Unfortunate statement of the week
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:51:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Unfortunate statement of the week
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Unfortunate statement of the week  (Read 7691 times)
nyquil_man
Rookie
**
Posts: 196


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: May 24, 2008, 09:22:26 AM »
« edited: May 24, 2008, 09:24:13 AM by nyquil_man »

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: May 24, 2008, 09:33:44 AM »

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2008, 09:36:41 AM »

There are now so few states left that it really doesn't make sense to deny them their primary. Reason enough to nominally pretend to still be in the race.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: May 24, 2008, 09:47:57 AM »


What a joke.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: May 24, 2008, 11:19:29 AM »

Remember with the Clintons, it's always divide and conquer, divide and conquer...
Logged
King of the Bench
KingoftheBenchPress
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 279
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2008, 11:23:31 AM »

You people are just ing stupid. This finalized my decision to leave this horrible website. If anyone can twist this to mean anything other than the fact that RFK was still running for President in June, you're just stupid, partisan hacks.

You wanna take this outside?
Logged
nyquil_man
Rookie
**
Posts: 196


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2008, 04:43:06 PM »

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.

I'm not talking about why she's truly staying in the race. Only she knows that for sure. I'm talking about her rhetorical justification for staying in the race. She's not likely to say "I haven't got a significant chance of winning the nomination but I'm staying in because of [insert reason here]." But saying "I'm doing it for my supporters who have fought for me" is not out of the realm of possibility and she has said things to effect on many occasions.

You mention the "historic nature of her candidacy." This is one of the reasons why I think her historical comparisons are so inapt. We're dealing with two groundbreaking candidacies. The most frontloaded primary season in American history has turned out to also be one of the longest in terms of picking a nominee. The nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic presidential candidate in years. This is a unique season, unlikely to be repeated soon, and the old rules don't necessarily apply.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: May 24, 2008, 05:17:30 PM »

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.

I'm not talking about why she's truly staying in the race. Only she knows that for sure. I'm talking about her rhetorical justification for staying in the race. She's not likely to say "I haven't got a significant chance of winning the nomination but I'm staying in because of [insert reason here]." But saying "I'm doing it for my supporters who have fought for me" is not out of the realm of possibility and she has said things to effect on many occasions.

You mention the "historic nature of her candidacy." This is one of the reasons why I think her historical comparisons are so inapt. We're dealing with two groundbreaking candidacies. The most frontloaded primary season in American history has turned out to also be one of the longest in terms of picking a nominee. The nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic presidential candidate in years. This is a unique season, unlikely to be repeated soon, and the old rules don't necessarily apply.

I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

Obviously, "I'm staying in the race because of my supporters" is one of the first reasons that any candidate will mention for staying in the race, and indeed it is the factor that John Edwards mentioned as most threatening to his decision to end his race. And of course she won't outright say that she hasn't got a significant chance at winning the nomination. What I meant was that she should not talk about her chances at winning the nomination in those terms, period. She should not say her justification for staying in is "I have a significant chance at winning the nomination", for such a statement would be mocked and doubted, and it would invite all kinds of questions about how she would actually get it.

The reason why the historical analogies work better is because many of the candidates in those analogies who fell behind but stayed in did considerably poorer than she is doing and arguably were even more hopeless than she is now. It forces the listener to accept that there is no litmus test in American politics for how long a politician 'can' continue to campaign, as long as they are willing and able to spend the money to do so. And it casts legitimacy on whatever justifications (apart from chance at winning) she might have for continuing her campaign.
Logged
kevinatcausa
Rookie
**
Posts: 196
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: May 24, 2008, 11:25:01 PM »

The Caucus blog on the NY Times has an interesting retrospective on Friday's events. 
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: May 25, 2008, 12:02:56 AM »

The Caucus blog on the NY Times has an interesting retrospective on Friday's events. 

What bullsh**t. The only ones who needs a 'graceful way out' are the New York Post editors who seem to think that they deserve to be taken seriously as a news outfit after so many outright lies and distortions.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: May 25, 2008, 03:59:59 AM »

The Caucus blog on the NY Times has an interesting retrospective on Friday's events. 

What bullsh**t. The only ones who needs a 'graceful way out' are the New York Post editors who seem to think that they deserve to be taken seriously as a news outfit after so many outright lies and distortions.

I think the New York Post has two aims here.

1.  Sell more papers
2.  Increase alienation between Clinton and Obama supporters.  McCain's best chance is if the two sides are irredeemably divided in the fall.
Logged
nyquil_man
Rookie
**
Posts: 196


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: May 25, 2008, 05:32:04 AM »
« Edited: May 25, 2008, 06:27:12 AM by nyquil_man »

I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

I'm not saying it's unique because of frontloading. I'm saying it's unique in spite of frontloading. Frontloading is designed to accelerate the nominating process so that the presumptive nominee can begin to focus on the general election, is it not? Well, it hasn't happened that way at all this time.

It's historic because states that are generally ignored by the Democrats in the primary (because the nominee is essentially decided) and in the general (because a Democrat is unlikely to win there) are getting attention from the candidates. The fact that the race has been fairly competitive has given the voters in those states an opportunity to make - to steal a phrase from a certain Arizona Republican - a choice, not an echo.

Anything that gives more voters an opportunity to participate in the democratic process is, to me, historic.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I certainly hope you don't think I fathered the "we can win" meme myself. If so, I demand a blood test; the kid is not my son:

"That's why I'm going to keep making our case until we have a nominee, whoever she may be."
- Hillary Clinton, Louisville, KY, 20 May

Now, we may quibble over the intent of that line but, unless Senator Clinton has now taken to calling Senator Obama a female, I'm pretty sure she's telling her supporters "I'm staying in this race until I am the nominee."

Sure, it's a throwaway applause line. But it serves the same purpose as someone like Mondale saying "When I am President" when he's 20 points behind in the polls. It bucks up the troops and keeps them encouraged. You don't tell your supporters "We're going to come really close to winning" or "Well, I'm hoping to get some concessions out of this," even if everybody knows that's what you're aiming for. No, you say "We're going to surprise everybody and win this thing."

Is it mocked and doubted? Of course. But it's a pretense almost every campaign maintains, even to the point of smiling happily while conceding and pretending that you didn't mind losing to the dirty rotten SOB on the other side. Wink

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll grant you that I may be looking at her analogies too literally.
Logged
exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: May 25, 2008, 11:54:10 PM »

So....apparently now its Obama's fault Clinton made a gaffe...even tho it did come from HER mouth and Obama has basically written off whatever she has said.

Unbelievable.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: May 27, 2008, 01:47:54 PM »

Let's allow Bill Clinton to have the last word, shall we?

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2008, 01:50:16 PM »

Let's allow Bill Clinton to have the last word, shall we?

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

God, I love politics.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: May 27, 2008, 01:57:48 PM »

I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

I'm not saying it's unique because of frontloading. I'm saying it's unique in spite of frontloading. Frontloading is designed to accelerate the nominating process so that the presumptive nominee can begin to focus on the general election, is it not? Well, it hasn't happened that way at all this time.

It's historic because states that are generally ignored by the Democrats in the primary (because the nominee is essentially decided) and in the general (because a Democrat is unlikely to win there) are getting attention from the candidates. The fact that the race has been fairly competitive has given the voters in those states an opportunity to make - to steal a phrase from a certain Arizona Republican - a choice, not an echo.

Anything that gives more voters an opportunity to participate in the democratic process is, to me, historic.

And the point is? Just because the nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic candidate in years, how does this mean 'the old rules don't apply'? First of all, many historical campaigns also took candidates to states that candidates from that party did not ordinarily compete in. The primary race 1976 was competitive in traditionally Democratic states such as Tennessee and Kentucky. I don't see how the breadth of the campaign invalidates historical comparisons.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was a joke. Of course she is going to put on a front as if she has a chance at winning, but if she outright came out and said "I am staying in this race because I have a significant chance at winning," she'd be ridiculed.
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not, but you leave it unspoken. Mondale then of course, had a greater chance than Clinton today has. Back then, even though Mondale was behind by 20 points in the polls, no one was talking as if Reagan had already won. Today, most people are indeed acting as if Obama has already won.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a pretense that you make, but not a specific argument you make to justify staying in the race. If she tried to do so, she'd be raked over the coals.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: May 27, 2008, 02:00:38 PM »

Let's allow Bill Clinton to have the last word, shall we?

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

God, I love politics.

Well, this race was "effectively over" on March 4, though it would have been a good deal more awkward for Hillary to drop out after two big wins than for Tsongas to drop out after his losses. Plus, Clinton has won a lot more states than Tsongas. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, I think both in this example and the RFK example, Clinton was going for pedagogy rather than precision, and there will be a cost to that when speaking to the highly informed political class, but there is a benefit in relate-ability when speaking to more low-information voters.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: May 27, 2008, 02:18:50 PM »

Well, this race was "effectively over" on March 4, though it would have been a good deal more awkward for Hillary to drop out after two big wins than for Tsongas to drop out after his losses. Plus, Clinton has won a lot more states than Tsongas. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, I think both in this example and the RFK example, Clinton was going for pedagogy rather than precision, and there will be a cost to that when speaking to the highly informed political class, but there is a benefit in relate-ability when speaking to more low-information voters.

Well, obviously, but that doesn't make her analogy any less intellectually dishonest. Stupid catering to "low-information" voters, whether it be George W. Bush asserting that Saddam Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda or whether it be Barack Obama using idiotic catchphrases to mask substance or whether it be Hillary Clinton giving asinine justifications for her continued presence in the Democratic Race exemplifies one of the largest flaws of the American political system. One of the [many] reasons why I'm having some difficulties taking this race very seriously.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: May 27, 2008, 02:22:06 PM »
« Edited: May 27, 2008, 02:24:23 PM by Beet »

Well, this race was "effectively over" on March 4, though it would have been a good deal more awkward for Hillary to drop out after two big wins than for Tsongas to drop out after his losses. Plus, Clinton has won a lot more states than Tsongas. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, I think both in this example and the RFK example, Clinton was going for pedagogy rather than precision, and there will be a cost to that when speaking to the highly informed political class, but there is a benefit in relate-ability when speaking to more low-information voters.

Well, obviously, but that doesn't make her analogy any less intellectually dishonest. Stupid catering to "low-information" voters, whether it be George W. Bush asserting that Saddam Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda or whether it be Barack Obama using idiotic catchphrases to mask substance or whether it be Hillary Clinton giving asinine justifications for her continued presence in the Democratic Race exemplifies one of the largest flaws of the American political system. One of the [many] reasons why I'm having some difficulties taking this race very seriously.

I agree with you in general, though I don't think Obama's catchphrases or this remark quite equal the assertion that Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda. The latter is fundamentally more misleading and dishonest, actually, than what Clinton said, for it implied that justice for 9/11 was somehow tied into going into Iraq. Whereas this merely implied that previous candidates have stayed in the race until June, which is a point that is substantively true. And this example, is technically true. However, this example is not substantively true. Yes, it's "parsing" though, but not heinous. Smiley
Logged
Math
math
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 369
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: May 27, 2008, 02:50:37 PM »

Now it's Obama's turn...

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1sxq8mqvA

(The Russian troops liberated Auschwitz).
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 27, 2008, 03:06:11 PM »

And, uh, he has no maternal uncle.

I doubt Obama's insane enough to lie about this, but there better be one amazingly concise explanation.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: May 27, 2008, 03:17:11 PM »

He may have been referring to his great-uncle Ralph Dunham. I also think it's unfortunate that Maria Gavrilovic at CBS reported this as fact.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Is it journalistic practice to take politicians at their word-- even on seemingly innocuous things such as family details?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: May 27, 2008, 04:25:42 PM »

Apparently by "uncle," he meant great-uncle, which is fair enough to me, and he meant Buchenwald instead of Auschwitz, which is an unfortunate mistake but this is likely a non-starter.
Logged
Math
math
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 369
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: May 27, 2008, 04:41:25 PM »

Apparently by "uncle," he meant great-uncle, which is fair enough to me, and he meant Buchenwald instead of Auschwitz, which is an unfortunate mistake but this is likely a non-starter.

I definitely hate this guy...
Logged
exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: May 27, 2008, 04:43:08 PM »

lol wow...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 14 queries.