Incorrect condescension is still incorrect. Read about actual R strategies to suppress voting if not actual votes. Also, read what you respond to and avoid deflecting to overly narrow definitional fuckery. We’ll all have a better time with the discussion.
1 Like
What if the problem that their abilities are good at is “collecting money”?
Your evidence?
Democratic constituencies never turn out for midterms but they do in presidential years. Your explanation doesn’t account for that pattern.
You also said there are no persuadable voters. Since only swing voters are unpersuaded, that is an incoherent position - by and large, partisan voters are NOT persuadable.
It is hard to respond coherently to something like that. What I said was that there is a tiny minority that hasn’t already made up their mind. Call them swing or persuadable, but pick one and stick with it.
“Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz ran a
regression analysis to see what effect outside spending had on the
Senate races. The correlation between the Democratic and Republican
outside spending difference and the Democratic margin was .23, which is
not statistically significant. In contrast, the correlation between the
Democratic margin and incumbency status was a more significant .76, and
the correlation between the Democratic Senate margin in 2014 and the
Democratic presidential vote margin in 2012 was an even more significant
.89.
In other words, partisanship in a polarized era, represented by the
’12 presidential vote margin, was by far the strongest predictor of
2014’s Senate vote. Naturally, incumbency status is also significant.
But the difference between amounts of outside spending by groups
affiliated with both parties has surprisingly little effect, perhaps because both sides spent so much that the money from
Republicans neutralized the cash from Democrats, and vice versa.”
from: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/14-from-14-quick-takes-on-the-midterm/
I’ll continue to believe that money is largely irrelevant and wasted when aimed at winning elections but not when aimed at winning politicians. Any explanation that purports to prove that an ocean of dark right wing money won this election has to also explain two other facts: why the same ocean lost two years ago, and why the equally large ocean of left wing dark money failed this time but succeeded last time.
See, you’re adding another premise which Boundegar specifically rejected, and which you don’t have evidence for.
You just used an example of what I’m talking about without processing what it means and so declaring it to be the reverse of the actual situation. Something tells me this pattern will also hold true in further discussion.
Dude, I was quoting you. Do you realize you just rebutted yourself? Whatever it is you’re in favor of, I would probably agree if you just quit digging.
It’s one thing for the Teachers’ Union to contribute to their candidate and help fund his ads; it’s another thing for them to run independent “sure, it’s not controlled by the candidate” ads while most of them also rant about how Citizens United is bringing about the end of civilization as we know it.
Absolutely. It’s their duty not to fight back. And you have a point about hypocrisy. It has no place in politics.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
