Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Redirects to floorsuction.com?

LOL

 

[Makai]

Trump accused Christie of complicity in the bridge scandal along with several other devastating attacks.

 

[East Lake]

So apparently Trump's inexorable need to march the GOP towards fascism was enough for the Huffington Post to move coverage of his campaign out of the entertainment section.

I was worried the Huffpo wasn't going to save us from this fascist threat.

 

[sangreal]

Trump accused Christie of complicity in the bridge scandal along with several other devastating attacks.

rip in peace christie

kind of surprised trump is bothering with him. guess he bought into the christie surge

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

At this point he has to run third party.

 

[Black Mamba]

Actual Trump NH chair DEFENSE of comments "What hes saying is no different than...when we put the Japanese in camps”

And now we're here...

 

[Cerium]

And now we're here...

Link?

 

[User1608]

And now we're here...

...Jesus.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Julia O'Donoghue ‏@JSODonoghue 11h11 hours ago
2 sources
confirm @jaydardenne is @JohnBelforLA pick for commissioner of admin. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/jay_dardenne_commissioner_admi.html … #lalege #LaGov

 

[ivysaur12]

And now we're here...

A moderate position is now saying interment camps were bad.

 

[Black Mamba]

Link?

https://twitter.com/ryangop/status/674065488981401600

 

[Aaron Strife]

Julia O'Donoghue ‏@JSODonoghue 11h11 hours ago
2 sources
confirm @jaydardenne is @JohnBelforLA pick for commissioner of admin. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/jay_dardenne_commissioner_admi.html … #lalege #LaGov

Awesome. Hopefully this will encourage others to see the light.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Awesome. Hopefully this will encourage others to see the light.

see what light?

 

[sangreal]

Julia O'Donoghue ‏@JSODonoghue 11h11 hours ago
2 sources
confirm @jaydardenne is @JohnBelforLA pick for commissioner of admin. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/jay_dardenne_commissioner_admi.html … #lalege #LaGov

so what was the point of voting in a Democrat?

 

[Aaron Strife]

see what light?

The light of being a Democrat (or at least aligned with them), of course.

so what was the point of voting in a Democrat?

Dardenne's endorsement probably didn't swing the election but it certainly helped, Edwards is simply returning the favor. Given he'll likely have a liberal Dem speaker to work with and has already promised executive action on LGBT protections and expanding Medicaid I really hope you're not going to play this game.

Also seems like a relatively nonpartisan post - if you're going to appoint Republicans it might as well be those.

 

[sangreal]

The light of being a Democrat (or at least aligned with them), of course.


Dardenne's endorsement probably didn't swing the election but it certainly helped, Edwards is simply returning the favor. Given he'll likely have a liberal Dem speaker to work with and has already promised executive action on LGBT protections and expanding Medicaid I really hope you're not going to play this game.

Also seems like a relatively nonpartisan post - if you're going to appoint Republicans it might as well be those.

I actually know little about LA politics, though I did know about the endorsement and alleged quid pro quo. It's just always disappointing seeing key appointments go to the other side. I'm reminded of Obama appointing Rahm as his chief of staff after running a left-leaning campaign

 

[Metaphoreus]

The debate has been centered around abortion, not fertility and the ethics of fertility, thus, abortion clinics are the target for most of the vitriol from pro-life groups. It doesn't have anything to do with the way that Roe's decision was made.

That was one of the explanations I proposed, though not in so many words. (I called it the "historic political controversy" over abortion.) I definitely think the fact that the Supreme Court settled the issue at all made both sides dig in their heels. But after your and Gotchaye's posts challenging me on this issue, I was reminded of how hostile conservatives can be towards pro-criminal-defendant rulings by the Supreme Court, even when they seem obvious given what the Constitution says. So, yeah, it likely wouldn't have made a difference if the Constitution explicitly protected the right to obtain an abortion.

What, do you work at Cato or something?

I just can't get over how bad it was.

 

[Cerium]

I actually know little about LA politics, though I did know about the endorsement and alleged quid pro quo. It's just always disappointing seeing key appointments go to the other side. I'm reminded of Obama appointing Rahm as his chief of staff after running a left-leaning campaign

What.

Rahm Emmanuel? A Republican? What world is this?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

you don't need to invoke the Nazis to do it; the US has plenty of dark history that still needs internalizing. There's a reason we remember Pearl Harbor and not internment camps.

Thanks for screwing up my point random Trump supporter. Anyway, hopefully it starts a broader national discussion, far too many people are ignorant of this period of US history or still think it was justified or in keeping with our values.

 

[sangreal]

What.

Rahm Emmanuel? A Republican? What world is this?

I didn't say he was a Republican -- I contrasted him to Obama's left-leaning campaign. Rahm was a DLC centrist who was opposed to Obama's campaign agenda (eg public option) from the start

 

[NeoXChaos]

The light of being a Democrat (or at least aligned with them), of course.


Dardenne's endorsement probably didn't swing the election but it certainly helped, Edwards is simply returning the favor. Given he'll likely have a liberal Dem speaker to work with and has already promised executive action on LGBT protections and expanding Medicaid I really hope you're not going to play this game.

Also seems like a relatively nonpartisan post - if you're going to appoint Republicans it might as well be those.

really seems impossible that a Democrat will become Speaker of a Republican majority state House but happy to see a few R's willing to give the man a chance irrespective of party.

 

[RastaMentality]

Applause from the Trump rally as he announces his call for a ban - https://amp.twimg.com/v/ab4b2bc3-fa06-44cb-b942-433d1a2c2265

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Fiorina crowd.

 

[BertramCooper]

With Trump's escalating rhetoric, and the growing likelihood that he'll be the GOP nominee, I better not see another GAFer refusing to vote for Hillary in the general if Sanders doesn't win the Democratic nomination. Because that shit is reprehensible.

(Yes, I know I'll still see it.)

 

[Coriolanus]

Then you better hope that Hills does whatever is needed to earn their trust. Because in a relationship between a rational and an irrational actor, the burden of rationality doesn't rest with the latter.

(yes, i know she won't).

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Then you better hope that Hills does whatever is needed to earn their trust. Because in a relationship between a rational and an irrational actor, the burden of rationality doesn't rest with the latter.

(yes, i know she won't).

There is nothing she can do.

 

[BertramCooper]

Then you better hope that Hills does whatever is needed to earn their trust. Because in a relationship between a rational and an irrational actor, the burden of rationality doesn't rest with the latter.

(yes, i know she won't).

Transform into a crotchety old man with a thick Brooklyn accent?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, if we're supposing that Clinton supporters are loyal Democrats who will always vote Democrat regardless, and that Sanders supporters are nutters who will only vote Democrat if Sanders is the candidate, then surely Democratic votes are maximized by selecting Sanders as the candidate? If you're arguing otherwise, you're conceding that there's actually a larger pool of Clinton supporters who won't vote Democrat if Sanders is the candidate, they're just quieter about it because right now they're fairly confident Clinton will win.

 

[BertramCooper]

I mean, if we're supposing that Clinton supporters are loyal Democrats who will always vote Democrat regardless, and that Sanders supporters are nutters who will only vote Democrat if Sanders is the candidate, then surely Democratic votes are maximized by selecting Sanders as the candidate? If you're arguing otherwise, you're conceding that there's a pool of Clinton supporters who won't vote Democrat if Sanders is the candidate, they're just quieter about it because right now they're fairly confident Clinton will win.

Sanders continues to poll miserably among minority Democrats. If Sanders is the nominee, turnout from minority Dems will almost certainly be far lower than it would have been if Clinton were the nominee.

So no, nominating Sanders sure as hell isn't going to maximize Democratic votes.

 

[Coriolanus]

Transform into a crotchety old man with a thick Brooklyn accent?

There is nothing she can do.

She can pander the fuck out to them. As the pragmatic candidate, it is up to her to balance that with staying appealing in the general.

Sanders continues to poll miserably among minority Democrats. If Sanders is the nominee, turnout from minority Dems will almost certainly be far lower than it would have been if Clinton were the nominee.

So no, nominating Sanders sure as hell isn't going to maximize Democratic votes.

Is there any evidence that minorities would stay home in the miracle scenario where he got the nom? He'd never get it before securing their support, so at that point that should not be a concern.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sanders continues to poll miserably among minority Democrats. If Sanders is the nominee, turnout from minority Dems will almost certainly be far lower than it would have been if Clinton were the nominee.

So no, nominating Sanders sure as hell isn't going to maximize Democratic votes.

Which means you're admitting there are a larger pool of Democratic voters who won't vote if Sanders is the nominee than those who won't vote if Clinton is the nominee, so why are you even complaining about Sanders voters? He who would cast the first stone, etc., etc.

Also, Sanders' problem with minorities isn't that they like him, it's that they (still) don't know him. About a quarter of Americans don't know who he is, but among black Americans it's only just short of two-fifths. It's difficult for Sanders to beat Clinton among people who've never heard of him. Assuming this would stay the same over a presidential campaign is ludicrous

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Which means you're admitting there are a larger pool of Democratic voters who won't vote if Sanders is the nominee than those who won't vote if Clinton is the nominee, so why are you even complaining about Sanders voters? He who would cast the first stone, etc., etc.

Also, Sanders' problem with minorities isn't that they like him, it's that they (still) don't know him. About a quarter of Americans don't know who he is, but among black Americans it's only just short of two-fifths. It's difficult for Sanders to beat Clinton among people who've never heard of him. Assuming this would stay the same over a presidential campaign is ludicrous

Surprisingly Democrats aren't excited by the prospect of voting for somebody who isn't a Democrat. More at 11.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Surprisingly Democrats aren't excited by the prospect of voting for somebody who isn't a Democrat. More at 11.

 

[Coriolanus]

Surprisingly Democrats aren't excited by the prospect of voting for somebody who isn't a Democrat. More at 11.

Is there any evidence of party affiliation correlating to poll numbers as far as Sanders is concerned?

DINO accusations swing in quite the different direction, after all.

I can see that being a concern for people who work for the democratic party, but for the average dem voter?

 

[BertramCooper]

Also, Sanders' problem with minorities isn't that they like him, it's that they (still) don't know him. About a quarter of Americans don't know who he is, but among black Americans it's only just short of two-fifths. It's difficult for Sanders to beat Clinton among people who've never heard of him. Assuming this would stay the same over a presidential campaign is ludicrous

And they'll continue to not know him because Bernie's campaign strategy, per his staff, is to win the early white states and expect the more diverse states to simply fall in line.

It's not what I would consider a sincere strategy to truly gain minority support.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

And they'll continue to not know him because Bernie's campaign strategy, per his staff, is to win the early white states and expect the more diverse states to simply fall in line.

It's not what I would consider a sincere strategy to truly gain minority support.

Once they see the results of the political revolution they'll have no other choice.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And they'll continue to not know him because Bernie's campaign strategy, per his staff, is to win the early white states and expect the more diverse states to simply fall in line.

It's not what I would consider a sincere strategy to truly gain minority support.

nah that's bullshit. This is what I mean about the constant shitposting from people who should know better. You and I both know that number one most effective way for Sanders to get exposure is to win Iowa. It would dominate the headlines for a fortnight, the news would be "shock upset in Iowa, Clinton camp in chaos", "Sanders now real contender in Democratic race", "Closer look: the new Dem frontrunner" and so on. You wouldn't be able to miss it if you tried. In contrast, Sanders could spend a lot of his time in e.g. South Carolina, and then lose Iowa by a big margin, get hit by "Sanders campaign dead on arrival", "Clinton supreme", and more likely just face news outlets stopping talking about him altogether, and be dead before Super Tuesday. The Sanders campaign has a limited amount of resources; unlike the Clinton campaign it doesn't have the money and the political infrastructure to operate on a mass scale in multiple states at the same time (yet). The only chance Sanders has is to win Iowa; winning Iowa is the best way to raise awareness of him in literally *any* community, be it black voters, poor voters, West coast voters, whatever.

In addition, where he can, Sanders absolutely is putting the effort in for South Carolina. He's had multiple meetings with BLM activists, he's met with several prominent black church leaders, he's got Killer Mike and Symone Sanders repeatedly working the stumps there, he's published a much more comprehensive and effective racial justice plan than Clinton has, and he's doing as much as he can without jeopardizing Iowa where he's in striking distance of Clinton.

The thing is, you know all of this as well as I do, but you just wanted a chance to be condescending to Sanders and Sanders supporters. 100% shitposting, plain and simple. No wonder US PoliGAF is an echo chamber compared to most of the other PoliGAFs.

 

[Coriolanus]

You do know that you're gonna have to start using a king crab avatar if you keep that up?

 

[eBay Huckster]

moving off the subject of democratic infighting for a minute, has Mark Halperin ever had a single gut in his entire body?

 

[mightynine]

really seems impossible that a Democrat will become Speaker of a Republican majority state House but happy to see a few R's willing to give the man a chance irrespective of party.

Traditionally, the Louisiana governor "suggests" a speaker of the House and it usually goes along with his wishes.

For example, when Bobby Jindal was first elected and the Dems controlled the House, they appointed a Republican.

Edwards' endorsement for House Speaker, New Orleans Rep. Walt Leger (D), already says he's heard from around 20 Rs that they support him.

That's not stopping some House GOPers from possibily putting up a fight. Here's a column about it: http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gam...minefields-in-baton-rouge/Content?oid=2827894

 

[BertramCooper]

nah that's bullshit. This is what I mean about the constant shitposting from people who should know better. You and I both know that number one most effective way for Sanders to get exposure is to win Iowa. It would dominate the headlines for a fortnight, the news would be "shock upset in Iowa, Clinton camp in chaos", "Sanders now real contender in Democratic race", "Closer look: the new Dem frontrunner" and so on. You wouldn't be able to miss it if you tried. In contrast, Sanders could spend a lot of his time in e.g. South Carolina, and then lose Iowa by a big margin, get hit by "Sanders campaign dead on arrival", "Clinton supreme", and more likely just face news outlets stopping talking about him altogether, and be dead before Super Tuesday. The Sanders campaign has a limited amount of resources; unlike the Clinton campaign it doesn't have the money and the political infrastructure to operate on a mass scale in multiple states at the same time (yet). The only chance Sanders has is to win Iowa.

In addition, where he can, Sanders absolutely is putting the effort in for South Carolina. He's had multiple meetings with BLM activists, he's met with several prominent black church leaders, he's got Killer Mike and Symone Sanders repeatedly working the stumps there, he's published a much more comprehensive and effective racial justice plan than Clinton has, and he's doing as much as he can without jeopardizing Iowa where he's in striking distance of Clinton.

The thing is, you know all of this as well as I do, but you just wanted a chance to be condescending to Sanders and Sanders supporters. 100% shitposting, plain and simple. No wonder US PoliGAF is an echo chamber compared to most of the other PoliGAFs.

I mean, it's not bullshit. At all. It's exactly what Bernie's campaign management has publicly admitted to be their overall strategy.

I think Bernie sincerely cares about minorities. Absolutely, without a doubt. I think the problem is that his high-level campaign staff are pursuing an overall strategy that is most definitely not attempting to build an inclusive coalition.

I single out Bernie supporters for criticism because they are the ones frequently claiming, on GAF and in numerous other places, that they will not show up to vote for Clinton in the general if Bernie loses. What percentage of the Bernie coalition that makes up, none of us know, but it's clearly an especially outspoken portion of his base, regardless of the numbers.

So when faced with the growing likelihood of a genuine neo-fascist showing up on the ballot as the Republican nominee, Bernie supporters who will continue to refuse to vote Democratic in the next presidential election if Bernie doesn't win absolutely deserve to get shit for it. Because it's fucking disgraceful that they would refuse to show up to vote against someone like Donald Trump.

But hey, "shitposting," or whatever.

 

[Makai]

Liberals are a little too quick on the Trump outrage articles. He's already said crazy things. No need to slander him.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, it's not bullshit. At all. It's exactly what Bernie's campaign management has publicly admitted to be their overall strategy.

No. Shitposting. Find me a quote from a Sanders source where they say "we expect minorities to fall in line". That never happened, that's bullshit, and it's being used to paint a deliberately dismissive image of the Sanders campaign.

I think Bernie sincerely cares about minorities. Absolutely, without a doubt. I think the problem is that his high-level campaign staff are pursuing an overall strategy that is most definitely not attempting to build an inclusive coalition.

Okay, you are Bernie's campaign manager. You have $26 million to spend until February. What is the best way of raising awareness in black American and Hispanic American communities before Super Tuesday?

Hint: if your answer isn't "win Iowa", you're almost definitely wrong. If it's not that, I'mma steal your idea and mail it to the Sanders campaign, because you're a political genius and need to be heard.

I single out Bernie supporters for criticism because they are the ones frequently claiming, on GAF and in numerous other places, that they will not show up to vote for Clinton in the general if Bernie loses. What percentage of the Bernie coalition that makes up, none of us know, but it's clearly an especially outspoken portion of his base, regardless of the numbers.

If the number of people who will vote Sanders but not Clinton is higher than the number of people who will vote Clinton but not Sanders, then Sanders is the more electable candidate. You reject this. Therefore, you think there are more people who will vote Clinton but not Sanders. In which case, telling off Sanders supporters for doing this is utter hypocrisy. The only difference between your house and theirs is that they have to be vocal about it because they're in a minority.

So when faced with the growing likelihood of a genuine neo-fascist showing up on the ballot as the Republican nominee, Bernie supporters who will continue to refuse to vote Democratic in the next presidential election if Bernie doesn't win absolutely deserve to get shit for it. Because it's fucking disgraceful that they would refuse to show up to vote against someone like Donald Trump.

See above. Bam Bam Baklava had to strain through gritted teeth and quite probably gave himself an ulcer to just about admit that he would maybe consider voting Sanders if Sanders won. You admit by your own argument he's not alone. The only reason we don't hear from these people is because Clinton is ahead here and now, so you can't label them fucking disgraceful - but let's be honest, you probably wouldn't anyway.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bernie Sanders is never going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. The man is a disaster waiting to happen in the general election. He would get crushed. The man is not a Democrat despite what he says. Its laughable he wants to be the leader of a party he has never wanted to belong to. I hope he gets crushed in the primary. The sooner he does with his 30% of the base the sooner Hillary can move on to the general. I dare his supporters to pout when he goes down. I dare them to sit out this election. This election is too important for pesky idealism. Not this time. Not after Trump's recent trash.

 

[Coriolanus]

You are indeed pulling a cheebo, mate. That he most likely wont win the nom is evident and not denied. As for what his performance on the general would be, that's still up for debate.

But yes, this election is indeed too important for pesky idealism, which is why i'd like to see the pragmatic choice pandering to sanders base, instead of doing the stupid thing and risking a nader 2.0. It's the least she could do, given that the man has already paid the piper.

 

[BertramCooper]

No. Shitposting. Find me a quote from a Sanders source where they say "we expect minorities to fall in line". That never happened, that's bullshit, and it's being used to paint a deliberately dismissive image of the Sanders campaign.

Of course they haven't said exactly that. Don't be obtuse. But their public comments have made it clear that they're setting low bars for minority support in early primaries:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-brain-trust-says-he-can-beat-hillary-clinton

“You know, Bernie because of his life story has the potential to appeal to African-Americans. I know he hasn't been there, he hasn't really done it, but the truth is we come in with 10,000 points on TV about his life and his story and his programs. You know, living wage, health insurance for all, free college from kids, testimonials from African-Americans, interesting African-American leaders who have been for him. We start to reassure people about his connection to them. And we don't have to win 50 percent of the African-American vote in South Carolina to win. Probably only need to win 30 percent. So we start to put that thing together, I think we can move this very quickly towards him and the dynamic of the campaign is going to overwhelm any pre-existing advantage...and then proportional representation kicks in, which is a great advantage to anybody who gets ahead. Ask Obama, ask Jimmy Carter in 1980, the same thing happened there—you get ahead, you can't lose.”

Okay, you are Bernie's campaign manager. You have $26 million to spend until February. What is the best way of raising awareness in black American and Hispanic American communities before Super Tuesday?

Hint: if your answer isn't "win Iowa", you're almost definitely wrong. If it's not that, I'mma steal your idea and mail it to the Sanders campaign, because you're a political genius and need to be heard.

If they legitimately think winning over the whitest of white states is going to make minority Dems stand up and embrace Sanders, I'd say that's a huge stretch.

And are you aiming for awareness or support? Winning Iowa would raise awareness, but do you legitimately think it would significantly raise support?

If the number of people who will vote Sanders but not Clinton is higher than the number of people who will vote Clinton but not Sanders, then Sanders is the more electable candidate. You reject this. Therefore, you think there are more people who will vote Clinton but not Sanders. In which case, telling off Sanders supporters for doing this is utter hypocrisy. The only difference between your house and theirs is that they have to be vocal about it because they're in a minority.

See above. Bam Bam Baklava had to strain through gritted teeth and quite probably gave himself an ulcer to just about admit that he would maybe consider voting Sanders if Sanders won. You admit by your own argument he's not alone. The only reason we don't hear from these people is because Clinton is ahead here and now, so you can't label them fucking disgraceful - but let's be honest, you probably wouldn't anyway.

Minority groups - the ones who would almost certainly experience lower turnout in the general in the event of a Sanders candidacy - face much higher barriers to voting than those of us in white America. It's an undeniable fact. We're talking about groups who face high levels of poverty and high levels of institutional discrimination - all barriers to voting.

Bernie's base of supporters are young white men who face little of this.

So no, I'm not going to refer to the former group as "fucking disgraceful" if they don't show up to vote. Because for a lot of them, voting can be legitimately hard.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But yes, this election is indeed too important for pesky idealism, which is why i'd like to see the pragmatic choice pandering to sanders base so much, instead of doing the stupid thing and risking a nader 2.0

Yup. Don't whimper about people not voting you if they don't like your candidate, make them like your candidate. Being pragmatic involves recognising that some people are irrational and won't vote for an uninspiring Democrat even if they hate Republicans, and that despite this you still need their votes, so you're going to have to work for that shit and not take it for granted by pumping out milquetoast candidates.

 

[Coriolanus]

If they legitimately think winning over the whitest of white states is going to make minority Dems stand up and embrace Sanders, I'd say that's a huge stretch.

And are you aiming for awareness or support? Winning Iowa would raise awareness, but do you legitimately think it would significantly raise support?

One cannot support that which he isn't aware of.

Bernie's base of supporters are young white men who face little of this.

And this little bit of narrative is false.

Unless some more recent polling changed it, anyway.

 

[BertramCooper]

And this little bit of narrative is false.

Unless some more recent polling changed it, anyway.

Okay, young white people? Doesn't really change the point much in this specific case.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

One cannot support that which he isn't aware of.



And this little bit of narrative is false.

Unless some more recent polling changed it, anyway.

And thats been the argument for what, 6 months now? Two debates and a presidential forum? Countless hours of news coverage while Clinton was going through her email thing?