Law School Discussion

POTUS

Re: POTUS
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2015, 06:54:57 PM »
"TOKENS are what does it. Obama had even Colon Powell (a die hard Republican) vote for him. It was a skin issue."

Oh, stop, Please. You are revealing far too much about yourself (and you probably don't want to).

Let's try some numbers- Obama's share of the black vote in 2012: 93%.
Al Gore's share of the black vote in 2000: Either 90% or 92% (depending on how it was measured).

....so, there it is.

Reagan got 47% of the women in 1980, and then, when there was a woman on the ticket against him in 1984 (look it up), he got... 58%.

Partisan affiliation trumps race and gender. Or, if you'd prefer, race and (to a lesser extent) gender correlate with partisan affiliation.

And Hillary Clinton will get between 90-95% of the black vote in 2016. And between 53-58% of the female vote (Obama received 55 and 56%).
The unavoidable kneejerk responses that I mentioned are programed deep enough that "oh stop-insert ad hominem" is so strong that it is well, unavoidable.
Thus a huge chunk of my point. Emperors new clothes.

It is what it is, reality matters.
Case in point.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2013/11/11/pkg-white-politican-implies-black-fliers.khou

social science is just that.........SCIENCE (proven and tested facts)

-Al Gore wasn't running against a black guy..............nor Reagan against a Woman.........I'm not sure you are understanding the point. (the point being that the handful of percent more defected from the other side BECUASE of the reasons I mentioned) Yes most black vote Democrat so there wasn't a ton left to defect, but since so many woman tend to vote Republican, expect a MUCH larger impact with Hillary. THAT is my point.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #51 on: July 15, 2015, 07:32:37 AM »
"social science is just that.........SCIENCE (proven and tested facts)"

There is, of course, some humor in this statement. While social science proceeds along a scientific process, it is not "science" in the sense of physics, or chemistry, or even biology. It is more akin to the "science" of economics.

All of this is made more humorous by your complete rejection of all the evidence presented to you, and, instead, resorting to the same old tired arguments. You know, there are actual people doing "science" in politics- not political science, mind you, but usually math- often statistics. Tell me, what is the most recent statistics research telling us about the Bradley effect?

Since you seem to have missed the entire point of my posts, what I reject is people asserting stuff they believe, and, instead, looking at actual evidence. Politics, like many fields before it, needs to have a little more rigor applied to it. You are like one of those old-timey baseball managers that claims that RBIs is the most measure of a player's worth.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #52 on: July 15, 2015, 01:18:32 PM »
um...........ditto?

"make fun of other party, attempt to belittle" "ignore facts presented, even though they clearly acknowledged your facts with counter facts and counter arguments"

copy and paste, use Ad nauseam

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2015, 02:15:20 PM »
Ditto would be a devastating argument, indeed, if you had presented any statistics, math, science, or really anything to back up your "TOKEN" argument.

I presented, you know, actual statistics, numbers, and so on. You gave us a "It's not news, it's CNN!" video. Congratulations. I assume you're proud of yourself.

That said, I appreciate your contributions; sunlight, as always, is the best disinfectant.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #54 on: July 15, 2015, 06:07:28 PM »
you...........used the cookie cutter copy and paste ad lib WRONG................(sigh)
pats on head, gives cookie. Removes sharp objects from room.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2015, 09:02:28 PM »
So, I think when we talk about enthusiasm we can say that it's like energy; politicians like howard dean, Barak Obama and Ronald Reagan all had the enthusiasm factor.  And like energy, political enthusiasm has a duality.  Energy has a potential factor and a kinetic factor.  Enthusiasm for a politician can be measured by crowds flocking to hear the message or the potential factor--- the trick is the kinetic part of enthusiasm and barak obamas souls going to the polls as voter turnout is the butter from the milk.   
Dean had the enthusiasm as well with huge crowds coming to hear him- then he went negative in his campaign with gephardt and that was a crucial mistake.  He lost the potential enthusiasm and didn't get the souls to the polls so he failed with the kinetic part of the equation.   
Reagan also had the huge crowd interest and like Obama he got not only souls to the polls but he managed to turn blue pennsylvania into a red state by getting democrats to come out and vote for him.  Those were the Reagan democrats who have nothing to do with Nixon as some think.  Most Reagan democrats are Catholics who came out to support Reagan in 1980.  For evidence simply look at counties like erie, pa. 

Dixiecrats are another topic altogether.

Enthusiasm is sanders key right now, as he has huge crowd appeal, a captivating message, an authenticity and he will not go negative.  Sanders has the potential energy in his campaign and quite a buzz--- the question is can he get the souls to the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.

If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire he will be like McCarthy in 68 bouncing the incumbent, LBJ about of the race.  Hillary could conceivably stand in as the incumbent.  This got rf Kennedy into that race.  Hillary could get bounced but more than likely will keep burning that war chest throughout the rest primaries to no avail.  But then........

So I'm watching to see when and if al gore enters the race or Biden. 
Gore or Biden would be like Kennedy. 

Let's face it while most progressives supporting sanders would begrudgingly cast a vote for clinton in the general if sanders doesn't make it past the first two primaries she will not have nearly enough kinetic energy to get the souls to the polls.  Liberal democrats may decide to sit this one out with no horse in
the race.

And, lol lol lol, if clinton is the nominee you can bet that the entire right wing of the republican party will not miss an election to keep clinton out of the Oval Office... Lol, cal it  " reverse enthusiasm."

So, for SOME candidates enthusiasm and upward trends in enthusiasm.  Crowd interest and then actual cast votes is a major factor already.  Don't be foolish to think it is a trivial matter. 
Reagan and Obama had the enthusiasm factor and both played it well.  Sanders could as well.

Keep thinking about it and of course we all know it is way too soon to call this one but it is fun to discuss, this should be obvious.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2015, 12:06:31 AM »
I think that if Sanders does town hall meetings throughout late august early September in Allendale,  richland, barnwell, darlington, calhoun,  chester,  chesterfield, williamsberg, sumpter, and richland, in South Carolina he could make in roads with that state.  And call it a two week travel blitz.  Think about it if he wins Iowa and the granite state then has a good percentage show in South Carolina it will be another fair  political tale...déjà vous all over again.   

But what could really help his campaign is if he brings his northern accented message to 4 counties in Alabama--Montgomery, Sumter , Macon, and bullock, again all town hall meeting type of setting county fairs on the weekend?

This would be of course if lower funded progressive democrats can really get motivated with a truly open message, public speech and then streamlined  question and answer tour.  Defining sanders as a very accessible candidate. 

They will have to Pepper in trips to Michigan and Louisiana.





Re: POTUS
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2015, 12:13:11 AM »
Dang Cin, you really have done a comeback since the multi year break. I take it you started posting in LSAT prep and then said "1L is Hell, see you suckaz after the bar exam??"

Either way, glad to have a fellow resident in this ghost town of ours. I think they killed Julie while you were gone (praise be the Jesus)

Re: POTUS
« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2015, 11:12:13 AM »
Dang Cin, you really have done a comeback since the multi year break. I take it you started posting in LSAT prep and then said "1L is Hell, see you suckaz after the bar exam??"

Either way, glad to have a fellow resident in this ghost town of ours. I think they killed Julie while you were gone (praise be the Jesus)

Thank you infant 8 one,  this board rustles and creaks like a dilapidated old Victorian hidden on a mountain amidst the overgrown ivy.  And I have a wicked sense of humor.  I read many of that dude, Julie ferns posts and oh what a little peepeed shill he was.  I read some of the counter posts to his nonsense and a few of them totally schooled that tool and made him look foolish. You are one of them.

I have a feeling that he was a law school prep test salesman who had too much time on his little typing fingers.  Im somewhat glad he's gone but looks like there were some epic arguments to get that guy some gospel, so to speak. 

So let's continue to have fun with this board.

I waited two over two years to respond because I found it to be extremely funny( which it still is) (to me and some others) hope you found some small humor in it.  After all comedy is about timing. And, you are right, I was busy.

Thank you and let's have fuuuuuunnnnnn!!!!  But seriously, not in howard dean fashion, but let's get daffy!

Re: POTUS
« Reply #59 on: July 22, 2015, 07:28:03 PM »
Wow clinton tanking in swing states.  Better recheck the calculus as Obama would say and......

Better call Gore.