• 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.
I

ivysaur12

Banned
JesseEwiak said:
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).
Click to expand...

Even Barbara Boxer, someone whose liberal credentials are really undeniable, "only" won by 10% in a state that leans left about that much in normal elections.

The Democratic coalition is not a midterm-voting electorate.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Whenever one references the past of a party, especially the democratic party, liberal by itself is a useless term. Specify if socially or economically to the left, and you'll most likely avoid quite a bit of frustration.
ivysaur12 said:
The Democratic coalition is not a midterm-voting electorate.
Click to expand...
2018 gon' b awesome, i keeps telling you all.
 
W

watershed

Banned
There's something remarkable in how easy it was and is for Trump to just dismantle Jeb. He did it again at a recent rally with such simple language that strikes at the core of Jeb.

"The first thing he should do is he should get rid of the Jeb stuff. Get rid of all of the nonsense that he’s going through with, ‘I can fix it.’ You know, his new slogan, ‘I can fix it,’” Trump said. “He can’t fix anything. He’s a low-energy person. Low-energy people don’t get things fixed."
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/jeb-bush-donald-trump-218043#ixzz3xsC2hRap
 
M

Maledict

Member
icarus-daedelus said:
I'm just quoting this to highlight because it's brilliant and I laughed a lot.



I have no idea whether this kind of PD-esque speculation is true or not (a "real mean streak"?) but of course he'd never allow himself to get heated or show any real negative emotion because he'd be tarred as an angry uppity negro in seconds. Same with Michelle - who almost suffered that just from those ridiculous rumors of the ol' "whitey" tape, and regularly receives undue scrutiny whenever she dares to inch anywhere near publicly speaking on the topic of life in America as a black woman and the hardships that come with it.

They have to be impossibly "perfect," in personal appearance and conduct, because they never would have made it this far if they weren't.
Click to expand...

It was highlighted in a number of books about the race and 2012, mostly as a counterpoint to the incredibly calm public image he normally presents. I'm not particularly into writing my own fan fiction unlike PD... ;-)
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Still think Trump can't get leaning left voters?

Thomm Hartman just wrote a Salon article saying that Trump is right about tariffs against Chinese imports.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
It's not so much that trump can't get votes from leftists who just so happen to be racists/ have a raging hard on for authoritarianism. It's just that the votes he would get would most likely be oh so very white and quite male indeed, whereas his presence would also help facilitate greater minority attendance in the urns.

So y'know, not a particularly huge concern.
 
B

Black Republican

Member
Joe Scarborough is such a liar, thinks Bernie is waaaay more electable than Hillary, ok whatever bruh ;)

Team Alucard said:
My dad is basically a racist democrat. He's a union member and he supports liberal economic policies, and he's very anti-war, but hes also fairly socially conservative and religious.

He doesn't like black people, hispanics, and muslims. He's against gay marriage, but doesn't care at all about abortion.

He likes Obama, strangely enough. Doesn’t care much for Hillary Clinton though.
Click to expand...

lmao, your dad reminds me of those WV democrats.

Probably thinks Obama is one of the "good ones"? :/
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Coriolanus said:
It's not so much that trump can't get votes from leftists who just so happen to be racists/ have a raging hard on for authoritarianism. It's just that the votes he would get would most likely be oh so very white and quite male indeed, whereas his presence would also help facilitate greater minority attendance in the urns.

So y'know, not a particularly huge concern.
Click to expand...
Not saying it's not a huge concern, I'm saying that if he goes economic left, he may get more votes than anyone would imagine. I would never vote for him, but he's able to move left of Hillary on economic issues without really trying that hard.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
The "they took our jobs" segment is likely already all-in on Trump thanks to his amazing fourth season plot of Arrested Development wall to keep out those brown murderers and rapists flooding in from the southern border.

Which probably again highlights the problems with using single axis political spectra to describe voting blocs.
 
N

Nuu

Banned
JesseEwiak said:
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).
Click to expand...

This is the core of the issue. Democrats need to be motivating people to vote and then mobilizing them to the voting booths during elections. Compared to the Republicans they are far weaker in that respect.

This is why I said running as a "moderate" statewise isn't always the best solution. They didn't properly differentiate themselves compared to their competitors and their base wasn't motivated to show up to the booths. You can point that the voting populace didn't agree with the Democratic party platforms yet in key states they lost Democratic referendums passed at an astonishingly high rate. Of course this doesn't mean that running as a "bleeding heart liberal" is the best solution for things either as they had their fair shares of loses as well. However, Democrats need to find adequate ways of motivating people to vote for them and passing their message down and thus being able to run a candidate who has a better chance at winning and views more inline with the party platform. The party can't afford to do the same dance of having a mere chance (a Republican will have to win some time) of taking the congress every four years while in between that the congress will more than likely be Republican controlled. The Democrats have a huge portion of their base that is apathetic to the political process and if they want to get even half of their party platform enacted in the future ahead they need to get those peoples not only to the booths but also stepping toward the party's platforms.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
I think there's a chance that the Democratic Party will do better statewise under Hillary than Obama. Local dems won't pull the same running away shit that they did with Obama against the Clinton machine. They'll probably all fall in line and get behind the queen. She hasn't even won anything yet and if it wasn't for a 74 year old independent socialist and an un-identified man this primary would practically be an incumbent like run


We just need to win as many seats in the house as possible in 2016, minimize the damage in 2018, and hope that regaining the house is within striking distance in 2020.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
NY Daily News is channeling my childhood with these..

cards21n-2-web.jpg

cards21n-1-web.jpg

cards21n-3-web.jpg

cards21n-8-web.jpg

cards21n-7-web.jpg
Click to expand...
 
T

Teggy

Member
B-Dubs said:
Those are going to be useless for a few more months.
Click to expand...

Then I'm going to be a wreck for a few more months (and hopefully not more, depending on the results).

BTW, did you guys see the daily show segment on how lots of other countries allow betting on their elections?
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Wow, Iowa. On both sides of the bracket.

I want to believe, but there's still a chunk of time left.

Edit: I like the trendline for Cruz in Iowa, but his organizational superiority probably means that Trump would need to beat him by more than a few points.. unless enthusiasm is a self-motivator for Trump's voters.

Gah, so uncertain!

On the other side, Hillary's looking pretty good. Because of voter distribution, Bernie would have to beat her in the popular vote by more than a few points in order to overcome the map's delegate math. The system setup benefits a candidate with geographically homogeneous distribution of support.

Veritigo_X said:
So what did Nate Silver say on Chris Hayes' show? Did anyone watch it?
Click to expand...
It looks like Hayes' website hasn't posted the segment yet. I did get to see it all, but remember Silver noting that Trump's lead was remaining surprisingly durable even as we get this close to actual voting. Usually this type of candidate falls, but he's remained strong.

I'm going to rewatch it again. He's definitely setting himself up for a pivot.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
PBY said:
Don't think those new Iowa polls are reflected in the 538 model yet

Also fucken cruz, come on.
Click to expand...

At this point, if I were Trump I'd just start bludgeoning Cruz as hard as I could with whatever I could find. Anything to get that number down.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Joe Shlabotnik said:
This is going to be a fucking free-for-all.

Caucus vote
Dead heat between Cruz and Trump
Cruz with significantly more total support (48 to 39)
7% undecided + at least another 12% in walking dead candidates

There may be actual decapitations
Click to expand...

The thing is if Trump can even make it close, he wins. Iowa is Cruz's strongest state and everyone has been hyping him up. Cruz needs a convincing win to get momentum going into Iowa.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Is there any way to short on PredictIt? Damn do I want to bet against some of these people. I would sell Rubio as the GOP nom all day long at this point.

(Never mind that I picked him in the GAF poll...)
 
M

Makai

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Is there any way to short on PredictIt? Damn do I want to bet against some of these people. I would sell Rubio as the GOP nom all day long at this point.

(Never mind that I picked him in the GAF poll...)
Click to expand...
Yes. Buy No.

P.S.

Trump nomination - 50
Trump elected - 34

?:^V
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
The thing is if Trump can even make it close, he wins. Iowa is Cruz's strongest state and everyone has been hyping him up. Cruz needs a convincing win to get momentum going into Iowa.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly inclined to agree. Still, his entire campaign is such an overinflated hot gas balloon that a loss out of the gate could be... interesting. Even if it realistically the idea that he's even competitive in Iowa is seriously impressive/terrifying.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Ignatz Mouse said:
Is there any way to short on PredictIt? Damn do I want to bet against some of these people. I would sell Rubio as the GOP nom all day long at this point.

(Never mind that I picked him in the GAF poll...)
Click to expand...

Just bet no. The problem there is that there's not much money left to be made shorting, especially Rubio since everyone seems to have caught on that he's not the guy.

EDIT: Christ, I'm $6 away from doubling my bet. If Trump goes up a fraction of a penny it'll do it.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Ah yeah, I just figured out you can do that. I'm new to the site, I found it by clicking.

It may not be a huge return, but it seems incredibly safe. Do they pay when somebody drops from the race or only once the nomination is final?
 
M

Makai

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Ah yeah, I just figured out you can do that. I'm new to the site, I found it by clicking.

It may not be a huge return, but it seems incredibly safe. Do they pay when somebody drops from the race or only once the nomination is final?
Click to expand...
Market closes after the noimination. You can sell your shares before then to make money sooner. However, there is a 10% fee on profits and a 5% fee to withdraw funds. Only play for fun.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Teggy said:
BTW, did you guys see the daily show segment on how lots of other countries allow betting on their elections?
Click to expand...

NPR did an interesting segment on betting on presidential elections in the US at the turn of the last century:

ROMER: Of course, people also bet money. In New York City, you could place a bet at a bunch of the big hotels or go right down to the financial district where these official betting commissioners had set up shop. In 1916, the race between Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes is super close, and it creates a lot of betting action.

RHODE: Just bet vast sums on it, the equivalent today of over 200 to $300 million on that election.

ROMER: People bet because it was fun. But the betting also produced something really valuable - information on who might win. The daily odds would run in the big newspapers, right on the front page.

RHODE: They don't have Gallup polls yet. They don't have scientific polls yet. And it turns out that the odds are remarkably accurate.

ROMER: In fact, of the 15 presidential elections between 1884 and 1940, Rhode says the markets were only ever wrong once. The market knows things. Eventually, election betting goes away for a bunch of funny little reasons.

RHODE: The first would be the rise of scientific polls.

ROMER: So the country no longer needs all the information that came from the betting. Also, betting on horse races gets legalized in New York, so gamblers spend their money at the track now. And finally, Wall Street decides that election gambling is bad for their reputation.

RHODE: They want to make a distinction. They don't want people to say, oh, all that activity on Wall Street is gambling.

ROMER: Which, you know, who would ever think that?
Click to expand...
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Veritigo_X said:
Not so fast!

Monmouth IA Poll (1/18-1/19):

Cruz 27%
Trump 25%
Carson 11%
Rubio 9%
Bush 7%

Edit: Oh, it's from Monmouth College, not University.
Click to expand...

As somebody who predicted Trump would win, I cringe.

As an American who wants the best for the country, I say, "Yes, please!" Cruz in the general election would be a hilarious trainwreck.

I knew people would come around to supporting Trump. With how so many republicans in Washington hate Cruz, I think that dynamic would be a constant popcorn.gif throughout the cycle.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Metaphoreus said:
NPR did an interesting segment on betting on presidential elections in the US at the turn of the last century:
Click to expand...

I think the reason they stopped is hilarious.

Plinko said:
As somebody who predicted Trump would win, I cringe.

As an American who wants the best for the country, I say, "Yes, please!" Cruz in the general election would be a hilarious trainwreck.

I knew people would come around to supporting Trump. With how so many republicans in Washington hate Cruz, I think that dynamic would be a constant popcorn.gif throughout the cycle.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Cruz is just too hated to go anywhere. Trump might cause the GOP establishment to panic, but they hate Cruz way more than they fear Trump. That's been obvious for a while now.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
What Sanders is missing right now

Democratic validators to parry the attacks against him: Turning to the Democratic race, it's been striking that since the Dem establishment and wonkish liberals began their political attack on Bernie Sanders -- "He's a socialist!" "He's unelectable!" "The GOP will destroy him!" -- the only Democrat who has pushed back on this critique has been Sanders adviser Tad Devine on MSNBC. Bottom line: Sanders doesn't have any well-known Democratic Party validators to back him up. In 2007-2008, Barack Obama had plenty of Dem validators going up when going up against the Clinton machine -- Tom Daschle, Tim Kaine, Deval Patrick, and Claire McCaskill (who's maybe been the most aggressive against Sanders right now). It's something to watch over the next 11 days: If 80% of the Democratic Party continues to hit Sanders here, and there isn't DEMOCRATIC pushback, can Sanders win that fight? By the way, Sanders uses a Simon & Garfunkel song in his newest TV ad.
Click to expand...

Doomed.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Carly Fiorina accused of 'ambushing' children for anti-abortion rally
The alleged ambush occurred when Fiorina hosted a “right to life” forum at the Greater Des Moines botanical garden. Entering the rally, before a crowd of about 60 people, she directed around 15 young children towards a makeshift stage.

The problem, one parent said, was that the children’s parents had not given Fiorina permission to have their children sit with her – in front of a huge banner bearing the image of an unborn foetus – while she talked about harvesting organs from aborted babies.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom