It's not a clear, absolute split like that. He will get a low single digit bump nationally. Not enough still to win any state IMO.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
It's not a clear, absolute split like that. He will get a low single digit bump nationally. Not enough still to win any state IMO.
gutter_trash
Banned
a neocon establishment warmonger drops out, his supporters will naturally rally towards the other neocon establishment warmonger in the race
I hope Trump wins the nomination so that these neocon establishment GOPers get saltier
If we're going to speculate about a Trump vs. Hillary match up? Hillary has the liberal and/or moderate republican "independents" on lock (she plays to center-left for that very reason). The moderate republicans won't simply fall in line for Trump you can believe that. The women vote on lock (the closer it gets to nominating the first women president with every women organization backing her and pushing political capital towards her - the greater the split), the minority vote on lock (latino (a given), blacks (Barack campaigning for her, on top of her already established lead makes the black vote a 100% lock), the young liberal vote (however diminished - more barking than biting from the Bernie crowd), white liberals, the elderly. She'll primarily lose the white male vote (say age 30+, - 55).
Also known as a landslide.
There is no way no how Hillary loses to either Trump or Cruz, or Kasich (dude is weak and a poorer version of Hillary for a GE electorate). Rubio has a chance. He flirts with the latino vote, splits some of the women vote (should still go to Hillary but it's all about the split), gets some of the young vote (go figure), clamps down the white vote, the moderate republican independents, the registered moderate republicans, the elderly..... it's only Rubio who has a chance.
One really doesn't have much to do with the other.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Damn, this so much.
As someone who likes Bernie, supports a lot of Bernie's ideals... what he wants to get done just won't get done. I don't think there's even enough support for a lot of it in his own party, and he'd be the devil to anyone to the right.
Hillary probably gives us another 4 more years of what we've had going on.. it's not real progress unless we can win back the house and senate.
Maybe we need a Bernie in this country, but we aren't set for anything he wants to be accomplished anytime soon.
Wouldn't the upcoming young people outvote the naive assholes?
Basileus777
Member
It's not directly translatable like that. The Democrats have held the Presidency for 8 years, that historically tends to depress turnout at primaries. And 08 was an outlier year.
plagiarize
Banned
If you are voting on what's best for you, and not what is best for society, then staying home is not in your best interest. Although you sound about eight years away from voting republican.
ACA has made some people have to pay more for healthcare. Yes. It massively expanded healthcare to millions that didn't have it. I'd happily pay more than I do now to see it expanded to *everyone* because maybe the time will come when I'm one of the people who wouldn't otherwise be covered.
Food stamps were a program that was helping you. Sure it could do more, but you can't really say "where was my help when I was being helped by the government?".
I'm sure you could have got a terribly risky mortgage from a bank in 2006 and bought a great house with it. I'm not so sure you would still have that house now however.
Obama got a fuck load done given the Congress and Senate he had to contend with. He has made measurable improvements to the economy, to unemployment, to the deficit, to expanding healthcare coverage.
I'm sorry that his policies didn't help out Chindogg.
I appreciate your candor and will consider the situation as the months continue to November.
That said, I have an incredible distrust and dislike in Hillary. Asking me to vote for her is basically asking me to punch my own mother for the sake of the country.
His expansion of H1-Bs and ultimately his championing of TPP has really soured me on Obama. I feel personally betrayed by him. Considering Hillary has embraced Obama's policies, paired with her championing NAFTA, DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc in the 90s (yes ancient history but she didn't start walking those back until 2010) has made me incredibly distrust her as a politician. She may claim she's for progression but given her corporate donors and her actions of the past I find it exceptionally difficult to just let that slide.
Oh sorry. Welcome to being a black voter since, well, ever in this country.
Voting for the lesser of two evils has been the experience of black people (and most minorities, and women) since we were given the right to vote. But most of us vote how we vote because NOT voting for the party that screws us over out of negligence basically serves as a vote FOR the party that fucks us over as a part of their platform.
Sorry your perfect candidate might not be the guy to make it to the end, but vote for the greater good. That's what Bernie would want. You say you support his platform, and his platform is "VOTE DEMOCRATIC NO MATTER WHAT."
The concern would be that voter turnout will resemble the midterms.
Great news in fact. The current demographics in the US are slanted towards the democrats. But it isn't a big enough slant yet. An enthusiastic, republican electorate turnout can make up the difference.
Even Van Jones on CNN seemed disconcerted when he heard the SC voter turnout. As well as more and more rumblings of minorities (mostly blacks) whispering Trumps name to him.
Crimson_Fate
Member
Basileus777
Member
That's not plausible. You could argue for turnout being down, but not to that level.
But that's what elected officials do. They represent the will of their constituents. When that will shifts in one direction, so do they; otherwise, they don't come back. And if we want to accept that Hillary Clinton is a conniving, cutthroat, egotistical politician who wants to win no matter what -- and her voters are telling her that they want criminal justice reform, improved healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, Citizens United overturned -- well, she'll just have to act on those policies won't she?
After all, she wants to win.
How can you be a Democrat and support progressive legislation and oppose Hilary Clinton? This baffles my mind. Like, have you listened to a single thing she has said?
Isn't that what Hllary was trying to do in the 90s with the health care bill she was pushing?
Outtrigger888
Member
So glad Bernie lost but not happy Hillary won either. Cant stand either of them. Trump 2016!!!
plagiarize
Banned
I think the Democrats realise now that downplaying Obama during the midterms was actually a bad strategy. I'm much more optimistic about 2018 and think we'll see some seats regained even if it isn't enough to win back the Senate or the House. Obstructionism isn't historically liked by American voters and 10 years of it will play a lot worse than 6.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Cruz looks defeated
Here he is contemplating life, he is contemplating how he is losing to someone like Trump. He is preparing himself for the Trump barrage that he will have to face because his shield, Jeb, is out.
Here he is contemplating life, he is contemplating how he is losing to someone like Trump. He is preparing himself for the Trump barrage that he will have to face because his shield, Jeb, is out.
Well, one of the theories for why Republican turnout is so high for these primaries is because it's a real horse-race between three very different candidates and factions of the party (establishment vs. working class vs. evangelicals), with attendant media coverage, whereas previous nominating contests didn't inspire the same kind of divisions or factions that this one does. Republican voters know that their primary vote will matter this time around and might have strong views on what each of the nominees represent, which might not have been the case previously. That won't necessarily translate into unified support down the line.
Who knows how it'll play out in the general - lots of voters sit on the sidelines during primaries, because they're not officially registered with a party, aren't paying attention this early (heck, I didn't even know when my state's primary was until I looked it up online), or feel they'll "let the others decide" - so you could have a very different set of voters when November rolls around.
Democrats stand a good chance of retaking the Senate this year anyway.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Yeah, they were probably whispering, "Can you please tell Donald Trump to stop referring to African-American voters as 'the blacks'? It's really shitty."
Basileus777
Member
And losing it again in 2018 when they have a lot of seats to defend.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Less than/around 3% in Nevada was a lot better than I thought it was going to be for bernie
Exactly. I chuckled when I read that part. One day I hope Im in a position to consider not voting for anyone just because I cant get my first choice for an ideal candidate.
Sounds like an amazing luxury. Doubt it will happen for me though. Maybe for my children if I end up having some.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
My bad I didn't see that.
Should have looked more.... or googled
Edit: Google shows 3% so googled would have done nothing to my post
plagiarize
Banned
Cruz is going to have his faith tested by this. He genuinely believes he is the guy hand picked by God to lead this country back towards Christianity. When that doesn't happen it will hard for him. He will recover I am sure... and he will convince a number of Republicans from an ever more divided Republican party to splinter off into a new evangelical party, hopefully letting the Republican party be Lincoln's party once more.
The evangelical party will get 10% of the vote. Then four years later, 9. Then four years later 8. Etc
At least one can dream anyway. Cruz is going to lead the evangelicals to the promised land. Of Texas. Then maybe they will finally abdicate.
Winning elections and enacting policy are two different things.
I've been following the Clintons for the majority of my life. It's rather difficult to believe anything she says when she's said the opposite not to long ago.
She did and it was a great idea, but now she receives the most donations from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries so how am I suppose to think that will have zero influence on any future healthcare policy, especially when she's already embraced Obamacare which punishes people for not buying private insurance?
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Thank you for the new desktop background. Need to find higher res though.
plagiarize
Banned
Unless they can actually do something about gerrymandering. Again... one can dream.
googleplex
Member
Because for many its about the Person and not the issues that matter.
Roland_Gunner
Member
The vote in South Carolina for the GOP was 96% white and 1% black. Clearly not too much interest for Trump there yet.
Sadly I have to admit to that one, only not because I support a person but because I just don't trust a person based on their history.
cpp_is_king
Member
If Trump is smart (and I believe he is) he will target Rubio. Cruz will defeat himself, but if he doesn't keep Rubio in check he will be in for a surprise
Missing a true patriot. Jeb gave the establishment the middle finger and that benefited Trump immensely. It also benefits greatly the liberal-cause to keep the presidency, lock the Supreme Court and retake the Senate. Like I said, a true american patriot.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
It's from this article. Doing a google image search yields no other images unfortunately.(The article is pretty good, it gives a good summary of the past couple weeks and what SC meant to these candidates)
Maybe take a look at the judicial history of the Supreme Court justices that Bill Clinton appointed (Breyer and Ginsburg) and compare them against the history of the ones appointed by Republican presidents.
You have to be profoundly, profoundly ignorant to think that the difference between the two is anything less than massive, or that either Breyer or Ginsburg were pro-corporate shills.
plagiarize
Banned
Her history of being a progressive for her entire post university political career? Don't tell me you are one of those cooks who thinks supporting civil unions in 2004 or whenever wasn't a progressive position on gay rights at the time, or who thinks Clinton is a DINO.
It's called progressive, not final destinationist.
RustyNails
Member
Trump and Cruz must make a pact to keep Rubio out. That's the only way this can work. Cruz can be Trump's VP.
googleplex
Member
You mean their history of agreeing with the person you do support the vast majority of the time?
I'm so ready to watch both Cruz and Trump pummel Rubio hard. I'll probably dream about it tonight...
SolarPowered
Member
Clinton is only a progressive insofar as that she isn't a bigot. Her fiscal policies are not and have never been remarkably leftward, and she only began discussing income inequality once Sanders became a threat. She's certainly not a "DINO", instead she's a very standard Democrat. Given that the Democratic Party is fiscally conservative when compared politics essentially anywhere else, this isn't a good thing.
America ought to move leftward, but it won't if Democratic candidates still cling to neoliberal policy.
Evolution of one's positions and beliefs is such a natural thing to do both as a human and politician. This insistence for purity is just counter intuitive to the human condition. What should be more important is trajectory and time intervals. A politician that you find to have a singular (or a few) problematic positions from like last year is something of note. It matters less when said "problematic positions" were held decades ago. To say nothing of the context those positions are held, how that factors into the sum total of all positions that politician has held, their work and accomplishments, etc. I think pushing for more progressive policies and positions in most respects is the best thing for this country but I can't say I'm interested in seeing the Tea Party phenomenon repated on the left. In spite of some political victories, they have been a blight on the Republican party and squeezed out many good and reasonable ideas that might potentially have been found there.
One of the issues with Sanders is that he's vulnerable to "zomg socialism" and negative attacks and definition in a way Clinton isn't (because she's been under fire for decades). Minorities aren't voting for Trump but thee are some obvious cracks in Sanders armor that can cost him a lot of votes elsewhere. Some of Sanders issues appealing to minority voters don't help though.
As for the bolded, that's like ........ how politics work. You've heard of the expression "perfect is the enemy of good" right? Hell the way our political system is set up (thanks to the Founding Fathers) is to try to make change slow. It's a feature, not a bug.
Bless this post
One of the issues with Sanders is that he's vulnerable to "zomg socialism" and negative attacks and definition in a way Clinton isn't (because she's been under fire for decades). Minorities aren't voting for Trump but thee are some obvious cracks in Sanders armor that can cost him a lot of votes elsewhere. Some of Sanders issues appealing to minority voters don't help though.
As for the bolded, that's like ........ how politics work. You've heard of the expression "perfect is the enemy of good" right? Hell the way our political system is set up (thanks to the Founding Fathers) is to try to make change slow. It's a feature, not a bug.
Bless this post
It probably is, but to be fair, establishment Democrats don't appear to have any serious plans to retake the House or do better in mid-terms either. I find it much easier to imagine a Republican winning the White House than I do Democrats retaking the House and keeping the Senate in 2018 (I think they'll probably win the Senate back in 2016).
Basileus777
Member
Gerrymandering doesn't apply to the Senate.
I'm sure you'll keep telling yourself that until the very end.
I had already reserved myself a long time ago that the Democrats would have the presidential elections under lock and key until the end of time. So even the slightest possibility of a Repub winning (especially Trump) and seeing liberals anxious about that fact is all I need (the onion's nervous man could've past as Van Jones tonight and that of a typical liberal zealot). The republicans are the underdogs and I love upsets. I know on election night i'll be either feeling the sweet climax and afterglow of a upset of monumental proportions or shrugging my shoulders with the understanding that it was a hill almost impossible to climb.
Liberals on the other hand will have neither an afterglow like after the Obama wins or will be absolutely incoherent with rage.
I'll be there, in that thread, whichever way it rolls.
- Status