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!
Primaries: Democralypse Now!
Posts
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Well, generally speaking they're the only ones contributing, especially to the non-Presidential campaigns which get less attention. That's why the Obama fundraising totals are so remarkable and unprecedented and awesome.
Also it's $2300 once in the primary and then again in the general. And you can get around things by contributing a ton of cash to say, the DNC which can then run ads on behalf of your candidate, or avoid the system all together with 527s as long as you avoid the magic words of support, vote for, vote against, etc. That's why you'll see ads during a campaign like "John McCain is a fascist, call him and tell him what you think about that. Paid for by The People for the American Way." Or the same argument calling Obama a socialist from one of the faux patriotic sounding groups that all blend together in my mind. Citizens for Freedom or some shit like that. Anyway, most of that is big donors giving huge amounts of money helping a candidate win.
And that's just campaigns, until recently lobbyists could fly Representatives and Senators around, pay for their meals, give them random gifts, etc. The reform legislation that ended that's sponsor? Barack Obama. So there's one thing for Richy.
Stylish, but undoubtedly negative. I don't approve.
Heh, that was my initial thought when I was just going to reference them, so I threw in Greenpeace.
On second thought, that was also a bad choice. So instead I could reference whatever cancer group it is that Lance Armstrong is a part of.
Edit: Ah, flowing through the DNC makes sense, and explains everything.
I'm fine with this kind of negative advertising. It's the "my opponent supports Al Qaeda" or "Willie Horton" kind of advertising that is actually the problem. Something like this which is all "Hey, you know how Washington sucks and lobbyists suck even more? My opponent loves her some lobbyists."
And that pro-lobbyist quote came at YearlyKos of all places. There's a reason they hate her.
I demand more where they came from and even tougher.
That's just beautiful.
I think I missed that one then, my mistake. That said, Stewart definitely ripped him apart.
For sure, outside of Bill Kristol that might have been as aggressive as Jon's ever been with a guest.
In other news: Bloomberg/LA Times poll upcoming primaries:
NC: Obama +13
PA: Clinton + 5
IN: Obama +5
I'm reasonably sure they're not in the legislation as they weren't a big deal when McCain-Feingold passed and I haven't heard of a revision to them.
That was the original interpretation of the FEC.
Still looking for something more modern.
Doesn't look like you know much about the modern MADD.
The tip of the iceberg? The founder quit the group in disgust.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
I'm curious about this as well. If Clinton has taken over $100,000 from drug lobbyists, does that mean each one gave her no more than 2300 for the primary and 2300 for the general, or is it something else? Are personal "cash gifts" exempt from the donation caps?
It also does not say that Obama approved it.
Ed & Larry : "Doesn't matter."
I recently was gifted a thing in Steam. If it was from you, thank you very much!
The gifts are banned outright, I believe. But yeah, that is what it means. It only takes 24 of them contributing the max for both the primary and the general to get to that gaudy $100,000 total.
It's a web only ad that they're trying to make go viral in that way they're generally pretty good at.
I still hope we can keep the positive:negative ratio high. Was it the 2004 election where the positive:negative ratio of ads coming out of Bush's side was something like 1:3? That's the sort of stuff that turns people off politics. Negative ads have their place, but I think the principal focus should be saying why you rock, not why your opponent sucks.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Agreed. And, this ad was nice because, while negative, it was still classy and not outright vicious or malicious.
Yeah, I liked the tone. Factual (afaik) and not more malicious than it needed to be to get the point across.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
The only time I think a negative ad is justified is if the person they're attacking did something absolutely appalling that actually effects whether or not they'd make a good president. Anything else is just superficial bullshit.
That's a large part of why I can't stand Clinton. The majority of her campaign seems to be attacking Obama about pointless bullshit, and being as blatantly fake as possible during public appearences.
I disagree. Negative ads can be artfully done, it's just that most of them are over stupid shit like "Obama's pastor said somethign contraversial!" or "Bill Clinton took a puff on a joint when he was in college!" or "Obama: Stealth Muslim or Angry Marxist Radical?" Pointing out a candidates legitimate weaknesses in such a way as to contrast them with your own strengths is defensible as long as it's factual. I wouldn't mind an ad from McCain, say, that pointed out McCain's decades in the Senate and Obama's comparatively short tenure. It's accurate, arguably relevant, and voters can decide for themselves if they care.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
I wouldn't put too much faith in polls that show 20% of North Carolinians and Indianans as still undecided.
Edit: I can't speak for small-town Pennsylvania, but small-towns in northern Indiana have been hurting since the Nixon administration. Maybe they would have been even worse off now if Clinton had never been President, but not many people around here remember the '90s as being such great economic times. I think Obama's right when he says the economic boom of the late '90s never found its way into the communities of Appalachia and the Rust Belt.
Comparing a fender bender to a 30 car pileup
I half think Obama says things like that to get Bill to do something outrageously self-destructive.
I've never seen Obama say or imply that there was no difference during the Bush years. One could charitably take his comments about Bush squandering surpluses and an economic boom as implicit endorsement of Clinton's presidency over Bush's. But there are certain things on Dem wish lists that weren't accomplished under Bush or Clinton, certain things Dems ostensibly oppose that were furthered by both Bush and Clinton. And it's clearly true that a lot of the people Obama wants to help, people he claims have fallen through the cracks, have received the same helping of squat for over 16 years.
Which isn't to say I agree with all of Obama's remedies, but from the POV of a liberal democrat, Clinton's tenure had a lot of failings.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
It's funny cuz when he first ran he wasn't too unlike Obama. He was fairly young, very charming and something of a Washington outsider
What is surprising is that the same poll reports that, in a matchup of Obama vs. McCain in North Dakota, McCain is ahead, but within the margin of error. This matches a results from SUSA in early March that everyone dismissed as an implausible result.
Could North Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, be competitive this fall?