• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What matters about Florida's Republican primary

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Texashiker said:
Nothing matters in the primaries, because its nothing but lies, lies and more lies.

How do you know when a politician is lying?

When their mouth is moving.
Click to expand...

That's a clueless response, ignoring the issues. Of nine people you say lie, money plays a huge role in which one of the nine wins the nomination. And that's a very old cliche.

Oh, and by the way, it's wrong and overly cynical.

Bernie Sanders is a politician. His mouth moves. Name me three lies he told.
 
PokerGuy said:
Craigfail as usual: assuming that correlation = causation. Romney used negative ads, he won. That doesn't mean that he won because of negative ads, he might have won by an even bigger margin using other ads. Maybe Newtster has too much baggage? Maybe some voters were turned off by some of his previous actions?

Craig is just whining about the C.U. ruling again, disguised to look like something else.
Click to expand...

Gingrich had a 30 point advantage in Florida at the end of November. IIRC ads started running in Florida some time in late December. By the end of January Romney had a commanding lead. That's quite some shift, wouldn't you say?

You're correct that correlation doesn't automatically = causation. However, when the correlational evidence is this compelling, you need to posit some plausible alternative explanation. If this was all fail on the part of Gingrich, what in particular was so "fail" about him starting in late December and running up through January that wasn't as much "fail" back in November?

If you guys really think that spending has little or nothing to do with an election outcome, I'll remember that come November should Obama happen to outspend his general election opponent. Just like he did in 2008, when conservatives seemed to think the spending mismatch was a pretty big deal.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
Gingrich had a 30 point advantage in Florida at the end of November. IIRC ads started running in Florida some time in late December. By the end of January Romney had a commanding lead. That's quite some shift, wouldn't you say?

You're correct that correlation doesn't automatically = causation. However, when the correlational evidence is this compelling, you need to posit some plausible alternative explanation. If this was all fail on the part of Gingrich, what in particular was so "fail" about him starting in late December and running up through January that wasn't as much "fail" back in November?

If you guys really think that spending has little or nothing to do with an election outcome, I'll remember that come November should Obama happen to outspend his general election opponent. Just like he did in 2008, when conservatives seemed to think the spending mismatch was a pretty big deal.
Click to expand...

There is a plausible alternative and that is the perception on the part of Republicans that Newt cannot win against Obama. You point to a 30 point advantage in November, but Newt has worked overtime to shoot himself in the feet in as many ways as possible. He didn't need much help to make himself look bad. He doesn't score in the personal morality department, he came up with the Moon project that most everyone look at somewhat aghast, he turned on Romney with his bizarre tactics. Does money play a factor? Of course, but the premise the thread was that since Romney and Newt are both unacceptable it was the money which determined how people felt. A factor? Probably, but no matter how one polishes Newt he still stinks in the end. That the OP portrays people as two dimensional characters aren't surprising since this involves Republicans, but there are demonstrably many reasons for Newt's loss other than appealing to the notion that there is no difference between Newt and Romney and therefore the only answer is money spent.
 
Dulanic said:
The funnier part is I actually agree with him LOL... I agree money is corrupting our political system and this Super PAC shit has got to go. Doesn't mean Newt wasn't going down either way. Craig this is why people say your bonkers... you're arguing with someone who agrees with you about the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

Your post was not clearly written - it sounded like you were saying money wasn't an issue, the issue was just that 'Gingrich is a turd'.

Your post above suggests you didn't mean that and agree the money was important in Romney helping convince voters of that. Just clarify you agree, then?
 
woolfe9999 said:
Gingrich had a 30 point advantage in Florida at the end of November. IIRC ads started running in Florida some time in late December. By the end of January Romney had a commanding lead. That's quite some shift, wouldn't you say?

You're correct that correlation doesn't automatically = causation. However, when the correlational evidence is this compelling, you need to posit some plausible alternative explanation. If this was all fail on the part of Gingrich, what in particular was so "fail" about him starting in late December and running up through January that wasn't as much "fail" back in November?

If you guys really think that spending has little or nothing to do with an election outcome, I'll remember that come November should Obama happen to outspend his general election opponent. Just like he did in 2008, when conservatives seemed to think the spending mismatch was a pretty big deal.
Click to expand...

You have to understand the context, however. for those who paid actual attention to the candidates, it was incredible, even slightly maddening that someone like Newt Gingrich was ahead of the pack when he had such clear character flaws and would be a completely unacceptable president.

Lots of voters you see didn't have that much information. All they saw was Newt putting on a performance in the debates. The ad money simply informed people of Newt's character flaws.

Ultimately I do think that the extra ad money has resulted in a more thorough "vetting" of any potential character flaws in the candidates for president, and ultimately has strengthened the candidates, Romney especially.
 
Gingrich lost Florida because he lost the women vote...

I don't recall any of the campaign ads on Gingrich targeting his moral character(if there was one, the political pundits didn't tell us about it) on multiple marriages/divorces, cheating on his wife dying on a cancer bed while doing a witch hunt on Clinton and such. All the ads I saw targeted his ethical character such as him committing fraud and ethics violations while in congress, and his lobbying venture with Freddie Mac/Frannie Mae.
 
karmypolitics said:
You have to understand the context, however. for those who paid actual attention to the candidates, it was incredible, even slightly maddening that someone like Newt Gingrich was ahead of the pack when he had such clear character flaws and would be a completely unacceptable president.

Lots of voters you see didn't have that much information. All they saw was Newt putting on a performance in the debates. The ad money simply informed people of Newt's character flaws.

Ultimately I do think that the extra ad money has resulted in a more thorough "vetting" of any potential character flaws in the candidates for president, and ultimately has strengthened the candidates, Romney especially.
Click to expand...

That's a bizarre misunderstanding of the effect the money has.
 
Craig234 said:
That's a bizarre misunderstanding of the effect the money has.
Click to expand...

You know what, you have zero credibility.

Your entire argument in this thread is based on "Romney is one of the most hated candidates in a long time in the party".

You are wrong in your basis of your argument. I mean, Rachel Maddow may have said this, I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past her to claim it to be true.

And yet you continue to act as if everything you concluded based on that "fact" of yours, is still 100% valid.
 
The most money usually wins an election, or a primary.

Also, people generally want to donate only to the candidate they believe will win, and not donate to a candidate they believe will not win.

There is a circular pattern. But, of course, this would require actual thinking skills to sort out what is really going on, whereas you just seem to go for whatever is the quickest way you can reach the conclusion that everything Republicans do is inherently evil.
 
Seriously

Ads work because most people do not devote the time to get to know candidates in detail.

The question is, is the problem the ads, or is the problem that people don't devote time to know the candidates?

I have to hope that everyone agrees with me that the solution to elections is for people to get to know the candidates. So the question is, are money and ads preventing someone who is motivated to get to know the candidates, from getting to know the candidates? I do not believe they are.

Will eliminating ads motivate other people to do in-depth research into the candidates? I do not believe it will.

So, um, yeah, what exactly was your point again? As a reminder, we are seeking solutions that make sense within the confines of reality.
 
Last edited:
To prove someone lies, you only need one lie. Here's one that Bernie Sanders told.

"BERNIE SANDERS: ....................I would like to see a couple of hundred thousand people come here to Washington, say hello to the president, say hello to the Republicans, say do not balance the budget on the middle class, the working families in this country, when the richest people are getting richer. They have not contributed one nickel to deficit reduction."

He's a politician, he lies.
 
monovillage said:
To prove someone lies, you only need one lie. Here's one that Bernie Sanders told.

"BERNIE SANDERS: ....................I would like to see a couple of hundred thousand people come here to Washington, say hello to the president, say hello to the Republicans, say do not balance the budget on the middle class, the working families in this country, when the richest people are getting richer. They have not contributed one nickel to deficit reduction."

He's a politician, he lies.
Click to expand...

Quiet, you!

All "Progressives" are infallible. The rich have never contributed one nickel to deficit reduction. The rich contribute in quarters and dollar bills and checks and bank transfers - but not in nickels.
 
cubby1223 said:
Quiet, you!

All "Progressives" are infallible. The rich have never contributed one nickel to deficit reduction. The rich contribute in quarters and dollar bills and checks and bank transfers - but not in nickels.
Click to expand...

Damn! I've been proven wrong yet again!



I don't agree with Bernie Sanders or think his positions help America. As far as politicians go he has more integrity then just about any others I could name, but he's still a politician.
 
monovillage said:
Damn! I've been proven wrong yet again!


I don't agree with Bernie Sanders or think his positions help America. As far as politicians go he has more integrity then just about any others I could name, but he's still a politician.
Click to expand...

While Sanders certainly is not despicable like some others are (e.g. Reid, Schumer), there is a basic reality to how the world works, how people interact with each other, that cannot be dictated through legislation. His ideas all sound so wonderful and comforting and squishy-good, but then you start to realize that, no, free-willed individuals will not be controlled in the manner that is necessary to enact his visions. So, instead of fighting for something that will never be, let's focus on solving what is realistically possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top