Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I don't necessarily think black turnout will go down for two reasons. 1) Obama himself will be campaigning hard to turn them out, and 2) for blacks following Obama with a Dem pretty much cements his legacy.

huh?

he didn't "get out there" in mid terms the past 6 years? how'd that work.

peeps vote FOR a guy. not for a guy he says to vote for (er girl).

besides, before they put down that malt liquor and chicken wings they ain't getting nowhere (mookie loves bulworth, sorry )

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A term used for people associated with The Free Republic. It's likely a derogatory term, because Kep likes to use it, but I'm not certain about that.

I was confused why commenters of the Detroit Free Press were always being mentioned here. Sure, not the most intelligent group, but it was a very specialized insult.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

huh?

he didn't "get out there" in mid terms the past 6 years? how'd that work.

peeps vote FOR a guy. not for a guy he says to vote for (er girl).

besides, before they put down that malt liquor and chicken wings they ain't getting nowhere (mookie loves bulworth, sorry )

Not sure it was necessarily blacks that let him down in the mid-terms, but I was more talking about Presidential years. Same old trite analysis (oh, minorities won't vote this year. They're too lazy, stupid, disinterested, etc). Yet every 4 years they make up an additional 2% of the total. mookie is starting to sound like Romney's campaign manager!

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Not sure it was necessarily blacks that let him down in the mid-terms, but I was more talking about Presidential years. Same old trite analysis (oh, minorities won't vote this year. They're too lazy, stupid, disinterested, etc). Yet every 4 years they make up an additional 2% of the total. mookie is starting to sound like Romney's campaign manager!

they gotta get out though. did they vote for W?

please don't assume since they did get out and vote for BHO they now all of a sudden gonna do likewise going forward.
we know what happens when rover assumes.....

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

they gotta get out though. did they vote for W?

please don't assume since they did get out and vote for BHO they now all of a sudden gonna do likewise going forward.
we know what happens when rover assumes.....

Hey I'm cool with letting the results determine the bragging rights! I'll try not to be too insufferable. Curious if you'd care to stake your vintage "video" collection on Trump winning the election....

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And it was that methodology that showed Romney had a chance 4 years ago despite the fact that people like Nate Silver had it nailed 2 months before the election. Pollsters pretending they know what participation is going to be may have worked 40 years ago when it was easier to predict but with the demographic changes along with socio-economic shifts they might as well be throwing darts at a wall. They have no clue who is going to vote or what the make up of the voters is going to be.

No, this isn't right. In 2012, the "unskew the vote" people chose 2010 as their baseline, while legitimate pollsters chose 2008, but both were choosing baselines because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense not to. If you aren't going to make turnout predictions you can't make election predictions. In fact, predicting turnout is probably the most important aspect of polling. After all, anybody can just count. The art and science of prediction is figuring out what a representative sample should look like. 538 rocked 2012 because they chose a sophisticated and accurate model and Unskew blew it because they picked a stupid and inaccurate model, but they both had to model turnout.

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Hey I'm cool with letting the results determine the bragging rights! I'll try not to be too insufferable. Curious if you'd care to stake your vintage "video" collection on Trump winning the election....

mookie is not willing to wage anything on the american voting public

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

It's a plan, anyway.

That's good though. Everyone who's got down in the mud with Trump has seen their support tank. Jeb!!!!, L'il Marco, and even Cruz at the end. She can't play the game on his terms, and come out of it unscathed.

Still, she does need to fight back against Trump. But has to do it with mockery and belittling. Paint him as the unsuccessful joke that he is. The clown. Cause nothing gets under Trump's skin more than being put down and disrespected, to not be seen as the great man he thinks he is. Look how he over-reacted when(was it L'il Marco?) pointed out that all those Trump businesses were no more. Trump steaks, Trump water, whatever else. He went outy and bought a bunch of steaks and water and slapped a Trump label on it and said \, "See, we still make this stuff". Has to be seen as the smart businessman at all times.

But she has to be smart about it, not engage in *** for tat. Maybe something better left for her surrogates to do.

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The ULTIMATE tD video. Thanks to Glen Ordway

https://youtu.be/W7I92r9GqUw

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

"Look, the average Democrat voter is just plain stupid. They're easy to manipulate. That's the easy part." HRC 2005

[unofan]

"Look, the average Democrat voter is just plain stupid. They're easy to manipulate. That's the easy part." HRC 2005

Well, someone's stupid, all right...

The first give away that the quote is made up by your standard conservative troll is the pejorative use of Democrat rather than Democratic.

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...m_content=link

"I was happy to see that,” Trump told the Times about Khan's election. “I think it’s a very good thing, and I hope he does a very good job because frankly that would be very, very good."

"Because I think if he does a great job, it will really — you lead by example, always lead by example," Trump said when asked why he supported Khan's election. "If he does a good job and frankly if he does a great job, that would be a terrific thing."

Gotta get my future kids into Wharton so they can get the best words too.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Gotta get my future kids into Wharton so they can get the best words too.

"A students go to grad school
B students go to law school
C students go to business school."

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...m_content=link



Gotta get my future kids into Wharton so they can get the best words too.

When John Oliver showed the clip where Trump talks about knowing "all the best words", Oliver started in on him about the stupidity of the statement. Oliver was right, of course, to go after him for making such a simpleton's statement, trying to show how intellectual he is, but I'm starting to think that it might be calculated. The average American graduating high school something like a 10th grade reading level or lower, and it's been that way for the past number of years. If he were talk over these people, proving that he has this great lexicon at his disposal, he could very likely turn off a great number of voters rather than have them bond with him at a very basic level. Then again, I may be (probably) giving the man too much credit.

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Well, someone's stupid, all right...

The first give away that the quote is made up by your standard conservative troll is the pejorative use of Democrat rather than Democratic.

The first give away was that mookie posted it