Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

1434446484997

Posts

  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    An interesting post from Ta-Nehisi Coates:
    From comments:

    "We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate."

    I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

    The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

    I think his argument applies just as well to sexism and the whole "War on Women? What War on Women? All I see is a bunch of legislation about fetal rights" thing.

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    The Daily Show had a great take down Monday of Fox News' ardent denial of any War on Women while simultaneously whipping up defenses against the War on Christmas and War on Every Other Thing.

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Didn't the Daily Show also have the clip of Ann Romney saying that men should respect a woman's right to choose to stay at home or something? A statement that is obviously quite easy to take out of context to portray her as pro Choice, which is pretty damn funny to me.

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Of course they don't believe they're racist - society has accepted that "RACISM" is a bad thing. That's why judging people based solely on their race can't really be racist, because racism is a bad thing, and I don't do bad things.

    I don't think it's only that. I think it's also that they equate racism with owning slaves or setting fire hoses and dogs on people. Not as "small" things such as not hiring because they make you uncomfortable or thinking that random ones walking around could be criminals.

    It's like the person who holds people emotionally hostage but says, "I'm not abusive! There are guys that hit their wives!"

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    She just said that people need to respect the choices women make. I forget if it was Colbert or Stewart using that clip, but yeah, they pointed out the irony of her demanding that people respect women's choices.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    To be fair, I think when she said that her husband was also pro choice before they installed the new firmware in him

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    People should respect other people's choices, assuming those other people are rich. -GOP 2012

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    Small prediction time:

    Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.

    Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.

    I can see where the GOP wouldn't put a social conservative on the ticket, they might (rightly) feel the need to reach out to the saner parts of the voting public. They DO want the Tea Party to die in a fire so they might think that they can prune the hedges a little bit by putting two moderates on the ticket.

    My pet theory about this is that I suspect the GOP is treating this election a bit like a litmus test. Two moderates with big money behind them - Can They Win? Here are the potential outcomes:

    1) They win big - this is the worst possible outcome, and not just in a "we lost the election" way. It confirms to the party leadership that their ass-backwards crazy faction can still be counted on to buy, no matter what they're selling. It may free them up to be a little more progressive on social issues. After all, who are the pro-lifers going to vote for, a liberal? But more importantly, it does nothing to rebuke their economic policies, and they're basically given carte blanche to win elections so long as party id numbers are in their favor.

    2) They win marginally - this is also pretty bad. The "I'll just stay home if a moderate is on the ticket" contingent isn't completely an empty threat. That, or party id numbers just aren't in their favor. This means that they'll have to continue to run just enough to the right to court the crazies, preventing those who want to be on "the right side of history" from making any headway. Economically, this is no better than 1.

    3) They lose marginally - This leaves them in a bit of a lurch. The crazies did stay home, and they MUST be appeased to win elections. The leadership will have to make a decision where to try and recoup voter share, either from the middle, or from the far right. Dashing hard right is pretty short-sighted, the base is not sustainable as-is. The question, I suppose, is this - how much of the party thinks they can "get theirs" before the base becomes irreparably unreliable?

    4) They lose big - Imagine 3, but more so. This is my "boo-freakin'-hoo/fuck'em" option. I don't know what their response to losing big will be, and frankly I do not care. If they're on the wrong side of history for social issues and the income inequality issue is a big winner for Dems, what do they have to run on in 4 years? The projection strategy will have failed. If they're smart, they'll go into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights and emerge a stronger, saner party with an eye for actual fiscal conservatism, not just "starve the beast" capitalism, but I'm not going to cling too tightly to that dream.

    Delzhand on
    jk0Btsj.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    An interesting post from Ta-Nehisi Coates:
    From comments:

    "We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate."

    I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

    The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

    I think his argument applies just as well to sexism and the whole "War on Women? What War on Women? All I see is a bunch of legislation about fetal rights" thing.

    I like Coates a lot of the time, but I think he misses the mark here. The slur has little effect on conservatives now because it's been so thoroughly devalued over the past 20 years, by chronic misuse. It has been used as a political weapon against conservatives who are not racist, for political gain, so often, that it's hard to take seriously beyond its deployment as a tactic.

    We mostly have Sharpton and his ilk to thank for that.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    An interesting post from Ta-Nehisi Coates:
    From comments:

    "We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate."

    I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

    The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

    I think his argument applies just as well to sexism and the whole "War on Women? What War on Women? All I see is a bunch of legislation about fetal rights" thing.

    I like Coates a lot of the time, but I think he misses the mark here. The slur has little effect on conservatives now because it's been so thoroughly devalued over the past 20 years, by chronic misuse. It has been used as a political weapon against conservatives who are not racist, for political gain, so often, that it's hard to take seriously beyond its deployment as a tactic.

    We mostly have Sharpton and his ilk to thank for that.

    We at least have him and his ilk to blame for today's society being completely unable to have honest discussions about subcultures wherein race plays a key role.

    But then again, a lot of people are to blame for that, on all sides.

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Hipstah Kitteh Registered User regular
    Hey, @spool32 Thanks for the new sigline :D

    // PSN: wyrd_warrior //
    Astro Girl, Paragon of Titan - "And Justice for All" M&M3e
    jswidget.php?username=Mikey+CTS&numitems=5&header=1&text=title&images=small&show=top10&imagepos=right&inline=1&domains%5B%5D=boardgame&imagewidget=1
  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User
    chrisnl wrote: »

    This line right here -
    As the CNN Poll of Polls is an average of other surveys, there is no sampling error for the results.
    takes a lot of wind out of that sail me thinks.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    Hey, @spool32 Thanks for the new sigline :D

    ROTFL

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    mindspork wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »

    This line right here -
    As the CNN Poll of Polls is an average of other surveys, there is no sampling error for the results.
    takes a lot of wind out of that sail me thinks.

    It's a poll or polls, seven months out of the election, before the general even heats up.

    It's also on par with what's been predicted.

    So, no, it's not as bad as it seems.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    The reason I worry is that recent polls that I have been hearing about have shown a marked advantage for Obama, with a 7 point lead being the lowest I remember. Then this "poll of polls" shows up with a 2 point lead for Obama, and aren't averages of polls supposed to be more robust than individual polls or something to that effect? Basically if 45% of this country can right now say they prefer Romney to Obama, that is something that really bothers me.

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The reason I worry is that recent polls that I have been hearing about have shown a marked advantage for Obama, with a 7 point lead being the lowest I remember. Then this "poll of polls" shows up with a 2 point lead for Obama, and aren't averages of polls supposed to be more robust than individual polls or something to that effect? Basically if 45% of this country can right now say they prefer Romney to Obama, that is something that really bothers me.

    Prepare to stay bothered - I don't know if Romney will win but I feel comfortable saying he'll at least get 45% of the vote.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    spool32 wrote: »

    Prepare to stay bothered - I don't know if Romney will win but I feel comfortable saying he'll at least get 45% of the vote.

    Probably. There's no such thing as landslide victories for president anymore.

    Mad King George on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The reason I worry is that recent polls that I have been hearing about have shown a marked advantage for Obama, with a 7 point lead being the lowest I remember. Then this "poll of polls" shows up with a 2 point lead for Obama, and aren't averages of polls supposed to be more robust than individual polls or something to that effect? Basically if 45% of this country can right now say they prefer Romney to Obama, that is something that really bothers me.
    They probably included a whole bunch of really shitty polls and weighted them all equally.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    Yeah, anything more than the is a true ass kicking. Even the safest of safe districts are usually around 60/40 in one direction or the other. I can't see Romney failing to crack 43-45% of the vote unless there's a spoiler out there pulling 2-4% total of the most hardcore conservatives, which would be a HUGE spoiler.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    It included two polls that gave Obama an advantage (17 in one and 9 in the other) and two that gave a statistical tie, but still advantage to Obama.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Having secured the nomination, Romeny should be enjoying a bit of a bump, it should be said.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The reason I worry is that recent polls that I have been hearing about have shown a marked advantage for Obama, with a 7 point lead being the lowest I remember. Then this "poll of polls" shows up with a 2 point lead for Obama, and aren't averages of polls supposed to be more robust than individual polls or something to that effect? Basically if 45% of this country can right now say they prefer Romney to Obama, that is something that really bothers me.

    Those 7 point polls that keep being talked about in here are 'swing state' polls, generally. Flordia, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Hell - fucking North Carolina is in play here.

    Otherwise known as 'the reason romney will lose this election' since Obama is at +5% in most of those states.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Yeah, anything more than the is a true ass kicking. Even the safest of safe districts are usually around 60/40 in one direction or the other.
    No, they're not. Super-blue and super-red districts tend to be more like 70-80%, when they're contested at all.

    Spoiler:
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    I guess I'll just have to continue to be bothered that a flip-flopping cheese weasel is polling this well. Also if they average a 17 point lead, a 9 point lead, and two statistical ties, how in the world does that come out to a 2 point lead? Is CNN just flat out lying to make for a better story?

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    I guess I'll just have to continue to be bothered that a flip-flopping cheese weasel is polling this well. Also if they average a 17 point lead, a 9 point lead, and two statistical ties, how in the world does that come out to a 2 point lead? Is CNN just flat out lying to make for a better story?

    Because those aren't the actual numbers from the polls?

    RealClearPolitic shows the last 4 polls from those 4 groups to be


    CBS News/NY Times - Tie

    Gallup Tracking - Romney +4

    CNN/Opinion Research - Obama +9

    Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +4



    Rasmussen Tracking - Romney +4
    Pew Research - Obama +4
    (neither of these two were included)

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    The best thing that could happen is romney wins the popular vote by a huge amount, but obama still gets the electoral. Watch the spin and the lawsuits and the protests(read old people in lawn chairs) then.

    steam_sig.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    The trackers and Pew (I'd guess the CBS poll too, but haven't looked into it) have a more 2010 electorate. If it looks more like 2008 (aka the Republican War on Voting doesn't work), it looks more like the CNN poll. As we get closer, we'll start seeing better likely voter models.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Anyone worried by polls this far out is the silliest of geese.

    Now, Romney should be concerned that he is consistently polling quite low in swing states. Like, Virginia is up for grabs. This does not bode well for Republicans.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    Anyone worried by polls this far out is the silliest of geese.

    Now, Romney should be concerned that he is consistently polling quite low in swing states. Like, Virginia is up for grabs. This does not bode well for Republicans.

    Being consistently (slightly) outside the margin of error in Florida is the big one.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Also; Ohio. But all those polls are fairly old.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I think this election is going to see a lot more swing states on both sides. Not only Florida and Ohio, but also New Hampshire, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, maybe even Texas could all be in play.

    Pi-r8 on
  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    I cant imagine Texas being in play, honestly. If it is that says some pretty dire things.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    An interesting post from Ta-Nehisi Coates:
    From comments:

    "We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate."

    I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

    The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

    I think his argument applies just as well to sexism and the whole "War on Women? What War on Women? All I see is a bunch of legislation about fetal rights" thing.

    I like Coates a lot of the time, but I think he misses the mark here. The slur has little effect on conservatives now because it's been so thoroughly devalued over the past 20 years, by chronic misuse. It has been used as a political weapon against conservatives who are not racist, for political gain, so often, that it's hard to take seriously beyond its deployment as a tactic.

    We mostly have Sharpton and his ilk to thank for that.

    Less chronic misuse and more just chronic use.

    Shit be racist.

  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    The best thing that could happen is romney wins the popular vote by a huge amount, but obama still gets the electoral. Watch the spin and the lawsuits and the protests(read old people in lawn chairs) then.
    What electoral map does that happen on?

    camo_sig2.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    There was a NYT article a couple days ago about how Obama's organization was trying to make a play in Arizona.

    Arizona


    little heavy on the "hope" there guys

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    There was a NYT article a couple days ago about how Obama's organization was trying to make a play in Arizona.

    Arizona


    little heavy on the "hope" there guys

    Maybe they are banking on how crazy Arizona is. Maybe in some kind of statewide psychotic bender they'll all vote Obama if you give them proper conditioning.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    There was a NYT article a couple days ago about how Obama's organization was trying to make a play in Arizona.

    Arizona


    little heavy on the "hope" there guys

    You mean the state where they've implemented draconian new immigration checks and laws and the latino population is understandably pissed?

    I don't know if they could turn the whole state, but they could probably do some damage.

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    There was a NYT article a couple days ago about how Obama's organization was trying to make a play in Arizona.

    Arizona


    little heavy on the "hope" there guys

    Latino voters.

    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.