|
VitalSigns posted:If they were successful every time great, but if they gently caress up every one in a while and lose to the craziest most dangerous republican anyway that's a pretty big problem! Any idea if this proposal was ever implemented? They don’t really say who in the campaign it’s from (WikiLeaks link is now broken) and what the DNC’s response to this proposal was. Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 21, 2022 |
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Rigel posted:I stand corrected. I'll still maintain that the effort did not help Trump. Why not? If someone shows you that you were completely wrong about a point you made, if you're going to respond with "oh whoops guess I was wrong but I still think I was right" I feel like you need to elaborate a bit more
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Why not? If someone shows you that you were completely wrong about a point you made, if you're going to respond with "oh whoops guess I was wrong but I still think I was right" I feel like you need to elaborate a bit more Maybe you need to go back and re-read the posts, it seems clear enough to me. There were two separate points here. 1) Did Hillary Clinton try to help Trump, yes or no? I said no, VitalSigns said and proved yes. 2) If so, did that effort make a difference to Trump winning the nomination. I said no, Vitalsigns basically said maybe, maybe not, he wasn't sure. I still say no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Maybe you need to go back and re-read the posts, it seems clear enough to me. Note, this is based on a memo that suggested it as a strategy, with few specifics on what, precisely was done. It's quite open to debate what the Democrats actually did in concrete terms and what result could have come from it. I think if you're going to say Trump won the Republican primary because of his Democratic support you need a bit more than a memo saying "we should try these messaging things to get the result of a too-radical Republican candidate". For example, how was this accomplished? Ad buys? Social media? And then, when did it start happening, and were there poll changes in terms of the primary. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Maybe you need to go back and re-read the posts, it seems clear enough to me. Okay, so in regards to point 2, what makes you think that. What are you basing that on, and is that answer not affected at all by you learning about point 1 for the first time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Okay, so in regards to point 2, what makes you think that. What are you basing that on, and is that answer not affected at all by you learning about point 1 for the first time? Common sense. Point 2 is fundamentally a subjective question that does not have a definitive objective answer without a time machine and the ability to control the Hillary Clinton campaign in both timelines. I lived through the election, it was obvious to pretty much everyone after the primary that Trump was a force of nature who just bulldozed the GOP field without help from anyone other than the fawning media and the GOP's collective failure to see him as a threat until too late.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Personally my gut is that Hillary's help was irrelevant because her strategy (get the media to focus on him and the outrageous things he says) was also his strategy and he is way better at that than she is anyway. He needed Hillary to trick the media into covering an empty stage for hours because he promised them a scoop and then just shilled Trump steaks or whatever? Nah, no way. But there's a tension in the arguments here. If helping the worst Republican is irrelevant because Democrats aren't capable of influencing the outcome of Republican primaries then why is it smart strategy? Sounds like a waste of time and resources that could be better spent making a case to their own voters. How do we know McCaskill wasn't wasting her money helping Akin, did Hawley need McCaskill's help to win too? Or do we only decide the Democrat must have successfully influenced the Republican primary when the terrible Republican goes on to lose the general, in which case it was brilliant reverse psychology, but not when the terrible Republican wins the general, because oops that means we put him there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Trump is a boorish oaf, which makes him relatable to his base, plus he represented a form of wish fulfillment because he was actively rewarded for saying out loud the sort of poo poo that usually gets you sent to HR and then fired. It's the logical extension of Dubya's whole "He looks like the sort of guy I could get a beer with." persona.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But there's a tension in the arguments here. If helping the worst Republican is irrelevant because Democrats aren't capable of influencing the outcome of Republican primaries then why is it smart strategy? The GOP field was very large and split. Akin won with a small plurality of 36%, so it would not have taken much. The conventional wisdom is that McCaskill helped him win, but that is obviously not knowable and maybe he would have won anyway. What is probably not in much doubt is that any other reasonable Republican would have likely beaten her in that race, Akin was probably her only shot. She still needed a lot of luck, and got it when Akin imploded spectacularly. She lost re-election the next time around because Missouri is a lovely red state. VitalSigns posted:Sounds like a waste of time and resources that could be better spent making a case to their own voters. Eh, I do believe it is a marginal strategy that could sometimes be worthwhile in some races, and any investment in this strategy should be small. It probably only has a small chance of paying off, but using a tiny amount of your budget to help a crazyman in your opponent's primary is probably better than whatever you can add on top of your already massive general election effort. (From a bit of quick research, it looks like Claire's campaign only spent about 3% of their money on this effort) If this became a common strategy where the DNC was doing this all the time in all competitive races with a lot of money, then that would probably be stupid. Rigel fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If this became a common strategy where the DNC was doing this all the time in all competitive races with a lot of money, then that would probably be stupid. Would you consider $44 million a lot of money? I would. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...imaries/7/15/22 quote:Political groups and nonprofits aligned with the Democratic Party have spent nearly $44 million on advertising campaigns across five states’ Republican primaries to boost the profile of far-right candidates in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Would you consider $44 million a lot of money? I would. Lets see, in the 2018 midterm candidates spent $1.1B. If half was Democrats that would be $550M, so almost 10%? Yes, that is too much. That seems dumb and bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
What does “elevating” even consist of? Attacking a particular guy and saying “watch out for this extreme whackadoo”?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If they were successful every time great, but if they gently caress up every one in a while and lose to the craziest most dangerous republican anyway that's a pretty big problem! This is pretty clearly discussing a media strategy in which, rather than dismissing fringe candidates like Trump as radical outliers, the Clinton campaign would claim that all Republicans were as extreme as Trump and that even the self-proclaimed moderates were actually extreme-right. It doesn't say anything about trying to help Trump win the election. Rather, it's clearly about portraying the GOP candidates (and the GOP as a whole) as an extremist far-right party whose positions were more in line with Trump than with Romney. And as it turns out, they were right on the money there!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is pretty clearly discussing a media strategy in which, rather than dismissing fringe candidates like Trump as radical outliers, the Clinton campaign would claim that all Republicans were as extreme as Trump and that even the self-proclaimed moderates were actually extreme-right. If that's what you think you should read it again more carefully because it's not simply about "portraying the GOP candidates as in line with Trump", but making them actually fall in line with him.  The only way this strategy could force Trump's opponents to adopt his positions to beat him, is if it succeeded in making Trump more likely to win. If it didn't make him more likely to win, his opponents wouldn't have to do anything different as a result of the Pied Piper strategy, obviously. If the Hillary campaign succeeded, whoever won would be more like Trump. One possibility is that the winner would be Trump (a complete success). Or that the winner would have Trump's positions which really isn't any better if those Trumpy positions go on to win in the general regardless of who the candidate is. Rigel posted:Eh, I do believe it is a marginal strategy that could sometimes be worthwhile in some races, and any investment in this strategy should be small. It probably only has a small chance of paying off, but using a tiny amount of your budget to help a crazyman in your opponent's primary is probably better than whatever you can add on top of your already massive general election effort. (From a bit of quick research, it looks like Claire's campaign only spent about 3% of their money on this effort) In that case, debating whether Hillary actually helped Trump is an irrelevant distraction. If you think the strategy could work sometimes at changing the Republican primary winner, then you have to address the fact that sometimes the Democrat will go on to lose the general, either by loving up, or simply by circumstances out of anyone's control. You can't avoid it by saying "well the time the crazyman won I don't think he needed help" because that's not always guaranteed to be true, and anyway this implies that if the 2016 Republican primary had been susceptible to meddling from Hillary that she should have picked crazyman Trump. You could say that any Republican is so bad it doesn't matter if the worst one wins (and I think you did), but is that really true? I mean, some Republicans just voted for gay marriage in the House. Other Republicans want to put gay people in camps. Are you going to tell me if we could pick any Republican to be president we may as well pick the one that wants to murder all the gays? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What does “elevating” even consist of? Attacking a particular guy and saying “watch out for this extreme whackadoo”? Well the idea here is that the stupid, idiotic (so dumb) GOP primary voters will see that and go "GOOD! Too conservative, the left is scared of him, hah that is what I'm looking for, THAT is who I'm votin' for!" And maybe the Missouri example is just the one weird unrepeatable longshot where it apparently worked to perfection, but that is the idea. If that sounds like a dubious longshot, well it is, so that is why I'd say you should spend very little on that plan if you were even ever going to do it at all. It is a political scratch-off lottery ticket, could pay off big, but probably won't work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
It feels like there's a long term risk even if the crazy Republican does end up losing in the short term. If you're helping crazy Republicans win more often, other Republicans are going to notice this happening and feel pressured to get more crazy themselves to win primaries (after all you never get a shot at the general if you can't win the primary right). Since, as we saw in 2016, the Democrat is not actually guaranteed to beat the crazy man, is it smart long-term to help that crazy radicalization along? OK maybe McCaskill put Akin over the top in 2012 instead of a moderate Republican and then she beat him and kept that seat blue. But she also showed Missouri Republicans that being crazy will put you on top of the heap, and then the next time that seat was up a crazy dude won the Missouri primary by 40 points instead of 10 points, then kicked her rear end in a blue wave year. So how well did the pied piper strategy of helping radicalize the Republican base really work out in the end. Not too well it seems after a decade of hindsight. Like, the assertion is McCaskill's strategy tipped the scales for Akin. And then the strategy paid off when she beat him and she would have lost to a moderate. But if she'd lost to that moderate there would have been an incumbent and we might not have gotten Hawley instead. Was it worth it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well the idea here is that the stupid, idiotic (so dumb) GOP primary voters will see that and go "GOOD! Too conservative, the left is scared of him, hah that is what I'm looking for, THAT is who I'm votin' for!" And maybe the Missouri example is just the one weird unrepeatable longshot where it apparently worked to perfection, but that is the idea. Right, but we should just be clear about what’s involved. I mean, attacking an opponent early sounds like very normal politics that also defines that person to the non-chud electorate. That’s a pretty far cry from campaigning for an opponent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Right, but we should just be clear about what’s involved. I mean, attacking an opponent early sounds like very normal politics that also defines that person to the non-chud electorate. That’s a pretty far cry from campaigning for an opponent. Well the strategy is doing things like sending mailers etc saying stuff like "this guy is too conservative" to conservative Republicans with the idea that they'll say "good that's what I want" so it is campaigning for him actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
How are u posted:Bernie did have massive popular support, it's very encouraging. It was enough to land him in second place, but it was not enough to win after the split field turned into 2 candidates, and Biden unified everybody else behind him. Bernie's heart attack in 2020 also hurt his chances. NOTE: In 2016 I donated more $$$ to his campaign then the total sum of all my political donations (my first vote was for Carter, I am old), I am a fan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
I have to respect Fetterman's commitment to the bit on this one. Bill Pascrell - the Congressman who represents the North Jersey district where Dr. Oz's mansion and legal residence until late 2020 is located - has officially nominated Dr. Oz for a spot in the New Jersey Hall of Fame. The requirements to be nominated are: quote:Nominees must have a contribution in one of five categories: General, Enterprise, Sports, Arts & Entertainment, and Historical. With only rare exceptions, nominees must have resided in New Jersey for a period of at least five years. The New Jersey Hall of Fame appoints 100 people (20 experts from each category) to nominate inductees. Only those 100 people can nominate new candidates, and Bill Pascrell is one of the 100 experts nominated by the board, so Dr. Oz is actually officially nominated for the New Jersey Hall of Fame class of 2022. https://twitter.com/PascrellforNJ/status/1550228745113460738
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you're helping crazy Republicans win more often, other Republicans are going to notice this happening and feel pressured to get more crazy themselves to win primaries (after all you never get a shot at the general if you can't win the primary right). I stated this above, but since you didn't answer it, do you know if this "pied piper" strategy was actually implemented? You keep stating that this strategy did occur, but from that story, it seemed like it was just a strategy pitch to the DNC. I also tried looking it up, and I couldn't find much on it being implemented. One story I found seemed to indicate it was kicked around, but not much beyond that when they realized Trump might have a realistic shot and were caught off guard for the general election. I don't doubt that the DNC would do something like that in general, but unless you can find where this was implemented, it doesn't seem to be the case in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I stated this above, but since you didn't answer it, do you know if this "pied piper" strategy was actually implemented? You keep stating that this strategy did occur, but from that story, it seemed like it was just a strategy pitch to the DNC. It's difficult to say this for sure since the amount of collusion between the media corporations and the people they're mouthpieces for is obfuscated. What we do know is that Clinton's campaign floated the idea as a workable one, and then from his descent on that escalator and during and after the primary, Trump was given a nigh unlimited amount of media presence to an extent I've never seen before (and hopefully never will again, because gently caress that). The extent that the media did that because it was an enormous boon to them financially from clicks and views, rather than from being handed money through back channels, I can't say. But I do think that strings were pulled to start that process. Sort of relatedly, I guess it's just another one of those messaging things that bothers me about the DNC as an organization that they apparently have money to burn on the worst people, and yet constantly feel the need to ask for money and votes because they're categorically unable to do much of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I have to respect Fetterman's commitment to the bit on this one. This is some good poo poo. I saw a very good "gently caress culture wars, we need manufacturing jobs" ad for Ryan during Jeopardy last night, I think/hope he's going to stay ahead
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I stated this above, but since you didn't answer it, do you know if this "pied piper" strategy was actually implemented? You keep stating that this strategy did occur, but from that story, it seemed like it was just a strategy pitch to the DNC.  https://www.vox.com/2015/6/16/8789445/democrats-trump
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
I mean... I guess if you count a troll statement as "elevating" him. In which case, you should probably call Fetterman out for nominating Oz for the NJ HoF? Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I mean... I guess if you count a troll statement as "elevating" him. In which case, you should probably call Fetterman out for nominating Oz for the NJ HoF? Oz is Fetterman's actual opponent in the general, attacking him isn't elevating him. We're talking about the pied piper strategies to elevate extreme candidates in primaries in the hope they will be easier to defeat later. And yes I would count a statement welcoming Trump's candidacy, calling him serious, and encouraging people to pay attention to his ideas an attempt to "elevate" him (ie get people to talk about him), as the Hillary campaign strategy discussed and as the leaked memo acknowledged the DNC was already doing. I'm not sure it's a "troll" (that appears to be Vox editorializing their own opinion of the DNC announcement), and anyway trolling is one way to get attention on someone. You could characterize McCaskill's strategy to elevate Akin as trolling or insincere (after all, she wasn't really afraid he'd get the nomination, her campaign said that insincerely hoping to trick Republicans into voting for him), that does not mean it wasn't part of a strategy to elevate him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This is some good poo poo. ryan is also running on gently caress the filibuster as well
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:19
|
|
SimonChris posted:https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1544814878237638657 Here is another one: https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1550511100785004545
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
SimonChris posted:Here is another one: One thing to caution is that both of them are partisan polls by groups supporting Ryan. That doesn't mean their polling is wrong, but partisan groups tend to only release their poll results that look good for their candidate - which sometimes means they get outliers or polls within the margin of error, but as positive as they can be for their candidate while still within the margins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
I cannot stress enough to not let hope build in your heart for an Ohio Democrat in a statewide race. I understand JD Vance is really awful, and these polls might even look largely fine for Tim Ryan, and Sherrod Brown is a Senator so it is technically possible for a Democrat to win. Tim Ryan is even actually campaigning while as far as I can tell JD Vance has been deciding that winning the Republican nomination was enough to guarantee he wins in November and doing absolutely nothing to stem any momentum Ryan has, so that's also in Ryan's favor. But any number in the mid-40s for Tim Ryan is a poll that points to a Republican winning, as undecideds in Ohio tend to settle on Republicans as November approaches, in massive numbers. This isn't meant to be a 'don't post polls' or anything like that, polls are fine, just don't get too eager unless Tim Ryan starts seeing some polls above 50.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:One thing to caution is that both of them are partisan polls by groups supporting Ryan. One thing I'll add to it is if you see a partisan poll released by a campaign showing them only slightly behind as a "hey look guys its close, we might have a chance!", then that is a sure sign that they are losing badly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
The only thing I know about Tim Ryan is that he thinks the Taliban did 9/11 and I'm not sure if that hurts you in Ohio or not
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Any idea if this proposal was ever implemented? They don’t really say who in the campaign it’s from (WikiLeaks link is now broken) and what the DNC’s response to this proposal was. Controlled opposition; win, then fight. This may have been engineered by some of Bannon's (or flynn's) assets. E: remember, scientologist, inventor of the super-PAC, and newt-agacent Trumper John Coales (gretta's hubby) was employed by hilary in '08, and he jumped to Palin's campaign after Obama beat hillary Uglycat fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jul 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The only thing I know about Tim Ryan is that he thinks the Taliban did 9/11 and I'm not sure if that hurts you in Ohio or not In opposition to what if not the taliban?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Gros Tarla posted:In opposition to what if not the taliban?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:In a better world, sure, but the republicans are going to dismantle democracy the second they’re able to. Everybody is already starting to memory hole what happened three weeks ago and the Republicans, quieting down, are now starting to push a “whoops the radicals got too horny, we didn’t mean it we swear” narrative but they’ll go into fash mode once again. And the Democrats are far more likely to throw the election and self-destruct the party like UK Labour did to Corbyn rather than let anyone remotely leftist within a whiff of the Presidency anyway. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
I feel like some attack ads against Vance in a similar vein to those against Oz could be effective. I don’t live in Ohio anymore, and I didn’t read Hillbilly Elegy (but neither did most people) but I’m from southeast Ohio, legit Appalachia. “JD Vance pretends to be from Appalachian Ohio and says that you’re poor because you’ve learned to be helpless and hopeless, but he grew up in Dayton so what the gently caress does he know?” sounds like a decent message to run in (parts of) Ohio. It might not be as substantive and accurate a slam dunk as “Dr Oz is from jersey and moved here about a week ago” but I don’t think it needs to be extremely correct to be effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Racing Stripe posted:I feel like some attack ads against Vance in a similar vein to those against Oz could be effective. I don’t live in Ohio anymore, and I didn’t read Hillbilly Elegy (but neither did most people) but I’m from southeast Ohio, legit Appalachia. “JD Vance pretends to be from Appalachian Ohio and says that you’re poor because you’ve learned to be helpless and hopeless, but he grew up in Dayton so what the gently caress does he know?” sounds like a decent message to run in (parts of) Ohio. It might not be as substantive and accurate a slam dunk as “Dr Oz is from jersey and moved here about a week ago” but I don’t think it needs to be extremely correct to be effective. is jd vance as much of a deeply weird individual as dr oz is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:is jd vance as much of a deeply weird individual as dr oz is? Not really. He's just a phony - even by politician standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
I really have no impression of him since he was just a nobody whose book was getting popular when I still lived there, so maybe I’m not in a great position to try to extrapolate my feelings about him to people who have been exposed to him as a politician. The phony/interloper vibes were strong for me back when everyone was talking about his book though, and I imagine you could capitalize on that now. Meanwhile, Ryan looks like a bro who went to Ohio University or Ohio State. Very relatable and authentic and without the faux intellectualism of some nerd who wrote a book. Racing Stripe fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jul 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:13
|
|