Have the Brett Kavanaugh hearings backfired on the left?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Their numbers were mostly right. They weren't off by all that much. 70% =/= 100%. Unlikely things happen. Trump's victory was predicted within the margin of error.

Etc. etc. etc.

Huffpost gave him less than 2% chance.

The % is irrelevant insofar as predictions keep being wrong.

Almost as if surveys can be lied to or something...

[The Black Forrest]

IMHO. I think there were assumptions both would run a "normal" campaign. Over estimating people questioning donnies statements and of course that blue wall nonsense......

Controversy worked for Trump due to media never being able to pin him down to one statement, which only worked to give him free publicity.

Tbh dem "strategy" has been meh at best. They need to stop looking at polls as if they're word of god and being more like sanders when they approach voters. They just keep shooting themselves and other people in the foot.

How do you work with Con voters who believe everything donnie says?

[Telconi]

Controversy worked for Trump due to media never being able to pin him down to one statement, which only worked to give him free publicity.

Tbh dem "strategy" has been meh at best. They need to stop looking at polls as if they're word of god and being more like sanders when they approach voters. They just keep shooting themselves and other people in the foot.

How do you work with Con voters who believe everything donnie says?

I wouldn't recommend putting much energy into dealing with fabrications.

[Petrasylvania]

Huffpost gave him less than 2% chance.

The % is irrelevant insofar as predictions keep being wrong.

Almost as if surveys can be lied to or something...

HuffPo is known for being an accurate pollster? Stop the presses.

[Great Aletia]

In a way, yes. Future allegations won't be taken as seriously, particularly if they are against a political figure.

[Vassenor]

In a way, yes. Future allegations won't be taken as seriously, particularly if they are against a political figure.

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

[Telconi]

In a way, yes. Future allegations won't be taken as seriously, particularly if they are against a political figure.

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

"All is fair in love and war"

[NS Miami Shores]

In a way, yes. Future allegations won't be taken as seriously, particularly if they are against a political figure.

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

We finally agree on something Vassenor, lol, awesome post.

[Shofercia]

In a way, yes. Future allegations won't be taken as seriously, particularly if they are against a political figure.

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

Good think Clintonites have never done this after Trump's Victory...

[Tobleste]

To reply to the OP:

Wrt the Senate? Yes that's likely. Red state voters seem more interested over that period which could be because it's closer to the midterms but it could be because the Kavanaugh intensified those divides on sexual assault leading to potentially disinterested Trump voters being interested to turn out.

Wrt the House? Nope. Kavanaugh is unpopular nationally and, afaik, most voters would rather vote for a candidate that opposed him than who supported him.

Wrt setting a precedent that encourages false rape allegations? The only reason that might happen would be if people start taking it seriously which is what they should be doing. Democrats didn't think the allegations were false, that's why they backed Ford.

[Tobleste]

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

Good think Clintonites have never done this after Trump's Victory...

So "Clintonites" announced their intent to drum up allegations against republican candidates as a form of revenge?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

Good think Clintonites have never done this after Trump's Victory...

Except that the Russia investigation is just that. An investigation. Not a presumption of guilt.

Though frankly there's already plenty of reason to suspect Russian involvement.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

In a way, yes. Future allegations won't be taken as seriously, particularly if they are against a political figure.

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

For once you actually have a good point.

These revenge allegations have done nothing but harm the true victims of sexual assault, and #MeToo is effectively HARMING the victims, not aiding them.

[Tobleste]

That's what happens when you announce your intent to drum up allegations against candidates as a form of revenge.

For once you actually have a good point.

These revenge allegations have done nothing but harm the true victims of sexual assault, and #MeToo is effectively HARMING the victims, not aiding them.

What does that mean?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

To reply to the OP:

Wrt the Senate? Yes that's likely. Red state voters seem more interested over that period which could be because it's closer to the midterms but it could be because the Kavanaugh intensified those divides on sexual assault leading to potentially disinterested Trump voters being interested to turn out.

Wrt the House? Nope. Kavanaugh is unpopular nationally and, afaik, most voters would rather vote for a candidate that opposed him than who supported him.

Wrt setting a precedent that encourages false rape allegations? The only reason that might happen would be if people start taking it seriously which is what they should be doing. Democrats didn't think the allegations were false, that's why they backed Ford.

They seemed to hesitate for a while before backing her, though.

But even if we assume that it's true... you're still sending a message that the accusation, even prior to proof, is all it takes to make everyone focus on that accusation instead of other aspects of one's political career. Again, wouldn't that also send a message to other false rape accusers that they can derail such careers by launching targeting their least-favourite candidates, motivating other officials to represent said false rape accusers more so any other constitutents?

[Tobleste]

To reply to the OP:

Wrt the Senate? Yes that's likely. Red state voters seem more interested over that period which could be because it's closer to the midterms but it could be because the Kavanaugh intensified those divides on sexual assault leading to potentially disinterested Trump voters being interested to turn out.

Wrt the House? Nope. Kavanaugh is unpopular nationally and, afaik, most voters would rather vote for a candidate that opposed him than who supported him.

Wrt setting a precedent that encourages false rape allegations? The only reason that might happen would be if people start taking it seriously which is what they should be doing. Democrats didn't think the allegations were false, that's why they backed Ford.

They seemed to hesitate for a while before backing her, though.

But even if we assume that it's true... you're still sending a message that the accusation, even prior to proof, is all it takes to make everyone focus on that accusation instead of other aspects of one's political career. Again, wouldn't that also send a message to other false rape accusers that they can derail such careers by launching targeting their least-favourite candidates, motivating other officials to represent said false rape accusers more so any other constitutents?

Probably. Ideally there'd be a proper process for investigating this but the last year has shown that no such process exists. I'm not sure what the alternative is. Ignoring it?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

For once you actually have a good point.

These revenge allegations have done nothing but harm the true victims of sexual assault, and #MeToo is effectively HARMING the victims, not aiding them.

What does that mean?

There were hints that definitely pointed to her allegations being politically or personally (the latter as in unrelated to sexual assault) motivated.

[Diopolis]

They seemed to hesitate for a while before backing her, though.

But even if we assume that it's true... you're still sending a message that the accusation, even prior to proof, is all it takes to make everyone focus on that accusation instead of other aspects of one's political career. Again, wouldn't that also send a message to other false rape accusers that they can derail such careers by launching targeting their least-favourite candidates, motivating other officials to represent said false rape accusers more so any other constitutents?

Probably. Ideally there'd be a proper process for investigating this but the last year has shown that no such process exists. I'm not sure what the alternative is. Ignoring it?

The proper process would have been to bring them up earlier.
Instead, the democrats decided to play politics by sitting on them until it was guaranteed nothing would come of them.

[Tobleste]

What does that mean?

There were hints that definitely pointed to her allegations being politically or personally (the latter as in unrelated to sexual assault) motivated.

What hints?

[Vassenor]

There were hints that definitely pointed to her allegations being politically or personally (the latter as in unrelated to sexual assault) motivated.

What hints?

The fact she made them at all.

[Page]

In a way, yes. Future allegations won't be taken as seriously, particularly if they are against a political figure.

I think we've already hit rock bottom. The right-wing response to a rape allegation against one of their own politicians is automatic, unconditional disbelief. They criticized the notion of believing accusers on the grounds of "innocent until proven guilty", but they became a mirror image of it.

[Vassenor]

Only 1 in 4 Americans think Kav was telling the whole truth during his testimony anyway.

Doesn't seem like it's backfired there.

[Page]

Only 1 in 4 Americans think Kav was telling the whole truth during his testimony anyway.

Doesn't seem like it's backfired there.

Conservatives like to pretend that there are huge swaths of "moderates" who always agree with them about things like this, but in reality those "moderates" are conservatives themselves.

[Petrasylvania]

Only 1 in 4 Americans think Kav was telling the whole truth during his testimony anyway.

Doesn't seem like it's backfired there.

Conservatives like to pretend that there are huge swaths of "moderates" who always agree with them about things like this, but in reality those "moderates" are conservatives themselves.

Like Trump, they keep insisting the crowd was a lot bigger than it really was.

[Tobleste]

Only 1 in 4 Americans think Kav was telling the whole truth during his testimony anyway.

Doesn't seem like it's backfired there.

Conservatives like to pretend that there are huge swaths of "moderates" who always agree with them about things like this, but in reality those "moderates" are conservatives themselves.

Pretty much. Whenever I hear a republican say "real Americans", I just imagine Roseanne Barr.