|
 Well I shouldn't have expected anything else, I suppose. I don't remember 2001 so well, but I probably tried to especially block out RonPaul news around that time.
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
"The 17th century" refers to the years between 1601-1700, hth
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:"The 17th century" refers to the years between 1601-1700, hth Which is why he couldn't have been alive to talk about American's gun rights, hth.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
My bad, I thought he was implying Hobbes was not a philosopher of the 17th century.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Hillary looks Cool and was attractive 35 years ago. Romney looks like what you'd end up with if an advanced alien civilization decided to create the most perfectly presidential looking android possible, to the point that he's basically a walking caricature. Hillary also looks cool but in a similarly evil old white establishment sort of way. At least she's not as boring as Kerry.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
You know who looks cool and sweet, Jill Stein.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:You know who looks cool and sweet, Jill Stein. If you wanted to make Romney look charismatic.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Whether or not Hillary is boring the fact is she is a woman. This alone makes her far more interesting than Kerry and would bring more voters. The comparison to 2004 are apples and oranges. We just went into Iraq in 2003. Patriotism was at all all time high. Calling Democratics traitors was in vogue and a narrative that worked much better back then. Kerry may have been boring but there was more in play.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I don't remember 2001 so well, but I probably tried to especially block out RonPaul news around that time. Letters of Marque would have at least been legal, unlike other Ron Paul tactics. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Letters of Marque would have at least been legal, unlike other Ron Paul tactics. "The animals are coming" 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Letters of Marque would have at least been legal, unlike other Ron Paul tactics. Well I'm gonna go drink something now, thanks Joe.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Also, a communist acquaintance of mine has weighed in on Bernie I think this is a good article to help the more hardcore commies be less dumb about Sanders https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-president-vermont-socialist/
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I think this is a good article to help the more hardcore commies be less dumb about Sanders No, Jacobin is dismissed as a "welfarist rag" by the hard core now.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I think this is a good article to help the more hardcore commies be less dumb about Sanders Who the gently caress reads Jacobin? also who cares about the hardcore? they are less than 1% of 1% of the general electorate and have 0 influence.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:Hillary is one of those people who, like Mitt Romney, just looks evil. It doesn't matter if she's actually quite a nice person, she exudes evil vibes. "That Hillary is evil I tells ya. Evil! Eeeeeeeevil!" "Vegetable, you said that about all the candidates." "I just want attention....."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Nah. Clinton/Castro vs. Santorum/Martinez. I'm not really sure if Bush or Walker really have sufficient conservative credentials to satisfy the rabid teapers. I just don't think that Castro really has it where as Cory Booker has huge appeal and name recognition and is spot on with his connections to the public whether that's him or a aide he definitely has shown to be a complete non issue with only minor problems in the past. There's nothing I can think of right now that stands out that Booker has gotten in trouble for. I'm telling you Cory Booker is going to get married, have kids and be VP. Castros like meh. No way it's Santorum and Martinez.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Who the gently caress reads Jacobin? also who cares about the hardcore? they are less than 1% of 1% of the general electorate and have 0 influence. I subscribe because the design is killer and there's normally two or three really strong features. In fact it's become pretty popular in media circles and (obviously) in lefty grad school circles. I'm neither of those things and I vote straight ticket Democratic no matter what but I do find it valuable to read current affairs through a harder left lens even though I want to strangle most Marxists.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:lefty grad school circles. AKA the people I least desire to be leading any kind of left wing government and the least prepared to understand the hardness faced by the lower classes and minorities. Jacobin is also full of writing by utter shitheads who don't understand foreign politics.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
I will cancel my subscription for you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:gently caress Electoral Votes are probably the only reason Democrats have any chance anymore. What is your rationale for this?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:What is your rationale for this? Without it more Republicans in large population states like New York and California would turn up to the polls and I expect they fare outnumber the extra Democrats that would turn out in the red states.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:gently caress Electoral Votes are probably the only reason Democrats have any chance anymore. This is very probably wrong. Elections right now are entirely focused on swing states, which are largely away from the major population centers. If campaigns were based on population, the big states like New York, California, and Texas would become more important for ensuring voter turnout in highly concentrated and easy to target population centers. This is where Democrats have a natural advantage--cities.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Without it more Republicans in large population states like New York and California would turn up to the polls and I expect they fare outnumber the extra Democrats that would turn out in the red states. Have you been drinking this evening sir?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:How is a generic white republican going to win against loving Hillary of all people? Literally Satan would still get 40-45% of the vote if he appeared on the ballot next to the words Republican Candidate
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:This is very probably wrong. Elections right now are entirely focused on swing states, which are largely away from the major population centers. Eh, 3 of the top 7 populated states were considered swing states in 2012 (although one of those was Pennsylvania which was a pipe dream).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Thank goodness that, unlike the notoriously unarmed populations of the Middle East, Americans have the tools to defend themselves against the ISIS attack sqauds that are totally, probably within our borders. Perhaps even next door! OH NO THE ISIS IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE! Honestly, they very well could be, just not in the take over the town and establish a caliphate sense. The border is porous, they have expressed a desire to perform attacks abroad and "seige" attacks have recently had a better track record than other stuff at generating large amounts of media attention. I could be quoting this and laughing at you in two years for being part of another "Sarah Palin on Russia in Ukraine" type of situation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ben Carson has some thoughts on guns. Some gun thoughts. This might be dumbest thing I've ever seen Carson say. I can't think of many things more inconvenient to a military unit than a bunch of civilians with guns wandering up and offering to help you out. It's like he thinks 1941 and Stripes are documentaries.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
The thing about a switch to EVs isn't whether there are so many unmotivated Democrats or so many unmotivated Republicans, its that Democratic populations are highly concentrated and there is only a limited amount of time to make your case in person to people. It would be much easier for a Democrat to hit up his base in the major cities by going around and filling up sports stadiums than it would be for a Republican to go around and talk to his more geographically diffuse base. Seeing a candidate in person really does matter for motivating people and thats a big plus for Democrats. Not to mention the increased ease of Democratic GOTV efforts versus GOP ones (think organized busing services and the like.)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The thing about a switch to EVs isn't whether there are so many unmotivated Democrats or so many unmotivated Republicans, its that Democratic populations are highly concentrated and there is only a limited amount of time to make your case in person to people. It would be much easier for a Democrat to hit up his base in the major cities by going around and filling up sports stadiums than it would be for a Republican to go around and talk to his more geographically diffuse base. Seeing a candidate in person really does matter for motivating people and thats a big plus for Democrats. Not to mention the increased ease of Democratic GOTV efforts versus GOP ones (think organized busing services and the like.) This is a much better post of what I was trying to describe when I said Democrats have an advantage in population centers. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Eh, 3 of the top 7 populated states were considered swing states in 2012 (although one of those was Pennsylvania which was a pipe dream). Yeah and swing states with 3 votes really don't add up to much.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Eh, 3 of the top 7 populated states were considered swing states in 2012 (although one of those was Pennsylvania which was a pipe dream). Of the 10 most populous states in 2014, six were considered safe (not counting PA in there, since while no Republican has won it since 1988, it has been close a number of times). Those six had 115 million residents to the swing states' 53 million. The next ten contains only one state contested by both parties in 2012. Swing states have maybe a third of the country's population.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Of the 10 most populous states in 2014, six were considered safe (not counting PA in there, since while no Republican has won it since 1988, it has been close a number of times). Those six had 115 million residents to the swing states' 53 million. The next ten contains only one state contested by both parties in 2012. Swing states have maybe a third of the country's population. PA is safe as hell until someone nukes Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. So you really should remove that 12.7 million from your swing state count.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Of the 10 most populous states in 2014, six were considered safe (not counting PA in there, since while no Republican has won it since 1988, it has been close a number of times). Those six had 115 million residents to the swing states' 53 million. The next ten contains only one state contested by both parties in 2012. Swing states have maybe a third of the country's population. The net difference in EV would be about the same if you did it proportionately though. Yes you can say "well people would campaign differently" but in most of those big states Democrats would lose more than Republicans, whereas small states are more likely to be very conservative and hence not split their votes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:PA is safe as hell until someone nukes Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. So you really should remove that 12.7 million from your swing state count. quote:Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,485,967 50.60% quote:John Kerry John Edwards Democratic 2,938,095 50.92% Thats pretty loving swingy. Not to mention the fact that since that time we've elected a Republican AG, a Republican governor and two Republican senators (Specter counts since he was R during the election.) We've had this debate on PA's status multiple times, fishmech, and you are just plain wrong on it. The numbers do not back you up. It's not a tipping point state, PA going R will only ever occur after places like Ohio, Virginia and Florida already have but its a definite possibility to flip. I find the guy saying that the top ten only contains four states to be weird though because aside from FL and PA the bottom four is all various definitions of swing state. Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan? They've all been contested at various points in post 1998 elections. edit: Oh, he was talking about "states contested in 2014" which is an extremely odd way to measure it since state races are often very different from national ones. You might as well say that Iowa isn't a swing state because historically it was always very supportive of its two senators, nevermind that one was a conservative Republican and the other a liberal/mainstream Democrat. Cliff Racer fucked around with this message at 05:58 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Without it more Republicans in large population states like New York and California would turn up to the polls and I expect they fare outnumber the extra Democrats that would turn out in the red states. It's the opposite. States like CA and NY have extremely low turnout, while battleground states tend to have very high turnout. Those people who aren't turning out are largely Democrats. A national popular vote would be a huge boon to the Democratic party, which is why it will never happen.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:2000 results quote:edit: Oh, he was talking about "states contested in 2014" which is an extremely odd way to measure it since state races are often very different from national ones. You might as well say that Iowa isn't a swing state because historically it was always very supportive of its two senators, nevermind that one was a conservative Republican and the other a liberal/mainstream Democrat.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:2000 results No it isn't. You need to learn to read. Cliff Racer posted:
No we haven't you no name nerd. But if we did it would just be you being wrong more times than usual! PA has voted consistently either Democrat or more towards the Democrats than the country at large since 1976. For example, in 1988 Bush won 53% nationally but just barely over 50% in PA. 1984: PA votes 53% Reagan, country votes 58%. 1980: PA 49.6% for Reagan, US is 50.8%.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Without it more Republicans in large population states like New York and California would turn up to the polls and I expect they fare outnumber the extra Democrats that would turn out in the red states. OK but here in reality, in the last Presidential election Democrats won the majority of votes cast for the House, Senate, and Presidency.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
If only I had a name like yours fishmech. Oh woe is me to not literally have my name being used as a verb by people who are sick of reading my endless waves of poo poo.Nintendo Kid posted:PA has voted consistently either Democrat or more towards the Democrats than the country at large since 1976. For example, in 1988 Bush won 53% nationally but just barely over 50% in PA. 1984: PA votes 53% Reagan, country votes 58%. 1980: PA 49.6% for Reagan, US is 50.8%. Thats not what swingstate means you stupid fucker. Its states that can realistically cast their votes for either party. I literally even said the same thing you just did about it not being a tipping point state but I guess you turned your loving brain off before getting to that part. CaptainCarrot posted:Michigan and Georgia have not been seriously in question for presidential races in the last fourteen years. Georgia was close-ish in 2008, but only because it was a very Democratic year.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No it isn't. You need to learn to read. "Swing" does not mean "always votes for the winner". Pennsylvania has consistently been very close, with the exception of 2008, and both parties have devoted significant amounts of manpower and energy to winning it for the last several cycles.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:14
|
|