whyamihere
Banned
Sure, but speaking more on environmental issues more forcefully helps neuter their message and hopefully their vote share, which could make the difference in some midwestern states.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Sure, but speaking more on environmental issues more forcefully helps neuter their message and hopefully their vote share, which could make the difference in some midwestern states.
And then you lose the center because midwestern states aren't going to give one flying shit about climate change as a massive issue.
Autodidact
Banned
That would've been enough to win the election.
Futurevoid
Member
Then its a never-ending cycle of undoing executive action with little legislative glue holding it all together. That's a bad way to govern no matter how you slice it.
Issues like Cuba for instance wouldn't even be a talking point had Congress gotten off of its ass and killed the embargo. Instead, you have a President needing to act via executive action to "play along the edges". It's great when it happens to line up with the things people want but when the other shoe drops and the other part takes over, we are where are now. With the executive branch having FAR too much power to do very shitty things.
We either limit that power for the betterment of the country or we live with this horrible shit. I'm for option A.
benicillin
Banned
I long for the days of the 5-6pm oppodroppo
I could use some good news tonight.
I could use some good news tonight.
whyamihere
Banned
That's assuming you get ALL of them... and assuming you get all of them in the right states... and assuming you don't lose anyone in the center because you just spent time talking more about an issue midwesterners don't give a shit about.
I mean really, you think climate change was where Hillary failed? Like, she should have talked more about that? Really? If someone actually cared about climate and didn't vote for her I'm not sure talking any more about it is going to make them vote for her instead. Those people are just crazy.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
No kidding, that's perfect framing on that.
Unlike words, which tend to require understanding and context kids typically don't grasp. This is imagery, easily understood by the younger kids.
Don't get too excited and used to it, I've been expecting daily oppodrop to stop for days now since Muller was put in charge of the investigation.
Autodidact
Banned
I'm not talking about climate change specifically.. I'm talking about that "extra 1%" of the green vote that you mentioned. If all the Stein voters had gone Hillary in WI/PA/MI (which they were statistically more likely to do than going Trump), we would've won the election. The extra 1% helps.
whyamihere
Banned
Yes, I do think that Hillary should've talked about more broadly popular programs like climate change in Florida and building green infrastructure in the Midwest reminiscent of the UK's approach.
It's popular, sure, I just don't think it's the winning issue nor do I think it's what midwesterners would largely pull the lever for. We are selfish. We want politicians to talk about our jobs and shit.
I'm not saying it wouldn't gain some votes. I'm just saying there are better strategies than aiming for a niche percentage of a niche crowd with an issue like that.
Sure, but again my issue is that you will NEVER get ALL of them to flip their vote. You're basically saying that entire 1% was single issue climate change voters. I'm arguing that with any voter base a good chunk of them are just solidly voting that way no matter what you say, or voting for some other random issue. Speaking more about climate change is fine, but the strategy to win should be aimed more at things that can garner more support than a possible .4% or whatever it would actually end up being.
Autodidact
Banned
whynotbothgirl.jpg
balladofwindfishes
Member
Poor John Kerry 
It's a nice motivator for Democrats to get out an vote. Get enough Democrats to actually vote and the swing voters don't matter as much.
It's a nice motivator for Democrats to get out an vote. Get enough Democrats to actually vote and the swing voters don't matter as much.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
Trump needs to come out and say exactly what about the deal is troubling him so at face value this doesnt look like a desperate attempt to protect 100 billion dollars. I wonder if he has concerns that there are not enough guarantees from the other countries in place and he doesn't want America to be the few "developed countries" writing checks.
Secondly, he needs have a counter offer he has in mind.
Secondly, he needs have a counter offer he has in mind.
whyamihere
Banned
Yes because what I said was that this was the only thing that would get back Obama voters?
Again:
Broadly popular. Winning issues.
Macho Madness
Member
worth pointing out
young people especially care a great deal
young people especially care a great deal
BoogieWoogie
Banned
"Obama did it so bad."
whyamihere
Banned
worth pointing out
PEOPLE DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Literally no one besides people in WV and KY! WE SHOULD BE TALKING MORE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!
Being popular and/or caring about an issue is a bit different than being the issue that voters make their choice on. That's all I'm saying. I need more polling saying that's a major issue for a lot of voters.
And again, I'm not saying don't talk about it. I'm just saying I don't think climate change as an issue is a vote winning issue compared to some other strategies because largely voters care more about their immediate needs than nebulous future concerns. It sucks, but that's kind of the reality.
nature boy
Member
Poor Elon Musk, Ivanka and Jared
/s
benicillin
Banned
Every issue is a vote winning issue.
Depending on the issue and the vote you're trying to win.
Pandora012
Member
New york represent. I think the major says he will still use the accord standards.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I don't like being the bad guys
whyamihere
Banned
I never said it was the only issue to talk about. But it is a winning issue that people do care about, increasingly so, there is absolutely no harm in making it a big part of our platform in 2020. And, 2018.
The environment/climate change is clearly an example of where there's broad, but weak support - which makes it very difficult to use for partisan gain. The intensity isn't there. It's no one's top voting issue. Not even the Greens.
Isn't the counter always "but jobzsz won't someone think of the massively polluting small businesses"
Unfortunately, the environment doesn't really exist in a vacuum as a political issue.
Isn't the counter always "but jobzsz won't someone think of the massively polluting small businesses"
Unfortunately, the environment doesn't really exist in a vacuum as a political issue.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I mean, even according to that image you posted those two states are amenable to it. I'm sure that really means they believe in clean coal or whatever but I'm not exactly on board with any strategy that frets over the Kentucky vote.
Honestly, I don't know how many votes we'd gain or not by pushing this, but we should position ourselves to do some massive green projects once we take back Congress. Much like the ACA, everyone will hate it and vote us out for doing it, and then when the GOP tries to take their $5 water/electric bills away, they'll riot.
I guess we're talking in circles because I'm not sure what you mean by "a big part of our platform." It already was a big part of the democratic platform at least as far as I saw. If you cared about climate change you really had no choice but to vote for Hillary. I mean we both conceded she should have talked about it more. I guess just to what extent would it matter? I'm not sure.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This exactly. I'm putting very little stock in polls on people's "opinions" these days.
Autodidact
Banned
If that's not a ready-made campaign point, what is?
whyamihere
Banned
Clean job plans in economically distressed areas of PA/WI/OH/MI seems like a good plan for me!!!
Wind power is already a huge part of IA's economy. Let's grow it!
I mean, I would argue that not one of Hillary's policy plans actually broke through because so much of the election was based on Trump's uniftness for office.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
That's one way to get the youths to turn out. Dumbass.
balladofwindfishes
Member
lol what a dumb move on his part. Congrats on creating your own late campaign issue 4 years ahead of time.
It's why R-voting libertarians are useless on social issues despite ostensibly being on our side- they value their tax cuts more.
whyamihere
Banned
Oh yeah sorry, all of this was predicated on the fact that we would exit the Paris Agreement the day after the election. Didn't mention that.
TestOfTide
Banned
If Trump can't even leave the Paris deal until nov 4th 2020 and he loses reelection, wouldn't that basically guarantee that US businesses will just comply with the Paris deal?
benicillin
Banned
Yes, basically. I'm reading this as Trump trying to flex his muscles on the world stage because he's having a hard time getting it up lately.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
???
The Paris Agreement is broadly popular.
Okay I'mma let you finish but that's a weird ass choropleth. It looks like the palette was going to be blue-white-red diverging (which is fine, although since there's no significance to the 50% threshold they probably want a sequential choropleth not a diverging choropleth) but then red is 80 and everything above 80 is goes from red to blue-purple, but of course nothing is over 80 on the map, and also nothing is below 50 on the scale, so basically the 50-75 range is doing all the action, which makes the palette pale yellow to orange sequential with an inexplicable legend scale displaying a bunch of impossible values ???
plz give globalist chinese hoax money to starving social scientist with interest in visualization.
RustyNails
Member
Yup. He desperately needed a "win".
I mean yeah, that's the issue with what happened. Part of that is Hillary's fault. She should have tried to talk more, but I think part of that was in response to the media response to Trump. Trump's bizarre shit garners headlines and attention. Hillary talking about Climate Change is about as boring to most as watching paint dry. At least comparatively. It wouldn't break through that media frenzy. I think Hillary's campaign tried to make the logical choice that policy is boring and couldn't get through and so the best she could do was piggyback on the controversy and make sure at least when Trump was condemned for all the headline shit she'd get in her two cents about how awful it was, etc. Since she lost it's obvious that didn't work, but I'm not sure we'll know how the opposite strategy would work either. The media really fucking wanted to talk about Trump's bullshit because it's what gets clicks and eyeballs and headlines. Breaking through that has got to be our number one goal from here on.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Unless i'm mistaken, the majority of businesses can't just "Flip a switch" to comply.
There will be costs and time associated with changes. Most businesses will comply.
Their campaign messaging backfired. They did focus group testing during the election and it turned out their ads and messaging hurt them. They needed to go after him on issues and such like a normal politician and let everyone else shit talk him and talk about his unfitness for office. People don't trust it coming from the opposing campaign, and separating Trump from the rest of the GOP was a mistake.
This is why Van Hollen, in that stupid "RUSSIA OR HEALTHCARE? HAWK OR FALCON?" article was like..."We're attacking on healthcare...." when Politico asked, cause everyone knows about the focus group testing by now and knows not to indulge that line of attack.
whyamihere
Banned
I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS A GOOD GRAPHIC STUMP
TestOfTide
Banned
So then we really shouldn't call it gloom and doom like that thread is doing unless Trump wins reelection.
All Trump is doing by announcing this is:
- giving ammo to the democrats
- pissing off every business that was already planning on complying with deal anyway
- pissing off literally every foreign nation
Like, I'm pretty sure even some oil giants have seen the writing on the wall and started investing in alternative energy.
Except Trump won't pull out the US from the Paris deal until November 2020. Until then the companies will still have to comply and if Trump loses reelection there will be no point to companies trying to not comply because there won't be enough time in which we are actually out of the deal.
All Trump is doing by announcing this is:
- giving ammo to the democrats
- pissing off every business that was already planning on complying with deal anyway
- pissing off literally every foreign nation
Like, I'm pretty sure even some oil giants have seen the writing on the wall and started investing in alternative energy.
Except Trump won't pull out the US from the Paris deal until November 2020. Until then the companies will still have to comply and if Trump loses reelection there will be no point to companies trying to not comply because there won't be enough time in which we are actually out of the deal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked