixation about 'going negative on Bernie' is fairly self-centered on Bernie instead of, I don't know, maybe even thinking about how women are actually perpetually dealing with this problem. Instead you call a statement about the difference in perceptions between males and females slander. Because god forbid a woman actually raise concerns about how women are treated. A woman is criticizing us? Well, she's slandering us. Good job Las7. You've certainly proved the point about how a woman talking is elevated to shouting.

If you think it was wrong of her to say so, that's nice, but don't go defending the VP remarks by saying Bill Clinton did it before. Because clearly you guys prided Bernie on being so above it all but now you're chomping at the bit to attack Hillary at every step.

If you are right and Hillary is losing, then you'll be vindicated next year. Why the need to attack her? Oh right, because she's leading the polls. And leading in media coverage. And Bernie didn't get a debate bump, she did.
Click to expand...

You've all continued to run away from answering my questions, is Bill's remark about Obama as VP racist or is it typical political jabbing?
Also I don't have a fixation on this theme since I wasn't the one that brought it up, I'm simply providing a counter weight to HillGAF's arguments which as usual are pretty far from the mainstream.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Las7 said:
Politics involve the art of perception and Hillary came off pretty badly making such insinuations. She should notice this is what lost her the race last time around. One of the main reasons her favoribility has always been down in the dumps is precisely such Trump like tactics which she should be above. The calculating demeanor is something she would continue to struggle with, her continual struggle to connect with the constituents.
It's pretty clear how this was taken at large, a calculated move by Clinton week after the fact after extensive polling with focus groups on the subject. She got her bump but the check is coming.
Click to expand...

Hillary's favorability numbers are amazing right now among Democrats, lol.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Las7 said:
Politics involve the art of perception and Hillary came off pretty badly making such insinuations. She should notice this is what lost her the race last time around. One of the main reasons her favoribility has always been down in the dumps is precisely such Trump like tactics which she should be above. The calculating demeanor is something she would continue to struggle with, her continual struggle to connect with the constituents.
It's pretty clear how this was taken at large, a calculated move by Clinton week after the fact after extensive polling with focus groups on the subject. She got her bump but the check is coming.
Click to expand...

But, dude, she didn't. She did to you, perhaps, but not to a majority of Democrats. You can keep saying it over and over, but it doesn't mean it's factually accurate. To quote Hillary, I'm sorry the facts aren't fitting your narrative.

There is no reason for Hillary to "go negative" against Sanders. Sanders made a statement, that regardless of his intent, fit a narrative that surrounds his campaign. Why do you think the term "brogressive" and "Bernbro" have actual weight. His campaign, instead of just ignoring it and letting it go, continued to try and prove a point.

This too is one of the issues I have with Sanders. He (and his campaign) are so damn focused on making sure that every single person knows how unequivocally right he is about every single thing, they don't know how to take a lump. He lost that exchange in the debate on substance and style. Move on. Hit Hillary with something she actually said and did. Hit her on the "I told them to cut it out" thing. Instead, they've wasted several news cycles letting this gain traction. It's incredibly stupid of them, and, again, reinforces the perception that Bernie can't take any criticism.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Makai said:
Mocking death is frowned upon.
Click to expand...

I guess. I just don't see the connection when the thread isn't about a specific death but rather statistics, and doubly so when the post was clearly satire not making fun of lives lost but pointing out the discrepancy of reactions to things like this depending on race. It wasn't mocking death. It was mocking those who don't have equal sentiment between deaths of different types of people.

Also considering there are a bunch of other sarcastic remarks in the same vein on the same page too.
 
M

Makai

Member
RDreamer said:
I guess. I just don't see the connection when the thread isn't about a specific death but rather statistics, and doubly so when the post was clearly satire not making fun of lives lost but pointing out the discrepancy of reactions to things like this depending on race. It wasn't mocking death. It was mocking those who don't have equal sentiment between deaths of different types of people.

Also considering there are a bunch of other sarcastic remarks in the same vein on the same page too.
Click to expand...
I picked that one because a bunch of people in that thread semmingly got banned for the same reason.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
(Dan Patrick is the Lt. Gov of Texas)

Patrick Svitek ‏@PatrickSvitek
In Lubbock, @DanPatrick tells reporters he is not getting involved in the Houston mayoral runoff. #houmayor
Click to expand...

Patrick Svitek ‏@PatrickSvitek
.@DanPatrick also warned @AnniseParker against trying to revive #HERO: She should "take her bad ideas" with her when she leaves office.
Click to expand...

Patrick Svitek ‏@PatrickSvitek
More @DanPatrick on #HERO: "You can’t find any women who want men in the bathroom beside Annise Parker and a few people who voted for her."
Click to expand...
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
I didn't do any of the moderation in that thread -- and I don't think I've posted in PoliGAF in 6 or 7 years -- but I think the argument the mod in question was making was basically "okay, yes, absolutely, sometimes white people are racist, good joek"--but it's a thread about an actual serious issue and so a bunch of wise-asses shitting on it makes it harder to have an actual conversation (of course, GAF's size does that as well--we're self-aware, people, we know you can't save the Titanic by sticking fingers in the hole). And if it was just a one-off it wouldn't be so bad, but it was kinda really getting in the way of the thread. I'd have maybe went for post deletion instead of short bans if it was me, since most of the posters aren't shit posters, they were just shit posting, but just as an outsider I see the judgment call the other way as well.

The ban message was "A thread about the actual struggles faced by poor whites is not a good place for dumb shitposting. Really no thread is a good place for that. Please stop." for all the bans and they were pretty short.

It wasn't the "mocking death", it was the "getting in the way of people who were talking about something that otherwise would have been a maybe interesting politics/policy/public health thread". If it was a thread about "white people die more often from Segway accidents", I can't imagine we'd have cared.

Hope this brings some clarity.
 
M

Makai

Member
Someone in that thread said whites will be a minority group in 20 years. Huh? That can't be right, even if you specify non-hispanic whites. I'm aware that demographics are shifting quickly, but no way it's that quick.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
First of all, I fucking love that one of the most prominent people involved with GamerGate is a white genocider:

JuiceBroLawyer said:
White genocide will sweep up the SJWs. Pretty funny that they think Muslims are going to tolerant their degenerate lifestyles.
Click to expand...

QuiteWhittle said:
whites are already a minority if you don't count the octoroons
Click to expand...

The truth is out there!

CRtvRFyWIAAaq5I.jpg


(Hispanics and Arabs becoming the same race is somewhat interesting, but you understand the point of how deep white genocide goes)
 
U

User 463088

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
First of all, I fucking love that one of the most prominent people involved with GamerGate is a white genocider:





The truth is out there!

CRtvRFyWIAAaq5I.jpg


(Hispanics and Arabs becoming the same race is somewhat interesting, but you understand the point of how deep white genocide goes)
Click to expand...

I don't know what I love more. The term "oriental" or the fact that non-white Hispanics and "Arabs" are combined.
 
M

Makai

Member
I presume LegalGAF lives here - I'm thinking about going to a friend's muder trial. I can just show up as a spectator, right? Anything I should know before doing this?
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Makai said:
I presume LegalGAF lives here - I'm thinking about going to a friend's muder trial. I can just show up as a spectator, right? Anything I should know before doing this?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Meta post in a while. I believe Dude Abides is also a lawyer. Not sure who else.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
(Dan Patrick is the Lt. Gov of Texas)
Click to expand...
No, he's not, he's a former ESPN personality now with his own radio show...you guys I swear...

ivysaur12 said:
o dear
Click to expand...
Unidentified male even knocked Lessig AND Biden out of the race with Webb and Chafee.

Fenderputty said:
I haven't seen Meta post in a while.
Click to expand...
He's banned for openly being holding conservative positions aka wanting people to watch people die as he laughs at their misery.

Makai said:
I presume LegalGAF lives here - I'm thinking about going to a friend's muder trial. I can just show up as a spectator, right? Anything I should know before doing this?
Click to expand...
You have friends who murder people?

Check your PMs.
 
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
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu 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
Top Bottom