# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/621 "2014-07-24T17:21:29Z")
Hold the phone a sec. 51-48 is a smashing victory, but 35-60 disapproval on a whole host of issues is a fleeting slight majority? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/622 "2014-07-24T17:21:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The afterwards is primarily where we challenged Democrats to come up with a solution and “Get out” wasn’t it among the sane faction of the Democratic Party. At least not quickly, before Iraq was stabilized enough for the Iraqi military to handle things. True, those of us who weren’t fully aware of how thoroughly Cheney had destroyed the infrastructure there, making that impossible without first promoting the ethnic partitioning the US had previously opposed, were wrong to think it possible. But if we had known, the consequential policy position would have been “Get out NOW”. > [@](#): > > Do you continue the containment policy that killed 1 million Iraq children in its first 12 years a more humane alternative to war? Considering the number who were killed by it, and the absence of \*any \*US/Allied losses during it, yes. The fewer killed, the more humane. Brutal logic, but compelling. > [@](#): > > Foreign policy is driven by events and you can’t prove counterfactuals. I can say that on Iraq, the President should commit airpower as the Iraqi government has requested, but I can’t prove a better result from that. A basic study of history, and some serious thought about why what has happened where and when, would be a tremendous help to you. IOW stay in school, kid. Good thing you don’t even want to learn to drive; that will only get you involved with girls (or boys, I don’t know) and distract you from listening to Hannity. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/623 "2014-07-24T17:25:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > He did do far better in the electoral college, but again, while I support the electoral college, it tells you nothing about popularity. Obama, like Bush, won by eking out the victories he needed in battleground states, he just eked out more of them by small margins than Bush did. A lot more of them. > [@](#): > > Bush and Obama’s popularity and vote totals were nearly identical, as were their campaign strategies(The dude from Massachusetts is a rich flip flopper!) No, the vote totals were different (not by a huge amount, but by a few points, which is significant in presidential elections), and their campaign strategies were pretty different too, aside from being both negative. > [@](#): > > We argued about it extensively. Silver did have Romney ahead in the popular vote at the time Cite? I don’t remember Silver _ever_ having Romney ahead in the popular vote. > [@](#): > > Which means little when we’re talking about such tiny margins to begin with. 3.9 vs. 2.4. Those aren’t “tiny margins”. That’s a medium-to-big margin and a moderate margin. > [@](#): > > He won 26 states out of 50. Considering how widely the size of states can vary, this means nothing at all. > [@](#): > > Again, he won by eking out tiny victories exactly where he needed to. Most of those swing states were not “tiny victories”. > [@](#): > > He did not crush Romney, except in the technical aspect of playing the game better than Romney did. Fine – he didn’t “crush” Romney. He did beat him down pretty bad, though. > [@](#): > > You cannot count on every candidate being so skillful, and Hillary Clinton if anything showed that she was less than skillful in that regard. Obama beat her only technically as well. Clinton beat him in the popular vote. Clinton didn’t beat him in the popular vote, unless you have a very strange way of counting primary votes. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/624 "2014-07-24T17:26:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Considering the number who were killed by it, and the absence of \*any \*US/Allied losses during it, yes. The fewer killed, the more humane. Brutal logic, but compelling. That’s a serious answer. Unfortunately, most liberals didn’t give that answer. They opposed the sanctions, they opposed war, they opposed insulting language(Axis of Evil is bad diplomacy!) Others made nonsensical platitudes about “getting more allies involved”, as if any new allies were going to commit troops into that cesspool, or even civilian help. John Edwards came up with that bit of pablum. Bill Richardson in 2008 talked about getting an Arab peacekeeping force in Iraq, as if that would have been so welcome in a nation already torn by ethnic divisions. Hey, let’s get some Sunnis to keep the peace! > [@](#): > > A basic study of history, and some serious thought about why what has happened where and when, would be a tremendous help to you. All right, fine. If we commit airpower, we probably still don’t lose any of our own and help the Iraqi government a great deal. So why aren’t we doing it? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/625 "2014-07-24T17:27:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Hold the phone a sec. 51-48 is a smashing victory I didn’t say “smashing victory”. Obama won with a slight majority, because majority just means \>50%, but he still won big. > [@](#): > > but 35-60 disapproval on a whole host of issues is a fleeting slight majority? That’s not his overall approval – and his overal disapproval is just a big over 50%. But I’ll withdraw my “slight majority”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/626 "2014-07-24T17:31:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Those aren’t “tiny margins”. That’s a medium-to-big margin and a moderate margin. Only if you are setting expectations really low. As we seem to agree, the last few elections have been ultra competitive. Your assertion that 3.9 is a big win proves that. If Clinton had scored a 3.9 victory over Dole or Reagan a 3.9 victory over Mondale it would have been a shocking disappointment for the incumbent. 3.9 is close enough that the incumbent can’t coast to victory as Reagan and Clinton did. It means a lot of sleepless nights and a lot of short term panicking when the news cycle turns against you. > [@](#): > > Clinton didn’t beat him in the popular vote, unless you have a very strange way of counting primary votes. Clinton was the one who said she won the popular vote, and after some fact checking, we find it’s true: if you count Michigan. > **[Clinton and the Popular Vote - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/)** > > Q: Did Clinton win the popular vote? A: Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasn’t on the ballot. FULL QUESTION Did Hillary Clinton actually end up with more popular votes than Barack Obama? Given that there is some discussion on... So yeah, technically. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/627 "2014-07-24T17:33:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They opposed the sanctions, they opposed war, they opposed insulting language(Axis of Evil is bad diplomacy!) Not about the first - humanitarian aid was never banned. Even oil purchases were worked around. Opposing war is not a purely liberal concept. Insulting language, however fun it may be to a willfully-ignorant audience, is indeed counterproductive. > [@](#): > > Others made nonsensical platitudes about “getting more allies involved” That’s what Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing” was _about_. Not a Democratic position, _your own guys’_. I won’t call you a liar because you really are ignorant enough to believe that. > [@](#): > > Bill Richardson in 2008 talked about getting an Arab peacekeeping force in Iraq, as if that would have been so welcome in a nation already torn by ethnic divisions. Hey, let’s get some Sunnis to keep the peace! Could they have done worse than what we did? Another example of how your guys were wrong, for all the wrong reasons, and _we were once again right_. > [@](#): > > All right, fine. If we commit airpower, we probably still don’t lose any of our own and help the Iraqi government a great deal. So why aren’t we doing it? No identifiable useful military targets other than entire cities, massive collateral damage, unknown future extent of commitment, effectively asking for terror reprisals … all stuff you might understand if you changed the station once in a while. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/628 "2014-07-24T17:33:18Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > …What do you think you bring to the table here Adaher? Do you think your efforts raise the level of discourse, or lower it? **adaher** contributed [this gem](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17575005&postcount=52) to the thread on the rebel/racist flag; I think it refers to a popular novel & miniseries. > [@](#): > > Priam too. He’s the one who married Virgilia. As far as the rest of the slaves go, slaves in any culture are by definition not fully developed human beings. They haven’t been given the chance to fully develop, and being seen to think for themselves is dangerous. I was tempted to ask how\* he\* was equipped to recognize “fully developed human beings.” But _that_ was not the appropriate place. This is the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/629 "2014-07-24T17:35:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s not his overall approval – and his overal disapproval is just a big over 50%. But I’ll withdraw my “slight majority”. His overall approval is 42%, his disapproval 56%. -14. That’s pretty big. And it’s not much of a temporary condition, as he’s been underwater for most of his Presidency. Again, he did just well enough when he had to, being over 50% when he needed to be to win reelection. When the campaign is over and the governing resumes though, he tends to fall well short. The reason I cited the issue by issue polls is to demonstrate that his overall approval outperforms his specific approval on all the issues. That means that a significant percentage of those who still approve of his performance are liking his overall performance despite not liking anything he actually has been doing. I’d hypothesize that those people just like Obama himself or what they hope he can still be. As time goes on and he fails to improve his performance, his approval on the issues and his overall approval will converge and he’ll find himself around 35%. How does Hillary Clinton overcome that? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/630 "2014-07-24T17:37:02Z")
Having an opposition party in the \*single digits \*gives her a great head start, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/631 "2014-07-24T17:40:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not about the first - humanitarian aid was never banned. Even oil purchases were worked around. Opposing war is not a purely liberal concept. Insulting language, however fun it may be to a willfully-ignorant audience, is indeed counterproductive. Is it counterproductive in domestic diplomacy? Or is it only foreign dictators we should be nice to? > [@](#): > > That’s what Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing” was _about_. Not a Democratic position, _your own guys’_. I won’t call you a liar because you really are ignorant enough to believe that. Well, I’ll accuse you of having a short memory. Youtube the 2004 Democratic debate. Nearly all of the candidates talked about how we have to make up with France and Germany and get more allies involved. Do you actually think there is any conceivable universe in which France or Germany help us out in Iraq just because Dick Gephardt or Wesley Clark says nice things to them? > [@](#): > > Could they have done worse than what we did? Another example of how your guys were wrong, for all the wrong reasons, and _we were once again right_. First off, that was Richardson’s pet idea. Second, it was stupid. Introducing more Arab fighters into a sectarian war is insane. > [@](#): > > No identifiable useful military targets other than entire cities, massive collateral damage, unknown future extent of commitment, effectively asking for terror reprisals … all stuff you might understand if you changed the station once in a while. They have to move from city to city through desert. There are times when they will be in combat with Iraqi troops. Iraqi troops call for their own air support, except it’s less accurate and there’s less of it. Are you seriously saying there shouldn’t be air support at all? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/632 "2014-07-24T17:40:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Clinton was the one who said she won the popular vote, and after some fact checking, we find it’s true: if you count Michigan. > > [Clinton and the Popular Vote - FactCheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/) > > So yeah, technically. Considering that Hillary said, about the Michigan “primary”, that “It’s clear, this election they’re having isn’t going to count for anything”, it’s not reasonable to count the votes for that state unless you also count the “not Hillary” votes in Michigan as Obama votes, which would put him back over the top. No one competed in Michigan, so it shouldn’t have been counted in any way at all. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/633 "2014-07-24T17:41:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Having an opposition party in the \*single digits \*gives her a great head start, doesn’t it? The opposition party’s approval is at 33%. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/634 "2014-07-24T17:43:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Huh? Why is it relevant? “Each exchange” includes each exchange. As opposed to any language which limits a particular provision to a particular exchange. It is relevant because it goes to the clarity and force of the language. Because federal exchanges were singled out for specific reference, there can be no argument about ambiguity or implication from other statutory language. There is no colorable argument that Congress did not intend to require federal exchanges to report their subsidies. By contrast, since SHOP exchanges are not expressly referenced, the issue is more open to argument. It’s a matter of degree, of course. I agree that, absent some other statutory text, SHOP exchanges must report under the language of that provision. > [@Bricker](#): > > Subsidies associated with SHOP exchanges go to the business, not the individual recipient. So, uh…yes, and no. So the argument is that SHOP Exchange reporting under subsection (F) (“Information necessary to determine whether a taxpayer has received excess advance payments”) doesn’t make sense? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/635 "2014-07-24T17:47:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Considering that Hillary said, about the Michigan “primary”, that “It’s clear, this election they’re having isn’t going to count for anything”, it’s not reasonable to count the votes for that state unless you also count the “not Hillary” votes in Michigan as Obama votes, which would put him back over the top. > > No one competed in Michigan, so it shouldn’t have been counted in any way at all. Fair enough. Either way, Clinton did not lose because she was less popular than Obama. Given two equally competent campaigns, it would have really been a tossup. But they were not equally competent. Obama’s campaign was brilliant, Clinton’s was rendered helpless by infighting. They got out the vote where they needed it when they needed it. Clinton will be the likely candidate in 2016. If her campaign goes as well as it did in 2008, she will not be able to game it out as well as the Obama team did. And I’ve seen no signs that the architects of the Obama juggernaut are interested in signing up with her in 2016. Looks so far like the same old Clinton friends are gearing up for another run, although at least this time she won’t bring Mark Penn along, who was a major cause of her failure. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/636 "2014-07-24T17:51:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Clinton will be the likely candidate in 2016. If her campaign goes as well as it did in 2008, she will not be able to game it out as well as the Obama team did. And I’ve seen no signs that the architects of the Obama juggernaut are interested in signing up with her in 2016. Looks so far like the same old Clinton friends are gearing up for another run, although at least this time she won’t bring Mark Penn along, who was a major cause of her failure. I’ve seen plenty of signs that the Obama campaign folks would help Hillary win. I’m very, very confident that Obama and co will gladly hand over their campaign apparatus to whomever wins the Democratic nomination. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/637 "2014-07-24T17:52:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Is it counterproductive in domestic diplomacy? As you grow older and wiser (bear with me now), you’ll come to realize that yes, it is. > [@](#): > > Or is it only foreign dictators we should be nice to? \*Please \*change the station. > [@](#): > > Do you actually think there is any conceivable universe in which France or Germany help us out in Iraq just because Dick Gephardt or Wesley Clark says nice things to them? No, because there is \*no \*reason any sane, responsible national leader would have joined in the invasion. After the destruction of Iraq became a fact and required humanitarian intervention, you may remember that yes, most of the developed world did, in fact, come to help the Iraqi people. > [@](#): > > Introducing more Arab fighters into a sectarian war is insane. Tell us why. Is it because arming people who had reason to hate us and easy ability to go join forces fighting to get us out of their home was working so well? Would people they didn’t have reason to hate have done better? Why would you not think so? Or are you opposed to arming brown-skinned non-Christian people just on principle? > [@](#): > > Are you seriously saying there shouldn’t be air support at all? Grow the fuck up, just a little. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/638 "2014-07-24T17:54:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve seen plenty of signs that the Obama campaign folks would help Hillary win. I’m very, very confident that Obama and co will gladly hand over their campaign apparatus to whomever wins the Democratic nomination. Not Axelrod, Plouffe, and Jarrett. Lower level people probably, unless they jump on board a challengers’ bandwagon. I still say Clinton can lose in the primaries if someone charismatic runs to her left. She’s just not equipped to deal with those types of candidates. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/639 "2014-07-24T17:55:17Z")
The only plausible one would be Warren, and she’s been as adamant about it as anyone could be. But she’s still more real than your Republican alternative. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/640 "2014-07-24T17:57:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As you grow older and wiser (bear with me now), you’ll come to realize that yes, it is.\*Please \*change the station. I’m probably older than you are. I actually remember 2004. I didn’t read about it on the internet. But I’m glad you admit that insulting your domestic opponents will tend to make them not want to work with you. Now maybe you’ll understand why Republicans don’t like to work with Obama. > [@](#): > > Tell us why. Is it because arming people who had reason to hate us and easy ability to go join forces fighting to get us out of their home was working so well? Would people they didn’t have reason to hate have done better? Why would you not think so? > > Or are you opposed to arming brown-skinned non-Christian people just on principle? Most Arab states are run by Sunnis. Many of those same Arab states were allowing the Sunnis to be funded in their insurrection. Insert Arab peacekeeping force and you basically sell out the Shiites and Kurds. > [@](#): > > Grow the fuck up, just a little. Not an answer. Should Iraqi troops in combat with ISIS not call in air support? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=33)