• 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.

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Donnie douche and joe Scarborough still said this morning that bush will get a boost and it will be trump and Jeb in the end and Jeb gets a lot of respect for grinding this one out!!!
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
You know I was reading old PoliGAF threads and man B-Dubs and other posters you were praying hard for trump just to make it to the first debate in August.

Hahahaha

Little did we know

I just thought he'd be good for a few weeks of laughs, I didn't really start believing until like half-way through the first debate. If you go back and watch it you can see the instant Trump realizes he can actually win, the look on his face is perfect.

Donnie douche and joe Scarborough still said this morning that bush will get a boost and it will be trump and Jeb in the end and Jeb gets a lot of respect for grinding this one out!!!

JEB!

JEB?

JEB...
 
Our effective rates are lower than the OCED average, at least the last time I looked. I'm not sure why you're bringing upper rates in OCED countries or austerity measures in parts of Europe anyway. My comparison was from America in the past to America today. One president using stimulus doesn't invalidate my comparison using tax rates. Wealth redistribution is an ugly word, but only when it redistributes down. We've been happily redistributing money back up since the 80's due to slashing upper rates.

I'm not in any way arguing that this is where tax rates should be. I agree with you on the effect of their drop as well.

I brought up the OECD countries mainly to illustrate that this trend towards lower tax rates is a global one, that wasn't stopped by many left parties in their native countries.

Any other drift of the democratic parties economic policies has been toward more economically sound policies, not more right wing. See free trade, the repeal of glass-steagall, the latter often being scapegoated as the cause of the recession when it was actually the non commercial banks that held most mortgage backed securities, not the hybrid banks allowed by glass steagalls repeal.

Also, I'd characterize Obamacare not as a right wing idea, but as an acknowledgement of the already entrenched interests in the Healthcare sector in America. What is wrong with attempting healthcare similar to Switzerlands system when it becomes obvious that we can't simply start over and institute single payer? Both offer universal coverage and greatly reduced costs for those that can't afford it.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179

Sanders is doomed.

There's another gigantic Sanders math problem the Post failed to mention: thanks to Clinton's early dominance of superdelegates, he effectively begins the race eight points behind in the delegate count, before any votes are even cast.

Unlike on the GOP side, 713 of Democrats' 4,764 convention delegates (15 percent) are unpledged superdelegates. By the AP's count last November, Clinton had the support of 359 superdelegates. Since then, according to FiveThirtyEight's endorsement tracker, Clinton has picked up 21 congressional endorsements, for an estimated total of 380. The most recent count has Sanders at 11.


The key takeaway from our model below: in order for Sanders to be "on track" to break even in pledged delegates nationally, he wouldn't just need to win Iowa and New Hampshire by a hair. He would need to win 70 percent of Iowa's delegates and 63 percent of New Hampshire's delegates.

Early primary results can be misleading, but presidential primaries tend to follow clear patterns. In 2008, Super Tuesday produced a virtual tie for Democrats; Barack Obama edged Clinton 847 to 834 in delegates that day. But thanks to Obama's heavy backing from African-Americans and liberal whites, savvy number crunchers could discern that he was "on track" to build an insurmountable delegate lead in upcoming primaries like Maryland and Virginia. In other words, the race was already over. This time around, close finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire would be good news for Clinton.

Dem_Dem_2_012116.jpg
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Fuck it. I've never donated to a campaign before but I'm going to donate to Hillary's.

How much spam do normal campaigns send out to the email and phone provided?

Thus far Hillary's has been waaaaaay better than Obamas 2012 campaign. I'm getting like, maybe two emails a week from her whereas I think I was getting 1-2 a day in 2012
 
Also, isn't sanders support concentrated in a few counties which is making his numbers look better than they are? Or am I thinking of something else?

In Iowa, yes, since it's a caucus. 27% of his support comes from 3 counties. He can run up the numbers in the college towns all he wants, since popular vote means little.

I eagerly await the "Caucus system is biased against Bernie" memes.
 

Makai

Member
Cruz is spinning his anti-endorsements. The establishment is falling behind Trump because he's willing to continue the status quo, make deals with Democrats, etc.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Those are just minimum targets I assume. If you take the last Alabama poll of 80-11 for example Hillary will get more than the target 31 out 55. She'd get 44 to Sanders 9. Nomination is mathematically over by Super Tuesday. That's how screwed he is without AA votes.
 
I'm just warning you all now:

If Hillary wins Iowa, I'm going off with every Cher, drag queen, and yaaaaaassssss! gif I can find.

You have been warned.
 
I'm not in any way arguing that this is where tax rates should be. I agree with you on the effect of their drop as well.

I brought up the OECD countries mainly to illustrate that this trend towards lower tax rates is a global one, that wasn't stopped by many left parties in their native countries.

Any other drift of the democratic parties economic policies has been toward more economically sound policies, not more right wing. See free trade, the repeal of glass-steagall, the latter often being scapegoated as the cause of the recession when it was actually the non commercial banks that held most mortgage backed securities, not the hybrid banks allowed by glass steagalls repeal.

Also, I'd characterize Obamacare not as a right wing idea, but as an acknowledgement of the already entrenched interests in the Healthcare sector in America. What is wrong with attempting healthcare similar to Switzerlands system when it becomes obvious that we can't simply start over and institute single payer? Both offer universal coverage and greatly reduced costs for those that can't afford it.

You have a point regarding free trade. However that seems to be the one area both liberal and at least the american conservatives agree on. Yea!?

Even if glass steagall was scapegoated, I'm not sure why it's seen as a positive or a liberal shift in economic policy. Maybe someone can explain that thought process to me.

You're sugarcoating Obamacare. Which is cool. It's what liberals did when we took credit for it even though the groundwork for the mandate was a Heritage Foundation concoction. I don't think Obamacare is bad, the cost control portions he had to sell out on regarding big pharma are, but the as a whole it's not bad. I still think it's funny the right didn't claim the plan as theirs from the beginning and push for it's success. Especially since Obama ran on single payer.

Ultimately though, it feels like some positives and negatives all wrapped up in the shit stink drag of Reaganomics. Reductionist or not.
 
Just dropped $100 on Hilldawg winning the nomination on Predictit. I wish I didn't wait so long to sign up, the price was terrible. Still, it will be an easy $30 in profit.
 

Iolo

Member
In Iowa, yes, since it's a caucus. 27% of his support comes from 3 counties. He can run up the numbers in the college towns all he wants, since popular vote means little.

I eagerly await the "Caucus system is biased against Bernie" memes.

It is, but, just like the electoral college, the popular vote usually aligns with it. It may tip the scales by a few points, but so may O'Malley's inviability (as his supporters may realign to Bernie during the caucus).
 
You can't say that when he is the actual nominee that represents the Republican party. It would be very easy to pant the entire GOP party including the senators and house members. That will hurt their image more so than anything. Plus, these guys are stupid. Trump has very reason to listen to any of them when he has the GOP by the balls.

Yes, yes you can. It takes a while but you most certainly can. Republicans did bounce back from Nixon.

Would also disagree that people like Priebus and the Turtle are stupid. You do not take control of most things BUT the presidency by being stupid.

It's about choosing how best to eat a shit sandwich, mate. You're long past the point where you could avoid ingesting it, so might as well focus on the dressing.


That hills has a systemic advantage isn't exactly news. What should be interesting is how the media will react if he takes the majority of the votes, and the impact that reaction will have on subsequent votes.

Will be horrendously unlikely to win even if all goes acc keikaku, obv
 
Sen. Richard Burr(R-NC): I'd Vote For Bernie Sanders Over Ted Cruz

Still, Cruz has become such a pariah that one of his colleagues, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, told supporters at a campaign fundraiser for his own re-election that he would vote for liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders for president before Cruz, according to one person who attended the event. Burr did not appear to be joking, said the person, who demanded anonymity to discuss the private gathering.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Trunp is less damaging because a narrative that Trump is not the Republican Party is a far easier sell than a narrative that Cruz doesn't represent the party. One is a politician and the other isn't.

They're most likely correct in their assesment. Now all they need is to say that they'll just let him do his thing and focus their resources on local races instead and i can fire up the u mad benji? post. (
Yep, can't go back to the "he wasn't a a real conservative" well after a Cruz loss. Might have to do some self reflection, can't have that.

what did he do opt out of his senate plan? lol

Edit: Bet he pays the penalty and releases his taxes just as a form of Pyrrhic "victory" over the tyranny of obamacare.
 

Makai

Member
I have no ill-will towards the party decide guys, and I genuinely appreciate their point of view. But I will be mildly annoyed if they refuse to eat crow when Trump wins. I will certainly feast if Jeb wins this somehow.
 
I have no ill-will towards the party decide guys, and I genuinely appreciate their point of view. But I will be mildly annoyed if they refuse to eat crow when Trump wins. I will certainly feast if Jeb wins this somehow.

But don't you see. If Trump wins it will be because The Party Decided to nominate him to avoid Cruz.

There is a glaring logical fallacy in that conclusion but it won't stop the spin from Nate and co.
 

sangreal

Member
If the party still has the power to decide, and that is what will launch trump over cruz --- then uh... why couldn't they "decide" on someone they actually want and not the lesser of 2 evils?
 

Kyosaiga

Banned
If the party still has the power to decide, and that is what will launch trump over cruz --- then uh... why couldn't they "decide" on someone they actually want and not the lesser of 2 evils?
Come on now. Just think of why their base is supporting either of them.

They'd be committing political suicide on a massive scale
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I think the establishment still has a chance of defeating Trump and Cruz once they have one candidate to get behind. Not a big chance, but a chance.

It's too late for that. At this point the only opportunity left to stop Trump is the convention. If he sweeps the states through South Carolina then it's over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom