Contributors

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

I Didn't Need A Poll To Tell Me That!

Poll: GOP voters just want to win

Sixty-eight percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents surveyed for a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday said they prefer a nominee who stands a real shot at winning in the general election but with whom they may have ideological disagreements. Meanwhile, 29 percent said want a candidate who they agree with on all the important issues.

Winning the argument...

PWNED!

46 comments:

sw said...

no, its winning the election

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter, sw. Anything short of "No really, we want to lose! We want to lose bad!", will be tweaked to fit the narrative.

Anonymous said...

Besides, it's enough to make the evidence of Politifact being biased drop off the page, so it's enough.

Mark Ward said...

Ah, the "dropping off the page" yelping...a classic:)

It's winning the election, sw, regardless of sharing principles with the candidate they vote for...what ever has happened to the GOP? As long as they have an R next to their name and they beat the anti Colonial Kenyan, nothing else matters. What a load...

juris imprudent said...

Right, and every Dem and independent voted for Obama because of what he stood for - or at least what they thought he might stand for, or what they kinda hoped he might possibly be, or just because he wasn't a stupid Republican. Yeah, one of those.

Whereas idiot lefties believed the country had suddenly embraced all that is good and left and progressive and nirvana was at hand.

You tell me which ones where the more deluded.

Anonymous said...

And the TEA party will work even harder to get candidates elected who represent them. Cuz they want to win.

There's no participation award in politics Mark. It's win or go home.

6Kings said...

Republicans and GOP-leaning independents surveyed

OK,now poll Democrats and left-leaning independents and see if you get the same results. I suspect you will. Gee, big gotcha there. :|

last in line said...

Aww yeah, y'all got served by 6kings! Les Grossman would be proud.

Mark Ward said...

I think they would want Obama to win but would they want a Democrat to win who was pro life, anti union, anti farmer, anti gay, or any combination therein? I doubt it.

Winning for Democrats is a lot different than winning for Republicans.

juris imprudent said...

Winning for Democrats is a lot different than winning for Republicans.

BWHahahahahahhahaha

Oh, you really believe that.

Mark Ward said...

It's not a matter of belief, juris. It's a fact. Each are wired differently and look at the world in starkly different ways.

juris imprudent said...

Each are wired differently and look at the world in starkly different ways.

Yes, I know you believe that.

GuardDuck said...

Well, I could believe that. It would explain why Dems act like they have a short circuit somewhere.

juris imprudent said...

"Anyone interested in this little dispute can read vanden Heuvel's original column and my critique of it and make up her own mind about it. I am, however, grateful to vanden Heuvel for her non-responsive response because it illustrates a problem much more important than any squabble between the two of us -- the problem of pervasive intellectual dishonesty spawned by political dogmatism, blind partisanship, ego, and practically compulsive score-keeping."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/why-katrina-vanden-heuvel-declines-to-acknowledge-a-mistake/71088/

I read this and was gobsmacked at how applicable it is around here.

Haplo9 said...

>It's not a matter of belief, juris. It's a fact.

Hrm.. Is this a new standard response of Marks? Something along the lines of:

"It's an established fact that I'm awesome: Mark asserts that a cherished belief of his is fact, despite it clearly being an opinion, and despite having no evidence other than his beliefs. This belief will always be of a form that strokes his own ego and the egos of his fellow travelers. This rather convenient outcome does not appear to result in extra skepticism on Mark's part."

Mark Ward said...

And yet I have admitted several times on here how I am flawed and how liberal ideology is flawed. The only person that I know that has showed any sort of reflection regarding the flaws of conservatism or libertarianism as well as individual flaws has been last in line.

Until there are some serious critical thought on the fundamentals of libertarianism, your assessment of me is preposterous.

Haplo9 said...

Oh Mark. It's almost kind of cute when you try to distract from your own words like this.

>And yet I have admitted several times on here how I am flawed and how liberal ideology is flawed.

Non sequitur. What you have admitted, what I have admitted, or what anyone has admitted has nothing to do with the validity of the premise you put forth:

"Winning for Democrats is a lot different than winning for Republicans." followed by "It's not a matter of belief, juris. It's a fact."

Haplo9 said...

>The only person that I know that has showed any sort of reflection regarding the flaws of conservatism or libertarianism as well as individual flaws has been last in line.

Another non-sequitur, combined with a comical appeal to authority. Once again, the validity of your statement has nothing to do with how reflective you might think I am. The appeal to authority part is irrelevant, but it still cracks me up - Mark appeals to his own authority as to how thoughtful someone is and thus how worthy their comments are - uh huh. The only thing you are an authority on, Mark, is irrationality.

>Until there are some serious critical thought on the fundamentals of libertarianism, your assessment of me is preposterous.

Another non-sequitur, and another fallacious appeal to authority, for the same reasons. You made the statements Mark. Defend them, rather than trying to distract.

juris imprudent said...

And yet I have admitted several times on here how I am flawed and how liberal ideology is flawed.

Such a confession reminds me so of St. Augustine, just not quite as sincere.

Mark Ward said...

I defend the statements I make every day on here, Hap. You just don't like what I have to say nor do you like the facts associated with them. Essentially, it's all based around the emotions that either an 8 year old or an angry adolescent would have...depending on the day.

You play a lot of games that are largely made up of nonsense (see: your last two comments), make statments whose only goal is distract and inflame, and then do a school yard bully dance. Don't you think it's a little played, dude?

Santa said...

How is complimenting last in line appeal to authority? It seems to me Mark is trying to point out that last in line is a reflective person and a conservative. All of you bitch about Mark's generalizations and then when he corrects that, you still bitch. You are right, Mark. it makes no sense.

sasquatch said...

How is complimenting last in line appeal to authority?

You don't speak butt hole, Santa, so that's why you don't get it.

To be fair, Haplo9 presents us with several possibilities when he says

"You made the statements Mark. Defend them, rather than trying to distract"

1). Haplo9 doesn't understand English.

2. He is immature and enjoys playing childish games in the hopes of torturing Mark.

3. His brain really is wired differently, as the study proved, and so he has no other way to communicate.

4. (related to #3) He has no intellectual basis for understanding what Mark meant when he said that winning is different for Democrats as opposed to Republicans.

5. He is a butt hole.

My money is on #4 with a few of the others thrown in for seasoning to mask the fact that is floundering on the whole reflection thing. Mark, don't you know that the 'R' word is Kryptonite to Righties!

Last in line said...

I agree with Santa. I try my best not to be reflective and I'm about as deep as the kiddie pool.

Mark Ward said...

Nice point on number 4 there, sasquatch. That's basically what I am saying and there is science to back me up.

It's about perception. People often perceive others within the frame of their own mind and they make very little effort to step outside of themselves and see the world from another's point of view. Certainly, everyone does it regardless of your political stripe. One of the reasons why I am a Democrat is that they make more of a concerted effort to do it. This is part of reflection. Republicans see the world and their enemies through their very narrow view and perception. They assume that everyone acts like them and Democrats motivations are the same. They are wrong.

So, winning isn't the same for a Democrat as it is for a conservative or libertarian these days. For someone like me and many other Democrats, you can lose but still win and vice versa. On the right, however, they see victory as an affirmation of being correct...always. Nothing could be further from the truth.

juris imprudent said...

What is that crap you were talking about Dems being so different from Repubs???

"Life is unfair, but this works both ways. House Democrats endured an inferior tactical position in 2010 but have major tactical advantages in 2012. They do not have to pass legislation, support the president’s budget, vote for a Republican budget or defend any status quo."

M you ought to rename your blog The Tool Shed.

Haplo9 said...

>How is complimenting last in line appeal to authority?

Er.. Where did I say it was? Reading comprehension is not strong here apparently. I was making fun of Mark for appealing to his own authority when he said the equivilent of "your statements carry no weight because you don't reflect/question/say the stuff I think you should say." Pure nonsense, and if you were able to follow along, utterly irrelevant towards support of his original statement that for d's, winning is different than for r's.

Haplo9 said...

>I defend the statements I make every day on here, Hap.

Highly debatable, but more to the point, so what? You didn't try to defend your statement about it being a fact (not an opinion!) that winning is different for D's than for R's, and that's the only statement I am questioning right now. Whether you have defended other statements you have made in the past is irrelevant. (Seriously, is it possible for you to NOT make irrelevant points?)

>(see: your last two comments),

You mean the two comments where I pointed out that not a single word you said had anything to do with the original premise you put forth? All you were saying is that I'm a poopyhead. I'm sure that makes you feel better, but it doesn't support your original premise. I know that #5 is kind of your normal approach to things, but dear god. Try to stay on topic.

Haplo9 said...

..And finally, Mark belatedly tries to put some meat on his dubious assertion of fact.

>One of the reasons why I am a Democrat is that they make more of a concerted effort to do it.

Do you have any backup for this statement? To take you as an example: for all your talk about how self reflective you are, you are awful at understanding the views of someone that doesn't share your priors. You habitually reduce conservative views to easy to knock down strawmen, then pat yourself on the back. When you get called on it, you say something like, "I'll never understand why conservatives don't like to hear their own words quoted back at them.", even though the conservatives right here in front of you never said those things. So ok, fine, you think Democrats are great this way. I'm unimpressed. With regard to being able to understand someone elses views - have you ever been conservative Mark? I was quite liberal in my younger years. Who is more likely to understand the other?

Haplo9 said...

>Republicans see the world and their enemies through their very narrow view and perception.

Groan. And you know this how? Since you seem to know, who are my enemies? Or are you doing a you = Glenn Beck again?

>They assume that everyone acts like them and Democrats motivations are the same.

So wait, just to be straight here, you were NOT doing just that when you assumed that everyone had the same reaction to McDonalds commercials as you? Cause I have to say - that sounds like a wee bit of projection there laddy boy.

The reason your premise is dubious is not because I think everyone acts like me, it's because the weight of history tells us that in the political realm, people seek one thing - power. This has held true regardless of political party, regardless of good intentions, for all of human history. If you want to claim that your tribe is *totally different man* at this point in time, you'd better have some pretty amazing evidence of such. All you've got so far is that you believe D's are pretty awesome compared to R's. Yay for you. I disagree. It would be fine to agree to disagree, but you claimed that this is a *fact*. As in verifiable, falsifiable, and unarguably true. So far, you've done a pretty poor job of showing that.

Mark Ward said...

Well, juris, that's a little off topic but I think Boehner saying that the GOP plan will cause more job losses and he doesn't care is quite interesting, no? I'm not entirely convinced that now is the time for austerity nor am I convinced that spending more will help either. Regardless of the Democratic strategy, the GOP will lose the House if they given into the Moonbeam and Sunshine ideology of the Tea Party.

people seek one thing - power.

Actually, that's not true. Not surprising that you take such a stance rooted in realism. Our world has shown us, however, that realism (as well as idealism) has largely failed to explain watershed events. Realism completely failed to predict the end of the Cold War. So did its opposite, idealism.

What are the people of Egypt after? Power? While it's still early in the game, I think not. They want a democratic government which distribute power equally and it looks like they might get it. And how did they do it? Through a largely peaceful demonstration using modern technology they overthrew someone who was very much about power. Once again, we saw the realists that are still hanging around fail to predict this event.

Haplo9 said...

>Realism completely failed to predict the end of the Cold War.

Seeing as the word 'realism' has a pretty nebulous meaning, even in politics, I think you should define it before trying to attach it to me. Your contention above seems highly debatable, but again, it depends on what exactly you mean by the word. Try to be specific, as you tend to not do so when asked to define things.

>What are the people of Egypt after? Power?

You missed my qualifier - "in the political realm." Most people do not seek political office. You don't try to be a farmer if you want power. Those people in Egypt who seek to become part of whatever government comes out of this, yes, they want power. They may choose to use that power in ways that you or I would generally approve of, but having good intentions doesn't change the nature of it. Which gets us back to your premise - for Democrats who want public office, what are they after, if you don't think it is power? And why would Republicans be different?

Haplo9 said...

(I should also note for the sake of completeness that the other main reason people might enter politics is money. That is sort of a given though, as power and money generally go hand in hand in the political realm.)

Mark Ward said...

Realism begins with a very pessimistic view of human nature (Niebuhr and Morgenthau) which translates into roughly what you said regarding power on either the domestic or world stage. Conflict is inevitable to a realist with cooperation of any kind being a pipe dream. Incorrigible personal (or national, if you are looking at realism on an international level) interests rooted in selfishness and power are how the realist defines the world.

Essentially, it's a very narrow vision and this perception completely failed to predict the end of the Cold War. The realists defined the Soviet Union within the framework listed above and they were completely wrong. So were the idealists but for different reasons. In reality, it was a more constructivist approach (new thinking, new norms) with its view that ideas and identities shape events. Essentially, this is what happened in Egypt as well with new technology supporting it all

Haplo9 said...

>Realism begins with a very pessimistic view of human nature

And throughout history, would you say that a pessimistic (well, I'd quibble with the word pessimistic - more like constrained) view regarding human nature is largely accurate, or inaccurate? I would not claim that cooperation is impossible, but rather the rare exception to an otherwise pretty constant rule. This doesn't require any special insight or adherence to a particular creed; you merely need note that people generally look out for themselves and their own first. Even people that speak in pious terms about community, cooperation, and other nice sounding sentiments tend to abandon those sentiments when the chips are down and truly acting on such sentiments would require significant sacrifices from them. I would call that an aspect of human nature, for better or for worse.

Haplo9 said...

>Essentially, it's a very narrow vision and this perception completely failed to predict the end of the Cold War.

Out of curiosity, are you a big international relations buff? I can't say I know a thing about the various schools of thought in IR. And yet when I gave some of my thoughts on human nature, you leapt straight to "you must be a Realist!" (Who are, near as I can tell, considered old and stodgy fools by the constructivists.) Out of curiosity, did constructivism predict the fall of the Soviet Union? Seems like someone who is "realistic" rather than a "realist" could note that the Sovient Union was based on principles that run counter to basic human nature, and was thus likely to fail sooner or later, thus ending the Cold War.

Can't say I'm terribly interested in IR theory though. Do you believe you have a more accurate (constructivist, or whatever you prefer) view of human nature?

juris imprudent said...

Well, juris, that's a little off topic

Are you FUCKING kidding me? You shameless little twit. It could not possibly be MORE ON TOPIC. You can't admit that I just pointed to evidence that winning is absolutely the same for Dems - because then you couldn't fellate your Dem idol in good conscience.

but I think Boehner saying that the GOP plan will cause more job losses and he doesn't care is quite interesting, no?

Oh, I see, you won't want to talk about the link I put up that just blows your stupid, lying ass right out of the water - so you bring up something totally fucking irrelevant. And you think I won't NOTICE? The only ones who won't notice are your braindead fellow believers - "uhhh, conservatives are evil, m'kay".

I'm not entirely convinced that now is the time for austerity nor am I convinced that spending more will help either.

LMAO, are you posting stoned? Or are you just absolutely unanchored to anything but "yay team"?

Regardless of the Democratic strategy, the GOP will lose the House

Sayeth the Oracle that predicted the Dems would retain the House in the last election.

GuardDuck said...

What are the people of Egypt after? Power? While it's still early in the game, I think not. They want a democratic government which distribute power equally and it looks like they might get it.


Uhhhm? Divesting a single figurehead of his power and spreading it around democratically so as to give the power of government to the people?

Yeah, I'd say they want power.

Santa said...

Haplo9, you have perfectly illustrated the point that Mark has made. You have strengthened it. You see the world in a very narrow way and falsely believe that the Democrats do as well. This is in direct conflict with the other basic criticism of the left which is they want everyone to be equal and get along. So which is it? Do they want power or more equality?

rld said...

Santa, why don't you tell us what you want instead of asking us what you want.

Haplo9 said...

>You see the world in a very narrow way

I think this is the place where I get to pull a Mark and say, "You don't like it, so you automatically say it is narrow or limited." On a more serious note, Santa, very specifically, I made an observation about human nature. Hows about telling me what you think is wrong about that observation rather than whining about how "narrow" it is? Do you believe that you and most Democrats do not look out for themselves first?

>and falsely believe that the Democrats do as well.

To the extent that someone would claim that they don't look out for themselves first, yes - I think they are either lying or deluding themselves.

Haplo9 said...

>This is in direct conflict with the other basic criticism of the left which is they want everyone to be equal and get along.

I don't follow. How is looking out for number one first in direct conflict with wanting to everyone to be equal and get along?

Question for you Santa: would you let your kids go hungry so that someone else's can eat? No? Wouldn't that be looking out for #1 first?

sasquatch said...

This whole discussion is fucking pointless. Until Haplo9 and juris admit that they characterize Democrats in the same way they perceive the world, we won't be getting anywhere. It was a good point made by Mark nonetheless and thankfully Santa and I got it. At least it explains the Right's motivations and why they have the views that they do. I just thought they were dicks and that was the end of it. Well, I still think they are dicks but I understand their dickishness a little more clearly now.

Haplo9 said...

>Until Haplo9 and juris admit that they characterize Democrats in the same way they perceive the world, we won't be getting anywhere.

I "admit" that I believe Democrats possess the same human nature that, oh, all humans possess. Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong and Democrats are actually different, and you aren't simply engaging in confirmation bias fueled ego stroking.

Or, we could bring this back to reality and point out that you are making an extraordinary claim, (that Democrats are somehow different! and better! than the vast majority of of humanity) and thus the level of evidence? logic? anything, really, to make that believable is quite a bit higher than Mark saying, "Dude. Democrats are awesome."

Mark Ward said...

Hap, if Democrats were so into power as you say they are, why do they support program after program that strives for equality? You would think they would want to push their boots down into the faces of those they lord over (under your view) but they don't.

Democrats certainly aren't perfect. They lie, spin, and have engaged in petty larceny these days but they aren't anywhere near the level of shit that the GOP is currently...not even close.

Historically speaking, the Dems still have the edge on being racist longer and Lyndon Johnson was still the worst president our nation has ever seen (not for the reasons you dislike him btw) but we are dealing with people in the present. The current form of the conservative movement in this country is filled with anger, hate and fear and act accordingly irrational to the point of pathological psychosis. They distrust anyone who isn't "pure" and are nationalistic bordering on jingoistic with a whole of xenophobia thrown in for good measure.

In short, they are very, very dangerous and should not be allowed anywhere near power again. Our country will not survive another 8 years of it.

Haplo9 said...

>Hap, if Democrats were so into power as you say they are, why do they support program after program that strives for equality?

In the above, you are equating "power" with "does things Mark doesn't like." Has it occurred to you that there isn't anything different when talking about "power" and "things Mark does like"? I mean seriously, what exactly do you think Obamacare is? Democrats got elected and .. exercised their power to push through a piece of legislation that they thought is important. Did Democrats somehow not want the power necessary to do that beforehand? Of course they did. Having good intentions doesn't grant you magical immunity from the desire to impose your vision on other people.

Haplo9 said...

>but we are dealing with people in the present.

Agreed. I really don't care whether D's or R's were more racist in the past. It's irrelevant. For the rest, I get it. You think R's are terrible people in general. I've certainly met plenty of conservative people that I thought were terrible people. Same with liberals. The problem boils down to which party is least worst. With Democrats, you get economic authoritarianism - we will force you to do what we think is best, even if we don't really know what is best, and in fact we will probably make things worse in the process. With R's, you get social authoritarianism - fear of gay people, trying to control abortion, etc. YMMV, but to me economic authoritarianism is far more worrisome, and so I end up generally supporting R's.