Support NeoGAF

[Ogrekiller]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-establishment-trump-rubio-218047

Hmm, mildly terrifying, hmmmmmm.

What a fucking dumb statement.

So he's less American, less conservative, and less a Republican than he is a Christian?

Fuck he should say he's at least the first 3 equally. What's he running for? Archbishop of the Vatican States of America?

 

[NeoXChaos]

So, something interesting that I thought of today. The Clinton attack machine is vicious. Probably too mean in a primary, as we saw in 2008.

But what does that look like on a national level? Is she just holding back until the nomination when she lets everything run wild? I'm sort of fascinated to see what that looks like.

What does Texas look like with Trump on the ticket?

Registration there is abysmal in Hispanic numbers.

 

[Iolo]

Let's take a moment to reflect on Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appearing at a Trump rally. What the FUCK people. Is this the way the Republican party really wants to go down?

 

[ivysaur12]

We still have about a third of the time til Iowa to go, so to speak - 27% of people who voted in 2008 only made their definite decision in the immediate week before the caucus. That's not a result prediction, I'm just saying that the only polls which matter numbers-wise are those really from the last week. All polls tell us about now is trajectory.

We'll never know what the actual vote total is, so I feel that Bernie will need to be doing a lot better than he's doing now to actually get more delegates. The thing about winning Iowa is that you win the media cycle and that can propel you forward. If Bernie's vote share is really concentrated in 3 counties and there isn't a wide distribution of voters at other precincts, it could be very bad for Bernie if he's not running a wider margin.

Maybe we will get historic turnout in 2016. But I don't really see any signs of that thus far besides some polls weighing for it and some polls not.

 

[sangreal]

Let's take a moment to reflect on Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appearing at a Trump rally. What the FUCK people. Is this the way the Republican party really wants to go down?

IIRC Jeff Sessions campaigned with him too, when he was still focusing on immigration

 

[Ogrekiller]

Let's take a moment to reflect on Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appearing at a Trump rally. What the FUCK people. Is this the way the Republican party really wants to go down?

This could get ugly.

Expect a smear campaign against the opposition that makes swiftboating look like child's play when the Republicans finally get their act together.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We'll never know what the actual vote total is, so I feel that Bernie will need to be doing a lot better than he's doing now to actually get more delegates. The thing about winning Iowa is that you win the media cycle and that can propel you forward. If Bernie's vote share is really concentrated in 3 counties and there isn't a wide distribution of voters at other precincts, it could be very bad for Bernie if he's not running a wider margin.

Maybe we will get historic turnout in 2016. But I don't really see any signs of that thus far besides some polls weighing for it and some polls not.

Actually we will know what the vote total is... in September, when the Democratic Party releases it. But yes, I agree. I've seen articles that estimate Sanders needs a 4.9% lead to have a state delegate advantage. I think that's doable - that's only 52-47, after all - but he's certainly not there yet.

 

[Manmademan]

Let's take a moment to reflect on Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appearing at a Trump rally. What the FUCK people. Is this the way the Republican party really wants to go down?

I'm seeing a lot of "rumor" that the establishment may consider Ted Cruz to be worse.
The general consensus is that a lot of what Trump does is shtick, just an act. He's actually fairly moderate and willing to compromise.

Ted Cruz absolutely is not and is uncontrollable.

 

[RustyNails]

Also keep in mind that Clinton identified all the precinct captains and the list of likely caucusers by July last year for Iowa, while team Bernie was still scrambling by October. Building that kind of infrastrucutre takes months, even a year or two. Obama built his block by block in 07. Hillary mirrored it. Bernie needs a turnout of historic proportions to overcome that lack of infrastructure, or Hillary needs to trip hard and fast.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm not sure if the "Bernie's doing the best he can" argument is "Bernie's doing as well as any far left candidate could do" or if it's "Bernie's doing as well as a far left candidate with his shortcomings could do". Which is it?

I can see where the focus on early primaries is probably Bernie's best play given that the early races are tight, he mostly appeals to young white people, etc. I perhaps wrongly took B Dubs' earlier criticism as suggesting that it's because of Bernie's particular weaknesses that the early races are tight and he's starting so far behind with minorities. And you can sort of see where being quicker on, say, BLM and generally being better able to come across as conscious of and worried about the particular issues facing minorities beyond just being poor might have helped him a lot in later states without losing many of the supporters that he's now got in Iowa and NH. It's obviously hard to sort out the counterfactual but if Bernie were better at campaigning in whatever sense is it plausible that Iowa wouldn't be so tight and he could already have spent some time shoring up his weaknesses elsewhere? Or was Clinton basically unassailable with many voters because of personal loyalty or concerns about electability such that it was always going to be about squeaking out a win in some early states and hoping to snowball?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Also keep in mind that Clinton identified all the precinct captains and the list of likely caucusers by July last year for Iowa, while team Bernie was still scrambling by October. Building that kind of infrastrucutre takes months, even a year or two. Obama built his block by block in 07. Hillary mirrored it. Bernie needs a turnout of historic proportions to overcome that lack of infrastructure, or Hillary needs to trip hard and fast.

you mean the magical socialist

I'm not sure if the "Bernie's doing the best he can" argument is "Bernie's doing as well as any far left candidate could do" or if it's "Bernie's doing as well as a far left candidate with his shortcomings could do". Which is it?

I can see where the focus on early primaries is probably Bernie's best play given that the early races are tight, he mostly appeals to young white people, etc. I perhaps wrongly took B Dubs' earlier criticism as suggesting that it's because of Bernie's particular weaknesses that the early races are tight and he's starting so far behind with minorities. And you can sort of see where being quicker on, say, BLM and generally being better able to come across as conscious of and worried about the particular issues facing minorities beyond just being poor might have helped him a lot in later states without losing many of the supporters that he's now got in Iowa and NH. It's obviously hard to sort out the counterfactual but if Bernie were better at campaigning in whatever sense is it plausible that Iowa wouldn't be so tight and he could already have spent some time shoring up his weaknesses elsewhere? Or was Clinton basically unassailable with many voters because of personal loyalty or concerns about electability such that it was always going to be about squeaking out a win in some early states and hoping to snowball?

the boded. The campaign in reports basically admitted it.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Also keep in mind that Clinton identified all the precinct captains and the list of likely caucusers by July last year for Iowa, while team Bernie was still scrambling by October. Building that kind of infrastrucutre takes months, even a year or two. Obama built his block by block in 07. Hillary mirrored it. Bernie needs a turnout of historic proportions to overcome that lack of infrastructure, or Hillary needs to trip hard and fast.

Gonna cheat here and quote Ether_Snake on Donald:

The media are in large part in the Republicans' pockets. If the establishment rallies behind him, the environment will be entirely different than how it's been until now. They'll laugh and say he's smart and not that bad after all, best chance to win, let's make America great again, etc. You'll see plenty of candidates who ran against him play the admirable-defeat card and say they actually respect him and will support him. With the big political machine behind him, I don't see him losing unless Sanders and his supporters go away, but chances are the Democrats will soon end up with their own Tea Party instead.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Selzer is estimating turnout quite high - that 42-40 poll worked out at about 232,000 turnout, which is very close to '08. My personal inclination is to immediately disregard polls like D&F that estimate turnout around 140,000. I just don't see that. Gravis and Loras are even worse, they're not even screening for people who didn't caucus in the past; in 2008 over 30% of the caucus-goers were first-timers. My personal guess is that, at least a week ago, that Sanders and Clinton were essentially even, with maybe a very mild lead for Clinton. Admittedly, this is because Selzer said it, but hey...

 

[eBay Huckster]

Hmmm...

Also:

You're my actual favorite.

We still have about a third of the time til Iowa to go, so to speak - 27% of people who voted in 2008 only made their definite decision in the immediate week before the caucus. That's not a result prediction, I'm just saying that the only polls which matter numbers-wise are those really from the last week. All polls tell us about now is trajectory.

Specifically, the only polls that'll wind up mattering in terms of accurately predicting the outcome will be coming out starting Wednesday.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/690996050702651392

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Next Jeb attack ad is coming up.

That park is known for something else, too.

 

[Iolo]

https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/690996050702651392

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Next Jeb attack ad is coming up.

There's an amusing anonymous pastebin hit piece in the Twitter replies called "Rubio and the Sex Baron".

 

[Makai]

Grayson says he's taking Cruz to court over eligibility. Yessss

Spoiler

I don't think he has standing

 

[NeoXChaos]

Gabriel Debenedetti ‏@gdebenedetti 6h6 hours ago
Sanders hopes for a split Super Tuesday, a surprise in MI, & wins in the KS, NE, ME, ID, UT, AK, HI, WA caucuses

.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-iowa-obama-playbook-218137

 

[QuiteWhittle]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mich...g-independent-run-president/story?id=36470443

Looks like Bloomberg's gonna jump in the race soon.

Hmm, a President Bloomberg would allow Democrats to improve midterm performance without having a full-blown Republican in the White House, hmm.

 

[Coriolanus]

The alternative? Capitulation.

which is why...

Given the scenario he's dealing with? Soundest strategy he could go for (aside from not even bothering to run, obv)

I'm not sure if the "Bernie's doing the best he can" argument is "Bernie's doing as well as any far left candidate could do" or if it's "Bernie's doing as well as a far left candidate with his shortcomings could do". Which is it?

The latter. Deciding to finally run for president and join the democrats at such an advanced age is clearly a massive (and very personal) shortcoming with considerable implications. It necessarily touches and guides every aspect of his campaign.

Hmm, a President Bloomberg would allow Democrats to improve midterm performance without having a full-blown Republican in the White House, hmm.

Problem, as always, is the SC.

 

[Manmademan]

which is why...
.

I never said he shouldn't run in the first place. strong challengers are good all around. but once it's clear there's no path to victory- capitulate, admit your opponent is the better candidate and endorse.

not rocket science.

 

[Ogrekiller]

which is why...




The latter. Deciding to finally run for president and join the democrats at such an advanced age is clearly a massive (and very personal) shortcoming with considerable implications. It necessarily touches and guides every aspect of his campaign.



Problem, as always, is the SC.

But he had a third option and the one most suited to his style:

The independent run.

All the problems he is currently facing would be non existent right now. He would have time to shore up support without dealing with two power broker establishments breathing down his neck. He's not taking money from the establishment in any case, and he can run without endorsements from the DNC, clearly.

 

[Coriolanus]

I never said he shouldn't run in the first place. strong challengers are good all around. but once it's clear there's no path to victory- capitulate, admit your opponent is the better candidate and endorse.

not rocket science.

Quite. Which is something that will become absolutely undeniable (instead of just extremely unlikely) after the very first primaries, not before.

Since he started traveling down this path, however, there is no sense in capitulating with them oh so very close.

 

[tmarg]

But he had a third option and the one most suited to his style:

The independent run.

All the problems he is currently facing would be non existent right now. He would have time to shore up support without dealing with two power broker establishments breathing down his neck.

Support for what? His goal isn't to help republicans take the Whitehouse.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But he had a third option and the one most suited to his style:

The independent run.

All the problems he is currently facing would be non existent right now. He would have time to shore up support without dealing with two power broker establishments breathing down his neck. He's not taking money from the establishment in any case, and he can run without endorsements from the DNC, clearly.

Except he's not a moron and knows this would have lead to a GOP win.

 

[Manmademan]

Quite. Which is something that will become absolutely undeniable (instead of just extremely unlikely) after the very first primaries, not before.

Since he started traveling down this path, however, there is no sense in capitulating with them oh so very close..

I think our difference stems from how close we think bernie is to victory. I think it's unlikely he takes iowa (but not impossible) likely he takes new hampshire, but an absolute certainty he gets his ass kicked across the next dozen or so primaries, making victory impossible.

the nomination is out of his grasp, and few analysts would disagree.

that being said, going negative (as he has been) does nothing but damage the candidate certain to be running in the general. I can't endorse that. keep it positive, or capitulate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

But he had a third option and the one most suited to his style:

The independent run.

All the problems he is currently facing would be non existent right now. He would have time to shore up support without dealing with two power broker establishments breathing down his neck. He's not taking money from the establishment in any case, and he can run without endorsements from the DNC, clearly.

He's already ruled this out because all it would do is throw the election to the Republicans.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Support for what? His goal isn't to help republicans take the Whitehouse.

Support for him. His goal is to get elected, right? Or is it to advance his platform?

 

[NeoXChaos]

He's already ruled this out because all it would do is throw the election to the Republicans.

If it did not I am sure he would have taken the chance to run as an independent.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think our difference stems from how close we think bernie is to victory. I think it's unlikely he takes iowa (but not impossible) likely he takes new hampshire, but an absolute certainty he gets his ass kicked across the next dozen or so primaries, making victory impossible.

the nomination is out of his grasp, and few analysts would disagree.

that being said, going negative (as he has been) does nothing but damage the candidate certain to be running in the general. I can't endorse that. keep it positive, or capitulate.

actually, I think most analysts agree he has a chance - just a very low one. Even Nate Silver is willing to buy at 10%, and he's super sold on The Party Decides - as we all know. Betting markets have it at 20%. Most likely, Sanders will win/lose Iowa, win New Hampshire, get fucked in Nevada and South Carolina, and be dead by the end of Super Tuesday and concede. But there's no guarantee. Win Iowa, get a big enough bump to win Nevada, conserve your losses in South Carolina, and suddenly we have a race. So, yes, when he cannot win he will capitulate (obviously). That's not yet.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bernie isnt conceding until Hillary mathematically wins which wont be until April or May at the earliest.

 

[Ogrekiller]

He's already ruled this out because all it would do is throw the election to the Republicans.

Except he's not a moron and knows this would have lead to a GOP win.

Right now, Donald Trump is consolidating the Republicans before the primaries even start.

The Democrat Civil War is yet to begin.

I dunno man, I don't see this helping anyone.

 

[Coriolanus]

I think our difference stems from how close we think bernie is to victory. I think it's unlikely he takes iowa (but not impossible) likely he takes new hampshire, but an absolute certainty he gets his ass kicked across the next dozen or so primaries, making victory impossible.

Not particularly. I think he has little to no chance whatsoever. I just consider that if he manages to take Iowa and NH, then the narrative that will emerge will (possibly) upgrade his chances from *lol* to *hrmm*.

Whereas if he quits, say, RIGHT NOW, then his final great act in politics will be exactly that, to be a quitter. There is no positive benefit in that whatsoever, since hills sure as fuck won't be stupid enough to give the man a position in her government.

(plus i've some longer reaching delusions about how healthy the whole process is for the left in the US)

If it did not I am sure he would have taken the chance to run as an independent.

No doubt about that whatsoever. Alas, this is the man that was smart enough to take the dem candidate out early in his state precisely to prevent that sort of thing.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If it did not I am sure he would have taken the chance to run as an independent.

Well yeah. That's like saying "if it wasn't a two-party system then you'd have third-party candidates".

 

[NeoXChaos]

Here we go DMR endorsements.

Hillary
Rubio

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-caucus-endorsement-hillary-clinton/79240238/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../?hootPostID=05953172c27bf26915d970e8b0332521

 

[tmarg]

Support for him. His goal is to get elected, right? Or is it to advance his platform?

Oh, please.

 

[Manmademan]

Not particularly. I think he has little to no chance whatsoever. I just consider that if he manages to take Iowa and NH, then the narrative that will emerge will (possibly) upgrade his chances from *lol* to *hrmm*.

Whereas if he quits, say, RIGHT NOW, then his final great act in politics will be exactly that, to be a quitter. There is no positive benefit in that whatsoever, since hills sure as fuck won't be stupid enough to give the man a position in her government.

(plus i've some longer reaching delusions about how healthy the whole process is for the left in the US)

If he can't win the nomination (which he can't) then the only positive benefit period to running was to promote his particular pet positions and control the conversation, moving the nominee more leftward than she would have otherwise.

That's been accomplished. Everything after this is just wankery and time wasting.

His final "great act" would be starting a conversation, and engaging those who might have otherwise tuned out completely into paying attention. again, this has been done. Dropping out before or after new hampshire to endorse hillary and campaign changes nothing.

 

[Coriolanus]

Ah
seems you were correct

you consider he has zero chance
i consider he has slightly above zero

i apologize

 

[teiresias]

Here we go DMR endorsements.

Hillary
Rubio

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-caucus-endorsement-hillary-clinton/79240238/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../?hootPostID=05953172c27bf26915d970e8b0332521

Hillary? Obviously they should have just kept quiet and remained neutral.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, they endorsed Clinton last time, it'd be weird if they didn't again. I'd be rather surprised if Rubio wasn't the GOP endorsement, as well.

Behold, my magical powers.

 

[Iolo]

Here we go DMR endorsements.

Hillary
Rubio

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-caucus-endorsement-hillary-clinton/79240238/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../?hootPostID=05953172c27bf26915d970e8b0332521

The DMR is just part of the establishment that needs to be overthrown though. Can't wait to read the thread for this in OT.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Oh, please.

Answer the question please.

Is he in it to win? Or is he in it to send a message?

If he's in it to win, then WIN. Total win. Any means necessary. Because if he doesn't win and his support doesn't shift to Clinton, then what would be the point of running under the Democrat banner as opposed to an independent bid?

But if he's in the race to make a point... well the point's been made. Now you can fight while the Republicans regroup.

Your move.

Ah
seems you were correct

you consider he has zero chance
i consider he has slightly above zero

i apologize

In blackjack the house has 17 and you have 16.

Split, or double down?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The DMR is just part of the establishment that needs to be overthrown though. Can't wait to read the thread for this in OT.

I mean, DMR are pretty establishment. They backed Romney, McCain, Bush, Bush, and Romney, Clinton/Romney, Kerry, Al Gore/Bush in the primaries.

 

[tmarg]

If he can't win the nomination (which he can't) then the only positive benefit period to running was to promote his particular pet positions and control the conversation, moving the nominee more leftward than she would have otherwise.

That's been accomplished. Everything after this is just wankery and time wasting.

You know he could push her even further left, right? We haven't reached the end of the spectrum yet.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah but I bet it wasn't voted on by all of DMR's members just their leadership.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Here we go DMR endorsements.

Hillary
Rubio

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-caucus-endorsement-hillary-clinton/79240238/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../?hootPostID=05953172c27bf26915d970e8b0332521

Strangely hasn't really affected PredictIt prices so if anyone thinks this'll have an effect, buy some stock I guess.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah but I bet it wasn't voted on by all of DMR's members just their leadership.

Lol

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Answer the question please.

Is he in it to win? Or is he in it to send a message?

If he's in it to win, then WIN. Total win. Any means necessary. Because if he doesn't win and his support doesn't shift to Clinton, then what would be the point of running under the Democrat banner as opposed to an independent bid?

But if he's in the race to make a point... well the point's been made. Now you can fight while the Republicans regroup.

Your move.

This makes literally no sense. The US is a two-party system. It uses first past the post. Running two leftwing candidates and one rightwing candidate is recipe for electing rightwing candidates - see the UK in the 1980s. Yes, Sanders wants to be president. No, he doesn't want to be president so badly he'd risk the Republicans winning. Come on, this is elections 101 here.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah but I bet it wasn't voted on by all of DMR's members just their leadership.

In fairness to the DMR, I'm pretty sure their readership would endorse Clinton and Rubio.

 

[tmarg]

Answer the question please.

I'll let you argue that an independent run is the best way to win once an independent actually takes a state.