-
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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
No I'm not. There are people who Diablos more than I do over trivial non-stories but it's to the point where it actually can have an impact because everyone takes it as fact. It's infuriating.
Soyouresayingtheresachance.gif
That's how campaign pollsters gauge how effective or ineffective a talking point or line of attack is, and if that person thinks Clinton will win by "push polling" a few hundred people in Nevada then their commentary isn't really worth it.
That's nothing compared to what he'd face in the general.
Many see unwillingness to fight dirty as a badge of honor. It's beneath them. I understand the appeal, but I also see it as naiveté. The GOP isn't going to hold-back.
I told kingkitty I would take over for Feb 11, but if you want to do it that's fine too lol
Do it. I don't mind. I take March 9th.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rnie-sanders-cant-win-and-cant-govern/460182/
Great read by Norm Ornstein concerning Bernie's prospects of governing. Sums up much of PoliGAF's arguments against Bernie.
Great read by Norm Ornstein concerning Bernie's prospects of governing. Sums up much of PoliGAF's arguments against Bernie.
Not sure what a Republican and his talking points have anything to do with reality? Explain.
Another point of view is that the Republicans will block anything that comes out a Democrat White House, so pick the candidate who will make the best appointments.
Yeah because Republicans can't block appointments either.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
They'd block Hillary's and Bernie's all the same.
Democrat Senate appoints. Republican House will block agenda legislation.
Ogrekiller
Member
Who are "we" and what exactly are "you" up against?
lol!
Frank the Great
Banned
NUT TED
NUTTED BUT SHE STILL SUCKIN
Lmao
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
You post a "gotcha" video of a Republican hearing from "some journalists" that Sanders really won Iowa, and when you're called out to explain how these Republican talking points have any basis in reality, you shrug just shrug it off, along with your "us vs. them" mentality leads me to believe you don't care about discussion and just want to post pro-Sanders videos and articles. Crab and Melkr back up their arguments and participate in the discussion, and so can you!
Roland_Gunner
Member
About that Q-pac poll showing a... DEAD HEAT!
College degree/no college degree
2012 electorate=47/53
2014 electorate=51/49
Quinnipiac=31/69
Oh they Quinnipac's own raw data was 48/52, they intentionally set the weights that way. You can see the details at Dana Houle's twitter.
College degree/no college degree
2012 electorate=47/53
2014 electorate=51/49
Quinnipiac=31/69
Oh they Quinnipac's own raw data was 48/52, they intentionally set the weights that way. You can see the details at Dana Houle's twitter.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
The story in NH isn't really about if Hillary can win or not, it's about how narrow a margin she loses. If Sanders only beats her by single digits, that's going to be bad news for Bernie going into Nevada. If Bernie beats her by more than 20 points, that's bad news for Hillary going into Nevada. Between 10-20 is right within expectations and probably wouldn't move the needle much.
Rubio's team said he can survive the loss of the first 33 states as long as he then wins Florida and Ohio.
Tesseract
Banned
you're projecting, mate. the more you learn, the more you bern.
my 'i now see what we're up against' was re: slimy push polling, and the depths some will go to win.
This is a media narrative designed to hook people and make people believe things matter more than they do.
Nothing about NH is going to "change" further races. Other events might, but we've been expecting him to win big. His demographics have him riding straight into the volcano, but that doesn't get you hits.
Well then connect your post to what you are talking about, nobody could tell from your post that you were referring to that. Especially when you posted something else in between.
EDIT: Also, I've read the article and the full disclosure thing the writer put at the bottom is supposed to be at the top. It's supposed to be at the top for a reason, so people know someone's agenda before reading the article. What this person did isn't all that different as a result.
Ogrekiller
Member
As apposed to slimy Tinder campaigning? Come on.
excelsiorlef
Member
Or data theft, followed by painting themselves as the victim.
Tesseract
Banned
one is directed from the top, and proven effective, the other isn't
i wonder why that is
What matters more is people hyperventilating on social media over this fraud of a poll. It's a dynamic that's still pretty new to politics and how candidates can gain/lose momentum.
Ogrekiller
Member
Because Bernie's supporters are just as unethical as Clinton's campaign, just not as smart?
I love how the poster failed to mention they were part of Bernie's campaign until the end of the post. Things like that are supposed to be in the first graph for a reason. I wonder why she didn't put it further up...
Tesseract
Banned
Writer’s Note and Full Disclosure: I am working actively for the Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaign. I have contributed money to Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaign. His campaign, at least here in Nevada, to the best of my knowledge — is NOT resorting to “push polling.”
it's bolded, right next to the comments section
not very devious
It's supposed to be at the very top of the article so that the reader knows about it before reading what the person has to say. So that they know that "Hey, I'm writing this article, but I also have a vested interest in the subject that you should definitely keep in mind while you read it." Having it at the very bottom completely defeats the purpose of the disclosure. They may as well have no even included it by putting it at the end.
excelsiorlef
Member
The blog post is hyperbole and the only known fact at the end is that the blogger works for Sanders' campaign and likes to harass and mock some likely minimum wage telemarketer.
The whole thing reads like heroic political fan fiction.
Yes, but the reader still has a right to know about the author's vested interest in the subject before reading the article. By putting it at the end they may as well not even include it for all the good it does. It's supposed to be at the top for a reason.
Tesseract
Banned
okay
Nolan Dalla said:
Note that the author of the blog admits that he doesn't know who called him.
Assuming who called is an common error to make.
It's a pretty common practice for outside orgs unaffiliated with campaigns to make these kinds of calls.
Very suprising and kinda sad that folks are shocked about how dirty American politics is.
Essentially, if you're going to make that kind of accusation, best back it up with actual evidence.
Ogrekiller
Member
In that case why post 2 articles within 20 minutes that claim Clinton is using underhanded tactics in order to win votes? Because the point seems to be Clinton must be condemned.
Or is it just a coincidence?
Tesseract
Banned
we should aspire to run clean campaigns
kind of funny how much the narrative has shifted since romney's superpac-man 47% dinners.
The point is this person has no idea if this call was even affiliated with Clinton's campaign and is condemning them for something they aren't even sure Clinton's camp is behind. That ain't exactly squeaky clean.
Tesseract
Banned
because i prefer bernie over clinton, it's a coincidence of conscience
.1% of the time the stuff I post is right 1% of the time
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked