• 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.

ivysaur12

Banned
Obama back up to even on the Gallup tracker, 48/48.

He absolutely could win another election. Man.

Fucking finally. I'm concerned about his ground game though. I know there was an article about how Trump has precinct captains set up in Iowa, but everything I've seen since then has made it look like he's running a pretty haphazard operation in the other early states. Iowa is almost certainly going to Cruz, so Trump absolutely has to win NH and SC and ideally Nevada as well.

No one has good ground game in SC. It's even worse in Nevada. Hillary did a good job on the infrastructure there, but she's eying a general fight, not a primary one.
 
Fucking finally. I'm concerned about his ground game though. I know there was an article about how Trump has precinct captains set up in Iowa, but everything I've seen since then has made it look like he's running a pretty haphazard operation in the other early states. Iowa is almost certainly going to Cruz, so Trump absolutely has to win NH and SC and ideally Nevada as well.
Yeah he's ignoring all the "traditional campaigning" such as building up precincts in Iowa or going to diners and cafes in New Hampshire. It's a big gamble.
 
Josh Marshall on why Trump's poor ground game may not matter:

First, couldn't Trump's sky-high poll numbers just not pan out if he has no ground game in the early or even the primary states?

No, this is not the case.

First, for non-political types, ground game just means a level of field organization (and increasingly a data component to the field organization) that can be effectively used to turn out voters on election day. Field operations are a big, big deal. Campaigns spend huge amounts of money building them and for good reason.

But here's the big 'but' ... With the exception of Iowa where the rules are so complicated and participation time-consuming, field organization only matters for, say, 1% to 5% of the vote margin. Going into a 2012 Romney v Obama election day, the chance to gain or lose up to 5% of your vote means everything. But in the case of Trump we're talking about a candidate who may have anywhere from a 10 to 20 point margin over the next runner up. If Donald Trump goes into, say, New Hampshire, with a durable 15 point lead, he's going to win. Period.

By and large people don't need to be told to vote or how to vote. They vote. They know how to do it.

This isn't an either/or. There are all sorts of advantages at the margins, which campaigns can and do make use of. You can isolate your most sporadically voting supporters and focus on them to work to get them to the polls. The key is that these advantages are at the margins. If the polls say you're winning at blow-out margins, ground game is not going to make the difference.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/some-christmas-eve-morsels

The question is whether Trump can maintain his double-digit leads in NH, SC, and NV after a loss in IA to Cruz. If he does he'll win.
 
Sounds about right.

After that, the convention wisdom became that the GOP had a virtual lock on the electoral college. Hell, in 1992, SNL ran a debate sketch for the Democratic Primary with this title:


Edit:
Found the sketch!
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/democratic-debate/2859836

It's the candidates trying to outdo each other on why they'd be a poor choice for nominee. Hysterical.

Exactly. People who think the Democrats can't lose due to "demographics" are probably too young to remember the elections of 88-92. Trump can absolutely win the general. People forget how fickle the electoral college can be, especially after one party has been in power for a while.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Yeah, Trump seems to have a very solid floor at this point. If it hasn't dropped by now, after all of this time, he seems like a solid bet for NH.

The real action is in that establishment bracket. Christie's place in campaign history might be as the one who played spoiler to everyone in his lane. I wonder if he's aware of that.
 

benjipwns

Banned
How did the Democrats in 1988 react when a Republican won the White House for a third time? I know they shifted more to the right with Clinton in 1992, but was there a lot of animosity among Democrats after losing a third time?
Democrats real shit throwing was after 1994 as the Congress had been theirs for generations.Their Presidential rethinking was in 1984. They didn't think Reagan was re-electable until that summer, and never entertained the possibility that the landslide was actually happening.

Here's some old articles from political magazines that have back archives available.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ne-issue-in-1984-who-can-beat-reagan-19840510
For the Democrats, There is Really Only One Issue in 1984: Who Can Beat Reagan?

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/what-if-reagan-is-reelected-19841011
What If Reagan Is Reelected?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/terms-of-endearment-19841220
Reagan's Reelection: How the Media Became All the President's Men

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/attack-of-the-christian-soldiers-19850509
Attack of the Christian Soldiers

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/fighting-for-their-right-to-the-party-19871119
Fighting for Their Right to the Party

In Iowa this fall, the surviving Democrats are actually trying to talk about issues. But the news media seems interested in nothing but their next titillating blunder

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-new-shape-of-american-politics/303363/
The New Shape of American Politics
An analysis of the forces at work in both parties which have dramatically altered the political landscape over the past twenty years—how they brought Ronald Reagan to power and how they will influence the race to succeed him in 1988.

Here's a few pre-1987 articles on the Democrats/state of the race:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1987/01/the-new-shape-of-american-politics/303363/
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/policamp/demo88.htm

July 1988:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/policamp/insider.htm
There are two theories about the 1988 presidential election. One is that the Democrats can't lose unless they do everything wrong. The other is that they can't win even if they do everything right.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-democrats-will-win-this-year-19880211
Why the Democrats Will Win This Year (1988)

September 8, 1988:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-democrats-new-harmony-for-real-19880908
Is the Democrats' New Harmony for Real?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-needs-a-new-political-party-now-19881117
November 17, 1988
It is a dispiriting choice. Whether we wind up with George Bush or Michael Dukakis in the White House, I feel a sense of despair about the 1988 election far deeper than anything I have experienced during the last twenty years of presidential races. And I gather this feeling is widely shared.

And two years later:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/01/the-in-box-president/376338/

Bush was always seen as a Washington insider moderate who was playing conservative more than a Reaganite.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-08/news/mn-2854_1_major-party
WASHINGTON — Deep in the subbasement of the Rayburn House Office Building, members of the U.S. House of Representatives gather for the daily 4 p.m. basketball game.

Eleven congressmen are on hand, one too many for two starting teams of five players each. Rep. Thomas Downey (D-N.Y.), commissioner of the Members Basketball Assn., surveys the group and singles out Vermont's Rep. Bernard Sanders to sit out the game.

It isn't the first time Sanders has been the odd man out in Congress; in fact, he is making a career of it.

And pulling just from Rolling Stone 1992-1996 because their archives are almost Sports Illustrated tier (which has every article ever):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-un-candidate-19920206
Bob Kerry: Un-Candidate

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/whos-pulling-bill-clintons-strings-19920430
Who's Pulling Bill Clinton's Strings?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-clinton-can-do-for-the-economy-19921029
What Clinton Can Do for the Economy

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ross-perot-talks-washington-squawks-19920806
Ross Perot Talks, Washington Squawks

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rolling-stone-interview-bill-clinton-19920917
Bill Clinton: The Rolling Stone Interview

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/no-more-years-why-george-must-go-19921001
No More Years: Why George Must Go

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-deal-redux-or-great-society-ii-19930107
New Deal Redux or Great Society II?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/clinton-goes-right-toward-consensus-19930204
Bill Clinton Goes Right Toward Consensus

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/guns-or-budget-clintons-options-19930304
Guns or Budget? Clinton's Options

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bill-and-hillary-will-see-you-now-19930429
Bill and Hillary Clinton Will See You Now
Washington's power couple tackle the nation's beleaguered health-care system

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-many-times-will-bill-blink-19930527
How Many Times Will Bill Clinton Blink?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rolling-stone-interview-bill-clinton-19931209
President Bill Clinton: The Rolling Stone Interview

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gunning-for-guns-19931209
Gunning for Guns

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...u-made-a-mistake-in-1992-think-again-19941103
If You Think You Made a Mistake in 1992, Think Again

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/clinton-rocked-the-vote-now-its-rocking-him-19950223
Bill Clinton Rocked the Vote, Now it's Rocking Him
Young Democrats are turning their back on the president and politics

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/culture-wars-19951019
Culture Wars
The GOP's version of American history is 'Don't Worry, Be Happy'

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/grace-under-fire-19950601
Grace Under Fire
The NRA takes potshots at assault-weapon opponents

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/requiem-for-a-heavyweight-19951214
Requiem for a Heavyweight
The Democratic Party may be down for the count. Can it get up?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gops-strike-force-19960208
GOP's Strike Force
The right-wing propaganda machine churns out money, activists, and lies

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/pats-kids-19960418
Pat Buchanan: Pat's Kids
They heard the call and hit the campaign trail. Locked and loaded with the Buchanan youth
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/02/right-wing-populist/306027/
Right-Wing Populist
Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign is testing a political potentiality that could have a future in downsizing America

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...he-meaningless-search-for-the-center-19961226
Race, Money and the Meaningless Search for the Center

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/05/the-protean-president/376585/
The Protean President
Changed, changed utterly


Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States on the promise that he would reform and restore order to Democratic liberalism. For his re-election campaign Clinton has established a new purpose: to reform and restore order to Republican conservatism.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/10/the-empty-symbolism-of-american-politics/376686/
The Empty Symbolism of American Politics
Seeking a middle ground, liberal and conservative politicians alike propose split-the-difference "solutions" to our problems which seem plausible and pragmatic but do not, of course, represent solutions at all. What's missing? The dimension of reality,

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/nras-last-hurrah-19961031
NRA's Last Hurrah?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/dead-man-talking-19961003
Newt Gingrich: Dead Man Talking

...

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/features/batman-19890629
Michael Keaton's Batman

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/marios-big-brother-19920109
Mario's Big Brother: Sigeru Miyamoto

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/southern-comfort-19950810
Hootie and the Blowfish: Southern Comfort

I was only a kid back then but my understanding is that early in '88 Democrats thought they were going to crush the Republicans in the election after Black Monday and the Iran - Contra scandal. When Bush came to back win, large parts of the traditional left basically gave up. That allowed the Clinton and the DNC to move the party to the center without causing a huge schism in the party.
In the Gallup poll in May 1988 Dukakis led Bush 54-38, July 1988 Dukakis led Bush 54-37.
 
Santorum's Field of Dreams
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/27/santorums_field_of_dreams_129138.html
WINTERSET, Iowa — Beyond the silos, down the street from the Rexall Drug, a few steps from the movie theater and the bakery, and hard by the Ben Franklin five-and-dime sits the Northside Cafe, with its nine wooden booths and its 15 shiny circular stools along the counter.

This noontime the hand-scrawled sign outside speaks of chicken-fried steak, butternut-squash soup, bread pudding, homemade desserts, hot drinks — and Rick Santorum. The former senator from Pennsylvania won the 2012 Iowa caucuses and here, a classic Iowa small town surrounded by fields of political dreams, is just the sort of staging ground Mr. Santorum put to good use four years ago.

He pounded down chili in lunch spots like this one in towns like this one, and in many even smaller. He met Iowans in groups of four or five — hard political work and in violation of every rule of efficiency and economies of scale. But he multiplied those single digits of listeners by hundreds of appearances, building a political force the old-fashioned way.

It worked in 2012, and now Mr. Santorum, with the loneliness of the long-distance runner, is trying it again.
But with a difference. His numbers are terrible. There has been a tectonic shift in the geology of Iowa politics. The issues have changed. But Mr. Santorum — energetic in a way Iowans haven’t seen since George H.W. Bush proclaimed himself “up for the ’80s” in his early 1979 outings, determined in a way that only a man turbocharged with passion can be — is carrying on. No one with poll ratings in the very low single digits — he was at 1 percent in the Monmouth University poll this month — ever campaigned so hard.
That script brought him here, to Winterset, hometown of John Wayne, the place where the Delicious apple was developed, the site of many of the fabled covered bridges of Madison County, an early settlement where, according to the Depression-era Federal Writers Project volume on Iowa, the men wore leather leggings to protect them from the snakes that overran the land. (They used whiskey to treat the snakebites, which didn’t always work.)

The candidate’s plan was to hold a town-meeting-style gathering in the back room of the restaurant, but only three people showed up. Mr. Santorum recouped gamely, visiting each of the diners — a 7-year-old named Brodie helpfully shared his fries — and then invited a few of them to join him in the front booth. There, fortified by a steaming bowl of John Wayne chili (no beans), he held forth before an audience of seven.
Mr. Santorum is remembered here well enough that he doesn’t have to remind people of the issues he emphasized in 2012. “I have three litmus tests — family, abortion and guns — and you pass every one of them,” John Reed, a retired lumber salesman, told Mr. Santorum in the restaurant. “I’m very loyal.” The challenge this time for Mr. Santorum is to find 20,000 more loyalists just like him.
People struggling against hopeless odds always resonates with me
 

Makai

Member
I am pretty sure benji is an artificial intelligence from IBM. Only explanation for these well-cited long-ass posts. No human can do that.
 
If Obama were eligible for re-election and ran I think he'd win by at least 5 points.

I expect Clinton to do around the same.

That being said there will always be a chance that the GOP can win so it's best not to count our chickens (even though I will do so many times for the next eleven months).
 

HylianTom

Banned
CXSgahCUsAEuSgl.jpg:large

Umm..
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
If Obama were eligible for re-election and ran I think he'd win by at least 5 points.

I expect Clinton to do around the same.

That being said there will always be a chance that the GOP can win so it's best not to count our chickens (even though I will do so many times for the next eleven months).

Short of hidden scandals for the runners, the biggest factor I see in Trump/Cruz/Rubio getting elected would be a significant attack on US soil. Something with the scale/impact of 9/11. Or a regular trend of small but significant ones on public places similar to Paris events but weekly/monthly.

Otherwise the economy seems solid and steady enough, there are no huge Supreme Court decisions coming up that would shake things, and Obama seems to be on relative cruise control.
 
Too bad O'Malley isn't doing a Netflix and Chill, adam would be all over that

Damn straight. Provided he had the restraining order lifted.

So would I?

Yes President Abs.

Back off. He's mine.

Kidding. Mostly.

WIth O'Malley, it's purely visual. He starts talking and I want to punch myself in the face.

Netflix and Chill with Cruz would be epic. I'd put on a Queer as Folk marathon and make eye contact THE ENTIRE TIME.
 
Some excellent Politico reporting.

Another important takeaway from the Tel Opinion poll’s cross-tabs is that Rubio has the best shot of winning New Hampshire in a narrower field. In a three-way GOP race, Trump’s support ticks up to 30 percent, Rubio's jumps to 28 percent — doubling his numbers — and Cruz’s support grows by 10 percentage points, to 26 percent.

Another important takeaway from the Tel Opinion poll’s cross-tabs is that Rubio has the best shot of winning New Hampshire in a narrower field.

Trump 30
Rubio 28
Cruz 26

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/new-hampshire-2016-primary-217145#ixzz3vef8Rsus
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
http://www.databreaches.net/191-million-voters-personal-info-exposed-by-misconfigured-database/

A misconfigured database leaking the personal information of over 191 million voters was reported to DataBreaches.net by researcher Chris Vickery.
...
Not surprisingly, the more complete the list or database, the more costly it may be. A database with information on all American voters, for example, might go for about $270,000, according to one marketing firm consulted by researcher Chris Vickery.

After reading those articles of campaigns and PACs sharing private and expensive poll data via coded twitter messages to prevent costs and open collusion, I wonder if this type of breach is staged or intentional to get what otherwise would be expensive data into the hands of groups "on your side" for the upcoming election. It's massive, up to date, and has political interest written all over it.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
So is there any chance that some of the other establishment candidates might drop out and endorse Rubio to hopefully galvanize his chances of upsetting Trump and Cruz?

To be meaningful, the establishment candidates with the "larger" support like Christie and Bush will have to drop out. But I'm not sure what would motivate them to drop out given they have hung on this long, especially seeing as Rubio himself is still "in reach" to them.

Now is the time for them to get strategic and fall into line for the good of the (future) party. But I suspect those guys will keep in the race until they either run out of money out get completely trounced in the first couple of primaries, which ever comes first.
 

HylianTom

Banned
So is there any chance that some of the other establishment candidates might drop out and endorse Rubio to hopefully galvanize his chances of upsetting Trump and Cruz?

I remain doubtful.

I said a while back: every candidate in the establishment lane can point to some reason for why he's staying on through at least New Hampshire. Christie has "momentum" and the supposed prestige that comes with newspaper endorsements. Bush has money and infrastructure. Rubio has G.E. appeal, underpants gnomes, and the entire establishment class ready to jump aboard. The only one I could see as bailing would be Kasich, but his skinny share of the vote would likely divide instead of all going to one lucky candidate.

If this stays the same and Trump's stubborn 30% base holds, New Hampshire is likely his.
 

Makai

Member
i already asked b-dubs and he said i could take jan
It's a lot easier if you start well in advance. I always get the meat done early and leave finishing touches for the end (podium positions, missing jokes, debate preview). The problem with this approach is I want to share but have to keep it under wraps for two weeks. Teaser:

vncNpeC.gif
 
Desire not to see their party become a joke by nominating a reality show fascist over someone who at least presents a reasonably intelligent face to the rest of the world?

All the establishment candidates are currently campaigning like their lives depend on it (except Rubio of course) in NH. You think they're just gonna stop before the primary? Hell no.
 

kingkitty

Member
It's a lot easier if you start well in advance. I always get the meat done early and leave finishing touches for the end (podium positions, missing jokes, debate preview). The problem with this approach is I want to share but have to keep it under wraps for two weeks. Teaser:

vncNpeC.gif

is that trump choking jeb?
 
is Politico wrong tho?
They say Rubio has the best shot of winning in a narrower field, but Trump still leads in their example which narrows it down to 3 candidates.

So yes.

Also remember that the RNC doesn't want Cruz to be the nominee either. Cruz and Trump total at 56%. Rubio is just at half of that. It's pitiful.
 
Desire not to see their party become a joke by nominating a reality show fascist over someone who at least presents a reasonably intelligent face to the rest of the world?

yeah no. it's profit > party for most of these people. Besides, no matter who ends up winning the odds of getting bodied by hillary is pretty damned high- so it doesn't matter in the long run which of them win.

might as well get paid.
 

Cerium

Member
Desire not to see their party become a joke by nominating a reality show fascist over someone who at least presents a reasonably intelligent face to the rest of the world?
I'd argue that would only apply to the candidates who've invested little, like Graham, and for the most part they've already been weeded out.

The likes of Bush and Christie have poured too much money and time into this. They have donors to answer to, and in Bush's case, family dignity to uphold. I cannot imagine a scenario where Bush or Christie get out before New Hampshire.
 

HylianTom

Banned
this is an incomprehensible mess of a stump speech.
The screams and hoots and hollers from the audience: I can't tell if the people yelling are being ironic, or if they're really enthused.

And I love his heroin line: "that heroin thing.. we've gotta get it under control."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom