Topic: Primary Wars (Read 43933 times)

Royal☭ · « **Reply #140 on:** March 16, 2008, 11:13:54 AM »

Now you're just trying to obfuscate the entire argument, Rico. Yes, yes, your unverifiable anecdotal evidence says that 4 or 5 conservative women might vote for Hillary, and obviously that can be extended to the millions of conservative women who live in the country.

You can't make a definitive judgment about who they'll vote for until the time comes, but a statement like "A larger majority of conservative women will vote against Hillary than for her" is hardly a incredible statement.

Rico · « **Reply #141 on:** March 16, 2008, 11:45:04 AM »

No, it's not. It's not even incompatible with the observation I raised. The truth of the matter is, while the sample size is fairly small, it's from a demographic that most pundits are most decidedly not from. It's something you're also not going to get an honest poll response about ever, which I think makes it valuable, as polls are the closest thing to objective voting data we have (not very close) until you consider exit polls, which still aren't going to cover motivations like that even though they very accurately predict voting totals.

For people to so thoroughly rail against the observation I feel miss the point of the observation itself and vastly overstate the reliability of their own information. Just consider the sorts of numbers we're looking at now: Obama has great numbers but from a historically very low-voting demographic? Which set wins out? Clinton polls have, for a lot of the current primary contest, shown her to be much stronger than she's actually ended up. Now, granted, polls are going to be more reliable than anecdotes like that one, but it's really something that should be considered in the overall makeup of the race. It's important social data that's very, very hard to gather and the sort of thing that will never be reported, but could end up being very crucial to the chances of either candidate. Why toss it away just because one knows somehow that Republican women hate Clinton from inside with buring anger?

Brentai · « **Reply #142 on:** March 16, 2008, 12:06:32 PM »

Rico, your second-hand personal experience is evidence of your viewpoint.

It's just not the end-of-argument bombshell that you seem to be acting like it is. At best, it's a bullet point in a list of arguments. At worst, it's total bullshit. For the most part, though, it's hearsay, and you're spending an incredible amount of words trying to build on it.

In a half-assed attempt to add some balance/get this topic back on track, here is a number.

MSNBC - Exit Polls - Alabama - Democrats - Female
Clinton: 41%
Edwards: 1%
Obama: 56%
Unc. 1%

Parse that as you will.

Thad · « **Reply #143 on:** March 16, 2008, 12:09:42 PM »

Rico: re: your latest post: That's...a decent point, actually.

However, I have already spent the last twenty minutes writing a reply to your previous post, and god damned if I'm just going to chuck all that out. So here's the reply I just wrote, even though I think we're a lot closer to common ground now than we were when I was writing it:

Quote from: Rico on March 16, 2008, 08:41:49 AM

Oh please. "Rich white women more likely to vote for rich white woman than black man," is no less contributing a statement than any of the other personal opinion flying around in this thread, including quite a few of yours even on the first page of the thread.

The general election is not going to be Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama, it's going to be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama versus John McCain. It's going to be a Democrat versus a Republican. You are suggesting that Republican women will decide, en masse, that they have more in common with a female candidate than a Republican candidate; to back that up, you give anecdotal evidence of a handful of people who have said so.

Fair enough, I suppose. But I can provide anecdotal evidence of Republican women who literally believe that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. I can also provide anecdotal evidence of registered Democrats who won't vote for Clinton under any circumstance ('sup Kazz). The difference is, I'm not assuming the election results in November will come down to any of those minority demographics.

Quote from: Rico on March 16, 2008, 08:41:49 AM

And really, you're whining about the use of subjective data in politics, where most of the "objective" data we get is collation of lots of peoples' subjective data?

again.

I'm not complaining about the use of subjective data in politics. "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote". The difference between an anecdote and data is precisely the thing you're so glibly dismissing, the aggregation.

Of course polling data are not objective. Such a statement would be ludicrous; fortunately, nobody here has actually said anything like that. Nobody's arguing that polls are ironclad; if they were, Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican nominee. They're just a better indicator of public opinion than your Aunt Tillie.

What you are suggesting will determine the election is an effect that you don't believe can be measured. That is, by definition, a moot point. It's about as useful as saying the election will be decided by unicorns.

