Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:13 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Kasich is a nice guy, but he's a pussy.

America needs a lion.
I dont want Kasich, I just pointed out i can respect him. I mean this is about who the Dems would want as Prez. Not the GOP.
  #152  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:20 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, he's no Democrat. He's moderate for GOP.
I only mentioned Kasich as demonstrative of Hickenlooper's poor judgment.

I'm perfectly happy to have Kasich run as a Republican against Trump in 2020 and split that vote -- so long as he does it with a different candidate for Veep.

What I question is how Hickenlooper ever thought it was a good idea to run as the back half of a bipartisan ticket that advances the views that Kashich holds. How does that help the Dems in any way? And it's why I think Hickenlooper is a poor choice for a Democratic front runner in 2020.

I do actually like Mitch Landrieu, but he's got a lot of name recognition to catch up on. Plus I'm sick of the notion that federal level government experience doesn't matter. It does.
  #153  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:40 PM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, they should pick a candidate based upon their electability in the general election. Anyone branded (with solid evidence) as a Commie will lose. Simple as that. Why on earth do you think that someone who couldn't rally Dem voters in the last Primary will magically do so now? Bernie will rally his fans- which are about 40% of the Democrats. That's not enough to win. Bernie lost even worse that Hillary did.

Rove and the Kremlin won it for Trump by making up lies about Hillary.

Look, even here in this thread- "The Democrats nominated the least popular person, so she lost"- and what made Hillary so unpopular so fast? Karl and the Kremlin and the power of social media.

I am not saying take a boring centrist so much as take someone that isnt ready made for the GOP Big Lie campaign. And who isnt a loser already.
You're completely wrong about this. At risk of rehashing a debate that's been had a million times already, let me assert the following.

1. "Rove and the Kremlin" had no significant effect on the 2016 election.
2. Hillary did not lose because of lies told about her. She lost because she was a terrible candidate.
3. Bernie did not lose the primary because he is too far left. He did remarkably well, given the circumstances.
4. There is every reason to believe that Bernie could have beaten Trump is 2016 and could do so in 2020.

On point 1, given the 646,732,305,981 breathless articles about Russian interference over the past couple years, it's easy to lose sight of basic facts about the matter. The amount that the Russians spent on Facebook ads in 2016 was a small fraction of a percent of what the candidates themselves, and Superpacs, and everyone else spent. There is simply no evidence that the Russian ad buys caused any meaningful number of people to change their votes. In fact, there is simply no evidence that they caused a single person to change their vote. (As for Karl Rove, I don't why you mention him as he wasn't even employed by Trump.)

In the early primary season, polls matching up Hillary and Trump showed Hillary leading by about 3%. On election day, she won the vote by about 3%. So neither the Russians nor anything else that happened after the primaries can be blamed for Hillary's loss. It's all just excuses.

On 2, do you recall any Hillary speech where the crowd was actually enthusiastic for her? Was there a single person who really liked her positions on health care, or education, or military action, or environmental issues, or criminal justice reform, or anything else? Her biggest boosters spent the entire two-year campaign season reminding us that she was female because they just didn't have anything else to work with. She failed to offer a single policy that was worth caring about.

Trump was the least popular major-party candidate ever. Any decent candidate could have beaten him. The Democrats failed to offer a decent candidate.

On 3, it is of course true that Bernie got fewer votes in the primary than Hillary. But look at the disadvantages he had. He started with no name recognition, he didn't take big money donations, party insiders and the heads of every mainstream liberal organization were on Hillary's side from the start. Given those facts, Bernie's success is astonishing.

On 4, polls from the primary season pitching Bernie against Trump showed Bernie winning. Polls from right now show Bernie winning. There is straightforwardly no reason to believe that Bernie could not win.
  #154  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:13 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
You're completely wrong about this. At risk of rehashing a debate that's been had a million times already, let me assert the following.

1. "Rove and the Kremlin" had no significant effect on the 2016 election.
2. Hillary did not lose because of lies told about her. She lost because she was a terrible candidate.
3. Bernie did not lose the primary because he is too far left. He did remarkably well, given the circumstances.
4. There is every reason to believe that Bernie could have beaten Trump is 2016 and could do so in 2020.



In the early primary season, polls matching up Hillary and Trump showed Hillary leading by about 3%. On election day, she won the vote by about 3%. So neither the Russians nor anything else that happened after the primaries can be blamed for Hillary's loss. It's all just excuses.

On 2, do you recall any Hillary speech where the crowd was actually enthusiastic for her?

On 3, it is of course true that Bernie got fewer votes in the primary than Hillary. But look at the disadvantages he had. He started with no name recognition, he didn't take big money donations, party insiders and the heads of every mainstream liberal organization were on Hillary's side from the start. Given those facts, Bernie's success is astonishing.

On 4, polls from the primary season pitching Bernie against Trump showed Bernie winning. Polls from right now show Bernie winning. There is straightforwardly no reason to believe that Bernie could not win.
1. Only Trump apologists believe that.
2. Why then, did she win the primary so easy and win the popular vote? She also got close to winning the EC. Yes, indeed, i do, I saw quite a few.

4. Yes, because the GOP and the Kremlin hadn't started their lie machine vs Bernie. In fact the opposite, they were feeding lies to bernie-bros. If they had started to hit Bernie, he would have gone down in flames. If you dont think that the Слу́жба вне́шней разве́дки (Russian CIA) could have made up a credible Communist party ID card for bernie, and found pictures of him at rallies or speeches, and gotten a few fellow travelers to say Bernie had been a commie, you are naive.

Hillary was fairly popular before the lie machine started, it was the direct cause of her losing.
  #155  
Old 10-10-2018, 09:49 AM
Anny Middon Anny Middon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'll bet two cases of the delicious sweet-sour sticky rice whiskey that if Duckworth becomes a nominee FoxNews will rant about her "non-Americanness" every single day.
Duckworth is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. I'd love to see FoxNews rant about her "Non-Americanness" and then have the DAR rise and say, "Uh-uh. You don't diss our members like that."

I'm under the impression that membership in the DAR is highly-valued by some Americans.
  #156  
Old 10-10-2018, 07:07 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,954
Quote:
Quoth ITR Champion:

On point 1, given the 646,732,305,981 breathless articles about Russian interference over the past couple years, it's easy to lose sight of basic facts about the matter. The amount that the Russians spent on Facebook ads in 2016 was a small fraction of a percent of what the candidates themselves, and Superpacs, and everyone else spent.
Some of those super-PACs were the Russians. And because of the anonymous nature of super-PACs, nobody can tell how many.
  #157  
Old 10-11-2018, 02:57 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
2. Hillary did not lose because of lies told about her. She lost because she was a terrible candidate.
Events can have multiple causes.
(a) George died in the plane crash because he wanted to go to a wedding.
(b) George died in the plane crash because he refused to fly Lufthansa.
(c) George died in the plane crash because the air-speed indicator malfunctioned.
(d) George died in the plane crash because the experienced captain was drowsy.
(e) George died in the plane crash because the stall warning was ignored.
(f) George died in the plane crash because of the law of gravity.
All of the above are true statements.

The 2016 Presidential election was very close. As soon as you write "Hillary lost because of X and not because of Y," you are demonstrating innumeracy.

Capische?

Last edited by septimus; 10-11-2018 at 02:58 AM.
  #158  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:15 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Some of those super-PACs were the Russians. And because of the anonymous nature of super-PACs, nobody can tell how many.
Nah. Vast majority of the PAC money was against Trump at first. Unless of course you think the Russians were financing Clinton, Bush, and Rubio as well as Trump. Perhaps that will be the subject of your next late-night radio call-in.
  #159  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:31 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,002
Informed by today's 538 bit I am thinking of how much room there is in each "lane" and how that will impact early races.

I see Warren as highly likely to run. That takes up a lot of the economic progressive lane and means that if others whose core support is that group the early race vote may be split. And others there won't not run just because she is.

On the other hand the centrist lane is dominated by whether or not Biden runs. As 538 points out if he does not then Bullock and Hickenlooper likely do not.

Now of course some potentials overlap lanes some. Where does Harris fit in that dynamic?

And in the early races that determine the fundraising and media attention for the next rounds does someone who is between the centrist and progressive lanes get a following?

Obviously this is simplistic as centrist is not centrist and progressive has various flavors. A centrist can still be perceived as an outsider and a progressive as of the establishment. This is just one dimension.

Still the issue and question is: how does who else is running or not running early on split potential support and traction?
  #160  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:56 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Nah. Vast majority of the PAC money was against Trump at first. Unless of course you think the Russians were financing Clinton, Bush, and Rubio as well as Trump. .
Cite?
  #161  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:45 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Cite?
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

Trump was smashed by Clinton in outside money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/also-rans

Didn’t look for data showing how much outside money Trump had in the primaries. Nevertheless, his total for the whole election was less than Bush and Rubio had in the primaries by a good amount. Cruz also had 2/3 of what Trump would end up with.
  #162  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:21 PM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
1. Only Trump apologists believe that.
Sigh. I stated that the evidence is against the claim that the Russians cost Hillary the election, and I laid out a clear logical argument for what I said. You quoted my post but scissored out most of my argument, and then you declared that "Only Trump apologists believe that". Is that really the best that you can do? Are you not even pretending to have evidence on your side?

Let me state the facts again. The amount spend by the Russians on ads was trivial. There is not a single research study which suggests that they had any effect on anybody, much less that they had enough influence to sway the election. If you want to contest those facts, bring some actual evidence.

Quote:
4. Yes, because the GOP and the Kremlin hadn't started their lie machine vs Bernie. In fact the opposite, they were feeding lies to bernie-bros. If they had started to hit Bernie, he would have gone down in flames. If you dont think that the Слу́жба вне́шней разве́дки (Russian CIA) could have made up a credible Communist party ID card for bernie, and found pictures of him at rallies or speeches, and gotten a few fellow travelers to say Bernie had been a commie, you are naive.

Hillary was fairly popular before the lie machine started, it was the direct cause of her losing.
Incorrect beliefs lead to bad decisions. In 2016 the Democrats lost an election that they should have won easily by a huge margin. Normally this would result in a serious study of what the party did wrong and how their platform, their presentation, and their strategy should be changed. Instead many Dems just keep repeating "It was the Russians, it was the Russians, it was the Russians,..." and thus avoid confronting and solving the party's problems. Blaming the Russians for American election results is like that guy who blamed the Jews for snow.

Then you insist that Bernie must not be nominated and your argument rests on what "the GOP and the Kremlin" will do. So what exactly is the thinking here? That if the party just nominates someone nice and proper like Joe Biden, then "the GOP and the Kremlin" will treat him with kid gloves and be sure to say only truthful things about him? Trump would have a field day running against any center-leaning, corporate-friendly Democrat. He already did.
  #163  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:43 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Sigh. I stated that the evidence is against the claim that the Russians cost Hillary the election, and I laid out a clear logical argument for what I said. You quoted my post but scissored out most of my argument, and then you declared that "Only Trump apologists believe that". Is that really the best that you can do? Are you not even pretending to have evidence on your side?

Let me state the facts again. The amount spend by the Russians on ads was trivial. There is not a single research study which suggests that they had any effect on anybody, much less that they had enough influence to sway the election. If you want to contest those facts, bring some actual evidence.


Incorrect beliefs lead to bad decisions. In 2016 the Democrats lost an election that they should have won easily by a huge margin. Normally this would result in a serious study of what the party did wrong and how their platform, their presentation, and their strategy should be changed. Instead many Dems just keep repeating "It was the Russians, it was the Russians, it was the Russians,..." and thus avoid confronting and solving the party's problems.

Then you insist that Bernie must not be nominated and your argument rests on what "the GOP and the Kremlin" will do.
Actually, as pointed out by Chronos, many Super Pacs are anonymous.

But I give you cites:

https://www.wired.com/story/did-russ...ow-undeniable/
But the bombshell 37-page indictment issued Friday by Robert Mueller against Russia’s Internet Research Agency and its leadership and affiliates provides considerable detail on the Russian information warfare targeting the American public during the elections. And this information makes it increasingly difficult to say that the Kremlin's effort to impact the American mind did not succeed...1. What was the scope of the Russian effort?

The Mueller indictment permanently demolishes the idea that the scale of the Russian campaign was not significant enough to have any impact on the American public. We are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.

The Russian efforts described in the indictment focused on establishing deep, authenticated, long-term identities for individuals and groups within specific communities. This was underlaid by the establishment of servers and VPNs based in the US to mask the location of the individuals involved. US-based email accounts linked to fake or stolen US identity documents (driver licenses, social security numbers, and more) were used to back the online identities. These identities were also used to launder payments through PayPal and cryptocurrency accounts. All of this deception was designed to make it appear that these activities were being carried out by Americans.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/20...cts/index.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...2016-election/
The indictment alleges that an organization called the Internet Research Agency had a monthly budget of approximately $1.25 million toward interference efforts by September 2016 and that it employed “hundreds of individuals for its online operation.” This is a fairly significant magnitude — much larger than the paltry sums that Russian operatives had previously been revealed to spend on Facebook advertising...I tend to focus more on factors — such as Clinton’s email scandal or the Comey letter (and the media’s handling of those stories) — that had easier-to-prove effects. The hacked emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC (which may or may not have had anything to do with the Russians) potentially also were more influential than the Russian efforts detailed in Friday’s indictments. Clinton’s Electoral College strategy didn’t have as much of an effect as some people assume — but it was pretty stupid all the same and is certainly worth mentioning.

But if it’s hard to prove anything about Russian interference, it’s equally hard to disprove anything: The interference campaign could easily have had chronic, insidious effects that could be mistaken for background noise but which in the aggregate were enough to swing the election by 0.8 percentage points toward Trump — not a high hurdle to clear because 0.8 points isn’t much at all.


However, no us Democrats are ignoring the other stuff that Nate and other pointed out- the Comey letter, the email scandal, Clintons bad electoral strategy.

But you said "Rove and the Kremlin" had no significant effect on the 2016 election."

This is demonstrably false. Yes, certainly there were other factors- a couple of which were blunders. And that "The amount spend by the Russians on ads was trivial. " is true, but they spent millions on other activities , not to mention hacking.

However- that election was very close. The Russians, Comey, and poor strategy all each could have cost her the election.

But to say the Russian hacking AND Fake news campaign had no effect? We now know otherwise.

Why is Bernie not a good candidate?- well, I will give you solid facts- he lost the damn nomination. By a significant margin. He got clobbered.

And it is a fact that the fake news machine never hit him, and in fact worked in his favor. I guess it is possible he could have weathered that. But he couldnt even win the nom, even with the kremlin and the GOP working as hard as they could to torpedo the one person they were scared of- Hillary.
  #164  
Old 10-12-2018, 09:50 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,954
Also, ad buys weren't the primary focus of the Russians, and some of their other efforts did have significant effects. Like, how many people voted against Sanders in the primary because his supporters were too obnoxious? That's a reason I heard a lot. And guess who most of those "obnoxious Sanders supporters" turned out to be?
  #165  
Old 10-12-2018, 03:33 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 14,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Also, ad buys weren't the primary focus of the Russians, and some of their other efforts did have significant effects. Like, how many people voted against Sanders in the primary because his supporters were too obnoxious? That's a reason I heard a lot. And guess who most of those "obnoxious Sanders supporters" turned out to be?
Damned Commies, always wrecking it for the happy socialists.
  #166  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:05 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,053
I've always been saying that the Democrats can't afford to fuck around in this election, but now that we have the most recent reports of scientists about the effects of climate change, we REALLY CAN'T AFFORD TO FUCK AROUND. While climate change probably isn't a productive issue to campaign on, the necessary measures are not going to be enacted by a Republican administration. The fate of the planet hangs in the balance here; we cannot afford to have four more years of inaction (at best) or deliberate malicious action (at worst) towards improving the environment. This is life-and-death shit, even though most people don't care about it because we've just been kicking the can down the road. Life-and-death shit.

And I'm more concerned than ever that the Dems do not have anyone on their roster who can get it done.
  #167  
Old 10-12-2018, 09:34 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,330
So run on that. Get scientists out everywhere. And run on that.
  #168  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:25 AM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
However- that election was very close. The Russians, Comey, and poor strategy all each could have cost her the election.

But to say the Russian hacking AND Fake news campaign had no effect? We now know otherwise.

Why is Bernie not a good candidate?- well, I will give you solid facts- he lost the damn nomination. By a significant margin. He got clobbered.

And it is a fact that the fake news machine never hit him, and in fact worked in his favor. I guess it is possible he could have weathered that. But he couldnt even win the nom, even with the kremlin and the GOP working as hard as they could to torpedo the one person they were scared of- Hillary.
Two points. First, ok, so the Russians spent more money than just the Facebook ad buys. $1.25 million per month is still very small compared to what the actual candidates and political parties were spending during the campaign.

Second, from the Wired article that you linked to:
The content was not designed to persuade people to change their views, but to harden those views. Confirmation bias is powerful and commonly employed in these kinds of psychological operations (a related Soviet concept is “reflexive control”—applying pressure in ways to elicit a specific, known response). The intention of these campaigns was to activate—or suppress—target groups. Not to change their views, but to change their behavior.
So overall, the purpose of most of what the Russians did was not to deep-six Hillary. It was to create a general atmosphere of chaos and lead Americans to distrust our government and politicians, regardless of who wins. Recall that the hackers did not publish emails that they stole from the DNC during the battle between Hillary and Bernie. They waited until Hillary had the nomination secured and then published the emails.

So it is simply not the case that the Russian goal was to defeat Hillary because she was "the one they were scared of". If that were true, they could have gone all out against her during the primary, or even before she officially entered the campaign.

Looking forward to 2020, though, the main point is that whoever gets the nomination is going to have to campaign in an environment filled with lies, fake news, &c... Bernie has a strategy for dealing with that. His strategy is to present an economic platform that's popular with the voters and to stick with it. Throw anything at him and he deflects it and goes back to talking about health care. That's why Bernie's supporters like him. That's why they'll stay with him even if a Russian troll farm sends them a link to a video claiming that Bernie joined a KGB pedophile ring in a pizza place in 1963.

As for saying "he lost the damn nomination", no Democrat who's running in 2020 has ever won a damn nomination (unless, God forbid, Hillary enters the race.) Bernie has come closer to winning the nomination than anyone else involved.
  #169  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:23 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Also, ad buys weren't the primary focus of the Russians, and some of their other efforts did have significant effects. Like, how many people voted against Sanders in the primary because his supporters were too obnoxious? That's a reason I heard a lot. And guess who most of those "obnoxious Sanders supporters" turned out to be?
The obnoxious supporters I saw were on video behaving like idiots. Did the Russians have agents on our soil?
  #170  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:53 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
That's why Bernie's supporters like him. That's why they'll stay with him even if a Russian troll farm sends them a link to a video claiming that Bernie joined a KGB pedophile ring in a pizza place in 1963.

As for saying "he lost the damn nomination", no Democrat who's running in 2020 has ever won a damn nomination (unless, God forbid, Hillary enters the race.) Bernie has come closer to winning the nomination than anyone else involved.
Perhaps so, but he has the support of maybe 40% of one party. Aka the support of about 20% of the voters.

Actually you make a great case for Hillary to come back.

No more Comey memos. All the lies are out there. She almost won, and can tailor her strategy to won more states now.
  #171  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:15 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,954
WillFarnaby, your notion of "obnoxious supporters" is "anyone who supports government doing anything at all, no matter what it is". And yes, there are a lot of folks like that supporting Sanders, because there are a lot of folks like that supporting anyone you care to name.
  #172  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:35 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
WillFarnaby, your notion of "obnoxious supporters" is "anyone who supports government doing anything at all, no matter what it is". And yes, there are a lot of folks like that supporting Sanders, because there are a lot of folks like that supporting anyone you care to name.
No. My definition is: people acting like idiots while supporting someone. The videos were filled with those idiots.

Anyway, do you think those people were Russian agents?
  #173  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:41 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Perhaps so, but he has the support of maybe 40% of one party. Aka the support of about 20% of the voters.

Actually you make a great case for Hillary to come back.

No more Comey memos. All the lies are out there. She almost won, and can tailor her strategy to won more states now.
You'll want to repost this in the Pit if you need a point-by-point rebuttal.

I'll just say that it is absurd to think that the idea that states like Pennsylvania would swing the election was some mystery that only a genius or fortune-teller could have known.
Nate Silver even had a graphic showing Pennsylvania at the fulcrum of a teeter-totter, for heaven's sake!
  #174  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:23 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,954
I don't know, WillFarnaby, show me the videos and idiots you're referring to.

In any event, I never said that all of the obnoxious "Bernie Bros" were Russians, just that most of them were. You can find genuine obnoxious supporters for any politician; their mere existence doesn't prove anything. Though, for some politicians, it's hard to find any non-obnoxious supporters.
  #175  
Old 10-15-2018, 06:03 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
You'll want to repost this in the Pit if you need a point-by-point rebuttal.

I'll just say that it is absurd to think that the idea that states like Pennsylvania would swing the election was some mystery that only a genius or fortune-teller could have known.
Nate Silver even had a graphic showing Pennsylvania at the fulcrum of a teeter-totter, for heaven's sake!
Because the only way you can rebut is by personal insults?

And Nate ranks campaigning in those states as the least likely thing that cost her the election. He ranks the Comey memo as the #1 thing, and that aint happening again.

But so? Mistakes were made, over confidence. You think she would make those mistakes again?

Last edited by DrDeth; 10-15-2018 at 06:04 PM.
  #176  
Old 10-15-2018, 06:19 PM
Attack from the 3rd dimension Attack from the 3rd dimension is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 5,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
Chronos:



First of all, in a debate, he would not be alone with her. He'd be in front of an audience, a moderator or panel thereof, a camera crew, etc. And even then, if he wants his wife in the vicinity, I'm sure that's available to him.

Secondly, Attack from the 3rd Dimension also said that her race would make him uncomfortable.

Basically, that poster is trying to say that because he's a Christian fundamentalist Republican, he's so pathologically racist and sexist that to debate Kamala Harris on stage would give him too much a case of the willies to function properly. That's ridiculous.
Where did I say it's because he's a Christian fundamentalist Republican? I didn't mention his religion at all. Jesus Christ, Chronos, why are you putting words in my mouth? You've been on the Dope since God was a pup, and you still haven't learned the most basic civil interaction, FFS.

In fact, I think Pence is an emotionally constipated wierdo with significant issues around women. I suspect he's a racist as well, but that's lagniappe really, and I think if Harris did to him what Trump did to Hillary -followed him around, got too close, invaded his space - he might flip out. Now, that's mostly a joke, as many people who are not Chronos can tell. Do I really think that he'll lose his mind and leap from the stage? No, I'd say only 2% chance. Do I think it might discombobulate him? I'd say maybe 10-20% chance. He lives in a very insular, very male world.
  #177  
Old 10-15-2018, 06:39 PM
Attack from the 3rd dimension Attack from the 3rd dimension is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 5,775
NOT CHRONOS. Sorry, I meant cmkeller.

My apologies to Chronos.

In fact, Chronos went so far as to point out the fact that Pence doesn't interact with women if he can avoid it. So, I feel doubly ashamed of my misstatement.

Last edited by Attack from the 3rd dimension; 10-15-2018 at 06:43 PM.
  #178  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:16 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,071
Attach from the 3rd Dimension:

Quote:
In fact, Chronos went so far as to point out the fact that Pence doesn't interact with women if he can avoid it. So, I feel doubly ashamed of my misstatement.
No, no, no. He doesn't interact ALONE with A WOMAN without his wife present. This is not due to some sort of weird neurosis, but as a way of keeping him absolutely beyond reproach in his dealings with women. It's called the "Billy Graham rule" and is something quite a few Christians (and many Jews, under a similar Jewish law) follow. I would think that in this day and age, such conduct would be considered praiseworthy, but of course, when you're politically opposed to the man, it has to have a weird vibe, doesn't it?
  #179  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:37 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,703
Why would conduct that is inherently discriminatory be considered praiseworthy?
  #180  
Old 10-15-2018, 08:12 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I don't know, WillFarnaby, show me the videos and idiots you're referring to.

In any event, I never said that all of the obnoxious "Bernie Bros" were Russians, just that most of them were. You can find genuine obnoxious supporters for any politician; their mere existence doesn't prove anything. Though, for some politicians, it's hard to find any non-obnoxious supporters.
So you think Russian agents were captured on video meddling in the election and that you can identify them if shown.
  #181  
Old 10-15-2018, 08:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,890
The Democrats are toast. They have nobody. They're the party of pussies. America doesn't want pussies; they want tough guys. Christ, doesn't anyone remember what happened to John "Muppet" Kerry when he tried to debate George W "Fuzzy Math" Bush?
  #182  
Old 10-15-2018, 08:56 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The Democrats are toast. They have nobody. They're the party of pussies. America doesn't want pussies; they want tough guys. Christ, doesn't anyone remember what happened to John "Muppet" Kerry when he tried to debate George W "Fuzzy Math" Bush?
I am also pessimistic. I asked for anyone in thread to link to a YouTube of Hickenlooper — or any sitting Governor — showing Presidential-level charisma or speaking skill. No takers.

Is the Draft Admiral Bill McRaven movement dead on arrival? I see McRaven has recently accepted an appointment as Director of ConocoPhillips. That doesn't sound like something a prospective candidate would do, no?

ETA: If the octogenerian Biden appears quite healthy 2 years hence, he may be our best bet. But that's a big If.

Last edited by septimus; 10-15-2018 at 08:58 PM.
  #183  
Old 10-15-2018, 09:26 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I am also pessimistic. I asked for anyone in thread to link to a YouTube of Hickenlooper — or any sitting Governor — showing Presidential-level charisma or speaking skill. No takers.

Is the Draft Admiral Bill McRaven movement dead on arrival? I see McRaven has recently accepted an appointment as Director of ConocoPhillips. That doesn't sound like something a prospective candidate would do, no?

ETA: If the octogenerian Biden appears quite healthy 2 years hence, he may be our best bet. But that's a big If.
Well Hillary has Charisma.
  #184  
Old 10-15-2018, 09:54 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I am also pessimistic. I asked for anyone in thread to link to a YouTube of Hickenlooper — or any sitting Governor — showing Presidential-level charisma or speaking skill. No takers.
Here's Montana governor Steve Bullock. He's all right. I just don't think he's ready for Washington.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjFsqeAs-dk
  #185  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:26 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Here's Montana governor Steve Bullock. He's all right. I just don't think he's ready for Washington.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjFsqeAs-dk
He seemed OK. But the video seemed edited, and the nerdy interviewer spoke more than Bullock. This annoyed me enough that I quit watching after 3 minutes.
  #186  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:40 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,071
ElvisLives:

Quote:
Why would conduct that is inherently discriminatory be considered praiseworthy?
Because he's about as far from a sexual predator as it's possible to get. He's taking responsibility for his own conduct by making it clear to all that no woman is ever in a compromising position around him. In this world of Clintons, Trumps, Cosbys and Weinsteins, I'd think that's a good thing. In this world of Thomases and Hills and of Kavanaughs and Fords, I'd think it's a good thing that there's no situation that will come down to the he-said-she-said-neither side comes out unscathed kind of fight.

In what way is it inherently discriminatory? Is there some kind of non-sexual advantage that attaches itself to a situation of being alone with a member of the opposite sex? Have women in Mike Pence's employ or potential employ been denied jobs, raises or promotions (to a degree equal to that of men) because he will not be alone with one of them in a room?
  #187  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:42 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
ElvisLives:



Because he's about as far from a sexual predator as it's possible to get. He's taking responsibility for his own conduct by making it clear to all that no woman is ever in a compromising position around him. In this world of Clintons, Trumps, Cosbys and Weinsteins, I'd think that's a good thing. In this world of Thomases and Hills and of Kavanaughs and Fords, I'd think it's a good thing that there's no situation that will come down to the he-said-she-said-neither side comes out unscathed kind of fight.

In what way is it inherently discriminatory? Is there some kind of non-sexual advantage that attaches itself to a situation of being alone with a member of the opposite sex? Have women in Mike Pence's employ or potential employ been denied jobs, raises or promotions (to a degree equal to that of men) because he will not be alone with one of them in a room?
Men have direct access to the Vice President (and before that, governor of Indiana), which in these situations, gives men a lot of power with him. Women apparently need a chaperone to have a one-on-one conversation with him. Don't you see how this would put a woman at a disadvantage?

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 10-15-2018 at 10:43 PM.
  #188  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:51 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,071
Happy Lendervedder:

Quote:
Men have direct access to the Vice President (and before that, governor of Indiana), which in these situations, gives men a lot of power with him. Women apparently need a chaperone to have a one-on-one conversation with him. Don't you see how this would put a woman at a disadvantage?
No, I don't. As long as the conversation is face-to-face, the access is direct. The presence of his wife (or someone similarly harmless as far as political influence goes) in the room should have no chilling effect on legitimate political/business communication.
  #189  
Old 10-15-2018, 11:18 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
Happy Lendervedder:



No, I don't. As long as the conversation is face-to-face, the access is direct. The presence of his wife (or someone similarly harmless as far as political influence goes) in the room should have no chilling effect on legitimate political/business communication.
It's not only about a chilling effect of having someone in the room, it's about the fact that a man on staff could drop in to chat at practically any time to talk/network/brainstorm/pitch, while a woman needs to wait until someone can chaperone her to his office. Deals get made over lunch one-on-one, ideas get pitched on the golf course. But if you're a woman, you're at a distinct disadvantage with a guy like Pence. If you're a woman, you have to wait until someone suitable is found to be present as a chaperone, and who's to say he even sees that as a priority.
  #190  
Old 10-15-2018, 11:34 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,071
Golf courses are public places. Lunches don't have to be secluded to make deals.

I can see your point about drop-ins, but before assuming that this leads to discrimination (though I suppose it has the potential to), I'd like to see some proof that Pence applies it in a discriminatory manner.

And even if it turns out he is discriminatory and therefore wrong for it, it's certainly not a matter of his being an "emotionally constipated weirdo." He's doing it to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and if he went overboard in that, it's still no reason to project some sort of neurosis on the man.
  #191  
Old 10-16-2018, 04:43 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,890
Democrats might as well go down to the nearest university and find a history or English professor, because that seems to be the kinds of candidates they attract. Wouldn't surprise me if their next candidate starts diagramming sentences mid-debate.
  #192  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:24 AM
Attack from the 3rd dimension Attack from the 3rd dimension is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 5,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
Attach from the 3rd Dimension:



No, no, no. He doesn't interact ALONE with A WOMAN without his wife present. This is not due to some sort of weird neurosis, but as a way of keeping him absolutely beyond reproach in his dealings with women. It's called the "Billy Graham rule" and is something quite a few Christians (and many Jews, under a similar Jewish law) follow. I would think that in this day and age, such conduct would be considered praiseworthy, but of course, when you're politically opposed to the man, it has to have a weird vibe, doesn't it?
I'm impressed that you managed to completely ignore the point of my post.

To reiterate: Please stop putting words in my mouth. Please stop incorrectly restating what I said, by saying what you think I might have meant if I had been your straw man. Please stop assuming anything about other posters' politics, or opinions. Please learn basic internet civility.
  #193  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:31 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,881
unless the economy goes down I only see a white guy beating Trump. And not an old guy like Biden. It would be best if the guy had a strong military background too.
  #194  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:41 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,330
What I'm hearing is that you want the Democrats to nominate someone with, what's the phrase, "blood-curdling masculinity"? Somebody who can beat weak little rich boy Donnie Trump by threatening to beat him up on stage?

Fine, then. Somebody ask LeBron James. He's real tall.
  #195  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:55 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,881
last 2 incumbents to lose were Carter and Bush Sr. and both had bad economies. The incumbent always has a big advantage, you can't beat them with a weak candidate.
  #196  
Old 10-16-2018, 11:19 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,283
Beto & Tammy.
  #197  
Old 10-16-2018, 11:23 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,881
the other problem Dems have is a guy who could beat Trump probably won't get the nomination. The primaries don't vote for a middle of the road guy , in both parties.
  #198  
Old 10-16-2018, 11:49 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
What I'm hearing is that you want the Democrats to nominate someone with, what's the phrase, "blood-curdling masculinity"? Somebody who can beat weak little rich boy Donnie Trump by threatening to beat him up on stage?

Fine, then. Somebody ask LeBron James. He's real tall.
I know you're joking here, but James has already demonstrated a better, smarter sense of philanthropy than Trump ever did:

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2018/7/...e-school-akron

If he chooses to pursue politics after his basketball career, his work ethic and leadership skills could make him a formidable Democrat. Bookmark this post!
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #199  
Old 10-16-2018, 12:10 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,305
I'm calling it. (Colorado has the 2nd-fastest growing economy in the Country.)
John Hickenlooper for the Big Job.
Kamala Harris as his V.P.

That's it, the final answer. The next two years will be anticlimax. Remember you heard it here ... second. (I was Ninja'ed by ElvisL1ves.)

@ Mods, close the thread please.
  #200  
Old 10-16-2018, 01:54 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
the other problem Dems have is a guy who could beat Trump probably won't get the nomination. The primaries don't vote for a middle of the road guy , in both parties.
While I don't know if Gore and Kerry were middle of the road, but Bill, Hillary, and Obama all got a lot of flack for not being liberal enough, and if that's not middle of the road I'm not sure what is.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017