Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

cite please? With Hil there was a limited number of outrages. She killed Vince Foster, and Whitewater, then years off until Benghazi and then the emails. But I remember entire weeks where we only had to reflect on those outrages, nothing new at all.

Also, while you are at it, find a cite where someone retracted she killed VF, or that WW was fine, or that she acted properly with Benghazi or the emails?

I reacted to a specific thing that Sebby said, that Lawrence O'Donnell's report about Trump having Russian co-signers "is the crap that's going to get Trump re-elected." I object to this notion that people are going to vote for Trump instead of a Democrat because they think he is treated unfairly by the news media. Has Sebastian ever suggested that a Democrat who is treated by the news media benefits from it? No. The kind of person who will pull the lever for a Republican because the candidate has been treated unfairly by the media is the sort of person who is looking for an excuse to vote for a conservative, not a true swing voter. It's Lucy and the football.

It doesn't mean there aren't swing voters. There's a separate conversation about whether what Democrats should assume that everyone is going to vote, and do their best to persuade the people who are on the fence, or whether what matters is motivating the people who are already inclined to vote Democratic. (Note that Trump is not trying to persuade anyone. He constantly plays to motivate his base.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I reacted to a specific thing that Sebby said, that Lawrence O'Donnell's report about Trump having Russian co-signers "is the crap that's going to get Trump re-elected." I object to this notion that people are going to vote for Trump instead of a Democrat because they think he is treated unfairly by the news media. Has Sebastian ever suggested that a Democrat who is treated by the news media benefits from it? No. The kind of person who will pull the lever for a Republican because the candidate has been treated unfairly by the media is the sort of person who is looking for an excuse to vote for a conservative, not a true swing voter. It's Lucy and the football.

It doesn't mean there aren't swing voters. There's a separate conversation about whether what Democrats should assume that everyone is going to vote, and do their best to persuade the people who are on the fence, or whether what matters is motivating the people who are already inclined to vote Democratic. (Note that Trump is not trying to persuade anyone. He constantly plays to motivate his base.)

A guy who might be bothered by Trump’s shite can get to ignoring it if he sees contrived allegations. That is a fact, again, doesn’t matter as we can’t control what is printed, but it distracts from Trump being held to standards if there is too much background noise.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Has Sebastian ever suggested that a Democrat who is treated by the news media benefits from it? No.

Agreed. It’s a different situation.

The kind of person who will pull the lever for a Republican because the candidate has been treated unfairly by the media is the sort of person who is looking for an excuse to vote for a conservative, not a true swing voter. It's Lucy and the football.

I’d agree with that if I lived near you, viewing these voters in the abstract. But running into them, going to D and R events, there are a lot of voters disgusted with both... But encouraged by the economy. Hence I cited incumbent advantage.

It doesn't mean there aren't swing voters. There's a separate conversation about whether what Democrats should assume that everyone is going to vote, and do their best to persuade the people who are on the fence, or whether what matters is motivating the people who are already inclined to vote Democratic. (Note that Trump is not trying to persuade anyone. He constantly plays to motivate his base.)

Trump’s an amazingly lucky lunatic. Democrats: Don’t Try This At Home.

FWIW, my Democrat friends who are involved in Rust Belt claim there's a 15% shy Trump voter adjustment that needs to be applied to his numbers. That comes from mostly MI and OH intel. I don’t buy it as to PA. I think PA is blue. But WTF do I know.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A guy who might be bothered by Trump’s shite can get to ignoring it if he sees contrived allegations. That is a fact, again, doesn’t matter as we can’t control what is printed, but it distracts from Trump being held to standards if there is too much background noise.

Politics is zero sum. If you scream about how the President is criminal, get him impeached or indicted. Otherwise, shut up and focus on beating him at the ballot box.

Three years of hand wringing and media about scandals sure to result in indictment or impeachment and what have we got? Tumbleweeds.

Democrats can beat this guy in the election, or they can continue to look like people crying for fouls in a game of street ball. They might even be able to do both. But engaging in the latter makes the former a lot harder.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How come the phenomena Sebby is describing always helps Republicans but never Democrats?

Because Rs don’t use the media the same way as Ds.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A guy who might be bothered by Trump’s shite can get to ignoring it if he sees contrived allegations. That is a fact, again, doesn’t matter as we can’t control what is printed, but it distracts from Trump being held to standards if there is too much background noise.

I am not in favor of contrived allegations or fake news. Not only can we not control what is printed, we can count on conservatives to complain that they are being treated unfairly by the media whether or not that is actually the case.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed. It’s a different situation.

Because it's not a thing at all. No one is moved to vote for a candidate just because they think that person is getting treated unfairly by the press. They only think that candidate is getting treated unfairly if they already sympathize with him, which means that they are supporters.

Conservatives may say something like this, because conservatives exist in a state of reaction. Someone who says something like this is temperamentally a conservative and is not really a vote lost to Democrats.

I’d agree with that if I lived near you, viewing these voters in the abstract. But running into them, going to D and R events, there are a lot of voters disgusted with both... But encouraged by the economy. Hence I cited incumbent advantage.

Yeah, see here again you are walking away from the stupid thing you said that I reacted too, talking about the folks you know who are swing voters. Whatever. Knock yourself out with the anthropology and how you know them better. In the end, not a single one of them will vote for Trump because Larry O'Donnell ran a story that wasn't kosher.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Politics is zero sum. If you scream about how the President is criminal, get him impeached or indicted. Otherwise, shut up and focus on beating him at the ballot box.

As I recall, that's exactly what you said when Trump kept going on about Hillary's emails, amiright?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because Rs don’t use the media the same way as Ds.

Right, which is to say that you are regurgitating GOP talking points (it's good news for the Republican! it's always good news for the Republican!) rather than describing how actual voters act.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Right, which is to say that you are regurgitating GOP talking points (it's good news for the Republican! it's always good news for the Republican!) rather than describing how actual voters act.

I’m stopping, maybe forever, trying to explain to you how swing voters think and vote.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I’m stopping, maybe forever, trying to explain to you how swing voters think and vote.

Do you honestly think that there is a single person anywhere who legit might have voted for a Democrat for President but who will vote for Trump because Larry O'Donnell ran that story that accused Trump of financial ties with Russians without sufficient basis?

Sebby doesn't think that. He knows that Trump and Republicans will complain that the episode proves that media don't treat conservatives fairly, and they will say that this is good news for them. It's a standard GOP talking point, something you would see if you watched FOX News or MSNBC or CNN long enough. Its function is to feed the conservative sense of grievance, and to try to make the media the subject of conversation rather that Republican candidates. It's not anyone's genuine explanation of how any actual swing voter behaves.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you honestly think that there is a single person anywhere who legit might have voted for a Democrat for President but who will vote for Trump because Larry O'Donnell ran that story that accused Trump of financial ties with Russians without sufficient basis?

Sebby doesn't think that. He knows that Trump and Republicans will complain that the episode proves that media don't treat conservatives fairly, and they will say that this is good news for them. It's a standard GOP talking point, something you would see if you watched FOX News or MSNBC or CNN long enough. Its function is to feed the conservative sense of grievance, and to try to make the media the subject of conversation rather that Republican candidates. It's not anyone's genuine explanation of how any actual swing voter behaves.

Let me dumb this down as much as I can-

there are people who might think, "hmm, this Trump seems to be doing some bad stuff. I think I may vote against him as I am troubled by the bad stuff." But then there is a pile on of only so so bad more stuff, and other bad stuff that someone turns around and says was not true.

At some point the impact of the original bad stuff gets lessened, and maybe the person decides not to vote against Trump. No one is saying a strong dem vote is switching to Trump.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Let me dumb this down as much as I can-

there are people who might think, "hmm, this Trump seems to be doing some bad stuff. I think I may vote against him as I am troubled by the bad stuff." But then there is a pile on of only so so bad more stuff, and other bad stuff that someone turns around and says was not true.

At some point the impact of the original bad stuff gets lessened, and maybe the person decides not to vote against Trump. No one is saying a strong dem vote is switching to Trump.

You lose me at the first sentence of the last paragraph. People understand that Trump is bad because of x, y and z. There's a story that Trump is also bad because a, and then that story is debunked. Why would anyone let that change their view on x, y and z? Who thinks like that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You lose me at the first sentence of the last paragraph. People understand that Trump is bad because of x, y and z. There's a story that Trump is also bad because a, and then that story is debunked. Why would anyone let that change their view on x, y and z? Who thinks like that?

You assume people have read things in detail. There are people who have a passing knowledge that Trump did X and it is bad. Trump of course says "not X," but this person is sort of thinking maybe Trump is lying. Then em sees someone say "Trump did y." A day later he says, "sorry Trump didn't do Y."

Since em did not form a very detailed study of x, that can shake how em feels about Trump.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No one is moved to vote for a candidate just because they think that person is getting treated unfairly by the press.

If they're aggravated with what they think is a dishonest media, they will doubt Trump is as awful as the media claims. This makes it easier for them to vote for him over Biden.

They only think that candidate is getting treated unfairly if they already sympathize with him, which means that they are supporters.

It's not sympathy at all. It's suspicion at being lied to. Again, Trump openly lies. Even the least sophisticated Rust Belt voter understands he's a con man. But that's a devil they know. When the media is busted - over and over, as it has been - hyperbolizing or shading against Trump, the media looks sneaky. Nobody likes a sneak. And these people in the Rust Belt are huge fans of conspiracy theories. They suspect everything because they've been lied to for decades.

Conservatives may say something like this, because conservatives exist in a state of reaction.

Stop with this. The horse died months ago. Both sides are in perpetual states of reaction.

Yeah, see here again you are walking away from the stupid thing you said that I reacted too, talking about the folks you know who are swing voters. Whatever. Knock yourself out with the anthropology and how you know them better. In the end, not a single one of them will vote for Trump because Larry O'Donnell ran a story that wasn't kosher.

It's not just O'Donnell. It's a litany of accusations that simply aren't panning out. Swing voters who'll vote for Obama one cycle, then Trump the next, are clearly open to suggestion. A constant drumbeat of stories that promise smoking guns and keep coming up short suggests the accusers are trying to create a reality that isn't. It makes the accusers look like bullshitters. And no -- you can't argue the accusations would have stuck but for Trump's obstruction. If you're going to shoot at the bear, you'd better kill him.