Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

Really, when their campaigns are like chalk and cheese? You are absolutely right that Hillary would be a continuation of Obama's policies (does anyone really believe she wouldn't let TPP slide?).

I like Obama's policies. So does Bernie Sanders. Progress matters.

If Bernie wins big, he would make the "Democratic" in the party name actually mean something, and the party would once again start to truly represent the needs of everyday Americans.

Sure. If.

 

[pigeon]

But it might cost more money because we would have to build a base somewhere in Syria to get the oil while fighting ISIS, other jihadists, and possible the government and other locals( you because we are like taking the only source of revenue for some of this people) just to get oil we and the Russians already bombed the infrastructure of. Who is going to rebuild the bombed to crap oil infrastructure? I guess he going to use Arab slave labor or the former slaves of ISIS to do it. Better yet after he massacres ISIS he can use the surviving family members of ISIS as slave labor.

I feel like your argument here is "this thing Trump said is pretty dumb, why don't people notice that?"

I am not sure that this is actually my standout example for dumb things that Trump said!

 

[Jack Remington]

PD left the party...

Is anyone calling the cops?

I have it on good authority that he'll be back in April.

Since Trump will have won multiple primaries by then, he'll immediately be assigned an avatar of my choice upon his return.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I won't defend DWS, because I don't like her as DNC chair. However, she's what we have right now. It's in Bernie's best interest to play nice. He doesn't need to still be suing the DNC. And, again, maybe Bernie should have been trying to develop a relationship with the DNC for the last few years if he really wanted to run for President as a Democrat. I don't understand why that's so shocking...that the party doesn't support the guy who hasn't been a part of the party until it suited him. Bernie hasn't moved the needle with any of the debates we've had thus far, I don't see how more would have helped them, when debating is something Hillary is great at.

So we should just shut up and support a system that is perpetuated by poor leadership? The DNC did a great job in 2010 and 2014--telling candidates to avoid mentioning they even know who Obama was rather than putting up and actual fight about--what we see now were--successful policy decisions. I'm not saying more debates were needed, but the fact is every debate has been at a low viewership time, and pretty much tailored to help Hillary get the most comment on the issues--alphabetical order is cute, so she gets first and last say on every issue?

As to what I meant by "actual" Democrats, there was a poll out of NH that broke down support by "Democrat" and "Independent" who was voting in the Democratic primary. Bernie was leading in the poll over all, but only because he got a chunk of the Independent vote. Hillary had a lead with actual Democrats. I'm looking for the poll, and if I find it I'll post it in case you wanted to take a look.

Bernie hasn't fallen out with Democrats. He's never fallen in. That's the problem.

In a state like NH most people identify as Independent rather than a specific party (under Exit Polls; 43% Ind, 30% Dem, 27% Rep).

Bernie has been a heavy supporter of the Democratic Party for decades. He never officially fell in line with them because he didn't want to have to toe the party line on issues. That's the kinda shit that cripples political aspirations.

It has nothing to do with comradery. It has to do with who can, not only win a primary, but win a General and govern effectively.

That kinda contradicts what you were saying. A lot of people have endorsed and supported Hillary because she's been the defacto 2016 nominee since November of 2008. She has changed her stances on a bunch of issues going into the 2016 cycle, and was basically handed the nomination out of the gates. Bernie is just a wrench in their gears because it seems a lot of people passionately support his policy ideas and he's gained traction when a lot of people never expected him to crack 20% in most states, let alone nationally.

 

[Abinash117]

I feel like your argument here is "this thing Trump said is pretty dumb, why don't people notice that?"

I am not sure that this is actually my standout example for dumb things that Trump said!

I'm trying to understand the point of taking ISIS's oil...


I can see the other stuff but not this

Trump say stupid stuff, but there's some flawed reason and sense to them.

 

[Polari]

I'm trying to understand the point of taking ISIS's oil...


I can see the other stuff but not this

Trump say stupid stuff, but there's some flawed reason and sense to them.

Depriving ISIS of their single biggest source of revenue?

 

[Black Republican]

which state was it Bernie had the early lead over Clinton? Iowa?

 

[Maledict]

which state was it Bernie had the early lead over Clinton? Iowa?

New Hampshire.

Personally, I think Iowa will be closer than people expect, and on the back of that Bernie will take NH. Don't think he gets many more successes after that mind you (bearing in mind Clinton won the Nevada caucuses against Obama in 2007, I *really* don't see how Bernie manages to beat her there).

 

[Mario]

I'm trying to understand the point of taking ISIS's oil...

I can see the other stuff but not this

Trump say stupid stuff, but there's some flawed reason and sense to them.

Trump has said in the past, on the last presidential cycle, before ISIS was a thing, that the US was "owed" that oil to pay for the cost of the war and toppling Saddam.

This isn't much of a departure from that, and the new slight twist of "let's kill them and take their stuff" rhetoric seems to be appealing to a certain crowd.

 

[User 463088]

So we should just shut up and support a system that is perpetuated by poor leadership? The DNC did a great job in 2010 and 2014--telling candidates to avoid mentioning they even know who Obama was rather than putting up and actual fight about--what we see now were--successful policy decisions. I'm not saying more debates were needed, but the fact is every debate has been at a low viewership time, and pretty much tailored to help Hillary get the most comment on the issues--alphabetical order is cute, so she gets first and last say on every issue?

So now the alphabet is a conspiracy against Bernie Sanders? This is the stuff that just drives me bonkers. I'm not talking about 2010 or 2014, years that were problematic for us. I also mentioned I don't support DWS as the DNC Chair. However, I will say it is a thankless job, regardless of who has it. I would like to see her replaced, and I'd gladly support other people for the position.

Also, I would like some proof that DWS decided on these times to help Hillary. Please. Not conspiracy theory, but actual proof. If I'm not mistaken, the debates this cycle have drawn higher ratings than in 2007 when there were too damn many of the things. Again, though, Hillary has out performed Bernie in all the debates. We have polls to back that up.

In a state like NH most people identify as Independent rather than a specific party (under Exit Polls; 43% Ind, 30% Dem, 27% Rep).

Which is why I said Hillary did better among actual Democrats. Not every state is an open or semi-open primary. Demographics and party issues become problematic for Sanders after he leaves Iowa and NH.

Bernie has been a heavy supporter of the Democratic Party for decades. He never officially fell in line with them because he didn't want to have to toe the party line on issues. That's the kinda shit that cripples political aspirations.

“You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181#ixzz3wMghJIfR

Bernie's words, not mine.

He's been, at best, a fair weather ally, and only when it suits him. Without us, he would have even less power in the Senate than he already does. He's still suing the party over the data that his campaign stole, unless that's been dropped within the last 24 hours. He said he thought someone should primary the sitting Democratic President. These are not the actions of a person who wants to lead a party. And, for better or worse, we are a two party system.

That kinda contradicts what you were saying. A lot of people have endorsed and supported Hillary because she's been the defacto 2016 nominee since November of 2008. She has changed her stances on a bunch of issues going into the 2016 cycle, and was basically handed the nomination out of the gates. Bernie is just a wrench in their gears because it seems a lot of people passionately support his policy ideas and he's gained traction when a lot of people never expected him to crack 20% in most states, let alone nationally.

This doesn't hold water. People endorsed Barack over Hillary in 2007, even though everyone and their brother knew that Hillary was going to run back then. Is it that hard to believe that people genuinely prefer Hillary to Bernie? What incentive to ranking Democrats have to endorse and support the guy who has never stumped for them in his life? The people that do the stuff that gets people elected eat the rubber chicken at dinners, shake hands and work with and for the party. Bernie Sanders hasn't done that. I'm not debating the rightness of it, but you can't legitimately expect the people who dedicate their careers and free time to the party to cater to the Independent Senator from Vermont.

And there was always a 30% "Not Clinton" vote out there. Bradley in 2000 was polling similarly to what Bernie is doing now. He was the "Not Gore" vote.

Had O'Malley announced before Sanders or right after, I think he would have split some of the "not Clinton" vote. The only place that vote had to go was Sanders. So, he benefits from his very vocal core of supporters and those that don't want to support Hillary, for whatever reason.

 

[User 463088]

New Hampshire.

Personally, I think Iowa will be closer than people expect, and on the back of that Bernie will take NH. Don't think he gets many more successes after that mind you (bearing in mind Clinton won the Nevada caucuses against Obama in 2007, I *really* don't see how Bernie manages to beat her there).

I agree, actually. I think a lot depends on the next set of of Iowa polls as far as where the margins are. I think Hillary wins Iowa, and comes to a draw in NH. Something like 50/47/2. (Bernie, Hillary and O'Malley.) In the delegate race, that nets Sanders maybe a few delegates more. Then she'll win Nevada and South Carolina. She wins everything but Vermont on Super Tuesday at which point it's over.

 

[Foffy]

Yes, it is the wrong strategy. President Obama, in 2007, was raising money for the DNC during the primary season. It's how you freaking get your agenda passed. I know you like to think that Bernie will just magically make everything happen. He won't.

He should be helping to raise money for the party that he supposedly wants to lead (He says laughing). There are already doubts within the party whether or not he's actually committed to being a Democrat. This is the man who wanted to primary a setting Democratic President. This is the man who has essentially zero Super Delegates. The man who doesn't have a single Senator endorsement. The governor of his state didn't even endorse him! Raising anything for the party would have been a way for him to show "See? I can do this too! I'm committed to the Party!"

And that "hollow stick" as you called it is the reason Bernie does terribly among actual Democrats. Because we know how important that hollow stick actually is. It's why the Iowa volunteers were ticked when he and his groupies walked out of the JJ Dinner. It's why Democrats are still ticked off he's STILL suing the DNC for some asinine reason. The fact that Hillary Clinton has been there, through thick and thin, for the party is why she will win. It is one of the biggest reasons she will win.

Well, that and Bernie's just not what most Democrats, let alone Americans, want.

And what do Americans genuinely want? That question actually frightens me. Not for "oh, Oligarch Hillary!" but Americans are typically dumb fuckin' people. If we followed what a lot of Americans want, a lot of the social services we have as is would vanish, and games of further division would massively expand. Free market would be the norm, and markets themselves are not even free.

Do note I am not saying "Bernie or bust" for I hope I've made my view that we're not getting anybody genuinely helpful for the American climate from any candidate save for Supreme Court choices in the past. All of our problems will in fact be problems until the 2020s, if not longer. Bernie is the same as Hillary in this exact sense.

The change we want appears to not be any of the change being proposed, let alone the ones we need.

 

[User 406]

But it might cost more money because we would have to build a base somewhere in Syria to get the oil while fighting ISIS, other jihadists, and possible the government and other locals( you because we are like taking the only source of revenue for some of this people) just to get oil we and the Russians already bombed the infrastructure of. Who is going to rebuild the bombed to crap oil infrastructure? I guess he going to use Arab slave labor or the former slaves of ISIS to do it. Better yet after he massacres ISIS he can use the surviving family members of ISIS as slave labor.

What is this low-energy gibberish? We go kill ISIS, by shooting them with some stuff or something, then we pick up the hyuuuuuge bucket with "OIL" in block letters on the side and take it home! You don't have to be a genius to see how this works, but it helps that I am, in fact, a genius.

 

[Coriolanus]

Just a reminder that there is no such thing as Isis oil. It's either syrian, iraqi, or what have you.

Trump 2016: if five0 gets your stolen property back, it is theirs to keep.

 

[User 463088]

And what do Americans genuinely want? That question actually frightens me. Not for "oh, Oligarch Hillary!" but Americans are typically dumb fuckin' people. If we followed what a lot of Americans want, a lot of the social services we have as is would vanish, and games of further division would massively expand. Free market would be the norm, and markets themselves are not even free.

Do note I am not saying "Bernie or bust" for I hope I've made my view that we're not getting anybody genuinely helpful for the American climate from any candidate save for Supreme Court choices in the past. All of our problems will in fact be problems until the 2020s, if not longer. Bernie is the same as Hillary in this exact sense.

The change we want appears to not be any of the change being proposed, let alone the ones we need.

I agree that, on the whole, Americans are a bunch of idiots. The thing I believe is that we have to approach these problems from where Americans actually are. We have a disconnect between what we say we want, what we actually want, and what we're willing to go through to get it. That old poll that showed people on Social Security, for example, don't believe they take government benefits is a perfect example of this.

My use of that statement was more along the lines of people don't want a revolution. It's just not the way we do things, for better or worse. Then when you add the Socialist, you end up with an old man screaming about millionaires and billionaires while telling you he's going to raise your taxes. I may not know what Americans want, but I know what they don't want. We are always going to be a country of incremental change. We can't just wish that away.

I've said it before. I'm a political realist. Bernie is a risk. He's a risk I'm not willing to take, because I'm one of those people who could have everything taken away from me if one of the Clown Car gets the keys to the city. I don't think he's realistic or practical. (I also freely admit to not really liking him, so there's that too...)

IF this made no sense, forgive me. I've been up all night getting this story ready for publication. And .... I just don't know anymore. (although it's 99% sure I"m going to be featured in a piece dealing with new queer writers!)

 

[noshten]

Yes, it is the wrong strategy. President Obama, in 2007, was raising money for the DNC during the primary season. It's how you freaking get your agenda passed. I know you like to think that Bernie will just magically make everything happen. He won't.

He should be helping to raise money for the party that he supposedly wants to lead (He says laughing). There are already doubts within the party whether or not he's actually committed to being a Democrat. This is the man who wanted to primary a setting Democratic President. This is the man who has essentially zero Super Delegates. The man who doesn't have a single Senator endorsement. The governor of his state didn't even endorse him! Raising anything for the party would have been a way for him to show "See? I can do this too! I'm committed to the Party!"

And that "hollow stick" as you called it is the reason Bernie does terribly among actual Democrats. Because we know how important that hollow stick actually is. It's why the Iowa volunteers were ticked when he and his groupies walked out of the JJ Dinner. It's why Democrats are still ticked off he's STILL suing the DNC for some asinine reason. The fact that Hillary Clinton has been there, through thick and thin, for the party is why she will win. It is one of the biggest reasons she will win.

Well, that and Bernie's just not what most Democrats, let alone Americans, want.

Bernie is absolutely doing wonders among democrats. Perhaps he is not doing quite as well for democrats too enveloped into their own World, saying everything is fine while the world is burning around them.
For a political outsider it's not his job to fund the DNC. He has more important things than go meet with lobbyists which is where the majority of DNC funding comes from. Even if he wanted to go and raise money for the DNC it doesn't appear the DNC is actually inviting him to such events to begin with.
What his supporters did is entirely their own decision and is coming off the back of being marginalized by the DNC to begin with. When their candidate is treated with more respect from the DNC and DWS steps down for her rampant incompetence they might stick around a bit longer for the next event.
He is suing the DNC for overstepping contractual obligations that stoned walled his campaign for over two days barely months before the primary season opens up. The DNC overstepped their jurisdiction and now are suffering because of their zeal to cripple the Sanders campaign.
If Hillary had been stoned walled instead of propped and anointed by the establishment for the last decade your comments about her being in thick of it all might actually make sense. But she has been part of the apparatus and system so it's only natural that the lobbyists favorite candidate will be fairly successful in raising millions after all she has the business sense to charge thousands to give speeches.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Bernie is absolutely doing wonders among democrats.

kind of like

Spoiler

exactly

how bill bradley absolutely did wonders 16 years ago

(in a freakish coincidence, we promptly got saddled with george goddamn w. bush for 8 years because a few hundred people from that "wing" decided to protest vote for nader)

 

[HylianTom]

I'm already glad I made that GIF

Same here. Those are going to be incredibly handy, especially if Cruz is the nominee. Her expressions are fantastic.

 

[Coriolanus]

We are always going to be a country of incremental change.

It's really fucking weird that anyone would say this about a 240 year old country that went through absolutely massive changes through its ridiculously short history.

Obv that don't mean that all the rest about bernie being a risk is incorrect.

(in a freakish coincidence, we promptly got saddled with george goddamn w. bush for 8 years because a few hundred people from that "wing" decided to protest vote for nader)

Or because you ran with a guy that couldn't win his own state. Also because kerry then ran the campaign of the gods.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Or because you ran with a guy that couldn't win his own state. Also because kerry then ran the campaign of the gods.

or option C: "because of 7,000 other protest votes in a state the Democrats have won in every other election since 1988"

 

[Coriolanus]

or option C: "because of 7,000 other protest votes in a state the Democrats have won in every other election since 1988"

They dont owe the democrats their vote. The failure to win rests with the candidate.

 

[eBay Huckster]

sure they don't owe democrats their vote, but they owe it to themselves to not complain when the shitty piece of garbage who does win pisses all over the policies that impact them

 

[QuiteWhittle]

kind of like

Spoiler

exactly

how bill bradley absolutely did wonders 16 years ago

(in a freakish coincidence, we promptly got saddled with george goddamn w. bush for 8 years because a few hundred people from that "wing" decided to protest vote for nader)

What if Gore campaigned more in New Hampshire and won, given how it's voted in every subsequent election? What if Gore chose Bob Graham for VP instead of an Zionist who assuredly alienated the 60,000 Muslims in Florida that ended up voting for Bush. What if Gore just campaigned with his popular former running mate, scandals be damned?

Gore just screwed up, in hindsight.

Or because you ran with a guy that couldn't win his own state. Also because kerry then ran the campaign of the gods.

I don't blame Gore for this though. His home state was Tennessee and it was a decade since he ran a successful statewide election there. His home state just got too conservative for him, it happens.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What if Gore campaigned more in New Hampshire and won, given how it's voted in every subsequent election? What if Gore chose Bob Graham for VP instead of an Zionist who assuredly alienated the 60,000 Muslims in Florida that ended up voting for Bush. What if Gore just campaigned with his popular former running mate, scandals be damned?

Gore just screwed up, in hindsight.

I mean, all of those are legitimate fuckups (especially the Lieberman pick)

but none of those matter if less than a thousand people not included in that 60,000 don't basically throw a shitfit over him not being left enough

 

[noshten]

It's what people enveloped with the party do - blame anything other than the candidates or the apparatus that helps them get elected. When you have inept leadership which is completely out of touch with the people, elections are lost and turnout is low. Especially now that alienating the grassroots has become a part of the doctrine of DWS/DNC.

 

[eBay Huckster]

In other news, guess which three candidates combine for 51% of the GOP primary vote in California?

Spoiler

Cruz, Trump, and Fiorina. And the first two have 48%.

Especially now that alienating the grassroots has become a part of the doctrine of DWS/DNC.

just like how apparently persecution complexes have become a part of the bern doctrine, but sure: tell me more about how groups that don't seem to be registering new voters or pushing beyond their 30% ceiling of disaffected white millennials in any meaningful capacity constitute the democratic grassroots

 

[Maledict]

It's what people enveloped with the party do - blame anything other than the candidates or the apparatus that helps them get elected. When you have inept leadership which is completely out of touch with the people, elections are lost and turnout is low. Especially now that alienating the grassroots has become a part of the doctrine of DWS/DNC.

You do understand the grassroots *loves* Clinton right? I mean, her favourables are massive?

 

[NeoXChaos]

It's what people enveloped with the party do - blame anything other than the candidates or the apparatus that helps them get elected. When you have inept leadership which is completely out of touch with the people, elections are lost and turnout is low. Especially now that alienating the grassroots has become a part of the doctrine of DWS/DNC.

What world are you living in? Democrats love Clinton. She wins 80% of Democrats in polls especially the "very liberal" crowd.

 

[eBay Huckster]

though while we're on the subject of grassroots, i may be attending my congressional district's Democratic caucus tonight (since i'll already be at a friend's place a couple blocks away to drunkenly watch the star wars holiday special). will report back whether fighting breaks out on the floor between candidates if i do

 

[noshten]

You do understand the grassroots *loves* Clinton right? I mean, her favourables are massive?

What world are you living in? Democrats love Clinton. She wins 80% of Democrats in polls especially the "very liberal" crowd.

Apparently the grassroots doesn't love her enough since she can't attract any meaningful crowds and only about 1/7 of her donations come from small donors. There is a certain dissonance because it appears the highly favorable numbers you keep quoting don't seem to be enthusiastic enough to actually show their support.

Also eBay Huckster the persecution I'm talking about is the condescending attitude of DWS who has continuously attacked Sanders showing her bias, while tearing the actual DNC apart, from slandering and lying to downright taking unlawful actions and disregarding contractual obligations DNC have towards the Sanders campaign. There is certain requirements for a DNC chair not to impeded or show favor during the nomination process, something Debbie has wholeheartedly overstepped and shown true zeal for protecting one candidate's interests.

“Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

http://www.georgiademocrat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/DNC_Charter_and_Bylaws_8_20_10.pdf

 

[dramatis]

My implied question was; apart from demonstrating his commitment to the party, is it really absolutely essential that he raise money for the DNC, before the nomination?

I'm not a hardcore party person. From my standpoint, it is not essential for Bernie to raise money for the DNC before the nomination.

But I also think Bernie should have raised money for the DNC before the nomination. What the money demonstrates to me isn't a commitment to the Democratic party or the DNC.

The argument trotted out by Bernie and by his supporters is that the candidate won't be able to change the government by himself, so he requires the "American people" to support him by electing congresspeople in elections. Here is $18 million in one quarter, the concrete effort of Hillary's commitment to assisting in the election of politicians who will support the Democratic platform. It is only logical that we question Bernie's cheap words. The candidate himself has raised $33 million, but how much has he done to enact his proposal of electing more congresspeople? What have his supporters donated to local candidates?

It leads into the thought I had back when all of this started, and the idea that became reinforced with the Louisiana and Kentucky gubernatorial elections. The ideological purity of Bernie stans nationwide is useless for practical local elections. The insistence on absolute purity means his supporters would likely be unwilling to support a local candidate that does not align almost perfectly with everything they want, yet someone with everything they want is unlikely to win elections in Kentucky, Louisiana, and so on. When the preferred candidate of a Bernie stan doesn't win, it's the voters who are stupid, the organizations that are conspiring against their choice, the system that is corrupt, and never themselves who are wrong, inept, and lack poor judgement of political climate.

The demonization of anything that doesn't support the Bernie stan's choice is harmful not to others but to the supporters themselves. They end up with the inability to see people who disagree with them as people. The righteousness of Bernie stans, as well as the ignorance about and ignoring of the full American electorate, leads them to be deluded about their real chances and to feel wrongfully confident about how the whole country will simply fall in line behind their thinking.

If Bernie has proof that he has the power and ability to acquire House and Senate majorities for his theoretical presidential terms, I would like to see it. Hillary has offered proof, but of course her efforts will never be acknowledged by the Bernie stan.

Apparently the grassroots doesn't love her enough since she can't attract any meaningful crowds and only about 1/7 of her donations come from small donors. There is a certain dissonance because it appears the highly favorable numbers you keep quoting don't seem to be enthusiastic enough to actually show their support.

If you would like to call anything above $200 a 'large donation', I have to wonder how poor people have to be to be 'real grassroots'. Plus, that graph is unsourced. Come back with real material.

Also, about meaningful crowds. Hard to do that when you're not holding big rallies. But I suppose you agree that there is high demand for Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 3 because it is the highest-viewed Youtube video on Koei Tecmo's channel?

 

[Coriolanus]

You do understand the grassroots *loves* Clinton right? I mean, her favourables are massive?

What world are you living in? Democrats love Clinton. She wins 80% of Democrats in polls especially the "very liberal" crowd.

While an argument can be made for Clinton-loving grassroots, one does have to consider the grotesquely low voter turnout that 2014 represented. If grassroots come out (and i do feel inclined to believe that they will), then that will most likely be thanks to Hillary and the Bam peeps, and not thanks to some overarching strategy created by DWS.

 

[NeoXChaos]

While an argument can be made for Clinton-loving grassroots, one does have to consider the grotesquely low voter turnout that 2014 represented. If grassroots come out (and i do feel inclined to believe that they will), then that will most likely be thanks to Hillary and the Bam peeps, and not thanks to some overarching strategy created by DWS.

There was low turnout in 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1978, 1974, 1970 etc

 

[Coriolanus]

Indeed, and the fact that she failed to counter that is indicative of her inability to address the problem.
Additionally, as your second graph indicates, the 2014 numbers were an absolute abomination.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Indeed, and the fact that she failed to counter that is indicative of her inability to address the problem.
Additionally, as your second graph indicates, the 2014 numbers were an absolute abomination.

Democrats held the house for 40 years during all those low turnout elections of 1954-1994. We can both agree that the coalition they relied on for that success was different than the present coalition they now rely on. This new coalition requires high turnout for them to have top and down ballot victories. Partisanship of that previous coalition and era was looser however.

 

[pigeon]

I'm trying to understand the point of taking ISIS's oil...


I can see the other stuff but not this

Trump say stupid stuff, but there's some flawed reason and sense to them.

Maybe the takeaway here is that you've been misjudging the other stuff Trump says. It all relies on the assumption that the listener is too stupid to understand how the world actually works.

 

[Coriolanus]

Democrats held the house for 40 years during all those low turnout elections of 1954-1994. We can both agree that the coalition they relied on for that success was different than the present coalition they now rely on. This new coalition requires high turnout for them to have top and down ballot victories. Partisanship of that previous coalition and era was looser however.

I don't quite know what you're addressing now. Are you implying that the turnout cratering after 2010 is in no part her fault? Or that it was unexpected? Because she sure as fuck cannot display a whole lotta down ballot victories either.

Or, since the original focus of this discussion was grassroots: what were the initiatives DWS started to foment grassroots? How did they turn out?

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't quite know what you're addressing now. Are you implying that the turnout cratering after 2010 is in no part her fault? Or that it was unexpected? Because she sure as fuck cannot display a whole lotta down ballot victories either.

Or, since the original focus of this discussion was grassroots: what were the initiatives DWS started to foment grassroots? How did they turn out?

A drop of 3% from 2010 is cratering?

DWS was not responsible for 2010. Tim Kaine was. What were his initiatives for grassroots? At least Howard Dean had a 50 state strategy. Kaine and DWS failed in that department.

 

[HylianTom]

Poll results from NBC, the first of the year:
Trump 35%
Cruz 18%
Rubio 13%
Carson 9%
Jeb 6%
Christie 4%
Fiorina 3%

...

And this new comment from Rubio just makes me smile:

@ShaneGoldmacher:
Rubio, justifying his missed votes, says, "We’re not going to fix America with senators and congressmen.”

 

[Coriolanus]

A drop of 3% from 2010 is cratering?

DWS was not responsible for 2010. Tim Kaine was. What were his initiatives for grassroots? At least Howard Dean had a 50 state strategy. Kaine and DWS failed in that department.

It did not drop in 2010. That was the point. Even Kaine managed to improve turnout, if just a hair.
Dean also had a horrendous republican as sitting president (which obv also made his job way easier), which is why i focussed on Kaine.

So yes, in recent history it only went down during DWS. Kaine also had the good sense to get the fuck out of the seat, btw. Then we factor that DWS took the reins in 2011 and had 3 bloody years to prepare for it.

And yes, a drop of 3% from 2010 is cratering when you then, as a result, have the worst turnout in half a century.

And this new comment from Rubio just makes me smile:

@ShaneGoldmacher:
Rubio, justifying his missed votes, says, "We’re not going to fix America with senators and congressmen.”

"According to Rubio, a vote for a republican congressmen is a meaningless vote".
Oh well

 

[Makai]

This isn't a judgment. I'm just curious:

Why do so many non-Americans follow our politics so closely?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

This isn't a judgment. I'm just curious:

Why do so many non-Americans follow our politics so closely?

I am an American in Canada and I get asked virtually every day, with a tinge of fear, "Donald Trump isn't going to be President, is he?"

 

[Veritigo_X]

Happy New Year PoliGAF!

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 2m2 minutes ago
Total Jeb Bush spending 1/5-11: Campaign $744k in IA, super PAC $787k in IA, $1.7m in NH, $521k in SC. (1/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 2m2 minutes ago
Total Ben Carson spending 1/5-11: Campaign $340k in IA, super PAC $41k in IA. (2/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 2m2 minutes ago
Total Chris Christie spending 1/5-11: Super PAC $926k in NH. (3/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 2m2 minutes ago
Total Ted Cruz spending 1/5-11: $109k in IA, $51k in NH, $20k in SC. Super PACs: $345k in IA (4/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 2m2 minutes ago
Total Mike Huckabee spending 1/5-11: Super PAC $11k in IA. (5/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 2m2 minutes ago
Total John Kasich spending 1/5-11: Campaign $264k in NH, super PAC $325k in NH. (6/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 1m1 minute ago
Total Rand Paul spending 1/5-11: Super PAC $11k in IA, $14k in NH. (7/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 1m1 minute ago
Total Marco Rubio spending 1/5-11: Campaign $409k in IA, $317k in NH, $327k in SC. Super PACs: $688k in IA, $721k NH, $602k SC (8/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 1m1 minute ago
Total Donald Trump spending 1/5-11: $998k in IA, $730k in NH (9/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 54s54 seconds ago
Total Hillary Clinton spending 1/5-11: Campaign $385k in IA, $416k in NH, $4k in SC. (10/11)

Reid Wilson ‏@ConsultReid 24s24 seconds ago
Total Bernie Sanders spending 1/5-11: Campaign $272k in NH, $518k in IA, $12k in AL, $89k in NV, $5k in SC (11/11)

Surprised by how much Trump is spending in IA. Anyone think he can turn it around there?

 

[Makai]

 

[NeoXChaos]

This isn't a judgment. I'm just curious:

Why do so many non-Americans follow our politics so closely?

I am curious too.

Coriolanus you really are from Brazil?

 

[Maledict]

This isn't a judgment. I'm just curious:

Why do so many non-Americans follow our politics so closely?

a) Because what you do directly affects the world more than any other country, particularly if we're your closest military ally. Bush's actions had a direct impact on my country that is still being digested, with the destruction of the labour party stemming directly from the Iraq war and the fallout from that.

b) Because it's insane. Literally.

No other major western country has a political system like yours, and no other country has such rampant bigotry, pandering and idiocy on display that makes for fantastic entertainment. It's always reassuring to know that no matter how bad our own countries get, we don't have Palin, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or people like that, or the wing nuts that support them.

c) (Linked to a) America remains the beacon of the west. When you guys elected Obama it sent an incredible signal to the world and your allies about America, and that despite the USAs faults there was still hope. I always get the impression that a lot of American's don't perceive exactly *how* bad Bush was for your country on the international level. No-one ever pretended to be Canadian under Clinton or Obama!

d) Batshit insane. It's worth repeating.

e) A lot of political ideas start in the USA and then spread outwards - for good or for worse. Your politics can show us wha'ts coming in the future (or how to avoid it!). Look at Clinton and Blair and "the Third Way", for example.

 

[HylianTom]

As a source of entertainment, our political drama isn't a bad pick. If one channel has a teenybopper singing show, another channel has another singing/talent show, another channel has Cop Procedural #23, while PBS is rerunning Antiques Roadshow followed by a Cook's Country that you've seen three times

Spoiler

(he picks the pancake mix in the middle while the audience picks the one on the end)

, MeTV has The Brady Bunch, etc etc.. the Trump Show is pretty compelling stuff.

 

[RustyNails]

a) Because what you do directly affects the world more than any other country, particularly if we're your closest military ally. Bush's actions had a direct impact on my country that is still being digested, with the destruction of the labour party stemming directly from the Iraq war and the fallout from that.

b) Because it's insane. Literally.

No other major western country has a political system like yours, and no other country has such rampant bigotry, pandering and idiocy on display that makes for fantastic entertainment. It's always reassuring to know that no matter how bad our own countries get, we don't have Palin, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or people like that, or the wing nuts that support them.

c) (Linked to a) America remains the beacon of the west. When you guys elected Obama it sent an incredible signal to the world and your allies about America, and that despite the USAs faults there was still hope. I always get the impression that a lot of American's don't perceive exactly *how* bad Bush was for your country on the international level. No-one ever pretended to be Canadian under Clinton or Obama!

d) Batshit insane. It's worth repeating.

e) A lot of political ideas start in the USA and then spread outwards - for good or for worse. Your politics can show us wha'ts coming in the future (or how to avoid it!). Look at Clinton and Blair and "the Third Way", for example.

But, are you not entertained? You're welcome. America, providing worldwide entertainment through hollywood, music and politics for 100 years.

 

[Makai]

a) Because what you do directly affects the world more than any other country, particularly if we're your closest military ally. Bush's actions had a direct impact on my country that is still being digested, with the destruction of the labour party stemming directly from the Iraq war and the fallout from that.

Some of you guys like to talk about Congressional elections. I barely follow that here and I probably couldn't name a single foreign legislator.

 

[Retromelon]

American politics - because we're just so cool and interesting