Support NeoGAF

[Hexa]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...jobs_like_reagan_blacks_will_support_him.html

I have to tell you, he's a personal friend. Four of the candidates are personal friends. I love them all, hard to pick. I don't know who I'm going to endorse, but between Trump and Cruz, Cruz is too right wing and rigid.

He can reach over and get Reagan Democrats. He can also get African-Americans, believe it or not, Latinos... blacks have this feeling about the Republican party that we're anti-black, anti-Hispanic. We're not. But they have that feeling. He doesn't carry that burden with him. He could reach over and he could be an enormously powerful general election candidate.

.

 

[ivysaur12]

A Jeb bump would be great because he's the least capable candidate to take on Trump.

 

[Y2Kev]

Jeb is rising!!!

 

[Teggy]

Jeb is rising!!!

He has the right to.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Jeb is rising!!!

"Almost like Marco's dick during Magic Mike."-Political operative who is totally not affiliated with Jeb's campaign.

 

[Pryce]

Go Jeb! go!

Spoiler

lmao Rubio

 

[NeoXChaos]

Jeb is rising!!!

Go Jeb. JebGAF is counting on you to win.

 

[Coriolanus]

The beauty of Jeb rising is that Don can legit attack others by saying "Even Jeb polls higher than him!".

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Evangelicals don't think Trump is religious but think he would be a great president:

Atheists still hated, but less than they used to be:

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/01/27/faith-and-the-2016-campaign/

 

[Y2Kev]

The only way I believe Jeb is winning is if you poll 90 year old women who sit by their landlines and wait to be polled.

 

[Pryce]

--- Sanders Clinton
Very liberal 63% (+6) 32% (-9)
Somewhat liberal 40% (-6) 53% (+11)
Moderate/conservative 46% (+1) 47% (+0)

Huh?

How is he neck and neck with moderates and getting beaten by somewhat liberal?

 

[Holmes]

Huh?

How is he neck and neck with moderates and getting beaten by somewhat liberal?

Small sample sizes lead to high MoE?

 

[NeoXChaos]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/692396202135048193

 

[B-Dubs]

The beauty of Jeb rising is that Don can legit attack others by saying "Even Jeb polls higher than him!".

Oh lord, Trump's just going to start spamming cleave! And it's gonna work!

 

[Holmes]

You know, gun to my head, I would still say Cruz and Clinton in Iowa due to organization and the fact that I just don't believe that turnout will be 100k larger on both sides than the already historically high 2008 numbers.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Greg Sargent ‏@ThePlumLineGS 6m6 minutes ago
If you express a hint of skepticism about anything Saint Bernard has promised, the Sanders Strike Force will mercilessly crush you!

of course.

 

[disastermouse]

The high turnout is almost guaranteed, imo. Still, Sanders vote is going to be so over-concentrated that he probably wont win the delegate count. Theres also the "issue" that some of his most conservative voters overlap with Trump, so he may lose some fanatical voters who decide to caucus for the Reps instead of the Dems.

He's planning on transporting students to caucus in their home districts.

 

[Frank the Great]

I can't wait for the primary to be over so I never have to hear Bernie's name again.

Also, a Jeb comeback in NH would be amazing. I see no downside to this. He's the best opponent for Hillary after Trump/Cruz.

 

[disastermouse]

Fox News is not supposed to be the enemy of the RNC, NBC is tied to CNBC and because the RNC didnt' like their questions they dropped NBC's debate altogether.

Trump learned it from them.

Concerned father: "Where did you learn about this?"
Busted son: "From you, okay? I learned it from watching you!"

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Chait nails what frustrates me most about sanders (and his supporters which are most OT threads)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/what-sanders-doesnt-understand-about-politics.html

Note that Sanders, asked about Republican opposition to his proposals, defined that opposition as “protecting the interest of the wealthy and the powerful.” It is certainly true that fealty to the interests of the rich heavily colors Republican policy. But Sanders is not merely presenting corruption as one factor. It is the entirety of it. Likewise, Sanders has difficulty imagining any reason other than corruption to explain disagreements by fellow Democrats, which he relentlessly attributes to the nefarious influence of corporate wealth. One does not have to dismiss the political power of massed wealth to acknowledge that other things influence the conclusions drawn by Americans who don’t share Sanders’s full diagnosis.

In reality, people have organic reasons to vote Republican. Some of them care more about social issues or foreign policy than economics. Sanders would embrace many concepts — “socialism,” big government in the abstract, and middle-class tax increases — that register badly with the public. People are very reluctant to give up their health insurance, even if it is true that Sanders could give them something better.

What’s more, the interests of the wealthy do not cut as cleanly as Sanders indicates. It’s true that business and the rich tend to oppose parts of his program like higher taxes on the rich, more generous social insurance, and tougher regulation of finance. But the Obama administration’s stimulus encountered intense Republican opposition even though it did not pose a threat to any business interests. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce even endorsed the stimulus, which profited business both directly (by pumping billions into contracts for projects like infrastructure) and indirectly (by goosing public demand for its members’ products). That did not stop 100 percent of House Republicans from opposing it. Nor did the unified opposition of the business lobby dissuade Republicans from holding the debt ceiling hostage in 2011, or persuade them to pass immigration reform in 2013. Sanders currently proposes a massive infrastructure program, which would make lots of money for the construction industry. Clearly, subservience to big business only goes so far in explaining Republican behavior.

The depiction of conservatism as a mere cover for greed is a habit Sanders indulges over and over. Donald Trump’s appeal, in Sanders’s telling, has nothing to do with xenophobia or nationalism: “They're angry because they're working longer hours for lower wages, they're angry because their jobs have left this country and gone to China or other low-wage countries, they're angry because they can't afford to send their kids to college so they can't retire with dignity.” Sanders does not explain why this economic security has manifested itself almost entirely among white voters when minorities are suffering the same conditions. He simply assumes Trump has converted economic frustration into a series of pseudo-concerns, and rather than deal with those beliefs, Sanders proposes instead to convert them back into their original form: “I think for his working-class and middle-class supporters, I think we can make the case that if we really want to address the issues that people are concerned about ... we need policies that bring us together that take on the greed of Wall Street, the greed of corporate America, and create a middle class that works for all of us rather than an economy that works just for a few.”

It is not only Republican voters whose ideas Sanders refuses to grapple with. Here he is in the previous debate explaining Republican climate-science denial: “It is amazing to me, and I think we'll have agreement on this up here, that we have a major party, called the Republican Party, that is so owned by the fossil-fuel industry and their campaign contributions that they don't even have the courage, the decency to listen to the scientists.” It is surely true that fossil-fuel contributions have encouraged the spread of climate-science denial. But the doctrine also appeals philosophically to conservatives. It expresses their disdain for liberal elites, and, more important, it justifies opposition to government action. Psychologists and social scientists have poured years of study into identifying the causes of climate-science denial. One does not need to harbor even the slightest whiff of sympathy for climate-science denial to grasp that its causes run deeper than a cash transaction with Big Oil. Figures like George Will and Charles Krauthammer dismiss climate science because it is a way to maintain order within their mental world. Many other conservatives have social or professional reasons to believe, or at least to say, that Will and Krauthammer are serious intellectuals rather than loons spouting transparently preposterous conspiracy theories. There are deep tribal influences at work that cannot be reduced to economic self-interest.

Sanders’s story provides a comforting fable for his party. Not only are Democrats not hemmed in by the Republican hold on Congress, but they don’t even need to do the laborious work of persuading the political center to come to their side. They need only to rise up and break the grip of moneyed interests on the political system.

There are many reasons to doubt Sanders’s promise that he can transform American politics. Perhaps the most fundamental is that he does not actually understand how it works.

Im so sick of hearing that lobbyists are the only reason we're not Scandinavia. And its again a mirror of the Tea Party who has concocted this believe on Americans truely being on their side and just fooled by some sinister force

 

[disastermouse]

Oh yeah. He could run-up the score big-time in Des Moines, but it won't help his delegate count. It'd be like Dems winning California by a few extra million votes more than the usual; they'd still get the same 55EVs.

Unless democrats could bus a yuuooge section of their overage to their home districts in a bunch of small rural states.

Which is what Bernie can do with college kids in districts where the margin is very high. Send 'em home to caucus there.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Emerson College poll, NH:
Trump: 35%
Jeb?!: 18%
Kasich: 14%
Rubio: 9%
Cruz: 8%
Christie: 5%

If true: wow.

Heh...

goood..goood.gif

 

[PBY]

Trump has a super pac?!?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-super-pac-iowa-ads-218283

 

[PantherLotus]

HERE IT IS, THE ONE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE

That shit's gonna hit the fan and this is going to get ugly -- even uglier -- really quick.

(i'm realizing this is 3 days old as i was looking up the source, so ... yeah it's still yuuge if you ask me)

 

[RustyNails]

Chait nails what frustrates me most about sanders (and his supporters which are most OT threads)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/what-sanders-doesnt-understand-about-politics.html



Im so sick of hearing that lobbyists are the only reason we're not Scandinavia. And its again a mirror of the Tea Party who has concocted this believe on Americans truely being on their side and just fooled by some sinister force

Like I said, Bernie is the only candidate foolishly running on winning both the legislative and executive. He is a lameduck if he loses either chamber. He is selling rainbows and unicorns to gullible young voters by promising free college, free healthcare, and free everything with absolutely zero way of paying for it. Really no different than Trump and his big ass wall.

By the way, has CBO looked at Bernie's tax plan yet?

 

[PBY]

HERE IT IS, THE ONE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE

That shit's gonna hit the fan and this is going to get ugly -- even uglier -- really quick.

(i'm realizing this is 3 days old as i was looking up the source, so ... yeah it's still yuuge if you ask me)

Yikes

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Chait nails what frustrates me most about sanders (and his supporters which are most OT threads)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/what-sanders-doesnt-understand-about-politics.html



Im so sick of hearing that lobbyists are the only reason we're not Scandinavia. And its again a mirror of the Tea Party who has concocted this believe on Americans truely being on their side and just fooled by some sinister force

I understand the perspective of the article, but it seems condescending to say that someone who has been in congress for 25 years doesn't understand how american politics work. You can disagree with someone without painting their viewpoint as ignorance.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I understand the perspective of the article, but it seems condescending to say that someone who has been in congress for 25 years doesn't understand how american politics work. You can disagree with someone without painting their viewpoint as ignorance.

i mean, it's less-bad than saying "someone has been in congress for 25 years, clearly knows better, and is still saying this to pander to people who don't know better"

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Huh?

How is he neck and neck with moderates and getting beaten by somewhat liberal?

If you look at polls which list the categories separately, Sanders typically wins very liberal Democrats, somewhat conservative Democrats, and very conservative Democrats. Clinton wins somewhat liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. If you fuse moderate, somewhat conservative, and very conservative all into one group, Sanders wins that group - although not by much, as not many Democrats classify as somewhat conservative or very conservative to begin with.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I understand the perspective of the article, but it seems condescending to say that someone who has been in congress for 25 years doesn't understand how american politics work. You can disagree with someone without painting their viewpoint as ignorance.

Yeah you can. Especially when he constantly demonstrates it. I mean chait uses his own quotes

 

[ctothej]

He's planning on transporting students to caucus in their home districts.

Source?

 

[Bowdz]

Holy shit this is so fucking juicy:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/fox-statement-taunting-trump-was-all-roger-ailes.html

As the war between Fox News and Donald Trump ratchets up, Roger Ailes is fighting off criticism from his senior executives over his handling of the crisis. According to one highly placed source, last night, Ailes sent out the now-famous statement mocking Trump as being scared to meet with the “Ayatollah” and “Putin” if he became president. “That was Roger 100 percent,” the source explained. “A lot of people on the second floor” — where top Fox executives work — “didn’t think it was a good idea.”

Fox executives are also troubled that Ailes’s principal adviser right now is his longtime personal lawyer and Fox & Friends contributor Peter Johnson Jr. “He wrote the statement with Peter,” the source explained. “Peter is running the war room,” another Ailes friend told me. Fox executives are worried that Ailes is relying on an attorney with scant communications experience as the network is reeling from the biggest PR crisis in recent memory. Historically, during a crisis like this Ailes would have huddled with his veteran communications guru Brian Lewis. But Ailes fired Lewis in 2013 over his concerns that Lewis had been a source for my 2014 Ailes biography. Since Lewis’s ouster, Johnson has taken on the role of media counselor.

Way more at the link. TLDR, Ailes is a pathetic loser.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, that article from the NYmag is terrible. Sanders is arguing that the wealthy have a disproportionately large impact on the American political system. The NYmag's response is to say "yes, but not all things are decided by the wealthy, therefore you are wrong". This is like saying to someone who has correctly observed that your house is on fire and something should be done about this that the fire isn't causing all of the collapse, some of it was just rotten timbers, so there's no point doing anything about the fire.

 

[pigeon]

i mean, it's less-bad than saying "someone has been in congress for 25 years, clearly knows better, and is still saying this to pander to people who don't know better"

I don't actually know if it is! What you're describing is just politics, not being dumb.

I was talking to my wife about this this morning and I'm still more or less convinced that Sanders did not originally intend to win the primary when he ran. He seems to have a campaign staff that believes he can win, but I still don't think winning was really his goal to start out.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Damn what if NH thinks this debate stunt is bullshit

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Holy shit this is so fucking juicy:

Way more at the link. TLDR, Ailes is a pathetic loser.

This is my favorite part:

In a further challenge to Ailes's power, Bill O'Reilly is scheduled to host Trump. Last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump's interview. O'Reilly's refusal to abide by a ban adds a new dynamic to the clash of egos. For O'Reilly, this is an opportunity to take back star power from Kelly. Sources say O'Reilly feels he made Kelly's career by promoting her on his show, and he's been furious that Kelly surpassed him in the ratings.

Papa Bear's going rouge!

 

[Bowdz]

This is my favorite part:

In a further challenge to Ailes's power, Bill O'Reilly is scheduled to host Trump. Last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump's interview. O'Reilly's refusal to abide by a ban adds a new dynamic to the clash of egos. For O'Reilly, this is an opportunity to take back star power from Kelly. Sources say O'Reilly feels he made Kelly's career by promoting her on his show, and he's been furious that Kelly surpassed him in the ratings.

Papa Bear's going rouge!

Lol, I know right? The whole thing is such a shit show. It is glorious.

 

[Frank the Great]

I understand the perspective of the article, but it seems condescending to say that someone who has been in congress for 25 years doesn't understand how american politics work. You can disagree with someone without painting their viewpoint as ignorance.

You're right, it isn't ignorance. The fucker is intentionally misleading people to satisfy his own personal ambitions.

 

[B-Dubs]

This is my favorite part:

In a further challenge to Ailes's power, Bill O'Reilly is scheduled to host Trump. Last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump's interview. O'Reilly's refusal to abide by a ban adds a new dynamic to the clash of egos. For O'Reilly, this is an opportunity to take back star power from Kelly. Sources say O'Reilly feels he made Kelly's career by promoting her on his show, and he's been furious that Kelly surpassed him in the ratings.

Papa Bear's going rouge!

Perfection.

 

[PBY]

Holy shit this is so fucking juicy:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/fox-statement-taunting-trump-was-all-roger-ailes.html



Way more at the link. TLDR, Ailes is a pathetic loser.

Trump taking a flamethrower to everything

 

[eBay Huckster]

I don't actually know if it is! What you're describing is just politics, not being dumb.

I was talking to my wife about this this morning and I'm still more or less convinced that Sanders did not originally intend to win the primary when he ran. He seems to have a campaign staff that believes he can win, but I still don't think winning was really his goal to start out.

well, it's my personal opinion that the political process, however necessary it is to the functioning of practically every aspect of our society, is worse than just being dumb

 

[Man w/ Glasses]

This is my favorite part:

In a further challenge to Ailes's power, Bill O'Reilly is scheduled to host Trump. Last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump's interview. O'Reilly's refusal to abide by a ban adds a new dynamic to the clash of egos. For O'Reilly, this is an opportunity to take back star power from Kelly. Sources say O'Reilly feels he made Kelly's career by promoting her on his show, and he's been furious that Kelly surpassed him in the ratings.

Papa Bear's going rouge!

Amazing. I'm no 'Clinton plant' conspiracist, but Donald causing such chaos in both the GOP establishment/electorate and the Fox News world is just too good. Too good.

 

[B-Dubs]

So Wells Fargo has pulled their GOP debate ads from the next debate, no reason given. FOX News to fold and give Trump everything within the next 24 hours.

 

[Gotchaye]

Also, that article from the NYmag is terrible. Sanders is arguing that the wealthy have a disproportionately large impact on the American political system. The NYmag's response is to say "yes, but not all things are decided by the wealthy, therefore you are wrong". This is like saying to someone who has correctly observed that your house is on fire and something should be done about this that the fire isn't causing all of the collapse, some of it was just rotten timbers, so there's no point doing anything about the fire.

The article is pretty clearly arguing that Sanders is saying that all things are decided by the wealthy (or, rather, that disagreement with Sanders is due to the influence of the wealthy). That's the point of the article. It's not taking that for granted and then arguing that actually the wealthy don't decide everything so Sanders is wrong. Also I don't see where Chait is saying "there's no point doing anything about the fire".

 

[Bowdz]

So Wells Fargo has pulled their GOP debate ads from the next debate, no reason given. FOX News to fold and give Trump everything within the next 24 hours.

Wait, are you serious?!? Trump stays winning.

It is really hard for me to fully express how giddy I am right now.

 

[RustyNails]

So Wells Fargo has pulled their GOP debate ads from the next debate, no reason given. FOX News to fold and give Trump everything within the next 24 hours.

Art of the Deal

 

[B-Dubs]

Wait, are you serious?!? Trump stays winning.

It is really hard for me to fully express how giddy I am right now.

I got it out of the Trump not going to the debate thread. It wouldn't shock me, but I haven't seen it anywhere else yet either.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The article is pretty clearly arguing that Sanders is saying that all things are decided by the wealthy (or, rather, that disagreement with Sanders is due to the influence of the wealthy). That's the point of the article. It's not taking that for granted and then arguing that actually the wealthy don't decide everything so Sanders is wrong. Also I don't see where Chait is saying "there's no point doing anything about the fire".

Then the article is simply wrong. Sanders has never attributed all decisions to the wealthy - see his Liberty Union speech, for example, where he specifically addresses e.g. religious motivations.

 

[PantherLotus]

Everyone knows the only way this works for Trump is if he ends up on the debate, right?

 

[PBY]

Everyone knows the only way this works for Trump is if he ends up on the debate, right?

I kinda think that too...

That said, if he actually organizes a half-decent event, gets a real network to televise it, and gets some sort of guest - I'd say some sort of musical act and an endorsement (fuckit, fly falwell out there), who knows.