• 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.
Why would she be running worse than Obama in the "white" states? I guess I don't understand that. Because fewer non-white voters are polling for her?
Obama's approval ratings in IA and NH are weaker there than they are nationally for a start, so that's dragging down any Democratic candidate in those states. But judging by by the 2008 primaries although she ran stronger than Obama with whites in the South and Appalachia she's always struggled competitively with whites (particularly white men) in the West/Mid West. Bill Clinton was never that strong in those places either. He' d have likely lost NV and CO (though still won elsewhere) without Perot.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
After they spent so long attacking Reid for not getting anything done while ignoring the filibuster that caused that situation, I'm not exactly sympathetic for McConnell starting to be attacked for the same thing.

Gingrich got a whole lot done despite the senate not being filibuster proof or having the presidency, but I guess the party's platform isn't nearly as popular as it was then, and democrats are a whole lot more cohesive than they were then.
 
Gingrich got a whole lot done despite the senate not being filibuster proof or having the presidency, but I guess the party's platform isn't nearly as popular as it was then, and democrats are a whole lot more cohesive than they were then.

Filibustering all the things is a relatively new concept for the senate. It used to be a very rare and temporary measure before the late 90s and oughts polarized the Senate into two almost completely homogenous groups.
 
PPP says Blunt's numbers are worse than Portman, Toomey and Ayotte, who are all accepted to be vulnerable.

Who knows, maybe Hillary could target it. It's historically been a swing state, Obama barely lost it in 2008, he just decided not to contest it in 2012. Perhaps a new candidate could swing it back.

Romney gained only 37k voters over McCain in Missouri. Obama lost nearly 200k. It's non-competitiveness was due to a lack of a turnout operation, not a decisive swing against the Democrats. It's similar to Georgia where Obama only lost a point despite not campaigning there.

The 2012 Senate election, a resounding smackdown of anti-abortion nuttiness shows they're not yet in the same league as say, Arkansas.
 

dramatis

Member
And, yes, it is hilarious to read his web page with the Trump quote extension running.

Edit: Fuck it, I'm making the thread.
You want to make a thread for this too?
https://marcorubio.com/human-life-wont-become-a-donkey-or-a-cat/
oS05aU1.jpg
I found it quite by accident on Rubio's campaign site.

This is what they think will have traction on the internet.
 
People keep trying to draw comparisons to last election on the GOP side. Trying to find out which candidate is the Romney of 2016. A lot of people say Bush is the Romney, but it's debated because he sucks so much and has never been the frontrunner. But what if Hillary is the Romney this time? Accepted by the establishment of the party, loathed by the wings. The more radical members jump from alternative to alternative (Warren! No? Bernie! No? Biden! No? ...) as the establishment pick maintains a constant position in the polls.

Obviously, no comparison is 100%, but it's just a thought.
 
I'm really confused on what point he's trying to make there

It is a straw man argument. The argument is this: a human egg fertilized by sperm can only eventually become a born human person. It can't ever become a cat or a horse. Since it only can become a human person, the fertilized egg is therefore a person!

But it is a strawman argument because abortion isn't a scientific question. It is a legal question. The question is "When does fetus get full human rights protection?" Roe v. Wade kinda sets out the parameters for now. I'm happy with what Roe v. Wade delineates even though the legal reasoning is a bit dodgy. (Dat "penumbra" of rights.)

But the hardcore conservative position is that you are a human with full rights as conception (egg fertilized by sperm). I think that is a silly demarcation line. If I spooge onto a Petri dish with a human egg on it and then throw it away, did I create and then murder a human? Conservative position would seem to be: yes! That seems silly.
 
Filibustering all the things is a relatively new concept for the senate. It used to be a very rare and temporary measure before the late 90s and oughts polarized the Senate into two almost completely homogenous groups.

Medicare Part D passed 54-46. There WAS a cloture vote required at one point, but I believe there was only one, and it was seen as a pretty significant action at the time. Then 6 senators who voted to move the hell on with debate were perfectly happy to vote against the bill.

Can you imagine anything like that happening today? It seems like something out of a completely different universe. We've been in uncharted looney-bin levels of dysfunction since Republicans lost the 2008 election.

And this wasn't even some ancient Grover Cleveland shit. I was in college when this happened, and I've only just entered my 30s. Most of us can clearly remember a time when government basically worked.
 
Can you imagine anything like that happening today? It seems like something out of a completely different universe. We've been in uncharted looney-bin levels of dysfunction since Republicans lost the 2008 election.

And I can't help but think at times that it is because we have a black president. They just took the "block EVERYTHING he tries to do" approach. Perhaps the country was not ready yet. Yes, most of the country was ready but part of it was not ready and tried to block everything.

I hope that sentiment is wrong. But I can't help thinking it. Then again maybe it would be good if I am right . . . that way when Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or whoever white takes over, things might go back to normal a bit. :-/
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
And I can't help but think at times that it is because we have a black president. They just took the "block EVERYTHING he tries to do" approach. Perhaps the country was not ready yet. Yes, most of the country was ready but part of it was not ready and tried to block everything.

I hope that sentiment is wrong. But I can't help thinking it. Then again maybe it would be good if I am right . . . that way when Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or whoever white takes over, things might go back to normal a bit. :-/

It's partly because a large segment of the population wasn't ready, but the shift in demographics, coupled with the GOP's dire electoral future, also played a big role. Were they confident that they could win back the presidency I doubt they'd have gone off the deep end, well as far off the deep end.
 
I hope that sentiment is wrong. But I can't help thinking it. Then again maybe it would be good if I am right . . . that way when Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or whoever white takes over, things might go back to normal a bit. :-/

I have a hard time believing that a party drawing 20 - 30% of its support from people who think Donald Trump should be President will return to normal any time in the near future.
 
that way when Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or whoever white takes over, things might go back to normal a bit. :-/

Seems unlikely. Going by a (faulty) parallel to european politics, i'd venture a guess that the Republican party fracturing for the purpose of continuing to take congress, and forming a coalition for presidential elections, seems far more likely. Allows one to retain-but-sorta-not-really the crazy vote.

I mean, dudes pretty much learned that radical polarization has its benefits. They aint likely to try to completely ditch that method any time soon.

Then again, you all have been rocking the two party thing for so long that maybe not.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Welp, the Donald had a good run:

TRUMP: I would look at the individual things that they do, and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe, I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.

CNN: So you would take a look at it before you’d defund it. That’s what’s being asked right now. Many in your party are doing the opposite. They’re saying defund it, and then look at it. You’re saying look at it first.

TRUMP: I would look at the good aspects of it. I’m sure they do some things properly and good and good for women. And I would look at that.

Read more at http://wonkette.com/592797/relax-la...hood-treat-your-wherevers#XJyUKImeSfXiwTd1.99

I've been saying for months that as clownish as Trump appears, he's way more moderate than any of the mouthbreathers he was debating with last week.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Underneath the bluster and racism and sexism is a relatively moderate businessman better equipped to challenge Hillary on her strongest territory than any other candidate.
 
Won't hurt him.

I suspect the number of people who care about Planned Parenthood as much as the congressional Republicans trying to shut down the government over it is pretty limited to the congressional Republicans trying to shut down the government over it.
 

RDreamer

Member

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Won't hurt him.

I suspect the number of people who care about Planned Parenthood as much as the congressional Republicans trying to shut down the government over it is pretty limited to the congressional Republicans trying to shut down the government over it.

Yep, this isn't going to do any damage.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Yep. Exactly. He was easily the least dangerous of any of those people on stage last week.

Yeah, that is the conclusion I came to as well. I know I can't stand the policies of most of those GOP candidates. And sure, Trump is a buffoon. But it is hard to say that I don't like his policies since I don't know what they are. And I know he has at least been moderate & pragmatic in the past. Thus, I'd take a gamble on him over Bush, Cruz, Walker, Carson, Huckabee, etc.


And whole situation continues to be mind-bending. All these conservatives keep backing him because "He says what he means!" . . . does he really though? Or is he just saying what he knows you want to hear him say? He contradicts himself a LOT.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Yeah, that is the conclusion I came to as well. I know I can't stand the policies of most of those GOP candidates. And sure, Trump is a buffoon. But it is hard to say that I don't like his policies since I don't know what they are. And I know he has at least been moderate & pragmatic in the past. Thus, I'd take a gamble on him over Bush, Cruz, Walker, Carson, Huckabee, etc.


And whole situation continues to be mind-bending. All these conservatives keep backing him because "He says what he means!" . . . does he really though? Or is he just saying what he knows you want to hear him say? He contradicts himself a LOT.

Pretty much. It's a roll of the dice. Consider a scale of 1-10, with 10 being most conservative and 1 being most liberal.

With all of the other candidates, you know you're going to get someone who pushes policies on the 8-10 part of the scale.

With Trump, we've heard everything from 2-9. He could end-up governing as a 5. He could revert back even further to his liberal roots - some positions he'd held for years - and govern as a 3. Or we could get snake-eyes and have him govern as an 8 or 9.

If I had to pick one GOP candidate to be the nominee, it'd be him. I'd be willing to take that gamble. Who knows? Maybe he'd give us Kennedy or O'Connor-like SCOTUS appointees. They'd be preferable to Scalia clones that the others would surely appoint.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I question whether and how Trump foreign policy would work past all that bluster, though. I mean, how does he handle Iran? North Korea? Mexico? Cuba? The entire middle east?

What's his policy on nuclear containment? NATO requirements?
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Trump is no Frontrunner although:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/11/what_to_make_of_trumps_candidacy_127737.html

As I’ve written previously, one of the interesting things about a 17-person field is that we could end up with multiple candidates winning the early contests, going forward into Super Tuesday, and entering the home stretch of primaries with the delegates split among them.

Which brings us to what I think is the most interesting thing about Trump. Let’s say Republicans approach the convention with no candidate near a majority of delegates, and with Trump holding, say, 20 percent of the counts. If you prefer, give him a plurality.

At that point, the Republican nomination will be matter of negotiation. Whatever else you want to say about Trump, he’s an effective negotiator. That, I suspect, is why he hasn’t ruled out a third party bid. Why would he? It’s his trump card, so to speak, in those sorts of discussions. This is where Trump is probably at his most interesting: If the field stays crowded, and if the delegates are badly fractured for the convention.

So what do you do with Trump? The main thing is simply to remember where we are in the process. For most voters, it is still very early in the season. Many haven’t been tuned in, aren’t really making up their minds, and are free to make comments about candidates they support without giving other alternatives a close look. From now until December or so, I’d counsel simply kicking back, and enjoying the show
 
I question whether and how Donald "You won't see another black president for generations" Trump foreign policy would work past all that bluster, though. I mean, how does he handle Iran? North Korea? Mexico? Cuba? The entire middle east?

What's his policy on nuclear containment? NATO requirements?

He calls them looosers and clowns and then gives them a stone cold stunner.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...illary-clinton-2016-event-121269.html?hp=l2_4

Hillary Clinton met with five Black Lives Matter activists behind closed doors following her campaign event here on Tuesday evening, after the group tried to disrupt the forum but arrived too late to get past security.

The group – affiliated with Black Lives Matter organizations in the Boston area — told reporters afterwards that they asked Clinton about “her and her family’s history with the war on drugs both at home and abroad, and how she felt about her involvement in that violence that has been perpetuated, especially against communities of color and against black folks,” said Daunasia Yancey. “We wanted to know her reflections on her involvement as first lady, as senator, and as secretary of state.”

Clinton’s response, which they declined to detail, was not a reflection on “her part in perpetuating white supremacist violence,” Yancey said. “I heard a reflection on failed policy.”

“She did acknowledge that there have been policies that she has been part of promoting that have not worked,” Yancey added, without detailing which policies specifically she meant.

I guess there goes that conspiracy about BLM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom