Fenderputty
Banned
Interesting. IMO, one of the things that separates the Tea Party from the establishment is a stronger sense of nationalism and xenophobia. Something Rubio doesn't really fit considering his position on immigration.
-
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
Interesting. IMO, one of the things that separates the Tea Party from the establishment is a stronger sense of nationalism and xenophobia. Something Rubio doesn't really fit considering his position on immigration.
lol no. Cruz in fourth, maybe third in New Hampshire.
Tarkus
Member
http://www.teaparty.org/tea-party-conservatives-turn-marco-rubio-blast-sellout-immigration-94065/
They don't like him anymore.
Veritigo_X
Member
While true, he moved away from his tea party roots and started falling in line with the rest of the GOP unlike Cruz. It's part of the reason he's disliked by the republican base.
I doubt any member of the tea party would still consider him part of the movement.
Edit: ^^^ Ah, there we go.
He rode the anti Obama / obamacare wave. Don't think immigration played much into it. His (past?) moderate stance on immigration is why he isn't seen as an outsider by the primary electorate. He is probably not seen as establishment so much as Rino / liberal conspirator solely because of previous immigration stance.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Yep. This is exactly why he shouldn't be at all considered anti-establishment.
Don't be surprised to see Limbaugh et al labeling him as such, though, to try and fool Average Joe Republican into voting for him.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't think I'm mean to Sanders stans. I like the man. I just feel it's important to point out the reality of the situation. Being a dick to them just ensures they'll stay home next November.
Not really. It just accomplishes being a Dick.
Coriolanus
Banned
Well yes, sure, which is why i defended the position that he would be eventually attacked as a member of the establishment, mainly due to immigration.
Didn't expect it to happen that quick, tbh.
Regardless of your faith or politics, I would highly recommend watching the following Inter-Faith Roundtable meeting, held in Masjid Muhammad, the "Nation's Mosque":
Not to detract from the powerful message, that, as a nation, we need to come together to fight bigotry and reject demagogues (Trump gets a good thrashing), it features a minor miracle (clue H2O)
.
Not to detract from the powerful message, that, as a nation, we need to come together to fight bigotry and reject demagogues (Trump gets a good thrashing), it features a minor miracle (clue H2O)
.titiklabingapat
Member
Yeah I agree. There are definitely some naive posters on there but no need to antagonize them at this point. It's only 6 more weeks until the, ahem, coronation. Bernie threads have precipitously stopped appearing in the OT anyway. Most of his ardent supporters probably already see the writing on the wall.
What makes you say that? Since the first Democratic debate, I noticed a big shift from the editorial staff, towards Hillary...
Veritigo_X
Member
That's why I think it's weird Limbaugh is lumping Rubio in with Cruz and Trump. He completely ignores the past 5 years and is only thinking about the campaign that got him there.
No shit? That sounds like something he'd be all over.
Fenderputty
Banned
I guess my point is that the base doesn't feel he's anti-establishment regardless of how he came to be, so why call him that? Rush making these comments almost feels like he's trying to placate the whack jobs and reassure them that he's one of them regardless of his current and previous stances on immigration.
Kinda rambling thoughts right now ... but it seems like the tea party has shifted the GOP so far to the right that the only thing that separates them is the extreme racist rhetoric, the willingness to shut down the government if they don't get their way and variations on immigration. Very little separates the GOP candidates policy wise right now. Maybe trump, but that's only because his policy basically boils down to "build a wall" and "monitor all Muslims" with random sprinklings of populist economics. It feels like the far right base ends up making the distinction between who's anti establishment and who's not based on the money backing the individual. I believe Rubio does have a bit of establishment money behind him. Same with Bush. Both seen as RINOS due to immigration as well.
I guess I just don't see what makes him anti establishment and question Rush's motives in calling him that.
Kinda rambling thoughts right now ... but it seems like the tea party has shifted the GOP so far to the right that the only thing that separates them is the extreme racist rhetoric, the willingness to shut down the government if they don't get their way and variations on immigration. Very little separates the GOP candidates policy wise right now. Maybe trump, but that's only because his policy basically boils down to "build a wall" and "monitor all Muslims" with random sprinklings of populist economics. It feels like the far right base ends up making the distinction between who's anti establishment and who's not based on the money backing the individual. I believe Rubio does have a bit of establishment money behind him. Same with Bush. Both seen as RINOS due to immigration as well.
I guess I just don't see what makes him anti establishment and question Rush's motives in calling him that.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
For all the talk of Sanders burning out, I don't think people have been examining the financial situation closely enough. By October, Clinton had raised $77mil and spent $44mil. Sanders had raised $41mil, spent $14mil - in other words, coming into October, the Clinton warchest was $33mil, the Sanders warchest $27mil. In the third quarter, she raised $29.9mil to Sander's $26.2mil, but because most of those contributions were the maximum $2700, she 'tapped out' a lot of her donaters; in contrast Sanders went from 1 million contributions total by October to 2 million by December, meaning he probably raised ~$44mil in that period (assuming the first and second million contributions were roughly equal). I wouldn't be surprised if coming into January the Sanders warchest was actually slightly larger than the Clinton one.
I still don't think Sanders will win the nomination itself, but I'm becoming quietly more confident Clinton is going to get a bloody nose in Iowa.
I still don't think Sanders will win the nomination itself, but I'm becoming quietly more confident Clinton is going to get a bloody nose in Iowa.
Coriolanus
Banned
Probably saw the pro-life bit coming and chose to avoid it completely.
Eh.
Unless she somehow fucks up between now and then, i just can't see it.
Roland_Gunner
Member
You mean NH, right? The last Selzer poll had Clinton up nine in Iowa, which would be a comfortable win.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm going by Selzer, which has the gap at +9 to Clinton. The explanation of the difference is the turnout model - Selzer currently reckons just over 200,000 people will turn out in Iowa, based on asking the people in their sample to self-identify how likely they are to vote, then applying filters. Monmouth, as a contrasting example, is using demographic filters for likelihood to vote, and reckons turn-out will be 140,000 people. That's a big old difference, and given Selzer's record (and also the fact I agree with the assumptions that have lead them to the 200,000 number), I'm inclined to agree with them. I also reckon that +9 gap is going to be whittled down come Feb 1st.
I don't think there are any signs, at this point in time, that this will happen.
Those are the flattering Bernie pics though. Running for President of the muppets, indeed.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The money, essentially. Sanders has barely been spending so far. He's spent $13 million - and only $2 million of that was on ad campaigns. However, he's now reached the point where it is highly likely he has a bigger campaign chest than Clinton. What's more, he knows if he loses Iowa, it's all over, so he may as well blow it all now. One of the reasons Obama beat Clinton was frankly that he just outspent her, particularly on a last minute ad blitz in Iowa and on ground-troop organizers.
Am I the only one that likes the way Bernie looks? I don't know, his loose and sometimes wild hair seems to make him more personable to me.
j_k_redtail
Member
It's fine to me, my hair and s a hot was sometimes so I am empathetic. I think talk of any candidates hair (at least as a form of analysis, punditry or comentary) is sad and doesn't have a place in the discourse, be it Donald, Bernie or Hillary.
But as far as jokes go, it's fair game.
Cue conservatives shaking their fist at this "lucky ducky" $450k?! President Obama mentions him but not real heros like teh troopz?! And all he had to do was get his family murdered in a destabilized war zone.
RustyNails
Member
I just want a comb-off between Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. Jeez, is that too much to ask.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I like how the media obsesses over Bernie's looks while having little to say about Trump's ridiculous hair.
Are we sure we can't get four more years of Obama?
It's great that he has a big war chest but at this point it's not good to be sitting on it. He needs to be spending it to grow his ground game, like Clinton has been doing. And Sanders needs to do this more than Clinton because her supporters are the type to regularly attend caucuses whereas his are not.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think the Sanders campaign has been too cautious with spending because they had literally no idea they'd get this much. 2,000,000 unique contributions from ~850,000 unique donators is absolutely unprecedented; it's ahead of Obama, it's ahead of everyone. And, you know, when faced with something like that, you'd think "maybe it was a fluke, we'll put some aside just to be safe" - but the rate of contributions has gone up, not down. Heck, DFA's endorsement is worth just over $1mil! And I think the Sanders campaign is realizing that - Sanders purchased his first set of ads in the last few weeks, and sources on the inside are saying the big guns are coming out soon. Until now, Clinton has had a massive spending advantage - she's spent $44mil to Sanders $13mil. Kind of unsurprising she was doing so much better, Sanders brought a knife to a gun-fight. Now the shoe is on the other foot (or perhaps, the gun is in the other hand?).
I didn't even know Huckabee was running.
Black Republican
Member
Fuckawho?
Don't know if they are just a trash pollster or what, but the Morning Consult poll, which two weeks ago that showed Hillary in tight (often losing) races against GOP, now shows her trashing all. This is a 4000RV poll vs 2000RV in the older one. ABC poll that came out also looks good for Clinton.
I'm curious to see the next FOX poll as it has always stuck out like a sore thumb with a lean towards the Republicans.
I'm curious to see the next FOX poll as it has always stuck out like a sore thumb with a lean towards the Republicans.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Jeb?
Jeb?
Jeb!!!!!!!!
Jeb?
Jeb!!!!!!!!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Even his attack ads are low energy.
I just wish we could see how many people were around in 2008 for the democratic primaries compared to now. I think one of the reasons a lot of Hilary supporters, including myself, are grumpy towards Sanders supporters is because they keep raising 2008 and they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Everything about the two campaigns is different when you compare Obama and Sanders. I don't see how anyone who experienced both could possibly think Sanders is going to repeat what Obama did.
Obama's big struggle was proving he could win - there were so many people who wanted to support him, but didn't think he could. Sanders issue, quite frankly is that his entire campaign speaks to a closed shop of very passionate followers but doesn't expand outside that.
Obviously the Internet has changed beyond all recognition in the last 8 years, but the tone and difference between Obama in 2007 / 2008 and Sanders now is striking. Then only thing they have in common is they are both fighting Hilary. It's not going to end the same way.
Obama's big struggle was proving he could win - there were so many people who wanted to support him, but didn't think he could. Sanders issue, quite frankly is that his entire campaign speaks to a closed shop of very passionate followers but doesn't expand outside that.
Obviously the Internet has changed beyond all recognition in the last 8 years, but the tone and difference between Obama in 2007 / 2008 and Sanders now is striking. Then only thing they have in common is they are both fighting Hilary. It's not going to end the same way.
Fuckadogup Sr.
RustyNails
Member
Yellowtail
Member
A few points on Iowa:
Sanders has actually been carpet-bombing Iowa and New Hampshire with TV ads since the beginning of November. He's actually outspent Clinton in ads in the past month (dropping $5.5 million between November 12th and December 15th compared to Clinton's $4 million). The talk by his strategists back in early November was "watch out, this is going to make a difference!", but the polls have only showed Clinton's lead increasing since then.
Truthfully ads aren't going to make that much of a difference at this point anyway. Sanders has only 5% less name recognition than Clinton at this point in Iowa according to Selzer, and other polls like Quinnipiac report a similar story. You can argue that Sanders is at a name recognition disadvantage nationwide that increased press and ad campaigns could overcome, but Iowans are pretty clued in.
Overall Clinton's only outspent Sanders by $4.3 million in ads this year. All that money she's been burning through hasn't been invested in ads but in ground game. That doesn''t show up in the polls - it didn't for Obama in 2008 - but it absolutely makes a difference on election day. Clinton's got the very best - I'd argue at least as strong as Obama's 2008 Iowa operation. And it's too late for Sanders to compete at that level. Not only does it take months to fine-tune, but he hasn't got access to the very best staff, who are overwhelmingly in Clinton's campaign, who know how to game the complex caucus rules and find every last voter. She also has the vast bulk of local party activists on her side.
Sanders focus in Iowa these past couple of weeks: Rallies as per. Clinton's focus: Precint Leadership Training. The extensive focus on field will make a difference.
I don't think Selzer can accurately predict the turnout expected on caucus night (unless there's a source?) but she can pick up the percentage of first time caucus goers expected. She predicted that 60% of Democratic caucus goers would be caucusing for the first time in 2008, and despite the Clinton camp and Edwards camp calling that number absurd she was proved right (the number was 57%). So far she's not picked up numbers anywhere close to that figure. If Sanders really was likely to be expecting a flood of new voters to overwhelm Clinton on caucus night Selzer would be picking it up in the voter registration lists by now.
This isn't going to be about votes cast, it's going to be about the delegate math. Even Selzer's poll can only poll the former, which likely underestimates Clinton's lead since she'll have the advantage when it comes to the latter. Selzer's noted that Sanders support is more geographically clustered than Clinton's - most noteably in college towns and cities - which means he's going to be harder for him to pick up as many delegates statewide.
This is where the caucus date helps Clinton compared to 2008. Back then the caucuses were in January during the winter break, which meant Iowan college students were back at home all over the state. When they went to caucus the their votes were distributed fairly evenly in all 99 counties and 1682 precints, which gave Obama a big delegate advantage. This time in February they're going to be caucusing in a handful of college towns like Iowa City and Ames. And getting 10000 students to caucus for Sanders in a precinct won't get him any more delegates than 1000.
One other way this isn't 2008: it's essentially a two person race and that plays to Clinton's advantage. Clinton turned out around ~70,000 caucus-goers in 2008 - more than Edwards and not far off Obama - but she got pummeled in second round voting and ended up third. When Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Biden failed to meet the 15% threshold in a precinct, very few of their second preferences then went to Clinton. She was much much more divisive in Iowa - her unfavorable ratings among Democrats in Iowa was near 25% (thanks to her Iraq War vote), it's now closer to 10%. There's not much evidence O'Malley's 4% is going to break heavily one way or other. So this year it isn't about reaching out and building alliances, it's about raw turnout, and Clinton has the edge - both demographically and organizationally.
Truthfully I don't know whether the polls are going to tighten as the caucus gets closer, or whether Clinton will continue to build on her lead (as voters run to the safe option like they did in 2004). But she's led every Biden-less poll but one (internet poll) in Iowa all year (c.f. eight years ago when Clinton trailed Edwards for the first half of 2007, took a small lead in the summer, and then fell behind Obama after the JJ Dinner) and has a big organizational advantage that will make a difference of an added few percent on caucus night. External events might break things Sanders way, but I don't see how more ads will make up the difference. I think Clinton is going to take this by 15%+
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked