And_Gignac
Member
They missed Santorum by 10 points in 2012. But the poll is as accurate as it gets.
-
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
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
They missed Santorum by 10 points in 2012. But the poll is as accurate as it gets.
Yellowtail
Member
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
These two sentences don't really mix well.
Yellowtail
Member
Selzer was the first pollster to capture the late Santorum surge. By the final day of polling he was only 1% down:
I've got a list somewhere of all of Selzer's final polls going back to 1988 that I'll post when I find it.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Selzer was the first pollster to capture the late Santorum surge. By the final day of polling he was only 1% down:
I've got a list somewhere of all of Selzer's final polls going back to 1988 that I'll post when I find it.
What did Ron Paul do to blow his lead in 3 days?
Edit- in doing a little research, Santorum beat Romney in Iowa by 34 votes. Wow.
User 463088
Banned
Oh, Lord. I remember when Michele Bachman was a thing. I also remember being scared the GOP would have an epiphany and nominate Huntsman.
Black Republican
Member
going by this cnn story,only surrogates have been to the inner cities of Iowa but not the candidates themselves? wtf, why hasnt Clinton or Sanders been there? Obama went in 08 &12
that extra % or 2 would really help in a tight race.
that extra % or 2 would really help in a tight race.
I was raised by a single mother (+ her sister and her mother) and I totally believe that women do things better than men. That's intrinsically a pro for a woman president for me. It's time.
My grandma taught me how to make paste out of wet paper towels. Put that ingenuity in with the ayatollah and we will have peace.
My grandma taught me how to make paste out of wet paper towels. Put that ingenuity in with the ayatollah and we will have peace.
Coriolanus
Banned
Aye. The problem happens when republicans find their Maggie 2.0
Pops is a firm believer in that too. Got a property management film, and it has always been packed with women in all but the most basic jobs. Didn't stop one manager from robbing him, but overall was nearly always quite the smooth ride.
zero sexual harassment accusations too. go pops.
my mother taught me that if you drink regular coke after a meal, every single thing you ate is converted to sugar inside your stomach.
User 463088
Banned
The fact that we've never had a woman as President or Vice President is something that we should really examine as a nation. One of the few times I've ever cried over a political speech was when Hillary conceded.
.
Nate thinks Trump is going to win the Presidency?
I wonder who his running mate will be...
Aaron Strife
Banned
Nate Silver
Veritigo_X
Member
If this were an anime that's how it would end.
This is why I've always said that people who say stuff like, "You shouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman" or, "You shouldn't vote for Obama just because he's black" are completely full of shit. Equal representation has always been a critical goal of equal rights, and tearing down those barriers is important, tangible, and above all, justifiable progress.
Heh, I was entertaining a fantasy a while before the debate that Megyn would just decide, fuck it, I've made enough money, and go off script and go in HAM on Trump's sexism while her bosses look on in horror. But Trump clearly has the instincts of a true coward.
disastermouse
Banned
Sure, but it has to be a candidate with whom I agree. I can't imagine it's a good idea just to vote for Hillary and say, "Well, she's liberal enough."
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
You also have to agree with the candidate. Would you've supported president Alan Keyes or president Michelle Bachmann?
Well, she is likeable enough.
I wouldn't, but they aren't Democrats.
Also, agreement is relative. Everyone has a different balance of what's more politically important to them. You can criticize that balance, but as a white dude, I find it extremely hard to justify dictating what an oppressed minority should prioritize. Maybe they give more of a shit about breaking those barriers than about everything else. We've certainly got no shortage of people here who don't seem to have a problem with making it easier for the Republicans to win if their own personal purity test isn't passed.
In my own personal case, if Tim McGinty doesn't get primaried in the race for Cuyahoga county prosecutor, I will be voting for his Republican opponent. The Republican will almost certainly have political views and policies that are utterly anathema to me, but it will all be outweighed by the fact that that candidate won't be someone who deliberately helped a bad cop get away with murdering a black kid.
In the end, supporting a candidate means taking the bad along with the good, and if that candidate is making a breakthrough for equal representation, that's a big fucking good, and should not be scorned and diminished by the privileged who have always had the luxury of never needing to weigh such things in their decisions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=9701454114868872&tid=ss_tw
looks like they are prepared.
looks like they are prepared.
Bel Marduk
Banned
I agree it absolutely is something that needs to be looked at and I was very excited about a female candidate
and then Elizabeth Warren decided not to run
Im a progressive and (if Clinton gets the nomination) Ill vote for her but with the same enthusiasm as paying a utility bill or visiting the dentist
What excitement could somebody as old-hat as Clinton possibly generate? She's got to do better than being a woman and slightly more progressive than a Republican
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Your initial post talked about supporting someone "because they're a woman" or "because they're black." I understand the importance of equal representation, but a guy like Marco Rubio, for instance, would probably be a net loss for hispanic people overall. It would seem that most hispanic people agree, given Rubio's overall support. Supporting someone on the basis of doing something unprecedented or establishing equal representation isn't an unequivocal good. You also have to consider things like "will this person actually help the group they represent?" Thinking equal representation is a satisfactory barometer in regard to political positions is the kind of mindset that leads people to think racism is over because Obama's president.
I should add, I'm not using this as a proxy argument about Hillary Clinton. I'm very directly addressing the idea of disregarding someone's policy in favor of the historicity or equal representation relating to their election.
Also, I'd never consider my opinion on any matter to be a dictation.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Can you point me to a Republican whose been in office in the last decade that HRC is "slightly more progressive" than?
Bel Marduk
Banned
John kasich is a serious master illusionist if you think Hillary is only slightly more progressive that someone who is proud of a plan to freeze federal regulation for 1 year.
Wtf?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'll call BS on this. She doesn't want to get rid of the ACA or abortion rights. She's for equal pay. She's for expansion of the ACA. She's not for deep cuts in government spending. She's pro gun control.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.
He publicly supported marriage equality earlier than Hillary did, has moderate (maybe even center-left) stances on immigration, believes in evolution and global warming, and supported the idea of mandating healthcare in some fashion.
I'd say Hillary is slightly more progressive than he is.
That said, though, this all ignores the larger issue for those whose views align with Hillary: a quick glance at her support compared to Sanders among those 35 and under shows that the party is moving quite far left. It doesn't matter that she was the 11th most liberal senator a decade ago. She's vying for the nomination of an entirely different party than what it was before Obama was elected. You can say that accusations against her liberal roots are unfair, but this perception is as widespread as it is for a reason: the party is hungry for real progressivism, not the triangulation Bill popularized.
During his term as governor, he was successful in having Utah replace its progressive income tax with a top rate of 7%, with a flat tax of 5%
Roland_Gunner
Member
Kasich also pushed through legislation to gut unions in Ohio very similar to what Walker did in Wisconsin but the law was overturned through a ballot initiative. But otherwise, I can see the similarities.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
He's a republican for a reason.
I haven't regularly played in years, nor do I dislike Hillary.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Agghhh Huntsman! Okay that's one. When he's the GOP nominee for President anyone can for him.
I think this sentiment is silly. Can you only be bothered to vote if you're "excited", or is the basic civic duty of voting lost upon you?
Are you researching your local candidates? Are you "excited" to vote for them? You might not be, but local politicians are the ones who determine your garbage schedule, your parking schedules, the school curriculum, etc. Most of the time they're not "exciting" candidates or people but they are important all the same.
The high emphasis on 'excitement', 'motivation', and 'enthusiasm' is really just an excuse to ignore your own civic duty.
It's also amazing how easily you say "She has to do better than being a woman", as if it were so easy to be a woman in her place.
Bel Marduk
Banned
He did and it was despicable
Clinton won't publicly call for that because she's trying to win the Democratic primary
She's certainly no friend to labor despite the endorsements from the national establishment unions, quite a few local unions are supporting Sanders
Did you not read my post? I will vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee and yes, there are several local officials who I am excited to vote for in every election
Manmademan
Member
No she isn't, because the people in the party that actually vote aren't under 35. If you were 28 when obama was elected, you're 36 now, and voting more frequently than 18-29 year old adults are, and more likely than not backing clinton. You think people drop off the face of the earth as they get older?
https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I don't visit reddit. Gaf is the only forum I bother with. Is reddit even considered a forum? Eh.
Bel Marduk
disastermouse
Banned
Bloomberg.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
No she isn't, because the people in the party that actually vote aren't under 35.
https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf
I'm not saying she'll lose the nomination. I'm saying the foundation of the party is shifting leftward. I don't think anyone would deny that the party is moving toward Sanders' philosophy and away from Clinton's, even if it may be too soon for that to work in Sander's favor.
Holmes said:
Thanks for clarifying
disastermouse
Banned
I've never seen anyone try to lecture someone else about their civic duty without coming off...poorly. That certainly didn't change with this post.
Manmademan
Member
and I'm saying you're wrong, because the "foundation of the party" are the people who actually vote and show up to polls on election day.
This is NOT the under 35 crowd or the sanders coalition. Don't confuse being loud on reddit for actual political influence, because there is virtually none there- especially not in a primary election. No one gives a shit about 18 year old first time voters because no matter what you do, 90% of them don't actually show up to vote no matter how good your outreach is. Remember "Rock the Vote?" Remember how it didn't work? This isn't new.
If anything the country and the democratic party is becoming more minority heavy in the coming decades, and blacks and hispanics back hillary by hilariously lopsided margins.
This demographic *might be* the foundation of the party in 20 years, but isn't now. Right NOW the foundation of the party are those who turned out for Obama in 2008, Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000.
He replaced a progressive tax with a flat tax and you think he's in the same ideological range as Hillary. Obama supported tax cuts. That doesn't make him slightly to the right of Reagan.
Jon Huntsman, everybody.
- Supports a right to life amendment
- Abortions illegal after first 3 months
- Compared EPA to terrorists: "If you want to build a facility in the US, you can't because of the EPA's regulatory reign of terror."
- Supports school vouchers
- Would veto a ban on assault weapons
- For repealing Obamacare mandate
- Wanted top marginal tax rate lowered from 35% to 25%
Huntsman/Hillary 2016
Bel Marduk
Banned
"reddit" is a way to portray progressives basement-dwelling neckbeards and to trivialize the concerns of young people
On Feb 1st and on the tenth some may find it shocking how prevalent "reddit" is
disastermouse
Banned
He cut spending too, so it kind of does make him slightly left of Reagan.
Thanks for this.
I don't know why so many Democrats really just want to find the right Republican and fall in love and settle down. He's not out there! It's a trap!
First of all, while I didn't spell it out in my post, those arguments against voting for Hillary and Obama were made in the context of the Democratic primaries. In that context, the whole problem with the policies is nowhere near as sharp, no matter how many people want to pretend they're just like Republicans or whatever nonsense.
That said, I reiterate that every candidate choice is a matter of weighing the good aspects vs. the bad aspects, and what I'm saying here is that breaking these barriers is absolutely a good aspect. That is what is being diminished when people accuse others of voting for someone because of their identity. It is not a criticism of policy priorities, but rather an assertion that that identity should not be a priority.
The arguments that you shouldn't vote for someone based upon identity politics are an attempt to marginalize the importance of that representation, and nothing more. Equal representation is as much valid motivator as policy is. The argument is consistently put forward that a strategy of economic reforms that help everyone is the most sensible strategy for improving the lot of black people, while Black Lives Matter protestors don't see even an iota of improvement in social justice. As someone already said, Sandra Bland had a good job. They are not getting the results they want. Their priorities are different, and justifiably so. So we can advocate incrementalism in economic policy, but the idea that breaking the color barrier with a less than ideal candidate, then using that to open the door for better candidates of color is somehow bad?
And I'm addressing the idea of disregarding someone's historicity of equal representation in favor of pure policy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked