-
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!
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
whyamihere
Banned
To counter the Diablosing about Nevada, more than most states, winning NV requires an insane GOTV operation. NV Dems have probably the best GOTV operation in the country. Trump has none.
Got that email too, but that line seems to be fighting complacency more than diablosing. Not to mention it points out the "he's close in fundraising numbers last month" point
Ohhh I still need to see this.
brainchild
Banned
Because the further you go on either end, the less pragmatic either side becomes. It devolves more and more into keeping a firm stance on your beliefs without compromise, and such ideologies cannot be feasibly enforced without authoritarianism playing a large hand in it, for either side.
benjipwns
Banned
No, it isn't and no, it doesn't.
Just fix the poles instead of clinging to 1930s Comintern propaganda.
What's inherently "pragmatic" about the incoherent "center" of the standard spectrum?
eBay Huckster
Member
but fixing the polls is boring!!!
brainchild
Banned
nature boy
Member
Plouffe-watch:
(really him, not the campaign).
(really him, not the campaign).
benjipwns
Banned
Don't cry to me when the Trumpslide that reddit and Facebook likes proved was going to happen, happens.
I gave you one, stop clinging to Comintern propaganda as if it has merit and then making up excuses to preserve it.
It slayed my queer kid/teen/adult's heart. All three.
brainchild
Banned
Why assume that the center is above zero on the pragmatism scale? Doesn't mean it can't get worse than neutral. At the very least, they don't have ideological purity getting in their way.
brainchild
Banned
But this is a strawman, not a substantive rebuttal. I'm not clinging to anything but logic based on empirical observations. The horseshoe theory just coincidentally happens to explain said logic.
Flaws of the 2-dimensional model aside, it's completely reasonable to think that as you reach the edges your position necessarily must become more authoritarian to achieve your goals, because there is less of the distribution of voters aligned with your views.
To benji (I don't even know if you are arguing even remotely seriously, so at this point I'm starting to question if you are falling into the trap of becoming the joke character instead of just playing it far too often): An endogenous political position measure that puts the center at the median of the distribution fixes your issue.
To benji (I don't even know if you are arguing even remotely seriously, so at this point I'm starting to question if you are falling into the trap of becoming the joke character instead of just playing it far too often): An endogenous political position measure that puts the center at the median of the distribution fixes your issue.
Finale Fireworker
Member
I can't believe he's still insisting journos were unfair to Other M. Answer to that, Priebus. What the fuck. Man doesn't know when to back away. This is dangerous for America, we cannot nurture this POV.
the baby
the baby
the baby
the baby
the baby
She has Plouffe though
edit: this post was entirely redundant and I am ashamed
whyamihere
Banned
Because it's the most transient state in the country.
It feels like she's keeping her nose down and campaigning. What has she done besides bad email answers?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
The media is so dishonest that their lies become facts.
BlastProcessing
Member
I am still salty at Plouffe for all of the Uber spam he sent my way earlier this year. Seriously, screw those guys. Uber's image has, against all odds, dropped even further on his watch. Not sure I want him anywhere near a Clinton campaign.
benjipwns
Banned
The horseshoe theory exposes the illogic of the claim that "left-wing totalitarian Socialism" and "right-wing totalitarian Socialism" are the only two opposing forces and that all common ideologies somehow fit along a spectrum that defines a single ideology as if it were two entirely disparate poles.
If you use different poles the entire thing collapses into the band-aid nonsense it is.
I guess that's it. Hah. GET ANSWERS TO YA EMAILS
Politics is a Calabi-Yau manifold.
brainchild
Banned
As I've stated plenty of times before, the horseshoe theory is not perfect. I don't believe that it perfectly accounts for the political spectrum or its actual polarity, but that was never my point. My point was that aspects of the theory accurately reflect some tendencies within the spectrum, and ideological purity (ideologies of both the far left and far right) necessitating authoritarianism is one of the aspects of the horseshoe theory that has merit and relevance to the discussion.
Right now we consider ideological purity to be extremism on either end of the spectrum, but if you want to put it somewhere else on the spectrum, it would still inevitably lead to authoritarianism.
You should have voted for Christie.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
The only to find out is if he eats a non-GMO peach.
he wanted to buy acid off me and i'm like uh idk i dont have any
Umm thats a odd thing to asked someone.
First, like benji's saying there's no reason to think that the center is necessarily more pragmatic than an ideological extreme. "Centrist" views are just views. Maybe it's the case that if you've got reasonable values and take a long hard look at the evidence it's clear that everyone is better off if we abolish the state. Maybe you're also a compromising sort of person so you allow that it'd be nice if we could at least abolish half of the state.
But also I'd say that you're looking at it backwards and also you're probably not comparing like with like when you talk about what the evidence says about ideological extremes.