SCD · « **Reply #144 on:** March 17, 2008, 08:37:35 AM »

Quote from: Rico on March 10, 2008, 08:48:35 AM

I think the Democrats throwing money at each other instead of McCain is being overemphasized, since each of them could probably spend 25 million killing each other and still have more money for the actual election than McCain. Though Hilary already starting on the fear-mongering isn't going to help.

As old a point as this one, I have really disagreed on it mildly, but only because he's shown us that unlike most other candidates, he's efficient with his money, especially when he has so little of it.

Signs point that that may not be the case for so long..

Mongrel · « **Reply #145 on:** March 25, 2008, 03:24:54 PM »

Soooooooooo... Hilary "under fire"...

Now that the shoe's on the other foot, do you think that HER rally-the-troops speech will be as eloquent or as meaningful as the competition's?

Arc · « **Reply #146 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:02:08 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie5X4fWtHiQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzjbV-yTomY

Mongrel · « **Reply #147 on:** April 06, 2008, 10:36:21 PM »

So. Penn's Toast.

Too Little, too late, methinks.

TA · « **Reply #148 on:** April 06, 2008, 10:54:37 PM »

Quote from: Iron_Mongrel on April 06, 2008, 10:36:21 PM

So. Penn's Toast.

Too Little, too late, methinks.

?????

Thad · « **Reply #149 on:** April 06, 2008, 11:35:15 PM »

He's referring to Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist and professional moron, who just stepped down.

TA · « **Reply #150 on:** April 07, 2008, 08:30:37 AM »

Ah okay see here I thought he meant Pennsylvania and was confused.

Links are fun.

Thad · « **Reply #151 on:** April 07, 2008, 11:29:55 AM »

Yeah, I thought I was in the Obit thread since I'd just been reading it and was worried he was talking about Penn Jillette. Links are good, though also 30 seconds on Google News corrected my misapprehension.

Mongrel · « **Reply #152 on:** April 07, 2008, 03:46:54 PM »

Yeah, that could have been more clear. I made a false assumption as to how recognised he was down there. Oh wells, next time etc.

Thad · « **Reply #153 on:** April 07, 2008, 04:04:38 PM »

Oh, I know who he is. If I'd remembered what thread I was in I wouldn't have had any trouble following.

Thad · « **Reply #154 on:** April 07, 2008, 11:08:22 PM »

Common Dreams (by way of Tom Tomorrow) points out that Clinton belongs to a rather nutty fringe church -- and that, moreover, it DOES appear to have affected some of her votes:

Quote

Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

Wasn't aware Clinton backed that nonsense. Am familiar, of course, with Lieberman's rather offensive remark that people should just go somewhere else to get emergency contraception (and yet Planned Parenthood and a number of other women's rights groups endorsed him in '06).

The argument just boggles my fucking mind.

For a comparison: I don't eat beef. I am morally opposed to the cattle industry. If I went to work at a McDonald's and refused to serve people burgers, what the fuck do you think would happen?

If you have a religious objection to filling people's prescriptions, find another job besides pharmacist; if you have a religious objection to protecting and serving people who disagree with you, find another job besides police officer.

Arc · « **Reply #155 on:** April 08, 2008, 10:41:37 AM »

Quote from: Iron_Mongrel on April 06, 2008, 10:36:21 PM

Penn's Toast.

So says the drive-by media. A closer look reveals otherwise.

Mongrel · « **Reply #156 on:** April 08, 2008, 05:15:56 PM »

Haha, considering how bad he's been for her, I don't actually have any complaints about the worm hanging around the apple.

Detonator · « **Reply #157 on:** April 16, 2008, 07:48:02 PM »

ABC deserves a swift kick in the cunt for that debate. 45 minutes before a question even remotely pertaining to policy was asked. HuffPo has a good roundup of opinions, all of which were disgusted by the whole ordeal.

I feel dirty.

Thad · « **Reply #158 on:** April 16, 2008, 09:45:04 PM »

Fortunately, while I knew it was today, I didn't know when it was on until 45 minutes into it, by which point there was sufficient commentary for me to affirm I didn't want to watch any of the rest.

Guild · « **Reply #159 on:** April 21, 2008, 05:41:12 PM »

Did you see the coverage of Obama on the latest debate? He was stuttering like a fool, Colbert even highlighted it. The Presidency requires leadership and poise.

News:

Author Topic: Primary Wars (Read 43933 times)