|
gradenko_2000 posted:Is/was there an equivalent "here's what we learned/this is what we need to do better", either from the DNC in general or Clinton's campaign team specifically? And I mean besides not inviting Mark Penn back. Yes, the platform and the candidate did shift leftward (thanks in no small part to Sanders' challenge), but was there any significant lessons that came out of the 2008/2012 races for the victors? Yes and it was essentially 'our underlying assumptions about the country's dynamics and we should continue to hone our current techniques & outreach. Sanders is the only one to really shake things up because no one thought his brand of leftism was as popular as it turned out to be. It's telling about the party in general in how quickly they picked up a lot of his platform. I think many of them sincerely wanted to but held off thinking it was politically unpalatable.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:This. When someone is loving up you don't give them someone else to channel that poo poo towards. You leave them to wallow in their idiocy. When they're trying to recuperate and are actually pulling it back together is when you pounce. Trump's "theoretical" minimum of support is a lot lower than 35% of likely voters, being restricted as it is to literal white supremacists who attend meetings and pay dues, or whatever it is white supremacists do. The rest of that 35% consists of people who are just garden-variety racist shitheels, and they can be demoralized into not voting or bothering with politics ever again. This is the goal, or it should be: the permanent annihilation of the GOP in its present form until it either reforms or is replaced by another party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:This. When someone is loving up you don't give them someone else to channel that poo poo towards. You leave them to wallow in their idiocy. When they're trying to recuperate and are actually pulling it back together is when you pounce. Exactly. All that would happen if Hillary started attacking Trump right now is the Republicans would unite (however begrudgingly) behind Trump and focus on the evil HRC. Instead, because of Trump's propensity for verbally shooting himself in the foot (and head, and chest, and abdomen), the Republicans are in varying stages of despair and doing things like debating whether they should move all their campaign money to downticket races because they've all but given up any hope of winning the Presidency. Hillary's doing exactly what she should do: letting Trump sabotage himself, and not responding or reacting to him (beyond the occasional "can you believe this loving guy" tweet). Kilroy posted:No, when someone like Trump is loving up you pile on until they shatter. Donald Trump and the GOP deserve to be taken about as seriously as the Libertarians and the Green Party, at this point - less than that, even. What you're suggesting is what you do when you want to have a reasonably good chance of winning while expending the least amount of effort - that's not good enough. The GOP is self-destructing on its' own quite nicely, they really don't need any help. All that would be accomplished by having Hillary start an aggressive campaign of attack at this particular juncture is reminding the Republicans to rally together and try to put on a united front long enough to try and beat her. She's been around politics long enough to know what she needs to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cafedotcom/status/767187278393384964 Lmao I forgot about this dork.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/767359545186320385 It was only a matter of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:He will have a path to 270 EVs until November 9. Every Why risk distracting him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/767359545186320385 This is the first video result, and the replays of Clinton's little head-bob thing are loving hilarious, they're treating it like the Zapruder film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2FxYHfKyWk
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:https://twitter.com/cafedotcom/status/767187278393384964 I'm a millennial ('83, graduated HS in 2001) I don't think we wear bow ties like that unironically
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:This. When someone is loving up you don't give them someone else to channel that poo poo towards. You leave them to wallow in their idiocy. When they're trying to recuperate and are actually pulling it back together is when you pounce. Additionally, the media bandwidth is limited. The physical attack analogy doesn't map to this because if you shoot someone in the chest while they are shooting themselves in the foot they get the full damage of both shots. But in a media war if you attack while they are loving up you distract from the gently caress up and reduce the damage of the gently caress-up by giving people something else to talk about and watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
rscott posted:But Trump never stops digging The problem is that he's not digging directly downwards but more diagonally. And there's nothing saying that you can't start pouring water down the hole while he's busy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:The GOP is self-destructing on its' own quite nicely, they really don't need any help. The GOP position is not nearly as weak as you make it out. Not even the demographic position - they can patch things up with socially-conservative Latinos basically any time they want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If they control either branch of the legislature they will triple down on the party of "No" bullshit, and the resulting governmental and economic paralysis they will blame on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. And it will work. Fourth time's the charm I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
In theory, and in theory any establishment candidate could have beat Hillary, but the party is rotting from within and unwilling to change. Once they lose the supreme court they'll be unable to coerce either, and the voting blocks they rely on are rapidly filling up cemeteries. I'm sure it's still going to suck , but now there's light at the end of the tunnel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/767359545186320385 Google Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The GOP position is not nearly as weak as you make it out. Not even the demographic position - they can patch things up with socially-conservative Latinos basically any time they want. It will be years before shifting policy to incorporate non-white voters will represent a demographic gain for states that are even remotely in play. They've made their own bed at this point - getting to the 40%+ they currently have involves a whole lot of people who would actively take offense to the GOP courting any minorities, even socially conservative ones. Niton fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Antti posted:Okay, that makes sense. So Rasmussen might collect enough of a sample to get a technically good poll, but the house effect is expressed in how they collect the sample and interpret the results. Exactly, the technical term for it is a "Biased Sample". An extreme example would be something like polling 5000 people in Alabama and extrapolating that across the whole country. The mathematics of the poll would say it's very strong - something like 1% MOE - but the results would be meaningless. What gets tricky is when the biases are not obvious. Everyone is aware that demographics and geography play a huge part, but sometimes there are things that no one thinks of until after the polls are demonstrably wrong. The most recent example I can think of is the landline/cell phone split in the 2008 election. Many pollsters who were polling landline only got caught with their pants down when it was revealed there was a bias amongst landline users.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Anything short of an overwhelming Clinton landslide vistory means they keep the House, and they stand a good chance of keeping the Senate too. If they control either branch of the legislature they will triple down on the party of "No" bullshit, and the resulting governmental and economic paralysis they will blame on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. And it will work. They stand approximately a 1-in-4 chance of keeping the Senate. I wouldn't call that "a good chance."
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:https://twitter.com/cafedotcom/status/767187278393384964 Hahaha every generation recreates this same guy. It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Quorum posted:They stand approximately a 1-in-4 chance of keeping the Senate. I wouldn't call that "a good chance." Even if they do lose the Senate the Democrats shouldn't be anywhere near happy with having something like a 52-48 majority because 2018 is going to be an absolute bloodbath for them when the Obama coattail seats come back up. It should be very concerning to the party that Senate races are tracking closer and closer to national results seeing as how the GOP is extremely overrepresented in that model what with controlling so many low-population states, regardless of the "health" of the party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Hahaha every generation recreates this same guy. It's amazing. Unfortunately the human race is prolific enough a species that the dark spirits we have forged in our hours of malcontent will always find a new host.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The GOP position is not nearly as weak as you make it out. Not even the demographic position - they can patch things up with socially-conservative Latinos basically any time they want. Familial experience tells me this is basically true, as much as we'd like to think otherwise. Mexican Americans would happily sell out and become this century's European Catholic conservative "new white people" demographic in a heartbeat. The Republicans are presently too disorganized to take advantage of that, but we're right hosed as soon as they do and don't you forget it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
hiddenriverninja posted:I'm a millennial ('83, graduated HS in 2001) I don't think we wear bow ties like that unironically Wearing them ironically isn't better, it's practically worse! Also, I think Nigel Farange just got outplayed in the competition for cover-boy of the next issue of punchable faces magazine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Additionally, the media bandwidth is limited. The physical attack analogy doesn't map to this because if you shoot someone in the chest while they are shooting themselves in the foot they get the full damage of both shots. But in a media war if you attack while they are loving up you distract from the gently caress up and reduce the damage of the gently caress-up by giving people something else to talk about and watch. I'd also suspect that the  LAMESTREAM MEDIA would treat any major Clinton attack as the usual "Clinton claims [x], Trump says [y], clearly both have equal merit" scenario. Right now we've mostly just got Trump saying outrageous stuff and the way the airtime consequently gets filled isn't "both sides are the same," it's "wow look at how wrong that is."
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Clinton's attacks will be delivered via videos of Trump himself and by ordinary Americans he hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Clinton's attacks will be delivered via videos of Trump himself and by ordinary Americans he hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
I'm a millennial, born in 96, have vague memories of 9/11, and we will fix everything
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:The problem is that he's not digging directly downwards but more diagonally. And there's nothing saying that you can't start pouring water down the hole while he's busy. If you pour water down the hole then you look like an rear end in a top hat and you make it hard for the cameras to film his digging. This isn't the time for attacking Trump. It's the time for boosting Hillary. Positive campaigning. Like the 90's. We ran a budget surplus in the 90's. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. Bush then reversed all his good works by passing huge tax cuts. Hillary has promised to restore Clinton era taxes on the wealthy so they pay their fair share while not raising taxes on working people. In 1996 there was an increase in the minimum wage. This happened even though the GOP controlled congress and none other than Hillary Clinton was point woman on the negotiations with congressional republicans to get it passed. We need a minimum wage increase now. She's done it before. She's our best hope of doing it again. A public option would be a great thing and it's been in her platform not just since her campaign web page went up for this primary but since the 90's. But her campaigning to push the medicaid expansion to hold out states has the potential to be a knock out punch in the house. Hold out states are all red and largely poor. Millions of Americans in those states would be eligible for Medicaid if their government accepted the expansion. Her local campaigns in hold out states push this issue seeking to drive a wedge between the traditionally republican voters who live there and their party as well as GOTV in democrats for the down ticket by giving them a tangible, guaranteed reward for winning local races. The heavy lifting is done. The expanded Medicaid funds are right there, waiting for them. All their state government has to do is ask for them. But the bigger the blow out the easier it will be to do things like this. And the more we run up her score the more demoralized republican politicians will be. So go to her web site, start reading, find something you like, and talk about it. Not just here. In real life too. Turning the map blue from sea to shining sea would be revolutionary. It won't be easy and it's not certain but it's possible and it's worth fighting for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I should've separated those points, but basically Rasmussen typically has low MOE polls, other bad pollsters will use high MOE polls. It's two different strategies - doing a good poll, but with biased inputs, and just doing a bad poll. Whitesville is in Kentucky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:How many people are still using that site? I really doubt it's even a 4 digit number. Anecdotally, the freep thread sees a lot of the same users over and over. We can't really conclude that there are fewer active users from that alone. In fact, we can't easily detect the active user count at all. The overall post rate is less than half of what it was during their peak years, based on poking around with thread identifiers. The purge of all non-Romney supporters in 2008 and all non-Trump supporters this year have helped put a huge dent in the active userbase. The quarterly $80,000 fundraising drives now last most of the quarter instead of just over a month. Their userbase is walking away, getting banned, or literally dying. The community has distilled itself down to only the most hateful. We can expect the most potent freeper tears is recorded history if Trump loses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Familial experience tells me this is basically true, as much as we'd like to think otherwise. Mexican Americans would happily sell out and become this century's European Catholic conservative "new white people" demographic in a heartbeat. The Republicans are presently too disorganized to take advantage of that, but we're right hosed as soon as they do and don't you forget it. Would the current base even let them, though? Like, aren't they pretty committed to hating Mexican-Americans by now? Or are you expecting that this will be a "new base" altogether?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Anything short of an overwhelming Clinton landslide vistory means they keep the House, and they stand a good chance of keeping the Senate too. If they control either branch of the legislature they will triple down on the party of "No" bullshit, and the resulting governmental and economic paralysis they will blame on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. And it will work. You mean the Latinos--conservative or otherwise--that Trump has worked triple overtime to offend?  I fully understand your eagerness for the GOP to be blown up like the Death Star, but you can't rush this sort of thing. Sometimes you have to endure a slow-motion apocalypse. Hillary's not an idiot, she weathered nearly 3 decades of right-wing mudslinging, she knows that it's best to let Trump do as much of the job of killing off the GOP for her as he can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Would the current base even let them, though? Like, aren't they pretty committed to hating Mexican-Americans by now? Or are you expecting that this will be a "new base" altogether? It would have to be a new base and its not something the Gop has any path to doing anytime soon. If your party is built on loving over a ethnic group for literally generations suddenly saying oh man were totally the same religiously isn't going to pull anything but a fractional sliver. I mean Christ Cubans bailed on republicans last election
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
hiddenriverninja posted:I'm a millennial ('83, graduated HS in 2001) I don't think we wear bow ties like that unironically IIRC that twerp's some Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil-level moneyed dandy from Charleston. They probably made him change out of his standard August seersucker when he got in the studio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Even if they do lose the Senate the Democrats shouldn't be anywhere near happy with having something like a 52-48 majority because 2018 is going to be an absolute bloodbath for them when the Obama coattail seats come back up. What? Of course the goal is always a filibuster-proof, or hell, veto-proof majority, but that's literally unachievable not just this cycle but in general under this system. Nobody is expecting to be able to pass an entire legislative agenda following a Clinton victory, unless hell freezes over, the downballot collapses, and the Dems win a narrow House majority, in which case Kaine tiebreaks the filibuster into the grave and spends two years merrily dadjoking while presiding over the Senate and passing Full Communism. Otherwise, Clinton's plan is what she's already laid out: use two years of Senate majority to fill the many, many appointed positions left open by Republican intransigence and ensure a functioning federal government; likewise, destroy conservative control of the Supreme Court and leverage that to help end partisan gerrymandering; deal with Congress to pass a small number of things people can usually agree on if they're willing, or if not, make fun of them for not being willing to pass basic background checks and end sequestration (this stuff is all bonus if it gets passed, nobody's counting on it); and finally, wield the phone and pen to aggressively forward the agenda where possible via executive authority: further expanded EPA, DOJ, and DOL rules, investigations of police departments, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:https://twitter.com/cafedotcom/status/767187278393384964 Does anyone have the name of this guy, or a link to the video? I could use a good laugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
New republican tactic: Literally invent polls and make up numbers: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/42445...ery=/fclCC8d80p quote:A new poll shows that the majority of Utahns oppose the president naming Bears Ears region as a new national monument. Fancy poll companies! With their numbers! And math! The poll that upset them: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4224034-155/poll-most-utahns-favor-a-bears quote:The survey, commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, finds 55 percent of Utahns support the idea of protecting Bears Ears in southeastern Utah with a national monument designation. Some 41 percent oppose such a move. Their numbers: quote:Unpaid Poll: Do you support or oppose the 1.9 million acres of land becoming a monument? 96.3 percent oppose; 2.3 percent support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Hahaha every generation recreates this same guy. It's amazing. Every generation passes on the horrible dork gene onto the future. They crave to suck the dick of conformity, shame everything that isn't an uptight wad like themselves and wear horrible bow-ties. With genetic engineering, science could finally rid us of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Does anyone have the name of this guy, or a link to the video? I could use a good laugh. i forgot but it was the most Whitey McWhiterson name imaginable
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Is there a site with a list of what all of the battleground state and national polls were on this date 4 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Is/was there an equivalent "here's what we learned/this is what we need to do better", either from the DNC in general or Clinton's campaign team specifically? And I mean besides not inviting Mark Penn back. Yes, the platform and the candidate did shift leftward (thanks in no small part to Sanders' challenge), but was there any significant lessons that came out of the 2008/2012 races for the victors? Look at how this thread handled the first serious challenge to the DNC establishment in a long time during the primary and you'll have your answer as to how introspective people are itt. The same people who cheered on the destruction of the gop for refusing to accomodate the new demographics say the exact "gently caress em we don't need em" whenever someone suggests going after the youth vote and lose their marbles when anyone suggests that someone is to the left of Clinton. I mean the last time I remember it coming up there was a group of people that refused to acknowledge that Sanders had any influence on the platform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
