PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
In response to comment that suspect mentioned baby parts, @TedCruz says It's also been reported he's a "transgendered leftist activist."
Click to expand...

Suck my dick, Teddy.

Glad to know that Cruz reads white supremacist websites though (AKA, the only ones reporting that nonsense).
 
Christie was pretty popular here even pre-Sandy and I think the only one that could have beaten him was Booker, who took another path/chickened out depending on which view you take. Barbara Buono was a pretty big LOSER as trumpy would say.
 
Cerium said:
Iowa I think is one of those states that is drawn to personalities more than parties. They've had a longstanding romance with Obama, for example, and they've never been fond of politicians from the Northeast whether it be Romney or Kerry.
Click to expand...

I wonder what this means for Hillary? She's from New York, but also from Chicago, and spent a large amount of time in Arkansas. Bill was able to pick up Iowa twice though, so I doubt she has much to worry about.

BertramCooper said:
So I bought a Prius this weekend.

When do I start getting relentlessly tailgated by people with Confederate flag bumper stickers?
Click to expand...

I just looked this up, and I'm surprised that this was a thing...
 
Y2Kev said:
Christie was pretty popular here even pre-Sandy and I think the only one that could have beaten him was Booker, who took another path/chickened out depending on which view you take. Barbara Buono was a pretty big LOSER as trumpy would say.
Click to expand...
I don't think even Booker would have beaten him which makes it all the more ludicrous that he pulled the lane closing shit to pressure some Dem mayor into endorsing him. You're already up by like 20 and you still feel the need to cheat?
 
Aaron Strife said:
I don't think even Booker would have beaten him which makes it all the more ludicrous that he pulled the lane closing shit to pressure some Dem mayor into endorsing him. You're already up by like 20 and you still feel the need to cheat?
Click to expand...

That was after the election, it was meant to be punitive. Just pure spite.

For the record I'm not a fan of Booker. Haven't forgiven him for backstabbing Obama in 2012 and I think he's probably corrupt like everyone else in New Jersey.
 
Y2Kev said:
Christie was pretty popular here even pre-Sandy and I think the only one that could have beaten him was Booker, who took another path/chickened out depending on which view you take. Barbara Buono was a pretty big LOSER as trumpy would say.
Click to expand...

Christie was going to win no matter what. Buono was sent to die but she was a decent sacrificial lamb because she had no potential anyway. A Booker loss would have really damaged his career, it just wasn't his time.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Well, this is surprising Ina good way:http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/29/polit...nned-parenthood-domestic-terrorism/index.html

Doesn't make Huckabee a good guy or anything...
Click to expand...

Meanwhile... Carly Fiorina Calls Planned Parenthood Shooter a 'Protester,' Decries 'Left-Wing Tactics'

Fiorina was responding to a statement by Vicki Cowart, president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. In her statement, Cowart said, “We’ve seen an alarming increase in hateful rhetoric and smear campaigns against abortion providers and patients over the last few months. That environment breeds acts of violence.” Fiorina rejected the connections made by Cowart saying, “This is so typical of the left to immediately begin demonizing a messenger because they don’t agree with the message. The vast majority of Americans agree what Planned Parenthood is doing is wrong.”
Click to expand...
Though she called the murder of three people (one that appears to be motivated by ideology) a “tragedy,” she added, “Any protesters should always be peaceful. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter or pro-life protesters.”
Click to expand...
 
Fiorina said:
The vast majority of Americans agree what Planned Parenthood is doing is wrong.
Click to expand...

How does she get away just flat out lying? This woman is terrible.

Since the videos' release in July, Planned Parenthood’s approval rating has jumped by two points, up to 47 percent. Additionally, a nationwide USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll found 65 percent of Americans support federal funding for the group.
Click to expand...

https://www.opposingviews.com/i/pol...planned-parenthood-and-its-popularity-growing
 
danm999 said:
Awful person.

My god what a field. Multiple candidates flat out lying about videos to incite people to attack others and then when tragedy occurs they shrug and try to blame the left.

Just nauseating.
Click to expand...

And none of us thought this field could top 2012's field. The GOP really outdid themselves this time.
 
One of my "favorite" parts of the PP video saga was that after Jason Chaffetz got firebombed into the void, PP was like "you know what, fuck it, we won't even accept the money to pay for handling costs of fetal tissue. We never made made a cent of profit, but if you don't want us to have revenue, go right ahead, we'll keep donating tissue even if it costs us."

And then the right wing media responded with "SEE PP REALLY DID MAKE MONEY OFF SELLING BODY PARTS11!1"

There is literally not a single member of the National Review, WSJ Opinion Page, or other far-right, pants-on-head site that won't shut up about PP but not a single one will even attempt to answer the question as to why not a single Republican governor (with a Republican legislator and Republican investigators behind him) will prosecute PP for breaking the law if they really did make money selling fetal tissue.
 
Gingrich and Ben Carson aligned Super PAC basically spent none of the money they raised in 2014 on the actual midterms.

Her money went to the American Legacy PAC, an organization with ties to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. With Carson as the face of its Save Our Healthcare campaign, American Legacy raised close to $6 million in 2014 — and spent nearly all of it paying the consultants and firms that raised the money. Just 2% was donated to Republican candidates and committees, financial reports show.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-ben-carson-fundraising-20151125-story.html
 
Mario said:
I thought at the time that Santorum and Bachmann were as low as the GOP could sink candidate wise. And yet here we are.
Click to expand...

I still think Bachman is worse than these people. If she were in there, she'd be leading the charge on the most outrageous stuff this side of Trump.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Gingrich and Ben Carson aligned Super PAC basically spent none of the money they raised in 2014 on the actual midterms.



http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-ben-carson-fundraising-20151125-story.html
Click to expand...

I honestly think there's going to be a big story down the road about how much money that the conservative movement has wasted in the SuperPAC era in just plain old scams. I mean, there's decent evidence that Ben Carson's entire Presidential campaign was a grift that got out of control.

But, seriously, there's been probably hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in the past few cycles in the various PAC's of people like Carson, Gingrich, and the like that could've been used on actual campaigns that might've won the GOP a few more Senate races.
 
JesseEwiak said:
I honestly think there's going to be a big story down the road about how much money that the conservative movement has wasted in the SuperPAC era in just plain old scams. I mean, there's decent evidence that Ben Carson's entire Presidential campaign was a grift that got out of control.

But, seriously, there's been probably hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in the past few cycles in the various PAC's of people like Carson, Gingrich, and the like that could've been used on actual campaigns that might've won the GOP a few more Senate races.
Click to expand...

It's an absolutely great place to rip people off when you think about it. I think your prediction is right.
 
Giant Panda said:
If you re-read my original post you'll see that I only called the conservatives hypocrites that claim banning guns won't end gun crime but banning abortion will baby end murder crime. You did essentially agree with my other point that conservatives that claim to be pro-life but don't support sex education, contraceptives, etc. actually care more about enforcing their religious morals than ending baby murder.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't, and no, I didn't. On the latter point, a person who believes that both abortion and comprehensive sex education are immoral doesn't favor one over the other by opposing both. As for "enforcing their religious morals," that's called democracy, in that their refusal to support what they view as immoral becomes embodied as government policy through that governing structure. Plus, they'd be doing it no less if they supported comprehensive sex education because they believed it would reduce abortions. As to your earlier point, here's the first paragraph from your original post:

Giant Panda said:
The fact that many people push for only one, and ignore or oppose the other, does show that for these people there is an interest or belief that is taking precedence over their purported belief of stopping murder. If reducing murder was their goal, then banning and sex education would be top priorities. When people don't advocate both, they show that really they care more about enforcing their narrow and burdensome religious on others. Some people might have a different reason for being hypocrites, but I suspect it is the main reason for it.
Click to expand...
 
JesseEwiak said:
I honestly think there's going to be a big story down the road about how much money that the conservative movement has wasted in the SuperPAC era in just plain old scams. I mean, there's decent evidence that Ben Carson's entire Presidential campaign was a grift that got out of control.

But, seriously, there's been probably hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in the past few cycles in the various PAC's of people like Carson, Gingrich, and the like that could've been used on actual campaigns that might've won the GOP a few more Senate races.
Click to expand...

Cruz's lineup of super PACs appear to be scams as well.

Keep the Promise, Keep the Promise I, Keep the Promise II: Electric Boogalo, and Keep the Promise III: Chipwrecked have collectively raised $38 million and aired exactly one TV ad.
 
It would be funny if the proliferation of scam SuperPACs is what causes SCOTUS to eventually overturn its previous holding that Congress cannot regulate them. Congress may not be able to regulate SuperPACs to prevent corruption (since according the the Justices money does not corrupt, lol) but Congress is sure as hell able to regulate consumer fraud.

A new campaign finance bill could even be written with the express purpose of making sure that people's "speech/money" goes toward where they intend it to go rather than to a scam.
 
I'm delighted that SuperPACs have followed in the footsteps of televangelism and high overhead "charities". Can't think of a better way to fleece people who desperately deserve it.
 
Sea Manky said:
I'm delighted that SuperPACs have followed in the footsteps of televangelism and high overhead "charities". Can't think of a better way to fleece people who desperately deserve it.
Click to expand...

I think there was something like only 3 of those types of non-profits have ever been audited in the past year. Crazy.
 
Jeb's implosion and the general ineffectiveness of multiple other major PACs (especially Karl Rove's in 2012) really show that PACs are not the threat they're made out to be imo. For the most part they're being used as a newer version of traditional republican mail-order scams. Running for president seems like little more than a cash grab for many candidates and the firms they hire. Even Romney, who certainly ran for president in earnest, ultimately spent tens of millions paying firms and consultants who didn't do much of anything for him. It's a game, and every two years firms can pretend like their advise led to large GOP victories (midterms) when in reality that's not the case.

Honestly even if PAC money could be used for campaign operations I wouldn't be scared of this current crop of candidates. It would just result in campaign managers getting paid seven figures, "close friends" getting six figure jobs, etc. All while not building any campaign infrastructure or registering people to vote. Republicans simply don't get it.
 
Political scientist Alan Abramowitz thinks that Trump has a good chance at winning the Republican nomination, bringing up a lot of the points mentioned when talking about that last Nate Silver article.

Silver makes the case that the polls at this point don't necessarily mean much, and you can get big swings in voter preferences in relatively short periods of time. And that's true. What I think is different is Republicans are tuned in to a much greater degree than they were at this point in previous nomination contests. You can see that in polling when you ask whether voters are paying attention, and you can see that in ratings for the debates. The idea that voters aren't tuned in yet and won't make up their minds till January or later may not prove as true as it has in the past.

Because of the higher level of interest and attention this year, these early polls may be more predictive of what's likely to happen.

The second point is Trump isn't only leading in national polling. He's leading in every state poll I've seen. He seems to be ahead in Iowa, in New Hampshire, in South Carolina, Nevada.
Click to expand...

The rest of the interview is good too: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/25/98001...entist-thinks-donald-trump-might-actually-win

I also like Klein's "Underpants Gnome Theory" regarding Rubio winning the nomination:

Step one is Rubio is the only acceptable nominee to Republican elites. Step two is ... something. And step three is Rubio wins the nomination.
Click to expand...
 
PhoenixDark said:
Jeb's implosion and the general ineffectiveness of multiple other major PACs (especially Karl Rove's in 2012) really show that PACs are not the threat they're made out to be imo. For the most part they're being used as a newer version of traditional republican mail-order scams. Running for president seems like little more than a cash grab for many candidates and the firms they hire. Even Romney, who certainly ran for president in earnest, ultimately spent tens of millions paying firms and consultants who didn't do much of anything for him. It's a game, and every two years firms can pretend like their advise led to large GOP victories (midterms) when in reality that's not the case.

Honestly even if PAC money could be used for campaign operations I wouldn't be scared of this current crop of candidates. It would just result in campaign managers getting paid seven figures, "close friends" getting six figure jobs, etc. All while not building any campaign infrastructure or registering people to vote. Republicans simply don't get it.
Click to expand...

We're just lucky they're all incompetent. It could be a real danger if any of them were any good at this, which is the problem.
 
B-Dubs said:
We're just lucky they're all incompetent. It could be a real danger if any of them were any good at this, which is the problem.
Click to expand...

What would a competent use of PAC money look like? Say, if you were running a PAC how would you do it. I think it can be very effective in state elections but even that has asterisks. If you do it during a presidential election you're tied to the success/failure of whoever is on top of the ticket (see 2012), and if you do it during a midterm you're basically overspending on a result that will likely happen regardless.
 
PhoenixDark said:
What would a competent use of PAC money look like? Say, if you were running a PAC how would you do it. I think it can be very effective in state elections but even that has asterisks. If you do it during a presidential election you're tied to the success/failure of whoever is on top of the ticket (see 2012), and if you do it during a midterm you're basically overspending on a result that will likely happen regardless.
Click to expand...

If I were running a superPAC I'd be using it to launder millions of dollars into an offshore bank account.

You're right that it only matters if the candidate is any good, but between two good candidates that sort of ad money could be the deciding factor if used well. It's just the sort of thing that could push someone over the line or widen a gap between two candidates--and we both know how important the latter can be, especially in a general election.
 
Trump cancelled his press conference where all the black pastors were supposed to endorse him. But it's ok because he says they all love him but BLM got to them lololol.
 
PhoenixDark said:
What would a competent use of PAC money look like? Say, if you were running a PAC how would you do it. I think it can be very effective in state elections but even that has asterisks. If you do it during a presidential election you're tied to the success/failure of whoever is on top of the ticket (see 2012), and if you do it during a midterm you're basically overspending on a result that will likely happen regardless.
Click to expand...

A competent use of it involves focusing on basically any other candidate outside of the presidential candidates. The presidential campaigns are basically the only ones that are difficult to influence through ads because everyone follows it so closely.
 
Ezra Klein

It seems to me that every time Trump refuses to buckle in one of those fights with the media he proves the central idea of his campaign, which is that he won't be like those Republicans who go to Washington and then get cowed by the media and the special interests into compromising with Democrats and giving up their principles. Every time he refuses to give ground, it's proof that he won't disappoint them by giving ground in office, too.

Alan Abramowitz

I think that's exactly the way they feel, and I don't see what changes that in the next couple of months. It's hard to imagine him doing things much more outrageous than what he's already done.
Click to expand...

genius thinking.
 
thepotatoman said:
A competent use of it involves focusing on basically any other candidate outside of the presidential candidates. The presidential campaigns are basically the only ones that are difficult to influence through ads because everyone follows it so closely.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It doesn't take much money or effort to win a seat on the state assembly, a couple of superPACs spending millions on a state could easily take the assembly. It's just a matter of picking someone who can speak in complete sentences and spending the money.
 
PAC money being used in statewide and local elections is very scary. Money can have an outsized influence locally and I really don't want races in Massachusetts competitive because of the kochs. Federally obviously they've not been effective.
 
Teggy said:
Trump cancelled his press conference where all the black pastors were supposed to endorse him. But it's ok because he says they all love him but BLM got to them lololol.
Click to expand...

There were two separate things going on here, there was the meeting with the pastors where Trump was expecting to get endorsements and then a press conference afterwards to report how awesome he is for getting those endorsements. The meeting still happened, but he cancelled the press conference since there weren't going to be any endorsements.

When I first heard the story I thought this was Trump going "fuck all y'all" and not meeting with them but it wasn't as bad as I thought. Glad to see this as a sort of egg in his face though. "I was told there were supposed to be endorsements? That's literally the only reason I'm here."
 
Veritigo_X said:
Political scientist Alan Abramowitz thinks that Trump has a good chance at winning the Republican nomination, bringing up a lot of the points mentioned when talking about that last Nate Silver article.
Click to expand...
I read this a while ago.

This is what stuck out the most to me

The overwhelming majority of Republican voters will vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it is, and that's true even if it's Donald Trump. The dislike of Obama and Clinton and the Democrats is so strong that I don't think you'll see mass defections.
Click to expand...

True or not true?
 
Makai said:
I read this a while ago.

This is what stuck out the most to me



True or not true?
Click to expand...

You might see women move to the Dems a bit more than usual if it's Clinton, especially against Trump, but generally this is true.

Veritigo_X said:
There were two separate things going on here, there was the meeting with the pastors where Trump was expecting to get endorsements and then a press conference afterwards to report how awesome he is for getting those endorsements. The meeting still happened, but he cancelled the press conference since there weren't going to be any endorsements.

When I first heard the story I thought this was Trump going "fuck all y'all" and not meeting with them but it wasn't as bad as I thought. Glad to see this as a sort of egg in his face though. "I was told there were supposed to be endorsements? That's literally the only reason I'm here."
Click to expand...

I'm sure he'll find a way to spin this with him as the magnanimous good guy agreeing to meet with these poor pastors without a voice that the Dems have just been ignoring.
 
PhoenixDark said:
What would a competent use of PAC money look like? Say, if you were running a PAC how would you do it. I think it can be very effective in state elections but even that has asterisks. If you do it during a presidential election you're tied to the success/failure of whoever is on top of the ticket (see 2012), and if you do it during a midterm you're basically overspending on a result that will likely happen regardless.
Click to expand...
It seemed to work in 2012, when Restore Our Future killed Gingrich with a bunch of ads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AD7IrkrtdQ

Most annoying ad ever, btw.
 
Makai said:
I read this a while ago.

This is what stuck out the most to me



True or not true?
Click to expand...

Largely true. Obviously there will be some republicans who will refuse to vote for Trump, and others who will stay home (some Evangelicals) but ultimately Trump is going to still end up with at least 45% of the total vote.

As an example...could I foresee David Frum types voting for Hillary over Trump? Sure. But the vast majority of republicans aren't like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
548K
Hideous Snake replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Formula 1 2017 Season |OT2| A Dutch Horror Story - Sundays on Sky
54 55 56 57 58
3K
342K
Grieves replied
Top Bottom