• 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.
They can both win the general, there is nothing to suggest that either dem candidate would lose to trump. I'm for either Clinton or Sanders, they can both beat Trump.

She beats Trump by 7-10 points in states where Bernie beats Trump by double that(margin of error is probably 3-5 points...so she could be up less or perhaps more). Bernie could bring a wave. Hillary would not bring a wave because she has no crossover appeal as no one trusts a Clinton(see video up a few posts). Turnout for the Democratic candidate would be much lower if Hillary is the nominee. Bernie gets more votes in the general.
 

tmarg

Member
Do you really think the minimum wage in Kansas needs to be roughly $33k per year?

I've never lived in Kansas, but probably. After taxes we're probably talking a bit under $25k, assuming you are full time, most minimum wage jobs aren't. Figure about $6k for rent. No public transportation to speak of, so reliably getting to your shitty job requires you to own your own car, and everything that goes along with that, so thousands more a year for that. After food, healthcare, clothing, heat, electricity, etc, you do need to have some savings left over, as you probably aren't getting any benefits that will cover you if circumstances cause you to miss time at work. And we haven't even covered the possibility that someone might have children while working a minimum wage job.
 

pa22word

Member
Do you really think the minimum wage in Kansas needs to be roughly $33k per year?

fight-club-o.gif
 
This isn't a fucking job offer that you're negotiating. Here's your scenario:

Hillary: I want $12 per hour minimum wage.
Republicans: No.

Bernie: I want $15 per hour minimum wage.
Republicans: No.

Yeah, aiming high really makes a big difference. You have to flip Congress to get either minimum wage passed and promising $15 per hour won't magically flip gerrymandered or swing districts. And frankly $15 per hour is too high of a minimum wage in some parts of the country. Why not let it be a local standard?
So again, 'Why bother?'. Today's Democratic Party, ladies and gentlemen! No wonder you've been getting your ass kicked for 35 years. Republicans have been advocating for their positions for 35 years - but Democrats won't even bother. You don't get it, do you? When you try and fail and try again, it keeps the issue out there and you keep putting out your argument for why the other side is on the wrong side of the issue! Republicans didn't have the general population on their side when they started this shit in the late '70s. They didn't say, 'Well, we can't get it this cycle so we're not going to push for it.'

And no, $15 is not too high for any part of the country. Even 'Light-My-Fart, AL' deserves a $15 minimum wage. That's a floor, not a ceiling.
 

dramatis

Member
She beats Trump by 7-10 points in states where Bernie beats Trump by double that(margin of error is probably 3-5 points...so she could be up less or perhaps more). Bernie could bring a wave. Hillary would not bring a wave because she has no crossover appeal as no one trusts a Clinton(see video up a few posts). Turnout for the Democratic candidate would be much lower if Hillary is the nominee. Bernie gets more votes in the general.
What states?

Because you do remember that the swing states are the ones where the numbers count the most, yes? You got match up numbers for Virginia, Florida, Ohio, etc.?
 
Based on?
The same crystal ball that you keep using to say that she can beat Trump. She can't beat Trump. She can barely campaign at all. She STILL doesn't have a strategy to deal with Sanders and the man has had the same stump speech for months!

No. Hillary loses to Trump. Maybe she could beat Cruz because the man emanates unlikability...but I'm not confident.
 
The same crystal ball that you keep using to say that she can beat Trump. She can't beat Trump. She can barely campaign at all. She STILL doesn't have a strategy to deal with Sanders and the man has had the same stump speech for months!

No. Hillary loses to Trump. Maybe she could beat Cruz because the man emanates unlikability...but I'm not confident.

Ahh, so straight out of your ass, gotcha
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I think Clinton is a bad candidate and will depress the Dem vote lower than it would have been under alternatives (not just Sanders, Biden would have done better as well); but the Dems are so structurally advantage I think it is very unlikely she would outright lose. But yes, she's a terrible campaigner.
 
Clinton would do immeasurably better than Sanders in a general election- I'm way more excited by her than Sanders.

General election numbers for a guy that the GOP hasn't even tried to attack seriously are more or less meaningless.

The whole Sanders support becomes more and more like Ron Paul everyday.
 
So... I'm kind of curious about how this sort of Dutch auction approach would translate into the legislative process.

Like, do you start by introducing a bill raising wages to for instance $17 and when that doesn't get past committee, introduce one for $16.50. And continue successively, upon reaching your actual desired increase of say $15, at which point the prior opposition will be less opposed because at least it's not the initial $17?

There are from a brief look two bills currently introduced to increase the minimum wage, one by Sanders himself and one by Sen. Patty Murray for $12. I don't think either will really gain traction, but I would assume if either was going to move forward and manage to try and bring on board non-Tea party more moderate Republicans it would be the latter.
 
So... I'm kind of curious about how this sort of Dutch auction approach would translate into the legislative process.

Like, do you start by introducing a bill raising wages to for instance $17 and when that doesn't get past committee, introduce one for $16.50. And continue successively, upon reaching your actual desired increase of say $15, at which point the prior opposition will be less opposed because at least it's not the initial $17?

Same way the economic stabilization act of 2008 was decided, i'd guess. You just modify the thing until you got enough support to get it through. Was the standard way until record obstructionism took place.

Down here you just take a position and start bribing people until you get enough support. Believe yall call that pork barrel politics.

This does bring to mind that time when Reid wanted Biden to stay the fuck out of...some... negotiations with republicans because he gave too much for too little.

As far as the current congress is concerned, tho? Republicans win by default since to them, when discussing the minimum wage, no deal is the best deal.
 
And no, $15 is not too high for any part of the country. Even 'Light-My-Fart, AL' deserves a $15 minimum wage. That's a floor, not a ceiling.

How much time have you actually spent in Alabama? Because I have to assume its nearly zero. The state just doesn't have the infrastructure to support valuing employees at that level. They have bad schools, bad worker training programs, and bad roads. Double the minimum wage there and employment will collapse. Employers keep businesses there now partially because its cheap. Make it not cheap and they may as well move their shops, plants, etc, elsewhere. Your proposal would devastate local economies and create more poverty out of a mis-placed moral certainty.
 
How much time have you actually spent in Alabama? Because I have to assume its nearly zero. The state just doesn't have the infrastructure to support valuing employees at that level. They have bad schools, bad worker training programs, and bad roads. Double the minimum wage there and employment will collapse. Employers keep businesses there now partially because its cheap. Make it not cheap and they may as well move their shops, plants, etc, elsewhere. Your proposal would devastate local economies and create more poverty out of a mis-placed moral certainty.

No. Don't tell me the businesses can't afford it. If it's true, then they're not really America, they're a second or third world country within a country and if that's true, then why even continue the union? No. Bring them up or kick them out. Their schools suck? Gee, I wonder if that's because the tax base is shit because wages are shit, so property values are shit.

And no, if the minimum is $15 everywhere, where will they move their shops and plants? China? Cool, tariff the living fuck out of companies that ex-patriate and cut taxes on those that stay.
 
If that's the ridiculous game you are playing, you could also say the same for all the predictions that Bernie can beat him. (since we are just basing this on absolutely nothing)
We're basing this on the fact that Bernie and Trump voters are motivated and Hillary voters are not. She's Jeb in Democrat drag.

Bernie might lose. Hillary will lose.
 

Clefargle

Member
She beats Trump by 7-10 points in states where Bernie beats Trump by double that(margin of error is probably 3-5 points...so she could be up less or perhaps more). Bernie could bring a wave. Hillary would not bring a wave because she has no crossover appeal as no one trusts a Clinton(see video up a few posts). Turnout for the Democratic candidate would be much lower if Hillary is the nominee. Bernie gets more votes in the general.

Yeah, so they can both beat him. Like I said.

The same crystal ball that you keep using to say that she can beat Trump. She can't beat Trump. She can barely campaign at all. She STILL doesn't have a strategy to deal with Sanders and the man has had the same stump speech for months!

No. Hillary loses to Trump. Maybe she could beat Cruz because the man emanates unlikability...but I'm not confident.

Not true:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
 

Cheebo

Banned
We're basing this on the fact that Bernie and Trump voters are motivated and Hillary voters are not. She's Jeb in Democrat drag.

Bernie might lose. Hillary will lose.
You are letting being on the Internet with 20 something males cloud your vision. The majority of democratic and liberal women are extremely passionate and hyped about Hillary. Go to one of her events. Women go NUTS for her.

There is no way anyone can look at how the majority of liberal women in the Democratic Party are so hyped about her and think there is no motivation there.

You are using Internet forums which are overwhelmingly white males to base your view on so called passion. The Democratic Party doesn't give a shit about white males. It's base that wins if elections is females and minorities. Any white males it gets that don't vote Republican is just a bonus.
 
The same crystal ball that you keep using to say that she can beat Trump. She can't beat Trump. She can barely campaign at all. She STILL doesn't have a strategy to deal with Sanders and the man has had the same stump speech for months!

No. Hillary loses to Trump. Maybe she could beat Cruz because the man emanates unlikability...but I'm not confident.

His crystal ball is probably based on head-to- head GE polling aggregates, which, according to Crab, supposedly get predictive around this point. Or his rising deficits with swing voters. Or his terrible favoribility with Americans as a whole.

Your crystal ball just seems to be based on your gut and personal dislike of Clinton, no offense. You could definitely be right but your stubborn confidence seems out of place.
 

damisa

Member
Some of you need to understand that there's a world outside of Internet forums dominated by young white men

It reminds me of conservatives who would only watch things like Fox News and hang out with only their conservative friends. They not only thought that Romney would win, but that he would destroy Obama in a landslide
 

East Lake

Member
The U.S. May Build 500 Jets Before Finding Out If the F-35 Works

Tests of how Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 will perform in combat won’t begin until at least August 2018, a year later than planned, and more than 500 of the fighter jets may be built before the assessment is complete, according to the Pentagon’s test office.

“These aircraft will require a still-to-be-determined list of modifications” to be fully capable, Michel Gilmore, the U.S. Defense Department’s top weapons tester, said in his annual report on major programs. “However, these modifications may be unaffordable for the services as they consider the cost of upgrading these early lots of aircraft while the program continues to increase production rates in a fiscally constrained environment.”

The Defense Department plans a fleet of 2,443 F-35s for the U.S., plus hundreds more to be purchased by allies, including the U.K., Italy, Australia and Japan. The costliest U.S. weapons program, at a projected $391 billion, the F-35 is being produced even as it’s still being developed, a strategy a top Pentagon official once called “acquisition malpractice.”

Despite the plane’s many problems, “F-35 production rates have been allowed to steadily increase to large rates,” Gilmore said in his annual report to congressional defense committees.

Could've spent some this on healthcare!
 
Why is there so much double posting? Tip for mobile, the little plus button is for multi-quoting.

Also, since it's been brought up again, the CNN/ORC national polling asks a question on enthusiasm for X candidate.

Clinton's numbers were 37 / 38 / 15 / 10
Sanders gets 33 / 39 / 16 / 10
+/- 4.5

On the GOP side Trump gets 40 / 28 / 12 / 19
Cruz 25 / 43 / 22 / 9
Rubio 18 / 44 / 26 / 11
+/- 5

(Enthusiastic / Satisfied but not enthusiastic / Dissatisfied but not upset / Upset)

I.e. for the most part Democrats and Lean Dems will be pretty satisfied and enthusiastic either way. A non-Trump nom though might leave a larger contingent dissatisfied and unenthusiastic.
 

Cheebo

Banned
As poligaf pointed out numerous times when Bernie started getting mad crowds, events mean shit.

Just so happens that Hills also got the polling stats to back that stance up.

I honestly don't get why people think seeing how places where it is overwhelmingly white males not being passionate about Hillary means there is no passion for her. You are using internet forums, that is almost entirely white men to make these so-called obsevations?

For a party where the white male demographic is nowhere near even half of the party unlike Republicans?

Makes no fucking sense at all, seeing people making these sort of analysis using demographics that do not match the Democratic base in the slightly.

Ignoring the fact that a ton of women, most women in the party are hyped up for Hillary and her rock solid base in polling this past year to make complete judgement calls using white men....is insane.

Some of you need to understand that there's a world outside of Internet forums dominated by young white men

It reminds me of conservatives who would only watch things like Fox News and hang out with only their conservative friends. They not only thought that Romney would win, but that he would destroy Obama in a landslide

Bingo. They don't have any understanding who actually make up the Democratic Party at all. They don't post on video game message boards for one. We are the exception, not the norm.

Want to know how to judge which candidate has the most passion? Ask a middle aged latino or a mother. That's the base. Not us.
 

PBY

Banned
I mean... I think Hillary is a strong candidate, but I agree with the "momentum/hype" comment. She doesn't have that young, grassroots support that I tend to associate with those words. Which is fine, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
 
Clinton would do immeasurably better than Sanders in a general election- I'm way more excited by her than Sanders.

General election numbers for a guy that the GOP hasn't even tried to attack seriously are more or less meaningless.

The whole Sanders support becomes more and more like Ron Paul everyday.

Did Ron Paul ever exceed 10 percent anywhere in any poll? Sanders has a very good chance of winning in Iowa and is likely to win New Hampshire

Your analogy is ridiculous
 
I honestly don't get why people think seeing how places where it is overwhelmingly white males not being passionate about Hillary means there is no passion for her. You are using internet forums, that is almost entirely white men to make these so-called obsevations?
For a party where the white male demographic is nowhere near even half of the party unlike Republicans?
Makes no fucking sense at all, seeing people making these sort of analysis using demographics that do not match the Democratic base in the slightly.
Ignoring the fact that a ton of women, most women in the party are hyped up for Hillary and her rock solid base in polling this past year to make complete judgement calls using white men....is insane.

Ahm...why did you quote me?

Did Ron Paul ever exceed 10 percent anywhere in any poll? Sanders has a very good chance of winning in Iowa and is likely to win New Hampshire
Your analogy is ridiculous

He topped out at 15ish %.
 

Cheebo

Banned
Ahm...why did you quote me?



He topped out at 15ish %.
I agreed with your post!

Then continued the rant about who bafflingly think young white men are a good way to judge which candidates have passion and which don't when everyone knows white men aren't a significant demographic of the Democratic Party.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Bernie outdoes Hillary in ge polling but it just doesn't make sense to me unless there is great animus for clinton I don't understand. Bernie is unfortunately represented pretty well by the bogeymen of the right. He's not religious, he's a "democratic socialist", he wants to raise my taxes because I'm fabulous, and he's from the northest of the northeast. Something doesn't line up for me; never in a million years could I see him having any crossover appeal. I could see a number of reasons as to why he's outpolling her, but I don't know if I believe they'll hold.
 

PBY

Banned
Bernie outdoes Hillary in ge polling but it just doesn't make sense to me unless there is great animus for clinton I don't understand. Bernie is unfortunately represented pretty well by the bogeymen of the right. He's not religious, he's a "democratic socialist", he wants to raise my taxes because I'm fabulous, and he's from the northest of the northeast. Something doesn't line up for me; never in a million years could I see him having any crossover appeal. I could see a number of reasons as to why he's outpolling her, but I don't know if I believe they'll hold.
Those GE polls are pretty useless this far out. I think he's unelectable. Zero crossover appeal.
 
I agreed with your post!

Then continued the rant about who bafflingly think young white men are a good way to judge which candidates have passion and which don't when everyone knows white men aren't a significant demographic of the Democratic Party.

Ah, i see.

They are, though. Like it or not, they still constitute a very significant part of the dem vote. They just aren't so important that one should disregard all the other dems in order to secure their vote.

Since if one's willing to do that you might as well run republican.
 
Every Republican who has been running has also been running against Hillary since they announced, Bernie has not faced a fraction of what's coming his way if/when the Republicans decide he's a legit threat. At that point I think there's little doubt his general election numbers take a hit
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Those GE polls are pretty useless this far out. I think he's unelectable. Zero crossover appeal.
I don't think I agree with this. There's some predictive value if you look back a few cycles. I think you need to adjust for the later date of the Iowa caucuses, which boost I think a candidate's viability, but in general they don't seem that bad.

It's not great that Hillary is less favorable than generic D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom