IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New That's rich
If there's one thing Bernie supporters love to hate about Hillary it's her relentless pragmatism, her willingness to always take a half a loaf.

But here you are triangulating demographic probabilities while saying that not only do you not understand those trends, but find them completely illogical.

If you don't know why a huge demographic is choosing Hillary over Bernie head-to-head, are you really the right person to project outcomes in a hypothetical three-way?

And it's revealing that triangulation-over-idealism is just fine in your world when you think the triangulation works in your favor.
--

Drew
New Talk about non responsive.
I was answering a direct question as best I could. I don't know what warped brand of logic leads to a conclusion that such an effort is "triangulation."

I found this to be an interesting aside. In another thread on this board, I explained that I'd written my county board of elections to see if I could "un-register" and she quickly replied that I could by just mailing in a signed letter requesting such. I thanked her in my reply and said that should I ultimately come to that decision, I'd write her in the manner she specified. I told her I didn't think it was smart for me to do that at this point; that I was still very angry about how the primaries turned out. Her reply I found interesting, given her job. She said, "I completely understand. This is a highly unusual year and likely changes are coming. [I] just hope the US can survive and prosper."

One of Colbert's first guests was Donald Trump, whom he introduced as, "The last President of the United States." That was supposed to be a joke, but it might not be.
New "I don't know why this demographic votes the way they do ..."
"... but I know how that demographic is going to vote in a hypothetical race."

To predict (or to persuade) you have to empathise. You can't or won't.
--

Drew
New I didn't say "I know how they'll vote."
I said, "I've no reason to think that given their preference for Hillary over Bernie in the Democratic Primary, they'd change their voting pattern if Trump was added to the mix." There's a pretty big difference between those statements.
New You know this is all recorded, right?
... the votes Trump will most definitely get from the Rust Belt.

... at least half of them would vote for Bernie.

... I firmly believe the Rust Belt vote would be at least split ...

My point is you admit you have no idea why minorities vote the way you do, yet you base your analysis on your absolute confidence in how these other groups will vote.

All you know is who you will or won't vote for, and what reasons you tell yourself for those choices. You are completely unable to see someone else's point of view long enough to understand their choices.
--

Drew
New I'm glad it is. An important part of reading is comprehension.
Context:
rcareaga:
But seriously: If Clinton has some kind of leg up with minorities, why do you suppose that might be? ... But you allude in passing to her support from the "minority" populace, which has certainly worked to Sanders' disadvantage during the primaries, and it seems odd that you would not address the reasons for their apparent unresponsiveness to Sanders' message.


Me:
I said "built in advantage" only because there was a strong preference by minorities shown for her during the primaries and I have no reason to believe that will somehow disappear in November, two-way or three-way race notwithstanding. ... But if you won't stand for me not speculating about it, all I can say is I suppose it is familiarity.


And then there's this from you:
My point is you admit you have no idea why minorities vote the way you do, yet you base your analysis on your absolute confidence in how these other groups will vote.


I "admit I have no idea why minorities vote the way I do"? This is pointless.
New Are you disagreeing that you've admitted that?
--

Drew
New Congratulations. You've completely baffled me.
     Found your new drinking buddy, mmoffitt - (rcareaga) - (14)
         These guys slept through 2008 I guess. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott)
         Not really. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
             Clinton's "built in" advantage with minority voters - (rcareaga) - (11)
                 Irrelevant -NT - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                     Move to strike as non-responsive - (rcareaga) - (9)
                         "Why?" is irrelevant in the context of my post. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                             That's rich - (drook) - (7)
                                 Talk about non responsive. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                     "I don't know why this demographic votes the way they do ..." - (drook) - (5)
                                         I didn't say "I know how they'll vote." - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                             You know this is all recorded, right? - (drook) - (3)
                                                 I'm glad it is. An important part of reading is comprehension. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     Are you disagreeing that you've admitted that? -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Congratulations. You've completely baffled me. -NT - (mmoffitt)

We're not surrounded, we're in a target-rich environment!
58 ms