Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

MoveOn.org and Michael Moore ad(language warning)

Elections 2012 Political ads

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:45 PM

View PostTricia, on 01 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 01 November 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

For the record, I would buy Cait's disco lp.

Me too!!
especially if she includes that track with us all singing "I Will Survive"!!!

You're on Trish.  I know it has been so over done, but it's a great disco tune.  That, and "Enough is enough".  Great production numbers--totally disco.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#22 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:49 PM

Actually, just for the fun of it....


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#23 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:51 PM

You'll need a duet partner for "Enough is Enough," girl!  Tricia?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#24 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:05 PM

Got it!!

We're moving the Disco party though  to get this thread back on track.

Edited by Tricia, 01 November 2012 - 03:05 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#25 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:41 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 01 November 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Ayep. Plus, Michael Moore did something deliberately inflammatory to rile up the base? That's not a sign that anyone is desperate; it's a sign that it's a day of the week ending in y.

Edited by Dev F, 01 November 2012 - 03:43 PM.


#26 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

View PostKota, on 01 November 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 30 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

There have been a slate of offensive, insulting, idiotic, inaccurate, puerile and downright creepy ads coming from the anti-right in these final election weeks. THIS grotesque addition from MoveOn is noteworthy for both combining ALL the aforementioned attributes...and introducing the notion that a Romney victory is ONLY possible through election fraud. An almost...perfect storm of hard-left crazy.(a profoundly ignorant celebrity would have been the icing)

While I'm sure no old people were harmed in the making of this ad, I can't help but be especially repulsed by the portrayal of the elderly here. It's clear an enormous segment of the radical left think the Bill Maher/Louis CK approach is the way to make friends and influence people. But I hope for the sake of everyone's sanity, they're making a wild miscalculation.



This video is insulting to the older crowd, showed it to a few of my elders my mom esp.
Democrat all of her life and she swears but never in public and thought this was disgracful.
Much better ways of getting the message out, but then again when your losing you'll do anything.

Personally I didn't think it was funny, but lame at best.

When Romney wins, they'll say it was fraud among many other things, hurricane Sandy will be one topping the list.
This business of casting doubt on the validity of a Romney victory, and encouraging a violent response is beyond the pale. Nothing comparable has appeared from either the Romney campaign or pro_GOP superpacs. And since the people responsible for it must know this ad will do zip to serve 0bama's re-election chances, I'm forced to conclude that promoting civil unrest is really all they had in mind. It also means they're afraid their candidate is gonna lose.

Edited by scherzo, 01 November 2012 - 06:41 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#27 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:12 PM

Really, scherzo, this is why parents always used to say "go in the other room, honey, grown folks are talking!"

Why be surprised?  Freedom of speech at it's finest!

For some reason, when granny said they were gonna "burn this motherf------ down", it reminded me of that episode of Golden Girls where Sofia thought she burned down Shady Pines with her illegal hotplate, LOL.

Edited by LiberalBob, 01 November 2012 - 06:13 PM.


#28 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 08:54 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 01 November 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

BTW, "winning?"  http://fivethirtyeig...lding-in-polls/

Quote




Meanwhile, Mr. Obama continues to hold the lead in the vast majority of polls in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin, the states that represent his path of least resistance toward winning the Electoral College. This was particularly apparent on Wednesday, a day when there were a remarkable number of polls, 27, released in the battleground states. ...



There were 12 polls published on Wednesday among Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. Mr. Obama held the lead in 11 of the 12 surveys; the exception was a survey by the University of Iowa, which had Mr. Obama down by about one point there, but also had a very small sample size (about 300 likely voters). On average, Mr. Obama led in the polls of these states by 3.9 percentage points.


...






Mr. Obama is not a sure thing, by any means. It is a close race. His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term areequivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.


But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama’s chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent.


Not coincidentally, these are also about Mr. Obama’s chances of winning Ohio, according to the forecast.


Is that like the Charlie Sheen definition of "winning?"  Or perhaps it's more akin to Baghdad Bob?  Pay no attention to the swing state polls behind the curtain?

I'll be the first to admit that the race is close -- closer than I'd like, and closer than I thought it would be a month or so ago -- but the fact of the matter is: Obama's path to 270 is a lot broader and frankly more plausible than Romney's.

The attacks on Silver have really been ramping up over the last week, as he's threatened the "Mittmentum" narrative the Romney campaign has been desperate to keep alive in the face of polls showing that momentum stalled two weeks ago. Over the last week, Obama has been the one with momentum. Silver is also a threat to the intellectually lazy pundits who rely more on instinct and anecdotes than math and evidence. As Ezra Klein tweeted, "A subtext of journalistic resentment of Silver is that if punditry is based in numbers, journalists who don't know numbers are less valuable." The irony is these pundits are frequently wrong and never held accountable, yet they're acting like Silver will be finished if he's wrong about one election, even despite his previous success. A 2011 study of 26 pundits over 16 months in 2007-2008 showed that only 6 made predictions more accurately than a coin flip. Dick Morris lives off of being wrong, and he's calling a landslide for Romney.

538 now has Obama at 80.8%, 83% in the now-cast.

Edited by cade, 01 November 2012 - 08:55 PM.


#29 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:28 PM

Some friends and I were talking about just that earlier, Cade.  When statistical experts and their algorithms corner the market not just on conducting but on analyzing polls, what do the TV pundits do?  Will they have to actually become expert in policy matters?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#30 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:57 PM

Quote

The irony is these pundits are frequently wrong and never held accountable, yet they're acting like Silver will be finished if he's wrong about one election, even despite his previous success.
Silver owes his notoriety to exactly one election cade. Well, that...and the fact that he's currently running around telling lefties exactly what they NEEEEED to hear right now. Nate's way out in front of the pack with his prediction of a comfortable 0bama victory come election day(although I can't help but notice more "hedging" than usual in this latest essay) which is why his name will indeed be MUD should Romney prevail. It will reveal his vaunted "math and evidence" to be significantly less reliable than the instincts of "lazy pundits".
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#31 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:29 PM

View Postscherzo, on 01 November 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

[...] I can't help but notice more "hedging" than usual in this latest essay) which is why his name will indeed be MUD should Romney prevail. It will reveal his vaunted "math and evidence" to be significantly less reliable than the instincts of "lazy pundits".

And what will his name be if Obama prevails?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#32 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:30 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 01 November 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Some friends and I were talking about just that earlier, Cade.  When statistical experts and their algorithms corner the market not just on conducting but on analyzing polls, what do the TV pundits do?  Will they have to actually become expert in policy matters?

Perish the thought!

#33 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:33 PM

View Postscherzo, on 01 November 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Quote

The irony is these pundits are frequently wrong and never held accountable, yet they're acting like Silver will be finished if he's wrong about one election, even despite his previous success.
Silver owes his notoriety to exactly one election cade. Well, that...and the fact that he's currently running around telling lefties exactly what they NEEEEED to hear right now. Nate's way out in front of the pack with his prediction of a comfortable 0bama victory come election day(although I can't help but notice more "hedging" than usual in this latest essay) which is why his name will indeed be MUD should Romney prevail. It will reveal his vaunted "math and evidence" to be significantly less reliable than the instincts of "lazy pundits".

Not just one. It's not talked about much anymore, but I think by far his best work was in the 2008 primaries.

#34 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:57 AM

I think I became aware of him after Queen Tiye posted about his blog during the 2008 primaries but it was a critical mass kind of thing.  All of a sudden, everybody I knew was reading him, and with good reason.  Good political prognostication that doesn't come solely (or even primarily) from the gut -- or perhaps more to the point, from the spin room -- but from sophisticated statistical modeling... That's a novel idea.  

Taking the business of predicting election results and treating it as a math problem... That's revolutionary.  And it's revolutionary, by the way, even if Silver's model gets it wrong from time to time.  I'm sure he can be improved upon, and will be, as the science matures and others get in on the game.  

But for the moment, Silver's got a pretty amazing record.  It's not just Obama-McCain that his model predicted with startling accuracy.  As Cade says, it's also the results of the 2008 primaries.  He predicted the winner of all 35 2008 senate races, and got very close on the 2010 midterms.  (That he failed to predict the success of Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign is forgivable since write in campaigns almost never succeed.)  Even if he turns out to get 2012 wrong--which I doubt--most people will continue to consider it a mistake to discount him.  And if he gets 2012 right, I expect that every news network will develop their own in-house Nate Silver.  

This is why people like Joe Scarborough are pissed and have the long knives out.  (Note that I have, against all odds and with an enduring memory of his stint as an impeachment manager during the Gingrich Revolution, learned to like and respect Joe Scarborough.)  How dare some mathlete come out of nowhere and turn the ART of predicting elections, heretofore the domain of graybeards like him, into a problem (boring) to be solved (_boring_) with the pencil and protractor he carries around in his pocket protector (BORING!  And sounds like actual work!)

The opposition is understandable.  Silver's methodology is upending the apple cart.  But I hope he gets it right this time, not just because I'm for Obama, but because I'm for a better way of reporting the news about elections, and I do actually think that once every network has its own mathlete of the Silver variety, the talking heads will be obliged to burnish their credentials in other, more critical areas, such as policy.  No matter what your political inclination might be, this is good news.  

MSNBC is already planning for this future -- the future where nerdy policy wonks rule the world of cable news discourse.  Maddow is a wonk.  (Her book Drift is an insightful analysis of war policy in America).  So is Chris Hayes.  (His book, Twilight of the Elites, is about a post-meritocracy America.)  Ezra Klein is an expert in healthcare policy.  Josh Barro, a brilliant economic policy analyst (who in the interests of full disclosure is also a friend of mine).  

What's the difference between this cast of characters and what you see on Fox and CNN?  

Answer: none of them got hired because they were great on TV.  They are not the William Hurt character in Broadcast news -- the himbo who is telegenic to his toenails but has to have understanding of what he's reporting fed to him on live TV by his producer via an earpiece.  They are the Albert Brooks character.  They got hired because they were great on the issues and it was decided that they could be taught how to be at least good on TV.  (Note also that the books these guys put out are serious examinations of policy issues -- not greatest hits from their shows, not take-downs of their political opponents, like the best-sellers put out by O'Reilly and Hannity and Olbermann.)  

These people did not come from central casting.  They have gravitas.  And that's the future.  At least, I hope so.  

(Note that if Silver and his model do go splat this time out, then it's not just him and his model that are implicated.  All the major, venerable polling outfits will have gotten it wrong at the swing state level, and all the other poll aggregating models will have been wrong as well, including ones operated by conservative outfits, because they all pretty much agree with Silver at the moment.  If you want polls that indicate Mitt Romney is "winning," you pretty much have to go to this guy, and he admits he's making it up.  Or Karl Rove who published an op-ed in WSJ yesterday predicting a Romney 379ev blowout that makes the unskewed guy look positively grounded by comparison!)

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#35 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:40 AM

View Postscherzo, on 01 November 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Silver owes his notoriety to exactly one election cade. Well, that...and the fact that he's currently running around telling lefties exactly what they NEEEEED to hear right now.
(shrug) Liberals are always starved for reassurance, because unlike conservatives, who always think they're the silent majority even when they aren't, we're absurdly prone to assuming that everyone's against us even when we're actually doing pretty well. Just like Michael Moore being stridently partisan, it's purely a baseline characteristic that says nothing about the current state of the race.

Quote

Nate's way out in front of the pack with his prediction of a comfortable 0bama victory come election day
No, his model actually agrees with pretty much every other statistical analysis of the state of the race. It's actually one of the more conservative in assessing the probability of an Obama victory. Which isn't a lock by anyone's estimation (omigod, hedging!), but I'd certainly rather have a four-in-five shot of being elected than a one-in-five shot.

Quote

(although I can't help but notice more "hedging" than usual in this latest essay)
In other words, who cares about what the polls are saying, because Michael Moore and Nate Silver are sending out secret messages to the contrary in the subtext? Gut-based politics at its finest.

Edited by Dev F, 02 November 2012 - 11:40 AM.


#36 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:11 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 02 November 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

MSNBC is already planning for this future -- the future where nerdy policy wonks rule the world of cable news discourse.  Maddow is a wonk.  (Her book Drift is an insightful analysis of war policy in America).  So is Chris Hayes.  (His book, Twilight of the Elites, is about a post-meritocracy America.)  Ezra Klein is an expert in healthcare policy.  Josh Barro, a brilliant economic policy analyst (who in the interests of full disclosure is also a friend of mine).  

I could not agree more.  My Saturday morning is dedicated to Chris Hayes, and Sunday, I try to catch him [I usually end up watching segments on line during the week.]  My sister [an Independent Republican [yes, they exist]] asked me about Chris Hayes, and I told her that the program was 3 hours of data picked Cable programming   That he takes up topics that don't have the flare of the "issue de jour", but are 100 times more important to understand as a citizen.

Chris Hayes is in fact my 2012 election cycle win.  I'm reading his book now.

Rachel Maddow is breaking every criteria when it comes to Q rating, and winning.  She's not just a wonk, she is like a kid on Christmas morning when it comes to her job.  And, again she brings issues to the front that don't sparkle for ratings in broadcast news.  Her coverage, of the direction of state legislation regarding abortion, was amazing.  She reported factually correct information about the bills presented in state legislatures and it was a road-map any woman could follow    Her book was great and a must read [imo] for anyone who wants to understand why we are in a perpetual state of war.

Maddow and Hayes=must see TV.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#37 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:30 PM

I think when Maddow is focused on the horse race, she is at her least compelling.  When she's focusing on issues, particularly issues that don't get a lot of play, her eyes kind of light up, eg infrastructure issues.  the last few days she has been understandably concerned with burying the power lines.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#38 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:44 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 02 November 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I think when Maddow is focused on the horse race, she is at her least compelling.  When she's focusing on issues, particularly issues that don't get a lot of play, her eyes kind of light up, eg infrastructure issues.  the last few days she has been understandably concerned with burying the power lines.

I agree.  She is at her least compelling, but, that's the point.  I believe the strengths of both these two people [Maddow and Hayes] is, they are issue oriented, and that when they stick to the issues they shine, and illuminate the issues for viewers.  When they cover the horse race, they are like every other pundant.  Luckily the issues seem to dominate both programs, we we win in the end.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#39 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:10 PM

Coincidentally, Nate Silver addresses Scherzo's complaint head on in today's column: http://fivethirtyeig...ite/#more-37035

Quote

If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.”


What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:


Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:


Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

The argument that Mr. Obama isn’t the favorite is the one that requires more finesse. If you take the polls at face value, then the popular vote might be a tossup, but the Electoral College favors Mr. Obama.


So you have to make some case for why the polls shouldn’t be taken at face value.



Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#40 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,335 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:45 PM

Wow.  That ad sure does seem like a jump the shark moment...appropos of Michael Moore.  Ick.

I have been giving this election and all its trappings a wide berth, because I've already made up my mind as to who I'm voting for, and the rest is just stomach-ache inducing.  Ads like this (and the fact this is the first time I'm seeing it) make me very happy that I've mae up my mind to ignore this entire process till election day.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Elections, 2012, Political ads

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users