Support NeoGAF

[Teggy]

Didn't realize Brady skipped out on meeting Obama.

 

[Diablos]

he likes Obama a lot

He wants Obama to be his friend

awwww

 

[Dominican Power]

https://thinkprogress.org/melania-t...lar-endorsement-deals-1999314fb8f1#.a19julgto

But Free Melania though. She doesn't need no fucking freeing.

 

[royalan]

https://thinkprogress.org/melania-t...lar-endorsement-deals-1999314fb8f1#.a19julgto

But Free Melania though. She doesn't need no fucking freeing.

Screw Melania Trump. Seriously.

I will not shed one single tear for this woman after MY First Lady, with TWO ivy league degrees and all the grace in the world stepped into a job that she didn't want either and handled it. Handled it with poise, intelligence, and endless patience.

And yet was attacked and called everything under the sun.

So Free Melania nothing. She's not crying when she swipes that black card. She's not crying when she picks out her FLOTUS wardrobe.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Gotta say I'm genuinely surprised we have a neocon in here.

Sure, but I think this assumes that you'll reasonably be able to divert massive amounts of money from the military into these things. I don't think that's happening. I think that the idea of cutting military spending is as toxic to the public as a cut to Social Security, and so if you've got to keep sending billions and billions to fund tanks and shit, might as well actually use them on bad people.

Ground wars are very politically costly now too, so I don't see what your point is. It also costs money to deploy the tanks, not just to build them. Like, I realize that you're probably not opposed to Keynesian spending but redirecting the money we spent on the wars and re-diverting it from our defense contractors welfare fund to welfare and infrastructure spending should be at least as politically popular as getting involved with a thirty-year ground war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives and might not go anywhere.

And I think there's more to the first Gulf War than just "We won and it was fast, so it was just" than just saying that. Like I mentioned above, hundreds of thousands of people were murdered by Hussein's troops over the years he was there. You'd have to argue the trolley problem essentially. And since we might fall on different sides of that problem, that's fine.

It's not like that at all though? The Trolley problem is "is it okay to kill one person to save more than one" which I'm clearly okay with because I've called the Gulf War good American foreign policy. It's not that I think violence to save lives is bad, it's that invading a country to destroy it's government and then set up a new government and spend sufficient amounts of time modernizing its economy and citizen education while also preventing a massive destabilization in the region is going to cost far, far more in what it takes than in what it gives. If you have problems with the way Iraq was planned and handled, then that means you expect vast amounts of extra resources to be fueled into making it less of a clusterfuck. Do you think killing Hussein made the lives of Iraqis or other citizens of the Middle East any more safe? What would it take to make that happen? Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of the war in Iraq too. Will the US military just become a permanent fixture of the area, with Iraq as a pseudo-51st state? When does this intervention begin to save more lives than it takes? What could we do with the resources we spent on making it that way?

Tunisia, for example, is a burgeoning democracy with a worrisome economy. Why don't we pump money into developing it to be a shining, modern gem of Northern Africa that can act as a stabilizing force for peace and democracy in the region?

This is just a slippery slope argument. There's a clear difference between China and Saddam's Iraq. And I actually do think we should be doing more to hurt Russia, though military intervention is clearly a bad call given their size. I'd rather just keep fucking up their banana republic until they get antsy and kill Putin in revolt.

Is it really a slippery slope argument? The United States, for all its wealth, has limited resources and military capabilities. Do we have the resources to just step in and destroy any brutal regime and then fully rebuild it in such a way that the new state is a peaceful, stable liberal democracy? We clearly struggled trying to do this with a country the size of California. If Erdogan begins to murder large numbers of people, can we just enter Turkey and depose him? Will that actually save more lives than it will end?

 

[mo60]

Link?

The video is in this link.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-video-statement-the-future-is-female-w465381

 

[whyamihere]

Didn't realize Brady skipped out on meeting Obama.

He was pissed at Earnest for talking about Deflategate.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Man, this is sort of a bad graph by Nate.

What that shows me is that other than Wisconsin, the narrative that she ignored those states is completely wrong.

 

[Wag]

Shit, so I just watched the video where the Trump accused the press of not reporting plans of massive terrorist attacks.

Does anyone believe anything he says anymore?

 

[whyamihere]

What that shows me is that other than Wisconsin, the narrative that she ignored those states is completely wrong.

It's also not like Trump spent extensive time in either Wisconsin or Michigan, either.

 

[royalan]

Does anyone believe anything this fool says anymore?

Republican voters

 

[numble]

What that shows me is that other than Wisconsin, the narrative that she ignored those states is completely wrong.

Share is different than the total. If in one week, I visit Ohio once for a public event, have a second public event in Florida, and spend the rest of my week privately in New York, that means Ohio and Florida had 50% of the share of public appearances that week.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

What that shows me is that other than Wisconsin, the narrative that she ignored those states is completely wrong.

So if we view this by the six closest states (MI, WI, PA, FL, AZ, NC, also holy shit I didn't realize Arizona was closer than North Carolina) the three in the Rust Belt that were part of the Blue Wall were the ones "ignored". Wisconsin, obviously, she never set foot in, but she obviously did make trips to Michigan and Pennsylvania, right?

Except the problem here is that she only selectively campaigned in the urban cores of the states. She never visited UAW halls to tell workers about how she opposed TPP and had a bold new vision to revitalize their communities in Michigan. She wasn't campaigning in Scranton or Erie. She was in Philly, Ann Arbor, and Detroit. These are important strongholds for the states, but they're not the only parts of the state that kept these states blue for decades. Obama won places like Kenosha and Scranton and Hillary lost them.

Also holy shit, I knew in my head that Arizona was close but I never realized it was closer than North Carolina. We definitely need to contest that shit in 2020.

Share is different than the total. If in one week, I visit Ohio once for a public event, have a second public event in Florida, and spend the rest of my week privately in New York, that means Ohio and Florida had 50% of the share of public appearances that week.

Also yeah, it didn't help that she spent so much time at private fundraisers.

 

[Oblivion]

Has this been posted? Kellyanne offers a shitty defense for the Bowling Green Massacre thing:

https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/828702939678179331/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Except one tiny problem with that. During the interview with Chris Matthews, she DID use the word "masterminds":

"I bet it's brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. It didn't get covered."

 

[mo60]

So if we view this by the six closest states (MI, WI, PA, FL, AZ, NC, also holy shit I didn't realize Arizona was closer than North Carolina) the three in the Rust Belt that were part of the Blue Wall were the ones "ignored". Wisconsin, obviously, she never set foot in, but she obviously did make trips to Michigan and Pennsylvania, right?

Except the problem here is that she only selectively campaigned in the urban cores of the states. She never visited UAW halls to tell workers about how she opposed TPP and had a bold new vision to revitalize their communities in Michigan. She wasn't campaigning in Scranton or Erie. She was in Philly, Ann Arbor, and Detroit. These are important strongholds for the states, but they're not the only parts of the state that kept these states blue for decades. Obama won places like Kenosha and Scranton and Hillary lost them.

Also holy shit, I knew in my head that Arizona was close but I never realized it was closer than North Carolina. We definitely need to contest that shit in 2020.

Also yeah, it didn't help that she spent so much time at private fundraisers.

Hilary won the county that scranton is in by like 4%. Also, AZ is one of the targets for the democrats in 2020.They should also target NE-2 again in 2020. Trump only won NE-2 by a bit over 4 points if I recall.

Edit: OMG the democrats should definitely target NE-2 in 2020 since trump only won it by a bit over 2%.

 

[numble]

What that shows me is that other than Wisconsin, the narrative that she ignored those states is completely wrong.

Share is different than the total. If in one week, I visit Ohio once for a public event, have a second public event in Florida, and spend the rest of my week privately in New York, that means Ohio and Florida had 50% of the share of public appearances that week.

Expanding on this, look how it is misleading:
http://www.p2016.org/chrn/fall16.html

Even though Florida says 18.1% Trump and Clinton 20%, here are the total events:
Trump: 17 total rallies in Florida
Clinton: 13 rallies/speeches in Florida

Pennsylvania says Trump and Clinton are tied at 11.4%, but here are the total events:
Trump: 14 total rallies/speeches in Pennsylvania
Clinton: 8 total rallies/speeches in Pennsylvania

Michigan says Trump 5.7% and Clinton 4.3%, but here are the total events:
Trump: 6 total rallies/speeches in Michigan
Clinton: 2 total rallies/speeches in Michigan

And on and on...

 

[Chumley]

The Rosie as Steve Bannon thing is gaining traction. Spread it around y'all this needs to happen.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Hilary won the county that scranton is in by like 4%. Also, AZ is one of the targets for the democrats in 2020.They should also target NE-2 again in 2020. Trump only won NE-2 by a bit over 4 points if I recall.

Edit: OMG the democrats should definitely target NE-2 in 2020 since trump only won it by a bit over 2%.

Oof, you're right. Still, Obama won that county by like 30 points in 2012. Margins matter!

 

[whyamihere]

Expanding on this, look how it is misleading:
http://www.p2016.org/chrn/fall16.html

Even though Florida says 18.1% Trump and Clinton 20%, here are the total events:
Trump: 17 total rallies in Florida
Clinton: 13 rallies/speeches in Florida

Pennsylvania says Trump and Clinton are tied at 11.4%, but here are the total events:
Trump: 14 total rallies/speeches in Pennsylvania
Clinton: 8 total rallies/speeches in Pennsylvania

Michigan says Trump 5.7% and Clinton 4.3%, but here are the total events:
Trump: 6 total rallies/speeches in Michigan
Clinton: 2 total rallies/speeches in Michigan

And on and on...

Her PA events from June 14th to the end:

http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintonbystate.html

- Pittsburgh
- Philly
- Philly
- Philly (DNC)
- Philadelphia, PA
Hatfield, PA
Harrisburg, PA
- Johnstown, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
- Scranton, PA
- Philly
- Philly
- Haverford, PA
Harrisburg, PA
- Pittsburgh, PA
Philadelphia, PA
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Philadelphia, PA
- Philadelphia, PA
- Pittsburgh, PA
Philadelphia, PA

Trump's PA schedule was smarter. Monessen, Scranton, Mechanicsburg, Erie, Altoona, Manheim, ... He also went to Philly twice, Pittsburgh once, and Chester and Aston which I believe were Romney areas that went for Clinton.

I mean, I don't really believe that campaign visits mean anything and are more for show than anything, but he hit the exact areas that he should have been hitting.

Now, Clinton probably should have been going to Philly/Pittsburgh/Harrisburg a lot. But she obviously needed to go to Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Erie, and maybe other areas. Again though, I don't think Clinton or Trump's physical presence mattered a lot -- why would it in the general? But more that the Clinton campaign should have been explicitly targeting union halls and old Democratic centers and areas that it didn't seem to prioritize.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Gotta say I'm genuinely surprised we have a neocon in here.

Ground wars are very politically costly now too, so I don't see what your point is. It also costs money to deploy the tanks, not just to build them. Like, I realize that you're probably not opposed to Keynesian spending but redirecting the money we spent on the wars and re-diverting it from our defense contractors welfare fund to welfare and infrastructure spending should be at least as politically popular as getting involved with a thirty-year ground war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives and might not go anywhere.

It's not like that at all though? The Trolley problem is "is it okay to kill one person to save more than one" which I'm clearly okay with because I've called the Gulf War good American foreign policy. It's not that I think violence to save lives is bad, it's that invading a country to destroy it's government and then set up a new government and spend sufficient amounts of time modernizing its economy and citizen education while also preventing a massive destabilization in the region is going to cost far, far more in what it takes than in what it gives. If you have problems with the way Iraq was planned and handled, then that means you expect vast amounts of extra resources to be fueled into making it less of a clusterfuck. Do you think killing Hussein made the lives of Iraqis or other citizens of the Middle East any more safe? What would it take to make that happen? Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of the war in Iraq too. Will the US military just become a permanent fixture of the area, with Iraq as a pseudo-51st state? When does this intervention begin to save more lives than it takes? What could we do with the resources we spent on making it that way?

Tunisia, for example, is a burgeoning democracy with a worrisome economy. Why don't we pump money into developing it to be a shining, modern gem of Northern Africa that can act as a stabilizing force for peace and democracy in the region?

Is it really a slippery slope argument? The United States, for all its wealth, has limited resources and military capabilities. Do we have the resources to just step in and destroy any brutal regime and then fully rebuild it in such a way that the new state is a peaceful, stable liberal democracy? We clearly struggled trying to do this with a country the size of California. If Erdogan begins to murder large numbers of people, can we just enter Turkey and depose him? Will that actually save more lives than it will end?

Yes, it is a trolley problem. That problem doesn't just fixate on 1 person, it's just a tool to ask whether you can compare n lives with >n lives, or if those two things aren't comparable.

You can (and have) argued that you think resources should be spent elsewhere. I view this as a compromise that you're making and thus abandoning people to their fates with what seems like little concern. I'm not rolling my sleeves up here to talk specific tactics during a regime change, but the idea that we should be looking at places like North Korea, Syria, etc... right now and just go "Nah, waaaay too expensive" and then promptly ignore them has always grossed me out. Like, even in your example of Tunisia, if we redirect and just focus on aiding them, does that actually bring relief to people getting wiped out by their own government?

I mean, this is a Godwin thing, but at what point do we consider a genocide to be close enough to the Nazis that we should intervene? WW2 was famous in the US for having a shit ton of people not want to get involved, and I think there are a lot of people today (probably most) who are glad we didn't just decide to use our funds for that war on other countries instead. Yes, our motives weren't humanitarian then, but that doesn't mean they can't be now.

I repeat that it is absolutely a moral failure of the Western world (which claims to be a shining example of blah blah blah) that we turn blind eyes to the plight of people who are not just dealing with run-of-the-mill problems, but outright genocide.

 

[numble]

Her PA events from June 14th to the end:

http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintonbystate.html

- Pittsburgh
- Philly
- Philly
- Philly (DNC)
- Philadelphia, PA
Hatfield, PA
Harrisburg, PA
- Johnstown, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
- Scranton, PA
- Philly
- Philly
- Haverford, PA
Harrisburg, PA
- Pittsburgh, PA
Philadelphia, PA
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Philadelphia, PA
- Philadelphia, PA
- Pittsburgh, PA
Philadelphia, PA

Trump's PA schedule was smarter. Monessen, Scranton, Mechanicsburg, Erie, Altoona, Manheim, ... He also went to Philly twice, Pittsburgh once, and Chester and Aston which I believe were Romney areas that went for Clinton.

I mean, I don't really believe that campaign visits mean anything and are more for show than anything, but he hit the exact areas that he should have been hitting.

Now, Clinton probably should have been going to Philly/Pittsburgh/Harrisburg a lot. But she obviously needed to go to Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Erie, and maybe other areas. Again though, I don't think Clinton or Trump's physical presence mattered a lot -- why would it in the general? But more that the Clinton campaign should have been explicitly targeting union halls and old Democratic centers and areas that it didn't seem to prioritize.

The 538 chart is about September 1 to election.

Besides the local media coverage, it matters to visit places because each rally motivates supporters to go out and do stuff to GOTV.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

All this talk has got me looking at Wisconsin county results again and I'm still confused about who the non-Trump Johnson voters are. Feingold does better in all the counties that flipped this time (winning Dunn County, for example, with about 475 votes/2% more than Hillary there, and Johnson gets almost the exact same number of votes at Trump). In Dane County Johnson does a little bit better, with about 9k more votes than Trump while Feingold only gets about 3k more than Hillary and the Libertarian senate candidate underperformed Gary Johnson there, so that sort of makes sense). Milwaukee County is the biggest difference, where Feingold gets about 12k less votes than Hillary while Johnson gets about 20k more than Trump. That's a pretty big disparity, but I'm still not seeing where the fairly significant raw vote lead comes from if that's the biggest county and Feingold's doing better in the western counties.

I'm sure the numbers are right if I just add them all up, I'm just not seeing where Johnson is getting such a big outperformance of Trump from or where Feingold is underperforming other than Milwaukee County.

 

[whyamihere]

The 538 chart is about September 1 to election.

Besides the local media coverage, it matters to visit places because each rally motivates supporters to go out and do stuff to GOTV.

There's a decent body of research that implies that campaign visits don't actually do anything. They might even galvanize the opposite and have the net effect be close to 0.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716216661488

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2012.671231

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

For loving Putin so much, Trump has almost no clue on the war Russia is in.

He has no knowledge of this conflict... Like at all.

 

[Crocodile]

Hmmmmm..........

 

[Vestal]

For loving Putin so much, Trump has almost no clue on the war Russia is in.

He has no knowledge of this conflict... Like at all.

I think we have already established this. I mean come on.. The guy has no fucking clue what government is.. He took a 2 day vacation 2 weeks into the job. He doesn't read what he is signing. He is a puppet. Pure and simple. What really pisses me off is that I have to live around people that thing this fucker is a good thing.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yes, it is a trolley problem. That problem doesn't just fixate on 1 person, it's just a tool to ask whether you can compare n lives with >n lives, or if those two things aren't comparable.

You can (and have) argued that you think resources should be spent elsewhere. I view this as a compromise that you're making and thus abandoning people to their fates with what seems like little concern. I'm not rolling my sleeves up here to talk specific tactics during a regime change, but the idea that we should be looking at places like North Korea, Syria, etc... right now and just go "Nah, waaaay too expensive" and then promptly ignore them has always grossed me out. Like, even in your example of Tunisia, if we redirect and just focus on aiding them, does that actually bring relief to people getting wiped out by their own government?

I mean, this is a Godwin thing, but at what point do we consider a genocide to be close enough to the Nazis that we should intervene? WW2 was famous in the US for having a shit ton of people not want to get involved, and I think there are a lot of people today (probably most) who are glad we didn't just decide to use our funds for that war on other countries instead. Yes, our motives weren't humanitarian then, but that doesn't mean they can't be now.

I repeat that it is absolutely a moral failure of the Western world (which claims to be a shining example of blah blah blah) that we turn blind eyes to the plight of people who are not just dealing with run-of-the-mill problems, but outright genocide.

Wait do you think I'm for the n or >n lives choice? Because I'm >n, I just don't think the sorts of interventions you're proposing will have a net gain in lives spared and will make problems worse.

 

[Box of Kittens]

All this talk has got me looking at Wisconsin county results again and I'm still confused about who the non-Trump Johnson voters are. Feingold does better in all the counties that flipped this time (winning Dunn County, for example, with about 475 votes/2% more than Hillary there, and Johnson gets almost the exact same number of votes at Trump). In Dane County Johnson does a little bit better, with about 9k more votes than Trump while Feingold only gets about 3k more than Hillary and the Libertarian senate candidate underperformed Gary Johnson there, so that sort of makes sense). Milwaukee County is the biggest difference, where Feingold gets about 12k less votes than Hillary while Johnson gets about 20k more than Trump. That's a pretty big disparity, but I'm still not seeing where the fairly significant raw vote lead comes from if that's the biggest county and Feingold's doing better in the western counties.

I'm sure the numbers are right if I just add them all up, I'm just not seeing where Johnson is getting such a big outperformance of Trump from or where Feingold is underperforming other than Milwaukee County.

