Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

YOU'RE FIRED!Follow

#277 Sep 09 2015 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Do you actually have an example of a campaign manager who is aggressively attacking Trump more than other candidates?


Um... Are you seriously asking this question? Why do you suppose we have an entire thread devoted to talking (mostly negatively) about Trump? We can speculate as to whether Trump is being talked about (everywhere, not just this forum) more than other GOP candidates because he's being covered more in the media or for some other reason (like say being the lead GOP candidate), but he is being talked about more (again, overwhelmingly negatively). Which, obviously, includes Dem pundits being asked about him more. Which means them talking about him (negatively, duh) more.

Why doesn't matter any more than it matters for Clinton. She's also being talked about more. Could be because of the various scandals, could be because she's the Dem frontrunner. Same deal. Which was precisely the point I was originally making 2 pages ago. It's something both sides do. I could explain why, but I already did this with a whole post about primary politics and how it makes for strange activities.

Quote:
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.


Geez Alma. It was a joke. An exaggeration. A funny. Get it? I was saying "Clinton is so terrible, that if anyone serious got in, she'd drop below even Sanders, who should only be a low single digit candidate". Sheesh!

Quote:
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.


Remember when I said that primaries are strange? This is one of those ways that they are strange. There's no reason to attack Sanders, because he has no chance of winning the primary. At this stage in things, Clinton is the inevitable nominee for the Democrats. Barring someone else getting in, she will win the nomination. Period. So there's every reason to start chipping away at her now. Also, somewhat ironically, by doing this it signals to the Dems that Clinton is the strong candidate that the GOP fears. Never underestimate the value of folks circling the wagons to defend their candidate when under attack.


Um... And at the risk of coming full circle, this is *also* one of the reasons why the Dems are gleefully attacking Trump. Primary messaging is a bit of a balancing act.

Quote:
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.


Wouldn't it be a better sign if 100% of Dem voters would continue to vote for her even if they thought she had little or no chance to win? Cause that stat represents the degree to which perception can affect reality. I don't have to actually beat Clinton, just make enough voters think I will beat her, and half of them wont bother to show up.

It's not a good sign. It shows weak support for the candidate.



Um... A screenshot from MSNBC on a twitter page? Seriously? I can't find that poll or result anywhere. But here's a quick find on google. So either someone edited the screenshot, or somehow some poll managed to get her (and Biden!) numbers that are massively out of touch with reality. I'm going with edited screenshot. Well, and it's MSNBC.

How about finding a link to the actual poll, not a screenshot. Then we can talk. The only thing close I can find is a Gallup poll from March showing her with a 76% favorable rating among Democrats. I'm sure you'll have more luck actually finding the poll with those numbers though.

Quote:
Suuuuuure... Having 18 candidates attacking you non stop with an entire congress on a Benghazi witch hunt has NOTHING to do with it...


The number of candidates on the other side has zero to do with your own favorability rating. In a primary, the number of candidates on your side does.

Her problems with Benghazi, and her email server are problems that exist regardless of the number of GOP candidates too. And yes, those are driving her numbers down. But because, regardless of a liberal echo chamber desperately desiring otherwise, these are real problems for her. If she were not so well politically connected (and the Dem frontrunner making any attack on her seem political), she'd almost certainly be under indictment right now for her email server alone. Legal issues aside, the whole thing (a whole list of things really) make her someone the public doesn't trust. And that's a problem if you're asking people to trust you to lead the country.

Quote:
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.


Sigh. But if I want Bush to win the primary I'm going to poll as "not liking" the other candidates. Because that makes my guy look better, which may attract voters to him and away from the other guys in the race. You're not getting how primaries work. Not everyone does this, of course, but enough to create a measurable effect. As long as any percentage of primary voters do this at all, then there will be a correlation between the number of candidates in the race and the relative unfavorable rating of each of those candidates.

The point being that you can't compare those ratings among the candidates in one party with 18 candidates in the race to the ratings among the candidates of another party that only has 1 or 2 in the race. They are not equivalent comparisons.

Quote:
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.


I'm not overlooking this. I've been saying all along that the only reason Clinton is the frontrunner among Dems is because she's essentially the only person in the race. She's going to take hits when/if she wins the nomination too, right? This is kinda relevant to her chance in the general election.

Quote:
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?


Um... Primary messaging. Remember when I said that it can be strange? I wouldn't say that the GOP is promoting those other candidates, so much as using them to point out how weak Clinton is. It's about priming the pump for the general election. As I said earlier, it's a balancing act. You want the public to view Clinton as weak, ineffective, untrustworthy, and a generally bad candidate, but not so much that the other party fails to nominate her anyway. This is where the numbers you posted earlier about the number of people who just wouldn't bother to vote if they thought Clinton couldn't win becomes relevant.

Edited, Sep 9th 2015 4:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#278 Sep 09 2015 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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%


Did you intend to support my argument? According to the document, there mere speculation of a Biden run dropped Clinton down 10%, but during the same time period Sanders increased by 4%. Again, this is less about other candidates being strong, as Clinton being incredibly weak.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#279 Sep 09 2015 at 6:06 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um... Are you seriously asking this question? Why do you suppose we have an entire thread devoted to talking (mostly negatively) about Trump? We can speculate as to whether Trump is being talked about (everywhere, not just this forum) more than other GOP candidates because he's being covered more in the media or for some other reason (like say being the lead GOP candidate), but he is being talked about more (again, overwhelmingly negatively). Which, obviously, includes Dem pundits being asked about him more. Which means them talking about him (negatively, duh) more.

Why doesn't matter any more than it matters for Clinton. She's also being talked about more. Could be because of the various scandals, could be because she's the Dem frontrunner. Same deal. Which was precisely the point I was originally making 2 pages ago. It's something both sides do. I could explain why, but I already did this with a whole post about primary politics and how it makes for strange activities.
Do you actually have an example of a campaign manager who is aggressively attacking Trump more than other candidates?

Gbaji wrote:

Geez Alma. It was a joke. An exaggeration. A funny. Get it? I was saying "Clinton is so terrible, that if anyone serious got in, she's drop below even Sanders, who should only be a low single digit candidate". Sheesh!

Gbaji wrote:

Did you intend to support my argument? According to the document, there mere speculation of a Biden run dropped Clinton down 10%, but during the same time period Sanders increased by 4%. Again, this is less about other candidates being strong, as Clinton being incredibly weak.
Doesn't seem like a joke. Clinton is trying to run off of Obama's success with his coalition. There is NO ONE who can attach their self closer to President Obama's success than Biden. If Clinton still pulls double her opponents with Biden in, then she is showing great strength. As stated, Sanders voters are Warren voters, so if she were to enter, then you would see a tremendous drop in his support. In either case, HRC remains on top.

Gbaji wrote:
Remember when I said that primaries are strange? This is one of those ways that they are strange. There's no reason to attack Sanders, because he has no chance of winning the primary. At this stage in things, Clinton is the inevitable nominee for the Democrats. Barring someone else getting in, she will win the nomination. Period. So there's every reason to start chipping away at her now. Also, somewhat ironically, by doing this it signals to the Dems that Clinton is the strong candidate that the GOP fears. Never underestimate the value of folks circling the wagons to defend their candidate when under attack.


Um... And at the risk of coming full circle, this is *also* one of the reasons why the Dems are gleefully attacking Trump. Primary messaging is a bit of a balancing act.
So Hillary is NOT weak then? You can't say that she is going to win the primaries *period* then say she is weak. Once you get to the general election, you are essentially starting over with all kinds of support that you never had.


Gbaji wrote:
Wouldn't it be a better sign if 100% of Dem voters would continue to vote for her even if they thought she had little or no chance to win? Cause that stat represents the degree to which perception can affect reality. I don't have to actually beat Clinton, just make enough voters think I will beat her, and half of them wont bother to show up.

It's not a good sign. It shows weak support for the candidate.
According to this poll, even if 100% of the people had voted for her, she would still lose. That 23% of the people decided that no other candidate would be worth their time to vote, if HRC were to lose. The other half thought it would be worth their time to vote for a losing candidate. That's a sign of strength.


Gbaji wrote:
Um... A screenshot from MSNBC on a twitter page? Seriously? I can't find that poll or result anywhere. But here's a quick find on google. So either someone edited the screenshot, or somehow some poll managed to get her (and Biden!) numbers that are massively out of touch with reality. I'm going with edited screenshot. Well, and it's MSNBC.

How about finding a link to the actual poll, not a screenshot. Then we can talk. The only thing close I can find is a Gallup poll from March showing her with a 76% favorable rating among Democrats. I'm sure you'll have more luck actually finding the poll with those numbers though.
I saw it on Morning Joe, so when I did a search, that's what came up. It definitely wasn't edited. I wasn't able to find the actual poll either. Maybe a mistake on their part? Maybe. Regardless, HRC has the DNC on her side and they will not allow Sanders (a candidate that you admitted would never win) win the primary.


Gbaji wrote:
The number of candidates on the other side has zero to do with your own favorability rating. In a primary,
It is when they are attacking you. If you don't understand that simple concept, then you're truly confused. What's the point of having negative ads if people are only going to make their assessments based on what candidates say about themselves?


Gbaji wrote:
Sigh. But if I want Bush to win the primary I'm going to poll as "not liking" the other candidates.
No you're not. Those are two separate polls. That's why Trump is leading in both for candidacy and unfavorability. If I'm not mistaken (didn't research it), Sanders has a much higher favorability rating than HRC, but his overall numbers are still less than HRC. Those are two different numbers.


Gbaji wrote:
I'm not overlooking this. I've been saying all along that the only reason Clinton is the frontrunner among Dems is because she's essentially the only person in the race. She's going to take hits when/if she wins the nomination too, right? This is kinda relevant to her chance in the general election.
You have that backwards. She's the only person in the race, because she is the front runner. The expectation and support for her were so high well before any announcement, that it drove away the other candidates. This is the tactic that Bush tried and when his financial connections didn't sway his numbers, everyone decided to jump in. That's what the DNC is afraid of happening with HRC.


Gbaji wrote:
I wouldn't say that the GOP is promoting those other candidates, so much as using them to point out how weak Clinton is. I
No. They have literally said how great Warren, Sanders and Biden are for the party and how they represent an ignored voice.





#280 Sep 09 2015 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Do you actually have an example of a campaign manager who is aggressively attacking Trump more than other candidates?


How exactly do you propose I do this? Barring some site out there actually tracking the total number of statements made by campaign managers, staff, and supporting pundits and presenting this in tabular form and comparing the exact number of such statements made about each opposing candidate, there's no single source I could use for this. The evidence is that most of the talk from the Left is about Trump (and is overwhelmingly negative). Same as it is on this forum. What the public is talking about is an echo of what the campaigns are talking about. Which one is leading the other isn't important.

For me to be wrong about this would require that everyone else *but* folks involved in Dem campaigns are spending more time talking about Trump than other GOP candidates. Which seems unlikely.

Quote:
Doesn't seem like a joke. Clinton is trying to run off of Obama's success with his coalition. There is NO ONE who can attach their self closer to President Obama's success than Biden. If Clinton still pulls double her opponents with Biden in, then she is showing great strength. As stated, Sanders voters are Warren voters, so if she were to enter, then you would see a tremendous drop in his support. In either case, HRC remains on top.


So? Here's a poll taken last year. Here's the funny thing:

Quote:
In fact, Clinton doesn't even make second place. Forty two percent of respondents favor Warren, and Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders also edges out Clinton with 24% compared to her 23%, according to results from the 2016 Presidential Pulse Poll commissioned by progressive grassroots organization Democracy for America.


Heck. I was joking, but you're right. Maybe it's not actually a joke. Lol!

Quote:
So Hillary is NOT weak then? You can't say that she is going to win the primaries *period* then say she is weak. Once you get to the general election, you are essentially starting over with all kinds of support that you never had.


She's probably going to win the nomination, not because she's strong, but because, as I've said repeatedly she's the only serious candidate in the race. What part of that is not sinking into your skull? And no, she's not going to start over in the general with all kinds of support she never had. She's the only person in the race. She currently has "all the support" she's likely to get. While Sanders is polling well, he's got next to zero support from the party, or the PACs, or basically anyone. Clinton is seen (and has been for some time) as the inevitable candidate for the Democrats. Barring someone like Obama showing up (or, I suppose, Clinton actually getting indicted), that's not likely to change. And Bernie Sanders is no Obama.


Once again, you are confusing the current state of the Dem primary with the normal state of a political primary (especially the current GOP primary). Normally, you have a bunch of people running, any one of whom may come out on top (usually there's 3-4 that are considered serious contenders, but sometimes it's more open), and lots of people sit on the sidelines and wait to pledge support. This Dem primary is *not* like that. As I think I mentioned earlier (can't remember which thread), it's becoming apparent that some kind of backroom deal was made to ensure Clinton got a clean run this time around, and it looks like the Democrats are holding to that agreement for some reason. Either that, or they really do just not have anything remotely resembling a healthy stable of potential candidates to go out there.

Sanders getting in is basically a "***** you guys, I'm going to do what I want". He's the crazy uncle at the holiday dinner and just doesn't care. But his action has pointed out just how weak Clinton really is. And I suspect that the party isn't sure how to handlle that.

Quote:
According to this poll, even if 100% of the people had voted for her, she would still lose. That 23% of the people decided that no other candidate would be worth their time to vote, if HRC were to lose. The other half thought it would be worth their time to vote for a losing candidate. That's a sign of strength.


Can you link to the poll then? Because I'm not sure what it's trying to measure here. It's a pretty silly premise since you can never know for sure if a candidate can't win. To me, this is probably measuring the degree to which those taking the poll believe whatever is telling them their candidate can't win. So 23% would continue to support Clinton even if they were told (again, it's unclear how this is presented to the people taking this poll) that she had no chance to win. 23% would not bother to show up. To me, those are bad numbers. If you strongly support a candidate, you'd vote for that candidate no matter what external polling data suggested. What is the alternative? Vote for the other party? If she's really going to lose either way, then it doesn't matter how you vote.

I'm not sure why you'd think this means she's strong. Do you have data on other candidates polled in the same way so we can compare? Right now, all I see is data with no context.

Quote:
I saw it on Morning Joe, so when I did a search, that's what came up. It definitely wasn't edited. I wasn't able to find the actual poll either. Maybe a mistake on their part? Maybe. Regardless, HRC has the DNC on her side and they will not allow Sanders (a candidate that you admitted would never win) win the primary.


It's MSNBC. And yes, Clinton has the DNC on her side. That's the point I was making earlier. She's only doing well because the party had decided that she was to be their candidate well before anyone ran. And because of that, no one else (other than the crazy uncle and a couple issues guys) has opposed her. And because of that, she kinda has to have high support among Dems because she's the only one in the race. I keep saying this, and you keep not getting what this means.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The number of candidates on the other side has zero to do with your own favorability rating.
It is when they are attacking you. If you don't understand that simple concept, then you're truly confused. What's the point of having negative ads if people are only going to make their assessments based on what candidates say about themselves?


Sigh. The total number of funding and support for a given party as a whole is pretty fixed at any given point in the election process. The total amount spent on attack ads against Clinton would be the same whether there were 18 people in the GOP primary, or 5. And frankly, the GOP candidates aren't focused on attacking Clinton yet. They're focused on trying to win the primary. They are spending their personal campaign time/effort/money attacking the other 17 GOP primary candidates. What little is being spent attacking Clinton is coming from various interest groups, GOP PACs, and the RNC. Again, they'd do that to the same degree regardless of how many GOP candidates there are in the primary race.

This is why negatives are higher among a party based on how many are in the primary race. When you've got 18 people in the race, that means you're facing attacks from 17 other candidates (most of it focused on the frontrunners). When you're the only person in the race, you face very little. The problem for Clinton is how poorly she's faring against the relatively small amount of "attacks" coming from the GOP right now. As the GOP field trims down, more attention will be paid to her by the GOP itself. And, of course, once a nominee arises, all of it will be. Right now, her negatives are largely just because of her own past. And she's struggling against just that.

Quote:
You have that backwards. She's the only person in the race, because she is the front runner. The expectation and support for her were so high well before any announcement, that it drove away the other candidates.


Surely you can see how polling numbers after that has happened are going to be the result of those other candidates not entering the race. Saying "she's polling at X number among Dem voters" is meaningless when she's essentially the only viable choice for them to pick. As I pointed out earlier, just last year, with Warren and Sanders in the race, Clinton polled third. She isn't the only person in the race because she had such high polling numbers, so no one else should bother,, but because the party powers-that-be decided that she would be the only person in the race and that she would get the full support of the party regardless of who else ran. That drove away other candidates, who, out of party loyalty, have held back to give her the shot. Well, except for crazy uncle Sanders, of course.

I'm talking about her polling numbers now. You were the one talking about how high her support was among Dem primary voters (the screen shot from MSNBC was from late August, right?). My counter is that she's the only serious candidate for them to poll for, which is why her numbers appear to be high (especially compared to the GOP candidates). That's an effect of her being the only candidate in the race, not the cause her being the only candidate in the race. Effect can't come before cause.


Quote:
No. They have literally said how great Warren, Sanders and Biden are for the party and how they represent an ignored voice.


Who's "they"? And again, I suspect you don't understand why the opposition might do this. The GOP would love for more serious contenders to appear in the Dem primary, if for no other reason than it would force Clinton to spend more time/money defending herself. It also produces this lovely effect where primary opponents often raise concerns that the opposition party can then use later in the general, and when countered on partisan grounds, can simply quote the primary candidate saying the same thing. Hey look! We're not just saying this because we're Republicans, because <insert Democrat primary candidate here> said the same thing about Clinton a few months ago!

Which, btw, is exactly why the Democratic Party has set this primary up for Clinton to be (relatively) unopposed. They hope that the lack of true opposition in the primary will result in less problems for Clinton in the general election. It's not a bad strategy, but the problem is that primaries exist for a reason. They help weed out candidates who can't win by revealing their weaknesses prior to nomination. It's about finding the strongest candidate to represent the party. And while it's possible to find that strongest candidate by executive decision, it's just as likely (more likely in all probability) that you'll pick someone who is a disaster and not realize it until too late.

The danger with their approach is that it's very hard to know if this is happening precisely because polling will still appear to be "good", because she's the only serious candidate in the race. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. For an "inevitable" candidate, she's not doing very well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#281 Sep 09 2015 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why do you suppose we have an entire thread devoted to talking (mostly negatively) about Trump?
He's a shmegegge who says idiotic things foot racing against generic stock cars. Why do you suppose we have a thread about Trump?

Edited, Sep 9th 2015 10:22pm 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.
#282 Sep 10 2015 at 12:13 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why do you suppose we have an entire thread devoted to talking (mostly negatively) about Trump?
He's a shmegegge who says idiotic things foot racing against generic stock cars. Why do you suppose we have a thread about Trump?


It's a rhetorical question. The point is that we *are* talking about him more than the other candidates. The media is covering him far far more than the other candidates as well. Everyone is talking about him more than the other candidates. Everyone presumably includes Dem political operatives too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#283 Sep 10 2015 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The media is covering him far far more than the other candidates as well.
That's because everyone else is boring and stupid is a ratings grabber.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#284 Sep 10 2015 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Okay, he's gotta be trolling us.

Oh, **** you, Google prissy pants.

Here's the link, just take the space out of the OH DEAR GOD offending word: http://www.avclub.com/article/now-rem-pis sed-donald-trump-using-its-end-world-225128





Edited, Sep 10th 2015 10:01am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#285 Sep 10 2015 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
The thing is, most of these are played with permission in that the venue got the requisite license. They just didn't bother asking the artist directly, which given the context they probably should have, as it never looks good.
____________________________
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
#286 Sep 10 2015 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, I was more talking about associating one's campaign with a song called "It's the End of the World as We Know It".

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

#287 Sep 10 2015 at 1:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The thing is, most of these are played with permission in that the venue got the requisite license. They just didn't bother asking the artist directly, which given the context they probably should have, as it never looks good.


I always wonder about that. It seems like artists love to make a big tizzy when some politician uses their music for some event, but is that really a violation of any laws? They can post on social media about cease and desist orders (did they actually get one, or just use the language in the media?), but is this just phony outrage? Music can be used for private events without needing the artists permission, as long as there is no money being made on the music itself. Fair use is traditionally viewed pretty broadly in this context. You don't get permission to use the music in your playlist at your wedding. Heck. I've never heard of anyone being sued over playing someones song during a money dance (where you could actually argue that the song is being used to generate revenue). If this were a concert, where people are actually paying to listen to the music, then permission/payment would be required, but I'm not sure if background music played at an event unrelated to the music itself violates any sort of laws. Does the DJ playing music at a venue actually pay each artist for every song on the playlist? What about clubs? Do they pay the artists, or is it legal for them to play any music that they purchased legally?

Is this just artists being dicks and expressing their dislike of a candidate/party (or to just say "look at me!")? Or do they actually have a legal leg to stand on? Because it seems to me that if I purchased a song (buying the album, or legally downloaded it), I have the right to use it how I wish. And yes, that should include playing it when I enter a room for any event I want. It's not like people paid X dollars a plate to attend a fundraiser just to hear some music. You'd have a hard time saying that it was the music that generated the revenue. But then again, I've never really looked this up. Just always assumed it was the artists expressing themselves for the sake of expressing themselves.

I fully expect Trump, being Trump, to respond by playing more of their songs at each event he hosts, just to put them in their place. Cause he's like that. What are they going to do? Actually sue him? That would be funny to see really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#288 Sep 10 2015 at 1:17 PM Rating: Default
Well cankles sure isn't exciting anyone that's for sure.

#289 Sep 10 2015 at 1:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was really hoping that "canklesbegone" would be some medical service spam Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#290 Sep 10 2015 at 1:20 PM Rating: Decent
Especially love old Hillary bashing barry.
#292 Sep 10 2015 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
I was really hoping that "canklesbegone" would be some medical service spam Smiley: frown


Yeah because you can't really defend Hillary...but then again it's not like you have to; every single democrat is going to vote democrat not matter what.
#293 Sep 10 2015 at 1:22 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why do you suppose we have an entire thread devoted to talking (mostly negatively) about Trump?
He's a shmegegge who says idiotic things foot racing against generic stock cars. Why do you suppose we have a thread about Trump?

Edited, Sep 9th 2015 10:22pm by lolgaxe


Because Hillary's a really disgusting individual and you'd rather pretend she's not. Best way to do that is to just ignore her until you head to the voting booth.
#294 Sep 10 2015 at 1:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Clubs, bars, etc usually have a blanket license agreement with the major music groups (ASCAP & BMI) that covers 99.9% of anything they'd be playing.

Trump likely had a license to play the song (who knows though) although I assume that the county clerk "Eye of the Tiger" bit was more ad hoc.

I don't really have an issue with musicians taking the time to disassociate themselves from politicians they dislike even if the music was legally used. I get a smirk out of how Republican candidates can't seem to find anyone who likes them who isn't country or Ted Nugent.

Edited, Sep 10th 2015 2:27pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#295 Sep 10 2015 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
canklesbegone wrote:
every single democrat is going to vote democrat not matter what.

Hooray!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#296 Sep 10 2015 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
I always wonder about that. It seems like artists love to make a big tizzy when some politician uses their music for some event, but is that really a violation of any laws? They can post on social media about cease and desist orders (did they actually get one, or just use the language in the media?), but is this just phony outrage?


I have no way of knowing how phony it is, but no. As far as I can tell from their statement, they just asked him to stop using their music, and commented that this is not the most important issue anyone should be focusing on. Stipe's comment, tweeted with adorable ineptitude by Mike Mills, used much more colorful language; but he didn't say it was illegal or an outrage or any of that, just that Trump can go **** himself.

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

#297 Sep 10 2015 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bobby Jindal is risking his 0.5% [Edit: My mistake: 0.3% according to RCP] in the polls to attack Trump!
Politico wrote:
Bobby Jindal pulled no punches against Donald Trump on Thursday, raining down a deluge of criticisms on the current Republican leader in the polls, calling him "a narcissist," "an egomaniac," "non-serious," "substance-free," "insecure," "weak," "shallow," "unstable," among other knocks.

"Donald Trump is for Donald Trump. He believes in nothing other than himself. He's not for anything, he's not against anything," the governor of Louisiana and Republican presidential candidate told a gathering at the National Press Club in Washington. "Donald Trump is a narcissist and he's an egomaniac. That may sound like a serious charge to make, but everyone knows it to be true."
[...]
"He's a carnival act," said Jindal, whose campaign also released a new video Thursday that compared Trump's campaign antics to those of "winning" actor Charlie Sheen in 2011.


Edited, Sep 10th 2015 3:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#298 Sep 10 2015 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure if background music played at an event unrelated to the music itself violates any sort of laws.
It does.

gbaji wrote:
Is this just artists being dicks and expressing their dislike of a candidate/party (or to just say "look at me!")? Or do they actually have a legal leg to stand on? Because it seems to me that if I purchased a song (buying the album, or legally downloaded it), I have the right to use it how I wish.
They might have a legal leg to stand on, not so much in that the people wouldn't have been allowed to play the song in the first place, but they can restrict them from playing it in the future. So basically some staffer of a venue gets a license to play a specific song, or any songs from a library that a label has. The artist wouldn't be consulted at this point. When the artist makes a fuss they will often have the right to exclude their music from use for that person in the future. (not always of course it depends somewhat on the label) I'm not really sure how enforceable this would be though, it appears murky. It also changes if it's a permanent venue, or an Event, etc etc.

It seems weddings are specifically exempt.

http://mydeejay.com/2011/04/truthsquad-does-my-wedding-dj-need-a-license/ wrote:

“ASCAP does not license DJs. It is the venue, establishment, or promoter of an event that is responsible for public performance licensing, not the performer. Private events such as weddings, etc. are exempt from licensing.”
– Bryn Caryl, ASCAP

“BMI licenses the “public performance” of music… events such as private parties and weddings are not required to have a license.”
– Jaqui Garlan, BMI

“Royalty fees are not collected for private performances.”
– David Derryberry, SESAC


Edited, Sep 10th 2015 3:17pm by Xsarus
____________________________
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
#299 Sep 10 2015 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
While wedding DJs may not need to license, I would be surprised if your larger event halls didn't have their own blanket license in place as they may host public events (bridal shows, charity auctions, etc).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#300 Sep 10 2015 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
While wedding DJs may not need to license, I would be surprised if your larger event halls didn't have their own blanket license in place as they may host public events (bridal shows, charity auctions, etc).
In Canuckistan they are required to. Any business playing music is required to.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#301 Sep 10 2015 at 4:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
How exactly do you propose I do this?
I don't know, you tell me since you're the one claiming that they're doing it. I'm merely pointing out that they are not doing that and you're just making stuff up.


gbaji wrote:

Heck. I was joking, but you're right. Maybe it's not actually a joke. Lol!
You dismiss a snapshot of a poll on MSNBC, but promote a poll from last year (outside of the campaign).


Gbaji wrote:
She's probably going to win the nomination, not because she's strong, but because, as I've said repeatedly she's the only serious candidate in the race. What part of that is not sinking into your skull?


Gbaji wrote:
It's MSNBC. And yes, Clinton has the DNC on her side. That's the point I was making earlier. She's only doing well because the party had decided that she was to be their candidate well before anyone ran. And because of that, no one else (other than the crazy uncle and a couple issues guys) has opposed her. And because of that, she kinda has to have high support among Dems because she's the only one in the race. I keep saying this, and you keep not getting what this means.
I'm not "getting it" because it doesn't make sense. According to your logic, the DNC drew names and Clinton's name so happen to come up, but they would have just as equally support Chaffee or O'Malley. They are behind her because she is obviously the best (i.e., strongest) candidate that the party has.

Gbaji wrote:
And no, she's not going to start over in the general with all kinds of support she never had. She's the only person in the race. She currently has "all the support" she's likely to get. While Sanders is polling well, he's got next to zero support from the party, or the PACs, or basically anyone. Clinton is seen (and has been for some time) as the inevitable candidate for the Democrats. Barring someone like Obama showing up (or, I suppose, Clinton actually getting indicted), that's not likely to change. And Bernie Sanders is no Obama.


Once again, you are confusing the current state of the Dem primary with the normal state of a political primary (especially the current GOP primary). Normally, you have a bunch of people running, any one of whom may come out on top (usually there's 3-4 that are considered serious contenders, but sometimes it's more open), and lots of people sit on the sidelines and wait to pledge support. This Dem primary is *not* like that. As I think I mentioned earlier (can't remember which thread), it's becoming apparent that some kind of backroom deal was made to ensure Clinton got a clean run this time around, and it looks like the Democrats are holding to that agreement for some reason. Either that, or they really do just not have anything remotely resembling a healthy stable of potential candidates to go out there.

Sanders getting in is basically a "***** you guys, I'm going to do what I want". He's the crazy uncle at the holiday dinner and just doesn't care. But his action has pointed out just how weak Clinton really is. And I suspect that the party isn't sure how to handlle that.
Once again, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that she is so weak that she would place at least third in a Democratic race with another strong candidate running WHILE at the same time arguing that the other candidates won't garner enough support to make a difference in the general election if they chose not to support Clinton.


Gbaji wrote:


Can you link to the poll then? Because I'm not sure what it's trying to measure here. It's a pretty silly premise since you can never know for sure if a candidate can't win. To me, this is probably measuring the degree to which those taking the poll believe whatever is telling them their candidate can't win. So 23% would continue to support Clinton even if they were told (again, it's unclear how this is presented to the people taking this poll) that she had no chance to win. 23% would not bother to show up. To me, those are bad numbers. If you strongly support a candidate, you'd vote for that candidate no matter what external polling data suggested. What is the alternative? Vote for the other party? If she's really going to lose either way, then it doesn't matter how you vote.

I'm not sure why you'd think this means she's strong. Do you have data on other candidates polled in the same way so we can compare? Right now, all I see is data with no context.
Let's assume you are supporting Walker. Walker and JEB appears to be the two front runners that will take it to the end. Let's say that Walker is polling near zero in Flordia but JEB is within the margin of error with Rubio. Who do you vote for?

Gbaji wrote:
Sigh. The total number of funding and support for a given party as a whole is pretty fixed at any given point in the election process. The total amount spent on attack ads against Clinton would be the same whether there were 18 people in the GOP primary, or 5. And frankly, the GOP candidates aren't focused on attacking Clinton yet. They're focused on trying to win the primary. They are spending their personal campaign time/effort/money attacking the other 17 GOP primary candidates. What little is being spent attacking Clinton is coming from various interest groups, GOP PACs, and the RNC. Again, they'd do that to the same degree regardless of how many GOP candidates there are in the primary race.

This is why negatives are higher among a party based on how many are in the primary race. When you've got 18 people in the race, that means you're facing attacks from 17 other candidates (most of it focused on the frontrunners). When you're the only person in the race, you face very little. The problem for Clinton is how poorly she's faring against the relatively small amount of "attacks" coming from the GOP right now. As the GOP field trims down, more attention will be paid to her by the GOP itself. And, of course, once a nominee arises, all of it will be. Right now, her negatives are largely just because of her own past. And she's struggling against just that.

For the exception of Trump, those candidates are not attacking each other, they are all attacking HRC. They even held rallies together to support MS Kentucky Bigot lady and to oppose the Iran nuclear deal. Ben Carson and Rick Perry even fought to get Carla in the CNN debate. I'm not sure what primary you're watching, but most of the hostility has been towards HRC. You can live in denial all you want, but it's a huge difference when you have 18 people, plus Congress attacking you vs one person.

Gbaji wrote:
Surely you can see how polling numbers after that has happened are going to be the result of those other candidates not entering the race. Saying "she's polling at X number among Dem voters" is meaningless when she's essentially the only viable choice for them to pick. As I pointed out earlier, just last year, with Warren and Sanders in the race, Clinton polled third. She isn't the only person in the race because she had such high polling numbers, so no one else should bother,, but because the party powers-that-be decided that she would be the only person in the race and that she would get the full support of the party regardless of who else ran. That drove away other candidates, who, out of party loyalty, have held back to give her the shot. Well, except for crazy uncle Sanders, of course.

I'm talking about her polling numbers now. You were the one talking about how high her support was among Dem primary voters (the screen shot from MSNBC was from late August, right?). My counter is that she's the only serious candidate for them to poll for, which is why her numbers appear to be high (especially compared to the GOP candidates). That's an effect of her being the only candidate in the race, not the cause her being the only candidate in the race. Effect can't come before cause.
Since, I literally binge watch the news, I can tell you that poll was an outlier. Every single poll until recently has had HRC on top. You're telling me that if Biden were polling 50% in the polls, that he wouldn't be running now? Biden, Warren and Sanders were all averaging under 20. Look at the aggregate of polls, even with all of the baggage that HRC has, she still overwhelmingly wins the vast of the polls.


Gbaji wrote:
Who's "they"? And again, I suspect you don't understand why the opposition might do this. The GOP would love for more serious contenders to appear in the Dem primary, if for no other reason than it would force Clinton to spend more time/money defending herself. It also produces this lovely effect where primary opponents often raise concerns that the opposition party can then use later in the general, and when countered on partisan grounds, can simply quote the primary candidate saying the same thing. Hey look! We're not just saying this because we're Republicans, because <insert Democrat primary candidate here> said the same thing about Clinton a few months ago!

Which, btw, is exactly why the Democratic Party has set this primary up for Clinton to be (relatively) unopposed. They hope that the lack of true opposition in the primary will result in less problems for Clinton in the general election. It's not a bad strategy, but the problem is that primaries exist for a reason. They help weed out candidates who can't win by revealing their weaknesses prior to nomination. It's about finding the strongest candidate to represent the party. And while it's possible to find that strongest candidate by executive decision, it's just as likely (more likely in all probability) that you'll pick someone who is a disaster and not realize it until too late.

The danger with their approach is that it's very hard to know if this is happening precisely because polling will still appear to be "good", because she's the only serious candidate in the race. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. For an "inevitable" candidate, she's not doing very well.
You win the award of creating the largest crock of crap out of anything. If anyone wants HRC to have a strong opponent, it's the Democrats. They want her prepared when she faces the GOP candidate who fought out 17 people.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 158 All times are in CST
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (157)