Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If you want an early read into what Wang and Silver models will show just look at prediction markets on predictiwse. It will be a 60/40 split with a minor Dem advantage.
-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
He's just salty that he wasn't invited on the luxurious and classy Trump yacht, like the mexicans because they're rapists and murders, and some Trump assumes are good people, but they can't come because this yacht is ultra exclusive and has amazing, really amazing, lobster dinners every night that Trump gets straight from a lobster fisherman who is his friend--because everyone loves Trump, especially the common people because he knows what it's like to be one of them, because he built his empire all by himself, from the ground up, with only a billion dollars or so from his father, and everyone knows he's a success because he eats pizza with a knife and fork since he's a classy guy and nothing like those plebes who eat it with their hands, which is obviously the wrong way to do it because if it were the right way then why aren't they all rich like Trump?
Retromelon
Member
I don't think anybody believes those numbers will hold up through a general election campaign except maybe Ben Carson.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Kasich and Bush are hated by Republicans and both have shit poll numbers, the party can help to decide, but The Establishment would have to be the only meaningful force in the entire primary process for them to get Jeb! or Kasich the nomination.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not buying the Rubio hype right now. Yes, he seems like the most likely "establishment" pick to win. But where does that put him? Down 3 to Carson, down 15 to Trump. Tracking 6th in Iowa and 7th in New Hampshire, behind Fiorina, Bush, and Cruz in addition to Trump and Carson.
At this point, Trump has to be considered the frontrunner. I'm still very skeptical he'll be the nominee. But I'm even more skeptical that it will be anyone else. There is no Romney in this race - even when he was surpassed by flavor of the month candidates, he always hung around in a firm 2nd place. When fucking joke assholes like Trump, Cruz, Fiorina and Carson add up to like 60% of the vote while the "frontrunners" (Bush, Kasich, Rubio) add up to a little over 20% it's clear that the GOP base has no appetite for simply going along with whoever the RNC decides is the most electable.
I suspect the GOP will be in for a rude awakening on election night 2016. Even if their waterboy gets the nomination he's already been forced to stake out deeply unpopular positions on things like abortion and immigration that makes him an untenable candidate in the general. All the conventional wisdom in 2012 said they needed to moderate on these issues and be more willing to work with Obama to set themselves up for the next election. They did none of those things and their current poll leader's great immigration strategy is to deport all of them and make Mexico foot the bill. Great plan, dickwads. Their greatest political achievement of Obama's second term seems to be bringing Hillary's numbers down, except their majority leader lost the plot on that and admitted the Benghazi committee was a charade designed explicitly to do that.
"We're going to make this his Waterloo." Hope your 2 year term as senate majority leader was worth it you fucking turtle-faced clown.
At this point, Trump has to be considered the frontrunner. I'm still very skeptical he'll be the nominee. But I'm even more skeptical that it will be anyone else. There is no Romney in this race - even when he was surpassed by flavor of the month candidates, he always hung around in a firm 2nd place. When fucking joke assholes like Trump, Cruz, Fiorina and Carson add up to like 60% of the vote while the "frontrunners" (Bush, Kasich, Rubio) add up to a little over 20% it's clear that the GOP base has no appetite for simply going along with whoever the RNC decides is the most electable.
I suspect the GOP will be in for a rude awakening on election night 2016. Even if their waterboy gets the nomination he's already been forced to stake out deeply unpopular positions on things like abortion and immigration that makes him an untenable candidate in the general. All the conventional wisdom in 2012 said they needed to moderate on these issues and be more willing to work with Obama to set themselves up for the next election. They did none of those things and their current poll leader's great immigration strategy is to deport all of them and make Mexico foot the bill. Great plan, dickwads. Their greatest political achievement of Obama's second term seems to be bringing Hillary's numbers down, except their majority leader lost the plot on that and admitted the Benghazi committee was a charade designed explicitly to do that.
"We're going to make this his Waterloo." Hope your 2 year term as senate majority leader was worth it you fucking turtle-faced clown.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Decider in chief
Poodlestrike
Banned
That's the downside of the "decider in chief" model. Sometimes, you actually have to answer a question, and you won't have prepped for it or have advisers available. At such moments, it's useful to know something about things.
Trey Gowdy on Kevin McCarthys Hillary comments: Apologizing doesnt fix the damage to the Benghazi committee
The Speaker race in the House is looking rough. They need a consensus candidate who's satisfactory for all factions involved, but I don't know if such a person exists..
The Speaker race in the House is looking rough. They need a consensus candidate who's satisfactory for all factions involved, but I don't know if such a person exists..
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
It's kinda mind boggling a supposedly mainstream candidate doesn't have an entire stance on the hilariously eye-rolling gold standard nonsense at this point.
I mean, what happens in his head there? Oh shit, this is the ONE thing my team didn't prep me for!
At some point you gotta be honest and confident in your understanding of the world. The answer is no, Jeb!.
I mean, what happens in his head there? Oh shit, this is the ONE thing my team didn't prep me for!
At some point you gotta be honest and confident in your understanding of the world. The answer is no, Jeb!.
They must feel like such tools right now.
brainchild
Banned
Good to know.
The anointed one will say and do anything to get elected.
brainchild
Banned
Good on Hillary. What the hell are they gonna argue about at the debates if they agree on everything?! /s
This is almost certainly true, lol
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Reminder that Obama said whatever it took -- even when we believed he was more progressive than his stated stances -- to get elected. See: marriage equality.
brainchild
Banned
Ding, ding, ding!
It's everyone who has ever run for president ever.
RustyNails
Member
To be fair I dont think any of the GOP candidates could have answered that question with any weight other than Rand.
brainchild
Banned
Not Bernie Sanders. He's had to make some pragmatic concessions on the details of his policies, but every single one of his stances come from his personal convictions, and he has his life's work to prove it.
Coriolanus
Banned
That guy that democrats blame for losing in 2000 instead of admitting their own incompetence also seems pretty legit as far as sticking to his beliefs.
brainchild
Banned
Ralph Nader?
Come on dude. You can't think of one thing he's said that's just there to play to the base? Let's be real, some people do it more than others but everyone does it. Even by your own admission he does it, to a degree.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I can't wait for the Democratic debate to consist wholly of Hillary and Bernie smiling and complimenting each other, O'Malley shouting like a lunatic about e-mails and Benghazi, and Chafee and Webb just being surprised that they're actually here.
brainchild
Banned
That's not what I said.
The original statement I responded to was about saying whatever it takes to win the election. Bernie simply does not do this. He'd rather lose than to claim to support a view that he doesn't actually support. And if there's a compromise he has to make, he is transparent about it being a compromise.
The closeness between her and Bernie is going to get different responses from all sides..
Republicans: "She agrees with The Socialist nearly 100% of the time! She's a socialist!"
Bernie fans: "She's lying! She'll say anything to ward-off The Bern!"
Hillary fans: "She's not Republican-lite! Seriously!"
Already done it.
On other note, apparently People of all magazines is calling for their audience to contact Congress to take action on gun violence.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
She's on record as supporting in her own book, though she does say the final deal might change. Still its gotta be a pretty big break for her to like the initial negotiations but not the latter.
She better have reasons or this is going to look like the transparent political move it is.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Are you talking about the republican debates?
Yellowtail
Member
I wonder what the White House thinks of this move. Not that candidate Obama wouldn't make the same ploy with a President Hillary Clinton negotiated TPP, considering how he pandered on renegotiating NAFTA during the 08 primaries.
This might actually make it easier for senate Republicans to support it and get it passed. 11 dimensional chess...
This might actually make it easier for senate Republicans to support it and get it passed. 11 dimensional chess...
RustyNails
Member
What would be absolutely fucking pathetic though is CNN trying to spark a " moment" between them. Have you seen the debate ads? Stop trying to make fetch happen.
brainchild
Banned
It would be intellectually dishonest to say that making compromises on your policies is the same as saying whatever it takes to win an election. The notion does not hold water at all.
Bernie is a remarkably consistent politician. The telltale sign of a person who panders at all costs, is one who flip-flops to whatever stances that make their positions more favorable. Many presidential candidates do this, but Bernie Sanders is not one of them. In fact, his consistency is one of the defining characteristics of his reputation.
Please, Bernie's had a few moments where he's gotten caught pandering. Remember his "plan" for getting a GOP controlled Congress to work with him?
brainchild
Banned
I never said that he didn't pander. I said that he's not the kind of politician that says whatever it takes to win an election. You will not see him changing his stance on gun laws or foreign policies any time soon, even if it means that he won't get elected.
EDIT:
Just in case the point isn't abundantly clear, 'whatever it takes' includes changing your stances on the issues if necessary. Not in seven blue hells would Bernie ever do something like that. Ever. Well, maybe at gun point, but still!
Aaron Strife
Banned
There wouldn't be a gun point if he would just support sensible gun control legislation
Yellowtail
Member
brainchild
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't get the venom that's getting thrown around against sanders from clinton supporters.
Most of you guys would like sanders better if he was electable. But you seem to want to create these justifications that hide the simple, more electable calculation behind the choice.
Just own it
The gun issue is LOL coming from most dems considering clintons championing of certain things in the 90s and 00s
Most of you guys would like sanders better if he was electable. But you seem to want to create these justifications that hide the simple, more electable calculation behind the choice.
Just own it
The gun issue is LOL coming from most dems considering clintons championing of certain things in the 90s and 00s
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Kasich at 15%? Silver is out of his mind. What planet is he on?
brainchild
Banned
That raises another point. You'd think that Bernie would be a lot more electable if he was just saying whatever it took to win an election, like the other candidates.
It's not "intellectually dishonest" to consider compromises 'compromises'. Either you gave up on your principles, however briefly, or you didn't. You just want to portray Bernie as a totally uncompromising candidate, when in fact he isn't.
After all, the greatest proof lies in the crime bill of 1994 that Inuhanyou likes toting about.
It's not wrong to be pragmatic. Reality simply works that way. It's also not better to be principled in every situation; see the Republicans. Sometimes the hardest and most difficult choices come from having to compromise yourself to fulfill something that you believe can do good; see Daniel Webster.
I only trust Silver on pure numbers.
And I saw that Sam Wang was mentioned on the last page; he's pretty active on Twitter, but he does a lot of non-numbers punditry as well. Hopefully he'll fire-up his usual numbers operation as we approach the heavy festivities..
brainchild
Banned
Dude, what's with all the projecting? You consistently try to tell me why I do what I do. You clearly don't know me as well as you think that you do.
Bernie is not uncompromising. He's a fucking senator for God's sake! It would be impossible for him to avoid compromise. Nevertheless, THAT IS NOT THE SAME as saying or doing whatever it takes to win. It really isn't, and I've already explained why. Doing whatever it takes involves more than just compromise. In a presidential election, it means that you may have to completely switch sides on an issue. My point is that Bernie would never go that far to win an election.
The intellectual dishonesty here is to pretend like there isn't a difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying.
I don't post a lot but I make no bones about it, I would rather Hillary win because I don't think Bernie has a shot in hell once the avalanche of "Socialist" ads come. Otherwise he seems a perfectly good choice for the job.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Silver has been arguing for quite some time that only an establishment candidate can win the nomination. Based on that view it makes sense that his top three are essentially the only three candidates the establishment would be fine with getting the nomination.
If Biden were to enter the race I'd say he had a better shot at the nomination than Sanders regardless of what polls show, simply for the same reason: the democrat establishment would welcome him getting the nomination, which isn't the case with Sanders.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked