• 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.
Monmouth poll:

55a665d21900002500b86308.png


Chafee is the comeback kid!
 
So I looked up Danny Casolaro and I admit it is a bit strange. Duder claimed that he found evidence of an Illuminati organization and suddenly committed a very bloody "suicide" despite being squeamish of blood.

I'd love it if there was actually an Illuminati, means that someone can take charge in a unilateral way to solve global problems. Presumably they intend to sustain human society, as surely they would have driven it to collapse already otherwise.

Turning to reality however, the Wiki page mentions the following which helps explain the method of the suicide:

A bartender there told police that he had seemed lonely and depressed. Under Casolaro's body, paramedics found an empty Milwaukee beer can, two white plastic liner-trash bags, and a single edge razor blade. There was a half-empty wine bottle nearby.

According to Looney, Casolaro claimed that his source was scheduled to arrive by 9:00 p.m. Around that time, Casolaro left Looney, explaining that he had to make a telephone call. He returned a few minutes later and said that his source might have "blown him off."

Toxicology analysis uncovered traces of several drugs: antidepressants, acetaminophen, and alcohol. He wrote: "There was nothing present in any way that could have incapacitated Casolaro so he would have been incapable of struggling against an assailant, let alone been sufficient to kill him."

Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist acquaintance of Casolaro's, speculated in Vanity Fair that Casolaro may have intended his suicide to appear to be murder triggered by his research, in order to have others look into the story after his death
 
How much do we think the Clinton and Bush names will effect the outcome of the election? Surely the l Bush name is still surrounded by negativity? And obviously both candidates will try to separate themselves from their families so they can run on their own merits. If Hilary attacks GWB's legacy by comparing Jeb to him("We dont need another Bush" etc.), it would make her seem petty which is why she will attack failed GOP policies over a failed Bush.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
How much do we think the Clinton and Bush names will effect the outcome of the election? Surely the l Bush name is still surrounded by negativity? And obviously both candidates will try to separate themselves from their families so they can run on their own merits.If Hilary attacks GWB's legacy by comparing Jeb to him("We dont need another Bush" etc.), it would make her seem petty which is why she will attack failed GOP policies over a failed Bush.

There is no need to for obvious reasons. Let the surrogates and PAC's handle that. She is better served talking about the latter than the former. For all of Bill Clinton's success, he had some controversy's of his own and Bush will certainly try and tie her to Obama more than her husband.

Neither will be able to escape their family legacy. The question is will enough people care, remember or compare them to their families. The next barrier is how with that affect the ultimate turnout. There are a select few liberals on GAF who think it will be 2000 again since they say they wont turnout for either one. "No more dynasties" I think people on both sides will ultimately come out. Democrats to prevent another Bush and Republicans to prevent another Clinton. The right hated Bill Clinton just as much as the left hated George W. Bush.

Exit polling will give us an idea on how people voted. Was a vote for Hillary a vote for Obama/staying the course/Bill Clinton legacy or against Jeb Bush/George Bush Legacy/policies etc.. and vice versa.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
"That was a bad question and you should feel bad"

And it looks like Socialist Alternative is trying to co-opt Bernie's popularity to increase their own cause by preaching their stances at his rallies. Maybe we'll see something like what Benji was talking about in regards to Ron Paul and his supporters gaining ground on the local level. And also I think it's silly that MLM's and Trots are criticizing his decision to run as a democrat as a support for bourgeois politics and yet supported Jill Stein's negligible run as a green as a revolutionary change of pace.
 

Wilsongt

Member
That leaked Planned Parenthood video is giving the GOP even more fuel for their anti-abortion/anti-women's health crusade. It's not going to be pretty in the coming months for them...
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I'm surprised I didn't see a Nate Silver article on Sanders earlier than this, basically just saying, "well Hilary doesn't need to do anything because her own favorability ratings haven't statistically moved and all of Bernie's support is super liberal white people."
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The poll brings into perspective the popularity of candidates on the Democratic side, too. Hillary Rodham Clinton has ticked back up slightly, moving from a net negative position in May of 45-49 favorable-unfavorable to a net positive position of 52-45 favorable-unfavorable.

Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist Vermont senator making a run for the Democratic nomination, is largely unknown at this point with ratings that split 27 percent favorable to 28 percent unfavorable. A 45 percent plurality are unable to rate him. Sanders has generated a lot of intensity from the furthest left wings of the Democratic party, with rallies attended by thousands on college campuses.

Sanders has gained ground in New Hampshire and Iowa according to some recent statewide polls, but he still trails Clinton by very wide margins in national popularity. Even among his supposed base of liberal Democrats, Clinton's favorable ratings are nearly twice as high as Sanders — 86 percent favorable for Clinton to 48 percent for Sanders. In fact, Clinton's strongly favorable ratings are equal to Sanders's overall favorable ratings among liberal Democrats.

good news for Clintonites. As for Joe Biden most of his support I suppose falls to Hillary when he confirms he is not running.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
good news for Clintonites. As for Joe Biden most of his support I suppose falls to Hillary when he confirms he is not running.

Sanders' big problem is that his support among non-whites is like 5%. His entire campaign plan is apparently to pull out an upset in NH or Iowa and hope it snowballs, even though statistically speaking that never actually happens.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Sanders' big problem is that his support among non-whites is like 5%. His entire campaign plan is apparently to pull out an upset in NH or Iowa and hope it snowballs, even though statistically speaking that never actually happens.

Which comes when you're a senator from one of the whitest states in the nation versus the wife of the first black president.
 

Trey

Member
Damn, Obama in his press conference was as blunt as I've ever seen him.

He hit his late term final form. He's so sure of this deal he's taking shots and daring any one to say something smart.

It's basically one of those things where you know you're right and you're hoping somebody tries you.
 

Trey

Member
Obama better get that veto pen ready, because the GOP is already firing up their repeal legislation I am sure.

Probably already set aside the few minutes he needs to sign the paper. A bunch of "miscellaneous TBA" scattered throughout his schedule for the next two weeks.
 
Bush is this cycle's Romney.

Although I can see an argument that this election cycle no-one wants another Romney
There is no Romney in this cycle. IE a candidate with a monopoly on cash, PAC support, and endorsements. There are multiple candidates this time with money/PACs and could presumably be the nominee. Bush, Walker, Rubio, and Ohio's governor. Each could be the nominee, whereas only Romney could have been the 2012 nominee.

Might even be able to add Cruz to that list considering he raised 50mil. The establishment would never approve but I've never seen a fringe/outsider candidate do what he's doing in terms of fundraising and grassroots support.

We're going to see that you can't really buy votes. Sure money helps but it's not the dominant factor when multiple candidates have money. Bush is going to learn this the hard way. I don't see any legit grassroots excitement for him.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
There is no Romney in this cycle. IE a candidate with a monopoly on cash, PAC support, and endorsements. There are multiple candidates this time with money/PACs and could presumably be the nominee. Bush, Walker, Rubio, and Ohio's governor. Each could be the nominee, whereas only Romney could have been the 2012 nominee.

Might even be able to add Cruz to that list considering he raised 50mil. The establishment would never approve but I've never seen a fringe/outsider candidate do what he's doing in terms of fundraising and grassroots support.

We're going to see that you can't really buy votes. Sure money helps but it's not the dominant factor when multiple candidates have money. Bush is going to learn this the hard way. I don't see any legit grassroots excitement for him.

If Bush gets the nomination, how did he do it?
 
Jeb Bush only raised under $400k from $200 or less donations. HAHAHAHA.


Anyway, if the Dems play the Iran thing intelligently, I think this could be a huge win. Hillary needs to roll with it during the general campaign.

I'd literally run an entire campaign that opposing the Iran deal equal wanting to go to war with Iran. A vote for GOP CANDIDATE is a vote for war.

edit: Jeb Bush donated more to his own campaign that the totality of small donors. HAHAHAHAHA
 

Farmboy

Member
There is no Romney in this cycle. IE a candidate with a monopoly on cash, PAC support, and endorsements. There are multiple candidates this time with money/PACs and could presumably be the nominee.

I agree that it's a closer race funds-wise. Still, it does appear that Bush will have more of it than Walker and Rubio. It won't be the Romney v. Santorum bludgeon it was in 2012 though. This coupled with what Cheebs said, that there really wasn't anyone to fall in love with in 2012 but this times there's Walker (and Rubio, and Cruz) means it's a completely different story even if you do see Bush as 'the Romney of the bunch'.

Another, related difference is that, should Walker win Iowa (or should Rubio start picking off states), the establishment won't intervene as strongly on Bush' behalf, like they did against the unelectable Gingrich. They're fine with either candidate this time. Cruz and Trump are different of course: I fully expect them to be Gingriched should they actually start to look like threats.

We're going to see that you can't really buy votes. Sure money helps but it's not the dominant factor when multiple candidates have money. Bush is going to learn this the hard way. I don't see any legit grassroots excitement for him.

It's going to be instructive, certainly. If Bush does win, the 'old rules' that a) money is king and b) Republicans always fall in line behind the most electable candidate, might have proven stronger than we thought.
 
Kasich and Martinez are the best choices for the GOP VP.

I'm wondering if Martinez is just sitting this one (assuming 2016 is a done deal for Hildawg) with the hope of running in the future without a loss on her record.

She'd be a strong candidate, and she's young enough to have plenty of opportunities in the future.
 

Farmboy

Member
It's all subjective of course. I still think 'Mittens' works. Jeb! too, though I fear that will look like the PoliGaf equivalent of 'M$' in about a year.
 

Sianos

Member
Jeb! sounds like an Earthbound enemy - will we encounter a palette swapped Jeb!!! as our journey towards election day comes closer to an end?
 

Farmboy

Member
Was this posted yet? Donald Trump files financial disclosure, says he is worth 'TEN BILLION DOLLARS' Yes, the caps are his campaigns, as are these quotes:

This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth. For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have been checked. As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is "$50,000,000 or more."

Mr. Trump stated, "First people said I would never run, and I did. Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next, they said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days extensions. Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a country with a 'big heart' toward the care of our people."
 

ivysaur12

Banned
15 months out, Nevada isn't looking like much of a true swing state. The path to 270.. hmm.

http://origin.ralstonreports.com/bl...ws-nevada-senate-race-dead-heat-hillary-state

Clinton 48/43 over Marco Rubio
Clinton 48/42 over Donald Trump
Clinton 48/41 over Scott Walker
Clinton 49/37 over Jeb Bush

Senate race essentially tied, 42-41 for Masto.

►Catherine Cortez Masto, 42 percent; Joe Heck, 41 percent

I expect Masto will pull this one out once their campaign starts in earnest, especially since I'm assuming her name rec is lower than Heck's. And unlike most states in the country, the ground game of the Democrats in Nevada is just fucking incredible, as PD mentioned.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Oh lord, they can't keep him out of the debates now!

Full steam ahead to amazing television!

I wonder if he stands to make more money in his businesses in a democratic government than a republican one and this is just his way of making sure that takes place.
 
15 months out, Nevada isn't looking like much of a true swing state. The path to 270.. hmm.

http://origin.ralstonreports.com/bl...ws-nevada-senate-race-dead-heat-hillary-state

Clinton 48/43 over Marco Rubio
Clinton 48/42 over Donald Trump
Clinton 48/41 over Scott Walker
Clinton 49/37 over Jeb Bush

Senate race essentially tied, 42-41 for Masto.
Paint Nevada blue if the best result for the GOP is still a 5 point loss.

2015_05_07_pres_600.png


I'd call New Hampshire Lean D as well. Then we just need Virginny, which PPP will have a poll of out soon.

Also undecideds for the Senate race are heavily Obama voters. All the Senate drama will be in GOP-held seats.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Paint Nevada blue if the best result for the GOP is still a 5 point loss.

2015_05_07_pres_600.png


I'd call New Hampshire Lean D as well. Then we just need Virginny.

Also undecideds for the Senate race are heavily Obama voters. All the Senate drama will be in GOP-held seats.

Sabato gave a reason for why NH is a toss up. Will it stay that way through November? I doubt it. They will probably update the map sometime next year as we get our nominees.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
More good news for Clintonites.

@PPPpoll

Hillary Clinton is weak in Virginia she's only up by 50 points. Clinton leads Webb 79-3 among African American primary voters in Virginia. Webb is only 6 points behind- Bernie Sanders for 2nd place- in his home state
 
Sabato gave a reason for why NH is a toss up.
NH is elastic but it's been quite stable in presidential elections since the 96 election. Bush only won it by a few thousand votes in 2000, but Kerry won it by a smidge and Clinton (96) and Obama won it by convincing margins.

I think putting it as a toss-up is more cautionary than anything.

ivysaur12 said:
Obama beat Romney by 12 points in Oregon in 2012, why are we considering this a likely blue state?
Because reasons... It's the same as Minnesota, no one should have any doubt it'll go blue.

But I feel like Likely vs. Safe is splitting hairs anyway.
 
I wonder if he stands to make more money in his businesses in a democratic government than a republican one and this is just his way of making sure that takes place.

Didn't most of the share of generated wealth since the 08 crash go to the 0.1%? Thar we go den
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom