Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

YOU'RE FIRED!Follow

#227 Aug 28 2015 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
On the off chance it happens, I'm putting money on "I haven't posted about it because I was busy / on vacation the whole time."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#228 Aug 31 2015 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My favorite is when GOP campaign leadership is asked if they would whether to see their candidate go against Clinton or Sanders/Biden/Warren, they always say Clinton, yet they always say positive things about the latter and attack Hillary. Now that is some horrible reverse psychology.


Which is kinda identical to Dem campaign leadership being asked who they'd rather face, to which they'll all answer "Trump", while still bashing the heck out of him. There's a number of reasons why political folks might do this, but this is hardly a symptom exhibited by only one side. I'll just suggest that primary politics is "strange". On your side, your trying to find someone who most appeals to your own base, but who will also be appealing to the general voters, all while not suffering too much damage on the way. On the other side, you're trying to encourage the opposition to nominate someone who may appear strong to their primary voters but who you hope will be a disaster in the general. So yeah, you get a ton of seemingly conflicting statements in this process. Not really anything new.

Quote:
Media hype aside, HRC has been seen as the front runner for years and is being pounded daily. Everyone else, except maybe Bush and Trump, have basically been given a by. Once the field reduces down to a more manageable size, the dirt will come and everyone poll numbers will take a hit. So, for HRC to be ahead now, essentially with her "worst" dirt, that's actually a good sign.


Yup. That's more of that "strange" primary politics. It's a balancing act. From the GOP perspective, on the one hand, they love the fact that Trump is taking all the attention and all the heat at this stage. In a perfect world, he'd continue to do so for another month or two, but as early polling and/or even primary voting comes in, voters will realize he's not a great general candidate, he'll fall, and then someone else will step into the lead, with a more "moderate/reasonable" image, little or no damage, and then plow through. Of course, the risk is that he does do well in early polling and voting, or primary voters do think he'll do well in the general (or don't care or realize), and his momentum builds and he becomes the nominee. Obviously, the Dems would love that outcome.

But in the short term, he can be seen as acting as a fullback of sorts. You want him to clear the line, but probably can't run the ball far enough to make a touchdown, so make sure you hand that ball to the running back following him. In theory. Maybe. Perhaps. Remember when I said primary politics is "strange"? I've seen enough crazy outcomes (heck. Obama leaps out on this), that I don't pin assumptions on *anything* anymore.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Aug 31 2015 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. As to the whole Clinton doing well despite all the dirt, I'm not sure about that. She's the only serious candidate in the race at all. She's the presumptive nominee and has been for years, so much so that no-one has bothered to run against her until her numbers were so alarming that someone completely unelectable (like Sanders) basically said "why not?", jumped in, and is getting 30% support. Her numbers are a disaster for her. If Warren were to get in tomorrow, we'd see Clinton drop below Sanders in less than a week. She's really doing that poorly.

Edited, Aug 31st 2015 4:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#230 Aug 31 2015 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Clinton may or may not do poorly. If she does, you "predicting" it will be the proverbial broken clock given that you've been a Cassandra for the last several elections, calling Democratic doom at every poll.

That said, she's still very much in the lead to be the nominee, breathless horserace stories not withstanding.

Edited, Aug 31st 2015 6:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#231 Aug 31 2015 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That said, she's still very much in the lead to be the nominee, breathless horserace stories not withstanding.


What stories? You really want me to link to dozens of news articles (certainly not all partisan GOP shills), talking about how troubling her numbers are? She could barely garner 50% of potential primary voters even when no one else had declared. Sanders only got in because she was polling so badly (and he's just ornery enough to do it anyway). Biden has 10%, and he isn't even in the race (at least last I heard). Are you kidding me?

You can't just look at the raw numbers here because there basically isn't another serious contender in the race. Her numbers would be outstanding if there were 2-3 other serious contenders and a half dozen issues folks (like there are on most "open" primaries). But that's not the case here, is it?

Oh. And just "being in the lead to be the nominee" isn't really the point here. That's easy to do when your party chooses not to field any other serious candidate. The kid with the broken leg will win the foot race if he's the only person in it, right? Doesn't mean he's a good runner. Just that for some bizarre reason, no one else decided to get into the race. Now maybe this is all some brilliant plan by the Democrats, but it's looking to me like some kind of backroom deal may just bite them in the rear.

Edited, Aug 31st 2015 6:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Aug 31 2015 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That said, she's still very much in the lead to be the nominee, breathless horserace stories not withstanding.

What stories? You really want me to link to dozens of news articles (certainly not all partisan GOP shills), talking about how troubling her numbers are?

Why would I? I was pointing out that "This is a real horserace!" is always the news of the day because "Clinton is going to win, come back and read my column in six months" doesn't sell eyeballs. What on earth would you prove by linking me those exact same stories?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#233 Aug 31 2015 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That said, she's still very much in the lead to be the nominee, breathless horserace stories not withstanding.

What stories? You really want me to link to dozens of news articles (certainly not all partisan GOP shills), talking about how troubling her numbers are?

Why would I? I was pointing out that "This is a real horserace!" is always the news of the day because "Clinton is going to win, come back and read my column in six months" doesn't sell eyeballs. What on earth would you prove by linking me those exact same stories?


Uh... It's not that they're writing the stories, but the content of those stories. The tone is completely different from say the tone of stories back in 1999 when Al Gore was the presumed nominee (but ironically *less* presumed than Clinton has been). Yet, despite an actual serious contender in Bradley (surely more serious than Sanders), he still managed to consistently poll in the high 50s to low 60s, and I don't recall any news articles talking about his troubling numbers, or questioning whether he was a good candidate, etc, etc. Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but it does seem as though there's a lot more questioning of Clinton's ability to win than I ever saw about Gore.

It may amount to nothing in the long run, but I don't know if I'd dismiss this as just journalists feeling like they have to find something to write about. It's not like there isn't a ton of stuff they could be writing about with regard to the GOP nominee pool. If past experience is any indicator, I would normally expect more left leaning news sources to just gleefully report on all the chaos going on with the GOP side, and just kinda ignore or under report (or just outright dismiss) anything about Clinton. That's the pattern I tend to expect of the media, but it's not what we're seeing. There is some of that, to be sure, but it almost seems like the liberal journalists are realizing that these problems for Clinton aren't going away, and maybe they should actually raise the alarm about them while there's still the possibility of getting someone else in there, rather than ignoring it today and hoping they can sufficiently ignore it during the general election enough to get her a win.

Again, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it does seem like odd behavior to me. Of course, I'm a conservative, so I'm used to seeing what I view as overly favorable treatment of Democrats by the media, so any negative leaning stuff does stand out to me. Like I said earlier though, I would normally expect the media to just dismiss any problems with Clinton and double down on negative stories about the GOP. And in Trump, they've got a ton of material to work with. So yeah, it's a bit shocking to see so much downbeat messaging coming from them about Clinton.


And again, the poll numbers just aren't where they should be given the absence of any other serious candidate in the race. I don't think you can dismiss that with a hand wave about bored journalists. The numbers have been below where they should be since well before I noticed many negative stories about her from what I would normally see as "liberal" news sources. I think the news is the result of the bad numbers, not the other way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#234 Aug 31 2015 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh... It's not that they're writing the stories, but the content of those stories. [...]
And again, the poll numbers just aren't where they should be given the absence of any other serious candidate in the race. I don't think you can dismiss that with a hand wave about bored journalists. The numbers have been below where they should be since well before I noticed many negative stories about her from what I would normally see as "liberal" news sources. I think the news is the result of the bad numbers, not the other way around.

Ok Smiley: laugh

And Obama is in HUGE TROUBLE because he doesn't have enough of a lead over Romney and the Republicans are totally going to take Pennsylvania this cycle -- the poll numbers are tightening!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#235 Sep 01 2015 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What on earth would you prove by linking me those exact same stories?
That clickbait really is effective.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#236 Sep 01 2015 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uh... It's not that they're writing the stories, but the content of those stories. [...]
And again, the poll numbers just aren't where they should be given the absence of any other serious candidate in the race. I don't think you can dismiss that with a hand wave about bored journalists. The numbers have been below where they should be since well before I noticed many negative stories about her from what I would normally see as "liberal" news sources. I think the news is the result of the bad numbers, not the other way around.

Ok Smiley: laugh

And Obama is in HUGE TROUBLE because he doesn't have enough of a lead over Romney and the Republicans are totally going to take Pennsylvania this cycle -- the poll numbers are tightening!


Obama had several advantages that Clinton does not. "You were wrong last time, so you must be wrong this time" just seems like a particularly weak argument to make. Hell. I don't even know why I'm arguing this. Yes, you are correct. Clinton is a great candidate. You should support her nomination and get all your liberal friends to do so as well. I'm sure she'll do *great* in the general, against whomever the GOP sends against her. She's unstoppable! There isn't even a reason to try to win. It'll just happen automatically.

Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#237 Sep 01 2015 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I don't think the argument is you were wrong last time, so you're wrong this time. It's more you've been wrong every time in the exact same way, so we're not really going to lend much weight to what say in this regard. Are you saying that Clinton will lose to sanders?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#238 Sep 01 2015 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I suppose if I was constantly wrong, I'd also pout when people bring it up.
Quote:
Yes, you are correct. Clinton is a great candidate. You should support her nomination and get all your liberal friends to do so as well. I'm sure she'll do *great* in the general, against whomever the GOP sends against her. She's unstoppable! There isn't even a reason to try to win. It'll just happen automatically.

Hilariously, you used this same schtick about Obama. The more things change...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239 Sep 01 2015 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I suppose if I was constantly wrong, I'd also pout when people bring it up.
Quote:
Yes, you are correct. Clinton is a great candidate. You should support her nomination and get all your liberal friends to do so as well. I'm sure she'll do *great* in the general, against whomever the GOP sends against her. She's unstoppable! There isn't even a reason to try to win. It'll just happen automatically.

Hilariously, you used this same schtick about Obama. The more things change...


Uh... So Joph uses the same schtick, and I use the same schtick in response to him? Ok. Doesn't have any determinant effect on the outcome though. Pretty sure if we went back far enough, we'd find the same kind of exchange re: Bush v Kerry, and even Bush v Gore. I don't think it's shocking to have the Democrat saying that the Democrat will win and the Republican saying the Republican will win. Kinda expected, right?

I fully admit that I massively underestimated the degree to which voters would support a black candidate who got far enough in the process to be seen as actually having a chance to win. So much so that I still assumed that after the disastrous first term showing, voters would not continue to support him for re-election (and in my defense 5 million of them didn't). I actually had a friend/co-worker shock the heck out of my by saying that he's a conservative, and he normally votes Republican, but he was proud to have voted for Obama (twice!) because in his mind, by voting for the first black president, he was voting for someone based on his abilities and not the color of his skin. Yes, the logic made my head spin, but there you have it.

But I just don't think that the same will apply for Clinton as the "woman candidate". Obama had all the advantages of being a good solid politician. Engaging, warm, friendly, great linguistic skills, etc. And being black gave him an extra advantage that made it harder for opponents to attack him and easier for supporters to overlook his flaws. Obama had the additional advantage of being a relatively unknown candidate with little past to come back and bite him. He could basically write his history as he went, so to speak. Clinton has a ridiculous amount of baggage. Very very bad baggage. And she's not handling that baggage well. Obama could get away with the whole 'deflect for a few months, then declare the issue "old news"' bit, but that's not working as well for Clinton (and she's not handling the press well either). And aside from genitalia (well, presumably), she doesn't have a lot of weight in terms of rallying women voters.

Could I be wrong about all of this? Absolutely. But that's my opinion any way. Clinton just has a boat load of negatives. Denying that, or trying to equate her to Obama isn't going to work IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#240 Sep 01 2015 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
gbaji wrote:
I actually had a friend/co-worker shock the heck out of my by saying that he's a conservative, and he normally votes Republican, but he was proud to have voted for Obama (twice!) because in his mind, by voting for the first black president, he was voting for someone based on his abilities and not the color of his skin. Yes, the logic made my head spin, but there you have it.

Is you friend the victim of blunt force trauma to his head?


gbaji wrote:
he's a conservative
Ah...Smiley: lol
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#241 Sep 01 2015 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh... So Joph uses the same schtick, and I use the same schtick in response to him? Ok.

The schtick where I point out your previous ignorance about polling and, really, election politics and reporting in general?

Yeah, guess so. Like I said, the more things change...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 Sep 01 2015 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Maybe Gbaji couldn't understand his friend's conservative logic because he was using the wrong pillars of morality and so it made no sense to him! I've heard that happens sometimes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#243 Sep 01 2015 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I actually had a friend/co-worker shock the heck out of my by saying that he's a conservative, and he normally votes Republican, but he was proud to have voted for Obama (twice!) because in his mind, by voting for the first black president, he was voting for someone based on his abilities and not the color of his skin. Yes, the logic made my head spin, but there you have it.

Is you friend the victim of blunt force trauma to his head?


I'm going with him being a victim of a social assumption that black success is automatically restricted due to institutional and even sub-conscious racism, thus *not* voting for a black candidate is the equivalent of voting against him because of his skin color. Therefore voting *for* him is the opposite (meaning, your not voting for him based on his skin color, but for his other qualifications). I, and most conservatives, find this line of reasoning absolutely moronic.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
he's a conservative
Ah...Smiley: lol


Yes, because, as I stated above, this is a trait common among liberals, but rare among conservatives. So him stating this thought process was shocking to me. If any of my liberal friends had said the same thing, I'd have just accepted it as the normal liberal dementia with regard to issues of race and moved on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#244 Sep 01 2015 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
Idiocy has no particular political party.

Seriously; the "liberals are fools and stupid, but conservatives are wicked smart" shtick looks dumber every day. Knock it off.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#245 Sep 01 2015 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But he read about a guy who knows a guy who saw a guy who read a book! Research!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#246 Sep 02 2015 at 6:38 AM Rating: Good
****
4,149 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes, because, as I stated above, this is a trait common among liberals, but rare among conservatives. So him stating this thought process was shocking to me.


Got it, Conservatives don't usually think, that is a liberal trait. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#247 Sep 02 2015 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I, and most conservatives, find this line of reasoning absolutely moronic.
The next time you think "that conservative just doesn't understand the issue", you might want to consider that maybe he actually understands it better than you do, has taken more factors into consideration than you have, and is actually making a better assessment of the issue than you are.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#248 Sep 03 2015 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump signed a "loyalty pledge" to not run an independent campaign and to support the GOP nominee. Said pledge has no enforcement mechanism aside from the RNC getting to say "You promised!"

Also in GOP news, CNN has amended its debate rules to allow Carly Fiorina a spot on the stage despite not previously qualifying. Men's Rights Activists go go go!

Edited, Sep 3rd 2015 10:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#249 Sep 03 2015 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
On one hand, she did poll better after her last "also runner's" debate and is in the top ten so she might as well be allowed to join the front half of the pack. On the other hand, the only person that managed to really stand out during Fox's debate was Trump, and not for any political reason so it might be better to just avoid the actual debates and instead figure out another way to stay just relevant enough to remain in the running until the field shrinks to four to six people. On yet another hand, her most notable achievement was to run HP into the ground and is starting at a minimum of 30,000 vote deficit.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#250 Sep 03 2015 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Idiocy has no particular political party.


Dementia with regard to issues of race does though.

Quote:
Seriously; the "liberals are fools and stupid, but conservatives are wicked smart" shtick looks dumber every day. Knock it off.


How about "both sides view things through a different lens, and I think that the conservative lens is clearer". It's not about being intelligent or not. Really really smart people can take really really dumb actions if they have bad information or assumptions that they are operating on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#251 Sep 03 2015 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Trump signed a "loyalty pledge" to not run an independent campaign and to support the GOP nominee. Said pledge has no enforcement mechanism aside from the RNC getting to say "You promised!"


You could also hear a pin drop during the conference when he said it, until the audience was prompted to cheer. Pretty clear that Trumps primary support comes from people who just want to stick it to the establishment (just in case the crowds boos upon mention of the RNC chairman didn't already clue you in). Interesting that this seems to be a common theme at this stage in the process. Carson is in second place. Really?

I'm still holding out the assumption that as the actual primaries come nearer, this "buck the establishment" trend will fade away. We'll see though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (48)