YOU'RE FIRED!Follow

Whoa there bucko. I wouldn't say that. Isn't Gary Johnston running for the Libertarians again this cycle?

Edited, Sep 10th 2015 11:37pm by Debalic

Baltimore Science Fiction Society has to keep current it license fees to show movies and music at our functions, which can make for headaches when we plan Balticon each year since we have to worry about someone wanting to play music during the Masquerade, that may not be cover by the licenses we currently have for that year. They aren't cheap and we barely can cover the cost of a con, as it is.

This next year being our 50th Balticon, we are asking for help bring past Guest of Honor to the Convention. Make It Happen

I wish I could rate you up to a higher status for this^^^

If you sincerely have nothing else to do with your day (and you being here is a good start), ASCAP has a FAQ for using music at political events.

Short version is that campaigns generally have to get their own licenses since the licenses obtained by venues often exclude political functions and that, even with a license, artists can still sue on grounds such as false endorsement, dilution of trademark and image protection.

Since I saw Morning Joe reference the poll again, I decided to google it again with the correct words and it was the first response.

Damn, you got me. What is the non-significant version of a hashtag? Doing nothing at all?

That's easy. Wage or join a war already in progress.

DEY TUK ER JERBS!

Which kinda shows you just how much spin MSNBC is engaged in. The poll and article were entirely about how poorly she's doing ratings wise, yet they showed a graphic onscreen that would suggest the exact opposite to the viewers. Gogo echo chamber!

And before you try to defend MSNBC or insist that they weren't spinning, let me point out that your own view of her popularity was clearly influenced by this very thing. To the point where you used the 80% number as evidence of how well she's doing. Might want to consider broadening your sources of information.

So observation absent formally collated data is acceptable when claiming that the conservative pundits and campaign spokespeople do this, but not when someone merely says "both sides do that". Is that really where you want to go on this one? You've apparently forgotten that all I said was that democrats do this too. I'll note that you have not demanded that anyone show data proving that conservatives do, which was what I originally responded to. Strange bit of one-sidedness you've got going on there.



It's a poll from a time period when those polling thought Warren might run (and thus polling agencies were actually doing polls on it). I'm not sure what the problem is. Again though, I was just making a joke. I thought it was additionally funny that when looking at polls prior to Warren formally dropping out (technically, formally not dropping in), she not only polled higher than Clinton (well, among liberal democrats at least), but that Sanders polled better among that group than Clinton. That does somewhat step all over your whole "Sanders voters are Warren voters" counter.

But, as I've pointed out several times, I was just making a joke.



You're mixing up cause and effect again. I'm saying that some sort of deal was struck well before this election season in which the DNC (and all serious candidates who want DNC support for their campaigns in the future) would support Clinton as their chosen candidate from day one. We can speculate about what sort of deal making occurred behind the scenes, but it's becoming abundantly obvious that a deal was made well before the opinions of potential primary voters were weighed. Polls after that point, where Clinton is presented to those being polled as the only viable Democrat candidate are somewhat meaningless in terms of determining whether Clinton is actually the best candidate for Dem voters to support. She's the only candidate. By design.



The other candidates that are running. That's the key point you keep ignoring. She's weak because the only reason she's polling as well as she is is because there are no other strong candidates with even a chance of winning the general in the race. I keep explaining this to you, and you keep not getting it. The Dems have rigged the primary to ensure that Clinton gets the nomination. We can speculate about what sorts of favor swapping occurred behind the scenes to make this happen, but it's pretty obvious that the powers-that-be have declared that Clinton shall be the nominee.

I suspect they're starting to regret this. I also suspect that this is at least partly behind Trumps rise. But that's an even more speculative proposition.




Again. Why don't you link the source for this? I assumed you were talking about in the general, not in the primary. Um... But even in a primary, that makes no sense (and also does not indicate a "strong" candidate). Primaries are not winner take all propositions (like most state general elections are). If 23% wont show up to vote because "she can't win", then those are a ton of delegates she wont get from that state, which may very well (will very well) hurt her in the quest for the nomination.

I'm still scratching my head about this data. It makes no sense, but no matter how I look at it, it does not indicate a strong candidate, and nothing you've said has clarified the matter.



You're... kidding, right? Let me suggest again that you maybe get your head out of whatever liberal echo chamber it's in. The GOP candidates are hardly expending any energy at all attacking Clinton. The media and other sources have, but they'd do that regardless of what's going on with the GOP candidates, and certainly regardless of how many GOP candidates there are in the race.

Excepting Trump is a total cop-out. He's the front runner. Of course he's going to get most of the attacks from the rest of the field. And of course, he's going to spend most of his energy responding to (and dishing out his own) attacks. That's my point though. The net effect of this is that all the GOP candidates are going to have higher negative numbers during this process. It's an unfortunate side effect of an open primary field. I'll also point out that this is almost certainly why the Dems have chosen to run Clinton more or less unopposed.



Stop flipping back and forth between primary and general polls. You're talking about primary polling in your post, but linked to a source that includes general polling. Those are not the same thing. But here's the thing, if we were to take general election poll numbers as an indication of who might be a better candidate to nominate, the page you linked shows Biden only a small amount below Clinton. Certainly close enough that you'd expect him to be in the race, right?

The problem is that those are not good sources. As I've mentioned a few times, polling on the general election while still in the relatively early stages of the primary is iffy at best. Doubly so when there is only one serious candidate actually in the primary on one side. When Clinton is the only real choice on the Dem side of such a poll, all Democrats polled are going to tend to poll for her. But when there are other GOP candidates in the race, Republican who are polled may tend to poll as undecided in a match up between Clinton any any GOP candidate who is not their preferred candidate. Not all of them will do this, but enough of a percentage to skew the results a bit.

You don't think this is true? But look at what you just did. You are trying to use relative general election poll match ups to show that Clinton is a stronger candidate than say Biden, Warren, or Sanders. Get it? Your argument is that since Clinton matches up better against <insert GOP candidate here> than Warren does, then Clinton is a stronger primary candidate. But the same works on the other side, right? If I'm a GOP voter, and I'm taking a poll matching up GOP candidates against Dem candidates, while the primary is still going, I'm motivated to make my preferred candidate look the strongest, right? As long as anyone looks at these general election match ups as a way of determining relative strength of primary candidates, we must also allow for the fact that this will influence the match ups themselves with an eye towards helping each persons candidate of choice in the primary.

How big is that factor? No way to be sure. But there's no way it *isn't* a factor. As I said above, the very fact that *you* place weight on such general match ups to determine primary strength means that others must as well.




Ok. Then why aren't there any strong opponents in the Dem primary? You say "it's the Democrats", but who you you mean by this? Democrat voters? Perhaps. The DNC? They may be influenced by other factors. It's this very lack of real opposition that is driving many (like myself) to believe that some sort of deal was made to have Clinton run unopposed. Because you are correct, normally you want a field of strong candidates, so you can properly prepare whomever comes out of the process as the nominee. The $64k question is "why are there no strong candidates opposing Clinton in the primary?"

You've basically got two likely answers:

1. There just aren't any other strong Democrats available (which I find hard to believe).

2. Some sort of deal was struck that is keeping strong candidates out of the race so that Clinton gets to run unopposed.


If you think there's some other likely reason, by all means post it.

I would treat it the same way. It's more about the artist expressing their opinion of the issue/group involved, than about any legal issue (unless actual legal issues are involved, which is sometimes the case). I suspect, however, that liberal artists are more likely to go out of their way to publicly declare their dislike for some conservative use of their song than a conservative artist would be the other way around. At the risk of cross thread shenanigans, this could possibly be a symptom of the whole "conservatives view liberals as misguided, while liberals view conservatives as evil" bit. I doubt that conservative musicians are as likely to view their music as some kind of social stand against the evil opposition and therefore be outraged at said evil opposition using it as liberal musicians are.

Just a sense I get. I'm sure that maybe there are some hard core religious musicians out there who might react as strongly as liberal musicians seem to do. I guess the question is whether we should view that as an over reaction, and secondly, whether it's really a good trait that rank and file liberals speaking about what should be fairly normal social/political concepts have to go to extreme religious fanatics to find an equivalent on the "other side". And certainly, I think that conservative musicians are far less likely to care about "normal" use of their music at political events regardless of the party of the politician in question than liberals are. Maybe liberals identify more strongly based on their political alignment than conservatives do? Dunno. It's not really something I've spent much time thinking about, and I'm just tossing out ideas off the top of my head here.

Edited, Sep 14th 2015 5:29pm by gbaji

And yet, you used the graphic as proof that Clinton is a strong candidate. So. Take a step back. If you responded to the graphic by thinking that this meant that Clinton was a strong candidate, then it's it possible that that's exactly why they put the graphic up? You can't use the graphic as proof of Clinton's strength as a candidate and then later insist that it wasn't put there to make people think Clinton is a strong candidate. Well, you can, but you'd be engaged in some pretty crazy back pedaling at that point.