You see lots of violence when ideological extremists take power in part because, since they're ideologically extreme and can't get lots of popular support, only violent extremists succeed in taking power. But there's no reason you can't have very fringe views and a commitment to democracy and human rights. Or just a healthy aversion to violent revolution. All that means is that you're committed to a very long slow process.
And then also you see lots of authoritarian governments popping up after ideologically extreme revolutionaries do their thing. But you tend to get pretty nasty governments after any revolutionaries do their thing. France had to try a few times, for example. And, I mean, even the easy example of a long-term really successful revolution where the revolutionaries' rhetoric was all about democracy and freedom gave rise to a nation that kept a substantial fraction of its population in a particularly nasty form of slavery for a century after its founding, and punctuated the end of that century by killing a substantial fraction of its male population. Most new governments are really bad so I'm not sure that it tells us much about Communism that Communist revolutions haven't worked out well.
I think its how I dress.
whyamihere
Banned
MY SENATE RACE UPDATE
D Win:
Illinois
Wisconsin
Indiana
These are pretty easy. Johnson and Kirk are getting slaughtered, and Bayh is Back. Yes, Bayh is sort of groan worthy, but he's going to win.
D Lean:
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
This I find a bit surprising. I always considered Toomey to be a strong incumbent and McGinty to be a bit of a weak challenger. And yet, McGinty has led 3 of the past 4 polls here, making me feel as if she's opening up an edge.
In New Hampshire, Ayotte is just unlucky: Hassan is the second best politician in New Hampshire (outside of Jeanne Shaheen), and Trump will kill her at the top of the ticket. She doesn't have much of a chance, even if it stays close.
True Tossup:
Nevada
I don't think either Catherine Cortez Masto or Joe Heck want to be Senators, or really care about winning. Neither of them have good messaging or ads, or have any national presence. That CBS poll had 38/35 Heck over Masto, but like, 27% undecided. I think that goes to say that neither of these people are well known, and people will just vote for who they vote for at the top of the ticket.
R Lean:
Ohio
Florida
North Carolina
Missouri
Strickland is running a bad campaign. Ross is running a good campaign but in a redder state. Same with Kander, but in a much redder state than either Ohio or North Carolina. My guess is that all of these Republicans pull it off, though it really depends on what happens at the top of the ticket. It feels like there'd be a lot more Hillary/Portman and Hillary/Rubio voters than, say, Hillary/Burr voters. If Hillary can win NC (which I think she will), I bet Ross has a real shot of winning.
Rubio will win. Murphy was a mistake.
R:
Georgia
Even if Barksdale could keep it close, the runoff basically makes it moot, since he's not getting over 50% of the vote.
D Win:
Illinois
Wisconsin
Indiana
These are pretty easy. Johnson and Kirk are getting slaughtered, and Bayh is Back. Yes, Bayh is sort of groan worthy, but he's going to win.
D Lean:
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
This I find a bit surprising. I always considered Toomey to be a strong incumbent and McGinty to be a bit of a weak challenger. And yet, McGinty has led 3 of the past 4 polls here, making me feel as if she's opening up an edge.
In New Hampshire, Ayotte is just unlucky: Hassan is the second best politician in New Hampshire (outside of Jeanne Shaheen), and Trump will kill her at the top of the ticket. She doesn't have much of a chance, even if it stays close.
True Tossup:
Nevada
I don't think either Catherine Cortez Masto or Joe Heck want to be Senators, or really care about winning. Neither of them have good messaging or ads, or have any national presence. That CBS poll had 38/35 Heck over Masto, but like, 27% undecided. I think that goes to say that neither of these people are well known, and people will just vote for who they vote for at the top of the ticket.
R Lean:
Ohio
Florida
North Carolina
Missouri
Strickland is running a bad campaign. Ross is running a good campaign but in a redder state. Same with Kander, but in a much redder state than either Ohio or North Carolina. My guess is that all of these Republicans pull it off, though it really depends on what happens at the top of the ticket. It feels like there'd be a lot more Hillary/Portman and Hillary/Rubio voters than, say, Hillary/Burr voters. If Hillary can win NC (which I think she will), I bet Ross has a real shot of winning.
Rubio will win. Murphy was a mistake.
R:
Georgia
Even if Barksdale could keep it close, the runoff basically makes it moot, since he's not getting over 50% of the vote.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
Five's all we need, baby. I feel good about your Lean D states, so I'm thinking we're good.
(Well, four plus the presidency is all we need, but five is the immediate goal just in case.)
(Well, four plus the presidency is all we need, but five is the immediate goal just in case.)
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
What do you mean by pragmatic? Do you mean unwillingness to compromise away from the given idealized version of a political ideology towards that of the median voter? Because if so that's very close to a tautology. If extremist ideologies did compromise, they wouldn't be at the political extremes any more, so by definition any remaining parties on the political extremes must be non-compromising and therefore by your definition pragmatic. It's not a useful observation to make, in the slightest.
whyamihere
Banned
We'd need to keep Nevada.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Clinton has won and most discussion about the presidential race is very dull. Even the Senate is very probably going D, 2016 is really about the House and nobody's really talking about that.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
True, but I think one of FL or NC is going D (the former if Murphy can put away Grayson and swing toward attacking Rubio + Clinton gets a solid 5%+ win so Murphy can ride her coattails), so NV doesn't immediately enter into that equation.
Like you, I have no idea what to think of the NV race.
benjipwns
Banned
They have to tell you if they're a cop if you ask.
This is America buddy, take your foreign nonsense elsewhere.
This is the thing. Define "far left" and "far right" first. If you're finding your definitions are similar, maybe you shouldn't put them as opposing poles.
Personally, I would consider totalitarianism/authoritarianism to be perfectly fine as its own pole on the spectrum. We'll add other axis if you want to get specific about how that totalitarianism/authoritarianism sets goals.
I probably do so for ideologically extreme reasons. Namely, that totalitarianism should be considered an extreme pole entirely disconnected from the reasons on which that totalitarianism is justified by its proponents. Propping up a spectrum where every spot on it is "potentially" totalitarian in a separate form is worthless to me, I'm not interested in a totalitarian polity.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
EDIT: This post was poorly written. Better written: we've made a political simplification if we're using the concept of axes to indicate information about voters. Consider the policies a,b, and c. Voter 1 likes a>b>c, Voter 2 likes b>c>a, and Voter 3 likes c>a>b. There is no central point in this policy configuration. In a political system that allows the comparison of only two options, if you compared a and b, a is preferred to b by 2 voters, and so a would win, but if you compared a and c, c is preferred to a by 2 voters, and so c would win, but if you compared b and c, b is preferred to c by 2 voters, and so c would win. In other words, voter preferences aren't transitive.
Instead, we have a political system that is designed to reduce complex problems that would be multi-spatial rather than represented on a single axis or even two into binary problems. That means the "centre" is not some independently defined position but a product of the method of simplification we choose. If we could change the simplification system, we would change the centre - without actually changing anyone's policy opinions. So benji's issue is not really fixed, because you are making the centre position a constant and it isn't.
whyamihere
Banned
I just, like, have no idea why either of these people are running. Heck didn't even want to run!
If NC goes for the Dems, I'll be so excited because Ross is great. Though I'd love see Rubio's career destroyed.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Nah, Murphy is fine. Great fundraiser, moderate profile.
His "scandal" turned out to be a big nothingburger and was obviously a hit piece.
And Rubio is a paper tiger. Once the campaign starts in earnest (when Murphy wins the primary) he's going to be in for the fight of his life. And I don't think he's going to win. His entire political career has been a product of convenience and circumstance. In the big leagues he deflates like a big, floppy used condom.
His "scandal" turned out to be a big nothingburger and was obviously a hit piece.
And Rubio is a paper tiger. Once the campaign starts in earnest (when Murphy wins the primary) he's going to be in for the fight of his life. And I don't think he's going to win. His entire political career has been a product of convenience and circumstance. In the big leagues he deflates like a big, floppy used condom.
whyamihere
Banned
The last three polls were Rubio +13, Rubio +7, Rubio +13. That's not good! He should at least be down by the same amount that a Kander or a Ross is by now.
Of course!
I'm not defending a single-peak distribution of preferences nor the interval of preferences assumption -- only pointing out that neither assumptions imply that whatever definition of center one is using should be fixed -- even if we use the modes of a bimodal distribution as two different "centers".
Well, it will never be fixed, since we already know there is no unique way to aggregate preferences!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Ugh, I just realized I entirely misread that argument between benji and hawk. Apologies, both, ignore my posts.
You leave university for two months and everything falls to shit. ;_;
You leave university for two months and everything falls to shit. ;_;
I can't tell if this "short circuited" attack works. First, it's like purely nonsensical. She's not a...robot. I mean that is such an odd line of attack. It's on a well worn and vulnerable spot for her, though. So I wonder why he just doesn't keep calling her a liar instead of a robot.
benjipwns
Banned
We don't disagree, I was using a fixed center definition in my question to knock on the idea that getting further from arbitrarily (in the grand scheme, the Comintern selected them for their own reasons) set extremes inherently makes things more pragmatic.
There's no reason to assume the "center" of the traditional spectrum is anymore pragmatic or less ideologically extreme than any other point on it. Even the extreme "far-left" and "far-right" poles.
See Jesse Walker's (and Hitchens) discussion of "the Paranoid Center" for example.
How do we know? She won't release the transcripts of her creation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked