• 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 Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

APF

Member
So... you were being sarcastic? Um, whaa? Honestly, I think you may be losing it, because you're making no sense whatsoever. You know what that article was in reference to, right?
 
T

tanod

when is my burrito
APF said:
So... you were being sarcastic? Um, whaa? Honestly, I think you may be losing it, because you're making no sense whatsoever. You know what that article was in reference to, right?
Click to expand...

An attempt by the NY Times using an outdated study from 2004 to discredit Obama's assertion that people in small town America have turned to wedge issues because they feel the government isn't going to take care of the issues causing them grief in the first place.
 
A

APF

Member
tanod said:
An attempt by the NY Times using an outdated study from 2004 to discredit Obama's assertion that people in small town America have turned to wedge issues because they feel the government isn't going to take care of the issues causing them grief in the first place.
Click to expand...
2004... you mean, like from the last Presidential election? 2004... when Obama was making a historical argument about electoral politics? 2004... the last time social "wedge issues" were blamed for losing an election for the Dems? WTF are you on about?
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
APF said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17bartels.html
Click to expand...
tanod said:
OMG, the NY Times totally owned Obama there! Obamameltdown confirmed. Nice try APF.
Click to expand...
APF said:
You can't be serious.
Click to expand...
tanod said:
Since nothing's changed since 2004.
Click to expand...
APF said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
tanod said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10760781&postcount=9725

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10761191&postcount=9745
Click to expand...
APF said:
Uhh... you can't be serious?
Click to expand...
tanod said:
Is sarcasm a foreign concept in the OT?
Click to expand...
2e2kmcy.gif
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
BTW, because apparently we hadn't reached the stupid quota with Bush's "Your holiness, awesome speech"....

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/bush_measure_of_success_succes.html

President Bush was asked today what he says to critics who see no end in sight in the war in Iraq – is it an open-ended war? And he effectively said it is – at least for the remaining 10 months of his presidency.

“So long as I’m the president, my measure of success is victory – and success,’’ the president said in the Rose Garden, standing alongside British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, leader of a nation that has stood as the staunchest ally of the United States at war in Iraq and Afghanistan but has begun to draw down troops from Iraq and is moving its remaining forces “from combat to over-watch.’’


“It hasn’t been easy,’’ Bush said of the war. “It’s been difficult. It’s taken longer than I anticipated. But it’s worth it…. When it comes to troop levels and duration, my question is, what does it take to win?’’

Brown also had met privately with each of the major parties’ candidates for president before his session with Bush, and he was asked about those meetings with Sens. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama -- had he felt “a special kinship’’ for any of the three?

“One of them has a good chance of winning,’’ interrupted Bush, who had embraced McCain in this same Rose Garden after the Arizonan clinched the GOP’s presidential nomination.

“It is,’’ Brown said dryly, “for Americans to decide who their president is going to be.’’ He came away from his meeting with each candidate, however, with a sense that the relationship between Britain and the U.S. “will remain strong.’’
Click to expand...

facepalm.gif
 
A

APF

Member
Seriously guys: your knee-jerk rejection of facts and data, simply because they don't correspond to your political hero-worship, is as hilarious as it is frankly disturbing.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
For you latecomers out there I'll summarize the thread so far:

-APF spots a negative Obama article. Do to his compulsion to post anything anti-Obama, APF posts the article asap.
-Tanod spots the number 2004 in the article and tries to use it to discredit APF. He doesn't read the article though
-Tanod and APF get into an argument but neither clarify their arguments
-Political GAF is confused
-Posters who dislike APF immediatly jump on the bandwagon. They don't read the article either
-No one has yet to talk about the article itself
 
A

APF

Member
The article confirms part of what I've been saying from the beginning: that Obama was wrong not only in word choice, but on basic history as well. There's "something" in what he was saying, but it wasn't what he actually said--or has said in the multiple times he's tried to "clarify" his words.
 
S

Star Power

Member
While I agree that it's silly to bash APF the 2004 thing, I don't really get the point of osting that article. I mean, it's an editorial... I can find an editorial by someone who agrees with Obama's point! I can find an entire book:

0805073396.01.LZZZZZZZ-712531.jpg



So...
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
grandjedi6 said:
For you latecomers out there I'll summarize the thread so far:

-APF spots a negative Obama article. Do to his compulsion to post anything anti-Obama, APF posts the article asap.
-Tanod spots the number 2004 in the article and tries to use it to discredit APF. He doesn't read the article though
-Tanod and APF get into an argument but neither clarify their arguments
-Political GAF is confused
-Posters who dislike APF immediatly jump on the bandwagon. They don't read the article either
-No one has yet to talk about the article itself
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll break the chain.

For the sake of concreteness, let’s define the people Mr. Obama had in mind as people whose family incomes are less than $60,000 (an amount that divides the electorate roughly in half), who do not have college degrees and who live in small towns or rural areas. For the sake of convenience, let’s call these people the small-town working class, though that term is inevitably imprecise. In 2004, they were about 18 percent of the population and about 16 percent of voters.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's who Obama was talking about, exactly. He was talking about people in small towns in Pennsylvania who have been hit with manufacturing job losses over the past 10 years. Not small towns in the entire country. The context was PA, and specifically the issues impacting that region. Broadening out his comment to mean all small towns loses the point entirely - he was responding to a question about issues from a campaigner for PA. This renders all of his data meaningless (it was a National Election Study, not a PA one).

And also, it's from 2004. I don't know how much things have shifted since then in Pennsylvanians minds, but the political landscape and general electorate sure are different now than four years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if a similar study yielded different results right now.
 
S

Star Power

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Okay, I'll break the chain.


I don't think that's who Obama was talking about, exactly. He was talking about people in small towns in Pennsylvania who have been hit with manufacturing job losses over the past 10 years. Not small towns in the entire country. The context was PA, and specifically the issues impacting that region. Broadening out his comment to mean all small towns loses the point entirely - he was responding to a question about issues from a campaigner for PA. This renders all of his data meaningless (unless, of course, it was all for PA only).
Click to expand...


Actually, he was talking about small towns around the country, including PA and his homestate Illinois. I don't remember if he said this in the full original text, but he did say it in one of his subsequent explanations of the original comment.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Star Power said:
Actually, he was talking about small towns around the country, including PA and his homestate Illinois. I don't remember if he said this in the full original text, but he did say it in one of his subsequent explanations of the original comment.
Click to expand...
Ah, you edited what I was about to say. The original context was that he answered a question from a PA campaigner about issues in PA (IIRC). In later explanations, he broadened it out to include the state he was giving a speech in and his "home state of Illinois". But even then he specified small towns hit with manufacturing job losses.

I don't claim to know how voters decide to vote - people continue to mystify me - but it does seem to vary widely by region. The article may well be spot-on, but I think it's worth noting that he's using data from a set very different from what Obama was talking about.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Small-town, working-class people are more likely than their cosmopolitan counterparts, not less, to say they trust the government to do what’s right. In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of Michigan, 54 percent of these people said that the government in Washington can be trusted to do what is right most of the time or just about always. Only 38 percent of cosmopolitan people expressed a similar level of trust in the federal government.
Click to expand...

Uhm, that says that small-town, working-class people voted for Bush in 04.

No? Left-leaning voters in 2004 would have told you that they could not trust the government to do what's right. How is this news?

Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to reflect voters’ positions on gun control and gay marriage.
Click to expand...

This doesn't say for whom cosmopolitan voters voted for. The assumption here is, that pro-choice and anti-gun cosmopolitans [which tend to lean left], voted against GWB because of his stance on abortion and gun rights. How is this news?

Small-town, working-class voters were also less likely to connect religion and politics. Support for President Bush was only 5 percentage points higher among the 39 percent of small-town voters who said they attended religious services every week or almost every week than among those who seldom or never attended religious services. The corresponding difference among cosmopolitan voters (34 percent of whom said they attended religious services regularly) was 29 percentage points.
Click to expand...

What's the sample size? Did this study poll an even number of small-town people and an even number of cosmopolitan people?

PLUS, polling small-town residents in Michigan is VASTLY different than polling small-town residents in Kansas or Alabama. Where was this study conducted? Nationwide? Michigan only? This type of shit matters and the article provides none of that.

Take this article with a grain of salt unless someone can provide me clearer numbers as to where this study was conducted.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
reilo said:
PLUS, polling small-town residents in Michigan is VASTLY different than polling small-town residents in Kansas or Alabama. Where was this study conducted? Nationwide? Michigan only? This type of shit matters and the article provides none of that.

Take this article with a grain of salt unless someone can provide me clearer numbers as to where this study was conducted.
Click to expand...
From the article:

In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of Michigan
 
Z

Zeed

Banned
grandjedi6 said:
For you latecomers out there I'll summarize the thread so far:

-APF spots a negative Obama article. Do to his compulsion to post anything anti-Obama, APF posts the article asap.
-Tanod spots the number 2004 in the article and tries to use it to discredit APF. He doesn't read the article though
-Tanod and APF get into an argument but neither clarify their arguments
-Political GAF is confused
-Posters who dislike APF immediatly jump on the bandwagon. They don't read the article either
-No one has yet to talk about the article itself
Click to expand...
-grandjedi6 delivers his latest sermon from the mountaintop

In all seriousness I actually did read the article and thought it made some interesting points, but so long as APF is involved intelligent discussion is unlikely to succeed and unwise to attempt. Fire with fire.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
GhaleonEB said:
From the article:

In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of Michigan
Click to expand...

I know it was conducted by University of Michigan, but that does not mean they polled Michigan. If they polled nationwide, this article might have some credibility.

If they polled Michigan only? Pfft, fuck that. Who in their right mind would argue that small-town Michigan residents represent small-town residents everywhere in the United States?
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
reilo said:
I know it was conducted by University of Michigan, but that does not mean they polled Michigan. If they polled nationwide, this article might have some credibility.

If they polled Michigan only? Pfft, fuck that. Who in their right mind would argue that small-town Michigan residents represent small-town residents everywhere in the United States?
Click to expand...
I assumed "national election study" meant it was nation-wide. But we don't know, as you said.

Edit: is this it?

http://www.electionstudies.org/announce/newsltr/20050120.htm

Before the election, we interviewed 1,212 people for approximately 62 minutes each between September 7th and November 1st, for a response rate of 66.1%. No interviewing was conducted on Election Day. We interviewed these respondents, again, immediately after the election. The post-election study interviewed 1,067 of the pre-election respondents for approximately 63 minutes each between November 3rd and December 20th, for a re-interview rate of 88.0%. All interviews were conducted face-to-face. Data collection for the time-series studies was conducted by the Survey Research Center ( http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/) at the University of Michigan.
Click to expand...

And here:

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR/STUDY/04245.xml

It was a national survey.
 
H

harSon

Banned
APF said:
Seriously guys: your knee-jerk rejection of facts and data, simply because they don't correspond to your political hero-worship, is as hilarious as it is frankly disturbing.
Click to expand...

And in your case the opposite is true. Any news that doesn't completely shit on Obama's face , you turn your back too. How about looking into a mirror before making such frivolous remarks?

I'm sure you'll quickly respond with some witty off-the-wall red herring remark.
 
A

APF

Member
Star Power said:
While I agree that it's silly to bash APF the 2004 thing, I don't really get the point of osting that article. I mean, it's an editorial... I can find an editorial by someone who agrees with Obama's point! I can find an entire book:
Click to expand...
The author if the editorial I linked to finds holes in Frank's analysis, part of which is related there.

Re: other comments:

--Obama was talking about small towns in PA, and small towns in the midwest; the scope of his comments covered both the Clinton and Bush Admins; he specifically said, "25 years;" he did not say, "manufacturing."

--The study, AFAICT from Google, was a national study of the contiguous US, that did pre and post election surveying. Also, it wasn't commissioned via time travel to discredit HH The Second Barack Obama PBUH.
 
M

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
scorcho said:
what Petraeus is asking for is a continuation of the means as an end unto itself. it has zero bearing on the original goals behind the surge and there is zero definition on what 'victory' even means. there's zero end strategy, zero concept of what we want other than utopian musings. also, if both H&O feel that an open commitment in Iraq is NOT in our national interests then they have every right to dismiss Petraeus' statements. he's a tactician, not the policy maker.

the military doesn't drive policy, they give tactical recommendations insofar as they are capable to for the civilian leadership to consider. that's it.
Click to expand...

If the Democrat wins in the fall and starts the withdrawal process, be prepared to say that over and over and over and over.

There will be stories about high ranking military officials recommending the US maintain the current troop levels. Details could vary (anonymous or public, current or former), but it seems really, really likely to me.
 
mashoutposse

mashoutposse

Ante Up
APF said:
The author if the editorial I linked to finds holes in Frank's analysis, part of which is related there.

Re: other comments:

--Obama was talking about small towns in PA, and small towns in the midwest; the scope of his comments covered both the Clinton and Bush Admins; he specifically said, "25 years;" he did not say, "manufacturing."

--The study, AFAICT from Google, was a national study of the contiguous US, that did pre and post election surveying. Also, it wasn't commissioned via time travel to discredit HH The Second Barack Obama PBUH.
Click to expand...

Your article states that there are other groups that are more likely to vote based on the non-economic social issues. That's all well and good, but what does that have to do with what Obama said? He never claimed that small town Pennsylvanians are the only people to vote this way, nor that they are the most predisposed to that kind of voting.

Obama's theory and that article are not necessarily incompatible.
 
A

APF

Member
mashoutposse said:
Your article states that there are other groups that are more likely to vote based on the non-economic social issues. That's all well and good, but what does that have to do with what Obama said? He never claimed that small town Pennsylvanians are the only people to vote this way, nor that they are the most predisposed to that kind of voting.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here. As you said, he's saying better-off groups are more likely than worse-off groups to vote according to non-economic concerns. The point of mentioning that is to note the correlation is in fact the opposite to what Obama was suggesting. Saying Obama's comments weren't necessarily incompatible with this, is only accurate in the smallest measure; further, doesn't serve the argument he was making, which was an attempt IIRC, to explain "working class culture" to wealthy west-coast elites, and why they (the working class) won't vote for him.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
APF said:
further, doesn't serve the argument he was making, which was an attempt IIRC, to explain "working class culture" to wealthy west-coast elites, and why they (the working class) won't vote for him.
Click to expand...
How the fuck do you get "This is why people won't vote for me" from "People are angry and bitter?"
 
mashoutposse

mashoutposse

Ante Up
APF said:
I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here. As you said, he's saying better-off groups are more likely than worse-off groups to vote according to non-economic concerns. The point of mentioning that is to note the correlation is in fact the opposite to what Obama was suggesting.
Click to expand...

No, it is not "opposite" to Obama's suggestion since Obama's suggestion never included or hinted at a comparison to the voting tendencies of the better-off.

Saying Obama's comments weren't necessarily incompatible with this, is only accurate in the smallest measure; further, doesn't serve the argument he was making, which was an attempt IIRC, to explain "working class culture" to wealthy west-coast elites, and why they (the working class) won't vote for him.
Click to expand...

Essentially, Obama was trying to explain why the working class tends to be on the other side of these issues. Nothing more, nothing less. This is totally independent of any differences in voting behavior between the groups. Again, Obama never suggested that, for instance, working class voters are more vociferously against gun control than the "elites" are for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Most Commonly Spoken Foreign Languages in Each State (Besides Spanish)
2 3
121
14K
Mr. Wedgewood replied
  • Locked
USA Today: Clinton in commanding position for 270 EC votes
2 3 4 5
228
38K
Already Torn replied
  • Locked
Gallup: LGBT Identification Up, Vermont Highest (5.3%), South Dakota Lowest (2.0%)
49
7K
poppabk replied
  • Locked
Is it known as the RMV or DMV in your state?
2
72
9K
Desi replied
  • Locked
Fivethirtyeight: The Rust Belt has been turning red for a while.
2
62
12K
Foffy replied
Top Bottom