• 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 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Zona said:
ommegang2.jpg


All fantastic.

Wee bit harder hitting then a lot of beer though.
Click to expand...
Hennepin doesn't deserve to be relegated to the back like that. Amazing beer and one of my favorites.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
The biggest thing in that cooper interview that needs to be repeated is Clinton's answer on the foundation. She and Bill don't earn a penny from donations. Lot of idiots think it's a clinton slush fund.
 
I

Iolo

Member
I feel like that's been her basic answer on the emails for a while now, she's said something similar before, but the answer gets lost every time yet another emails headline comes out.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Still thinking about it, what purpose does a press conference serve for someone not in office? While in office, it's a good way to quickly update the press and public about some big current event, but there is really nothing to talk about in terms of the campaign that cannot be covered in an interview.

I feel like that's been her basic answer on the emails for a while now, she's said something similar before, but the answer gets lost every time yet another emails headline comes out.
Click to expand...

She's been saying she takes responsibility, but she always has to add on how she never lied, or someone vindicated her, or some other addendum that doesn't need to be there besides saying sorry and that's that.
 
B

Boke1879

Member
metalslimer said:
Still thinking about it, what purpose does a press conference serve for someone not in office? While in office, it's a good way to quickly update the press and public about some big current event, but there is really nothing to talk about in terms of the campaign that cannot be covered in an interview.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said. What the hell does she need to do a press conference about?
 
H

Hydrophobic

Member
metalslimer said:
Still thinking about it, what purpose does a press conference serve for someone not in office? While in office, it's a good way to quickly update the press and public about some big current event, but there is really nothing to talk about in terms of the campaign that cannot be covered in an interview.
Click to expand...

Peter Moore was right. Press Conferences are dying.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Diablos said:
This bourbon is so good. Going to be drinking lots of it on election night
Click to expand...

What bourbon?

I recently got a 2l charred white oak barrel for self aging. I'm currently flavoring the barrel with port wine and in about three weeks will age a handle of buffalo trace in that. Then I'm going to age a cocktail, specifically a Manhattan
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Glenn Beck on Lawrence O'Donald is kind of weird awaking when Beck warns about Putin back Right wing parties in Europe coming to the USA in Donald Trump
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Okay, that answer is perfect on the emails. Like, that's the best we can hope for. It makes sense. It gets to the heart of the matter. Good answer.

Also, all of y'all would love my cocktails. TRUST.

Orange powerade and whipped vodka at the moment since their are no kids here....GET TURNT. (IDK what that means....sorry).
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Hydrophobic said:
Orange Powerade as a mixer sounds like something I would've tried as a broke college student. Why not just actually go for OJ?
Click to expand...

Because I had orange powerade from when we all had the flu. And....it was on hand. And it's a struggle drink at the moment because I'd have to get dressed to get real alcohol combinations. I'm out of peanut butter vodka which is sad. And a mess. :(
 
I

Iolo

Member
Honestly I cannot conceive of needing a drink that badly. I'd just have one this weekend after I got a chance to go to the store
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Iolo said:
Honestly I cannot conceive of needing a drink that badly. I'd just have one this weekend after I got a chance to go to the store
Click to expand...

I actually kinda like it tbh This is my 4 day weekend. I have no kids in the house until later tomorrow. My bf isn't bugging me to cook for him or do his laundry.....I'ma enjoy my shitty ass drank. :p
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
RustyNails said:
I firmly believe Optics is a HUGE part of politics. American politics at least. You need to be able to understand how your words, actions, and even silly shit like "body language" and gestures. It's an annoying thing, sure. I wish candidates were solely judged on substance. Unfortunately we dont and if you fail to understand how huge role media plays in our political system, then you're DOA. Hillary's policies are better than Obama's, and achievable even in our polarized environment. I think she'll make a really great president. But the path to get there is hard fought, mudslinging, dishonorable, backstabbing affair.

By the way, optics is not a new word. We were throwing it around in 2008/2012 too.
Click to expand...

I know it's not a new word. It was just less frequent (and therefore far less annoying) back then.

And I disagree entirely. Hillary's policies aren't better than Obama's since that doesn't mean anything. Better for who? Liberals. Her issue isn't "optics" making a legislative battle harder; the issue is that almost half the country hated Obama's policies, and therefore will hate Hillary's more. Optics has nothing to do with it.

This sort of thinking is why Sanders lost, and why Republicans do poorly with minorities. Never ever ever think that you're right, and the only reason people are voting against you is perception. That's tantamount to calling voters idiots, and while we joke about that as a nation, it's only sort of true. Minorities don't vote Republican because of the policies, not the wrapper that spews them. Sanders lost because people didn't like his proposals, not because of his demeanor. And Hillary won't win by 30 points because at least 40% of the country approves of Trump's policy proposals (few and vague as they are).

Care about representing the interests of a majority of voting Americans, and do the best you can while fulfilling those interests. Don't care about your "optics."

royalan said:
At the same time, it would be nice if every critical thing said about Hillary Clinton or the decisions of her campaign in this thread weren't met with "OMG STOP DIABOLOSING11!!!!11 IT'S DONALD TRUMP!" as though nobody fucking knows that. I find that just as unreadable, especially when nearly a dozen posts of this nature can be triggered by one comment.

I mean, it's this type of "Hillary can do no wrong so shut up" mindset that gets railed on all the time in OT. Ironically, in here is where it actually happens.

I'm probably one of the bigger Hillary stans on this board (Adam is queen, of course). I have absolutely no doubt that she's going to win in November. That being said, I do think she's running an increasingly sloppy campaign because of who she's running against, and I do think if she doesn't respond soon and in a way that connects with the public it can affect the lead she has on Trump, and ultimately how many Senate and House seats we'll recapture, which is ultimately my concern at this point. I don't think that's diablosing.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with good criticism, but there just hasn't been any of it. People are legit freaking out about a Donald Trump pivot for like the fourth time. It wears thin after a while. I've seen nothing new in the past few days that wasn't said when Trump fired Corey, or when walked back his off-the-cuff speeches, or....

Her campaign is one of the most organized in the country, and you're freaking out because she's not ranting on Maddow over Trump conspiracies. Dipping into this nonsense only drags it out, and offers the potential for a gaffe. Hillary hasn't lost a single point; Trump may have gained a few. That has nothing at all to do with Hillary Clinton, and everything to do with his fourth pivot (which might last another few days at best. It's already cracking).
 
H

Hydrophobic

Member
adam387 said:
Because I had orange powerade from when we all had the flu. And....it was on hand. And it's a struggle drink at the moment because I'd have to get dressed to get real alcohol combinations. I'm out of peanut butter vodka which is sad. And a mess. :(
Click to expand...

Adam is a mess! Sad!

I feel you though. It's not like I haven't been there with the struggle drinks lol. I actually think the fruity V8's go pretty well with Vodka.
 
I

Iolo

Member
adam387 said:
I actually kinda like it tbh This is my 4 day weekend. I have no kids in the house until later tomorrow. My bf isn't bugging me to cook for him or do his laundry.....I'ma enjoy my shitty ass drank. :p
Click to expand...

Ok, you didn't do anything wrong but the optics... the optics.

Mildly back on topic:

@daveweigel
Very interesting. In his “Our Revolution” launch, Sanders ran down five candidates he was backing. Didn’t mention @Tim_Canova.
 
R

royalan

Member
AntraxSuicide said:
I have no problem with good criticism, but there just hasn't been any of it. People are legit freaking out about a Donald Trump pivot for like the fourth time. It wears thin after a while. I've seen nothing new in the past few days that wasn't said when Trump fired Corey, or when walked back his off-the-cuff speeches, or....

Her campaign is one of the most organized in the country, and you're freaking out because she's not ranting on Maddow over Trump conspiracies. Dipping into this nonsense only drags it out, and offers the potential for a gaffe. Hillary hasn't lost a single point; Trump may have gained a few. That has nothing at all to do with Hillary Clinton, and everything to do with his fourth pivot (which might last another few days at best. It's already cracking).
Click to expand...

At what point did I do that? Can you quote the post where I do that?

I have not panicked over Hillary's campaign. I think the issue arises when any perceived critique of the Clinton campaign in this thread is weighed against the idea that it's going to sink her. I haven't implied that, and I don't think very many people in this thread have. It would be foolish to. That being said, I do think Hillary has made some absolutely flabbergasting moves throughout the course of this campaign, and commenting on them by anyone shouldn't lead to damn near half a page of "QUIT DIABLOSIHBLIUBL UIHYBRFSU!!!" every time. It's obnoxious, and it creates an insular community.

At this point, I'm viewing Hillary's campaign from the position of a sports spectator. And just because I or other people may comment on how many unforced errors Serena Williams is letting off her racket, that doesn't change the fact that she's up a set over Maria Sharapova and in complete control of the match. It's obvious that Hillary Clinton is in a dominant position in this election. Stating so is akin to saying the sky is blue, water is wet, and Taylor Swift is horrible. We all know this. Let people talk about the ins and outs.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
royalan said:
At what point did I do that? Can you quote the post where I do that?

I have not panicked over Hillary's campaign. I think the issue arises when any perceived critique of the Clinton campaign in this thread is weighed against the idea that it's going to sink her. I haven't implied that, and I don't think very many people in this thread have. It would be foolish to. That being said, I do think Hillary has made some absolutely flabbergasting moves throughout the course of this campaign, and commenting on them by anyone shouldn't lead to damn near half a page of "QUIT DIABLOSIHBLIUBL UIHYBRFSU!!!" every time. It's obnoxious, and it creates an insular community.

At this point, I'm viewing Hillary's campaign from the position of a sports spectator. And just because I or other people may comment on how many unforced errors Serena Williams is letting off her racket, that doesn't change the fact that she's up a set over Maria Sharapova and in complete control of the match. It's obvious that Hillary Clinton is in a dominant position in this election. Stating so is akin to saying the sky is blue, water is wet, and Taylor Swift is horrible. We all know this. Let people talk about the ins and outs.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming these bad moves you're talking about are the same ones the last few pages have been talking about, yes? That Hillary should be hitting the talk shows to do more interviews about the Clinton Foundation, her health, and more of her emails?

This is nonsense, and not good strategy at all. You've also just shifted your stuff from the White House (which is basically a lock now) to the down-ticket (which is also basically a lock for what the Dems will get and what they won't). I also completely addressed this in the comment you quoted. Her campaign is on the ground in every state with a possible pick-up. You're too focused on national numbers, which aren't having nearly as much effect on the down-ticket as they might have in the past.

I dispute that there have even been recent errors, but that's because the evidence for these errors is non-existent. Like I also said in my previous comment, if there's any good, well-reasoned critique, I'm always game to read it. It's why I open this thread. But I haven't seen that from people making these claims at all. It's just, "God, this Clinton Foundation thing is really making the rounds, Hillary's being a fool by not addressing it."

Show me some data that her vote totals are going down. Show me some data that the down-ticket (anywhere) is losing votes. If the only tightening you can find over time is from Republicans (including Trump) gaining points while she stays high, there's nothing you can do about that. You keep your own numbers up, and watch as your opponent (who must then act to gain votes) hopefully acts poorly.

Stating the sky is blue, or water is wet, is boring because it's clearly backed up with a lot of evidence. Do that and I'll be happy to read it. But it's getting really old with the various posts that assume a negative response from the electorate first and then argue from the assumption.

(This ties into why I don't care for optics talk as it's all predicated on the assumption that they matter in the first place and then people start from there.)
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Didn't we all do the same thing four years ago when the Obama team didn't react to every silly thing Romney said about Obama? The Obama team thankfully didn't believe in "winning the news cycle", and it seems like the Clinton team doesn't either.
 
R

royalan

Member
AntraxSuicide said:
I'm assuming these bad moves you're talking about are the same ones the last few pages have been talking about, yes? That Hillary should be hitting the talk shows to do more interviews about the Clinton Foundation, her health, and more of her emails?

This is nonsense, and not good strategy at all. You've also just shifted your stuff from the White House (which is basically a lock now) to the down-ticket (which is also basically a lock for what the Dems will get and what they won't). I also completely addressed this in the comment you quoted. Her campaign is on the ground in every state with a possible pick-up. You're too focused on national numbers, which aren't having nearly as much effect on the down-ticket as they might have in the past.

I dispute that there have even been recent errors, but that's because the evidence for these errors is non-existent. Like I also said in my previous comment, if there's any good, well-reasoned critique, I'm always game to read it. It's why I open this thread. But I haven't seen that from people making these claims at all. It's just, "God, this Clinton Foundation thing is really making the rounds, Hillary's being a fool by not addressing it."

Show me some data that her vote totals are going down. Show me some data that the down-ticket (anywhere) is losing votes. If the only tightening you can find over time is from Republicans (including Trump) gaining points while she stays high, there's nothing you can do about that. You keep your own numbers up, and watch as your opponent (who must then act to gain votes) hopefully acts poorly.

Stating the sky is blue, or water is wet, is boring because it's clearly backed up with a lot of evidence. Do that and I'll be happy to read it. But it's getting really old with the various posts that assume a negative response from the electorate first and then argue from the assumption.

(This ties into why I don't care for optics talk as it's all predicated on the assumption that they matter in the first place and then people start from there.)
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't mean that flippantly), but this latest attack on the Clinton Foundation by the right is fairly recent, and whether or not it's affecting her support wouldn't be seen in data yet? Now, when more polls come out showing that the public really doesn't give a fuck about it and it's not affecting her support or bolstering Trump, then great. I'll personally breathe a sigh of relief. But in the meantime, what's wrong with speculating? What's wrong with a little armchair analyzing of Hillary and her surrogate's response to the latest attack? What's wrong with posters saying, "I thought that was a bad response"? Isn't that what boards are for? And it's not like it's being pulled out of the ass of Breitbart. The AP got involved in this. I open my news feed and it's all anybody is talking about right now.

And excuse me if I don't buy for a damn second the idea that things shouldn't be discussed in this thread if there's no data to back it up. I mean, we wouldn't have gone through so many OTs in the last few months if that were the case. Hell, I just had skim through several pages of Final Fantasy discussion. Wut.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
I'm really not worried about this "pivot" since it amounts to flip-flopping on his single most visible policy. I don't see how that gets him a bunch of new voters.
 
S

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
Box of Kittens said:
I'm really not worried about this "pivot" since it amounts to flip-flopping on his single most visible policy. I don't see how that gets him a bunch of new voters.
Click to expand...

The real pivot is the attacks on the Clinton Foundation anyway. Much easier to not look like a total dufus when all you're doing is shouting "there's something going on."

You're starting to see the influence of his new team, it's the same tactics they use on fox news and breitbart.
 
D

Debirudog

Member
JesseEwiak said:
Didn't we all do the same thing four years ago when the Obama team didn't react to every silly thing Romney said about Obama? The Obama team thankfully didn't believe in "winning the news cycle", and it seems like the Clinton team doesn't either.
Click to expand...
I think a positive media news cycle isn't as important compared to having a solid ground game as shown when Bernie lost to Hillary Clinton. This article is a little dated but it argues that what's really important at the end of the day was the ground game, and Obama's was much better than Romney's.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-game-that-could-put-him-over-the-top/264031/

This year is different. The polls are so close that a lively partisan meta-fight has broken out over which side actually has the upper hand going into the final stretch, with Romney claiming momentum is on his side, while Obama clings to slim leads in enough swing states to take the Electoral College. In an election that's tied in the polls going down to the wire, Obama's ground game could be crucial.

In the closing days of the race, "we have two jobs," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said Tuesday. "One, to persuade the undecideds, and two, to turn our voters out." The former is the job of the president and his TV and other media ads. As for the latter, "That's the grassroots operation we've been building for the last 18 months."
Click to expand...

In this article, it stated that the Obama campaign ultimately focused on ground game and driving up voter turn out as well as undecideds more so than Romney did.
 
R

royalan

Member
Box of Kittens said:
I'm really not worried about this "pivot" since it amounts to flip-flopping on his single most visible policy. I don't see how that gets him a bunch of new voters.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's going to do anything either way, I think both sides are arguing this weirdly.

For the right, I don't think this is going to win Trump any new voters who weren't already inclined to vote for him. This pivot came too late. Everyone knows who Trump is and what he's said. There's no walking it back.

But I also don't think this is going to cost him any voters, either. People supporting Trump at this point are emotionally invested and locked in. He could flip-flop on anything he's said previously. They'll make the case for him that he's just working the deal.

This immigration flipping just seems like stalling. A way to keep media attention on Trump without him needing to absolutely shit the bed to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
257
49K
rofif replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
60K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin 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
Top Bottom