ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'm interested in hearing about your positions on the issues?
The DNC Reports Lowest Fundraising Since 2003
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
trump didn't run for congressional seats, retard.
2016, mt-al: zinke beats juneau 56.2 - 40.5, a 14.7 point win.
2017, my-al: gianforte beats quist 50-44.4, a 5.6% point win
difference: +9.1%
2016, ga-6: price beats stoosbury 61.7 - 38.3, a 23.4 point win
2017, ga-6: handel beats ossoff 51.8 - 48.2, a 3.6 point win
difference: +19.8
but hey, that's only if you actually count the people who ran in those races.
retard.
so we lose a seat we never had to begin with, the end balance is the exact same, and you say we lost 5 seats?
nice fake math.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nope, just the retards.
members like @_gresh_ , @dagwood45431 , @Justin-case , @DiogenesTheWiser and others just came right on and started having a good time.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Sort of open ended question! Pretty libertarian at heart. But my practical side understands the people of this country are not, so I'm mostly focused on how we can get our debt back to a lower % of GDP (70% seems like as high as I'd like to see it for stability). But I don't see a path to it and it is a global debt issue so who knows when the tsunami correction will occur. That's a start.
thanks for asking.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Got it
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why are libertarians 98% white males?
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
I don't know, I'm into loving everyone. Even you.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The general election was more representative of the special election than previous congressional races. It was the most expensive house race in American history as was it the most expensive presidential race in American history. The numbers are more representative of reality, so I can see why you would oppose them..
I say you lost 5 elections. Does that make you feel more comfortable? Democrats lost more than 1,000 elections across the country to Republicans while Obama was president. Better, snowflake?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
reality: quist improved a respectable 9.1% in montana, whereas ossoff gained a whopping 19.8% in his georgia district.
they both ran very local-focused races too.
that's accurate to say, since no seats were lost in the scenario presented.
it's good to use facts.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Quist +15
Ossoff -4
No help at all
More help than in any other House race in history
Better
Worse
Ossoff -4
No help at all
More help than in any other House race in history
Better
Worse
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
donald trump did not run in any congressional races, retard.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
People are swayed by election campaign ads. Enough to make a difference in campaign results. There are plenty of examples of this. The Willie Horton ads very much affected the election in 1988. Is your question whether or not I have been swayed by a campaign ad somehow supposed to prove this isn't true? And the ads aren't the only place where campaign donations are used. They also pay for rallies and events where the same line of propaganda are used as shown in the ads. In combination, they are very effective at getting votes. Do you really think that billions are wasted by stupid people in those elections? Do you think that Congressmen and Senators spend almost half their time asking for donations because corrupt? Maybe because they know they need a hoard of money in order to be competitive. Under current rules, that is.
Money doesn't care where it came from. Get into power first then change the rules. I don't see how unilateral disarmament in the face of overflowing republican war chests wins back congress.
On this point, I say, fine. Let Democratic party primaries be the testing ground for this theory of yours that an oath of purity and strong moral values to eschew corporate money while all others accept them is a winning strategy. You might be right. I don't think so. That's my opinion and I'm willing to concede that the times may have changed. But I say, let's deal with this in the primaries. Any candidates who swear off corporate donations in the primaries can test the theory during the general election. Let the voters decide. I think you'll find that campaign donations matter.
So, let's get Democrats into power by whatever means the voters of each district think is best. Then hold the Democratic party's Senate and House responsible for fixing the mess created by the Supreme Court through the Citizen's United ruling.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
That's reasonable, and something I could support if I felt like they would hold true to that. However it happens, I feel very strongly about the need to eliminate the influence that corporate America has on politics right now.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Pad ^^^ There have been a lot of thought guides that spoke to you before you wrote that. Also a lot of money spent on right wing propaganda to stop progressive legislation. Thought guides are a subset of propaganda, in case you were wondering.
@ttystikk @st0wandgrow
The Political Impact of Media Bias
http://econweb.umd.edu/~kaplan/wbpaper.pdf
I'll save you some time and just say that right wing propaganda makes a big difference. The following are excerpts from the article. To help guide your thoughts. Probably better if you took a look at the article. It's a bit much of a read but there are some good nuggets inside of it.
Estimates of the Impact of Media Bias
We summarize the result of a natural experiment that addresses the question of the impact of media bias on political preferences. We draw on DellaVigna and Kaplan (2007), which examines the timing of the entry of the Fox News Channel into local cable markets and considers the impact of that entry on voting. Relative to DellaVigna and Kaplan (2007), we present new results on voter turnout for U.S. senatorial elections, as well as a more general analysis of persuasion rates
(in an experiment) the results indicate that exposure to one advertisement increases the stated vote share for the sponsoring party from .530 to .568. This is a sizeable persuasion effect, implying that the advertisements convinced 8 percent of the subjects who would not otherwise have done so to support the sponsoring party
The Impact of the Fox News Channel
We now report the results of a natural experiment on the exposure to media bias and its effects on voting. We summarize the results from the staggered timing of the entry of the Fox News Channel in local cable systems from DellaVigna and Kaplan (2007).
Our main finding is that the Fox News Channel had a significant impact on the 2000 elections. The entry increased the Republican vote share in presidential elections by 0.4 percentage points with district fixed effects (panel A) or 0.7 percentage points with county fixed effects (panel B).
The Fox News Channel’s coverage, however, is unique among the television media. The channel is significantly to the right of CNN and all of the mainstream television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). This difference is agreed upon in popular discussions as well as academic ones (Groseclose and Milyo 2005). The introduction of the channel into a cable market, therefore, had a systematic and significant effect on the available political information in that cable market.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm completely in support of campaign finance reform. Exactly how do we eliminate corporate funding in today's reality? There is quite a bit of information that says unilaterally swearing off of donations -- really really big donations that buy a lot of ads and influence with media groups -- would provide big advantage to the group that does not swear off of it. Is that what you want? So does David Duke. What he's for, I'm against.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, here is something you said that I can agree to. We'll see just how well the pledge of moral purity attracts voters during the primaries. I'll be glad to accept the results and say so the day after each primary if Justice Democrats take their opponent Democrats to the woodshed. Will you accept the results if JDems are pounded?
My guess is you won't and you cry, "corporatist Democrats got a pile of dough from corporations". To which one would say, "duh"
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Post the most convincing evidence you believe supports that idea so we can review it
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If establishment Democrats spend their bribes on things like ads, I will accept it if they beat JD. If they spend their bribes on things like rigging primaries, suppressing the vote, etc. then yeah, I'll voice a problem with it. You won't though.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why do you sound exactly like trump?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Aren't you the guy pushing the Republican witch hunt against Sanders and his wife? Anything to get him and his message out of the limelight and to prevent him from building a progressive coalition across the country!
You're the one who supports Democrats who oppose single payer and campaign finance reform and who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch and other Trump cabinet picks, not me