|
Post by Christine on Feb 11, 2017 21:48:51 GMT -5
That was not at all clear from your post. You made broad scale claims about the voting patterns of Repubs and Dems. You didn't specify "midterm" vote patterns. You claimed Repubs "fall in line" and Dems "fall in love," and get pissy if 10/10 of their wants aren't met. That is what I was responding to. Yes, I did make broad claims about voting patterns. And, at the end, I specifically applied them to the upcoming 2018 midterms. YOU are the one who took my broad claims (which I gladly backed up with evidence, when you offered none) and characterized them as if they were only about the Presidential election. I still don't think you get how your response was wrong and totally missed my overall point. Sorry, you don't get to make broad claims about voting patterns and then deny they apply to the last presidential election, characterizing them as though they only apply to upcoming midterms. I don't think you see how your response is missing my point in response to your original post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 22:06:11 GMT -5
A lot of people, apparently including Bill Clinton, think those patterns tend to apply broadly.
I tend to agree.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2017 22:25:59 GMT -5
Yes, I did make broad claims about voting patterns. And, at the end, I specifically applied them to the upcoming 2018 midterms. YOU are the one who took my broad claims (which I gladly backed up with evidence, when you offered none) and characterized them as if they were only about the Presidential election. I still don't think you get how your response was wrong and totally missed my overall point. Sorry, you don't get to make broad claims about voting patterns and then deny they apply to the last presidential election, characterizing them as though they only apply to upcoming midterms. I don't think you see how your response is missing my point in response to your original post. Broad claims, by definition, do not apply to every single case. I don't get how you don't get that, unless maybe you just don't know what "broadly" means.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 11, 2017 22:27:37 GMT -5
So you're saying your broad claim does not apply to the 2016 election? ETA: Just to be clear, we're talking about this broad claim: I've said this before, but the old adage is true: Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. A Republican politician can lie, cheat, and shit all over his/her constituents, but they will still show up to vote him/her into office just because there's an "R" next to the name. A Democratic politician can whip sizeable groups of people into a frenzy with promises of free tuition, single-payer healthcare, diversity, charity, love, and hugs and lollipops for every person in the world, but many of those people won't show up on election day because "he/she only promised 9 out of 10 things I wanted. I wanted 10/10. That is unacceptable!" A person has two choices for elections: they can vote or they can pout. As much as I hate to admit it, between Repubs and Dems, the Republicans are not the ones more likely to pout.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2017 22:36:52 GMT -5
I've already provided evidence to suggest that it might. That's the difference between the arguments I make and the ones you make. I back up my claims with actual evidence and provide links to that evidence. You just exasperatingly dismiss things and say "fuck" a lot. It's arguable, I suppose, whether or not it applies strictly to the 2016 election. I feel that the evidence suggests that it likely does. However, even if it doesn't, that in no way disproves or discredits the overall trend which was discussed in this link that you quoted but apparently ignored, and discussed again in Cass's last link (which was trying to argue against it, but the author turned out to be very wrong and the trend actually held true). It's clear that you've lost this argument and have offered no coherent or even relevant rebuttal. You've been reduced to nitpicking. Best to accept defeat and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 11, 2017 22:50:42 GMT -5
LOL. What's clear is that you're backpedaling, because you said you *weren't* talking about the 2016 election, only the midterms, and now you're saying it's arguable that your opinion might apply, even though you just criticized me for applying it to the 2016 election because "that's not what you were talking about." Lame as fuck. And also, FUCK, on general principles.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2017 22:57:58 GMT -5
Sweet titty fucking Christ.
No, you were dismissing the entire broad claim because you (wrongly) felt that it didn't apply to ONE specific instance and were attempting to characterize my post as only referencing 2016.
I responded with evidence that suggests that it actually might apply to that instance, but emphasized that my original post was applying it to the upcoming 2018 midterms.
A BROAD CLAIM CAN APPLY TO MANY THINGS.
It can certainly apply to 2016 just like it applies to 2018.
2016 was not my original point, though.
Christ on a cracker. Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 11, 2017 23:12:34 GMT -5
I wasn't dismissing anything, I was disagreeing with you, based on your BROAD CLAIM of Repubs and Dems and how they vote.
Christ on a cracker, I really do understand, and I think you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to make what you originally said sound like what you want it to say now.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 12, 2017 5:22:28 GMT -5
Apparently somebody was Saturday Night Drinking last night.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 12, 2017 7:45:11 GMT -5
I burned my grilled cheese sandwich too. The good news is, the smoke detectors work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 9:27:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 12, 2017 11:41:38 GMT -5
I wasn't dismissing anything, I was disagreeing with you, based on your BROAD CLAIM of Repubs and Dems and how they vote. Christ on a cracker, I really do understand, and I think you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to make what you originally said sound like what you want it to say now. I followed him just fine. He made a broad claim supported by statistical voting trends. You haven't.... actually offered a rebuttal, other than that you don't think it applied to the 2016 election because reasons. What is your argument, exactly? Opty's claim is basically that Republicans more consistently turn out to support their candidates regardless of pre-election shenanigans and promises than Democrats do. Democrats are more likely to make lots of noise before the election and not actually turn up to vote. The links he posted support that conclusion. If you fuck disagree with it fuck, please fuck to be explaining fuck why.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2017 13:44:16 GMT -5
Reading old opinion articles can be great fun. For sure. If one were to go back and read opinion pieces on the tea party--in its early stages--one would find lots of people talking about how it wouldn't amount to jack shit, for the 2010 mid terms or for anything else. One would even fine many people on the left--in those early days--applauding the whole "rise of the tea party" because they assumed it would fracture the Republican party and thus lead to even bigger gains in the 2010 mid terms (they were already assuming Dem gains because Obama). And when the OWS movement hit, one would find lots and lots of people talking about it was a serious political force, how it was going to have a yuge impact on political races. Indeed, it was going to do in 2012--and again in 2014--what the tea party did in 2010. And then some. Which I guess is part of my point/question here: allowing that large chunks of the media are on board with this "Resistance" movement (seriously, CNN is just about at war with Trump), is that bad news or good news for the movement as a whole? Because good chunks of the media were pretty happy with the OWS movement, as were many sitting politicians (mostly with Ds or Is by their names, but a few Rs). In contrast, in the early days of the tea party movement--up until the 2010 midterms--there were far more sitting politicians looking to keep the tea party at arm's length then there were ones openly supporting it, imo. They didn't want t go all in, because they really didn't know what was going to happen. I don't know, I guess I see some sort of weird Heisenberg principle at work here: these days, it seems like the more the media pushes a narrative, supports a cause, the less likely the cause is to be as big as the media supposes.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2017 13:52:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Feb 12, 2017 14:21:21 GMT -5
Meet the press explored this subject today. Todd interviewed Jim Webb and his opinion was the Democrats have moved so far left they've abandoned centrists and Anyone who stays moderate is considered unworthy. He also sees the Dems not changing their fate, mainly by clinging to identity politics.
Todd also interviewed Stephen Miller and Bernie Sanders. The difference on how each was treated was telling of Todd's bias.
|
|