-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Derp, yeah, it was Kucinich. My bad.
ErasureAcer
Banned
I highly disagree. The misogynistic Republicans would come out full-force if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. Hillary is far more polarizing than Bernie. Benghazi, emails, Clinton....that's all they have to know to head to the polls....being a woman on top of that...good luck trying to suppress the Republican base...cuz ya know Chelsea isn't an only child. Hillary has had 10 abortions. Sure, socialism would be thrown around every 5 words if Bernie were the nominee but that's less controversial than "traitor to our country Hillary." Anyhow, they already think Obama's a socialist for christ's sake...they'll paint that on Hillary too. So why not have the actual socialist with less baggage?
If any of that mattered, why isn't Hillary suffering in the polls? Why isn't she behind generic Republican? She's not teflon, but she's pretty close.
BertramCooper
Banned
The only reason why Bernie Sanders isn't already a nationally polarizing figure is that nobody outside of the northeast knows who the fuck he is.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Because on the other side of the fence people want to see a woman president and they remember Bill Clinton, for the most part, keeping it real. This is exactly why Bush is not the candidate for the Republicans(they don't have any candidates that can win the general IMO)...because the previous two are not remembered fondly...although from their point of view...he is their best shot and is why he'll be the nominee.
She is beating all her Republican opponents in the polls and is leading Bernie Sanders the "Socialist" by 60 points.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
You know how "we need a true conservative" was the call of many republicans in the 1976 primaries when the republican party was on the brink of destruction? Well they listened in 1980, heralding in a conservative era that we're barely starting to come out of. People act like the tea party is the death of the republicans, and yet here we are with Republicans holding both chambers of congress, and a large majority of state legislatures and governorships.
Maybe this move right can't solely explain these republican victories, but we do know that even if it's not helping them, it's certainly not hurting them. Really the only thing hurting them at all is demographic changes. That's literally it.
I still think Hillary has a better chance in the general because she'll always have the better brand seeing as they've been building up that brand for the last 25 years. It's not because of her more centrist positions.
ErasureAcer
Banned
The debates haven't even begun, so yeah, most people who don't pay attention have no idea who he is. People in New Hampshire know who he is...and he's only down 8 points.
I ultimately think Clinton will probably win the nomination because the super-delegates will push her through. That'd be very bad for Democrats if Bernie actually does outperform her in the poll/caucus based results which lead to delegates. But if you guys think it's going to be a runaway...well then I guess that doesn't matter. I think you will see Bernie win many states including Iowa and New Hampshire.
And you already forgot! Clinton is the "Socialist" come general election. Whether she is one or not(she isn't). That's what the Republicans will be saying and the news will surely air those sound bites from her opponent of her being a "socialist" and "out-of-touch with America."
Yellowtail
Member
Lol seriously. I remember the same arguments made in 2008 - Hillary is too polarizing! My Republican dad/mom/friend/cousin likes the sound of Obama and would seriously consider voting for him!
Then look what happened.
Who ever becomes the Democratic nominee will by definition become deeply polarizing. Gore and Kerry were just about the two most congenial whitebread candidates possible and look how the right (allied with the media) utterly assassinated their characters. At least opinions on Hillary are nearly entirely set after getting pilloried for 20+ years and she has the machine to fight back. Sanders would get ethered.
He is not going to win one state against Hillary. I am just that confident.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, and Bill Clinton probably would have lost the elections McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis lost. Like he said, it's just not that simple.
gutter_trash
Banned
just because Bernie is from Vermont, it does not mean that he will win neighboring New Hampshire
Hillary won NH in 08 then used the infamous "found my voice" speech
NH is in Hillary's bag already
Hillary won NH in 08 then used the infamous "found my voice" speech
NH is in Hillary's bag already
If I could reverse one election in the modern era, it would have to be 1976. If Ford eked out a victory the stagflation that doomed Carter would've happened to Ford and Democrats would have won the huge victory in 1980.
Jeff Greenfield devoted a third of his alternate history book to if Ford had just clarified "Well of course the Soviets dominate Eastern Europe, what I meant was their spirit can't be dominated" in the debate. Ford wins the electoral college, but loses the popular vote.
In the end, Carter didn't even get one Supreme Court nomination. A total waste.
PhoenixDark
Banned
This "republican base" trope seems weak to me. They didn't come out in masse to get rid of Obama? Come on.
Assuming the economy is decent and Obama doesn't keep fucking up, Hillary should be able to win with an excited base and an increase in female support. The more people who vote, the better her chance of winning.
Assuming the economy is decent and Obama doesn't keep fucking up, Hillary should be able to win with an excited base and an increase in female support. The more people who vote, the better her chance of winning.
gutter_trash
Banned
watch out, when people get too comfortable during prosperous economics times, they stay home and don't turn out to vote (2000)
CrimzonSamurai
Member
The "true liberal/true conservative" fallacy is solely focused on the discussion of Presidential candidates/elections. The legislative branch is much more subject to intra-state issues and gerrymandering, whereas the electoral process for the Presidency remains basically static between elections. Reagan's victory had much more to do with Carter's complete failure in the office than it did with his brand of conservatism. Bush was even less conservative than Reagan and he ultimately lost to Clinton, whose big break was that he was not a "true liberal."
BertramCooper
Banned
With all due respect, you're just not living in reality here.
How do you think this plays out, exactly?
Do you think that Bernie comes out swinging in the debates and tears Hillary to shreds, and then that propels him to multiple primary victories? That's not happening. The Democratic debates will be extremely polite and extremely boring.
Dem voters will come out of the debates convinced that Hillary is sufficiently progressive and they'll vote for her in their state's primary. And in the end a sizable portion of the people who are currently saying they'll vote for Bernie will probably end up voting for Hillary.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Most serious analysis only use "blue wall" in situations where the popular vote is close or tied. The Democrats generally only need to swing one big swing state to win because states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin etc. have been so resiliently blue over the last 20 years that they already figure into our calculus. Whereas the GOP needs to count on carrying all of Colorado, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina to win. They lose one and they lose all the marbles.
The counterpoint to this is that if the GOP racked up a big popular vote advantage then they would win and it's like, yeah, no shit. People talk about a blue wall in reference to the fact that Romney would have probably needed to win by 2 points to guarantee victory because PA and CO were more Democratic than the nation as a whole by a little under 2 points. Yeah if it's October 2016 and Jeb Bush (sorry PD) is leading Hillary by 5 points then we're screwed. If he's leading her by like 1 nationally but Hillary is stillup in the swing states then I wouldn't be so sure.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
It's like Walker, Rubio, and Jeb are playing "red light, green light" and Walker stepped on a "red light" and is trying to bring his foot back really quickly and hope no one noticed.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...dment-states-gay-marriage-119505.html?hp=l1_3
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...dment-states-gay-marriage-119505.html?hp=l1_3
Dems might as well not run a candidate then.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You can't be serious.
We've literally been through her closet for twenty years.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
As I've been saying from the beginning: This guy can't handle the national spotlight. He's too far right to be a viable candidate. He can't help himself from putting his foot in his mouth, and eventually backtracks or dodges every question.
He ultimately says nothing. He's the political equivalent of the Chewbacca Defense from South Park.
Yellowtail
Member
Ugh, Hillary's team is just on point this time round. Poor Webb.
Also:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hi...trategist-who-broke-her-2008-camp#.bgVLNJ95De
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
You're kind of proving my point. How radicle or how centrist a candidate is doesn't seem to really matter a whole lot compared to other factors. There just doesn't seemed to be a verifiable trend proving centrists or radicals have better chances at winning the presidency when there's so many counter examples on both sides.
Meanwhile, things like the economy and approval ratings of the sitting president seems to be pretty good predictors and can explain away every example and counterexample of people that try to argue that the election can be predicted by how centrist or radical the candidates are. If centrists are saying "Reagan only won because nobody liked Carter" and radicals are saying "Clinton only won because nobody liked Bush" maybe it's because approval ratings of the sitting president matter more than their theories about centrists and radicals.
That doesn't mean that individual candidates don't matter at all, but I think it's pretty clear swing voters usually don't swing because of where the policies lie on the right-left spectrum.
makingmusic476
Member
I imagine a red Michigan wouldn't even be on the table if Detroit's gradual decline had never happened.
It's a shame.
It's a shame.
Obama needs to sharpen his tone when it comes to ISIS. Eric Holder isn't one to exaggerate and he made it pretty clear their growing threat is the only thing that kept him up at night. I think that's really the only area where Obama could seriously fuck everything up in the remaining months of his Presidency.
It's only on pace to lose 12% of its population this decade, versus 25% last decade!
Which is a shame. Most cities and urban living are on the rise in America.
Come on, man.
The Democrats did not lose in 72, 84, and 88 because they nominated liberal candidates. They lost because the Republican incumbents benefited from a strong economy. The Democratic nominee was inconsequential. A party can win with an ideologically strident nominee, but it requires propitious circumstances. Unfortunately, I don't think the economy will be strong enough to guarantee a Democratic victory next year. And in that case, the benefit of having a more moderate nominee could be decisive. But it's a moot point because Clinton has had the nomination in the bag since the beginning.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The gentrification is in full effect. Whites moving into the city, blacks moving into the suburbs. It'll be an entirely different place in a decade.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Michigan is oddly backward in a lot of ways that neighboring states aren't/ I say this as a person born and having lived there until was in my late 20s.
Note that it was one of the states that had sodomy laws up until they were stricken down wholesale. It had that recent story about some guy getting the harshest sentence by a judge because he didn't like internet hookups. A guy got convicted on child porn charges for intercutting kids' reaction shots to him singing a lewd song. The state has a puritanical bent.
Outside the Detroit area, MI is pretty conservative even in cities. Its second biggest metro area is Grand Rapids, famously Christian.
Like Indiana, it was a hotbed of northern KKK activity in the past, too.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it go red.
makingmusic476
Member
I suppose I came off overly negative in that post. I strongly support the ACA, and I think it's a large and important step towards the goal of universal healthcare. I just think describing it as universal healthcare creates the impression that the goal has been achieved.
It's something I see constantly across the left, this dual narrative that we need universal healthcare and that Obama passed universal healthcare.
I don't mean to trash talk the law in anyway.
makingmusic476
Member
New Orleans is on a similar trend, and it's the only place in Louisiana that's seeing consistent population growth, as far as I know (a few other places, like East Baton Rouge Rouge Parish, see slight population growth of <1% depending on the year).
However, New Orleans city proper's current growth trend won't have it reaching its pre-Katrina population, let alone its population from its height in the 1960s, any time soon.
Has Detroit started officially gaining population over the past few years? The Census estimates for 2013 show a loss relative to 2010, and for some reason there's no 2014 estimate on the Census website.
Who's to say all of those whites moving into the city are going to be Republican yuppies?
Black people are not going to completely vanish either.
...no.
I agree. It's a policy that has benefited millions of people, but it should only be a bridge to universal healthcare. I misinterpreted the tenor of your post. A few liberal friends/acquaintances of mine have largely dismissed the ACA because it's not UHC. But I disagree with that mentality.
TheHeretic
Banned
I think this is too narrow a reading of the political landscape. The conservative movement was incredibly resiliant and used to getting pumelled in elections. Losing a few more times wouldn't have slowed them down.
Furthermore the democratic party (and Liberalism generally) had an ideological commitment to favour lower unemployment over deflationary pressure. Convervatives had the opposite approach, that clamping down on inflation would correct the economy over the longer term. If Carter had brought in Volcker a little earlier he may have survived the 1980's election.
Maybe he just figures they'll be more Republican leaning than not, extrapolating from how whites vote nationally.
I've been formulating a theory in my head that if you put whites and blacks in the same area together they'll diverge politically. Whites going unnaturally strong for Democrats happens in places where the population is homogeneously white, like Vermont, and whites going extraordinarily strong for Republicans happens in places like my deep south hometown, where the split between whites and blacks is roughly even.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't have the census data either but I'm sure it dropped in 2014. The 2012 to 2013 drop wasn't huge so perhaps the city is stabilizing in that sense.
Diablos: Consider how gentrification tends to be perceived. A city goes into disrepair under a predominantly black population/leadership, then all of a sudden everything is cheap and businesses move in, white people move in, etc. The city improves across the board. And the success story is largely sold along racial lines. White people "saved" the city from black people's violence/disinterest/etc*. And politicians overly and covertly harp on that to win elections for the next 10+ years. That's what is going to happen.
It reminds me of those Kwame Kilpatrick ads that were run in 2012, linking Obama to Kwame and Detroit's decline. Republicans are great at that shit. And the young "yuppies" moving there now might be liberal now, but when they have some kids in a decade they'll be quite receptive to republican fear mongering.
*nevermind that the city was doomed decades ago by the greed of the auto industry. I don't say that to defend bad black politicians who further helped ruin the city, but the facts remain that Detroit's death was set in motion by greed and redlining 50+ years ago.
What? Yes it will. From 2010 to 2014, New Orleans grew at a staggering 11.8% rate. That would mean in 2020, it would have roughly the same population (~30k less) as 2000 New Orleans. In fact, this is the first time New Orleans has had positive population growth since 1960.
This also has little to do with "white return" -- the white % of population in New Orleans is still dropping, just like in every major city.
makingmusic476
Member
That trend is rapidly slowing:
It's still growing faster than every other part of the state, however.
Edit:
And I swear I saw data showing a slight increase in whites and a slight decrease in blacks as a percentage of the local population in the years following Katrina, but I might have been mistakenly thinking of this data:
http://www.datacenterresearch.org/data-resources/who-lives-in-new-orleans-now/
However, if you compare their racial breakdown of 2013 Census estimates (117,377 whites, 223,742 blacks out of a total population of 378,715) to the 2010 data on the Census website, it appears that whites increased from 30.5% of the population to 30.9%, while blacks decreased from 60.2% from 59.0%. Unless the data for Orleans Parish and Orleans City don't exactly line up (I'm not 100% sure that they do).
Of course, that could all be statistical noise. Census estimates aren't nearly as reliable as proper Census data.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Figured this was his angle when he started going after entitlements. The hard truth teller who won't let political correctness or "the elites" tell him what to say!
He remains the best politician running for president in both parties IMO, but his record and temperament will fuck him. Won't make it too far beyond the early primaries IMO.
Macho Madness
Member
Yeah, I can't remember who but a pundit the other day said that Christie is a really good politician but his temper and record will ultimately crush any hopes he had.
.8% growth per-year is still very good and would put the city on a growth level that it hasn't seen in years. It would also mean you'd hit Katrina-level population in the mid-2020s.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked