Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama wins!

Obama wins! (Page 6)
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Agreed, but does it help him get anything else done?
Probably not. But it's not like that's his only skill set.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 11:59 AM
 

Would you like me to go back and flag those abusive posts? Then we'll find out. You know, for science. But really, I'm not inclined to do it, I'm not interested in making the mods work harder just to prove a point.
What posts?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I never troll anyone, ever. Someone says something I disagree with, I say I disagree with it. If it seems to you I'm following you around, that's because you continually post stuff I disagree with. It's not personal.
I come here to debate, not sing Kumbaya. That's why I mostly interact with people I disagree with. ebuddy once compared MacNN with a dart league. For me, this is a debate club. I'm not trolling anyone, but I am looking for an argument. And until the MacNN rules are changed to say I can't do that, I will continue to do it.
And in case you haven't noticed, you and ebuddy are the only people worth arguing with around here. All the other articulate non-liberals have left.
So now you've stooped to shoving words in my mouth? I never claimed to be a victim.
I don't recall insulting Spheric. And the only "angry posts" from you that I can recall are the abuse from page 1 of Shall We Play A Game? Nothing changed in our interaction, but your behaviour did that day. Maybe you think you've heaped a lot of abuse in my direction, but I haven't noticed. I don't take things personally. I like aggressive debate.
I'm gonna lay it out for you and everyone else.
I'm here to debate.
If you don't like me or "my tone," put me on ignore.
If you think a post of mine is abusive or otherwise violates the rules, flag the post.
I come to the P/L to argue. That isn't gonna change. Take your hippie festival requests to the Lounge, I'm here for a fight.
I see. Challenge accepted.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
What posts?
For real? Just read page 1 of that thread.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
For real? Just read page 1 of that thread.
What posts?

Oh, and what you said above, not good enough. Since you've decided to be frank about the whole trolling and fighting thing, I will too. From here out, I'm going to report rudeness and abusive posts, others are going to do it as well. If you aren't civil, you will be banned, and that goes for anyone. Direct enough?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 01:23 PM
 
Can you two knock it off, please? PMs exist for a reason.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
What posts?
Stubborn and obtuse.

So here's the Google cache, since you erased all your abusive posts today, for some unknown reason: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xr5byJau8nkJ:forums.macnn.com/t/494122/shall-we-play-a-game+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=safari

Originally Posted by Shaddim
Because you're a Canadian and it's none of your ****ing business, so kiss my ass you syrup-sucking wanker?
Originally Posted by Shaddim
Oh, that's right, he wasn't pandering to you, just to US citizens. That's right. **** off, moose wrangler.
Originally Posted by Shaddim
A New Yorker is still an American, as am I. He's just some Canadian goofball.
The obvious question is, why ask which posts were abusive, when you knew exactly which ones were abusive and then went and erased them?

Take a look everyone, he made a half-hearted attempt to hide his behaviour: http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/494122/shall-we-play-a-game

Oh, and what you said above, not good enough.
Pffft. Like I said any of it for your benefit.

Since you've decided to be frank about the whole trolling and fighting thing, I will too. From here out, I'm going to report rudeness and abusive posts, others are going to do it as well. If you aren't civil, you will be banned, and that goes for anyone. Direct enough?
I'm not the one who weakly attempted to erase all his malfeasance. Stop pretending to hold the high ground. No one is fooled.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I will buy your baby. You will be able to buy a delicious sandwich with the money I will give you. What say you?
I don't have a baby. I could use a sandwich though, so if I see one that looks unattended, I'll nab it for you. Why do you want to buy babies anyway? If you intend to use one to make my sandwich then the deal is off.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Can you two knock it off, please? PMs exist for a reason.
As a personal policy, I don't engage in discussion via PMs. When people send me PMs, I tell them to take it to the forums. (Except mods, of course.)

Besides, this thread has no reason to exist anymore. The mods should either close it or let it meander.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:23 PM
 
Get a room!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Can you two knock it off, please? PMs exist for a reason.
As a personal policy, I don't engage in discussion via PMs. When people send me PMs, I tell them to take it to the forums. (Except mods, of course.).
I don't ****ing give a shit about your "personal policy".

You're not alone here. Watching you dicker it out in such a lame and pitiful way in a public discussion forum is as embarrassing to the rest of us as watching a couple fight in public at a dinner party.

Your flaccid penis and ego do not belong here; that is why private messaging exists.

That's not a matter of "personal policy", its a matter of etiquette and ****ING MANNERS.



Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Besides, this thread has no reason to exist anymore. The mods should either close it or let it meander.
Since your idea of "meander" is apparently "turn personal", I'm going to disagree.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Stubborn and obtuse.
So here's the Google cache, since you erased all your abusive posts today, for some unknown reason: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xr5byJau8nkJ:forums.macnn.com/t/494122/shall-we-play-a-game+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=safari
The obvious question is, why ask which posts were abusive, when you knew exactly which ones were abusive and then went and erased them?
Take a look everyone, he made a half-hearted attempt to hide his behaviour: http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/494122/shall-we-play-a-game
Pffft. Like I said any of it for your benefit.
I'm not the one who weakly attempted to erase all his malfeasance. Stop pretending to hold the high ground. No one is fooled.
Erased? No, I've repented. I apologize for I insulting you, it was wrong of me.

I edited them and then told you I did it. Seems like it was a very obvious attempt, to me.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I don't ****ing give a shit about your "personal policy".
You're not alone here. Watching you dicker it out in such a lame and pitiful way in a public discussion forum is as embarrassing to the rest of us as watching a couple fight in public at a dinner party.
Your flaccid penis and ego do not belong here; that is why private messaging exists.
That's not a matter of "personal policy", its a matter of etiquette and ****ING MANNERS.
Since your idea of "meander" is apparently "turn personal", I'm going to disagree.
The ignore function is to the left.

BTW, my penis isn't flaccid. However, your choice of words to complain about the quality of discussion here is, uh, ironic.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Erased? No, I've repented. I apologize for I insulting you, it was wrong of me.
Thank you. Let's move on.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...n-it-meltdown/
It's hard to read this and not see it reflect poorly on Romney. Particularly when part of his campaign was about his ability to get shit done.
This is exactly what I didn't like about Romney's campaign. He basically had only two arguments for why people should vote for him:
1. Obama sucks
2. I'm a successful businessman, and therefore can fix the economy better than Obama.

But, I was never convinced that experience at success in the business world necessarily translates to useful experience for success in the political world. The fact that Romney wasn't able to put together a winning campaign against an incumbent in a poor economy is proof of this. Given the current economy, beating Obama should have been a cake walk, but Romney wasn't able to effectively articulate *why* his business experience made him a better candidate, other than to say "I've been successful in business ... trust me". It's unlikely that argument have flown when pitching to investors, so why not treat your voters as if they're your investors (i.e. with respect, a clearly articulated plan and convincing arguments) rather than a bunch of sheep?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 03:13 PM
 
Nah, Romney's main problem is that he's not very likable, aside from political issues. It's a personality thing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Nah, Romney's main problem is that he's not very likable, aside from political issues. It's a personality thing.
I don't think that's true. Romney's loss is completely political. America didn't want what Romney was selling.

People looked at the auto industry and said, yes, we're glad it was bailed-out.
People looked at Hurricane Sandy and said, yes, we're glad we have FEMA.
People looked at the federal budget and said, yes, we don't need a bigger military and we do need millionaires to pay a bit more.

Romney was rejected by every single voter demographic except older white males.
Romney lost 8 of 9 battleground states, and his win in NC was the smallest margin of victory of all the battleground states.
Romney lost despite a significant financial edge in fundraising, and despite a weak economy.

The Republican party needs to reinvent itself. Any talk of "Romney was unlikeable" is just an excuse not to learn from the election.

EDIT: Oops, I was wrong about the winning margins of the battleground states. I think I mixed up the Nate Silver's projected results (50.8% Florida to Obama vs 50.6% NC to Romney) with the actual results. In any case, Obama won Florida +0.6 and Romney won NC +2.2. Obama's victory in Ohio was also smaller than Romney's win in Florida at +1.6. See this fun chart here:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...n-it-meltdown/
It's hard to read this and not see it reflect poorly on Romney. Particularly when part of his campaign was about his ability to get shit done.
Another part of me says the old white guy hit the typical achilles heel, technology and the internet.
The people behind Orca have hit back, and yet another moronic conspiracy theory is hatched:

Campaign says Orca basically worked; conservative bloggers suggest sabotage.

Serious question: are there any liberal conspiracy theories?

I mean, the anti-vaccination stuff is essentially libertarian (think Bill Maher). And I've never actually read a liberal anywhere claim Bush deliberately caused 9/11, which is yet another libertarian-type thing (think Jesse Ventura).
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Yet another contentious statement, but this one I will let pass.
No you won't.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post

I don't have a baby. I could use a sandwich though, so if I see one that looks unattended, I'll nab it for you. Why do you want to buy babies anyway? If you intend to use one to make my sandwich then the deal is off.
I have a little side business of selling babies on the black market. I don't ask what they are for, but I think it has something to do with weaponizing their poop!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I don't think that's true. Romney's loss is completely political. America didn't want what Romney was selling.
People looked at the auto industry and said, yes, we're glad it was bailed-out.
People looked at Hurricane Sandy and said, yes, we're glad we have FEMA.
People looked at the federal budget and said, yes, we don't need a bigger military and we do need millionaires to pay a bit more.
Romney was rejected by every single voter demographic except older white males.
Romney lost 8 of 9 battleground states, and his win in NC was the smallest margin of victory of all the battleground states.
Romney lost despite a significant financial edge in fundraising, and despite a weak economy.
The Republican party needs to reinvent itself. Any talk of "Romney was unlikeable" is just an excuse not to learn from the election.
Spot on!
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
People talk about the ideological divide in America, red states vs blue states, liberals vs conservatives, and how people today are more divided than ever.

But there is only one significant divide today: white men vs everyone else.

I think this chart speaks for itself: If only white men could vote.

6635/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2012, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Nah, Romney's main problem is that he's not very likable, aside from political issues. It's a personality thing.
I actually found him very likable, in a dorky sort of way.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I actually found him very likable, in a dorky sort of way.
Really? I couldn't stand him.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 12:56 AM
 
Romney looks a bit evil.

I think all of the above are probably good reasons why he didn't win. There are probably more.

Those two focal points of his campaign are absolutely bang on. They could have been enough to win too but he got so much wrong. There were all the silly but typical republican gaffes along the way, culminating with the hispanic makeup incident but probably worst of all was his refusal to elaborate on what his amazing recovery plan actually consisted of in any detail whatsoever. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" works much better when you don't listen to the idiot who basically suggests you 'black up' to match your audience. (Disclaimer: no offence is meant to black or hispanic people, I'm just borrowing a more common turn of phrase).

Thing is if he had got in, chances are he would have spent the first few years tearing down everything Obama had done, including the stuff that was helping the economy recover. Then when he hadn't made progress (or gone backwards having honoured unsustainable tax cuts and military spending increases to keep his core support sweet) by the next election, he would have just blamed Obama and said it was taking longer to fix than expected. Sadly that argument would certainly have washed with all those republicans who have been refusing to hear it from Obama about Bush.

Something similar has happened with my football team, Liverpool. Kenny Dalglish made real progress with a team in trouble but had still had one or two issues to iron out when he was inexplicably sacked. Brendan Rogers has come in and undone most of Kenny's progress by selling most of the players he bought, and then "fixed" one of the problems we didn't have. Its frustrating and wasteful.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 04:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I think this chart speaks for itself: If only white men could vote.

6635/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with
No it doesn't. It's incredibly unclear what data this is trying to represent. After reading the link, my best guess is that those are the states in which actual (older) white men voted majority for Obama instead of Romney?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 05:06 AM
 
Read the article, but basically yes: That's the EC split if you're only counting white men
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Serious question: are there any liberal conspiracy theories?
I mean, the anti-vaccination stuff is essentially libertarian (think Bill Maher). And I've never actually read a liberal anywhere claim Bush deliberately caused 9/11, which is yet another libertarian-type thing (think Jesse Ventura).
• The war(s) in the Middle East are for oil.
• The CIA developed AIDS/Hepatitis/crack in order to control the African-American population.
Whites are plotting to "retake" Washington D.C.

Also, it's not very accurate to discount libertarian theories as right-wing: there are left-libertarians, but not as many and not as loud. If we include the libertarian religion, many other "left-leaning" conspiracy theories show up, often as mirror versions of the "right-leaning" ones. Just replace "take away our freedom" with "make larger profits":

• The New World Order (TM) is a plot to turn power over to super corporations (the right-leaning versions usually say it's something called "international elites")
• The American government allowed 9/11 to happen in order to sway public opinion to support for war in the Middle East (shared by left and right)
• Inexpensive electric car/environmentally friendly energy/cheap energy technologies have been suppressed by oil companies
• Alternative medicines are being suppressed by "big medicine" or the "cancer industry"
• Marijuana was suppressed because it provided a cheaper alternative for paper and textiles
• The FDA's deliberately misleading guidelines are generating billions in profits for big medicine
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
• The war(s) in the Middle East are for oil.
• The CIA developed AIDS/Hepatitis/crack in order to control the African-American population.
Whites are plotting to "retake" Washington D.C.
Also, it's not very accurate to discount libertarian theories as right-wing: there are left-libertarians, but not as many and not as loud. If we include the libertarian religion, many other "left-leaning" conspiracy theories show up, often as mirror versions of the "right-leaning" ones. Just replace "take away our freedom" with "make larger profits":
• The New World Order (TM) is a plot to turn power over to super corporations (the right-leaning versions usually say it's something called "international elites")
• The American government allowed 9/11 to happen in order to sway public opinion to support for war in the Middle East (shared by left and right)
• Inexpensive electric car/environmentally friendly energy/cheap energy technologies have been suppressed by oil companies
• Alternative medicines are being suppressed by "big medicine" or the "cancer industry"
• Marijuana was suppressed because it provided a cheaper alternative for paper and textiles
• The FDA's deliberately misleading guidelines are generating billions in profits for big medicine
Just because a conspiracy isn't right-wing, doesn't make it left-wing.

The middle east wars [/i]are[/i] over oil.
There is some truth to the marijuana one too.

The rest are politically neutral IMO. Several of them are far more likely to be believed by new age types who obviously qualify as liberals, but I don't see much about the theories that makes them exclusive to one side or the other.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 07:26 AM
 
• George Bush doesn't care about Black People
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Just because a conspiracy isn't right-wing, doesn't make it left-wing.
True- but I was responding to the idea that all of the conspiracy theories appear to be held by the (extreme) right. lpkmckenna asked if there were "liberal" conspiracy theories, and I listed some that are either held by the far left or have foundations that appeal to liberal prejudices.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
There is some truth to the marijuana one too.
Of course there is: any good conspiracy theory needs to have some truthiness to it.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The rest are politically neutral IMO. Several of them are far more likely to be believed by new age types who obviously qualify as liberals, but I don't see much about the theories that makes them exclusive to one side or the other.
Yes, they can be seen as "neutral," as if such a thing existed- but as I pointed out, what tends to make the theories right- or left-wing is in the supposed reasons behind the conspiracy. Right-wingers tend to think that conspiracies are in place to infringe our "freedom" or "liberty," whatever those might be, and left-wingers tend to say it's about greed or profit- but at some point, it all comes together into one big morass of paranoia and projection.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 10:37 AM
 
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...n-urban-areas/

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin on Monday blamed Democratic turnout in “urban areas” for the loss by the Republican presidential ticket last week, saying he was surprised that he and Mitt Romney did not do better in the nation’s big cities.
In the interview with the television station, Mr. Ryan said he did not think that the nation’s voters had rejected his long-standing ideas for how to restructure the nation’s budget and cut spending.

“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” he said.
Uh huh
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 10:47 AM
 
Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin on Monday blamed Democratic turnout in “urban areas” for the loss by the Republican presidential ticket last week, saying he was surprised that he and Mitt Romney did not do better in the nation’s big cities.
Did you expect him to say anything different? I expect he's truly puzzled, and is being completely sincere.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This is what, the 50th theory floated by Republicans as to why/how they lost? We should try to summarize all of the different theories, if we can.

In my opinion there are a number of things broken with the party right now, and therefore a number of factors into their loss. It seems like a lot of energy is expended trying to identify *the* single reason, and less on considering the possibility of multiple factors, and what can be done to address those multiple factors. It's also amusing how one of those factors is the Hispanic vote, and how some theories involve "reaching out" to the Hispanics as if this can be done via marketing alone.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 10:51 AM
 
Sorry, but blaming the black vote for losing runs a little disingenuous when you lose Iowa, NH, Wisconsin. It's not like it was close, either. As for sincere, I expect nothing of the sort. Deluded, maybe.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 10:53 AM
 
If one must identify a single reason, I'd say what I recall saying months ago: the Republican ideological wheelhouse is narrow and specific, and therefore the greatest benefactors are not terribly diverse. It seems like this election it was learned that the party can't put all of their eggs into this single basket.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 11:55 AM
 
I had the "one reason" he was going to lose in the primaries, but then I changed that reason for the general.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Sorry, but blaming the black vote for losing runs a little disingenuous when you lose Iowa, NH, Wisconsin. It's not like it was close, either. As for sincere, I expect nothing of the sort. Deluded, maybe.
Deluded is probably the better term- but my point is that from his (deluded) perspective, bound as it is by his ideology, he sincerely believes that people operate according to the tenets of his Randian/Libertarian faith. As far as he's concerned, his economic policies are the only reasonable solution available, and therefore should be self-evident to voters of all shapes and sizes. Therefore, he must have lost for some (irrational) reason other than policy issues.

Calling it deluded is fine, I tend to agree- but don't dismiss it as such: quite a few people share that delusion, and it's going to remain a powerful force in the Republican party for a long time.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If one must identify a single reason, I'd say what I recall saying months ago: the Republican ideological wheelhouse is narrow and specific, and therefore the greatest benefactors are not terribly diverse. It seems like this election it was learned that the party can't put all of their eggs into this single basket.
This. But you'd be mistaken to say that the lesson was learned- faith is stronger than reason, so the same people who gave us a left-wing Mainstream Media Conspiracy (TM) are hardly going to say "gosh, a lot of people reject my fundamental beliefs, maybe I should question them." It will be much easier to create alternate (and likely more nefarious) reasons that explain the loss as the failure of something other than the truth (that is, what they believe to be true) of their policies.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 12:55 PM
 
Re: Left-Wing Media Conspiracy.

Compare the (justified) crowing about Bush's warrantless wiretapping to the near silence when Obama quadruples it.

How am I supposed to interpret that if not as a severely problematic bias?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 12:57 PM
 
By drinking this delicious kool-aid.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 01:00 PM
 
But... THE TRUTH HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Re: Left-Wing Media Conspiracy.
Compare the (justified) crowing about Bush's warrantless wiretapping to the near silence when Obama quadruples it.
How am I supposed to interpret that if not as a severely problematic bias?
I think this is entirely the wrong way to look at it. The problem with the media is not left or right wing bias. Yes, both left and right wing bias exists, but the main problem is its sensationalism.

Look at the stories about the failings of the Fox News election coverage, and all of the Republicans who were providing false assurance to voters that Romney would win when the data did not support this. They have acknowledged pretty clearly that this sort of optimism existed to pump up the base, to generate conflict, and all of this indirectly amounted to basically maximizing profits.

Look at headlines like this on the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/dick-morris_n_2122124.html

"Dick Morris Admits That He is a Partisan Hack". This is designed to rile up the left-wing base. This is all about titillation and a drumbeat of simplistic narratives.

You can't squelch bias of any kind when your simultaneous goals are to titillate and sensationalize.


As far as the warrantless wiretapping, the problem again relates to this media titillation/sensationalizing. We don't really know what the case is with this story because several players have a record of manipulating and stretching the truth to titillate/sensationalize, and it has gotten to a point where those interested in doing something else have difficulty finding themselves a national platform and the funding to do this sort of work.

Obama could have quintupled warrantless wiretapping, and we'd never really know. The problem is the nature of the media, its bias is the symtoms of this larger problem.

When Jon Stewart and the Daily Show is out of a job we'll have some indication that this problem is being solved.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Compare the (justified) crowing about Bush's warrantless wiretapping to the near silence when Obama quadruples it.
Uh, link please?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think this is entirely the wrong way to look at it. The problem with the media is not left or right wing bias. Yes, both left and right wing bias exists, but the main problem is its sensationalism.
Don't call it sensationalism, call it the triumph of the free market.
Media outlets compete for audiences- it was news when Bush did it, but old hat when Obama did it. Old news doesn't sell: simple as that. The only bias in "mainstream media" is the bias towards profit.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Uh, link please?
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Don't call it sensationalism, call it the triumph of the free market.
Media outlets compete for audiences- it was news when Bush did it, but old hat when Obama did it. Old news doesn't sell: simple as that. The only bias in "mainstream media" is the bias towards profit.
"Obama Quadruples Warrantless Wiretaps" won't sell?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Obama Quadruples Warrantless Wiretaps" won't sell?
Obviously not: it didn't when the story broke, and doesn't now.

I agree, it's an important topic- but the general populace clearly doesn't care, so nobody's going to give it valuable ink or air time. Left-wingers claim that climate change isn't getting the play it should, but it doesn't for the same reason.

Just because people won't give the same weight to the topics that you think they should attend to is no reason to claim bias- a failing common to right and left.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 02:05 PM
 
Where is your evidence the public doesn't care?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 02:16 PM
 
To clarify: where are all the stories which failed to get readers and hence led to the decision to give it less coverage?

It appears to me the general editorial position was not to cover it in the first place.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I had the "one reason" he was going to lose in the primaries, but then I changed that reason for the general.
Speaking of generals, what did the administration have to do to keep that under wraps for a week? Some claim the media sat on it so that it wouldn't "interfere" with the election.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,