If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Congratulations Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ). You get to be the next contestant on "So you think you got away from public backlash for your background check vote"   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 34
    More: Amusing, Mark Begich, background checks, John McCain, Pat Toomey, The Arizona Republic, Dean Heller, R-AZ, junior senator  
•       •       •

3189 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2013 at 8:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-30 08:15:59 AM
What a Flake.
 
2013-04-30 08:20:06 AM
What a Jeff!
 
2013-04-30 08:20:18 AM

ariseatex: What a Flake.


Yeah, he should have changed his name prior to going in to politics.

Isn't he the guy that said "LOL SIX YEAR TERM, biatchES"? I might be paraphrasing.
 
2013-04-30 08:21:07 AM
CORRELATION $= CAUSATION.

Maybe it is related, maybe not, but I'm not rtfa when the Atlantic Wire article I read yesterday blatantly said that was the argument. Wake me when a respectable poll says that's the reason.

/pro reasonable gun control
//also pro intelligent use of statistics
 
2013-04-30 08:22:14 AM
He doesn't care. He doesn't come up for re-election until 2018.
 
2013-04-30 08:26:39 AM

RexTalionis: He doesn't care. He doesn't come up for re-election until 2018.


I agree, Arizona will forget by the time he's up for election again anyway.  Pointless poll is pointless.
 
2013-04-30 08:29:44 AM
This guy is also one of the republican gang of eight that voted FOR amnesty for illegal aliens. Arizonans are not happy about this.

Too bad the poll forgot to ask about that. Or was that intentional?
 
2013-04-30 08:53:21 AM

Tomahawk513: RexTalionis: He doesn't care. He doesn't come up for re-election until 2018.

I agree, Arizona will forget by the time he's up for election again anyway.  Pointless poll is pointless.


Four years is a long time, to be sure, but he's pretty deep in the hole for approval ratings to get re-elected... lotta diggn to do , even in four years. Coming from Gabby Giffords state, and having her come out in four years against him is gonna be a problem if she decides to go that route.
 
2013-04-30 08:58:14 AM
Okay, you know what phone, screw you too.

/!=, etc
//you get the point

Lawyers With Nukes: This guy is also one of the republican gang of eight that voted FOR amnesty for illegal aliens. Arizonans are not happy about this.

Too bad the poll forgot to ask about that. Or was that intentional?


It was inconvenient, probably.

i seriously hate this sh-t.  You do NOT win by stooping down to your opponents level, Dems!  If there's a correlation, FINE.  Prove it.  Otherwise, no, you can't have consistent talking point messaging.  Not yours.  Even MSNBC isn't going to be as lock step with you as Fox is with the GOP, and that's crucial.  Even when Steve Doocey f--ks it up.

i188.photobucket.com

And this is part of the reason I'm still registered f--king independent even though I'm liberal as all hell.

Also, obligatory.

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-04-30 09:06:54 AM

firefly212: Tomahawk513: RexTalionis: He doesn't care. He doesn't come up for re-election until 2018.

I agree, Arizona will forget by the time he's up for election again anyway.  Pointless poll is pointless.

Four years is a long time, to be sure, but he's pretty deep in the hole for approval ratings to get re-elected... lotta diggn to do , even in four years. Coming from Gabby Giffords state, and having her come out in four years against him is gonna be a problem if she decides to go that route.


I doubt she'll run.

She left Congress because of her injuries.  They removed part of her brain, but thankfully not enough to qualify her to run for the Senate.
 
2013-04-30 09:15:35 AM
The problem with polls like these, is that they are a snapshot.  After a major event like Sandy Hook, support for gun control is often very wide, but it's quite shallow, and it doesn't even rate in the top concerns of people.

For example, here is a recent Gallup poll of the "most important problems" in the US.  Gun control peaked at 6% in February, dropping back down to 4% in March.  I'm one of those who would have marked "Gun Control" as a most important problem, yet I don't *SUPPORT* increased gun control.

People have other things they are more worried about (like the economy, top issue at 24%).
 
2013-04-30 09:26:42 AM

dittybopper: The problem with polls like these, is that they are a snapshot.  After a major event like Sandy Hook, support for gun control is often very wide, but it's quite shallow, and it doesn't even rate in the top concerns of people.

For example, here is a recent Gallup poll of the "most important problems" in the US.  Gun control peaked at 6% in February, dropping back down to 4% in March.  I'm one of those who would have marked "Gun Control" as a most important problem, yet I don't *SUPPORT* increased gun control.

People have other things they are more worried about (like the economy, top issue at 24%).


But it's a Gallup poll, that means gun control got either 50% or negative 12%.
 
2013-04-30 09:29:23 AM
 
2013-04-30 09:32:44 AM

dittybopper: I'm one of those who would have marked "Gun Control" as a most important problem, yet I don't *SUPPORT* increased gun control.


So . . . you have a problem with a shipment of guns and ammo not being delivered to every American's doorstep every week with the Sunday paper?  Seriously, how much more lax can our gun laws get?
 
2013-04-30 09:53:50 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: [i188.photobucket.com image 516x358]


WTF is going on there? Is Gretch just being a dumb blonde, or did Doocy accidentally stumble on a burst of verboten logic (like "welfare is stimulative")?
 
2013-04-30 09:55:23 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Okay, you know what phone, screw you too.

/!=, etc
//you get the point

Lawyers With Nukes: This guy is also one of the republican gang of eight that voted FOR amnesty for illegal aliens. Arizonans are not happy about this.

Too bad the poll forgot to ask about that. Or was that intentional?

It was inconvenient, probably.

i seriously hate this sh-t.  You do NOT win by stooping down to your opponents level, Dems!  If there's a correlation, FINE.  Prove it.  Otherwise, no, you can't have consistent talking point messaging.  Not yours.  Even MSNBC isn't going to be as lock step with you as Fox is with the GOP, and that's crucial.  Even when Steve Doocey f--ks it up.

[i188.photobucket.com image 516x358]

And this is part of the reason I'm still registered f--king independent even though I'm liberal as all hell.

Also, obligatory.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 459x185]


The problem with that xkcd strip is that "imply" doesn't mean the same thing in statistics as it does in normal conversation (see also: "theory").
 
2013-04-30 10:01:06 AM
Here's what I don't get.  If it was really just about background checks... why did the Senate Democrats vote against a background check bill that didn't include the record keeping provision?  It failed 52-48 with no democrats voting for it.  If it was truly about the checks and not record keeping, why vote against?

And before someone claims "Bill would have prevented central database!!!".  No, the amendment only prevented the Attorney General's Office from creating a database, not other agencies.  It wasn't the AG office who got the CC permit database for Kansas.

And before "Filibuster!!!"  It was Reid who chose to put in the 60 vote threshold out of fear some GOP amendments would get added.  The amendment that had the most votes but didn't pass, 58 to 42, was an amendment on state sharing of CC permits and state acknowledgement of those permits.  IE an Az CC license would be legal in NY license.  Reid knew this amendment had more votes than the background + record keeping, so instituted the 60 vote threshold.
 
2013-04-30 10:10:06 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: i seriously hate this sh-t. You do NOT win by stooping down to your opponents level, Dems! If there's a correlation, FINE. Prove it. Otherwise, no, you can't have consistent talking point messaging. Not yours. Even MSNBC isn't going to be as lock step with you as Fox is with the GOP, and that's crucial. Even when Steve Doocey f--ks it up.


Public Policy Polling, one of the most accurate polling firms in the nation, found a steep drop for five of the senators who voted against background checks, from both parties. They found that McCain, who is otherwise exactly like Flake, is trusted far more on gun control issues than Flake is. They'd previously found a drop for Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, while Jeanne Shaheen - her Democratic colleague, who voted for background checks - saw significant improvement. Pat Toomey, the Republican from Pennsylvania, has reached his highest approval ratings yet from Quinnipiac.

Correlation doesn't prove causation, no. But there is a wide array of evidence that voting against universal background checks is politically stupid. It was already a very broadly popular measure, and the upward trajectory of pro-background check Senators' polling numbers compared to the downward trajectory of anti-background check Senators' polling numbers (regardless of party) suggests a very strong relationship.
 
2013-04-30 10:33:54 AM
Heh... Like it'll matter when this clown is up for reelection.
 
2013-04-30 10:54:15 AM

captainktainer: Correlation doesn't prove causation, no.


"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."
 
2013-04-30 11:00:43 AM

MyRandomName: Here's what I don't get.  If it was really just about background checks... why did the Senate Democrats vote against a background check bill that didn't include the record keeping provision?


Probably because you can't really do a background check unless records are kept. Just a hunch. See, you have to remember that 'most' Democrats aren't that dumb. Voting for something that is designed as a non-functional process is something only an idiot would do. If you are going to fix an existing law (felons, foreigners, abusers, and the mentally ill have not been able to own a gun legally for quite some time now) by adding structure to allow actual enforcement - you should probably actually add that structure.
 
2013-04-30 11:15:20 AM

The Name: dittybopper: I'm one of those who would have marked "Gun Control" as a most important problem, yet I don't *SUPPORT* increased gun control.

So . . . you have a problem with a shipment of guns and ammo not being delivered to every American's doorstep every week with the Sunday paper?  Seriously, how much more lax can our gun laws get?


I don't care if people want them lax, but most of the second amendment folks I know were the most vocal about fast and furious. It was arizonas shiatty laws that prevented atf agents from arresting the straw purchasers at the time of sale.

Yet they will still say they are against increased regulations or registrations on guns.
 
2013-04-30 11:20:44 AM

RexTalionis: He doesn't care. He doesn't come up for re-election until 2018.


That just means he still has plenty of opportunity to screw up even more.
 
2013-04-30 11:59:07 AM

captainktainer: Correlation doesn't prove causation, no.


Yeah.

Exactly.

One of the best things about my high school education was being taught statistics by a Marine.  Gave me a very, very, very low tolerance for BS statistics.  It's NOT WORTH MY TIME reading speculation.  As someone else mentioned, amnesty MIGHT have been a factor too.

You don't know.  Period.  But it sure sounds good, don't it?

/and I'm probably on your goddamn side as far as gun control goes!  But this is disingenuous as f--k!
 
2013-04-30 12:00:06 PM

Dr Dreidel: StreetlightInTheGhetto: [i188.photobucket.com image 516x358]

WTF is going on there? Is Gretch just being a dumb blonde, or did Doocy accidentally stumble on a burst of verboten logic (like "welfare is stimulative")?


Steve Doocey accidentally revealed that they were all parroting a talking points memo from the RNC.  He wasn't supposed to give up the game on the air, so Gretchen's circuits malfunctioned.

Hold up a sec, I'll find TDS clip.

/mainly cause I'm on lunch now anyway and I heart that clip
 
2013-04-30 12:03:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: StreetlightInTheGhetto: [i188.photobucket.com image 516x358]

WTF is going on there? Is Gretch just being a dumb blonde, or did Doocy accidentally stumble on a burst of verboten logic (like "welfare is stimulative")?


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-28-2012/i-can-t-belie ve -it-got-better-

4:00 - ish is the Doocey reveal
 
2013-04-30 12:23:52 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: CORRELATION $= CAUSATION.

Maybe it is related, maybe not, but I'm not rtfa when the Atlantic Wire article I read yesterday blatantly said that was the argument. Wake me when a respectable poll says that's the reason.

/pro reasonable gun control
//also pro intelligent use of statistics


a respectable poll wouldn't indicate a reason
 
2013-04-30 12:55:33 PM

mrshowrules: StreetlightInTheGhetto: CORRELATION $= CAUSATION.

Maybe it is related, maybe not, but I'm not rtfa when the Atlantic Wire article I read yesterday blatantly said that was the argument. Wake me when a respectable poll says that's the reason.

/pro reasonable gun control
//also pro intelligent use of statistics

a respectable poll wouldn't indicate a reason


Long term. Poll same set of people over time. If switch from favorable to not or vice versa ask why, or start listing issues one at a time to get favorable/unfavorable.
 
2013-04-30 01:06:31 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mrshowrules: StreetlightInTheGhetto: CORRELATION $= CAUSATION.

Maybe it is related, maybe not, but I'm not rtfa when the Atlantic Wire article I read yesterday blatantly said that was the argument. Wake me when a respectable poll says that's the reason.

/pro reasonable gun control
//also pro intelligent use of statistics

a respectable poll wouldn't indicate a reason

Long term. Poll same set of people over time. If switch from favorable to not or vice versa ask why, or start listing issues one at a time to get favorable/unfavorable.


Well technically, if the polling company did that, the would only be providing the polling results (just for more questions).  My point is that the company should guess the reasons themselves.
 
2013-04-30 01:45:12 PM
He voted for cloture of the amendment. That is why the voters are pissed.
 
2013-04-30 02:16:22 PM

firefly212: Tomahawk513: RexTalionis: He doesn't care. He doesn't come up for re-election until 2018.

I agree, Arizona will forget by the time he's up for election again anyway.  Pointless poll is pointless.

Four years is a long time, to be sure, but he's pretty deep in the hole for approval ratings to get re-elected... lotta diggn to do , even in four years. Coming from Gabby Giffords state, and having her come out in four years against him is gonna be a problem if she decides to go that route.


I hope she does, I'll remember it at least but i didn't vote for him in the first place and my right wing relatives out number me.

This whole state is crazy anyway, just look at what our governor signed into law today!
 
2013-04-30 05:17:58 PM

Gaumond: This whole state is crazy anyway, just look at what our governor signed into law today!


What, the bill saying that the police can't destroy legal, working guns that are surrendered to them in "buy backs", but instead have to sell them to licensed dealers who then sell them to law-abiding people after they pass a background check?

I'm not seeing what the issue is: the law already required they do that with all other guns that were "recovered, lost, or abandoned" that come into police possession (assuming the gun wasn't stolen, in which case it was returned to its rightful owner). There was some confusion as to whether or not guns surrendered in "buy backs" counted as "abandoned", so they amended the law to also include the word "surrendered".

While a lot of the guns dropped off during such events (which have no real effect on crime) are junk, there's some historically interesting and valuable guns that are dropped off by people who aren't aware of their interest or value (e.g. old widows dropping off their late husband's guns) and it's a shame to see them needlessly destroyed.
 
2013-05-01 12:42:00 AM
Stupid propaganda is stupid.  Laughably stupid.

/But still not as stupid as the morons who believe it.
 
2013-05-01 02:55:26 AM
FTFA: The backlash appears to be the harshest for Flake, whose standing in Arizona cratered following his "no" vote on background checks.

Yeah, that has a tendency to happen when you blatantly lie to the voters. He stated in his campaign that he supported background checks. This is the campaign that he ran in the Fall. Of 2012. Just a few months back. Normally, politicians wait until they think everyone has forgotten about their campaign promises before they go breaking them. Not Flake. He just went for it, right out of the gate. The people who ran the attack ads against him before the election geared back up and ran some more attack ads after his "no" vote. It was hilarious.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report