• 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.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Have you not seen her "mistrust" figures go up?

Its not that they believe the story is that they associate clinton with all these scandels that even though they're not following form a picture and association
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
So I assume she used the normal state department email when she was actually dealing with '"at-that-time known-to-be classified' materials? Because as I understand it, the hubbub is purely because emails are being retroactively deemed classified to preclude their disclosure. At the time of everything actually happening though, no one thought they were classified or that they should be classified?

Or is the implication that someone *should* have marked them as classified at the time and that Hillary, not seeing a classified demarcation where it should have been, mistakenly sent them on the private account? I would think even the latter would only be a problem if the subject matter was obviously supposed to be classified such that she should have known despite the absence of a label/tag.

Obviously the use of separate emails in this manner greatly increases the risk of such mistakes, so that is rightfully another reason to rebuke her for the whole private email fiasco.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Saw that OT Hillary thread and it had me thinking:

If Hillary beats Bernie badly in the primary(for the sake of argument 50 state landslide) was the primary challenge really worth it?

Would a coronation have been any worse?
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Saw that OT Hillary thread and it had me thinking:

If Hillary beats Bernie badly in the primary(for the sake of argument 50 state landslide) was the primary challenge really worth it?

Would a coronation have been any worse?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the question. Bernie is not her only challenger and it probably would not bode well with the idea of democracy.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Black Mamba said:
Dude was committed into an institution for mental instability by force and still legally bought a gun soon after release.

The NRA has run up the score.

Meanwhile the NY likely makeup the Clinton story in a hit piece. Newer info.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
Click to expand...

So they NYT is trying to cook up a faux scandal so the GOP doesn't look quite as crazy?

Lol. Hillary is staying quiet and somewhat out of the spotlight and letting the GOP cannabilize itself and it is working. Lol
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
To be fair, i don't even quite grasp why your parties hold primaries. Sure, you get what's (in theory) a two-step somewhat democratic process, but in states that ask for one to register in order to vote at one, you also give up your voter anonymity. Can't quite see why it would be a flat-out better system than the party leaders simply deciding on who they will run.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Coriolanus said:
To be fair, i don't even quite grasp why your parties hold primaries. Sure, you get what's (in theory) a two-step somewhat democratic process, but in states that ask for one to register in order to vote at one, you also give up your voter anonymity. Can't quite see why it would be a flat-out better system than the party leaders simply deciding on who they will run.
Click to expand...

Like most pro-democracy political systems, it's not flat-out better, just harder to abuse.
 
J

Jooney

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Now confirmed with you being wrong!!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55b2ba13e4b0224d8832646a?



But yes. Nothing could've been done to prevent this.
Click to expand...

Three mass shootings in the past month or so; two of which could likely have been prevented based on authorities acting on existing gun laws. Mental health can only go so far. Other institutions have to catch up.

NRA will stay willing until the moment that the broad but shallow support for gun control can be turned into electoral success. Good luck with that though.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
So right now (latest polls):

Iowa:

Walker - 18
Carson - 10
Trump - 10

New Hampshire:

Jeb - 16
Trump - 11
Rand - 9

South Carolina:

Graham - 14
Carson - 12
Jeb - 11

Nevada:

Trump - 28
Walker - 15
Carson - 8

In 2012, Iowa awarded 22 delegates, New Hampshire 12, South Carolina 25, Nevada 28. That would put Walker, Trump, and sort of Bush into a good spot for Super Tuesday. I also don't see Graham winning South Carolina by then.

Super Tuesday is, at the moment:

Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado caucuses
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota caucuses
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Coriolanus said:
To be fair, i don't even quite grasp why your parties hold primaries. Sure, you get what's (in theory) a two-step somewhat democratic process, but in states that ask for one to register in order to vote at one, you also give up your voter anonymity. Can't quite see why it would be a flat-out better system than the party leaders simply deciding on who they will run.
Click to expand...
It comes from the progressive era. Parties were really bad with being insular, full of patronage and this lead to oligarchic practices (which are still around in different forms). The idea was to have people run the parties not unaccountable party leaders. I don't know why anyone is really opposed
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Preliminary bet. My guess on who will finish in the top three in each early state...

Iowa: Walker, Cruz, Huckabee

NH: dunno

SC: Cruz, Walker, Huckabee

NV: Walker, Cruz, Trump

Walker is dominating in Iowa right now, as the media focuses on Trump. He's on the ground and running, as I predicted. He's also impressing folks. Meanwhile Cruz and Huckabee will further split evangelical votes.

I don't know what to think about NH yet. In general I tend to doubt Bush will do well anywhere early, especially once the debates start. Still NH could be his state. Meanwhile Walker has apparently pissed off folks there by not having much of a presence in the state or courting insiders. If he wins big in Iowa it could give him some momentum in NH though.

South Carolina will be ugly. The flag will be an issue and we'll really get a good look at the republican party's id. I think Cruz or Walker will come out on top. Rick Perry could also make a comeback here.

Nevada: If Trump is going to do well anywhere it's here IMO. Ultimately I expect Walker and Cruz to once again fight it out.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
NeoXChaos said:
.
Click to expand...

That's a really perfect example of what's known as a descending channel. 2006 and 2014 midterms proved short term absolute highs of white turnout at that time. Getting a higher white turnout than that at that time would be hard. It's also hard to imagine the white share being any lower than Obama's run in 2008 and 2012.

However, there's obviously a long term trend of the white share going lower. The highs are getting lower and the lows are getting lower. The interesting thing about this is that both the highs and the lows are decreasing at the exact same rate, because it doesn't matter if it's 2012 or 2014, demographics overall are changing just the same.

This can be demonstrated by drawing a line along the highs and lows like so.
VIyOyaj.png


The fact that the short term highs and lows are decreasing at the same exact rate, shown by the perfectly parallel lines, gives you the impression that it's not just statistical noise but a very measurable long term trend.

Probably a more useful trick when the long term trend isn't as easy to see like in the stock market, but you can still use it to say that the 2016 white turnout will probably be between 72% and 76%, assuming the demographic trend is still continuing at the same pace and the fundamentals of the individual election isn't more extreme than the 2008 or 2014 elections on either side, which I think are very reasonable assumptions. And you can expect another 1% point drop on each end every election until the trend changes.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
N

NeoXChaos

Member
http://time.com/3972001/donald-trump-third-party/

Yet, his advisers tell TIME, he is still considering a potential third-party bid. His advisers are consulting with veterans of Ross Perot’s 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns and examining state-by-state requirements to get on the ballot. Cost estimates swing wildly, but most conversations end up in the $10 million ballpark—a fraction of what Trump might spend on a bid for the GOP nomination that is hardly certain.
Click to expand...

Going the third-party route, however, would require Trump to concede the GOP nomination is beyond his grip—something that, for the moment, is not the case. If his polling slides in the coming months, however, the third-party route could be tempting if he can stomach the decision. “He would have to say to himself that he can’t win. And when has Mr. Trump ever done that?” said an adviser to one of Trump’s rivals.
Click to expand...



If anyone answers your telephone tell the pollster you are voting for Trump.
 
T

Trouble

Banned
Oh boy, oh boy!

I really want Trump to run 3rd party just to see what the EV map looks like.

I also wonder what kind of effect it would have on down ticket races. I would assume that Trump voters will largely go straight R across the ballot. I also doubt it would have much impact as I don't feel like Trump will bring out that many people who wouldn't have voted otherwise.
 
D

Diablos

Member
If Trump goes third party he won't get shit. Wall Street won't let it happen, neither will the two party system and the way it drowns out everything else.
 
P

Piecake

Member
I really like Hilary bringing up 'quarterly capitalism'

If she can start to change business's extreme short-term thinking and obsession on their quarterly stock price to an outlook that looks more into the future and sustainable development then I think that would be huge. Not totally sure if she can, but I do like the attention on it because I think it is a serious problem.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
diablos%20gif%202_zpsttzledeb.gif
Click to expand...

This GIF is so good and will get great use next year. Especially with polls showing Hillary down.


fik0zsrbg0yksldxkjp9pa.png


She is practically teflon for Democrats. An 80% favoribility rating among Liberals is impressive. Her opponents have to find a way to take her down. Playing nice isn't going to cut into her numbers. Time to go negative O'Malley, Webb & Chafee.
 
T

titiklabingapat

Member
With that Time article, I'm pretty convinced Trump really is starting to believe he can win, or the GOP criticisms are getting to him. All these leaks mean that he really is thinking of a third party run. And he seems to be the type that if he can't win it, then no one (in this case, the GOP) can. His ego is gonna get the better of him. He'd rather be a spoiler and claim he affected something rather than outright lose.

Trump is too easy and this is too exciting!
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
My concern with trump running 3rd party is it affecting down ticket races since he and the GOP candidate will both draw from a plurality of conservative voters there might be extra turn out on that end.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I have a sneaking suspicion - just based on past statements and behaviors - that it wouldn't exactly break Trump's heart if Hillary ended-up winning. Her winning due to his entry into the race wouldn't weigh on his soul.

He's just saying this "worst Secretary of State ever"-type stuff to appeal to primary voters.
 
P

Polari

Member
Quite astonishing to see the disparity in terms of popularity on social media between Trump and the other candidates.

Trump's latest post (8 hrs ago) has 54,893 likes and 5,701 shares.

Hilary's (7 hrs ago) has 5,054 likes and 499 shares.

Jeb's (I'm being generous here as he had one an hour later which is far less popular, this one 16 hrs ago) has 2,915 likes and 458 shares.

Bernie's (8 hrs ago - there's one 4 hrs ago but this is a fairer comparison) has 5,520 likes and 824 shares.

Is Trump becoming a real grass-roots movement? He not only seems to be resonating but seems to be effective in getting his supporters to promote his message.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
This is what I get as their last three or four tweets:
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 9h9 hours ago
Via @BreitbartNews by @NolteNC: "DONALD TRUMP SURGES TO COMMANDING LEAD IN POST-MCCAIN BACKLASH POLL" http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/24/donald-trump-surges-in-post-mccain-backlash-poll/ …
View summary 817 retweets 1,329 favorites

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
Isn’t it amazing that @Macys paid a massive fine for profiling African Americans--& then criticized me for discussing illegal immigration!
1,966 retweets 3,742 favorites

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
Thank you @DennisRodman. It's time to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain! I hope you are doing well! Donald J. Trump added,
Dennis Rodman @dennisrodman
@realDonaldTrump has been a great friend for many years. We don't need another politician, we need a businessman like Mr. Trump! Trump 2016
Click to expand...
1,096 retweets 2,022 favorites
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders 5h5 hours ago
Instead of encouraging more people to vote, Republicans have passed laws to keep people away from the polls, especially low-income people.
710 retweets 1,266 favorites

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders 6h6 hours ago
Iowa's message to the billionaires: you can't continue to get huge tax breaks while children in America go hungry.
Embedded image permalink
View photo 393 retweets 769 favorites

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders 7h7 hours ago
Billionaires like the Koch brothers and others should not be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns.
494 retweets 970 favorites

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders 8h8 hours ago
This is what a rigged economic system looks like. http://bernie.to/demdaily-BankReform …
View summary 160 retweets 255 favorites
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 8h8 hours ago
We must hold Wall Street accountable. Read more from Hillary's Facebook Q&A: http://hrc.io/QandA
Embedded image permalink
View photo 269 retweets 490 favorites

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 10h10 hours ago
Equal pay, paid leave, child care—these are not "women's issues."
https://amp.twimg.com/v/ca50e251-a727-4310-a976-d5ba3c74db5d …
721 retweets 1,306 favorites

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 11h11 hours ago
Businesses need to start focusing more on long-term growth than short-term profits. Hillary's ideas:
Embedded image permalink
View photo 276 retweets 351 favorites
Click to expand...

Jeb Bush ‏@JebBush 9h9 hours ago
My new journal is up on @ijreview for #ADA25. Let's keep empowering individuals with disabilities http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07...ets-keep-empowering-individuals-disabilities/ …
View summary 56 retweets 64 favorites

Jeb Bush ‏@JebBush 15h15 hours ago
@mcuban @SyfyTV I already caught 10 minutes of it I don't know if watching more will bring additional clarity
View conversation 10 retweets 53 favorites

Jeb Bush ‏@JebBush 16h16 hours ago
Needed a quick explainer on this #Sharknado3 thing @mcuban http://jeb.cm/1TWUrxp
View media 44 retweets 105 favorites

Jeb Bush ‏@JebBush 17h17 hours ago
This is the face of evil. We need a strategy to defeat the barbarians of ISIS & protect Christians in the Middle East http://jeb.cm/1JAtDeS
View summary 125 retweets 171 favorites
Click to expand...

John Kasich ‏@JohnKasich 6h6 hours ago
Hmmm... -John

#Kasich4Us

98 retweets 123 favorites
Click to expand...

While I've got this open: https://twitter.com/cspan/lists/presidential-candidates

Followers:
Clinton - 3.93M
Trump - 3.34M
Rubio - 768K
Paul - 651K
Cruz - 438K
Carly - 381K
Santorum - 236K
Jeb! - 235K
Bernie - 184K
President Walker - 164K
Kasich - 79.2K
O'Malley - 78.9K
Pataki - 45K
TeamPerry - 37.2K
Christie - 35.3K
Lindsey - 22.8K
Webb - 11.3K
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
It's kinda crazy that an average blogger of any of the major blog sites seem to have a better social media presence than the major candidates for the presidency.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
thepotatoman said:
It's kinda crazy that an average blogger of any of the major blog sites seem to have a better social media presence than the major candidates for the presidency.
Click to expand...
I think it's crazier than anyone would follow any politician.

I mean, Trump, I get. But Chris Christie literally tweeted this:
CKtzjl-WgAAzvID.jpg
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Atlantic archives, 1979...piece on the Carter Administration and the early blunders (Carter as chief of staff, no relations with Congress, Cabinet government) that ultimately doomed it and the 1978 overhaul that came too late and led to Kennedy's challenge. Also the tendency of the Presidency to suck one into foreign policy to the ignoring of domestic policy.

Carter, who was able to learn from experience in a once-burned, twice-shy way, showed no inclination to prevent the burns by seeking associates who had been there before. Nowhere was he surer to need help than in his dealings with the Congress. His experience there was minimal, his campaign tone had been hostile, his skin crawled at the thought of the time-consuming consultations and persuasion that might be required to bring a legislator around. He did not know how congressmen talked, worked, and thought, how to pressure them without being a bully or flatter them without seeming a fool. He needed help from someone who knew all those things, who had spent time absorbing that culture. But for his congressional liaison, he chose a Georgian named Frank Moore, a man whose general aptitude was difficult for anyone outside the first circle to detect, and who had barely laid eyes upon the Capitol before Inauguration Day.
Click to expand...

And speaking of Kennedy's a mention of JFK's disastrous similar opening of his administration that's been papered over due to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Camelot Mythology.

Carter had said during the campaign that he would develop a national energy plan, and in his first fireside chat he said that James Schlesinger would come up with one within ninety days. Later, Carter came to understand that strict deadlines, while occasionally useful for prodding the bureaucracy, could also be destructive, in that they might force him to go ahead with half-baked ideas. He learned that through the example of the energy plan. Pleading urgency, Schlesinger obtained Carter's permission to work in total secrecy. Neither anyone else on the White House staff nor members of the Congress could pry information from him. For some matters, this approach made sense; there were technical answers to such questions as how much solar energy could be produced. But the major decisions about energy were political, not technical: who would bear what part of the burden, where the balance would be set between producer and consumer, the environment and fuel production. If Carter himself had no clear predisposition on questions, then any rush project should have been directed not by technicians but by politicians, who could balance the different interests, argue over deals, see just where the compromises must be made. Instead, Schlesinger developed his technically plausible energy plan in a political vacuum, submitting it to the scrutiny of Carter's other advisers and the members of Congress only after all the basic choices had been made. To Carter and Schlesinger, solving the energy problem must originally have seemed like solving a cube root. Once they had the right answer, they thought their work would be done.
Click to expand...
Carter said that all his life he had heard about tax reform, but somehow it never happened. This time it was going to happen—and we could depend on it.

As the plan took shape, Carter gave firm instructions to the Treasury; he had learned his lesson about dangers of deadlines and the need for political consultation. The deadline was delayed time and again as Carter sent the Treasury back to the drawing board. Secretary Blumenthal sent out feelers to the tax committees in Congress as Carter prepared to make final choices. But when the plan was unveiled and suffered immediate shelling from the likes of Senator Russell Long and Representative Al Ullman, Carter reacted as if this were an inexplicable development, rather than one that could have been foreseen, and prepared for, from the very start. In his talk with Nader, Carter had said that he could never sell a tax reform or a governmental reorganization if he tried to do it piecemeal, since the 5 percent of the people who would suffer from each change would be more dogged in their opposition than the 95 percent who might benefit. He seemed to forget all that when the time came to explain his tax plan to the public or sell it on Capitol Hill.
Click to expand...

The central idea of the Carter Administration is Jimmy Carter himself, his own mixture of traits, since the only thing that finally gives coherence to the items of his creed is that he happens to believe them all. Hubert Humphrey might have carried out Lyndon Johnson's domestic policies; Gerald Ford, the foreign policies of Richard Nixon. But no one could carry out the Carter program, because Carter has resisted providing the overall guidelines that might explain what his program is.

I came to think that Carter believes fifty things, but no one thing.
Click to expand...

But for the part of his job that involves leadership, Carter's style of thought cripples him. He thinks he "leads" by choosing the correct policy; but he fails to project a vision larger than the problem he is tackling at the moment.

In domestic policy, this caused frustration, since it thwarted all attempts to explain a domestic philosophy. In foreign policy, it opened the door to genuine tragedy, for it left Carter unable to defend the course he had taken. Carter did not choose the circumstances in which he operates: our dependence on foreign oil, our economic vulnerability to our allies, the resistance to military intervention left over from Vietnam. Under these difficult circumstances, he has tried to set a steady, prudent policy, keeping his eye on our real national interest, not acting out of bluff or bravado, steadfastly pursuing the things that we need and ignoring those that we don't or that we can't control. The policy should win him respect: but because Carter cannot explain what he is doing, he is an easy mark for a Moynihan or a Reagan or a Connally who can speak with passion about the decline of American power. Jimmy Carter's oratorical failures could come to discredit a "restrained" foreign policy as thoroughly as (and more tragically than) George McGovern's "demogrant" proposal discredited further inquiry into the guaranteed annual income.
Click to expand...
Carter then assembled the speech essentially by stapling Vance's memo to Brzezinski's, without examining the tensions between them. When he finished rewording the memos, the speech was done. It had an obvious break in the middle
Click to expand...
While working on the first fireside chat, I received a lecture from the President. I should not use words such as "cynical," because average people wouldn't understand them. Carter said that whenever he worked on a speech he thought of a man at a certain gas station in Georgia (not his brother). If that man couldn't understand it, it should be changed. Instead of "cynical," I should use the word "callous." "Working people understand callouses. They see their hands get hard."
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1979/05/the-passionless-presidency/308516/

Through most of my last year at the White House, I kept asking myself, Why should a man as well-meaning and intelligent as Carter blithely forgo the lessons of experience and insist on rediscovering fire, the lever, the wheel? Why not temper the fresh view he brought with the practiced knowledge of those who had passed this way before? Why, in a man whose language was peppered with "bold" and "competent" and "superb," was there so little passion to learn how to do the job?

The first clue to the solution of these questions was Carter's cast of mind: his view of problems as technical, not historical, his lack of curiosity about how the story turned out before. He wanted to analyze the "correct" answer, not to understand the intangible irrational forces that had skewed all previous answers.
Click to expand...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
benjipwns said:
Some people ask, why Joe Biden? I turn back and ask them, why not Joe Biden?
Click to expand...

Might as well share my own multi forum post. Can't break that parity clause.

When I first started playing team basketball we had half court drive drills where one kid would dribble to the basket as fast as they could and throw up a layup, while another kid trailed behind for the potential rebound/put back. If Biden runs I'm guessing he's going to be the trailing kid, waiting for the other to fuck up that wide open layup. The NY Times apparently fucked up yesterday in terms of repeating bullshit they were likely fed by ranking House republicans getting a story wrong about Hillary...but I still wouldn't rule out something eventually being revealed that damages her. Surely the establishment would rather have Biden in the wings just in case, rather than Sanders or even O'Malley.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
pigeon said:
As long as it's titled "The Coronation of Donald Trump."
Click to expand...

Actually I was thinking of a Western theme.

|Top Trumps| 2016 GOP Primary Debate #1: For a Fistful of PAC Dollars

Then for the second it would be For a Fistful of PAC Dollars More and then The Good, The Bad, and The Trump. If there's more we've also got The Ecstasy of Trump, The Ridiculous Seven (or however many are left), The Trump with No Name, and Dances with Kochs. Or I might mix the order up a bit.

EDIT: I'm going western because I got Ennio Morricone to do the music and not going western would be a waste.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
I think I'd be comfortable with phasing out welfare if there was some sort of plan behind it; like funding individual communities in the short term and handing it over to them eventually to make their own programs; even at the local level.

Conservative economics is scary to me though. Which is why I guess I'll never understand Rand Paul. Cutting corporate tax isn't going to create 20 million new jobs ever. Neither is doing away with the minimum wage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom