Almost everyone is under-informed about their chosen representative. If someone is going to vote, I'd rather them have an asinine reason than none at all.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'd be very surprised if Rubio is picked as the VP. He's far too young and far too bland.
Also, he recently pissed off the teapers by unveiling his "Dream Act Without the Dream". He also does el zilcho at getting votes for Romney in Florida.
You've apparently forgotten how popular Palin was among women!
In 2008 I knew several idiots that were all about Palin, just because they thought she was hot. That was their only criteria.
There are a lot of voters out there (in both parties) that vote almost completely based on projected imagery and a candidate's propensity to live a lifestyle familiar to those voters.
A lot of Palin supporters, especially female conservatives, were (are?) quick to point out how "she's a hard-working mom who puts her family first and upholds the same Christian values as I do." Which is pathetic of course, because A) turns out she's really a job-shirking idiot who will leverage her family for political gain at the drop of a hat, and not to mention her family is a total mess, and that has absolutely no bearing on her ability to govern.
Not that people care all that much about the latter, sadly.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I read an article online somewhere, maybe CNN, maybe ThinkProgress, maybe something else all together, that said that picking a woman as VP doesn't actually change polling. So /shrug
I'm not ashamed to admit that I all things being equal I would vote for a woman over a man, just because she's a woman.
Hell, I voted for Hill in the primary over obama for that reason alone.
Now I voted for Obama over Mccain because that shit wasn't equal.
You should be, that's stupid. Gender shouldn't come into it.
I've always wondered how different the results would be if we did our elections through a blind. Like, you never physically see them speak, or know who exactly they are before election day. Just run the elections based on positions and policy.
Obviously there are massive problems with that, you want the face of the nation to be able to speak really well and you'd like them to be not on deaths door, but it's interesting to think about.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I all things being equal I would vote for a woman over a man, just because she's a woman.
Hell, I voted for Hill in the primary over obama for that reason alone.
Now I voted for Obama over Mccain because that shit wasn't equal.
You should be, that's stupid. Gender shouldn't come into it.
I've always wondered how different the results would be if we did our elections through a blind. Like, you never physically see them speak, or know who exactly they are before election day. Just run the elections based on positions and policy.
Obviously there are massive problems with that, you want the face of the nation to be able to speak really well and you'd like them to be not on deaths door, but it's interesting to think about.
You also want to know their actual record, which is impossible to do through a blind.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm not ashamed to admit that I all things being equal I would vote for a woman over a man, just because she's a woman.
Hell, I voted for Hill in the primary over obama for that reason alone.
Now I voted for Obama over Mccain because that shit wasn't equal.
You should be, that's stupid. Gender shouldn't come into it.
I've always wondered how different the results would be if we did our elections through a blind. Like, you never physically see them speak, or know who exactly they are before election day. Just run the elections based on positions and policy.
Obviously there are massive problems with that, you want the face of the nation to be able to speak really well and you'd like them to be not on deaths door, but it's interesting to think about.
That is interesting. I imagine if we had such a system we could put in clauses where the candidate has to be healthy and such if that was a real concern.
Reminds me of how most Americans support liberal policies until they find out that they're liberal.
Or how there's a bunch of overlap between the Reagan and Obama administrations but Republicans think Obama is a worse Hitler.
Okay, let me rephrase this, because you're all being pedantic geese.
If I have a choice between two candidates who support the issues in a similar (not same) vein to my personal beliefs, I'm going to vote for the woman, or non-white, because I feel like we need more positive examples of diversity in our leadership at the highest levels of politics.
I didn't vote for Palin, don't even like her, but I thought she was attractive.
Pissed my wife off because she hates her and hates even more that there is a resemblance between both of them. I told her that once and she got mad at me, then someone else told her that and she was even more pissy when I laughed.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I mean, I guess that's a better way of doing it than flipping a coin.
I would point out that there were bigger differences than their genitalia between Obama and Clinton. Though perhaps not in their administration (since Obama's was full of Clintonians.)
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Let me just point out that I think it's important that we get a female president. I just think its more important that we get the right president.
Okay, let me rephrase this, because you're all being pedantic geese.
If I have a choice between two candidates who support the issues in a similar (not same) vein to my personal beliefs, I'm going to vote for the woman, or non-white, because I feel like we need more positive examples of diversity in our leadership at the highest levels of politics.
I get what you're saying, and I'm probably the same way. How about phrasing it like this, "If my personal choice between two candidates is virtually a tie, the fact that one is a non-white or non-male would sway my decision in their direction." That should pretty much cover all the pedantry. The point is that if you'd be equally happy with either candidate (not necessarily because there aren't any differences between them, but because as a whole they're equally appealing), the choice that would bring more diversity to the White House would get the edge.
I'd be very surprised if Rubio is picked as the VP. He's far too young and far too bland.
Also, he recently pissed off the teapers by unveiling his "Dream Act Without the Dream". He also does el zilcho at getting votes for Romney in Florida.
Blandness is a bonus for Veep picks this election; the Republicans apparently want to find someone who won't take the spotlight from Romney.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I'd be very surprised if Rubio is picked as the VP. He's far too young and far too bland.
Also, he recently pissed off the teapers by unveiling his "Dream Act Without the Dream". He also does el zilcho at getting votes for Romney in Florida.
Blandness is a bonus for Veep picks this election; the Republicans apparently want to find someone who won't take the spotlight from Romney.
It's like picking a side dish that won't distract from the main entree of plain white bread.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The thing about Palin, and I usually really hate when the forums devolve into how women look (honestly, anytime a politician or female actor comes up there are about twenty comments about her looks) but the thing about Palin is that she's got a really annoying face.
I'd be very surprised if Rubio is picked as the VP. He's far too young and far too bland.
Also, he recently pissed off the teapers by unveiling his "Dream Act Without the Dream". He also does el zilcho at getting votes for Romney in Florida.
Blandness is a bonus for Veep picks this election; the Republicans Romney apparently want to find someone who won't take the spotlight from Romney.
All things are never equal in elections. We aren't voting for identical model an/gynodroids with interchangable genitals.
yet
"And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!"
Unit President! What are you going to do about the nationwide flywheel shortage? And what is your response to the allegation that you are actually a member of the Church of Lugnut?
Let me just point out that I think it's important that we get a female president. I just think its more important that we get the right president.
Right, I think your general philosophy is similar to mine. I want to pick the best person for the job I can, if they happen to be a non-traditional candidate, fantastic! But getting it right is more important than diversity purely for diversity's sake.
I mean, I guess that's a better way of doing it than flipping a coin.
I would point out that there were bigger differences than their genitalia between Obama and Clinton. Though perhaps not in their administration (since Obama's was full of Clintonians.)
There really weren't in terms of policy proposals. Some minor differences in terms of legislative history (notably Clinton's AUMF for Iraq vote).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The thing about Palin, and I usually really hate when the forums devolve into how women look (honestly, anytime a politician or female actor comes up there are about twenty comments about her looks) but the thing about Palin is that she's got a really annoying face.
Meh
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'd be very surprised if Rubio is picked as the VP. He's far too young and far too bland.
Also, he recently pissed off the teapers by unveiling his "Dream Act Without the Dream". He also does el zilcho at getting votes for Romney in Florida.
You've apparently forgotten how popular Palin was among women!
In 2008 I knew several idiots that were all about Palin, just because they thought she was hot. That was their only criteria.
There are a lot of voters out there (in both parties) that vote almost completely based on projected imagery and a candidate's propensity to live a lifestyle familiar to those voters.
A lot of Palin supporters, especially female conservatives, were (are?) quick to point out how "she's a hard-working mom who puts her family first and upholds the same Christian values as I do." Which is pathetic of course, because A) turns out she's really a job-shirking idiot who will leverage her family for political gain at the drop of a hat, and not to mention her family is a total mess, and that has absolutely no bearing on her ability to govern.
Not that people care all that much about the latter, sadly.
According to a specialist I heard speak about Israeli politics at the local university lately noted that Israelis also tend to vote based on identity politics, except he noted that Israeli media is similar in rabid attacks on politicians and pettiness to Britain's media, so that most people who aren't in it for some personal gain, too stupid to realize how miserable it is, or zealots (heredi and kibutzniks are especially big on public service) avoid public office like the plague. He cites this as the reason why the "octet" (the oldest people in the knesset) are the only current office holders who aren't fucking terrible. He gave special attention to comparing Avigdor Lieberman to a similarly far right predecessor from roughly ten years ago, noting that the current crop's stupidity crossed partisan bounds.
I've always wondered how different the results would be if we did our elections through a blind. Like, you never physically see them speak, or know who exactly they are before election day. Just run the elections based on positions and policy.
Obviously there are massive problems with that, you want the face of the nation to be able to speak really well and you'd like them to be not on deaths door, but it's interesting to think about.
Believe it or not I think that would be a fairly big step back. For one, what a candidate says and what they'll do are different things. For another, its almost impossible to anticipate everything that will come up in the next 4/8 years. You want some one who shares your general philosophy, but also someone who is smart, adaptable, capable, a capable manager and someone who can lead the country and, in a way, arguably the world. You can't get that from a simple list of position statements.
Similar instances come up in Congress. Is the member influential with other members? Is she an ideologue or pragmatic? A partisan or a "maverick"? Does he see his responsibility to the district or nation as paramount?
Rasmussen finally kicked the dirt and yelled "Fine!" and has Obama up 1, mostly to make their Florida Romney +1 poll not look ridiculous by having Obama outperforming his national numbers in every polled state. Gallup has Obama +7
Here's what I can't figure out: I feel like, given his personality, his position, and his background, it's almost guaranteed that Romney has had one or more extramarital affairs.
Let me remind you about how I use the term “swing state” here at FiveThirtyEight. When I employ the term, I mean a state that could swing the outcome of the election. That is, if the state changed hands, the victor in the Electoral College would change as well.
...
From Barack Obama’s perspective in 2008, for instance, his easiest three electoral votes were in the District of Columbia. The next-easiest were the four electoral votes in Hawaii, giving him seven total. Repeat this process and you find that Colorado was the tipping point state in 2008, putting him over the top with 278 electoral votes. (Although, winning Iowa but not Colorado would have sufficed to give Mr. Obama 269 electoral votes, an exact tie in the Electoral College.)
Here's what I can't figure out: I feel like, given his personality, his position, and his background, it's almost guaranteed that Romney has had one or more extramarital affairs.
Let me remind you about how I use the term “swing state” here at FiveThirtyEight. When I employ the term, I mean a state that could swing the outcome of the election. That is, if the state changed hands, the victor in the Electoral College would change as well.
...
From Barack Obama’s perspective in 2008, for instance, his easiest three electoral votes were in the District of Columbia. The next-easiest were the four electoral votes in Hawaii, giving him seven total. Repeat this process and you find that Colorado was the tipping point state in 2008, putting him over the top with 278 electoral votes. (Although, winning Iowa but not Colorado would have sufficed to give Mr. Obama 269 electoral votes, an exact tie in the Electoral College.)
....
Yeah, I read that earlier. But I don't really agree with his definition of a swing State. For all intents and purposes, "swing State" refers to s State which could swing either direction in the election. Giving it a different, and much more specialized and limited, definition seems pretty useless.
Let me remind you about how I use the term “swing state” here at FiveThirtyEight. When I employ the term, I mean a state that could swing the outcome of the election. That is, if the state changed hands, the victor in the Electoral College would change as well.
...
From Barack Obama’s perspective in 2008, for instance, his easiest three electoral votes were in the District of Columbia. The next-easiest were the four electoral votes in Hawaii, giving him seven total. Repeat this process and you find that Colorado was the tipping point state in 2008, putting him over the top with 278 electoral votes. (Although, winning Iowa but not Colorado would have sufficed to give Mr. Obama 269 electoral votes, an exact tie in the Electoral College.)
....
A good post, but Nate doesn't really get to redefine terms like that. Nobody else uses that definition for swing state.
Let me remind you about how I use the term “swing state” here at FiveThirtyEight. When I employ the term, I mean a state that could swing the outcome of the election. That is, if the state changed hands, the victor in the Electoral College would change as well.
...
From Barack Obama’s perspective in 2008, for instance, his easiest three electoral votes were in the District of Columbia. The next-easiest were the four electoral votes in Hawaii, giving him seven total. Repeat this process and you find that Colorado was the tipping point state in 2008, putting him over the top with 278 electoral votes. (Although, winning Iowa but not Colorado would have sufficed to give Mr. Obama 269 electoral votes, an exact tie in the Electoral College.)
....
And to borrow some more of Nate's data: If Obama loses 4% of the vote in every state compared with 2008, the map looks like this:
Posts
There are a lot of voters out there (in both parties) that vote almost completely based on projected imagery and a candidate's propensity to live a lifestyle familiar to those voters.
A lot of Palin supporters, especially female conservatives, were (are?) quick to point out how "she's a hard-working mom who puts her family first and upholds the same Christian values as I do." Which is pathetic of course, because A) turns out she's really a job-shirking idiot who will leverage her family for political gain at the drop of a hat, and not to mention her family is a total mess, and
Not that people care all that much about the latter, sadly.
Hell, I voted for Hill in the primary over obama for that reason alone.
Now I voted for Obama over Mccain because that shit wasn't equal.
You should be, that's stupid. Gender shouldn't come into it.
Or that 43 of the last presidents are basically interchangeable?
Having a woman be president would be a huge deal to me. But whatever. it's the internet.
This, too,
Obama vs Palin wouldn't stir me.
What?
I've always wondered how different the results would be if we did our elections through a blind. Like, you never physically see them speak, or know who exactly they are before election day. Just run the elections based on positions and policy.
Obviously there are massive problems with that, you want the face of the nation to be able to speak really well and you'd like them to be not on deaths door, but it's interesting to think about.
You also want to know their actual record, which is impossible to do through a blind.
That is interesting. I imagine if we had such a system we could put in clauses where the candidate has to be healthy and such if that was a real concern.
Reminds me of how most Americans support liberal policies until they find out that they're liberal.
Or how there's a bunch of overlap between the Reagan and Obama administrations but Republicans think Obama is a worse Hitler.
yet
"And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!"
If I have a choice between two candidates who support the issues in a similar (not same) vein to my personal beliefs, I'm going to vote for the woman, or non-white, because I feel like we need more positive examples of diversity in our leadership at the highest levels of politics.
Pissed my wife off because she hates her and hates even more that there is a resemblance between both of them. I told her that once and she got mad at me, then someone else told her that and she was even more pissy when I laughed.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I would point out that there were bigger differences than their genitalia between Obama and Clinton. Though perhaps not in their administration (since Obama's was full of Clintonians.)
I get what you're saying, and I'm probably the same way. How about phrasing it like this, "If my personal choice between two candidates is virtually a tie, the fact that one is a non-white or non-male would sway my decision in their direction." That should pretty much cover all the pedantry. The point is that if you'd be equally happy with either candidate (not necessarily because there aren't any differences between them, but because as a whole they're equally appealing), the choice that would bring more diversity to the White House would get the edge.
It's like picking a side dish that won't distract from the main entree of plain white bread.
Agreed about that.
Unit President! What are you going to do about the nationwide flywheel shortage? And what is your response to the allegation that you are actually a member of the Church of Lugnut?
Right, I think your general philosophy is similar to mine. I want to pick the best person for the job I can, if they happen to be a non-traditional candidate, fantastic! But getting it right is more important than diversity purely for diversity's sake.
There really weren't in terms of policy proposals. Some minor differences in terms of legislative history (notably Clinton's AUMF for Iraq vote).
Meh
According to a specialist I heard speak about Israeli politics at the local university lately noted that Israelis also tend to vote based on identity politics, except he noted that Israeli media is similar in rabid attacks on politicians and pettiness to Britain's media, so that most people who aren't in it for some personal gain, too stupid to realize how miserable it is, or zealots (heredi and kibutzniks are especially big on public service) avoid public office like the plague. He cites this as the reason why the "octet" (the oldest people in the knesset) are the only current office holders who aren't fucking terrible. He gave special attention to comparing Avigdor Lieberman to a similarly far right predecessor from roughly ten years ago, noting that the current crop's stupidity crossed partisan bounds.
Believe it or not I think that would be a fairly big step back. For one, what a candidate says and what they'll do are different things. For another, its almost impossible to anticipate everything that will come up in the next 4/8 years. You want some one who shares your general philosophy, but also someone who is smart, adaptable, capable, a capable manager and someone who can lead the country and, in a way, arguably the world. You can't get that from a simple list of position statements.
Similar instances come up in Congress. Is the member influential with other members? Is she an ideologue or pragmatic? A partisan or a "maverick"? Does he see his responsibility to the district or nation as paramount?
Rasmussen finally kicked the dirt and yelled "Fine!" and has Obama up 1, mostly to make their Florida Romney +1 poll not look ridiculous by having Obama outperforming his national numbers in every polled state. Gallup has Obama +7
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Love these videos.
So where are they?
Arizona is (probably) not a swing state
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You forgot one important thing.
Magic Underwear
edit: Wait, no. Bill Pullman playing Bill Compton? The Big Love guy I mean...
editedit: oh lord. Bill Paxton playing Bill Henrickson.
Yeah, I read that earlier. But I don't really agree with his definition of a swing State. For all intents and purposes, "swing State" refers to s State which could swing either direction in the election. Giving it a different, and much more specialized and limited, definition seems pretty useless.
A good post, but Nate doesn't really get to redefine terms like that. Nobody else uses that definition for swing state.
And to borrow some more of Nate's data: If Obama loses 4% of the vote in every state compared with 2008, the map looks like this:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jMd