EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2434
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 26 2015 06:37 farvacola wrote: McCain's selection of Palin as running mate was very much a deliberate move. That's what makes it all the more painful  Yes, because he has a point .001% chance of winning because of the timing of the economic collapse and the general sentiment about the Iraq war at the time. No Republican candidate had a chance to win in 2008 unless they caught fire in a major way, which was why Palin was a good choice from a game theory POV: she was a wildcard. Regarding 2012, Romney, and addressing 10thdoc. Romney was not the Republican's best choice in 2012 because he had a very low chance of defeating Obama, a sitting President, with strong voter demographics, and very adept/talented campaign staffers (that basically never stopped campaigning and organizing for him post 2008). Romney was a poor choice because he was the establishment "safe" choice that ran him on the assumption that merely being milktoast conservative was what Americans would want. This was an absurd assumption (that conservatives all knew), and that Romney had Romneycare (and never disavowed it) convinced the not-corrupt portion of Republicans that he would likely lose unless Obama went Aaron Burh and committed a felony in public. The 2012 choice that would have had a chance was Perry, who had the terrible debate performance, or Christie if he had tried to run then. This is like a mini-Palin situation where you know your chance to win relies on either a massive mistake by the opposition (but then you win with anyone besides Santorum) or by lighting the right kind of fire and drawing favorable distinctions between yourself and (once again) a sitting President. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23621 Posts
On October 26 2015 05:58 JinDesu wrote: I think he's got a brain tumor. Or Mad Cow Disease. There's no other explanation for his collapse into insanity. No collapse, he was plenty insane when he first got into the national spotlight. It's his rise in the Republican party despite it that is surprising to folks who haven't been honestly engaging around this faction of the party for a while now. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
The line of argument your presenting for Palin being a good choice or Rick Perry (who is an absolute dunderhead) arent so much game theory as hail mary's and/or pandering too the conservative base. If you think that the conservative base makes up an election winning electorate I dont think your quite sure what country you are living in anymore. The other hilarious part about this is that you dont seem to mind having morons in charge just as long as they can draw meaningful distinctions with their counterpart (which while important, isnt really in anyones best interest except the winner) Thats a scary thought. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On October 26 2015 08:31 hunts wrote: I imagine he could've found some sort of republican woman that wasn't pants on head retarded like palin was? Republican women who aren't pants on head retarded? Not a large pool to choose from. Even smaller pool of not-retarded republican women who would want to risk being on the 2008 ticket with McCain and jeopardizing their careers. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 26 2015 06:57 cLutZ wrote: Yes, because he has a point .001% chance of winning because of the timing of the economic collapse and the general sentiment about the Iraq war at the time. No Republican candidate had a chance to win in 2008 unless they caught fire in a major way, which was why Palin was a good choice from a game theory POV: she was a wildcard. Regarding 2012, Romney, and addressing 10thdoc. Romney was not the Republican's best choice in 2012 because he had a very low chance of defeating Obama, a sitting President, with strong voter demographics, and very adept/talented campaign staffers (that basically never stopped campaigning and organizing for him post 2008). Romney was a poor choice because he was the establishment "safe" choice that ran him on the assumption that merely being milktoast conservative was what Americans would want. This was an absurd assumption (that conservatives all knew), and that Romney had Romneycare (and never disavowed it) convinced the not-corrupt portion of Republicans that he would likely lose unless Obama went Aaron Burh and committed a felony in public. The 2012 choice that would have had a chance was Perry, who had the terrible debate performance, or Christie if he had tried to run then. This is like a mini-Palin situation where you know your chance to win relies on either a massive mistake by the opposition (but then you win with anyone besides Santorum) or by lighting the right kind of fire and drawing favorable distinctions between yourself and (once again) a sitting President. Rick Perry had a chance? The man who couldn't remember his policy positions at a debate? The man who didn't win a single primary in 2012? The man who couldn't even run a functional campaign in 2016 long enough to get to the first debate? Judging by the map here he didn't even win a single county. How was that man going to have a better chance at beating Romney than Obama exactly? Would he have caused a meteor collision with Obama's headquarters or something? It's all Romney and McCain's fault for being too moderate. Nothing about the pivot they were forced into in the primary that, in Romney's case, made him abandon every single leverage point he had against Obama lest he be called a liar to his base and in McCain's case forced him into a Palin pick. "True" conservatives, no matter how incompetent, would have done better. | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
This idea that Carson has been this huge gaffe machine fails to see the realities of public opinion. It's only a gaffe if most Americans don't agree with it. Further, it is somewhat confusing that the party which was only just attempting to draft Joe Biden is going to think some gaffes are going to prevent a likable candidate from being competitive. At the end of the day, it is silly to think that Democrats have a sure win coming up in 2015. That is an idea unsupported by both historical trends and the polling data. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:08 Cowboy64 wrote: I don't understand why we're supposed to think that conservatism is so horribly unpopular that it can't win elections. It seems like most people on this forum are pretty liberal, some moreso than others, but overall definitely leaning to the left a bit. Just because the people on this forum don't like conservative political ideology, doesn't mean that is representative of the country as a whole. Public polling data supports the theory that most Americans find themselves somewhere in the middle of both parties, willing to go with either on most issues depending on how the issue is framed. This idea that Carson has been this huge gaffe machine fails to see the realities of public opinion. It's only a gaffe if most Americans don't agree with it. Further, it is somewhat confusing that the party which was only just attempting to draft Joe Biden is going to think some gaffes are going to prevent a likable candidate from being competitive. At the end of the day, it is silly to think that Democrats have a sure win coming up in 2015. That is an idea unsupported by both historical trends and the polling data. A lot of people here are not American. The USA is much more conservative than the rest of the first world. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22083 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:08 Cowboy64 wrote: I don't understand why we're supposed to think that conservatism is so horribly unpopular that it can't win elections. It seems like most people on this forum are pretty liberal, some more so than others, but overall definitely leaning to the left a bit. Just because the people on this forum don't like conservative political ideology, doesn't mean that is representative of the country as a whole. Public polling data supports the theory that most Americans find themselves somewhere in the middle of both parties, willing to go with either on most issues depending on how the issue is framed. This idea that Carson has been this huge gaffe machine fails to see the realities of public opinion. It's only a gaffe if most Americans don't agree with it. Further, it is somewhat confusing that the party which was only just attempting to draft Joe Biden is going to think some gaffes are going to prevent a likable candidate from being competitive. At the end of the day, it is silly to think that Democrats have a sure win coming up in 2015. That is an idea unsupported by both historical trends and the polling data. When did Joe Biden tell victims of a mass shooting they shouldn't have let themselves get killed? When did Joe Biden tell the elderly they can fuck off, by wanting to entirely abolish Medicare. When did Joe Biden propose a tax system based on a 2000 year old piece of paper. There are gaffes and there are gaffes. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:08 Cowboy64 wrote: I don't understand why we're supposed to think that conservatism is so horribly unpopular that it can't win elections. It seems like most people on this forum are pretty liberal, some moreso than others, but overall definitely leaning to the left a bit. Just because the people on this forum don't like conservative political ideology, doesn't mean that is representative of the country as a whole. Public polling data supports the theory that most Americans find themselves somewhere in the middle of both parties, willing to go with either on most issues depending on how the issue is framed. This idea that Carson has been this huge gaffe machine fails to see the realities of public opinion. It's only a gaffe if most Americans don't agree with it. Further, it is somewhat confusing that the party which was only just attempting to draft Joe Biden is going to think some gaffes are going to prevent a likable candidate from being competitive. At the end of the day, it is silly to think that Democrats have a sure win coming up in 2015. That is an idea unsupported by both historical trends and the polling data. Carson isn't saying conservative things though. There is nothing conservative about believing Muslims shouldn't be president (and doubling down on it), or that we should space out vaccines, or that Obamacare is analogous to slavery because it makes us subservient to the government (not that it does), or that ISIS will result in anarchy that will prevent the 2016 elections from happening, or that homosexuality is a choice because people go into prison straight and come out gay. Those are just dumb things to say, not conservative things to say. They are just misrepresentations of reality, not conservative talking points. And they change from gaffes into stupidity when they are then doubled down on by the candidate rather than correcting his mistake. Like not knowing what Muhammed himself said about sharia law, for example. Conservativism can win elections. Stupidity can't. Or shouldn't, at any rate. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:08 Cowboy64 wrote: I don't understand why we're supposed to think that conservatism is so horribly unpopular that it can't win elections. It seems like most people on this forum are pretty liberal, some moreso than others, but overall definitely leaning to the left a bit. Just because the people on this forum don't like conservative political ideology, doesn't mean that is representative of the country as a whole. Public polling data supports the theory that most Americans find themselves somewhere in the middle of both parties, willing to go with either on most issues depending on how the issue is framed. This idea that Carson has been this huge gaffe machine fails to see the realities of public opinion. It's only a gaffe if most Americans don't agree with it. Further, it is somewhat confusing that the party which was only just attempting to draft Joe Biden is going to think some gaffes are going to prevent a likable candidate from being competitive. At the end of the day, it is silly to think that Democrats have a sure win coming up in 2015. That is an idea unsupported by both historical trends and the polling data. There is nothing wrong with being conservative, but the way the conservatives are represented nowadays is somewhat sad. For example, the conservatives actually have more in common with recent migrant communities than leftists do, and by a long way. But their politics are divisive and increasingly self serving. Bidens Gaffes are on relatively harmless awkward situations you and I will find ourselves in at some point in our lives. Calling women who are seeking abortion slave owners is, mindful insult. Wherever you stand on abortion the fact it is a divisive issue, slavery I think we can all agree is bad. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:15 Nyxisto wrote: I don't even think that in the American context Trump or Carson qualify as conservative. Romney and Chris Christie probably fit that label but I think they need to invent something new for Trump. If you wonder about Carson but offer up Romney and Christie you probably don't have a handle on conservatism. Trump is Trump, populist to the core, but with a good read on immigration and leadership style to boot. At least you've got Trump right. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:48 Danglars wrote: If you wonder about Carson but offer up Romney and Christie you probably don't have a handle on conservatism. Trump is Trump, populist to the core, but with a good read on immigration and leadership style to boot. At least you've got Trump right. In what sense? Do you not think of Romney and Christie as conservatives or do you think that Carson fits that description? People have quoted the insane stuff that Carson says on a regular basis over the last few pages repeatedly. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 26 2015 09:58 Nyxisto wrote: In what sense? Do you not think of Romney and Christie as conservatives or do you think that Carson fits that description? People have quoted the insane stuff that Carson says on a regular basis over the last few pages repeatedly. Both, while implicitly saying your choices of illustration lead me to doubt your handle on the movement entirely. The man talks a lot of sense--probably the real reason he drives the liberals wild. The gotcha sound bites are just fodder for the salon/dailykos/thinkprogress types to hyuk it up. I'm not cruel enough to deny the left their peculiar humor. | ||
| ||
