|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
awesmoe posted:black people who have heard of him like him 66% I think you're putting too much stock in that article, bro. The following is all generalities: Right now I'm of the opinion that most black people that know of him really only know of him on a superficial level, enough to say "Yeah, I know that Bernie Sanders guy. He's running against Hillary." Black progressives that are passionate about politics probably feel the same way most of us progressives do, in that Bernie is the bees knees. Whatever the case, I've inarguably put myself out there and I'm ready to be made the fool. In the case of Trump, I actually hope I am. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
That is an insult to Cthulhu. Well done, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Also, another question about the democratic nomination. Are there any polls at this time that compare how Clinton/Sanders would do in the presidential election (if they win the nomination) against GOP? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ Rubio up 9 and 7 on Clinton in MI and PA?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Any polls on general election matchups are probably not worth paying any attention to at this point
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Look folks, it's just August... Trying to extrapolate from polls the idea that Bernie and Trump won't end up as nominees is simply impossible this far out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Bernie has done a terrible job of discussing issues that are important to minorities, since he believes wealth inequality is more important than racism. The Clinton/Trump/Nutz poll was North Carolina only. Also this whole thing is loving absurd and these polls mean literally nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Foo posted:I want to believe, Boosted, I want to belieeeeeeeeeeeeve. Yeah. I got Florida wrong too. I though Romney would win both those states and only lose by a few electoral votes. He came pretty drat close though. The Obama machine was just so good at churning out new idiots to replace the ones that abandoned him after reality set in for four years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Looks like Walker's waffling on birthright citizenship is doing a lot of damage. The one thing the right cannot stand is weakness... Hell even FOX NEWS is in on the dogpile: Walker appears to take third stance in seven days on birthright citizenship issue http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/23/walker-appears-to-take-third-stance-in-seven-days-on-birthright-citizenship/
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Look folks, it's just August... The polls aren't really the main evidence used by the people who think that, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:Yeah. I got Florida wrong too. I though Romney would win both those states and only lose by a few electoral votes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:"this time it's different!" - a bunch of people every 4 years shortly before learning that it's actually not different at all You know what's different this time? Deez Nutz!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:The polls aren't really the main evidence used by the people who think that, though. Bingo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:The polls aren't really the main evidence used by the people who think that, though. So, even more vague and less scientific than your average poll? Tell me more. I'm not so sure that, "guys...uh...look at the trends..." is necessarily less accurate than "trust us, the establishment will eventually stop dropping the ball and loving up." Of course, we all agree that it is impossible to make predictions this far out as it is, so it is good we can all be so reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Are you 15 years old while I don't agree with it I can understand the logic behind picking a poo poo candidate in the general election if you're picking a poo poo candidate when better ones exist in the primary then you're just an rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
hosed up if true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
quote:In presidential primaries, endorsements have been among the best predictors of which candidates will succeed and which will fail. So we’re keeping track. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Traditionally this number is MUCH more important than early polling... Please note that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have zero endorsements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:A question since I don't know much about American politics. Why is Sanders trailing Clinton in minorities votes? Clinton works a lot with leaders of the black communities including pastors, NAACP members and a whole bunch and has heard and listened to concerns. She's talked about addressing problems as president, and a lot of people trust her. It's mostly trust. Bernie however only until very recently came around to figuring out how to communicate with the community, and though that you could resolve most race issues through economics. THat's dumb and misleading. Sanders hasn't done enough to earn the trust of the minorities, nor has he cared until recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Basically, you look at everything. In no particular order... - Is this person a good speaker / debater - Is this person likable - Is this person passionate - Is this person a strong leader - How much do you think the base trusts this person - Does this person have a propensity to screw up in ways that matter - Does this person have a strong narrative or a story - Is this person building real lasting momentum vs. manufactured momentum - What do the polls say about this person - How much does negative and positive media seem to affect this person - How much do opinion shapers on each side seem to support this person - How much money does this person have. How much money can they get. How effectively can they use that money - what do you know about human nature, what do you know about people that vote dems, what do you know about people that vote repub - what do you know about the media - what type of establishment backing does this person have - and a bunch of other things
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Montasque posted:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Also Jeb has this:  And the entire backing of the GOP establishment, plus backing of the entire Koch organization (which has field operations right now that are as strong as a presidential campaign) once the race thins out. There's no way Trump can keep up this in all the states which his comparative less resources and organization. Three speeches a week isn't going to cut it. The real danger for the GOP though is if he lasts long enough into 2016 to where he runs 3rd party; although I suspect that all of his supporters will quickly disappear if it appears that he's a loser to Jeb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Montasque posted:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Error: sample size too small. Past elections didn't have intermittent debates featuring a well-honed reality TV star who's greatest strength seems to be managing momentum - of course, I wouldn't predict that he'll get the nomination either, since, like Trump's doubters remind us, the future is opaque.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Montasque posted:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Didn't Senator Sessions essentially endorse Trump at that Alabama rally the other day?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Trump hasn't stumbled once. He has repeatedly said things that 20-30% of the Republican voters agree with. Yes, that includes calling out John McCain, RINO extraordinaire and his easily written-off calls for what you people seem to believe is UHC. However, among that same 30% are a whole bunch of people who realize that, while Trump may be speaking truth to power, he's ultimately saying things that make him completely and totally unelectable in a general. These people will be desperately casting about for a sane establishment candidate come election day. The real question is whether there will be a front-running establishment candidate that everyone can settle on, or if the voters fleeing Trump split their vote, leaving Trump with enough of a lead to declare victory in Iowa and NH. Jeb and Walker seem intent on imploding, so let's see if Rubio can pick up the slack. Not likely! Montasque posted:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ They'll line up behind him if he gets enough of a vote lead. I just don't think that if he wins Iowa it'll be by enough of a margin to pressure the party elites into supporting him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Error: sample size too small. I agree that Trump throws a big monkey wrench in things, but if I was a betting man I would bet on Jeb Bush. Foo posted:Didn't Senator Sessions essentially endorse Trump at that Alabama rally the other day? Sessions has not officially endorsed anyone. Trump did get some State legislators though... Litany Unheard posted:
They very well may line up behind him. Trump's personality and cash could upset the apple-cart, but who's to say? We are still 5 months out, anything can happen. Montasque fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Basically, you look at everything. In no particular order... then you throw half of those away and find a way to make the others support your faith-based conviction in the eventual victory of the candidate you support
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Trump hasn't stumbled once. He has repeatedly said things that 20-30% of the Republican voters agree with. Yes, that includes calling out John McCain, RINO extraordinaire and his easily written-off calls for what you people seem to believe is UHC. masses of republican voters dont make strategic decisions like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Also Jeb has this: One of the things I don't get about this is why the GOP candidates raise most of their money through super pacs? SuperPACs have some glaring disadvantages (can't control the message, more expensive ad buys w/r/t radio, tv, print, etc). The only thing I can guess is because donors feel more comfortable giving to a superpac in case the candidate folds the Super PAC can just move toward helping the winning candidate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:masses of republican voters dont make strategic decisions like this. Individual voters do, and I expect a lot of people are going to be less and less comfortable voting for a reality TV star as they get closer to election day. Or I'm wrong, whatever. Just enjoy the ride. Xanderg posted:One of the things I don't get about this is why the GOP candidates raise most of their money through super pacs? SuperPACs have some glaring disadvantages (can't control the message, more expensive ad buys w/r/t radio, tv, print, etc). The only thing I can guess is because donors feel more comfortable giving to a superpac in case the candidate folds the Super PAC can just move toward helping the winning candidate? Unlimited donations. I can only give a candidate $2,700, but I can write a Super PAC however big a check my bank will honor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Xanderg posted:One of the things I don't get about this is why the GOP candidates raise most of their money through super pacs? SuperPACs have some glaring disadvantages (can't control the message, more expensive ad buys w/r/t radio, tv, print, etc). The only thing I can guess is because donors feel more comfortable giving to a superpac in case the candidate folds the Super PAC can just move toward helping the winning candidate? Because GOP candidates are bankrolled by a few billionaire sugar daddies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Xanderg posted:One of the things I don't get about this is why the GOP candidates raise most of their money through super pacs? SuperPACs have some glaring disadvantages (can't control the message, more expensive ad buys w/r/t radio, tv, print, etc). The only thing I can guess is because donors feel more comfortable giving to a superpac in case the candidate folds the Super PAC can just move toward helping the winning candidate? Because GOP candidates aren't very good at campaigning, or inspiring potential donors to do the old shell corporation/give your family and some employees exactly the donation limit and "encourage" the to donate it game to evade limits
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:then you throw half of those away and find a way to make the others support your faith-based conviction in the eventual victory of the candidate you support I'm not throwing anything out. I'm saying that you should try to put things in context and see the forest from the trees. Don't get too caught up on the importance of a single tree (and yes, some trees are bigger than others and do matter more).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:However, among that same 30% are a whole bunch of people who realize that, while Trump may be speaking truth to power, he's ultimately saying things that make him completely and totally unelectable in a general. These people will be desperately casting about for a sane establishment candidate come election day. This is the part that interests me here. Sincere question: how do you know this? Really, think about it: why are we so sure that these people will abandon him? Thank our Lord Jesus Christ for President Trump, but eh, I'm not actually going to vote for him? Yes, of course not all supporters are that rabid, but this seems like quite a bold claim to take on faith with no substantiation. Indeed, until a primary is held, we can't even assume that Trump supporters won't be more likely to turn out, than say, Jeb Bush's famously enthusiastic followers. In that context, it is important to also consider, or, in anticipation of mockery of this idea, it is not immediately so ridiculous so as to warrant flippant dismissal to consider the impact that Trump may have on demoralizing the opposition by making them look like, to use a phrase Boosted shamelessly and seemingly unironically employs,little beta bitches. Trump may yet lose, but he doesn't blink. Lastly, I think a hugely underrated and underdiscussed aspect of his candidacy is that he has spent enough years watching ratings to know just how short the average attention span is today. My major concern is that he's using August to shore up the crazy vote and will then swing to the center (which we've already seen him capable of doing, AND without losing conservative "credibility") - of course, this remains to be seen, but he has the loudest voice and comes across as sincere: combine that with short attention spans and an obsessive attention to the media narrative process...I guess we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Sorry, original still more disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Bingo. That doesn't make them bad arguments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:This is the part that interests me here. Sincere question: how do you know this? Really, think about it: why are we so sure that these people will abandon him? Thank our Lord Jesus Christ for President Trump, but eh, I'm not actually going to vote for him? Yes, of course not all supporters are that rabid, but this seems like quite a bold claim to take on faith with no substantiation. I, like everyone else here, am pulling things out of my rear end. Polling is notoriously unreliable this far out and national polls mean nothing. I don't think Trump will be able to maintain such strong leads all the way into February, but I can't prove that because I can't see into the future. Vote Trump, kill your parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:That doesn't make them bad arguments. I would say that it doesn't make them invalid arguments. I think some arguments can be stronger than others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Legit question what would bernie do if Warren Buffet put his money where his mouth was and started a SuperPAC for his campaign?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:I would say that it doesn't make them invalid arguments. I think some arguments can be stronger than others. Sure. I tend to think that structural knowledge of the primary process makes for stronger arguments than just sort of naively looking at polling numbers. But that's an argument that you can make, probably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Sorry, original still more disturbing.  (attributed to this person: https://twitter.com/TomAdelsbach) e: original tweet: https://twitter.com/TomAdelsbach/status/635503457265324032 Von Sloneker fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Also Jeb has this: Donald Trump could probably scrape up the amount of money that is represented on that entire graph without having any material effect on his standard of living. I don't understand why "Jeb! has A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS" is supposed to be some kind of magic bullet against a billionaire. A lack of a field operation isn't a problem that Trump money can't solve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 00:42
|
|
