Support NeoGAF

[Orbis Tabula]

If the GOP brass forces him out he will absolutely run third party. Dude will be on a mission to fuck them in the worst way possible.

If he loses because his support dries up then he won't run 3rd party. But if he gets forced out while his numbers are still good? It'll be on like Donkey Kong.

Fair enough. I could buy this. But I don't think the GOP brass is dumb enough to force Trump to leave.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Still annoys me that Dems haven't recognized the threat of Walker. I don't want him flying under the radar during the Trump siege.

 

[benjipwns]

PPP poll, GOP only:

he federal minimum wage is currently $7.25-
which of the following would you support mostincreasing
it to $15 an hour, increasing it to $12
an hour, increasing it to $10 an hour, keeping it
at $7.25 an hour, or eliminating the federal
minimum wage altogether?
Support increaing to $15.00 an hour 7% ...............
Support increasing to $12.00 an hour 11% .............
Support increasing to $10.00 an hour 34% .............
Support keeping it at $7.25 an hour 24% ................
20% Support eliminating the federal minimum
wage altogether ..............................................
Not sure 3%

 

[B-Dubs]

Still annoys me that Dems haven't recognized the threat of Walker. I don't want him flying under the radar during the Trump siege.

Unless Trump's numbers start tanking there's no reason to even think about Walker. Dude won't even be a factor unless things start to change.

 

[Grexeno]

Steve Doocy compared Trump to a Navy SEAL today.

OK.

The guy who posts the Navy SEAL copypasta, more like.

 

[benjipwns]

PPP poll, independents only:
Generic Republican 41% - Generic Democrat 25%

Jeb! 48 - Clinton 31
Jeb! 51 - Sanders 27
Trump 29 - Clinton 29 - Jeb! 28

Carson 43 - Clinton 37
Christie 45 - Clinton 36
Cruz 42 - Clinton 40
Fiorina 38 - Clinton 35
Huckabee 45 - Clinton 35
Paul 45 - Clinton 35
Rubio 48 - Clinton 33
Rubio 44 - Sanders 26
Clinton 41 - Trump 37
Trump 41 - Sanders 38
Walker 43 - Clinton 38
Walker 42 - Sanders 28

Trump's Hair:
Democrats: 7% Favorable, 67% Unfavorable
Republicans: 20% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable
Independents: 11% Favorable, 38% Unfavorable
Overall: 12% Favorable, 49% Unfavorable

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Unless Trump's numbers start tanking there's no reason to even think about Walker. Dude won't even be a factor unless things start to change.

I'm thinking more towards beyond the primaries. He can make himself appear moderate because at the moment people relatively know little about him. Meanwhile Bush and essentially everyone else on the repub primary has pretty much shown they fall too far into the extremes spectrum to be considered a presidential possibility.

He appears as dangerous as Mitt but he also appears to have more energy, and that in itself is dangerous to me..

 

[Jack Remington]

So a lot of independents are Republicans who eschew the label?

 

[Plinko]

Still annoys me that Dems haven't recognized the threat of Walker. I don't want him flying under the radar during the Trump siege.

Polls are showing that when he drops out, Jeb! gets the majority of his votes.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm thinking more towards beyond the primaries. He can make himself appear moderate because at the moment people relatively know little about him. Meanwhile Bush and essentially everyone else on the repub primary has pretty much shown they fall too far into the extremes spectrum to be considered a presidential possibility.

He appears as dangerous as Mitt but he also appears to have more energy, and that in itself is dangerous to me..

Don't forget that he hasn't answered a single question so far. He's like Paul Ryan, a paper tiger. Once he's in a position where he can't just dodge questions he'll flame out.

So a lot of independents are Republicans who eschew the label?

You saw the change after W ended his term. People who didn't like him went independent and as a result it makes independents look more conservative than they are. So just because you can win independents, it doesn't mean you actually win independents.

 

[benjipwns]

Q35 In the last presidential election, did you vote for
Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Barack Obama 48% ................................................
Mitt Romney 43% ....................................................
Someone else / Don't remember 9%

Q38 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify
with another party, press 3.
Democrat 41% ........................................................
Republican 33% ......................................................
Independent/Other 26%

.

 

[ivysaur12]

.

Does that not track? That seems to track.

So a lot of independents are Republicans who eschew the label?

This has been true for a while.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I can't do labor related gaf threads...

 

[benjipwns]

June:

Q29 In the last presidential election, did you vote for
Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Barack Obama 48% ................................................
Mitt Romney 43% ....................................................
Someone else / Don't remember 9%

Q32 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify
with another party, press 3.
Democrat 39% ........................................................
Republican 32% ......................................................
Ind 29%

March:

q25 In the last presidential election, did you vote for
Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Barack Obama 48% ................................................
Mitt Romney 43% ....................................................
Someone else / Don't remember 9%

q28 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify
with another party, press 3.
Democrat 39% ........................................................
Republican 31% ......................................................
Ind 31%

February:

Q26 In the last presidential election, did you vote for
Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Barack Obama 49% ................................................
Mitt Romney 43% ....................................................
Someone else / Don't remember 8%

Q29 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify
with another party, press 3.
Democrat 40% ........................................................
Republican 34% ......................................................
Ind 26%

March 2014:

Q22 In the last presidential election, did you vote for
Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Barack Obama 49% ................................................
Mitt Romney 42% ....................................................
Someone else/Don't remember 9%

Q25 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify
with another party, press 3.
Democrat 41% ........................................................
Republican 34% ......................................................
Ind 26%

 

[benjipwns]

I would very much like if they crosstabbed the Romney/Obama question as it's the best control question.

Remember that push poll that had Romney 50, Obama 43 or something lol

EDIT: Should add, the exit polls.

D/R/I

2012: 38/32/29
2008: 39/32/29
2004: 37/37/26

 

[sc0la]

How to destroy your cell phone with Lindsey Graham

Mr. Graham surely knows he could just get his carrier to issue a new number?

Spoiler

Clearly not his actual phone since he destroys like 6 different ones. Also I am not an enemy of fun, this was an entertaining/creative way to take advantage of Trumps antics.

 

[benjipwns]

The reason I track the independent numbers is that D/R are going to vote 90/10 at minimum for their guy and so it's basically about turnout. The independents were D favorable in polls for most of 2014 until they flipped in October.

The D turnout WILL be higher in 2016 but if the I's are going R by 15-20 points you are going to have a serious problem with Hillary squeezing out more than a 2-3 point lead even with a D six-seven point advantage.

This is probably the noise of a single poll, but I thought it the more interesting part of the poll since the leads have never been as large as they are for some of those candidates, especially Rubio and Jeb! (It also shows Trump's relative unpopularity outside a segment of the GOP.)

And it's what some GOP fence-sitters are going to be looking at.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The reason I track the independent numbers is that D/R are going to vote 90/10 at minimum for their guy and so it's basically about turnout. The independents were D favorable in polls for most of 2014 until they flipped in October.

The D turnout WILL be higher in 2016 but if the I's are going R by 15-20 points you are going to have a serious problem with Hillary squeezing out more than a 2-3 point lead even with a D six-seven point advantage.

This is probably the noise of a single poll, but I thought it the more interesting part of the poll since the leads have never been as large as they are for some of those candidates, especially Rubio and Jeb!

And it's what some GOP fence-sitters are going to be looking at.

aint happening. Romney won the independent vote and lost. I looked at the exit polls in CO. +4 for Romney in Independent Vote.

 

[benjipwns]

Romney won the independent vote and lost.

Yes, barely. 50-45 according to the exit polls. Which is my point, the D advantage in turnout erases I leads like that. It doesn't do that to 15 point ones. Which is why the PPP poll showing massive leads is interesting as to see if that continues.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes, barely. 50-45 according to the exit polls. Which is my point, the D advantage in turnout erases I leads like that. It doesn't do that to 15 point ones. Which is why the PPP poll showing massive leads is interesting as to see if that continues.

Well, if D party ID is going up, which seems to be the case from the polling aggregate, wouldn't that make it more likely the remaining Independent IDs would skew R?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

Look at the Party ID in 2012 versus now. There were just more self-labeled Independents. In fact, Democratic party ID hasn't been this high since... July 2009. But even then, there were 5% more Independent-identified voters than there are now.

 

[benjipwns]

Well, if D party ID is going up, which seems to be the case from the polling aggregate, wouldn't that make it more likely the remaining Independent IDs would skew R?

They shouldn't skew that much because the R number isn't abnormal.

As I said, I don't think it means anything and probably will disappear in the next PPP one, but it will explain "tight" polls if it continues. Even though Hillary has a distinct electoral advantage in every shape, manner and form.

I posted the exit poll Party ID above already.

 

[Ecotic]

The RNC is powerless. Preibus phoned up Trump to tell him to tone it down, and Trump smacked him down in public. The establishment piled on after his McCain comments and it had no effect. The only organization that can stop Trump is Fox and right now they're actively abetting him. Even Murdoch has lost control:


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/on-trump-murdoch-has-lost-control-of-ailes-fox.html

It's become obvious now that Fox News has profited far more from being against Obama than they ever did being pro-Bush. Fox News is a business that wants ratings and profit, not to help Republicans. They're going to help keep Republicans from moderating in 2016. Not that they wanted to.

 

[benjipwns]

Also of interest from the GOP only question on the minimum wage. By age:

Older than 65:
$15: 5%
$12: 13%
$10: 40%
Keep at $7.25: 17%
Eliminate: 22%

46-65:
$15: 5%
$12: 12%
$10: 36%
Keep: 24%
Elim: 18%

18-65
$15: 13%
$12: 8%
$10: 25%
Keep: 30%
Elim: 22%

So $12+ vs. Keep at $7.25/Eliminate Minimum Wage:
65+: 18% vs. 39%
46-65: 17% vs 42%
18-45: 21% vs. 52%

Wonder what 18-30 and 30-45 looks like.

 

[ivysaur12]

They shouldn't skew that much because the R number isn't abnormal.

As I said, I don't think it means anything and probably will disappear in the next PPP one, but it will explain "tight" polls if it continues. Even though Hillary has a distinct electoral advantage in every shape, manner and form.

I posted the exit poll Party ID above already.

I edited my post -- actually, the R identification is the highest since the same time period that D ID was high, but Independent ID was also much higher as well.

I guess we'll see how the trends continue.

 

[benjipwns]

It's interesting from a statistical point of view more than anything to do with electoral politics.

As has been repeated here before, Hillary could lose the popular vote and still win 300 electoral votes practically by default.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It's interesting from a statistical point of view more than anything to do with electoral politics.

As has been repeated here before, Hillary could lose the popular vote and still win 300 electoral votes practically by default.

How does that happen and to Ivysaur what is the probable lean of those Independents if they were pushed?

 

[ivysaur12]

How does that happen and to Ivysaur what is the probable lean of those Independents if they were pushed?

I have no idea what the lean was, I was just hypothesizing that since the D ID has seen such a dramatic upswing recently while the I ID has seen an almost equal drop, it's probably that those were just D-leaning Is that have come to identify as Democrats, meaning that the I ID is now much more conservative leaning.

But I have no idea if that's true or not. I'm just looking at one graph.

 

[minor effort]

There is no chance in hell Trump runs third party. I don't believe it for a second. He's too full of himself to take a chance doing something he could publicly fail at. All his other failures he's been able to brush under the rug or bluster his way through somehow. But taking on the entire GOP, insulting all the candidates, then losing, attempting to take his ball and go home, and losing again? I can't see him doing that.

He'll "fail", in that he won't win the election, but I don't think even Trump truly believes him becoming president is a likely scenario.

But running as an independent candidate will give him the satisfaction of being a player all throughout the general election, and possibly having a major impact on the race itself. And it would keep him in the news cycle throughout 2016.

 

[benjipwns]

How does that happen

To make an example. Take the 2012 election and just do something like give Mitt Romney 2 extra points in every state he won. Then take every state Obama got less than 55% in plus Maine and give him only 49.75% of the vote. (With the now "released" votes all going to Romney.)

Every single state stays the same in terms of winner but Romney now wins the popular vote 49.2% to 49.1%.

This is what happened to Stephen Cleveland in 1888 essentially.

It's even easier if I took a closer election like 2004 or 2000.

 

[Fenderputty]

That's some serious EV number crunching right there.

 

[Farmboy]

To make an example. Take the 2012 election and just do something like give Mitt Romney 2 extra points in every state he won. Then take every state Obama got less than 55% in plus Maine and give him only 49.75% of the vote.

Every single state stays the same in terms of winner but Romney now wins the popular vote 49.2% to 49.1%.

This is what happened to Stephen Cleveland in 1888 essentially.

It's even easier if I took a closer election like 2004 or 2000.

While technically possible, this is very unlikely. D ems do have a slight EC advantage (meaning that it's slightly more likely that Hillary wins the election losing the popular vote), but scenario's in which popular vote winner = EC winner are much, much, much more likely (and this was true in 2012 as well). One can state 'the EC winner will be the same as the popular vote winner' with far more certainty than 'the Dem candidate will win'.

 

[benjipwns]

Yes, that is obvious. He asked how it could happen (or that's how I interpreted it), I made an example for him.

Also, you can lower the Obama figure all he way to 49.57% for those states and he keeps every single one, while losing the popular vote 49.4% to 48.9%.

 

[benjipwns]

Even more fun, you can lower every single state Obama won to 49.57%, he keeps them all. And loses the national popular vote 52.6% to 45.7%.

If you don't change the states Romney won at all, Obama loses 51.5% to 46.8%. But still wins 332-206.

 

[Oblivion]

You guys see ole froth face's interview with Maddow? The man is a goddamned idiot. He said that the Supreme Court doesn't decide what's constitutional, Congress and the President do.

 

[benjipwns]

"old froth face" could describe too many people for me to answer that question

EDIT: ohhh, Santorum, how did I miss that so easily

At least he didn't try to convert her back to heterosexuality like that one guy.

I like his new haircut.

 

[B-Dubs]

You guys see ole froth face's interview with Maddow? The man is a goddamned idiot. He said that the Supreme Court doesn't decide what's constitutional, Congress and the President do.

Well Congress and the President can overturn a Supreme Court decision, but it takes an amendment to the Constitution and good luck getting one of those. So while he's not technically wrong in that the President and Congress can override the Court, he's still an idiot if he thinks it's going to happen.

 

[benjipwns]

Best part is fitting the Planned Parenthood videos into his example about partial-birth abortion.

EDIT: Here's video: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow--santorum-go-head-to-head-on-scotus-489847363973

He refuses to answer if people choose to be gay. Which I was kinda surprised by.

 

[Oblivion]

Well Congress and the President can overturn a Supreme Court decision, but it takes an amendment to the Constitution and good luck getting one of those. So while he's not technically wrong in that the President and Congress can override the Court, he's still an idiot if he thinks it's going to happen.

I mean, yeah technically that's the case (and was pointed out by Maddow) but the job of the SC is to decide what is constitutional. Congress makes laws, the President enforces them, and the Supreme Court decides if those laws are constitutional. A constitutional amendment isn't a standard course of action that the congress and president (and the states!) that they do on a frequent basis like everything else.

Best part is fitting the Planned Parenthood videos into his example about partial-birth abortion.

EDIT: Here's video: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow--santorum-go-head-to-head-on-scotus-489847363973

He refuses to answer if people choose to be gay. Which I was kinda surprised by.

I wish they got into that PP tape thing.

And yeah was surprised about him not wanting to answer the gay question. Goddamned RINO.

 

[benjipwns]

Theoretically, and I think this is the argument Santorum was trying to make, Congress can set the jurisdiction of the courts. Though I'm sure the Supreme Court would strike this down and then nobody would know what to do.

I'm going to assume Santorum of all people refusing to talk about some of that stuff means the issue has shifted significantly to where gay marriage is their last bastion of fighting against the homosexualist menace.

 

[Oblivion]

Yeah, he seemed a lot more reserved than fire and brimstone-y, which does prove that he realizes he can't go too homophobic.

 

[Farmboy]

Yes, that is obvious. He asked how it could happen (or that's how I interpreted it), I made an example for him.

Well sure, but I was responding more to your original point of Hillary losing the popular vote yet still getting 300 EV 'practically by default'. It is still far, far more likely that she is winning the popular vote if she gets to or above 300, and that she gets less than 300 (or 270, even) EV if she loses the popular vote. So 'by default' is a somewhat poor choice of words.

But I agree that it's not impossible, that Hillary has an EC advantage in the sense that 'win the EC but lose the PV' is significantly more likely for her than it is for her republican opponent, and that it can be fun to construct these scenario's. So it's all good.

 

[sc0la]

That's some serious EV number crunching right there.

Sometimes you need to keep it gangster.

 

[benjipwns]

So 'by default' is a somewhat poor choice of words.

I said she's going to get 300 electoral votes practically by default. There were no conditions regarding the popular vote attached to this, I was only noting she could lose the popular vote and still receive her "practically by default" 300+ electoral votes.

 

[Farmboy]

I said she's going to get 300 electoral votes practically by default. There were no conditions regarding the popular vote attached to this, I was only noting she could lose the popular vote and still receive her "practically by default" 300+ electoral votes.

Ah okay, I thought your phrasing implied a logical link. Never mind then.

I think both conditions happening at the same time (Hillary getting 300+ EV yet losing the popular vote) have a probability of less than Hillary not getting the Dem nomination.

 

[benjipwns]

You must not have heard the good word about Bernie Sanders, my friend.

 

[benjipwns]

So which of you guys reserved these spots at QuakeCon?

courtesy of joe molotov

 

[Grexeno]

So which of you guys reserved these spots at QuakeCon?

courtesy of joe molotov

"We've had these Gamertags since we were 12!"

 

[Coriolanus]

"We've had these Gamertags since we were 12!"

What? No. These are the kinda nicknames that are so absurd, dudes must b havin' a giggle.
-Also shamelessly stolen from auspoligaf

 

[benjipwns]

Eagle should be named Bob Avakian.

Nothing should ever be named after Zizek.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-blew-a-huge-opportunity-at-netroots-nation/

Some attendees were skeptical of the protest—even outright hostile. They argued that it stopped progressive candidates from being able to make their case or answer questions on other topics. And they seemed embarrassed that the candidates were put on the spot—and more embarrassed that the candidates performed so poorly.

Both candidates did damage to themselves; Sanders was defensive, and O’Malley’s response included the words “white lives matter.” But Sanders had far more to gain by getting this right.

I approach this incident as a fan of Bernie Sanders. But when he had the opportunity to rewrite his own narrative and broaden his own base, he failed.

...

With the protest, Sanders was presented an opportunity on a silver platter: He could overcome his perceived negatives and grow his base. All he would have had to do was act with a little humility.

But instead, he talked over the protesters, got defensive about his racial-justice bona fides, and stuck to his script. Essentially, he appeared to be arguing that economics and class trump all. For an audience mourning the death of Sandra Bland, a woman who was arrested at a traffic stop on the way to her new job before mysteriously dying in police custody, the jobs program Sanders suggested just didn’t seem like a sufficient answer.

But there was also a tactical error—a mistake in the basic craft of politics: the failure to read the room. It was hard to watch him refuse to respond to people shouting and calling out for their lives.

...

It was a remarkable display of cognitive dissonance when Sanders said the country needed a democratic revolution, as he looked out at one staring him in the face and ignored it.

Here’s one stab at a better response he could have given: “We need a democratic revolution, and you are part of it. I admire your courage in speaking up. I learned of the troubling death of a black woman in police custody, and, yes, I will say her name: Sandra Bland. I will say her name because black lives matter. I admit I don’t have all the answers. But your fight is my fight. For dignity and equality for all. I need you to fight with me and help me learn. Together we can change both politics and culture and ensure that black lives matter.”

...

I care about Sanders’s candidacy because I deeply believe in the need for a strong political left in America. So do the Black Lives Matter activists—and they are rightly demanding not to be written out of it. Sanders represents a kind of left-wing-of-the-possible in American politics; if he can’t even earnestly address the mind-bendingly huge number of black people killed by police and in police custody, then that means the issue is off the table in mainstream politics.

One assumption I heard from critics is that people who care about the criminal-justice system, policing practices, and structural racism shouldn’t be protesting Sanders—they should be embracing him. And yet, if he’s already there, why couldn’t he say so on stage? And if he’s not, can you blame the Black Lives Matter movement for feeling that they’re not completely welcome in the progressive movement?

...

The Black Lives Matter agenda is not the only issue of moral urgency, but it most certainly is one of them. All progressives should applaud activists who took the opportunity to push it forward.

It’s easy to laud the suffragists who tied themselves to the White House or the Freedom Riders who boarded buses headed South. Let’s not forget that those were unpopular actions once but time has borne them out. Confrontational actions can be a vital component of making change. Imagine our nation in 50 years. Isn’t there a that chance that a confrontational movement to end police brutality and the prison industrial complex might look pretty wise over the long run? I think so.

A friend said it brilliantly on social media: “If you ever wondered what you would do in the civil rights movement, stop wondering. It is the civil rights movement. What are you doing?”

Sanders cited his own history in the civil-rights movement of the 1960s from the stage. But I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that Ferguson and Staten Island and Baltimore and Milwaukee and Charleston have proven that the work of the civil-rights movement is not complete, that there is much more change needed to ensure black lives are accorded the dignity and value that are more universally given to white lives.

So let’s give this generation of activists the benefit of the doubt. If one tactic doesn’t work, let the leaders of that movement evaluate it and pick a different one. But it is nonsensical to condemn an action that is so clearly located in the tradition of the transformative successes in America, on civil rights and essentially every other issues.

I often think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Today it seems that there are still a lot of people out there who support the goals but deplore the tactics, or who seem willing to set a timetable for another person’s freedom.