1 minute ago, Reddy said:

You'd think mods would hold themselves to a higher standard, but I guess you are a conservative.

That's cute.  You run around this thread calling everyone names who you don't agree with and insulting their intelligence, but that's fine.  If you want to talk about standards, you should try out your own first.

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That's cute.  You run around this thread calling everyone names who you don't agree with and insulting their intelligence, but that's fine.  If you want to talk about standards, you should try out your own first.

I do nothing that everyone else in this thread doesn't also do. You just happen to disagree with me and like to hold me to a different standard as everyone else. I'm used to it by now, but it's still funny to see you act like a tweenage troll trying to derail things and get a rise out of me while we're having an actual discussion, instead of acting like the ~40 year old man you are and contributing in any meaningful way.

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

I do nothing that everyone else in this thread doesn't also do. You just happen to disagree with me and like to hold me to a different standard as everyone else. I'm used to it by now, but it's still funny to see you act like a tweenage troll trying to derail things and get a rise out of me while we're having an actual discussion, instead of acting like the ~40 year old man you are and contributing in any meaningful way.

Correction.  You are the only one who is having a meltdown about it.

7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Correction.  You are the only one who is having a meltdown about it.

Sigh. Ok. You can win. I just won't respond to you anymore, k? Great.

Now back to the grownup conversation...

19 hours ago, Reddy said:

oh, honey.

read my Dad's book: https://www.amazon.com/Positive-Case-Negative-Campaigning-ebook/dp/B00TB4Z07O 
 

Negative ads CREATE public perception. It is not the other way around.

Way to not address what I said at all. Of course negative ads create public perception, no one would dispute that. What I'm arguing here is that, based on the numbers, that particular negative ad will be no more effective and possibly less effective than another negative ad run in its place.

One good thing came of this exchange. I know where your arrogance and love for the establishment comes from now.

35 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Way to not address what I said at all. Of course negative ads create public perception, no one would dispute that. What I'm arguing here is that, based on the numbers, that particular negative ad will be no more effective and possibly less effective than another negative ad run in its place.

One good thing came of this exchange. I know where your arrogance and love for the establishment comes from now.

Can you support this assertion with actual empirical evidence or are you just making it up because it supports your position? People don't know what they care about or don't care about til their airwaves are being saturated with something. For instance, people ask me every day now about the attacks our opponent is levying against my candidate. These are things people *weren't* talking about before, and had you asked them before they'd have said they weren't important. Yet now I answer questions about them multiple times a day BECAUSE they were in a TV ad.

This is basic psychology man. But if you can back up your claim with evidence then by all means do so.

Edited October 3, 20187 yr by Reddy

How Democratic Party idiocy may cost them the Senate

Chuck Schumer continues to be an absolute embarrassment. 

6 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Can you support this assertion with actual empirical evidence or are you just making it up because it supports your position? People don't know what they care about or don't care about til their airwaves are being saturated with something. For instance, people ask me every day now about the attacks our opponent is levying against my candidate. These are things people *weren't* talking about before, and had you asked them before they'd have said they weren't important. Yet now I answer questions about them multiple times a day BECAUSE they were in a TV ad.

This is basic psychology man. But if you can back up your claim with evidence then by all means do so.

Proving that would take a full study, as would proving your argument. I'm not asserting my opinion as fact. If you're asserting yours as fact, feel free to prove it.

 

None of this addresses the point that you're allergic to accountability for centrists while constantly demanding it of progressives while claiming to be progressive yourself. You should be more honest with yourself, which will allow you to extend that honesty to everyone else.

9 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

How Democratic Party idiocy may cost them the Senate

Chuck Schumer continues to be an absolute embarrassment. 

Goes to show how dumb both parties are.

11 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

How Democratic Party idiocy may cost them the Senate

Chuck Schumer continues to be an absolute embarrassment. 

What's that you say? The establishments' refusal to cede any sort of power at any level may cost the Democrats?  Color me shocked.

31 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Proving that would take a full study, as would proving your argument. I'm not asserting my opinion as fact. If you're asserting yours as fact, feel free to prove it.

 

None of this addresses the point that you're allergic to accountability for centrists while constantly demanding it of progressives while claiming to be progressive yourself. You should be more honest with yourself, which will allow you to extend that honesty to everyone else.

I literally linked a full book that is full of full studies.

33 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

Goes to show how dumb both parties are.

The Democrats can be dumb, the Republican party has gone off the edge. 

 

Edited October 3, 20187 yr by GoSox05

Dam, would you rather have Joe Manchin or a Far-Right Republican in that WV Senate seat?

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

I literally linked a full book that is full of full studies.

That affirmed that negative ads create public perception, which was never in dispute. The dispute was over whether a hypothetical negative ad that would focus on a "No" vote on Kavanaugh would affect certain candidates' standing in their respective elections more than negative ads that are currently running. You say it will, I say it won't. My point of view is backed by polling and data, yours is backed by...your opinion that negative ads are bad and an undisputed fact that has nothing to do with the dispute? That's the best I can come up with.

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

Dam, would you rather have Joe Manchin or a Far-Right Republican in that WV Senate seat?

No false dilemmas, please. 

Edited October 3, 20187 yr by Dam8610

25 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

No false dilemmas, please. 

Aren't those the only two choices for that seat? How is it a false dilemma? lol

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

Aren't those the only two choices for that seat? How is it a false dilemma? lol

Because those aren't the only two choices for the seat. They're the only two choices on the ballot for 2018, but they aren't the only two choices. Not for 2018. Not for beyond 2018.

5 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Because those aren't the only two choices for the seat. They're the only two choices on the ballot for 2018, but they aren't the only two choices. Not for 2018. Not for beyond 2018.

Uh. They're the only two who can *win*, thus there are only two eventualities - one with Manchin, and one with Morrissey in that seat. 

How old are you, out of pure curiosity? Not snark, I'm honestly curious.

Edited October 4, 20187 yr by Reddy

8 hours ago, Reddy said:

Uh. They're the only two who can *win*, thus there are only two eventualities - one with Manchin, and one with Morrissey in that seat. 

How old are you, out of pure curiosity? Not snark, I'm honestly curious.

Again, not true. The person who gets the most votes wins. If enough of the people of West Virginia chose a write in candidate to get behind, neither Manchin nor the far right Republican would win.

I believe my profile contains my age. I know it did on the old board.

2 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Again, not true. The person who gets the most votes wins. If enough of the people of West Virginia chose a write in candidate to get behind, neither Manchin nor the far right Republican would win.

Your naïveté is adorable but whoa.

On 10/2/2018 at 1:57 PM, Reddy said:

Sigh. Ok. You can win. I just won't respond to you anymore, k? Great.

Now back to the grownup conversation...

 

8 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Your naïveté is adorable but whoa.

Grown up conversation huh?  You just can't help but insult people when they don't agree with you.

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Grown up conversation huh?  You just can't help but insult people when they don't agree with you.

It has nothing to do with a "disagreement". If his position were built on any sort of solid ground it'd be one thing. He's legitimately trying to argue there's a possibility - an actual possible outcome - that results in a write-in candidate winning the WV senate race. I mean the odds are worse than successfully navigating an asteroid field. That's not a position on which to build an argument, and if you think it actually IS, yes, that's naïveté. 

It's not an insult man. It's just.... It's what it is.

Also, side note, is there no more "mute"/"ignore"/"block" option on ST anymore?

17 minutes ago, Reddy said:

It has nothing to do with a "disagreement". If his position were built on any sort of solid ground it'd be one thing. He's legitimately trying to argue there's a possibility - an actual possible outcome - that results in a write-in candidate winning the WV senate race. I mean the odds are worse than successfully navigating an asteroid field. That's not a position on which to build an argument, and if you think it actually IS, yes, that's naïveté. 

It's not an insult man. It's just.... It's what it is.

Also, side note, is there no more "mute"/"ignore"/"block" option on ST anymore?

I merely pointed out that you were presenting a false dilemma. No matter how minute, the possibility exists that neither Manchin nor his Republican opponent will win the seat in 2018. I realize the best and most likely option for getting rid of Manchin is to primary him in 2024 or to have a Republican win the seat in 2024, then beat him with a progressive in 2030. That doesn't mean I have to answer your false dilemma, which is of the sort that creates most of the problems in modern day politics. It also doesn't mean that I have to accept that Manchin is the best WV has to offer, as you have.

Just now, Dam8610 said:

I merely pointed out that you were presenting a false dilemma. No matter how minute, the possibility exists that neither Manchin nor his Republican opponent will win the seat in 2018. I realize the best and most likely option for getting rid of Manchin is to primary him in 2024 or to have a Republican win the seat in 2024, then beat him with a progressive in 2030. That doesn't mean I have to answer your false dilemma, which is of the sort that creates most of the problems in modern day politics. It also doesn't mean that I have to accept that Manchin is the best WV has to offer, as you have.

To the first bolded: No. It actually doesn't.

Second: Didn't someone try to primary him this year?

Third: This is the kicker. You'd rather have a Republican in and fuck over the country for 6 years than have a guy who votes with Dems to protect Dreamers, Women and Equal Rights. That is the thing I can't stand about Bernie-or-Busters. You don't care who you hurt as long as you get your economic policies "eventually"
 

42 minutes ago, Reddy said:

To the first bolded: No. It actually doesn't.

Second: Didn't someone try to primary him this year?

Third: This is the kicker. You'd rather have a Republican in and fuck over the country for 6 years than have a guy who votes with Dems to protect Dreamers, Women and Equal Rights. That is the thing I can't stand about Bernie-or-Busters. You don't care who you hurt as long as you get your economic policies "eventually"
 

1) Read West Virginia law. It requires a plurality vote (meaning whoever gets the most wins even if under 50%). Further, Don Blankenship is eligible as a write-in candidate and Rusty Holley us on the ballot. So, as I stated, Manchin and the Republican is a false dilemma even in 2018.

2) I don't know. I do know that the political power of groups I support is on the rise and the infrastructure may be in a much better position to support a successful primary in 2024.

3) To me, this boils down to "You don't care enough about the Democratic party." When it comes to the fringe elements that actually belong on the other side of the aisle, you're right. Because ultimately 30-40 years ago, Manchin would've been a moderate Republican. We need to get back to that point. Ideally I'd prefer Manchin to be a right wing extremist, but I don't think that amount of progress will be achieved any time soon.

So you're fine with real people getting hurt as long as it gets you closer to the economic policy you'd prefer.

Also: