• 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.
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Incognito said:
doesnt matter. remarkably, the base thinks Foxnews has gone establishment. it's all about newsmax tv and various other right wing subterranean news outlets for the kool aid drinkers

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-trump-supporters-20150825-story.html

luntz looking for a check....
Click to expand...

It's not just that. There was an interview with Luntz a while back when he was already expressing worry at the degree of polarization that (he saw) was taking hold of the electorate. Thing is, at the time, he blamed that on the democrats. Now, with Trump doing his thing, he's being forced to reevaluate his position.

Luntz is no abject fool. It's just that he's seeing his worst fears become concrete. From his point of view, anyway. That there be a strong prism.

Here's the interview i had in mind. From last year.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
GOP Establishment must feel stupid for actually believing another Bush was the answer in 2016.

But Bush needs to last long enough to crush Kasich. Can't risk him coming out on top.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Jack Remington said:
The Freedom of Information Act is a real pain in the ass, it seems. Probably never should have been enacted.
Click to expand...

LOL didn't you say the other day any questions about he emails from democrats was treason?

Its a good law, but reports often get high and mighty when it takes a long time to get stuff, especially when they make requests like "anything pertaining to the employment of huma". That's a really hard thing to find in addition to doing all the other stuff that the government needs to do to function.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
N

NeoXChaos

Member
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/25/hillary-vs-biden-would-get-ugly-fast.html

Why? Three reasons. The first has to do with race and gender and history. When Clinton announced in 2007, she was going to be the first woman president. Then Obama got in, and he was going to be the first black president. He totally trumped her on the history-maker scale. I realize not everyone saw it that way, but in general terms, given the, ah, special racial history of this country, and given the role the Democratic Party played in changing that history for the better, Obama had the larger and more morally urgent historical claim to make in the minds of most Democrats and liberals. The woman would have to wait, as women so often do.

Well, she’s waited. Not that she had any choice in the matter, but she did. And now, to a lot of Democrats, it’s her turn. The party can make history twice in a row. Imagine!

So now, an old white guy is going to saunter in and step on that? And if he’s going to do it, he’s not going to be able to do it politely, which brings us to reason number two why this would get ugly. Biden is not going to get anywhere with a campaign that says: “I have better ideas than Hillary Clinton does,” because he probably doesn’t, and she has perfectly fine and laudable ideas, even if a lot of liberals don’t want to admit that yet.

No. He’s going to have to run a campaign that says, sub rosa: “I’m a stronger and safer nominee because she’s corrupt.” Because that’s the only argument, is it not? He can’t out-populist her, really, even with Warren promoting him—he’s been in politics for 40 years and he’s always been a pretty conventional establishment liberal on economics. He can maybe say he has more experience, but she’s got plenty of that, and it’s not a deficiency; it would be like Tim Duncan saying “I have more experience than LeBron James.” Yeah, you do. So what?

And if he goes for the jugular, the Clinton team will surely respond in kind. They’re not wallflowers, those folks. They know how to fight. And they’d be fighting on behalf of the millions of Democratic women out there for whom it’s Clinton’s time. That’s her emotional rationale. But Biden has an emotional rationale, too: Beau. Where women will be protective of Hillary, Biden’s backers will be protective of him, too, because of his war hero son’s death.

That’s a long fight, and it brings us to our third reason why this would be worse than 2008. The media would be rooting for and trying to foment Democratic chaos every step of the way. Of 2008, I do think it’s fair to say that the press liked Obama and kinda wanted to see him win, for the historical reasons noted above. “America Elects First Black President” was the best of the possible story lines on offer and it made (most) people feel good about the country. Well, today, the media want to see Clinton lose, it’s pretty obvious, and so they’d do everything they could to promote Biden and turn the campaign into all-out war. And in contrast, the press likes Biden, and reporters will cut him lots of slack and lash into her for daring to attack Biden after the personal tragedy he’s suffered.
Click to expand...
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Y2Kev said:
Probably overstated. If he's got 120 million or whatever from the first half of the year, how much more does he really need to raise right now? He can ad blast the shit out of everyone and still have 50 million to spend.

Rick Perry is jealous.
Click to expand...

But most of it was in Super PAC money. I guess one of the problems with being so extremely dependent on the mega donors is that you're still limited when it comes to contributions to your campaign. Below is the list of contributions to the candidates themselves through June 30th.

ZFgz8lb.png


Jeb Bush is flying all around the country in a private jet to do a new interview or speech in a new state every day. I have to imagine he's blowing through money way faster than Perry just doing that. Trump is doing the same but all that is coming out of his own pocket.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
thepotatoman said:
But most of it was in Super PAC money. I guess one of the problems with being so extremely dependent on the mega donors is that you're still limited when it comes to contributions to your campaign. Below is the list of contributions to the candidates themselves through June 30th.

ZFgz8lb.png
Click to expand...

Really shows how little true support a lot of these people have. Cruz is doing well and is running a grassroots campaign but Jeb's 11mil proves without a shadow of a doubt that very few regular people give a fuck about him.

Carson's number are impressive given that he's a "fringe" candidate.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
thepotatoman said:
But most of it was in Super PAC money. I guess one of the problems with being so extremely dependent on the mega donors is that you're still limited when it comes to contributions to your campaign. Below is the list of contributions to the candidates themselves through June 30th.
Click to expand...

Showing what candidates raise outside of their SuperPAC is completely misleading in 2015. Its like judging Trump's income based on his W2s.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
thepotatoman said:
But most of it was in Super PAC money. I guess one of the problems with being so extremely dependent on the mega donors is that you're still limited when it comes to contributions to your campaign. Below is the list of contributions to the candidates themselves through June 30th.

ZFgz8lb.png


Jeb Bush is flying all around the country in a private jet to do a new interview or speech in a new state every day. I have to imagine he's blowing through money way faster than Perry just doing that. Trump is doing the same but all that is coming out of his own pocket.
Click to expand...
Where's Chris Christie?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Romney only had 1 gaffe in the primary election his entire campaign that Obama could use. That was the self-deportation line.

(no, the 47% doesn't count because that was thought to be in private, not in public)

Jeb! has one every day. hillary will just run his quotes against Asians, women, hispanics, etc all fucking April-Convention and the election will be over.
Click to expand...
Yeah christ I really hope he's the nominee. He's a complete disaster.
 
P

Pizza Booty

Banned
thepotatoman said:
But most of it was in Super PAC money. I guess one of the problems with being so extremely dependent on the mega donors is that you're still limited when it comes to contributions to your campaign. Below is the list of contributions to the candidates themselves through June 30th.

ZFgz8lb.png


Jeb Bush is flying all around the country in a private jet to do a new interview or speech in a new state every day. I have to imagine he's blowing through money way faster than Perry just doing that. Trump is doing the same but all that is coming out of his own pocket.
Click to expand...

frightening so many people would give money to ted cruz. he's huckabee tier.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
After seeing that story saying Jeb! signed into law something that would force women putting children up for adoption to put their names and info in the newspaper, I no longer feared Jeb! If Clinton or whoever the nominee is doesn't hammer the ever-loving shit out of him for that one....
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
While Planned Parenthood's spin on 3% abortion services is bullshit (google fungibility) the basic point should be that the vast majority of their funds and aim don't go towards abortion. Most of what they do relates to healthcare services, and not just for women (as I can unfortunately attest to thanks to my ex).

Jeb isn't going to die on a hill to attack Planned Parenthood, as Cruz and congress republicans would, but he's still looking like an idiot.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
RDreamer said:
After seeing that story saying Jeb! signed into law something that would force women putting children up for adoption to put their names and info in the newspaper, I no longer feared Jeb! If Clinton or whoever the nominee is doesn't hammer the ever-loving shit out of him for that one....
Click to expand...
she has to know about this. Everybody I've talked to about this was horrified. An ad on it would do some real destruction.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
RDreamer said:
After seeing that story saying Jeb! signed into law something that would force women putting children up for adoption to put their names and info in the newspaper, I no longer feared Jeb! If Clinton or whoever the nominee is doesn't hammer the ever-loving shit out of him for that one....
Click to expand...

NYCmestfan where are you? You should be giving them the nukes on Jeb.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Roland_Gunner said:
Showing what candidates raise outside of their SuperPAC is completely misleading in 2015. Its like judging Trump's income based on his W2s.
Click to expand...

When we're talking about Jeb having to ask his employees to make sacrifices, it's completely relevant. Super PAC money is very important, but you still need your actual candidate be able to travel around and have advisors and researchers tell him what to say.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
Showing what candidates raise outside of their SuperPAC is completely misleading in 2015. Its like judging Trump's income based on his W2s.
Click to expand...

Well, it's important to note that campaign money gets preferential treatment (political campaigns are guaranteed the lowest rate for TV ads, for example) that superPAC money does not. This is one reason all that superPAC money in 2012 had much less effect than people were concerned about -- the effective rate of return was comparatively low because of added costs and middlemen. Not to mention the diminishing returns of huge stacks of cash in the first place.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
For the first time in more than 50 years of surveys, the CDC on Wednesday reported that more than 90% of Americans — 90.8% of us, to be specific — have health insurance.

Until now, no major survey had ever found that the uninsured rate in America has hit single digits.

The data comes from the National Health Interview Survey, which the CDC and the Census Bureau have been conducting for more than 50 years. The questions have sometimes changed, but until this year, the answers haven’t: More than 10% of respondents, and sometimes as many as 18% of Americans, have reported that they’ve been uninsured.

CDCUninsured.png


The clear factor is the Affordable Care Act’s push for coverage expansion, which kicked in almost two years ago. I spoke about the ACA’s role with several experts back in June, and you can easily see the law’s effects on the chart.

Nearly 16 million fewer Americans were uninsured in early 2015 compared to 2013.

And based on past precedent, there’s every expectation that the uninsured rate will continue to go down as enrollment in the ACA exchanges and Medicaid keeps going up.

For example, the CDC issues data on the uninsured rate throughout the year, and Wednesday’s results are based on surveys conducted between January and March of 2015. (Since it’s not full-year data, CDC calls it their early release program.) And last year’s equivalent early-release report, which surveyed Americans between January and March 2014, found that 13.1% of Americans were uninsured at the time. But after a full year’s worth of 2014 data, the number of uninsured was down to 11.5%.
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiam...rst-time-americas-uninsured-rate-is-below-10/

Gonna collapse under its own weight any day now!
 
P

PlayALLtheGames

Banned
What I find amusing about this Trump-Kelly thing is, first, that he starts shit with her as soon as she comes back. Second, that all of a sudden so many conservatives are sensitive to some Twitter remarks. These people are constantly talking about how we're too PC a culture and too soft but when their precious Megyn Kelly is insulted, then it's too far. I mean, to be fair, he didn't even call her a bimbo; just retweeted someone doing it. But third, I'm amazed how many conservatives have abandoned Kelly and FOX News and are on Trump's side. Free Republic is even crazier than FOX News, but reading some of the shit there now you'd think it were liberals talking about the channel with all the insults at Kelly, other hosts, Ailes, Murdoch, etc.

This infighting is just amazing to watch.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/jeb-bush-visita-la-frontera.html?smid=tw-share

Jeb Bush went to the border town of McAllen, Tex., on Monday to raise money and to talk about immigration, in English and fluent Spanish. Because the Republican presidential campaign has been so fixated on border security and the immigrant peril — thank you, Donald Trump — it was a chance to see how the supposed expert on this fraught subject handled it.

Short version: He was awful.

In less than 15 minutes, Mr. Bush managed to step on his message, to give Mr. Trump a boost, and to offend Asian-Americans, a growing population that is every bit as important as Latinos in winning presidential elections. And he failed to give Latino voters any persuasive evidence that he had anything better to offer them than his opponents in a revoltingly xenophobic Republican campaign.

It may be time to offer this forlorn candidate some free advice. Although if he really is the smarter Bush, he knows these things already:

1.) He should never let himself say the words “anchor babies” ever again. He got in trouble for using that derogatory reference to the children of unauthorized immigrants in passing, in an interview, then dug himself a hole by defending his use of it. On Monday, he dug deeper. He tried to explain that he had been talking about “Asian people” who arrive on tourist visas through organized schemes to give birth to American babies on American soil.

Though the phenomenon is real, Mr. Bush was blasted by Asian-American groups for repeating the slur. And, astoundingly, he handed Mr. Trump the opportunity to send out tweets like this: In a clumsy move to get out of his “anchor babies” dilemma, where he signed that he would not use the term and now uses it, he blamed ASIANS.

It was such an unnecessary battle to wade into – maternity tourism is not what Mr. Trump and his enablers on the restrictionist right are talking about. When they say “anchor babies,” they are talking about the browning of America, with its growing Latino population, and recasting it as a sinister plot by child-rearing Mexicans. They want to upend the 14thAmendment, and the country’s family-based immigration laws, to keep the population as white as can be. Maternity tourism by middle-class foreigners is a separate, much smaller issue; changing the Constitution to stop it, as one immigrant rights advocate once put it, is like killing a fly with an Uzi.

2.) He should lighten up. Mr. Bush probably wants to come across as a happy warrior, but he’s a testy and peevish one, and pedantic, to boot. “If he’s interested in a more comprehensive approach” to immigration, Mr. Bush said of Mr. Trump, “he might want to read my book.” As reporters kept baiting him with he-said-this-what-do-you-say questions, his exasperation overflowed. Hence the Asian quagmire.

3.) His campaign should get better at stage-managing press events. This one, at a Mexican restaurant, was weirdly free form, with kids yelling and assorted invitees mumbling at the microphone. The grim, adobe-and-stucco backdrop was like a Spanish colonial dungeon; it looked as if the grim-faced Mr. Bush had come to announce the arrest of Zorro.

4.) When he does choose to tell the truth, he should find a more persuasive way to do it. On Monday, he attacked the Trump immigration plan, which centers on building a Great Wall of Mexico and forcing millions of people to the other side of it. “It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars,” Mr. Bush said, as well as “violate people’s civil liberties” and “create friction with our third-largest trading partner.” That is a fair reading of what Mr. Trump wants. But to win the nomination, Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters, who probably don’t care about trade friction with rapist-killer exporting countries, or the cost of a border wall. Mr. Bush may have better ideas, but they have to cut through the fog of Trump.

It’s commonly believed that Republicans are sealing their general-election doom with all this hating on immigrants. If anyone could avoid that fate, it should be someone like Jeb Bush, born in Midland, Tex., and reared in Houston, with a Latina wife, Latino children and flawless command of Spanish. Even as Mr. Trump rages and bellows, there should be room for a Republican to send a message that most American voters, who are moderate on immigration, will hear. But for all his paper qualifications, Mr. Bush has been angering to many, boring to many others, inspiring to none. And then he goes and gets lectured on ethnic sensitivity by Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
C

ctothej

Member
Just a thought: what if Clinton picked Sanders as VP? I think it would help bridge the gap between the two wings of the party. I know you typically pick someone from a battleground state, but I'm worried a Clinton + Establishment Candidate ticket would lead to low turnout from an unexcited base.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
NeoXChaos said:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/25/hillary-vs-biden-would-get-ugly-fast.html
Click to expand...

Not really buying this article's argument. It seems like the entire thing hinges on "Biden can't run on better ideas, so he'll have to attack her corruption" which I don't think is entirely convincing. Considering that the argument seems to rely entirely on this point, the article spends little time justifying it. Saying "he probably doesn't have good ideas" and "liberals just don't realize Hillary has good ideas" are not enough. It doesn't matter if liberals don't recognize Hillary's good ideas. This isn't a good ideas contest, it's an election. You can't say Biden has worse ideas and that ends the argument. You need to show Biden would get less votes. Until the author can show some correlation between having good ideas and getting lots of votes, I'm not convinced.

However, since he's polling lower than she is, that's pretty good evidence that he wouldn't beat her. Not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion of the article. Just the arguments.
 
H

Hopfrog

Member
ctothej said:
Just a thought: what if Clinton picked Sanders as VP? I think it would help bridge the gap between the two wings of the party. I know you typically pick someone from a battleground state, but I'm worried a Clinton + Establishment Candidate ticket would lead to low turnout from an unexcited base.
Click to expand...

But would Sanders supporters see this as co-opting their agenda? Also, *insert John Nance Garner quote*
 
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