• 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.
Thankfully it didnt took much more for the GOP to destroy itself for a generation (in the presidential level, at least). And thank god Obama didnt settle for Illinois. Him winning changed politics forever in the US. The left was reborn thanks to Obama.
If the left was reborn thanks to Obama why do they think he's a sellout shill?
If Bernie ends up as President, they'll do the same to him. The reality of governance just doesn't fit their fantasy West Wing scenario where the right wing gets brutally shamed by cutting dialogue from their rockstar candidate while all the policies they want get passed by magic TV political treknobabble writing.

I remember this one young guy on irc who was the biggest Obama mark you ever saw, the world was gonna change, fierce urgency of now, this is our time, political revolution, etc, etc, right up until the PPACA was passed. Then it was all he let us down, sellout, the corporations got to him, why do I gotta buy insurance I'm healthy this is bullshit, politics sux, democrats sux, and so on. I asked him if he voted for any other offices besides President, he said no. My eyes rolled up into my head so hard they sit higher on my face permanently now.

Thankfully, this is a pretty small and irrelevant segment of the electorate. They're loud and embarrassing, but they can't cause that much damage.
There are Sanders supporters like this. Thankfully, it's a fraction of Sanders' support, there simply aren't enough people like this to be attracting ~40% of the Democratic primary vote.

A potentially "yuge" difference between a Bernie and Hillary presidency, is that, unlike the lacklustre support Hillary will engender in a GE, Bernie's support will continue to break just about every presidential campaign record out there, which could give Bernie the votes he will need in The Congress, to at least put some of his proposals into action.

I certainly won't be beating Bernie up, if we, the American voters, don't deliver that decisive mandate, that isn't sufficient to carry the day. And, I also could never see Bernie nominating characters like Larry Summers (one of the architects of the 08 crash...), and recently Dr . Robert Califf (the "Ultimate industry insider"...), for top government positions (the Fed / FDA, respectively), or championing another top-secret trade deal, that would send more American jobs to low-wage countries.

Finally, I think it was Bam Bam Baklava, who is still pedalling the myth that enthusiastic Bernie supporters will stay home entirely, if we fail to win a reprieve from the Clintons (the thought of Chelsea continuing the dynasty...), as, although that newly re-discovered enthusiasm in American politics, which we thought we'd lost with Obama, will entirely evaporate, we will still largely vote to keep a Democrat in the White House, however, without the boundless energy that Bernie creates (following the success of our "Grand Opening", last Saturday, I estimate our Bernie volunteer group tripled in size, to 30!), if Trump isn't just a big joke on the American people, which I think is entirely possible (they just hadn't accounted for the Bernie factor :) ), I believe the polls are absolutely right, that she would win, but without that all important mandate, resulting in many more years where the Middle Class just spend their whole existence driving on a road to nowhere...

Powered by one of PS3's best features: not one (Windows etc), but TEN text clipboards :).
 
Rand is still trying to get Fox Business to bend the rules and let him debate on the main stage. Just take the L... if Christie of all people swallow his pride I don't see why Rand can't.
 
Daniel B·;192077135 said:
I certainly won't be beating Bernie up, if we, the American voters, don't deliver that decisive mandate, that isn't sufficient to carry the day. And, I also could never see Bernie nominating characters like Larry Summers (one of the architects of the 08 crash...), and recently Dr . Robert Califf (the "Ultimate industry insider"...), for top government positions (the Fed / FDA, respectively), or championing another top-secret trade deal, that would send more American jobs to low-wage countries.

Given the way the economy bounced back even despite Republican intransigence to the type of stimulus really needed (Imagine how much better the economy would be with the American Jobs Act, for instance), hasn't Obama's team been completely vindicated on the economy? The inequality issue isn't Larry Summers fault and it wasn't Larry Summers who created Mortgage-Backed Securities or CDO's. I know Bernie supporters like to harp on Glass-Steagall, but that had very little to do with the actual crash.
 
Rand is still trying to get Fox Business to bend the rules and let him debate on the main stage. Just take the L... if Christie of all people swallow his pride I don't see why Rand can't.

Paul seems to be fund raising hard off this whole thing. I thinks its more about trying to look like the victim / outsider than actually thinking he can get in.
 

rjinaz

Member
Dude needs to just give up already. He's lost.

As has every one that isn't Trump, Carson, Cruz or Rubio and yet here we are still with what, 6 on the main and also we still have the kiddie table. That party needs to stop giving these people their platform for self-promotion and start getting serious.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ry-clinton-if-it-doesnt-bring-her-down-first/

So Sanders may well be surging. We’ll know more tomorrow, when the Des Moines Register poll — the gold standard in Iowa polling — is set to drop.

But in the event that the Sanders surge continues, but doesn’t take down Clinton — and a Clinton loss by no means can be ruled out — it could prove a good thing for her candidacy.

But as Silver has also documented, it’s also perfectly possible that Sanders could win both early contests and go on to lose the nomination by losing pretty much everywhere else. That’s largely because Clinton performs very well among minority voters, and you would probably have to see a massive exodus of them from Clinton to Sanders for him to win the nomination. Make no mistake: A Sanders win in both early states would unleash gale force winds of pundit doom-saying for Clinton. But Dem voters in the later contests may not play along.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
She's dominated every single debate so far and has been pushing a pretty damn liberal agenda. What else can she do to inspire confidence beyond that?

Also, she's not going to be indicted. Period. Stop Diablosing, Diablos.

exactly. Don't you want her to fight for it Diablos instead of a silver platter coronation? Her fighting it out would probably be a good thing for her and strengthen her to take on Cruz, Rubio, or Trump. She and her supporters are complacent and this surge helps shake that off.
 
I don't think she would have won Arkansas. The draw on Arkansas was Bill's, not hers; she's never been quite as well received there and besides Arkansas is one of the rare states demographically trending Republican. I also don't think she'd have taken West Virginia, McCain won it by a 13-point margin. Conversely, I don't think she'd have lost Colorado for similar reasons. If Clinton had beaten Obama in 2012, comparatively she'd have lost Indiana and North Carolina, and won Missouri instead. Possibly lost Florida too, but I doubt that. Still a pretty convincing 310-228, though.

You might be right on WV and CO, but I absolutely disagree on Arkansas. Back in '08 you'd see the same polls showing Clinton up 15 and Obama down 20 against McCain. Arkansans hated Obama for reasons beyond ideology and his presence at the top of the ballot tainted the entire party for them. I honestly think the Clinton surname still meant enough then that Bill could play retail and Hillary could've taken Arkansas and maybe the Democratic decimation wouldn't have happened so quickly there, though it would've happened eventually.
 
Can we all admit what's really fueling the Trump and Bernie candidacies? Backlash against globalization. Both essentially accuse other countries of being the cause of our economic woes - Trump directly by accusing Mexico of sending rapists and China of stealing our jobs, and Bernie indirectly by blaming corporate America for sending jobs overseas. Both have hinged their economic plans on opposition to the new trade deal and both promise to bring blue collar jobs back to America in some form. Both are also on record saying that immigration is raising the unemployment rate and should be curbed in some form (Bernie blaming the black unemployment rate partially on foreign workers. ).

While this is somewhat of an oversimplification in that there are other issues at play (Trump = racism, Sanders = ideological purity), to me this is clearly the source of both candidates' populist appeal. For me, though, I'm voting Clinton, supporting TPP, and bringing my Malaysian fiancee to the US to steal an American job :p
 

NeoXChaos

Member
You might be right on WV and CO, but I absolutely disagree on Arkansas. Back in '08 you'd see the same polls showing Clinton up 15 and Obama down 20 against McCain. Arkansans hated Obama for reasons beyond ideology and his presence at the top of the ballot tainted the entire party for them. I honestly think the Clinton surname still meant enough then that Bill could play retail and Hillary could've taken Arkansas and maybe the Democratic decimation wouldn't have happened so quickly there, though it would've happened eventually.

Gore couldn't even carry TN. Those states were gone long before Obama on the federal level. It took two special cases Carter and Clinton both conveniently Southerners to bring some of the south back. However Carter lost OK & Dukakis won WV.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9154

1) Beware of a GOP primary calendar front-loaded with insurgent-friendly states. Thanks to the Iowa caucus on February 1st, the South Carolina primary on February 20th, and the southern flavored "SEC Primary" on March 1st, the start of the primary season should be highly favorable to Trump and Cruz. And although establishment candidates can't afford to get clobbered during this phase, don't read too much into a small early Trump or Cruz delegate lead.

Thanks to a crowded field of contenders and RNC rules mandating proportional allocation of delegates prior to March 15th, strong Trump or Cruz performances across states like Iowa, Alabama, Georgia, or Texas could equate to modest delegate leads that could be overtaken later. In fact, we estimate that an "establishment" candidate could be behind by as many as 150 delegates on March 5th but still be "on track" to capture the nomination.

2) March 15th is likelier than March 1st to determine the race's destiny. The largest single-day delegate jackpot will be March 1st, when 655 delegates will be up for grabs in the seven "SEC" states as well as six others. But the second-largest jackpot will be March 15th, when 373 delegates will be at stake.And thanks to the winner-take-all nature of Florida and Ohio, this day will likely define the race's end-game more than any other.

If one candidate wins both Ohio and Florida and takes all 171 of their delegates, it would likely mean "game over" - such a lead would be tough to make up anywhere else. But, a split verdict would prolong the race into April. Florida, home to Rubio (and Bush, if he is still in the race), is an absolute must-win for the establishment. However, a Rubio triumph in Florida could also heighten the need for Trump or Cruz to win Ohio's primary as a counterweight.

3) A contested convention depends on losing candidates' stubbornness. The Republican convention doesn't open until July 18th. But by the end of March, primaries and caucuses accounting for over 66 percent of all 2,472 delegates at stake will have already taken place. That means after March 22nd, it would be impossible for three or more candidates to all have paths to capturing the 1,236 delegates necessary to win the nomination outright.

Thanks to the size of the candidate field and the fact only eight states award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, it could be difficult for any candidate to reach the magic 1,236 threshold. However, the possibility of a contested or "brokered" convention depends on how long candidates who are mathematically eliminated from the prospect of winning a delegate majority decide to persist against the plurality leader. The longer they fester, the higher the odds of a floor fight.

Gop_Del_Char2t_.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member

Globalization is not Sanders' main issue. Not even really that close. It's income inequality and moneyed control of politics. Not to say he doesn't attract anti-globalization people, but they're not even near to the larger internal Sanders factions in size.
 
Oooof Rubio

From 2008....

So I’m in favor of giving the Department of Environmental Protection a mandate that they go out and design a cap and trade or a carbon tax program and bring it back to the legislature for ratification some time in the next two years.
 
Hillary fought for universal healthcare back with HillaryCare but it's obvious she knows it's not a winning battle in this climate. I really don't think it should be something she goes on the attack for though. It'd be better to just say she wants to build upon Obamacare since it's more realistic. If she believed in UHC in 08/the 90s, it shouldn't be something she fights against now.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Purely anecdotal, but that healthcare attack prompted more switchers in my personal circle, which was previously narrowly Clinton-dominated but probably is no longer as of the last week or so, than anything else I've seen. I know absolutely nobody who thinks it was a good idea.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
How is that brutal?

It's difficult to attack someone for wanting to take away your Medicare and not being trustworthy on healthcare when you personally signed a photo of yourself with them congratulating them on their healthcare stance. You either look like a poor judge of character or a flop.
 

"How imploding in the polls is actually a good thing". Classic Nate.

I dont think is as simple as Nate is portraying it. Clinton won 17% of black voters in 2008. Sanders is already at 21% (I can totally see him improving his numbers with post Iowa-NH momentum). He is already pulling 08 Obama numbers with Hispanics (33-35%). Again, I see this number improving after the Iowa-NH momentum, if he wins both of course.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Hillary fought for universal healthcare back with HillaryCare but it's obvious she knows it's not a winning battle in this climate. I really don't think it should be something she goes on the attack for though. It'd be better to just say she wants to build upon Obamacare since it's more realistic. If she believed in UHC in 08/the 90s, it shouldn't be something she fights against now.
That really annoyed me in a previous debate. I really need to dig into her healthcare proposal in the 90s to see the similarities.
 
Were you the one who got the book? Any interesting chapters?

The book is interesting and you should read it, it's got great American political history in it and gives good knowledge about the uneasy alliances that have been needed to accomplish great policy (such as the Know Nothing being a part of the forming of the Republican party and helping to end slavery just because they thought it was stealing WASP jobs). They show a good deal of evidence that endorsements help predict who wins the nomination, but I think they screwed up the interpretation. I think endorsements just predict who wins nominations not because of any causation, but because congressmen have similar taste to their voters and the guy they endorse is the guy their voters end up liking when they pay attention. I don't think the theory has any relevance to Trump and Cruz (who won't be endorsed because of political concerns and because Cruz is a fucking prick).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Because they think Sander Senate project is bad, and he has not presented a new one.

Yes, but that's not the main line Clinton is pushing. The main line Clinton is pushing, that she sent her daughter out to promote is, to that Sanders will "strip millions and millions and millions of people of their health insurance." Nobody believes that for a minute. Absolute waste of Chelsea and probably lost Clinton more voters than it won.
 
Yes, but that's not the main line Clinton is pushing. The main line Clinton is pushing, that she sent her daughter out to promote is, to that Sanders will "strip millions and millions and millions of people of their health insurance." Nobody believes that for a minute. Absolute waste of Chelsea and probably lost Clinton more voters than it won.

Hillary is done for.

edit-Beaten like Hillary Clinton on February 1 and every day after.
 

HUELEN10

Member
that thing about voters not choosing candidates for logical reasons supports what I was saying earlier about why Sanders plays better with undecideds in the GE. Hillary can't win the HUELEN vote.

I do choose candidates for logical reasons, and take into consideration issues that matter to me. That's exactly why Clinton can't win my vote, not because I don't have logical reasons, I do.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I do choose candidates for logical reasons, and take into consideration issues that matter to me. That's exactly why Clinton can't win my vote, not because I don't have logical reasons, I do.

That's true, and was unfair. I'll put it differently: the issues you prioritize are an odd set and range at times from totally different ends of the political spectrum; meaning you are not captured by parties operating along a single left-right axis easily. This is typical of most swing voters; they're not centrists but off-the-scale-ists.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

“The reason Republicans lost in 2012 and 2008 is not because we lost swing voters,” Carla Sands, a California investor, wrote in an invitation to a $1,000-a-plate Los Angeles luncheon this week featuring Mr. Cruz’s wife, Heidi. “The reason Republicans lost is because they failed to motivate and turn out their base — mainly evangelical voters in states like Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania who didn’t feel that the Republican nominee spoke to their issues.”
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Michelle has barely aged a day.

I don't think that's true at all. I would like to see some data to back that up.

IIRC Romney actually did win swing voters in 2012 - people who said they had yet to decide between either campaign at the end of the primary season. Didn't matter though because there are just too many Dems, even if many of them self-classify as independent.
 

rjinaz

Member
Why Bernie's actual age continues to be my largest issue with him.

Worst case scenario, he dies doing the thing he wants to do most. His Vice President becomes president. I really don't see it as much of an issue personally. This guy has pretty much looked the same for the last 20 years. I'm sure he can take it. He's too stubborn not to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom