• 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 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
The debates will come down to how many candidates there actually wind up being---though from the sound of it, it looks like they'd be primed to become what they were for 2008 when Gravel and Kucinich quickly afterwards got booted from the invites/participation outright so as not to muddy any of the narrative wrangling in progress.

You'd think they be able to manage a better format with ample time and whatnot here in modern times...but yeah.
 
setgeneral_election_voters_3_4df860fa84bce5d57781886340e7743d.nbcnews-ux-640-600.jpg
 

pigeon

Banned
Jonathan Bernstein has a great post today about how he thought the GOP would be aggressively winnowing its candidate roster but for some reason they're not. Could just be early. Could be they think Hillary is DOA. Could be that something dramatic really has changed in politics, probably campaign finance-related.

I tend to think, as always, that this is more of the ongoing disintegration of the GOP. They really don't know who to run or what their strategy will be, even at a high internal level -- so they can't anoint anybody yet.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/why-the-gop-s-2016-race-is-mobbed
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Jonathan Bernstein has a great post today about how he thought the GOP would be aggressively winnowing its candidate roster but for some reason they're not. Could just be early. Could be they think Hillary is DOA. Could be that something dramatic really has changed in politics, probably campaign finance-related.

I tend to think, as always, that this is more of the ongoing disintegration of the GOP. They really don't know who to run or what their strategy will be, even at a high internal level -- so they can't anoint anybody yet.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/why-the-gop-s-2016-race-is-mobbed

Its makes sense. If you dont run now, chances are you wont get a chance again until 2024 and by that point your sale by date may have passed. Or simply, you missed your chance.

Your chances of defeating an incumbent Hillary in 2020 would be 45-50% at best and depend on the circumstances at the time.

So the best chance at winning before all the demographic changes further plunge your party into national(not state or local government) irrelevancy is now. With how the money works now in politics why not? Look at Newt Gingrich for inspiration.
 

Angry Fork

Member
It matters a lot if Sanders can get Hillary to commit to progressive policies, because contrary to established wisdom, politicians mostly try to fulfill their campaign promises.

I'm sure that's why this country is in the state it's in. Only safe middle class people could possibly think the majority of US politicians care about working people.
 
Jonathan Bernstein has a great post today about how he thought the GOP would be aggressively winnowing its candidate roster but for some reason they're not. Could just be early. Could be they think Hillary is DOA. Could be that something dramatic really has changed in politics, probably campaign finance-related.

I tend to think, as always, that this is more of the ongoing disintegration of the GOP. They really don't know who to run or what their strategy will be, even at a high internal level -- so they can't anoint anybody yet.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/why-the-gop-s-2016-race-is-mobbed
4. Marginal candidates are more likely to run when there’s no imposing front-runner; Republicans have no obvious heavyweight such as a current or former vice president, or a strong runner-up from a previous cycle.

This is probably the biggest reason.
 
Time to get out the Veto pen

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e0a0...edcb/senate-slated-vote-gop-budget-compromise

The Senate has adopted a compromise GOP budget, paving the way for an assault on President Barack Obama's health care law this summer and a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed the nonbinding measure by a nearly party-line vote of 51-48. The House adopted it last week.

The measure sets a potential path for a balanced budget within a decade. It promises to cut domestic agencies and safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, carve transportation spending and student aid, and curb tax breaks for the poor.

Republicans don't plan to adhere to most of its cuts in follow-up legislation.

In the near term, however, the GOP plan promises a $38 billion, 7 percent increase for the Pentagon that is possible only by padding war accounts.
 

Jooney

Member
Jonathan Bernstein has a great post today about how he thought the GOP would be aggressively winnowing its candidate roster but for some reason they're not. Could just be early. Could be they think Hillary is DOA. Could be that something dramatic really has changed in politics, probably campaign finance-related.

I tend to think, as always, that this is more of the ongoing disintegration of the GOP. They really don't know who to run or what their strategy will be, even at a high internal level -- so they can't anoint anybody yet.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/why-the-gop-s-2016-race-is-mobbed

GOP primaries tailor to a segment of America that all largely want the same thing. This represents an opportunity for brand promotion. Some of these guys (and gal) who've thrown their hat into the ring surely are using the primaries to promote their brand and get some of that sweet sweet speaking fee / book sale / future Fox News contributor money.
 
Jonathan Bernstein has a great post today about how he thought the GOP would be aggressively winnowing its candidate roster but for some reason they're not. Could just be early. Could be they think Hillary is DOA. Could be that something dramatic really has changed in politics, probably campaign finance-related.

I tend to think, as always, that this is more of the ongoing disintegration of the GOP. They really don't know who to run or what their strategy will be, even at a high internal level -- so they can't anoint anybody yet.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/why-the-gop-s-2016-race-is-mobbed

As far as restricting who participates in the Republican debates, it could get sticky because even if Carson and Fiorina have extremely low poll numbers, it wouldn't look very good for the Republicans to be excluding their only black and only female candidates. And if they are included, then certainly anyone who is polling higher than them would have to be included.
 

Jooney

Member
The debates should contain a large roster of candidates. The GOP is 'big tent' party after all.

I for one look forward to hearing all the different ways in which taxes can be cut and border fences be built.
 
I'm surprised they didn't put atheist on there. Could it be much worse that Evangelical Christian?

Also, -22 on no college degree you say?

Atheists have historically polled crater bad in the US (way worse than Evangelical Christians, I believe they polled worse than Muslims after 911 even). Not sure how that stands now given that the population is generally less religious but those who are , are much more committed too it (just part of the extreme partisan divide that's been caused by the GOPs march waay right and a mild hop left by Democrats, though the media tends to portray it like they both moved the same distance).
 
I'd imagine he'll be underwater next year, assuming the economy begins to slow down, plus whatever foreign policy issue that will inevitably arise/be mishandled. Right now Hillary seems to be running close to Obama's record but I'd expect that to change soon.

I wonder how Obama's camp feels about Hillary's campaign message basically being "Obama did his best but people are still fucked, so I'm running for president."
Condescending-Willy-Wonka-Gifrific.gif
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
As far as restricting who participates in the Republican debates, it could get sticky because even if Carson and Fiorina have extremely low poll numbers, it wouldn't look very good for the Republicans to be excluding their only black and only female candidates. And if they are included, then certainly anyone who is polling higher than them would have to be included.

They could just do their own poll and fudge the numbers.
 
That NY Times poll shows Hillary hasn't really been hurt by the attacks. Unless I'm overlooking it, I don't see any head to head numbers though.

Gotta love how the reaction from the right is "but her numbers are lower than they were [insert period of time]!" Maybe releasing all this stuff right now is going to help her? It's better than it dropping in August 2016.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I'd imagine he'll be underwater next year, assuming the economy begins to slow down, plus whatever foreign policy issue that will inevitably arise/be mishandled. Right now Hillary seems to be running close to Obama's record but I'd expect that to change soon.

I wonder how Obama's camp feels about Hillary's campaign message basically being "Obama did his best but people are still fucked, so I'm running for president."

Sometimes I wonder if you are our good friend Diablos. Come on PD. You gotta cheer up and stay positive. Lets just focus on the clown car that is the Republican Primary for our entertainment. Dont worry about Hillary. Hillary has a good team around her. She isnt gonna win this election in a cake walk. She will have to work hard for not only our behalf but your behalf too.

Im confident that by the end of the campaign, you will on November 8th, 2016 be enthusiastically pulling that lever for her.
 
Its makes sense. If you dont run now, chances are you wont get a chance again until 2024 and by that point your sale by date may have passed. Or simply, you missed your chance.

That's some serious optimism. Would be quite the rarity to get to 2020 without another market crash. If Hills is mad lucky, maaaaybe it happens on year one.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
Why am I watching Huckbee's kickoff speech?

Why am I doing this?

I made the mistake of going to his website, then looking at his policy page on education. Shockingly bereft of content, absurdly vague, and contradictory ("we can't water down standards!"......."Let's kill common core!")
 
I made the mistake of going to his website, then looking at his policy page on education. Shockingly bereft of content, absurdly vague, and contradictory ("we can't water down standards!"......."Let's kill common core!")

My favorite part of his website is the sidebar with plugs from the fucking Duggars at the very top.

DDBRUgN.png


vVuD2Yu.png
 

Wilsongt

Member
A friend of mine is listening to some prophecy nonsense about Israel and Jews...

I can't help but roll my eyes at the misinformation.
 
How much support can she afford to lose against them? 10pts maybe?

Obama won them 71-27 in 2012 and 67-31 in 2008
Kerry won Hispanics 55-45

If Clinton performed the same as Kerry did with the various racial demographics with the projected 2016 electorate, she would win.

I would say Republicans would need to crack 40% with Hispanics for Democrats to get nervous.
 

tanod

when is my burrito
The real lede here is how incompetent do you have to be to make that little in capital gains off of a $100+ million fortune in the biggest bull market in years. Bill said he's made next to nothing in capital gains in 15 years. What do they keep their money in, a bank CD? That doesn't inspire confidence that the management of the Clinton Foundation will hold up to scrutiny.

You got it all backwards. You only pay capital gains tax on what you sell and only for the amount that the investment grew over the price you bought it for. So with $400,000 of tax, they sold off stock that had grown by at least $1.6 million since they originally invested it.

1) The Clintons are still actively employed and were making money on the speech circuit. They have no need to sell any stocks to finance their lifestyle.

2) You don't sell off a bunch of stocks when the market's doing well unless you're reallocating out of an underperforming investment.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Hil pretty much went full bore on immigration

Wow, that's great. The policy is no different than I'd expect or want from her, but the messaging of calling Jeb out on his path to second class citizenship plan is quite good.

I guess it was inevitable for her to attack Jeb's immigration plan, while Obama settles on attacking congress's immigration plan, but it's still refreshing to finally shine some light on the "moderate" republican's position.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
NDP just won a big majority in Alberta

This would be like if the Green Party won a trifecta in Texas
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/albe...majority-ending-44-years-of-pc-rule-1.2359035
Prentice took over as premier from interim leader David Hancock in September. Hancock was installed after Alison Redford stepped down over a series of spending scandals, including a $45,000 taxpayer-funded trip Nelson Mandela's South Africa funeral.

The election was announced on April 7, a year ahead of what’s legally required, because Prentice said he wanted a mandate to pass his budget.

The PC budget would have increased some taxes and allow a $5-billion deficit in order to maintain spending schools and hospitals in an era of falling fossil fuel revenue. Royalties from oil and gas have long funded much of Alberta’s budget.

The Wildrose Party released a platform that promised no tax increases, and a return to balanced budgets by 2017, which would be achieved by reducing the number of government managers and other spending cuts.

The NDP, meanwhile, committed to tax hikes on the top 10 per cent of income earners, and corporations, in order to raise more money for health care and education. The party has also said it would re-examine fossil fuel royalties.

The Liberal Party released a platform that includes a reduction of personal income taxes for the first $50,000, and increases thereafter, to fund things like school construction, reduced post-secondary tuition fees and arts subsidies.

Jim Prentice’s PC Party, which had 70 seats at dissolution and won 12 consecutive majority governments, is expected to finish the night in third place.

So much for that mandate.
 
what did they do to piss people off?

A mix of the of all in oil prices leading to cuts in the budget and the current Premier saying several stupid things, (such as "In terms of who is responsible, we all need only look in the mirror, right. Basically all of us have had the best of everything and have not had to pay for what it costs"), and Notley being a good politician.

Also, it is reasonable to say that the Alberta NDP won't be as far-left as say, the Quebec NDP, or even the federal NDP since many of it's voters happily voted Conservative last time or vote Liberal federally.
 
Can anyone think of anything comparable in modern American politics? I'm trying, but can't.

selibus in Kansas?

we don't have parliaments so its next to impossible because the elections are staggard

alabama did a pretty sharp turn in 2008 or 2012 to Republicans. A couple other states too (arkansas?)
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Can anyone think of anything comparable in modern American politics? I'm trying, but can't.

West Virginia, Arkansas. Practically any other Southern States. Prior to 2008, Democrats enjoyed majorities in the legislature in many of the Southern States and Governorships.
 
Arkansas is really funny because after 2010, Democrats gerrymandered themselves into permanent majorities and still lost miserably

Not attempting to create a solid Dem vote sink congressional district based in Little Rock was stupid as hell. At least then you'd get one liberal.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
West Virginia, Arkansas. Practically any other Southern States. Prior to 2008, Democrats enjoyed majorities in the legislature in many of the Southern States and Governorships.

Right, but that's a bit more gradual, at least with West Virginia. What we're seeing is something I don't think we've seen in American politics in quite some time.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a high crossover between the 25% who are uncomfortable with African Americans, the 22% who think having no college degree is a good thing, and the 28% who want a Tea Party leader.
Assuming those all are out of 100% (no indication of that) then it would actually be 39% enthusiastic or comfortable with no college degree.

39-61 = -22

Edit: And 36% excited/comfortable with tea party leader.
36-64=-28


Edit2: If there was no answer /don't know basically the listed percentage becomes a floor not a ceiling.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Right, but that's a bit more gradual, at least with West Virginia. What we're seeing is something I don't think we've seen in American politics in quite some time.

Well yeah. Most of it was gradual at the federal level starting in the 60's and the state level in the 80's and 90's complete by the 00's and 10's. Arkansas and West Virginia kept being stubborn long after its southern brothers went Republican at the state and federal.
 

explodet

Member
Thanks to the previous two posts, my brain just had a strange moment where I was imagining the Paper Mario Bros. discussing US politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom