-
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
I would die laughing
Ok. Nate has fully backpedaled
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-some-gop-candidates-arent-taking-the-fight-to-trump/
He was wrong because GOP establishment didn't do shit.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-some-gop-candidates-arent-taking-the-fight-to-trump/
He was wrong because GOP establishment didn't do shit.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yes, we come from more economically left countries than the US but the number of developed countries that aren't is ~0 so it'd be hard otherwise.
And yes copy/pasting doesn't work because there's clear structural differences which would have to be resolved (your healthcare costs/capita are astronomical probably in part because your government institutions can't negotiate prices down using their market pressure) and your federal powers are largely weaker and the cultural differences between states larger. But I mean your actual fundamentals aren't radical difference your productivity isn't low, your GDP / capita isn't in the toilet, etc. Your differences are social and how and why that came about is fascinating to me since our countries origins and sizes are similar.
LOL
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
American citizen of the right complexion maybe.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well if Trump or Cruz do get the establishment support, we aren't going to see anything like those 40-state landslides we've been drooling about.
I think we will however see a firm Democratic majority in the Senate and a close call in the House. Popular vote win of six points or so.
Coriolanus
Banned
Don't make me get that marx bakunin comic and replace states with narratives, man.
Bahahahaha
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...bill-could-cost-tennessee-8-billion/78793700/
Granted, conservatives won't care about the SNAP money because poor people don't need federal money for food, etc.
Also, I am living this new line of [Insert Red State Here] Defense of Natural Marriage Acts that are cropping up.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...bill-could-cost-tennessee-8-billion/78793700/
Granted, conservatives won't care about the SNAP money because poor people don't need federal money for food, etc.
Also, I am living this new line of [Insert Red State Here] Defense of Natural Marriage Acts that are cropping up.
"What a radical idea" - Bernie Sanders 2015, that a politician actually doesn't try and dress up a response, to a question, and tells it to us straight!
Sometimes even a "Peoples Politician" can't ignore political realities, and to carry on the good fight, they have to side with the strong wishes of their electorate, as evidenced by Bernie's voting record on guns, but he, and they, do not abandon their core principles, when they come to Washington, and just accept that their job is to do the bidding of their campaign donors, and to hell with the people.
Based on your post history on GAF, you must have a deep rooted, vested interest (what is it? do you work on Wall St., or something?), in wanting to keep the status quo, where politicians are, by and large, quite happy to serve as guardians of the establishment, and, very rarely, selflessly govern in the best interests of the people.
What is particularly discouraging to me, is not so much that we've ended up with a completely corrupt political system, in the United Status, but rather, we have, until now, put up with it.
This is it guys! As I've stated previously, and I believe it even more today, NOW is our generation's one opportunity to restore true democracy to our nation, and if we let this chance slip through our fingers, we will forever live to regret what could have been.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump will violently deport millions of Americans and will commit mass war crimes against American Muslims. The time when he was "least bad" has come and gone. Him and Cruz are the only people that suggest killing innocent people just to send a message.
FFS, he's said "we need to go after their families."
FFS, he's said "we need to go after their families."
Nintendinum don't crack. Just turns yellow.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm on a refurb WiiU and it's still going strong *shrug*
Elaugaufein
Member
How many of the Republican Presidential Candidates do you think don't believe that rather than aren't willing to say it ?
Because of the initial field I'd have an upper limit of about 50% which is basically Moderates, Establishments and Paul and I'd suspect I'm overestimating that number a chunk given that the House and Senate Republicans mostly went to bat for torture.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Daniel B·;192348875 said:
How the hell is any of this related to not treating a politician as a godlike figure you'd walk on hot coals for? They're just people who will do a job for 4 to 8 years and then drift off into the sunset. No one is bigger than the system of government and all you should expect of them is to do a decent job of it until the next guy.
I exited and unsubscribed. I couldn't handle it.
Yeah, it was a long shot of convincing anyone of anything anyways. People just dig in harder when it comes to Internet arguments.
Man that thread though. Oof.
Well... to be fair he was their Senator for hundreds of years.
disastermouse
Banned
No, I'm speaking from experience speaking with Bernie supporters. I'm not talking about Marxists (Socialist Alternative is really the only Marxist party that hasn't repudiated Bernie), I'm talking about older liberals and, yes, 20-30-somethings.
disastermouse
Banned
I mean making workers owners of their workplaces and advocating Marxist policies from that platform.
disastermouse
Banned
Or some of the Bernie folks could move to parties like Socialist Alternative or other Marxist revolutionary parties because they realize that Democratic Party politics are failing them.
Sometimes this stuff moves quickly. Four years of scary Republican rule could do more for the cause than 'yet another Democrat who can't deliver'.
disastermouse
Banned
Or transform the government completely. That's always a possibility. The conditions have to be right, but it does happen from time to time.
I do think that without a foundation of worker self-management and a unification of the working class, a revolution in the form of government could be disastrous. Something's going to break, though, and when it does, something different will take its place. Hopefully, it's something better.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Just a thought: Why won't any candidate challenge Trump to his right on islamophobia, xenophobia, anti-immigration, etc? I know Cruz flirted with that on immigration for a second but I don't think he really committed. These candidates aren't stupid aside from Jeb, they know that Trump's main appeal is making america white again. Are we to believe that every one of them simply has too much integrity to stoop that low? At this point they must realize that's the key to stealing his thunder.
When Trump talks about banning muslims from entering, they need to talk about not only doing that but also deporting those already here, then challenge Trump to keep up. The base that Trump attracts thinks we should bomb muslim countries out of existence not because terrorists are there, but because muslims are. Look at the rate of hate crimes against Sikhs if you think white nationalists care about anything other than hating people who look vaguely middle eastern. I had a conversation with someone last month who referred to muslims as "towel heads". I said, "Only Sikhs wear turbans." She said, "What are Sikhs?" I responded, "A different religion." She replied, "Whatever, same thing."
This is not a mindset that cares about nuance. There is no rhetoric too extreme to win them over. To put it as succinctly as possible, a big reason Trump is winning is because he wants it more than anyone else. If the other candidates want it as badly, they're smart enough to know what will work. It's not that they're unable, it's that they're unwilling.
Obviously, this is a great way to get dismantled in a general election and possibly end your political career. Trump has the luxury of not having a political career. However, if the candidates are looking for the secret sauce to beating Trump... I think that's it. It's dark and frightening, but I really see nothing else that would draw support away from Trump. You have to be more xenophobic and more nationalistic than him, because I see no reason to believe the appetite for that is lacking.
Honestly, I'd really like to be wrong about this. If anyone has a solid explanation as to how Trump is at the absolute edge of allowable xenophobic rhetoric, please fill me in. Otherwise, I see no reason why going further isn't a good way to shoot up in the polls.
When Trump talks about banning muslims from entering, they need to talk about not only doing that but also deporting those already here, then challenge Trump to keep up. The base that Trump attracts thinks we should bomb muslim countries out of existence not because terrorists are there, but because muslims are. Look at the rate of hate crimes against Sikhs if you think white nationalists care about anything other than hating people who look vaguely middle eastern. I had a conversation with someone last month who referred to muslims as "towel heads". I said, "Only Sikhs wear turbans." She said, "What are Sikhs?" I responded, "A different religion." She replied, "Whatever, same thing."
This is not a mindset that cares about nuance. There is no rhetoric too extreme to win them over. To put it as succinctly as possible, a big reason Trump is winning is because he wants it more than anyone else. If the other candidates want it as badly, they're smart enough to know what will work. It's not that they're unable, it's that they're unwilling.
Obviously, this is a great way to get dismantled in a general election and possibly end your political career. Trump has the luxury of not having a political career. However, if the candidates are looking for the secret sauce to beating Trump... I think that's it. It's dark and frightening, but I really see nothing else that would draw support away from Trump. You have to be more xenophobic and more nationalistic than him, because I see no reason to believe the appetite for that is lacking.
Honestly, I'd really like to be wrong about this. If anyone has a solid explanation as to how Trump is at the absolute edge of allowable xenophobic rhetoric, please fill me in. Otherwise, I see no reason why going further isn't a good way to shoot up in the polls.
JesseEwiak
Member
At the small human cost of thousands of people dying because of a lack of health care, millions more of poor peoples lives becoming even scarier and less stable, and the rights of basically anybody who is not a straight white male being not cared about.
Sorry, I'll take my small steps of progress over the revolution if it means that, comrade.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Rubio burying what's left of his dignity to move from 13% to 17% by endorsing mass Muslim deportation sounds like him to be honest.
There are limits. Even Trump would condemn whoever said that. Who could even seriously propose that, anyway? Cruz can't because it would be clearly unconstitutional, and that's his thing. Maybe Mike Huckabee, I dunno.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I feel like we would've said the same thing about banning all muslims from entering the country a couple months ago until Trump said it and watched his poll numbers ascend.
Edit- on the question of who could propose it successfully: it has to be Carson, Cruz or Fiorina. The other candidates have the baggage of being part of establishment politics and that's the smaller but nearly as important piece of the puzzle to beating Trump. You have to be an outsider as well.
Edit edit- I think Trump condemning any anti-muslim rhetoric is the beginning of the end of his campaign. He knows not to undo his hard work. The best you'll get is "I heard their new policy and I think there are some very interesting ideas there. Let me just say we wouldn't even be talking about this if I hadn't brought it up. I think my approach would be different, but these things have to be looked at."
Aaron Strife
Banned
Redistricting talk got me thinking the other day so I lined up the election results of 2014 by closeness of the margin.
In the 2014 elections, Democrats would have needed to win the generic ballot by a margin of at least 9.3 points to get the 30 seats necessary for a House majority. This would effectively be giving every Democrat an extra 15 points each. I say at least because the tipping point district (Montana's at-large) was exactly 15 points, which would result in a virtual tie, so 9.4 if you want to be really picky.
To put that in perspective, if you gave the Senate Dems an extra 15 points, they would have ended up with a 53-47 majority, only losing a net of two seats (losing AR, MT, SD, WV, offset by swinging GA and KS). And for the governors? An extra 14 - AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, NM, OK, SC, and WI. That's right, the same environment Democrats would need to win the House is one in which they'd win a statewide race in Oklahoma.
Due to redistricting in VA and FL Democrats at least have a net extra 2 safe seats going into 2016 (VA-4, FL-10, FL-13 while losing FL-2), which would drop that down to 7.3 points, or an extra 13 points. Also while some seats like WV-3 and GA-12 are probably gone for good, there are several open seats Democrats could win like MN-2, VA-2, PA-8 and NY-19 that weren't open in 2014 and thus far less competitive. None of those seats would have flipped in the scenario I described.
Point being yes Democrats would need to win the generic ballot by 7 to win the House. Better hope for dem Clinton coat tails.
Also - tied generic ballot? Democrats would have 10 more seats than they do now. Still a loss of 3. Even matching their 1.2% margin in 2012 would have only gotten an extra two seats on top of that. But at least then they'd be at 200.
In the 2014 elections, Democrats would have needed to win the generic ballot by a margin of at least 9.3 points to get the 30 seats necessary for a House majority. This would effectively be giving every Democrat an extra 15 points each. I say at least because the tipping point district (Montana's at-large) was exactly 15 points, which would result in a virtual tie, so 9.4 if you want to be really picky.
To put that in perspective, if you gave the Senate Dems an extra 15 points, they would have ended up with a 53-47 majority, only losing a net of two seats (losing AR, MT, SD, WV, offset by swinging GA and KS). And for the governors? An extra 14 - AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, NM, OK, SC, and WI. That's right, the same environment Democrats would need to win the House is one in which they'd win a statewide race in Oklahoma.
Due to redistricting in VA and FL Democrats at least have a net extra 2 safe seats going into 2016 (VA-4, FL-10, FL-13 while losing FL-2), which would drop that down to 7.3 points, or an extra 13 points. Also while some seats like WV-3 and GA-12 are probably gone for good, there are several open seats Democrats could win like MN-2, VA-2, PA-8 and NY-19 that weren't open in 2014 and thus far less competitive. None of those seats would have flipped in the scenario I described.
Point being yes Democrats would need to win the generic ballot by 7 to win the House. Better hope for dem Clinton coat tails.
Also - tied generic ballot? Democrats would have 10 more seats than they do now. Still a loss of 3. Even matching their 1.2% margin in 2012 would have only gotten an extra two seats on top of that. But at least then they'd be at 200.
Retromelon
Member
Hes def a total assfuck (not that theres anything wrong with assfucking) but u think he's racist dog? Cmon.
disastermouse
Banned
I'm not sure it'll be a choice. Hillary probably can't win, and Dems seem bound and determined to make her the nominee.
People are already dying from lack of health care. Millions of people's lives have already gotten scarier and less stable. As for rights, black people are already being unjustly killed by police and jailed by a broken justice system. All of this under a Democrat presidency. Hell, abortion rights, even birth control access is under attack. This has gotten worse under eight years of a centrist Democrat administration. 27 years of mixed centrist to right rule before that has decimated unions, halted all progressive movement whatsoever (did I mention that we're revisiting birth control access?). Why are you so confident that yet another four to eight years of a centrist Democratic administration would do any better? If you argue that republican rule would be worse, that's likely true, but you're missing the point! We're now arguing about how quickly or slowly we'll lose the protections, rights, and dignities we've fought so hard to gain. You've conceded the debate about whether we'll lose them.
I don't want four years of crazy repulican rule, but I also don't want four years of democratic milquetoast rule either. You're arguing for a prevent defense stance and those stances always lose. You're arguing about forestalling the disaster not preventing it or, God forbid, making actual progress again.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
What, there wasn't enough outrage for the NYTimes when they reported this a couple days ago? The Citibank loan was mentioned in the same article as the Goldman Sachs loan. And as with the GS loan, he did report the loan in his Senate disclosures in July 2012, before the runoff in the primary election.
It's really weird that the Times is running this as new news.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
For someone who makes a life out of harping on technicalities, you sure do like letting these particular ones slide.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
If anyone were arguing that he did nothing wrong, I'd have a reason to go into technicalities. But nobody is, so I don't.
Unless you're just really missing my prolix treatment of technical legal issues.
disastermouse
Banned
It's funny that you mention dystopian fantasy, as it is and has been all the rage lately. Ever wonder why that is?
In the 50s and 60s, the horror was campy. What changed? Into the late 70s and 80s the assault on the working class began again in earnest and it hasn't let up since.
Jack Remington
Banned
Hillary can't win. This being against a party whose front-runners are, in order, a dude who has called Mexicans rapists, a dude who is despised by literally 90% of the people who have ever worked with him and nearly all of his own party, a dude who is on the record saying women shouldn't be able to have abortions in cases of rape or incest, and GW Bush's brother, who has spent the last nine months or so proving he's awful at campaigning and even worse in debates.
Hillary can fucking win.
Hillary can fucking win.
disastermouse
Banned
Non-incumbent? Technically, yeah, but she was part of Obama's administration and nearly a 'co-president' for her husband's presidency. She's been significantly involved during the 30-40 year slide backwards. Either she's complicit or she's ineffective. If she was neither, then we wouldn't be sliding backwards. NAFTA, 'end of welfare as we know it', criminal justice 'reform', repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. - she's been on the scene for all of it.
She's been in significant positions of power and influence throughout this descent. Shocker that people have trouble believing that this time, this time she's a reformer.
disastermouse
Banned
Art follows culture.
Yes. Non incumbent because she's literally not the president right now and yet finds herself in a domianting position in the primary not seen in quite some time. Yet you keep saying she "probably can't win", for reasons.
Even fucking Republicans know she has a better-than-a-coin-flip chance of winning against Trump or Cruz. That's the fear.
As someone who works in the arts, your entire post was really ridiculous!!!
Even fucking Republicans know she has a better-than-a-coin-flip chance of winning against Trump or Cruz. That's the fear.
As someone who works in the arts, your entire post was really ridiculous!!!
disastermouse
Banned
Trump will be the candidate. He'll smack Hillary so hard that only the dedicated will show up on both sides. Liberals tune out, independents tune out, young people tune out, poor people tune out when that happens.
Even if she squeaks by, the diminished turnout will crush Democrats downballot, meaning NOTHING will change except we aren't running backwards so much as being pushed backwards. Whoopity doo! We're still going backwards. Relentlessly backwards.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
He would only smack Sanders twice as hard. Or equally hard if you want to look at best case scenarios.
Jack Remington
Banned
Trump campaigning dirty against Hillary will get every female non-voter in the country to the polls in November. Did you see how after the Benghazi hearing her donations skyrocketed? Trump goes hard as fuck, but Hillary is the one person I think it would backfire against hard.
disastermouse
Banned
She's neck and neck in the first two primaries with a 'self-described Socialist'! Oh yeah, strong candidate there! And he's 74 and talks primarily about economics!
You've never read a critique that linked these before? Good lord, they're all over the place! Maybe you should extend your expertise to sociology and psychology.
Where is the reason in your posts? How does Trump "smacking" Hillary equal low voter turn out? If anything dwmocrats and center left independents would be motivated in the face of Trump's insanity. Republicans might stay home though. And Trump would not help down ballot republicans. Even republicans are worried about Trump's potential impact on down ballot races.
She's neck and neck with a self described socialist... In two of his best three states! But by all means, even though he might lose one, she's just unelectable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked