Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#302 Jan 09 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
True, it's a risk. But being to the point is a pretty big part in making sure you get straight to the point.
#303 Jan 09 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
This reminds me of that time I was stuck in the Tautology Zone.

Not a bad place, but you wouldn't want to live there.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#304 Jan 09 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
Allegory wrote:
By "low GOP turnout" did you mean they lost the election? If that's all you meant, then yeah I guess losing an election is a major factor in losing an election.

gbaji wrote:
It was lower than it was in 2004, which is the only data point that really matters in terms of what I was talking about in my original post.

Ah, so that is what you meant. Well why didn't you just say so?


Um... Really? You just finished talking about how you could lose a race even though you got a better time, and you can't noodle out how "lower turnout" isn't the same as "loosing the election"? More to it than that, isn't there?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#305 Jan 09 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
True, it's a risk. But being to the point is a pretty big part in making sure you get straight to the point.


My original point was quite clear. You just keep insisting on looking for ways to interpret it in a way that is frankly bizarre and makes no sense at all.


What part of "People who voted GOP in 2004 didn't in 2008" do you not understand when I say that "GOP turnout" was relatively lower?

And what part of "swing voters shifted to the Dems" do you not understand?


And what part of those two combining to result in the GOP losing the election is also beyond your mental grasp?


Honestly, I didn't think what I'd said was so complicated, but somehow you manage to make it so. Amazing!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#306 Jan 09 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
Yet not beating one of your all time best showings is necessarily a poor performance? I can't imagine the kind of inferiority issues you had as a child.
#307 Jan 09 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
Yet not beating one of your all time best showings is necessarily a poor performance?


Huh? If you won last time, and didn't win this time, noting that your "showing" was worse this time than last time would seem to be relevant, right? Comparing it to some historical statistical average is not.

You have the most muddled thinking process.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#308 Jan 09 2012 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Given that the GOP painted Obama as Satan incarnate, tell me why you think the turnout was lower? I would think they'd have come out and voted in droves to keep him out of the White House.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#309 Jan 09 2012 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
gbaji wrote:
Huh? If you won last time, and didn't win this time, noting that your "showing" was worse this time than last time would seem to be relevant, right? Comparing it to some historical statistical average is not.

You have the most muddled thinking process.

When assessing whether or not I had a low voter turnout, it would *not* be relevant to compare it to my previous voter turn outs? Wah?
#310 Jan 09 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Given that the GOP painted Obama as Satan incarnate, tell me why you think the turnout was lower? I would think they'd have come out and voted in droves to keep him out of the White House.


You're assuming that the set of "all normal GOP voters" is equal to the set of "extreme right wing GOP voters". The second set is a subset of the first and while they might be motivated by such Satan incarnate talk, the larger set will often be turned off by it. And frankly, I suspect a good number just didn't believe that Obama could be that bad. Surely the far right was exaggerating, right?

Remember, it had been 15 years since the Dems held the White House and Congress, and they had marginal control at that. The last time they really had significant numbers in Congress and the White house was back in the late 70s. A lot of people have forgotten just how bad the Dems can be when they have that much power. Combine that with a general wearing down of the right by constant attacks on Bush and the GOP over the previous 8 years and the result isn't surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.


But like I said earlier, those factors aren't going to play this time around. The right is much more active today than it was in 2008. The middle has been reminded just how terrible the Dems can be with too much power. Remember, they'd been constantly told for the better part of a decade about how the GOP was doing all these terrible terrible things holding congress and the white house between 2001 and 2006. A good part of the swing vote going for Obama was because they believed it. They'd been convinced that the GOP had failed utterly with that power. Then the Dems got into control and the were faced with real failure.

I don't think they'll make the same mistake this time around. It's possible, of course. Sometimes people do continue to hit themselves on the head even though it hurts. But usually they don't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#311 Jan 09 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Huh? If you won last time, and didn't win this time, noting that your "showing" was worse this time than last time would seem to be relevant, right? Comparing it to some historical statistical average is not.

You have the most muddled thinking process.

When assessing whether or not I had a low voter turnout, it would *not* be relevant to compare it to my previous voter turn outs? Wah?


Except I was assessing why the Dems won the presidency in 2008. A comparison of the voter turnout to the last time the GOP won would seem to be relevant, right?

I mean the first thing you do when you want to know why something happened is look at what changed since the time when something different happened, right? If my computer is crashing, I look at what has changed since it wasn't crashing. If what changed was that I installed a new program, it's a good bet that's the culprit, right? I mean, I could discount that because I actually installed fewer programs in the last month than I did statistically each month for the last 2 years, but that would be a really stupid way to diagnose the problem.


Similarly, if my party loses an election, I'm going to look at what changed since the last time they won. What changed is that GOP turnout was lower *and* swing voters shifted to the Dems, resulting in about a 4-5% shift of votes from one party to the other. While I could compare relative voter turnout to historical averages, that really doesn't tell me why I lost *this* election, does it? And frankly, I'm not sure why anyone would think it would.


That's what I mean by muddled thinking. You seem to be deliberately looking at data that's irrelevant to the question at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#312 Jan 09 2012 at 9:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
Kavekk wrote:
This reminds me of that time I was stuck in the Tautology Zone.

Not a bad place, but you wouldn't want to live there.



All the streets loop back on themselves, I hear.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#313 Jan 09 2012 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
Even more problematic when all the streets have no names. Even on a beautiful day you can't find what you're looking for. You just walk on and on and on.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 11:15pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#314 Jan 09 2012 at 10:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
gbaji wrote:
Except I was assessing why the Dems won the presidency in 2008. A comparison of the voter turnout to the last time the GOP won would seem to be relevant, right?

But only one election back and no further, because that's how statistics is done. You compare one data point to exactly one other data point, no more and no less.
#315 Jan 10 2012 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
One of Gingrich's Super PACs gets $5m from billionaire Sheldon Adelson, which goes to show just how good these people are with their money and how we should be giving them tax breaks. Also goes to show that just because your money comes from a casino that you don't have to be any good at actually gambling.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#316 Jan 10 2012 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except I was assessing why the Dems won the presidency in 2008. A comparison of the voter turnout to the last time the GOP won would seem to be relevant, right?

But only one election back and no further, because that's how statistics is done. You compare one data point to exactly one other data point, no more and no less.
Well, obviously. If you compare more then that then the data points to the opposite of his conclusion. Duh!!
____________________________
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
#317 Jan 10 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,877 posts
Samira wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
This reminds me of that time I was stuck in the Tautology Zone.

Not a bad place, but you wouldn't want to live there.



All the streets loop back on themselves, I hear.



It's not so much a network of roads, rather series of concentric, interconnected traffic circles. There's a certain type of logic to it, I'm told.

Edited, Jan 10th 2012 3:51pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#318 Jan 10 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except I was assessing why the Dems won the presidency in 2008. A comparison of the voter turnout to the last time the GOP won would seem to be relevant, right?

But only one election back and no further, because that's how statistics is done. You compare one data point to exactly one other data point, no more and no less.


It's not about statistics though. That's where you're going wrong here. It's about a change from one point in time to another. If something changes from state1 to state2 and you want to know why, you look at what happened between when it was at state1 to when it changed to state2. How do you function in life without understanding this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#319 Jan 10 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
If you're going to insist that voter turnout is low, it has to be compared across multiple scenarios, to ensure that the perceived change from state1 to state2 is actually meaningful. But yeah, I get how that shatters your argument so you'll just keep ignoring it.
____________________________
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
#320 Jan 10 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
If you're going to insist that voter turnout is low, it has to be compared across multiple scenarios, to ensure that the perceived change from state1 to state2 is actually meaningful.


Um... You left out the word "relatively" in there. If I say that one of the reasons the GOP lost the 2008 election was a relatively low GOP voter turnout, what the hell do you think it's "relative" to? I'll give you a hint: It's relative to the last time the GOP didn't lose. I'm making a direct comparison to turnout in 2004. WTF?


Quote:
But yeah, I get how that shatters your argument so you'll just keep ignoring it.


You might want to stop ignoring important words in the sentences I write. Just a thought. Smiley: nod


If I'd used a phrase like "historically low", you'd have a point. Cause then I'd have been making a statistical historical comparison. But I didn't

Edited, Jan 10th 2012 2:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#321 Jan 10 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except I was assessing why the Dems won the presidency in 2008. A comparison of the voter turnout to the last time the GOP won would seem to be relevant, right?

But only one election back and no further, because that's how statistics is done. You compare one data point to exactly one other data point, no more and no less.


It's not about statistics though. That's where you're going wrong here. It's about a change from one point in time to another. If something changes from state1 to state2 and you want to know why, you look at what happened between when it was at state1 to when it changed to state2. How do you function in life without understanding this?


I'm late to the discussion (as usual); but this seems precisely the kind of thing that should have a 'correlation =/= causation' warning flag on it.

Edited, Jan 10th 2012 2:43pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#322 Jan 10 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
Can we definitively count the swing voters who changed sides and the new, first-time voters? I thought that was the crux of this argument.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#323 Jan 10 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
I've not been following this thread at all, but does anyone else think calling Rick Santorum a piece of shit be unfair to a piece of shit?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#324 Jan 10 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Debalic wrote:
Can we definitively count the swing voters who changed sides and the new, first-time voters? I thought that was the crux of this argument.


You'd think so. But oddly, no one's even tried to make that point. Which somewhat baffles me really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#325 Jan 10 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm late to the discussion (as usual); but this seems precisely the kind of thing that should have a 'correlation =/= causation' warning flag on it.


If you want to toss out smart sounding rhetoric in a simplistic fashion with only minimal relevance, sure. While correlation does not prove causation, the cause *is* going to be present within the set of correlative data, right (assuming a complete data set)?

If I walk into a room and flip a switch on the wall and the light turns on in the room, it's reasonable to look at the set of things that happened between when the light wasn't on to when it was. I walked into the room and I flipped a switch. The light could be on a sensor which detected me walking into the room and the switch did nothing, or the switch could have turned on the light. But assuming I know that those are the only two changes which occurred, one of them must have been responsible for the change of state in the light.

It would be absurd to instead embark upon a statistical analysis of how often the lights in any given room in the house are on or off over time, but that's essentially what Allegory was trying to argue we should do to figure out why the light turned on. It's ridiculously convoluted thinking and makes no sense at all. It's the kind of thing one might suggest, not to clarify the question at hand, but to muddy the issue with extraneous and useless data (which I suspect is exactly why he brought it up).


If you want to know why the GOP lost in 2008, you look at the set of things which changed between then and 2004, when they won. That is the set of possible causative factors. Then you assess each factor to determine to what degree each may have had an impact on the resulting change. This is how anyone who understands critical thinking goes about doing things. Surely, you agree?


And that's what I did. Not sure what Allegory was trying to do though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#326 Jan 10 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not about statistics though. That's where you're going wrong here. It's about a change from one point in time to another. If something changes from state1 to state2 and you want to know why, you look at what happened between when it was at state1 to when it changed to state2.

But you don't look at how it changed from state 3, 4, 5, or any others right?

You're trying to make the word "low" mean "lower." 2008 had a lower GOP turnout than 2004, not a low turnout. One is a comparison between a singular other instance and the is a generalization.

If I told you my girlfriend was tall at 4'2", I don't point to a midget standing next to her and say "see, she's tall." When I say tall you expect I'm comparing her to a typical female. Compared to a typical GOP presidential race they had a high turnout in 2008.
#327 Jan 10 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about statistics though. That's where you're going wrong here. It's about a change from one point in time to another. If something changes from state1 to state2 and you want to know why, you look at what happened between when it was at state1 to when it changed to state2.

But you don't look at how it changed from state 3, 4, 5, or any others right?


Not if the question I'm asking is "Why did it change from state1 to state2". No. Why would I?

Quote:
You're trying to make the word "low" mean "lower." 2008 had a lower GOP turnout than 2004, not a low turnout. One is a comparison between a singular other instance and the is a generalization.


And yet, when you couple the word "low" with the word "relatively", in the context I was using it, most people should be able to noodle out that the turnout was low "relative to the previous election". At the risk of repeating myself, had I used the word "historically", you'd have a point. But I didn't.

Quote:
If I told you my girlfriend was tall at 4'2", I don't point to a midget standing next to her and say "see, she's tall." When I say tall you expect I'm comparing her to a typical female.


Um... But if you were asking why your girlfriends head hit an overhang while the midget next to her didn't, and someone said she was "relatively tall", wouldn't the reasonable assumption be that she's tall relative to the midget and that this is why she hit her head?


It would be quite strange for you to instead assume that the other person was speaking in terms of average heights of people overall, since that has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand. And even more strange to continue to argue that this must have been what the other person meant, even though it makes no sense at all and he's continually explained to you what he was talking about. And then even more more strange to attempt to argue that the other person is wrong somehow in his assessment as to why your girlfriend hit her head because you insist on clinging to a completely absurd interpretation of what he said rather than the very reasonable and logical one that makes perfect sense.


Quote:
Compared to a typical GOP presidential race they had a high turnout in 2008.


And compared to a typical passenger car, 5 quarts of oil would be plenty to run in my engine. Sadly, that would leave my car about 3.8 quarts low and probably cause massive damage. Do you see how comparing to "typical" cases is often not very useful?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#328 Jan 10 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Oh. And at the risk of putting this thread back on topic:

Remember like 6 months ago when I said that GOP voters were actually quite happy with Romney, already saw him as an acceptable candidate they could get behind, and that we should not interpret the ups and downs of polling in the rest of the field as an "anyone but Romney" but as "let's see if anyone else stacks up", and that barring a really stellar performance by another candidate come primary time folks would drop the other candidates and support Romney? Shocking, I know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#329 Jan 10 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
You predicted that the GOP top choice was the GOP top choice. Congratulations on claiming to predict what everyone knew.

Well, everyone except that one conspiracy theorist and varus.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#330 Jan 10 2012 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm sure Romney will be the nominee but, even now, he gets no better than 30% nationally in GOP polling. Given that there aren't any other candidates to "test", I wouldn't consider that great support but more a sense of resignation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#331 Jan 10 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You predicted that the GOP top choice was the GOP top choice. Congratulations on claiming to predict what everyone knew.


A 20/20 hindsight version of "everyone" which apparently did not include the numerous pundits insisting at the time that the up and down of a succession of other GOP candidates in the polls indicated an "anyone but Romney" attitude by GOP voters. I said (many months ago), that it really indicated a comfort by GOP voters with Romney, but a willingness to look at the rest of the field "just in case". I believe I even used phrases like "safe bet", "known quantity", and "keeping him in their back pocket".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#332 Jan 10 2012 at 9:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm sure Romney will be the nominee but, even now, he gets no better than 30% nationally in GOP polling. Given that there aren't any other candidates to "test", I wouldn't consider that great support but more a sense of resignation.


I disagree. Let's see where he polls nationally among likely GOP voters in 2 weeks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#333 Jan 10 2012 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
gbaji wrote:
And yet, when you couple the word "low" with the word "relatively", in the context I was using it, most people should be able to noodle out that the turnout was low "relative to the previous election".

You're the only one who seemed to think this. Even so, if this is honestly what you meant then sure you're right, and I have to apologize for two things. First I'd apologize for calling you incorrect. Second I'd apologize for thinking you were saying something meaningful.

Yes they lost the election because they got less votes than that time they won the election. Relative to an extreme, everything else will be less.

So I guess I nailed it before.
Allegory wrote:
By "low GOP turnout" did you mean they lost the election? If that's all you meant, then yeah I guess losing an election is a major factor in losing an election.

#334 Jan 10 2012 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm sure Romney will be the nominee but, even now, he gets no better than 30% nationally in GOP polling. Given that there aren't any other candidates to "test", I wouldn't consider that great support but more a sense of resignation.
I disagree. Let's see where he polls nationally among likely GOP voters in 2 weeks.

You mean after more people drop out and narrow the field? Good plan.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#335 Jan 10 2012 at 10:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
I bet he polls really well against the other GOP nominees in September.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#336 Jan 11 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
Dixville Notch, New Hampshire goes with two for Huntsman and two for Romney, one for Gingrich, one for Paul, and three for Obama.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#337 Jan 11 2012 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Haha... I was listening to someone on the radio a few days ago (Michael Medved?) say it was "possible" that Madam Secretary Clinton could take 20% of the NH ballot with write-ins and this would show just how weak Obama was! Sadly, this doesn't seem to have been the case.

Also:
Political Wire wrote:
GOP Turnout Underwhelming

First Read: "Here is something that might start to concern Republicans: For the second-straight contest, GOP turnout was pretty pedestrian, especially given the party's supposed enthusiasm about defeating Obama in November. With 95% of precincts in, turnout in last night's Republican primary in New Hampshire was slightly under 240,000, which is about the same as it was it was in 2000 and 2008. While turnout will increase once the other 5% comes in -- setting a record just like it did in Iowa -- it won't be a WOW figure like we saw on the Democratic side in '08."


Edited, Jan 11th 2012 8:51am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#338 Jan 11 2012 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,877 posts
This.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#339 Jan 11 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm sure Romney will be the nominee but, even now, he gets no better than 30% nationally in GOP polling. Given that there aren't any other candidates to "test", I wouldn't consider that great support but more a sense of resignation.
I disagree. Let's see where he polls nationally among likely GOP voters in 2 weeks.

You mean after more people drop out and narrow the field? Good plan.


And? Aren't you're doing the same thing in reverse when making a big deal about Romney only getting 30% when there are 5 (likely 6 when most of those polls were taken) other candidates in the race?

What amazes me is pundits last night (all across the cable spectrum) were *still* trying to make the "Romney just doesn't click with conservatives" argument. What does it take for them to realize that this isn't true no matter how many times they say it? The guy's only the first GOP non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire ever. I just find it funny that the pundits keep saying this while the voters appear to be doing the exact opposite.


This is the strongest conservative support behind a GOP candidate this early in the race (who wasn't an incumbent) ever. I suppose it's possible someone else could charge up a head of steam, but odds are this primary race will be pretty much locked up by February sometime.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#340 Jan 11 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
What amazes me is pundits last night (all across the cable spectrum) were *still* trying to make the "Romney just doesn't click with conservatives" argument.
I thought you didn't get your news from anywhere.Smiley: dubious
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#341 Jan 11 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
gbaji wrote:
I suppose it's possible someone else could charge up a head of steam, but odds are this primary race will be pretty much locked up by February sometime.
It was locked up since before Trump threw his weird hairdo into the ring and subsequently withdrew it. The only people that seem to be surprised at this point seem to be people who's jobs involve getting ratings.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#342 Jan 11 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And? Aren't you're doing the same thing in reverse when making a big deal about Romney only getting 30% when there are 5 (likely 6 when most of those polls were taken) other candidates in the race?

Nope. That shows that, when given options, most people would rather not pick Romney. How you spin that into being equivalent to people picking Romney when most of their options are gone is... well, I know WHY you said it. I'm just amused that you believe it.

Your argument was that people really support Romney, they just wanted to test the other candidates... just to see what's out there. They've seen what's out there, every candidate has been in the spotlight now and Romney still gets a ceiling of 30% GOP support in national polling. And, no, Ms. Bachmann wasn't included in the latest polls.

I'm sure Romney will win the nomination. I'd worry more about his support following that.
Quote:
The guy's only the first GOP non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire ever.

Tied Iowa. Possibly lost due to miscounts but, as I explained before, it's academic given the delegate distribution.

Edited, Jan 11th 2012 3:35pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#343 Jan 11 2012 at 3:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And? Aren't you're doing the same thing in reverse when making a big deal about Romney only getting 30% when there are 5 (likely 6 when most of those polls were taken) other candidates in the race?

Nope. That shows that, when given options, most people would rather not pick Romney.


No. It shows that when you present people with multiple options in a poll, they'll tend to spread their picks out. This is true in pretty much any poll on any topic. In Jan of 2008, want to know where Obama was polling in a race with only three contestants? Pretty close to where Romney is in a race with twice as many. I'd say a consistent 30% support in this race this early is pretty darn strong.

Quote:
How you spin that into being equivalent to people picking Romney when most of their options are gone is... well, I know WHY you said it. I'm just amused that you believe it.


How many candidates do you think will drop out in the next two weeks Joph?

Quote:
Your argument was that people really support Romney, they just wanted to test the other candidates... just to see what's out there. They've seen what's out there, every candidate has been in the spotlight now and Romney still gets a ceiling of 30% GOP support in national polling. And, no, Ms. Bachmann wasn't included in the latest polls.


And? We're one week into the primaries Joph. You honestly don't realize that many voters wait to see how candidates do in those early primaries before firming up their support? That's kinda bizarre because it's the core reason *why* those early primaries are considered to be so important.

Quote:
I'm sure Romney will win the nomination. I'd worry more about his support following that.


I'm not worried at all about it. I know that the liberal rhetoric is to keep pushing the "Romney doesn't have strong support" line as much as possible, but at a certain point, you're really just lying to yourselves and not fooling anyone else.

Quote:
Quote:
The guy's only the first GOP non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire ever.

Tied Iowa. Possibly lost due to miscounts but, as I explained before, it's academic given the delegate distribution.


Does that excuse really make you feel safer?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#344 Jan 11 2012 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,201 posts
gbaji wrote:


Does that excuse really make you feel safer?


Safer from what? Obama cruising into a second term without being challenged by a serious contender on the right?


____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#345 Jan 11 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Does that excuse really make you feel safer?

Excuse? Does calling an (possible) 8 vote margin a "Win" and saying "OMG He WON Iowa!" really make you feel safer? Smiley: laugh

Romney just keeps on giving. On the same day the Newt Foundation releases their "King of Bain" video, Romney tells us that questions about distribution of wealth come from envy and that any discussion about things like tax policy should be kept to "quiet rooms"



Edited, Jan 11th 2012 6:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#346 Jan 11 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Complete King of Bain video

Even if you're not inclined to watch the whole thing, do yourself the favor of skipping to the 8:00 mark and watching the next 45 seconds Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#347 Jan 11 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,087 posts
My favorite Romneyism is "I like to fire people."

By people, of course, he meant insurance companies, but since he believes corporations are people too, it's all one and the same.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#348 Jan 11 2012 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Complete King of Bain video

Even if you're not inclined to watch the whole thing, do yourself the favor of skipping to the 8:00 mark and watching the next 45 seconds Smiley: laugh

MITT ROMNEY KILLED KAY-BEE TOYS FOR $120M!

What a fuckhead.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#349 Jan 11 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Excellent
You can see why Gbaji likes this guy. Capitalism is his religion, and this is one of his high priests.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#350 Jan 11 2012 at 10:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
MITT ROMNEY KILLED KAY-BEE TOYS FOR $120M!

And broke a little boy's heart Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#351 Jan 11 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Romney was a decent Governor back when he was a moderate. I don't really know what to say about Romney 2.0: Presidential edition.

Bain Capitol people are douchebags though. Theyn didn't even pay for their own rooms & still bitched about the negotiated rates at my last hotel. Smiley: mad
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 66 All times are in CDT
sgfedsfrseg, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (64)