2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III - Page 5

The Great Zaganza · 6th January 2020, 11:58 PM

My hunch is that the Assassination of Suleimani will help Biden because of his experience and Sanders because of his anti-war credentials.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th January 2020, 12:06 AM

My current thoughts:

Bloomberg vs Steyer.

I could give a rip that they are both rich. It's just as stupid to use that as a filter as it is to say I'm not going to vote for any white male.

Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. There's no way he would lose to Trump, I don't care what Biden is polling.

I watched a campaign event with Steyer tonight. I agree with everything he stands for and in no way is he disingenuous. This is the candidate we need. But he's the candidate for the liberal intellectual. He's got to step up his game.

angrysoba · 7th January 2020, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My current thoughts:

Bloomberg vs Steyer.

I could give a rip that they are both rich. It's just as stupid to use that as a filter as it is to say I'm not going to vote for any white male.

Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. There's no way he would lose to Trump, I don't care what Biden is polling.

I watched a campaign event with Steyer tonight. I agree with everything he stands for and in no way is he disingenuous. This is the candidate we need. But he's the candidate for the liberal intellectual. He's got to step up his game.

May I ask what makes you think the ads are effective? Which ones? Where are they being broadcast? And how you come to the conclusion that he could not lose to Trump? Is there polling on this? Or do you know people who voted Trump who are swayed by Bloomberg?

Brainster · 7th January 2020, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I would guess that the experienced, high quality people would have been hired by the early contenders. I wonder if his money is buying the staff he would really like to have.

There are probably quality staffers to be picked up from the Harris, Castro (and soon) Booker campaigns. But the bigger point is that Bloomberg isn't even focused on the early states like everybody else. He's buying up the best staff in the later states.

It's an interesting strategy. On the one hand, he loses out on the earned media that whoever wins Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will receive. But suppose for a moment that those states go Buttigieg, Sanders and Biden, a not unlikely scenario. As they shift resources to the later states, they will find that Bloomberg has been already been bombarding the airwaves with his ads.

The problem for Bloomberg (as I see it) is that he doesn't really fit any traditional lane among the Democrats. He's obviously not progressive, not minority (well he is Jewish, but that doesn't seem to come up much, for which we can be thankful), not an environmentalist and not a woman. He seems to be trying to run in Biden and Buttigieg's lane as Mr Electable.

Which might ironically work in Sanders' or Warren's favor. Sanders seems to be the flavor of the month, but I would not send Warren's campaign to the happy hunting grounds yet.

BobTheCoward · 7th January 2020, 03:15 AM

Do we know if quality of staffers even matter?

The Great Zaganza · 7th January 2020, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Do we know if quality of staffers even matter?

the example of Kamala Harris suggests that they do.

BobTheCoward · 7th January 2020, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

the example of Kamala Harris suggests that they do.

How so? How do you isolate it to staffers and not any other issue with the candidate herself or other variables outside of their control?

Donal · 7th January 2020, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Also politics are emotional. Some of the best campaign strategists are dispassionate mercenaries. But most people working on the campaign believe in the candidate they're working for.

Bloomberg is a little late to hire any of the top mercenaries. So his campaign is being worked by bench warmer mercs, clock watching wage slaves, and whatever "Bloomberg for president" true believers that are actually out there. And close personal friends.

He does own a media company. He may have had a few in his pocket on retainer waiting for the right time.

Donal · 7th January 2020, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

the example of Kamala Harris suggests that they do.

Obama in 2008 and O'Rourke's early senate run as well. Get some smart and passionate people on your side and you''l blow up expectations.

BobTheCoward · 7th January 2020, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Donal

Obama in 2008 and O'Rourke's early senate run as well. Get some smart and passionate people on your side and you''l blow up expectations.

You are not demonstrating that you are controlling for other variables in your assessment.

Trebuchet · 7th January 2020, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My current thoughts:

Bloomberg vs Steyer.

I could give a rip that they are both rich. It's just as stupid to use that as a filter as it is to say I'm not going to vote for any white male.

Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. There's no way he would lose to Trump, I don't care what Biden is polling.

I watched a campaign event with Steyer tonight. I agree with everything he stands for and in no way is he disingenuous. This is the candidate we need. But he's the candidate for the liberal intellectual. He's got to step up his game.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

May I ask what makes you think the ads are effective? Which ones? Where are they being broadcast? And how you come to the conclusion that he could not lose to Trump? Is there polling on this? Or do you know people who voted Trump who are swayed by Bloomberg?

As I said just upthread, I'm finding Steyer's ads more effective, though I couldn't actually say why. I don't recall seeing ads for anyone but those two. We'll probably have to get by Iowa and NH to start seeing others.

BobTheCoward · 7th January 2020, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

As I said just upthread, I'm finding Steyer's ads more effective, though I couldn't actually say why. I don't recall seeing ads for anyone but those two. We'll probably have to get by Iowa and NH to start seeing others.

What is your history of being affected by ads? Do product ads work on you?

theprestige · 7th January 2020, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads.

What does this mean?

Is he putting out ads that say stuff you agree with?

Is he putting out ads that change your mind on stuff you feel strongly about?

Is he putting out ads that have good results according to reputable opinion polls?

What kind of good results? Good results versus Trump? Or good results versus the other candidates he's actually competing with at the moment?

Venom · 7th January 2020, 10:48 AM

Bernie Sanders is the most effective candidate so far.

Democratic insiders who for years have been brushing him off have recognized that he could win the nomination. And they're no doubt worried.
He does the most with less. The least big money funding. The least mainstream media coverage given his favorability among registered Democrats.

It's only a matter of time before Joe Biden's name recognition sugar high wears off.

theprestige · 7th January 2020, 10:59 AM

Most effective? Or most efficient?

Venom · 7th January 2020, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Most effective? Or most efficient?

I'd say both.

And for somebody often regarded as not having much of a chance to win he sure scares the bejeezus out of established heavies of both parties.

SuburbanTurkey · 7th January 2020, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Venom

It's only a matter of time before Joe Biden's name recognition sugar high wears off.

I can't imagine the effect getting any better for him, at least. Name recognition is most useful when people aren't really paying close attention. As we get closer to real voting, name recognition alone will become less valuable.

I'm hoping that anything but a strong win in the early states will pretty much tank Biden's support.

A win for Bernie in these early states would be huge. Seems that many of the pundits are determined to cover him as a fringe candidate, despite his consistently strong performance.

Trebuchet · 7th January 2020, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What is your history of being affected by ads? Do product ads work on you?

Much as we like to deny it, they work on everyone to some degree. Even if it's just getting you aware the product exists.

Venom · 7th January 2020, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

...I'm hoping that anything but a strong win in the early states will pretty much tank Biden's support.

A win for Bernie in these early states would be huge. Seems that many of the pundits are determined to cover him as a fringe candidate, despite his consistently strong performance.

So far it looks like Sanders is pretty much tied with Biden (and Buttigieg) in Iowa. He's first place in New Hampshire by a small margin. Second in Nevada.

Sanders has a significantly more enthusiastic level of support compared to Biden or Buttigieg in these early states, according to YouGov.

A good chunk of Biden's support is because he's regarded as the safe choice, thinking Sanders is "too far left", again, the self-fulfilling prophecy, but there's no indication that they wouldn't vote for Sanders in the general.

SezMe · 7th January 2020, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Do we know if quality of staffers even matter?

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

How so? How do you isolate it to staffers and not any other issue with the candidate herself or other variables outside of their control?

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

You are not demonstrating that you are controlling for other variables in your assessment.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What is your history of being affected by ads? Do product ads work on you?

This is politics, Bob. In particular, this thread centers on a very, very messy political process that won't end for months and months and one in which we all express our OPINIONS. If you want precision, accuracy and hard facts, go somewhere else.

Aridas · 7th January 2020, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

So far it looks like Sanders is pretty much tied with Biden (and Buttigieg) in Iowa. He's first place in New Hampshire by a small margin. Second in Nevada.

Sanders has a significantly more enthusiastic level of support compared to Biden or Buttigieg in these early states, according to YouGov.

A good chunk of Biden's support is because he's regarded as the safe choice, thinking Sanders is "too far left", again, the self-fulfilling prophecy, but there's no indication that they wouldn't vote for Sanders in the general.

Last I saw, I think it was about 1/3 of the people for Biden were pretty much there because he was polling the highest/was being claimed to be most electable. As for indications about Bernie... depends what you count as an indication. Last I saw, Bernie and Biden's favorability ratings were roughly tied, with both having quite a significant number of people who would be disappointed if they were nominated.

BobTheCoward · 8th January 2020, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

This is politics, Bob. In particular, this thread centers on a very, very messy political process that won't end for months and months and one in which we all express our OPINIONS. If you want precision, accuracy and hard facts, go somewhere else.

This is a skepticism forum. This is the place where claims of fact (that isn't just an opinion) should not be uttered if it doesn't survive skeptical inquiry.

Sounds like you are in the wrong place. Everywhere else spouts off claims of fact that are devoid of analysis. This is the one place that would be different.

varwoche · 8th January 2020, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

This is politics, Bob. In particular, this thread centers on a very, very messy political process that won't end for months and months and one in which we all express our OPINIONS. If you want precision, accuracy and hard facts, go somewhere else.

Spoilsport! I was looking forward to a scientific study concerning the impact of ads on Trebuchet.

Trebuchet · 8th January 2020, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Spoilsport! I was looking forward to a scientific study concerning the impact of ads on Trebuchet.

I have no opinion on that.

Dr. Keith · 8th January 2020, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

I have no opinion on that.

But if you watched my ad you would.

Mumbles · 8th January 2020, 12:43 PM

This article on The Root, backed up by evidence, paints an even uglier picture of mayor Pete than was previously known nationally with regards to racism in his police force. Among other issues, the black police who left the force all described rampant racism as their reason for reason, with several filing EEOC complaint. Emails, meeting requests, complaints, and public statements, were apparently *all* unheard by one Mayor Pete. More disturbingly, the black fire chief and mayor's assistant had also been removed soon after he came into office. I can see him replacing his own assistant with a trusted ally, possibly, but police *and* fire chiefs as well?

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

May I ask what makes you think the ads are effective? Which ones? Where are they being broadcast? And how you come to the conclusion that he could not lose to Trump? Is there polling on this? Or do you know people who voted Trump who are swayed by Bloomberg?

I don't know if Bloomberg's ads are playing in your area but the ones playing here other Democrats should be paying attention to.

Bloomberg is in the ads with 'the people' saying all the popular things he plans to do because he did them in NY.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

https://www.youtube.com/user/mikebloomberg

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

As I said just upthread, I'm finding Steyer's ads more effective, though I couldn't actually say why. I don't recall seeing ads for anyone but those two. We'll probably have to get by Iowa and NH to start seeing others.

Just the fact Steyer is entering the TV ad market makes him more effective than the candidates that aren't. They're both investing significant money.

Steyer says the right things in his ads: climate change and taking Trump out. He looks mild mannered which is fine for me.

Bloomberg is much more forceful, names a slew of things: healthcare, jobs, gun control, and touts having done specific things addressing those same issues in NY as experience.

For the average voter, Bloomberg looks better.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

What does this mean?

Is he putting out ads that say stuff you agree with?

Is he putting out ads that change your mind on stuff you feel strongly about?

Is he putting out ads that have good results according to reputable opinion polls?

What kind of good results? Good results versus Trump? Or good results versus the other candidates he's actually competing with at the moment?

It means, I know a good ad when I see one. I don't care if you believe that.

As for stuff I agree with, you don't need to be insulting.

The polls don't yet reflect these ads.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

Bernie Sanders is the most effective candidate so far.

Democratic insiders who for years have been brushing him off have recognized that he could win the nomination. And they're no doubt worried.
He does the most with less. The least big money funding. The least mainstream media coverage given his favorability among registered Democrats.

It's only a matter of time before Joe Biden's name recognition sugar high wears off.

All those things were said last time and he lost the primary.

You need some evidence supporting the claim Party insiders are working against either Sanders or Warren. All he had last time was the debate schedule that was rectified.

Then there were Party leaders individually supporting Clinton, like a lot of us. You can't expect the DNC leaders to work to elect the candidate they aren't going to vote for. IMO Sanders overplayed this card to his detriment.

OTOH, I'm quite annoyed the MSM isn't noting that Biden's lead is only because Sanders and Warren split the vote. They could at least stop treating Biden as if he is already the candidate. So I agree with you there.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

This article on The Root, backed up by evidence, paints an even uglier picture of mayor Pete than was previously known nationally with regards to racism in his police force. Among other issues, the black police who left the force all described rampant racism as their reason for reason, with several filing EEOC complaint. Emails, meeting requests, complaints, and public statements, were apparently *all* unheard by one Mayor Pete. More disturbingly, the black fire chief and mayor's assistant had also been removed soon after he came into office. I can see him replacing his own assistant with a trusted ally, possibly, but police *and* fire chiefs as well?

More IMO: Buttigieg was the media's darling. That's wearing off.

And the longer the campaign goes on and Biden's honeymoon is over, all his awful gaffes will get more air time.

Venom · 8th January 2020, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

All those things were said last time and he lost the primary.

He was the new guy last time and fairly slow to get his name out there, partly because of the pitiful coverage he received compared to the loudmouth on the other side.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You need some evidence supporting the claim Party insiders are working against either Sanders or Warren. All he had last time was the debate schedule that was rectified.

I'm not saying they're actively working against them, but they're worried.

theprestige · 8th January 2020, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It means, I know a good ad when I see one. I don't care if you believe that.

Of course you care. If you didn't care what people thought about your ad opinions, you wouldn't have posted them.

You claimed Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. Your explanation of how you know this is that you just know it. Is that really the extent of your qualifications?

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of course you care. If you didn't care what people thought about your ad opinions, you wouldn't have posted them.

You claimed Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. Your explanation of how you know this is that you just know it. Is that really the extent of your qualifications?

You missed this, apparently:

Originally Posted by SG

I don't care if you believe that.

This is a tad different than my professional education and experience. I don't expect people to remember what different forum members' skills are. But there are some people here I've seen enough of their posts to know what professional and lay skills they might have.

I have been posting about messaging, marketing and propaganda since I joined the JREF in 2005. I presented (was chosen) a Sunday Paper (talk) at TAM 5 (2007) on the subject titled "Deciphering the Language Code". I spoke about George Lakoff, framing and narratives as far back as that. And I have posted about Frank Luntz's focus groups and his book, Words that Work ad nauseum when GW was in office.

My posts speak for themselves. If you don't believe a particular claim or opinion I've posed on the subject of narratives, framing, propaganda or marketing you are welcome to do your own research. This is not a subject I feel particularly obligated to post a thesis bibliography on.

theprestige · 8th January 2020, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You missed this, apparently:

I saw that, but assumed (wrongly, I guess) that you weren't making this personal about me.

Quote:

My posts speak for themselves. If you don't believe a particular claim or opinion I've posed on the subject of narratives, framing, propaganda or marketing you are welcome to do your own research. This is not a subject I feel particularly obligated to post a thesis bibliography on.

That which can be claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Delphic Oracle · 8th January 2020, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You missed this, apparently:

This is a tad different than my professional education and experience. I don't expect people to remember what different forum members' skills are. But there are some people here I've seen enough of their posts to know what professional and lay skills they might have.

I have been posting about messaging, marketing and propaganda since I joined the JREF in 2005. I presented (was chosen) a Sunday Paper (talk) at TAM 5 (2007) on the subject titled "Deciphering the Language Code". I spoke about George Lakoff, framing and narratives as far back as that. And I have posted about Frank Luntz's focus groups and his book, Words that Work ad nauseum when GW was in office.

My posts speak for themselves. If you don't believe a particular claim or opinion I've posed on the subject of narratives, framing, propaganda or marketing you are welcome to do your own research. This is not a subject I feel particularly obligated to post a thesis bibliography on.

Always love it when just an example or two would suffice, several paragraphs are written explaining why that won't happen, and then finished off with lament over the effort it would take.

Really, it takes very little effort to post "I will not defend my premise" and leave it at that.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I saw that, but assumed (wrongly, I guess) that you weren't making this personal about me.

Oh grow up. It wasn't personal about you. It was a specific reply to your personal post.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Always love it when just an example or two would suffice, several paragraphs are written explaining why that won't happen, and then finished off with lament over the effort it would take.

Really, it takes very little effort to post "I will not defend my premise" and leave it at that.

I did defend my premise, I cited my years of expertise demonstrated on this forum.

And more importantly, there is no simple answer. Some things are like that.

theprestige · 8th January 2020, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Oh grow up. It wasn't personal about you. It was a specific reply to your personal post.

You're the one who claimed personal expertise.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're the one who claimed personal expertise.

Just to review, you said this:

Quote:

Of course you care. If you didn't care what people thought about your ad opinions, you wouldn't have posted them.

I replied, I don't care if you share my opinion or not.

6th January 2020, 11:58 PM	#161
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,319	My hunch is that the Assassination of Suleimani will help Biden because of his experience and Sanders because of his anti-war credentials.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

7th January 2020, 12:06 AM	#162
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,790	My current thoughts: Bloomberg vs Steyer. I could give a rip that they are both rich. It's just as stupid to use that as a filter as it is to say I'm not going to vote for any white male. Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. There's no way he would lose to Trump, I don't care what Biden is polling. I watched a campaign event with Steyer tonight. I agree with everything he stands for and in no way is he disingenuous. This is the candidate we need. But he's the candidate for the liberal intellectual. He's got to step up his game.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

7th January 2020, 01:27 AM	#163
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 28,938	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger My current thoughts: Bloomberg vs Steyer. I could give a rip that they are both rich. It's just as stupid to use that as a filter as it is to say I'm not going to vote for any white male. Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. There's no way he would lose to Trump, I don't care what Biden is polling. I watched a campaign event with Steyer tonight. I agree with everything he stands for and in no way is he disingenuous. This is the candidate we need. But he's the candidate for the liberal intellectual. He's got to step up his game. May I ask what makes you think the ads are effective? Which ones? Where are they being broadcast? And how you come to the conclusion that he could not lose to Trump? Is there polling on this? Or do you know people who voted Trump who are swayed by Bloomberg?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

7th January 2020, 02:07 AM	#164
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,156	Originally Posted by SezMe I would guess that the experienced, high quality people would have been hired by the early contenders. I wonder if his money is buying the staff he would really like to have. There are probably quality staffers to be picked up from the Harris, Castro (and soon) Booker campaigns. But the bigger point is that Bloomberg isn't even focused on the early states like everybody else. He's buying up the best staff in the later states. It's an interesting strategy. On the one hand, he loses out on the earned media that whoever wins Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will receive. But suppose for a moment that those states go Buttigieg, Sanders and Biden, a not unlikely scenario. As they shift resources to the later states, they will find that Bloomberg has been already been bombarding the airwaves with his ads. The problem for Bloomberg (as I see it) is that he doesn't really fit any traditional lane among the Democrats. He's obviously not progressive, not minority (well he is Jewish, but that doesn't seem to come up much, for which we can be thankful), not an environmentalist and not a woman. He seems to be trying to run in Biden and Buttigieg's lane as Mr Electable. Which might ironically work in Sanders' or Warren's favor. Sanders seems to be the flavor of the month, but I would not send Warren's campaign to the happy hunting grounds yet.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

7th January 2020, 06:30 AM	#166
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,319	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Do we know if quality of staffers even matter? the example of Kamala Harris suggests that they do.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

7th January 2020, 03:15 AM	#165
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	Do we know if quality of staffers even matter?

7th January 2020, 06:37 AM	#167
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza the example of Kamala Harris suggests that they do. How so? How do you isolate it to staffers and not any other issue with the candidate herself or other variables outside of their control?

7th January 2020, 06:52 AM	#168
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by theprestige Also politics are emotional. Some of the best campaign strategists are dispassionate mercenaries. But most people working on the campaign believe in the candidate they're working for. Bloomberg is a little late to hire any of the top mercenaries. So his campaign is being worked by bench warmer mercs, clock watching wage slaves, and whatever "Bloomberg for president" true believers that are actually out there. And close personal friends. He does own a media company. He may have had a few in his pocket on retainer waiting for the right time.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

7th January 2020, 06:53 AM	#169
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza the example of Kamala Harris suggests that they do. Obama in 2008 and O'Rourke's early senate run as well. Get some smart and passionate people on your side and you''l blow up expectations.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

7th January 2020, 08:22 AM	#170
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	Originally Posted by Donal Obama in 2008 and O'Rourke's early senate run as well. Get some smart and passionate people on your side and you''l blow up expectations. You are not demonstrating that you are controlling for other variables in your assessment.

7th January 2020, 08:40 AM	#171
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,602	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger My current thoughts: Bloomberg vs Steyer. I could give a rip that they are both rich. It's just as stupid to use that as a filter as it is to say I'm not going to vote for any white male. Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. There's no way he would lose to Trump, I don't care what Biden is polling. I watched a campaign event with Steyer tonight. I agree with everything he stands for and in no way is he disingenuous. This is the candidate we need. But he's the candidate for the liberal intellectual. He's got to step up his game. Originally Posted by angrysoba May I ask what makes you think the ads are effective? Which ones? Where are they being broadcast? And how you come to the conclusion that he could not lose to Trump? Is there polling on this? Or do you know people who voted Trump who are swayed by Bloomberg? As I said just upthread, I'm finding Steyer's ads more effective, though I couldn't actually say why. I don't recall seeing ads for anyone but those two. We'll probably have to get by Iowa and NH to start seeing others.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

7th January 2020, 08:43 AM	#172
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	Originally Posted by Trebuchet As I said just upthread, I'm finding Steyer's ads more effective, though I couldn't actually say why. I don't recall seeing ads for anyone but those two. We'll probably have to get by Iowa and NH to start seeing others. What is your history of being affected by ads? Do product ads work on you?

7th January 2020, 09:05 AM	#173
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,543	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. What does this mean? Is he putting out ads that say stuff you agree with? Is he putting out ads that change your mind on stuff you feel strongly about? Is he putting out ads that have good results according to reputable opinion polls? What kind of good results? Good results versus Trump? Or good results versus the other candidates he's actually competing with at the moment?

7th January 2020, 10:48 AM	#174
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,845	Bernie Sanders is the most effective candidate so far. Democratic insiders who for years have been brushing him off have recognized that he could win the nomination. And they're no doubt worried. He does the most with less. The least big money funding. The least mainstream media coverage given his favorability among registered Democrats. It's only a matter of time before Joe Biden's name recognition sugar high wears off.

7th January 2020, 10:59 AM	#175
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,543	Most effective? Or most efficient?

7th January 2020, 11:08 AM	#176
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,845	Originally Posted by theprestige Most effective? Or most efficient? I'd say both. And for somebody often regarded as not having much of a chance to win he sure scares the bejeezus out of established heavies of both parties.

7th January 2020, 11:22 AM	#177
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,181	Originally Posted by Venom It's only a matter of time before Joe Biden's name recognition sugar high wears off. I can't imagine the effect getting any better for him, at least. Name recognition is most useful when people aren't really paying close attention. As we get closer to real voting, name recognition alone will become less valuable. I'm hoping that anything but a strong win in the early states will pretty much tank Biden's support. A win for Bernie in these early states would be huge. Seems that many of the pundits are determined to cover him as a fringe candidate, despite his consistently strong performance.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

7th January 2020, 11:39 AM	#178
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,602	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward What is your history of being affected by ads? Do product ads work on you? Much as we like to deny it, they work on everyone to some degree. Even if it's just getting you aware the product exists.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

7th January 2020, 11:41 AM	#179
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,845	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey ...I'm hoping that anything but a strong win in the early states will pretty much tank Biden's support. A win for Bernie in these early states would be huge. Seems that many of the pundits are determined to cover him as a fringe candidate, despite his consistently strong performance. So far it looks like Sanders is pretty much tied with Biden (and Buttigieg) in Iowa. He's first place in New Hampshire by a small margin. Second in Nevada. Sanders has a significantly more enthusiastic level of support compared to Biden or Buttigieg in these early states, according to YouGov. A good chunk of Biden's support is because he's regarded as the safe choice, thinking Sanders is "too far left", again, the self-fulfilling prophecy, but there's no indication that they wouldn't vote for Sanders in the general.

7th January 2020, 09:08 PM	#180
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,826	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Do we know if quality of staffers even matter? Originally Posted by BobTheCoward How so? How do you isolate it to staffers and not any other issue with the candidate herself or other variables outside of their control? Originally Posted by BobTheCoward You are not demonstrating that you are controlling for other variables in your assessment. Originally Posted by BobTheCoward What is your history of being affected by ads? Do product ads work on you? This is politics, Bob. In particular, this thread centers on a very, very messy political process that won't end for months and months and one in which we all express our OPINIONS. If you want precision, accuracy and hard facts, go somewhere else.

7th January 2020, 11:08 PM	#181
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,323	Originally Posted by Venom So far it looks like Sanders is pretty much tied with Biden (and Buttigieg) in Iowa. He's first place in New Hampshire by a small margin. Second in Nevada. Sanders has a significantly more enthusiastic level of support compared to Biden or Buttigieg in these early states, according to YouGov. A good chunk of Biden's support is because he's regarded as the safe choice, thinking Sanders is "too far left", again, the self-fulfilling prophecy, but there's no indication that they wouldn't vote for Sanders in the general. Last I saw, I think it was about 1/3 of the people for Biden were pretty much there because he was polling the highest/was being claimed to be most electable. As for indications about Bernie... depends what you count as an indication. Last I saw, Bernie and Biden's favorability ratings were roughly tied, with both having quite a significant number of people who would be disappointed if they were nominated.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

8th January 2020, 05:50 AM	#182
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	Originally Posted by SezMe This is politics, Bob. In particular, this thread centers on a very, very messy political process that won't end for months and months and one in which we all express our OPINIONS. If you want precision, accuracy and hard facts, go somewhere else. This is a skepticism forum. This is the place where claims of fact (that isn't just an opinion) should not be uttered if it doesn't survive skeptical inquiry. Sounds like you are in the wrong place. Everywhere else spouts off claims of fact that are devoid of analysis. This is the one place that would be different.

8th January 2020, 07:59 AM	#183
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,371	Originally Posted by SezMe This is politics, Bob. In particular, this thread centers on a very, very messy political process that won't end for months and months and one in which we all express our OPINIONS. If you want precision, accuracy and hard facts, go somewhere else. Spoilsport! I was looking forward to a scientific study concerning the impact of ads on Trebuchet.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. My authority is total - Trump

8th January 2020, 09:25 AM	#184
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,602	Originally Posted by varwoche Spoilsport! I was looking forward to a scientific study concerning the impact of ads on Trebuchet. I have no opinion on that.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

8th January 2020, 12:02 PM	#185
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 21,970	Originally Posted by Trebuchet I have no opinion on that. But if you watched my ad you would.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

8th January 2020, 12:43 PM	#186
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,279	This article on The Root, backed up by evidence, paints an even uglier picture of mayor Pete than was previously known nationally with regards to racism in his police force. Among other issues, the black police who left the force all described rampant racism as their reason for reason, with several filing EEOC complaint. Emails, meeting requests, complaints, and public statements, were apparently all unheard by one Mayor Pete. More disturbingly, the black fire chief and mayor's assistant had also been removed soon after he came into office. I can see him replacing his own assistant with a trusted ally, possibly, but police and fire chiefs as well?
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,279	Last edited by Mumbles; 8th January 2020 at 12:45 PM.

8th January 2020, 01:29 PM	#188
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,790	Originally Posted by Trebuchet As I said just upthread, I'm finding Steyer's ads more effective, though I couldn't actually say why. I don't recall seeing ads for anyone but those two. We'll probably have to get by Iowa and NH to start seeing others. Just the fact Steyer is entering the TV ad market makes him more effective than the candidates that aren't. They're both investing significant money. Steyer says the right things in his ads: climate change and taking Trump out. He looks mild mannered which is fine for me. Bloomberg is much more forceful, names a slew of things: healthcare, jobs, gun control, and touts having done specific things addressing those same issues in NY as experience. For the average voter, Bloomberg looks better.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

8th January 2020, 01:33 PM	#189
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,790	Originally Posted by theprestige What does this mean? Is he putting out ads that say stuff you agree with? Is he putting out ads that change your mind on stuff you feel strongly about? Is he putting out ads that have good results according to reputable opinion polls? What kind of good results? Good results versus Trump? Or good results versus the other candidates he's actually competing with at the moment? It means, I know a good ad when I see one. I don't care if you believe that. As for stuff I agree with, you don't need to be insulting. The polls don't yet reflect these ads.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

8th January 2020, 01:41 PM	#190
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,790	Originally Posted by Venom Bernie Sanders is the most effective candidate so far. Democratic insiders who for years have been brushing him off have recognized that he could win the nomination. And they're no doubt worried. He does the most with less. The least big money funding. The least mainstream media coverage given his favorability among registered Democrats. It's only a matter of time before Joe Biden's name recognition sugar high wears off. All those things were said last time and he lost the primary. You need some evidence supporting the claim Party insiders are working against either Sanders or Warren. All he had last time was the debate schedule that was rectified. Then there were Party leaders individually supporting Clinton, like a lot of us. You can't expect the DNC leaders to work to elect the candidate they aren't going to vote for. IMO Sanders overplayed this card to his detriment. OTOH, I'm quite annoyed the MSM isn't noting that Biden's lead is only because Sanders and Warren split the vote. They could at least stop treating Biden as if he is already the candidate. So I agree with you there.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

8th January 2020, 01:45 PM	#191
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,790	Originally Posted by Mumbles This article on The Root, backed up by evidence, paints an even uglier picture of mayor Pete than was previously known nationally with regards to racism in his police force. Among other issues, the black police who left the force all described rampant racism as their reason for reason, with several filing EEOC complaint. Emails, meeting requests, complaints, and public statements, were apparently all unheard by one Mayor Pete. More disturbingly, the black fire chief and mayor's assistant had also been removed soon after he came into office. I can see him replacing his own assistant with a trusted ally, possibly, but police and fire chiefs as well? More IMO: Buttigieg was the media's darling. That's wearing off. And the longer the campaign goes on and Biden's honeymoon is over, all his awful gaffes will get more air time.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

8th January 2020, 03:23 PM	#192
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,845	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger All those things were said last time and he lost the primary. He was the new guy last time and fairly slow to get his name out there, partly because of the pitiful coverage he received compared to the loudmouth on the other side. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You need some evidence supporting the claim Party insiders are working against either Sanders or Warren. All he had last time was the debate schedule that was rectified. I'm not saying they're actively working against them, but they're worried.

8th January 2020, 03:30 PM	#193
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,543	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It means, I know a good ad when I see one. I don't care if you believe that. Of course you care. If you didn't care what people thought about your ad opinions, you wouldn't have posted them. You claimed Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. Your explanation of how you know this is that you just know it. Is that really the extent of your qualifications?

8th January 2020, 04:23 PM	#194
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,790	Originally Posted by theprestige Of course you care. If you didn't care what people thought about your ad opinions, you wouldn't have posted them. You claimed Bloomberg is putting out incredibly effective ads. Your explanation of how you know this is that you just know it. Is that really the extent of your qualifications? You missed this, apparently: Originally Posted by SG I don't care if *you* believe that. This is a tad different than my professional education and experience. I don't expect people to remember what different forum members' skills are. But there are some people here I've seen enough of their posts to know what professional and lay skills they might have. I have been posting about messaging, marketing and propaganda since I joined the JREF in 2005. I presented (was chosen) a Sunday Paper (talk) at TAM 5 (2007) on the subject titled "Deciphering the Language Code". I spoke about George Lakoff, framing and narratives as far back as that. And I have posted about Frank Luntz's focus groups and his book, Words that Work ad nauseum when GW was in office. My posts speak for themselves. If you don't believe a particular claim or opinion I've posed on the subject of narratives, framing, propaganda or marketing you are welcome to do your own research. This is not a subject I feel particularly obligated to post a thesis bibliography on.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it. Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th January 2020 at 04:28 PM.

8th January 2020, 04:34 PM	#195
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,543	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You missed this, apparently: I saw that, but assumed (wrongly, I guess) that you weren't making this personal about me. Quote: My posts speak for themselves. If you don't believe a particular claim or opinion I've posed on the subject of narratives, framing, propaganda or marketing you are welcome to do your own research. This is not a subject I feel particularly obligated to post a thesis bibliography on. That which can be claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

8th January 2020, 04:35 PM	#196
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,273	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You missed this, apparently: This is a tad different than my professional education and experience. I don't expect people to remember what different forum members' skills are. But there are some people here I've seen enough of their posts to know what professional and lay skills they might have. I have been posting about messaging, marketing and propaganda since I joined the JREF in 2005. I presented (was chosen) a Sunday Paper (talk) at TAM 5 (2007) on the subject titled "Deciphering the Language Code". I spoke about George Lakoff, framing and narratives as far back as that. And I have posted about Frank Luntz's focus groups and his book, Words that Work ad nauseum when GW was in office. My posts speak for themselves. If you don't believe a particular claim or opinion I've posed on the subject of narratives, framing, propaganda or marketing you are welcome to do your own research. This is not a subject I feel particularly obligated to post a thesis bibliography on. Always love it when just an example or two would suffice, several paragraphs are written explaining why that won't happen, and then finished off with lament over the effort it would take. Really, it takes very little effort to post "I will not defend my premise" and leave it at that.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 8th January 2020 at 04:36 PM.