-
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
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
FloydtheFathead
Member
Ivanka doesn't have your support Benji?
FloydtheFathead
Member
Carly Fiorina a gaffer confirmed
It's actually impressive. If he weren't such a fuck, I'd applaud him for playing everyone in the media and the party perfectly. If he wins Iowa and NH, it's over correct? No question?
Yellowtail
Member
New GOP Iowa numbers from PPP:
Trump 28%
Cruz 26%
Rubio 13%
Carson 8%
Bush 6%
Trump 28%
Cruz 26%
Rubio 13%
Carson 8%
Bush 6%
Trump is TOO good at this.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders wins the support of MoveOn, a Democratic PAC initially set up to support Bill Clinton, taking 340,000 votes in a closed membership only poll. That gives the Sanders campaign direct access to 7,000,000 people and a lot of funding - plus MoveOn are strong on the ground in Iowa, Obama used their resources a lot.
Man, Iowa is going to be so exciting.
Talking of which, interesting sneak peak at the Sanders ground game:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/v...the-foot-soldiers-in-sanders-iowa-ground-game
Man, Iowa is going to be so exciting.
Talking of which, interesting sneak peak at the Sanders ground game:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/v...the-foot-soldiers-in-sanders-iowa-ground-game
That was expected, Hillary declined to even appear on their forum and seemed salty they supported Obama last time around.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, it may have been at least somewhat expected, but it's bad for optics when you lose twice in a row an organization set up to support a critical player in your own campaign, and bad for your ground game when the largest PAC in America by membership that has a history of ground game involvement endorses your opponent. Certainly not what you want this close to Iowa.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I am genuinely fascinated by what a post-Trump GOP will look like.
Fame, eh? 8)
I think the biggest factor people aren't talking about is the question of how undecided voters will break and where people affiliated with minor candidates will go once the field narrows. Trump is at 28% in the poll you quoted and he doesn't have anything close to a majority in any poll.
In a wide range of recent polls, Cruz has looked to be in the best position for the actual primary voting conditions. He does well in one-on-one match-ups, his favorability is high across the party, and he ranks high in "second choice" votes. That said, to return to your actual question, his standing could take a big hit if he doesn't actually win Iowa.
If those numbers are accurate..
Cruz has a path to victory.
Trump has a path to victory.
I'm struggling to see how anyone else does. One big assumption is that voters who support candidates in the Establishment Bracket will hop to another Establishment candidate if their first pick drops out. But those numbers don't really support this. Trump - but Cruz especially - appear to be gaining more of those establishment voters' support in those scenarios.
We were wondering about who would blink first: the candidates or the voters. This could be a big clue.
(I love it when pollsters ask these narrowed-down hypotheticals. I wish more would.)
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/12/10749984/hillary-clinton-pander
I encounter this attitude a lot and its frustrating. It amazing how adept the grassroots on both the left and right can expend vast amounts of words and effort criticizing politics for their actions but spend zero time contructing an alternative beyond magical thinking.
The internet has raised voice but the alternate decline in social groups, unions, civic groups has completely elimiated the populous compacity to actually do politics. This whole article is about how clinton hasn't forcefully appoligized enough for her criminal justice policies and hasn't proposed a fix for everything. But offers no attempt at demanding anything of her. She mentions there are "policies" that could end mass incarceration but doesn't list any examples. This isn't how politics works and its frustrating to constantly see people complain complain and complain, and indict every person for their crimes but refuse to really do the work of forcing politicians to act, that's what lobbyist have filled.
I think its a failure of how we teach history. We teach it in terms of inevitability and good hearted politicians that were guided by their good soul instead of the same kind we have now who were guided by the desire to get elected.
This happens on the right too with all their complains about RINOs
I encounter this attitude a lot and its frustrating. It amazing how adept the grassroots on both the left and right can expend vast amounts of words and effort criticizing politics for their actions but spend zero time contructing an alternative beyond magical thinking.
The internet has raised voice but the alternate decline in social groups, unions, civic groups has completely elimiated the populous compacity to actually do politics. This whole article is about how clinton hasn't forcefully appoligized enough for her criminal justice policies and hasn't proposed a fix for everything. But offers no attempt at demanding anything of her. She mentions there are "policies" that could end mass incarceration but doesn't list any examples. This isn't how politics works and its frustrating to constantly see people complain complain and complain, and indict every person for their crimes but refuse to really do the work of forcing politicians to act, that's what lobbyist have filled.
I think its a failure of how we teach history. We teach it in terms of inevitability and good hearted politicians that were guided by their good soul instead of the same kind we have now who were guided by the desire to get elected.
This happens on the right too with all their complains about RINOs
Don't mind me. I'm just still salty from that tweet I stole from you a few weeks ago.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5895109/AP_9206131329.0.jpg)
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
One thing I'm really hoping for is that Selzer release a day by day break-down of their numbers. They release in the Thursday and I think the poll was conducted over Saturday-Sunday-Monday-Tuesday. Obviously Sanders has an incredible press season from Monday onwards and it will be interesting to see if that will be represented.
Elaugaufein
Member
The (anything much past centre)-left have spent the past 30 years being either ignored or disdained by the centre-left. They've been in no position to do anything but criticisize (ultimately their vote goes back to the centre or vanishes when they sit out). People in this very thread dump on non-centrists and then act amazed that they aren't particularly enthused to support centrist candidates.
The right have responded by embracing their right wing and thus nullifying a lot of the ground that could have been gained through Third Way approaches by shifting the Overton Window. Though they seem to have hit the limit there.
The left and right are not symmetrical. It's why their problems are different (the right gets consistent base turn out, the left needs carrots). Populist right parties tend to thieve centre left voters (blue collar) to a far greater degree than populist left parties steal centre-right voters. That's because the centre-left have basically abandoned the economics that got them blue collar support but have kept social issues that make the blue collar worker uneasy. Compounded by the centre-left doing their best to remove the further left from the public sphere, which made the center-left look extreme*. If the parties were symmetrical beyond the wings disdain for centrists you wouldn't expect that kind of fundamental difference.
*The centre left has largely embraced gay marriage well after the point they embraced other civil rights in terms of public opinion. They behave in many ways like conservative parties waiting until things are clearly politically disadvantageous to not embrace.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think she also has a point: re not needing to necessarily give a solution. You're electing leaders to lead! You tell them a problem, they offer solutions, you take the one with the best solution. If you just tell them solutions, you may as well replace the entire political system with just a direct democracy. We have intermediaries because we trust them to be able to deal with these issues better than we can ourselves; because it's their *job* to do it. Sometimes, some of us can end up in jobs where politicians looking for how to present their solution or what more specific solution matches their general wide solutions go, like in advocacy groups, but that's not true of the average person and shouldn't have to be true of the average person. At best it's true of e.g. volunteers in funded advocacy movements.
That said, I'm somewhat conflicted on this issue myself. I can respect the other side of the argument too.
That said, I'm somewhat conflicted on this issue myself. I can respect the other side of the argument too.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why is she willing to sabotage the possibility of future progress? She's probably intending to vote for the more electable candidate with the stronger racial justice program, which seems fair.
She written in the past about how she won't vote for Hillary. Unless I misread her intent, she doesn't seem like she intends to support whoever the nominee is.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If politician knows, without a doubt, they have your vote, then they don't have to work for you. You have no leverage over them. There always has to be the threat you could vote for someone else. Whether you carry through with that threat is another thing, but the threat has to be believed.
Elaugaufein
Member
By this metric you are obliged to vote for a serial killer over a genocidal maniac if those are your two candidates because one is less bad.
There's almost no limit to the compromises that can be made in the name of electability if the mere possibility of future good is the decider: you can run the same as your opponent but hint maybe you'll do better in the future and that'd be sufficient.
There's also no reason for candidates to actually do future progress if they are never punished for its lack. That centrist block is mighty attractive if you have nothing to fear.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Ted Cruz is evil.
David Brooks has never read The Old Testament.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/o...-ted-cruz.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
As an active example of this: black voters have consistently voted Democrat in every recent election and in recent elections have had the highest turnout as a racial demographic. Despite this, the Democratic party (not all members, by many) makes almost no active progress on racial justice issues and continues to simply defend the status quo. Now suppose that every single eligible black voter in America said "I am not going to vote Democrat unless you get x issue passed", and supposed that Democratic politicians genuinely believed them. That issue would pass so fast the bill would be on fire.
Elaugaufein
Member
"David Brooks is old school and doesn't seem at all willing to acknowledge the shifts in his party" is basically his entire thing.
On the economic views of Silicon Valley elites. [Vox]
I had family dinner on Sunday night (my grandma hit the big 9-0) and had the chance to chat with one of my cousins, who works as a 'financial writer' at an investment company on Wall Street, basically as a ghostwriter for the important rich owners of the company (her salary is six figures). It was sort of amusing to see how being in the work environment of nice and generally wealthy people has colored my cousin's view of what the real problems with America are. Reading the Vox article about the views that Silicon Valley elite hold made me think that my cousin would probably agree with this.
I had family dinner on Sunday night (my grandma hit the big 9-0) and had the chance to chat with one of my cousins, who works as a 'financial writer' at an investment company on Wall Street, basically as a ghostwriter for the important rich owners of the company (her salary is six figures). It was sort of amusing to see how being in the work environment of nice and generally wealthy people has colored my cousin's view of what the real problems with America are. Reading the Vox article about the views that Silicon Valley elite hold made me think that my cousin would probably agree with this.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Ummm... How are Democrats going to overcome Republican majorities in the House and Senate to do this? In your scenario Republicans would benefit hugely, so why in the world would they agree to this? This is the classic Green Lantern theory of politics, which everyone agrees is completely flawed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...antern-theory-of-presidential-power-persists/
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Are you talking nationally or locally? Because there hasn't been a lot of progress on *anything* by *anybody* and a de facto lock on the status quo for the last 6 years.
If you mean locally, I think you have to build a case for that.
The thing about her case that strikes me as asinine: Hillary has reached out, and has asked for policy suggestions from movement representatives, has stated that she will continue to work on this and meet with them in the future, etc - this is all documented - and the author brushes that aside because it's apparently, magically not good enough.
It honestly makes me wonder if there's an ulterior motive on the part of the author.
We see an apparently sympathetic politician asking for policy suggestions. Her ears and mind are open. And this author instead decides to snipe.
disastermouse
Banned
Someone gets it. Good lord, I've felt so alone in this group.
Democrats don't have a magic wand to stop Rick Scott from cutting voting days and hours. Nor do they have it to stop John Husted in Ohio from implementing voter ID.
User 463088
Banned
Most evangelicals are strangers to the Christian virtues of humility, mercy, compassion and grace. They've essentially become forced baby making, gay hating, Muslin loathing, white extremists.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not just a matter of the federal level, it's a matter at state levels as well. There are many Democratic governors with Democratic state senates who do not sufficiently focus on racial justice. Even beyond that, in e.g. 2008-10, when the Democrats had absolute control, the obfuscation of Blue Dog Democrats prevented significant reforms happening. I think that's partly why liberals then did go on to refuse to vote for them, although in that instance it backfired because of redistributing taking place immediately after - enthusiasm was just so low [I'm not saying I defend this, I just say I empathize with why people acted the way they did]. Racial justice issues aren't just failing because of Republican obstructionism (although that plays a part), they also fail because in all honesty only a small portion of the Democratic party actually cares about them.
disastermouse
Banned
Mass movements are notorious for not knowing the how. They're there to put pressure on the more politically savvy, not write plans or strategies for fulfillment. And honestly, expecting them to be able to do so is a bit ridiculous.
disastermouse
Banned
Why infuriating? 24-hour news channels gonna 24-hour news channel.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Fuuuuuck. Monmouth is one of Clinton's most favourables!
User 463088
Banned
Bernie was always going to win NH. I still don't think he wins by that much.
Not particularly. She's never led in their poll outside the MOE.
disastermouse
Banned
Unskewing the polls.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Blue Dog Democrats generally don't vote for racially progressive policies because the vast majority of their voters are white. So having minorities refuse to vote for the elected officials who would support the policies you're calling for won't hurt them at all. Nothing in this post defends your initial argument that black voters could force Democrats to pass legislation if they acted together. Its just hand waving combined with the specious argument that the 2010 election happened because the Democrats weren't liberal enough and not that fact that the unemployment rate was 9.8%.
So this makes vilifying and blowing-off potential allies a logical and good thing to do then?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked