[amphibian]

The big negative ad campaigns mostly focus on the inadequacy of the targeted candidate to handle the supposed challenges about to come and try to embiggen the "correct" candidates's ability to do that. There is often a ton of coded language aimed at older white voters to scare them.

Usually, the direct character attacks come by verbal delivery during speeches. Trump has taken this to heights not seen in a long time (before big media was a thing).

The Americans are initially much more polite than what South African politicians appear to behave like. But it only lasts for a short while, as John Kerry found out with the blatant lies that were the Swift Boat maniacs.

[worry]

And Citizens United made it much easier for that kind of thing to become near-universal, especially since we know all these campaigns really do coordinate with the PACs and will never face a single consequence for doing so. The politicians never have to do any of the really dirty work themselves. That's how you can tell Trump and Cruz really just love being mean for its own sake.

[worry]

This did happen today though

[HoosierDaddy]

His campaign is a caricature.

"She said he's a pussy!"

"That's terrible!" Hurr hurr hurr.

But I'll repeat it. And gloat

Hurr hurr hurr.

Edit: He's just keeping it real man. Just keeping it real! No PC!

I desperately want to see a "when keeping it real goes wrong" Chapelle skit for Trump.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 09 February 2016 - 02:51 AM

[EmperorMagus]

HoosierDaddy, on 09 February 2016 - 02:48 AM, said:

His campaign is a caricature.

"She said he's a pussy!"

"That's terrible!" Hurr hurr hurr.

But I'll repeat it. And gloat

Hurr hurr hurr.

Edit: He's just keeping it real man. Just keeping it real! No PC!

I desperately want to see a "when keeping it real goes wrong" Chapelle skit for Trump.

NO.
He is a terrible person, and his political strategy may or may not be stupid, but he knows how to play a crowd and he does it well. He knows which people come to his campaign events and he keeps them happy.
I don't think his campaign is in anyway a caricature.

[Morgoth]

Cause, on 08 February 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

I just want to ask a question in regards to American politics. Dont mean to derail the thread just curious. I Understand that their are often negative add campaigns and the like, do they focus on bad politics or are the attacks very personnel?. How often do Politicians attack each other in the Senate for example (Verbally). What kind of attacks are made? Insults? Swearing etc?

I was just thinking today that its sad that in our over 20 years of democracy my country has not had one political debate. The best we get is one politician accusing another of being drunk or smoking Dagga when they propose an idea that another politician disagrees with. Or we have white politicians and sometimes Black politicians calling other black politicians monkeys. They slander each other in press statements and the like but never really engage each other directly. I find it quite sad. I was just wondering if maybe as a foreigner I am not exposed to the like from American politicians or any other politicians or perhaps its uniquely south Africa. I just find it hard to imagine a senetator accusing another of being on drugs because he is pro life or something.

Here politicians debate each other all the time. The prime minister is on a debate show on the regular defending herself from one sort of attack or another. Or arguing for a new plan. Or talking about economic numbers. Or something. I think it's healthy that she's expected to do so.

[Terez]

Cause, on 08 February 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

I just want to ask a question in regards to American politics. Dont mean to derail the thread just curious. I Understand that their are often negative add campaigns and the like, do they focus on bad politics or are the attacks very personnel?. How often do Politicians attack each other in the Senate for example (Verbally). What kind of attacks are made? Insults? Swearing etc?

Attack ads usually focus on hypocrisy and scandal. Usually just hypocrisy; for example: "X candidate says he's going to do this, but this is how he voted on it in the Senate!" It's very popular to try to juxtapose videos of candidates saying fundamentally opposite things, and the worst attack ads will take candidates' words out of context to do that. Like, if Obama were to make a speech where he says, "Republicans are saying, 'We should do this!'" And the people making the ad just have the video saying "We should do this!", making it look like that's Obama's position.

Gnaw, on 08 February 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

Terez, on 07 February 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:

worry - the moment I loved most was the one that inspired the sig update. Two election-breaking moments IMO, though Christie also assisted in Romney's demise, which makes him extra-worthy of a sig quote even if he's an asshole.

Damn. That was one of those moments that couldn't be written as fiction - nobody would believe it.

In both cases I was watching the debate in question live. With the Obama quote, the real moment of excitement was when Candy Crowley fact-checked it; "Please proceed, governor" became the gotcha quote after the fact, but it was so great. With Christie, "There it is" was the moment. It was instantly awesome. I had to look at my Twitter feed to see what all the journos were saying about it, and it basically boiled down to OMG RUBIO IS SO DEAD. Then after the debate they started questioning whether it would make the same impression on voters as it did on them.

[Terez]

For the furriners who aren't really paying attention, today is New Hampshire day. MSNBC already has their exciting Music of Democracy playing. The polls show Bernie with a very comfortable lead against Hillary, who won the state in 2008, and Trump with a comfortable lead on his side as well. The polls are all over the place when it comes to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place favorites in the GOP race; Kasich and Rubio are showing well, Bush and Christie less so. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Christie do better than expected tonight, since his take-down of Rubio the other night.

This is an actual primary rather than a caucus like Iowa, so the voting is just traditional voting, and we should know the results tonight.

[Gnaw]

Terez, on 09 February 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Gnaw, on 08 February 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

Terez, on 07 February 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:

worry - the moment I loved most was the one that inspired the sig update. Two election-breaking moments IMO, though Christie also assisted in Romney's demise, which makes him extra-worthy of a sig quote even if he's an asshole.

Damn. That was one of those moments that couldn't be written as fiction - nobody would believe it.

In both cases I was watching the debate in question live. With the Obama quote, the real moment of excitement was when Candy Crowley fact-checked it; "Please proceed, governor" became the gotcha quote after the fact, but it was so great. With Christie, "There it is" was the moment. It was instantly awesome. I had to look at my Twitter feed to see what all the journos were saying about it, and it basically boiled down to OMG RUBIO IS SO DEAD. Then after the debate they started questioning whether it would make the same impression on voters as it did on them.

Yeah, that was pretty much a career finisher in any sane world.

[Terez]

Early reports indicate that we'll have record-breaking turnout in NH today, just as the Republicans did in Iowa. (Turnout was also high for Democrats in Iowa, 2nd only to 2008.)

The theory goes that these anti-Establishment candidates (Trump, Bernie, Cruz) are bringing out the idealistic and passionate young voters who have no faith in the Establishment. Obama did something similar and similarly unprecedented in 2008, but Obama was not entirely an anti-Establishment candidate (though he was to an extent, running against Hillary, the prohibitive favorite going into the race). There are connections and overlaps, but 2016 is definitely a different beast, and it's more lively on the GOP side than it has been in a long time. They've been picking Establishment candidates for so long, the old saying goes: "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line." The base of the GOP has been dying to break that tradition since HW lost to Bill in 1992. They're still in love with Reagan.

[Terez]

For the record, the networks called the race on both sides the second the polls closed. NBC hesitated to call the D race, but only for like a minute. They called for Trump, then ABC called for both, so NBC added their call for Bernie.

The real story here will be 1) the margins on both sides, but particularly the Bernie-Hillary margin; and 2) the 2-5 places on the GOP side, which will determine who has viability going forward.

[worry]

The tortoise and the hare, my friend.

[Terez]

That's Hillary's line.

[Terez]

Ted Cruz's roommate quoted one of my tweets and now my notifications are going nuts.

[Terez]

Not really. Many of them are just subtweeting me, i.e. they're talking to each other, not to me. And it's not like I'm recruiting followers from this pool; my Twitter account was created for WoT stuff and the vast majority of my followers are fandom people.

PS: I'm not trying to complain; it's not that big a deal. Just thought it was amusing.

This post has been edited by Terez: 10 February 2016 - 02:34 AM

[worry]

A lot of people "in the know" seem to consider him a reasonable choice. He has executive experience as a governor, which theoretically should also give him outside-the-beltway appeal. His only scandals have been political, in that he's done great evil policy-wise in Ohio, but he hasn't had extracurricular stuff like sex or shutting down bridges, so that should have actually given him a leg up with Republicans. Personality-wise though he tends to give off a junior vibe, next to the really big loudmouths, so he hasn't caught on. Like he tells goofy jokes and shrugs a lot, like a little brother. These NH results are surprisingly good for him though, so maybe things'll turn around? He's probably the least likely to proactively screw up momentum going his way? I dunno, I thought that of Rubio already too, so whatever.

[Terez]

Briar King, on 10 February 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

Thoughts on Kasich? Idk anything about him besides he's the guy always at the end of debate stage but he got 2nd tonight.

Dumbledude, on 10 February 2016 - 04:03 AM, said:

A lot of people "in the know" seem to consider him a reasonable choice. He has executive experience as a governor, which theoretically should also give him outside-the-beltway appeal. His only scandals have been political, in that he's done great evil policy-wise in Ohio, but he hasn't had extracurricular stuff like sex or shutting down bridges, so that should have actually given him a leg up with Republicans. Personality-wise though he tends to give off a junior vibe, next to the really big loudmouths, so he hasn't caught on. Like he tells goofy jokes and shrugs a lot, like a little brother. These NH results are surprisingly good for him though, so maybe things'll turn around? He's probably the least likely to proactively screw up momentum going his way? I dunno, I thought that of Rubio already too, so whatever.

I have always thought that Kasich was actually worse in this regard than Rubio. Now, Rubio's glitch thing is kind of idiosyncratic, and I don't think Kasich has that problem in particular, but he's got his own problems. My impression of him at debates, particularly the earlier ones, is that he's incredibly rehearsed and unconvincing when he's on message. Rubio is rehearsed, but he's much more convincing when he's not repeating himself. I really wish Christie had done better tonight so he could take on Kasich like he took on Rubio. I don't think anyone else in the race is both brave enough and savvy enough to pull it off. And at this point, Christie might actually be reluctant to take down the most sensible GOP candidate; he doesn't have a bone to pick with Kasich like he did with Romney, at least not as far as I know, and not yet.

[worry]

Hillary advocates (and other jerks) really trying to rain on everyone's parade by bringing up her (as of now) superdelegates. I forgot about them. Try explaining that one to the non-Americans.

[Gnaw]

Dumbledude, on 10 February 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

Try explaining that one to the non-Americans.

Fixed that for you.

[Terez]

It's not that complicated. Most delegates are allotted according to the popular vote; others are elected officials--governors, etc.--who are free agents and can vote for whomever. They can be counted this early in the process only because they have already pledged to support Hillary. No one who holds public office is going to risk crossing Hillary when her opponent is himself a risky bet; the Clintons have a reputation for being unforgiving when it comes to that kind of thing.