Elections "Democrats' Basic Message Should Be Respect for Workers" Sherrod Brown 2020?

Does the fact that people spend money on soda pop prove that it really makes you younger and hipper and that it really has the power to heal social divisions? I'd say at least that you have to independently evaluate those claims and not simply assume that it does.

Good luck with that... Why do you think a demonstrably false theory like supply-side economics has such amazing legs in the minds of the general public? In a word, it's marketing.
 
Good luck with that... Why do you think a demonstrably false theory like supply-side economics has such amazing legs in the minds of the general public? In a word, it's marketing.

But weren't you just saying that if people buy something then it must be true? Remember this?:

"You should write the corporate concerns pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money into the election or defeat of federal political candidates and tell them they're actually having no effect on outcomes. Make sure and show them your "evidence", too. You could help save those fellas a lot of dough."

If you admit that it's possible for people to be mistaken, then we're back to looking at the evidence, and your case is gone.
 
Sherrod Brown seems pretty great to me. He's one of the good ones for sure. A lot of decent to good democrat candidates showing up lately.

Still want to see Sanders run if he has it in him.
 
But weren't you just saying that if people buy something then it must be true? Remember this?:

"You should write the corporate concerns pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money into the election or defeat of federal political candidates and tell them they're actually having no effect on outcomes. Make sure and show them your "evidence", too. You could help save those fellas a lot of dough."

If you admit that it's possible for people to be mistaken, then we're back to looking at the evidence, and your case is gone.

I hope you're trolling. :rolleyes:
 
I hope you're trolling. :rolleyes:

I think the point you tried to make (that no one would donate money to campaigns if it wasn't effective in either switching politicians' positions or helping them win) was laughably bad. I don't know how else to illustrate that. I think you probably, upon reflection, realize that it was bad.
 
I think the point you tried to make (that no one would donate money to campaigns if it wasn't effective in either switching politicians' positions or helping them win) was laughably bad. I don't know how else to illustrate that. I think you probably, upon reflection, realize that it was bad.
Jack, I know you like to play above the fray.... but you know reflection is not a strong suit in the WR.
 
Buy, Buy, Buy.

Healthcare, environment, infrastructure, and education are all winners for the dems right now, unless something changes drastically for Trump. I think the dems could run almost anyone not named Clinton and have a great chance, but Brown would play better than most to independents in the purple states.

Dems keep making the mistake of underestimating Trump. It was only AFTER the election that the often touted "most qualified person to be President" was turned on by the Democratic party for losing to Trump.

Dems don't bother to think that Trump beat out 17 other candidates in the GOP party and it wasn't by luck or by money. He spent very little compared to everyone else. Trump is good at winning at practically everything.

The entire democratic party, the entirety of Hollywood, the biggest musicians, the largest companies in the world, the majority of mainstream media, even a large portion of the "Never Trumpers" in the GOP, practically the ENTIRE establishment, the whole fucking WORLD, went against Trump. Trump took them all on and won.

And dems are repeating the same mistake of underestimating him.

iyQzKsA.jpg
 
Jack, I know you like to play above the fray.... but you know reflection is not a strong suit in the WR.

I don't get you. He made a bad point (implying that the very fact that people donate to campaigns demonstrates its effectiveness). Or is there another way to interpret this:

"You should write the corporate concerns pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money into the election or defeat of federal political candidates and tell them they're actually having no effect on outcomes. Make sure and show them your "evidence", too. You could help save those fellas a lot of dough."

Frankly, I think that campaign financing should be curbed, and the reason is precisely that it's all wasted money. That kind of zero-sum battle (at best) is exactly the kind of situation that calls for gov't intervention to benefit everyone, and that's without even considering that the money is all wasted. But actually, if you scale it to GDP, you see that the ineffectiveness of it is actually fairly widely understood.

The broader point here is that the kind of simplistic, CT-ish thinking about the issue is wrong in a lot of ways.
 
I don't get you. He made a bad point (implying that the very fact that people donate to campaigns demonstrates its effectiveness). Or is there another way to interpret this:

"You should write the corporate concerns pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money into the election or defeat of federal political candidates and tell them they're actually having no effect on outcomes. Make sure and show them your "evidence", too. You could help save those fellas a lot of dough."

Frankly, I think that campaign financing should be curbed, and the reason is precisely that it's all wasted money. That kind of zero-sum battle (at best) is exactly the kind of situation that calls for gov't intervention to benefit everyone, and that's without even considering that the money is all wasted. But actually, if you scale it to GDP, you see that the ineffectiveness of it is actually fairly widely understood.

The broader point here is that the kind of simplistic, CT-ish thinking about the issue is wrong in a lot of ways.

And I agree, but expecting a WRer to be reflective on his/her own stances is kinda nuts, yeah?
 
Dems keep making the mistake of underestimating Trump. It was only AFTER the election that the often touted "most qualified person to be President" was turned on by the Democratic party for losing to Trump.

Dems don't bother to think that Trump beat out 17 other candidates in the GOP party and it wasn't by luck or by money. He spent very little compared to everyone else. Trump is good at winning at practically everything.

The entire democratic party, the entirety of Hollywood, the biggest musicians, the largest companies in the world, the majority of mainstream media, even a large portion of the "Never Trumpers" in the GOP, practically the ENTIRE establishment, the whole fucking WORLD, went against Trump. Trump took them all on and won.

And dems are repeating the same mistake of underestimating him.

iyQzKsA.jpg
We'll see. I think turnout by the dems will beat him, and there is no way they will sit home or vote third party again (unless maybe Hilldawg is the nominee again). I think Trump fans are the ones underestimating how much of the country thinks he's a shitshow. Where will Trump find new voters to fight off dem turnout and hold that 70k margin that got him the win last time? I don't see it right now, but granted, two years is a long time and things can change.
 
I think the point you tried to make (that no one would donate money to campaigns if it wasn't effective in either switching politicians' positions or helping them win) was laughably bad. I don't know how else to illustrate that. I think you probably, upon reflection, realize that it was bad.

Thanks for dodging the supply-side enigma. I shouldn't have attempted to change course and enter a good faith discussion with you. Should have just stuck to mocking your shill game.

The "point" you're referencing wasn't even a point. It was a rhetorical device to indicate the absurdity of your position on dark money. Once one understands that it all come down to basic marketing principles the verdict is self-evident.

Imagine GM spends 20 million dollars on an advertising campaign for a particular model. They sell X amount of cars. The next year they decide to spend 50 million on advertising. But they end up selling roughly the same number of models. Do you think GM spends 50 million - or more - the third year?

If corporate interests and wealthy ideologues weren't seeing a return on investment when it comes to political campaign contributions they wouldn't be playing the game.
 
Thanks for dodging the supply-side enigma. I shouldn't have attempted to change course and enter a good faith discussion with you. Should have just stuck to mocking your shill game.

Jeez, you're a miserable little cuss, aren't ya?

The "point" you're referencing wasn't even a point. It was a rhetorical device to indicate the absurdity of your position on dark money. Once one understands that it all come down to basic marketing principles the verdict is self-evident.

The point of the device was to suggest that people wouldn't spend money on something if it doesn't work/that the fact that people are spending money on it proves it works. Just like supplements and miracle weight-loss cures.

If corporate interests and wealthy ideologues weren't seeing a return on investment when it comes to political campaign contributions they wouldn't be playing the game.

And now you're making the illogical point more explicitly.
 
The point of the device was to suggest that people wouldn't spend money on something if it doesn't work/that the fact that people are spending money on it proves it works. Just like supplements and miracle weight-loss cures.

But I was not referring to individual randos. I was referring to professional teams of data analysts and bean counters.

Though you are exactly right about the gullibility and lack of critical thinking faculties among the individual randos. That's why well-funded candidate marketing (and anti-marketing of opponents) helps make voters believe stupid shit and pull the lever that is not in their best interests.
 
But I was not referring to individual randos. I was referring to professional teams of data analysts and bean counters.

Though you are exactly right about the gullibility and lack of critical thinking faculties among the individual randos. That's why well-funded candidate marketing (and anti-marketing of opponents) helps make voters believe stupid shit and pull the lever that is not in their best interests.

If that's the case, doesn't the fact that campaign spending has been flat for decades indicate that the professional teams have concluded the same thing that data analysts have--that it's basically wasted money?
 
If that's the case, doesn't the fact that campaign spending has been flat for decades indicate that the professional teams have concluded the same thing that data analysts have--that it's basically wasted money?

It obviously reaches a point of diminishing returns. As do all marketing efforts.
 
It obviously reaches a point of diminishing returns. As do all marketing efforts.

Now we're getting somewhere. The long-term flat numbers then suggest that the point of peak returns is already reached (and it's extremely low--Americans spending 50% more eating at Taco Bell alone than they do on influencing elections) and thus that additional increases are pointless.
 
Oh wow, really great message! Never heard that one before! I'm sold
 
Mr. Brown seems like a nice man, but he has absolutely no chance against President Trump.

President Trump wins via name recognition alone.
 
Now we're getting somewhere. The long-term flat numbers then suggest that the point of peak returns is already reached (and it's extremely low--Americans spending 50% more eating at Taco Bell alone than they do on influencing elections) and thus that additional increases are pointless.

The overall numbers get thrown by the many red and blue states and districts. The purple swings are where the money plays the most crucial role.

And even with that said, your claims of a funding fall off are false based on the last numbers I recall seeing.

This election cycle, an average winning Senate candidate had spent $10.4 million through Oct. 19 (reflecting the latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission). That’s a $1.8 million increase over the same period in the 2014 cycle. By the end of last cycle, the number rose to $10.6 million, and a similar uptick is expected this time once post-election and year-end reports are filed.

But in the post-Citizens United era, spending by campaigns alone doesn’t tell the whole story. Factoring in outside spending (excluding outlays by party committees) nearly doubles the average cost of winning a Senate seat to $19.4 million, which tops the $16.8 million average cost by the end of 2014 cycle.

The role of super PACs and political nonprofits in Senate races has only grown since 2012. Four years ago, 22 percent of the $14.6 million total average cost of winning a Senate seat came from outside groups, and in 2014, their share was 37 percent of the $16.8 million. This time around, the share has jumped to 47 percent.


https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...ing-just-got-higher-especially-in-the-senate/
 
Back
Top