2016 Election Odds
Quote: kewljReally? A poll done by the group urging Warren to run. That's your source? That's a lot like the polls done by President Romney's campaign showing him winning.....how did that work out again?
You know, I enjoy talking politics....even with those that embrace differing views than my own. That is a chance for me to hear and consider view points different from my own. That is one of the reasons, I tune into Fox news regularly. But some of you guys on this site, really take the fun out of political discussions. You seem so far detached from reality and have a very hard time distinguishing between what you would like to happen and what is reality.
It's alot like trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone who is standing in the corner babbling to himself about UFO's and unicorns. It's just frustrating and hard to take anything you guys say (and I am talking to more than just EB here) seriously. You guys are literally the boy who cried wolf....lost all credibility.
When I was still active in the liberal community (my "conversion" occurred about 8-9 months ago), this is exactly the strategy we were coached to take ... that is, treat any conservative argument as if it was unreasonable, and ridicule it. This tactic is right out of Alisnky's book. From our point of view, it was unreasonable because it was conservative, and that we (the liberals) had a monopoly on what is reasonable.
In other words, we'll compromise so long as we don't have to compromise. Need a case-in-point?
Quote: SonuvabishTalking to a Fox news watching conservative is like trying to have a conversation with someone babbling to himself in the corner about UFOs and unicorns. LOL. I'm gonna use that.
Nothing in there respects anything, attempts to debate any issue, illustrates the detachment from reality you lament, and disqualifies him from any meaningful political discussion ... which is not to say he'll remove himself from it, but only further affirms your perception.
Frankly, one of the dynamics at the core of my "conversion" was the utter inability to practically apply or cite examples in a debate format, and the quick willingness of fellow liberals to join in the bullying. I tired of having to be an a**hole and liar to participate in political debate.
As I've immersed myself in the conservative culture, I've found exactly the opposite of what I was told I would find. I found honest, hard-working, generous people who do not view things through racist lenses. And yes, a few a**holes, but a**holes are not the center of the culture like it is with liberals.
Quote: bobsimsNo you won't. You will swallow your party moving six clicks to the right and returning to the Wall Street/corporate/banking/globalist/Zionist whores The Clintons-and lie to yourself that you like it.
You are a sheep. Bah, Bah.
I've been a sheep. Who hasn't? It's not the greatest feeling.
Quote: MrWarmthQuote: kewljReally? A poll done by the group urging Warren to run. That's your source? That's a lot like the polls done by President Romney's campaign showing him winning.....how did that work out again?
You know, I enjoy talking politics....even with those that embrace differing views than my own. That is a chance for me to hear and consider view points different from my own. That is one of the reasons, I tune into Fox news regularly. But some of you guys on this site, really take the fun out of political discussions. You seem so far detached from reality and have a very hard time distinguishing between what you would like to happen and what is reality.
It's alot like trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone who is standing in the corner babbling to himself about UFO's and unicorns. It's just frustrating and hard to take anything you guys say (and I am talking to more than just EB here) seriously. You guys are literally the boy who cried wolf....lost all credibility.
When I was still active in the liberal community (my "conversion" occurred about 8-9 months ago), this is exactly the strategy we were coached to take ... that is, treat any conservative argument as if it was unreasonable, and ridicule it. This tactic is right out of Alisnky's book. From our point of view, it was unreasonable because it was conservative, and that we (the liberals) had a monopoly on what is reasonable.
In other words, we'll compromise so long as we don't have to compromise. Need a case-in-point?
Nothing in there respects anything, attempts to debate any issue, illustrates the detachment from reality you lament, and disqualifies him from any meaningful political discussion ... which is not to say he'll remove himself from it, but only further affirms your perception.
Frankly, one of the dynamics at the core of my "conversion" was the utter inability to practically apply or cite examples in a debate format, and the quick willingness of fellow liberals to join in the bullying. I tired of having to be an a**hole and liar to participate in political debate.
As I've immersed myself in the conservative culture, I've found exactly the opposite of what I was told I would find. I found honest, hard-working, generous people who do not view things through racist lenses. And yes, a few a**holes, but a**holes are not the center of the culture like it is with liberals.
This was not my experience during my year with Obama for America (most of 2012). We were provided with talking points on issues when doing persuasion meetings/calls, but they were fact-based and positive with almost no exceptions. (I did find the President's response to gay marriage more of a personal issue than an unemotional one, so most of the exceptions were in that area.) They were in opposition to what was being said by the other side, no question, but the perception was that the opposition was deliberately taking the opposing view for (usually) political reasons, and (occasionally) making a reasonable counter-argument for another course of action or POV. There were also nonsense and hot-button issues raised by the opposition as bait for a misstep or pandering to single-issue voters, and we were told how to answer the questions when they came, again either putting the "issue" into perspective, debunking the hysteria, or responding to the argument, depending on what it was.
I found it to be a reasonable way to conduct a campaign in the modern era, and effective given the instantaneous blow-ups that were happening weekly if not daily.
Obviously there are those on here who will disagree with me on this. You won't change my mind, my experiences, or even history, which shows a clear majority of voters also found it effective, but I'm sure I'll hear about it anyway. lol...
Quote: beachbumbabs
This was not my experience during my year with Obama for America (most of 2012). We were provided with talking points on issues when doing persuasion meetings/calls, but they were fact-based and positive with almost no exceptions. (I did find the President's response to gay marriage more of a personal issue than an unemotional one, so most of the exceptions were in that area.) They were in opposition to what was being said by the other side, no question, but the perception was that the opposition was deliberately taking the opposing view for (usually) political reasons, and (occasionally) making a reasonable counter-argument for another course of action or POV. There were also nonsense and hot-button issues raised by the opposition as bait for a misstep or pandering to single-issue voters, and we were told how to answer the questions when they came, again either putting the "issue" into perspective, debunking the hysteria, or responding to the argument, depending on what it was.
I found it to be a reasonable way to conduct a campaign in the modern era, and effective given the instantaneous blow-ups that were happening weekly if not daily.
Obviously there are those on here who will disagree with me on this. You won't change my mind, my experiences, or even history, which shows a clear majority of voters also found it effective, but I'm sure I'll hear about it anyway. lol...
It obviously worked because he won reelection rather easily, yet today a majority of Americans don't support him or his policies. I know it's an old argument, but so many of those who voted for him expected more than they are getting, or wanted something for nothing. But I believe we will go down the same path next year and will be talking about President Clinton in 2017. And nothing will change. We will be a 50/50 Country until a different style of Politician comes along. One who is willing to speak the truth, even if 50% don't want to hear it. Get through to just 10% of those and you can have a valid majority and will be able to make the kinds of hard decisions needed to change the direction of the country for the long term.
Quote: BozIt obviously worked because he won reelection rather easily, yet today a majority of Americans don't support him or his policies. I know it's an old argument, but so many of those who voted for him expected more than they are getting, or wanted something for nothing. But I believe we will go down the same path next year and will be talking about President Clinton in 2017. And nothing will change. We will be a 50/50 Country until a different style of Politician comes along. One who is willing to speak the truth, even if 50% don't want to hear it. Get through to just 10% of those and you can have a valid majority and will be able to make the kinds of hard decisions needed to change the direction of the country for the long term.
Had every person who voted for McCain voted for Romney in 2012 Obama would have been a total wipe-out. Even if you assume some people died it would have still been a wipe-out of historic proportions. Obama merely had less of a drop-off in support.
The USA has and always will be 50/50 until some kind of major change happens. Even if immigration brings support for Latin American style socialism it will take a generation.
Quote: AZDuffmanHad every person who voted for McCain voted for Romney in 2012 Obama would have been a total wipe-out. Even if you assume some people died it would have still been a wipe-out of historic proportions. Obama merely had less of a drop-off in support.
What are you talking about? Romney received MORE votes than McCain, by nearly a million, 60,934,407 to 59,950,323.
Quote: BozIt obviously worked because he won reelection rather easily, yet today a majority of Americans don't support him or his policies. I know it's an old argument, but so many of those who voted for him expected more than they are getting, or wanted something for nothing. But I believe we will go down the same path next year and will be talking about President Clinton in 2017. And nothing will change. We will be a 50/50 Country until a different style of Politician comes along. One who is willing to speak the truth, even if 50% don't want to hear it. Get through to just 10% of those and you can have a valid majority and will be able to make the kinds of hard decisions needed to change the direction of the country for the long term.
Your post almost makes it sound as though a president has any real ability to change anything. I think this is naively, what President Obama thought as well. He learned differently as did many before him from both parties. In this day and age, it is congress who holds the real power and unfortunately Representatives and Senators from both parties no longer answer to their constituents. They answer to a higher authority....money (special interests and lobbyists for those special interests).
Quote: beachbumbabsThis was not my experience during my year with Obama for America (most of 2012). We were provided with talking points on issues when doing persuasion meetings/calls, but they were fact-based and positive with almost no exceptions. (I did find the President's response to gay marriage more of a personal issue than an unemotional one, so most of the exceptions were in that area.) They were in opposition to what was being said by the other side, no question, but the perception was that the opposition was deliberately taking the opposing view for (usually) political reasons, and (occasionally) making a reasonable counter-argument for another course of action or POV. There were also nonsense and hot-button issues raised by the opposition as bait for a misstep or pandering to single-issue voters, and we were told how to answer the questions when they came, again either putting the "issue" into perspective, debunking the hysteria, or responding to the argument, depending on what it was.
I found it to be a reasonable way to conduct a campaign in the modern era, and effective given the instantaneous blow-ups that were happening weekly if not daily.
Obviously there are those on here who will disagree with me on this. You won't change my mind, my experiences, or even history, which shows a clear majority of voters also found it effective, but I'm sure I'll hear about it anyway. lol...
I have no reason to disbelieve you, but one dynamic we relied on was that the most powerful lies had a basis in truth. Without any fact-checking, the talking points we got (which I'm sure were the same or similar to yours) were just that - people saying things sounding authoritative and people believing them. The old maxim "repeat the lie until it becomes the truth" applies here.
My issues began when these "facts" were not borne out in observations or could easily be exposed when more relevant information was disclosed. Probably the most famous examples of this occurred in the 2012 debates. I don't have transcripts, but there were two exchanges that went something like this:
Debate 1: Topic was opening public lands for energy exploration
Obama: There is more drilling now than there ever has been.
Romney: But that's all been on private lands.
The effectiveness of Obama's kibbitzing is that he was right, there was more drilling then. But that wasn't the topic, and it was exposed in one sentence. Romney darn near won the election that night, and there are many on my new side that believe, had he kept doing that, he would have won huge. He didn't, as made example in the other example:
Debate 2: Topic was Obama's Benghazi handling and refusal to call terrorism "terrorism"
Obama: Benhgazi was an act of terror and I immediately acknowledged that.
Romney: You went into the Rose Garden the next day and said it was a spontaneous demonstration due to a YouTube video.
Crowley: No, he called it terror.
Romney was right. Crowley's justification for butting in? Romney was "right in the main" but used the wrong word. Another kibbitz, not to mention inserting herself into the debate.
There are many ongoing ... umm ... disconnects. The unemployment rate is supposedly way down and wages way up, but there's still a call for more unemployment benefits and complaining about income inequality (which only grows in down economic times). Which is it?
We are continually reassured that we are safer. But we screw Poland, Yemen is lost, Ukraine is in distress, people beheading people without consequence (if you don't count Jordan's response).
We keep being quoted that higher DJIA = better for everyone, but fail to mention the effect of QE and that only those who can access that QE money (the rich) will benefit from it. In other words, to save his ass on default and inflation, Obama's policy makes the rich far, far richer than they otherwise would be under sound fiscal and monetary policy.
Remind me where the effect of QE, or the reduction of the labor force, or the increase in income inequality appeared in the "fact" sheet, because I sure can tell you about the higher DJIA, lower unemployment, and lower inflation rate points.
The most powerful lies have a basis in truth. I will go to my grave believing that an incurious media and the conservative's lack of balls led to the "overwhelming affirmation" of Obama that his re-election supposedly signified. Whatever it did signify, it didn't signify affirmation of his policies and job performance. Something else did that, but it wasn't prosperity, truth, integrity, honesty, etc.
To me, this was always disingenuously incurious, willfully ignorant, or downright deceitful.
Quote: kewljWhat are you talking about? Romney received MORE votes than McCain, by nearly a million, 60,934,407 to 59,950,323.
I have to recheck my figures, I thought they both dropped off.
Quote:Your post almost makes it sound as though a president has any real ability to change anything. I think this is naively, what President Obama thought as well. He learned differently as did many before him from both parties. In this day and age, it is congress who holds the real power and unfortunately Representatives and Senators from both parties no longer answer to their constituents. They answer to a higher authority....money (special interests and lobbyists for those special interests).
On "special interests" I hate to break it to you but you are one. We all are.
Yes, Obama was and still is naive. Thing is, people usually lose his level of naivety by their late 20s or early 30s. But it is not the so-called "special interests" that are the problem. A POTUS cannot make change, he can only give the amount of change that the public is ready for and wants.
There was not enough of a movement to end slavery until 1860 for the process to start, and even then Lincoln was more interested in preserving the Union. While Monroe had a vision of the USA as dominant in the Western Hemisphere it was not until TR that we could do something with meaning. Ike tried to pass Civil Rights legislation, but it was not until a decade later the movement was ready. It took 8 years of malaise for Reagan to convince the USA we were ready for the Reagan Revolution, had he been elected in 1968 or 1976 he would not have had his great successes. The USSR was ready to go on the run by 1983, Reagan saw this and kept pressing and pressing.
Clinton understood this and used it as well as Reagan though Clinton's successes were more singles and doubles, hard to do a lot after the USSR had just been slayed. Bush43 somewhat understood this, best shown by taking advantage of 9/11 to press foreign policy on several fronts. Obama just does not get it at all IMHO. This can be seen in the disaster Congressional and Governor elections have gone. He is trying to get a Palestinian state in Gaza but that will not happen no matter what he does, he wants to be Harry S Truman but Truman had memories of the Nazis fresh.
Put simply, a good leader is like a good sailor and takes advantage of the winds.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe is trying to get a Palestinian state in Gaza but that will not happen no matter what he does
And Israel/Palestinian thing has been like bailing a boat with a hole in one end for pretty much every President who gets his hand in that mess.
Quote: kewljWhat are you talking about? Romney received MORE votes than McCain, by nearly a million, 60,934,407 to 59,950,323.
Please don't bring actual facts into this discussion!!
The FOX viewers won't know how to handle them...
Quote: rxwineAnd Israel/Palestinian thing has been like bailing a boat with a hole in one end for pretty much every President who gets his hand in that mess.
I don't get why they try. They can't win. The Palestinians are and can be no threat to anything for the most part. Israel has not other sponsor to go to.
It is like a person who keeps trying food they hate every few years because other people like it. I hate meat loaf. I always hated it. I always will hate it. Why on earth would I think I will like it just because someone new made it?
Quote: Dalex64I think Israel has something on us. Some secret so terrible we would be willing to do almost anything to keep it that way.
I think Israel has nuclear bombs and are willing to use them and that scares the s%^& out of the US Diplomatic Corps. As it should.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think Israel has nuclear bombs and are willing to use them and that scares the s%^& out of the US Diplomatic Corps. As it should.
Aren't they the only country in the area that hasn't signed the NPT, [non nuclear proliferation treaty] ?
The last I read, 86 congress persons were dual citizens, with citizenship in not only the US but also Israel. I don't personally see how that should be legal or acceptable but it is so. How can they be citizens of two countries and swear loyalty to just the US? It is impossible to serve two masters.
IMO, like it, love it, hate it, deny, or just plain ignore it, we are Israel. No one runs for office [or succeeds] without getting Israels approval or the support of Aipac.
As horrible as nuclear weapons are, it does appear that those that possess them [North Korea, Pakistan] don't get bullied like countries that don't have them like Libya, Nicaragua, etc. etc. I would like to see Iran get Nukes if that is what it takes to get us not to go to war with them.
