|
These "powerless people" who are "fleeing for their lives" *does finger quotes*
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:Aaaaaah the woman pointing and laughing That's Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Actually I think you'll find it's Hillary that is unelectable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:To be fair, these don't seem especially harmful. (gently caress the other bullet points) There certainly are employees, particularly older ones who would rather have the extra time off than extra pay, and disclosure of political activity is never a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
So turns out that HP under Fiorina made millions selling printers to Iran under her watch. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-14/under-fiorina-hp-earned-millions-from-sales-in-iran Would love to see Trump bring this up during the debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
How many times did Carly's printers print "Death To Israel?" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Rocks posted:So turns out that HP under Fiorina made millions selling printers to Iran under her watch. Probably hatred of Iran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
A lot of this seems like blowback from the email scandal, which will likely fade by election time. The Republicans will still be pushing it, but my guess is that will just remind people that "the Clintons did a thing" is the original "thanks Obama." That's not to say that Clinton couldn't have handled it better. The proper response from her would be "using a private email server in my position was legal and in keeping with past and current practices, but this controversy has brought the fact that those practices are dangerously out of date to my attention. Here is how my administration would improve electronic security standards." I'm hesitant to fault her for not being more open, though, because one wrong word from her and the Republicans will act like she shouted "death to America and freedom" while making GBS threads on a burning flag. On the other hand, a lot of it is also enthusiasm for Sanders. Clinton does need to respond to the leftward turn in Anglosphere politics, and her instincts might not serve her well there. Reminds me of the Liberals and NDP here in Canada, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Hell I know I've switched my support to Trump, I can see how a lot of people would. I don't agree with him on immigration, but let's face it, his plan isn't going to be able to work. I'm all for his higher taxes on higher earners though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:A lot of this seems like blowback from the email scandal, which will likely fade by election time. The Republicans will still be pushing it, but my guess is that will just remind people that "the Clintons did a thing" is the original "thanks Obama." Any voter brought to a point of indecision has a major chance of turning away from their original champion. It doesn't matter how Clinton responds at this point, the lost voters have been disjointed, there's no umbilical cord between them and Hillary, and, as long as they are in the least interested in politics, they are increasing their investment in other candidates by the day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Hell I know I've switched my support to Trump, I can see how a lot of people would. I don't agree with him on immigration, but let's face it, his plan isn't going to be able to work. I'm all for his higher taxes on higher earners though. Don't kid yourself. His plan will fail in the sense that large amounts of people will die in the process of being deported, not in the sense that it will fail to get off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
cant wait to hide illegals under my floorboards during the trump presidency
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Don't kid yourself. His plan will fail in the sense that large amounts of people will die in the process of being deported, not in the sense that it will fail to get off the ground. Eh, it's America in 2015, we'll do better than the Trail of Tears this time I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Any voter brought to a point of indecision has a major chance of turning away from their original champion. It doesn't matter how Clinton responds at this point, the lost voters have been disjointed, there's no umbilical cord between them and Hillary, and, as long as they are in the least interested in politics, they are increasing their investment in other candidates by the day. Polls fluctuate, especially when the choice is between two people you generally agree with and like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Eh, it's America in 2015, we'll do better than the Trail of Tears this time I think. higher bodycount 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Eh, it's America in 2015, we'll do better than the Trail of Tears this time I think. No, you won't. Especially since most of the people doing the deporting actively want to kill Mexicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:cant wait to hide illegals under my floorboards during the trump presidency Maybe if we rebrand the underground railroad as a pipeline, Republicans will support it
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Polls fluctuate, especially when the choice is between two people you generally agree with and like. Yes, they fluctuate, but a substantial part of the loss is irretrievable, and the further Hillary plummets, the greater the share of the permanently lost vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
No way Trump can really deport people, not with #failoftears on the case!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, they fluctuate, but a substantial part of the loss is irretrievable, and the further Hillary plummets, the greater the share of the permanently lost vote. Do you have any evidence for this at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Eh, it's America in 2015, we'll do better than the Trail of Tears this time I think. You're right, we'd force magnitudes more people to emigrate in this hypothetical than the trial of tears did, which means Excelzior posted:higher bodycount
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, they fluctuate, but a substantial part of the loss is irretrievable, and the further Hillary plummets, the greater the share of the permanently lost vote. Reversion to the mean is just as, if not more likely than momentum and "further plummeting."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, they fluctuate, but a substantial part of the loss is irretrievable, and the further Hillary plummets, the greater the share of the permanently lost vote. I am curious, why do you think this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Identifying and deporting 11 million people will be indistinguishable from ethnic cleansing. Just detaining all hispanics to determine their immigration status would kill millions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Hey look, it's even got the ring and the rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Hey look, it's even got the ring and the rear end in a top hat. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Not to mention you'd be dumping millions of people back into Mexico all at once. While many would have families to return to, the results will still be economic, and therefore political, chaos and will likely kill people who weren't immigrants in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Do you have any evidence for this at all? http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110667?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://web.stanford.edu/~jrodden/issues_apsr.pdf http://www.jstor.org/stable/1907685?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110667?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents None of those seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:None of those seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand. They describe voter preference formulation as being imperfectly flexible, i.e. arguing that voters become entrenched throughout an information exchange process, and become more difficult to sway the more often the change is induced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They describe voter preference formulation as being imperfectly flexible, i.e. arguing that voters become entrenched throughout an information exchange process, and become more difficult to sway the more often the change is induced. I'll admit to not really understanding the game theory one on the basis of the abstract alone; but of the other two, one describes the voting patterns of low-information voters as varying depending on the features of the specific campaign (tending to act against political change in cases where they have a significant impact), and the other argues that "low-information" voters actually have well-defined policy preferences that affect their voting patterns just as strongly as supposedly more engaged voters. Neither really says much about preference change during the course of a campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'll admit to not really understanding the game theory one on the basis of the abstract alone; but of the other two, one describes the voting patterns of low-information voters as varying depending on the features of the specific campaign (tending to act against political change in cases where they have a significant impact), and the other argues that "low-information" voters actually have well-defined policy preferences that affect their voting patterns just as strongly as supposedly more engaged voters. Yes, they argue there are strong material preferences among voters, which, in my reading of the articles, translate into strong voting preferences once these voters make a committed decision. Seeing as many Hillary's supposed supporters decided to move away from her, and towards an ambiguous status, this will lead to a net loss for her as these uncommitted people become entrenched about their interests and their political conceptualization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:alleged Some, he assumes, are good people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, they argue there are strong material preferences among voters, which, in my reading of the articles, translate into strong voting preferences once these voters make a committed decision That doesn't necessarily follow, except in that arguing that one has "strong voting preference" once one "make[s] a committed decision" is true tautologically. quote:Seeing as many Hillary's supposed supporters decided to move away from her, and towards an ambiguous status, this will lead to a net loss for her as these uncommitted people become entrenched about their interests and their political conceptualization. One thing that someone pointed out in a D&D thread is that these polls that show support for Hillary declining are also polls that include Biden. The article we're discussing builds an anecdotal argument that she is losing support to Sanders, but the more likely conclusion is that voters who have a preference for Hillary are also likely to consider Biden. Apart from that, you're assuming that people will automatically become entrenched the minute they shift away from Hillary, which is pretty spurious considering that there hasn't even been a Democratic primary debate yet. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
i dont think its that much of a stretch to say that people rarely change their minds more than a couple times for their presidential candidate preference and each time it becomes harder to shift their internal narrative about who they are supporting and why
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:If America had been founded in the early days of written language, the current version of the War of Independence would end with Washington defeating the ten-headed demon-tyrant George III and his entire army in single combat with a giant axe named Liberty. Also, his first term would have lasted 3,000,000 years or so before he translated directly to heaven to sit at God's right hand as the Archangel of Freedom. Already got the fresco. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Already got the fresco. even creepier irl imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Hey look, it's even got the ring and the rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:i dont think its that much of a stretch to say that people rarely change their minds more than a couple times for their presidential candidate preference and each time it becomes harder to shift their internal narrative about who they are supporting and why Fair enough, but that doesn't really mean that the first shift in polling determines the overall momentum of a campaign. (Here's a prediction: Sanders will either win or do very well in Iowa and New Hampshire and the narrative will be that Hillary is doomed, and then she will win a huge amount of races in the South on the basis of her strong support from black delegates there and that being her current strategy, from which it will become a horse race favoring Hillary).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
I can't believe this isn't a photoshop,this election already topping 2012 and it's not even the Iowa caucus yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:38
|
|
