Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

YOU'RE FIRED!Follow

#252 Sep 03 2015 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Pretty clear that Trumps primary support comes from people who just want to stick it to the establishment

Well, that's a lot of people. Tea Party types, Limbaugh listeners, Palin acolytes, etc. Not at all difficult to find conservatives who are fed up with the GOP establishment. Hell, Trump even won his little tiff with Fox News and Megyn Kelly.


Edited, Sep 3rd 2015 6:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253 Sep 04 2015 at 7:56 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Trump is a boss.

That's why people like him. The biggest issue the Republican party has right now is their obstructionist culture, "I don't like it so I'm not going to play", Trump on the other hand is more "This is ********* what's the quickest way to get through this crap so I can do something I like?"

I mean, he's an idiot, and would totally tank the..well, everything if elected, but that's a pretty big carrot to have in the current climate.

A lot of people think the US government needs a "Boss", Trump is a pretty brutal boss so if you want the government to shape up give them a hardcore boss. Of course reality doesn't work that way but most people don't understand that because they don't really care THAT much.
#254 Sep 04 2015 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, there's a surprising number of people who think that the national budget works like a household checkbook so it stands to reason that a surprising number of people would also believe that the federal government works like a private sector company.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#255 Sep 04 2015 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I'd vote for a businessman if there was any real possibility of firing Florida and Arizona from the Union.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#256 Sep 04 2015 at 9:35 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'd vote for a businessman if there was any real possibility of firing Florida and Arizona from the Union.
Or just move their offices to the basement.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#257 Sep 04 2015 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
****
4,134 posts
Florida used to have a desk by the window, and could see the squirrels and they were married.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#258 Sep 04 2015 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Florida used to have a desk by the window, and could see the squirrels and they were married.


To the squirrels.
#259 Sep 06 2015 at 5:24 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
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.
Actually, that isn't true at all. Clinton has been on a roll of comparing ALL of the candidates to Trump, saying that they are no different. There's a reason why she is doing that, because she does not believe Trump will be the nominee.

Gbaji wrote:
I've seen enough crazy outcomes (heck. Obama leaps out on this),
People always like to make comparisons to President Obama. While it's perfectly possible for another candidate to be pull an "Obama", none of these current candidates can do it. President Obama had a coalition that was significantly made up of non-voters who thought it would be "cool" to have him as president. That's how he was able to win even with HRC getting as many votes as she did (along with delegates). So, unless you're able to galvanize nonvoters (like Trump, who is already leading), then you will not pull an equivalent upset.

Gbaji wrote:
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.
You do realize that Sanders voters are Warren voters? If anyone were to get hit in the polls, it would be Sanders. Furthermore, there was a recent poll (which again I don't like polls) that says if it were evident that HRC would do poorly in the primary, who would you vote for and she still pulled 23% of the votes, 3% under VP Biden with another 23% said that they wouldn't vote at all. This is nothing more than GOP scare tactics to make her appear weaker than what she really is. Her approval rating within the party is 80%. Once you're down to the general election, personalities are placed second and the focus is on substance. A liberal is not going to vote for JEB because of her email controversy. Likewise, a conservative is not going to vote for HRC because he has "low energy".
#260 Sep 06 2015 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Looks like Sanders is surpassing Clinton in some key spots.
____________________________
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.
#261 Sep 08 2015 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
None in actual electability.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#262 Sep 08 2015 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Sanders = hype
#263 Sep 08 2015 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I've seen enough crazy outcomes (heck. Obama leaps out on this),
People always like to make comparisons to President Obama. While it's perfectly possible for another candidate to be pull an "Obama", none of these current candidates can do it

Gbaji consistently can't believe that people think differently from him. Obama wasn't a "crazy outcome", it was the result of an excellent and deliberate strategy from Obama's team. It was also the sort of thing you pull off once because no one else will ignore lower population caucus states the same way again. Of course it wasn't just those either: he still had to convince the super delegates of his electability and keep Clinton to a near-tie or better in the (non-caucus) primary voting states. In any event, there was nothing "crazy" about it and the outcome was obvious by the end of February.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#264 Sep 08 2015 at 5:02 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Quote:
Gbaji consistently can't believe that people think differently from him. Obama wasn't a "crazy outcome", it was the result of an excellent and deliberate strategy from Obama's team. It was also the sort of thing you pull off once because no one else will ignore lower population caucus states the same way again. Of course it wasn't just those either: he still had to convince the super delegates of his electability and keep Clinton to a near-tie or better in the (non-caucus) primary voting states. In any event, there was nothing "crazy" about it and the outcome was obvious by the end of February.


He found a hole and used it.
#265 Sep 08 2015 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I've seen enough crazy outcomes (heck. Obama leaps out on this),
People always like to make comparisons to President Obama. While it's perfectly possible for another candidate to be pull an "Obama", none of these current candidates can do it

Gbaji consistently can't believe that people think differently from him. Obama wasn't a "crazy outcome", it was the result of an excellent and deliberate strategy from Obama's team. It was also the sort of thing you pull off once because no one else will ignore lower population caucus states the same way again. Of course it wasn't just those either: he still had to convince the super delegates of his electability and keep Clinton to a near-tie or better in the (non-caucus) primary voting states. In any event, there was nothing "crazy" about it and the outcome was obvious by the end of February.


Which only appears "non-crazy" after the fact when you analyze what happened. That's the point. If Trump were to somehow win the GOP nomination, it would require some set of factors that common primary wisdom doesn't currently see as a winning strategy. Just as Obama's win did. Alma's likely right that Trump's appeal is largely among those who would normally not identify themselves as "likely GOP primary voters", but who are doing so purely because what Trump is saying resonates with them. It would be interesting to look, not just at the polling percentages, but the participation rate, if you will, and see if they're getting a larger than normal rate of people identifying that way. I suspect you would, but obviously have no way to verify this.

The obvious next question is whether this actually has a chance to turn over the apple cart, or if we're just seeing a statistical blip in the polls, created from a combination of "still to early for most serious voters to participate", and "large number of normally non-serious voters participating". But, just as with Obama being able to garner large scale support merely by being able to stay in the race long enough (obviously, using different tactics though), it's theoretically possible that if Trump can retain good polling numbers going into say February, he might be seen as someone who can win, versus just someone who appeals to those who are acting on flawed wishful thinking.

Obviously anecdotal, but not one conservative I know sees Trump as a serious candidate. Yet clearly, *someone* (lots of someone) is tossing his name out when polled. I'm sure there are regional differences to consider, but I've got to believe that a good part of this is traditionally non-participating people deciding to participate (at least vocally). Whether that translates into real primary voters remains to be seen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 Sep 08 2015 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which only appears "non-crazy" after the fact when you analyze what happened.

Nah. "Unexpected", perhaps. But there was nothing crazy about it.

Trump's standing in the polls goes well beyond "blip" at this point. He's been leading the pack for around six or seven weeks now. He's had a 12+ point lead for a month. During the 2012 contest, other candidate held a month long lead but they crested after a couple weeks and then lost support. Trump's support is just going up. He'll hit a ceiling but, with so many other candidate and no clear 2nd place, it's possible he could win with a plurality. In any event, he's not a Gingrich or Santorum.

I don't think he will win the nomination but he'll definitely change the race and probably for the ill of the Republican party. They'd love to get rid of him, they just don't know how and waiting for him to implode on his own isn't working.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 Sep 08 2015 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which only appears "non-crazy" after the fact when you analyze what happened.

Nah. "Unexpected", perhaps. But there was nothing crazy about it.

Trump's standing in the polls goes well beyond "blip" at this point. He's been leading the pack for around six or seven weeks now. He's had a 12+ point lead for a month. During the 2012 contest, other candidate held a month long lead but they crested after a couple weeks and then lost support. Trump's support is just going up. He'll hit a ceiling but, with so many other candidate and no clear 2nd place, it's possible he could win with a plurality. In any event, he's not a Gingrich or Santorum.

I don't think he will win the nomination but he'll definitely change the race and probably for the ill of the Republican party. They'd love to get rid of him, they just don't know how and waiting for him to implode on his own isn't working.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#268 Sep 08 2015 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which only appears "non-crazy" after the fact when you analyze what happened.

Nah. "Unexpected", perhaps. But there was nothing crazy about it.

Trump's standing in the polls goes well beyond "blip" at this point. He's been leading the pack for around six or seven weeks now. He's had a 12+ point lead for a month. During the 2012 contest, other candidate held a month long lead but they crested after a couple weeks and then lost support. Trump's support is just going up. He'll hit a ceiling but, with so many other candidate and no clear 2nd place, it's possible he could win with a plurality. In any event, he's not a Gingrich or Santorum.

I don't think he will win the nomination but he'll definitely change the race and probably for the ill of the Republican party. They'd love to get rid of him, they just don't know how and waiting for him to implode on his own isn't working.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#269 Sep 08 2015 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which only appears "non-crazy" after the fact when you analyze what happened.

Nah. "Unexpected", perhaps. But there was nothing crazy about it.

Trump's standing in the polls goes well beyond "blip" at this point. He's been leading the pack for around six or seven weeks now. He's had a 12+ point lead for a month. During the 2012 contest, other candidate held a month long lead but they crested after a couple weeks and then lost support. Trump's support is just going up. He'll hit a ceiling but, with so many other candidate and no clear 2nd place, it's possible he could win with a plurality. In any event, he's not a Gingrich or Santorum.

I don't think he will win the nomination but he'll definitely change the race and probably for the ill of the Republican party. They'd love to get rid of him, they just don't know how and waiting for him to implode on his own isn't working.

Edited, Sep 8th 2015 6:00pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#270 Sep 08 2015 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
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.
Actually, that isn't true at all. Clinton has been on a roll of comparing ALL of the candidates to Trump, saying that they are no different. There's a reason why she is doing that, because she does not believe Trump will be the nominee.


I'm talking about the folks who run campaigns, not the candidates themselves. If you're a professional campaign manager working for Clinton (or any Dem for that matter), you're basically hoping and praying for a Trump nomination right now. He immediately turns a general election that Democrats are kinda dreading into one in which they can use Trumps over the top personality to rally people to support the party. People tend to either love or hate someone like Trump. And that plays very very well for the Dems. Polarization tends to help the Democrats. Their worst nightmare is a moderate seeming GOP candidate. In a normal election cycle, they have to go out of their way to find ways to portray the GOP candidate as some kind of dogmatic monster who will eat your babies or something. Trump kinda makes this easy for them. Really easy.

Gbaji wrote:
You do realize that Sanders voters are Warren voters? If anyone were to get hit in the polls, it would be Sanders.


Warren is seen as much more mainstream than Sanders. That was kind of my point. If Clinton were a strong candidate, then what you say would be the case. But Clinton is struggling so badly, that even Sanders (who should never be more than a low single digit candidate) is getting 30% support. Clinton's current numbers represent the party faithful who are aware that Sanders has no chance, so they're sticking with the only candidate with a chance. Warren gets in and a ton of those folks will flock to her. Sanders would lose a lot as well (as he should), but my point was semi-humor that Clinton would drop below Sanders if Warren got in, not because Sanders would remain strong, but because Clinton would more or less disappear from the polls.

Maybe it's my own Conservative blinders, but I do think that if any reasonable alternative candidate got into the race, Clinton would be out in a hot second. It's not something you'll hear liberal pundits say outright, but just the way they talk about Clinton is "off". You know when you're watching DDD on food network and you can tell that Guy is trying to find good things to say about some food item at a crappy restaurant somewhere? That's the same kind of sense I get from liberals right now when they talk about Clinton. They don't want to outright say anything negative in case that hurts her election chances later, but boy would they rather anyone else was the front runner.

Quote:
Furthermore, there was a recent poll (which again I don't like polls) that says if it were evident that HRC would do poorly in the primary, who would you vote for and she still pulled 23% of the votes, 3% under VP Biden with another 23% said that they wouldn't vote at all.


When as many people poll that they wouldn't vote at all as would vote for her, that's a problem.

Quote:
This is nothing more than GOP scare tactics to make her appear weaker than what she really is. Her approval rating within the party is 80%.


Huh? Source for this? How are you defining "within the party", because she absolutely does not have those kinds of numbers among "likely primary voters", and does even worse among the general voting public. To be fair, this early on, nearly everyone has higher unfavorable versus favorable numbers (at this stage, people tend to define themselves by who they oppose, which is a larger number). The big problem for her is that she has a very low number of "undecided" in there. Meaning that everyone else has a lot more people they can move into the favorable category as the process evolves. Most people have already decided whether they like or dislike her and those people are unlikely to change their minds.

Also, as I alluded to above, when there are a large number of candidates in the race, the unfavorable number tends to be higher, because if I've picked one out of 10 candidates, I'm going to poll "against" the other 9. This drives up the unfavorable number, but you expect it to shrink as the candidate field shrinks, and people are now polling out of say 3 candidates in a primary race (this factor also skews the early head to head general election polling). But that factor can't explain her high unfavorable rating. She's just that unpopular. Period. Even when she's the only candidate in the primary, she's not liked. And that's a really bad sign.

Quote:
Once you're down to the general election, personalities are placed second and the focus is on substance. A liberal is not going to vote for JEB because of her email controversy. Likewise, a conservative is not going to vote for HRC because he has "low energy".


Sure. But as your own numbers above show, lots of people just wont bother to show up and vote. Also, while we tend to focus on the sides of politics there are a lot of voters in the middle that don't have a strong party preference. Those are the people who make the difference in a general election.

Which, to get back to my starting point, is why every single Dem strategist and campaign manager is praying that Trump retains the GOP lead and becomes the nominee. It's by far their best chance for victory right now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#271 Sep 08 2015 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
That's what Joph said not good enough?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Sep 08 2015 at 6:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's what Joph said not good enough?
Pointing out other's mistakes is HI-larious.







Delicious Schadenfreude
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#273 Sep 08 2015 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's what Joph said not good enough?

Don't ask me; I'm calling my internet copyright lawyer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#274 Sep 09 2015 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Maybe it's my own Conservative blinders
Maybe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#275 Sep 09 2015 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm talking about the folks who run campaigns, not the candidates themselves. .
Do you actually have an example of a campaign manager who is aggressively attacking Trump more than other candidates?

Gbaji wrote:

Warren is seen as much more mainstream than Sanders.
Even if that were true, that doesn't change the fact that Warren voters are Sanders voters. In other words, Sanders does not have any true supporters. If an actual candidate were to run, they would pull more from Sanders than Hillary. Especially if the candidate is to the right of Sanders, but to the left of Hillary. You can't have it both ways. If Hillary is seen as "too close to wall street", then her supporters aren't going to flock to a candidate who despises wall street.

Gbaji wrote:
Maybe it's my own Conservative blinders, but I do think that if any reasonable alternative candidate got into the race, Clinton would be out in a hot second. It's not something you'll hear liberal pundits say outright, but just the way they talk about Clinton is "off". You know when you're watching DDD on food network and you can tell that Guy is trying to find good things to say about some food item at a crappy restaurant somewhere? That's the same kind of sense I get from liberals right now when they talk about Clinton. They don't want to outright say anything negative in case that hurts her election chances later, but boy would they rather anyone else was the front runner.
That's exactly what the GOP is doing towards Clinton. It's blatantly obvious when they attack President Obama for his actions with Cuba, but promotes a candidate who is a socialist. This is an all out attack to try to make her appear as weak as possible to cast doubt into the public. If she were truly that weak, the GOP would be attacking Sanders and promoting Hillary, not the other way around.


Gbaji wrote:
When as many people poll that they wouldn't vote at all as would vote for her, that's a problem.
That's a good sign. The point of the poll wasn't for you to decide who to vote for, but essentially your choice knowing that Clinton wouldn't win. When half of the poll says that they will either vote for you or no one knowing that you probably wont win, that's a good thing.

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? Source for this?
https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/639381540884062208


Gbaji wrote:
Also, as I alluded to above, when there are a large number of candidates in the race, the unfavorable number tends to be higher, because if I've picked one out of 10 candidates, I'm going to poll "against" the other 9. This drives up the unfavorable number, but you expect it to shrink as the candidate field shrinks, and people are now polling out of say 3 candidates in a primary race (this factor also skews the early head to head general election polling). But that factor can't explain her high unfavorable rating. She's just that unpopular. Period. Even when she's the only candidate in the primary, she's not liked. And that's a really bad sign.
Suuuuuure... Having 18 candidates attacking you non stop with an entire congress on a Benghazi witch hunt has NOTHING to do with it...

Furthermore, your explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. A high number of candidates does not in any way drive up your unavailability ratings. Voting for Bush doesn't mean I hate Walker. I might like Walker, but think Bush would stand a better chance in the general election. What you're intentionally overlooking is that front runners often take the biggest hits. This includes both Bush and Clinton. That's why her numbers are down, because that's typical for front runners.

Gbaji wrote:
Sure. But as your own numbers above show, lots of people just wont bother to show up and vote. Also, while we tend to focus on the sides of politics there are a lot of voters in the middle that don't have a strong party preference. Those are the people who make the difference in a general election.

Which, to get back to my starting point, is why every single Dem strategist and campaign manager is praying that Trump retains the GOP lead and becomes the nominee. It's by far their best chance for victory right now.
Putting your lack of understanding of the poll aside, under that logic, then the GOP should be wishing for Clinton to win the DNC primary. So, why are they promoting Biden, Sanders, warren, etc?
#276 Sep 09 2015 at 4:30 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
but my point was semi-humor that Clinton would drop below Sanders if Warren got in, not because Sanders would remain strong, but because Clinton would more or less disappear from the polls.


http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/a35d9ff8-45d4-476d-8751-f0f2e6b54a7b.pdf wrote:
Clinton 42%, Biden 22%, Sanders 20%
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 164 All times are in CST
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (163)