But she has. Publicly she's laid out policy and she's put forth good ads. I'll admit the ad isn't great now we're focusing on something we do like with much scrutiny and now saying she needs to be more positive!!! When she has been quite frankly.
-
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 |OT11| Well this is exciting
- Thread starter Crayons
- Start date
- Status
But she has. Publicly she's laid out policy and she's put forth good ads. I'll admit the ad isn't great now we're focusing on something we do like with much scrutiny and now saying she needs to be more positive!!! When she has been quite frankly.
Fenderputty
Banned
Which seems crazy to me. Like I woke up in the Twighlight Zone or something.
Fenderputty
Banned
Everyday after reading this thread I go to Sam Wangs site and calm down.
Edit: Sorry for double
I think is all spot on. Trump is making this seem more dynamic than it is.
nature boy
Member
Well 1) Disagree with you in on the positive message, haven't seen much 2) If so,it hasn't been working, her numbers are still dismal in that area and 3) Trump hasn't bombarded the waves with ads, so if her campaign continues to, it's fair to assume they're somehow effective, so when Trump does it, could her numbers go down even more?
BrokenFiction
Member
Commission on Presidential Debates adopts official Trump campaign line, says moderators shouldn't fact-check
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/780072171339120641
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/780072171339120641
The main credible counter that Silver has on the topic of volatility, as far as I'm concerned, is the high number of undecideds/protest voters. But then again, we see in poll after poll that these folks vastly prefer Obama to Trump.. so we already know where their sympathies tend to fall. Trump would need a disproportionate break from this segment of voters in order to make-up enough ground - and at the same time, he'd need them to not break in any way towards Clinton. It seems highly improbable to me that he gets this in enough states to cobble-together 269EVs. He might pick-off a few swing states, but he's not going to run the table.
==
And I'm amazed at the debate commission at this point.
2016: Facts Don't Matter.
I don't really think you can.
What the hell.
We've already seen solid evidence of what makes her numbers go up: proximity to more popular/trusted/etc surrogates.
I don't think she can do this on her own.
I heard from "many sources" that Hillary doesn't care about people and is a huge liar!
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Welp, our system is screwed. Hillary should just come out and say if you vote for her, she'll send you a $10000 check. No reason to back it up.
This is why Barack and Michelle are so important in October.
I actually totally agree with this, in a vacuum.
Fact-checking by moderators injects bias in a way that there "shouldn't be."
That said, these "debates" are little more than people talking past each other with strict time and topic limits; its kind of necessary given the format.
I dunno, I think there has to be a way to fact check on the fly.
User 85168
Banned
I thought that was the norm though? That's why Crowley and the whole please "proceed, governor" was so notable. I'm not saying they shouldn't, but isn't this how it has been for a while?
This is dangerously close to 1984-esque language here.
"Vetting immigrants based on their religious beliefs? That is simply a little fact, nothing to be concerned with."
whyamihere
Banned
Utah:
Trump: 34
Hillary: 25
Johnson: 13
McMullin: 12
Stein: 9
So.
Trump: 34
Hillary: 25
Johnson: 13
McMullin: 12
Stein: 9
So.
Clinton apologizing for her e-mails in her opening statement and explaining why she hasn't been as open as she should be would do it if it was backed up with further actions the rest of the campaign.
You come out of the gate with that and disarm Lester's #1 negative question, throw Trump off his game, etc. It's a gambit for sure, but I think it would work if they have a good answer prepped.
I hope Johnson gets more popular so I don't lose my avatar bet
Will cite a question posed in Sam Wang's Twitter feed: if fact-checking isn't part of the equation and it is just about throwing questions out and making sure the candidates stick to their time limits, why use journalists? Surely anyone, like a celebrity, famous athlete, etc. could do that job.
nature boy
Member
The CPD is absolutely right, this isn't a 3-way debate and the moderator isn't on the ballot.
You have countless media outlets that can fact-check every single line if they wanted to.
You have countless media outlets that can fact-check every single line if they wanted to.
Stein getting 9 in Utah would be an all time laugher. Just a crap result.
Theoretically, it would be incumbent on the opposing candidate (our judicial system is a decent comp, it "should" work given the adversarial nature/incentive structure).
That said, the opposing candidate has a hard time given the fact that its difficult to provide evidence on such a platform, and they have to deal with time limits, etc.
Chezzymann
Member
Apparently people are expecting the debate to crack 100 million viewers? That would be crazy considering the previous record was 80 million.
Resident_UA
Member
In my book anyone that is against the moderator fact checking is basically saying that people deserve a shitty president if they don't research after the debate. Which in general I would agree with, but with Trump somehow becoming a nominee I realized that people are too stupid to bother researching anything...
True, and I do think that the opponent should be part of that fact-checking as well. But in a anything goes, we won't question anything environment, what stops a candidate like Trump throwing so much crap Clinton's way that she has to spend all of her time refuting his assertions and none focusing on her positions?
That is my biggest fear for Monday, namely that Trump just has free rein to lie non-stop, Clinton spends all of her time fact-checking, and then the media jumps on her for not articulating her own positions well. Basically, an electoral gutter-fight that benefits him and tarnishes her.
User 463088
Banned
The fact that the media is suddenly being bitchy about the moderator fact checking Trump is a fucking liberty.
One would assume that the Clinton camp would be prepared for this situation because it's such an obvious one.
hipsterpants
Member
on the bright side we'll get amusing "here is every single lie that Trump said during the debate" articles
That is what give me some solace. I am certain that they saw that coming a mile away and have a good strategy for it. I just hope that it works.
BlastProcessing
Member
I can understand her rationale here; it's just frustrating because the position is one that requires the media to do their job and objectively report...which, well we can hope
I'm not concerned with Lester Holt fact checking. I'm more concerned with him asking responsible questions that hold the candidates to a standard. THAT was my problem with Matt Lauer: he asked questions that allowed Trump to lie.
So, if he wants to ask Trump a question about the Iraq war and the role this plays on his foreign policy positions, he needs to ask it like this:
"Mr. Trump, you've said early in your campaign that you were opposed to the Iraq War; we now know this to be false. So in a Trump administration, how would the fallout from a war that the majority of Americans once supported be mitigated?"
You don't have to fact check in the moment while the candidates are responding, but I do think it's the responsibility of the moderators to state what the facts are for the public while forming their questions.
nature boy
Member
Well, what if the moderator fact-checks every statement and that doesn't make a difference to the voters?
People are making the assumption that live fact-checking Trump will somehow convince Trump supporters that he's a big fat liar, a scam, etc. We're beyond that point now.
So in 2008, I remember Silver playing the role of the counter-pundit, basically just saying that the polls are very clear no matter what silly stories you tell yourself. Of course, that was in 2008, where it just became increasingly a slam dunk every day following the crash.
I don't remember 2012 as well, but from what I recall it was basically the same thing, regardless of Romney running much closer than McCain. Silver basically just spent most of his time talking about how Obama had a solid lead.
So it seems really weird that he's emphasizing the closeness of the race despite the consistently wider margin than what we saw in 2012. I have a few possible explanations for why this may be the case, from most to least generous.
1) I am misremembering 2012, and Silver emphasized how close that was all the time.
2) Twitter is more popular now and we see more snarky 140 character comments.
3) Conventional wisdom now has a bigger Clinton lead, whereas it had a close race in 2012. So the message only appears different because of the contrast to everyone else.
4) ESPN is more interested in click bait than the NYT was, so Silver has more institutional incentives to engage in contrarian punditry this cycle.
5) Silver repeated doubled down his reputation on Trump losing in the primary, and was majorly embarrassed. Now to trigger shy to say much of anything other than "it's really close you guys" in fear of getting burned again.
IDK, he really seems like a completely different person this cycle. All of the above, maybe?
I don't remember 2012 as well, but from what I recall it was basically the same thing, regardless of Romney running much closer than McCain. Silver basically just spent most of his time talking about how Obama had a solid lead.
So it seems really weird that he's emphasizing the closeness of the race despite the consistently wider margin than what we saw in 2012. I have a few possible explanations for why this may be the case, from most to least generous.
1) I am misremembering 2012, and Silver emphasized how close that was all the time.
2) Twitter is more popular now and we see more snarky 140 character comments.
3) Conventional wisdom now has a bigger Clinton lead, whereas it had a close race in 2012. So the message only appears different because of the contrast to everyone else.
4) ESPN is more interested in click bait than the NYT was, so Silver has more institutional incentives to engage in contrarian punditry this cycle.
5) Silver repeated doubled down his reputation on Trump losing in the primary, and was majorly embarrassed. Now to trigger shy to say much of anything other than "it's really close you guys" in fear of getting burned again.
IDK, he really seems like a completely different person this cycle. All of the above, maybe?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
If trump bombs whats the over/under on him attacking holt like curiel?
Silver constantly repeated it was a stable race. The issue here is not stability but uncertainty. There are lots of unknowns because there are high numbers of people voting for third parties/undecided. If Clinton was constantly 51 and Trump was constantly 49, you'd say the race was close but stable. Now it's not like that.
I think Silver is a little pundity and I do not understand the weighting in the model at all (I understand the trendline adjustments fine) but I get his argument.
110%
His ego won't let him lose, it'll have to be someone else's fault. We've already seen him start to blame Holt in the build-up.
whyamihere
Banned
This is a fundamentally toxic position to hold.
I am not one prone to panic, and for this year, they're a big part of why.
And I really think we need a mini-DNC at some point towards the end of the campaign. A final boost before the finish line.
User 463088
Banned
Flawless logic. 10/10.
jack_package_200
Banned
Well the Green Party has always been toxix
BlastProcessing
Member
Nah. Constantly running ads can end up hurting you. There is nothing wrong with taking a break. Overexposure is a real thing.
If Clinton's analytics show that Colorado needs more ad buys, there is more than enough time left for them to be effective.
The question is, why did Obama over perform in CO? Was it undecideds breaking, non-random spanish-language sampling, or the better turnout operation?
If it is the first, Clinton will probably under-perform Obama. If the latter two, she may well do better.
it wasn't because undecideds were breaking
Even attacking Michelle. This is why Jill gets no support.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked