Your S.O. tells you that the reason that they are there so much for you is to get back at their ex, not because they care about you.
Would criticism of that seem… lacking?
The question needs a bit more precision. Which Election Day voting where and when, for example.
But playing with that TargetEarly site is fun! Here’s one interesting bit: North Carolina is a midterm with no Senate race this year. Per 538’s analyses most of the House races are not expected to be close, three solid D, four solid R, four likely R by 6 to 10 points, one lean R by about 3, and only one toss-up. Sounds like a recipe for voter disinterest. Yet compared to 2014 early voting is UP there by 80%! 1.9 million votes cast early so far compared to a total voting population of 2.9 million cast in 2014 with a Senate race. And more of them are registered D than R.
Are there going to be D pick ups there, the tossup and maybe a shocker R leaner? Doubt any “likely R” districts will flip and party affiliation is not per se how one votes, yes cautious … but still - what is driving this increase in early voting even in this state with no Senate race and few districts felt to be close?
Oh, are we doing hypotheticals instead of addressing the thing itself?
You run into me after not having seen me for a while, and marvel aloud at how I’ve gotten in such great shape since last we met: it looks like I’ve lost weight, fat’s been replaced by muscle; it’s amazing how fit and handsome I am. Impressed, you of course ask how I’ve managed it.
I start by replying that one of the reasons — not “the reason”, you understand, since I make sure to spell out that it’s just “one of the reasons” — for my wondrous change in appearance is that I’ve replaced a steady supply of Cokes with water.
Do you stop listening right then, assuming it’s the only reason? Or do you keep listening, as if the whole point of saying “one of the reasons” is that I might well have more to say: maybe changing what I eat along with what changing what I drink, and maybe doing that in concert with starting an exercise regimen?
It depends on the reason, sure. If you lead with, “One of the reasons is because I have taken up cocaine.” then yes, I stop listening right there. That you also do pilates is something that I really don’t care about.
But if someone leads with “pilates” — while explicitly specifying that it’s one of the reasons, as opposed to the only reason — would you figure that it’s the only reason? Or would you figure it’s merely one of the reasons, like I’d just said?
Guys aren’t we getting a bit off track?
Hey, feel free to list all the other reasons Trump has given for going to Montana, other than ‘for votes’. I’m sure there’s dozens of other reasons he’s stated publicly. :rolleyes:
The reversion from Daylight Savings Time is making weird things happen here.
Hey, you claimed that Trump “told Montanans that he doesn’t actually care about them” by noting that he “only” goes there because of his petty revenge feud. Isn’t this board still a place where a guy who tosses out an exclusive-type claim is a guy who backs it up with something other than a “one of the reasons” quote?
Looks to me like the board hasn’t reverted yet. I’m in the Eastern time zone, where it’s 5:10 a.m. Standard time, but my last post showed up as being at 6:05 a.m., as if it was still Daylight time.
ETA: And the time on my post is showing as 6:10 am. I’ve time traveled an hour into the future! No flying cars yet.
If just one of the reasons is self serving and petty, then it doesn’t matter what other reasons you have.
If you lead with “pilates”, then I’ll nod, then you say you’ve given up soft drinks, and I’ll agree that that works too. If you then say that you’ve taken up cocaine, then I completely forget about your pilates and soft drinks, because what you have said here negates not only anything that you have to say later, but anything that you’ve said before.
It only takes one negative reason to poison the whole thing.
Let’s put it this way, if your S.O. says to you, “I am with you because you are kind and compassionate, and because it drives my ex nuts.” do you really care about the kind and compassionate part they led with? No, they revealed their ulterior motive, and anything else is just pandering at best.
Not saying that people won’t fall for it. Not saying that trump supporters hear what they want to hear and have cotton in their ears for the things that they don’t, so sure, you are right that such dismissive language from him probably won’t actually cost him any support.
Just saying that he told them flat out that the reason that he is here so much is due to petty vindictive reasons, and anything else he says can and should be ignored.
Look, if we take it at face value when he says it’s one of the reasons he’s there so much, then — well, just to pick a number let’s figure that he would’ve gone there twice, but for a petty and self-serving reason he goes four more times; and for a completely different reason he goes three more times; and, for yet another reason, he winds up going there five more times.
In that case, would it be true that one of the reasons he’s there so much is petty and self-serving? Well, yeah. But would there also be other reasons, like I was just saying? Well, again, yeah. And would it make sense to stop listening once we’ve heard one reason, because the others don’t matter?
Well — no, I don’t see that it would.
That it’s one reason he’s there so much. I don’t know, from the quote, if he’s flatly saying it’s one out of two, or three, or four; I don’t know if he’d go on to helpfully claim it’s his biggest reason, or protest that it’s only his second-biggest reason, or whatever; all of that seems blandly compatible with the quote.
(You’re obviously free to figure any such follow-up doesn’t matter and is to be ignored; but then why bother even waiting for that quote to begin with?)
Montanans who might consider coming out to vote for Rosendale, who weren’t already going to do so, and who might be more inclined to do so after a visit by Trump, will not be just fine with coming out to support Trump’s personal feud with Tester, to punish Tester for standing in the way of what Trump is trying to do.
I don’t think many of them are so silly as to think that Trump cares so much about the fairly few of them as much as he cares about preserving the GOP Senate majority that will rubberstamp what he wants to do, and getting a thorn in his side removed.
This exceptional time of Trump being truthful won’t bother them and given their POVs should not.
But that’s not what Octopus was driving at. He was pointing out (correctly I think) that if anyone expects Republicans to stay home because they disapprove of Trump’s rhetoric, they will be disappointed. There are many Republicans who dislike Trump’s rhetoric who will show up solely because they realize the long term importance of Supreme Court appointees and who confirms them. There aren’t many who think “Trump is an ass, I’d rather let a Democratic senate decide who succeeds RBG or Breyer”.
It’s a poisoning of the well. If I give you a glass of water, and say that only some of the molecules in it are poison, but the rest of them are just fine, do you ignore the water, or do you drink it?
All it takes is one negative self serving petty reason, and it really doesn’t matter what other reasons they give. The well is poisoned, and there is no unpoisoning it by dilution with flattery.
For those who like the poison, his steadfast supporters, it is just one of many reasons that he is here. For anyone who doesn’t like the fact that he is vindictive and cruel, it is all they need to hear to dismiss him.
Like I said, if I recommended a weight loss regime consisting of pilates, cutting out soft drinks, doing cocaine, and doing sit ups, then you are not going to care about my opinion on weight loss, even though 3 of the 4 things I mentioned are probably a good idea.
ETA: OTOH, if you like cocaine, you are going to love my weight loss program.
Oh my god, y’all. Raise your hand if you really think this chain of increasingly flimsy analogies for one of Trump’s off-the-cuff dumbshit comments in Montana is making this thread better.
Yeah it’s turning into some sort of weird cross between a hijack and a threadshit.
And I asked them to stop. But they wouldn’t.
The only claim made was the inherent claim that what I wrote was how I interpreted Trump’s words. Are you now claiming I was lying about how I interpreted his words? That’s a pretty fucked up claim to be making, if you are.
It is actually an interesting analysis of how differently Trump’s off the cuff dumbshit comments are taken by those who already are inclined to support him and like what he says, and how they are taken by people who are not already inclined to support him and like what he says.
Those who like him don’t mind being insulted by him, and will accept the insult as long as there is also praise. Those who do not like him that much are surprised when people praise him for insulting them.
I do find that to be fascinating, and does have quite a bit of impact on how voters are feeling, going into this election that we are talking about here.
The analogies, I apologize for, as they were a failed attempt to explain to TOWP that it usually only takes one insult to turn people against them, even if there is praise before or after that insult.
Yes, long winded pedantic back and forths are always such interesting analyses - of how Dopers can’t fucking just drop a useless argument.