• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.
Abinash117 said:
The thing is he should have adapted. If you are going to run in a primary you need to know the audience. He lost because he wasn't capable of winning the demographics he needed to win and wasn't able to turnout the numbers with the demographics he was already winning with to overcome the lost demographics.
Click to expand...

You assume that the name recognition issue is something that could have easily been overcome had he changed anything.
 
PBY said:
You assume that the name recognition issue is something that could have easily been overcome had he changed anything.
Click to expand...

You know, the "name recognition" excuse reads as incredibly condescending. During the primary, we had a serious problem with people saying that black voters had either been "conned" into voting for Hillary or only voted based on name recognition. Such statements epitomized paternalism and casual racism by implying that black people lacked the intelligence to vote in their best interests.

But you'd never imply something like that.
 
https://twitter.com/FullFrontalSamB/status/875446325789306881

.@HannahAWright doesn’t normally reply to PR emails, but...

DCY1MmYXkAAEgWO.jpg
Click to expand...

Damn lol
 
kirblar said:
The way max phrased that was very confusing. (Also, data I haven't seen)
Click to expand...
I mean, no, it was pretty clear and you just ignored the point so you could further push that Bernie is only popular with young white hippies and racist white men.

Bernie lost because he couldn't win over black or older Latino voters but it's incredibly disingenuous to say the only people he could win over were demographically from Vermont.
 
ErasureAcer said:
Oh yes, the Republican smear campaign. I'm so afraid of bullshit.
Click to expand...
Not like it didn't work to completely destroy any other candidates in history.

Oh wait, the last three losing Democratic nominees. Did you know Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet and that John Kerry lied about his war record?
 
Polls should never be trusted again. They all said Hillary would win.

Also Bernie would have won. I know this because of polls from March 2016
 
PBY said:
Just admit your argument is reductive; as if name recognition and related Clinton-factors had nothing to do with the result.
Click to expand...

PBY said:
You assume that the name recognition issue is something that could have easily been overcome had he changed anything.
Click to expand...

I like how you state "name recognition" as something that was just bestowed on Clinton and not something she earned working with/in the Black community or how Sanders never bothered to create any for himself in the 30 years he was in congress. You're just absolving him of all the blame? Are you ignoring how Obama overcame Clinton's name recognition in 2008 by just being that much better a candidate? It's not an insurmountable obstacle.

Why are we re-litigating the primaries?
 
Grexeno said:
Polls should never be trusted again. They all said Hillary would win.

Also Bernie would have won. I know this because of polls from March 2016
Click to expand...
This is my favorite because it also ignores that Hillary was massively popular right before people started taking her seriously as a candidate.

Like I've pointed out every time this argument is made unironically (I know you're joking) Biden who is an even further hypothetical polled better than either of them.
 
We should just have an "argue about the 2016 DNC primary" thread where everyone can go and repeat the same basic arguments for the next 2 years.

Edit: Beaten lol
 
Aaron Strife said:
This is my favorite because it also ignores that Hillary was massively popular right before people started taking her seriously as a candidate.

Like I've pointed out every time this argument is made unironically (I know you're joking) Biden who is an even further hypothetical polled better than either of them.
Click to expand...

Nevermind that the national polls were pretty damn close.
 
PBY said:
You assume that the name recognition issue is something that could have easily been overcome had he changed anything.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be easy. It was at a disadvantage for him out the beginning, but he still needed to overcome that regardless. He either cut in Hillary's numbers with minorities, cut in her numbers with other demographics, or increase the turnout with the demographics he was really doing well with like getting a lot more young people to tilt the odds in his favor. He failed at all. Yes his position was difficult, but you work with the cards that you are dealt with.
 
Autodidact said:
You know, the "name recognition" excuse reads as incredibly condescending. During the primary, we had a serious problem with people saying that black voters had either been "conned" into voting for Hillary or only voted based on name recognition. Such statements epitomized paternalism and casual racism by implying that black people lacked the intelligence to vote in their best interests.

But you'd never imply something like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really didn't appreciate that shit at all.
 
ErasureAcer said:
That's why they lost? You should write a history book.
Click to expand...

When did he ever say that the Republican smear machine was the sole reason Gore, Kerry, and Hillary lost?

Those attacks eroded their support and contributed to their defeat, just as they would've complicated Bernie's chances.

You purposefully misrepresented and simplified his point just so you could offer a nasty barb.
 
It's been like four days of shitposting in this thread. It's one thing to disagree with "NeoGAF" (whatever that means) but it's another to just say something stupid and make everyone waste time with you because you're an idiot or have extremely problematic beliefs. Really tiresome to try reading past that.

(I feel for you BoxOfKittens).
 
I just want to make this point.

We have no idea if anyone could have done better against Trump. This wasn't a normal election. Russia attacked our country with the sole purpose of getting Trump elected. The smears and disinformation might have taken on a different approach with Bernie or Warren, but it would have been no less targeted. No less manipulative.

It was just a little easier with Clinton because she had 30 years of very public baggage to latch onto.
 
Autodidact said:
When did he ever say that the Republican smear machine was the sole reason Gore, Kerry, and Hillary lost?

Those attacks eroded their support and contributed to their defeat, just as they would've complicated Bernie's chances.

You purposefully misrepresented and simplified his point just so you could offer a nasty barb.
Click to expand...
Also important to remember Gore lost by a little over 500 votes in one state. You can literally blame anything for a loss that close.

Acknowledging that the Republican smear campaign was insanely effective against those three candidates doesn't excuse them of their (or their campaign's) faults, but that's why it's dumb to assume it wouldn't happen to your favorite candidate. Like Bernie would just get on the debate stage and speak so much truthiness they would all just spontaneously combust, fucking please.

That being said I don't think there's any timeline in which Kerry would have won and that has more to do with Bush being a wartime president.

Btw I think Bernie would have beaten Trump, but that is based on nothing empirical because the last six months of 2016 would have played out completely differently. If he wanted to find out he should have won the primary.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
data on Asian Americans is hard because they're not really too densely populated anywhere but Hawaii, but he won Hawaii by 40 points and has good performance in other places like Seattle with large Asian populations.

also worth noting that the Hispanic vote looked a lot different than the black vote (where Bernie got murdered), per exit polls he even won it in places like Illinois and Nevada (and even if they're off, he certainly did fine with them)
Click to expand...

In the case of Illinois, this map of Chicago primary results by ward and precinct gives some clues. Sanders won all but one Hispanic-plurality ward in the city. Now these wards can vary from roughly half Hispanic to close to 90% Hispanic, and of course we only know how the wards and precincts voted as a whole, not the vote breakdown by demographic. That having been said, it would be difficult for Clinton to have won Hispanics in Chicago with this map. Roughly 40% of the state's Hispanic population is in Chicago, so winning Chicago Hispanics doesn't guarantee winning Hispanics statewide, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

One further clue is the breakdown by vote in the last mayoral race. There is a strong overlap between parts of the city where Chuy Garcia defeated Rahm Emanuel and Hispanic parts of the city. The Sanders campaign made an effort to tie Hillary to Rahm, and the strategy appears to have been successful.
 
Hubbl3 said:
Is this Trump saying this?

Edit: Just saw the hashtag cocktail at the bottom. We'll see how this works out for him
Click to expand...

Kid Rock.

For Trump a statement that long would be unintelligible.

Mr.Shrugglesツ;243376482 said:
I wonder if it was musk that sold trump the idea of a solar panel wall.
Click to expand...
No, because Musk is an intellligent human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
UberTag replied
  • Poll
2017-2018 NCAA Men's Basketball Topic: UNC from Redemption to Redeemed
21
4K
Corrik replied
Top Bottom