• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nature boy

Member
C4EviPtW8AEfsFt.jpg:large


From WSJ WH reporter
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
numble said:
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



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".
Click to expand...

Just, again, campaigns =! Campaign visits. And the first article I linked to specifically talked about the Perry paper which shows a potentially net zero effect of campaign visits and a widely cited paper from 1952-1992, which may no longer be relevant in modern campaigning.

You're continuing to ignore that I walked back what I originally stated was probably an overreaction on the body of research that exists, for reasons I don't understand, but still find do not really support the strength of campaign visits in 2016 versus how we used to view campaigns up until the 90s. I think I've already typed something like this in my last post. And a congressional race in 2010 is different than Hillary versus Trump -- that's what makes this race so different. Both people were universally known with heated opinions on either side, and there has been a nationalization of our campaigns since Bush/Gore (really Obama/McCain but whatever) that's probably diminished the specific role of any singular visit.

AGAIN -- Clinton did not need to go to Kansas City to do well and Trump did not need to go to western Minnesota to do well because both of their national messages and appeals were baked in. To flip those areas/cut into the other's margins, this no longer required visits or a Goldwater-esque wave. Both appealed to a very specific group of people early on based on their messaging and none of that changed.

If you want to argue that Trump going to Scranton changed his message, maybe. But Hillary doing one trip to Arizona probably did nothing there. She also cut into Republican margins in Georgia by huge amounts without a visit. That has to do with the campaign structure and message, not necessarily where Hillary goes.

Hillary going to a union hall in Lansing would've done shit because her national message was not resonating with working class whites while Trump's was very much resonating with them. She had a campaign infrastructure problem in rural MI/WI/PA and was often relying on Feingold and McGinty's campaign for that more specific canvassing.
 
N

numble

Member
whyamihere said:
Just, again, campaigns =! Campaign visits. And the first article I linked to specifically talked about the Perry paper which shows a potentially net zero effect of campaign visits and a widely cited paper from 1952-1992, which may no longer be relevant in modern campaigning.

You're continuing to ignore that I walked back what I originally stated was probably an overreaction on the body of research that exists, for reasons I don't understand, but still find do not really support the strength of campaign visits in 2016 versus how we used to view campaigns up until the 90s. I think I've already typed something like this in my last post. And a congressional race in 2010 is different than Hillary versus Trump -- that's what makes this race so different. Both people were universally known with heated opinions on either side, and there has been a nationalization of our campaigns since Bush/Gore (really Obama/McCain but whatever) that's probably diminished the specific role of any singular visit.

AGAIN -- Clinton did not need to go to Kansas City to do well and Trump did not need to go to western Minnesota to do well because both of their national messages and appeals were baked in. To flip those areas/cut into the other's margins, this no longer required visits or a Goldwater-esque wave. Both appealed to a very specific group of people early on based on their messaging and none of that changed.

If you want to argue that Trump going to Scranton changed his message, maybe. But Hillary doing one trip to Arizona probably did nothing there. She also cut into Republican margins in Georgia by huge amounts without a visit. That has to do with the campaign structure and message, not necessarily where Hillary goes.

Hillary going to a union hall in Lansing would've done shit because her national message was not resonating with working class whites while Trump's was very much resonating with them. She had a campaign infrastructure problem in rural MI/WI/PA and was often relying on Feingold and McGinty's campaign for that more specific canvassing.
Click to expand...

You did not walk it back because I responded to your last post, which specifically said "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."

The 2010 paper focused on 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential races and discussed campaign visits (where are you getting congressional races from?):
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 the 2000 and 2004 presidential races].
Click to expand...
 
S

studyguy

Member
That hope of no Devos looks like a longshot now. I mean it always was, but all the same the level of opposition from all sides is pretty staggering.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
numble said:
You did not walk it back because I responded to your last post, which specifically said "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."

The 2010 paper focused on 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential races and discussed campaign visits (where are you getting congressional races from?):
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
The sheriff was in fact mad about the fact that this state Senator wanted the police to stop robbing people (civil asset forfeiture).

So it might have been a Republican or a Democrat because this was one of the few things that both sides agreed was fucking insane (the police rob more than all criminals in America as of now!) until Trump ran on a pro police brutality platform.
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
Crocodile said:
A hot take on Bill Maher I'm think I'm inclined to agree with
Click to expand...

I've always had a general dislike for Maher, and this sums up in a way I could never quite articulate. He's the embodiment of white privilege, but he supports liberal causes so we're supposed to just ignore his bullshit? I never really got the appeal. I would watch his show occasionally because the panel discussions could be interesting, but he crosses over the line into insufferable douche far too frequently. "Oooh, he hates Muslims AND Christians, how edgy."
 
M

Meowster

Member
Jason Kander said:
The GOP has been pushing a voter suppression campaign for years. Now they've taken it all the way to the White House and put it into hyperdrive. We have to fight back. The Department of Justice is switching sides and will no longer protect voters. The President is picking pro-suppression judges. It's time we expand this fight beyond the court of law and into the court of public opinion. This morning I announced the launch of Let America Vote, an organization dedicated to fighting voter suppression across the country. Join me!
Click to expand...
https://www.letamericavote.org/

As upset as I still am that Jason didn't make it through to the Senate, I'm glad that he is still regularly emailing those of us that supported him and is still fighting. It's refreshing to see that he didn't just disappear after his loss. Hope he runs again in the future. Missouri deserves better than a hack like Blunt.
 
N

nature boy

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The sheriff was in fact mad about the fact that this state Senator wanted the police to stop robbing people (civil asset forfeiture).

So it might have been a Republican or a Democrat because this was one of the few things that both sides agreed was fucking insane (the police rob more than all criminals in America as of now!) until Trump ran on a pro police brutality platform.
Click to expand...

Seems to be this state senator, per Mark Murray

Konni Burton, R-Colleyville, has her name on the most comprehensive of the lot. Senate Bill 380 was pre-filed on Dec. 20 and would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state of Texas from taking an individual's property without a criminal conviction, in most cases.
Click to expand...

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/can-the-texas-legislature-finally-reform-civil-forfeiture-9071022
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
The GOP confirming these obviously garbage nominees who will only bring grief to their administration seems fairly odd.

Like, when the GOP is trying to repeal Obamacare, do they really want Tom Price and his insider trading being the face of that?
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
This again shows that thr GOP doesn't give a fuck about what its base wants or what the American people want.

It's all about themselves, though I fail to see how DeVos benefited anyone but Trump.

I guess senate GOP members want a piece of that sweet, sweet Amway money.
 
B

benicillin

Banned
GoldenEye 007 said:
My only hope is that suburbia Teacher USA is pissed off enough over this to rethink some of the decisions they made being hardcore conservatives and actively voting against their best interests and the interests of their students.
Click to expand...

I mean she was blasted from both sides. The people hate her. They just spent a whole lot of time and publicity dragging through someone universally disliked. The GOP owns her nomination completely, more than any other they've gotten so far.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Meowster said:
https://www.letamericavote.org/

As upset as I still am that Jason didn't make it through to the Senate, I'm glad that he is still regularly emailing those of us that supported him and is still fighting. It's refreshing to see that he didn't just disappear after his loss. Hope he runs again in the future. Missouri deserves better than a hack like Blunt.
Click to expand...

Good way to make inroads with African American interest groups in the lead up to 2019/2020...
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Why don't Pence and Preibus just ask Trump to nominate someone else instead of spending so much effort dragging these obviously bad candidates to confirmation?

The pick Trump cared about most (other than Sessions) was Tillerson... He met with Tillerson for less than an hour and has never talked to him about any foreign policy issue. He doesn't care about any of these nominees other than Jeff Sessions and wouldn't get offended if they said "let's pick a well respected conservative education person from Texas because there are some political costs to DeVos."

This just seems stupid.
 
H

hammysaurusrex

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Why don't Pence and Preibus just ask Trump to nominate someone else instead of spending so much effort dragging these obviously bad candidates to confirmation?

The pick Trump cared about most (other than Sessions) was Tillerson... He met with Tillerson for less than an hour and has never talked to him about any foreign policy issue. He doesn't care about any of these nominees other than Jeff Sessions and wouldn't get offended if they said "let's pick a well respected conservative education person from Texas because there are some political costs to DeVos."

This just seems stupid.
Click to expand...

Pay to play - and DeVos paid. There's a political risk to Republicans giving their cash cows a reason to doubt that big donations will get things through regardless of any grassrpots political opposition.
 
A

AnotherNils

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Why don't Pence and Preibus just ask Trump to nominate someone else instead of spending so much effort dragging these obviously bad candidates to confirmation?

The pick Trump cared about most (other than Sessions) was Tillerson... He met with Tillerson for less than an hour and has never talked to him about any foreign policy issue. He doesn't care about any of these nominees other than Jeff Sessions and wouldn't get offended if they said "let's pick a well respected conservative education person from Texas because there are some political costs to DeVos."

This just seems stupid.
Click to expand...
It does send a message though: "we'll get what we want no matter what."
 
T

tuxfool

Banned
hammysaurusrex said:
Pay to play - and DeVos paid. There's a political risk to Republicans giving their cash cows a reason to doubt that big donations will get things through regardless of any grassrpots political opposition.
Click to expand...

Yup. And they didn't just pay Trump but a large number of Republican Senators.
 
I

IggyChooChoo

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Why don't Pence and Preibus just ask Trump to nominate someone else instead of spending so much effort dragging these obviously bad candidates to confirmation?

The pick Trump cared about most (other than Sessions) was Tillerson... He met with Tillerson for less than an hour and has never talked to him about any foreign policy issue. He doesn't care about any of these nominees other than Jeff Sessions and wouldn't get offended if they said "let's pick a well respected conservative education person from Texas because there are some political costs to DeVos."

This just seems stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Now they have a high-profile, incompetent ideologue who isn't liked by any actual voters. Hopefully we can make this work to our benefit when we make the case that Trump is out of touch with the electorate.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Thinking that letting Collins and Murkowski defect was a bad idea. If they didn't, it would be a partisan split and wouldn't have gotten people nearly as involved in calling GOP senators. Now incumbent vulnerable Rs have completely ignoring their constituents and people are pissed at Flake, Heller, Gardner, and so on. Constituents wouldn't as be mad if their vote wouldn't have blocked her.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
hammysaurusrex said:
Pay to play - and DeVos paid. There's a political risk to Republicans giving their cash cows a reason to doubt that big donations will get things through regardless of any grassrpots political opposition.
Click to expand...

Okay, but let's look at Tom Price. Because of the Obamacare focus, he's the most important cabinet member. Price is a crook whose corruption will taint their Obamacare repeal efforts. Trump has never even talked to Price... But the GOP is determined to shove him through.

Just ask Trump to nominate someone else!
 
S

sangreal

Member
the GOP forcing Price through makes perfect sense. He will gut Obamacare through obscure rules that nobody will pay attention to
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
News NSFW 639 640 641 642 643
32K
2M
EviLore replied
Kanye West Planning Russia Trip to Meet Putin and Perform Sunday Service, Says Advisor
21
2K
It's all in the wrist replied
NYTIMES - Report Points to Microwave ‘Attack’ as Likely Source of Mystery Illnesses That Hit Diplomats and Spies
News
7
2K
DisguiseArrsick replied
Gowdy: Trump advisers should consider quitting over Russia
0
545
Arkage replied
  • Locked
Trump "Owned by Russia for 30 years" says his "Art of Deal" Ghostwriter
2 3
131
9K
FStubbs replied
Top Bottom