In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Maybe but it aint bad for a merican.
I dont follow the details of him closely. Sounds good though.
It would be a good start at least
My point is that the list is regulated capitalism with a strong public sector and welfare state. The socialist angle of government programs and interventions have existed in some form for most of modern US history - often at higher levels in the mid-20th century than today. It's nothing radical or new.
...But Bernie isn't going to do well with the left if he runs as a social capitalist so here we are.
good point on lbj, i read these and dude was an absolute machine, can't believe i forgot him
probably the most compelling campaign slogan in american history was "vote for me and you won't be hunchbacked like your mother" and despite that outlandish claim it was actually true
don't recall the exact messaging but it was something to that extent
background is there was no electricity nor plumbing in that region of texas at that time so all the women had hunchbacks from operating the family wells - he didn't just promise to bring electricity (and delivered) but was brilliant enough to really market it in a way that really captured the audience
I mean Hillary did peak at 66% favorability. Not bad for someone who we look back on now as if everyone hated her.
that number is real but it’s wildly misleading in this context
Hillary Clinton peaked around ~60–66% favorability while she was secretary of state, which is basically a non-partisan, low-conflict role where she wasn’t the direct political target
once she became a presidential candidate her numbers cratered into the 40s with very high unfavorables, which is the only data that actually matters for elections
so yeah, “she once had 66% favorability” is technically true, but using it here is just ignoring when and why that number existed and pretending it translates to electoral strength, which it clearly didn’t
this surface level analysis most people do is why it's still very easy to make 6 figures each election cycle despite how much the market is tightening up with truly insider info leading the charge
what empirical evidence is there that hillary and kamala would have won if they had identical traits but just happened to be men?
I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here. I am not claiming to have to have come up with some sort of regression analysis to isolate for the specific variable of gender. I readily concede that we don't have many data points in presidential elections. I explicitly said that the gender effect is hard to measure and and that reaching definitive conclusions is likely impossible.
It's a hard thing to measure, for sure
and
The proposition is impossible to prove definitively,
I am offering my impression. That's all. And I am arguing that the difficulty of quantifying the effect -- for example, by doing some sort of regression analysis -- doesn't go down just because the candidate is intrinsically stronger. That makes absolutely no intuitive sense to me.
Hillary Clinton peaked around ~60–66% favorability while she was secretary of state, which is basically a non-partisan, low-conflict role where she wasn’t the direct political target
Everyone is free to debate whether HRC was too hawkish (or too doveish, I guess), but in terms of personality and skills, she was well-suited to the position of Secretary of State. She had a more encyclopedic knowledge of the international political world than almost any U.S. politician in my memory, and by all accounts, was always better at building one-on-one relationships with other politicians than she was at selling herself to the general public.
roc, the thing is you still gave a concrete number - that's the equivalency of "no offense but you suck" and expecting the person not to be offended because you prefaced with "no offense"
Everyone is free to debate whether HRC was too hawkish (or too doveish, I guess), but in terms of personality and skills, she was well-suited to the position of Secretary of State. She had a more encyclopedic knowledge of the international political world than almost any U.S. politician in my memory, and by all accounts, was always better at building one-on-one relationships w
agreed she was born for that role
roc, the thing is you still gave a concrete number - that's the equivalency of "no offense but you suck" and expecting the person not to be offended because you prefaced with "no offense"
I’ve lost track of what this is even about.
Is it rocs post about 60 posts ago where he had the sheer temerity to estimate something?
Everyone is free to debate whether HRC was too hawkish (or too doveish, I guess), but in terms of personality and skills, she was well-suited to the position of Secretary of State. She had a more encyclopedic knowledge of the international political world than almost any U.S. politician in my memory, and by all accounts, was always better at building one-on-one relationships w
She was impressive. Not easy, by reputation. But smart and hard working.
roc, the thing is you still gave a concrete number - that's the equivalency of "no offense but you suck" and expecting the person not to be offended because you prefaced with "no offense"
I obviously was giving my impression in terms of a percentage estimate. I find it impossible to believe that you thought I was doing anything more than that, especially when I stated repeatedly that precise quantification would be very difficult or impossible. And I estimated a very modest effect because I didn't want to give the impression that I thought a woman couldn't win. I believe the right woman in the right election could win. I just think the path is tougher for a female presidential candidate.
My foreign read was Harris also suffered badly from her policy approach of 'nothing new needed'.
That was the 'nail in the coffin' imo.
She was getting being tossed softball questions, and was asked if she could think of anything she would have done different from what Biden did as President. She thought about it for a couple seconds, as if that question had never occured to her. She finally said, "I can't think of anything."
She was basically affirming EVERYTHING Biden had done as President. So much for being a Change Agent. That's the kind of answer that is inoffensive but diffuses enthusiasm from the Dem base.
If real estate is 'location, location, location', then Presidential politics is 'turnout, turnout, turnout.'
Nixon wasn’t as good of a candidate as Kennedy, but overall he must have been pretty decent since he won 2 terms including one in a huge landslide.
He has some similarities to Hillary with both of them being very smart and calculating, although he was way better at connecting with people than her.
When Nixon was re-elected in 1972 he lost only ONE state (and D.C.).
McGovern didn't even carry his own home state.
I don't approve of a great many things that the DOJ has done during this administration, but I definitely approve of prosecuting this guy:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/busines...
Federal authorities arrested and charged a U.S. special forces soldier for allegedly making bets on the raid that removed Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro from office.
The soldier was identified as Gannon Ken Van Dyke in a news release announcing the indictment.
Van Dyke “bet a total of approximately $33,034” on the Maduro operation on the prediction market platform Polymarket, federal authorities said. He ultimately made more than $409,000 as a result of the bets placed on the U.S. operation, an unsealed indictment alleges.
Authorities said he “participated in the planning and execution of the U.S. military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro.”
good point on lbj, i read these and dude was an absolute machine, can't believe i forgot him probably the most compelling campaign slogan in american history was "vote for me and you won't be hunchbacked like your mother" and despite that outlandish claim it was actually truedon't recall the exact messaging but it was something to that extentbackground is there was no electric
LBJ's opponent in 1964 was Barry Goldwater, whose campaign slogan was 'In your heart, you know he's right.'
The Johnson campaign shot back with, 'In your guts, you know he's nuts.'
addendum: In an interview late in his life, Nixon said that Johnson was the most effective Senate Majority Leader in his [Nixon's] lifetime.
If you’re talking about HasaanAbi I’ve only been watching him for a couple of weeks after Kulinski platformed him recently. If you’ve got a link to some terrible stuff he was saying earlier I’d like to see it but he makes a great deal of sense.
Years ago when uncle cenk was giving him time on the young Turks I liked him, then he had a debate with Charlie Kirk and Charlie mopped the floor with him. I felt so let down couldn't watch him anymore. Was surprised to see recently how popular he is. Seems like he's more on his game now. Surprised he survived collargate
roc, the thing is you still gave a concrete number - that's the equivalency of "no offense but you suck" and expecting the person not to be offended because you prefaced with "no offense"
Here we go again: RR with his imaginary slights and real indignation.
Melania calls on ABC to cancel Jimmy Kimmel.
"People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate.”
10/10, no notes.
Melania calls on ABC to cancel Jimmy Kimmel.
"People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate.”
10/10, no notes.
Oh, the irony!
Melania calls on ABC to cancel Jimmy Kimmel.
"People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate.”
10/10, no notes.
Do I find it funny ? Nope but it's a joke sadly nowadays your not allowed to offend anyone
Trump's a baby
Kamala should have used that slogan against Trump.
It was a good start but it was just a start. It's nowhere sufficient though and there was no policy platform pivot to.
