• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Still waiting on PoliGAF's predicted Trump collapse.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Crab said:
Ok real talk: by mid March, there is only going to be one establishment figure going unless things have literally gone to total shit.

Who will it be?
Click to expand...

Are we counting Cruz as Establishment ? And if not are we counting Rubio as Establishment (f we're counting Cruz as establishment than obvious Rubio is too) ?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Also, here's an article about how calling people racist is super effective at accomplishing your goals:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-race-card-this-is-what-helps-neutralize-it/

wapo said:
In October and November 2012, Nteta and colleagues conducted an experiment on over 1,400 white subjects. All of them saw the Romney ad. Afterward, they were randomly assigned to read one of four fictional editorials about the ad, or to read no editorial.

The editorials varied in whether their author was described as a Democratic or Republican member of Congress, and in whether this person argued that the ad was, or was not, racially coded.

For example, when the editorial argued that the ad was racially coded, it said that Romney “has unapologetically played the race card in hopes of convincing white voters that the nation’s first African American president will provide government handouts to undeserving members of the African American community.” In the other editorial, the author argued that it was Romney’s critics that have in fact played the race card.

Nteta and colleagues found that the editorial accusing Romney of playing the race card increased the percentage of both Democrats and Republicans who believed the ad had racial undertones. It also decreased support for Romney among both Democrats and Republicans.

There are some nuances based on whether Democrats and Republicans read an editorial written by a member of their own party and the opposite party. But interestingly, this mattered less than Nteta, Lisi, and Tarsi expected. People didn’t only believe their party’s editorial.
Click to expand...

Vindicated!
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Cruz does not count as establishment, no, the rest of the GOP hate him. Rubio is establishment - while he has Tea Party backgrounds, he dropped those hard when he fell in with Jeb.

Also, we have ARG from New Hampshire: Sanders 47 (+4) Clinton 44 (-2) [definite voters], Sanders 48 Clinton 41 [likely voters].

ARG is differing from Marist and YouGOV and Fox because it thinks that Sanders supporters are still mildly less likely to turn out. if it used the same assumptions, you'd see something like 50-39 Sanders. It's interesting how there's a big divergence of opinion among pollsters about just how enthusiastic Sanders voters are.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Crab said:
Cruz does not count as establishment, no, the rest of the GOP hate him. Rubio is establishment - while he has Tea Party backgrounds, he dropped those hard when he fell in with Jeb.
Click to expand...

I'd say probably Rubio then (short of some scandal). Kasich isn't even in sight of 3rd place anywhere else and Jeb's inevitability / dynasty hasn't worked out for him.

Nobody else even seems to be a contender.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Makai said:
He will be if he wins or places 2nd in NH.
Click to expand...

God, I fucking hope not. That arseface's political career needs to end already.


pigeon said:
Also, here's an article about how calling people racist is super effective at accomplishing your goals:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-race-card-this-is-what-helps-neutralize-it/

Vindicated!
Click to expand...

This might be worth a thread, considering how there's still a huge streak of "calling stuff racist doesn't change anyone's mind" in the OT.
 
B

Black Republican

Member
NH hype with Trump is actually real? wow. i thought yall were the smart state for GOP candidates lol.


i guess even moderates got fedup with mushy frontrunners like Romney and Mccain
 
M

Makai

Member
Black Republican said:
NH hype with Trump is actually real? wow. i thought yall were the smart state for GOP candidates lol.


i guess even moderates got fedup with mushy frontrunners like Romney and Mccain
Click to expand...
Trump plays well with moderates. In fact, he plays well with every Republican faction. Very broad support.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
theprodigy said:
lol what? here we mock people like Nate Silver who are like "Trump's gonna collapse any day now!"
Click to expand...

Basileus777 said:
Do you mean OT Gaf because Poligaf has been on the Trump bandwagon for a while now.
Click to expand...

Just having some fun because I was the first on the boat and everybody kept calling for his collapse for months after.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
HylianTom said:
I am. A bit verklempt. Today's a damn fine day. The legislature is going to fight him every step of the way, but today is nice.
Click to expand...

he has plenty of precedent and examples to choose from. Better get on the phone with Jay Nixon, Brad Henry, Dave Freudenthal etc. for advice.

Pic from inauguration
CYdcr96VAAAQvu0.jpg
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
I'm also reading that Cruz's anti-ethanol stance is costing him, as ethanol is big in Iowa. Backers of ethanol are coming out against Cruz, and they may carry some weight in the primary.
 
H

Holmes

Member
P

PBY

Banned
Holmes said:
He's for Trump but not officially, like a lot of other Republican leaders.

CYX74CxWMAAdbP9.jpg:large


When Trump starts winning states, they'll start being more official with their endorsements I think. We might even see a "Governor Branstad endorses Trump on eve of Iowa caucus" headline.
Click to expand...

If the bolded happens...
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Trum spreading FUD about cruz is working in Iowa. As they if you're explaining you're losing. Because Americans are just really, really dumb people with short attention span.
 
E

ErasureAcer

Banned
Bernie at 40% Nationally. We must support Hillary because Bernie isn't electable in the General when every poll says otherwise. Oh how so many here have eaten crow. This is glorious. GLORIOUS! And he's doing it all on basically the same platform as Dennis Kucinich. What a time to be alive.
 
H

Holmes

Member
ok we shouldn't be posting the trash that is ARG polls here, they were the ones who thought Obama would win West Virginia by nearly 10%

ErasureAcer said:
Bernie at 40% Nationally. We must support Hillary because Bernie isn't electable in the General when every poll says otherwise. Oh how so many here have eaten crow. This is glorious. GLORIOUS! And he's doing it all on basically the same platform as Dennis Kucinich. What a time to be alive.
Click to expand...
Damn, you dragT us henny :(
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
ErasureAcer said:
Bernie at 40% Nationally. We must support Hillary because Bernie isn't electable in the General when every poll says otherwise. Oh how so many here have eaten crow. This is glorious. GLORIOUS! And he's doing it all on basically the same platform as Dennis Kucinich. What a time to be alive.
Click to expand...

I guess 37 rounds up to 40?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

In case anyone is wonder, Sanders' RCP average is 35.5.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
 
P

pigeon

Banned
I said it like three months ago, but may as well reiterate, if Sanders won both Iowa and NH, I'd definitely give up the electability argument and admit that he's at least as electable as Hillary.

I still don't think I'd support him because I think he's wrong about trade, immigration, and finreg (and guns probably), and I'd rather have a candidate whose views are malleable to changing circumstances, but at least he'd have proved that point!
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
I said it like three months ago, but may as well reiterate, if Sanders won both Iowa and NH, I'd definitely give up the electability argument and admit that he's at least as electable as Hillary.

I still don't think I'd support him because I think he's wrong about trade, immigration, and finreg (and guns probably), and I'd rather have a candidate whose views are malleable to changing circumstances, but at least he'd have proved that point!
Click to expand...

Trade and guns, I'd agree with you. Financial regulation, I wouldn't, but I know why we disagree. Why immigration, though?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
The idea of Hillary losing to Sanders in IA is good for her in firing up her supporters to turnout to caucus instead of staying home thinking she going to win anyway.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
pigeon said:
I said it like three months ago, but may as well reiterate, if Sanders won both Iowa and NH, I'd definitely give up the electability argument and admit that he's at least as electable as Hillary.

I still don't think I'd support him because I think he's wrong about trade, immigration, and finreg (and guns probably), and I'd rather have a candidate whose views are malleable to changing circumstances, but at least he'd have proved that point!
Click to expand...
Yeah I feel if Sanders is able to take on the Clinton machine and win he's pretty well proven his point. That would also reflect poorly on Hillary for not being able to fend off someone who is by all counts a fringe candidate.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Crab said:
Trade and guns, I'd agree with you. Financial regulation, I wouldn't, but I know why we disagree. Why immigration, though?
Click to expand...

My perspective on this comes from the Vox interview last year:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

Search for "open borders" and read that conversation -- sorry, I don't want to fill the thread with copy/paste.

But basically, it goes hand in hand with the trade discussion -- the more immigrants we allow, the more wealth we produce, the richer everybody in America gets, so we should probably allow as many immigrants as possible. Preventing immigration to "protect American workers" is basically the same as trying to erect protectionist tariffs to protect American industry -- in the end it's just deadweight loss. Our poverty problem, both in America and globally, is a distribution problem, not a labor problem, and Sanders of all people should understand that and argue it.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
My perspective on this comes from the Vox interview last year:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

Search for "open borders" and read that conversation -- sorry, I don't want to fill the thread with copy/paste.

But basically, it goes hand in hand with the trade discussion -- the more immigrants we allow, the more wealth we produce, the richer everybody in America gets, so we should probably allow as many immigrants as possible. Preventing immigration to "protect American workers" is basically the same as trying to erect protectionist tariffs to protect American industry -- in the end it's just deadweight loss. Our poverty problem, both in America and globally, is a distribution problem, not a labor problem, and Sanders of all people should understand that and argue it.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Say America's GDP is W and population is P. Say an immigrant adds X to America's GDP, and obviously adds 1 to population. As people concerned about absolute wealth, we're obviously not concerned with absolute GDP, we're concerned with GDP per capita, or W/P. Adding an immigrant improves American GDP per capita if (W+X)/(P+1) > W/P. If you solve for X, then X > W/P, or in English, if the immigrant had higher average productivity than the existing population. This is obviously not universally true because productivities are not independent and immigration can solve supply constraints in certain industries that make workers there more productive, but it *is* true that *any* level of immigration is not necessarily good. The worst sort is immigrants who are a) less productive than the American average but b) more productive than the average of the country they come from. They then represent an infrastructure drain on America and a brain drain on their original country.

Of course, I agree it maximixes production/capita from a global perspective, but it certainly doesn't from an American perspective. It's fairly reasonable of Sanders to prioritize an American perspective; that's sort of the point of states and their governments. Hence:

Bernie Sanders said:
It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that.
Click to expand...
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Yeah I feel if Sanders is able to take on the Clinton machine and win he's pretty well proven his point. That would also reflect poorly on Hillary for not being able to fend off someone who is by all counts a fringe candidate.
Click to expand...

Depends on the margin. I won't give it up completely till he wins South Carolina.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
NeoXChaos said:
The idea of Hillary losing to Sanders in IA is good for her in firing up her supporters to turnout to caucus instead of staying home thinking she going to win anyway.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton went there late last week and a few other people I think. Also I think she visited some places there too.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
NeoXChaos said:
Depends on the margin. I won't give it up completely till he wins South Carolina.
Click to expand...

Sanders will never win SC. Like, if he wins SC it is plausible Clinton will not win a single state. That's how bad it would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • 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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom