General politics

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How much of political budgets are on TV advertising? I'd have to guess it is way over half of their budget. The sheer number of ads for political candidates is staggering this year. I truly don't watch a lot of TV either, but when I do, I can't help but notice the plethora of pitches for (actually mostly against) politicians.

I honestly don't know, I'm only speculating here.

 

But I do know that where you spend your money depends on who you're trying to reach. If you're trying to reach a person like me (early 40s though technologically speaking, I skew younger than my age due to my profession and general disposition), TV does nothing. You need focused social media and online advertising to reach me at all.

 

We're reaching the point where even people in their mid-30s don't experience traditional media in large numbers. It's not just a "young kids don't like TV" thing any more, fully formed adults have grown up in an age where traditional broadcast and cable TV is an afterthought.

 

I watched a Vikings game last week. It was literally the first broadcast experience I've had in the past... year or so? Maybe even longer. Either way, I have experienced fewer than five broadcast/cable TV experiences in the past three years. I've literally read more scientific journals about things outside my work field than I have experienced live TV shows/games/whatever in the past five years.

 

edit: Wait, not entirely true. I've seen snippets and pieces of Twins games on things like the TD Pub Crawl and while out and about. But it's usually a few minutes here, a few minutes there, and almost never more than an hour of watching overall.

[TheLeviathan]

I wonder how much advertising even matters anymore.  I know there is a lot of established belief about their value and role in a campaign, but I feel like the media age we're in and the bitter divide in politics renders those beliefs dubious.

[LaBombo]

 

But the commercials are so extreme, trying to make Sinema look like she supports child pedophiles etc., that I don't know they'll have any traction with the middle, but they could rile up the base.

 

 

Can we really be certain that only the conservative base is riled up by her calling stay-at-home moms "leeches" and Arizona the "meth lab of democracy"? It seems to me that those and other comments of hers could stray just ever-so-slightly across partisan lines.

 

If conservative PACs have resorted to false or deceptive ads, that's inexcusable. But for the life of me, I can't imagine why they would feel the need to with the freely available ammunition she's provided them with.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I wonder how much advertising even matters anymore. I know there is a lot of established belief about their value and role in a campaign, but I feel like the media age we're in and the bitter divide in politics renders those beliefs dubious.

SOMETHING matters, because lots of people vote across party lines on the same ballot.

 

What matters to those people? No idea.

[Mike Sixel]

Even after these last two years, we may lose Senate seats....and people think we can somehow win elections..........by, um, turning out voters? By what means? I'll believe it when I see it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Even after these last two years, we may lose Senate seats....and people think we can somehow win elections..........by, um, turning out voters? By what means? I'll believe it when I see it.

The Senate plays every six years. This was a bad year for Democrats. Even if there was as massive blue wave, the senate would be maybe 51-49.

[Mr. Brooks]

While I try to remain optimistic that America will do the right thing. I can't help but be skeptical, as Mike is.

At the very least, I think it is going to take a lot longer to change our course than some think. Trump is bulletproof among his supporters, and that was enough to win last time. I expect him to win again in 2020.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Senate plays every six years. This was a bad year for Democrats. Even if there was as massive blue wave, the senate would be maybe 51-49.

 

It's a numbers game, but it also matters where those seats come up.  No reasonable person is going to think, even in a blue wave, that Lindsay Graham could be taken out.  Unfortunately for the Dems, just holding some of these seats may take a blue wave.

 

But hey, if we can't turn out the vote we still have that totally reasonable Plan B of all deciding to dissolve the US into separate nations.  So we're set!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's a numbers game, but it also matters where those seats come up.  No reasonable person is going to think, even in a blue wave, that Lindsay Graham could be taken out.  Unfortunately for the Dems, just holding some of these seats may take a blue wave.

 

But hey, if we can't turn out the vote we still have that totally reasonable Plan B of all deciding to dissolve the US into separate nations.  So we're set!

Heh, yeah. The way the senate map aligns for the Democrats, a solid blue wave will hold the senate at a slim majority for Republicans.

 

Luck of the draw. In a more balanced year, the Senate could radically change but this year's map makes that all but impossible.

[Badsmerf]

I'm still registered as Republican in Iowa and received a paid absentee request form. I wonder if democrats do that.

 

Regarding the tv ads, there is a lot of data saying they don't work. I'm not sure where the best money is spent, but I think it is getting people out to vote.

[stringer bell]

I want the 2018 election to give Democrats a beachhead. The most attainable is the House. It will stop Trump’s legislative agenda, but would allow the courts to continue to be stacked. With his taxes in the open plus a half dozen committees investigating him and his family, the stage will be set for the Battle Royals in 2020, with gerrymandered legislative districts a big prize.

 

The “strong economy” is going to slump and I think that when that happens the ‘pubs are in big trouble.

[Craig Arko]

Pretty sure the obsession with TV campaigning sprang from the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. They did have a significant impact.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's a numbers game, but it also matters where those seats come up.  No reasonable person is going to think, even in a blue wave, that Lindsay Graham could be taken out.  Unfortunately for the Dems, just holding some of these seats may take a blue wave.

 

But hey, if we can't turn out the vote we still have that totally reasonable Plan B of all deciding to dissolve the US into separate nations.  So we're set!

 

Making fun of me is a great way to have a conversation.....it actually works in person, but online?

 

Any way.....now we are reading excuses that the map isn't right this year, even though we have what history will look back on as the worst president and modern senate we will ever have. 

 

I'll keep asking, what is the solution for decades of being taught by your parents, church, school, and every leader around you, that other people are bad, and that taxes are evil, and that it is worse to be a Democrat than an atheist? Because, as long as the map looks this way it isn't "just 30%", it is the majority in enough states to run a majority of state houses and perhaps the senate most years. The constitution is literally set up to give them 1.5-2x more power than they have by votes. That puts them in the driver seat.

[Mr. Brooks]

Making fun of me is a great way to have a conversation.....it actually works in person, but online?

 

Any way.....now we are reading excuses that the map isn't right this year, even though we have what history will look back on as the worst president and modern senate we will ever have.

 

I'll keep asking, what is the solution for decades of being taught by your parents, church, school, and every leader around you, that other people are bad, and that taxes are evil, and that it is worse to be a Democrat than an atheist? Because, as long as the map looks this way it isn't "just 30%", it is the majority in enough states to run a majority of state houses and perhaps the senate most years. The constitution is literally set up to give them 1.5-2x more power than they have by votes. That puts them in the driver seat.

Sadly, there might not be a solution Mike.

This just might be America now.

 

But, splitting up the union isn't an option. Not peacefully anyway. And, with the advancements in weaponry, another civil war would make the first one look like child's play.

[Mike Sixel]

It's fair to say that divorce is not an option. It's not fair, imo, to give up......but I'm struggling to find a solution, given how the constitution is set up to reward small, poor, less educated states for continuing to be that way.....and for dragging the rest of the world down.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Making fun of me is a great way to have a conversation.....it actually works in person, but online?

 

Any way.....now we are reading excuses that the map isn't right this year, even though we have what history will look back on as the worst president and modern senate we will ever have. 

 

I'll keep asking, what is the solution for decades of being taught by your parents, church, school, and every leader around you, that other people are bad, and that taxes are evil, and that it is worse to be a Democrat than an atheist? Because, as long as the map looks this way it isn't "just 30%", it is the majority in enough states to run a majority of state houses and perhaps the senate most years. The constitution is literally set up to give them 1.5-2x more power than they have by votes. That puts them in the driver seat.

 

To be frank Mike - your comment was exactly the same.  I returned that favor, in part, because I really felt like htat was unfair.  You were mocking me for my genuine effort previously to answer your question.  Meanwhile, you've been stomping your feet about a completely ludicrous idea of dividing the nation.  That's really unfair - I made an attempt (a legitmate one IMO) to answer your question.  So save the potshots or quit pretending you have some kind of high ground please.

 

Now, you keep asking, but you don't seem all that interested in listening.   I've seen more than a handful of legitimate attempts to answer your question and you just dismissed them all again.  So I'll try....again.  Why I'm not sure, but here we go: Just ten years ago Republicans were playing the "Electoral College Woe is Me Game" themselves.  Why?  Because with the Dems spotted California and New York before the votes are counted it gave them a gigantic advantage.  "In the driver's seat" - cried the Republicans of 2008. It was BS.  What you're complaining about is BS too.  The EC is not the problem, it's just a friendly scapegoat.  Same with the Senate.

 

In the last ten years the Democrats have soundly defeated the Republicans in 2 out of the last three presidential elections.  Your characterization in that final paragraph is nothing new.  It's been around forever.  That voting bloc is not some insurmountable juggernaut.  They were whooped, handily, just 6 years ago. 

 

The problem is voting turnout.  The votes are there to elect Obama twice.  They were there to turn the tide in Roy Moore's election.  They were to nearly flip several hard-red districts in special elections.  The key is enthusiasm and turnout.  I'm sorry that is not as sexy of an answer as "Civil War and New Countries!", but sometimes the right answers aren't flashy.  They're just the truth.  They might be truths hard to attain, I won't deny that.  But it can (and has) been done.  

[TheLeviathan]

And lest we forget - Hillary won the popular vote.  She just decided Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were either locked in or irrelevant and lost all of them by less than 2%.

 

We need to stop characterizing the problem as impossible task of needing to get tens of millions of people to change their minds or register.  The margin is much, much smaller than that.  (And the available voters more than able to cover the gap)

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not only interested in the presidency....but state houses, which have been in control of the GOP for a long time. And the Senate, which is the only way to stop the judiciary from being taken over by people that care more about corporations than people. 

 

Let's be frank....IMO, Obama won because he's black, and minorities turned out. They largely didn't before, or since. Hillary won the popular vote....this is the second time that the dems didn't win the EC, so, ya, it is stacked against them. How many times do they need to win the popular vote, and lose the EC, for that to be real? I'd say twice is enough for me, but others may have different opinions.

 

Roy Moore? That was a special election where everything was in the democrat's favor. I doubt they hold that seat for long, but I could be wrong.

 

We are seeing predictions that there might not be a blue wave at all. That the democrats will LOSE senate seats in a midterm election with the least popular POTUS ever. I'm not sure how anyone can look at that and feel all that warm and fuzzy.

 

As for my comments about divorcing the South.....they are more discussion points than a real solution. But, imo, it is a discussion we should be considering. The GOP whining about the GC sounds a lot like the GOP whining about gun control, a red herring to fire up their base. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not only interested in the presidency....but state houses, which have been in control of the GOP for a long time. And the Senate, which is the only way to stop the judiciary from being taken over by people that care more about corporations than people. 

 

Let's be frank....IMO, Obama won because he's black, and minorities turned out. They largely didn't before, or since. Hillary won the popular vote....this is the second time that the dems didn't win the EC, so, ya, it is stacked against them. How many times do they need to win the popular vote, and lose the EC, for that to be real? I'd say twice is enough for me, but others may have different opinions.

 

Roy Moore? That was a special election where everything was in the democrat's favor. I doubt they hold that seat for long, but I could be wrong.

 

We are seeing predictions that there might not be a blue wave at all. That the democrats will LOSE senate seats in a midterm election with the least popular POTUS ever. I'm not sure how anyone can look at that and feel all that warm and fuzzy.

 

As for my comments about divorcing the South.....they are more discussion points than a real solution. But, imo, it is a discussion we should be considering. The GOP whining about the GC sounds a lot like the GOP whining about gun control, a red herring to fire up their base. 

 

You admit that Obama turned out voters and won, but you mock me for suggesting voter turnout is important?

 

C'mon man.

 

The voters are there, why the Democrats can't turn them out is the problem.  Is some of that nefarious Republicanism?  Sure.  But not all of it.  Not even most of it.  We should worry about something that is not only demonstrably true (turn out voters = win), but also attainable.  Worrying about divorcing from the Southern states is just nonsense.  You'd be better off divising some elaborate strategy to create a plague that only attacks people with stupid accents.

 

You want to win local races, states races, and Senate races?  Get more people to the polls.  It's really that simple.  And not all that daunting if we quit the "Woe is Me" act and start actually doing something about it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You admit that Obama turned out voters and won, but you mock me for suggesting voter turnout is important?

 

C'mon man.

 

The voters are there, why the Democrats can't turn them out is the problem.  Is some of that nefarious Republicanism?  Sure.  But not all of it.  Not even most of it.  We should worry about something that is not only demonstrably true (turn out voters = win), but also attainable.  Worrying about divorcing from the Southern states is just nonsense.  You'd be better off divising some elaborate strategy to create a plague that only attacks people with stupid accents.

 

You want to win local races, states races, and Senate races?  Get more people to the polls.  It's really that simple.  And not all that daunting if we quit the "Woe is Me" act and start actually doing something about it.

 

And I've asked....how....because it has happened one time in the last 5 POTUS elections, and that was Obama. Other than that, dems have not turned out much. Why? Because it isn't working, not for many years now. Apparently, according to polls, the least popular POTUS ever isn't enough.....

[Mike Sixel]

I read all 28 pages in this thread. Here is the list of ideas for democrats. I'm assuming they've tried all of these the last 30 years......

 

Medicare for all (you think socialism will win anytime soon?)
Stop identity politics (not sure what this means, given that the other side uses them all the time)
Sharpen their message (hmmmm, not very specific, and likely to turn off leftist voters because this screams pragmatism to me)
De-stigmatize the word socialism (that's going to take decades to undo)
Cut defense spending (throwing red meat to the right, and energizing them)
Raise taxes on people that make more than 500,000 per year (I'm not sure this changes turnout)
GI bill for training (sounds like a giveaway to people not working hard enough)
Guarantee everyone a job (see above, we all know people are too lazy to work)
Get younger voices in charge (see two down)
Back away from immigration (I suppose this one might work, but i don't see how it increases turnout)
Don’t put young people in charge (see two above)
Put a sane, populist, but not too liberal, at the top of the ticket (like Hillary?)
Don’t be for not standing during the anthem, or other unimportant things (I doubt this turns out more voters, but I suppose it might change a mind or two)
“accomplish something meaningful” (not terribly specific, and hard to do when not in charge)
More authenticity among candidates (I suppose this could work, but I'd guess they are largely doing this in most races)
Run a candidate that the district can relate to, (see one above, though the GOP doesn't do this all that much, most of their candidates are not blue collar or whatever)
Nancy Pelosi is bad (we can all agree on this, though she is more popular than Trump, and that doesn't seem to be helping enough according to polls)
Get organized and have a message (see above)

 

As for the Obama election, I was pretty clear.....that was about electing the first minority POTUS. Apparently electing the first female isn't as meaningful for turnout, though.

 

I agree, it is somewhat about turnout....the question is HOW TO TURN THEM OUT. Because Obama and Moore were very special circumstances....and I have no idea why we aren't going back two POTUS elections before that......and why we aren't discussing state houses and governorships. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

And I've asked....how....because it has happened one time in the last 5 POTUS elections, and that was Obama. Other than that, dems have not turned out much. Why? Because it isn't working, not for many years now. Apparently, according to polls, the least popular POTUS ever isn't enough.....

 

Then perhaps more time and effort should be spent answering that question.  It is simply a fact that the requisite voters exist.  Simply because they didn't turn out last time, doesn't follow they never will again.

 

If you drop some of the mellodramatics it might help.  There is a problem, but the path to a solution is investigating how to invigorate turnout and then stabilize it.  Republicans know fear works for them.  So what did Clinton and Obama share?  What resonates?

 

I don't know, but that's where to start.

[stringer bell]

I’ve said it before but here goes...the Republican base turns out almost without exception. In an era when “ease of use” is so important, Republicans have continually worked at making it harder and harder to vote—long lines, shorter hours, fewer, more remote polling places, photo ID and the like. That is one stage of a nefarious scheme.

 

Another is to murk up the distinctions between the parties “they’re all rich people looking out for their donors” and Citizens United and other campaign finance laws make the distinctions less distinct because Democrats have to raise their money someplace.

 

You’ll note, the billionaires are feeding the Super-pacs and giving the Republicans a last-minute advantage, no limits, no accountability. The game is truly rigged and for Trump’s party.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Then perhaps more time and effort should be spent answering that question.  It is simply a fact that the requisite voters exist.  Simply because they didn't turn out last time, doesn't follow they never will again.

 

If you drop some of the mellodramatics it might help.  There is a problem, but the path to a solution is investigating how to invigorate turnout and then stabilize it.  Republicans know fear works for them.  So what did Clinton and Obama share?  What resonates?

 

I don't know, but that's where to start.

 

that is the question I've been asking....how to increase turnout. Electing the first black POTUS worked for all of 1 election (note they didn't gain any meaningful ground in his second election). The country (in terms of outcomes, and maybe politics) has turned more and more right, as you yourself posted on this thread. 

 

the GOP has spent 3-4 decades on this plan. They control 30% of the elctorate, much of which is concentrated in enough states to skew the Senate and POTUS (as you and Brock have posted here) elections. They control the churches, schools, governments and election rules in those states. Oh, and the media that their base listens to.

 

This isn't "woe is me"....these are the facts the dems have to address and over come. 

[LaBombo]

We are seeing predictions that there might not be a blue wave at all. That the democrats will LOSE senate seats in a midterm election with the least popular POTUS ever.

Apparently, according to polls, the least popular POTUS ever isn't enough.....

As much as I dislike Trump, I've gotta ask...

 

You do realize that Trump's Gallup approval rating is exactly the same as Obama's was going into the 2010 midterm election, right?

[Mike Sixel]

 

 

As much as I dislike Trump, I've gotta ask...

You do realize that Trump's Gallup approval rating is exactly the same as Obama's was going into the 2010 midterm election, right?

 

 

which is different than his disapproval rating.....but thanks for reminding me how much people hated Obama, for, um, why again?

[TheLeviathan]

 

that is the question I've been asking....how to increase turnout. Electing the first black POTUS worked for all of 1 election (note they didn't gain any meaningful ground in his second election). The country (in terms of outcomes, and maybe politics) has turned more and more right, as you yourself posted on this thread. 

 

the GOP has spent 3-4 decades on this plan. They control 30% of the elctorate, much of which is concentrated in enough states to skew the Senate and POTUS (as you and Brock have posted here) elections. They control the churches, schools, governments and election rules in those states. Oh, and the media that their base listens to.

 

This isn't "woe is me"....these are the facts the dems have to address and over come. 

 

And again and again I point out to you that this 30% has always been there.  And the Dems have won many times during their existence.

 

So that point is just plain irrelevant.  Their existence is a separate, unrelated, and irrelevant one to the problem that faces Democrats.  Worrying about that 30%, rather than the people they could turn out, but don't.....is wasted energy.

[Mike Sixel]

Here is the list of ideas for changing election outcomes from the POTUS thread.

 

emphasize health care, wage growth, and the trade war ( I agree, this is a great idea, but I'm not sure it increases turnout, but I'd certainly do all of this)
broad messaging (not sure what this means, but I’m open to reading what it does)
appeal to rural voters (not specific at all)
move further left (contradicts the pragmatism part, I’d think) while wrapping it in centrist messaging
farm tariffs are bad messaging (yup, this is a good idea, though it's about changing minds, not turnout)
stop running milquetoast candidates who stand for almost nothing (agree, but I am not sure if this will work or not, but I'd try it)
Register more voters (that’s literally what the party spends all year doing)

 

As I said in the other thread.....I'm not totally serious about, and don't think it will ever happen, that the nation should divide. But, I'm hard pressed to see, given the way the constitution is written, how the vast majority of people in this nation ever win elections, since rural states are empowered to have the majority even though they make up less than 30% of the nation.

[Mike Sixel]

 

And again and again I point out to you that this 30% has always been there.  And the Dems have won many times during their existence.

 

So that point is just plain irrelevant.  Their existence is a separate, unrelated, and irrelevant one to the problem that faces Democrats.  Worrying about that 30%, rather than the people they could turn out, but don't.....is wasted energy.

 

And, I've said the rules changed when Newt decided compromise was evil. And Fox came. And churches decided, with GOP help, that democrats were evil (satanic, as one poster said they are described in the South). And gerrymandering, and SCOTUS giving PACs and corporations more influence.

 

Obama was a very special circumstance, and his coat tails were literally about losing ground across the nation in terms of state houses and the House and Senate.

[TheLeviathan]

Why would anyone want to continue having this discussion with you?

 

Ok, Mike wants to break up the country.  Let's just be done with this conversation, you evidently don't want to have it.