• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
The Dems objectively and provably have stances and policies that are supported by a majority of Americans. If they could just like... push those with some balls instead of freaking out about their pet projects like a kid that got too much sugar every time they get the smallest amount of power they would be unbeatable.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Hear! Hear!
 
Distracted1 said:
The Presidency is different, in that it is the only elected position that needs to secure votes in rural Wyoming, Hawaii, and Manhattan.
Click to expand...

We know that's not true. How many rallies are held in "rural Wyoming"? Wyoming has too few electoral votes to matter. The same is true, for example, with California. Its electoral votes are as good as already cast. Same with Alabama. There are only about 6 states that really matter and they get (a guess) 80% of the attention.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'd rather people just listen to me and make their own efforts to understand what Lakoff was referring to when he said the GOP gets it and the Democrats don't.
Click to expand...

The framing BS? Look, the guy is a linguistics expert, but his political science expertise is negligible. It's been 15 years since Don't Think of An Elephant came out. Lakoff himself is far left; he's currrently drawing pay from a Spanish socialist party according to his Wikipedia bio. Of course he is going to market silly claims that the far left could sweep to victory if only they used the phrasing he suggests.
 
SezMe said:
We know that's not true. How many rallies are held in "rural Wyoming"? Wyoming has too few electoral votes to matter. The same is true, for example, with California. Its electoral votes are as good as already cast. Same with Alabama. There are only about 6 states that really matter and they get (a guess) 80% of the attention.
Click to expand...

I suspect both sides will have a fair amount of rallies in California, if only to raise the dough. There are more than six swing states that matter and even the small ones might in a close election.

States that went by 5% or less in the 2016 election to either candidate: Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Aside from Maine, Nevada (for now) and New Hampshire those are electoral college vote-rich states. And that's ignoring traditional battleground states like Missouri and Ohio, which I guarantee the candidates will not do.
 
Brainster said:
The framing BS? Look, the guy is a linguistics expert, but his political science expertise is negligible. It's been 15 years since Don't Think of An Elephant came out. Lakoff himself is far left; he's currrently drawing pay from a Spanish socialist party according to his Wikipedia bio. Of course he is going to market silly claims that the far left could sweep to victory if only they used the phrasing he suggests.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...looking into this, if anyone seems to have been following Lakoff’s advice it would be Andrew Yang whose “freedom dividend” seems to be exactly the type of thing Lakoff might have labeled.

Framing is definitely not entirely irrelevant. There has been some pretty solid cognitive science that demonstrates people make different decisions depending on how dilemmas are framed. People seem to have a bigger aversion for losses than they do enthusiasm for gains, for example (and interestingly, there is a foreign language effect in which someone being asked questions such as those on their second language are less affected by framing).

But, I am skeptical that there is a lot of hard evidence for a large effect on framing. There are so many other variables that can come into play about how people make decisions. From what I remember about the post-Morten of last election, people who voted for Trump almost overwhelmingly did so because...drum roll... they were Republicans and he was their candidate!

That still leaves the important swings in key areas which could be down to various reasons, but among them was the possibility that people there didn’t like Clinton, or that she hadn’t campaigned hard enough in those states whereas Trump was much active. Could that have been overconfidence? There certainly was overconfidence in a lot of areas. Also, the Comey letter probably had an effect. And then there are various other pet theories which have lower credibility but which are sometimes just as stridently claimed - Trump was taller than Clinton; Trump’s a man; Trump appealed to the racists and that’s what persuaded them that he was their guy when previously it had been Obama etc...

But finally, the strong interpretation of Lakoffian framing (assuming that is what is being put forward) is that the electorate are mindless automatons who just respond to sound bites alone. Of course, we are talking about other voters here, right? Not is! We’re skeptics and we can see through the smokescreen that’s employed by others. But let’s crank up the smokescreen machine anyway because that’s all the voters know!
 
angrysoba said:
Hmmm...looking into this, if anyone seems to have been following Lakoff’s advice it would be Andrew Yang whose “freedom dividend” seems to be exactly the type of thing Lakoff might have labeled.
Click to expand...

Everything old is new again; IIRC George McGovern proposed a $1000 a year benefit to everybody.

Framing is definitely not entirely irrelevant. There has been some pretty solid cognitive science that demonstrates people make different decisions depending on how dilemmas are framed. People seem to have a bigger aversion for losses than they do enthusiasm for gains, for example (and interestingly, there is a foreign language effect in which someone being asked questions such as those on their second language are less affected by framing).
Click to expand...

Nobody denies that framing can affect decisions. The obvious one is the .99/1.99/2.99 kind of pricing.

But, I am skeptical that there is a lot of hard evidence for a large effect on framing. There are so many other variables that can come into play about how people make decisions. From what I remember about the post-Morten of last election, people who voted for Trump almost overwhelmingly did so because...drum roll... they were Republicans and he was their candidate!
Click to expand...

And framing can only work so far. Warren has gotten a lot of blowback over her refusal to admit that her plan would increase taxes on the middle class, even from a very sympathetic media.

That still leaves the important swings in key areas which could be down to various reasons, but among them was the possibility that people there didn’t like Clinton, or that she hadn’t campaigned hard enough in those states whereas Trump was much active. Could that have been overconfidence? There certainly was overconfidence in a lot of areas. Also, the Comey letter probably had an effect. And then there are various other pet theories which have lower credibility but which are sometimes just as stridently claimed - Trump was taller than Clinton; Trump’s a man; Trump appealed to the racists and that’s what persuaded them that he was their guy when previously it had been Obama etc...

But finally, the strong interpretation of Lakoffian framing (assuming that is what is being put forward) is that the electorate are mindless automatons who just respond to sound bites alone. Of course, we are talking about other voters here, right? Not is! We’re skeptics and we can see through the smokescreen that’s employed by others. But let’s crank up the smokescreen machine anyway because that’s all the voters know
Click to expand...
!

Not sure what to say here. Yes there is a lot of BS flowing out of both sides in an election year. The point I would make about Lakoff is that his theories got a lot of attention about 15 years ago, and they seem to be largely dormant these days.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Everything old is new again; IIRC George McGovern proposed a $1000 a year benefit to everybody.
Click to expand...

Ah! But how was his framing?

Brainster said:
Nobody denies that framing can affect decisions. The obvious one is the .99/1.99/2.99 kind of pricing.



And framing can only work so far. Warren has gotten a lot of blowback over her refusal to admit that her plan would increase taxes on the middle class, even from a very sympathetic media.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what I am saying.
Brainster said:
!

Not sure what to say here. Yes there is a lot of BS flowing out of both sides in an election year. The point I would make about Lakoff is that his theories got a lot of attention about 15 years ago, and they seem to be largely dormant these days.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are assuming we are disagreeing or that I am debating this with you. I’m not. I’m just adding my two yen for what they are worth.
 
ArchSas said:
In regards to the sentence I highlighted: Did he though? Due to low voter turnout combined with his popular vote loss, Trump was able to win the presidency with votes from only about 27 percent of eligible voters in the country. That's incredibly low, lower than most estimates of his base (which I usually see around 30%), or usual figures for his approval rating.

That's not to discount your assertion. If anything, I agree with it overall - Trump does seem to be alienating potential voters, if the growing popularity of impeachment is any indication. But I've always been skeptical of the narrative that Trump was able to win the election by motivating a bunch of swing voters. His support has always existed somewhere in that 25-30-ish percentage of voters, as far as I've seen. Based on the numbers, it's always looked to me like voter apathy did Trump a huge favor and allowed him to squeak by thanks to support from his base, and the disproportionate effect of that support in the electoral college. He's losing popularity, and that's worse for him than I think most people realize, because Trump has never seemed to have much support outside of his base.
Click to expand...

No question about this. I agree and we saw the results at the midterms. Voter turnout is imperative. How many people thought that Hillary was going to win and didn't vote? My guess is a lot more than who will admit it.

But nailing down why he won on a single reason is folly IMO. It's like a football game won by a single point on 50 yard field goal on the last play. Sure, you could blame it on the kicker but the game was 60 minutes long. A missed tackle here, a holding penalty there and the outcome could be changed.

I really believe the GOP is in for a shellacking in 2020. The worst thing they can do is defend this guy. They need to accept that Trump is corrupt and impeach him with an overwhelming vote. Then they have a 10 months to rehabilitate their brand. Otherwise they look dishonest and pathetic.
 
acbytesla said:
I really believe the GOP is in for a shellacking in 2020. The worst thing they can do is defend this guy. They need to accept that Trump is corrupt and impeach him with an overwhelming vote. Then they have a 10 months to rehabilitate their brand. Otherwise they look dishonest and pathetic.
Click to expand...

That's the question: would they care, and would looking pathetic to you and me mean that they look great to enough people to get elected again?
 
Belz... said:
That's the question: would they care, and would looking pathetic to you and me mean that they look great to enough people to get elected again?
Click to expand...

That is the question. That was also the question during the midterms. Trump couldn't resist making every race about him and every Democrat was fine with that strategy. The result? Republicans lost 40 seats.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You have to admit electability is unusually important this go round.

And as far as Clinton, I don't think winning by 3 million votes and still losing by a couple thousand in three states means she was unappealing.
Click to expand...

That's true. A better measure that she was unappealing was that 2016 was a very high turnout election but she received the same or less votes than in recent elections where turnout was lower. Votes for 3rd party candidates were 4x higher than recent elections because neither Trump nor Clinton was terribly appealing.
 
Speaking of Clinton

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny.../politics/democratic-candidates-2020.amp.html

When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked. But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race — but could be lured in.

Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor?
Click to expand...

Anyone who wants Clinton to get into the race is completely out of touch in my opinion.
 
Brainster said:
The framing BS? ....
Click to expand...
See, this is the problem, people don't get it how advanced and significant marketing science actually is.

And it doesn't make a lick of difference which party Lakoff supports. I cited Rove and Luntz, both staunch Republicans as well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom