|
Okonner posted:Oh good this old argument is back from 2012. "The last election was clearly a one-time fluke surge of the Obama coalition." Hey now. It was a TWO TIME fluke.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Okonner posted:Oh good this old argument is back from 2012. "The last election was clearly a one-time fluke surge of the Obama coalition." I don't think funtax is saying it was definitely a fluke, just that we don't really know how the Obama coalition will perform with a candidate that isn't Obama. Especially if that candidate is, shall we say, somewhat less inspiring than Obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
I'd say the number of republicans in the running can be traced to other causes. For one, the party's factions are becoming increasingly divergent. This makes room for various candidates to try to appeal to different bases within the party: you've got the evangelicals (Huck, Carson and Rick), the libertarians (Rand), the rear end in a top hat spite wing (Trump and Cruz) and the "traditional" republicans (Bush and Walker, maybe Rubio?), amongst others. The divisions within the party makes it difficult for consensus to build around one candidate. The other thing going on is that right wing politics has become a business in its own right in America, and a presidential run is a great way to get your name out there so you can be invited onto talk shows and pull in speaking fees, regardless of the feasibility of actually winning. Edit: let's not forget as well that living in the right wing bubble can distort reality. In 2012 republicans had convinced themselves that Obama's first term was a disaster and he would be easily defeated. This time around they think that everyone feels the same way about Hillary as they do. HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
New Bad Lip Reading went out, this time it's the GOP primary debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU The Carson one is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:I don't think funtax is saying it was definitely a fluke, just that we don't really know how the Obama coalition will perform with a candidate that isn't Obama. Especially if that candidate is, shall we say, somewhat less inspiring than Obama. As long as the Rs keep being terrible wrt minorities, which are increasingly important every cycle, it should be ok.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In the sense of the very model of a modern major-general. I don't know what I expected but it wasn't this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:New Bad Lip Reading went out, this time it's the GOP primary debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU Holy gently caress that's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Edit: let's not forget as well that living in the right wing bubble can distort reality. In 2012 republicans had convinced themselves that Obama's first term was a disaster and he would be easily defeated. Ahahaha. Were you alive and conscious in 2010? How about 2004? Do you have any memory of what Democrats were saying the run-up to either election?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Ooofff
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:New Bad Lip Reading went out, this time it's the GOP primary debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU This is amazing. Best summarization of the campaign so far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:New Bad Lip Reading went out, this time it's the GOP primary debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU cruz is also great
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Nagato posted:Ahahaha. Were you alive and conscious in 2010? How about 2004? Do you have any memory of what Democrats were saying the run-up to either election? Were people unskewing polls?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:New Bad Lip Reading went out, this time it's the GOP primary debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU Christie and Paul arguing is a thing of beauty
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:I don't think funtax is saying it was definitely a fluke, just that we don't really know how the Obama coalition will perform with a candidate that isn't Obama. Especially if that candidate is, shall we say, somewhat less inspiring than Obama. Correct. Anyone who doesn't consider the Obama Coalition "special" is going to have a fairly tough time making their case. While I'm not arguing that cohorts within that coalition cannot be motivated by other candidates or circumstances, it strikes me as fairly naive to assume that 2008 and 2012 represented permanent shifts in voter attitudes, engagement and behavior and that Democrats can safely assume that the Obama Coalition is now a guaranteed bloc that will reliably turn out for future Presidential elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ooofff
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:It's 100 percent intentional. I know someone who works on the campaign and they're all laughing about it while playing the video clip on loop all day. Someone fill me in on the joke since it seems like I'm missing something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
funtax posted:Correct. Anyone who doesn't consider the Obama Coalition "special" is going to have a fairly tough time making their case. While I'm not arguing that cohorts within that coalition cannot be motivated by other candidates or circumstances, it strikes me as fairly naive to assume that 2008 and 2012 represented permanent shifts in voter attitudes, engagement and behavior and that Democrats can safely assume that the Obama Coalition is now a guaranteed bloc that will reliably turn out for future Presidential elections. Sorry, to be clear - are you saying that the Obama Coalition is going to fall apart, or that the Obama Coalition may still exist but that the extent to which you get turnout might still vary? Because it's hard for me to see any of the constituent parts of the coalition abandoning the Democratic Party in the near term. But it's obviously a much more open question to what extent they're actually going to vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Someone fill me in on the joke since it seems like I'm missing something. Marco Rubio threw a football at a kid's head. The boy is in critical condition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
funtax posted:This isn't even close to true. The reason we have so many Republicans running this time around has a lot to do with the fact that this is a very attractive race for them to run in - arguably, the most attractive race since 1980. There's no presumptive Republican frontrunner based on strong performance in the previous cycle and/or being VP. Approval for the outgoing administration is stagnant, which historically impacts the administration's party negatively. We have Republicans turning off minorities at a record pace, choosing retarded hills to die on like birth control and gay marriage, and Donald Trump. Explain how Trump has a 50-50 chance at beating either Bernie or Hillary, please. Your argument really sounds a lot like the argument Neil Newhouse made to Romney in 2012--that 2008 was a fluke and would never happen again. I might concede that the sheer magnitude of the Obama coalition may not be as pronounced this time, but do you really think Hispanics will jump ship to the GOP? African-Americans? Women (especially if Hillary is the nominee)? Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ooofff Throwback to what, his 1984 campaign? That doesn't even make sense, even by clowncar standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Were people unskewing polls? Yes... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31047.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
tbf didnt rasmussen end up way off in 2012?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I'd say the number of republicans in the running can be traced to other causes. For one, the party's factions are becoming increasingly divergent. This makes room for various candidates to try to appeal to different bases within the party: you've got the evangelicals (Huck, Carson and Rick), the libertarians (Rand), the rear end in a top hat spite wing (Trump and Cruz) and the "traditional" republicans (Bush and Walker, maybe Rubio?), amongst others. The divisions within the party makes it difficult for consensus to build around one candidate. The other thing going on is that right wing politics has become a business in its own right in America, and a presidential run is a great way to get your name out there so you can be invited onto talk shows and pull in speaking fees, regardless of the feasibility of actually winning. That plays a part in it, but was a better explanation for the higher percentage of completely non-viable candidates in 2012. The bench of viable GOP candidates is much deeper this time around, largely because everyone recognizes that this election represents a rare opportunity due to a lot of factors that have nothing to do with the attitudes and emotions within their party. You have to imagine what it was like 14 months out from elections in previous years to really "get" why so many serious Republican candidates have decided to jump in now, as opposed to those previous cycles: 2012 - Romney had performed well in 2008 and was the presumptive nominee. They were going to face an incumbent in the general election, which is always tough. 2008 - A disastrous year, wildly unattractive to any serious potential candidate who wasn't running up against concerns about their age. 2004 - GOP Incumbent 2000 - Clinton's popularity was in the mid-60s, GOP brand was further damaged by scandal, ill-advised impeachment, general Newt-based misadventure. This looked like a very hard race early on (and turned out to be). 1996 - The effects of the '94 revolution had faded, Clinton was popular, the government shutdown seriously hurt the GOP brand. 1992 - GOP Incumbent 1988 - GOP VP 1984 - GOP Incumbent 1980 - Democratic incumbent in a death-spiral of low approval, wretched economy, terrible optics on numerous fronts. Republican nominee has a very good chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Xenophon posted:link is here Thanks for posting this. 32% "not sure" regarding favorability for Bernie. So the lower numbers for Bernie still make sense. I know it's funny, but having Deez Nuts as a choice doesn't sit well with me. I'm not a pollster, but in a professional manner I have authored surveys (customer satisfaction surveys) with a much higher than industry average response rate. For example, if I wanted a "trap" answer to judge political awareness/stupidness, I would have a fake candidate name like "Jeffery Johnson" or some such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what exactly are the "new" parts of the Obama coalition that didn't vote D before 2008? Other than people who were 17 and younger in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Zelder posted:I guess the question is, whose definition of model are we using here? I figure D&D would have a very different definition of "model" liberal than MSNBC. Well it would obviously have to be an SA definition, since we're here and not in the MSNBC comment section, and since Nintendo Kid is a D&Der it would probably be the D&D definition by most reasonable standards. Nintendo Kid posted:Yes it is. Outliers are not the model, my pal. Nintendo Kid posted:In the sense of the very model of a modern major-general. Hint: The guy in that song is not arguing that he is a common, run of the mill, average major general. He is arguing that he is the ideal major general, because every one of his attributes and actions is one that should be possessed by or taken by the person he believes a major general should be. Although I suppose you might be saying here that your version of a model liberal is as hosed up as his version of a model major general. I guess I could buy that!  The "run of the mill" citizen is lazy, ill-informed, biased, and team-oriented. Would you seriously argue that these traits also describe a "model" citizen just as well? Obviously not, because that would be stupid. Okay, well, it would be stupid, but I'm not actually so sure about the obviously any more. Hillary Clinton is definitely a liberal. She ticks a huge number of boxes. But you claimed there was not a single point where she strayed from what the "model" liberal, and I named on - the expectations for a model liberal would have had them vote against the war in Iraq, and she did not. Unless you actually think that voting for the war in Iraq is what the modal liberal would have done, and anyone who voted against it was actually less liberal because of it... but I'm not sure if you actually want to argue that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Can someone give me an overview over Clinton's email thing? I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State is explicitly allowed to hold classified material outside of DoS buildings & servers at their own discretion so this reeks of standard hay-making but I haven't really followed this topic at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:Throwback to what, his 1984 campaign? That doesn't even make sense, even by clowncar standards. Throwback means retro in sports apparel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:I've got to be honest, if a pollster called me and listed Deez Nuts as a candidate, I'd be compelled to answer that. This is exactly the point PPP is making yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Well it would obviously have to be an SA definition, since we're here and not in the MSNBC comment section, and since Nintendo Kid is a D&Der it would probably be the D&D definition by most reasonable standards. No, common does determine it when we're talking about politicans. Hey buddy, are you aware of the concept of a "joke"? I hear they're quite popular these days. But sure go on with your lengthy rant about a facetious reference to a comedic musical isn't an exact description of reality. Next tell me about airline food! Necc0 posted:Can someone give me an overview over Clinton's email thing? I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State is explicitly allowed to hold classified material outside of DoS buildings & servers at their own discretion so this reeks of standard hay-making but I haven't really followed this topic at all. Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:Sorry, to be clear - are you saying that the Obama Coalition is going to fall apart, or that the Obama Coalition may still exist but that the extent to which you get turnout might still vary? Strictly speaking, I'm saying we have no idea. I suspect we'll see portions of it hold together and portions of it fade considerably, but it's really hard to pin any of that down this far out from the actual election. Most people simply don't care enough at the moment for most polls to reliably inform us about the attitude of likely voters 14 months from now. quote:Because it's hard for me to see any of the constituent parts of the coalition abandoning the Democratic Party in the near term. But it's obviously a much more open question to what extent they're actually going to vote. I would generally agree, though I think it's a mistake to assume there's no way for some Republican candidates to appeal to certain parts of the Obama Coalition. George W. Bush pulled in 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (9% HIGHER than he received in 2000). I can easily see Jeb doing the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ooofff This might be the best piece of campaign swag I've seen thus far, even above the MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN trucker cap. If I was right wing I would wear that. In recent memory, only the classic #44 Obama basketball jersey has it beat. (I do own one of those).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
funtax posted:Strictly speaking, I'm saying we have no idea. I suspect we'll see portions of it hold together and portions of it fade considerably, but it's really hard to pin any of that down this far out from the actual election. Most people simply don't care enough at the moment for most polls to reliably inform us about the attitude of likely voters 14 months from now. That's fair. funtax posted:I would generally agree, though I think it's a mistake to assume there's no way for some Republican candidates to appeal to certain parts of the Obama Coalition. George W. Bush pulled in 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (9% HIGHER than he received in 2000). I can easily see Jeb doing the same. I really can't see Jeb doing so - partly because I think the political climate in general, and the rhetoric on immigration specifically, has changed over the last 12 years, but mostly because Jeb's a putz. But I agree with the point in principle. The question is to what extent the Republican Party is actually capable of doing that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I might concede that the sheer magnitude of the Obama coalition may not be as pronounced this time, but do you really think Hispanics will jump ship to the GOP? African-Americans? Women (especially if Hillary is the nominee)? I could certainly see a candidate like Jeb! picking up enough of the Hispanic vote to put himself over the top, yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Mr Hootington and the rest of you brave goons going to events: Any time a candidate mentions the importance of STEM education, can you ask them a simple math/science question? Like the sine of 2pi or the volume of a cone. Maybe what printf does. I think it'd be fun to see how bad they flub them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Can someone give me an overview over Clinton's email thing? I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State is explicitly allowed to hold classified material outside of DoS buildings & servers at their own discretion so this reeks of standard hay-making but I haven't really followed this topic at all. I think it only applies to material the State Department has declared classified? And the materials on her server were from other classifications? funtax posted:I would generally agree, though I think it's a mistake to assume there's no way for some Republican candidates to appeal to certain parts of the Obama Coalition. George W. Bush pulled in 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (9% HIGHER than he received in 2000). I can easily see Jeb doing the same. Nintendo Kid posted:No, common does determine it when we're talking about politicans. quote:Hey buddy, are you aware of the concept of a "joke"? I hear they're quite popular these days. But sure go on with your lengthy rant about a facetious reference to a comedic musical isn't an exact description of reality. Next tell me about airline food! GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Can someone give me an overview over Clinton's email thing? I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State is explicitly allowed to hold classified material outside of DoS buildings & servers at their own discretion so this reeks of standard hay-making but I haven't really followed this topic at all. Hillary did a thing that previous Secretaries of State had done, but to a greater degree. When the inevitable outrage machine started up, she stonewalled because that's what Clintons do when face to face with the outrage machine. While not a particularly good idea, totally shady, and wrong, Clintons actions will turn out to be technically legal or at worst nonpunishable. We've got a few more weeks or so of EMAILGHAZI before a new round of scandal starts up. The new scandal will of course range in severity from Chipotle tipping to Vince Foster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Just wanted everyone to know that I saw my first Trump bumper sticker in the wild today. It was partially obscured by a Confederate flag that had been wedged between the tailgate and the camper top.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:We have Republicans turning off minorities at a record pace, choosing retarded hills to die on like birth control and gay marriage, and Donald Trump. As I said initially, Trump won't be the nominee. I also explained that the 50/50 split is on generic balloting because head-to-head polls this early on are exceptionally unreliable (to the point where you're better off ignoring them entirely at this time in the cycle). quote:Your argument really sounds a lot like the argument Neil Newhouse made to Romney in 2012--that 2008 was a fluke and would never happen again. Which is not what I said. It would have been silly to argue that people who found him inspiring in 2008 would all just wander off in 2012 (much less vote for Romney). quote:I might concede that the sheer magnitude of the Obama coalition may not be as pronounced this time, Which IS what I said (mostly). quote:but do you really think Hispanics will jump ship to the GOP? African-Americans? Women (especially if Hillary is the nominee)? Again, strictly speaking, I have no idea (and neither does anyone else). I think the right GOP nominee could absolutely appeal to a decent chunk of Hispanic voters. Other cohorts are harder to appeal to, for a variety of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Hillary did a thing that previous Secretaries of State had done, but to a greater degree. When the inevitable outrage machine started up, she stonewalled because that's what Clintons do when face to face with the outrage machine. While not a particularly good idea, totally shady, and wrong, Clintons actions will turn out to be technically legal or at worst nonpunishable. We've got a few more weeks or so of EMAILGHAZI before a new round of scandal starts up. The new scandal will of course range in severity from Chipotle tipping to Vince Foster. I think the conservatives have hosed themselves over here. The email thing should be a big deal, but the response I've seen most often is that people just don't care. Outrage fatigue. They've been after her for so long over so many nothings and nothing has ever stuck, so anyone who is likely to be swayed by this can easily write it off as the same thing as the last hundred times they've made stuff up about her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:03
|
|