ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Kasich surge obviously came from Trump saying "I like this guy tonight." about Kasich in the last debate.
-
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
Kasich surge obviously came from Trump saying "I like this guy tonight." about Kasich in the last debate.
Well the Latinos he wants to (or can) deport can't vote so there is always that. But in all seriousness, while his numbers with Latino voters are bad they aren't historically bad outside of (un)favorability. A (small national hypothetical I know) poll in December had him Getting 27% of the Latino vote against Hillary.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591
That puts him exactly in line with Romney who of course lost but it isn't insurmountable. Especially when you consider that Latino voters are not single issue, have mediocre turnout and are concentrated outside swing states (per 538)
In short, I'm not convinced that his positions against unregulated Mexican (specifically) immigration doom his chances even though it creates a large hurdle
E: I'm obviously not even getting into all the other groups he has offended. I guess my point is just that I wouldn't be so quick to hang my hat on just this one issue
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump wants to get rid of all brown people, he's just going after the ones that it's politically possible to go after (undocumented immigrants and Muslim immigrants). I think many voters facing persecution understand that.
gutter_trash
Banned
Jeb! is that guy who over extends his stay after the party's over...
he ain't going home
I have no idea how they will vote. I am expecting voting behavior in the general to surprise us.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Until he loses at home that is. Seriously, either Rubio or Jeb! will drop out by Florida, right?
Also a good method of RPG character creation
I'd throw the muffin up into the air and run. And I'd put myself between the falling hot stovepipe and my mother.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Its worth repeating that most of the Kasich 'surge' is driven by one poll from ARG, a really crappy outfit.
They're counting on momentum to take it, everyone else is copying Giuliani's failed strategy so Trump's team think they can take it if they win enough early states. From there if it gets hard they have a limitless warchest and can just do what Romney did in 2012 and spend everyone else into the ground.
That's not too unusual since he's a likable guy, my dad goes out of his way not to watch Obama speak so he won't be swayed.
The second thing? The GOP has repeated the line about the Clinton's being corrupt for so long that people basically take it as fact, even in here it's generally assumed by more than a few posters that they are but are just too smart to get caught.
Jeb! always seems like he doesn't really want to be doing this but is so disappointed that he is doing poorly that he keeps going to prove himself. God damn it he was the "smart one" after all.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Not entirely though: he came in second in a Gravis poll, tied with Cruz for second in a Monmouth one and tied second with Bush in Reach poll.
Abinash117
Member
I think neither really are, but Ted Cruz would be seemingly easier to beat. Both Trump and Cruz are in the same spot that the party hates them and they have very little support from the party. In addition most of the support comes from the normal voters.
In my opinion Ted Cruz's echo chamber is busting first, Donald Trump has yet to happen. He seems strong now because of the incompetence of the GOP party and the insular and how homogeneous the primary is.
The tactic is understandable, but pretty short sighted. They attack Rubio because he is an easier target than Trump, but at the same time they are too weak to face Trump. Even if Rubio drops out there's no guarantee his support goes to them. These guys have the interest of their party as a secondary. This will help Trump win the nom if he does.
Does that surprise anyone? Attacking Trump is like punching yourself in the face, idiocy. He's just too good a counter-puncher in this arena.
Basileus777
Member
Nate Silver screams in despair.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Monmouth and Gravis have Kasich up against Rubio too. Monmouth has an A- rating from 538.
Only recent poll that doesn't have Kasich second is CNN/UNH/WMUR, which might not show a Kasich surge, but does show a Rubio drop, with Cruz getting the boost instead.
Assuming Certain General Election Defeat...
Donald Trump has a floor of __ % and a ceiling of __% in the General Election
A. 40, 45
B. 35, 40
C. 45, 45
D. 35, 45
Ted Cruz has a floor of __ % and a ceiling of __ % in the General Election
A. 40, 45
B. 35, 40
C. 45, 45
D. 35, 45
Donald Trump has a floor of __ % and a ceiling of __% in the General Election
A. 40, 45
B. 35, 40
C. 45, 45
D. 35, 45
Ted Cruz has a floor of __ % and a ceiling of __ % in the General Election
A. 40, 45
B. 35, 40
C. 45, 45
D. 35, 45
On thy travels through Kenya thou dost happen across a Mussulman floundering in a lake of socialist excess. Dost thou: A) extend to the drowning man a Grecian column so that he might climb ashore; or B) cling bitterly to thine own guns and religion?
RastaMentality
Banned
I remember when people were terrified Cruz would go toe to toe with Hillary in a debate and possibly get a closer margin than Trump.
Aaron Strife
Banned
That's right Nate. Say Trump can win. Raise my predictit shares
There was an article talking about what a debate genius he was. He probably believed it too, until he overstepped his bounds and got tripped by Trump.
To be fair, the schedule is supposed to start in February, just that states kept pushing up until January. Now it is back to "normal".
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
"These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity." Would that fit in an Iowa primary thread title?
Or just "masturbating to anime"
Not really.
My second paragraph said from my experience Hillary supporters were worse, however I ended it by stating that it was still very rare. My point is running into fervent supporters that you see on GAF isn't something you will encounter much day to day unless you live online or in a college campus.
I still think there is a little too much emphasis put into this. I think he is just a rookie and is playing in the big leagues and can't handle it.
* I'm also not as gunho about Frank as I am with Sanders, but then again I'm not THAT gunho about Sanders either.
** That Frank quote is from 25 years ago. I'm sure most politicians would hav ematured in that time frame.
It is also what got us in this current mess of political apathy on the Left and the Democrats moving further and further rightward.
There is more to politics then winning elections, which even Democrats aren't good at outside of the presidency. People need to promote themselves and push for the candidates they want. It can be just as damaging going with the "safe" candidate as it could be going for the "risky" won. Purple states didn't turn red in 2014 over Democrats being too left wing, but too moderate. This is the realization the party has to come to as many people really believe that if they just wait things out then the party will guarantee become more and more liberal with demographic changes despite when reading in between the lines things are more complicated then that.
UNH is bad, but Manmouth is good.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
That feeling when one of the main "Political Correctness is killing America!" "academics" posts this on Twitter:
.... He looks as you would expect:
.... He looks as you would expect:
JesseEwiak
Member
This reads like a freeper thread.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Jimmy Carter actively sought out George Wallace's endorsement as part of the 1976 primary... I think we're to the left of that right now.
I was referring to an economic standpoint. Socially yes, but not economically no. The market is much more liberalized and less regulated, lower taxes for the more well off in society, while focus on social programs have taken a back seat compared to many years ago.
JesseEwiak
Member
There's a decent chance that George Wallace could've been the nominee of the oh so liberal Democratic Party with a few butterflies of history in 1976.
Honestly - if Trump faces Clinton - he will have a 40+% chance to win. Just by virtue that people will start voting with their parties primarily, and Trump seems to have borrowed Clinton's Teflon suit.
Also - if GAF is any indication, many Dem voters think Trump is an auto-lose. That's a very fast way to lower turnout.
Also - if GAF is any indication, many Dem voters think Trump is an auto-lose. That's a very fast way to lower turnout.
JesseEwiak
Member
As much as you may wish it, the Democratic caucus of the 70's weren't just clones of Ted Kennedy.
Read this and get back to me about how great and liberal the 70's were -
http://prospect.org/article/did-right-set-obamas-agenda
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/03/did-the-left-get-more-out-of-nixon-than-obama-spoiler-no
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/07/today-in-dick-nixon-liberal-hero
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/12/the-last-liberal-president-voting-rights-edition
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...everyone-else-richard-nixon-was-not-a-liberal
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/07/how-to-be-a-hack-nixon-was-a-liberal-edition
According to GAF, Bloodborne and Bayonetta 2 should be the two biggest selling games of all time.
More seriously though, just because you're guaranteed 40-42% of the vote as the nominee of the two major parties, that doesn't mean you actually have a 40% chance to win.
I'm sorry, this is bullshit.
Kay Hagan was a progressive and was one of the first true modern left-wingers elected to the Senate from North Carolina. She lost.
Carol Shea-Porter was a progressive. She lost.
Martha Coakley was a progressive. She lost.
Anthony G. Brown was a progressive. He lost.
Mark Udall was a progressive. He lost.
Amanda Curtis was a progressive. She lost.
Sometimes, it's not just about electing the most liberal person. Kelly Ayotte, by all accounts, is a moderate-right Republican. She's not the most liberal member of her caucus, but she's one of the center-end. That fits for New Hampshire, which is a purple state. If/when she loses in November, it will not be because she's not conservative enough. If/when she wins, it will be because she was centrist enough to fit the population of New Hampshire.
Heidi Heitkamp is not a liberal. She is a for sure moderate. But she is the most liberal person that could possibly get elected to the state of North Dakota. Having her in your caucus is good, because it allows you to work with someone who is closer to the left than the right, and not someone who is super right wing (what you would normally get in North Dakota) who would vote No on your legislation no matter what.
Even though she's a moderate, she's vital to your caucus because the opposite is so much worse and she's the best you could do. That's how this works. If you tried to primary her from the left, you would lose the general.
All this literally says is that Richard Nixon, a Republican, wasn't a liberal.
This argument is sort of flawed, I mean Moderate Democrats got hampered on as well. I can just use 2014 as an example.
You misunderstood what I said.
I didn't say "just elect the most left wing person as possible". The reality is as I said before, you have to promote and campaign for your ideology on a grass roots level. You have to change the populace's perception on certain views and get apathetic voters to well vote. That is how you move a country's politics. The sad reality is that the American left doesn't do these things to the extent that they should. This is also something that takes years to do. It took the right all through the '70s before the neocon revolution began. It is likely the left will have to do the same before they have the chance of moving the country. You can't just constantly chase what the populace at a current period thinks, you have to change their opinions. Case in point, look at Black Lives Matters has changed perceptions of police brutality and race relations in the country.
*Not to mention you need the influx of the more progressive wing of voters in primaries to pressure the Democratic candidates to support more left wing policies. If all the left wing voters will vote for the candidate either way, then said candidate will have no motivation to move further to the left as they are safe with that base either way.
campfireweekend
Member
Thank you.
I am so tired of liberals parroting the same taking points as republicans, that if we simply nominated someone liberal enough, the democrats in the state would be enthused enough to vote in midterms, completely ignoring that the midterm electorate is not a liberal one, and if we want to win we need to nominate moderates.
And if you were to use 2014 as an example, I would also use other people from 2014, so it's a moot point. Both moderates and liberals got killed.
I agree with your point. But you said this:
Which makes me think you were arguing that candidates were just running TOO far to the right in 2014. Which isn't really the case.
According to GAF, Bloodborne and Bayonetta 2 should be the two biggest selling games of all time.
More seriously though, just because you're guaranteed 40-42% of the vote as the nominee of the two major parties, that doesn't mean you actually have a 40% chance to win.
I know that.
It's not that - honestly, Trump is going to get 45-47% of popular vote easy just for being Republican (especially if he faces Clinton, who has a lot of Republican hatred, and Trump may get a small boost from Bernie fans who hate the system and are bitter about Bernie losing). It's that there are a bunch of other factors trending in favor of the Republican nominee long before we even got to the primary (the number of states that have switched to republican governors, legislatures, US voters historically being annoyed with parties after 8 years, etc) that give him a decent chance. My biggest fears would be a) an economic recession, particularly in the stock market, which would hit voters near retirement age disproportionately hard, and b) some kind of attack in the US in the summer.
http://www.informationweek.com/big-...-race-at-salesforce-world-tour/d/d-id/1323205
"Moderate" meant in the politics of their state in general, but I will admit that was a poor choice of words as it could be implied as "moderate" Democrats. In short, I feel that during 2014 many candidates decided not to run on Democratic party platforms and rather either tried to be "not Obama" or attack their Republican competitors rather than running on an actual platform that promotes a left wing (at least according to their state) platform..
JesseEwiak
Member
Except it's a horrible plan to run as a left wing or right candidate in a state. Look at Todd Akin - he allowed a fairly liberal (for Missouri) Democratic Senator be elected because he went too far for Missouri. Bernie Sanders is far left for the US, but firmly center left by Vermont standards. Ted Cruz is a crazy conservative, but he's center right by Texas standards.
You want to be as liberal (or conservative, if you're on the right) as possible, while still winning the general election. Unfortunately, due to the changing demographics of the Democratic party, the point is way more to the right in a midterm than in a Presidential election.
That's not going to change - the turnout for the midterms have always sucked historically. It's just that 2010 was the first 'normal' midterm since 1994 and as a result, the DNC didn't realize how much the demographics had changed in the past few years because external circumstances had dampened the effect in previous midterms (Monica, 9/11, Iraq War).
disastermouse
Banned
You just described my father. Lifelong democrat, incredibly racist. He died in '98, so no worries about his voting...but there are so many people like this where I'm from - most of them older.
disastermouse
Banned
Not a kid, but I'll be voting for Jill if Hill gets the bill.
disastermouse
Banned
Romney had to run against Obama. Hillary is no Obama, quality or charisma-wise. Obama can crack wise about the opposition without sounding like an asshole. Hillary has a mean streak and she can't let it out of the bag so she's half-committed. Sometimes she can do it - she certainly did after Benghazi-grilling. Other times, she either pulls an Abeula or comes across lacking the milk of human kindness.
None of that would make her a bad president, or even a bad candidate in a normal year...but I think it'll kill her against Trump.
Just because it's an interesting aside - Obama has a realm mean streak. In particular, one of the reasons the debates were such an issue in 2012 were because the 'angry Obama' would come out when his opponent pretended to be Romney and just lied. Several of the books about the election have commented on it - there was a real risk that Obama would just snap and turn into angry, mean Obama on the debate stage. That's partly why his first performance was so bad - they were so focussed on stopping that happening that it impacted his entire debate performance.
Obviously, he's very good at covering it normally!
Obviously, he's very good at covering it normally!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked