1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

Even after it's been polled that voting no on Kavanaugh will not hurt them in the election?

Do Republicans ever do this?  Vote for something or vote against that is going to pass regardless of their vote just to appeal to independent voters?  Seems like Democrats are the one's always doing this.

 

What political advantage does it give Red State Dems to vote No?

Also, can you name the Blue State R's in the Senate? Are any of them in opposite party +40 states like Manchin/Heitkamp are?

What political advantage does it give "Red State Dems" to vote Yes?

43 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

What political advantage does it give "Red State Dems" to vote Yes?

Uh. Is this a serious question? Google Trump's approval rating in ND/WV. I'll wait.

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

Uh. Is this a serious question? Google Trump's approval rating in ND/WV. I'll wait.

But the numbers say that a "No" vote would not affect them. Do you only selectively pay attention to the numbers?

6 hours ago, Reddy said:

Sigh. How don't y'all get this?

No Democrat will be a deciding vote on Kavanaugh. If there's a single No vote from the Republicans, no Dem will vote Yes. If there are enough Rs to confirm him, there will be a couple Yeses from Dems (Manchin/Heitkamp likely)

There's literally no political point in a red-state Dem voting no if it won't actually make a difference, and those red-state Dems who vote w/ the party 45-60% of the time is 45-60% more than a Republican in that seat would vote with Dems.

How is this hard to grasp?

Getting re-elected >>> Principles

Why don’t we ever hear about McCaskill voting for Kavanaugh?  

She’s in basically the same position as Heitkamp in her race, Missouri has mostly been a conservative state the last 10-15 years.

Edited October 2, 20187 yr by caulfield12

https://eand.co/the-economys-not-booming-capitalism-is-8a180c97e06d

 

1 hour ago, Dam8610 said:

But the numbers say that a "No" vote would not affect them. Do you only selectively pay attention to the numbers?

And you're suggesting that the GOP would refrain from running ads about the liberal Joe Manchin trying to derail Trump's agenda and caving to the far left feminazis? Someone isn't paying attention.

You think those ads wouldn't move the needle? Really? ONE ad like that is lights out for Heitkamp.

35 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Getting re-elected >>> Principles

Why don’t we ever hear about McCaskill voting for Kavanaugh?  

She’s in basically the same position as Heitkamp in her race, Missouri has mostly been a conservative state the last 10-15 years.

No, she isn't. She's going to win. Heitkamp probably won't.

And no, you have your easy soundbite wrong. It's not re-elected>>>>Principles, it's BEING IN OFFICE ALLOWS YOU TO DO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>more good than if a Republican were in your seat for 6 years. Dems suck at big-picture long term thinking. 

If your vote literally makes no difference in the outcome, how on EARTH is that more important than retaining a Blue seat for 6 more years? You guys are smarter than that. Use your brains and take your bias out of it for a second.

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

If your vote literally makes no difference in the outcome, how on EARTH is that more important than retaining a Blue seat for 6 more years? You guys are smarter than that. Use your brains and take your bias out of it for a second.

How is it a blue seat when Manchin votes more frequently for Trump and Big Pharma?

Edited October 2, 20187 yr by caulfield12

9 hours ago, Reddy said:

And you're suggesting that the GOP would refrain from running ads about the liberal Joe Manchin trying to derail Trump's agenda and caving to the far left feminazis? Someone isn't paying attention.

You think those ads wouldn't move the needle? Really? ONE ad like that is lights out for Heitkamp.

The numbers say they won't. So what you're saying is you only believe the numbers when they align with your argument. Got it.

8 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

How is it a blue seat when Manchin votes more frequently for Trump and Big Pharma?

Do we still have Obamacare or nah? Lord. Do some research man. Seriously. He voted against ending net neutrality. Voted against defunding planned parenthood. Voted against repealing Obamacare. Voted in support of DACA and Dreamers. 

The ONLY things he votes with the Rs on are appointments. Everything else he's voted with Dems. How likely do you think that would be with Senator Morrissey? The intellectual dishonesty from you guys here is ridiculous.

2 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

The numbers say they won't. So what you're saying is you only believe the numbers when they align with your argument. Got it.

the numbers reflect what's being done RIGHT NOW. Without negative ads, of course the numbers look good. See: Hillary Clinton's 2014 approval rating.

But also you still believe Bernie would've won because "polls", so.

I have less a problem with Heitkamp and Manchin, because yeah if they weren't in office you would would just have a 100% crazy.  They are only garbage like 75% of the time.

I have a much bigger issue with why we still have Feinstein and other moderates in clearly blue states where we could have some really strong people in office. 

47 minutes ago, Reddy said:

the numbers reflect what's being done RIGHT NOW. Without negative ads, of course the numbers look good. See: Hillary Clinton's 2014 approval rating.

But also you still believe Bernie would've won because "polls", so.

There are negative ads running now. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The numbers show that a "No" vote on Kavanaugh would not affect those candidates, but you don't want to hear that because you're allergic to accountability for centrists.

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

I have less a problem with Heitkamp and Manchin, because yeah if they weren't in office you would would just have a 100% crazy.  They are only garbage like 75% of the time.

I have a much bigger issue with why we still have Feinstein and other moderates in clearly blue states where we could have some really strong people in office. 

Won't fight you on that.

42 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

There are negative ads running now. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The numbers show that a "No" vote on Kavanaugh would not affect those candidates, but you don't want to hear that because you're allergic to accountability for centrists.

Good lord. Can you link for me the ad running against Heitkamp/Manchin that cites them siding with radical feminist leftists in blocking the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in a generation? TY in advance.

They *can't* attack Manchin's record on supporting Trump because he's done a good job of walking that line. That's why he's up by 8-10 points in a Trump +40 state. He's winning BECAUSE he's played his hand perfectly. Heitkamp is less good at it, thus... her current polling.

13 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Good lord. Can you link for me the ad running against Heitkamp/Manchin that cites them siding with radical feminist leftists in blocking the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in a generation? TY in advance.

They *can't* attack Manchin's record on supporting Trump because he's done a good job of walking that line. That's why he's up by 8-10 points in a Trump +40 state. He's winning BECAUSE he's played his hand perfectly. Heitkamp is less good at it, thus... her current polling.

Not negative ads on that specific issue, negative ads in general. If the numbers say that a "No" vote won't affect them, that negative ad would have no more effect than any other negative ad running, maybe even less of an effect.

Edited October 2, 20187 yr by Dam8610

10 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Not negative ads on that specific issue, negative ads in general. If the numbers say that a "No" vote won't affect them, that negative ad would have no more effect than any other negative ad running, maybe even less of an effect.

1

oh, honey.

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

Quote

Mattes and Redlawsk continue on to establish how voters make use of negative information and why it is necessary. Many voters are politically naïve and unlikely to make inferences about candidates’ positions or traits, so the ability of candidates to go on the attack and focus explicitly on information that would not otherwise be available is crucial to voter education.

 

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

Edited October 2, 20187 yr by Reddy

6 minutes 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.

There’s no need to read a book.

Atwater, Rove, etc., have been masters at this since the Reagan years.  The difference is the GOP fought back from the center, whereas Trump is on the extreme right on many issues, yet still won.

Is it any surprise there’s now a countervailing movement from the far left?

How often has the GOP had to compromise or back down?  Bush/Gore, Citizens United, Merrick Garland, etc.

Crony capitalism is slowly destroying the very social fabric of the US, to the point where there’s more issues that divide than unite Americans.

 

17 minutes 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.

Right Bro?

24 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

There’s no need to read a book.

Atwater, Rove, etc., have been masters at this since the Reagan years.  The difference is the GOP fought back from the center, whereas Trump is on the extreme right on many issues, yet still won.

Is it any surprise there’s now a countervailing movement from the far left?

How often has the GOP had to compromise or back down?  Bush/Gore, Citizens United, Merrick Garland, etc.

Crony capitalism is slowly destroying the very social fabric of the US, to the point where there’s more issues that divide than unite Americans.

 

I love how hard it is for you to say I'm right

20 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Right Bro?

Have you not been getting enough attention today? 

I thought intentional trolling was against 'buster rules.

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

Have you not been getting enough attention today? 

I thought intentional trolling was against 'buster rules.

Sure.  But we have let you post anyway.

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Sure.  But we have let you post anyway.

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