User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 60

  1. #31
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    That's true. North Carolina is best Carolina. And we can always say at least we've never tried to fly the Confederate flag at the capitol building.
    Oh god.

    I'm also assuming you've heard of this kid?

    Be certain to read the Twitter and Facebook links to double your fun/loss of faith in humanity.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  2. #32
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    So I went over stuff to confirm last night, and my recollections are correct.

    At least for the time being, in a state-by-state analysis, Hillary Clinton would beat anyone with a decent electoral vote. Her toughest challenge from a Republican is Chris Christie, who's struggles against other Republicans are mostly confined to places we'd assume would never vote for Clinton anyhow. Christie thoroughly beats Joe Biden.

    Trailing behind Christie are Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, who are so close that it's hard to say who's ahead with such early, fuzzy data. Notably, however, both of them score poorly enough to actually have a real contest with Joe Biden, unlike Christie.

    All the rest of the Republicans are in a reather undifferentiated pile of low scores. The same can be said of Democrats, with Clinton in the lead, Biden in a distant second place, and everyone else in an equally distant third place.
    I wonder if a female president would effect the US' interaction with foreign powers, in particular the middle east, and if it would be for the better or the worse?

    In one of the Axis of Time books Hillary Clinton is a war president who used nuclear strikes to wipe out part of the world, I think including Russia, and I've heard sources suggest that Clinton could be an insanely hardline president of that type unlike Obama and his historic period of peace presidency.

  3. #33
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Hillary polls well because being Sec. State is a non partisan position where you don't have to comment on domestic policy.
    While she's been having the best polls of her career, she has actually always polled well. Hell, she might have even polled well in 2000. But I know she did in 2004, and 2008. Yes, 2008. She had the misfortune of being beaten by the only person that could have beaten her. It was like Foreman vs Ali. You could even say she polled well in 2012, because when some people made a stupid-ass suggestion for her to challenge Obama in the primaries, pollsters went and checked that out, and she did well. You know that's what made 2008 so shocking? There's a reason she was seen as inevitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    As long as she remains vague to the voting public she will continue to poll well.
    But essentially all politicians have that perk.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The Dem congress generally gets fawning coverage in the MSM, as they have lately due to the immigration reform push (they are also basking in the reflected glow of the SSM Scotus decision). Only Obama has been involved in the scandals so it makes sense that only his numbers are dropping.
    Shut the hell up with the media bias thing. Media bias was one of the most popular explanations for why Mitt Romney was really going to win the presidency. How did that work out? The media bias complaint has always been bullshit. The more time Republicans spend talking about that, the less time they spend treating real weaknesses. And if there was a liberal media bias, how on earth would that be helpful to Hillary's opponents? Unless, of course, you are precisely repeating the Romney argument that she's not really as popular as the fawning media makes her seem.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Hillary is also not the once in a generation political talent that Obama is.

    She's not as smart, as good a speaker, or as measured and calculating.
    She's not as charismatic or as good a speaker. I'm not nearly so certain about the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Also, we know what we're going to get with a Hillary candidacy (generally) because we've already seen one.
    Maybe. I was reading up on this recently. There was talk about whether or not she learned a lesson from 2008 and will run a different campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    For example: Biden has had to make his big public stand against guns while Hillary has not.

    It's not hard to see how that situation (and others like it) massively benefit her polling numbers.
    That's not much different from being unknown. Most of the Republican potentials are not that well known to the public. They too benefit from not having unpopular positions known.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #34
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    She's in the right place at the right time, and without Obama available the best you've got.

    Considering the rest of your bench, that's not a very high bar to hop over.

    She will put her foot in her mouth in ways that Obama wouldn't.

    Here is an excerpt from a daily beast article recounting why she lost:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...ing-begin.html

    WHY CLINTON LOST

    No Respect for the Voters The flipside of Obama's respect for voters was Clinton's disrespect. It began with her announcement of her candidacy in early 2007, when she said she was "in it to win it." Why else would someone run? The not-so-secret assumption behind her entire campaign was that she was the inevitable nominee. But voters don't like to be told how they will vote by politicians (or pundits). It's disrespectful. And primary voters, particularly the well-educated ones who helped power Obama's campaign, don't like to be pandered to, on the gas tax or anything else. Well-informed college-educated voters are no longer a sliver of arugula-eating elites; they are the backbone of the Democratic Party. Most of all, voters don't like to be played for fools. When Clinton ran ads in South Carolina claiming that Obama admired Ronald Reagan and must be some crypto-conservative, she wasn't just wasting her money. She was offending people in a state that proved pivotal.

    The main reason South Carolina was so important, of course, was that it marked the total loss of the black vote for Clinton. Early on, she was expected to split African-American women 50-50 with Obama. This was rightly seen as critical to her success. A series of comments by Bill Clinton about Obama (starting with his inaccurate depiction of Obama's Iraq war opposition as a "fairy tale") weren't racist, but they were disrespectful to Obama, especially coming from a former president, and thus disrespectful to voters who supported him, especially blacks. While Bill was also a huge asset to Hillary, especially in later primaries where he won her lots of rural votes, the defection of 90 percent of African-American voters to Obama presented the Clinton campaign with an insurmountable problem.

    Poor Strategy Clinton's failure to organize in the caucus states will go down as one of the worst tactical decisions in modern political history. But it was only part of a larger strategic error. The campaign was based on the idea that Obama would be eliminated on Super Tuesday. This might have made sense in 2006, when she was first planning her run. But by early 2007 it was clear that Obama would actually outraise Clinton, with the Internet as an inexhaustible supply of small donations. This meant that the traditional reason that candidates drop out—lack of funds—wouldn't apply to Obama in 2008. Clinton had plenty of time to recognize this reality and design a plan B for what would happen if she didn't wipe Obama out early. But even the most elementary planning for contingencies—like filing delegate slates in post-Super Tuesday states—was neglected.

    By some accounts, Clinton would have been better off skipping the Iowa caucuses, which Obama won big. But this wouldn't have worked for her any better than it did for Rudy Giuliani. She might have helped herself there, however, had she avoided harsh Christmastime attacks on Obama in a state that is famous for punishing candidates who aren't nice.

    A more supple strategy would have also led to adjustment of Clinton's message. Had she switched from inevitable and experienced to working-girl-tribune-of-the-forgotten-middle-class on February 1 instead of April 1, she might have won the nomination.

    Weak Management The failed strategy is the product of having the wrong people in charge. Mark Penn, the chief strategist, wrote a book in which he describes the country as a series of tiny distinct constituencies—exactly the wrong analysis in a year when the public has a thirst for unity and commonality. As a veteran of President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, he naturally and fatally used the old game plan, positioning Hillary as a cautious quasi-incumbent who couldn't possibly be seen as admitting error on her Iraq vote because that might weaken her in a general election. And a pollster in charge of a campaign is always a bad idea.
    Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager, was in over her head, and communications director Howard Wolfson convinced himself that being rude to reporters (or complaining to their bosses) would somehow improve the tone of the coverage. His subordinates followed this approach to press relations, sometimes verbally abusing TV bookers and others in the media. The problem with "working the refs" (a basketball term for riding referees in hopes of a good call later on) is that, while it can sometimes succeed in the short term, it's always a long-term loser. Reporters wait in the weeds.

    Clinton is responsible for personnel decisions; her poor judgment of people, overemphasis on loyalty and testy reaction to anyone delivering bad news made her slow to recognize the need for a management shakeup. On the morning after Ronald Reagan won the New Hampshire primary in 1980, he fired his campaign manager, John Sears, who was responsible for his loss in the Iowa caucuses and for a lot of bad blood with supporters. Had Clinton done the same after her New Hampshire win, she might have stabilized earlier.

    Arrogance The reason Clinton didn't adjust more quickly, alienated many potential donors, antagonized the press and had so much trouble winning over uncommitted superdelegates, is that from start to finish her campaign gave off a distinct whiff of arrogance. Campaign staffers, internalizing that victory was inevitable, felt that Clinton's stature in the party gave them license to play rough with anyone who wouldn't come along. So early on donors coughed up money, superdelegates pledged their support, and media outlets bought into meaningless national polls showing her way ahead, but few were happy about it. Unlike the diehard Clinton lovers, they felt intimidated. So later, when she desperately needed their support, they weren't there for her.

    Entitlement While Hillary turned out to be a much stronger candidate as time went on, one thing never changed: the sense that the Clintons felt they were owed the nomination. By repeatedly moving the goal posts on party rules, sideswiping Obama at every turn, whining about rampant sexism on the basis of two or three anecdotes, and claiming that the Florida primary resembled the 2000 fiasco and a rigged Zimbabwe election, Clinton continued to reinforce the impression that she considered the title hers no matter what. Her reported plan to concede this Saturday will have to be carried off with extreme graciousness—and no apparent demands being made in return—if she wants to lessen the sour impression she has left in many voters' minds.

    Both Clintons were so far inside their own narcissistic bubble that longtime friends didn't dare tell her to quit in recent weeks because they knew she would never speak to them again. Hillary was surprised on the day after the last primary that even her most ardent supporters weren't standing by her anymore. This was a mark of the sense of entitlement that corroded her support among Democrats and helped seal her fate.

  5. #35
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    And after Obama, the whole we're making history electing a woman/Hispanic/etc... doesn't carry the same cache`.

    We did that last time, and the same party trick gets old after a while. It just does.

    I'm not trying to minimize the achievement, but people just won't care as much after having elected Obama.

    To be honest, I'm glad Obama was elected when he was. We were at a historic low point, and might as well let the Dems waste their best candidate since Kennedy on election years when we don't have strong candidates.

    This way, we're putting out best against Hillary in '16 instead of against Obama who would be a much tougher general election opponent.

    For instance, if Rubio wins, do you think anyone will care?

    Do you think Hispanics will make the same fuss over it that was made over Obama in '08?

    I sure as shit dont.

  6. #36
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    The reason the media bias argument bugs you is because it's true. And that burns you.

    We have bias too, but we know it. You don't or can't accept it.

    Conceding bias in the media would destroy the article of faith on the left that the establishment media has the market cornered on objective God's honest truth.

    And you guys love that rhetorical club far too much let anything like reality take it away from you.

  7. #37
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    She's in the right place at the right time, and without Obama available the best you've got.

    Considering the rest of your bench, that's not a very high bar to hop over.

    She will put her foot in her mouth in ways that Obama wouldn't.

    Here is an excerpt from a daily beast article recounting why she lost:
    I voted for Obama in the 2008 primaries. I got into arguments with people who wanted Hillary to keep running after she obviously had no chance. I don't need a rebriefing on why she lost. What I'm saying is that while candidates don't really change, their campaigns can. They learn things. I mean, look at Nixon.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And after Obama, the whole we're making history electing a woman/Hispanic/etc... doesn't carry the same cache`.

    We did that last time, and the same party trick gets old after a while. It just does.

    I'm not trying to minimize the achievement, but people just won't care as much after having elected Obama.
    I think that assertion has no basis. I think the entire idea is silly. It's not a god damn party favor to elect the first black or woman president.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    To be honest, I'm glad Obama was elected when he was. We were at a historic low point, and might as well let the Dems waste their best candidate since Kennedy on election years when we don't have strong candidates.

    This way, we're putting out best against Hillary in '16 instead of against Obama who would be a much tougher general election opponent.
    That's some amazing sour grapes.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    For instance, if Rubio wins, do you think anyone will care?

    Do you think Hispanics will make the same fuss over it that was made over Obama in '08?
    Yes. They just won't care as much because, to be frank, being Hispanic does not mean the same thing as being black or female. It does not carry the same weight. He's not even Mexican to boot. As for voter turnout, it will be blunted a bit by Hispanics just not liking Republicans much.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The reason the media bias argument bugs you is because it's true. And that burns you.
    Hah. No. No I don't. There is no part of my mind that even fears that. It's a stupid idea. It does not hurt me for you to believe it, it only hurts you. Take it as advice, your strategy will only benefit if you forget about that liberal media bias thing from now on.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We have bias too, but we know it. You don't or can't accept it.
    Wank wank wank.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Conceding bias in the media would destroy the article of faith on the left that the establishment media has the market cornered on objective God's honest truth.
    You're clearly just venting now.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And you guys love that rhetorical club far too much let anything like reality take it away from you.
    I'll repeat, forget about it for your own good. Othewise, you'll keep on predicting Romney victory celebrations.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #38
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Please get bent.

    I'm not nearly the mincing, snide, retreating, passive aggressive coward you are so I don't play the make fun of people without infracting myself game very well.

    I'd love to see if you kept that tone speaking to my face.

    Anywho.... here's a piece from the daily beast 4 days ago lamenting the monochromatic ideological spectrum in newsrooms.


    From the Daily Beast:

    Wendy Davis’s Shoes and America’s Ideologically Monochromatic Newsrooms

    Overwhelmingly Democratic newsrooms remain incapable of hearing voices different from their own, writes Stuart Stevens.

    Since the 1960s, journalism has focused on the need for diversity in the newsroom. The urgency was highlighted by the dominance of white journalists covering the civil-rights movement and the lack of African-American reporters and editors at the nation’s most powerful media institutions.

    Why does diversity improve the quality of journalism? In 2003, when the scandal involving young African-American New York Times journalist Jayson Blair erupted, it prompted a renewed discussion of diversity. Nieman fellow Bryan Moore made the case in a piece for the Nieman Reports: “Too many newspapers still cannot fully cover the richness and complexity of their communities because their staffs come from a limited perspective.” Moore, who was VP of the National Association of Black Journalists, went on to write, “We are unable to regularly listen to those in the shadows and too often incapable of hearing voices different from our own. We, therefore, are telling our readers an incomplete, inaccurate story. And, in the process, we are practicing bad journalism.”

    In Timothy Crouse’s great portrait of the 1972 presidential press corps, The Boys on the Bus, he defined the conditions that produced the disappointing predictability of pack journalism. "If there was a consensus," he writes, "it was simply because all the national political reporters lived in Washington, saw the same people, used the same sources, belonged to the same background groups, and swore by the same omens. They arrived at their answers just as independently as a class of honest seventh-graders using the same geometry text—they did not have to cheat off each other to come up with the same answer.”

    But even in the world Crouse described, there was still some surprising ideological, economic, and cultural diversity. Yes, most were white males, but you had the conservative Robert Novak; the ultimate professional Walter Mears of AP, who loathed the use of cheap political labels; Korean War vet Haynes Johnson; and the bon vivant R.W. Apple, who was covering national politics after stints abroad.

    No one seems to dispute the point that diverse viewpoints and backgrounds are needed to cover a like world. But while newsrooms have become somewhat more ethnically diverse over the last 40 years, the opposite has occurred, at least in the political world, on the cultural-ideological scale.

    Today roughly half the country defines itself as pro-choice, and the other half, as pro-life. About half the voters who still identify with a party consider themselves Democrats; about half Republicans. For better or worse, we live in a pretty balanced country.

    Yet when you look around the newsrooms and editorial boards of most major media organizations, this ideological diversity isn’t remotely reflected. At The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, if you were betting that three in four journalists were pro-choice Democrats, it would be free money. Equally important, these reporters and editors are just like most everyone else they know. The older we become, the more time we tend to spend with people like ourselves. Few of these reporters have many close friends who are pro-life, conservative Republicans. And it’s safe to say the same is true in reverse at Fox.

    None of this is exactly breaking news. In his 2003 book, What Liberal Media?, The Nation’s Eric Alterman concedes that probably 90 percent of all Washington reporters voted for Bill Clinton, but then argues that Clinton wasn’t really a liberal. Good luck with that.

    Can good reporters of any ideology and background produce great journalism on any subject? Of course, and they do every day. But as Moore highlighted in 2003 when describing the challenges facing white journalists writing about the black community, reporters are “too often incapable of hearing voices different from our own. We, therefore, are telling our readers an incomplete, inaccurate story.”

    And so it was with the recent coverage of Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator who filibustered efforts to limit late-term abortions in Texas.

    From CNN to ABC, the overwhelming subtext of the coverage was that Davis was fighting a heroic fight. It’s an opinion a lot of people certainly agree with, but they don’t happen to be the majority of Texans. A recent University of Texas poll shows that 62 percent of Texas support banning abortions after 20 weeks, versus 36 percent who believe that abortion should be a matter of personal choice.

    For all the talk of the bullying men in the state legislature, it’s worth noting that it was prominent male journalists who covered Wendy Davis more like a female rock star than like a serious politician. In an obviously prearranged bit, the first question from ABC News’s senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, was:

    ZELENY: Why did you decide to wear your running shoes? And let's take a look at those. They kind of have been rocketing around the—the Internet.



    DAVIS: They've gained a fame all their own
.

    ZELENY: Wow.

    Wow? It’s hard to imagine a male politician being asked straight out of the box about his shoes. Zeleny follows up not with a question, but a statement of affirmation:

    ZELENY: As the filibuster was going on, you were receiving a lot of support from places and people far away from Texas—you know, from movie stars, from the president.

    One would like to think, were Davis, say, a pro-life advocate who had just pulled off an epic filibuster in California, thwarting Gov. Jerry Brown and receiving great support from her supporters in the process, that a similar question would have been asked. Perhaps it would have. Zeleny is a superb journalist, and who knows, maybe he wanted to ask about the more than three in five Texans who oppose Davis’s position and was overruled by producers. There are all kinds of interviews, and maybe ABC wanted a softer piece.

    But, of course, this fluffy treatment wasn’t just an ABC phenomenon. Multiple news outlets followed suit, including an embarrassing series of questions from Anderson Cooper.

    There are myriad problems facing news organization that are difficult, if not impossible, to fix. But this Wendy Davis syndrome is a relatively easy one. Don’t assemble newsrooms full of monochromatic thinkers. Bring in contrary views to challenge groupthink. As the Nieman Report concluded, a lack of diversity has a simple outcome: “bad journalism.”

  9. #39
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    I hope the evil conservatives dont decide they dont care about democracy and rig the elections again like they did with Bush Jr.

  10. #40
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I hope the evil conservatives dont decide they dont care about democracy and rig the elections again like they did with Bush Jr.
    Do you think all who disagree with you are evil?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 04:02 AM
  2. What is happening in Iceland?
    By The_Liquid_Laser in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 05:11 AM
  3. Who/What is to blame for McCain's decline in the polls?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 07:16 PM
  4. Why is Obama ahead in the polls?
    By Jack Flak in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 05:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO