CDZ What a Mess, V. 2.0

[Pete7469]

I am certain there are Democrats and Republicans, along with Independent voters, who oppose initiatives to convert the U.S. into a "nanny state." That said, those folks opposition to the "nanny state" is, given Trump's high quantity of negative attributes, unlikely alone sufficient to sway those folks to his side.

WTF are you babbling about?

The federal government is and has been a nanny state for 70 fucking years, and it got a massive tit job under LBJ.

We provide cradle to (early) grave care for millions of people, 3rd, 4th and 5th generations now who have never held even a menial job yet they keep reproducing because the nanny whore keeps pumping out the milk.

 

[320 Years of History]

They may be more worried about their other races than they are the Presidential vote TBH. NC is already facing a lawsuit about is congressional districts. When there was an Voting RIghts Act, apparently it was racist not to have minority-majority districts in the south and since it was struck down, it is racist to have minority majority districts. Sometimes I swear the democrats will eventually seek to declare that having a salt shaker and a pepper shaker on the same table is separate and unequal racism.

I am sure you intend your comments to somehow be germane to the thread topic -- which is the strategy and tactics the GOP are using to garner votes in NC -- but it escapes me just how they are. Can you please clarify your comments so their relevance to the thread topic is dramatically less oblique and vague?

The GOP wants to keep their GOP dominated Congressional delegation. They further want to keep their republican governor in office who is in a neck and neck race. Not everything the GOP does is about Donald Freaking Trump. Is that clear enough for you?

Red:
Yes. That is far clearer and far more precise. I understand what you restatement means and implies. TY.

Blue:
True. But the folks who are going door-to-door are discussing Donald Trump and not the other GOP candidates, at least that's what they attested to be doing in the news clip that just aired on CNN. Perhaps they were prevaricating about their goals and activities?

Not necessarily. I imagine if you can get people out for Trump, those people will also vote for the GOP straight ticket. Maybe it is putting hot dog buns on sale because it makes it more likely you will buy the hotdogs, chili and onions at regular price.

Well, if you think likening impulse buying with choosing a President, okay. I prefer to think/hope that folks put considerably more though into their voting behavior than they do to their grocery store practices.

More germane to the plausibility of your suggestion is this. If a merchant wants to sell more hot dogs, that's what s/he puts on sale. In doing so, the expectation is that they may sell more chilli, onions and buns, not the other way round.

There's a very good reason for that. Hot dogs and buns are complementary goods; thus the demand for one derives from the demand for the other. Even as they are complements, there is nonetheless primacy in the demand of one over the other, in this case, hot dogs over buns. Economists identify complementary goods as "focal goods" (hot dogs) and "other goods" (buns), depending on which one drives the demand of the other.

Buns, onions, mustard, chilli, etc. all, for most people, have their demand derived from or inspired by hot dogs (hamburgers too). In contrast, hot dogs do not derive their demand from buns, mustard, etc. Now maybe there are some individuals whose thought/behavioral process is "Hmmm...I want hot dog buns. Now that I've got some, what can I buy along with them? Oh, I know...hot dogs," but those folks are few and far between. Merchants won't be in business long if their business model relies on such consumers. (Remember, microeconomics describes the rational behavior of rational consumers and sellers. It makes no attempt to describe the behavior of irrational individuals.)

The allegory you presented above is a strange and inaccurate one for reflecting the relationship between/among complementary goods/services. Moreover, it'd take quite a lot of evidence to show credibly that it's accurate to say that for most voters the relationship between wanting a "down ticket" candidate (representation by that candidate) and, as with complementary goods purchases in grocery stores, that by being in the place where one "buys" the "down ticket" candidate, one will incidentally vote also for the candidate at the top of the ticket. For as unusual as this election cycle is, I don't think it's so unusual that a complete reversal of typical voters' candidate selection decision making processes is reasonably expected by either party's strategists or by political observers and analysts.

 

[JoeMoma]

It's about voter turnout. Each wants to turnout votes for their campaigns not against. As for the methodology, thank Obama! He was the master of targeted campaigning.

Be those things as they may, if the GOP get 100% of their supporters to turn out and the Dems do the same, the GOP candidate loses. "Get out the vote" is a viable strategy for the party/candidate who has a known numerical lead in the quantity of voters who are predisposed to that party. It's a losing strategy for the other party.

What percentage of registered voters vote. I could research it, but I know is nowhere close to 100%.

Also, I doubt that the GOP people are only targeting those that already support Trump. The key is to target the swayable. It would be a big waste of their time to show up at your house for the Trump people.

 

[Dekster]

They may be more worried about their other races than they are the Presidential vote TBH. NC is already facing a lawsuit about is congressional districts. When there was an Voting RIghts Act, apparently it was racist not to have minority-majority districts in the south and since it was struck down, it is racist to have minority majority districts. Sometimes I swear the democrats will eventually seek to declare that having a salt shaker and a pepper shaker on the same table is separate and unequal racism.

I am sure you intend your comments to somehow be germane to the thread topic -- which is the strategy and tactics the GOP are using to garner votes in NC -- but it escapes me just how they are. Can you please clarify your comments so their relevance to the thread topic is dramatically less oblique and vague?

The GOP wants to keep their GOP dominated Congressional delegation. They further want to keep their republican governor in office who is in a neck and neck race. Not everything the GOP does is about Donald Freaking Trump. Is that clear enough for you?

Red:
Yes. That is far clearer and far more precise. I understand what you restatement means and implies. TY.

Blue:
True. But the folks who are going door-to-door are discussing Donald Trump and not the other GOP candidates, at least that's what they attested to be doing in the news clip that just aired on CNN. Perhaps they were prevaricating about their goals and activities?

Not necessarily. I imagine if you can get people out for Trump, those people will also vote for the GOP straight ticket. Maybe it is putting hot dog buns on sale because it makes it more likely you will buy the hotdogs, chili and onions at regular price.

Well, if you think likening impulse buying with choosing a President, okay. I prefer to think/hope that folks put considerably more though into their voting behavior than they do to their grocery store practices.

More germane to the plausibility of your suggestion is this. If a merchant wants to sell more hot dogs, that's what s/he puts on sale. In doing so, the expectation is that they may sell more chilli, onions and buns, not the other way round.

There's a very good reason for that. Hot dogs and buns are complementary goods; thus the demand for one derives from the demand for the other. Even as they are complements, there is nonetheless primacy in the demand of one over the other, in this case, hot dogs over buns. Economists identify complementary goods as "focal goods" (hot dogs) and "other goods" (buns), depending on which one drives the demand of the other.

Buns, onions, mustard, chilli, etc. all, for most people, have their demand derived from or inspired by hot dogs (hamburgers too). In contrast, hot dogs do not derive their demand from buns, mustard, etc. Now maybe there are some individuals whose thought/behavioral process is "Hmmm...I want hot dog buns. Now that I've got some, what can I buy along with them? Oh, I know...hot dogs," but those folks are few and far between. Merchants won't be in business long if their business model relies on such consumers. (Remember, microeconomics describes the rational behavior of rational consumers and sellers. It makes no attempt to describe the behavior of irrational individuals.)

The allegory you presented above is a strange and inaccurate one for reflecting the relationship between/among complementary goods/services. Moreover, it'd take quite a lot of evidence to show credibly that it's accurate to say that for most voters the relationship between wanting a "down ticket" candidate (representation by that candidate) and, as with complementary goods purchases in grocery stores, that by being in the place where one "buys" the "down ticket" candidate, one will incidentally vote also for the candidate at the top of the ticket. For as unusual as this election cycle is, I don't think it's so unusual that a complete reversal of typical voters' candidate selection decision making processes is reasonably expected by either party's strategists or by political observers and analysts.

One week it is the buns, the next the chili and the next the hotdogs. There is no inherently logical order as they are the essential ingredients to the common product. Complimentary goods, however, are goods whose demand is increased when the price of another good is decreased. Decreasing the price of chili may very well increase the demand for hot dog buns or hot dogs. They are not as interchangeable as say bacon and eggs with other products. Trump voters are going to be more likely to buy the buns and hotdogs and less likely to buy sausage instead of bacon to go with their eggs.

 

[JoeMoma]

Bacon,sauage,eggs,grits,biscuits and a glass of OJ --The perfect breakfast. Sadly, there are campaign statisticians that can probably tell whether I'm more likely to vote for Trump or Clinton just by what I like for breakfast.

 

[320 Years of History]

What percentage of registered voters vote. I could research it, but I know is nowhere close to 100%.

I don't know either. I get that there's something of a case to be made based on the presumption that if one party can get a higher rater of voter turnout, they increase their chances of winning if the other party is less successful in generating the same/comparable "bumps" in participation rates.

That said, for the side that from the start has fewer registered members, that tactical approach is a bit of a "Hail Mary" one, particularly in an election such as this one where neither major candidate is all that highly regarded.

Also, I doubt that the GOP people are only targeting those that already support Trump. The key is to target the swayable. It would be a big waste of their time to show up at your house for the Trump people.

Red:
Well, what can I say? That was the assertion made in the news story I heard. It's all I have to go on. The accompanying video showed a staffer knocking on a door and asking whether the person who answered supported Trump. They resident answered, "no," nothing more or less (at least not that was apparent), and the staffer turned around and left. At another home, the staffer got a "yes" answer and proceeded to discuss Trump's "policies" before thanking the resident and moving on.

Blue:
That's what I think too, but I likewise think the only way for campaign staffers to sway the swayable is to knock on their doors, so to speak, and speak with them in an effort to secure their support/vote.

Pink:
Knowing my views as you do, yes, it would, and I would tell the staffer they are wasting their time and mine to discuss the matter and then I'd turn off the intercom and that would be that. But they don't know my views as you do, nor could they.

As a practical matter, neither Dems or Reps seem to send folks out to, for Presidential candidates, do "on the ground" canvassing in D.C. They occasionally do so for City Council positions and Mayoral races.

As another practical matter, they wouldn't come into my specific neighborhood because the odds of their actually reaching the homeowner are very slim. Between the travel schedules of most of the residents, the many individually gated grounds and household staff who will just tell unexpected visitors that "so and so" is not in, it's not even worth it if they were to come knocking. I mean really, would you just stroll up to the door of these homes asking to speak with the owner about a political candidate/race?

​

Off topic:
Interestingly, I'll tell you who is willing to knock unexpectedly on our doors...tradesmen trying to convince us to redo our roofs, engage them to trim our shrubbery or "top" our trees, and so on. I don't know why they think our homes look so unkempt they we need their services, but they sure will ask if we would like them to improve our properties. It happens often enough that it's become something of a running joke at parties or "over the garden fence" chit chats.

"I saw the lawncare guys stop at your place last week, Chuck. Did you hire them?"
"No, I was too busy to talk with them, but I should have. My place is starting to look a little rundown these days. Maybe they'll stop by again soon."​

 

[320 Years of History]

I am sure you intend your comments to somehow be germane to the thread topic -- which is the strategy and tactics the GOP are using to garner votes in NC -- but it escapes me just how they are. Can you please clarify your comments so their relevance to the thread topic is dramatically less oblique and vague?

The GOP wants to keep their GOP dominated Congressional delegation. They further want to keep their republican governor in office who is in a neck and neck race. Not everything the GOP does is about Donald Freaking Trump. Is that clear enough for you?

Red:
Yes. That is far clearer and far more precise. I understand what you restatement means and implies. TY.

Blue:
True. But the folks who are going door-to-door are discussing Donald Trump and not the other GOP candidates, at least that's what they attested to be doing in the news clip that just aired on CNN. Perhaps they were prevaricating about their goals and activities?

Not necessarily. I imagine if you can get people out for Trump, those people will also vote for the GOP straight ticket. Maybe it is putting hot dog buns on sale because it makes it more likely you will buy the hotdogs, chili and onions at regular price.

Well, if you think likening impulse buying with choosing a President, okay. I prefer to think/hope that folks put considerably more though into their voting behavior than they do to their grocery store practices.

More germane to the plausibility of your suggestion is this. If a merchant wants to sell more hot dogs, that's what s/he puts on sale. In doing so, the expectation is that they may sell more chilli, onions and buns, not the other way round.

There's a very good reason for that. Hot dogs and buns are complementary goods; thus the demand for one derives from the demand for the other. Even as they are complements, there is nonetheless primacy in the demand of one over the other, in this case, hot dogs over buns. Economists identify complementary goods as "focal goods" (hot dogs) and "other goods" (buns), depending on which one drives the demand of the other.

Buns, onions, mustard, chilli, etc. all, for most people, have their demand derived from or inspired by hot dogs (hamburgers too). In contrast, hot dogs do not derive their demand from buns, mustard, etc. Now maybe there are some individuals whose thought/behavioral process is "Hmmm...I want hot dog buns. Now that I've got some, what can I buy along with them? Oh, I know...hot dogs," but those folks are few and far between. Merchants won't be in business long if their business model relies on such consumers. (Remember, microeconomics describes the rational behavior of rational consumers and sellers. It makes no attempt to describe the behavior of irrational individuals.)

The allegory you presented above is a strange and inaccurate one for reflecting the relationship between/among complementary goods/services. Moreover, it'd take quite a lot of evidence to show credibly that it's accurate to say that for most voters the relationship between wanting a "down ticket" candidate (representation by that candidate) and, as with complementary goods purchases in grocery stores, that by being in the place where one "buys" the "down ticket" candidate, one will incidentally vote also for the candidate at the top of the ticket. For as unusual as this election cycle is, I don't think it's so unusual that a complete reversal of typical voters' candidate selection decision making processes is reasonably expected by either party's strategists or by political observers and analysts.

One week it is the buns, the next the chili and the next the hotdogs. There is no inherently logical order as they are the essential ingredients to the common product. Complimentary goods, however, are goods whose demand is increased when the price of another good is decreased. Decreasing the price of chili may very well increase the demand for hot dog buns or hot dogs. They are not as interchangeable as say bacon and eggs with other products. Trump voters are going to be more likely to buy the buns and hotdogs and less likely to buy sausage instead of bacon to go with their eggs.

Okay...you keep thinking that.

I tried...I even provided you with a link that has the math that explains the primacy aspect of the relationship between complementary goods, yet you insist on ignoring it. I can only ":lead a horse to water..."

 

[JoeMoma]

Red:
Well, what can I say? That was the assertion made in the news story I heard. It's all I have to go on. The accompanying video showed a staffer knocking on a door and asking whether the person who answered supported Trump. They resident answered, "no," nothing more or less (at least not that was apparent), and the staffer turned around and left. At another home, the staffer got a "yes" answer and proceeded to discuss Trump's "policies" before thanking the resident and moving on.

Some things are played by ear. A firm "No" would probably be a wast of time. It may be worth a few minutes to talk to a "Yes" to encourage that vote to turn out. Apparently the news story you saw didn't show how they handle an "I don't know", but I would expect it would warrent some campaign time.

That being said, it is my understanding from news stories about how campaigns use data (related topic data mining) that the respective campaigns already know which houses are worth a knock and which ones are not. Of course the information will not be perfect.

 

[320 Years of History]

Some things are played by ear.

Off Topic:
Things like the GOP nominee's candidacy perhaps? .... Can you say, "Bright guy who initially shows lots of promise, achieves many laudable things including the approbation of many observers, but eventually he becomes "too big for his britches" and falls flat when it's most important not to."?

 

[JoeMoma]

Some things are played by ear.

Off Topic:
Things like the GOP nominee's candidacy perhaps? .... Can you say, "Bright guy who initially shows lots of promise, achieves many laudable things including the approbation of many observers, but eventually he becomes "too big for his britches" and falls flat when it's most important not to."?

I found Trump to be very much off key for my ear from his an anouncment to run. Hillary sounds no better. I will try listening to 3rd party candidates.