Take a look at results in the "WOW" Counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington) that form western and northern suburbs of Milwaukee. Those counties (particularly Waukesha since it's the largest) are the traditional GOP base in Wisconsin and Johnson outperformed Trump in each of them.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Take a look at results in the "WOW" Counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington) that form western and northern suburbs of Milwaukee. Those counties (particularly Waukesha since it's the largest) are the traditional GOP base in Wisconsin and Johnson outperformed Trump in each of them.

Oh there we go, thanks a lot for this, this has been bugging me for like a month now.

Now that that's out of the way, "Milwaukee could be cut off from the state and Obama would still win it" makes a lot more sense.

 

[numble]

There's a decent body of research that implies that campaign visits don't actually do anything. They might even galvanize the opposite and have the net effect be close to 0.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716216661488

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2012.671231

Read the actual research--your first link even claims your second link shows a positive effect for campaign visits.

Daron Shaw's (1999) work supports the claim that campaign visits are influential. Shaw provides a series of estimates that show that visits during the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections had a direct effect on attitudes and also improved tone and quantity of press coverage. Similarly, Shaw and Roberts (2000) find that events influenced prices of political futures contracts in both the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. J. Paul Herr (2002) finds, in the 1996 election, a large effect of President Clinton's visits on his eventual state-level vote, but only on those visits after October 1; he finds no effect of Senator Dole's visits. Among state executives, Shaw and Gimpel (2012) randomized the visit schedule of the Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, during his January 2006 primary bid for the gubernatorial election. Among the twenty Texas media markets, Shaw and Gimpel chose twelve to host a gubernatorial visit over three consecutive days, and polled 1,000 respondents daily throughout January to model changes in attitudes. Shaw and Gimpel find the primary vote choice strongly responsive to candidate visits: both Republican and Independent respondents in visited markets were between 5 and 6 percentage points more likely to indicate that they would vote for Perry. Visit effects were statistically apparent for almost seven days.

And in your abstract to the second one:

Perry's appearances were more unambiguously effective in generating contributions and volunteers.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Oh there we go, thanks a lot for this, this has been bugging me for like a month now.

No problem. I used to live in Wisconsin and got to learn the state's politics quite well.

 

[chadskin]

For loving Putin so much, Trump has almost no clue on the war Russia is in.

He has no knowledge of this conflict... Like at all.

The White House readouts of the calls with the Ukrainian president and the NATO secretary general kept referring to a "conflict along the Ukrainian border", too. Shit is wild.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Wait do you think I'm for the n or >n lives choice? Because I'm >n, I just don't think the sorts of interventions you're proposing will have a net gain in lives spared and will make problems worse.

No I got that, but I also think people seem to be (and I could totally be wrong that you're in this camp) too quick to toss the n lives down the drain. My thought process when a trolley problem shows up isn't to play the game but to try to save all of the lives. Might not succeed, but we've gotten to the point where the thought of trying turns people away. To me, that's not good enough.

Again, to look at people getting massacred and just walk away to do something good somewhere else isn't good enough. Someone on the street is getting beaten and you seem to be saying "just walk a few blocks over and volunteer at a soup kitchen, helps way more people." This is true, and helpful, but it's not a comfort at all to the person being beaten, and it's not a good conclusion to say aw shucks, can't save em all and then forget about it.

Like I said a few posts ago, I get riled up about this stuff. I generally think most people in the US don't care about people being massacred as long as they're outside our borders, and any time I see headlines about places like NK or Syria, I hate that the default political stance from everyone is "man that sucks."

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

In my heart, I'm a neocon.

But my head bemoans the lack of empirical success outside of Bill's reign.

Maybe we need a different approach.

Like, if a guy is committing pogroms, we send a drone to play chicken against him every day until he stops. Shoot bullets that go around him, maybe some of them go into their legs....

Or we could blow up their military equipment until they stopped too.

Hacking and releasing info to their subjects until the violence stops might also work...

 

[Pixieking]

In my heart, I'm a neocon.

But my head bemoans the lack of empirical success outside of Bill's reign.

Maybe we need a different approach.

Like, if a guy is committing pogroms, we send a drone to play chicken against him every day until he stops. Shoot bullets that go around him, maybe some of them go into their legs....

Or we could blow up their military equipment until they stopped too.

Hacking and releasing info to their subjects until the violence stops might also work...

Asking for trouble, that... I mean, what happens when the citizens of the country rise-up? Look at how problematic the US police find BLM protests. If you release info to NK citizens about how much food and money the party leadership get, and the citizens rebel and then are killed, what then?

What's ideally needed is to inspire a bloodless revolution. But again, look how likely that is in the US - Trump does something absolutely out-there (not impossible if the court rules against him later today), and people rebel. What're the chances it's a bloodless rebellion? And once blood is spilled (or the threat of it), then the government can and will use violence against its people.

Isn't this one of the reasons why UN Peacekeepers were created? An impartial force to ensure a government does not harm to its people?

 

[whyamihere]

Read the actual research--your first link even claims your second link shows a positive effect for campaign visits.



And in your abstract to the second one:

Yes, that's the entire point of Shaw and Gimpel's paper? They show while there are benefits to a campaign, there are also negatives where the net effect could end up being close to zero. Which is why I said:

They might even galvanize the opposit[ion] and have the net effect be close to 0.

Visits can increase support!!! ...and then they can also galvanize your opponents (as it did for Perry's Democratic opponent). That's not to discount them, but we're acting as if Hillary had just gone to Wilkes Barre to Eau Clair or Lansing then she'd be president. That's not how this works.

If her campaign actually had a message that appealed to working class voters that she could effectively deliver, that would've mattered more than another trip to Scranton. Using those initial events to mobilize a campaign is effective! The visit itself? Most political scientists would say that it's overstated. The fact that Hillary didn't really have a campaign infrastructure in these areas hurt her far more than the fact she never/rarely visited.

Hillary did not need to go to Kansas to win KS-03. And Trump did not need to go to Minnesota to win MN-07.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Asking for trouble, that... I mean, what happens when the citizens of the country rise-up? Look at how problematic the US police find BLM protests. If you release info to NK citizens about how much food and money the party leadership get, and the citizens rebel and then are killed, what then?

What's ideally needed is to inspire a bloodless revolution. But again, look how likely that is in the US - Trump does something absolutely out-there (not impossible if the court rules against him later today), and people rebel. What're the chances it's a bloodless rebellion? And once blood is spilled (or the threat of it), then the government can and will use violence against its people.

Isn't this one of the reasons why UN Peacekeepers were created? An impartial force to ensure a government does not harm to its people?

I'm guessing that most rulers are too risk-averse to allow information like that to become public and would fold ahead of having to release the info.

But that is a risk, definitely.

The f-button on my keyboard is broken (have to pound it for it to work now) and every third word of my involves "fuck" so this will be painful.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The Rick Perry papers are interesting (especially since Perry having the most scientifically savvy campaign I've ever seen just seems out of character), but I don't think even the author of the paper on campaign visits would say you can draw any conclusions about if campaign visits matter for presidential campaigns. The authors seemed to think most of the positive impacts came from media coverage which isn't something presidential candidates lack compared to local candidates.

They weren't able to measure any long term (>8 days) effects either...

 

[numble]

Yes, that's the entire point of Shaw and Gimpel's paper? They show while there are benefits to a campaign, there are also negatives where the net effect could end up being close to zero. Which is why I said:



Visits can increase support!!! ...and then they can also galvanize your opponents (as it did for Perry's Democratic opponent). That's not to discount them, but we're acting as if Hillary had just gone to Wilkes Barre to Eau Clair or Lansing then she'd be president. That's not how this works.

If her campaign actually had a message that appealed to working class voters that she could effectively deliver, that would've mattered more than another trip to Scranton. Using those initial events to mobilize a campaign is effective! The visit itself? Most political scientists would say that it's overstated. The fact that Hillary didn't really have a campaign infrastructure in these areas hurt her far more than the fact she never/rarely visited.

Hillary did not need to go to Kansas to win KS-03. And Trump did not need to go to Minnesota to win MN-07.

I don't think the few studies establish a body of research, especially when the first one indicates there are studies that goes both ways, and its own conclusions are on a bespoke survey.

There is 1 study about galvanizing opposition, and that is with Rick Perry. There certainly is no body of research that says that visits will galvanize opposition.

Please provide the data to support your statement that "most political scientists would say that it's overstated". I would think most political scientists would say that there has not been enough research.

 

[Retromelon]

The new fire emblem mobile release is gutter trash weeaboo pandering and if you play that game I can't be friends with you

 

[BadenBadenLily]

The new fire emblem mobile release is gutter trash weeaboo pandering and if you play that game I can't be friends with you

So it's not much different from the last two games then?

 

[Retromelon]

Ruthless!

 

[numble]

Yes, that's the entire point of Shaw and Gimpel's paper? They show while there are benefits to a campaign, there are also negatives where the net effect could end up being close to zero. Which is why I said:



Visits can increase support!!! ...and then they can also galvanize your opponents (as it did for Perry's Democratic opponent). That's not to discount them, but we're acting as if Hillary had just gone to Wilkes Barre to Eau Clair or Lansing then she'd be president. That's not how this works.

If her campaign actually had a message that appealed to working class voters that she could effectively deliver, that would've mattered more than another trip to Scranton. Using those initial events to mobilize a campaign is effective! The visit itself? Most political scientists would say that it's overstated. The fact that Hillary didn't really have a campaign infrastructure in these areas hurt her far more than the fact she never/rarely visited.

Hillary did not need to go to Kansas to win KS-03. And Trump did not need to go to Minnesota to win MN-07.

Shaw, who wrote the Shaw and Gimpel paper on Rick Perry's gubernatorial visits, has done several papers on presidential campaign visits:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2585400.pdf

In addition, simulations derived from these models suggested that changes in the relative level of campaigning between the candidates could have significantly affected electoral vote totals. In a more detailed examination, pooled time-series models used weekly data to corroborate the relationship between statewide support and campaigning. Furthermore, both analyses showed that the interactions between campaigning differentials and (1) the percentage of undecided voters and (2) the average statewide presidential vote had significant effects on candidate support. Campaign effects, therefore, appear to have been both direct and conditioned by the receptivity of the electorate.
...

The core finding that presidential campaigning influences statewide support for candidates seems secure. The more interesting question becomes whether these effects typically make an important difference in presidential election outcomes. Some of
the present data suggest they do not, but the answer requires empirical analysis beyond the scope of this discussion and would seem to depend upon the magnitude of campaigning discrepancies and (perhaps more important) the closeness of the race. This latter
point echoes Holbrook (1996), who argues that campaigns matter when conditions are ambiguous (1960, 1976, 1988, 1992) but not when one side is strongly favored (1964, 1972, 1984, 1996).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2647509.pdf

What do these findings tell us about whether campaigns matter? On one side of the ledger, the evidence suggests events can influence close elections by swaying the decisive votes. For instance, John Kennedy's debate performance, coupled with his strategically driven messages and appearances, probably doomed Richard Nixon in 1960 (White 1961). In addition, campaign events occurring just before election day can be decisive in a close race. This observation is consistent with studies that argue the 1980 and 1988 presidential elections were decided by campaign events undertaken in the last 10 days.22 To borrow another sports analogy, elections can be like close basketball games in which the final possession decides the contest.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/194275.pdf

In other words, the future (namely, the election) is largely determined by the choices and actions of the present. Thus, evidence that campaign events and news media coverage have large and significant influences is evidence that campaigns matter, regardless of their net effect on voter preferences. Such events affect campaign strategy, the information levels within the electorate, and the allocation of media and money which shape that information.

 

[whyamihere]

Shaw, who wrote the Shaw and Gimpel paper on Rick Perry's gubernatorial visits, has done several papers on presidential campaign visits:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2585400.pdf


http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2647509.pdf


http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/194275.pdf

Campaigns =! Campaign visits to specific areas of states.

I don't really want to belabor the point anymore, but the pundit class and some here have consistently overstated the effectiveness of a campaign visit to a certain area. Perhaps I've dismissed them more than the body of research states, but there's been little-to-no research on in the modern, post-Clinton era that shows an effectiveness of a campaign visit to the level that some have ascribed.

"If only she had gone to Wilkes Barre!" probably wouldn't have made much of a difference, if at all. Our assumptions of what might work for a campaign in 1988 doesn't really work in 2016. Hillary did not have a message for these people in these areas. It's the same reason why Trump did not need to traverse western Minnesota for weeks to do well there, or why Hillary didn't need to hunker down in Kansas City, KS. A nationalized message probably matters much more than local visits, at least in a general.

 

[kirblar]

Campaigns =! Campaign visits to specific areas of states.

I don't really want to belabor the point anymore, but the pundit class and some here have consistently overstated the effectiveness of a campaign visit to a certain area. Perhaps I've dismissed them more than the body of research states, but there's been little-to-no research on in the modern, post-Clinton era that shows an effectiveness of a campaign visit to the level that some have ascribed.

"If only she had gone to Wilkes Barre!" probably wouldn't have made much of a difference, if at all. Our assumptions of what might work for a campaign in 1988 doesn't really work in 2016. Hillary did not have a message for these people in these areas. It's the same reason why Trump did not need to traverse western Minnesota for weeks to do well there, or why Hillary didn't need to hunker down in Kansas City, KS. A nationalized message probably matters much more than local visits, at least in a general.

"But Actually"-ing when none of your papers are about campaigns from 2000+ is hilariously awful.

Clinton's GOTV operation issues had nothing to do with a lack of rallies and everything to do with a systemic collapse that happened well before their campaign existed (and that they didn't stem the tide of.)

 

[numble]

Campaigns =! Campaign visits to specific areas of states.

I don't really want to belabor the point anymore, but the pundit class and some here have consistently overstated the effectiveness of a campaign visit to a certain area. Perhaps I've dismissed them more than the body of research states, but there's been little-to-no research on in the modern, post-Clinton era that shows an effectiveness of a campaign visit to the level that some have ascribed.

"If only she had gone to Wilkes Barre!" probably wouldn't have made much of a difference, if at all. Our assumptions of what might work for a campaign in 1988 doesn't really work in 2016. Hillary did not have a message for these people in these areas. It's the same reason why Trump did not need to traverse western Minnesota for weeks to do well there, or why Hillary didn't need to hunker down in Kansas City, KS. A nationalized message probably matters much more than local visits, at least in a general.

Um, read the papers--they are about campaign visits.

Your first link was basically an overview of papers that include the ones I linked. If you are to dismiss those, you would need to dismiss that paper as well.

For another study, there was one in 2010, which suggests that "minimal effects" often was due to successful counterprogramming by the opponent in the same market, and if you do not counter-program a candidate, they will get more support:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ampaign_Appearances_in_Presidential_Elections

However, one explanation of the minimal effects hypothesis is that one candidate’s efforts are offset by the efforts of his or her opponent. As Shaw describes it, “the opposing campaign is likely to target its activities in the same places as you, with roughly the
same volume” (2006, 115). The result is that any electoral advantage from the actions of one candidate is mitigated by the responses of an opponent. Both candidates are effective, but there is no visible change in voter support.

Which can suggest that not matching a candidate in a battleground means losing ground.

I don't know why you keep bringing up congressional districts in non-battlegrounds. Yes, it did not make sense for Clinton to visit Kansas or Trump to visit Minnesota because those states were safe states.

We started this discussion with your statement that campaign visits "don't actually do anything" (based on a "decent body of research"). I simply am focusing on your statement that campaign visits do nothing.

Finally, Trump's campaign visits did drive a nationalized message and most visits were covered by national media--it definitely was not the case that such visits "don't actually do anything".

 

[numble]

"But Actually"-ing when none of your papers are about campaigns from 2000+ is hilariously awful.

Clinton's GOTV operation issues had nothing to do with a lack of rallies and everything to do with a systemic collapse that happened well before their campaign existed (and that they didn't stem the tide of.)

But Actually is a focus on the same author he cites (for his second link) and the papers that are referred to throughout his first link (Shaw is the most referenced author in the first link). Please explain how it is hilariously awful to refute using the source of your same arguments. I cited a 2010 study anyway.

 

[sc0la]

The Rosie as Steve Bannon thing is gaining traction. Spread it around y'all this needs to happen.

I think trump needs to kiss bannon. Make sure he can never look at the man again without conjuring the image of kissing Rosie O'Donnell in drag.

Ruthless!

Ginsburg noooooooooo
...Wait she isn't dead

 

[kirblar]

But Actually is a focus on the same author he cites (for his second link) and the papers that are referred to throughout his first link (Shaw is the most referenced author in the first link). Please explain how it is hilariously awful to refute using the source of your same arguments. I cited a 2010 study anyway.

Because none of them are relevant to the way national campaigns are working in 2016- Trump's visits were relevant not because of where they were, but because he was getting free media via them. He managed to get massive GOTV without lifting a finger. This wouldn't have helped Clinton, because she wasn't getting this kind of attention because her supporters aren't watching CNN/Fox/etc.

A 2010 study doesn't matter if it's data set is from antiquity. And the '90s ARE antiquity at this point.

Clinton didn't lose because she gave away these margins- these people weren't coming back after the High Sanders got beaten by primarily off of his abysmal margins black people in faraway states. More rallies wouldn't have helped- she needed to turn out the people she DID have and the campaign did a godawful job of that.

 

[numble]

Because none of them are relevant to the way national campaigns are working in 2016- Trump's visits were relevant not because of where they were, but because he was getting free media via them. He managed to get massive GOTV without lifting a finger. A 2010 study doesn't matter if it's data set is from antiquity. And the '90s ARE antiquity at this point.

Clinton didn't lose because she gave away these margins- these people weren't coming back after the High Sanders got beaten by primarily off of his abysmal margins black people in faraway states. More rallies wouldn't have helped- she needed to turn out the people she DID have and the campaign did a godawful job of that.

How is it from antiquity? The 2010 study was looking at the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections.

Using polling data from the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, we find that campaign appearances can change a candidate's polling percentages, and that the impact varies by candidate and location (battleground state, safe Democratic state, or safe Republican state).
...
What we found is that campaign appearances can potentially have an impact on voter support, but this impact depends on both the candidate and where he or she is campaigning. Although the impact of a visit may be small, the combined impact of several appearances in a trip may be large enough to swing closely contested states toward one candidate.
...
More recent work has reexamined the ”minimal effects" model and again found that campaigns serve primarily to activate preexisting dispositions, but may also create some small changes at the margin.
...
He notes that a four-appearance campaign trip through a battleground state could potentially lead to an extra point in the poll. In a close race, this would be a significant gain (Shaw 2006, 136)[This is a study of 2000 and 2004].

We are not discussing whether this is the main reason Clinton lost, but the claim that the visits don't matter, and the claim that his links proved there was a body of research that supported the notion. Your statement still does not explain how it is hilariously awful to refute such a claim by explaining the source and supporting information behind the claims.

The people at Trump's rallies were signing up to GOTV, Trump would also not be getting the same media attention if it was not him at a different battleground location but from Mar a Lago every day.